It is hard to find any more information about this lady, other than that she is a porn toon. I can't understand what she is saying, but it is about climate change, she's a babe and that is what this site is all about
In a piece in the financial post of last year Diane Francis proposed to adopt a one child policy. This released a storm of media coverage with the underlying attitude that population control is a completely unacceptable concept. Laura Ingraham tries as hard as she can to misunderstand her position.
Life and Death
It would be rude to say that people these days are taking no responsibility for their existence, at least, it would be quickly conscrued as judgmental I guess. The truth is that every individual has an impact on resources available to others. It is also true that if every added individual causes uncompensated destruction or use of a certain resource at some point the resource in question runs out. This creates two choices: either fight for the left over resource (and not think about the time some of them run out), or flee this future by taking measures now to avoid it. If the number of individuals is the cuase of the problem, then reducing that number is a good idea. The best way to do this is by reducing the number of births.
Lessons from China
Unbiased information on China's one child policy will be hard to come by. My personal knowledge is that it has led to cases of infanticide (daughters), abortions and a male skewed population at the moment. Wikipedia reports that implementation of the policy differed from area to area. It basically consists of a system of fines and incentives.
The side effects are outlined in the wikipedia article. Of course China had a more primitive rural population prefering sons for their strength. Unwanted children where abandoned and ended up in ophanages. Rather than seeing the chinese policy as the example, one could see it as a study for designing policy to minimize its negative consequences.
The education of Jamie
It is ironic that most resistance against population control comes from people of a religious background that have been indoctrinated in a belief system that puts high value on having many children, and that otherwise does not promote rational thought or empirical exploration of the world. Religious communities often lack adequate sexual education, causing unwanted pregnancies and other avoidable suffering. To meet the challenges of the 21th century one needs to be schooled in the reality of the 20th century. It is not enough to rely on old scriptures or the opinion of others to form an opinion about population control. The problem is simple enough for everybody to understand.
You first
Laura Ingraham in the above interview responds by saying "Why don't you practice birth control, leave us alone". That response shows that 1. She does not see any problem (which there may not be, but then her response would be to point that out). 2. She thinks even if there was a problem she would not have to be responsible for a solution. Maybe there are other solutions than one child policies. Some will say higher educational levels will reduce the birth rate. Well, then education would have to be stimulated across the board, and we know it isn't, it is actually degenerating under pressure of religion.
Scary shit If policy that relates to real survival issues can no longer be proposed and if the same that block an open discussion of solutions are the ones that undermine education there may be a fundamental chisma developing in society. The irresponsible and unresponsive however are not independent of everybody else. That dependence should be used in every possible way to bring them to reason on how to deal with limited resouces and an as yet unbound population.
Under the clean development mechanism (based on the Kyoto Protocol) projects and industries have to buy or be allocted rights to emit carbon dioxide. The concept is based on the cap and trade of other pollutants, that have been widely succesful. There is only one problem with the approach. It is not cap and trade.
What is Cap and Trade?
Cap and trade is a system where you limit the amount of pollution emitted (the cap), and you encourage participants inthe system to trade emission rights if they either fall below or move above their allowed emission quota. Every year the cap is revised downwards, so that overall all participants in the system emit less of the polutant. It compares possible alternatives in the allocation of the quotum, and thus both penalizes a more polluting solution and incentivices the less polluting ones.
The intended effect of cap and trade
Why keep Clean Energy Projects Out?
If you allow clean energy projects like solar, wave, geothermal and wind to apply for emission rights you make the cap and trade system ineffective. These projects are seen as emission reductions (156,026 tons for the project linked to above). First of all, clean energy projects do not emit significant amounts of pollutants, so there is no logical reason to include them. How can you have a emissions reduction if you do not have emissions in the first place? Second of all, allocating emission rights to these projects cancels out the effect of the cap and trade system. Third of all, it drives the cost of alternative energy projects up, and slows them down, because initiators will have/want to await the emission rights allocation process. It also ties the banking system into the loop, which is why the financial and industry lobbies have fought for this way of implementing the system.
How does this NOT work?
