A bi-monthly open thread related to climate solutions.
PS. New year, new moderation policy. Please be substantive – sniping, insults, and tedious repetition will just be culled. We want to maintain a civil and productive discourse here, but the comment threads may need to be re-evaluated if that doesn’t happen.
The Great Simplification with Nathan Hagens
Episode 06 – February 2, 2022 audio/youtube
Guest Emeritus Professor Herman Daly: “Toward an Ecological Economics”
Daly discusses the biophysical underpinnings of human economies, and how a social system that is more tethered to our ecological reality might come into being.
Daly explains how the transformation from classical economics to neoclassical economics created an understanding of the world that prioritized utility and money above all else.
https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/06-herman-daly
take out … Daly prognosis for the near future @50 minutes
I guess you might say I try to be a hopeful pessimist. I mean I just think
one has to work with the idea that there is a possibility, I can’t really foresee
the future, there may be an inbreaking of understanding that is a surprise.
So I’m glad to see people continuing with Ecological Economics and I
continue with it for my few remaining years. But for reasons you’ve
indicated that may not really work out.
…. and my answer to that is not a very good answer but I said well you
know, what are you going to do after it all crashes and every day it looks
like we’re heading more and more to a crash. What are you going to do
then? It would be good to have some ideas on the shelf for rebuilding
and reconstructing whatever is left after we crash, in a way that it may
not crash again. So I see that as a justification even in the worst-case
scenario of doom and gloom.
Nathan @1:00 hr:
Truth is out-competed by identity, job and tribal affiliation.
…. in talking to former politicians very senior people these ideas are finally
staring us in the face and people are wanting explanations for the Human
Ecosystem. How do things fit together? They are still threatened and
scared about the answers because the answers are not going to be
politically or socially sanguine. But, they are fundamentally aware in a
way that 20 years ago or even 10 years ago they weren’t. I mean people
on both sides of the aisle are very worried about Climate Change and
resources. I think people are becoming aware …..
PS. New year, new moderation policy. Please be substantive …
OK then, I will be substantive.
The public misuse of moral language, then, is nothing new. As soon as moral language is severed from what we might call its “proper end”, and made to serve some other purpose — vanity, perhaps, or as an identity marker for one’s ideological or political tribe, or in order to humiliate or browbeat another person — it is bound to be corrupted. But in our social-media saturated age, the misuse of “moral” language has taken on a distinct and rather perfidious form.
Morally weighted language is regularly used to grant otherwise excessive claims, or personal or categorical insults, or forms of unequivocal judgment, an air of moral seriousness, and the user of that language an elevated position that stands beyond response or riposte. Which is to say, morally weighted language — in this one-way sense — marks the end of conversation. It demands total acquiescence, or damnation.
Because there is so little agreement in our time as to what counts as “moral”, much less the shared criteria by which moral judgment might be enacted, we could legitimately fear that the use of “moral” language cannot help but be self-aggrandising, ostracising, or punitive.
Consider Stanley Cavell’s description of “morality” as providing:
On racism and climate change impacts:
“… the increase in risk as rising oceans reach farther inland during storms and high tides over the next 30 years falls disproportionately on communities with large African American populations on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts. Urban and rural areas from Texas to Florida to Virginia contain predominantly Black communities projected to see at least a 20% increase in flood risk over the next 30 years.
Historically, poorer communities haven’t seen as much investment in flood adaptation or infrastructure, leaving them more exposed. The new data, reflecting the cost of damage, contradicts a common misconception that flood risk exacerbated by sea level rise is concentrated in whiter, wealthier areas.”
https://theconversation.com/new-flood-maps-show-us-damage-rising-26-in-next-30-years-due-to-climate-change-alone-and-the-inequity-is-stark-175958
Well noted. And consistent with the general pattern in which environmental impacts tend to affect the poor disproportionately. Rich folks don’t have to put up with bad smells, carcinogenic emissions, or unsightly infrastructure.
And they don’t.
Heck, even the middle class don’t, at least not initially–we do sometimes get ‘marooned’ in such situations by change happening around us.
Kevin McKinney. Agreed. Climate impacts the poor disproportionately. For example the tropical poor countries get hit hardest. If you cant afford air conditioning or insulation you get hit harder.
But what has any of that climate issue got to do with RACISM? I still dont think you are making much of a link. And remember all races have poor people in them.
But racism is basically active discrimination on the basis of skin colour, and that link to climate isnt so compelling. I made a previous comment on it. The only proven link Ive seen is racist policies that force people of colour into low quality homes, that might be susceptible to severe weather. I guess thats something but it certainly doesn’t happen where I live.
Its not clear what specific examples you have related to racism and racist policies ( as opposed to just race). Im not convinded there are many.
I’ve always spoken out against racism, separatism and racist policies but today racism is applied to almost anything. Its become an over used term. If you criticise China so perhaps its economy you are called a racist. If you oppose very high rates of immigration, regardless of country of origin, you are called a racist. I could fill a page of examples. Its a pet peeve of mine. But obviously genuine racism is just wrong.
Nigel, I wasn’t trying to make the link with racism in that comment; just expanding on the economic piece that Mike had alluded to.
But I do think that racism is important in this context, for multiple reasons. I addressed that in another comment that you may or may not have already seen, here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-801110
A figure you may want to look at in this regard is the Rev. William Barber III. He was a prominent figure at the 2019 Climate Reality training in Atlanta, which I attended, and has been a significant influence on Al Gore. Rev. Barber has a very well-developed view of the intertwined nature of the social issues facing us–as the Poor People’s Campaign tagline puts it:
https://twitter.com/UniteThePoor
Kevin. Yes I saw your previous link. Its really that I was responding to and I should have said so. I didn’t see any examples linking racism as such and the climate issue. Maybe I’m nit picking over the meaning of the word racism. But I will look into your Reverand Barber reference so thanks.
Clearly there is systemic racism in a general sense. An example from my home country:
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/crime/84346494/new-zealands-racist-justice-system–our-law-is-not-colourblind
Our police have gone from outright denial of such things, to a grudging admission from police there may be a limited problem and that racism is never tolerated. Progress I guess. Give it a million years and they may actually do something about it.
Nigel “….but today racism is applied to almost anything.”
Where’s your credible preferably peer reviewed evidence that might be true?
“(Racism has ) become an over used term. “
Where’s your “evidence” that might be true?
“If you criticise China or perhaps its economy you are called a racist.”
That might happen sometimes, but reactions are directly influenced by HOW the criticism is worded and the “tone”. Where’s your “evidence” that might be true most of the time?
“I could fill a page of examples.”
Then go right ahead and present some of it. Instead of “anecdotal” one offs, please include some peer reviewed studies that support your views are as bad and as common as described – No speeches at a Trump rally.
nigelj asks “But what has any of that climate issue got to do with RACISM? “
Apparently quite a lot. Here is some peer reviewed research studies / reports plus dozens of other links at the end.
I would never ask others do something I am not wiling to do myself. To not do that is very poor form.
Why climate change is inherently racist
Climate change and racism are two of the biggest challenges of the 21st Century. They are also strongly intertwined. There is a stark divide between who has caused climate change and who is suffering its effects. People of colour across the Global South are those who will be most affected by the climate crisis, even though their carbon footprints are generally very low. Similar racial divides exist within nations too, due to profound structural inequalities laid down by a long legacy of unequal power relationships.
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220125-why-climate-change-is-inherently-racist
Climate Crises and the Creation of ‘Undeserving’ Victims
Racism is a central element of these processes, as racist tropes and technologies are central to who may acceptably be put to death, and whose death will be determined not to matter (Mbembe 2003). These decisions are also determinedly gendered and classed (Wonders and Danner 2015). There is an instrumental rationality to what or who can be acceptably lost, and there is a growing normalization of what or who could be sacrificed for continued extraction, expansion and accumulation—from the clearing of Indigenous territories to make way for logging, pipelines, mines or dams to the inundation of Pacific Island territories and the corresponding obliteration of nations to the further extinction of species. The logic of dispossession and obliteration marks out most people and life-worlds as disposable (Banerjee 2008). Again, this is an ongoing, perpetual process.
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-0760/10/4/144/htm
Racism and Fascism 1995
When our fears have all been serialized,our creativity censured, our ideas “market-
placed,” or rights sold, our intelligence sloganized, our strength downsized, our privacy
auctioned;when the theatricality,the entertainment value, the marketing of life is com-
plete, we will find ourselves living not in a nation but in a consortium of industries,and
wholly unintelligible to ourselves except for what we see as through a screen darkly.
https://www.leeannhunter.com/gender/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Morrison-article.pdf
Geographies of race and ethnicity II: Environmental racism, racial capitalism and state-sanctioned violence
Second, I review how the devaluation of nonwhite bodies has been incorporated into economic processes and advocate for extending such frameworks to include pollution. And lastly, I turn to the state. If, in fact, environmental racism is constituent of racial capitalism
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0309132516646495
Racial formation, coloniality, and climate finance organizations: Implications for emergent data projects in the Pacific
The racial mediation of two key resources are spotlighted in this discussion: the finance itself and knowledge. Given that the Pacific region is at the coalface of climate change’s existential effects, the just allocation of resources is imperative.
Early racial formations, as colonially constructed schemas, allowed key ‘imperial activities to be launched and organized’ (Winant, 2001: 23). Racial formation was central in both the logic and mobilization of colonial power through conquest and slavery (Winant, 2001). As observed by Ruha Benjamin (2016: 2227): ‘Explicit racial references, previously fixed on to the exterior of racist devices, are no longer practical. Instead, innovators find ways to embed racism deep in to the operating system.’ Data, increasingly preferred across the world as a means of bedding down and representing knowledge, is one such pathway that innovators contribute to racial formation whilst maintaining a veneer of postracial neutrality. Postracialism, as Benjamin argues, is the new ‘killer application, deadly and disenfranchizing, minimalist and minimizing, and always one step ahead’ (2016: 2227).
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20539517211027600
Othering and the (bio)political ecology of climate change
In this article, we argue that othering is central to the government of climate change. Critically engaging with Foucault’s ideas on biopolitics and racism, we elaborate a conceptual perspective for analysing how such a “technology of government” operates. We review diverse literatures from geography, political ecology, critical adaptation studies and the environmental humanities dealing with discursive constructions of the other in three exemplary areas of intervention—mitigation (particularly “green” mineral extraction for renewable energy production); constructions of “vulnerability” in adaptation policies; and the governing of “climate migrants”.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629821001724
Invisibility of Racism in the Global Neoliberal Era: Implications for Researching Racism in Healthcare
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2019.00061/full
Published: 01 January 2022 – Dismantling white supremacy in environmental studies and sciences: an argument for anti-racist and decolonizing pedagogies
Instead of reifying white-settler states as blameless, and entrenching identity-based inequalities along the lines of sexuality, race, gender, class, ability, and other subjectivities in environmental education (McLean 2013), adopting an anti-racist stance helps position students and educators alike with a more cohesive understanding of the system of racial capitalism.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13412-021-00739-5
Colonial global economy: towards a theoretical reorientation of political economy
Indian author says pillaging of lands and killing of indigenous people laid foundation for climate emergency
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2022/jan/14/amitav-ghosh-european-colonialism-helped-create-a-planet-in-crisis
The impact of colonialism on policy and knowledge production in International Relations
Many other info/history url refs / examples here:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-801043
XR RC ROCKS.
Nigelj: “Racism has become an over used term. “
XR RC: “Where’s your “evidence” that might be true?”
Nigelj: I gave you some examples. They were obviously anecdotal. Even just a few shows there is an issue. We don’t need to quote a study on everything. Probably I indulged in some “hyperbole” but I dont think it was out of place.
XR RC: “nigelj asks “But what has any of that climate issue got to do with RACISM? “
XR RC: “Apparently quite a lot. Here is some peer reviewed research studies / reports plus dozens of other links at the end.”
“Why climate change is inherently racist”
Appears to be a BBC media article. Good article and I don’t disagree with it, but the claims of racism (by the normal definition) seem far fetched. Seems to talk about everything except racism. Injustices to poor people aren’t good but they aren’t proof of a RACISM / CLIMATE connection.
“Racism and Fascism”…..”In this address, given at Howard University during its 1995 Charter Day celebrations, Morrisonspokeloquently about the origins and social significance of Howard and other historically Blackinstitutions of higher learning, about the education and miseducationf African Americans, and about the aberrant societal tensions wrought by racism and fascism…..(more of the same)”
This is nothing to do with the alleged CLIMATE / RACISM CONNECTION.
“Geographies of race and ethnicity II: Environmental racism, racial capitalism and state-sanctioned violence”
The Abstract doesn’t refer to CLIMATE CHANGE as such.
“Racial formation, coloniality, and climate finance organizations: Implications for emergent data projects in the Pacific”
I accept this does show some possible connection between racist institutional policies and climate change. But just because its a study doesn’t necessarily make it true or man there’s a widespread problem.
“Othering and the (bio)political ecology of climate change”….”We contend that these interventions largely work through the extension of capitalist relations, underpinned by racist and colonial ways of seeing populations and territories as “in need of improvement”.
Again the link to CLIMATE AND RACISM is tenuous. Its largely about colonial exploitation and alleged exploitation of low income countries. And they are using the word racism very widely. Its all just social science waffle really and not convincing to me.
“Colonial global economy: towards a theoretical reorientation of political economy”
This is about exploitation of poor countries (something I’m very uncomfortable with). To call this racist is stretching the use of the term and it doesn’t refer to the CLIMATE ISSUE.
“Indian author says pillaging of lands and killing of indigenous people laid foundation for climate emergency”
More of the same.
—————————————————
I’m not saying the studies are all wrong or bad, but the evidence for a SPECIFIC climate/ racist connection is a bit lacking for me in many of them or just plain unconvincing in others. IMHO labelling such a wide collection of climate related issues racist is over extending the term racist and this helps nobody.
I personally think the problem is mostly about the economic exploitation of poor countries in general. There are and were economic injustices obviously, but poor countries create many of their own problems as well. The blame game isn’t helpful, and this extends to scapegoating both poor AND wealthy countries The blame game wont solve anything and will alienate a lot of people.
Obviously there is some systemic racism in a general institutional sense not related to the climate issue. I have posted a link on that replying to KM.
Nigelj: “(Racism has) become an over used term. “
XR RC: “Where’s your “evidence” that might be true?”
Nigelj: I gave you some examples. They were obviously anecdotal.
XRRC: No you did not give examples. If u still believe u did then copy/paste those examples with a url link to where you provided them.
Plus anecdotes / beliefs / bad memories are not what I call “evidence.”
After dismissing any climate/racism connection from multiple studies discussing the post-colonial/global south nations nigel then states emphatically:
“I’m not saying the studies are all wrong or bad, but the evidence for a SPECIFIC climate/ racist connection is a bit lacking for me in many of them or just plain unconvincing in others.”
Then ignore it nigel. Pretend it does not exist and continue to dismiss it out of hand.
Stick to your privileged rich white opinion that informs you what the facts must be, what the evidence is. No need for you to even consider it. Let alone actually think about it or understand what is being said in multiple peer reviewed academic papers that rattle your quaint know it all stereotypical existence.
Yes, ignore it completely. Continue to dismiss every speech and contribution made at COP26 by people from the global south. Because it does not matter what you think or what you dismiss and what you deny. The world keeps turning anyway.
XRRC
The point I was making is that racism is becoming an over used term. I gave you some anecdotal examples and there are plenty in our media. This shows its an over used term with at least some people. Im not going to spend time trying to dig out research on it because its getting off topic.
I think you are ignoring a really OBVIOUS problem. Like many people on the very hard left of the spectrum (thats how you come across) I suspect you see any suggestion that the use of the term racist is overdone, is denying that racism exists.
Its almost pointless talking to people like you. Its the reason the Democrats tear themselves apart. The conflict between those on the hard left who are very doctrinaire, and those mildly cente left and practical.
Replying to nigel’s comment:
Clearly so. But that doesn’t address the question as to whether there is a climate/racism link that is more than contingent.
I will follow the good Rev. Barber and many others in asserting that there is. In what does it most essentially consist?
