Home | About | Donate

Greta Thunberg Needs No Defense: Why We Must Keep Climate Striking

Originally published at http://www.commondreams.org/views/2020/01/25/greta-thunberg-needs-no-defense-why-we-must-keep-climate-striking

The thing is we have known the facts for 30 years or more and still little is being done.
The problem is the people in power do not believe or deny the facts.

The world is being held hostage by rich powerful individuals and corporations aligned with lobbied politicians . These are mostly men from the older generation.

They have their Beliefs as it has been said , no one does anything wrong given their model of the world.

Its a New Model that we must put in place …To change the existing reality you have to create a New Model and make the old one obsolete.

2 Likes

Engineers are the people, the group, the organizations to ask for the ready solutions and what they cost. Scientists just provide information. It is our engineers that take that information and turn it into systems and mechanisms of systems to provide civilization’s energy without destroying our atmosphere.

4 Likes

It’s time to quit with the dismissive how much will these new engineering difficulties cost, listen to the children of the world, the Greta Thunberg’s, and do something that addresses the disintegrating ecological systems of Earth. Industrial capitalist, civilization is to blame, they, the leaders beholden to money, will never provide any solutions that require outlay of extensive capital. They are the problem, never the solution. Davos, Switzerland should have proved that when Greta was dissed by the oligarchs calling her a child. She said more in her short appearance there that the oligarchs have done in their entire lifetime.

2 Likes

Denial is used by those in power to continue the illusion .
Acceptance is for those that have chosen responsibility.

So who are the real children ?

Well, I’m an engineer (and I’m okay, I work all night and I sleep all day!)… where was I? The science/engineering dichotomy is not so hard and fast, methinks. Scientists have always been notorious tinkerers, and engineers better damn well know their science, because carelessness can be lethal. All of them stand in the modern posture of science and engineering, out on the streetcorner at night, purveying their delights. “Hey big spender, spend a little dime with me!” There’s teaching and theoretical work, but the agencies and academies hosting it are increasingly under siege today, as fascism tightens its grip.

I could never wrinkle my nose at the discipline. I love the engineering ethic (so contrary to sales-jive bullshit) that the correct answer is often “I don’t know.” Just please don’t waste our time claiming to know something you don’t, because we’re a troupe – as in a theater troupe, you can get a terrible reputation if you’re careless with other people’s time. Hopefully some of that has stuck with me. But beyond commercialization, a deeper stumbling block for both scientists and engineers is reductionism.

The complexity of things (the climate system most emblematically) is such that it will always be necessary to break things apart – but the downside of pragmatic bit-by-bit analysis can be losing sight of the continuity from which you chipped a bit. There’s historical and cultural background behind the structure of analytical categories – which sometimes get taken too seriously, as natural categories. Consequently it’s not unusual to see very smart scientists and engineers failing to adequately take into account the whole picture.

A textbook I’m studying on atmosphere and ocean circulation (amazing properties of rotating fluids!) takes care to ground students from the beginning in thinking holistically about climate, where everything affects everything else.

Read Mark Mills article…" 41 Inconvenient Truths about the New Energy Economy"…

Okay…so here is an engineer for you. Mark Mills …read my other comment fhere for article

“one billion animals lost”

I’m sure we’ll find them again as soon as the smoke clears. Or maybe they mean “killed” and not “lost”. It’s hard to speak clearly when our language is designed to prevent it, and instead aids in our denial."

1 Like

Thus wrote Mahatma Gandhi: “The earth, the air, the land and the water are not an inheritance from our fore fathers but on loan from our children".

1 Like

No, they are Lost, Extinct… That’s beyond ‘killed’!

They aren’t misplaced, nor have they wandered off in a daze, to be found and returned home later. As far as I know, no species have been driven into extinction by the fires. So no, killed. One billion counts of felony murder, if you prefer, by the perps who have paralyzed action on climate catastrophe for decades by lying to the public, buying politicians, conspiring with them…

Does Australia have the equivalent of a RICO law? (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, for crimes committed as part of an organized criminal group.)

1 Like

IGNORANCE, MENTAL ILLNESS, OR MALEVOLENCE—no way for me to tell for sure, but yeah, it’s all 3.

“an energy future that is entirely based on wind/solar and batteries”

Straw person. Lie.

“that have fueled societies for centuries”

appeal to tradition and nostalgia

“Regardless of one’s opinion about whether, or why, an energy “transformation” is called for”

Huh? Hints at denying delayalism. I suspect we’ll run into more explicit denial soon. The reasons are perfectly obvious and scientifically as certain as anything can be.

“make it clear that there is no possibility of anything resembling a radically “new energy economy” in the foreseeable future”

Lie. Patently ridiculous lie.

“Bill Gates has said that when it comes to understanding energy realities “we need to bring math to the problem.”

Bill Gates, despite his talent for making obscene and calamitous amounts of money deviously, is kind of an idiot whose pet solutions are mostly crap and nonsense, and utterly innumerate, illogical, sad, sick and twisted.

“blah blah Manhattan Institute blah blah…”
Well, now it’s clear we’re in for constant idiotic, dishonest and manipulative far right lies and ideological horseshit. MI is one of the many such right wing economic PR firms masquerading as a think tank. Founded by Reagan’s CIA director. A generator of climate denying delayalism.

ttps://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Manhattan_Institute_for_Policy_Research

ttps://www.desmogblog.com/manhattan-institute-policy-research

Says he’s bringing math to the problem of renewable energy. Well, heck I can hardly wait, since obviously no one else has done that. And such beautiful, perfect math it will be! Wow.

“Hydrocarbons supply… ”

Yep, we use a lot of energy. Until it isn’t, most of will be CONG. We’ll call this Stipulation #1, since I suspect we’ll be seeing it again.

