Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - agelbert

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 760
1
The Kitchen Sink / Dios los cria y ellos 🐷 se juntan.
« on: March 19, 2019, 11:09:03 AM »
Where's my goddamn' graduation ceremony ?

This is the Kitchen sink right ?
I'd assume this is where it'd take place...

I'm a BUSSING STAFF NOW !!! ... and I apparently already manage to irritate Agelbert beyond his tolerance level !

Do I get a cigarette as a Bussing Staff award and a Fukitol for leaving Agelbert alone in his echo chamber ?

That shit'll kill ya.

Here. As an outstanding bus boy and for standing up to AG without telling him to fuck off and die, I present you with this lovely Cheech and Chong  commemorative  stoner bubbler, stuffed with a decent bud of a nice sativa to help you stay up til closing time.

::)

UBL 🦕 has found an Admin :evil4: pal for life!

Birds 💵 🎩 of a feather flock together. Enjoy the music.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/CRZy8yImNWc&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/CRZy8yImNWc&fs=1</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/pEqWCH_4srU&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/pEqWCH_4srU&fs=1</a>








2
Agelbert Newz / US Energy Storage Booming
« on: March 19, 2019, 10:43:47 AM »
CleanTechnica
Support CleanTechnica’s work via donations on Patreon or PayPal!

Or just go buy a cool t-shirt, cup, baby outfit, bag, or hoodie.

Energy Storage 2019

March 18th, 2019 by Sponsored Content

By Steve Hanley

Energy storage in the United States is expected to triple in 2019 according to Climate Action. That makes for a great headline, but what does it mean? Let’s begin by defining what energy storage is and why it’s important.

Types Of Energy Storage

Electricity is an enigma. We know what it can do, we know how to make it, we know how to control it, but there is not one person living today who can tell us what it is. Some scientists think it is a wave, some think it is made up of tiny particles, some think it is both.

What we do know is that unless it is stored in some fashion, it must be used as soon as it is created or it will be wasted. The oldest method of storing electricity is called pumped hydro. Here’s how it works.


Pumped Hydro

Excess electricity is used to pump a large quantity of water uphill into a holding pond. Later, the water is allowed to flow downhill to a reservoir below, spinning turbine blades to generate electricity along the way.

The process is about as high tech as a brick but it is simple and effective. It does require a lot of open territory with great deal of elevation change, so it is not suitable for use in many parts of the world.


Other Energy Storage Techniques

There are many other ways to store electricity ranging from the dead simple to the extremely complex. A California company proposes to build a railroad to nowhere. A train of electrically powered boxcars filled with cement would churn their way uphill in the day time using excess electrical energy. At night when the supply of solar power decreases, the train would roll back downhill. At that point, the electric motors that pushed it uphill during the day would reverse their role and generate electricity on the way down.

Other ideas include a tower that stacks concrete filled barrels on an elevated platform during the day. Later, lowering them back to ground level would generate more electricity.

Both systems use sound scientific principles that convert energy into work and then later reverse the process to make more electricity. Despite being possible, neither has shown itself to be price competitive with battery storage.

Concentrated solar power plants do not harvest the light of the sun. Instead, the capture the heat contained in sunlight and use it to warm a storage medium such as salt or silicon. Later, that heat is used to heat water to make steam that drives conventional generators that make electricity.

One experimental system heats silicon until it glows white hot. That light is then used to create electricity using solar panels. Once again, the so-called “sun in a box” concept is physically possible but not yet price competitive with battery storage.


Battery Storage

The most common form of electrical storage today is lithium ion batteries. While they may feature several different battery chemistries, they are essentially the same as the battery cells used in electric vehicles.

The driving factor that makes this type of storage preferred is that the cost of lithium ion battery cells continues to decrease as more and more of them are manufactured.

Another type of energy storage is known as a flow battery. It features two large tanks separated by a membrane. One liquid has a positive charge, the other a negative charge, Flow batteries have one advantage over lithium ion batteries — to add more capacity, simply make the tanks larger.

China is pushing forward with plans to install more flow batteries but in the US, lithium ion batteries are the storage medium of choice largely because they are the least expensive choice.


US Energy Storage Booming 


A new report from the Energy Storage Association and GTM Research says battery storage in the US grew by 27% in 2018 with 431 megawatt-hours installed.

But here’s where things get interesting. ESA and GTM Research predict 2019 will see triple that amount installed — 1,233 megawatt-hours with a combined value of more than $1 billion.

Things get even better from there. By 2023, they expect the US market for battery storage to soar to $3.8 billion helped by “falling costs and favorable policies” on the state level, according to Ravi Manghani at GTM Research.

Kelly Speakes-Backman, CEO of ESA says “policies and regulatory frameworks that level the playing field will further encourage energy storage deployment throughout 2018 and beyond as the industry builds toward a goal of realizing 35 GW by 2025.”

 
Graph from GTM, via Woods Mackenzie

Time Shifting

What makes battery storage so valuable is its ability to save electricity generated now to be used later. That’s a big deal because solar panels work best during the day but begin to lose power as the sun sets — just when people are getting home from work and starting turning on appliances like air conditioning and electronic devices.

If if were not for batteries, much of that solar energy would be wasted. The same goes for wind power. Often wind turbines generate more electricity than needed at some times of day. With batteries, that excess energy can be stored for use later.


Frequency Stabilization

Another important characteristic of battery storage is the ability to react in milliseconds to the tiny variations in the frequency of the electricity flowing through the electrical grid. In most of the US, the electricity supplied by utility companies oscillates 60 times a second.

Motors, computers, and other digital devices can be damaged if the frequency is allowed to vary by as little as 1%. Batteries can absorb excess frequency changes or supplement the grid if the frequency drops too low.


Falling Prices For Energy Storage

The cost of battery storage is accelerating the demand for battery storage. And that is driving a sea change in the utility industry. Unthinkable just a few years ago, building new wind and solar farms coupled with battery storage is now less expensive than constructing new generating facilities powered by natural gas. They are also less expensive that continuing to operate nuclear or coal powered plants.

In the utility industry, investments often take 3 to 4 decades to pay off. The idea of closing down existing facilities in favor of new renewable plus storage options means trillions of dollars in existing investments are at risk. No wonder there is strong resistance to renewables plus storage by some utility companies anxious to protect their existing 🦕🦖 facilities.

But price will win out and the lower the price of renewables plus storage gets, the sooner those existing 🦕🦖 facilities will be retired whether is is convenient for their owners or not.
 

This article is supported by InterSolar. Intersolar North America, North America’s premier exhibition and conference, is the perfect place to explore the megatrends driving the solar industry first. It’s the industry hotspot to discover the latest trends in photovoltaics, PV production technologies and solar heating and cooling. Co-located with ees North America, Intersolar North America sit at the cross-section of solar technology, energy storage, and smart renewable energy.

https://cleantechnica.com/2019/03/18/energy-storage-2019/

Agelbert NOTE: The comments section to the above article is quite lively. ;D  Some advocates of Hydrogen gas storage weighed in. Some fossil fuelers weighed in claiming "natural" (LOL!) fracked gas stored in caverns or whatever is "cheaper" than pumped hydro storage. That's a bold face lie simply because it fails to ADD to the costs of Fracked CH4 the subsidies we-the-people are coerced out of AND the pollution costs we-the-people get stuck with. All those costs are ABSENT with pumped storage.

As to Renewable Energy generated Hydrogen gas storage, though it is not polluting, it is not economically feasable on a large scale (which is how Renewable Energy energy storage MUST be scaled for a 100% plus Renwable Energy powered civilization), for reasons I outlined in a comment I made (see below).

Quote
freedomev > Matthew Young
No they haven't stored H2 underground. Why?
Please show examples?
And yes so much NG seeps away it's HG effect is as bad as coal.
And H2 is 100x smaller and even seeps through steel.
And why do you think there is no natural H2?
Because it is very reactive and bonds with many things. Thus why there is NG but no natural H2.
The H2 either became methane/HCs, water or rock.
Quote
Ed Golla > freedomev
Hydrogen is not very reactive at all at ambient temperatures. There is natural Hydrogen in the atmosphere. Of course it is only about 1/2 part per million. Hydrogen is not in the atmosphere to any great extent because it speed is so great that it is able to escape from the earth's gravity at the upper limits of the earth's atmosphere.

agelbert > Ed Golla

The reactivity of Hydrogen gas is not the main issue with the effective storage of hydrogen gas as a form of energy for quick use.

The main issue is that Hydrogen gas molecules are smaller than any molecules in the container they are stored in (unless you can lower the temperature so much that the H2 becomes liquid - which uses enormous amounts of energy to do).

At ambient temperatures, the Hydrogen gas will percolate through metal or salt or even the densest of soils. Metal containers (see Nuclear power plant Tritium woes) degrade from Hydrogen gas caused embrittlement within a few years.

Pumped storage is, at present, the cheapest and most reliable method of storing electrical energy.

If the following type of system I learned about (in a January 18, 2018 Spiegel article) was adopted worldwide, the 100% Renewable Energy economy, including transportation, would quickly become a reality:
 

German company plans large-scale power storage using massive rock block

Hydrogen gas, in liquid form, is the best type of rocket fuel. It has the highest energy density of any rocket fuel, but it can never compete with pumped storage for infrastructure energy demands.

Much progress is being made. Battery banks like the one Tesla is marketing will have their place in the 100% Renewable Energy economy, although I believe pumped storage, with giant rock pistons over a giant cylinder of water underground, as shown above, will be more prevalent. We need fossil fuels like a dog needs ticks, no matter what the denier naysayers say.

Here's a nice video one fellow posted showing Amory Lovins exploding Fossil Fuel Industry and Nuclear Power Industry Propagated Baloney (i.e. Myths - Amory is always polite :D) AND showing how quickly battery costs are going down.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/MsgrahFln0s&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/MsgrahFln0s&fs=1</a>

Amory Lovins on Energy Efficiency Breakthroughs (real world 90% plus waste reduction) that seem hard to believe:
Quote
"Only puny secrets need protection; big discoveries are protected by public incredulity."

3
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.

March 18, 2019



No, Air Pollution Isn’t Racist. But People Are, and the Trump Administration is No Exception.

Last week, research published in PNAS documented how white people cause more PM2.5 air pollution than their communities experience, while black and brown communities experience significantly more pollution than their consumption produces. In the absence of systemic racial inequities, one would expect the ratio of pollution produced to pollution experienced to be even. But in our country, per the study, “Blacks and Hispanics on average bear a ‘pollution burden’ of 56% and 63% excess exposure, respectively, relative to the exposure caused by their consumption.”

The reaction from the deniersphere was, of course, denial. Preeminent scholar of all things science and race Donald Trump Jr. tweeted that “now we have RACIST AIR. This insanity has to stop.” (Surely it’s “just a joke”...)

Meanwhile, per Media Matters, black Fox host David Webb  told Fox and Friends that the study is “gobbledy gook.” Webb explained that, and we’re not kidding about this, the study was done by “a ‘peer-reviewed group’” and that “these enviro-terrorists, these eco-terrorists, they want to sell you a narrative. So they peer review it and say it’s a study, they don’t apply the scientific method.”

While on some level it is hysterical that Webb chose to criticize the study for being peer reviewed (huh?), there are lives on the line here. Lives that, in part because they’re more likely to be brown and black, the Trump administration is all too happy to sacrifice in the name of protecting polluters’ profits.

It’s happening right now on the EPA’s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC). We raised this issue back in November 2017, when Scott Pruitt followed the instructions of former tobacco defender and current fossil fuel promoter Steve Milloy and installed a handful of tobacco and fossil-fuel supported deniers on to advisory committees. Then it came up again last October when some, but not all, of Pruitt’s pro-polluter PM2.5 denial policies were backbenched, not long after reporting showed how Trump’s own paperwork acknowledged that the PM2.5 regulatory rollbacks would lead to some 40,000 additional deaths. 

As expected, the tobacco and fossil fuel hacks installed on the committees are fighting against the science showing that PM2.5 kills people. Though it is a complicated story in the details, Marianne Lavelle at InsideClimate News provides some concise (and un-paywalled) coverage of the story.

In broad strokes, it looks like this. Tony Cox 🦕, who has worked on behalf of the American Petroleum Institute, is now chair of the CASAC. He sent a letter to the EPA attacking the draft of a recent EPA report on PM2.5, criticizing it for not including (bogus) studies he and his buddies have been paid by polluters to produce in order to make it seem like that pollution is no big deal.

In response, one of the scientists whom Pruitt 🦖 kicked off the panel, Christopher Frey 👍of UNC, submitted his own comments indicating that Cox was out of line for sending that letter to the EPA as though he spoke for the entire advisory council, because doing so  would be a violation of the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

It’s now in the hands of the EPA to finalize the report on PM2.5 pollution, and it can choose whether or not to incorporate the PM2.5 denial studies suggested by Cox. Meanwhile, House Democrats are working on legislation to protect these panels, as well as science in general, from politicization by the administration.

But while we wait for the slow wheel of Congress to legislate, the science is clear that PM2.5 air pollution is deadly ☠️. And though communities of color are responsible for producing less of it, they’ll bear more of the burden. A cost they will pay with their bodies.

Not all racists use guns to kill the people they consider unwelcome in their white nation, but that doesn’t make them any less deadly. The Trump administration is pushing for policies that, if allowed to go forward, will literally kill tens of thousands of people. And black and brown communities will continue to bear the greatest burden of that suffering

But please, do go on about how the Green New Deal is wrong to incorporate racial justice, and is “tantamount to genocide.”

Read more:


4
Quote
The FACT that the current incredibly STUPID energy status quo GUARANTEES an INCREASE in the human carbon footprint IS THE ISSUE HERE, Einstein.

THAT is the the REASON we MUST HAVE a GREEN NEW DEAL, that in addition to the one presented, is FAR more ambitious in scale and in scope.

This might shock you, but believe it or not, I'm not against a Green New Deal.
 I'm against:
#1. Political opportunist with Grand Designs schemes that CLEARLY haven't been THOUGHT OUT CAREFULLY.
#2. Political opportunist who want to convince every citizens they can lead the country because they read a 3$ book on climate change they bought at the library 6 months ago.

What would need to be done to have a REMOTE chance of just MITIGATING the worst outcome would require to have the CONSENT of NOT ONLY the US population, but eventually that of all countries. It would require the PLANNED end of CAPITALISM by CONSENSUS.

That's not going to happen. 100% renewables ain't going to happen in my lifetime.
What's going to happen is going to happen; the best we can do is spread the knowledge that explains WHY we got into that [S ]ituation ; it's the best way, actually, the only way to achieve maximum cooperation when things get a little dicey...

Maybe you should have a glass of wine while listening to George Carlin's "Saving the Planet" skits ...

Cheers ! :ernaehrung004:

Man can do what he will, but he cannot will what he wills.
~A. Schopenhauer



Quote
Man can do what he will, AND he can, SOMETIMES, but not ALWAYS, will what he wills.
There, fixed that fer ya!

Nothing you say shocks me because you constantly, and smugly, engage in serial pejorative hyperbole with the express purpose of disdaining any possibility of success for a GND program that is based on sine qua non human survival requirements. The REALLY OPPORTUNISTIC BASTARDS are in the fossil fuel and nuclear power industries, though you can't seem to bring yourself to recognize that FACT of corrupted government life. Then again, maybe you do recognize it and could care less.

True, you can claim that BECAUSE our government is so corrupted, we do not have a prayer of getting a massive Green New Deal on steroids going for the forseable future. I strongly disagree. Those pollution profiting corrupters of good government are having their profits eaten alive by Demand Destruction CAUSED by more and more Renewables coming on line. They are LOSING political power they must have to corrupt our government much faster than folks like you realize.

NO, we do NOT need 100% of the people to be on board. ALREADY, over 70% of the American public IS on board. Your "nobody wants to spend more than $3 a month on climate change" is laughable, despite some baloney poll just published. We spend a LOT MORE than THAT on subsidies NOW.


ALL WE NEED is for the government to to DECIDE TO DO the 100% RENEWABLE ENERGY THING OUT OF SIMPLE NATIONAL SELF INTEREST.

You believe that ain't gonna happen (here, or anywhere else on the planet - I guess Costa Rica at 98% Renewable Energy, the Netherlands and Norway, doing quite well too, do not exist. I guess Germany getting 60% of there juice from wind so far in March is "irrelevant". I guess The U.K. getting 35% of their juice from wind so far this year is also "irrelevant".) The efforts of all those countries I just named (plus Portugal and Spain, also China is no sluggard on Renewable Energy either) evidence that you are wrong.

