Global Warming - it's a burning issue right now.
I was watching An Inconvenient Truth. And I turned it off half-way through. It was too intense for me to let it pass by as just another documentary. I will finish the remainder of the movie tomorrow. And I am sure I will buy it so that I can go back to it many many more times in future. Every few minutes, this film throws up a bit of information to rattle you. The CO2 levels and consequently the global temperature going through the roof - and this roof is relative to the last 650,000 years of earth's existence. The polar ice caps are melting. In 50 years, there will be NO ICE at the poles during summer. For me personally the poles of the earth have always conjured up visions of ice as far as the eye can see, explorers on sledges and polar bears. The largest ice shelf on the earth recently broke in half. It just snapped, couldn't take it anymore. In 50 years from now, at currently increasing rates of warming, we cannot imagine what will the earth be like. Will there be any humans left to imagine?
There is increasing chatter about geoengineering as a potential solution for all our environmental problems. There is a lot of political debate going on whether humans should tamper with nature any further in the name of survival? The argument is that we have already tampered with nature by releasing greenhouse gases and CO2 that will stay for throusands of years to come. So why not take it to the next step to prevent some of the repurcussions? And how exactly do we propose to control the damage? Well the ideas range from ridiculous - setting up giant space mirrors to reflect sunlight back, since the ice won't be around to do that - to the horrendous - alteration of rainfall patterns through seeding of clouds or creation of vast artificial water bodies where none exists now. One can only imagine what the scientists will have to say if the rains went out of control or if the artificial water body upset the local ecosystem - they would say "OOPS, my bad! But this was not supposed to happen".
But then, do I have anything more than my cynicism to offer? Unfortunately, the short answer is NO. And the reason is that I don't think it is possible to go back to a non-polluting way of living on a mass scale. Progress as we have defined it over the years can come only at a price. I cannot imagine life without electricity, mass and quick transportation, telecom and global trade. It is possible to achieve this on an individual basis, but not on a global scale. So, I reluctantly agree that geoengineering might be our best bet as of now. Until further research in the name of dilligence throws up something more potent...
Are we staring at a "period of consequences" as Churchill put it so bluntly?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
pratik, while geoengineering (i have no clue what that is) and other approaches are fine (atleast theoretically)...my take is what is any single entity's incentive to undertake such projects? it would require corporations like the GEs to be able to further such development, that too at enormous cost...how would they justify it to their stockholders? or should we one fine day decide to switch off all those gadgets that make life possible. since reverting to the stone age way of life is not a possibility, i reckon it would take a hugely disruptive scientific development to slow/reverse the process. this is not to challenge your opinion, just that the problem is way more complex than greenpeace activists make it out to be...
in terms of returns, what is the justification for any new disruptive technology? I think it will more than likely come from the mavericks of the industry instead of the corporations. For example, there is an idea that wind-farms be setup in the sea off the cost of Boston as a source of clean energy for the entire state. Or think of Elon Musk, who is out to reshape space exploration as we know it. But yes, it will still entail massive costs and only a handful of filthy rich mavericks will be able to pull it off.
Post a Comment