“A war for information sources is approaching” — Richard Muller

Ecological safety, the changing climate, and alternative energy sources are the world community’s top priorities. Among the questions that are high on the world’s agenda are the effectiveness of certain energy sources and the synthesis of ecologically pure fuel. These topics were discussed during the recent G-8 summit in Japan.

Are these new developments a panacea or will they fail to produce the expected results as long as people’s attitudes to the planet do not change? Below, the celebrated US expert in the energy efficiency field, Dr. Richard A. MULLER, comments on these issues.

Dr. Muller, your book Technology for Presidents, which is about global warming and ways to solve this problem, was published two years ago in the US. Before it came out, you published excerpts in various journals. Can you briefly summarize the contents of your book?

Solving this problem depends on whether global warming is a problem created by mankind. I should point out that international organizations still have no official confirmation of this phenomenon. If it is true that we are responsible for changing the climate of the earth, all of our future efforts will be insignificant. There will be no way of avoiding a catastrophe. In 15 years the biggest producers of carbon oxide emissions will be China and India, not the US. These countries will never agree to reduce their emissions because this would lower their state revenues. Today we need a global industrial carbon monoxide emissions reduction program.

I am also rather skeptical about alternative energy sources, and I will tell you why. Underdeveloped countries are unable to switch to such sources, yet these countries are responsible for such global changes, unless they come up with energy sources that will be cheaper than coal.

An analysis of changes in the global ecological situation points to a number of trends. Over the past 200 years the carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) content in the Earth’s atmosphere has been steadily increasing from 280 ppm (parts per million) to 370 ppm, today’s level. According to one theory, this process has resulted in the rise of the Earth’s average temperature by 0,5 o C over the past 100 years. This may have disastrous consequences for our planet, such as the rise in the level of the world ocean and flooding.

However, no matter how plausible this hypothesis may be, we still cannot prove it. Apart from climate changes, there are emissions from vehicles and industries that are hazardous to people’s health. Such widespread pollutants as SO 2 and NO 2 cause the mortality rate to increase. A higher mortality rate caused by respiratory problems has been recorded in London, Athens, and Lyons, cities with a high level of these emissions.

Carbon dioxide is a powerful absorber of radiation in the IR (infrared) range, but it is practically transparent in the visible UV (ultraviolet) range. An increase in its concentration is one of the main reasons behind the increased temperatures all over the planet and the cause of the greenhouse effect. In addition, burning produces carbon dioxide and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), many of which are powerful carcinogens. Benzopyrene is one of the most widespread PAHs and the most toxic. The formation of hydrocarbon and soot is preceded by NOx (nitric oxide). There are studies underway throughout the world to come up with burning that has a minimum of harmful emissions. For example, the Austrian companies CTR and AVL have succeeded in producing compact laser spark plugs for internal combustion engines.

So you are opposed to hydrogen economy?

Unlike most scientists, I don’t think that hydrogen economy has serious prospects. Coal can yield oil at $45 per barrel, and I think this will dominate our economy. I am not defending this mechanism, but I see no other model today. Let’s face it: only countries with a sufficient GDP level can afford to develop alternative energy sources. But this will not improve the world situation.

Relying on computer modeling results, I can confirm that a mass transfer to hydrogen fuel for cars and other engines may degrade the ozone layer, especially over the poles, as well as cool the atmosphere. Hydrogen- based engines have one by-product: water. In view of this, it is not surprising that many people regard hydrogen as an ecologically pure alternative to modern fuels in all possible spheres, ranging from cars to household appliances and power plants.

In the next three or four years the US Congress will invest more than three billion dollars in the development of technologies using hydrogen, and it is hoped that hydrogen-propelled vehicles will start being used on a wide scale by 2020. Major car manufacturers are already investing large sums of money in the development of -based engines. Although there are still a lot of outstanding problems on the path to introducing the mass use of hydrogen as a fuel, world leaders are optimistic.

