NASA Climate Scientist Arrested in Pipeline Protest

[Newsbot]

James Hansen and activists practiced civil disobedience in front of the White House today.

More...

 

[aerostadt]

It is easy for activists, who have already made their fortunes, to advocate the shutting down of domestic oil production, while such policies are hurtful to the majority of poorer Americans, who need better paying jobs and lower gasoline costs. The detriment to all Americans (and our allies) is even more so when realizes that the loss in domestic oil production increases our reliance on Middle East oil and our entanglement with wars and intrigues in that part of the world.

 

[luke strawwalker]

It is easy for activists, who have already made their fortunes, to advocate the shutting down of domestic oil production, while such policies are hurtful to the majority of poorer Americans, who need better paying jobs and lower gasoline costs. The detriment to all Americans (and our allies) is even more so when realizes that the loss in domestic oil production increases our reliance on Middle East oil and our entanglement with wars and intrigues in that part of the world.

Absolutely...

I was reading something interesting lately that quoted some studies and concerns voiced for the future about 110 years ago or so... the subject then was the ALARMING increase in the volume of horse manure accumulating in New York City... "scientific" projections then were that at the then-current rate of accumulation, by 1990 (IIRC) the entire City of New York would have an accumulation of horse manure in the streets burying buildings up to the third floor windows...

Of course we know that didn't happen... in a similar vein, these "scientists" take projections based on VERY limited data sets and project them forward or backward in time and come up with alarming conclusions and then go on arm-waving tirades about it, when the truth is, we simply don't know. I'm not saying "nothing bad will happen", nor am I saying "the sky is falling" either. The truth is, we simply don't know. There are too many variables and every time we THINK we know exactly how something works, we're proven WRONG.

His statement was interesting--"it'll create a situation for our grandchildren, that they cannot control". HA! Like we can control the climate now! Hubris...

So, what is the solution?? Turn Luddite?? Roll the clock back to the mid-late 19th century, before electrification and the mass production of the internal combustion engine?? Oh wait-- the cities were a lot dirtier and smoggier then due to coal smoke, and of course mining and steam train transport was polluting then too... better roll the clock back to the early-mid 1700's... return to the agrarian paradise present in pre- Revolutionary America... Good luck feeding 350 million people in this country that way, to say NOTHING of the rest of the world.

Basically, looking at the data, the oil-driven technological age that the world has enjoyed for the last 100-150 years is an aberration. It has allowed a MASSIVE population overshoot beyond the NORMAL carrying capacity of the Earth. So what do we do?? Kill half the people on Earth?? I think they'll have something to say about that-- I don't think they'll go quietly. Who gets to decide??

The genie is out of the bottle. We're now, like it or not, TOTALLY DEPENDENT on the oil-driven technological society we have created. Like germs running out of room to reproduce in a petri dish, we're gradually but increasingly rapidly running out of room to grow and support ourselves and reproduce. There ARE limits to expansion... eventually we hit the wall, and that's it... a massive collapse follows, then whatever survives through luck, chance, or providence builds again to a sustainable balance, or overshoots and crashes again.

Heck, even 250 years ago, Europe was facing much the same problems-- overpopulation and farmed out land from thousands of years of human occupation, fished out rivers and fisheries, and nowhere left to expand... except the Americas. Deforestation and scarcity of resource drove industrialization in the late 1700's, to find more efficient ways to produce coal and other forms of energy (as kerosene replaced whale oil for lighting decades later) and to produce more energy and more necessities like food, clothing, and shelter for a burgeoning population. Any of this sound familiar??

What is the only constant?? CHANGE!

We see all these idiots in the limelight doing all these stunts-- but they still drive cars, fly on planes, act in movies that spend millions and waste enormous amounts of energy in production and distribution, for nothing more important than entertainment... what hypocrites!

When they start walking everywhere, turn Amish and start growing turnips to feed themselves, THEN they have a right to tell anyone else they have to give up everything and follow them...

Later! OL JR

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Luke, it seem like you are taking the wrong lesson from the anecdotes you cited.

