A penny for your cyber-thoughts.
By Mike Luckovich, From the Cartoonist Group
Related Post:
Climate Progress
Previous in TP Climate Progress
Get ThinkProgress email alerts
About Climate Progress
Edited by Joe Romm, we cover climate science, solutions and politics. Columnist Tom Friedman calls us "the indispensable blog" and Time magazine named us one of the 25 "Best Blogs of 2010." Newcomers, start here.
Joe Romm's New Book
Language Intelligence: Lessons on persuasion from Jesus, Shakespeare, Lincoln, and Lady Gaga.
Joe Romm has pulled together the secrets of the greatest communicators in history to show how you can apply these tools to your writing, speaking, blogging — even your Tweeting.
Subscribe to Climate Progress by Email
Powered by NewsWhip
Got a Hot Tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
Climate Progress Archives
About ThinkProgress | Contact Us | Donate
At the world’s largest gothic cathedral
Connect the Dots Bike Ride Saturday May 5 Meet-up 9:30am at NYC’s Saint John the Divine for Blessing of the Bikes @350
Clive Palmer, mining billionaire, Australian Liberal (conservative) party donor, who is anti climate change science and thinks the Australian greens are funded by the CIA, plans to build the Titanic II. No joke.
Hopefully the Titanic II will also eschew safety measures in favour of, um, “personal responsibility” and “small government”.
– frank
Palmer is like some long-lost Koch sibling, kidnapped by gypsies at birth, raised in well-merited obscurity in Australia and who rose without trace, through the shonky Gold Coast real estate business to take over various mining interests. He has procured, at great personal masticatory effort, the Pickwickian bodily habitus that our mining plutocrats have made de rigeur for their claque, and will cap his Titanic II (the ship is in fact, named after him)escapade, by leaping overboard and playing the role of the iceberg.
Thank you for that, after watching Clive on Q&A
this week I shudder at the thought of an Abbott government.
I always admired the bike courier, but the delivery truck made more money.
I always admired the organic farmer, but the industrial farm made more money.
Times change, however. Low tides turn high, circumstances reverse, new possibilities emerge.
After a long wait in the shade, some sunlight is starting to fall in our part of the forest. Its time to start transitioning. The money is about to start flowing in from clean energy, clean technology, and clean living. I understand that oftentimes money corrupts, but we have to be careful to not get locked into outdated narratives. If we don’t make ourselves aware of our new circumstances, the old oligarchs will simply claim the new ecological high grounds (that many of us have spent years developing). Its time to occupy the economy.
Money money money money money money! Money money money money money money! Make money, make more money, make lots of money! Make heaploads of money! Get others to help make more money!
What next? Perhaps soon we’ll have to convince people that rape is wrong… on the grounds that one can make more money by not raping people?
If “money money money money money money” is the only narrative that the US public and US politicians will listen to, and truth and justice are now merely “outdated narratives”, then something’s very wrong (read: America is doomed).
Sure, we can make money, and convince people that clean energy helps to make money. But let’s not lose sight of the basics: objective truth, and the rule of law.
The US should transition to renewal energy, simply because it’s the right thing to do.
– frank
I think the purpose of this site is to encourage progress toward slowing climate change. If that can be done in a way that earns people a living wage then what exactly are you objecting to? The point I was trying to make is that the profit advantage of large scale production is dropping. The need for massive overhead is disappearing. Sunlight will be appearing in bottom layers of the forest while darker days will appear on the canopy. Some will understand this, others will not.
No-one objects to a living wage, (because it’s tantamount to objecting to living)other than the big capitalists, who have ensured that US median wages have stagnated for forty years, and are now being attacked with renewed vigour. A decent sufficiency is everybody’s human right, but the greedheads are after profit maximisation and riches beyond the dreams of avarice, and that literally insatiable appetite is what got us into this mess in the first place. The great and growing inequality of income, wealth and power must be addressed by radical redistribution or nothing will be achieved.
Money corrupts, but fossil fuel money corrupts absolutely.
