Was Ivan lied to?

[kristopher]

Ivan started the thread with this post:

Recently we have seen a push by Obama, as well as long-time proponents, to increase offshore oil drilling. Offshore drilling is much safer than it used to be, it is argued. While that may be true, the claim falls flat considering the oil spill still in progress, in the Gulf of Mexico. This isn't making me a believer! Right now, one expert on CNN is saying that we don't know exactly how it will be stopped. It could weeks or even months! Once again, I feel we have been lied to by industry. How could they not be prepared for something like this?!?!?! After all of the years of debate and furor over safety, this is simply unbelievable. "

This is the reply that was interesting:

Since this is an unreferenced claim of fact, to avoid this whole thread just being a strawman-based rant of you against an imaginary opponent, please cite the source of your claim. Who told you "these things were supposed to have a failsafe..." Who do you think lied to you? What, exactly was the lie?

Now we can probably work around that, because lies or not, it appears obvious that your point is that these things should be failsafe. So lets go with that - no lies, just your opinion.

Ivan, your opinion is just absurd. It is the same card-stacking propaganda technique so-called "environmentalists" use to (successfully) torpedo nuclear power. Here's how it works:

-First, you set an absurdly high bar as your criterion for dividing "good" and "bad". In this case, absolute perfection is "safe" and anything less than absolute perfection is "unsafe".
-Next, when the thing you are attacking fails to live up to the absurd criteria, you claim it is now by definition "bad". (unsafe)

So no, Ivan, it is not anywhere close to reasonable to demand absolute perfection from the oil industry regarding spills. "Reasonable" is to do a cost-benefit analysis of an industry's safety and determine from that what a reasonable failure rate should be. With the type of accident we're dealing with here, can you think of another case of this happening? I can't. That make for an extremely high level of reliability. If once every decade or two, we get a spill like this, that is a reasonable cost for such a critical driver of modern life.

So, was Ivan lied to?

[phantom power]

1. I don't know if Ivan was lied to, but there is no risk-free energy.

[kristopher]

2. That's it?

"There is no risk free energy"?

Is that what you'll say if the impossible happens with nuclear?

"Oooops!"

[phantom power]

3. In a manner of speaking, yes.

[FBaggins]

6. I suppose it would have to be more than "oops"

Probably involving some amount of vulgarity.

But yes... that's about right.

Better than killing many times as many people with polution and AGW. Then it's just the soft not-even-oops that is "the cost of doing business".

For some reason, the loss of hundreds (or thousands) of people at once is easier to "monger" than the knowing loss of one person at a time, millions of times over.

[kristopher]

7. Since renewables are FASTER, CHEAPER & MORE ENVIRONMENTALLY BENIGN

that is a false choice you are offering.

Also, it is perfectly rational for people to be concerned about evens where hundreds of thousands of people will die. Just because people die every day from other preventable causes doesn't mean that a Chernobyl scale accident is acceptable.

[FBaggins]

8. Presumes facts that are not in evidence.

Which makes your argument the actual "false choice" - But I don't expect you to see that.

Also, it is perfectly rational for people to be concerned about evens where hundreds of thousands of people will die.


Sure it's rational to be concerned... that's why you take every reasonable precaution to limit the chances that it happens.

Just because people die every day from other preventable causes doesn't mean that a Chernobyl scale accident is acceptable

Lol... "possible" and "acceptable" are not at all the same thing. There are LOTS of things that can kill MANY more people and we live with the risk all the time. We take precautions where we are "concerned," but we don't abandon Los Angeles (or the entire west).

It's possible that an extinction-level impact could destroy all life on Earth. In fact, while the annual likelyhood is virtually nill, it WILL eventually happen. But that doesn't mean that we must spend trillions of dollars in the next twenty years to build a defense.

[kristopher]

9. There is plenty of evidence behind that fact.

Maybe just this once you have evidence that supports your denialist stance?

The combination of increased demand for electricity and security of supply is a very powerful driver of major power sector change in Europe and worldwide.

