Priorities: Carbon Emissions vs. Developing Technologies

According to this article by the Telegraph, every time a cow farts, it contributes negatively to climate change. Flatulence produced by livestock account for at least half of all animal-produced greenhouse gases. Although this example concerns methane, carbon dioxide ranks as the most commonly discussed greenhouse gas. Carbon dioxide emissions come from all sorts of sources, not just cars and factories. Needless to say, the fact that carbon dioxide causes climate change (and we produce this CO2 in almost everything we do) creates a problem. This Nature article argues that in order to reverse climate change, we shouldn't worry so much about current carbon emissions as we should about producing new, carbon-reducing technologies. On the other hand, I feel that it is necessary to produce new technologies in conjunction with reducing our current carbon emissions at the same time in order to truly reverse climate change.

The author argues that in order to reduce climate change, developmental technologies need to take priority over setting carbon-emission-reducing goals. Correct me if I’m wrong, but aren’t carbon emissions what are causing all of this madness in the first place? I thought it seemed a little odd that they had this idea that we could go on continuing to pollute the atmosphere and emit billions of tons of carbon into it. No biggie, whatevs. I’m not saying I don’t understand the importance of inventing new, greener technologies, because I definitely do. What I am saying is that while we are off in the science labs developing these miracle workers, we can’t just completely disregard the fact that we are emitting more carbon every minute.

This article actually even discourages reducing CO2 emissions or implementing a carbon tax because it could stifle economic growth. Okay, that’s a relief. So while the sea levels are rising, the food chain falling apart, and pollution inhibits us from breathing it will be okay because we are economically prosperous! Money has zero influence if you don’t even have an earth to spend it in.

The Nature article actually does admit that “stabilizing the climate is a huge technological challenge and the solutions of ready-to-deploy, scalable low-carbon technologies is far from being a reality.” Ah, there’s the rub. That‘s the first thing that came to my mind. It took, what, one hundred years to perfect the hybrid? Yep, the first electric car was invented in 1898. And look how many people are driving hybrid 112 years later. A very, very small percentage. What I think this Nature article lacked was the realization that although we might invent amazing, climate-change-reversing technologies, you still have to factor in the number of years it would take to invent, produce, and FULLY implement this revolutionary technology. People don’t like change, and they aren’t going to budge so easily. So when the article recommended that we just continue emitting CO2 until 2050 and THEN start decreasing output, I knew that was not such a hot plan.

It occurred to me that although we may produce technologies to decrease our current output of carbon, we might not be able to invent anything that reduces the carbon levels already put into the atmosphere by yours truly. Those kajillions of tons dumped there between now and 2050 could possibly remain right where they are. According to this article, if we adopt a “business as usual” approach to carbon emissions, they could double by 2050. In the 90’s we were emitting over 30 billion tons, imagine how much we are now. And now imagine that number doubled. Woah dang. But, on the other hand, according to this article, if we halve our carbon emissions by 2050 global warming could possibly be stabilized. Isn't that the goal here?

We all understand that technological change is vital, but it is important to make an effort now as well instead of continuing on this carbon-producing spree. We are doing irreparable damage already. It could be too late by the time our revolutionary technology rolls around.