Okay, all–this is a slow developing post. I hope you can stick with me to the end here.
If you’re reading this, the chances are better than even that you are a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement. That’s if respondents to last year’s survey of WUWT visitors told the truth.
If it is true, it may surprise you to learn that there is a body of medical and sociological literature written specifically about you. The theme of the literature is how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.
It isn’t aimed directly at you, but at your wives, doctors and nurses, which is why you may never have heard of it. The literature is big on prevention–getting you to finally put down the cigarettes, lose the weight and lay off the hard liquor so you don’t keel over too soon.
Whatever man-made climate change turns out to be, it is not a permanent state. This is something that is not often discussed, but is very true. This is a ‘life stage’ the human race is going through–probably not late middle age, but late adolescent–but it is certainly a phase, not a permanent condition.
The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today. The textile workers in Vietnam making $84 a month? Their grandchildren will be making more than our national average today.
During the next 65 years the world’s energy consumption will skyrocket, both because of more people and because so many will be adopting western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.
But it won’t be permanent. Here in the US, our energy consumption per capita is already declining, and it is declining or very stable in most of the richer countries of the world. About 20 years after world population peaks, shortly before 2100, the world’s energy consumption will peak as well, and both will start to decline.
At that point (and maybe long before, if technology does what technology normally does), our impact on this planet and its atmosphere will begin to slowly decrease. We will have passed the crisis point, and will be moving into–what? Adulthood? Middle age? I guess they’ll come up with a cute name for it.
The two points I’d like to make is, first, that whatever we do on behalf of the planet can be looked at as our generation’s contribution to a future that is almost in sight already. 90 years? Kids being born today will see it.
Second, those who are trying to push apocalyptic scenarios for political reasons need to keep their story lines straighter than they have so far. There are far more reasons for optimism than pessimism.
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this, it may be because I’m looking at this as just part of our generational duty–a far lighter duty than previous generations had to shoulder.
Yes, I think we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2. Yes, I believe that we should spend more of our money on researching energy efficiency and things like utility level storage of energy.
But like most of you, I am an optimist at heart. I am truly confident that we have the system in place to find the solutions that we need and to put them in place. If we’re wrangling about it now, it’s a combination of anger at those who have blown this out of proportion and sticker shock at what the solution may cost.
But I do believe we’ll get there, and without having the revolutionary upheaval so many think is the only way to get through this.
Okay, all–this is a slow developing post. I hope you can stick with me to the end here.
If you’re reading this, the chances are better than even that you are a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement. That’s if respondents to last year’s survey of WUWT visitors told the truth.
If it is true, it may surprise you to learn that there is a body of medical and sociological literature written specifically about you. The theme of the literature is how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.
It isn’t aimed directly at you, but at your wives, doctors and nurses, which is why you may never have heard of it. The literature is big on prevention–getting you to finally put down the cigarettes, lose the weight and lay off the hard liquor so you don’t keel over too soon.
Whatever man-made climate change turns out to be, it is not a permanent state. This is something that is not often discussed, but is very true. This is a ‘life stage’ the human race is going through–probably not late middle age, but late adolescent–but it is certainly a phase, not a permanent condition.
The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today. The textile workers in Vietnam making $84 a month? Their grandchildren will be making more than our national average today.
During the next 65 years the world’s energy consumption will skyrocket, both because of more people and because so many will be adopting western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.
But it won’t be permanent. Here in the US, our energy consumption per capita is already declining, and it is declining or very stable in most of the richer countries of the world. About 20 years after world population peaks, shortly before 2100, the world’s energy consumption will peak as well, and both will start to decline.
At that point (and maybe long before, if technology does what technology normally does), our impact on this planet and its atmosphere will begin to slowly decrease. We will have passed the crisis point, and will be moving into–what? Adulthood? Middle age? I guess they’ll come up with a cute name for it.
The two points I’d like to make is, first, that whatever we do on behalf of the planet can be looked at as our generation’s contribution to a future that is almost in sight already. 90 years? Kids being born today will see it.
Second, those who are trying to push apocalyptic scenarios for political reasons need to keep their story lines straighter than they have so far. There are far more reasons for optimism than pessimism.
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this, it may be because I’m looking at this as just part of our generational duty–a far lighter duty than previous generations had to shoulder.
Yes, I think we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2. Yes, I believe that we should spend more of our money on researching energy efficiency and things like utility level storage of energy.
But like most of you, I am an optimist at heart. I am truly confident that we have the system in place to find the solutions that we need and to put them in place. If we’re wrangling about it now, it’s a combination of anger at those who have blown this out of proportion and sticker shock at what the solution may cost.
But I do believe we’ll get there, and without having the revolutionary upheaval so many think is the only way to get through this.
Mr. Fuller,
The responses are more revealing, as is often the case, of the responder rather than the initiating thoughts. Regardless of what individual women might wish in gender issues, more men than women are technophiles and number-oriented analysts. How it is. I, like my majority sex, am obsessive to the point of distraction to my female friends, but am understood, if not quite receiving agreement from, my male associates. The significance of conclusions, potential impacts etc., which forms the heart of the environmental cause, lacks importance to me if the fundamental details do not ring true. My warmist connections float over this argument, in part because it is so difficult to put to rest, as evidenced by the continuing CAGW/normal-plus-a-bit dispute. When one is worried about being run down when crossing the street, he is not pleased when a bystander is trying to find someone who actually has seen cars travelling down that street, let alone a mad rush of traffic.
As we go forward there are a lot of possible, alarming scenarios. All are population based, as our impact on the world is a volume vs time problem. I, too, am an optomist. I expect that the killing fields of Africa and Asia will decline as their societies enter the modern age as ours did over the last 150 years. The environmental abuse will, I believe, reduce as self-improvement is seen to be a result of collective-improvement, as we have seen. Technology is not evil, though evil uses technology.
The planet, in my opinion, is a robust organism or physical system – pick your imagery, as the result is the same. It is heavily buffered. As long as we can get our act together over the 100 year timespan. Those who think of the Earth as an example of something in static equilibruim, including its human inhabitants, will see changes or shifts or wrongs as perpetuated and enhanced by repercussions. Those who think the Earth is an example of a thing in dynamic equilibrium will disagree as I do. One can overwhelm such a thing in which internal systems vie with each other for opposite results, but until then changes will tend to be muted. We are in a state of muted changes without doubt – an increase of 0.8C* since 1975 is not a temperature rise of catastrophic proportions, especially since its global occurrence is only detectable with statistics and sophisticated data adjustments. Real, perhaps, but not the smack-you-in-the-face type of change. We still have time.
Drama – we all love drama, whether on the TV, in our social circle, personal or intellectual life. It gives us colour and a frisson to our waking hours. The CAGW hypothesis gives us much drama and it makes our personal travails trivial. That is a good feeling, too. Our credit card problem is trivial to millions of strangers being threatened sometime in the future with a sea leavel rise of 7 m. And it is better if the danger is hypothetical at this point. Alarm, concern, empathic unease is exciting and invigorating without threatening us personally or requiring us to get out there and helping on the ground, a muddy and less-than poetic reality.
