Okay, all–this is a slow developing post. I hope you can stick with me to the end here.
If you’re reading this, the chances are better than even that you are a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement. That’s if respondents to last year’s survey of WUWT visitors told the truth.
If it is true, it may surprise you to learn that there is a body of medical and sociological literature written specifically about you. The theme of the literature is how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.
It isn’t aimed directly at you, but at your wives, doctors and nurses, which is why you may never have heard of it. The literature is big on prevention–getting you to finally put down the cigarettes, lose the weight and lay off the hard liquor so you don’t keel over too soon.
Whatever man-made climate change turns out to be, it is not a permanent state. This is something that is not often discussed, but is very true. This is a ‘life stage’ the human race is going through–probably not late middle age, but late adolescent–but it is certainly a phase, not a permanent condition.
The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today. The textile workers in Vietnam making $84 a month? Their grandchildren will be making more than our national average today.
During the next 65 years the world’s energy consumption will skyrocket, both because of more people and because so many will be adopting western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.
But it won’t be permanent. Here in the US, our energy consumption per capita is already declining, and it is declining or very stable in most of the richer countries of the world. About 20 years after world population peaks, shortly before 2100, the world’s energy consumption will peak as well, and both will start to decline.
At that point (and maybe long before, if technology does what technology normally does), our impact on this planet and its atmosphere will begin to slowly decrease. We will have passed the crisis point, and will be moving into–what? Adulthood? Middle age? I guess they’ll come up with a cute name for it.
The two points I’d like to make is, first, that whatever we do on behalf of the planet can be looked at as our generation’s contribution to a future that is almost in sight already. 90 years? Kids being born today will see it.
Second, those who are trying to push apocalyptic scenarios for political reasons need to keep their story lines straighter than they have so far. There are far more reasons for optimism than pessimism.
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this, it may be because I’m looking at this as just part of our generational duty–a far lighter duty than previous generations had to shoulder.
Yes, I think we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2. Yes, I believe that we should spend more of our money on researching energy efficiency and things like utility level storage of energy.
But like most of you, I am an optimist at heart. I am truly confident that we have the system in place to find the solutions that we need and to put them in place. If we’re wrangling about it now, it’s a combination of anger at those who have blown this out of proportion and sticker shock at what the solution may cost.
But I do believe we’ll get there, and without having the revolutionary upheaval so many think is the only way to get through this.
Okay, all–this is a slow developing post. I hope you can stick with me to the end here.
If you’re reading this, the chances are better than even that you are a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement. That’s if respondents to last year’s survey of WUWT visitors told the truth.
If it is true, it may surprise you to learn that there is a body of medical and sociological literature written specifically about you. The theme of the literature is how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.
It isn’t aimed directly at you, but at your wives, doctors and nurses, which is why you may never have heard of it. The literature is big on prevention–getting you to finally put down the cigarettes, lose the weight and lay off the hard liquor so you don’t keel over too soon.
Whatever man-made climate change turns out to be, it is not a permanent state. This is something that is not often discussed, but is very true. This is a ‘life stage’ the human race is going through–probably not late middle age, but late adolescent–but it is certainly a phase, not a permanent condition.
The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today. The textile workers in Vietnam making $84 a month? Their grandchildren will be making more than our national average today.
During the next 65 years the world’s energy consumption will skyrocket, both because of more people and because so many will be adopting western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.
But it won’t be permanent. Here in the US, our energy consumption per capita is already declining, and it is declining or very stable in most of the richer countries of the world. About 20 years after world population peaks, shortly before 2100, the world’s energy consumption will peak as well, and both will start to decline.
At that point (and maybe long before, if technology does what technology normally does), our impact on this planet and its atmosphere will begin to slowly decrease. We will have passed the crisis point, and will be moving into–what? Adulthood? Middle age? I guess they’ll come up with a cute name for it.
The two points I’d like to make is, first, that whatever we do on behalf of the planet can be looked at as our generation’s contribution to a future that is almost in sight already. 90 years? Kids being born today will see it.
Second, those who are trying to push apocalyptic scenarios for political reasons need to keep their story lines straighter than they have so far. There are far more reasons for optimism than pessimism.
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this, it may be because I’m looking at this as just part of our generational duty–a far lighter duty than previous generations had to shoulder.