Sing all the Carlin nihilist songs you want, pal. The move to deep six all this stupid, corrupt, inefficient polluting energy crap you think is "impossible" to change is much further advanced than the media will let on (thanks to fossil fuel propagnada money).

Did you even LOOK at the map I linked? did you SEE the MASSIVE amount of wind (on shore AND offshore) resources and solar resources and geothermal resources? OF COURSE NOT!

Did you LOOK at the geothermal power plants and all the Solar and Wind and Battery and Renewable Energy Harvesting facilities in operation? OF COURSE NOT!

Your inability to question your nihilist ideology is the hallmark of ideological bigotry. Your posturing and insufferably arrogant attitude is tiresome, as well as self defeating.

If you wish to convince people of your views, I suggest you try to be respectful. That works a lot better than using too clever by a half sophistry to try to position yourself as the "teacher" of "wisdom and truth" to the student, sonny boy.

Humility isn't your thing. I get that. People who lack humility have great difficulty learning from people they do not consider an "authority". You have obviously classified me as one beneath you in knowledge of Climate Science, Renewable Energy technology and planetary biosphere ecology. Consequently, you will, despite the energy use and abuse facts in my posts, irrationally reject just about every bit of graphic and/or statistical evidence I present to you that undermines your "there is no hope" world view. 👎
 
Seven years of posts here by yours truly speak for themselves. You are free to reject everything I say, as you have mostly done to date, of course.

You, and people that share your "it can't be done" views, are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

I KNOW what CAN be done and what CAN'T be done. 

I am convinced by your puffery that you do not. I am not an Admin but I have been given control of what is posted on this channel. If you begin repeating your tired nihilistic arguments, your posts will be deleted as soon as I read them. I will not allow polluter propaganda demonizing Renewable Energy and Social Justice soluitions to our climate Crisis on this channel. Have a nice day.

5
By Joe McCarthy and  Erica Sanchez

MARCH 14, 2019

ENVIRONMENT



Quote
Why Global Citizens Should Care
The United Nations’ Global Goals recognize that climate change threatens the very foundations of human society and young people around the world are taking decisive action to protect the planet.

6
Agelbert Newz / THE POLITICS OF THE GREEN NEW DEAL: PART 2 ON CAPITAL
« on: March 18, 2019, 10:59:35 AM »
THE POLITICS OF THE GREEN NEW DEAL: PART 2 ON CAPITAL

March 16, 2019/62 Comments/in Green New Deal /by Ed Walker 👍

Posts in this series Part 1 on Labor

In Part 1 I discuss some of the ways the working class will be affected by disruptions brought on by climate change, and some of the ways the Green New Deal proposes to ease those burdens. Climate change will also hurt capital and capitalists. It’s not possible to outline all the potential damage and disruption so I’ll just lay out some of the obvious problems.

Real estate investments are in danger. Some of that impact will be borne by small landholders, owners of vacation homes on Galveston Bay or condos on the beach in Naples FL, for example. But much of it will be borne by larger holders, such as owners of apartment complexes near the coasts, marinas, and commercial property near the coast, and the owner of Mar-a-Lago. Rising sea levels will also affect the infrastructure of cities on the coast, such as Miami, which is already planning to spend $100M on flood protection.

The coasts aren’t the only areas facing weather problems. Wind storms are becoming more serious; recently extraordinary winds blew the roof off a warehouse near Dallas. Here’s a Wikipedia page documenting tornadoes in the US in 2019. It shows we have already had 3 intense tornadoes, including the two that struck Alabama recently. We can expect more.

Wildfires are a terrifying danger in drought-stricken areas. PG&E, the California utility giant, filed bankruptcy January 29, 2019 to deal with its liability for damage from wildfires it caused. The Los Angeles Times wrote:

Quote
PG&E said a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, which allows the company to continue operating while it comes up with a plan to pay its debts, was the only way to deal with billions of dollars in potential liabilities from a series of deadly wildfires, many of which were sparked by the company’s power grid infrastructure.

Financial pressure has been mounting on PG&E since October 2017, when a series of wildfires ravaged Northern California, killing 44 people. State investigators determined that PG&E’s equipment sparked or contributed to more than a dozen of those fires, which killed 22 people. The company’s crisis only grew with the November 2018 Camp fire, which killed 86 people and destroyed most of the town of Paradise.

PG&E said a Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing, which allows the company to continue operating while it comes up with a plan to pay its debts, was the only way to deal with billions of dollars in potential liabilities from a series of deadly wildfires, many of which were sparked by the company’s power grid infrastructure.

Financial pressure has been mounting on PG&E since October 2017, when a series of wildfires ravaged Northern California, killing 44 people. State investigators determined that PG&E’s equipment sparked or contributed to more than a dozen of those fires, which killed 22 people. The company’s crisis only grew with the November 2018 Camp fire, which killed 86 people and destroyed most of the town of Paradise.

PG&E arranged a $5.5bn interim loan from a consortium of banks but creditors objected and then the Bankruptcy Judge stated serious concerns. According to the Wall Street Journal, the Judge noted that PG&E was under criminal probation after a criminal conviction on six counts arising from the deadly San Bruno fire. The federal District Court in that case imposed a public safety regime on PG&E, and the later fires might be deemed to be the result of violations of parole, in which case the supervising court could replace management. That would be a breach of the financing loan. The Bankruptcy Judge also noted the strong possibility of more wildfires in 2019, saying that more damages could tip PG&E into default. Either default would give the bank lenders control of the company in Chapter 11 and the creditors objected to that possibility. The costs of this bankruptcy are horrendous, and will be borne at least in part by people forced to be customers of PG&E because it’s a monopoly. Some shareholders have suffered losses in stock value, and more may be lost. The stock is down $50 since September 2017 to about $20. It’s an ugly story and it’s going to be repeated.

Climate change will also damage the 🐉🦕🦖 oil and gas industry 👍😀. A number of huge petrochemical plants and refineries are located in hurricane territory. Here’s a detailed map; see for yourself. Last year refineries on the gulf coast of Texas were hit by Hurricane Harvey. Harvey weakened to a Category 3 hurricane before making landfall, and the damage was mostly from flooding. The loss of capacity caused spikes in gasoline prices for consumers. Some of the losses to refineries will be covered by insurance. But insurance companies are just for spreading risk, not eating it, and that implies a rise in the cost of insurance. Here’s an excellent article by Bradley Hope and Nicole Friedman in the Wall Street Journal from October 2018, focused on the impact on reinsurance companies. Here’s a taste related to studies predicting increased likelihood of hurricanes in the Persian Gulf:

Quote
“Climate change makes the historical record of extreme weather an unreliable indicator of the current risk,” says Stephen Pacala, a board member at Hamilton Insurance Group Ltd. and a Princeton professor, who wasn’t involved in the study. “So, what’s the insurance industry to do? No hurricane has ever threatened the massive unarmored oil and gas infrastructure in the Persian Gulf.”

So what dose the Green New Deal offer to capital?

Section 2.1 (I think; whoever made up this numbering system is a traitor to clarity) calls for

… building resiliency against climate change-related disasters, such as extreme weather, including by leveraging funding and providing investments for community-defined projects and strategies …

The emphasis on community planning is notable. Section 2.2 calls for rebuilding infrastructure. Section 2.4 calls for upgrading the power grid. Section 2.5 calls for rebuilding existing buildings to improve durability among other things. Section 4.1 requires insuring sufficient capital for entities, including businesses, working on the goals of the Green New Deal. Section 4.4 calls for educating workers so they can handle the new work that will need to be done. Section 4.11 calls “… enacting and enforcing trade rules, procurement standards, and border adjustments with strong labor and environmental protections ….” Section 4.14 calls for strict enforcement of anti-trust and other laws to encourage competition and discourage monopoly.

I’d say that’s a fairly strong plan for decent businesses under the Green New Deal. True, it doesn’t give capital a free hand to make the overarching decisions, and it doesn’t give capital all the money, and it has other provisions that hem in capital, but it sure doesn’t sound like the socialist dystopia the 🐉🦕🦖 Republicans are shrieking about.

https://www.emptywheel.net/2019/03/16/the-politics-of-the-green-new-deal-part-2-on-capital/

Agelbert NOTE: The above series of, (two, so far) articles makes crystal clear that the Green New Deal is NOT some "irrational pie in the sky" energy and social justice reform proposition. Nevertheless, CAPITALISTS in general, and Fossil Fuelers in particular, still alternate between mocking dismissal and wailing, moaning and shrieking about the "violation" of the Laws of Thermodynamics while, of course 😉, remaining silent as death about the ENERGY WELFARE QUEEN POLLUTER GOVERNMENT HAND OUTS, that are the ONLY REASON those energy "industry" crooks and liars continue to be "profitable".



The fossil fueler propaganda baloney about the "violation" of the Laws of Thermodynamics that a 100% Renewable Energy powered economy represents, and is therefore "impossible", has been debunked over and over again by scientists who actually understand Thermodynamics and are NOT being paid by the polluter energy "industries" to bad mouth Renewable Energy infrastructure.

Amory Lovins is physicist. He has been a scientist for the Rocky Mountain Institute for over 30 years. He forced the math on fluid mechanics formulas in engineering courses to be corrected when he proved they were wrong with instruments he invented and used. This was decades ago. He is an EXPERT in maximizing the efficiency of energy using devices.

Since then he has been on the forefront of patiently explaining to all who would listen objectively that the status quo energy system is so ruinously wasteful that we could reduce our energy use by 80% by switching to 100% Renewable Energy, that is mostly NOT CENTRALIZED, as is now the case for Fossil Fuel and Nuclear powered DIRTY energy, but harvested and distributed near the point of use. Amory Lovins has, with peer reviewed studies and published papers, made the case that human civilization can operate, at the standard of living we know have (which is nothing to brag about outside of first world countries, but he 👨‍🔬 has proposed solutions there as well. ;D), with 20% of the energy we NOW USE.

Below you can see a graphic from Amory Lovins clearly displaying the ruinously wasteful, and therefore stupidly biosphere damaging, electrical grid energy system based on coal fired power plants:


As you can see, the Laws of Thermodynamics do NOT need to be "violated" to massively reduce the energy use in our civilization, even without ANY reduction in the amount of electricity we use in the home. THe Fossil Fuelers KNOW THIS. They also KNOW that, if the inefficiencies are taken out of the present system, as Amory Lovins is not just proposing, but actually making it happen in many places all over the world as I write this (go to the Rocky Mountain Institute web site if you do not believe me!), the CONSUMPTION, along with the DEMAND (see: DEMAND DESTRUCTION )for the fossil fuel polluting PRODUCT will plummet. They do not want taht. They want us all to believe the BULLSHIT that the system we have is "efficient" and the "best there is" and "we are alla gonna die" if we get rid of fossil fuels, nuclear power (and subsides for those profit over planet "loyal servants").

It is, I admit, a clever pitch. Most people are unaware that the level of waste in our energy system is BY DESIGN. More WASTE means more USE OF THE PRODUCT, get it? If you don't, you do not understand the Fossil Fuel Ideology. Any Fossil Fueler=CAPITALIST understands that the more product you sell at a (guaranteed by corrupted Government Welfare Queen subsidies ) profit, the more money you have to further corrupt the government to strangle Renewable Energy competitors in a Fascist Utopia Captive Market Pipeline Dream.



You are being lied to. The current system is a biosphere destroying system. We need it like a dog needs ticks. We CAN MASSIVELY lower our carbon footprint, bankrupt the polluters and make great strides towards improved SOCIAL JUSTICE.

Finally, please look at this graphic I prepared some years ago. After that, look at the map referenced in the article. we CAN switch to FAR MORE that 100% Renewable Energy.


I only clicked on the Geothermal power plants but on the map linked in the article, you can unclick everything but coal and you can see that far too much of our grid electricity still comes from coal. This is stupid and unnecessary.


WE can go to 150% EASILY. We can use that extra energy to start sucking that excess CO2 out of the atmosphere. NO, we don't need to build a lot of gadgets to do that! All we need to do is grow Azolla and/or Lemna minor (duckweed) in vast desert areas on the earth. It could take 50 years or more to get back to 350 PPM of CO2, depending on how fast we scaled the building (with Renewable Energy powered equipment) of 3' deep huge ponds tended with Renewable Energy water pumps and fertilized with pig feces (there are a lot more pigs than there are people on this planet!). Planting trees will help but it is too slow compared with the aquatic plants I just referenced in the ability to exctract CO2 from the atmosphere. For energy we need to go 150% Renewable. For CO2 removal we need millions of acres of fast growing fresh water aquatic plant growing ponds all over the planet, NOT Carbon Sequestering SCAMS like this one shown below:

Carbon Capture Technofix Scam by Big Oil

REAL WORLD solutions EXIST. The Green New Deal is just the first step. The Zero Hour platform is the framework of ACTION on Energy, Climate Change and SOCIAL JUSTICE that must be followed if we are to survive. THERE IS NO ALTERNATIVE, no matter what the nutball fossil fuelers and nuke pukes claim.

Zero Hour Just 🦅 Transition
http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/global-warming-is-with-us/msg10489/#msg10489

Zero Hour Platform and attacks on them by the Hydrocarbon Hellspawn 🦕🦖
http://renewablerevolution.createaforum.com/climate-change/global-warming-is-with-us/msg10488/#msg10488



7
Agelbert Newz / A NEW CLIMATE SONG ✨
« on: March 17, 2019, 06:03:51 PM »
MAR 13, 2019| TD ORIGINALS

It’s the Green New Deal or Else ☠️

I suppose we all owe UCLA economist and Hoover Institution senior fellow Lee Ohanian 🦕 a debt of gratitude for telling us how it is .  The “free market” propagandist recently took to the pages of The Hill, a Washington, D.C., journal for political insiders, to explain that the holy laws of economics dictate that humanity must consent to its own extermination .

In a piece titled “The Green New Deal is a Pipe Dream,” Ohanian drowned climate activists’ overheated dreams of ecological salvation in the icy waters of bourgeois reality, arguing that the proposed legislation’s advocates are, in fact, nefarious, big-government “command-and-control” zealots—eco-Stalinists—who want “to impose their social and economic preferences on others at an extravagantly high economic cost.”

Ohanian described the Green New Deal’s goal of net-zero U.S. carbon emissions in 10 years as an “infeasible” aim that demonstrates a failure “to understand basic cost-benefit analysis.”

If that weren’t enough, the Hoover fellow noted that “the GND would be extremely expensive and that America lacks “the technological know-how” to reach zero carbon emissions Ohanian 😈 further pleased the Hoover Institution’s big-business 🐉🦕🦖 sponsors by adding his judgment that the Green New Deal’s promise of a living wage will make workers lazy and unproductive. No such promise can be fulfilled today, “when jobs can be easily offshored, outsourced, and automated,” he pronounced.

Now that we understand these economic realities, we can prepare—without rebellion, with calm acceptance and within the limits of our stagnant incomes—for our coming extinction. Onward with the coming macroeconomic ecocide.


Except, wait. Hold on. Maybe Ohanian is full of petroligarchic crap. Maybe there’s still hope for the species after all.

He is, and there is.    

It’s simply not true that we lack the technological expertise to achieve zero carbon emissions. Writing for Scientific American, Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson and University of California at Davis research scientist Mark Delucchi have shown repeatedly over the last decade that humanity could convert to a completely renewable energy-based system by 2030 if nations employ technologies vetted by scientists rather than those championed by private industry.

In their state-level analysis, which focuses on New York and California, Jacobson and Delucchi conclude that wind turbines, water machines, solar installations and other green technologies are affordable and available for rapid utilization. “The main obstacles are political and social—getting politicians onboard,” Jacobson told a leading science reporter six years ago. “There are always naysayers who think it’s pie in the sky, that we’ll never get there. And there are people who are tied into a certain industry who push back the most.”

The Green New Deal would cost a lot of money, Ohanian insists. What, like the giant tax breaks that Donald Trump and Congress gave the richest 10th of the 1 percent and their corporate allies, adding $2.2 trillion to the national debt (equal to $17,500 per household)? Like our subsidies for the military-industrial complex, which costs taxpayers $700 billion today and is projected to cost $972 billion by 2024, despite having the largest carbon footprint of any single institution on earth? Like the $204 billion spent on advertising in the U.S. last year to push a maddening surfeit of consumer products, many, if not most, designed in accord with the ecocidal principle of built-in obsolescence?

From 2014 through 2018, the global capitalist system spent $2.72 trillion on advertising alone. Imagine where we’d be on the path to slowing climate change if all that money had been spent on wind turbines, water machines, solar installations, sustainable agriculture, reforestation and green retrofitting, infrastructure and regional planning. There’s more than enough money to fund training to close the skilled heating, ventilation and air-conditioning-worker gap.

Meanwhile, Ohanian’s classist notion that workers will become indolent and inefficient if they are guaranteed a living wage is a Dickensian old wives’ tale. Productivity positively—not negatively—correlates with a living wage. And how does Ohanian think workers are supposed to lead dignified lives without one? Are millions of young adults supposed to live with their parents indefinitely or rely on food pantries and homeless shelters to get by while working full-time jobs?

Outsourcing, offshoring and automation are not without solutions, such as government and union restrictions; capital controls; green government jobs programs to absorb technically displaced workers; international efforts to raise wages and labor standards abroad; and guaranteed national incomes. Much of this is addressed in economist Robert Pollin’s important book, “Greening the Global Economy,” which advances “just transition” polices that include “solid pension protections, re-employment guarantees, as well as retraining and relocation support for individual workers, and community-support initiatives” for communities negatively affected by the suspension of fossil fuel extraction and burning.

Here’s a true pipe dream (maybe we should call it a “pipeline 🦕 dream”): the continuation of a decent human existence even for rich nations comparatively sheltered from the worst consequences of climate change.

In 2008, James Hansen, then head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and seven other leading climate scientists reported that we would see “practically irreversible ice sheet and species loss” if the planet’s average temperature rose above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 F), thanks to carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere reaching 450 parts per million (ppm).

When the report was published, CO2 levels were at 385—“already in the dangerous zone” according to Hansen and his team. They warned that deadly, self-reinforcing “feedbacks” could be triggered at that level. The dire prospects they warned of included “ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and [greenhouse gas] release from soils, tundra, or ocean sediments.”

The only way to assure a livable climate, Hansen and his colleagues warned, was to cut CO2 to at least 350 ppm.

Here we are, 11 years later, having blown past Hansen’s 1 degree Celsius red line since 2015. We currently stand at 410 ppm, the highest level of CO2 saturation in 800,000 years. The latest climate report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reflects the consensus opinion of the world’s leading climate scientists. It tells us that we are headed to a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 F) in the next 12 years. Failure to dramatically slash emissions between now and 2030 is certain to set off catastrophic developments for hundreds of millions of people, the report warns.

The IPCC finds that at our current pace, we are headed for a 3- to 4-degree Celsius (5.4 F to 7.2 F) temperature increase by the end of century. That will mean a planet that is mostly unlivable.

It gets worse. Numerous climate scientists have indicated that the IPCC’s findings are excessively conservative. That’s because the institute deletes and downplays research demonstrating the likelihood that irreversible climatological tipping points could arrive sooner than expected. Among the reports pointing to these conclusions is a recent NASA-funded study warning that the unexpectedly abrupt thawing of permafrost could release massive volumes of CO2  and methane within a few decades.

Earth, biological and social scientists are increasingly raising the specter of climate-driven human extinction in the not-so-distant future. In vast swaths of the world, across much of sub-Saharan Africa, India, the Middle East, Latin America and Southeast Asia, climate catastrophe is already underway.

Conservative though it may be, the U.N. report is no whitewash. It gives us 12 years to drastically slash greenhouse gas emissions or face catastrophic consequences. It also calls for “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” to drop global CO2  emissions 45 percent below 2010 levels and 60 percent below 2015 levels by 2030. We need to hit zero by the midcentury point, the IPCC says, and we cannot do that without radically and rapidly reducing our energy consumption.

Cost-benefit analysis? The Green New Deal is, if anything, insufficiently radical. It does not go to the full class-rule taproot of the many deadly ecological rifts (the climate crisis is only the most urgent) opened by capitalism’s relentless, totalitarian drive to commodify everything on earth. Progressive-Democrat Green New Deal advocates have yet to join serious ecosocialists in calling for green investments to be garnered from massive reductions in the U.S. military budget, which eats up more than half of federal discretionary spending and sustains a global military empire that is the world’s single largest institutional carbon emitter. The Green New Deal’s sponsors have yet to call (as they will have to if they are serious about environmental reconversion) for their program to be funded and protected from capital flight by the nationalization of the United States’ leading financial institutions.

Still, at least Green New Dealers are talking seriously about the benefit of a livable earth. It seems like society might want to be ready to absorb significant costs to achieve the continuation of the species. Professor Ohanian should write the environmentalists’ maxim 500 times on a UCLA chalkboard: “There are no jobs on a dead planet. There is no economy on a dead planet.”

Zero carbon emissions by 2030 (or even 2040) is a grandiose goal. But guess what? Now is precisely the time to aim sky high on ecology and way low on carbon release. How much are we willing to pay for human survival? Do environmental calamity and the real risk of extinction count as “extravagantly high costs”? When might we be willing to achieve the not-so-fringe benefit of continued existence by confronting the totalitarian “command and control” imposed on all of us by big carbon capital’s social and economic preference for short-term private accumulation and profit over the longer-term common good—over any kind of decent future for human beings and other living things?

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/its-the-green-new-deal-or-else/


Quote
Green New Deal’s goal of net-zero U.S. carbon emissions in 10 years as an “infeasible” aim that demonstrates a failure “to understand basic cost-benefit analysis.” 

It's more than anything else a failure to understand basic thermodynamics principles...

Quote
It’s simply not true that we lack the technological expertise to achieve zero carbon emissions. Writing for Scientific American, Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson and University of California at Davis research scientist Mark Delucchi have shown repeatedly over the last decade that humanity could convert to a completely renewable energy-based system by 2030 if nations employ technologies vetted by scientists rather than those championed by private industry.

https://youtu.be/V2KNqluP8M0

I give you this pointer... but there are others...

Quote
Outsourcing, offshoring and automation are not without solutions, such as government and union restrictions; capital controls; green government jobs programs to absorb technically displaced workers; international efforts to raise wages and labor standards abroad; and guaranteed national incomes. Much of this is addressed in economist Robert Pollin’s important book, “Greening the Global Economy,” which advances “just transition” polices that include “solid pension protections, re-employment guarantees, as well as retraining and relocation support for individual workers, and community-support initiatives” for communities negatively affected by the suspension of fossil fuel extraction and burning.

Robert Pollin is the epitome of the fucking clueless moronic silo thinker peddling the 'Green Growth' delusion.

https://youtu.be/AIE9klWvA4g

If you look carefully at the comment section, I merrily and thoroughly DEBUNKED his shitty excuse of a premise.

Blinded by ideology and opining on matters he knows JACKSHIT about... that's your average economist for ya...




The article is well researched and the proposed Green New Deal certainly DOES NOT violate the laws of thermodynamics in its premise, logic, function and application. As to the comments section, they are irrelevant.

Furthermore, Green "growth" (an OXYMORON when it applies to Renewable Energy) is a straw man ridiculous argument that fine fellows like you just love to bring up. Any fool knows that the TOTAL carbon footprint of humanity MUST be reduced if we are to survive.

The FACT that the current incredibly STUPID energy status quo GUARANTEES an INCREASE in the human carbon footprint IS THE ISSUE HERE, Einstein.

THAT is the the REASON we MUST HAVE a GREEN NEW DEAL, that in addition to the one presented, is FAR more ambitious in scale and in scope.

However, that, IN NO WAY, advocates for GROWTH of the HUMAN CARBON FOOTPRINT. The REDUCTION of the HUMAN CARBON FOOTPRINT is SINE QUA NON to the Green New Deal.

You just cannot seem to grasp that. Too bad. 👎 If you want to spin the Green New Deal as some greenwashing exercise that INCREASES the human carbon footprint by building a bunch of industrial gadgets that, allegedly, cause a population increase that, allegedly, increases the carbon footprint of humanity, I will consistently challenge you on that erroneous biosphere math challenged scare mongering.

The Green New Deal is NOT a technofix, so spare me that argument as well. Technofixes will NOT save us, as I have been saying for several years in the following quote:

Quote
"Technical knowledge of Carrying Capacity will not save us; only a massive increase in Caring Capacity will."-- A. G. Gelbert

THIS is what needs to be fixed about the current extinction producing carbon footprint:
The 17%  🐉🦕🦖 problem


Percent CO2 Emissions by income category

The issue is NOT limited to energy and the human carbon footprint destroying the viability of the biosphere. The issue is SOCIAL JUSTICE too. I guess you think the Laws of Thermodynamics make that a "pipe dream" as well. ::) If that is where your nihilist heart is at, I feel sorry for you. Greta Thunberg and AOC may be dreamers, but their dream is NOT a "pipe dream". Their dream must become a reality or we are TOAST.