You speak with moderation and some hesitation as we tend to do as we age, having seen enough worries come to naught. We thought our children would stop breathing if we didn’t watch them in their cribs. For some, it happened. For virtually all of us, it didn’t, but we couldn’t help being worried and would be worried again were we to return to that child-in-cribs stage. It is natural. Yet, with years, we acquire that background voice that tells us to calm down, watch carefully and not to jump too quicklyt. The younger set, not only is more idealistic (a good thing: mellow from idealism, not cynicism), but quicker to react. Think of the western gunslingers of history and fiction: the older guys say to walk calmly and fire carefully, while the young ones rush in blazing everywhere and don’t live to be older, calmer fighters.
The blogosphere, like e-mail in general, encourages hyperbole and excessive interactions. I don’t know why. Psychologists or behavioural analysts probably have fascinations with this. I am guility as all others. A nuanced stance is not well suited to getting peoples'”dander up”, to getting them involved. It may be appropriate, but not terribly exciting – back to the drama I discussed above. The nuanced stance ultimately is what determines actions taken as a social body, however. It may take time and disasterous interludes for it to be seen, but it is what history shows happens in the long run. Of course this precludes catastrophic events.
Which brings us back to the CAGW vs skeptical positions. The responses to your comments are drama- and castrophe-based. Having lived through the last half of the 20th century, I have ridden enough roller-coasters of disaster and recovery to be suspicious that this latest one is as real as portrayed. Those who have not had that displeasure have a different view: it only takes one disaster to destroy you, after all.
I thank you for your input here and on your own blog. I hike with my sons. They start out far faster than me but we both get to the top at the same time, as the mountain determines our speed, not the vigour and insistence of the hiker.
mikael pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 6:27 am
The whole history of Man is an interaction between private and public, between
individual and society, between tribe and state. There is no point in entertaining
some counterfactual dream image of a totally FREE man.
—————–
Mikael Pihlström,
Your position is philosophically incomplete. Of course all humans are born, raised and educated within a pre-existing human society. Because of that you somehow conclude that there can be no totally free man. You would need to define your concept of what is the nature of human beings as human beings in order to claim humans cannot be free.
Will you answer a question for me? What is the nature of human beings by your philosophical views?
Show me yours and I will show you mine. : )
John
Mikael Pihlström
September 6, 2010 12:08 pm
Bruce Cobb says:
September 6, 2010 at 7:31 am
mikael pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 6:27 am
This is an awful thing to say, but I suspect that WUWT scepticism is
not primarily about climate change. More about anti-environmentalism
and all about Paranoid Ultra Conservative Fever. The catastrophic PUCF
religion.
If you knew anything at all about this site, its commenters, and posters, including Anthony, and by extension its readers you would know that your “suspicion” is completely false. Giving a few “examples” of your so-called PUCF theory proves absolutely nothing. My suspicion is you already know this, and thus are simply being disingenuous. Nice try.
Jeff Alberts says:
September 6, 2010 at 8:07 am
I don’t think you can discount the PUCF completely, I’ve certainly seen some of it here. But to generalize is just incorrect. There are many ultra-liberals here. Myself, I don’t classify myself as anything. I just don’t like secret science. And it seems as if the “facts” aren’t as factual when you have all the data.
——————–
Granted, a blog or a movement will have different components and
viewpoints, but still there is some common denominator. In this case:
scepticism concerning AGW. Without the political explanation I gave
it is hard to understand the recalcitrance of many posters here. Seems to
me that the Fullers & Moshers of this world are trying to renew the platform
of scepticism by throwing out ideas that have been disproved by science and
time itself.
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:08 pm
“Seems to
me that the Fullers & Moshers of this world are trying to renew the platform
of scepticism by throwing out ideas that have been disproved by science and
time itself.”
Like what, exactly?
Note, I already criticized Mr Mosher on this thread for positing the assertion that CO2 forcing must be true because models cannot hindcast the 20th century warming without it. And you call that science?
Mikael Pihlström
September 6, 2010 12:58 pm
Thanks for a detailed answer. Short comments below,
H.R. says:
September 6, 2010 at 8:10 am
One scheme that takes care of the needs of people in poverty is the religious and secular-social charities with zero overhead. You give the volunteers $1.00 and $1.00 is spent on the goods needed by the beneficiaries. All overhead is absorbed by the members and volunteers of the organization. (NB there are “charitable” organizations where 80% or more of donations go to the overhead; boo, hiss, boo!.) Contrast this with the US government which collects a tax “donation” which is encumbered by the cost of collection (IRS); a portion of that amount is sent to a federal agency (all overhead cost so far; no one in need has seen a penny yet), which then send some of the funds to a state agency (all overhead cost so far; no one in need has seen a penny yet), which then sends funds to a county agency (all overhead cost so far; no one in need has seen a penny yet), which is charged with the task of disbursing it to someone who may or may not need the funds, depending on the honesty of the applicant, after all of the appropriate paperwork has been filled out.
———————
Charity is good, but I feel the default and guarantee option should
be public service. There is always a ‘middle man’, overhead or such. In
your example somebody at least feeds the volunteer, or if totally on free time
basis, there is a ‘deprivement cost’ for the volunteer’s close ones.
If a private company has raw material costs of 4-5% of the product price,
everybody finds it normal that most of the money paid by consumers goes to
‘middle men’ and administration. How could government provided services
run on zero inputs?
—————————-
Which scheme is more efficient, direct action or layers of government? Rinse and repeat for any federal program. The most efficient and lowest cost action takes place at the lowest level necessary to effect the action.
————————–
In a modern society like the U.S. allocation of the decision to the lowest level
is not as cost-efficient as it seems. A central bureaucrazy can stamp and post
quite a number of letters per day.
————————
Social Security is a government-sanctioned Ponzi scheme. That’s not opinion. The government takes money from current “investors” (hahahahahahaha!) to pay earlier “investors” (again; hahahahahahaha!). Worse yet, people who were never “investors” in the first place are eligible for payouts. There have been many more efficient and effective replacement schemes for S.S., but unfortunately there are too many people left holding the bag of the current scheme for the U.S. to easily get away from S.S. Yes, S.S. is only supposed to be a safety net but like any net, it’s full of holes. The most efficient and lowest cost action takes place at the lowest level necessary to effect the action.
———————–
I thought Soc Sec had a stand-alone budget, running surplus and
that it is a small fiscal component, compared to e.g. Bush tax cuts
weighing heavily on the Nation deficit?
———
Medicare/Medicaid: If the government is so successful with running those schemes, why are Dr.s refusing to take new patients and dropping those they already have? Why is medicaid and medicare bankrupting the states? If they are such efficient schemes, why is the new healthcare scheme depending so heavily for success on the revenue they hope to get from cutting the fraud and waste in the existing system? How much extra will it cost to cut fraud in the new system? If I give a Dr. $40 to determine if I have a minor fracture or a sprain, where’s the potential for fraud? The most efficient and lowest cost action takes place at the lowest level necessary to effect the action.
——–
I don’t have enough knowledge on your HC system. But, in
international comparisons it is both economically inefficient and
less covering than other OECD countries with universal HC.
