I've admitted, numerous times, that I don't know if the election was a fraud or not. I'm in the UK. You Yankie-doodles are much closer to this than I am. We get an impression through "world news" - but it's not the lead story over here. From what I've experienced of your media - it's utterly polarised, and that's where I'd lay the blame. Rightly or wrongly, those people who protested in the capitol believed they were doing the right thing, and if the election was a fraud - what they did was patriotic and in defence of democracy. If they were misled by a highly polarised political/media landscape, that's hardly their fault. Maybe politics of all persuasions, and the media need to reaffirm their commitment to truth and the common good. Country before party. Truth, justice and the American way.

Joking aside we need to engage more with people like Brett @NOS4A2 and especially @counterpunch as they are a real deal philosopher! (Joking not completely aside, I guess) — The Opposite

Reasoning will never make a Man correct an ill Opinion, which by Reasoning he never acquired. — Jonathan Swift

Engaging with them is pointless. They are not reasonable people. They embrace hypocrisy, invention, whataboutery, and swerving contrary evidence and argument. You could show them watertight proof that, say, racism is real and all they will see is proof that so-called facts are not to be trusted.

My view is not that we should encourage such people, but that we should oppose at all opportunities and all means within our principles. Call out every fabrication, every racist principle, every hypocrisy, not because it will move them (it can't), but so that it is held in a constant state of being opposed rather than accepted, and so that every lie, every expression of hate, every fallacy read by others is followed by a counter-argument or contrary evidence or just a straightforward naming for what it is.

Disease is best fought by antibodies, and fascism is a disease, not a philosophy.

I have a solution, and I know it's right. I can prove it right down to the philosophical roots. I can explain where we've gone wrong and how to put it right in the same terms. I am a philosopher. My core subject is how to save the world. And I know how.

Later...

I don't know. It seems a bit immodest to start a thread to propound my own philosophy. — counterpunch

:rofl:

The media has repeated over and over that fraud allegations are ridiculous. The courts, including Republican elected judges and those appointed by Trump wrote scathing opinions about his team's challenges. Even Fox News news program lay this out.

Hell, his obsequious Attorney General Barr said point blank that there was no evidence of fraud, as did former Trump supporting Republican elections officials in Georgia.

It is the President himself who led the charge of fraud allegations. He has been screaming about fraud since six months before the election. The media boosting him is Fox's non-news commentary programs, and propaganda outlets such as Newsmax and OANN. There is a reason the President has been personally attacking Fox since the election and telling his followers to stop watching news and only watch propaganda outlets.

These aren't news programs. They are the right wing equivalent of Jacobin magazine.

What do you think the problems and the solutions are? — fdrake

The fundamental nature of the problem is not capitalism. It's our mistaken relationship to science as truth; established when Galileo was tried for heresy, for proving the earth orbits the sun using scientific method. Consequently, we have used the tools, but have not observed the instructions. We continue to act on the basis of ideological conceptions of the world; applying or withholding technology as ideological priorities dictate - and not, as a scientific understanding of reality suggests we should, assuming only we wish to survive.

Looked at in these terms the solution is obvious. Drill through hot volcanic rock, and use the vast heat energy of the earth to extract carbon from the air, desalinate water to irrigate land, produce hydrogen fuel, and so meet all our energy needs, and more, from a virtually limitless source of clean energy.

Scientifically, energy is fundamental to everything we do. It follows that resources are a function of the energy available to create them - there is no limits to growth, just the misapplication of technology. We can have a high energy sustainable future with high living standards. We can make a paradise of the world - fountains, fruit trees and marble floors for miles. We just need enough energy - and it's there, beneath our feet, a big ball of molten rock 4000 miles deep and 26000 miles around.

We can't shut it all down and sit in the cold and dark forever, eating grass and walking to work. We have to power through. Make good on civilisation by securing the future; not backing down, while apologising profusely for all the crap our ancestors did to eachother - but making those sacrifices worth something by securing a decent future for humankind.

