Saturday 24th of February 2024

powering the future.....

ON A SMALL PLANET WITH 8 BILLION PEOPLE, OF WHICH HALF IS — OR WILL BE — DEMANDING, PLANNING, WORKING ON ACQUIRING THE AVERAGE WESTERN BOURGEOIS LIFESTYLE BY THE END OF NEXT WEEK, THE EQUATION TO POWERING THE FUTURE IS DIRE. SICKO. WE’RE DEAD. CIVILISATION IS BLOATED. KAPUT. UNSUSTAINABLE....

GLOBAL WARMING IS POSING A FEW CHALLENGES THAT ARE MORE THAN DIFFICULT. 

IT CAN BE “PROVEN” THAT THE WESTERN INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION HAS INDUCED AT LEAST 70 PER CENT OF THE ANTHROPOGENIC ORIGIN OF THE PRESENT WARMING. MEANWHILE, THE HUMAN WELL-BEING INDEX IS STRONGLY LINKED TO RELEASES OF WARMING GASES AND THIS WELL-BEING INDEX INCLUDE EASY TRANSPORT, HEATING, COOLING, HOLIDAYS, INDUSTRIES, CULTURES, ENTERTAINMENT AND HUSBANDRY OF CATTLE FOR FOOD. 

SOME PEOPLE WILL DISPUTE THE ANTHROPOGENIC ORIGIN OF THIS UNDENIABLE WARMING THAT HAS BEEN OBSERVED SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION — WITH SOME VARIATIONS.

NEVERTHELESS WE, THE PROPHETS OF DOOM ON THIS SUBJECT WHO FOLLOW THE TREND, ARE OF THE OPINION THAT HUMAN ACTIVITIES HAVE CREATED THE WARMING BY SIMPLE MECHANISMS AS EXPLAINED ON THIS SITE

BURN FOSSIL FUELS AND THE NATURALLY POISED CARBON EQUATION ON THE ATMOSPHERIC SURFACE OF THE PLANET — WHICH INCLUDES PLANT CYCLES AND ANIMAL BREATHING — CHANGES ITS BALANCE TOWARDS WARM. SOME GASES SUCH AS CO2 ABSORB MORE RADIATION FROM THE SUN, RAISING THE TEMPERATURE. OUR NEXT QUESTION IS TO FIND BY HOW MUCH. WE CAN GUESS WITH PRECISION BY MAKING SCIENTIFIC STUDIES OF PREVIOUS GEOLOGICAL AGES.

COMPLEX CALCULATIONS OF EMISSIONS AND RELATED WARMING OBSERVATIONS SHOULD BE ENOUGH TO TELL US THAT “SOMETHING” HAS TO BE DONE. A DOUBLING OF SUCH WARMING “TRACE” GASES — OFTEN LESS THAN 0.1 PER CENT OF THE ATMOSPHERE COULD RAISE THE TEMPERATURE BY ANOTHER 9 DEGREES CELSIUS AND LIFT THE SEA LEVELS BY A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT… SAY 7 METRES MINIMUM UP TO 20 METRES.

ONCE THIS PROGNOSTIC IS ACCEPTED, THE QUESTION IS : WHAT CAN WE DO?

 

THE LIST OF SOURCES FOR GLOBAL WARMING GASES IS LONG AND MOST OF THESE SOURCES ARE VERY USEFUL TO OUR COMFORT. STOPPING THEM NOW AND WE SUFFER A CRISIC OF “CIVILISATION” ENJOYMENT… 

 

SO, WE NEED TO DEVELOP ALTERNATIVE ENERGY SOURCES AND THE PROBLEM SHALL BE SOVED… 

NOT SO FAST WOULD SAY THE TORTOISE TO THE RABBIT…

EVERYTHING LIVING ON THIS PLANET SEEMS TO HAVE AN INBUILT OBSOLESCENCE. MANY THINGS THAT WE MANUFACTURE ALSO SUFFER FROM WEAR AND TEAR, AND USAGE FATIGUE (EXCEPT PLASTICS). EVEN THE GERMAN GUNS IN UKRAINE CANNOT FIRE MORE SHELLS PER HOUR THAN WHATEVER WITHOUT SUFFERING BARREL DAMAGE.

THE FIRST OF THE ALTERNATIVE ENERGY PROBLEMS IS CONSISTENCY IN SUPPLY VERSUS DEMAND. THIS BECOMES MORE EVIDENT WITH OUR GRIDS THAT USE RENEWABLES SUCH AS WIND TURBINES AND SOLAR PANELS. BUT THIS CAN EASILY BE FIXED WITH “STORAGE”. SEE AMBRI.

ANOTHER PROBLEM OF ALL ENERGY SUPPLIES, RENEWABLES OR NOT, IS LONGEVITY — WITH CYCLE USAGE, MAINTENANCE AND REPLACEMENT.

THE THIRD MAJOR ISSUE IS DISTRIBUTION. THE SMALLER THE SCALE OF THE NETWORK, THE HARDER IT IS TO CONTROL CONSISTENCY. YET INDIVIDUAL ENERGY SUPPLIES SHOULD BE THE ULTIMATE GOAL — THOUGH THE MONEY MEN DON’T WANT THIS INDEPENDENCE.

THE FOURTH ISSUE IS THE “RECYCLING” OF SPENT SOURCES OF ENERGY.

THE LIFESPAN OF A TRADITIONAL COAL POWER STATION IS AROUND 40 YEARS, SAME WITH NUCLEAR ENERGY, WHILE THE ASHES OF COAL FIRE STATIONS CAN BE USE (BRICKS, SOIL), THE SPENT FUEL OF THE NUCLEAR ENERGY NEEDS TO BE STORED FOR A FEW THOUSAND YEARS.

MEANWHILE SOLAR PANELS CAN LAST 10 TO 25 YEARS MAXIMUM. WIND TURBINES UP TO 25 YEARS, EVEN WITH THE BEST OF MAINTENANCE.

SO WE NEED TO FIND WAYS TO RECYCLE ALL THESE, INCLUDING THE BATTERIES FOR STORAGE, WHILE MINIMISING EMISSIONS OF WARMING GASES. ON A LARGE SCALE STORAGE AMBRI SOLUTION IS THE BEST. LITHIUM BATTERIES SO FAR ARE THE BEST FOR SMALL STORAGE UNITS.

WHILE OLD SEA VESSELS CAN BE CHEAPLY DISMANTLED AND THE STEEL BE RE-MELTED, ALBEIT WITH EMISSIONS OF CO2, THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID OF THE INSTRUMENTS OF RENEWABLE ENERGY. 

THEY ARE COMPLEX AND TIME CONSUMING TO DISMANTLE, SEPARATE THE COMPONENTS, ETC.

 

MEANWHILE, SOME IDIOTS WANT TO BUILD A RESERVOIR ON TOP OF A SACRED MOUNTAIN IN AUSTRALIA. THE SYSTEM OF USING STORED WATER AS A RESERVOIR OF ENERGY DURING SURPLUS SUPPLIES OF ELECTRICITY HAS MERIT. BUT NOT AT THAT LEVEL OF DETRIMENT TO CULTURAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES. SOME PEOPLE DEPLORE THE WIND TURBINES SPOILING A LANDSCAPE OR A SEASCAPE, THOUGH THEY DID NOT DEPLORE THE COAL MINES THAT DESTROYED MOUNTAINS AND THE POWER STATION THAT SPEWED INVISIBLE CO2.

 

SO WHAT HOPE HAVE WE GOT TO MANAGE THE POWERING OF CIVILISATIONS ON A GRAND SCALE? WE KNOW THAT CIVILISATIONS COME AND GO, BUT SINCE THE INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION, WE CREATED A MORE RESILIENT DURABLE SYSTEM USING DELIBERATE OBSOLESCENCE, IMPROVEMENT OF INVENTIONS, BETTER DECEIT OF POLITICAL INFORMATION, SCIENCES AND CHEAP ENERGY SUPPLY. EUROPE LIVED FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS ON CHEAP RUSSIAN GAS. GERMANY IS FIGHTING ITS ENVIRONMENTAL DECREES BY RETURNING TO COAL. THIS IS SETTING ITS ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRESS 30 YEARS BACK. 

SO BETWEEN THE MORONS AT DAVOS, THE MILITARY DUMMIES AT RAMSTEIN BASE, IN GERMANY, THE COP27 ILL-INTENDED FOSSIL IDIOTS, THE GENERAL BOURGEOIS APATHY, THE G7 GRANDSTANDING IMBECILES, THE G20 CLOWNS, THE DEVIOUS GENERALS OF THE PENTAGON, THE MONEY BAGS OF THE IMF AND THE THIEVES OF THE WORLD BANK, WE HAVE NO CHANCE TO FIND PEACE AND SOLVE (WE WILL NEVER SOLVE IT) THE PROBLEM OF GLOBAL WARMING. 

DON’T GET ME WRONG, WE CAN LIMIT THE DAMAGE BY BEING SCIENTIFICALLY CLUEY AND THRIFTY ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING. BUT AS YOU KNOW THE HYPOCRITES RUN THE WORLD, NOT THE MONKEY AND HIS PLUNGER.

 

GUS LEONISKY

SOLUTIONER….

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

post-industrial society......

 

BY Jan Bruck

 

Economic growth has been the holy grail of post-industrial society, but there is now mounting evidence that it needs to be slowed down for the sake of the environment. It is therefore a welcome sign that Mark Diesendorf reiterates the call for ‘Limits to Growth’ which has been voiced since the 1970s – largely to no avail.

