Home | About | Donate

Because We're "Out of Time," Activists Storm Washington State Capitol to Launch "Climate Countdown"


Please explain to me why the Victory Plan targets O3, but not NF3?


“Yes, those things will have to be worked out. Other people will do that, people whose expertise is in that rather than in forming the main goals for the 300 plus million people of the US and most of the world. Allying yourself with the psychopaths and trolls is not a useful way to help with that.”

This is entirely your plan, yet you have the audacity to propose that other people come up with solutions for YOUR IDEAS. I don’t understand how your ideas will work, so how on earth could I possibly come up with solutions.

  • You provide me with ZERO costs, so how on earth would I possibly be able to formulate an economic analysis for your plan?
  • You provide me with ZERO information regarding energy sector percentages or expected consumption, so how on earth could I possibly produce an action plan for managing the scale of this project?
  • You provide me with ZERO information on the expected effect on the USA economy, so how on earth would the FED possibly be able to set accurate interest rates for investments into renewable projects?
  • You provide me with ZERO information about expected population counts, so how on earth could I possibly figure out how much food we would need to grow so that we don’t all starve to death?

The Victory Plan does not provide enough information for other people to come up with solutions, and it also expects us to have solutions for problems that we don’t have an answer to and create solutions for problems that don’t even exist in the real world.

  • Guess why there is no solution for mass produced fertilizer that doesn’t contain nitrogen or ammonia? Because nobody has been insane enough to suggest that we ban all the fertilizer we currently use.
  • Guess why there is no solution for manufacturing concrete without CO2? Because it is chemically impossible to do so.
  • Guess why there is no solution for manufacturing wind and solar without petrochemical feedstocks? Because the characteristics of materials that are required for wind and solar are only found within these types of molecular compounds.

These replies are not to advocate for fossil fuels or right-wing conspiracy, but rather to bring you back to reality where we have to obey reason. You cannot just use some arbitrary history that is completely unrelated to the current situation and claim the same can be replicated in push for 100% renewable. The New Deal is not even remotely related to the current predicament. Our economy is completely different. Our proposed energy sources are completely different. Our international agreements are completely different. Our proposed industrial products are completely different. Yet you act as if they one of the same. That is unbelievably ignorant. I support a transition, but the plan has to make the slightest bit of technical sense first.

If I cannot understand how you came to the conclusion that your proposal would work, then I’m never going to support your plan. I may not agree with you, but if I can at least understand how you think this plan would work then it would be reasonable to advocate and support such a proposal. Until then, I cannot support these ideas.


Gleaned from your short article, mostly about the history of self-driving car R&D: “Partially automated cars can now handle more of the driving tasks themselves, as long as humans are ready to intervene if something goes wrong.” This equates to the validity of my compromise statement that level 3 is as far as the tech can go. And here, “There’s a risk of drivers being overconfident of what partially automated technology can accomplish without human help. This risk can be fatal – as it was in a May 2016 crash of a Tesla car whose driver had engaged the vehicle’s “autopilot” mode.” The driver was distracted by level 4 autopilot, and didn’t see the semi-truck making a left turn in its path until it was too late; solid evidence that it is NOT safe. At level 5, the same potential for accident is highly probable. And here: “Driverless vehicles efficiently zipping passengers through uncongested streets in shared vehicles with reduced crash and fatality rates, yet is by no means guaranteed.” To make the claim of ‘uncongested streets’ belies the fact that in addition to routine travel patterns, self-driving cars will run empty between passenger drop-off and pick-up; more traffic, not less. It’s common sense, which is too much of a huge leap for your programmed viewpoint to admit. The technology is “by no means guaranteed.”


I’ve heard that specific ethics question one too many times. It’s a ruse. There are too many other more pertinent questions to ask, mostly regarding feasibility and whether self-driving cars would do much good if it were possible, which it isn’t. The rest of my comment stands. You haven’t disproved my points. Automobile-dependency is indeed a transportation monopoly that corporate interests wish to continue. Their solution to traffic congestion has always been more freeway lanes and wider boulevards, which the self-driving car will require as they increase traffic and vehicle miles travelled (VMT). Finally, corporate interests seek to dominate markets, not work with small businesses except those that depend upon long-distance transport. Your argument is pure corporate propaganda repeated ad nauseum. I should add that self-driving car tech isn’t exactly the topic of this string, but it is being proposed as a solution to the basic problem that we drive too much, too far, for too many purposes, at too high cost and impact. We fly too much. We truck and ship products too far. Self-driving car tech increases VMT and does little to reduce long-distance transport.