That the climate crisis, and connected forms of “environmental devastation”, would not be possible without the systematic devaluation of unprivileged “others”.
If we equally valued people of color; poor people; indigenous people; then there would be no-place consigned to environmental devastation. We wouldn’t tolerate it. And since the climate crisis hangs on accepting such devastation *somewhere*–actually, many ‘somewheres’–it, too, would fall. Without pipelines, oilfields, refineries, coalmines, ashponds, slagheaps, et bloody cetera, the fossil machine must stop.
Nigel digs in – The point I was making is that racism is becoming an over used term. “
That is spurious bullshit. A fallacy. It’s irrelevant to the topic at hand. It’s nothing. Meaningless crappolla put out by a dill pickle caught with his pants down.
Because even if it was an overused terms that has no consequence on whether or not the referenced reports and studies are guilty by association!
Fools and manipulators put up pathetic arguments like this. .
A person who cannot read or understand the peer reviewed research papers on the topic of post-colonial geopolitical ‘Racism’ in the climate and energy economic fields today.
Deniers always deny and then they attempt to obfuscate. And do that badly as well. It’s the weak mindset which leads to such problems and after effects.
Nigel, OK, so you agree that the impacts of climate change will fall disproportionately on the heads of the poor. I presume (since it is indisputable) that you also recognize that the rich are overwhelmingly responsible and rea most of the benefit from the CO2 that causes it. And presumably you have noticed that the millionaire and billionaire come in skin tones reflecting all the colors from cream to mayonnaise to marshmallow fluff. Now how do you think it got that way? Do you think that perhaps 500 years of overt racism, slavery, colonialism and diplomatic and military shitfuckery might have had something to do with it?
And you do presumably recognize that we live with the accumulated wealth, national boundaries and institutions established by those same overtly racist motherfuckers who brought the slaves over on free trips to the New World and cut off the hands of natives who didn’t bring in enough rubber sap. Hell, we even have the same aesthetics and morality of the racists who came before us. What do you think happened to the racism those systems established, perpetuated and protected? So, we now have a situation where racism is on autopilot. No individual has to be overtly racist for racism to persist.
Now that system faces an existential threat, and we tell the victims crushed by 500 years of overt racism that they cannot follow the same path we did into prosperity. Is it any wonder that Brazilians tell us to fuck off when we tut, tut about the need to preserve the Amazon?
Ray Ladbury,
“And you do presumably recognize that we live with the accumulated wealth, national boundaries and institutions established by those same overtly racist motherfuckers who brought the slaves over on free trips…..”
I gather you are saying in part that some of todays white skinned billionaires owe their wealth in part indirectly to slave traders of the past. Sure if you want to dig that far into the past I concede there is a racism / climate connection. But many of those billionaires today do donate wealth to poor countries, eg Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
And since you are turning the issue into a white people are terrible discussion, I trust you donate money to worthy causes. I suspect you do. Not sure what more you expect individual people to do. We cannot be personally liable for all the sins of our ancestors Ray. Thats would just be crazy and impractical.
“Now that system faces an existential threat, and we tell the victims crushed by 500 years of overt racism that they cannot follow the same path we did into prosperity. Is it any wonder that Brazilians tell us to fuck off when we tut, tut about the need to preserve the Amazon?”
They have the sovereign right to use fossil fuels, but they should not be developing by using fossil fuels. I’m with BPL on that view. They have other options with renewables. Yes obviously they will tell us to fuck off when we lecture them over preserving the amazon, but they will do that REGARDLESS of our stance on fossil fuels. Giving developing countries the green light to burn fossil fuels out of guilt over what we did to them in the past with colonialism is ridiculous! If thats what you are suggesting.
The way out of all is to give these lower income countries international aid. I donate some money to international causes, probably not as much as I should. But many people do nothing, and those to the right of the political spectrum totally resent governments giving international aid, and its hard to see that changing.
And how much do we give those countries to compensate for the injustices of colonialism? And they did also get benefits from colonialism. What a nightmare to figure out. Cant be adequately done.
For all these reasons and many others Im not too optimstic about us fixing the climate problem. I think we have a 50 / 50 chance of stopping the very worst of it.
And Killian is suggesting much stricter limits on the economic development of poor countries. Please go and lecture him!
Ray,
You are being unscientific.
The “overtly racist motherfuckers” did what they did because they had the guns, the germs, and the steel, and the others didn’t. Not like Europeans didn’t conquer and enslave each other when possible. It’s about controlling resources.
The “inferior race” trope was developed to justify what they were doing to the “bleeding hearts” of the time, and it told the lesser chimps in the troop that there was a group of individuals below them in status. That’s how you get your lower classes to keep their place and be good soldiers for conquest.
As I’ve pointed out previously, moral outrage about racism as the characteristic of any given individual misses the point; it’s a form of denial about a really scary aspect of human nature.
Authoritarian psychology is not a genetic trait; it is easily nurtured and developed in any human absent a countervailing social norm. Racism as we know it is a symptom… Black skin is a convenient Star of David tattoo, identifying the “others” for those who are insecure with their own identity and status.
Not fun to think about, but that’s us chimps. Getting to be real humans takes work.
Addendum to my previous comment:
I just came on this; again, these concepts are well established science.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/09/opinion/trump-status-anxiety.html
Zebra, I think your response is essentially valid that all societies have their dark side, and the economics of colonialism was promoted by using racist motives, but buried in that was some genuine racism: Slavery, apartheid, racial marriage laws, etc.
Can’t be. nigel said there is no racism involved.
Conclusions: social movements constrain fossil fuel supplies and potentially avoid emissions
The results showed that social movements constrain fossil fuel supplies, support social and political processes needed for climate change mitigation, and potentially avoid emissions through at least ten different contributions.
….the specific contributions to staying within the global carbon budget were associated with the different movement strategies and the participation of specific actors, such as indigenous people involved in mobilisations.
Additionally, the analysis indicates that indigenous participation in movements significantly contributes to limiting fossil fuels;
Therefore, the protection of indigenous people’s right to defend their traditional way of life and ancestral lands should be highlighted in climate change mitigation frameworks and pathways to achieve global carbon budget goals.
Firstly, our findings support existing arguments claiming that fossil fuel resistance movements create viable pathways and important political spaces to achieve climate mitigation targets. Moreover, the results yield new evidence that nuances popular assumptions regarding how social movements contribute to decarbonisation.
Ecological Economics
Volume 195, May 2022
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800922000180?via%3Dihub#s0095 open access
For eleven consecutive days, Blockade Australia disrupted the Port of Newcastle, the largest coal port in the world. They blocked the trains transporting coal from the region’s open-cut mines, pressed emergency buttons, and climbed onto the port’s coal-loading equipment.
https://rebellion.global/blog/2022/01/12/new-kids-on-the-blockade/
Kristian Steensen Nielsen @kristiansn89
Feb 2
.@netflix has created a new guide with climate actions to accompany #DontLookUp . I served as an advisor alongside much more prominent scholars like @jrockstrom @ClimateHuman @KHayhoe @MichaelEMann
@GlobalEcoGuy @DoctorVive . Netflix did a good job! A short Thread why.
https://twitter.com/kristiansn89/status/1488843546786467854
MAKE CHANGES THAT MATTER
Together our steps have the power to speed up change on a global scale. Every step counts.
CHANGE THE SYSTEM
One of the most powerful ways you can drive global change is by putting climate on everyone’s agenda — think politicians, news outlets, work, friends and family.
Together we can change the system.
https://dontlookup.count-us-in.com/steps
How were the steps chosen?
The steps highlighted in this platform have been informed by key scientific advisors and subject matter experts including Dr. Johan Rockström, Dr. Jon Foley, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, Dr. Kristian Steensen Nielsen, Dr. Marshall Shepherd, Dr. Michael Mann, Dr. Peter Kalmus, Dr. Erica Chenoweth, Lindsay Crowder, Dr. Chad Frischmann, Dr. Damien Lieber, Dr. Britt Wray, Dr. Charles Ogunbode, Dr. Gary Belkin, Dr. Lorraine Whitmarsh, Dr. Susan Clayton, Dr. Genevieve Guenther, Dr. Max Boykoff, Mark Hertsgaard, Dr. Dan Lashof, Dr. Leah Stokes, Ed Chen, Elizabeth Gore, and experts from Count Us In, ENGIE Impact, Rare and Project Drawdown. For our complete list of advisors, see our Methodology Page.
Kristian Steensen Nielsen @kristiansn89
Feb 2
.@netflix has created a new guide with climate actions to accompany #DontLookUp . I served as an advisor alongside much more prominent scholars like @jrockstrom @ClimateHuman @KHayhoe @MichaelEMann
@GlobalEcoGuy @DoctorVive . Netflix did a good job! A short Thread why.
https://twitter.com/kristiansn89/status/1488843546786467854
MAKE CHANGES THAT MATTER
Together our steps have the power to speed up change on a global scale. Every step counts.
CHANGE THE SYSTEM
One of the most powerful ways you can drive global change is by putting climate on everyone’s agenda — think politicians, news outlets, work, friends and family.
Together we can change the system.
https://dontlookup.count-us-in.com/steps
==========================================================
Youth From the Global South Reflect on Multisolving
January 30, 2022
Xiomara Acevedo is an Internationalist and Climate Change activist, consultant and social entrepreneur from Colombia. She is the founder and director of Barranquilla+20 a youth-led & focused NGO whose mission is to educate and empower children and youth in climate change, biodiversity and water in Colombia and LAC countries.
Rohini Dutta is a medical student at Christian medical College Ludhiana Punjab India and a Global Surgery Fellow at the WHO Collaborating Centre for Research in Surgical Care Delivery in Low-Middle Income Countries, India. She thinks about multisolving in the context of healthcare in India.
Desmond Alugnoa is the Co-Founder of the Green Africa Youth Organization (GAYO) and the Program Coordinator for the Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (GAIA). He is a youth leader with focus on Community Empowerment and Rural Innovation. Here’s how he describes multisolving:
https://www.multisolving.org/youth-from-the-global-south-reflect-on-multisolving/
https://twitter.com/bethsawin/status/1488534084238430216
Eco-imperialism operates by constraining resource consumption in poor countries, thus keeping them in poverty, in order to divert resources to corporations and elites in rich countries. Degrowth is the opposite of that kind of thinking.
What are the cleanest and safest sources of energy today?
Nuclear lifecycle emissions are as low as wind and lower than solar. It’s as carbon free as any energy source we have: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FKtnd4dVQAEWsIm?format=jpg&name=large
Switching to a combination of renewables and nuclear energy would cause a cut in global shipping by half. Because about half the ships are only ever carrying oil, gas and coal.
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1489397870365052928
Dr. Zeke Hausfather @hausfath
Closing Diablo nuclear plant results in a loss of carbon-free generation equivalent of tearing down every wind turbine or every rooftop solar panel in California. We cannot afford to move backwards on our decarbonization goals, and further entrench our reliance on polluting fossil gas.
I’d rather replace the 50% of California’s electricity generation that came from gas (as of 2020) with renewables than the 8.5% that comes from nuclear. Once we replace all the gas, than lets shut down nuclear if we want to.
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1489345822281977857
One nuclear power plant is equivalent to all the solar and wind tech ever deployed in California. Wow. Who knew?
Many people knew. Many. And some were climate scientists.
oops a correction ….. all the solar OR wind tech ever deployed in California
Hold up! First, I, too, would rather see the gas plants retired than Diablo, because:
(I have to say, that Wiki article seems a tad more nuclear-friendly than purely neutral, though I don’t doubt the claims/facts quoted above.)
However, it also says that Diablo is only 23% of non-emitting capacity in the state. And elsewhere, I find that California solar generation alone in 2020 was upwards of 27k GWh; compare that to Diablo’s 18k–a large percentage of total solar, to be sure! (Another testimony to the potential effects of closing it.)
But given that solar isn’t the total RE output, and that CF is presumably significantly higher for Diablo, it’s hard to understand how Dr. Hausfather’s claim about relative Diablo/nuclear gen totals could be correct. Pretty clearly, there’s significantly more RE power deployed now in CA than nuclear–never mind ‘deployed ever.’
Then ask Dr. Hausfather if you do not understand.
I have better things to do.
This is an issue of “Embedded Energy” and “Appropriate Technology.” For those who wish to understand how the planet functions, it makes little sense to simply throw away that which already exists if it serves a necessary and useful function that will help us to simplify. In general, we don’t want to shut down nuclear just to shut down nuclear if it helps to *not* do more damage by building out new things causing new damage to the ecosystem.
What we do want to do is shrink consumption down to already-existing levels of “renewables” and other Embedded Energy systems because most highly industrialized nations already have enough wind, solar and other embedded energies, such as nuclear, to shrink our consumption to below the level of using *any* FFs for heat, transport, cooling, e.g.
In that regard, what do we shut down first? FFs. Then nuclear because of the dangers involved. (Sorry, but until thorium-based is a much larger share, it’s irrelevant. More importantly, given we need to simplify, there is no need for it in any industrialized nation.)
According to the California Energy Commission, in 2020, 8.53% of in-state electricity production was nuclear, but 15.43% was solar and 7.18% was wind.
Since the solar electricity generation alone is nearly double nuclear generation, I’m struggling to see how a Californian nuclear electricity production is equivalent to either “all the solar and wind tech ever deployed in California” or “all the solar OR wind tech ever deployed in California”.
https://www.energy.ca.gov/data-reports/energy-almanac/california-electricity-data/2020-total-system-electric-generation
That document also shows the amount of nuclear electricity generation in California trending downwards since 2016.
nigelj says 3 Feb 2022 at 4:58 PM
“But you might avoid misinterprations if you clarified your own position in brackets when posting copy and paste material.”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-801124
XR : Oh boy, I am not the one doing the misinterpreting niglej, you are.
You are the one needing to avoid misinterpretations. You need to avoid making false assumptions and foolish accusations in the first place. If you did that I would have nothing to say!
.
You need to stop making false accusations, Stop the vain moralizing, stop putting words in my mouth that was clearly not said nor intended.
When I wish to express an opinion or clarify my own position about something I am sharing here then it is solely my decision to make, not yours.
So how about you stop assuming you can read my mind by “reading the tea leaves” out of the many copy/paste info url items I share here and stop claiming to know what my position must be?
Plus, as already stated, I do not necessarily have an opinion, or a firm position about most of the things I share here. Stop assuming everything others post here is a starting gun for an argument. When I find interesting news or analysis I simply share it. I might add a comment or my opinion or not. This never means I automatically agree 100%, or am promoting them and all their ideas unless I specifically say so. . Nor is there any rule I must have a considered position on it too!
So, you are the one who needs to QUOTE EXAMPLES and EVIDENCE of what I have actually said here by copying and pasting it when you wish to discuss something to want to tell the world how wrong I am in your opinion!
I take great personal exception to the ill-formed malicious attacks, and the truth must be known. All these silly allegations, the fallacies put in my mouth and the ad hominem insults about things I have NOT said or believe are false, malicious and defamatory. It would be much better if they stopped. https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-3/#comment-801080
Why do you have to make a judgment (pro/con) about what is shared here anyway? And then make judgements about the people themselves as well? Because you do not have to do this. It’s a choice. Choices have consequences. People typically push back against this kind of habitual treatment and ridicule it.
The issue is not disagreement with anything I might say, opinion, or a difference of opinion about the material share info about. People can have their own opinions and differences, I do not care at all (or rarely.)
The issue is about misrepresenting it and then making false accusations that what has been misrepresented is something I said or did or am responsible for. That it is then justified to call me names as result based solely on that spurious distorted false disinformation and/or wild fanciful assumptions. That pisses me off no end. This isn’t kindergarten.
Not kindergarten? Then why did I have to scroll past a temper tantrum?
XRRC. I reject all that. You have completely misinterpreted what I said. I wasn’t suggesting your were unclear or were posting bad stuff. I said quite specifically that some people have a bad habit of jumping to conclusions, so in other words THEY are the problem.
I said that you could help stop that by clarifying your own position in brackets. This is not an insult. I do the same when posting contentious copy and paste material .
