ENERGY

‘In the Great Ship Titanic’

Nobel physicist Steven Chu is out to revitalize U.S. industry and save the world—if he can.

By Fareed Zakaria | NEWSWEEK
Published Apr 11, 2009
From the magazine issue dated Apr 20, 2009

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: TZ192583 @ 05/14/2009 3:12:02 AM

    Nothing is manifested bootless by Almighty Creator???s repository of attributes. That ???s why, 71% off-shore of our Planet. The Human Earth, pertaining to divine blessings of Oceans actually impacts on developments of climates, equipoisingly designed wih erection of gigantic Forestry naturally acts as smartest ???environmental-shield??? counterbalancing with 29 % of Lords-Land on-shore.

    Let we protect & utilize our natural resources fascinated for us as ruby-&-Coral, within our Oceans along with Forests, as simple as environmental friendly Part
    of Eco Equation.

    The disorganized & jumbled growth of ??? ungles should be ancient part-of-history when we were Tarzan . Now, we are so smartly cultivated with ultra smart technologies, that we can also work out on smartest planning of our Forests to manage with such as well-planned Road-Mapping of cutting-edge infra-structure developments of our Forests to bring all out of the wood without unnecessary cutting of pointless wood; so that we our CTL i.e. Coal To Liquid Plants, to turn our vast Coal Reserves into barrels of Oil , our Coal Power Generation Plants and allied Industries having environmental-reservations becomes more environmental-responsive by absorption of excessive greenhouse gases like CO2, within these industrial Sights we will especially select inside these Forestry on our planet .

    However, such an economical GREEN GROWTH Planning also demands mitigation initiative, enabling us to take our honest responsibility campaigning to mobilize all to come forward to foster environmental friendly Plants & coconut & other sea zonal type of Trees which can be cultivated along Sea Side by Side of of our Industrial Port cities.

    The above mentioned Cultivated Road-mapping will ever be count as Sustainable International Development leading to creation of a huge number of new job opportunities, too.

  • Posted By: TZ192583 @ 05/14/2009 3:05:05 AM

    Nothing is manifested bootless by Almighty Creator???s repository of attributes. That ???s why, 71% ???off-shore??? of our Planet ??? The Human Earth, pertaining to divine blessings of ???Oceans??? - actually impacts on developments of climates, equipoisingly designed wih erection of gigantic ???Forestry??? - naturally acts as smartest ???environmental-shield??? counterbalancing with 29 % of Lords-Land ???on-shore???.

    Let we protect & utilize our natural resources fascinated for us as ???ruby-&-Coral???, within our Oceans along with Forests, as simple as environmental friendly ???Part-of-Eco-Equation???.

    The disorganized & jumbled growth of ???Jungles??? should be ancient part-of-history when we were ???Tarzan??? . Now, we are so smartly-cultivated with ultra-smart technologies, that we can also work-out on smartest planning of our Forests to manage with such as well-planned Road-Mapping of cutting-edge infra-structure developments of our Forests to bring all out of the wood without unnecessary cutting of pointless wood; so that we our CTL (Coal ???To-Liquid) Plants to turn our vast Coal Reserves into barrels of Oil , our Coal Power Generation Plants and allied Industries having environmental-reservations becomes more environmental-responsive by absorption of excessive greenhouse gases like CO2, within these industrial-Sights we will especially select inside these Forestry on our planet .

    However, such an economical ???GREEN ???GROWTH??? Planning also demands mitigation initiative, enabling us to take our honest responsibility campaigning to mobilize all to come forward to foster environmental friendly Plants & coconut & other ???sea-zonal??? type of Trees which can be cultivated along Sea Side-by-Side of of our Industrial Port cities.

    The above mentioned Cultivated Road-mapping will ever be count as Sustainable International Development leading to creation of a huge number of new job opportunities, too.

  • Posted By: caomei @ 04/15/2009 5:43:35 AM

    About transmitting energy over long distances. Check out ABB:s HVDC lines! Their High Voltage Direct Current lines are being built in for example china where they have a 2071 km ( 1294 miles ) line being built with low energy losses.

    So build your gigantic solar parks in New Mexico ( or wherever) and then just distribute!

    • Posted By: valhalla phil @ 04/17/2009 3:14:45 PM

      This whole thing is about money transfer. Rich people to poor people, rich nations to poor nations, etc. But, of course, the people who will pay in the end are the poor through increased gas and utility prices as well as increased goods and services brought on by the carbon cap and trade program.

      While the poor will pay through the nose for gas, the rich will buy plug in hybrids and battery operated cars. While the poor will suffer under mounting utility bills, the rich will buy solar panels and wind turbines and pay nothing.

      This will lead to more subsidies and 'entitlements' to help make things 'fair' and, of course, the government beaurocracies will take their 75% cut off the top which will raise costs even more.

      The left just can't grasp that the more they interfere with capitalism, the more the less advantaged suffer. The sad thing is that the poor are willing participants by continuing to vote, in large part, for the liberals who are 'feeing' then to death.

      • Posted By: lucy321 @ 04/20/2009 1:58:04 PM

        Oh, yeah, rampant capitalism has worked out fabulously for the poor. Please don't speak for the poor. Please.

      • Posted By: lucy321 @ 04/20/2009 1:55:38 PM

        Oh, yeah, rampant capitalism has worked out fabulously for the poor. Eight years of capitalist false inflation of markets has resulted in a huge unemployment rate, primarily among those who were already poor.

  • Posted By: vleonetti1 @ 04/17/2009 3:58:07 PM

    First of all for the physicist to mention the IPCC report shows where his bread is buttered. This group has been proven to be more political and have a far less number of scientists touting global warming than those who are critical of it. In order to continue to get funding for their projects they need to keep the global warming drum beating. These scientists aren;t going to cut off their nose to spite their face! Why is it that the IPCC tries to pretend that the Little Ice Age and the Medevil Warming period didn't happen? Long before man was "responsible" for the earth's tempeture, it was both colder and warmer than it is today so why do we think we are capable of having any marketable effect on it? It's called "Global" Warming although the Southern Hemisphere isn't warming so the term in and of itself isn;t even accurate. We produce CO2 by exhaling! What will be the next act, to ask us all to reduce our breathing? It shows the ego that these people have to think that we have more control of the earths tempeture than say that gigantic orange marbel in the middle of the solar system. WOW! Once you get past the fact that global warming has been debunked every which way, it won't matter what the US does if other countries like China don't sign on to the same program because they realize that their economy will suffer just like ours is about to. Then what should we do? Weaken ourselves economically to the poinbt we are ripe for the taking by those who are smart enough to see through the smoke screen (no pun intended)? I believe we should all conserve because we as Americans are extremely wasteful, but don't believe for one second that we could effect in any marketable way the earths tempeture! You people need smelling salts to wake you up. Follow the money!

    • Posted By: DieselAddict @ 04/17/2009 9:04:03 PM

      This typical ignorance from a denier. Where do you get your info?? Do you really think the IPCC is unaware of natural climate change that preceded the industrial revolution? You really need to read their reports! You might be surprised to learn they know a lot more than you think, and certainly more than you do.

      No one denies ice ages and other natural variability in the climate, not even the IPCC. But that doesn't mean human emissions have no effect. That's like saying forest fires have been occurring long before humans arrived, so humans cannot possibly have caused any of the forest fires. That's ridiculous thinking!! FYI, there's no other explanation for the warming seen in the 20th century, especially the 2nd half, other than human emissions. They've looked at all the other variables, including solar radiation, and none of them explain the warming. I've looked at the data myself too. I accept it. I guess ignorance is bliss, but it won't be for long.

  • Posted By: MichaelMN @ 04/17/2009 4:08:35 PM

    Carbon Dioxide is a Greenhouse gas, that has been known for over a century.
    There is more Carbon Dioxide in the the atmospher than there was before, and there has been no debate about that fact.

    The natural and obvious conclusion is that with more Greenhouse gas in the air there will be a greater Greenhouse effect on the world. Very basic, very simple. I think anyone can understand that.
    It requres some contortions to make the argument that increased Carbon Dioxide does not increase warming. Estimates can vary as too how much, but it seems foolish to argue against global warming due to Carbon Dioxide. Still there are those who try.

