A bi-monthly open thread related to climate solutions.
PS. New year, new moderation policy. Please be substantive – sniping, insults, and tedious repetition will just be culled. We want to maintain a civil and productive discourse here, but the comment threads may need to be re-evaluated if that doesn’t happen.
Chuck Watson “From MAD to NUTS: Risk, Nukes, & Climate Change” with Nate Hagens podcast
On this episode we meet with risk expert and consultant, Chuck Watson. Watson analyzes the types of risk we face in the modern world – from climate change to nuclear arms – and how the decisions of experts help us from plunging into the abyss.
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/04-chuckwatson
This is an interesting informative discussion covers a lot of ground regarding how people tend to imagine risks, what to do what not to do about climate change plus other serious global risk issues like nuclear weapons.
Chuck Watson @15:30 : “I don’t think Americans fully appreciate the extent to which America is not respected in the world. We are feared but when it comes to being a moral ethical leader countries deal with the US and do what we tell them not because they like us, not because we’re the shining city on the Hill anymore rather because they are afraid of us. And because we are that slightly crazy guy that you want to move carefully and not make sudden moves around. – I go to international meetings and that level of respect for the moral authority of the US for that moral position of it has just completely, evaporated since around the mid 1990s. – The US is building weapons (we) intend to use for tactical reasons (NUTS) not just for deterrence and mutual assured destruction (MAD)”
Outraged to learn that Biden has named @Chevron lawyer Jennifer Rearden to be a federal judge. She was paid millions at @gibsondunn to help jail Steven Donziger, attack Indigenous peoples, and cover up a massive oil spill in the Amazon. Biden must align with Planet Earth. Corrupt.
https://twitter.com/SDonziger/status/1484291578265022465?cxt=HHwWgsC5mfHUoZkpAAAA
XRRC- Seems to me Democrat Presidents are the most hypocritical of them all, whereas Republican Presidents are simply compulsive liars and mad as cut snakes. This latest announcement comes after Biden auctioned off all those oil and gas leases last year. The whole political system is corrupt.
Meanwhile – The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, which curates the annual unveiling of the clock’s hands, said the decision to leave them unchanged reflects that a few positive developments over the course of the past year have been counterbalanced by continued drift towards the proliferation of nuclear weapons, the climate emergency, and the rise of biological threats.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/20/doomsday-clock-holds-at-100-seconds-to-midnight
So COP26 didn’t help?
Or as Gavin S. says “Unlike the UNFCCC, the real world responds to physics, not accounting. ;-)”
from about 30 minutes in – “All of these things have a common thread. Whether it is nuclear risk, or climate risk or the financial system, and that comes down to Governance.”
Watson explores the role of human agency in risk analysis. How are humans smart enough to build dangerous systems, but unable to manage the same systems? He looks at how building stronger governance systems will allow humans to overcome our current predicament.
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/04-chuckwatson
A few people may find the ideas discussed of interest.
What are your plans when the Republicans win the coming congressional elections in a landslide?
After the celebrations are over, if ammo prices go down again, I’m gonna STOCK UP BIG LEAGUE!
What about you?
:)
KIA: After the celebrations are over, if ammo prices go down again, I’m gonna STOCK UP BIG LEAGUE!
BPL: When the second civil war starts, I will be on the other side, armed and ready to defend the United States against the rebels.
Good luck with that.
I’d plan on GOPpers doing as GOPpers do,
and then, after the GOPpers have sown death and destruction willy nilly, I’d work with decent folks to repair the damage while permanently burying the evils of GOPdom.
Laughing at the irony of it all.
They won’t.
With the further gerrymandering and the historical mid-cycle swing back? it’s no better than 50/50, imo.
“It’s time to participate in non-violent political movements wherever possible,”
Christiana Figueres writes in a new book “The Future We Choose: Surviving the Climate Crisis”
Figueres served as executive secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) from 2010-16 and led the negotiations for the Paris Agreement in 2015.
“Large numbers of people must vote on climate change as their number one priority,” they write. “As we are in the midst of the most dire emergency, we must urgently demand that those who seek high office offer solutions commensurate with the scale of the problem.”
But they note that electoral politics have failed to meet the challenge, largely because of systemic roadblocks including corporate lobbying and partisan opposition.
They endorse Extinction Rebellion and Greta Thunberg. They evoke legendary activists who effected change on the scale required by the climate crisis, including Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and Nelson Mandela.
“Civil disobedience is not only a moral choice, it is also the most powerful way of shaping world politics,” they write, citing scientific resources on the impact of civil disobedience.
“Historically, systemic political shifts have required civil disobedience on a significant scale. Few have occurred without it.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2020/02/24/former-un-climate-chief-calls-for-civil-disobedience/amp/
The role of direct action is too grounded in 1. 60’s era activism practices, 2. hacking at leaves rather than creating systemic changes when it is clear the system itself is at the core of the destruction of the ecosystem and 3. distracts from doing real change; it’s easier to march than to build a regenerative community from scratch.
We need to start creating regenerative communities and use direct actions primarily to *defend* that practice as opposed to mistakenly thinking deep change can come that way and/or come fast enough that way.
You have to do both direct action and build your new communities. The existing political system will be around for a while yet, and its important to pressure it to up its game, while also building a new system.
Stove pipes and silos. Sometimes becomes my way is the best way and the only way. OK then.
I made a reasoned post based on extensive awareness of the problems we face and areas of knowledge you do not possess. I in no way said my way or the highway.
It seems anyone not just accepting the XR way is somehow against you?
Very disappointed in that response.
Scientist Rebellion @ScientistRebel1 ScientistsForXR @ScientistsX #CitizenAssemblies – Scientists willing to tell the truth about the climate crisis, and act like it. Join us in civil disobedience against criminal governments. – Senior Lecturer on climate strike – this is academic leadership
David Fopp #UniClimateStrike in Stockholm! We need to stop the emissions, keep the fossils in the ground and protect the forests! #FridaysForFuture #PeopleForFuture #Scientists4Future
https://twitter.com/ScientistRebel1/status/1484522939991085063
Extinction Rebellion @ExtinctionR
It’s important to celebrate the wins made against the #PolicingBill in the House of Lords, but if we want to keep what we fought so hard for, we have to fight even harder now.
Similar to USA, Australia, and others the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill is just one of many authoritarian power grabs going through the UK Parliament
– The Elections Bill introduces the requirement for photo ID to vote, even though voting fraud is no issue.
– Nationality and Borders Bill gives the Home Secretary the right to strip millions of Britons of their citizenship ( a similar Act in Australia “designed” to deport extreme Islamic radicals has instead been used to deport New Zealanders and Brits, many adults and parents who lived in the country since early childhood by the hundreds)
– the Judicial Review and Courts Bill gives the government new powers to prevent legal challenges to its decisions
– the Health and Care Bill, which in the guise of ‘integrating services’ opens the doors to further privatisation by stealth.
An ironic worrying sign of the times is the right to legally protest some of these draconian power grabs was saved on Monday evening by a couple of hundred unelected elite Lords.
https://realmedia.press/kill-the-bills/
“We have allowed the interests of capital to outweigh the interests of human beings and our Earth.”
-Desmond Tutu
We need a billion climate activists. Will you be one of them?
https://twitter.com/ExtinctionR/status/1481572353679233027
https://twitter.com/XRSouthAus/status/1483610555005153283
https://twitter.com/xrFrance/status/1484463092373331968
https://twitter.com/attac_fr/status/1484497658718961670
https://twitter.com/xrskane/status/1483840648033849351
https://twitter.com/IsraelRebellion/status/1484077673194401792
“We are South Africans” will be filing an application for an urgent interdict against the Seismic Blasting on the West Coast to the High Court today.
https://twitter.com/CtxRebellion/status/1484394953514041345
They kill us for their profit, and then they kill us for trying to stay alive.
“Last year, a social leader—whether human rights defender, community activist
or environmentalist—was killed every 60 hrs in Colombia.”
https://twitter.com/ExtinctionR/status/1484204410867699719
14-year-old indigenous activist Breiner David Cucuñame was shot dead while on patrol with the unarmed group Indigenous Guard
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2022/jan/18/colombia-indigenous-activist-murdered-14-breiner-david-cucuname
Climate science and what to do about it? It’s stove pipes and silos as far as the eye can see.
So what are your plans when the Republicans win a landslide victory in next years congressional elections?
They won’t.
At KM: do you think that the GOP will remain the minority party in House and Senate? I don’t know about landslide, but Dem control of the Senate is precarious. Sinema and Manchin have demonstrated how to monetize intransigence against their own party and I think that kind of thing could lead to flip of Senate to GOP control. The dems don’t seem capable of passing much legislation in the current setup, but they have control of the agenda to a certain extent. Agenda control disappears if McConnell is in charge for GOP.
Are you whistling in the dark?
Cheers
Mike
The flat denial I issued was mostly for the “landslide” part. There won’t be such, because 1) the GOP is in disarray; continues to espouse policies broadly unpopular while failing to address real needs; and is in thrall to a ‘leader’ who remains hugely unpopular outside the party–all of which limits the GOP ‘upside.’ And 2) because while the (mostly) GOP gerrymanders give them a marginal advantage as intended, they also cement Democratic control of considerable numbers of districts, making “landslides” less likely all the way ’round.
That said, marginal GOP midterm gains would not be shocking (though they would be deeply unfortunate for the US and the world). And a marginal gain in the Senate would of course flip control. Nor is the Democratic majority in the House unassailable.
So yeah, there is still ample cause for concern.
Seriously considering dropping my citizenship – particularly if Roe v. get gutted or overturned. There will be no coming back from a Republican landslide because they have spent 40 years altering the electoral process to such an extent they remain in power even when not in power and that will only get worse,
The ONE thing that needed to be done this cycle was to end gerrymandering. Without that the GOP would be relatively toothless. They are WAY over-represented in the federal gov’t.
Killian. Overturning Roe v Wade would be shocking and a huge step backwards. Something we agree on.
Gerrymandering is a huge problem. We changed our entire political system due to the problem. The Democrats don’t focus on things like the gerrymandering problem because they are not good strategic thinkers politically. Too much time is spent on pie in the sky idealism and infighting.
However the Democrats party still looks infinitely preferable to the GOP. The GOP appear to have literally lost their minds. The sense of entitlement is high in the elite part of the GOP. The rot set in when Reagon convinced everyone government is the enemy.
Well, if I could have picked one thing to get, it probably would have been to end gerrymandering. You’re absolutely right that it’s a fundamental problem for America (and by extension, given the damage a dysfunctional USA can and does do, the world). Not only because it’s anti-democratic on the face of it; not only because it’s enabling GOP control where honest representation (i.e., plain old majority rule) would dictate otherwise; but also because combined with the primary system and first-past-the-post voting rules, it’s a structural incentive to extremism. We’re living with the results, and it clearly could get a lot worse before it gets better.
Unfortunately, the results of the last election pretty much ruled out any improvement during this cycle. Federally, we got the DINOs Manchin and Sinema; and at the state level, the GOP made net gains. (A real tragedy, because that locked in another decade of (even worse) gerrymandered electoral maps.) There’s no easy answer.
I’m not going to quit fighting, though. It’s not like things haven’t been horrible before, and for extended periods of time. “Embrace the suck,” as the military saying has it.
If the worst case occurs with the planet, the suck will be so hard you won’t be able to embrace it so much as get swept away by it.
“the big factor slowing down deployment might be public worries about safety.”
Perhaps–it’s suggestive that where government fiat rules essentially unchecked, reactors can be built in more reasonable time frames. (I don’t think there’s enough cost transparency to judge the economics very well, though if I’m wrong, please point to the data from China (18 reactors in progress), India (8), or Russia (3). I’d be interested.)
However, if it’s the case in “first world” countries that the ultimate cause of the nuclear development slowdown is safety worries, then that seem to be manifesting mostly via high costs (much of it related to financing) and a strangely widespread pattern of poor project management–very much along the lines mentioned in the quote James Charles posted.
Does gerrymandering ‘matter’?
“Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens
Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Page
Each of four theoretical traditions in the study of American politics—which can be characterized as theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy, Economic-Elite Domination, and two types of interest-group pluralism, Majoritarian Pluralism and Biased Pluralism—offers different predictions about which sets of actors have how much influence over public policy: average citizens; economic elites; and organized interest groups, mass-based or business-oriented. A great deal of empirical research speaks to the policy influence of one or another set of actors, but until recently it has not been possible to test these contrasting theoretical predictions against each other within a single statistical model. We report on an effort to do so, using a unique data set that includes measures of the key variables for 1,779 policy issues. Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence. The results provide substantial support for theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism, but not for theories of Majoritarian Electoral Democracy or Majoritarian Pluralism. “
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Excellent contribution. A good read, thanks. I have read up on those 4 theories long but had forgotten them.
Theories of Economic-Elite Domination and for theories of Biased Pluralism fit quite neatly into notions of Corporatism and fascism, and also conservative nationalism with authoritarian leanings.
Those finds and the article also describes Russia quite well. Except more of Russia’s Elites today have more Intelligence Services power brokers (who also gained economic power too due to their status and power a few decades back ) that is the case in the US. The US intelligence services more or less draws their stock from the economic elites eg out of Princeton Harvard et al. such as those Bush boys and their neocon pals.
This on the btm second page was particularly humourous.
The fly in the ointment is that none of this evidence
allows for, or explicitly assesses, the impact of such
variables as the preferences of wealthy individuals, or
the preferences and actions of organized interest groups,
which may independently influence public policy while
perhaps being positively associated with public opinion—
thereby producing a spurious statistical relationship
between opinion and policy.
Good stuff worth a read. Not that it will change anything
LENIN called it political work and scientific socialism. In the USA they call it “gerrymandering”.
So, the shift to EVs continues apace, as we’ve been seeing in many markets; now it turns out that the Chinese plug-in market share for 2021 exceeded 15%, more than double that for 2020. The December share was 21%, with pure BEVs above 80% of that. Growth is expected to continue briskly in 2022.
More:
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/01/22/plugin-electric-vehicles-get-21-share-of-auto-market-in-another-record-month-in-china/
Pyrrhic victory defined. The more we build out stuff that maintains the status quo, the more the status quo continues. If we don’t take sustainability seriously, how do we solve the myriad crises arising from overshoot of ecosystem services?
Killian, even your alternative system will need plenty of electric cars, for things like emergency services and essential services requiring something like the flexibility a car. Obviously you aren’t suggesting ICE cars or horse and cart for these things, I assume. So its important to produce and promote EVs. In fact one of the good things is governments are using EVs for some essential services.
Killian, even your alternative system will need plenty of electric cars
You have no idea what “my system” is. Talk about what *you* know, not what you *think* I know.
I.e., wrong again, nigel.
K. Fine, then explain your alternative system, and explain how it would deal with emergency services, and if not electric cars what will it be?
Decarbonizing transportation as quickly as possible is not a “Pyrrhic victory.” Society is not able to turn on a dime; we’ve engineered our built environments to be automobile-dependent, and that can’t be reversed in a decade or two.
At least, not without just crashing the whole thing–which would kill a whole lot of people.
KM. He never will understand that, not in a million years. Sigh.
nigel, your idiocy is uncountable. When one builds out a sub-system that locks in the whole massively unsustainable system, it is the definition of a Pyrrhic victory. That you two have never, seemingly will never, understand THAT is completely unsurprising.
We can absolutely localize without “crashing the whole thing” or “killing a lot of people.” You have zero bases for that claim. Kevin, you’re becoming as useless in debate as nigel is.
Yes, it is. Learn a few things you have been resistant to for too many so you can have clearer vision.
and that can’t be reversed in a decade or two.
Says who? Do please explain.
China all evil bad communista
no compliment to china bad
wash mouth out with soap
tesla use china made solar panels
tesla must be bad
tesla customer home owners bad supporting evil bad CPC
tesla china made ev must be evil too
elon musk is communist lover
/sarc off
Sarcasm appreciated.
While I hate (inter alia) the Chinese system’s disregard of human rights and their subordination of the rule of law to oligarchic interest, I think it’s feeble-minded to conclude that therefore nothing ever done in China can be good.
China has done many good things in recent decades, from freeing up much of their economy to allowing more human rights. They’ve modernized rapidly and brought their standard of living way up. Their scientific feats, particularly in space travel, are impressive.
But it’s still a dictatorial regime which has locked 1.5 million Muslims in concentration camps, discriminates against Christians and every other religious minority, and wants to invade Taiwan the way it has already invaded Tibet, and assert authority over the entire ocean in that area way beyond the 200-mile limit. They are racists and would-be conquerors and they have to be stopped.
BPL talks sense about China. Clearly there is a good and bad side to China. Seems almost self evident and it mystifies me why others cant see it. You just have to be objective in how you look at other countries.
America is the same. IMHO America has some disastrous foreign policy that is very self interested and aggressive and interfering in elections while proclaiming America believes in democracy, so is hypocritical. But there are hundreds of good things about Americas foreign policy as well.
I would not really want an autocratic authoritarian dictatorship like Russia or China running the world or being world policeman. Especially not a character like Putin.
Neither of these two understands the Straw Man arguments they are making.
Quoth nigelj:
The word “cavemen” is not found in the document you linked.
It’s highly prejudicial and downright erroneous, as is this leading paragraph from the actual document:
The authors have made the mistake of assuming their conclusion. The cost of integrating intermittent “renewables” (which are highly dependent upon fossil fuels for their manufacture and regular replacement) increases radically as their penetration increases. As the requirement for non-generation assets such as transmission and storage increases, the EROEI falls. As I recall, the EROEI of PV plus batteries is around 3. This is less than half the minimum required EROEI for maintenance of our civilization, which is calculated to be around 7.
This is before considering the massive ecological impacts of “renewables”. Solar energy is diffuse and requires coverage of vast areas of land to equal the power production we now get from fossil fuels. These areas are effectively dead for most other purposes, industrial wastelands. Wind farms, being composed of 400-foot-tall towers with anticollision lights at the top, are visual pollution reaching quite some distance away both day and night. The infrasound emissions from such turbines ought to require owners to purchase easements from neighboring property owners to compensate them for loss of use, especially residences.
Nuclear power requires minuscule amounts of land. It can benefit from storage but does not require it. The EROEI of nuclear, even assuming obsolete gaseous-diffusion enrichment, is OTOO 75. We know that small modular reactors work; many countries around the world have been powering naval vessels with them, the USA since the Nautilus in 1955. A NuScale reactor is several times the size of the units in nuclear submarines; we know how these things scale and that they will work as designed. If we’re going to decarbonize our energy systems, nuclear energy has a very large and essential role to play.
It makes no sense to press things into a role for which they are unfit because wishful and/or magical thinking. NNadir had this to say over at Atomic Insights yesterday:
He came to that conclusion after noting that the per-kWh emissions of Germany were 4x as much as those of nuclear-heavy France, which in turn has increased its emissions by its ill-advised push to replace nuclear energy with intermittent wind (plus fossil fuel backup, of course).
I must once again recommend http://www.roadmaptonowhere.com/
EP: Solar energy is diffuse and requires coverage of vast areas of land to equal the power production we now get from fossil fuels. These areas are effectively dead for most other purposes, industrial wastelands.
BPL: Nonsense. Google “agrivoltaics.” And stop spreading lies.
And I must point out that E-P is recycling very tired talking points with little validity. It’s simply untrue that PV requirements are “vast” by any reasonable definition of the word. It’s likewise untrue that they cannot coexist with other uses–current counter-examples include rooftops both commercial and residential; brownfields (including landfill sites, disused coal mines and the like); floating PV; co-sited wind energy with or without storage; and yes, agriculture (“agriphotovoltaics”).
Turning to wind turbines, the infrasound issue is on very shaky evidentiary ground in the first place, and there is more than enough land to ensure adequate setbacks to mitigate it. As for the “visual pollution”, may I suggest that a ban on outdoor advertising would be a much more effective countermeasure if that’s the real concern–rather than a mere rhetorical device?
I think there could be a role for nuclear power in the future energy mix–in fact, I’ve repeatedly said that there *will* be such a role, extending beyond most of our lifetimes, simply based on the legacy energy mix and the fact that plants with 40-to-60 year lifespans are being built now. (Of course, this assumes that we won’t crash society in that time span, in which I hope unlikely case nuclear tech will be a significant potential problem for whatever survivors there will be.)
But this constant slagging of renewable energy based on blatant fan-boi-ism for nuclear power is frankly stupid and counterproductive. Nuclear power can’t and won’t scale fast enough to address the crisis, either from a social, an economic, or a technical viewpoint. Refusing to see that obvious reality is perverse, and IMO betrays an unrecognized emotional bias.
Quoth XRRC:
I would expect no such understanding from anyone who has bought into the “green energy” myth, so I’ll explain.
Decoupling means taking as many of our needs as possible from things that nature has little or no use for. Ecosystems and especially wilderness need uninterrupted land, so we can’t live lightly on the Earth if we’re covering it with black rectangles and massive bat-killing, raptor-shredding whirligigs and electric transmission corridors. Neither can we do it if we’re filling the atmosphere with climate-wrecking gases. We need to stop doing both.
Consider nuclear energy. Nature has no known use for uranium or thorium, and most life finds them and their decay products to be toxic in any great concentration. The power converters are marvels of power density, so the plants to convert uranium to useful energy are tiny compared to the solar fields or wind farms required to capture the same energy from natural flows. Perhaps best of all, we don’t have to have any big concern for energy storage. True, the Natrium scheme uses molten-salt storage to follow daily electric demand cycles, but even then the systems are tiny compared to what would have been required to ride through Europe’s 2021 “wind drought”. Even the waste heat from a nuclear plant is far smaller than the excess dissipation required by fields of highly-absorbent PV cells. And of course the nuclear systems themselves emit no GHGs or other air emissions while in operation.
Nuclear energy can provide warmth in the winter, fresh water where the desert abuts the ocean, and clean electricity 24/7/365 without taking more than a few dozen acres for a gigawatt of power. Best of all, the buffer areas around plants are typically left to go wild, providing space for nature. For this, all they need is a few tons of heavy metal per year and a remarkably small space to stack up the byproducts until they can either be disposed of or (preferably) recycled as fuel for more advanced technologies.
Proponents of “vertical farming” seldom answer the burning question: in systems dependent on grow lights, where do you get the electricity to run them? Coal and natural gas are right out. Your crops are going to do very poorly if you are reliant on e.g. wind which is not synced with the daily cycle and can leave your lamps dark for days at a time. So where?
No matter how reluctant you are to admit it, the answer lies in the atom. It lets us live lightly by nature’s terms but large by our own.
“Decoupling means taking as many of our needs as possible from things that nature has little or no use for. Ecosystems and especially wilderness need uninterrupted land,…”
OK. It’s an odd definition, way to look at it. Have never heard the word used that way before.
That idea is a strange one.
Laudato si by Pope Francis tells rather the opposite, for humans to relate to and live along with and in accordance and harmony with nature, and not distinguished isolated from and at war with nature.
The Gardener must be couppled to the Garden and live in it and according and along with it, as the peasant must live in the farm and in accordance with the økosystems there, not de- couppled from it.
Rascals and racketeers, drunken sailors, alian enemies of our regime, rabid teachers, sponsored influencers with an agenda…. are de- couppled from Nature.
1. There is no such thing as wilderness as you mean it. 2. Uninterrupted here seems to mean no human presence? If so, false. In fact, given the greed of industry and Capitalists, just the opposite: We need people living co-creatively within “natural” spaces to protect them and enhance them.
EP: Your crops are going to do very poorly if you are reliant on e.g. wind which is not synced with the daily cycle and can leave your lamps dark for days at a time.
BPL: That’s why God made batteries, pumped hydro, flywheels, elevation cranes, compressed air facilities, and wide-area smart grids.
That is another strange and peculiar understanding.
Most of which is commonly understood as wilderness and wild, natural environments and landscapes today is actually antropogene landscapes more or less. But the best of it and better of it is found wherever people did better know how to live with nature and to use nature and natural things, and to respect nature, not “de- coupple” from it.
Here we see 2 quite radically different upbringings, philosophies, and points of wiew, I think.
Maybe thought and reason, scill and experience, and better learnings and aquaintance must be more or less eradicated or shown aside, one must get the idea of de- couppling from such traditions and deeds in order to sell a new class of hypermodern- smart nuclear reactors that are not yet produced?
I looked over marine nuclear reactors. The largest are super aircraft carriers. And it has furter some obvious advantages also for civil purposes such as heaviest russian icebreakers that have worked since 1955. They seem to need re- fueling only every 3rd year, and could ancer up and produce electricity for siberian towns for many months when necessary.
Then the smallest nuclear submarine was only 400 tons.Quite impressive, small and smart.
But,…. all the way…. necessary support systems in the harbours bring the costs so that Diesel had to take over as the easier and cheaper. The Otto Hahn research ship of Germany for instance.
Even when fuel costs and uranium costs are lower and nuclear engines take up less room than diesel with fueltanks.
My steady conclusion and remark is that something really looks strange, peculiar, and secret here.
What puzzles me most of all is that when it is so clean and simple and easy and has been shown and has worked for so long time,…. why are not plenty of simple easy and safe and clean nuclear reactors ready now, when we really need them?
In China, India and South Africa, the urban and typical national atmospheres can be cut by knife. Would n`t “Peple” preferre clean air and blue sky instead?
Somthing really very secret must be in the way for that for the last 65 years.
Carbomantanus
“What puzzles me most of all is that when it is so clean and simple and easy and has been shown and has worked for so long time,…. why are not plenty of simple easy and safe and clean nuclear reactors ready now, when we really need them? …..Somthing really very secret must be in the way for that for the last 65 years.”
Clearly the nuclear reactors just aren’t quite as clean and simple and easy and cheap as claimed but the big factor slowing down deployment might be public worries about safety. and environmental concerns, due to things like Chernobyl. While this didn’t kill millions or even thousands of people it was quite dramatic.
When I was young and first heard about nuclear power and what it promised I thought this sounds too good to be true. Then Chernobyl exploded and made me suspicious. My father was in Hiroshima shortly after the atomic bomb was dropped, and he eventually developed health issues suspected of being linked to that. It all made me sceptical of nuclear power, but I’ve recently changed my mind to some extent. I think nuclear power is clean useful energy and safer overall than fossil fuels, has some part to play in mitigating the climate problem, but its all in the hands of the nuclear industry. They seem somewhat disorganised is the impression I get.
Yes!
“energyskeptic says:
March 24, 2015 at 3:47 pm
The main issues with nuclear reactors are their capital cost and long time to build, the odds are good that since they’re all ageing there will be more Fukushima’s and breakdowns, turning the public against their use, and above all, no where to store the waste. Plus nuclear is baseload power and doesn’t ramp or down quickly enough to match demand, which will bring on a blackout (no problem now but a big one when natural gas runs out). But that’s not the real issue – the real issue is that transportation depends nearly 100% on oil, and that transport that really matters, freight, runs on diesel fuel and their combustion engines can’t burn anything else, and coal and natural gas are near their peaks as well, and there isn’t enough biomass to make a significant amount of diesel from biomass. The thousands of suppliers for a nuclear generator won’t be able to ship, truck, fly, or send their components by rail to the building site, the workers won’t be able to get there without cars – civilization ends when transportation stops, especially trucks.”
http://energyskeptic.com/about-energyskeptic/
To all and everyone
This seems to be a state- religion of how to isolate from and to get rid of any human relation to Nature.
That is a really quite traditional religion and delusion also, of how to become unnatural at last.
As far as it looks now, that seems to be the sale of that “poetic engineer”.
Mao Tse Tung was performing the same. especially at higher age.
It is Contra the western civilized esoterics enlightments and roots of science. And also Contra eastern wisdom such as zen- buddhism for instance.
And they do feel in charge as our instructors, teachers, and führers due to their special heritage, mandate, and blood. Their “Ghospel” as it was labeled one or two centuries ago.
Poetic engineeringt it is not.
Quite a pity, becaus what might be needed now is ready and functional and responsible nuclear energy industies.
Carbomontanus. I don’t think engineer poet was quite suggesting that. He appeared to be suggesting that the ENERGY supply could LARGELY be decoupled from nature. His argument is you can’t do that with timber and coal because they have huge impacts on nature, and wind and solar power use a lot of bulky materials. In comparison nuclear power is a compact energy source uses less materials per mwatt output, doesn’t require massively huge mines everywhere, and is clean energy with minimal environmental affects, if you store the waste properly. I see his point.
C: what might be needed now is ready and functional and responsible nuclear energy industies.
BPL: Nukes cost more than any other energy source and take the longest to build out. What we need are expanded renewables, conservation, and a circular economy.
Replacing nuclear energy with fossil fuels kills people.
What we need are expanded renewables …. but they take the longest to build out.
In 2020 wind and solar generated less than 2500 TWh of energy. Less than Nuclear energy did.
In 2019, just over 4% of global primary energy came from nuclear power and under 4% from Wind and Solar.
Despite nearly 30 years of govt subsidies, pro-Govt regulations, the ramping up of manufacturing capacity, and high level climate/political focus to build out renewable wind and solar it barely accounts for 4% of total global primary energy.
Wind and Solar represent barely half of the global primary energy of todays Hydropower.
Wind and solar account for just over 25% of total renewable energy consumption (Hansen)
Or approx. 3.15% of global energy consumption in 2020 (Hansen) Nuclear was 4.3%
https://ourworldindata.org/renewable-energy
https://ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy
http://www.columbia.edu/~mhs119/EnergyConsump/
Yes, it obvious, we need to expand renewables. But over 55% of that input is hydro which cannot be expanded much at all going forward. And the build out of wind and solar, along with Geothermal and Biomass alternatives is not only extremely slow but it is insignificant to the total energy consumption. Growth rates in renewables and wind and solar deployment has been decreasing steadily since 2007.
The growth in wind and solar generation does not even keep pace with the world’s increasing energy demand growth.
What’s needed is global economic and consumption degrowth especially across the global north countries. In particular the extremely high per capita nations of the USA and Canada and the Middle east block.
But the demand side deniers keep ignoring it and claiming it just isn’t so. The supply side cannot deliver what is required to avert a collapse of civilization and the world’s ecology.
https://ppforum.ca/policy-speaking/is-vaclav-smil-the-voice-of-reason-we-all-need-to-hear/
https://www.americanscientist.org/article/global-energy-the-latest-infatuations
Despite the protestations by supposedly intelligent educated people such as Michael Mann the world does not in fact possess the technology nor the resources to de-carbonize and maintain ongoing economic growth like the past.
1.5C is currently already out of reach and 2C is soon to also become beyond our collective capacity to avoid.
But whatever. People who claim to care actually do not care one bit and do not know what they’re talking about. They are way out of their depth.
XRRC
Good comments.
“What we need are expanded renewables …. but they take the longest to build out. In 2019, just over 4% of global primary energy came from nuclear power and under 4% from Wind and Solar.Despite nearly 30 years of govt subsidies, pro-Govt regulations, the ramping up of manufacturing capacity, and high level climate/political focus to build out renewable wind and solar it barely accounts for 4% of total global primary energy.”
Despite about 60 years of nuclear power and its subsidies its still only 4% of generation capacity. So nuclear power is arguably even slower to build than renewables. Personally I think the solution is to build both, depending on what best suits a particular country.
X: Replacing nuclear energy with fossil fuels kills people.
BPL: Nobody is advocating replacing nuclear energy with fossil fuels.
X: What we need are expanded renewables …. but they take the longest to build out.
BPL: A flat lie. Nukes take the longest.
Nigel, yes thanks that’s true too (over a 60 year timeline) . But at least you were able to get the point of the information shared. The trolls here always struggle to contain themselves with their over the top emotional outbursts and dumb accusations of lying or worse.
I agree both are required and ramped up to levels never seen before. Renewables wind/solar cannot replace fossil fuel power stations at scale on their own and nor can nuclear. Maybe even together at maximum new deployment scales they cannot. Especially on current assumptions that electric vehicles will be replacing gasoline/petrol vehicles and Hydrogen being added as well as a “fuel cell” energy supply for transportation.
Moving from ~83% of global energy supply coming from Fossil fuels to next to zero is a very big presumption without simultaneous and massive energy demand reduction (economic consumption) across the board .
Energy Blindness https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/05-daniel-schmactenberger
BPL: Nobody is advocating replacing nuclear energy with fossil fuels.
The level of intentional ignorance mixed with the ongoing deceitful manipulation is appalling.
Japan and Germany are two known cases where non-ghg emitting nuclear power plants were shutdown and replaced by expanding fossil fuel power stations output. That’s well known. It’s also known that replacing nuclear energy with fossil fuels kills people. A logical known fact of life supported by decades of peer review scientific research papers and synthesis reports.
ipso facto replacing fossil fuel power stations with nuclear ones (as well as using renewable energy supply) would save lives going forward. The data and evidence is clear on this to everyone except for nuclear energy deniers who outright refuse to look at it and keep making up fallacious emotive fact-free arguments about the topic.
The advantages of nuclear over renewables is it’s ability for reliable 24/7 on demand base power supply and no need to deploy really expensive and really toxic battery backup.
Anyone keen on making safe all the stockpiles of dangerous radioactive nuclear waste around the world to a point where it is either reused as a nuclear fuel or rendered inert would be all for the rapid massive deployment of Safe meltdown proof Generation IV VHTG nuclear reactors. plus new global treaties being made to enable such programs (an end to nuclear weapons as well) to ramp up for the benefit of all current and future generations.
Good for the environment, good for atmospheric pollution, good for GHG reductions, good for climate change, good for the cryosphere, the biosphere, good for nuclear waste management and very good for nuclear safety. But “walking and chewing gum” and then thinking all at the same time is beyond some unreasonable misguided people who are best ignored completely.
RBP
I wrote Responsible, and it lies in the word.
People do obviously not agree on whether civil nuclear energy in any of its forms is more expensive than anythintg else, thus I avoid using that argument..
The larger costs of nuclear I can immagine, would be that of rinsing recycling and deployment of waste. As seen from the faculty of chemistery.
And if that is obviously ignored or denied, I disqualify people.
But it is mentioned and tried discussed in a cunning way, then I am interested again. .
History seems to show that the construction of nuclear reactors even on pioneering level and under difficult circumstances can be done rather fast, provided that the will and ccompetition is there. So I would not set on that construction time will decide.
I red abbout von Weizäcker.. His team said to Albert Speer in 1942-3 that “No, Mr Speer, Germany can not have an atomic “device” until 1946 because of the speed of the uranium diffusion process. And then the war will be over!” Since then both the ultracentrifuge and the plutonium method are invented.
Thus take that time argument rather for Propaganda.
Beria and his neam in Russia managed in frappingly short time, and Sakharov delivered his pioneering, transportable fusion bomb shortly after.
If will, competition, materials and money is there,, then it seems rather elementary. by many examples.
If you are against it, then you must ride on other arguments. Rajendra Pachauri has spoken that it is an option to be conscidered.
My main argument is that spindoctors must be kept strictly away from radioactive materials.
A rational argument would call on all spindoctors plus the bought and sold corrupt politicians of the west being kept away from everything, everywhere.
With tThe social media monopolies and dishonest incompetent disingenuous corporate news media monopolies shut down forever.
Oh do dream on XRRC lol …. meanwhile
one curious factoid goes “… in 2019 we grew the amount of Electricity demand in the world from all kinds (of supply so much) that just the amount of growth in Electricity demand was more than all of the solar photovoltaic power generation capacity built since the dawn of time.
“All the renewables are growing very rapidly especially in the last year but the amount of fossil fuels underpinning our society is around the same as it’s been 50 years ago which is about 83 percent (of total energy production/consumption.) So we’re just growing a bigger system .”
@from Nathan and Daniel talk for about 10 minutes on the renewable issues “Bend Not Break Part 1: Energy Blindness” discussion (based on researched evidence) . from 50 mins @
https://youtu.be/3bxzo79SjpE?t=2967
Today, there is one proven example in this world where an alternative energy source has been able to cost-effectively and long term totally replace at a regional/national scale the need for fossil fuel energy power stations.
That one example is Nuclear power plants. And that is a known fact for half a century. But the Spindoctors says it is always unsafe no matter how much the technology and operations have changed.
The Spindoctors have already spoken! :-)
Box 3: How does the emotional motivation to explain something affect judgments about what makes for an adequate explanation?
The role of motivations and emotion in conveying understanding cannot be overestimated. This includes our discomfort with uncertainty, the desire to belong and be part of an ingroup by sharing a world view, and the desire to not be shamed. There is an intrinsic reward associated with pattern recognition, and with the status conferred by saying something that gets amplified, even if by strangers or undiscerning people.
Box 6: How can information be framed to be holistically representative of the full range of information available?
Frame control is a form of motivated reasoning where a political or ethical commitment is used to frame what is selected for discussion and presentation. Instead of trying to accurately communicate a story that properly reflects known information, facts and evidence are cherry-picked to fit the preselected frame.
Source — https://consilienceproject.org/pallets-of-bricks/
When a “teacher” does not know more than the “student” then Chaos Reigns Supreme, and Propaganda Rules the Day, and Opinionated Waffle is the Main Course.
XR: Today, there is one proven example in this world where an alternative energy source has been able to cost-effectively and long term totally replace at a regional/national scale the need for fossil fuel energy power stations.
That one example is Nuclear power plants.
BPL: I think Denmark, Iceland, Indonesia, the UK and Spain would disagree.
Yes. So would Uruguay, Portugal, and a number of others.
The most telling bit in XR’s spiel is this:
“And that is a known fact for half a century.”
As if nothing had changed in renewable energy in the last 50 years! Ironically, the discourse then immediately continues with:
“But the Spindoctors says [nuclear power] is always unsafe no matter how much the technology and operations have changed.”
Can’t make up an example of selective focus as breathtaking as that one.
Engineer – Poet,
“The word “cavemen” is not found in the document you linked.”
Oh come on Mr Poet. Nobody said it was. It was just the writers opinion on the study and it looks accurate to me. I read just the first couple of pages of the study and there were many examples of people opposing wind and solar farms on utterly silly selfish grounds, and other examples of ridiculous laws trying to prevent wind and solar farms.
Here in NZ we call it the NIMBY syndrome (not in my back yard) and it applies to all sorts of obvious things. And remember the SAME NIMBY problem applies to nuclear power. You are smart enough to see it both ways.
The efficacy of renewables is another debate. And I’m not going to debate it right now.
My point is scaling up just one energy source of whatever type by 2050 will require massive quantities of materials and inevitably there will be bottlenecks that nobody can forsee. So inevitably we will end up with a range of generating types, because it spreads that pressure.
Personally I think its rather sad the world didn’t go more fully nuclear given its clean and zero carbon, and much safer than fossil fuels, but its largely about peoples safety fears holding things back, and I just hope that changes. In the meantime renewables will have to do the job.
Thank’s for the technical information and arguments. I do find that interesting. It sure beats John Douglas Swallows mind numbing, silly commentary on Antarctica. If you enjoy self torture, or suffer from insomnia I highly recommend reading it.
Quoth nigelj:
If you had read Robert Hargraves’ “A Question Of Power”, you’d know that these laws are anything BUT silly or selfish. In chapter 18, “This Land Is My Land”, Hargraves documents a number of serious harms generated by mass wind and solar energy projects.
Here are some things from his references in this chapter, with Hargraves’ text:
“Rural residents object to wind projects because they are protecting their property values and viewsheds.”
https://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/09/23/do-wind-turbines-lower-property-values/
“Nor do they want to be subject to the noise—both audible and inaudible—that the giant machines produce.”
http://midwestenergynews.com/2015/09/17/wisconsin-health-hazard-ruling-could-shock-wind-industry/
(link tested but came back with errors)
“… a 74-megawatt wind farm that began producing electricity in January 2011. Neighbors began complaining about noise from the turbines shortly afterward.”
https://www.nationalreview.com/2012/11/backlash-against-big-wind-continues-robnert-bryce
(This article references a source piece at http://www.uticaod.com which I could not get to come up.)
“A 2013 study by Polish researchers found that geese raised in close proximity to wind turbines and “exhibited some disturbing changes in behavior” when compared to those raised farther away from the turbines.”
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260561143_Preliminary_studies_on_the_reaction_of_growing_geese_Anser_anser_f_domestica_to_the_proximity_of_wind_turbines
“A 2015 study of pigs done by another group of Polish researchers found that pigs raised in close proximity to wind turbines had lower-quality meat than those raised in control groups. The paper concluded with this blunt assessment: “it is crucial to reduce the exposure of animals to noise generated by wind turbines in order to avoid negative effects on meat quality.””
https://content.sciendo.com/view/journals/aoas/15/4/article-p1043.xml
“The researchers concluded that “the very high levels of cortisol detected in ihair from badgers living near wind farms” indicate that the badgers were suffering from a “chronic increse in their hypothalmo-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity, and thus can be described as stressed.””
https://research-repository.st-andrews.ac.uk/bitstream/handle/10023/9208/Agnew_WindTurbines_JWD_AAM.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
“there is absolutely no doubt that people living within 3,500 feet of a ridgeline arrangement of turbines 1.5 megawatt or larger turbines in a rural environment will suffer negative effects.”
https://www.wind-watch.org/documents/wind-turbines-health-ridgelines-and-valleys
“In an interview, Nissenbaum told me that the wind industry is ‘intentionally neglecting the issue of sleep disturbance.””
(unavailable on-line, but related affidavit available at https://www.windaction.org/documents/23332)
There’s lots more. There are 131 endnotes for that chapter alone. Is that enough to convince you that https://stopthesethings.com is on the right side of the issue? The World Health Organization finally appears to be.
That’s too bad, because any effort spent on energy supplies which keep us from reaching negative net emissions is worse than wasted, it’s criminal.
Ironically, I don’t think that limited wind and solar are pure waste, at least at present. They have finite lifespans and can be replaced by better energy sources as they wear out… so long as policy doesn’t lock them in.
If the bottlenecks involve steel or concrete, we’re going to reach them a lot sooner with “renewables” than with nuclear. Wind farms require 460 tons of steel and 870 cubic meters of concrete per average megawatt, compared to 40 tons and 90 cubic meters for historical nuclear projects. The figures for wind don’t include the materials for the storage and transmission that it requires, either.
You got THAT right.
The first thing to do is to hold the feet of the fearmongering “environmental” organizations and their spokespeople to the fire.
The question is, what jobs CAN they do? (See Meredith Angwin’s excellent book, “Shorting the Grid”.) When connected directly to the grid, they push both nuclear and less-polluting CCGTs off in favor of simple-cycle gas turbines which can follow their rapid ups and downs. That is a pure negative, increasing emissions over the only-gas-CCGT case. Of course, we could simply curtail the “renewables” or force them to charge battery banks instead of going directly to the grid, but that would likely make most of them uneconomic even with subsidies. That would be valuable too, forcing the issues out into the open for the first time.
Engineer Poet.
“If you had read Robert Hargraves’ “A Question Of Power”, you’d know that these laws are anything BUT silly or selfish. In chapter 18, “This Land Is My Land”, Hargraves documents a number of serious harms generated by mass wind and solar energy projects.”
Google is a wonderful thing. Robert Hargraves is a co-founder of ThorCon International, a startup company that aims to build thorium-based nuclear reactors. So he has vested interests and an agenda. So he cherrypicks any studies he can find that allegedly discredit renewables.
A single unreplicated study finding an effect of wind turbines on badgers is not hugely compelling. And it didnt kill them or seriously disable them. And how many wind towers globally would be anywhere near badger habitats?
Likewise a study on negative effects of wind farms on pigs. Surely the solution is dont site them right next to a pig farm?
Regarding noise, the latest generation of wind turbines is a lot quieter than earlier generations (easily googled). And In New zealand the problem seems to have been solved easily enough:
“New Zealand’s wind farms must comply with strict noise-related resource consent conditions (my notes: a type of environmental regulation). These conditions ensure that while wind turbines may be audible at times, the level of sound heard at a nearby house will not be out of place with other sounds in the environment………”
https://www.windenergy.org.nz/sound#:~:text=The%20main%20source%20of%20sound,a%20swishing%20or%20whooshing%20sound.&text=Turbines%20can%20also%20produce%20some,the%20generator%20and%20gear%20box.
Owners may have to accept some effect on property values for the greater good. Just like they have to accept transmission lines near or through their properties, or roads.
So while some of his points seem reasonable, and there are some problems, I dont think its the big issue he makes out when you look even slightly closely at it. In the UK new wind farms are built offshore which mitigates most of these problems. Granted you can’t do this as economically for huge countries like America with vast regions remote from the coast.
“Of course, we could simply curtail the “renewables” or force them to charge battery banks instead of going directly to the grid, but that would likely make most of them uneconomic even with subsidies. That would be valuable too, forcing the issues out into the open for the first time.”
I agree with that. I’ve always thought solar or wind farms should have to come with storage or overbuild and stand on their merits. There are a couple of ways of determining this whole generation thing. You have a genuine free market that treats all generation equally so it has to stand on its merits and generating comanies make their decisions accordingly, or you have the governmnet agency determining what is built. Right now many countries seem to be bumbling along between these two which isn’t so good.
Genosse E Poet
As a child, I learnt of atomic and nuclear power, that was quite new and promising in those days.
My father, who was a learnt academic, said that an engine at the size of about an eg…. would be as strong and powerful as our very Plymuth car engine.
Would n`t that be marwellous?
But that never came, and as far as I can see and jjudge it, Genosse E.Poet is stillo on the same levels of engineering illusions or hallusinations- delusions, as if notyhing has happened up to our days.
I got to read a book from 1952 written by Carl Friedrich von Weizäcker. Where he wrote that as a participant in that project, he could tell that the Germans would not have been able to make an atomic bomb in any case due to certain lacks. And those professionals involved hardly believed it either.
The Brittes and the Americans, who rather saw it from outside, believed otherwise.
Then von Weizäcker launced and suggested “the TOKAMAK” as the possible and promising solution also to conrolled nuclear fusion. And that it would come in 10 maximum 20 years from datum. Hydrogen bombs had allready been shown. The only remaining task was how to do that in a controlled way.
So we are very well aquainted to poetic engineers, dr. Poet, even on the levels of Hr. von Weizäcker and to sales promotion, political aspiration, and to science fiction and can judge it.
You can ponder on a quite poetic educative problem in the meantime:
Why could the Apollo project come, and succeed “Not because it is easy but because it is difficult!” John F. Kennedy said.
What was the essencial difference?
And a bit later , why diid the molten salt thorium reactoor come in the late 60-ies and worked convincinly easily,…. but then that very convincing project ended and closed?
I red more of that story in the Wikipedia and elsewhere now.
It does really seem as if perverse political military desire for Plutonium for some secret reasons did play a role there.
That is my own conspirative idea, and Wikipedia sustains it.
Such horizons and aspects are what worries and to be recognized , taken serious, and solved first because they seem rather to rule it.
Those naive illusions (delusions) of the proportions between a pure eg contrra a dirty plymuth or chevrolet combustion engine should hardly be admitted into pioneering atomic research and pioneeriing workshops, , not even as their poets.
Because it wiill only produce scandals and halt possible progress for another 65 years
I can give a further adeviice to engneers who want to be poetiic also.
It is according to Martin Skowroneck.
“Produktionsgeheimnisse sind Inkompeanse des Weksmeisters!”
That principle rules in the nuclear industries also, and in the sales promotion of it.
That Skowronecks Principle makes the difference between early NASA and Apollo ideology and nucear reactor research- ideology..
EP: Hargraves documents a number of serious harms generated by mass wind and solar energy projects.
BPL: And we should simply take his word for it. After all, he agrees with EP.
On the other hand, who wouldn’t want a nuclear waste repository in their back yard?
Trying this again:
Sorry, that’s a typo that I fixed but failed to copy back to the text. The correct link is https://www.nationalreview.com/2012/11/backlash-against-big-wind-continues-robert-bryce/
Here’s an interesting podcast about solar radiation management:
https://www.clubhouse.com/room/PYlL3K4n?utm_source=clubhouse&utm_medium=share_event&utm_campaign=JXq0RHi9uzX4m75doji2uw-32242
Are things heating up? The steady increasing polarization says it is.
The Demise of Hopium
January 23, 2022 Eliot Jacobson, Ph.D.
Zeke Hausfather uses the word “hopium” in his Twitter Bio, describing himself as a “Dangerous hopium peddler.”
Hausfather’s use of quotes indicates he is including the words of someone who previously called him this. I agree that this assessment of Hausfather’s hopium is spot-on.
Having “hopium” is having a deranged condition in which a person has a certain type of delusions. Hausfather’s view about long and fulfilling lives is pure hopium. Human civilization will not survive the massive destruction of life on planet Earth that is already well underway.
Global industrial civilization is coming to an end. And with it, our long and fulfilling lives.
https://www.climatedisaster.net/2021/12/hopium-apocaloptimism-and-hausfather/
Mann’s Law: Every discussion of the future consequences of climate change must include a call for hope, a prediction that we can still do something meaningful and a public assault on opposing views, particularly if those views involve expectations of irreversible, catastrophic and existential threats to humanity.
I note that in the case of Mann, he also often includes marketing for his books.
https://www.climatedisaster.net/2021/12/manns-law-a-new-internet-adage-for-end-times/
I particularly liked Poe’s Law:
Poe’s Law: No matter how obvious you make your sarcasm in a post, there is always a reader who will not get the sarcasm and will take the post seriously.
The internet in general and real climate in particular is chock full of stupid idiots with the awareness and self-control of new born babies
I reject the defeatist view of the doomer. It is no more accurate than the self-defeating view of the technocopian. Both are equally wrong. Jacobson cannot know if we have reached irreversible tipping points. Literally, he cannot know. He cannot know what the effects of returning to < 300 ppm would be, particularly if we did it rapidly.
This fact makes the entire essay an exercise in futility. Pretending there is a value in saying, "It's too late, so go live well" is nothing more than a publicly declared suicidal ideation.
Ironically, Mann's and Jacobson's views, if widely adopted, lead to the same place. Maybe they should discuss TEOTWAWKI over beers and leave the rest of us out of it,
Cluelessly quoth Carbomontanus:
Only if you are unencumbered by the thought process, to quote Click and Clack (damn do I miss those guys).
This claim shows a fundamental misunderstanding. Anything man takes FROM nature, almost certainly comes AT THE EXPENSE OF nature. Doing that to excess IS being at war with nature. To exist in harmony means to take as little from it as possible, so it can exist as undisturbed as possible while humanity still flourishes in our own terms. If we generate what we want from things nature has no use for, the whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
Meaning that 200 acres for nuclear is good, 2 million acres for PV is bad. Let us feed more nature among us, rather than turning it all into food plots, biomass farms, or “renewable” energy generation systems.
I repeat
That idea is a strange one,
as if a peculiar and ideologically strange minority never learnt abbout SYM-BIOSIS and Øcology.
Think of Linnaeus who placed humans along with apes, lemurs, and bats, and termed them “Primates”
Richard Dawkins said “I am an ape, and I am proud of it!
I say it even stronger. I am a higher vertebrate of the fur- animal type, different from Feathers and Salamandis, and I am proud of it! They are often proud of what they are and like to live with us and even take as much as possible from us their natural way..
That categoric distinction between humans and nature and humans and other living creatures is perverse and no more christian orthodoxy..
Thus alian, strange, and perverted. Anti evolutionary.. It is old supersticion from the dark ages that was ruled vout by science in recent time.. Let nobody ttell you to fall back in those old and strange habits.
Today it ought to be obvious to everyone that animals have soul. We even discuss animal intelligence. Thus, existance and nature is shared and humans are responsible for Nature according to Fransciscus. and even the scriptures.
This is along with todays wiew of creation, thus it is simply not even possible for humans to “De- couple”. from it exept through sick, sinful, or perverse actional behaviour.
We do not “steal” or”take” from nature when we use it well and wisely. Quite many species are even related to and dependent of human interaction and use. Such as this and that being domesticus sativa and arvensis.
Be natural, act naturally. Learn rather to live with your own true nature.
And what about human nature? Shold we de- coupple from it?…
Education and upbringings may be frappingly different on this here and there, and the un- naturals are not in charge for teaching and instructingb and judging us on this just for their sales promotions and political ambitions.. .
The full results of Germany’s Citizen’s Assembly on Climate, held in 2021, are now available in English. These 160 citizens from all walks of life, after studying the issues, came to more far-reaching conclusions than politics. This is a call to politics to act & explain!
“The 1.5° target has top priority. Climate protection is a human right and must be included in the
constitution. Each new law is to be examined for its climatic protection effect”
From April 26 to June 23, the Climate Assembly met to discuss the question: “How can Germany achieve the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement – considering social, economic and ecological perspectives?”
see https://buergerrat-klima.de/english-information full report link at bottom of page.
2. Climate protection serves the common good and has priority over individual interests.
In terms of the common good, the protection of the planet has top priority; economic interests and individual interests must be subordinated to this. In particular, large companies must be obliged to act in the interests of climate protection and the common good.
3. Transparency & information must be guaranteed for every action that has an impact on the climate.
Every citizen must be able to make his or her own informed decisions. This requires education and transparency about climate impacts and consequences. Therefore, everyone must have access to all relevant information. There is a governmental duty to educate.
8. The climate transition must be globally just.
Climate protection is a global challenge. Outside Germany, there are many countries that are more severely
affected by climate change; humanitarian catastrophes must be averted.
The state is responsible for setting the framework to guide the energy transition.
It is to act in a non-bureaucratic, cross-party and humanistic manner in the spirit of intergenerational justice.
See Scotland Citizen Assembly outcomes in 2021
https://www.climateassembly.scot/full-report
Quoth the ever-clueless BPL:
1. Do a calculation of the energy and area investment required for the first 5 options you list (including the energy sources for storage), versus nuclear. I’ll wait.
2. “Wide-area smart grids” are just intelligent blackouts. How do they NOT leave lamps dark for days at a time? Explain in detail (WITH numbers) or concede the point.
Mere handwaving.
TOR, who is undoubtedly a sock puppet for someone else here (check his IP address): “Wide-area smart grids” are just intelligent blackouts.
BPL: Geese are actually a type of cats. Computers are just ballpoint pens with a tin can attached. Cars are a form of lamppost, and just as fast.
The “Quoth”, the text, and the Shakespearian image is a dead giveaway it’s engineer poet – who is obviously not trying to hide anything, is undoubtedly NOT a sock-puppet, and IP addresses need to be checked.
Smart intelligent people notice these things. The Ever-Clueless not so much.
William B Jackson says SAD and off-topic.
The biggest enemy to critical thinking is laziness. The second is conformity!
Exposing illogical fears, versus acknowledging rational justifiable fears, and outing dishonest govt/elites/media fearmongering, propaganda and disinformation, plus special interests/media lying distortions and the intentional or ignorant manipulation of history should never be off topic.
It’s why the world is in such a mess, and the USA especially. Highlighting how easy it was for climate science denial to take root and global cons like WMD in Iraq, the Nixon administrations criminality, and the evil dangers of communists lurking in Vietnamese forests.
The lessons of history are eternally ignored. Same bullshit, different day. You’ll reap what you sow.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwbmMn-Z7a8
Accurate Historical Analysis is not found in plain view on Twitter, Facebook, in the daily newspaper headlines or the hyperbolic nightly news or at hand waving presidential press conferences. This is why everyone needs to take classes in critical thinking where they learn about fallacies of Red Herring and Non-Sequitur.
This is why everyone needs to take classes in critical thinking where they learn about fallacies of Red Herring and Non-Sequitur.”
Couldn’t agree more. Add the big fat juicy cherry pick. I was lucky enough to stumble across a book on logical fallacies when I was very young..
Regarding critical thinking. I’ve always maintained most climate change scepticism is based on logical fallacies. Too much time has gone into fact based rebuttals, and not enough into pointing out the logical fallacies (although obviously both are important).
This is related:
“Why people believe misinformation and resist correction”
https://techpolicy.press/why-people-believe-misinformation-and-resist-correction/
The graphic sums it up.
I suspect the majority of skepticism about AGW is that it seems unlikely that adding a few PPB of CO2 to the atmosphere can make a difference. To a non-scientist, it seems impossible.
I mean PPM. Beat the snarky ones to the punch! :)
You’ll have to pardon me for lateness writing this reply. i’ve been catching up on sleep and writing the first draft of a wiki on nuclear energy.
Quoth nigelj:
If you weren’t being totally unfair to him, you’d at least acknowledge that he puts his money where his mouth is.
He lists his sources. You can check them out yourself, but it appears that you’re doing the exact same thing you accuse him of doing: dismissing the facts because of who cited them. I didn’t take you for a hypocrite.
So replicate it and expand it to look for effects in more animals. Or are you so invested in wind power that you’ll bury contrary information so you can hold onto your beliefs regardless of the harm done?
You’re talking as if badgers are uniquely susceptible to whatever ill effects come from industrial wind turbines, and nothing else would be affected. Isn’t that just a bit short-sighted at best?
Don’t forget the effects on geese. I’m sure that further investigation would uncover effects on many other species.
Or a goose farm.
Or bat foraging zones (the blade-tip vortices have sufficiently low pressure that bats’ lungs explode if they cross paths).
Or raptor flyways (wind turbines kill many American golden eagles every year, and let’s not talk about California condors).
Or human habitations.
With negative effects documented on both mammals and avians, isn’t it time to ask if there is ANY warm-blooded species that doesn’t suffer from the proximity of industrial wind turbines? Shouldn’t we take a time out from breakneck efforts to cover the earth in those things until we have some answers?
Maybe at audible frequences, but the infrasound can only be mitigated by cutting the pressure pulses left behind by each blade passage. This could be done by increasing the number of blades, but would a 12-blade turbine still be economic?
Should they also be forced to suffer life-threatening physical effects or leave their formerly-safe homes? These are not trivial annoyances.
(I need to not post while I’m waiting for sleep meds to hit.)
That was incredibly entertaining. Thank you for that small mercy.
Although it is very unfair because you have Nigel at a distinct disadvantage.
In other news, I prefer your alternative nym.
XRRC, you find that EP comment entertaining. Thats creepy and a bit sick, and lacking in intelligence. Not your best comment :)
You had to be there.
EP. I’m not a hypocrite and I’m not making an ad hominem. I didn’t say dismiss what Hargraves says just because he has interests in the Nuclear industry. I’m just saying be aware he has an agenda, so he is likely to be less objective than a university for example, and he probably cherrypicks studies that suit his agenda, so don’t take what he says at face value, and apply a LOT of critical analysis to his claims.
The same would apply to some organisation like Greenpeace, although in their case I respect the fact they stand up for environmental values.
To all and everyonne here
Our poet engineer is getting into spin.
That kind of snobbish hooliganisms priimitivisms and racisms & national socialisms adminestering and haviing their hands into radioactive material…..
……… is probably what has halted the use of nuclear fission reactors for civil electriciity production for the last 65 years at least.
I must recoommend it to his owner that he does dis- employ “Enhineer Poet” for this sale.
Carbomontanus. Agreed. Engineer poet specialises in spin, going back three years. Anyone with more than half a brain can see it.
But hes basically just pushing nuclear power. At least the technical information is interesting.
His technical information seems solidly uneducated or quite poorly educated.
It is not my speciality so I have to seek up and look after several of his things, And I find it much better elsewhere. So it looks quite much more like routine exercises of someones industrialized dilettantism.
It makes studying much more easy if you can order and arrange it systematically in a way that connects and relates also to other basic diciplines and studies. Because else, you will have to swet and read and poke it for your purposes and examinations and it will hardly have any further value, An eldorado for those who arrange socially and speculate in examination cheating, by the way.
It is much easier and better to be able to understand it basically and able to deduce it from other sciences and horizons of systematic knowledge.
When IV generation nuclear reactors have got nothing to do wityh general radiology and radioactivity, and when treatment of reactor products and nuclear waste haqve got nothing to do with the classical systematic nanalytic chemical lab procedures,….. then you have to poke it. And it will hardly be appliciable anywhere next..
They ride on and they exel in the production secrets in the studies and drill for that.
I am quite experienced with peculiar professors and engineers also, and have learnt to disqualify them and avoid them for practical economic reasons.
To me, they are rather sample material for my interests also of humaniora and folklores.
Carbomontanus says: And I find it much better elsewhere.
Oh really? From where?
Please do share your nuclear energy resources you say you can rely upon.
Please enlighten us how to “order and arrange it systematically in a way that connects and relates also to other basic diciplines and studies”?
EP: Or raptor flyways (wind turbines kill many American golden eagles every year, and let’s not talk about California condors).
BPL: I wonder how many birds fossil fuels kill every year?
There seems to be a bit of a dearth of recent research, but a decade ago:
In proportional terms, they arrived at this:
Wind: 0.27 avian fatalities/GWh
Nuclear: 0.6
FF: 9.4
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2198024
Kevin, how did the nuclear power stations kill so many birds? (I didn’t purchase the article)
Was it steam from the turbine system?
Sorry, nigel, I didn’t purchase it either! And I wondered the same thing.
From Sovacool’s 2012 paper on bird deaths and power generation, the bird deaths from nuclear power are mainly from poisoning at uranium mines and mills, and at the power station, from collisions with infrastructure, especially cooling towers.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1943815X.2012.746993
That’s the same paper that Kevin McKinney quotes from. In comparison to the 46,000 bird deaths from wind power, 460,000 from nuclear power and 24 million from fossil fuel, there were about 110 million bird deaths from domestic and feral cats, and 100 to 900 million from collisions with glass windows.
Sovacool’s paper is used as a source for bird deaths in the Wikipedia entry on Environmental impact of wind power.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_wind_power#Birds
Dr. K. McKinney
I am Dr. S. McKolberg.
I never replied to you before but I see that you are selling the trumpet. Brass instruments and horns.
Im am rather in the woodwind section on Baroque woodwinds, and expert on woodchopping and the scientific design of harmonical oscillating air and other molecular materials. Also on electromagnetism as such.
I am able to fuse and to cast and to solder and to weld brasses and other metals in my Laboratorium.
I have been playing Alt- horn in the school orchestra, where we hade a very good Maestro, Leiv Flisnes Baryton Sax, who learnt us a lot of Italian.
I have also been singing 2.nd Tebnor in the Chorus for a while and work along with Johannes Kepplerb Harmociwes Mundi from 1619 and Calvisius in Leipzig & Vincenzo Gallilei. . That matches and clears up in the oscilloscope also.
It is what we can take out of empty air and arrange it.
No, I’m not selling brass instruments. I *play* trumpet (and related instruments, such as flugelhorn and cornet). Also guitar, bass, keyboards, and a bit of hand percussion. And, like you, I sing. And I do online lessons, as well as a bit of publishing.
If you’re interested, you can sample my 2020 album here (among other places):
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=OLAK5uy_mb67JYtvmSL8zekoNSjB2VWGyr08ys-2I
Admittedly, it’s a long way from the Baroque manner and practice, so it may or may not be your ‘cuppa.’ But at least it’s not derivative.
I wish you ample enjoyment from your band & chorus endeavors! Oscilloscope too.
(BTW, I had a former classmate who spent considerable time in the electronic music studio back in the day tailoring synthesizer waveforms to draw the most amusing possible animal shapes on the ‘scope! Pretty eccentric, admittedly, but his cartoon ‘duck’ was pretty good, as I recall.)
Quoth the spell-checker-less Carbomontanus:
PWR core power density is around 100 megawatts (thermal) per cubic meter, sodium-cooled fast reactors hit around 300 MW. After conversion losses, about a liter of SFR core would power a Plymouth. You wouldn’t want to put it IN a Plymouth (even if they were still being built) but that’s how the numbers work out.
EBR-II produced 62.5 MW(t) from a core 34.3 cm tall and about 38.3 cm radius, for a core volume of roughly 158 liters and a thermal power density of about 395 kW/liter. It operated starting in 1964, more than half a century ago. I’d say it’s been done already.
EP. Then why aren’t there thousands of these EBR’s reactors around today? The point being that the reality doesn’t seem to match the early prototypes and the hype around them. Honestly I’m asking because I don’t know the answer.
395 KW/liter continous.power density will make any molecular matter explode..
I have to repeat it. Spindoctors must be kept strictly awayy from radioactive materials and shown consequently out of and away from the reactor facilities.
Interference of that kind may actually have been a reason for why those projects were ended and closed down. Some of the doctors began to believe that it was only septic in the tanks.
It is not how to behave in a porcellain shop, in a virological laboratorium or in a swineyard.
Nonsense. A fast reactor is easily designed to produce 420 kW/liter, see Chegg engineering problems workbook.
Second attempt:
Carbomontanus, yes, even 420 kW/liter is feasible in a fast neutron reactor. As the heat kis immediately conducted away nothing “explodes”.
Well, if you could be accurate enough to explain how it is conducted away from its surfaces, its square meters, and not from its volume, its liters, you might perhaps get to understand what matters for a heat exchanger.
But Herr Dr. C, it was you who introduced that very unit into the conversation. To wit:
For a core volume,… he wrote. An nothing about its surfaces.
Quoth BPL:
A fair-minded person would read his references and see if they support his position.
I provided links to a bunch of his sources. You have no excuse for ignorance.
Quoth Ray Ladbury:
I’ve offered to take some Sr-90 or Cs-131 off the government’s hands and use it to heat my house and DHW, if they’d let me have enough to do the job. Yes, they’re radioactive as all get out but iron turns radiation to heat in short order and heat pipes move heat passively. Concrete makes both a superb protective barrier and a radiation shield. So yeah, I’ll take some and put it right next to my septic tank.
A fair-minded person? no excuse for ignorance?
Aaaah stop it my ribs are hurting from laughing so hard.
And I’m happy to live reasonably near a wind turbine. It can’t be worse than the cars that go past my house with their poor quality sub woofers, bass booming and thumping at full volume
To all and everyone
Well if they mix up Sr-90 and Cs-131 with Septic tanks in the garden an dispose large enough quantities aside with that, it is another very good reason to be quite suspicious.
And to label that ” engineer poet” by having it stamped in his passport and have that registered by the FBI and CIA, by photo and fingerprints.
And tattoo the same into his skin on an obvious place, where common people look first in order to see what kind of special character that is…..
