A bi-monthly open thread related to climate solutions. This month will start off with COP-26 and many targets and plans and mechanisms will be proposed and discussed. Look out for the updated impacts of the evolving NDCs such as this one from Climate Resource, suggesting that the world could be on track for just a little less than 2ºC warming (relative to the pre-industrial) (if everyone does what they pledge and we are lucky with respect to climate sensitivity). Please be respectful and constructive.
About that doughnut … of social and planetary boundaries … of economics and societies .. and demand-side (reduce consumption) aka understanding Degrowth
Topic – Living well within limits planetary limits is it possible and what will it take
Julia Steinberger Oct 2021 – 26 minutes short
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9bFZ_rorg0
Thread with Refs by Julia Steinberger
Rather than getting us out of the most dangerous situation that humanity has ever faced, in the midst of the 6th mass extinction, our governments & policy-makers [and some active influential climate research scientists] are ignoring the vast PROVEN potential of demand-side measures to reduce emissions while protecting well-being.
When we study the demand-side, we find a PERFECTLY USABLE EMERGENCY EXIT. One every society can safely aim for to protect populations while radically reducing emissions.
https://twitter.com/JKSteinberger/status/1415189267542904833
To some climate KIAs “degrowth” research and analysis does not exist …. Why? Because it can’t be found in an IPCC report. And that is also why it won;t appear in the AR6 WGIII either. Go figure that one out.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/degrowth-case-for-constructing-new-economic-paradigm/
https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-environ-102017-025941
https://greennews.ie/degrowth-explainer/
Thus far, the integrated assessment modelling (IAM) community and the IPCC have neglected to
consider degrowth scenarios, where economic output declines due to stringent climate mitigation.
[…] However, substantial challenges remain regarding political feasibility. Nevertheless, degrowth
pathways should be thoroughly considered.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-22884-9.pdf
It’s a weird world that is for certain.
Hat tip and all credit due to https://twitter.com/KateRaworth
Author of Doughnut Economics. Co-founder of Doughnut Economics Action Lab.
Teaching at Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute.
https://doughnuteconomics.org/
When you want to change the economic system, but don’t change the economic system, you’re wasting everyone’s time.
This is better. By a lot.
https://www.clubhouse.com/club/regenerative-governance
Jesus… after all the years here do you still kowtow to the PhD’s?
Raworth is better than ne0-classical, but still not understanding the relationship with Nature.
How is this not clear to you after all this time?
not kowtowing, simply crediting the originator of an idea concept that others were now using speaking about above.
I am not here to tell people what to think or who to believe or tell them what is right and what is wrong (despite any exceptions to that rule). That’s there job, not mine.
The world is not black and white. It is not even shades of gray. Good useful ideas, motivation, correction, revising one’s own position and inspiration can appear from anywhere unexpectedly. :)
No, the world is not black and white, but certain bits of knowledge and understanding are. Dismissing critiques as not understanding this – I mean, how many more times are one of you going to repeat that as if it is not obvious? – is a Straw Man. Some things ARE known – whether you understand that or not. What I find is when people don’t have the breadth of knowledge to allow them to understand what I have said, they often bring out that canard. So, as a general note, if you find yourself wanting to repeat that in terms of anything I say – I mean, I am the epitome of the systems thinker, no? – please stop to consider it probably means you’re not understanding my full argument(s).
Her idea is not new, is it? To put limits in a doughnut shape is merely another kind of circle, isn’t it? And to then make the mistakes of maintaining core irrationalities from classical and nei=oclassical economics and using esoteric conceptualizations that don’t have a direct connection to specific understandings of the functions of natural systems, this is a failure of imagination/a dearth of knowledge/awareness, Raworth’s Doughnut is a lot like the EV: A cool idea for decades ago, but too little, too late, and still suicidal in the long run.
the concept is clear on the critical importance of planetary boundaries. the current economics is not. and it is about a way of thinking that brings about the regenerative and distributive dynamics. https://doughnuteconomics.org/about-doughnut-economics
the donughnut is merely a visual way to describe the two main constraints, or guardrails to be mindful of. Hardly seems damaging to me to recommend this kind of thinking, while she condemns classical economics growth etc. along the way even if she is not from the killian template mould.
Anyway I see these things as curiosities mainly. There are many variations to the theme and none of them have any level of support from anyone significant. It’s just idle chatter on the internet among a tiny group of outliers. Like Keen makes a lot of sense to me, but so what? Nothing will come of it. No one on earth is going to adopt his frameworks on economics etc. and no one is going to take up doughnut economics either.
So much like climate science outputs, it is all purely academic. endless hypothetical gas-bagging while the world trundles on to collapse probably much sooner than later. A cascading collapse definitely sooner than most people expect who actually expect that.
The classic example of : “Some things ARE known” and how many more times am I going to have to repeat that as if it is not obvious already? :)
I brought Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics to RealClimate when it was first published. I read it with passion and hope. At the time, you were either not here, or too busy “telling people [that would be me] what to think or who to believe … what is right and what is wrong” to notice. It may not have occurred to you that your attacks, along with a lot of other nonsense that is not your fault, drove me to abandon RC’s comment section.
That said, she is one of the brighter lights of recent thinking, and I was disappointed to not find her efforts given more space in forward-looking thought.
You attacked me for crediting you posting something I liked. You gaslighted me. You insulted me. You totally lost the plot, and all sense of social decency and I responded appropriately to that level of uncalled for abuse.
I see no improvement in your level of nasty vitriol despite the passage of time. You are attacking me because I posted refs about Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics to Real Climate who you like? An aggressive nasty childish dysfunctional response. Admitting you have the problem is first step to take.
In the meantime know that I’m not interested in nasty angry trolls or the other weirdos here or what they think or say. I’m not a therapist!
The short version?
I am not interested Susan. Get lost!
The bleeding obvious point that needs to be made?
Everyone should abandon RC’s comment section. It is a Pathological environment.
It is not mentally healthy to come here for any extended period of time and read what is written.
RC is the closest thing to experiencing Stockholm Syndrome without being imprisoned. The the moderators are the experiment designers and the jailers.
Everyone’s mental health (and their life) would be better if they walked away from Real Climate and never returned.
Wow, RC. As one of the most prolific posters here recently, you may want to consider your own contribution to what you claim to be a toxic environment.
Larry Elliott Economics editor
Thu 18 Nov 2021
No country has met welfare goals in past 30 years ‘without putting planet at risk’
Exclusive: even wealthy nations seen as having good sustainability records – such as Germany and Norway – use more than fair share of resources, finds study
Looking at a sample of 148 nations, research by the University of Leeds found wealthy countries were putting the future of the planet at risk to make minimal gains in human welfare, while poor countries were living within ecological boundaries but underachieving in areas such as life expectancy and access to energy.
The report, which follows the conclusion of the Cop26 climate change talks in Glasgow, said that on current trends the next 30 years would see the pattern repeated and called for a rethink of growth-dominated economic models.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/18/no-country-has-met-welfare-goals-in-past-30-years-without-putting-planet-at-risk
“Realize that everything connects to everything else.” ― Leonardo da Vinci.
“Since corrupt people unite amongst themselves to constitute a force, then honest people must do the same. It is as simple as that.” — Leo Tolstoy
“There are three classes of people: those who see, those who sees when they are shown, and those who cannot see.” ― Leonardo da Vinci
“I can calculate the motions of the heavenly stars, but not the madness of people” — Isaac Newton
“We have embedded within the scientific community a view of how politics works that was never realistic.” — Gavin Schmidt
https://twitter.com/THEworldsummits/status/1433818316154474515
“For me the main implication of this paper is that capitalism isn’t going to cut it. The system devours the planet and yet fails to meet basic needs. Why? Because it is organized around corporate profit and elite accumulation rather than human well-being.”
False. Capitalism is organized around each individual being responsible for his own well-being, thus, requiring people to work to provide for their needs. FACT: It works better than all other systems ever tried in all of world history, with no exceptions. How ’bout them apples?
For those who wish to live sustainably with the environment, no degrowth is needed. Degrowth exists in many parts of the world – more precisely, many parts of the world never had ANY growth, and so, for those who want to live in a more natural type setting, buy a ticket to, for example, Africa. Or a ticket to Russia – I hear they are giving away land as homesteads – in the far north, with 24 hour summer light you can grow 800 pound vegetables, can those, can salmon, shoot a moose – feed your family sustainably – as the world warms, you’ll be happy for the heat. Go ahead, go to travelocity dot com and get those tickets. It’s a big beautiful world, go out and live as you preach that we should.
Hr. Knowitall
“False. Capitalism is organized around each individual being responsible for his own well being”
You see and read Capitalism also with only one eye and even less than that.
What you describe there is your own and local tribal propaganda for it, that is as much as anarchy and extreme a-social individualism.
Capitalism exists and can be found under a waste lot and wide horizons of other social and political order systems. What about State- capitalism, Monopoly- capitalism and corporative capitalism?
Capitalism is a con- sequense, a feedback, and not a premise a driver. , Capitalism is not a Motor, it is a Movens. Capitalism as such is the waggon that is pulled by a wild horse. ,Kapitalism is especially not the qualified and responsible waggon driver on the high seat. Capitaloism is not the responsible and self made, free man.
My cousin brother , who was a priest, once told that “The error of both communism socialismj and liberalism read capitalism is the primary assumption that “man” is good at the bottom of his heart.”
That was a special religious point of wiew,
But we ought to agree all of us that it hardly takes just Matter and Money in exess free at hand on individual level to restore happiness .. It first of all takes consciousness, enlightment, morals, and orderly social infrastructure, official law and order and civil service that people can rely on.
What is lacking in the tyrannies and in the “communist peoples republics” is not capitalism. On the contrary, Capitalism and that invisible hand allways thriving for money is often the only damned remaining thing works at least now and then
What is lacking is official and well organized social infrastructure that people can rely on so they do not have to thrive and fight for life and for Das Kapital on personal level and worship and dream of capitalism all the time.
Carbo. I quite like your comments on capitalism. KIA is one eyed on rather a lot of things. One gets used to it.
Let’s review the key points:
1) “Capitalism is organized around each individual being responsible for his own well-being
Patently factually False to the core.
2) It works better than all other systems ever tried in all of world history, with no exceptions.
Only by intentionally excluding discounting and ignoring all other systems ever tried in the history of the world. So it too is patently factually False to the core.
3) How ’bout them apples?
The question should have been How ’bout that steaming pile of horseshit then?
4) Then we sail off into fantasyland with an idiotic lunatic Religious Preacher where unicorns can fly and he is an intelligent know it all.
I agree with KIA on one thing. If you are preaching a certain lifestyle, you have no credibility with me unless you live that lifestyle.
This is illogical. Being a hypocrite does not make someone’s claim wrong.
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/tu-quoque
I live in a field with no water or heat. That poverty-stricken enough to qualify?
KIA betrays his casual, careless racism here. Some of the highest economic growth rates in the recent past have been registered by African nations–for example, Kenya looks set to achieve 7%+ for 2021. For the continent as a whole:
https://www.afdb.org/en/knowledge/publications/african-economic-outlook
Mind you, I’m not saying that GDP growth is an unalloyed good, however welcome it understandably may be in the context of poverty and underdevelopment. The impetus to growth is deeply engrained in capitalism, and the growing conflict between unbridled economic appropriation and a finite environment is posing a clear danger to all of us.
Five decades or so back I asked a prominent economist–sorry, forget the name now!–whether capitalism could find some viable accommodation with physical limitations of the environment. He said ‘yes,’ but admitted that it was an unresolved question. I’m not sure we’re any closer to seeing an actual demonstration of the possibility than we were back then.
I don’t pretend to know all the answers, but I can’t believe that we can maintain the present culture of conveniency/disposability and still hope to survive as a civilization.
There is still a glimmer of hope. We are getting more efficient all the time in transportation, homes, appliances, PV efficiency, etc. We recycle more now. We’re moving away from FFs, although Biden is currently pushing for more FF production because of the backlash against high FF prices that have helped to put his poll numbers lower than any president in history this early in his term – of course high FF prices are just the tip of the iceberg of unhappiness with his administration.
No racism here, just pointing out that there are places in the world where development has been lacking – places that might appeal to people who prefer a less developed society.
Yes, KIA, Biden magically made prices rise in 200 different countries. Amazing, that man’s power and reach.
It is the GLOBAL oil market. When US production falls, we have to buy it from others around the world – raising prices globally. Simple supply and demand. Econ 101.
KIA: It is the GLOBAL oil market. When US production falls, we have to buy it from others around the world – raising prices globally. Simple supply and demand. Econ 101.
BPL: Oil production in the US is UP, not DOWN, since Biden took office. Therefore the supply is larger and prices should be down. Econ 101.
BPL: Oil production in the US is UP, not DOWN, since Biden took office. Therefore the supply is larger and prices should be down. Econ 101.
You are correct, supply is up, because 2020 supply (and demand) were WAY down due to the flu hysteria. In 2021 demand has risen as the Trump vaccine worked to save the world from the flu and reduce the hysteria. The question is: which increased more, supply or demand? Econ 101.
BPL: Oil production in the US is UP, not DOWN, since Biden took office. Therefore the supply is larger and prices should be down. Econ 101.
KIA: You are correct, supply is up, because 2020 supply (and demand) were WAY down due to the flu hysteria.
BPL: I said up RELATIVE TO THE AMOUNT UNDER TRUMP. That’s the PEAK under Trump, not just during COVID. You were wrong to begin with and you’re still wrong.
Yes, I’m sure it was pure chance that made ‘Africa’ the example of places that supposedly “never had ANY growth.”
Many places with large areas of indigenous people should be similar, right?
Mrkia: False. Capitalism is organized around each individual being responsible for his own well-being, thus,
RtW: it is dumb as dirt. People have diverse talents. Some are grand at creating. Some are fantastic at organizing said creations. Some are wonderful at implementing said creations.
A society that rewards ONLY those that organize is bound to fail, yet that is precisely the model Capitalism follows.
Why the fuck should I share my creativity? Why should those who do the physical work do diddly squat? Why shouldn’t we stick our middle finger in the air instead?
After all, only the leeches who don’t do diddly squat get the rewards.
Tell me, Mrkia, why should I share my inventions when I know that Capitalists will slurp up 99.99999999% of the returns I create?
The debate between capitalism versus socialism drives me insane. IMHO the best economic system combines elements of BOTH capitalism and socialism. The Scandinavian countries( Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland) have been doing this for decades and have amongst the highest wages and best social, environmental, and economic outcomes in world history. They combine the best of both sets of ideas. I doubt there exists a better system that’s workable in the real world, all things considered.
Capitalism in its pure laissez faire form is too harsh on people and the environment to be workable, while socialism in its pure form like the Soviet Union or heavy handed socialism in Venezuela leads to economic stagnation and shortages of basic goods. Therefore you logically combine the best of both sets of ideas. In fact most countries combine capitalism and socialism to some extent.
To suggest the state or local ‘community’ should own and run everything is just dumb, doomed to failure, and empty ideology, but to suggest the private sector must own and run everything (police force and army anyone?) is equally dumb. Its always going to be a complicated compromise or balance based on culture, the particular asset, and local conditions. In Scandinavia schools and some utilities are typically state owned for example but industry and farming is in the private sector.
Likewise the governments role in regulating economic activity is a nuanced issue without simplistic answers. It depends on whether the activity self regulates adequately or not. I definitely think the government has a role in regulating on heath, safety and environmental grounds, but not so much with wages, prices and occupational licencing (with a few basic exceptions).. All just my opinion of course. But I’m right.
Nigelj
It does not drive me insane because I am fed up, grown up with it and, believe me or not, could remain relatively sane even despite of that.
I believe that this is because we have had a system above both socialism and capitalism down there in the grades.
Somehow when I first came to know it in the schoolyard, I faintly identified it as inferiour old supersticion and madness.
Perhaps I could also tell what kind of training environment and education that has protected me all my time against both socialism and capitalism and that may protect and defend also others against the same madness. .
Have to agree with Nigel on this one. A mixed system is best. Blaming everything on “capitalism” or “socialism” is a dead end. The thing is to choose policies that work, and to hell with what they’re labeled.
Agreed about labeling. Glad to see one of you finally acknowledging the hair’s breadth between the two supposedly fundamentally different approaches. However, ecosystem-destroying is still ecosystem-destroying. Pretending consumptive systems can be made sustainable is nothing more than putting one’s head in the sand. It’s incredibly simple: So long as want trumps limits, the destruction continues. ANY degree or form of ownership is a license to consume. Ipso facto, ecosystem-destroying.
Killian I thought your “commons” approach was community ownership?
Or are you saying it means nobody owns anything?
This later approach of nobody owns anything is typically applied to abundant resources like the air we breathe, or the oceans beyond countries immediate territorial waters. But if nobody owns things like farm land and industry in your local area, what is to stop unscrupulous people simply taking it over for their own ends?
Q: what is to stop unscrupulous people simply taking it over for their own ends?
A: They already did nigelj.
I thought your “commons” approach was community ownership?
My? Commons are my concept? Please stop trying to minimize concepts like that.
Or are you saying it means nobody owns anything?
How do you not realize you just repeated yourself, so created a nonsensical post in every regard?
Killian so are you saying community ownership is the same as nobody owns anything? Even a local community doesn’t own its local resources? Just nobody owns anything?
It will be a disaster. A free for all. Unscrupulous people will just take what they want. That is precisely why the concepts of ownership, property rights, and property laws, and policing and borders and border protections developed.
Reality Check. People do indeed sometimes take what they want, but without the concepts of ownership, property rights, and some sort of police force it will be MUCH WORSE.
Killian so are you saying community ownership is the same as nobody owns anything? Even a local community doesn’t own its local resources? Just nobody owns anything?
I mean, do you sit around coming up with ways to be obtuse just to entertain yourself?
Context. You know the context. Don’t pretend you don’t.
Nested Commons.
Quote: “So long as want trumps limits,…….”
Define “limits”. Who decides what the “limits” are?
PHYSICS and BIOLOGY come to mind and wise intelligent people who can understand things like that.
IDIOTS, SUCH AS YOURSELF, DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT BE BURDENED WITH DECIDING.
I think nice simple barbed wire encrusted FEMA Camp is where you belong. You’d be safe there, and harmless enough. :)
Nigel
A better diagnosis of the soviet union and its occupied and imprisoned lands and people is the dictatorship of dilettantism.
That label has come out afterwards and is underswtood and remembered by many.
A joke in Norway during the long scandinavian one- party state and “Planned economy” period, which came to call itself “Social democracy” and had its paralells in England France and West Germany was that we actually are the better and more autentic socialists, whereas the USSR hardly understands how.
Dictatorship of dilettantism followed the planned economy and that the old pioneering comrades from the Party and their fianceer, children and nephews were of the right hertitage and bloody peoples race to enter all keye- positions in civil service as stupid as could be and without proper education for it exept a “course” of 4 weeks in the Party School with Wolleyball as the ony practical lab and field exercises.
It is the Arbeiter und Bauernfakultät with patent from the Soviet academy in Ljeningrad, and by us, the fameous Bitty- chamber- faculty in “The Peoples House” and in “The Peoples Theater”. .
It was very similar to the Joseph Terboven- period from 1940 to 45 in Norway, and I have personally visited it and seen it in the DDR and the CSSR.
The further history is that Gro Harlem Brundtland, who invented the IPCC, was actually a legally educated and examined medicalo dctor. She became prime minister and demanded that in order to enter the higher grades in the Party with P, you must have stood highscool the legal way, individually in person.
That caused a great frustration in the grand old Party with P. They committed self- critic and dressed over into blue cellophan and dared the big jump over into the new “Progressive Party”, but still with P, the Populists. P for Party Pig and Pork.
That is actually the history of many traditional national socialists and progressive red- guardists by blood and heritage worldwide, I believe.
We also have them here at this website some of them. They obviously graduated rather collectively en masse on the Party Quote, from that grand old Party with P.
When they say “My ass” and “Took it out of my ass” here, I am no native and cannot quite understand.
Does it mean their Anus or Colon or eventually their Equus asinus entailing the US democratic Party?
Sigmund Freud, that infameous Jew, called it “Analfixiert”
We have an even more direct woord for it about people: “Rass- høl” Fætid people, unclean and stinky behaviours in any case.
That’s good review nigelj I agree with you here. The non-debate drives me insane too. The knee jerk reactions to any adjustments to the status quo are typically always extreme over the top bellicose reactionary bs.
It is not difficult at all to see the suggested alternatives aimed at curtailing GHG emissions as fast as possible and equitably do not in fact demand abandoning capitalist systems at all, but merely adjusting them to suit the dire circumstances.
So what if someone out there chooses to lay the entire fault for climate at the foot of some undefined catch all terminology of “capitalism” or not….. as opposed to the real culprit which is excessive fossil fuel use and land use in every nation and culture?
Not only isn’t the UNFCCC about to outlaw capitalism, but they are not even discussing the possibility for reducing consumption of any sector of the economy – apart from fossil fuels decades into the future. Therefore, it’s a total beat up as usual. And lying of course.
EVERY political/economic system in existence the last 250 years has driven GHG emissions and climate change!!! I don’t see anyone calling for the end of Monarchies and Dictatorships – or demanding Monarchies not be abolished or changed … There dozens of national versions of capitalism/economics political systems in use today. They are all driving GHG emissions, every single one.
