Earlier this week, I wrote a post featuring abbreviations such as NZIA and NZAM. A reader and, I daresay, a friend, wrote to me joking about a typo I’d made, writing NIZA instead of NZIA. I like NIZA better, he said. It stands for Not Interested in Zero Assets. That, of course, immediately gave me the idea of creating a group or alliance, as it is now trendy to call it, of people for whom net zero is not the top concern. I’m calling it Not Interested in Net Zero, or NINZ, which, you’ve got to admit, has a really nice ring to it.
I have other issues with net zero. As a young woman, I worked on NOx abatement. The chemistry community made GREAT strides against smog. I feel proud of this work.
Now, people forget these gains. It's all---If we don't get to net zero we are doomed! First of all: no, we aren't doomed. Second, net zero was chosen because it is probably impossible to achieve. (My opinion). Third, there are no engineering tradeoffs discussed, just Net Zero or Bust!
Well they may be able to achieve Net Zero because it is just another Carbon Trading Scam, just as Cap n Trade was. If they REALLY cared about emissions they would replace all subsidies, mandates & exemptions as well as all their carbon trading scams with the Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee & Dividend. Let the Free Market decide the most efficient & cost effective way to reduce emissions. They don't want that, they want Government Guaranteed Casino Capitalist, Corporate Socialist profits, a Climate Change Gravy Train for the ultra-rich which doubles as a Wealth Transfer plan to them, from you.
A couple good examples:
EXPOSED: The Biggest Green SCAM In ESG | Breaking Points, Krystal breaks down the corporate scam of ESG and carbon offset programs in the USA:
Meredith, that is well said. I work in the power generation industry, and I build lots of neat things, like selective catalytic reduction systems, and many things like that. I have often wondered why we don't make use of the new technologies we have and just drive forward with this energy transition that is going to destroy whole economies. If I may ask what part of NOx abatement did you work in?
Richard, thank you for the note. I was at Acurex (it doesn't exist anymore)) in Mountain View, CA. Our company specialty was combustion modification rather than end-of-stack reduction.
These were early days in the field. In particular, I was working on whether we could build a monolith that would not have platinum applied to it, but would have some transition metals built into the structure. These monoliths could be used to encourage oxidation of the fuel, but they would not break apart nitrogen and make NOx. A sort of low-NOx burner, perhaps. You could not use platinum at these temperatures...it would vaporize.
We had some good preliminary results, but the technology never really took off.
I remember Acurex! I always wondered what happened to them. I have installed a couple different types of low NOx burners, some for an outfit named smart burn, which works with the coal streams in corner fired boilers to encourage oxidation and controlled over fire air and a top over fire air to cool before the convection pass.
I have also worked with B&W and Foster Wheeler low NOx burners for wall fired boilers.
Apr 27, 2023·edited Apr 27, 2023Liked by Irina Slav
I'll join your NIZA club, but probably for different reasons than the ones that got you to join. I'm siding with people like climate scientist Kevin Anderson, who say that "net zero" is actually a scheme to stretch out emissions reductions over more decades than are acceptable by implementing a bunch of technologically implausible techno-fixes meant to suck an implausible amount of carbon out of the atmosphere decades from now. Also, the "net zero" story is profoundly enfolded in a lot of utter nonsense involving replacing internal combustion cars with electric cars, building out a 'rapid transition', which advocates conceive as a full replacement of current energy use with "renewables" (which are not really renewable at all).
What we need is degrowth -- which is a lot more than merely not growing, or even shrinking, in GDP and GWP terms. But the narrative of "net zero" is actually a "let's keep the economy going and growing" narrative. And this is why it is false. We're in global overshoot, and degrowth is the only viable solution to the cascade of breakdowns this overshoot is imposing upon the natural world.
So I'm a radical ecologist who will agree with your NIZA response. I'll join your club. But perhaps for different reasons than you. There is a real climate (and ecological) catastrophe unfolding. But we cannot fix it with a techno-fix. So the mainstream story of Net Zero is a load of BS for reasons you may not fully grasp. Or maybe you do. It hardly matters insofar as our mutual disinterest in Net Zero bs goes. But I wish you'd join us green radicals who advocate for degrowth. Degrowth isn't about us all embracing poverty. It's about living within our means.
Anyway, be sure to check out Simon Michaux's valuable and important contributions to the conversation. He'll be happy to join NIZA with us.
I'm not sure I'm on board with the idea of "degrowth". I am, however, very much on board with the idea of reducing excess consumption. Glad to have you in the club and it's great that you have other reasons and opinions -- this is what echo chambers are not! Thank you.
I both encourage and challenge you to take a good solid look at the degrowth literature, Irina. You cannot form an opinion that is worth its salt without doing so.
How long does it take to bring new nuclear plants of any kind online from plan to functioning commercially -- 10-15 years minimum, right? Meanwhile, emissions must be reduced by half in 5-7 years maximum, or all hell will be unleashed.
Propaganda is propaganda, and we need to be very wary of it.
By 1974, the USA was completing a new NPP every month. If that had continued, i.e. the Boycott by the Uber-Wealthy hadn't happened, by 2000 the USA would have been 100% zero emissions Nuclear energy. That's using ancient one-at-a-time construction methods.
South Korea & China are completing NPP's in 4yrs and that is certainly much longer than is achievable by factory production.
France achieved 88% of their domestic electricity and 40% of their total primary energy in 20yrs with nuclear. So using ancient, one-at-a-time construction methods it would take 50yrs to replace all energy with Nuclear.
