Jökull - 01.01.2005, Page 13

Global Warming: Take Action or Wait?
Figure 9. Stumps of trees which grew in the bed of the
West Walker River during the first of the Medieval
droughts (courtesy of Scott Stine, California State
University, Hayward). – Trjástofnar frá þurrkatíma-
bili vegna loftlagshlýnunar á árunum 1050–1200.
SUMMARY
Although reasonably strong, the case I make is far
from air tight. So, a dissenter might plead that action
be delayed until the Earth’s temperature has clearly
emerged from the envelope of natural variability. I
might agree if there existed a well designed road map
spelling out the means and time schedule for stem-
ming the buildup of CO2 in our atmosphere. However,
as we are in a race against time, we cannot afford to
wait. At least two decades will be required to develop
the means by which the CO2 rise can be brought to a
halt and at least four more to fully implement it. How-
ever, not only is there no such plan, but there is not
even a consensus as to what are to be its key elements.
Further, there are indications that, even if we started
now, we would not be able to prevent CO2 from reach-
ing well above double its pre-industrial concentration.
WHAT MUST WE DO?
During the 30 years which have slipped by since
the Earth’s temperature began its steady rise, rela-
tively little has been accomplished toward halting the
buildup of CO2. True, the Kyoto Accord has been ac-
tivated. But it constitutes only a baby step toward the
ultimate goal. Even if those countries who did sign
meet their commitments, because of increased fossil
fuel use in the developing world, each year the CO2
content of the atmosphere will rise a bit faster than it
did during the previous year. True, wind power has
come into its own, but even if it meets the most op-
timistic of projections, it will produce no more than
ten percent of world’s energy. True, nuclear energy
is making a comeback but, in a world preoccupied
with terrorism, few believe that it will become the en-
ergy work horse which will replace fossil fuels. Solar
electricity, many people’s dream solution, will remain
just that, until its price is driven down by an order of
magnitude.
I am convinced that, no matter how hard we push
energy conservation and renewable energy, fossil fuel
burning will continue to rise. The much ballyhooed
hydrogen economy is certainly no panacea, for the en-
ergy required for hydrogen manufacture is ten times
smaller when it is created by steaming coal than when
it is created by electrolyzing water. Just as electricity
generated using solar rays will not be competitive un-
til the price comes down, similarly the use of hydro-
gen generated using nuclear electricity awaits more
favorable economics.
There are those who will say don’t worry, human
ingenuity will bail us out by creating some combina-
tion of nuclear power safe from terrorists, solar elec-
tricity competitive with that from coal and perhaps
even fusion power. But what if this doesn’t happen?
Shouldn’t we have a proven backup plan? Fortunately
there is a feasible backup strategy which would al-
low us to derive our energy from fossil fuels with-
out increasing the atmosphere’s CO2 content. In other
words, we can have our cake and eat it!
The idea is to capture CO2 and bury it (Intergov-
ernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) 2005).
One approach would be to capture the CO2 from elec-
trical power plant exhausts. But, as two thirds of the
energywe currently use is produced in small units (au-
tomobiles, homes, factories, airplanes...), this alone
will not be adequate. In addition, CO2 would have to
be recaptured from the atmosphere.
Could these CO2-capture strategies be carried out
at a reasonable cost? The answer is yes. In the case
of plants deriving energy from coal, it would be more
economical if the coal were steamed to produce hy-
JÖKULL No. 55, 2005 13