Concerning Anson and Juliana Guthrie:
"...after seven years their company dominated space activity near Earth and was readying ships to go harvest the wealth of the Solar System." (p. 19)
Will that be true of someone else in the next seven years?
Guthrie:
"'Oh, sure, nowadays the words are "environment" and "social justice," but it's the same dreary dreck, what Churchill once called equality of misery.'" (p. 23)
But surely something does need to be done urgently about the environment? Meanwhile, of course, no one aims to equalize misery.
54 comments:
The distinction here is between the actual environment and the use of the -idea- as a rhetorical club to compel obedience.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr. Stirling: We are getting a lot of that kind of clubbing from the fake environmentalists of the Democrat Party!
Paul: Harvesting the wealth of the Solar System? Soon, I hope! Starting perhaps with Elon Musk and SpaceX! We need real world D.D. Harrimans, Anson Guthries, and Old Nicks!
And I agree with the contempt Guthrie and Churchill had for the ranting, canting, argot of the left! Frankly, I think many leftists WANT mass misery, so they could use a giant bureaucracy to pretend to be helping those in misery.
And I want REALISTIC and WORKABLE solutions to environmental problems, not a bloated welfare bureaucracy.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Have you read about the current IPCC report? Drastically reducing carbon emissions is an immediate necessity.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And for that, I demand REAL solutions: such as nuclear power, a space based solar power system, and plain old rust for sopping up carbon dioxide from the oceans. NOT the kind of futile, counterproductive, and ineffectual alternatives which I get from the left.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, according to the IPCC report, the present use of fossil fuels must be drastically reduced now, not at a later stage when nuclear power plants have been built and a space-based power system has been developed. I do not know what the answer is. However, disagreeing about longer term energy policies does not address the current emergency.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
If you are advocating overnight cessation of all fossil fuels NOW, forget it, that's not going to happen. Billions of people around the world, esp. in the most polluting parts of the world, like Africa, India, China, will not consent to being abruptly dumped into misery and poverty.
At least the alternatives I argue for are at least doable, at a not intolerable cost, if the will is there!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I am not advocating anything, just quoting what I understand of the IPCC report, that continued use of fossil fuels is now, not soon but now, causing an irreversible catastrophe.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
But what good is that, sounding vague alarms about the future and nothing about at least possible solutions to problems? I recall how one of the characters in "A Chapter of Revelation" said rational thinking about problems means clearly understanding issues under debate and their alleged solutions.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
The IPCC report is neither vague nor about the future but specific and about the present. Are you sure that it contains nothing about possible solutions?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I don't know. I was accepting your word. Does that document makes any specific suggestions?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I have sent you some links. The remit of the IPCC is to say that fossil fuels are overheating the environment and must therefore be reduced now immediately drastically without delay, not some time in the future. The next question is what should replace fossil fuels. The answer given seems to be renewables, including solar. Anyone with scientific evidence that this is insufficient and that nuclear power must be massively increased needs to correspond with the IPCC urgently, not just argue about it among ourselves.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I looked at one link, and I remained unconvinced, about the alternatives to fossils. People as scientifically literate as the late Jerry Pournelle and Robert Zubrin have shown how INADEQUATE stuff like solar panels and windmills will be for a high tech society and billions of people. Only nuclear power and a space based solar power system can supply the MASSIVE amounts of energy we would need.
I'm sure people like Zubrin has tried contacting the IPCC, to offer correctives. I have my doubts they broke thru the anti nuclear prejudice!
You keep saying we need to IMMEDIATELY stop using fossils, and I point out that is simply not going to happen. For both political and economic reasons. And it's even less likely to happen if no REALISTIC alternatives to fossils are offered.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But the statement that we need to stop using fossil fuels and the statement that that is not going to happen can both be true. If both are true, then the result is catastrophe.
Paul.
As far as carbon goes, the most significant actor is China, which produces more C02 annually than the US… plus the UK… plus the EU… plus Japan… plus Canada… put together.
And China has added 38 GW (gigawatts) of new coal-fired generating capacity since the beginning of 2020, with another 230 GW under construction or in the pipeline, in addition to the 1000 GW they already had.
