Blog

Collapse Is Already Here

It's a process, not an event
Friday, January 25, 2019, 9:18 PM

Many people are expecting some degree of approaching collapse -- be it economic, environmental and/or societal -- thinking that they’ll recognize the danger signs in time. 

As if it will be completely obvious, like a Hollywood blockbuster. Complete with clear warnings from scientists, politicians and the media.  And everyone can then get busy either panicking or becoming the plucky heroes. 

That's not how collapse works.

Collapse is a process, not an event.

And it's already underway, all around us. 

Collapse is already here.

However, unlike Hollywood's vision, the early stages of collapse cause people to cling even tighter to the status quo. Instead of panic in the streets, we simply see more of the same -- as those in power do all they can to remain so, while the majority of the public attempts to ignore the growing problems for as long as it possibly can.

For both the elite and the majority, their entire world view and their personal sense of self depends on things not crumbling all around them, so they remain willfully blind to any evidence to the contrary.

When faced with the predicaments we warn about here at PeakProsperity.com, getting an early start on prudently shifting your own personal situation is of vital strategic and tactical importance. Tens of thousands of our readers already have taken wise steps in their lives to position themselves resiliently.

But most of the majority won't get started until it’s entirely too late to make any difference at all. Which is sad but perhaps unavoidable, given human nature.

If everybody around you is saying “Everything is awesome!”, it can take a long time to determine for yourself that things in fact aren't:

Real collapse happens slowly, and often without any sort of acknowledgement by the so-called political and economic elites until its abrupt terminal end.

The degree of rot within the Soviet Union went undetected until its final implosion, catching pretty much everyone in the West (as well as in the former USSR!) by surprise.   

Similarly, one day people woke up and passenger pigeons were extinct.  They used to literally darken the skies for hours as they migrated past, numbering in the billions. Nobody planned on their demise and virtually nobody saw it coming.  Sure, just as there always are, a few crackpots at the fringes noticed, but they were ignored until it was too late.

Our view is that collapse of our current way of life is happening right now. The signs are all around us.  Our invitation is for you to notice them and inquire critically what the ramifications will be -- irrespective of whatever pablum our leaders and media are currently spewing.

While the monetary and financial elites strain to crank out one more day/week/month/year of “market stability”, the ecosystems we depend on for life are vanishing. It's as if the Rapture were happening, but it's the insects, plants and animals ascending to heaven instead of we humans.

Committing Ecocide

Be very skeptical when the cause of each new ecological nightmare is ascribed to “natural causes.” 

While it’s entire possible for any one ecological mishap to be due to a natural cycle, it’s weak thinking to assign the same cause to dozens of troubling findings happening all over the globe.

As they say in the military: Once is an accident. Twice is a coincidence. But three times is enemy action.

Right now, Australia is in the middle of the summer season and being absolutely hammered by high heat.  Sure it gets hot during an Australian summer, but not like this. The impact has been devastating:

Australia's Facing an Unprecedented Ecological Crisis, But No One's Paying Attention

Jan 9, 2019

It started in December, just before Christmas.

Hundreds of dead perch were discovered floating along the banks of the Darling River – victims of a "dirty, rotten green" algae bloom spreading in the still waters of the small country town of Menindee, Australia.

Things didn't get better. The dead hundreds became dead thousands, as the crisis expanded to claim the lives of 10,000 fish along a 40-kilometre (25-mile) stretch of the river. But the worst was still yet to come.

This week, the environmental disaster has exploded to a horrific new level – what one Twitter user called "Extinction level water degradation" – with reports suggesting up to a million fish have now been killed in a new instance of the toxic algae bloom conditions.

For their part, authorities in the state of New South Wales have only gone as far as confirming "hundreds of thousands" of fish have died in the event – but regardless of the exact toll, it's clear the deadly calamity is an unprecedented ecological disaster in the region's waterways.

"I've never seen two fish kills of this scale so close together in terms of time, especially in the same stretch of river," fisheries manager Iain Ellis from NSW Department of Primary Industries (DPI) explained to ABC News.

The DPI blames ongoing drought conditions for the algae bloom's devastating impact on local bream, cod, and perch species – with a combination of high temperature and chronic low water supply (along with high nutrient concentrations in the water) making for a toxic algal soup.

(Source)

Watching the video above showing grown men crying over the loss of 100-year-old fish is heartbreaking. This fish kill is described as “unprecedented” and as an “extinction level event", meaning it left no survivors over a long stretch of waterway.

We can try to console oursleves that maybe this was just a singular event, a cluster of bad juju and worse waterway management that combined to give us this horror -- but it wasn’t.

It's part of a larger tapestry of heat-induced misery that Australia is facing:

How one heatwave killed 'a third' of a bat species in Australia

Jan 15, 2019

Over two days in November, record-breaking heat in Australia's north wiped out almost one-third of the nation's spectacled flying foxes, according to researchers.

The animals, also known as spectacled fruit bats, were unable to survive in temperatures which exceeded 42C.

"It was totally depressing," one rescuer, David White, told the BBC.

Flying foxes are no more sensitive to extreme heat than some other species, experts say. But because they often gather in urban areas in large numbers, their deaths can be more conspicuous, and easily documented.

"It raises concerns as to the fate of other creatures who have more secretive, secluded lifestyles," Dr Welbergen says.

He sees the bats as the "the canary in the coal mine for climate change".

(Source)

A two-day heatwave last November (2018) was sufficient to kill up to a third of all Australia's known flying foxes, a vulnerable species that was already endangered.  As those bats are well-studied and their deaths quite conspicuous to observers, it raises the important question: How many other less-scrutinized species are dying off at the same time?

And the death parade continues:

Are these data points severe enough for you to recognize as signs of ongoing collapse?

Last summer was a time of extreme drought and heat for Australia, and this summer looks set to be even worse. This may be the country's  'new normal' for if the situation is due to climate change instead of just an ordinary (if punishing) hot cycle. 

If so, these heat waves will likely intensify over time, completely collapsing the existing biological systems across Australia.

Meanwhile, nearby in New Zealand, similar species loss is underway:

'Like losing family': time may be running out for New Zealand's most sacred tree

July 2018

New Zealand’s oldest and most sacred tree stands 60 metres from death, as a fungal disease known as kauri dieback spreads unabated across the country.

Tāne Mahuta (Lord of the Forest) is a giant kauri tree located in the Waipoua forest in the north of the country, and is sacred to the Māori people, who regard it as a living ancestor.

The tree is believed to be around 2,500 years old, has a girth of 13.77m and is more than 50m tall.

Thousands of locals and tourists alike visit the tree every year to pay their respects, and take selfies beside the trunk.

Now, the survival of what is believed to be New Zealand’s oldest living tree is threatened by kauri dieback, with kauri trees a mere 60m from Tāne Mahuta confirmed to be infected.

Kauri dieback causes most infected trees to die, and is threatening to completely wipe out New Zealand’s most treasured native tree species, prized for its beauty, strength and use in boats, carvings and buildings.

“We don’t have any time to do the usual scientific trials anymore, we just have to start responding immediately in any way possible; it is not ideal but we have kind of run out of time,” Black says, adding that although there is no cure for kauri dieback there is a range of measures which could slow its progress.

(Source)

People are rallying to try and save the kauri trees, although it’s unclear exactly how to stop the spread of the new fungal invader or why it's so pathogenic all of a sudden.  It could be due to another natural sort of cycle (except the fungus was thought to have been introduced and spread by human activity) or it could be a another collapse indicator we need to finally hear and heed.

It turns out that New Zealand is not alone. Giant trees are dying all over the globe.

2,000-year-old baobab trees in Africa are suddenly and rather mysteriously giving up the ghost.  These trees survived happily for 2,000 years and now all of a sudden they're dying. Are the deaths of our most ancient trees all across the globe some sort of natural process? Or is there a different culprit we need to recognize?

In Japan they're lamenting record low squid catches.  Oh well, maybe it’s just overfishing?  Or could it be another message we need to heed?

To all this we can add the numerous scientific articles now decrying the 'insect Apocalypse' unfolding across the northern hemisphere. The Guardian recently issued this warning: “Insect collapse: ‘We are destroying our life support systems’”. Researchers in Puerto Rico's forest preserves recorded a 98% decline in insect mass over 35 years.  Does a 98% decline have a natural explanation? Or is something bigger going on?

Meanwhile, the butterfly die-off is unfolding with alarming speed. I rarely see them in the summer anymore, much to my great regret.  Seeing one is now as exciting as seeing a meteor streak across the sky, and just as rare:

Monarch butterfly numbers plummet 86 percent in California

Jan 7, 2019

CAMARILLO, Calif. – The number of monarch butterflies turning up at California's overwintering sites has dropped by about 86 percent compared to only a year ago, according to the Xerces Society, which organizes a yearly count of the iconic creatures.

That’s bad news for a species whose numbers have already declined an estimated 97 percent since the 1980s.

Each year, monarchs in the western United States migrate from inland areas to California’s coastline to spend the winter, usually between September and February.

“It’s been the worst year we’ve ever seen,” said Emma Pelton, a conservation biologist with the Xerces Society who helps lead the annual Thanksgiving count. “We already know we’re dealing with a really small population, and now we have a really bad year and all of a sudden, we’re kind of in crisis mode where we have very, very few butterflies left.”

What’s causing the dramatic drop-off is somewhat of a mystery. Experts believe the decline is spurred by a confluence of unfortunate factors, including late rainy-season storms across California last March, the effects of the state’s years long drought and the seemingly relentless onslaught of wildfires that have burned acres upon acres of habitat and at times choked the air with toxic smoke.

(Source)

Note the “explanation” given blames the decline on mostly natural processes: late storms, droughts and wildfires. I believe that's because the article appears in a US paper, so no mention was permitted of neonicotinoid pesticides or glyphosate. Both of these are highly effective decimators of insect life -- but they're highly profitable for Big Ag, so for now, any criticism is not allowed.

