Wednesday, October 28, 2009

Let's Trust Science to Fix Climate Change

Ask anyone who knows me and they will tell you that I am, generally, a skeptic/pessimist. Generally, I follow clear thinking, factual analyses of complex issues rather than the media talking heads and the fringe groups making the most noise on the marginal right and left.

So, imagine my surprise and excitement when I read Freeman Dyson's uplifting, optimistic view of climate change some years ago. I was reminded of this optimism last evening when I read "BRAVE THINKERS: A Retrospective," an article in the November issue of THE ATLANTIC MONTHLY.

Here is what was said verbatim:

Name: Freeman Dyson

Job: Professor Emeritus, Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton
Why he’s brave: He’s taking a contrarian view on the Kyoto Protocol.
Quote: “I like to express heretical opinions. They might even happen to be true.”

Dyson, a renowned physicist and pioneer in quantum electrodynamics theory, has lately committed a heresy without equal in modern science: questioning climate change orthodoxy. Dyson doesn’t deny that excess carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is warming the planet. But he predicts that advances in bio-technology—especially the creation of genetically-engineered carbon-eating plants, which he foresees within two decades—will mitigate the damage with a minimum of economic and social disruption. In the meantime, he argues that large-scale carbon-restricting approaches like the Kyoto Protocol are ineffective and disproportionately hurt developing countries like China and India, where the potential to lift millions of people out of poverty now hinges on access to carbon-spewing industries. Such arguments have won him few friends; he describes the interaction between the majority of scientists holding conventional climate change views and the skeptical minority as a “dialogue of the deaf.” But in Dyson’s case, at least those arguments have evolved from a lifetime of scientific rigor and intellectual honesty.

So, Freeman Dyson, world-renowned physicist and rigorous intellectual contrarian, argues optimistically that carbon-eating plants will come to our rescue in the same way that oil-eating microbes have assisted us in cleaning up oil transport accidents, in the same way that science has assisted farmers in being more productive and less environmentally damaging. Of particular importance, it seems to me, is Dyson's concern that human-created scientific discovery and advancement will solve our greenhouse gas problems in the same way that Jonas Salk defeated polio. This optimistic, American can-do attitude brings with it the promise of enormous environmental benefit with a "minimum of social and economic impact."

Who do you trust more to solve our world's problems? Politicians and bureaucrats, or esteemed scientists like Freeman Dyson and the rigors of scientific inquiry?

Being a common sense person, like most people, I cast my vote for Freeman Dyson and science.

1 comment:

  1. I'm curious- The author is obviously someone who esteems logical reasoning in his judgement. Why is "carbon eating plants" so much better of a solution than cap auction trade?

    We can sit back and wait for these "carbon eating plants", and sit on our hands while climate change continues to promote chaos in our weather systems, our water cycles, and promote greater political polarization in our country. But even if such technology was availiable today (and some do claim it is available, as evident by a simply google search), it would still have to be rigorously tested, developed for multiple growing regions/climates, adapted to multiple plant species, mass produced, and transported. I'm curious why i should be optomistic for such plants, when the prediction comes from a physicist (renowed, yes) who specializs in quantum electrodynamics theory? How is this profession/academia related to bio-engineering?

    Not a quick fix by any means. All the while the island nation of Tuvalu will disappear under the rising sea levels, Shishmaref, Alaska will be under water, civil war in other nations will escalate because of scant resources.... and we'll just continue poisoning American citizens with toxins from coal fired power plants.

    Why should we do that when we know that Cap, Auction, Trade can work?

    It's been proven to work in our efforts to stop acid rain; we have working models in the east coast United states; and an even bigger model in the EU.

    Why is it logical to allow the perfect (carbon eating plants) to become the enemy of the sufficient (Cap, Auction, Trade)?


We welcome your comments about today’s important energy issues.

Please keep in mind that comments will be reviewed before posting. Any comments that include offensive language, personal attacks, or statements that could be interpreted as hatred or harassment will not be posted.

Thank you for helping us keep an informative, thought-provoking site.