Please repeat after me: “I will not try to manipulate using impossible expectations.”

Again, repeat after me: “I will not attack until after I’ve read and understood what I’m discussing.”

“This is the first draft of the Victory Plan, intended for public and expert commentary, which will be reviewed for incorporation in a second draft. This draft is not entirely complete. Perhaps a document of this vast sweep can never be considered finished. It also is not intended to be exclusive. Indeed, we invite and challenge others to create alternate versions.” Preface, The Climate Mobilization Victory Plan, by Margaret Klein Salamon, Ph.D., Founder and Executive Director of The Climate Mobilization.

This is not my plan, and they’re not ”MY IDEAS” although I have come up with many of them independently after many years of intensive research, and I do think most of it is excellent. I didn’t propose anything to you, and if people like you aren’t inspired or paid to follow through with details someone else will do it. Much better, I’m betting.

I don’t know. Why don’t you ask the author, or address it yourself?

Your last 3 “You provide me withs” are particularly ridiculous. Would you also like me, as your whipping boy for the author, to provide you with the scientific names, and date and time for all the extinctions in the next century? That would be important for planning ahead, too.

I don’t want you formulating anything for the author’s plan; if it were my plan, I wouldn’t trust you anywhere near it. You’re clearly just a troll using impossible expectations, false assumptions, false dichotomies, false non-dichotomies, straw person arguments, misrepresentations (of intentions) and other despicable tactics to attack something you’re against for reasons you haven’t been honest about.

The plan provides plenty for people to continue working from it, as it explicitly says in at least one place.

Certainly concrete, steel, and trans-ocean shipping are more difficult problems than most, but solutions are here or being worked on and are probably very close for each. But they’re the main reason I say (repeatedly) that we need to reduce GHGs by 90% in the next 7 years and not 100%.

For example, concrete: 5% of global emissions and unless we cut way back on other uses (which we must), we’ll be needing even more for the next few decades as we replace fossil fuel infrastructure with clean safe renewable energy. But half of the 5% is heat etc. that can be easily provided by renewables. Much of the rest can be substituted for by recycled concrete, Roman and other green concrete, adobe and cob. There are many buildings, for example, of both adobe and cob buildings standing after hundreds, even thousands of years, in climates from SW US deserts to cold, wet Britain, and other examples of Roman concrete, which strengthens in conditions that weaken “conventional” concrete, still standing after 2000 years. And other work is being done on emissions and other ecological impact. The solutions for iron and steel are similar.

The Climate Mobilization Victory Plan, Forward, by Paul Gilding:
“In 2009, I co-authored, with Professor Jorgen Randers, the “One Degree War Plan” — a global and less comprehensive overview of the concept described herein. The One Degree War Plan showed we can realistically slash global greenhouse gas emissions to net zero in 20 years and then restore a safe climate through a carbon dioxide drawdown effort.”
"… it is critical that such a response be based on what the science demands. The hard truth is the climate has deteriorated significantly since 2009 and this appears to be now accelerating. There is no time left for multi-decade transition scenarios."

"Without this response, we will see a descent through cascading climate change induced crises with military conflict, accelerating costs, massive refugee flows, nations collapsing and global food crises as the world spirals down into economic and social collapse. This would inevitably require heavy government intervention and quite probably authoritarian rule to manage.
With that prospect unfolding, do you really think we will stand by and do nothing but observe and talk about the difficulty of acting? Now that is “unrealistic” and that I really “can’t imagine.” "

It’s clear you don’t like this plan, though your reasons are as I said, silly at best, possibly malevolent. I suspect you don’t want any plan, but am willing to suspend that suspicion if you’ll please show me where your plan is published providing more detail, costs, etc. for dealing with climate catastrophe in a fast enough way to avoid all the horror that will result in no plan or a too-slow plan. Otherwise, why don’t you write one, or volunteer with TCM to flesh out this one in areas where you have expertise?

I encourage you to read the rest of Gilding’s forward, which states that despite the expected reaction–to reject it–this is the only type of response to our crisis that has any chance of avoiding utter catastrophe. Since this is the most important issue in the world for our generation and the foreseeable future, I’ll be happy to read it once you’ve written it. When I review it, I promise to use more honest and less attacky tactics than you have here. Just remember Gilding: Base it on science, and make it less than multi-decadal. (So please do it fast.)

