[dohboi]

"fake-green crowd"

Care to name any names, there, pete? or are you too chicken sh!t to actually name those you anonymously accuse with not a distant glimmer of evidence or proof?

[SeaGypsy]

Back to the Philippines for a minute- having lived there I found that the vast majority of Filipinos only require enough electricity for a couple of pedestal fans, a small TV & a light or 2. 1% outside of the capital would have air-conditioning, heating is mostly unnecessary. The reason for new plants & lots of them is the way the geography is. Mostly it is a very energy efficient country ideal for a variety of low intensity local solutions, but the way politics work- the government is desperate to develop fixed & growing income streams. Centralized systems provide a captive audience. Last time I checked, usage charges were not much cheaper than Australia, where average wages are 40 times higher. The Pinoy people have every reason to engage in transitional energy, but their government is seriously strapped for cash.

[dohboi]

Sorry if I call you out with science when you spew idiocy, pete. If you want to equate science with jihad, that's your own special delusional brew. I hope you enjoy that quaff.

[onlooker]

In reference to why Philippines is building all these new coal plants, yes it is certainly pressure from higher ups, the international fossil fuel industry which is to say the world-wide economic system. It is a win-win as the elites of the Philippines also get tangible monetary benefits. I would not necessarily call that desperate but rather the run of the mill greed. Potential consumers are desperate so they will accept any improvement to their living standards from any source.

[onlooker]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... l-warming/
this is a link to how just recently polls indicate many people just do not put climate change as a top priority. I would ask others is this a case of denial?

[Tanada]

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/27/eve-cop21-paris-talks-world-just-doesnt-care-global-warming/
this is a link to how just recently polls indicate many people just do not put climate change as a top priority. I would ask others is this a case of denial?

For good or ill the wetware our brain operates on is analog, not digital, and our memory is holographic, not compartmented. Therefore without humans even being aware of it we automatically focus on the closest most mobile threat within our perception. So long as 'global climate change' will not kill us our or immediate descendants within a short time window we have to actively think about the problem because subconsciously it is a very low priority and near term things are a very high priority.

I was a history major because I love looking at the long term view, but I have discovered throughout my life that a vanishingly small percentage of the human population feels the same way. In a survival situation you have to focus on today because otherwise you will never see tomorrow. Our brain works based on live today and worry about tomorrows challenges tomorrow. This even applies to the kinds of recreation we engage in, some people love Game Of Thrones or the HBO series Rome because of the romanticized version of life in primitive conditions they represent. The movie The Quest For Fire is a lot more realistic and a whole lot less sexy and entertaining so most people never watch it even once. The idea that we could crash our civilization from oil depletion or climate change is just too distant a threat for the average human to take interest in without having to actively think, and actively thinking requires effort.

[onlooker]

Good points as usual Tanada. Oh you saw also that movie "Quest for Fire". I thought it was a well made movie and depicts realistically what life must have been like back then. Yes we are programmed not just to act on the immediate dangers but to perceive more acutely and clearly the near term dangers. Yet I would also offer the notion that we are also programmed to have the fight or flight response. Is not flight akin to a form of denial, to not wish to deal or contemplate certain unpleasant realities. I feel on this site we have all received a crash course in psychology because of how much we have all dwelt on the underlying mindset of why we are at this juncture and how we have and are responding to these circumstances.

[dohboi]

Last point on the Philippines and power plants...historically, many such major electrification projects in the third worlds, though widely ballyhooed as the great promise for the unwashed masses, have ended up (not surprisingly if one thinks about it for more than a millisecond) mostly benefiting the wealthy elites. They're the ones who planned them, after all. But they are always pointed to as the great hope for the poor masses, and it is the ones who question this meme who are labeled 'elites' who don't care about the poor.

Like just about everything else, the whole thing is buggared up beyond all recognition (fubar).

[onlooker]

Good observation Dohboi, as the whole shebang is structured in a top down hierarchy with regards the world wide economy and the fossil fuel industry. It is about money and the acquisition of it meaning loans, exploitation of the poor, grafting , swindling, payouts , bribes etc. Countries are compelled to accept and most willingly do as they are run by people just as greedy and power hungry as those at the very top of the global pyramid.

