Tackling the Carbon Behemoth


CO2 2013

Figure 1: CO2 content of the atmosphere increases relentlessly with time while endless hand-wringing takes place in the background; NOAA and Scripps Institution of Oceanography (click on for big). The unrelenting emphasis on carbon gas emissions by the science establishment is ironically undermining efforts to reduce these same emissions. Non-carbon forms of atmospheric pollution can be corralled at modest cost with very little controversy; doing so would indirectly effect reductions of carbon gases.

With prosperity, Americans have become poor problem solvers. Our initial tendency is to pretend problems don’t exist. Our greatest problem our unwillingness to discuss our problems … these balloon quietly in the background to become monstrous, frightening … then overwhelming Golems. The larger the Golems become, the deeper we attempt to bury ourselves in order to hide from them. This in turn allows the Golems to become larger still. Eventually our monsters become unmanageable … as climate has become for us now.

In our age of corporate media individuals are inundated with contradictory, mostly useless pseudo-information, marketing and/or outright propaganda. Anything worthwhile is buried under an avalanche of nonsense. Any content must be extracted from context within which information is presented rather from the information itself. That climate change is denied as a hoax on the floor of the Capital by sitting members of Congress is evidence of the immediate and pressing reality of climate change … much more so than the testimony of a regiment of climate scientists.

We have been trained to expect our perpetually self-regulating economies to provide solutions by way of the invisible hand without realizing that the economies and hands have gotten us into our mess in the first place. We convince ourselves that we will address our environmental problems when we become rich enough. With this rationalization fixed in place we cannot lose: good intentions are what matters not outcomes. If we fail to become rich the onrushing consequences are not our fault but rather ‘bad luck’. Should we possibly become rich enough we will hire Mexicans to solve the climate problems for us the same as we hire Mexicans to do everything else. The Mexicans will suffer in our places because that is what they do, they have a cultural role to play, to be placated with the promise of some minuscule bit of growth for their grandchildren … some time in a far distant tomorrow.

Hey, grandchildren, the joke is on you: what modern economies do is bring forward future resources. We assume our descendents will be clever enough to make do without the resources that we are busy squandering in their place; that they can turn common rocks into cheese. Along with the resources — which are future surpluses — our economy brings forward the associated costs. We are surprised when these costs appear because we continually expect others to bear them … up until recently, others always have.

At some point in our very near future there will be the reduction of climate gases, this is an absolute certainty. Mitigation will occur either as the outcome of rational policy and good management on our part or as the result of national bankruptcies and massive increases in poverty. Poor people strip hillsides of vegetation so that they might be able to cook, they do not own autos or import merchandise from China. What is underway in many vulnerable parts of the world such as Greece is ‘conservation by other means’ as the Greeks are reduced to penury and are unable to afford resources.

Climate change has become a behemoth assembled out of carbon. The scientists insist that we must cease emitting carbon gases, period. At the same time, our so-called civilization is built upon burning things which results in carbon emissions. Burning keeps us warm and powers our toys, we can do without most of the toys but not warmth, we have not developed alternative forms of activity to replace the burning. Other than making empty promises little is done. Carbon mitigation strategies are proposed but the costs of efforts are greater than what the economy is presumed to afford.

This is a rationalization, we can always borrow to reduce climate gases just as we borrow to create them. The need to turn the organic profit always emerges when demands are made of business to take actions that businessmen find unfashionable or cannot profit from directly.

As carbon gas emissions increase, the need to reduce them increases faster. Alternative approaches are pushed to the side or are given lip service, it is carbon or nothing, the greater the amounts of carbon the more intense is the focus on diminishing it and the greater the resistance to the effort by businessmen.

A better strategy would be to abandon the frontal assault on carbon and target non-carbon forms of pollution and by doing so mitigate carbon emissions indirectly. The strategy is to break the main problem into smaller components and deal with them in detail. For instance there are multiple polluting gases besides carbon dioxide; there are nitrous oxides, hydrofluorocarbons, methane- and related, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride: some of these emissions are controlled, others such as carbon gas emissions have been reduced to some degree in the US and Europe due to the poor economy.

  • The means to manage pollution are familiar and have been deployed successfully for decades, such as the regulatory requirement to produce and market diesel fuel without sulfur. This requirement is uncontroversial, there are no arguments against it. The means to produce sulfur-free fuel exist now and have been proven cost effective. Management is relatively simple because diesel fuel is the product of a relative handful of large, centralized industrial facilities which can be monitored. If the facilities don’t produce the correct diesel they are easily shut down. After the introduction of sulfur-free fuel there are visible benefits both in the form of lower fuel user costs and cleaner air, the diesel fuel producers’ margins aren’t effected.
  •  

  • Administrative and technical tools to limit emissions can be perfected against more commonplace forms of pollution. Over time these tools can be improved enough to be effective against carbon emitters.
  •  

  • As components of the climate problem are chipped away, the problem shrinks, it ceases to be overwhelming. The final reduction of the carbon problem becomes a relatively modest exercise.