Please remember too that there are vast areas about which you know almost nothing. Permaculture techniques like guilds and edible forest gardens are ways to grow food at least as intensely as chemical industrial methods but without the harmful effects of fertilizers, biocides, and grossly inefficient use of fossil fuels.

And last, your “inability” to see the many close parallels between the WWII mobilization and our current situation is rather pathetic and extremely suspicious. I add “motivated reasoning” to the list of problems with your responses. Is it just anxiety about the crisis that makes you demand certainty and extraordinary detail? If not, you need to be honest about why you oppose responding rationally to climate catastrophe. If you don’t know, then I sincerely and with all compassion suggest psychotherapy, which is excellent for discovering our hidden motives.


Sorry but you’ve proved nothing, and your evidence is shaky at best. For every accident involving any level of prototype autonomy, I can show 50,000 or more accidents involving human error or other, non-autonomy equipment failure.

Of course nothing is guaranteed. But I have no “programmed version”; I’ve come to all my conclusions through exhaustive research over more than a decade. The Seba video, while it ignores or distorts a few things, mostly supports what I’ve learned from other sources. It makes sense that the combination of technologies will reduce traffic. But I’m not trusting that, which is a big reason I advocate public ownership and coordination of EVs from High Speed Rail to light rail to jitneys to “personal” EVs. At the very least, it should drastically reduce the area devoted to parking in our world.


Since you agree that this is the only option, let me ask you if you think it is acceptable for the USA to undergo a massive economic depression and impoverish millions of people?

The reason for this question comes down to the issue of whether we should care more about removing CO2 or removing CO2, while maintaining a developed economic society. If you believe that this is the only option and economics should not matter, then you can make the claim that we should exhaust all monetary funds to remove CO2 as fast as possible. While I believe this still wouldn’t be achievable, lets say it was, but as a result we destroy the entire economy. If you believe that we should still value our economy, then when you make proposals you have to consider the economic ramifications for your proposal. For example when you eliminate all subsidies, remove all new infrastructure, ban the production of chemical processes and place high tariffs on fossil fuels this results in extremely significant increases in cost for manufacturing products and constructing projects.


This time, ridiculous straw person nonsense mixed with your offensive whataboutery.

I said nothing, implied nothing and think nothing about economics not mattering so please retract that and apologize to the readers for trying to deceive them. Also, the impression of your fake politeness mixed with these dishonest and manipulative techniques is a sort of Dr. Evilness, so please stop doing one or the other.

Solar and wind are the fastest growing job sectors in our economy; efficiency and other aspects of the climate mobilization are doing very well and could provide a lot more, and solar alone is providing far more good jobs than fossil fuels’ bad ones (Coal mining? NO ONE wants to do that. And the oligarchy and corporations are cooperating, by destroying jobs a thousand times faster with mechanization and destructive methods like the euphemistically-named “mountain top removal”.)

Our economy would actually be helped immensely by this program

just like the economy was helped tremendously by the US WWII mobilization.

(With these reservations–it virtually created the government-industrial complex, so we’d have to avoid that, and dismantle what we have of it after the crisis is over, so we could continue to survive and also avoid fascism. Also, despite the ban on private car-making and other strategic moves, US consumers made huge advances during and after the war as a result of the government-led effort.)

Most ideas for decarbonizing have involved .05-.3% of our economy as I recall; the full-scale mobilization we need might take as much as 10% of it for a decade or so. It would also democratize the economy if we do it right, so it’s an excellent answer to what’s likely the 3rd most serious problem we have in the world today, after Wetiko disease and the larger ecological crisis. Of course they’re inextricably intertwined and have to be solved together, so since we have no time left as disasters and suffering increase exponentially. we’d better get to it. You should either help with this plan, come up with a better one, or find out through therapy why you’re in favor of mass extinction.