Of course, it's amusing to note the problems of horse poop in New York at the turn of the previous century, but it actually was a very real problem then. I don't think anyone would have taken seriously the idea that it would eventually pile up to the 3rd story windows, because they managed the problem by gathering it up and shipping it out --- and that was a huge and costly endeavor. The development of the automobile was at the time seen as a much cleaner mode of transportation than the horse, because cars don't poop. The innovation replaced the old solution with a new solution.

Now we find that the new solution has a different set of problems --- not poop piles, but environmental pollution and climate change. We need a new new solution to replace the old new solution. As you pointed out:

Deforestation and scarcity of resource drove industrialization in the late 1700's, to find more efficient ways to produce coal and other forms of energy (as kerosene replaced whale oil for lighting decades later) and to produce more energy and more necessities like food, clothing, and shelter for a burgeoning population. Any of this sound familiar??

What is the only constant?? CHANGE!

As you said, we always strive for new solutions when the old one is played out. I think that is what these climate activists are asking for --- not going Luddite, but finding a new solutions to replace the played out fossil fuel resources.

Even though you mentioned the only constant is change, and you give great examples of why is has been so important in the past, it almost sounds like you'd rather not embrace change and would rather stick with the fossil fuel dead end.

We need to get off fossil fuels, and move toward cleaner solutions.

 

[aerostadt]

We need to get off fossil fuels, and move toward cleaner solutions.

Right and the solution needs to be in place before we end our production, which is currently not the case. The consumers exist and the demand is there. Cutting production here at home just sends the production and jobs overseas to places like China and we still end up breathing the same CO2 pollution. A better idea is to get the alternative production fully in place first and I don't just mean windmills and solar power, we need nuclear power and electric cars in a big way, but the environmentalists want to stop nuclear power. Solar power and wind power are not coming along anywhere near fast enough. The environmentalist want to tax the mass majority of Americans on oil and coal to make those power sources prohibitive and send the revenue to the solar and wind power industries, which are not competitive on their own.

 

[luke strawwalker]

Luke, it seem like you are taking the wrong lesson from the anecdotes you cited.

Of course, it's amusing to note the problems of horse poop in New York at the turn of the previous century, but it actually was a very real problem then. I don't think anyone would have taken seriously the idea that it would eventually pile up to the 3rd story windows, because they managed the problem by gathering it up and shipping it out --- and that was a huge and costly endeavor. The development of the automobile was at the time seen as a much cleaner mode of transportation than the horse, because cars don't poop. The innovation replaced the old solution with a new solution.

Now we find that the new solution has a different set of problems --- not poop piles, but environmental pollution and climate change. We need a new new solution to replace the old new solution. As you pointed out:



As you said, we always strive for new solutions when the old one is played out. I think that is what these climate activists are asking for --- not going Luddite, but finding a new solutions to replace the played out fossil fuel resources.

Even though you mentioned the only constant is change, and you give great examples of why is has been so important in the past, it almost sounds like you'd rather not embrace change and would rather stick with the fossil fuel dead end.

We need to get off fossil fuels, and move toward cleaner solutions.

Ok, fair enough...

Invent the solution, make it cost effective, and then I'll switch...

Til then it's all just a bunch of talk.

Later! OL JR

 

[Dwatkins]

If these tree huggers really believe in this then why do we not all help them. Do not issue them a drivers license, do not sell them gas or any fossil fuel products, shut off their electricity and natural gas/ lp. Let them show us how to survive with out so they can lead the way to saving the planet.

 

[shrox]

Ok, fair enough...

Invent the solution, make it cost effective, and then I'll switch...

Til then it's all just a bunch of talk.

Later! OL JR

I have it, even a prototype. Had it two years now and damn if anybody is interested...

 

[shrox]

If these tree huggers really believe in this then why do we not all help them. Do not issue them a drivers license, do not sell them gas or any fossil fuel products, shut off their electricity and natural gas/ lp. Let them show us how to survive with out so they can lead the way to saving the planet.

They do that here in Humboldt. Even live in rather cool communities suspended up in trees, then after about 6 months the government sends teams up to pepper spray them and drag them down.