UBL, It's time for you to sing this song or GET OUT OF THE WAY of the massive increase in CARING CAPACITY.


A NEW CLIMATE SONG

Quote
On the show I play the new song “We Don’t Have Time” written by Ingemar Beattone Aberg, CJ Palmer and Adam Baptiste, with a little Gret Thunberg in the track. On Earth Day, this April 22nd, you can visit the new social network “for saving the climate and truly making a difference.” Get a sneak preview at wedonthavetime.org. 
https://www.ecoshock.org/2019/03/the-rules-of-extinction.html

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/CRZy8yImNWc&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/CRZy8yImNWc&fs=1</a>

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/pEqWCH_4srU&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/pEqWCH_4srU&fs=1</a>

8
Agelbert Newz / It’s the GREEN NEW DEAL or ELSE ☠️
« on: March 16, 2019, 04:12:36 PM »
MAR 13, 2019| TD ORIGINALS

It’s the Green New Deal or Else ☠️

I suppose we all owe UCLA economist and Hoover Institution senior fellow Lee Ohanian 🦕 a debt of gratitude for telling us how it is .  The “free market” propagandist recently took to the pages of The Hill, a Washington, D.C., journal for political insiders, to explain that the holy laws of economics dictate that humanity must consent to its own extermination .

In a piece titled “The Green New Deal is a Pipe Dream,” Ohanian drowned climate activists’ overheated dreams of ecological salvation in the icy waters of bourgeois reality, arguing that the proposed legislation’s advocates are, in fact, nefarious, big-government “command-and-control” zealots—eco-Stalinists—who want “to impose their social and economic preferences on others at an extravagantly high economic cost.”

Ohanian described the Green New Deal’s goal of net-zero U.S. carbon emissions in 10 years as an “infeasible” aim that demonstrates a failure “to understand basic cost-benefit analysis.”

If that weren’t enough, the Hoover fellow noted that “the GND would be extremely expensive and that America lacks “the technological know-how” to reach zero carbon emissions Ohanian 😈 further pleased the Hoover Institution’s big-business 🐉🦕🦖 sponsors by adding his judgment that the Green New Deal’s promise of a living wage will make workers lazy and unproductive. No such promise can be fulfilled today, “when jobs can be easily offshored, outsourced, and automated,” he pronounced.

Now that we understand these economic realities, we can prepare—without rebellion, with calm acceptance and within the limits of our stagnant incomes—for our coming extinction. Onward with the coming macroeconomic ecocide.


Except, wait. Hold on. Maybe Ohanian is full of petroligarchic crap. Maybe there’s still hope for the species after all.

He is, and there is.    

It’s simply not true that we lack the technological expertise to achieve zero carbon emissions. Writing for Scientific American, Stanford engineering professor Mark Jacobson and University of California at Davis research scientist Mark Delucchi have shown repeatedly over the last decade that humanity could convert to a completely renewable energy-based system by 2030 if nations employ technologies vetted by scientists rather than those championed by private industry.

In their state-level analysis, which focuses on New York and California, Jacobson and Delucchi conclude that wind turbines, water machines, solar installations and other green technologies are affordable and available for rapid utilization. “The main obstacles are political and social—getting politicians onboard,” Jacobson told a leading science reporter six years ago. “There are always naysayers who think it’s pie in the sky, that we’ll never get there. And there are people who are tied into a certain industry who push back the most.”

The Green New Deal would cost a lot of money, Ohanian insists. What, like the giant tax breaks that Donald Trump and Congress gave the richest 10th of the 1 percent and their corporate allies, adding $2.2 trillion to the national debt (equal to $17,500 per household)? Like our subsidies for the military-industrial complex, which costs taxpayers $700 billion today and is projected to cost $972 billion by 2024, despite having the largest carbon footprint of any single institution on earth? Like the $204 billion spent on advertising in the U.S. last year to push a maddening surfeit of consumer products, many, if not most, designed in accord with the ecocidal principle of built-in obsolescence?

From 2014 through 2018, the global capitalist system spent $2.72 trillion on advertising alone. Imagine where we’d be on the path to slowing climate change if all that money had been spent on wind turbines, water machines, solar installations, sustainable agriculture, reforestation and green retrofitting, infrastructure and regional planning. There’s more than enough money to fund training to close the skilled heating, ventilation and air-conditioning-worker gap.

Meanwhile, Ohanian’s classist notion that workers will become indolent and inefficient if they are guaranteed a living wage is a Dickensian old wives’ tale. Productivity positively—not negatively—correlates with a living wage. And how does Ohanian think workers are supposed to lead dignified lives without one? Are millions of young adults supposed to live with their parents indefinitely or rely on food pantries and homeless shelters to get by while working full-time jobs?

Outsourcing, offshoring and automation are not without solutions, such as government and union restrictions; capital controls; green government jobs programs to absorb technically displaced workers; international efforts to raise wages and labor standards abroad; and guaranteed national incomes. Much of this is addressed in economist Robert Pollin’s important book, “Greening the Global Economy,” which advances “just transition” polices that include “solid pension protections, re-employment guarantees, as well as retraining and relocation support for individual workers, and community-support initiatives” for communities negatively affected by the suspension of fossil fuel extraction and burning.

Here’s a true pipe dream (maybe we should call it a “pipeline 🦕 dream”): the continuation of a decent human existence even for rich nations comparatively sheltered from the worst consequences of climate change.

In 2008, James Hansen, then head of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, and seven other leading climate scientists reported that we would see “practically irreversible ice sheet and species loss” if the planet’s average temperature rose above 1 degree Celsius (1.8 F), thanks to carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere reaching 450 parts per million (ppm).

When the report was published, CO2 levels were at 385—“already in the dangerous zone” according to Hansen and his team. They warned that deadly, self-reinforcing “feedbacks” could be triggered at that level. The dire prospects they warned of included “ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and [greenhouse gas] release from soils, tundra, or ocean sediments.”

The only way to assure a livable climate, Hansen and his colleagues warned, was to cut CO2 to at least 350 ppm.

Here we are, 11 years later, having blown past Hansen’s 1 degree Celsius red line since 2015. We currently stand at 410 ppm, the highest level of CO2 saturation in 800,000 years. The latest climate report of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) reflects the consensus opinion of the world’s leading climate scientists. It tells us that we are headed to a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 F) in the next 12 years. Failure to dramatically slash emissions between now and 2030 is certain to set off catastrophic developments for hundreds of millions of people, the report warns.

The IPCC finds that at our current pace, we are headed for a 3- to 4-degree Celsius (5.4 F to 7.2 F) temperature increase by the end of century. That will mean a planet that is mostly unlivable.

It gets worse. Numerous climate scientists have indicated that the IPCC’s findings are excessively conservative. That’s because the institute deletes and downplays research demonstrating the likelihood that irreversible climatological tipping points could arrive sooner than expected. Among the reports pointing to these conclusions is a recent NASA-funded study warning that the unexpectedly abrupt thawing of permafrost could release massive volumes of CO2  and methane within a few decades.

Earth, biological and social scientists are increasingly raising the specter of climate-driven human extinction in the not-so-distant future. In vast swaths of the world, across much of sub-Saharan Africa, India, the Middle East, Latin America and Southeast Asia, climate catastrophe is already underway.

Conservative though it may be, the U.N. report is no whitewash. It gives us 12 years to drastically slash greenhouse gas emissions or face catastrophic consequences. It also calls for “unprecedented changes in all aspects of society” to drop global CO2  emissions 45 percent below 2010 levels and 60 percent below 2015 levels by 2030. We need to hit zero by the midcentury point, the IPCC says, and we cannot do that without radically and rapidly reducing our energy consumption.

Cost-benefit analysis? The Green New Deal is, if anything, insufficiently radical. It does not go to the full class-rule taproot of the many deadly ecological rifts (the climate crisis is only the most urgent) opened by capitalism’s relentless, totalitarian drive to commodify everything on earth. Progressive-Democrat Green New Deal advocates have yet to join serious ecosocialists in calling for green investments to be garnered from massive reductions in the U.S. military budget, which eats up more than half of federal discretionary spending and sustains a global military empire that is the world’s single largest institutional carbon emitter. The Green New Deal’s sponsors have yet to call (as they will have to if they are serious about environmental reconversion) for their program to be funded and protected from capital flight by the nationalization of the United States’ leading financial institutions.