J4Z, you’re aligned with this 2016 Tony Seba presentation which is incomplete and one-sided. I’ve finally viewed it and found the drawbacks and downsides that I’ve already pointed out and which you won’t take into account because they challenge his and your assumptions. In the first half hour, he presents the concept of disruptive technology starting in the year 1900, the years in which horse and buggy were supposedly replaced with automobiles by 1913. Most notably absent is streetcar technology, electric mass transit that more essentially displaced horse and buggy and led to the widespread ‘technological disruption’ of electric power grids and household lighting, appliances, telephone, radio and industrial applications. Tony Seba is wrong on that point. Minutes later Tony introduces self-driving car tech and adds Transportation As A Service (TAAS) which further complicates his premise of disruptive technology, mostly based on the economics of consumer demand and entrepreneurial innovative supply. I’ve tried, J4Z, to explain how automobiles are a type of travel that has saturated the market. If we continue to travel and transport goods as we do, automobiles of all types are NOT a disruptive technology that can actually change things for the better. I’m not a luddite. However, all technology can be abused in excess. The self-driving car is certainly an abusive use of automobiles for excessive travel. Picture your nearby congested freeway or boulevard and intersection traffic made worse with self-driving electric cars preventing pedestrians, bicyclists and users of mass transit from patronizing local small businesses offering essential services. Tony Seba’s presentation serves a pretentious technological objective that is based on corporate domination, then get a fucking clue. You are being programmed to support corporate fascist interests.


I have no idea what you mean by “you’re aligned with…” You have no idea what my assumptions are and have no reason at all to think I’m obdurate. I know what the evidence is for what I say; that’s what I go by. I think it’s interesting that you do just the opposite, pointing out all the things wrong with the video and then watching it. Wow.

You offer no evidence at all for your assertions, which in the case of streetcars may or may not be true and might be interesting but is certainly irrelevant to the point of disrupting technology. If there was 1 disruption by streetcars and another by cars in the same time that may be even more remarkable but does nothing but reinforce the point about converging technologies. I’ve found some other things slightly wrong with the Seba video; he seems to be using utility solar PV prices to talk about rooftop solar PV advantage, for example. But his points and mine remain. You haven’t shown me anything to change to mind, about anything, especially anything about your unique and bizarre corporate conspiracy theory about cars, about which you’re getting very rude because you have nothing to support it but wild conjecture that makes no sense at all.

And is it useful at all for me to repeat for the 3rd time that my way to do this would be public ownership of vehicles at all levels from HSR to EVs? Probably not; you seem incapable of absorbing facts when they don’t fit your preconceptions.

This discussion is pointless and I’m stopping, unless you have facts to back up your assertions and are willing to absorb the facts I’ve provided.


Your viewpoint, J4Z, is ‘aligned’ with the at least questionable contention that Tony Seba presents about self-driving cars. I do appreciate your effort because it is extensive, as is mine, but this skeptical view can’t be simply dismissed. I have offered evidence, but you haven’t yet included them in your calculations.

Again, personal EVs offer: an emergency back up power system during grid failure, the means to more closely monitor and reduce household energy consumption, the choice whether power generated is for household uses or for driving, which leads to shorter drive distances which affects development of local economies (small business occupations, services, amenities, institutions), and more trips become possible without having to drive, as walking, bicycling and mass transit become more logical travel options, and rooftop solar is ideally matched to the personal EV in the garage or driveway. That’s the important short list repeated for your benefit. TAAS negates life-saving, energy and traffic reducing benefits and a means to stimulate local economies.

I understand your viewpoint and have responded with my compromise level 3 defense which achieves most of the safety benefits. I don’t believe ‘platooning’ can ever be made safe. That guy who died in the Florida Tesla crash was blamed for not paying attention. Ha! The Tesla should have initiated emergency braking. Instead, according to reports, it confused the horizontal line of the trailer with the horizon and accelerated right into it. In other words, your supposedly infallible technology failed and will most likely fail again and again.

By the way, I also noted that Seba’s island solar array system was a central facility rather than individual rooftop or larger neighborhood arrays. Central arrays are important, but in grid failure, fallen lines leave households nonetheless without power. I watched the Seba video first, then commented on it; not the other way around. As for you pointing out my rude remarks, that’s like the pot calling the kettle black. I’m just matching your wit with mine. All I’m doing with my effort is to have critically important aspects considered. You have not responded to this credible though critically skeptical perspective, though I appreciate your effort.


Hey Paul. I’m having quite a time with J4Z. I’ve got a couple, let’s say counter-intuitive, economic questions maybe you’d be interested in considering: How are automobiles like the global economy? And, How do plug-in hybrid EVs reduce fuel/energy consumption and traffic more than all-battery EVs? The first question is a short treatise on scales of economy efficiencies. The second question I’d say is true, hybrids can do that.


