View Full Version : Billions for Climate Change
Florence
12-11-15, 11:37am
I see that the Climate Change Conference in Paris has decided that the "developed" countries will contribute $100 billion to the "undeveloped" countries to help them mitigate their expenses lowering their carbon emissions. At least I think that is the rationale. A couple of points:
How can unelected bureaucrats commit the U.S. to pay out billions of dollars? Doesn't Congress have anything to say about this?
What percentage of the $100 billion will do anything useful vs. the percentage that will go to graft and corruption?
Why can't we use that money to put solar panels on our own roofs? Or build up our own renewable energy sources?>:(
I see that the Climate Change Conference in Paris has decided that the "developed" countries will contribute $100 billion to the "undeveloped" countries to help them mitigate their expenses lowering their carbon emissions. At least I think that is the rationale. A couple of points:
How can unelected bureaucrats commit the U.S. to pay out billions of dollars? Doesn't Congress have anything to say about this?
What percentage of the $100 billion will do anything useful vs. the percentage that will go to graft and corruption?
Why can't we use that money to put solar panels on our own roofs? Or build up our own renewable energy sources?>:(
1. Unelected bureaucrats commit other people's money all the time. The UN, NATO, the World Bank, the WHO, the WTO...
2. My guess is that absolutely none of the $100B will accomplish anything of value, but a few people will become fantastically wealthy.
3. Because the political ties to the fossil fuel industry run way too deep for anything beyond lip service to be paid to alternatives at a federal level. The only real hope for solar and other alternatives, IMO, is to work through member owned utilities first and then add some incentives from local or state governments. Those local utilities are the only ones with monetary incentives to get on board.
In the real world $100B won't even scratch the surface of what needs to be done. I heard a podcast yesterday where the speaker noted that $100B is roughly 1/15th of the GDP of Great Britain. Global GDP is somewhere just shy of $80 TRILLION. The $100B pledge is 1/800th of that. In comparison, if you make $80,000/year that level of allocation would give you $100 to spend to begin to change the way you do almost everything. Its probably not going to get you very far. Besides, China and India (understandably) already want concessions and exclusions that will allow their economies to develop using the cheapest energy available. India has plans to open a new coal fired power plant every month through 2020. Btw, they would still be behind the US in coal fired power generation. Anyway, the scale of investment required to meet the 'ambition coalition' goal of limiting global temperature rise to 1.5*C would be exponentially higher than $100B, probably in the tens of trillions. And considering global temperatures are generally accepted to have already risen by 1*C or so we would need to start spending that kind of money yesterday.
catherine
12-11-15, 12:12pm
Great analysis, Gregg. Not very hopeful, but you're probably right.
ApatheticNoMore
12-11-15, 12:22pm
1. Unelected bureaucrats commit other people's money all the time. The UN, NATO, the World Bank, the WHO, the WTO...
+1, yes that's how things work, even the Federal Reserve committed TRILLIONS (read that TRILLIONS) in the last financial crises, and not TARP which was voted on, Federal Reserve money. But I don't think that is typical of what the Federal Reserve does, that is bail out the whole world, however the World Bank, IMF, etc. - it IS what they do all the time, commit money without congress at anytime, it's how the world works.
#2 too cynical, I think it will do some good, but not enough good. Some may be lost to graft and corruption but that's the way the world works. I mean think of a percentage lost to this as the cost of doing business or what have you (like a retailer does "shrinkage" - that is shoplifting), but put controls in place to minimize it whenever possible of course. The perfect world where none is lost to this doesn't exist (sometimes I think maybe "corrupt" is the most fundamental description of what human society at least post agriculture has always been - it's been violent and even unfathomably malevolent sometimes, but corrupt consistently). But they should do what they can to make sure it is spent wisely, controls like I say (of course I have no direct control over this).
#3 that is a good point, since a few countries are the major sources of fossil fuel use (U.S., China, India, Europe etc.), improvements in them will do a world of good. So yes I don't know what analysis this was based on and I hope it did compare the relative benefits of spending it to reduce U.S. fossil fuel use etc.
The thing is global temperature rise much beyond what they are even trying to prevent will make life miserable indeed and some may very well make most life on earth impossible.
catherine
12-11-15, 2:05pm
Charles Eisenstein posted an essay today--he's speaking in Paris tonight, and his thoughts reflect mine--that tracking CO2 is not the main environmental issue--it's a measuring stick, but it's not the cure. (Sorry for the long quote--I thought there was a link to the essay, but there isn't, so here is a sizable excerpt of the FB post.)
One obvious problem with that is that horrible things can be justified with CO2 arguments, or tolerated because they have little obvious impact on CO2. This ersatz 'green' argument has been applied to tracking, nuclear power, big hydro, GMOs, and the conversation of forests into wood chips for biofuel. Now you might say these are specious arguments that depend on faulty carbon accounting (is nuclear power really that carbon friendly when you account for the immense amount of energy needed to mine the uranium, refine the uranium, procure the cement, contain the waste, etc.?) but I am afraid there is a deeper problem. It is that when we base policy on a global metric, i.e. by the numbers, then the numbers are always subject to manipulation by those with the power to do so. Data can be manipulated, factors can be ignored, and projections can be skewed toward optimistic best-case scenarios. This is an inherent problem with basing policy on a metric like tons of CO2 or GGEs (greenhouse gas equivalents).
Secondly, by focusing on a measurable quantity we devalue that which we cannot measure or choose not to measure. Such issues such as mining, biodiversity, toxic pollution, ecosystem disruption, etc. recede in urgency, because after all, unlike global levels of CO2 they do not pose an existential threat. Certainly one can make carbon-based arguments on all these issues, but to do so is to step onto dangerous ground. Imagine that you are trying to stop a strip mine by citing the fuel use of the equipment and the lost carbon sink of the forest that needs to be cleared, and the mining company says, "OK, we're going to do this in the most green way possible; we are going to fuel our bulldozers with biofuels, run our computers on solar power, and plant two trees for every tree we chop down." You get into a tangle of arithmetic, none of which touches the real reason you want to stop the mine -- because you love that mountaintop, that forest, those waters that would be poisoned.
I am certain we will not "save our planet" (or at least the ecological basis of civilization) by merely being more clever in our deployment of Earth's "resources". We will not escape this crisis so long as we see the planet and everything on it as instruments of our utility. The present climate change narrative veers too close to instrumental utilitarian logic -- that we should value the earth because of what will happen to us if we don't. Where did we develop the habit of making choices based on maximizing or minimizing a number? We got it from the money world. We are seeking to apply our numbers games to a new target, CO2 rather than dollars. I don't think that is a deep enough revolution. We need a revolution in means, not only a revolution in ends.
Ultralight
12-11-15, 2:08pm
Charles Eisenstein posted an essay today--he's speaking in Paris tonight, and his thoughts reflect mine--that tracking CO2 is not the main environmental issue--it's a measuring stick, but it's not the cure. (Sorry for the long quote--I thought there was a link to the essay, but there isn't, so here is a sizable excerpt of the FB post.)
Yup...we're in some real trouble.
Williamsmith
12-11-15, 2:17pm
This is all about keeping the fan base happy. There is no real money changing hands here. The developed leaders just promise the undeveloped leaders a big pile of invisible money. The undeveloped Maoists are happy as a dog with a milk bone and their leader retains power. The developed demo saps are tickled pink that we are showing remorse in our resource hogging and planetary polluting. We don't need to really change things, just pay people off.
Im not a denier, just a healthy skeptic. What with all the racketeers in Paris, whose minding the night clubs back home?
I got an idea. Mince the scientists don't seem to want to actively campaign for the veracity of climate change......I mean shouldn't they all be in the streets with signs saying, "the sky is falling". And since Obama basically blew the whole environmental network off for the past five years......Do the climate changers really have that solid a foundation to stand on?
I propose a compromise. How bout we spend some real money on technology that will cool the earth in the event we do get some global warming. But just in case, let's not go all in for climate change. It was supposed to be raining all day here today......all I see is sunshine. These guys can't even get the weather right.
#2 too cynical, I think it will do some good, but not enough good. Some may be lost to graft and corruption but that's the way the world works. I mean think of a percentage lost to this as the cost of doing business or what have you (like a retailer does "shrinkage" - that is shoplifting), but put controls in place to minimize it whenever possible of course. The perfect world where none is lost to this doesn't exist (sometimes I think maybe "corrupt" is the most fundamental description of what human society at least post agriculture has always been - it's been violent and even unfathomably malevolent sometimes, but corrupt consistently). But they should do what they can to make sure it is spent wisely, controls like I say (of course I have no direct control over this).
I probably am too cynical about the $100B slush fund, but its because there are just too many examples of huge amounts of money evaporating when there isn't an extremely specific plan and an airtight program of checks and balances that has people with opposing views doing the checking up. More to the point, $100B isn't enough to do any real good in any way I can think of with the possible exception of education via a saturated global media. When the owners of that global media have interests that run contrary to the message that should be broadcast it makes me doubtful that anything will happen there. Beyond that the real "cure" would involve first world countries helping ALL the developing nations leapfrog conventional technology while at the same time pushing themselves into a more sustainable future. That is going to take a whole lot of money out of everyone's pocket, but especially the wealthiest nations (and a little less directly the wealthiest people). We don't have a good track record there, either.
Ultralight
12-11-15, 2:29pm
I think that:
1. It is really too late to turn this ship around. We're probably in "runaway" climate change now, by what most of the research is showing.
2. Even if we could turn the ship around, we wouldn't.
So I just try to keep my hands reasonably clean and figure out ways that I can mitigate the effects of climate change in my own life -- choosing carefully where I live, living simply, avoiding more debts, learning some practical skills, and most of all -- being stoic when possible.
catherine
12-11-15, 2:42pm
I got an idea. Mince the scientists don't seem to want to actively campaign for the veracity of climate change......I mean shouldn't they all be in the streets with signs saying, "the sky is falling".
So, is the reason you have not joined the climate change camp because you haven't been convinced that the scientists actually are committed what they're espousing? What would you need to see from them for you to say, "Holy cow, I guess 95% of the scientists are right--we're up s**t's creek!"?
How bout we spend some real money on technology that will cool the earth in the event we do get some global warming.
That seems like palliative care. How is that going to save the salmon and the cod when we will still be shoving them aside for our own desires?
Gardenarian
12-11-15, 2:46pm
It would be a small price to pay to save the planet, but it's not going to happen.
Our grandchildren will curse us, and they'll be right.
Ultralight
12-11-15, 2:50pm
So, is the reason you have not joined the climate change camp because you haven't been convinced that the scientists actually are committed what they're espousing? What would you need to see from them for you to say, "Holy cow, I guess 95% of the scientists are right--we're up s**t's creek!"?
That seems like palliative care. How is that going to save the salmon and the cod when we will still be shoving them aside for our own desires?
I actually think it is 97% of scientists that are in agreement about climate change being both real and anthropogenic.
Ultralight
12-11-15, 2:51pm
It would be a small price to pay to save the planet, but it's not going to happen.
Our grandchildren will curse us, and they'll be right.
Small price? Are you serious or just messing with us? ;)
ApatheticNoMore
12-11-15, 3:02pm
I got an idea. Mince the scientists don't seem to want to actively campaign for the veracity of climate change......I mean shouldn't they all be in the streets with signs saying, "the sky is falling".
scientists are probably socialized to be cautious, circumspect etc., though some are most definitely involved in the climate movement, I've met some. But the type of personality that becomes/is fostered in the training of becoming a scientist may not overlap with the type that becomes a radical activist all that much. But that's psychology not climate science and really has nothing to do with whether we're sealing in our demise via alarming degrees of climate change.
Ultralight
12-11-15, 3:07pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffjIyms1BX4
Worth watching... It is only 6 minutes or so.
Charles Eisenstein posted an essay today--he's speaking in Paris tonight, and his thoughts reflect mine--that tracking CO2 is not the main environmental issue--it's a measuring stick, but it's not the cure. (Sorry for the long quote--I thought there was a link to the essay, but there isn't, so here is a sizable excerpt of the FB post.)
If it is wrong to think in terms of data and quantitative analysis, what alternative mode of thinking is he suggesting?
catherine
12-11-15, 3:50pm
If it is wrong to think in terms of data and quantitative analysis, what alternative mode of thinking is he suggesting?
I don't think it's wrong--it's just a diversion. His suggestion is very qualitative.. Here's the rest of his essay with his suggestion and prediction: again, apologies for the long quote, but there's no link:
In other words, what we need is a revolution of love. When we as a society learn to see the planet and everything on it as beings deserving of respect -- in their own right and not just for their use to us -- then we won't need to appeal to climate change to do all the best things that the climate change warriors would have us do. And, we will stop doing the awful things that we do in the name of stopping climate change.
Ironically, many of the environmental issues that seem unrelated to climate change, we are learning, actually do contribute to it. Take hydroelectric dams: they flood forests and wetlands, displace communities, and disrupt riverine ecosystems. But at least they provide climate-friendly electricity, right? Well, no. It turns out that dams and artificial reservoirs emit huge amounts of methane from the rotting vegetation that they generate, and reduce rivers' ability to capture carbon.
Finally, let us admit that our knowledge of Earth's climate homeostasis is quite rudimentary. While we assume that, say, digging gold out of a mountain has little effect on climate, other cultures disagree. A Brazilian friend of mine who works with indigenous tribes there reports that according to them, mining is a much bigger threat to the planet than CO2, because when metals are removed from the tropics and moved to the temperate zones, the planet's energetics are disrupted. Even taking gold away from a sacred mountain can have devastating effects. A Zuni man I met told me that they believe that the worst thing is to take so much water that the rivers no longer reach the sea -- because how then can the ocean know what the land needs?
Let us not be too quick to dismiss such ideas as superstitious fantasy. Time and again, indigenous people have proven that their "superstitions" encode a sophisticated understanding of ecology. While such ideas as "insulting the water" and "stealing the golden soul of the mountains" seem baldly unscientific, we may need to start taking them seriously.
I will end with a prediction. I predict that we will succeed in drastically reducing fossil fuel use, beyond the most optimistic projections -- and that climate change will continue to worsen. It might be warming, it might be cooling, it might be intensifying fluctuations, a derangement of normal, life-giving rhythms. Then will we realize the importance of those things that we'd relegated to low priority: the mangrove swamps, the deep aquifers, the sacred sites, the biodiversity hotspots, the virgin forests, the elephants, the whales... all the beings that, in mysterious ways invisible to our numbers, maintain the balance of our living planet. Then will we realize that as we do to any part of nature, so, inescapably, we do to ourselves. The current climate change narrative is but a first step toward that understanding.
ApatheticNoMore
12-11-15, 3:52pm
If it is wrong to think in terms of data and quantitative analysis, what alternative mode of thinking is he suggesting?
It seems to me the best available as well, but I don't know how serious anyone really was on agreeing to targets. The alternative to trying to set hard limits (or incentives that reach them like carbon taxes etc.), is I suppose hoping for that techno fix, that alternatives to fossil fuel ramp up fast enough and work well enough to save us, and certainly money could in theory be poured into that hope, to developing and researching alternatives further. A long shot for sure.
Hoping for universal spiritual transformation is an *even* longer shot than that, I mean what is the history of that, it never has really happened universally, and do we have time anyway? But a more pragmatic ethical awareness? I don't know. I don't think that's wrong. It's little more than: we are ethically responsible to the future. But what if people are too busy surviving to contemplate that? And you've reached the cr@ppy conditions under which much of mankind lives I'm afraid.
catherine
12-11-15, 4:07pm
Hoping for universal spiritual transformation is an *even* longer shot than that, I mean what is the history of that, it never has really happened universally, and do we have time anyway? But a more pragmatic ethical awareness? I don't know. I don't think that's wrong. It's little more than: we are ethically responsible to the future. But what if people are too busy surviving to contemplate that? And you've reached the cr@ppy conditions under which much of mankind lives I'm afraid.
As optimistic as I am by nature, I tend to agree with you, which is why I didn't include Eisenstein's solutions initially. I believe they are the "right" answers, but pretty utopian.
I don't think it's wrong--it's just a diversion. His suggestion is very qualitative.. Here's the rest of his essay with his suggestion and prediction: again, apologies for the long quote, but there's no link:
So if I'm understanding him correctly, a "revolution of love" involves reverting to a sort of nature-worship that requires treating everything everywhere as sacred and near inviolate? I don't see much room for civilization in that view of the world.
I think that:
1. It is really too late to turn this ship around. We're probably in "runaway" climate change now, by what most of the research is showing.
2. Even if we could turn the ship around, we wouldn't.
So I just try to keep my hands reasonably clean and figure out ways that I can mitigate the effects of climate change in my own life -- choosing carefully where I live, living simply, avoiding more debts, learning some practical skills, and most of all -- being stoic when possible.
+1
catherine
12-11-15, 4:37pm
So if I'm understanding him correctly, a "revolution of love" involves reverting to a sort of nature-worship that requires treating everything everywhere as sacred and near inviolate? I don't see much room for civilization in that view of the world.
And some might argue that's not a bad thing.
Civilizations are organized in densely populated settlements divided into hierarchical social classes with a ruling elite and subordinate urban and rural populations, which engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending human control over the rest of nature, including over other human beings.[Wikipedia]
Ultralight
12-11-15, 4:39pm
I am not a fan of civilization. Unfortunately I really don't know any other way of life.
And some might argue that's not a bad thing.
Civilizations are organized in densely populated settlements divided into hierarchical social classes with a ruling elite and subordinate urban and rural populations, which engage in intensive agriculture, mining, small-scale manufacture and trade. Civilization concentrates power, extending human control over the rest of nature, including over other human beings.[Wikipedia]
I think it would be. I don't see life as a neolithic hunter-gatherer as all that attractive. If that's the alternative to muddling through and adapting to whatever comes, I'll take my chances with the number-crunchers.
Ultralight
12-11-15, 4:57pm
I think it would be. I don't see life as a neolithic hunter-gatherer as all that attractive. If that's the solution to muddling through and adapting to whatever comes, I'll take my chances with the number-crunchers.
I have read a fair amount about hunter-gatherers and they worked something like 10 - 15 hours a week, mostly hunting and gathering. ;)
I have read a fair amount about hunter-gatherers and they worked something like 10 - 15 hours a week, mostly hunting and gathering. ;)
Sounds nice, but I'm too fond of dentistry, literature, clean underwear, and all the other little comforts that come with civilization to throw away the last 10,000 years or so.
Williamsmith
12-11-15, 5:14pm
I have read a fair amount about hunter-gatherers and they worked something like 10 - 15 hours a week, mostly hunting and gathering. ;)
Yes and the rest of the week they smoked hallucinogenic plant life, fermented their own alcoholic drinks and sat around telling fables. With an occasional raid of a neighboring hunter gatherer group and possible homicide.
Ultralight
12-11-15, 5:15pm
Sounds nice, but I'm too fond of dentistry, literature, clean underwear, and all the other little comforts that come with civilization to throw away the last 10,000 years or so.
Oh, I readily admit I enjoy my antibiotics and such, but perhaps only because I've known them.
Ultralight
12-11-15, 5:16pm
Yes and the rest of the week they smoked hallucinogenic plant life, fermented their own alcoholic drinks and sat around telling fables. With an occasional raid of a neighboring hunter gatherer group and possible homicide.
Were we in the same Fraternity in college?
Williamsmith
12-11-15, 5:23pm
So, is the reason you have not joined the climate change camp because you haven't been convinced that the scientists actually are committed what they're espousing? What would you need to see from them for you to say, "Holy cow, I guess 95% of the scientists are right--we're up s**t's creek!"?
I guess I'd have to look out my door and see the water rising up the mountain toward my house, or step outside in January or February and not need my snowshoes or maybe be found covered up by house debris one thousand yards from where my house used to stand and be told, "If you think that was something wait until you see what's coming tomorrow!" Short of that ....how about climate change becomes a major plank in the Republican Party platform. That will be a sure sign it's way too damn late!!
That seems like palliative care. How is that going to save the salmon and the cod when we will still be shoving them aside for our own desires?
I love salmon......don't care much for cod. Can we make a selective sacrifice?
Williamsmith
12-11-15, 5:25pm
[QUOTE=catherine;224717]So, is the reason you have not joined the climate change camp because you haven't been convinced that the scientists actually are committed what they're espousing? What would you need to see from them for you to say, "Holy cow, I guess 95% of the scientists are right--we're up s**t's creek!"?