There is low-hanging fruit to harvest by reducing smog in developing countries where it is considered to be a naturally occurring by-product of development. As Americans and Europeans discovered in the 1950s, the costs of smog can be unbearable. Clean air and non-polluted water are not luxuries but a basic requirement for a functioning country.

Once there are visible pollution ‘victories’ — whatever they might be — it becomes easier to produce follow-on victories. Right now there is nothing to the climate dilemma but one administrative failure after another.

 
Detroit 3

West Robinwood Street in Detroit: Default climate gas management in action. Pollution is not emitted from these houses until they are burned to the ground … then no more.

  • The best way to look at the peak oil dilemma is to ignore physical production — which has little to do with anything — and to consider the City of Detroit as the model customer for the world’s expensive, new crude oil. The shattered city filled with desperately impoverished people is somehow supposed to afford more costly fuel when it can barely afford what it has now.
  •  

  • Scientists are overexposed in the media and elsewhere, they should step off the public stage. Questions about climate should be answered with a terse, “no comment”. Climate change should become a hip and trendy insider secret, accessible by only a privileged few. This is strictly a cynical marketing strategy: to allow the Neanderthal businessmen to discredit themselves by way of their own stupidity, for events and word-of-mouth do the heavy lifting. Ominous silence from the science community would be terrifying … perhaps enough to stir action.
  •  

  • All climate scientists should get rid of their cars and other polluting luxuries: drive them to junkyard and crush them. The scientists are either serious or they are not. If not why should anyone else be? Is Al Gore paying attention?
  •  

  • Focus on ‘other’ ordinary pollution culprits: ozone, nitrous oxides, volatile hydrocarbon photochemical smog, soot, methane and chlorofluorocarbon gases used in refrigeration, perfluorocarbons and sulfur hexafluoride.
  •  

  • Ordinary smog is reduced by the use of catalytic converters and fuel management systems. The components of smog are unburned fuel and nitrous oxides.
  •  

  • The catalyst combusts the unburned fuel in the stream of engine exhaust gas. Unburned fuel, nitrous oxides in the presence of sunlight produces ozone which is poisonous to vegetation. This in turn accelerates the release of greenhouse gases from agriculture lands and forests. Attacking ozone is a tactic to attack carbon emissions indirectly.
  •  

  • There is a long history or successful management of photochemical smog sourced from vehicles, this effort should be expanded laterally … to countries without effective smog controls … and vertically … to include all kinds of engines. This includes fixed sources of ozone producing pollution such as generators and industrial prime movers; ship power plants and aircraft engines.
  •  

  • Catalytic converters should be retrofitted to older engines. Those that cannot be retrofitted should be removed from service and scrapped. A country-by-country approach or by way of the WTO, the setting of requirements for manufacturers; all of these approaches would be effective and non-controversial. Half of the world operates engines equipped with with these converters and does so at low cost, the use of them in the other half represents a manageable expense. The public benefit is cleaner air, fewer pollution-related health problems and less damage to agriculture. The private benefit is the sales of catalysts and replacement engines.
  •  

  • Tackling smog particularly in developing countries would demonstrate that managing carbon emissions is possible.
  •  

  • Soot- and soot-like particles are important components of climate change and is sourced from coal- and oil fired boilers, auto tire wear, diesel exhaust and from poorly performing gasoline engines, also from wood-burning and forest fires. Soot can be managed by using cleaner fuels, reducing open fires and using particulate traps on prime movers.
  •  

  • Eliminate chlorofluorocarbon refrigerants that are produced and sold as ‘bootleg’ products in the developing countries. CFC’s are potent greenhouse gases: production and sale of bootleg refrigerants is a marginal activity whose loss would not effect national economies at all. Unlike narcotics and other contraband, CFCs are produced only in a few large factories which can be shut down or modified to produce non-destructive products. What is needed is the administrative impulse to do so.
  •  

  • Institute a universal ban on 2-cycle engines which burn lubricating oil along with gasoline or diesel fuel. Unburned oil in the exhaust flow prevents to use of catalytic converters; the poorly combusted lubricating oil is also a source of soot. There are four-cycle alternatives that do not burn lubricating oil, that allow the use of catalytic converters. A short phase-in period would retire or replace all 2-cycle engines including outdoor equipment, chain saws, scooters and mopeds.
  •  

  • Ban carburetors on gasoline engines. Carburetors are obsolete and generally only found in the US on smaller engines used off-highway such as portable generators and lawn mowers. Carburetors do not allow fuel to mix completely with the air and are a source of photochemical smog. Carburetors are replaceable with electronic fuel management systems such as fuel injection.
  •  

  • End the export trade in older dilapidated vehicles and prime movers from the West to the developing countries. Obsolete vehicles are a large source of pollution. Ending this trade would be a step away from the proposal that every human is entitled to personal automobile transport without regards to the consequences. There are hundreds of millions of 2-cycle engines, carburetors and antiquated jalopies in the world, removing them would make a noticeable difference at very low cost or even provide a return as the use of these things is subsidized.
  •  

