Environmental Outlook: Can We Adapt to Climate Change?
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-08-02/environmental-outlook-can-we-adapt-climate-change
Political debate aside, an increasing number of environmental scientists believe unprecedented change in our climate is coming. The future they envisage is one where wars fought over food and water and spiking oil prices are the norm. This, together with dramatic ecological changes, such as the melting ice caps, widespread drought and loss of biodiversity will bring humanity to the brink of collapse. It’s a grim scenario, but according to my guests today, this threatened global and economic crisis could actually pave the way for enormous positive change. As part of our Environmental Outlook series we look at how it may be possible not just to adapt to climate change, but embrace it.
Guests
Paul Gilding
author, former executive director of Greenpeace International and founder of the environmental consulting firm ECOS.
Amy Seidl
author and lecturer in Environmental Studies, University of Vermont.
Michael MacCracken
chief scientist, Climate Institute.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
Can we adapt to more extreme weather, higher temperatures, rising seas, water shortage and widespread desertification. Some can (barring a nuclear exchange caused by climate conflict)and the rest will perish. At DRShow we talk mostly about the USA. Already this season there have been sharp price rises in domestic grain crops due to flooding and drought (another dustbowl). I assume you've seen images of Texas lake beds dried with cracks a foot deep. Beef is way down right now because a sell-off of hungry, thirsty steers and cows (even breeding stock) has occurred. So eat a burger while you can.
How much excellent crop land is under shopping centers, office parks and condo jungles? We have been profligate capitalists destroying our own sustenance. They show Somalia and Kenya on TV, but if we didn't have air conditioners and grocery money that would be us. I expect this will be a record hot year of all time. Denial (of anthropogenic climate change) is another way of exterminating your human competitors. If you don't think greedy people could do it then observe collapsing ocean ecology.
Can we adapt to more extreme weather, higher temperatures, rising seas, water shortage and widespread desertification. Some can (barring a nuclear exchange caused by climate conflict)and the rest will perish. At DRShow we talk mostly about the USA. Already this season there have been sharp price rises in domestic grain crops due to flooding and drought (another dustbowl). I assume you've seen images of Texas lake beds dried with cracks a foot deep. Beef is way down right now because a sell-off of hungry, thirsty steers and cows (even breeding stock) has occurred. So eat a burger while you can.
How much excellent crop land is under shopping centers, office parks and condo jungles? We have been profligate capitalists destroying our own sustenance. They show Somalia and Kenya on TV, but if we didn't have air conditioners and grocery money that would be us. I expect this will be a record hot year of all time. Denial (of anthropogenic climate change) is another way of exterminating your human competitors. If you don't think greedy people could do it then observe collapsing ocean ecology.
I find it ironic that as the country dries up and we are physically feeling the effects of global warming, the silence on this from Congress is deafening.
Instead they quibble about taxes. We will all be paying greater taxes, eventually, to protect ourselves from the effects of our own refusal to face An Incovenient Truth.
One can only wonder at how our country would be faring if GW Bush had not been appointed as President. We would probably not have been bankrupted by two trillion dollar wars and we would be much further down the path to adapting to and addressing global warming.
Global warming may stimulate the development of the following technologies and industries:
Solar photovoltaic (PV)
Solar thermal (boiling working fluid)
Wind (rotors and non-rotor technology)
Water
Advanced nuclear fission
Atomic battery arrays (using nuclear waste)
Nuclear fusion
Coal combustion (with CO2 sequestered)
Tidal
Ocean thermal gradient
Electric railroad
Maglev and vacuum railroads
Automobile (hybrid, plug-in hybrid)
Automobile (fuel cell)
Automobile (cryogenic heat engine)
Electric aircraft (battery, fuel-cell)
Electric aircraft (power broadcasting from the ground)
Hydrogen-fueled aircraft
Nuclear ships and submarines (for cargo and passenger transportation)
High technology Solar and wind propelled ships
Hydrogen - Oxygen fueled rockets
Solar/electric lighter-than-air vehicles
Electric air cushion vehicles
Electric trucks and tractors
Human-powered vehicles
Solar steam production
Solar electric onsite power
Nuclear industrial onsite heat and power
Solar directly-heated processes
Electric materials handling
Modified chemical production processes
Solar heating (active and passive)
Advanced conservation
Direct solar lighting (light pipes)
Green roofs with growing plants
Earth-bermed construction
Evaporative cooling systems
On-site fuel cells
On-site water recycling
Smart house conservation technologies
Network-based meeting and telework technologies
Remote control working via the Internet
Nick Leggett
Inventor and Analyst
Reston, VA
If public policy were based on the philosophy of Conservation of Natural Resources - efficiency, recycling, etc - then our descendants would have more at their "finger-tips" to solve any kind of future climate change.
