Doomsday Clock
According to this article on the BBC, the scientists at the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) have moved the minute hand two minutes closer to 12 on the symbolic doomsday clock they maintain in Chicago. Why? Global Warming!
The clock is meant to symbolize imminent threat to human civilization. When the clock strikes 12, it's all over folks. The sky will be falling. They moved it to 11:55 this time, which is as close as it has been since the doomiest parts of the cold war. In 1953 it made it down to 2 minutes, and to 3 minutes in 1984.
Global warming isn't the only reason they're moving the minute hand; there are also the obvious nuclear threats in North Korea and Iran.
I've never heard of these guys or this clock before, and therefore do not know if this group tends to lean left or right. Nonetheless, it's interesting to hear that they view this risk so seriously. They state that "the world has not faced such perilous choices" since the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
I don't view it THAT seriously: I'm only building a raft around the foundation of my house and stocking up on guns.
2 comments:
Amory Lovins who is CEO (and founder) of the famous Rocky Mountain Institute in Boulder (now 25 years and going strong) firmly defends his "demand side" thesis that we can easily eliminate oil (and fossil fuel) dependency within a decade or two, reduce dangerous emissions, and continue prosperous business
expansion while at the same time preserving the planet (and countering global warming, which he also warned against long ago).
Wow. That's a difficult sentence (if not a difficult idea to swallow).
In the latest issue of the New Yorker, Elizabeth Kolbert interviews this guy with interesting results and some unanswered questions.
As I understand Lovins' case he totally believes that the free market (if allowed to adjust itself) applied by rational business people who understand the planetary threat -- i.e. the reality that the biosphere is stressed to the limit and may fail us if we do not act -- will solve the problem. RMI as he runs it is apparently the model (his own house and business, etc is energy efficient, self sufficient, solar energized, etc to the nth degree), and he endlessly preaches his gospel to big business and small, to municipal leaders and to the top guns in the White House and every gubernatorial manse in the U.S. and many a premier's palace abroad. I gather he has sat down with Ford, DuPont, and is a backer of William McDonough
(who showed up in TC a couple of years back and wowed the local Chamber of Commerce with his
"green architectural" city-planning).
If I understand the complex argument in the Kolbert piece, she (and several experts in this field) does not buy all his ideas.
Biggest question I guess. Is the RMI thesis too good to be true?
Is the free market enough. I have my doubts though on issues that capitalist entrepreneurs take for granted I am not in opposition. Current projections flooding in upon us from every quarter (most of them
computer models which generate outcomes that are scary as hell) reveal that energy consumption will continue to strain not only the fossil fuel base of our massive economies, but CO 2 (small two there)
levels will climb even faster. Within half a century energy needs for the globe will be five times what they are now. The trouble with the RMI model, the critics say, is that if the free market alone functions greater energy efficiency will simply produce a predictable outcome, more humans will simply consume more energy. The equation of an endless cycle of "growth" will undo all the gains in efficiency
What's your take on this?
Do we need external regulations from the top down or not?
I do (mostly) believe in Laissez-faire economics, and would be ecstatic if it worked in this case. Unfortunately I don't believe it will soon enough. I believe that by the time the market forces work that way, too much more time will have passed. We are behind the ball already, and allowing another 10-20 years for sustainable business to be mainstream won't cut it.
As a member of industrial association groups, I see these guys are still fighting everything the gov throws at them without regard for how much sense it makes, or what is practical. Left to their own will, it will be many many years before they get there alone.
You would be very surprised to find out how many industries don't actually know how much greenhouse gas they're emitting. Most of the numbers the experts throw around are rough estimates based on limited research. Go ask an environmental professional in industry and they will be hard pressed to give you any solid data. The old business adage that "what gets measured gets managed" works in reverse here: we know we need to manage it so we'd better figure out how to measure it. Many of us have not figured it out yet because nobody has forced us to.
Most of industry, and consumers alike, need to be forced; I hate to say it.
Post a Comment