Similar Problem, Similar Solution

Approximately two centuries ago, a man named Thomas Malthus said that the increase in population that Britain was experiencing at the time could lead to “unprecedented disasters” stating that famine and “ultimate misery” could be the norm for futures generations. Two centuries later the British population is four times higher than during Malthus’ life and average food intake per individual is without any doubts higher. Yet despite some evident problems, since around the fifties, “ultimate misery” on a large scale is now largely a thing of the past.

Now a similar kind of discourse is occurring; just replace population by carbon dioxide and ultimate misery by “gigantic catastrophe” or for some “Venus like conditions in the next millennia”. Population growth during the Victorian period was very high at first due to large families and the ever decreasing mortality rate thanks to better access to medicines and a better hygiene. Yet it then decreased partly thanks to the same innovation, having huge families in order to have “some surviving children” was not needed anymore thanks to the drop of child mortality. In this case the spectrum of a demographic catastrophe was made redundant by technological advances which then triggered a change in human attitudes. Thus “using public force in order to curb fatality” in the words of Malthus was not needed and the problem was seemingly solved thanks to the great advances permitted by the industrial revolution.

Using force to curb carbon dioxide emission is sometimes toyed with by some extremist ecologists groups and it is maybe only a question of time before the EU or the UN implements sanctions against states not respecting the Kyoto protocol. If human emissions of carbon dioxide are indeed the prime factor in global warming, then can the same factor which rendered Malthusian theories redundant be used again instead of putting Kyoto like caps against emissions?

The answer is definitely yes if the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere starts to get too high. We can either reduce our emissions through the use of more efficient motors and by using nuclear power in order to have an energy sector which emits virtually zero CO2. But is the direct “removal” of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere possible?

The use of scrubbers on say chimney or windmills would potentially allow the capture of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the main problem would then be to store somewhere the carbon dioxide captured in that way, and ocean floors provide an answer as are used oil drilling holes. Everyone with a basic knowledge in biology knows that plants absorbs carbon dioxide to release oxygen, yet the main actors in this process are not the trees but planktons algae situated in every ocean, and “fertilising” them in order to produce more algae is well within our futures capabilities.

Technological progress allowed the fears of famines to become a thing of the past, the huge advances since 1807 were permitted by the advent of industry which was only possible thanks to the freedom of the economy during the Victorian period. Without men like Isambard Kingdom Brunel, Richard Trevithick or James Watt nothing would have been possible. In order to tackle problems like global warming, famines, or epidemics you need a strong research sector and this strong research sector can only be financed by a strong economy. This is not possible when caps are instated or when some people talk about “negative growth” in order to save the planet. Saying that reducing our emissions right now is a dangerous mindset; dangerous for what you may ask? Just simply dangerous because this is a scarcity mindset? When humans start to act mind with a scarcity mindset, survival instincts triggers in the brain and the fight for what is scarce immediately begins. This fight has already started with carbon dioxide emissions. “Pollution permits” are creating tensions and something along the lines of “negative growth” would trigger misery on a scale never seen before. Humanity has thrived on this planet for thousands of years, and things which seemed dreams fifty years ago like the internet and space tourism are now becoming reality. There is no fatality with global warming as there was no fatality with an ever increasing population two centuries ago, technological progress permitted by economic and individual freedom can solve the issue and humanity will hopefully thrive again for the years to come sharing the ever increasing amount of resources produced in the industries fuelled by innovation.