Currently, for example, about 50% of Europe’s energy demand is met with imported fuels and there are projections that this could increase to 70% in the coming decades1.

Economic development and increasing use of electricity-consuming devices will increase future demand for electricity.

Alongside demand and security of supply issues, climate change also poses a global threat.

Substantial and fairly rapid decarbonisation of electricity generation and many other sectors will have to take place if the world is to have any chance of staying within the 2oC goal for limiting the effects of global warming.

In Chapter 3, we look at these and other challenges facing the region’s current power systems and examine whether a vision of Europe, in combination with countries in North Africa, developing an integrated power grid with 100% of electricity generation coming from renewable sources by 2050 is possible.
- RE-Thinking 2050: Europe’s Pathway to 100% Renewable Energy
http://solar.calfinder.com/blog/news/re-thinking-2050-europes-pathway-to-100-renewable-energy

Do you note how you NEVER read "developing an integrated power grid with 100% of nuclear fission electricity generation by 2050 is possible"?

Or even "developing an integrated power grid with 80% of nuclear fission electricity generation by 2050 is possible"?...

Not even "developing an integrated power grid with 50% of nuclear fission electricity generation by 2050 is possible"...

The number of people who WANT nuclear - actively WANT nuclear - is very, very small.

So the question most people ask isn't "how much nuclear power will we build", but rather "what is the absolute maximum amount we MUST build *IF* we absolutely MUST build ANY AT ALL.

[FBaggins]

10. No... there really isn't.

But again, I don't blame you for thinking so. Far be it from me to attack someone's religion.

Maybe just this once you have evidence that supports your denialist stance?


Riight... because the burden of proof is on the person who doubts that a claim is true, right?

The combination of increased demand for electricity and security of supply is a very powerful driver of major power sector change in Europe and worldwide.

Absolutely true. And you'll note that this "driver" is NOT driving ANYONE to a 100% renewables portfolio. Well... that's not entirely true... I understand that there's an island in Denmark that's trying. But supposedly the wind blows there almost 100% of the time.

I read the rest of your quote block, and I don't see a single point that has anything to do with the relative cost/speed of nuclear vs. wind (etc). Did you think that you were posting something relevant to your argument and just grabbed the wrong thing?

Do you note how you NEVER read "developing an integrated power grid with 100% of nuclear fission electricity generation by 2050 is possible"?

You think that means something? I suppose that it would be "possible" but why would anyone do it?

In contrast, the reason you read an occasional claim that 100% renewables is possible, it because the vast bulk of the scientific community knows that it isn't possible and a few zealots are hoping to make a few converts to the cult.

The number of people who WANT nuclear - actively WANT nuclear - is very, very small.

Yeah... which is why nation after nation after nation is lining up to spend billions upon billions of dollars building new reactors.

Oh wait... I forgot... it's just that those darn door-to-door nuclear salesmen are so persuasive.

:rofl:

So the question most people ask isn't "how much nuclear power will we build", but rather "what is the absolute maximum amount we MUST build *IF* we absolutely MUST build ANY AT ALL.

That's pretty close to the question I ask too... so we are close to agreement. There's no "if" involved though... and the answer to "how much" is "enough to ensure reliable power across the country while eliminating coal/gas to the extent possible" - which is a FAR larger figure than you likely expect.

[kristopher]

11. We'll wait for you to stop the bull

And produce any peer reviewed plan based on nuclear power as the preferred solution; but we know you can't because it isn't.

Abstract here: http://www.rsc.org/publishing/journals/EE/article.asp?doi=b809990c

Full article for download here: http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/revsolglobwarmairpol.htm


Energy Environ. Sci., 2009, 2, 148 - 173, DOI: 10.1039/b809990c

Review of solutions to global warming, air pollution, and energy security

Mark Z. Jacobson

Abstract
This paper reviews and ranks major proposed energy-related solutions to global warming, air pollution mortality, and energy security while considering other impacts of the proposed solutions, such as on water supply, land use, wildlife, resource availability, thermal pollution, water chemical pollution, nuclear proliferation, and undernutrition.