Yes, I think we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2. Yes, I believe that we should spend more of our money on researching energy efficiency and things like utility level storage of energy.
But like most of you, I am an optimist at heart. I am truly confident that we have the system in place to find the solutions that we need and to put them in place. If we’re wrangling about it now, it’s a combination of anger at those who have blown this out of proportion and sticker shock at what the solution may cost.
But I do believe we’ll get there, and without having the revolutionary upheaval so many think is the only way to get through this.
“The UN estimates”
Thomas, this is the whole problem – predicting the future.
We can’t do it, will never be able to do it, have never been able to do it….
…in spite of all the doom and gloom predictions of the past, here we are,
and frankly we’re not doing too bad at all………
Biobob
September 5, 2010 1:41 pm
erm…. Sorry to disagree !! One thing IS certain Climate change IS forever – the earth’s climate, the solar system, and the universe it exists in will ALWAYS change until they cease existing.
I have to say I’m enjoying the Thomas Fuller articles. There’s a fair bit in them I don’t agree with, but they’ve been presented without the usual dogma attached, and in a thought-provoking fashion.
I do believe we should reduce our “footprint” on the planet, if for no other reason because we can. But until we can crack the energy storage problem, we’re likely to remain disappointed with renewable technology. That’s the reason fossil fuels have been so successful, they store an enormous amount of energy in a small space, and they just sit there inertly until energy is needed.
Once we crack it, and we will, it will transform how we generate energy. Power stations can be operated in their most efficient mode, and only the most efficient need be used most of the time, because it will all be baseload. If the storage can be done at the substation level, we need never have another black or brown-out, except in the most egregious of circumstances. People will happily pay for 99.9% uptime of energy, and along with the efficiencies gained, it will pay for itself.
But most importantly, the erratic nature of renewables won’t matter. Even the most up to date grids can only handle about 20% from renewables. That limit goes away with storage. Wind only blows at nighttime? Sun only shines during daytime? So what, it can be handled without expecting people to turn their lives upside down.
Get the storage medium small enough, and we don’t have to compromise with how we transport ourselves. Even if it’s only 25% as good as fossil fuels, we’re still ahead because we’re not losing 75% of the power to heat.
For me, that’s where the smart money should be moving to.
I am a female scientist and find the assumption, by Fuller, of a reader being ‘ a well educated male’ condescending if not worse.
I suggest that you go back to school and learn to read! No way does
If you’re reading this, the chances are better than even that you are a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement.
imply that all readers fit that description. It implies that there’s a better than 50% chance that a reader fits it. Your snit isn’t warranted.
cal
September 5, 2010 1:45 pm
I am a grandfather of children who may well live for another 200 years, if the predictions of others may be believed. I care about their future more than I care about my own since I probably have little time left to enjoy the good health that makes life worthwhile. I have no great desire for long life but I would hope for a good life and for others to enjoy the same. The world owes me nothing and I hope my contribution has been a positive one. Therefore maybe some would see it as a paradox that I would seemingly put the future at risk by questioning the orthordoxy of climate change. However the truth is that I fear the few who desire power more than the consequences to the environment of consumption by the many who desire the basics of living. I believe that science has gone the way of religion and medicine and what was once a vocation is now just a means of making money. There is little left to protect my grandchildren from the whims of the rich and powerful who control government and the media unless the real careing, thinking population stand up to be counted and resists the willful distortion of the truth for personal gain. I am optimistic but only while there are blogs like this and people willing and able to reason for themselves.
Where I also disagree with Thomas Fuller is in the parallel with the human lifespan. It is difficult to know where to start but if we take the point where we had evolved sufficiently to move out of Africa this might be considered our birth.
The next 60000 years were our childhood. Largely slave to the world around us with little capability to bend it to our will. The last 5000 years are like our teenage years where we are slightly disorientated and consumed with destructive and idealistic thoughts in equal measure. I do not see the next 100 years as long enough for anything really special to happen in this evolution. It is a pity because I would like my children and grandchildren to live through something special. Sure they will see and do amazing things and many problems of today will disappear like the horse shit of the 19th centuary. But great change will require people to change and that will take many generations. I believe it will be another 1000 years before a new phase in human existence will materialise. Pity. I would love to see it.
James R.