I've admitted, numerous times, that I don't know if the election was a fraud or not. — counterpunch

Let me make it easy: THERE WAS NO ELECTION FRAUD. Saying something like “I don’t know” is itself a copout. I don’t know that Santa Claus lives in the North Pole. Who knows? Maybe. There’s no evidence proving that he DOESN’T.

You get the point I hope. This is just an intellectual mistake.

Yes, it’s largely media and various thought leaders deluding people, but citizens themselves deserve partial blame as well.

The media has repeated over and over that fraud allegations are ridiculous. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Exactly! It's odd, frankly, that media are so adamant the election was legit. When have they ever - not been out to sensationalise and scandalise? But what do I know? I'm a million miles away, and can only speak in terms of generalities. I do recall lots of fraud allegations in 2016, John Oliver's video on voting machines - and people declaring Trump is "not my President." Now, it seems like - it's all the same accusations, with the roles reversed. I don't know any more about it than that - and I'm not willing to take your word for it. I've heard you though. I understand what you believe, and acknowledge, you probably know more about it than me. I just don't know if you're being fair minded, or are defending the left wing position.

The Problem of Induction. Karl Popper. Yes. I get your point, but it doesn't really apply here. I don't know because I live in the UK, and believe it or not - we've got our own problems. Covid and brexit dominate our news cycle. The US Presidential election - while obviously, very important, isn't on 24/7. We're like, 200 years, and they still haven't got a handle on democracy! Might I suggest you return our colony to the rightful rule of Her Majesty?

I do recall lots of fraud allegations in 2016, John Oliver's video on voting machines - and people declaring Trump is "not my President." — counterpunch

For someone interested in truth, you sure are awfully cavalier about touting your opinion of things you - by your own admission - do not understand. Why not take your own advice and do research first and talk second?

Looked at in these terms the solution is obvious. — counterpunch

You're proposing an engineering solution to a social problem. The problem you identify is that people are too easily swayed by falsehood and emotion. Your solution is clean energy? How are those related? In order to realize your vision, you'd first have to figure out how to motivate people to work together on a basis of shared truth.

We just need enough energy - and it's there, beneath our feet, a big ball of molten rock 4000 miles deep and 26000 miles around — counterpunch

I see. So you believe drilling to the centre of the planet in lots of places will save us all.

These quotes are from different posts. The former is from my reply to Count Timothy Von Icarus, regarding the US Presidential election. The latter is from my reply to fdrake, and it's all about clean energy. Truth is a common theme, but I'm not saying clean energy from magma will somehow make the election process fraud proof. All I said originally - about five pages ago, is that the capitol protestors are being unfairly demonised - (unlike BLM who were cheered on by the media as they burnt and looted businesses, causing hundreds of millions in property damage and killing over 40 people) - the capitol protestors people were defending democracy, and they're being pilloried. I've been defending that, over and over again - ever since. I didn't say that there was election fraud. I've admitted, I don't know. Those people, and there were a lot of them - believed there was election fraud, and they sought to occupy government. Good on them, I say.

I don't know where you get the idea -

You're proposing an engineering solution to a social problem. — Echarmion

Climate change isn;t a social problem. It's the misapplication of technology - that occurs because, historically, the Church made science a heresy, denying "Valid knowledge of Creation" the moral authority it rightfully owns. So, we use science, but don't observe it. We apply technology as religious, political and economic ideology suggests, rather than - as a scientific understanding of reality suggests. It's a mistake - deeply buried in our philosophical history, and just never revisited. I'm revisiting it!

I see. So you believe drilling to the centre of the planet in lots of places will save us all. — fdrake

No. I don't propose drilling to the core of the earth. I was explaining how vast the energy of the earth is - 4000 miles deep, 26000 miles around. We could tap that energy forever and never put a dent in it. I suggest drilling close to magma chambers, and at subduction zones, where one continental plate meets another. There are about 500 volcanic islands in the Pacific Rim - far from anywhere and surrounded by water. There's also a huge magma chamber in the US - under Yellowstone national park, but I'd leave that one alone for now. It's too large, and too close to civilisation to make it a test subject. If something goes wrong - a super-volcano would take out most of North America. And we wouldn't want that, would we!