Limiting economic growth is no doubt one of the hardest things to achieve for any modern society, not just for ‘Western’ Capitalism. To by-pass the dilemma, governments have instead been putting their efforts into the development and use of renewable energy like wind and solar power, and into alternative technologies – euphemistically called ‘Green growth’ – which does not require measures too difficult and unpopular to implement. Unfortunately, the easier options have so far not taken us anywhere near the desired goal of assuring a sustainable environment, and it is becoming more and more obvious that the ‘alternatives’ are not sufficient.

Diesendorf presents economic growth in terms of Consumption. There are however three major distinct spheres to consider which together make up the economy: Production, Transport and Consumption. While they are largely interdependent, they each play their own separate role in the way they impact on the environment. And each sphere has its own momentum or inertia that is difficult to change.

Production is characterised by a massive construction of roads and buildings, factories and venues, machines and communication devices etc. which use up an enormous amount of finite raw materials and are often built for expediency or profitability rather than quality or usefulness.

Transport is still dominated by petrol guzzling cars and trucks, ships and planes, constantly moving commodities and people around in ever greater numbers, often from one end of the world to the other, with drastic ecological consequences.

Consumption of food and clothing, as well as many other commodities – far too often packed in plastic which has become a major enemy of Nature – is now extremely wasteful, leaving mountains of garbage to be disposed of or recycled, with no limit in sight.

One should mention a fourth, mostly overlooked mode of human activity which is even more damaging than the others: Destruction through War. Perversely, it also contributes to economic growth, but when it actually happens, as now in the Ukraine, it weighs much more heavily on peoples’ minds than the ongoing concerns about the environment, because it leads to such terrible devastation of human life, and takes the joy out of living for many people.

Why is it so difficult to slow down economic growth even if we recognise its damaging impact? For a start, we have grown used to the idea that the value and success of a society is best measured in terms of its Gross National Product, for which one can actually show figures to ‘prove’ it. All other indicators like happiness, education, freedom, human rights or social security etc. are relative, and therefore hard to measure.

Traditionally, governments argue that growth is necessary so that the Economy remains healthy and successful. Since the industrial revolution in the 19th century economic growth has actually been regarded as the precondition and the major sign of progress. So far, no nation has ever aimed to stop growing, because it would mean going backwards. But is that really true? Can we not have a thriving and well-functioning society without economic growth?

To move closer towards an answer to this complex question we need to consider who actually benefits from economic growth. Politicians like to claim that a thriving economy improves the working and living conditions for those who still miss out on the massive wealth of industrial society. But a lot of evidence demonstrates otherwise.

As the gap between rich and poor is clearly widening, it becomes more and more evident that economic growth primarily increases the profits, and supports the wealth, of the well-to-do professional middle and upper classes, who ultimately control society and therefore stand to lose most from a slowdown in growth – and are understandably not interested in addressing it.

The complicated spatial and temporal interdependence of all forms of economic activity, coupled with the innate desire for maximum profits, make it extremely difficult to reverse the current trends and tackle economic growth. If that ever changes, against all odds, then that will indeed present a glimmer of hope.

 

 

READ MORE:

https://johnmenadue.com/the-dilemma-of-economic-growth/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....

of non-rationalism.....

The world is teetering on the brink of the abyss due to an increased risk of nuclear war, failure to address environmental challenges, and diminished ability to tackle problems rationally, world-renowned philosopher and linguist Noam Chomsky told RT on Saturday.

During the interview, Chomsky, who is Laureate Professor of Linguistics at the University of Arizona, was asked to expand on his remark that humanity could be pathologically dedicated to self-destruction. 

The philosopher recalled that in recent years the Doomsday Clock, which reflects how close humanity is to Armageddon, has moved closer to midnight, which symbolizes the extinction of humanity. He suggested that in several days it could be set even closer to this mark. 

According to the philosopher, humanity’s main concerns are “an increasing threat of nuclear war” and “a very severe and growing threat of destruction of climate.” The latter problem persists because “states are not doing what they know they must do to solve this crisis,” he said.

The third issue, Chomsky continued, is “the deterioration of an arena of rational serious debate and deliberation”combined with “the collapse of democratic forces” around the world. The professor admitted that while it might seem that this point has nothing to do with the threat of nuclear war and climate change, rational debate is “the only hope for dealing with the first two.”

“All three have gotten considerably worse during the past year, and unless there's a sharp reversal, we'll simply be heading for a precipice, falling over, irreversible, and not in the long distant future,” he warned.

His comments come after earlier this week, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev said that those who want to see Moscow defeated in Ukraine, ignore the fact that “a loss by a nuclear power in a conventional war may trigger the start of a nuclear war.” Moscow believes the Ukraine conflict to be a proxy war waged against it by the US and its allies. 

However, Russia has repeatedly said that a nuclear war should never be fought, with its military doctrine allowing the use of atomic weapons only if the very existence of the state is threatened.

 

READ MORE:

https://www.rt.com/news/570269-chomsky-irreversible-nuclear-war/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

 

FREE JULIAN ASSANGE NOW....