September 5, 2010 1:50 pm
Why should we kill our economy to limit “non-polluting” CO2? There is no pollution problem, that’s just greenie propaganda. The skies are clearer now than they’ve been in many years.
R. Shearer
September 5, 2010 1:54 pm
I think we have or are very close to having the technology to bring back the saber toothed tiger or mammoth. Yet, I think we are probably better off without those creatures. But just to prove Mike wrong, it would be a great prank to put one in his back yard. Personally, I would like to see the passenger pigeon brought back.
Anyway, please stop with the ridiculous predictions about what it will be like in 2050 or 2100; I’ll be busy then.
Tom Fuller,
Still waiting for you to answer Alexander K’s post, [3rd post from the top]:
“Mr Fuller, you still give no clues as to why us humans should find it desirable to ‘limit CO2′ – can you give a reason for this stricture, backed by empirical evidence?”
CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Food crops are growing much faster with the added trace gas. And no unusual warming is occurring, as was incessantly predicted by the alarmist crowd.
Falsify that — or admit that a rise in carbon dioxide is a non-problem.
jorgekafkazar
September 5, 2010 1:55 pm
Well, I’ve seen much worse opinion pieces in the MSM, so I guess there’s little point in taking on the issues once at a time, pro or con. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Mr. Fuller.
Mr. Fuller,
We need more facts and fewer unsubstantiated opinions.
What are our limits to growth?
Exactly which resources will we run out of and when?
How many people will it take to make the world overpopulated?
Why must we fear CO2 emissions?
Again, facts, please, not unsubstantiated opinions.
mariwarcwm
September 5, 2010 2:00 pm
I have always had masculine tastes I suppose, so WUWT is another one. I am a granny with hordes of grandchildren and very interested in their future.
Why talk of cutting CO2 at all? If the level of CO2 had gone down by as much as it has gone up since 1850 we would now be within striking distance of a level below which plants can’t grow, and then how would you feed the 9 billion? The next ice age will no doubt see a further drop in CO2 as there seems to be some temperature sensitivity, so not only will the end of the Holocene bring advancing glaciers, but a reduction in essential plant food – i.e. CO2. Our descendants, looking back on the present misunderstandings about climate and CO2 will think that we must all have been very stupid and wish that we had burned more fossil fuel.
Smokey and AlexandraK,
I think that emitting CO2 in the same fashion we are today will bite us in the hind end when we are using a lot more energy. I think temperatures will increase a couple of degrees in a short period of time and put some areas through a lot of trouble–and probably these areas will be the kind that don’t need any more trouble.
I know a lot of people here don’t agree. But if the calculations I have presented here over the past few days end up being in the right ballpark, even if I’m wrong about CO2 (and I admit I might be), do we really want to use 3 times as much energy as today, all provided by burning coal? Just the conventional pollution from that will be tough to deal with.
As a a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement, I find condescension an appropriate means of tweaking those who go about finding condescension. As long as I don’t have to do it.
Interesting post. The fun part is getting from here to 2075 where things level off without those condescending bureaucrats and politicians destroying the planet in order to save it from a degree or two of warming.
Well, here’s to hoping that global warming didn’t peak in 1998, cause the next interglacial is 100,000 years away.
Wilky
September 5, 2010 2:06 pm
Thomas,
I agree that non-polluting energy sources are a something that we need to develop, but I do not agree that CO2 is a problem at all. In fact, I believe that history will prove that one of the greatest gifts that humanity gave our earth is the liberation of trapped carbon that was long ago sequestered in the earth in the form of coal and oil. Making this carbon freely available to the biosphere promotes plant growth and increases the total living biomass, which is historically very low right now compared to past epochs.
Pops
September 5, 2010 2:11 pm
“Climate Change Is Not a Forever Problem.” Cobblers. Climate change is not a problem, and it will go on forever – period. This site deserves better.
Ian E
September 5, 2010 2:12 pm
The one thing we do know about climate change is that, whilst there is still a climate to talk about, it will be changing. Whether that is, or ever will be, a problem is not clear however. Probably those who visit this site are, mostly, at least as concerned about energy efficiency and the future of the planet as you are, Mr Fuller. We are especially concerned about the massive, very probably unnecessary, bills being bequeathed to our children and grand-children as a result of absurd ‘climate-change’ mitigating measures, such as the Quixotic fascination with windmills – and the ridiculous mis-direction of effort, time and money away from dealing with real pollution and other environmental issues towards the mental-environist issue of CO2 reduction.