“After a long wait in the shade, some sunlight is starting to fall in our part of the forest.”
Yikes, that stings! Unfortunately, there literally IS more light and less shade in the forests…and that is not a good thing.
Oh well, I actually stopped by to contribute my cyberpenny to the “connect the dots” campaign. I really wish we would.
http://witsendnj.blogspot.com/2012/05/today-is-climate-connect-dots-day-and.html
And I’m not Going!
I have created a highly customizable search extension for the Chrome browser and loaded it up for those interested in climatology. Top search is for over 100 websites, but there are over 30 searches in total and some additional tools.
On any webpage, select the text you wish to search for, right click, select the search or website you wish to search. Add and remove searches through the management option.
Whether you participate in online discussions or gather background material for articles, you may find this tool to be of value.
This is a gorgeous Saturday in May. Birds singing, grass growing, sun shining.
It was a pleasure to cut the grass and weeds with a lawn mower that is pushed along, with the electric cord slung over my shoulder.
The aroma from the cut grass and herbs is exhilarating.
I like to hope we can really beat this climate change thing, and that people may still be enjoying Saturdays in May in the years to come.
I think that the Hummingbirds which used to summer
in this area are going more northern.
Just a guess as I haven’t seen signs of many since about a week as it is turning more the (for Hummingbird point of view) mid summer. Bet they went farther north.
Those who used to not see Hummingbirds night put a feeder out and be surprised..
We have honey-eaters here who pretend to be humming-birds, but they can only hover for about a second. Still we make up for that deficiency with parrots, raucous, noisy and boisterous. It’s a great pity that we are screwing up their world as well.
An advantage for the parrots is that they live in a more reality based view. It’s a limited knowledge view, but
Those little bits are enough to keep them busy.
I don’t think that I could well claim their perspective as the limited true knowledge would leave a great level of my time as what. So I would have to insulate and guard against self-knowledge and responsibility not just singularly but also of the we.
Seems we still have a higher power to conceive of things or ways beyond our ability to achieve.
not that higher power thing again….that’s what got us into this fine mess
We will probably be satisfied with lower power then?
Raul, NJP1 and Mulga,
I’ve been greatly enjoying the conversation.
When Alaskan natives were settling their land claim they were uncomfortable with the legal distinction of people from animals, noting that we are all animals.
Similarly, the Lakota have a term, Ho Mitakuye Oyasin, loosely translated as “all my relations” or “I am related to all things and all things are related to me.”
Hummingbirds, parrots.. you know, all of us.
Thanks, Joan
Seems it’s not a new idea that all creation is open to the laws of physics.
We should enjoy such as we are able.
Some even find the extreme power of nature fascinating.especially when it doesn’t destroy all the stuff.
350.org has posted inspiring pictures from today’s events to connect the dots on Climate Impacts Day.
Referenced German Numbers:
Nuclear power was reduced by 21 percent of the from 2010 to 2011. ( http://www.bdew.de/internet.nsf/id/DE_20111216-PI-Die-Verantwortung-waechst?open&ccm=900010020010 }
Net Electricity exports (exports -imports) were likely cut 65 percent – latest numbers, when you include the last of the winter :
17.7 (2010)
6 (2011)
( http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/unternehmen/0,1518,829171,00.html )
emissions from electricity generation increased “only slightly.”
All emissions were down 2.4 percent included electricity usage and heating fuel (down significantly due to milder weather) ( http://www.umweltbundesamt.de/uba-info-presse/2012/pd12-017_weniger_treibhausgase_mit_weniger_atomenergie.htm )
Electricity usage fell according to CP ( http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/12/20/393545/german-energy-consumption-drops-in-2011-renewables-energy/ ) which was probably a projection.
These are are the most correct facts (transparent and accurate) I have found on the matter to date.
the Titanic is scarily analogous to our own situation, where sometime soon the ship’s carpenter is going to start organizing boatbuilding classes, with the added incentive that the ship will sink in 2 hours
It is more scarily analogous than the cartoon suggests.