 

[Dwatkins]

They do that here in Humboldt. Even live in rather cool communities suspended up in trees, then after about 6 months the government sends teams up to pepper spray them and drag them down.

Obviously not the ones who got on the Internet with their electrically powered computers to arrange this protest. Who then traveled by car, bus plane, ect. burning all that fossil fuel to protest the use of such product

Dennis

 

[luke strawwalker]

If these tree huggers really believe in this then why do we not all help them. Do not issue them a drivers license, do not sell them gas or any fossil fuel products, shut off their electricity and natural gas/ lp. Let them show us how to survive with out so they can lead the way to saving the planet.

Need to include food produced by modern agriculture using chemically produced fertilizers (produced from natural gas being converted to ammonia for nitrogenous fertilzers), pesticides, and using hydrocarbon powered machinery (IOW, virtually ALL of it... "organic" supposedly doesn't use chemical fertilizers and pesticides, but the VAST majority of even organic produce still uses hydrocarbon powered machinery in some phase of production or transport.) They should only buy food from the Amish farmer's market, but then again, heck, even many Amish use electrical or fossil fuel powered machinery nowdays-- they just can't have it in their HOUSE, it's okay for them to have it in their barn or shop. Steel wheel tractors that cannot be used on the roadways are "kosher" to farm with on many Amish farms nowdays, and even most of those who DON'T allow it still will allow horse drawn "power carts" (usually a Volkwagen Beetle engine or a Wisconsin engine powering a hydraulic pump and power take off (PTO) for operating farm equipment drawn behind the power cart, like hay balers, etc). Of course if one is going to not be a hypocrite and denounce fossil fuels, well, then they shouldn't be buying ANY product produced by fossil fuels...

Medicine is another product that is heavily dependent on fossil fuels... Most are produced from organic molecules (those containing carbon) which use petroleum as a feedstock, and are heavily dependent on fossil fuels for the production process.

They need to build themselves a hand-ax hewn log cabin, as ALL lumber is produced using fossil-fuel powered equipment...

In short, unless they live like a Plains Indian in the early 1800's, they are a hypocrite, because they WILL gain SOME benefit from fossil fuels.

Later! OL JR

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

If these tree huggers really believe in this then why do we not all help them. Do not issue them a drivers license, do not sell them gas or any fossil fuel products, shut off their electricity and natural gas/ lp. Let them show us how to survive with out so they can lead the way to saving the planet.

It's a fallacy that you have to give up everything modern life offers, like driving and electricity, in order to be more sustainable. It's a false choice.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Of course if one is going to not be a hypocrite and denounce fossil fuels, well, then they shouldn't be buying ANY product produced by fossil fuels...

Medicine is another product that is heavily dependent on fossil fuels... Most are produced from organic molecules (those containing carbon) which use petroleum as a feedstock, and are heavily dependent on fossil fuels for the production process.

They need to build themselves a hand-ax hewn log cabin, as ALL lumber is produced using fossil-fuel powered equipment...

In short, unless they live like a Plains Indian in the early 1800's, they are a hypocrite, because they WILL gain SOME benefit from fossil fuels.

Later! OL JR

It just might be that there is some point of middle ground somewhere between having to support a major pipeline project to ship the dirtiest and most polluting type of fossil fuels, like these tar sands, and choosing to live like a pre-Columbina Indian. Doesn't it? It seems like a person might be able to oppose this pipeline, but not necessarily have to give up all technology and become an Indian, without being labeled a hypocrite.

 

[Dwatkins]

It's a fallacy that you have to give up everything modern life offers, like driving and electricity, in order to be more sustainable. It's a false choice.

Theirs is the false choice! Let me have mine at a cheap price but don't you do it! Natural gas was great for producing electricity until there was a lot of it and cheap! Lets all drive electric cars, that will save the planet. Well how will that electricity get produced? Then their is the question WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE CHEMICALS AND RARE EARTH METALS IN THE BATTERIES? We can not mine any of them here because OSHA and EPA regs cannot be met. But we will pollute the hell out of China to get them. Now don't we tree hugers feel good about ourselves. We are so superior.

