Tweet
From rawstory, Coal use set to surpass oil in a decade: IEA
Dear global warming “concerned people”: What to you suppose is a rational approach to the following?
The latest IEA projections see coal consumption nearly catching oil consumption in four years time, rising to 4.32 billion tonnes of oil equivalent in 2017 against 4.4 billion tonnes for oil.
That has consequences for climate change as coal produces far more carbon emissions responsible for global warming than other fuels.
But the IEA report on coal found that even countries which have committed themselves to reducing carbon emissions are finding it difficult to resist the renewed allure of coal.
A number of European countries have seen their use of coal for electricity consumption jump at the beginning of this year, including by 65 percent in Spain, 35 percent in Britain and 8 percent in Germany.
Meanwhile back at the ranch, Eric Lerner, a US plasma physicist, has beaten the big hot fusion projects wrt a max temperature parameter, with a staff of three people. I know his staff is only 3 people because he told me so, about 6 months, ago. Furthermore, I know he still has to struggle with getting funding, wasting time and energy in the process, because I chat with his friend and former roomate every so often, and Eric and Focus Fusion comes up as a topic of discussion.
If you are a CO2 climate catastrophist, whether of the “science is settled” flavor, or else of the “we shouldn’t take any chances” type, have you considered the possibility that, given the reality of fossil fuel consumption trends, world wide, that society can’t afford NOT to fund carbon-free, alternative, dense forms of energy? Have you considered the possibility that your avoidance or ignorance of the possibilities of sufficiently dense, carbon-free energy that can attract the industrializing 3rd world, is making it far more likely that a 500 ppm (CO2) atmosphere is in the cards for your life time – never mind 100 years from now?
Should anybody reading this actually get the point, they may want to give some thought to why the environmental groups, such as 350.org, aren’t pushing for high levels of R&D of carbon-free, dense sources of energy, like fusion. Or even, why groups like 350.org aren’t organizing crowdfunding efforts, that bypass governments. Governments that, last I heard, are still captured by corporations and banks.
Here’s a link to 350.org’s “Top 11″ campaigns of 2011. Number 2 is:
We moved the planet.
2000 events. 175 countries. A single day to move the planet beyond fossil fuels. Moving Planet was 350.org’s third global day of climate action, and it brought massive numbers of people into the streets to call for a different kind of world—one that runs on renewable energy and people power, not on fossil fuels.
(emphasis mine)
Hmmmm. Strictly speaking, neither hot fusion nor so-called cold fusion (LENR’s) are sustainable, in the sense that they don’t use up their fuels, permanently.
Of course, solar panels and wind turbines get used up, also, and while their source of energy is not diminished, it takes energy to build and repair existing infrastructure. So, when you look at the big picture, they’re not 100% renewable, either.
So, why doesn’t 350.org push for evironmentally-friendly, sustainable sources of energy?
green.wikia.org says, of 350.org:
“Solutions”
350.org is largely focused on symbolic action, in the form of letter writing, petitions, vigils and small scale community action. It fully accepts the paradigm of Industrial Civilization, and thus is not involved in any activities that threaten the industrial economy.
OK, well, why can’t some “symbolic actions” educate the public, and politicians, about possiblities for fusion? Is it hard to make a case for more fusion R&D, given what we know is happening with worldwide CO2 production? (E.g., Chinese per capita CO2 production was up 9% last year.)
If anybody wants to try and get Bill McKibben to speak to this, on record, hey, go for it. Frankly, I think Bill McKibben is part of a big, green Veal Pen, and getting him to focus on more probable solutions is a fools errand.
In any event, real lovers of the environment should not be waiting, unduly, on any so-called leaders. Crowd-funding and the inter-connectedness of the web make solutions possible that make it even more unforgivable to do obeisance to activist gods who have feet of clay.
================================================================================
Update: Wikipedia states that
The Manhattan Project began modestly in 1939, but grew to employ more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion (roughly equivalent to $25.8 billion as of 2012[1]).
130,000 people, while Eric Lerner has a staff of 3. Seems a tad ‘unbalanced’, wouldn’t you say? Seems to imply that the US could do MUCH, MUCH better, wouldn’t you agree? Seems to suggest that citizens of the world could surpass this level of funding, on a voluntary, crowd-sourced basis.