[ennui2]

I don't see how wallowing in negative narratives like the above helps matters at all. I also know that those who complain the most about government would probably be the least to actually run for office. Therefore we cede control to the egomaniacs who have strong enough personalities to win elections. Not that everyone's bad, mind you. My senator is Elizabeth Warren and I think she's pretty neat. That's the thing about generalizations. They are never 100% true. Screeds like the above are just kind of junk food posts for doomers.

[dohboi]

(Not sure whose screed you're referring to there, en.)

[Newfie]

Tanda,

Thank you for that thoughtful post.

I would like to play with that idea a bit and see where it goes.

My knee jerk reaction is that you explained why Democracy is at the core of of our inability to do meaningful long term planning.

Because thinking is difficult for the individual we have developed institutions whose job it is to systematically do the long term planning. To pay people to do this. Let's break this into three groups: business, government, and military.

Business is beholden to share holders (voters) and thus quarterly profits. There long term thinking is limited to 2 or 3 quarters.

Government works on election cycles, usually 2 or 4 years. That's their limit.

The military is not so limited and seems to have undertaken several long term studies that indicate the likelihood and difficulty with peak oil and cc. I seem to recall the USA, GB, and Germany all making similar reports.

Thoughts?

[Newfie]

Tanda,

I would like to add to your comment on long term thinking.

My observation among engineers is that the vast majority are only comfortable working within a very tiny box. Of course they will all strenuously disagree. None the less the biggest personnel challenge we face on repeated projects, is having folks coordinate with those they need to coordinate with because they have very rigid boundaries.

Much of my last 20 years has been in "system integration" for large multidisciplinary construction projects, typical with a civil lead. My and/or my staffs reason for being is simply to be a busy body who talks to all the designers and constructors and makes sure that they are coordinating. Of course we do this in a procedural manner and record the steps from conceptual design through acceptance. But it is damn hard to find folks who can do this, who can touch on many fields. Almost without exception people tell me they can't do it because it's "not their field" or they don't know enough. Some tell me it is impossible. Yet we have done it very successfully bringing in projects on time, on budget. The trick is that you don't have to know, you just need to make sure the people who do need to know agreed. Simple.

I mention this as an illustration of another kind of limitation, similar to the long term planning one you mention above.

For what ever reason, and surely to some detriment, I seem immune to this limitation. Consequently I have had a very broad and interesting career having been exposed to many new ideas. But when these difficult projects arise, it's always the same few folks who end up eyeball deep making it work and pulling the steady hands along kicking and screaming.

At this point I find I know so much about so many things I know almost nothing useful about anything. Surely time to retire.

[kanon]

dohboi - "...doesn't mean all Filipinos are wildly enthusiastic about it." I didn't say "all Filipinos are wildly enthusiastic' about it, did I? A rather weak straw man approach...shame on you. LOL. But if the majority of the citizens who elect the govt didn't want the coal plants built they wouldn't be built. You seem to have a problem with the democratic process when you're in the minority. You also often want to blame citizens (who in your opinion aren't nearly as smart as you) for being led around by the nose by corporations. The plants will be built because the majority of the Filipino people desperately want them built. BTW: how many hours during your average day does you electricity goes out? You might try walking in some Filipino boots before you start pointing a finger at those folks.

Trust me: I know it sucks to be in the minority...been there in the oil patch for 40 years. LOL. But you shouldn't blame others just because they foolishly THINK they are smarter than you.

