Global warming and power usage

 

Reading in The Guardian that the need for minerals to use in the production of electric cars is driving undersea mining, and that this mining is likely to be disruptive to an already threatened marine environment, prompted me to offer an alternative theory. Unfortunately it does not offer any easy solutions to global pollution and climate change, but if I am correct it means that we are diving off down a dead end route which will not actually solve any of the problems.

First of all, I continue to be slightly sceptical that the current upward trends in global temperatures are totally anthropogenic in nature. Warming periods have come and gone throughout Earth’s long and turbulent history, and historically we are overdue for the next ice age, a phenomenon which seems from the available paleontology evidence to have been preceded on each occasion by a very warm period. (Think, for example, of the evidence that there were wild hippopotamuses in London 125,000 years ago.)  Suggestions that the ocean currents may be changing in the North Atlantic as a result of ice-sheet melt in Canada may be an indication that this is still a possibility.

One thing that we can definitely say, however, is that human generation of energy has exploded in the last two centuries. The whole question of carbon and other greenhouse gases pales by comparison – does it matter how we generate energy if consuming it will, by the law of thermodynamics, create heat? Is it irrelevant that cities and big towns, with their large populations all consuming energy, are noticeably warmer than rural areas? It seems too much a matter of common sense (and science often flies in the face of common sense perfectly legitimately), but I have found no sign of anyone, scientist or not, considering this possibility publicly. Is this because it is a mad idea with nothing to recommend it, or because (unscientifically) the whole of climate science has become obsessed with greenhouse gases to the exclusion of other possibilities for global warming explanations.

Ultimately, whatever we do, like many climate scientists I doubt whether it is actually possible for humanity to prevent rising temperatures to the extent we would need to in order to avoid such problems as the inundation of low-lying land across the globe and the consequent displacement of its inhabitants. Preparedness for many eventualities seems the best thing to focus on. What they are likely to be would also be a better focus for scientific research and speculation than a continuous procession of new climate models and ever-more-doom-laden scenarios. People respond best to hope via positive action; doing what we can actually do and having some success in it, rather than becoming depressed because what we are trying to do is futile in the face of Earth’s mechanisms.

Instead of mining minerals to make electric engines to replace oil-burning ones, or accepting that more energy will be needed for an expanding population for whom modern means of communication and living require more and more electric power for more and more devices, should we in fact be majoring on reducing power consumption and making all electrical goods more fuel-efficient? Is it better, for example, to buy a really economical petrol engined vehicle rather than an electric one that consumes more energy, even in an apparently more environmentally friendly form? This is a question that we should be debating, I think, and at least some research resources should be devoted to it. If another ice age comes (and they can arrive quickly in climate terms), we shall need to have fuel-efficient technologies at the ready if we are not to freeze to death.