"I think it's a bunch of bosh," said Wallace Broecker, a professor at Columbia University. Broecker said he worried that the idea of pre-modern people as carbon emitters would turn into an argument that the modern world need not worry so much about its own pollution. "I get really upset with him because people who oppose global warming (legislation) can use this as some dodge."
This is a complaint I've heard from some scientists about my own work. If the peer reviewed science is inconvenient, then the policy justifications have to change accordingly. I certainly don't see how Ruddiman's work changes the decarbonization calculus one bit, and even if it did, that would not be a reason to dismiss it.
(Thanks to reader KP for the pointer.)
(Thanks to reader KP for the pointer.)
4 comments:
The pre-modern peoples of North America were major carbon emitters. In California the pre-moderns taught the mexican ranchers to "burn the bush" in the fall after the cattle were moved to winter pasture. Here in BC, "burning the bush" was common practice to improve the deer and moose habitat. I suspect that the plains pre-moderns burnt the prairies to improve the graze for the bison and other ungulates. The amount of carbon released was substantial.
An interesting subject for scholarly research.
Gordon Ford - retired Geologist
The CO2 released by burning brush was originally in the atmosphere, taken in by the grass and brush as they grew. Recall that lightning induced 'natural' prarie fires swept across the plains without any 'pre-modern peoples' help. In the short term, the new growing grass and brush would actually take in more CO2 than established tree stands. Over the long term, the same amount is released as is taken in - It recycles, there is no net gain or loss. That is why bio-fuels are a good idea. "Burning the brush" is, on a long time scale, totally carbon neutral.
1. RE "pollution",
I notice with interest how the climate debate is becoming increasingly politically loaded:
Global Warming sounded too good for people in the temperate climates of the industrialized world, so it had to be re-baptized as "Climate Change" by most politicians and media.
CO2 emissions again did not cause enough stir, so now the talk is all of CO2 pollution, despite CO2 being a natural part of the atmosphere.
2. RE what pre-historic man emitted,
my slanted take on this is that
current energy saving politics seems to have
pre-historic man as some sort of end objective:
All the talk of billions of dollars saved, power plants saved, emissions saved, from light bulb and other bans on what people want to buy and use
(if they didn't want to buy them = no savings!)
Living in caves and using candles is the ultimate logic,
with zillions of dollar savings and megatons of gas, as long as we don’t bring any cows with us.
(The argument that energy efficient products are necessarily better does not hold since many desirable product features, e.g. performance efficiency, appearance, construction as well as lower purchase cost and indeed overall savings can be tied up with increased energy use of a product
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc2x )
Where there is a problem, deal with the problem:
The postitive alternative strategy is of achieving the efficient generation and distribution of energy with whatever emission criteria needs to be put on it (for all else in the emissions too, whatever about CO2)
http://www.ceolas.net/#cc1x
Re pollution,
I might add to the above comment the increasing talk of "clean technology",
implying some sort of smoke-filled dirtyness about CO2 emissions...
Post a Comment