Recent research by a team including ‘The Deep Sea Detectives’ John Chatterton and Richie Kohler which included another exploration of Titanic’s wreck revealed that the Titanic could not have poised herself for the dive as shown in nearly every movie and piece of artwork created to portray this event. Her hull would not have been strong enough for one thing.
Two large sections of the ship’s bottom were discovered in a previously not fully surveyed debris field, both pieces were once contiguous sections extending from bilge keel to bilge keel. The nature of the metal distortion at their common athwart-ships joint indicated that Titanic had bent in s shallow upward V and then a sharper downward V as total failure occurred.
Thus the vessel would have slowly sunk slightly bow down, only breaking up when the internal forces became unbalanced enough to cause the bending moment. This explains much of the testimony from survivors who noted the lack of urgency amongst fellow passengers and some crew members.
At that time passenger liners were not obliged by any laws to carry enough lifeboat capacity for all souls on board and indeed the propaganda put about was that the ship by taking a long time to sink would be its own lifeboat and survive long enough for help to come.
The point is the people on Titanic were doomed and didn’t realise it until the last fateful moments as the ship broke into two.
A further irony is that if measures had been taken, such as proper pump operation drills, then the vessel may have lived a bit longer and more saved. It was what wasn’t done in the early stages after the hull penetration that doomed those that died that night.
PS
I have been studying many aspects of this ship and of her sisters Olympic and Britannic including sources with diagrams of structures and images of building and operation, the book cited above is not my only source by far.
Imagine how the lookouts on the Titanic felt that night. “Iceberg dead ahead”, they shouted.
Aren’t we all lookouts for climate change and environmental destruction? Don’t we all wish that wiser commanders were giving orders to the helmsmen?
We don’t want to go to the bottom with this ship, either.
The speed of the ship, under her captain’s direct orders directly relates to our current obsession with GDP and growth, under the direct orders of politicians and financiers.
There is no difference
The ship was moving at full speed under the direct orders of the Captain. The global economy is doing the same thing, under the direct orders of politicians and financiers.
apologies for duplication–altzheimers moment I think
Tornado strikes city near Tokyo; 1 killed
A tornado tore through a city northeast of Japan’s capital on Sunday, killing one person, injuring dozens of others and destroying scores of houses.
Tornadoes are relatively rare in the Tokyo area. ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/story/2012-05-06/japan-tornado-tokyo/54783812/1 )
Tornadoes have now officially killed more people than Radiation in Japan.
Turning off nuclear power has increased emissions over 4 percent from the country.
And, what if a tornado hits the wreckage of Fukushima, or a new earthquake or tsunami, or a terrorist strike in its current precarious state (which will persist for some time)? Moreover, as you well know, the vast majority of premature deaths caused by the Fukushima catastrophe will come in the future, mainly from cancer and similar diseases caused by radiation. The argument of nuclear apologists that deaths are low, now, which deliberately ignores the deaths to come, is, in my opinion, regretable, to say the least.
Really? we know that? Post a source for that opinion. Fear itself is harmful. They should be able to make an opinion without unreasonable manipulation.
Japan’s Post-Fukushima Earthquake Health Woes Go Beyond Radiation Effects
A year out, public health experts agree that the radiation fears were overblown. Compared with the effects of the radiation exposure from Fukushima, “the number of expected fatalities are never going to be that large,” says Thomas McKone, of the University of California, Berkeley, School of Public Health.
And some, including Richard Garfield, a professor of Clinical and International Nursing at Columbia University’s Mailman School of Public Health, go a step further. “In terms of the health impact, the radiation is negligible,” he says. “The radiation will cause very few, close to no deaths.” ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=japans-post-fukushima-earthquake-health-woes-beyond-radiation )
Honestly M do you think I would advocate for nuclear if I thought it was any more dangerous than other tech they have? Even before the EQ Japan was 21 percent coal.
I simply think that you are mistaken, and the nuclear mistake will delay the necessary roll-out of renewables. I cannot agree that the radiation threat is overstated, but, of course, I may be wrong, but I rather suspect not.