(unlike BLM who were cheered on by the media as they burnt and looted businesses, causing hundreds of millions in property damage and killing over 40 people) — counterpunch

Here again you are posting inaccurate figures (BLM protesters haven't killed over 40 people). Why are you posting a number you haven't fact-checked, if you care about scientific accuracy?

Those people, and there were a lot of them - believed there was election fraud, and they sought to occupy government. Good on them, I say. — counterpunch

Did these people arrive at their conclusions using scientific rigor? Or even due dilligence? And if you're going to answer "I don't know", then how come you nevertheless conclude that what they did was good?

Climate change isn;t a social problem. It's the misapplication of technology - that occurs because, historically, the Church made science a heresy, denying "Valid knowledge of Creation" the moral authority it rightfully owns. — counterpunch

The church is a social organisation. Applying science is a social process. So I am not sure how you can write all this and not conclude that the problem is a social one.

We apply technology as religious, political and economic ideology suggests, rather than - as a scientific understanding of reality suggests. — counterpunch

Can you elaborate on how a scientific understanding of reality can tell us what to do?

No. I don't propose drilling to the core of the earth. I was explaining how vast the energy of the earth is - 4000 miles deep, 26000 miles around. We could tap that energy forever and never put a dent in it. I suggest drilling close to magma chambers, and at subduction zones, where one continental plate meets another. There are about 500 volcanic islands in the Pacific Rim - far from anywhere and surrounded by water. There's also a huge magma chamber in the US - under Yellowstone national park, but I'd leave that one alone for now. It's too large, and too close to civilisation to make it a test subject. If something goes wrong - a super-volcano would take out most of North America. And we wouldn't want that, would we! — counterpunch

I can get behind global efforts for clean energy production. Whether your magma chamber idea would be able to produce enough energy is a scientific question, if you're right, that still leaves the political problems of its implementation.

The fundamental nature of the problem is not capitalism. It's our mistaken relationship to science as truth; established when Galileo was tried for heresy, for proving the earth orbits the sun using scientific method. Consequently, we have used the tools, but have not observed the instructions. We continue to act on the basis of ideological conceptions of the world; applying or withholding technology as ideological priorities dictate - and not, as a scientific understanding of reality suggests we should, assuming only we wish to survive. — counterpunch

Do you believe science has an answer to something like: "BLM protesters pulling down the statues they did is praiseworthy because it simultaneously highlights histories of oppression and dismantles symbols of that oppression"?

No one was talking about fraud in 2016. — Xtrix

Except Mr Trump himself. The election then was going to be rigged, remember?

He was repeating all the same lines before that how rigged the election was going to be (if he lost). There was even the same debate if he would accept defeat in 2016. What's new?

The election then was going to be rigged, remember? — ssu

"'Cause this whole system's rigged, and we all know the riggers!
For the past 8 years this country's been run by— [CAW]"
-Trump

"Don't get your fans stirred up in some sort of Twitter Civil War!"
-Lincoln

Here again you are posting inaccurate figures (BLM protesters haven't killed over 40 people). — Echarmion

Oh dear, am I? I do apologise. I had heard it was around 40 people dead, but I can't vouch for the validity of the source. So how many people were killed in the BLM rioting? Usually, one would rely on the media to tally such figures, but there's been a distinct lack of criticism. The deaths and damage are being ignored.

Did these people arrive at their conclusions using scientific rigor? Or even due dilligence? And if you're going to answer "I don't know", then how come you nevertheless conclude that what they did was good? — Echarmion

It's an opinion - I suppose. I don't claim it's the only possible opinion. Indeed, I have repeatedly said I don't know if the election was fraudulent. I acknowledge the possibility those people were misled. But then, they can't be blamed for being misled, and in my view - occupying the seat of government is the correct response to a fraudulent election.