\
Please read for comprehension, and stop making wild, evidence free, and completely silly allegations against me.
nigelj asks “But what has any of that climate issue got to do with RACISM? “
Apparently quite a lot. see info refs here : https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-3/#comment-801197
A long summary of the racial colonialism historical issues on the BBC By Jeremy Williams 27th January 2022
Climate change divides along racial lines. Could tackling it help address longstanding injustices?
https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20220125-why-climate-change-is-inherently-racist
some key outtakes
The nations of the Global North have effectively colonised the atmospheric commons – Jason Hickel
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213138821008109
(I TOLD you so!)
XR RC Rocks
“XR : Oh boy, I am not the one doing the misinterpreting niglej, you are.You need to stop making false accusations.”
I’m not misinterpreting you or making false accusations. I suggested put your own view in brackets, or state you dont have a view, because I was offering you friendly advice on how to deal with people who “”tend to have a habit of jumping to conclusions””! This was clearly not a criticism of you. It was not a false accusation.
“Stop the vain moralizing, stop putting words in my mouth that was clearly not said nor intended.”
Please cite examples. Because right now you are wrong, and you are just slandering me with zero evidence.
“So how about you stop assuming you can read my mind by “reading the tea leaves” out of the many copy/paste info url items I share here and stop claiming to know what my position must be?”
Where did I do that? The ONLY thing I can recall is I said you seem to come across as sceptical about renewables and more in favour of nuclear power. And you do! Read your own damn rhetoric. Im not necessarily criticising you for that position. If something like that comment upsets you you are very thin skinned. You take it all way to personally anyway, just like Killian does.
This is a public website. If you dont like criticism of your views or links you post, thats too bad. Dont participate or dont reply to the criticisms. You have choices too.
Nigel asks: “I’m not misinterpreting you or making false accusations.” and “Where did I do that?”
XRRC: What is wrong with you exactly?
Are you for example being intentionally disingenuous and dishonest on purpose? Just plain stupid? Or your memory is gone completely?
Dislikes Renewables! One example of dozens of others.
Yes I have choices too.
Not having any conversation, discussion with you or replying to your dysfunctional inflammatory judgmental commentaries and mud throwing – which is always wrong – it is not a criticism when you total what I write – never copy/paste verbatim what I say IN CONTEXT but instead make it up in your own head – is my choice.
Because I know nigelj that you are constantly misinterpreting me and making false accusations about what I actually said and what I actually think. I know that with certainty! Only an overinflated self-righteous and disingenuous dill would argue the point and refuse to accept what I just said.
XRRC
In the comment you are responding to I acknowledged the renewables issue. I said “The ONLY thing I can recall is I said you seem to come across as sceptical about renewables and more in favour of nuclear power. And you do! Read your own damn rhetoric. Im not necessarily criticising you for that position. If something like that comment upsets you you are very thin skinned. You take it all way to personally anyway, just like Killian does.”
Can’t you damn well READ?
Crab walking ….. Each-way Nigel has another go at re-writing history.
The problem is there is a record in context of what was said and when it was said by whom.
XRRC.
No. You just cant read.
And you misquoted me. I didn’t say “you don’t like renewables”
In my original post on this I said “XRRC, does SEEM to dislike renewables and favour nuclear power. I wonder if its to do with him / her living in Australia. They have a lot of uranium! Of course he will deny it all!”
In no way is this misrepresenting you or lying about you. Its obviously my opinion on how you come across.
And it is how you come across! You come across as anti renewables and pro nuclear power, on the whole.. You have at least three educated people on this website reaching the same conclusions on how you come across (Myself, BPL, Piotr).. One might be making a mistake but three suggests you aren’t being clear, or you are indeed anti renewables.
Like I already said, clarify your position in brackets.
XRRC
“Dislikes Renewables! One example of dozens of others.”
What dozens of others? You never back up your damn nasty and silly accusations. If you cant back them up your a liar.
N: “I’m not misinterpreting you or making false accusations.” and “Where did I do that?”
XRRC: What is wrong with you exactly? . . . Are you for example being intentionally disingenuous and dishonest on purpose? Just plain stupid? Or your memory is gone completely? . . . Dislikes Renewables! One example of dozens of others.
BPL: That was me, genius.
BPL: That was me, genius.”
The poor man can’t even recall his own ad hominem abuse, slandering and gaslighting. He cannot keep up with his vile lying insults and pathological ridicule of others.
This is what an immature little man-child looks and sounds like.
I do not hate renewables and nor do I dislike them. I have never said anything anything like such a thing.
XRRC: I do not hate renewables and nor do I dislike them. I have never said anything anything like such a thing.
BPL:
1. You said they couldn’t provide reliable power on a large scale.
2. You said the attempt by anti-windmill activists to fake bird deaths by scattering newly killed rabbits underneath a turbine wasn’t proof of anything.
To anyone with half a brain, that bespeaks an anti-renewables mindset. Deny it all you want, but what you posted is still up and can still be read. Those were not posts made by someone who supports renewables.
Kevin McKinney says 3 Feb 2022 at 10:30 AM
Responded about energy prognosis, wind and solar (renewable energy) growth projections, total primary energy demand, and what equals “a large scale “build out” capacity”, and ” I (Kevin) also note that the stats used to ‘cook’ the comparison in two important ways.
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-801098
The response had an assertion of some kind of bad intent on my part, a manipulation of the numbers, or simple incompetence/stupidity maybe? Of bias or really “hating renewables” maybe? I’m not sure what exactly.
In my first short reply I said – “Thanks Kevin. Great. Some references to support your position. That’s unusual on these pages.” https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-801130
I have since had time to go do a bit of checking and can offer up a few stats of my own now. They are not the last word or everything there is too it, but they address my response to some key points by Kevin. And I again refer readers back to the discussion on Energy Blind I was sharing here and commenting on, see below.
My Post Script
Primary energy production is the key metric. And globally is the only stats that matter.
Assuming the issue is limiting man-made GHG emissions in order to avert global heating.
“Energy production – mainly the burning of fossil fuels – accounts for around three-quarters of global greenhouse gas emissions.” https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
Fossil energy provides ~83% of primary energy production in the world. That fossil energy is what requires replacement by a non-GHG emitting alternative energy source.
IEA 2019 stats – Global share of total energy supply by source
coal oil gas = 80.9% Other (wind solar geothermal wave) = 2.2% Hydro = 2.5% Nuclear 5%
https://www.iea.org/reports/key-world-energy-statistics-2021/supply
Kevin says the IEA says “Globally, solar PV electricity generation is expected to increase by 145 TWh, almost 18%, to approach 1 000 TWh in 2021”
Lets see that in context in 2019
Total global Primary energy consumption was 173,340 TWh –
Wind and solar combined was 4,605 TWh = 2.65% of total energy consumption.
https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix
Kevin’s IEA stats suggested an expected increase in (2021?) of 275 TWh in wind and Solar by 145 TWh = 420 TWh growth or 0.24% of the total primary energy consumption
World energy production amounted to 617 EJ in 2019 – a 2% increase from 2018. This increase was mostly driven by natural gas (+4%) and coal (+2%). https://www.iea.org/reports/world-energy-balances-overview/world
So looking at these stats again clearly shows that the major growth in energy demand is being provided by coal and gas, and the growth in wind and solar does not comes close to matching or beating the global energy demand increases each year.
Yes solar and wind grows in real terms each year, and that year on year growth is significant growth relative to the present total solar/wind capacity, but as a share of total Primary energy production it is very small in scale – showing that Wind and Solar are not currently or in the near future projections (by experts) indicating a substantial sustainable large scale “build out” capacity. It’s rather small scale compare to what is required to offset fossil energy production and consumption.
Which is what I said originally and stick to that assertion as being true and reasonable.
To me restricting Energy discussions and stats to only Electricity production or to particular one-off nation states stats is what will Distort this issue and drive myths/spin and misunderstandings of how fast or slow shifts to renewables have, currently are, or can happen at scale !
It is not enough to begin to drive down global fossil energy use and GHG emissions as well.
Wind and solar would need to increase it’s annual growth by 10 fold to be seen as globally significant. Instead of adding on 420 TWh per year they would need to be doubling the existing size of 4600 TWh capacity each year. That would at least offset the current growth of Primary Energy demand. growth.
But to significantly begin lowering the real Fossil Energy demand and growth I estimate / expect that Wind and Solar would need to double that again by adding as much as 10,000 TWh of new supply each year for decades.
Kevin showed the current growth rate of wind and solar globally is only 420 TWh – only 4.2% of 10,000 TWh which is likely what required to make a real sustainable difference to get a shot at Net Zero CO2 emissions by 2050.
Can the world increase it’s new wind/solar capacity annual growth rate of 420 TWh by 10 to 25 times?
Clearly at this point, no it cannot. By 2030? Unlikely.
No one at the UNFCCC has any intention of expanding wind/solar capacity at these much higher rates anytime soon, or out to 2050 either. But excluding Covid-19 downturns there is nothing being done to lower the global primary energy demand growth of 2% or more per year going forward either. In fact Governments every where are intent driving economic and energy growth by 2-3% all over the world for decades ahead.
On top of that one must add in an extra amount of GHG emissions from Cement production (3%?) and an extra amount animal agricultural emissions (?). As well as Methane leakages from fossil fuel industry at various stages, though parts of this is captured in energy production stats, though definitely not all of it.
But at the end of the day those three things are marginal when compared to the overriding massive CO2 component of fossil energy emissions from burning coal, oil and gas. These are still planned to keep growing faster than wind and solar can keep up.
That fossil energy production still stands at ~83% (+/-) and with the other three GHG emissions on top.
Solar and Wind account for less than 4% of Primary energy supply at present. It’s more like only 3%. That’s a reasonable maximum stat and observation to make. Yes that production capacity continues to grow.
At the current annual rate of growth it is still unlikely that solar and wind will be able to grow at a rate faster than total energy demand increases in the coming decades.
I believe that the the current analysis provided IEA stats (and others) support that kind of estimation as being fairly accurate and the more likely prognosis given the current state of Government UNFCCC Policies within our existing Economic Political Systems at this time out to 2030 and beyond.
So again I come back to my original statement and stand by it that what Nathan Hagens et al are saying is a reasonable prognosis : Quoting myself again with the comment that seems to have aggravated others as being untrue, or unreasonable, or simply wrong, with me describing my understanding of the Energy Blind discussion held at https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/05-daniel-schmactenberger :
And mindful that every ramp up of Renewable energy capacity (wind and solar included) there is an automatic ramping up of Fossil Energy demand over and above existing energy demand to extract the needed extra resources, manufacture the extra equipment and infrastructures, deliver that to site locations, support the work force and install that new supply, as well make any needed adjustments upgrades to the electricity networks or sundry services required to activate/integrate that particular new Renewable energy supply capacity.
The expected life cycle of this new energy production including battery provisions and recycling systems/costs, and waste disposable at end of life must also be considered, including whatever extra demand might be placed on Fossil energy supply to do that and then rebuild those Renewable Energy production systems all over again in 20-30 years time — ranging from say 2030 thru a 2060 time frame first time round. Then again and again going forward. High tech digital electronic tech and outdoor electricity components and present battery tech does not have a very long operating life.
Nathan Hagens also emphasizes Renewable Energy capacity and in particular Wind and Solar equipment and infrastructure should be seen as Rebuildable not renewable.
It is only the wind and sun that are truly free of cost and sustainably available and therefore “renewable”. Not the equipment or infrastructure than captures that primary energy sources and then converts it into another Form and distributes it for human use.
This is all very complicated. Extremely complicated.
People would be wise to reserve judgement and not be so hasty to assume fast is fast and growth is real growth and real progress (replacement of fossil fuel energy demand) is actually being made. Or can be under current constraints going forward. I know I am reserving judgement. I am rationally skeptical.
People would be wise to bring more voices into the mix of what is and is not possible. Especially those that speak to the entrenched systemic barriers blocking progress. And what systems need to be changed to ensure future progress might be made. It is a complicated issue needing to draw on multiple specialties and expertise. It is not a climate science issue per se.
The key power brokers at COP26 the govts heading up the grand UNFCCC system already seem to realize very little progress is possible. Which is why their NDCs projections are so meager and unambitious perhaps?
Each to their own.
PS
There is one issue that should be mentioned that may have an impact into the future. Theory that as renewable build out capacity increases and it offsets fossil energy supply then all the “energy” and the costs associated with exploration, extraction, transportation and processing of fossil energy in the economy will fall significantly.
Jacobson et al hypothetical idealized papers suggest this might be as high as 40-50% of total Primary Energy Demand being cut in a world run 100% on WWS. I don’t know how accurate or reasonable that is as a yardstick, but there will be some level of energy saving eventually if/when those fossil energy sources are discontinued at scale.
In the meantime they continue to increase not decrease.
Couple of good videos on Nuclear Fusion FYI:
Nuclear Fusion and the Race to Power the Planet – with Arthur Turrell:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iRHCv6iNPYE
Q&A: Nuclear Fusion – with Arthur Turrell and Kate Lancaster:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fDOY0_HoILo
Wonder what human lives would be llke if they made it work and we had unlimited energy and didn’t need to worry about AGW? Probably like it did before AGW became a concern – like it did when America was great. For Americans, energy seemed nearly unlimited. Need more? Add a power plant. Life was good! Let’s Make America Great Again!
KIA: I’ve noticed fusion power has been in the news lately with some breakthroughs. Its interesting and one suspects it will be a reality one day. Technology has a habit of coming to fruition. But read the fine print, and fusion power is probably still 50 – 100 years away from being anything useful. Wont help the climate issue.
It could help. Say in 50 years it’s getting hot and significant numbers of people are dying in some locations due to the heat. IF Fusion came on line, perhaps an abundance of non-polluting power could be used to remove GHGs from the atmosphere and start to turn it around. Can’t predict the future as well as AOC, but it could happen.
I’m not very impressed with the last breakthrough. Reading the fine print, as you say, the National Ignition Facility got up to 170 kJ of fusion energy out of a 1 mm target. But, that was a lot less than the 1.9 MJ injected into the target to get the fusion reaction going – let alone the 400 MJ it took to power up those 192 lasers before the “shot.” It also doesn’t count the energy it took to produce the tritium, which was part of the target. Nor does it allow the energy generated by the fusion reaction to be collected easily.
170 kJ is enough to evaporate maybe 75 grams of water. As I noted previously, I collect and utilize a lot more fusion energy than that when I dry a load of wash on the line – at perhaps a billionth of the cost.
No, this isn’t going to be useful in time to help the climate issue. My clothes line, on the other hand, already is. In fact, I plan to use it tomorrow.
Fusion power has been “20 years off” for as long as I can remember, and I’m over 65.
A little bit of UNFCCC/COP history for the record from a twitter thread with refs.
Ambassador Lumumba (the Chair of the G77) at the Copenhagen climate talks in 2009
He sat silently, tears rolling down his face, put his head in his hands & said “We have been asked to sign a suicide pact.” & that Africa is being asked to “celebrate” this deal for $10 billion. “$10 billion is not enough to buy us coffins”. This is a colonisation of the sky.
Today the UK is 16th highest global emitter, 6th highest historically, responsible for 3.5% of global emissions. Just to meet it’s fairshare of emissions cuts for the 1.5c budget – it would be -200% by 2030 so it would need to be at zero (emissions) by 2030 & transfer £1 trillion (1.3 Trillion USD) to the poor.
2009 COP15 Copenhagen and enter Obama that smooth operator and slick Nobel Peace prize winner –
After years of the UNFCCC negotiating a binding treaty based on the Climate Convention & 2nd commitment period of the Kyoto Protocol that said rich countries who were most responsible for the crises had to have legally binding targets & provide support for poorer countries…. INSTEAD The US, UK & Danes drew up a secret text – that would effectively derail the climate talks, ignore historical responsibility, allow rich countries to have no legally binding targets, them to continue to pollute & hand over climate finance into the hands of the undemocratic World Bank that rich countries controlled.
Big philanthropy, big US & northern NGOs, the EU were locked into the ‘Obama will save the planet’, and empty pleas to ‘seal the deal’ & ‘act on climate’ with the primary goal no criticism of Obama irrespective even if the action was unfair or ignored the science.
