Understanding the Subject of Sustainability from Two Opposite Directions
Here’s a short post in response to the altercation between two frequent commenters here, MarcoPolo and Cameron. To summarize this beef in a sentence, Cameron feels passionately that our civilization is headed for a fall due to its shortsightedness on environmental issues, and MarcoPolo ridicules him as sanctimonious and self-righteous.
I actually see both sides of this. There are people in our society, and I believe they are correct, who look at the precarious position in which our civilization finds itself with respect to climate change, ocean acidification, demolished ecosystems, loss of biodiversity, etc. and are saying, “Hey! We have a real emergency here!” It’s a shame that the term “alarmist” is a pejorative, because otherwise, that’s an apt descriptor for people like Cameron and me (and the members of the other 200,000 groups whose mission is environmental and social justice). I.e., we’re sounding an alarm (and then doing what we can to put out the fire).
MarcoPolo, while he appears to respect our passion, believes we’re dealing with it in an ineffective way. He holds that there is, or will soon be, a natural evolution toward sustainability that derives spontaneously from market economics, and thus public policy based on ideologies (any ideology) is a bad thing, in that it perverts the inherent efficiencies of the marketplace and puts in place artificial structures that will eventually come crashing down when the government runs out of money.
There is clearly something to be said for both of these ideas, which to me, in and of itself, suggests that the proper response is acceptance and tolerance, rather than venom and ridicule.
Now maybe that’s just me. There are several people here at 2GE (trolls?) whose self-appointed full-time job is criticizing what I write, often with some fabulously empty thinking and childish name-calling. Note that I (almost always) leave them alone. 2GE supports everyone’s right to express themselves; I tend to let the chips fall where they may.
That’s a core part of my personality, FWIW, i.e., a point of view I’ve had since I was a little boy, which I would summarize: try to make your case based on an open and honest interpretation of all the relevant data points around you, and then get out of the way; let the audience come to its own conclusions. “It works for me,” as they say.
There is a limit to what free market forces can accomplish. There are times and circumstances which require strong intervention. Minimizing and dealing with global warming is one of those circumstances.
Although utilizing market forces is part of the solution, it alone will not solve the problem.
Hi Frank,
I agree. Governments have a duty to set public policy and regulate. As managers of national economies they also have a duty to provide incentives, subsidies and other assistance to aid innovation and mitigate economic disruption.
Dealing with global issues is often crippled by a lack of cooperation between nation states, yet nation states are still important safeguards against vast bureaucratic agencies with little accountability.
I would like to see all nuclear installations, supervised and monitored by an independent,internationally trusted Agency. (Maybe the Swiss). Such an agency would have prevented Chernobyl and Fukushima.
Marcopolo,
Your proposal may be reasonable. And, as you say, it probably would have prevented Chernobyl and Fukushima since those disasters were the result of egregious and inexcusable human carelessness. But before unreservedly supporting such a proposal, I’d like to see it discussed among nuclear experts in various countries.
If such an Agency worked well, it might actually accelerate progress in developing better nuclear technologies. On the other hand, it could have the opposite effect.
Craig,
I afraid advocates like Cameron are bound to receive a lot rougher treatment than my mild teasing.(incidentally, I was sincere, I really do enjoy his stentorian pronouncements).
Unlike yourself, Cameron’s advocacy is very rigid and he quickly takes offense to even the mildest criticism.
When advocating strong and controversial opinions, it’s unwise respond to critics by to exploding into bitter inventive and refer to critics as Trolls, strawmen etc. (there are places in Scotland where calling someone a Strawman, would be a really bad idea !).
There’s a point where “passion” becomes intolerant fanaticism.
Equally so, there comes a time when simply condemning others, passing judgement, demanding action and sacrifice from anyone but yourself, wears a little thin.
Where I differ from Cameron is I don’t believe the world or civilization is in immediate danger of collapse. I do believe that we all should strive to improve our environment by all practical means, including advancing technology.
Where I also differ from Cameron, is I feel there is little point in sitting around repeating trite dogma about grandiose plans that will never happen.
Instead I try my humble best to involve myself in promoting Clean Tech and assisting environmentally beneficial projects that may not solve all problems, but hopefully may solve some.
Craig, I suspect that’s also the difference between you and Cameron. You work hard encouraging clean tech and environmental awareness, in a practical way.
But, despite many requests, Cameron remains coy about how he implements any of his “passion” in any practical form.(I would love to be wrong).
It sounds as if I’m being harsh on Cameron, but to me Cameron is symbolic of many who identify as environmentalists, but who are really just peddling a mish-mash of political-ideological dogma dressed up as environmentalism.
As I said elsewhere, environmental awareness and positive action needs mass support, and realistic objectives. This can’t be achieved without focusing on real issues and setting aside divisive, extraneous dogma.
As a farmer, I’m naturally not to keen on those who wish to stop beef production on environmental grounds. As an early pioneer of EV’s, it’s especially galling when those same anti-beef campaigners fail to buy an EV !
Marco, first let me say that our last encounter left me with a sense of some disappointment or failure. I can only hope that, to your credit, you somehow managed to take some positive intent among perhaps overly negative or reactionary comments.
I can recall my first trip around the US when traveling through cattle country, I found myself literally afraid to admit I was a vegetarian for fear of being accused of sedition. Times have changed and by my third trip I found many more were inclined to respond by saying something like “Oh, we don’t eat very much meat either.”
With this said, there are at least five reasons why someone might choose to be a vegetarian. (Religious dogma, spiritual/consciousness, meatpacking/slauterhouse issues, health/disease issues or environmental reasons) And like any sort of common cult/religion the belief/practice can be held in a dogmatic, fundamentalist, reformed or mystical fashion. Multiplying these together gives you 20 different types before you even add in the classical “types” of vegetarians (vegans, ovo-lacto….) So it is to your credit that you identify vegetarians for environmental reasons.
I have sat down with some who will ask if I would be offended if they eat meat at the same table as I was eating (as someone might have asked “do you mind if I smoke…) Others don’t ask. I would certainly defend their right to eat what they want and feel it is/was incumbent upon me to learn to tolerate such environments.
In addition, I think it is important to recognize the significance of someone’s livelihood to them. This is equally true for the cattle farmer as it is for the fossil fuel executive. However this will not prevent me from simultaneously considering various arguments about the industry and its affect/influence upon society.
You are an intelligent person. Certainly you are aware of the basic concept of the food/energy pyramid ( http://ecosystems2.weebly.com/energy-pyramid.html .) We could say that at each level energy is lost to the environment. The implication is then more people could be fed using fewer resources if they are eating on a lower level. Most “vegetarians” are eating on a lower level than those who eat animals that eat plants. With modern factory farming techniques this would tend to imply less land, less water, less petrochemical fuel, fertilizers, antibiotics and pesticides and generally less of an impact to the environment.
