RealClimate logo


Forced Responses: May 2021

Filed under: — group @ 2 May 2021

A bimonthly open thread on climate solutions. Perhaps unsurprisingly this is always the most contentious comment thread on the site, but please try and be constructive and avoid going off on wild tangents.

348 Responses to “Forced Responses: May 2021”

  1. 101
    nigelj says:

    Milton Friedmans extreme deregulation ideology sounds crazy to me, but his promotion of free trade has dragged hundreds of millions in the third world out of dire poverty, and his focus on low inflation and a stable currency has been a blessing for us all. The point is its dangerous to generalise about people, and write them off completely.

  2. 102
    Killian says:

    BPL lied: But Killian contends not only that all schools of economics are Cornucopian, but that the entire science of economics embraces this stupid idea and is therefore illegitimate.

    This is a lie. I have stated my views more than enough times for you to know what they actually are. Ergo, you are lying. My contention is the illegitimacy stems from it not being science in the first place, but (poor) philosophy and psychology. The growth aspect comes from not accounting for natural systems. Once you do that, you can build fanciful theories of anything you want.

    And they have.

    Your “problem” with me is *you* don’t understand Economics – and cannot have an honest conversation about it. if you have to lie, you’ve already lost.

  3. 103
    Killian says:

    91 nigelj says:
    13 May 2021 at 6:40 PM

    Killian @87

    You accuse me of barking words and not understanding, or not having “experience” but that is all just empty rhetoric.

    No, it’s fact. You are asking stupid questions because rather than educate yourself on the various forms of egalitarian decision-making, you bloviate about it here with no basis to be in the conversation. You post to see yourself in print. You offer nothing. Literally, nothing, to this site.

    This hasn’t falsified anything I said and you don’t even answer half the questions.

    Indeed. When you proved you hadn’t even bothered to do the background research to be able to ask an intelligent question, I had no reason to keep wasting my time.

    Do you seriously expect people to engage in conversations with you you have no background in just to stroke your ego? (Rhetorical question.)

    But here your comments are particularly bizarre.

    No, you’re ignorant WRT the topic and *should* not* *be* *involved* *in* *it* *until* *you* *have* *shown*
    *the* *respect* *for* *your* *conversation* *partners* *to* *be* *prepared* *to* *have* *an* *intelligent* *conversation*. It is disrespectful to your fellow interlocutors to constantly bark words on isues you do now have knowledge of.

    I said “How would egalitarian decision making work for a water supply? The entire public can’t sit around a table.” You said “No shit? Think.”

    Because it’s a stupid question given I have repeatedly talked about the scale-based system I have been suggesting for ten years. Given it has been told to you ALREADY, REPEATEDLY, you should not be asking – but you are. Because you like barking words. You type to hear the clickety-clack to fill your time, it seems.

    This is despite the fact I had gone on to say “Would the public vote for something like a board of directors and they have equal voice in final decisions?

    Board of directors. In an egalitarian system. Diametrically opposed. But, sure, some idiots might do this because they can’t resist the power and/or being lead. But that’s not egalitarianism. The question is… barking words.

    ”So you are just either a very stupid man

    LOL… the irony of the fool on the hill barking words at the moon he can’t even see.

    are quoting me selectively to try to discredit me, a nasty trollish thing to do.

    Liar. I was selective about nothing. I was very clear in saying the stupidity was just too much to continue with. I stopped reading your barking.

  4. 104

    BPL: Never published a paper in it. But Milton Friedman liked the stuff I sent him informally. I’m satisfied with that.

    K97: Dear gods, I just caught this. Milton Friedman? Of the Chicago School? One of the most destructive minds of the 20th century? Let me know when Trump pats you on the back, too. . . . He’s *proud* of that. This is Victor-, KIA-level bad.

    BPL: Note Killian’s selective perception. To him the name of Milton Friedman evokes “Chicago School!” and no doubt Friedman’s advising the dictatorship in Chile. It never occurs to him to think about what Friedman did for monetary economics, or his sensible policy proposals to combat poverty or pollution. In reality, Friedman was one of the last sensible Libertarians, before the LP went off the rails and became science deniers.

  5. 105
    Killian says:

    Peanut gallery ready to STFU with your stupid gaslighting horseshit and talk about something useful?

    No?

    Piss off. Read it any way.

    https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/carbon-pricing-isnt-effective-at-reducing-co2-emissions

  6. 106
    nigelj says:

    Killian @103, you say “Im asking stupid questions?” I’m deliberately asking the questions the average person would ask. If you can’t or wont answer those, how do you think you are going you to convince anyone?

    You say “read the background material?” I’ve ALREADY read some of this. But do you seriously think the average person is going to spend hours reading all this? Your proposals need to be able to stand alone and be convincing. Nobody should have to read vast quantities of background information. This is not quantum mechanics. You are proposing a system of governance.

    “Board of directors. In an egalitarian system. Diametrically opposed…I said something like a board of directors. They what . But, sure, some idiots might do this because they can’t resist the power and/or being lead. But that’s not egalitarianism. The question is… barking words.”

    If not like a board of directors operating in the way I described, Then HOW WOULD IT WORK? Again you are claiming all the expertise. If you cant or wont explain it, who will? It takes me all my willpower not to say you are full of s**t. Frankly I’m sceptical about these sorts of ‘egalitarian’ governance and community ownership policies, but I am trying to be open minded.

    “Liar. I was selective about nothing. I was very clear in saying the stupidity was just too much to continue with. NoppeI stopped reading your barking.”

    No. I described the board of directors solution immediately after asking how would it work as follows: “How would egalitarian decision making work for a water supply? The entire public can’t sit around a table. Would the public vote for something like a board of directors and they have equal voice in final decisions? Or would just anyone make decisions? You completely ignored my suggestion and quoted me utterly out of context. Like you do much of the time, and not just with me. Maybe you don’t realise you do this. That’s the most charitable angle I can put on it.

  7. 107
    nigelj says:

    Killian @102 claims economics is not a science. Yet economics aims to understand how the world works and make useful predictions. It is based on observing how economies work, studying data, hypothesising, establishing rules expressed mathematically, theorising, and making testable predictions, ERGO economics is a SCIENCE. It is not as well developed as something like chemistry, but its a science. Its categorised as a social science.

    Imo the problem isn’t so much economics. Its what politicians do with economics and the way they twist its ideas and select material out of context. Reagon did this.

  8. 108
    nigelj says:

    Regarding the study on carbon pricing:

    https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/carbon-pricing-isnt-effective-at-reducing-co2-emissions

    This study basically argues carbon taxes won’t work very well for various reasons. I don’t have the expertise to fully understand it, but I recalled reading that carbon taxes have worked quite well in various countries. This study below looks at real world evidence in several countries. For me real world evidence is more compelling than some writers opinions on what might or might not happen:

    https://www.aceee.org/files/proceedings/2016/data/papers/9_49.pdf

    “Overall the available evidence indicates that carbon taxes have contributed to reductions in energy use and carbon emissions. Reductions have generally been moderate; tax levels have also been moderate.”

    Carbon tax and dividend doesn’t look ideal, or sufficient in itself. The reason I push it is because it should do some good, and appears to have some chance of getting political traction. The critics seldom suggest what alternative policy politicians should follow and analyse its chances of being adopted. I have never seen much point in proposing ideas that are non starters. Yes there are other approaches to mitigation like “simplification” but by definition this sits outside of the political sphere, the central government sphere. We have been told by the simplification people that we should literally abandon the socio-economic system and start again with a new system. Ok that’s one approach, but its unlikely to be completed overnight, so at the very least it leaves a transition period where politics as usual continues. So its a question of how to make the most out of the political system.

  9. 109
    Piotr says:

    Killian (105) Peanut gallery ready to STFU with your stupid gaslighting horseshit and talk about something useful? No? Piss off. Read it any way.

    Make up your mind, EITHER: “STFU [“Shut the fuck up” for those not fluent in Killian], “stupid gaslighting” (as opposed to “smart gaslighting?” – in insults, like in the frequency of posts, sometimes less is more, you know ;-)), “horseshit”, “Piss off”, OR “Read it”, but you can’t eat your cake and return it for full refund.

    As for the recommended read, I went there out of curiosity, what economic article Killian, the guy who made his feelings about economics well known, finds … credible enough to recommend….

    Well, let me tell you, if it weren’t for its title, which supports Killian’s claims on RC in the matter:
    https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/carbon-pricing-isnt-effective-at-reducing-co2-emissions
    I would have thought that he brought up this paper on purpose, to DISCREDIT, once and for all, the field of economics as (enter here your Killian favourtie invective): the article is terribly written, tables undescribed, makes a series of bizarre assumptions, – all to make a clickbait title:

    1. They seem to be dismissing the reductions in CO2 emissions by saying: “energy constitutes a relatively small proportion of economic activity“. Huh??? If, anything, shouldn’t it make a switch to near zero-emissions EASIER –
    since such majority of the GDP IS NOT tied to energy?

    2. To show how unimportant energy is, they use a carbon tax of … 40$ per ton of CO2 (adds some 10c to a litre of gas) – TOO SMALL to make any real difference: to switch your car and home heating to electric, to carpool or use public transportation, and to small your electricity to the non-fossil generation.

    3. In other part they mention $400 per ton of C, i.e. 110$ per ton of CO2, as the highest end in the literature – when not in papers, but in real world, if the Liberals stay in power – Canada’s carbon tax will reach $170 per ton of CO2 in 2030, and when being revenue-neutral removes the major limitation to raise it further if needed: in the revenue-neutral regime – half or more of the households gets back MORE than they paid in, so they actually GAIN with higher carbon taxes, while at the same time the impact on the more than average users is softened (say, if you used 130% of GHG emissions, then after the rebate, you paid only 30% of the nominal carbon tax).

    4. They assume some arbitrary and SMALL “elasticity factors”, which may work for the suppression of demand of a given good (if X get more expensive, we use less X), but NOT for switching energy (if fossil X gets too expensive, I replace it with renewable X, without the sacrifices of no longer having X)

    5. They assume that part of the gas tax rebate may be used to … buy more fossil fuels, when if the tax is high enough – it would make more sense to use your rebate to change your car and your heating to electric.

    6. They ignore the effect of high carbon tax on the industry – on their use of fossil fuels in their operations and in their products – say with fossil electricity and gas- guzzlers priced out of the market

    7. And this also shoots down …. the second part of their clickbait title:
    And electric vehicles don’t do a lot better” is based on their calculations that assume 60% of the electricity for the EVs will be coming
    from … the fossil fuels.

    So if Killian has one chance to discredit economics, this would be the article to use. ;-)

  10. 110
    nigelj says:

    Killian @102

    “But Killian contends not only that all schools of economics are Cornucopian, but that the entire science of economics embraces this stupid idea and is therefore illegitimate.”

    “This is a lie. I have stated my views more than enough times for you to know what they actually are. Ergo, you are lying. ”

    I dont think BPL is lying. I read this website regulary about the last five years. Ive heard Killian say numerous times that ‘economics’ is stupid. Ive heard him praise just one economist, Steve Keen, a sort of unorthodox economist. BPL could easily have missed that discussion and it doesnt really change the fact that Killian says “economics is stupid”.

  11. 111

    BPL: But Killian contends not only that all schools of economics are Cornucopian, but that the entire science of economics embraces this stupid idea and is therefore illegitimate.

    K 102: This is a lie.

    BPL: Typical Killian response.

    K: I have stated my views more than enough times for you to know what they actually are. Ergo, you are lying.

    BPL: No, you’re assuming you state your views clearly, or that I read all your posts. Neither is true.

    K: My contention is the illegitimacy stems from it not being science in the first place, but (poor) philosophy and psychology.

    BPL: Which is just as batshit crazy as my charge.

  12. 112

    K 105: Peanut gallery ready to STFU with your stupid gaslighting horseshit and talk about something useful?
    No?
    Piss off. Read it any way.

    BPL: Nope.