Onion
September 5, 2010 2:13 pm
Pace or no pace, the analysis just does not cut it. Mr Fuller you presume to come from a different generation to WUWT readers, and then presume that ‘fact’ means you express your generational duty different to WUWT readers. Presumably all this on the basis of that survey you cite.
Well you don’t know if I’m the same generation as you or not. You don’t know what I think of renewables. You don’t know what I think of my responsibility to future generations. And I don’t really know about you. Or others here. Surveys can be misleading.
What I do know is there are some warmists who believe sceptics like me don’t care about future generations or the environment. But they’re wrong. In my opinion, the bigger catastrophe for future generations will be the economic effects of measures designed to combat CAGW.
Presumably you are in support of thorium-based nuclear reactors, given your advocacy for energy efficiency?
Harry Bergeron
September 5, 2010 2:15 pm
Whatever calculations were used in arriving at this optimism left out the most important factor – human folly.
Michael Larkin
September 5, 2010 2:15 pm
The UN that predicts a levelling off of global population – that would be the same UN that established the IPCC that so confidently predicts CAGW, would it?
I’ve mentioned to you already my belief that we all need to identify the things we don’t really know but merely accept, and to check whether we’re justified in doing that. We get smarter by coming to know how little we know.
Tomorrow, for all we know, a supervolcano could blow, a nuclear holocaust could be triggered, or someone could crack LENR technology. Any one, and a thousand others, could radically change everything.
All we can do is live in the present addressing the problems and opportunities of the present, constrained by the limitations of the present. I’m wondering why we waste so much time in the present thinking about and planning for a future that, as Buckminster Fuller put it, usually turns out at right angles to expectations.
Maybe we’ll grow up as a species when we discover the knack of living in the now, accepting without resistence the fact that we know sod all.
sandyinderby
September 5, 2010 2:23 pm
Mr Fuller
I disagree with the second part of this statement:-
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this,
Anthony has posted several items on energy saving, all met with generally positive responses.
DirkH
September 5, 2010 2:25 pm
Energy consumption in the EU and the U.S. is stagnating because we offloaded production to China.
TinyCO2
September 5, 2010 2:29 pm
For those wishing to question why we need to consider CO2 reduction in this post, try to suspend disbelief for a while. The issues surrounding CO2 reductions are quite important and explain why some people doubt climate science but still think it’s okay to act as if CO2 is bad.
One of the great myths put about by AGW theorists is that we only have to cut back our consumption a bit and invest in new technologies and we will be able to replace carbon based fuels. Any suffering caused by CO2 reduction will be temporary. Isn’t it worth a few hardships now, just in case CO2 is really bad? Myth. If CO2 has to be reduced it will be very, very hard.
At the moment we can forget renewables. Every time Obama points out a successful project running in another country a report comes out to prove the success is exaggerated. They just don’t provide reliable energy at a suitable volume. Nuclear is good but has ‘issues’. So what about new energy sources?
Research into fusion began in the 40s but I still can’t buy the Mr Fusion reactor for my DeLorean. Even if they came up with a workable design tomorrow, it would be decades before a working power station was up and running and decades after that before there were enough power stations to make a difference. Can we speed up the process? Sure and we can have huge accidents too. And how long will it be before rich countries trust poor countries with the technology?
We may be blessed and a fantastic energy source may pop up to save us but don’t hold your breath.
So if the gist of your article is to suffer a bit now so it will be okay later, you might want to reconsider if ‘later’ is in your lifetime.
latitude
September 5, 2010 2:29 pm
Tom Fuller says:
September 5, 2010 at 2:01 pm
I think that emitting CO2 in the same fashion we are today will bite us in the hind end when we are using a lot more energy.
do we really want to use 3 times as much energy as today, all provided by burning coal? Just the conventional pollution from that will be tough to deal with.
=======================================================
Tom, with all due respect, you don’t seem to realize you are wetting the bed for the wrong reasons.
You don’t seem to realize that CO2 is not the same as “air pollution”, and with all of the money, time, and distractions of CO2..
…not one thing is being done about real pollution…
This whole CO2 scam is taking center stage.
