EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Apocalypse Approaching? 'Doomsday Clock' Moved One Minute Closer to Midnight
The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists: It is Now 5 Minutes to Midnight
With world leaders failing to address global threats, humanity is edging closer to world elimination, or closer to midnight, as marked by the "Doomsday Clock."
In a statement, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) wrote:
It is five minutes to midnight. Two years ago, it appeared that world leaders might address the truly global threats that we face. In many cases, that trend has not continued or been reversed. For that reason, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is moving the clock hand one minute closer to midnight, back to its time in 2007.
The Telegraph/UK has video of the group's announcement:
The clock got its start after the birth of the first atomic weapon. McClatchy reports:
In December 1945, scientists who helped develop the first atomic bomb took a step back and stood in awe at the powerful weapon they had created.
"(They) were frightened to death and wanted governance of the weapons," Robert Socolow, a professor of mechanical and aerospace engineering at Princeton University, said in an interview.
That fear was channeled, and the Doomsday Clock was born.
Every year, leaders of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists — which works to share information on nuclear weapons, global climate change and new technologies — deliberate on whether to shift the clock's minute hand.
According to BAS, "The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world's vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging technologies in the life sciences."
The last time the clock moved was two years ago, when the hand was pushed back one minute, from 5 minutes to 6 minutes before midnight.
Among the group's recommendations for areas needing immediate attention:
- Ratification by the United States and China of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and progress on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty;
- Adopting and fulfilling climate change agreements to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through tax incentives, harmonized domestic regulation and practice
The group added that change must be immediate. Allison Macfarlane, chair, BAS Science and Security Board, member, Blue Ribbon Commission on American's Nuclear Future, and associate professor, George Mason University, said:
"The global community may be near a point of no return in efforts to prevent catastrophe from changes in Earth's atmosphere. The International Energy Agency projects that, unless societies begin building alternatives to carbon-emitting energy technologies over the next five years, the world is doomed to a warmer climate, harsher weather, droughts, famine, water scarcity, rising sea levels, loss of island nations, and increasing ocean acidification. Since fossil-fuel burning power plants and infrastructure built in 2012-2020 will produce energy—and emissions—for 40 to 50 years, the actions taken in the next few years will set us on a path that will be impossible to redirect. Even if policy leaders decide in the future to reduce reliance on carbon-emitting technologies, it will be too late."
Not missed by the group was the incredible power of recent uprisings through grassroots power. Kennette Benedict, executive director, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, stated:
"The Science and Security Board is heartened by the Arab Spring, the Occupy movements, political protests in Russia, and by the actions of ordinary citizens in Japan as they call for fair treatment and attention to their needs. Whether meeting the challenges of nuclear power, or mitigating the suffering from human-caused global warming, or preventing catastrophic nuclear conflict in a volatile world, the power of people is essential. For this reason, we ask other scientists and experts to join us in engaging ordinary citizens. Together, we can present the most significant questions to policymakers and industry leaders. Most importantly, we can demand answers and action."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
57 Comments so far
Show AllIf prior warnings have failed to make an impact on the fools that we call world leaders, is there any reason to believe that this one will make a difference?
It is true, though, that the Bulletin does count on the movements of rebellion that have arisen last year to make that difference.
Governments have two functions. To collect taxes. To create a reason to collect taxes. Crisis management keeps the taxed off balance so they don't watch where the money is going.
Power is a game. It's an exciting game and attracts addicts who will stop at nothing to have it. Anyone who wants to be a leader instead of a public servant should be put in a rubber room... possibly with no air.
Simplify, Take a few minutes and see how you personally can unplug yourself from Madison Avenue, Wall Street, K Street, and Pennsylvania Avenue. Put your money in a local credit union and participate in keeping their investments local. Vote. But vote for a new political paradigm.
Work to end the tax deduction for political contributions. That will end Citizens United, PACs, and create an opportunity for Federally funded elections. We're paying for the elections now.
Corporations don't spend a dime of their own money to rule us. They use "sucker money" deducted from income tax owed to us. Don't follow the money, take it away.
JH Gordon
Fireclosure
How to burn down Wall Street and get away with it
smashwords.com
As long as the US government ignores its obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to work toward complete disarmament and elimination of nuclear weapons, nuclear proliferation will continue. Concurrently, as long as the US continues in its posture as planetary bully or Globocop, invading countries at will in violation of international law, countries everywhere will seek to acquire nuclear weapons and delivery systems, in order to deter the Predator US from attacking them. There appears to be no significant movement in the US to force the government to take its treaty obligations seriously, and it may be too late to completely disarm the world of nuclear weapons. Even fifty years ago, global disarmament would have required US leadership; today, as then, we have not leadership but misleadership, avarice and stupidity from US policymakers.
The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists announcement should be highly commended for prioritizing the climate emergency, and for bluntly recognizing the failure of recent negotiations to achieve significant progress.
Still, it contains a passage I find exasperating (my emphasis):
As we see it, the major challenge at the heart of humanity's survival in the 21st century is how to meet energy needs for economic growth in developing and industrial countries without further damaging the climate, without exposing people to loss of health and community, and without risking further spread of nuclear weapons.
This unquestioning, irrational faith in the eternal primacy of economic growth, even from conscientious organizations like the BAS, cannot be reconciled with survival on planet Earth.
Hi Aleph - agreed!
Time for mere citizens - in fact if not in self-esteem the highest order of any true democracy - to say what is - and what is not.
I would place the CLOCK at less than one minute to Midnight (< 1 minute)
Manysummits
========
The Mayans place it at 344 days away (Dec 21, 2012). They may have been right.
The Mayan calendar was written in stone. That's hard work. It took a lifetime to chip it all out and that was without a scratch pad to do the math. I say it ends in December 2012 due to carpal tunnel.
It's possible. What have we to lose?
So what do you suggest? The BAS is right to focus on how to meet energy needs in the developing world. Any other course has deadly and racist ramifications. (Advocating meeting increased energy "needs' in the industrialized world, OTOH deserves criticism - Conservation, along with renewables is the answer there)
Economic growth can be compatible with "survival on the planet Earth," and increased quality of life, but the corporate capitalist system must be eliminated, along with militarism and imperialism. Otherwise it will be soon be GAME OVER for the People everywhere.
