The Marie Antoinette Syndrome
Posted by Heading Out on October 11, 2007 - 10:00am
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: Atlanta, coal mining, drought, L'Anse Aux Meadows, mountain top removal, South Wales [list all tags]
A short while ago I wrote about my concerns that, with a growing drum roll of articles decrying the use of coal, we might find ourselves short of power, at a time when we have a real need. The tone of articles written about the mining industry are virtually all negative, with very few counter-arguments being made to demur at the emotive tone of the language used in writing about this subject. The thought returned today as I read the article in the Guardian that Leanan had highlighted in Wednesday’s Drumbeat. The piece, by George Monbiot, bemoans the creation of a new surface mine in Wales.
As I watched the machine scraping away the first buckets of soil, one thought kept clanging through my head: "If this is allowed to happen, we might as well give up now." It didn't look like much: just a yellow digger and a couple of trucks taking the earth away. But in a secure compound behind me were the heaviest beasts I have ever seen - 1,300 horsepower or more - lined up and ready to start digging one of the largest opencast coal mines in Europe. In Romania perhaps? The Czech Republic? No, on a hilltop in south Wales.
I am thinking of calling this the Marie Antoinette Syndrome – she of the “let them eat cake,” quotation. Because there is a reality to life that seems to be beyond the comprehension of writers of this ilk. George Monbiot refers to the opening of the mine as being a sign of a “re-entry into the coal age,” but we never left it. Coal has been, and is, used extensively around the world as a fuel source, and in the United States produces more than half the electricity consumed. It is one of the cheapest (in straight dollars per kWh) sources of power for a utility. Solar is currently about five times as expensive as coal power. Further the coal in place in the UK, even if not at the moment a reserve, still totals more than 45 billion tons .
We are very rapidly approaching the point where world oil production will likely peak and then start to decline. The quantities of fuel that will have to be found to replace this gap are not likely to be found in the occasional wind farm, dotted over the landscape, nor in solar panels on the roofs of very profitable corporations. The alternatives to letting the populace “freeze in the dark” are starkly limited. A significant amount of that power will likely have to come from coal, for a number of different reasons.
Partially it is because it is a technology already in place and functioning, one that is not that difficult to scale up to meet increased need (China being an illustrative example). Partially it is because there is little else on the horizon that has a chance of meeting the need, at an affordable cost.
Oops, there I go touching hot buttons again. But consider this, politicians do not get elected because they voted to double your electric bill. There is great concern when bills rise by 10-20%, consider if this was multiplied by a factor of ten to change the mix to more solar, for example. (The cake analogy). It is not a practical reality. Yet politicians with a degree of social responsibility recognize that they must do something. I have no mandate to defend the British Government, nor any great wish to, but it does seem fair to note that they have been working to find future supplies of energy from a variety of sources to meet anticipated future needs. In this context they cannot just wear rosy glasses but must recognize certain fundamental truths. One of these is that coal is a part of the energy future.
So now we come to the second part of the discussion – why surface mine the coal? The new surface mine is near Merthyr Tydfil, in the South Wales coal field, where there was, for many years a large underground mining tradition. Part of the new mine will, in the process, apparently clean up some of the mess left (waste heaps etc) from some of that era. The answer also addresses part of the question as to why mountain top mining is allowed in the United States. The first part of the answer is that we need the coal (see above). The second part of the answer is that surface mining is a lot cheaper (in terms of safety as well as dollar cost) than underground mining. Now there is an interim cost, in that while the mine is in operation it looks pretty ugly (you can for example watch the video that accompanied a recent Washington Post article here. What that video did not show, nor did any of the others I ran quickly through (Google searching “Mountain top mining You tube”) was the condition of the land after the mining company has finished land reclamation. Comments about “moonscape” relate to what it looks like during mining, it turns out to be quite hard to find photos of reclaimed land in a quick search, but there are some here that suggest that it doesn’t end up in the same shape as it is in while mining is going on, but can be more useful and (since it also includes golf courses) not wholly unattractive.