We do have real pollution problems, problems that are causing real human diseases, etc
that we are not focused on at all, because of this CO2 garbage.
We can’t lower CO2, period, that’s it, can’t be done, end of story, drop the hype.
All of this climate change, global warming, CO2 pollution crap is based on lowering
CO2 production.
It can’t be done….get over it, move on
“The UN estimates”
Thomas, this is the whole problem – predicting the future.
We can’t do it, will never be able to do it, have never been able to do it….
…in spite of all the doom and gloom predictions of the past, here we are,
and frankly we’re not doing too bad at all………
erm…. Sorry to disagree !! One thing IS certain Climate change IS forever – the earth’s climate, the solar system, and the universe it exists in will ALWAYS change until they cease existing.
I have to say I’m enjoying the Thomas Fuller articles. There’s a fair bit in them I don’t agree with, but they’ve been presented without the usual dogma attached, and in a thought-provoking fashion.
I do believe we should reduce our “footprint” on the planet, if for no other reason because we can. But until we can crack the energy storage problem, we’re likely to remain disappointed with renewable technology. That’s the reason fossil fuels have been so successful, they store an enormous amount of energy in a small space, and they just sit there inertly until energy is needed.
Once we crack it, and we will, it will transform how we generate energy. Power stations can be operated in their most efficient mode, and only the most efficient need be used most of the time, because it will all be baseload. If the storage can be done at the substation level, we need never have another black or brown-out, except in the most egregious of circumstances. People will happily pay for 99.9% uptime of energy, and along with the efficiencies gained, it will pay for itself.
But most importantly, the erratic nature of renewables won’t matter. Even the most up to date grids can only handle about 20% from renewables. That limit goes away with storage. Wind only blows at nighttime? Sun only shines during daytime? So what, it can be handled without expecting people to turn their lives upside down.
Get the storage medium small enough, and we don’t have to compromise with how we transport ourselves. Even if it’s only 25% as good as fossil fuels, we’re still ahead because we’re not losing 75% of the power to heat.
For me, that’s where the smart money should be moving to.
Mini nukes as in Toshiba’s, fuel cells, Shale Gas which China has lots of ( so do we in the USA) The game’s changing .
Bill Gates thinks so: http://www.fastcompany.com/1594671/bill-gates-goes-nuclear-with-toshiba-tie-up
I don’t think he does anything without a reason.
“Split atoms, not Birds…”
Bruria says: September 5, 2010 at 12:51 pm
I suggest that you go back to school and learn to read! No way does
imply that all readers fit that description. It implies that there’s a better than 50% chance that a reader fits it. Your snit isn’t warranted.
I am a grandfather of children who may well live for another 200 years, if the predictions of others may be believed. I care about their future more than I care about my own since I probably have little time left to enjoy the good health that makes life worthwhile. I have no great desire for long life but I would hope for a good life and for others to enjoy the same. The world owes me nothing and I hope my contribution has been a positive one. Therefore maybe some would see it as a paradox that I would seemingly put the future at risk by questioning the orthordoxy of climate change. However the truth is that I fear the few who desire power more than the consequences to the environment of consumption by the many who desire the basics of living. I believe that science has gone the way of religion and medicine and what was once a vocation is now just a means of making money. There is little left to protect my grandchildren from the whims of the rich and powerful who control government and the media unless the real careing, thinking population stand up to be counted and resists the willful distortion of the truth for personal gain. I am optimistic but only while there are blogs like this and people willing and able to reason for themselves.
Where I also disagree with Thomas Fuller is in the parallel with the human lifespan. It is difficult to know where to start but if we take the point where we had evolved sufficiently to move out of Africa this might be considered our birth.
The next 60000 years were our childhood. Largely slave to the world around us with little capability to bend it to our will. The last 5000 years are like our teenage years where we are slightly disorientated and consumed with destructive and idealistic thoughts in equal measure. I do not see the next 100 years as long enough for anything really special to happen in this evolution. It is a pity because I would like my children and grandchildren to live through something special. Sure they will see and do amazing things and many problems of today will disappear like the horse shit of the 19th centuary. But great change will require people to change and that will take many generations. I believe it will be another 1000 years before a new phase in human existence will materialise. Pity. I would love to see it.