The world is full of handwaving chicken littles like KIA who do not have a clue about anything related to the topic at hand. It’s fun to occasionally poke him with a stick, to ridicule his stupidity and ignorance, and his intentional lying deceptive trolling.
The guy is a jerk. E-P is no better btw. There is no big debate as such. There’s politics. :)
“I don’t see anyone calling for the end of Monarchies and Dictatorships – or demanding Monarchies not be abolished or changed”
That, sir, is a flatly false statement. And this one is even worse because it’s delusional:
It is not difficult at all to see the suggested alternatives aimed at curtailing GHG emissions as fast as possible and equitably do not in fact demand abandoning capitalist systems at all
Defend this, and please don’t just grunt and shout. Get down into the physics, thermodynamics, resource limits, risks and time limits related to those risks, and the underlying principles or you’re wasting your time and that of anyone reading this.
It’s easy to toss off a mini-rant because you’re frustrated at the lack of movement, we all are, but sometimes no movement is better than charging over the cliff.
Killian, the statement “I don’t see anyone calling for the end of Monarchies and Dictatorships – or demanding Monarchies not be abolished or changed” was obviously in reference to fixing the climate problem, – and on that basis it sounds correct.
The problem here is that successful tyrants allways know how to justify and to sanctify themselves.
They perform on behalf of the people or the nation and on behalf of welfare and environment and the national or global piece interests. And along with science and justice of course.
Only God and Allah is forbidden because obsolete. But that hardly matters when It all means the same.
I n former days, the Emperor il Duce, Der Führer,.. was allways the Son of God. And the Pope was Gods personal deputee.
That has changed, so they rather perform on behalf of The People, the Broad Masses, on behalf of History, Logics, Reason, Science, Permaculture, Regeneratives, Sustainables, Error- bars, ,… or whatever is most popular at any time.
Give it up. Always wrong.
I understood exactly what was said, It is you that is not getting things.
A series of monarchies exel in wealt and living standard social securety and proper civil infrastructures law and order and score top also in the tackeling of Covid 19.
Whereas most tyrannies and dictatorships call themselves republics and are ruled by fameous Precidents.
Conclusion:
Many people , also here, understand less about this. It is obviously another factor that decides of misery and dictatorship / wealth and freedom.
fwiw I have repeatedly ad nauseum been getting “down into the physics, thermodynamics, resource limits, risks and time limits related to those risks, and the underlying principles. “
and N is correct to point out my comment was obviously in reference to fixing the climate problem …. and recent events such as #Flop26 and activist commentary in general. eg Kevin Anderson has never called for monarchies to be overthrown in order to fix Climate issues. Nor has he or Great and others XR et al ever outright called for Capitalism to be destroyed per se.
And yet, and this is the point, idiots like KIA push these lies and then everyone else climbs on board his BS distractions and then the DENIERS win.
Little different than Mann et al going ballistic recently over people using the term “collapse” and then misrepresenting that to hilt … well Kevin Anderson and hundreds of others in the field use that term every single day, yet Mann et al are incredible SILENT about this.
It’s easy to kick the little guy in the head and get away with it. Whatever. Fact is no matter what Mann or KA thinks or what words they use we’re screwed anyway way.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FEwLec1WYAYdKsl?format=jpg&name=4096×4096
Because the choice of WORDS do not CREATE REALITY …. the sooner foolish celebrities on Twitter work that one out the better for everyone and the planet
Maybe I needed to BOLD this instead? LOL
There dozens of national versions of capitalism/economics political systems in use today. They are all driving GHG emissions, every single one.
That frames the global situation quite accurately, and essentially means the very same thing as his Lordship saying:
In a world without limits, any form of economics can be justified. In one with a multitude of limits, no current form of national economy is sustainable or comes within a million miles of being so. –
Seriously, there is no hope of fixing anything. We’re all well and truly fucked. @MichaelEMann himself has finally convinced me of this truth and this reality.
Genose Killan has quite obviously seen the light and the urgency., and delivers the methods.
Adolf der Einmalige had seen, and did deliver the same in his time- of his heritage and class. “Mein Kampf!” My struggle, he wrote.
Rudolf Steiner, probably on Cocaine like Hitler did not commit any militant palace revolution at least, but published on those higher spiritual wiews and visions.
Thus remember:
Es war einmal ein Tapetzierer
Er tapetzierte wohnen und Badenzimmer
Er hätte tapetzieren sollen immer.
I have autentic histories of it, of who they were and how they especially did behave in the taverns, from autentic tavern- level in Niedersachsen near Bremen.
We are not of the blood for that.
Killian does not even understand absolute control and rulership. Or is he the Son of God after all who has seen the light??
Drunken Sailors also have that way now and then.
George Bush declared the new world order and “The war on Terror!” after 9-11. dis- mounting officially some Geneva convensions of behaviours at war on behalf of the USA.
After that, any further tyrannic precident coulde start any kind of war calling it their legal war on terrorism.
We’ve been over this before, so maybe you are insane: Capitalism means nothing more than private ownership of the means of production. All forms of “socialism” include ownership. All current national governments engage in flavors of Capitalism. Period.
In a world without limits, any form of economics can be justified. In one with a multitude of limits, no current form of national economy is sustainable or comes within a million miles of being so.
So, you can bloviate all you wish about which version of nonsense is better, but you’re talking nonsense no matter which you choose.
K. The strict minimalist dictionary definition of capitalism is indeed private ownership, but in common everyday understanding capitalism is ALSO a collection of many different attributes, and so is socialism.
No, those are other things. Like markets. Markets aren’t capitalism, they’re markets, e.g.
BTW, what is a “minimalist definition? I didn’t know there were varieties of definitions in dictionaries.
A gentle reminder that it is are more useful to all to discuss the issues presented in multiple academic papers by experts in the field rather than allowing yourselves to be completely distracted away from them by idiots like KIA.
for example ….
“Thanks”giving, indeed. There is a LOT in this article I did not know. Not only should Thanksgiving be a day to honor the Native peoples of the Americas, it should be renamed to something like “Native Americas Memorial Day” to acknowledge the slavery, genocide, mass pandemic death – some of the later smaller pandemics intentionally started – lying, cheating and stealing that went on.
…By the 1670s Massasoit was dead and his son Wamsutta had died after he was imprisoned in Plymouth for negotiating a land sale to the Massachusetts Bay Colony. …. Relations between the settlers and the Native people would deteriorate into the devastating King Philip’s War, which ended with death, enslavement or displacement for the majority of the Native people living in southern New England.
The head of another of Massasoit’s sons, Metacomet, better known as King Philip, was mounted on a pike outside Plymouth Colony as a warning, and the descendants of Massasoit, the Pilgrims’ great “protector and preserver,” were captured and sold into slavery in the West Indies….
“No one has acknowledged these atrocities happened,” Peters said, bringing up King Philip’s War. “Yet when we talk about it, there’s zero empathy. The native life doesn’t hold the same value.
“I think if we can get people to come to terms with the history and the way it happened, they can start to look at Native American lives on the same plane as European lives,” he said.
Raising up Native voices…
“Out of the 69 tribes of just Wampanoag people who lived here pre-contact, only three — the Herring Pond, the Aquinnah and the Mashpee, plus a band of Assonet peoples, are still here,” said Troy Currence, a medicine man with the Herring Pond Tribe. “We’re lucky to be one of them. We survived. We’re still here. We have a chance to reclaim our language and our history and re-educate people. We didn’t go away, we adapted.”
At the same time, Peters does not think Thanksgiving should go the way of Confederate statues and names of slaveholders on buildings as the nation reckons with its history….
…“There’s a place where those things do belong, as a point that we don’t make that mistake ever again.”
https://www.yahoo.com/news/summer-racial-reckoning-america-ready-111725897.html
Some time ago I delved into the history of the Puritans in the UK, Holland, then New England from the 1620s, how they arrived there and why, what became of them, what kind of people they were, and I had a light touch review of the history up to and slightly past King Philips War ….. hard not to come to conclusions about the multiple myths upon which most of the US relies upon to numb the difficult truths. The Puritans had an economic and political system, basically founded upon the only free men in existence were approved Puritans, only they had a “vote” and only they could own land … the rest is 400 years of mythical history. There are goods valid reasons why they could not get on with their neighbors in England, or anywhere. Psychopaths comes to mind here. Unfortunately people cannot handle the truth of these matters, and the term arose “to let sleeping dogs lie”. There is 400 years of habit behind that truth.
Thanks for the heads up Killian, this was the 400th anniversary of 1620 (I missed it) ….. the beginnings of what was to come ….. Now, which brings me to this related aspect of where we are at today …. the work of the 21st century version of Puritans at Play in the World.
https://jembendell.com/2021/11/04/this-is-what-a-realgreenrevolution-would-include/ – a series of articles but the above kind of captures the essentials well enough.
Each to their own of course. Me included, meaning I still have absolutely zero respect for Puritans, what they did, how they did it and their psychotic deluded opinions about everything.
Bendell is a carpetbagger. I truly wish he’d shut the hell up. He gets pretty much everything wrong and what he doesn’t get wrong he stole from others. And he’s wrong here. You don’t need some cooked-up bullshit about “lowest selves” nonsense. We have words for them: Psychopaths and sociopaths.
What went wrong? Large groups came up with cool ideas that required mass cooperation, like Gobekle Tepe and any and all other monumental architecture (even if made of soil as in the Midwest.) Certain people liked being in charge, certain people liked someone being in charge, and over time they drifted further and further from co-creating with Nature in favor of dominating Nature to enrich themselves. Over time they drifted away from sharing and caring because it allowed them to manage their commons the best way possible in favor of enriching themselves… because they could. Power is like that. But not all of us did. Even today, there are those who are wise enough to maintain their co-creator status.
Human nature? Human nature is “human Nature,” and that is what we must return to. It’s not that this is Utopia; humans are flawed. It’s that living in small groups embeded in Nature the worst of us can be mitigated more effectively than how we live now.
300k years of that vs 4-10k years of this shit? I know which side I land on.
I invite you all to join me there.
https://www.clubhouse.com/club/regenerative-governance
no worries. nobodies perfect, that is for sure. my bad w bendell
thx for the invite though.
To all and everyone
Killian, The Drunken Sailor, the large Teacher, Judge, Troll and Commander sky- high above us all.
He is now teaching us further on all our bloody and cruel and major sins during his history, that is listed up.
I have a picture of an eqvivalent urban political political situation in the climate, that I have adressed to now several times. It is just fror you now to draw it out, see, and examine for yourselves:
namely
https:// www. Trollet på Karl Johan, Theodor Kittelsen.
The Troll is minutely dressed up in sustainables and regeneratives and permacultures in all its details by Kittelsen who was very clever on that..
https://www.Trollet_på_Karl_Johan_Theodor_Kittelsen
Now, it comes in red, I hope.
Only the Europeans are guilty, right? The FACT that the Indians were killing and maiming each other all over the continent is irrelevant, right? What happened to Indians in America is nothing special – all peoples around the world (including all Europeans) have experience exactly the same or worse. Worse things are occurring in the ME and Africa to this day. It is the history of the world. No nation has a different or better history. Men have conquered other men since the first cave man was able to make a fist or grab a club. It has never stopped and it will never stop.
Scientifically, it came down to “survival of the fittest” and Europeans were the fittest so they survived best. Natural selection favored Europeans. Fortunately Europeans had enough compassion to negotiate with the Indians before they were all killed.
Historically, serious scholars agree that there was no “genocide” as we know the term today:
https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/7302
Leftists need to get over themselves.
LOOK! Biden is committing genocide on future humans by inflicting severe AGW on them:
https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/biden-starts-freak-out-about-soaring-inflation-orders-economic-council-reduce-energy-costs
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/11/24/releasing-oil-from-reserves-is-a-bad-policy-choice-dan-brouillette.html
Quoting KIA in italics
The FACT that the Indians were killing and maiming each other all over the continent is irrelevant, right?
Yes. Correct. It is irrelevant.
So why do you insist on bringing it up? Whataboutery is whataboutuery. Can you not add something useful, accurate, on topic, and intelligent instead? No, apparently you cannot!
What happened to Indians in America is nothing special – all peoples around the world (including all Europeans) have experience exactly the same or worse.
So what? It does not make it right what was actually done in all cases to the Indians in America.
It does not make it right that what was done is minimized, dismissed, lied about, or covered up, or never acknowledged ever by you and all the people with attitudes and the entrained psychology just like you.
Worse things are occurring in the ME and Africa to this day.
So what? It doesn’t make it right what was done to the Indians in America. Not then not now today either.
Nor will acknowledging and remedying the harm genocide murder and abuse of generations of Indians in America take away one bit nor minimize the reality of the entrenched harm and evil occurring in the ME and Africa.
Both can be called out for what they are. At the same time. Actions can be taken to improve both situations at the same time as well. Humans are really clever, can walk and chew gum at the same time. Who knew?
It is the history of the world.
Yes, true – well barely partly true, as it is a minute abstraction of the history of the world.
And so what anyway? So what nothing. It’s is irrelevant distraction to the SPECIFIC HISTORY OF Indians in America, the Indigenous people’s of the past and the present generations.
iow simplistic Garbage Verbosity that says NOTHING AT ALL WORTH SAYING. It would be much better for the world if you simply remained silent.
No nation has a different or better history.
Totally false bullshit and garbage! Every nation has a different History, a different past. Some are much better and much worse than others. That you either do not know this, and/or that you would say it and believe it is some kind of an credible argument against anything confirms yet again You are a stupid ignorant idiot!
That nations have a different history, and worse or better histories makes absolutely no difference to the reality that is the actually history of the Native American Indians and Indigenous people’s and their descendants and it’s importance and validity.
Men have conquered other men since the first cave man was able to make a fist or grab a club.
So what? It does not make it right what was actually done in all cases to the Indians in America.
The IMAGINARY PAST Behavior of the first cave man who was able to make a fist or grab a club is no basis for a continuing civilization nor is it a GUIDING YARDSTICK for the species of Homo Sapiens.
Feel free to go live like a Cave man if that suits your level!
It has never stopped and it will never stop.
Ya reckon? You would not fucking know!!!
That is blindingly obvious!!!
“Yes. Correct.”
“So what?”
“So what?”
“Yes, true”
“So what?”
“Ya reckon?”
Thank you for agreeing with my points. It’s hard to deny facts. That would make you a denier – and at realclimate dot org we know how evil deniers are, right?
You only got one wrong: “Totally false……”
This comment has earned a B for the day.
Your next comment, “Even when they are Europeans!
But especially when they are Americans!” is false. Grade is F for this one.
Americans of history are no more guilty or evil than any other people of history. They are perhaps disliked more because of jealousy – America became the greatest nation on earth because of the freedoms guaranteed to us in the Constitution. This irked older nations, particularly the ones we whipped to gain those freedoms.
Thanks for the review Mr Delusional Idiot.
I’ll take it under advisement and file it where it belongs.
USA! USA! USA!
Only the Guilty are Guilty.
Even when they are Europeans!
But especially when they are Americans!
But why oh why do you insist on defending the Guilty and attempting minimizing their Guilt and Accountability for past harms done, on the basis that others at some point were also Guilty?
All you have is weak sophistry. Without ever offering up an iota of factual evidence or justifiable reason along the way. Cheap dumb Logical Fallacies morning noon and night, that’s all you have. Not an ounce of wit. I believe, given what I have seen, it is because you are plum stupid. You could not think your way out of wet paper bag.
You are cheap and nasty Sophist Mr Know Shit All. In modern usage, sophism, sophist, and sophistry are used disparagingly. A sophism, or sophistry, is a fallacious argument, especially one used deliberately to deceive. A sophist is a person who reasons with seemingly clever but fallacious and deceptive arguments. aka an Idiot!
KIA: Historically, serious scholars agree that there was no “genocide” as we know the term today
BPL: You’re wrong. We took habitat away from the Indians; reducing their numbers by starvation was inevitable. We also deliberately wiped out the buffalo because they were a staple for the Indians. Debating societies in the 19th century openly held debates about whether the Indians should be exterminated. You don’t know your history.
Also worth noting: ‘humane’ types advocated for the substitution of cultural genocide instead, under the slogan “Kill the Indian to save the man.” (Woman, Indigenous or not, of course, not being ‘deserving’ of mention.)
Incorrect. The buffalo were wiped out in some areas to force the Indians to move, not to kill them. Also, hide hunters did the majority of buffalo killing so they could sell the hides. Even leftist Atlantic agrees:
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/05/the-buffalo-killers/482349/
“Debates” are not genocide.
The buffalo were wiped out in some areas to force the Indians to move, not to kill them.
Oh, right, so that cherry picked missive make it all OK then. In his “Mind” that is. Well, some people are better off dead. I can agree with that idea.
USA! USA! USA!
KIA: The buffalo were wiped out in some areas to force the Indians to move, not to kill them.
BPL: I’m sure those Indians were starved to death gently and nicely. Honestly, how delusional are you? Or how much are you willing to lie to protect the reputation of the US?
The US doesn’t need you to protect it. It can stand up even when its bad deeds are acknowledged. “My country, may she always be right, but my country, right or wrong.” But that doesn’t mean “My country never did anything wrong.” You can defend your country without pretending it’s perfect.
BPL Quote: “The US doesn’t need you to protect it. It can stand up even when its bad deeds are acknowledged. “My country, may she always be right, but my country, right or wrong.” But that doesn’t mean “My country never did anything wrong.” You can defend your country without pretending it’s perfect.”
I did not claim the US was perfect. My exact words were: “It is the history of the world. No nation has a different or better history.” and these: “Americans of history are no more guilty or evil than any other people of history.”
The history of the world is one of brutal conquest by outsiders and by insiders of all nations – a mean, ugly business. Thus, the founders wisely included the 2A in the BOR. America is as guilty as everyone else, but we are not more guilty. When we see weak, ignorant White leftists bashing every other nation in the world, demanding reparations for past wrong-doing, then those leftists may have a point. Until then, they are just displaying their ignorance of history. By the way, I want my reparations for the atrocities done to my ancestors – whoever they were, and yes, I can track them down and prove the atrocities committed. All of that is ancient history and in America we have paid reparations in triplicate via all types of help for various groups. It is now time to put all of it in the past, move on to the future, and stop using ancient history to divide us It is time to stop telling certain groups they are “victims” because they are not. We all have equal opportunity.
Smallpox measels and brandy rather did it. They hardly had enough pure cristalline dry salpeter for gunpowder in order to do it that way.
The russian empire perfrormed some of the same way. The russians had allready drank themselves to deeath and to hell. They had been exposed to deestillation since mideival time, and Darwin was in charge all that time by origin of species by struggle for life and survival of the fittest,……. at the table. Thus they had a racial privilewge that could couquer other races and species all over the waste provincial Eurasia simply by giving out cheap Vodka.
Those who forbade the same for a while in the US were “The squareheads” the scandinavian finns, swedes and norwegians, who tried to conquer the italians germans and french by the banning of beers and proper schnapps and brandy for a period.
We have very good beers now in Norway after all, and I resign on both schnapps and wines. But Ciders are interesting. I have bought a local bottle of that for Silvestro.
We have planted an original Vino in the sunny wall in order to study it, that shows very interesting.
If you look at it, there simply are not enough wineyards in the world for all those wine bottles in the shops worldwide. Just count it over.
I have cracked the secret formula of how they rather do it.
Just remark: you soon get fed up by too much sweet juicy grapes, your healthy insuline reflex will stop it. ” Enough is enough..” But common wild apples are much more edible in quantities every day, and also makes the better marmelades, jellies, pouree, desserts, pies and cakes.
.
The first press goes for Vino biancho or Bordeaux blanc. Pale white champagne is also carefully pressed from bue grapes Then the “Mesh” from that press is sugared and watered, fermented, and becomes Rosso that is quite more tart with all too much Tannins from the mesh. And that becomes the more expensive wines allthough it is cheated.
And when that is squeezed off or centrifugated and embottled, they add even more cane or bete- sugar and some water, and get the Cognacs and the Armagnacs. Thus It gets squezed and extracted several times to the bitter end and highest prices for specialities and you are supposed to believe in and to pay for..
Thus in order to sell all that, Sceptic and analytic scientific learnings insights and experience must also be fought and badgered and ridiculed along with that very sales promotion industries, and alternatives to elementary understandings and learnings be marketed instead,
As we all can see here on this webside also.
So, I rather go for proper autentic beers and ciders in todays climate and taverns.
Dear @AlokSharma_RDG @archieyounguk @ClimateEnvoy @BorisJohnson @POTUS – I hope you are able to spare a few minutes to watch this video question to you: Should They Stay or Should They Go?
https://vimeo.com/goodfocusfilms/shouldistay by Regie Gibson
quoting Prof. Stefan Rahmstorf
By the way: stopping the global warming at 1.5 degrees is not a wish of the Greens, but was unanimously agreed in the 2015 Paris Agreement by all states and is binding under international law. The Bundestag unanimously approved this on September 22, 2016. Implementing this is a must.
https://twitter.com/rahmstorf/status/1463025778858332170
Coming on the heels of soon to be decommissioned nuclear power generators and several coal fired power station closures comes some interesting developments out of Germany .. not yet 100% certain
Germany’s Social Democrats (SPD), Greens and Free Democrats (FDP), who are negotiating to form a new government, have agreed to commit to a coal phase-out by 2030 in a coalition deal
The three parties have also agreed to end power generation from gas by 2040
In addition, gas heating systems would be banned in new buildings and replaced in existing buildings
An end to sales of new combustion engine cars would come by 2035, coinciding with European Commission plans
The parties also want to allow “blue” hydrogen, or the production of hydrogen using natural gas with CO2 emissions captured in underground or subsea storage …
Hr.R.Check
We hope the Germans will settle again. Their Nordstream 2 of gas from Yamal and St.Petersburg was just turned on. It is supposed to avoid trickiness in Ukraina and Belarus.