“The small two-percentage-point decline in…hydrocarbon …use entailed over $2 trillion…”

Yep, it will cost a lot to replace it all. I doubt his numbers, with the strongest possible feelings that someone here is bullshitting. And indeed, we can see the cherry picking: just because $2 trillion has supposedly been spent on something (no citation) and FF use has declined by only 2% doesn’t mean it costs a trillion to reduce FFs by 1%. What did that money actually go for, and how much energy did it actually produce? Correlation does not equal causation. Energy use has been going up because of increasing consumption as people get richer. Some continue to be stupid and insane enough to continue building more FFs instead of efficiency and clean safe renewable energy, but most new energy now is RE, and it doesn’t just replace FFs, it adds to the global energy supply, especially in developing countries. So Mills’ factoid tells us nothing, although it’s obviously meant to make us believe RE is both expensive, and somehow ineffective at replacing fossil fuels.

Efficiency, solar, and wind are now the cheapest forms of energy on the planet—yes, cheaper than coal, oil, tar sands (bitumen), even gas. A lot cheaper than nukes and still falling rapidly while CONG, despite FF price fluctuations, and especially nukes, are still rising. All of this has been confirmed many times over many years. LCOE, /MWh, by Lazard, EIA, IEA, Bloomberg, Wood MacKenzie, et al.

“When the world’s four billion poor people increase energy use to just one-third of Europe’s per capita level…”

Ah, there it is, Stipulation #1 again. Yep, we use a lot of energy.

“A 100x growth in the number of electric vehicles to 400 million on the roads by 2040 …”

Stipulation #1, variation A. Ayup, we uses a lot of energy.

“Renewable energy would have to expand 90-fold to replace global hydrocarbons in two decades. It took a half-century for global petroleum production to expand “only” ten-fold.”

EVs, solar, wind, batteries are now expanding at exponential rates. Help from serious, democratically elected progressive, fact- and science-based governments would make it even faster.
Norway, with a 98% Renewably-powered electrical grid, and the strongest pro-EV policies in the world, is at 50% market share for EVs; several other countries are at 10-25%. It takes about 7 doublings to go from barely perceptible to 2% market share, which is about where the US is with EVs. It takes less than 7 more to reach 100%. The transition could happen incredibly quickly, and will, if we support it. Mills is against that, for economic, ideological and no doubt psychological reasons.
It took something on the order of 100,000 years for modern humans to go from gathering and hunting to agriculture; almost 10,000 to feel deprived and inadequate enough to start using fossil fuels after that. What does that have to do with this energy revolution? Exactly the same thing that Mill’s statement about the past has to do with it. Absolutely nothing.

To renewablize energy, we need to renewablize the electrical grid as we electrify primary energy—transport, heat, industry. Because electricity is so much more efficient than burning fossil fuels for energy, just by electrifying that we’ll save ⅓ - ½ of the energy we use for primary energy. But the US wastes at least 85% of the energy it uses, and that’s not even counting trivial or destructive uses, especially inexcusable in this time of crisis and transition.

And so on. It’s about 10 times this much, and it doesn’t get any more truthful as it goes on. Lie after lie after lie after deception after cherry pick after straw person after misdirection. This is not a report; it’s the written version of a serial killer’s strung out confession. Count on engineers just because they’re engineers? Get real. I don’t think there’s any group more represented among the denying delayalists, ARFs, and other trolls.

All that… to show you do not understand that … a massive industrial, commercial, consumer society, cannot be kept going by renewables… IN ANY SUSTAINABLE WAY… why do you want to keep ripping up the planet for renewables, just to keep Disney open and Super Bowls continuing, with 1500 private jets flying to just that one game?.. etc… What don’t you get?..

Well, it’s all just to show that theinitiate can be as much of an ass as WrongPaul and the other trolls. Leaping to conclusions, pretending s/he knows anything at all about me or what I want when clearly s/he has no clue.

Of course industrial society can be powered by 100% renewables. It’s nutso-inventor type logic that makes people (men) say otherwise, like the many way-beyond-eccentric denying delayalists so narcissistically delusional each was convinced he alone in the whole world had discovered how the laws of thermodynamics made climate change impossible.

Dozens of studies, most of them peer-reviewed, show the world can be powered by clean safe renewable energy (whose average EROEI, btw, is now at least equal and will soon be considerably higher than oil’s). Hundreds of scientists, reputable journals, scientific organizations, institutes of technology… so many people who know so much about the subject disagree with theinitiate. Why do we think that is?

I was not referring to the fires with the animals! Maybe I assumed you were talking of creatures/species in general

But you were referring to my comment in which I referred to a quote from the article that did refer to animals killed in the fires.

“With an estimated one billion animals lost in the Australian fires, placing some species close to extinction…”

And as far as I could tell, they were only talking about species being “LOCALLY” extinct. Which means not extinct at all. There have no doubt been many species wiped out with climate catastrophe as a major if not the main contributing factor. But I know of only 2. And there certainly have not been a billion, which I’m absolutely certain of because there are not a billion species on Earth. Estimates vary widely but the most credible suggest that there are now about 10 million, of which we’ve described less than 2 million. Most are threatened by climate cataclysm.
ttps://phys.org/news/2017-08-biodiversity-earth.html

I’m as alarmed about the situation as almost anyone and say so frequently, backed up with evidence, in person and on the net. I pay attention to the evidence and don’t over-claim. An estimated 1 billion animals of whatever types they were including (presumably not insects, despite their ecological importance) were killed in the fires up to that point (fire season is not over as far as I know) and none that I know of have been reported as extinct because of those fires. Sorry for the confusion. I hope everyone’s honor is restored; I’ll leave this now. Thanks for your concern.

1 Like