…….that he must be kept strictloy away from radioactive materials and other critical places like any porcellain- shop, Virological laboratorium, Botanical gardens and wildbird reserves, henyards and swineyards, . and away from any butchery and bakery, drugstore, and official restaurant- kitchen.
Because that “E-Poet” is not clean!
EP: I’ve offered to take some Sr-90 or Cs-131 off the government’s hands and use it to heat my house and DHW, if they’d let me have enough to do the job.
BPL: Yes, PLEASE do that! The sooner the better.
Messages from the Archives
By Al Bundy
11 Aug 2019
Recent Daily Average Mauna Loa CO2
January 26: 420.52 ppm
January 25: 419.19 ppm
January 24: 419.80 ppm
January 23: 418.96 ppm
January 22: 417.51 ppm
Messages from the Archives
Karsten V. Johansen
3 years ago – 11 Jan 2019
“Any expectations or predictions for climate science in 2019?”
1) The climate is the by far most important, not the science about it.
2) The climate will continue its steadily worsening course towards an unlivable, scary and sad, ugly and boring hell on Earth.
3) The climate science will try to describe this sad development, but under a steadily growing censorship from the commanding highs of global oligarchic capital and its corrupted politics and chaoticizing media nonsense. The conflict between science and ideology, realism and relentless lying will grow towards a new kind of totalitanism which I call liberal totalitarianism or free-market stalinism.
My hope is that science will be able to and dare to present an unmistakably clear picture of where we are heading when according to the consensus among experts the atmospheric CO2 content is now on a level which the Earth has not seen for at least twenty-six million years.
The main goal now must be to clarify the grotesque game of russian roulette being played by our rulers with the near future of homo sapiens. As can be learned from the geological past.
This means giving up the illusion that it is possible to predict with any certainty anything precise but chaos about the climate in twenty to hundred or more years, when we are living through a rise in the atmospheric CO2 content which the Earth as far as we know have never experienced this fast in any part of the known geological past.
The predictions of IPCC are spreading a completely false sense of certainty about how much CO2 we can still produce without risking chaos. This futile and anti-scientific nonsense has to stop.
The only reasonable conclusion seen from the scientific viewpoint is to reduce all emissions as fast as possible.
( And then, much later came Net Zero by 2050. And the world did rejoice so and congratulate itself! )
Messages from the Archives
Gavin – January 2019
“To maintain CO2 concentrations at a stable level, you could only emit what was effectively being balanced by long-term sinks. On the hundred-year scale, that is basically only the deep ocean, and the current sequestration there is about 2 GtC/yr.
“Given we are putting out ~10 GtC/yr, that means you’d have to cut emissions by 80% to stabilise CO2 (which is not the same as stabilising temperature – that would continue to rise, though more slowly). – gavin]”
Suddenly, without warning, Net Zero CO2 Emissions Will Miraculously Stabilize Temperature.
While atmospheric CO2 concentrations continue to rise.
Gavin quote reference: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2019/01/unforced-variations-jan-2019/comment-page-2/#comment-716751
[Response: Not sure what you are saying here. My point was that if we get to net-zero, CO2 concentrations will be falling, and temperature stable. Obviously, we are nowhere near that yet. – gavin]
Contributions of natural systems and human activity to greenhouse gas emissions?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674927818300376
global annual GHG emissions range approximately between 54.33 and 75.50 Gt CO2-eq
global natural emissions account for 18.13–39.30 Gt CO2-eq,
(with the most likely value being approximately 29.07 Gt CO2-eq)
global anthropogenic emissions have increased from 22 Gt CO2-eq in 1990 to 36.2 Gt CO2-eq in 2016.
( therefore – Total combined global annual GHG emissions estimate 65.27 Gt CO2-eq)
Total annual amount of GHGs absorbed by Earth systems (ocean and terrestrial ecosystems) ranges between approximately 14.4 Gt CO2-eq and 26.5 Gt CO2-eq (estimate 20.0 Gt CO2-eq)
“This finding indicates that the GHG emissions generated by human activity exert extra pressure on what is otherwise a self-balancing Earth system.”
Global natural emissions 29.07 Gt CO2-eq ( that is 9 Gt higher than gets absorbed)
Global anthropogenic emissions 36.2 Gt CO2-eq in 2016 (increased closer to 40 Gt/yr now)
GHGs absorbed by Earth systems 20.0 Gt CO2-eq
Net imbalance for global GHG emissions is ~45.3 Gt CO2-eq per year and increasing.
That’s more than the Global anthropogenic emissions are in 2016 and today!
Global temperature is increasing.
CO2 atmospheric concentrations increasing.
Net Ice loss is increasing.
SLR is increasing.
Fossil fuel energy use is increasing.
Fossil fuel exploration continues.
BAU continues.
Scientists / Conformists Claim the New Net Zero CO2 Emissions Strategy is going to stabilize temperature and save us from ruin, destruction and death?
Denial and Green-washing keeps sweeping across the land.
See 40 distinct and near certain short-term consequences of Climate Change. Most of these consequences are already happening to some degree. Many of these are harbingers of the collapse of modern industrial civilization. Some of these are foretelling of the sixth great extinction. All of them are extraordinarily sad. The weather just gets more deadly and more chaotic. It’s hard to believe we have until 2050 (net-zero) or even 2030 to get on track. Truth: we don’t.
https://www.climatedisaster.net/2021/10/top-40-impacts-of-climate-change/
Bloody Over Emotional Doomers! Don’t ya just hate that?
The Great Simplification: Episode #5 – Daniel Schmachtenberger
Bend Not Break Part 1: Energy Blindness
podcast with video
This is the first of several episodes unpacking the biophysical/cultural constraints we face. Broadly we want to discuss what society/government/individuals need to do to navigate towards a ‘bend’ scenario and avoid ‘breaking’ in coming decade(s). In this first conversation, Daniel flips the script and interviews me on how energy, materials and technology interrelate to a growth based civilization. Our culture is energyblind.
Todays podcast is the first of several conversations – where Daniel flips the script and interviews me about energy. In future episodes Daniel and I will explore the Superorganism (Daniel refers to it as Game A) and lay out cultural paths forward.
I’m a novice at social media (and dislike self-promotion!) but am advised by ppl I trust this is the only way to expand awareness. (When in Rome, must Tweet not fiddle.)
I’ve spent last 20 years learning, honing and simplifying the core drivers of the human predicament: energy/technology, anthropology/psychology and ecology. Many others have arrived at conclusions that rhyme but add more context, insight and hope. Daniel is one of those.
https://twitter.com/NJHagens
https://natehagens.substack.com/p/the-great-simplification-episode
(God help us)
very good short thread @GeorgeMonbiot
https://twitter.com/GeorgeMonbiot/status/1486950829194190848
For years I’ve been struggling with a paradox that seems fundamental to our age. We live under a system that celebrates freedom and choice. Yet almost everyone in a position of power or influence subscribes to the same set of preposterous beliefs.
Here are a few of them.
– That economic growth can continue indefinitely on a finite planet.
– That the economic system should be granted primacy over the Earth systems that sustain it.
– That you should pledge allegiance to capitalism, even if you don’t know what it is.
– That natural wealth can be turned into private property, and the right of a person to own it corresponds to the numbers in their bank account.
– That the “invisible hand of the market” can one day solve our problems, though it has failed to do so to date.
– That the unhindered acquisition of enormous wealth by a few could lead to something other than economic and political disaster.
– That taxes sufficient to break the cycle of accumulation and redistribute this wealth are unthinkable.
– That permitting a handful of offshore billionaires to own the media, set the political agenda and tell us where our best interests lie is somehow OK.
– That democracy can proceed in the almost complete absence of civic knowledge and useful information.
– That we are best-served by an education system which recognises only one kind of intelligence (analytical, linear and hyperlexic) while neglecting other forms (spatial, systemic etc), writing off millions of children.
What amazes me is that no terror or torture is required to persuade people to fall into line with these crazy beliefs. Somehow the system has created an entire class of politicians, officials, media commentators, cultural leaders, academics and intellectuals (plus social media jockeys and influencers) who support them.
Reading accounts of 20th Century terror, it sometimes seems to me that there was more dissent among intellectuals confronting totalitarian regimes than there is in our age of “freedom” and “choice”.
It’s not total. There are a few dissenters.
They are not, on the whole, imprisoned or executed. The system is so powerful that it doesn’t need to crush them. They are simply ignored and marginalised. It is entirely unruffled by their objections.
(Be it a Snowdon or fossil fuel companies covering up and ignoring their scientific research of GHGs climate in the 70s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mp1JGqp7YMI&t=9s )
So what’s going on? How has this system created a near-consensus around its ridiculous ideas? How has it ensured not only that people of power and influence defend them, but that almost everyone else nods along, or simply shrugs as Earth systems spiral towards collapse?
I don’t have a complete or satisfactory answer. But here are some guesses:
1. That petty ambition (better job, bigger house, smoother car) is as potent an enforcer of consensus (and conformity) as state terror.
2. That the billionaire press (and social media) has become more powerful than human courage.
3. That spectacle, banter, and an obsession with trivia and celebrity are more effective at defusing dissent than coercion and fear.
4. That our current organisational structures, which look as if they offer choice and freedom, actually do nothing of the kind. On the contrary, though it might have been accidentally achieved, we have arrived at an almost perfectly calibrated system of social control.
What Monbiot says is largely true,and I have one of his books, but its been said a million times. Its certainly not new to me. Had it all figured out by myself ages ago. I just mentioned the redistributive tax aspect on the UV page, before reading all this. We need to focus far more on WORKABLE SOLUTIONS, and not pie in the sky fantasy solutions.
not all social media is trash, here the hundreds of comments to Monbiot are worth it
Herodotus: “If anyone, no matter who, were given the opportunity of choosing from amongst all the nations in the world the set of beliefs which he thought best, he would inevitably -after careful considerations of their relative merits- choose that of his own country.
“Everyone without exception believes his own native customs, and the religion he was brought up in, to be the best; and that being so, it is unlikely that anyone but a madman would mock at such things.”
Begin to understand that free will is an illusion – Sam Harris Fee Will. Ties in with growing up and being conditioned within a religious / societal knowledge and belief systems. Step outside the bubble and ‘the nodding along’ becomes clear.
Laura Berlant’s Cruel Optimism is interesting – the idea that capitalism has played a cruel trick on us, to keep us striving a ‘the good life’ it’s increasingly hard for most of us to obtain; distracting us from what we should be hoping for & striving towards – systemic change
You are waking to reality – it’s not a democracy it’s an elected dictatorship.
You have no choice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7U5JVk_y7U
Faintly connected to this,…
social conformism and religious, societal and belief systems, step outside the bubble and the nodding along becomes clear…
I came to think of it last night, and related to capitalism.
I myself am of a “clan” that was clearly brought up to “permaculture” to the degree that peoples propaganda for that seems rather odd and strange and rootless to me. That permaculture is as much as traditionalism to my conscepts, along with the recent “Roots” moovement.
Which again showed its high value and strength during WW2 as very many people had to manage without normal trade and import and so on.
I have found that same style again in eastern Europe under their similar occupied situation.
Together with that and obviously connected to that, consumerismm and capitalism has been obviously ridiculed and banned! Which is also known in the very traditional USA in some immigrant groups..I am very positive. I saw it clealy here and there in the folks museum in Connecticut.
There is evidence of Permaculture also all the way in traditional rural architecture in New England, and necessary for them again in recent time, as they were all damned mad at 3 things.
1 the war in irak,
2 the system and politicians in the west (= Washington DC) and
3, damned mad that they had no social health care system.
All that together is very traditional and nostalgic and because Capitalism was not affordable at all.
We also label it typical pietism of the old sort, but be aware that there may be many sorts or fashions of pietism. I describe here what calls themselves protestans by a general label. Who make their own houses and traditional suits, save their pennies, and who go to church and believe rather in angels, and aquainted to Nature.
With turkeys moose and bears in their gardens and are proud of it.
I was told that “Here in New England, the Democrats are the good guys and thwe republicans ar the bad guys but in the midwest that is opposite,… and that clashes in the congress.
All this is traditional and practical life also to me, the good old economical traditional way of life.
So what seems really odd and strange next to sinful and perverse to me, is that some of the participants here do defend capitalism. I defend the codfish. The same they do in Rhode Island.
Digging deeper into it, This alltogether seems to be the position of the old “liberals” the leftists, and different from the socialists., who came later and began instructing Capitalism Das Kapital, and further social disorder and violent revolution.
That old “Left side” resembles the old Whig party in Great Britain, the Whiggamores, that means The Cowboys. in opposition to “The Tories”. Thus the finer and more important ladies in Connecticut and Rhode Island at least, dressed up in autentic cowboy sunday costume..
According to my religious societal beliefs and system from anxient on, Capitalism is below my levels and dignity.
Daniel Schmachtenberger “Bend Not Break Part 1: Energy Blindness” (on youtube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxzo79SjpE
I believe only a very view viewers of RC would be interested in (or understand the relevance or usefulness of) what Danial and Nathan https://twitter.com/NJHagens have to say. But for the few people who might here’s some background info to consider if it might be worth the effort.
Daniel is best known for the work his organization The Consilience Project does on social media/AI/algorithm risks to improve the ability for society to make sense of our situation and have informed societal discourse.
Daniel is working on what he refers to as the meta crisis how climate and geopolitics and artificial intelligence and everything fit together into this collective of risks.
Daniel’s current main focus is on the risks that social media and artificial intelligence pose as this exponentially growing function that’s hijacking our minds as individuals and at a cultural level is
impeding or even negating our collective ability to orient and adapt to our current challenges.
Critical conversations for the future of human civilization.
The Consilience Project publishes novel research at the leading edges of global risk mitigation, governance design and culture. Our content explores the key challenges and existential threats facing humanity, and the underlying problems with current approaches for addressing them. We outline how our social systems and institutions need to be redesigned if free, open, non-authoritarian societies are to survive.
At no other point in history has humanity faced such a wide range of novel catastrophic risks. Our civilization has never been more vast, complicated, and fragile. This systemic fragility is exacerbated by new technologies, geopolitical instability, an ecological crisis and a reliance on global economic supply chains.
Our work recognizes the interconnectedness of humanity’s challenges: any solution must factor the underlying drivers of each one.
https://consilienceproject.org/about/
https://natehagens.substack.com/p/the-great-simplification-episode
I cannot imagine anyone who makes comments here being interested in the following indepth article https://consilienceproject.org/pallets-of-bricks/
But just in case there is some anonymous viewer who has been looking for just this kind of unbiased intelligent analysis to help them make better sense of the world and the disgusting polarized information being spread by politicians the media and social media / trolls I’m sharing it anyway. I know it is good because I have been using their values and approach for decades and am rarely conned by disinformation and bullshit be it from crazed conspiracy theorists, the biased conformist corporate media (left and right leaning) or crass politicians and their government hacks. Yes, I am an “expert” in “reading” the news media cycle of horseshit thrown at the world. Bite me!
If the information there seems credible and useful then take the time to go through the detailed analysis to see all the pitfalls of being conned by not only the govt and media hacks but also the unthinking biased hacks you find all over social media sites including right here. Being able to focus on details and applying critical thinking skills can be learned and developed.
For that one person who might read this article you can save time deciding if it is for you by first skipping through the Yellow Boxes that appear down the page. For example ::
You know you are personally afflicted with severe Polarization when you see a different narrative, a different set of facts, a different source for information than you typically rely upon and then ALL YOU CAN SEE ARE ENEMIES!
Yes I am specifically talking about You, and You, and You, and ……………. what a shameful way to live your life.
New England is saved now.
According to Knowitall, they have got enough snow to stop it and weigh it down and to cool it.
We could like the same in Ukraina, Donbas and Belarus.
Southern Norway is blown to wrecks and pieces , Denmark and Sweden have it even better. Together with Covid 19 they are wityhout electricity, lucky are those who still have a conventional car and a gas- lighter.
Do not worry, XRRC. Biden is sending soldiers to Estland for our protection. You will not have “nukes” in your head for the next 1.5 weeks, I can guarantee.
Putin is stable. Spring is clearly coming but there may be some more snow.
This made me think of an old movie show My Fair Lady where the song goes … “oh wouldn’t it be luvely”
I know you well enough as someone who
deeply understands the human predicament
and you also have what i refer to as a wide
boundary empathy – but you’re also incredibly
productive – you’re a good friend you do things
for people even if it means more of your time
and you just seem really balanced to me.
so one question how do you manage to hold
all this existential risk and the depth of the
implications of the conversation we just
had in your head and still manage to defer
the marshmallow and stay sane focused
present and be a good human being to the
people in your life? Because I think that
is the whatever you do that that’s a
formula that a lot more people are
hopefully going to be able to find. You have
a couple minute summary of that and then
we’ll expand on that next next call.
Huh?
Yes, seems strange.
It was an add on to several comments that did not publish correctly (some site error) with quotes from “Bend Not Break Part 1: Energy Blindness” discussion @ https://youtu.be/3bxzo79SjpE
such as these I reposted https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-800776
the above quotation is from the last couple of minutes. It makes perfect sense in context and explains rather well where these two people are coming from and what’s most important to them about life and the coming unstoppable collapse scenarios and why that is so. Few if any here who post comments would get it, but you might Kevin (but I really do not know for sure)
Just saw that. TY
Brutal winter storm to hit the Northeast. Be safe out there in all that SNOW!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/28/winter-storm-northeast-blizzard
As you have been told many times but make no effort to learn: That is weather. You still flaunt your ignorance by failing to learn and understand the difference between weather and climate. You really owe an apology to people who tried to educate you. Seriously.
KIA hasn’t noticed that despite these big snow storms, global warming just keeps on increasing. That may say something about his grasp of science and reality. Or hes just trolling. Either way a complete waste of space and time.
Hr knowitall
The earth is round, and I begin to wonder why they ar not reporting summer heat cathasrophies from Australia now. If the earth is round, then there should be about time for it now.
It follows on both (sub- arctic) ends of the world in opposite order. Max light, max temp, and max rain. And opposite, max darkness, max chill, and percipitation minimum.
The winter sequence is slower than the summer because all goes faster when heated up.
I recommend that you learn to see it also in terms 0f the Köppen clima zones, that are traditional and still as valid as Gallilei and Darwin, Only that they may moove a bit on the globe and the worlds map due to AGW in our days.
Allways relate to prophets and GURUs that came on INDEX, such as Gallilei, Darwin and Einstein. They are often the best. whereas Adolph Stalin Saddam and King Donald Grozny were rotten however large (Grand!) in their own time. and regimes.
And what you see here on this website by many examples maybe inclusive yourself, is lack of Bachelor 1 BACCALAVREVS1 , Middelskole, Mittlere Reife, ( meaning the general and holistic school in between) where you learn quite generally how to learn and how to orientate and how to study, , how to organize your thoughts and thinking, and to organize and integrate your experience and memories)
No masterskip of any kind , of any craft on any art without that Baccalaureus 1 absolved, examined, and stood on individual level with legal Diploma from the highest Temple order…
At tänka er storartat
at tänka rätt er högare!
To think is grandious
to think right is higher!
Some people begin to teach masterclass here without that Bachelor one absolved examined and stood on personal & conscious level.
There you can also see the clear difference between proper Australopitaceae , the sapiens type, and all apes and bears under that in the grades.
Carbomontanus:
Eastern Australia is currently enjoying a mild summer because ENSO is in a La Niña state, and that brings cooler, wetter summers to eastern Australia. We are getting floods, instead.
Western Australia, where the mid-term trends are more controlled by the Indian Ocean Dipole than by ENSO, though is having a hot summer and has been having bad bushfires since December.
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-25/perth-and-pilbara-heatwaves-explained/100778546
“I begin to wonder why they ar not reporting summer heat cathasrophies …”
In simple English what that means is:
If I didn’t see it written in my newspaper or shown on my TV news reports then it never happened. Much like that tree falling in a forest thingy.
I Wonder https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_W978zoLu1w
As I posted, Western Australia is in fact having a record hot summer. Eastern Australia is having a cool, wet summer with lots of flooding. Australia’s a fairly big place.
These are things being widely reported in Australia, if not all that much in places that Carbomontanus reads.
Very toastie in WA. Last week on the east coast, eg brisbane. temps hit as high as 100F 35C with 90% plus humidity So it’s not that “cool”.
Overnight temps of 25C plus with 90% humidity not pleasant either. But overall for summer been less hot and fire prone due to high rainfall.
I added below links to Africa and South America are having some extreme heat too.
Cheers.
There you are unprecise again Dr. Rocks
I wrote that I begin to wonder why yhey are not reportng. I did not wrie that I begin to wonder why there is not.
Your “Plain English” seems to be as much as Englischer Platt (=flat sculled provincial cockney), then.
Plain is platt you see, and Englischer is English, Hope you get that at least.
You seem to be confounding two rather different meanings of “plain” in English. And Cockney is a specific central London dialect; hardly “provincial”.
And, as I said, the record summer temperatures and bushfires in Western Australia, and the cooler, wetter summer in eastern Australia, and the flooding there, are all being widely reported in the Australian press. I don’t know why they’re not being reported in the press you read.
The bushfires in Western Australia have certainly made it to the European press. Here are some German examples (in German):
Forest Fires Blaze in Western Australia
https://www.spiegel.de/panorama/buschfeuer-waldbraende-lodern-in-westaustralien-a-743912.html
Bushfire in Western Australia Destroys Dozens of Houses
https://www.zeit.de/news/2021-02/02/buschbrand-in-westaustralien-zerstoert-dutzende-haeuser
Bushfire in Western Australia Destroys Dozens of Houses
https://www.weser-kurier.de/deutschland-welt/buschbrand-in-westaustralien-zerstoert-dutzende-haeuser-doc7es99pr5kmvqu8q5hni
Bushfire Threatens Suburbs in Western Australian Coastal City Perth
https://www.derstandard.de/consent/tcf/story/2000122921073/buschfeuer-bedroht-vororte-der-westaustralischen-kuestenstadt-perth
All from the first page of a Google search for “buschfeuer westaustralien site:.de”.
