Covid-19 - a wake-up call
As far as we know in March 2019, we are alone in the universe in terms of creatures who can know something of what the universe is.
If any good can come of the terrible event we call Covid-19, I wonder if many more can become aware that we are far from invincible.
We are intelligent, at least enough to comprehend our environment and something of its future.
Some of us will not come out the other side of this disaster. Quite likely more will suffer an end to their economic lives than will die from the virus itself. Few businesses will believe governments offering to support them through the crisis. They know government coffers soon empty.
I think there are bigger threats than a virus with a fatality rate - compared to only measurable cases, not unmeasurable low-level cases - of 3%.
A big rock from space, coronal mass ejection, gamma-ray burst, all low probability, potentially very high impact. (There are no known potential sources of a gamma-ray burst close enough to our solar system to do us any harm, a coronal mass ejection - Google "Carrington Event" - could cause a significant loss of power systems across the world for months. We know where most of the big rocks that could do us serious harm are, and there's nothing to worry about for a couple of hundred years.)
For those who survive Covid-19, they would do well to look again at another known threat - climate change or anthropogenic global warming. There's a different budget in operation there, commonly expressed as a budget of the maximum carbon we can emit to stay within a potentially safe level of 1.5 degrees Celsius increase.
I would budget another way.
The thing which has driven our massive progress in the last 150-200 years, from the industrial revolution, mass manufacture, through the moon landings to computers as intelligent as an earth-worm, is energy.
Energy has been highly available in abundance in the form of fossil fuels since the first geologist/entrepreneur put a drill in the ground.
We can't keep burning fossil fuels. As the economy recovers from Covid-19, could we put measures in place to direct consumption to emissions-free energy sources? That might mean restricting rate of growth artificially in some areas.
Aviation is an obvious one. Unfortunately, it seems extremely likely there will be many less commercial airlines in a few months time.
So as the surviving companies acquire fire-sale kit from the defunct former airlines, restrict their growth to providing essential services. With current technology, we can't travel more than about 500 kilometres by ground transport and still have an effective day.
So set a threshold minimum for air transport, and ensure low carbon rail services are available at a reasonable cost to replace short term flights. (By the time you travel to an airport, allowing time to pass security, check-in and board the flight, together with arriving at an airport the other end miles from your ultimate destination, city to city travel by rail is highly competitive for convenience and comfort over medium distances.)
Then as economies reboot, turn to other means of transport as well. Build charge points for battery electric vehicles - or hydrogen stations in the unlikely event they become rapidly more practical - make it increasingly difficult for fossil-fuelled anything to carry on poisoning our atmosphere.
Somehow, in recovery from this terrible virus, can we highlight the real, existential threat that threatens our whole biosphere? Restrict our energy use to that we can get from non-carbon sources.
Maybe energy will become abundant again with a future technology - fusion, or space-based solar arrays being the obvious possibilities - but until then, we have to stay within budget, and stop borrowing from our children's future.
If we don't, a future Greta Thunberg will wonder out loud "How could you kill us all, Covid-19 was almost a bad cold?"
We are intelligent, at least enough to comprehend our environment and something of its future.
Some of us will not come out the other side of this disaster. Quite likely more will suffer an end to their economic lives than will die from the virus itself. Few businesses will believe governments offering to support them through the crisis. They know government coffers soon empty.
I think there are bigger threats than a virus with a fatality rate - compared to only measurable cases, not unmeasurable low-level cases - of 3%.
A big rock from space, coronal mass ejection, gamma-ray burst, all low probability, potentially very high impact. (There are no known potential sources of a gamma-ray burst close enough to our solar system to do us any harm, a coronal mass ejection - Google "Carrington Event" - could cause a significant loss of power systems across the world for months. We know where most of the big rocks that could do us serious harm are, and there's nothing to worry about for a couple of hundred years.)
For those who survive Covid-19, they would do well to look again at another known threat - climate change or anthropogenic global warming. There's a different budget in operation there, commonly expressed as a budget of the maximum carbon we can emit to stay within a potentially safe level of 1.5 degrees Celsius increase.
I would budget another way.
The thing which has driven our massive progress in the last 150-200 years, from the industrial revolution, mass manufacture, through the moon landings to computers as intelligent as an earth-worm, is energy.
Energy has been highly available in abundance in the form of fossil fuels since the first geologist/entrepreneur put a drill in the ground.
We can't keep burning fossil fuels. As the economy recovers from Covid-19, could we put measures in place to direct consumption to emissions-free energy sources? That might mean restricting rate of growth artificially in some areas.
Aviation is an obvious one. Unfortunately, it seems extremely likely there will be many less commercial airlines in a few months time.
So as the surviving companies acquire fire-sale kit from the defunct former airlines, restrict their growth to providing essential services. With current technology, we can't travel more than about 500 kilometres by ground transport and still have an effective day.
So set a threshold minimum for air transport, and ensure low carbon rail services are available at a reasonable cost to replace short term flights. (By the time you travel to an airport, allowing time to pass security, check-in and board the flight, together with arriving at an airport the other end miles from your ultimate destination, city to city travel by rail is highly competitive for convenience and comfort over medium distances.)
Then as economies reboot, turn to other means of transport as well. Build charge points for battery electric vehicles - or hydrogen stations in the unlikely event they become rapidly more practical - make it increasingly difficult for fossil-fuelled anything to carry on poisoning our atmosphere.
Somehow, in recovery from this terrible virus, can we highlight the real, existential threat that threatens our whole biosphere? Restrict our energy use to that we can get from non-carbon sources.
Maybe energy will become abundant again with a future technology - fusion, or space-based solar arrays being the obvious possibilities - but until then, we have to stay within budget, and stop borrowing from our children's future.
If we don't, a future Greta Thunberg will wonder out loud "How could you kill us all, Covid-19 was almost a bad cold?"
Comments