I am living in a country where environmental questions in on the daily political agenda. The question on global warming have been discussed widely and is at the moment changed from a discussion based on scientific data turned into a discussion more and less based on political propaganda (on both poles in the debate) The right wing government have by political directive initiated a research study which have been asked to prove that global warming is a product of solar cycles, another institution (Institute for environmental evaluation) was created by the government to initiate a debate where economics and environments is directly linked, based on cost-benefit analyses. (Yes we get global warming, but we get cheaper cars, more employment too) The last model have more or less failed, as the institute was mostly producing high-level nonsense, which raised debate in the press, but at the same time emptied the debate from scientific understanding and thinking. The institute failed to produce more serious based evidence for its views and faced that its role was propagandistic and not scientific. The institute is now slowly phasing out its existence. (so no one realises that it could not give any new scientific based research contradicting the human factor in global warming) This is of course described in a very simplistic mode by me, but I think the debate on the global warming and the future for the environment on Earth is so influenced by political propaganda and commercial interests that it is very difficult to discuss these question it in a sober scientific way. For most of us here at this list, which I think is very visionary and see the Earth as a part of a larger system, we must realize that destroying the life support system is the most dangerous activity we can do. If we are influenced from outside factors influencing the life support system onboard Earth we must calculate this in our work to protect ourselves against destruction. We do have the technology to minimize CO2 emissions; we do have the technology to develop transportation and energy production which minimize the CO2 production, we do have the knowledge that ecological systems often is vulnerable, we all know that we are on a global scheme consuming more than we need, and that we like grasshoppers eat down the basis for our global survival. What I think is the most dangerous idea, which lies underneath the public environmental debate, is the idea that scientific based investigation and discussion of the problems can be overridden by political statements. That scientist and science is some kind of maniacs, who will destroy society if the is not suppressed. The republican war against scientists, which often gives unpleasant views, is very similar to the experience in my country. The market will solve the problem, not science. Maybe this a pessimist approach, but at least it is very similar to the view of the present Astronomer Royal in Britain : in 50 years we will destroy ourselves, if nothing is done. We live in the technical and scientific most advanced of our civilizations, but this knowledge is mostly ignored by the rulers of societal power. As long as we do not in a scientific way, analyse the problems to give a background for solutions, the idea that politics can override reality will stand (at least among those in power) And that of course is easier said, but done. But I think we as both intellectuals and academics do have the responsibility to continue discussing and working for a more scientific approach to solving the problems. Best regards jesper Fra: ssi_list@... [mailto:ssi_list@... P vegne af Peter Schubert
Sendt: 26. november 2005 14:35
Til: ssi_list@...

Aren't we being a little dramatic here. I always point out to every
environmentalist bent on telling me that the world is being destroyed
that every drop of oil and every lump of coal at one time in the past
was part of the biosphere, and the fact we are having this
conversation is proof that we can't add enough carbon to the
atmosphere to destroy the eco-system of this planet.

This is not a good argument; the climate was not anything like this
when much more (or less) of the carbon was in the atmosphere. Humans
have only been on the Earth for a few million of the Earth's few Billion
years. Mammals only a few tens of millions. The Earth has been hostile
to all macroscopic species (but not to microorganisms). It is fair to
say that 99.9 % (probably 99.999%) of all of the species of large plants
and animals that have ever lived on Earth have been driven to extinction
by Earth. Our civilizations have arisen during the only 10 thousand
year period of climate stability in the past millions of years. We do
not know yet know what we are doing to Earth by putting so much carbon
into the atmosphere, and we don't know for sure it will be that bad, but
it may be, and that could mean all of our grandkids will die unless we
can get some space colonies going as O'Neill envisioned. I don't mind
if you want to risk your progeny, but we are all in this together, and
if we all go so do our cultures, industries, languages, religions, and
sciences, nearly everything that we value. It is foolish to risk so
much.

The one thing to remember is that all earths carbon
has been bound up in some way at different times,
either as CO2, or calcium carbonate(sea shells) etc.
Rarely has there been so much of it released into the
atmosphere as CO2 as has happened in the last 100
years.

This is actually quite incorrect. The geological record shows that we
have been in an unusually low CO2 environment for the last 2 million
years or so. Evidence from fosillized sea shells indicate that the CO2
was much higher for very long periods of time. In fact we seem to be
in one of the geologically short (2 - 10 million years) of unusually
low levels of atmospheric CO2.

I'd like to see references to those geological
records,,,

Jasper, thanks for your insights.

