I think nuclear is the higher priority, though. Electricity is mostly generated by coal or gas. — Tate
Really? Is there research on that? Just curious. — Tate
Yes, but it doesn't seem to be in the direction of global cooperation. And democratic governments are generally screwed. Apathy takes over. — Tate
Feasible in what sense? If every nation converts to nuclear power and we start building large scale scrubbers, we could at least reverse some of the changes we've already contributed.
Is that feasible for our generation? No. — Tate
I agree.
Just as in the Zeihan example, over dramatization still is not great when you are dealing with facts. It's far too easy to ask the question: Is China really to collapse now immediately and get the answer "Likely not". The same happens if we take the most dire forecast in the shortest time period. When that most dire forecast doesn't happen (in the few months or one year) it's supposed to happen, you can seriously question then the forecaster.
To think that the most dire forecast is just a way to "wake up" people and hence it's OK to be alarmist, then one should remember that to get most closest to what happens will be the best forecast. — ssu
And that's alarmism. Call something existential when it's really existential, then you don't fall into alarmism: of making unwarranted claims. The Sun poses an existential threat to life on Earth as current theory on the sun's stages in the future holds, but that is in the billion year time scale. This isn't just a rhetorical question, it really drives the discussion. Because pointing this out, I am categorized as being non-alarmed about climate change, as simply giving a "meh" about it. When doubting the most severe predictions is labeled as being a denier of the whole problem, that is a real problem for honest discussion. We have to avoid the lures of tribalism and making making issues to be like religious movements with their proper liturgy and other views considered blasphemy. — ssu
I had this same issue come out on the Xi Jinping and the CCP has no clothes thread where, yes, China is facing real difficulties and no, China isn't going to collapse. Again the love affair we have with "end-is-nigh" thinking. — ssu
Or it's similar when talking about the financial system. I believe that sooner or later our international monetary system will have a huge crisis and something new will replace this present system. Yes, it's also a big issue, even if climate change is a fa larger issue. But that collapse doesn't mean a societal collapse. The last time when the monetary system collapsed, many didn't even notice what had happened. — ssu
Sure this is definitely a thing, and we should try to avoid it... but at the same time we shouldn't disregard serious issues either because some people are prone to doom.Again the love affair we have with "end-is-nigh" thinking. — ssu
This is a pretty common idea, but what is exactly the logic behind it?
What is the exact mechanism that requires modern economies to grow in order to be considered healthy?
Perpetual growth seems more like a demand of governments that need to compete with their peers (think for example the US-China rivalry; to stand still is to lag behind), compensation for extremely irresponsible fiscal policy and monetary policy and to keep afloat a system of social security that is not economically feasible in the long run.
Just some questions / thoughts your comment raised in me. — Tzeentch
However, to the people who disagree that global warming is a threat, that climate change isn't real, I would like to have a polite and interesting discussion about why you feel the way you do. — SackofPotatoeJam
The point of the research is that a lot of policies that seem economically effective, like tradeable carbon credits, are hated because people consider them unfair.. — Benkei
People have no problems with making sacrifices as long as everybody does. — Benkei
I think it's a problem for all political parties: when your base intensely believes in some myth which isn't true, they won't start to correct their supporters, even if they know it's not true. — ssu
We are seeing now quite clearly that the mantra "we just have to turn to renewable energy sources" isn't the short term answer that we can pick. — ssu
I think France is just fanatic about other things than Germany... :-) — Olivier5
And those changes we cannot say are from a tradition. — ssu
Ethics are more bound to autonomous moral agents, doing right in whatever given situation regardless of traditions; traditions are more bound to culture, following whatever has been done before regardless of doing what's right. — jorndoe
What I'm saying is that they aren't so interdependent as to say ethics = tradition. Ethics can change due to events, public and political debate about ethical issues and changes in the society. That doesn't mean that ethics are linked to traditions of the culture and society. — ssu
Ethics can obviously change, hence ethics ≠ traditions. — ssu
Ethics ≠ traditions. — jorndoe
Conclusion: If we do not have public figures who would sacrifice themselves in order to defend our land, politics (both left and right) are not long relatable. Political figures were representatives of our traditions back then. But now they are kidnapped by money and sinful practices. They do not have honour nor ethics. It looks like they do not even assume responsibilities. They [politicians] do not care about us and our identity problem.
