|
|
Post by eclipse on Sept 16, 2014 22:06:57 GMT 9.5
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Sept 17, 2014 12:33:12 GMT 9.5
The book is touted as starting a climate-rescuing revolution in economics. The author says she was depressed by the lack of action coming out of Copenhagen in 2009. But what did come out of Copenhagen was the injunction that we must eliminate our emissions to near zero "well within this century". That is, there is no sustainable level of emissions to be shared out among emitters. Once we knew that, it became criminal to emit any greenhouse gas at all. Yet this book seems to absolve carbon capitalists who make token reductions. That is all we can expect market economics to do about emissions: they want a Godfather's right to continue to trade in crime and earn forgiveness at the same time. If there is to be a significant role for economists in rescuing the climate it would be that they become servants to a global revolution in energy supply. Economists were significant in restructuring the Allied wartime economies during World War II, including the streamlining that made possible the mass production of Liberty Ships at greatly reduced cost. Yet in this book review there is no mention of a similar mass production of nuclear power plants, and I suspect that the required roadmap for revolution is not realised in the book either. It seems to be just greenwash for people who want to be reassured that their earnest wishes are enough to stop the ship from sinking. |
|
peterc
Thermal Neutron
Posts: 30
|
Post by peterc on Sept 17, 2014 18:48:34 GMT 9.5
The reviewer seems to admit she's short on solutions, and the clip embedded in the review is also slick and content-free.
Is this just another attempt to exploit the GW problem to advance a political agenda?
Any serious attempt to tackle the problem must include a carbon tax, and she, like other lefties, seems as little prepared to consider this as the right.
|
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Sept 18, 2014 9:26:57 GMT 9.5
Hi Peterc,
As a middle to leftish voter, I'm completely happy with the idea of a carbon tax (as long as it is not too complicated to implement and we can see the money going into something good).
I'm also completely happy without it. If the job gets done.
I don't care if private enterprise or big government get the job done. I'm happy as soon as reactors come flying off the production line, and we close down coal and oil. Do that, and we're in one-planet living. Then we can solve the other great challenges to sustainability!
|
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Sept 21, 2014 12:04:48 GMT 9.5
Any serious attempt to tackle the [global warming] problem must include a carbon tax, and she, like other lefties, seems as little prepared to consider this as the right. It is hard to see anyone en masse grasping how serious global warming is. Thirty years ago the world's climatologists gave up trying to persuade governments of its imminence, and instead pushed to establish the IPCC as a body so conservative that nobody could disbelieve its pronouncements. Now, as the elements bank up with new-found energy, evidence of impending fury has even the IPCC sounding alarm. Their diagnosis of 2009 includes an injunction for immediate and ongoing reductions to emissions to near-zero well before the end of the century. With a waypoint of 80% reduction by 2050, that requires halving emissions every 17 years. Globally ! Much as you say, the left in Australia is besotted with the idea of a rollout of gas, decorated lightly with renewables. The right is distracted by the widespread profits arising from the production, proliferation, consumption and export of gas. Most everyone in between falls silent when we realise how much our real estate and superannuation are benefiting… from the booming gas industry. If you are into books foretelling the warming future, may I suggest " Requiem for a Species", by Clive Hamilton, an ethical perspective. A passionate plea is made in " Storms of my Grandchildren" by James Hansen. We will know when someone is taking it seriously when the young are marching in protest, including placards saying "go nuclear!". But I am afraid that they will not take to the streets until the rate of climatic disasters has increased to the point that it becomes a marker in the fossil record. |
|
|
|
Post by eclipse on Oct 1, 2014 12:56:28 GMT 9.5
We will know when someone is taking it seriously when the young are marching in protest, including placards saying "go nuclear!". But I am afraid that they will not take to the streets until the rate of climatic disasters has increased to the point that it becomes a marker in the fossil record. Unfortunately it's just not happening. We need a trendy, cool hipster nuclear meme to get out there that smacks down renewable pretensions, or at least puts them in their (limited) space. But I'm scratching my head to think of one! Not only that, but with billions of dollars at stake from big nuclear businesses, I'm amazed they haven't funded more glowing documentaries about nuclear energy. Where are the moon-shot video's? Pandora's promise was a good start, but we need a shorter, punchier, clearer thing pushed by a bunch of celebrities they love. We need nuclear to become hot. Right now that's wind and solar, and any shortfalls (like their low ERoEI with storage) just becomes a clarion call for 'conspiracies' by the nuclear lobby or some kind of fatalistic acceptance that we all must 'powerdown' and live on an ecovillage and eat 'peace love and mung beans baby.' Unfortunately the message is too complex for quick soundbytes. In this case, the message is not suitable for the medium I'm imagining. |
|
|
|
Post by Roger Clifton on Oct 3, 2014 4:27:16 GMT 9.5
... need a shorter, punchier, clearer thing pushed by ... celebrities A good start would be "You can [either] make history or be vilified by it" from Leonardo Di Caprio's recent speech to the UN. The full speech and its video are (here).
His assertion, "New research shows that by 2050 clean, renewable energy could supply 100% of the world’s energy needs using existing technologies...[by] the world taking decisive, large-scale action" would be interpreted by most governments' advisors as requiring all non-carbon technologies.
As far as being at war goes, he quoted Admiral Locklear of USPACOM as saying that "climate change is our single greatest security threat". It was close enough: the admiral was speaking of the Pacific but implied the world: (interview)
|
|
|
|
Post by huon on Oct 7, 2014 12:10:42 GMT 9.5
According to Will Boisvert, writing for The Breakthrough Institute about Ms. Klein's book: "Her understanding of the technical aspects of energy policy--indispensable for any serious discussion of sustainability-- is weak and biased, marked by a myopic boosterism of renewables and an unthinking rejection of nuclear power and other low-carbon energy sources. Having declared climate change an 'existential crisis for the human species,' [15] she rules out some of the most effective means of dealing with it." Sections 2 and 3 of the review discuss nuclear power at greater length. All of the review is incisive and well-written. thebreakthrough.org/index.php/programs/energy-and-climate/the-left-vs.-the-climate |
|
peterc
Thermal Neutron
Posts: 30
|
Post by peterc on Oct 10, 2014 16:31:22 GMT 9.5
huon : Many thanks for the link on Klein. If the review is reliable, which seems very likely, what a farago of contradictions the Klein book is!
|
|
