Adapting To
Global Warming:
A Modest Proposal
By Gar Lipow
02 April, 2005
Znet
The carbon lobby (mainly the coal and
oil companies) when they don't deny that human cause global warming
exists, suggest that it would be less expensive and more humane to do
nothing about it. "Burn all the fossil fuels you want, and adapt
to the changes" they say. "Doing anything to prevent global
warming is too expensive."
In a spirit of reconciliation
between the coal lobby and environmentalists, I thought I'd put forward
some specific proposals to implement their approach.
In an unchecked
planet greenhouse we would have weather more than climate, warmer on
average, but with unpredictable frosts and snowstorms - some of them
in places we currently don't get snow. Draught would alternate with
floods. Insects would flourish on a warmer planet and pests of all types
would migrate. And of course storms would be worse than at present,
and the average wind speed would be significantly higher.
Finding crops that
are simultaneously draught and flood resistant, adapted to high temperatures,
but able to survive low temperatures, and that are usable by humans
as sources of complete protein and moderately concentrated carbohydrates
(comparable to grain or roots) makes for a fascinating challenge.
One possibility
is to learn how to grow most of our crops indoors. Some parts of Scandinavia
grow a large part of their fruits and vegetables in glass houses, but
I don't know if any nation has ever tried to raise a significant amount
of its grain and animals that way. For at least half a century, there
have been proposals for geodesic and inflatable domes miles in diameter,
but no one could ever come up with a good enough reason to build one;
ignore global warming long enough and we may get one. At any rate if
we really intend to nothing towards prevention, we need to investigate
more seriously how to dome over a tenth to a quarter of the worlds land.
In case this fails,
an alternative possibility is leaf protein. With a centrifuge you can
extract protein from just about any kind of leaf on any kind plant.
So we could simply plant "farms" with whatever kind of biomass
we can get to grow and use centrifuges to extract the protein which
we would then treat and store. Currently leaf protein is extremely expensive
compared to meat; we need a way to bring the price down.
Also leaf protein
is currently extracted from crops planted for just this purpose. An
outdoor "farm" adapted to a greenhouse climate would consist
of mixed plants. These would not be separate rows or beds or even in
the more complex arrangements we find in biointensive gardening. We
would mix a variety of species, suitable for differing climates, completely.
Some varieties would flourish and others fail depending on what the
weather that year was suited to grow. Any wild volunteers would be welcomed;
in a planet greenhouse farm there would be no such thing as a weed.
Now leaf protein
is already expensive compared to animal protein, since it requires more
extensive processing than normal vegetable protein. Extracting the protein
from mixed leaves of a semi-random variety will require some additional
research.
There is one possible
protein source that will actually increase on planet greenhouse - insects.
We even know how to prepare them; there are organizations devoted to
insect eating that have developed extensive recipes; some are reputed
to be quite tasty. The tricky part here is harvesting. Most technology
we have for dealing with insects involves killing or discouraging them.
If we can capture them unpoisoned in large lots, then we can collect
as many bugs as the carbon lobby chooses to feed us.
There is also the
problem of water; even the global warming that is already locked is
expected to decrease the water supply significantly. With an unchecked
warming trend, we will have to provide the majority of our water via
desalinization. Right now the most cost effective water desalination
techniques produce water at about five times the cost of mountaintop
and ground water sources. That needs to be lowered if we intend to adapt
to a full-fledged planet greenhouse rather than prevent one.
Ah, but there is
one other thing we should consider. What if the same people who oppose
doing anything to prevent the worst effects of global warming from happening
don't want to spend the money to learn to live in it? What a surprise
that would be! Well there is still one area they would still desperately
need to research.
If nothing prevents
or mitigates global warming, and no serious research is made in adapting
to it, the world food supply cut by at least one half, probably three
quarters and possibly 90%. Of course water and industrial infrastructure
will also be seriously impacted. The remaining people will be pretty
busy improvising adaptations without a lot of preparation via prior
research. So you will not have a lot of people available to dispose
of the dead - no more than one per thousand bodies, probably as few
as one per ten thousand bodies.
This will be a serious
health hazard to the living, (presumably those who favor doing nothing
to prevent global warming), within a matter of days. In that case we
need to develop techniques whereby one person may find and permanently
dispose of three thousand widely scattered corpses per day unassisted.
I hope those who
oppose mitigation of the global warming, and support simply adapting
to it, find these suggestions helpful.