I guess I'd have to look out my door and see the water rising up the mountain toward my house, or step outside in January or February and not need my snowshoes or maybe be found covered up by house debris one thousand yards from where my house used to stand and be told, "If you think that was something wait until you see what's coming tomorrow!" Short of that ....how about climate change becomes a major plank in the Republican Party platform. That will be a sure sign it's way too damn late!!
Ultralight
12-11-15, 5:27pm
...climate change becomes a major plank in the Republican Party platform. That will be a sure sign it's way too damn late!!
Classic!
Civilization can take many forms, we just happened to have stumbled into a form that leaves us with clean underwear and a dirty planet. Eisenstein may fall a little to the utopian side, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. Excluding indigenous peoples from the 'blue zones' (an ironic choice of names) in Paris may be one of our highest crimes. Discounting thousands of years of accumulated knowledge because its delivered in the form of a fable that differs from our own fables just proves to me that we are becoming even more closed minded, selfish and myopic.
Aside from hunting for a few hours then getting stoned there is another possible solution. As soon as cleaning up, going green, etc. becomes as profitable on a quarterly basis as the extraction economy is now the reversal will be immediate. Humans being humans saving the planet is too esoteric, but getting rich isn't. The transition from a fossil fuel based economy to whatever comes next will be the greatest undertaking in our history. New technology will require new infrastructure. That level of job creation should be any politician's wet dream and the opportunities for their biggest donors will be almost limitless. Roadblocks removed. Its really just a matter of getting to that stage while there are still enough of us left to care.
catherine
12-12-15, 9:15am
Civilization can take many forms, we just happened to have stumbled into a form that leaves us with clean underwear and a dirty planet. Eisenstein may fall a little to the utopian side, but that doesn't mean he's wrong. Excluding indigenous peoples from the 'blue zones' (an ironic choice of names) in Paris may be one of our highest crimes. Discounting thousands of years of accumulated knowledge because its delivered in the form of a fable that differs from our own fables just proves to me that we are becoming even more closed minded, selfish and myopic.
Aside from hunting for a few hours then getting stoned there is another possible solution. As soon as cleaning up, going green, etc. becomes as profitable on a quarterly basis as the extraction economy is now the reversal will be immediate. Humans being humans saving the planet is too esoteric, but getting rich isn't. The transition from a fossil fuel based economy to whatever comes next will be the greatest undertaking in our history. New technology will require new infrastructure. That level of job creation should be any politician's wet dream and the opportunities for their biggest donors will be almost limitless. Roadblocks removed. Its really just a matter of getting to that stage while there are still enough of us left to care.
+100
Especially this:
Discounting thousands of years of accumulated knowledge because its delivered in the form of a fable that differs from our own fables just proves to me that we are becoming even more closed minded, selfish and myopic.
We are ensconced in believing that what we've had for only the PAST 100 YEARS (more or less) is the ONLY way. We're more creative than that. It's not an either/or proposition.
Ultralight
12-12-15, 9:35am
Civilization can take many forms, we just happened to have stumbled into a form that leaves us with clean underwear and a dirty planet.
That is like saying soda pop can take many forms. Yes, it can. But it is still bad for ya! ;)
Aside from hunting for a few hours then getting stoned there is another possible solution. As soon as cleaning up, going green, etc. becomes as profitable on a quarterly basis as the extraction economy is now the reversal will be immediate. Humans being humans saving the planet is too esoteric, but getting rich isn't. The transition from a fossil fuel based economy to whatever comes next will be the greatest undertaking in our history. New technology will require new infrastructure. That level of job creation should be any politician's wet dream and the opportunities for their biggest donors will be almost limitless. Roadblocks removed. Its really just a matter of getting to that stage while there are still enough of us left to care.
How can cleaning up and going green be profitable?
Also: Sure, transitioning from a fossil fuel-based economy to whatever comes next is going to be the greatest undertaking. But I just don't know that enough people are up to the task. Do you? Most environmentalists I know are purely rhetorical or largely rhetorical.
They drive SUVs and commute long distances, they eat exotic imported foods, they live in massive houses, they have several children, etc. They obsess over recycling and voting -- which, IMHO do nothing.
Aside from hunting for a few hours then getting stoned there is another possible solution. As soon as cleaning up, going green, etc. becomes as profitable on a quarterly basis as the extraction economy is now the reversal will be immediate. Humans being humans saving the planet is too esoteric, but getting rich isn't. The transition from a fossil fuel based economy to whatever comes next will be the greatest undertaking in our history. New technology will require new infrastructure. That level of job creation should be any politician's wet dream and the opportunities for their biggest donors will be almost limitless. Roadblocks removed. Its really just a matter of getting to that stage while there are still enough of us left to care.
I agree. If we are to be "saved", it won't be by eco-visionaries preaching technological self-denial from electronic pulpits or by far-seeing bureaucratic elites. It will be sordid capitalists harnessing the cunning of engineering and science for self-enrichment. Call me small-minded and selfish, unable to grasp the profundity of naturalistic pantheism, but I believe the venture capitalists are a more likely source than shamans for the solutions we may need.
They drive SUVs and commute long distances, they eat exotic imported foods, they live in massive houses, they have several children, etc. They obsess over recycling and voting -- which, IMHO do nothing.
I think a big part of the survival curve will be learning to appreciate efficient use of resources rather than simply celebrating all things grandiose. And even more so if those resources can be shared. There are seven houses on my block and all of us own a lawn mower. Aside from the idiocy of lawns in general, why? One or two well maintained mower(s) would easily groom all our grass. The greenhouse in my back yard could, and to a small degree does, easily supply all the herbs and most of the greens the block uses all winter. With a little more planning and education it could do a whole lot more. Several of us work from home so we could easily share cars. The reasons my neighbors and I give for not taking all those steps and more are some of the fundamental stumbling blocks of progress. Like catherine said, we just kind of see what we're doing as the only way to do it. I actually tried pitching the shared mower to my next door neighbor last summer. I would have received a warmer response if I'd have asked to adopt his dog. Change is difficult for humans unless its forced upon them.
Zoe Girl
12-12-15, 12:47pm
They drive SUVs and commute long distances, they eat exotic imported foods, they live in massive houses, they have several children, etc. They obsess over recycling and voting -- which, IMHO do nothing.
I want to meet more quiet environmentalists. I consider myself one, take my lunch every day, re-use my bags, eat a lot of veggies and minimally processed foods, don't have a throw away wardrobe, recycle but also work at not having so much to recycle, live in a small sace, watch my shower length (that is my pet peeve). I add little things like now I have silverware and a cloth napkin in my lunch bag and I have starbucks resuable cups all the time so I can use those when I get my addiction. But there is nothing glamorous about these small steps, so kinda hard to see them at times.
ApatheticNoMore
12-12-15, 1:30pm
The standard they should be judged on is effectiveness (not purity, effectiveness). If they are advocating policy change they should be as vocal as they need to be to achieve those goals (I don't know it depends on the goal, working with city hall may not always be loud, but it might be).
If they achieve useful policy change it doesn't really matter either if they are hypocritical as it can do more good to achieve policy change than any of their behaviors (the standard of judgement is effectiveness). But what if they don't achieve anything at all and are sometimes just shouting into the wind? Well the standard of judgement IS ultimately effectiveness - and if that's all that is accomplished then FAIL (I mean try anything, but if everything you do doesn't work, time to rethink it). If governments are impossible then all we have is personal behavior, but really one should stop accepting the hypocrisy criticism. It's a criticism that guarantees nothing will change as most anyone in the modern world could be accused of some level of hypocrisy. But so what? Does it mean we don't need carbon taxes or something just because the person advocating it is in some way hypocritical?
And really of course the environmentalists I've met don't drive SUVs, if they drive they usually drive Prius, true to stereotype (although that implies having some money as Prius ain't cheap). But if they did drive SUVs and still had good things they were working for, it would need to be taken into account how effective it all was, if all anyone talked about was their car choice then it could be said to be distracting I suppose.
Yossarian
12-12-15, 7:30pm
climate change being both real and anthropogenic.
Climate changes, everyone knows that:
http://www.science-skeptical.de/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Palaeotemps.png
Even recently there is lot of deviation
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/clip_image0021.jpg
The question is how much is really man made. You will not get agreement on that, and the models have not demonstrated that anyone really understands what is happening
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/12/clip_image0071.jpg
How can cleaning up and going green be profitable?
http://www.interfaceglobal.com/sustainability.aspx
Yossarian, if you have confidence in the IPCC, this is from their fifth and recent report,which there seems to be agreement upon within the science community. Of course there are skeptics that appear in the minority. The chart is from a separate source, but is common.
"It is extremely likely [95 percent confidence] more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together."
http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/tcc/tcc/products/gwp/temp/fig/jul_wld.png
Williamsmith
12-12-15, 11:40pm
Everybody has a chart to go along with their agenda. Its called advocacy.
Everybody has a chart to go along with their agenda. Its called advocacy.
Perhaps people with charts and people with agendas have a linear relationship, then.
Gardenarian
12-13-15, 1:02am
The Simplicity Institute has a number of interesting publications on the response to climate change: http://simplicityinstitute.org/publications
Williamsmith
12-13-15, 4:32am
The Simplicity Institute has a number of interesting publications on the response to climate change: http://simplicityinstitute.org/publications
From the Charter of Sufficiency:
We affirm that property rights are justifiable only to the extent they serve the common good, including the overriding interests of humanitarian and ecological justice.
This is entirely offensive to the foundational principles of the Constituion of the United States. Property rights are equal in importance individually as personal human rights. The founding fathers held the defense of property rights as essential to the establishment of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is the reason for their response to taxation without representation. Government often first targets property rights through various means as punishments or ways to invalidate individual freedoms. Property rights are not only a first line of defense against abuses but they enable the other rights to follow. It is the essence of the revolution that a citizen could remain on his own land and protect it from richer men. Property ensured power to any citizen and is the conduit by which self reliance and self government flows.
As a result I see the simplicity movement as vulnerable and unsustainable if it gives up these certain rights...property among them.
additionally, ideas of "degrowth and a steady state economic model". go hand in hand with efforts driving acceptance of the climate change wealth redistribution scheme. The fundamental flaw being global governmental meetings are an attempt to force change from the top down and not from bottom up grassroots individual consciousness. As such it will never work and will undoubtedly fuel aggression and violence as a response.
catherine
12-13-15, 10:43am
From the Charter of Sufficiency:
We affirm that property rights are justifiable only to the extent they serve the common good, including the overriding interests of humanitarian and ecological justice.
