This IS the scientific community (episode 2)

Hey, look! I talked another professor into doing work for me! I guess it's only appropriate since I'm doing work for him, right?

Dr. Laurance G. Beauvais, Assistant Professor of Inorganic, Bioinorganic, and Materials Chemistry

Dr. Beauvais is my research adviser at San Diego State and I've been in his group for almost a year and a half. The research is concentrated on creating crystalline solids that will, hopefully, assist in gas storage (particularly hydrogen).

The (virtual) interview:

What is your honest opinion regarding the state of our environment and the existence of global warming? Do you believe that this is a serious issue to address or a misinterpretation of data?

Wow, that is a very broad question. Regarding the state of our environment, I would say that we (meaning the United States) have made great strides in some areas but we have a long way to go. For example, recycling programs are ubiquitous and we do a good job on metals and paper, but too many plastics are not being recycled. Combine the poor recycling of plastics with the use of plastics in packaging, and that generates a large amount of waste. We need to either re-use more plastics, most of which are produced from fossil fuels, or move to renewable plastics made other sources. I think that we have done a good job reducing sulfur and nitrogen oxides but we have not done enough to reduce mercury emissions.

Regarding the existence of global warming, I would have to say that all of the reports I have seen from credible scientists and scientific organizations has supported global warming. I am not a climatologist, so I am not ready to argue the minute details of global warming. However, I can do a quick calculation of the amount of CO2 released from gas combustion in this country per year and the number is staggering. The US consumes 400 million gallons of gas per day which results in the release of 884 gigagrams of CO2. Consider that CO2 cannot be removed from the atmosphere rapidly and that the carbon obtained from petroleum sources has been sequestered underground for millions of years. Thus, we will increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere by burning oil. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Add these facts up, and global warming does not seem so far-fetched. Therefore, I consider global warming a serious issue.

What is the most important thing that the average earth inhabitant can do to improve or avoid any current or future environmental impacts? Is there anything you do personally?

Are you considering wild animals, pets, and other living organisms as inhabitants or only humans? For now, let’s focus on humans.

Of course, there are many things that people can do to reduce their environmental footprint. I recycle as much as possible, I purchase locally produced items/foods whenever possible, I have a 10 minute commute, I carpool, etc. Consider the 400 million gallons of gasoline that are used everyday in the US. A good portion of that must be devoted to transporting manufactured goods, food, commodities, etc, and a good portion is probably transported by trucks. The more efficient means of moving goods is by rail, but the rail system in this county has deteriorated. If people purchased locally sourced items, we could reduce fuel consumption while at the same time improving local economies. Why do people want to live an hour away from work? Sure, I understand the desire for more space and bigger homes, but do you really enjoy sitting in traffic and paying $20 a day for gas? In most of the county, we do not even offer commuter trains that parallel major highways.

I would love to install photovoltaic cells on my house, but the prices are too high and the efficiency too low. I believe that we should see improvements on both of those factors in the next few years as alternatives to silicon-based systems are commercialized. If a large portion of the country generated their own power, it would go a long way to reducing one of our major sources of various emissions and fuel consumption–power generation.

How important is a move toward sustainable transportation, in your opinion? Do you think it is worth the effort that it will take? Is it a waste of time or an absolute necessity?

It would be great to retrofit our sprawling cities with mass transit systems. However, I do not think that works. You really need to have the transit in place at the same time you are developing a city. As an alternative, I think it worth the effort to produce cars that are as fuel efficient as possible and to target cleaner fuels such as hydrogen. Ignoring the environmental issues, we need to find an alternative transportation fuel to replace gasoline for reasons of national security. Our dependence on gasoline means the continued support of repressive totalitarian societies, such as Saudi Arabia. In addition, as people in China and India seek a lifestyle similar to that of the developed world, the demand for oil can only increase.

In terms of research, where do you think the most money and time should be spent? Are there any important global problems that you believe should be addressed immediately?