And may be an element to curb down the enormeous traditional lignite and coal industries in Germany and Polen. Gas helps really quite a lot on air- quality, that is what we can see first of all.
But traditional French nucear power is what has made the greatest difference betweden French and other large EU countries air quality.
Your mentioning of hydrogen blue or green is to my opinion where we should look and what to discuss if we try and look to the future, Especially in order to decide whether it is realistic or not. Ant it is to my opinion also what is most uncertain and most unsettled.
I find it obvious blue hydrogen is completely irrational and dangerous BS, another con by TPTB.
Green Hydrogen on the other hand is the most intelligent rational technological concept to come out of climate change topic in half a century … with the exception of Regenerative agriculture and SOC sequestration at scale.
Green hydrogen kills (addresses) at least three energy/resource/efficiency birds with one stone. There is nothing uncertain or unsettled about it. It is doable and cost efficient. It has the potential to replace up to 90% (?) of FF energy demand/consumption.
It’s advantages are as plain as the nose on our face. Green Hydrogen has the potential to upend the world for the better long term if done properly and sustainably and ethically in concert with active steps to minimize energy demand and pursue rational De-growth, Energy efficiency and Social Equity goals.
Which is why it is unlikely to be deployed at scale or become universally accepted. Someone will come up with some fraud to destroy this industry soon. It’s what they do.
Hr Check
I am not certain of this but it seems quite plausible.
In the discussion of hydrogen being more “clean” fuel, my son told me that 60% of the worlds production of hydrogen goes for the Haber Bosch- synthesis that further delivers the worlds very necessary consumption of NH4NO3 fertillizer. So there is hardly any cubic meter of hydrogen left over for the worlds volume of cars on the roads.
That seems plausible, and where we can start thinking and looking.
In the beginning, that very volume of hydrogen for Haber Bosch salpeter ammonia and nitric acid plus for the zeppeliners and the very nitrate explosives of WW1 and2 was produced by reduction of water by white hot cokes with successive fractioning. The need for further burning of coal and cokes for that is easily immagined and is documented by photography. .
Then at YARA earlier Norsk Hydro, they exel in hydroelectric power for most of the heat and machineries, and their hydrogen was / is made from LNG. CH4 + 2H2O -> 6H2 + CO2 which is practically what is also called “Blue Hydrogen!” and they are very bold and proud of their further plans of having to pump that very strong selzer back to earth in enormeous quantities against geological pressure, where E = PdV.
This alltogether looks like the rough reality of “Blue hydrogen” anyway very much better than conventioal coal and lignite based industries..
Atomic heat instead of conventional blasted coals and cokes is suggested now for 70 years at least and remains a Fata Morgana more or less until recent days. But I found recently that electric energy consuption during electrolysis of water is reduced consciderably if the reaction can be heated by nuclear at the same time. Which seems true.
In any case, our new government (Labour) seems to be quite in an eager for such plans and projects after Glasgow, to secure the further jobs for the very massive and huge oil industries, where updating of the hydroelectric installations for better efficiency, windmills at sea and on land, CCS, Green hydrogen, and liquid ammonia for large ship fuel, is being mentioned.
I say to my wife and to everyone else, Read the amperemeter!…. I repeat…! Because behind there is Big Coal for most of the cases.
I have suggested small incadescent lamps on the altar in the church , for people to worship pure electric light instead as long as it lasts..
New research paper: ” ‘Clean’ hydrogen? – Comparing the emissions and costs of fossil fuel versus renewable electricity based hydrogen.” I came across it earlier today.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261921014215?via%3Dihub
That is one angle to look at, but analyzing emissions vs FF blue H production it isn’t enough, or the whole story.
One needs to also evaluate the total resource costs and pollution caused between a H powered vehicle and a battery powered one. The whole cycle from mining, resource use, vehicle production and then operation at economies of scale. iow imagining a transportation system where H was as readily available as gas stations and H vehicles were being made at scale as well and H production and distribution as well.
and then in some countries throwing in nuclear mass production of H using high heat instead of electrolysis then significantly improves all the above economics and efficiency and resource use markers.
imho EV and electricity storage batteries, at least the lithium Fe types of today are a dead end. But hey, no one cares what I think …. I’ll leave to the experts to make things happen or to do what usually gets done, tptb get in the way to protect their own investments and mafia power base or their egos.
Some idle thoughts arising from my last few months of having another look at the state of the climate:
Using terms like “Biodiversity loss” is such a strange euphemism for the mass destruction of nonhuman beings numbering in their billions. I can’t imagine a euphemism like ‘Biodiversity loss’ being used for the loss of life on 9/11, in the 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake and tsunami or the uncountable deaths from genocide?
“Biodiversity loss” and “Mass extinction” occludes responsibility for something that might rather be called a “Mass extermination”. Similarly terms like “global warming” and “climate change” don’t cut it. Seen as laughable euphemisms today for failing to convey the true extent of ecological and societal collapse. Now being referred to slightly more accurately as the #ClimateCrisis or #ClimateEmergency.
An even a more accurate notion of global #EcologicalCollapse underplays how dramatic this would actually be for life on Earth and human societies everywhere. Linguistics isn’t easy. or straight forward enough, to grasp it’s critical importance.
Using “Biodiversity loss” is like it’s just something that quietly disappeared down the back of the sofa. Or calling out: “Hey honey, I’ve lost my car keys, where are they?” These understated scientific phrases are equivalent to calling mass murder and genocide a “Human diversity loss”. It simply does not fit the reality of it. These kinds of scientific terms do not convey the truth of what they were intended to describe.
They lack clarity, they lack scientific accuracy, they lack true meaning.
Because to really understand these concepts such as the “Loss of Biodiversity” being caused by this Climate Crisis is even much worse than the deaths of individual living beings. It points to the inherent coupled interdependence lost as well. The ecosystems they inhabit become brittle and disappear, thus causing further ongoing destruction. The annihilation of even more life supporting systems. Possibly even the annihilation of the Web of Life itself. This is the profound lesson from Paleo-climatology. The history of being taken to the brink. Humanity is not only playing with fire, we are playing God.
I believe using the descriptive “Annihilation” instead of Destruction is a far more accurate term. Annihilation fits better the true meaning of the cumulative messaging of climate science. It drives the nail that much deeper.
The term “Biodiversity loss” also hides the responsible agent, us, our way of life and being. Vacuous science based terms like these hides the underlying causes and the forever consequences. Let’s call it: “Human-caused permanent mass extinction of non-humans and their basis of existence. The simultaneous annihilation of life on Earth and of ourselves.”
We shouldn’t forget what we are the only dominant alpha predator standing on top of the food chain and this global web of life. By failing to stop what is causing the climate crisis we are intentionally collapsing the very foundations of our life support systems.
Sooner or later, consciously or unconsciously, this is not just damaging Biodiversity loss, it’s not simply Mass extinctions or Ecocide, it is fundamentally Mass Genocide and Mass Suicide. Quaint euphemisms, false bravado, fake solutions and cheery false hopes do not cut it. We either end this, or it will end us.
And it is that truth which continually being downplayed and dismissed, or denied, avoided and ignored.
The same issue exists for the core of everything sustainable: We have a poor definition that allows lots of interpretation.
A more accurate, more focused, more actionable, #Naturebased #definition of #sustainability:
The use of the #ecosystem and #ecosystemservices in such a way as to allow a community or society to operate indefinitely resilient to external changes/shocks without eroding its resource base or ecosystem functions and to enhance the productivity and natural functioning of the ecosystem.
Notes:
* Equity is inherent in the definition: No society that is based on individual ownership can manage an ecosystem sustainably.
* Future generations are inherently protected by not using up resources and not damaging the ecosystem “indefinitely.”
Older version:
Sustainability: The use of the ecosystem in such a way as to not only not diminish the resources available to future generations, but to enhance the productivity and natural functioning of the ecosystem.
Bruntland (far too vague; allows for justifications, rationalizations and outright lies):
‘development that meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs’.
Biodiversity loss is a tragedy hundreds of years in the making. Pollution, habitat loss, introduction of alien species, over hunting/fishing are the principal causes. Climate change was held to be responsible for about 1% of species loss in a paper published some years ago.
Human caused climate change is in fact a reality and one we should all labor to reverse. But it is in fact too recent to be a major cause of the threats to biodiversity we all can see around us.
Worse, it can potentially be used as a get out of jail free card by polluters, developers, fishing fleets and the like. ‘It weren’t us–it were that damn climate change!’
@Killian on “everything sustainable” — Hear hear! :)
@Thomas
imv anything can be used as a “get out of jail free card” and they are. Rhetoric is replete with logical fallacies to muddle the unwary.
I need to emphasis this point – The current climate change is a tragedy hundreds of years in the making. It is not “recent.”
Pollution, habitat loss, introduction of alien species, over hunting/fishing are the principal “obvious surface” causes. Underneath all of those is the primary cause – the cheap, easy to obtain, use of energy resources …… a tragedy hundreds of years in the making.
Without hundreds of years of exponential fossil fuel energy use there would be no modern Economics.
Few if any would ever have heard of Adam Smith or Neoliberalism or Globalization.
Scotland would never have been known for steam engines, railway locomotives, iron foundries, or the subsequent pollution.
The East India Company would not have led to the British Raj or half the globes’ maps coloured pink.
The Puritans would never have set sail on the Mayflower.
“Learn how to see. Realize that everything connects to everything else.” ― Leonardo da Vinci.
Ecology is the interconnection of everything. Our societies, economies and political systems are highly interconnected with Nature. It cannot be any other way.
There is nothing on Earth that exists apart from, separate of the human world or human effects. Like ecology, nature is everything. There is no nature and us, that was always a delusion.
There is no Ecology, no Nature that does not simultaneously contain Humanity and it’s Effects.
https://twitter.com/SteB777/status/1463651142588579842
and PS
@Thomas, you do understand that “Biodiversity Loss” has long been a major defined effect of global warming and climate change impacts over time, yes? Perhaps much more obvious recently than in the past. Even if other human causes simultaneously drove or exacerbated those Biodiversity losses.
eg even if chemicals cause widespread damage to bees and insects the direct cumulative impacts on them caused by climate change/warming etc. remain persistent and valid over time. Yes?
Cheers
The UN just declared nuclear energy to have the lowest per-kWh CO2 emissions of any source of electric power:
https://www.cityam.com/un-crowns-nuclear-as-lowest-carbon-electricity-source/
https://unece.org/sites/default/files/2021-10/LCA-2.pdf
Via r/nuclear on Reddit.
Hr Poet
Yes, we know this, but how can you describe and explain also the major scandals also related to fameous nuclear installations and reactors and the necessdary disposal of their waste and their routine top secrets with sub- sequent scandals when it was annonced to be “research” and they were simply wearing white collars and crawattes because of immunity, and cheating.
Poetic engineering it was not. It was rather fameous politicians and their fiancees and nephews and grandchildren on duty and in charge being simply unqualified on material sciences and measurement and radiology.
Whenever the Party Secretary personal deputee becomes chief engineer at Cernobyl because of his special bloody party heritage and familiar heritage, ( a son of a Bitch)…,… then it goes wrong and it blows up.
That seems to be law of Nature and not poetic engineering.
People hate and they fear and they fight nuclear power because of this, and hardly because of anything else.
Carbomontanus.
Your comments on the Soviet Union, and how useless people came to run that country sound right to me. This is a typical feature of military dictatorships especially communist ones Democracy and capitalism are not perfect, but help minimise this problem. And yes society needs a good civil service.
Strong dictators are fine if they are smart, wise, fair and benevolent, but few are, and they have a habit of changing the rules to give themselves a lifetime in power, so even the good ones hang around for decades when their mental state is deteriorating.
Democracy is far from perfect but seems preferable, and I get the impression democracy seems to correlate with good social and economic outcomes more than dictatorships do.
I agree and about tyrants and the way they manipulate causes for their own ends. I certainly oppose dictatorships and tyrants in any form.
New Zealand is my home country and a monarachy, although in practice most power rests with the prime minister not the monarch. I used to be an favour of New Zealand becoming a republic but looking at the USA recently I’ve had second thoughts. Monarchies do seem have more stability and slightly better economies compared to republics. However this is in no way an endorsement of the atrocities monarchies have caused in the past, with some of their colonial exploits. With republics you end up needing full wide ranging written constitutions and this sounds good in theory, but seems to create absurdities, the USA being a good example.
But I’m inclined to agree with a comment someone else made that no modern political or economic systems are handling the climate problem well. Its certainly hard to see one system that stands out as particularly effective.
So I’m “someone else” now?
K. I was not referring to you. I was referring to the post by Reality Check a few comments back. His /her name had slipped my mind. And at least Reality Checks posts are clear and in comprehensible language and concepts.
Yes, you are, surely!
Quote: “I agree and about tyrants and the way they manipulate causes for their own ends. I certainly oppose dictatorships and tyrants in any form.”
Huh? I thought you were a Biden supporter?
Quote: “With republics you end up needing full wide ranging written constitutions and this sounds good in theory, but seems to create absurdities, the USA being a good example.”
What is a “full wide ranging written constitution(s)”? Is that like a “fully semi-automatic firearm”? :) Last I checked the USA only has one Constitution. (Each state does have their own as well). Do you have a problem with written constitutions? Actually since you brought it up, leftists would, in fact, prefer verbal constitutions – that way they could make it up as they go – that’s what they do most of the time even with written ones. List a few of the USA absurdities that can be attributed to the fact that we are a republic. We’ll wait.
I can list one.
You! You idiot. You’re an absurdity!!!
The Cato Institute’s 2020 Human Freedom Index places the USA 17th, not bad, but hardly a starring position, though the top end of the chart is crowded into a fairly small span of values. The USA is also one of the countries whose human freedom value fell most from the previous year.
Five of the top ten countries on the list are constitutional monarchies rather than republics (New Zealand, Denmark, Australia, Canada, and Sweden). Australia is in the top 10, and manages to be in there despite having few explicit personal freedoms in its constitution.
The Cato Institute’s hardly a left-leaning organisation, either.
KIA: Quote: “I agree and about tyrants and the way they manipulate causes for their own ends. I certainly oppose dictatorships and tyrants in any form.”
Huh? I thought you were a Biden supporter?
BPL: If you really think Biden is a tyrant or a dictator, you are so far out of reality you’ll need a map to find your way back.
People won’t! Can’t be done! Hmmmm… human nature? Selfish? Don’t tell that to babies or certain aborigine societies….
https://www.facebook.com/peter.gray.3572/posts/10159397819343801
For example, Martin Hoffman (2000) described a case in which 2-year-old David first attempted to comfort his crying friend by giving him his (David’s) own teddy bear. When that didn’t work, David ran to the next room and returned with his friend’s teddy bear and gave it to him. The friend hugged the bear and immediately stopped crying. To behave in such an effective manner, the child must not only feel bad about another’s discomfort but must also understand enough about the other person’s mind to know what will provide comfort.
Disaster response?
https://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/releases/2018/Q4/a-little-help-from-your-friends-is-key-to-natural-disaster-recovery,-purdue-research-study-suggests.html
When a disaster hits, the communities that recovered faster were the ones that already had strong societal connections…
Quote: “When a disaster hits, the communities that recovered faster were the ones that already had strong societal connections…”
Cajun Navy! Good ‘ol boys gittin’ ‘er done!
https://www.google.com/search?q=cajun+navy&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS914US914&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjn7fW4hcL0AhXPLc0KHd0BBFAQ_AUoAnoECAEQBA&biw=1898&bih=969&dpr=1
USA! USA! USA!
“The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour!”
It sure is!
USA! USA! USA!
“The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.”
The Paris goal of remaining below 1.5 deg. C is impossible now. That ship has sailed. It’s Dead in the water.
By the time 2030 arrives the easier goal of remaining below 2 deg. C will also be Dead in the water. Impossible.
I believe these conclusions are irrefutable.
We should all act accordingly. The most powerful most influential national governments already are.
iirc one of those “optimistic” sub 2C Net Zero CO2 Emissions scenarios based on the promised hypothetical NDCs out of Glasgow indicated fossil fuel use in 2050 remaining as high as 50% of energy consumption. This is the best the political rhetoric can achieve while the reality is going to be much worse.
I believe the most likely short term geo-political outcome is the UNFCCC system collapses under the weight of the Paris Agreement delusions circa 2030 or before. Of course people will believe what they want to believe and most will continue to Hope for the best despite all the data and actions showing the contrary.
iow the deck chairs on the proverbial Titanic will continue to be rearranged in ever more contorted shapes. COPs will continue to be spun a positive success, very ambitious, and achievable. The rhetoric defying political reality as economic growth and energy consumption increases across the board. While CO2 and GHG emissions and temperatures will continue to rise unabated, You can’t fool Physics they say.
I think all this is self-evident. Others will disagree.
——
Here is an excellent must see 1 hr video lecture by Prof. Tim Garrett
Jevon’s Paradox: Why increasing energy efficiency will accelerate global climate change.
implications of climate science, energy use, emissions, economics realities, history, degrowth and more
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SM8pQmA7wos
Meanwhile here is another talk by Kevin Anderson post-Flop26 – Getting off a moving train: timely responses to the climate emergency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMOukX0-bdo
And a summary info data thread on a talk on “Keeping 1.5 deg. C Alive” at #COP26 that was not recorded.
https://twitter.com/KanitkarT/status/1463776666723880960
Mini lesson on ABRUPT permafrost thaw
https://twitter.com/queenofpeat/status/1461042950796824580
Almost 150 participants in today’s Permafrost Carbon Network meeting!
https://twitter.com/queenofpeat/status/1460658466003976192
Less is More by Jason Hickel
https://www.jasonhickel.org/less-is-more
2018 Rupert Read, Environmental Philosopher and Chair of Green House Think Tank.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uzCxFPzdO0Y
Extinction Rebellion UK responds to the failure of #COP26 with the first major act set for April 2022.
short call to action video – https://twitter.com/XRebellionUK/status/1463062765128470529
One billion-dollar weather disaster in October; 38 so far in 2021
Earth’s fourth-warmest October on record
October the #1 warmest on record over Northern Hemisphere land areas.
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/11/october-2021-earths-fourth-warmest-october-on-record/
Nothing surprisingly new in any of it, but it all adds up because it is all connected to everything else.
Getting one’s head around it all, moving past cognitive dissonance and internalized denial, well, that is another matter entirely. :)
RC. I agree to the extent that its extremely unlikely we will hit net zero by 2050 or even close to it. One thing (maybe the only thing) the denialists are right about is carbon is in nearly everything and so decarbonising is a daunting challenge. Its way more challenging than the ozone hole issue of just needing new refirgerants. And then there are all the other impediments in the way.
However the more we talk about failure, it might become a self fullfilling prophesy. And we can at least improve the situation even if the main targets aren’t achieved. But yeah, I know what you are saying.
I do not believe in Prophecy. :)
@Carbomontanus:
It would be nice if you would actually give details instead of making handwaving references to un-named people and un-specified events.
This sounds an awful lot like a reference to Chernobyl, but it could also possibly describe the explosion at the plutonium processing plant near Kyshtym. That little disaster was caused by incompetency in mixing heat-generating acetate salts with ammonium nitrate (a net oxygen source and explosive in its own right).
The USA has actually had a very small incident along the lines of Kyshtym which closed down the WIPP (waste isolation pilot plant) for a while. Barrels of waste from the Hanford nuclear reservation (all of it weapons-related, nothing to do with nuclear electric power) were supposed to be packed with clay absorbent to hold any leaks of the nitrate-based wastes. This absorbent is otherwise known as clay cat litter. Someone without sufficient chemistry knowledge decided to be “green” and use paper-based cat litter instead, as it is biodegradable (not knowing that things entombed in salt don’t really biodegrade). The combination of paper fuel with nitrate oxidizer and heat led to a small explosion. Ultimately, WIPP went back into business. No one was harmed.
As for the question of “what to do with the waste”… well over 90% of the “waste” from thermal-neutron reactors is un-modified uranium-238. On the order of 1% of it is U-235, and maybe 0.8% is various isotopes of plutonium and higher actinides. ALL of this stuff is usable as nuclear fuel in the right type of reactor. The entire USA could run for nearly a century on just the materials sitting in nuclear plant fuel cooling pools and dry casks. This amounts to less than 100,000 tons. Compare this to a coal-fired plant which may burn 10,000 tons of coal PER DAY.
