You're making this sound harder than it really is. You don't need bio-powered robots or massive new technology. Here's another example.. http://www.technologyreview.com/BizTech/wtr_12989,296,p1.html There's no reason why small changes like that couldn't cause a massive decline in CO2 emissions. This doesn't involve completely changing the economy or the way we live. It requires small incremental changes. The Sugar Ethanol example earlier is another example. There are so many examples of small changes that could create big results. Unfortunately, political lobbying has basically shut down any of these changes.
which begs the question... what the hell were those cave dwellers doing 650,001 years ago that was destroying the earth?
Dubious, have you ever read the science fiction of L. E. Modisett, Jr.? What you said dovetails very nicely with a common thread in his work. If you haven't, you might enjoy it a lot. With climate change, and the results of that, bringing the Earth's population down to a manageable level is going to be a very, very messy process, one that hardly bears thinking about, but one we need to focus on as a civilization. And there is no telling where "Mediterranean climates" will end up being. Keep D&D Civil.
Mr. Deckard, I would not rule out the chance to preserve a nucleus of human specimens. It would be quite easy...heh heh..." rolls forward into the light "at the bottom of ah ... some of our deeper mineshafts. The flooding would never penetrate a mine some thousands of feet deep. And in a matter of weeks, sufficient improvements in dwelling space could easily be provided." Deckard: "How long would you have to stay down there?" "Well let's see now ah," searches within his lapel, notices circular slide rule in his gloved hand "aa... nn... Radioactive halflife of uh,... hmm.. I would think that uh... possibly uh... one hundred years." On finishing his calculations, he pulls the slide rule roughly from his gloved hand, and returns it to within his jacket. Deckard: "You mean, people could actually stay down there for a hundred years?" "It would not be difficult mein Fuhrer! Nuclear reactors could, heh... I'm sorry. Mr. Deckard. Nuclear reactors could provide power almost indefinitely. Greenhouses could maintain plantlife. Animals could be bred and slaughtered. A quick survey would have to be made of all the available mine sites in the country. But I would guess... that ah, dwelling space for several hundred thousands of our people could easily be provided." Deckard: "Well I... I would hate to have to decide.. who stays up and.. who goes down." "Well, that would not be necessary Mr. Decard. It could easily be accomplished with a computer. And a computer could be set and programmed to accept factors from youth, health, sexual fertility, intelligence, and a cross section of necessary skills. Of course it would be absolutely vital that our top government and military men be included to foster and impart the required principles of leadership and tradition". Slams down left fist. Right arm rises in stiff Nazi salute. "Arrrrr!" Restrains right arm with left. "Naturally, they would breed prodigiously, eh? There would be much time, and little to do. But ah with the proper breeding techniques and a ratio of say, ten females to each male, I would guess that they could then work their way back to the present gross national product within say, twenty years." Deckard: "But look here doctor, wouldn't this nucleus of survivors be so grief stricken and anguished that they'd, well, envy the dead and not want to go on living?" "No sir..." Right arm rolls his wheelchair backwards. "Excuse me." Struggles with wayward right arm, ultimately subduing it with a beating from his left. "Also when... when they go down into the mine everyone would still be alive. There would be no shocking memories, and the prevailing emotion will be one of nostalgia for those left behind, combined with a spirit of bold curiosity for the adventure ahead! Ahhhh!" Right arm reflexes into Nazi salute. He pulls it back into his lap and beats it again. Gloved hand attempts to strangle him. Chance: "Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?" "Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature." Deckard: "I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor." "Thank you, sir."
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1895038,00.html Why Kyoto will vanish into hot air By Bronwen Maddox THE United Nations conference that began yesterday in Montreal and will stretch on for nearly two weeks will fail in its aim: to devise a successor to the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. That does not matter; in fact, it is the best outcome. Kyoto has been an extraordinary piece of work. A treaty that its most important signatories have found impossible to meet, and which has changed behaviour very little, has still become a resonant global symbol. The best way forward now is not a "successor" to Kyoto, which covers the years until 2012. Another treaty that attempted to set fixed targets for cutting emisssions could be economically very damaging — in the unlikely event that countries ever reached agreement. The better answer is in the plethora of bargains between a handful of rich and poor countries, which some are already exploring. It is also in the development of new technology to combat global warming, and in deals to spread these quickly to poorer countries. Some of these new suggestions for life after Kyoto have come from the US, China and India, which all found Kyoto unpalatable. For just that reason, they are more valuable than son-of-Kyoto would be. It is no surprise that European Union countries became so enamoured of the Kyoto Protocol, which finally came into force in February this year. They have found its targets fortuitously easy to meet. For them, the treaty coincided with a revolution in energy supply. Kyoto set the EU a target of cutting "greenhouse gases" by 8 per cent from 1990 levels by the period 2008 to 2012. Members divided up the reductions between themselves; some could see that they would find big cuts easier than others. They are slightly off course, but not by so much that they think they have surrendered the moral high ground. The figures tell the political story. In 2003 Britain’s emission of greenhouse gases was 13 per cent down on 1990 levels, slightly ahead of its EU-appointed target of 12.5 per cent. Of course, emissions are likely to rise between now and 2008. Britain is also missing the Government’s own target of cutting emissions of carbon dioxide by 20 per cent on 1990 levels by 2010. All the same, these drops have been made possible by the shift from coal-fired power stations to gas in the early 1990s. Germany, similarly, is almost in line with its Kyoto targets, with an 18 per cent drop in 2003, on its target of 21 per cent. France is down by nearly 2 per cent, ahead of its target of no change. True, many smaller EU countries are not doing so well. But many of the new eastern members show sharp drops well ahead of target, because of the closure of old industries. Those "achievements" of the EU have made Kyoto an irresistible tool with which to berate others, notably the US. But extending Kyoto would be difficult for the EU too. The EU would be well advised to look more sympathetically on the new proposals coming out of the US, Britain and the conference hosts, Canada. These include "intensity targets" — cuts in emissions per dollar of economic output. They are more attractive than Kyoto to poor countries as well as to the US. So are proposals for rich countries to invest in technology to filter out emissions and to share it with developing countries. Other suggestions include sector targets, which would set emissions standards for some of the biggest industries, such as steel and cars. Under most of these systems of new, flexible targets, it might still be possible to set up markets in pollution, in which countries or industries could trade the right to release emissions. Any agreement to curb greenhouse gases is worth little if the US, China and India do not sign up. Kyoto failed in that basic requirement. For all the rhetorical mileage which some European countries have found in Kyoto, at the US’s expense, their own "success" — such as it is — is due to a quirk of history rather than to selfdiscipline or the powers of their leaders. That gloating is no basis on which to move forward.