And what is this "all hell will be unleashed". If it was that bad, then why are your buddies shutting down perfectly good NPPs? Like the last 3 in Germany just announced. Even the IPCC doesn't believe "all hell will be unleashed":
How to Understand the New IPCC Report: Part 1, Scenarios
Contrary to what you've been reading, the massive new IPCC report offers grounds for optimism on climate science and policy, by Roger Pielke Jr.:
You seem a good natured type, so I will offer the following:
Actually it took 500 $/W (inflation adjusted) and 3 years to bring an NPP online in 1960, many of which are still running perfectly today. Everything after that is just based on fear and weapons displacement which led to regulations promulgated by the boomer radical types. (See the Gordian Knot Substack)
I like Simon Michaux a lot- his analysis is just wrong on nuclear.
Demographers are actually FREAKING OUT about birth rate collapse across the entire world, which is already locked in at this point. I doubt we will even hit 9.5 billion people, and the degrowth after peak human is going to be a terrifying ride. (Search for Birthgap on YouTube)
Check out Gail Tverberg. She makes compelling arguments that simplification (or degrowth, or whatever you want to call it) is inevitable. Her work is very interesting and worth the read.
I'm all for holding corporations accountable for forcing the costs of pollution externalities on consumers. Unilever, Proctor and Gamble, Coke, Pepsi, Kraft Heinz all create millions of tons of waste the they have 0 responsibility for. I'm in favor of regulating that. See John Oliver's take on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkvQywg_uZA
Degrowth or "Limits to Growth" is utter nonsense, another Malthusian scam designed to destroy the Middle Class and create the Bankster dream of a World Totalitarian Neo-Feudal Tyranny.
The whole Degrowth charade is debunked here:
Superabundance: The Age of Plenty | Marian Tupy and Gale Pooley | #284
"...Marian Tupy and Gale Pooley are co-authors of the new book, “Super Abundance”. They sit down with Dr Jordan B Peterson to discuss their studies into overpopulation, the myths surrounding the subject, and how academia has created a new philosophy that demonizes modern man simply for existing.
Marian Tupy is the co-author of “Super Abundance”, as well as “10 Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know” and “The Simon Abundance Index”. He is the current editor of humanprogress.org, and is a senior fellow at the center for global liberty and prosperity.
The latest and most accurate assessment of World population is it will peak @ 9.6B in 2064 and then fall to 8.9B in 2100. So who needs DeGrowth. Population is stabilizing, we are past Peak Children, we need to focus on improving the standard of living of the entire World Population while also improving the environment. Easily achievable.
The only resource you really need is energy. Everything else can be recycled. With even nuclear fission energy, just the resource on the surface of the Earth's land area would power our civilization for a 100Myrs. And then there is the Moon, Mars & the Asteroids. Fusion is quite achievable, in fact we could do it right now if we had to. So abundance is the reality, which is why the Malthusian overlords do their damnedest to stifle unlimited nuclear energy.
As for the grifter, Simon Michaux. He is putting Nuclear at an EROI of 5:1. Absolute nonsense.
Weissbach puts the EROI of a GenII PWR @ 70:1 for a 60yr lifespan. 61% of the input energy is spent on the fuel cycle. Going closed cycle could eliminate almost all of that.
Cal Abel, putting EROI for Advanced Nuclear (reprocessing) with a Closed Fuel Cycle at up to 9000:1. He's putting CANDU's at over 300:1 in spite of their low uranium utilization efficiency of 0.85%. But they don't need to enrich.
And he makes the idiotic claim: "...We already discussed the uranium question and found that it was not possible to transition the world to 100% nuclear power without exhausting literally every possible source of uranium by year 2095 with Gen. II reactors, by year 2101 with Gen. III+ reactors, or by year 2194 with unproven and conceptual Gen. IV reactors..."
"...IFR-type reactors extract 99.99% of the energy immanent in mined uranium but today's reactors extract only 0.6%. The price of uranium would contribute the same amount to the delivered electricity price from IFR-type reactors if it were to increase 167 fold. Uranium could be economically extracted from lower quality ores, or from seawater, where there is estimated to be at least a thousand times more than could be extracted from land. Another low-quality ore is coal-fired power plant waste, which contains nineteen times more energy in the form of uranium and thorium than was extracted by burning the coal. Thorium, four times more common than uranium, can be converted to fissile fuel by neutron transmutation in a fast-spectrum reactor...Nuclear fission is an effectively inexhaustible source of energy..."
And as for his "...unproven and conceptual Gen. IV reactors...", they are already running. He doesn't know what he is talking about. An obvious & blatant propagandist.
Russia has been running their BN-800 sodium fast reactor since 2016 and their BN-600 since 1981 and is planning on building 3 BN-1200's and China is currently building 2 CFR-600 Sodium Fast reactors. Russia is planning on closing the fuel cycle with BN-1200's on their PWR's and expect the BN-1200's to be lower cost than their LWR's. India is just about finished their first Sodium Fast reactor and is also planning on closing their fuel cycle with their 500MWe fast reactors and PHWR-700 reactors eventually running on natural thorium.
Your entire argument is nothing but misanthropic wishful thinking with zero evidence or rational justification for anything you've said. And it sure as hell has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
Apr 27, 2023·edited Apr 27, 2023Liked by Irina Slav
Irina, I have bad news for you
In some circles, it is argued that what the NZ types really, deep down, want is depopulation, arguing that the Earth's true carrying capacity is in the order of a few hundred million people, not more, and beyond that level results in unsustainable resource requirements and emissions.