We need to determine how we want to address the future energy needs of our country and the world. We can estimate how much energy we will need, and we need to have a plan for supplying that energy. We will have to revisit nuclear energy because it has zero emissions, as long as we have the correct regulations and a permanent waste storage facility, but there is a limited supply of uranium. Ultimately, we need to improve photovoltaic cells so that we can generate power at the point of use and reduce the need for large power plants. We need to couple the power generation from solar cells to a power storage mechanism because solar power is limited to specific times and places. For example, use solar energy to pump water uphill during the day and recover the power at night by using hydroelectric generators. Or, use solar power to split water to generate hydrogen and then use internal combustion or fuel cells to generate electricity.

If you had the power to do so, regardless of your opinion on the state of the environment or petroleum, what technology would you pick to power our society? Why?

Solar power. It’s clean and renewable. Power can be generated where it is needed or converted to a storage medium. But, we need to develop solar cells with better efficiencies and costs. It would be nice to not need silicon because of the energy required to generate pure material. The solar cells will need to be flexible and easy to integrate into building materials.

If you could do one thing to improve the state of transportation in America, what would you do?

Get rid of the upper speed limit on highways and apply a well-enforced minimum speed limit.

Or, increase the average fuel efficiency by 10 mpg.

Do you think that public transportation development is important for major cities? What do you think about the system in San Diego?

Public transportation is important but I think it is nearly futile to build systems in cities like San Diego, LA, Houston, etc. The cities are spread out, land is expensive, and the resulting transit systems take too long for most uses.

Thank you for your time, Dr. Beauvais!

Quick ones

Lots of "good" stuff to post! Here we go...

. . .

This about sums it up... from Mike Elgan at Computerworld:

Just when you thought technology was making "snail mail" obsolete, the U.S. Postal Service announces a vital new service that lets you recycle cell phones, iPods and other electronics -- as well as printer inkjet cartridges -- via mail. For free!

Everything goes to one company, Clover Technologies Group, and they take care of recycling. I see this as getting much bigger over time. I think both about how much usable material goes to waste as well as how annoying it is to recycle electronics. Bravo Clover! Stay green now; don't go dumping that left-over ink in the oceans or I'm going to be PISSED for posting this.

. . .

If you're green, then you already know this. From thedailygreen:

A report issued by the tri-national Commission for Environmental Cooperation ... concluded that green building could slash greenhouse gas emissions in North America more quickly and cheaply than other means.

Good information but vague. It goes on to say:

About 35% of the continent's greenhouse gases come from the built environment, making that the largest contributor...about 4% of current North American building can be considered green.

Original link here. More info:

Among its recommendations, the report calls upon North American government, industry and nongovernmental leaders to:

- Create national, multi-stakeholder task forces charged with achieving a vision for green building in North America;
- Support the creation of a North American set of principles and planning tools for green building;
- Set clear targets to achieve the most rapid possible adoption of green building in North America, including aggressive targets for carbon-neutral or net zero-energy buildings, together with performance monitoring to track progress towards these targets;
- Enhance ongoing or new support for green building, including efforts to promote private sector investment and proper valuation methods; and
- Increase knowledge of green building through research and development, capacity building, and the use of labels and disclosures on green building performance.

Want to know more about green buildings? Check over at Inhabitat, they have a recurring feature and show off some beautiful structures.

. . .

This is really mind-blowing... some very powerful photos documenting environmental impact from the Guardian.


Wicked scary.

. . .

Ending on a light note, a very cool gallery of electric automobiles that are out there. The first one, pictured below, is my ultimate dream car, a Shelby Cobra, in electric form. From wired.



. . .

If you haven't already, make sure to check out joshcanhelp.com and see what's going on over there!

Frightening to say the least.

This article from The Guardian, a long-standing, independent news source in the UK, caught my eye today. Summary (in their words):

Global warming is doubling the rate of sea level rise around the world, but attempts to stop it by cutting back on greenhouse gas emissions are likely to be futile, leading researchers will warn today...The oceans will rise nearly half a metre by the end of the century, forcing coastlines back by hundreds of metres, the researchers claim...The analysis showed that during the past 5,000 years, sea levels rose at a rate of around 1mm each year, caused largely by the residual melting of icesheets from the previous ice age. But in the past 150 years, data from tide gauges and satellites show sea levels are rising at 2mm a year.

More damning evidence comes from another study cited in the article:

In two further studies, also published in Science, a team of German researchers put figures on the extent to which the climate is warming compared with any time during the past 650,000 years. They report that levels of the most ubiquitous greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, are rising 200 times faster than could be caused by any natural process. Carbon dioxide levels are now 380 parts per million, some 27% higher and methane levels 130% higher than at any time over the period they analysed.

For me, that's worrisome.

The article goes beyond simply presenting the data and says there is really not a damn thing we can do about it. The sea level will rise, beach-front property will become submerged and the hippies that live a few blocks back will become millionaires. That, literally, could happen.

So why, of all people, do I sound so nonchalant about this disturbing news? First off, it is not surprising to me, it simply reinforces what I know to be, more or less, true. These are appearing in scientific journals, sources of information that are not biased in any direction (or, I should say, they are the least biased sources available). But, I can tell, I'm going to go off on a tangent and lose my original point.

Why isn't this scary? Because no one else gives a rat's ass so why should I? Let me explain..

In keeping up with this blog, I have taught myself a very important lesson about people: nothing gets done until it has to, for one reason or another. On the small scale, people stay in marriages that don't work for decades before finally giving up and wishing they had done so long ago. People waste away in jobs, letting their talent stagnate and atrophy until they feel like there is nothing else around them. Some people ignore growths, symptoms, and poor health until they collapse or reach a critical mass (no pun intended) and end up in the hospital.

On a larger scale, our industries pollute water sources and nature repeatedly until a sharp increase in some kind of mal effect appears and then they move on to a different spot. We're letting our economic situation get worse and worse and worse until... who knows what will swing it back around (*cough* Obama *cough*)? And we will continue down this path until 10K/100K/1mil/10mil/100mil people die or are displaced before massive action begins.

We're seeing the beginnings of very important changes (political leaders citing the environment as an issue [finally], people changing their buying behavior, a fantastic new green culture and community) but we're not going to see any preemptive changes that make a big difference. We will see a scrambling after something major happens and can be undeniably tied to human behavior. I'll be honest; I'm a little scared to think about what has to/might/will happen before this change occurs. I'm not an alarmist and I'm not an extremist but I think the direction we are going is ridiculous and irresponsible and I think that a huge population of people will pay the price - if that hasn't happened already.

Addendum to my interview with Dr. Cooksy

This post is meant to be read after the one below.

A few clarifications I should have made prior to posting.

In response to questions number one: "Are you saying that atmospheric scientists are saying that it exists without question or there have been no questions because it just doesn't exist? I can read it both ways..."

Dr. Cooksy:

I believe that the question was asked and was answered, to the extent that anything in climate science can be, years ago. The answer they find is, the global climate is changing with unprecedented rapidity, and the change can be largely attributed to human activity. Questions will always remain as to the precision of models that try to predict the future. Waiting for those questions to be resolved is futile, because science by its nature doesn't provide any answers with absolute certainty. But if there is any appearance of substantial controversy beyond that, it lies entirely outside this community of scientists.

Still question number one, me: "Their prediction being that global warming is or is not going to be a problem? I hope this doesn't sound naive but sometimes it is hard to differentiate where the information is coming from. Depending on the source, 'scientists' seem to be claiming the whole spectrum of various problems/non-problems. Especially in the last ~year or so, it has been REALLY difficult to nail down what the scientific community, as a whole, thinks about various things. Not everyone will concur, of course, but it's never seemed so impossible to find the mean of opinions/theories."

The only climate models I'm aware of are those that predict long-term global warming, acidification of the oceans, significant increases in severe weather, and so on. And as these effects were predicted years ago, and are already being observed today, early versions of those models have already passed a significant test of validity. If there were believable climate models that showed this just going away, we'd hear about them in a big way.