———–
A more efficient scheme being tried right now is patient/Dr. co-ops. A group of Dr.s is paid by a pool of patients for run-of-the-mill heealthcare. The patients carry only catastrophic healthcre insurance, which is cheap. No one else is involved. I’m sure other schemes will be tried, but the upshot is that all of the emerging private schemes are trying to cut out the costs of overhead (insurance and/or government) to deliver affordable healthcare.
Bart,
It is nice to see you playing around in these woods. : ) I haven’t been much to your place since the redoubtable VS departed.
I think it is more accurate to say that climate change has been forever wrt to the history of the earth and forever will be. OK, no problem there and I agree except . . . . for the future you aren’t talking about anything but man so we don’t really agree.
You are implying man is forever a problem. I think you have an unimaginably bigger problem with man than you realize. I am and many others are actively advocating, au contraire, to ensure man will achieve the stars and spread the problem you have with him across the known and unknown universe. To me and many others there never was nor will be a problem with man. : )
I my view you have a universal problem in mankind, not an earthly one. It is unimaginably worse than you thought. So, you better try to “fix” mankind before he spreads the disease you perceive he has (due to his very existence) beyond earth to blight the universe. I can see the current environmentalists blocking the spread of man, as a disease, from escaping earth itself, in order to protect the universe. Yup, a “protect the universe from man foundation” will spring up at my very mention of it. : ) Entire blogs will spring instantly into action to block space travel. Millions of dollars will be donate to the cause . . . . whole industries will spring up to block space travel.
Be aware, you and I may be protagonists in a Greek tragedy or comedy. I will promote mankind’s every effort to spread himself across the universe.
Bloggers like you, if some equivalent to bloggers exist a million years from now, will be at it still trying to limit (population and domain) of mankind across the known universe into other dimensions via parallel universes. coooool.
I say have at it mankind. Be prosperous and multiply into the vast universe . . . .
John
Bruce Cobb
September 6, 2010 1:11 pm
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:08 pm Without the political explanation I gave it is hard to understand the recalcitrance of many posters here.
Sounds like a bad case of cognitive dissonance to me. Your “political explanation” is no more true than saying Warmists believe in CAGW/CC because they are (mostly) of the Liberal persuasion, though it is true they may be more likely to.
No, the common denominator of Skeptics/Climate Realists is a deep respect for Science, the scientific process, and for truth-telling, no matter where the chips may fall.
Matt G
September 6, 2010 1:21 pm
The CAGW hype is in itself anti-environmentalism, where it distracts and uses funds from what otherwise should have been used for geniune environmental projects that can make a big difference. How many environmetalists would shoot thousands of birds a year to save 1 percent of energy on household bills or swing from fossil fuels? Yet for the same reasoning fuel prices will surge (already have to some extent) because all of us rely a lot on fossil fuels. This is what just a small amount of wind turbines are doing on a yearly basis without the gun, but this supports the AGW cause so it’s good right?
This doesn’t even count the cost to maintain, unsightly in the countryside and energy used in making them in the first place takes years until there is a net gain. While all this effort in trying to reduce emissions of CO2 in which, all fossilised emissions released in the atmosphere at once will never become harmful to life on the planet. These levels are not harmful, not toxic and therefore will never become a pollutent. The realistic targets of nations for reducing CO2 emissions also will have virtually no effect on the global temperature. (no one will notice any difference) Therefore, there is no point in reducing CO2 levels because no one (except the greedy rich gaining from it) will benefit.
Let future technology that is increasingly energy efficient decide the power balance, not a religious assault on misunderstandings of pseudoscience. It’s a shame that so many people on this planet have gone completely insane. No wonder the biggest arm wavers are the very ones where there is financial gain.
Mikael Pihlström
September 6, 2010 1:31 pm
John Whitman says:
September 6, 2010 at 10:58 am
mikael pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 6:27 am
The whole history of Man is an interaction between private and public, between
individual and society, between tribe and state. There is no point in entertaining
some counterfactual dream image of a totally FREE man.
—————–
Mikael Pihlström,
Your position is philosophically incomplete. Of course all humans are born, raised and educated within a pre-existing human society. Because of that you somehow conclude that there can be no totally free man. You would need to define your concept of what is the nature of human beings as human beings in order to claim humans cannot be free.
Will you answer a question for me? What is the nature of human beings by your philosophical views?
Show me yours and I will show you mine. : )
John
———
Hello John,
well, a FREE man recognizes his given context, in this case modern
society. After that, he is free to develop and act out his destiny in any
way he chooses, provided he does not hurt anyone, again in the given
context of modern society. For the best quality freedom fruits, there is
actually no need to compete for resources or financial assets. A free man
is not predestined, but fully responsible for his every thought and action.
If you will, he profits from being a sceptic intermittently, but also from
disciplining himself if confronted by inconvenient truth.
Sorry, this is not very lucid, but it’s late overhere and you asked.
This is my complaint with American conservatism:
it so values the freedom
Z
September 6, 2010 1:53 pm
The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today. The textile workers in Vietnam making $84 a month? Their grandchildren will be making more than our national average today.
LOL
We all know how good UN predictions are…
Right, simply facts: Our population will expand to the carrying capacity of the planet. Every animal’s population expands the carrying capacity of its environment, we will be no different. For every group that thinks it will be different, and will limit its fertility, there will be a group who will not limit its fertility, and render the previous group’s activities futile.
This will mean a life of borderline starvation for the vast majority of people. There will of course be the elite (whether they shaman, priests, kings, presidents or whatever) who will have a happier life, but these will alway be a tiny minority.
Now for most other populations of animal, predation at peak population becomes overwhelming, as the predated population is only barely hanging on, and the pack of lions (for example) is not a help. You could argue that we have no real predators – rather like elephants in national parks – in which case we’d be looking for an outside agency to ship us off somewhere and reduce our numbers. That’s unlikely to happen, but it won’t stop people looking for little grey men with their “probes”.
Personally, I think we self-predate. Which means, that the populations of hoi polloi will reduce, and reduce drastically, as the the population of green “camouflage” people (you know – the ones with guns) take everything away from them. Then the population of the green “camouflage” people will crash as there will be no one left to feed and water them.
And then we start all over again…
You may notice I’ve not said what is the final carrying capacity of the planet. That’s because I have no idea. We may be able to grow from 7 billion now to maybe 12 billion or, in the absense of fossil fuels, our population may measure a whole 1 billion. Personally I think with nuclear power, the answer will probably lie somewhere between the two.
The numbers really matter either way – you’re either part of the live population, or you’re not. Try to be one of the live ones…
In the meanwhile, the earth will continue its dance across the cosmos, and what will our trials and tribulations matter? They will matter not a jot.
simpleseekeraftertruth : “The problem is a practical one of energy density. Solar and wind cannot get close. … ”
I believe you are absolutely correct. But the human race is amzingly creative when allowed to be. Here we have a difficult problem to be solved, but a massively valuable outcome if it is solved. I think the creative minds will do it. That’s why I referred to “tomorrow’s level of technology”.
Vince Causey : “Mike, did you ever stop and think that that solar radiation reaching Earth might be needed by the biosphere?”