The silence is deafening.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/jan/14/south-america-heat-wave-record-summer-temperatures
https://www.citizen.co.za/news/south-africa/weather/3000211/heat-wave-warning-western-cape-1-february-2022/
https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/2021-among-hottest-years-could-also-be-the-coldest-well-ever-see-2718635
https://reliefweb.int/report/world/global-weather-hazards-summary-january-21-24-2022
Southern Hemisphere Scorchers by NASA January 11, 2022
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/149331/southern-hemisphere-scorchers
Interesting. I wonder if all that heat down south is a harbinger of a coming El Nino? I’m not implying a direct link, only noting that if we’re getting extreme heat on such a large scale it may (must?) indicate some oceanic effect and so maybe indicates the Pacific may be ready to offload some heat, too? I mean, it’s been a double La Nina, so the energy buildup must be getting pretty large?
I posted some info elsewhere about Renewables lack of “build out” capacity making them essentially unable to maintain both expected/planned economic growth plus replacing fossil fuel energy generation over time.
Here Nathan and Daniel talk for about 10 minutes on the renewable issues “Bend Not Break Part 1: Energy Blindness” discussion. from 50 mins @ https://youtu.be/3bxzo79SjpE?t=2967
Nathan is pro renewables but he accepts they cannot support the existing economic system were fossil fuels massively reduced or abandoned to cut emissions.
—-
I was talking about stove pipes and silos …… I’m not alone wasn’t my idea, it’s no ones idea, it just is. .
…. so how do we solve those?
It’s so complex mostly people find one
part that makes sense, give up on the
rest, and hope that the market a place of
ideas will solve it. Meaning that as other
people solve other parts they focus on
their part but then how all the parts
fit together, how the whole works
nobody’s really paying attention to.
[…]
But they all have to be informed by
understanding the problems in the
interconnection of the whole well enough
that you don’t advantage one part while
externalizing the cost to the other areas
https://youtu.be/3bxzo79SjpE?t=5065
——-
usable energy is stored sunlight … firewood and agriculture first, then came fossil fuel energy
from https://youtu.be/3bxzo79SjpE?t=1279
and now you also have
more stuff that is worth invading for
another tribe so now you have to do
defense and military and all the things
that go along with having that surplus
[ or taking that surplus from others by force ]
and now for the first time the economics
of needing to deal with surplus come
about so private property ownership and
inheritance and all those things it was
like it was a big deal […]
…. that was when our species ate the apple in the garden of eden
from this the first time you want
to start clear cutting an area to turn
it into [ permanent ] agriculture land for lots of
grain – you’ve got to row crop it to
then be able to drag a plow behind it
so you can kind of consider the
beginning of the Anthropocene and the
beginning of extraction of stored energy
corresponding together […]
and
what also happened is that’s when
inequality really started to occur
[ and class distinctions ]
we were always in equal in terms of
status and respect and things like that
but we were always incredibly equal
in terms of consumption because we
didn’t have anything we didn’t have
stuff to carry around with us
everyone’s actual consumption of
outside of the body calories (energy) was
pretty much the same but once we started
storing surplus (grain/energy) that’s when
the hierarchies started, the beginning of
the thing we call “civilization” ….
comment: It’s also the time when Kings were treated literally as Gods on Earth, and State sanctioned Religions for the masses began forming and being imposed by force by the elites of society [ the 1 percenters of their day ] the “holy” Priest-craft surrounding and instructing the Royals who ruled.
Anyway, I think this is a very good discussion series about critically important issues for the future.
Interesting stuff. Just listened to a little bit. Daniel Schmachtenberger appears to be sceptical about renewables technology. I googled the name and he is a “social philosopher and founding member of The Consilience Project, aimed at improving public sensemaking and dialogue. ”
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/global-governance/podcast/12-daniel-schmachtenberger-existential-risk-and-phase-shifting-new-world-system
I just cant take someone like that very seriously talking about engineering technologies when he has no relevant qualifications at all. Its not even clear if he has more than a secodary school education. I have more tertiary education level science / technical expertise than this guy ( as well as having studied some humanities formally) and even I would not put myself on youtube proclaiming all those things.
I couldnt find anything on the other guy.
Mark Jacobson has lead a muti disciplinary team publishing peer reviewed studies that renewables are viable at scale. This is more credible.
But I do think your videos make a good point that no energy system is compatible with endless economic growth, given ultimate resource constraints. But that just means growth will slow down of its own accord and energy systems will hit a limiting factor.
The thing is what are the alternatives to building renewables or nuclear power ( as best we can) ? I dont believe there are any. The idea we will all just voluntarily reduce our energy consumption by vast amounts is just a fantasy dream. It would only happan at scale at the point of a gun. (I’m not a big consumer by the way, but for my income bracket I’m the exception)
The history of how our civilisation has grown and become complex and this has generated inequality sounds right, but its not clear where you go from there, because we cannot snap our fingers and make everything simple overnight and go back in time. We have 8 billion people and counting, all dependant on a massively complex system with jobs invested in that system, and changing that is not going to be either quick or easy, unless you take to it with an axe then we will have a collapse of civilisation of huge proportions.
Basically humanity faces a shockingly difficult challenge, not just technically but pscho – socially, but I think some things are possible: A new energy grid, even if we have to keep some gas fired power, some form of circular economy, more sustainable passive solar buildings, and some form of organic farming, although I dont peronally subscribe to purist or doctrinaire approaches..
End of rant.
nigelj “Just listened to a little bit.”
Par for the course. I did say no one posting here would likely be interested or understand it. I shared it for the anonymous visitors, not you!
QUOTING ….
XRRC says
28 Jan 2022 at 4:14 PM
Daniel Schmachtenberger “Bend Not Break Part 1: Energy Blindness” (on youtube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxzo79SjpE
I believe only a very view viewers of RC would be interested in (or understand the relevance or usefulness of) what Danial and Nathan https://twitter.com/NJHagens have to say. But for the few people who might here’s some background info to consider if it might be worth the effort.
and QUOTING
XRRC says
28 Jan 2022 at 6:15 PM
I cannot imagine anyone who makes comments here being interested in the following indepth article https://consilienceproject.org/pallets-of-bricks/
But just in case there is some anonymous viewer who has been looking for just this kind of unbiased intelligent analysis to help them make better sense of the world and the disgusting polarized information being spread by politicians the media and social media / trolls I’m sharing it anyway.
and QUOTING
XRRC says
28 Jan 2022 at 2:52 PM
The Great Simplification: Episode #5 – Daniel Schmachtenberger
Bend Not Break Part 1: Energy Blindness
podcast with video
This is the first of several episodes unpacking the biophysical/cultural constraints we face. Broadly we want to discuss what society/government/individuals need to do to navigate towards a ‘bend’ scenario and avoid ‘breaking’ in coming decade(s). In this first conversation, Daniel flips the script and interviews me on how energy, materials and technology interrelate to a growth based civilization. Our culture is energyblind.
Todays podcast is the first of several conversations – where Daniel flips the script and interviews me about energy. In future episodes Daniel and I will explore the Superorganism (Daniel refers to it as Game A) and lay out cultural paths forward.
I’m a novice at social media (and dislike self-promotion!) but am advised by ppl I trust this is the only way to expand awareness. (When in Rome, must Tweet not fiddle.)
I’ve spent last 20 years learning, honing and simplifying the core drivers of the human predicament: energy/technology, anthropology/psychology and ecology. Many others have arrived at conclusions that rhyme but add more context, insight and hope. Daniel is one of those.
https://twitter.com/NJHagens
https://natehagens.substack.com/p/the-great-simplification-episode
(God help us)
and SEE https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/05-daniel-schmactenberger
But Nigel and that Barton troll, many thanks for the confirmation I was right!
nigelj “Just listened to a little bit.”
No surprises there. Nor are the light weight assumptions and rush to judgment after only listening to a little bit.
I did say no one posting here would likely be interested or understand it. I shared it for the anonymous visitors, not you!
QUOTING ….
XRRC says
28 Jan 2022 at 4:14 PM
Daniel Schmachtenberger “Bend Not Break Part 1: Energy Blindness” (on youtube)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bxzo79SjpE
I believe only a very view viewers of RC would be interested in (or understand the relevance or usefulness of) what Danial and Nathan https://twitter.com/NJHagens have to say. But for the few people who might here’s some background info to consider if it might be worth the effort.
and QUOTING
XRRC says
28 Jan 2022 at 6:15 PM
I cannot imagine anyone who makes comments here being interested in the following indepth article https://consilienceproject.org/pallets-of-bricks/
But just in case there is some anonymous viewer who has been looking for just this kind of unbiased intelligent analysis to help them make better sense of the world and the disgusting polarized information being spread by politicians the media and social media / trolls I’m sharing it anyway.
and QUOTING
XRRC says
28 Jan 2022 at 2:52 PM
The Great Simplification: Episode #5 – Daniel Schmachtenberger
Bend Not Break Part 1: Energy Blindness
podcast with video
This is the first of several episodes unpacking the biophysical/cultural constraints we face. Broadly we want to discuss what society/government/individuals need to do to navigate towards a ‘bend’ scenario and avoid ‘breaking’ in coming decade(s). In this first conversation, Daniel flips the script and interviews me – A PROFESSOR NO LESS – on how energy, materials and technology interrelate to a growth based civilization. Our culture is energyblind.
I’ve spent last 20 years learning, honing and simplifying the core drivers of the human predicament: energy/technology, anthropology/psychology and ecology. Many others have arrived at conclusions that rhyme but add more context, insight and hope. Daniel is one of those.
https://twitter.com/NJHagens
https://natehagens.substack.com/p/the-great-simplification-episode
and SEE https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/05-daniel-schmactenberger
But Nigel and the ignorant insulting T r o l l many thanks for the confirmation I was right!
XRRC, I was too busy to listen to the whole thing. I had some thoughts on what I read, and I know if I don’t post those immediately it will never get done.
And you haven’t made any actual substantive rebuttals of my comments. The truth hurts!
Don’t get my wrong. I did say the material was interesting and its worth a read. I’ve formally studied some social sciences and personally I think they have much to offer on understanding the way we are dealing (or not dealing ) with the climate problem. But sometimes these social scientists are way out of their zone of expertise, verging on dunning kruger.
You still do not know what it is all about while blathering on about unrelated biased opinionated generalities of no substance.
Neither are social scientists, but never let the truth get in the way of denying the undeniable while spreading disinformation and falsehoods about others, articles and discussions.
It qualifies you as being a disruptive disingenuous troll of little substance who seems to enjoy the sound of his own voice. (Don’t we all?) Of course your entitled to your opinions about everything. Feel free to pronounce them every day.
But I do not make substantive rebuttals to made up fictions. Haven’t you noticed? :-)
XRRC.
I did not have to read the full article to make a simple observation of the QUALIFICATIONS of the writer.
The point I made is at least one of the writers is making technical criticisms of renewables, but has no relevant qualifications. His qualifications are a social philosopher ( as per the link I posted). There are way too may completely unqualified people on you tube making out they are experts. His biography did not list ANY tertiary level qualifications. You havent been able to rebut any of that.
I would categorise social philosophy as at least being similar to being a social scientist.. I have heard philosophy categorised as being one of the social sciences. But that is not the main point anyway. The point is is qualifications simply arent relevant to a tecnnical analysis. Your complaining that I categorised him allegedly incorrectly doesn’t invalidate the main point I made. This is self evident logic.
I’m not a troll. I’m not making inflammatory lying claims, or calling the man an idiot. Thats normally how trolling is defined. He’s obviously not an idiot and I agree with may of the other points he made
I do plead guilty to being opinionated, ha ha. And probably annoying!
To be fair you weren’t being like a troll but I’ve been learning from others here on how to exaggerate and use hyperbole better. :-)
XR: I posted some info elsewhere about Renewables lack of “build out” capacity making them essentially unable to maintain both expected/planned economic growth plus replacing fossil fuel energy generation over time.
BPL: Fortunately, nobody paid attention.
Nathan is pro renewables but he accepts they cannot support the existing economic system were fossil fuels massively reduced or abandoned to cut emissions.
To be fair, he’s pro-renewables because he is resigned to us not solving our problems via degrowth. He’s definitely a degrowth proponent first, but now has given up on us being sane.
how the whole works nobody’s really paying attention to.
Oh, there are a few of us…
But they all have to be informed by
understanding the problems in the
interconnection of the whole well enough
that you don’t advantage one part while
externalizing the cost to the other areas
Indeed. Ask a permaculturist.
we were always in equal in terms of
status and respect and things like that
Not quite accurate, but close enough.
but we were always incredibly equal
in terms of consumption because we
didn’t have anything we didn’t have
stuff to carry around with us
everyone’s actual consumption of
outside of the body calories (energy) was
pretty much the same but once we started
storing surplus (grain/energy) that’s when
the hierarchies started, the beginning of
the thing we call “civilization” ….
Storing grains and surplus were not the problem. There are still tribes that are hunter-gatherer-farmers (the actual state of most of what we call H-G groups) that do keep grain stocks for periods of low production. It was switching to sedentary systems that relied on non-natural production that did us in. Luckily, some few weren’t as stupid as the rest of us and resisted the shift into rigid hierarchies so that we have models of what regenerative actually is.
Yes that’s fine Killian. Good points there.
Though others should see these little quotes as only rough summaries taken during a verbal discussion back and forth so not read as the “definitive extent of the views” that informs the commentary. Like I see the thing about storing grains as more a timing point rather than the main causative driver of change into hierarchies.
But switching to sedentary systems that relied on non-natural production that did us in makes really good sense.
“because he is resigned to us not solving our problems via degrowth.” whereas I see it as him being realistic about the short term impossibility of a cultural political system changes towards de-growth policy. (maybe that means the same thing?) keeping in mind the focus was on Energy Blindness.
There’s a good section in the beginning where Nate gives an overview, such as why he sees nothing being done effectively until serious impacts and failures breakages in global systems begin … and that his objective is to at least help to educate as many people as possible about ways to then step into the leadership void and start taking better actions ….. now who knows if that is the way to go or not, but that’s how he sees it today.
But don’t take my word for it, better to hear it directly from him (and daniel), for I’m not a court reporter. :-)
I’m more interested how these kinds of discussions & info can activate better thinking in some readers/viewers, and not so much bothered by whatever they say is 100% perfect or applicable in every way. Regenerative approaches will get there (bigger scale of acceptance/use) eventually. Keep at it. I do not see that or anything else getting in the way of global systemic collapse of BAU socially, agriculturally, politically and economically first. Too much inertia. Too many know nothing. Too many humans do not care, or are too selfish and self-centered.
Wind Opponents Kill Rabbits to Lure Raptors:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LGuJ-hoIi4I
Appalling…
People will believe almost anything without any direct evidence. I saw none to support that headline only hearsay based on nothing but wild guesses.
The Gulf of Tonkin incident is one example. Innocent Muslims falsely accused of crimes caged and gagged on Gitmo for life is another. Iraq with WMD and humidicribs stolen from Kuwait are two other classics. All even involved “in the know” Officials giving “evidence/testimony” under oath to Congressional hearings no less.
Figures XR, with his hatred of renewables, would refuse to believe the evidence.
XRRC, does seem to dislike renewables and favour nuclear power. I wonder if its to do with him / her living in Australia. They have a lot of uranium! Of course he will deny it all!
Barton Paul outrageously claims “XR, with his hatred of renewables… “
No one who was genuine and decent could possibly arrive at such a conclusion. No one.
Australia does mine a lot of uranium (~12% of world production), but we export it all. We re-import a little of it as uranium fuel rods for our single 20MW research/isotope production reactor at Lucas Heights, because we have no uranium refining or enrichment facilities.
There is no nuclear electric power generation in Australia.
On the other hand, Australia does have a rapidly growing renewables sector in electric power generation, though it’s still only about 27% of total electricity production.
XR: Barton Paul outrageously claims “XR, with his hatred of renewables… “
…
No one who was genuine and decent could possibly arrive at such a conclusion. No one.
BPL: You have got to be fucking kidding me.
BPL: You have got to be fucking kidding me.
No, I am not fucking kidding you!
(ps, please post the comment, because Being smart is never an excuse for bullying. or being Biased)
You’re correct, XR, to the extent that the identity and motives of the vandals remain unconfirmed. The headline over-reached the story facts in that regard. But unless you want to claim that the video was either deep-faked or staged as a false flag by evil wind plant managers, we have a documented and disturbing incident of animal cruelty that could well have been intended as sabotage for the purpose of creating anti-wind propaganda. Cui bono?
I find your handwaving about false flag examples from the past an unconvincing argument. Yes, it’s a persistent pattern that humans seize gladly on ‘possible facts’ to push narratives that they favor. War is a particularly virulent incubator of this tendency, with politics probably a strong second. Sometimes the truth seems unrecoverable:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Crucified_Soldier
But that some atrocity stories are false certainly does not mean that all atrocity stories are. It just means that due diligence is called for.
By the way, for those who may be baffled, as I was, by the reference to “humidicribs”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nayirah_testimony
@Kevin “It just means that due diligence is called for.” Really??? What exactly are you arguing against?
This statement “People will believe almost anything without any direct evidence. I saw none to support that headline only hearsay based on nothing but wild guesses. “ means that due diligence is called for!
Are you complaining that I did not use the words “due diligence” …. that the analogies were of more dire extreme situations does NOT negate the point of those analogies and how gullible stupid are following the hyperbole of the news media and special interests in society whoever they might be.
For example:
Figures XR, with his hatred of renewables, would refuse to believe the evidence.
and
XRRC, does seem to dislike renewables and favour nuclear power. I wonder if its to do with him / her living in Australia. They have a lot of uranium! Of course he will deny it all!
And yet here you are holing me to account? Seriously?
This was for you as well: https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-3/#comment-801080
It is for everyone. I dare you to listen to the whole hour and do some self-reflection about what is really going on here with the Moral Outrage over those poor dead Bunnies and everything else. In particular the extensive examples of internalized denied racism and the self-righteous white christian supremacy and elitism.
( I said in my outraged hyperbolic extremist moralizing tone!! )
But unless you want to claim that the video was either deep-faked or staged as a false flag by evil wind plant managers…
I do not have to claim anything. And did not. I am not the obsessed compulsive conspiracy theorist on these pages. Others have that despicable honor!
I said what I said. Stop making up offensive hypotheticals of what I could have said but never said …. in order to set a marker for your ideological / political tribe on RC in order to humiliate and browbeat me with false insinuations that never happened.
I’m not trying to “browbeat” you.
And I’m really not arguing “against” anything; more just defending what seems to me to be obvious, which is that killing a dozen rabbits, and then strewing them around the bases of wind turbines to endanger scavenging birds (intentionally or not) is an act of appalling vandalism.
It’s not the worst atrocity ever, sadly–there are so many really awful ones out there in the historical record–but I think it merits a comment or two of condemnation.
Covid demonstrated that technically & politically countries ‘could’ implement policies aligned with 1.5°C. But I think govts will choose not to. Thankfully ‘net zero by not in my term of office’ reconciles all, so we can sleep easily. The sheer scale of rapid global responses brought about by Covid demonstrates that rapid system change is achievable; i.e. it’s a choice – which needs to be informed by equity.
Then there is the utter nonsense that is ‘net-zero by not-in-my-term-of-office’. Rising oil production, airport expansion & more gas pipelines, and expanded exploration leases all fit with net-zero by 2050 or on never-never, but not with 1.5-2°C carbon budgets. Sadly politicians love net-zero & academics & climate scientists are unprepared to call it out.
Cruel optimism and climate change is a deadly combo: time to let go of 1.5°C (and Net Zero by 2050)
[ a long read aka how the world has gone completely mad, scientists included ]
For a slightly deeper dive, imagine for a moment that #YesWeCan is an orchestra and the general public are packed into an imaginary auditorium. The orchestra consists of governments on strings, corporations on brass, academia on woodwind and civil society on percussion. As with any symphonic arrangement, each section of the orchestra rehearses and plays its own score. For the most part, the strings, woodwind and brass (governments, corporations and academia) carry the symphony. But every so often the music reaches a crescendo and the percussion section (civil society) silences the rest of the orchestra. Picture Greta Thunberg crashing the cymbals and Leonardo Di Caprio pounding the kettle drums.
What the audience hears is coherence around #YesWeCan. That the orchestra barely sees each other between concerts or even blanks one another at rehearsals is not important. Once combined, they collectively carry the tune that imagined salvation demands.
And the orchestra’s conductor? Well, her name is TINA: There Is No Alternative (as popularised by the Conservative British prime minister Margaret Thatcher during the 1980s). And everyone in the orchestra follows TINA’s direction for fear of being asked to leave.
Les enfants terribles
#YesWeCan may indeed hold the whip hand but mercifully not everyone wants to play along. In late 2018, the emergence of Extinction Rebellion proved to be a cultural moment. Unfurling banners saying “We’re Fucked” and “Hope Dies, Action Begins”, the activists were giving #YesWeCan the finger.
This was encapsulated in its second of three demands that the UK government reach Net Zero by 2025, a knowingly impossible ask but one that at least took its cue from science. Scoffed at by much of the mainstream, Extinction Rebellion nevertheless showed the UK public, if only for a moment, there was most definitely a glitch in the matrix.
For government, and those determined to maintain business as usual, Extinction Rebellion and Insulate Britain’s greatest crime was not to inconvenience the public but to momentarily call out Mutually Assured Protection. To broadcast on an almost subconscious wavelength that #YesWeCan is self-serving bullshit and that it is well and truly FivePastMidnight for doing anything about climate change.
Inger Andersen, executive director of UNEP, came closest when ahead of COP26 he said: “To stand a chance of limiting global warming to 1.5 °C, we have eight years to almost halve greenhouse gas emissions: eight years to make the plans, put in place the policies, implement them and ultimately deliver the cuts.” Andersen’s summary is self-consciously incompatible with the cruising speed of the machine. Yet he doesn’t kick over the final skittle by saying 1.5 °C is now gone. But then in his defence, neither has anybody else in high public office. and neither have the Climate Scientists!
https://medium.com/@marclopatin/cruel-optimism-and-climate-change-is-a-deadly-combo-time-to-let-go-of-1-5-c-a698c18cb0f4
Making green extreme: defending fossil fuel hegemony through citizen exclusion
By marking protests as violent and protesters as extremists, politicians and governments around the world have reclassified citizens’ environmental engagement. Government rhetoric and accompanying legislative amendments establish a baseline by which citizens – and their causes – are excluded and discounted.
While the state’s regulation of protests helps to protect the object of protest – in this case the fossil fuel industry – we demonstrate how such legislation is also shaped by the futures and logics promoted by the industry.
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13621025.2021.2011145 (not open access)
Fascists are everywhere in the west nowadays. and I do not use that term loosely. It fits perfectly well.
Why are comments not showing as being posted (waiting for moderation)?
Happening intermittently for several days now.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FKZUJoXXIAAFk17?format=jpg&name=large
With any luck it’s because of this:
“Comment Policy:Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the Nth COMMENT YOU HAVE POSTED IN A VERY SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.”
:)
Reading the comments above, I see folks are blaming everything under the sun for AGW, except for the one thing most responsible: that thing they see every time they look in the mirror! Stop using FFs. Put your money where your pie hole is. Walk your talk.
No it’s not the comment policy stuff, there is an intermittent systems fault/failure onsite here or on my own pc with some comments not showing up immediately after hitting “post comment” ….. which is why I already stated not showing as being posted (waiting for moderation).
KIA: I see folks are blaming everything under the sun for AGW, except for the one thing most responsible: that thing they see every time they look in the mirror! Stop using FFs. Put your money where your pie hole is. Walk your talk.
BPL: Individuals can’t change policy, and it’s national policy in 200 countries that has to change, not individual virtue. But for the record, we bought a hybrid, insulated our house, recycle, and are planning to change our gas stove for an electric. What have you done?
You are worse than useless. People use fossil fuels because the economy as now constituted does not present them with other options. This is NOT an issue of personal responsibility so much as a failure of the economic system to provide what is needed.
Its both Ray. We do have some personal options like buying EVs or hybrids and in some places that use subsidies they are affordable. We can choose to do less air travel and that’s important because low carbon air travel is still a long way off.
But its not realistic to expect people do go poor, or freeze to death or spend a fortune on solar panels. And none of this will solve the climate problem without a clean zero carbon energy grid and only governments and corporates can build that. And I would say a new energy grid and transport system is the main thing that will lead the way.
Thanks to @Jeremy_Williams for bringing this analysis to such a broad audience.
Author of the book “Climate Change is Racist: Race, Privilege, and the Struggle for Climate Justice”.
27th January 2022
Climate change divides along racial lines. Could tackling it help address longstanding injustices?
Climate change and racism are two of the biggest challenges of the 21st Century. They are also strongly intertwined. There is a stark divide between who has caused climate change and who is suffering its effects. People of colour across the Global South are those who will be most affected by the climate crisis, even though their carbon footprints are generally very low. Similar racial divides exist within nations too, due to profound structural inequalities laid down by a long legacy of unequal power relationships.
For some, it can be disconcerting to hear terms such as “racism” and “white supremacy” used in discussions about climate change. Climate change is often understood as an environmental issue, one that we are all in together, and therefore not something that could be in any way construed as racist.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220125-why-climate-change-is-inherently-racist
Research some of the above material is based upon
Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary by Jason Hickel September, 2020 (open access)
As of 2015, the USA was responsible for 40% of excess global CO2 emissions. The European Union (EU-28) was responsible for 29%. The G8 nations (the USA, EU-28, Russia, Japan, and Canada) were together responsible for 85%. Countries classified by the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change as Annex I nations (ie, most industrialised countries) were responsible for 90% of excess emissions. The Global North was responsible for 92%. By contrast, most countries in the Global South were within their boundary fair shares, including India and China (although China will overshoot soon).
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(20)30196-0/fulltext
I agree with Williams that climate change and racism are both serious problems. Racism really gets on my nerves because there’s no sense in it. Its offensive to basic rational thinking.
However I don’t think racism as such is related to climate issues. Racism is usually defined as discrimination based on skin colour and race. Hard to see a direct connection to the climate issue.
The issue is more just a climate issues division between poor and rich countries. The race of these countries is coincidental and irrelevant. Poor countries have largely contributed the least to the climate problem but due to geographical circumstances will be the hardest hit.
But poor countries are mostly striving to increase their wealth and thus carbon emissions and nobody should be guilty for where they were born.
I’m happy to do something to help people in those countries (I donate to international causes) but I wont be giving up my car. I have my limits on what I will do. Most people posture and lecture on the subject. I’m just being honest.
I don’t think that the “race of these countries” is coincidental. “Race” as it is understood now is a social construct developed by those rich western countries to justify their exploitation and conquest (or armed robbery) of the poorer ones. Their inhabitants were allegedly of inferior races that could be utilized and subjugated for their own good, or else killed off with little moral stain when they resisted.
nigelj “I don’t think racism as such is related to climate issues – Hard to see a direct connection to the climate issue. “
Many people who live in those nations apparently disagree, because I looked and listened. I have shared refs here in recent times of these historical and current racism issues raised by them related to climate and there was all that Loss and Damage and Reparations topic which happened at COP26 sprayed across climate news sites for weeks on end.
Books have been written about it, as per Jeremy_Williams in the comment above, the academic research literature is extensive – https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=climate+change+policy+racism+global+south&btnG= extending across Twitter and Youtube as well. But maybe they do not know what they are talking about and it is all some underhanded strategy to rip off the wealthy nations and gullible donors. I guess it is theoretically possible …..
“Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.”
— John Lennon “Strawberry Fields Forever” (1967)
You probably would say the same thing about COVID–and yet, black and brown people are dying at multiples of the rate of whites. Poor and minority people everywhere are relegated to the poorest sites–and those are precisely the sites that will be hit hardest by climate change.
The privileged assholes all over the world are less motivated to address climate change because they know they’ll be the last to be severely affected by it. So they will always succumb to the temptation to wring one last dollar out at the expense of the planet and of the poor.
Ray Ladbury. Yes ok, but what has that got do do with ‘racism’ by the conventional definition? There’s a difference between issues of race and racism.
The most one could argue is western countries ignore the plight of poor countries on racist grounds. But western countries donate aid to a wider range of poor countries of wildly varying races and skin colours including all races, so I’m not sure racism in that sense is a huge factor. these days. it certainly was in the past.
Racism may be factor at an individual level when people donate to causes in poor countries..
No Nigel. “what has that got do do with ‘racism’ by the conventional definition?” is asking the wrong question. It’s denial of the existing widespread credible evidence.
The right question is what does it have to do with ideas discussed in the book “Climate Change is Racist: Race, Privilege, and the Struggle for Climate Justice”, https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220125-why-climate-change-is-inherently-racist
in the peer reviewed papers here https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=climate+change+policy+racism+global+south&btnG=
and in this paper Quantifying national responsibility for climate breakdown: an equality-based attribution approach for carbon dioxide emissions in excess of the planetary boundary by Jason Hickel https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanplh/article/PIIS2542-5196(20)30196-0/fulltext
and the data here https://ourworldindata.org/co2-emissions and here https://ourworldindata.org/contributed-most-global-co2
and the peer reviewed data here National contributions to observed global warming https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/9/1/014010/meta
and here https://unfccc.int/sites/default/files/resource/cma2021_08_adv_1.pdf
and here https://wid.world/news-article/climate-change-the-global-inequality-of-carbon-emissions/
and here The richest 10% produce about half of greenhouse gas emissions. They should pay to fix the climate — https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/dec/07/we-cant-address-the-climate-crisis-unless-we-also-take-on-global-inequality
That means you Nigel due to your cumulative life contribution and likely everyone viewing this website
and here the Climate Equity Monitor based in India https://climateequitymonitor.in/
and https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/05/carbon-top-1-percent-could-jeopardise-1point5c-global-heating-limit
And those “Anti-Capitalists” here at OXFAM https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/carbon-inequality-in-2030-per-capita-consumption-emissions-and-the-15c-goal-621305/
and here from the UN / UNEP Emissions Gap Report 2021 https://www.unep.org/resources/emissions-gap-report-2021
and here too Institute for European Environmental Policy https://ieep.eu/news/more-than-half-of-all-co2-emissions-since-1751-emitted-in-the-last-30-years
and not wanting to overlook this other Peer Reviewed Science Paper here – The role of high-socioeconomic-status people in locking in or rapidly reducing energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-021-00900-y
saying in the Abstract – People with high socioeconomic status disproportionately affect energy-driven greenhouse gas emissions directly through their consumption and indirectly through their financial and social resources.
and in all those COP26 Loss and Damage discussions and multiple lessons of Colonialism being shared by hundreds to thousand of people around the world as you distract away from and deny the topic has any relevance at all.
Such as
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-11-12/how-wealth-inequality-fuels-the-climate-emergency-george-monbiot-scientist-kevin-anderson-on-cop26/
https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidrvetter/2021/11/02/oppose-this-climate-slavery-a-manifesto-to-cop26-from-a-west-african-climate-activist/
https://twitter.com/lizwathuti/status/1455518577327542273
Speech: Mia Mottley, Prime Minister of Barbados at the Opening of the #COP26 World Leaders Summit https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN6THYZ4ngM
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/08/china-calls-for-concrete-action-not-distant-targets-in-last-week-of-cop26
https://twitter.com/KanitkarT/status/1458103533979459593
Wrapping up COP26 with Professor Kevin Anderson
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIZlZRJ8KIs
COP26’s final agreement is a failure and a betrayal of those most vulnerable to climate change
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/cop26-final-agreement-climate-failure-betrayal-1300152
Least developed countries Group react to COP26
https://www.ldc-climate.org/press_release/least-developed-countries-group-react-to-cop26/#.YZDR7weDgt4.twitter
https://twitter.com/XRebellionUK/status/1463062765128470529
Why Articles 3.1, 4.3-4.7? Where were we in 1990? 71% of emissions by 18% of global population in developed countries. Situation has not changed much between 1991 and 2019, except perhaps for China.
https://twitter.com/KanitkarT/status/1463776666723880960
PM Modi refers to attempts to hijack the climate agenda by the “colonial mindset”.
https://twitter.com/tjayaraman/status/1464546694515679232
Africa worst hit by climate change impacts, COP26 told
Agriculture badly affected by low rainfall levels and high temperatures
https://www.nature.com/articles/d44148-021-00107-z
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-11-12/how-wealth-inequality-fuels-the-climate-emergency-george-monbiot-scientist-kevin-anderson-on-cop26/
Do people consciously choose to be Blind — ?
The impact of colonialism on policy and knowledge production in International Relations
https://academic.oup.com/ia/article/98/1/5/6484845
Plunder in the Post-Colonial Era: Quantifying Drain from the Global South Through Unequal Exchange, 1960–2018
https://static1.squarespace.com/static/59bc0e610abd04bd1e067ccc/t/60642e4f3bd29a1c5bb36e31/1617178208144/Hickel+et+al+-+Plunder+in+the+post-colonial+era.pdf
Amitav Ghosh: European colonialism helped create a planet in crisis
Indian author says pillaging of lands and killing of indigenous people laid foundation for climate emergency
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jan/14/amitav-ghosh-european-colonialism-helped-create-a-planet-in-crisis
The IMF allots voting rights and emergency funds according to an outdated and unfair quota system established in 1944, before most colonies were free. Let’s change it
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/jan/14/heres-how-to-repay-developing-nations-for-colonialism-and-fight-the-climate-crisis
How thoroughly inconvenient knowledge is today!
RC Rocks,
“No Nigel. “what has that got do do with ‘racism’ by the conventional definition?” is asking the wrong question. It’s denial of the existing widespread credible evidence……The right question is what does it have to do with ideas discussed in the book “Climate Change is Racist: Race, Privilege, and the Struggle for Climate Justice”, in the peer reviewed papers here…”
I cant see where I have denied any “evidence”. Firstly the book is just someones opinions. Its not a peer reviewed study. I have already exlained why I think its attempts to link racism ( as opposed to simple ideas about race) and climate change are on shaky ground. You havent shown me a good argument why I’m wrong.
The peer reviewed studies in your google scholar page dont even relate to climate change. The other peer reviewed studes and guardian articles etcetera you list relate to issues of differences between the emissions in the global north and south and global inequality. I dont dispute those but its stretching things way beyond credibility to call that “racism”. Ive already read some of that material and dont recall the word racism. I would categorise it as greed or perhaps selfishness or denial of responsibility etc.
I post those sorts of articles myself sometimes.
But thanks for the interesting debate and not too much shouting and no name calling.
Don’t misunderstand me nigel. It’s all fine you have your opinions and say what you say about the refs. Of course many peer reviewed studies are not perfectly correct either. So it’s fine if you don’t want to read or accept them, or listen to feedback / opinions from other experts, or consider they are off-topic not related to climate change etc that’s your right to do so.
Forums and social media are perfect to expressing one’s own opinions about anything until the cows come home (as they say).
I rarely do myself because I am far from convinced and certain about anything beyond my own first hand direct experience. eg commentary about decency and so on here. You see when people mislabel me and accuse me of being anti-capitalist or a communist apologist well, I know for certain they are full of over the top emotional re-activeness and totally wrong. I know to be careful because it signals a credibility problem.
So I much prefer to pass on interesting ideas and research from other far wiser heads and those with experience I don’t have (eg global south people and alt economics ideas etc) , and more knowledgeable about a whole range or climate related topics. It’s really interesting to observe the varying types of (surprising) reactions and responses that arise from that material. It says more about others, (including the ad hom put downs that seem never ending from a handful) and less about the value of the information shared itself.
This is what I do. I try to learn from that. Almost all of what I copy paste share in my opinion at least fits the general topic of Mitigation here perfectly well. That people disagree with it is not my concern. Not losing any sleep over it. :-)
Nigel, Why do you think people of color find themselves relegated to the riskiest places? This didn’t just happen. It is the result of hundreds of years of government policies and personal attitudes motivated by racism. Until very, very recently, racism was the default mindset. It was the default motivator for policy. It is still the go-to explanation for a large minority if not the majority of well-off white people. Racism has infused itself into every aspect of society. That means we have to take that history into account as we try to understand the present and rectify our institutions.
In the past, when catastrophe occurred in these areas, people may have thought overtly, that “Well, they were black…:” or “Well, they were brown…” Now, we dismiss the tragedy with “Well, they were poor…” That is no less racist, because it was precisely the same attitudes from the past that relegated people of color to poverty. The conventional “liberal” attitude maintains that if we make things better overall, then we will make things better for people of color. That is not sufficient. Rather, we must eradicate the flaws that have our past attitudes have created. If we make things better for those who have suffered most in the past and who are still suffering, we will make things better for everybody. It is only by rectifying our past flawed visions that we can see our current situation with sufficient clarity to resolve it.
Ray Ladbury
Ray, I have to say that your…
” If we make things better for those who have suffered most in the past and who are still suffering, we will make things better for everybody.”
… is naive; it is well meant, but not realistic.
Science tells us that humans, like chimps, are highly motivated by status within groups and by the status of their group relative to others. Consider the recent history of the USA.
The result of having a Black President with a very classy family do a pretty decent job for 8 years was… a virulent outpouring of rage and hatred. It wasn’t just some fringe extremists; it was a very substantial portion of the population. And with a woman (a member of a group that has also suffered in the past) running for President, a substantial majority of White women voted for the sleaziest misogynist one could imagine. (And even more of them did that in the last election, I think.)
So no, all of those people whose childhood and early experience produced an Authoritarian psychology, for whom self-worth is dependent on group identity and feeling superior to… somebody… anybody… are not going to see themselves as “better off”. And that’s a lot of people.
I know this is a scary thing to think about, but I don’t see an easy fix. As with the climate problem, it is necessary to make progress but not expect some immediate magic solution.
Being right and righteous just isn’t enough.
XRRC.
And don’t misunderstand me. I think your references are good. Please note that I said I had ALREADY read some of them. I gravitate to the same sort of material. I just don’t think they support the racism / climate connection. I do think there’s worrying inequality between north and south.
“You see when people mislabel me and accuse me of being anti-capitalist or a communist apologist well, I know for certain they are full of over the top emotional re-activeness and totally wrong. ”
People scan stuff quickly and jump to the wrong conclusions. I’ve seen scientists here do that. Maybe I do it occasionally. But you might avoid misinterprations if you clarified your own position in brackets when posting copy and paste material
I can see where you are coming from on communism and capitalism, Russia, China and America etc ,etc. To me Americas foreign policy can be self serving and hypocritical. But for me Russia and China is no better.
Ray Ladbury.
“Nigel, Why do you think people of color find themselves relegated to the riskiest places? (from climate change) This didn’t just happen. It is the result of hundreds of years of government policies and personal attitudes motivated by racism. ”
Where I live our dark skinned Maori indigenous people largely live inland away from expensive coastal property and the risks of sea level rise. People living in at risk tropical countries were largely born there. People living in low quality housing ( at risk from Hurricanes? No air conditioning ) is largely about their income levels / education levels etc.
But I guess there would be some racist policies that pushes some people into low quality housing. However its getting pedantic in terms of the climate issue and I really do think its all more about income levels, and just poor people not always getting a fair go. Such racist policies are of course absolutely odious.
Yes; racism is, in part, the ingrained belief that one sort of people are somehow ‘more human’ than other sorts. (This is the ‘implicit bias’ piece, which is usually entangled with institutional aspects such as regulatory, economic, media and educational structures which ‘systematize’ that bias.)
You can see it clearly in the ‘white liberal’ response to MLK, which he famously decried in the “Letter from Birmingham jail.” Eight white clergymen had questioned the need for “outside agitators” and direct action, calling for patience and negotiation to achieve justice.
He answered by, in effect, showing them the full humanity of his community, and their ongoing suffering:
Presumably the pious and ‘reasonable’ addressees were unaware of all those exigencies; otherwise, why would MLK have laid them out, however eloquently? But they must have been aware of the gruesome lynching of Emmett Till, and all the thousands of such incidents collectively memorialized in Billie Holliday’s “Strange Fruit,” and of the profoundly unequal status of the African-Americans in their lives (for it’s almost a given that they had “colored help” working for them. Nor could they have been unaware of the pervasive legal and quasi-legal structures seeking to perpetuate that inequity; those were firmly in the public record by 1963. They would also have known that MLK and associates had been targeted by bombs–for instance, on May 11th, when the hotel he was using was destroyed by one. Those and other bombings turned out to be a prequel to the September bombing of the 16th St. Baptist Church, which killed four young girls.
The only conclusion that I can reach is that, although those reasonable, well-intentioned clerics were cognitively well-aware of the facts, implicit bias made those same facts feel ‘less important.’
Similarly with the environmental justice issues of today. It’s not just international, nigel; within probably every country, and certainly not least here in the US, environmental impacts fall disproportionately upon people of color. To some degree (and as I discussed in a previous comment today) it’s inherent in the free market in real estate: those with resources will live in the nicest places, and the poorest will tend to be relegated to the nastiest, which certainly includes the most polluted. But it’s hard to imagine that the pervasive, indoctrinated sense that those folks are less important doesn’t also play a big role.
Moreover, there’s an implicit framing implied in what I just said that we need to be very wary about: that since there’s an inherent dynamic associated with market mechanisms, therefore, like the poor in general, ‘pollution victims will be with us always.’ But once upon a time, the sum total of consumer protections consisted of the adage “Caveat emptor.” While that adage still remains good advice, nevertheless we are properly shocked and angry if products sold to us are immediately toxic–and we have meaningful mechanisms to make our outrage felt, too, though perhaps imperfectly.
Today, we can, if we will, decide everybody matters. If we do, we also decide that it is quite simply not acceptable that *anyone* be forced to live with rising seas, or lead-contaminated tapwater, or dioxin-laced foods, or carcinogenic air. If we do that–and MEAN it!–then pollution will become a rarity, equally shocking as e coli in spinach, and those who are responsible will be held accountable, to their serious cost. But why would we take such a troublesome and expensive step as long as we feel that those who suffer are ‘less human?’
Impressive.
Unexpected.
Thanks, but it’s mostly due to MLK. I just hope my contextualizing isn’t wildly off the mark.
nigel “I agree with Williams ……….”
No you do not agree with Williams. You are diametrically opposed to what Williams believes and says.
He says things like “Climate Change is Racist: Race, Privilege, and the Struggle for Climate Justice … Climate change divides along racial lines. “
You say “I don’t think racism as such is related to climate issues.”
The complete opposite of Williams.
nigel “I’m just being honest.”
No you are not being honest. You are as slippery as an eel here, speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. Is it called Discombobulating?
XR: most countries in the Global South were within their boundary fair shares
BPL: A molecule of carbon dioxide doesn’t know what country it comes from. Everybody has to cut fossil fuel emissions, not just “the north” or “the first world.” Saying the third world has a “right” to develop using fossil fuels is like saying it has a right to develop using slavery because the west did.
BPL: A molecule of carbon dioxide doesn’t know what country it comes from.
No, a molecule does not, but we do. At least those of us intelligent enough to grasp the full scope and usefulness of climate science / academic research papers including the IPCC Reports that have analyzed from where all those molecules of carbon dioxide have come from!!!
Never ceases to amaze me how people on a science site go about rationalizing their lack of objectivity and reactionary opinions while repeatedly ignoring the actual content of what is being said by the authors of academic / science papers.
Truly amazing how sensitive those trigger points are when being challenged by scientific objectivity and peer review!!!.
The incendiary reference to Slavery is disingenuous, distasteful, insulting to the many protestations made at COP26 by very genuine and intelligent leaders of the global south. It is over the top hyperbole and racist to the core.
It is a fundamental denial of the UNFCCC Treaties including the basis of Equity and how the whole system was set up to work since 1992. https://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf
Which has always been those most responsible for global warming and those most able to act upon that are do so first and to support the developing nations in the process.
The UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) includes the principle of “common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities”. This principle has been widely used to determine differential national responsibilities for mitigation efforts — since 1992 !!!!!
But here on Real Climate, amazingly, it is now believed unacceptable by those holding extreme positions.
The climate change damages, deaths and costs and the destabilization to today have been caused by “Annex I nations (ie, most industrialised countries) were responsible for 90% of excess emissions. The Global North was responsible for 92%. This is not a secret. It is not a flawed conspiracy theory by idiotic Trumpian anti-vaxxer anti-mask nutters on social media.