I had not really given much weight to this thinking, until recently, when I actually encountered someone who wholeheartedly agrees with that point of view, and very enthusiastically argued that 8bn people living on earth will result in a civilizational catastrophe resulting in the death of billions and the only way to fix it was to (kill billions?) reduce the population. Heck of an argument
So, perhaps the Borel's and Guettieres and those types, are simply not saying the quiet part out loud. They gaze from their ivory towers and lament that all their plans will come to naught because the fundamental truth is that there are just too many goddamn people.
Yes, Bash, you are entirely correct. The Greens among us are dedicated misanthropes, who like the idea of a killer virus or 3 to help "cull the herd" of we Proles.
I recognized this feature in them roughly 20 years ago, as the "debate" over AGW was actually still going on.
They hate us, and want us dead. Once you accept that as fact, all of this becomes far easier to understand.
There's a book out there about a genetically engineered supervirus that induces infertility in 1/3rd of those it infects. And that was marveled as some sort of cure for humanity.
You are right. Once that basic concept is understood, everything makes sense, and the contradictions aren't contradictions anymore.
Funny thing, I've been seeing anecdotal reports about infertility in people who took a certain kind of vaccine. Could be conspiracy theory. Could be something else. I'll give it another couple of years before I form an opinion.
I am certain there are people who honestly believe there are too many people on this planet. Some say it openly, Funny how they always stop short of suggestions on how to go about fixing that.
It is far, far worse than that. The real rulers of the Western World are Malthusians and have stated that since after WW2, i.e.:
THE GLOBAL REVOLUTION by The Club of Rome 1991 "Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."[2] "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."[3]
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis."
David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager
Depopulation: "I Hope It Can Occur In a Civil Manner"
"The World can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion"
" I know in one way or another it's going to come back down so I don't hope to avoid that, I hope that it can occur in a civil way "
" Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it. "
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
" The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet. "
Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
" Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. "
Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
" A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation "
John Holdren Obama Science Czar
"In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a master plan is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years from today it will probably be too late."
Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
"In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways."
Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General
"Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises."
Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute
"A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income."
Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable."
Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
"All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man."
Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions."
Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb
"A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible."
United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
"The resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion."
Another great article Irina. I am a proud member of NIZA! It is always sad to see or hear anything about John Kerry (aka LURCH). He makes Biden look like a genius. I am looking forward to his grilling by the House Oversight committee. I don't think he can be removed from his Imaginary position, but it will be fun to see him go into LURCH mode when asked very simple questions.
John Kerry, the Climate Change Czar, was the cretin who cancelled the super safe & highly successful IFR project which can produce a GW of electricity for a year from one tonne of natural or depleted uranium or light water reactor spent nuclear fuel. Maybe the hypocrite can get back in his private jet and fly around the World telling everyone how urgent it is that they cut CO2 emissions. Or if he is bored with that he can hang out in his 6 houses or 2 yachts, maybe drive one of his 12 cars.
Per a family spokesperson & the FAA, Mr Heinz-kerry & the family sold their Gulfstream. However, the family still owns a charter co., flying squirrel LLC., so I suspect he is still flying on private planes. Great name for a charter air firm. No doubt Rocky is the CEO & Bullwinkle is the chief mechanic.
Irina, I am all in. What people don't talk about with net-zero is how many carbon dioxide exhaling humans have to be eliminated to get to net-zero? I am certain they have a number in mind. Every time I see the words "net-zero" I simply replace it with "depopulation".
On a funnier note, every New Year when talking with friends about New Year's resolutions my husband always says his is to increase his carbon footprint :)
This reminds me of a favourite joke. It goes like this: In a black, black country, in a black, black, village, in a black, black backyard, a voice spoke. And the voice said: Hey Tom, would you stop burning tyres already!
Proper delivery involves a sinister tone of voice.
Count me in, Irina! However, over her in the USA, our "Woke Mob" will never stand for an acronym that can be arranged into the word "NAZI", as that's what the left considers the right to be, along with the ever-handy "Fascist" label in their quiver-o-insults.
I try as hard as I can daily to educated those who are fundamentally clueless about technology, energy production and material procurement, (I'm a Mechanical Engineer, and have somewhat of a clue as to these topics), but all to no avail. The "Educated" among us employ the "Argumentum ab Auctoritate"/Argument or Appeal to Authority logical fallacy every time their belief-sets fall into question, just like they did during COVID.
"Who are you to question these experts in these fields? What are your credentials?", they often ask. I many times reply with my own axiom, which usually closely resembles something akin to "One does not need a culinary degree to spot bad food, just as one does not need a POLISCI degree to spot bad policies."
The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, and these highly-educated nincompoops have us well down the sulfur-laden path to that destination. Thanks for all that you do in the fight against this madness!
But our club's acronym is NINZ, no A in it. :D That should be safe. Welcome on board and bring your expertise. The world needs engineers, it just doesn't realise how much it needs them and how much depends on them.
Touche'! And I've been called a Nazi so much over the last decade, it's lost all its punch, just like "Racist".
And thank you for standing up for we engineers, as here in the States, our "Professional Educator"-class has been telling us that degrees in the Humanities are far more important to society than those pesky STEM-centric studies.
If this foolishness keeps up, in a generation ore two there won't be anyone left who knows how to keep the lights on and the water running.
Ayn Rand would recognize my actual country as a mirror of her fictional one immediately.
Does no one recognize that the term Climate Change is a redundancy? Change is what climate does and has always done. Only supreme human arrogance has the temerity to believe humans can control the process. The billion year+ sedimentary rock record is, effectively, a record of the interaction of climate change and plate tectonics.