Over the next 6 years to the Paris talks – the US backed by the EU & mainstream NGOs (The entire Rich Global North and powerful OECD Nations including the Saudis & OPEC) finally got what they wanted with the Paris Agreement – no binding targets, weakening of equity, weakening of finance pledges – and a world heading to 3.4c warming
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1329200192013348871.html
Read all the info and links. Do your own searches for more info as well. Neo-Colonialism? Structural Racism? Abuse of Power? Obama is your black hero so you can’t possibly be racist yourself?
And who would remember or care about what happened in 2009 or 2015? osh we can’t even remember what went down in Glascow COP26 a few months back and why the same ‘shit hit the fan’ all over again with no result.
Oh what’s that? You don’t know what the G77 is?
The group was founded on 15 June 1964, by 77 non-aligned nations, but it has since expanded to 134 member countries. The Basic info can be found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_of_77
It’s a weird world.
With or without a seat at the table, the United States of America has always been the biggest blocker to progress on climate change.
People should already know this and not need to have it explained to them.
But just in case here is the basic history: https://worldat1c.org/a-brief-history-of-the-united-states-and-the-un-climate-change-negotiations-bf7525d4ef13
The USA are arguably the biggest blocker of progress on climate change, but it seems to me largely because of their size and power.
Plenty of other countries have tried to block progress particularly the fossil fuel exporting countries. Russia hasn’t even ratified the Paris Climate accord. Other examples are easy to find :
“Richer nations accused of stalling progress on climate crisis”
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/dec/13/richer-nations-accused-of-stalling-progress-on-climate-crisis
They are all as bad as each other. Articles scapegoating any one country don’t seem helpful to me.
Spot on. If the USA hadn’t been doing what it did last century would, say, China, or Russia, or Belize have done better? That “Power. Corrupts” thing has some truth. Power provides cover for ineptitude while encouraging laziness. Decrees are easy.
zebra, 3 FEB 2022 AT 12:13 PM
Zebra said in responding to Ray Ladbury:
“Ray, I have to say that your…” If we make things better for those who have suffered most in the past and who are still suffering, we will make things better for everybody.… is naive; it is well meant, but not realistic.Science tells us that humans, like chimps, are highly motivated by status within groups and by the status of their group relative to others. Consider the recent history of the USA.The result of having a Black President with a very classy family do a pretty decent job for 8 years was… a virulent outpouring of rage and hatred. It wasn’t just some fringe extremists; it was a very substantial portion of the population.”
“And with a woman (a member of a group that has also suffered in the past) running for President, a substantial majority of White women voted for the sleaziest misogynist one could imagine. (And even more of them did that in the last election, I think.)….I know this is a scary thing to think about, but I don’t see an easy fix. As with the climate problem, it is necessary to make progress but not expect some immediate magic solution….Being right and righteous just isn’t enough.”
Some of those problems are most likely to be racism and mysogeny, dreadful things that they are, but I think Zebra is right that theres more going on and its to do with political tribalism and status etc,etc. But how did THAT get so out of control? Because looking into America from the outside, its way out of control. At times it looks on the verge of civil war. But we have the same trend simmering away in New Zealand, not as badly, but hence my interest. And I have an idea about it.
Firstly the problem may have started back in the 1980s. Previous to this America seemed to have a political consensus that governments had a significant part to play in society in terms of taxation, spending ,regulation etcetera. This ended when Ronald Reagon effectively made governments itself the enemy with his attacks on governmnet bureaucrats. I remembered this. The commentary is really pertinent:
https://www.vox.com/2017/4/22/15377964/republicans-environmentalism
From our point of view the main thing from that commentary is is Reagon clearly made ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, REGULATIONS AND TAXES the enemy. So along comes a succession of presidents extending the same theme such as Bush and Trump ( and a few leaders where I live). Clinton and Obama come along and they are up against this same anti government mindset. And I would contend all this is part of the reason for the growing tribalism between republicans and democrats. The GOP have encouraged the suspicion of so called elites and government bureaucrats, and associated it with regulations and taxes. One is allegedly bad so by associations both are bad. So you have two tribes one still with faith that governments can help solve problems, (The Democrats and similar parties elsewhere) and the other very suspicious of government bureaucrats and rules and programmes.
So no matter how much good Clinton and Obama tried to do, they were on the back foot facing an angry mob suspicious of everything they wanted to do, and quite unable to see it would ultimately help them. And this is very frustrating to me, because the environment is one area that is best protected with regulations, laws and taxes. IMHO this is preferable to just leaving it to personal responsibility, market competition, or endless lawsuits. We wont fix the climate problem with ridiculous lawsuits where only lawyers really win, although its good to see a few oil companies feel a bit of pain.
I believe it will all change. Things go in cycles, and America and other countries will come back towards a consensus and a sronger acceptance of a regulatory approach to the environment, but It could take a GENERATION or more! I can’t see how you would speed it up dramatically, although rasing awareness of the issues may help promote at least some change and a return to commonsense and sanity. But the tribal and ideological divisions seem quite deep.
Clearly the climate problem cant be entirely solved with governmnet rules, regulations and taxes, but they should have a part to play. And not all governmnet programmes are useful. Sometimes progressive governments try to do too much, and governmnets cant solve everything, but IMHO government do have a big role in environmental issues,and providing some basic help to poor people and marginalised groups.
Six Solutions to Battery Mineral Challenges, 2022, By Amory Lovins:
A flood of recent articles, whether spontaneous or coordinated, seeks to discredit renewable energy, electric vehicles, and other elements of the climate-saving energy transition. Critiques range from grid reliability to land-use, from economy to equity. Among the most widespread and conflictual claims is that it’s immensely destructive if not impossible to find enough minerals to make all the batteries that a global fleet of electric vehicles (EVs) will need. These mineral concerns are indeed not trivial, but are often exaggerated. I’ll outline here how they can become manageable if we include solutions often overlooked.
Battery materials like lithium, nickel, and cobalt are a special case of a broader dynamic. When a mined material is expected to become scarce, its price rises. That signal elicits more-efficient use, recycling, substitution, exploration, innovation, and other market responses, as I’ve described for rare earths. (Illustrating that article’s substitution thesis, the iron nitride supermagnets it mentioned four years ago as an experimental ambition have now come to market; they contain no rare earths and theoretically could become twice as strong as the best rare-earth magnets.)
Mineral scarcity may be real or hyped—for example, to reduce electric vehicles’ competition with oil, or to raise commodity or mining-stock prices for speculators. Some minerals may raise legitimate concerns besides scarcity, such as child labor, corruption, and other abuses in artisanal cobalt mining; undue dependence on Chinese ores and processing plants; or the water use and environmental damage of mining.
Real concerns also may need context—like a recent remark, whose validity depends on many assumptions, that growing California almonds takes six times as much water per pound as mining lithium in the desert. Almonds, too, can be enjoyed just once, but once extracted, lithium can keep providing benefits more or less permanently. And of course, renewably powered EVs displace oil-burning vehicles that importantly harm land, air, health, and climate.
While there are proper concerns about mining battery minerals, there are also many powerful and multiplicative solutions that conventional projections often understate or ignore, exaggerating future mining needs. Let’s now explore six successive and multiplicative parts of the solution space………………
https://rmi.org/insight/six-solutions-to-battery-mineral-challenges/
Personally I like to be a realistic optimist about things. So optimistic and with some hope, but constrained with some realism, scepticism and cynicism, and the study above seems realistic and not over hyped.
Realistic? You are never realistic. This is realistic:
5%
Yet only about 5% of lithium-ion batteries are currently recycled, according to the DOE.Oct 27, 2021
Small initial numbers in a quickly developing market don’t tell us much.
KM. Yes that sums it up. And it will probably get more expensive to mine lithium so this will lead to more recycling of lithium. So realistic optimism is fully justified.
Litium has become a popular word conscept.
As far as I can judge it, Litium may not become the worst “bottleneck” problem of material resource pollution and cost- nature to electrification technology and industry.
Notice for instance that rather cobold mining and world scarcity did become the worst problem in the beginning- phase. And this will vary as things get scaled up.
And necessary, quite extreeme rinsing and purification of keye materials, that is hardly mentioned, was rather allways the worst problem of mining and chemical industry, that gave the worst environmental impacts. Pure enough iron, aluminium, soda, paper, and so on.
Some room for optimism, but still a dirty process.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04321-5
Any technology that delivers power in the amounts to which we have become accustomed will have serious environmental consequences. It’s a “lesser of evils” choice, as I see it.
Lithium price hits ‘ludicrous mode’ as battery metal extends 400% gain
Bloomberg News | January 24, 2022
https://www.mining.com/web/lithium-price-hits-ludicrous-mode-as-battery-metal-extends-400-gain/
Record High Lithium Prices Are Here To Stay
By ZeroHedge – Jan 10, 2022, 10:00 AM CST
Mining companies worldwide are scrambling to increase production and develop new sources of the world’s lightest metal
Lithium carbonate prices increased six-fold (600%) since January 2021
Soaring prices come as electric-car makers, such as Tesla, report exponential growth in the US, Europe, and China
Battery / Lithium Recycling must be going through the roof already. Right?
Should we not plan to process our lithium and rare earth minerals
https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/features/Should-we-not-plan-to-process-our-lithium-and-rare-earth-minerals-1463500
No, fuck Ghana. Screw them. The profits belong to Wall Street investors not Ghanaians who btw just happen to be black by some weird coincidence unrelated to why they have already been screwed over for 300 plus years by the colonialists and still the now the global north and financiers
/sarc
Nonsense.
Developed ’85.
Commercial ’91.
Wind: 1887
Solar: 1884
Killians simplification ideas go “way back”, but they have only attracted a tiny percentage of people in America, so by his own criteria such ideas are unrealistic. Cant have it both ways.
I don’t think your numbers in any way support your “nonsense.”
But I could be wrong; while your comment is admirably concise, it’s a bit too ambiguous to tell what you actually mean. (E.g., what was “developed ’85?) Maybe you’d care to elaborate a little?
Actually it tells us EXACTLY what the current situation is at this time.
A little something Marcias might appreciate.
Abstract
In 2011, a significant drop in global sea level occurred that was unprecedented in the altimeter era and concurrent with an exceptionally strong La Niña. This analysis examines multiple data sets in exploring the physical basis for the drop’s exceptional intensity and persistence. Australia’s hydrologic surface mass anomaly is shown to have been a dominant contributor to the 2011 global total, and associated precipitation anomalies were among the highest on record.
The persistence of Australia’s mass anomaly is attributed to the continent’s unique surface hydrology, which includes expansive arheic and endorheic basins that impede runoff to ocean.
Based on Australia’s key role, attribution of sea level variability is addressed. The modulating influences of the Indian Ocean Dipole and Southern Annular Mode on La Niña teleconnections are found to be key drivers of anomalous precipitation in the continent’s interior and the associated surface mass and sea level responses.
Australia’s unique influence on global sea level in 2010–2011
John T. Fasullo et al
5 Discussion and Conclusion
Interannual variations in continental water storage can have a profound influence on GMSL that in some years overwhelm the background trend.
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/grl.50834
Theoretically speaking then, could a hypothetical geoengineering concept that mimicked these changes to surface hydrology, water storage volumes & anomalous precipitation at continental scales be able influence GMSL? I doubt it but I wouldn’t know. No scientist engineer academic has done the scientific analysis to find out.
Whereas simply stopping GHG emissions would seem simpler, easier, more reliable and safer long term. Like implementing Jacobson’s hypothetical WWS Renewable Energy Roadmaps that theorize an 80-85% replacement of fossil energy supply in as little as 15 years ( The plans contemplate 80–85% of existing energy replaced by 2030 and 100% replaced by 2050 ) as being quite feasible, beneficial and cost effective.
100% Clean and Renewable Wind, Water, and Sunlight All-Sector Energy Roadmaps
for the 50 United States and 139 Countries of the World
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf
Which begs the rhetorical question, if those peer reviewed studies are credible and accurate and able to be implemented, then why did no one adopt them into their NDCs at COP26 in Glasgow of 2021?
Slashing Primary Energy use by 40-50% while increasing economic activity and stopping air pollution would surely be a huge sustainable cost saving for any Government, business and society to strive for? You’d be guaranteed to out-compete the other nations in all critical yardsticks, and leaders being honored with a Nobel Peace Prize.
For example the WWS claims are far more ambitious, solving far more compelling social crises than
any other geoengineering ideas have theorized.
We develop energy roadmaps to significantly slow global warming and nearly
eliminate air-pollution mortality in 139 countries. These plans call for electrifying
all energy sectors (transportation, heating/cooling, industry, agriculture/forestry/
fishing) and providing the electricity with 100% wind, water, and solar (WWS)
power.
Fully implementing the roadmaps by 2050 avoids 1.5C global warming
and millions of deaths from air pollution annually; creates 24.3 million net new
long-term, full-time jobs; reduces energy costs to society; reduces power
requirements 42.5%; reduces power disruption; and increases worldwide access
to energy.
Avoiding 1.5C global warming is something COP26 and the nations of the UNFCCC collectively have admitted they are incapable of doing. Maybe they considered some barriers, limitations and constraints which Jacobson et al never included or even considered in their theories and assumptions?
PS pg 7
Table 2 indicates that 4.26% of the 2050 nameplate capacity required for a 100% all-purpose
WWS system among the 139 countries was already installed as of the end of 2015.
(Before this 35 yrs passes most of that capacity ex-hydro would need replacement)
The countries closest to 100% installation are Tajikistan (76.0%), Paraguay (58.9%), Norway (35.8%),
Sweden (20.7%), Costa Rica (19.1%), Switzerland (19.0%), Georgia (18.7%), Montenegro (18.4%), and
Iceland (17.3%). (that’s the top nine of 139 sourced, mainly from bio-energy/hydro)
China (5.8%) ranks 39th and the United States (4.2%) ranks 52nd (Figure S2).
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/CountriesWWS.pdf
The devil is in the details. These Standford studies are extremely complicated with many assumptions and exclusions. Most of which were established earlier 2011/2014 in “A roadmap for repowering California for all purposes with wind, water, and sunlight.” Mark Z. Jacobson et al https://econpapers.repec.org/article/eeeenergy/v_3a73_3ay_3a2014_3ai_3ac_3ap_3a875-889.htm
To then be extrapolated to the whole USA and the world of 139 other nations papers that came later.
clarification ” Avoiding 1.5C global warming is something COP26 and the nations of the UNFCCC collectively have admitted they are incapable of doing.”…
– (obviously?) I’m using a humorous exaggerated sarcastic literary device there , obviously cop26 did not openly admit defeat, nor did any nation – I am suggesting given the low-rent unambitious NDCs they did submit that this is an unspoken “admission” of failure and /or an admission that implementing what Jacobson et al have suggested is not feasible in the real world at all. A long bow, overstated, and exaggerated. Yes, that’s what makes it “humorous” in general conversation.
If it was feasible, the biggest emitting nations would “be mad” not to adopt such 100% WWS Roadmaps immediately. So something is not right here. My guess is it’s the Roadmaps, they are overstated, exaggerated and not realistic. They are iow, too good to be true?
An earlier submission
The WWS (Wind, Water and Solar) Plan for New York (Jacobson et al., 2013)
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/NewYorkWWSEnPolicy.pdf
btw Jacobson did have his critics. This may have been discussed years ago, sorry for the reminder/rehashing.
(over-hyped report) The Appalling Delusion of 100 Percent Renewables, Exposed
https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/06/renewable-energy-national-academy-sciences-christopher-t-m-clack-refutes-mark-jacobson/
(yes it’s a right wing conservative leaning anti-leftist skeptical of climate action policy news media site. And it is also a historical fact that that is how the news of criticism of 100% WWS energy was reported at the time. There is no denying it had a strong political aspect to it. Beginning with Jacobson himself. )
Evaluation of a proposal for reliable low-cost grid power with 100% wind, water, and solar
https://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722
a defense of criticism to 100% WWS
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1364032118303307
Academics and climate scientists are always arguing about is good and less than good science, a good model or a lousy one. No individual science paper is the fount of all knowledge (as they say). Nathan Hagens too is but one voice on the subject.