Okay, you ask “what to do with the products of THAT?” Most of it consists of stable or short-lived isotopes, requiring isolation for no more than 500 years. There are dozens of useful applications for various parts of it. Cesium-137 has been used in cancer treatment and could just as easily be re-purposed for food sterilization. But when they’ve decayed to the point where they aren’t useful any more, maybe 60 years later, you can bury the material in deep boreholes. We have proof from the natural Oklo reactors that fission products attach strongly to rock particles and don’t migrate far, and they won’t be moved by water if the boreholes are beneath the water table. In 500 years essentially all of it will be gone, decayed away to stable isotopes. Basically, once you stick it in a sufficiently deep borehole you can stop worrying about it.
So if your country doesn’t have such powerful party secretaries, you think it can work? So do I.
Even when NOT handled correctly, nuclear energy is amazingly safe. The Three Mile Island meltdown harmed no one. The three Fukushima meltdowns have an official death toll of ONE (from lung cancer, not a disease typically associated with radiation exposure), compared to well over 1000 casualties from the panicky evacuations. Japan killed far more people with their increased imports of dirty fossil fuels than they did with the evacuations.
It’s time to stop worrying and love nuclear energy.
Hr. E. Poet
On major scandals related to fameous nuclear installations,
I only get it now and then through the media , but if you draw out
Halden reactor Wikipedia
institute for energy technology Wikipedia
And see that you get to Norway, then you have it.
Do not phantacize, but learn to do what I do when picking mushroms:
If you come over one very seldom and quite exotic mushroom in the terrain then simply draw the square- root of it which then becomes the Std.
1-1 =0 . But 1+ 3Std becomes 4
Meaning that it might as well not have happened, but on the other side, look a bit further around, there may as well then be one more, and do not lift your eyebowsn again until you find more than 4 exotic mushroms because the square root of amplitude is Std and 3 times Std is the practical limit of the same.
This is Poisson- statistics, developed by Poisson for criminal statistics in Paris. Such as how many murderts per month or per week in town, or how many fire alarms or how many bridges fallen down near St.Denise per year.
Further for how many raindops per minute in a cup of coffee under open sky, to judge over time whether it rains more ande more or less and less or perhaps not at all. The same poisson statistics rules for discrete countable exotic evgents like radioactive counting also, and it is poetic engineering as such. They clearly use it for Covid 19 statistic judgement of tendencies..
Such as how many votes on the communist party in the Eidsvoll Community during Parliament election from time to time, And how many on the labour party and the conservatives and the christians? And When shall we lift our eyebrows more or less for that?
The Wikipedia articles referred to tell of crooky crime at the sites, in numbers that are best studied through elemerntary poisson statistics.
And I see that it corelates further to at least 2 very secret cravattes, who I allways took for Gentlemen but I was allways a bit in doubt also, namely https://Jens Chr. Hauge and https://Gunnar Randers, both seemingly with their legs deeply into US secret service and manhattan-like projects.
Maybe they also brought a certain virus with them? Who knows?
Because, we see, not only some frappingly rare and unexpected mushroms that should especially not be there, in Kjeller and in Halden. But seemingly also the naturally corresponding invisible underground mycelium continuum at the same fameous locations.
And what`s not qualified in a nuclear reactor or in a virological lab is snobbish boots and upper brass labeled uniforms who teach that
“Also schloss er messerscharf dass, nichts sein kann, was nicht sein darf!”
because that is not poetic engineering.
Quite on the contrary, it entails further that the Party Secretary, a son of a bitch, may be in charge at the top ruling over who gets employed and able to cash the subventions and earn the salaries, and who gets fired for rather obscure reasons instead?
.
Such manners alltogether betray the old comrades from The Peoples liberation front, you see. Who should not have access to U235 or Plutonium or Polonium 210 for that sake..
“The discreet charm of nuclear power. It makes fighting climate change a lot easier”
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/11/13/the-discreet-charm-of-nuclear-power
From the economist.com fyi. If you register, you can get a few articles of your choice for free each month.
Josh Marshall
I am still struck by the fact, which I learned only a week or so ago, that half the carbon emissions of the Industrial Age have been pumped into the atmosphere since 1990, when I was a junior in college.
David Ho
It’s actually more than half. It’s amazing that knowledge climate scientists take for granted is so shocking to the public. Maybe we need to communicate more, and better?
https://twitter.com/_david_ho_/status/1463613051408732166
BC Canada Greens Leader short video parliament speech – “We are in a climate-altered world,”
https://twitter.com/SoniaFurstenau/status/1463992393745666049
Conservative Canadian Scientist K Hayhoe
‘If we don’t fix climate there will be NO economy, there will be NO civilization’
FUN FACTS:
Africa is responsible for 3% of Global CO2 emissions
As the consumerist horror show that is #BlackFriday unfolds, do read this paper: “The world’s top 10% of income earners are responsible for 25-43% of environmental impact. The bottom 10% for only around 3–5%”
Scientists’ warning on affluence
Thomas Wiedmann et al 2020 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y full access
Overconsumption is unsustainable on a finite planet. Doh!
ScientistsForXR w’photo
Dr Alex Penson, one of our brave XR scientists, on the front line at the Amazon depot in Dartford #MakeAmazonPay #BlackFriday
https://twitter.com/ScientistsX/status/1464153110549614592
Apparently two XR scientists were sentenced to prison last week.
UK Home Secretary Priti Patel has added Lords amendments to the policing bill which effectively criminalise the act of protest in Great Britian. Nice one Priti!
It is, without hyperbole or caveat, a piece of law which would sit more easily in a Dictatorship than a Democracy
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/priti-patel-anti-protest-powers-stuffed-policing-bill-1316830
RC. Regarding Priti Patel this is all so wrong and so annoying. It saddens me the way politicians and others jump on the necessary covid restrictions as an excuse / rational to impose their own totally unjustified restrictions on protersters and other groups.
The latest nasty scheme by far right wing climate denialists is to admit theres a climate problem and use it to justify restrictions on immigration, often race based. Refer:
https://www.vox.com/22456663/arizona-environment-immigration-climate-change-right-wing
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/09644016.2021.1916197
It’s a complicated and crazy world.
No need to use CC to justify restrictions on immigration. There are plenty of legitimate reasons. Look at the docket of any county court in the USA – look at the names. Look at the reports of crime in any newspaper and look at the names. Look at the lists of most wanted criminals. Look at the statistics on who is filling our prisons. Ask those who have had to leave border states because the crime is too high and they feared for their lives. And on and on and on.
Leftists need to grow some brain cells.
KIA
I’m not interested in your complete BS , and wild evidence free assertions. This is what people who have properly researched the issue have found:
“When Donald Trump announced that he was running for president, one of the first issues he raised in his speech was immigration—specifically, the idea that undocumented immigrants are dangerous. “They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people,” he said.”
“As Trump’s presidency nears its end, his unwavering views on immigration are directly contradicted by a growing body of criminology research. Studies overwhelmingly find no evidence that U.S. immigrants, including those who are undocumented, commit more crimes than native-born Americans. And now a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA that draws from a detailed and well-sourced data set comes to an even more dramatic conclusion. It reports that between 2012 and 2018, compared with their U.S.-born neighbors, undocumented immigrants in Texas were less than half as likely to be arrested for violent crimes or drug offenses and less than a quarter as likely to be arrested for property crimes.”
“Simply put, we found that undocumented immigrants have lower felony arrest rates than both legal immigrants and, especially, native-born U.S. citizens,” says study co-author Michael Light, a sociologist at the University of Wisconsin–Madison.”
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/undocumented-immigrants-are-half-as-likely-to-be-arrested-for-violent-crimes-as-u-s-born-citizens/
KIA: No need to use CC to justify restrictions on immigration. There are plenty of legitimate reasons. Look at the docket of any county court in the USA – look at the names. Look at the reports of crime in any newspaper and look at the names. Look at the lists of most wanted criminals. Look at the statistics on who is filling our prisons.
BPL: Don’t just make stuff up, KIA. It’s too easy for people to check, and then when you turn out to be lying, people stop listening to you.
Immigrants have a LOWER crime rate than natives.
Mr. KIA, I have to say that, really, your stupidity, bigotry and cluelessness are magnificent to observe. There is zero evidence to indicate that immigrants commit crimes at higher levels than native-born USians–in fact, the evidence points to the opposite conclusion.
The plural of anecdote is not data.
My only question is whether you were always this stupid, or did a steady diet of Faux News, Breitfart and Alex Jones smother whatever feeble native intelligence you once had.
“Fun Facts”. Ha ha, I like the sarcasm.
QUOTE: “The world’s top 10% of income earners are responsible for 25-43% of environmental impact. The bottom 10% for only around 3–5%”
Based on your prolific posting habits, I’m guessing you and your computer use have contributed considerably to GHG emissions.
I have come to believe that while all the efforts to de-carbonize our economies by shifting technologies and changing human activities are vital and must continue, they will not be enough. The size and complexity of human impacts on the planet now require us, for the first time, to have a conversation about the long term future of our civilization. The Aspen Group, a small local think tank in southeastern British Columbia, Canada has just published a very succinct description of a sustainable human society 200-500 years from now in an attempt to start a conversation about where we want to go. You can find it at http://www.aspenproposal.org
It is always harder to find a pathway to your destination when you don’t know what it is. In just over 200 words we have summarized the necessary components of a sustainable human culture. We invite everyone to have a look, send us suggestions and if the proposal resonates with you, to share it widely.
Kent. Your plan looks quite good to me, and the level of brevity is nice. Its all practical and compatible with human aspirations.
One nit pick about presentation. Its frustrating to read the main points and have to constantly scan down to the footnotes. I would include that information in the body of the text. It would still all be short enough to be easy to grasp.
I’ve thought the most plausible approach is the circular recycling economy, passive solar construction, and organic / regenerative agriculture but with a modern technology based society.
I thought some time ago that a 2 billion population sounds intuitively about right sufficient for economies of scale and specialisation. but small enough to meaningfully reduce environmental impacts. Various research studies suggest 2 – 5 billion people. If we get to a family size averaging 1.5 children in the next decade or so you get to about 2 billion people by the year 2300. However that is ambitious fertility rate. Looks like family size might be around 2 children seems to be the median estimate in research.
It sounds like you are suggesting a modern technology based society. Is that the case? I see a modern technology based society, although it will probably be at lower consumption levels than presently, because the costs of mineral extraction will rise on 200 – 5oo year time frames even with a smaller population.
“I’ve thought the most plausible approach is the circular recycling economy, passive solar construction, and organic / regenerative agriculture but with a modern technology based society. ”
Uh, nope. “I’ve thought” = “I’ve finally been convinced that”
Because I’ve been telling you that since you arrived Dec 2016. But let us be clear, the “technology-based” is incorrect. For some period of time, the need to reduce throughput is so incredibly high that we cannot maintain the degrees of tech we have now. We can, however, preserve a lot and husband it over the next several generations while R&D continues. Hopefully, we won’t run out of Embedded energy before Earth is back to pre-industrial levels of GHGs and temps.
And let’s be clear about another thing: You still are getting the risk analysis badly wrong because that technology-based” society is, judging by your six years of words here, that we keep producing tech. But the recycling for that does not exist and will not for decades, at least in terms of having all possible recycling going. And, it will take huge amounts of resources to make that happen. AND SO, climate will have headed well north of 1.5, and likely 2.0 long before your eco-technic future can be built.
Get this straight, my fellow human, tipping points DGAF about what you imagine. What you describe is what I’ve told you we can do *on the other side of the transition* for six years. But as a solution FOR The Perfect Storm? That’s a risk only a fool would take.
Killian
I was aware of organic farming, passive solar buildings, and the circular recycling economy idea decades ago, before I ever heard of you or this website and I have always thought they are useful and realistic ideas. I didn’t need much persuading. I did the design calculations for passive solar homes back in the 1980s. I’ve done lots of things.
I did not know about regenerative farming until I read this website and probably your comments on it. As far as simplification goes all these ideas seem viable notwithstanding the fact that they have some problems that will need solving to make them widely viable..
The ideas that I’m sceptical about are notions that we cut consumption by 90% in 20 years or so and that we should largely abandon private ownership and hierarchies. I’ve explained the reasons, and BPL puts it more “succinctly”. Such huge rapid reductions in consumption would be very problematic for me and probably most other people, could cause a massive economic depression, and are unlikely to be embraced by the general public.
Just one of the problems is almost every big city is very separated from farm land and most of these cities are so built up there isn’t much scope for developing plots of land in the inner city etc, etc . So we are stuck needing quite a substantial transport infrastructure to transport food for decades yet until cities are re-imagined and rebuilt as low rise developments perhaps closer to farmland. The point is its hard to escape technology.
It would however be good if we could get at least SOME reductions in consumption in the shorter term. There’s obviously some technology that is just wasteful and indulgent.
Please bear in mind the discussion was about an ideal future society not the climate problem per se.
The anthropologist Jospeh Tainter has written on civilisations, complexity, collapse and simplification. He found many examples of old civilisations that collapsed and were thus forced to simplify like The Roman Empire. He could only find one example of a civilisation that successfully simplified in a deliberate way. I can’t recall the name but it was somewhere in southern Europe. He has stated that complexity can potentially lead to collapse but that voluntary simplification can also potentially lead to collapse. He characterised it as “damned if we do damned if we don’t”. Remember the links Mike posted?
IMHO unwinding the immense complexity of our modern civilisation without causing absolute havoc is very difficult. We probably have to be realistic about what things are possible.
As far as simplification goes all these ideas seem viable notwithstanding the fact that they have some problems that will need solving to make them widely viable..
Your ongoing failure/lack of will in educating yourself does not equal weaknesses in the concept. Stop repeating this nonsense.
The ideas that I’m sceptical about are notions that we cut consumption by 90% in 20 years
Who isn’t? But I’ve said simplicity is simple, but will not be easy to achieve. Momentum, ignorance, ideology, etc., all stand in the way, but those have nothing to do with any weakness in the argument. Building out enough “renewables” to replace FFs is no more viable a concept. In fact, it’s less viable. The rich are gonna give all of Africa a European-level lifestyle? No, they are not. The GND is only going to lock in the injustices of today unless a global jubilee is accepted. Not holding my breath. Are you?
Such huge rapid reductions in consumption would be very problematic for me and probably most other people,
Who cares? You are a small minority of the planet. And, as you always do, you simply set aside the risk analysis. I don’t recall you addressing it even one time in all these years. It’s boring and pointless. Step up, for once.
and that we should largely abandon private ownership and hierarchies. I’
Again, who cares? What has that got to do with reality? Nothing. Show me an ownership-based society that is regenerative. You can’t. So then your argument becomes, “Suicide is better than simplifying to all of humanity and the rest of the ecosystem can survive.”
. So we are stuck needing quite a substantial transport infrastructure to transport food for decades yet until cities are re-imagined and rebuilt as low rise developments perhaps closer to farmland.
Finally, a germane observation and – good on ya – some allowance that we may need to depopulate cities somewhat. But all you are doing is arguing for rapid simplification. It takes very little time to build natural buildings compared to what we do now. Literally, days to weeks with a decent crew of people. And people will have a lot more free time no matter what because this economy is not going to survive the chaos.
Even we don’t rapidly depopulate, if we have simplified, then food transport will be the vast majority of remaining transport. Virtually all other transport would/could dwindle to nothing. Given all the ways we have to draw down carbon, we can go very negative even with food transport emissions.
Tainter. You may recall I’ve met and talked with him. Well aware. But again you argue for simplification, not against. We have a proof of concept and a far more urgent motivation. BTW, there is more than one. The Pueblo are the Anasazi, e.g. The Kogi used to do metalwork and built impressive roadways, but do not now.
IMHO unwinding the immense complexity of our modern civilisation without causing absolute havoc is very difficult.
Stating the obvious. Again, simple, not easy. That has always been acknowledged. Why do you bother raising it as if it isn’t under consideration? The problem is your use of “absolute havoc.” The whole point is *choosing* simplification. The process won’t be perfect. It can’t be. But that, too, is a choice. And when you run around talking down the only solutions that avoid all the negatives you are concerned about, you make yourself a big part of the problem.
Killian. I read your reply on cities and transport etcetera. Thanks. All those things can and should be done, but I just think you underestimate how long it will all take, and how much transport will still be needed (its not just about food) and how long it will take to build new more sustainable cities. I have a lot of expertise in building construction. However I will try not to concentrate quite so much on talking up the obstacles in future.
Nigelj,
Thanks for having a look at the Proposal and sharing your thoughts.
Our choice of 1 billion as a target population was somewhat arbitrary, as we explain in the website FAQ, but we feel it is adequate to ensure human survival, diversity and the continuation of big science projects.
Currently about half the countries in the world have fertility rates below replacement value and with a little nudging we will probably see that trend expand and numbers begin to fall before the end of this century. How long it will take us to get down to 1 billion will be interesting to see.
Our Proposal deliberately gives little detail about the politics, technology and economics of this future world, largely because we think there could be quite a range of those things that would still allow us to fit in. And since we are supporting continued and enhanced cultural diversity, there could actually be an interesting diversity of technologies around the world. Once we enter the long period of easing, that comes with fewer humans each decade, we might not need to extract any minerals for a number of centuries. (or even millennia)
Kent. Fair comment. I certainly believe smaller global population looks like the most realistic way of solving our longer term environmental problems. Although navigating the bulge of dependent elderly people will be challenging.
It would be useful if we could also get our per capita levels of consumption down quickly as well but doing that looks like a monumental challenge.
I just stumbled upon this related to population. I don’t necessarily agree with all of it but it’s interesting:
“Humans are doomed to go extinct”.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/humans-are-doomed-to-go-extinct/
the human population is set not just for shrinkage but collapse—and soon.
essentially unsustainable Exponential growth in every aspect of modern human existence imo, that and an overriding callous disregard for other humans especially future generations and the planet / life in general…. a real nasty self-centered narcissistic and destructive / violent streak appears to be hard wired into a significant portion of humanity….. plus another weak placating lazy element in a larger majority of humanity, all being passed on from generation to generation to the next.
So population collapse is guaranteed imo for all the reasons the writer gave and then some. Sub 1 billion seems a certainty these days to occur in the “future”, slowly at first then exponentially and finally suddenly.
No one bar a handful cares or has the spare energy to bother with a fantasy dream of a “sustainable human society 200-500 years from now”. It’s not a description for starters. It’s not going to fix anything, or inspire, or change anything for the better.
Call me Mr Optimistically Positive :)
Kent,
If you achieve the proposed reduction in population, all the other verbosity is pointless.
I suggest you start with that condition as a thought experiment; say you put 500 million humans on a “virgin Earth”, with all our current science/technology knowledge, but with the condition that the population will never vary from that number by more than say 50 million.
Do you really think we would start rushing around looking for coal to mine, or petroleum to burn inefficiently in automobiles? Do you think we would massively cut down forests to create industrial agriculture and create giant feedlots for meat production? Simple economics says no.
There are any number of places on our planet that would be optimal for dividing up that size population, where the climate requires less energy and also offers abundant “locally grown” food supplies. You could have efficient cities and suburbs and exurbs and farmland. You will have art and science because there will be people who want to do that. Long-distance travel and exchange of goods and services among the population clusters would not impact the ecosystem to any serious degree.
The problem with your manifesto is that, like all manifestos, it is about some claim of elevated moral stature. But if we could achieve the one condition of stable population with abundant natural resources, all the other details happen by virtue of economics…. the “true free market”, amazingly enough.
Zebra,
Thanks for having a look at our proposal and sharing your thoughts.
We certainly agree that population is a key element but we don’t think it is the only important one. Can you explain what you mean when you say our Proposal “….. is about some claim of elevated moral stature.” . That was not our intent and I am not quite sure what you are referring to.
Kent,
But you didn’t answer my question… so you go first. Tell me which of the conditions you list would not be achieved simply by having the global population fixed at a level of, say, 500 million +/- 50.
Zebra,
I agree that (almost) any technology and economic system would have a good chance of being sustainable over the long term if the population was “fixed” at 500 million. But how do you propose to fix it there?
The other key elements of our proposal, the recognition of our relatedness and dependence on the rest of earth’s species and the understanding that there are better ways to be happy and fulfilled than shopping, are part of a cultural change that we think will help keep human numbers at a sustainable level.
Your turn.
Nah, your approach will never work.
Only a global population fixed at a level of 220 million +/- 5 million, would be Optimal.
You got it all wrong!
Kent,
What I tried to point out in my original response was that having a stable population at that level is not simply “sustainable”, but would produce very much the result that you desire… the type of economics, societal norms, avoidance of environmental impacts, and so on.
But, it would do that without the necessity of “recognition of our relatedness and dependence on the rest of earth’s species and the understanding that there are better ways to be happy and fulfilled than shopping” and other similar moral-value homilies.
So the answer to your question “how do you propose to fix it there” is that once you achieve it, it becomes a matter of self-interest to maintain it; increasing population results in fewer resources per capita, and it also reduces the societal value of the individual human… see our current commodification of labor, and how that has been somewhat reduced of late by scarcity. Also, consider the benefit of intentional number-limitation to individuals within guild-structures like medicine.
Which brings us to the problem you (and I) are avoiding, which is how-do-you-get-there. It is a challenge, certainly, but seems more possible than getting to Kumbaya in a world where people are competing for resources just to survive, much less take advantage of Black Friday.
And you can’t escape the fact that to have the “nice” future that you envision, drastic population reduction and stabilization is a necessity, as well as being sufficient.
