Ideas for Technological Solutions to Destructive Climate Change – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II
Gennady Stolyarov II
Editor’s Note: What follows is a preliminary identification of potential constructive solutions to the problems of deleterious climate change. They are intended for discussion and perhaps eventual incorporation into the U.S. Transhumanist Party Platform, along with other member-generated suggestions, if supported by a vote of the members. At present, though, the priority is to generate and discuss potential effective solutions that do not run into the common pitfalls of Neo-Malthusianism and Neo-Pigovianism, but rather embody the transhumanist Proactionary Principle and remain compatible with continued improvements in the length and quality of human lives. It is our hope that the U.S. Transhumanist Party will eventually emerge at the forefront of generating solutions to the climate-change issue that come to be widely recognized as feasible, effective, and palatable to the majority of people. Accordingly, the list identified in this article is open to revision and expansion in accordance with reader-generated solutions that adhere to the two major constraints specified herein. Both the initially identified potential solutions and these constraints are compatible with the existing related provisions in the Constitution of the U.S. Transhumanist Party (Article III, Sections VIII, IX, X, XI, and XXXVIII), as well as Article XXII of the Transhumanist Bill of Rights, Version 2.0.
~ Gennady Stolyarov II, Chairman, United States Transhumanist Party, August 5, 2018
Destructive climate change is no longer a hypothesis or mere possibility; rather, the empirical evidence for it has become apparent in the form of increasingly frequent extremes of temperature and natural disasters – particularly the ongoing global heat wave and major wildfires occurring in diverse parts of the world. In each individual incident, it is difficult to pinpoint “climate change” as a singular cause, but climate change can be said to exacerbate the frequency and severity of the catastrophes that arise. Residing in Northern Nevada for the past decade has provided me ample empirical evidence of the realities of deleterious climate change. Whereas there were no smoke inundations from California wildfires during the first four summers of my time in Northern Nevada, the next six consecutive summers (2013-2018) were all marked by widespread, persistent inflows of smoke from major wildfires hundreds of kilometers away, so as to render the air quality here unhealthy for long periods of time. From a purely probabilistic standpoint, the probability of this prolonged sequence of recent but consistently recurring smoke inundations would be minuscule in the absence of some significant climate change. Even in the presence of some continued debate over the nature and causes of climate change, the probabilities favor some action to mitigate the evident adverse effects and to rely on the best-available scientific understanding to do so, even with the allowance that the scientific understanding will evolve and hopefully become more refined over time – as good science does. Thus, it is most prudent to accept that there is deleterious climate change and that at least a significant contribution to it comes from emissions of certain gases, such as carbon dioxide and methane, into the atmosphere as a result of particular human activities, the foremost of which is the use of fossil fuels. This is not an indictment of human beings, nor even of fossil fuels per se, but rather an indication that the deleterious side effects of particular activities should be prevented or alleviated through further human activity and ingenuity.
Yet one of the major causes of historical reluctance among laypersons, especially in the United States, to accept the findings of the majority of climate scientists has been the misguided conflation by certain activists (almost always on the political Left) of the justifiable need to prevent or mitigate the effects of climate change with specific policy recommendations that are profoundly counterproductive to that purpose and would only increase the everyday suffering of ordinary people without genuinely alleviating deleterious climate change. The policy recommendations of this sort have historically fallen into two categories: (i) Neo-Malthusian, “back to nature” proposals to restrict the use of advanced technologies and return to more primitive modes of living; and (ii) elaborate economic manipulations, such as the creation of artificial markets in “carbon credits”, or the imposition of a carbon tax or a related form of “Pigovian tax” – ostensibly to associate the “negative externalities” of greenhouse-gas emissions with a tangible cost. The Neo-Malthusian “solutions” would, in part deliberately, cause extreme detriments to most people’s quality of life (for those who remain alive), while simultaneously resulting in the use of older, far more environmentally destructive techniques of energy generation, such as massive deforestation or the combustion of animal byproducts. The Neo-Pigovian economic manipulations ignore how human motives and incentives actually work and are far too indirect and contingent on a variety of assumptions that are virtually never likely to hold in practice. At the same time, the artificially complex structures that these economic manipulations inevitably create would pose obstructions to the direct deployment of more straightforward solutions by entangling such potential solutions in an inextricable web of compliance interdependencies.