2022 Roadmaps and grid studies to convert the 50 states + DC to 100% WWS for all purposes
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-USA.html
and coming soon
100% Wind, Water, and Solar (WWS) All-Sector Energy Roadmaps and Grid Studies for 145 Countries
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/WWS-145-Countries.html
Another group echoing the same prognosis and urgent differentiated action plans in line with the original UNFCCC principles per-2015.
Is 1.5°C possible without rich countries reaching net zero before 2050?
A net-zero pathway from Norwegian classification company DNV would see Western countries decarbonise by 2042. Many companies have also pledged for net zero by 2040.
https://www.energymonitor.ai/policy/net-zero-policy/is-1-5c-possible-without-rich-countries-reaching-net-zero-before-2050
misc quotes-
“the window for more radical climate policy could be starting to open”
Sure hope so. And working to open it just a bit more.
Political Geography – Volume 92, January 2022,
Between improvement and sacrifice: Othering and the (bio)political ecology of climate change
Diego Andreuccia & Christos Zografos
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0962629821001724
Abstract
In this article, we argue that othering is central to the government of climate change. Critically engaging with Foucault’s ideas on biopolitics and racism, we elaborate a conceptual perspective for analysing how such a “technology of government” operates.
We review diverse literatures from geography, political ecology, critical adaptation studies and the environmental humanities dealing with discursive constructions of the other in three exemplary areas of intervention—
mitigation (particularly “green” mineral extraction for renewable energy production);
constructions of “vulnerability” in adaptation policies;
and the governing of “climate migrants”.
We contend that these interventions largely work through the extension of capitalist relations, underpinned by racist and colonial ways of seeing populations and territories as “in need of improvement”.
And that, by legitimising and depoliticizing such interventions, and by suspending responsibility for their unwanted or even deadly impacts, othering helps to preserve existing relations of racial, patriarchal and class domination in the face of climate-induced social upheavals.
Othering, we conclude, is not only a feature of fossil fuelled development, but a way of functioning of capitalist governmentality more broadly—which has important implications for thinking about emancipatory and climate-just transformations.
Apologies to everyone else, this is boring crap, but enough is enough. This is for Nigel.
nigelj asks tellingly:- 3 Feb 2022 at 3:16 PM
What has renewables got to do with it?
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-801117
XRRC responds : You said it, you tell me troll
Silence descends for days on end.
XRRC asked before:- “Or have you changed your mind about me disliking renewables Mr Honest John?”
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-801059
Saying Mr Honest John is satire which actually means I consider him not to be honest at all.
The above from niglej, and what follows is what dishonest disingenuous insulting trolls look like in action: doing exactly what the Moderators asked everyone not to do: “sniping, insults, and tedious repetition will just be culled“.
This is when Nigelj himself says his opinion is that both renewables and nuclear are needed.
So what is going on here? Between the 30th January and the 3rd of February?
It’s called being a disingenuous sniping insulting shit stirring troll who cannot be trusted. Who speaks out of both sides of his mouth from one day to the next! Who sets up fake Straw man arguments by lying about what I say/think and then tries to burn them down publicly in order to ridicule me. He white ants people on this forum for fun.
My response to nigel at the time was:
But wait there is more:
Some circles might call this kind of duplicitous commentary as being Two-Faced … what do you you think? Nigelj will deny it .. it;s what he does. He will again go all slippery.
XRRC also says on https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/
What we need are expanded renewables
Yes, it obvious, we need to expand renewables
Growth rates in renewables and wind and solar deployment has been decreasing steadily since 2007.
The growth in wind and solar generation does not even keep pace with the world’s increasing energy demand growth.
All the renewables are growing very rapidly especially in the last year
Nathan is pro renewables but he accepts they cannot support the existing economic system were fossil fuels massively reduced or abandoned to cut emissions.
SUDDENLY
That is a completely inaccurate appraisal of what Daniel Schmachtenberger appears to be about. He is nothing like being anti-Renewables – but Nigel could not even be bothered to listen to the discussion before leaping to this crazy wild assumption! Nigel completely misrepresents not only Daniel but also Natghan & the discussion I was linking to, and myself again and again! While trolling all kinds of spin and BS and being disingenuous and incompetent Nigel claims “I’m not a troll”
I add another link to the discussion with:
So again Nigel puts in the boot and Slimes me, misrepresents me, yet again:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2022/01/forced-responses-jan-2022/comment-page-2/#comment-801028
Says Nigel, the guy who said Renewables are not enough on their own and that BOTH renewables and nuclear are needed.
Finally a last quote from January:
XRRC – Do I do anything like what Nigel claims Robert Hargraves does? No, nothing like it.
But given the rhetoric displayed by Nigel (& Barton Paul) about me you’d be excused for thinking I was a bad actor as bad as Robert Graves – just a paid shill for nuclear! With no balance and no understanding whatsoever. What Nigel has done here is disgrace. It’s pathetic. It’s dishonest sniping. It’s insulting.
It’s abusive disruptive Trolling:101
Enough. No more. No Quarter.
XRRC Rocks
XR RC objects to my statement: “XRRC, does seem to dislike renewables and favour nuclear power. I wonder if its to do with him / her living in Australia. They have a lot of uranium! Of course he will deny it all!”
Apparently according to XR RC this is a sniping insult and a misrepresentation. No it isn’t. He doesn’t seem to realise he DOES come across as favouring nuclear power over renewables. I didn’t criticise him for it. It was humour to try to get that point across to him.
He’s incredibly thin skin skinned to the point there are obviously issues going on in in his head. All he could have done is say no nigel youre wrong, and CLARIFY his position on nuclear power and renewables in a few words, but no he writes this huge page of craziness.
Most of the insults and misrepresentation comes from XRRC. He clearly doesn’t like criticism of his commentary even when very politely worded, and so runs around this board making dozens of wild evidence free allegations about people (myself, Carbomantanus, Piotr. and BPL, and others) and when I’ve challenged him he rarely comes up with any examples or evidence. Who is at the centre of most discord on this website between warmists? XR RC and Killian. Going back years (XR RC uses many different names)
I notice the moderator deleted one of XR RCs nasty evidence free accusatory comments to BPL along with BPL’s reply. I rest my case.
Wow, X, that was a long rant! Can you maybe add a few more pages?
“I find your anger… delicious.” -Dieter
Not as long as Piotr can. I am but an amateur.
BPL: Wow, X, that was a long rant! Can you maybe add a few more pages?
XRRC: Not as long as Piotr can. I am but an amateur.
BPL: I have never seen Piotr post anything as long as your long blast of hatred above.
“I do not inherit my father’s sins, but keep your sticky fingers off the money and infrastructure I rightfully inherited from him”.
A tough nut to crack for sire. ;-)
Hr levenson
This is te difference between the national socialists, the NA-ZI s , and the Anglicans, on this side of the Atlantic.
We observe, and follow that difference.
nigel’s future comment: That was not trolling! It was not Ad Hom! I have never seen BPL Ad Hom, troll, or doing anything that was not purely angelic!
(The above applies to all my Peanuts!)
Killian
Yes I can’t see how BPL’s comment is trolling or an ad hominem. (Wow, X, that was a long rant! Can you maybe add a few more pages?“I find your anger… delicious.” -Dieter). Most of his comment looks accurate and just sarcastic. The anger is delicious quote is a bit creepy, and not my style, however I don’t know Dietrs work so I’m just ignoring that part of things.
Of course BPL is not angelic, nobody is. And he takes things a bit literally at times. But imho hes right about the vast majority of things, and isn’t running around calling every second person an idiot or liar and he is one of the least inflammatory commenters, so the least troll like (ironically).
BPL ha sometimes criticised my comments, but he is not making a whole lot of wild, abusive, incorrect and evidence free accusations against me like XRRC has. I tend to pull the rug out from under people like that, and their sock puppets. It mystifies me why Killian thinks that would be odd.
Extreme heat in oceans ‘passed point of no return’ in 2014 and has become the new normal
Study shows formerly rare high temperatures now covering half of seas and devastating wildlife
Scientists analysed sea surface temperatures over the last 150 years, which have risen because of global heating. They found that extreme temperatures occurring just 2% of the time a century ago have occurred at least 50% of the time across the global ocean since 2014.
In some hotspots, extreme temperatures occur 90% of the time, severely affecting wildlife. More than 90% of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases is absorbed by the ocean, which plays a critical role in maintaining a stable climate.
“By using this measure of extremes, we’ve shown that climate change is not something that is uncertain and may happen in the distant future – it’s something that is a historical fact and has occurred already,” said Kyle Van Houtan, at the Monterey Bay Aquarium, US, and one of the research team. “Extreme climate change is here, it’s in the ocean, and the ocean underpins all life on Earth.”
“Ecology teaches us that extremes have an outsized impact on ecosystems,” Van Houtan said. “We are trying to understand the dramatic changes that we’ve seen along our coasts and in the ocean, on coral reefs, kelp, white sharks, sea otters, fish, and more.”
Other scientists reported in 2019 that the number of heatwaves affecting the planet’s oceans had increased sharply, killing swathes of sea life like “wildfires that take out huge areas of forest”.
Van Houtan and Tanaka found no measure of extreme heat existed and so extended their work globally. […]
They found that by 2014, more than 50% of the monthly records across the entire ocean had surpassed the once-in-50–years extreme heat benchmark. The researchers called the year when the percentage passed 50% and did not fall back below it in subsequent years the “point of no return”.
By 2019, the proportion of the global ocean suffering extreme heat was 57%. “We expect this to keep on going up,” said Van Houtan. But the extreme heat was particularly severe in some parts of the ocean, with the South Atlantic having passed the point of no return in 1998. “That was 24 years ago – that is astounding,” he said.
The proportion of the ocean experiencing extreme heat in some large ecosystems is now 80%-90%, with the five worst affected including areas off the north-east coasts of the US and Canada, off Somalia and Indonesia, and in the Norwegian Sea.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/feb/01/extreme-heat-oceans-passed-point-of-no-return-high-temperatures-wildlife-seas
The recent normalization of historical marine heat extremes Published: February 1, 2022
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000007
“Point of No Return” means that the world has changed and we cannot go backwards. Any positive action helps, but the world is going to keep changing. That said our actions (adaption and resilience) are critical. Our halcyon days are behind us now.
People don’t understand – the base-load ecological impact of every human is very high. We’re in overshoot mode. The more of us there are, the less for each… thus, as we grow, we condemn our children and our children’s children to less and less.
Some people make the case for about 2 billion (population in the 1930’s) but even with a small room population a degrowth strategy is a hard sell in our current society of infinite growth on a finite planet.
We are all conditioned to coercive consumerism from a young age. Most experts in climate science are avoiding the topic of ecological overshoot completely, unable to face the reality of escalating ecological collapse. The arrogance of academics and humanity in general is the problem.
A lack of humility perhaps? Possibly an unconscious drive to fulfill an ambitious expectation of having some agency at bending the needle when really they have none.
The wider ecological devastation that accompanies our ‘modern’ society now typically remains sidelined in much of the climate debate – a simple substitution of low-CO2 energy is “hoped” to leave business-as-usual unchanged.
“Business-as-usual” will not work! Just substituting Renewable energy for Fossil energy won’t solve the Catastrophic Climate Crisis either. We have to stop increasing our consumption of energy and of the Earth’s finite non-renewable resources, the stressed farmlands, renewable forests and grasslands.
Production of toxic wastes, plastics and pollution has to stop. Both Economic growth and Population growth have to stop – indeed they must be reversed! We need a much smaller global human population, living in a zero-growth local community enhancing economy.
Long term with a population that has been naturally reduced in size to match our combined Resources of the Commons. And we have to get there from here. There is no other way forward.
Yeah. Said it all and laid out a model to do so over ten years ago. So, less carpetbagging and more doing. Join us on Clubhouse.
Benchmark coal price in Asia has surged to a new all time record high of US$261.40 per tonne, according to the weekly IHS Markit / Argus index, ex-Newcastle. Coal isn’t down or out; it’s booming; contrary to popular belief and the allure of Hopium.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2022-01-28/the-coal-industry-is-losing-market-share-but-not-polluting-power
It’s Money (Finance) and Energy (Fossil energy) that makes the world go round. Not Climate Science or Friday’s for Future, not the IPCC reports, or the spurious NEDCs at the latest COP meeting. Or 4% of promary energy shares. Playing make believe won’t change anything.
Hopium didn’t stop Biden putting out the largest fossil fuel Lease Auctions ever. It didn’t stop Obama approving pipelines everywhere and sending in the armed police to violently arrest and remove the protesters..
Quote : “Being smart is never an excuse for bullying.”
True, but criticism of your comments isn’t bullying. Even making a bit of fun of peoples comments isnt bullying. Insinuating people are inferior and threatening people with violence and relentless name calling and telling people they are worthless is bullying. Nobody here has done that to you, to my knowledge.
Piotr has criticised my comments in his sarcastic fashion. I didnt feel bullied, not even remotely.
I agree. Piotr’s sharp slashes add to the conversation.
XR, I hope whatever it is works out better. You’re exuding, um, frustration?
You and nigel are demonstrating bias confirmation.
Really? I expressed significant respect for XRRC a few weeks ago by offering to talk via email.
So I reject your conclusion with that elementary school taunt that is soo delicious when it fits: “I know you are but what am I?”
And on sock puppets:
Yep, Killian, you are right about my not making formal announcements about a handle change
But i I remember correctly I always followed the site’s rules by only using one name on a thread, so May’s “handle1” became “June’s “handle2”. Sometimes (usually?) I’d make a small declaration, as in, “Yep, this is me”.
Climate Change Enters the Therapy Room Published Feb. 6, 2022
Ten years ago, psychologists proposed that a wide range of people would suffer anxiety and grief over climate. Skepticism about that idea is gone.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/06/health/climate-anxiety-therapy.html
Daniel Swain @Weather_West
Climate scientist @UCLAIoES , @C3WE_NCAR , & @Nature_Org studying extreme events like floods, d
droughts, & wildfires. PhD @StanfordEarth & @UCDavis alum.
Folks with self-described severe climate anxiety now reach out to me (& other climate scientists I know) essentially every week. It is often hard to know how to respond, since climate scientists are not trained clinical psychologists.
The nature and volume of these requests can become overwhelming for those not professionally equipped to help people in that way. This is especially frustrating since many of these folks have actually sought professional help, yet those practitioners have been dismissive telling people that climate change won’t affect them personally, or that it’s “not as bad as you read about in the news,” or that there’s nothing they can do about it, so you need to “let it go.”
Well, as many folks who are paying attention realize, none of this is true
Some of these anxieties are quite valid (and indeed, are shared by many climate scientists). But increasingly many seem to stem from (misleading or outright false) “doomist”/defeatist narratives that have become increasingly prominent in the past few years.
This is a bit of a meandering thread, but I just wanted to emphasize a few things. First: climate anxiety is (clearly) a real thing for growing number of people, despite widespread claims to contrary. For some folks, it can be severe–affecting every aspect of their lives.
Second, climate scientists are not equipped to be on the front lines of the surge in climate anxiety–there really need to be more clinicians and practitioners who specialize in this (or who at least have a basic handle on the underlying climate realities!)
And finally: before folks get angry at climate scientists for “tone policing,” and calling out climate misinformation of all kinds (including factually incorrect doomist tropes)–please understand that this is (one of) the many reasons we do so.
Climate impacts are indeed accelerating with each passing year and each fraction of a degree of warming, and time is indeed of the essence–but there’s no particular “geophysical cliff” in 6-8 years.
Climate scientists know better than anyone that climate change is a global crisis, and that key climate impacts are accelerating with each additional fraction of a degree of warming. But we also know that it’s ultimately a problem within our collective power to solve.
https://twitter.com/Weather_West/status/1490715517589463040
In a message posted to his website, Young wrote: To the musicians and creators in the world, I say this: You must be able to find a better place than Spotify to be the home of your art….. Get out of that place before it eats up your soul.
Neil Young also encouraged readers to divest from four US banks – Chase, Citi, Bank of America and Wells Fargo – “for their continued funding of the fossil fuel damage even as the global temperature keeps climbing”.