The church is a social organisation. Applying science is a social process. So I am not sure how you can write all this and not conclude that the problem is a social one. — Echarmion

I wouldn't subsume this problem under a sociological heading. It's philosophy, political theory, history. The Church is a political organisation, not a social one. In 1634, when the Church tried Galileo for heresy, they were in effect a pan-European government, banking house, and system of justice. It was not the happy clappers who meet in the community centre on Sunday mornings to praise Jesus. A large part of European colonialism was people escaping the absolutist power of the Church. The Church was burning people alive for heresy right through to 1792 - 60 years into the Industrial Revolution; a revolution based on applied science. We used science, sure - but it wasn't recognised as an understanding of reality, and consequently, we have applied the wrong technologies for the wrong reasons. That's a problem of philosophy, of political theory, of history - but it's not sociology.

Can you elaborate on how a scientific understanding of reality can tell us what to do? — Echarmion

Good question. Hostile question, but spot on. I assume you know Hume, and the is/ought dichotomy. Hume writes:

"In every system of morality, which I have hitherto met with, I have always remarked, that the author proceeds for some time in the ordinary way of reasoning, ...when of a sudden I am surprised to find, that instead of the usual copulations of propositions, is, and is not, I meet with no proposition that is not connected with an ought, or an ought not."

Hume maintains that this is a fallacy; but he says it himself - it's what human beings do. Neither you nor I can look at a list of facts without prioritising them in terms of our moral values. It occurs because, contrary to popular belief - morality is not external to us, given by God, or capable of precise codification. It's internal - a sense, like a sense of humour, or the aesthetic sense. It's ingrained into us by evolution in a tribal context - wherein, the moral individual within the tribe, and the moral tribe, conferred evolutionary advantages in the struggle to survive to breed, and pass on those qualities to subsequent generations. Religion, law, politics, economics etc, are expressions of that innate moral sense.

It's actually quite interesting because Nietzsche didn't understand this. He believed man in a state of nature was a wilful brute, and that religion was an inversion of the values natural to this superman. But he was wrong. Man could not have survived if he didn't share food, and look after the tribe. Nietzsche's amoral superman would soon have died out. The strong were not fooled by the weak - hunter gatherers joined together to form civilisations, and needed explicit moral codes justified with reference to God. We then promptly forgot this because religion requires faith and claims divine authorship, and divine authority for God's laws. So Hume writes of a morality external to us - whereas, in reality, it's an ingrained moral sense, and our rightful place is the bridge between the is and the ought, between fact and value, knowing what's scientifically true, and doing what's morally right in terms of what's scientifically true.

A lot of uninteresting petty details to answer the innate question in the thread start :
Do people that make the effort to inhabitate a philosophy forum, maybe also philosophy institutions, tend to be left leaning?

If so, why? My best guess is that my fellow countryman Martin Hägglund in his book This Life(Vårt enda liv) might give a clue as to why.

With respect to housing policy, there is ample evidence that racial discrimination was baked into the enabling legislation and implementation. The government policies didn't invent racial discrimination -- they hardened it into the national landscape.

One doesn't need to do very much reading on the HRA to realise that your explanation of the issues, conflates effect with cause. — counterpunch

Actually, one has to do quite a lot of reading to see that I am NOT conflating effect with cause.

Certainly, there were (and are) other major factors which contribute to the wealth/poverty distribution we see today in the US. One doesn't have to be a leftist to acknowledge that. When one compares the collective performance of Immigrant groups, like Somalis, to American blacks, it is clear that big cultural differences are at work. Same for some other immigrant groups who have succeeded under difficult circumstances.

As for boring into the earth to tap the energy derived from the hot interior, pause to consider the technical and maintenance issues involved in a) reaching geologically stable, very hot layers of the crust, and b) putting pipes into very hot, highly corrosive environments for many years. Geothermal is a good thing where feasible, but it's not a maintenance free source.

The entire point of worrying about energy extraction from fossil fuel and 1.4 billion cars (plus more commercial vehicles), and wasteful energy use is global warming -- a crisis which is unfolding before us. We'll need to use solar, wind, geo-thermal, hydro, and anything else we can devise on the production end to avoid economic, cultural, and environmental collapse. 1.4 billion cars--and their continued production and replacement--is simply not sustainable -- meaning, it's not compatible with reducing CO2 levels.