As a result I see the simplicity movement as vulnerable and unsustainable if it gives up these certain rights...property among them.
additionally, ideas of "degrowth and a steady state economic model". go hand in hand with efforts driving acceptance of the climate change wealth redistribution scheme. The fundamental flaw being global governmental meetings are an attempt to force change from the top down and not from bottom up grassroots individual consciousness. As such it will never work and will undoubtedly fuel aggression and violence as a response.
As for your first point, property rights are certainly a hallmark of our Constitutional rights. Many some committed simple-livers feel the same way. I think of Dorothy Day and Peter Maurin who espouse distributism, which contrary to what the name suggests, says that the right of everyone to own property is essential for equality and social justice.
According to distributists, property ownership is a fundamental right,[11] and the means of production should be spread as widely as possible, rather than being centralized under the control of the state (state socialism), a few individuals (plutocracy), or corporations (corporatocracy). Distributism, therefore, advocates a society marked by widespread property ownership.[12] Co-operative economist Race Mathews argues that such a system is key to bringing about a just social order.[Wikipedia]
Also, here is an article from The American Conservative (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/distributism-isnt-outdated/) outlining how distributism would help everyone:
Returning to America, the task of tackling poverty can seem overwhelming. The U.S. has the highest incarceration rate per capita in the world, while drug use is so endemic that it would now seem that opium is the opiate of the people. But chief among our priorities must be to increase ownership amongst the poorest and to ensure them a living-wage “floor.”
How will this be accomplished? Not mainly through government. No, this vision will be accomplished by envisioning, rather than alienating, business leaders; envisioning them to do things differently in the capitalist economies in which we find ourselves.
As far as your second point, this whole climate change summit among world leaders would not have happened if it hadn't been for the individual consciousness and grassroots efforts of thousands of committed scientists and environmentalists. Let's see how this moves forward. Sure there's a chance the movement will be bastardized by the Top, but right now, I'm encouraged by this step in the right direction.
De-growth does not strip our freedoms--it's just a way of restructuring the economy. It doesn't necessarily "redistribute" wealth--i.e. take from you to give to me. It gives us different motivations to spend and save. Gardenarian's website had a good overview of what it would look like living in a de-growth economy.
http://theconversation.com/life-in-a-degrowth-economy-and-why-you-might-actually-enjoy-it-32224
Gardenarian: I think I had been to that site once a long time ago, but thank you for the link! I'm looking forward to bookmarking it delving in!
Williamsmith
12-13-15, 11:06am
Catherine, I think when I get a chance I'd definitely like to address some of the sticking points....and they are substantial. For instance, how are nations going to punish other nations who do not comply with voluntary reductions? Or as they would like to softly phrase it......"facilitate implementation or promote compliance". Re: CNN Obama Praise Climate Change Agreement. Especially since none of this will be presented to Congress or be funneled through the representative government. In other words, forced down the throats of dissenters. More to come.
catherine
12-13-15, 11:44am
Catherine, I think when I get a chance I'd definitely like to address some of the sticking points....and they are substantial. For instance, how are nations going to punish other nations who do not comply with voluntary reductions? Or as they would like to softly phrase it......"facilitate implementation or promote compliance". Re: CNN Obama Praise Climate Change Agreement. Especially since none of this will be presented to Congress or be funneled through the representative government. In other words, forced down the throats of dissenters. More to come.
I admit that I haven't read the details on this accord.. so I'll try to come back to the table prepared. But I guess my question for you since you are a law enforcement professional, to what extent do concerns about enforcement drive the need for the law? How do you balance that? It's hard to enforce texting while driving, but the law is still critical, and the individual has to be held accountable for his/her behavior.
From the Charter of Sufficiency:
We affirm that property rights are justifiable only to the extent they serve the common good, including the overriding interests of humanitarian and ecological justice.
This is entirely offensive to the foundational principles of the Constituion of the United States. Property rights are equal in importance individually as personal human rights. The founding fathers held the defense of property rights as essential to the establishment of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. This is the reason for their response to taxation without representation. Government often first targets property rights through various means as punishments or ways to invalidate individual freedoms. Property rights are not only a first line of defense against abuses but they enable the other rights to follow. It is the essence of the revolution that a citizen could remain on his own land and protect it from richer men. Property ensured power to any citizen and is the conduit by which self reliance and self government flows.
As a result I see the simplicity movement as vulnerable and unsustainable if it gives up these certain rights...property among them.
additionally, ideas of "degrowth and a steady state economic model". go hand in hand with efforts driving acceptance of the climate change wealth redistribution scheme. The fundamental flaw being global governmental meetings are an attempt to force change from the top down and not from bottom up grassroots individual consciousness. As such it will never work and will undoubtedly fuel aggression and violence as a response.
I'm inclined to agree with you. I can't envision the commissariat wise and fair enough to set up as arbiter of "the common good" or "ecological justice" in determining the extent to which my rights are "justified".
catherine
12-13-15, 12:01pm
I'm inclined to agree with you. I can't envision the commissariat wise and fair enough to set up as arbiter of "the common good" or "ecological justice" in determining the extent to which my rights are "justified".
Well, as Catholic and a Chesterton fan, what do you think of distributism?
Well, as Catholic and a Chesterton fan, what do you think of distributism?
Similar in well-meaning impracticality.
Williamsmith
12-13-15, 3:57pm
What does the quest for national simplicity look like as it directly relates to climate change?
That's what I think the ordinary person not paying attention to climate changers doesn't understand. The average citizen has tuned out the rhetoric as part of the traffic noise of everyday living but there's a lot riding on many assumptions made by science and scientific theory. As has been dogmatically stated both in this forum and in newspapers and media outlets all across the globe.....climate change is not theory....it is fact.
And so the fact finders are on a quest to prosecute their war on affluence, abundance, consumerism, industrialization, over population, development and economic growth. That war will be prosecuted at the nation level as has been made clear by the recent meetings in Paris.
Leaders are being sent home to "encourage" their populations to change their habits and get in line. Reports back to follow. Punishment for violators. The legal foundation for this punishment will not exist if the rules of the game are not developed and published by the representative government. Which they are not because a presentation to Congress or each countries representative arm of their government would both take too long and face failure. So all this is by passed in the name of saving the planet.
But what time of life would climate changers like to see that would achieve a 2 degree limit to global warming?
A list next..........
Williamsmith
12-13-15, 6:11pm
To save the planet, this is your life:
1. Communities based on local resources.
2. No internal combustion engine vehicles......everyone works locally and walks or bicycles to work. Only specific products that require large factories would be permitted to be shipped by truck.
3. Shipping of goods by sailboats on seas and a system of canals and waterways.
4. Repurposing of interstate highways and roadways to permaculture.
5. No vacationing to far away places. Little air traffic.
6. A diet based on plant life only. No meat eating.
7. Volunteer activities....more communal living
8. Living without air conditioning and refrigeration
9. Houses refitted with renewable energy sources
Many "experts" in the climate science field say without going all in the planet can't be saved. So how do you get the whole world to adopt this voluntary simplicity?
Force. Financial and physical force.
ApatheticNoMore
12-13-15, 6:27pm
To save the planet, this is your life:
1. Communities based on local resources.
2. No internal combustion engine vehicles......everyone works locally and walks or bicycles to work. Only specific products that require large factories would be permitted to be shipped by truck.
3. Shipping of goods by sailboats on seas and a system of canals and waterways.
4. Repurposing of interstate highways and roadways to permaculture.
5. No vacationing to far away places. Little air traffic.
6. A diet based on plant life only. No meat eating.
7. Volunteer activities....more communal living
8. Living without air conditioning and refrigeration
9. Houses refitted with renewable energy sources
Many "experts" in the climate science field say without going all in the planet can't be saved. So how do you get the whole world to adopt this voluntary simplicity?
Force. Financial and physical force.
So am I supposed to be scared of that? Is it really any worse than catastrophic warming? Is it supposed to be? Well, I don't think it is. How about that. And the world that exists after catastrophic warming will have plenty of violence and force too. Now maybe you think it will be some peaceful paradise but odds are against that.
Maybe there's no solution (but what logically follows from that is probably not having kids or at least not encouraging your kids have kids if you already have - because they will inherit the type of planet where the living envy the dead). But the unforgivable part is not even trying to grapple with the problem at all (in other words the behavior of our politicians). It is better to go down raging against the dying of the light it is, then to go down without a whimper.
To save the planet, this is your life:
I'm OK with most of those, and it's how I try to live now, mostly.
To save the planet, this is your life:
Seems like a reasonable start of a list to me, although I'd like to use the house refitted renewable energy to run my refrigerator and charge the fuel cells on my auto like transportation when I'm not using the same energy efficient mass transportation system that ships regionally produced goods to the end user. I assume we're giving ourselves a little time to develop new technology.
I assume we're giving ourselves a little time to develop new technology.
http://www.sciencealert.com/german-has-just-successfully-fired-up-a-revolutionary-nuclear-fusion-machine
Williamsmith
12-13-15, 8:14pm
Is it acceptable to use financial and physical force to require everyone live this life? Should we have coerced simplicity or voluntary?
catherine
12-13-15, 8:28pm
To save the planet, this is your life:
1. Communities based on local resources.
2. No internal combustion engine vehicles......everyone works locally and walks or bicycles to work. Only specific products that require large factories would be permitted to be shipped by truck.
3. Shipping of goods by sailboats on seas and a system of canals and waterways.
4. Repurposing of interstate highways and roadways to permaculture.
5. No vacationing to far away places. Little air traffic.
6. A diet based on plant life only. No meat eating.
7. Volunteer activities....more communal living
8. Living without air conditioning and refrigeration
9. Houses refitted with renewable energy sources
Many "experts" in the climate science field say without going all in the planet can't be saved. So how do you get the whole world to adopt this voluntary simplicity?
Force. Financial and physical force.