Nine electric power sources and two liquid fuel options are considered. The electricity sources include solar-photovoltaics (PV), concentrated solar power (CSP), wind, geothermal, hydroelectric, wave, tidal, nuclear, and coal with carbon capture and storage (CCS) technology. The liquid fuel options include corn-ethanol (E85) and cellulosic-E85. To place the electric and liquid fuel sources on an equal footing, we examine their comparative abilities to address the problems mentioned by powering new-technology vehicles, including battery-electric vehicles (BEVs), hydrogen fuel cell vehicles (HFCVs), and flex-fuel vehicles run on E85.

Twelve combinations of energy source-vehicle type are considered. Upon ranking and weighting each combination with respect to each of 11 impact categories, four clear divisions of ranking, or tiers, emerge.

Tier 1 (highest-ranked) includes wind-BEVs and wind-HFCVs.
Tier 2 includes CSP-BEVs, geothermal-BEVs, PV-BEVs, tidal-BEVs, and wave-BEVs.
Tier 3 includes hydro-BEVs, nuclear-BEVs, and CCS-BEVs.
Tier 4 includes corn- and cellulosic-E85.

Wind-BEVs ranked first in seven out of 11 categories, including the two most important, mortality and climate damage reduction. Although HFCVs are much less efficient than BEVs, wind-HFCVs are still very clean and were ranked second among all combinations.

Tier 2 options provide significant benefits and are recommended.

Tier 3 options are less desirable. However, hydroelectricity, which was ranked ahead of coal-CCS and nuclear with respect to climate and health, is an excellent load balancer, thus recommended.

The Tier 4 combinations (cellulosic- and corn-E85) were ranked lowest overall and with respect to climate, air pollution, land use, wildlife damage, and chemical waste. Cellulosic-E85 ranked lower than corn-E85 overall, primarily due to its potentially larger land footprint based on new data and its higher upstream air pollution emissions than corn-E85.

Whereas cellulosic-E85 may cause the greatest average human mortality, nuclear-BEVs cause the greatest upper-limit mortality risk due to the expansion of plutonium separation and uranium enrichment in nuclear energy facilities worldwide. Wind-BEVs and CSP-BEVs cause the least mortality.

The footprint area of wind-BEVs is 2–6 orders of magnitude less than that of any other option. Because of their low footprint and pollution, wind-BEVs cause the least wildlife loss.

The largest consumer of water is corn-E85. The smallest are wind-, tidal-, and wave-BEVs.

The US could theoretically replace all 2007 onroad vehicles with BEVs powered by 73000–144000 5 MW wind turbines, less than the 300000 airplanes the US produced during World War II, reducing US CO2 by 32.5–32.7% and nearly eliminating 15000/yr vehicle-related air pollution deaths in 2020.

In sum, use of wind, CSP, geothermal, tidal, PV, wave, and hydro to provide electricity for BEVs and HFCVs and, by extension, electricity for the residential, industrial, and commercial sectors, will result in the most benefit among the options considered. The combination of these technologies should be advanced as a solution to global warming, air pollution, and energy security. Coal-CCS and nuclear offer less benefit thus represent an opportunity cost loss, and the biofuel options provide no certain benefit and the greatest negative impacts.

[FBaggins]

12. Oh lordy... Jacobsen AGAIN???

The fact that he has a "plan" (OR that it's "peer reviewed") does NOT mean that it's possible.

As for finding a plan "based on nuclear as the prefered solution" I'm sure that strawman looks attractive to you. For a plan that includes increasing amounts of nuclear power? You just need to look at reality. It is what's happening right now.

You DO know the MASSIVE difference between one advocate's wet dream and reality, don't you?

[kristopher]

14. ROFL - right, let's everbody jump on the bandwagon...

MIT nuclear study – findings

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

2009 Update:

while there has been some progress since 2003, increased deployment of nuclear power has been slow both in the United States and globally, in relation to the illustrative scenario examined in the 2003 report. While the intent to build new plants has been made public in several countries, there are only few firm commitments outside of Asia, in particular China, India, and Korea, to construction projects at this time. Even if all the announced plans for new nuclear power plant construction are realized, the total will be well behind that needed for reaching a thousand gigawatts of new capacity worldwide by 2050. In the U.S., only one shutdown reactor has been refurbished and restarted and one previously ordered, but never completed reactor, is now being completed. No new nuclear units have started construction.