The solutions to destructive climate change are ultimately technological and infrastructural. No single device or tactic – and certainly no tax or prohibition – can comprehensively combat a problem of this magnitude and variety of impacts. However, a suite of technologically oriented approaches – pushing forward the deployment and quality of the arsenal of tools available to humankind – could indeed arrest and perhaps reverse the course of deleterious climate change by directly reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases and/or directly alleviating the consequences of increased climate variability.
Because both human circumstances and current as well as potential technologies are extremely diverse, no list of potential solutions to deleterious climate change can ever be exhaustive. Here I attempt the beginnings of such a list, but I invite others to contribute additional technologically oriented solutions as well. There are only two constraints on the kinds of solutions that can feasibly and ethically combat deleterious climate change – but those constraints are of immense importance:
Constraint 1. The solutions may not result in a net detriment to any individual human’s length or material quality of life.
Constraint 2. The solutions may not involve the prohibition of technologies or the restraint of further technological progress.
Constraint 1 implies that any solution to deleterious climate change will need to be a Pareto-efficient move, in that at least one person should benefit, while no person should suffer a detriment (or at least a detriment that has not been satisfactorily compensated for in that person’s judgment). Constraint 2 implies a techno-optimistic and technoprogressive perspective on combating deleterious climate change: we can do it without restrictions or prohibitions, but rather through innovations that will benefit all humans. Some technologies, particularly those associated with the extraction and use of fossil fuels, may gradually be consigned to obsolescence and irrelevance with this approach, but this will be due to their voluntary abandonment once superior, more advanced technological alternatives become widespread and economical to deploy. The more freedom to innovate and active acceleration of technological progress exist, the sooner that stage of fossil-fuel obsolescence could be reached. In the meantime, some damaging events are unfortunately unavoidable (as are many natural catastrophes more generally in our still insufficiently advanced era), but a variety of approaches can be deployed to at least prevent or reduce some damage that would otherwise arise.
If humanity solves the problems of deleterious climate change, it can only be with the mindset that solutions are indeed achievable, and they are achievable without compromising our progress or standards of living. We must be neither defeatists nor reactionaries, but rather should proactively accelerate the development of emerging technologies to meet this challenge by actualizing the tremendous creative potential our minds have to offer.
What follows is the initial list of potential solutions. Long may it grow.
Direct Technological Innovation
- Continued development of economical solar and wind power that could compete with fossil fuels on the basis of cost alone.
- Continued development of electric vehicles and increases in their range, as well as deployment of charging stations throughout all inhabited areas to enable recharging to become as easy as a refueling a gasoline-powered vehicle.
- Development of in vitro (lab-grown) meat that is biologically identical to currently available meat but does not require actual animals to die. Eventually this could lead the commercial raising of cattle – which contribute significantly to methane emissions – to decline substantially.
- Development of vertical farming to increase the amount of arable land indoors – rendering more food production largely unaffected by climate change.
- Autonomous vehicles offered as services by transportation network companies – reducing the need for direct car ownership in urban areas.
- Development and spread of pest-resistant, drought-resistant genetically modified crops that require less intensive cultivation techniques and less application of spray pesticides, and which can also flourish in less hospitable climates.
- Construction of hyperloop transit networks among major cities, allowing rapid transit without the pollution generated by most automobile and air travel. Hyperloop networks would also allow for more rapid evacuation from a disaster area.
- Construction of next-generation, meltdown-proof nuclear-power reactors, including those that utilize the thorium fuel cycle. It is already possible today for most of a country’s electricity to be provided through nuclear power, if only the fear of nuclear energy could be overcome. However, the best way to overcome the fear of nuclear energy is to deploy new technologies that eliminate the risk of meltdown. In addition to this, technologies should be developed to reprocess nuclear waste and to safely re-purpose dismantled nuclear weapons for civilian energy use.
- Construction of smart infrastructure systems and devices that enable each building to use available energy with the maximum possible benefit and minimum possible waste, while also providing opportunities for the building to generate its own renewable energy whenever possible.
- In the longer term, development of technologies to capture atmospheric carbon dioxide and export it via spaceships to the Moon and Mars, where it could be released as part of efforts to generate a greenhouse effect and begin terraforming these worlds.
Disaster Response
- Fire cameras located at prominent vantage points in any area of high fire risk – perhaps linked to automatic alerts to nearby fire departments and sprinkler systems built into the landscape, which might be auto-activated if a sufficiently large fire is detected in the vicinity.
- Major increases in recruitment of firefighters, with generous pay and strategic construction of outposts in wilderness areas. Broad, paved roads need to lead to the outposts, allowing for heavy equipment to reach the site of a wildfire easily.
- Development of firefighting robots to accompany human firefighters. The robots would need to be constructed from fire-resistive materials and have means of transporting themselves over rugged terrain (e.g., tank treads).
- Design and deployment of automated firefighting drones – large autonomous aircraft that could carry substantial amounts of water and/or fire-retardant sprays.
Disaster Prevention
- Recruitment of large brush-clearing brigades to travel through heavily forested areas – particularly remote and seldom-accessed ones – and clear dead vegetation as well as other wildfire fuels. This work does not require significant training or expertise and so could offer an easy job opportunity for currently unemployed or underemployed individuals. In the event of shortages of human labor, brush-clearing robots could be designed and deployed. The robots could also have the built-in capability to reprocess dead vegetation into commercially usable goods – such as mulch or wood pellets. Think of encountering your friendly maintenance robot when hiking or running on a trail!
- Proactive creation of fire breaks in wilderness areas – not “controlled burns” (which are, in practice, difficult to control) but rather controlled cuts of smaller, flammable brush to reduce the probability of fire spreading. Larger trees of historic significance should be spared, but with defensible space created around them.
- Deployment of surveillance drones in forested areas, to detect behaviors such as vandalism or improper precautions around manmade fires – which are often the causes of large wildfires.
- Construction of large levees throughout coastal regions – protecting lowland areas from flooding and achieving in the United States what has been achieved in the Netherlands over centuries on a smaller scale. Instead of building a wall at the land border, build many walls along the coasts!
- Construction of vast desalination facilities along ocean coasts. These facilities would take in ocean water, thereby counteracting the effects of rising water levels, then purify the water and transmit it via a massive pipe network throughout the country, including to drought-prone regions. This would mitigating multiple problems, reducing the excess of water in the oceans while replenishing the deficit of water in inland areas.
- Creation of countrywide irrigation and water-pipeline networks to spread available water and prevent drought wherever it might arise.
Economic Policies
- Redesign of home insurance policies and disaster-mitigation/recovery grants to allow homeowners who lost their homes to natural disasters to rebuild in different, safer areas.
- Development of workplace policies to encourage telecommuting and teleconferencing, including through immersive virtual-reality technologies that allow for plausible simulacra of in-person interaction. The majority of business interactions can be performed virtually, eliminating the need for much business-related commuting and travel.
- Elimination of local and regional monopoly powers of utility companies in order to allow alternative-energy utilities, such as companies specializing in the installation of solar panels, to compete and offer their services to homeowners independently of traditional utilities.
- Establishment of consumer agencies (public or private) that review products for durability and encourage the construction of devices that lack “planned obsolescence” but rather can be used for decades with largely similar effect.
- Establishment of easily accessible community repair shops where old devices and household goods can be taken to be repaired or re-purposed instead of being discarded.