Zebra says :
“What I tried to point out in my original response was that having a stable population at that level is not simply “sustainable”, but would produce very much the result that you desire… the type of economics, societal norms, avoidance of environmental impacts, and so on.”
This is not entirely convincing. While its obviously true that a smaller global population than presently is desirable, and would improve a whole range of things, there is no evidence it would produce IDEAL outcomes. We have obvious historical examples of small populations that were far from ideal environmentally or otherwise. Its not clear why a shrinking population today would be that much different.
There would be a need for other additional mechanisms whether a vision of Kent’s variety, or a Killianesque plan, or something like that. Its almost like Zebra thinks smaller population has magical powers.
Sustainability is not and cannot be defined by the number of people. It has *only* to do with resources are depleted over time or not, whether the ecosystem services are depleted over time or not. I have previously used the analogy of the eternal mouse on a massive cheese planet.
The Aspen plan might have worked, but it’s a day late and a dollar short.
AOC already shot it down. About 3 years ago she said the world will end in 12 years, . Only 9 years left.
Party like it’s 1999!
Liar.
She said it. Video made on January 22, 2019:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHk8nn0nw18
I very rarely lie.
You are always lying. And always an idiot.
00:21
“I think that the part of it that is generational is that
millennials and people and you know Gen Z and
all these folks that come after us are looking
up and we’re like:
‘The world is going to end in 12 years if we don’t address climate change!’
And YOUR biggest issue is: ‘How are we gonna pay for it?’
and like this is the war, this is our world war 2
and I think the younger people we’re looking at this and
we’re like: ‘how are we saying: ‘Let’s take it easy, when …..
Note: Yes the evidence is clear Mr Know Stuff All you are an idiot fool who cannot understand the simplest things about Language and how people speak and what they mean by what they say and by how they say it.
What you did, what this dumb F*** youtube channel did is known as making up bullshit Fake News … it is LYING.
You as well are the LIAR and a disreputable jack ass.
Proposal? There is nothing there. It’s all non-action items that any climate/resources/ecosystem-aware person already advocates. And 200-400 years when we have a few decades? How does that make any sense?
The vast majority of the earth’s lands and oceans will be left alone, to manage themselves. (6)
And that shows your group does not understand how the ecosystem functions nor how to regenerate it. You’re pilfering from the half Earth madness that seeks to separate humanity into unsustainable cities separated from Nature… which is supposed to help us love, nurture and understand it?
This is barking words.
Good to see you try and parroting the basic things that are slowly becoming obvious to all rather than a few, but I suggest you join your think tank to a group that understands ecosystem functions better.
You’re welcome to join us at Regenerative Governance on Clubhouse where we are putting forward specific actions and frameworks that are universally applicable.
Killian,
Thanks for taking the time to look at our webpage.
You are correct about the lack of action items on our webpage. Our purpose is not to engage in debate about how to get to a sustainable world, but just to point out that, without a clear vision of where we want to go, getting there will be all the harder.
It is great that you are working on the “how to” parts in the Clubhouse group. There is undoubtedly a role for humans to assist in regenerating ecosystems in the short run, as we squeeze through the bottleneck of the next century or so. But once we have a stable population of around 1 billion, our simplest and safest course of action will be to let nature do the management of most of the planet, as it has done for billions of years.
Kent, as I said, you do not understand what is happening to the ecosystem. You say “once we have a stable population of around 1 billion” which means you don’t seem to understand either the risk analysis of a 2-6C, or more, world. If we end up at 1 billion, it will mean the ecosystem has essentially stopped functioning. There will be little, if anything, for 1 billion to live on.
Your reasoning is nonsensical, imo.
As for looking at where we need to end up, I’ve talked about that, in specific, for over a decade. But your list says nothing of use to anyone. A bunch of platitudes is not a vision. How do you make that happen? What does it literally look like? We do not need to discover the answers to those two questions. We know them. Everything I say is based on that awareness,
Again, glad to see the awareness of the need for change and for the awareness of broad concepts we need to have in place eventually, but your website literally has no reason to exist. By the time it becomes relevant there will almost certainly be no internet and the world will be coooking, and will continue to do so for at least 1,000 years.
Check out Regenerative Gov. There no point in waiting hundreds of years. That basically guarantees we go extinct or come damned close. We can get there from here and do it before the climate tips permanently… unless it already has.
Killian, I don’t think we are on different sides here. The problem is enormous, urgent and requires a response on many fronts. You are working on Regenerative Governance (and I assume other things) and that is important. We are working on promulgating a vision of where we could end up if more people pitch in and help you.
There are still lots of folks in the world that can’t see the scale of the problem, though I think that number is diminishing all the time. There are also lots of folks that see the scale of the problem and quail before it, and give up. And that number is likely growing.
A positive vision of the future, even if that future will only exist for our great grandchildren, may make a difference.
You are working on Regenerative Governance (and I assume other things) and that is important. We are working on promulgating a vision of where we could end up if more people pitch in and help you.
Yeah. We talk about it. We’re actually creating it. Now. I see little utility in making a public pronouncement of what might be some day without also talking about how to get there.
I invite you and your group to join us in creating what you have proposed. If we don’t do it now, your future will never be.
Killian, had you read the entire document–which takes well under 5 minutes–you’d have found the answer to your concern about time scales:
(Footnote 11).
I.e., the proposal isn’t about navigating the next few decades, except insofar as a clear longer-term goal will help said navigation.
You aren’t elucidating anything, Kevin.
Drunken sailors, I say.
Shall we recommend Chlorpromazien, levomepromazine or Haloperidol?
Thank you, Kent, for sharing your group’s solutions. Also, for working towards achieving your plan. Solutions are the topic of this thread and, in my view, the only topic worth debating, as humanity’s existential problems are well understood and clearly described.
I support your proposal. As an expert in open source circular economy, I am happy to see that your group includes the steady-state circular economy as the displacement model for the current extractive, destructive and fossil-based one.
There are tens of definitions of the circular economy, there is already an undergoing effort to “corporatize” it, thus distorting or undermining its purpose, and legislative actions using it as an alternative to growth, which should be clear by now it is not possible on a finite planet. There is also well-founded criticism of the CE concept and practice. But we have to choose solutions and CE might be a an effective one, if its goal is to ensure that humans live within the planetary boundaries and that the whole biosphere continues to exist and flourish.
If it helps, here is my short version definition: industrial model designed and managed around circular flows of resources, products, processes that are
Renewable, long-lasting, high value
Low carbon, low entropy, low waste
Non-toxic, clean, nourishing, healthy
First become an expert in securing then deploying institutional Power.
Without it you are running around in circles while the Davis Cluster, all the wrong kind of politicians and the wealthy are laughing at you.
The problem with theories and new ideas is that is all they are.
Hi Reality Check,
Yes, but as Victor Hugo said, “Nothing is more powerful than an idea whose time has come.”
I expect there are a fair number of folks in the Davis Cluster that have a bit of an inkling that the current trajectory isn’t going to work.. We will see how many of them we can turn.
Hi Silvia,
That is a nice definition. Thank you for sharing it.
And please feel free to pass on the link to the Aspen Proposal website to anyone that you think might be interested.
@Carbomontanus:
You appear to be referring to the iodine leak and/or the falsified research. Zero fatalities, zero injuries, and some research that needed to be re-done. As scandals go it doesn’t seem to rate very seriously, though I hope that some careers were ended.
More hand-waving. You appear to be referring to some unauthorized cooperation with Brazil, again with nothing resembling a casualty. Why didn’t you just say so? Why do you insist on talking in riddles? Can’t you simply state the facts?
Hr.Poet
I try my best to be autentic and discuss only our 2 local and national “scientific” and “experimental” reactors, You ought to recognize and appreciate that.
Also my reference to Poisson- statistics,.. that is not inferiour handwaving and eventual dilettantism. It is how to discuss crooky crime in Paris and further, and often the only way that the large and bold and adult experts from the professional trades and industries, namely The Untoucheables can be dealt with, Simply count up and draw the square root of them and label them further in those terms.
I have been at that Kjeller reactor 2 times. My impression was very positive. But allready on that site, there are 2 remarkable “accidents” that should not be. The first Jeep 1 reactor was de- commissioned, and it came through the newspapers that one of five “barrels” of highly radioacted waste, probably 1/5 of the very uranium- content that was meant fror https://Shellafield in the irish sea had accidentally rollen off the truck plane on the narrow secret smuggler- road close up to the swedisgh boarder…. at night…on the way from Kjeller down to Halden and further shipping from there.
That was 3 human errors in one night all together.
1 to take the gloomy backyard smuggler road at night for the freight of a nuclearv reactor.
2 Not to know how to tie knots and secure tricky heavy “barrels” on the smjuggler road either, and
3, not to hear that rumbling in the curves and bumps at night when it rolled off and along the road and down into the ditch where they found it at last.
The square root of 3 is 1.73, times 3 = 5.196 plus 3 = 8.196.
=altogether more than 8 possibly exotic human errors only at that decomissioning transport.
Then they had a lethal accident.
A worker had gone into a room where there were extreme Gamma coming on and off. With a door, and a red lamp above and a lock also more or less. His docimeter was found totally black. He felt nothing inside there but soon after, and died 2 weeks later.
That is one case and the square root of one is one. Meaning it might as well not have happened but the tendency of it is that for the worst case, we might have got rid of all in all 4 safe and sure nuclear reactor workers at the same Kjeller reactor that was a tiniest one at only 5 Kilowatts.
As for Halden and their fameous routine fabricated research results:
I see more of a classic secret rot and mycelium in the ground- substrate. Because I happen to know the institute and person Thormod Henriksen, who was asked to try and measure and judge the gamma- dosis on that unlucky worker, who was diabetic and had pure crystalline sugar pieces in his pocket that could be examined.
That Henriksen I have seen for sure by working next door to him, Really to my surprize, he was also able to “fabricate” his data and to blame others boldly professionally for the same and for not being reliable in that respect, displaying clear political safety and Routine.
. And it all relates and sorts under the same Grand Old Party where https://www.Jens_Christian_Hauge was chief lawyer, secret service, and nuclear pioneer.
Poetic ingeneer he was not, and his career could not be ended by anyone. But maybe that on his way he ended a lot of other peoples careers to get his comrades emplyed also in Halden that was secret and shielded enough for such operations.
Such manners….. rotten stinky behavious……….. is what causes peoples doubts and lacks of love in nuclear power.
They probably secured and delivered and were paid for all the secret nuclear plutonium arms race madness of the world for a long period. And even if they did not, they obviously exercised for it.
.
“Cant you simply state the facts?”
Riddle
DATA, MAKTA….BASTA PRAVDA…FAKTA…SVADA
Q: What is so frappingly similar by all theese 6 big words?
(You may have to check up Makta, for what it meansw but it is etym. Might or mighty in english)
Answer:
Just trake a closer look All of them do mean quite exactly the same.
Discussion:
I never insisted on talking or writing in riddles. Only that under circumstances and among some people it scratches and bleeds better. whereas Plain English Englischer Platt gives privileges to the same group.
We did discss parabels recently. Some people hate that. But I came to think that it is often the enlighted way to mention and to discuss Realia and Universalia the enlighted and civilized way, different from BASTA!, PRAVDA & cetera. and further Particularia that can only rule for the inaugurated ones inside of their own private toilet. The illusion of the cave.
.
Ever since Aisopos, this has been routine. Wherefore thyranny also hates and forbids it.
This is interesting: “Climate phrasing in news reports doesn’t really move the needle, study finds”
https://news.yahoo.com/climate-phrasing-news-reports-doesnt-140711599.html
Reality Check,
Regarding your comments a page back on the “New research paper: ” ‘Clean’ hydrogen? – Comparing the emissions and costs of fossil fuel versus renewable electricity based hydrogen.” I came across it earlier today.”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306261921014215?via%3Dihub
I only read the abstract, which seemed to endorse renewable energy based hydrogen (green hydrogen) as opposed to blue hydrogen, which doesnt surprise me. I think you said green hydrogen was incredibly obviously preferable. You would get no argument from me on that.
Regarding your comments about hydrogen fuel cells versus EV’s with lithium batteries and your comment that EV’s with lithium batteries looked like a dead end. I assume you mean supply difficulties with lithium? It is a concern, although I stumbled across information that the planet has vast reserves of lithium with hunderds of billions of tons dissolved in the oceans and its been extracted experimentally and the economics look good. List of minerals dissolved in the oceans:
https://www.miningweekly.com/article/over-40-minerals-and-metals-contained-in-seawater-their-extraction-likely-to-increase-in-the-future-2016-04-01
Hydrogen fuel cell vehicles use platinium as a catalyst which is quite rare. Although hafnium is a possibility and is relatively abundant and cheap.
It will sort itself out. There will obviously be a surge of demand for lithium that will put so much pressure on supply in the short term that hydrogen fuel cell vehicles will get a push along. The tricky part might be convincing people to sit on a tank of hydrogen :) I used to be very pro lithium EV’s but Im starting to think hydrogen fuel cells will have a part to play. The fact that G W Bush was in favour of the hydrogen economy made me a bit suspicious for a while.
I really don’t have too much problem with the arseholes and big egos you mentioned who make money out of all this, as long as they dont cheat the rules, evade taxes and rip me off.
@Carbomontanus:
You refuse to speak plainly. You have exhausted my patience. I am done with you.
Did I hit a tense nerve there?
But to all and everyone:
, I do not believe that anyone aquainted with nuclear power the civilized and updated qualified and experienced way would have any difficulties with what I wrote. On the contrary, I think they would appreciate and adore it.
It was written for them.
How much snobbish high nosed secret Plutonium for the nuclear arms race mad- ness is necessary for civil electricity support national state subventions?
And what about that Shellafield and the disposals when it can be shown to work at night way back into the secret crooky professional poetic smuggler roads even in backyard Norway at night?
If other engineers better edeucated and selected than those snobbish poetics under that grand old party with P could have taken it, then it might have been workiing allready or at least well examined and ready for future utilization from now on when it is needed.
01 November 2021
Top climate scientists are sceptical that nations will rein in global warming
A Nature survey reveals that many authors of the latest IPCC climate-science report are anxious about the future and expect to see catastrophic changes in their lifetimes. – Nature conducted an anonymous survey of the 233 living IPCC authors last month and received responses from 92 scientists — about 40% of the group. Their answers suggest strong scepticism that governments will markedly slow the pace of global warming,
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02990-w
Six in ten of the respondents said that they expect the world to warm by at least 3 °C by the end of the century
Most of the survey’s respondents — 88% — said they think global warming constitutes a ‘crisis’, and nearly as many said they expect to see catastrophic impacts of climate change in their lifetimes.
The pessimism expressed by some IPCC panellists underscores the vast gulf between hopes and expectations for the climate summit that began this week in Glasgow.
“Unless there are immediate, rapid and large-scale reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, limiting warming to close to 1.5 °C or even 2° C will be beyond reach,” the IPCC said.
The Nature survey has limitations: it doesn’t capture the views of 60% of the IPCC authors, and two scientists wrote separately to Nature expressing concerns about the poll precisely because it taps into opinions rather than science. Still, the survey provides a snapshot of the views of a significant proportion of the researchers who wrote the report.
Positive signals
More than 20% of the scientists said they expect nations to limit global warming to 2 °C, and 4% said the world might indeed meet its most aggressive goal of limiting warming to 1.5 °C — a target that many scientists and academics wrote off from the moment the Paris agreement was signed in 2015.
Two-thirds of the respondents said they engage in climate advocacy, and almost all of those who do said they promote climate science through speeches, publications or videos. Some 43% of those who engage said they have signed letters or petitions, and 40% said they have contacted lawmakers to advocate for climate policies. 25% said they have joined demonstrations.
From the conclusion of that story:
Sad to have to move from your homeland. That’s the story of the world, and of the USA. To those in Senegal we say: “Welcome to the history of the world”. To escape European tyrants, Pilgrims got in small wooden “ships” hundreds of years ago with poor maps and poor navigation tools, crossed the cold Atlantic, and landed in a frozen wilderness. They started down the path of creating the great nation of America, the one people around the world risk their lives to come to; the one where today soft, ignorant White leftists bad-mouth it even as they exist ONLY because of the prosperity that people of the past created. Prosperity earned with hard work and blood over several centuries.
USA! USA! USA!
The Puritan Pilgrims were the EUROPEAN TYRANTS themselves. They loved burning witches. Murdering native Americans, experts at lying stealing and cheating, and then selling what was left into slavery.
Now they are simply called Americans.
A Prosperity earned with hard work and blood of generations of slaves, land theft, lying cheating and stealing, murdering, breaking Treaties, violence, intimidation, insurrection, and the hard work of the poor and the powerless over several centuries. Now they use the “law” to lie steal and cheat.
USA! USA! USA!
KIA. What an amazingly stupid comment even by your standards, that compares apples with oranges. With tyrants for leaders people didn’t have much option but to immigrate, but we can collectively do something about climate change so people can stay where they live. And if we don’t, you will have more than Mexicans crossing your borders to worry about.
They still use the electrical chair over there in the states but not in all of the states.
Why not simply use then pillory, that is much more humane and much more of an entertaining feast?
COP26 debriefing
Dr Saleemul Huq | “Vulnerable Countries Left Glasgow with Tears In Their Eyes”
with Nick Breeze
So the vulnerable countries under the
climate vulnerable forum which are 55 of
the most vulnerable countries under the
leadership of prime minister of
bangladesh asked for, in fact demanded,
that the glasgow outcome should be
called the glasgow climate emergency pact
What we got in the end from the cop 26
presidency was the glasgow climate pact,
the word emergency disappeared, both in
terms of the word and the substance.
the cop 26 presidency did not recognize
this as an emergency – did not treat it as
an emergency, they just treated it as an
incremental progress and now they are
patting themselves on the back for making
tiny little incremental steps forward …
you know they got the word coal in and
they’re congratulating themselves after
30 years being able to mention the word
coal (for the first time ever) these are
trivial outcomes that simply do
not rise to the occasion that we are in
a climate changed world – an emergency
[…] exactly so you know I characterized cop
26 going in as being the first cop in the era
of loss and damage from climate change –
it’s already happening everywhere
including in the rich countries – and they
just simply did not rise to the occasion
you know there was language put
forward by the developing countries
asking for a Glasgow Facility on Loss
and Damage that was in the text
on the penultimate text on Friday
evening which was the official time for
finishing but then it went into extra
time on Saturday and in the extra time
that language disappeared, language
put forward by 5 billion people 138
countries it disappeared because one
country The United States of America
didn’t want it – and the COP26
presidency just bent to their demand!!!
Note: so there’s a little slice of the reality of what power looks like in action in the real world. :)
It happens at every COP so far.
Maybe there will not be another one.
Yes, but they got to hear all the nice, flowery speeches given in exotic languages with those cool accents, got to see Biden sleeping, got to show off their exotic apparel, and hob-nob with the rich and famous. Was Greta there? If so, perhaps they got a selfie with her! And they racked up some air miles on their credit card at tax-payer expense. It doesn’t get any better than that!
:)
Better than listening to a complete fool, dim wit, and partisan twit like KIA :)
Dr Saleemul Huq | “Vulnerable Countries Left Glasgow with Tears In Their Eyes”
with Nick Breeze
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=edKA6oommkY
On nuclear.
Listen to one of our best thinkers, blowers, doers. I don’t know if history will remember him, but it should.
https://cooldesign.medium.com/the-great-pause-week-89-martians-in-wyoming-1b01efafa2ab
I missed this at the time, but worth noting:
https://www.news.ucsb.edu/2019/019424/plastic-s-carbon-footprint
With global demand for plastic rising briskly, the carbon footprint of plastic *by itelf* could make climate goals unreachable–let alone in combination with everything else going on.
The culture of disposability must end.
@nigelj:
“And hafnium plus holmium makes one point five, I think.”
— Dr. Jane Robinson, “The Elements”
The most common arguments I hear against simplification and regenerative agriculture are, “People won’t!”, “People don’t want to!”, “It’s primitive!”and “It takes too long!”
Oh, really…?
https://www.instagram.com/p/CW36bqFPfKK/?utm_medium=share_sheet
And, oh, really…?
http://bealtainecottage.com/before-permaculture/
And, oh, really…?
https://www.greeningthedesertproject.org/celebrating-10-years-at-the-greening-the-desert-project-jordan/
…etc…
Simplification is the best option, the fastest option, with the least risk…
A few individuals managing it is not enough. What is needed is for the wealthy populations to go that way, which will mean simplification and regeneration on the scale of a country populated by millions. I would like to see a step by step roadmap as to how (the majority or all of) the citizens of the wealthiest countries go from the consumption based lifestyles now to the simplification regeneration solution in the little time we have left. Since you pour scorn on anyone who claims it will take too long or people won’t want too, such a roadmap should exist or be simple for you to draw up.
Couldn’t agree more Adam.
For the 1,694,251 inhabitants of Manhattan, {population density = 74,780.7/sq mi (28,873.0/km2)} , what would simplification look like?
Would folks in big cities get their food from their local grocery store like they do now?
That Bealtaine Cottage is in the jungle now! Nice place. I do hope that they are driving an EV powered by RE:
https://i0.wp.com/bealtainecottage.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/old-pictures-saved-by-dylan-1648.jpg?ssl=1
Hmmm….