If a clean energy project comes onstream it applies for carbon credits under the CDM system. Say a solar plant calims it prevents emission of 1000 tons of carbon dioxide per year. It recieves 1000 carbon tons of EUA units (the tradable equivalent of a ton of emissions rights. It then sells those rights to a polluter, and makes itself economically viable in the process. Win win no? NO! Effectivly the NET amount of carbon emissions is not reduced, eventhough a perfectly clean power plant has come onstream. Our ecosystem suffers under the NET amount of carbon emitted, it does not give one flying fuck about how many clean projects come onstream! Another effect is that as more clean projects come onstream, the cost of one ton of emission rights will be reduced, further weakening the incentives for the polluting industry to change.In this news report the problem is higlighted from an industries perspective. Inclusion of forest as carbon sinks doesn't work to curb carbon emissions!
The NET effect is NO NET EFFECT!
So what should be done?
In the new Kyoto the emissions trade should only be allowed between parties that significantly emit when they apply. No loopholes should be allowed for clean projects that create no carbon emissions. Only this way there will be an effective incentive to move towards cleaner technologies, which are abundantly available, and will become more viable as people start to wake up to the risks and costs of using fossil fuels.
An effective alternative ?
The polluters have to pay an increasing percentage over their carbon emissions that will be used to implement comparable clean alternatives. This will stongly incentivise the industries themselves to develop alternatives.
It has been a while since I posted here, we are looking for babes, if you are one, let us know!
The climate action community has been hurt by the demonstration of failure in Copenhagen. Climate action is not easy, and the powers that be do not want to take it, it would cost them their power and money. Don't let anybody use the failure to have a global treaty as a reason no to act. The chances of having such a treaty would have been incredibly small. This incredibly short sighted approach taken by the US would in a smaller social context lead to immediate expulsion and punishment. That is why one can expect more conflict. In the big world we live in however the media facades and distractions of every variety keep people from realizing they are being lied to and endangered by the people they consider their leaders.
Bush and the EPA
Under president W. Bush the US Environmetal Protection Agency managed to avert any action on a court ruling that there should be a plan to deal with CO2 emissions as a threat to human health in the US. In incredible callous testiminy the then head of the EPA could not name how many people where working on this in the EPA but yet maintained he was on it. We now have Lisa Jackson that takes a more active approach. The EPA will start to control carbon emissions in the US and new regulations are being prepared.
"Congress must be given time to develop an
appropriate and more responsible solution" than (that of the) EPA to climate change
problems. She warned that looming EPA regulation would
lead to job losses and broader economic problems.
How in the hell will anything ever change if it could not affect jobs? How in the hell can someone take measures to reduce emissions (replace them with something else) without reducing cost (fuel) and creating jobs (where are the alternatives coming from? they need to be created)?
Buttons
It is the same old buttons that republicans push every time. Every time it is the tax, jobs, economy, security buttons that are being evoked. It is baseless and a general health hazard. It is an opinion to protect business as usual, particularly the oil business that makes Alaska good money (thanks to Sarah Palin some say). It is however a policy that is multiplied across the planet because other countries hate being dominated economically by the US. The result is that climate change is allowed to continue its disastrous course. Don't let that mentality settle in.
Our minister of economics calls for proposals for small entrepeneurs to develop viable seaweed farming techniques for open sea or ocean connected rivers. This because the expertise is not developed yet while Holland does have great expertise regarding offshore technology and land is expensive compared to space in the north sea. Holland also has a developed biorefining industry. This ties in with the currenly implemented ?bio-based economy? and ?climate change? policies.
There are three phases, total budget 1,32 mln Euro. Phase I is 200,000 Euro for a maximum of four feasibility studies. Phase II R&D for these projects. Phase III for their commercialization.
The project is aimed at creating and implementing viable commercial models based on seaweed farming.
The ministry of economics estimates a fossil fuel savings potential from seaweed of 100 petajoule (3% of total energy consumption). It can take the lead in building expertise in the still
undeveloped field.
Questions to be answered:
How does a seaweed farming system look
How is it made profitable
What new products does farming yield
Who can use the produced biomass
Can production be connected to existing offshore infrastructure
How does it tie into existing industrial infrastructure
Score of applications (enter before jan 21 2010 17:00)
1. (20 points) a. Usefullness in farming seaweed, prefering concepts that cover all necessary aspects. b. How often can the concept be repeated in the dutch North Sea (expressed in PetJoule, Dry Tons or Euro value). c. How viable is the proposing organization (the cooperation
between entrepeneurs, scientists other necessary pertners) 2. (10 points) a. Is the proposed method applicable in the widest possible variety of locations. b. It the approach technologically up to date or even innovative. Can it mean a breakthrough. 3. (10 points) a. Assesment of the economic potential, export potential, long term fit of the proposing company (will it continue to work on this longer, is it in line with company?s main focus). 4. (10 points) a. Consequences for the maritime environment b. Consequences for the participating companies c. Consequences for dutch society, climat policy and biobased
economy policy.