To emphasize something from the above, scientists aren't going to give you an absolute answer. Even if there was an absolute answer to give, scientific enterprise would move away from that to the areas where questions remain. So if you read any scientific papers on the subject, there will be a lot of emphasis on the uncertainties -- that's a constant of good science. It's important to maintain that questioning perspective, even if you're dealing with an issue of potentially enormous societal impact, because to abandon it threatens the quality of the science.

For that reason, I'm intentionally vague about the value judgments, like what constitutes a 'problem.' As scientists, it's not for climate researchers to tell us whether it's a bad thing that there won't be any Arctic sea ice a century from now. But they're not studying *if* it's going to disappear any more; they're just studying how long it might take.

If you want to know what scientists think about those value judgments, I'd recommend seeing what their organizations have to say. These bodies are expected to review the science, and synthesize what they can to obtain a big-picture viewpoint. In the US, the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the National Academy of Sciences serve this function. I don't think that they've been vague about this at all. AAAS in particular has been vocal about the scientific consensus for years. For a non-US perspective, the Royal Society in the UK is analogous to our NAS.

If you read about any science secondhand, it can be made to look controversial because it never answers any questions absolutely. On top of that, I think there are perfectly valid controversies about the ramifications of global climate change from the standpoints of politics and economics, to say nothing of scientific questions that involve greater or more complex extrapolation (such as far-future climate prediction, biological and ecological impacts). It's easy for the scientific and the non-scientific controversies to become confused in popular reporting.

Good stuff!

So, I'm starting a new feature called...

This IS the scientific community

The idea came from a conversation I had with a former colleague at Johnson & Johnson. He is a medicinal chemist and we had a short conversation about the state of the world briefly in the chemical dungeon I worked in (I'm making it sound much worse than it was, of course). Anyways, he had some interesting things to say and I thought 'anyone who gives a damn about the environment, whether they knew anything about it or not, would probably be interested to hear what scientists have to say about it.' I think the interesting part comes not only from those who study it directly but also those who do not but, none-the-less, stay informed on the issue.

So, that's my idea, what do the scientists say. And here is the first one.

Dr. Andrew Cooksy, Associate Professor of Physical Chemistry

First, because I would want the same, a website plug.

Dr. Cooksy teaches the physical chemistry class that I am currently taking and, at the risk of sounding like I'm brown-nosing, does a damn good job at it. Physical chemistry deals with the physics of chemistry and how atoms and molecules interact with each other on both a micro and a macro scale. I won't beat around the bush, this class is very difficult but it helps to instill important understanding about what we're actually DOING in the lab.

On with the questions!

What is your honest opinion regarding the state of our environment and the existence of global warming? Do you believe that this is a serious issue to address or a misinterpretation of data?

I’m not an atmospheric scientist; I can only claim to be a reader of the scientific literature. From that, I haven’t seen any serious question among atmospheric scientists about the existence of global warming for at least twelve years, nor any serious question about the significance of anthropogenic contributions for close to ten years. I’m not referring to scientists in general, but the people who are actively pursuing research in this field. This is already an old enough field that many of its early prognostications have been tested. The ability of computer simulations to predict qualitative trends in the climate over the past decade strikes me as surprisingly successful for a field that amounts to, in essence, forecasting the weather. I think the climate science community has made a compelling case that many of their extended predictions are likely to be accurate, if not precise.

What is the most important thing that the average earth inhabitant can do to improve or avoid any current or future environmental impacts? Is there anything you do personally?

Reducing population growth seems to me the most direct way to reduce human impact on the environment, whether for better or worse.

How important is a move toward sustainable transportation, in your opinion? Do you think it is worth the effort that it will take? Is it a waste of time or an absolute necessity?

Certainly it’s in the long list of things that would have to be addressed for long-term sustainability of human enterprise in general. I don’t see how it could be a waste of time, since the exploration of new ways to do things is how we advance.

In terms of research, where do you think the most money and time should be spent?

Offhand I’d be interested in investigating how to get around materials science and materials availability problems related to solar power, and also in exploration of new mechanisms for energy storage.