Gov’ts and businesses are moving us in the wrong direction….
It takes individual action….
It’s a massive, urgent emergency requiring rapid, radical transformation….
We, The People-ish movements understand this better than gov’ts, et al…
Is the research supporting them? Uh, no. Show me one scientific study of exemplars such as The Farm, Greening the Desert, Bealtaine Cottage, Zaytuna, Cheran, or any truly regenerative farm/community. To my knowledge, there are exactly zero in existence.
Current rate – which I promise you will accelerate before it gets better and will only slow with massive changes – is 0.5C/decade. So…. that’s 1.2C+4C= 5.2C…. with no acceleration. By 2100.
Exxon lied. Yup. Been known a long time now. Still no prosecutions for crimes against humanity and crimes against Nature. #EcoNuremberg – called for a decade or so. Finally happening on some scale.
Need to be at or near NetZero within 20 years. (And she was doing so well…)
Degrowth. A scientist said degrowth. Not only that, but said, it is the “fastest & surest way to do that.” Still novel enough to hear a scientist say this to be exciting/encouraging. (Nigel, et al, do hold onto your heads. The pressure might prevent them from exploding.)
Nobody is studying it. Shocking news…
While increasing social welfare? Surely this can’t be the case. Simplification requires deprivation, primitive living, CHAOS. Right? Stop killing the ecosystem but be happier, healthier?
KA said “We haven’t even tried mitigation yet.” Damn these echos. Either I need better ears or a less hard-surfaced room to listen in…
We don’t even know what it would look like? Not sure if she was still quoting KA or editorializing that point, but, uh, yeah, we damned sure do. LiLi needs some modifications. You can’t do regenerative with some of those elements present.
Heterodox Economics? More heads exploding, I fear.
Reduce energy use *and* resource use? You mean it’s all about the abuse of resources…? Such novel ideas! A-hem…
Doughnut. FAIL. Full stop. FAIL,
Footprint including trade relations… Could she possibly mean end-user accounting? My, how very progressive… ly late to the table. But good on ya, Doc, et al.
Germany is failing on most indicators but the ***lifestyle dependent on that resource destruction is considered meeting social well-being?*** FAIL.
The Empty Neighborhood: Ah. You are saying there are no modern societies that are close to regenerative? That damned echo again…
Getting there: Equity and Distribution
Rich are sucking up way too much. No surprise…
Wealth is a threat to human society. Wealth and desire for wealth a huge part of the problem. Echoing again…
Who is consuming what? Rich are consuming… everything, but really dominate in transport. AKA, the poor don’t fly, the lower middle class don’t fly much. The poor often don’t have cars, the wealthy have huge, and multiple cars. SUV’s/large cars are second only to energy systems for increasing emissions. So tax the crap out of conspicuous transport, divert funds to efficiency, etc. Serious problem here: Taxes don’t pay for anything, so the funding of “climate-friendly” things does not require any taxation.
Redistribute wealth bc rich people are selfish, consumptive @$%@$’s. So…. Commons going once, twice….
Socio-economics
Rubrik for positive/negative effects: Transport and growth really, really suck. However, the rubric is flawed: Much of what is in it is unsustainable. That study clearly did not look directly at resource constraints. Why can no one bear to always keep at the forefront the real, mathematical limits?
Sufficiency and Efficiency > FAIL. Should be ecosystem services and resilience
Hey! Everyone can have a phone! FAIL.
A computer in every pot! FAIL.
15k/km/yr transport/per capita FAIL
Etc.
With population factored in, 40% reduction in energy consumption acceptable. FAIL.
Fin: Can live well with a COMPLETE CHANGE… that is not in any way a complete change. Nothing, in fact, changes in their model except who gets to consume and how much overall. FAIL.
Change
Scientists must act
protest must be protected
mass civil disobedience
universities need to go back to the 60’s; get those students activated!
The freaking echos are are both deafening and insufficient….
Quote: ” (Nigel, et al, do hold onto your heads. The pressure might prevent them from exploding.)”
When a vessel contains a total vacuum, it doesn’t explode, it implodes.
:)
:)
:)
Quote: “That study clearly did not look directly at resource constraints. Why can no one bear to always keep at the forefront the real, mathematical limits?”
The earth can be approximated as a sphere 8,000 miles in diameter. There’s a whole lotta resources within that sphere. We haven’t even made a dent in the “resources” the earth can provide.
I do suggest a Democrat run for office on the platform of taking away our phones, computers, and cars. That will be a success, right? That would make Kamala’s primary campaign for Prez look successful and that’s hard to do!!!!! But wait, Nigel says he doesn’t like tyrants in any form. Hmmmmm……
:)
:)
:)
Jesus wept, KIA is dumb and ignorant. The size of the planet is not the point. Its about the feasibility of extraction. Minerals exist in isolated lodes near the surface, and quantities are limited. This is what we are mining and its gradually getting more expensive to mine them. There are minerals more scattered at extremely low concentrations but extracting them would be horrendously expensive, so its just not practical in huge quantities. Mining deep down would be horrendously expensive. The resource optimists like KIA live in a fantasy world.
That said the resource pessimists like certain people, ahem, get a bit too pessimistic. I believe the truth is in the middle. We have a bit more scope extracting minerals from sea water and doing it economically. Mining the sea bed could be too ecologically damaging to do in any quantity. So the bottom line is per capita consumption has to fall sooner or later one way or the other. If population size falls this would help.
KIA: The earth can be approximated as a sphere 8,000 miles in diameter. There’s a whole lotta resources within that sphere. We haven’t even made a dent in the “resources” the earth can provide.
BPL: If you think we can ever mine more than a small portion of the crust, you’re unfamiliar with the technology of the 21st century.
KIA: I do suggest a Democrat run for office on the platform of taking away our phones, computers, and cars. That will be a success, right?
BPL: Nobody but you is proposing that. You need to Google “straw man argument.”
BPL: If you think we can ever mine more than a small portion of the crust, you’re unfamiliar with the technology of the 21st century.
You are correct – we will only mine the tiniest portion of the crust BECAUSE IT IS ENORMOUS and our machines are tiny. We will never even make a dent.
@Killian:
That is one of the most scientifically-illiterate pieces I have ever read. It isn’t right. It’s not even WRONG.
Albert Bates has a law degree, not a science or engineering degree. That probably explains part of the problem.
Stop thinking and acting like a child, both of you. nigel thinks having law degree is all one is, despite Bates being an inventor of multiple technologies. And EP is just… not nearly as bright as he seems to think; witness both his racism and his mad-dog support of nuclear.
It’s instructive you both argue solely by assertion. Because that’s all you’ve got.
I hane checked up Albert Bates and his home- made “biochars” by primitive methods.
It takes twice as much firewood for heating the process and all the gas is burnt off in vain. That would be good enough for glasswork and for driving cars or heat several houses if taken care of.
The “biochar” is apparently used for gardening. If not burnt all down to ashes it will hardly leave any phosphate magnesium calsium and potassium either, and all the nitrogen is lost in the process..
The old cokeries did deliver alson the world production of ammonia and tar beside of hydrogen also, as by- pro9duct, But this here is sheere and proud dilettantism.
All in all nothing new at all, it rather looks like a playground for less cunning and competent dilettants and fanatics. Or a quite betraying and disappointing show.
We have that kind of processes much better under control.
Then he will bark again in his way.
A review of Steve Keen’s latest book.
https://braveneweurope.com/the-new-economics-a-manifesto-by-steve-keen
WHITE paint will save the planet from AGW:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qyE-fHPZYk
Betteridges Law of Headlines applies to that YouTube video.
On the other hand, in some climates, white-painted roofs and walls are a useful contributor to building energy efficiency, though I doubt that the improvement of that paint over conventional TiO2 pigmented white paint would probably be marginal (I didn’t watch the video).
Go to 2:20 in the video and watch for one minute. That’s where they compare regular white paint with their barium sulfate paint. Their paint actually results in a white tile in the sun being below ambient temperature because it is reflecting more energy than it is absorbing. Not bad!
I went to Wikipedia instead. The barium sulphate paint developed at Purdue reflects ~98% of sunlight. Normal commercial white paint reflects ~80-90% of it.
As I implied in my earlier post, I think that the answer to “Can the world’s whitest paint save Earth?” is still “no.” Even though it’s admittedly good technology.
The key question must always be, is it sustainable? That answer is, “No,” so one must be careful about how one chooses to use such a technology… and *whether* to.
Really bad!! The paint is violating the laws of thermodynamics by passively cooling below ambient temperature. They’ve developed a form of perpetual motion machine. Or could their claim somehow be misleading?
I’d look at their measurement instrumentation first. Might be off a little bit.
Not necessarily. That effect can happen naturally in the formation of hoar frost (aka radiation frost).
Not necessarily. It’s quite possible for radiation to cool things below ambient temperature. That’s how hoar frost (aka radiation frost) can form even if the air temperature remains above freezing..
Ahh, watts and joules again.
Here’s the experiment:
We have two tiles.
All except the top surface of each is thermally isolated.
The atmosphere contains no GHG.
The thermal energy of the tiles is determined by conduction from the ambient atmosphere and incoming radiation, and outgoing radiation from the top surface. The ambient atmosphere is very large and qualifies as a source.
Now we spray the surface of one tile with an instant-drying reflective film that has no effect on conduction or outgoing radiation, but does reflect 100% of incoming radiation.
Discuss the resulting temperature characteristics of the two tiles, and what quantitative relationships of the overall system will determine that.
prl – Yes, objects can radiate below ambient temperature at night and at very low solar angles. However, emissivity at a wavelength equals absorbtivity (1-albedo) at the same wavelength. So, for an object to emit effectively to space in the “thermal” long infrared wavelengths, it must be a good absorber at the same wavelengths. The sun emits mostly at shorter wavelengths, but there is enough incoming longwave infrared on a sunny day to heat up an object, even if it reflects nearly all of the energy at visible wavelengths.
Zebra, if the surface is 100% reflective of incoming radiation at visible wavelengths, it will still be able to emit and absorb at thermal wavelengths, approximated by an astronomical mirror. If, for your thought experiment, it was somehow reflective at all wavelengths, it would also be incapable of emitting radiation, and would reach thermal equilibrium with the atmosphere through conduction only, to ambient temperature.
Dr. Zebra
You seem unaquainted and unexperienced to this.
There is no such professional commercial spraybox spray that simply by a magic professional spray makes a totally black surface or hole into an absolute mirror.
I repeat…..
Your un- aquaintedeness to this does make you suggest Maxwells demon, that is a variety of the very many perpetuum mobile suggestions during recent history.
I have had it from highl titled surrealists also. The burnt and practically black cast iron red hot stove or innerly heated canon ball with the radius r….. that radiates watts at the temperature T..
But reflects like a shiny silvery or aluminized mirror what is coming back, so called back radiation,…. by a certain “Resonance”.
Un- aquaintedness to practical laboratory temperatures in bright daylight and dark room environments by absolutely pure and clean and fused metal shiny mirroring surfaces….
…..does make one phantacize and ask silly question and even to teach people about such elementary things.
Your duty is to explain to us first why a shiny pure aluminium foil and shiny bright silvery teapot aloso does keeap the tea or coffee warmth and heat very well inside of such surfaces.
And why absolutely pure and fused silver pearls at high orange hot do look black in a darkened labgoratorium in order better to see the glow temperatures.
Why does also red hot fused pure shiny aluminium look quite safe and cool like fused tin or type metal outdoor in britght daylight?
Without Bunsen and Kirchoff on pensum, you seem likely to suggest Maxwells demon.
Why must the room rather be a bit dark when they blow fine glasses, and why does the hot glass glowing at high orange inside of the oven look only deep red hot outside in the room?
Experience you see, experience. And due theory to that. I repeat, due theory.
They had no thermometers. They only had the cat and the sun and Aladdins lamp for reference, , and could still manage bakery and brewery and pottery and brasses and bronses and irons the cunning and scientific way.
No, prl is right. Traditional ice-making in Bengal relied on precisely this principle. William Charles Wells discussed it in his 1812 in his Rumfoord Medal-winning paper “On Dew”.
https://discover.hubpages.com/education/Global-Warming-Science-In-The-Age-Of-Washington-And-Jefferson-William-Charles-Wells
Apparently, they did something similar in Persia:
https://www.fieldstudyoftheworld.com/persian-ice-house-how-make-ice-desert/
Kevin McKinney, just what is prl right about? The fact that insulated objects AT NIGHT can radiate to below ambient air temperature is not in dispute. Hoarfrost formation and the examples you cited refer to the formation of ice AT NIGHT. It does not pertain to what happens during the day.
What I am very much disputing is the idea that you can paint an object with white paint that is so reflective that it will passively cool below ambient air temperature WHEN EXPOSED TO BRIGHT SUNLIGHT, as the video claimed. The incoming radiation from the sun will overwhelm the outgoing radiation from the object.
I quote from another portion of the Wells article that you cited: “Radiation of heat by the earth to the heavens must exist at all times; but, if the sun be at some height above the horizon. . . the heat emitted by it to the earth will overbalance, even in places shaded from its direct beams, that which the earth radiates upwards.”
John Pollack,
John,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666386420302368?via%3Dihub
Seems reasonable. Not sure about the precision of the experimental setup but even if they only got a net-zero balance that’s pretty good.
I came up with my thought experiment before I read the paper, and my point, as usual, was that “it’s complicated”. Much depends on how you define “ambient” and “the material” and “the system” and so on.
Zebra,
I stand corrected. Thanks for the reference, especially since it has a detailed explanation of the physics involved. You’ve settled the argument, and not in my favor.
John, wouldn’t it be nice if discussions that might interest people in the actual physics were not buried by the column-inch-addicted that spam these threads with long-winded gibberish?
Thanks for clarifying. You didn’t, in the comment I responded to, specify day, and I hadn’t/haven’t seen the video you refer to. True, I suppose, the fact that we were talking about solar albedo should have given a strong clue!
But it would seem to me that, while albedo approaching 1 implies *some* warming, it would also tend to imply that the object coated with wonder paint would be very likely, on a windless day at least, to end up significantly below ambient temperature. Which may not be what the video claimed, but seems responsive to your comment.
I would really like to see papers about the logistics of the energy transition.. You know, the mining, the processing, the smelting, the manufacturing, how many factories, how much labour etc etc. My ideal would be a paper that looks at a worldwide level and assesses what actually needs to be done (at a high level) and where things currently stand.
I know that the International Energy Agency has done an outlook on mineral requirements, and the British Natural History Museum did an outlook from a British perspective on minerals. I have seen one paper on labour for fossil fuel vs renewable electricity systems, although IMHO it was not an apples for apples as it started the renewables supply chain at manufacturing.
Other than a few passing statements about battery production, I have not seen anything about how much the world needs to increase wind turbine manufacture etc.
It is an aspect of the energy transition that is badly overlooked, it seems to me.
Does anyone know any papers?
Mark Z Jacobson has done very detailed studies demonstrating there are enough mineral resources for a transition to a renewable energy grid. I don’t have time right now to dig up the papers, but a google search based on my comment will bring up plenty of information.
Thank you
Lappeenranta University in Finland is also an institution that does a lot of work on modeling RE in potential future economies. This study is indicative.
News summary:
https://yle.fi/news/3-10736252
Study:
https://energywatchgroup.org/wp-content/uploads/EWG_LUT_100RE_All_Sectors_Global_Report_2019.pdf
Thank you
No tie to resources = Empty assertions. Also, to be clear, there is no issue we can do the build-out. I know of no one that tries to make that argument, so not sure where that Straw Man comes from. The issue is for how many generations can we repeat the process.
The finland german report @kevin is scary in the extent of it’s claims, and the length of the report. They say it is “all-inclusive”but frankly I cannot see that at all.
as a narrow-framed hypothetical is might be mathematically technically feasible to assume electricity supply can go from 10% of energy to 90% of supply in little over 30 years…. all other things being equal or ignored. Common sense and history tells me it cannot possibly be done.
It doesn’t seem to address manufacturing imposts scope or heavy industry anywhere and there resource requirements and scale for such a build out. it doesn’t mention PV only having a life of ~25 years or so. then it needs to be manufactured again and refitted.
There’s only one obtuse ref to non-energy raw materials, minerals and metals ….
The ecosystem consists of finite sources of non-
energy raw materials, which are crucial for
developing a global 100% renewable energy
system. Further extracting these finite sources of
minerals and metals to produce the relevant
renewable energy generation and storage
technologies could lead to a substantial increase in
demand as well as create potential environmental
issues. Consequently, cradle-to-cradle approaches
involving end-use recycling and material
substitution could be crucial strategies that have to
be integrated into net zero emissions pathways for
the global energy transition.
so that report and this one by Jacobson https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf doesn’t provide any info on the total resources required for such build-outs ie ” the mining, the processing, the smelting, the manufacturing, how many factories, how much labour etc etc” which is what Linley was seeking.
I do not believe such comprehensive inclusive research exists, anywhere. I have never seen anything close. Let’s be realistic. Govts cannot even explain how they will go about meeting their 2030 NDC targets.
Hr Nigelj
That seems a bit superfiscious.
The major problem of such things is hardly occurance, but scarcity and purity. That entails the necessary extraction conscentration of it and refing up to high and exotic grade purity. Those processes are expensive and most often terribly polluting also. .
Thgus it is also quite an ideal not to plan in terms of and to use too much of highly artificial purified and syntetic material, but rather things like common straw and natural wood elements and common sand clay and stones if you can. And bamboo rather than aluminium for instance, and possible sea-shells instead of porcellain and polypropylene. .
And think also in terms of re- cycled.
And not least, How can I get rit of it again whenever you order or buy something.
Carbo. I did allude to the problems of purity when I mentioned dispersed minerals in low concentrations.
How do you propose substituting things like straw and wood for lead, tin, and cobalt given their normal applications? Because I’m mystified. And these materials are ones we are in danger of running a bit short of and what I was thinking about.
Yes we can substitute wood for aluminium and steel for at least some applications, but does this actually make sense? Because aluminium is not a rare element and iron is fairly abundant and there are many competing demand for wood, and declining rain forests. Its all a bit of a headache to know the ideal solution..
I totally agree about recycling, however there are always small losses in these processes and materials so dispersed they are hard to recover. We could start to run short of some of the less common materials eventually longer term. I don’t think we are facing a total disaster, but its hard for me to see how future generations would all own all the sorts of technology we take for granted. let alone all 9 billion all having their personal robot companions to do the housework.
Hr Nigelj
You discuss it in terms of the scarcity of things. It is also a problem of the quite unnatural and expensive purity of elementary things.
Namely of how to sort and get apart and purify resources that are normally and naturally occuring and mixed up together.
How do you for instance get apart aluminium and silicium and oxygen and iron, that are some of the most abundant elements on earth, but expected to be acheivable on the free market in purest, elementary form?
How much coal and cokes and lignite and methane and solar cells and polyester glassfiber windmills with rare earths and copper and even refined u 235 with waste disposals and pure calsium oxide with choisest clay burnt at high yellow hot without humus in the sands and with freshwater does that take?
That is where I recommend common bushes and twigs and natural stones and proper deer- antlers for the strongest and most exotic machinery parts instead.
There are no tropical rainforests here. It would be a lot of trasport to get it from there and I would have to ask the experts that I have disqualified. But I am able to take it out of the air and the snow and the twigs and the dirts instead.
Nigelj
If you want to exel in poisons and pollutions, costs and environmental problems, then read about the Bayer- process. How to purify natural bauxit into pure alumina, ready for mixing it with Flusspar CaF2 and pure carbon soot, to undergo fused electrolysis by a sinful lot of hydroelectric or natural gas- electric power.
The red mud byprduct problem seems political in the USA. That is the slurry of iron oxide titanium oxide some loss of Soda that is also expensive, and all the rest including also chrom and arsenic..Large open pools in the landscapes are full of it today.
All for just having that “Renal” which is purest soft alufoil and thick soft noncorrosive electrical leads both for high and low voltage, fot our fameous electrical heating and pure shiny fast luxurious electric cars.
Aluminium being the 3rd most abundant element in the litosphere, I think.
To make it very pure sublime and shiny nyou see, you mostly also prodeuce and leave after it an enormeous lot of dirt and problems.
So I just repeat that of rather take less refined and purified, and quite more natural materials if you can.
That is something rather for everyone to understand first.
Carbomantanus. I largely agree. I understand what you are saying. I can see that breaking down rich bauxite deposits into aluminium is not too hard, but once you get to the not so rich deposits, and the other minerals containing aluminium it gets harder, requiring difficult processes and much more energy. Its a real issue that will increasingly confront humanity.
I’m just saying substituting timber is not a panacea. We are trying to grow trees for timber for buildings and to absorb carbon and for wood pellets for burning and now we want to use it to build wind turbine towers and blades and ships hulls and whatever. That is all good in theory, but will there be enough timber on the planet for ALL these applications? It makes me wonder.
Perhaps we should consider going back to buildings made with mud bricks or rammed earth construction. We wont run out of mud in a hurry. We may ultimately be forced to consider such things.
But Mark is wrong. His analysis relies on things that do not exist. He might be right eventually, but not at this time.
And, no, he does not like it when I point this out.