MM just look at this when you get a chance :
List of pipeline accidents ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents )
Its absurd.
As much as “renewables” have been floated in the media as the solution Japan is turning to in the ill advised rush to replace nuclear power, behind the scenes they have selected NG and are making long term commitments to it.
Hope for Natural Gas Pipeline Shifts From Juneau to Japan
On Monday night, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) had dinner with Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda. During that dinner, held by the State Department in Washington, D.C., Murkowski talked with Noda about a key concern of his: electrical power for Japan.
Murkowski has not only met with Noda, but also met last week with members of Japan’s ruling body
If President Obama can help reach an agreement with Japan to buy 4 billion cubic feet of natural gas from the United States annually for the next 30 years, a big component of a long-awaited gas line may fall into place ( http://www.ktuu.com/news/ktuu-juneau-couldnt-get-us-an-alaska-gas-pipeline-can-tokyo-20120501,0,7362689.story )
Its not just Alaska gas and a pipeline they are interested in either:
Noda, Obama back talks on U.S. shale gas exports to Japan
A U.S. decision on a waiver for Japan could be made this year. If approval is given, exports to Japan could begin sometime after 2015, once facilities to process the shale gas are completed.
In January, LNG accounted for 47 percent of Japan’s overall power generation, up from 38 percent in April 2011. ( http://ajw.asahi.com/article/economy/AJ201205020071 )
And to add to the absurdity :
Russia’s Gazprom mulls gas pipeline, LNG supply boost to Japan
Representatives of Gazprom and the Japanese parliament discussed gas cooperation at a meeting held Thursday, a Gazprom statement said.
“The parties discussed opportunities for a project to supply pipeline gas from Russia to Japan,” the statement said. ( http://www.platts.com/RSSFeedDetailedNews/RSSFeed/NaturalGas/8260804 )
I was doing research elsewhere came across this and this and feel it fits here:
Just sitting on the north slope (no fracking needed), pipeline to port fast tracked and being built now:
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) recently completed a new assessment of
undiscovered
oil and gas resources of the central part of the Alaska North Slope and the adjacent offshore area. Using a geology-based assessment methodology, the USGS estimates that there are undiscovered, technically recoverable mean resources of 4.0 billion barrels of oil, 37.5 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 478 million barrels of natural gas liquids. ( http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2005/3043/ )
AND:
35.4 trillion cubic feet of AD gas reserves
discovered
on the Central North Slope in conjunction with existing oil fields, 93 percent is located in four fields: Prudhoe Bay (23 trillion cubic feet), Point Thomson (8 trillion cubic feet), Lisburne (1 trillion cubic feet), and Kuparak (1 trillion cubic feet) ( http://www.eia.gov/oiaf/aeo/otheranalysis/aeo_2009analysispapers/ansng.html )
It seems the potential for natural gas seems “unlimited” as a cheap dispatchable energy source (neglecting climate change as an issue). If shale gas is insufficient as a supply after a few decades, next on the doorstep are methane hydrates in a successful DOE test on Alaska North Slope. This is potentially hundreds of years of natural gas supply.
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/05/11522433-us-claims-unprecedented-success-in-test-for-new-fuel-source
If natural gas is the long term future, I would be interested in a Climate Progress review/critique of this, including the cost of reforming natural gas, sequestration, to both simultaneously deal with energy and climate change issues.
Its the elephant in the living room exposing a critical flaw in sheepish populist advocacy, poor message delivery and tactics, perhaps not as evident here as elsewhere in “green” circles IMHO but nonetheless a real disaster and concern.
Dont hold your breath.
Use your favorite search engine for “Joe Romm and natural gas” to locate articles, such as those published on April 9, March 1 and January 24, 2012.
What is peculiar about the Titanic, Fukushima nuclear plant failure, and numerous climate change scenarios is that they are exacerbated disasters in which technology interacts poorly with nature.
The EM-DAT international data base has two categories of disaster: natural and technological. Their disaster categories are based on impact on humans. It looks like there should be a third category of compounded-origin disasters.