Sure a 97% decline since the 1980’s might be due to fires, droughts and rains. But that’s really not very likely.  There have always been fires, droughts and rains.  Something else has shifted since the 1980’s. And that “thing” is human activity, which has increased its willingness to destroy habitat and spray poisons everywhere in pursuit of cheaper food and easier profits.

The loss of insects, which we observe in the loss of the beautiful and iconic Monarch butterfly, is a gigantic warning flag that we desperately need to heed.  If the bottom of our billion-year-old food web disintegrates, you can be certain that the repercussions to humans will be dramatic and terribly difficult to ‘fix.’  In scientific terms, it will be called a “bottom-up trophic cascade”.

In a trophic cascade, the loss of a single layer of the food pyramid crumbles the entire structure.  Carefully-tuned food webs a billion years in the making are suddenly destabilized.  Life cannot adapt quickly enough, and so entire species are quickly lost.  Once enough species die off, the web cannot be rewoven, and life … simply ends.

What exactly would a “trophic cascade” look like in real life?  Oh, perhaps something just like this:

Deadly deficiency at the heart of an environmental mystery

Oct 16, 2018

During spring and summer, busy colonies of a duck called the common eider (Somateria mollissima) and other wild birds are usually seen breeding on the rocky coasts around the Baltic Sea. Thousands of eager new parents vie for the best spots to build nests and catch food for their demanding young broods.

But Lennart Balk, an environmental biochemist at Stockholm University, witnessed a dramatically different scene when he visited Swedish coastal colonies during a 5-year period starting in 2004. Many birds couldn’t fly. Others were completely paralyzed. Birds also weren’t eating and had difficulty breathing. Thousands of birds were suffering and dying from this paralytic disease, says Balk. “We went into the bird colonies, and we were shocked. You could see something was really wrong. It was a scary situation for this time of year,” he says.

Based on his past work documenting a similar crisis in several Baltic Sea fish species, Balk suspected that the birds’ disease was caused by a thiamine (vitamin B1) deficiency. Thiamine is required for critical metabolic processes, such as energy production and proper functioning of the nervous system.

This essential micronutrient is produced mainly by plants, including phytoplankton, bacteria, and fungi; people and animals must acquire it through their food.

“We found that thiamine deficiency is much more widespread and severe than previously thought,” Balk says. Given its scope, he suggests that a pervasive thiamine deficiency could be at least partly responsible for global wildlife population declines. Over a 60-year period up to 2010, for example, worldwide seabird populations declined by approximately 70%, and globally, species are being lost 1,000 times faster than the natural rate of extinction (9, 10). “He has seen a thiamine deficiency in several differ phyla now,” says Fitzsimons of Balk. “One wonders what is going on. It’s a larger issue than we first suspected.”

(Source)

This is beyond disturbing. It should have been on the front pages of every newspaper and TV show across the globe.  We should be discussing it in urgent, worried tones and devoting a huge amount of money to studying and fixing it.  At a minimum, we should stop hauling more tiny fish and krill from the sea in an effort to at least stabilize the food pyramid while we sort things out.

If you recall, we’ve also recently reported on the findings showing that phytoplankton levels are down 50% (these are a prime source for thiamine, by the way). Again, here's a possible “trophic cascade” in progress: 

(Source)

Fewer phytoplankton means less thiamine being produced. That means less thiamine is available to pass up the food chain. Next thing you know, there’s a 70% decline in seabird populations.

This is something I’ve noticed directly and commented n during my annual pilgrimages to the northern Maine coast over the past 30 years, where seagulls used to be extremely common and are now practically gone.  Seagulls!

Next thing you know, some other major food chain will be wiped out and we'll get oceans full of jellyfish instead of actual fish.  Or perhaps some once-benign mold grows unchecked because the former complex food web holding it in balance has collapsed, suddenyl transforming Big Ag's "green revolution" into grayish-brown spore-ridden dust.

To add to the terrifying mix of ecological news has been the sudden and rapid loss of amphibian species all over the world.  A possible source for the culprit has been found, if that’s any consolation; though that discovery does not yet identify a solution to this saddening development.

Ground Zero of Amphibian 'Apocalypse' Finally Found

May 10, 2018

MANY OF THE world's amphibians are staring down an existential threat: an ancient skin-eating fungus that can wipe out entire forests' worth of frogs in a flash.

This ecological super-villain, the chytrid fungus Batrachochytrium dendrobatidis, has driven more than 200 amphibian species to extinction or near-extinction—radically rewiring ecosystems all over Earth.

“This is the worst pathogen in the history of the world, as far as we can tell, in terms of its impacts on biodiversity,” says Mat Fisher, an Imperial College London mycologist who studies the fungus.

Now, a global team of 58 researchers has uncovered the creature's origin story. A groundbreaking study published in Science on Thursday reveals where and when the fungus most likely emerged: the Korean peninsula, sometime during the 1950s.

From there, scientists theorize that human activities inadvertently spread it far and wide—leading to amphibian die-offs across the Americas, Africa, Europe, and Australia.

(Source)

Frogs, toads and salamanders were absolutely critical parts of my childhood and I delighted in their presence. I cannot imagine a world without them. But effectively, that’s what we’ve got now with so many on the endangered species list.

This parade of awful ecological news is both endless and worsening. And there is no real prospect for us to fix things in time to avoid substantial ecological pain.  None.

After all, we can’t even manage our watersheds properly. And those are dead simple by comparison. Water falls from the sky in (Mostly) predictable volume and you then distribute somewhat less than that total each year.  Linear and simple in comparison to trying to unravel the many factors underlying a specie's collapse.

But challenges like this are popping up all over the globe:

Fear And Grieving In Las Vegas: Colorado River Managers Struggle With Water Scarcity

Dec 14th, 2018

On stage in a conference room at Las Vegas's Caesars Palace, Keith Moses said coming to terms with the limits of the Colorado River is like losing a loved one.

"It reminds me of the seven stages of grief," Moses said. "Because I think we've been in denial for a long time."

Moses is vice chairman of the Colorado River Indian Tribes, a group of four tribes near Parker, Arizona. He was speaking at the annual Colorado River Water Users Association meeting.

The denial turned to pain and guilt as it became clear just how big the supply and demand gaps were on the river that delivers water to 40 million people in the southwest.

For the last six months Arizona's water leaders have been experiencing the third stage of grief: anger and bargaining.

Of the seven U.S. states that rely on the Colorado River, Arizona has had the hardest time figuring out how to rein in water use and avoid seeing the river's largest reservoirs — Lakes Mead and Powell — drop to extremely low levels.

Kathryn Sorenson, director of Phoenix's water utility, characterized the process this way: "Interesting. Complicated. Some might say difficult."

One of the loudest voices in the debate has been coming from a small group of farmers in rural Pinal County, Arizona, south of Phoenix.

Under the current rules those farmers could see their Colorado River supplies zeroed out within two years.

The county's biggest grower of cotton and alfalfa, Brian Rhodes, is trying to make sure that doesn't happen. The soil in his fields is powder-like, bursting into tiny brown clouds with each step.

"We're going to have to take large cuts," Rhodes said. "We all understand that."

(Source)

Oh my goodness. If we’re having trouble realizing that wasting precious water from the Colorado River to grow cotton is a bad idea, then there’s just no hope at all that we'll successfully rally to address the loss of ocean phytoplankton. 

That’s about the easiest connection of dots that could ever be made.  As Sam Kinison, the 1980’s comedian might have yelled – IT’S A DESERT!! YOU’RE TRYING TO GROW WATER-INTENSIVE CROPS IN THE FREAKING DESERT!  CAN’T YOU SEE ALL THE SAND AROUND YOU?!? THAT MEANS "DON’T GROW COTTON HERE!!"

A World On The Brink

The bottom line is this: We are destroying the natural world. And that means that we are destroying ourselves. 

I know that the mainstream news has relegated this conversation to the back pages (when they covered it at all) and so it's not “front and center” for most people.  But it should be.

Everything we hold dear is a subset of the ecosphere. If that goes, so does everything else. Nothing else matters in the slightest if we actively destroy the Earth’s carrying capacity.

At the same time, we're in the grips of an extremely dangerous delusion that has placed money, finance and the economy at the top spot on our temple of daily worship.

Any idea of slowing down or stopping economic growth is “bad for business” and dismissed out of hand as “not practical”, "undesirable" or "unwise".  It’s always a bad time to discuss the end of economic growth, apparently. 

But as today's young people are increasingly discovering, if "conducting business" is just a lame rationale for failed stewardship of our lands and oceans, then it’s a broken idea. One not worth preserving in its current form.

The parade of terrible ecological breakdowns provided above is there for all willing to see it. Are you willing?  Each failing ecosystem is screaming at us in urgent, strident tones that we’ve gone too far in our quest for "more".

We might be able to explain away each failure individually. But taken as a whole?  The pattern is clear: We’ve got enemy action at work.  These are not random coincidences.

Nature is warning us loudly that it's past time to change our ways.  That our "endless growth" model is no longer valid. In fact, it's now becoming an existential threat

The collapse is underway. It’s just not being televised (yet).

Davos As Destiny

And don't expect the cavalry to arrive.

Our leadership is absolutely not up to the task. If the Davos conference currently underway in Switzerland is a sign of anything at all, it’s that we’re doomed.

The world has been taken over by bankers and financiers too smitten by their love of money to notice much else or be of any practical service to the world.

By way of illustrative example, here’s the big techno-feel-good idea unveiled on the second day of the conference.  The crowds there loved it:

Yes, folks, this is what the world most desperately needs at this time! /sarc 

While I’m sure drone-delivered books is a heartwarming story, it’s completely diversionary and utterly meaningless in the face of collapsing oceanic and terrestrial food webs.