Forcing everybody into common poverty? NOBODY wants to do that. We just don't have another 100 years to make a graceful transition from fossil to hydrogen fuel. We probably don't have 50 years.

It isn't an ideological commitment that makes me doubt that humankind will ever achieve post-materiality -- a la Star Trek and other very optimistic science fiction themes. It would be splendid if we could do that -- but post-materiality rests on ideas that have no material reality at the present time. Mine asteroids for metal, gases, water, etc.? That would be great. Put heavy industry on the moon? Fine. We recently returned a tiny packet of dust from an asteroid, and it took years for the vessel to reach the rock and return--and this is a once-off success.

It seems like 'post materiality' requires that we figure out how to get something from nothing.

I can get behind global efforts for clean energy production. Whether your magma chamber idea would be able to produce enough energy is a scientific question, if you're right, that still leaves the political problems of its implementation. — fdrake

I agree, but I believe I can make the case - even to fossil fuel producing nation states and companies. For instance, the UK is currently planning to build windmills and ban fossil fuel powered cars by 2030. That's bizarre; because wind power can hardly be expected to keep the lights on, less yet add 30 million electric vehicles to demand upon the national grid.

Imagine it does work, and we begin producing magma power. The question then is how to apply it. I've looked at various approaches, and what appeals to my eye - other than extracting carbon from the air and burying it, is taking out large energy users first, like steel, cement, aluminium, desalination and irrigation, shipping, planes, trains, recycling etc, and someway down the road, eventually - cars. But not immediately, because it's too much. Huge infrastructure costs and loss of revenues at the same time, will cause economic havoc, political instability - war, famine and death. We don't want that. We want a smooth, orderly, profitable transition to a high energy sustainable future based on clean energy. Petroleum producing nations need time to diversify their economies, and we need time to build the infrastructure to support 30 million electric vehicles. Applied carefully, magma energy can give us time.

Do you believe science has an answer to something like: "BLM protesters pulling down the statues they did is praiseworthy because it simultaneously highlights histories of oppression and dismantles symbols of that oppression"? — fdrake

Asked questions like this, I always think of Napoleon, blowing the nose off the Sphnix with a cannon, relative to Lord Elgin, who spent his entire family fortune to save the marbles of the Acropolis, which at the time was being used as an ammo dump in a war between the Greeks and the Turks. And today's politically correct, anti Western colonialist claims that the marbles must be returned.
Looking back from that high energy sustainable future, yes - I think people would regret destroying history for what it symbolises today. I think providing the world with limitless clean energy from magma, securing the future for humankind makes good on the civilisation we fought to build, and that sanitising history removes a warning label from what might come again if we don't keep building.

Huge infrastructure costs and loss of revenues at the same time, will cause economic havoc, political instability - war, famine and death. — counterpunch

In a discussion among some leftists about a year ago, that very point about global warming was made: the consequences of an abrupt halt to the auto/fossil fuel segment of the economy (a large hunk) would be a catastrophic blow to the global economy. Not abruptly halting the the auto/fossil fuel segment of the economy (along with other fossil fuel use) guarantees an environmental catastrophe.

in other words, we are screwed.

Totally screwed, because we don't have time to implement reliance on magma, wind, solar, nuclear, hydro, et al. As a rule of thumb, 40 to 50 years are required to implement major technological changes--from proof of concept to commonplace. 30 more years of roll-out for solar and wind puts us at 2051. 50 years for geo-thermal puts us at 2071. Too late in either case to forestall major disaster.

We can, we should, we must press forward on all fronts, from magma to heavy reliance on bicycles, bearing in mind that we can't avoid major environmental losses.

Actually, one has to do quite a lot of reading to see that I am NOT conflating effect with cause. — Bitter Crank

I admit, I haven't done a lot of reading on the subject - but you didn't address my point. Economic geography is still alive and kicking. People can't get home or car insurance based on where they live today. It's just banking procedure. It may be racist in effect, but racism isn't the cause.