  13. 113
    Killian says:

    104 Barton Paul Levenson says:
    15 May 2021 at 5:43 AM

    BPL: Never published a paper in it. But Milton Friedman liked the stuff I sent him informally. I’m satisfied with that.

    K97: Dear gods, I just caught this. Milton Friedman? Of the Chicago School? One of the most destructive minds of the 20th century? Let me know when Trump pats you on the back, too. . . . He’s *proud* of that. This is Victor-, KIA-level bad.

    BPL: Note Killian’s selective perception. To him the name of Milton Friedman evokes “Chicago School!”

    As if that were not the case. Just stop, already. Economics in general is nonsense and the Chicago School was the height of that nonsense.

    and no doubt Friedman’s advising the dictatorship in Chile.

    Had no knowledge of that, in specific, only vaguely aware of idiot economists screwing things up there. Never studied it, though. Given Economics screws *everything* up, pick anything you want related to Chicago School/neo-classical/classical/Keynsian/post-Keynesian…. ANY economics, and there you will find stupidiy.

    It never occurs to him to think about what Friedman did for monetary economics, or his sensible policy proposals to combat poverty or pollution.

    Really? Glad you can read minds. Still, your point is moot in that… no matter what he did, he did nothing but make the world worse.

    In reality, Friedman was one of the last sensible Libertarians, before the LP went off the rails and became science deniers.

    Ah, right. Libertarians make economic sense. OK, Christian who loves to keep people poor… right? Since Libertarians and Friedman and… economists who aren’t heterodox… all believe in competition and markets despite the fact they CREATE poverty, starvation, death, inequality, etc…?

    Stop. Talking. About. Economics. You. Don’t. Understand. The. Topic.

  14. 114
    Killian says:

    It is disrespectful to your fellow interlocutors to constantly bark words on isues you do now have knowledge of.

    Correction: It is disrespectful to your fellow interlocutors to constantly bark words on isues you do not have knowledge of.

  15. 115
    Killian says:

    101 nigelj says:
    15 May 2021 at 1:43 AM

    Milton Friedmans extreme deregulation ideology sounds crazy to me

    Because it is. And that deregulation has helped drive pollution, environmental degradation and Climate Change. WTF matters if that is the basis of what he has championed?

    but his promotion of free trade

    Please, tell us, econ guru, who *hasn’t* supported free trade? Hmmmm? Nobody in econ. The debate has only been about how much regulation. Because they are all delusional.

    has dragged hundreds of millions in the third world out of dire poverty

    Bull. Markets, especially free markets, cause poverty, they do not prevent it.

    and his focus on low inflation and a stable currency

    Again, who *doesn’t* support those two things?

    Barking words.

    has been a blessing for us all.

    But not given to anyone via Friedman. Further, you are pretending Friedman is not delusional, but as an economist he is by definition: “The Friedman rule… has been shown to be optimal in monetary economies with monopolistic competition (Ireland, 1996) and, under certain circumstances, in a variety of monetary economies where the government levies other distorting taxes.[2][3][4][5] However, there do exist several notable cases where deviation from the Friedman rule becomes optimal. These include economies with decreasing returns to scale; economies with imperfect competition where the government does not either fully tax monopoly profits or set the tax equal to the labor income tax; economies with tax evasion; economies with sticky prices; and economies with downward nominal wage rigidity.[6]”

    So, that is, the Friedman rule works unless an economy is, you know, an economy. Which is why the Friedman Rule of low interest rates was a part of what created the 2008 crisis. Yeah, sure, boon to us all.

    The point is its dangerous to generalise about people, and write them off completely.

    You are essentially arguing the mass murderer next door, who because he loves his own kids, is a decent fellow.

    Still barking words, hypocritically. Or is it ironically? Both, I suppose.

  16. 116
    Killian says:

    99 nigelj says:
    14 May 2021 at 6:20 PM

    Killian @96 “So… the oceans are already being, polluted with chemicals at massive scales etc, but we should further chemically castrate the oceans by removing the lithium.”

    Nobody is going to chemically castrate the oceans by removing dissolved lithium if its done properly.

    1. What the hell do you know of the need for lithium for the ocean ecosystems to function? Nothing. Barking words.

    2. IF. Right. And that’s guaranteed. I mean, look at the state of the planet. Things are going VERY well with mining things…

    Barking words.

    Couldn’t be bothered with the rest. Two stupidities are more than enough for any post.

  17. 117
  18. 118
    nigelj says:

    Piotr @100, good point with that maths on lithium. I thought by castration of the oceans K must have meant pollution of the oceans, because it was a mystery to me why anyone would worry about depleting the oceans of lithium. Its not necessary part of marine life diet in fact its basically toxic and we would be mining such small quantities of it.

  19. 119
    nigelj says:

    Piotr @109 thanks for your comment on the flaws in the paper claiming carbon pricing wont work. The paper:

    https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/carbon-pricing-isnt-effective-at-reducing-co2-emissions

    I thought it all sounded wrong, but I don’t know some of the jargon, and got lost in their confusing tables of data, and gave up. Plenty of studies show carbon pricing does work based on real world evidence as per one in my previous comment.

    I’ve noticed that there exists a group of people opposed to carbon taxes, renewables and electric cars because it allegedly hurts poor people and feeds the allegedly evil capitalist system. They are wrong and they appear to be left leaning and genuine in this belief. Michael Moore is one. They then run around trying to discredit renewables and things like carbon taxes and write nonsensical studies cherry picking any research they can find. They mean well but are out of their depth.

    There are obvious ways of ensuring climate change mitigation wont hurt poor people. Carbon tax with dividend is one way. And obviously its important we do ensure poor people aren’t disadvantaged by climate mitigation. In no way am I downplaying these peoples underlying concerns.

  20. 120
    nigelj says:

    Killian @ 115 on Milton Friedman. The great devil incarnate, apparently.

    “Milton Friedmans extreme deregulation ideology sounds crazy to me”

    “Because it is. And that deregulation has helped drive pollution, environmental degradation and Climate Change. WTF matters if that is the basis of what he has championed?”

    Yes, and I reiterate I think Friedman goes too far with his deregulation ideas overall. Although Friedman didn’t promote getting rid of all regulations, including environmental laws because he thought governmnets had some role there to an extent. He warned about over regulation. He wanted to get rid of certain regulations pretty much completely, especially in areas like employment law, and social areas, which he felt the government should not get involved in. Polticians interpreted all this to mean ” we can get rid of all regulations” ( more specifically any they didn’t like with conservatives and liberals taking somewhat opposing positions).

    And he’s not entirely wrong about deregulation. He promoted legalisation of drugs. Given the failure of prohibition, he might be on the right track with that.

    “Free trade has dragged hundreds of millions in the third world out of dire poverty”

    “Bull. Markets, especially free markets, cause poverty, they do not prevent it.”

    Bull yourself. The primary cause of poverty is scarcity, self evidently. For example a third world farmer starving because the crops fail. Free markets are simply a way of exchanging goods and free markets have increased output of goods and services so have reduced poverty. They have decreased poverty right through the third world. This is documented. But free markets can cause inequality and are harsh on people that are vulnerable like the unemployed and sick and the low skilled. This is easily rectified. Countries like Sweden compensate with income transfers from rich to vulnerable people. Their poverty rates are very low. This stuff is easily googled and I’ve mentioned it before. America is stupid in the way it deals with poverty.

    “and his focus on low inflation and a stable currency”

    “Again, who *doesn’t* support those two things?”

    Friedman did more than that. He basically founded monetarism as a means of controlling inflation. Refer to his wikipedia bio. Hes written numerous papers.

    “But not given to anyone via Friedman. Further, you are pretending Friedman is not delusional, but as an economist he is by definition: “The Friedman rule… ”

    There you go again generalising calling ‘economists’ delusional, despite the fact you appear to support some economists / schools of economics. And you cherrypick one of Friedmans ideas ignoring hundreds of others.

    “The friedman rule ……So, that is, the Friedman rule works unless an economy is, you know, an economy. Which is why the Friedman Rule of low interest rates was a part of what created the 2008 crisis. Yeah, sure, boon to us all.”

    The Friedman rule basically advocates ZERO interest rates (wikipedia entry). It does look a bit suspect to me and yes it only works in an ideal economy, so is of very limited use. But the Friedman rule was NOT the cause of the 2008 crisis. The prevailing monetarist orthodoxy of the time and in todays world was that central banks would manipulate interest rates to help control inflation and stimulate economies that fall into recession, (like is being done right now during this covid 19 disaster.) Prior to 2008 Alan Greenspan, chairman of the American central bank, panicked after the 911 tragedy, thinking it would cause a recession and so he dropped interest rates. There never was any sign of a recession and instead he caused a massive and risky housing boom. He wrongly believed housing booms and busts simply couldnt happen. And of course the housing boom was the primary factor leading to the 2008 crash, along with sub prime loans, bad behaviour by the banks and a poorly regulated derivatives market. Books have been written on this stuff. (BPL do you concur with all that?)

    “The point is its dangerous to generalise about people, and write them off completely.”

    “You are essentially arguing the mass murderer next door, who because he loves his own kids, is a decent fellow.”

    I don’t see Friedman in quite such a bad light. Certainly not glowing white but not inky black either. And as previously mentioned I think half the problem is politicians who misread his ideas and twist them. I read M Friedmans book Free to Choose when quite young. I went away thinking some of the ideas in the book sounded so right, and others so wrong. He’s a hard man to generalise about. I’m more of a fan of Joseph Stiglitz:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stiglitz

  21. 121

    So we can add lithium to magnesium and uranium as things we can effectively never run out of, because we have oceans full of them?

  22. 122

    K 113: Stop. Talking. About. Economics. You. Don’t. Understand. The. Topic.

    BPL: Bite. Me.

  23. 123

    K 115: Markets, especially free markets, cause poverty, they do not prevent it.

    BPL: Markets, especially free markets, neither cause not help poverty, they are simply a description of the fact that demand tends to fall with price and supply tends to rise with price. Even in your anarcho-communist Utopia, markets would still exist, because human beings are human beings.

  24. 124
    Piotr says:

    nigelj(18) I thought by castration of the oceans K must have meant pollution of the oceans, because it was a mystery to me why anyone would worry about depleting the oceans of lithium

    Well, you have your answer to that:
    Killian “ What the hell do you know of the need for lithium for the ocean ecosystems to function? Nothing. Barking words.

    Strong accusations demand strong proofs.
    – In the accusation department, Killian comes out strong: calling nigel on his attempt at “ chemical castration of the oceans
    – In the proof department – not so much – extrapolates his own ignorance onto others…

    And, anticipating Killian’s response, let me “bark” the justification of that statement:

    The potential ecosystem impact can be assessed by answering two (complementary) question:

    1. if lithium were a limiting factor to the functioning of the ecosystems – its concentration in the ocean would NOT be conservative, but varying, reflecting biological uptake and release – the way nutrients (e.g. N, P, Si) and products of biological processes (e.g. CO2 and O2) – are.
    Yet is is not – in the (open) ocean it is conservative, i.e. its concentration is proportional to salinity. Which means: “not significantly affected by biological processes”.

    2. if lithium were needed for the ecosystems (in trace amounts, since otherwise it would not have been conservative in p.1), then the impact of lithium extraction would depend on HOW MUCH its concentration would drop. Killian didn’t calculate it – so I did for him – it would drop by 0.04% over next 85 years.
    Hmm, ocean ecosystem irrevocably damaged (“chemical castration“) by the reduction of some element by 0.04% of its previous concentrations???

    Which means that Killians lashing out:
    – “chemical castration of the oceans”
    – “What the hell do you know? Nothing.”
    – “Barking words.
    ^*”

    comes NOT from the understanding how ecosystems work, but from the irresistible need to attack ANY solution (here lithium for EVs) that detracts from the Killian’s Solution to Everything.