While I personally feel that many of us on this forum would embrace these changes, I can't foresee that we would be forced to adopt them. We might simply be shown other choices by entrepreneurs who see a great opportunity. Our transportation will likely be just as accessible, but "green"; maybe meat-eating will not be proscribed, but merely based on what is local and humane; living without air conditioning--I did that when I was too cheap to replace our broken central air system.. yes, it took a while to get used to, but we changed to accommodate that reality and it was really nice to have the windows open all summer and hear the birds.
How do you get the whole world to adopt voluntary simplicity? By promoting the higher order end benefits of it, just like advertisers of old-school products have been doing since the turn of the 20th century.
ETA: Re little air traffic.. hopefully I'll have my million miles by then :)
My guilty pleasure: flying.
Williamsmith
12-13-15, 9:25pm
Catherine.....prison for guilty pleasures. That's the future if the planet is to be saved.
No coffee or tea unless you live where it can be grown.
No international trade. No need for economic growth.
Government buyback for your cars.....mandatory.
And your electric appliances.
Only one child per family. Abortion mandatory, not a choice and sterilization after one child.
Bae....the wood you heat with....not acceptable anymore. We need the trees, they are rapidly disappearing.
Bae....the wood you heat with....not acceptable anymore. We need the trees, they are rapidly disappearing.
The trees I use are not rapidly disappearing, they grow here faster than I can burn through them. The First Nations folks used to burn the whole island to the ground every few years to try to make headway. YMMV, but here they are like weeds/grass.
Related, the first bit of this wonderful book makes the case for woodburning being quite sustainable and ecological in this sort of ecosystem:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41WC6Cs2LtL._SX333_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg
Williamsmith
12-13-15, 9:45pm
Understood but what is the carrying capacity of your island? How many people like you can move there and burn the trees? And more worrisome...the UN has determined wood fires are a major source of soot or black carbon and contributes greatly to climate change. No more wood fires Bae.
Understood but what is the carrying capacity of your island? How many people like you can move there and burn the trees? About 3x, but they'll have trouble on the food/water side of things first.
And more worrisome...the UN has determined wood fires are a major source of soot or black carbon and contributes greatly to climate change. No more wood fires Bae.
Thus my pointer to Mytting's book, which conveys the Scandinavian take on that.
Williamsmith
12-13-15, 10:06pm
I get a little skeptical when I hear and read that the simplicity movement is a bottom up consciousness movement driven by grassroots person to person influence that seeks to provide the solution to catastrophic climate change and then observe the leaders of nations taking back agendas from conventions that demonstrate top down political solutions which bypass due process. There isn't room for both and only one will work.
ApatheticNoMore
12-13-15, 10:20pm
I get a little skeptical when I hear and read that the simplicity movement is a bottom up consciousness movement driven by grassroots person to person influence that seeks to provide the solution to catastrophic climate change and then observe the leaders of nations taking back agendas from conventions that demonstrate top down political solutions which bypass due process. There isn't room for both and only one will work.
Well if a problem like global climate change could be dealt with purely through bottom up solutions that would be one thing. I doubt it can, but that's not for philosophical reasons, I just doubt it practically can (anarchism might work better if capitalism as it is presently hadn't destroyed the world - but it has - and left not just a trail of ecological destruction but path dependence). But if our leaders are not going to act sufficiently, then the impetus is on us, to try to push them to act yes, and to act in their place.
Call it plan B and a long shot. Well yes we need public policy, what part of that is hard to understand. But we may live in a system so completely controlled by money etc. that we may not get it yesterday, which is when we need it - or even today - and even getting money out of politics is a longer term goal.
I get a little skeptical when I hear and read that the simplicity movement is a bottom up consciousness movement driven by grassroots person to person influence that seeks to provide the solution to catastrophic climate change and then observe the leaders of nations taking back agendas from conventions that demonstrate top down political solutions which bypass due process. There isn't room for both and only one will work.
I think more basically about the simplicity movement. Initially it encourages people to adopt a lifestyle that is less cluttered with meaningless or trivial material goods that bind one to a lifestyle of work that inhibit one's growth or desires for a well lived life. At least in my non-literary nutshell. Climate change is an off-shoot or additional benefit.
Climate change itself is a shared, but separate issue. The Clean Energy Act and mandatory vehicle emissions are the types of regulations I agree with. I see some similarities to limiting second hand smoke exposure, where the excesses of some impose health and lifestyle risk to the innocent. Unfortunately, less than two thirds of Americans think climate change is people related and even fewer think we should be doing more about it. I don't necessarily agree with draconian regulations like those in your list that goe against majority opinion, but believe there are some challenges in verifying facts, educating the public and separating the issue from selfish partisan interests.
JaneV2.0
12-13-15, 11:35pm
How are we going to handle second hand wood smoke? It wasn't health-supporting back in the day, and it isn't now. (But Bae's right--the vegetation here is inexorable. I'm confident it will outlive us all.)
I'm not looking forward to living in a Kunstler's paradise, and--given actuarial statistics--I'm not going to worry about it much.
Ultralight
12-14-15, 8:16am
No government is going to exact any force on their own citizens to mitigate the effects of runaway climate change. Now, some governments will invade and raid other nations to acquire resources. That will (will? -- lol -- is) happening.
I think the climate change problem will solve itself the old fashioned way:
-Violence
-Famine
-Disease
No government is going to exact any force on their own citizens to mitigate the effects of runaway climate change.
Sure they will. Force is what governments do.
Ultralight
12-14-15, 9:34am
Sure they will. Force is what governments do.
But I don't think would do it for this kind of thing.
Like, "Okay, populace! Time to force you all to live simply!"
That is a one ingredient recipe for revolt.
No government is going to exact any force on their own citizens to mitigate the effects of runaway climate change. Now, some governments will invade and raid other nations to acquire resources. That will (will? -- lol -- is) happening.
I think the climate change problem will solve itself the old fashioned way:
-Violence
-Famine
-Disease
Or markets. Or technology. Or some combination thereof.
I don't yet see the need for panic and despair. I certainly don't see a totalitarian solution as viable.
Williamsmith
12-14-15, 9:55am
Or markets. Or technology. Or some combination thereof.
I don't yet see the need for panic and despair. I certainly don't see a totalitarian solution as viable.
True. The panic and despair will kick in after the inauguration of President Trump...
Quote:
And actually, we’ve had times where the weather wasn’t working out, so they changed it to extreme weather, and they have all different names, you know, so that it fits the bill. But the problem we have, and if you look at our energy costs, and all of the things that we’re doing to solve a problem that I don’t think in any major fashion exists. I mean, Obama thinks it’s the number one problem of the world today. And I think it’s very low on the list. So I am not a believer, and I will, unless somebody can prove something to me, I believe there’s weather. I believe there’s change, and I believe it goes up and it goes down, and it goes up again. And it changes depending on years and centuries, but I am not a believer, and we have much bigger problems.
I may vote Trump just to get to hear him speak for four years. He's kinda like the Yogi Berra of politics. "You can observe a lot by just watching". The ice in the Antarctic is growing, I have observed that. Must be global warming.
Sure they will. Force is what governments do.
+1
No need for economic growth.
It seems somewhat obvious that if we can start to get away from an economic model based on constant growth a lot of ancillary problems would be self-solving. Any system that requires that kind of growth to survive is, by nature, unsustainable and will reach a tipping point because it will run out of resources. Healthy systems find an equilibrium. Maybe we should, too.
Side note: there are very efficient and sustainable ways to heat with wood. Just not in deserts and not with open fires.
The ice in the Antarctic is growing, I have observed that. Must be global warming.
A controversial topic that has conflicting conclusions. I think both sides are fairly discussed here.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/11/05/a-controversial-nasa-study-says-antarctica-is-gaining-ice-heres-why-you-should-stay-skeptical/?postshare=2541446754571422
Sure they will. Force is what governments do.
Maybe what Ultralite meant was that our government won't force our citizens to mitigate the effects of runway climate change. After all, the party that has a majority of both houses doesn't think climate change is a concern.
Maybe what Ultralite meant was that our government won't force our citizens to mitigate the effects of runway climate change. After all, the party that has a majority of both houses doesn't think climate change is a concern.
What Congress may or may not believe is not relevant in issues such as this. Our government is now predominately regulatory, the EPA need only proclaim a standard based entirely on whatever goal they wish to enforce and then use the power of the government to police their desires. This ultimately leads to governmental force against anyone who cannot or will not voluntarily comply.
ApatheticNoMore
12-14-15, 12:57pm
But I don't think would do it for this kind of thing.
Like, "Okay, populace! Time to force you all to live simply!"
That is a one ingredient recipe for revolt.
they probably won't do it because they are owned by the money that buys them. It's really pretty simple. Now I could be wrong and they could decide climate change is such an existential threat that none of that short term corruption matters, but I won't hold my breath. Being bought by the highest bidder is what our government does.
catherine
12-14-15, 1:48pm
What Congress may or may not believe is not relevant in issues such as this. Our government is now predominately regulatory, the EPA need only proclaim a standard based entirely on whatever goal they wish to enforce and then use the power of the government to police their desires. This ultimately leads to governmental force against anyone who cannot or will not voluntarily comply.
Then how do you explain the dismal lack of enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts?
Remember Karl Rove? I watched him on a TV discussion round table over the weekend. He may not go down in history as the wisest, but I appreciated his comments and they seemed relevant to the discussion of regulation vs. volunteerism.
Rove told a Fox News panel on Sunday that the recent climate treaty (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/12/12/proposed-historic-climate-pact-nears-final-vote/) negotiated in Paris was “B.S.” because it called for slowing the increase in carbon omissions to net zero between 2050 and 2080.
“We’ll all be dead and very few people sitting in Paris will be alive at that point, I suspect, when we get to 2080,” he opined. “The United States has reduced its greenhouse gas emissions. It has done so, not because some international treaty, we have put the focus on energy efficiency, we’re a market economy, we’re a wealthy country that can afford to do this. And we have done it.”
Edited to add, I don't necessarily agree with him, but he has an interesting perspective and it's surprising to find a conservative or "neocon" acknowledging how serious the problem might be.
catherine
12-14-15, 2:03pm
Remember Karl Rove? I watched him on a TV discussion round table over the weekend. He may not go down in history as the wisest, but I appreciated his comments and they seemed relevant to the discussion of regulation vs. volunteerism.
Regarding regulation vs. voluntary activity, I've read that attitude does NOT necessarily result in a change of behavior. On the contrary, changes in behavior results in changes in attitude. This was a big "aha" for me because I assumed that our attitudes result in behavior change. The example that was cited in the source I read this in (which I can't remember, but it might have been Charles Durhigg's book, Habit), used the example of seat belt laws.
