alanjjohnstone
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
My apologies. And your observations is on the ball…adaptation takes time
But I note France which is nuclear power-oriented is stalled on the production of new power stations. While there has been an increase in present usage, i read this
French Environment Minister Francois de Rugy said he expected there would be fewer nuclear reactors in ten years, but gave no indication on how and when France would reduce its reliance on nuclear energy.
His predecessor Nicolas Hulot repeatedly said state-owned EDF should shut down up to a third of its 58 nuclear reactors – de Rugy has shied away from specifying how France will reduce its reliance on nuclear for electricity from the current 75 percent share. But it is believed that the government will likely emphasise the battle against climate change in order justify a decision to keep 56 of France’s 58 reactors, which emit very almost no CO2, in service until 2029
53% of French people said they were now opposed to nuclear power. This is compared to 67% who said they were in favour, five years’ ago. Greenpeace, said: “We have gone from a world in which French society believed that nuclear was the only choice. The public thought it was bad, but a necessary evil. But now, with the rise in renewable energy, with sun and wind, we can bypass nuclear completely.”
However,
“…Given that renewables currently account for only 8 percent of France’s electricity production, nuclear is the nation’s only choice to avoid any significant energy deficit in the forthcoming years… At some point in the future, when wind capacity has grown sufficiently – both in terms of overall number of wind farms commissioned and their profitability – it might make sense to curtail further nuclear usage, however, under current conditions, it is much more reasonable to get finally rid of coal (which France stopped producing in 2004, so the fuel is imported) and rely on the combination of nuclear, hydro and wind power. Imposing ill-judged restrictions has rarely proven to be the right energy policy tenet, the French nuclear example proves that rationality will prevail in the end, in one way or another…”
https://oilprice.com/Alternative-Energy/Nuclear-Power/Can-France-Move-Away-From-Nuclear-Energy.html
But globally nuclear power production will grow by about 46 percent by 2040 — more than 90 percent of the increase will come from China and India, according to the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Despite overwhelming evidence of carbon-fuelled climate change oil is so entrenched in the modern world that demand is still rising by up to 1.5 percent a year.
Sometime in the next few weeks, global oil consumption will reach 100 million barrels per day (bpd) – more than twice what it was 50 years ago – and it shows no immediate sign of falling. If the current mix of policies continues, the IEA expects world oil demand to rise for at least the next 20 years, heading for 125 million bpd around mid-century.
The IEA warns governments that existing plans are unlikely to make a huge dent in carbon emissions, and only a thorough change in energy use will bring down oil demand.
<figure class=”Image_zoom”></figure>
And replace the wages system by “rewards”
New title, old story
The Socialist Stanard has articles on UBI but i wouldn’t bother…they’ll say its not the same…
I would ask if there is not any difference in substance between them and Parecon and Zeitgeist, why are they re-inventing the wheel, wasting resources with duplication, why not add their strength by joining and if necessary advocating improvements to those existing movement for “social change” rather than another minuscule group.
They won’t like us because we are old-fashioned and use divisive words such as class war and socialism and cite Marx rather than people like Chomsky., they are too modern and too clever to accept that others had got there before them…by a century
Even more unimpressed when i checked some of the Twitter account and and invitations to become board members to individuals like Cornel West…
Zeitgeist-clone
Sadly it resorts to the usual leftist menu of reforms like the UBI and digital money and speaks approvingly of Parecon which it may be a re-vamped version of if i knew more about the history of the originators.
Not impressed by the glossy make-over of old ideas rather. In fact, it is full of red herrings and contradictions and misconceptions. Talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk.
One for the bin, although a mercenary person like myself would copy and paste their glossy skillful presentation created by someone experienced in PR and PowerPoint
Good name though for one of our future projects ….Common Planet, we’ll just call it Common World, to avoid plagiarism. (But Robin may offer the use of World In Common.)
Just as the migrant caravan has disappeared from the headlines once the American midterm elections finished, we have a silence on Corbyn’s antisemitism
This report makes interesting reading on the media’s bias.
It is especially critical of the BBC’s performance in reporting but i have been saying for a long time, BBC = Pravda and TASS, no better than FOX
ALB, further benefits of global warming
http://news.trust.org/item/20181108235833-xw7hq/
” 33,700 hectares of land in Britain could be productive for wine-making as weather gets hotter…Scientists identified Kent, Sussex and East Anglia in east and south-east England, along with Wales, as emerging hotspots that could produce enough wine to rival France’s Champagne region, which sells 310 million bottles of fizz each year….”
Belgium have also noticed the effects of warming weather, with wine production quadrupling since 2006
A warming planet could also bring benefits. Countries in the far north, such as Iceland, have seen valuable fish turn up in waters that were previously too cold.
What about all those cotton mill workers in England who refused to support the Confederacy during the American Civil War even though the blockade jeopardised their jobs, ALB.
Or those who refused to support racism or anti-immigrationism because it was alleged that white or native-born jobs were at risk.
We may understand the motives for self-interest and sectionalism but that doesn’t mean we condone it and yes, in certain case, we condemn it when wider considerations are due.
I recall way back when i first read of Dave Douglass and carbon capture coal policies, he was performing as a trade unionist fighting for his members jobs when there were coal miners jobs to fight for and a NUM to represent them.
but little different from the Trump supporters in the coal mines of West Virginia believing Trump was promising to save their jobs and not the investments an interests of the mine-owners.
i have been in arguments with those who were losing ship-yard jobs when they didn’t get orders from the Royal Navy for war-ships. Isn’t Trump and May using the same arguments that contracts with the Saudis and the jobs that go along with them are more important than human lives in Yemen.
Top of my head, we need the Taiga and other temperate forests as a carbon sink as important as the rainforests so chopping them down isn’t a cure.
I did a quick google and came up with these
In Iceland rising temperatures had made the widespread sowing of barley possible.
A 2°C local warming in the mid-latitudes could increase wheat production by nearly 10 per cent whereas at low latitudes the same amount of warming may decrease yields by nearly the same amount
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2935125/ [2010 report]
UN researchers forecast that higher temperatures in higher latitude regions will increase harvest. Winners in this model include Canada (2.5 percent) and Russia (0.9 percent) and suggested that even parts of Finland could soon be warm enough to produce cereal.
http://www.fao.org/3/I9542EN/i9542en.pdf [2018 report]
The following article was a bit easier for me understand for it echoes the Party’s case
https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1226/value-is-a-human-creation/
Fossil fuel promoter, ex-miner Dave Douglass had this to say
“…The truth is, humanity has survived by constant adaptation – that is what we do. The degree to which we do this is entirely political and based upon the balance of social classes. Running about shouting, ‘We’re all doomed, the sky is falling in and a great flood is coming’, or calls to ban industry, kill coal and oil, and go back to wicker and wood. will not in my opinion take us anywhere.”
https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/1226/letters/
Regardless if you agree with his conclusion, IMHO, if you read the rest of the letter, his arguments are similar to Nigel Lawson and others. Has anybody ever argued a return to wicks and wood as energy sources (with the exception of Cde. DC here). In fact, that is the last option being recommended
How many have responded, Matt, 900 previously but how many now, is my question to gauge the impact of our suspended forum.
