Climate change: only the radical use of technology can save the planet
The conclusions of a paper recently published in the journal Nature, “Current fossil fuel infrastructure does not yet commit to 1.5 ° C warming”, has attracted widespread comment: under current conditions, we could still avoid global warming above the 1.5ºC set as critical by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) if we immediately start winding down fossil fuel technology, that is, if we do not renew installations that currently use it, assuming a useful life of 40 years for coal plants and cement kilns, 15 years for automobiles and 25 years for aircraft and ships. These sources are jointly responsible for 85% of the emissions that cause global warming, which would give us a 64% chance of staying below the fateful level of 1.5ºC. If we delay until 2030, the probabilities fall to below 33%.
Sadly, everything indicates that, whatever the report says, the chances of withdrawing these technologies are practically nil. A part of humanity is too busy making money to think about something as insignificant as saving the planet and human civilization. While some are trying to calculate the time we have left, others are still committed to opening coal plants or manufacturing internal combustion engines. In fact, another study, described by Joshua Goldstein in his recent book “A bright future”, argues that the withdrawal of fossil fuels is only possible if we return to nuclear power, which the public seems opposed to. Nuclear power plants are very efficient, but nobody wants one in their backyard.
Another solution would be to work on further developing technologies to reduce the emissions produced by cement plants, along with electric aircrafts, as well of course as building on the successes of Tesla, the brand that has garnered more loyalty among owners, who seem to be already driving other companies in the motor industry to compete to produce better electric vehicles, along with technologies to improve and speed up battery charging.
I firmly believe, and have argued many times that technology is more than able to meet the most important challenge facing humanity today. The problem is that there are too many vested interests playing down the risk, while others argue that the cost of reducing emissions would reduce our standard of living. The way to save a planet that will largely be uninhabitable in a few decades is not to ban internal combustion vehicles by 2040 or 2050, because by that time, there will be nothing left to save.
The only solution is to ban the manufacture of such vehicles within a couple of years at most and to force the auto industry to make competitively priced electric cars. The internal combustion engine has had its day, the car makers have made their money, and now we need to turn the page and move on. While we continue to kick the can down the road, we will continue to fail to meet deadlines and are simply condemning ourselves to a desolate future.
(En español, aquí)