    If the increase is as much as thought - 5 degrees C by the end of the century - the effects (as pointed out in the article) would be similar in consequence to those of the Ice Age. This would not be a good thing.
    I look at it as a gun pointed toward my Grandson. There are those who might say there are no bullets in the gun, and they might be right. Others might say there is a bullet but the gun is pointed tword the foot and any injury would not be serious, and again, they might be right. But I, for one do not wish to take that chance.

  • Posted By: andypatch @ 04/17/2009 3:37:10 PM

    Until all the glacers stop melting, I will believe global warm is real. Even if it isn't we are running out of oil and must find alternative fuels. Whether a volcano could put more hot house gases in the air it will only added to the gases we have put there.

  • Posted By: andypatch @ 04/17/2009 3:33:41 PM

    Until all the glaciers stop melting I will believe global warming is happening and will persist until we take actions.

  • Posted By: marley07 @ 04/15/2009 2:06:23 PM

    I am all for doing things to help the climate and create new forms of energy, that's great. But global warming to the extent is being portrayed will turn out to be the biggest hoax of our lifetimes. We had the coldest winter in decades up here and northern minnesota had the most snow on record. There are many scientists, for example at the U. of boulder, that say this is just the 2nd year of a 10yr cooling period. Hmmmm, global cooling, don'thear anyone in the media talk about that. We are spending way too much money on this and it is only going to come right from taxpayers. It is a joke and Al Gore should be sent to Northern Alaska in a T-shirt and eaten by the thriving polar bears. Ice caps grew over last 2 years and polar bears have never been more plentiful...you will read the opposite of course in the liberal media.

    • Posted By: DieselAddict @ 04/15/2009 5:01:59 PM

      So you don't care what happens after the 10-year cooling period, assuming that's something that actually exists? The Sun has been rather weak lately which would explain the temporary pause in global warming, but as soon as it returns to normal you can bet the warming will resume with the help of our greenhouse gas emissions. Think of greenhouse gas emissions as the closed windows of a car that you're trapped in. At night and in the morning you may not be worried because it's still cool in the car, but when the Sun comes out the closed windows will trap all that heat and bake you alive. That's similar to what greenhouse gas emissions can do to the planet if left unchecked.

      By the way, what kind of winter you had this year in MN is irrelevant. What's relevant is changes to the global climate, not a particular location. Even in the current mini cooling phase that we have, the planet is still much warmer than the 20th century average.

      • Posted By: Bigshott @ 04/17/2009 2:58:15 PM

        We just went through a mini warming period and will now go back to the regular cooling period.

        Temps have been getting colder for the last 10 years after a few years of warmth.

        • Posted By: DieselAddict @ 04/17/2009 3:31:18 PM

          That's not quite true. 2005 was one of two hottest years on record, the other 1998. It's true that since 2001 the Earth hasn't warmed as much as in the 1970-2000 period, but if you look at the 5-year mean temps, they're still going up. There's no established cooling trend yet and NASA is projecting that the warming will pick up steam again by 2011.

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 04/17/2009 1:53:19 PM

      "It is a joke and Al Gore should be sent to Northern Alaska in a T-shirt and eaten by the thriving polar bears"

      Yeah, you sound real unbiased. I

      One winter does not a statistical argument make, and by the end of the week here in Southern California, we're projected to hit ninety degree temperatures. I think maybe we ought to see how this summer goes before you start claiming that a cold winter one year is proof against global warming...

  • Posted By: smithenergy @ 04/16/2009 7:42:45 AM

    How to save Artic Ice.

    If we band together as a world, rather than think of us as separate nations, we can cut greenhouse gas emissions by 70% over the next 90 years. Recent studies show that, with such reductions, temperatures would still increase world-wide, but at a slower pace that could avoid many of the most distressing impacts of climate change. In other words, we can slow global warming to save Arctic Ice and stop the threatening sea level rise.

    Read the whole article at: www.buildbabybuild.com

    • Posted By: Bigshott @ 04/17/2009 2:53:27 PM

      You can get all of your slow thinking buddies together and amass all of you rmoney and solve the problem. But dont ask me or others to engage in utter nonsense. If you believe so deeply in your rightousness, do it your self.