  • Eliminate from trade incompletely refined and blended low quality fuels including but not limited to leaded gasoline and high-sulfur diesel. There should be an industry agreement regarding fuel quality; an international standard to meet. This standard would cost a modest amount of money to implement; like CFCs, fuels are the products of a few large factories that can be managed.
  •  

  • Mandate the switch to low-sulfur fuels, gas scrubbers and catalytic converters on all ocean-going ships.
  •  

  • Mandate only up-to-date electric generating plants which use low-sulfur fuels and pollution reducing technology … all of which is readily available. A schedule to update power stations should be agreed to reduce then eliminate non-carbon waste gases … doing so would indirectly reduce the carbon emissions. Non-performing prime movers would be scrapped even those that are relatively new. A fifteen year old thermal plant that produces excess waste gases can be scrapped the same as the fifteen year old merchant ship that falls into the same non-performing category. ‘Forced updating’ is cost-free as the new plant uses less fuel than what it replaces.
  •  

  • Any sort of conservation policy is low-cost and highly effective. Conservation is the cheapest form of power generation as the plant not built represents billions of dollars of credit effectively earned.
  •  

  • Eliminate fuel subsidies in all countries (.pdf warning). This would accomplish a number of goals; a) reduce sovereign expenses in countries currently being bankrupted by their fuel subsidies; b) fuel consumption would be reduced along with auto fleets. This is because subsidies are more useful to those with sub-standard vehicles, c) carbon emissions would be indirectly reduced as there would be less fuel consumed: fuel pricing is a form of rationing.
  •  

  • Ending subsidies risks annoying drivers. Drivers and their entitlements will have to be dealt with one way of the other: the ongoing bailouts of drivers are unaffordable. Once government gains any sort of ascendency over drivers it becomes a far simpler matter to bring the hammer down on them with regards to climate gas emissions as well as fuel waste. The default strategy to constrain drivers is to do nothing: fuel shortages will do the dirty work.
  •  

  • Implement a world-wide moratorium on forest clear cutting. This is another easy fix that is practically cost free except to gangsters/Chinese who traffic in bootleg lumber. Commandos could earn their keep by killing loggers who would be otherwise paid not to log. Implementation would suggest a hard limit: this and no more! Forest removal and followup agricultural exploitation add only the smallest marginal additions to national GDP at the same time the costs to the environment and ability of the biosphere to absorb carbon are extraordinarily high. Deforestation by itself is a greenhouse gas emitter.
  •  

  • Implement and fund a world-wide program of re-forestation, wherever possible. The cost would be modest, the returns would be felt in areas where deforestation has led to degrades soils and watersheds. Reforestation can also be a jobs-providing platform.
  •  

  • Reforest in ways that increase diversity making forests less susceptible to pests.
  •  

  • Implement more effective forest-fire fighting efforts. The costs would be modest measured against the increased climate costs of forest fires.
  •  

  • Put out coal mine- and coal seam fires. This is more low-hanging fruit.
  •  

  • End gas flaring from oil wells, refineries and terminals. Not only do the flares produce carbon gases but they are also tremendously destructive of insect life.
  •  

  • Eliminate ‘incidental’ methane leakage from oil and gas wells. Most oil and gas wells do not leak, those that do should be denied connection and ordered plugged immediately at drillers’ expense. Given a few such expensive duds, there would soon be no methane leaks from hydrocarbon wells.
  •  

  • Eliminate tax advantages and subsidies for fuel use in the US, the world’s greatest waster of fossil fuels. Accelerated depreciation, depletion allowances for ‘business vehicle’ purchases, favorable royalty rates and low cost access to public lands, access roads by the state(s), borrow-and-spend highway subsidies, mortgage interest deduction, favorable treatment of capital gains, etc. Reforms would not cost anything but would reduce costs, the obstacle is politics.
  •  

  • Reform agriculture. CAFO’s — concentrated animal feeding operations or very large feedlots — provide utility the CAFO operator only. These operations with their confined animals contaminate water supplies with animal waste; they also produce massive amounts of climate gases. Shutting down CAFO’s would be a low-cost tactic that indirectly reduces climate gas emissions.
  •  

  • Reform agriculture, make wider use of biochar.

 
Warming Scenarios

Figure 2: Warming scenarios from the IPCC; the U.S. Global Change Research Program by way of Climate Central): When the IPCC calculated the potential temperature ranges in 2001 they did not anticipate the effect of China’s boomtown economy.

  • End biofuel subsidies. Feeding cars and feeding humans together at the same time means that ultimately neither get fed. Biofuels are barely net-energy neutral and subsidy dependent, the beneficiaries are a handful of biofuel tycoons who would ‘lose’ with the elimination of subsidies.
  •  

  • Implement a world-wide moratorium on road- and highway building. This is yet another easy fix that is cost free, both it and the moratorium on logging are easily enforced by way of satellite surveillance. A parallel step is to eliminate World Bank subsidies for logging, road building, dam building and other environmentally destructive policies that also produce climate gases or reduce the ability of the biosphere to sequester carbon.
  •  

  • Electrify railroads and increase both freight and passenger capacity.
  •  

  • Ban land-grabbing in undeveloped countries by 3d parties. Much of the so-called ‘new’ farm land becomes biofuel plantations, cash crop industrial monocultures that produce climate gases.
  •  

  • Provide incentives — pay people — not to consume energy or other resources, not to have children, not to own or drive cars. Subsidizing the non-purchase of autos provides a direct capital return on investment that remains with the recipient. Subsidizing resource consumption leaves a consumer without the resource … without the subsidy either. He’s older … and poorer even if his consumption suggests otherwise.

Keep in mind, the only effective tool is good management. Individuals can effect small scale changes on their own but managing industrial processes and mandating engineering approaches can only be done by governments with the will to take action. In a way, government activism saves the tycoons from themselves: left to their own unrestrained cruelty and greed, the tycoons’ self-serving activities will continue to price resources beyond the reach of their customers. Eventually, point both the resource problems and the tycoons themselves are ‘solved’.

With a bit of effort it is not hard to think of other, indirect forms of action against carbon gas emitters. The benefit of these alternatives is that they would not cost very much or would provide economic gains. Meanwhile, the carbon monolith is deflated by a thousand cuts leaving (hopefully) descendents to wonder what all the fuss was about.

43 thoughts on “Tackling the Carbon Behemoth

  1. Ken Barrows

    Some good ideas, but removing too many pollutants could actually exacerbate climate change. Aerosol pollution may be a negative feedback for a warming planet. Clean up the air and temperatures may go up faster. But who knows?

    But fewer cars, no more new roads, no biofuel subsidies, and reducing CAFO is a good start.

    1. enicar666

      Ken Sez: “Some good ideas, but removing too many pollutants could actually exacerbate climate change. Aerosol pollution may be a negative feedback for a warming planet. Clean up the air and temperatures may go up faster. But who knows?

      But fewer cars, no more new roads, no biofuel subsidies, and reducing CAFO is a good start.”

      LOL.

      Substitute “Human beings” for Pollutants!

      “Some good ideas, but removing “Pollutants could actually be good for The Planet”.

      Blah… Blah… Blah… When human beings are extinct – the “Pollutant” will be removed.

      “A Pollutant is a substance or energy introduced into the environment that has undesired effects, or adversely affects the usefulness of a resource.”

      Yep – describes Homo Sapiens – EXACTLY!

      Click and Google:

      Blind Faith – Can’t Find My Way Home – 1969.

  2. Reverse Engineer

    “– Electrify railroads and increase both freight and passenger capacity.”-Steve

    So how will we generate the electricity to electrify all those miles of track?

    Also, letting Undertowers know we are putting up Podcasts of the Lectures from the Age of Limits Conference held over Memorial Day Weekend on the Diner.

    Speakers were Albert Bates, Gail Tverberg, John Michael Greer, Dmitry Orlov, Guy McPherson and Orren Whiddon. Lectures run 1 hour to 2 hours in length.

    RE
    http://doomsteaddiner.org

    1. Reverse Engineer

      Off the keyboard of RE
      Published on the Doomstead Diner on June 1, 2013

      Discuss this article at the Podcast Table inside the Diner
      The Diner is happy to announce we are adding regular Podcasts for Diners on the go to listen to if you can’t sit at the Laptop for hours on end reading.

      We are beginning with recordings of lectures made at the Age of Limits 2013 Conference, and currently have up lectures from Albert Bates and Orren Whiddon.

      Beginning next week we will have our own Monsta Doom show, hosted by Monsta666 based in the U.K and one of the Diner Mods. First couple of Podcasts will feature Interviews with Yours Truly and with Surly, Admin of our Facepalm Page and one of the Founding Diners who came from the Reverse Engineering Yahoo Group. Further Podcasts are planned with William Hunter Duncan of Off the Grid in Minneapolis, another Diner Admin, and Lucid Dreams of Epiphany Now, one of the Diner Mods.

      In addition to chatting with each other, we are hoping to schedule up Interviews with some of our Cross Posting Bloggers like Gail Tverberg of Our Finite World and Steve Ludlum of Economic Undertow. Look for Announcements inside the Diner of Upcoming Podcasts.

      Some of the Podcasts will be available to Guests, some will require Registration on the Diner to listen to.

      RE

  3. Ellen Anderson

    @RE: Look forward to the podcasts after 2am when Mr. Hughes lets me have enough bandwidth.
    @Steve As for biochar – I have found that really interesting since they called it terra preta. Most mysterious. But my impression is that no one is yet sure what is in it, how to make it or whether it would work outside of a very warm climate. I had thought I could make some in a drum in my yard based on plans available online but I have heard that you can produce some really nasty gas if you don’t know what you are doing – which I don’t. Basically it relies upon incomplete combustion which produces volatile organic compounds. I think in the old days they burned pine trees for charcoal and captured the VOCs as gum turps. So what really is the difference between biochar and charcoal? Does this really amount to a return to the back yard incinerator (which I loved as a kid.)
    I look forward to reading what anyone has to say about it. There are a lot of slick websites but they all have a vaporware flavor to them, I think. Will check out your link when the bandwidth gods say it is time.

    1. steve from virginia Post author

      There was a decent article on The Oil Drum a couple years ago, I’ll see if I can find it.

      1. Ellen Anderson

        Are you requiring folks to register on your site and sign in before they can see the video?

      2. Reverse Engineer

        That’s because I’m dropping the links on a Diner’s Only Board. So at the moment yea, if you want to find the links, then you would have to register.

        I just added Orren Whiddon’s opening talk “Mitigation Perspectives at 4 Quarters”

        RE

  4. jb

    Personally, I think every new vehicle sold should have an Econ Mode. I have one in my Insight and it has dramatically changed the way I drive. The speedometer gauge glows bright blue when I’m accelerating (or braking) too quickly so I know exactly when I’m burning the most gas. It glows green when I’m driving efficiently. IMHO, this is a ‘no brainer’ that should be easier to get through political / industry negotiations than raising mileage standards. Everyone needs to see their rates of consumption flashing right in front of their eyes.

    For example, electric meters are on the outside of your house so the utility company can read them. Ours is now read via wireless signal so there’s no reason why you can’t put them inside with a dial that would glow red when you are using too much electricity based on your family size, time of day, etc. and blue when you are ‘conserving.’

    How about community programs where neighbors share cars? Orlov mentions this as a strategy in his new book. For example, a minimum number of neighbors could form teams or clubs, registered vehicles must meet minimum mpg thresholds, trips must be logged and uploaded to city websites on a regular basis. In exchange, local city councils could give special parking passes and public recognition / prizes for least miles traveled, local businesses could offer discounts on select days of the week and preferred parking, etc. Since we’re headed in this direction already, why not make it a fashionable, friendly competition?

    That said, I expect blackouts and riding a bike are probably what comes next.

    1. enicar666

      I have 2 very nice bicycles. They are expensive. The tires wear fast – at least the soft ones. They are still very hi-tech. Modern bicycles are far removed from the simplicity of the old. I have expensive tools to maintain/repair them.

      Until you have actually used/rode a bicycle – understand that there is a difference in the strength of various rims – i.e. how much weight they will support.

      Modern bicycles = very Hi-Tech and Labor intensive. Also exotic metals/materials. I ride = much.

      JB – seen you over at “Collapse of Industrial Civilization.”

      Spent a lot of time at Guy’s “Nature Bats Last”! What a beautiful Planet we have wrecked!

      1. jb

        Hi Enicar,

        It’s all relative. What is ‘expensive?’

        If you are downsizing from an SUV (that needs gas, oil changes, 4 new tires, brakes, state inspections, etc.) to a bike, then ‘expensive’ is a fraction of the cost, less than a month’s worth of gas for some people. People don’t have to buy expensive bikes; it’s all fashion. There are places here in town that sell used bikes or you can pick one up from Craig’s List or a yard sale. I have an overly rugged Specialized model and I ride it downtown whenever I have a simple errand to run. Otherwise I bundle car trips.

        If you have the tools and the skills, why not open a bike repair / rebuild business? Go mobile and use your bike as your ‘office?’ You seem mechanically inclined… why not turn your skills and passion into a ‘professional hobby?’

        “It is autumn in the global economy, and the squirrels are falling out of the trees and getting run over. Few people find it advantageous to classify themselves as dropouts, a classification that receives little recognition and provides few benefits. As we get ready to bid adieu to the antipodes, we must remain careful to avoid being classified into a category that is not to our advantage. To do this, we can create categories that are neither too much of this nor too much of that. Categories such as researcher, freelancer, hobbyist and volunteer work well; they are flexible and difficult to pin down.” – Orlov, ‘The Five Stages of Collapse – Survivor’s Toolkit’

        Trying to solve the carbon issue means fundamentally changing our highly political, over industrialized, over populated civilization. It’s means changing the global narrative of ‘progress’ simultaneously, everywhere at once. There is much evidence to suggest that this isn’t going to happen. Otherwise, (and this is my pet theory JHK), Japan, Israel, S. Korea and other US dependents become the front line in the last game of King of the Hill.

  5. p01

    1. Stop producing food=people for profit and stop increasing food production right now.
    2. Religiously forbid eating plant seeds or feeding them to animals in all religions under penalty of no admission in Heaven.
    3. Do absolutely NOTHING else.

      1. enicar666

        I clicked on that. LOL. The “Pigs” perchant for “feeding on feces.”

        LOL. Imagine modern civilization without sewage treatment plants. No wait! They are often lacking or overwhelmed in a storm.

        A fear of FECES!

        You live in a World of FECES!

        MILWAUKEE – Heavy rains are putting major stresses on the area’s sewers.

        Authorities are asking people to use less water, while the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District is releasing raw sewage along with the excess rainwater.

        “At about 4:30 this morning, we initiated a combined sewer overflow. Treatment plants are maxed out…we have another inch of rain on the way,” said Bill Graffin of MMSD to Newsradio 620 WTMJ’s Michelle Richards.

        “It’s untreated wastewater and stormwater…the DNR tells us they estimate the combined sewer overflows are 95 percent stormwater.”