If it were only so simple. There may be public support, but the options are limited and simple pragmatism dictates surrender on as favorable terms as possible. Besides, politicians who do not go along with the FF corporate oligarchy are disposed of regularly. Does it strike anyone as odd that just as coal plants have been rendered uncompetitive in Europe and the U.S. there is a sudden growth of coal plants in Asia -- like all this desire for "prosperity" was not there before -- if it exists at all. Along with this is the Obama administration using the WTO to block the solar panel initiative in India. Why, given the experience of Germany and Denmark, would any country choose coal over wind and PV? Only because their politicians are either crooks or recently shot. Sorry, I just do not believe people actually want coal plants, but I do believe the corporate oligarchy can convince many gullible people they have no choice and there will be wonderful benefits someday. IMHO, these countries are victims of some incredibly greedy and manipulative FF oligarchs.

[dohboi]

Nicely put, k. Especially: "Does it strike anyone as odd that just as coal plants have been rendered uncompetitive in Europe and the U.S. there is a sudden growth of coal plants in Asia -- like all this desire for "prosperity" was not there before -- if it exists at all. "

And Newf, excellent points, well put.

[Tanada]

Tanda,

Thank you for that thoughtful post.

I would like to play with that idea a bit and see where it goes.

My knee jerk reaction is that you explained why Democracy is at the core of of our inability to do meaningful long term planning.

Because thinking is difficult for the individual we have developed institutions whose job it is to systematically do the long term planning. To pay people to do this. Let's break this into three groups: business, government, and military.

Business is beholden to share holders (voters) and thus quarterly profits. There long term thinking is limited to 2 or 3 quarters.

Government works on election cycles, usually 2 or 4 years. That's their limit.

The military is not so limited and seems to have undertaken several long term studies that indicate the likelihood and difficulty with peak oil and cc. I seem to recall the USA, GB, and Germany all making similar reports.

Thoughts?

Thank you for reading it

My first thought is you are focusing on Western Europe and North America where the so called 'Democracies' are the rule of the day. It is still that case that the majority of human beings live under other forms of government where people who rise to the top are often very long view thinkers. For example the Chinese are still planning and building for the future, not the present. Another example, the Castro family in Cuba has been in constant control for approaching 60 years, and while they have had ups and downs during that time they have been smart and skilled enough to hold onto power. Even longer term the House of Saud in Arabia and the Kim family in North Korea have maintain continuity of power through the transition of leadership more than once. IMO the reason Democracies fail over and over throughout history is they lose focus on the long term in their leadership circles and in the competition with longer term thinking outsiders they get out maneuvered.

In China there are still a lot of government owned businesses who follow the long term plan dynamic, not the next quarter or year dynamic followed in North America and Europe. This allows them to take advantage of the opportunities created by our short term business cycle driven thinking. It is not a miracle or a perfect system, but it offers major advantages over the borrow, invest, pay off and borrow again system we use. Even here companies like the one ROCKMAN works for where the monied owners do not follow the loan cycle system has major advantages. Unfortunately starting around 1913 the USA changed from a monied investor driven economy to a loan qualified investor driven economy. Because the loans are always requiring a payback growth has been built into the system and can not be avoided so long as loans are the driving force of the economy.

The third group you mentioned is the military. While in some ways the US military industrial complex has improved its efficiency by adopting renewable energy supplies for base locations in other ways they are very much married to the past. For an example, the USAF is still planning to deploy a hundred or so F-35 aircraft despite its great number of problems. Meanwhile updating the avionics in already existing designs would achieve most or all of the 'improvements' planned for the F-35, but they can't do that because the culture is they have to have the newest latest greatest most complicated most expensive aircraft on the planet. Second example, in World War II which ended 70 years ago the USN achieved great success with a two pronged approach, Aircraft Carriers and Submarines. They did this by mass producing them so fast that neither Germany nor Japan could sink them fast enough to cause the fleet to shrink, and by training the crews and getting them into service quickly. When WW II ended the USA had close to 150 aircraft carriers in service and even more submarines. They built almost all of them in 4 years while taking substantial losses the first year from the pre war forces. The USA fleet today is actually smaller than it was in 1939, but unlike the 1930's the USA has almost no ship building capacity. We were building larger aircraft carriers in 15-24 months and small ones in 10 months and we were building Submarines in under 6 months. It now takes 7 to 10 YEARS to build an aircraft carrier, and we only have one shipyard with the ability to build 2 at the same time. We now have one submarine building shipyard and it is lucky to build one submarine a year. You can make any claim you want about how much more capable a 2015 era carrier is compared to 1945, but when you put all your eggs in one basket any prospective enemy only has to knock out that one basket.

