EnviroLink Forum

Well they both get it right and they both get it wrong, which is more to the point. These are some bright folks but it shows you once again how finely tuned arguments in a box finally are losers when you leave out the problem of the actual box. And that box is, of course, the problem of being overpopulated and growing. Since neither want to address it, both are finally destined to run the train off the rails.

I'll wait for later to critique these matters in detail.

http://bravenewclimate.com/2014/10/07/t ... #more-6485

She does good on most until the nuclear ranting that did not understand what Gen IV was all about---like using radioactive waste, non-proliferation, very low waste, modular, no water cooling needed--the usual anti-any nuclear garbage feted as being "green", and the complete lack of realization that decarbonization also requires rapid population reduction.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Dingo I don't mean to argue ,I picked up on that same idea that "Mark Lynas blasts Naomi Klein for hijacking the problem of global warming into an attack on capitalism"
Soooo....Mark's point is ??One social structure is more sustainable than another? My observation is that all the "........isms" have failed to adress environmental limits more or less equally.
I have a theory that the root of our problems go all the way back to the beginings of human culture, our foundation is flawed by being based upon violence and therefore no matter what "......ism"structure is built upon that foundation it will also be flawed to the point of self destruction.
From what I have heard from Naomi, she comes across as being genuine. I don't always agree with everything she says but I certainly respect her gift for communication as she usually gets me thinking.

The big mistake is putting "green' as an either 'right' or 'left' thing. Along with the biggest mistake of not attributing the root cause of over-emissions to thermageddon as overpopulation. The communist nations have the worst environmental record, and democracy with dumb people is not a help, either. We need an educated, decorated combat veteran benevolent dictator to have a chance of rapid decarbonization and population decline with quality control to get back the strength and intelligence we hade around 1950. I humbly volunteer to be the world leader. First order, blow Yellowstone!!!

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein

Therefore, what could be the best solution to the overpopulation. If it was the cause of economic woes? Let alone the general ignorance.
For, general ignorance can be a choice IMO.

Ignorance can be a choice of the lazy, or a place already so overpopulated they can no longer afford teachers, or the lowest spectrum of IQ has most of the people. This affects learning, along with mercury and other environmental poisons.
Economically, more demand is from more people and raises prices, while more demand for jobs lowers incomes. The world as a whole is actually poor.
With all of the knowledge of it for 50 years, we have been unable to stop "the Juggernaut" of overpopulation to crash. So, overpopulation leads to a crash, usually with a slow recovery to staying near long term sustainable level. This time is different in that after a certain point, recovery of the biosphere from runaway to GTE is passed before the population crashes. No recovery, or a 30 million year recovery.
That point in time is within a decade, so we could not go to all no emissions with any technology, in time. It would take the miracle of Yellowstone super erupting.
The survivors, coming out of the ashes into a medieval world still polluted with numerous wastes, and the ice age coming on schedule. No matter what, the biosphere will be much harsher, as a best case scenario.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”― Chief Seattle
“Those Who Have the Privilege to Know Have the Duty to Act”…Albert Einstein