By way of contrast, the US had less than 200 GW of coal stations remaining.
That’s not to mention the set of huge coal gasification plants they’re building, or all the coal fired plants they”re selling to third countries. It turns out that Botswana has 212 -billion- tons of coal, for example.
So really nothing we do matters much.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling and Paul!
Mr.Stirling: Exactly! What GOOD would it do for the UK and US to impoverish themselves when it's so plain places like China does not give a DAMN????
Paul: Then catastrophe is what is going to happen, because China does not care!
Ad astra! Sean
Thanks, both.
Oh yes, the catastrophe is with us and here to stay. New airports are being built.
I think it is important to realize that business as usual is not an option. If the UK and US do not impoverish themselves, then they will be impoverished by climate chaos. They will not and cannot continue to operate as they did before. China does not care and does not give a damn but how many other governments and industries do?
I am concerned that there seem to be news media that have not mentioned the IPCC report. Do they mention the floods and fires that are happening now?
Kaor, Paul!
And I keep trying to suggest alternatives, which in this context, might at least mitigate the disaster. PROVEN technology like nuclear power plants can soon start being built, if the politics and red tape strangling that technology can be chopped back drastically. That would lessen the dependence of Western countries on fossils and the need to pay tribute to OPEC or Russia. A space based solar power system is longer range, but could be done.
Forget about other gov'ts or countries. Most of them are either too weak to matter a cuss or are themselves using fossil fuels. And if that IPCC report does not even mention alternatives like nuclear power or a space based solar power system, forget it too.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Don't forget the IPCC report! It is because of it and the other reports leading up to it that we know for sure that human activity is warming the planet and that, whatever else happens, use of fossil fuels has to be drastically reduced, ideally starting decades ago but that's impossible. A space-based system is a longer term goal that I fully agree with. I am not convinced about nuclear power but it is not me that has to be convinced. Nuclear power involves risks but there are times when risks are lesser evils. Also, reading just one book is never going to settle the matter either way.
Don't forget about other governments. They have to be pressured to take action. One government can set an example and, if that government thinks that nuclear power is the way forward, then that is what it has to do - but that argument has to be won first.
Of course other governments are using fossil fuels. That is what the argument is about.
The news media fails somehow. We don't all talk about the same things. If we are conducting a discussion on the basis that some parties to the discussion have not even heard of the IPCC report or are not regularly informed about chaotic weather, floods and forest fires, throughout the world, then some people think that this is still just an academic discussion about what would be the best energy policy at some time in the future after a space based power system has been constructed. The problem is now and it is an emergency.
Paul.
Kaor, Puul!
And five decades ago a start was being made in reducing the need for fossil fuel--thru nuclear power plants! That is the ONLY practical alternative to fossil fuels if you don't want us using human and animal muscle for getting things done. Aborted by the anti nuclear hysteria which started in the '70's.
The risks in using nuclear power are, IMO, more than amply tolerable. A modern, up to date nuclear power plant will be much safer than the already antiquated design used by the Soviets at Chernobyl.
And WHO will do the pressuring of those other gov'ts? And, unlike you, I put next to no stock in some nation or other "setting an example." If that means making deliberately making itself poorer and weaker than its neighbors, they are far more likely to regard it with contempt as a fool. And start thinking of how to take advantage of it.
If a country like say, Paraguay, decided to go entirely nuclear, that would be a very different matter! In fact I hope it does!
Solutions to problems causing emergencies need to be PRACTICAL to be realistic. And I STILL have not seen any plausible alternatives to fossil fuels. If not, because nuclear power has been rejected, then fossils ARE going to be used.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But, if fossil fuels continue to be used, there is catastrophe! Surely that should pressurize and motivate everyone? I still get the impression that you think that the world will continue as it is if "...fossils ARE going to be used."
Paul.
OK. I am trying to draw this to some kind of conclusion. People are motivated by survival but are also unbelievably blinkered. Which will win this time? Survival or blinkers? We have to keep trying for survival, not just accepting blinkers.
Kaor, Paul!
Re your 8.38 comment: because fossil fuels ARE being used, and I see NO serious effort being made to discontinue them and replace them with alternatives. WORKABLE alternatives.
Your 9.39 comment: I hope we somehow manage to survive. And I believe that will be more likely to happen because of the efforts of men like Elon Musk. Simply getting off this rock in a SERIOUS way would be a game changer!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But you don't seem to realize that continued use of fossil fuels will cause:
rising sea levels;
inundation of cities and of cultivated lands near coastlines;
floods, fires and droughts;
crop failures;
mass emigrations from equatorial regions;
mass extinctions;
other unforeseeable knock-on effects.
The floods and fires are already with us. The world will not continue as it is now.
Paul.
Paul: those consequences are indubitably so, but the question is whether we (the US and Britain, or the West more generally) can do anything that will stop that.
So far, the answer seems to be "no".
We can reduce our own carbon emissions, but we can't force China (or India, coming up fast) from doing so.
And China is emitting more C02 than we are by a large margin and is increasing its use of coal very rapidly, rather than reducing it.
China is also enabling others to burn a lot more coal -- they're selling coal-fired generation systems to all sorts of people.
In fact, a lot of our renewable-energy equipment is imported from China.
So that wind-farm you see? It's actually sitting on top of a mountain of burning Chinese coal.
This being so... we're... hmmm...
"Buggered for fair" is the ancestral phrase that springs to mind.
Mr Stirling,
All that seems to be correct. There are still people who don't know about it or who, went told about it, say that it is exaggerated.
Is there any stage at which members of the Chinese and Indian governments will realize that, for their own physical survival, they need to change direction?
Meanwhile, rather than do nothing, we should lobby the assembled governments to heed the evidence and take appropriate action.
Paul.
Paul: Xi is in his 80’s; he’s going to survive his natural span quite handily.
Also, of course, human beings are rationalizing animals, not rational beings. They believe what they want to believe, and the more intelligent and knowledgeable they are, the better their rationalizations.
That’s the nature of the beast.
Kaor, Paul!
But I do realize and understand that list you gave of the bad consequences of using fossil fuels. BUT, we can't force the worse polluters, China, India, large parts of Africa, etc., from using fossil fuels. UNLESS you are willing to urge the US and the UK going to war with China and India. And for the UK to reoccupy the former British territories in Africa. If not, then forget it.
The rulers of China and India don't CARE, don't give a DAMN about the bad results of using fossil fuels. They won't find it hard to just IGNORE or stonewall any amount of lobbying from outsiders.
WE would do better to advocate efforts being made to mitigate those bad consequences of using fossil fuels by having the US, UK, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea (Western or Westernized countries), etc., switch from fossils to nuclear energy. And making preparations for coping with those fires, floods, inundations, etc.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Do Western rulers care? Western vested interests continue to use fossil fuels.
Paul.
Sean,
You commented "Forget the IPCC report" but it is only because of that and previous reports that we know the extent of the ecological crisis. Such a report tells us to reduce carbon emissions, THEN we discuss alternatives but, without the report, we would not have known of the need for alternatives.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I will try again. In the 1950's and 1960's there WAS interest in switching from fossils to nuclear energy. Power plants were being built and hopeful plans building yet more. THEN, in the 1970's, the mood changed and "environmentalists" suddenly became anti-nuclear energy, aided and abetted more and more by the left--including the Democrat Party. It steadily became more costly and burdensome to build and operate nuclear power plants. That INEVITABLY meant focusing more and more on coal, oil, natural gas.
So, unless you want us going back to hewing wood and drawing water with muscles alone, it's either fossil fuels or nuclear energy.
I said to "forget" about the IPCC report, because while it might influence some Western and Westernized nations, it's plain China, India, and large parts of Africa, the worse polluters, DON'T care. So what good is it?
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
We need to know what is going to happen to the planet!
Apart from fossils, muscles and nuclear, there are also renewables, including solar. Of course you have said that these are insufficient but don't leave them completely out of the discussion. Does everyone concerned agree that they are insufficient?
"Environmentalists" are people concerned about the environment which we all need to be. There was an argument about nuclear power which had an outcome. Of course the argument can be resumed but a lot of well informed people need to be convinced.