Yes. The world as we know it can get along with how much energy – 100k gw maybe? (I have pulled a figure from the air, correct me if I am wrong). If the sun provides 100m gw, we only need to tap into 0.1% of that, less whatever energy we get from nuclear, (depleting) fossil fuels, and other sources. I really do believe that the biosphere can get on OK with 99.9% of what it’s used to. especially if we choose carefully which 0.1% we use.
H.R. : “I spent a fair amount of time answering … when I hit submit, the usual, “your comment is awaiting moderation” didn’t pop up”
I find that if I prepare an answer in another place and then paste it in, it goes ok. And vice versa!
Everyone : thanks for a great discussion. It has taken a long time to read all the comments, but it has been worth it.
Gail Combs
September 6, 2010 2:32 pm
Vince Causey says:
September 6, 2010 at 9:25 am
Gail Combs,
“wringing the necks of tomorrows dinner… “.
So that’s how you get your beef steak on the table. I’m impressed!
_____________________________________________________________-
That conjures up the memory of watching several would be cowboys trying to “wrassal” a steer. Poor thing stood there with its muzzle pointed at the sky for a half hour but no matter how hard they tried they never did throw him – steer 14 cowboys zero.
Gail Combs
September 6, 2010 3:25 pm
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 1:31 pm
…..This is my complaint with American conservatism:
it so values the freedom
______________________________
Thank you, Thank you, Mikael for making it clear that CAGW is all about freedom. I take it since you are anti-freedom you are all for serfdom as long as its is someone else who has been robbed of his freedom and not you. Is that correct?
nevket240
September 6, 2010 4:31 pm
Don’t forget the $$$$$$$$$$ incentives
HSBC Says Low-Carbon Market Will Triple to $2.2 Trillion by 2020
By Catherine Airlie – Sep 6, 2010 6:19 PM GMT+1000 Email Share
Business Exchange Twitter Delicious Digg Facebook LinkedIn Newsvine Propeller Yahoo! Buzz Print HSBC Holdings Plc says the global market for low-carbon energy and efficiency projects will triple to $2.2 trillion by 2020.
The bank based its forecasts on the likelihood of meeting renewable energy, efficiency and carbon-dioxide emissions targets.
“We recognize significant upside and downside risks to our forecasts, but even in our most bearish scenario, we expect the market to double by 2020,” Nick Robins, head of climate change at HSBC, said today in an e-mailed research report.
The bank expects the European Union will meet its renewable energy targets and mi30ss its energy-efficiency targets. The U.S has limited growth in the clean energy sector, and China will exceed its targets, according to the report.
To contact the reporter on this story: Catherine Airlie at cairlie@bloomberg.net
regards
Joseph Day
September 6, 2010 8:39 pm
What makes you think energy consumption is bad? Energy gives us freedom to do things we could not otherwise do. Food production, for example, is very energy intensive. Do you care to plow, plant, harvest, and preserve your food each year?
We need to build Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor) to fully utilize the uranium and thorium we have. Fission could provide us 500 to 1000 years of inexpensive power.
The nuclear waste problem effectively goes away with IFRs. Even with current reactor designs, the radioactivity of the waste falls below the level of the original ore after about 200 years. With thorium fuel, the 233U produced IFR can’t be diverted for nuclear weapons due to the high level of gamma rays it produces.
A modular plant design could be air cooled, far simpler to operate, cheaper to build, and safer since it would not need elaborate emergency cooling systems.
I would rather have a Star Trek future than a Little House on the Prairie future.
mikael pihlström
September 7, 2010 12:05 am
Gail Combs says:
September 6, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 1:31 pm
…..This is my complaint with American conservatism:
it so values the freedom
______________________________
Thank you, Thank you, Mikael for making it clear that CAGW is all about freedom. I take it since you are anti-freedom you are all for serfdom as long as its is someone else who has been robbed of his freedom and not you. Is that correct?
—————–
The phrase of mine you cite was submitted in mistake. Meaningless
since I never finished the paragraph. Please disregard.
mikael pihlström
September 7, 2010 12:10 am
Bruce Cobb says:
September 6, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Without the political explanation I gave it is hard to understand the recalcitrance of many posters here.
Sounds like a bad case of cognitive dissonance to me. Your “political explanation” is no more true than saying Warmists believe in CAGW/CC because they are (mostly) of the Liberal persuasion, though it is true they may be more likely to.
No, the common denominator of Skeptics/Climate Realists is a deep respect for Science, the scientific process, and for truth-telling, no matter where the chips may fall.
——–
There is a big difference! Warmists are in line with the scientific
understanding of AGW. No cause to posit political overdetermination.
Skeptics often support theories that have been proved wrong time after time.
Blade
September 7, 2010 2:06 am
mikael pihlström [September 6, 2010 at 6:27 am ] says:
This is an awful thing to say, but I suspect that WUWT scepticism is not primarily about climate change. More about anti-environmentalism and all about Paranoid Ultra Conservative Fever. The catastrophic PUCF religion.
You betcha. If belief in something is a religion, I am Guilty as charged. Freedom, Individual Liberty, Self-Determination. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Self-Defense with great prejudice. Freedom of Speech, Assembly and to Worship (be it God or football or Ozzy Osbourne) or not. These rights are inalienable, they come from the highest authority, not from man/government. Scary concept to those that cannot understand it. You should get out more. Meet refugees from communist hell-holes who thankful and grateful when they get here.
The whole history of Man is an interaction between private and public, between individual and society, between tribe and state. There is no point in entertaining some counterfactual dream image of a totally FREE man.
It is not a dream though. Really! I woke up this morning and it is still here. I think I recognize your quote though, but I cannot place it (Engels maybe?), care to explain before someone else figures it out?
Mikael Pihlström [September 6, 2010 at 10:10 am] says:
Between John Wayne and the Hitler Jugend trainee Pihlstrom there are no intermediate stages?
Why the urge to straddle a fence (you know that can be painful and impact your love life ;-)? Besides, why would anyone look for the middle in your example anyway?
Mikael Pihlström [September 6, 2010 at 1:31 pm] says:
This is my complaint with American conservatism: it so values the freedom
Ahh, the crux of the matter indeed. There are so many has-been dictators and tyrants that phrase could be attributed to. Wow. Just wow. (Meanwhile posters at RC and Tamino are cringing because their cover is blown).
Just out of curiousity who did this to you? How did this feudal serfdom Stockholm Syndrome get so deeply implanted into your psyche? Was it parental indoctrination, schooling, peer pressure? Inquiring minds want to know.
But kudos to you mikael pihlström for honesty. However you must be very young to post such tripe, or you must be so terrified of all the folks here that value their freedom that you took leave of your senses. Either way, your anti-freedom prejudice will now live forever and ever in the archives of Google for all your family and friends to see. Congratulations I say.
LL
September 7, 2010 5:30 am
“Extinction is forever. Those species that we wipe out – by whatever means – are unlikely to return. Ocean acidification will likely last tens of thousands of years.”
Strange that you don’t talk about those that we helped create and those that we protect.
Djozar
September 7, 2010 7:08 am
mikael pihlström says: “Skeptics often support theories that have been proved wrong time after time.”