They all seem to be examples where prudence, caution and the ‘precautionary principle’ were sacrificed in pursuit of money. Good old, filthy, lucre. I may be a little dim in these matters, but I have never found putting people’s well-being in grave peril, for thirty pieces of silver, an alluring prospect. How do they live with themselves?
Yo, Mulga!
NPR ran a piece, “Psychology Of Fraud: Why Good People Do Bad Things,” which doesn’t go deep, but has some chewy examples. It dovetails rather well with your ‘filthy lucre’ assumption.
http://www.npr.org/2012/05/01/151764534
/psychology-of-fraud-why-good-people-do-bad-things?ft=3&f=122101520&sc=nl&cc=sh-20120505
This may be one of those ‘existential’ posts after the world has moved to other news.
There is no possibility that intermittent electricity generators can adequately supply the power required for a reliable, on demand grid. There must be dispatchable generators; the only such which can be used in almost all locations are NPPs.
Bizzare. My justed posted comment ended up #13 instead of at the end.
And my complaint about it ended up #14.
Ok, I left entirely and have now returned to see if this comment ends up as #16 or at the end.
Stephen Lacey has done a great job here at CP. Might I suggest that he turn his attention to the state of energy storage technologies. I keep seeing utterly pessimistic statements by some posters here that rule out any prospects of energy storage from intermittent renewable sources. What are te real prospects for good energy storage technologies? What are the timelines? What are the economics?
List of recent Natural Gas Explosions with the entertaining
“This Week In Natural Gas Leaks and Explosions” ( http://www.naturalgaswatch.org/?cat=8 )
Last day or so:
Police: Gas explosion at Norwegian dairy plant kills 1, wounds 3 – five missing( http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/report-several-feared-dead-after-explosion-at-norwegian-dairy-plant/2012/04/23/gIQARG78bT_story.html )
Tugboat Explosion Kills 7 Off Qatar ( http://gcaptain.com/tugboat-explosion-kills-qatar/?45966 )
These are just the ones involving natural gas and deaths. No other industry/energy source is as unsafe as the fossil fuels. Not even anywhere close.
According to John Tucker, nuclear energy is safe, because when nuclear disaster strikes, people will be evacuated away and therefore they’ll be safe.
Is it just me who finds this ‘logic’ to be completely absurd?
– frank
DID I SAY THAT AT ANY POINT WITHOUT REFERENCE OR COMPARISON??
If you wish to discus it id suggest you lay off the misrepresentation.
I find whenever someone makes a referenced argument to nuclear power a immediate rush to attack the person is seemingly undertaken. While people that should know better, and indeed should say something hide silently in the shadows.
No doubt wondering how climate denial could had ever have been so successful.
The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a person’s actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or misrepresented version of that position. This sort of “reasoning” has the following pattern:
Person A has position X.
Person B presents position Y (which is a distorted version of X).
Person B attacks position Y.
Therefore X is false/incorrect/flawed.
This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. ( http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html )
Additionally,
If people didn’t move out of a area of burning gas, a imminent dam collapse, were not moved/protected from well contaminants or other environmental hazards and things related climate like rising sea level, would and have their potential deaths when not mitigated by a informed temporal response be used to argue conclusively on the safety of the topics involved?
You “logic” is also critically flawed. Among other errors and fallacies.
John; Are you proposing nuclear to be added permanently (expanded greatly from our current capacity) as part of the AGW solution or are you arguing the shorter term problem of shuttering current nuclear capacity and thereby increasing use of FFs which is moving in the wrong direction with GG’s?
Both – renewables are not being added fast enough or efficiently enough.
No matter if this site believes it or not.
The numbers dont work.
Honestly, for an energy company to give so much of their energy away for the taking through the air?
I really don’t see how it could be said to be a good business example.
I think with the UV rays being in the extreme level in Florida, teachers should allow for recess to be held indoors. That will help allow for the children to have good eyesight for when they grow up.
I forgot to bring my sunglasses.
