Prof Chittenden explained: "The mega-joule of energy released in the experiment is indeed impressive in fusion terms, but in practice this is equivalent to the energy require to boil a kettle. ...

....building commercially viable fusion facilities that can provide energy to the grid will require another giant leap.

"Turning this concept into a renewable source of electrical energy is likely to be a long process and will involve overcoming substantial technical challenges, such as being able to re-create this experiment several times a second to produce a steady source of power," said Prof Chittenden.

I've been reading Climate Wars by Harald Welzer and Bright Green Lies by Jensen, Keith, and Wilbert. Depressing. Welzer notes, several times, that "Violence is always an option." Not a new insight, but will probably be part of the climate picture. Green Lies asserts that we can not use technology to solve the problems that technology has caused. There is no salvation in solar or wind power because fossil fuels are deeply embedded in the life cycles of these products.

From what I have read, Bright Green Lies speaks an unbearable truth: In order to roll back CO2 levels (not just limit them) we must commit to saving and enhancing the natural environment. We cannot do that and save civilization at the same time. The authors present a number of things that can be done. Plant more trees, of course; a lot more. Re-establish the once vast prairie lands roamed by grazers (cattle will do, I gather) which were plowed up and now support monocultures of corn, soy, rice, cotton, etc. Enhance the rights and education of women. And so on.

My own phrasing, reached several years ago, is that we have to stop consuming. When we stop consuming, the economy will crash. Chaos and carbon reduction will ensue.

The Bright Green Lies people, et al, think they have found a way out. That would be great if they had, but there are 8 billion people to reckon with, IF one thinks one has found even a remotely palatable solution. Feeding, sheltering, and caring for even a declining population of 7.9 billion rules out regenerating all of the natural systems which can absorb a great deal of carbon. We should regenerate as fast as we can, of course, but...

One's eyes glaze over reading solutions which might be feasible IF all 8 billion people agreed at once. Even if they all agreed, the sequelae would be worst than unpalatable. A good share of the 8 billion (like citizens of the G20) need to just disappear and take our tech with us. We, being the biggest consumers, are the biggest part of the problem. Or everybody else should disappear and we'll turn their formerly occupied peasant nations into unoccupied grazed prairie, forests, wet lands, and peat bogs.

So, every day I wonder, "Are we totally and finally screwed, or not?

Bright Green Lies by Jensen, Keith, and Wilbert. — Bitter Crank

I wonder if they're allied with Animal Liberation. They seem intensely misanthropic.

Derrick Jensen and his co-authors are so fanatical that it’s hard to take them seriously. He notes that “there were perhaps 5 million human beings living on earth on the day this started” – the beginning of agriculture 12,000 years ago, “when the war against the earth began” (p 3). “Fossil fuel is an accelerant, but it’s not the reason. The catastrophe is civilization itself.” (p 251). All this suggests that Jensen’s utopian dream for planet earth is the elimination of 99.9% of current humanity and all vestiges of “civilization” from every corner of the planet – back to a stone age of hunter-gathers.

Any environmentalist who does not embrace this sentiment is labeled a “bright green” liar. But to avoid the obvious genocidal / suicidal implications, the authors never provide any insight, let alone a blueprint, as to how all this is supposed to come about. Instead in their final chapter on “Real Solutions” they back off from their initial logic, declaring that “industrial civilization is incompatible with life on the planet”. — Amazon Customer Review

Review goes on to acknowledge that they make many valid points, but you have to wonder about the wisdom of declaring war on Western civilization.

//ps// having said that, I do get what he’s on about. I often have the thought, while pushing the supermarket trolley around our superbly luxurious shops, imagining a voice over the PA saying ‘Attention please. Your mode of existence is illegal. It relies on the suffering and destruction of countless sentient beings, both directly and indirectly. It has been decided that this cannot continue. Accordingly, your way life is cancelled’.

Something like that is looming.

Well, we’ve all been raised to believe the government will fix our problems, so it’s probably true that people will not collectively mobilize until it is too late. — NOS4A2

Nobody has been raised that way but nice caricature to make yourself feel better I suppose.

So, every day I wonder, "Are we totally and finally screwed, or not? — Bitter Crank

There is absolutely no floor to how badly you are screwed. Once you think it cannot get any worse, it does. And then you notice how fine actually you had it.

We, being the biggest consumers, are the biggest part of the problem. Or everybody else should disappear and we'll turn their formerly occupied peasant nations into unoccupied grazed prairie, forests, wet lands, and peat bogs. — Bitter Crank

And this pandemic isn't killing enough of them to make any dent! And at the height of the lockdowns in 2020 passenger air travel was down 95% from year before and half of the airliners were grounded.

The Pandemic is likely have impacted some issues far more likely than any political decision would alter the use of fossil fuels. So if it doesn't matter, what will?



I think the actual issue is that our society isn't as vulnerable as before. Many here disagree with that, but that is the truth. During Black Death didn't have any clue of how to treat the plague. Look how quickly we got informed about COVID-19. Bad harvests in a row don't create famines in rich countries. Here, in the country which saw the second last huge famine in Europe (last was in Ireland) a bigger problem for the government is the harvest is exceptionally good.

Above all, this discussion that we are having now itself shows that we aren't as vulnerable as before: the real risk is when the dangers are not understood. The fact is the usually there is this moral undertone in the discussion on what to do, it is as if it would be a replacement for the religious undertones in the past that God punished with famines and locusts people for being bad. Now it's our immoral hedonism of consumption, which is bad, so off with our heads.

I hope not. But when I wrote that Greta Thunberg was petitioning world leaders to mitigate climate change and she received massive fan fare for it. She got her start protesting outside Swedish parliament. I wonder why she did that if she didn’t think government could solve her problems? Whatever makes you feel better.

Because she understands, apparently better than you, that to effect change you go bother the people with the power to do so.

The leaders of governments. And here I was told no one was raised to believe the government will solve all our problems.

Parliament. Representation. It seems you have a lot of problems understanding government as a cooperative endeavour and only see it as an oppressive master. That interpretation is simply lazy.

But let's assume it's right, I've only ever heard you bitch about governments. Lay out how to transition from the type of government we have now, to what you think we need, and then how that new society is going to tackle the climate crisis. I want a plan, not just empty criticisms that we keep wasting time on waylaying. Prove that you're not just an inane ideologue.

to add to my other post, within a time frame necessary to stave off the worst of the climate crisis and obviously the plan should be feasible not some fairy tale.

The idea that government is a cooperative endeavor, and that politicians represent their voters, is a complete farce. If your idea of cooperation is to mark a piece of paper and step aside then I would never want to embark on any endeavor with you whatsoever.

I don’t think we can transition out of state dependency save for it’s complete collapse. And because we rely on governments and have done so for so long, we’re never going to take it upon ourselves to fix it. Personally I’m optimistic, but if I adopt the doom and gloom I’d say we’re screwed.

OK, noted that all you can do is bitch. I'm happy to know I can ignore all your posts from now on on anything to do with politics.

Thank god. All you can produce is snark and statism. It’s boring.