Saturday, 1 November 2008
COMMONS WAFFLES WHILE SNOW FALLS
This report shows how our MPs waffled for hours on how they were going to "save the planet" from catastrophic global warming, while outside temperatures plunged causing the first October snow for 70 years. Just as we need a plentiful supply of cheap energy to keep warm they are planning to land us with massive extra costs in order to rid us of CO2 - or 80% of it by 2050; meanwhile over in China and India they are ready to build new coal-fired power stations ready to take our jobs and our industry.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Why should incidental weather patterns influence long term policy making? In any case, it has been predicted that temperatures may drop sharply in the UK and Europe if the gulf stream is shut down.
ReplyDeleteIt's also not clear how reducing CO2 emissions necessarily lands us with 'massive extra costs'. I find that reducing my fossil fuel consumption and growing my own food saves me money.
You might want to keep an eye on China and India's problems maintaining their extreme economic growth. It's not assured that they will be ready to 'take our jobs and our industry'.
I'm not suggesting incidental weather like the snow should influence policy, but it is ironic that we have had 10 years of no warming and many scientists are forecasting another 10 years of cooling. As for China and India, they are already taking our jobs and the Climate Bill can only make matters worse by increasing costs as well as making our electricity less reliable.
ReplyDeleteEven without a climate change bill, reliable electricity generation is on a knife edge. We can either pretend that fossil fuels and uranium will be economical indefinitely while ignoring their externalities, or change our productive and consumptive patterns in the direction of sustainability. Such a transformation would give meaningful work to many people, and any immediate costs incurred offset by savings in the future.
ReplyDeleteWe have enough coal and uranium to more than see out the 21st century. So there is no urgency - unless you believe CO2 is causing catastrophic climate change for which there is no evidence. I have no doubt that there will be new sources of energy coming forward later in the century and we could change gradually at very little cost. The climate change bill is a disaster for the country and its targets will not be met, I predict.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Chris Martenson, Bituminous (the highest quality) coal peaked in 1990. Sub-bituminous and a small amount of Lignite has made up the gap, but the total heat content has not increased for 9 years. As we consume the best quality resources first, the energy spent mining and processing increases, and there is progressively less energy available for productive economic activity. Since our financial system requires economic growth, platitudes about hundreds of years worth of supply at current rates of consumption are misleading.
ReplyDeleteThere is evidence that we are at or near peak oil. Global oil production has not increased since 2005 despite record prices. Even the until-recently sanguine IEA is worried. If that is the case, it will make the extraction of many other resources increasingly more difficult. I believe this is already being reflected in our financial system, and the inability of many projects to obtain capital.
Uranium shortages may occur in a small number of years due to the depletion of stockpiles and decommissioned warheads. Ballooning construction, insurance, waste disposal and plant decommissioning costs are also making the situation look increasingly dire.
Waving off future energy constraints to new sources of energy or new technology is dangerous. If you are wrong or do not account for side effects, you leave very little margin.
Frankly I don't think the carbon dioxide debate is terribly important. There are many good reasons to change the way we inhabit the Earth, and climate change is probably the hardest one to sell, as you make clear on this blog.
I am glad to see you admit that the CO2 argument is not important, because that is the driver of the urgency of changing over our power plants. Without the climate alarmism we could gradually phase out our fossil fuel dependence as supplies became more expensive and move to new fast breeder nuclear plants. There is currently no shortage of uranium or thorium, nad future technolgy will enable us to obtain limitless supplies from the oceans (see this interesting, though long, on line book). I can tell that you are a thinking person who likes a rational debate. I cannot see how wind turbines can possibly provide more than a small contribution to our overall needs.
ReplyDeleteIt's not important because resource depletion is the more immediate problem. It's like worrying about having cancer while driving off a cliff. If you are unconcerned with the rate at which things will change, consider that the world has gone from a boom to a global "recession" in the space of about two years. Capital, and with it the ability for us to execute major works, is evaporating. It is not a recession, this civilisation is past its peak.
ReplyDeleteIt just happens that the best response to resource depletion addresses the climate issue and a raft of other issues such as soil degradation, food and water shortage, air quality, habitat loss, lifestyle disease, malnutrition and many mental health issues. This is not some new way of generating electricity, but a return to community resilience, sustainable and integrated food and fibre production, limits on consumption and reproduction, and the salvage and retrofit of suburbia. The window, if it ever existed, within which we can transition to an even more complex state, is already past. We are in financial and economic collapse. Government collapse is next. This is the view of Dmitry Orlov (http://cluborlov.blogspot.com/) who witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Union after it passed its own oil peak.