As the paper indicates
For this analysis, national fair shares of a safe global carbon budget consistent with the planetary boundary of 350 ppm were derived. These fair shares were then subtracted from countries’ actual historical emissions (territorial emissions from 1850 to 1969, and consumption-based emissions from 1970 to 2015) to determine the extent to which each country has overshot or undershot its fair share. Through this approach, each country’s share of responsibility for global emissions in excess of the planetary boundary was calculated. As of 2015, the USA was responsible for 40% of excess global CO2 emissions…
The facts are the third world / global south does have a “Right” to develop using fossil fuels and it is enshrined in the UNFCCC and in United Nations Charter and everyone except the worst of extremist ideological radicals and rank racists know this and accept it.
Here’s the issue: Having the right does not mean one should. The problem here is your use of the word “develop.” For many, this seems to imply they should be creating at least European-standard middle class lives. This would make dealing with the planetary emergency impossible.
They typical politician, activist, etc., have no idea what a regenerative community looks like. If we sstate they have the right to a regenerative future, that I agree with. To state they have a right to a FF-fueled future might be true in the sense of having the right of self-rule and self-determination, but it would be suicidal for humanity.
Much depends on what one means by “develop” and the right to use FFs. We all will *need* to use FFs as we slow down into simplicity for the simple reason everything we do in our “developed” world is dependent on them, so weaning off of them will not be a one day on, the next day off sort of thing.
Thankfully, though the reason for the imbalance is unjust and deplorable, over half the planet already lives relatively simply and can get to regenerative with a minimum of FF input.
We cannot take the stance that 6 billion people now have the right, and should, use as many tons of FFs as the US has used historically without the very obvious conclusion it would end the global ecosystem as we know it.
Barton,
The global south does have a right to develop, to feet their people and to try to improve their lot. And if the only viable strategy for doing so involves fossil fuel consumption, then that is the choice we have left them. If we want to reduce fossil carbon emissions, then we’d better provide them an alternative.
Agreed, enthusiastically.
However, I think the parallel to slavery–though dangerous because it’s simultaneously emotionally, and politically incendiary and definitionally slippery–is provocative in some good ways as well.
What resonates for me is the sense of being complicit in a destructive system, but being unable to simply ‘opt out.’ One is constantly making all sorts of more-or-less unsatisfactory compromises, just to live one’s life.
Yet there’s also the positive side: legal chattel slavery did come to an end, which inspires me to hope that one day before too long our fossil-fuel-burning practices will, too. If that does come about, as I expect it will, then I think we’ll regard our carbon-polluting days with a horror akin to that felt by most today with respect to slavery.
I entirely agree they have a right to develop, Ray. I never said they didn’t. What I deny is that they have a “right” to do so with fossil fuels, as that would mean destroying world civilization completely. But a lot of people (India specifically, from their diplomats’ past statements) seem to feel that they have a moral right to use fossil fuels to develop because the west did, which is batshit insane.
What I deny is that they have a “right” to do so with fossil fuels, …
That is a denial of human rights writ large. It is colonial racist thinking, as already explained here and elsewhere.
Educate yourself better. You have no right to deny anyone anything, Such self-righteous arrogance. But sadly typical
… as that would mean destroying world civilization completely
No, that is a totally false claim. It is Mystical Hyperbole, Emotional extremism. Fanatical delusion.
Or, show your work. Quote peer reviewed data research and prove that’s true. Or retract it and be silent. Because you are dead wrong.
“…they have a moral right to use fossil fuels to develop because the west did, which is batshit insane.”
No it is not insane, it is eminently rational. Whether the west used them or not is besides the point entirely.
They have a right to develop, period. So does China, Africa, South central America, SE Asia, and Russia, and North Korea and Iran and Afghanistan too. If that means fossil fuel energy in the mix, short term interim or long term that is a justifiable reasonable rational moral and ethic choice to make.
The problem with the global heating from fossil fuel use is the excessive cumulative GHG emissions already dumped in the atmosphere by the western OECD global north colonial nations over the last 200 years!!!
The problem wasn’t caused by what India or China are doing today or tomorrow. They should not suffer poverty or death or lack of a decent meal because America decided on their own arrogance to contribute 40% of all excess GHG emissions all by themselves upon which your massive wealth was built.
Greedy polluting wasteful elitist self-centered bastards. (how’s that for some grandiose moralizing and blaming?)
The moral legal and ethical obligation is upon the rich Global North/Annex 1 nations to not only rapidly cut their own emissions but to take actions to address correct repair the POLLUTION damage they have already caused the ATMOSPHERE and therefore the damages and costs they have already inflicted upon everyone on the planet already.
Be it via Reparations, providing generous beneficial green energy tech grants/equipment access etc, and paying for ongoing Loss and damages, opening up of borders for Climate refugees now and in the future.
The global north should investing big in deploying CDR means to draw GHG emissions from the atmosphere (including forestry and agriculture SOC tech) and out of the oceans to improve acidity and other such mitigation and adaption works.
WE collectively broke it we are collectively historically responsible for it, WE should fix it! Our current national wealth and lifestyles have been built upon that excessive fossil energy use and the global impacts it has already caused.
Even as the global south deploy some new fossil fuel energy supply to improve the lives of people across the board.
If the west/global north does not help the south then there is going to be hell to pay. China and India are already helping out poorer nations with low carbon technology and financing. They have been deploying renewable energy faster than the West nations have while they deploy necessary fossil energy capacity and replaced dirty coal plants with cleaner ones and continue to roll out nuclear plants and development as well.
China is heading to building out nuclear to over 18% of the energy supply post 2050 (iirc). And is creating an export industry as well. That’s moral. That’s rational.
Educate yourself — Category:Power stations in Africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Power_stations_in_Africa
Category:Fossil fuel power stations in Africa by country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Fossil_fuel_power_stations_in_Africa_by_country
The best supplied in Africa – Total capacity 52,811 MW (52 GW) South Africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_power_stations_in_South_Africa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_African_Power_Pool
Wear your hard hat if you go to Florida. Looks like most of the NH is in a giant deep freeze.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/florida-is-so-cold-iguanas-are-falling-out-trees-2022-01-31/
Gavin S. says “Unlike the UNFCCC, the real world responds to physics, not accounting. “
I say similarly, the real world and everything in it, will respond to physics, not modeled projections or RCP/SSPs or Silence.
Levelling up: The next phase of youth climate action in Canada
Technical Paper #2022-1 January 31, 2022
https://cascadeinstitute.org/technical-paper/levelling-up/
Specifically, the study maps out areas of solid “common ground,” as well as areas of belief divergence within the CYCM to help youth and youth-led organizations collaborate more effectively with one another and with other climate actors to accelerate the just transition.
This report shows that the CYCM is in the process of “levelling up”—shifting from strikes and general awareness-raising to more strategic interventions with key climate actors.
Dr. Scott Janzwood is the Deputy Director of Research and Operations at the Cascade Institute. He did his doctoral research focused on the issues of R&D prioritization and uncertainty communication in climate change and planetary defense governance. He has also contributed to projects on improving foresight programs in the public sector. Scott has a PhD in Global Governance from the University of Waterloo.
The Cascade Institute
Study after study establishes that if humanity continues on its current path, a confluence of severe global stresses—environmental, economic, political, and technological—will cause devastating harm in coming decades. These stresses will disrupt vital natural systems, cripple economies, deepen social divisions and ultimately generate widespread societal breakdown and violence.
The Cascade Institute—founded in January 2020—addresses this emerging crisis.
https://cascadeinstitute.org/about/overview/
Nate Hagens holds a Masters Degree in Finance with Honors from the University of Chicago and a Ph.D. in Natural Resources from the University of Vermont. He teaches an Honors course, Reality 101, at the University of Minnesota.
See “Bend Not Break Part 1: Energy Blindness”
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/05-daniel-schmactenberger
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/
and https://read.realityblind.world/view/975731937/
The discussions and information is wide ranging, and system focused. It delved deeply into energy use as well as history and economics. It explains the analysis that Renewables lack a large scale “build out” capacity making them essentially unable to maintain both expected/planned economic growth plus replacing fossil fuel energy generation over time…………. at least under the present accepted systems and internalized beliefs that rules the world.
It’s a contentious issue with a wide range of alternative opinions and varying quality of research. It will not be resolved by Climate Scientists or the IPCC system.
One alternative pov is from Mark Z. Jacobso et al back in 2017, 5 years ago now.
100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight All-Sector Energy Roadmaps for 139 Countries of the World https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf
” SUMMARY
We develop roadmaps to transform the all-purpose energy infrastructures (elec-
tricity, transportation, heating/cooling, industry, agriculture/forestry/fishing)
of 139 countries to ones powered by wind, water, and sunlight (WWS). The
roadmaps envision 80% conversion by 2030 and 100% by 2050. WWS not
only replaces business-as-usual (BAU) power, but also reduces it 42.5%
because the work: energy ratio of WWS electricity exceeds that of combustion
(23.0%), WWS requires no mining, transporting, or processing of fuels (12.6%),
and WWS end-use efficiency is assumed to exceed that of BAU (6.9%). ”
The devil is in the details. Which is way too much work for non-expert alsorans to even read, let alone understand comprehensively and holistically.
Both are good sources of information and analysis, but nothing trumps regenerative systems knowledge and neither knows feck all about that. Check anything you take from either against regenerative systems and the principles underlying them.
To all and everyone
He repears again and again and again those regenerative systems ande teaches that neither know “feck” all about that.
Fekk = etym Fik, = to whip, different from to slam or to slay, , old norse.
We taught the scotsch and the bløuddy brittes how rather to say it you see, and not everyone gets that.
So we try again.
Regenerativge and recycling, permaculture and all that is not anything new at all. Permaculture agriculture on the same spot and acker is an old ideal, and norwegian record is 6000 years. That is online with Tyrkia, China, and Italia. by obvious and prooveable terrasses. Our Killan harly has a clue and especially no linguistic ideas and conscepts and grammars to what that is about, and what rather matters then.
Cycles and re- cycling and permaculture permanent economy is further a basic conscept of biochemistery, to which he is also alian.
I found 2 books many years ago in order to kee0p up with the Antroposophers and sell our apples to them. It was Justus von Liebigs biography from 1880, Liebigs agrochemistery is from about 1840 onward propagatig permaculture sustainability and recycling indeed.
liebigs basic agrochemistery is about possible permaculture an necessary re- cycling all the way. Such as The carbon- cycle, the nitrogen cycle, the water- cycle and the economy and ecology of all that for a possibly sustainable agricultural way of life Notyhing of this was invented by the Killians or further secteric fanatics, they only borrowed details of it and perverted it..
Further in science history from about 1935 and onward, we find 3 very fameous Krebs- cycles of basic biochemical metabolism in all breathing and livintg things. That is Permaculture, integrity and stability, CAUSA FORMALE of life again and all the way.
Thus never buy it from Thinktank. That wine is not honest.
Givinjg a damn to BACCALAQVREVS 1 and even public school, where more enlighted and more civilized people have been educated about this during all the years……
……..Introducing Dia- lectic materialism from the Arbeiter und Bauernfrakultät instead…..
…….is rather how to build ones own and alternative peoples republic and burlglar shop missionary station even at the Real Climate website.
Hans Krebs earned nobel price of Chemistery for his permanent re- cyclings in 1953.
Due to climate, snobbish spindoctoral alternatives to such levels must be disqualified today.
XR: Renewables lack a large scale “build out” capacity
BPL: Which, again, would come as a surprise to all those countries that are already building them out on a large scale.
Correct. Some guys around here get all carried away with intellectual pontificating, and forget to open their eyes and just observe. And yeah we can see the downsides to renewables as well. Nobody claims they are perfect, but show us an alternative that is more workable, ALL THINGS CONSIDERED!
Nigel – and forget to open their eyes and just observe.
Says the man who did not watch the discussion, or read the references. The level of hypocrisy is getting worse.
The discussions and back up refs) explains the analysis…
There is also much to found in all the other materials Nigel has refused to CONSIDER because Opinions = Facts and Evidence and Knowledge.
In 2020 wind and solar generated less than 2500 TWh of energy. Less than Nuclear energy did.
In 2019, just over 4% of global primary energy came from nuclear power and under 4% from Wind and Solar.
Despite nearly 30 years of govt subsidies, pro-Govt regulations, the ramping up of manufacturing capacity, and high level climate/political focus to build out renewable wind and solar it barely accounts for 4% of total global primary energy.
Wind and Solar represent barely half of the global primary energy of todays Hydropower.
Renewables lack a large scale “build out” capacity making them essentially unable to maintain both expected/planned economic growth plus replacing fossil fuel energy generation over time…
context and refs
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-800961
and https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-800690
RCR:
“Nearly 30 years” is apparently supposed to seem like a long time, but is it?
Commercial oil production began in 1840: 182 years
Commercial thermal generation of electricity began in 1882, the same year as commercial hydroelectric generation: 140 years
Commercial nuclear generation of electricity began in 1956: 66 years
All of these forms of power production have had, and in many cases continue to have, significant levels of government subsidies:
https://www.iea.org/topics/energy-subsidies
I also note that the stats used ‘cook’ the comparison in two important ways. First, they use primary energy production as the metric. That may seem appropriate, since the atmosphere doesn’t care about the end use humans had in mind when emitting GHGs, but the fact is that wind and solar don’t by themselves address the whole energy market: that is, they address only the electric generation component. To decarbonize transportation–the next largest emitter after electric generation, IIRC–other technologies, such as BEVs and alt-fuel vehicles. A similar point applies to emissions associated with buildings (space heating, cooking, etc.)
If you look at electric generation stats you find that renewables are now pushing the 30% mark.
https://yearbook.enerdata.net/renewables/wind-solar-share-electricity-production.html
https://www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/renewables
Second, the emphasis on global stats is distorting as well. Again, it may seem equitable because the atmosphere also doesn’t care where GHG emissions occurred; net zero needs to be global. But if we’re assessing the scalability of wind and solar, as we putatively are, we need to recognize that the diffusion of modern RE technology is still in progress. For most of the “last 30 years” there was in fact for most of the world no “govt subsidies” for RE, no “pro-Govt regulations” (whatever that means), no “ramping up of manufacturing capacity” and no “high level climate/political focus to build out renewable wind and solar.” In fact, most of the developing world viewed the whole issue with deep (and not unjustified) suspicion, while more developed nations were, shall we say, equivocal on the whole.
Only now are modern wind and solar–especially the latter–really starting to take off in sub-Saharan Africa.
The 2022 IEA global energy report doesn’t seem to be out yet, but last year’s has this to say:
I’ve been unable, clearly, to match BPL’s concision on this topic. But I’ll try to be pithy in conclusion:
“So, what was that about scalability, again?”
Meant to include the link for the 2021 IEA report–it’s here:
https://www.iea.org/reports/global-energy-review-2021/renewables
30 years is a long time when the consensus is we have ten years left for very significant levels of change – and even more so that it may be too late for that and we may need to be already going backwards WRT atmospheric GHGs – and have but a smallish portion of wind and solar needed globally built out. Even at the growth rates we’ve been seeing, W&S are only 30% of **electricity** generation. Worse, the growth in W&S is only keeping up with increasing demand, not reducing the use of oil.
So, it supposedly can scale up, at 18%/yr, to 100% of *current* electricity demand. But what about the increases?
Even worse, at only 4% of all energy consumption, it would take until 2043 for them to cover all **current** energy needs, not growth included. Of course, there may be 1 or 2 billion more people by then, so… 2050? 2060?
Seems a little late, no?
Then there’s still that 60% of oil use not covered by electricity…
Thanks Kevin. Great. Some references to support your position. That’s unusual on these pages.
So what you’re saying is that you have no idea at all because you have not bothered to check what the whole context was about that statement of time which was describing the general theme of a discussion I shared here:
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/05-daniel-schmactenberger
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/
and https://read.realityblind.world/view/975731937/
That’s fine for you to ignore it all and not want to understand what was said discussed or the ideas behind all that. No problem at all.
I myself have no idea how applicable or accurate their ideas/info might be and I have no fixed opinion about that, nor have I any fixed opinion about the claims you have just made here via quotes Kevin. I don’t consider myself qualified to be the sole judge of all the billions bits of data and the opinionated blow hards out there on climate change primary causes and mitigation because I am not and do not claim to be a know it all.
So thanks for sharing that information. I already knew all about that, but maybe others did not and might benefit from seeing it on these pages. Who knows? Right?
(the discussions and back up refs) explains the analysis that Renewables lack a large scale “build out” capacity making them essentially unable to maintain both expected/planned economic growth plus replacing fossil fuel energy generation over time…………. at least under the present accepted systems and internalized beliefs that rules the world.
context and refs
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-800961
and https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-800690
BPL is no less blinkered than nigel. Sure, we can build them out once. Maaaybe twice. But on and on two to three times a century for generations? No. Not even close to possible. Until there are truly sustainable forms of these systems, they should built out minimally, not maximally.
And what of the 60% of the oil consumption that electricity addresses in no way, shape, or form? And all the waste from stuff we can recycle, but are not and need a 900% build-out for globally? And THEN what about the 30% that is non-recyclable no matter what we do?
And then there’s the little problem of Economics and financing: Who is going to build them out for the world’s poor so we have social and energetic equality? Nobody. Worse, by the time they get a one-to-one build-out of “renewables” to replace FF energy done for the top 10%, the ecosystem and society will almost certainly be collapsed or in the final throes of collapsing. Time matters.
A decade and counting and these realities still do not penetrate the skulls of most posting here. Or even at least some of our hosts.
Mr./Ms. Killian, I believe that your post is not only overly pessimistic, it is also a bit unfair. Renewable energy is called upon for a specific task. ‘Blaming’ renewable energy for not addressing energy consumption in transportation or non-recyclables is not only unfair, it is (more importantly) not helpful.
We have and are implementing strategies to address transportation energy use. Elon Musk is getting fabulously rich producing and promoting one of them. We have biologists, chemists and agronomists working feverishly on reducing or converting waste.
As for helping the world’s poor secure access to renewables, charities have been putting up solar installations in off-grid villages across the world since the mid-1980s.
Instead of complaining about everything, why don’t you go down to one of those charities and sign up?
Given that RE tech is among the most rapidly evolving area on the planet, why would you assume that we’d be doing the same identical thing even 20 years in the future? Let alone for “generations?”
Your question about the “60% of the oil consumption” not addressed by electricity is, IMO, misframed in this context. (Per the EIA, it’s actually 66% for the US *just for transportation,* with an overall number northwards of 99%.)
What I mean is that the fact that wind and solar do not directly address the use of oil non-power-generation contexts–and were never intended to!–isn’t an argument against using them in power generation. Do we need solutions for transport, etc? Yes, of course. (And indirectly, modern RE will play a role by enabling much transportation to be electrified.)
I know where you are coming from–you’ve often expressed the view that we have a quick and easy answer in the form of voluntary simplicity. But I think you drastically underestimate the difficulties of ‘changing hearts and minds,’ much less that of massive re-education of the populace (including, if not thee, then certainly me.)
Either way, we’re not close to “maximal” deployment of RE now–personally, I’d like to see it at ~5-6x current rates. Though I’d also have to say that we’re (thankfully) way past “minimal”, as well.*
All of which said–and FWIW–I think you are absolutely correct to highlight these sustainability issues and the perspective of simplification generally. I don’t think that we are at final answers to these by any means, and I’m quite certain that nothing is going to go quite according to anyone’s master plan anyway. But I don’t think there can be any question but that the human economy needs to scale with the environment. That means that at some point, and I concur it’s going to be all too soon, we absolutely have to say “enough!” or else nature will say it for us. And that’s not a conversation yet being had all that widely.
*Note: in 2020, per BP, the world added 321 TWh/yr of actual generation by wind & solar. At that rate, and not allowing for replacements of RE as it ages out, we’d theoretically replace all FF capacity in 54 years. IIRC, that’s well under half the time needed just a few years ago; luckily the increase in both solar and wind has been exponential, not linear. Who knows, of course, how long that will continue?
Killian. There are some good comments in that, but the fact that the worlds poor are neglected does not in any way, shape or form reduce the usefulness of renewables. Your argument on that is some form of circular reasoning or other fallacy.
I understand the downsides of renewables. We literally wont be able to build them forever because we will run out of some things, or they will get prohibitively expensive to extract. But I would argue that is a fairly long way in the future, and I’m not sure I care that much. By then we might all go back to being hunter gatherers. We wouldn’t have to worry about constantly charging our damn phones.
Or we will be living in Zebras small population high tech. nirvana. Who knows.
And obviously mining the metals required has significant environmental impacts. So there are obvious good reasons to minimise how much renewables we build. The problem is we have a civilisation and its hard infrastructure all dependent on electricity and modern transport and changing that ain’t going to be quick and easy.
rebuilt two to three times a century for generations? … maybe four times or more.
the 60% of the oil consumption that electricity cannot addresses?
Jacobson’s hypothetical theoretically possible paper for 100% WWS energy supply in 2017 says hydrogen fuel cells will be the energy supply for airlines and shipping. With all that hydrogen and supply network being built and maintained using renewable energy via electricity. All cars & small trucks will be BEVS.
And that this can be done by 2040 no less.
Nirvana will break out in this Reality Blind World I am told. I’m not convinced.
Jacobson’s numbers compared to the UK the CCC’s ‘balanced net zero’ pathway still has over 20 million tonnes of CO2 emitted from aviation in 2050 i.e. important frequent fliers mustn’t be inconvenienced. Where the UKs NDC theory/fiction of the 2050 future being better than most.
Who to believe? The IEA? Governments? Climate Brief? Nathan? Tol? The IPCC? Hansen? BPL? Trump?
K: BPL is no less blinkered than nigel. Sure, we can build them out once. Maaaybe twice. But on and on two to three times a century for generations? No. Not even close to possible. Until there are truly sustainable forms of these systems, they should built out minimally, not maximally.
BPL: You never heard of “recycling?” I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but materials can be reused, and should be. It’s called a “circular economy,” and it’s something we have to move to. What’s your alternative? Give up electric power? Not gonna happen.
XR RC, thanks for the kind words at the top of your response. And I thank you for posting the additional links for context; you’re quite correct, I had no inclination to go back and reread old posts, so I did content myself with addressing the immediate points you made solely.
But I must say, I find the post as a whole confusing.
I don’t know how to reconcile this:
With this:
If you already “knew” that RE was observably scaling up very rapidly, why would you–I’m assuming “RC Rocks” is also you–assert the contrary?