In sum, compared to 2003, the motivation to make more use of nuclear power is greater, and more rapid progress is needed in enabling the option of nuclear power expansion to play a role in meeting the global warming challenge. The sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation.

Cooper bandwagon


Cooper A Multi-dimensional View of Alternatives




Cooper Report:
http://www.olino.org/us/articles/2009/11/26/the-economics-of-nuclear-reactors-renaissance-or-relapse

Severance
http://climateprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/nuclear-costs-2009.pdf

Lovins: Nuclear Power: Climate Fix or Folly
http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly

[kristopher]

22. $90 billion of private investment in 2007 alone

From 'Nuclear Power: Climate Fix of Folly by Amory Lovins

Nuclear power, we’re told, is a vibrant industry that’s dramatically reviving because it’s proven, necessary, competitive, reliable, safe, secure, widely used, increasingly popular, and carbon-free — a perfect replacement for carbon-spewing coal power. New nuclear plants thus sound vital for climate protection, energy security, and powering a vibrant global economy.

There’s a catch, though: the private capital market isn’t investing in new nuclear plants, and without financing, capitalist utilities aren’t buying. The few purchases, nearly all in Asia, are all made by central planners with a draw on the public purse. In the United States, even new 2005 government subsidies approaching or exceeding new nuclear plants’ total cost failed to entice Wall Street to put a penny of its own capital at risk during what were, until autumn 2008, the most buoyant markets and the most nuclear-favorable political and energy-price conditions in history—conditions that have largely reversed since then.

This semi-technical article, summarizing a detailed and documented technical paper1, compares the cost, climate protection potential, reliability, financial risk, market success, deployment speed, and energy contribution of new nuclear power with those of its low- or no-carbon competitors. It explains why soaring taxpayer subsidies haven’t attracted investors. Capitalists instead favor climate-protecting competitors with lower cost, construction time, and financial risk. The nuclear industry claims it has no serious rivals, let alone those competitors—which, however, already outproduce nuclear power worldwide and are growing enormously faster.

Most remarkably, comparing all options’ ability to protect the earth’s climate and enhance energy security reveals why nuclear power could never deliver these promised benefits even if it could find free-market buyers—while its carbon-free rivals, which won more than $90 billion of private investment in 2007 alone2, do offer highly effective climate and security solutions, far sooner, with higher confidence....

Available for download: http://www.rmi.org/rmi/Library/E09-01_NuclearPowerClimateFixOrFolly

[Statistical]

24. "which won more than $90 billion of private investment in 2007 alone"

"which won more than $90 billion of private investment in 2007 alone"

Yeah I bet the fact that the PTC is $20 per MWH (15x any other subisidy in the history of the US energy subsidies) and roughly 40% of wholesale power in this country has NOTHING to do with investors being confident in returning a profit.

Strange the 2 years PTC expired investments in solar/wind dropped 90%. Guess that is another coincidence. Right?

[kristopher]

27. That same subsidy and more was available for nuclear power, but no takers.

[joshcryer]

16. It doesn't matter if they're "faster" or "cheaper." The fact remains that we are not going to...

[joshcryer]

17. ...act. We need revolutionary, immediate climate change actions to stop catastrophic climate change.

[joshcryer]

18. Even Jacobson says that it would cost $100 trillion to do.

[joshcryer]

19. Until Jacobson's plan is inacted, all options are on the table and being pursued.

Yes, that means nuclear power is getting built.

[joshcryer]

15. If the impossible happens with Gen III+ nuclear then we need to go back to our physics textbooks.

eg, you have a denialist position.