He addressed “baby boomers”, saying: “70% of the country’s financial assets are in your hands compared with just about 5% for millennials. You and I need to lead.”
Dr Genosse XRRC Rocks more or less
I repeat:
ENTIA NON SUNT MULTIPLICANDA PRÆTER NECESSITATEM
Translated:
Youn will not get out of your Austrailian desert flat earth sands and situation and mistreated coral treefs and soils and økosystems that way..
Nobody else anywhere is to be taught and blamed for your situation.
Pay your debts and bills first, and avoid any kind of further loans and credit
On behalf of the worlds bastards and naive aborgenians, who lack self- understandng and who are not yet worthy,… and who have to read and to study and understand first. For instance everyone who have to ask a naitvvv Åstailinn schpikrr frrrr Krekkschrrrs førscht.
Quoth XR RC Rocks:
You are making the EXACT SAME POINTS I used to make to HarveyD over at Green Car Congress. (He quietly disappeared; I think senility finally got him.) He’d tout annual increases in “renewable” energy, completely ignoring the fact that fossil-fuel consumption not only failed to plateau, but still accelerated on an exponential curve.
This ties back to my previous post. If we are going to deal with an excess of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the balance of greenhouse gas emissions vs. removals is the primary metric of concern. Any effort which does not put that first and foremost is doomed to fail. Further, we have to consider N2O and CH4 and halogenated compounds as much as CO2. If we can e.g. find a way to accelerate the breakdown of halocarbons and SF6 we can work less hard on removing CO2.
It’s basic math.
Ego dominated emotional investments do not understand or accept Math, or reason, or complexity. Objectivity nor honesty.
https://www.iea.org/data-and-statistics/charts/global-electricity-generation-mix-2010-2020
So we have this incredible thing happening here on this website. We have XR RC Rocks ( and his rather obvious multiple identities) acting like a self righteous hypocrite of huge proportions. For example XR RC rocks is very critical of all sorts of people and their views. For example accusing Michael Mann of promoting allegedly impossible to achieve climate plans and stating “better leadership, honesty and truth telling is required” thus effectively accusing Mann of being dishonest. (refer UV thread XRRC says 8 FEB 2022 AT 8:13 PM).
XR RC Rocks frequently complains bitterly when anyone criticises him and his views, including many people on this website, no matter how politely their criticisms, often falsely accusing them (without evidence) of posting many alleged lies and of being trolls and bullies and totally ‘illogical’! His hypocrisy is off the scale.
Please note that XR RC rocks appears to be the same person as XR RC, Reality Check, Bill Henderson, Mark BLR, and others that go back several years. My evidence? They all have the same writing style, same opinions on things, post the same sorts of links , same mostly long posts full of copy and paste, and same html formatting style. He doesn’t even try to hide it.
Why do I say all this? I get tired of people who repeatedly falsely accuse me of things. And if people don’t like their views being criticised, or content they post being criticised, they shouldn’t participate in public forums, and shouldn’t criticise other people and their views. You can’t have it both ways.
I think you’re almost certainly right about all those sock puppets being XRRC. The way to find out is to check the IP addresses the old posts were posted from. We can’t do that, but the moderators of the forum probably can.
Gavin et al.: The persistent use of sock puppets is usually grounds for banning somebody from a blog. I don’t know if that’s a rule here, but if not it probably should be.
Sock puppets mayn also be entertaining, but there must be limits.
Else, we call it SPAM!, That is traditional military sliced pickled and canned, uniform Ham to eat during battle. The same SPAM day out and day in,….
Yes. I’ve changed my handle a number of times but always openly and permanently.
Remember Al Bundy! Hmm, exceptions prove the rule.
Makes me want to give old Al another spin…
I don’t recall any annoincements.
RTW. Yeah well changing a name once or twice in ten years is not sock puppetry, and you didn’t use those names more or less simultaneously. Some of XRRCs sock puppets actually TALKED to each other!
Yale Climate Connections commentary: “2020 a COVID-year of major energy industry job losses.”
“Amid a raging global pandemic and widespread economic downturn, growth in clean-energy job fields illustrates strength of renewable energy.”
“Impacts from the COVID-19 pandemic caused major job losses in the energy industry in 2020. But the rate of job loss was highly uneven across the wide spectrum of energy jobs. Fossil fuel jobs endured major losses, but four energy sectors managed to grow their labor forces: Wind, electric vehicles, hybrid vehicles, and battery storage……”
https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/01/2020-a-covid-year-of-major-energy-industry-job-losses/
And yeah, yeah we all know renewables are still a small percentage of the market and face various hurdles. Its just something of interest I came across, and shows another side of renewables.
I believe the renewable energy thing will all ultimately be driven by the system. For example the capitalist free market system inevitably promotes the low cost options and renewables are providing low cost power so its inevitable they will expand given the economic system. But its time they were forced to provide more storage. We do not want a situation of increasing strain on the electricity grid with it barely coping. This is where MARKET INTERVENTION is justified to force building of storage. And this in turn would put renewables on a level playing field with things like nuclear power.
nigel, it rings a bit strange that in para 3 you cite the fact that battery storage was one of 4 sectors to grow in the downturn, then assert in para 7 that we’re approaching “a situation of increasing strain on the electricity grid with it barely coping” & call for market intervention to “force” increased adoption rates of storage.
I’m not against market intervention per se; we’re in a crisis here, and while RE deployment rates are heartening in the sense that they’ve vastly exceeded expectations from just a few years ago, they still need to ramp higher to achieve net zero electric gen as fast as we need to. But the effect is confusing, especially since AFAICT energy storage doesn’t seem to be lagging all that badly now:
https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2020/12/f81/Energy%20Storage%20Market%20Report%202020_0.pdf
“By 2030, annual global deployments of stationary storage (excluding PSH) is projected to exceed 300 GWh, representing a 27% compound annual growth rate (CAGR) for grid-related storage …”
Kevin.
New Zealand has about 80% renewables, mainly hydro, ge0thermal and some wind, and about 20% gas and coal. Several times lately the hydro lakes have been low due to droughts, and low periods of wind generation, and we have had to rely a lot on gas and especially coal, which isn’t ideal. And its starting to push gas and coal to the limits.
The country has virtually no dedicated storage. Right now we have a semi privatised electricity market system a little bit like California or Texas. There is no mandated requirement to my knowledge that generating companies provide storage especially when they build renewables. Gas and coal are being used as backup.
By market intervention I mean the government should really be legally forcing the generating companies to provide storage, otherwise we are in danger of relying a lot on gas and / or coal and then having to build a lot of storage all at once to get rid of gas.
The government is however considering building a pumped hydro scheme as storage, something possibly beyond what the individual generating companies could do (they are relatively small).
That’s my rough summation. There are many articles on aspects of this but they would read in a fragmented way and none gives the full picture, and I don’t want to spend ages trying to dig them all up. I totally accept your examples that the situation is different in various parts of America. Australia has also built some pumped hydro already. I should have said my comments were based on local experience.
Thanks for expanding. Good to know.
And a good reminder that contexts matter quite a lot.
Storage requirements ties into EP’s primary beef. Nukes by definition provide almost unlimited “storage”.
n: We do not want a situation of increasing strain on the electricity grid with it barely coping. This is where MARKET INTERVENTION is justified to force building of storage. And this in turn would put renewables on a level playing field with things like nuclear power.
BPL: Amen and amen. We spend a huge amount every year to replace part of the electricity infrastructure; there’s no reason we can’t be spending part of it on new grids and storage.
Calculate the cost of the required storage. Show your work.
KIA: Calculate the cost of the required storage. Show your work.
BPL: Human energy use is about 18 TW. If we were to get all of it from electricity, we might need 10% storage, which would be 1.8 TW or 1800 GW. Treating it all as pumped hydro (obviously it would really be a mix), then at $500M per GWe, we’d need $900 billion. At $90 billion a year worldwide, we could have it in ten years.
You’re welcome.
Huh? Storage is in watt-days. How many days can you supply those watts?
Me? I think society needs to get more in tune with the weather. Everything that makes you really happy you learned early in life. Every kid loves snow days. Why pull out our hair trying to kill one of life’s joys?
O yeah. That’s right. Billionaires wouldn’t get richer during snow days.
This research is certainly provocative: “Rapid global phaseout of animal agriculture has the potential to stabilize greenhouse gas levels for 30 years and offset 68 percent of CO2 emissions this century”
https://journals.plos.org/climate/article?id=10.1371/journal.pclm.0000010
(Haven’t read the study in detail yet and not necessarily promoting it. Would be interested in any criticisms of it. Animal agriculture does also have obvious positives.)
“Beyond Climate Denial: The Public Relations Industry’s Role in Obstructing Climate Action ” Shows the underhanded nature of the PR Industry.
http://www.climatedevlab.brown.edu/uploads/2/8/4/0/28401609/beyond_climate_denial_-_cdl_2021_report.pdf
A counter to Engineer Poets viewpoint on renewables: “Predicted wind and solar energy expansion has minimal overlap with multiple conservation priorities across global regions”
“Conservation scientists warn of the threat to area-based conservation posed by renewable energy infrastructure. Here, we show that the current and near-term overlap of the two land uses need not be as severe as previously suggested. This is important, as global efforts to decarbonize energy systems are central to mitigating against climate change and the strong negative impacts of projected climate change on biodiversity.”
https://www.pnas.org/content/119/6/e2104764119
Kate Aronoff/November 17, 2021
The U.S. Is Still Blocking Climate Progress
Behind the scenes at COP26, those representing developing nations said the (DEMOCRAT PARTY) Biden administration continues the American tradition of intransigence.
COP26 attendees from climate-vulnerable countries told a very different story: one in which, behind closed doors, current U.S. negotiators bullied other countries and blocked more ambitious agreements, just as their predecessors had done.
“(DEMOCRAT PARTY) Biden got elected on the platform of [confronting] climate change and environmental justice. And while he may be doing OK in the domestic space, internationally he isn’t much different from the previous Trump administration. If you look at the solidarity elements—finance, adaptation, loss and damage—the U.S. is still the biggest blocker,” said Mohamed Adow, director of the climate and energy think tank Power Shift Africa. […]
“The U.S. is calling itself a global leader on one hand and then playing hardball not to give any money to people losing their homes,” said Harjeet Singh, a New Delhi–based senior adviser to Climate Action Network International. “It’s the same United States. It has not changed, and of course (DEMOCRAT PARTY) John Kerry ensures the continuity of those positions because he has been at the helm. On loss and damage, they just keep saying absolutely not,” he said. “They wanted the whole text to be removed.”
as delegations huddled to finalize the text, Environment Minister Bhupender Yadav cited India’s enormous lack of access to electricity and appeared to lead the charge on changing the reference to a “phaseout” of coal to a “phase down.” As it happened, China and the U.S. had each backed the same change in language, but wealthy countries nevertheless cast themselves as the defenders of ambition.
“There’s this ridiculous sense that somehow this decision had come about through consensus. There is no consensus here,” says Jean Su, energy justice director and senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, and board chair of Climate Action Network International. “Every low-lying state said, ‘In the spirit of compromise cede my position,’” Su told me as events wrapped up. “No one had the power to voice opposition. That is the duress of diplomacy. They are being forced to say yes to being sacrificed. This isn’t a consensus agreement. This is an agreement of force.”
https://newrepublic.com/article/164436/us-still-blocking-climate-progress-cop26
Prof. Michael Mann is always promoting partisan biased Pro-Democrat Party, pro-Biden, pro-Hillary Clinton views, because he just loves the Democrat Party and what it does to “lead climate action” (sic)
Vulnerability does not just fall from the sky: Toward multi-scale pro-poor climate policy
January 2013 Authors: Jesse Ribot
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/304346171_Vulnerability_does_not_just_fall_from_the_sky_Toward_multi-scale_pro-poor_climate_policy
P O L I C Y B R I E F – M A R C H 2 017
CLIMATE CHANGE LOSS AND DAMAGE
JULIA KREIENKAMP AND DR LISA VANHALA*
At the 2015 international climate talks in Paris, loss and damage constituted one of the most prominent – and
divisive – issues for negotiators. The idea of loss and damage reflects a growing recognition that not all
climate change impacts can or will be avoided through reductions of greenhouse gas emissions (mitigation)
or adjustments to climatic changes (adaptation): Some adverse impacts are already ‘locked in’ as a result of past, current and projected future emissions.
Loss and damage is an ambiguous and multifaceted concept that involves difficult legal, political, scientific,
and ethical questions. Although it has been <b<a formal agenda item in UN climate negotiations since 2010, there
is no international agreement on what exactly loss and damage is, let alone how it should be tackled.
Developing countries, especially those disproportionally affected by climate change, have highlighted
different historic responsibilities and the need for compensatory measures. In contrast, developed countries
have sought to limit discussion of liability and compensation, framing loss and damage as a matter of
adaptation and/or risk reduction and insurance.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/global-governance/sites/global-governance/files/policy-brief-loss-and-damage.pdf
Madagascar’s Misery and the Vulnerability Crisis Hiding Behind Climate Crisis Headlines
December 9, 2021
https://www.earth.columbia.edu/videos/view/madagascar-s-misery-and-the-vulnerability-crisis-hiding-behind-climate-crisis-headlines
COP26’s final agreement is a failure and a betrayal of those most vulnerable to climate change
At this stage in the crisis, finely crafted legal documents amount to nothing more than blah, blah, blah
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/cop26-final-agreement-climate-failure-betrayal-1300152
Truth is, COP26 doesn’t matter anymore …. it is onto the next circus to kick that can down the road all over again. The head kicker being the USA as usual. And literally a head kicker!
Dear low lying states,
The contribution of your nation towards our election campaign is appreciated. As you know, if we were to actually do what it would take to save your nation it would cost our donors money, and we don’t have the balls or brains to run a campaign based on anything but raising money for misleading fear ads (our side’s are about real danger, their side is delusional).
Sincerely (for once),
the West (which, by the way, you should strive to emulate)
Ha ha ha. Very true.
COP26 Has Failed Us, And It Has Failed Our Planet — Chris Packham
Angry , scared and betrayed . We have been failed and scorned by the stupid , the greedy and the evil . Life is now in mortal danger . But it’s not over , it’s just down to us to do what needs to be done and we need to go to it now . So let’s . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pj5z50FukdQ
Floods, Fires & Heat Waves: the Fight to Take Back the Planet
We speak with leading climate scientist Michael Mann about the catastrophic impact of the climate crisis around the world. He says he and other scientists predicted the extreme weather events now wreaking havoc. . . . https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfDvyq-GGcc
As one Canadian Trucker demonstrator put it recently:
“Right wing, left wing, makes no difference, the whole bird is rotten”
I can feel the eye rolling of literally everyone who found ourselves being called right wing (or worse – hater – denier – false flag operator – a troll – denialist plant – a liar – anti-renewables ) since 2016, because we didn’t agree with the corporate narrative on the juggernaut into global fascism we saw happening to our world from the start.
Russell Brand – So, I’m Right-Wing Now?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4e8lSQy64c
Yeah. Trumpists are all about burning the whole thing down. If something better arises that would be a nice surprise.
But the expectation is Armageddon. Eh, it fits the Book and the alternatives are pretty much unacceptable to MAGAs.
so if criticizing political activists and political figures regardless of their party political affiliations
and partisan identity is right-wing then i’m right-wing.
on the subject of billionaires the great power of billionaires marauding around the globe
setting up foundations and funds participating in Davos and COP26 – this is not conspiracy
stuff – to how big tech billionaires are able to manipulate law and government policy avoid
taxation we’ve done videos on all these things bill gates funding of the media buying up
farmland and of course the massive wealth transfer towards billionaires that you know has
taken place during this pandemic and if reporting on the wealth transfer and the corruption
of billionaires and politicians worldwide especially inside Corrupt America and within the
Corrupt Media is right wing …………. then I’m right wing!
Oh look at those poor very sad black and white dead rabbits laid out in a field.
If questioning the veracity of CONCLUSIONS based solely upon hyperbolic unsubstantiated FACT FREE EVIDENCE FREE hyperventilated horseshit news media reports is right wing …. then I’m right wing!