We all want to be safe, but if it had been up to us to consistently use our seat belts 20 years ago when it was voluntary , we never would have done it. It took a law to get us to buckle up consistently, and now, they could probably retract the law and we'd still use seat belts because of our change of attitude.
Same thing here.. Sometimes we need to approach a problem from both the attitudinal and regulatory ends of the spectrum in order to really effect change.
Then how do you explain the dismal lack of enforcement of the Clean Air and Clean Water Acts?
I don't have any facts to prove or dis-prove your point, although in recent memory the last notable abuse of an ecosystem came from the EPA itself (http://www.denverpost.com/environment/ci_28608746/epas-colorado-mine-disaster-plume-flows-west-toward).
Williamsmith
12-14-15, 2:22pm
So Rogar, if we believe Karl.....it was a nice symbolic event designed to placate the environmentalists but will have no effect on the day to day living habits and economics of the average American.
Yossarian
12-14-15, 2:28pm
the day to day living habits and economics of the average American.
The more important issue is really the future living habits of the Chinese and Indians (dots not feathers). My guess is it won't change that trajectory enough to make any difference in the long run.
Williamsmith
12-14-15, 2:40pm
Regarding regulation vs. voluntary activity, I've read that attitude does NOT necessarily result in a change of behavior. On the contrary, changes in behavior results in changes in attitude. This was a big "aha" for me because I assumed that our attitudes result in behavior change. The example that was cited in the source I read this in (which I can't remember, but it might have been Charles Durhigg's book, Habit), used the example of seat belt laws.
We all want to be safe, but if it had been up to us to consistently use our seat belts 20 years ago when it was voluntary , we never would have done it. It took a law to get us to buckle up consistently, and now, they could probably retract the law and we'd still use seat belts because of our change of attitude.
Same thing here.. Sometimes we need to approach a problem from both the attitudinal and regulatory ends of the spectrum in order to really effect change.
I submit to you that the law did nothing but raise taxes for jurisdictions all across this country. That this law was only passed in every state because it was threatened to withhold federal funding from any state that did not require it. My state never made it a primary violation. You could never be cited for not buckling up without being cited for another violation. In other words, they never allowed failure to buckle up to be probable cause for a stop.
What changed habits was education......high school gore films on traffic accidents.....television spots......and pain in the ass annoying buzzers and noise makers that encourage you to buckle up. Proof? Do fewer people buckle up in the back seats than front seat? YEs absolutely. As soon as they stop putting those noise makers in vehicles....people will start driving without buckling up.
Now whats this say about climat change politics? There will be legal ramifications to not going along with the program in the form of withholding federal funding from states and financial punishment. Once it begins, they will never admit it's too late as long as they are making money through fines and redistribution. It's the ultimate scam because no one knows the outcome until we are all dead and gone for decades.
So Rogar, if we believe Karl.....it was a nice symbolic event designed to placate the environmentalists but will have no effect on the day to day living habits and economics of the average American.
I don't know that the details of the voluntary goal setting and regulation from the Paris summit will directly have a big impact on our day-to-day lives. I think the relevance of the Paris agreements is more in the message and the unprecedented global recognition of the risks of climate change. And it is a building point for more.
But I don't think would do it for this kind of thing.
Like, "Okay, populace! Time to force you all to live simply!"
That is a one ingredient recipe for revolt.
I have been involved in writing environmental and land use regulations for my county and state for the past 10+ years. It is very much the trend to use governmental force to limit the freedoms of individuals in order to "protect" the environment using "best available science". Even when there is no demonstrated harm, no nexus between the action being regulated and the harm, no proportionality to the proposed remedy, and we *voted* on which of the "best available science" we thought we'd use that day.
I'm also involved in several lawsuits on these matters, the first of which after some years has finally made it through the process to reach the state-level supreme court.
We shall see. The new draft of the shoreline protection regulations for the county seemingly forbid me from walking my dog within several hundred feet of my own beach, to protect native vegetation and wildlife. The nice thing about our regulations here is that they don't apply to everybody, you only get cited and prosecuted if you piss off someone in power. If you keep your head down and till the land and don't step out of line, you get left alone. Mostly.
ApatheticNoMore
12-14-15, 3:32pm
We all want to be safe, but if it had been up to us to consistently use our seat belts 20 years ago when it was voluntary , we never would have done it. It took a law to get us to buckle up consistently
I couldn't care less about laws and seat belts in fact it's the furthest thing from my mind, however what does get me to buckle up is the annoying beeping cars do nowdays when the seatbelt is not buckled. Laws who cares, but the beeping, make it stop, make it stop!!!! There's probably a law requiring beeping ...
I couldn't care less about laws and seat belts in fact it's the furthest thing from my mind, however what does get me to buckle up is the annoying beeping cars do nowdays when the seatbelt is not buckled. Laws who cares, but the beeping, make it stop, make it stop!!!! There's probably a law requiring beeping ...With my last car, I successfully turned off the seat belt warning beep through an odd series of pressing unrelated buttons a specific number of times and in a particular order. I then enjoyed approximately 5 years of noiseless driving. But, then I was noticed by a young member of the State Police who stopped me for failing to use my turn signal while sitting in a right-hand turn only lane (in my state a driver cannot be stopped for a seatbelt violation only, another violation must be present). The seat belt violation cost me $150.
I turned my seat belt warning system back on that evening. The only thing it protects is my wallet.
I wear my seatbelt because I wanted my kids to wear theirs so made an "if you will, I will" pact with them. The reason it was important to me is because I believe that for every person who dies in a crash because of being restricted by a belt there are hundreds that are saved by them. Those are simply odds worth playing in my world. I look at climate change much the same way. The evidence that we are warming up is strong enough to convince me that we are. The evidence that the trend is the result of human endeavors is a bit more subjective. So? It is 100% accepted that burning fossil fuels releases any number of volatile, toxic and carcinogenic substances into the environment. That's reason enough for me to work to lower my impact and to support the efforts of others to do the same. Its just playing the odds that less poison in the world would be better than more. If it helps slow the warming trend as well, so much the better.
Williamsmith
12-14-15, 4:58pm
With my last car, I successfully turned off the seat belt warning beep through an odd series of pressing unrelated buttons a specific number of times and in a particular order. I then enjoyed approximately 5 years of noiseless driving. But, then I was noticed by a young member of the State Police who stopped me for failing to use my turn signal while sitting in a right-hand turn only lane (in my state a driver cannot be stopped for a seatbelt violation only, another violation must be present). The seat belt violation cost me $150.
I turned my seat belt warning system back on that evening. The only thing it protects is my wallet.
The Ohio Highway Patrol is notorious for following the letter of the law and having little regard for what I would call the spirit of the law. I always attributed this to the difference between a Highway Patrol and a State Police. A Highway Patrolman has only one thing on his/her mind....traffic safety. A Trooper In a State Police organization is interested mainly in getting from point A to point B as fast as possible. No time for burnt out headlights, seat beat infractions, items hanging from mirrors and the like. You stand a far greater chance getting a warning from a State Police Trooper than you do a Highway Patrol Trooper. You stand no chance in Ohio, they don't give out warnings.
My mother's father was a Chicago Fireman from the forties through the sixties. Some things he saw made him an absolute zealot on the subject of seat belts. All his kids wore them, and all his grandchildren were pretty much indoctrinated from birth to wear them.
He was also fanatically opposed to real Christmas trees, insisting that it would be safer to soak the couch in gasoline and hope for the best. Remember those white aluminum trees? That's what we had.
Williamsmith
12-15-15, 5:14am
Is it time to reinvest in a proven clean energy solution .........Nuclear power plants? Clearly current nuclear technology could help achieve the goals set out by this agreement. Let's put the money in a proven technology. No need to downgrade our standard of living. Or is an act of contrition part of the religion?
My mother's father was a Chicago Fireman from the forties through the sixties. Some things he saw made him an absolute zealot on the subject of seat belts.
In my infinite spare time, I do vehicular extrications after auto accidents. I have never pulled a corpse out of a car that had a fastened seat belt. I have had to spend an hour to find ejected ...bits... of occupants that were not wearing belts. I carry a thermal imaging camera now to help find them faster, works pretty well before they cool down to ambient temperature.
So wear your seat belts, OK?
Ultralight
12-15-15, 8:03am
Is it time to reinvest in a proven clean energy solution .........Nuclear power plants? Clearly current nuclear technology could help achieve the goals set out by this agreement. Let's put the money in a proven technology. No need to downgrade our standard of living. Or is an act of contrition part of the religion?
1. What happens when one malfunctions in a major way?
2. My concern about this, besides a major malfunction, is the idea that we would not have to lower our standard of living. What we do with the energy is as important as how we get that energy. Do we use it to power factories that build SUVs or do you use it to power hospitals? See what I mean?
Ultralight
12-15-15, 8:03am
In my infinite spare time, I do vehicular extrications after auto accidents. I have never pulled a corpse out of a car that had a fastened seat belt. I have had to spend an hour to find ejected ...bits... of occupants that were not wearing belts. I carry a thermal imaging camera now to help find them faster, works pretty well before they cool down to ambient temperature.
So wear your seat belts, OK?
Amen, bother!
Williamsmith
12-15-15, 10:56am
1. What happens when one malfunctions in a major way?
2. My concern about this, besides a major malfunction, is the idea that we would not have to lower our standard of living. What we do with the energy is as important as how we get that energy. Do we use it to power factories that build SUVs or do you use it to power hospitals? See what I mean?
I spent my childhood and and teen years in the shadow of a major nuclear power plant. If you throw out the Chernobyl accident as an extreme outlier made disastrous by failed management, then you have a record of relative safety compared to the benefit of use as a tool to overcome the imminent and completely certain doom of climate change.
If nuclear power is adopted as the central prong in a three pronged approach to righting the ship of fossil fuel reliance and the other two prongs are a conglomerate of all the other alternative renewable methods plus a gradual reduction of energy usage or increase in energy efficiency wouldn't that make more sense than forcing an implausible solution of worldwide use of all renewable energies coupled with decreases in fossil fuel usage none of which will be accepted and all of which will ensure nothing is accomplished. The world will continue on its fossil fuel binge assuredly. Nuclear will provide a foreseeable way out for everyone.
