The Black Carbon Dilemma
In Break Through, S&N argue that environmentalists are too "fundamentalist" in their approach to scientific analysis, that science is, in effect, a religion. It's true that many environmentalists mistakenly imagine "here's scientific proof of the problem" to be an effective human motivator. But the clumsy use of sobering science as a motivational tool doesn’t negate the need for analytic science as a strategic tool, as S&N seem to believe.
I've already pointed out that while we do need new research, very large parts of the current greenhouse-gas emissions inventory can be solved by regulatory, price, or economic and social policy changes, and in fact will not be solved in a timely fashion by any kind new technological breakthroughs. (Three obvious examples: tropical deforestation, an auto market tilted toward living rooms on wheels, and leaky buildings in need of retrofit.)
But greenhouse-gas emissions come from many places.
By declining to acknowledge the complexities of the emissions inventory, S&N opt for a silver-bullet solution where none exists. As scientific understanding changes, our strategies need to keep pace. The latest example is the "black-carbon problem." Black carbon, a.k.a. soot, is carbon particles released from the incomplete combustion of fossil fuels (or biomass, for that matter). We don't yet know nearly as much as we should about its sources, but recent studies have implicated oceanic shipping, dirty combustion processes in industry in Asia, and forest fires. Black carbon may be a particular problem in the melting of Arctic ice because it increases the amount of heat absorbed on the surface, and thus yields both the loss of polar ice and the melting of permafrost, which in turn are major positive feedback loops for global warming. They are also regionally suspected of being responsible for 40 percent of the heating to date over the Pacific Ocean. If black carbon turns out to be a big part of the problem, its solutions are very different than those we need for carbon dioxide or methane. Indeed, while S&N's central premise in Break Through is that global warming cannot be thought of as a pollution problem, black carbon is exactly and precisely plain old air pollution in the form of soot—the same as plagued 19th century London. The way to clean it up to do the same things we did to clean up factories and power plants in the U.S. and Europe, only to do them in China and on oceanic shipping. And if forest loss is hitting us with a double whammy of CO2 and black carbon, then stopping illegal logging becomes even more critical. This kind of strategic insight is the result of exactly the sort of scientific rigor of which S&N are so dismissive. Knowing the facts may not motivate us to act by itself--but not knowing the facts, or being careless with them, will almost certainly cause us to take the wrong actions. We can no longer afford the luxury of sloppiness, anymore than we afford to delay regulation or price reform while we do research, or set a price for carbon while ignoring the need for new technology.
Comments (17)
As soon as I read that S&N are accusing environmentalist as making a religion of science, then I stopped being interested in anything they might have to say since they have just revealed themselves as ignorant right wing hacks. They are propagandists who are not interested in intellectual discourse.
This charge comes from the creationist movement that is trying to put biblical tales of origins in school science class-rooms. There is no such thing a making a religion of science (though some religions put science in their names, that doesn't change the meaning). Science deals with empirical reality, while religion deals with ones faith in the existence of a reality that lies beyond empirical confirmation. As simple as A and not A. Mutually exclusive categories.
If S&N cannot comprehend such a simple concept, why are you taking them seriously?
October 11, 2007 6:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
The world does not owe us grasshoppers a scientific invention which will eliminate any pain from coping with global warming. This is the snake oil the right tries to sell us.
15 years ago I spoke with a scientist who estimated that we had 7 years before global warming became irreversable. Given the number of reports of errors by scientists who have failed to spot things that would make global warming worse (the decomposition of tundra emitting methane for example)I have seen no reason to discount his warning.
To avoid taking such steps as we now know will limit carbon dioxide in hopes of discovering a quick fix later is like fiddling while the world burns. It is also like jumping from a plane and refusing to pull the cord to the parachute because you are going to invent anti-gravity on the way down.