    I guess if you wrapped your entire ego around a SINGLE idea, and if you see yourself as a Cassandra (given by gods ability to see the future, cursed with nobody believing her) – that’s to be expected …

    ===
    ^* assuming that “ Barking words” were aimed at Nigel, and were _not_ Killian subtitles to what _he_ was doing there. Naah, self-deprecation humor is not his style. Well, any humor … ;-)

  25. 125

    On oceanic lithium:

    I’ll freely admit I hadn’t the first idea about the biological/ecological role of lithium in marine ecosystems, so I went looking.

    First thing I found said this:

    For aquatic organisms, most of published studies have shown that elevated aqueous Li levels induce toxic effects.

    Mind you, those citations only apply to freshwater organisms in US waters. But the second thing I found says it’s bad for sea urchins, among other marine organisms:

    A teratogenic effect of lithium on the development on Dictyostelium, zebrafish, Xenopus and sea urchin organisms has also been documented.

    If you’re human, apparently oral ingestion may reduce suicide risk, but breathing it in concentration is not a good thing. Lithium also concentrates in food chains. So lithium pollution has at least some potential to be a Bad Thing–another reason that we need to be recycling Li batteries pretty rigorously.

  26. 126

    Breaking:  NuScale is vying for a place in the market for floating generation stations.

    https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/05/20210517-nuscale.html

    From the standpoint of mass production, this is close to ideal.  The production of reactors could be co-located with a shipyard and the finished barges simply floated to their points of use.  Very few things would be more conducive to a rapid rollout.

  27. 127
    Peter Backes says:

    I’m intrigued by this carbon sequestration via kelp idea. Thoughts?

    I’m sure someone will come up with downsides/practical limitations that I’m not seeing…

    https://www.runningtide.com/removing

  28. 128
  29. 129
    nigelj says:

    Kevin McKinney @125 lithium carbonate is also used to treat bipolar disorder (manic depressive disorder) and theres a fine line between a therapeutic dose and toxic effects. One of my flatmates was taking it.

    Extracting minerals from the oceans would become more of an issue with things required in the diet, like magnesium, zinc and copper but their concentrations in the ocean are even more abundant than lithium:

    https://www.miningweekly.com/article/over-40-minerals-and-metals-contained-in-seawater-their-extraction-likely-to-increase-in-the-future-2016-04-01/rep_id:3650#:~:text=Starting%20with%20the%20most%20abundant,(28%20ppm)%20and%20strontium%20(

    However imho its not a get out of jail free card.We still need to be aiming to consume less per capita and waste as little as possible. It’s just important to have all the facts on the table.

  30. 130
    nigelj says:

    Yale Climate Connections: “The link between racist housing policies of the past and the climate risks of today. Formerly redlined neighborhoods often have fewer trees and more pavement, leaving them hotter and more likely to flood….”

    https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2021/03/the-link-between-racist-housing-policies-of-the-past-and-the-climate-risks-of-today/

  31. 131
    Killian says:

    125 Kevin McKinney says:
    17 May 2021 at 12:25 PM

    On oceanic lithium:
    So lithium pollution has at least some potential to be a Bad Thing–another reason that we need to be recycling Li batteries pretty rigorously.

    Which is why you do not mine it from it’s natural oceanic environment (0.2ppm) and turn it into trash that ends up in highly concentrated form as waste… and back into the oceans in concentrated form from our very poorly managed waste management.

    For humans: “A safe blood level of lithium is 0.6 and 1.2 milliequivalents per liter (mEq/L). Lithium toxicity can happen when this level reaches 1.5 mEq/L or higher. Severe lithium toxicity happens at a level of 2.0 mEq/L and above, which can be life-threatening in rare cases.”

    For sea life, the lowest toxicity I found was 0.4. So, as ever, Nature has designed her systems appropriately. And, as ever, the lowest-hanging fruit will happen first, which is not filtering it from sea water:

    https://theconversation.com/a-rush-is-on-to-mine-the-deep-seabed-with-effects-on-ocean-life-that-arent-well-understood-139833

    Principle: We’ve f#$%ed Nature up enough, knock it the f#$% off.

    Stupid people: But my phone!

  32. 132
    Killian says:

    Nice, Kevin. Now you’re into slanted commenting, too?

    Christ…

    Here’s an abstract on the issue of lithium toxicity on sea life. Please note the bolded words and the fact you failed to mention the SOURCE of the concern:

    The diffuse use of lithium in a number of industrial processes has produced a significant contamination of groundwater and surface water with it. The increased use of lithium has generated only scarce studies on its concentrations in ambient waters and on its effects on aquatic organisms. Only few contributions have focused on the toxicity of lithium in marine organisms (such as marine animals, algae and vegetables), showing that the toxic effect depends on the animal species. In the present study we describe the morphological and the molecular effects of lithium chloride (LiCl), using the sea urchin Paracentrotus lividus as a model organism. We show that LiCl, if added to the eggs before fertilization, induces malformations in the embryos in a dose-dependent manner. We have also followed by RT qPCR the expression levels of thirty seven genes (belonging to different classes of functional processes, such as stress, development, differentiation, skeletogenesis and detoxifications) to identify the molecular targets of LiCl. This study opens new perspectives for the understanding of the mechanism of action of lithium on marine organisms. The findings may also have relevance outside the world of marine organisms since lithium is widely prescribed for the treatment of human bipolar disorders.

  33. 133
    Killian says:

    123 Barton Paul Levenson says:
    17 May 2021 at 5:42 AM

    BPL: Markets, especially free markets, neither cause not help poverty, they are simply a description of the fact that demand tends to fall with price and supply tends to rise with price.

    Lie or delusion? The effect is the same: Psychotic behavior.

    Market – definition

    A market is an arrangement between buyers and sellers to exchange goods or services for money. Markets are the fundamental means by which scarce resources are allocated a price, and are essential to the operation of the price mechanism.

    But it’s not quite that simple, is it:

    Markets form under certain conditions, and where these conditions are not met markets struggle to form.

    Conditions for market formation include the existance of:

    Buyers who expect a pay-off in terms of the satisfaction of a want or a need – referred to as utility.

    Purchasing power, which enables buyers to convert their wants or needs into ‘effective demand’.