Why should we kill our economy to limit “non-polluting” CO2? There is no pollution problem, that’s just greenie propaganda. The skies are clearer now than they’ve been in many years.
I think we have or are very close to having the technology to bring back the saber toothed tiger or mammoth. Yet, I think we are probably better off without those creatures. But just to prove Mike wrong, it would be a great prank to put one in his back yard. Personally, I would like to see the passenger pigeon brought back.
Anyway, please stop with the ridiculous predictions about what it will be like in 2050 or 2100; I’ll be busy then.
Tom Fuller,
Still waiting for you to answer Alexander K’s post, [3rd post from the top]:
“Mr Fuller, you still give no clues as to why us humans should find it desirable to ‘limit CO2′ – can you give a reason for this stricture, backed by empirical evidence?”
CO2 is harmless and beneficial. Food crops are growing much faster with the added trace gas. And no unusual warming is occurring, as was incessantly predicted by the alarmist crowd.
Falsify that — or admit that a rise in carbon dioxide is a non-problem.
Well, I’ve seen much worse opinion pieces in the MSM, so I guess there’s little point in taking on the issues once at a time, pro or con. Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Mr. Fuller.
Mr. Fuller,
We need more facts and fewer unsubstantiated opinions.
What are our limits to growth?
Exactly which resources will we run out of and when?
How many people will it take to make the world overpopulated?
Why must we fear CO2 emissions?
Again, facts, please, not unsubstantiated opinions.
I have always had masculine tastes I suppose, so WUWT is another one. I am a granny with hordes of grandchildren and very interested in their future.
Why talk of cutting CO2 at all? If the level of CO2 had gone down by as much as it has gone up since 1850 we would now be within striking distance of a level below which plants can’t grow, and then how would you feed the 9 billion? The next ice age will no doubt see a further drop in CO2 as there seems to be some temperature sensitivity, so not only will the end of the Holocene bring advancing glaciers, but a reduction in essential plant food – i.e. CO2. Our descendants, looking back on the present misunderstandings about climate and CO2 will think that we must all have been very stupid and wish that we had burned more fossil fuel.
Climate Change Is Not a Forever Problem
That’s right, the entire hoax will be gone in a few years because we ore headed for a Dalton Minimum.
Only the survivors can take the next bus.
We are headed for a Dalton Minimum
http://ncwatch.typepad.com/media/2010/08/-meteorologist-joseph-daleo-we-are-headed-for-a-dalton-minimum.html
Smokey and AlexandraK,
I think that emitting CO2 in the same fashion we are today will bite us in the hind end when we are using a lot more energy. I think temperatures will increase a couple of degrees in a short period of time and put some areas through a lot of trouble–and probably these areas will be the kind that don’t need any more trouble.
I know a lot of people here don’t agree. But if the calculations I have presented here over the past few days end up being in the right ballpark, even if I’m wrong about CO2 (and I admit I might be), do we really want to use 3 times as much energy as today, all provided by burning coal? Just the conventional pollution from that will be tough to deal with.
As a a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement, I find condescension an appropriate means of tweaking those who go about finding condescension. As long as I don’t have to do it.
Interesting post. The fun part is getting from here to 2075 where things level off without those condescending bureaucrats and politicians destroying the planet in order to save it from a degree or two of warming.
Well, here’s to hoping that global warming didn’t peak in 1998, cause the next interglacial is 100,000 years away.
Thomas,
I agree that non-polluting energy sources are a something that we need to develop, but I do not agree that CO2 is a problem at all. In fact, I believe that history will prove that one of the greatest gifts that humanity gave our earth is the liberation of trapped carbon that was long ago sequestered in the earth in the form of coal and oil. Making this carbon freely available to the biosphere promotes plant growth and increases the total living biomass, which is historically very low right now compared to past epochs.
“Climate Change Is Not a Forever Problem.” Cobblers. Climate change is not a problem, and it will go on forever – period. This site deserves better.
The one thing we do know about climate change is that, whilst there is still a climate to talk about, it will be changing. Whether that is, or ever will be, a problem is not clear however. Probably those who visit this site are, mostly, at least as concerned about energy efficiency and the future of the planet as you are, Mr Fuller. We are especially concerned about the massive, very probably unnecessary, bills being bequeathed to our children and grand-children as a result of absurd ‘climate-change’ mitigating measures, such as the Quixotic fascination with windmills – and the ridiculous mis-direction of effort, time and money away from dealing with real pollution and other environmental issues towards the mental-environist issue of CO2 reduction.
Pace or no pace, the analysis just does not cut it. Mr Fuller you presume to come from a different generation to WUWT readers, and then presume that ‘fact’ means you express your generational duty different to WUWT readers. Presumably all this on the basis of that survey you cite.
Well you don’t know if I’m the same generation as you or not. You don’t know what I think of renewables. You don’t know what I think of my responsibility to future generations. And I don’t really know about you. Or others here. Surveys can be misleading.
What I do know is there are some warmists who believe sceptics like me don’t care about future generations or the environment. But they’re wrong. In my opinion, the bigger catastrophe for future generations will be the economic effects of measures designed to combat CAGW.
Presumably you are in support of thorium-based nuclear reactors, given your advocacy for energy efficiency?
Whatever calculations were used in arriving at this optimism left out the most important factor – human folly.
The UN that predicts a levelling off of global population – that would be the same UN that established the IPCC that so confidently predicts CAGW, would it?
I’ve mentioned to you already my belief that we all need to identify the things we don’t really know but merely accept, and to check whether we’re justified in doing that. We get smarter by coming to know how little we know.
Tomorrow, for all we know, a supervolcano could blow, a nuclear holocaust could be triggered, or someone could crack LENR technology. Any one, and a thousand others, could radically change everything.
All we can do is live in the present addressing the problems and opportunities of the present, constrained by the limitations of the present. I’m wondering why we waste so much time in the present thinking about and planning for a future that, as Buckminster Fuller put it, usually turns out at right angles to expectations.
Maybe we’ll grow up as a species when we discover the knack of living in the now, accepting without resistence the fact that we know sod all.
Mr Fuller
I disagree with the second part of this statement:-
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this,
Anthony has posted several items on energy saving, all met with generally positive responses.
Energy consumption in the EU and the U.S. is stagnating because we offloaded production to China.
For those wishing to question why we need to consider CO2 reduction in this post, try to suspend disbelief for a while. The issues surrounding CO2 reductions are quite important and explain why some people doubt climate science but still think it’s okay to act as if CO2 is bad.
One of the great myths put about by AGW theorists is that we only have to cut back our consumption a bit and invest in new technologies and we will be able to replace carbon based fuels. Any suffering caused by CO2 reduction will be temporary. Isn’t it worth a few hardships now, just in case CO2 is really bad? Myth. If CO2 has to be reduced it will be very, very hard.
At the moment we can forget renewables. Every time Obama points out a successful project running in another country a report comes out to prove the success is exaggerated. They just don’t provide reliable energy at a suitable volume. Nuclear is good but has ‘issues’. So what about new energy sources?
Research into fusion began in the 40s but I still can’t buy the Mr Fusion reactor for my DeLorean. Even if they came up with a workable design tomorrow, it would be decades before a working power station was up and running and decades after that before there were enough power stations to make a difference. Can we speed up the process? Sure and we can have huge accidents too. And how long will it be before rich countries trust poor countries with the technology?
We may be blessed and a fantastic energy source may pop up to save us but don’t hold your breath.
So if the gist of your article is to suffer a bit now so it will be okay later, you might want to reconsider if ‘later’ is in your lifetime.
Tom Fuller says:
September 5, 2010 at 2:01 pm
I think that emitting CO2 in the same fashion we are today will bite us in the hind end when we are using a lot more energy.
do we really want to use 3 times as much energy as today, all provided by burning coal? Just the conventional pollution from that will be tough to deal with.
=======================================================
Tom, with all due respect, you don’t seem to realize you are wetting the bed for the wrong reasons.
You don’t seem to realize that CO2 is not the same as “air pollution”, and with all of the money, time, and distractions of CO2..
…not one thing is being done about real pollution…
This whole CO2 scam is taking center stage.
We do have real pollution problems, problems that are causing real human diseases, etc
that we are not focused on at all, because of this CO2 garbage.
We can’t lower CO2, period, that’s it, can’t be done, end of story, drop the hype.
All of this climate change, global warming, CO2 pollution crap is based on lowering
CO2 production.
It can’t be done….get over it, move on