October 11, 2007 7:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
There is no stopping what is happening, and certainly we would not want to do anything to interfere with business. Don't worry. We won't, we cant. We will never elect anyone who would actually take action- Get used to global warming, and quit worrying about stopping or slowing it. It is coming, it will get worse, and nothing can make us start behaving other than a massive quick catastrophe, anyway, the neocons who hold power now and still will with Hilary will only use any catastrophe to take away our civil rights some more -they wont fix the problem. I like what you said, AJM, about jumping out of the airplane, because we already have. My advice- buy Greenland Real estate. I'm not joking. I have done something very similar several years back, (believing sincerely in global warming's inevitability) and I am witnessing the "improvement" of the weather there. Its very noticeable. In my other life I am seeing the gradual but steady oven warming. So stop worrying, know that (b)millions will die, and look out for yourself. It never ceases to amaze me that OVERPOPULATION IS NEVER BROUGHT UP. There is your culprit. Arrest THAT if you can with your science and your logic.
October 11, 2007 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Population is irrelevant in that the major polluters are those with the money to do it, which eliminates the bulk of the world's people. China may have a lot, but the majority of CO2 emitted there is from the cities' demand. 3% of CO2 is air travel, also a tiny minority.
Conversely, if we had the collective will, enough energy falls as sunlight in one day to equal our energy use in more than one year so we could sustain a considerably larger population without CO2 emission.
Got a better idea than retreating to the lager in Greenland?
October 11, 2007 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
As soon as I read that S&N are accusing environmentalist as making a religion of science, then I stopped being interested in anything they might have to say since they have just revealed themselves as ignorant right wing hacks.
In general, I think that until you believe the notion that environmentalists have their own religion, you won't believe it.
Abraham, in the old testament, was told by god that his descendents would be as numerous as stars. Many environmentalists believe that over-population, like that, will destroy the world.
And, as far as I can tell, the "pro-growth" economy tries to minimize the environmentalist talk that would destroy the growth economy.
So, if you're brave, I think you'll accept the notion that environmentalism is a reglion and you'll try to figure out what creeds (statements of belief) and symbols of power (everlasting earth, for example) that would motivate people to worship environmentalism and see it as a way for everlasting existence and in constrast to the petty materialism that currently puts the future at risk.
To boldly go...
October 11, 2007 9:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why is the environemntal Left so allergic to the idea of pursuing technogical answers to global warming? This actually does remind me of the Religious Right which touts abstinence and abstinence only (i.e., behavioral changes, possibly enforced by government action) as the answer to the problem of STDs and teen pregnancy. If a cure or vaccine were found for AIDS the SoCons would probably go ballistic and do everything they could to keep it off the market (see: the HPV vaccine reaction). The environmental Left seems to be following that pattern too, and I detect the same undertone of arrogant misanthropy that motivates the theocons. They seem to be using a real crisis in order to achieve a rather different agenda, that of forcing everyone to live the way they think people should despite the fact that a majority of the people want no part of that agenda.
October 11, 2007 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Think through what a world would look like that harvested that sunlight. I'm sorry, I like to go hiking in the woods. Not beneath solar collectors.
Less people means less energy, but I won't debate that. My point remains. And my idea is better than any others. You certainly can't stop it.
Stay where you are and dream of a planet covered with solar collectors and windmills, or one with fewer people and less need for energy. Forget about China and India. The USA has too many people! The worlds overpopulation is destroying this planet.
Why would you want "a considerably larger population" ? that is scary. More scary than global warming.
October 11, 2007 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
If a creed and symbols of power define a religion, let's not stop at environmentalists. Let's include dittoheads, Deadheads, and players in the stock market, as well as sports fans and NRA members.
It's not supportable to say environmentalism is a religion, since that implies belief over fact. I won't argue belief is absent, but that's true of absolutely all human activity. We always act on belief, but engineers, scientists, financiers, and politicians prefer to mix in as much fact as possible. The ones that expressly ignore facts are the ones the rest of us call religious, or less charitably, pig-headed.
Let's stick to the subject and consider the best political strategies to improve the environment and let's avoid the cheap shots.
October 11, 2007 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I nowhere said I wanted more population, although I would be pleased for my two children to have their own.
Seeing that the majority of irradiated area is not hiking land, but ocean and fairly inhospitable desert, you don't have to worry about your skyline. And given that the ration of current use to available solar energy is around 1:1,000, there's rather a bit of room to improve, don't you think? We'll let the plants have their 10%, and perhaps we should sequester another 50%. That still means 39 times more energy than we currently use is available.