While I see alternate theories proposed, I’ve seen very few on this issue disproved (or proved) time after time; instead the skeptics are continually debated (this is good). What I have seen is CAGW theories proposed time after time with a failure to predict the impact on the climate or prove the science. Getting away from the math and science for a moment, a prophet (scientists) should be rated to the degree their theories are fulfilled. Currently, I don’t see the hurricanes, rising sea levels and general apocalypse advertised; only isolated periods of high temperatures.
And as has been noted many times before, it is to CAGW group to prove their theories, not for the skeptics to prove alternative theories.
mikael pihlström says:
September 7, 2010 at 12:05 am
Gail Combs says:
September 6, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 1:31 pm
…..This is my complaint with American conservatism:
it so values the freedom
“Thank you, Thank you, Mikael for making it clear that CAGW is all about freedom. I take it since you are anti-freedom you are all for serfdom as long as its is someone else who has been robbed of his freedom and not you. Is that correct?”
The phrase of mine you cite was submitted in mistake. Meaningless
since I never finished the paragraph. Please disregard.
———————
Mikael and Gail,
Mikael, I said I would share mine. My understanding of the nature of human beings is they are animals with a volitional capacity for conceptual processing of reality and with the volitional ability to evaluate/find causal links with those concepts confirmed by testing against reality. The volitional part of the nature is the really hard part of it. My statement is incomplete in that a treatment of man’s capacity must also have a treatment of its relationship with reality and a treatment of the nature of reality . . . another post at another time perhaps . . . . it would get rather lengthy here. But, this is a beginning. : )
So, I think beings with that nature would not long be subjects in an authoritarian society . . . . new men/women will always grow up and think and rebel. Those societies in the long term cannot work for them.
Gail, we can hope that Mikael may complete his paragraph on freedom & conservatism in time. Great dialog.
John
Djozar
September 7, 2010 8:42 am
And while I’m at it, I’ll address Moore’s Law and it’s applicability to energy. In my industry, per Moore’s Law the energy requirements for Data Centers and Telephoy Switches have increased exponentially, to the point that fingers are being pointed at the electronics as energy hogs.
However, I see the electronics as energy savers, even as their power requirements increase. Many people can work from home now, eliminating the transportation energy (and maybe less energy to wash closes). Bills are paid on-line, eliminating inefficient mail systems and again reducing transportation costs. Sahring documents between different areas again save transportation. And now we’re seeing more groups willing to go paperless on more and more issues, again saving energy. The only energy I see as wasted is that for personal games and entertainment. But like Mr. Fuller, my long term belief is if we act prudently, long term energy requirements per person will be reduced.
Mikael Pihlström
September 7, 2010 9:01 am
Blade says:
September 7, 2010 at 2:06 am
Just out of curiousity who did this to you? How did this feudal serfdom Stockholm Syndrome get so deeply implanted into your psyche? Was it parental indoctrination, schooling, peer pressure? Inquiring minds want to know.
—–
Since you are an inquiring mind, you could have figured out that
the fragment you cite last, was an unfinished sentence, submitted
by mistake, thus meaningless per se.
What I said before that can hardly be construed as advancement of
serfdom, but then again nuances might not be your strongest side?
Djozar
September 7, 2010 9:26 am
“The whole history of Man is an interaction between private and public, between individual and society, between tribe and state. There is no point in entertaining some counterfactual dream image of a totally FREE man.”
I believe this is paraphrased from “Thus Spake Zarathustra”
Mr. Fuller,
The responses are more revealing, as is often the case, of the responder rather than the initiating thoughts. Regardless of what individual women might wish in gender issues, more men than women are technophiles and number-oriented analysts. How it is. I, like my majority sex, am obsessive to the point of distraction to my female friends, but am understood, if not quite receiving agreement from, my male associates. The significance of conclusions, potential impacts etc., which forms the heart of the environmental cause, lacks importance to me if the fundamental details do not ring true. My warmist connections float over this argument, in part because it is so difficult to put to rest, as evidenced by the continuing CAGW/normal-plus-a-bit dispute. When one is worried about being run down when crossing the street, he is not pleased when a bystander is trying to find someone who actually has seen cars travelling down that street, let alone a mad rush of traffic.
As we go forward there are a lot of possible, alarming scenarios. All are population based, as our impact on the world is a volume vs time problem. I, too, am an optomist. I expect that the killing fields of Africa and Asia will decline as their societies enter the modern age as ours did over the last 150 years. The environmental abuse will, I believe, reduce as self-improvement is seen to be a result of collective-improvement, as we have seen. Technology is not evil, though evil uses technology.
The planet, in my opinion, is a robust organism or physical system – pick your imagery, as the result is the same. It is heavily buffered. As long as we can get our act together over the 100 year timespan. Those who think of the Earth as an example of something in static equilibruim, including its human inhabitants, will see changes or shifts or wrongs as perpetuated and enhanced by repercussions. Those who think the Earth is an example of a thing in dynamic equilibrium will disagree as I do. One can overwhelm such a thing in which internal systems vie with each other for opposite results, but until then changes will tend to be muted. We are in a state of muted changes without doubt – an increase of 0.8C* since 1975 is not a temperature rise of catastrophic proportions, especially since its global occurrence is only detectable with statistics and sophisticated data adjustments. Real, perhaps, but not the smack-you-in-the-face type of change. We still have time.
Drama – we all love drama, whether on the TV, in our social circle, personal or intellectual life. It gives us colour and a frisson to our waking hours. The CAGW hypothesis gives us much drama and it makes our personal travails trivial. That is a good feeling, too. Our credit card problem is trivial to millions of strangers being threatened sometime in the future with a sea leavel rise of 7 m. And it is better if the danger is hypothetical at this point. Alarm, concern, empathic unease is exciting and invigorating without threatening us personally or requiring us to get out there and helping on the ground, a muddy and less-than poetic reality.
You speak with moderation and some hesitation as we tend to do as we age, having seen enough worries come to naught. We thought our children would stop breathing if we didn’t watch them in their cribs. For some, it happened. For virtually all of us, it didn’t, but we couldn’t help being worried and would be worried again were we to return to that child-in-cribs stage. It is natural. Yet, with years, we acquire that background voice that tells us to calm down, watch carefully and not to jump too quicklyt. The younger set, not only is more idealistic (a good thing: mellow from idealism, not cynicism), but quicker to react. Think of the western gunslingers of history and fiction: the older guys say to walk calmly and fire carefully, while the young ones rush in blazing everywhere and don’t live to be older, calmer fighters.
The blogosphere, like e-mail in general, encourages hyperbole and excessive interactions. I don’t know why. Psychologists or behavioural analysts probably have fascinations with this. I am guility as all others. A nuanced stance is not well suited to getting peoples'”dander up”, to getting them involved. It may be appropriate, but not terribly exciting – back to the drama I discussed above. The nuanced stance ultimately is what determines actions taken as a social body, however. It may take time and disasterous interludes for it to be seen, but it is what history shows happens in the long run. Of course this precludes catastrophic events.
Which brings us back to the CAGW vs skeptical positions. The responses to your comments are drama- and castrophe-based. Having lived through the last half of the 20th century, I have ridden enough roller-coasters of disaster and recovery to be suspicious that this latest one is as real as portrayed. Those who have not had that displeasure have a different view: it only takes one disaster to destroy you, after all.