Now it could be that the coal could be mined in a less obtrusive way – underground mining is less obvious, and was the traditional way of mining in much of West Virginia and Wales. But the waste has still to be stored somewhere, and the process is more costly than surface mining in a number of ways. And so, you might say, why don’t we develop new technology to help solve these issues.
Well here’s the rub, there are now only 13 universities in the United States that teach mining, and in total, as a recent article (ppt file) showed, there are 69 faculty of whom 29 are anticipated to being going to retire in the near future. There is one (1) faculty member under the age of 30. As demand for students rise (and enrollments are increasing) the amount of time for research declines (not that there was ever much money to fund it in the first place). So where are these new methods of mining going to come from? The last time this happened the Government gave one of the leading engineering/university groups in the US a large chunk of money to find the answer (they were not a mining school). they reckoned, I suppose, that if you could work out how to put a man on the moon, that mining coal would be a piece of cake. It turned out about the way you might have expected, right Dave?
Finding new technologies has not been an imperative for about 25 years or so, and so there is not a whole lot of innovation going around. And there is still the cost issue – how much extra is the general public going to be willing to pay on their electric bill (since that is where it ends up) to develop new methods and then pay for their use. The historic answer, which has driven the steps to find the cheapest way to produce coal, is not much!
There is also another worry which I thought I might mention, since as Aniya has noted, my reading gets a bit broader about the time I go to Energy Conferences. (And we have one coming up next week). There was an article on ABC News this week about the growing concerns for Atlanta as it faces the fourth year of a drought. There are an increasing number of problems that the metropolis faces and it is approaching a point where there will not be enough water, period, without a long and continuous period of major rain. So, being of that frame of mind, I looked to see what the weather was like back in the Medieval Warming Period and while it was apparently still warmer then up in Newfoundland than it is now, the prospects for further south are not promising. For example in the Hudson Valley the drought lasted about 500 years.
Aside from views of cattails and blackbirds, the marshes in the lower Hudson Valley near New York City offer an amazingly detailed history of the area's climate. Sediment layers from a tidal marsh in the Hudson River Estuary have preserved pollen from plants, seeds, and other materials. These past remnants allowed researchers from Columbia University, New York, N.Y. and NASA to see evidence of a 500 year drought from 800 A.D. to 1300 A.D., the passing of the Little Ice Age and the impacts of European settlers. . . . . . From the pollen record found in sediments in Piermont Marsh of the lower Hudson Valley, a Medieval Warm period was evident from 800 to 1300 A.D. Researchers know this from the striking increases in both charcoal, a sign of dry vegetation and fires, and pollen from pine and hickory trees. Prior to this warming spell, there were more oaks, which prefer a wetter climate.
So if we are heading back into that cycle then perhaps water issues may well become evident within the next few years at about the same time as we are looking at finding alternatives to oil, which could make life extremely interesting, as they say.
There are a multitude of renewable energy sources; you have only addressed solar photovoltaic. Let's examine a few of the rest;
- Solar thermal power generation (towers and troughs)
- Solar hot water systems
Having a wide variety frees us from depending on any one particular source, and reduces variability associated with individual sources.
You mentioned costs, though completely left out external costs for coal burning such as air pollution (smog, soot, acid rain, global warming, and toxic air emissions), wastes generated (Ash, sludge, toxic chemicals, and waste heat), and the effects on the land where mining occurs (mountaintop destruction, water pollution [including heavy metals], and the use of invasive species to 'restore' the environment).
Because there is a reality to life that seems to be beyond the comprehension of writers of this ilk.
We can do much to reduce our usage of electricty; there is no 'reality' that says we much continue to waste energy for largely whimsical purposes. For example, I have a well-insulated passive solar house powered primarily by net-metered PV with efficient appliances; my worst electric bill has been $57 during a long stretch of 100F days in August (we employ a conservation mindset).
The days of endless dirty cheap power are numbered, and it is pointless to argue for it's continuation, especially in light of its impacts.
I looked to see what the weather was like back in the Medieval Warming Period and while it was apparently still warmer then up in Newfoundland than it is now
Your source being a Wikipedia entry of an anecdotal quote from 6 centuries ago? I would suggest that we refer to more scientific investigations in the future, such as the National Research Council's study of this topic.
Arguing to expand the use of coal while bemoaning the droughts brought on by climate change presents us with an argument that is utterly and completely self-defeating. You may want to stick to oil resource forecasting in the future.
The point of the article is well made though. Its easy to say people should do X, or shouldn't do Y. However people will take what appears to be the best option they are presented with at any particular time. In practical reality, if its a choice between freezing during a winter, and burning coal - they WILL burn coal. Long term climate effects are very unlikely to impact intense short term needs decision making.
As such, getting the take up for any of the options you list relies on it being the best option at the moment of need.
Are they ready to roll?
Are they able to scale?
Are they cheap to implement?
Will they deliver what's needed?
Will they deliver what's wanted?
Its no good telling people they would be better off with fancy little cakes they cannot afford, next week. You need to provide them with the bread they can afford right now, baked in large quantities.
Are the alternative options you list capable of being bread rather than cake?
If you hadn't already been made aware, Denmark currently produces 20% of its power from wind energy alone.
Solar hot water heaters are on hundreds of thousands of roofs around the world.
Hydropower is well established in dozens of countries.
You seem to suggest that we ignore improving home insulation levels, and seek only the most convenient, regardless of the overall consequences. Hardly the sentiments of the citizens of the developed countries. The vested interests do have their supporters, of course, who decry any change from the status quo, unless it is to use even more of their 'services'.
You need to provide them with the bread they can afford right now, baked in large quantities.
In other words, "feed and grow the addiction"? This sounds much like the words of a drug pusher...
I think you're missing the point. Yes these technologies CAN work, but they only get taken up if they are the best option at the time.
Wind turbines are an obvious way of saying 'green', so while resources are relatively available they are taken up as a response to climate change. Same is true of the Prius on a personal scale.
However general uptake is constrained since most people are trying to get through the week, with any other attention being take by who's doing whom on the latest reality show.
In a world where oil has peaked, you can't drive your car because there is rationing and extreme prices, and food is getting more expensive as well - you will take a solution that fixes your problems here and now.
Its no good wishing it were otherwise; that's like wishing people would all think differently. You have no control over that.
No I don't think we should 'ignore' anything. However its not a case of what should or should not happen, its a case of what will or will not. You want better insulation. Great. Find a way, a politically acceptable way, in which that is the easiest and best solution and it will happen. Same goes for driving cars. You want less journeys, answer the key question.
If I sound like a drug pusher to you, you sound like someone who says "addicts should just stop themselves wanting drugs, they just need a little backbone" to me. Reality is much more to do with making them not want or need the drugs than stating rational viewpoints of desire.
though its early, this post and its predecessor, i nominate for 'post of day'
(which is another way of saying I strongly agree with you...;)
Cheers Nate !
Sometimes it can feel like throwing out messages in a bottle and getting no reply. Its nice to get a positive response!
And in the vein of solutions rather than just pointing up problems, I'll mention one idea about how a more sustainable lifestyle can be made to look 'better' than the current lifestyle - to the average person.
Many people are saying the route to a solution is for people to accept a lower energy lifestyle, to do less with cars, flying, McMansions etc.
That's great, but that is very much a lifestyle choice. Much of the time the implicit words behind it are "do less of the things you enjoy because its good for the earth", often with a distinctly hippy subtone. We know that doesn't work, we know its not something people will buy or accept - not since the last tie-die shirt was burnt in the 1970s.
Instead I'd suggest losing the green tinge and not mentioning peak oil. Rather its a 'plan', similar to the F-Plan diet for making yourself happier, decluttering your life, removing the hustle and bussle and relaxing, eating organically, not giving a **** what the neighbour's think; and giving yourself a lifestyle where you are relaxed, happy, andwhere you only work 10 months of the year with more time off to enjoy yourself and family.
Sell it as a method, sell it as a plan, sell it with a celeb, sell the sizzle of things people want and as a way to get rid of things they don't. That way people are more likely to give up on the McMansions, the pointless gadgets, the driving everywhere, etc. and take up a lifestyle that is less energy intensive.
If you don't like that idea, fine. However something like it is probably the only way the majority of people will take a blind bit of notice, so you'd better dream up something equally enticing.
that was one of my messages at ASPO - we have to make changes for selfish/tribal reasons due to our inherent drive to compete for resources. to tell someone to turn the lights off will only work if they buy into the plan that it improves their own life and well being - otherwise they will agonize over that energy being used to build 5 more feet of cement in China - tragedy of the commons meets jevons paradox.
From an electricity standpoint, the reference to Chinese cement does not apply. From a petroleum standpoint, spending less money on whimsical energy use always makes sense. National goals such as having the nation less addicted to oil makes as much sense as other national security goals.
People have been changing out incandescent bulbs for CFLs, though doing so doesn't necessary proportionally improve their life.
I live at a latitude where I need heat and light at the same time - the cheapest way (and simplest by far) to do this is with an incandescent lamp.
Compact Fluorescent Lamps (CFLs) aren't always a good idea, it depends how you currently provide heat and electricity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compact_fluorescent_lamp
Xeroid.
From your link...
"If incandescent lamps are replaced by CFLs and all other factors are kept constant then the temperature inside any building will reduce. At times when the building requires both heating and lighting, the occupiers might then increase the space heating in order to bring the temperature back to a desired level. Depending on the source of this alternative heat compared to the local source of electricity, this may result in either a small increase or a small decrease in the total cost and environmental impact of changing to CFLs."
So what makes your particular housing situation so unique?
Spending winters at the North Pole and summers at the South?
Even if you use direct electrical heating you will in practice use less electricity for heating and lighting combined with CFL's. The waste heat from incandescent bulbs emitted near the ceiling and largely staying there is much less efficient at heating the inhabitants, the only thing that really matters, than heat from electrical heaters lower down.
Even in theory, you could only finish up using the same amount of electricity at times when you need both heating and lighting and there can be very few places that do not need lighting without heating at some time. If you are heating your house with a source that is more expensive or polluting that direct electricity, allowing for for all the losses in generation and transmission of electricity, then you should change to electrical heating.
If you require cooling and lighting at the same time then the advantages are multiplied as with incandescents you are using electricity to produce waste heat end then more electricity to get rid of it.
The longer life of CFL's means the overall cost will always be cheaper unless you are foolish enough to heat your house with some means more expensive than electricity when you have this available to use.
As for 'simplest by far' what is complex about changing a light bulb?
Okay, let's say I'm in Vermont, with most of the power from Hydro Quebec (flooding First Nations land which incidentally releases a lot of mercury as it's flooded), a substantial chunk from the Vermont Yankee nuclear plant (terrible record on basic safety measures), and a small dose of more local hydro and even wind - no coal in the mix. I should heat with "clean" electricity - even through my light bulbs? For minor space heating, sure, but like most people around here I notice that it's still only half the cost to burn oil, which a typical boiler does fairly efficiently. Like many here, I significantly supplement with wood. But Northern New England's likely to stay on oil until the last drop, or radical new tech, whichever comes first. However, at least one neighbor is considering putting a coal stove in his basement.
It is fashionable on this board to deride J6P.
Maybe J6P isn't anywhere as dumb as people here seem to think.
We are caught in a vise with the banking and political elites cheating us on one side and the minority welfare activists demanding ever more entitlements on the other.
Looking at it from J6P's point of view, tactically it makes the most sense to run the whole system into the concrete wall full speed ahead, because we are the ones that have the most useful skills to make something off the wreckage, and because there is no viable solution at the ballot box.
Think about it.
Comparing smaller advanced societies like Denmark, Sweden or Norway with their much more homogeneous demographics to the US is a exercise in futility. The conditions on the ground are what they are and there is no way around them.
Rather, we are caught in a vise with the economic system cheating many at the same time the majority contented class demands ever more entitlements.
The obstacle to a decline protocol is the existing contented class: the greatest generation, the haves, the wealthy. They run the show, not the hordes of welfare queens driving pink Cadillacs. We already have the political solution the dominant class prefers: business as usual.
Activists are next to powerless against the economic machine - at least if they try to work within the system.
cfm in Gray, ME
Yeah! Those damned entitlement parasites.
Why don't they just stay at home and die?
Whoops. They do. In Japan: the model of efficiency.
First of all PO is a liquid fuel crisis, not an electric one, so additional coal use is not an emergency necessity. Second, your argument depends on how ones define 'best options.' Options that continues this motoring madness at the expense of our children's future can hardly be described as 'best.' Fossil fuels left not poured into the automobile maw can still power the construction of an alternative electrical energy grid. That would honor the earth's fossil fuel bounty.
As long as Britain is fighting a war for petroleum in the Middle East than its 'national scale' has been skewed. It is a matter of priorities. Do we as a people chose habitual waste and consumption or do we choose to reallocate our taxes and wealth to a sustainable future.
There are veiled implication of 'elistim' in your comments as if the 'regular folk' need indulging. This is paternalism. If not hidden from the truth, these hardworking stiffs might surprise us with their willingness to change. If only they had a willing leader ready to stop propagandizing for the status quo.
This feels like fatalism. To help an addicts not want drugs you offer alternative behaviors and views. Maybe if a creative politician ran a real vision in exchange for sacrifice instead of the status quo folks would rise to the occasion.
I'll say again, YOU don't get the opportunity to define 'best', the public at large do that. If they think Coal-to-liquids is 'best' then that's what will happen.
You want to change that? Make your alternative 'best' in their eyes. If you can't then they will not take any notice.
That's a distinct lack of paternalism, and a bounty of realism...
I'll say again, YOU don't get the opportunity to define 'best', the public at large do that. If they think Coal-to-liquids is 'best' then that's what will happen.
You can repeat things until you are blue in the face, but that does not make what you say any more rational. In reality, only some of the public gets to chose their power source these days; the power companies wield signficant political clout, and they lobby (grease palms) to ensure their choices are government-approved. Indeed, in my state, Dominion power has successfully prevented green power companies from gaining a foothold, and have convinced the state legislature, to whom they have contributed almost almost $3.8 million in campaign contributions over the last 10 years, along with lavishing them with gifts, to accept Dominion Power's own drafted bill to reregulate electricity in the state.
Want to see what such political power allows them to get away with? See the mix of renewables in their power generation.
The net-metering law Dominion Power allowed to be passed restricts renewable power sources 0.01% of the generation.
Go to their website and look for any "green" power options; you'll find none you can purchase. There are talk of 'plans' and 'projections', but this has been the case for over 20 years.
So people won't pick Coal-to-liquids, the coal and oil companies will. I'm surprised you would think that readers of this forum would be so gullible. The elitism mentioned earlier is still evident in this thread.
You're misunderstanding the rules of the game. It not rationality that in charge, its realism. Its no good bemoaning big business or the public doing other than you would wish, the only way to win is to the play the game with the rules that exist, rational or not.
Realism? One particular truth (that our democracy has been hijacked by the wealthy) should not be conflated with other pertinent truths (modest lifestyle change will obviate need for coal plants) (a Marshal-plan for renewables) (etc.)
This is exactly how a lobbyist would respond.
I pity you, for you cannot distinguish between realism and fatalism.
You are doomed to die.
(hey aren't we all?)
I think missionary revolutionaries are much more dangerous than vested interest reactionaries. The second at least know they are being hypocritical and counter common good - under certain circumstances they can be shown the common good is their good too. Revolutionaries don't know that - they are just too busy saving the world to give their ideas second thoughts.