They are so coward that they would not be brave enough to sacrifice themselves to save the country. — javi2541997
Mostly what I see is record profits. For those without record profits, the usual happens: they enrich themselves to the bitter end, then file for bankruptcy while giving themselves huge bonuses. — Xtrix
Sure, but when profits are so high it's worth asking whether or not these corporations can absorb the cost. Turns out they could -- I see no reason why they can't, or no good reason. Rather, they raise prices -- which is passing the extra cost onto others. Why should this be ignored? It's glaringly obvious this is just rampant greed. — Xtrix
It's decreasing though. — Benkei
Second area, we've seen shortages in components and raw materials due to covid disruptions since 2020 causing inflationary pressures during the pandemic. You would expect, especially if people would be spending more coming out of covid, that production capacity would increase. Instead we've seen three quarters of reduced shipping in consumer electronics. Why? — Benkei
That's why you have the price mechanism. If something becomes unobtainable, it's price goes extremely high. That creates incentives to replace the "something" with another thing. Hence high oil prices are the best thing that can happen to alternative energy resources. — ssu
Hence high oil prices are the best thing that can happen to alternative energy resources — SSU
And btw to everybody, has anybody seen anything anymore from the MMT crowd? :snicker: — ssu
Only reason I can think of is that supplier sentiment is the market is overheated and we're bound to have a recession, (see for instance onetrust laying of 10% after a record q4 in 2021, Tesla layoffs etc.). — Benkei
'Thought' seems a bit strong. I get that sensory stimuli created some sort of reaction in your brain - but that's not necessarily thought. Thought, I would suggest, is a process of challenging those autonomic mental reactions - and I see no evidence of that here. What I see is the stubborn post-rationalisation of an automonic reaction. Thought would have altrered your position by now. Were you actually thinking you would be forced to accept that the energy is there, and that the fossil fuel industry has extensive knowledge about drilling holes deep into the earth, 40 years in advance of anything NASA had available. You would be forced to accept that "experimentally proven by NASA" - while a blatant appeal to authority, is a credible basis upon which to claim it's a viable technology. Instead, what I see is a dismissive use of the term 'theorectical' - as an opening slavo, and what that suggests is that you are arguing from an attitude - reacting; not thinking, for thinking is to be aware, and sceptical of one's attitude. — karl stone
May I direct you to NASA's final report on the magma energy project. I'm sure that will answer many of your questions. It's too much here. No magical thinking though. NASA don't go in for that sort of thing.
https://www.osti.gov/biblio/6588943 — karl stone
Resources are a function of the energy available to create them. Given limitless clean energy to spend there is no bottleneck in humankind's foreseeable future. We are not running out of anything; except perhaps helium - which I think can be manufactured given enough energy. — karl stone
Looked at in this way, it follows that limits to growth is the consequence of a misapplication of technology. No-one need have a carbon footprint. I'm not claiming magma energy would solve everything right away, but abundant clean energy gives subsequent generations the best shot at a decent future. And limitless clean energy changes the calulus of economic rationality; allowing for recycling for example, or desalination and irrigation. The increase in downstream value will sustain civilisation. — karl stone
The sheer scale of the energy available changes the equation in a most unexpected way; and that's what I'm trying to communicate. I assumed for a long time that sustainability required sacrifice, and couldn't see past that - but because of magma energy, I don't believe that's true, nor is it the right approach. The best and right approach to climate change is to have massively more clean energy to spend; not slightly less similarly polluting energy. That way leads to madness! — karl stone