There is a negative side. Our crops evolved with us during the last 30,000 years. Most of our agriculture is based on moderate zone plants.
On top of this our culture would need to change. I don't think Big Oil, salivating about drilling ice free Arctic would allow it. We have problem dealing with our economy now, what is possibility of better outcome dealing with biggest problem?
I share your concern. Why have congressional members ignored this issue?
And why are we so concerned about an economic model that gobbles up resources instead of embracing responsible use of natural resources, conservation, and R & D for renewable energy sources?
sane- Even with a melt polar oil is not that big a reserve compared to the Middle East. It would be a trashing for short term supply, probably shorter than the North Sea Bubble. Right now our water table is being trashed and privatized for natural gas.
Unfortunately Big Oil does not listen and reserves are yet to be determined as most of Arctic is still under (thinning) ice.
It was funny when Russians used sub to plant their flags on the bottom.
I am not sure how humankind will survive the environmental trends. I believe the rich will fare better and the meek better have a strong constitution to inherit the earth.
I will be heading out soon to run errands by bicycle while the temperature today is expected to spike triple digits. The intent is building tolerance to the extreme.
The end of growth is a good thing. The vital change of culture that must occur is abandoning growth for embracing sustainability through the concept of compression.
Diane thanks for Amy Seidel On the last hour you had budgetary fundamentalists. Now you have climate change fundamentalists. they are important to listen too, but you just know they are overdoing it.
Climate change is not new. It has been part of the planet for 4.5 billion years and is a natural process. When this current interglacial period is compared to the half dozen previous interglacial periods, it is indistinguishable. Not warmer, maybe a little cooler than some -- but it is not over yet.
We can't judge climate change by only looking at a century or two of data. To be fair and accurate we have to look as hundreds of thousands of years of data, or more. The data is there and paleoclimatologists have been using it for years.
GreenGary - I suspect we will not be ones to drive that change and hopefully the rest of the planet will rise to that task. As an underachiever in Congress said:
'The planet won't be destroyed by global warming because God promised Noah,' says Shimkus, Chairman of Environment and Economy.
The show today was advertise as being about the positive benefits of climate change. Twenty minutes in the show and all I hear is whining about how terrible it is going to be. What are the benefits of climate change (like longer growing season). The failure to discuss the pros and cons of the world getting warmer discredits the argument of those who wish to lower CO2.
I think this also reflects poorly on the credibility of NPR to misrepresent the subject of the show.
Terry Dermott
John Haymarket- We looked at hundred of thousands of years of data from Antarctic ice cores. The CO2 and cooling cycles are nothing new and well documented. Unfortunately, looking at these cores, there was no time when CO2 was rising that fast and that high. This is the famous "hockey stick".
The last time Arctic was ice free was 700,000 years ago.
Also, we should be expecting cooling if we look at Earth's axis wobble, yet the last decade was hottest ever recorded.
The Koch brothers and fossil fuel industries they support are behind climate change denial. This denial is heavily skewed in the GOP direction; most GOP in office either say very little about climate change at all or deny it completely, even calling climate change activists anti-American, even terroristic, and almost always anti-job creation. (Michele Bachman called the EPA a "jobs killing organization" in a recent debate.)
When did the GOP become so anti-environmental? When did environmental moderation on their parts become a reason to despise and defeat them? When did environmental care taking become a mostly Democratic value? Climate change will affect all of us, all of our descendants, eventually. James Inhofe has called climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on mankind." And yet this so-called "pro-life" Republican senator pockets generous dollars from the fossil fuel industry every election year. In his state of relentless triple digit temperatures (OK) he happily feeds at the trough of major anti-environmental industry. When will we call these people on these behaviors?
Did I just hear climate change expert Amy tell us that Greensburg, KS was wiped out by a CYCLONE?
Please, please, please don't let her seed the skies over my food production areas with acid-rain producing sulphates. Pretty please? I'll buy a potted plant and take real good carbon-sequestering care of it, swear.
Cyclone is local slang for tornadoes in great plains states. I'm sure the 4 corners coal plants have maximized the cooling properties of emissions over the states to their east. Jamie T., energy corporations have delivered your sulphur and mercury quota already. Do get a plant though. It will enrich your life quality.
As an Architect I am greatful for the conversation to raise awareness and social concern. Greensboro Kanasa is an example of tradgedy causing a community to get through morning loss and rise through hope and support of their own neighbors to a new way. I listened to a presentation from their Mayor and his suggestion above all else is to retain hope.
With that know that after a destructive tradgedy such as Greenboro, new construction, even to standard levels of today, will be an improvement over standards of the past.
I would like to know if any of the panalists is aware of a building standard called the Passive House, where passive construction elements retain and reduce energy need, rather than creating more energy through a new source.
Thank you so much.
Joseph Zimmer
Lake Geneva, WI
I would find Paul Gilding much more convincing in his "End to Growth" predictions, if I didn't think he eagerly awaits such an event. Economic growth is more than an increase in gross consumption. Much of growth seen since 1960 has required a subtler insight than this.
Those who blame Capitalism for ecological disruption has not properly investigated the Former USSR, or China. The Aral Sea, and Chernobyl, brownfields in east Germany only begin the list of disasters. Population, Politics, War and Human Nature are just as much to blame. It might be said that the responsibility of Capitalism for environmental degradation is that it is the tool we used here, and it did not prevent us.
Dear Ms. Rehm,
I am a dedicated listener of your program and truly believe that you are a national treasure. I'm writing to you because of a discovery my daughter and I made last summer. I believe this discovery could potentially greatly reduce energy consumption with no cost.
In July I started setting the thermostat on the water heater to low, except when I needed hot water. When hot water was needed I turned up the thermostat and when I was done I reset the therostat back to low. I started clumping my chores that required hot water into the same time period. My traditional summer bill was cut in half. Not impressive considering that the bill went from $20 to $10.
Then I was curious about how this experiment would work out in the winter. My winter gas bills have dropped substantially as shown by the following natural gas bills that I have received for the last 5 months.
October, 2009 ==> $61.37; October, 2010 ==> $32.40
Sorry, can't find the November bill
December, 2009 ==> $230.30; December, 2010 ==> $186.16
January, 2010 ==> $316.40; January, 2011 ==> $239.46
February, 2010 ==> $245.58; February, 2011 ==> $137.85
I don't believe that the public is aware of the cost of heating water and the suggestions made by the Department of Energy and the local gas company are lame. Their main suggestion is to reduce the water heater temp from 140 degrees to 120 degrees. This has a minimual affect. Also, no mention is made regarding timers that can be installed on a water heater. Logically, why turn the lights off at night but keep heating water. Also, another realization was that water that had been heated did not immediately turn cold just because the thermostat was reset to low.
Please, if nothing else, try this experiment. If you come to the same conclusion, I hope you will run with the story.
Christ, these people sound like fasict scum: "People need to start living with less, and doing without."
That's right, more hypocrisy from these loons. Just like those overpopulation crazies that want people to start killling themselves to prevent overpopulation - how about you start walking the talk?
These global warming weirdos are driving around in gas guzzling cars, they aren't pulling back on their consumption in the least. They want EVERYONE ELSE to do without and consume less - but not them, of course, because they are "enlightened"
Don't these fools realize that by the time their "global warming armaggedon" is realized, humans will have long left the Earth for deep space?
Screw the Earth, it's not going to be here forever regardless of how hard we try to "preserve" it. The Sun will burn it up eventually when it goes into it's Red Giant phase, but there's something you never hear from these fasicts.
Why don't they tell us their true agenda, they want everyone ELSE to be poor, but not them.
One of your guest just said that "we are all in this boat together" But as the US plans for green weddings and sustainable communities poor people in low lying areas around the world will drown in rising sea waters that are a direct result of the developed worlds consumptive ways. What are these folks supposed to do build arks? I have always liked the quote "live more simply so others can simply live"
Why is it that we hear little to nothing out of the Obama administration about consumption reduction? When will Obama put on a sweater like Former President Jimmy Carter and turn down the nations thermasta and encourage others to do the samet?
Thanks Amy for confirming once again that it is not only the influence of numbers but what individuals on the planet consume. And consumer units in the developed world effect the planet more negatively than those who do not consume so much. I have read reports about what one child in the US consumes versus what a kid in Costa Rica or South Africa consumes and negatively effects the world climate. A consumer unit in the US effected climate change 200 times more than the kid in South Africa.
Do your guest think there is any possibility that one of my gurus George Carlin's predictions will come true? That the earth has been around for billions of years. The earth is not going anywhere but humans may be. As George used to say "the earth is going to shake us off like a bad case of fleas" Any possibility that this could come true if we do not change our ways?
We would love to be greener. When we do try and find ways to make our lives greener in a larger way, my husband and I have found that the cost is out of our abiilty to pay. Until alternative energy sources are made more affordable for the middle and lower incomes .
It was our hope when we purchased our new home that we would be solar. but we were unprepared for the upfront costs involved in doing so. It does not matter that a system will pay for itself in 5 or 10 years we still have to front a large amount of money to get a system in place. Money would would have to take a loan out to get. YOu can talk about the morality of Globle Warming and how people might have to be forced /shammed into doing the right thing, however, if the cost of going more green puts solutions out of reach your demands that people be more green will fall flat. for many of us it is a money issue. That is the only reason we are being held back from doing more right now. How can that not be a part of any conversation dealing with this issue?
Melissa,
This is a good idea, but an improvement on it has already been thought of and that is "point of use" hot water heaters. However, if you don't want to spend for such an item, your idea might work too. I say "might" because your evidence isn't that strong. Instead of comparing dollars, you really need to compare therms usage.
That is simply not the case. There are a number of times in the earth's history when CO2 levels were much higher than today. Recent interglacial period have also been warmer than today. For most of the earth's history there was no ice on the surface of the planet. The hockey stick is a very short term phenomenon (and of doubtful existence) that looks more like noise in the system. There is a natural feedback loop for removing atmospheric CO2 in the calcified tests of marine animals (forams, corals, etc.). The steepest increase in global temperatures during this current interglacial occurred long before man had much of an impact on the climate.
Your suggestion that the last decade was the hottest every recorded is simply not valid and is unsupported in the data.
There are a lot of contributing factors to climate, the wobble (precession of equinoxes) being just one of a dozen or more.
john haymarket wrote:
"There are a lot of contributing factors to climate, the wobble (precession of equinoxes) being just one of a dozen or more."
john,
Thanks for adding a little sanity to the discussion. I continue to draw the distinction between GW and MMGW - not very well done by most of the posters on this board. Suspicion of GW is nothing to be ashamed of. Ice caps ARE melting. The questions are whether it will be sustained and then, the more important question is the CAUSE. That the cause is man's activity was a convenient tool of the left to introduce control of yet another facet of people's lives. The anger and curses cast upon those who doubt the dogma is all I needed to hear to know that this was not about science. It's about control.
A goal of civilization on this pretty small planet ought to be for human beings to live comfortable lives without need. Deprivation oughtn't be a sort of objective to pursue. That would miss the point of what personhood is.
A distinctive characteristic of people is the ability to rise above simple survival and pursue visions. Not having to worry about daily survival frees the mind to allow us to be more than just animals subject to the whims of nature. It enables a compassionate civilization.
In the meantime, it would help a lot if we revise our view of reproduction. Much of the trouble is rooted in the notion that having children is a right. Now that our ecosystem is straining under the large numbers of people, it could be very helpful to find ways to cancel out the innate drive for human beings to reproduce.