Sadly, this is exactly the sort of inane distraction most admired by the Davos set in large part because it helps them feel a tiny bit better about their ill-gotten wealth. "Look!  We're supporting good thngs!"  The ugly truth is that big wealth's main pursuit is to distort political processes and rules to assure they get to keep it and even amass more. 

Drones carrying books to Indonesian children provides the same sort of dopamine rush to a Davos attendee as Facebook 'like' gives to a 14-year-old. Temporary, cheap, superficial and ultimately meaningless.

The same is true of their other feel-good theme of the day. “Scientists” have discovered an enzyme that eats plastics:

That’s swell, but you know what would be even better?  Not using the bottles in the first place. Which could be accomplished by providing access to safe, potable water as a basic human right and using re-usable containers.  Of course, that would offer less chances for private wealth accumulation so instead the Davos crowd is fixated on the profitable solution vs. doing the right thing.

In viritually every instance, the Davos crowd wants to preserve industry and our consumer culture as it is, using technology and gimmicks in attempt to remedy the ills that result.  There’s money to be made on both ends of that story.

The only thing that approach lacks is a future. Because it’s not-so-subtly based on continued "growth". Infinite exponential growth. The exact same growth that is killing ancient trees, sea birds, insects, amphibians, and phytoplankton.

Who wants more of that? Insane people.

In other words, don’t hold out any hope that the Davos set representing the so-called “elite” from every prominent nation on earth are going to somehow bravely offer up real insights on our massive predicaments and solutions to our looming problems. They're too consumed with their own egos and busy preening for prominence to notice the danger or care.

As they pointlessly fritter away another expensive gathering, the ecological world is unraveling all around them. The oceans are becoming a barren wasteland.  The ancient trees are dying.  Heatwaves are melting tar and killing life.  The web of life is snapping strand by strand and nobody can predict what happens next.

In other words, if you held out any hope that “they” would somehow rally to the cause you’d best set that completely aside. It's no wonder social anger against tone-deaf and plundering elites is breaking out right now.

From here, there are only two likely paths: 

(1) We humans simply cannot self-organize to address these plights and carry on until the bitter end, when something catastrophic happens that collapses our natural support systems. 

(2) We see the light, gather our courage, and do what needs to be done.  Consumption is widely and steeply curtailed, fossil fuel use is severely restrained, and living standards as measured by the amount of stuff flowing through our daily lives are dropped to sustainable levels.

Either path means enormous changes are coming, probably for you and definitely for your children and grandchildren. 

In Part 2: Facing Reality we dive into what developments to expect as our systems continue further along their trophic cascade. Which markers and milestones should we monitor most closely to know when the next breaking point is upon us? 

To reiterate: Massive change is now inevitable and in progress.

Collapse has already begun.

Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access).

Endorsed Financial Adviser Endorsed Financial Adviser

Looking for a financial adviser who sees the world through a similar lens as we do? Free consultation available.

Learn More »
Read Our New Book "Prosper!"Read Our New Book

Prosper! is a "how to" guide for living well no matter what the future brings.

Learn More »

 

Related content

255 Comments

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
Snydeman, what you are doing

Snydeman, what you are doing is the same thing the warmists do all the time. Their favorite tactic is name-calling and ridicule to try to diminish and demean their critics. That's what you do when your science is weak.

Locksmithuk's picture
Locksmithuk
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 19 2011
Posts: 148
Take it elsewhere
old guy wrote:

Snydeman, what you are doing is the same thing the warmists do all the time. Their favorite tactic is name-calling and ridicule to try to diminish and demean their critics. That's what you do when your science is weak.

People, it's time to continue your extended discussion on the well-trodden climate change board on this site, where it belongs.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3231
I would agree
Locksmithuk wrote:
old guy wrote:

Snydeman, what you are doing is the same thing the warmists do all the time. Their favorite tactic is name-calling and ridicule to try to diminish and demean their critics. That's what you do when your science is weak.

People, it's time to continue your extended discussion on the well-trodden climate change board on this site, where it belongs.

But, climate change is inescapably part of Chris's discussion in this article. There seems to be a troll here bringing up tired old climate change denial talking points that have been convincingly refuted on the climate change thread and on sites like skepticalscience.com and climatecrocks.com. it's time to acknowledge human caused climate change and move on, hopefully with solutions.

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
OK! What kind of solutions do

OK!
What kind of solutions do you have in mind?

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 913
Solutions Please
Doug wrote:

it's time to acknowledge human caused climate change and move on, hopefully with solutions.

Doug,

You are correct that Chris brought climate change up and that makes it relevant to this thread. I've asked you numerous times for a solution to the climate change problem. So far, I've heard crickets and little more. (You have suggested some partial solutions like wind and photovoltaic energy ... but when I pointed out the problems with intermittent power sources, you scurried back to the safety of your "remain quiet bunker.") I suggest you scour the internet to find at least 1 complete solution(s) so you can post that here. That's the best way to shut people like me up. Come up with a solution! Don't just trot out the tired accusations of "denialist."

If there is no solution, then it isn't a problem. At most, it is a predicament --- and by definition at this site, that means there are only outcomes. At a minimum, you can focus on how each of us can improve our personal outcome to your "acknowledge human caused climate change."

Grover

sand_puppy's picture
sand_puppy
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 13 2011
Posts: 2090
Minnesota Power Outages During Record Cold Snap

Talk about an arguement for a redundant home heating source such as a wood burning stove!!

MINNEAPOLIS (WCCO) — Thousands of Minnesotans endured the coldest night in a generation without power.

Xcel Energy says equipment failures on power poles is leading to outages all over the metro Tuesday evening, which started at about 5:40 p.m.

At the peak of the outage, about 8,000 residents were affected in the Twin Cities metro area. As of 11 p.m., less than 600 customers people were still without power.

The Anzalone family said their Bloomington neighborhood went dark around dinner time. Like many in the metro, they were bundled up and reading by candelight, hoping they didn’t have to leave their house. They say the latest update for power returning is 3 a.m. Wednesday.

Temperatures tonight are expected to be near -50 F.  (not sure if this included wind chill?) The map

USPS Suspends Minnesota Mail Deliveries Due To Polar Vortex

 

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1007
I would suggest

Green intentional community with delayed marriage/sex for the young, and those who have at least one 18-yr-old child voluntarily giving up medical care for the old, as part of an intentional population reduction.

1/2 acre of private garden, 1/4 acre of public per dwelling. Can be leased but not sold from the unit, but sale of unit resets the lease.

Public/private garden & farmette (Lithuanian soda design) and at the center, IC's built as green concrete ziggarats (hey, I like the basalt reinforcement; it looks cheaper and more durable than steel: 4x more expensive per pound, 1/8 the weight), with private housing to the outside, public areas inside; minimal private space. Shared buses of regular schedule to the city, most things that people want with sharable access. Rentals fund purchases, of the things that are most in need, as failed requests... Full cycling; if a green option will suffice then use it by preference; if it won't, then require a delay before going to non-green option.

And all fees fund the spread of the plan, so that eventually it is the best option around, and people move into it.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3231
solutions

Well, solutions is a huge subject.  Lets be serious, I'm a layman and, as far as I know, so are both of you (old guy and Grover).  Given that, any list I come up with will be incomplete and surely not as encompassing as the pros could produce.

That said, it seems to me we need to break it down to what will provide the most bang for the buck in the short term and then look at longer term solutions.  Since the overwhelming number 1 problem is atmospheric CO2, reversing the build up should be first priority.  Incentives are always big considerations in modifying public behavior.  We should probably start out with carbon fees as that would disincentivize burning more fossil fuels.  Use those revenues to subsidize the public to reduce personal, commercial and industrial use of fossil fuels.  Also, cut current tax breaks for fossil fuel producers.  That's a negative incentive, but a necessary one.  Why should they profit from aggravating the problem?

Also, there should be a crash program of R&D for clean energy.  The region I live in is currently undergoing large scale build up of solar and wind producers.  We aren't unique in that respect.  Many other areas are doing the same as the technology gets cheaper and fossil fuels get more expensive.  That trend seems to be inevitable to me.

As someone mentioned above, intermittency must be overcome for these sources to be real long term solutions.  Locally, Tesla is building a "gigafactory" to build solar roofing tiles.  Elsewhere Musk is building gigafactories to make latest technology batteries and electric cars.  Developing battery technology is a must on both industrial and personal scales.  

Of course, solar and wind aren't the only clean energy sources.  There are also geothermal, hydro and tidal power, all of which are developing fairly rapidly.

But, perhaps the biggest energy saver is efficiency.  I read somewhere recently that US energy efficiency is somewhere around 20%.  To me thats a reflection of the wasteful nature of our development over the last couple centuries.  Efficiency needs to be integrated into every development or building project we undertake.

Of course, all of this is just the beginning.  Longer term we need to incorporate many of the values presented here at PP.  

This is just a quick gloss.  Deeper dives will take time that I don't have at the moment.  But, what's the alternative?  Do nothing?  If climate change is as dangerous as science tells us it is (I don't think there is any real debate here), we have two choices.  Do nothing and watch the world disintegrate around us, or do the best we can to create a liveable and positive future.  To me that's an easy choice.

 

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1007
The problem with top-down solutions

I'd like to open a discussion on any and all points. Please don't think that I am "shooting down", but rater proposing problems for answers.

-- regarding carbon taxes.

Is that the powerful shift the costs to the week, and never impact their own destruction. That simply destroys the weak. Then, when things are desperate, they go to war -- which maximizes environmental degradation.

So carbon taxes are out as an actual solution. Regardless, because it isn't a solution, I agree it will be done. I just don't think it'll help anything. It's actually a way to concentrate assets so that the powerful will have more to spend on their destruction.