Standardization should also be a key in a nuclear future. If every plant had the same design all the parts and all the people could interchange. There should also be a pretty significant net gain in the quality of the response in the event of an incident. Our current system of (almost) every plant having a unique design IS a recipe for disaster. I believe France gets close to 80% of their power from nuclear and that it is standardized proving that it can be done.
Conservation is just as key as where power comes from. What goes to heating/cooling/lighting buildings dwarfs the 1,000 mile salads of the world. Things as simple as more efficient architecture not only reduce the demand they improve the quality of the interior environment. Sunlight shining into an office and on to a concrete floor can not only replace electric lights it can condition the space during the day and then overnight as heat is radiated back from the slab (the thermal battery). The indigenous folks in the desert southwest did essentially the same thing centuries ago and it worked really well. Its cool inside a pueblo during the day when its 110* outside and its warm at night when its 40*. Just one more example of how and why we should include indigenous cultures and traditions with our new technology...
The notorious Hanford nuclear installation has been leaking radioactive water for years; it may have reached the Columbia River by now. And we live in an active fault zone, so Fukushima lives large. I would consider nuclear power a last resort--at least around here.
Williamsmith
12-15-15, 3:11pm
The notorious Hanford nuclear installation has been leaking radioactive water for years; it may have reached the Columbia River by now. And we live in an active fault zone, so Fukushima lives large. I would consider nuclear power a last resort--at least around here.
Radiation exposure to the general populations that live around nuclear power plants are significantly lower than naturally occurring radiation and especially lower than radiation from mining and therapeutic uses. And if you consider all health risks, fossil fuel burning and industrialization are much greater hazards than nuclear radiation ever has been.
For those living in areas that present unacceptable risks due to geography, or geology....either new technologies to protect facilities or reliance on renewable alternate energy would be applied.
The same people who have consistently been against the use of nuclear energy for safety reasons need to take a closer look at the threat of climate change realizing that nuclear power is a tool that can be applied to the problem with reasonable assurance of success. This is something that cannot be said of any other approach mentioned to date.
The same people who have consistently been against the use of nuclear energy for safety reasons need to take a closer look at the threat of climate change realizing that nuclear power is a tool that can be applied to the problem with reasonable assurance of success. This is something that cannot be said of any other approach mentioned to date.
Correct. As much as I love the thought of decentralized power we just don't have anything with the kind of bang for the buck that nuclear has. And as we've discussed before even (active) solar gets pretty dirty when the full life cycle, including the manufacturing and eventual disposal processes, are taken into account. In the end any approach that doesn't include a pretty wide range of solutions is probably destined to fail.
Williamsmith
12-15-15, 8:13pm
The following countries use nuclear energy to supply significant portions of demand (USA 19%, Sweden 38%, France 75%). Interesting to me that France...host country for the recent climate change meetings is the world leader in Nuclear utilization. It is expected that China, India, Russia and Korea will build the largest percentage of new Nuclear power plants in the near future. The United states could take a huge leap forward in energy independence and world credibility if we would embrace a plan to double the amount of nuclear power plants in the next ten years. Of course, most of the cost is in construction or up front. Do we have the political will to do this? Does any of tonights debate participants have the guts to suggest nuclear as a way forward? Duh?
ApatheticNoMore
12-15-15, 8:21pm
Japan is ahead of the U.S. at 30%, oh hmm is I guess I mean was ... as some of that nuclear power isn't doing anything but leaking into the Pacific without end I guess.
Now climate change it's too late to entirely prevent, rising oceans, greater storms, nuclear power plants by the ocean, lets irradiate ourselves before we go out, to give a jump on evolution (mutation) to any species that secedes us.
I know very little about nuclear power and had to study up a little. Just like climate change there are conflicting opinions that both sound reasonable to the uninitiated. My first take is that technology, site selection, and safety management have probably improved significantly since the major nuclear disasters. At least one source that did not seem alarmist brought up the fact that the supply of uranium is expected to last only for the next 30 to 60 years, and I would guess that would be less if there was a big rush to nuclear power. Of course, we've seen peak oil come and go, in spite of the dire predictions. And 90% of the uranium used in the U.S. comes from Russia, so it might be a step back in energy independence. Waste disposal also seems to be an ongoing problem and it seems to be that there are large quantities "just sitting round" nuclear power plants because there is no approved way to dispose of it. And of course the waste has to be managed or sequestered for several thousand years.
I could be convinced otherwise with more information, but it makes better sense to me to see if alternate technologies in renewables become more feasible. A quote from one guy I rounded up though I don't know where or if his bias might go..
There is no shortage of ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions: the essential question relates to cost,” said IEER president Dr. Arjun Makhijani. “Wind power with pumped storage, combined cycle liquefied natural gas power plants, and power plants using integrated coal gasification with carbon dioxide sequestration, all have costs comparable to estimates for nuclear power made by its advocates.” Dr. Makhijani has a Ph.D. in engineering from the University of California at Berkeley and has authored many publications on energy policy, including nuclear power and the first ever assessment of the energy efficiency potential of the U.S. economy.
rodeosweetheart
12-15-15, 8:24pm
When I worked at IKEA, we had to watch a movie about Sweden at worker orientation and THEY said that 70% of Sweden's electric power was hydroelectric.. .
Williamsmith
12-15-15, 9:04pm
I know very little about nuclear power and had to study up a little. Just like climate change there are conflicting opinions that both sound reasonable to the uninitiated. My first take is that technology, site selection, and safety management have probably improved significantly since the major nuclear disasters. At least one source that did not seem alarmist brought up the fact that the supply of uranium is expected to last only for the next 30 to 60 years, and I would guess that would be less if there was a big rush to nuclear power. Of course, we've seen peak oil come and go, in spite of the dire predictions. And 90% of the uranium used in the U.S. comes from Russia, so it might be a step back in energy independence. Waste disposal also seems to be an ongoing problem and it seems to be that there are large quantities "just sitting round" nuclear power plants because there is no approved way to dispose of it. And of course the waste has to be managed or sequestered for several thousand years.
I could be convinced otherwise with more information, but it makes better sense to me to see if alternate technologies in renewables become more feasible. A quote from one guy I rounded up though I don't know where or if his bias might go..
There is no shortage of ways to reduce carbon dioxide emissions: the essential question relates to cost,” said IEER president Dr. Arjun Makhijani. “Wind power with pumped storage, combined cycle liquefied natural gas power plants, and power plants using integrated coal gasification with carbon dioxide sequestration, all have costs comparable to estimates for nuclear power made by its advocates.” Dr. Makhijani has a Ph.D. in engineering from the University of California at Berkeley and has authored many publications on energy policy, including nuclear power and the first ever assessment of the energy efficiency potential of the U.S. economy.
Regarding uranium supply estimates......the IAEA cites 120 years at current known costs to mine current known resources.
Australia seems to have the largest uranium resource....far greater than the Russian Federation.
France, Sweden and Finland utilize the highest level of waste storage technology in the world. Technology has advanced since opinions of the suseptibility to leakage were formed thirty years ago. The trend is to construct vaults capable of being accessed so that spent fuel could be reused and processed.
There are plenty of climate change activists and scientists who advocate for nuclear power as a solution to catastrophic global warming.
In in the past, talk of nuclear power among environmentalists was unheard of.........now since the impending climate change apocalypse has been proven to be fact......time for them to evaluate their angst when it comes to viable solutions.
I usually count on wiki for an unbiased opinion, though they are not always perfect. On the topic of "peak uranium" they say that at the current use rate the known reserves are more like 80 years, with other estimates saying more or less. If electric use of uranium were increased by six fold as a new primary energy source, known recoverable reserves might only last 12 years. You could check it out on your own if you would like to verify the sources, which seemed good to me. They add that undiscovered sources or unconventional sources could add to that, since there hasn't been much recent exploration. There are more details that I could cover here and it's slightly complicated. Your read might be different than mine. Of course we've all been through peak oil and that hasn't quite panned out.
I'm not necessarily arguing for or against nuclear, but trying to get at the details. It might indeed be a last refuge.
ApatheticNoMore
12-15-15, 9:33pm
If technology has advanced so much why wasn't Fukushima prevented? Oh technology has advanced but human beings are the same as they ever were (and will cut corners, operate things known to be unsafe in the name of slightly greater profits, corrupt the regulators designed to ensure safety etc.). Yes. It will be human error of course, not technology with all it's theoretical perfection. Doesn't mean I want to be in the surrounding area.
Even if new nuclear power plants could be build to be human error proof, older ones are clearly not and were operating for years in possibly unsafe conditions (San Onofre probably). Any push for new plants will not reevaluate the safety of old ones I am pretty certain, which are unlikely to be safe at all.
Williamsmith
12-15-15, 9:45pm
Rogar,
I have valued your unbiased approach to past discussions and take anything you post as accurate to the best of your knowledge. My approach to this has been, as someone who lived within the "threat zone" of a nuclear power plant back forty years ago. I understand the lack of trust the nuclear industry is up against. And prior to the advent of the climate change holocost, nuclear was off the table.
But those who are convinced of the need to act now have painted themselves into a corner as the most logical viable solution is something they have worked so hard to denigrate. If they work against such a solution they will appear to be hypocrites. A group so founded on scientific research and computer model outcomes and a plethora of other intricate-climate scientist data; refusing to accept the rescue by the nuclear scientific field, would seem like the shoe is now on the other foot.
Williamsmith
12-15-15, 9:50pm
If technology has advanced so much why wasn't Fukushima prevented? Oh technology has advanced but human beings are the same as they ever were (and will cut corners, operate things known to be unsafe in the name of slightly greater profits, corrupt the regulators designed to ensure safety etc.). Yes. It will be human error of course, not technology with all it's theoretical perfection. Doesn't mean I want to be in the surrounding area.
I understand your skepticism and opinion but I must point out the infinitely more probable outcome is that the world experiences a near apocalyptic or history making war for resources. The use of nuclear and biological weapons and the murder or death of half the population of the world. Yes, problem solved for whoever survives.
Also I'd like to point out that fossil fuel power plant operations will be responsible for more deaths through air pollution than a whole outbreak of Fukushima incidents. How many were killed at Fukushima?