The US Army is not really much better off, they use an advanced version of the rifle deployed in 1965. They use 'hummers' designed in the early 1980's. They have some advanced helicopters techniques, but the airframes are all 1990's vintage designs. They have some very advanced (in 1990) laser guidance systems for artillery/rockets/mortars to get them to hit exactly where they want if they can get a spotter to 'light' the target and they can get the supplies of special ammunition to the front quickly enough. On the other side of the coin the active duty numbers for the Army are about 2/3rds of what they were in 1990, and almost all of the cuts came from the front line fighting forces because they still had to have the byzantine logistics system to keep those fewer troops supplied.

For beating up on Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya fighting alone we are like the Mongol hoards, they do not stand a chance. For anyone regularly developing the same kind of technology we use like China, Japan, India, Russia, the EU where it would be our technology against theirs the equation is vastly different. The problem is we have swatted a dozen very weak countries over the last 40 years, and the only fairly capable one, 'Iraq' we spent months degrading with guided munitions before we steamrolled in. We lost Vietnam because Russia supplied them with all sorts of nifty weapons and trained them in how to use them, and we were unwilling politically to do what we would have had to do to actually win. Up through the 1980's we never took on another Russian client state because of the Vietnam effect, we knew the USSR would support anyone we invaded in their sphere of influence.

Well as of earlier this year Russia is back in the game in Syria in a big way. We had a window of opportunity in 2010-12 when we could have taken out Syria, but we squandered that time with speeches and not much else. Once the civil war started we played around the margins but we never had international approval to intervene decisively, and we refused to do anything without international approval.

Our military would be excessive if dropped in 1945 and told win the war ASAP weapons free. In 2015 we don't dare go weapons free because we are not the only nuclear weapon country on the planet like we were in 1945. A miss step now can be irrevocable disaster. There is a very old saying, the most expensive luxury a country can have is the second best military. If you can't win them all that money spent on the military is wasted. The second strategy is not to be second best, but to be good enough that anyone attacking you will suffer too much to make it worth fighting you. Russia adopted this plan about a decade ago. They can't "beat" us, but they can sure as heck maul us to the point we both lose.

So you have to ask yourself, is our military excessive for 2015? It all depends on what you think the military is for. If our military is intended to beat another technologically advanced country then our military is to small. If our military is to beat up on weak third world countries then our military is grossly excessive. If our military is just to deter other people from attacking us because the price is too high for the attacker we are much excessive for that goal as well.

You have to pick a standard and stick with it, and our leadership is failing to do that.

[Newfie]

No disagreements with your analysis. Correct I was focusing on Western democracies.

As to the military I was looking more at some published long term strategy papers that address peak oil and climate change and the possible military or diplomatic strategies. The German one was pretty clear, looking toward shifting their loyalties as oil becomes scarse.

[onlooker]

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/201 ... year-2020/
How about this shocking one:
Pentagon Says Global Warming Will Destroy The Planet By The Year 2020

[Newfie]

Maybe someone should show that to O?

The thrust of the Excess Denier argument is aimed at those who feel that we can adapt our energy production to retain the status quo. They deny that we a using excess resources and feel that there must be someway to sustain life as they know it.

The flip side is that once you understand that we are an excessive culture there become many ways immediately available to us to significantly reduce emissions.

In many ways it's Dohois vegan argument, we are eating too much. But also it needs to confront Dohboi's fear that we have excess population. (apologies for picking on you Dohboi, I needed a more concrete example and I know you have broad shoulders.)

I think each of use crosses over into ED at times, we all have our sacred cows (speaking of which..) that we kling to, self included.

I suggest it's more useful to look within to find those areas of hipcoracy than to lash out pointing fingers at others. After all, ultimately your are the only person you can directly effect.