Still, at least Green New Dealers are talking seriously about the benefit of a livable earth. It seems like society might want to be ready to absorb significant costs to achieve the continuation of the species. Professor Ohanian should write the environmentalists’ maxim 500 times on a UCLA chalkboard: “There are no jobs on a dead planet. There is no economy on a dead planet.”

Zero carbon emissions by 2030 (or even 2040) is a grandiose goal. But guess what? Now is precisely the time to aim sky high on ecology and way low on carbon release. How much are we willing to pay for human survival? Do environmental calamity and the real risk of extinction count as “extravagantly high costs”? When might we be willing to achieve the not-so-fringe benefit of continued existence by confronting the totalitarian “command and control” imposed on all of us by big carbon capital’s social and economic preference for short-term private accumulation and profit over the longer-term common good—over any kind of decent future for human beings and other living things?

https://www.truthdig.com/articles/its-the-green-new-deal-or-else/

 The Fossil Fuelers 🦖 DID THE Clean Energy  Inventions suppressing, Climate Trashing, human health depleting CRIME,   but since they have ALWAYS BEEN liars and conscience free crooks 🦀, they are trying to AVOID   DOING THE TIME or   PAYING THE FINE!     Don't let them get away with it! Pass it on!   

9
Agelbert Newz / The SHAPE 💫 OF THINGS TO COME!
« on: March 16, 2019, 02:51:08 PM »
Kids Around the World Cut Class for Climate Justice

March 16, 2019

Students in over 100 countries skipped school and took to the streets to DEMAND serious climate policy from world leaders
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/0xzTmzaiQ5I&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/0xzTmzaiQ5I&fs=1</a>

https://therealnews.com/stories/kids-around-the-world-cut-class-for-climate-justice

Agelbert NOTE: Public reaction from Fossil Fuel POLLUTER ENABLERS like Theresa May:

Private reaction from Fossil Fuel POLLUTER ENABLERS:

Great Thunberg understands that Fossil Fuel POLLUTER ENABLERS must LEAVE GOVERNMENT NOW if humanity is to survive.
NOTHING can change the SHAPE OF THINGS TO COME!
<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/pEqWCH_4srU&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/pEqWCH_4srU&fs=1</a>

10
Knarfs Knewz / AOC's done a really good job in her public outings.
« on: March 16, 2019, 01:32:14 PM »
Quote
Much better to suck off the centurions of the status quo. Let's never do anything, but clutch pearls and wring hands
.
I'm not advocating for that either, but the inertia is so immense, the problem so multi-dimensional, that whatever explanation of the Situation you provide has to be unassailable TEFLON. Whatever you'll do will have to be done steadfastly with historically unheard of resolve.
Gimmicks are prone to backfiring.

Then where to start? Young people, whose lives are in line to be trashed, have tried this gimmick to get the attention of term elders, who nod, smile, and get back to the Godswork of making their quarter.

I completely agree that the inertia is immense, and the forces of greed so richly and deeply arrayed as to make the effort seem futile. Which is right where they want ordinary people. throwing up our hands, sighing, and saying "what's the use?"



 
Quote
I wonder what "explanation of the cause" of anthropogenic climate change" could be made to your satisfaction?

What do you mean "you wonder" ?  You're on the Doomstead Diner for crying out loud !
You know damn well the climate change issue isn't one to be looked at in isolation.
You either give a proper assessment of the WHOLE BIG PICTURE to show you're TRULY COMPETENT ... or you PROVE that you're not by throwing a grab bag of progressive policies and throw them under the umbrella of a half assed Green New Deal  ...

If we wait for that, we might as well go full trump. As it is, the debate seems to be, "here we dead in ten years or 100 years?"

Perhaps the "Green New Deal" is half-assed. At least it's a start. All you get from republicans (and the corpadems who love their donors) is some variant of "drill baby, drill."


Quote
but Ocasio-Cortez majored in international relations and economics at Boston University, graduating cum laude in 2011.

I've been reading about energy, economics and finance for over 13 years non stop now, and the time has long passed that such a resume would actually impress me.
The truth is, a science and economics background should now be mandatory qualifications for any government leadership position in all advanced countries. The system is to complex now for overly ambitious lawyers, economist and 'social scientists' to have a go at demonstrating what 'Silo Thinking' can do for us...

You are taking my comment out of context. Citing AOC's credentials was not meant to impress you, but merely to reply to the fuckwit who described her as a "twit." If you have followed her work this far in the House, she's done a really good job in her public outings. Especially for a rookie. I was much impressed with how she spent her five minutes during the House Oversight Committee hearing. I think she will represent her district, and her generation , pretty well. Expect the republicans to richly fund Joe Crowley or some other opponent to get her removed in the next election. She poses far too much of a threat to the status quo, just by mentioning certain policy issues that were never to be spoken of publicly, lest we proles get our hopes up.

Well said, Surly. I admire your patience.

I briefly looked at this thread and my BS meter pegged the needle to the right (pun in tented  ;)) when I noticed the continual pejorative front door (and back door) sniping at the Green New Deal in general, and AOC in particular, from this fine fellow you are patiently debating.

The bottom line for EVERYONE that posts on this forum should be, but rarely is, that NONE of us here will have BEANS to do with shaping the future of humanity, PERIOD.

I am pretty sick of reading hand wringing CRAP from closet (or open) status quo defenders about how ANY attempts at transitioning to a 100% Renewable Energy, decentralized, non-exportable green jobs type economy that cleans up the environment, and consequently improves the the health of we critters that live off the environment, are "not enough", so let's just "DO NOTHING", EXCEPT, OF COURSE, BAD MOUTH anyone like AOC that claims there ARE REAL WORLD SOLUTIONS (THAT DOOM THE FOSSIL FUEL "Industry"). 


The people out there on the (possibly, but not guaranteed) planet saver=social justice side like AOC, Greta Thunberg, etc. et al DAILY struggling against the "people " on the GUARANTEED planet killer side like Mitch McConnel, Rex Tillerson, Koch Brothers, Trump, etc. et al ARE the ONLY HOPE we have, PERIOD.

The POLLUTING INDUSTRY SUPPORTING people should be constantly exposed for their treachery and empathy deficit disordered immoral, biosphere exploiting world view.

Ridiculing those like AOC that propose REAL WORLD SOLUTIONS, which include taking the polluters to the bankuptcy woodshed, is not rational.

Praising the efforts of AOC, Greta Thunberg, etc. et al IS rational.

GO GET EM', AOC, Greta Thunberg and RATIONAL FRIENDS all over the planet!

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/W5iHuSFJIEI&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/W5iHuSFJIEI&fs=1</a>



11
Thousands of Youth Worldwide Take Part in Climate Strike
Bob Henson  ·  March 15, 2019, 1:36 PM EDT

 
Above: Young people hold banners during a demonstration against political inaction on climate change on Friday, March 15, 2019, in Nantes, western France. Image credit: Sebastien Salom-Gomis/APF/Getty images.
The biggest one-day protest by schoolchildren in memory—and the largest day of climate action in history—cascaded across the globe on Friday. According to 350.org, a total of more than 1.4 million students in more than 300 cities and 100-plus nations took part in Friday’s #climatestrike protest. Many thousands of U.S. students walked out of classrooms for 11 minutes, starting at 11 am at each time zone. In many locations around the world, the protests were massive and more prolonged. More than 10,000 young people gathered in Copenhagen on Friday (see embedded tweet below), and tens of thousands took to the streets of Montreal.


Embedded video

Den Grønne Studenterbevægelse
@GrGelse
 10.000+ børn og unge til klimastrejke i København. De vil have en tryg og grøn fremtid. #klimastrejke #dengrønnestudenterbevægelse #FridaysForFuture @GretaThunberg

9:07 AM - Mar 15, 2019

The strike was inspired by Greta Thunberg , the 16-year-old Swedish student who has become a global spokesperson for the myriad threats that human-produced greenhouse gases pose to future generations. Thunberg (who has now been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize) ignited the climate-strike movement with her own series of solo protests at the Swedish Parliament starting on August 20, 2018. Subsequent climate strikes gathered stream as they spread across Europe and beyond. By the end of 2018, the strikes had already involved more than 20,000 students.