I thank you for your input here and on your own blog. I hike with my sons. They start out far faster than me but we both get to the top at the same time, as the mountain determines our speed, not the vigour and insistence of the hiker.
—————–
Mikael Pihlström,
Your position is philosophically incomplete. Of course all humans are born, raised and educated within a pre-existing human society. Because of that you somehow conclude that there can be no totally free man. You would need to define your concept of what is the nature of human beings as human beings in order to claim humans cannot be free.
Will you answer a question for me? What is the nature of human beings by your philosophical views?
Show me yours and I will show you mine. : )
John
Bruce Cobb says:
September 6, 2010 at 7:31 am
mikael pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 6:27 am
This is an awful thing to say, but I suspect that WUWT scepticism is
not primarily about climate change. More about anti-environmentalism
and all about Paranoid Ultra Conservative Fever. The catastrophic PUCF
religion.
If you knew anything at all about this site, its commenters, and posters, including Anthony, and by extension its readers you would know that your “suspicion” is completely false. Giving a few “examples” of your so-called PUCF theory proves absolutely nothing. My suspicion is you already know this, and thus are simply being disingenuous. Nice try.
Jeff Alberts says:
September 6, 2010 at 8:07 am
I don’t think you can discount the PUCF completely, I’ve certainly seen some of it here. But to generalize is just incorrect. There are many ultra-liberals here. Myself, I don’t classify myself as anything. I just don’t like secret science. And it seems as if the “facts” aren’t as factual when you have all the data.
——————–
Granted, a blog or a movement will have different components and
viewpoints, but still there is some common denominator. In this case:
scepticism concerning AGW. Without the political explanation I gave
it is hard to understand the recalcitrance of many posters here. Seems to
me that the Fullers & Moshers of this world are trying to renew the platform
of scepticism by throwing out ideas that have been disproved by science and
time itself.
Climate change may very well be a (practically) “forever” problem: https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100206
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:08 pm
“Seems to
me that the Fullers & Moshers of this world are trying to renew the platform
of scepticism by throwing out ideas that have been disproved by science and
time itself.”
Like what, exactly?
Note, I already criticized Mr Mosher on this thread for positing the assertion that CO2 forcing must be true because models cannot hindcast the 20th century warming without it. And you call that science?
Thanks for a detailed answer. Short comments below,
H.R. says:
September 6, 2010 at 8:10 am
One scheme that takes care of the needs of people in poverty is the religious and secular-social charities with zero overhead. You give the volunteers $1.00 and $1.00 is spent on the goods needed by the beneficiaries. All overhead is absorbed by the members and volunteers of the organization. (NB there are “charitable” organizations where 80% or more of donations go to the overhead; boo, hiss, boo!.) Contrast this with the US government which collects a tax “donation” which is encumbered by the cost of collection (IRS); a portion of that amount is sent to a federal agency (all overhead cost so far; no one in need has seen a penny yet), which then send some of the funds to a state agency (all overhead cost so far; no one in need has seen a penny yet), which then sends funds to a county agency (all overhead cost so far; no one in need has seen a penny yet), which is charged with the task of disbursing it to someone who may or may not need the funds, depending on the honesty of the applicant, after all of the appropriate paperwork has been filled out.
———————
Charity is good, but I feel the default and guarantee option should
be public service. There is always a ‘middle man’, overhead or such. In
your example somebody at least feeds the volunteer, or if totally on free time
basis, there is a ‘deprivement cost’ for the volunteer’s close ones.
If a private company has raw material costs of 4-5% of the product price,
everybody finds it normal that most of the money paid by consumers goes to
‘middle men’ and administration. How could government provided services
run on zero inputs?
—————————-
Which scheme is more efficient, direct action or layers of government? Rinse and repeat for any federal program. The most efficient and lowest cost action takes place at the lowest level necessary to effect the action.
————————–
In a modern society like the U.S. allocation of the decision to the lowest level
is not as cost-efficient as it seems. A central bureaucrazy can stamp and post
quite a number of letters per day.
————————
Social Security is a government-sanctioned Ponzi scheme. That’s not opinion. The government takes money from current “investors” (hahahahahahaha!) to pay earlier “investors” (again; hahahahahahaha!). Worse yet, people who were never “investors” in the first place are eligible for payouts. There have been many more efficient and effective replacement schemes for S.S., but unfortunately there are too many people left holding the bag of the current scheme for the U.S. to easily get away from S.S. Yes, S.S. is only supposed to be a safety net but like any net, it’s full of holes. The most efficient and lowest cost action takes place at the lowest level necessary to effect the action.
———————–
I thought Soc Sec had a stand-alone budget, running surplus and
that it is a small fiscal component, compared to e.g. Bush tax cuts
weighing heavily on the Nation deficit?
———
Medicare/Medicaid: If the government is so successful with running those schemes, why are Dr.s refusing to take new patients and dropping those they already have? Why is medicaid and medicare bankrupting the states? If they are such efficient schemes, why is the new healthcare scheme depending so heavily for success on the revenue they hope to get from cutting the fraud and waste in the existing system? How much extra will it cost to cut fraud in the new system? If I give a Dr. $40 to determine if I have a minor fracture or a sprain, where’s the potential for fraud? The most efficient and lowest cost action takes place at the lowest level necessary to effect the action.
——–
I don’t have enough knowledge on your HC system. But, in
international comparisons it is both economically inefficient and
less covering than other OECD countries with universal HC.
———–
A more efficient scheme being tried right now is patient/Dr. co-ops. A group of Dr.s is paid by a pool of patients for run-of-the-mill heealthcare. The patients carry only catastrophic healthcre insurance, which is cheap. No one else is involved. I’m sure other schemes will be tried, but the upshot is that all of the emerging private schemes are trying to cut out the costs of overhead (insurance and/or government) to deliver affordable healthcare.
Bart,
It is nice to see you playing around in these woods. : ) I haven’t been much to your place since the redoubtable VS departed.
I think it is more accurate to say that climate change has been forever wrt to the history of the earth and forever will be. OK, no problem there and I agree except . . . . for the future you aren’t talking about anything but man so we don’t really agree.
You are implying man is forever a problem. I think you have an unimaginably bigger problem with man than you realize. I am and many others are actively advocating, au contraire, to ensure man will achieve the stars and spread the problem you have with him across the known and unknown universe. To me and many others there never was nor will be a problem with man. : )
I my view you have a universal problem in mankind, not an earthly one. It is unimaginably worse than you thought. So, you better try to “fix” mankind before he spreads the disease you perceive he has (due to his very existence) beyond earth to blight the universe. I can see the current environmentalists blocking the spread of man, as a disease, from escaping earth itself, in order to protect the universe. Yup, a “protect the universe from man foundation” will spring up at my very mention of it. : ) Entire blogs will spring instantly into action to block space travel. Millions of dollars will be donate to the cause . . . . whole industries will spring up to block space travel.
Be aware, you and I may be protagonists in a Greek tragedy or comedy. I will promote mankind’s every effort to spread himself across the universe.
