|The Technological Solution vs. The Real Solution
Hoping to fix global warming with a technological solution is like trying to knit a parachute in mid-air.
The trouble is, not one of these technofixes will solve our problem - each is like opening another compartment in Pandora's box, or is something that we should have started thirty years ago.
All of them are distractions when there is one sure way to cut emissions - and that is just to cut emissions - simply turn off everything that is not absolutely essential. So simple, absolutely guaranteed to work, guaranteed to save the planet. So why don't we do it?
Something to do with jobs and earnings and the economy perhaps? We shut down non-essential processes and it follows that non-essential workers will lose their jobs and then how will they pay for their daily bread?
Well, bread will still exist... all the essentials will still exist.... two things will be missing:
one, most importantly, will be life-on-earth threatening greenhouse gas emissions.
the other missing thing, will be our system of deciding who gets what. In our present system, the newly redundant (horrible word isn't it?), the newly redundant worker will go hungry and so will his boss - not much incentive to cut emissions there then...
So, imagine you were working in an 'essential' job, say a farmer or a doctor - how would you feel about feeding or treating someone with no money to repay you? Would you despise them as useless or would you recognise them as fellow humans, in need of and deserving of your help?
It's a fairly important question: whether to share what we have or just take advantage of our good fortune and let everyone else go hang. And don't believe that it's option that will last forever. It may be difficult to share, and there will be a million clever reasons will be given as to why it won't work, but i think it's the only way, and we'll all be happier for it.