If you had the power to do so, regardless of your opinion on the state of the environment or petroleum, what technology would you pick to power our society? Why?

Assuming a number of questions could be addressed, I’d pick solar. Clean; perhaps not very efficient but widely available so not so subject to storage and transport issues as other options.

Do you think that public transportation development is important for major cities? What do you think about the system in San Diego?

I do think it’s important. I don’t know any other way to get to and from a ballgame.

The system in San Diego is serviceable. It’s slow, so I use it when I have time and can bring something to work on, and when it’s relatively direct. The trips I’ve taken on public transport in San Diego probably average about an hour each way, counting the time it takes to walk to the route and wait for the trolley or bus. For me, that would be onerous to do every day. I’ve also lived in DC, where a trip downtown from the edge of the city takes about 30 minutes altogether (for me, that’s a bus plus a subway train), and driving takes at least that long.

Thank you!

****NOTE****

Please see the addendum to this interview, found here (or just above this entry, chronologically).

Both sides of the story...

It's REALLY hard to take a stand when everything is so CONFLICTED. From The New American (a publication I know nothing about):

We have more than 22,000 scientist signers of our global-warming petition who’ve looked at the issue and concluded essentially the opposite of these United Nations people. This says nothing about the science. Science does not depend on polling. Just because we have 22,000, and the UN may have 600, does not matter. The only thing our petition demonstrates is that there is no consensus among scientists in support of the UN claims.

Scientific questions are never settled in this way. Science is about natural truth. The truth doesn’t require any advocate. It stands by itself.

In science, a scientist may discover the truth about something. Then he develops a hypothesis, and the hypothesis is tested by various means. So long as the hypothesis passes experimental tests, it becomes stronger and is further relied upon — unless it fails an experimental test. If it is a very fine hypothesis with wide utility, it may spread throughout the entire scientific community and become part of the basis of scientific knowledge. The process by which this is done is not what is important. The truth is important. Scientific truth is not determined by polling or by convening meetings.

If you like truly understanding the environment, make sure you read that article. I can't stress how important it is to get the entire picture. If you blindly follow a cause that is supposed to be based in reality/science, you better make damn sure you're always questioning your stand. That's the scientific method.

I'm always trying to get the most accurate picture of what is going on around me. True, I blog about sustainable transportation and environmental impacts but I'm always willing to see both sides of the issue. Burning oil to power our cars has more than just climate impact and that's, clearly, still being debated.

QUESTION EVERYTHING or you have NOTHING.

Antiquated mindset...

The title of this post is a bit ironic and I think you'll see why.


In 1832, a man named William Lloyd Garrsion wrote an article about slavery called "On the Constitution and the Union." I'll preface this post by saying I certainly would not have been exposed to this article without a required Political Science class but I'm glad that I have.

Garrison believed that, since slavery remains in place under documents like the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence, that the documents must be a problem. He saw major faults with the system in place and wanted it dismantled. He was a true abolishionist and he said this:

Be assured that slavery will very speedily destroy this Union, if it be let alone; but even if the Union can be preserved by treading upon the necks, spilling the blood, and destroying thesouls of millions of your race, we say it is not worth a price like this, and that it is in the highest degree criminal for you to continue the present compact. Let the pillars thereof fall - let the superstructure crumble into dust - if it must be upheld by robbery and oppression

Slavery was an antiquated mindset, even in 1832. Many, many people believed it should be completely abandoned while many others practiced cognitive dissonance by keeping human beings in bondage for their own profit and benefit, despite the obvious despicability.

Wanton overconsumption of natural resources and production of waste is, like slavery was and is, an antiquated mindset. It started during a time in our country's history when trees and water and space seemed positively infinite. The industry in the East combined with the expansion to the West combined to create a crescendo of environmental damage and resource hogging. We look back at the living conditions of the cities with disbelief, wondering how some could live in such utter dispair while others were experiencing wealth at an incredible level. Becoming a wasteful, careless citizen was something to look up to, something to work towards.