Bloggers like you, if some equivalent to bloggers exist a million years from now, will be at it still trying to limit (population and domain) of mankind across the known universe into other dimensions via parallel universes. coooool.
I say have at it mankind. Be prosperous and multiply into the vast universe . . . .
John
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Without the political explanation I gave it is hard to understand the recalcitrance of many posters here.
Sounds like a bad case of cognitive dissonance to me. Your “political explanation” is no more true than saying Warmists believe in CAGW/CC because they are (mostly) of the Liberal persuasion, though it is true they may be more likely to.
No, the common denominator of Skeptics/Climate Realists is a deep respect for Science, the scientific process, and for truth-telling, no matter where the chips may fall.
The CAGW hype is in itself anti-environmentalism, where it distracts and uses funds from what otherwise should have been used for geniune environmental projects that can make a big difference. How many environmetalists would shoot thousands of birds a year to save 1 percent of energy on household bills or swing from fossil fuels? Yet for the same reasoning fuel prices will surge (already have to some extent) because all of us rely a lot on fossil fuels. This is what just a small amount of wind turbines are doing on a yearly basis without the gun, but this supports the AGW cause so it’s good right?
This doesn’t even count the cost to maintain, unsightly in the countryside and energy used in making them in the first place takes years until there is a net gain. While all this effort in trying to reduce emissions of CO2 in which, all fossilised emissions released in the atmosphere at once will never become harmful to life on the planet. These levels are not harmful, not toxic and therefore will never become a pollutent. The realistic targets of nations for reducing CO2 emissions also will have virtually no effect on the global temperature. (no one will notice any difference) Therefore, there is no point in reducing CO2 levels because no one (except the greedy rich gaining from it) will benefit.
Let future technology that is increasingly energy efficient decide the power balance, not a religious assault on misunderstandings of pseudoscience. It’s a shame that so many people on this planet have gone completely insane. No wonder the biggest arm wavers are the very ones where there is financial gain.
John Whitman says:
September 6, 2010 at 10:58 am
mikael pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 6:27 am
The whole history of Man is an interaction between private and public, between
individual and society, between tribe and state. There is no point in entertaining
some counterfactual dream image of a totally FREE man.
—————–
Mikael Pihlström,
Your position is philosophically incomplete. Of course all humans are born, raised and educated within a pre-existing human society. Because of that you somehow conclude that there can be no totally free man. You would need to define your concept of what is the nature of human beings as human beings in order to claim humans cannot be free.
Will you answer a question for me? What is the nature of human beings by your philosophical views?
Show me yours and I will show you mine. : )
John
———
Hello John,
well, a FREE man recognizes his given context, in this case modern
society. After that, he is free to develop and act out his destiny in any
way he chooses, provided he does not hurt anyone, again in the given
context of modern society. For the best quality freedom fruits, there is
actually no need to compete for resources or financial assets. A free man
is not predestined, but fully responsible for his every thought and action.
If you will, he profits from being a sceptic intermittently, but also from
disciplining himself if confronted by inconvenient truth.
Sorry, this is not very lucid, but it’s late overhere and you asked.
This is my complaint with American conservatism:
it so values the freedom
The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today. The textile workers in Vietnam making $84 a month? Their grandchildren will be making more than our national average today.
LOL
We all know how good UN predictions are…
Right, simply facts: Our population will expand to the carrying capacity of the planet. Every animal’s population expands the carrying capacity of its environment, we will be no different. For every group that thinks it will be different, and will limit its fertility, there will be a group who will not limit its fertility, and render the previous group’s activities futile.
This will mean a life of borderline starvation for the vast majority of people. There will of course be the elite (whether they shaman, priests, kings, presidents or whatever) who will have a happier life, but these will alway be a tiny minority.
Now for most other populations of animal, predation at peak population becomes overwhelming, as the predated population is only barely hanging on, and the pack of lions (for example) is not a help. You could argue that we have no real predators – rather like elephants in national parks – in which case we’d be looking for an outside agency to ship us off somewhere and reduce our numbers. That’s unlikely to happen, but it won’t stop people looking for little grey men with their “probes”.
Personally, I think we self-predate. Which means, that the populations of hoi polloi will reduce, and reduce drastically, as the the population of green “camouflage” people (you know – the ones with guns) take everything away from them. Then the population of the green “camouflage” people will crash as there will be no one left to feed and water them.
And then we start all over again…
You may notice I’ve not said what is the final carrying capacity of the planet. That’s because I have no idea. We may be able to grow from 7 billion now to maybe 12 billion or, in the absense of fossil fuels, our population may measure a whole 1 billion. Personally I think with nuclear power, the answer will probably lie somewhere between the two.
The numbers really matter either way – you’re either part of the live population, or you’re not. Try to be one of the live ones…
In the meanwhile, the earth will continue its dance across the cosmos, and what will our trials and tribulations matter? They will matter not a jot.
simpleseekeraftertruth : “The problem is a practical one of energy density. Solar and wind cannot get close. … ”
I believe you are absolutely correct. But the human race is amzingly creative when allowed to be. Here we have a difficult problem to be solved, but a massively valuable outcome if it is solved. I think the creative minds will do it. That’s why I referred to “tomorrow’s level of technology”.
Vince Causey : “Mike, did you ever stop and think that that solar radiation reaching Earth might be needed by the biosphere?”
Yes. The world as we know it can get along with how much energy – 100k gw maybe? (I have pulled a figure from the air, correct me if I am wrong). If the sun provides 100m gw, we only need to tap into 0.1% of that, less whatever energy we get from nuclear, (depleting) fossil fuels, and other sources. I really do believe that the biosphere can get on OK with 99.9% of what it’s used to. especially if we choose carefully which 0.1% we use.
H.R. : “I spent a fair amount of time answering … when I hit submit, the usual, “your comment is awaiting moderation” didn’t pop up”
I find that if I prepare an answer in another place and then paste it in, it goes ok. And vice versa!
Everyone : thanks for a great discussion. It has taken a long time to read all the comments, but it has been worth it.
Vince Causey says:
September 6, 2010 at 9:25 am
Gail Combs,
“wringing the necks of tomorrows dinner… “.
So that’s how you get your beef steak on the table. I’m impressed!
_____________________________________________________________-
That conjures up the memory of watching several would be cowboys trying to “wrassal” a steer. Poor thing stood there with its muzzle pointed at the sky for a half hour but no matter how hard they tried they never did throw him – steer 14 cowboys zero.
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 1:31 pm
…..This is my complaint with American conservatism:
it so values the freedom
______________________________
Thank you, Thank you, Mikael for making it clear that CAGW is all about freedom. I take it since you are anti-freedom you are all for serfdom as long as its is someone else who has been robbed of his freedom and not you. Is that correct?
Don’t forget the $$$$$$$$$$ incentives
HSBC Says Low-Carbon Market Will Triple to $2.2 Trillion by 2020
By Catherine Airlie – Sep 6, 2010 6:19 PM GMT+1000 Email Share
Business Exchange Twitter Delicious Digg Facebook LinkedIn Newsvine Propeller Yahoo! Buzz Print HSBC Holdings Plc says the global market for low-carbon energy and efficiency projects will triple to $2.2 trillion by 2020.