That is not to say that human activity does not effect the environment we inhabit. Who is foolish enough to believe that filling the air with all manner of particulate matter and toxic gasses or that sprinkling the global land surface with toxic residues of oil and mineral extraction, or that littering the land surface with plastic and landfills does not effect the livability of the planet? If we humans are going to campaigns to produce a healthy and habitable planet for future generations, why not start by addressing those activities over which we can excercise control and whose resolution will have immediate positive effects on local environments?
Okay, I will have to delete my subscription. Irina, previously, you said you acknowledge anthropogenic climate disruption. Here you laugh at this notion. You seem very confused. I'm out of here. This is a land of wishful thinking and make believe.
It is amazing how oblivious these creeps are to their own hypocrisy. The only explanation is deep down they are total elitists, true believers in a feudal form of government. Big coincidence? That is where are politicians, media and institutions have been leading us.
I've noticed that the commenters here are generally not at all open to honest and sincere discussion on the basis of facts, and that this is largely a cesspool of repetition of corporate-capitalist propaganda, not a place of open dialogue on the basis of fact. So I'm out of here. Have fun!
The corporate-capitalist types are all promoting the same misanthropic, elitist crap as you are. Where is Greenpeace getting $400M/yr from? Where are the many $billions/yr in funding to Climate Alarmism, anti-Nuclear ENGO's coming from? It sure as hell isn't us little people.
NINZ would be a pretty interesting coalition. It would combine people who just want to live their lives and not be told what to do (most people?), people who don’t think global warming exists (aka the dreaded “deniers”) and people like me who are fine with the idea of moving to a low carbon economy, but only slowly on sound economic terms using innovation (techno optimists/decouplers).
Michael Crichton, a brilliant person who we lost too soon, used the term Political-news-legal-complex to present his thoughts about a fictional(?) radical group of environmentalists trying to stage various "catastrophes" to show dangers of climate change. In 2004. I would have voted for him for President. Now I'm writing James Grant of Grant's Interest Rate Observer. If they crash the economy, carbon emissions will decline precipitously. See e.g., the PRC's Covid lockdown policy.
Totally in.
I have other issues with net zero. As a young woman, I worked on NOx abatement. The chemistry community made GREAT strides against smog. I feel proud of this work.
Now, people forget these gains. It's all---If we don't get to net zero we are doomed! First of all: no, we aren't doomed. Second, net zero was chosen because it is probably impossible to achieve. (My opinion). Third, there are no engineering tradeoffs discussed, just Net Zero or Bust!
Very very upsetting.
People like you are the backbone of sanity, such as it remains in today's energy discourse. Thank you!
Engineering trade-offs? We don't need no stinking engineering trade-offs. Keep up your great work.
Well they may be able to achieve Net Zero because it is just another Carbon Trading Scam, just as Cap n Trade was. If they REALLY cared about emissions they would replace all subsidies, mandates & exemptions as well as all their carbon trading scams with the Revenue Neutral Carbon Fee & Dividend. Let the Free Market decide the most efficient & cost effective way to reduce emissions. They don't want that, they want Government Guaranteed Casino Capitalist, Corporate Socialist profits, a Climate Change Gravy Train for the ultra-rich which doubles as a Wealth Transfer plan to them, from you.
A couple good examples:
EXPOSED: The Biggest Green SCAM In ESG | Breaking Points, Krystal breaks down the corporate scam of ESG and carbon offset programs in the USA:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXxqjjgH0Ec&t=2s
Revealed: more than 90% of rainforest carbon offsets by biggest certifier are worthless, analysis shows:
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jan/18/revealed-forest-carbon-offsets-biggest-provider-worthless-verra-aoe
Meredith, that is well said. I work in the power generation industry, and I build lots of neat things, like selective catalytic reduction systems, and many things like that. I have often wondered why we don't make use of the new technologies we have and just drive forward with this energy transition that is going to destroy whole economies. If I may ask what part of NOx abatement did you work in?
Richard, thank you for the note. I was at Acurex (it doesn't exist anymore)) in Mountain View, CA. Our company specialty was combustion modification rather than end-of-stack reduction.
These were early days in the field. In particular, I was working on whether we could build a monolith that would not have platinum applied to it, but would have some transition metals built into the structure. These monoliths could be used to encourage oxidation of the fuel, but they would not break apart nitrogen and make NOx. A sort of low-NOx burner, perhaps. You could not use platinum at these temperatures...it would vaporize.
We had some good preliminary results, but the technology never really took off.
https://patents.google.com/patent/US4337028A/en
I remember Acurex! I always wondered what happened to them. I have installed a couple different types of low NOx burners, some for an outfit named smart burn, which works with the coal streams in corner fired boilers to encourage oxidation and controlled over fire air and a top over fire air to cool before the convection pass.
I have also worked with B&W and Foster Wheeler low NOx burners for wall fired boilers.
Are you old enough to remember the acronym BOOS? (Burners Out of Service).
You don't have to answer this. 😉
Haha yes I am. I've done some tuning, and yes, I am that old LOL
I'll join your NIZA club, but probably for different reasons than the ones that got you to join. I'm siding with people like climate scientist Kevin Anderson, who say that "net zero" is actually a scheme to stretch out emissions reductions over more decades than are acceptable by implementing a bunch of technologically implausible techno-fixes meant to suck an implausible amount of carbon out of the atmosphere decades from now. Also, the "net zero" story is profoundly enfolded in a lot of utter nonsense involving replacing internal combustion cars with electric cars, building out a 'rapid transition', which advocates conceive as a full replacement of current energy use with "renewables" (which are not really renewable at all).
