Posted on 04/30/2022 3:03:46 AM PDT by Kaslin
The Biden administration wants America to cut carbon dioxide emissions by 50% by 2030 and achieve "net-zero" by 2050. Other advanced nations have similar goals. They all need a bucket of cold water in the face.
The New York Times Company is as unlikely a source of that icy bucket as you can imagine. Call it Climate Alarmism Central.
But last month, it dashed that bucket of cold water in the face of millions of climate alarmists. In New York Times Magazine it published an interview with Vaclav Smil, probably the world's greatest expert on energy-where it comes from, how we harness it, what it costs, and why it costs what it does.
Smil's new book, "How the World Really Works: The Science Behind How We Got Here and Where We're Going," to be released May occasioned the interview.
The April 22 article "This Eminent Scientist Says Climate Activists Need to Get Real" is delightful to read. (For climate realists!) Author David Marchese squirms to escape the implications of everything Smil says. He tries desperately to get Smil to agree that climate change is a looming catastrophe and we simply must act now to avert it by replacing fossil-fuel energy with wind, solar, and other "renewable" sources.
But Smil won't take the bait. He says, in sum: such emissions cuts "are unrealistic." They don't take into account the vast scale of the energy needed to serve even the basic needs of the world's roughly 8 billion people-food, clothing, shelter, transportation, protection from cold and heat, and all the industry that makes those things. And they don't consider what's necessary to produce and distribute all that energy. He later explains, "People have to realize that this problem is unprecedented because of the numbers-billions of everything-and the pressure of acting rapidly as we never acted before. This doesn't make it hopeless, but it makes it excruciatingly more difficult."
Marchese persists: "But aren't goals necessary for orienting our actions?" Smil parries, "What's the point of setting goals which cannot be achieved? ... It's misleading and doesn't serve any use because we will not achieve it, and then people say, What's the point? I'm all for goals but for strict realism in setting them."
But Smil won't take the bait. He says, in sum: such emissions cuts "are unrealistic." They don't take into account the vast scale of the energy needed to serve even the basic needs of the world's roughly 8 billion people-food, clothing, shelter, transportation, protection from cold and heat, and all the industry that makes those things. And they don't consider what's necessary to produce and distribute all that energy. He later explains, "People have to realize that this problem is unprecedented because of the numbers-billions of everything-and the pressure of acting rapidly as we never acted before. This doesn't make it hopeless, but it makes it excruciatingly more difficult."
Marchese persists: "But aren't goals necessary for orienting our actions?" Smil parries, "What's the point of setting goals which cannot be achieved? ... It's misleading and doesn't serve any use because we will not achieve it, and then people say, What's the point? I'm all for goals but for strict realism in setting them."
The interview continues, and again and again Smil brings Marchese back to reality-or at least he tries to.
Real people don't rank hypothetical risks far in the future above real risks today. Real people "are messy, hard-to-define individuals. We are subject to fashions and whims-this is the beauty of humanity. Most of us are trying to do the right things with climate, but it is difficult when you have to move on the energy front, food front, materials front."
"Do you think we are facing a civilizational threat in climate change?" Marchese asks. "I cannot tell you it's the end of the world by next Monday because it is not the end of the world by next Monday. What's the point of you pressing me to belong to one of these groups? We have a problem; it will be difficult to solve. Even more difficult than people think."
Smil points out that developing countries all need to increase, not decrease, their use of fossil fuels to build their infrastructures. Marchese asks, "Is there an argument to be made, though, that countries developing new infrastructure have incentives to orient themselves toward renewables?" He later adds, "No today. Maybe tomorrow." Smil replies, "Putting a photovoltaic panel on a roof is very easy. Developing a system around photovoltaics for the whole country - very difficult. No country in the world today runs itself on pure photovoltaics," and "Not tomorrow. Again, it's the scale."
And then there's Smil's parting thought: "There are these billions of people who want to burn more fossil fuel
There is very little you can do about that. They will burn it unless you give them something different. But who will give them something different? You have to recognize the realities of the world, and the realities of the world tend to be unpleasant, discouraging and depressing."
We could sum up Smil's message in the words of Thomas Robert Malthus 200 years ago: "What cannot be done, will not be done."
> “But Smil won’t take the bait. He says, in sum: such emissions cuts “are unrealistic.” They don’t take into account the vast scale of the energy needed to serve even the basic needs of the world’s roughly 8 billion people-food, clothing, shelter, transportation, protection from cold and heat, and all the industry that makes those things.”
Which is why the Billionaire Psychopathic Eugenecist Vaxx King Bill Gates wants to implement his “final solution.”
https://newtube.app/user/Hostage/MdUoNjy
climate activists are the mentally ill that will ban toilet paper before realizing they have to use their hand
.
Bidets are very very nice. Really cuts down on the use of toilet paper without using hands (other than on the tp).
The US should use them more.
European things the US should learn from-
Strong tracking in schools
Apprenticeships
Voc Ed as a standard in education
Removing the bureaucracy and perverse incentives that make US medical care so expensive (and it has nothing to do with “single payer”).
Cheap no frills higher Ed.
No “in loco parentis” in higher ed
Bidets
Bookmarking, so I can read this later.
If people in third world countries would stop breeding like rabbits, it would help.
How does one dry off, after using a bidet? Toilet paper?
There is usually a separate towel.
We had bidets in the multi-bedroom apartment we rented off-base in Sicily. Most Sicilian bathrooms did. Our bathroom bidet was used as intended (wonderful!). Another was used as a dedicated watering bowl for the roomie’s Doberman. If we ever build again...the master bath will have one.
Bill Gates wants 90% of us gone. I suppose we’d make good organic fertilizer.
Maybe, possibly a small crack developing in the cult of climate change?
Naa, for a moment there, I forgot about the Ministry of Truth.
You are crazy. The burth rates all over tgw world have plunged dangerously low. No reason to go full Gates/Buffett.
Someone better call Nina Jankowitz about this
Climate change/global warming is a scam, period.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/clip_image0021.jpg
Simple tests.
Run a solar panel plant and manufacture solar panels using nothing but solar power.
Run a wind turbine plant and manufacture wind turbines using nothing but wind power.
We’ll see how sustainable they really are.
All machinery, lighting, HVAC etc used in the manufacturing plant would have to run on solar/wind.
I doubt even that is feasible. Never mind having to build the plant in the first place. Electric bulldozers and cranes? How about the raw materials for the building? Concrete, metal, wood, drywall, electrical components, plumbing, HVAC system — all created using “renewables”?
Then of course there’s the raw materials that go into making panels and turbines. That should all definitely be manufactured using “renewable” energy.
It’s a -1,000 sum game.
[How does one dry off, after using a bidet? Toilet paper?]
Since the water is sprayed upside down, gravity takes care of most of it. There is mostly just a little moisture to deal with. If you feel the need, 2 squares are sufficient to pat yourself dry. That is much better than multiple fists full of T.P. used to wipe your bottom.
After we installed bidets in our house, a large family pack (36 rolls?) will last a year + and the feeling of cleanliness comes close to just out of the shower level.
Excellent suggestions, buwaya.
Stranded, stranded the toilet bowl
What do you do when you’re stranded...without a roll
To prove you’re a man you must wipe with your hand
Stranded, stranded on the toilet bowl...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
