COP27 climate summit

giegs

Super Anarchist
1,063
571
This will be instructive to watch unfold for future climate change issues in the US. The premise of CA's position is absurd, but seems sound in the context of historic western water rights. Assessments and allocations more firmly rooted in reality would necessarily damage their interests. CA will lean into the power imbalance they enjoy against the other states involved. A nation within a nation, throwing its weight around.

 

sparau

Super Anarchist
1,235
267
Sunshine Coast Aus
An old favourite of mine has re-surfaced. Maybe now this tech's time has come.


I've been keeping an eye on it for over 20 years and thought it had been long forgotten as a research success/practical failure. But maybe not.

Things like this, if successful & scaleable, directly address one of my big concerns WRT intermittent renewable energy sources. As I keep saying, you need a reliable and substantial backing store. Crack that and the entire energy supply system changes to more heavily favour the intermittent renewables.

FKT
Good article, this is very pertinent.
This is because electricity production will have to triple as the economy is decarbonised and sectors like ammonia production and steel-making are electrified.
 

Bagheera

Member
238
346
Alaska
how's the Congo doing with all that cobalt mining?
LFP batteries are becoming more and more mainstream (also in EV's) and these don't have Cobalt.

At the same time can you ask the question how the tar sands are doing. Or how about the millions of tons of mining required to keep fossil fuels alive? Or what about the diamond addiction that humans seem to have?

I'm not saying it is not a problem, but nobody gives a damn about the Congo if it wasn't for the resources that come out of there.
 

3to1

Super Anarchist
LFP batteries are becoming more and more mainstream (also in EV's) and these don't have Cobalt.

At the same time can you ask the question how the tar sands are doing. Or how about the millions of tons of mining required to keep fossil fuels alive? Or what about the diamond addiction that humans seem to have?

I'm not saying it is not a problem, but nobody gives a damn about the Congo if it wasn't for the resources that come out of there.
ecocide is tantamount to murder and rape; personally, I 'give a damn' about all of it, it's the most vulgar of injustices.
we're mindlessly ass fucking everything into oblivion, that's our human legacy right there.
I don't know what the 'solution' is, I'll take a flier and say 'use less'.
 
Last edited:

Bagheera

Member
238
346
Alaska
ecocide is tantamount to murder and rape; personally, I 'give a damn' about all of it, it's the most vulgar of injustices.
we're mindlessly ass fucking everything into oblivion, that's our human legacy right there.
I don't know what the 'solution' is, I'll take a flier and say 'use less'.
I 110% agree with you on this. A solution is not there. It is the European colonization of Africa that made everything so unstable and corrupt in Africa. What is happening in the Congo is more a result of what the Europeans did there than it is the need for materials.

As for your 'use less' comment, that is exactly what I suggested some pages ago. Everybody is always going on about changing energy souces, but it is more helpful (and cost a reduction!) to use less energy.
 

jzk

Super Anarchist
12,973
476
I 110% agree with you on this. A solution is not there. It is the European colonization of Africa that made everything so unstable and corrupt in Africa. What is happening in the Congo is more a result of what the Europeans did there than it is the need for materials.

As for your 'use less' comment, that is exactly what I suggested some pages ago. Everybody is always going on about changing energy souces, but it is more helpful (and cost a reduction!) to use less energy.
Who is in the Congo now, and what are they doing there?

Less energy? Human flourishing requires more energy. That is why fossil fuel use has not declined. If you are right, and there is some new, cheaper energy source out there humans will flock to it.

What energy do you use for your sailboat? What energy do you supposed went into making it and all of the components? Should we have more sailboats or less sailboats?
 

Not for nothing

Super Anarchist
3,697
903
jupiter
Should we have more sailboats or less sailboats?
STARBOARD!
1675514585612.png
 

Fah Kiew Tu

Curmudgeon, First Rank
10,675
3,661
Tasmania, Australia
As for your 'use less' comment, that is exactly what I suggested some pages ago. Everybody is always going on about changing energy souces, but it is more helpful (and cost a reduction!) to use less energy.

Had this discussion before now. It's quick & simple to say 'use less energy' but not so easy to do if you actually want to maintain a 21C high tech living standard. You take full advantage of that technology, may I point out? Steel boat, synthetic sails, fossil fuels. And then there's the massive shoreside infrastructure tail.

As I've operated in Antarctic waters, please don't come back and say it's different in the Arctic. It's not, if anything that logistic tail is even longer and more difficult to maintain, not shorter, less energy intensive and cheaper.

So - what do you think we collectively should give up in pursuit of using less energy? What is that going to do to our ability to maintain our current level of technology in the critical areas necessary to support the current population numbers?

I'm all in favour of ZPG and population decrease but - we are HERE and we have to deal with that.

