Naomi Klein: Capitalism vs. the Climate

[SEGsby]

Haven't you learned yet? Never bet on a dream...

[randyd]

Originally Posted by PatQ562

The reader may detect a Libertarian slant to my thinking, but the moral principle of informed consent is very powerful. I am coming to believe that eliminating fraud can justify the imposition of taxes to capture the hidden costs of impacts that are otherwise dumped on an unwilling public, but this is much different than simply prohibiting things or confiscating wealth. One problem with taxes on consumption, aside from their general unpopularity, is that people resent the fact that "the rich" can pay them and therefore "get away" with doing the taxable activity. Clearer thinking would suggest that such people are contributing more to the cost of government, which benefits us all.

If only a creditable foundation or political party would make a real effort to work out the numbers of replacing the income tax and general sales tax with taxes levied on impacts and pollution. Obviously, the same funds must be raised either way, but I wonder if people would be happier getting the IRS out of their personal lives, and keeping all their earnings, even though goods and services would cost more. Wouldn't it be nice to know that the cheaper alternative is also better for the environment? This would seem to offer more choices and ability for people and businesses to invest in themselves.

Pat Q

None of the Republican candidates are electable. Have you considered running?
I would vote for you and I'm a registered Democrat!

[NeilBlanchard]

I think the Serria Club has the wrong end of the stick...

Wood is renewable. Solar collection can be distributed, so the power doesn't have to be. Or, it can be centralized, and grid distribution is actually pretty efficient -- about 8% loss average. And since there is no fuel burned, the loss is "fine" -- just as long as you can collect enough for your use. Combining various renewable sources is the key, and storage is done in several ways: elevated water reservoirs (pump water up when there is an excess and then generate power by letting it back down when needed) and similarly, air pressure can be stored underground in spent gas fields. Also, electric cars can be used to buffer power on a grid, and older batteries can be used en mass to store power, too.

Solar peaks when the load is the highest (for A/C) and wind turbines are quite dependable and predictable at about 40-45% of peak output if they are widely distributed. Wave power is pretty constant, as is tidal power. Biomass can be stored and put into use as needed -- methane digesters (from sewage and farm waste) can store just like natural gas. Geothermal can be drilled and can be controlled.

The distribution of sources is great insurance. Fuel costs will not go up. There are no pollution costs, and no military costs to defend our sources. And they are all over the place, so no one controls them and everyone has access.

Sure, liquid fuels can be used but they should be reserved for special uses.

Nuclear is limit by uranium supplies, and it is *not* carbon free -- not even close! It is very expensive, and the radioactive wastes are still a HUGE problem. Plutonium is both extremely radioactive for over 100,000 years and it is extremely poisonous. No thanks.

[PatQ562]

To substantially convert the country to run on renewable energy will be a huge heavy-industry effort, as reflected by the costs, which are the main barrier to immediate deployment (and a significant indicator of the effort required). All of this activity has an impact too. So "renewables" is not carbon free. However, if we had an impact-adjusted tax policy, the costs for low-impact energy would become more advantageous and we would see free enterprise moving into the business. Don't forget, too, that much coal is used in non-energy-producing industrial processes such as smelting steel. This too will need to be replaced with something. I believe that electricity generation only accounts for about a third of our fossil fuel use (36% in 2008 per Wikipedia).

I agree that "nuclear" as we know it today (fission of heavy elements) has significant drawbacks, and today's big reactors will someday be as obsolete as the Victorian steam pumps now on display in the London Science Museum. Still, they should get credit for being the first energy source to at least try, and substantially succeed, in keeping their waste products out of the environment.

It's still in the dream stage, but I still suspect there are better, smarter, controllable ways to extract energy from nuclear potentials. I can't prove it, but if we keep supporting science and looking, I bet we will find new resources. Such efforts take long and patient investment - normally possible only from rich visionaries or politically independent institutions - even governments are driven back and forth by political winds of change. This is one reason I'm skeptical of "progressives" who automatically oppose large corporations or amassed wealth.

Meanwhile: consumption taxes, efficiency incentives, and continued progress on smart systems and networks can do a lot.

Pat Q

[Grendal]

Modern nuclear is a clear choice for those that want relatively clean energy. The potential for significant toxicity is great but there have been huge advances that haven't been exploited or attempted due to nuclear energy's past stigma. Regulation and safety need to be paramount in any nuclear endeavor. Fusion energy in the future is a must because that will help get us off the planet by powering future spacecraft as well.

[NeilBlanchard]

If you make the next generation of renewable energy systems with renewable energy, then the carbon used will decrease. Recycling of material will lower the energy input.

Renewable energy is by far the lowest carbon input, and over time it will get lower and lower.

Nuclear produces about 75% as much carbon as coal. Here's a partial list of the carbon used:

Uranium must be mined, and then it has to be transported, and refined, and enriched, and processed into metal pellets (with the metal it is combined with going through a similar stream), and made into fuel rods, and then transported again, and loaded into the reactor. (Which by the way takes many weeks so the plant is not producing power.)

