Before I go out and get the donks up for work, some thoughts about American history.
Specifically, half slave and half free, the original Constitution, the Federation built from a Confederation.
2. This will not reach a conclusion. After 40+ years of pondering this, I myself still have not reached one.
3. Historically "state" and "nation" were more or less synonyms.
After the Revolutionary War, we did not become one nation by any stretch of anybody's imagination. We became, literally, 13 separate, loosely affiliated, free-ish countries, that is to say, free as in not colonies.
Peter replied to a thread I wrote yesterday. I say speed, Peter says energy.
They are two words for the same thing.
I am going to attempt to explain why I think focus on speed, particularly, as the visible expression of excess energy, and why speed offers the proper action point.
2. In the first place, I believe, and I think Peter does too, that we must intentionally, continually decrease our energy use as the only realistic means of reducing emissions. I do not believe that building so-called "renewable energy" installations can or will ever do this.
3. I explain my reasoning on the above statement elsewhere and am not going to address it here. That statement is today's starting point.
Energy causes action. Lacking an application of energy, nothing ever moves. This is the simplest physics.
I didn't take any video today. I had hard dangerous work to do, I had to do it with donkeys, a cart, and a pitchfork, out in the sun.
The reason it was dangerous is because
2. I had pretty much set myself up for this on purpose, with my eyes wide open.
To live like I live requires commitment. But I believe it to be possible, climate change and all, old age and all, within certain limits.
I bought hay this year. 200 square bales. That's not a year's
3. worth of hay for 3 standard donkeys on dry lot, or just barely.
I bought it, delivered and stacked inside my barn, from an honorable hay professional. Cost me $1075.00
I spend more than that on mower and tractor gas every year.
And now I'm safe. I do all I can, it's enough.
I invite my readers to read this article, with recommendations from some of the world's leading "climate thinkers."
In this thread I am going to specifically address their recommendations, via screenshot.
As a non-leading, totally unrespected, thinker. theguardian.com/commentisfree/…
2. First, Peter Kalmus, @ClimateHuman. We follow each other. Here's all I could capture in one screenshot.
3. Taking just one clip from Peter...
Fossil Fuel must be capped and rationed. Fossil Fuel infrastructure must no longer be built.
Fossil fuels power 100% of all renewable energy infrastructure construction. If we choose to increase renewable construction we must increase fossil.
The author of this article appears to believe that the things she demands can be built and installed without any increase in current fossil fuel generating capacity and emissions to do the work.
I'd like to see that explained. theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
2. We, as a nation, barely have enough generating capacity to serve the current demand.
This is why in various regions there are requests from electric utilities that users reduce their "peak" demand. Set the thermostat warmer to reduce A/C demand.
3. If 90% of new cars sold are electric, demand on fossil fuel generating facilities will increase.
If we launch a "Manhattan Project" scale, wind and solar powered, nationwide generating infrastructure, that construction will be powered by current technology.
It's what we have.
It is obvious that I view climate, the ecosystem, and humanity's options drastically differently from almost everyone else in the English speaking developed "climate aware" world.
Yeah, about that.
What you're telling me is that, if someone went around all the
2. parking lots where the car-housed live, and said, "Here, if you want, I'll set you up with a tiny house, five acres, a donkey, and supervision to heal that land and sequester carbon, and enough money to live on," there wouldn't be any takers?
Is that what you mean by
3. "People won't"?
Or do you mean, "The people winning the high energy economy like it this way?"
Yeah, I know they do. They tell me so all the time.
Fictional Oval Office speech:
"My fellow Americans:
"My administration, in meetings with the leaders of France, Germany, Canada, and Mexico, has concluded that it is time to tell you, our citizens, the unvarnished truth about climate.
2. "There is not, today, any possibility that building a global renewable energy infrastructure to attain a hypothetical net zero emissions level in the foreseeable or likely future. The up-front production emissions can never be removed in the predicted emissions-free out years
3. "As you are aware, our national high speed transportation infrastructure is collapsing and can no longer safely carry the load we are putting on it.
"As you may not have been informed, building concrete based transportation infrastructure is one of the most emissions centric
Regular readers know what I write. I've been at this three years. Before that I was a conventional climate worrier and thought building renewables would fix it, but I observed the trends. It's not working. So I got weird. I followed the links between energy and needs, and wants,
2. and I said, OK, that can't be made to work.
My only evidence is, it's not working. We've been at it a while. According to all the white papers I keep getting linked to, we should be seeing reductions by now.
It's not working.
And ... Slowing down will work.
3. Slowing down in an intelligent, organized fashion, even regionally, with the objective being a walking pace culture, would certainly reduce emissions, starting immediately.
I mean, it's there. Show the competing hypothesis.
But: it's off limits.
Reasonable People™ do not.
I just spent two hours out in the 90° sun detaching and reattaching my hay mower to the Little John, a 3 cylinder Japanese compact John Deere tractor. 3 point hitch. 5 foot mower.
I'm not done, but I had pushed myself so close to heat injury that I had to come in.
2. I've been in about ten minutes, shirt off, A/C on, standing under a ceiling fan on medium.
I'm still producing new sweat. Haven't shed my excess heat energy yet. Getting closer.
"Easy" 3 point hitch tractor technology.
3. Here's the first half of hitching a team to a wheeled load. This is a cart, but a mower hitches exactly the same.
Here's the deal about telling people to stop eating meat.
It is an economic fact that we do not "raise grain to feed to meat."
Cattle do not prosper on a diet of grain. It's not even good for them.
We raise cattle to consume grain, to create a market for grain. No reverse.
I'm not saying, eat meat. I'm saying, when we didn't eat enough meat, they had to start feeding corn to cars.
After feeding 10% processed corn to cars, we found that we still were not providing sufficient market for corn.
So we raised it to 15%.
Motorcyclists screamed NOOOOOO!!!
3. It is a production fact that at the time a bushel of corn moves from the combine to the grain truck at the edge of the field, that corn contains more fossil fuel BTUs of energy than are present as corn BTUs.
Then we haul it, heat it, distill it - add more fossil energy -
It's easy to fall into thinking what you're against. Easy for me. Judging by what I hear, easy for a lot of people.
Even what we're for is often being against some specific destruction. Whales. Sharks. Pipelines. Mines. Desecration.
It's easier to explain, too.
2. "See, they shouldn't bulldoze this mountain pass and extract lithium from it because the sage grouse needs it."
That is correct.
But if not this mountain pass, which one?
If not this forest, this stream, this prairie, which one?
3. The logic of our system of life and living, to its very foundation, says we have to bulldoze this mountain pass, because we have to have electric cars to fight climate change, and we need the lithium.
We need the wood.
We need the oil. It's way the hell up there and we need it
Spending high energy tonight. Loading up the lap steel (homemade) and the amplifier (not) and driving at somewhere close to a mile a minute at peak times, for about an hour and a half to three quarters, and play this guitar with two friends, and drink two beers, and do it back.
I have several high energy activities that would be utterly impossible without high energy high speed transportation and other machines.
Utterly dependent on fossil fuels and a huge built environment of concrete and steel.
I sometimes take long hot showers.
3. We've got this personal responsibility for climate activities backwards. Don't take long hot showers.
There's easily half a million long hot showers in one electric car. We've got to develop different systems, not live like paupers in this one while Jeff Bezos fucks the sky.
I don't believe there is one agreed-upon definition of "an economy", but the one I like to base my reasoning on is "The means by which a society obtains and distributes the resources necessary for living to its members."
2. I have read that "economy" comes from the Greek for "housekeeping." Makes sense. Each household has to run itself, get food, water, shelter, clothing. These are the absolutes, our needs as biological creatures.
Our current economy is, by that definition, pretty poor.
3. Some people have enough resources to blast themselves, encased in a giant phallus, to the edge of the gravity well.
All in one country.
Piss poor economy, I'd say.
This tweet fills me with rage and hatred.
And I hate to hate.
100% of all the policies Senator Whitehouse advocates for require increasing emissions now, next year, the year after, with some vague promise that in later years we will see a reduction.
This tweet is a baldfaced lie.
The author of this article want the right thing: reductions now. Not years in the future. @SenWhitehouse uses this article to push policies for immediate emissions increases.
Prove me wrong.
Prove you can build nationwide infrastructure while seeing reductions now. Or even soon.
You've been building this crap for decades. People proudly tell me Germany is running in renewables. I hear it every week.
Emissions are up DRASTICALLY. GLOBALLY.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO VOICE IN AMERICAN GOVERNMENT who wants to decrease emissions this year, or next, or the next.
One of the major reasons it's against my rules to debate against internet talking points on energy and emissions is because no. I'm not selling a product. I'm not here to debate. I am offering a viewpoint based entirely within accepted science about climate.
2. I understand with a clarity you probably can't imagine that virtually all the world disagrees with me.
They all disagreed with Galileo, too.
If you would like to know a different view than the dominant one, based on concern that it doesn't appear to be working, I invite you.
3. If I am right, it is possible for humankind to get out of the mess we're in bent but not broken.
I don't think it's hopeless.
I just think we're going at it wrong.
If you disagree, that's fine. Please do not post links to internet talking points about the technological marvel
I got these reply from Levin of Indigo and I am grateful for them.
This is the kind of sensible question I always hope for.
2. The short answer is, I cannot point at any research which proves my case. Also cannot point at any research which disproves my case. To the best of my knowledge no researcher has done a study of how much energy, resources, and time it will require to build the system.
3. I have been asking someone to show me how much energy it's going to take. Nobody has. And I can't prove a word of what I say.
To make that worse, I have no formal education beyond high school. I do read a lot.
But - here's a story. nopackagedeals.com/2016/12/17/my-…
About three years ago it came to me that all the magic technology, the solar panels and wind turbines, could not work because of the energy and resource cost of building, transporting, and installing them.
This was a shock. I have essays still online from when I was pro-solar.
3. That was when I began learning to work with donkeys.
Late summer of 2018.
I had a wreck and injured myself Thanksgiving week, and laying there on the ground in pain I made a commitment to not fail at this.
I was 40 pounds heavier, too.
I'm going to ramble a bit this afternoon on and around the topic of the ecosystem catastrophe we choose to call climate change.
Some of us refer to it as "The Anthropocene," but I think that's a misnomer.
Ought to be "Industriocene."
We were Anthro for a quarter million years.
2. Twitter is full of #ActOnClimate#ActNow and everybody knows what "act" means.
It means build and install a vast global electro-mechanical overlay in addition to the ones we have already built.
Can we agree on that?
When we say, "We have the technology," we don't mean,
3. you know, *have* the technology, as in, I have three donkeys. Have and can point at. Have in terms of physical reality.
We mean, "We have built a small model of the technology we think will enable us to power the entire industrial economy without emitting CO2."