Schedule
Invitation of proposals Nov 16th 2009 until Jan 21th 2010
Review of proposals until March 18th
Start execution of Phase I April 1st
Completion of projects Okt 1st
End project report Okt 22nd 2010
Deadline proposals phase 2 December 31st
Review of proposals until Feb 1st
Start execution phase II March 1st
End of Phase II Februari 2013 (two years)
End project report March 2013
Start execution phase III May 2013
Adress of SenterNovem/Agentschap.nl (who execute this tender)
If you are to young to influence political decisions, either because you can't choose the option you would like to have or because the older generations are too involved in money making to listen, you should realize it is you that will inherit the mess the current leaders are creating. Never think you can't be an influence, after all you are the prime focus of commerce. Make sure you have the mindset for survival: don't hope, demand.
The US is to blame As editor of this blog I travelled to Copenhagen last week (14-17 december). I spend some time outside Bella Center and talked to many people there during the last week of negotiations. I was amazed at how badly the event was organized, but even more amazed how uniformly negative people where about the position of the US. It is no accident the conference ended in failure, the US made sure that was the outcome by not negotiating, only dictating their terms. Thos terms where independent of the Kyoto Treaty or the UN, and the pledges included where an affront to people that know US history of dealing with Climate Change. Ronald Reagan knowlingly ignored the problem thirty years ago, so the problem as it exists now would not have had to exist if it had not been for the corporate takeover of the US.
Vegans protesting on monday
Tuesday As the week progressed I leaned that the negotiation process had basically desintegrated. There where several drafts and the african parties wanted to walk out. at least contries pertended they where negotiating something binding, something meaningfull. The urgency felt by responsible parties (those not overcome by either hubris or greed) did not wane, only the group demonstrating this insight was run over by the US. The reality is that the meeting puts us on a trajectory of 5 degrees temperature increase. This is the most important parameter, because once it is set it will not be possible to change it. On tueasday night a draft was expected by India, but it did not come. It never came.
Media protests Wednesday saw protests. They where meant ot highlight the derrailed negotiations but only added to the mahem. In the end there is no use for demonstrations in politics. If you want something and you are a majority, you should claim the rights going with that position. Demonstrating in such a case is only strengthening a perversion of democracy and supplying your opponent with an opportunity to discredit your position. If you wathc the below video of the protest you understand my choice of title.
Locked into failure Thursday saw the culmination of the US strategy. There would be money for third world countries! THat is not the desired outcome, because it meant the US and other countries are asked to bribe the poor countries into accepting no effective framework. Hillary Clinton showed her true colors. Yvo de Boer expected a Danish draft on thursday evening, but it did not come. It could not be found. The US had essentially locked in failure by ignoring any other position. Then it accused China of not being flexible on some specific language. A trick to distract.
NGOs had to make room for heads of state.
Finale As friday arrived there was no solution in sight. The BRIC countries did not want to be in a deal with the US initially, or the other way around. In the end an Accord was made up that did much less than was hoped, no legal framwork, no new targets. The process was drawn out to januari, and a new meeting in Bonn 6 months later. The process has failed. The US intended it to fail.
YMCA Climate action (babes)
Getting shot by a deaf and blind cripple My post cop15 dip will last only a week. The facts on the ground have not changed. What has changed is the position of the US. It is quicly running out of steam economically, strategically and in terms of its access to oil. How much better would it be if the US used its power to coerce moving to energy independence than keeping its grip on oil and power. There is no reason why the states of North America should be on top of the world. The can't handle it. The country is a false trophy. It should fall apart and loose its status.
Climate Actions Future The weight put on this conference resulted in a huge disapointment. It has gotten a push and perhaps it was the wish of some to push the problem aside, onto the next generation. Nothing has changed and action is still as urgent as before. One way to look at COP15 imho is as a failed peace negotiation. Soon enough countries will start recognizing the danger their population is in and begin to treat the threat of large emitters as a direct attack on their citizen. Sadly the strategic advantage is with the countires with access to oil. This is the ugly side of the possible scenario's. The best outcome of a future treaty will be a concerted rapid adaption scheme invloving forced mitigation and possibly mass migrations to places where life needs to be less carbon intensive. If countries are not ready or able to cooperate in each others benefit let's hope nobody still has fuel to go to war.
