[lbo-talk] Some comments by me on the latest Carbon Lobby line on global warming

[Gar Lipow]

This article by me was published into todays Znet. Not as cheery as it
might be I'm afraid.

http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=56&ItemID=7559

The carbon lobby (mainly the coal and oil companies) when they don't 
deny that human cause global warming exists, suggest that it would be
less expensive and more  humane to do nothing about it. "Burn all the
fossil fuels you want, and adapt to the changes" they say. "Doing
anything to prevent global warming is too expensive."

In a spirit of reconciliation between the coal lobby and
environmentalists, I thought I'd put forward some specific proposals
to implement their approach.

In an unchecked planet greenhouse we would have weather more than
climate, warmer on average, but with unpredictable frosts and
snowstorms - some of them in places we currently don't get snow.
Draught would alternate with floods. Insects would flourish on a
warmer planet and pests of all types would migrate. And of course
storms would be worse than at present, and the average wind speed
would be significantly higher.

Finding crops that are simultaneously draught and flood resistant,
adapted to high temperatures, but able to survive low temperatures,
and that are usable by humans as sources of complete protein and
moderately concentrated carbohydrates (comparable  to grain or roots)
makes for a fascinating challenge.

One possibility is to learn how to grow most of our crops indoors.
Some parts of Scandinavia grow a large part of their fruits and
vegetables in glass houses, but I don't know if any nation has ever
tried to raise a significant amount of its grain and animals that way.
 For at least half a century, there have been proposals for geodesic
and inflatable domes miles in diameter, but no one could ever come up
with a good enough reason to build one; ignore global warming long
enough and we may get one. At any rate if we really intend to nothing
towards prevention, we need to investigate more seriously how to dome
over a tenth to a quarter of the worlds land.

In case this fails, an alternative possibility is leaf protein. With a
centrifuge you can extract protein from just about any kind of leaf on
any kind plant. So we could simply plant "farms" with whatever kind of
biomass we can get to grow and use centrifuges to extract the protein
which we would then treat and store. Currently leaf protein is
extremely expensive compared to meat; we need a way to bring the price
down.

Also leaf protein is currently extracted from crops planted for just
this purpose. An outdoor "farm" adapted to a greenhouse climate would
consist of mixed plants. These would not be separate rows or beds or
even in the more complex arrangements we find in biointensive
gardening. We would mix a variety of species, suitable for differing
climates, completely. Some varieties would flourish and others fail
depending on what the weather that year was suited to grow. Any wild
volunteers would be welcomed; in a planet greenhouse farm there would
be no such thing as a weed.

Now leaf protein is already expensive compared to animal protein,
since it requires more extensive processing than normal vegetable
protein. Extracting the protein from mixed leaves of a semi-random
variety will require some additional research.

There is one possible protein source that will actually increase on
planet greenhouse - insects. We even know how to prepare them; there
are organizations devoted to insect eating that have developed
extensive recipes; some are reputed to be quite tasty.  The tricky
part here is harvesting. Most technology we have for dealing with
insects involves killing or discouraging them. If we can capture them
unpoisoned in large lots, then we can collect as many bugs as the
carbon lobby chooses to feed us.

There is also the problem of water; even the global warming that is
already locked is expected to decrease the water supply significantly.
With an unchecked warming trend, we will have to provide the majority
of our water via desalinization.  Right now the most cost effective
water desalination techniques produce water at about five times the
cost of mountaintop and ground water sources. That needs to be lowered
if we intend to adapt to a full-fledged planet greenhouse rather than
prevent one.

Ah, but there is one other thing we should consider. What if the same
people who oppose doing anything to prevent the worst effects of
global warming from happening don't want to spend the money to learn
to live in it?  What a surprise that would be! Well there is still one
area they would still desperately need to research.

If nothing prevents or mitigates global warming, and no serious
research is made in adapting to it, the world food supply cut by at
least one half, probably three quarters and possibly 90%. Of course
water and industrial infrastructure will also be seriously impacted.
The remaining people will be pretty busy improvising adaptations
without a lot of preparation via prior research. So you will not have
a lot of people available to dispose of the dead - no more than one
per thousand bodies, probably as few as one per ten thousand bodies.

This will be a serious health hazard to the living, (presumably those
who favor doing nothing to prevent global warming), within a matter of
days. In that case we need to develop techniques whereby one person
may find and permanently dispose of three thousand widely scattered
corpses per day unassisted.

I hope those who oppose mitigation of the global warming, and support
simply adapting to it, find these suggestions helpful.



"
--------------------------------------------------
Please note:  Personal  messages  should be sent to [garlpublic]
followed by the [at] sign with isp of  [comcast], then [dot] and then
an  extension of net