- Abolition of inflexible zoning regulations and overly prescriptive building codes; replacement with a more flexible system that allows a wide variety of innovative construction techniques, including disaster-resistant and sustainable construction methods, tiny homes, homes created from re-purposed materials, and mixed-use residential/commercial developments (which also reduce the need for vehicular commuting).
- Abolition of sales taxes on energy-efficient consumer goods.
- Repeal or non-enactment of any mileage-based taxes for electric or hybrid vehicles, thereby resulting in such vehicles becoming incrementally less expensive to operate.
- Lifting of all bans and restrictions on genetically modified plants and animals – which are a crucial component in adaptation to climate change and in reducing the carbon footprint of agricultural activities.
Harm Mitigation
- Increases in planned urban vegetation through parks, rooftop gardens, trees planted alongside streets, pedestrian / bicyclist “greenways” lined with vegetation. The additional vegetation can absorb carbon dioxide, reducing the concentrations in the atmosphere.
- Construction of additional pedestrian / bicyclist “greenways”, which could help reduce the need for vehicular commutes.
- Construction of always-operational disaster shelters with abundant stockpiles of aid supplies, in order to prevent the delays in deployment of resources that occur during a disaster. When there is no disaster, the shelters could perform other valuable tasks that generally are not conducive to market solutions, such as litter cleanup in public spaces or even offering inexpensive meeting space to various individuals and organizations. (This could also contribute to the disaster shelters largely becoming self-funding in calm times.)
- Provision of population-wide free courses on disaster preparation and mitigation. The courses could have significant online components as well as in-person components administered by first-aid and disaster-relief organizations.
12 thoughts on “Ideas for Technological Solutions to Destructive Climate Change – Article by Gennady Stolyarov II”
instead of using “geoexchange” or “ground source heat pumps” just for heating or cooling attach sterling engines to them and vent off thermal differences by creating electricity. They could be installed nearly everywhere. The more electricity created the less heat is left in the overall system. Eventually it would get so cold we would need more greenhouse gasses not less.
Thermal pumps are a great idea, particularly in combination with AC’s, which are very efficient when used for heating instead of cooling, and as Jonathan mentioned could be coupled with electricity generation. This would however not work on individual houses very well, as 1 house doesn’t produce enough heat to store. On a town or city level this could work wonders though.
Sorry, The last 2 sentences weren’t very clear. I meant that an individual house doesn’t produce enough heat to make a sterling engine work very well.
On another note, I was thinking, although I’m aware that currently transportation and energy loss is a big problem, is to have cities exchange their heat. For example, In Montana or Wisconsin people might need more energy to heat their homes, whereas in California enough heat can be stored because there is more demand for cooling. If we could effectively exchange the heat to the North in exchange for cooler (air, or cooled water… the specifics don’t matter as much as the idea right now), we could more or less make the exchange neutral, where both places get what they need.
This would be a colossal undertaking though, I understand.
Rather than disaster response to wild fires, perhaps putting an irrigation system in place in areas we know are very dry in the summer could work. By desalinating ocean water, which has the added benefit of producing salt, we could pump the water to reservoirs or basins in forest areas. When there is a drought water could be used from there to hydrate the soil and vegetation to lessen the chance of it catching fire. Besides minimizing the risk of fire, the vegetation could also more optimally produce oxygen as it is not struggling as much to survive and instead can flourish.
Since ocean levels are rising we don’t have to worry to much about draining water from it. The only thing we should take care of is that we don’t alter currents by pumping water out, which can drastically affect marine and plant life in the ocean.
If we apply this to the West-Coast, it could also put less of a strain on the Colorado river, increasing its function to hydrate plant life. On a large enough scale over time, we could turn Arizona and Nevada into lush forests, further minimizing the dependence on AC’s for cooling as forests can help cool the air.
Obviously the turbines can be powered by solar and wind energy.
