|
Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:59 |
By CHUCK BENNETT
A well-made, well-intentioned, well-timed movie can be a powerful motivator for social change.
Al Goreís ìAn Inconvenient Truthî is a perfect example; his movie and book have stimulated an enormously important public discourse on global warming that comes just in time or maybe even too late. Millions of voters from across the political spectrum are now acutely aware of an issue that may affect them and will certainly affect their descendants unless something is done. Democrats and greens are getting some well deserved traction here, so itís not surprising to see skeptical conservatives.
Marlo Lewis of the Competitive Enterprise Institute is a particularly
articulate critic who, with the sponsorship of the conservative John
Locke Foundation, spoke recently at a luncheon at the Grove Park Inn.
In case you missed it, there is a detailed summary of Mr. Lewisí
critique at http://www.cei.org/pdf/5820.pdf. For an overview, see the
front-page article by John North in the April 18th issue of the Daily
Planet.
Evidence for global warming comes from the scientific community and Al
Gore and Marlo Lewis are not scientists. It is important to distinguish
between scientific observation and speculation. Scientists observe
objectively, verifying important observations for repeatability and
accuracy, in the process eliminating any bias of conviction and dogma.
So, for example, if 928 scientists confirm that ambient levels of
carbon dioxide are on the rise, you can be confident that this is in
fact happening. Speculations into the future are not nearly so certain.
Complex models have many parameters that require assumptions which can
of course be biased, and experimental verification is usually not
possible other than to wait a while to see if predictions based on the
model turn out to be true.
Interpretation of existing data often requires assumptions that cause
good scientists to disagree. For example, two scientists might agree on
the trace gas analysis of an ice-core sample, but disagree entirely on
whether or not there was a warming trend in the Middle Ages. It is
customary for scientists to acknowledge a preceding range of opinion,
but politicians are prone to pick-and-choose. So Gore picks opinions
supporting his position that global warming is occurring now, and Lewis
chooses counter-opinions in his attempt to undermine Goreís
credibility. If you feel confused, just keep in mind that this is
politics and not science.
Lewis and Gore agree that global warming will occur eventually, and
Gore believes that the effects are significant now. Either way, weíre
in for trouble. The good news is that this problem has a solution that
is both obvious and relatively simple, but both Lewis and Gore are
afraid to suggest it. Riding a bike, driving a hybrid and covering your
roof with solar cells will only forestall the inevitable. We need an
abundant source of energy that does not release greenhouse gasses.
Fortunately, there is one: nuclear. Politicians avoid this word
carefully, but it is the only solution that can sustain the quality of
life that we are accustomed to.
It is time for a science lesson. There are two available nuclear
solutions that can help us: fission and fusion.
We know how to build
fission reactors, but building a fusion reactor will require research.
We can start work on fission reactors today that could begin to provide
energy in under a decade. Meanwhile, we can get to work on solving the
engineering details of fusion. Fusion is particularly attractive. The
fuel for a fusion reactor comes right out of seawater, and with fusion,
there is as much energy available in a gallon of seawater as released
by burning 300 gallons of gasoline. With focused effort, we could
expect to have working fusion reactors in about 50 years. Using fission
in the short term and fusion in the long term will solve the global
greenhouse problem.
There is another looming problem that the politicians wonít discuss. If
you want to read something really scary, look up Hubbert Peak Theory on
Wikipedia, or just Google for ìpeak oil.î There is credible reason to
believe that the days of abundant oil have passed. Of course,
greenhouse emissions will decline if there is less fossil fuel to burn,
but imagine the effects to an economy and quality of life that cannot
be sustained by adequate energy resources. Once again, nuclear energy
is the solution and it looks like weíre going to need it sooner rather
than later.
If nuclear energy is such an obvious and compelling solution, why is there such silence from both Lewis and Gore?
You may remember another notable movie from 1979: ìThe China Syndrome.î
This was another well-intentioned movie that had the enormous effect of
spawning a generation of anti-nuclear activists in numbers that
politicians on both sides of the aisle will not ignore.
In fact, there has not been a single fission reactor built in the
United States since this movie was made and over the same period the
national budget for fusion energy research has been drastically reduced.
What we need now is a generation of pro-nuclear advocates with sufficient voice to encourage our politicians to act.
If you are seriously concerned about global warming, then you will become one of them.
ï
Bennett is professor of physics at UNC Asheville, with research
interests that include fusion energy and atmospheric-pollution
technology.
|