Certainly, there were (and are) other major factors which contribute to the wealth/poverty distribution we see today in the US. One doesn't have to be a leftist to acknowledge that. When one compares the collective performance of Immigrant groups, like Somalis, to American blacks, it is clear that big cultural differences are at work. Same for some other immigrant groups who have succeeded under difficult circumstances. — Bitter Crank

No kidding. Chinese labourers went to America to work on the railroads, and were treated very poorly. Yet today, they are the highest performing demographic across the board, education, employment, earnings, zero crime rate. How does one explain that in a supposedly, institutionally racist society?

On "boring into the earth to tap the energy derived from the hot interior" you want to write it off in favour of your windmill powered, low energy, have less - pay more, anti capitalist, eco commie vision of the future. That's precisely what I'm seeking to avoid.

Think about it - green government planning the economy in relation to some imagined carrying capacity, forever. How could that work? Would the natural resources 'saved' from the seething masses be kept forever off limits? People would vote that down in the blink of an eye if you let them vote - so you can't have democracy, you can't support freedom of choice, or freedom of opinion. It's inhuman. And you'd end up committing genocide because you make people the problem - rather than the application of technology.

"Limits to growth" is false. Resources are a consequence of the energy available to develop them, and the energy is there, beneath our feet. We need to tap that energy in a big way, and then we can begin to repair the damage we've done - extracting carbon from the air, not just emitting less carbon. Developing wastelands for agriculture with fresh water produced from sea water, rather than burning the forests and depleting natural water sources. You would prevent people burning the forests, but offer no alternative - because windmill energy isn't enough, so you'd make them eat Soylent Green.

an abrupt halt to the auto/fossil fuel segment of the economy — Bitter Crank

One important thing to keep in mind here is that we don't have to put a bunch of car and energy companies out of business and their employees out of work with all the consequences that that would have. We just have to get them to change what kinds of cars and energy they sell. The auto industry is already swinging heavily into hybrid or full electric vehicles. "Oil companies" are already rebranding themselves "energy companies" and investing in alternatives. It's just the smart thing to do, since one way or another oil's days are numbered.

We just have to get them to change what kinds of cars and energy they sell. The auto industry is already swinging heavily into hybrid or full electric vehicles. "Oil companies" are already rebranding themselves "energy companies" and investing in alternatives. It's just the smart thing to do, since one way or another oil's days are numbered. — Pfhorrest

And that happens with consumers choosing electric / fuel cell electric / hybrid vehicles with competition among the car manufacturers driving the costs down of these "alternative" fuel cars.

That's it. Markets can do something useful.

(What that transformation actually looks like)

That is a startling transformation from ...none, to not quite none - and it only took a decade! There are 47 million cars in Germany - according to google. I'd deal with that last. I'd extract carbon from the air before I'd trash 47 million cars, impose massive infrastructure costs on the taxpayer/consumer, add huge energy demand to the national grid, and destabilize fossil fuel geo politics. All so some pretentious twit can break their arm patting themselves on the back - for how environmentally conscious they are! It's greenwash. It's not a plan; it's an excuse.

That is a startling transformation from ...none, to not quite none - and it only took a decade! — counterpunch

And that's how in reality transformations happen. (Except that electric cars have been around since the time of the combustion engine.) And btw it is a transformation as in Germany annually roughly about 3 million cars are sold. From nothing to every tenth one is a dramatic change, counterpunch.

Besides, If you look just how long horse drawn wagons and the early cars roamed the streets together, that did take a while. In the US the transformation was very rapid, yet globally it was another thing as personal cars were a luxury for a long time:

I'd extract carbon from the air before I'd trash 47 million cars, impose massive infrastructure costs on the taxpayer/consumer, add huge energy demand to the national grid, and destabilize fossil fuel geo politics. — counterpunch

Adding massive costs to the taxpayer/consumer will decrease demand, so where do need the huge energy demand on the national grid?