“This wouldn’t be the first time that a single act of civil disobedience helps launch a broad and sweeping social movement,” noted Per Adman and Katrin Uba in the Washington Post. “Although facing threats of a completely different magnitude, Rosa Parks is one such iconic example. Her risky decision not to move to the back of an Alabama bus in 1955 helped launch the Montgomery bus boycott, an important catalyst in the U.S. civil rights movement.” Schoolchildren as young as seven played a key role in lunch-counter sit-in protests to integrate Southern restaurants in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

Embedded video

Greta Thunberg

@GretaThunberg

 Fridays for future. The school strike continues! #climatestrike #klimatstrejk #FridaysForFuture

       

12:55 PM - Sep 16, 2018

What does social justice have to do with greenhouse gases?

Many of the organizers and participants from #ClimateStrikeFriday stressed the interwoven nature of climate change and social justice. For one thing, the impacts of greenhouse gas emissions propagate far and wide from those who produce and consume the most fossil fuel. The small island nations whose very survival is at stake contributed very little to the atmosphere's greenhouse burden.

It’s widely recognized that marginalized and vulnerable populations tend to take an outsized hit from climate change, as they have fewer resources and less political power. Reducing greenhouse emissions will help alleviate this injustice—but it’s also possible that even some well-meaning actions to address climate change could themselves create or exacerbate inequities (such as forcing low-income people to move out of flood-prone coastal neighborhoods without taking their needs and community ties into account). That’s why the Green New Deal and other high-profile proposals are stressing the need to keep equity in the forefront while tackling this massive global problem.

 
Figure 1. Students gather with signs at a #climatestrike rally on the campus of Columbia University on Friday, March 15, 2019, in New York. From the South Pacific to the edge of the Arctic Circle, students mobilized by word of mouth and social media skipped class to protest what they see as the failures by their governments to take tough action against global warming. Image credit: AP Photo/Bebeto Matthews.

Thoughts on Friday’s climate strike

“Young people make up more than half of the global population. Our generation grew up with the climate crisis and we will have to deal with it for the rest of our lives. Despite that fact, most of us are not included in the local and global decision-making process. We are the voiceless future of humanity. We will no longer accept this injustice. We demand justice for all past, current and future victims of the climate crisis, and so we are rising up.” —Open letter from the global coordination group of the youth-led climate strike (Guardian)

“By taking to the streets today to make their voices heard, young people are educating us about how important tackling climate change is to their generation. They are right to be worried about what kind of planet they will inherit and right to demand far-reaching action. Governments cannot sit back, leaving major decisions to market forces. It hasn’t worked and it never will.” —Jeremy Corbyn, UK Labour Party Leader (Guardian)

 
Figure 2. Thousands demonstrate for climate action in front of the La Moneda presidential palace in Santiago, Chile, on March 15, 2019. Image credit: Martin Bernetti/AFP/Getty Images.

“A school strike…recalls some of the most pivotal moments in American history. In 1963, for instance, the Rev. Martin Luther King found that he had run out of adult volunteers to stand up to Bull Connor at the height of the civil rights battle in Birmingham. So, after much soul-searching, King asked the city’s schoolchildren to leave class and face the police dogs and firehoses. ‘Don’t worry about your children,’ he told their frantic parents. ‘They’re gonna be all right. Don’t hold them back if they want to go to jail. For they are doing a job not only for themselves but for all of America and for all mankind.’” —Haven Coleman, a Denver student, and Bill McKibben, cofounder of 350.org (Los Angeles Times)

“The students who are striking in cities, towns and villages around the world are uniting behind the science. We are only asking that our leaders to do the same. If those in power today don’t act, it will be our generation who will live through their failure.” —Greta Thunberg, Anna Taylor, and others (Guardian)

“I’m here because I think we should have done something 10 or 20 years ago. But luckily the world is waking up. The more people here, the better the impact.” — Anamaria Vaga, a 19-year-old student in Brussels (New York Times)

Commentary by Jeff Masters

Simply extraordinary. A million children world-wide have taken to the streets to tell the “adults in the room” that the very future of humanity is at stake. Wake up, adults!! We must take strong action now against climate change to preserve a livable world for our children.

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.


Bob Henson

WU meteorologist Bob Henson, co-editor of Category 6, is the author of "Meteorology Today" and "The Thinking Person's Guide to Climate Change." Before joining WU, he was a longtime writer and editor at the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, CO.

bob.henson@weather.com

@bhensonweather


https://www.wunderground.com/cat6/Thousands-Youth-Worldwide-Take-Part-Climate-Strike?cm_ven=cat6-widget

Agelbert NOTE:The 🕊 Revolution against planetary polluters WILL NOT BE STOPPED!

12
Anti-Capitalist Chronicles: The Conditions of Labor in China
6,099 views

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/6xfvx0Ll2IE&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/6xfvx0Ll2IE&fs=1</a>

Democracy At Work

Published on Mar 14, 2019

Support Anti-Capitalist Chronicles on Patreon! Your support helps us compensate the workers that put an episode together: https://www.patreon.com/davidharveyacc

Help us reach 100,000 subscribers and gain access to more studio time!  Please hit the red SUBSCRIBE button above.

[S1 E08] The Conditions of Labor in China

Prof. Harvey continues his discussion of the exponential growth of the Chinese economy and particularly its effect on the labor force. 

Follow us ONLINE:
Website: https://www.democracyatwork.info/acc
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/DemocracyatWrk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/democracyatwrk
Instagram: http://instagram.com/democracyatwrk
Shop our Store: http://bit.ly/2JkxIfy

Category News & Politics

13
Tribunal Declares Trump and Duterte Guilty of Crimes Against Humanity

Other defendants included the IMF, the World Bank, the WTO, and transnational corporations and foreign banks doing business in the Philippines.
BY Marjorie Cohn, Truthout

PUBLISHED March 14, 2019

President Donald Trump toasts with Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte during a special gala celebration dinner for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations in Manila on November 12, 2017. ATHIT PERAWONGMETHA / AFP / GETTY IMAGES

PART OF THE TRUTHOUT SERIES

Human Rights and Global Wrongs

SNIPPET:

Olalia added that the decision “sends out a message loud and clear: a people continually victimized by authoritarian and repressive governments and exploitative entities will seek justice wherever they can before those who are willing to give them a fighting chance.” Finally, Olalia said, “the decision remains ever more relevant to this day and time when the Filipinos are still struggling to ride out the storm of tyranny, brutality, corruption, misogyny and repression.”

Much of this tyranny, brutality and corruption has been endorsed, whether implicitly or explicitly, by the United States. The unholy alliance between the Philippine and U.S. governments is long-standing. For the past 18 years, under Presidents Bush, Obama and Trump, the United States has continued to provide assistance to the Philippine government, which enables it to commit war crimes and crimes against humanity against its own people and deny them their legal right to self-determination.

After the 9/11 attacks, Bush declared the Philippines a second front in the war on terror, calling it “Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines.” The Philippine government used Bush’s campaign as an opportunity to escalate its vicious counterinsurgency program against Muslims and individuals and organizations that oppose its policies.

The Philippine government labels specific people and groups as “terrorists,” which makes them targets of the regime. The government also engages in “red tagging” — political vilification. These labels can lead to harassment, assault, detention, torture and even murder. Targets are frequently human rights activists and advocates, political opponents, community organizers or groups struggling for national liberation.

Full article:

https://truthout.org/articles/tribunal-declares-trump-and-duterte-guilty-of-crimes-against-humanity/


14
  Youth Sound the Climate Alarm 🔊

Published on March 11, 2019

Urgent message from the youth of today: Climate change is a global emergency!🚩

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/vTxn2XtqBCw&fs=1" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/vTxn2XtqBCw&fs=1</a>

Listen to the youngest members of our global alliance share their worries, as well as their smart (and hilarious) ideas for potential solutions. These kids are stubborn climate optimists who inspire us to work as hard as we can to advance the people-centered natural climate solutions that are the heart of our mission. If these are tomorrow’s leaders, we have hope in our future

https://www.rainforest-alliance.org/videos/youth-sound-the-climate-alarm


15
 
Make Nexus Hot News part of your morning: click here to subscribe.


March 15, 2019 

SNIPPET:

Quote
Perhaps the most misleading part of Easterbrook’s 😈 thesis, though, is that the now-viral graphs mislabels the x-axis. The graph claims to show temperatures up until the present time, when really the data ends in 1855. None of the current warming we’ve seen in the last century is represented, despite what the graph insinuates.

Read more:


Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 760