If you want to change the system - first learn the system. Everything has a reason and you should know the reason before suggest smashing it all to the ground and recreating it your way. Without addressing the reasons, you will end up with a system much worse than the first one. Happens all the time. I lived within such an experiment, and my home country which I love, still suffers from the result.
No, thanks, no more revolutions.
You're the one missing the point. The only reasons why coal is so cheap is:
1 - It's an old industry that has all the processes very matured and understood - read Let's stick to what we know bkay?
2 - They have tremendous tax benefits;
3 - The network is built around these kind of resources, and not exactly around renewables;
4 - Coal price is not accounted for in its environmental prejudice, as is:
a) topsoil destruction;
b) pollution;
c) carbon dioxide proliferation.
5 - An entire powerful lobby industry that fights everyday to mantain its status quo and fights against renewables.
Even still, renewables are the most rising energy industry. Amazing.
Renewables not only have to fight against status quo, but also higher taxes (yes, that is right), and lack of lobbyists. If even TOD people are arguing for and not against Coal, what would we expect? These people, completely disregarding our real potential and capabilities, opt for the least wrong possibility (ex: destroy the f*in world) than to destroy the economy, missing out entirely the power of renewables.
We should be crying out loud RENEWABLES! RENEWABLES! and totally disregarding any FUD whatsoever. I don't CARE if wind's EROEI is only half of that of coal. For Coal is "cheap", if by cheap we mean dispense with the check our grandchildren will have to pay. It's the same problem as with the entire mortgage problem. People don't care about the future, as long as today they have the money. It turns out though, that future really comes along sometime, and that means pain in the ass to all of those who opt for unsustainable solutions.
So, NO, coal is not the answer and should NEVER be. I don't agree with the article at ALL. This article is simply a cowardly excuse to continue BAU with these shitty resources, and thus excusing every politician and "pundit" that lobbies with these destructive industries, while dismissing real solutions, or at least attempts at so. For example, people argue that we should wait even further for future wind power generators, or sun power generators. NO. The time IS NOW. We don't have much time LEFT. We are burning the earth and the scientists are scared shit out of what is happening in the arctic. We should too. We are already scared shit of PO. So, we should bandwagon this NOW.
For if the Iraq's war is about oil, it is surely not about energy. The amount of energy anyone will get out of this country will never pay off the war. The money used (a trillion dollars) could boost by so much the renewables it would make manhattan project like an insect.
Yet people talk as if we are out of options. And thus you leave your politicians out of criticism. You choose a small-talk of "less evils" in a time when we should opt for WIN WIN solutions. You even opt to sustain reasonably these kinds of choices when it is so clear that it is so wrong.
You're wrong. And our grandchildren will account for everyone of us by the wrong choices we are making now. I know my son will. Remember that!
Please, consider!
We have only one future!
Let's fight for it!
EROEI is another of those undefined variables.
EROEI of coal apparently only includes the cost of getting it out of the ground. It does not include the real energy IN (sunlight) plus the time value of the energy (worked on for millions of years by geological processes).
Not correct to compare with EROEI for solar or wind power where direct sunlight conversion to electric power is being measured.
1) The time to create the coal does not impact EROI nor should it. for human use purposes we care about the energy WE input in order to get an energy output - in this sense the millions of years to us are 'free'. If we were an infinite lived alien species, then your point would be valid. But when comparing high energy gain fossil fuels (which allow us to do immense amounts of work to flows of sunlight, which are great but allow us to do less work is the issue.
2)But you are on the right track - EROI comparisons of coal and solar do not (normally) include externality costs parsed into energy terms - if we assign a real energy cost to the GHG and pollution impacts of coal the EROI would plummet - so in the end we have 2 goals at odds - energy and the environment. neither the market nor EROI can presently solve this puzzle.
OK Nate Hagens.
You are free to set the boundary conditions. Defined your way, coal is like a one-time feeding of the fish tank. Human beings are not infinitely long lived as individuals, but we flatter ourselves that the species might survive a long time.
