“Vote for politicians who prioritize preservation of wildlife and nature.” Are there any to vote for? I don’t think so.
Great article!! Those wind towers are awful and also use a lot of sand to make the concrete. Sand is the most depleted resource—the kind needed for concrete, which is not the same as the sand in deserts. Just saw a whole hill covered in solar panels. Very large-scale solar installation kill birds too. They incinerate in the air as they fly over (called “streamers”). Have you seen the documentary movie Planet of the Humans? I agree there is no such thing as “green” energy.
Limiting growth is a non-solution. Developing nations will never accept having to remain in abject poverty just because the Club of Rome gang of Psychopath Parasites demand it. It is precisely these same bunch touting reduced growth & population that blockade the one true clean energy, the only viable replacement for fossil which is nuclear energy. Wind & solar are a giant scam that does nothing for the environment but forces poverty on the World population except for the above mentioned super-rich.
When they say renewables they really mean wind & solar, not geothermal, biomass or hydro. Solar and wind are impractical except in areas on diesel generation, areas with substantial reservoir hydro or various niche applications like off-grid homes. The intermittency, seasonal variation, geographic limitation, unreliability, lack of thermal energy issues with wind & solar make them irrelevant as a replacement for our 90% combustion fuel energy supply. That's why after spending over $4 trillion worldwide on wind & solar we haven't gained from the 90% combustion fuel 10yrs ago. In spite of improved efficiency of replacing conventional coal with supercritical coal, OCGT with extreme efficiency CCGT, coal/gas with hydro, LED lighting, substantial improvements in transportation efficiency, improved building insulation, heat pumps. Wind/solar hasn't even nearly been able to cover the growth in fossil consumption never mind actually replace fossil. Renewables have already been a dismal failure in Europe, leading to high energy prices, electricity & heat supply shortages and steep price increases, dependence on Russian energy & energy blackmail.
France achieved 79% clean nuclear + 9% hydro = 88% clean energy, over 100% of their domestic electricity supply in 20yrs with half the electricity price of renewables Germany and 9% dirty electricity generation vs Germany at 52% dirty. To see what real world wind & solar costs, look at:
There is a linear price relationship between wind/solar grid penetration and price of electricity by Ken Gregory, P.Eng, graph Euro/kwh by country 2019: Conclusion: European Wind Plus Solar Cost 6 Times Other Electrical Sources:
Nuclear power might well be the way to go in our mad rush to further artificialize the world, wiping out what's left of nature and Indigenous cultures in the process. However, for the vast majority of other life on Earth, the source of our energy is not the core issue. Continued rampant growth is a non-solution. A reduction in the human enterprise — and energy production and consumption in particular — is needed. Thanks for sharing your comments.
You are talking genocide on a scale that would make Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin & Mao all rolled into one look like angels. In the end all your idea would achieve is the wholesale destruction of nature, starving hordes of people with nothing to lose, raping and pillaging nature with reckless abandon. Warlords who will destroy everything in their path, wiping out entire species.
A world powered by nuclear energy can easily sustain our world's population at a high standard of living while preserving and improving natural environments. In fact the surpluses implicit in nuclear energy would allow nearly 100% recycling, the small amount of uranium & thorium needed would be trivial, a non-issue environmentally. You should go to https://environmentalprogress.org/ and read what Shellenberger (a rational environmentalist) has to say on the issues.
Other than that I don't rec'd growing the human population on Earth beyond the current projection of peaking @ 10B around 2050, up to 11B by 2100. Improved standard of living = lower birthrates.
We can bioform Mars and populate that as well. An incredible expansion of the Earth's biosphere to another World. The greatest event in the history of Earth's biota since the Cambrian explosion.
The only genocide I'm talking about is the complete and utter extermination of other life by an ignorant, immoral "civilization" driven by growthmania. No need for the straw man argument here. We can fantasize all we want about the wonders of limitless energy, harmonizing with nature as we degrade and destroy her, and colonizing distant planets (and anything there that we can exploit, living or otherwise). But if we were able to pull our heads out of the ether, we could reform and gently draw down our civilization for a better world for all on this sacred Earth.
Well that is a good statement of your religious beliefs. Others believe while it is true we have done some damage to the Earth's ecosystem, not nearly as much as the many Ice Ages have done over the past 2 million years, all caused by some freak geology, likely the development of the Himalayas. We will prevent ice ages by increasing the CO2 level. Other Freak events like asteroid collisions occur every million years or so that do far more damage than humans have done or likely will do. We can prevent those too.
Unlike other destructive things, only humans can do the most creative thing that our biosphere has ever experienced since the Cambrian explosion. We can bioform other worlds. Most particularly Mars which is a life bomb waiting to be triggered. We can achieve that. It is totally within our potential this century. Humans, imperfect beings, but our divine purpose is to be the reproductive agents for the astonishing & incredible biota of Mother Earth. Any bad things we have done will be a triviality compared to that act of creativity. It is a grave sin for us to deny our solemn responsibility to carry this incredible gift of life, unknown anywhere else in the universe, to other worlds.
You sound like a combo of Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson. The reality is that we're destroying life with lightning speed, can in no way replace it, and are in no way even remotely a match for creative impulses of natural evolution. When it comes to the wellbeing of most life in Earth, our duality, good versus evil, weights heavily on the side of the latter. Just ask our nearest relatives, the apes that are all threatened by us with extinction. Or, the black rhinos, the African forest elephants, the Sunda tigers, the blue whales, and on and on. Destroying other life is fundamentally wrong (check out my essay "Why Extinctions Really Matter" https://scaledown.substack.com/p/why-extinctions-really-matter?s=w). When we stop doing that, and prove our worth, then I'll entertain those hypothetical good creative things you mentioned we might do. Good discussion. Thanks!
On your desire to improve the environment and avoid the destruction of great species like whales & apes and their habitat, I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is the methods you advocate will do the exact opposite of what you hoped to achieve. Moving to a high efficiency, industrialized economy in all nations is the path to success. But one key point, the integral resource needed (actually the only resource needed, everything else can be recycled) is a clean energy supply that has minimal environmental impact. That supply exists now, its called uranium & thorium. Just the current supply of spent fuel and depleted uranium is worth $2000 trillion of oil equivalent energy. No mining needed.
You need to read Shellenberger, some examples:
An Interview with Conservationist Helga Rainer:
"...The need to move to modern fuels is a bone of contention of mine. That we still talk about energy-saving stoves is disappointing..."
The REAL way the decimation of whales was prevented:
"...industrial chemists succeeded in making margarine almost entirely from palm oil, eliminating the need for whale oil. By 1940, palm oil, much of it coming from the Congo, had become cheaper than whale oil. Between 1938 and 1951, the use of vegetable oils used for margarine quadrupled, while the use of whale and fish oil declined by two-thirds. The share of whale oil as an ingredient in soap fell from 13 percent to just 1 percent. Whale oil as a share of global trade in fats declined from 9.4 percent in the 1930s to 1.7 per- cent in 1958, resulting in declining whale oil prices in the late 1950s.
Journalists realized what was going on. In 1959, The New York Times reported that “the growing output of vegetable oils . . . has forced down the market value of whale oil and may, in the end, save the whales.” By 1968, Norwegian whalers were reduced to selling whale meat to pet food manufacturers. The Times reported that “the market for once-prized whale oil has slipped from $238 a ton in 1966 to $101.50. It has lost out to Peruvian fish oil and African vegetable oils.”
This time, rising scarcity of whales did incentivize their replacement with vegetable oil. A group of economists concluded that “economic growth brought with it a declining demand for whale products, whilst decreasing stock levels fed back into more and more expensive harvesting effort . . .”
Whaling peaked in 1962, a full thirteen years before Greenpeace’s heavily publicized action in Vancouver, and declined dramatically during the next decade..."
Conclusion: Wise use of industry & best technological methods are the only path forward for achieving your goals. And of course replacing ALL energy supplies with nuclear. Also achieving Zero Population Growth which is already going to happen, we are at zero children growth already.
“Vote for politicians who prioritize preservation of wildlife and nature.” Are there any to vote for? I don’t think so.
Great article!! Those wind towers are awful and also use a lot of sand to make the concrete. Sand is the most depleted resource—the kind needed for concrete, which is not the same as the sand in deserts. Just saw a whole hill covered in solar panels. Very large-scale solar installation kill birds too. They incinerate in the air as they fly over (called “streamers”). Have you seen the documentary movie Planet of the Humans? I agree there is no such thing as “green” energy.
If there's no such political candidate, run one's self? Thanks, Vero, for your comment!
That’s a lot of work!! a lot of $$ too.
Limiting growth is a non-solution. Developing nations will never accept having to remain in abject poverty just because the Club of Rome gang of Psychopath Parasites demand it. It is precisely these same bunch touting reduced growth & population that blockade the one true clean energy, the only viable replacement for fossil which is nuclear energy. Wind & solar are a giant scam that does nothing for the environment but forces poverty on the World population except for the above mentioned super-rich.
When they say renewables they really mean wind & solar, not geothermal, biomass or hydro. Solar and wind are impractical except in areas on diesel generation, areas with substantial reservoir hydro or various niche applications like off-grid homes. The intermittency, seasonal variation, geographic limitation, unreliability, lack of thermal energy issues with wind & solar make them irrelevant as a replacement for our 90% combustion fuel energy supply. That's why after spending over $4 trillion worldwide on wind & solar we haven't gained from the 90% combustion fuel 10yrs ago. In spite of improved efficiency of replacing conventional coal with supercritical coal, OCGT with extreme efficiency CCGT, coal/gas with hydro, LED lighting, substantial improvements in transportation efficiency, improved building insulation, heat pumps. Wind/solar hasn't even nearly been able to cover the growth in fossil consumption never mind actually replace fossil. Renewables have already been a dismal failure in Europe, leading to high energy prices, electricity & heat supply shortages and steep price increases, dependence on Russian energy & energy blackmail.
France achieved 79% clean nuclear + 9% hydro = 88% clean energy, over 100% of their domestic electricity supply in 20yrs with half the electricity price of renewables Germany and 9% dirty electricity generation vs Germany at 52% dirty. To see what real world wind & solar costs, look at:
There is a linear price relationship between wind/solar grid penetration and price of electricity by Ken Gregory, P.Eng, graph Euro/kwh by country 2019: Conclusion: European Wind Plus Solar Cost 6 Times Other Electrical Sources:
friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=2550
Nuclear power might well be the way to go in our mad rush to further artificialize the world, wiping out what's left of nature and Indigenous cultures in the process. However, for the vast majority of other life on Earth, the source of our energy is not the core issue. Continued rampant growth is a non-solution. A reduction in the human enterprise — and energy production and consumption in particular — is needed. Thanks for sharing your comments.
You are talking genocide on a scale that would make Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin & Mao all rolled into one look like angels. In the end all your idea would achieve is the wholesale destruction of nature, starving hordes of people with nothing to lose, raping and pillaging nature with reckless abandon. Warlords who will destroy everything in their path, wiping out entire species.
A world powered by nuclear energy can easily sustain our world's population at a high standard of living while preserving and improving natural environments. In fact the surpluses implicit in nuclear energy would allow nearly 100% recycling, the small amount of uranium & thorium needed would be trivial, a non-issue environmentally. You should go to https://environmentalprogress.org/ and read what Shellenberger (a rational environmentalist) has to say on the issues.
Other than that I don't rec'd growing the human population on Earth beyond the current projection of peaking @ 10B around 2050, up to 11B by 2100. Improved standard of living = lower birthrates.
We can bioform Mars and populate that as well. An incredible expansion of the Earth's biosphere to another World. The greatest event in the history of Earth's biota since the Cambrian explosion.
The only genocide I'm talking about is the complete and utter extermination of other life by an ignorant, immoral "civilization" driven by growthmania. No need for the straw man argument here. We can fantasize all we want about the wonders of limitless energy, harmonizing with nature as we degrade and destroy her, and colonizing distant planets (and anything there that we can exploit, living or otherwise). But if we were able to pull our heads out of the ether, we could reform and gently draw down our civilization for a better world for all on this sacred Earth.
Well that is a good statement of your religious beliefs. Others believe while it is true we have done some damage to the Earth's ecosystem, not nearly as much as the many Ice Ages have done over the past 2 million years, all caused by some freak geology, likely the development of the Himalayas. We will prevent ice ages by increasing the CO2 level. Other Freak events like asteroid collisions occur every million years or so that do far more damage than humans have done or likely will do. We can prevent those too.
Unlike other destructive things, only humans can do the most creative thing that our biosphere has ever experienced since the Cambrian explosion. We can bioform other worlds. Most particularly Mars which is a life bomb waiting to be triggered. We can achieve that. It is totally within our potential this century. Humans, imperfect beings, but our divine purpose is to be the reproductive agents for the astonishing & incredible biota of Mother Earth. Any bad things we have done will be a triviality compared to that act of creativity. It is a grave sin for us to deny our solemn responsibility to carry this incredible gift of life, unknown anywhere else in the universe, to other worlds.
You sound like a combo of Elon Musk and Jordan Peterson. The reality is that we're destroying life with lightning speed, can in no way replace it, and are in no way even remotely a match for creative impulses of natural evolution. When it comes to the wellbeing of most life in Earth, our duality, good versus evil, weights heavily on the side of the latter. Just ask our nearest relatives, the apes that are all threatened by us with extinction. Or, the black rhinos, the African forest elephants, the Sunda tigers, the blue whales, and on and on. Destroying other life is fundamentally wrong (check out my essay "Why Extinctions Really Matter" https://scaledown.substack.com/p/why-extinctions-really-matter?s=w). When we stop doing that, and prove our worth, then I'll entertain those hypothetical good creative things you mentioned we might do. Good discussion. Thanks!
On your desire to improve the environment and avoid the destruction of great species like whales & apes and their habitat, I agree wholeheartedly. The problem is the methods you advocate will do the exact opposite of what you hoped to achieve. Moving to a high efficiency, industrialized economy in all nations is the path to success. But one key point, the integral resource needed (actually the only resource needed, everything else can be recycled) is a clean energy supply that has minimal environmental impact. That supply exists now, its called uranium & thorium. Just the current supply of spent fuel and depleted uranium is worth $2000 trillion of oil equivalent energy. No mining needed.
You need to read Shellenberger, some examples:
An Interview with Conservationist Helga Rainer:
"...The need to move to modern fuels is a bone of contention of mine. That we still talk about energy-saving stoves is disappointing..."
https://environmentalprogress.org/extinctions:
The REAL way the decimation of whales was prevented:
"...industrial chemists succeeded in making margarine almost entirely from palm oil, eliminating the need for whale oil. By 1940, palm oil, much of it coming from the Congo, had become cheaper than whale oil. Between 1938 and 1951, the use of vegetable oils used for margarine quadrupled, while the use of whale and fish oil declined by two-thirds. The share of whale oil as an ingredient in soap fell from 13 percent to just 1 percent. Whale oil as a share of global trade in fats declined from 9.4 percent in the 1930s to 1.7 per- cent in 1958, resulting in declining whale oil prices in the late 1950s.
Journalists realized what was going on. In 1959, The New York Times reported that “the growing output of vegetable oils . . . has forced down the market value of whale oil and may, in the end, save the whales.” By 1968, Norwegian whalers were reduced to selling whale meat to pet food manufacturers. The Times reported that “the market for once-prized whale oil has slipped from $238 a ton in 1966 to $101.50. It has lost out to Peruvian fish oil and African vegetable oils.”
This time, rising scarcity of whales did incentivize their replacement with vegetable oil. A group of economists concluded that “economic growth brought with it a declining demand for whale products, whilst decreasing stock levels fed back into more and more expensive harvesting effort . . .”
Whaling peaked in 1962, a full thirteen years before Greenpeace’s heavily publicized action in Vancouver, and declined dramatically during the next decade..."
Conclusion: Wise use of industry & best technological methods are the only path forward for achieving your goals. And of course replacing ALL energy supplies with nuclear. Also achieving Zero Population Growth which is already going to happen, we are at zero children growth already.