[bananas]

4. Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4361381

Leaking Oil Well Lacked Safeguard Device

Source: Wall Street Journal

The oil well spewing crude into the Gulf of Mexico didn't have a remote-control shut-off switch used in two other major oil-producing nations as last-resort protection against underwater spills.
The lack of the device, called an acoustic switch, could amplify concerns over the environmental impact of offshore drilling after the explosion and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon rig, hired by oil giant BP PLC, last week.

<snip>

[FBaggins]

5. That sounds like a very good idea.

I haven't read of those before.

Do you know how common they are and what they cost?

Any reason to think that they can't be retrofitted onto older sites? I'd bet that legislation could be pushed through pretty quickly.


On edit - Never mind... I suppose I could have read the linked article first. :-)

Sounds like a proposal whose time has come. May be time to invest in the company that makes these things (more likely, others figures this out days ago and their stock is up significantly).

[BeFree]

13. Ya gotta love this....

....this: ""Sounds like a proposal whose time has come. May be time to invest in the company........ ""

One the one hand you try to sell us nukes and on the other you admit you really are for money investments, whether 'they' can do it safely, or not. Putting money first is not a progressive value, eh?

[joshcryer]

20. A good portion of these people on this forum are about profit above the environment.

I don't think the poster indicated that, so much, that their position is more pessimistic. "Oil is going to be drilled, might as well jump on the bandwagon."

If I, an ardently anti-natural gas person, admitted that buying nat gas stocks would be a good profit move, that wouldn't make me pro-nat gas.

[kristopher]

23. And recognizing that the profit motive is the single best tool to address climate change

Doesn't make one greedy.

[BeFree]

26. Right. Just stupid

Climate change continues due to the profit motive.

So it is stupid to say that climate change will be averted due to making profits.

The grow or die scenario is about to meet the grim reaper.

[Statistical]

28. Well the smart thing to do would be to align profit motive with planet motive.

A carbon tax for example.

Carbon = bad for climate change
Carbon = good for utilities because fossil fuels (namely coal) is cheap.

Thus the needs of the planet and needs of utilities are not in alignment. Over last 30 years we can clearly see which entities needs are being accommodated.

A carbon tax makes carbon expensive.
Carbon = bad for climate change
Carbon = bad for utilities profits.

Thus utilities will move away from carbon. Not out of some new found care for the planet but rather because their profits are hindered by high carbon output.

We need a carbon tax and other processes which align the goals of corporations with the goals of protecting the planet.

[kristopher]

30. Yes. It is when we IGNORE EXTERNAL COSTS that we go awry in decisionmaking.

Over the next 50 years, unless patterns change dramatically, energy production and use will contribute to global warming through large-scale greenhouse gas emissions — hundreds of billions of tonnes of carbon in the form of carbon dioxide. Nuclear power could be one option for reducing carbon emissions. At present, however, this is unlikely: nuclear power faces stagnation and decline.

This study analyzes what would be required to retain nuclear power as a significant option for reducing greenhouse gas emissions and meeting growing needs for electricity supply. Our analysis is guided by a global growth scenario that would expand current worldwide nuclear generating capacity almost threefold, to 1000 billion watts,by the year 2050.Such a deployment would avoid 1.8 billion tonnes of carbon emissions annually from coal plants, about 25% of the increment in carbon emissions otherwise expected in a business-as-usual scenario. This study also recommends changes in government policy and industrial practice needed in the relatively near term to retain an option for such an outcome. (Want to guess what these are? - K)

We did not analyze other options for reducing carbon emissions — renewable energy sources, carbon sequestration,and increased energy efficiency — and therefore reach no conclusions about priorities among these efforts and nuclear power. In our judgment, it would be a mistake to exclude any of these four options at this time.

STUDY FINDINGS
For a large expansion of nuclear power to succeed,four critical problems must be overcome:

Cost. In deregulated markets, nuclear power is not now cost competitive with coal and natural gas.However,plausible reductions by industry in capital cost,operation and maintenance costs, and construction time could reduce the gap. Carbon emission credits, if enacted by government, can give nuclear power a cost advantage.