    Sellers who expect a pay-off, firstly in terms of the revenue they need to cover their production costs, and secondly to generate a profit, which is excess revenue over costs.

    Means of ‘communication’ between buyers and sellers so that preferences can be indicated and goods and services offered for sale. In early market forms it was essential that buyers and sellers met, or at least that their representatives met – however, new technologies have meant that buyers and sellers no longer need to meet in the same physical space.

    Knowledge is balanced between buyers and sellers, so that one partly cannot persistently exploit the other party by withholding relevant information. Markets can breakdown when information is not available to all parties.

    A medium of exchange to facilitate a market transaction – namely, [fiat, aka Monopoly] money or credit.

    The ability to pay at a later date – called deferred payment.

    A legal system which enables both buyers and sellers to be protected through civil law, such as contracts, and through criminal law, such as laws against theft. [Grossly manipulated by the wealthy, per science.]

    Property rights so that individual sellers have the right to sell, and buyers have to right to buy, and to own what they have bought. [I.e., taking what belongs to everyone for your sole benefit.]

    In addition, markets require a financial system to enable individuals and firms to borrow [interest, funneling wealth upwards] if they need to and to save when they have surplus funds.

    NOTE: The preview is showing this as properly formatted. That likely will not be the reality….

  34. 134
    Killian says:

    120 nigelj says:
    17 May 2021 at 2:20 AM

    “Bull. Markets, especially free markets, cause poverty, they do not prevent it.”

    Bull yourself. The primary cause of poverty is scarcity, self evidently.

    That’s my nigel’s stupidity, and racism, limit for today. You, too, BPL.

    Is it so paradoxical to contend that hunters have affluent economies, their utmost lack of possessions notwithstanding? Modern capitalist societies, however richly endowed, dedicate themselves to the proposition of scarcity. Inadequacy of economic means is the first principle of the world’s wealthiest peoples. The market-industrial system institutes scarcity, in a manner completely without parallel.
    https://wrm.org.uy/articles-from-the-wrm-bulletin/section1/affluence-without-abundance-the-hunter-gatherers-a-sound-road-to-health/

    nigel would have us believe scarcity is simply a natural consequence, so poverty. BPL would have us believe markets are just equal places of exchange – which they are not. I tried to highlight in the previous post that markets supposedly only form when there is EQUAL access to information, which is utter bullshit.

    You two cannot, will not learn. I refuse to discuss whether Earth is flat and also whether Economics is anything other than bullshit.

    This conversation is over.

  35. 135

    n 120,

    Well, I wouldn’t say low interest rates were what caused the housing bubble, or at least not low interest rates by themselves. The mortgage industry was pushing a wide variety of new mortgage products, many of which were traps (like balloon mortgages) due to explode the moment the housing market collapsed or a recession hit. But it’s not my field and I could easily be wrong about that.

  36. 136

    I wouldn’t say low interest rates were what caused the housing bubble, or at least not low interest rates by themselves.

    The bubble was mostly caused by extension of credit to people who could not or would not pay off their loans.  This artificially inflated the housing market until defaults forced more housing back onto the for-sale lists, crashing prices and putting many owners into the state of owing more on their homes than they were worth.  This caused many of them to simply walk away from their liabilities, especially when they could not refinance to make a balloon payment.

    The banksters knew what was up.  They didn’t hold those loans themselves; they re-sold them as “collateralized debt obligations” and stuck patsies like pension funds with them, taking their cut up front.  I saw that happening and stayed out of the market until most of the implosion was over.  I did wind up buying in and selling at a loss, but it was small and I made out like a bandit on the other end of the deal.

  37. 137

    #132, Killian–

    “Slanted” because I didn’t explicitly say that oceanic pollution comes from “industrial processes?”

    Here’s my concluding words from the same comment, which you already quoted (in bold, at that):

    So lithium pollution has at least some potential to be a Bad Thing–another reason that we need to be recycling Li batteries pretty rigorously.

    Puh-leeze! Where the hell else than “industrial processes” would lithium pollution come from? Your propensity to accuse really does you no favors.

  38. 138

    And speaking of sourcing lithium, here’s some news:

    https://cleantechnica.com/2021/05/17/lithium-hydroxide-extraction-a-feasibility-study-from-vulcan-energy/

    Takeaways:

    1) Europe is trying to end its dependency on Li imports, and simultaneously lower the carbon footprint of battery manufacture.
    2) They are going to use blockchain tech to track the entire supply chain of same for embodied emissions (perhaps the first use of blockchain I feel really happy about–though, will the blockchain emissions be accounted for, too?)
    3) Vulcan (an Australian multinational planning a German lithium brine extraction op) proposes an intriguing model: deep, hot brines will be pumped to the surface, the energy will be used to power the entire operation, and the brine (less lithium content) will then be returned to the deep aquifer. Power supply and material resource in one. Geothermal closed loop systems have a history of being ‘iffy’ in terms of flow rates, so this project may be no ‘slam dunk.’ But if it works, it would be near-zero emission lithium mining, and would have a low physical footprint as well.

  39. 139
    Piotr says:

    Nice pivot, Killian!

    1. Killian(96) sarcastically to Nigel: “So we should further chemically castrate the oceans by removing the lithium

    2.Nigel(99) “Nobody is going to chemically castrate the oceans by removing dissolved lithium”

    3. Killian(116): “ What the hell do you know of the need for lithium for the ocean ecosystems to function? Nothing. Barking words.

    4. me, Nigel, and Kevin pointed that the removal would be negligible (0.04% of the present value), that lithium is not an limiting nutrient from marine life (if it were, its concentration would not have been conservative) and IF ANYTHING it may be toxic

    5. Unable to falsify any of p.4., our Killian FLIPS his line of attack in (136) – by another of his classic switcheroos:

    – from attacking Nigel for removing Li that the oceans need , ​
    – to attacking Nigel for …bringing BACK a fraction of the removed Li back to the ocean from which it was removed from.

