- Email: [email protected]
Disruption from above
COMMENT
Disruption from above Efforts to beam the internet to all corners of the globe are gathering pace. It will liberate but also bring chaos, says Jamais Cascio COULD toppling dictatorships be as easy as flying a balloon or lofting a satellite? Some proponents of plans to provide global wireless internet from the skies seem to think so. After all, we have seen the effect that a brief wave of uncontrolled internet access had in the Arab Spring. Imagine how much more lasting and eventful the effects of an internet largely outside the control of governments that want to censor it would be. These schemes are coming, as indicated by Elon Musk’s SpaceX seeking consent last week to put 4425 base stations into orbit. As societies in the West have discovered, however, unfettered internet access doesn’t just mean giving voice to the voiceless and a more diverse array of philosophies. It also means a cacophony of voices clamouring for attention by being louder or more
outrageous than the next, a platform for demagoguery and division, and the ability to rapidly spread false news stories, images and videos that inflame voter fury. It turns out that, rather than being a unifying force, the internet has also been a tool for deepening biases and ideological conflicts. It makes it easier to find like-minded allies, so it quickly becomes possible to only encounter opinions that agree with one’s own world view. Various digital maladies afflicting netizens, from spam to fraud to malware, would also find fertile ground in new users of a global internet. Many of these threats have been shaped over the years by a Darwinian environment of attack and counter-attack as they seek to evade and overcome the just-as-rapidly evolving spam blockers, antivirus packages and ad barriers. It’s easy to imagine
The heat is on Atmospheric geoengineering trials must begin in earnest, says Matthew Watson THE Paris climate deal’s goal of keeping global warming below 1.5 °C produced a strong but mixed response from scientists. Most welcomed its intention, while some, including me, were also alarmed, wondering how it might be achieved. Here’s the truth, made plainer by the US election result: if we 20 | NewScientist | 3 December 2016
methods. These would aim to alter Earth’s radiation budget by, for example, pumping reflective particles into the air. Field trials of such radiation management need support. The urgency is akin to being in a raft without paddles heading for a waterfall. We could paddle for the bank with our hands – which is like curbing carbon emissions – but it’s too late to make it to safety this way. We could build makeshift paddles to row quicker
wish to stay below 1.5 °C we have to deliberately intervene in the global climate system on a massive and unprecedented scale. The worst impacts of a warmer world would make it immoral not to act. We are nearing the point at “If we wish to stay below 1.5 °C we must intervene in which we must make choices – the global climate system hence the growing call for a frank on a massive scale” discussion of all geoengineering
– develop technologies to suck carbon out of the air – but it is doubtful we can make them in time. We could brace for the inevitable and strap in – adapt to climate change by building coastal defences and so on. Or, we could swim for it. But that’s risky: the water looks cold and not everyone can swim. This is like radiation management. It’s quick and relatively cheap but it’s a plunge into the unknown. This is why information is vital: if we knew how long we had, the size of the fall, the time to make a paddle, and the temperature and depth of the water, we could make a more informed decision.
For more opinion articles, visit newscientist.com/opinion
Jamais Cascio is a distinguished fellow at the Institute for the Future
In reality, climate change might be a series of increasingly severe drops, and it makes sense to fully explore all the options: wean ourselves off carbon, create negative emissions technologies and brace for impacts. But we must also test the water in case we decide to swim for it. That means considering properly, through research and a more open discussion, the unpalatable choice of radiation management. n Matthew Watson is a reader in natural hazards at the University of Bristol, UK, and was the principal investigator of the UK SPICE project, which aimed to field test atmospheric geoengineering
INSIGHT Food labelling
DANIEL ACKER/BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES
the chaos that would reign in regions with sudden access to the internet but little or no online security, in particular the addition of millions of relatively unprotected computers that could be recruited for distributed denial of service attacks. None of this means we should halt plans to make access global. It will offer powerful tools for cooperation and organisation. Access to uncensored sources of information – even if flawed – will allow millions the chance to see the world anew. But advocates for unleashing the internet everywhere need to temper hopes with a recognition that this could also result in political disruption, technical chaos and culture shock. Not all outcomes will be happy, and more than a few of the groups and ideologies empowered by this will oppose key principles such as free information access. A truly global internet will, in time, be a good thing. But we must be clear-eyed as to the near-term consequences and opportunities for chaos that it will mean. As the last few years have shown, the internet can be a powerful medium for disharmony. n
–A carbon nightmare–
Care about Earth? Ditch organic food Michael Le Page
For starters, you are not helping wildlife. Yes, organic farms host a greater diversity of wildlife than conventional ones. But because the yields are lower, organic farms require more land, which in the tropics often means cutting down more rainforests. And organic food also results in higher greenhouse gas emissions than conventional farming. The trouble is, there is no way to tell whether that basic loaf of bread is better in terms of greenhouse emissions than the organic one sitting next to it on the supermarket shelf. This divide will become ever greater
WANDER around the local supermarket and you will struggle to find any clues to the environmental impact of the food you eat. If you are lucky, some of the seafood might bear the mark of the Marine Stewardship Council, which certifies fish caught in a sustainable way, but that’s about it. Yet farming is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, only slightly behind heating and electricity. And while it’s relatively easy to cut emissions from electricity by switching to solar, reducing emissions from farming is a “Food flown thousands of tougher nut to crack. miles can have a much You might think buying local food is lower carbon footprint always preferable to imported food than local produce” when it comes to carbon emissions, but even this is not a reliable guide. Food flown thousands of miles can still in the future, because the have a much lower carbon footprint organisations that set the rather than, say, local produce grown in arbitrary standards for what counts as “organic” have firmly rejected the heated greenhouses. The one label you’re likely to find on technology showing the greatest promise for reducing farming many food items is the “organic” one. But if you care about the environment, emissions: genetic modification. Existing GM crops may already don’t buy it (it’s not healthier either, be reducing carbon emissions even but that’s another story).
