As I hope I have made clear in my various posts on the subject, I don’t reject the possibility of climate change as a consequence of carbon dioxide emissions. I just think that the way to address the problem is through technology rather than austerity. This article at Tech Times describes such a technology, an “artificial leaf” that converts atmospheric carbon dioxide to hydrocarbon-based fuel:
Researchers have developed a new type of solar cell that is capable of transforming carbon dioxide into usable hydrocarbon fuel using only sunlight as energy.
Compared with conventional solar cells that convert sunlight into electricity to be stored in batteries, the new solar cells cheaply and efficiently convert carbon dioxide in the atmosphere directly into usable fuel.
The new device works much like trees and plants that capture and convert carbon dioxide into sugars to store them into energy. Unlike plants that use catalysts to produce sugar, the researchers used nanoflake tungsten diselenide catalyst to convert carbon dioxide to carbon monoxide.
“In photosynthesis, trees need energy from light, water and carbon dioxide in order to make their fuel; in our experiment, the ingredients are the same, but the product is different,” study co-author Larry Curtiss said.
I wish the article had taken a few paragraphs to outline the barriers to largescale deployment. I’m sure there are some.
Meanwhile, austerity continues to be the preferred strategy for addressing the problem for many. I wish more of those who favor such a strategy would model the behavior they wish to see rather than leaving that for others. At the very least it would increase my confidence that the strategy could be made to work.
Why is this either/or? First, reducing consumption via simple conservation methods is hardly austerity. Modest investments in alternative energy that result in cheaper than fossil fuels alternatives is not austerity.
What do you mean by modeling?
Steve
When one models a behavior, one acts in a way that’s consistent with the behavior one wants to see in others. The opposite of that is when, for example, Leonardo diCaprio flies around the world in a private jet giving lectures on conservation.
As to why it’s either/or, why indeed? A tax on carbon (for example) works by raising prices. That will necessarily impose austerity on the poor. The emphasis in most policy strategies I’ve seen has been on forced reduction in consumption for which I’m using the shorthand of “austerity”.
“Meanwhile, austerity continues to be the preferred strategy for addressing the problem for many.”
No, many people that preach austerity _for_others_ rightly expect there will be no austerity for their own august selves. It’s another way for the new elite (and aspirants) to try creating a vast new peasant class over which they can rule as despotically as they will. All in the name of a higher morality, of course, a morality too complex for us mere peasants to understand.
Vote National Razor Party in 2016 – let’s do it to them before they do it to us!
Dave- So when conservatives decry big government, but then use their Medicare, I should also presume they don’t really want smaller government? The DiCaprio type argument is silly. I have never altered what I do because of some Hollywood person. Have you? AS you fully realize, if one person gives up all of his carbon production, it might somehow prove he was serious (LOL), but it would not alter the rate of climate change enough to measure. It really is a kind of tragedy of the commons. Unless lots of people alter behavior, you are making a sacrifice (and not a Trump kind of sacrifice either) w/o making a difference.
Steve
Do we really have an economy sufficiently robust to continue to pile on regulations, carbon taxes etc that every do gooder on the street has as a pet project ?? Personally, I think not.
Further, the jet setting greenies and those who say windmills? – NIMBY are just hypocrites. But for the supposed true believers, I’ll take them and their concerns more seriously when they embrace nuclear power options, after all, even the freaking French can do it, or things such as cited in the post. Who in their right mind wouldn’t want cheap clean energy? But until then, I’m afraid all indications are that naked self interest and political viewpoint are the real drivers: taxes, grants and anti-growth dogma.
AS you fully realize, if one person gives up all of his carbon production, it might somehow prove he was serious (LOL), but it would not alter the rate of climate change enough to measure.
I know that Di Caprio could fly first class commercial and cut down more on his usage in a year than I would in a lifetime – and be considerably less impacted by such measures than I will be if he gets your way on slashing the economy.
National Razor Party, 2016.
Steve,
The point is hypocrisy – rich people jet around the world emitting tons of carbon while buying “offsets” all while advocating that everyone else must make sacrifices. As ice (I think) pointed out some time ago, it’s like rich people who live in lily-white gated neighborhoods lecturing people on the other side of the country about racism and integration.
As for your other argument, yes, “conservatives” (if that term has meaning anymore) are extreme hypocrites. They want “small” government as long as it doesn’t affect their federal benefits (don’t forget farm subsidies and the rest in addition to medicare!) and as long as they can enforce their moral preferences on everyone else. But their disingenuousness doesn’t make the rich liberal elite’s disingenuousness any less onerous. The “conservatives/liberals” do it too arguments are completely specious and irrelevant – at best they are a rhetorical distraction.
Practice what you preach should apply equally…
Andy- I get that. What I don’t get is why anyone would care what DiCaprio thinks. This is the male equivalent of the blond with big boobs. Am I going to make my policy choices because some blond with big boobs tells me what to do? No way. The proper attitude here is to laugh and, if you want, harass others with this, but I can’t see any bright person taking this seriously.
Steve
steve:
There are entire industries built around the assumption that people emulate elites in their own behavior. You may think it’s stupid but the behavior of the rich and famous is influential.
steve,
I see your point now and I think it’s a good one, but unfortunately a lot of people (not us) seem to listen to celebrities or use them as spokespersons for various causes. Not sure how effective it all is though.