Reply With Quote
lol "climate justice movement"
The New Abolitionism
Now here’s the terrifying part. The Carbon Tracker Initiative, a consortium of financial analysts and environmentalists, set out to tally the amount of carbon contained in the proven fossil fuel reserves of the world’s energy companies and major fossil fuel–producing countries. That is, the total amount of carbon we know is in the ground that we can, with present technology, extract, burn and put into the atmosphere. The number that the Carbon Tracker Initiative came up with is… 2,795 gigatons. Which means the total amount of known, proven extractable fossil fuel in the ground at this very moment is almost five times the amount we can safely burn.
Proceeding from this fact, McKibben leads us inexorably to the staggering conclusion that the work of the climate movement is to find a way to force the powers that be, from the government of Saudi Arabia to the board and shareholders of ExxonMobil, to leave 80 percent of the carbon they have claims on in the ground. That stuff you own, that property you’re counting on and pricing into your stocks? You can’t have it.
...
The last time in American history that some powerful set of interests relinquished its claim on $10 trillion of wealth was in 1865—and then only after four years and more than 600,000 lives lost in the bloodiest, most horrific war we’ve ever fought.
...
In fact, the parallel I want to highlight is between the opponents of slavery and the opponents of fossil fuels. Because the abolitionists were ultimately successful, it’s all too easy to lose sight of just how radical their demand was at the time: that some of the wealthiest people in the country would have to give up their wealth. That liquidation of private wealth is the only precedent for what today’s climate justice movement is rightly demanding: that trillions of dollars of fossil fuel stay in the ground. It is an audacious demand, and those making it should be clear-eyed about just what they’re asking. They should also recognize that, like the abolitionists of yore, their task may be as much instigation and disruption as it is persuasion. There is no way around conflict with this much money on the line, no available solution that makes everyone happy. No use trying to persuade people otherwise.
If, indeed, what we need to save the earth is to forcibly pry trillions of dollars of wealth out of the hands of its owners, and if the only precedent for that is the liberation of the slaves—well, then you wouldn’t be crazy if you concluded that we’re doomed, since that result was achieved only through the most brutal extended war in our nation’s history.
While it is immensely, unfathomably profitable, it requires ungodly amounts of money to dig and drill the earth, money to pump and refine and transport the fuel so that it can go from the fossilized plant matter thousands of feet beneath the earth’s surface into your Honda. And that constant need for billions of new dollars in investment capital is the industry’s Achilles’ heel.
A variety of forces are now attacking precisely this vulnerability. The movement to stop the Keystone XL pipeline is probably the largest social movement in American history directed at stopping a piece of capital investment, which is what the pipeline is. Because without that pipeline, a lot of the dirty fuel trapped in the Alberta tar sands is too costly to be worth pulling out.
eighteen foundations, twenty-seven religious ins utions, twenty-two cities, and eleven colleges and universities have committed themselves to divestment. Together, they have pledged to divest hundreds of millions of dollars from the fossil fuel companies so far.
Of course, that’s a drop in the global pool of capital. But some of the largest funds in the world are sovereign wealth funds, which are subject to political pressure. The largest such fund belongs to Norway, which is seriously considering divesting from fossil fuels.
Investors, even those unmotivated by stewardship of the planet, have reason to be su ious of the fossil fuel companies. Right now, they are seeing their investment dollars diverted from paying dividends to doing something downright insane: searching for new reserves. Globally, the industry spends $1.8 billion a day on exploration. As one longtime energy industry insider pointed out to me, fossil fuel companies are spending much more on exploring for new reserves than they are posting in profits.
This means that fossil fuel companies are taking their investors’ money and spending it on this extremely expensive suicide mission. Every single day. If investors say, “Stop it—we want that money back as dividends rather than being spent on exploration,” then, according to this industry insider, “what that means is, literally, the oil and gas companies don’t have a viable business model. If all your investors say that, and all the analysts start saying that, they can no longer grow as businesses.”
As the great abolitionist Frederick Douglass said, “Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.” What the climate justice movement is demanding is the ultimate abolition of fossil fuels. And our fates all depend on whether they succeed.
http://www.thenation.com/article/179...w-abolitionism
lol "climate justice movement"
Duke Energy Attacks Rooftop Solar Energy
The dirty little tricks that big energy companies use to maintain their stranglehold over their customers, while continuing to pollute the very regions the serve, have now taken on a new twist. Duke Energy, whose operations were responsible for spilling 82,000 tons of coal ash into the Dan River, is now trying to run a misinformation campaign that attacks rooftop solar energy across the company’s service territories in Southern states.
http://cleantechnica.com/2014/05/04/...u6xf660jBx6.99
The lies and propaganda against rooftop solar proves that centralized electric utilities see it as a serious threat to their local monopolies and guaranteed cash flow.
I'd like to learn a little more about how this project went. I have a sister who works with this sort of thing under USDA, she's trying to interest me in it. Sheclaimed a 3 yr payback. 25% rebate, 15% tax credit.
On a side note.
Ive heard stories (one firsthand) about ontarios energy mess. High rates supposedly bc of the solar and wind projects. Govt backed out of promises. Big users of electrity are buying oil fired generators and going off grid. The guy i talked to did go off grid. I wasnt sure if rates were the same regarding res. or ind.
If you want to really see how to make an energy mess by "going green" then look no further than Germany.
link us to the green disaster in Germany.
Probably not in your rss feed.
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...-iwr-says.html
http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/201...ny-stalls.html
Unlike ACA needing fixes that the Repugs will obstruct, I'm sure the Germans will figure out a huge undertaking, and they won't have the Repugs to it all up.
German mgmt and German unions actually cooperate for the good of all Germany, unlike American corps that bust unions to enrich only themselves in their never-ending, successful War on Employees.
You BigCarbon eaters, GFY and stick your schadenfreude up your asses.
Germany is at least trying, esp in the distributed/rooftop solar, whereas America, with its fragile, under-invested grid, is obstructed by electric utilities and corporate lobbyists.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 05-07-2014 at 10:39 AM.
lol boutons.
btw, even China is making efforts. Their YOY increase in coal demand is down from nearly 20% to about 2%, thanks to huge investment in wind and solar.
One of Germany's renewables project problems is that Chinese turbines underprice Euro turbines, much like China dumps solar panels on US/CA markets. I'd support a huge tariff on Chinese solar and wind turbines to kill the game rigging.
While the Repugs try to gut/destroy the EPA, CWA, etc, etc.
China would be so bad off if they would modernize the coal burning process with scrubbers.
Cool... You really want to eliminate the Clinton Free Trade Zone?
No, they just see that regulatory commissions are going to far with bersome regulations. But then, good little lib s like you love to have an over reaching authoritarian government when it comes to hurting big business. Don't you?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 05-07-2014 at 11:47 AM.
scrubbers don't remove the C02.
Two US plants are coming on line soon with CCS, where the captured CO2 will help or replace water in fracking.
Free trade ain't free if one partner is depressing its currency AND/OR dumping product in foreign markets.
for BigCorps, " bersome" is ANY regulation that protects workers or the environment.
We know for certain the aerosols emitted by coal burning are bad. Neither side disagrees with that.
It is clearly debatable if CO2 is significant.
Wake up and smell the truth, and stop being such a Larry.
it's a false debate fabricated by BigCarbon and its shills like yourself.
as if facts would stop your shilling:
http://co2now.org/Current-CO2/CO2-No...emissions.html
Why can't you focus on agreeing that soot and other aerosols, emitted by old coal power plants, is harmful?
Agreeing with you on anything would be a bad as complimenting TBon his long-windedness
Any , including heat, coming out coal-fired electrical plants is pollution to be stopped.
No need to summon walls of texts from moonbat blogs. I can slap you in three lines.
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post7311167
http://www.engadget.com/2014/05/09/s...=rss_truncated
Cool idea. I've got questions around heat/cold expansion/contraction tho. Wonder how it handles extreme heat?
my moonbat RSS feeds pushed this my way.
I said "WTF"? how much would it cost? what about surface roughness to prevent skidding? durability, years? decades? maintenance costs? scratching of the surface by road wear that blocks light?
And the above-all-WTF, USA's continent is hardly populated, with Ms of acres of vacant land, esp in the useless, sterile semi-desert, desert from San Antonio to San Diego being available for massive solar panel farms.
Want to get double use of land used for highways while reducing oil consumption? Build elevated railways for high-speed, fully electrified trains (no diesel-electric kludge).
I suspect that's less of a problem than this... I wonder more, how long of life they have before scuffing, and wearing down. What about cars with dripping oils and gas? Do the plastics used hold up to that, and the UV light from the sun?
My concerns as well, but I suspect a there is a material that will work. Thing is, to get both the chemical resistance for oil fuel, antifreeze, and UV light... I also wonder at what frequency they would have to be individually remove the panel comers and replace them. Asphalt and concrete can be allowed to wear considerable before they are repaved. I can't imaging such processes lasting even 10% the time for which repaving in needed.
Solar panels will cause their own version of climate change. maybe we should see how some of these current projects work before implementing them real wide.
One reason why cars won out over trolly's in the past is people wanted their individual freedom of movement. Some would say public transportation is cheaper, but that only fits for a small number of people.
Elevated high speed rail? I challenge you to do a cost review analysis for such a thing...
"Solar panels will cause their own version of climate change"
yes, climate change to the good, less coal/natgas burning means less CO2.
There is more to it than that. the shade and conversion of sunlight to electricity also reduces the heat where they are located. They might be capable of inducing regional climate change.
less heat on the ground shaded by solar panels in semi-desert or desert?
What %age of the surface of the 1200 miles between SA and SD would have to be covered to realize your febrile fantasy of solar panels directly changing the weather?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions