Uncle Bob on Life, the Universe, and Everything

I just watched the Nova on Global Dimming.  Although the presentation was badly hyped with deep dramatic music, and a narrator who practiced "proof by tone of voice", it was still an interesting documentary.  Apparently the emission of soot, ash, and particulates makes the clouds more reflective, therefore attenuating the insolation (the amount of incomming sunlight) by perhaps 10%. 

The show tried to connect this to the Ethiopian famine of the 80s, but didn’t do a particularly good job at that.  The show also fear-mongered what "might" happen to the oceans, etc., etc..  But the point of the show was well taken in my humble opinion.  If global warming has been slower than expected, it could be because of reduced insolation.  So as we continue to reduce emmission of particulates, we could see an accelleration of global warming.

OK, that may be.  We don’t really know.  But it’s something to watch for.

I was in Germany last week, and one of our lunchtime conversations turned to the lunacy of Bush backing out of the Kyoto protocols.  I didn’t know much about this topic, so I remained quiet.  Then I did a very little research on the wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Treaty.  This paints a somewhat different picture.  Apparently in 1997 the US senate voted unanimously to reject Kyoto.  President Clinton refused to submit the treaty to the senate.

So apparently Bush did not invent the American resistance to Kyoto.  He just makes the current convenient target.  Even Al Gore (An Inconvenient Truth,   http://www.climatecrisis.net/) said that Kyoto should not be signed by the United States (though he symbolically signed it himself).  

Kyoto would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and force developing nations to bear the burden of the reduction.  Why would the US be opposed to that?  Largely because China and India, two of the worlds largest emitters, are exempt.   They get to sign the accord, but don’t have to limit their emissions.  Whoohoo!

Clearly this would simply mean that industries that found it expensive to continue operating in the US or Europe, would move to China.  No net reduction in emissions, but a huge shift of jobs.  Does Europe really need to increase its unemployment rate any more, while having little or no effect on the greenhouse emissions?

Global warming is a real issue.  We do need to reduce greenhouse emissions and particulate emissions.  We do need clean alternate energy.  But we aren’t going to get that by signing a treaty that causes no real reduction and harms the economies of those nations that are most capable of having a real effect.

What should we do?  I think we’ve always known:

1. Drill in ANWR, and build more refineries.  Yes, I know, this will lead to even greater greenhouse emission.  However it will also reduce depedence on middleeastern oil, reduce oil prices, and buy us some time to work out energy alternatives.
2. Build nuclear power plants.  Zero greenhouse emissions.  Lots of electricity.  And, yes, safe.  Oh, we’ve got to figure out what to do with the spent fuel rods all right.  But that’s a solvable problem.  What’s more, nuclear power plants could form the foundation for a hydrogen energy economy.
3. Continue and accelerate research on battery technology.  In the short term, hybrid cars are going to be the best way to reduce emissions from automobiles.  The better the batteries, the more electricity they can store.  And if that electricity is generated by nuclear power plants, then we reduce emissions.
4. Continue and accelerate research on fuel cells.  In the longer term it is Hydrogen that will be the key fuel for motive engines.  The fuel cells are almost good enough now.  We have to learn to make them cheaper, but that’s a solvable problem.  The bigger issue is storing enough hydrogen in the vehicle.  Pressurized tanks can’t hold enough.  Metal Hydrides may be the technology that solves that problem.
5. Continue and accelerate research into renewable sources of Ethanol.  Current corn based technologies are inefficient at best.  What we need is a way to create ethanol from plants that does not require any greenhouse emissions. 

Fossil fuels will not last much longer.  One way or another the greenhouse emission problem will end.  We can make it end with a minimal effect on our climate by pursuing these other options aggressively.  Our children and grandchildren could live in an emission free society.

The March, 2006 issue of Scientific American had an interesting article "Unlocking the Secrets of Longevity Genes".  It seems that researchers have found that, in yeast, there are a set of genes that get activated during periods of stress (such as reduced calorie intake, or increased heat or cold) that collaborate to protect DNA from damage.  As a result the organisms live 30% longer.  It so happens that there are similar genes in other organisms (including humans) that seem to play the same role, and that apparently can extend lifespan.  It has long been known, for example, that if you severely restrict the calorie intake of mice, they will live 30% longer lives, and avoid most age related diseases during that extended period.  Tests on these mice show that the genes in question are activated by the calorie reduction. 

The article is careful to say that none of us who read it will likely be alive to enjoy the a longer lifetime because of this research; but…