Asteroids and the threat to Earth

The question of what action to take when there is the possibility of an asteroid collision with the Earth periodically surfaces from time to time in science and astronomy circles. With impact craters clearly visible on most continents (and most recently discovered in the Yukatan Peninsula in the Gulf of Mexico) and the theory that an asteroid strike led to the demise of the dinosaur age (at the end of the Cretaceous period), this matter is one which won't disappear. The options of how to prevent a collision are not numerous but in practical terms only a handful have any chance of success. Asteroid Ida (pictured) is 35 klms in length and is located in the asteroid belt and does not cross Earth's orbit but represents the size and scale of many of these bodies floating in relatively nearby space.

One option often canvassed is to actually destroy an asteroid through the detonation of a nuclear device below the surface however the most obvious pitfall is without knowing precisely the composition and density of the material, the only result may be to splinter the asteroid and create additional possible impacts on the Earth. More favourably considered are strategies of 'nudging' an asteroid away using nuclear explosions in near proximity or alternatively a concentrated range of laser beams using solar power from reflected rays of the sun with the same effect.

Whatever the possible solutions may be, the principal concern is to be able to actually detect an asteroid before it's too close. In that respect space surveillance programs have fallen on hard times and its more luck than intention when an asteroid is located travelling nearby.

Earth Hour 2009

Earth Hour once again comes around in its 3rd year and now 3,000 cities and towns in over 90 countries are participating with the support of the United Nations. The actual level of carbon emissions saved by switching off for 60 minutes is very small however the need for constant consciousness in order to encourage policy action should not be underestimated. The chronic need for wide agreement between nations and major polluters at the Copenhagen conference this year is essential if some possibility of mitigating the most extreme effects is to be achieved.

In the World, where to go?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change predicted a rise of the earth's temperature of between 4 degrees C and 6.4 degrees C by 2100 - this prediction is considered to be conservative and increasingly climate change science is indicating a 4 degree C temperature rise much earlier and closer to 2050. Just what impact would a 4 degree C heat increase mean?

In reality a 4 degree C heat change would be dire for the planet and for the human population. Apart from the ice melting and a sizeable increase in sea levels, increasingly frequent large violent storms and growing acidity in the sea, many parts of the planet will be arid desolate zones without the capacity to sustain life. The United States, South America, Africa, Southern Europe, the Middle East, India, China, South-East Asia and Australia for the most part would be arid deserts. Only the most Northern and most Southern parts of the planet would be warm enough to have human habitation - Canada, Alaska, Northern Europe/Scandinavia, Russia, Greenland in the North and Antartica, New Zealand, Tasmania in the South. A few pockets would remain in Western Australia and the Southern tip of South America but little else.

In order to reduce the impact of this scenario, 70% of carbon emissions would need to be reduced over the next 20 years however the opposite is occuring with carbon increases of around 3%. Perhaps this is the beginning of the end of human domination of this planet. What will come next?

How much will the sea rise ?

New Scientist (March 14, 2009) reports that the estimates or rising sea level provided by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change which forecast a rise of 18 to 59 centimetres by 2100 are too low. The estimates did not include water from the Greenland and Antartica ice sheets and Greenland alone has enough ice which if melted would raise sea levels by 6 metres on average, worldwide. The most recent measurements show sea level has been rising 3 millimetres a year since 1993.

This is not good news as the altered estimates would bring forward the dates by which low level land and island groups would experience permanent water inundation. The difficulty with all these estimates is the lack of clear models which encompass a rigorous methodology including all known ice sources which can melt and feed directly into sea levels.

Australia's military position

According to the latest information, Australia's current military strength stands at:
Army: 26,611 full time and 15,892 Reserves
Airforce: 13,521 full time and 2,653 Reserves
Navy: 12, 935 full time and 1,785 Reserves

...with 59 main battle tanks, 71 F/A-18 fighters, 21 F-112 strike aircraft and a small handful of surface craft vessels (6 mine hunters, 4 guided missile frigates, 8 frigates, 9 amphibious landing craft and 6 submarines).

Australia ranks 13th in terms of military expenditure but only ranks 68th in terms of size of armed forces. Australia's modest military outlay of $24B USD in spending in compares very small to France at $61B USD, the United States at $713B (ex NATO) and China at $61B USD.

In total, this is a very small but high tech level military force and suitable for the South-East Asia region. The suitability of having battle tanks remain questionable given the lack of possible deployments which would require this type of armament.

Executive Salaries

The current world economic downturn again brings into sharp relief the level of remuneration of senior executive of large companies or corporations particularly where remuneration levels remain high when employees are being made redundant and or the corporation has suffered significant trading and business losses. American Sol Trujillo's remuneration for the Australian telecommunications company, Telstra is one such example. Trujillo's remuneration package in 2006 was $8.71M, then in 2007 it was $11.7M climbing to $13.4M in 2008 and he will leave the company mid year with a reported more than $30M payout. Telstra's share price has fallen during this period, it was ruled out of the tender for the national broadband network and has made redundant thousands of employees. Where is the logic of all this?

Yet this is minor compared with the stories coming out of Wall Street where financial institutions are receiving extraordinary bailouts courtesy of the American taxpayer, yet many of those responsible for the debt crisis have yet to be brought to account and have retained their massive earnings.