though they were not designed to do so. Next up: crops that can capture more of the sun’s energy, require less fertiliser and tolerate drought or salt. But the organic movement will have none of it. There was a faint hope that some might at least accept gene editing, given that gene-edited crops can be genetically indistinguishable from conventional crops. But no, on 18 November the US organic standards board voted unanimously against this. What we really need are climate labels on foods, so consumers can see that whether, say, gene-edited bread is far better in climate terms than organic bread. This isn’t going to be easy. Measuring all the emissions associated with producing food and getting it onto a supermarket shelf is extremely complex, not to say expensive. Most schemes so far have foundered. Tesco tried introducing its own carbon labelling in 2007, for instance, but eventually abandoned the idea. And it’s pointless unless the labels are easy to follow. One promising proposal is to describe the greenhouse emissions associated with particular food items in terms of what percentage of a person’s typical daily carbon footprint they represent. Climate labelling is definitely worth pursuing despite the challenges. The only alternative is to allow consumers to continue being hoodwinked by feelgood mumbo jumbo – and the stakes are far too high to let this happen. n 3 December 2016 | NewScientist | 21
Disruption from above Efforts to beam the internet to all corners of the globe are gathering pace. It will liberate but also bring chaos, says Jamais Cascio COULD toppling dictatorships be as easy as flying a balloon or lofting a satellite? Some proponents of plans to provide global wireless internet from the skies seem to think so. After all, we have seen the effect that a brief wave of uncontrolled internet access had in the Arab Spring. Imagine how much more lasting and eventful the effects of an internet largely outside the control of governments that want to censor it would be. These schemes are coming, as indicated by Elon Musk’s SpaceX seeking consent last week to put 4425 base stations into orbit. As societies in the West have discovered, however, unfettered internet access doesn’t just mean giving voice to the voiceless and a more diverse array of philosophies. It also means a cacophony of voices clamouring for attention by being louder or more
outrageous than the next, a platform for demagoguery and division, and the ability to rapidly spread false news stories, images and videos that inflame voter fury. It turns out that, rather than being a unifying force, the internet has also been a tool for deepening biases and ideological conflicts. It makes it easier to find like-minded allies, so it quickly becomes possible to only encounter opinions that agree with one’s own world view. Various digital maladies afflicting netizens, from spam to fraud to malware, would also find fertile ground in new users of a global internet. Many of these threats have been shaped over the years by a Darwinian environment of attack and counter-attack as they seek to evade and overcome the just-as-rapidly evolving spam blockers, antivirus packages and ad barriers. It’s easy to imagine
The heat is on Atmospheric geoengineering trials must begin in earnest, says Matthew Watson THE Paris climate deal’s goal of keeping global warming below 1.5 °C produced a strong but mixed response from scientists. Most welcomed its intention, while some, including me, were also alarmed, wondering how it might be achieved. Here’s the truth, made plainer by the US election result: if we 20 | NewScientist | 3 December 2016
methods. These would aim to alter Earth’s radiation budget by, for example, pumping reflective particles into the air. Field trials of such radiation management need support. The urgency is akin to being in a raft without paddles heading for a waterfall. We could paddle for the bank with our hands – which is like curbing carbon emissions – but it’s too late to make it to safety this way. We could build makeshift paddles to row quicker
wish to stay below 1.5 °C we have to deliberately intervene in the global climate system on a massive and unprecedented scale. The worst impacts of a warmer world would make it immoral not to act. We are nearing the point at “If we wish to stay below 1.5 °C we must intervene in which we must make choices – the global climate system hence the growing call for a frank on a massive scale” discussion of all geoengineering
– develop technologies to suck carbon out of the air – but it is doubtful we can make them in time. We could brace for the inevitable and strap in – adapt to climate change by building coastal defences and so on. Or, we could swim for it. But that’s risky: the water looks cold and not everyone can swim. This is like radiation management. It’s quick and relatively cheap but it’s a plunge into the unknown. This is why information is vital: if we knew how long we had, the size of the fall, the time to make a paddle, and the temperature and depth of the water, we could make a more informed decision.