Come back to present time and you can see the industrial revolution everywhere you look. For one, the current wealth gap is very similar for the first time since that time (I'm sorry I don't have references on-hand [which is a funny thing to say in 2007 while you're typing on a computer hooked up to the internet - I kinda just told you I'm sure it's true because I read it but I simply don't have the interest to find it for you]). For another, production and efficiency is still a science, just like it was to Carnegie and Rockefeller.

Make stuff, sell it, ship it all over the place, make it cheaper somewhere else, find the absolute best production curve at all costs, legislate destruction, ignore nature, f*ck the other guy. The capitalism that made our country "great" is causing massive damage to everything besides the system itself. People are bent on consumables, durables, and disposables. Celebrities live their life showered in publicity while a war quietly grinds on in another country.

I might sound all over the map but this all relates. This isn't a blue thing or a red thing or an American thing or a Chinese thing, it's a fundamental breakdown in our own humanity and sense of community. People are ignoring their amazing frontal cortex and its ability to determine where actions lead. Destroying forests, wasting precious fresh water resources, decimating native plant and animal species, and ignoring alternative energy sources and irrational energy sinks is, plain and simple, sh*tting where you live - in the BEST case!

The system is the problem and the system must change. It will be slow but it won't be painful; human beings are amazing adapting machines. Even if we all ended up farming and irrigating in 1,000 years, we'll have the same chance at happiness and the same risk of sorrow.

LET THE PILLARS FALL

... I mean, you know, if its required. Slavery was abolished without the need for a match and a new pad of paper.

Hopelessness

This is the feeling that stems from believing that there is nothing you can do to change the situation. This is what makes you freeze up, makes you avoid it all, makes you give up. If hope is all we really have in this world, the lack thereof is a dark, desolate place.

Sorry for the particularly emo spin on this blog entry but it pertains, don't worry.

I recently had a conversation with a good friend of mine who told me that he was really bummed out that it seemed like people just don't care about the earth and don't think about what they are doing to their surroundings. This struck me as funny because this is not what I expected to hear coming from him. There are two things I derived from this conversation:

-> People who don't usually think about their impact are now doing just that. Sweet!

-> As soon as they ascertain the way things are, they're bummed. Damn!

People should get involved now but will they be lost when they understand what needs to be done? Will we lose potentials because this little climate/energy problem appears insurmountable?

All it takes is a little bit then a little more and a little more. It's not building a hydrogen infrastructure overnight or tossing our gasoline cars in a landfill. Fatalistic hopelessness comes from thinking like that. "CHANGE NOW OR DIE" is scary; it doesn't have to be like that. Plus, we just don't have all the information we need to make a change in the right direction. To try and act completely in one direction would be foolish.

What it takes right now is reconsidering your waste, rethinking how you do things. It takes voting with your money. It takes solution-mindedness, considering what your actions impact. Slow down a bit on the freeway, recycle stuff, turn lights off.. why not?!

We should all be considering the reactions of our actions anyways, don't ya think?

Odd timing

Over the last few years, ever since I decided to get off my ass and make something out of myself, I've noticed this phenomenon. I have this weird, cosmic sense of timing. I shouldn't say "sense" actually because that implies that I know something that other people don't or that I'm doing something based on this knowledge. What I mean is that the amount of coincidences (good ones, that is) have drastically increased over time. I think about a friend of mine back home and they call me within a day or two; right before I get a chance to reach out to them. I start thinking about something on a regular basis and it happens to me or someone around me. In this case, I stumbled onto a blog for no particular reason and found someone who, put simply, agrees exactly with what I think about energy policy. And he happens to be awesome too... Here is what Scott Adams has to say about energy policy:

...coming up with green and economical alternative sources of energy would virtually solve all [our] other problems, either directly or by boosting the economy.

Imagine a president who brought experts together and mapped out a plan to make the country energy independent by a year certain. It would require a combination of a dozen or more industries and thousands of technologies that all do their little part. I can imagine massive investment in developing improved biofuels, building Sterling generators in the desert, nuclear plants, windmills, clean coal, harnessing the ocean waves, maybe using Tesla’s wireless power grid http://www.damninteresting.com/?p=703, and so on. I’m thinking of a war-time-like effort that brings the entire country together on this mission.

