The Truth, Still Inconvenient

[Vlad n U 2]

Originally Posted by purpleoscar

Yes as a goal but I don't remember being taught that a Marxist revolution would be democratic therefore bloodless.

It would be near impossible for a revolution to be completely bloodless since that would imply that the ruling class would ‘hand it over’ to the proletarians, which is fairly obvious that they won’t and even greatly outnumbered they wouldn’t go down without utilising the power at their disposal.

For what it’s worth the Russian Revolution itself was relatively peaceful, but it’s the civil war that followed which was obviously bloody.

All in all I feel a bit iffy on continuing this discussion in this particular thread since we've strayed from anything regarding the actual environment.

[Badyouken]

Originally Posted by AEON

Source: Solar Will Power the World in 16 Years

Solar is indeed growing at an exponential rate. As much as I'd love to see it continue on this trend, I suspect that this growth is, in large part, due to the fact that there is room to grow at the margins. The game is different once you move on to baseload generation. On the technological front, a modern grid infrastructure and significant efficient storage capacity is required - we have neither of those. On the economic front, solar will have to displace assets that are amortized over 30 years, many of which are being planned as we speak in the absence of valid alternatives. This financial inertia is a tremendous hurdle to overcome for alternative generation, especially in regulated electricity markets.

I think a better assessment would be that in 16 years solar may have the potential to power the world.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Badyouken

I think a better assessment would be that in 16 years solar may have the potential to power the world.

Based on what you mentioned - that makes sense. Hopefully we will continue to see more off-grid applications of solar energy until they can build it into the infrastructure.

Did you read this article about solar powered roads?

Solar Powered Roads

If the panels replaced all paved surfaces in the United States, from roads to sidewalks to playgrounds, the developers have estimated that they could produce more than three times the amount of electricity currently used in the whole country—and almost enough to supply the entire world

[Badyouken]

Originally Posted by AEON

Based on what you mentioned - that makes sense. Hopefully we will continue to see more off-grid applications of solar energy until they can build it into the infrastructure.

Did you read this article about solar powered roads?

Solar Powered Roads

Yes, and I will be paying attention to the pilot project (the parking lot).

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by AEON

That being said, would you agree that it doesn't really matter if global warming is real in the context that we (all humans) should be better stewards of the earth? There is proof that many post-Industrial Age activities still harm the environment: poisons water, causes cancer, urban blight (think of all the ugly-ass wires that run between homes in the East Coast and rust belt ruins) - shouldn't we do what we can to stop this? Shouldn't earth be restored to the "Garden" it is called to be?

I’m glad you asked me this question. In our current polarized state, if you are not with team global warming, you must hate the earth.

I take a similar position based on faith that we are care takers of the earth. I also take the economic approach that each person (corporate and individual) should internalize externalities.

There are plenty of environmental controls that have a direct and successful effect. Too bad we haven’t applied such a reasonable approach when it comes to global warming.

[Jive Turkey]

Originally Posted by AEON

That being said, would you agree that it doesn't really matter if global warming is real in the context that we (all humans) should be better stewards of the earth? There is proof that many post-Industrial Age activities still harm the environment: poisons water, causes cancer, urban blight (think of all the ugly-ass wires that run between homes in the East Coast and rust belt ruins) - shouldn't we do what we can to stop this? Shouldn't earth be restored to the "Garden" it is called to be?

Nicely said. Strange how the simplicity of a statement like this tends to get lost in all the climate change arguments

[AEON]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

I’m glad you asked me this question. In our current polarized state, if you are not with team global warming, you must hate the earth.

True. Good thing I'm not running for office so I can make up my own mind on the issue without worrying which "side" I fall on. Global warming may be debatable, but environmental damage from industry is not.

To me, arguing against global warming is like a smoker saying to his doctor: "What do you mean I should quit! I don't even have lung cancer yet?" If global warming does not exist - praise God the damage is not that bad yet! We can still prevent it!

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

I take a similar position based on faith that we are care takers of the earth.

I think the last few hundred years of Western Christian thought is partially to blame. Since the prevailing attitude was that the "world" was evil and that Jesus would come back and destroy it allowed many to think of the Earth as just some sort of temporary annoyance, something that served a utilitarian purpose for God's will. Combine this attitude with capitalism and scientific advancements and you get, well - dead lakes, birth defects, toxic waste, ugliness, filth...etc.

Thankfully, all attitudes are changing, even Christians. Many Christians are returning to the idea that Earth is "good" - and that we are God-sent colonists, called to make the place more like Heaven in every way. Combine that attitude with recent advances in science and we can certainly make this a MUCH cleaner, safer, sustainable, and beautiful place.