---regarding green energy

If you're willing to go offshore, I'd think wave energy would be as effective as anything. Simple design: giant boat with balloon wheels on axle that is allowed to go up and down, but with a piston and seawater is pressure ballanced to equalize pressure on all wheels. Use as many wheels as you want. Now as they go up and down, the axles pull on a chain that drives a racheted drive shaft. The ratcheted driveshaft drives a generator, which charges batteries, but also drives electric motors on said balloon wheels. Simple design can go out, harvest wave energy, come back, and deliver charged batteries. Ideal application for robotics, if you can do it; until then, you can collect and sell green energy, changing out peoples' batteries for a fee.

--- regarding efficiency

The biggest enemy of efficiency in our nation is probably suburbanism, and that is driven by crime, which in turn is driven by a badly off-center system. One aspect of efficiency, then, is that we need to discuss how to address the off-centeredness that drives the destruction that drives the suburbanism. In other words, we can't live and work together because WE can't.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3231
discussion
Quote:

-- regarding carbon taxes.

Is that the powerful shift the costs to the week, and never impact their own destruction. That simply destroys the weak. Then, when things are desperate, they go to war -- which maximizes environmental degradation.

So carbon taxes are out as an actual solution. Regardless, because it isn't a solution, I agree it will be done. I just don't think it'll help anything. It's actually a way to concentrate assets so that the powerful will have more to spend on their destruction.

There is no doubt, no matter what the possible solutions are, there will be economic disequilibriums.  But, ideally carbon taxes would be redistributed to the poorest energy consumers so it would hopefully be a wash for them.  The burden should fall on the producers and largest consumers (i.e. energy producers, industry and commercial).  That means, of course, that prices will go up.for everyone.  But, that's the name of the game.  Fighting climate change won't be cheap.  There will be costs and it is possible that in the long term, there will be serious economic consequences.  That's too bad, but again, what's the alternative?  Watch the planet go to hell and do nothing?

Since the industrial revolution we have all been financially benefitting from the externalities that have transferred the real costs of our improved lifestyles onto nature and our natural resource base, like the atmosphere.  We have reached the point that it is now time to pay back.  We can try to do that with sensitivity and compassion for the poorest among us, but it must be done.  That's the price of a safe and healthy environment.

Rector's picture
Rector
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 7 2010
Posts: 520
Here's the problem. . .

No.

Rector

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 198
Yes, efficiencies, but dont diss suburbs

You can absolutely get your usages down in the suburbs, I have done it and so have others.  Transport is big but solvable.  It is a culture shift, people do not need to move.  If we culturally interacted with our neighbors in the suburbs, traded goods and services with our neighbors in the suburbs,  it cuts down transport ALOT.  People right now do not see a need to do so, and htey do not want to be different.  Someone last week hit the nail on the head saying Embarassment IS the biggest deal.  Most non-essential car trips in the suburbs are done to go to the grocery store DAILY ( there are building codes that disallow corner stores, this is solvable and cheap to solve !) and to drive the children to activities. Obviously they can do things in the neighborhood, if all or most kids are also in the neighborhood ! So, a bit of a chicken and the egg problem.  I would wager that these non-essential trips, at least in this area, are about as many trips as the commute to work.  A cultural shift does not need a bunvh of taxes and money, it needs leadership

 

Michael_Rudmin wrote:

I'd like to open a discussion on any and all points. Please don't think that I am "shooting down", but rater proposing problems for answers. -- regarding carbon taxes. Is that the powerful shift the costs to the week, and never impact their own destruction. That simply destroys the weak. Then, when things are desperate, they go to war -- which maximizes environmental degradation. So carbon taxes are out as an actual solution. Regardless, because it isn't a solution, I agree it will be done. I just don't think it'll help anything. It's actually a way to concentrate assets so that the powerful will have more to spend on their destruction. ---regarding green energy If you're willing to go offshore, I'd think wave energy would be as effective as anything. Simple design: giant boat with balloon wheels on axle that is allowed to go up and down, but with a piston and seawater is pressure ballanced to equalize pressure on all wheels. Use as many wheels as you want. Now as they go up and down, the axles pull on a chain that drives a racheted drive shaft. The ratcheted driveshaft drives a generator, which charges batteries, but also drives electric motors on said balloon wheels. Simple design can go out, harvest wave energy, come back, and deliver charged batteries. Ideal application for robotics, if you can do it; until then, you can collect and sell green energy, changing out peoples' batteries for a fee. --- regarding efficiency The biggest enemy of efficiency in our nation is probably suburbanism, and that is driven by crime, which in turn is driven by a badly off-center system. One aspect of efficiency, then, is that we need to discuss how to address the off-centeredness that drives the destruction that drives the suburbanism. In other words, we can't live and work together because WE can't.

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 198
repeat post

it posted twice

fionnbharr's picture
fionnbharr
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 27 2012
Posts: 97
America's Cult of Ignorance

I'm passionate about technology. I'm very interested, and always have been.

Two of the primal and most loved Greek myths are to do with the creation of mankind. It starts with the creation of the Gods - what Hesiod called the Theogonie; the birth of the Gods - but then, our champion the Titan Prometheus made human beings in clay; the spit of Zeus, and the breath of Athena gave them life.

But Zeus refused us to have fire.

The fire I think means both literal fire - to allow us to become bronze age man, to create weapons, and to cook meat and to frighten the fierce animals, and to become the strongest physically and technically.

Also, the internal fire, of self conciousness and creativity - the divine fire.

Zeus didn't want us to have it.

Prometheus stole fire from heaven, gave it to man, and Zeus was so angry that he punished Prometheus by chaining him to a mountainside - he was immortal Prometheus - every day his liver was torn out by an eagle; and it grew back, and every day it was torn out; for perpetuity, until he was rescued by Herakles.

The other punishment was that Zeus and the other Gods created Pandora - the "All Gifted", that is what Pan Dora means - and sent her down as the first woman; she had everything.

But, he also gave her this jar, that sometimes is called a box.

Pandora came to Earth and was told she shouldn't look into the jar - she was beautiful, she had everything - all the gifts of all the Gods were given to her.

But she had this curiosity, and she opened the jar - and I'm sure you all know the story - out flew hardship, lies, disseat, murder, pestilance - all the ills of the world, and the golden age was over.

She slammed the lid back on, and one little fairy was left inside. 

Elpis.

Hope. 

Now that's fine. That seems like an interesting story - it's an interpretation. But actually, if you think about it at the present - firstly the Prometheus story - as soon as mankind shook off the chains of religion and the church, we became incredibly interested in the Prometheus story. Because, it suddenly said, we don't have to bow down and apologise to a God.

Gods have to apologise to us. For denying us our independence, our sense of ourselves, and our fire.

And so, Shelley wrote Prometheus Unbound - the poem. Beethoven wrote the Prometheus Overture, all within five years of each other - the height of the enlightenment, if you like - and the beginning of the Romantic era. 

Now, I'm going to put that to one side, and I'm going to go back to 1989, when I became fascinated by this extraordinary new development in which you could network computers to a network of networks, which was starting to be called the in-ter-net - there was no web - there was no graphical application, it was all text based - but I was really excited by it.

As it grew, I became more and more excited. I thought that this is the biggest and most exciting bringing together of human beings in the history of our planet. It is the all gifted. It will give us freedom of access to knowledge. We will share things - art - politics - boundaries will be dissolved - we will learn to love each other - we'll all be brothers, like in Beethoven's Ninth.

It will be fantastic.

Social media came.

The Arab Spring.

I thought there would be no more tribalism.

No more hatred.

No more racism.

This would be wonderful.

But what happened?

The lid opened.

Out came Trolls.

Out came abusers.

Out came racists and tribalists and insulter's; the worst kind of humanity.

It was an exact replay of Pandoras Box.

I thought it so interesting that the Greeks had this understanding.

That when we have something that seems perfect, there is no possibility but that it also contains its opposite.

I guarantee you - whether you like to think it or not - that although we know through Darwin and science and genes - that we were not created by an inteligent designer. In a hundred years time, we can guarantee there will be sapient creatures - sapient beings on this earth - that have been inteligently designed. 

You can call them robots. You can call them compounds of augmented biology and artificial inteligence, but they will exist. 

The first person to live to be two hundred years old has already been born.

The future is enormous. It has never been more existenially transformative.

My question is this : -

When the Prometheus who makes the first really impressive piece of robotic A.I. - like Frankenstein, but like Prometheus back in the Greek myth - they will have a question.

Do we give it fire?

Do we give these creatures, self-knowledge, self-consciousness; an autonomy that is greater than any other machine has ever had, and will be similar to ours?

In other words, shall we be Zeus, and deny them fire - because we're afraid of them - because they will destroy us - because the Greeks and the human beings did destroy the Gods; they nolonger needed them.

I think it is very possible we will create a race of sapient beings who will not need us. 

We will be redundant ...

Finn

jgritter's picture
jgritter
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 13 2011
Posts: 274
Zero carbon emissions.

If the goal is to reduce carbons emissions to zero as soon as possible, a limited nuclear war combined with a highly lethal pandemic disease such as Ebola might be a good place to start.  The marine ecosystem is probably still toast for every thing other then jellyfish but if it is possible for large areas of several depopulated continents to reforest themselves resequestering carbon, perhaps the planet won't get too crazy hot.  The surviving several hundred million people , the most physically, mentally and emotionally fit 10% or so of the current population should probably do quite well once the dust settles. 

Humanity has survived worse and the archeological evidence suggests the people are capable of amazing things without modern technology, industrialization or even wheels.  

The big bugga boo seems to be wrapping ones head around the idea that the transition from where we are now and where we are going is totally inevitabe, that it will be unimaginably horrific, and that the huge majority of us will not survive it.

That all being said, I will continue to see to my preps, to love, honor and cherish people, the plant and the Goddess and the God to the best of my ability and to stay in the game for as long as possible. 

Blessed Be,

John G

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
Mathematical modeling

Mathematical modeling illusions

The global climate scare – and policies resulting from it – are based on models that do not work

Dr. Jay Lehr and Tom Harris

For the past three decades, human-caused global warming alarmists have tried to frighten the public with stories of doom and gloom. They tell us the end of the world as we know it is nigh because of carbon dioxide emitted into the air by burning fossil fuels.

