You (and everyone else who has worked to improve the human condition since, and before, the Industrial Revolution) has also bequeathed upon your son the highest level of human welfare that has ever existed. Which is, as you note but perhaps even understate, exponentially better than the circumstances in which virtually all people lived until very recently. So I don’t think you need to overdo the apologies. Humanity always faces challenges, and this will never change. Climate change is one of our current challenges, but I think very few people, given the choice, would trade today’s challenges for yesterday’s standards of suffering, hunger, high infant mortality, and short lifespans, among many other features.
The relevant comparison isn’t trading off today’s standards for yesterday‘s but trading of today’s standards for tomorrow’s hellish existence.
Billions of people born in the coming decades will curse those of us alive at this time for our indifference and selfishness in not devoting even a tiny amount of our riches to helping ensure a safe and healthy climate for the next generation and those the follow
I think the comparison to yesterday’s existence is totally relevant, because without the energy use that has led to our CO2 issue, we would still be in yesterday’s existence — which, unlike tomorrow’s, truly was hellish.
This is a lovely summary that I'll share with my 18-YO twins. I do think it's unfair to say this is our generation's fault. Isn't it the fault of, well, everyone who came before us and of everyone today (young people included) who has to drive a car everywhere or heat their house all winter? Each generation likes to blame its parents (not just for this, but for all problems). I'm 51, and I remember sitting with my friends in high school looking at a sunset and one of them saying, half in jest, half seriously, "Guys, we have to save this earth of ours." We blamed the Boomers....but it wasn't just their fault either. One question about nuclear: what about dealing with storing the waste? The waste is as much of a concern for people who are reflexively against nuclear as is the safety of the reactors. I'd like to have an answer for that one--you provided all the other answers very neatly. Appreciate you! :)
Informed and balanced scientists and engineers whose opinions I have read believe that management of spent fuel is a complete non-issue. We have been doing it for 60 years with zero incidents. The quantities are tiny. Diablo Canyon in California, which has been in operation for 40 years, is one of a number of plants that continues to store on-site every gram of fuel it has ever used.
The best answer, however, would be to complete construction of the Yucca Mountain national storage facility. Like so many infrastructure projects, it was derailed by a relatively tiny number of people who objected (or, better said, it was killed by overwrought environmental laws and weak politicians).
The anti-nuclear lobby has made nuclear “waste” part of their propaganda campaign for decades, because they can make it sound scary, regardless of the actual facts.
One excellent book is Energy for Future Presidents, by Richard Muller. Muller is a physicist and also the founder of Berkeley Earth, so he’s no one’s idea of a right-winger.
One thing I’d love to know a little about is, if we make clouds more reflective, won’t we also impact the amount of sun available for photosynthesis? So, we might manage to cool the planet back to pre-industrial or just the current level, but have we done the math on how this would globally influence plant life?
Ufff, I don't think there's a simple answer. The impact is going to depend on the specific crop and the specific locations. Some crops threatened by heat stress could actually do better. Some research suggests some crops absorb refracted light better than direct light, so refraction from Stratospheric masking could help them. But then other crops have been shown to have become less productive due to lessened solar energy during the Pinatubo eruption. This paper suggests that for some major crops, the improved productivity from lessened heat stress and the decreased productivity from less available sunlight more or less cancel each other out: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3
Quico me encantó esta carta! La voy a guardar y a compartir.
You (and everyone else who has worked to improve the human condition since, and before, the Industrial Revolution) has also bequeathed upon your son the highest level of human welfare that has ever existed. Which is, as you note but perhaps even understate, exponentially better than the circumstances in which virtually all people lived until very recently. So I don’t think you need to overdo the apologies. Humanity always faces challenges, and this will never change. Climate change is one of our current challenges, but I think very few people, given the choice, would trade today’s challenges for yesterday’s standards of suffering, hunger, high infant mortality, and short lifespans, among many other features.
The relevant comparison isn’t trading off today’s standards for yesterday‘s but trading of today’s standards for tomorrow’s hellish existence.
Billions of people born in the coming decades will curse those of us alive at this time for our indifference and selfishness in not devoting even a tiny amount of our riches to helping ensure a safe and healthy climate for the next generation and those the follow
I think the comparison to yesterday’s existence is totally relevant, because without the energy use that has led to our CO2 issue, we would still be in yesterday’s existence — which, unlike tomorrow’s, truly was hellish.
This is a lovely summary that I'll share with my 18-YO twins. I do think it's unfair to say this is our generation's fault. Isn't it the fault of, well, everyone who came before us and of everyone today (young people included) who has to drive a car everywhere or heat their house all winter? Each generation likes to blame its parents (not just for this, but for all problems). I'm 51, and I remember sitting with my friends in high school looking at a sunset and one of them saying, half in jest, half seriously, "Guys, we have to save this earth of ours." We blamed the Boomers....but it wasn't just their fault either. One question about nuclear: what about dealing with storing the waste? The waste is as much of a concern for people who are reflexively against nuclear as is the safety of the reactors. I'd like to have an answer for that one--you provided all the other answers very neatly. Appreciate you! :)
Informed and balanced scientists and engineers whose opinions I have read believe that management of spent fuel is a complete non-issue. We have been doing it for 60 years with zero incidents. The quantities are tiny. Diablo Canyon in California, which has been in operation for 40 years, is one of a number of plants that continues to store on-site every gram of fuel it has ever used.
The best answer, however, would be to complete construction of the Yucca Mountain national storage facility. Like so many infrastructure projects, it was derailed by a relatively tiny number of people who objected (or, better said, it was killed by overwrought environmental laws and weak politicians).
The anti-nuclear lobby has made nuclear “waste” part of their propaganda campaign for decades, because they can make it sound scary, regardless of the actual facts.
That's interesting! I'd love to see some of the things you've read on the subject. Well-armed, right?
One excellent book is Energy for Future Presidents, by Richard Muller. Muller is a physicist and also the founder of Berkeley Earth, so he’s no one’s idea of a right-winger.
Good stuff!
One thing I’d love to know a little about is, if we make clouds more reflective, won’t we also impact the amount of sun available for photosynthesis? So, we might manage to cool the planet back to pre-industrial or just the current level, but have we done the math on how this would globally influence plant life?
Ufff, I don't think there's a simple answer. The impact is going to depend on the specific crop and the specific locations. Some crops threatened by heat stress could actually do better. Some research suggests some crops absorb refracted light better than direct light, so refraction from Stratospheric masking could help them. But then other crops have been shown to have become less productive due to lessened solar energy during the Pinatubo eruption. This paper suggests that for some major crops, the improved productivity from lessened heat stress and the decreased productivity from less available sunlight more or less cancel each other out: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0417-3
Okay, really interesting. Thanks for the reply.