Which brings up this bit, which I also find confusing:
(Bolding in original omitted.)
Whoever said you were? Not I. (Nor, for that matter, do I claim to be a ‘know it all.’ Not a title I’d seek…)
Finally I must note that you sound distinctly peeved, despite your protestations not to care. Well, you’re allowed–if that should be the case–and I’m sorry that my comments seem to have incited that. But it’s an important topic, and as such I’ll continue to assert what I believe to be correct. And be open (though not uncritically so) to contrary views.
Re “I already knew all about that”
meaning, I am aware of the data / claims that wind solar are growing in capacity at those kinds of rates, I do check IEA and other from time to time though am not always up to date.
My point was, (in context of everything I said), that I am aware of those numbers and other info you mentioned but do not agree with the take-away meaning being placed upon them.
You see a fast scaling up trend. I say it is not anywhere near significant enough. It is very insufficient. It only looks good relatively but makes no difference to cutting total fossil energy use.
I’ve outlined details about this in another comment today of where we differ and why.
Kevin – “But it’s an important topic, and as such I’ll continue to assert what I believe to be correct. “
Absolutely. AS you should. Don’t mind me or anything I might say. Have at it.
Kevin asking about – “I have no fixed opinion about that, nor have I any fixed opinion about the claims you have just made here via quotes Kevin”
Emphasis on fixed. I’m peeved for several reasons mostly because a simple summary I offered of what I believed the discussion Nate Hagen was having, so people could decide if they might be interested turned into accusations of serious errors on my part has turned into accusations and arguments over over what Renewables lack a large scale “build out” capacity means to others — none of whom seem at all interested in finding out what the discussions themselves said about that matter specifically in the link provided and why I might have mentioned that aspect.
I believe it is a fair appraisal of what they said, what they mean and it simply makes rational sense to me as likely possibly true given what else I know have seen and accumulated knowledge wise. What I got in return was all manner of knee jerk misinterpretations, false accusations, arguments, and mud throwing. (not in that order and not necessarily all form yourself)
The comment, summary I gave was not that big a deal. It seems patently timid and reasonable and an accurate portrayal of what is the case. I thought it simply self-evident given the facts and the data and the current political directions given COP26 and the material covered in that discussion.
By hey, who am I to complain or get peeved?
The concept of net zero hangs in the balance
https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/makingsciencepublic/2021/11/12/the-concept-of-net-zero-hangs-in-the-balance/
https://andthentheresphysics.wordpress.com/2021/04/29/some-thoughts-about-net-zero/
https://theconversation.com/climate-scientists-concept-of-net-zero-is-a-dangerous-trap-157368
A new Tory faction is ‘scrutinising’ net zero – with tactics learned from Brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/feb/01/tory-faction-net-zero-brexit-green-policies
Tim Lenton 2020 @ https://youtu.be/FKjVpyqOZ2w?t=2635
. if we carry on the way we’re going I can’t
see this civilization lasting to the end of this
century. No chance in my view on the
current trajectory. You can differ in your
views, I’m sure you will, but in simple
terms, I don’t think in any sense that we
have the power to kill our own species
that would be phenomenally difficult, but
this civilization I think is really playing
with fire at the moment.
Tim Lenton is Director Global Systems Institute at the University of Exeter
Many of us have been saying so…. for a looong time….
Here’s a good one. The stress levels are rising me thinks.
Glen Peters Research Director @CICERO_klima on past, current, & future trends in energy & emissions.
I had a poll yesterday, on feasibility of 1.5°C (again). I find this topic extremely frustrating, as I am sure most do.
I tried to frame around the possibility of sufficient policy changes? Why? Because then we can draw on IPCC assessed scenarios (love them or hate them).
https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1488424682441383940
“But then I hear about social tipping points, etc. These aren’t modeled, so sure, this could be a pathway that we are missing. – I have no problem with people being optimistic, having hope, pushing as hard as possible for 1.5°C, etc. But, if you want to also be consistent with what we know about the world (science), then you can’t simply ignore the severity of real world constraints.”
my comment – Climate scientists and their institutions are not beholden to ethical rules of truth telling and research constraints like the Medical Doctors and Pharmaceutical industries are. Maybe they should be? The consequences could be much more deadly if they’re providing poor prognoses to the Public while the Politicians spin and discombobulate their way to the next election or WEF conference.
The AGU (American geophysical union) a group of scientists, has a detailed code of ethics including specifically honesty and integrity in doing research. I just googled them out of curiosity, and its related to the climate research.
https://www.agu.org/-/media/Files/Publications/Scientific-Integrity-and-Professional-Ethics.pdf
Other groups of scientists appear to be the same.
https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR2912.html
Employers also typically have employment conditions or contracts requiring honesty. Science is also inherently about truth seeking. Isnt it?
Nigel – Science is also inherently about truth seeking. Isnt it?
Is it?
Nuclear weapons
Chemical weapons
Biological weapons
Agent Orange
Tailing dams
Oil company scientists and chemists
Food additive scientists and chemists
Pesticide scientists DDT and so on
Plastics scientists and chemists
Asbestos scientists
Tobacco scientists
Climate change science denying Scientists …. need I go on?
Yeah probably I should, but what’s the point?
“…………..constraints like the Medical Doctors and Pharmaceutical industries are. Maybe they should be? The consequences could be much more deadly if they’re providing poor prognoses to the Public while the Politicians spin and discombobulate their way to the next election or WEF conference.
It’s a debatable idea. That is, if anyone actually sough to debate it instead of going down a side-track away from the point in what was said and meant by it.
RC Rocks. Just because something related to science is considered dangerous or destructive, doesnt mean science is not about truth seeking. Thats simple basic logic. And a lot of your examples are also about technology, not science per se.
I dont see how you regard all this as a side track. YOU raised the issues about scientists ethics. Ive already shown you they have codes of ethics anyway!
I think its more just human failings. You can have all the codes of ethics in the world and sometimes people wont abide by them
Science is not about truth, it is about information: How do things work and why? Or, as stated on the Purdue website, “The most important feature of science is the process of rationally determining the underlying cause of an observed phenomena in nature – a process which is called the scientific method.”
That facts are known, thus true, does not mean what people say about them will be true. You demonstrate this regularly. In fact, opposing opinions about a given fact can both be true. Humans have created and used many technogologies. The creation and use of technologies has been amazing. The creation and use of technologies is destroying the ecosystem.
Getting into the weeds here, but I think with nigel that science is indeed about seeking truth. But historically, it has been truth with a small ‘t’, because it has been held rigidly separate from questions of value. (I take it that that is what Killian is referring to in the comment above.) And there were reasons for that: primarily, I think, that various Powers That Were had vested interests in their own Truth, which then impeded the scientific enterprise. (E.g., the Galileo myth, yadda yadda.) Indeed, there are still more than a few of those around today.
But perhaps the whole environmental/climate crisis is good for science, in the sense that it has dramatized for us that scientists have a right to remain human beings. Objectivity in the face of fact remains a solid professional virtue. But it doesn’t imply that scientists should make that professional virtue the sole cornerstone of their identity. They have a right to be angry, depressed, frightened, or energized when their professional results impinge upon what they value as humans.
And they certainly have a right to speak out–ideally without being harassed, insulted or demonized for doing so. (Though I’m not suggesting that there should never be accountability in cases where that right is abused–for instance, by deliberate prevarication.)
To all and everyone exept Killian
“Science is not about truth”
is ano0tyher false statement by Mr. Killion. that is not true
“The proportion between the circumference and diameter of a circle is pi.”
That statement is scientific, and it is true.
The volume proportion of a sphere inscribed in a cylinder is 2/3, that is scientifric. and absolutely true. Archimedes is believed to have found it first.
So we can exel further in scientific truths. The cube has got 6 surfaces and 8 corners, and NaCl cristallizes in cubic forms. The snowflake is a hexagonal star. . The shortestb way between 2 po0i9nts is the straight line and so on..
But then comes the diffusion and confusion of modern times and surrealism, Nothing is true whatsoever anymore, and all & everything is statistics,=, the one and only true craft and professional political way of thinking. Like the baker instucting us that all that there is, breads, cakes and bisquits, or the mad carpenter who teaches us that all and everything is wooden furnitures and nothing but such furnitures.
When we come home from a long day of blueberry picking (3 bittiwes full at least) then we see nothing in our eyes when we close them for sleep, than small green leaves with blue berries,….
That is a quite normal retinal hallucination after a long day of blueberry picking. You simply get it on your brains, and Retina is a direct part of the brains where typical brain physiology can be studied..
But that goes over after a good nights sleep.
“The fundamental building stones of matter” is such a delusional idea betraying that some people have been living in the classic industrial coal- heated small, prismatic redbrick slums for too long time having hardly looked out for anything else, Thus got it on their brains.
And then they start to teach.
That personal “wiew” seems not to go over.
And the same with CREDEO IN statistics and its probabilities quite regardless of what you see, hear and touch even with closed eyes. Yes, even asleep.
It goes from wiews to illusions to hallucinations and delusions.
And maybe shows up quite more often among uneducated manufacture routine workers,
Thus blueberrypicking and nothing but blueberrypicking all day taken as an example
Killian. Based on your own comments, Science is clearly seeking the truth about how the world works. So science is about seeking truth. Obviously science has other goals as well.
Although this discussion runs the risk of wandering far into the weeds, I think it is important to be clear what the goal of science is. While truth comes close, it is value-laden and imprecise to serve as a goal. Likewise, with due respect to Killian, science is seeking more than just information. Science is more than the gathering and organizing of information. It is even more than knowledge.
A scientific theory must make testable hypotheses that go beyond what is known. The only way to do that is to understand the system about which one is theorizing. So, I would say that the goal of science is understanding–which is a pretty close approximation to truth–and impossible without it.
In actuality, every example you have cited argues for scientists to acknowledge the truth. When they failed to do so, the results were damaging not just for the public but for the science as well.
The case of nukes provides an interesting example. When the US developed nukes, the Soviet Union faced a potential existential threat, and Soviet scientists responded. The Soviet scientists realized they could not reproduce the sort of infrastructure needed to separate sufficient U-235, so they opted for the Pu-239 option. Unfortunately for the Soviet scientists, this involved chemical separation of Pu from the witch’s brew of waste products emerging from fission reactors. While they knew that actinide chemistry was similar to rare earth chemistry, the Soviet bureaucrats had forbidden the study of rare earth chemistry as a superfluous waste of scarce talent and resources. They were fortunate that one of their chemists had disregarded the ban–conducting his studies in the dead of night. Mimeographed copies of his handwritten notes were dispersed to chemists on the project, and the Soviets developed their own bomb much more quickly than anyone–including them–thought possible.
A similar existential threat was perceived when the US exploded Teller’s first H-bomb. Here, though, they did not realize that Teller’s design was not a feasible weapon–way to massive, bulky and temperamental for the purpose. The Soviets thought it was a real weapon, and so they disregarded designs that could not be weaponized. Ultimately, Sakharov developed his layer-cake design, and unbeknownst to the Soviets, they had an advantage in nuclear technology for the first time. It probably would not have happened had the Soviets known the reality of Teller’s research project.
Truth is the ONLY thing that matters in science. If you are not being truthful, you aren’t a scientist.
In actuality, every example you have cited argues for scientists to acknowledge the truth. When they failed to do so, the results were damaging not just for the public but for the science as well.
Which was the point of the comment as a rebuttal to nigels assertions/opinion ethical truth telling nirvana already exists in science. iow Ray just clarified the value of my comment and what it was saying …. that being Truth is the ONLY thing that matters in science. If you are not being truthful, you aren’t a scientist.
see https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-801042
which reinforced my original point which was:
my comment – Climate scientists and their institutions are not beholden to ethical rules of truth telling and research constraints like the Medical Doctors and Pharmaceutical industries are. Maybe they should be? The consequences could be much more deadly if they’re providing poor prognoses to the Public while the Politicians spin and discombobulate their way to the next election or WEF conference.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-800981
So it now appears Ray Ladbury (more or less) agrees with me on this point but also agrees with my general pointed refs about the dynamics around Racism, Poverty, the Global South vs North and Climate Change.
I need a lay down.
XR RC ROCKS
“Which was the point of the comment as a rebuttal to nigels assertions/opinion ethical truth telling nirvana already exists in science. ”
What a complete fasehood. Never said it. Never said anything like it. All I did was
1) I showed you clear evidence scientists have codes of ethics in response to your statement “my comment – Climate scientists and their institutions are not beholden to ethical rules of truth telling and research constraints like the Medical Doctors and Pharmaceutical industries are. Maybe they should be?” I even said scientists sometimes dont live up to such ethical codes!
2) I said that science is about truth seeking.
The only rocks are in your head :)
For those that either missed it or have already forgotten what started this thread here:
Glen Peters Research Director @CICERO_klima
…. if you want to also be consistent with what we know about the world (science), then you can’t simply ignore the severity of real world constraints.
https://twitter.com/Peters_Glen/status/1488424682441383940
Because ignoring the severity of real world constraints is ignoring the Truth Telling underpinnings of being a Scientist. You cannot simply ignore these things as if they do not exist in the real world.
But this is precisely what many climate scientists and the institutions they work for are doing regarding things like COP26, UNFCCC Governments’ NDCs, crossing 1.5C, spent carbon budgets, net zero by 2050, CDR, …. and on and on and on it goes.
My view was that are and should be obligated to tell the Truth at all times and not spin and discombobulate like all politicians, the media, Corporate CEOs and University Boards are want to do 24/7.
Nor be able to claim it’s not their problem or responsibility to speak out.
Another Climate Scientist Andrew Dessler, Prof of Atmospheric Sciences & climate scientist @ Texas A&M; AGU and AAAS Fellow; has an opinion about Nuclear energy as well.
“My views on nuclear have officially evolved. I do expect that we will need some fraction of our energy (~20%) to come from nuclear to reach a 100%-clean grid.”
“Yes, @DJDynamicNC put it really well. Nuclear waste is a problem I view less severe than climate change. I also am not crazy about nuclear, but we need firm dispatchable clean energy to get to a 100%-clean grid and nuclear certainly fits the bill.” 6:30 AM · Feb 1, 2022
https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1488233171640537092?cxt=HHwWiMCyqeiLoqcpAAAA
Comment: Of course this can only work in a world with good will that remains stable and civilized.
The economist.com promotes nuclear power as one part of the climate solution (I regularly read that publication)
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/11/13/the-discreet-charm-of-nuclear-power
One more from Andrew Dessler …
I used to think that the high cost of nuclear made it uncompetitive, and it is on today’s grid, but @JesseJenkins has convinced me that it still makes sense on a carbon-free grid. And, for the love of God, don’t shut down operating nuclear plants.
https://twitter.com/AndrewDessler/status/1488193049658155010?cxt=HHwWhICjobTsj6cpAAAA
others’ comments
– Nuclear uncompetitive on today’s grid ? Not true in France, quite the opposite
– That’s why you have life cycle assessments, to include everything that goes into something. In the case of nuclear, extraction of materials, construction, etc, same for solar/wind, and the IPCC says nuclear is the second lowest (CO2) source after wind, first if storage is added to wind
Getting to Zero: Pathways to Zero Carbon Electricity Systems | Jesse Jenkins MIT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InSIuGRDh_c
Killian posted “Nathan is pro renewables but he accepts they cannot support the existing economic system were fossil fuels massively reduced or abandoned to cut emissions…….To be fair, he’s pro-renewables because he is resigned to us not solving our problems via degrowth. He’s definitely a degrowth proponent first, but now has given up on us being sane.”
That probably means he can see what I see. Deliberately planned / chosen de-growth as a solution probably wont happen to a huge degree, because most people are materialistic and somewhat selfish, and status seeking, and their entire lives and jobs are intertwined with capitalism and materialism and the growth economy. This is a simple observation. I’m not saying its a great thing. It extents do our political leaders as well.
And if degrowth happened very quickly I believe it would cause the job market to collapse. It could be chaotic.
But its not an entirely either / or thing. People can probably can be nudged to make SOME changes for example things that are relatively pain free like recycling, passive solar homes, smaller homes, maybe organic farming. Again simple observation shows this is already happening to some extent.
Degrowth is inevitable anyway because high levels of growth simply cannot continue forever on a finite planet. You will get what you think is required. Hopefully it happens before the biosphere is totally ruined.
I’m in agreement with XRRC that we won’t turn the titanic around in time ( I think it was XRRC and it was something like that. Not going to go back and search it out) . However I believe we CAN slow it down and reduce the damage by doing things that are helpful some of which I noted in the previous paragraphs..
That probably means he can see what I see.
You’re not special. Long before you came along – i.e. over half a decade – I commonly stated the *likelihood* of success was low, but the pathway exists.
Many others, too.
And if degrowth happened very quickly I believe it would cause the job market to collapse.
No shit? Given that would be the whole point – to end the current economy – I would damned sure hope so.
LOL..
Killian: Where did I claim I was special?
In my opinion rapid and very substantial degrowth could throw millions out of work, maybe billions. It could cause massive poverty and chaos. It could be worse than planetary problems we are trying to solve.
The pollution problems of industrialisation can be solved by other alternatives, just by disposing of waste more carefully and by recycling more things.
Others share my view on degrowth, like the anthropologist Joseph Tainter who I found out about relatively recently.
RC Rocks says2 FEB 2022 AT 8:43 PM
nigelj: “I agree with Williams ……….”
Rc Rocks “No you do not agree with Williams. You are diametrically opposed to what Williams believes and says.”
Nigelj: Dont you deliberately quote me out of context like that. I said “I agree with Williams that climate change and racism are both serious problems.” Obviously Williams believes those things given his writings. I stated this so that people dont jump to the conclusion that I somehow support racism.
RC Rocks : “He says things like “Climate Change is Racist: Race, Privilege, and the Struggle for Climate Justice … Climate change divides along racial lines. “ You say “I don’t think racism as such is related to climate issues.” The complete opposite of Williams.”
Nigelj: I was criticising this one point he makes. Which you still havent been able to convince me otherwise. I didnt criticise anything else so stop implying I did.
nigelj: “I’m just being honest.”
RC Rocks :”No you are not being honest. You are as slippery as an eel here, speaking out of both sides of your mouth at the same time. Is it called Discombobulating?”
Nigelj : Dont falsely accuse me of dishonesty. There is nothing remotely dishonest in my post as I’ve demonstrated.
And I was not even referring to the Willams commentary. I stated I was being honest in respect of the fact I have chaged my lifestyle but only up to a point. That was the CONTEXT. Go back and read it. Other people preach about lifestyle changes but do nothing themselves. I dont know if that includes you or not. Its the principle I was getting at.
I’ve been civil to you. I havent accused you of dishonesty because its incredibly hard to know if someone is deliberately spreading falshoods or is just mistaken. Its really toxic accusing people of being liars or dishonest. You are wrong and you havent got the proof to back up your claim, and you quoted me out of conext something people here will see straight away.
There is good discussion on this page by everyone (denialists excluded) and its not too shouty. Please dont spoil that.
What I wrote was clear enough. Including the quotes I used. It is “my opinion”. No need to get your knickers in a twist. Right?
“There is nothing remotely dishonest in my post as I’ve demonstrated. “
I reject your demonstration. I;m entitled to my own opinion and my own facts I rely upon.
How’s that all sitting?
Or have you changed your mind about me disliking renewables Mr Honest John?
XR RC Rocks. You use “your own facts”? That sounds alarmingly “alternative facts”. There is only one set of facts. Keep on digging that hole for yourself……
What has renewables got to do with it?
What has renewables got to do with it?
You said it, you tell me troll. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-3/#comment-801080
I really like this …..
….. and you quoted me out of context something people here will see straight away.
Truly loved it. How many readers do you think will notice?
I suppose it doesn’t remind you of the spurious quotes misused and abused by people such as Barton Paul and that Russian Peter … Piotr either?
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
— John Lennon “Strawberry Fields Forever” (1967)
With raucous laughter!
Nice chatting.
XR RC Rocks. I cant recall Piotr or BPL quoting people out of context. Do you have any examples of them quoting people out of context to back up your assertion?
I don’t recall them quoting people, but leaving out half of the sentence, including important information, like……you did with me!
Don’t take it personally. I think several of your contributions are good and raise things not raised by other people.
I don’t recall them quoting people but leaving out half of the sentence, including important information, like……
Then you must be blind. I am not going to indulge your insufferable polemics further.
Living is easy with eyes closed ………………….
XR RC Rocks. So you have nothing. You come on a science website and make wild accusations with no examples, evidence, and expect to be taken seriously. Good luck with that.
Nigel, I never expect to be taken seriously by people who repeatedly claim they cannot see what is in front of their face. The examples and evidence you are demanding is on these pages. Go fetch! :-)
A “science” site imagines the guy who believes he thinks, speaks, and acts scientifically? Oh boy it gets more ridiculous by the day. ROFL!
XR RC Rocks. Wrong. The onus is on you to prove your wild false assertions with examples and explanations. If you cant do that dont make wild claims. There is nothing self evidently wrong about the past commentary you cite. Your response is no better than some guy who says covid is harmless, and when asked for proof he says google it!
The onus is on you Bubba.
nigel accuses xrrc of – ….. and you quoted me out of context something people here will see straight away.
Prove it! Verbatim quotes with url links please. Show where I quoted you out of context.
You have nothing!
Living is easy with eyes closed, misunderstanding all you see.
— John Lennon “Strawberry Fields Forever” (1967)
Nice chatting!
That’s known as being sarcastic. To me you’re actually a pain in the arse. You come across as must having an opinion a judgement about everything and everyone. And when you’re challenged to back it up or called on what you said yesterday, you are as slippery as an eel with a forked tongue. That means, I consider you dishonest and inconsistent and unreliable and untrustworthy and not credible. You often say you believe everything and nothing in the same breadth.
And you seem unable to stop yourself from telling other people what to do – and what to think, and also telling them what they think – as if you know better than they do themselves!
Like all classic self-obsessed trolls you accuse others of doing or not doing exactly what you do and will not do yourself. You’re just a pest. So enjoy it while it lasts……………………….
The onus is on you to prove your wild false assertions with examples and explanations.
If you cant do that don’t make wild claims. Quit while you’re ahead!