Optimists And Pessimists

A reader alerted me to a discussion of the "energy problem" sponsored by the science journal Nature (video below). Two nobel laureates, Mario Molina and Robert Laughlin, sat down with three young energy researchers to outline the problem and explore possible solutions. The energy problem has two aspects. First, the historically transient Age of Fossil Fuels will come to a close in about 100 years. Second, if we continue to burn fossil fuels at current rates for even another few decades, you can kiss our hospitable climate goodbye.

The gimmick in this discussion is that Molina is "optimistic" but Laughlin is "pessimistic" about making the 21st century transition away from fossil fuels toward renewable "clean" energy. I thought the introduction was hilarious in a dark kind of way.

Mario Molina helped to discover the link between CFC emissions and the depletion of the ozone layer. This experience has made him optimistic that science and politics could come to together to solve the energy problem. Robert Laughlin is much more skeptical. He believes economic forces may make any political solutions impossible.

Here's the funny part.

Which laureate will our young scientists agree with?

Don't you love questions which are asked seriously but can only possibly have one answer? To turn the inevitable answer on its head—irony alert!—who can doubt that these young energy researchers are going to side with the pessimist Laughlin? In fact, to them, humanity's energy future looks so bleak that there's really no point in getting out of bed. Why bother with nuclear fusion research? Why have children? Why not kill yourself now and avoid all that future suffering?

But of course the inherent optimism of these young scientists preordains that they will side with the optimist Molina, not the pessimist Laughlin. And they do.

Watch the video now. I will make a few remarks afterwards.

 

Molina's optimism is based on the international agreement which banned CFCs in order to fix the ozone depletion problem. But banning CFCs was easy. The action had a very limited scope, and CFCs could be replaced. The cost of fixing the ozone hole was very, very small. Do you see any such agreement about banning fossil fuels to fix the climate? Obviously not, for obvious reasons.

The "pessimist" Laughlin turns out not to be a pessimist after all. What a surprise! At the very end of the video, he says, in effect, "well, I was just kidding with all that Gloom & Doom stuff. People can solve problems. I was just trying to get these young people to think deeply about our energy dilemma."

Laughlin believes, as virtually all people do, that we can engineer our way out of the energy and climate problems. Technological optimism is the most common variety because it is a direct reflection of Human Nature. The bottom line is that bona fide, emotionally detached pessimism about the human future can hardly be said to exist. (There are few exceptions outside this blog). That's simply not the way human beings work. Authentic pessimism must be rooted in an unblinkered view of the Human Condition. But objective views of what humans are and what they are likely to do in the future as a result don't exist, or are extremely rare.

Optimistic anthropocentrism über alles!

Thus, for all practical purposes, there are no pessimists. Yet, paradoxically, as Laughlin implies, but does not truly believe himself, only a dark view of the human future could possibly bring about the impossible change in Human Nature required to fix the energy problem and all the other environmental problems Homo sapiens has created on this planet.

Comments

[Gail]

What is even more ironic is that the Montreal Accord, which activists love to point to as a successful example of international cooperation, did not solve the thinning of stratospheric ozone, which continues. The science as to why is murky - it could simply be an unstoppable process once initiated, but it could be because the prohibited chemicals were replaced by other bad chemicals, not to mention there is a robust illegal trade in the banned chemicals (see link below). Not to mention, who knows how climate change will interact by impacting temperatures in the stratosphere, affecting ozone destruction? Projections that the ozone layer outside the poles will recover in 40 years are probably about as reliable as IPCC predictions about sea level rise from ice melt, or the rate of permafrost melt, or the increase in future temperatures. About as valuable as the turnips that fell off the truck, in other words.

"As Coolant is Fazed Out, Smugglers Reap Large Profits"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/08/science/earth/smugglers-sell-coolant-tied-to-global-warming.html?_r=3&pagewanted=all&

[Remi]

At least scientists have found a way to solve peak oil with the US shale revolution! In Canada's Globe and Mail--

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/shale-revolution-has-us-set-to-become-biggest-oil-producer-iea/article5188639/

The U.S. will overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world’s largest global oil producer by 2017, according to the International Energy Agency.

Wait it says: "those projections are based on an extrapolation of the dramatic growth in shale oil production in recent years, which some analysts see as implausible" darn those pessimist analysts...

[Dave Cohen]

Actually, the implausible "extrapolation of the dramatic growth" quote appears in the Financial Times (subscription required).

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/8c2bcdf2-2c9f-11e2-9211-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2C25SY9H5

-- Dave

[Oliver]

Pessimists (not the same as grumps) are treated like pesky renegades for daring to focus on facts and the realistic implications of these facts as time passes. This can be rather depressing for pessimists, who are pushed to the margins like unwelcome lepers, when all they are doing is pointing at reality.

Oh yes, we should all be optimists, because optimism leads to a positive attitude - the kind of attitude that brings human progress. Like the progress that has brought about the best possible world in 2012.

[Brian M]

Is it just me or are we increasingly seeing this story...

The context is some enormous problem caused by human beings (okay, they often don't acknowledge causation, so we'll say "affecting"). They trot out a small number of "experts", usually from the baby boomer generation that has been the greatest beneficiary of the behaviors that cause most of these problems. There is always at least one pessimist and one techno-optimist. Then they bring in some young, can-do, baby-faced youngsters with little experience beyond their academic training. These young folks then naturally, having not experienced much in the way of real human nature, blithely dismiss the pessimists as wrong, embrace the optimistic view, and present an aura of self-confidence in the ability of young humans to solve any problems.

Yayyyyyy! Everyone can now feel good. It is safe to ignore the boogie man. Come on! Let's all sing Kumbayah. Life is good! You may all now happily return to your shopping. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Could just be me, but it seems to be I've seen this story line about a half dozen times in the last year or so. This will no doubt not be the last.

[Jack Jones]

"The power of accurate observation is frequently called cynicism by those that don't have it"

JJ

[Gail]

Is this the same report you blogged on earlier?

http://news.yahoo.com/u-overtake-saudi-top-oil-producer-iea-132331660.html

Anyway...check out the trailer and think, how lucky we are to have such luscious and timely depictions of the...TWILIGHT of the Empire! http://focusfeatures.com/Anna_Karenina

[Dave Cohen]

@Gail

The same report?

No, this is some new optimistic bullshit from those ever-hopeful economists at the IEA. I'll deal with it tomorrow.

-- Dave

[JohnWDB]

Laughlin says "now, let's do worst case scenario", and these scientists cannot make their minds go there. He has to reprimand them and redirect them constantly. It's like watching a sixth grade teacher ask his class "why" they think a candidate should be president--no one is really prepared to think critically. The difference is that sixth graders have an excuse, and they never fancied themselves critical thinkers in the first place.

[Frank Furcsa]

IEA - World Energy Outlook 2012 - Nov 12

U.S. Oil Output to Overtake Saudi Arabia’s by 2020 and other nonsense

http://energybulletin.net/stories/2012-11-12/iea-world-energy-outlook-2012-nov-12

[Alexander Ač]

Also it is quite "funny" they think we have fossil fuels for "100 years"... what a round nice optimistic number! Thats helluva lot of time to "solve" our energy problems,

I liked the quote o Laughlin that "economists are idiots" - but then, he really does not believe it, does he?

Alex