The direct benefits of a great energy policy would be a long-term solution to global warming (as developing nations copied our breakthroughs), and freedom from Middle East oil, and wars. That would be reason enough to make it a top priority. But the indirect benefits, through the impact on the economy, could be just as important.

Imagine mobilizing the entire country toward energy independence. The effort would increase jobs, including everything from harvesting sugar cane to assembling windmills. And it would stimulate technical advances that would have ripple effects for generations. Best yet, when energy becomes less expensive, it boosts profits of every company, increases personal wealth, and makes it easier to fund healthcare, education and anything else. And America would become the leader in alternative energy, exporting our products and services to developing countries.

Long quote I know but this is exactly what I think. In fact, I would do this post injustice if I went on and on about how I agree with it because it's put perfectly!

If it ain't broke...

GREAT general environmental article

Glad this didn't miss my radar (ie Google News Alerts)

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2099-2208385,00.html

To summarize: basically, we're at a critical point with our environment (how many times can we hear that before something is done?). There are two ways of thinking: Sandal-style (biomass, wind, solar) and Nuke (technology to save us from our technology). A few great excerpts:

"We have to act soon, we have to think big and we have to work together. Humans are bad at all of those things, especially the last. And the window of opportunity is closing very quickly indeed. We probably have less than a decade to get it right. What, then, must we do?"

"Now we chuck a mountain into the air every year. If we solidified the 27 billion tons of carbon dioxide (over 6 billion tons of pure carbon) produced by humans annually, it would make a mountain a mile high and 12 miles in circumference. As a result, the Earth’s atmosphere now contains about 380 parts per million of carbon, compared with about 280 parts, which seems to have been the default setting that made our existence possible."

"Perhaps it would be even better simply to take the carbon dioxide straight out of the air. This is the idea of Klaus S Lackner of the Earth Engineering Center at Columbia University in New York. He has worked out that carbon can simply be filtered out of the air with remarkable efficiency. He reckons an area of 2 square feet would be enough to capture the carbon emitted by one American in a year: about 25 tons. (The world average emission per individual is 1 ton.)"

^^^ I predict this will become more popular and far more necessary as we continue to do what we do to this planet.

"Nuclear’s reputation as a dangerous power source is also undeserved. Since Chernobyl, around the world there have been thousands of reactor-years run without a serious incident. Furthermore, new “pebble bed” reactors that use graphite instead of water to control reactions are even safer. These are now being pioneered in, among other places, China. Finally, we should have fusion power available within about 40 years. This is absolutely safe nuclear power because, as the fusion scientist Miklos Porkolab at Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) proudly points out, if it goes wrong it doesn’t melt down, it just quietly cools down."

“agriculture is the greatest rapist of nature”

And what happens if none of this is embraced? Last resort strategies:

"Persuading the airlines to put sodium in their fuel might have a comparable effect. It would release particles into the atmosphere that would rise to form a high-level haze that also might help to block sunlight. Some have suggested that the same effect could be achieved by blasting sodium shells into the air from naval guns or floating it into the upper atmosphere with high-level balloons."

"Even more ambitious would be stopping the sunlight before it gets here. One suggestion is that we fly a spacecraft to the Lagrangian point between the Earth and the sun. This is the point at which the gravity of the two bodies is cancelled out. An object left there simply does not move. The craft would unfurl a huge curtain of fine mesh that would block a small percentage of sunlight, not enough for us to notice but enough to offset global warming for perhaps a decade."

"Finally, if all else fails, we could construct huge nuclear weapons to be exploded inside Earth’s orbit and which would blast us further away from the sun. This has seriously been discussed, but is generally regarded as a touch risky."

How about we just shrink our carbon footprint so we don't have to blow ourselves out of orbit, ok???

And, because this is so long, I'll reward you with a picture... an 500KM/H train that rides on magnets. These are currently running in China FYI