Home | About | Donate

With Alarming New Assessment, 17 Scientists Offer 'Cold Shower' to Wake Up Humanity to Hot World

Short and sweet. I like it. Perfect for the Twitter age of Attention Defici…

I am trying to figure out a few things using jobs data juxtaposed with energy use data to see if I can make a reasonable argument. We’ll see. My current thought with what little data I have found, uses assumptions for the sake of the thought process. I hope to get more defined data to work with and clarify my theory.
Here’s how it is going though.


Using sector data (perhaps?) I hope to figure out how many jobs are for the sake of money itself, you know accountants, bankers, and such. The office staff, real estate agents, grounds keepers, toilet washers, etc associated by “the sake of money” alone. All the worthless products made and shipped around for the sake of a buck. Compare that info against energy use and figure something out. (shrug)

For example:

Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index

The Bitcoin Energy Consumption Index provides the latest estimate of the total energy consumption of the Bitcoin network.

Study reveals Bitcoin’s electricity consumption is underestimated and finds the network “represents close to half of the current global data centre electricity use” (August 2020).
We conservatively estimate the Bitcoin network to consume 87.1 TWh of electrical energy annually per September 30, 2019 (equaling a country like Belgium).

(This is just the computers “mining”. What about the buildings, staff and restaurants or janitors? etc…

To start I assume half, as a modest theory, of everything humans do is for the sake of money itself and therefore half of the energy we use is wasted for the sake of money. As part of my mission to rid the planet of money I hope to make arguments in all possible ways.

Perhaps a more focused forum for debate ?
I will continue to fine tune my rhetoric and share my vision.
Time is running out.

I did read your response, but i’ll be truthful, i found it difficult to follow. Perhaps it is because i am not an academic nor a member of the progressive left, so much of it goes beyond me.

At one point you asked who was winning. Well, it isn’t marxist socialists. It is the ideologies of nationalism, religion and racism, often cross-overing and combining in the case of America’s political scene. I readily admit these archaic beliefs entrenched in the psyche of my fellow-workers were underestimated.

But being a labor activist and proponent of socialism for much of my life, am i saying nothing can be changed as you assert. Sorry, to disagree. Ursula le Guin said it better than me. ‘We live in capitalism, its power seems inescapable – but then, so did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings’.

As a socialist i trust the people and their potential of understanding, determination and struggle. I’m confident that the future for humanity will be better than the present. Socialist optimism is to know that someday the future will be ours.

You can say such ideas are naive or misplaced but as long as capitalism continues to prove to be incapable to resolve the major problems of humanity then the sociualist idea will live on.

Socialism rests on one fundamental principle, the collective ownership and democratic administration of the social tools of production and distribution of wealth. State ownership for instance, is therefore not considered as collectively owned nor democratically administered. Socialists recognise that others are striving for the same goal, their methods, powers, opportunities may and do differ They sometimes wax eloquent in denouncing the evils of the capitalist system. But what do they propose? They propose to “improve” the capitalist State so as to make it an instrument for doing away with private ownership of wealth. In other words, they preach the nonsense of converting the exploiters, by the power of prayer. Since this “theory” appears in the garb of socialism and since there are a number of workers who lend it their ear, it is necessary to debunk.

I hope the above gives you some insight into my way of political thinking.


You make some good points.
I have said some of the same, which earns very little love here.
You could’ve just said you gave up and full steam ahead.
I have seeds to plant …

I need to step back here.

“Using less” is almost always a good tool. “Having wealthy people use less energy” seems doable, with the understanding that wealthy people have vastly inordinate influence in our government and they’ve already driven the marginal tax rate back down from 94% in the 1950s to essentially zero not counting various government subsidies to wealthy people such as replacing beachfront houses after a hurricane.