"Quality of Life" but not by Madison Avenue standards. Leisure, education oppportunities and cultural freedom and much more are all components of Quality of Life but are not reflected in the capitalist "Standard of Living" which focuses exclusively on consumption per capita.
"Economic growth" connotes the Ponzi scheme of global capitalism: more & more consumers & consumption, ad infinitum ad denudum.
A steady-state world economy would pursue the objective you concisely summarize: "Quality of Life" but not by Madison Avenue standards.
The highest quality of life - the most leisure and freedom and community solidarity - may have occurred in the days of hunter-gatherers (read Marshall Sahlins, The Original Affluent Society). It depended not at all on material possessions or a false sense of security and unnecessary comfort - in fact, excess material possession was a distinct liability to personal freedom.
Until we rediscover what "quality of life" really means, we will continue down this path of destruction.
P.S. I have a very high quality of life in America, but no indoor plumbing, get my water from a stream, use an outhouse and bath outdoors year 'round.
In "The Worst Mistake in the History of the Human Race," Jared Diamond points the finger at agriculture. He states, "Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny." The full article was published in the May 1987 Discover magazine and can be viewed online at www.ditext.com/diamond/mistake.html
The only purpose of profit is to ensure the dominance of those who take it over those from whom it is taken.
The only purpose for growth, in the economic sense, is to enable ever fewer individuals to take ever increasing, unearned, wealth from the labour that actually produces it.
The only purpose for the application of these capitalist principles is the totalitarian subjugation of the vast majority of humanity by a small and utterly malevolent group of inhuman psychopaths.
Aleph Null, while I agree with the overall criticism on the unquestioning attitude towards economic growth, I would take a more nuanced view, in the name of equity:
There are still millions and millions of people in developing and poor countries who do not have electricity or even clean water and lack access to basic health care and education. These are REAL needs of the people and any effort to ensure such basic needs for these people would require some level of economic growth for these countries.
At the same time, I would put a greater emphasis on sustainability and internal equity within these countries as well. China, for example, has the second largest number of billionaires, and last year the largest number of Rolls-Royce cars exported was to China! And India has its share of billionaires while millions and millions live in miserable conditions.
While it is important to start with sustainability and internal equity first, if the situation warrants a certain level of economic growth to provide the most basic of needs to those at the bottom levels of the society, such growth cannot and should not be treated on par with any growth in the already developed nations. This is elementary justice, especially considering that the ecological and carbon footprints, per capita, are nowhere near comparable between the two groups of countries.
Yes, when it comes to sustainability, it is best to start with the most basic of needs and then go from there. Such questioning has NOT happened in the rich countries and that is where the first step needs to take place. However, I agree that the elite technocrats in charge of some of the developing countries may try to "hide behind the poor" using average figures for their countries, and I have pointed this out on earlier occasions too:
www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/06/10-2
www.commondreams.org/headline/2009/07/10-9
Climate Change - Class injustice
Seeing that you are a stickler for accuracy elsewhere and assuming that you do not have any objection to a basic level of equity and some basic level of justice, I hope you will agree that some economic growth may be warranted if it is to provide the most basic of needs to millions of people, assuming of course that sustainability and internal equity are addressed first and that the rich in these countries do not try to live like the rich elsewhere.
Although not relating to your post above, I also want to add that those refusing to concede the need for equity and those refusing to accept the historically high amounts of emission from the rich countries are not much different from the right-wing zealots, IMO. In fact, the latter are even better, as they are explicit and open about their arrogance and bigotry. It is the rich counties that used up most of the spare capacity of nature to absorb additional GHG emissions that has brought us to this situation.
While taking the first and bigger step to reduce their own emissions, it would also help if these same countries STOP their imperial, predatory actions elsewhere and remove the threat of force against countries with natural resources and those that would want to manage their own affairs such as trade, what currency they would accept, etc. Yes, all countries should be responsible with the use of their resources, since the impact is global in nature. But freedom to develop without the threat from predatory nations would lead towards sustainability faster.
And those who mindlessly throw out the population argument would need to be reminded that Europe and the settler countries in the Americas, Australia and Africa have had three whole CONTINENTS to expand into (never mind the genocide, conquest and colonization). That said, improving the quality of life should be a priority in poorer countries as this has been documented to have a direct effect on population growth rates, even leading to negative growth rates.
Many of the rich countries owe their current position to being colonial and imperial powers or imperial outposts in the recent past, and also to finding vast additional lebensraum in the "New World", thus relieving pressure on land and resources at home. It is in these countries that internal equity and wealth redistribution can bring about the fastest results without any need for further growth.
P.S.: I just replied to you on the other thread, citing another article from the same site:
Climate change in 2050: Where's the beef?
Hi Alcyon
Running out of time on this computer, but !!
"These are REAL needs"
Actually, they are not - they are wants.
More later
Mike
=======
Clean water and basic health care have to qualify as vital necessities, in anyone's book. I mean really.
Yes, I know - and agree Aleph. But that's not the same as powering up the entire continent.
Lester Brown says "eradicate poverty." - Agreed.
Is that the same as powering up everyone who is not at our standard?
It might be useful to explore powering down here, in the first world.
Since we caused the poverty "over there" - let's stage an orderly retreat - and leave people the f... alone.
And put our own house in order.
Of course we won't do that - we seem physically and morally incapable of leaving people alone - we have that missionary zeal - don't we? If we're not converting somebody, to one of our preposterous religions, we're converting them to the virtues of lots and lots of energy - and don't we just know how well that will work - We're the example - be just like us - especially that part about being so just!!!!
Having a bad night just now - but sometimes that what it takes for the truth to out.
Manysummits
=========
Moved below for extra width.
Reply to Michael Desautels - Jan 11 2012 - 9:54pm:
Interesting. I want to look at the sequence of comments once again.
My post right at the top had this to say:
There are still millions and millions of people in developing and poor countries who do not have electricity or even clean water and lack access to basic health care and education. These are REAL needs of the people ...
