Reading Comments for Science of Sustainability Week 5

"A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check" states the obvious about how we are busting out record numbers of carbon and how it is triggering severe climate changes of which are relatively impossible to predict the extreme nature. If the current level of growth is adhered to, a doubling effect is estimated to occur by 2056. Even with a leveling off of this churning out of carbon, these severe changes will occur although they may be mollified by a tapering now and a more exceptional lessening later. The goal is to keep carbon measurements in the atmosphere under 560 parts per million. The U.S. is currently dropping their emissions percentage, but how will it be possible to communicate this need to developing countries and countries that don't feel a need or a pressure to change their current methods of carbon creation? There are a few interesting concepts examined here.

One of these, the "wedge" theory in which the authors give 15 proposed ways to lessen carbon emissions leads me to some concepts/questions I would like to learn more about: (wedge #) 3. Why is electrical transmission and conservation focused on with more efficiency? If we know that an estimated 70% of all energy is lost purely in transmission, why is there no focus on cleaning up this percentage? 4. How difficult is CCS and how difficult is it to regulate this technology? 7. Why is there such a lag behind hydrogen-fueled cars? Is it simply an expense factor or is this another example of car manufacturers sitting back and ignoring the need for such models? 9. Why not more nuclear? If all of these emissions are wreaking havoc in the atmosphere from construction, why has this need for such facilities not been addressed as a higher priority than residential building? 10. Why is the government not more adamant about the use of wind capture? On the principle that all land in the United States is able to be taken by the government for use, why is there not more of a drive to populate or have land set aside for wind power use? 13. Why do the authors feel that ethanol is such an answer? Yes, it does stave off carbon emissions in theory through the use of ethanol, however, it turns monoculture into a factor and create a drain on food security. Why is this so much better than other options? 14. An end to deforestation? Really? I think we all could say that's a no-brainer.

Lastly, I will make a small comment on the photo on page 2. On the one side is a dystopian place filled with black rainy skies and endless congestive industrialization. However, the seemingly apocalyptic state still allows for so many cars on the roads; the inching of the metal coffins down the freeway. Then on the other side is a healthy stream of Deloreanesque mobiles and sunny skies with the futurist's true love, the monorail. All they really left out was the hovercraft. I think if there was an offer of a hovercraft, all of this would go much more smoothly.

In "How Urgent is Climate Change?" there are some explanatory attempts for the scientific consensus paper that may not have occurred to the average layperson all of which personally makes me feel bad for the dead horse effect going on for me in this line of articulation. And not so shockingly there is a call for immediate action, which I feel not many people ever really read or hear. There is much discussion of the lack of knowledge about lag times on various global phenomena such as ice sheet melting, sea level risings, and warming in general. It seems that the Summary for Policymakers put out by the IPCC is not nearly as widely read as it should be if the best representation of polar bears we may have in 10 to 20 years will only be on Coca Cola commercials during the holidays. Then once again there is the graph of the climate temperature change with what I can only describe as the ironic use of "Pessimistic" and "Optimistic" temperature rise against actual.

Ideally, I would have known the interactive nature of "The Climate of Man - III" and "A Plan to Keep Carbon in Check" before reading them. Then I could have staved off the defeatist nature of my questions on the wedges being answered so pointedly. I like the application that Kolbert makes by using an actual on the ground interview approach. It is also a gesture to how many countries such as the Netherlands are making a genuine effort to solve their global warming fallout issues before they truly become dire. The unsustainability of their water management system is not a small issue in a country that is a quarter under sea level. Also, I would like to further research Paul Crutzen's concept of the Anthropocene and do some refresher research on the other eras to see how their ecosystems functioned or did not function so well. Also, Kolbert makes her point that carbonation of the atmosphere is not reversible. Then there are the theories behind Socolow's earlier wedge strategy and I have to wonder with his optimism that all of these things can be done, how that is possible with the assumed reality that Kolbert weaves: #10. The United States would need a million turbines in order for wind power to make a difference at the proposed level. #9. The exceptional problems associated with nuclear power include the storage of waste, maintenance, radiation, policy, etc., not to mention that it would take a doubling of the capacity of the existing facilities in order to make this wedge a reality. This article, although disturbingly well-written, took the proverbial wind out of the sails of Socolow's article.