Right now our government is playing games with a number of unfortunate climate change tools. Nuclear energy uses such a vast amount of fossil fuels over its entire life cycle that it shouldn’t be promoted as a climate change tool, but Joe Biden has big gifties for it. Corn ethanol is an industry subsidy but not an effective climate tool. Dumping millions of tons of sulfur into our atmosphere will not prevent acid oceans, but it will cause acid rivers. That last proposed tool, sulfur in the atmosphere, is seized upon by the fossil fuel industry as a reason to discredit the entire climate change movement, but most people in the movement don’t want to touch it with that ten foot pole. A few well-funded scientists have looked at it.

Can you provide more info please ?
I can’t seem to search Iranian patent info from United States.

1 Like

Even old-tech nuclear has lifecycle GHG emissions in roughly the same range as wind and solar power. And several kinds of nuclear in development look like they have good potential to improve on that by a factor of ten or more.

Your claims are evidence-free. If you just repeat them over and over forcefully and with deep emotion, with copious tears even, maybe somebody will believe you.

Don’t worry, peeps. The existential threat, Trump is gone and soon we’re going to be back to normal… I’m sure Joe Biden is gonna take care of it all and finally(!) I can go back to hanging with friends at brunches, wine tastings and the good life.

At least, that’s what it seems like the vast majority of my “liberal” friends are thinking; judging from their FB posts, etc.

1 Like

I may have missed it (not interested in wading through 80+ comments mostly variations on a theme), but it appears that no one has mentioned that the recalcitrance of the US government (and its people) since Hansen first raised the alarm in 1988 has been the greatest stumbling block to decisive action on global warming. TWO Republican presidents have gone so far as to WITHDRAW the US from a current agreement, undoing years of wrenching work.

Is Earth hot enough to consider all solutions yet?
I’m not allowed to post links & Common Dreams doesn’t seem interested in my ideas for avoiding systemic collapse, so if you’re open to the ONLY way to heal this planet, then Google

Cannabis vs. Climate Change
on Amazon & Vimeo

#ClimateSolutionDeniers are more dangerous than #climatechange itself.

Time is the limiting factor in the equation of survival.

Hi Alan. I appreciate the insight and wisdom in all your comments. Thank you.

In my work, I engage with engineers and grassroots community members . Many of the projects involve sustainable energy. Despite all the self congratulations of white elite folk , for their “support “ of diversity, I’m finding professional and corporate engineers, and non- engineers in positions of corporate and political power, are increasingly abandoning support for community based solar/wind etc , public transport, and publicly shared infrastructure. There was never too much support to begin with, but now, as fear about climate change takes hold, I’m seeing an embrace of the technofix mindset and big pushes for profit driven , corporate “green” tech such as Gen IV nuclear, industrial scale solar and wind, carbon capture, and Electric vehicles.

I was wondering if you have insight into the fundamental flaws of addressing climate change, primarily through technofixes rather than through democratic decision making embodied in eco socialism.

1 Like

Good luck and goddess bless…we are indeed at the beginning of a period that might see us destroy ourselves with our alternative realities and rage filled hearts…but whatever happens, nature is a participant too…covid is hers…as are we, had we the wit to see it.

Our individual lives may not be that important in this current moment we are living through…so much as what we live for is important. Given our fantasy prone ways of thinking, and our determined addictions…covid is going to have a long romp among us. I grieve for all the grandparents, the parents and the children who won’t make it through.

But the insistence with which so many choose to travel, ignore restrictions, poo poo the virus, suggests that it has fallen on fertile ground. And no one knows what other cards the great Mother has up her sleeve. We may not care about the survival of other species…or cultures.

I rather suspect she does.


The most you can say is that I did not post references for my claim here at the time I made it. But likewise, neither did you. Presumably, you would not have brought up the issue of evidence if you didn’t think the best evidence backed you up. I feel the same way. So which claim has the better evidence supporting it? I’ll go first.

This is what NREL concluded after reviewing and harmonizing over a hundred life cycle assessments of old-tech (PWR and BWR) nuclear electricity generation technologies:

“The collective LCA literature indicates that life cycle GHG emissions from nuclear power are only a fraction of traditional fossil sources … and comparable to renewable technologies”

( ~https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1530-9290.2012.00472.x )

Here’s a graphical representation of NREL’s findings relative to other sources:

And here’s a chart summarizing the findings of the IPCC literature review–also for old-tech nuclear:

Your turn.

“If you just repeat them over and over forcefully and with deep emotion, with copious tears even, maybe somebody will believe you.”

If it turns out the evidence for your claim is not as good as mine, that’s going to boomerang on you.

It’s not really surprising that engineers are going to think in terms of, and prefer to work on, engineering-based solutions. That is their area of expertise and that is where they can make their most valuable contribution. Likewise, social activists will tend to gravitate towards social solutions. Politicians will favor political solutions. People of faith and spiritualists will have their own preferred solutions. In the marketplace of ideas, having a diversity of perspectives and approaches represented is not a defect or a failure. It is how the market works at its best.


I’ve never heard it put that way - a very positive vibe ~

Hope you continue to post here.

Ciao from Calgary

1 Like

Even today i read the argument for techno-fix to the problem of the climate crises.


I have no issue that some technology and life-style changes will contribute to reversing the carbon emissions of greenhouse gases, even the introduction of nuclear power under certain circumstances. I’m not a technophobe, but neither technophile. Horses for courses, whatever is fitting and what is decided democratically.

But in the real world it is the economic structure that society is run upon which will determine the success or failure of action to halt global warming and all the related consequences of climate change.

That means system change, not government or politician change as most environmentalists seems to endorse and scientists give tacit approval of when they report to all the COPs. They all require soluions that remain inside the box. The paradigm of capitalism persists and other than some reforms isn’t challenged.

The bottom-line is always profit and we do witness a shift in investors approach as renewable do replace loss-making fossil-fuels.

But that doesn’t address the basic fundamental foundation of capitalism - growth and expansion. That is existential to the capitalism system. Grow or Die and there is no way capitalists will commit suicide…we see how they will gamble with future civilisation through supporting mutually assured destruction nuclear war or risking uncontrollable pandemics. It is a cliche but the mind-set is self-interested sociopathic and not socially rational.

I do recommend this pamphlet even though the debate changes as rapidly as the climate.



We have entered the endgame of monopoly capitalism and it is going to take many species with it.
Government is hopeless when the incentive for those to enter politics is monetary enrichment and indebtedness to the destroyers of society and the planet are what gets them elected.

1 Like

Thanks Alan. I appreciate your thoughts and your responses my questions and to other comments on this thread.

On another topic - I was wondering about your thoughts on the response to the January 6 riots. Clearly the violence and racism of the pro-Trump mob is reprehensible. However, I am concerned that many, including many on the left, are denouncing the actions because they “threaten our democracy”. I don’t agree with their racism or the notion that the vote count was inaccurate, but I do agree that the US is profoundly anti-democratic and that there is a need for revolutionary change in governance.

There also seems to be a tone of “victors” justice in calls to “hunt down” , “jail” or “kick all participants out of the country”, and craft “Domestic Terrorism” legislation. I’ve seen “Domestic Terrorism” laws in the past, it was called COINTELPRO. I see the COINTELPRO 2.0, eventually being used to target and repress Black, Brown, Indigenous, and White activists who challenge the power structure. I’ve started to reach out to some Trump supporters - only a few and, as far as I know, none who participated in January 6. With a few, they can’t get past their racism to engage, but I’ve found some others more open to listen and engage than some more progressive folk who dismiss those who don’t completely agree with their framing.

1 Like

Ground zero in its own way as well is it not? Cowed town Calgary? Lot’s of Trump like denialists in Alberta as well…loving fossil fuels does that to a person over time.



I have been witness to like destruction around Atlanta, GA, some years ago. I, too, wept just like “Jesus wept”.