Using nuclear fear to sell renewables has been a unmitigated disaster. Poorly thought out and environmentally incompetent.
Organizations that participated should lose all respect and affiliation to legitimate environmental organizations. IMHO.
And why would that be? Because the Obama campaign says so, and Obama Is Always Right?
– frank
In my opinion continuing apologias for nuclear in the midst of the Fukushima disaster, thereby sabotaging the necessary move to renewables is regretable, to say the least. It is also completely contemptuous of public opinion, which in Japan is resolutely anti-nuclear, unsurprising in a country slowly being poisoned by nuclear radiation, and in real danger of an unimaginable catastrophe if the spent fuel rods ignite. Moreover there is a pretty clear alliance by all the non-renewable energy sources, be they gas or nuclear, to work in tandem to sabotage renewables and thereby defend the massive financial interests of the fossil fuel and nuclear industries, who, after all, are owned by the same people, the 0.01%.
No because it is the truth as the facts now dictate and the health experts seemingly agree upon. If CP will release my last post we can begin to trudge thorough the painful details.
John; do you have a connection to the nuclear industry? I have noticed that most of your comments in the last few weeks focus on this issue alone.
Me No and I wish people wouldn’t ask that as it is a form of bad argument and supports the erroneous belief you can argue for anything and be correct.
Should I ask – “Do you work for a major gas company?”
That would reveal a underlying motivation in conspiracism. Which is in itself unfortunate but entirely another discussion.
My original post relates to the fact that all solar and wind installed in the last year combined was about half the power of Japanese nukes (if it was actually comparable base-load)
So that one setback if allowed to stand will practically erase two years of work. No one will be statistically “safer” either to any measurable extent by professional/reviewed sources.
And as arguably the single greatest easily preventable cause now of excess emissions in the electricity sector as well as the long term adoption of new fossil fuel trends and technology in the free world – is it any wonder I fixate on it?
But I see, they probably should ban me? That would fix it? Certainly it would solidify the position here within current trends.
Well I’m afraid that not all ‘health experts’ agree with your apparent position (forgive me if I misrepresent you) that nuclear radiation is harmless and that which has been released from Fukushima will harm no-one or only a very few unfortunates. Moreover, after the revelation of the secret accord between the WHO and the IAEA to downplay the dangers of nuclear radiation, I’m afraid that ‘health experts’ dismissing the dangers of nuclear radiation rank rather low on my rating of credibility.
Banning you would be daft and reprehensible. Is anyone really calling for it? Your pro-nuclear stance, which, in my opinion, is tragically counterproductive and hideously dangerous, must be confronted and refuted, not ignored or suppressed. Mind you, the pro-nuclear position has most of the MSM at its beck and call, from what I have seen, so there are plenty of nuclear friendly forums in which you can express your preference for slowly irradiating the planet.
Apologist for nuclear? Anti renewables??
First lets look at reality and the “paid nuclear shill conspiracy theory” :
1. No new nuclear plants were built for 30 years – even now its just because GW is a critical issue. There is a limited supply of nuclear workers and more plants would cause existing interests to pay their workers more.
2. FFs are far cheaper than nuclear (as pointed out) and most if not nearly all nuclear plants are owned by predominately by fossil fuel, for profit energy industry.
3. Nearly All large renewable projects have included natural gas co-generation capacity to the point of making natural gas the predominant source of power for these projects.
4. The US and Russians ( Gazprom ) are actively lobbing the Japanese for HUGE expensive gas capacity projects.
Connect the dots. I think another theory fits better if you want to go that route. (especially as the gas industry is known to have been involved in manipulating interests in environmental spheres.)
Undermining GG reductions by shuttering nuclear power is undermining GG reductions.
Its not anti or pro renewables, except it does take a huge amount of renewables to replace nuclear power. Thats something people need to realize.
Sorry reality works that way. I didnt sign up for that and am not going to let it happen without protest.
Forgot one:
5. Obama appointed someone hostile to nuclear power as the head of the NRC and is involved in negotiations with the Japanese on Alaska gas with his state department.