:eyeroll:

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Theirs is the false choice! Let me have mine at a cheap price but don't you do it! Natural gas was great for producing electricity until there was a lot of it and cheap! Lets all drive electric cars, that will save the planet. Well how will that electricity get produced? Then their is the question WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE CHEMICALS AND RARE EARTH METALS IN THE BATTERIES? We can not mine any of them here because OSHA and EPA regs cannot be met. But we will pollute the hell out of China to get them. Now don't we tree hugers feel good about ourselves. We are so superior.

:eyeroll:

I think maybe you are mischaracterizing the argument against the Keystone XL pipeline...

 

[luke strawwalker]

It just might be that there is some point of middle ground somewhere between having to support a major pipeline project to ship the dirtiest and most polluting type of fossil fuels, like these tar sands, and choosing to live like a pre-Columbina Indian. Doesn't it? It seems like a person might be able to oppose this pipeline, but not necessarily have to give up all technology and become an Indian, without being labeled a hypocrite.

I'm no fan of the tar sands, but if the need didn't exist and the profitability wasn't there, it wouldn't be built... let the MARKET decide...

If people don't want to buy oil from tar sands, then don't...

BUT, I have a problem with these people that "know better" telling the rest of us what we can and CAN'T do...

They're free to express their opinion in opposition to it, that's fine... that's freedom of speech...

But I'm ALSO free to think of them as hypocrites for wanting to enjoy the rewards of modern fossil-fuel powered technological society while opposing the means to sustain it.

Later! OL JR

 

[luke strawwalker]

Theirs is the false choice! Let me have mine at a cheap price but don't you do it! Natural gas was great for producing electricity until there was a lot of it and cheap! Lets all drive electric cars, that will save the planet. Well how will that electricity get produced? Then their is the question WHAT ABOUT ALL THOSE CHEMICALS AND RARE EARTH METALS IN THE BATTERIES? We can not mine any of them here because OSHA and EPA regs cannot be met. But we will pollute the hell out of China to get them. Now don't we tree hugers feel good about ourselves. We are so superior.

:eyeroll:

Like California not building power plants and suffering power shortages, and then demanding TEXAS send them more power so they don't have to have rolling blackouts... and they could care less if WE go on rolling brownouts to send them power and our power costs go up in the process...

I say to H3LL with stinking California... They want to live in an environmental utopia?? THEN SIT IN THE FRIGGIN' DARK!!!!

Later! OL JR

 

[shrox]

Like California not building power plants and suffering power shortages, and then demanding TEXAS send them more power so they don't have to have rolling blackouts... and they could care less if WE go on rolling brownouts to send them power and our power costs go up in the process...

I say to H3LL with stinking California... They want to live in an environmental utopia?? THEN SIT IN THE FRIGGIN' DARK!!!!

Later! OL JR

But then you won't receive my vitally witty postings...and you won't get much fruit or Google.

 

[luke strawwalker]

But then you won't receive my vitally witty postings...and you won't get much fruit or Google.

Meh... I can live without those...

We grow plenty of fruit in the Rio Grande Valley...

I would miss almonds and pistachios though...

Maybe we could get them from Mexico... what doesn't come from China usually comes from Mexico anyway... LOL

Later! OL JR

 

[shrox]

Meh... I can live without those...

We grow plenty of fruit in the Rio Grande Valley...

I would miss almonds and pistachios though...

Maybe we could get them from Mexico... what doesn't come from China usually comes from Mexico anyway... LOL

Later! OL JR

Texas is puerile and under-dramatized. It lacks any sense of structure, character and the Aristotelian unities. Probably because it has only 5 letters to work with, and it got stuck with the "X".

 

[luke strawwalker]

Texas is puerile and under-dramatized. It lacks any sense of structure, character and the Aristotelian unities. Probably because it has only 5 letters to work with, and it got stuck with the "X".

Yeah, well, I look at that as a plus... PLUS we don't have San Francisco...

Later! OL JR

 

[shrox]

Yeah, well, I look at that as a plus... PLUS we don't have San Francisco...

Later! OL JR

You have Austin. Also known as Oz...

I am in California because of the giant redwoods and the ocean. I think of the state in more of a "Grapes of Wrath" way than a goofy hippy way.

 

[luke strawwalker]

You have Austin. Also known as Oz...

I am in California because of the giant redwoods and the ocean. I think of the state in more of a "Grapes of Wrath" way than a goofy hippy way.

Yeah, that's true... Austin is a nuthouse...

later! OL JR

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

Like California not building power plants and suffering power shortages, and then demanding TEXAS send them more power so they don't have to have rolling blackouts... and they could care less if WE go on rolling brownouts to send them power and our power costs go up in the process...

I say to H3LL with stinking California... They want to live in an environmental utopia?? THEN SIT IN THE FRIGGIN' DARK!!!!

Later! OL JR

The idea that California's rolling blackouts were caused by low capacity in the state has been totally and thoroughly debunked. The blackouts were caused by deregulation of the CA power industry and the abuses of market manipulators such as Enron. They found they could make more money by intentionally causing blackouts and under-supply and selling the same power from other sources at inflated prices to alleviate the fake "emergency." This is what comes of unregulated markets.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I'm no fan of the tar sands, but if the need didn't exist and the profitability wasn't there, it wouldn't be built... let the MARKET decide...

The problem with leaving "the market" to decide between dirty energy and clean energy is that the market does not price or charge for the full costs of dirty energy that are not paid by the consumer directly. The costs of pollution, environmental destruction, climate change, etc. do not appear on your bill.

It might cost you a dollar to deliver a unit of dirty energy, and there may be another dollar worth of related environmental costs that come with it but are not part of the price. You only pay the one dollar for the delivery of the one unit of energy, and the rest of the costs are born by other parties or by you indirectly --- it is not added to your bill. Maybe the same unit of energy from a clean source costs a buck twenty five, but does not have the extra dollar of environmental costs. If the cost of the dirty energy is really two dollars but the price is only one dollar, the market will choose that over the clean energy that has a price of a dollar twenty five, but has no added environmental costs. The market does not compare costs, only prices.

 

[ThirstyBarbarian]

I am in California because of the giant redwoods and the ocean. I think of the state in more of a "Grapes of Wrath" way than a goofy hippy way.

You can live in Humboldt and still think of California in anything but a goofy hippie way?

(I'm an HSU alum. You can't fool me!)

 

[aerostadt]

The problem with leaving "the market" to decide between dirty energy and clean energy is that the market does not price or charge for the full costs of dirty energy that are not paid by the consumer directly. The costs of pollution, environmental destruction, climate change, etc. do not appear on your bill.

It might cost you a dollar to deliver a unit of dirty energy, and there may be another dollar worth of related environmental costs that come with it but are not part of the price. You only pay the one dollar for the delivery of the one unit of energy, and the rest of the costs are born by other parties or by you indirectly --- it is not added to your bill. Maybe the same unit of energy from a clean source costs a buck twenty five, but does not have the extra dollar of environmental costs. If the cost of the dirty energy is really two dollars but the price is only one dollar, the market will choose that over the clean energy that has a price of a dollar twenty five, but has no added environmental costs. The market does not compare costs, only prices. l

Shutting down American production and sending it overseas to somewhere like China does not solve the environmental problem. The Chinese environmental restrictions are much weaker than they are here. So, the environment is worse off not better. Currently, over 75% of the world's steel is made in China and Japan and the corresponding CO2 production affects world climate everywhere. This is not to mention the solid industrial waste, soot, nitrogen oxides, etc. It's hurting their own people and the gas emissions hurt us all. Shutting down American production does hurt Americans. It robs them of higher paying manufacturing jobs and replaces those jobs with service jobs that put young people near or below the poverty line without job benefits. So, shutting down American production without a substitute in places only makes things worse for everyone.

 

[shrox]

You can live in Humboldt and still think of California in anything but a goofy hippie way?

(I'm an HSU alum. You can't fool me!)

