Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search


Nihil's Journal
Nihil's Journal
June 4, 2015

Whilst true, I would venture that the *wastage* of that domestic animal biomass has increased more

... i.e., while the animals (and their supporting feed) were being reared in smallholdings rather
than CAFs, the efficiency when measured in terms of input to consumed output has decreased
whilst the amount of simple waste (i.e., input discarded and not used, whether at the feeding stage,
the overuse of artificial fertilizer, the development/transport/insertion of hormones & drugs, the
losses from transport, the wastage of the end product - thrown away after the "fresh period&quot
has greatly increased.

So yes, your point is most definitely valid but so is Nick's.

We all agree that there are far too many people and that is the spark of the problem.

The accelerant is the mindset that the only way forward is to mine/grow/produce/consume more
of everything.

The resulting conflagration is all around us and in the projections for the near future.


May 21, 2015

Fixed it for ya ...

> Industry has complete regulatory capture control of our government agencies

It's a top-down process.

April 29, 2015

No, not directly but indirectly it becomes a "Possibly".

The fractional increase in temperature that will cause so much harm to so many creatures
(including humans) is totally insignificant so the idea that this extra heat will (a) penetrate
and (b) influence the heat balance of the planet is a complete non-starter. It is not just a
surface effect but a "tiny, tiny sliver of the surface" effect and so neither competes with
nor affects the massive energy flows within the planet proper - certainly not down to the

The forces behind earthquakes of this nature (pardon the pun) are phenomenally large,
truly hard to understand in human terms. The energies contained, transmitted and released
by earth engine events (volcanoes, earthquakes, tectonics in general) are almost impossible
to comprehend unless you've spent some time looking into that field.

However, when a bullet is fired from a gun, the energy transmitted in that last fraction of
an inch of trigger movement is totally out of proportion to the energy released to project
the bullet - the indirect effect of tiny changes can indeed have large & widespread impacts.
(One could make the analogy with the last ounce of pressure on the trigger of a handgun in
Sarajevo and the resulting years of World War I - "the bullet that killed 16 million people".)

A small reduction in ice thickness over a large area means that a significant weight has
been removed during a blink of geological time. The rebound of that section of the crust
due to the rapid change in forces upon it affects the adjoining crust and any faults now
have also had a change of the forces previously locking them in place.

Added to this, there are two other effects: the "ripple" of change that spreads out,
weakening all of the time but still potentially (and historically proven) powerful enough
to affect any contacted "trigger point" in order to effectively propagate the event; and
the "ringing" effect where the shock from a major earth event (volcano, earthquake)
reverberates around the planet (i.e., not just to adjoining areas but through deeper
transmission paths).

Whether these changes are sufficient to release (cause) earthquakes in a *particular* case
is beyond our ability to accurately determine but in practice, it can and it does have this
capability in general so yes, the ongoing rush to the cliff of Chaos is even having effects
of a far greater nature than "just a change in temperature".

That doesn't mean that *this* earthquake was "caused" (or even "triggered&quot by human
activity but, as the scale of the impact continues to increase, the frequency & scale of
earthquakes *will* be affected thanks to "Business As Usual" winning out.

April 24, 2015

Propaganda bullshit of the same level as "Clean Coal" (tm)

> In a number of CCS projects, the co2 is utilized to enhance oil recovery from mature wells.

This means that MORE oil is being burned to produce MORE CO2 (for MORE profit of course
and MORE political bribes as a result).

And, to tie the complementary scams together, one fifth of the headline number was from
this crock of shit:

> demonstrating a state-of-the-art system to capture carbon emissions from two steam methane
> reformers used to produce hydrogen. Air Products retrofitted its steam methane reformers with
> an advanced system that separates CO2 from the process gas stream. The CO2, in compressed
> form, is then delivered by pipeline to enhanced oil recovery projects in eastern Texas.

So, the CCS (greenwash) scam is being used to support both the hydrogen (greenwash) scam
AND the Business As Usual fossil fuel industry.

Yeah, real fucking progress there people ...

April 15, 2015

From my perspective, we are largely screwed ...

We are being swamped by (deliberate) ignorance & destructive stupidity,
both enabled & actively supported by the (extremely) powerful moneyed factions.

The only way to counter such a mindset would require a fascist approach
(i.e., doesn't matter what people believe to be their "right to destroy", it
has to be revoked for the sake of the future) yet that same fascist approach
is impossible without the backing of the same powerful moneyed factions
that are currently hell bent on f*cking the planet for short term profit.

The "human race" - assuming you mean "current human civilisation" - as a whole is screwed.
It is going to change in many very unpleasant & frighteningly rapid ways over the coming years.

The only thing "we" - i.e., the aware minority who are not part of the 0.01% - can do
about this is on a very local level indeed: spread education, truth & love to try to
alleviate the pain for the coming generations and give them a slightly better chance
of survival than the horde being sent over the cliff happy with their "reality TV",
iPhones, guns & religions.

For that "slightly better chance" for them, I work, I study, I share ... yet I cannot
pretend that I do not also despair at times over the sheer futility of my own actions.

March 6, 2015

It will be a wonderfully clean source of energy if/when it arrives but that is missing the point.

(or "points" as there are more than one of them)

1) Fusion has always been a decade or two in the future so, at the moment, it is *not*
a "source of energy that would make coal and natural gas obsolete to make electricity".

2) Until it moves from the indeterminate future into the now, its only function is to provide
yet another excuse to maintain Business As Usual rather than *reducing* energy consumption.