To which "Michael Desautels" replied so:
>>"Actually, they are not - they are wants."<<
To which "Aleph Null" responded:
>>"Clean water and basic health care have to qualify as vital necessities, in anyone's book."<<
And then "Michael Desautels" continues:
>>"Yes, I know - and agree Aleph. But that's not the same as powering up the entire continent."<<
Not sure what you mean by "powering up the entire continent". But in every poor country, when a village got its first power line and the first few lights, it was invariably considered a welcome sign. And when someone could walk into his house and actually turn on a switch instead of having to light a lantern for light, it is considered as a relief. And when someone gets off a bus after it's already dark and treks the remaining 1 - 2 kilometers to his home, and if there's a street light every few hundred meters or so, it's a relief, because otherwise he would have to be extra careful not to step on a reptile or something. I am not imagining or fantasizing. I am talking of what I have seen. And I am talking of basic lighting.
"Michael Desautels" further continues:
>>"Lester Brown says "eradicate poverty." - Agreed. Is that the same as powering up everyone who is not at our standard?"<<
Nope. Nobody said that, or even implied that. Certainly not me, when I spoke of the "...millions of people in developing and poor countries who do not have electricity...".
It gets more interesting when "Michael Desautels" continues thus:
>>"Since we caused the poverty "over there" - let's stage an orderly retreat - and leave people the f... alone. And put our own house in order.
Of course we won't do that - we seem physically and morally incapable of leaving people alone - we have that missionary zeal - don't we?<<
"Missionary zeal", eh? I don't know why it should even cross your mind.
When people in poor countries want to have electricity and the only way to build this infrastructure is by having whatever economic activity they could have and if this means some kind of an "economic growth" for them, it should NOT be considered on par with a "growth" in an already developed country. That was the whole point. You seem to have missed it.
Also, it's interesting to see a person from a country that has universal health care, universal, FREE primary and secondary education at public schools, easy, affordable access to all kinds of leisure and recreational activities suddenly go all "natural" and "back to basics" and declare that certain basic comforts as not needs, but wants.
The quantity in question here is nature's "spare capacity" to absorb additional GHG emissions. This "spare capacity" has been mostly used up by the rich countries. Now when other countries want to have some basic development, they face multiple challenges. The rich countries could, and should, free up some of this atmospheric "spare capacity" by reducing their own per capita carbon footprints and move somewhat closer to global average. This "spare capacity" belongs, and has always rightfully belonged, to all of humanity and all of life. Those who have used far more than their share for far too long are asked to free up some of it now. Not just in the name of equity, but also because that is the only way to avert extreme danger ahead.
So let's look at what "Michael Desautels" wrote again:
>>"Is that the same as powering up everyone who is not at our standard?"
If by "our standard" you mean escalators running non-stop or ice rinks at places where there is no natural ice or patio heaters or big screen TVs or giant outdoor TV screens to watch a stupid sporting event by screaming hordes of "fans" or amusement parks or any of the insanity that goes on to make the American (or Canadian, or Australian, or any of the rich country's) way of life, the answer is NO.
I agree, we should "leave people the f... alone". I take it to mean NOT going over to bomb a country like Libya or to use up far more than one's fair share of the global resources. The rich countries have a LONG way to climb down before even reaching the current global average consumption levels. Your post may not appear so provocative IF it had been made AFTER the biggest culprits have started their powering down in earnest.
Sorry you're having a bad night. But like you said, it's good to lay out one's position for all to see, despite disagreements.
>>Alcyon: "There are still millions and millions of people in developing and poor countries who do not have electricity or even clean water and lack access to basic health care and education. These are REAL needs of the people ..."
Mike's reply: "Actually, they are not - they are wants."<<
Hmm... I suppose you are being technical here? So anything beyond adequate food, shelter and clothing are not needs, then? I hope you'll make an exception for clean water as being a need? And leave out electricity, education and basic health care for the moment as technically not needs, but wants?
When I listed those things as REAL needs, I was comparing them with things like
Disneyland, Las Vegas, escalators, open freezers in supermarkets, big screen TVs, patio heaters, hockey rinks (unless the ice is natural, with no input of energy; otherwise ice rinks are like giant freezers, only left open), Olympics, Super Bowl, Stanley Cup, Grey Cup, NHL, NFL, NBA, Formula-1, NASCAR, chilled beer and barbecue and snacks that go with these events, ski resort in Dubai, ski resort anywhere with ski lifts operated with electricity, flying to Mexico and the Caribbean (or anywhere) for vacation, cruise ships, SUVs (someone who used to post here called them "tanks" on the road), RVs (with a fishing boat in tow), Halloween with chocolates made with ingredients from another continent, coffee and tea from another continent, cafe lattes and cappuccino at a coffee shop, disposable plates, cups, spoons and forks, heck, even disposable razors and disposable, non-biodegradable diapers, curb-side garbage pickup, with the trash taken to a faraway landfill, sometimes in a different country even, and sometimes with the trash exported to another continent, even, toys and clothing made by slave labor from another continent, treadmills, and so on.
Oh, BTW, most of these items are NOT available nor affordable (not even their local equivalents) to the said people in the poorer countries, whereas most ARE available AND affordable AND being used or indulged in, even by "ordinary folks," in certain rich countries.
Electricity, formal education and modern allopathic medicine are most certainly NOT basic needs and arguably undermine well-being and quality of life. Lack of access to clean water (on a planet that is mostly water) is a direct result of industrial economic growth, as is rural poverty and overcrowding and global population overshoot.
What is needed is to de-industrialize the world and return to a steady-state ecological economics in which we use no more than what the sun and earth provides (which is everything that we truly need).
Agreed - but I have a mental block problem with steady state.
Analytically it makes sense - the trouble is nothing in the Cosmos is steady state - we need a new name for the concept, and some new ideas for what it means.
Manysummits
=========
>>"Robert Riversong wrote: Electricity, formal education and modern allopathic medicine are most certainly NOT basic needs and arguably undermine well-being and quality of life. Lack of access to clean water (on a planet that is mostly water) is a direct result of industrial economic growth ..."<<
Yes, de-industrialization is a good idea. It may happen in the future. For now, and for the rest of this century, it seems LOGICAL to have electricity around for the most basic of needs.
"Basic health care" does NOT mean only "modern allopathic medicine", although it need not be ruled out either. As a firm believer in prevention of diseases and health problems through proper diet and a healthy lifestyle, I do think "modern allopathic medicine" has proved itself to be the best bet in case of emergencies, as in life-or-death situations. For chronic health problems, I completely agree and always recommended that other types of cures must be explored. In fact, I even believe that it may be possible to avoid certain forms of cancer by avoiding regular consumption of meat and dairy. Cancer, and other problems as well. But at present, allopathic medicine has an important role to play even in poor countries, although NOT as practiced in the US. To see an example of how the modern allopathic system could be employed in the service of poor people, check out this YouTube video of Aravind Eye Hospital in India, a country that has such a large number of people with cataract and suffer preventable blindness. "Sight restoration surgery" gives a new lease of life to so many poor people, and right now it seems possible only through this modern system. Of course, preventing such a condition from appearing would be ideal, and that is still in the future.
And yes, water has always been around even before electricity came along. But right now, until society can reorganize itself into a saner, more sustainable arrangement and the pollution has all been worked on by nature, there are many, many places where drinking straight out of a stream or other water body is still unsafe.
I agree on your goal of "steady-state ecological economics in which we use no more than what the sun and earth provides." But it would take decades of transition if the switch is not to be painful and violent and chaotic. And it seems LOGICAL to have electricity around during this transition.
Not everyone has their own piece of land from which they could get most of what they need for themselves and their family. Imperial conquests and colonial aggression have completely transformed various societies. So doing away with "formal education" completely is not practical today. Maybe several decades later, or in the next century, when the human population has shrunk and there is enough to go around for everyone.
I do not share your romantic view of de-industrialization.
It is not an answer for the billions on this planet.
The human race is not going to turn its back on technology, but will have to radically alter the relationship between technology, economics and nature.
De-industrialization is an over-simplified solution with deadly consequences for billions. Appropriate technological development and renewable energy are rays of hope for humanity.
A reply to ~Alycon~
Alycon and I have debated this four times and Al does not comprehend what I have written, probably my poor writing, so I will write it again…. Hopefully I will write it clearly enough for Al to understand what I am writing.
To begin Al, I do not disagree with most of what you say.. We all must reduce our personal carbon footprints… Getting people all around the word to do that and to become vegetarians as you wish to see occur would be extremely difficult, if not near impossible.
The big problem now is time. We may have ten years left before runaway irreversible global warming begins. I believe it will more likely be five to ten more years before billions of tons of the Arctic’s methane releases and then there will be absolutely nothing at all we will be able to do to prevent an eventual mass extinction of life, so time is of the essence if we have ten, fifteen, or twenty more years.
Our largest emitters of Co2 are burning coal and burning oil for vehicle and aircraft use… If we stop at least one of those emitters we have a chance of preventing runaway global warming and it’s dire effects… Coal is worse due to it’s many nasty poisons causing major health issues and acidification of the world’s oceans which alone is a disaster waiting to happen.
In the United States we have about 1,200 coal fired power plants which emit a large % age of our Co2 emissions. If we replace those with clean energy, primarily geothermal, solar and tidal power we would have a major start in reduction of Co2.
We have to do that quickly and if our president would have a FDR type of work plan and put the millions of people who are now unemployed back to work we would have an adequate work force... A military style operation to build at least 1,200 power plants across the nation. With on average of 800 workers for each plant, it would be less than a million workers and the 1,200 new power plant could be operating within two years.
Put another million people to work on re-forestation and cleaning up polluting messes which have been created by open pit, mountain top removal coal mining… Put the coal miners to work on the new projects also…Stop mining coal and selling it to China.
You and Aleph Null say the numbers are not there for replacing the coal fired plants with clean energy, but many scientist say the numbers are there.
A geothermal power plant puts out just as much energy as a same sized coal fired plant and new techniques in solar energy power plants show they are quite capable of doing the same... Tidal and wave power plants could be developed to put out as much power as Hoover/Boulder Dam.
At the same time give interest free loans to rail to produce excellent rail service across the nation and as they are put on lime put high taxes on airline travel and give discounts for rail travel... There really is no good reason we have to be FAST with everything we do. Many businesses are now run by lap-top computers and many office workers now work form their homes.
And I would say we should pass laws to tax the crap out of businesses who light up the sky at night advertising, unless they use solar or wind power for their lights.
By doing such a program, the US could be leading the way for other nation s to follow the lead… Would they? I don’t know… I believe some would… However that falls on education of how friggin serious the issue really is and if the US president finally learns the truth and takes some dramatic serious action then so will other nation’s leaders.
It will have to be a world wide effort,,, but someone has to start it…When the coal fired power are shut down, replace the oil and gas fire plants and the nukes.. Then put the people to work on repairing our falling apart infrastructures and cleaning up the floating plastic garbage dump in the Pacific Ocean. Plant more forests and cleanup all environmental messes.
Andddd,, stop starting unjust, illegal killing wars for geo-political reasons, such as control of oil. Develop the compressed air vehicles India has designed and improve them. They produce zero Co2, r go 300 miles on an air charge which cost three dollars to recharge. The exhaust air conditions the vehicle and heat is by electric from the engine driven generators.
Then Al, you can work on the animal husbandry problem and try to convince everyone to stop eating meat. And the over population issue is a (*biggie*).. Well ,,, if we don’t prevent runaway global warming,,, that problem will be solved.
Now that is the very, very basic and very brief first draft plan and there would be thousands of details to consider and plan for in advance… Like a major military style operation, like a sneak attack on a Pearl Harbor, or a D day invasion, or fighting a world war… We either do it, or we wait for the runaway, (*irreversible*) global warming to start… I’d rather fight to the last second.
Wayne,
Some of the clean energy technologies you discuss are not "shovel ready" to my knowledge - not at the scale which would be required to replace the power generation capacity of coal plants. I agree that industrialized nations need to focus on clean energy development (rather than endless war) - only there's no realistic possibility of deferring drastic energy conservation measures until later. To avert dangerous warming, we need to get to zero carbon ASAP. That means doing everything humanly possible to reduce carbon sources and restore carbon sinks: a carbon tax, massive reforestation, investigation of direct-air capture, the smart grid, clean energy development, and lifestyle changes toward a hitherto unimaginable level of energy conservation. Everything. There are only five minutes left until midnight. It's time to wake up.
It’s not enough that we do our best; sometimes we have to do what’s required.
- Winston Churchill
Alcyon has cited David MacKay's excellent book (available online), Sustainable Energy Without The Hot Air. MacKay did something in this book I haven't seen before: he put together a comprehensive picture of all clean energy alternatives to realistically evaluate the scale of total potential clean power generation. MacKay did such a thorough job, his book is the main source of my impression that clean energy sources "don't add up" to equal current demands. If you've found other numbers on clean energy prospects, I'd be very interested in seeing them.
Not that I believe that there is any technological solution to humanity's concurrent crises (since it is our over-reliance on technology which has created them), but here is an alternative and very thorough academic report:
Evaluating the Feasibility of Meeting all Global
Energy Needs with Wind, Water, and Solar Power by
Mark Z. Jacobson and Mark A. Delucchi,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, California, For submission to Energy Policy, 2010 (http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/WindWaterSun1009.pdf)
"A large-scale wind, water, and solar energy system can reliably supply all of the world’s energy needs, with significant benefit to climate, air quality, water quality, ecological systems, and energy security, at reasonable cost. To accomplish this, we need about 4 million 5 MW wind turbines, 90,000 300-MW solar PV plus CSP power plants, 1.9 billion 3 kW solar PV rooftop systems, and lesser amounts of geothermal, tidal, wave, and hydroelectric plants and devices.
The obstacles to realizing this transformation of the energy sector are primarily social and political, not technological."
This looks like an excellent report. Thanks much.
Yes; I fully agree with Aleph on that,,, thank you very much.
Posted below, for a bit of extra width.
"Robert Riversong", it's good that you added your disclaimer right at the top:
>>"Not that I believe that there is any technological solution to humanity's concurrent crises (since it is our over-reliance on technology which has created them), ...<< "
Because, in your other comment (Jan 11 2012 - 9:06pm), you insist
>>"Electricity, formal education and modern allopathic medicine are most certainly NOT basic needs and arguably undermine well-being and quality of life."<<
What I like about this paper is that it has explicitly taken the position of no coal-based power and no nuclear power, which happens to agree with my position, too.
My main problem with this paper is that it sounds somewhat optimistic about the material requirements, availability and cost, while downplaying the environmental impact, especially that of concrete. (George Monbiot touches on the carbon emissions aspect of cement and concrete in his book "Heat: How to Stop the Planet From Burning".) It's true that these would be one-time emissions (hopefully!) and they are most likely to be less emissions per MW when compared to nuclear power plant construction, mining, etc.
It's clear that this feasibility study itself must have taken a great deal of work, even though it builds on prior work of the same main author, Mark Jacobson. So I cannot complain that it says nothing of where all this energy would go finally as that is clearly not within the scope of this paper.
Since I will not take a cavalier attitude regarding the environmental impacts of these technologies at such large scales proposed, especially when ALL the parameters involved in a practical installation are considered, I will just say that this is a good alternative proposal for replacing the fossil fuel-based infrastructure, as a starting point for discussions and debate. It is by no means the final word or anywhere close to being a document on which national and global policies could be drawn up.
I know saying this would make me look bad in some circles. But if those circles are TRULY concerned about genuine sustainability, I am sure they will understand my concerns. As for the rest, the exuberant crowd, well, it's too bad they'll be upset with me for placing my concerns on record.
It is a given that the world MUST move to an ALL-RENEWABLE ENERGY system, at the earliest. All I am saying is that it's best to take a good hard look at the demand first. Shut down insane monstrosities that guzzle energy first. It can be done: all it would take is for a majority of people to simply boycott them. And build renewable energy infrastructure with a most judicious approach, making sure that whatever scarce materials are used will be for a genuine move towards sustainability and not just to feed the current addiction with a different drug. What is the point of powering these monstrosities with renewable energy? It's like driving a hybrid Hummer. And some idiots did that too!
In fact, there is a good chance that the shutting down of coal power plants may be delayed even after big chunks of renewable energy capacity come online, unless there is drastic demand reduction, cutting out the non-essential. Just as traffic expands quickly to fill additional capacity in a newly-built freeway, consumption may simply increase, especially with more and more vehicles converted from fossil fuel-powered to electricity-powered, thus adding to the total electricity demand.
Consider this: even after a whole lot of manufacturing was moved out of the USA, greenhouse emissions did not decrease, but increased! Same was the case in Canada!
A somewhat related example would be the expansion of the US military even after the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union. This was an unbelievable opportunity like no other in recent history for this powerful country (USA) to move towards sustainability, which would have been reflected in a modest shrinkage of the military. Instead, the US, led by the neocons, embarked on an insane plan of "full spectrum dominance".
In contrast, some western European nations did take the warnings from scientists seriously in the 1990s. Seriously enough to agree on an international treaty, and manly enough to accept the responsibility of taking the first step of reducing their own GHG emissions, although by a modest amount, while clearly exempting the developing and poorer countries in the first stage. But the USA acted differently, and in the subsequent years, managed to sabotage and roll back whatever little progress was being made.
My point in mentioning these examples is to show that the USA has NOT acted to move towards sustainability when the opportunity to do so with the least amount of effort presented itself in the 1990s.
The last thing we want, especially in developed countries, is for renewable energy capacity to become additional capacity, with no coal power plants shut down!!! Do not discount this possibility!
True sustainability would demand that certain kinds of monstrosities are kept out of the picture. Otherwise all this lithium from Bolivia, platinum from South Africa and neodymium from God knows where will be used to power the same old insanity and I am not sure that is a good thing that we should be cheering for.
If there are those interested in reading comments on an earlier, but similar paper by the same author, from others who are also following the renewable energy scene, check out the comments section below the article "Wind, Water and Sun Beat Biofuels, Nuclear and Coal for Energy Generation, Study Says" at RenewableEnergyWorld.com. But one would have to sift through various POVs to find some good comments.
WayneWR, I wish there were some easy way for me to link to our earlier debates, so the context would be clear. The problem with our debate is that we have slightly different ideas as to what would work, that is, what would have the fastest effect in terms of reducing atmospheric CO2 concentration. As I've said before, we need to reduce GHG emissions drastically ASAP, while increasing the carbon sink capacity by planting billions of trees worldwide. Putting a stop to any further deforestation goes without saying.
This is where meat and dairy production, transportation, storage and consumption come into the picture: they have a direct bearing on the carbon sink capacity, that is, forests.