Fucking dumb as as dirt delusional psychotic conspiratorial internet trolls ROFL
XRRC: Oh look at those poor very sad black and white dead rabbits laid out in a field. . . . If questioning the veracity of CONCLUSIONS based solely upon hyperbolic unsubstantiated FACT FREE EVIDENCE FREE hyperventilated horseshit news media reports is right wing …. then I’m right wing!
BPL: Still denying that one, eh? Yes, XRRC, you are right wing, pretending to be left-wing. That’s pretty obvious from your 1) hyping nuclear power, 2) putting down renewables, 3) both-sides-ism, and 4) pushing despair about our ability to do anything about AGW.
Methinks the lady doth protest too much.
Another word about idiotic delusional vacuous conspiracy theorists … you know who, right?
Wait…Have The Truckers Won?
…. on Tuesday the premiers of the
Canadian provinces of Saskatchewan and
Alberta announced plans to end several
coveted policies including the divisive
vaccine passports the two provinces will
become the first to end the mandates
that have been sparking protests all
over the country …..
………. according to both premiers the mandates have outlived
their usefulness and that it was time to heal the divisions
caused by Covid-19 measures. Saskatchewan’s premier Scott Moe
asked residents not to judge each other on the basis of
vaccination status or become adversarial to those who choose
to continue wearing masks after the restrictions are lifted …….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3PghoRUr-wo
What is all this about? –Multiple blockades at some of the busiest routes linking Canada to the United States are disrupting supply chains of major car companies. – New York Times World–
Opinion Comment – Feb 11, 2022 @MichaelEMann Scientist & author
This is the intention. This is a coordinated effort by the usual suspects (including foreign bad actors) to cripple supply chains, increase inflation, damage economy and hurt both Trudeau and Biden.
https://twitter.com/MichaelEMann/status/1491805881188581385
The patients have taken over the asylum! God help us!
AL and SK are run by RWNJs.
This development is unfortunate, but sadly, not very surprising.
That climate scientists have become conspiratorial nutjobs too is more than unfortunate, sadly it undermines their and their peers credibility, opens the door for them to be rightly publicly ridiculed in the media, and is incredibly embarrassing for political activists and protesters pushing for rational logical coherent evidence based practical global action on climate change.
Canada has now rammed through oppressive authoritarian anti-protest laws with massive fines and imprisonment for a year or more that will next be applied to XR and other climate protesters.
Left wing or right wing this bird is fucked.
XRRC. Not all conspiracies are fake. Mann would be at least party right. Protests often get infiltrated with bad actors with their own motives. I’ve seen numerous examples where I live documented in the media. Anti vax protests where I live include a lot of anti left wing government rhetoric. You see it in the video clips.
Pro-Climate science and mitigation action David Sirota the ideas man writer behind Don’t Look Up! has this to say:
Feb 9, 2022 David Sirota
Corporate Media Is The Misinformation Problem The largest media outlets are platforming con artists, skewing the news, and immersing the country in a flood of lies.
“Misinformation” is all the rage these days — it’s the topic du jour. Polls suggest we all agree that it’s a problem, and lately liberals appear most mad at it — but seemingly only at certain kinds of misinformation that originate outside the corporate media sphere.
Notably, the LIBERAL ire is rarely directed at a corporate media machine that systematically rewards and praises the purveyors of misleading propaganda, and continues to flood the country with information sewage.
This selective outrage is a huge problem — because the only way to systematically combat misinformation is to construct a Fourth Estate that develops some trust with the audience. That trust will never be rebuilt if liberals pretend to hate misinformation while they patronize a media establishment that fortifies the pathologies that originally created a credibility crisis.
– NBC News hired Stephen Hayes, one of the key architects of Iraq War misinformation,……….
– CNN just hired another Iraq War proponent, right-wing propagandist Jonah Goldberg
– CNN ex-CEO Jeff Zucker was praised by employees even after Zucker oversaw the lionization of Andrew Cuomo while the New York governor was shielding his health care industry donors from legal consequences
– Rolling Stone reported that one source said Zucker was personally involved in engineering the Cuomo promotion — and even helped write talking points for the governor.
– Corporate media began touting a comeback for Cuomo and his brother, Chris, with no mention of the nursing home catastrophe, as if nothing bad happened
– MSNBC-platformed Washington newsletter blasted out propaganda touting Kroger’s “great pay and benefits” — even as thousands of its employees are struggling to afford basic necessities
– even as the grocery chain bankrolls lobbying groups working to kill union rights legislation.
– The New York Times told its readers that President Joe Biden’s “big climate goals depend on Congress” — somehow not mentioning that they also depend on Biden, who has been using his executive authority to expand drilling at a faster pace than President Donald Trump.
– Less than two years after the New York Times told its readers that 100,000 pandemic deaths under Trump was “incalculable,” the newspaper has now decided that 900,000 deaths is now a ho-hum story that Americans are bored with
– MSNBC aired an interview with a New York Times columnist blaming inflation on workers getting COVID relief money, rather than on corporations using their monopoly power to fleece consumers with higher prices that then fund giant executive pay packages and shareholder dividends.
– Rogan platforming public health nonsense and environmental misinformation — and using racial slurs — is not somehow absolved by corporate media concurrently immersing the world in an ocean of self-serving bullshit.
But corporate media doesn’t get to lie the country into a war and a financial crisis, continue enriching right-wing fabulists, offer up news literally “presented by” corporate villains, and then pretend that a podcaster is the singular source of misinformation.
And it sure as hell doesn’t get to feign surprise when after decades of lies, almost nobody ends up trusting corporate media about anything.
Despite crocodile tears about “free speech,” none of the central players in the hullabaloo are heroes or victims — they are all making a mint off selling controversy, garbage, and fake (MORALIZING) outrage.
And it’s hardly a surprise that the loudest of them screaming about censorship have had little to say about the most pervasive censorship of all: corporate media’s near-complete erasure of economic and anti-corruption reporting that might offend business sponsors.
The real victim here is the general public. CON’T
https://www.dailyposter.com/corporate-media-is-the-misinformation-problem/
An emotional DON LEMON delivers a personal message on Jeff Zucker’s exit from CNN:
“…Thank you Jeff Zucker for everything you did for everyone at this network and for what you did to the entire country — for the entire country.”
XRRC- That’s TWO lying arseholes in one tweet!
And we need an information infrastructure that preferences accurate, verifiable, and indisputable facts so that the public can make informed decisions.
We don’t have much of that right now, in part because political tribalism has taught audiences to selectively love and hate misinformation based on whether it comes from “their” team.
XRRC: Dumb Fucks!
Many liberals love monikers like “believe science” and see themselves as dispassionate protectors of the truth. But let’s be clear: If you’re a liberal who purports to hate misinformation but also cheers on Liz Cheney or Bill Kristol or some other war propagandist as a beacon of integrity just because you see them defending Democrats or bashing Donald Trump on your favorite TV network, then you don’t actually hate misinformation — you just happen to like your misinformation colored blue (even if that misinformation was previously colored neocon red).
XRRC: Dumb Fucks!
And if you’re in corporate media and think it’s OK for your news outlet to routinely skew and cover up the crimes of politicians and business, then you’re not actually interested in journalism’s mission to comfort the afflicted, and afflict the comfortable.
The difference between “media” and actual journalism is the root of the misinformation crisis. We’re drowning in content that is increasingly valued only for its potency in the political wars, rather than judged on its factual merits and its choice of targets. That kind of media content strays farther and farther from reality because it’s about entertaining and inflaming rather than educating and informing.
The answer is an audience that actually values accurate and necessary information, even if it offends their preconceived notions — an audience that runs away from corporate media outlets that force-feed them lies and liars, and runs toward news organizations that report hard truths.
That’s the kind of news organization we’re working to build here. And we know it’s going to take a long time to build a true independent and trustworthy Fourth Estate in the wreckage of a corporate media landscape, where the flames of bullshit smolder and suffocate the discourse.
XRRC: David is NOT going to find his preferred intelligent audience among the prolific brain dead ignorant infantile gullible fucking trolls on this fucking site.
Notice how the vast majority of material XXRC posts appears to be critical of liberals and The Democrats Party, with significantly less material critical of conservatives or the Republican Party. And the vast majority of material he posts is critical of renewables, and much less so of nuclear power.. And the vast majority of material he posts is critical of M Mann. That’s the impression I get recently.
And this XRRC guy wonders why people get annoyed with him or misinterpret him, or think he’s anti renewables. He only has himself to blame.
I used to think maybe he is a liberal himself, and is just courageously highlighting the failings of liberals and the Democrats party, but I’m no longer sure. Its all just such one sided rhetoric and plenty of it is very debatable.
And it amounts to thousands of words castigating people for not being perfect. I’m not sure its that helpful and it plays into the hands of conservatives and climate denialists.
And its very hard differentiating what is his opinion, and what it is he’s quoting.
Doing a lot of very quick scrolling through much of his stuff.
Perhaps you are right, Nigel. Maybe XRRC eviscerates liberals more than conservatives.
Perhaps that is because he holds liberals to a higher standard. I’m probably guilty of that myself
Richard The Weaver. Maybe. The same thought occured to me.
Its also possible XRRC is a left wing concern troll, criticising liberals because he thinks they have sold out to the big allegedly evil corporate sector and XRRC discredits renewables (posting a lot of negativity) because he / she believes the greedy corporate sector profit from them.
BPL thinks XRRC is right wing pretending to be left, and does quote a couple of rather interesting pieces of evidence.
Who would ever know. This is the PROBLEM when people write in a stupid way that is open to misinterpretation! I did try to make some constructive suggestions that when posting copy and paste, XRRC state his position or intent clearly in brackets.
Bottom line. One reason I contribute to this website is to promote renewables, and sensible liberal and progessive ideas, so I’m sure you would understand why I get irritated when people deluge the website with NEGATIVITY about those things. And clearly Im not alone (BPL and PIOTR)
Sure liberals and renewables have their faults. We should acknowledge this and not defend the indefensible. But there are SUBTLE and civil ways of discussing that. Not XRRCs wild, inflammatory comments and one sided posts.
Regarding David Sirotas views. He is all angry with the allegedly terrible corporate media and thinks Liberals should abandon bad corporate media and quotes problems with NBC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times etc, etc. Just where does he expect “liberals” to go? Fox News? (which has been shown to be the least accurate media).
Or does he expect people to go to some internet alternative news network? Hello Dave, they are far WORSE than the Corporate media. They have their own agendas and are not held to any media codes of practice. And at least the corporate media have to make a profit which means if they tell too many lies, or make too many mistakes, they get caught out and risk losing market share. Of course all this clearly goes over Daves and XRRCs heads.
To be clear I’m sceptical of the corporate media especially when owned by right wing billionaires (Robert Murdoch?) But I’m sceptical of all media. There not and never will be a perfect media outlet, although I believe the UK’s state owned BBC is reasonably good and factually reliable, but even it is far from perfect. I read about three varied sources of news information and opinion articles and make up my own mind on things.
XRRC says “David is NOT going to find his preferred intelligent audience among the prolific brain dead ignorant infantile gullible fucking trolls on this fucking site.”
Such a nice pleasant non trolling, highly intelligent adult comment. Not at all like an angry spoiled know it all teenager. (sarc).
If XRRC hates the people here so much why does he keep coming back (under numerous different names)? And on what basis does he say people are gullible? Can he quote some examples where he thinks people have been sucked in by the corporate media, and some explanation of why? No of course not. He lives in some weird universe of his own creation.
Quote: “. And at least the corporate media have to make a profit which means if they tell too many lies, or make too many mistakes, they get caught out and risk losing market share.”
If that is true, then NBC, CNN, and MSNBC must be telling one lie after another because Fox News is beating the pants off of them in number of viewers:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News
https://www.thewrap.com/cable-news-2021-ratings-fox-news-msnbc-cnn/
Here’s an example that demonstrates the typical bias and arrogance of many of the mainstream news outlets. It continues to this day. No surprise that Fox is winning.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z6Oczyk6nCw
Forbes review of most accurate and balanced media below:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/berlinschoolofcreativeleadership/2017/02/01/10-journalism-brands-where-you-will-find-real-facts-rather-than-alternative-facts/?sh=7a821d6e9b5a
Fox didn’t even make the list of ok media
Nigel quote: “Fox didn’t even make the list of ok media”
Since Fox News has more viewers than any of the alphabet news channels, then according to your previous statement they have to be telling the truth more than the others, or is your theory wrong?
Your Forbes article was written by a lefty on 2/1/2017, 9 days after 45 became President. The first sentence discredits the entire article: “Where do we most often find real truth, real facts in a new era of Internet hoaxes, fake news stories and new political administrations that tout their own “alternative facts”?”
Displaying his TDS was not a good way to make his case that you were about to read an unbiased article. Hilarious, but thanks for playing.
KIA. Not at all. There are many reasons a media channel might be popular. There is a large market for complete crap (Like Fox). By analogy, watching Married at First Sight and The Bachelor is popular.
Forbes is a business orientated media organisation that is generally regarded as centrist in terms of political leanings:
https://www.allsides.com/news-source/forbes
But it doesnt stop there. Plenty of other surveys / studies / reports rate Fox News badly in terms of accuracy, credibility and bias:
“Just 15 percent of respondents to a May 2021 survey held in the United States found Fox News to be very credible, whereas 28 percent said the opposite. Fox News was among the most divisive news sources when it came to perceptions of its credibility rating and respondents’ political affiliation.”
https://www.statista.com/statistics/239750/credibility-of-fox-news-in-the-united-states/
“Why Wikipedia Decided to Stop Calling Fox a ‘Reliable’ Source”
https://www.wired.com/story/why-wikipedia-decided-to-stop-calling-fox-a-reliable-source/
“Fox News Just Lost Its Last Tiny Sliver of Credibility”
https://newrepublic.com/article/164705/chris-wallace-leaves-fox-carlson
“A 2019 Pew survey found that Fox News is the fifth most trusted source in America for political and election news, with 43% of all polled voters (compared with 47% of second-place CNN and 34% of ninth-place MSNBC).”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fox_News_controversies#:~:text=A%202019%20Pew%20survey%20found,of%20ninth%2Dplace%20MSNBC).
KIA: Fox News is beating the pants off of them in number of viewers:
BPL: And that means they must be telling the truth, right?
You never took a course in formal logic, did you, KIA? Come on, ‘fess up.
Don’t look at me – Nigel said it. Quote: “And at least the corporate media have to make a profit which means if they tell too many lies, or make too many mistakes, they get caught out and risk losing market share.”
Fox has the biggest market share, therefore, per formal logic we can conclude that if Nigels theory is correct, then Fox News tells the truth more often. Or do you think Nigel’s theory is full of it?
:)
Hilarious, but thanks for playing. :)
As opposed to Faux News, which is LITERALLY making a killing:
https://wisconsinexaminer.com/2021/12/23/fox-news-is-killing-us-here-are-the-receipts/
RL. Thanks for that link. Some really interesting social science in the last bit proving Fox News is dumbing people down and making them anti vaccines and anti science. Not exactly surprising, but interesting to see some proof.
Unfortunately in this day and age a small number of lying idiots can have significant influence. It made me remember this:
“Just 12 People Are Behind Most Vaccine Hoaxes On Social Media, Research Shows”
“Researchers have found just 12 people are responsible for the bulk of the misleading claims and outright lies about COVID-19 vaccines that proliferate on Facebook, Instagram and Twitter.”
“The ‘Disinformation Dozen’ produce 65% of the shares of anti-vaccine misinformation on social media platforms,” said Imran Ahmed, chief executive officer of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, which identified the accounts.”
“Now the vaccine rollout is reaching a critical stage in which most adults who want the vaccine have gotten it, but many others are holding out, these 12 influential social media users stand to have an outsize impact on the outcome.”
“After this story published on Thursday, Facebook said it had taken down more of the accounts run by these 12 individuals.”
https://www.npr.org/2021/05/13/996570855/disinformation-dozen-test-facebooks-twitters-ability-to-curb-vaccine-hoaxes
Of course there are parallels with climate disinformation with a small number of cranky denialists spreading a large volume of the climate denialism. I wont publish a list and give them publicity. Regulars know who they are.
What They’re Not Telling You Dumb Fucks … Brand discusses Sirota’s article
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XS-jnhsVKws
https://www.dailyposter.com/corporate-media-is-the-misinformation-problem/
Jun 22, 2021 David Sirota
Why Are Billionaires Presumed Innocent?
After an IRS leak, corporate media says there’s nothing to see here because billionaire tax avoidance must be legal — even though it occurred during a crime spree.
In the wake of ProPublica’s recent disclosure of how billionaires avoid income taxes, a narrative has been manufactured: We are told that while the moguls’ schemes to reduce tax liability may be immoral, the tactics are all “perfectly legal,” in the words of ProPublica, an idea that was then echoed by the Associated Press, the New York Times, and the pundit world.
This conventional wisdom — depicted as unquestionable fact throughout corporate media — is held up as don’t-hate-the-player-hate-the-game proof that we should be angry only at the tax system, but not necessarily at the oligarchs getting rich off it. In fact, the only person so far presumed to be worthy of any law enforcement scrutiny is not any of the billionaires avoiding taxes, but the whistle-blowing source of the IRS leak.
But ask yourself: Why does anyone make such charitable assumptions about the supposed legality of billionaires’ tax tactics? Such assumptions, in fact, reflect deep BIAS and PRIVILEGE by the people making them.
https://www.dailyposter.com/why-are-billionaires-presumed-innocent/
But gosh if it was a black, an African American, asian, carribean, or hispanic person getting a little break in getting a cheap low-doc mortgage with little money down before 2008 with hardly any supporting information being required in the Bank Loan application … well fuck them those assholes, ripping off the system like that and for THEM causing the Global Financial Crisis as a result!! . They should never have asked for a housing loan! Fucking frauds! /sarc
Now, let’s see, how is the catastrophic climate crisis being covered? How was COP26 and Biden covered in the mainstream media? Who are the “scientists” and climate “activists” and climate ECONOMISTS being asked to front up and answer questions on the CORPORATE MEDIA services?
AND what are they saying?
XRRC quotes an article:
Truly accurate information about most important subjects is currently deemed anathema according to the Narrative because it is “racist”, “sexist” or otherwise “offensive”.
IMO, if the truth offends you, the problem isn’t the truth. It’s you.
Today, such news sources get demonized as “hate groups”, de-banked and deplatformed.
Nevertheless, they are popular. People are fed up with gatekeepers (you listening, Gavin?).
IMHO, E-P’s relationship with truth is quite troubled.
Engineer Poet, Of course the hate groups and the alternate right, never act as gatekeepers. They welcome anybody and never threaten violence or intimidate people, and never censor content, and are really well balanced, and have great reliable science based sources of information (SARCASM, SOUND OF CRICKETS CHIRPING)
EP: Truly accurate information about most important subjects is currently deemed anathema according to the Narrative because it is “racist”, “sexist” or otherwise “offensive”. . . . IMO, if the truth offends you, the problem isn’t the truth. It’s you.
BPL: Shorter EP: I like telling N-word jokes.
He did not say or intimate anything of the sort.
The wiser mature people would be aware though, that the research shows that arguing with Ambivalence makes progress to nowhere. Except more resistance. Pointing out flaws and the recalcitrant thugs, and the many barriers and self-defeating behaviors only leads to ever more resistance and the indignant building up of stronger barriers to good information and better thinking skills.
Everyone ends up dying in their artificially created and curated ideological social media bubbles. While the planet and all the people on it goes to hell. ‘Smart’ people can be incredibly dumb and stupid too.
“net-zero emissions” is a pie-in-the-sky goal that looks really good on paper, until it becomes apparent that it is based on entirely unproven, untested, emerging technologies that may or may not work. The idea is akin to saying that it’s okay to litter all over your neighborhood if you also pick up trash elsewhere in the future because the net amount of trash you will have thrown onto the street will someday be zero. Oh, and the technology for picking up trash is only now being invented, so we just have to wait and see if it works.
https://www.pressenza.com/2022/02/fossil-fuel-companies-and-their-mouthpieces-offer-net-zero-logic-on-climate-change/
The above article – the thrust of it supported by scientists like Michael Mann and hundreds more – is an attack on what the fossil energy companies are doing with Net Zero. The problem is it is precisely the very same thing that Nation state Parties to the UNFCCC are doing.
Net Zero Emissions is all unconscionable horseshit! Irrespective of whom is engaging in it.
There is the present logic (lack of logic) the UNFCCC system is currently based upon, and it is the basis for all projections of GHG emissions and temperature and carbon budget forecasts to 2050 out to 2100 based on Net Zero commitments made at COP26 … and supported and reported on and analyzed by Climate Scientists everywhere. eg Zeke Hausfather Carbon Brief and all the rest
All one can hear out of climate science is either a ringing endorsement for Net Zero or Silence. Both takes are immoral. The shit will hit the fan over this one day … then those responsible and silent had better look out and consider finding a safe place to hide out.
The use of sockpuppets in any form is not allowed here. People using the same IP address to post under multiple names will have all their comments removed with no warning or appeal.
Nigel: We wont fix the climate problem with ridiculous lawsuits where only lawyers really win, although its good to see a few oil companies feel a bit of pain.
Me: There ya go. As needed, we’ve got all hands on deck…
…but in a fist fight. Oops. Though they hurt ever so sweetly, broken knuckles aren’t a win during a ship-sinking storm.
On a brighter note JWST goes well. Perhaps it will find a ninth major planet. Possible?
RTW. I don’t think there is much point taking legal action against oil companies for drilling oil or producing fossil fuels. It probably wont work and would drag on for years and be a distraction from what really needs to be done. However I do think there are reasons to take legal action against oil companies., where they spread disinformation. The oil companies need a kick in the backside (metaphorically speaking) to discourage them from doing similar things in the future . And I quite enjoy seeing them feel pain for those sorts of sins. An example:
https://www.bbc.com/news/stories-53640382
I be
Scrolling scrolling
Through XR’s stuff, too.
The worst part is RealClimate’s bug that insists on sending you repeatedly to the bottom of the page. Scrolling back UP three times !?
Quoth nigelj:
Tell me something, Nigel: just what are the gates that you think these people control? All the major publishers, major media, academia and government are firmly in the hands of the hard left. The New York Times honored the 80th anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor by… ignoring it and running an article on Emmett Till. Apparently you can’t talk about American history in America without being labelled a “hate group”.
My alma mater has all but stated that they hate me and all people like me, and for that reason they will get not one cent from me.
Dozens of people who WALKED INTO A BUILDING on 1/6/2021 are still rotting in jail, held without bail, no charges filed let alone trials scheduled.
How many people were charged for the arsons and vandalism in Minneapolis and Kenosha after St. George Floyd of fentanyl ascended to the great beyond? I found news items about a handful of people charged and all of two convictions out of thousands of rioters.
Over whom do they have the power of censorship? If you get your “news” from your major media, you’re subjecting yourself to a diet of disinformation in support of a Narrative. Stories which do not fit the Narrative do not get more than local coverage. Alternative outlets will shine their lights where the corporate media want darkness; this is why you cannot consider yourself informed unless you read them.
Many a truth is spoken in jest.
E-P’s troubled relationship with truth, part–well, who knows at this point?
1) https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/07/opinion/pearl-harbor-american-adversaries.html
2) https://www.insider.com/all-the-us-capitol-pro-trump-riot-arrests-charges-names-2021-1
“Walked in…” Yeah–sometimes over the bodies of Capitol police. And let’s not forget the ones who climbed in through broken windows. (At least that didn’t crush any police body parts, unlike the forced doors.) And let’s not forget 200+ guilty pleas entered so far, either.
3) https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/17/george-floyd-protesters-charges-citations-analysis
Thousands of charges were laid, most with little-to-no evidence supporting them.
Gosh…
as this develops, I will not have to visit the climate surrealists anymore to keep myself updated also on
c. surrealism.
Engineer Poet
“All the major publishers, major media, academia and government are firmly in the hands of the hard left.”
Sure they are, and the sky is pink with purple polka dots. I assume you mean America, so my knowledge is limited, however its a little bit hard to see how Fox News Network is owned or controlled by the hard left. Could you please elaborate and with some evidence? They are quite a large news outlet. Are you saying all those right wing leaning people on fox are cleverly manipulated by a left winger hiding in a closet somewhere? I don’t know enough about other outlets to really comment.
And I struggle to see how you would categorise Obama, Biden, or Clinton as being “hard left”. Where I live (New Zealand) the general consensus is they lean slightly centre right!
Certainly in New Zealand the media is largely owned by centre right leaning interests. Most media opinion writers lean to the right. This is strongly so in The NZ Herald, and slightly so on Stuff.co.nz. The only media outlet you could call left leaning is RNZ and it is also the most accurate in terms of content.
And don’t your hate groups and alternative right groups have the ability to set up WEBSITES? Zero Hedge and Breitbart are clearly not left leaning.
“Dozens of people who WALKED INTO A BUILDING on 1/6/2021 are still rotting in jail, held without bail, no charges filed let alone trials scheduled.”
Rotting in jail? How many of their arms have fallen off? My heart bleeds for them. Perhaps they shouldn’t have stormed the capitol building threatening violence and attacking police officers.
Kevins link seems to suggest they have in fact been charged. Remember thousands were involved so I guess it takes time to take them all to trial . They are just violent moronic thugs. Get back to me in a year and you might have a valid complaint.
To put things in context “More than 600 people have been arrested in connection with January 6, less than 40 remain behind bars” ( and this was some months ago)
https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/verify/capitol-riot-are-hundreds-of-defendants-still-in-jail/65-dffb1d7e-089a-4406-ae4e-c54748e11953
“Over whom do they (alternative media) have the power of censorship?”
People who post comments on their website pages obviously. And plenty of their websites do censor comments.
“Alternative outlets will shine their lights where the corporate media want darkness; ”
Sure true, that will sometimes happen. The corporate media will have their weaknesses and biases. Given they are largely owned and owned by the corporate sector they will sometimes tend to mainly push right wing views such as privatisation, deregulation, and cast doubt on things like minimum wage increases and corporate taxes, and probably sometimes just lie about these things. So its important to read some non corporate media. I do. But I don’t read alternative media that lean hard right or towards conspiracy theories, except for a good laugh.
But in all seriousness, its REALLY important to read a range of varied media, and not rely on just one source. There will never be a single media outlet that is fully adequate. However the UK’s state owned BBC is very good.
EP: Dozens of people who WALKED INTO A BUILDING on 1/6/2021 are still rotting in jail, held without bail, no charges filed let alone trials scheduled.
BPL: Walked into a building, planted bombs in the area, beat up policemen so that many wound up in the hospital, erected a gallows, chanted “Hang Mike Pence!”, intended to lynch congressmen, and tried to disrupt a free and fair election. Stop defending treason. Those people ought to be shot.
Quoth BPL:
Ironically, I haven’t even heard that word since I stopped doing side jobs at a certain bar a few years ago. The bartenders played a lot of nasty (c)rap “music” which used it freely.
Besides, I don’t think that the 12.4% demographic which accounts for well over 50% of US homicide perps is a joke. They are not the least bit funny.
EP: I don’t think that the 12.4% demographic which accounts for well over 50% of US homicide perps is a joke.
BPL: Hear that, people? Black folks are *natural criminals!* Thank God for those non-criminal white people, like the ones who broke into the capitol on 1/6/21.
Do an analysis of income versus charges for murder, EP, and you can come to the conclusion (as the classists do in England) that it’s lower class people who are the natural criminals.
BTW, the USA is 15% black, not 12.5%. Your statistics, as usual, are obsolete.
Here are the stats you are looking for compiled by the FBI:
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/table-43
Looks like 13.4%, not 15, according to the US Census Bureau, but what would they know about it:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045221
Moderators!
This thread goes way off topic!
Just delete this stuff which should not even go into The Borehole; clogs it up.
“Oil giants haven’t embraced the green transition, study confirms”
“Oil giants are trying to deflect the world’s attention with pretty pictures and words, while it’s business as usual extracting planet-warming fossil fuels, new research concluded. “In a study published today, Japanese researchers validated accusations that four fossil fuel firms – BP, Chevron, ExxonMobil and Shell – are “greenwashing” or attempting to make a business appear more climate-friendly than it really is. A New Zealand expert said the results aren’t surprising, but the research does provide independent evidence against the four oil giants.”
https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment/climate-news/127793380/oil-giants-havent-embraced-the-green-transition-study-confirms
Not remotely surprising, but interesting to see the evidence and details. On the positive side some other companies have made more robust efforts. Should be praised and encouraged.
How much cobalt is used in EVs?
https://www.beroeinc.com/article/child-labor-and-cobalt-mining/
I don’t know. Why don’t you do some research?
KIA perhaps this will give you the bigger picture:
“CNN Wrongly Blames Electric Cars for Unethical Cobalt Mining”
“This week, CNN published a startling multimedia report on cobalt mining in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The investigation revealed troubling conditions in so-called “artisanal” cobalt mines, where hand mining operations are carried out with a combination of unsafe working conditions and child labor. ……In reality, electric cars still represent a small percentage of the market for mined cobalt, and laptops, cell phones, airplanes, medical equipment, and military applications are large consumers of the raw material.”
https://www.desmog.com/2018/05/02/cnn-wrongly-blames-electric-cars-unethical-cobalt-mining/
Of course child labour is horrible, but pointing the finger at EVs is very selective and hypocritical. Wonder if KIA will give up his computer and phone?
Although child labor is horrible if it means no school and dangerous conditions, perhaps the alternative is worse for them? No work = no food = no life?
KIA: Although child labor is horrible if it means no school and dangerous conditions, perhaps the alternative is worse for them? No work = no food = no life?
BPL: Yes, folks, there is no third alternative. It’s either child labor in dangerous conditions, or starvation. Take it or leave it. You heard it here first!
You’re catching on. For many people on the planet, that’s the way life is, brutal and short. They don’t sit around and ponder how much CO2 is in the air – all they worry about is making it to their next meal. But thanks for playing.
KIA: all they worry about is making it to their next meal.
BPL: Which is harder to do with massive flooding and drought due to heat.
Mr. KIA:” For many people on the planet, that’s the way life is, brutal and short. They don’t sit around and ponder how much CO2 is in the air…”
Really? How do you know what they ponder? Have you asked them? I have talked to poor people all over the world (and middle class and rich…). They understand what is going on a whole helluvalot more than you seem to think. I mean, maybe if they have malnutrition so severe that they can’t even brush the flies away, they might not be concerned, but those folks ain’t goin’ down to the mine either.
It really is astounding how certain you are of your understanding of the world, despite all the evidence to the contrary. Oh to have the confidence of a mediocre white man.
Genosse
I also wonder and I am a chemist. I have had to read it up because it is new but it seems they can also use iron and nickel. Elon Musk is told to use Iron phosphate electyrodes in his teslas.
Alltogether, I tend to see a much worse discussion and situation due to vulgar delusions and beliefs in chemical molecular LEGO. When dia- lectic materialism is in charge and takes over as chief engineers in The Peoples republics and factories, Then Cernobyl blows up!
I repeat…!
I can guarantee!
KIA: How much cobalt is used in EVs?
BPL: I don’t know, KIA, how much is used in EVs? How much is used in other applications? What percentage of total use is EVs? Do you have any answers, or just questions?
Less all the time.
https://news.metal.com/newscontent/101747610/Lithium-iron-phosphate-batteries-take-the-lead-again-in-2022-the-first-batch-of-recommended-catalogue-batteries-will-be-released/
“The iron-lithium model takes the lead again.”
https://www.bloombergquint.com/markets/cobalt-powerhouse-doubles-down-on-nickel-as-battery-profits-jump
And more recycling is coming, too:
https://www.benzinga.com/news/22/02/25707685/ford-partners-with-tesla-co-founders-ev-battery-recycling-venture-program-in-california
Moreover, the Li battery as we know it today isn’t the end state of the technology, either. To cite just two coming technologies:
https://cleantechnica.com/2022/02/07/tesla-co-founder-endorses-new-solid-state-ev-battery/
https://www.todaysemobility.com/product/nims-softbank-lithium-air-battery/