For more opinion articles, visit newscientist.com/opinion
Jamais Cascio is a distinguished fellow at the Institute for the Future
In reality, climate change might be a series of increasingly severe drops, and it makes sense to fully explore all the options: wean ourselves off carbon, create negative emissions technologies and brace for impacts. But we must also test the water in case we decide to swim for it. That means considering properly, through research and a more open discussion, the unpalatable choice of radiation management. n Matthew Watson is a reader in natural hazards at the University of Bristol, UK, and was the principal investigator of the UK SPICE project, which aimed to field test atmospheric geoengineering
INSIGHT Food labelling
DANIEL ACKER/BLOOMBERG VIA GETTY IMAGES
the chaos that would reign in regions with sudden access to the internet but little or no online security, in particular the addition of millions of relatively unprotected computers that could be recruited for distributed denial of service attacks. None of this means we should halt plans to make access global. It will offer powerful tools for cooperation and organisation. Access to uncensored sources of information – even if flawed – will allow millions the chance to see the world anew. But advocates for unleashing the internet everywhere need to temper hopes with a recognition that this could also result in political disruption, technical chaos and culture shock. Not all outcomes will be happy, and more than a few of the groups and ideologies empowered by this will oppose key principles such as free information access. A truly global internet will, in time, be a good thing. But we must be clear-eyed as to the near-term consequences and opportunities for chaos that it will mean. As the last few years have shown, the internet can be a powerful medium for disharmony. n
–A carbon nightmare–
Care about Earth? Ditch organic food Michael Le Page
For starters, you are not helping wildlife. Yes, organic farms host a greater diversity of wildlife than conventional ones. But because the yields are lower, organic farms require more land, which in the tropics often means cutting down more rainforests. And organic food also results in higher greenhouse gas emissions than conventional farming. The trouble is, there is no way to tell whether that basic loaf of bread is better in terms of greenhouse emissions than the organic one sitting next to it on the supermarket shelf. This divide will become ever greater
WANDER around the local supermarket and you will struggle to find any clues to the environmental impact of the food you eat. If you are lucky, some of the seafood might bear the mark of the Marine Stewardship Council, which certifies fish caught in a sustainable way, but that’s about it. Yet farming is the second largest source of greenhouse gas emissions worldwide, only slightly behind heating and electricity. And while it’s relatively easy to cut emissions from electricity by switching to solar, reducing emissions from farming is a “Food flown thousands of tougher nut to crack. miles can have a much You might think buying local food is lower carbon footprint always preferable to imported food than local produce” when it comes to carbon emissions, but even this is not a reliable guide. Food flown thousands of miles can still in the future, because the have a much lower carbon footprint organisations that set the rather than, say, local produce grown in arbitrary standards for what counts as “organic” have firmly rejected the heated greenhouses. The one label you’re likely to find on technology showing the greatest promise for reducing farming many food items is the “organic” one. But if you care about the environment, emissions: genetic modification. Existing GM crops may already don’t buy it (it’s not healthier either, be reducing carbon emissions even but that’s another story).
though they were not designed to do so. Next up: crops that can capture more of the sun’s energy, require less fertiliser and tolerate drought or salt. But the organic movement will have none of it. There was a faint hope that some might at least accept gene editing, given that gene-edited crops can be genetically indistinguishable from conventional crops. But no, on 18 November the US organic standards board voted unanimously against this. What we really need are climate labels on foods, so consumers can see that whether, say, gene-edited bread is far better in climate terms than organic bread. This isn’t going to be easy. Measuring all the emissions associated with producing food and getting it onto a supermarket shelf is extremely complex, not to say expensive. Most schemes so far have foundered. Tesco tried introducing its own carbon labelling in 2007, for instance, but eventually abandoned the idea. And it’s pointless unless the labels are easy to follow. One promising proposal is to describe the greenhouse emissions associated with particular food items in terms of what percentage of a person’s typical daily carbon footprint they represent. Climate labelling is definitely worth pursuing despite the challenges. The only alternative is to allow consumers to continue being hoodwinked by feelgood mumbo jumbo – and the stakes are far too high to let this happen. n 3 December 2016 | NewScientist | 21