Paul.
Paul.
Sean,
Even if nuclear power stations had not been discouraged, fossil fuels would have continued to be used for transport so the climate catastrophe would have approached more slowly. It does not follow from any of this that we should forget the reports that inform us that there is a catastrophe.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I concede that IPCC report will still be of some value, even if many people, esp. int the worse polluting nations, don't care.
And I agree so called "renewables." such as hydropower, can play a role. But as Jerry Pournelle argued in his book A STEP FURTHER OUT, they cannot possibly provide the MASSIVE amounts of energy a high tech society needs. Hydropower will be useful only under the right conditions at the right locations.
And I have sometimes speculated that one way of replacing fossil fuels for our cars would be to use nuclear power for them! It should be possible, technically, to use a small slug of uranium, to power a car for years!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Without the reports, we would know that there were some extreme climate events but not that there was an irreversible catastrophe. Everyone needs to know this (even though many still seem not to) even if only to prepare ourselves personally for a worst case scenario.
I have just returned from a family day out and am just about to read more about the climate and Afghanistan. One British newspaper headline: "Joke Biden." But the problems there are old and deep and not just down to one guy.
Paul.
Paul: western rulers (mostly) do care about climate change. However, it isn't the -only- thing they care about. If it were, they'd be lobbyists, not rulers.
We're still using fossil fuels, but on a declining trajectory.
The Chinese (and some others) are using them on an -increasing- trajectory.
If it were just us, things would be fine. But it isn't.
Bad scene. But maybe some of the others can be persuaded by lobbying the UN, COP etc.
Western rulers care about more than one thing. That's a good way to put it.
Kaor, Paul And Mr. Stirling!
Paul: Re climate changes: battening down the hatches and trying to prepare for coping with catastrophe may be the most Western/Westernized nations can do.
And "Josip's" blundering in Afghanistan and the borders fills me with rage and fury! Because those blunders were so unnecessary and unforced! Let me say at once the chaos in Afghanistan were not "caused" by "Josip," but he still made catastrophic decisions. E.g., if I can trust what I read on NATIONAL REVIEW ONLINE, there were officials in the Defense Department and the intelligence agencies who tried to warn the President and his top advisers that the decision he was going to make would bring on precisely the nightmare we are seeing now: the collapse of the Afghan Army and gov't and the triumph of the Taliban. One bit I read was how "Josip" should wait till winter before ordering a withdrawal. Because the Taliban thugs would have disbanded for the winter and be in no condition for campaigning till the late spring of next year. And what did Biden do? WITHDRAW IN THE MIDDLE OF THE CAMPAIGNING SEASON!!!!!!!!!
I'm also outraged by "Josip's" brazen lies! First, he said over and over in July that the Afghan gov't and Army would not collapse, that the Taliban would not conquer the country. And now Biden has been lying again this week, denying that anyone had tried to warn him against the decision he made. SICKENING, how "Josip" is trying to blame others for what HE did!
And I'm seeing horrifying signs of the catastrophe getting even worse! That "Josip" might even abandon American citizens to the tender mercies of the Taliban!
And forget about the utterly useless UN! China doesn't give a damn what the UN says, esp. considering Peking's ability to veto Security Council resolutions.
Mr. Stirling: that declining trajectory in the use of fossil fuels by Western nations could have been even steeper if the anti-nuclear hysterics had not strangled nuclear energy!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
My impression is that the mounting climate crisis is one that we either will not survive or will not survive in anything like our present shape.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
And I hope you are wrong. And it's still my belief or hope that a REAL move into space of the kind Elon Musk plans to achieve will be a true game changer in ways we cannot anticipate.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Of course I hope I am wrong! Regular space travel will change a lot but how soon will it either move large populations off Earth or help to restore the Terrestrial environment?
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I'm not expecting LARGE numbers to be leaving Earth right away if Musk founds his Mars colony. I had in mind what might result from that as time passes.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
But will Earth be in any shape to sustain a space program and contact with Mars? We must keep remembering that our environment is becoming very precarious.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Again, I'm thinking longer term. If worse comes to worse and everything crashes on Earth, I'm hoping a colony on Mars (and maybe the Moon) will enable the survival of the human race and civilization, even if off Earth.