Without putting a stop to further deforestation and without planting billions of trees ASAP, and without achieving major net reductions in emissions on a global scale every year for the next several years, God knows what's gonna happen!
Major net reductions in GHG emissions on a global scale, every year, for the next several years: that is the key objective, WayneWR.
If your plan would achieve that, I am all for it, even though I have, at the back of my mind, this figure of 32.6 billion tons of carbon dioxide per year, or 51 percent of annual worldwide GHG emissions attributed to "livestock and their byproducts", and therefore could be an easier area to target, without excluding renewable energy, of course.
Did you see the list of items (just off the top of my head) above in my reply to "Michael Desautels"? All of them, and other items like them, can be easily and safely given up by a large number of people, achieving an immediate reduction in demand for energy, especially electricity. That would immediately allow for the closing down of a large number of coal power plants.
Snap your fingers for me, WayneWR, just once. Just do it, for fun! See how long that took? That is how long it would take for people to give up those things and others like them, considering their destructive effect on the environment. It is like literally turning off the switch in a building that is on fire. And taking the staircase down, instead of the elevators, because it's an emergency. Except in this other emergency we are talking about, people will have to climb the stairs back up too, instead of taking the escalator (unless it's a really tall building - then they would use the elevator). It's good for the heart, too, you know? Speaking of the heart, drastically cutting back on meat and dairy, if giving up entirely is difficult for some, is good for the heart too. Improving health, cutting health care costs and saving the Earth (actually saving our own collective a$s), all rolled into one: imagine that!
The reason you think cutting down on meat and dairy will be difficult is because you think people will not change easily. You may be right. But my concern, and fear, is, what would make the government do the right thing, then? That is, what would make the government do all the things you have listed? Considering that many governments are doing the bidding of the corporations and the elite?
This is why I have argued in the past on the importance of having an international treaty. It may be too late for all that. Not many cared.
I'll take whatever works, WayneWR. As simple as that. And probably, like you, I'll keep trying to do what I can, to convince people that the solution is MUCH, MUCH closer than they think. Yes, it would take a large number of people to bring about the change. But that is exactly what it would take to force the various governments to act, as well.
Drastic demand reduction is like turning off a switch. It can be done right away, if people understood the implications. Building renewable energy capacity and planting trees must also be done on a massive scale. But they would take a bit longer to accomplish, and still longer for them to actually bring about a net reduction in GHG levels and to reach a "safe" level of atmospheric CO2 concentration.
Basically I'm talking about extreme budgeting (that is, energy and emission budgeting) and prioritizing of the actions that would have the biggest and the fastest effect. Yes, people don't change easily. But forcing the governments to do the right thing is even harder, IMO, unless I am missing something. Both need to happen, though. I hope you too will look at it in the same spirit.
Hi ~Alycon~,, you wrote,, > ("Did you see the list of items (just off the top of my head) above in my reply to "Michael Desautels"? All of them, and other items like them, can be easily and safely given up by a large number of people, achieving an immediate reduction in demand for energy, especially electricity. That would immediately allow for the closing down of a large number of coal power plants.").
Yes I read it every time you ever wrote it AL and I agree with you... However; how do you plan to have any of that that done, especially world wide and within the next three to five years?
I'll continue the discussion later at the end of the comments if you wish..
WayneWR, I've posted below. Just a random rambling, not a debate. :)
See below: "Alcyon - Jan 12 2012 - 2:14am"
WayneWR wrote:
"Alycon and I have debated this four times and Al does not comprehend what I have written, probably my poor writing, so I will write it again…. Hopefully I will write it clearly enough for Al to understand what I am writing."
Are you one and the same as the WayneWR who comments on matters of the health effects of radioactive releases from nuclear power plant accidents, e.g. Fukushima?
If so, wonderful! I look forward to the same polite tenor in our future debates.
Conservatives are not killing us fast enough. They need nukes for the job.
The US American Empire will not fall without first using the "Samson Option" When this empire falls it will take the rest of the world down with it. When Wall St was pushing for the bailout, it threatened to crash the world economy if it didn't get the trillions it demanded. Like Wall St the USA is to big to fail.
When the methane clathrates began thawing in 2007 we passed the tipping point into runaway global warming. Now, nothing we do will make any difference. Civilisation is doomed and global flooding of aprox 90 metres will be upon us within a couple of decades ... think I'm mad? - calculate the water volume in Earth's ice.
The extortion racket that is government will become more extreme as it desperately clings to self righteous authoritarianism. But when the mega-corp food supplies fail, the govts will crumble in less than a week.
Well ~ajada~ you may be right on target, but that is an opinion of both of us. I'm not prepared to quit and give up yet.
We may as well forget doing anything if only two or thre billion tons of methane gas release into the atmosphere within the next three to five years and that is very possible now at the incredible fast rate the Arctic is warming up. Two billion tons is a very small fraction of the amount available to release.
The thawing permafrost in the Arctic is the (key) and THE issue, nothing else matters right now... We eithe do all possible to prevent the Arctic methane feedback loop from triggering or the party is over... We must reduce our carbon output by at least 50% within the next three to five years, or ASAP..
I believe what I have suggested could accomplish that within three years time but no one else has ever agreed with me... Sooo,,,, I'll sit and wait with everyone else and see if you are right.
Afraid you may be and unless world governments work together to cut carbon output by a dramatic amount and do that very, very soon, you certainly will be right... "We'll see",,, as KP always wrote.
Well WayneWR, I was a Greens Party delegate for the Queensland Greens in Australia from 2003 to 2008 and lobbied hard for carbon neutral energy and transport options and introduction of carbon tax.
In the recent past those of us who warned of the catastrophic implications were branded as alarmist nut-jobs as politicians danced to energy industry tunes.
When Global Warming became undeniable, the biggest perpetrators relabeled it Climate Change and politicians waffled on about market driven options like carbon trading scemes, which are not designed to reduce GHG emissions at all, but rather make money out of the right to polute more than we do now.
Over I time I realised despite the recognition of anthropogenic global warming, those responsible and in authority had no intention of preventing it. In fact the agenda seems to be driven by a psuedo-Christain doomsday desire to destroy the planet.