"How do plug-in hybrid EVs reduce fuel/energy consumption and traffic more than all-battery EVs?"
Comparing PHEVs and EVs on net energy consumption would likely come down to a comparison by vehicle model as more modern EVs offer you with similar motor efficiencies and battery charging efficiencies. Any ICV motor is going to consume more energy than an electric motor due to electric motors operating under less friction, less heat loss, and constant torque.

However in your specific comparison there are other factors to look at such as vehicle weight, charging stations vs Plug-In Outlets and model efficiency.

As for traffic this is not really related to energy consumption, as traffic is impacted by congestion or the number of cars in a certain area over time. You could perhaps suggest that PHEVs would reduce the amount of congestion in a city as charging would not require unique infrastructure placed throughout the city that would be congested, but as for actual highway traffic I am not aware of any way you could suggest that one type of vehicle would create less traffic than another unless you could convince more people to carpool into the same vehicle, thus reducing the amount of cars on the road.


Thanks again, Mealouts, for the courteous reply. Transportation is a very complex field of study and extremely political. Between 2004-2013 a bi-state commission made up of both state highway departments, port authorities, city and county agencies, and 1 seat for commercial interests, planned to replace the I-5 Bridge across the Columbia River. In 2008 the initial design was altered terribly and by 2011 the project became a fiasco that went on 2 more years before cancellation. I’m on the Oregon side and credit Oregon DOT for fine work rejected by the commission leader Washington DOT. The buck should stop at Wsdot, but no agency will admit what went wrong. ODOT saw the handwriting on the wall and walked away from the growing mess in 2010. The other agencies most to blame were ‘both’ port authorities.

By my count, there were 18 public alternative proposals, 14 formally submitted for an open house public review in 2012. When I showed up to present mine, I was not allowed to present it. At least 5 peers there had seen it many times informally, but they never offered it their least consideration. About $200 million tax dollars was mostly wasted. My proposal used the initial bridge design and the ODOT work on two very important Oregon interchanges that need replacing more than the 5 interchanges in Washington. I kept the single-page handouts of the other 14 and studied them and the 3 designs that followed by 2016. None used existing finished study. Mine was the only one that salvaged about $100 million spent and therefore the nearest design that could finish the needed project. All the agencies however are covering each other’s backs waiting for public fury to cool down before the commission will “surprise, suddenly unveil a new plan out of nowhere” to inform the public. Personally, I think the fiasco was planned as a reaction to electing an African American President. Highway departments are notoriously corrupt. ODOT did its job fairly well. Wsdot and the Port Authorities had several other big projects that went suddenly haywire during the Obama era.


Thanks Paul. Let me explain: The PHEV paradigm has to do with its incentives to drive less. Its smaller (5-10kwh) battery pack has, let’s say, a 40-mile limited but ‘sufficient’ EV range. The smaller pack can be matched to a smaller (less expensive) rooftop solar array. It’s fair to assume whole metropolitan areas should be converting regional utility grids to accommodate household EVs and PV arrays. The PHEV smaller scale implementation may bring costs down enough to get conversion started. All-battery EVs, especially the 85kwh Tesla and larger vehicle type, would be a much more complicated and expensive consideration. Hybrids may also utilize a variety of bio-fuels and combustible hydrogen incidentally stored more reliably at lower pressures than in fuel cell stacks. Of course, all-battery EVs will serve a large percentage of the market demand, but PHEVs shouldn’t be ruled out entirely. The real trick then with both EV types is to incentivize driving less. All-battery EVs have the 100-200 mile range therefore not as much incentive to drive less. There are other considerations, but this sums up the technological potential pretty well. What do you think? Not bad? Anyway…

Automobiles are like the global economy in this way: Urban/suburban travel consists of 4 basic modes - cars/trucks, mass transit, walking, bicycling. (Omit luxury air travel and long-distance passenger-rail for sake of argument). Automobiles obviously present a severe impediment to the other travel modes. Like urban/suburban travel, the world’s basic scales of economy consist of local, regional, state, national and global. Local economies are too small to take advantage of mass production. The global economy loses the gains of mass production in the longest distance transport. Include all transport/travel distances to calculate total fuel requirements; raw materials to production sites; trans-oceanic shipping considered not as efficient as we’re misled to believe; national trucking from ports; household driving to regional wholesale outlets as an inefficient type of retail. The most energy efficient economy is regional, made up of local economies supported by state and national economies. The global economy, just like automobiles, presents a severe impediment to the lesser, though no less fundamental scales of economy. Whew.


