In 1942, the US assembled the greatest collection of scientific minds ever brought together in a desert of New Mexico. They had one purpose: to develop an atomic bomb. Now, a new Manhattan Project is needed, this time for peace. Because a meaningful global warming treaty is unlikely to ever be adopted, the US should take the lead in aggressively investing in cleaner energy.
The scientific basis of global warming is unlikely to be firmly established in the near future. As with many environmental issues, it is easy to show correlations (i.e. rising global temperatures and rising carbon dioxide levels) but next to impossible to show a causal relation (i.e. carbon dioxide is what is actually causing the rise in temperatures). The computer power necessary for modeling climate change is staggering, and even the best theoretical model is only as good as its assumptions.
Yet this is by no means an excuse for inaction. Last October was the warmest on record. Global average temperature rise is three times faster in the last 25 years than it has been over the last century.
The potential dangers of global warming are immense. A one-meter rise in average sea-level would result in the loss of 35,000 square kilometers of land and increased flooding in tens of thousands more. Weather patterns could become increasingly unpredictable. Modest change in precipitation patterns could drastically affect agriculture. The global supply and demand for water could be upset. Ecosystems accustomed to the same weather patterns for millennia could be damaged or destroyed.
All of these nightmares are conjectural - it depends on which model you believe. However, the risks of doing nothing outweigh the costs of tackling this problem now, rather than later. Just as one should not allow flammable objects to accumulate around the water heater, we cannot afford to risk dangerous and possibly irreversible harm to our environment for the sake of short term cost savings.
The sad fact is that the Kyoto Accords are woefully inadequate, providing a Band-Aid (or worse, a fig leaf) where surgery is needed. With each passing day, the likelihood of adopting any meaningful global warming initiative fades. The best time would have been in the mid-90's, under a Democratic president when the economy was strong. Even then, the biggest producers of greenhouse gasses would be the least likely to change their behavior. Now, there is little hope for the adoption, let alone the implementation, of a global warming treaty.
What needs to happen is a major investment in the development of cleaner energy. Quite simply, blanket limitations on carbon emissions will not work. The sheer availability of petroleum - more known reserves exist now than ever before - and the low cost of fossil fuels - in real terms, the price for a gallon of gas has fallen 40 percent since 1980 - means that people, especially in poor countries, will not willingly cut their carbon emissions.
Instead, clean energy must be made economically and politically favorable. The US should lead the way in aggressively investing in clean energies: nuclear fusion (not fission), whose byproducts are helium and water; fuel cells, that make electricity out of hydrogen and oxygen; improved solar panel technology; and more efficient utilization of existing fuels could dramatically cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Right now, we are moving in the exact opposite direction. President Bush's budget proposal last year cut $277 million from renewable energy research and development programs. Energy efficiency programs were cut 50 percent.
Of course, the first steps towards solving this problem have been right under our noses for years. More insulation in houses, low-flow faucets, more efficient lighting and most importantly, more fuel efficient cars could squash out energy usage. Federal and state governments, which typically buy large fleets of cars, could lead the way by using hybrid or electric vehicles. It would be particularly easy for them, since they could centrally fuel and maintain them in the absence of a methane or ethanol option at the local Chevron. For its part, the Tufts Climate Initiative deserves praise for helping to bring this about.
By installing minimally expensive insulation and better heating systems, families could shave one-fifth off their heating bill, which is itself a conservative estimate. Over ten years, a family that usually pays $100 per month on electricity would save $2,400.
Likewise, buying a Honda Civic which gets 32 miles per gallon as opposed to a Jeep Cherokee which gets 20 miles per gallon will save $273 per year, assuming one drives 200 miles a week. Sports utility vehicles and light trucks are able to circumvent fuel efficiency laws, adding to the problem. Implementing a modest increase in average fuel efficiency would get us more gas than we could ever hope to find in Alaska.
The problems will increasingly shift outside the US, particularly to Asia. China especially will pump out greenhouse gasses like no other. If every person in China had a car - a stated goal of Beijing - then there would be more cars in China than currently exist in the world. The implications of this are mind-boggling.
The sprouting of dirty coal burning power plants will compound the problem. Cities are being built with little consideration for environmental damage. Many new buildings in Chinese cities lack central air-conditioning, hugely increasing their energy use. Inadequate urban planning and poor public transportation means that people will have to drive long distances to their places of work. And India will soon have even more people than China.
This is all the more reason to develop a clean, cheap, efficient alternative to fossil fuels. If the alternative exists and saves money, it will be used. Just as the Manhattan project accomplished a huge goal in a remarkably short period of time, we need to get the best scientific minds of our time, give them resources and lock them away in New Mexico until they come up with a good alternative to fossil fuels. The longer we put off dealing with this problem, the greater the costs will be in the future.