    And all these – while not mentioning that he was wrong when originally he attacked Nigel claiming that ocean ecosystem “ need ” Li and need so critically that even removal of a small fraction (0.04%) of their present concentration – would …. “ chemically castrate the ocean

    Smooth!

    P.S. That’s another thing Killian shares with Know_it_All – both
    unable to admit of being wrong even if caught red-handed, both trying to snatch a victory from the jaws of the defeat: Killian – here; Know it All – in the parallel thread (Unforced Var.; 72).

    Les extrêmes se touchent … ;-)

  40. 140
    nigelj says:

    Killian @, 133 &134, You are partly wrong about markets. So is BPL to some extent. The goal of modern free markets and the associated free trade is to increase per capita productive output and total wealth. Before modern free markets and free trade productive output was low. After modern free markets and free trade productive output increased dramatically, starting around 1600. Clearly free markets have helped increase the availability of goods and services. Free markets and free trade have helped lift millions of people in the developing and third world out of poverty:

    https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/trade/publication/the-role-of-trade-in-ending-poverty

    https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/03/poverty-reduction-rests-on-trade

    https://www.intheblack.com/articles/2015/10/01/growth-in-developing-countries-lifts-millions-out-of-poverty

    One side effect of free markets and free trade is it has lead to lower wages for some groups of low skilled people in DEVELOPED countries. This has been solved in many places with government income transfer schemes from higher to lower income earners, like in Sweden. The result is Sweden has low poverty rates. America ignores the problem, so of course hasn’t solved it.

    To suggest I’m a racist is absurd beyond words, especially given what I posted previously @ 130.

  41. 141
    nigelj says:

    This is why I disagree to an extent with this regenerative governance concept being applied to modern human society. The concept appears to be defined as 1)egalitarian decision making where people have an equal voice, 2) elimination of hierarchies, 3)community ownership of everything apart from personal possessions like clothing, and 4)an economy based purely on cooperation not competition. This is promoted because it worked for hunter gatherers because they survived for millenia and practiced sustainability, and had low negative environmental impacts, (although not all groups did).

    However hunter gatherers lived like this with communal ownership and egalitarian structures etc because its obvious that their simple technologies meant they didn’t NEED complex hierarchies, and their groups and numbers were small so didn’t have much environmental impact, and nature was abundant so there was no need for private property rights. As long as people stuck to their territory all was fine. Problems between groups were often resolved by fighting, and there was significant violence within groups as well (Refer Michael Shermers book the The Moral Arc).

    Modern industrial society has complex hierarchies to organise manufacturing, and private property rights protect against theft, and economic competition reduces the abuse of power you get with monopolies. All these things are bound up together, or inextricably linked together. It is therefore not possible to abandon hierarchies, private ownership and competition and maintain a useful industrial culture, even if smaller than currently, unless you are happy with something that would be very downgraded. Certainly experiments in various forms of communal ownership have mostly had dismal results, eg communism.

    So it looks like we are stuck with largely modern governance systems and just have to make them work better and more justly. Some limited communal or public ownership may make sense in some situations, but not as a general rule.

  42. 142
    nigelj says:

    Piotr @139 regarding the great “pivot”, and defending the indefensible. So true. I dont know why people bother to do these things. And some people sure do it a lot. I dont always comment on such evasions, but I see straight through this every time. Regarding “That’s another thing Killian shares with Know_it_All – both unable to admit of being wrong even if caught red-handed,”. Well true but he wouldn’t want to admit hes wrong about anything, because he thinks it would undermine credibility of the great ” SINGLE idea” :)

  43. 143
    nigelj says:

    Barton Paul Levenson @135

    “Well, I wouldn’t say low interest rates were what caused the housing bubble, or at least not low interest rates by themselves….”

    True they were not the only factor. However they were a factor:

    https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/how-alan-greenspan-helped-wreck-the-economy-231162/

    “Greenspan cut the target federal funds rate to 1 percent and kept it there until mid- 2004, the lowest since the early 1950s. The low rates between 2000 and 2004 were the lifeblood of the housing boom. … With rates so low and no federal oversight, mortgage lending practices, long suspect, became widely abusive.”

    And there was a lot of money coming into the country from savings from Asia at the time, that would have pushed down interest rates. Not saying low interest rates are necessarily always a bad thing. They are prudent right now with this covid problem I guess.

  44. 144
    Killian says:

    Full comment of that posted on Unforced Variation.

    88 Mike gaslights:
    18 May 2021 at 9:55 AM

    How about a 30 day timeout for commenters who go off the deep end?

    KIA actually responded quite good-naturedly. There was no rancor or attack on my character from them. Had Susan not butted in, it would have ended there. I had no reason to respond to KIA, as is my general policy with the denialists here – even as the rest of you use up a majority of the bandwidth here reinforcing their Big Lies and calling them names and insulting them every step of the way. I guess not following the rules is OK for the Peanut Gallery, right?

    Yet, Susan saw fit to call my comments about what *is* a crime against humanity being a, you know, crime against humanity, “over the top” and “irritating.”

    Let’s be clear: The denialist merely gets recommended for the Bore Hole, but in defending Earth and humanity against crimes against humanity and ecocide I get called “over the top” and “irritating.”

    But in your world, I am at fault. That is the very definition of gaslighting from you and your fellow Peanuts.

    And let’s define “the deep end” as needless harassment, insults, aspersions and gaslighting by the core group of posters. Fact is, others here don’t need to “go off” when the Peanut Gallery keeps their damned mouths shut and focus on the science, mitigation and adaptation.

    As a teacher and parent, there are times when you use peer pressure by punishing all if they don’t help police their own. Quite effective. (Works even better when you put a group in charge of the punishment, too. They tend to be even tougher than the teachers.)

    So how about if any of you says something insulting or lies to *start* a flame war, you all, finally, after all these years, get held accountable?

    I’m guessing you don’t want to be responsible for the constant flow of insults from the Peanut Gallery, eh? (BUT… it’s OK for the constant name-calling and insults flung at the denialists… Hmmmm… hypocrite much?)

    So, do yourself a favor and have the fortitude to call out your own: There was no reason for Susan to insultingly refer to me in addressing KIA, and the dogpile that followed was worse.