I do not have my own published study about how to achieve a transition, but then again I am not an organization with thousands of people working on the same project. However, I do have my own opinion on what the energy portfolio should consist of and I do agree in part with different plans on how to transition the nation. I do believe that we need to make a calculated feasible plan that takes into consideration both scientific, logistical and construction challenges. We also need to consider the economic ramifications of such a transition and we need to make sure that our transition does not have a dramatic impact on the economy to such an extent that it will cause a major global depression.

My Opinion of the US Energy Portfolio:

  • 40% Wind (30% onshore, 10% offshore) w/ possible transition to thermoplastic turbine design to increase aerodynamics and decrease petrochemical content.
  • 25% Nuclear (Primarily consisting of transition to MSR and AHTR designs)* w/ possible closed-loop fuel system integration including reprocessing, fast-breeding and burning for maximum efficiency of resources.
  • 25% Solar (20% PV, 5% CSP) w/ preferably transition to multi-junction and halide in-organic perovskite for reduction in production costs, waste production and increased efficiency
  • 8% Hydroelectric
  • 1% Geothermal (Closed-Loop Systems only)
  • 1% Other including Tidal, Biomass CCS, Biofuel feedstock recycle

The reasoning for this type of energy portfolio is based on several scientific papers, articles and videos, some of which are actually sources you first alluded to. The main difference between most 100% Renewable Plans and mine is that upon looking at their data I have found that in many cases over 25% of energy storage is from Syngas storage. Syngas is essentially stored natural gas and this energy is then transferred into the grid by combusting the product through carbon-capture-sequestration. However, given that the objective is to reduce CO2 emissions as much as possible I find it odd that many reports believe in this method of energy storage. Instead I argue that the 25% storage should be replaced by nuclear generation. I recognize this is a very tall order given the current situation the nuclear industry is in. However given the fact that the USA has already proven the success of MSR technology more than 50 years ago, that multiple US companies have created designs and working mathematical models of this technology, that there is over $1.5 billion of investment in this technology over the last 15 years, that multiple foreign countries have been able to draw the same conclusions on these models and begin projects and the fact that these types of reactors offer superior safety and cost leads me to predict that it would be feasible to produce this technology over the next 40 years as part of the transition in conjunction with a carbon tax dividend system (a carbon tax will be needed anyways to reduce natural gas and support solar and wind development).

Here are the types of sources that I look at to help me evaluate my position. You will notice a critical difference between these articles and the Climate Mobilization Victory Plan in that they actually offer data, statistical analysis, calculations and action plans. These articles are also not necessarily written by organizations that are any bigger than climate mobilization, but rather they are written in a technical format to provide information.

This is most likely the Lappeenranta study you were referring to. I’m honestly quite confused why you referenced this piece and then only included scientific sources from Climate Mobilization, when the LUT EWG study is not reference in the Victory Plan and in fact the beliefs are somewhat different between the two.

This is a very good video by Joe Romm that goes into more detail than most of his papers on climateprogress I would say. He discusses both his opinion of the transition and some economics of how we can get to this point. I disagree with some of his modeling in projections and renewable variability, as well as once again we see another renewable plan maintaining natural gas plants for electrical production and storage.

This is the short version of the Jacobson Model, which I agree to a certain extent with in terms of wind capability and integration, but am skeptical of solar rates surpassing wind, types of storage capacity figures and modeling variability. I am not alone in this as there is a very heavy base that has criticized his model as producing unrealistic figures for capacity under perfect conditions. http://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722

This is a feasibility study of the economics to 24 different renewable transition plans and looks at their credibility in supplying enough energy to their respective areas.

This is a comparison piece between 100% renewable transition plans and ones that would include percentages of nuclear energy.

This is an economic analysis of maintain nuclear instead of removing it to turn to 100% renewable transitions.

I would like to apologize in part if you felt that my responses were suggesting that the Victory Plan was responsible for forecasting the future economy as it reacted with the plan for a 100% renewable plan. That was not my intention. My intention was to show my concern over the inadequacy of data or technical evaluation of their claims. I was annoyed at the lack of statistical evaluation of their claims and it seemed to be much more of a manifesto than a scientific article of how their organization would pursue the energy challenge. It would be very difficult to forecast the future economy as a result of the plan (even though the Victory Plan does frequently allude to the New Deal as how their plan would benefit society). This is due to such variability in data of how we measure the economics of sources of energy. In my opinion we need to re-evaluate how we determine all types of energy, because LCOE, EPP, EROI, and LCA each have their own problems in manipulating costs, and thus do not illustrate total costs.