But, you’d never know that from reading Bill McKibben 350.org. Unless I’m missing something….
$25 billion / 6 billion people = $4/person. Over 4 years, this is $1/person. OK, a lot of the developing world is desperately poor. Nobody expects them to chip in. So, first world nations could carry them if they chipped in, say, $20/per capita, per year. You know, the cost of a fillup at a gas station.
To get an idea of the US commitment to fusion, consider this comment from US fusion in budget vice
Eric Bass said:
It’s worth noting that the entire US ITER commitment ($2.2 billion), spread out over 10 years, is approximately equal to one day of US Department of Defense spending (c. $2.0 billion), or 0.05% of the annual US budget. The cost to build a single conventional fission power plant is somewhere between $6 billion and $24 billion, depending on location and who is estimating. Should we not expect development of a revolutionary new energy source to incur at least this cost level? Abandoning ITER, or scrapping the domestic program beginning with Alcator-C-Mod, means trading our stake in the future energy economy for nickles and dimes.
24 Comments
Well, technically, solar energy is fusion energy, at it’s source, that will terminally use up its ‘fuel’, but it’s not worth being concerned about. The sun’s core will not exhaust its hydrogen fuel for another 5 billion years, or so.
What is the plan to stop coal?
Create anti-coal regulations here at home, and work with the international community to impose sanctions against other countries which use too much coal.
Do you have any idea what the record is of the US (which drives the “international community”, more than any other country), as regards pressuring China to do anything? Here, I’ll give you 2 clues: Falun Gong, and body parts.
Secondly, being that we’re already at 394 ppm CO2, and the “science is settled” crowd keeps blabbering about “tipping points”, how long is the US going to wait until it starts pressuring China? Will 400 ppm be the limit? 420 ppm?
At +2 ppm/year, we will be at 400 ppm in 2015. 420 ppm will occur around 2025.
A Manhattan Project level of development might well give us dense, zero carbon energy by 2018. That’s six years from now, which is the time span of World War 2. That 2 years more than the Manhattan Project actually spanned.
So, in 6 years we might be able to offer China, India, and the rest of the developing world, a zero carbon technology, which would give them cheaper energy than coal OR we might be able to demand that they merely use less coal – which means that, at best, they’d use petroleum.
Finally, you give no link, and no evidence, that there really is such a plan. For all we know, you just pulled this idea out of your nether parts.
I didn’t notice any “plan”, such as you describe, at 350.org. So, assuming you just didnt make crap up, I suggest you not only inform the FDL community, but also Bill McKibben and the 350.org people.
Perhaps in your wisdom, you might inform them. While you’re at it, be sure to tell them that everybody is wrong, excepting you and the “Honest” scientists, who know that ACC is actually bullshit. I submit that you are much better prepared for such a task.
Another point: US CO2 emissions are down because of fracking. What this will do to our below ground water supplies, well, I’m not optimistic. Furthermore, my suspicions increase when I hear about ALEC types of effort to make identifying frackng contamination harder, instead of easier.
If you’re quite sure that fracking doesn’t contaminate human drinking water, why on earth would you want to make identifying the source of any possible contamination, harder?
It’s not just Chinese CO2 emissions that are at stake, but also American water tables, and the kidneys of American babies that may be unfortunate enough to drink fracking contaminated water.
The fracking mania is occurring NOW, irrespective of whatever you believe about CO2 catastrophism.
What realistic plan do enviros have to deal with increasing coal use?
For 9.5 years, I’ve been secretary of the board of an Alaska organization – now called Envision Mat-Su (formerly known as Friends of Mat-Su) – that is fighting four coal projects in what we regard as our area of responsibility, the Mat-Su Borough. Eight years ago, we stopped Alaska fracking in its tracks, and we mean to do the same with local coal development.
We’ve had some successes with the very local Wishbone Hill Mine project, and some setbacks. We’re going after the renewed Jonesville Mine project and mining plans further up the Matanuska River valley next. We’ve got lots of allies on the fight against Chuitna coal development across Knik Arm from Anchorage. Just last month the state announced they are seeking bids on Mental Health Lands Trust lands up the Deshka River. We will fight them, stall them, and win.
Since I’ve been somewhat directly involved in our campaigns, I’ve seen the Alaska public become more questioning of the wisdom of developing Alaska’s incredible wealth of the stuff. (There’s enough coal buried under or on the surface in Alaska to kill every creature on the planet, if we burn it all.)
The most realistic plan is to target every single coal project, one project at a time, develop local groups to raise awareness of alternatives, and organize local doctors and health care professionals as part of your core citizens’ groups.
Excuse me, but do you include Chinese citizens in this plan? The Chinese government, which is not a democracy, is not known for tolerating public protests.
BTW, I was in China in 1999-2000. I first went in winter, and the air in Jinan was so thick with coal smog that you couldn’t see more than a 2-4 blocks. (I later found out that it clears up in summer, when coal burning nosedives. Before that, I was feeling sorry for my Chinese neighbors who would never know what sunlight looks like). In one city (I think Jinling), we had trouble seeing even 1 block. The air smelled like mouthwash.
Do you know of any Chinese citizens that would agree with your assessment of what is “most realistic”, in China, which is where the most of the increasing coal burning is happening? (The Indian are planning to surpass them. See below.)
The Chinese, thankfully, are also researching fusion and thorium fission reactors. This doesn’t mean, though, that they’re rushing research on these. Since they’re (i.e., the government) happy to burn coal, why would they be rushing? Since the West is taking it’s sweet time developing and releasing alternative energy, what economic, competitive pressures would China be feeling to hurry up?
From the Guardian: More than 1,000 new coal plants planned worldwide, figures show
Your sarcasm amount to a duck. It’s the people who believe that CO2 climate catastrophism is “settled science” who should be more insistent on zero carbon alternatives. Or at least offer more than shabby arguments and ducking as to why the CO2 catastrophist community, as a whole, must evade the subject of pushing zero carbon alternatives.
This diary is not about punching holes in CO2 catastrophism. (Not that there’s any dearth of material to write about, in this vein.)
This diary is about jabbing at the CO2 catastrophism true believers, whose actions and rhetoric don’t match the reality of fossil fuel consumption and rising CO2 levels.
My experience with self-proclaimed progressives and progressive organization is that their leadership is opaque. I’m not going to spend any time trying to get Bill McKibben to account for his unbalanced activism (even granting his CO2/global warming beliefs).
But those who are in the CO2 catastrophism camp are welcome to do so. Even more welcome, from my perspective, is to start pressuring and crowd-funding zero carbon alternatives.
After all, as Al Gore says,
OK, then, act like it!
Believe me, meth, we’re not happy that you haven’t cornered the market on self-destructive thought and behavior. P.S. That’s from someone who actually gets the point.
If you didn’t notice that there were attempts to take China and India into account at 350.org, you were not looking closely enough. . . .
In fact, that is part of their FAQ:
http://www.350.org/en/understanding-350#9
There is also a link to a PDF provided: http://www.ecoequity.org/docs/TheGDRsFramework.pdf
In the PDF it says:
Wow, so one bland sentence
qualifies, in your mind, as a “plan” to get the Chinese to regulate their CO2 emissions! Stunning! This is the sort of brevity that we’d expect from Hanky Panky Paulson. Clearly, Bill McKibben has even more talent than Paulson for capturing great plans with the fewest possible words.
I can see that you’re real serious about CO2 climate catastrophism, 350 ppm as a safe goal, and not gambling with “civilization as we know it”.
Let me take a wild guess, here, and assume that you’re just fine with McKibben, 350.org, and indeed all the green organizations not lifting a finger for non-carbon approaches.
With an air-tight “plan” such as you’ve pointed out, who needs the distraction of fusion, thorium, LENR’s, and other hard-to-pronounce sciency stuff.
Well, let’s hope you document your fine efforts, such that the future generations, that you’re in the process of saving, will know how to spell your name, for proper entry into the history books.
What is the Realistic Plan for meth to change his denialism?
The subject of this diary is the not-even-denialism of world CO2 production, as well as the not-even-denialism of opportunities for carbon-free, sufficiently dense technologies that stand a chance of seducing China and the rest of the developing world away from coal and other CO2, by the CO2 climate catastrophists.
These subjects aren’t denied, as much avoided, to begin with.
