Yes, I wholeheartedly agree. Monbiot can't be criticized for pointing out
the complicated mess we're in. These are sticky issues indeed. Until we
recognize, collectively, that a fundamental restructuring lies at the heart
of it, we will forever find ourselves choosing whatever seems the least
unpalatable.
Agree. Lesser-evilism. Though I think many people do recognise that,
more and more of them, and they're active. Enough of them? Wrong
question, and doubting it is a lousy reason for not getting involved.
It needs a phased approach, coordinated and integrated, a grand
strategy, and a dogged focus, with a bit of pragmatism where
approprate. Occupy is an interesting model, one of many - no leaders,
no manifesto, nothing you can grab hold of or subvert, yet everyone
knows what to do and why, it's adaptable and flexible, and it drives
the MSM and TPTB suitably nuts.
For instance, leave the existing nukes for now, perhaps even allow a
few new gas-fired plants, focus all efforts on fighting coal and oil.
Just an example, not a proposal.
I firmly believe that all of the demos, protests, strikes, general
outrage and rejection taking place all round the world are part of
the same phenomenon, and it won't stop, we won't take no for an
answer, we'll keep going until we've won, and then we'll win the
peace too. It's not a sudden uprising, though it might look like it
from the outside. It's been building for a long time, it has impetus
and momentum, it's implacable.
> . . .In this case, I'm not so sure that he is wrong. It seems to depend
somewhat on what time-scale you're looking at. In the shorter term, he
might be right. New nukes are a total no-no, but how to set decommissioning
existing nukes against building new coal and gas fired plants to replace
them, as in Merkel's case? Japan, with all but two of its nukes shut down,
has been doing what amounts to the same thing, with huge increases in
fossil fuel imports - indeed China, of all countries, just told Japan to
cut its carbon emissions.
Is it better or worse to leave existing nukes in place and accept their
emissions reductions (which are real, in current-account terms), in a time
when any and every reduction is crucially important, as all agree it is, or
should we close them all down and focus on replacing the power they
generate with renewable sources? That will take time (too much time?) and
cost money, always a prickly problem. Renewables aren't that great either,
especially considering the complete absence of a local approach, it's all
top-down. And we long ago agreed that replacement isn't the answer, nor
even an option. Or should we commit much more science to geo-engineering?
Or is another Fukushima just waiting to happen anyway, whatever we do? All
of this leaving aside the answerless question of spent fuel disposal, since
it's going to be left aside anyway. As are the bombs.
It's easy to understand what you said about low morale, why people say sod
it, let's just just leave the whole stinking mess to our noble leaders, who
> will surely steer our course unerringly towards an ever-glorious future.
>
As opposed to Dyer, who, as Darryl so aptly expressed it,
just came off as being "of a 'hard path' mindset". He didn't really have
an argument, just conclusions. And accusations. There was at once a
scornfulness, and a sort of veiled, McCarthyistic fifth-column hysteria.
>> Not to mention a kind of resentful grumbling.
>
> Absolutely. Thuggish.
>
It was this last, i think,
which led me to question his intellectual honesty and journalistic ethics
>> (especially the bit about the fall in the uranium market).
>
It's what led me to suspect he's spun. Those aren't even his own opinions,
they're just implants, from the opinion manufacturing industry. It's why he
> doth protest so loudly. Methinks.
Ha, that's funny. I actually googled Dyer already. The first sentence
pretty much told me what I needed to know: military historian. Not that i
think that that defines him, per se (i did read the whole article, his docu
film work sounds interesting), but it explains a lot wrt his posture in
this editorial.
Yes it does, it's a bias, his mindset, as Darryl said.
> Gwynne Dyer
>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gwynne_Dyer>
He looks like he can be a grumpy old fart if he wants to be.
> Anyway, i haven't yet read monbiot's bits from august last year that you
>> posted, so maybe i'll change my mind about him too, lol.
>
> Interested to know what you think. - K
LOL. I pretty much tipped my hand on that already. :)
I just read his 8 Aug., 2011 Guardian column, and the Porritt column he was
responding to; as well as the Broadbent piece cited by both. I haven't
done any reading or cross-referencing or otherwise looked into any of the
various reports and studies that all three of them cite. That being said,
it seems to me that Porritt was the more intellectually honest (despite his
apparent willingness to put faith in carbon capture). Monbiot misrepresented
and distorted Porritt's arguments, and IMHO wildly
exaggerated Porritt's "highly personal and vicious tone". I don't know if
George is simply incapable of taking criticism, or if he's resorting to the
victim card because he knows he can't win on the merits. I also find
myself wondering if he didn't stage the debate as a way to try and
discredit Porritt, anticipating that Porritt would criticize him personally.
Yeah. How many angels can dance on a pinhead? I also haven't checked
it all thoroughly, but it seems none of them will get it right
because they're starting in the wrong place, from the big central
top-down level. It doesn't work. Small is beautifuel.
By the way, could be wrong, but I think Porritt owns a solar power company.
Regards
Keith
_______________________________________________
Sustainablelorgbiofuel mailing list
Sustainablelorgbiofuel@lists.sustainablelists.org
http://lists.eruditium.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel