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

I also take the economic approach that each person (corporate and individual) should internalize externalities.

Just when I think I've gained some semblance of wisdom - I'm reminded what a fool I am. Can you please elaborate on this? Thank You.

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

There are plenty of environmental controls that have a direct and successful effect. Too bad we haven’t applied such a reasonable approach when it comes to global warming.

Well, hopefully both sides can just agree that 1) there is such a thing as man-made environmental damage and 2) there is still plenty more we can do about it.

[Badyouken]

IEA: Renewables to surpass gas by 2016 in the global power mix

26 June 2013

Power generation from hydro, wind, solar and other renewable sources worldwide will exceed that from gas and be twice that from nuclear by 2016, the International Energy Agency (IEA) said today in its second annual Medium-Term Renewable Energy Market Report (MTRMR).

According to the MTRMR, despite a difficult economic context, renewable power is expected to increase by 40% in the next five years. Renewables are now the fastest-growing power generation sector and will make up almost a quarter of the global power mix by 2018, up from an estimated 20% in 2011. The share of non-hydro sources such as wind, solar, bioenergy and geothermal in total power generation will double, reaching 8% by 2018, up from 4% in 2011 and just 2% in 2006.

“As their costs continue to fall, renewable power sources are increasingly standing on their own merits versus new fossil-fuel generation,” said IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven as she presented the report at the Renewable Energy Finance Forum in New York. “This is good news for a global energy system that needs to become cleaner and more diversified, but it should not be an excuse for government complacency, especially among OECD countries.”

Even as the role of renewables increases across all sectors, the MTRMR cautions that renewable development is becoming more complex and faces challenges – especially in the policy arena. In several European countries with stagnating economies and energy demand, debate about the costs of renewable support policies is mounting. In addressing these issues, Ms. Van der Hoeven warned that “policy uncertainty is public enemy number one” for investors: “Many renewables no longer require high economic incentives. But they do still need long-term policies that provide a predictable and reliable market and regulatory framework compatible with societal goals,” she stated. “And worldwide subsidies for fossil fuels remain six times higher than economic incentives for renewables.”

The forecasts in the report build on the impressive growth registered in 2012, when global renewable generation rose by over 8% despite a challenging investment, policy and industry context in some areas. In absolute terms, global renewable generation in 2012 – at 4 860 TWh – exceeded the total estimated electricity consumption of China.

Two main factors are driving the positive outlook for renewable power generation. First, investment and deployment are accelerating in emerging markets, where renewables help to address fast-rising electricity demand, energy diversification needs and local pollution concerns while contributing to climate change mitigation. Led by China, non-OECD countries are expected to account for two-thirds of the global increase in renewable power generation between now and 2018. Such rapid deployment is expected to more than compensate for slower growth and smooth out volatility in other areas, notably Europe and the US.

Second, in addition to the well-established competitiveness of hydropower, geothermal and bioenergy, renewables are becoming cost-competitive in a wider set of circumstances. For example, wind competes well with new fossil-fuel power plants in several markets, including Brazil, Turkey and New Zealand. Solar is attractive in markets with high peak prices for electricity, for instance, those resulting from oil-fired generation. Decentralised solar photovoltaic generation costs can be lower than retail electricity prices in a number of countries.

The MTRMR also sees gains for biofuels in transport and for renewable sources for heat, though at somewhat slower growth rates than renewable electricity. Biofuels output, adjusted for energy content, should account for nearly 4% of global oil demand for road transport in 2018, up from 3% in 2012. But advanced biofuels growth is proceeding only slowly.

As a portion of final energy consumption for heat, renewable sources, excluding traditional biomass, should rise to almost 10% in 2018, from over 8% in 2011. But the potential of renewable heat remains largely unexploited.

These growth figures are impressive, considering the economic climate.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by Badyouken

IEA: Renewables to surpass gas by 2016 in the global power mix



These growth figures are impressive, considering the economic climate.

[nbcrusader]

Originally Posted by AEON

Just when I think I've gained some semblance of wisdom - I'm reminded what a fool I am. Can you please elaborate on this? Thank You.

[Regarding my comment on internalizing externalities]

The externality is the negative impact on society from a person's actions. This can range from the manufacturing plant creating particulates and toxic gases to the individual who, for example, leaves their shopping cart in the middle of a parking spot.

Both persons obtained a personal benefit (manufactured goods/groceries to their car) but both imposed a harm to society (polluted air/blocked parking space). Both should be required to "Internalize" - reduced their negative impact on society (exhaust scrubbing technology/push the cart to the appropriate space). The cost of internalization can be absorbed by the person (slightly higher manufacturing costs/slightly long time to do grocery shopping).

I am mindful of this concept in my everyday activities and the activities of my family and would hope all others do so as well.

[Badyouken]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

[Regarding my comment on internalizing externalities]

The externality is the negative impact on society from a person's actions. This can range from the manufacturing plant creating particulates and toxic gases to the individual who, for example, leaves their shopping cart in the middle of a parking spot.

Both persons obtained a personal benefit (manufactured goods/groceries to their car) but both imposed a harm to society (polluted air/blocked parking space). Both should be required to "Internalize" - reduced their negative impact on society (exhaust scrubbing technology/push the cart to the appropriate space). The cost of internalization can be absorbed by the person (slightly higher manufacturing costs/slightly long time to do grocery shopping).

I am mindful of this concept in my everyday activities and the activities of my family and would hope all others do so as well.

[AEON]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

[Regarding my comment on internalizing externalities]

The externality is the negative impact on society from a person's actions. This can range from the manufacturing plant creating particulates and toxic gases to the individual who, for example, leaves their shopping cart in the middle of a parking spot.

Both persons obtained a personal benefit (manufactured goods/groceries to their car) but both imposed a harm to society (polluted air/blocked parking space). Both should be required to "Internalize" - reduced their negative impact on society (exhaust scrubbing technology/push the cart to the appropriate space). The cost of internalization can be absorbed by the person (slightly higher manufacturing costs/slightly long time to do grocery shopping).

I am mindful of this concept in my everyday activities and the activities of my family and would hope all others do so as well.

Thank you for the clarification, NB. I like this line of thinking very much. As a fellow Southern Californian, I'm thankful for the push on recycling waste and using recycled water for all the greenery - but I still wince when I see the huge SUV or HUMVEE growling down the street (although I see more and more small and fuel efficient vehicles everyday).

Again, thank you for clarifying...

[nbcrusader]

The alarming story: Arctic summers could be ice-free by 2013

The factual reality: Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

The alarming story: Arctic summers could be ice-free by 2013

The factual reality: Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

upon what are you basing these declarative statements?

if we consider the sources alone, i know which one has the better factual record.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

The alarming story: Arctic summers could be ice-free by 2013

The factual reality: Record return of Arctic ice cap as it grows by 60% in a year

The Daily Mail is nicknamed the Daily Fail for its sensationalist tabloid reporting. So the BBC is the reliable source here

[nbcrusader]

The underlying data came from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center.

It is not a blurry picture of bigfoot.

I actually posted this to see how new facts would impact steadfast political narrative. I wasn't disappointed. Alinsky rules apply - ridicule the source.

[Diemen]

Seeing as the original BBC prediction was made 6 years ago, I'm not really all that shocked that it wasn't correct. The daily mail article does have an odd kind of gotcha-journalism "ha! look who got it wrong!" style rather than just reporting it straight, though.

[Pearl]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

The underlying data came from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center.

It is not a blurry picture of bigfoot.

I actually posted this to see how new facts would impact steadfast political narrative. I wasn't disappointed. Alinsky rules apply - ridicule the source.

This has nothing to do with politics, it's about knowing which source is reliable based on reputation. The DM is like Us magazine with serious news with a biased angle thrown in. The BBC is known for its more thorough reporting.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

The underlying data came from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center.

It is not a blurry picture of bigfoot.

I actually posted this to see how new facts would impact steadfast political narrative. I wasn't disappointed. Alinsky rules apply - ridicule the source.

Alinsky rules?

you've made your own point with this post. it's every bit as partisan as the reaction you were trolling for. very meta.

[Irvine511]

Originally Posted by nbcrusader

The underlying data came from the US National Snow and Ice Data Center.

and here's what they have to say:

Sea ice extent for August 2013 averaged 6.09 million square kilometers (2.35 million square miles). This was 1.03 million square kilometers (398,000 square miles) below the 1981 to 2010 average for August, but well above the level recorded last year, which was the lowest September extent in the satellite record. Ice extent this August was similar to the years 2008 to 2010. These contrasts in ice extent from one year to the next highlight the year-to-year variability attending the overall, long-term decline in sea ice extent.

Extent in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas has dropped below average, after near average conditions in July. The only region with average extent is the East Siberian Sea.

The seasonal decline of extent through the month of August was slightly above average at 56,400 square kilometers (21,800 square miles) per day, but more than a third slower than the record decline rate in August 2012. This year’s August extent was the sixth lowest in the 1979 to 2013 satellite record.

August 2013 ice extent was 1.38 million square kilometers (533,000 square miles) above the record low August extent in 2012. The monthly trend is –10.6% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.