Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Our climate focus needs to switch. The way to deal with climate danger is to take the high-energy ac-
tions necessary to deal with it. The answer is not in promoting inaction in the form of using
less
of our
best form of energy. Once again, we have not been taught to think about these issues with human life as
our standard of value.
BUT WHAT IF . . . ?
That said, I want to consider a hypothetical scenario in which CO
2
emissions
do
cause a significant climate
danger around the world. I believe that even if that were true, the current conduct and policies of environ-
mental leaders would be inappropriate.
Given what we know about the value of energy and of fossil fuels' superiority in most contexts, how
should an honestly concerned person respond if there is a big problem?
First of all, by getting a straightforward understanding of the exact nature, magnitude, and certainty
or uncertainty of the problem. It's actually hard to imagine a dilemma that might justify restricting fossil
fuels, for our potential climate mastery is so great. But say there's a rapid rise in sea levels, enough to be
truly concerned. What reaction would we want from our thought leaders?
One would be an embrace of technological solutions, including those used in the Netherlands and every
other place that deals well with sea level and flooding. Another would be investing a huge amount of en-
ergy and technology looking for still better solutions.
In terms of communicating with the public, we would want our leaders to offer precise, objective brief-
ings about evidence, risks, and probabilities with a recognition of the need to balance the risks with other
risks (e.g., the hardships of energy loss). We would definitely not want vague talk of “catastrophe” with
Hollywood hysteria scenarios.
We would want scientists and other thought leaders to welcome debate and be understanding of oppon-
ents. We would not want them to bash the inquisitive or skeptical as “deniers.”
Economically, we would want a commitment to liberate any and every technology that could help, from
seawall technology to dike technology to durable building technology to CO
2
-free energy technology. We
would not oppose the only globally scalable form of CO
2
-free energy ever invented: nuclear power. I be-
lieve the evidence is clear that nuclear is the safest energy technology (safer than fossil fuels, hydro, wind,
solar).
19
But even if it wasn't, if it would help avert a catastrophe, the doomsayers shouldn't be hostile to
it. Ditto for large-scale hydroelectric power, which is also widely fought.
The onething ahuman-focused response toamajor climate danger wouldnotdoistrytosave ourselves
by pursuing solar, wind, and biofuels. These are the worst-performing sources of energy we have, and if
we were truly in desperate straits, we would go with something that works; we wouldn't force everyone to
use the worst and hope for the best.
Finally, on an emotional note, I think that a proper reaction to a major danger from fossil fuels would
be
sorrow.
Think about it: If the energy that runs our civilization has a tragic flaw, that is a terribly sad
thing. It would be even worse, say, than if wireless technology caused brain cancer. The appropriate atti-
tude would be gratitude toward the fossil fuel companies for what they had done for us, combined with
recognition that we would have to suffer a lot in the years ahead, combined with the commitment to the
best technologies that I mentioned earlier.