To say that the CO2 content of the Earth's atmosphere has been higher at
other times does not address the important point, and that is, what was
the weather and climate like then? Could we still grow grains and
potatoes under those conditions? If not, then that makes the point that
our making it higher now will cause mass starvation. Jay Huebner

--- In ssi_list@... GARY ANSORGE
>
> I'd like to see references to those geological
> records,,,

I am a simple lawyer, without quite the level of technological sophistication many of you possess. However, I am scientifically literate enough to understand the threat that our fossil fuel based technologies pose to the environment that supports us, and I am politically savvy enough to understand that only an organized campaign can influence a large enough segment of the American electorate to make a difference.
Instead of reinventing the wheel, what this group needs to do is discover which of the existing environmental advocacy groups already out there is doing the best job on this issue, and help inform that group of the potential role space-based solar power systems could play in solving the problem. I would guess that the Natural Resources Defense Council would be the best bet, though I could be persuaded otherwise. Anyone have any comments on this?
--Mark Wallach

Excellent idea Mark.

Message

Greetings Mark, "Instead of reinventing the wheel, what this group needs to do is discover which of the existing environmental advocacy groups already out there is doing the best job on this issue, and help inform that group of the potential role space-based solar power systems could play in solving the problem." I'm guessing the leadership will have to come from individuals within groups like this because the issues are very very conplex. We don't have the baggage ofexisting organizationsthat hold hardened opinions on what success looks like. If you areleadingthe Sierra Club you have to face up to the difference between what gets your membership fired up and what is good in the long term. Climate change does not seem to be something that most people areready to confront. My experience working with bright objective professionals that dispute global warming is that of watching them switch to fatalism and depression once I have presented enough evidence. They want a solution that retains their lifestyle the way that cheap oil and disregard ofconsequences does. Even the promise of SPS can seem like battering to them with regime change and a collosal shift of political power. We are faced with a world populace that embraces Democracy and free markets over their more politically corrupt bretheren. Here lies the satire that even Democracy is prone to failure if the majority of people ignore a problem until it builds to a crisis. Free markets do not guarantee either security or the consistent availability of resources. Neither of these are particularly good at advancing a costly 40-year drive to industrialize the moon. My hope is that we can be clear in our message that the world is not doomed to any one of a number of grim fates. We are not limited to the resources only on this planet. Every person in both India and China can have the same material wealth as the average Suburban American and God forbid - the same problems. Any mess at the poles or caused by sea level rise can be addressed. This is our greatest asset - that we can be hopeful in the face of the grimest news about declining reserves of oil, icecaps melting, elderly aging, etc. Eventually this will burn through the indifference that surrounds us in the wider population. We have only to settle on a coherent message of a reasonable success and place ourselves in view of the public like ever other political group. I strongly prefera space vision that holds to the lowest common denominator - that of proven techniques and simple goals. It has to be a simple message that we can reinforce.

Greetings Mark, "Instead of reinventing the wheel, what this group needs to do is discover which of the existing environmental advocacy groups already out there is doing the best job on this issue, and help inform that group of the potential role space-based solar power systems could play in solving the problem." I'm guessing the leadership will have to come from individuals within groups like this because the issues are very very conplex. We don't have the baggage ofexisting organizationsthat hold hardened opinions on what success looks like. If you areleadingthe Sierra Club you have to face up to the difference between what gets your membership fired up and what is good in the long term. Climate change does not seem to be something that most people areready to confront. My experience working with bright objective professionals that dispute global warming is that of watching them switch to fatalism and depression once I have presented enough evidence. They want a solution that retains their lifestyle the way that cheap oil and disregard ofconsequences does. Even the promise of SPS can seem like battering to them with regime change and a collosal shift of political power. We are faced with a world populace that embraces Democracy and free markets over their more politically corrupt bretheren. Here lies the satire that even Democracy is prone to failure if the majority of people ignore a problem until it builds to a crisis. Free markets do not guarantee either security or the consistent availability of resources. Neither of these are particularly good at advancing a costly 40-year drive to industrialize the moon. My hope is that we can be clear in our message that the world is not doomed to any one of a number of grim fates. We are not limited to the resources only on this planet. Every person in both India and China can have the same material wealth as the average Suburban American and God forbid - the same problems. Any mess at the poles or caused by sea level rise can be addressed. This is our greatest asset - that we can be hopeful in the face of the grimest news about declining reserves of oil, icecaps melting, elderly aging, etc. Eventually this will burn through the indifference that surrounds us in the wider population. We have only to settle on a coherent message of a reasonable success and place ourselves in view of the public like ever other political group. I strongly prefera space vision that holds to the lowest common denominator - that of proven techniques and simple goals. It has to be a simple message that we can reinforce.