        MMSD says every inch of rain equals about seven billion gallons of water into the sewer system.

        “We’re trying to do all we can to limit discharges into the lake, but also to make sure we don’t have basement backups as well,” said Mayor Tom Barrett.

        http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/203570631.html

        Google:

        Blind Faith Can’t Find My Way Home – 1969

  6. steve from virginia Post author

    Food-chain contamination in Martinique and Guadeloupe, “happened because chlordecone was used to combat banana weevil from 1972 to 1993. The chemical was banned in mainland France in 1990, but an exception was made for overseas territories. The US stopped producing and using the chemical in 1976. It is estimated that chlordecone persists in the soil for 700 years.”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/may/07/guadeloupe-economy-theatened-pesticides-pollution

    Biochar: There is a fair amount of information in the following article:

    http://anz.theoildrum.com/node/4522

    1. Ellen Anderson

      Thanks
      Chlordane is nasty stuff. My father loved it because it kept the termites at bay under our cabin in the woods. When he knew it would be banned he bought up a good supply. My brother has the cabin now and I hope he has gotten rid of it but I would not count on it.
      Knowing that I could not even convince my very nice immediate family to be sensible has always kept me humble when I am tempted to preach to strangers.

      1. enicar666

        A potential Game Changer:

        Professor: Explosion possible near St. Louis-area nuclear site — Official: Steam increasing from underground fire, may be moving closer to radioactive waste

  7. dolph

    I don’t want to stir too much controversy but how about this:
    -just like you said that we must pay to do the right things, to conserve, how about supporting the various forms of family planning and birth control – the one thing that is proven to alleviate poverty? along with appropriate cultural shame for those with excessively large families? do the protestants and secularists around the world have enough fight to take on the catholics and muslims?

    -how about we start telling the truth and end food “aid” which is nothing but petrochemical industry subsidy? how about admitting that food aid should consist only of the application of sound agricultural practices?

    are we honest enough to shame the opposing voices, from both right and left: “go forth and multiply” “this is genocide against the colored people” ???

    1. steve from virginia Post author

      This is why I promote the idea of paying young girls not to have children. Those who would put themselves into a position to be shamed … appreciate money. What a young woman or family refuses to do for altruistic-appearing or traditional reasons they will readily do for a payoff.

      As always, the needed funds would simply be borrowed, they would remain within local communities rather than flow toward banks and tycoons as is the case with consumption.

      Nicole Foss has postulated that large families are the artifact of primitive agrarian societies that could not farm effectively without excess manpower.

      I suspect states have demanded man- and woman power to fill the ranks of archaic armies. A state having more people gives the short-term advantage over those with fewer. There is more agriculture output as well which is another strategic advantage.

      1. p01

        Any species’s numbers are a function of the food supply.
        We are no different.
        Any species also reproduces above what its food supply can sustain.
        We are no different.
        Seed production for food and hoarding (the totalitarian system`s millennial deep hidden foundations) has been a tool to keep the reproductive surplus alive, but extremely sick, short lived, under slavery as tools to expand and defend the surplus and hoarding of the food supply monopoly.
        Religion, being a tool of control of the system, will never agree to decentralize food production by making seeds as food taboo, of course, because the top of the pyramid cannot hoard real food (plant and animals). They are trying their best with CAFO, and industrial farming everything, though. Of course, the explanation they give is that they’re doing it for the starving millions whose numbers always increase. So, in fact they have assured starving billions down the line, with everybody’s approval and moral support.
        The “solutions” I presented were tongue in cheek, because they are impossible in the real world, just as any other solutions everybody is dispensing left and right these days. But they DO address the fundamental problems, and if by some miracle they could be implemented, they are both necessary AND sufficient for our species to regain balance with nature.

    2. Richard

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/controversy

      Origin of CONTROVERSY

      Middle English controversie, from Anglo-French, from Latin controversia, from controversus disputable, literally, turned against, from contro- (akin to contra-) + versus, past participle of vertere to turn — more at worth
      First Known Use: 14th century

      Something to do with worth involuntarily turning over…hmmm. Fancy Anglo-French word too.

      1. Richard

        “This is why I promote the idea of paying young girls not to have children. Those who would put themselves into a position to be shamed”

        Would it be “controversial” if young Steve or young Richard was paid not to have children. Who would have paid us… what was our worth?

        There are so many contrary versions to the worthless CO2 filling our shared atmosphere.

      2. enicar666

        Food for thought – here it is the 21st. C and free public education (government skools) is available and yet as a Society we have not made any forward progress. Here is a news story from my local paper:

        About two decades since the peak of the so-called “crack baby” scare, local agencies are still grappling with helping babies born to mothers on controlled substances. The Racine County Human Services Department sees about two to four babies a month born with exposure to drugs.

        It’s long past time to license and regulate breeding – Mandatory Depo-Provera shots and forced abortions for those breeding without a license. My local paper is also filled with stories about dead children murdered at the hands of the current boyfriend, or the mother – who themselves weren’t properly raised or prepared to take care of a child. Children are a burden and a responsibility and often the result of irresponsible sexual activity.

        Enicar, this is not a platform for eugenics.

  8. MarkU

    Ken Barrows makes a good point, not all of these pollutants are contributing to the greenhouse effect, in fact some of them are mitigating factors. As Ken has already stated, aerosol pollution is associated with the phenomenon of ‘global dimming’ where sunlight is blocked high up in the atmosphere with a net cooling effect. I remember reading some time ago, I can’t remember where offhand but it was a study of volcanoes, that sulphur dioxide also has a net cooling effect.

    While nobody is going to argue about the virtue of reducing pollution in general, there is no purpose in conflating this with the fight against a rising greenhouse effect. There is enough confusion as it is, one subject at a time please.

    1. steve from virginia Post author

      The ‘one subject at a time’ approach does not work, the overall polluting effort is multifarious and non-stop. The idea is to win, not ‘make good arguments’ and hope for the best.

      The climate gas campaign is not in the process of failing … it has already failed. It’s game over … not for the climate, but the marketing campaign for carbon gas reductions.

      Hope is a scam, results matter, small victories on the margins add up over time just as the small- and large defeats have over the same time become monstrous. The tide of battle must be turned somewhere … somehow, not always where one prefers.

      As for ‘good’ pollution vs. ‘bad’ pollution, when does the pollution stop? How are the ill consequences of the good pollution to be avoided? What is the difference between the good pollution argument and the ‘geo-engineering’ scam? More false hope: “We are in the position of a man who has a wolf by the ears and dare not let him go …”. which ear is let go of first? The good pollution argument leads nowhere, at the level where the good pollution ‘saves’ us is where it also destroys us by other means.

      The climate efforts to date have been undermined by rationalizations, mostly by climate reduction promoters themselves. Reduction of climate gases is a product like spaghetti or shampoo, the marketing campaign climate gas reduction is worse than an abysmal failure. Climate scientists cling to their toys and the personal perquisites, their laboratories, tenure, luxury jobs, media celebrity, automobiles, jet travel and creature comforts, their (fake) prestige… They operate in the symbolic theater where they perform their scripted pop-culture roles that allow them to become public figures and interchangeable with non-entities such as the Kardashians along with industry shills such as James Delingpole, Stewart Brand, ‘Lord’ Christopher Monckton

      As well as the Koch Brothers and Exxon: at least those offer no illusions, they know what they are about.

      Somebody needs to start telling these climate dudes the truth, that they are working against their own stated intentions. None of these climate people — Mann, Hansen, .350.org, none of them — zero, none — have any credibility whatsoever. That they are factually correct is irrelevant. They’ve frittered away credibility with ambition on one hand and inappropriate forms of restraint on the other. It’s impossible to build a successful strategy out of failure.

      1. Ken Barrows

        Many people who think climate is an existential crisis think technology alone will solve the problems (see comments on Climate Progress). Maybe the scientists do, too. After all, it’s easier to keep one’s lifestyle that way.

        Your way makes more sense to me (and most here, I suspect). I’d go further, though. I’d advocate that a human can only consume so much and can only have one biological child. Of course, that couldn’t be enforced except through the most draconian means, so back to techno wishes.

      2. MarkU

        Ken Re:’ I’d advocate that a human can only consume so much and can only have one biological child.’

        I think that limits on consumption would be difficult even to define, let alone enforce.

        I do agree on the population control though and with a little care it needn’t be particularly draconian. A married couple could obviously have two children and if they were allowed to choose the sex of their second child that would reduce the potential for unhappiness somewhat.

        However we all know that population control isn’t going to happen and that the result will be war, famine, disease and major ecological disaster.

  9. MarkU

    I wasn’t arguing that there is such a thing as ‘good’ pollution, I was arguing against using other forms of pollution as a surrogate for real action about carbon emissions. I imagine that the greenhouse effect deniers would just love the distraction from the real plot.

    I agree with you that some of the blame for the failure to tackle the carbon problem lies with the scientists themselves. Climatology is a very complex subject at the regional level, ie trying to understand the distribution of heat around the globe. However when considering the energy budget of the planet as a whole, it is actually quite simple.

    Same amount of energy coming in, less energy out due to enhanced greenhouse effect, therefore warming, QED.

    I suspect that the top level scientists did a deal with the devil. Rather than arguing at the planetary energy budget level and finishing the argument immediately, they got to go on a two-decade long research junket and the industrialists and bankers got time to minimize their losses, or even profit from the situation.

    I agree that the situation is hopeless, a reduction in carbon emissions was never going to happen anyway in a world run by giant corporations for short-term profits. I just don’t want to see the waters any more muddied than they already are.

  10. steve from virginia Post author

    Matt Taibbi kicks the SEC in the balls over @ Rolling Stone:

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/why-didnt-the-sec-catch-madoff-it-might-have-been-policy-not-to-20130531#ixzz2UvyI7AQw

    China responds to its killer smogs. Maybe an international coal quality agreement comes next? Right?

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/05/30/china-coal-utilities-idUSL3N0EB0ND20130530

    Afterwards can come enforceable export tonnage limits on coal … right?

    America is the ‘Leadership country’, perhaps this leadership can stop pimping energy exports and sell conservation, instead. The Wall Street Journal believes that reducing supply by exporting it will reduce the price. 2 + 2 = 22, right WSJ?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323611604578396441358002584.html

    The world can only burn the equivalent of what it has burned already to keep global temp increase below 2 degrees Celsius. Of course when that is burned, what will be left?

    Can it be burned? Can we afford to do so? (Probably not.)

    http://crudeoilpeak.info/half-of-oil-burnable-in-2000-2050-to-keep-us-within-2-degrees-warming-has-been-used-up-as-we-hit-400-ppm

    Keep in mind, the unraveling of the Soviet economy caused a sharp decline in carbon gas emissions, the post-Soviet increase in fuel output in Russia has allowed the recent increase in economic activity in all the BRICs not just Russia.

    Demonstrators, police, water trucks … and traffic. Live from Istanbul:

    http://www.vgtv.no/#!/video/65035/live-direktebilder-fra-istanbul-live-video-from-istanbul

    Big climate gas chart 4 U:

    Click on for big.

    Gail Zawacki laments:

    http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2013/05/our-revels-are-now-ended.html

    More layers of doom, like living in a Lord of the Rings movie …

    1. enicar666

      Read This:

      Planetary catastrophe is inevitable without geoengineering to cool the Arctic

      An assessment by AMEG

      Could the world be in imminent danger and nobody is telling?

      In the meantime, I’m going back to the Bar.

    2. jb

      Nice chart. ‘Land Use Change’ was more significant a factor than I realized. Moo! By 2030, you’ll need a license to eat hamburger.

      Meanwhile, the ongoing attempt to keep carbon flowing to Japan as the financial engineering enters a new phase; from the Japan Times opinion column:

      “Yet even if Japan does not buy U.S. gas, its availability will give Japan leverage in negotiations with other suppliers.”

      Source: http://www.japantimes.co.jp/opinion/2013/06/03/editorials/shale-oil-revolution-touches-japan/?utm_medium=referral&utm_source=t.co#.UauYn9jV-Kx

      Leverage works as long as there is price arbitrage and functioning credit markets, correct? There sure is a lot riding on promises.

      1. steve from virginia Post author

        Everyone is busy making omelets out of eggs they have counted when they don’t even have the chickens, yet.

        Revolution, indeed …

    3. Ellen Anderson

      That Gail can write! I had forgotten about her blog. Her description of the Age of Limits Conference rings true. Glad I didn’t go. I love the photo of Dimitri O. upending a participant while trying to escape. Thank you so much for reminding me. I often feel like a hobbit myself.

      1. steve from virginia Post author

        Wracking my brains trying to figure out the weak link.

        Break it and the entire monstrosity falls apart of its own weight.

        No hobbit here but a frustrated wizard.

      2. Ellen Anderson

        I imagine many people are doing the same. When it happens everyone will wonder how they could have missed it. What are the candidates Gandolph?

      3. steve from virginia Post author

        Civil war in Saudi Arabia would be a place to start but Riyadh is as foreign and far-away as Mordor.

        BTW, I never understood the ring business: too easy to slip off a finger and wash down the drain. Imagine Sauron calling a plumber to retrieve his ring.

        “Whaddya mean you can’t make it until tomorrow? I need that ring now!”

        “Okay, okay … I’m not giving you a hard time … can you PLEASE see if you can make it out here a bit earlier? … ”

        “Three hundred dollars? Are you kidding me? What do I look like, an ATM machine?”

    4. jb

      This chart highlights what might be the most effective means of reducing carbon emissions in the shortest time frame:

      http://crudeoilpeak.info/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Russia_CO2_emissions_by_sector_1990_2010.jpg

      “The collapse of the Soviet Union in the 90s resulted in an emissions reduction of 30% within a short time of 5 years, followed by a stabilization.”

      In the US, switching to NG, increasing efficiency, and economic recession are the factors primary responsible for recent reductions:

      http://theenergycollective.com/sites/theenergycollective.com/files/imagepicker/151581/Policies%20&%20Factors%20Figure%202.jpg

      Intentional or not, keeping the global economy at a standstill for as long as possible is one sure way of reducing emissions.

  11. steve from virginia Post author

    Financial engineering isn’t dead, it is moving toward more banker control of strategic materials … also food and water by way of futures’ markets:

    http://ragingbullshit.com/2013/04/30/the-financialisation-of-water-the-final-frontier-of-bankster-capitalism/

    Seems like more Europeans openly oppose Monsanto than there are customers for Monsanto’s genetically modified products:

    http://rt.com/news/monsanto-stop-lobbying-eu-084/

    Monsanto exits the European market with a bloody nose. Is the US next?

    More from the financialization of agriculture front:

    http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/06/sasha-breger-how-big-finance-is-eating-the-worlds-lunch-agricultural-wealth.html

    Banks don’t create anything, they just think they do. Instead, finance allocates and by doing so shoulders aside existing allocation regimes, usually at great costs.

Comments are closed.