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I want to see self-sufficient colonies off Earth but I question how long it will take them to become self-sufficient.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Then I can only urge you to read Robert Zubrin's book THE CASE FOR MARS, in which he argues in detail how a colony on Mars could become self sufficient using resources found there.
It can be done, and should have been done decades ago!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
Air, food, water and shelter? I strongly suspect that this will not be easy but let's see it done.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Not that EASY, but Zubrin convinced me it could be done. Esp. since Mars has lots of frozen water. Which could be used for distilling air from. THE CASE FOR MARS gives detailed explanations for how resources on Mars could be used for making a colony self sufficient. I have almost no doubt this is one of the books Elon Musk has read as he works to get to the Red Planet!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I think that the colonists will need quite a long period of contact with Earth before they can become self-sufficient. All the more reason to start soon, of course.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
I agree! And I would expect the first explorers and colonists on Mars to discover that some of what Zubrin suggested would not be practical. And I would expect them to find ways of how to live on Mars Zubrin had not thought of.
Elon Musk hopes to send ships to Mars loaded with supplies and equipment by 2024. And the first explorers and colonists by 2026. I hope we live to see that!
Ad astra! Sean
Sean,
I also foresee disasters but we mustn't be negative. If the first attempted colony were on the Moon, then it would be so much easier to communicate and to send help.
Paul.
Kaor, Paul!
Both should be done. Albeit, I think Musk has his heart set on Mars.
And disasters and setbacks has to be expected on Mars as well. But I hope that does not stop people from going there!
Ad astra! Sean
Kaor, Paul, Sean, and Mr. Stirling!
Whether or not we should accept the IPCC report in toto, I do think that we are seeing higher temperatures and changing weather patterns attributable anthropogenic changes in the atmosphere, especially more carbon dioxide; a couple of decades ago, I was skeptical, but evidence is accumulating.
I do favor nuclear power, and also solar power, and whatever other non-carbon alternatives people can come up with. We can to some extent adapt to global warming, e.g., by planting different crops, but drastic changes may exceed our ability to cope. As I have written before, I favor taxing carbon emissions, to encourage people to reduce their emissions in whatever ways work best, without governments trying to prescribe just what everyone should do; the revenue could substitute for other taxes, could be partially distributed as citizens’ dividends, and could be used to pay for carbon sequestration.
Even if the U.S. and other Western countries take action, there will be serious problems if China, India, and other Asian and African countries do not, as Mr. Stirling has pointed out. Is there any hope there? Xi won’t live forever, and the Chinese Communist Party may be motivated to make s9me changes if it comes to see stronger typhoons and other changing weather patterns as threats to China’s well-being; also, even Party bigwigs and their families have to breathe the air in Beijing. India, with all its faults, is a democracy, and with people being killed by heatwaves in that country, the politicians may be motivated to take action. Also, carrots and sticks may be used by countries that do favor climate action, such as offers of aid, and tariffs on products made in ways that release untaxed carbon dioxide.
So we may be buggered for fair, but I’m not giving up hope yet, or even buying a ticket to Mars.
Best Regards,
Nicholas D. Rosen
Kaor, Nicholas!
I am glad you too support nuclear energy. Which can be used NOW, if the will to chop down useless bureaucratic and political red tape is found. And, to be precise, I support a SPACE based solar power system in the further future.
I remain skeptical of using taxes and tax incentives for affecting how people behave. It always seems to end in results contrary to what was wanted. To say nothing of the usual corruption and red tape.
You are more optimistic than I am of any real change for the better happening in China. At age 68, the dictator Xi might easily live another 20 year. And neither he or his associates in the Communist Party shows any signs of giving a cuss about pollution.
India might be slightly different, but I can easily see any efforts to effect any real changes there being seriously hindered by both vested interests and the notorious corruption of the Indian gov't and civil service. So, don't expect any quick changes!
And I would be tempted to buy a ticket to Mars if I was young enough! (Smiles)
Regards and ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment