Do you really now? — Janus

Well, after you put it that way, I suppose not. But I would like to.

Well, after you put it that way, I suppose not. But I would like to. — Merkwurdichliebe

Would you move to an underground city to reduce energy expenditure?

China has not quite finished its industrial revolution. . .Don't worry, chaps, China will catch up as soon as we have a green technology worth stealing. — unenlightened

Yes, and then everything will be perfect with rainbows and bubblegum and little fuzzy bunny wabbits.

How naive can you be? There is zero evidence that China gives two shits about environmental sustainability. And it would take the greatest of fools to believe that once China has attained global hegemony through its industrialization (while the west cripples its own energy infrastructure with green technology that is too worthless to steal), that it would sabatoge its own supremacy by reversing course into green policies.

Would you move to an underground city to reduce energy expenditure? — frank

Never, and if mandated by PTB, I would resist to the death. Underground cities are a bad omen for humanity.

Never, and if mandated by PTB, I would resist to the death. Underground cities are a bad omen for humanity. — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't know, I think it would be cozy. And there could be huge parks on the surface to enjoy nature. It's an Isaac Asimov idea.

I don't know, I think it would be cozy. And there could be huge parks on the surface to enjoy nature. It's an Isaac Asimov idea. — frank

You should have led with it being Asimovian. And I didn't know we would have parks and surface access.

In that case I'm more open to it. But it would have to allow free and unimpeded transit between the underground and the surface, which would have to be explicitly codified into law as an inalienable human right.

But it would have to allow free and unimpeded transit between the underground and the surface, which would have to be explicitly codified into law as an inalienable human right. — Merkwurdichliebe

Sounds like you have a touch of claustrophobia.

Sounds like you have a touch of claustrophobia. — frank

Definitely when it comes to invountary confinement. I know I wouldn’t thrive in a prison cell.

But it would have to allow free and unimpeded transit between the underground and the surface, which would have to be explicitly codified into law as an inalienable human right.
— Merkwurdichliebe — frank

Do you think it would be preferable if all human movement was monitored and regulated in our hypothetical underground city?

Definitely when it comes to invountary confinement. I know I wouldn’t thrive in a prison cell. — Merkwurdichliebe

Or a nuclear sub probably. They go out for six months straight sometimes.

Or a nuclear sub probably. They go out for six months straight sometimes. — frank

That doesn't exactly dound like a picnic. Open pastures where I can run and frolic are more my cup-o-T.

Do you think it would be preferable if all human movement was monitored and regulated in our hypothetical underground city? — Merkwurdichliebe

I don't know what the point would be? Terrorists? I think people who would volunteer to live underground would be mostly boring people. I really like the idea of the surface being left to go wild. I love the wilderness.

I don't know what the point would be? Terrorists?  — frank

Control and power would be the point. And in a confined underground city, we would have a veritable panaptacon.
Terrorism would definitely be a pretense for more control.

I think people who would volunteer to live underground would be mostly boring people. I really like the idea of the surface being left to go wild. I love the wilderness. — frank

I think the powers that be, which benefit from a totalitarian underground city, would never leave the surface alone and allow it to thrive. These are the most boring types, those who wish to impose their boring misery on others.

This is starting to feel allegorical.

There is nothing truer than the wilderness, and i love weather, i find it life affirming and reinvigorating.

There is zero evidence that China gives two shits about environmental sustainability. — Merkwurdichliebe

It doesn't require evidence. At the moment humanity as a whole gives less than a half shit about environmental sustainability. But when 90% have drowned, starved, or died in migratory conflicts, minds will change. There is zero evidence that China is too stupid to appreciate this. On the contrary, they are busy ensuring access to important greening resources such as lithium, and developing solar technologies.
Your naivety is to think that baddies must be stupid.

Control and power would be the point. And in a confined underground city, we would have a veritable panaptacon.
Terrorism would definitely be a pretense for more control. — Merkwurdichliebe

They would probably also start doing genetic engineering to make tiers of capability like alphas would be beautiful geniuses, betas would be nice looking functionaries, all the way to epsilons who are retarded. Plus they're all medicated so they're happy all the time.

Then you show up out of the wilderness and do something revolutionary. And through the great adventure, you discover that you're not a cowardly lion after all. I mean you're a lion, but not cowardly.

There is nothing truer than the wilderness, and i love weather, i find it life affirming and reinvigorating. — Merkwurdichliebe

Me too. When I'm in the woods something unwinds inside me that I didn't even know was up tight.

It doesn't require evidence — unenlightened

Evidence woud help relieve suspicions.

At the moment humanity as a whole gives less than a half shit about environmental sustainability. — unenlightened

Good, we can agree on that. This certainly makes the green agenda in the west appear like a futile idealistic pipe-dream.

There is zero evidence that China is too stupid to appreciate this. On the contrary, they are busy ensuring access to important greening resources such as lithium, and developing solar technologies.
Your naivety is to think that baddies must be stupid. — unenlightened

I never meant to insinuate that China is stupid. On the contrary, China knows exaclty what it is doing, and one of those things is to exploit the West as it sits there neurotically with its thumb up its butt.

One example is its securing of rare resources that the West has become increasingly dependent on. And even if they are attempting to develop green technologies, they are too smart to implement it on a large scale until it has been proven to outperform the currently operating energy infrastructure.

They would probably also start doing genetic engineering to make tiers of capability like alphas would be beautiful geniuses, betas would be nice looking functionaries, all the way to epsilons who are retarded. Plus they're all medicated so they're happy all the time. — frank

I like that. I'm a huge fan of caste systems based on looks. Retards and uglies would have to be classified together. And will-depleting drugs are always necessary.

Then you show up out of the wilderness and do something revolutionary. And through the great adventure, you discover that you're not a cowardly lion after all. I mean you're a lion, but not cowardly. — frank

These uncowardly lions would be labeled terrorists no doubt.

When I'm in the woods something unwinds inside me that I didn't even know was up tight. — frank

You said it brother, there is no greater feeling of freedom than doing your duty out in the wilderness.

I like that. I'm a huge fan of caste systems based on looks. Retards and uglies would have to be classified together. And will-depleting drugs are always necessary. — Merkwurdichliebe

:lol:

You said it brother, there is no greater feeling of freedom than doing your duty out in the wilderness. — Merkwurdichliebe

no doubt

EROI is already much better, and if you factor cost of externalities is no contest.

Whether or not there is enough time is the second issue I mentioned earlier. But that too is because of lack of political will. Nothing has been done for so long, despite warnings and pleas from the science community and the public (and the globe), that it may indeed be too little, too late.

But we don’t know for certain, and in any case it’s a ridiculous position to take if it’s thrown around to justify doing nothing, or rationalizes casually and idly chatting about it. — Mikie

I don't think EROI is getting much better with renewables, there's a cap to how much they can improve in effeciency because of the underlying physics of those technologies.

Very little would be truly viable if you factor in all externalities. It's not as if the external costs aren't huge for renewables too. That is the flip side of progress/growth, it allways seems to involve externalising costs. You seem to think we can have both, even though historically there's almost a one to one relation between growth and damage to the enviroment. There's no evidence that decoupling those two is possible in practice.

Anyway— what “people” do you refer to? You seem to want to continually shift the majority of blame upon the average citizen. — Mikie

This isn't about blame. I think ultimately all of this is more an unfortunate accident of history/evolution. We need food, shelter, social status etc etc, and have had to labour continuously to provide those things. Of course we are going to use free energy that makes things easier.... We aren't really equipped to deal with all this complexity and long term planning and allways have more or less made stuff up as we go.

You’re also exaggerating the costs and making a lot of assumptions about human beings which I don’t see much support for. I think average “people” care about their kids and grandkids’ futures, and would prefer that the world as we know it wasn’t burned or under water. This shows up in polling too — they want their governments to do more.

People aren’t against heat pumps or efficient public transportation or solar panels. They’re not against utilities generating electricity from renewables. The costs are way down, and should be subsidized further (as we’ve done with oil and gas for decades). There are indeed problems when it comes to NIMBYISM regarding transmission lines, losing jobs, etc — and that can be dealt with. Not insurmountable at all. — Mikie

People are against having to pay a large portion of their hard earned money to pay for basics like energy. This is pretty obvious, and shouldn't need much defence.

And we haven't really been subsidizing oil and gas all that much. Most of so called "subsidizing" the IMF reported on have been governement contributions to the energy bills of the poor, and counting not payed for externalities as "subsidies". Direct subsidies have been only a very small portion of that.

Governments have unprecedented debt already. Sure you could say why not pile on some more, but then you're only kicking the can ahead of you some more... someone will have to pay for it eventually.

Still largely a success— although phasing out nuclear was a mistake. — Mikie

We shall see. These kind of things play out over decades. If Germany's economy tanks, and it drags Europe with it, or if it starts its coal plants again because ernergy price get to high otherwise... I wouldn't call that a succes.

Well, then all I can repeat is that I don’t think you’ve looked into this aspect enough.

Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the White House roof in the late 70s. Torn down by the fossil fuel shill Reagan. Imagine if instead we started a large renewable push in the 80s, and gradually transitioned? How much better would we be today?

I’d also Google Lee Raymond. — Mikie

Yes you seem to think these evolutions are allways driven predominantly by idea's or ideologies. The fact of the matter is that photovoltaics were nowhere near as good as fossil fuels back then, and that is the main reason they didn't gain a lot of traction... Jimmy Carter had solar panels on the roof of the White house because he was scared of running out of energy in the wake of the oil crisis. He was an ideological child of the whole limits to growth movement that started in the early seventies.

And we haven't really been subsidizing oil and gas all that much. — ChatteringMonkey

Over $20 billion a year (conservatively) is a lot, especially when compared to renewables. And this isn’t factoring in other subsidies. One estimate — the IMF — quotes in the trillions, which you seem to want to discount.

So to argue we’re not subsidizing oil and gas “that much” is a joke.

Very little would be truly viable if you factor in all externalities. It's not as if the external costs aren't huge for renewables too. — ChatteringMonkey

Another canard.

Not nearly as much. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a black and white world. Yes, solar and wind require a lot of energy up front. But then they basically run themselves, making up for the initial emissions by a lot.

Compare to fossil fuels and there’s no contest.

I think ultimately all of this is more an unfortunate accident of history/evolution. — ChatteringMonkey

It’s not an accident. It’s a deliberate choice, and one made because of greed. Capitalism isn’t a natural law.

Governments have unprecedented debt already. — ChatteringMonkey

Right— so let’s lay down and die. Let’s let the world burn because it’s not economically viable to save it.

Funny how the “debt” gets brought up very selectively.

If we can spend $1 trillion a year on the military, we can spend that on saving the planet.

They [fossil fuel companies] certainly don't help, but I don't think we would have solved climate change even without their propaganda. — ChatteringMonkey

Imagine if instead we started a large renewable push in the 80s, and gradually transitioned? How much better would we be today? — Mikie

Yes you seem to think these evolutions are allways driven predominantly by idea's or ideologies. — ChatteringMonkey

So you didn’t Google Lee Raymond. His behavior wasn’t motivated by sheer greed, I suppose?

Has nothing to do with ideology, unless greed is an ideology. The propaganda campaigns were deliberate, and were conducted by fossil fuel companies and the think tanks that the industry funded — which staffed the Reagan administration and set the policy agenda.

But I suppose we can shut our eyes and make believe all of this was just an “accident” and a natural outgrowth of “free markets” based on “human nature,” etc…

The fact of the matter is that photovoltaics were nowhere near as good as fossil fuels back then, and that is the main reason they didn't gain a lot of traction — ChatteringMonkey

:ok:

Takes real effort to avoid so much contrary evidence.

Over $20 billion a year (conservatively) is a lot, especially when compared to renewables. And this isn’t factoring in other subsidies. One estimate — the IMF — quotes in the trillions, which you seem to want to discount.

So to argue we’re not subsidizing oil and gas “that much” is a joke. — Mikie

Not as much as some want us to believe was my point. The 7 trillion from the IMF certainly wasn't a very fair estimate, and that's the study that blindly get parrotted everywhere.

Another canard.

Not nearly as much. Unfortunately, we don’t live in a black and white world. Yes, solar and wind require a lot of energy up front. But then they basically run themselves, making up for the initial emissions by a lot.

Compare to fossil fuels and there’s no contest. — Mikie

If you only look at carbon emissions sure... but if you look at land use, which is the main cause of bio-diversity loss, it isn't great, certainly not if we would be serious about scaling up renewables to replace all fossil fuels. Mining for all the resources to build them is devastating too. And then we haven't factored in all the waste we will have to deal with once we need to replace them in 20 years.

It’s not an accident. It’s a deliberate choice, and one made because of greed. Capitalism isn’t a natural law. — Mikie

I dislike capitalism as much as anyone, but I don't think it's the main culprit, industrialisation is. Communism was and is at least as bad for the environment.

Right— so let’s lay down and die. Let’s let the world burn because it’s not economically viable to save it.

Funny how the “debt” gets brought up very selectively.