Safety.
Modern reactor designs can achieve a very low risk of serious accidents, but “best practices”in construction and operation are essential.We know little about the safety of the overall fuel cycle,beyond reactor operation.

Waste.
Geological disposal is technically feasible but execution is yet to be demonstrated or certain. A convincing case has not been made that the long-term waste management benefits of advanced, closed fuel cycles involving reprocessing of spent fuel are outweighed by the short-term risks and costs. Improvement in the open,once through fuel cycle may offer waste management benefits as large as those claimed for the more expensive closed fuel cycles.

Proliferation.
The current international safeguards regime is inadequate to meet the security challenges of the expanded nuclear deployment contemplated in the global growth scenario. The reprocessing system now used in Europe, Japan, and Russia that involves separation and recycling of plutonium presents unwarranted proliferation risks.

2009 Update:

while there has been some progress since 2003, increased deployment of nuclear power has been slow both in the United States and globally, in relation to the illustrative scenario examined in the 2003 report. While the intent to build new plants has been made public in several countries, there are only few firm commitments outside of Asia, in particular China, India, and Korea, to construction projects at this time. Even if all the announced plans for new nuclear power plant construction are realized, the total will be well behind that needed for reaching a thousand gigawatts of new capacity worldwide by 2050. In the U.S., only one shutdown reactor has been refurbished and restarted and one previously ordered, but never completed reactor, is now being completed. No new nuclear units have started construction.

In sum, compared to 2003, the motivation to make more use of nuclear power is greater, and more rapid progress is needed in enabling the option of nuclear power expansion to play a role in meeting the global warming challenge. The sober warning is that if more is not done, nuclear power will diminish as a practical and timely option for deployment at a scale that would constitute a material contribution to climate change risk mitigation.

[kristopher]

29. The profit motive is basic to human nature, so that is a blind line of reasoning.

So perhaps we should deal with the immediate, treatable problems with the tools that work, rather than literally relying on an impossible change in human nature to accomplish that goal.

I completely agree that our efficient rape of the planet must stop, but the fact is that the profit motive isn't something we can eradicate. That means we either learn to control and harness it to do good, or we die.

Personally I think we would likely die if we *did* eliminate that part of us that "seeks profit". IMO it is a primal force that drives all living creatures to seek the means of sustaining life.

Jared Diamond: Will big business save the Earth?

THERE is a widespread view, particularly among environmentalists and liberals, that big businesses are environmentally destructive, greedy, evil and driven by short-term profits. I know — because I used to share that view.

But today I have more nuanced feelings. Over the years I’ve joined the boards of two environmental groups, the World Wildlife Fund and Conservation International, serving alongside many business executives.

As part of my board work, I have been asked to assess the environments in oil fields, and have had frank discussions with oil company employees at all levels. I’ve also worked with executives of mining, retail, logging and financial services companies. I’ve discovered that while some businesses are indeed as destructive as many suspect, others are among the world’s strongest positive forces for environmental sustainability.

The embrace of environmental concerns by chief executives has accelerated recently for several reasons. Lower consumption of environmental resources saves money in the short run. Maintaining sustainable resource levels and not polluting saves money in the long run. And a clean image — one attained by, say, avoiding oil spills and other environmental disasters — reduces criticism from employees, consumers and government....

Read entire NYT OpEd at http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all

[Statistical]

31. You misunderstand.

While we can't eliminate the profit motive (nor should we attempt to) as you say it is part of human nature we can simply align it with the goals of the planet.

Thus utilities will continue to be greedy as ever and seek to maximize profits and minimize costs however if the lowest cost option via carbon tax) are low carbon options then what is good for company and what is good for the planet are better aligned.

similarly is environmental standard/fines/punitive action was so tough that companies (like BP) lost MORE by not being good stewards of the planet then by doing the right thing their profit motives would be aligned with that is better (not best in this case) for the planet.

[kristopher]

34. What do you think I misunderstood?

[Statistical]

35. Nothing.

:)

Looks like I posting in wrong spot.
Oh well too late to change it now.

[BeFree]

32. Heh

Yeah. They have an app for that.... Greenwashing.

Too bad you have only a theory. 'Twould be nice to think that capitalism will save us. Sorry, but we just can't afford to be saved. It would cut into profits too much.

We are a grow or die society. We are not growing. Are we?

[kristopher]

33. Actually you are the one working off of a bad theory

Why would Jared Diamond be engaged in greenwashing? Isn't it likely that he understands the issue better than you do?

[BeFree]

36. He does it......(drumroll, please)...

.... for a profit!!

I grok all this shit. Profits will make ordinary men sell their own Mothers.

[kristopher]

37. What evidence you you have of that?

The fact is that our understanding of how capital behaves has left Marx in the dim past. We now understand that the cure for the problems Marx observed are not found in his solutions - all you get when you apply Marx is another set of abusive owners.

In fact the problems that Marx (and you) observe are real, but the intuitive solution of a command and control economy is equally as bad a system.

The only way we achieve any semblance of balance is to have a properly functioning democracy that sets the social goals we want the profit motive to address. We definitely are not there, but that is where we need to go.

[joshcryer]

39. Wow. Wow. Wow.

Wow. I know I'm on a progressive forum but sometimes it just blows my mind the "progressive" garbage I see.

[kristopher]

40. That's right.

I've NEVER heard of a progressive that bashes Amory Lovins or Jared Diamond other than the "progressive" supporters of nuclear energy here on DU.

They do do a lot of Amory Lovins bashing at the right wing, pro-nuclear websites, however.

Trying to portray Diamond or Lovins as foes of the environment because they recognize the existence of the profit motive is pure K-K-K-KArl Rove.

[joshcryer]

42. Did I "bash" Amory Lovins or Jared Diamond?

The philosophical position that profit/corporations/status quo will save us is wrong.

[kristopher]

45. It isn't a "philosophical position"

It is observed human behavior. And yes, you attacked the position of both Lovins and Diamond.

You remind me of Goober on the Andy Griffith Show.

[joshcryer]

48. Where did I attack Lovins and Diamond?

[joshcryer]

38. Bullfuckingshit. Maybe if you were a teabagger you could believe that. Profit got us into this mess.

[kristopher]

41. So to be a progressive in your eyes we have to deny reality?

Sorry but that is the province of the nuclear supporters on this forum.

[joshcryer]

43. A progressive knows that reality requires a $100 trillion dollar investment.

A social investment, not a market investment.

[kristopher]

44. check in with reality sometime.

[joshcryer]

47. Sounds like something a teabagger would say.

Markets are not stopping us from hitting catastrophic climate change.

[joshcryer]

21. "The efficacy of the devices is unclear."

They've never been tested in this kind of situation, where the whole rig blows up and rips half of the rigging out of the ground. It would not have done squat in this instance. The rig had two failsafes, they both failed to work. Why? Because you have a kiloton rig blowing up and pieces falling to the seabed floor, along with layers of piping, completely damaging the wellhead.

[Statistical]

25. Maybe the oil companies should be forced to invest in new technology.

Something like a system that detaches the pipeline between rig and valves on ocean floor in the event of a major fire/diaster on the rig.

The rig was crippled for hours before it sunk and ripped about the valve complex. Maybe something that would have shut valves and disconnected valve complex on ocean floor from the floating rig would have prevented this.

At the very least oil companies should be forced to fund studies on improving safety on the rigs. Another thing to look into is why was the rig not able to put out the fire. Maybe rigs need to be more expensive and have sufficient safety equipment to pump the millions of gallons necessary to put out a fire onboard (rather than having to wait for fire boats to arrive).

[joshcryer]

46. You could do that but it still wouldn't prevent debris from hitting the wellhead.

You could probably work out a way to move the (catastrophically damaged and on fire) platform away from the zone, but it'd be non-trivial and risky.

They disconnected everything immediately, it's the post-fire and structural sinking that caused all the damage.

The whole sound lock thing is cool, though. I hope in the future environmentalists employ it in the future to shut down oil rigs. ;)

Of course, any actual environmentalists to do such direct actions would be directly opposing their human nature.