Once the undersea mathane clathrates (which by far exceed those in tundra permafrosts) began bubbling to the surface in 2007 I knew we had passed the tipping point and the time for remediation had passed and the time for mitigation and survival preparation had begun.
This means moving essential infrastructure to higher ground inland. Some people realise that as ocean levels rise saline intrusion into aquifers will reduce vast areas of cropping lands to salt pans, but not many realise salt litterally dissolves bricks and cement, meaning entire cities will fall down as the walls and foundations crumble, and it wouldn't matter if we cleared all native and plantation forests, there still wouldn't be enough building materials to address the problem.
As far as GHG regulatory schemes go, carbon tax on CO2 will not address the vast quantities of N2O released every time a farmer fertilises their crops, which is 240 times more potent as a GHG than CO2.
So yes you are correct in saying I have given up (on saving the world). The world is lost. I have acreage inland at an elevated level surrounded by native forests where I live without electricity or gas (dead wood is my fuel) and practice my bush skills by hunting wild pigs and finding bush tucker.
I am only in town (Bundaberg) using electricity and the net because I am scheduled for a colonoscopy in a week, which I've been waiting an entire year for.
>>WayneWR wrote: "However; how do you plan to have any of that that done, especially world wide and within the next three to five years?"<<
Honestly, WayneWR, I do not have a "logical" answer that is guaranteed to work. I try to support other people's efforts when possible. I try to communicate the urgent need for change whenever I get a chance, even at the risk of being shunned and avoided. I talk to young people when I get a chance. I am counting on some kind of an awakening, though. It cannot be explained logically, just as the timing of OWS could not have been foreseen. Right now, people are waking up in Canada too, though until a few weeks ago, it seemed like everyone was blissfully unaware, "enjoying" their hockey season.
All I can say, WayneWR, is that I do not want to give up hope. I may feel down occasionally, or even lapse into cynicism momentarily, but I wait for the next round of inspiration and motivation. Hey, I even think our thoughts matter, and the intensity of our desire for change matters, but I cannot explain any of this logically.
Consider this: the monstrosity called "Hummer" finally stopped being manufactured by GM. And the Chinese buyer who wanted to buy the brand also dropped out. People in India are fighting to stop the spread of GM crops. People in China are protesting. Meanwhile the USA is upset that China is "unfairly" subsidizing the solar PV industry there. But what can the US do, really?
Durban was a disappointment, although I personally tried to look for the one or two bright spots in the "Declaration". But there is still one last chance at Rio in June this year. It is the Rio+20 meeting. I am somewhat wary of talking about these meetings with people who have expressed their cynicism and contempt for such things in the past. But to me, these meetings represent one of the few desperate, collective efforts to solve this collective crisis, caused disproportionately by a few countries that are also capable of extreme violence. It is a dignified way to beg the biggest criminals to reduce their crime rate, if you will. Apart from begging the criminals to reduce their crime rate, it also gives an opportunity for activists to compare notes and build solidarity with others.
The economic crisis in Europe may actually turn out to be a good thing, from an ecological perspective, if people there decide to take a look at what sustainability means, for the first time in their entire lives.
The situation in countries like China, India, Brazil and Russia may seem alarming. But they are able to take such a position only because of the continued intransigence of the USA in accepting even a modest level of responsibility. The biggest change has to happen in the US. It is starting to happen, although it's very late. I just hope it is not too late. I have to hope.
The current capitalistic system is propped up using all kinds of "supports", lies and myths, which many people are starting to wake up to. Environmental concerns are no more a fringe phenomenon. Together, these two developments could yield some interesting results ahead.
Health care continues to be a problem, but a casual browsing on the internet shows that people are waking up to the possibility of prevention, including that of some forms of cancer. And a vegan, or even a mostly vegan, diet seems to fit in well in this picture, supported by recent research and extensive case studies. It's good that a vegan diet also helps reduce GHG emissions. But the current vegan population in the US is said to be only around 0.5% of the total population. I think this percentage will increase quickly. Just don't ask me how. :)
The reason I argue here is because I see multiple benefits by way of simplifying and reducing demand - not just to tackle global warming, although that is the biggest threat staring in our face. Why build renewable energy to power an insane consumption? I know some bozos even had "hybrid Hummers", whereas the logical thing to do would have been to NOT build this monstrosity in the first place. That is why I insist that we should get used to the idea of extreme budgeting of energy and emissions, and spread the message. If something consumes a lot of energy, is responsible for a lot of GHG emissions, and giving it up will not kill you (I mean, not **you**, but anyone :), then it's best to give it up.
The knowledge is already out there. Experts have done a great deal of work to show why massive change is needed and why that does not have to be a bad thing at all. The knowledge just has to get out to more people.
I try to use any and every opportunity to talk to people. The other day a Chinese family insisted on treating me to dinner for some favor I had done in the past. I suggested that we all eat a vegan dinner, and the dinner went very well, and they were surprised to see so much variety even for vegans, and they were talking about eating more vegan food at home. In the past, when I had entertained large numbers of guests at home, I made it a point to make it all vegan (with just one or two dishes containing dairy, just a little butter, basically), and never using disposable plates, cups, etc., although every other place I was invited to had disposable plates and stuff. In the grand scheme of things, these are minuscule, I know. But I do believe that in my lifetime, I must have personally avoided the killing of a few animals and the cutting down of a few trees. And I am hoping that a few more trees and animals would have been spared due to the choices of others that I came across in person and online.
Systemic change can happen and must happen, but all change starts with the individual, IMO. Just because I cannot kill the beast of capitalism on my own, should I wait around and do nothing? "Any and every effort counts" - is my belief. Sometimes, out of the blue, individual efforts and thoughts can coalesce into something major.
Alcyon - very, very nice post. It is good to know you exist.
Mike
=======
Thanks, Mike.
But won't Doctor Manhattan stop this ? Shades of *Watchmen* !
Alcyon
I just read your reply to me, and several others as well.
What am I trying to say?
You should know by now that I am not some monster capitalist trying to destroy the planet and all its people and lifeforms - that I think Capitalism is probably a big part of THE PROBLEM - which is human psychology, which nobody really understands yet, except instinctively - and that I believe in honor and justice for ALL - including all life - and non-life.
And yes - I too have personally seen that the third world, or whatever other name we give it, do want many of our conveniences - given the choice. Almost invariably this is so - from the Sherpa in Nepal of India to the South Sudanese pastoralist.
