From the Guardian this morning, and a conversation between Adam Curtis and Adam Mackay:
AM: I met with some of these Democratic leaders, and they talk about polling and market testing like they're bad network executives. I have to tell them: the second you do that, you're dead. That's why the Democratic party is not tackling global warming — because it polls terribly. And why wouldn't it? It's about the end of human life.
AC: That's because they present it as a doom-laden dystopia, and not an opportunity to do something to change the world in an extraordinary way.
AM: The Green New Deal is exciting.
AC: Exactly. Because that allows you to combine it with attacking austerity and the badness of the present day, and saying we can produce a better world, for now and for the future. But global warming is not presented as an opportunity to change the planet in an extraordinary and better way, is it? It's a dark force that we're being sucked into, and can do nothing about. The politicians and the thinktankers, say: “Oh my God! It's all going to die.” My theory is that they're late baby boomers projecting their own fear of mortality on to the planet. They're trapping us in the depressed mind of a dying hippy. That's my theory.
It's hard to disagree.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Thanks for highlighting that Richard.
The comment on the think tankers et al being late baby boomers resonates with my own experience. I have reasonably frequent correspondence with my dad who is of that generation and whilst I consider him to be forward thinking on how to leverage technology for positive change there is definitely a difference in opinion on whether we can “go green”.
I’m very excited about where renewable tech will go in the next decade or so, whereas I think there’s this lingering attitude within older generations that batteries aren’t good enough and will never be good enough to operate on the grid scale. Personally, I don’t think it will be long before this opinion is redundant, but who knows with research?
I believe you’ve commented on it before, but to my mind the solution (which would require huge effort – GQE anybody?) is to bias the electrical network toward local generation and storage, with the national grid as back-up and/or to help supply areas which are less capable of local generation with electricity from areas with a natural abundance.
I’m 34 and a chemical engineer. Batteries aren’t good enough and will never be good enough to operate at grid scale. To pretend you could have any large city operate for more than a few hours on battery storage is delusional. And that isn’t even mentioning that the batteries would need replacing at least every 8 years, and require lots of toxic chemicals and currently 12 year olds in congo mining cobalt. Pumped hydro is more practical but is limited to geography where it is feasible.
Fuel Cell technology is advancing at pace – i read the Chinese are building factories for automobiles.
Hydrogen once safely stored and transportable is an instant cure to the oil pollution.
It’s advance is held back as profits are maximised from the decrepit collapsing infrastructure.
GQE ought to enable that transition.
@User Friendly
For transparency, I’m 30 and in my final PhD yeah in physics and materials.
I concede that I should have worded my first post better.
I suspect that you’re correct that grid-level storage is not possible. The energy density of the batteries would have to be immense. I should have said more clearly, that the way my thoughts take me are down the direction of small, local generation, coupled with complementary small scale storage. Interestingly, the suggestion of local generation was raised at a nuclear conference I managed to crash a few years ago, with the general flavour being a shift away from large power stations to many more small power stations positioned closer to where electricity was required. Obviously this approach has it’s own issues. It’s just interesting that decentralisation of electrical generation is being suggested by more than just the renewables field.
It’s difficult to really comment on future developments with certainty. I do keep half an eye on pv technology and battery advances out of personal academic interest. Maybe you’re right, but I don’t think you are entirely. Cycle performance is improving, cobalt free electrodes have been demonstrated. I was reading the other day about developments in electrolyte technology, but you’ll have to forgive me for forgetting the details.
What I do know, is that something in our approach to electrical supply has to change and looking at local generation/storage seems as reasonable a place to start as any.
Grid scale batteries are already a thing (e.g. the Tesla ‘Big Battery’ in Australia), but their job is not quite in the ‘baseload’ sense you suggest.
Indeed a fully renewable grid is possible now as explained by energy expert Amory Lovins here in this 3 min. video entitled “The storage necessity myth: how to choreograph high-renewables electricity systems”…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsgrahFln0s
I am a SciFi fan, though of the optimistic ‘Star Trek’ type rather than the all doom and gloom Philip K Dick (e.g. Bladerunner) variety.
So yes with the required will there is a lot that can be done in mitigation and / or technical solutions. E.g. rising sea leavels could to an extent be accommodated by channelling sea water into the Quattara Depression (Egypt) and Dead Sea, plus mass desalination and irrigation of the Sahara, for example. Sunlight (and thus heat) could be diverted by increasing reflectivity (albedo) (e.g. mirrors in desserts to reflect heat back to space). So basically so long as you have will / ideas, energy and technology I think you can pretty much do anything.
It is also a firm belief of mine that sooner or late some of humanity will leave Earth, and in due course the Solar System. I don’t disagree the Theory of Relativity, I just think it is incomplete. I simply don’t believe that there is no way to get around an enormous Universe like ours faster than light speed, so I think we are bit like Columbus standing on the beach looking West in 1490. There will be a way – we just haven’t found it.
Why can’t we have another 1960s Moon Programme type project? That is a fault of politics too – they are not offering anything to inspire humanity. It is all just managerialist, which way is the wind blowing type of stuff – did somebody put the accountants in charge ): (sorry, I know you are one Richard)?
I see none of this happening in a timescale to prevent a catastrophe
Indeed.
But I do not think like and I’ m 54.
Existential angst is the basis of the current dominant form of psychotherapy which also draws heavily on Attachment Theory. It is by no means clear yet whether the whole of the universe will suffer heat death although scientists seem to be agreed the solar system we live in will. This brings human beings to the point of having to attempt to merge science with theology (or philosophy). So far evolutionary theory suggests strongly human beings are not the Final Product but life in the shape of information or knowledge is a self-transcending creative process that is building up its complexity and extent. Such a view fits in with the idea of an omnipotent creator or creators. How else could you be fully omnipotent without incorporating self-transcending creativity? Of course you can disavow the whole idea of omnipotence being possible!
https://mountainscholar.org/bitstream/handle/10217/37215/GGG_Ferre_Review.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y
Im not sure about the dying hippy bit – speaking as a one in the so called baby boomer demographic – but the first 2 paragraphs make a lot of sense. When working on sustainability in WWF some years back and reflecting on George Lakoff and framing, we were of the view that sustainability was presented overwhelmingly in negative terms. Doom laden, hair shirts and lentils, and few people responded well to that approach. However much I might be inclined towards the more doom laden views of climate change, I would support the argument that changing peoples minds and behaviour requires more than just negativity and threats.
And there are so many positive arguments – who would not want to live in an environment that is cleaner, healthier and will be better for our children. Its a contrarian example I know, but Musk was onto something with Tesla in producing a car that even the most ardent petrol head might lust after. A car that might actual be better and dare I say it quicker than its IC equivalents. If you’ve had any experience of things like the G-Whizz which are about as desirable as a mobility scooter, you’ll see his point. Its possible to come up with products that are both more sustainable and better.
To continue the contrarian line, it was a senior guy from JWT at a workshop of people from different sectors who made the point that advertising could be used to change behaviour in positive ways, not just in damaging ways. Whatever one thinks of advertising, he’s not all wrong
Agreed Schofield.
If public transport was portrayed as often and in the same vein as the latest new car, it would have a better image than it currently does.
Mind you, those Virgin Voyager trains! You cannot polish a turd like they are. Awful.
So maybe it needs better advertising?!!
Id be inclined to think its more about availability, reliability and service than image. Living in a rural area (certainly mine) public transport is pretty non-existent unless you are desperate – and yes I have tried. Towns is a different matter.
Rural transport is where AV/EVs get most interesting. The ability to call up transport as and when you need it . ‘Mass’ transport really needs ‘masses’ of people.
Oops!
Sorry I ‘m getting my ‘Schofield’s’ and ‘Stafford’s’ all mixed up.
Sorry.
Pilgrim – Im sure Schofield and I will both take it as compliments!
There is hope, but it comes from the exact polar opposite, but insurgent end of the Democratic party lead by Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (AOC).
She knows MMT, but the links seem to be deepening. This was one of the many tweets in last few days on collaborative meetings between her staff and MMT scholars…
“Nothing has been more exciting than the last week. It’s unbelievably riveting to watch #MMT and #AOC come together to defend a Green New Deal and a Job Guarantee. “