Sure, the happy cows from the cheese commercials live here. Plus we have Eight Ball Stout at the Lost Coast Brewery.

 

[luke strawwalker]

The problem with leaving "the market" to decide between dirty energy and clean energy is that the market does not price or charge for the full costs of dirty energy that are not paid by the consumer directly. The costs of pollution, environmental destruction, climate change, etc. do not appear on your bill.

It might cost you a dollar to deliver a unit of dirty energy, and there may be another dollar worth of related environmental costs that come with it but are not part of the price. You only pay the one dollar for the delivery of the one unit of energy, and the rest of the costs are born by other parties or by you indirectly --- it is not added to your bill. Maybe the same unit of energy from a clean source costs a buck twenty five, but does not have the extra dollar of environmental costs. If the cost of the dirty energy is really two dollars but the price is only one dollar, the market will choose that over the clean energy that has a price of a dollar twenty five, but has no added environmental costs. The market does not compare costs, only prices.

Again, you're talking about quantifiable and unquantifiable...

I'm not worried about the unquantifiables... the fact that they're unquantifiable makes them a VALUE judgment, not a rational one. Therefore their "value" depends on WHOM you are asking.

Thing is, we're dancing around the semantics... tar sands aren't going to save us... it takes the energy equivalent of about 2 gallons of oil to extract 3 gallons. TERRIBLE conversion rate. Corn ethanol isn't going to save us-- takes a gallon of oil energy equivalent to produce five quarts (1.25 gallons). Sugar ethanol as Brazil uses is much more efficient, on the order of 2 gallons of oil equivalent energy to produce 3 gallons of oil equivalent energy in ethanol. Wind isn't going to save us... You basically have to build at least 3 times the generating capacity to get the desired sustained energy production at any one time, and you really need a storage medium (of whatever type or kind) to store excess energy for surge capacity or when wind isn't present. This is the best case scenario. Solar has the same problems-- need at least 3-5 times the solar generating capacity to actually deliver the desired power levels at all times (under less than ideal conditions) and means to store energy for dark periods or excessively cloudy or rainy conditions, or other climatic influences. The only thing that makes ANY sense and can actually generate the necessary power is nuclear-- nuclear is the ONLY power source that can actually generate more fuel than it uses while producing energy... (breeder reactors and such). We could be building nuclear plants, but we're not. NONE have been constructed in the US since the late 80's... over 30 years ago.

Hydrogen requires natural gas as a feedstock, and energy to produce it in refineries. Electrolysis produced hydrogen requires large amounts of electricity, and isn't commercially viable. Hydrogen is SO low-density that using it for motor vehicles is highly problematical, requiring special extreme pressure gas handling storage, transfer, and containment devices. Electrical energy in vehicles either requires a fuel-burning generator in the vehicle (diesel electric locomotives, hybrid cars) or massive storage batteries requiring large quantities of rare-earth elements mined via very "polluting" methods, pose risks in the event of leaks or damage, are terribly expensive, and have short lifespans and require replacement at regular intervals, and pose problems with disposal once they're spent.

I have YET to see ONE VIABLE REPLACEMENT for fossil fuels, except nuclear, and that is unacceptable to the greenie crowd. Nuclear has its problems to be sure, and going to a new fuel system (hydrogen or electric) to make use of nuclear produced fuel (hydrogen or electric) in transportation would be EXTREMELY expensive. Most businesses (especially agriculture) could not sustain the costs of switching.

In the end, it's going to come down to some hard choices... do you like having electricity, cheap, abundant food, steadily available and delivered products, heating, air conditioning, etc... or do you want to eliminate fossil fuels and prevent the adoption of nuclear power...

If there's a viable solution, I HAVE YET to see one presented...

Just for once, I'd like these "activists" to come up with a SOLUTION instead of ranting and raving about what they DON'T want...

Later! OL JR

 

[shrox]

...
If there's a viable solution, I HAVE YET to see one presented...

Just for once, I'd like these "activists" to come up with a SOLUTION instead of ranting and raving about what they DON'T want...

Later! OL JR

PM me, and I'll send you a solution.