My point is this - we all lived without these modern conveniences till relatively recently - all of us - no plastics - no Hummers - no electricity - no running water (except rivers - all now dammed, literally and figuratively) - you get the idea.
Therefore they are wants - not necessities.
OK - as another poster stated - today, with seven billion and rising - they may indeed be necessities in some very real sense.
But if what we are all talking about is true - i.e., the real possibility of extinction, or something even close to it - we are absolutely and positively doing every friggin thing wrong - to the first approximation.
So I return to - leave people alone. Something like the Prime Directive -
The realist in us knows - absolutely knows - that we cannot and will not leave anyone or anything untouched - but what have we all said by realistically admitting this - and patting ourselves on the back because we are so "real.?
That we accept extinction - that's just - realistic
I can't go for that. Turn off virtually all the lights in all the cities in the first world that are not absolutely indispensable to feeding the world - NOW.
If we can't do that - the rest is bullshit. How the hell are we going to reduce skyrocketing emissions when we can't even maintain an already imperfect representative democracy?
The US is now a criminal organization - like Nazi Germany. You can sugar-coat it anyway you want - You think these bozos are going to stop the XL or Keystone pipelines and quietly refrain from emptying the entire tar sands down to the last drop?
The bozos - these criminals - will extract all they can - let the levees on the impoundment ponds, more like a small sea actually, go, and when they have destroyed the entire Athabasca and Peace River ecosystem all the way to the shores of the Arctic Ocean they will legally, and with signing authority - hand the bill and the mess to US -
The fracking wizards in Pennsylvania and area will blithely destroy every last sub-surface acquifer - and then hand the bill to US -
And when the entire state of Florida is disappearing below the now unstoppable rise of the world ocean -they will shoot you down as you and your kids make for the lifeboats.
Physician - heal thyself.
That's all I'm trying to say.
Mike
===
I've just been looking over the other articles here on CD - and the comments
I'll tell you it's depressing. Gushing, literally gushing over a reporter returning to entertain - look at the faces of your candidates - what do you see - NOTHING - that's all you need to know.
==========
in 1940 there was only 2 billion people on this earth........................
And just look what you have done ~coco~. It's all your fault as ~Misenthrope~ once said here several years ago.
HI ~coco~, it's really great to see you are still dancing and singing... Don't stay away for so long... You can say more in a short sentence than the rest of us do in six long paragraphs.
~Kem~
i remember misanthrope..........in fact i have become one!!! dont get to the internet often as i use the public library and walk here about 3 times a week. but great to read all the comments and have a laugh at your wicked sense of humour. (american humour i mean - at least from the progressives.)
A reply to Alycon and Aleph Null
Aleph, there are several geothermal power plants in the US and other countries which have been operating very successfully for many years. Cost of developing energy is less than 2 cents per KwH. A few years ago a peer reviewed study by scientists at MIT concluded that there is enough geothermal energy available in the US to supply all of our energy needs for the next 50,000 years.
New technology in solar power allows a solar power plant to supply excellent amounts of electrical power even if the it were cloudy for a week. The test solar power plant in Nevada has proven to be very reliable and very cost effective .. It would be no trouble having 600 to 700 of those type of power plants stretched out across the west from California to Arkansas with an average of 70 in each of ten states… The power grids are already in place and use the turbines and generators from the closed coal fired plants.
You stated no shovel of dirt has been dug yet and that is correct… However; when our government determined we needed a 40 inch oil pipeline from Texas to New Jersey in December of 1941, it was done, and was pumping crude from Texas to the refineries in New Jersey in les than a year.. The Alcon Highway from Washington thru Alaska was finished in a year.
We built over 1,300 large ships in two years and over 50,000 aircraft, hundreds of thousands of military vehicles from tanks to jeeps and a hundred military bases and airfields… We also fought a word war on four continents… Building 1,200 power plants and planting 2 billion trees would be a cake walk in comparison…We MUST stop burning coal,,, it’s a melanoma cancer to the planet.
Alycon,,, could you open a hoagie hut or a steak house near Cut And Shoot,Texas,,, all veggie,,, and let us know if it’s profitable... (<:
Hey gang; the Arctic methane issue is THE issue... If strong action is not taken very soon to prevent a billion or mor tons of methane gas from releasing every year from the thawing sub sea permafrost, it is going to kill all of us and our families.... So it's not a joke, a myth, or a ho-hum issue... It's as deadly serious as a massive incoming asteroid... Let's seriously talk about ways to reduce our Co2 emissions by 50% or more before 2016... We have to do that.
WayneWR, I have always been interested in and excited by renewable energy technologies. I still am. I know for a fact that solar thermal alone can supply so much heat for heating buildings and supplying hot water with relatively low tech. equipment. I have always felt it was criminal that people who could easily be getting their hot water for free were burning some fuel for that purpose. And geothermal for heating purposes is another relatively low tech. system that can be installed in many places. All this would avoid the burning of so much fuel for heating purposes.
It's only in the case of electricity supply, after looking at pricing and what it takes to build these systems, that I am convinced that the energy from this renewable source should be used judiciously, that is, it should not be wasted. In fact, that would have been the case if it weren't for coal, in most countries. And that is still the case as the need for shutting down coal power plants is there upon us now.
Even places where they have enough hydroelectricity, due to the interconnected nature of the grid, when coal-based power goes, there would have to be some major demand reduction, especially if coal power has to be shut down fast, like RIGHT NOW.
As for the mobilization during WW-II, I am not sure what the main motivation was back then. Partly survival and partly other calculations? Things are different now. The people in power are different. Imagine the nerve of these criminals to be holding a "review" for this pipeline at this time - when it's "five minutes to midnight". It's not just the administration. It's the Congress, too.
We've been over this before. Anyway, the people need to wake up, in large numbers, and soon. It can happen. Only the people can force change.
We are debating about what would work, based on different starting points - in my case, a certain reading of the numbers involved, and hence my insistence on demand reduction as the number one strategy, even while setting up alternative, renewable supplies for energy, for heat and electricity.
Like I said before, I'll take whatever works. But I will continue to point out on the need for demand reduction first and foremost, because of its inevitability (as I see it) and because of its immediate benefits.