The Real New Deal
- This topic has 10 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 5 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Wassily Kandinsky Succession 1935 While we’re on the issue of the Green New Deal, here’s an article by Dr. D. with an intro by Dr. D., o
[See the full post at: The Real New Deal]we need a New Deal altogether
You are right.
However, like pancreatic cancer, the patient will die.Also, money talks louder than anti-sematic accusations.
The elites have been running the social/economic systems that we have and will not put up with opposition to their power/wealth positions that would diminish their positions.
The freshman members will be taught how to play the game or they will be neutralized.
Thank you for your analysis Dr. D., I always enjoy reading your comments on TAE.
I’ve always thought that the coming lifestyle adjustments will not be voluntary, but will be forced upon us (painfully) by circumstances beyond our control, for the very reasons you outlined.
“… the reality is, if one were to have a major contraction, much less plan a voluntary, intentional one, the pressure to stop it would be overwhelming and from every side: retail, political, financial, human, ecological, economic, military; there is no way such a plan could be seriously considered, much less implemented. WE ARE NEVER MOVING TO EFFICIENCY UNDER A DEBT-BASED MONETARY SYSTEM. End of story….
We not only need a New Green Deal, we need a New Deal altogether. A better one, a fairer one. A possible one. One with a future. So let’s start acting like it and begin.”
Looking forward to another post where you explain how to make the impossible possible.
Well reasoned and well written post, Dr D. Thanks for writing it. Indeed, the change must begin with us. I always tell the interns and other visitors that their future will be NOTHING like they have known or expect.
I honestly wish I knew what to say.
Zero Sum probably stated it best:we need a New Deal altogether
You are right.
However, like pancreatic cancer, the patient will die.The problem with ‘green initiatives’ is that they are usually thought up by activists who have no clue as to the implications. For example AOC calls for the removal of greenhouse gases, and I am sure CO2 is top of the list. If CO2 levels were halved no plants could grow and most life on Earth would die. Is this what AOC wants?!
This is just one example, but being ‘green’ is a case of ‘the king who wore no clothes’! If you are ‘green’ then you MUST believe all green initiatives without question, which unfortunately includes many politicians. If you DO question then you are an ‘enemy of the planet’ and must be ostracised.
Any green initiative must be looked at by intelligent people such as engineers and accountants with the basic questions such as ‘is it viable’ and ‘what would be the actual effects if implemented’.
For example, here in the UK the governmnet spent 30 billion pounds to provide as much electricity as a 2 billion pound gas fired power station. This is achieved by converting fossil fuels into wind turbines. To save the same amount of energy the money should have been used to better insulate homes, actually reducing the amount of fossil fuel used in the first place.
Civilisation is totally dependent on the use of energy and I would like it to last as long as possible which means conserving energy. I read that oil may only last 50 years yet the emphasis seems to be getting it out of the ground as quickly as possible, making it as cheap as possible, and using as much as possible! [Sod the kids!]
Conserving energy [or saving CO2 if that matters to you] is a combination of technology and personal choices. I am impressed that cars can have twice the miles per gallon than older ones, that my 46 inch TV only uses 100 watts, and LED spotlights are now extremely energy efficient.
I do not use central heating but for those who do are you heating parts of the house you rarely use, like bedrooms, utility rooms, etc. Fan heaters can be used to provide temporary heat as required. Also turning the temperature down and wearing more clothes. I tend to think of wasted heat as ‘heating the universe’!
It would be useful to have a website which suggests ways that energy can be conserved, but they need to be rational. For example in recent years there has been a trend to massively insulate walls, yet the thermal effect of walls can add heat to a home.
Greens also need to live in the real world more. Nuclear energy is opposed but the only reason uranium is used in reactors is to create plutonium for weapons. Thorium can be used in reactors and eliminates most of the issues, not least the fact that the waste only needs to be stored for 100 years. I think green organisations should look to backing the development of thorium reactors as way of saving CO2.
There is much that can be done but it needs a sensible approach.
“Looking forward to another post where you explain how to make the impossible possible.”
Would that I could write such a post.
We are going to hit the wall and we are going to survive it, like our fathers before us. But that is not a consolation to any.
Anticlimatic,
Two things:
(1) CO2 in 1965, the year I was born about 325 ppm. Today 410+ ppm and rising more quickly than it did 53 years ago.
(2) Nuclear is fine, but do remember that thorium is not fissile. Maybe the EROEI won’t be as good as you imagine.Just to put anticlimactic straight on a few things:
1. no one is saying we should reduce CO2 to 0 ppm, only getting it back to levels where it was before industrial civilisation – about 275 ppm, even 350 ppm would do.
2. there is no such thing as a Thorium reactor. Thorium can be transmuted into Uranium-233 and you can make a reactor out of that. But the EROEI of current nuclear reactors is about 6, which is less than wind turbines, at about 15, with no toxic, radioactive waste.
3. Australia had a program to insulate residential houses, but four stupid young employees electrocuted themselves by stapling the insulation sheets over the mains wiring, and the whole thing was scraped, including the Minister, Peter Garrett.
4. Oil WILL NOT last 50 years, because as soon as it costs more than people can afford, they stop buying it and profits go to zero, and oil majors declare bankruptcy.The world is going to run out of energy, politicans are going claim they know the solution(s) but always fail to deliver it. We are NEVER going to take all the excess CO2 out of the atmosphere because of the energy that would take, see “The Energy of Mixing”.
THERE IS NO SOLUTION. We have raped the beautiful Planet Earth, and that’s it, good wasn’t it?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.