In an opinion column in the the NY Times a while back, Friedman's "The Earth is Full" provides a perspective that I've read before.
Repeatedly.
Two articles in the May issue of Scientific American connect to what Friedman is talking about and the Panglossian outlook from the "eco-optimist" Paul Gilding that Friedman quotes from extensively.
But I'm no eco-optimist.
As Daniel T. Willingham relates in "Trust Me, I'm a Scientist," "Because we want to see ourselves as rational beings, we find reasons to maintain that our beliefs are accurate. One or two contrarians are sufficient to convince us that the science is 'controversial' or 'unsettled.'"
It's difficult to move people mainly on logical appeals, which scientists have been trying to do for decades upon decades. Scientists who study global warming have been banging up against beliefs for a long time. I'm repeating myself a bit since last month I covered some of this ground in "This Has All Been Related Before." But what the hell.
In a more hopeful vein, the editors of Scientific American feature seven "Radical Energy Solutions" that are rated on their likelihood to happen and their potential impacts. The seven are these: "fusion-triggered fission," "solar gasoline," "quantam photovoltaics," "heat engines," "shock-wave auto engine," "magnetic air conditioners," and "clean(er) coal."
Solar Gasoline, aka "syngas" created by concentrated solar collectors, sounds pretty cool to me, an invention that might have a partial answer to the satirical lyrics of Merle Haggard's old song, "Rainbow Stew."
If you don't like eating rainbow stew, James Howard Kunstler's The Long Emergency is a book to read, especially if you have a darker sensibility or if you're no eco-optimist.
No comments:
Post a Comment