Lee Wochner: Writer. Director. Writing instructor. Thinker about things.


Good news for 2018 – #4

#4. Real climate change correction is becoming feasible.

No, I’m not Pollyanna, and yes, we should remain alarmed about global warming. But there is cause for careful optimism. This is based on a number of factors:

  1. Carbon-cleaning technology already exists. The best future outcome for preventing the environmental apocalypse forecast in the “Blade Runner” movies is probably a combination of reducing carbon output, and offsetting (via trees, etc.) or cleaning the carbon we do generate. We already know how to do this, and many countries have written carbon-cleaning technology into their infrastructure plans.
  2. Almost every nation on Earth recognizes the problem and has pledged to do at least something about it. (No need to guess which is the only country that has not made — okay, revoked — that pledge. It’s us. As in U.S.)
  3. There’s money to be made in dealing with this problem. As recent history will tell you, once there’s money to be made, action happens. If carbon emissions fuel global warming (which they do), and global warming increases costs for nations and their constituent industries (insurance; agriculture; healthcare — and plus pretty much everyone else, in increased sickness and decrease productivity), then clearly there’s a market for fixing the problem. If you invest in the stock market, you might want to take a look at stocks related to carbon-cleaning technology.
  4. China is the world’s largest polluter, putting out about twice the level of carbon dioxide emissions as the U.S.  China is now facing the very real impacts of pollution and climate change — and is now emerging as a leader in the fight against global warming. They’re committed to this, because they know it’s real. We shouldn’t waste any time drawing comparisons with the actions of our own federal “government,” now populated by the sort of anti-science religious fundamentalists we used to more commonly associate with radicals in the Middle East; instead, we should vote them out, and be glad that least polluter #1 (China) and polluter #3 (the European Union) are on the case.

Environmental collapse is our greatest threat, and undoubtedly we’re in for a rough time of it. But given awareness of the situation, market incentives, and growing technology, we may be able to work our way out of it or reduce the impacts. That’s good news for next year, and for beyond.

7 Responses to “Good news for 2018 – #4”

  1. Dan Says:

    I want to say I really appreciate the thought & effort that go into these posts.

  2. Lee Wochner Says:

    Thank you. I know many, many people who need a pick-me-up right now when they think about the future — including myself some days.

  3. Jim Markley Says:

    Oh, please. You sound like a propagandist for the far left. My arguments are too long to go into while typing on an iPhone. Suffice it to say that climatologists have reported global warming and cooling cycles for millennia. And now, THIS cycle is artificial and manmade? How arrogant!

  4. Lee Wochner Says:

    If climatologists have been reporting ANYTHING for millennia, I’d like to meet them! The oldest person I personally know of reached only 102. Who ARE these millennials? Science needs to investigate them!

    “Far left.” Nice try. I know that anyone who dares disagree with the extreme-right radicals gets labeled by them as “far left” — but it’s not working.

    In those millennia that your friends have been reporting from first-hand, have they noticed that carbon emissions have increased dramatically over the past 200 years, due to technology? Or is their only “science” from the book of Genesis?

  5. Jim Markley Says:

    Sorry if it was misleading. The climatologists have reported the cycles have been occurring for millennia. But I suspect you knew that. Not denying that carbon emissions have increased, but have not seen or heard any conclusive evidence that proves a causative, exclusive relationship between carbon emissions and global warming. Perhaps the carbon emissions are responsible for the continuing healing of ozone layer! Now that would be ironic. I just think that we are too insignificant to be able to influence the global environment in a significant way at this time. I believe that pollution is bad, and we have a responsibility to keep our

  6. Lee Wochner Says:

    It used to be that climate-change deniers denied that it was happening at all, and so we should do nothing. Now that the visual proof is irrefutable, they’ve changed the argument to this one: it’s always been happening, and so we should do nothing.

    I think we should do something. Like: use the technology that already exists to clean the atmosphere and the oceans, invest in renewables and clean energy, and reduce use of old, bad technology and fuel sources.

    Call me crazy.

    97% of the world’s scientists are with me; the 3% whose studies are funded by, say, oil companies, disagree.

    Why take a chance that I’m wrong? It makes no sense.

  7. Jim Markley Says:

    Three problems I see; One, the cleanup is never equitable. Some nations don’t care about environmentalism and will ignore good examples. Secondly, who decides when the planet is sufficiently cleaned? Finally, where does all the money come from?
    Even if we all drove electric cars, the electricity usually comes from nuclear or coal powered plants. Solar power is nice but not viable on a large scale basis. Wind turbines are a possibility, but they’re noisy, kill birds and even Teddy Kennedy didn’t like the sight of them near his house.
    My point is we’re already exploring possibilities. But we have not come up with a long-term replacement for coal, natural gas, or fossil fuels. Let the market drive the research, and some creative scientist, perhaps one working for an oil company, will come up with a solution.
    BTW, I’ve never heard of any scientist that’s totally against any alternative. Cheap and renewable. Why take a chance that you’re wrong? One word: money. Most people want the government to pay for their pet ideas. If ones idea is economically feasible, they should b able to get investors. If not, don’t take my money to invest in your idea which could make you rich and leave me poorer!

Leave a Reply