From a physical point of view, it takes an awful lot of sunlight and geological heat, over a very long time, to produce coal. The energy in must be many, many times the energy out. So coal is more like a storage battery -- on a geological time scale.
Yup - as are oil and natural gas....
I see your point, and it is certainly applicable to some people/countries. However, it would seem that the following examples don't necessarily fit this:
- Large European wind/solar investment costs born as increased tax burden by all citizens.
- Apparent variations in acceptability of different environmental regulations/costs.
- Generational differences in lifestyle choices in US.
?
I've often wondered whether anyone here would bring up this point...cultural differences seem to translate into rather significant actions (or, inaction)in this context.
In other words, your vision of the future is ever-deepening poverty, people living in caves, while you sit around making smug pronouncements disconnected from all political, social, and even physical reality? If Denmark had to live off that wind power tomorrow or anytime soon, it would collapse, as wind supplies only 20% of only a part of even their documented overall consumption. And lets not mention what they consume indirectly, via imports of goods and services other than fossil fuels.
Sentiments are too cheap to meter and are thus unworthy of attention. When they get their self-righteous dander up, "citizens" will do anything, even engage in self-hurt, to avenge themselves upon the so-called "vested interests" who deliver the bad news that they have to get up in the morning and go to work, and that even then, they still can't have everything they say they want. No one wants to hear that, least of all "citizens" puffed up with gangrenously swollen 'self-esteem'.
One of their most impossible wants seems to be a planet with seven billion people that is identical in every respect to a planet with zero people. But they don't mean it, it's just a way to express their NIMBYism, economic jealousy, obstructionist desire for revenge, and general frustration with their own irremediable, gaping, wide-mouthed incomprehension of the world. After all, when electric rates or gasoline prices
go through the roofgo up even a few percent, then instantly they howl to a different tune. In the end, no possible way exists to please either them or you, and there's no use even trying.HO, by injecting a note of reality, I think you just started what is going to be one of TOD's worst-ever doomfests.
You're the one doomfestating this thread.
And your vision of the future is one that is already scripted by yourself to doom, where anything you do is meaningless as the conondrum is already moving towards the inevitable. You act not like a passive observant, but as a coward, for the difference being in that you don't find in this view of coal boom anything wrong, just what "is possible" without creating "poverty" all around.
You are stuck in the past. You are stuck with the lack of vision. The problems with renewables aren't its potentials. It's problems are political and lobbyistical.
And you are just helping the crooks.
So mind not if I'm not very polite towards these kinds of manifestos. I despise them, not because they are "realistic", for surely they "are", but because they view "reality" as something inevitably towards "coal", to conclude that
"it ain' that bad ya know, 'cause a lil' warmin, what's wrong in tha'?"
Its wrong. Put the glasses. You're not seeing past your own nose.
And is that feasible? I mean, is it sustainable? Just because there is no country in the world sustainable yet, should we stop endorsing it?
What would your grandparents think of you, the ones that abolished slavery, death penalty (oh wait!), and fought for human rights and universal suffrage? What would you say to them if you were one of their own? My guess:
Oh but there is no country that survives without slavery! You're being pathetic!
Great hallmark there, mister. One that will fit well in history, no doubt about that.
But you misunderstand politics, mister. A politician should never try to please its population, but to LEAD them. Yeah, I know, these kinds of people are rare, but if we just abandon our hopes and rely on what "we have", we are doomed. We must fight for more! We should demand MORE of leaders.
Your entire view is narrowed to death. We should aspire to go to the galaxy and give a big finger to Fermi's paradox. We should aspire to go further and never backwards. What are you afraid of? What have you to lose? Why, oh old man, you're so stuck to yourself like a rotten fruit?
If you are to rant me back, nevermind it, go rather sulk in your bedroom. I haven't that time to waste.
BY THE WAY, Marie Antoinette was BEHEADED, which renders the entire thread MOOT.
Not moot, but it does speak to the ultimate end of proceeding as the article suggests.