And just what do have in mind with destabilizing fossil fuel geopolitics? Start a civil war in Saudi-Arabia and have the US attack Iran and Venezuela?

relative to Lord Elgin, who spent his entire family fortune to save the marbles of the Acropolis, which at the time was being used as an ammo dump in a war between the Greeks and the Turks. — counterpunch

26 September 1687: After the Ottoman conquest, it [the Parthenon] was turned into a mosque in the early 1460s. On 26 September 1687, an Ottoman ammunition dump inside the building was ignited by Venetian bombardment during a siege of the Acropolis. The resulting explosion severely damaged the Parthenon and its sculptures.

From 1801 to 1812, agents of Thomas Bruce, 7th Earl of Elgin removed about half of the surviving sculptures of the Parthenon, as well as sculptures from the Propylaea and Erechtheum.

Hey, Counterpunch: I've seen the Elgin Marbles at the BM, and I'm kind of glad he took them. Ditto for the Rosetta Stone. It would have been better had his predecessors acquired the sculptures before the idiot Turks decided to store explosives in one of the most beautiful buildings the world has seen, but... 20/20 rearview vision.

If you look just how long horse drawn wagons and the early cars roamed the streets together, that did take a while. — ssu

"German soldier and his horse in the Russian SFSR, 1941. In two months, December 1941 and January 1942, the German Army on the Eastern Front lost 179,000 horses.[1]

I think it depends on how you read the graph. I read it as total number of electric and hybrid vehicles registered, but if it's annual number of registrations - it's better than not quite none, but it still presents a problem regarding demand on the national grid. Displacing carbon emissions is not the same as not producing them. My approach relies first, on sourcing massive, reliable clean energy from magma - (think geothermal on steroids) and applying that energy to afford continued economic growth, and cushion the transformation, both politically and economically.

I was just looking for that photograph. It's a doozy; 8 years and Ford changed the world. I suppose it took longer elsewhere; and I suppose Ford's transformation is based in turn on the discovery and extraction of oil by "Edwin L. Drake, who employed William Smith, an expert salt driller, to supervise drilling operations and on August 27, 1859, they struck oil at a depth of sixty-nine feet" - but yes, change, when it comes can be very rapid. As we approach upon an unsustainable future, it becomes ever more urgent that it's the right change. And to my mind, electric cars are putting the cart before the horse. First, we need boatloads of clean energy - just as Ford needed boatloads of oil.

Adding massive costs to the taxpayer/consumer will decrease demand, so where do need the huge energy demand on the national grid? — ssu

And just what do have in mind with destabilizing fossil fuel geopolitics? Start a civil war in Saudi-Arabia and have the US attack Iran and Venezuela? — ssu

With both these quotes, you've got the wrong end of the stick. These are, in my view - dangers of what I believe is a wrongful approach - not things I'm trying to achieve, but things I think, my approach would avoid. The UK is planning to ban petrol cars from 2030 - which would place a huge burden on the national grid. I wouldn't do that. Stopping buying petroleum overnight would plunge countries like Saudi, Russia, Iran, Venezuela into chaos. I wouldn't do that either.

I'd produce massive amounts of energy from magma, and use that energy to supply electricity, or hydrogen to the big industrial energy users first - cement, steel, aluminium, shipping, aviation, etc - while using waste heat from the production of electricity and hydrogen fuel, to extract carbon from the air and bury it as calcium carbonate by reinjection. In this way, we could carry on very much as we are, without upsetting the apple cart - separating loss of revenues from huge infrastructure costs, and actively reducing atmospheric carbon - not just, producing a little less of it.

Closing whine thread. (On second thoughts, some good posts above. Finish your convo, I guess.)

it still presents a problem regarding demand on the national grid. Displacing carbon emissions is not the same as not producing them. — counterpunch

It feels perverse to actually have to point this out, but... More and more energy on the grid comes from renewables: that is the trend. Your country has had entire days worth of energy consumption provided entirely by renewable sources. You have major energy providers who only deal with greener energy now (e.g. Scottish Power). That is not true of petrol and diesel cars. If incremental replacement of carbon-emitting fuel with greener alternatives is the aim, which it is, arguing for sticking with petrol and diesel is bizarre.