- This page is an experiment in "issues" style content. It has begun as one person's view, but will hopefully become more informed and balanced as other contributors add information and sources. Please contribute respectfully, and don't enforce a single POV. If you delete something other than vandalism (e.g. if something's false or out of place) then it may be best to move it to the comments section at the bottom, or on the talk page.
- It may be appropriate to move this page to a different wiki - discuss on the talk page
Affordable options for fixing According to the article quoted here, global warming is likely to be a lot cheaper to fix than people think, based on past experiences with pollution control:
Easterbrook on Global Warming - discussed on The Frontal Cortex blog.
A criticism of Easterbrook's argument (in one of the comments on the blog) is that carbon is central to power generation (and hence modern society) in a way that other pollutants aren't. So it will be far harder to reduce total carbon output than it has been to reduce other pollutants, even relative to the scale of the problem.
However, this leaves open other possibilities for reducing global warming impacts - there are a number of strategies which provide an economic benefit, but not enough that people are taking them up in droves (or perhaps they're just not well known enough yet):
- Reducing usage by greater efficiency (choice of car, light etc) to provide exactly the same service with less greenhouse impact. This option is available now, typically at a lower net cost, but electricity is cheap enough that people don't bother. (It's interesting to note that incandescent globes are virtually never seen in Indonesia - energy efficient compact fluorescent lights being the standard, even in poorer areas.)
- Use of renewable energy in settings where it is known to actually provide an economic benefit: solar hot water (at least in some climates), passive solar design. Current practice reflects the fact that home buyers typically don't properly account for ongoing costs and livability, so builders don't factor it in.
- Reducing the CO2 equivalent load of the output by cleaner burning, less HC leaks, less cow farts, and finding alternatives to greenhouse gases such as methyl bromide (used for fumigation). These are fairly significant - but I'm not sure exactly how significant.
Then there are the secondary solutions - measures that will impose a cost, but don't depend on burning less fuel.
- Electricity production by relatively cost-effective methods such as wind & solar thermal.
- Locking the carbon away (sequestration)
- The "painting roads white" approach, to reflect light rather than trap it as heat.
Comments
- This section allows a bit more POV, speculation and questions.
I'm sceptical about the "painting roads white" approach. I've read that the urban heat island effect is not a significant contributor to global warming, so I doubt that enough roads could be painted white to actually make a difference. If the current practices of urban sprawl and of roads taking up 25% of urban land were changed through better planning and transport provision, and if more trees were planted to overshadow roads, that would have a lot of positive effects (including less energy use in transport and cooling of buildings), but I doubt that the reflectivity of the road surface would be a big factor. Any sources on this? --19:45, 17 August 2006 (PDT)