In in the past, talk of nuclear power among environmentalists was unheard of.........now since the impending climate change apocalypse has been proven to be fact......time for them to evaluate their angst when it comes to viable solutions.
You know, as a side note it is interesting to think how the term "environmentalist" has morphed over the last couple of decades to where, climate change=environmentalist. It used to be much more and about saving some wilderness, preserving species diversity and habitat, dealing with population growth, and cutting back on other dangerous by-products of society.
Regarding uranium supply estimates......the IAEA cites 120 years at current known costs to mine current known resources.
Australia seems to have the largest uranium resource....far greater than the Russian Federation.
But who controls the uranium in the various countries? Russia controls roughly 1/5th of the US uranium supply. Our State Dept., signed off on the sale after the Clinton Foundation received somewhere around $50M in donations from Russian investors. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html)
Williamsmith
12-15-15, 11:14pm
But who controls the uranium in the various countries? Russia controls roughly 1/5th of the US uranium supply. Our State Dept., signed off on the sale after the Clinton Foundation received somewhere around $50M in donations from Russian investors. http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/04/23/us/clinton-foundation-donations-uranium-investors.html)
Alan, you are going to crack open a whole other topic with this observation. Our relationship with Russia has gone downhill ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Largely, IMO due to our relationships with Saudia Arabia, Israel,and the European Union / NATO. At every point we position ourselves against Russia, poke sticks at them through financial war. Saudia Arabia is pumping oil out of the ground at a frantic pace to punish Russia's economy. whens the last time you got gas at 1.99 gal.
Will Russia be ruined before Saudia Arabia runs out in of oil? I don't know. We've followed a Middle East regime change strategy that is a complete failure. As soon as the Saudis lose complete faith in the United States that we can protect them, game is over. There will be plenty of our boots on the ground if ISIS gets that far. We need to repair our relations with Russia. Assad can have his little kingdom. Big deal. We will be better off with Russia as a partner than Russia as an enemy. Trading partners for Uranium......you bet.
Fukushima was designed in the 1960s, and went online in 1971, so it is perhaps not a good example of modern nuclear plant design...
Fukushima was designed in the 1960s, and went online in 1971, so it is perhaps not a good example of modern nuclear plant design...
Or site location.
I have a friend who is a consulting safety engineer and has worked on nuclear plant expansions or modifications. I have had more than one lecture about the very expensive risk assessments and the safety differences between those older plants and modern design. Unfortunately, much of the detail has been lost in my memories, but he makes a very convincing argument for modern design safety.
ApatheticNoMore
12-16-15, 4:19am
Fukushima was designed in the 1960s, and went online in 1971, so it is perhaps not a good example of modern nuclear plant design...
it's an example enough of what you'll get with fallible often corrupt human beings in charge, and they always are, of something like nuclear power. If it wasn't safe why wasn't it shuttered entirely and a brand new plant built or something if the new plants are the only safe ones ... yea the corruption, the cost cutting etc. And this could not in any way degrade modern nuclear plant design? I doubt any nuclear plant advocates are even pushing for shutting down old plants, but being that they are built on old faulty technology and the new technology is supposedly much better, they maybe should be.
I have a friend who is a consulting safety engineer and has worked on nuclear plant expansions or modifications. I have had more than one lecture about the very expensive risk assessments and the safety differences between those older plants and modern design. Unfortunately, much of the detail has been lost in my memories, but he makes a very convincing argument for modern design safety.
From wiki:
The last newly built reactor to enter service was Watts Bar 1 in Tennessee, in 1996. In 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) voted to complete construction of Watts Bar 2. As of February 2015, the TVA estimates that commercial operation of Watts Bar 2 could begin between September 2015 and June 2016.
Except for the Watts Bar 2 its been 20 years since our last reactor came online and the vast majority of the US nuclear plants were built between the late 1960s and the early/mid 1980s. Thirty to as much as 50 years ago.
When I worked at IKEA, we had to watch a movie about Sweden at worker orientation and THEY said that 70% of Sweden's electric power was hydroelectric.. .
While hydro is clean its not without environmental consequences. Ask a salmon. It also pays to remember that Sweden is a country of less than 10 million people so a little under 7 million using hydro-power. Again according to wiki, the US gets 6.53% of its electricity from hydro. Assuming a population of around 320 million that's over 20 million getting power from hydro here.
Charles Eisenstein posted an essay today ... I am certain we will not "save our planet" (or at least the ecological basis of civilization) by merely being more clever in our deployment of Earth's "resources". We will not escape this crisis so long as we see the planet and everything on it as instruments of our utility. The present climate change narrative veers too close to instrumental utilitarian logic -- that we should value the earth because of what will happen to us if we don't. Where did we develop the habit of making choices based on maximizing or minimizing a number? We got it from the money world. We are seeking to apply our numbers games to a new target, CO2 rather than dollars. I don't think that is a deep enough revolution. We need a revolution in means, not only a revolution in ends. Plus one on this. Everything I hear just sounds like the same anthropocentric, meme-affirming babble that got us into this mess. I also have to wonder ... if we analyze the primary offenders in climate-changing behavior ... why on earth are we pledging money to the people who aren't really creating much of a problem? That's like saying I weigh 450 pounds, so I'm giving you $100 to go on Jenny Craig because, how awful, you're 10 pounds overweight. Huh?
Our relationship with Russia has gone downhill ever since the collapse of the Soviet Union.
Our relationship with Russia has been one of mutual hostility for a much longer time than that.
From wiki:
Except for the Watts Bar 2 its been 20 years since our last reactor came online and the vast majority of the US nuclear plants were built between the late 1960s and the early/mid 1980s. Thirty to as much as 50 years ago.
While it is true that the US has been very risk averse to nuclear power since Three Mile Island, the rest of the world hasn't shared our concern. With 60 reactors currently under construction around the world there're ample modern engineering examples available for study.
Williamsmith
12-17-15, 1:16pm
Our relationship with Russia has been one of mutual hostility for a much longer time than that.
True.....and that needs to change. A Russian-USA alliance would be a nice paradigm with both feeling comfortable with a reduction in nuclear warheads and military spending. Both populations would benefit from an investment in infrastructure from savings in a reduction of militarism.
Ultralight
12-17-15, 1:19pm
Anyone ever read Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke?
I kind of think that what happens in there is probably the only way we could beat climate change (and other issues that are causing us major problems).
Anyone ever read Childhood's End by Arthur C. Clarke?
I kind of think that what happens in there is probably the only way we could beat climate change (and other issues that are causing us major problems).
To have Overlords erase humanity and eventually evaporate the earth? Yeah, I guess that would do it.
Ultralight
12-17-15, 1:35pm
To have Overlords erase humanity and eventually evaporate the earth? Yeah, I guess that would do it.
I haven't been watching the SyFy series, so no spoilers.
I did read the book and loved it! Though I obviously had some problems with it.
Though if you remember, the Overlords created a golden age where Earth was a utopia.
I haven't been watching the SyFy series, so no spoilers.
I did read the book and loved it! Though I obviously had some problems with it.
Though if you remember, the Overlords created a golden age where Earth was a utopia.
I haven't watched it either. In the book, the Overlords did create a utopia, but it was short lived. Within a hundred years or so, the earth no longer existed.
Ultralight
12-17-15, 1:51pm
I haven't watched it either. In the book, the Overlords did create a utopia, but it was short lived. Within a hundred years or so, the earth no longer existed.
A hundred years is a long time for a utopia to last.
But my point was that I don't think we have a hope in this universe of not fully destroying the planet for the sake of convenience and/or vanity.
A hundred years is a long time for a utopia to last.
I don't know, a hundred years of loss of individuality and culture may seem much longer than real time might indicate, and that's the type of utopia Clarke wrote of. I'd imagine it more along the lines of the current utopian society in North Korea, which I think is an apt description of any utopia created and maintained by our current Climate Change Warriors.
Ultralight
12-17-15, 3:25pm
I don't know, a hundred years of loss of individuality and culture may seem much longer than real time might indicate, and that's the type of utopia Clarke wrote of. I'd imagine it more along the lines of the current utopian society in North Korea, which I think is an apt description of any utopia created and maintained by our current Climate Change Warriors.
Our current climate change idealists (warriors, as you call them) would probably cite Costa Rica way before North Korea. Seriously.
In the book everyone was able to pursue most forms of meaningful work and hobbies during the golden age. They also had fam, friends, etc. There was no disease or anything either.
They lost religion and war though. And they were blocked from certain knowledge.
I don't know, a hundred years of loss of individuality and culture may seem much longer than real time might indicate, and that's the type of utopia Clarke wrote of. I'd imagine it more along the lines of the current utopian society in North Korea, which I think is an apt description of any utopia created and maintained by our current Climate Change Warriors.
Alan, I have a similar suspicion of that kind of designed "utopia", but I'm not quite following the link between that and the current crop of climate change warriors. Care to enlighten me a little bit?
Alan, I have a similar suspicion of that kind of designed "utopia", but I'm not quite following the link between that and the current crop of climate change warriors. Care to enlighten me a little bit?
http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/citylab/2012/12/18/north_korea_satellite_nasa_lights_keyed/lead_large.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwifnMu43uXJAhWJQyYKHUJ5BtsQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citylab.com%2Ftech%2F2012%2F1 2%2Fnew-highly-detailed-image-north-koreas-lack-electrical-infrastructure%2F4201%2F&psig=AFQjCNG_JCWdEXwxu1NM_pe9rIurk9veJA&ust=1450539370947499)
Williamsmith
12-18-15, 11:56am
North Korea can certainly claim they are doing their part to reduce carbon emissions. I hear that the government felt it was cheaper to issue each citizen night vision goggles rather than try to light up the streets and cities.
http://cdn.citylab.com/media/img/citylab/2012/12/18/north_korea_satellite_nasa_lights_keyed/lead_large.jpg (http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwifnMu43uXJAhWJQyYKHUJ5BtsQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.citylab.com%2Ftech%2F2012%2F1 2%2Fnew-highly-detailed-image-north-koreas-lack-electrical-infrastructure%2F4201%2F&psig=AFQjCNG_JCWdEXwxu1NM_pe9rIurk9veJA&ust=1450539370947499)
Lol. Now I get it. Was just broadcasting on a completely different wavelength with that one.
Lol. Now I get it. Was just broadcasting on a completely different wavelength with that one.Consider yourself "enlightened".
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.