Peter Schwartz - The Threat of "Abrupt Climate Change"


Complete video at: http://... author and Global Business Network co-founder Peter Schwartz discusses global warming, arguing that the most likely scenario is also the most dangerous - an abrupt climate change over a period of a few decades.

-----

The Long Now Foundation presents a discussion between Peter Schwartz and Ralph Cavanagh: Nuclear Power, Climate Change and the Next 10,000 Years

It is the threat of "abrupt climate change" that converted him to support new emphasis on nuclear power, Schwartz said. Gradual global warming is clearly now under way, and there is increasing reason to believe that human activity is driving it, mostly through the burning of coal and oil. If warming is all that happens, it will be an enormous problem, but some regions of the Earth would gain (Russia, Canada) while many others would lose.

In the event of abrupt climate change, though, everyone loses. The most likely change would be a sudden (in one decade) shift to a much colder, drier, and windier world. The world's carrying capacity for humans would plummet, driving human population from the current 6.5 billion to as low as 2 billion, with most of the losses from war. It would be a civilization-threatening catastrophe. From research Schwartz has led for the Pentagon as well as from his own training in fluid dynamics, he thinks that continuation of the current warming is very likely to trigger the kind of radical climate instability that has been the norm in Earth's past, except for the last 10,000 years of uncharacteristically stable climate. Therefore everything must be done to head off the shift to climate instability.

Meanwhile, Schwartz said, world demand for energy will continue to grow for decades, as two billion more people climb out of poverty and developing nations become fully developed economies. China and India alone will double or quadruple their energy use over the next 50 years. We will run out of oil in that period. That leaves coal or nuclear for electricity. Conservation is crucial, but it doesn't generate power. Renewables must grow fast, but they cannot hope to fill the whole need. Nuclear technology has improved its efficiency and safety and can improve a lot more. Reprocessing fuel will add further efficiency - Stewart Brand, The Long Now Foundation







Channel: News
Uploaded: December 13, 2006 at 6:06 pm
Author: ForaTv

Length: 00:05:10
Rating: 3.73
Views: 6627

Tags: level global greenhouse tv fora war power energy age fora.tv ice warming gas glaciers co2 sea truth nuclear inconvenient

Embed Code:


Video Comments:
hardsofty123 (November 25, 2008 at 8:07 am)
citations?
TheRealArchAngel (October 31, 2008 at 12:57 pm)
**Here's a dime: go buy yourself a spell-checker and a clue.**If anything I need to replace this $5 Keyooard from Walmart.p.s. I prefer Stratego, and board games cost $10 now
nowaskmehow (October 31, 2008 at 11:59 am)
From the profile of TheRealArchAngel:
"Interests: Astronomy,Cosmology,Demonology, Life Systems,Artificial Intelegence, Alternative Fuels"
Here's a dime: go buy yourself a spell-checker and a clue.
moomar1 (August 26, 2008 at 11:17 am)
Man made co2 isnt warming the planet... even if we could double the ammounts of co2 in the atmosphere (which is mostly natural co2)we'd be lucky to se 1 degree of temperature rise...Sunspot cycles drive the climate on Earth NOT co2!....it woulderfull how these global warming madmen try and blame everything on global warming...

1