Since we're talking about politically possible stuff, let's drop the idea of asking for fewer people, unless you're volunteering? Who are the too many? My family? Yours? How about we just arrange to die younger. You first.
October 11, 2007 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
We always act on belief, but engineers, scientists, financiers, and politicians prefer to mix in as much fact as possible.
that's a creed. show that to native americans and they may laugh.
although, you got me laughing by adding "politicians" on that list!
and financiers? most will never put a negative valuation on mountaintop coal removal, ethanol, etc...
It's not supportable to say environmentalism is a religion, since that implies belief over fact.
and it's a religion because only belief justifies saving specifies over letting them go extinct, etc...
To boldly go where no man has gone before...
October 11, 2007 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I could not give a fig about mine or yours. We wont start cutting back, and its obvious you don't care about the fishes' environment, or the birds, I know that, and its typical, and we will overpopulate, and there will be a degradation of life in general, as well as mass extinctions, perhaps our own along with the others. I see no solutions, I just observe the events, and make my own plans accordingly.
Your ocean and desert, unfamiliar as they are to you, to you are teaming with life that may not wish to sacrifice it for your tv and your hybrid car. Species overpopulate, and die. Ask the trilobites. We will too. Accept it. Unless you think you are one of god's creatures, then we will overpopulate and die, but believe in god while it happens.
October 11, 2007 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you miss my point. I am not negating that many consider the environment, nature, Gaia, whatever as sacred symbols. At times I do myself. However, what is being discussed here is the evidence that human activity is causing global warming. This question is being addressed by scientic methods. These methods are scientific, not religious. As a scientific question it is very simply posed: Is the current warming of the earth caused by human activity? To most rational people the answer is yes. If so then what next? The next step is political. Now we can entertain religious issues. Some will say that the God gave us earth to do with as we wish. People like you possibly say that the earth is sacred in itself and we shouldn't destroy it. Then there are the empirically oriented folks like myself that say we shouldn't disrupt our environment because the results may be exceedingly unpleasant.
Now I will return to my first point. The right wing ideologues that accuse those of us who question the wisdom of warming the earth's climate as acting out of religious convictions are nothing more than short sighted capitalist pigs.
October 11, 2007 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your leaky building can be sealed for about 100 bucks, your living room on wheels can be recycled into 3 Hyundais, and companies like BMW
are working on things like hydrogen, which
will actually CLEAN the air as it drives by...
do that twice, for money.
As far as deforestation goes, there's only
one solution for it, and that's to get the nature
conservancy people to try and buy up pristine
mileage of it, and pay the money to the people
that were going to do the slashing and burning...
October 11, 2007 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Carl, do you support S&N's call for $30B a year to be invested in clean energy R&D and deployment? If not, how much do you support? Does Obama's $150B go too far or not far enough?
October 11, 2007 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
"right wing hacks" -- can you provide any proof whatsoever that these guys are anything approaching conservative?
I've read the book. They're clearly not a part of the right wing.
Just becuase someone questions something on the left, it doesn't necessarily mean they're "right wing hacks."
October 11, 2007 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kind of fun to be sandwiched between you and mcs (see above).
I nowhere implied I don't care about other species. I have voted Democratic my entire political life, and supported the Endangered Species List and every other enviornomental initiative. You complained about solar panels roofing over the forest. I suggested a desert or ocean, which does not mean killing off those species that live there, because one doesn't have to close off all sunlight. One installs in a patchwork arrangement.
I probably know as much about desert and ocean as you, and perhaps more. I'm certainly not unfamiliar with them. What is the color of the dirt in New South Wales? The Mojave? The Chihuahan Desert near Big Bend?
What is the largest oxygen-free zone in the ocean, and what color is the water? How far does sunlight penetrate there?
I watch zero TV, I ride my bicycle, I take the train to work. I see solutions, and you don't. You only want to rant.
October 11, 2007 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're bold about coining empty quips. The facts that politicians act on are the votes that are received in elections. The facts financiers act on are actual profits. Now what do Native Americans have to do with that? Their getting cheated on treaties does not imply the cheaters imagined nonexistent facts.
Following the law is not a religion, if you are referring to the Endangered Species List. The justification for that law is that we don't know enough to say we can do fine without some particular species.
October 11, 2007 10:13 PM | Reply | Permalink