Thanks for the link to the online book, I'll have a look.
In a free market resource depletion is easily dealt with by price. That mechanism allows for new products to replace those that become unavailable or scarce. We are not in economic collapse, there is a problem, but it is no different to other downturns. The big problem is the belief in the false theory of a man-made catastrophe due to rising CO2.
ReplyDeleteThe Innovation Fallacy (John Michael Greer)
ReplyDeletehttp://www.energybulletin.net/node/34660
Fascinating article, but we have a whole planet to explore. Comparisons with petri dishes, or even the German war machine are not relevant since both are much more constrained. We have planty of time to find almost limitless supplies of nuclear fuel which can supply our needs by the end of the 21st century.
ReplyDeleteThe Earth has a limited volume, just like a Petri dish or German occupied territory. The scale is larger, but so is the human race. The analogy is valid.
ReplyDeleteOnly according to your optimistic assumptions do we have plenty of time, presupposing there are limitless supplies of a suitable fuel that are economically recoverable on an already well explored planet. Prudent risk management would not bet the future of humanity on it.
The future of humanity will have to take its chances just as it always has. We should not assume responsibility for putting right the past or worrying about the future over which we cannot have knowledge. We may be wiped out by a new virus or a super volcanic eruption or struck by a meteor in the future. We have only just begun to scratch the surface of the planet, and nothing is ever used up, it merely changes its chemical composition.
ReplyDeleteWith an attitude like that I don't see how you could be objective about climate science or resource depletion.
ReplyDeleteAs an ex-science teacher you should be able to appreciate the effect of entropy.
Yes, in a theoretical way you can say that the world is finite and eventually in some massive time frame we will run out of everything, but in practice there are almost limitless options. If copper runs low and becomes too expensive we have alternatives. Malthus was right about humans running out of things, but he got the time scale completely wrong. Entropy may catch up with us, but humans will probably have died out long before that could happen. In the mean time enjoy life and relax. I'm not saying that we should not manage our resources sensibly and look after the environment, but we are not in need of rationing. In any case we could never agree to it on a world-wide basis anyway. We will not be able to control CO2 emissions even. Politicians will talk endlessy and devise elaborate mechanisms which will increase all our costs and make a few rich, but CO2 will go on rising. Luckily the theory will prove to be false, I believe.
ReplyDeleteMalthus lived before the industrial revolution got under way, and before oil, coal, gas or uranium reserves were discovered or quantified. You can hardly blame him for misjudging the time frame of events.
ReplyDeleteWe now have a better estimate of the non-renewable capacity of the Earth to sustain us, and you want to rely on some as yet undiscovered or unproven source of energy that will allow us to perform lower-quality substitutions or recovery of depleting and scattered resources indefinitely. Entropy does not need to go far before the human race can no longer maintain the complexity it has so far achieved on a brief pulse of fossil fuels. We do not need to run out of copper, oil, or anything for severe problems to develop. We are limited by the least available critical resource. This is Liebig's law of the minimum. That critical resource may be liquid fuels, top soil, phosphorous, rubber, fresh water, fish stocks, favourable climate, etc. Substitution has its limits.
We don't need rationing? Price is a form of rationing, and the rising price of energy has resulted in demand destruction, so it appears that we do. The issue is how equitable it is, and whether it is sufficient to provide for future needs.
Malthus could not foresee the future any more than you or I. I am an optimist and believe that it is very likely that new discoveries will continue to propel mankind forward with plenty of energy and other essentials. For all our technological advance we have hardly begun to explore the planet two thirds of which is under water, then there are the poles. A massive amount still to go.
ReplyDeleteThere will always be specifics that can't be anticipated, but that does not mean it's impossible to draw some conclusions. I have been expecting this financial and economic trouble for about 4 years, and have been preparing for it.
ReplyDeleteUncertainties as much as known facts should influence decision making. By just assuming that the future will bring more energy and materials, and consuming as much as you want, you are essentially living pay cheque to pay cheque. You become vulnerable to changes beyond your control. Who can not see the value of savings at this time when unemployment is rising? It's the same thing with resources. You are right, the future is uncertain - that's why we should not assume it is going to work out for the best. It's called hedging your bets.