  • Posted By: garylhern@hotmail.com @ 04/17/2009 2:53:20 PM

    The bacteria in the ocean would have to rise considerably before we even stop emmisions in the atmosphere. One volcano would wipe out all of our efforts. this planet is silocon and we mamales are here for the ride. The molton core
    has nothing to do with our puny efforts. To slow down green house effects stop cutting down trees, stoping poluting
    the water and make plans to evacuate earth. The next ice age will demand the use of coal, thermal and neuclar energy
    to survive the harsh cold icy winds, freezing tempetures and oceans that warmed up from bacteria will be mostly solid.

  • Posted By: OnenationunderG @ 04/17/2009 2:52:23 PM

    30 years of satellite observations disprove the gore/ipcc scaremongering. Hansen (Nasa scientist) Gore/Ipcc lean on had 1st warned of global cooling now global warming by observation of Mars, a planet devoid of plant life, oceans and other variables the Earth has. Like with any good liberal agenda, the US loses and this case so will the environment as China and India manufacture more hard goods. US will lose in another way, one nail in the US economy by raising costs by several magnitudes. Thanks to Obama, Gore, Chu, Pelosi, Reid, Biden For a real scientific perspective see heartland.org, Senator Ihhofe's and Dr. Horner's book on the subject, Also contact your representatives in Congress

  • Posted By: DieselAddict @ 04/16/2009 2:27:44 PM

    Antarctica has been warming like the rest of the planet. Colder winter temps in some spots are meaningless. Average temperatures is what matters. And no, Antarctica breaking up is NOT normal. Some of those shelves have been there for decades or more. So much propaganda. I wish people could really educate themselves on this topic and discuss it intelligently with no hidden agendas.

    • Posted By: Bigshott @ 04/17/2009 2:45:48 PM

      Yah...like your hidden agendas.

    • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 04/17/2009 12:48:43 PM

      Where not is your agenda? Culling the "scientific data" is game both sides can play. University-based studies...NASA...NSI...all of them are funded by unscientific and inherently biased means and people; comes with the territory. The trend of today carries with it billions of dollars. Why shouldn't we have an agenda that is skeptical of its "findings" and of its "consensus?"

  • Posted By: mrteacherdude @ 04/17/2009 2:41:21 PM

    Vigilance, get your facts straight, more oil is "burped" up by natural processes than spilled by "BIG OIL" every year. I cited my source, did you? I see not, unless you consider NASA an invalid source.

    http://seawifs.gsfc.nasa.gov/OCEAN_PLANET/HTML/peril_oil_pollution.html

    Even when you combine oil spills and oil exploration, the earth naturally seeps out more oil every year.

    Posted By: Vigilance @ 04/17/2009 1:55:36 PM "oil has become Big Oil, given the terrible environmental record Big Oil has accumulated and their usual disregard for consequences that happen to anyone other than them."

    Quit bagging on "BIG OIL" without them your life would NOT be what it is, your car, computer, ipod, bottled water, vinyl fence, asprin, most major hospital tools, toothbrush . . . . the list goes on and on, are not possible without OIL!

  • Posted By: Riteadibob @ 04/17/2009 2:34:00 PM

    It's a HUGE SCAM. Even if you actually think mandkind is the cuase of rising earth temps your a FOOL to think the government/politicians can stop it. We are not going to shut our economies down to reduce enough emmisions and there is no STAR TREK replacement for oil on the horizon. Throw Al Gore in jail and get on with your lives.

  • Posted By: vicphil @ 04/15/2009 11:15:13 AM

    Solar and wind energy are not 24/7 source of energy and are expensive. Geothermal and hydro are, by large measure, dependent on nature's set-up in a particular location The remaining oil we have should be judiciously used as we will need them for lubrication. As for the coal and natural gas, let's use them until it is completely depleted. Oil believed to be trapped much deeper than the usual depth should not be accounted for as this is still speculative. If they are found, well and good.

    What remains as the only viable option to meet the ever-growing demand for power is nuclear power. It is the only one that can meet the needs of the commercial and industrial sector as well as very large consumers, 24/7. Its design and capacity are within our control and it has proven safety records including in submarines and aircraft carriers. EDF of France has been in the nuclear business for quite a while. They have the expertise in a larger scale.