The bank based its forecasts on the likelihood of meeting renewable energy, efficiency and carbon-dioxide emissions targets.
“We recognize significant upside and downside risks to our forecasts, but even in our most bearish scenario, we expect the market to double by 2020,” Nick Robins, head of climate change at HSBC, said today in an e-mailed research report.
The bank expects the European Union will meet its renewable energy targets and mi30ss its energy-efficiency targets. The U.S has limited growth in the clean energy sector, and China will exceed its targets, according to the report.
To contact the reporter on this story: Catherine Airlie at cairlie@bloomberg.net
regards
What makes you think energy consumption is bad? Energy gives us freedom to do things we could not otherwise do. Food production, for example, is very energy intensive. Do you care to plow, plant, harvest, and preserve your food each year?
We need to build Integral Fast Reactors (IFRs – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral_Fast_Reactor) to fully utilize the uranium and thorium we have. Fission could provide us 500 to 1000 years of inexpensive power.
The nuclear waste problem effectively goes away with IFRs. Even with current reactor designs, the radioactivity of the waste falls below the level of the original ore after about 200 years. With thorium fuel, the 233U produced IFR can’t be diverted for nuclear weapons due to the high level of gamma rays it produces.
A modular plant design could be air cooled, far simpler to operate, cheaper to build, and safer since it would not need elaborate emergency cooling systems.
I would rather have a Star Trek future than a Little House on the Prairie future.
Gail Combs says:
September 6, 2010 at 3:25 pm
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 1:31 pm
…..This is my complaint with American conservatism:
it so values the freedom
______________________________
Thank you, Thank you, Mikael for making it clear that CAGW is all about freedom. I take it since you are anti-freedom you are all for serfdom as long as its is someone else who has been robbed of his freedom and not you. Is that correct?
—————–
The phrase of mine you cite was submitted in mistake. Meaningless
since I never finished the paragraph. Please disregard.
Bruce Cobb says:
September 6, 2010 at 1:11 pm
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:08 pm
Without the political explanation I gave it is hard to understand the recalcitrance of many posters here.
Sounds like a bad case of cognitive dissonance to me. Your “political explanation” is no more true than saying Warmists believe in CAGW/CC because they are (mostly) of the Liberal persuasion, though it is true they may be more likely to.
No, the common denominator of Skeptics/Climate Realists is a deep respect for Science, the scientific process, and for truth-telling, no matter where the chips may fall.
——–
There is a big difference! Warmists are in line with the scientific
understanding of AGW. No cause to posit political overdetermination.
Skeptics often support theories that have been proved wrong time after time.
You betcha. If belief in something is a religion, I am Guilty as charged. Freedom, Individual Liberty, Self-Determination. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Self-Defense with great prejudice. Freedom of Speech, Assembly and to Worship (be it God or football or Ozzy Osbourne) or not. These rights are inalienable, they come from the highest authority, not from man/government. Scary concept to those that cannot understand it. You should get out more. Meet refugees from communist hell-holes who thankful and grateful when they get here.
It is not a dream though. Really! I woke up this morning and it is still here. I think I recognize your quote though, but I cannot place it (Engels maybe?), care to explain before someone else figures it out?
Why the urge to straddle a fence (you know that can be painful and impact your love life ;-)? Besides, why would anyone look for the middle in your example anyway?
Ahh, the crux of the matter indeed. There are so many has-been dictators and tyrants that phrase could be attributed to. Wow. Just wow. (Meanwhile posters at RC and Tamino are cringing because their cover is blown).
Just out of curiousity who did this to you? How did this feudal serfdom Stockholm Syndrome get so deeply implanted into your psyche? Was it parental indoctrination, schooling, peer pressure? Inquiring minds want to know.
But kudos to you mikael pihlström for honesty. However you must be very young to post such tripe, or you must be so terrified of all the folks here that value their freedom that you took leave of your senses. Either way, your anti-freedom prejudice will now live forever and ever in the archives of Google for all your family and friends to see. Congratulations I say.
“Extinction is forever. Those species that we wipe out – by whatever means – are unlikely to return. Ocean acidification will likely last tens of thousands of years.”
Strange that you don’t talk about those that we helped create and those that we protect.
mikael pihlström says: “Skeptics often support theories that have been proved wrong time after time.”
While I see alternate theories proposed, I’ve seen very few on this issue disproved (or proved) time after time; instead the skeptics are continually debated (this is good). What I have seen is CAGW theories proposed time after time with a failure to predict the impact on the climate or prove the science. Getting away from the math and science for a moment, a prophet (scientists) should be rated to the degree their theories are fulfilled. Currently, I don’t see the hurricanes, rising sea levels and general apocalypse advertised; only isolated periods of high temperatures.
And as has been noted many times before, it is to CAGW group to prove their theories, not for the skeptics to prove alternative theories.
mikael pihlström says:
September 7, 2010 at 12:05 am
The phrase of mine you cite was submitted in mistake. Meaningless
since I never finished the paragraph. Please disregard.
———————
Mikael and Gail,
Mikael, I said I would share mine. My understanding of the nature of human beings is they are animals with a volitional capacity for conceptual processing of reality and with the volitional ability to evaluate/find causal links with those concepts confirmed by testing against reality. The volitional part of the nature is the really hard part of it. My statement is incomplete in that a treatment of man’s capacity must also have a treatment of its relationship with reality and a treatment of the nature of reality . . . another post at another time perhaps . . . . it would get rather lengthy here. But, this is a beginning. : )
So, I think beings with that nature would not long be subjects in an authoritarian society . . . . new men/women will always grow up and think and rebel. Those societies in the long term cannot work for them.
Gail, we can hope that Mikael may complete his paragraph on freedom & conservatism in time. Great dialog.
John
And while I’m at it, I’ll address Moore’s Law and it’s applicability to energy. In my industry, per Moore’s Law the energy requirements for Data Centers and Telephoy Switches have increased exponentially, to the point that fingers are being pointed at the electronics as energy hogs.
However, I see the electronics as energy savers, even as their power requirements increase. Many people can work from home now, eliminating the transportation energy (and maybe less energy to wash closes). Bills are paid on-line, eliminating inefficient mail systems and again reducing transportation costs. Sahring documents between different areas again save transportation. And now we’re seeing more groups willing to go paperless on more and more issues, again saving energy. The only energy I see as wasted is that for personal games and entertainment. But like Mr. Fuller, my long term belief is if we act prudently, long term energy requirements per person will be reduced.
Blade says:
September 7, 2010 at 2:06 am
Just out of curiousity who did this to you? How did this feudal serfdom Stockholm Syndrome get so deeply implanted into your psyche? Was it parental indoctrination, schooling, peer pressure? Inquiring minds want to know.
—–
Since you are an inquiring mind, you could have figured out that
the fragment you cite last, was an unfinished sentence, submitted
by mistake, thus meaningless per se.
What I said before that can hardly be construed as advancement of
serfdom, but then again nuances might not be your strongest side?
“The whole history of Man is an interaction between private and public, between individual and society, between tribe and state. There is no point in entertaining some counterfactual dream image of a totally FREE man.”
I believe this is paraphrased from “Thus Spake Zarathustra”