They are exercising precisely what journalist H. L. Mencken described early in the last century: “The whole point of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

The dangerous human-caused climate change scare may well be the best hobgoblin ever conceived. It has half the world clamoring to be led to safety from a threat for which there is not a shred of meaningful physical evidence that climate fluctuations and weather events we are experiencing today are different from, or worse than, what our near and distant ancestors had to deal with – or are human-caused.

Many of the statements issued to support these fear-mongering claims are presented in the U.S. Fourth National Climate Assessment, a 1,656-page report released in late November. But none of their claims have any basis in real world observations. All that supports them are mathematical equations presented as accurate, reliable models of Earth’s climate.

It is important to properly understand these models, since they are the only basis for the climate scare.

Before we construct buildings or airplanes, we make physical, small-scale models and test them against stresses and performance that will be required of them when they are actually built. When dealing with systems that are largely (or entirely) beyond our control – such as climate – we try to describe them with mathematical equations. By altering the values of the variables in these equations, we can see how the outcomes are affected. This is called sensitivity testing, the very best use of mathematical models.

The six most important climate variables
(CO2 is not mentioned)

However, today’s climate models account for only a handful of the hundreds of variables that are known to affect Earth’s climate, and many of the values inserted for the variables they do use are little more than guesses. Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Astrophysics Laboratory lists the six most important variables in any climate model:

1) Sun-Earth orbital dynamics and their relative positions and motions with respect to other planets in the solar system;

2) Charged particles output from the Sun (solar wind) and modulation of the incoming cosmic rays from the galaxy at large;

3) How clouds influence climate, both blocking some incoming rays/heat and trapping some of the warmth;

4) Distribution of sunlight intercepted in the atmosphere and near the Earth’s surface;

5) The way in which the oceans and land masses store, affect and distribute incoming solar energy;

6) How the biosphere reacts to all these various climate drivers.

Soon concludes that, even if the equations to describe these interactive systems were known and properly included in computer models (they are not), it would still not be possible to compute future climate states in any meaningful way. This is because it would take longer for even the world’s most advanced super-computers to calculate future climate than it would take for the climate to unfold in the real world.

So we could compute the climate (or Earth’s multiple sub-climates) for 40 years from now, but it would take more than 40 years for the models to make that computation.

Although governments have funded more than one hundred efforts to model the climate for the better part of three decades, with the exception of one Russian model which was fully “tuned” to and accidentally matched observational data, not one accurately “predicted” (hindcasted) the known past. Their average prediction is now a full 1 degree F above what satellites and weather balloons actually measured.

Models fail at the simple test of telling us what has already happened

In his February 2, 2016 testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space & Technology, University of Alabama-Huntsville climatologist Dr. John Christy compared the results of atmospheric temperatures as depicted by the average of 102 climate models with observations from satellites and balloon measurements. He concluded: “These models failed at the simple test of telling us ‘what’ has already happened, and thus would not be in a position to give us a confident answer to ‘what’ may happen in the future and ‘why.’ As such, they would be of highly questionable value in determining policy that should depend on a very confident understanding of how the climate system works.”

Official predictions of global warming overstated threefold

Similarly, when Christopher Monckton tested the IPCC approach in a paper published by the Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences in 2015, he convincingly demonstrated that official predictions of global warming had been overstated threefold. (Monckton holds several awards for his climate work.)

The paper has been downloaded 12 times more often than any other paper in the entire 60-year archive of that distinguished journal. Monckton’s team of eminent climate scientists is now putting the final touches on a paper proving definitively that – instead of the officially-predicted 3.3 degrees Celsius (5.5 F) warming for every doubling of CO2 levels – there will be only 1.1 degrees C of warming. At a vital point in their calculations, climatologists had neglected to take account of the fact that the Sun is shining!

All problems can be viewed as having five stages: observation, modeling, prediction, verification and validation. Apollo team meteorologist Tom Wysmuller explains: “Verification involves seeing if predictions actually happen, and validation checks to see if the prediction is something other than random correlation. Recent CO2 rise correlating with industrial age warming is an example on point that came to mind.”

As Science and Environmental Policy Project president Ken Haapala notes, “the global climate models relied upon by the IPCC [the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] and the USGCRP [United States Global Change Research Program] have not been verified and validated.”

An important reason to discount climate models is their lack of testing against historical data. If one enters the correct data for a 1920 Model A, automotive modeling software used to develop a 2020 Ferrari should predict the performance of a 1920 Model A with reasonable accuracy. And it will.

Magic 8 Ball game

But no climate models relied on by the IPCC (or any other model, for that matter) has applied the initial conditions of 1900 and forecast the Dust Bowl of the 1930s – never mind an accurate prediction of the climate in 2000 or 2015. Given the complete lack of testable results, we must conclude that these models have more in common with the “Magic 8 Ball” game than with any scientifically based process.

While one of the most active areas for mathematical modeling is the stock market, no one has ever predicted it accurately. For many years, the Wall Street Journal chose five eminent economic analysts to select a stock they were sure would rise in the following month. The Journal then had a chimpanzee throw five darts at a wall covered with that day’s stock market results. A month later, they determined who preformed better at choosing winners: the analysts or the chimpanzee. The chimp usually won.

For these and other reasons, until recently, most people were never foolish enough to make decisions based on predictions derived from equations that supposedly describe how nature or the economy works.

Yet today’s computer modelers claim they can model the climate – which involves far more variables than the economy or stock market – and do so decades or even a century into the future. They then tell governments to make trillion-dollar policy decisions that will impact every aspect of our lives, based on the outputs of their models. Incredibly, the United Nations and governments around the world are complying with this demand. We are crazy to continue letting them get away with it.

mntnhousepermi's picture
mntnhousepermi
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 19 2016
Posts: 198
Elon Musk does not act like he is trying to lower his CO2

He likes making new tech, he likes his companies to succeed, he likes to be seen as an expert.  I have heard of no actual changes in his homelife and consumption that would show that he REALY thinks it is that important  --- there is no leadership from him anymore than any of our other celbrities and politicians. In fact, he does the opposite !

 

The idea of global jet-setting on a private plane can’t help but be viewed as hypocritical for a man often heralded as a "crusader for renewable energy". The Washington Post dryly notes that a few days after Musk called fossil fuels "the dumbest experiment in human history," his plane burned through thousands of pounds of jet fuel flying 300 miles from Los Angeles to Oakland on its way to take him to a competitive video gaming event.

Musk also tweeted “We know we’ll run out of dead dinosaurs to mine for fuel & have to use sustainable energy eventually. So why not go renewable now & avoid increasing risk of climate catastrophe?” - on the same day his jet flew over Mexico for a personal trip.

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-01-30/150000-miles-elon-musks-2018-private-jet-log-defines-renewable-energy-saviors

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
A great overview of how it

A great overview of how it started and why it continues

Belmontl's picture
Belmontl
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 23 2009
Posts: 30
Wider perceptive --Old Man

Old man -- perhaps climate change itself , is too narrow, and too polarizing, simply put - logically (as they site endlessly indicates), can we have Infinite Growth on a finite planet?, can we grow anything end less exponentially?, are there limits,to growth? Are there ecological boundaries? Etc, etc....or is business/life as usual?, that our actions, individual or collective have no effect?

 

Charles Eisensteins new book frames this climate debate better then I....

Climate -The New Story

https://charleseisenstein.org/books/climate-a-new-story/

 

Flipping the script on climate change, Eisenstein makes a case for a wholesale reimagining of the framing, tactics, and goals we employ in our journey to heal from ecological destruction

With research and insight, Charles Eisenstein details how the quantification of the natural world leads to a lack of integration and our “fight” mentality. With an entire chapter unpacking the climate change denier’s point of view, he advocates for expanding our exclusive focus on carbon emissions to see the broader picture beyond our short-sighted and incomplete approach. The rivers, forests, and creatures of the natural and material world are sacred and valuable in their own right, not simply for carbon credits or preventing the extinction of one species versus another. After all, when you ask someone why they first became an environmentalist, they’re likely to point to the river they played in, the ocean they visited, the wild animals they observed, or the trees they climbed when they were a kid. This refocusing away from impending catastrophe and our inevitable doom cultivates meaningful emotional and psychological connections and provides real, actionable steps to caring for the earth. Freeing ourselves from a war mentality and seeing the bigger picture of how everything from prison reform to saving the whales can contribute to our planetary ecological health, we resist reflexive postures of solution and blame and reach toward the deep place where commitment lives.

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
hello Belmontl,I understand

hello Belmontl,

I understand what you are saying. So I should clarify that rejecting the dogma of man-made climate change is not the same thing as not caring for the earth or rejecting the necessity of good environmental stewardship. And it doesn't preclude having a discussion about the carrying capacity of the planet nor is it the same thing as advocating for a license to ravage our earthly domicile.

Paul Watson, the cofounder of Greenpeace left the organization when he realized that it had become infiltrated and hijacked by politically motivated people who were not interested in the environment but were using the pretense of environmental objectives to further a political cause.

So my issue with the global warming meme is not only that it is not true but also that it is a wild goose-chase that diverts attention from real problems. The pursuit of a corrective to this non-problem has also diverted vast resources in a direction of total waste and  also from areas where they could be much more benefically used.

Not only is there a substantial economic loss and a loss in human welfare fostered by this supposed remedial pursuit but it is in fact environmentally very destructive as well. I have seen estimates that to replace US electricity production with solar and wind energy you would have to cover a land area the size of California with windmills and solar panels. Then to replace transportation fuels with electricity you would have to use up a second California sized land area. Then you would have to run hundreds of thousand miles of transmissin wires. Then there is all of the extra mining and the toxic by-products of solar panel manufacturing and the toxic contents of used solar panels and the old batterys etc.

The windmills would devestate the bird population and their footprint and that of the solar farms would devastate the vegetative and animal ecosystems where they are placed.

Then in the end it would faill utterly to do what it is supposed to do as people with engineering expertise say you would end- up with totally unreliable energy and  an unstable grid prone to frequent crashes long before  it becomes  100% renewable.

So while the discussion of whether CO2 increase causes warming or not is a narrow one, the potential consequences of decisions around that stand to be enormous. If I reject that cause and effect relationship it doesn't mean I am callous to the cause of environmental concern and nurturing.

In a world where we are already trillions of dollars in debt and our unwise leaders have bequeathed us  a sick and unproductive economy where because of central bank and government policies we are actually consuming our capital instead of increasing it we can't afford to waste more resources in the pursuit of a fools-errand while real environmental, economic and social problems remain unaddressed.

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
Correction--I think the name

Correction--I think the name of the Greenpeace cofounder was Patrick Moore.

Grover's picture
Grover
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 16 2011
Posts: 913
Sound Bites Aren't Solutions
Doug wrote:

Well, solutions is a huge subject.  Lets be serious, I'm a layman and, as far as I know, so are both of you (old guy and Grover).  Given that, any list I come up with will be incomplete and surely not as encompassing as the pros could produce.

Doug,

Thanks for responding. Like you, I am a layman with this subject. I really didn't expect you to come up with an all-inclusive solution because I don't think any palatable ones actually exist. An example of an unpalatable solution would be "we all commit suicide." Climate change would no longer be an issue of concern ... but the cost is too astronomically high. That's what I see with all drastic "solutions" like this. So, a solution has to cover ALL the bases and have cost breakdowns so we can determine if it is worth it.

Actually, I was hoping you would search the internet and find an expert who has a solution. I searched a few years ago and couldn't find a complete one. That doesn't mean there aren't any out there. And I wouldn't let being a layman get in the way of looking for solutions. You're smart enough to see if the proposed solution is worthy of further review. If you find one and post it here, I'll give you my honest review. If it solves the problem completely at a reasonable cost, you've just shot my legs out from underneath my position.

On the other hand, partial solutions like what you said we should start with ... are just going to make someone feel good that they're "doing something." It sounds more like the seductive sound bite from a politician trying to woo your vote. You can bet the politician will make sure you (and I) are cutting our emissions while they jet around to do "important business." I certainly won't fall for that line, but you're ripe for the rhetoric.

Doug wrote:

This is just a quick gloss.  Deeper dives will take time that I don't have at the moment.  But, what's the alternative?  Do nothing?  If climate change is as dangerous as science tells us it is (I don't think there is any real debate here), we have two choices.  Do nothing and watch the world disintegrate around us, or do the best we can to create a liveable and positive future.  To me that's an easy choice.

I badgered Mark Cochrane on this thread: https://www.peakprosperity.com/podcast/100238/michael-shermer-importance-skepticism about presenting solutions until he finally admitted there weren't any. My position has always been, if there isn't a solution ... it ain't a problem that can be fixed. That makes it a predicament and there are only outcomes. The outcomes can be made better or worse on an individual basis. Unfortunately, we can't make it better for everyone. It really doesn't matter how much you wish it were different.

In Post#112, you said that fighting climate change won't be cheap. I assume that you expect government to levy higher taxes. Are you familiar with the Yellow Vest protests in France? Those got started because Macron wanted to raise fuel taxes to combat climate change. What makes you think the same result won't happen here?

Grover

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 335
Quote:  I have seen estimates
Quote:

 I have seen estimates

References, please.

Quote:

 to replace US electricity production with solar and wind energy you would have to cover a land area the size of California with windmills and solar panels 

Windmill towers need to be spaced out but only a small portion of the land area they require is lost to their actual footprint on the ground.

So we wouldnt need to sacrifice California completey.

Belmontl's picture
Belmontl
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 23 2009
Posts: 30
Predicting the Future is Difficult--Old man

Old man.. my overarching point is doing everything in our power with the best evidence data we have, 

Predicting the future is very difficult:

"Prediction is very hard, especially when it is about the future."
    -- Yogi Berra (and other various authorities)/

Complexity Theory and Environmental Management, by Michael Crichton.  Also see
      his article  Why Speculate?

"Most people assume linearity in environmental processes, but 
the world is largely non-linear: it's a complex system. An 
important feature of complex systems is that we don't know how 
they work. We don't understand them except in a general way; 
we simply interact with them. Whenever we think we understand them, 
we learn we don't. Sometimes spectacularly."

Some botched predictions  /  1927-1933 Chart of Pompous Prognosticators
Some botched predictions made in some popular films.  and in a 1958 Disney Animation.
What May Happen in the Next Hundred Years, by John Elfreth Watkins, Jr., 
   Ladies Home Journal, 1900.

Youtube video: Global Warming and Other Catastrophes
      Humorous (?) look at previous botched predictions of pending world catastrophes 
      in the media (to the soundtrack of REM's "It's the End of the World As We Know It")

twarnold's picture
twarnold
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 27 2014
Posts: 1
Solutions and Inevitablity

Been reading this thread with interest. I am compelled to pipe up.

There are no solutions to the dying of our planet without a revolution in thinking, and even then any healing and especially any reversal would take generations to accomplish - which is just fine, but there is no palpable sign of any change of thinking beyond the fringes (not a perorative term), like this tribe. Of course, there would need to be a revolution that translates into political will to change course.

Revolutions tend to occur only when everyday life becomes practically impossible for the mass of citizens, or at least a portion of them - like the middle and under class. A group has to be "radicalized" in order to band together and force change. Things need to get pretty extreme for that to occur, and we aren't there yet. Maybe the yellow jackets are getting there, although I am not clear what specifically underlies their malaise other than wealth disparity.

Chris is completely correct that we have been in the collapse for years, and that it is gaining pace and becoming more visible. But the reality is that until the everyday life becomes near or actually impossible for the mass of humanity, nobody is going to do shit beyond some form of prepping for themselves and their friends.

So the collapse, in my view, is inevitable (although it may not need to be TEOTWAWKI - it only needs to be bad enough that people are forced to respond, but the damage by that time that will need be overcome will be far worse than now). Maybe it will create the revolution that leads to better times and better stewarded for the planet in scores of years to come. Because, as Jared Diamond writes in following the history of collapse throughout the history of civilization, the interdependencies between economies or ecocystems is the complexity that collapse unravels in what becomes a cascade - we are destined as a species to experience a collapse that is on an order of magnitude much greater than what has occurred so far (since clearly the world is still sleeping), and then seek to wake up and endure. Only a question of when.

In the meantime, I am grateful for my time on this planet and importantly for my memories of what the world looked like 50 plus years ago. I am grateful for the beauty that still exists around me. I grieve for the collapses to date, the collapses that are coming. But I have no larger solution beyond attempting to come to peace with it all and trying to leave a smaller footprint. If someone can point me to a group of souls who are prepared to take action in a larger way, I'd be interested to the pointer.

Good luck out there!

 

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 679
Old Man with old ideas
LesPhelps wrote:

The thing is, even if you demonstrate, scientifically, that the greenhouse effect is bogus, you can’t ignore the fact that we are TRASHING our one and only planet and the consequences are piling up at an unimaginable pace.

Cause not withstanding, my neck of the woods, Wisconsin, has warmed considerably, the last 35 years.  The hardiness zones in Southern Wisconsin have moved North 150 miles, so far.

I see no point in continuing.  You seem to be in a teaching frame of mind, not a learning mode.  

I noticed you haven’t posted here much in the past.  Perhaps you are unaware that this topic has been debated adnausium since it was first broached on this website.  Many here have tired of the debate and moved on.

I heartily agree. However, the problem here is I won't give his "ideas" any equivocacy to the actual climate-related science that thousands of hard-working and well-meaning scientists are doing everyday. Climate deniers are by very, very far in the minority, and almost every one of those deniers, if they are actually scientists (which most of them are not), are scientists in non-climate-related fields. (Yes, OldGuy, I know there are no "climate scientists;" had I known you would nitpick my words, I'd have been more careful in how I worded it). The vast and immense amount of data we have showing past temperatures (regardless of whether we collected temperature data in the 1800s, we can find out using other means) and the direct correlation between temperature and CO2 emissions as industrialization spread, as well as thousands of pieces of scientific evidence gathered by amateur enthusiasts points to one conclusion: climate is shifting, nature is going haywire, and the ecosystem is collapsing. 

 

Here are a few things I know:

1) Funding for climate-related science is pathetically small when compared to military-related or corporate-sponsored science. Climate-related science is one of the few non-corporate and independent fields of science left, and therefore one of the few areas remaining which questions and challenges corporate America. Since many of the climate-related scientists challenge things which affect corporate profits, and since many climate deniers have direct links to corporate backing, I tend to discount the latter and embrace the former as being objective here.

 

2) Climate deniers often claim that there are "tons of problems" with the data being collected, but rarely offer any substantial data generated by actual field research which would directly refute the data gathered by climate-related science. Moreoever, deniers often point out how the "data has been wrong/adjusted," ignoring the fact that this is how science works. The scientists directly related to climate research publish their data precisely because they want their peers to challenge it. When challenges prove successful, new data is gathered, old data is adjusted, and new conclusions reached. This is the process that leads to "scientific knowledge," and it important to remember that a scientific majority is all we'll ever have on any knowledge - there are always outliers who disagree. Yet none of the climate-science deniers are willing to go out, gather the data themselves, and then publish it in a peer-reviewed way. They just shout from the balcony like those two old guys in the Muppet Show.