What we need is degrowth -- which is a lot more than merely not growing, or even shrinking, in GDP and GWP terms. But the narrative of "net zero" is actually a "let's keep the economy going and growing" narrative. And this is why it is false. We're in global overshoot, and degrowth is the only viable solution to the cascade of breakdowns this overshoot is imposing upon the natural world.
So I'm a radical ecologist who will agree with your NIZA response. I'll join your club. But perhaps for different reasons than you. There is a real climate (and ecological) catastrophe unfolding. But we cannot fix it with a techno-fix. So the mainstream story of Net Zero is a load of BS for reasons you may not fully grasp. Or maybe you do. It hardly matters insofar as our mutual disinterest in Net Zero bs goes. But I wish you'd join us green radicals who advocate for degrowth. Degrowth isn't about us all embracing poverty. It's about living within our means.
Anyway, be sure to check out Simon Michaux's valuable and important contributions to the conversation. He'll be happy to join NIZA with us.
I'm not sure I'm on board with the idea of "degrowth". I am, however, very much on board with the idea of reducing excess consumption. Glad to have you in the club and it's great that you have other reasons and opinions -- this is what echo chambers are not! Thank you.
I both encourage and challenge you to take a good solid look at the degrowth literature, Irina. You cannot form an opinion that is worth its salt without doing so.
I'll do that, James, thank you.
Yay!
I forgot to provide a definition for "radical ecology". This one's the best I've ever seen.
http://www.ecodharma.com/articles-influences-audio/radical-ecology
And you should give up on the anti-human dogma and take a good look at the Cornucopian literature, like Superabundance or Robert Zubrin:
Nuclear Energy, Space and Humanity's Future | Robert Zubrin | The Human Progress Podcast Ep. 30:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMfdtyTpPhU
https://www.humanprogress.org/robert-zubrin-the-human-progress-podcast-ep-30-transcript/
How to liberate nuclear energy, with Robert Zubrin, Alex Epstein:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MQtgkT8nqgc
The Case For Nukes: How We Can Beat Global Warming and Create a Free, Open, and Magnificent Future, by Robert Zubrin
https://www.amazon.com/Case-Nukes-Global-Warming-Magnificent-ebook/dp/B0BXPCZ33K
Superabundance: The Story of Population Growth, Innovation, and Human Flourishing on an Infinitely Bountiful Planet
https://www.amazon.com/Superabundance-Population-Innovation-Flourishing-Infinitely/dp/1952223393
How long does it take to bring new nuclear plants of any kind online from plan to functioning commercially -- 10-15 years minimum, right? Meanwhile, emissions must be reduced by half in 5-7 years maximum, or all hell will be unleashed.
Propaganda is propaganda, and we need to be very wary of it.
By 1974, the USA was completing a new NPP every month. If that had continued, i.e. the Boycott by the Uber-Wealthy hadn't happened, by 2000 the USA would have been 100% zero emissions Nuclear energy. That's using ancient one-at-a-time construction methods.
South Korea & China are completing NPP's in 4yrs and that is certainly much longer than is achievable by factory production.
France achieved 88% of their domestic electricity and 40% of their total primary energy in 20yrs with nuclear. So using ancient, one-at-a-time construction methods it would take 50yrs to replace all energy with Nuclear.
And what is this "all hell will be unleashed". If it was that bad, then why are your buddies shutting down perfectly good NPPs? Like the last 3 in Germany just announced. Even the IPCC doesn't believe "all hell will be unleashed":
How to Understand the New IPCC Report: Part 1, Scenarios
Contrary to what you've been reading, the massive new IPCC report offers grounds for optimism on climate science and policy, by Roger Pielke Jr.:
https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/how-to-understand-the-new-ipcc-report
Are you saying the IPCC is propaganda? A lot of people think that it is, but in the exact opposite way you are claiming.
You seem a good natured type, so I will offer the following:
Actually it took 500 $/W (inflation adjusted) and 3 years to bring an NPP online in 1960, many of which are still running perfectly today. Everything after that is just based on fear and weapons displacement which led to regulations promulgated by the boomer radical types. (See the Gordian Knot Substack)
I like Simon Michaux a lot- his analysis is just wrong on nuclear.
Demographers are actually FREAKING OUT about birth rate collapse across the entire world, which is already locked in at this point. I doubt we will even hit 9.5 billion people, and the degrowth after peak human is going to be a terrifying ride. (Search for Birthgap on YouTube)
Check out Gail Tverberg. She makes compelling arguments that simplification (or degrowth, or whatever you want to call it) is inevitable. Her work is very interesting and worth the read.
I'm all for holding corporations accountable for forcing the costs of pollution externalities on consumers. Unilever, Proctor and Gamble, Coke, Pepsi, Kraft Heinz all create millions of tons of waste the they have 0 responsibility for. I'm in favor of regulating that. See John Oliver's take on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HkvQywg_uZA
Degrowth or "Limits to Growth" is utter nonsense, another Malthusian scam designed to destroy the Middle Class and create the Bankster dream of a World Totalitarian Neo-Feudal Tyranny.
The whole Degrowth charade is debunked here:
Superabundance: The Age of Plenty | Marian Tupy and Gale Pooley | #284
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iC_hY4qhyk
"...Marian Tupy and Gale Pooley are co-authors of the new book, “Super Abundance”. They sit down with Dr Jordan B Peterson to discuss their studies into overpopulation, the myths surrounding the subject, and how academia has created a new philosophy that demonizes modern man simply for existing.
Marian Tupy is the co-author of “Super Abundance”, as well as “10 Global Trends Every Smart Person Should Know” and “The Simon Abundance Index”. He is the current editor of humanprogress.org, and is a senior fellow at the center for global liberty and prosperity.
The latest and most accurate assessment of World population is it will peak @ 9.6B in 2064 and then fall to 8.9B in 2100. So who needs DeGrowth. Population is stabilizing, we are past Peak Children, we need to focus on improving the standard of living of the entire World Population while also improving the environment. Easily achievable.
The only resource you really need is energy. Everything else can be recycled. With even nuclear fission energy, just the resource on the surface of the Earth's land area would power our civilization for a 100Myrs. And then there is the Moon, Mars & the Asteroids. Fusion is quite achievable, in fact we could do it right now if we had to. So abundance is the reality, which is why the Malthusian overlords do their damnedest to stifle unlimited nuclear energy.
As for the grifter, Simon Michaux. He is putting Nuclear at an EROI of 5:1. Absolute nonsense.
Weissbach puts the EROI of a GenII PWR @ 70:1 for a 60yr lifespan. 61% of the input energy is spent on the fuel cycle. Going closed cycle could eliminate almost all of that.
Cal Abel, putting EROI for Advanced Nuclear (reprocessing) with a Closed Fuel Cycle at up to 9000:1. He's putting CANDU's at over 300:1 in spite of their low uranium utilization efficiency of 0.85%. But they don't need to enrich.
And he makes the idiotic claim: "...We already discussed the uranium question and found that it was not possible to transition the world to 100% nuclear power without exhausting literally every possible source of uranium by year 2095 with Gen. II reactors, by year 2101 with Gen. III+ reactors, or by year 2194 with unproven and conceptual Gen. IV reactors..."
For the ACTUAL truth:
See:
https://vsnyder.substack.com/p/five-myths-about-nuclear-power
"...IFR-type reactors extract 99.99% of the energy immanent in mined uranium but today's reactors extract only 0.6%. The price of uranium would contribute the same amount to the delivered electricity price from IFR-type reactors if it were to increase 167 fold. Uranium could be economically extracted from lower quality ores, or from seawater, where there is estimated to be at least a thousand times more than could be extracted from land. Another low-quality ore is coal-fired power plant waste, which contains nineteen times more energy in the form of uranium and thorium than was extracted by burning the coal. Thorium, four times more common than uranium, can be converted to fissile fuel by neutron transmutation in a fast-spectrum reactor...Nuclear fission is an effectively inexhaustible source of energy..."
And as for his "...unproven and conceptual Gen. IV reactors...", they are already running. He doesn't know what he is talking about. An obvious & blatant propagandist.
Russia has been running their BN-800 sodium fast reactor since 2016 and their BN-600 since 1981 and is planning on building 3 BN-1200's and China is currently building 2 CFR-600 Sodium Fast reactors. Russia is planning on closing the fuel cycle with BN-1200's on their PWR's and expect the BN-1200's to be lower cost than their LWR's. India is just about finished their first Sodium Fast reactor and is also planning on closing their fuel cycle with their 500MWe fast reactors and PHWR-700 reactors eventually running on natural thorium.
I can't be bothered with wishful thinking fantasies without any grounding in reality, truth or science. Sorry.
Your entire argument is nothing but misanthropic wishful thinking with zero evidence or rational justification for anything you've said. And it sure as hell has nothing whatsoever to do with science.
You need to be "bothered" with John Kerry's bullshit and the fear mongering complex foisted on us, and push back. To stand by is complicity.
Irina, I have bad news for you
In some circles, it is argued that what the NZ types really, deep down, want is depopulation, arguing that the Earth's true carrying capacity is in the order of a few hundred million people, not more, and beyond that level results in unsustainable resource requirements and emissions.
I had not really given much weight to this thinking, until recently, when I actually encountered someone who wholeheartedly agrees with that point of view, and very enthusiastically argued that 8bn people living on earth will result in a civilizational catastrophe resulting in the death of billions and the only way to fix it was to (kill billions?) reduce the population. Heck of an argument
So, perhaps the Borel's and Guettieres and those types, are simply not saying the quiet part out loud. They gaze from their ivory towers and lament that all their plans will come to naught because the fundamental truth is that there are just too many goddamn people.
Edit - I just read the other comments. FML.
Yes, Bash, you are entirely correct. The Greens among us are dedicated misanthropes, who like the idea of a killer virus or 3 to help "cull the herd" of we Proles.
I recognized this feature in them roughly 20 years ago, as the "debate" over AGW was actually still going on.
They hate us, and want us dead. Once you accept that as fact, all of this becomes far easier to understand.
There's a book out there about a genetically engineered supervirus that induces infertility in 1/3rd of those it infects. And that was marveled as some sort of cure for humanity.
You are right. Once that basic concept is understood, everything makes sense, and the contradictions aren't contradictions anymore.
Thanks for your remark, best.
You're more than welcome! It's a hard concept to come to terms with, but statements like these drive the point further home:
“Wow…. Earth is recovering.
-Air pollution is slowing down
-Water pollution is clearing up
-Natural wildlife returning home
Coronavirus is the Earth’s vaccine
We’re the virus
— Tom (@ThomasSchuIz) March 17, 2020”
By the end of March 202, this post had received over 290,600 likes and 70,900 retweets.
“Extinction Rebellion” had a similar statement on fliers they posted all over the UK in 2020:
“Earth is healing. The air and water is clearing.
Corona is the cure. Humans are the disease.”
To all these self-loathing misanthropes, I usually reply: “If you think we need less humans, lead by example and martyr yourself first.”
So far, I’ve had zero takers…..
Funny thing, I've been seeing anecdotal reports about infertility in people who took a certain kind of vaccine. Could be conspiracy theory. Could be something else. I'll give it another couple of years before I form an opinion.
Nothing in these claims is reality-based. It's pure propaganda.
I am certain there are people who honestly believe there are too many people on this planet. Some say it openly, Funny how they always stop short of suggestions on how to go about fixing that.
They are here in your comments!!!
It is far, far worse than that. The real rulers of the Western World are Malthusians and have stated that since after WW2, i.e.:
THE GLOBAL REVOLUTION by The Club of Rome 1991 "Because of the sudden absence of traditional enemies, "new enemies must be identified."[2] "In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill....All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself."[3]
"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis."
David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive manager
Depopulation: "I Hope It Can Occur In a Civil Manner"
"The World can support something like a billion people, maybe two billion"
" I know in one way or another it's going to come back down so I don't hope to avoid that, I hope that it can occur in a civil way "
(i.e. Plandemic and deadly forced vaccines):
Club of Rome former director Dennis Meadows
https://rumble.com/v14uz0z-depopulation-i-hope-it-can-occur-in-a-civil-manner-club-of-romes-dennis-mea.html
" Complex technology of any sort is an assault on human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it. "
Amory Lovins, Rocky Mountain Institute
" The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet. "
Jeremy Rifkin, Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
" Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun. "
Prof Paul Ehrlich, Stanford University
" A massive campaign must be launched to restore a high-quality environment in North America and to de-develop the United States. De-development means bringing our economic system (especially patterns of consumption) into line with the realities of ecology and the global resource situation "
John Holdren Obama Science Czar
"In Nature organic growth proceeds according to a Master Plan, a Blueprint. Such a master plan is missing from the process of growth and development of the world system. Now is the time to draw up a master plan for sustainable growth and world development based on global allocation of all resources and a new global economic system. Ten or twenty years from today it will probably be too late."
Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
"In my view, after fifty years of service in the United National system, I perceive the utmost urgency and absolute necessity for proper Earth government. There is no shadow of a doubt that the present political and economic systems are no longer appropriate and will lead to the end of life evolution on this planet. We must therefore absolutely and urgently look for new ways."
Dr. Robert Muller, UN Assistant Secretary General
"Nations are in effect ceding portions of their sovereignty to the international community and beginning to create a new system of international environmental governance as a means of solving otherwise unmanageable crises."
Lester Brown, WorldWatch Institute
"A keen and anxious awareness is evolving to suggest that fundamental changes will have to take place in the world order and its power structures, in the distribution of wealth and income."
Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
"Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable."
Maurice Strong, Rio Earth Summit
"All these dangers are caused by human intervention and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy, then, is humanity itself."
Club of Rome, The First Global Revolution
"The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man."
Club of Rome, Mankind at the Turning Point
"A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells, the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer. The operation will demand many apparently brutal and heartless decisions."
Prof. Paul Ehrlich, The Population Bomb
"A reasonable estimate for an industrialized world society at the present North American material standard of living would be 1 billion. At the more frugal European standard of living, 2 to 3 billion would be possible."
United Nations, Global Biodiversity Assessment
"A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal."
Ted Turner, founder of CNN and major UN donor
"The resultant ideal sustainable population is hence more than 500 million but less than one billion."
Club of Rome, Goals for Mankind
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2023/apr/25/house-oversight-chairman-threatens-subpoena-inform/
Another great article Irina. I am a proud member of NIZA! It is always sad to see or hear anything about John Kerry (aka LURCH). He makes Biden look like a genius. I am looking forward to his grilling by the House Oversight committee. I don't think he can be removed from his Imaginary position, but it will be fun to see him go into LURCH mode when asked very simple questions.
Thank you, Karloff! Kerry is cringey...
John Kerry, the Climate Change Czar, was the cretin who cancelled the super safe & highly successful IFR project which can produce a GW of electricity for a year from one tonne of natural or depleted uranium or light water reactor spent nuclear fuel. Maybe the hypocrite can get back in his private jet and fly around the World telling everyone how urgent it is that they cut CO2 emissions. Or if he is bored with that he can hang out in his 6 houses or 2 yachts, maybe drive one of his 12 cars.
Per a family spokesperson & the FAA, Mr Heinz-kerry & the family sold their Gulfstream. However, the family still owns a charter co., flying squirrel LLC., so I suspect he is still flying on private planes. Great name for a charter air firm. No doubt Rocky is the CEO & Bullwinkle is the chief mechanic.
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/john-kerry-family-private-jet-sold-shortly-after-accusations-climate-hypocrisy
Now if he would only commit to fast tracking development of the Natrium reactors which his NRC have been stonewalling, as usual.
Irina, I am all in. What people don't talk about with net-zero is how many carbon dioxide exhaling humans have to be eliminated to get to net-zero? I am certain they have a number in mind. Every time I see the words "net-zero" I simply replace it with "depopulation".
A lot of people seem to harbour the same suspicions/certainties. That's... unfortunately. Welcome to the club!
On a funnier note, every New Year when talking with friends about New Year's resolutions my husband always says his is to increase his carbon footprint :)
Give my best to your husband! I like his thinking. :D
I want to have Carbon Footprint contests. I bet mine is bigger!
What an absolutely outrageous idea! I love it.
For the Holidays around our house, we increase ours via having everyone gather around the Yule Tire fire.
It usually burns itself out by Easter.
