How To Solve Global Warming

Image borrowed from https://www.joboneforhumanity.org/plan

A little while ago, I wrote an uncharacteristically (for me) pessimistic post about global warming in which I expressed my considered opinion that our species is not going to be able to solve this problem.  Well, as Theodore Roosevelt once said, "complaining about a problem without posing a solution is called whining."  

I believe that's a fair comment.  The problem is, I have no specific solutions to offer.   If I did, I'd be much richer and more famous than I am.  I only know that what we have done to this point is insufficient and, indeed, what we intend to do, based on the recent COP26 conference in Scotland isn't encouraging either.  I did, however, make what I think is a useful observation that might provide a broad suggestion as to what it will take to solve this crisis.

For example, while it`s clear that the mining and the burning of coal are significant sources of the CO<sup>2</sup> gas being added to the Earth`s atmosphere, neither China nor India, two of the world`s largest coal producers, have expressed a willingness to put an end to its mining.  Instead of agreeing to "phase out" (i.e. gradually end) coal production, they committed only to "phase down" (i.e. reduce) coal production.

Other countries were quick to condemn the two nations for their unwillingness to cooperate.  However, if one realizes that coal powers a significant portion of China's power grid and, indeed, that China needed to increase production after experiencing widespread power shortages in mid to late September, one comes to realize that it's not enough to simply agree to end activities that cause global warming.  We need to understand why those activities are in place and we need a concrete plan for how those needs will be met via alternate, environmental friendly resources.

To put a more personal spin on this, you might decide to commit to stop using natural gas, another source of CO², to heat your house, but first you need to figure out how else you are going to heat it, because you do need heat.  Once you've decided how you're going to heat your home without natural gas, you need a plan for converting to that method and it's going to cost money, so you also need to budget for it.

Another example; lots of people are looking toward replacing gasoline-powered cars with electrical ones as a way to significantly reduce CO² emissions.  After all, electrically-powered cars produce zero emissions.  No-brainer, right?  Except that electrical cars are expensive and not within everybody's budget, and charging stations are arguably still too few and far between, and charging a battery still takes a heck of a lot longer than filling a gas tank.  

 Further, although the electrical power grid can sustain the handful of E.V. (electric vehicle) owners out there to date, could it also support re-charging the literal millions of E.V.s that will flood the streets once we finally do away with gas-powered cars?  I've read stories about brown-outs and black-outs due only to increased air-conditioner usage during the summer months.  Yet we seem to assume that we can support this and recharging millions of electrical cars without a problem?  

The lithium batteries that power these cars don't have an infinite life span.  How are we going to dispose of or recycle them when they start reaching their end of lives in significant numbers?  And can we produce enough lithium to make the millions of batteries required for all those millions of E.V.s in the first place?  It's considered a "rare earth" mineral for a reason, you know.  

And what kind of CO² emissions are generated by the manufacturing process behind a typical E.V. in the first  place?  Will we simply be replacing the CO² emissions that come from driving our cars, with those that come from manufacturing them?  I haven't heard many of the same people that seem eager to embrace replacing gas-powered cars with E.V.s ask any of the above questions, and I sure haven't heard them answer any of them.

Don't misunderstand me.  This is not a defense of fossil fuels nor a denigration of electrical-powered transportation.  It's simply meant to point out the shortsightedness of those who over-simplify the problem of making the very necessary conversion from greenhouse gas-producing technologies to carbon-free or, at least, carbon-neutral ones.  It's not enough to say that we'll do it or even that we'll do it by a given date.  We need a concrete roadmap that lays out how this will happen; one that acknowledges that costs and inconveniences will have to be endured by all. Until we can do that, I say again ... we're doomed!