If you’re not going to respect the subject of this diary, why not simply get lost? You have nothing significant to add, obviously.
My guess is that your purpose is to derail anything that threatens the basically useless CO2 climate catastrophism religion.
We do have a long way to go. One example of how bad things are is that climate change was not mentioned during the 2012 presidential debates (not by the candidates, and not the the media moderators). So it is a bit premature to demand detailed plans. What is more important now is to gather the will to act on a national and international level, then we can talk about specific plans.
To put it another way, if I decide, today, that I want to climb Mount Everest, there are a lot of steps to take before I worry about the exact route I plan on taking up the face of the mountain.
Who (other than you obviously) says that they are not lifting a finger for non-carbon approaches?
Somewhere between one line, feel-good, essentially avoid the subject, spots in a FAQ, and a “detailed plan”, there are obviously many interim documents and other online artifacts such as forums, volunteer ‘job’ board, etc., that could be created.
It’s not just that there is no plan – there is no evident plan for a plan, nor any no-brainer education on a) the extent of the problem and b) the possibilities of dense, zero carbon technologies.
There could also be a call for competing proposals, voting on which is most appealing, critiques by qualified critics (e.g., competent political game theorists).
The lack of serious coverage of the issue, appropriate to it’s civilization-destroying severity (as per the Bill McKibbens of this world), means that 350.org is effectively a Veal Pen.
First of all, this is the wrong question. I have been talking about zero carbon DENSE forms of energy, that can seduce the developing world off of coal and other fossil fuels. Industrializing countries are not going to use solar and wind energy for the bulk of their additional power needs. (China, BTW, is the #1 manufacturer of solar panels.)
Secondly, assuming you ask the correct question, the answer is: “I don’t know”. Since you have failed to find any evidence of seriously targeting the developing world’s explosive growth of CO2 emissions, I don’t think you can seriously dispute my assertion.
The key right now is to convince our government, and the international community, that we need to get below the 350 line. Once that commitment is in place, then we can start talking about “how” to do that.
And then the real question is: how much sacrifice is it going to take (especially from people who are used to a high CO2 lifestyle), in order to protect the Earth’s biosphere?
If you are looking for assurance that you will be able to continue your present lifestyle, exactly as it is, I don’t think you are going to get that.
Regarding your quote about 350.org from the wiki
I should point out that this is not something that 350.org is saying, but something that someone else is saying about them. So I’d take it with a grain of salt.
However, taking the statement at face value (for the sake of argument), I’d say that I disagree with that stance.
We need to do something about the impact that humans are having on the planet (and that is not just a matter of CO2, but a whole range of damaging actions). And if protecting the Earth’s biosphere threatens the industrial economy, so be it. Protecting the biosphere must come first.
I think you’re confusing threatening industrial production in the First World, with simply moving it to the Third World.
Before China’s rapid economic ascent, eating meat was on the infrequent side, and in more limited quantities. By the time I went to China, the Chinese weren’t shy about eating meat, though they still didn’t eat big slabs of it (in the form of steak), like Americans.
Also, I hear tell the Chinese are car crazy. I don’t know any statistics about Chinese car consumption, but I do know you use about as much carbon in making a car as it will produce from burning gasoline.
In summary, if you were serious and rational about reducing CO2 quickly, you would look at the reality of consumption patterns (not just production patterns), and political realities, and realize that developing dense, carbon free alternative energy sources is a necessity.
Although I didn’t talk about it in this diary, another facet of anti-CO2 activism, which is most suspicious by it’s absense, is the lack of concern about suppressed technology. Nothing about nationalizing conventional energy saving technology that corporations are sitting on, no investigating the history of it, nothing about RICO type lawsuits, nothing about investigating those towns in Florida that essentially made solar energy an impossible dream, for so long. I don’t think members of town governments in ‘the Sunshine State’ just all happened to wake up in bed, one morning, and say ‘we really SHOULD make it near impossible to solarize our residents’ homes.
Going down the more conventional energy rabbit holes will lead you to many conspiratorial players.
As for more exotic forms of energy that the US government helps conceal from the public, well, let’s just say that I’d be shocked if McKibben ever said a word about it.
People in the Third World will also have to restrict their emissions.
That is why it has to be an international response, with harsh sanctions imposed on countries that are big CO2 emitters.
So, you think it’d be easier to get commitments to reduce atmospheric CO2 to 350 ppm, with drastic reductions in living standards in the First World, and an abrupt curtailment – if not reversal – of industrialization of the 3rd World, absent dense CO2-free forms of energy, rather than with?
Politically speaking, 350 ppm CO2 is probably impossible in ANY reasonable scenario, absent massive bribes, which will probably be impossible with the Chinese (as they can makes zillions of dollars on their own).
However, with zero carbon fusion in place, e.g., you’d at least appear sane.
I think it needs to be done, one way or the other.
Personally, I’d like to see steps put in place to limit human population. 7 billion humans is too many humans. If there were few enough humans then they could all own mansions, and drive SUVs with no problem.
Hey, if you climate denier types aren’t going to worry about appearing sane, then why should I? :-D
That’s not the question. In this particular diary, I’m questioning the validity of the strategy of the fusion-etc-omerta type CO2 climate catastrophists. Given that you want to get down to 350 ppm, is following your path, of what I deem a ‘strategy’ worthy of being called “Veal Pen”, even close to optimal?
When I was in China, the client was an electric utility, that didn’t really need the full blown customer service solution that we were selling them. However, they were proud of being on the cutting edge of automation amongst Chinese corporations, in general, and not just in their sector. They wanted to maintain a reputation – not unlike American companies buying into IBM technology long before it was really necessary, in the 1950′s.
That company was owned by the Chinese military, which is (I suppose) considered part of the Chinese government. IOW, I ultimately worked for a part of the Chinese government – one that I have trouble imagining would be the least bit interested in swapping out a coal-powered power plant for a mountainside of solar panels, solar reflectors, or windmills.
If you want to get their interest, I assume you’d have to at least float a viable, DENSE source of energy like nuclear fission or nuclear fusion.
Why don’t you actually approach a Chinese power company with your scheme, and see if they’re the least bit interested? As for the Chinese government, they say some of the right things (like at Doha), but they’re no dummies. The fact that per capita Chinese CO2 went up by 9% last year, so many years after Al Gore began his CO2 jihad, should tell you something.
Frankly, I think you’re in a semi-classic Veal Pen situation. You’re spinning your wheels, going down a pathway that has zero chance of getting you where you say you want to go. Just because something is stamped “activist”, doesn’t mean it’s worth supporting.
E.g., here at MyFDL, there were diaries about some of the dumbest, counter-productive ‘actions’ imaginable, via Occupy Austin. I challenged what, to me, seems like obvious stupidity at best, designed to fail actions, at worst – like writing “Murderers”, referring to police, on walls. Oh, say now, that’ll just make public support explode, won’t it?
Meanwhile, a persistent public presence, outside of illegal encampments, is not (generally) being pursued.
If you don’t want to be Veal Penned, I suggest you think more deeply, challenge authority (meaning the Bill McKibben’s of this world, not just the Barack Obamas) and do your homework. Brainlessly repeating “denier”, while the scientific case for your CO2 climate catastrophism continues to collapse, is childish, to say the least.
Perhaps if you actually brought forth more science arguments, and less ad hominems, I’d be willing to try and look up my former Chinese co-workers, who might be willing to ask about whether or not our former electric power client finds the idea of 350 ppm laughable, or not, and what would be required for them to actually reduce their CO2 emissions.
I have trouble taking your seriously, anyway, and very much doubt your sincerity. Even if you are sincere, that’s no excuse not to use your noodle.
Hopefully the idea that they could avoid destroying the Earth’s biosphere would in-and-of-itself be enough to get their interest. It is only rational not to want to do harm to the Earth (it is where they keep their stuff, after all). But that gets back to that “sane” thing were were talking about before.
Ah yes, Ad Hominid, if I remember correctly that was the first human ancestor to engage in commercial activity.
I still remember seeing the corporate logos on the cave walls. I think it was Ad Hominid who first created the “It’s so simple even a caveman could do it!” advertisement. Of course, it had a different meaning then, since most everybody was a caveman at that time. But, anyway, I’m not sure why you brought this up here.
I should hope so!
My seriously is guarded night and day—nobody takes *my* seriously!
I’m curious why you think this is the case.