3) The mindset ruling the human civilisation is absurdly immature and totally incapable of
handling "boundless free energy" without accelerating the rate of devastation to the ecosphere.

> Its by product is helium.
> No more coal sludge. No open pit coal mines. Mr. Peabocy's coal train disappears.

In an ideal world, fusion like this is *exactly* what we'd want to power our utopian society
where all people are equal and the environment respected.

In the real world, (of today and the next decade or so at least), boundless energy (clean or
not) has only one purpose: to make the filthy rich even richer at the expense of everyone
and everything else.

> You are wrong on this one.

I wish I were but my eyes watching the events of every passing day tell me otherwise.

March 6, 2015

It has everything to do with a new source of energy.

> We need better environmental laws. but this has nothing to do with a new source of energy.

The fact that we need "environmental laws" to keep our behaviour under any form of control shows
that we are not yet a mature enough species to have advanced (widespread, cheap) energy sources.

The fact that we need "better environmental laws" just underlines this problem: even the more
mature members of the species are currently (and for the foreseeable future) incapable of restraining
the greedy, exploitative & rapacious members who are in control.

> And these places were created before it existed, so the new energy source isn't relevant to that discussion.

Pedantically no, the places in & like that photograph were created after the "new energy source"
was first being promoted as "the clean energy of the future" - a state that it has remained in ever since.

February 26, 2015

Possibly that it is an excellent counter-argument to the "renewable energy is ugly" bollocks?

If the French (a very image- & culture-oriented nation) can find a solution that allows
their most famous landmark to move towards self-powering with renewables then the
old pro-fossil-fuel canard of "But they look all ugly-like" is shot down in flames.

I agree that some really serious posts do slip by with few recs (hell, for some, even
the view count is only in double digits) and I suspect that part of the reason for the
lack of recs on more than a few of them is simply concern exhaustion: the subject has
been shouted about here for literally YEARS with absolutely no progress in the real world.

At times it hits people that just what is the point of recommending the 985th post showing
how the US government is fucking up the ocean for money or how is India burning shit-tons
more coal each year or which toxic compound is currently top of China's atmospheric output
or how many more previously unknown species have gone extinct today or how insulated
from the effects of their exploitation are the 0.1%ers in London/New York/Zurich/Rome
or just how fucking dumb are the voters in Florida or how corrupt is the Harper government
or how many different IDs can a fossil fuel troll have before getting banned again or ... or ...

It is usually the E/E "regulars" (probably the same "double digit viewers" from the above)
that do the initial recs to a post, so, every now & then - when they have seen precisely how
little DUers in general (much less the wider world) actually cares about any of the things that
hit them so hard - there is an unavoidable "Fuck it" moment that means that you realise just
how futile your attempts to rec a repeat of the same critically important issues up for wider
viewing truly are: you are attempting to overpower the overwhelming ignorance, stupidity and
suicidal selfishness that surrounds us with a mouse-click, to claim the attention of couch
potatoes & facebook failures possessing the attention-span of a drunken gnat with a "+1"
to the rec count of something so far down the list of the so-called "Greatest Page" that they'd
never have scrolled down to find it, much preferring to rush off to post more "Awww!!! n/t" replies
to a photo of yet another kitten.

I rec'd this post in the hope that a post having an eye-catching thread title, a simple text
explanation & a few meaningful photos might break through that morass of triviality and put
to rest just one of the many lies about renewable energy that are thrown at us - that it is ugly
and visually damaging. YMMV.

February 11, 2015

No, we *need* to stop searching desperately for ways to continue Business As Usual ...

... and for ways to continue justifying the exact same behaviour that has got us into this fix.

Solar power is better than carbon neutral.

Wind power is better than carbon neutral.

The extraction & consumption (whether burned or converted) of fossil fuel resources
is never carbon neutral.

The use of "biofuel" can be better than carbon neutral but it can also be much worse
(e.g., when it destroys the environment "in order to save it&quot .

"Forest residue" is not waste. It is currently used to continue the natural cycle.
Extracting it for combustion - even with "most" CO2 being captured (then lost) - is not
helping the environment as not only does it degrade the source region's carbon cycle,
it is providing fuel that would otherwise not be available ... i.e., supporting "growth" and
"profit" a.k.a. "Business As Usual".

"Field residue" is not waste. It contains nutrients to replenish the soil and continue the
ability for the land to support further crops without demanding artificial fertilisers (which
consume resources - fossil fuels - and generate CO2, destroying the environment field by field).
Extracting it for combustion - even with the figleaf of hypothetical "CCS" - supports nothing
other than "Business As Usual".

> We need to do something that produces not just lower emissions, even carbon-neutral
> technology is not sufficient. We need negative emissions.

We need to stop emissions from fossil fuels, not just push them behind a curtain of bullshit.

We need to accept that our current choices are not sustainable - even in the short term - and change them.

We need to stop destroying the environment in order to continue our lust for the myth of "profit".

January 28, 2015

It's not just political opinions that affect decisions ...

Reduced intelligence has a tendency to lead the political opinions in one primary direction
as a result of unquestioning acceptance of whoever shouts loudest (or most frequently).

Yes, political opinions can vary enormously within families but they are far less
likely to do to in low intelligence ones than in high and everything these days (across different
countries) is geared towards keeping good education as a province of the rich and reducing
any disruption to the stratification of society.

The genetic factors feed in to both ends of that process: "1%" and "herd".

Profile Information

Gender: Male
Home country: England
Member since: 2003 before July 6th
Number of posts: 13,508
Latest Discussions»Nihil's Journal