If any Chinese official would read this: Imagine China applying this idea to the Gobi-desert, which they’ve been trying to combat for decades from expanding. The Gobi-desert could become the Gobi-forest. I would not be surprised if the amount of water needed could actually lower ocean levels a bit. Also, at the moment, China is I think also the only country ambitious enough to undertake what would be the largest project ever to be devised by mankind. The amount of pipelines needed to transport the water could possibly look like the modern Chinese wall from space.
I think we should start using space-grade insulation for buildings and houses. Doing so would, probably, fuel the industry, and a desire to innovate on it, which would in turn produce better and thinner insulation materials.
Not only does insulate houses better, we will need higher quality insulation for planetary colonization, such as Mars. On Mars, heat will be a scarce resource for a while, and as such we need to minimize its waste. Aside from that, the transportation of insulation to Mars is costly, so if we can minimize its volume we can transport more of it at the same time.
On Earth we want thinner insulation both to transport more, reducing transportation costs, and to limit waste on thick walls which in turn limit livable space.
I would also add the development of commercially viable fusion electricity.
For ocean-going vessels, the ultimate solution appears to be the development of commercial nuclear propulsion. Eisenhower’s “Atoms for Peace” Initiative demonstrated how such technology could be used for commercial ships with the N.S Savannah. The only thing inhibiting this half-century old tech is cost (which may be alleviated through a revenue-neutral carbon tax), and public paranoia regarding nuclear energy (which may be alleviated through pro-technology education).
For air transport there are numerous possibilities. The most near-term option is the use of carbon neutral bio-fuels in conventional engines. More speculatively, hypersonic and suborbital point-to-point transports may be employed which use hydrogen (electrolysed from water & clean energy) and methane (from atmospheric CO2 and cleanly electorysed hydrogen).
Improvements in energy efficiency are to be applauded, but we must think beyond incremental improvement on existing technology and aim for breakthroughs and paradigm shifts.
We currently build structures, particularly houses for a fairly short life-span. This in no small part I think is for financial reasons. The owner wants it cheap/ for a reasonable price because houses are still expensive, and the company that constructs it wants to maximize profit.
However, what if a building’s worth was more determined by it’s longevity, and utility over time?
For example; In the states of Germany it was common to build high quality houses that were intended to last for multiple generations of a family.
Now obviously, our society isn’t exactly structured in that way anymore, but we could devise ways to make longstanding structures more desirable again.
This idea is from the perspective that construction, and particularly subpar construction will contribute to subpar efficient living, and more contribution to pollution due to low-quality materials.
The flip-side of course is, how can we create very affordable, and environmentally friendly high-quality housing?
Either way, I think the answers to both questions could contribute to improving the impact we have on the environment over time.
I say this, as I’m in an area where building is done quickly but poorly, making the longevity and efficiency of buildings really low.
One option which hasn’t been mentioned is the possibility of using space-based mirrors at the Sun-Earth Lagrange Point to reflect a portion of the incoming light to the Earth. Not only would this dramatically mitigate (if not reverse) global temperature rises, the need to transport large amounts of mass inexpensively into deep space would drive the development of technology necessary for a truly space-faring civilization. Indeed, thin-film solar mirrors themselves can serve as solar sails capable of cheap interplanetary flight.
Additionally, the development of large-scale solar mirrors would be invaluable to efforts to terraform other planets. Mars could be terraformed through such a method by reflecting light onto the planet, raising temperatures and atmospheric pressure through the CO2 outgassing which would result. Venus could be terraformed by the reverse of this method, reflecting light away from the planet to cool it down enough to allow the CO2 atmosphere to rain out and be buried.
Solar mirror technology, when taken far enough, could even facilitate the development of interstellar civilization through the use of laser-propelled light sails. Such thin-film mirrors would capable of traveling of transporting crew and cargo at substantial fractions of the speed of light.
In addition to excessive zoning requirements, mandatory off-street parking requirements also encourage car use, while exacerbating urban sprawl and reducing density.