 

But I don't even need the science. The anecdotal evidence has been mounting for decades. Here in central Maryland, winters have been getting milder, springs and summers wetter, and temperature variations more extreme. For two winters in a row, we had the windows open and shorts on for Christmas Day. This week, while everyone bitches about the "artic freeze" (it is 4 degrees here today), no one is talking about the fact that within five days it is expected to reach 63 degrees. In February. In the summer in my youth years, riding the car with the windows down was a dubious thing, as I can't count the number of times I'd have bugs/bees in my car afterwards, and putting your face out the window was eyeball suicide. After any longer drive, my windshield and engine grate looked like an extermination camp for bugs, whereas now I can't remember the last time a single bug splattered on my car...and I live next to a wooded stream! Seagulls at Ocean City, MD used to be so thick you couldn't move without almost stepping on one. These last few summers there have been a handful within view, at best. Beyond that, I can feel it in my core when I am gardening; I won't say the "trees are talking to me," but when I "listen" to the connection to nature within myself, it doesn't feel positive. The biosphere around us is collapsing, and it will take most of us with it. 

 

So, climate denial goes hand in hand with the existing paradigm that "everything is fine," aligns perfectly with corporate interests, and ignores the anecdotal evidence on the ground that is mounting more and more every year.

 

That's why, OldGuy, I don't take anything you are saying very seriously.

 

-S

 

PS- I never name-called. I simply pointed out that Dr. Dyson has come up with some pretty hair-brained ideas which were based on a loose application of the laws of science, so he's got no room to be pointing fingers. Name-calling would be if I called him an "idiot." I simply discounted his viability as a source of true criticism. I stand by that assertion. A great physicist, yes. Qualified to speak on climate-related science, no.

 

PSS- OldGuy, if you are so convinced climate science is bogus, good for you! Go on with your life, content in the knowledge that everything is fine and you have no need to prepare for a darker future! Yay!

cmartenson's picture
cmartenson
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 7 2007
Posts: 6070
A picture is worth a thousand words

While I am open to the idea that there's room to quibble over how to best measure something as tricky as the "average" temperature over something as large as the entire earth, I do know that as Snydemann has pointed out the data sets for temperature are among the most heavily gone-over that exist.

Lots of eyes on those.  And, no, it's not bad that they've been challenged and scrubbed and re-done.  That's how science advances.  One successful challenge at a time.

What to make of this image then?

That seems pretty straightforward and takes Stan's "I'll see your continent wide observation (Australia) and trump you with my local dust bowl anecdote" rebuttal to the rubbish bin.  Of course, I also happen to agree with Stan that there are far better and more direct methods of communicating with people than via climate change which I explain below.

The above picture speaks a thousand arguments to me...

I am also quite sensitive to the idea that modeling the climate is well beyond our capabilities at present.  Even trying to model known complex systems that are simple (in the sense of having very few, well-known inputs or variables) eludes us so what chance do we have of modeling something consisting of literally thousands of intertwined complex systems where many of the inputs aren't even known?

Pretty much none, which is why I don't put much stock in any of the efforts to try and contain warming to some number like 2 degrees C.  We could already be well beyond that and our models wouldn't even know until it showed up.

But I do know that the ecosphere is collapsing.  SHE is dying, and I can, also like Snydemann, feel that in my guts.  I just know it.

I also know that humans are 7.8 billion and headed to ~ 10 billion at current trajectories.  I also know that we are eating, walking, talking above-ground oil.  Chemical energy in the ground is converted, at a loss, into food energy above ground and we eat it and expand our numbers.

Somehow we need to reverse that trend.  So the question becomes what's the best method of communicating and achieving that?

I've long avoided "climate change" as the means of rallying people to the cause of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels because it violates most of the rules for effective personal change.  Climate change is:

  • Complicated and statistical (meaning uncertain)
  • Going to bite at a future date
  • Routinely violated by individual's local weather observations ("brrrr...it's cold today!")
  • Something over which an individual has no sense of agency at all
  • Does not have 'a face' that we can hate.

In other words, it's distant, uncertain, and something  my personal actions will not change in the slightest and the worst part is the 'face' I have to hate is my own staring back in the mirror.  

But it's also true that showing people all the data about fossil fuel dependency and population growth elicits virtually no reaction from most people even thought that data is both linear and easy to connect, model and explain.

So the question becomes...what is the best way to reach people that leads them to action?

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3231
alternatives
Quote:

 My position has always been, if there isn't a solution ... it ain't a problem that can be fixed. That makes it a predicament and there are only outcomes. The outcomes can be made better or worse on an individual basis. Unfortunately, we can't make it better for everyone. It really doesn't matter how much you wish it were different.

So, again I ask, what are your alternatives?  Roll over and play dead?

There is no silver bullet solution.  But, there are remedies that will take time, sacrifice, participation and money.  It will be a long slog.  It took us a couple centuries to create the slow moving nightmare, it will take some serious time to fix it.  Does that mean we shouldn't try?  Does that mean we shouldn't try to salvage a liveable environment for our grandchildren?  What are your suggestions?

There was a time in our American past when hard challenges were the norm.  I've recently been doing the genealogy of my family.  My earliest ancestors in this country landed in Virginia and Maryland as early as 1735.  They fought in the French and Indian war, the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War on both sides, WWI and my father in WWII.  Reading and hearing of their exploits and struggles is like a history lesson of the nation.  This is not to say that my family was exceptional, though some members certainly were, it is merely to illustrate the examples that we should be trying to emulate in confronting today's challenges.  The earliest settlers confronted not only the risks of getting here, but also the incumbent challenges of surviving long enough to produce another generation.

By those standards, our sacrifices to prolong our natural and environmental heritage appear kind of puny.  On an individual level, we can set examples for how to live in a modest, self sustaining and benevolent manner, as espoused by PP.  Beyond that, we must participate in the political process supporting policies and candidates who reflect our values and goals for environmental sanity.  Government involvement is necessary for any large scale efforts to reverse our destructive past.  Who else can do that?  Particularly if we wish to take part in the global community in endeavors such as the Paris climate accords.  Would you leave that up to the megacorporations that have been so instrumental in destroying our national and global heritage?  Who would you have lead the charge for environmental sanity?  Would you let DJT lead such efforts given his stated position that climate change is a Chinese hoax?

Bottom line for me is that we have to be involved in the solutions.  That means first, discarding the dual irrationalities of denial of climate change or believing that nothing can be done so we might as well give up.  You're a smart guy Grover, what do you suggest going forward?

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 679
Solutions
Doug wrote:

So, again I ask, what are your alternatives?  Roll over and play dead?

Sadly, I think the most likely solution will be a Malthusian one, which is why I fear and mourn for the future. 

 

My students, today, when hearing that it was 4 degrees this morning but will be in the low 60s in five days, said "What the hell is going on here?" whereas the adults I talk to say "Oh thank god it will be warmer. I'm so cold." Maybe the young will figure it out, but I no longer hold much hope for us older folks to. May God grant that the young have time enough to do so, but I have my doubts there.

 

To answer your question, though, my personal solution is to teach as many young women as possible what really faces them, rather than the irrationally optimistic view other adults are peddling. I'm also preparing my homestead and children to face what will be a challenging, perhaps grim, future. I think all solutions must be local ones, because I no longer believe any systemic ones will come in time.

 

-S

Waterdog14's picture
Waterdog14
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 18 2014
Posts: 146
Solutions - do everything you can, quickly, with others

I don't have all the answers, but I believe we need to act together as quickly as possible.  The individual prepping is ok, but we'll accomplish more when we work together in "tribes".  The solutions won't come from the top down.  They're going to have to come from the bottom up.

My city of 6,500 people has an affordable housing problem.  We're also one of the coldest cities in the US (but not today, we had a normal -20F this morning, which we're used to, unlike the midwest which is suffering under colder temps as the jet stream deflects and the polar vortex is distorted.  Brrrr...).  The city is offering land for affordable housing develoment.  I teamed up with a local green builder to propose energy-efficient, high-performance homes, build with non-toxic sustainable materials and financed by local capital.  We were up against traditional developers and modular home builders.  We probably placed 3rd of 5 bidders, but the shortlist hasn't been issued yet.  I don't know if anyone sees our vision, but the day will come when a neighborhood of 900-ft2 passive solar homes will be the MOST desireable place to live in town because, hey, who wants to freeze to death and die when the natural gas stops flowing?

I didn't use the term "freeze to death and die" when I spoke to the community forum on Tuesday night. Perhaps I should have.  Seems I've developing a reputation as a "crazy person".  But who cares about ego, image, reputation?  There's too much at stake here for the earth and all sentient beings.

Don't wait for someone else to do something.  Stand up, and speak, and work toward solutions.  Any solutions.  

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1007
Which city, Waterdog? It's

Which city, Waterdog?

It's good news, but I'd like to watch what happens to that plan.

Waterdog14's picture
Waterdog14
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 18 2014
Posts: 146
Solutions...with others

I forgot to mention - Working with others is really difficult for me.  I was raised in a US culture that valued rugged individualism, by a father that beat the crap out of anyone who disagreed with him.  "Class projects" in school seemed to pull everyone down to a level of mediocrity that I found interolerable.  I'd rather work alone, in a silo.  But beyond individual prepping, our solutions won't come from silos.  So my challenge and goal for the next several months/years is to work on being more accepting, work on team-building, and learn to work collegially.   

Others on this site have mentioned that a radical cultural shift will be required, if any of us are going to survive the post-carbon future.  The cultural shift will require deep personal transformation.  Meditation helps.  If I can do it, anyone can! 

Waterdog14's picture
Waterdog14
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Jan 18 2014
Posts: 146
City
Michael_Rudmin wrote:

Which city, Waterdog? It's good news, but I'd like to watch what happens to that plan.

I'm in Gunnison, Colorado.  Here's a link to Gunnison Community Capital Group which includes a downloadable pdf file of our affordable housing bid proposal.  

http://www.gunnisonccg.org/affordable-housing.html

It's not the best-developed proposal, but I've got a lot on my plate so it's the best we could do with the time we had available.