It’s not so much a Climate Change Crisis as it is a Systems Change Emergency!
Seeing the Big Picture | Nate Hagens @NJHagens audio interview Nov 26 2021
Understanding the critical connections between our values, our economy and our world with Rachel Donald. On the humankind’s metabolism and culture driving the climate crisis—and why the answer isn’t as simple as stopping fossil fuels. Listen to the full, fascinating episode
https://www.planetcritical.com/p/seeing-the-big-picture-nate-hagens
INFO
Welcome to the era of generalists, of the big picture thinkers who translate concepts into action. These are the people who join the dots to get a better sense of how our world fits together—and how we impact each other. Nate Hagens is one of the most acclaimed big picture thinkers tackling the sustainability question. He joins me to explain that creating a sustainable future demands tackling social and economic inequalities, and ultimately creating a new system of values.
Nate currently teaches a systems synthesis Honors seminar at the University of Minnesota ‘Reality 101 – A Survey of the Human Predicament’ Nate is on the Boards of Post Carbon Institute, Bottleneck Foundation, IIER and Institute for the Study of Energy and the Future.
Latest book free online: https://read.realityblind.world/view/975731937/
Video summary: 33 core beliefs prevalent in modern culture contrasted with our underlying biophysical realities. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYeZwUVx5MY
EXTRACTS
@5 mins
“We live in a sea with islands of expertise surrounded by oceans of nonsense. And those people don’t talk to each other. So we need the experts but we need to have a map created by the Generalists first. So then the experts can apply (and share what they know) while looking at the right road in front of us.”
@7 mins
“We are a social species that based our culture on extraction mining consumption of ancient Sunlight. Which means that our economy, because of the benefits of fossil carbon is over a 100 times bigger than it was 500 years ago – number of people times average consumption. – We basically have ecological overshoot as a species who has accessed this bolus of fossil carbon.”
@10 mins
“(Today we will continue on) ….. until we can’t. That “until we can’t” point happens this decade I think. When we are going to have what I refer to as a *Great Simplification*. Which means that our economies are going to get smaller, less complex and more localized. But that is not the emotional signal we are getting right now because stock markets are at all time highs and we’re focused on other worries. But there is a big economic simplification on the horizon – which in some ways could be really good news for climate change as long as it is managed properly. “
“…..But there is a big economic simplification on the horizon….”
Good article, but I’m not sure what horizon he’s looking at or what his hard evidence is. Look at the complexities dealing with covid has added to our lives and technology, with scanning in and vaccine passports (although I think those are good things for the sake of our survival). I suppose .the increase in working from home is arguably a form of simplification and a useful one, but its swept away by a lot of other complexities.
Where I really agree with Hagens and others saying very similar things ot him, is the notion that everything is linked or it’s all connected, and in ways we everyday people like us and the specialist experts as well do not recognize as being so holistically – because some connections are kind of hidden from view. Where disagreements arise, is imo, how they are linked and what links are more influential or unable to be broken etc. and if broken what is rapidly impacted. It’s kind of that elephant metaphor idea. eg climate science is only a section of the elephant, it is not all of it. Therefore the output of climate science especially it;s future projections and mitigation and adaption concepts are not aligned with the whole complexity of how things are linked, connected. iow the science is missing large portions of the story, the paradigm and it;s workings and that is partly why after 30 years so little has changed despite the massive increase in climate and energy related knowledge.
It’s not so much that people the science and other domains are wrong as much as they are right but are missing some key features of the systems that must be included in their ideas suggestions in order to be more right and practical and most importantly effective.
Too much importance is placed on being right, my theoretical mathematical toy model is a better model than all the others versus finding what will actually work in the real world. I think Hagens and others along his track capture much more of the Elephant than other specialist experts, but I suspect he too is missing some pieces in his theory too …. imo the problem/s the complexity of it is too big for anyone’s head to grasp or express. it sure makes my head hurt trying to juggle all the parts of this issue to arrive at a clear picture of what it is.
about but I’m not sure what horizon he’s looking at or what his hard evidence is.
yes i can appreciate that being a concern. I don’t know exactly what the answer is or what that evidence is myself … some is in his paper 2020 Economics for the future – Beyond the superorganism – N.J.Hagens https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919310067 — ref in another post below. and in his other presentations over time.
I can only say for me, I havn’t heard him say anything that doesn’t seem to ring true at face value so far. or ref some info that is not correct afaik.
anyone arguing against Nordhaus his Economic theory and his IAMs in climate science align closely with Hagens economics ideas but are not necessarily in total agreement on all aspects, but there is a theme there.
See Tim Garrett lecture here https://utah.zoom.us/rec/share/G2WEqZiFTR5dCH-lFpt99TjFcCzbxTGbnpWuNCsaFfSfxazzZdLeUmk8FeoREbEP.tZQjCcPajIWodSeT and Steven Keen, JK Steinberger James Dyke, Ugo Bardi and most degrowth doughnut economics proponents etc.
As for the economic simplification he is expecting a major global economic financial event / turning point later this decade where the unsustainable unsupportable fantasy fiction current economic paradigm based on never-ending growth, the QE since 2008 (plus what led up to that point not yet fixed and everything else in this crazy financial world finally falls apart as in collapses under it’s own weight …. probably pushed on a bit earlier by unexpected costly non-stop exacerbated climate (and related energy) disruptions as this decade unfolds at a higher temps than before.
Others in economics gdp finance equities insurance and investment areas also forecast the whole house of cards falling down, so he’s not a lone wolf there. Naturally they are only outliers, because everything is super bullish unstoppable at present. As was 2007/2007 until ….. 2008 which many me included predicted or could easily see coming. eg the 1929 crash was not a complete surprise, nor was going to war with Japan, it was obvious all through 1941 to those paying attention and who had their heads screwed on right. :)
basically I find the topic and information interesting and relevant noting I don’t believe in gurus. So I am not pushing any particular belief or person here. Whereas I do find the consensus middle ground of near term emissions/temp projections and bau politics and economics as usual insisted on by people like Michael Mann (rah rah progress was made at cop26) and many many more seriously lacking and not at all realistic. I agree with much of what Kevin Anderson and like-minded folks have to say, but I believe Hagens et al are closer to what is really going on and what is going to happen.
eg the system is operating on automatic, no action can be taken by Govts to change anything, the problem is too big too complex, underpinning everything is Energy, and fossil fuel energy in particular it’s more important than anything else, even money, but especially economic growth and cheap finance / reserve banking systems — because everything rests upon access to cheap high volume reliable energy supply (re Hagens) that is why the wealthy are wealthy and their children are wealthy. :)
The problem is it’s also destroying the planet at the same time …. but there is no switch to turn off the merry-go-round – the complex global system is simply running on automatic. Where govts, institutions, industry sectors, banking, corps, execs and everyday people are all rational actors doing what they’d normally do.
Hagens and others explain this better than I can. and I not sure about anything! :)
cheers
PS
the standard centrist M Mann & Bill gates kind of don’t rock the boat view is basically all that is necessary is to replace FF energy supply with renewables as fast as possible, then all will be well, and the existing “global social systems/paradigm” can and will continue on as is
…. while separately if possible then also improve social, agriculture employment and environmental issues on the sidelines. And if possible do something about equity of north vs global south that looks good by encouraging financing encouraging cleaner forms of energy. But hey, let’s not go overboard or speak out of turn.
Greta is in this group most of the time, but an activist protester, is more radical than most keeping the bastards honest. She doesn’t have a coherent philosophy as yet expressed. Hansen is on this group too but he;s more radical and flexible than the average socialized centrist scientist, so he and others like him are simply ignored and sidelined as extreme. Gates is also sidelined by some in this group as well, but especially by the next two groups. .
Then there is the more traditional climate denier Group in govt, business mining resources the media politics and think tanks and in economics …. some are outspoken but most are pretending to go along and give lip service to whats being demanded out of COP while trying their best to undermine it and action every step of the way. No matter what they see the whole idea as a mindless fantasy even if FF are increasing temps so what? Without a booming economy nothing can be fixed or repaired or managed but these greenies and whacko climate scientists and so on are all delusional fools and off with the faeries= stiff them. They think eventually this craziness will pass away much like the hippies of the 60s disappeared and became conservative baby boomers once they came to their senses.
The other predominant approach is it really is an urgent crisis and more radical actions are needed, that go beyond simply addressing FF energy use and broadly repairing rectifying broken global and national systems from economics to energy to finance to ecology to overshoot and equity – which entails some kind of reigning in wasteful indulgent over consumption by the wealthy first and then across the board. iow it usual entails some level of degrowth and a holistic approach.
Greta and Co switch over to this group as well occasionally – it depends on the specific issue of the day. Kevin Anderson is more or less in this group but he’s more conservative and centrist than most. Less emotional, more balanced and thoughtful. But it is a rag tag grouping of conflicting ideas and strategies with disjointed non-existent leadership and little coherence.
the last less numerous and unpopular group is the “the whole system is going to collapse, fix it or else” … climate, ecology, economic, social, limits to growth, and so on, all sectors in urgent need of reform, regeneration, starting over from scratch. Hagens is in this grouping. They too are leaderless and divergent incoherent and are sidelined by all the groupings above.
Avoided at all cost by all the above groups. Rarely mentioned by name, just ignored and blocked as crazy dangerous looney extremists. Most climate scientists think of them as having COVID or Herpes, they stay as far away as they can. Not a good look. Yet some actually agree with their position and wonder why their peers are so tame and conservative and stuck up or not interested in the big picture. Isn’t it obvious?
It’s been like this for at least 25 years. Not all of these groups can be right about what lays ahead and what is the better approach. And yet all have access to the exact same published climate science energy and economics research and literature; can get the latest govt economic info, the same IPCC REPORTS, and can access the same media streams, if they choose so.
I think that one of these groups will end up being able to say:
“We told you so, but you wouldn’t listen. You were too obsessed with your own opinions and beliefs and stupid ideology. And were probably brain-washed by social media and fake news!”
The last. And it is obvious. The check is simple: Which aligns with natural processes and returns us to them? Only the latter.
Regenerative Governance is now a club on Clubhouse with supporters gathering, land being potentially offered, etc. Traction. Finally.
Welcome to the era of generalists, of the big picture thinkers who translate concepts into action. – Hagens
Truer words. It’s a simple way of explaining the “different ways of thinking” I have talked about for so long. “Generalists” can be stated as whole and holistic systems analysts. Hagen and I, e.g. have always been aligned, though in our TOD days I found his thinking sometimes ineffectively esoteric. Not surprising for someone beginning the studies that would eventually become a PhD; the new convert/ zealot thing, perhaps. He seems to speak in a more grounded manner now.
“(Today we will continue on) ….. until we can’t. That “until we can’t” point happens this decade I think. When we are going to have what I refer to as a *Great Simplification*. Which means that our economies are going to get smaller, less complex and more localized. But that is not the emotional signal we are getting right now because stock markets are at all time highs and we’re focused on other worries. But there is a big economic simplification on the horizon – which in some ways could be really good news for climate change as long as it is managed properly. “
Yes. The signs are everywhere. I try to remind people of Liebig’s Law of the Minimum, more colloquially stated, in a sense, as the stick that broke the camel’s back. We don’t need for everything to break to see a cascading collapse, a trophic collapse, just one vital thing in any given system. Yet, we currently have many things reaching breaking point all across the planet. There is zero chance something doesn’t break “soon.” Define that as you wish, but consider I don’t believe the current rocketing food prices and supply chain shocks are temporary; I believe they are the first wobbles discernable by Mr/Mrs/Ms Average Person.
As at least one climate scientist (don’t ask me who) stated, between the sun cycle, the amount of heat/energy being taken in by the planet and the natural cycles of the ENSO, there is a high likelihood of very dangerous El Nino intensity happening this decade.
If extremely rapid change isn’t already triggered (I believe it has been), it will be then.
Therefore the output of climate science especially it;s future projections and mitigation and adaption concepts are not aligned with the whole complexity of how things are linked, connected. iow the science is missing large portions of the story, the paradigm and it;s workings
Yes.
I believe Hagens et al are closer to what is really going on and what is going to happen.
Why, thank you.
Thanks for that. :)
a related story to the other alternatives. some climate scientists are now calling for all fossil fuel energy companies to be nationalized. Typical dreamers. Have they never heard of the middle east oil monarchies, or iran or iraq before?
Besides if this happened the owners would all be well recompensed for their losses. as happened in the GFC meltdown and Greece bondholders etc. When the UK finally outlawed Slavery guess who was paid REPARATIONS? The slave owners of course!! They collected a very handsome payout ensuring they remained the wealthy and powerful sect and suffered no losses or damage from being forced to free their slaves. .
Their decedents (familial and corporate) are still the powerful wealthy business owners and bankers of today. The slaves themselves were cast aside penniless, homeless and unemployed. Their decedents are still in the bottom of the social rungs of society in most places on earth. This is how the system works.
This is why the poorer of the global south suffering the consequences of first world GHG pollution and climate change impacts will never receive any REPARATIONS from the Wealthy Perpetrators of the Harm done to them and the economic and political Coercive Control imposed upon them for centuries to today.
The same reason why nothing will come of the UNFCCC or the COP. I have already said I believe the whole system will soon collapse, along with the IPCC process. maybe up to 150 nations will be walking away en mass soon. by or soon after 2030 by which time the writing will be in blood on the wall.
I can see no collective voluntary simplification going on at national levels ever…. anymore than a global net zero by 2050 could ever happen. Only some independent groups here and there may set up places. They’ll need to be armed of course. Hagens Great Simplification will more likely be The Great Collapse instead. Maybe the Great Reset if there is a civilized future to report on it later?
A PETM style eventually imo. “Wee da Malawi. Hoo yoo?” :)
RC. I agree everything in this world is linked and its important to figure out how. Especially the subtle but important linkages. Have thought that from a young age. However climate scientists aren’t going to do that because they are busy pondering climate issues. I think you sometimes have unrealistic expectations of them, although some of your criticisms seem valid as well (their communications skills)
It’s almost like we need a new scientific discipline that looks at such issues of how things connect together. Some individuals do it quite well informally. Right now people are specialising so much the connections between things are in danger of being lost. I’ve come across some interesting research papers that attempt an integrated understanding, that I will try and dig up. One was written by a sociologist I think. It would give economists something useful to do.
The world might be heading for a huge economic collapse. Debt levels are huge. The governments covid response has added huge debt to the system, (although personally I think better doing that than letting covid run rampant). Just been reading about it in The Economist Journal.
I also thought the housing boom prior to 2008 would end very badly. It was obvious towards everyone other than those with vested interests in making money out of the housing boom. Although I didn’t forsee the huge collapse in derivative markets. But the world recovered quite well from the GFC. However that doesn’t mean it will recover so well from every crash. Some crashes can last a long time or lead to permanent change.
Gdp that you mentioned is at the centre of things. This points to some sort of collapse. If you look at trends in the rate of gdp growth its been slowing ever since the 1970s in most western countries. Here’s Americas data. The trend is obvious:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.KD.ZG?locations=US
Despite governments printing vast quantities of money etc to stimulate economies, gdp growth just continues to slow. I can’t see this changing. I’m not saying its a good or bad thing, just that rates of gdp growth is collapsing and we probably can’t change that.
I’ve watched some of Kevin Andersons videos. He’s quite good overall. I mostly lean towards his views from what I remember.
“because everything rests upon access to cheap high volume reliable energy supply (re Hagens) that is why the wealthy are wealthy and their children are wealthy. :)”
Yep. This is what Jospeh Tainter understands. Changing this is like trying to turn around the Titanic.
Yes. Though I wasn’t trying to be mean to climate scientists. They are a broad church and not of one mind. They all have their own special interests and personal ideals/values. Divergence seems to be all over in every field and grouping/groups. Though there does seem to me to be four or so main approaches/framing of the “problem” that are active and draw people to them.
I do not know who is more right. And I also suspect that we (humanity as a whole) do not possess all the requisite knowledge needed to know what to do or how to do it anyway. In more ways than one I think we are caught in a global pin the tail on the donkey game. Where we are all blind folded taking stabs in the dark.
This is what Jospeh Tainter understands. Changing this is like trying to turn around the Titanic.
Everyone understands that. “Simplicity is simple, not easy.” And other statements.
I find both of you needing to cite “the masters” when you heard all of this here first rather… droll.
Reality check.
Your four groups look right, .however I would add a fifth group, namely the techno cornucopians ( eg KIA). that believe we should do nothing about the climate problem, or not very much because future generations will fix the climate problem, with new technological inventions. This approach should be largely dismissed as a crazy gamble, with the exception that some things will obviously improve to moderate extent like battery storage capacity. But we should only ever assume a MODERATE extent so be conservative about it.
The Bill; Gates and M Mann solutions of renewable energy backed up with targeted reductions in consumption (eg flying) and a combination of negative emissions technologies seems the most plausible approach to me, all things considered, which is why I tend to promote it. I think the most useful look like enhanced rock weathering and regenerative agriculture.
For me it looks like making huge changes to capitalism and levels of consumption will be very difficult because of the billions of people with so much invested in the status quo. It could be a very slow process. or there could be a sudden collapse, but nobody knows.
We have one shot at keeping warming under 2 degrees and I don’t want to waste my time promoting big degrowth solutions that look like they just wont gain traction on the time scales we need and if rapidly instituted could have unintended consequences. Renewables look like they are gaining some traction. Obviously levels of consumption have to fall but its a question of timing.
The number of people genuinely seeking to change the capitalist system and their own lives is quite small and it would take them considerable time to change other peoples minds which is why I’m a bit cynical about all that. Of course degrowth is still worth talking about and I suggest people aim to make 20% reductions in their use of energy and technology which seems realistic as a start. Most people are obviously struggling even with that.
However its very hard to be sure. It is indeed a bit of a pin the tail on the donkey exercise.
Some more Fun Facts and some pleasant late night or vacation reading from 1 to 10 in no particular order :)
2020 Economics for the future – Beyond the superorganism – N.J.Hagens
The moment of this recalibration will be a watershed time for our culture, but could also be the birth of a new ‘systems economics’. and resultant different ways of living. The next 30 years are the time to apply all we’ve learned during the past 30 years. We’ve arrived at a species level conversation.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800919310067
The autonomous Earth: How humans created a planetary civilisation that is beyond their control
by James G. Dyke Published Online: July 19 2021
https://direct.mit.edu/isal/proceedings/isal/33/6/102960
Published: 19 June 2020 – Scientists’ warning on affluence – Thomas Wiedmann et al
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y
Resilience through Simplification: Revisiting Tainter’s Theory of Collapse
Simplicity Institute Report 12h, 2012
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2095648
The climate crisis demands new ways of thinking – scientists should be first to admit failure and move on. By Wolfgang Knorr http://iflas.blogspot.com/2019/09/climate-scientists-should-admit-failure.html
Through the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition
“These data show that plunging biodiversity and climate change, along with air/land/ocean pollution, deforestation, desertification, incipient resources scarcity, etc., are the inevitable consequences—indeed, parallel symptoms—of the same root phenomenon: the spectacular and continuing growth of the human enterprise on a finite planet. H. sapiens is in overshoot, exploiting ecosystems beyond their regenerative and assimilative capacities. – Clearly, the climate crisis cannot be solved in isolation from the macro-problem of overshoot—certainly not by using technologies that are reliant on the same FFs and ecologically destructive processes that created the problem in the first place. “
https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/15/4508/htm
adapted from POWER: Limits and Prospects for Human Survival (New Society Publishers, September 2021) by Richard Heinberg
“The only real long-range solution to climate change centers on reining in human physical, social, and economic power dramatically, but in ways that preserve human dignity, autonomy, and solidarity. That’s more daunting than any techno-fix.”
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-09-14/the-only-long-range-solution-to-climate-change/
Nature Sustainability. We track countries’ performance on social and ecological indicators (the doughnut!) from 1992 to 2015.
https://twitter.com/jasonhickel/status/1461380536883101701
Published: 18 November 2021 The social shortfall and ecological overshoot of nations
by Andrew L. Fanning et al full access
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-021-00799-z.epdf?sharing_token=8_Gm1d5Z5cpYt7JQpiGLH9RgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0PBFqS1dj0Hsy99C3sXCTdz0C3eELLP0TYfVupJ0kdy5lCAd5IEbQdwOr57m6ELwGeW6O49KgPwNVV2Hkay67MqiU2ojjWFfdy55h1kadG3hT5UUHzN1eKY4-n1QYi1LCk%3D
© 2020
Before the Collapse – A Guide to the Other Side of Growth by Ugo Bardi
This book started from a sentence written some two thousand years ago by the Roman philosopher Lucius Annaeus Seneca, “fortune is of sluggish growth, but the way to ruin is rapid.” Now that we have arrived to the end, we may return to Seneca and ask if we can still learn something from him and from the school of thought he belonged to, the Stoics.
https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-030-29038-2
October 14, 2018
Why Economists Can’t Understand Complex Systems: Not Even the Nobel Prize, William Nordhaus
https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2018/10/why-economists-cant-understand-complex.html
Thank’s for that link on the research paper related to a criticism of Joseph Tainters work. I have read it myself before. Its worth posting the abstract in full, because it includes a great summary of his work The abstract:
In 1988 Joseph Tainter published his seminal work, The Collapse of Complex Societies, in which he presented an original theory of social complexity that he offered as the best explanation for the collapse of civilisations throughout history. Tainter’s theory, which I outline in more detail below, essentially holds that human societies become more socially complex as they solve the problems they face, and while this complexity initially provides a net benefit to society, eventually the benefits derived from increasing complexity diminish and the relative costs begin to increase. There comes a point, Tainter argues, when all the energy and resources available to a society are required just to maintain the society, at which point further problems that arise cannot be solved and the society then enters a phase of deterioration or even rapid collapse. Not only is Tainter’s theory of historical interest, many believe it has implications for how we understand the world today.