A team of US researchers published their findings in Science , claiming that a quick expansion of the hydrogen industry may bring about concrete climate change and increase the number of ozone holes. The authors insist that if hydrogen becomes a substitute for all other kinds of fuel, large quantities of hydrogen will be discharged into the atmosphere through sewers, fuel terminals, and various engines. According to Yuk Yung, a scientist from California, between 10 and 20 percent of hydrogen, or 60 million tons, will be lost every year. The discharge of this amount of gas may result in a threefold increase of hydrogen in the atmosphere because there are also artificial and natural sources of hydrogen.

The increased hydrogen will increase the amount of steam, and the expected moistening of the stratosphere will lead to the lowering of its temperature by approximately 0.5?C. The lower temperature will affect the poles, where the largest amount of steam will be generated. Among other things, this will cause the late arrival of spring. Clearly, in the future we may be threatened not just by global warming. This will upset the ozone-forming process and increase ozone holes: by eight percent over the North Pole and seven percent over the South Pole. However, predictions about the threat of hydrogen emissions in the atmosphere are relative. The hydrogen cycle has still not been thoroughly researched, so it would be imprudent to draw any firm conclusions. There is no denying the possibility that the soil may absorb a large amount of hydrogen.

How do you see the future of our planet? Are you optimistic?

I’m inclined to be optimistic. I think that the world is getting better in some ways. Today medicine can cure diseases that were fatal a hundred years ago. Experts predict that there will not be a worldwide famine either because of biotechnological resources. I believe that the world’s economic linkages and the creation of large economic flows and infrastructures will reduce the risk of wars in the world. As a rule, elements of large systems do not initiate world shifts. This is what small and inconspicuous elements that are cast out of a system but supported from the outside for a while are capable of. The expansion of the information space as a single network will raise the level of freedom, real freedom. Technologies also provide such freedom, provided they work for the benefit of people. I also have every reason to say that before long the growth rate in densely populated areas of the world will abate, and the quality of life will improve substantially.

As for the bitter aspects of this forecast, I would advise Ukrainians to prepare for the hottest year in the history of meteorological observations. I have two explanations for global warming: the greenhouse effect and the abnormally warm El Nino-Southern Oscillation off the northwestern coast of South America.

Is a Third World War possible today? Or has it already begun?

I am optimistic about this. The world today is so independent that everything happens as a result of economic and information interests (a war for information resources and knowledge is coming, although it remains invisible to many). Realistically, I can see several decades of powerful terrorism all over the world, and local conflicts, but I see no reasons for a Third World War. After all, we are well aware that this war will be such that we — most of us, anyway — are terrified even to contemplate such a possibility. This will be a war of information, electronic and cyberspace. And super bombs — no, the world won’t take this risk. Otherwise it will be the last thing that will happen in this world.

Richard A. Muller is a professor of physics at the University of California at Berkeley and Faculty Senior Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. He is the author of Nemesis (1988), about the death of the dinosaurs; The Three Big Bangs (with coauthor Philip Dauber, 1996); Ice Ages and Astronomical Causes (with coauthor Gordon MacDonald, 2000); and The Sins of Jesus (1999). For three years Muller wrote a monthly column for MIT’s Technology Review .

Muller’s essays are the basis of his new book Physics for Future Presidents . He is also the author of notes for the jubilee edition of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity (Arion Press, 2005) and the physics chapter entitled “The Book of Humor “ in the book Condensed Knowledge (Harper Collins, 2004). He worked in the US government for 34 years, dealing with national security. Dr. Muller studied at Berkley, where his teacher was the Nobel Prize winner Luis Alvarez. Among his research projects are his study of cosmic microwave background radiation, the development of Accelerator Mass Spectrometry, and his work on the US search for supernovas. He gave the name Nemesis to a star that, according to his findings, is at a mind- boggling distance from the Sun. He recently completed an article on meteors and Achilles’ shield. He is the recipient of the MacArthur Prize. In 1989, Newsweek named Muller one of the top 25 physicists in the US.