Recent news report have been talking about how Russia is planning a massive effort to put together a system to prevent the collision of a large asteroid with the Earth. NASA also has a program to monitor space for large objects that could come close to the planet and to make plans for dealing with any objects that have a significant probability of impacting the Earth. It is prudent and wise to make plans to protect our future planet, but if we fail to address the urgent problems of climate change, there won't be much left to protect.
The object the Russians seem to be worried about is nicknamed "Apophis", and there was a concern several years ago that this could hit the Earth in 2029. Data gathered since then, however, shows this to be extremely unlikely. Still, the idea of scanning space and ensuring we know where all the large objects are, and when they might hit the Earth, is very important. We know large asteroids do hit the planet from time to time and can cause great damage and even massive extinctions, as with the dinosaurs.
While we may not have the technology or infrastructure today to prevent an impact, if we can detect a possible collision several decades in advance, this would give us the time needed to put together a real effort to avert catastrophe. The chance of a major impact in our lifetimes is very small, but the potential destruction so high, that it makes sense to do this. Preventing an impact would likely cost in the tens or hundreds of billions of dollars, but there is little doubt the world would rally around such an imminent threat and do what was needed.
It is ironic that we might spend our time and effort on trying to avert unlikely catastrophes, while allowing a concrete and real one to take place in front of our eyes. Contrast a hypothetical international summit on dealing with a potentially life-ending asteroid impact with our dismal failure at Copenhagen. Perhaps more importantly, contrast the likely reaction and pressure of the public in the former case, as opposed to the latter.
Of course, in the case of an asteroid collision, while it may be off 20 years in the future, the consequences are well known and have a specific date attached to them. When the destruction comes, it comes all at once and instantly. One day, everything is fine, the next millions are dead, or worse. In the case of climate change, however, the consequences are gradual. There's no specific drop-dead date. As time passes, things get worse, and more and more people die, but there's a continuum, not a singularity.
One might think that the threat of the destruction of our environment and the death of millions would be sufficient impetus for serious action, but this belies our history. Already today, an average of 30,000 children die every day from starvation and preventable disease. That's over 10 million a year. In this case, the cause isn't global warming, of course. Where are the massive efforts to prevent this macabre, yet pedestrian, situation?
The unfortunate reality is that without a gun to our heads, we rarely do what is needed. And if that gun happens to be pointed at the heads of people in the third world, we are often even less likely to take action (assuming, of course, we aren't the ones holding the gun). But climate change doesn't point at gun at us. Instead, it slowly poisons us, with the weakest and poorest feeling its effects first.
Supposedly, if a frog is put in a pot of water and the heat raised very slowly to boiling, the frog will not realize its danger and will not jump from the pot, leading to its demise. Of course, this is only a myth, often used as a metaphor. In reality the frog will indeed jump out when the heat gets too high. Today, the heat is being turned up on humanity, and it remains to be seen if we are as smart as the frog.
Posts
4 comments:
Hi Ari, thanks for the comments. The economic issues are key, I think you're right there. That's probably one of the biggest barriers. Of course, without a planet, we won't have an economy, but that's too far in the future for most governments to worry about. In the end, there's going to be an end to economic growth one way or another (even without climate change, you've got peak oil to worry about), the question is how long we try to keep pushing it before we accept this. We're essentially depleting our ecological capital, meaning that we're continually lowering our carrying capacity, which not only means it's going to be harder for us to live, it's going to further limit economic activity. We can prevent an asteroid impact without changing our economic system, but I'm not sure we can solve global warming without doing so. So, I admit, that does make it much harder.
As for space-based solar, I wrote about this previously:
http://www.selfdestructivebastards.com/2009/09/space-based-solar-power.html
I'm skeptical about the about of energy (and other resources) you'd need to put in, versus what you get out, but even if the numbers add up, this is 20-30 years in the future at least. We can't afford to wait that long.
As for expansion into space, personally I've always been a fan of space exploration, but I'm skeptical about the future:
http://www.watchinghistory.com/2009/11/future-of-space-exploration.html
Some might argue that we shouldn't be allowed to expand to other worlds until we learn how to live on ours in a sustainable way. :)
I think you make an apt comparison between the Russian approach to the asteroid threat, and global efforts to "combat" climate change. Though the media seem generally skeptical about the threat posed by Apophis as seen here: http://tinyurl.com/ykxef7y. I agree with your point that there is a collective benefit to tracking potentially threatening celestial bodies.
The analogy to the climate problem is particularly useful especially since, like climate change, the threat posed by the asteroid is somewhat in question, it is a costly problem to solve, and its solvency presents a global benefit.
I would add one more useful point of comparison between the two issues which I think is at the heart of this post, that regardless of the immediacy or validity of the threat, or the cost of its solvency, there are inherent ancillary benefits to solving these problems in the form of technological progress.
So regardless of whether we need future technology to divert this asteroid, we may need it to divert something else down the line. Regardless, of whether climate change is real, there is a benefit to creating cleaner, more sustainable technology. I think we lose sight of these things residual benefits in the pursuit of being "right" (namely about climate change) which is why I think this is such a great post-- because it looks at the big picture.
Thanks for the comments robotsoul. The only thing I would disagree with is that I don't think there's any doubt about either issue. Climate change is happening, and the time for debate about it is over. However, you're right that taking action to help the environment is going to benefit us anyway, even if it weren't real. Also, there's no question that a giant asteroid *will* hit us at some point. The question is just whether it's in 50 years, 100,000 years or a million years from now.
Great post. It is good to see these issues being discussed together. While climate change is likely a huge rather immediate threat, the larger threat to the human race's long term survival is the depletion of fossil fuels.
The problem is that there are many potential threats that could easily knock us back to the stone age including war, super volcanos and ice ages at which point, we would be defenceless from large objects from space. Without easily accessible fossil fuels, the chances of people being able to reindustrilize to the point where we could launch an effective defence against a threat such as an asteroid are probably practically nil.
Fortunately, the solution to both climate change and fossil fuel depletion, is less fossil fuel use. Coal and oil would be better left in the ground and be left for future generations as an "insurance" in times of great need. As far of the economy goes, it seems to be doing a fine job of destroying itself. We need to think more about the future. The economy will take care of itself and would likely be better if we used less oil anyway.
Committing to long term survival could actually give people the common purpose that seems to be so lacking these days.
Post a Comment