Global
Warming
I
don't know if anybody else has noticed this, but as I understand it the two
major long term trends we're supposed to be worried about are global warming
and peak oil. The first involves consuming massive amounts of oil into the
future, and the second involves running out of it sometime soon. We can't
do both. So that solves one or the other problem right there.The politicizing of technical issues is a subject I have some familiarity with, having witnessed it first hand at NASA in the lead up to the Challenger accident. I can say from direct experience that when politics enters the picture there is a strong tendency for science to take a back seat.
There is an emerging scientific consensus that the earth is warming due to human activity, but there remains significant uncertainty over what the future trend will be and what course of action is warranted. The core problem from an electoral perspective is to vote into office politicians both capable of understanding the technical issues involved and willing to place reality above politics.
addendum:
(10/27/06) Here are some thoughts on this topic in response to a candidate questionnaire sent from someone in Roebuck-
The software isn't cooperating with your form, so I'll just take it on manual here. I state my thoughts on global warming on my website, under the "Global Warming" menu item along the left under "Issues". I also have some relevant comments under "Hydrogen Cars".
I'll say right off that I don't like politicizing things that aren't politics. That having been said, I also know from experience that the most balanced voices are not typically the loudest.
We know atmospheric CO2 is increasing, and we know the immediate thermodynamic consequence of this. Past that, it gets fuzzy. The problem is that contemporary American politics doesn't generally make it past the "we know" part of even that brief analysis. That's the core political component of the problem.
My big concern is one or more incompletely understood phenomena combining to create a runaway greenhouse effect. That's the potential worst case to be avoided.
After the problem is described, or at least bounded, in the technical field, it then becomes a political question of what course of action is warranted. If the free market can handle it, fine. If political measures are called for, they will obviously have to be global. But it's important to understand that while government research can get to the moon, it can't make it commercially viable to go there, and government subsidy can't make something affordable, it can only transfer the cost elsewhere. In broad terms, if something is the most practical approach it will also be profitable, and if it is profitable then industry will do it. The government mostly just needs to stay out of the way, providing a legal framework and environmental constraints as appropriate, though granted this notion doesn't work as well with very challenging and large scale undertakings like fusion. If draconian measures are called for to protect civilization then they will simply have to be accepted, but such measures carry a substantial burden of justification.
I think a long term ideal global energy paradigm might be electric vehicles powered by some combination of centralized fusion or distributed photovoltaic/wind power. I think plug-in hybrids could have an immediate and significant impact, and I've thought about posting a few of my design sketches and analyses along such lines.
Thanks for your interest and I hope I've answered some of your questions, vote early and often.
Ted Christian
addendum2:
(10/25/07) Here's the politicization of science in plain view. The article concerns Congressional testimony by the CDC about the potential health effects of global warming, and the money quote is-
"The CDC is part of the Department of Health and Human Services and its congressional testimony, as is normal with all agencies, is routinely reviewed by OMB."
What could anybody at the OMB possibly have to contribute to an analysis of the epidemiological consequences of rising global temperature? Absolutely nothing. But they weren't there to add anything. They were there to take things out. Which is completely understandable, in as much as global warming is only happening in the real world, a place political types aren't generally too concerned about.
