StrypeyMay 22, 2019
@Wolf480pl renewables can be produced at or near the point of use. Nuclear fuels (as well as being a finite fossil fuel in themselves) cannot. An energy source that is also a major energy sink will necessarily long supply chains is inefficient and not particularly resilient.
Show threadJC BrandMay 22, 2019

@strypey @Wolf480pl

This is unfortunately not always true.

Take Germany for instance, most of the wind power is generated in the North and there is relatively little wind in the south, so they need to build high-voltage transmission lines to feed the south with wind power.

Show threadStrypeyMay 23, 2019
@jcbrand OK, but that's still a big improvement in both energy efficiency and safety than shipping uranium from Oz (not to mention the energy cost of handling the waste safely).
@Wolf480pl
Show threadStrypeyMay 23, 2019
@jcbrand @Wolf480pl if you take a myopic focus on a single segment of renewables in a single country, instead of the whole picture, you can make whatever distorted argument you like. This is what the PR companies working for the nuclear industry and other fossil fuels industries do. Southern Germany has a range of other renewables available, and in a cooperating Europe, their options also include renewable energy from northern France, Switzerland, Austria, and Czech.
Show threadJC BrandMay 23, 2019

@strypey @Wolf480pl

> you can make whatever distorted argument you like

Don't put words in my mouth. I wasn't making any distorted arguments, I simply stated a fact.

> Southern Germany has a range of other renewables available

Then why make all the effort to transmit wind energy from the north? Because they're too stupid to recognize the local renewable resources available to them?

Show threadJC BrandMay 23, 2019

@strypey @Wolf480pl

In any case, I'm not necessarily pro nuclear. I don't know what the solution is.

It would be great if we could switch to 100% renewables tomorrow, but they're diffuse and intermittent and AFAIK we can't run a modern industrial economy with smelters, factories etc. on renewables alone.

It seems to me we'll continue to make a deal with the devil (coal, nuclear) for the foreseeable future. The alternative is a future with less energy and economic activity and more poverty

Show threadStrypeyMay 23, 2019

@jcbrand
> I don't know what the solution is.

Same. But I suggest having a browse of the renewables info on:
* http://journeytoforever.org/
* https://www.appropedia.org

> we can't run a modern industrial economy ... on renewables alone.

Good. That economy is destroying the biosphere. It's incredibly wasteful. It does a terrible job of distributing resources, eg some estimates say that 1/3 to 1/2 of al the food it grows is never eaten (by humans). The sooner we're rid of it the better.

@Wolf480pl

Journey to Forever

Journey to Forever: Hong Kong to Cape Town Overland - An adventure in environment and development, join us on the Internet, all welcome, participation, online education, school projects, free of charge

Show threadJC Brand

@strypey @Wolf480pl

Careful what you wish for. You might just end up in a world of mass famine and starvation.

Europe went backwards technologically, culturally and socially for almost a thousand years after the fall of the Roman empire.

We risk doing the same if we simply dismantle what we've built up without having proper replacements put in place.

May 23, 2019 at 8:26amWeb
Show threadStrypeyMay 23, 2019

@jcbrand
> Europe went backwards technologically, culturally and socially for almost a thousand years after the fall of the Roman empire.

Really? From what I've skimmed in historical and anthropological literature, the Roman Empire (in contrast with pre-Empire Roman society) was inherently unsustainable and resulted in massive inequality, and most societies ruled by the Romans were better off within a generation or two after the collapse than they were before it.
@Wolf480pl

Show threadJC BrandMay 23, 2019

@strypey @Wolf480pl

Concerning inequality, I'd rather live in an unequal society where my absolute standard of living (and that of the poorest) is high, than an equal society where my absolute standard of living is much lower.

Show threadStrypeyMay 23, 2019
@jcbrand that might seem true in theory, but the evidence in The Spirit Level suggests that it's actually not, and that inequality produces social misery regardless of absolute standards of living.
@Wolf480pl
Show threadJC BrandMay 23, 2019

@strypey @Wolf480pl

I don't understand this line of reasoning.

What would equality be as opposed to inequality? Where is the end destination?

I'm 100% pro equality before the law. What else?

People clearly aren't equal in their abilities, interests or output and never will be.

So there will always be inequality between people. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

Show threadJC BrandMay 23, 2019

@strypey @Wolf480pl

I don't understand this line of reasoning.

What would equality be as opposed to inequality? Where is the end destination?

I'm 100% pro equality before the law. What else?

People clearly aren't equal in their abilities, interests or output and never will be.

So there will always be inequality between people. It's not necessarily a bad thing.

Show threadStrypeyMay 23, 2019
@jcbrand actually you're right. Talking about "inequality" is like talking about slavery as "unfreedom". We need a more specific word to describe the systemic way wealth is concentrated, forcing most people into servitude and any increasing number into poverty. The word "capitalism" was coined to serve that function, but it's meaning has been muddied over the last century or so.
@Wolf480pl
Show threadJC BrandMay 24, 2019

@strypey @Wolf480pl

> forcing most people into servitude and any increasing number into poverty.

What do you base these pronouncements on?

According to the UN: "the proportion of people living in extreme poverty fell from 36 percent in 1990 to 15 percent in 2011".

Much of the reduction in poverty comes from China and in large part due to them implementing market-based reforms.

https://www.politifact.com/global-news/statements/2016/mar/23/gayle-smith/did-we-really-reduce-extreme-poverty-half-30-years/

Did we really reduce extreme poverty by half in 30 years?

At the dawn of the new millennium, the United Nations set a goal of eradicating poverty by 2030. With 14 years left to go, we’ve already reduced the proportion of destitute people in world by 50 percent, according to U.S. Agency for International Development administrator Gayle Smith.

Show threadStrypeyMay 24, 2019
@jcbrand that's a convenient cherry to pick. Among industrialized country's "market-based reforms" have produced massive increases in poverty, especially homelessness. The Chinese government has been very selective about when and how it allowed "market-based reforms". For example, limiting permanent urban migration to the rate at which housing can be built, to limit urban homelessness.
@Wolf480pl
Show threadJC BrandMay 24, 2019

@strypey @Wolf480pl

Fact is that worldwide extreme poverty has gone down by ~60%, not up.

I'm not going to say everything is hunky dory with the current system. Obviously not.
There is a lot that can and should be improved.

But this idea that it's all just the evil, exploitative capitalists and that we should just destroy the whole industrial system to save ourselves is a very dangerous meme.

Ideas like that have led to 10s of millions of people dying of starvation in the 20th century

Show threadStrypeyMay 25, 2019

@jcbrand
Fact is that
>worldwide extreme poverty has gone down by ~60%, not up

.. has nothing to do with capitalism in general, or "market-based reforms" in particular. Look at the so-called "Asian Tigers" and Latin American countries. Their economies all had a brief boost after being "structurally adjusted" by the IMF and then tanked. The #GFC was the same inherent flaws playing out in the industrialized countries, leading to massive increases in poverty. (1/2)
@Wolf480pl

Show threadStrypeyMay 25, 2019
@jcbrand the countries with the strongest and most consistent economic growth *and* best standards of living are also those with least inequality of both income and wealth, like the Scandanavian social democracies. Overall global poverty has reduced because the BRICS block either abandoned "market-driven"monetarist policy in the early 2000s, or like China, never went there. State-regulated mixed economy policy has reduced poverty in those highly-populated countries. (2/2)
@Wolf480pl
Show threadStrypeyMay 25, 2019
@jcbrand also spare me the red-baiting. Given two options, I take the third. Eg neo-liberal capitalism or command economy? Neither. Both have clearly failed (collapse of USSR and of Washington Consensus with GFC). Whatever economic systems will carry us into the post-carbon era, it won't those industrial dinosaurs. Maybe a hybrid of both (eg #P2PF's "partner state"), or something totally new.
Show threadJC BrandMay 25, 2019

@strypey

I didn't present you with two options, nor did I red-bait or insinuate that you're advocating a command economy, although it's not clear exactly what you're advocating.

I'm specifically referring to this quote of yours:

"That economy is destroying the biosphere. It's incredibly wasteful. It does a terrible job of distributing resources... The sooner we're rid of it the better."

I stand by what I said and I think I've said enough. Thanks for the discussion and keeping it civil.

Show threadStrypeyMay 29, 2019

@jcbrand
I was referring this ...
> Ideas like that have led to 10s of millions of people dying of starvation in the 20th century

... in the context of the preceding comment seemed to imply the only alternative to actually existing capitalism is actually existing state communism (ie command economy). Sorry if I misinterpreted your intent. Here's some academic economists at #LSE making some of the same points I made about the varied results of corporate globalization;
https://invidio.us/watch?v=hBgpftXNoAs

LSE Events | The Global Distribution Of Income And The Politics Of Globalisation

The panel discuss the evolution of the global distribution of income and political implications, highlighting endogenous forces of rising inequality in liberal capitalism embedded in globalisation. Th

Show threadStrypeyMay 29, 2019
@jcbrand one of the discussants for that lecture shows exactly how the data has to be massaged to support the claim you cited. This involves cherry picking a definition of "extreme poverty" as 'living on less than $14 a week', then cherry picking the two regions where people living under that poverty line have fallen instead of increased (South Asia ie mainly India, East Asia/ Pacific ie mainly China), due to state-led, mixed economy strategies, not "market-based reforms". (1/2)
Show threadStrypeyMay 29, 2019
@jcbrand So the massive increase in homeless people in the US and other industrialized countries, for example, isn't counted in that data set. If they are managing to scrape together more than $14 a week to buy food, they wouldn't be counted as being in "extreme poverty" even if that data set covered all countries. (2/2)