    To review: I called KIA’s denialism what it is: Crimes Against Humanity. I am FAR from the only person who says this.

    James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City from 1981-2013, has this to say about the continued climate denial campaign that has been rampant for decades: “CEO’s of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEO’s should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature.”

    https://below2c.org/2014/02/next-diaz/

    For that, I was insulted.

    But my fault.

    Let’s look at what I said. Did I insult Susan?

    There was nothing “over-earnest” in what I posted. You need to get some goddamned backbone and call a thing what it is. I am not over-earnest, you are under-understanding where we stand.

    “Get some backbone” Wow. What a terrible slight. She was calling me out for calling out crimes against humanity. The inference can only be one thing: To her calling out crimes against humanity is “over the top” and “irritating.” She is unwilling to characterize truly abhorrent behavior as a crime, but me doing so is “over the top” and “irritating.”

    Seriously? I should be sanguine and serene about this bizarre crap? I’m out of line for calling out a crime?

    In her book “Merchants of Doubt”, Historian Naomi Oreskes brilliantly documented the actions of past climate deniers. It will be a great day in the history of law and justice when the main culprits are tried according to the evidence that she and others have painstakingly collected. If the trial is fair, they will presumably find themselves behind bars for the rest of their lives…

    First, the International Criminal Court should identify and try the most influential climate deniers. If found guilty of the charge of indirectly causing millions of future deaths, they should be jailed for life, with the following aims:

    * systematically suppress climate-denial culture,
    * secure prevent further delays to the sustainable energy revolution, and
    * secure what is left of justice for untold millions of future climate victims.

    http://www.parncutt.org/dp2.html

    and can be annoying with it

    Learn some tolerance. The hypocritical irony of your aggressiveness here… Jesus…

    So, I call an unprovoked, off-base insult hypocritical and aggressive. That is accurate. How is it “go(ing) off the deep end?” Like Susan, you are actually the one doing the insulting, and again it is unwarranted and unjustified. Like her, you don’t care about content, only style. My “voice” bothers you, which makes you more of an Authoritarian than a democracy supporter, does it not?

    Don’t make your goddamned posts about my personality.

    I guess your mommas never told you, Susan or the rest of the Peanut Gallery to attack the words/actions, not the person, so I am out of line for pointing this out to *adults?*

    It’s unethical and stupid.

    Accurate. But, again, I have not attacked the person, but their behavior *as* *I* *should* as a goddamned *adult.* What she did showed little thought, insight, awareness, ethics or morality. For an adult putting their words into the internets, that’s not a smart action.

    What does my posting style have to do with his/her content? Absolutely nothing. But you wanted to take a dig, so here we are.

    Don’t read me if you can’t handle me. Simple, eh?

    What, pray tell, is the insult here?

    So, Mike, kindly look in your goddamned mirror and learn something you should have learned long decades ago.

    Now, back to climate.

  45. 145
    Killian says:

    137 Kevin McKinney says:
    18 May 2021 at 9:01 AM

    Here’s my concluding words from the same comment, which you already quoted (in bold, at that):

    So lithium pollution has at least some potential to be a Bad Thing–another reason that we need to be recycling Li batteries pretty rigorously.

    Puh-leeze! Where the hell else than “industrial processes” would lithium pollution come from? Your propensity to accuse really does you no favors.

    Sorry, but the content of your post was about effects on sea life and the amount of toxic lithium which only serve to minimize the point I made. There was one way to read it: Less lithium in the oceans is good.

    Your attempted to minimize my point via false equivalence got the response it deserved, particularly since you *didn’t* indicate where the pollution was coming from. You could have easily been intending to mean we need to be careful in mining the lithium not to pollute in the process.

    The error here is yours for lack of clarity. So, “Your propensity to accuse/deflect really does you no favors.”

    Own your shit.

  46. 146
    Killian says:

    138 Kevin McKinney says:
    18 May 2021 at 9:35 AM

    3) Vulcan (an Australian multinational planning a German lithium brine extraction op) proposes an intriguing model: deep, hot brines will be pumped to the surface, the energy will be used to power the entire operation, and the brine (less lithium content) will then be returned to the deep aquifer.

    I repeat, if Nature put it there and the ecosystem is functioning (and they are finding life very, very deep so assuming there is none there, or that future changes won’t make that aquifer available – less its lithium – in the future are naive, at best), history has proven: Leave it alone. Modern humans do *not* have a positive record in this regard.

    Power supply and material resource in one. Geothermal closed loop systems have a history of being ‘iffy’ in terms of flow rates, so this project may be no ‘slam dunk.’ But if it works, it would be near-zero emission lithium mining, and would have a low physical footprint as well.

    Irrelevant if you don’t understand the ecosystem being altered, and they don’t. If the lithium is not *needed*, leave it there.

    Simplification trumps ANY tech-based response to climate and energy.

  47. 147
    Killian says:

    127 Peter Backes says:
    17 May 2021 at 6:16 PM

    I’m intrigued by this carbon sequestration via kelp idea. Thoughts?

    I’m sure someone will come up with downsides/practical limitations that I’m not seeing…

    1. Kelp is already dying due to changes in the ocean. Planting kelp into conditions already killing it makes little sense. We can create microclimates on land to regenerate ecosystems, but doing so in the ocean is essentially impossible, I think.

    2. Scale. The areas needed would mean altering existing habitats, i.e. destroying them.

    If the effort is limited to restoration of degraded kelp forests, I’m all for it.

  48. 148

    K 133: Lie or delusion? The effect is the same: Psychotic behavior.

    BPL: I’m not really qualified to diagnose you, although tentatively I’d say you have something like narcissistic personality disorder. Definitely see a professional.

  49. 149

    K 134: This conversation is over.

    BPL: As long as you continue to make wrong statements, I will continue to point them out.

  50. 150

Leave a Reply

Comment policy. Please note that if your comment repeats a point you have already made, or is abusive, or is the nth comment you have posted in a very short amount of time, please reflect on the whether you are using your time online to maximum efficiency. Thanks.