Lastly please note that this opinion is in regards just for electrical production and not net energy overall, which what the Victory Plan handles. There are other methods of systems that would need to be discussed if we look at full energy integration. Just some of these methods include:

  • Electric Vehicle Integration and Economical phase out of ICVs + construction of charging infrastructure
  • Alterations to the grid
  • Production of biofuel feedstock to replace some petrochemical development and an analysis if market scale is feasible
  • Thermonuclear substitutes for high heating petrochemical feedstock
  • Carbon tax and consumer dividend with peer-reviewed economic analysis of projected effects and analysis of all projected products that would fall under such a tariff
  • Mass Transit Operations with the integration of Maglev systems, Vacctrains, and electric bus options
  • Agriculture Re-evaluation
  • Construction Re-evaluation (in sub section- Carbon reduced housing imo under LEED standards)
  • Industrial Manufacturing Re-evaluation
  • Waste Analysis of all sources
  • Others…


"It’s fair to assume whole metropolitan areas should be converting regional utility grids to accommodate household EVs and PV arrays"
This is not a fair assumption, when many metropolitan areas draw their electricity from sources that are not necessarily located in the metropolitan area. If you create a smaller create, then you would place a larger burden on these localized sources to provide the majority of electricity for the whole area- not just residential. Integrating a localized grid into the current structure would also seem extremely complicated and unlikely to occur as this would create discrepancies between rates, utility providers, energy allocation and consumption.


What do you mean by “If you create a smaller create” (create smaller neighborhood PV grids). Charging every household EV is possible via regional utility grids - a fair assumption though large battery packs may create too much demand and require adding new sources of power. Every household with a PV rooftop array could supply excess power to a regional utility grid, and could operate off the grid and should in grid failure - another fair assumption about technology. If that’s all you got from my treatise, it’s disappointing, but whatever.


Just because you have high employment does not mean that your business has a higher economic value than other companies or industries. If that were true, then Walmart should be the most successful company in the USA, but that is not even remotely true.

Furthermore neither side should be comparing employment when we talk about economic value of energy, because the value of production is worth a lot more. It is a good that coal production is declining and there are reasons for why this is the case, but at the end of the day the value of 30% electricity that coal produces is worth A LOT more than 2.2 million jobs.

“Our economy would actually be helped immensely by this program, just like the economy was helped tremendously by the US WWII mobilization.” This is an unsubstained claim and a ridiculous comparison. The USA is currently not in a depression, nor has the world market collapsed, therefore you cannot just enable the same economic procedures as taken during the New Deal and implement them into society today.

“Also, despite the ban on private car-making and other strategic moves,” You keep bringing this up as if it has any comparable value to society today. Do you know why they stopped making private cars? Because of this thing called we needed steel for WWII. Last time I checked, we are not in the middle of a global war, and before you say that we can replicate this by using the steel for energy infrastructure: A. We don’t manufacture cars out of steel anymore and B. This mobilization plan will require more transportation of goods by private companies to develop your infrastructure. The energy industry isn’t the same as the US Military. This mobilization will require private companies to increase capacity, and the US government cannot and should not absorb the private sector in efforts to complete this task.

It is simply amazing to me that you are convinced that this plan will not only work, but that it will benefit the economy, when the Climate Mobilization Victory Plan provides ZERO economic data or evidence of projected modeling on economic effects or economic strategies. Talk about blind faith…


Your last post made me wonder if you actually had some redeeming qualities, and I had an answer to post, but you seem utterly determined to spout way more nonsense than sense, including the unique nonsense of denying the connections between the 1940s mobilization and our situation today, and to be as dense as possible, only understanding what you want to believe.

As Ed Koch said, I can explain it to you, I can’t understand if for you.

Again, as in your other posts, almost every point you make is wrong—deceptive whataboutery with no apparent purpose except to muddy the conversation and deny reality, whether you’re denying to yourself or vainly trying to keep us from inhabiting it. There’s no point in continuing this silliness since you’re now coming up with stuff even more stoopid than before and then repeating the old stuff for the third time when it’s already been shown to be nonsense.

It would be interesting to meet you; I’m really curious about a smart person so utterly determined to be a moron. You go right on denying it can be done and claiming there’s not enough data on future events to do it. We’ll just keep making it happen.