One of the most challenging aspects of Tainter’s theory is how it reframes – one might even say revolutionises – sustainability discourse (Tainter, 2011a). Tainter argues that sustainability is about problem solving and that problem solving increases social complexity. But he also argues that social complexity requires energy and resources, and this implies that solving problems, including ecological problems, can actually demand increases in energy and resource consumption, not reductions. Indeed, Tainter (2006: 93) maintains that sustainability is ‘not a passive consequence of having fewer human beings who consume more limited resources,’ as many argue it is; he even goes as far as to suggest that voluntary simplification by way of foregoing consumption may no longer be an option for industrial civilisation, for reasons that will be explained. Instead, Tainter’s conception of sustainability involves subsiding increased complexity with more energy and resources in order to solve ongoing problems.
While Tainter’s theory of social complexity has much to commend it, in this paper (which is part of a larger work-in-progress) I wish to examine and ultimately challenge Tainter’s conclusion that voluntary simplification is not a viable path to sustainability. In fact, I will argue that it is by far our best bet, even if the odds do not provide grounds for much optimism. Moreover, should sustainability prove too ambitious a goal for industrial civilisation, I contend that simplification remains the most effective means of building ‘resilience’ (i.e. the ability of an individual or community to withstand societal or ecological shocks). While I accept that problem solving generally implies an increase in social complexity, the thesis I present below is that there comes a point when complexity itself becomes a problem, at which point voluntary simplification, not further complexity, is the most appropriate response. Not only does industrial civilisation seem to be at such a point today (Homer-Dixon, 2006), or well beyond it (Gilding, 2011), I hope to show that voluntary simplification presents a viable and desirable option for responding to today’s converging social, economic, and ecological problems. This goes directly against Tainter’s conception of sustainability, while accepting much of his background theoretical framework.
(Personally I agree with Tainter that deliberate simplification is very difficult, although I think there are some things we can probably do.)
Or, “Yeah, what Killian said?”
I think this article is a good analog of what is happening everywhere, rather what has shifted everywhere and will continue to keep shifting this decade. I think it is a good explanation of why the COP26, net zero, 2050 and especially the pseudo-optimistic temperature modelling rhetoric is extremely misplaced and so very disconnected from reality. It is also a good example of a better standard in local climatic science news reporting too.
Huh. Imagine that; Risk as a primary framework re climate.
How original…
it might even catch on one day. become the boring centrist approach? :)
One can only dream.
There are two schools of thought about environmental problems that are diametrically opposed to each other. IMHO both are wrong.
The first argues that our environmental problems are “fundamentally” caused by population pressure. They make a compelling point that the very existence of humans cause impacts regardless of the numbers, and increasing numbers of humans makes it worse (and that second statement is obviously true).
The second school of thought argues that our problems are “fundamentally” caused by high levels of per capita consumption and the world could theoretically feed 9 billion people. They make quite a good point that even a very small Zebra like global population could over consume, and cause environmental problems. People can indeed be absolute gluttons given half a chance, (although my view is that it should be possible to get a small population to consume at reasonably sensible levels. )
However I believe both schools of thought are wrong about what “fundamentally” causes the problem, or at least that stating its population is a little bit too simplistic. Instead .they are both factors and it’s about the RELATIONSHIP between population and consumption as follows:
“I = (PAT) is the mathematical notation of a formula put forward to describe the impact of human activity on the environment. The expression equates human impact on the environment to a function of three factors: population (P), affluence (A) and technology (T). It is similar in form to the Kaya identity which applies specifically to emissions of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.” (From I = PAT on wikipedia).
Assuming this relationship is valid, reducing or eliminating problems becomes an exercise in shifting the variables as much as is realistically possible. That’s what I think is most important.
Jesus…. you have no ethics. It has been stated to you repeatedly that it is exactly the per capita total that matters.
From the EIA:
From the data they present, that would better have been phrased “Since 2005…” but the point really doesn’t alter.
And better yet, going forward:
Oops, meant to include the link:
https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2021/12/02/a-cleaner-grid-arrives-as-renewables-replace-fossil-fuels/
Tried to look back to past discussions on the topic of EV adoption, but in the new as the old site format, the search feature is pretty useless. So, without comparison:
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/04/legacy-combustion-vehicles-drop-below-50-share-in-germany-as-plugins-grab-over-a-third-of-the-market/
France, the #2 European market, isn’t too terribly far behind:
https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/01/affordable-dacia-spring-takes-pole-as-france-hits-record-23-5-plugin-ev-share/
The entire EV situation has suddenly changed in New Zealand over about the last year. For the first time these cars are being advertised regularly on television and the government has implemented incentive schemes and sales are slowly increasing. Its reached some sort of “tipping point”.
We’re lagging here in the US, but it’s changed here, too, in that regular advertisements for EVs are seen. Legacy manufacturers have models out, with more to come. It looks as if we’ll be seeing annual sales of 1 million EVs fairly soon.
https://www.greencarreports.com/news/1133143_us-ev-sales-have-been-record-breaking-so-far-in-2021-despite-supply-chain-issues
And every one built locks us further into the car culture that was an important aspect of getting into the mess we are in.
We’d better hope the long tail stays at the back of this dragon, but with 5.2C pretty much where we are headed without major mitigation, that seems very unlikely.
Keep building those cars, if you dare.
P for Prisoner, I forgot that.
“Canada’s Tar Sands: Destruction So Vast and Deep It Challenges the Existence of Land and People
Oil companies have replaced Indigenous people’s traditional lands with mines that cover an area bigger than New York City, stripping away boreal forest and wetlands and rerouting waterways.”
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/21112021/tar-sands-canada-oil/
I’d believe the tar sands project is an ugly scar upon the land. Looks bad in the photos. However, an area the size of NYC in the 2nd largest country on the planet is fairly insignificant. Not great if you live next to it though.
Looking at the photo of the cabin, it did not appear to be well insulated. It also looked like it had a cheap sheet-metal wood stove. Someone should provide them with a good steel air-tight stove. They will stay hot all night, meaning you don’t have to get up to a cold cabin in the middle of the night to build a fire. Burns a lot less wood too.
What to do? Maybe nothing.
The myth of apathy
We want to believe that there is a causal link between information and action, but research has shown that there is nothing straightforward about this relationship. A recent study published in the journal Risk Analysis by Paul Kellstedt and his colleagues at Texas A&M demonstrated that levels of ‘informedness, confidence in scientists, and personal efficacy’ regarding global warming interact so that the ‘more informed respondents both feel less personally responsible for global warming, and also show less concern for global warming’.
How is it possible to know more about global warming but feel less concern? This finding has been demonstrated in other social psychology studies, such as the work of Professor Jon Krosnick and his colleagues at Stanford University.
https://theecologist.org/2008/jun/19/myth-apathy
To combat our greatest scientific challenges, we have to reassess our unrealistic view of how science can inform and guide policy-makers, suggests @ClimateOfGavin , senior climate adviser for @NASA
https://twitter.com/THEworldsummits/status/1433818316154474515
short video from talk, group discussion.
Advances in hydrogen fuels: “London-Auckland in zero emissions hydrogen-powered jet? UK-backed concept design unveiled”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/travel/green-travel/300471672/londonauckland-in-zero-emissions-hydrogenpowered-jet-ukbacked-concept-design-unveiled
I think this is great progress. Of course there are good environmental arguments to reduce flying even if its zero emissions, but we are not going to completely stop flying. Not in a modern society. Some things need to be transported quickly and some travel for for important personal reasons is surely acceptable. I think its better this be done with emissions free transport, so I’m right in support of such advances in flying.
Here is another go at a 100% renewable report for the USA by RethinkX in 2020.
Rethinking Energy 2020-2030: 100% Solar, Wind, and Batteries is Just the Beginning.
“The implications of this clean electricity disruption are profound. Not only can it solve some of society’s most critical challenges but it will usher in hundreds of new business models and create industries that collectively transform the global economy. When a system generates hyperabundant electricity at a marginal cost close to zero, the potential for new value creation is limitless.”
https://www.rethinkx.com/energy#energy-download
(select instant download to view report, no email required)
video summary https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zgwiQ6BoLA
RethinkX is an independent think tank that analyzes and forecasts the scope, speed and scale of technology-driven disruption and its implications across society. Started by Tony Seba. https://www.rethinkx.com/meet-the-team
a contrarian review – constraints
Our critique of this RethinkX report is threefold. First, it is based on a fatally flawed assumption about why solar capital costs had been decreasing over much of the past decade (as we’ll see shortly, solar costs are going up in 2021). Second, it misses a nearly insurmountable constraint that makes most of their projections grossly irresponsible. Finally, it ignores the substantial energy input needed to achieve their plan, making it virtually indistinguishable from a perpetual motion machine.
https://doomberg.substack.com/p/herbie-spoils-the-party
two sides of a story. i think one needs to be able to get into the weeds of the underlying assumptions and forecasts to really know or hazard a guess which side is more right, credible. maybe both are unreliable. not knowing is the problem. who decides? who is qualified and knowledgeable enough with all the facts data to hand to decide? rethinkx says they are. What do you think?
And does any of this actually matter or worth discussing in the first place? I suspect it’s not but have an open mind still.
eg Hansen has made no obvious progress on his calls for more nuclear energy in the US and globally, the Carbon tax and dividend scheme, with high level cooperation between china and the US. iow ideas and even good ideas area dime a dozen, and next to none of them ever get taken up where it counts at a national or a global unfccc level.
I checked out the team. Smart folks no doubt, but they’d just be the start. They need to add 100 Electrical Engineers with power grid design and construction experience, 100 engineers with PV-manufacturing plant design and construction experience, 100 engineers with experience designing and constructing large-scale wind farms, 100 engineers with design and construction experience in large-scale energy storage solutions, 100 mining engineers with experience obtaining materials for all of the new PV panels, batteries, wind turbines, turbine bases, wire, and powerline towers. Then add 10o engineers with experience in design of wind turbine manufacturing plants. And they’d need a budget from the government. They’ll also need a very large team of construction contractor consultants and estimators to provide input to the engineers for costs and build-ability, etc.
I listed about 1,000 people – that is a good sized engineering office, but not unprecedented – and that’s just to do a detailed feasibility study including schematic design, construction schedule, draft specifications and ballpark cost estimate. Probably take a couple of years at least. Might need to double or triple my 1,000 number. Of course you’d need support personnel as well – IT, document control, CAD designers, office administrators, HR, and all that stuff.
Let’s do a back of the napkin estimate for the budget: Say 2000 people at $180/hr for 2200 hours per year for 2 years – that’s ballpark $1.6 billion. A pittance. Call up Joe and tell him to write the check.
Would be very interesting to go out for competitive bids to produce such a schematic design and see what the estimates came in at.
The above SWAG at the size of the team needed to do a feasibility study and schematic design (maybe a 10% schematic design?), is only for the generation, transmission and distribution part. I’d call this the Generation Team or the Supply Team.
An even larger team will be needed to define the loads that the new RE systems must supply with electrical power. This needs to happen first before the “Generation/Supply Team” can make informed decisions on where their hardware needs to be located, tie-in point locations, etc. There are about 3,300 electric utility companies in the USA and each one will need to determine what the loads are, and how the loads will be met: which loads can be met with rooftop solar, which will need grid power, storage capacity required, etc. Each of the 3,300 utility companies will have to provide this information to the “Generation/Supply Team”, so each company will have to do their own schematic design in order to obtain data sufficiently accurate to satisfy the needs of the “Generation Team”. I’d call the load defining “team” the “Load or Consumption Team”, although in reality it may be hundreds of teams or even 3,300 teams.
3,300 electric utilities:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/237773/the-largest-electric-utilities-in-the-us-based-on-market-value/
Then, if the goal is to replace FF-powered transportation, construction equipment, etc (automobiles, trucks, trains, planes, ships, boats, bulldozers, graders, etc), then another team will be needed to quantify the location and quantity of fuels now being used, or perhaps number of each vehicle type being used, and convert that to electrical load requirements or hydrogen fuel or whatever is needed to replace the FF powered vehicles. There are between 100,000 and 150,000 FF filling stations in the USA, so that will be a large effort. I will not even guess how large of a team would be required for this part, but it will be enormous. Might call this team the “FF Load Team”.
100K-150K gas stations in the USA:
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/how-many-gas-stations-are-in-us-how-many-will-there-be-in-10-years-2020-02-16
https://www.convenience.org/Topics/Fuels/Who-Sells-Americas-Fuel
In 2020 per the Bureau of Transportation Statistics there were 19,919 airports in the USA. If the goal is to use other fuels – electricity or hydrogen, etc, then each of those 19,919 airports will need to quantify their FF use and come up with an estimate for needed RE power to replace the FFs so they can give this data to the other teams.
19,919 airports:
https://www.bts.gov/content/number-us-airportsa
All companies supplying natural gas, gasoline, fuel oil, and all other Fossil Fuels will have to quantify those loads and give them to the other teams so they can provide power to replace the FFs.
Natural Gas Companies:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_natural_gas_companies
Propane Suppliers:
https://afdc.energy.gov/fuels/propane_production.html
All machinery manufacturer’s that now uses FFs will have to determine when they could produce machines that use other fuels to do the job FFs do today. OR perhaps in some cases scrubbers could be used to capture the CO2 allowing them to continue to use FFs? This will involve all transportation modes.
Nuclear will probably be needed to provide power at times when RE is not producing enough and the nuke industry will need to work with the Generation Team to determine how many more nukes will be needed where and when.
I’m guessing my $1,600,000,000 estimate will end up being closer to $100 billion just to get a good schematic design but that’s just a SWAG.
RC. Looks like Seba / Rethinx is essentially saying renewables will go really well. Doomsberg are saying renewables are hard work and there will be supply constraints and prices wont drop as far as expected.
I agree its really hard to know who is right without spending masses of time researching it. Even then nobody has a crystal ball. If you look at the history of new developments of various types, the truth is often in the middle. It looks like this might apply to the energy issue, but its hard to be sure.
I think doomsberg are right solar power will have supply constraints. However America won’t be getting all its power from solar with a massive fives times overbuild. It will be a mixture of different sources.
One thing is a fact. We are going to run out of fossil fuels sooner or later, or they will get very expensive to extract. This will leave no alternative to new energy sources whether solar, wind or nuclear power etc, etc. Even if we reduce our overall use of energy with some level of degrowth, there’s no escaping this need for new energy sources. The climate problem is kind of bringing the inevitable forwards.
first rate interview about history, colonialism, violence, how we got here and why still nothing changes.
Beings Seen and Unseen
An interview with Amitav Ghosh
EM You spoke about the Earth being inert, and this seems to be one of the central themes in your book, that the modern view of the Earth is one that is inanimate; and that this lies at the heart of the crisis unfolding around us; and that this view emerged out of “intersecting processes of violence”—most significantly between European colonizers and the Indigenous peoples of America, who believe that the Earth is alive, has agency, and is sacred. And that the conquest of the Americas went hand in hand with eradicating the belief that spirit existed in all matter.
AG Yes. You know, usually when people talk about the emergence of the modern sort of worldview, in which the Earth is inert, they trace it back to certain philosophers: philosophers like Descartes, if you like, and other European philosophers of that time, Locke and so on. But in fact, I think that this philosophy rose out of human conflict.
It was when Europeans began to see the incredible effect that they were having upon the peoples of the Americas and also upon Africans; when they began to enslave Africans on this vast scale and began transporting them across the Atlantic to the Americas; and again, when they started launching upon these exterminatory attacks upon Native Americans—it was at that moment that this ideology of mastery took root. It wasn’t the ideas leading to the mastery; rather, it was the mastery leading to the ideas. It just so happened that Europeans of that period, of the sixteenth century especially, had emerged out of a history of incredible violence and incredible poverty.
You know, Europe in that period was devastated by plagues. It was devastated by continuing conflicts going back to the Crusades, but especially religious conflicts in the sixteenth century within Europe. And it’s very striking that when the first Europeans came to the Americas, what struck them was the incredible good health and bounty, the bounty of the land and the good health of the people. Of course, that disappeared within a couple of generations because of the violence and also because of the epidemics caused by violence. So in my view, it was really this. It was this violence which Europeans unleashed upon other peoples that ultimately became a violence unleashed also upon the Earth.
It was when they began to treat people as resources that the idea came to them that everything was a resource meant for the mastery of a very few. Because let’s not forget, the colonialists, the conquistadores, and so on, they were a tiny minority even within their own countries. They were elites really often.
And they also unleashed the same kind of violence against farmers and the peasantry in their countries. Most of all, they unleashed it against women. This entire witchcraft craze in Europe is completely coterminous with this period of settler colonialism. And in effect, the violence that they unleashed upon really poor peasant women in Europe was modeled upon the violence that they had unleashed upon Native Americans.
https://emergencemagazine.org/interview/beings-seen-and-unseen/
The Violence including Coercive control continues to this day. What’s needed now is a realization that this isn’t only matter of domestic violence or sexual assault etc. but it biggest impacts are meted out daily by corporations and nation states upon the weak and powerless (and the Biosphere) of this world to this day.
Slavery might be outlawed but it’s effects remain entrenched in this system run by malignant narcissistic elites. At the top of the hierarchy sits the USA. The violence and control gets played out at every COP and G7 G20 OECD Davos and OPEC meeting. All unseen and yet in plain view.
Nothing changes when nothing changes. And nothing is going to change until this part changes, the western global north’s religion inspired elitist narcissistic ideology of mastery … which should be called their Pathology of Mastery.
Yep. Fellow RC on RC: let us be allies. You can reach me at richardtheweaver@gmail.com
Quote: “You know, usually when people talk about the emergence of the modern sort of worldview, in which the Earth is inert,……..”
My guess is that fewer than 0.1% of people have such a worldview – in fact, I’m going to guess that less than 0.1% have ever heard of ANYONE characterize the Earth as “inert”. The whole interview, starting with the question, is psycho-babble.
Can we please try to stick to topics at least somewhat related to climate change, and somewhat rooted in reality?
“Somewhat rooted in reality?”
I think you just broke the irony meter.
Again.
Mr.Knowitall
i did google the word and the conscepts of Inertia.
I recommend you to do the same.
And after what you say here, recommend you also to meet other people, perhaps moove over to another and more normal congregation and society if you can..
Mr Knowitall finds inertia not rooted in reality, and apparently wants us to anchour our understandings in the alternatives, namely something else, on which he has got the patent and entitled to judge and to decide according to.
Ifv that is not Psycho- babble, and “it takes one to know one…”
“Solar and crop production research shows ‘multi-solving’ climate benefits”
“Agrivoltaics researchers are finding that the multiple benefits from pairing solar power and crops production help increase citizen engagement, support.”
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/12/solar-and-crop-production-research-shows-multi-solving-climate-benefits/
Another alt degrowth recommendation … a systems approach to addressing the damaging effects of capitalism and it’s bastard child climate change by jason hickle
The Age of Imperialism is Not Over—But We Can End It
As the failure of COP26 sinks in, it is increasingly clear that our leaders have neither the courage nor the will to respond effectively to ecological breakdown. This is not surprising. The ecological crisis is being driven by capitalist growth, which is tearing through the living world at a staggering pace, with the rich states and corporations of the global North responsible for the vast majority of the damage. […]
If capitalism depends on commodification, enclosure and accumulation, then decommodification, de-enclosure and deaccumulation spells its end. All of this would remove structural pressures for growth, and we would be free to organize our economy instead around meeting human needs. What is more, as my colleagues and I have explained in previous work, shifting to a post-growth economy (and taking public ownership of energy utilities) would make it possible for us to decarbonize the energy supply fast enough to stop climate breakdown and bring resource use back down to planetary boundaries, thus preventing the chaos that otherwise awaits.
An alternative story for the 21st century is possible, and is available to us — a story that does not entail imperialist violence or neoliberal austerity or white supremacist ideology; a story that is more just and more ecological — but it requires that we throw off the shackles of growthism.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2021/12/the-age-of-imperialism-is-not-over-but-we-can-end-it
Balderdash and psycho-babble, IMHO.
RC: The ecological crisis is being driven by capitalist growth
BPL: The ecological crisis is being driven by fossil fuel use, and only secondarily by growth. Capitalism has little or nothing to do with it. As I’ve pointed out before, the Soviet Union was also a growth-oriented economy that wreaked havoc on its environment.
Now I’m sure Killian will take my “capitalism isn’t directly the problem here” and interpret it as “BPL wants to have sex with capitalism!”
Just out of curiosity, how many people in China have been lifted out of abject poverty because of capitalism in the last 50 years? India? Would be good numbers to know. Now what we need are capitalists making trillions by providing solutions to climate change, right?