If we can spend $1 trillion a year on the military, we can spend that on saving the planet. — Mikie

No, I would choose saving the biosphere over the economy in a heartbeat. But it's not up to me, it doesn't matter what I want if there isn't enough political support for it. I just can't see it happening, because I don't think we wouldn't have much of an economy left if we were to include all externalities. I'm talking mostly discriptive here, or I try to at least.

So you didn’t Google Lee Raymond. That wasn’t motivated by sheer greed, I suppose?

Has nothing to do with ideology, unless greed is an ideology. The propaganda campaigns were deliberate, and were conducted by fossil fuel companies and the think tanks that this industry funded. Which staffed the Reagan administration and set the policy agenda.

But I suppose we can shut our eyes and make believe all of this was just an “accident” and a natural outgrowth of “free markets” based on “human nature,” etc… — Mikie

I did google him, and sure he seem like a greedy bastard alright. I just don't think any one person, or even a group of people, has that much influence in the larger scheme of things. How do you explain the rest of the world doing little to nothing to reduce emmission? Europe did a little bit better maybe, but nowhere near enough to seriously stop climate change. Climate change denial hasn't really been a thing in Europe, and yet here we are 30 years further with little to show for. At some point one has to look a little deeper than evil greedy dude destroying the world for profit I would think.

but if you look at land use, which is the main cause of bio-diversity loss, it isn't great, — ChatteringMonkey

Mining for all the resources to build them is devastating too. — ChatteringMonkey

all the waste — ChatteringMonkey

Yeah— they do better than fossil fuels in all these areas. With the exception of solar panels and land use, which is comparable to coal but not gas. But what’s your point? That this will be hard and that we’ll have to deal responsibly with the process? No kidding.

But it has to happen and will happen. So since it’s happening, I’m not sure what good it does saying how hard it will be, how big it is, how expensive it is, or how there are costs associated to it. Yeah, no kidding. We’ve been dealing with those issues for years in an industry that has killed millions and ruined the planet — called fossil fuels.

It does serve one purpose I guess. It enables us to sit back and say “we’re doomed — it’s never gonna happen” and go on with our lives. Sorry kids.

I don’t share that sentiment.

I dislike capitalism as much as anyone, but I don't think it's the main culprit, industrialisation is. Communism was and is at least as bad for the environment. — ChatteringMonkey

So-called communism. But the USSR and China were/ are state-capitalist economies. In any case, the US industrialized long ago and knew of this issue long after— they had the technology to change, and didn’t.

China faces a similar problem now — and is doing much more than we were at that level of development. They’re quite right when they say they shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of this work given historical emissions.

The reason the US didn’t decarbonize wasn’t because of the public. It wasn’t because of free markets. It wasn’t because the technology wasn’t available. And it wasn’t because of industrialization.

I just can't see it happening — ChatteringMonkey

I couldn’t see heat pumps outselling gas furnaces in my lifetime…but it happened last year.

Maybe none of it happens. That’s a possibility. But we work hard anyway. What we don’t do is sit down and help guarantee nothing happens.

I just don't think any one person, or even a group of people, has that much influence in the larger scheme of things. — ChatteringMonkey

Then you’re really not paying attention.

If you want to believe it’s all accidental or inevitable somehow, that’s fine— seems better than believing in conspiracy theories. Until you recognize that they’re not really conspiracy theories, of course.

How do you explain the rest of the world doing little to nothing to reduce emmission? — ChatteringMonkey

The rest of the world doesn’t emit much compared to a handful of wealthy countries.

And they are doing a great deal, in fact. Denmark, Netherlands, Morocco, many south sea islands, France, Germany — even China, by some measures.

There are many reasons why it’s slow moving. There’s economic reasons and propaganda just like in the US. But other times it’s simply the early stages of development and lack of funds (India, Africa). Much of it is lack of global leadership (US), with only mild steps forward coming the last few years.

I didn’t say it was one cause. In the US, however, it’s very close to one cause— and it’s obvious.

Yeah— they do better than fossil fuels in all these areas. With the exception of solar panels and land use, which is comparable to coal but not gas. But what’s your point? That this will be hard and that we’ll have to deal responsibly with the process? No kidding. — Mikie

The point is that it is not as black and white as a lot of you seem to be making it out to be. Or it only gets looked at on this binary carbon emissions axis.... If you take different aspects into consideration, like yes the economy, or other types of ecological damages, than it's a lot more nuanced.

But it has to happen and will happen. So since it’s happening, I’m not sure what good it does saying how hard it will be, how big it is, how expensive it is, or how there are costs associated to it. Yeah, no kidding. We’ve been dealing with those issues for years in an industry that has killed millions and ruined the planet — called fossil fuels.

It does serve one purpose I guess. It enables us to sit back and say “we’re doomed — it’s never gonna happen” and go on with our lives. Sorry kids.

I don’t share that sentiment.

I don't get why this is so hard to understand. Resources, money, time etc etc are limited. If we want to figure out how to best deal with the problems we have, we'd better find out what all the different costs are of the available options.

So-called communism. But the USSR and China were/ are state-capitalist economies. In any case, the US industrialized long ago and knew of this issue long after— they had the technology to change, and didn’t.

China faces a similar problem now — and is doing much more than we were at that level of development. They’re quite right when they say they shouldn’t have to bear the brunt of this work given historical emissions.

The reason the US didn’t decarbonize wasn’t because of the public. It wasn’t because of free markets. It wasn’t because the technology wasn’t available. And it wasn’t because of industrialization. — Mikie

The reason all of them carbonized was industrialisation.

I couldn’t see heat pumps outselling gas furnaces in my lifetime…but it happened last year.

Maybe none of it happens. That’s a possibility. But we work hard anyway. What we don’t do is sit down and help guarantee nothing happens. — Mikie

We can do a bit better that hope for the improbable I would think.

The rest of the world doesn’t emit much compared to a handful of wealthy countries.

And they are doing a great deal, in fact. Denmark, Netherlands, Morocco, many south sea islands, France, Germany — even China, by some measures.

There are many reasons why it’s slow moving. There’s economic reasons and propaganda just like in the US. But other times it’s simply the early stages of development and lack of funds (India, Africa). Much of it is lack of global leadership (US), with only mild steps forward coming the last few years.

I didn’t say it was one cause. In the US, however, it’s very close to one cause— and it’s obvious. — Mikie

Ok, I agree with this.

we'd better find out what all the different costs are of the available options. — ChatteringMonkey

That’s been done.

The reason all of them carbonized was industrialisation. — ChatteringMonkey

Industrialization and modern capitalism goes hand and hand.

That’s been done. — Mikie

You really believe that there no more debate to be had about how we are going to solve this? That seems rather close-minded. I feel like we only have scratched the surface of how we are going to balance different issues.... In any case, I don't think there is one kind of solution, it will also greatly depend on the situation of your country.

Industrialization and modern capitalism goes hand and hand — Mikie

Communism relies on industrialization too, unless you are going for the Pol Pot variety.

You really believe that there no more debate to be had about how we are going to solve this? — ChatteringMonkey

Plenty. I’ve seen none from you whatsoever other than “I doubt it can be done.”

Communism relies on industrialization too — ChatteringMonkey

The Industrial Revolution started in Britain. The so called communist countries industrialized later.

The Industrial Revolution started in Britain — Mikie

[Slight quibble]. It started really with the beginning of the British Empire. Slave produced cotton, and sugar both subsidised and incentivised mass production, transport etc. Slate from Welsh quarries roofed the houses of plantation owners, and the Bethesda quarry owner, for example, was also a plantation owner. And the quarry was an early adopter of a railway to transport slate to the coast for shipment. A similar pattern can be found with the cotton mills of Lancashire, etc.

In particular, there was a great hunger in Africa for iron, which was hard won by the technology available to them, but which Britain had developed with the exploitation of coal. Slaves were bought, first for iron, and later for guns. The triangular trade - iron from Britain to West Africa, Slaves to the Americas and the West Indies, sugar, cotton and rum back to Britain is what made a small country one of the wealthiest, and most powerful, and drove the industrial revolution.

(Racism is as essential to capitalism as sexism is to patriarchy.)

[/slight quibble].

Plenty. I’ve seen none from you whatsoever other than “I doubt it can be done. — Mikie

I doubt it can be done without certain consequences...

You haven't seen them because we haven't talked about that specifically.

Most of these 81 pages have been about rebuking climate change denial, which is a clear cut matter. That doesn't mean there isn't a real discussion to be had about how we are going to solve it.

And yes, I'm still in the process of making up my mind, I don't see how one can be so certain about something with this many moving parts.

That doesn't mean there isn't a real discussion to be had about how we are going to solve it. — ChatteringMonkey

Well let’s have that discussion then.

I don't see how one can be so certain about something with this many moving parts. — ChatteringMonkey

I’m not at all certain. I make the choice not to dwell on the idea that we’re probably screwed. It’s useless and becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Fair enough. Point taken.