This reminds me of a favourite joke. It goes like this: In a black, black country, in a black, black, village, in a black, black backyard, a voice spoke. And the voice said: Hey Tom, would you stop burning tyres already!
Proper delivery involves a sinister tone of voice.
Count me in, Irina! However, over her in the USA, our "Woke Mob" will never stand for an acronym that can be arranged into the word "NAZI", as that's what the left considers the right to be, along with the ever-handy "Fascist" label in their quiver-o-insults.
I try as hard as I can daily to educated those who are fundamentally clueless about technology, energy production and material procurement, (I'm a Mechanical Engineer, and have somewhat of a clue as to these topics), but all to no avail. The "Educated" among us employ the "Argumentum ab Auctoritate"/Argument or Appeal to Authority logical fallacy every time their belief-sets fall into question, just like they did during COVID.
"Who are you to question these experts in these fields? What are your credentials?", they often ask. I many times reply with my own axiom, which usually closely resembles something akin to "One does not need a culinary degree to spot bad food, just as one does not need a POLISCI degree to spot bad policies."
The road to hell is always paved with good intentions, and these highly-educated nincompoops have us well down the sulfur-laden path to that destination. Thanks for all that you do in the fight against this madness!
But our club's acronym is NINZ, no A in it. :D That should be safe. Welcome on board and bring your expertise. The world needs engineers, it just doesn't realise how much it needs them and how much depends on them.
Touche'! And I've been called a Nazi so much over the last decade, it's lost all its punch, just like "Racist".
And thank you for standing up for we engineers, as here in the States, our "Professional Educator"-class has been telling us that degrees in the Humanities are far more important to society than those pesky STEM-centric studies.
If this foolishness keeps up, in a generation ore two there won't be anyone left who knows how to keep the lights on and the water running.
Ayn Rand would recognize my actual country as a mirror of her fictional one immediately.
I'm the offspring of engineers and I have a humanities degree. I daresay I know damn well which is more important for our wellbeing.
My country used to to know what you do, Irina, but sadly it lost its way by the late 90's.
But fear not! We Americans will have simply amazing philosophical discussions on why the world failed as we re-learn how to hunt and gather.
It's not just you. Silver lining: we always learn from our mistakes one way or another.
NINZ. Love this.
It sounds a bit like ninja. :D
Does no one recognize that the term Climate Change is a redundancy? Change is what climate does and has always done. Only supreme human arrogance has the temerity to believe humans can control the process. The billion year+ sedimentary rock record is, effectively, a record of the interaction of climate change and plate tectonics.
That is not to say that human activity does not effect the environment we inhabit. Who is foolish enough to believe that filling the air with all manner of particulate matter and toxic gasses or that sprinkling the global land surface with toxic residues of oil and mineral extraction, or that littering the land surface with plastic and landfills does not effect the livability of the planet? If we humans are going to campaigns to produce a healthy and habitable planet for future generations, why not start by addressing those activities over which we can excercise control and whose resolution will have immediate positive effects on local environments?
Are you my alter ego? In all seriousness, what you have written expresses my thoughts exactly. Thank you for this!
Okay, I will have to delete my subscription. Irina, previously, you said you acknowledge anthropogenic climate disruption. Here you laugh at this notion. You seem very confused. I'm out of here. This is a land of wishful thinking and make believe.
Having had your arguments completely decimated, I can see why. Back to the Climate Alarmism Hypocrisy Eco-chamber.
Thanks for this comment. I rarely have the opportunity of witnessing the pot calling the kettle black.
...."climate disruption"....
I liked "Global Warming" much better.
No, I did not say that. I acknowledge the many destructive effects human activity has had through the centuries on the environment.
Until those telling us how to live our lives live that life themselves, they can stick their "Net Zero" up their behinds.
That's the problem with all our self-anointed superiors: they don't live the life they demand that we live.
My response to them? "You first."
It is amazing how oblivious these creeps are to their own hypocrisy. The only explanation is deep down they are total elitists, true believers in a feudal form of government. Big coincidence? That is where are politicians, media and institutions have been leading us.
I've noticed that the commenters here are generally not at all open to honest and sincere discussion on the basis of facts, and that this is largely a cesspool of repetition of corporate-capitalist propaganda, not a place of open dialogue on the basis of fact. So I'm out of here. Have fun!
The corporate-capitalist types are all promoting the same misanthropic, elitist crap as you are. Where is Greenpeace getting $400M/yr from? Where are the many $billions/yr in funding to Climate Alarmism, anti-Nuclear ENGO's coming from? It sure as hell isn't us little people.
https://robertbryce.substack.com/p/the-billionaires-behind-the-gas-bans
In.
NINZ would be a pretty interesting coalition. It would combine people who just want to live their lives and not be told what to do (most people?), people who don’t think global warming exists (aka the dreaded “deniers”) and people like me who are fine with the idea of moving to a low carbon economy, but only slowly on sound economic terms using innovation (techno optimists/decouplers).
A lot of us are fine with that, it's the rational path.
You have my vote
Brilliant. I am a hard-core NINZ-er.
Welcome on board!
Michael Crichton, a brilliant person who we lost too soon, used the term Political-news-legal-complex to present his thoughts about a fictional(?) radical group of environmentalists trying to stage various "catastrophes" to show dangers of climate change. In 2004. I would have voted for him for President. Now I'm writing James Grant of Grant's Interest Rate Observer. If they crash the economy, carbon emissions will decline precipitously. See e.g., the PRC's Covid lockdown policy.
All emissions dropped when we went on lockdown. Some people even suggested we need climate lockdowns.
Great writers are often prescient...