We've got miles to go, to really take the Community Capital concept to fruition and build an efficient vehicle for local non-accredited investors to move their money from Wall Street to Main Street.  But we need to do it, because when the next liquidity crisis hits, and capital for main street dries up again, it could make the difference between stagnating/dying and carving out a sustainable lifestyle.   

thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1767
The most powerful ways to stimulate change

Chris wrote:

I've long avoided "climate change" as the means of rallying people to the cause of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels because it violates most of the rules for effective personal change.  Climate change is:

  • Complicated and statistical (meaning uncertain)
  • Going to bite at a future date
  • Routinely violated by individual's local weather observations ("brrrr...it's cold today!")
  • Something over which an individual has no sense of agency at all
  • Does not have 'a face' that we can hate.

In other words, it's distant, uncertain, and something  my personal actions will not change in the slightest and the worst part is the 'face' I have to hate is my own staring back in the mirror.  

But it's also true that showing people all the data about fossil fuel dependency and population growth elicits virtually no reaction from most people even thought that data is both linear and easy to connect, model and explain.

I avoid the climate change debates because, as you say, it's incredibly complex and we can't possibly understand it and know what's going to happen.  Like Chris, what I do know is that we are poisoning ourselves and disrupting natural systems we need to survive and yet don't understand.  A large dose of humility, caution and self control are called for.  My preferred phrase to describe what's happening is "climate weirding" because that much is certain and, for me personally, leads to humility, caution and self-control. In my mind I'm concerned about a warming environment but I've also got my eye on the solar minimum and the possibility of a cooling cycle.  Whereas I don't have to choose a side in the debate about warming and cooling, what I did have to do is decide where to live when I retire.  I chose New Hampshire, partly because it's as far north as I can get without leaving the USA while staying in the eastern half of the country (for personal reasons).  Otherwise, I might have chosen Texas, Tennessee, North Carolina, or even Costa Rica.  IF things get warmer and warmer that will lengthen our gardening season in NH and that will be good because we're going to need it.  IF things get colder, we'll have to cope.  I don't have a clear understanding of all the natural dynamics, but I know something is badly wrong.  I'm strategizing and acting on the basis of partial information and intuitive leaps, because I have to. 

So the question becomes...what is the best way to reach people that leads them to action?

The older I've gotten the more pessimistic I've become about my power to "reach people" for understanding and action (about pretty much anything).  Inertia and denial are waaaay more powerful than I am.  But I have seen the kinds of things that do lead large numbers of people to wake up, change their mindsets, and begin acting in significantly different ways.  That's the good news and the bad news. These are the kinds of things that I've seen have a big impact on people.

1. The death of someone close to them.

2. Getting married or becoming a parent.

3. Losing a job, a home or an important relationship (eg. divorce).

4. Being diagnosed with a life-threatening illness.

5. Being the victim of a violent crime, like being shot or stabbed or robbed at gunpoint.  This includes the credible imminent threat of the same, whether at the hands of criminals or government.

6. Being so poor as to have a daily diet of 1,200 calories or less imposed on them, and the uncertainty of not knowing if you'll have any calories tomorrow.  It's the same with not having enough clean water to drink to slake even your subjective thirst, much less provide for an objective amount necessary for good health.

7. Being physically very uncomfortable and unable to sleep due to cold, heat, and wetness.

I'm in the camp with many here in my conclusion that the great majority of people and our leaders are not going to wake up until hunger, violence, and disease have already overtaken us.  We just need to be as prepared as we can for that inevitability for our own survival and to be able to take advantage of that awful "teachable moment" when it arrives for those around us.  People will be much easier to reach when they're hungry, wet and tired; people are shooting at them; and Ebola is spreading in their area. smileywinksad

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3231
A bit of good news

This confirms my observations from last summer.  I thought that, because I saw more monarchs on my property, it might have been because I have been consciously letting more milkweed grow for many years.  But no, it appears to be a widespread phenomenon.  However, scientists suggest this may have been a one off in a discouraging trend.

 

Monarchs 2018

31 January 2019
James Hansen

Looking for good news?  Last summer we were so pleased to see so many Monarchs in Pennsylvania and New York, more than we have seen in a decade.  Eagerly awaited number of over-wintering population in Mexico confirms this impression.  See updated graph below, and link to an article in the Guardiian.
This refers to the Monarchs in most of North America, which over-winter in Mexico.  The Western Monarchs are a different story, not surprisingly, given the climate chaos there.  An 8 January article from EcoWatch.

Making progress with Sophie’s Planet – in Chapter 28.
 

 

 

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
thc0655's picture
thc0655
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 27 2010
Posts: 1767
Sometimes change comes quickly

Especially when it’s been building for years.

https://www.rferl.org/a/romania-revolution-then-and-now/29660285.html

davefairtex's picture
davefairtex
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Sep 3 2008
Posts: 5809
"climate change" taxes

So the "Climate Change" taxes that Macron put in place were there to offset the tax cuts he gave to his rich friends.  I certainly can understand the ire of the Yellow Vests for being forced to eat a "climate change" tax so that Macron's buddies do a bit better.

While I do think a gasoline tax would help deal with the overall predicament by reducing consumption, I'd want to make sure that the money collected went, dollar for dollar, into an actual, new spending program that would  actually help address some aspect of the predicament.

But if that gasoline tax just went to fund a tax cut to the rich, you end up with a revolution.

It really has to be seen as being something fair that will actually benefit "the people" and at the same time materially encourage our transition into a less gasoline-driven economy - such as a public transit system.  Or something like that.

But we need to be careful to watch who the winners and losers will be with all these programs.

Last two cents: if your favorite climate change politican flies around in a private jet, what they say can be safely ignored as they are utter hypocrites.

 

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1007
Pop an idea out

So I'm thinking about making click heaters, and ran the numbers for a formula. It looks to me like to make 1.3 cups of sodium acetate trihydrate, you need to work 1/2 cup of baking soda SLOWLY into 1 gallon of 5% acidity vinegar, and then boil down to the desired volume, or slightly more. Maybe you want 4 waters for every Sodium acetate, in which case you'd stop it short.

But then I got thinking: if I wanted to make a green homeless cart, I'd make one with a stove that burns wood or trash efficiently, but I'd put the stove in the middle, and insulate with click heaters. That way, when I want to sleep, I activate the click heaters, and there is no carbon monoxide; and I efficiently catch the waste heat for nighttime.

Then during the summer and fall, use the same click heaters to dry harvest, long term.

Don't know if the idea is any good, but I thought I'd toss it out there. If I try it and find out, I'll let y'all know.

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
Doug, the point is that it's

Doug, the point is that it's pointless to pursue a remedy that makes things worsre than in the current paradigm.

I could expound on how the US government's involvement in nutrition in the 1970's and the resulting food pyramid was a direct contributor to the obesity epidemic and all of the resulting downstream diseases. It occurred because the gov. listened to a fish biologist who knew nothing about human nutrition and tuned out the real experts while big agriculture and big food industries were whispering into the government's ear.

Or, I could explain in detail how doctors are completely mistreating type 2 diabetes and in the process are actually hastening the progression of the disease and sending their patient's on an accelerating pathway to the downstram consequences of heart disease, stroke, alzheimers, and increased chance of cancer. They are trying to help their patients but because they misunderstand the cause and true dynamics of the disease they are actually hurting their patients.

Doing something can actually be worse than doing nothing if you are doing the wrong thing.

Yoxa's picture
Yoxa
Status: Gold Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 21 2011
Posts: 335
Quote: pointless to pursue a
Quote:

pointless to pursue a remedy that makes things worse than in the current paradigm.

The current paradigm is on track to get worse all by itself.

Instead of just dissing what other people think, float some ideas for remedies that you'd approve of.

I'm curious, Old Man: how would you have us prepare for the day when fossil fuels are so scarce as to be unavailable to ordinary mortals?

It won't happen tomorrow, but it WILL happen.

 

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3231
Snydeman

Good for you.

As we said back in the 60s and 70s, think globally, act locally. My local actions are in the context of community gardens. My near term goal is to persuade the town to institute a large scale composting operation for the benefit of the entire area. That would sequester carbon and recycle it into fresh vegetables.

After that I would like to work on urban forest gardens.

All the while, of course, I will continue to work for election of a new Congressperson to replace the current Trump punch. In order for democracy to work we must participate.

Doug's picture
Doug
Status: Diamond Member (Online)
Joined: Oct 1 2008
Posts: 3231
Dup

Dup

Sharsta's picture
Sharsta
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 12 2009
Posts: 46
Food Forests

After that I would like to work on urban forest gardens.

Then you might be interested in the book I have just started reading -

'The Food Forest Handbook - Design and manage a home scale perennial polyculture garden'

by Darrell Frey and Michelle Czolba

smiley

 

old guy's picture
old guy
Status: Bronze Member (Offline)
Joined: Sep 16 2018
Posts: 71
My solution

I wouldn't post my solution on this site because it would make people's heads here exolode as it is based on the assumption and reality that CO2 is not a problem and in fact that more is beneficial. That is clearly not the operating assumption on this site so you are asking me to give a solution to what I consider to not be a problem. I have no solution to the CO2 is bad thesis problem. In my view, the problem is the CO2 is bad thesis.

But I have said what I have to say and realize that I am banging-up against the power of superstition. Science and facts are helpless against the dogma fueled by superstition so I will make no further effort.

Superstition is a self-encapsulating proposition that refuses to let itself be disturbed in any way by anything, least of all by reason and facts. It entertains no doubt and leaves no open cracks through which might leak-in something unpleasant.

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 679
*coughs*

Michael_Rudmin's picture
Michael_Rudmin
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Jun 25 2014
Posts: 1007
Well. Technically you aren't a king, you're a duke.

But if you wish to rectify the situation, it can easily be accomplished by marrying a princess.

But may I ask Why you allude to Archduke Farquad's mirror?

Snydeman's picture
Snydeman
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Feb 6 2013
Posts: 679
Mirrors...

Selbstverstaendlich, for the pointing finger, that it might observe itself in all its glory!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments