DT Politics Thread

[Mason89]

It would be quite challenging for me to walk about with that in my head all day, so here’s some reasons to be cheerful. 
 

Solar & wind power are green but now they’re also cheap. There’s a strong economic argument to switch to them which as we all know, trumps the green argument every day. Win win. The blades and gearboxes on these things have a shelf life of 30 years. Who knows what developments happen within that timescale? 
Energy storage is diversifying quickly and for northern hemisphere countries, thermal storage in particular is looking peachy. There’s huge advancements in bio plastics, recycling waste (including no petroleum based food for all those cattle nobody needs to eat). Nuclear power already solves a lot of carbon problems and is getting smaller/more efficient 

The grid (which is my line of work) is getting upgraded across the globe making everything more efficient. I can think of some teuchters and English retirees are going to be in for one hell of a shock up north soon 

Most of all though, most people are all for it. Transitioning away from fossil fuels is something everyone can get on board with. The will is there already. Apart from all this ‘drill baby drill’ baby balled sad sacks of course 

Smile, it might not happen  

Edited 23 hours ago by Mason89

[RicoS321]

12 hours ago, Mason89 said:

It would be quite challenging for me to walk about with that in my head all day, so here’s some reasons to be cheerful. 
 

Solar & wind power are green but now they’re also cheap. There’s a strong economic argument to switch to them which as we all know, trumps the green argument every day. Win win. The blades and gearboxes on these things have a shelf life of 30 years. Who knows what developments happen within that timescale? 
Energy storage is diversifying quickly and for northern hemisphere countries, thermal storage in particular is looking peachy. There’s huge advancements in bio plastics, recycling waste (including no petroleum based food for all those cattle nobody needs to eat). Nuclear power already solves a lot of carbon problems and is getting smaller/more efficient 

The grid (which is my line of work) is getting upgraded across the globe making everything more efficient. I can think of some teuchters and English retirees are going to be in for one hell of a shock up north soon 

Most of all though, most people are all for it. Transitioning away from fossil fuels is something everyone can get on board with. The will is there already. Apart from all this ‘drill baby drill’ baby balled sad sacks of course 

Smile, it might not happen  

I think your first sentence sums it up! Where you see "progress", I see denialism. What you're describing is the maintenance of a high energy use society (whose sole purpose seems to be the economic game in which it exists, rather than meaning or happiness). All of the above requires diesel to create and maintain. Diesel that is getting increasingly more energy intensive (and thus expensive) to access. Most importantly, none of the technologies on their own meet the definition of sustainable, as I've mentioned. They lock in a high energy civilisation, which means destroying biodiversity, more land use, more chemicals, more everything. All at a time when total fertility rates are falling, and we're passed peak oil (almost certainly). Everything you describe is a design for a society that runs on diesel and oil and gas, rather than a future that uses way less energy, with way less people and doesn't have growth as its measure solely for the sake of growth itself. 

Going back to your initial sentence, I have no problem walking around with what I believe to be the evidence in my head. Where I do sometimes struggle is with the lack of people who see the problem as I see it. It's not just that they don't see it, but they don't counter what I'm saying with actual evidence. It's almost always either a call to magical future technology (the rubbish that is small nuclear to take from your post), or a call to authority: "well there are smarter people than you or I out there that know a lot more about it than us". As I see it, the first step on the way is to admit to the problem, and in that regard I see your position as a hindrance! I see it the same way you see a climate change denier. You've just stopped looking at the evidence at a different point that is more palatable to you. I'm almost certain that I've peeled back the layers of modernity to a point that I'm comfortable with too in the same way. For example, there are those that believe that we are destined for extinction and that it's human nature, and that we were always going to take this trajectory - inevitable through our evolution. I don't believe that, and choose to take the evidence of the few hundred thousand years prior to agriculture to back that up, but that could just be my denialism. I'd argue that at least it's denialism grounded in some evidence.

Edited 11 hours ago by RicoS321

[Mason89]

The bit we disagree on is that a high energy civilisation doesn’t mean more land use, chemicals, pollution etc 

Diesel makes the world go round and there’s no doubt deranged orange nonces starting unnecessary wars they can’t win does put pressure on that, but I think your focused too much on it because your whole way of thinking is pinned on it 

One of us will be more right than wrong. It won’t be fun finding out 

 

[RicoS321]

2 minutes ago, Mason89 said:

The bit we disagree on is that a high energy civilisation doesn’t mean more land use, chemicals, pollution etc 

Diesel makes the world go round and there’s no doubt deranged orange nonces starting unnecessary wars they can’t win does put pressure on that, but I think your focused too much on it because your whole way of thinking is pinned on it 

One of us will be more right than wrong. It won’t be fun finding out 

 

See this (in bold) is part of the most frustrating part. It's the third thing after people have tried magical futures and calls to authority, putting the focus on me and personalising it (I'm a hypocrite in this regard as I do the same to others, so I'm not having a go). I don't focus too much on it because my whole way of thinking is pinned on it. I draw attention to it because that is where the evidence leads. Ecological destruction is a function of energy use, full stop. There has been no evidence to suggest otherwise in human lifetime. Growth has never been decoupled from energy use, and will not be (otherwise what's its purpose?). That is what the evidence shows, regardless of whether you or I focus on it, and regardless of our feelings on it. Modernity has been built on the energy of 200 million year old sunlight. That's gone. There's no building our roads  or mining or steel or concrete or plastic without it (because the alternatives all require it to make them). Again, that's what the evidence shows, not what I focus on.  The beautiful network of cables you are building will almost certainly work for a bit, but by the time we've built the renewable utopia, we'll more than likely have recognised that we can't maintain it. 

[Mason89]

I think you’re wrong though 

 

[RicoS321]

45 minutes ago, Mason89 said:

I think you’re wrong though 

 

You don't think I'm wrong, you think the evidence is wrong. 

We are in planetary overshoot, inclusive of a couple of billion or so who aren't in overshoot

Overshoot is a function of energy use 

Growth has never been decoupled from energy (and materials) use

Net zero, as presented to us, and as you're cabling for, is predicated on the status quo of between 1-3% growth globally, or a doubling every 23-30 years

Almost all key minerals required for renewable energy are finite and in short supply for global rollout 

Those minerals are getting harder to access as the easier to reach deposits get used

Mineral extraction requires more energy over time (due to the previous point)

Fossil fuels provide all (give or take 1%) mineral extraction 

Fossil fuels perform refinement, transport, installation, maintenance and abandonment of almost all minerals

Wild animal mass has gone from ~80kgs per person in 1800, to ~2.5kgs today 

There are plenty more. Your solutions are non-solutions, based on evidence. If you solved for the problems above, the sixth mass extinction, and not for human supremacist reasons(!) then the solutions that present themselves would look hugely different to the ones you present. Net zero ignores overshoot and thus is an unethical stance. I'd expect better from someone who loves animals...

 

 

[Mason89]

Fair enough, I think the evidence is wrong 

[Jupiter]

Looks like Rico wants to go back to the stone age.

[TheDonbytheDee]

1 hour ago, Jupiter said:

Looks like Rico wants to go back to the stone age.

He's never left it.