So forget for the moment anyone trying to impose their beliefs upon you. You seem to include some appreciation for the environment in your world view. Appreciating the special place livelihood takes in a person’s life, how do you personally reconcile cattle production and environmental interests?
Hi Breath on the Wind
Thank you for your post.I will try to reply in order of the points you raise.
1) You are correct, no one should be made to feel unhappy or uncomfortable for their customs or personal choices, as long as they are not “evangelizing” or interfering with others. As a host I always provide a vegetarian option. (not just removing the meat).
2) Your description of aspects of Vegetarianism as being like “like any sort of common cult/religion the belief/practice can be held in a dogmatic, fundamentalist, reformed or mystical fashion “, is very true. In fact this can apply to any movement, including the environmental movement.
3)I hope I don’t oversimplify your point about the food pyramid. The idea that the human race should live in a sort of Eden-like pristine wilderness is a delusion.
Modern humans were created by eating meat. Evidence dating back nearly 3.4 million years show the evolution of our large brains was due to eating meat, and in particular highly nutritious marrow.
Even in very recent years we have seen how the physical size and health of populations which traditionally ate very little meat, improves dramatically (especially males) as consumption of meat increases.
Humans do not, and never have, successfully lived in harmony with the environment. With the discovery of fire humans became masters of their own environment and evolution. With the development of agriculture, came the need for animal husbandry to replace hunting and animal husbandry encouraged specialization.
Human intervention produced animals unknown in nature. The domestic chicken looks nothing like it’s ancestor. Selective breeding resulted in horses become larger and able to provide faster transport, assist in agriculture etc. The Mule became our tractor.
Sheep, pigs, cattle etc, became increasing adapted for human usage. We specialized in maximizing the high value nutrition in animals from the food which humans can’t eat (grass, foliage etc).
As a species, especially growing boys, humans need V B12. V12 can only be obtained from animal flesh. While living micro organisms Yeast etc, do possess V12, it’s insufficiently metabolized to substitute for meat eating.
Humans are very efficient farmers. We support a huge population, by concentrating on producing on food with the maximum nutritional value. We also produce a huge variety of food not normally available, thanks to world trade. Trade eliminates deficiencies caused by seasonally specialized diets.
I realize that application of food production and distribution isn’t perfect due to political, economic and distribution anomalies, but in general the human population has never been better fed, and guaranteed nutritional security than any time in history.
As for farming being the enemy of the environment, that can be true. Like every human activity some safeguards are essential. Science and technology continuously improve agriculture while excesses are being increasingly controlled and averted.
The growth of human populations is inevitable. The rate of growth can be slowed, but can’t be reversed.
The ethical aspect of eating animals, is a matter for human sensibility and personal choice. Humans come equipped with a pair of excellent canine teeth, but if they choose not to use them that’s also a human characteristic.
I’ll confess I love eating pork, but slaughtering and eating a domesticated pig (especially one with a name) would distress me. ( Much easier to buy prepared from the supermarket). However, I am quite comfortable killing feral pigs, so it’s really a matter of how humans relate to the idea of animals.
Humans keep nearly 4 billion meat eating cats and dogs as pets, these animals (especially cats) must eat meat. Do you propose that all these pets be destroyed ? Or do you agree with the concept that keeping pets is immoral ?
The food chain, is what it is. The top predator eats the most concentrated nutritious high energy food,. We are the top predator.
Humans are the only animal which adapts the environment to our own needs, rather than adapting ourselves to the environment.
The impact of human activity has been a factor on the environment since humans learned to manage fire and cultivate agriculture. That process can’t be reversed. The best we can do is decide what sort of environment we choose and work to produce the best result.
But we must do so within the context of human needs and aspirations. Utopian dreams and illusions are great, but very selfish when only practiced by a misguided, privileged elite.
4) Economic. The economics of human civilization are based on a pyramid of increasing values for value added or luxury products. Meat production is an essential ingredient in that pyramid for all western nations.
No one say’s ‘I’ll bet you a nut loaf dinner ‘ ! Steak, Venison etc are still the epitome of luxury items.
I’m the first to agree that meat eating to excess is as unhealthy as any other over indulgence. Just as excessive sugar, etc. Nor are bad agricultural practices to be condoned, or harmful additives, excessive use of antibiotics, hormones and other bad practices, but these are the undesirable fringes that occur in any large industry.
I hope you don’t think I’m one of those guys who think that eating an all meat diet is a symbol of manhood. ( more like a symbol of early heart problems). Even as a child I enjoyed the variety offered by vegetables.
My cattle, sheep, pigs, horses etc, aren’t harmful to the environment, they are the environment. The idea that only a primitive landscape untouched by human occupation is morally superior, a land where the lion lays down with the lamb, is a romantic fantasy. (A belief to which I’m sure you don’t subscribe).
As for excess methane emissions, I’m a founder and investor in a project which has identified and will eliminate or severely reduce this problem in ruminants. Interestingly, it also greatly improves the animals health.
I respect the rights of Vegetarians. I even think the diet of most of my contemporaries could do with more vegetables and less meat. However, I truly believe that responsible production of meat is not only beneficial to the health human existence, but also the environment.
Interesting post Craig. There is a special ability to see different perspectives on the same issue. Perhaps some might consider it only a start.
Another step might be to identify the strengths and weakness of both sides. Perhaps it gets most interesting when the people you like harbor inconsistent viewpoints or take positions out of fear for their family or livelihood. Then what do you do? Attack like a surgeon trying to cut the cancer from the healthy tissue, or wait and hope they might ask for help before you approach with a knife. It is also possible to say nothing hoping that what you see is presently only not fully understood and it will reveal itself in time.
Marco, thank you for taking the time for such a long response. While covering many aspects, some of which could become long discussions in their own right, I did not find a response to the idea that eating lower on the food chain uses fewer resources. This leaves me with the impression that you avoid or have not considered this aspect enough to form an impression. That is perfectly fine. It is not my personal passion it just seems a fact that must eventually be faced by a growing population concerned about resources and or pollution.
There are some of what I might consider general misconceptions about being a vegetarian. Some of your “arguments” might be directed at one type of vegetarian and be of no concern to others. B12 for example would not be a concern to someone who included animal products like eggs and milk into their diet. Similarly some consider themselves a “vegetarian” by only eating chicken and fish.
The concept of the energy pyramid is a scientific resource and energy analysis which perhaps should not be confused with someone’s environmental utopian ideal. Again these might be of importance to different types of vegetarians.
I have seen many theories suggesting that language, hands, or even eating brains were responsible for larger brains, but haven’t previously heard that responsibility given to “meat.”
People do tend to increase in size when exposed to a western diet. I have previously seen references that suggest that an increase in calorie intake during childhood is responsible. I have not previously seen that size increase strictly related to meat eating.
While you several times refer to males, men or boys and meat eating, I have found women less inclined to eliminate a potential source of iron in their diets. But much of our dietary advice over the years has proven to be inaccurate and has been subject to many changes.
Human populations tend to grow exponentially as food production increases lineally, was a proposition proposed and somewhat discredited by the application of petrochemical fuel (mechanization,) fertilizers, pesticides and pharmaceuticals. But populations don’t always grow. New research suggests that 98% of the indigenous population in the Americas was killed off by diseases imported from Europe. Plagues of the Middle ages and the 1918 “Spanish flu” seems to have killed off about 30% of the affected population. Like this disease and starvation have always been counters to population growth including top predators.
With respect to methane emissions of cows, I have mostly considered this a red herring. Bio-digesters produce methane as a result of anaerobic microbial activity. We also know microbial activity is helpful in digestion. Unless you intend to stick an airstone down a cow’s gut (switching to aerobic bacteria) I don’t see how you can have one without the other. While you are certainly more familiar with the numbers than I would be surprised if present day activity (including cows producing methane) was more significant than sequestered carbon from fossil fuels or pockets of natural gas being released from permafrost, fracking or pipe leaks.
Hi Breath on the Wind,
You raise some very interesting points, and your presentation is well reasoned.
The idea that “eating lower on the food chain uses fewer resources”, is very difficult to establish definitively. On the one hand it’s undeniable raising animals uses a lot of (renewable) resources. On the other hand, the food value (both in nutrition and economic terms) is much greater. I’m not sure that everyone want’s to live on tofu !
Of course each side of the debate distorts the question to support their own conclusion. I’m not very impressed with American farming methods which tend to be very heavily reliant on high fat yields and excessive chemicals. (I stress I’ve never farmed in the US, so I’m really not qualified to express an opinion).
As far as eating meat integral to human brain development, this theory is well documented and widely accepted since it fits in with the first instances of humans boosting food nutrition through cooking food. But most accept that the ability to split and consume energy-dense animal-derived foods, such as soft bone marrow and brains were the primary reason for the development of large pre-frontal brains. [ source; Expensive Tissue Hypothesis, (1995) by Leslie C. Aiello, Professor emeritus of Biological Anthropology at University College London, and Physiologist Dr Peter Wheeler of Liverpool University ]
http://www.americanscientist.org/issues/pub/2016/3/meat-eating-among-the-earliest-humans
(Very interesting, but of course not conclusive).
Finally, according to Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change;
“Methane emission from ruminant livestock is currently estimated to be around 100 million tonnes of methane each year and after rice agriculture, represents the biggest man-made methane source. Methane warms the planet by 86 times as much as CO2…”
Whatever it’s ranking, it’s a problem that can be tackled by technology and without any major disruption. In fact, reduction in methane production is beneficial to the health of livestock, economics of farm production and the environment.
Which brings me back to my main point.
Isn’t it preferable to concentrate on humbler, less grandiose, and more achievable targets ? eg: eliminating;-
1) Bunker Oil emissions, ( the equivalent of 50 billion motor vehicles),
2) 100 million tonnes of methane, ( equivalent to 8.6 billion tonnes of CO2)
3) Replacing 2&4 stroke lawn and horticultural machinery. with EV technology EV ( equivalent of maybe 140 million cars).
These are just three, of many environmentally friendly technologies, with mature technologies, easily implemented without major disruptive economic or social consequences.
I have spent the last 20 years promoting, developing, funding and implementing practical solutions and environmentally beneficial technology.
If at times I seem a little impatient with those who are more interested in advocating a sort of exciting utopian social “revolution” rather than take part in any useful achievements,….well, I hope you will forgive my occasional lapses of tact.
Marco,
“The idea that “eating lower on the food chain uses fewer resources”, is very difficult to establish definitively.”
An interesting tact, considering Newton’s laws of thermodynamics are rather clear. If we accept that energy is not created or destroyed then someone might question where the additional energy might be accounted for higher up on the food chain considering inevitable losses and inefficiency ( “Energy transfer processes are always a long way short of 100% efficient.” http://www.cod.edu/people/faculty/fancher/TrophicPyramids.htm )
There is a distinction between considering the entire system and individual products. We know from the study of DDT that poisons can become concentrated in predators (like eagles.) Certainly, there is a valid argument for a “higher concentration of some of nutrients and chemicals in individual members of a trophic level. But if we were to add up all the energy available for the entire trophic level it could be expected to be about 1% of what is available in the level below.
I don’t see how this is a distortion or a point of view. It seems to be simply a fact that fits into our understanding of energy and energy systems. You might debate the relevance and seem to want to consider other issues. One other issue, as I previously mentioned is, “This is my livelihood.”
With respect to tofu and “fake meats” in general, I don’t see the point. They strike me as a bit of a diversion. Some people love distractions. I tend to go in another direction.
The argument that brain development was improved in evolution by eating meat seems to have received some media attention. I am not entirely clear on the mechanism that would allow nutrition enhancements to be passed on genetically to another generation.
Any relevance to nutrition today then requires the further assumption that what was required to start an evolutionary process continues to be required to maintain it. This is somewhat counter-intuitive when compared to an analogy of inertia and acceleration. The closest way this might be applied to modern humans is to ensure proper nutrition during developmental years. But once again it goes to the question of quality rather than quantity.
I am not sure of any study that suggests that eating meat, separate from the issue of general nutrition allows for better physical or cognitive performance for a modern adult. This would be required to prove an argument of a minimal quality of diet required for human existence. In turn that might then be used to outweigh any argument that eating lower on the food chain would require far less energy and resources. And once again this is only a valid argument for at most one in 20 types of vegetarians.
When it comes to stats it is a common practice to slide from citing percentages to fixed quantities. This does not allow the numbers to be compared directly. Here is a study that found: “The Four Corners region, where Utah, Colorado, Arizona and New Mexico meet, spans more than 1,000 square miles. It is one of the nation’s largest producers of coal bed methane and releases about 600,000 metric tons of methane into the atmosphere each year.” https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15082016/methane-natural-gas-leaks-fracking-oil-coal-four-corners-region That would be six times the figure you provided for cows. Moreover what is produced by cows is part of the present day carbon cycle. Methane gas leaks from fracking fields, pipeline leaks and permafrost represents methane (and therefore also carbon) that has been sequestered for millions of years.
There seem to be exceptions to the principal that “Energy transfer processes are always a long way short of 100% efficient.”. An electric heater is 100% efficient. So is the conversion of mechanical power to heat. However, changing different forms of energy into heat may be the only exception.
Sure Frank, that quote would seems to be a little bit of hyperbole, but in context it is from article about energy transfers in nature from one trophic level to another which are 1% to 5% efficient.
Efficiency is always based upon “useful work.” When we are looking for heat which is normally a waste product efficiency tends to jump. This is how we get reasonably efficient fuel cells through co-generation (heat and electricity.) The exception may be electric motors. Some developed for solar cars have been cited at 99% efficiency.
While it is common to say that “an electric heater is 100% efficient” in practice that is not always the case (depending upon where you measure the efficiency.) Baseboard electric radiators sit along a wall and lose heat to that outside wall. So while the transfer of energy to the heating element may approach 100% efficiency there is resistance in the wire leading to the radiator and heat loss to the outside at the radiator.
Can you give me an example of mechanical power to heat with 100% efficiency? I would expect that friction would produce some forms of resistance that could not be counted as “useful work.”
Actually I can, at least in theory.
A micro hydro system could be used to heat water for various purposes. That could be done by having the turbine drive a water break the purpose of which would be simply to heat water. Probably someone has actually done that, but no doubt it is uncommon.
Actually, when measuring the efficiency of an electric heater, one should probably start with the generating plant in which case the efficiency from coal or whatever to heat from the electric heater would not be high even though the heater, from it’s terminals to output, itself would be 100% efficient.
@ Breath on the Wind
Thank you for your reply.
I guess there are some issues where conclusions must be left to the individual.
I’m not sure that the law of thermodynamics has anything really relevant to the diet preferences of human beings. My point about Tofu, wasn’t meant to be literal. It was meant to show that human beings want, and demand, the greatest degree of variety they can obtain.
We could all wear the same clothing, have only one brand and design of utensils, eat only one diet, drive only one brand of auto, watch one TV channel etc. The is a logic to that sort of efficiency.
Except we don’t, and never have. On the few times it’s been tried in ends in human misery and social decay. There is no problem feeding 7 billion humans, (there is a problem distributing) but the food exists. When I sit down to eat my favorite meal, I’m aware it took the efforts of a huge number of people involved in vastly complex and sophisticated series of industries to supply my nutritional, and aesthetic needs.
That’s the basis of the Western World’s economic model, and has been the basis of all successful civilized economies.
But, it’s not for everyone. Some people seek a simpler lifestyle. That’s ok also. That’s my point, we should be all free to choose.
Although I guess I spent part of my youth acquiring farming knowledge, my principal ‘living’ is not derived from agriculture.In the Western world, farming is becoming an increasingly capital intensive, high risk, low profit business.
My Australian property isn’t very large, but we support six families in full time employment growing Hop’s, grapes and other specialized crop’s, as well as 2000 + head of largely pasture fed cattle.
Huge amounts of arable land is given over to the production of wine, beer and other alcohol. Wine isn’t an essential nutrient to human existence, but it’s a very valuable economic activity. (Wine per kilo can be more valuable than gold!).
Not everything can be reduced to simple maths.
Er, Cheers 🙂
Craig to your question Breath on Wind and Marco excellent dialogue thank you both.
Anyone who clings to the Myths of Free Markets in respect to Energy Production and to the selections of energy options that the flawed and rigged marketplace make available to society is a Ideologue whose decision or position is determined strongest by their own economic interest. The market has been compromised so many times that we have compromised the compromises!
The market approach has many flaws too numerous for one discussion. I will speak to the pricing flaw and I am writing from a We need to protect the environment and pass on something of decent value to others who will follow us when our time here is over. So full disclosure on my sense of Bias perhaps.
As the economy became industrialized the economy needed increasing levels of energy BTU’s so the lowest first cost became the Mis Guided Holy Grail and that led to excessive dependencies on certain fuels and practices on how we use them in power production, farming, and transportation. Urban sprawl, bigger engines etc.
Many Wants that over ruled our Real Human Needs !
The Laws of Unintended Consequences resulted and we became overly dependent on very polluting forms of energy – like coal burning for power production. Energy for homes was cheap so no thought was given to building homes that were energy efficient, commercial sector driven by huge tax subsidies to developers creating barriers to life cycle efficiency only now decades later beginning to fall under the weight of energy cost realities along with the environmental consequences.
So certain interests became Entrenched financially , and they used the power of the purse to protect their game politically .
A simple to understand example of the flawed energy market is leasing land from the BLM. In Wyoming 10 years ago we explored leasing enough land to build a solar farm to support a Federal Data center that wanted to have access to clean power and reduce the use of coal fired power. The BLM charges $ 1 per acre for a coal lease. $ 500 per acre for a solar or wind lease. The rules at the time were heavily tilted to protect the status quo. Thankfully some of these excesses are being rectified and reformed by the Federal government after years of abuse.
So the market became even more flawed and it remains tethered to these false price signals and mis matches between what is good for society and what is good for the shareholder.
A real world example in Houston Tex area. The deregulated energy broker a home owner buys their electricity from will charge you 18 cents per Kwhr plus fuel if your usage is below 1,000 Kwhr a month. So if you go solar or implement smart energy efficiency measures you get penalized with a higher electric rate.
In contrast if you use over 1,000 per month they drop the price to 8.5 cents Kwhr. plus fuel .
This pricing is in direct conflict with Sustainability etc. It reduces the adoption of solar and other measures that are good for Mother Earth and All of its Children.
So much for the false concept of deregulation working best to serve the market needs!
We now stand at a Y or Fork in the road most of the public out cry’s out for solutions to the looming crisis or series of crisis that global warming etc is bringing upon us.
I don’t think it is Alarmist to get into High Gear Addressing the Challenges . Neither do we need to be Crusaders but rather Good Stewards of the Earth .
Decarbonizing our economy is a arduous task but it can be done over time and in a manageable manner. To overcome all the flaws in the systems of Energy prices should include a real value to society like a ranking system for good energy and that gets preference.
Bad energy gets a carbon tax plain and simple.
This market price signal would speed up the abandonment of certain fuels. More Net Zero homes with their added intrinsic and extrinsic value would be made and sold.
But more importantly it would create market incentives for agricultural users to become more carbon neutral and use methane capture to produce cleaner fuel from the cows and other animals. Displace some diesel fuels. and coal power. The utility practices that make it difficult to integrate small power producers generation output, and sell onto the grid are often barriers that keep cleaner power off the grid due to the rigged Merit Order of dispatch rules in power sector. The different states have some convoluted rules that serve as barriers to progress for sure. One wonders who are they protecting , for what value ?