The plant itself takes a lot of energy to build: concrete is one of the most energy intensive building materials there is. Steel is very high energy input, so there are many years of energy input before any production.

The fuel rods are used for 3-6 years, and then they have to be stored in water for at least 10 years, and they have to be moved around, and the water has to be pumped and cooled all that time.

Then enormous dry cask storage has to be constructed with more concrete and steel. These are many thousands of tons, and they have to be stored securely for hundreds of centuries. They have to be prevented from leaking or breaking down in earthquakes, storms etc. for a time period about TEN TIMES LONGER than recorded history!

The plants themselves are dangerous, and they have to be centralized, kept secure and safe for the 40-60 years of operation. Nobody wants them nearby, and with good reason. After a plants is worn out -- it then has to be disassembled, piece by piece, and then buried or burned or processed. Who is going to pay for all this, and what energy source will be used to do all this?

Think about it.

*****

On the other hand, the sun is a fusion reactor at a safe distance. The power is being transmitted to us for free. It shines enough energy on the earth in ONE HOUR that could power the ENTIRE WORLD for ONE YEAR. If you account for efficiencies, then it would take a week to gather all the power we can use in a whole year.

The earth's gravity is heating the core of the planet, and the moon is going to keep orbiting for a very long time.

Wind could provide all the power in a month for an entire year. Waves would take about a month. Geothermal, tides, biomass -- all renewables combined could provide 10-50X as much energy as we need. Obviously, we only need a small fraction of what is available.

All of these are sustainable, and the pollution is virtually nothing, if properly done. These would stop the global warming process.

What good is a bunch of money for a few people if we ruin the planet?

[AR-51]

http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2011/...1-has-arrived/

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...limategate-ii/

somehow we have to leave the[m] thinking OK, climate change is extremely
complicated, BUT I accept the dominant view that people are affecting it, and
that impacts produces risk that needs careful and urgent attention.
<1790> Lorenzoni:

A growing body of evidence clearly shows [2008] that hydroclimatic variability
during the putative MWP (more appropriately and inclusively called the
“Medieval Climate Anomaly” or MCA period) was more regionally extreme (mainly
in terms of the frequency and duration of megadroughts) than anything we have
seen in the 20th century, except perhaps for the Sahel. So in certain ways the
MCA period may have been more climatically extreme than in modern times.

/// The Settled Science ///

<0310> Warren:

lol

[SEGsby]

Human Free Habitation Zones and cancer, sucks...

Just sayin'.

[SEGsby]

*Laughs*

I like how these email "hacks" pop up after a major study comes out that's once again confirmed Climate Change and it being Anthropogenic.

Funny that.

So what happened with Climate Gate One? Nothing. It was exposed as utter rubbish, that was simply designed to taint the upcoming Copenhagan Climate Change Summit.

It is unfortunate that folks are so easily derailed and looking at stunts done for shaping PR, than the actual data that says it's real. And this will turn out just as contrived, timed and utter BS as Climate Gate I was.

I feel sad you fell for it, AGAIN.

Originally Posted by AR-51

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ja...limategate-ii/

[AR-51]

Originally Posted by SEGsby

*Laughs*

I like how these email "hacks" pop up after a major study comes out that's once again confirmed Climate Change and it being Anthropogenic.

Funny that.

So what happened with Climate Gate One? Nothing. It was exposed as utter rubbish, that was simply designed to taint the upcoming Copenhagan Climate Change Summit.

It is unfortunate that folks are so easily derailed and looking at stunts done for shaping PR, than the actual data that says it's real. And this will turn out just as contrived, timed and utter BS as Climate Gate I was.

I feel sad you fell for it, AGAIN.

Please don't fell sad for me. Let me quote a scientist.

would you agree that there is no convincing evidence for kilimanjaro glacier
melt being due to recent warming (let alone man-made warming)?
<2292> Jones:

[tropical glaciers] There is a small problem though with their retreat. They
have retreated a lot in the last 20 years yet the MSU2LT data would suggest
that temperatures haven’t increased at these levels.
<1788> Jones:

There shouldn’t be someone else at UEA with different views [from "recent
extreme weather is due to global warming"] – at least not a climatologist.
<4693> Crowley:

I am not convinced that the “truth” is always worth reaching if it is at the
cost of damaged personal relationships
<2967> Briffa:

Also there is much published evidence for Europe (and France in particular) of
increasing net primary productivity in natural and managed woodlands that may
be associated either with nitrogen or increasing CO2 or both. Contrast this
with the still controversial question of large-scale acid-rain-related forest
decline? To what extent is this issue now generally considered urgent, or even
real?
<2733> Crowley:

Phil, thanks for your thoughts – guarantee there will be no dirty laundry in
the open.
<2095> Steig:

He’s skeptical that the warming is as great as we show in East Antarctica — he
thinks the “right” answer is more like our detrended results in the
supplementary text. I cannot argue he is wrong.
<0953> Jones: