h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Take a hypothetical situation: A scientist developps a new catalytic coverter for automobiles which will reduce emmisions by 50-90%. Great on the the face of it, right? But doesn't this just take the pressure off mankind to developp and use environmentally (and politcally) safer fuels? Doesn't this invention just "enable" mankind to continue using fossil fuels?

Is this a "good" invention? Should it be implemented? How do you identify inventions which enable, as opposed to those which really improve the planet?

What other examples are there of this?

Mankind will not be 'enabled' to use fossil fuels for more than other 40 years or so, as scarcity will drive prices sky-high. The lack of resources, rather than worry over environmental damage, has always been the incentive to change energy resource.

B

But is it being enabled during those 40 years?

To quote a Saudi prince "The stone age didn't end for lack of stone."

What previous energy resources did mankind stop using because we ran out of it?

Wood in europe?

My answers are Yes, No, Yes, Yes, Yes, Depends on what you mean by improving the planet and Can't think of one at the moment.

It's not an either-or situation. Just because there are "enabling" breakthroughs doesn't mean that there are lots of other people trying to make momentous breakthroughs using other technologies, fuel cell, biomass etc. All development companies have their eyes on the grand prize, which is to them the capturing of the market in the long term. If they have the right technology when the fuel runs out, they win.

You still seem to be missing the point, Della. If fossil fuels are cheap, efficient and economical, very few people will give a monkeys what they are doing to the environment, as long as there is a profit.

"What previous energy resources did mankind stop using because we ran out of it?"

Have you not seen the graphs of world population increasing exponentially in the last 100 years? We _are_ plundering resources, but only to maintain progress and stay alive. Of course previous resources weren't run into extinction. That's because the people capable of using them was a fraction of what it is now.

B

I don't understand what you mean by either or situation...what isn't an either or situation?

B

haven't you seen the use of buses which run on fuel cells (or other "Clean" technology). Why are they in use, if not to reduce pollution?

There have been a few examples of societies that have completely collapsed as a result of the mis-use of the available natural materials. The Easter Islands is probably the best known one. Another example is the early settlement of Greenland. There are other examples of societies that have diversified into different technologies when threatened with the complete end of an existing material. It's a complex question. Jared Diamond has just written a book "Collapse" that discusses this in a lot more detail.

There are lots of options open to humanity other than fossil fuel, and there is a significant amount of research taking place to try to make them economically feasible. The fact that some people might make current technologies more efficient is not a problem in the short term - in fact it is highly desireable to prevent short-term economic collapse. Other people will continue to look at "bleeding edge" technologies during this time because they see money there over a longer period.

An "either-or situation" means that we either invest in fossil fuels OR we invest in breakthrough technologies: we can't do either. That is not the case however. We can do both, and you will find that different companies will take different strategies to suit them

So now you're saying that alternative energy resources are a good thing, then?

B

What worries me is: what will we do for plastics?

Recycle maybe? Or get really good at woodworking. Wooden cellphone anyone?

Bio plastics is the next thing there isn't it?

I believe that we have about 300 years worth of coal underneath us, at previous power generation usage rates I assume. I understand too that there are complete drawings of the BR Class 9F steam loco's ( used to be called "spaceships" because of the gap betwee Boiler and wheels) so we could go back to steam owered railways ( happy days!) .

Since coal is part way to oil I think it is also possible to derive petroleun type products for drugs & plstics from it. Hugely expensive technology no doubt, but if the oil runs out....?

Meanwhile I revert IMHO to the use of nuclear energy to provide power and preserve oil stocks as far as we can,

Novo ( the Naive)

I can't help but read this as 'If we develop something that goes some of the way towards dealing with our enviromental issues won't this stop us trying to develop other things to deal with our enviromental issues' The alternative would be not to develop/implement anything until we can make our ecological footprint 0 in one big step.

I don't think we can turn it around quickly enough. Our society won't be able to change quickly enough. Still, just because I don't think it can be done is no reason not to try and hope for it. Any step in the right directions welcome.

Good point about the plastics, I'd forgotten about that

Excellent point Acid Override! That definitely puts it into a new light for me. There is no way I could imagine society building this complicated, environmentally friendly structure over the course of 50 years, and suddenly applying it with wonderous effect.

Let me add some details. An improved catalytic converter would reduce poisonous/toxic emmissions of NOx compounds, CO, and hydrocarbons. But it would still produce our little friend CO2, one of the green house gases. So although it could reduce smog and poison, it would do nothing for the green house effect.

Now hypotheically, let's assume we have a perfect, improved catalytic convertor. Now there is no direct visible damaging exhaust from cars. People can no longer see the problem - it's just this hypothetical global warming (as opposed to smog - which is right in your face if you live in Houstan, LA or Mexico City).

By removing a warning sign about pollution, is the perfect catalytic convertor "bad"?