Again clean power gets preference and dirty power no matter if it has a lower first cost gets sent back to end of the line. well the carbon tax would raise its price so it is not falsely cheap. We would have Truth in disclosure for market impact.
This is repeated throughout the economy.
Net Zero homes get better mortgage rates as the risk to the lender is lower because the homeowner will have a more money saved to pay the utility and tax bills etc. More property value to the taxing entities so our cities have the tax base to support civilized living.
California real estate players see a 15 % increased home value for solar installed homes so this is not dreamy wavy Wish List propaganda it is market real.
Sustainable economics works in a Circle passing on multiple benefits
Our utilities under out dated regulations are forced to always try to be building something so they can earn a rate of return. Locking us in to bad practices and obsolete options as well. Changing the rules to reflect modern conditions and newer cleaner technologies and technical fixes says we Let them earn a rate of return for promoting effective energy efficiency. Earn rates of return for different measures based on real value not embedded accounting numbers.
So yes there should be a market component and mechanism for much of this but we must begin at the Root of the Problem The flawed pricing of the energy BTU’s.
The JAP nukes that melted down are a classic result of the Corporate masters being slaves to a quarterly stock value, they were told to install diesel tanks and generators up the hill safely above any Ocean Tides. If they had done so there would have been no meltdown as they would have had the back up power to cool the Nukes etc.
They did not because the corporate funding model is broken short term oriented to the MAX. The owners Mgmt needed to minimize any costs no long run planning or consequences can be done in a short term economic model that is a big trap now. So a flawed market signal supremo !
We need to Align societal benefits in establishing the value we assign to energy to effectively clean it up.
One last example is the airlines. They think nothing of charging excessive baggage fees and the public has reluctantly accepted paying them and keep flying even though the quality of the experience continues to deteriorate.
Well Why cant they charge $ 10 or some percentage of the estimated cost per ton of carbon which is $36 a ton and add it to Every Ticket. You fly you pay a free market for sure.
Thank you Breath On the Wind and Marco Polo for a series of very articulate posts. Highly informative and very respectful discussion in the Spirit of the 2 Greenenergy site. Learned some things .
Marco the idea of changing out bunker fuel is real valid as its a big source of pollution. Its like why did the bank robbers go to the bank to steal? because that is where the money was!
Shipping sector and Bunker fuel is where a large portion of the carbon is . So it makes economic sense to attack it and there is a market for a replacement fuel big enough to scale so investors will play.
So when these Inconvenient Truths or Facts are examined many defenders of the Status Quo begin to realize they are hostage to a rigged system and their view sometimes change. Sometimes they cling to their Myths as the flow of money is more important to their survival. etc. Prisoners of the market.
Trust that some of this resonates positively its just the Tip of the Iceberg.
Take care
Silent,
You give airlines as an example of how customers tolerate bad service. Actually, they do only to a certain extent. I would fly more often if it had not become such a miserable experience. Probably I am not the only such potential customer.
Regarding energy efficiency, when contractors build homes as part of a new development, they generally build them as cheaply as the code allows. They pay more attention to false elegance, style, and flash than to efficiency and durability. For rental units, they pay no attention whatever to efficiency unless they are forced to do so by codes. As an example, in the early 1960s the most common through the wall air conditioner in apartments in parts of the U.S. was the cheapest and least efficient Westinghouse A / C available; it was also one of the most noisy. Of course the apartment building owner cared nothing about A / C efficiency; the tenant paid the electric bill.
Free market systems do not always operate optimally. Not infrequently it is necessary to find ways to make free market systems work to the benefit of everyone in which case they are no longer completely free markets. That’s why we have building codes, pollution restrictions, etc. etc.
Also not infrequently it is difficult to implement necessary restrictions and controls because of the influence of moneyed people and companies. In theory, democratic systems can deal with that and often do, but sometimes it takes a long time.
Removing controls in the 1980s resulted in the collapse of many savings and loans institutions, a type of bank common here in the U.S. It took $billions to bail them out over a period of many years. Removing controls was also at least partly responsible for the Great Recession which began in 2008.
Although I support the capitalist economic system, I do not believe that laissez faire workable. There have to be regulations and controls which require tweaking from time to time.
Hi Frank,
In principle I agree with the main thrust of your contention free enterprise and free market forces need a degree of regulation and restrictions to ensure a safe and competitive environment.
Not wishing to be pedantic, but I thought I’d just throw my 2 cents in for your consideration.
1) Like you, I’ve always disliked the inefficiency and ugliness of package (or room) air-conditioning units. However, in their defense I would suggest that for many years these were the only affordable air-conditioning systems and could be installed by a reasonably adept handyman.
2) Mismanagement of the relaxation of banking regulations and controls was not the sole reason for the US recession.
Relaxation of banking regulations and controls created a huge expansion in economic activity and employment for an otherwise moribund US economy. As a nation the US was in an advanced stage of decay and despondency. Ronald Reagan used the US economy as weapon against US enemies and a means of lifting US prestige and morale from the morass to which it had sunk.
Unfortunately, his grand vision was not skillfully pursued once he left office. Reagan was a master of grand bluffs, and small surgical strikes. He was at heart a pragmatic politician, always with a plan B, and flexible enough to maneuver.
His successors inherited a series of problems which Reagan would have successful negotiated, as he secure in his popularity and feared no political backlash.
Much of the adverse result from relaxing banking controls was created by court decisions against “discriminatory” lending policies and criteria. As a result, a whole array of new financial instruments arose that reflected the huge expansion of credit, high interest,etc, but with outdated and delusional valuations of assets.
Quickly, Reagan’s idea of an expansion in home ownership through more easily obtained mortgages and an expansion of US borrowing and bonds, became an an uncontrolled deluge of bad financial practice.
The US wasn’t the only nation to experience the effect of financial deregulation during the 1980’s. Most western economies took a while (and a lot of cowboy behaviour ) while adjusting. (Those were exciting days ! :).
Reagan left office with his policies (in most part) working and his aims mostly successful. He can’t be held responsible for the actions of his successors.
Here is a link to an article entitled “Renewable energy ‘simply WON’T WORK’: Top Google engineers”:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/
I don’t believe that that means that renewables have no place. However, I do believe that renewables have only a niche rôle to play. And, if very small modular nuclear system become practical and safe, that rôle could shrink.
To Marcopolo.
I’ll admit I haven’t read your full exchange with Cameron and with Frank Eggers, so I’m sorry if this is ground that has already been tread.
But the problem with the unrestricted free market is silo budgeting. The fossil fuels industry has significant externality costs that they do not shoulder. Renewable energy and nuclear energy do not carry these externalities, but they themselves have higher costs in many cases.
Ergo, if the free market were left entirely alone, you’d see fossil fuels winning out over renewable and nuclear energy most of the time, even though the net cost to society to provide the same energy is far higher.
The optimal strategy would be to offer abatement subsidies for various externality costs: A fixed dollar amount per ton of estimated emissions abated via new projects – ranging from better quality smokestack scrubbers on coal plants to wind farms to solar gardens to some random guy spraying more insulation in his attic…
If that were set down, and new projects could just fill out some forms and get a subsidy based on these projected abatements… then I’d say fine, let the free market have it.
Until then, I am forced to support subsidies and micro-managing regulations as the lesser of evils, since the fossil fuel energy is burdening the commons with the greater share of its cost, and the renewable and nuclear energy options are not. The free market cannot work in that scenario.
Also, R&D is ALWAYS worthy of investment. ALWAYS. It’s when deployment subsidies begin that things become objectionable. But it is highly defensible to try to encourage new R&D for next generation technology and manufacturing processes.
Hi Glen,
I feel you may be judging my comments by Craig’s stereotyping in defence of Cameron , rather than what I actually wrote
I’m not, and never have been, a laissez-faire free market advocate. I have repeatedly supported the duty of governments to provide regulatory infrastructure. I also support the role of governments to provide economic incentives, such as tax credits, subsidies, and other incentives to support R&D, innovations, clean technology, and other assistance to increase support for local industry and economic activity.
Unfortunately, national governments can only do so much. Carbon taxes, Emission trading schemes just become huge bureaucratic nightmares. These schemes not only fail to achieve any real environmental benefit, but become subject to fraud ,avoidance and abuse.
When industry becomes over burdened with obstacles, it simply closes or moves off-shore. Subsidies, incentives, mandates etc, must contain sunset clauses and be carefully and rigorously monitored.
My difference with Cameron, is a totally different issue.
Basically, Cameron advocates a impending and immediate doctrine where through the wicked machinations of capitalists of various hues, the is planet is about to experience Armageddon and the destruction of all civilization.
Cameron’s remedy is a bit vague but involves some sort of social revolution to be achieved by draconian (but unspecified) methods.
I hold a contrary belief, I do not believe that an apocalypse ( exciting or other wise) is imminent. I believe environmental progress is best achieved by not allowing environmental issues to become confused and hi-jacked by extraneous and divisive political/philosophic/ ideological agendas.
I advocate the practical, positive deployment new clean(er) technologies, while maintaining strong economic growth and prosperity. Only in a strong economy can innovation and new technology be afforded.
I think it’s important to continually monitor and assess the effectiveness of new technologies to avoid ‘White Elephants’ becoming institutionalized and blocking the development on superior rivals.
I think alarmists and extreme advocates do great harm to environmental progress by alienating the support of the vast majority of citizens. These extremists also detract focus from what can be achieved by insisting focus should be on grandiose schemes that will never be achieved, while excluding humbler but achievable targets .
I guess the best contract between advocates like Cameron and myself can be found in his post where he condescendingly informs me that if it wasn’t for the activities of the Koch brothers, Exxon, etc, all vehicles, including emergency vehicles, would be electric by now.
Now, I’m normally fairly tolerant, but considering I’ve spent the last 20 years financing, building, selling and promoting specialist electric vehicles, while owning and driving EV’s for more than six years, (including Tesla,LERR ), I don’t think it’s all that unreasonable for me to get just a little miffed at some self-appointed oracle asserting that it’s possible to build a 30 ton fire engine to run on batteries !
The most galling part of advocates like Cameron is they don’t even own an EV ! Despite their hatred of oil companies and fossil fuels, they still drive gasoline/diesel vehicles.
No doubt complaining about the end of civilization as the fill up their tanks !
Once again, sorry about the length of my reply.
marcopolo – to provide readers with context, my comment and our resulting exchange, reads as follows:
Cameron Atwood wrote:
“There will be one of two general causes for stranded poisonous dinosaur assets.
“One, our species will immediately begin a massive mobilization of finance and labor worldwide, to evolve the production and deployment of our existing energy technology to render such assets obsolete.
“Two, food and water scarcity, weather extremes, and disease and warfare, will render our civilization obsolete. This realization only sounds alarmist to those who haven’t yet realized it.
“Time is short. Physics doesn’t negotiate.
“We are the product of 4 billion years of successful evolution. We now have a shrinking window within which can evolve in sustainable harmony with our native biosphere.
“Or, we can claw at each other’s throats over the dwindling scraps, until at last we join Homo erectus in the catalog of failed species.
“The collective choice is ours.”
marcopolo wrote:
“@ Cameron,
“Where have you been ? I’ve really missed your stentorian doomsday prophesies !
“The figure in sackcloth holding a sign saying “The End Is Nigh “, was a great stock figure in cartoons of my youth. Sadly in recent decades the character seems to have fallen into disuse.
“I confess to enjoying a bit of old fashioned doomsday, alarmist sermonizing. It brightens up an otherwise serious subject.”
Cameron Atwood wrote:
“How’s the view from under the bridge, oh anonymous one? Your predictable attempt at condescension and insult demonstrates the sun hasn’t yet made stone of your leathery hide.
“As I’ve illustrated repeatedly for you and for readers here, your habituation toward ad hominem, straw-men, false equivalencies and non-sequitur often renders a serious response an impossibility (as in this case) or a waste of time.”
Now… as to your later accusation in this post above that I “quickly takes offense to even the mildest criticism”… I find that amusing, as I’ve never wavered from civil discourse here, even in my tongue-in-cheek ribbing or my retorts to your attempts to belittle and dismiss those points of view with which you disagree (not merely my own). I’m surprised you reference my responses as “bitter inventive.” (invective?)
I find it telling that, when you are called out on your tactics, you will often say that your sarcasm was intended as a sincere compliment (as above), or that you were only kidding, or you may even resort to a further straw-man tactic.
For example, you imply that I’m “demanding action and sacrifice from anyone but yourself” when I’ve already sacrificed, and will continue to do so, and you have no evidence to the contrary.
Further, you also say above, “there are places in Scotland where calling someone a Strawman, would be a really bad idea”
However, I in fact never called you a Strawman. Instead, I simply drew attention to your habitual use of straw-man tactics. If you’re not aware of that term, a quick Google will provide a definition for you.
Here’s one:
“A fallacy committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version.”
By the way, you later wrote, “To survive, both Wind and Solar industries require either small scale specialist operating applications,(including locations) or massive government subsidies, incentives, and regulatory support. Where taxpayer/consumer support is reduced or removed, these industries mostly become uneconomic and investment dries up.”
Here was my response to your assertion:
“Apparently sharp people across developed western nations are proceeding with sizable investments in wind and solar – despite the continuing history of instability in government subsidies for these technologies and their deployment. It seems their calculations of ROI potential aren’t entirely dependent on stable subsidies from state actors.”
With regard to your statement, “Cameron remains coy about how he implements any of his “passion” in any practical form.” – I think Teddy Roosevelt made a highly valid recommendation when he said, “Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.”
That said, I don’t feel compelled to reveal personal details to a critic writing under a pseudonym. Further, such a request has no bearing on the strength of my positions. Your statement is simply a non-sequitur intended to bolster your dismissal of a position you choose to deny.
You stated, “Where I differ from Cameron is I don’t believe the world or civilization is in immediate danger of collapse.” Depending on what you might choose to define as “immediate,” you may find to your regret that you are quite mistaken – within what remains of your natural life.
There are a great many highly clever folks who’ve made the careful peer-reviewed scientific study of our climate their life’s work, who assert that incrementalism is insufficient to the task of evolving and preserving our civilization. That is not a controversial opinion to those familiar with the subject. Indeed, there are not a few who have concluded that significant tipping points have already been crossed.
So, if it seems to you that I’m, “peddling a mish-mash of political-ideological dogma dressed up as environmentalism,” perhaps you will will one day come to rethink your denial. I hope so.
I’m encouraged by the fact that such denial is in the minority in our population, as in that of many countries across the globe. I’m also apprehensive that such denial still holds sway in those halls of power where bribery works its charm.
Cameron.
You are entitled to freely express your opinion. But you must extend to others the right to not only disagree with you but consider the motivation behind your strident advocacy. That’s the price we all pay for holding and expressing opinions.
Now I may be wrong, but I find your contentions and pronouncements unsupportable. When challenged, I find you retreat into vague waffle, mere repetitions of trite cliches.
Examining the examples you supplied, we see the response to my observation;
“demanding action and sacrifice from anyone but yourself”
was
“when I’ve already sacrificed, and will continue to do so, and you have no evidence to the contrary” .
Or again:
““Cameron remains coy about how he implements any of his “passion” in any practical form.”
was ;
I think Teddy Roosevelt made a highly valid recommendation when he said, ‘Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.’
That’s a great reply, but then you decline to detail the nature of your sacrifice, or what you actually do. That too is okay, as you say you are under no obligation to provide detail, but you must understand if others think you’re a bit vague, even evasive.
Perhaps you should consider the words in the song Craig has recently brought to everyone’s attention.
Anyway, as I said elsewhere I think this particular exchange has pretty well run it’s course and we should move on to more interesting subjects.
@ Marco Polo ! Glenn Doty
Well in respect to your repeated responses to your differences to Cameron I am some what confused as I dont see his comments in this exchange.
It seems that Breath on The Wind has been making most of the exchanges with you.
confusion aside I give you some good marks for the argument you present as it points out that things need to be balanced and you express a strong EV background with hands on experience trying to advance the EV sector given all the obstacles that is hard and good work for you. So you know the struggle the trade offs and what is real and not real that is all solid grounds.
Till gas goes up or the externalities are taxed it is a slower process. Once we bite the bullet and take carbon taxes seriously – it can be done with out the bureaucratic issues you mentioned .
The EV market does have some competition from the traditional car makers as they have improved the gas cars, have the hybrids and are delivering mainstream vehicles like Chevy Malibu Hybrid with a electric motor and extra battery pack in it to compliment the regular gas engine. Been on a trip in one nice ride on highway and it gets 46 plus mpg at 80 mphr in a nice ride with A/C on. Not bad at all given low gasoline prices etc. Other car makers have similar models so the public is being given more Options. No one is forcing EV on people.
So from my view the transition to EV while a needed one , will be slower than most think. Adoption of new Tech by any market is slower in most cases than the enthusiasts think. Importantly we need a increased Re generating capacity to make EV’s the real clean option. We stil got 32 % coal based power so that needs to be corrected to make the energy chain cleaner.
The need for a new modern responsive Carbon policy is Real. It can be done and I am speaking to Glenn Doty s comments as he hit the nail on its head with Silo budgets as the real barrier. The Silos need to be opened and in some cases emptied!
Others of us have expressed similar points Frank, Craig and myself
The so called free market is full of black magic and the dark incentives for fossil fuel are extensive.
In essence the concept of a free energy market is a Myth and it is full of advantages for different parties.
As Frank pointed out and I have also said the flaws in the way buildings , homes and the quality of design products are either bought or not bought has much to do with energy waste. First cost does not address Life cycle costs and tax advantages keep certain players from stepping up and doing the right thing. Volumes of Energy are wasted etc.
This has existed for a long time. When energy was cheap or concerns from the consequences of excessive burning of fossil fuels was not the concern or priority it is today. The rigged system needs to be Reformed.
We know better and We know the consequences of bad policy
So what is wrong with implementing some balanced carbon taxes and have a tiered rate that gives some higher value technologies more positive treatment and the worst offenders they get hit the hardest a simple market tool.
Glenn was saying that in a different way. So there it is a potential pathway forward just takes some knowledgeable people involved and the lobbyist are not allowed into the process.
Marco perhaps you will agree the ethanol scam in America is a good example of how collusion between different players has created a expensive white elephant program as you say. It does not reduce pollution, has a bad EROEI and mis allocates resources in the agricultural sector and actually has caused stress to farmers. False land use choices etc.
But the white elephant survives as politicians from farm states call it bringing home the bacon or pork in the form or corn fuel. Bad policy from my view.
I have not read what Cameron wrote that has caused you to criticize him. What I have read is thoughtful . I see Breath on the Wind more involved with this discussion? so perhaps you could explain . Both Breath and Cameron tend to express some Reflective and Sensitive points of view which generally speaking show tolerance for other positions. What is wrong with that?
Your concerns for implementing sound workable policy have Merit but Mate they can be done and should be done
Time to tax the externalities for the betterment of society and the global family. Call me a Crusader again it is ok it may be your comfort Zone!
Carry On
Silent
My rely to Glenn was in response to his allusion to the exchange between Cameron and myself, and I think it’s been explored as far as it can be reasonably can be.
Carbon taxes don’t work because imposing a tax only taxes consumers while advantaging foreign competitors.
I don’t think you understood my comment re: EV’s. I’m not forcing EV’s on anyone. However, if your are going to be an ardent hater of oil companies, you must expect accusations of hypocrisy if your continue to drive a diesel instead of an EV!
@ Marco
I did not accuse you of forcing EV s on anyone I was complimenting you on your long efforts in that space. You are like many others Visionaries ahead of our Collective Time here on Earth and the masses are way way behind locked up into petty disagreements over ideology.
I illustrated business reasons and real market barriers to more rapid acceptance of EV s , the market forces are steep.
Maybe something will change oil will rise to $125 a barrel. But that will submarine the economy and no one will have the jobs to buy a EV let alone make them !
The Human Condition is a real tough self imposed Box!
Still confused on the communication issues but you seem to want to move on so that is fine .
Maybe Australia will get a Visionary government that pus real resources behind EV s etc and they can still export lots of coal to the china man along with their natural gas excess while they are at.
Deplete the reserves and then Green Energy is only Option ! what a subversive way to win the War !
A Aussie Plan Carry on Mate
Marco,
You wrote, “Carbon taxes don’t work because imposing a tax only taxes consumers while advantaging foreign competitors.”.
It’s not that simple. It can be difficult to determine the incidence of a tax. Let us suppose that a tax is imposed on a company. There are different ways that it can raise the money to pay the tax.
It can swallow the tax and make lower profits.
It can reduce wages, or postpone increasing wages.
It can pass the tax along to consumers.
It may be possible for the company to change production methods to avoid the tax, or at least part of it.
Which of the above will be done depends on a number of conditions. If demand for the product is inelastic, the company can easily pass the tax onto consumers. However, if the demand is highly elastic, attempting to pass the tax onto consumers would excessively reduce sales and profits.
If the employees are highly paid or if there is a surplus of people seeking jobs, the company can reduce wages or reduce fringe benefits to employees.
If the company can find a way to do so, it may change production methods.
If the above are not possible, the company can reduce dividends to the owners.
It is also possible that the company may use some mix of the above to pay the (carbon) tax.
In any case, it can be very difficult to determine what effect a new tax will have, including a carbon tax. It is not simple.
Hi Frank,
Of course you are quite right, there are a number of alternatives, including relocating to another country with a more business friendly tax system.
Companies can reduce dividends. This will result in a fall in the share value, making it more difficult to raise capital and credit.
Companies can shed employees, but that is also harmful to economy, and if the company was already efficient, make the enterprise less competitive and reduce output,
Companies can restructure production methods or introduce new technology. This usually requires capital expenditure and presumes that new technology is available and can sufficiently reduce cost to compensate.
But from observation of places where such taxes have been levied the practice has been to either pass the cost on the consumers, or relocate.
Here is a link to an article in Der Spiegel about energy issues in Germany. Unfortunately it appears to be a 2013 article, but it is still very interesting:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/high-costs-and-errors-of-german-transition-to-renewable-energy-a-920288.html#js-article-comments-box-pager
Hi Frank,
Great article ! Equally interesting are the comments which reveal how delusional some Wind and Solar enthusiasts are when it comes to facing reality.
marcopolo – yet again you have employed straw-man tactics, ad hominem attacks, and non-sequiturs. Examples are numerous in this post, as they generally are throughout your many contestations across your rich comment history here on this site. However, a few are illustrated for readers here below, where you say the following with regard to me an my positions:
You wrote: “he [Cameron] condescendingly informs me that if it wasn’t for the activities of the Koch brothers, Exxon, etc, all vehicles, including emergency vehicles, would be electric by now.” …
This is a straw-man tactic, as it misrepresents my position. I maintain that fossil interests have collaborated with other related interests to attempt to slow progress on EV development and adoption. I have never said that the global vehicle fleet would be 100% electric, it if weren’t for that collaboration. I did, however, attempt to make you aware of electric freight vehicles being developed in Germany, and I suggested a possible application of that technology as emergency vehicles.
You wrote: “if your [you?] are going to be an ardent hater of oil companies, you must expect accusations of hypocrisy if your [you?] continue to drive a diesel instead of an EV” …
This is a non-sequitur and an ad hominem in combination. It bears no relationship to a rational countering of my position, and instead brings to bear your suspicion of an unknown in my personal affairs, in order to attempt to discredit my position by association. Incidentally, I make it my business never to hate, under any circumstances, and I maintain a healthy respect for much of what has been achieved through the use of fossil fuels. That respect doesn’t blind me to the damage they’re doing to humanity and the biosphere, and it doesn’t prevent my observation of the value and utility of alternatives.
You wrote: “Cameron’s remedy is a bit vague but involves some sort of social revolution to be achieved by draconian (but unspecified) methods.” …
I find it quite interesting that a remedy can be said to be both “draconian” and yet also be “unspecified.” I’ll be interested in seeing you detail exactly what about my “unspecified” remedy you find “draconian.” …and please, do try to quote me accurately, won’t you? Lacking the provision of that detail, your refutation is rendered as simply a vague dismissal with no relevance. It’s merely an unsupported attack.
Cameron,
My goodness, straw-man tactics, ad hominem attacks, and non-sequiturs, eh!
As I said elsewhere I think this particular exchange has pretty well run it’s course and we should move on to more interesting subjects.
As I also observed, you are quite entitled to freely express your opinions. However, the price we all pay for expressing opinions, especially strident opinions and claims, is the expectation that others will challenge with diverse views.
In the past you have described (and I paraphrase) oil companies and similar corporations as “evil criminals” “destroying civilization for their own personal greed”. That’s okay, is certainly a popular view in some quarters. but the tone of your language seems inconsistent with your claim not to hate.
Even in your newly acquired milder mood, you still maintain “fossil interests have collaborated with other related interests to attempt to slow progress on EV development and adoption “.
Now this is a more interesting discussion, since again this is a widely supported conspiracy theory.
It’s largely a myth. By “fossil fuel’ , I assume you mean “oil and gas”, since it would be difficult to see how coal producers would benefit form suppressing EV development.
The only real evidence of any interference by oil companies, were the claims made surrounding Texaco and Ovonics. When all the conspiracies were dismissed, the reality reality emerges that the dispute was largely an old fashioned battle about royalties and patents, for a technology which was largely unsuitable for EV usage.
In fact, the modern EV is made largely possible by the development of Lithium batteries by Exxon.
The development of Hydrogen fuel cells to power a type of electric car, has been heavily underwritten by several oil companies.
No real evidence exists to support your assertion that oil companies (or any related interests) have interfered with the development of EV’s.
In order to promote a more positive exchange I invite you to expand upon why you believe “fossil fuel” interests (and related parties) have actively tried to “slow progress on EV development and adoption “.
I would also be interested why you don’t drive an EV. (this is not ad hominem, I ask everyone).
( Oh, and before I forget, although valiant efforts are being made all over the world by thousands of engineers and scientists, there is no ESD (electric storage device) which is even remotely capable of powering the requirements of emergency response vehicles like fire tenders, etc.)