How in practical terms do we significantly decrease our energy use, maintain modern medicine, potable water, sewage and food to support cities? And at the same time encourage what's currently the 3rd World to achieve a better standard of living, with the same infant mortality as the USA and equal access to medical, education and other things we take for granted as say Romania has?

Incidentally I used the USA for infant mortality rates because yours SUCK compared to almost all other First World countries so it's a pretty low standard to achieve.

Concrete suggestions would be good but I doubt they'll be forthcoming. Just more polemic and personal abuse would be my prediction.

FKT
 

Bagheera

Member
238
346
Alaska
Had this discussion before now. It's quick & simple to say 'use less energy' but not so easy to do if you actually want to maintain a 21C high tech living standard. You take full advantage of that technology, may I point out? Steel boat, synthetic sails, fossil fuels. And then there's the massive shoreside infrastructure tail.
I personally don't care about the 21C lifestyle, never have.
As for A steel boat etc. What we do is operating a research platform in Arctic waters, the 'competition' is ships like the Sikuliaq. 1600 ton of natural resources and 19 ton of fuel a day. We can do 98% of the work they do and also some things they can't. They have a maximum of 24 scientists, we can have 10. This basically means that what we provide as a business is a 97% reduction in use of natural resources and a 99.7% in fossil fuel use reduction. Do I use natural resources? Of course I do! Do I use fossil fuel? Of course I do! Am I reducing where I can? Of course I do!
So - what do you think we collectively should give up in pursuit of using less energy? What is that going to do to our ability to maintain our current level of technology in the critical areas necessary to support the current population numbers?
Some examples are much higher cost for things like flying. About half of the western world flies across the globe for vacation on a regular basis. Incentivizing to live closer to your job so that multiple hour commutes are no longer a thing, buy more stuff local and buy things that last rather than need to replaced and discarded every couple of years, drive more sensible cars and have only 1 car per family, stop heating your entire house to 21C if only the living room will suffice. I can go on for quite a bit with this. All these suggestions help to reduce the use of natural resources, the use of fossil fuels and all reduce cost.
Incidentally I used the USA for infant mortality rates because yours SUCK compared to almost all other First World countries so it's a pretty low standard to achieve.
I'm not an American, I only live there. I'm from North Western Europe. For all intends and purposes the USA is an undevelopping country that goes backwards and does so very quickly. In my books it is already approaching the levels of a 3rd world country.
Concrete suggestions would be good but I doubt they'll be forthcoming. Just more polemic and personal abuse would be my prediction.
Polemic or personal abuse would not come from me. Concrete suggestions are above here and if all these were applied across the board the human footprint would be cut with at least 30% and everybody would save money while doing it.
 

Not for nothing

Super Anarchist
3,697
903
jupiter
Had this discussion before now. It's quick & simple to say 'use less energy' but not so easy to do if you actually want to maintain a 21C high tech living standard. You take full advantage of that technology, may I point out? Steel boat, synthetic sails, fossil fuels. And then there's the massive shoreside infrastructure tail.

As I've operated in Antarctic waters, please don't come back and say it's different in the Arctic. It's not, if anything that logistic tail is even longer and more difficult to maintain, not shorter, less energy intensive and cheaper.

So - what do you think we collectively should give up in pursuit of using less energy? What is that going to do to our ability to maintain our current level of technology in the critical areas necessary to support the current population numbers?

I'm all in favour of ZPG and population decrease but - we are HERE and we have to deal with that.

How in practical terms do we significantly decrease our energy use, maintain modern medicine, potable water, sewage and food to support cities? And at the same time encourage what's currently the 3rd World to achieve a better standard of living, with the same infant mortality as the USA and equal access to medical, education and other things we take for granted as say Romania has?

Incidentally I used the USA for infant mortality rates because yours SUCK compared to almost all other First World countries so it's a pretty low standard to achieve.

Concrete suggestions would be good but I doubt they'll be forthcoming. Just more polemic and personal abuse would be my prediction.

FKT
Interesting, ZPG or decline growth, 8 billion heading to 9 billion in 20 years, your children and grandchildren are screwed.

I feel even if were stop pollutants (fossil fuels) it's too late, It will take many decades/century to clean up the mess we made, look at the permafrost, Greenland, Glaciers gone,
My money still on Thwaites, also look out for the AMOC slowing/stopping which will change the climate.
 

Steam Flyer

Sophisticated Yet Humble
46,868
11,008
Eastern NC
Interesting, ZPG or decline growth, 8 billion heading to 9 billion in 20 years, your children and grandchildren are screwed.

I feel even if were stop pollutants (fossil fuels) it's too late, It will take many decades/century to clean up the mess we made, look at the permafrost, Greenland, Glaciers gone,
My money still on Thwaites, also look out for the AMOC slowing/stopping which will change the climate.

You see what's happening in Haiti, right? Picture that, pretty much world wide.
 

Grrr...

▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰▰ 100%
10,464
2,811
Detroit
Top