    The concern of environmentalists regarding the harmful effects of nuclear waste disposal is valid. Spent nuclear fuel continues to emit radiation. At present, the goals for nuclear waste disposal program of the US are not being achieved as scheduled. It is in this area that Pres Obama should invest: more to ensure a more leak-proof containment and timely disposal.

    Nuclear power is the only way to power America and most of the world. All other sources are significant contributors but are small and thinly-spread.

    • Posted By: Vigilance @ 04/17/2009 1:55:36 PM

      I consider myself an environmentalist but would support nuclear power - but ONLY as overseen by national and international agencies. I don't even want to think about what would happen if the nuclear industry became "Big Nuclear" the way oil has become Big Oil, given the terrible environmental record Big Oil has accumulated and their usual disregard for consequences that happen to anyone other than them.

    • Posted By: msoeth @ 04/15/2009 3:50:35 PM

    • Posted By: msoeth @ 04/15/2009 3:18:35 PM

  • Posted By: Vigilance @ 04/17/2009 1:47:27 PM

    I do not understand why Reagan stripped the solar panels off the White House roof. Was there ever a reason given, besides the symbolic strengthening of the oil industry to which he was so tied? There's no point to taking down solar panels once they're already there, all that can happen is an decrease in power use...

  • Posted By: lanski @ 04/17/2009 12:52:12 PM

    NNNN NNN OOO
    NNN NNN NNN OOO OOO
    NNN NNN NNN OOO OOO WE CANNOT STOP GLOBAL WARMING. ITS NOT MAN MADE!!!!!
    NNN NNN NNN OOO OOO
    NNN NNNNNN OOO

  • Posted By: white trash @ 04/17/2009 12:38:33 PM

    Zero Population Growth is mankind's top priority, right along with the salvation and protection of Earth's ecosystems and their biodiversity. Killing ecosystems for all the alternatives is as intelligent as someone ripping out his heart to prevent a heart attack!!! Many of us believe that curbing C02 emissions will not get the job done for regulating the climate. Earth's ecosystems are in the eco-nomics of this service, right along with all of man's lifelines on the Earth.

    Deforestation of ecosystems also heat up the immediate and regional climates, which loops to global climate and the atmosphere. When the Great Plains were plowed under for agriculture, the climate heated up. Ecosystems' trees and plants not only sequester C02 in their living bodies, but they transpire cooling water vapor, which cools the leaves, soil and surrounding areas and also, produces sheltering cloud coverage. Dense, heavily forested ecosystems shelter the Earth from the heat of the sun. Deforestation not only opens the sky for heat, it dries out the immediate and regional climates, and a drier climate is interconnected to a hotter climate and the atmosphere. And, deforestation releases more C02 into the atmosphere.

    Bare soil is hotter than a forested plot, and how much hotter are cities and seas of concrete? In the 80's, science coined the word, "heat islands" to denote the hotter climate of our concrete jungles. And, killing and deforesting our ecosystems is insanity. Many scientists maintain the extinctions of biodiversity are a far greater threat to mankind's safety than climate instability!

  • Posted By: libertyfirst @ 04/17/2009 12:37:27 PM

    This "interview" only further highlights that the real danger at play is not the ITC's computer model based projections of global warming but the religious zealosy of the eco-nuts who have push a near facist state solution as the only solution. The question "Can we stop global warming" assumes the ridiculous and is based on a "scientific consensus" that has proven itself wrong time and time again through the centuries. At what point of utter destruction of our economy, at what point when our landscapes are stuffed with grotesque 400 ft windmills, when we have lost most of our liberties in order for the "common good" (as defined by a few)...when will this god be declared dead on the NYT front page (oops, assuming that rag is even around then)?

  • Posted By: doomot @ 04/16/2009 4:41:47 PM

    When will the scientific community own up to the fact that if anything is causing global warming (and much other environmental damage), it's the tremendous growth in human population over the last 100 years. As long as humans are allowed to reproduce endlessly and uncontrollably, it's only going to worse!

    • Posted By: DieselAddict @ 04/16/2009 5:21:46 PM

      Yes, the population is a problem, but so is the individual lifestyle. People living in slums aren't a big problem. It's when they join the middle class that their emissions and resource consumption really increase. If every person in the world lived like the average American we'd have much bigger problems. But then again, if developing countries could get a handle on their population growth, that would help too.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse