Climate Change

'Enough, For All, Forever'

A report from New York's mixed up, anti-capitalist People's Climate March

|

People's Climate March
Invertzoo / Wikimedia Commons

The People's Climate March ambled genially down 6th Avenue in New York City on a Sunday afternoon in September. The slogan was "To Change Everything, We Need Everyone." Not everyone showed up, but the march did attract between 300,000 and 400,000 participants, making it by far the largest climate change mobilization in history. Prominent marchers included former Vice President Al Gore, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), along with such leading environmentalists as Bill McKibben, Vandana Shiva, and Leonardo DiCaprio. The marchers were hoping to pressure the United Nations Climate Summit into promising to adopt stringent measures to prevent catastrophic man-made global warming.

They sorted themselves into various affinity groups: faith-based organizations, scientists, students, labor unions, old folks, organic food enthusiasts, renewable energy proponents, indigenous peoples, and so forth. Wandering through the throngs prior to kickoff, it was apparent that every progressive cause can and does find a home in the climate change movement. The demonstrators' chief demand was "climate justice," which broadly entails redistributing wealth from the countries and industries that have benefited from the consumption of fossil fuels.

"System change, not climate change," was the ubiquitous slogan, and the system that they think needs changing is markets and private property. I overhead one marcher explaining to another, "We must have a better capitalism, better than the malignant corporate system we have now."

Among the chief capitalist villains: Monsanto. The assembled marchers fervently damned the crop biotechnology company despite the fact that modern high yield biotech crops cut CO2 emissions by 13 million tons in 2012-the equivalent of taking 11.8 million cars off the road for one year. By making it possible to grow more calories on less land, biotech crops helped conserve 123 million hectares from 1996 to 2012. Many of the protesters oddly believe that eating locally grown organic crops-which require more labor and land to produce less food- will somehow help stop global warming. Vegans are right that eating less meat would mean that more land could be returned to forests that absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. On the other hand, researchers estimate that lab-grown meat could cut greenhouse gas emissions by 96 percent relative to farmed meat.

From the sidelines, I spied a man holding a sign that said, "Overpopulation Is Not A Myth." This provoked some marchers to come over to suggest to him that he was blaming the poor for their poverty. He responded that they were not the problem; rich Americans are the problem. Another guy, who was clearly not a marcher, approached to contend that the 19th-century doomsayer Robert Malthus had been proven wrong. The stalwart furiously responded that Malthus would be proved right and that the end was nigh, thanks to out-of-control population growth.

In fact, shortly before the march, the respectable journal Science published an article warning that world population will reach 11 billion by the end of this century. But the Science study misses the mark, mostly because nearly all of the projected increase-4 billion people-is in sub-Saharan Africa. Demographers at the International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis counter that the researchers behind the Science projections failed to take into account the pace and extent of improved schooling in Africa, which will dramatically lower future population increases.

Fracking aggravated a lot of the demonstrators. Artful placards alluded to another f-word as a way of indicating displeasure. Many asserted that fracking taints drinking water. Yet just the week before the parade, new studies published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences by research teams led by the Ohio State University's Thomas Darrah and the U.S. Department of Energy found that the controversial technique to produce natural gas does not contaminate groundwater. And never mind that burning natural gas produces about half of the carbon dioxide that burning coal does.

Another low-carbon energy source was also a cause of stress for the demonstrators: nuclear power. Some demanded that the Indian Point nuclear power plant on the Hudson River be closed down. This particular petition is just perverse, since nuclear power is a big part of why New Yorkers emit a relatively low average of 8 tons of carbon dioxide per person each year, compared with the U.S. average of 16.4 tons per capita.

No less an environmentalist than James Hansen, the climatologist who testified before Congress back in 1988 that climate change had already begun, declared in a 2013 open letter cosigned by his colleagues Kenneth Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution, Kerry Emanuel of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Tom Wigley of the National Center for Atmospheric Research that "while it may be theoretically possible to stabilize the climate without nuclear power, in the real world there is no credible path to climate stabilization that does not include a substantial role for nuclear power." As it happens, in October, researchers at Lockheed Martin declared that they had devised a cheap fusion reactor that could be deployed in a decade.

While I found much that provoked dismay at the march, there is one placard with which I wholeheartedly agreed: "Enough, For All, Forever." Sadly, many of the marchers oppose the only system that has ever enabled hundreds of millions of people to rise above humanity's natural state of abject poverty.

Did the world leaders who gathered later in the week for the U.N. Climate Summit fulfill the hopes of the earnest marchers? Not so much.

The formal statements at the summit made it clear that there is still a wide gulf between the developed countries and the poorer nations when it comes to who bears responsibility to act and who should pay for that action. When President Barack Obama noted that America is on track to reduce the country's greenhouse emissions by 17 percent below their 2005 levels by 2020, he added: "We can only succeed in combating climate change if we are joined in this effort by every nation-developed and developing alike. Nobody gets a pass." He further observed that emerging economies-China, India, Brazil-are both growing rapidly and emitting ever-higher levels of greenhouse gases.

In total, humanity emitted about 36 billion tons of carbon dioxide in 2013. Roughly speaking, China emitted 10 billion tons, the U.S. emitted 5 billion tons, the E.U. emitted 3.6 billion tons, and India emitted 2.5 billion tons. China now emits more carbon dioxide per capita (7.2 tons) than does the European Union (6.8 tons). The U.S. emits 16.4 tons per capita; for India, the figure is just 1.9 tons per capita.

In his statement, Chinese Vice Premier Zhang Gaoli made it clear that his country expects to get a pass when it comes to reducing the amount of its greenhouse gas emissions. Instead, Zhang reiterated China's pledge to cut its carbon intensity by 40 to 45 percent by 2020 from its 2005 level, noting that it had already achieved a 28 percent reduction. Assuming that China's economy grows at 7 percent per year, some researchers calculate that meeting that carbon intensity goal would actually allow China's carbon dioxide emissions to increase from about 10 billion tons today to as much as 14.7 billion tons by 2020. That increase would nearly equal current U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and is almost two and a half times greater than the two billion tons it argues the U.S. is obligated to cut between now and 2020.

In his summary remarks on the Summit, Secretary-General Moon claimed that the leaders who met there "committed to finalize a meaningful, universal new agreement" next year. As it stands now, that amounts to little more than a pious hope.

Advertisement

NEXT: Brickbat: Sugar Rush

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Many of the protesters oddly believe that eating locally grown organic crops-which require more labor and land to produce less food- will somehow help stop global warming.

    You’re just jealous you can’t believe six impossible things before breakfast

    1. It will never cease to amaze me that people think that something that costs $10 to produce and sell at a boutique retailer is magically more environmentally friendly than something efficiently mass-produced and mass-sold at Wal-Mart for $6.

      1. Why? People are prone to ridiculous ideas. They elevate social signaling over rationality, they hate admitting mistakes, they collectivize, they treat emotions as more important than logic, etc…

        1. they treat emotions as more important than logic

          I don’t think the problem is treating emotions as more important than logic as much as it is denying emotions entirely or confusing the two.

          People who use phrases like ‘data-driven decision making’ to make it seem like they’re doing something novel or sophisticated when, in reality, it’s a process far more intrinsic to bacteria and earthworms than higher organisms. The kind of people who, when you point out that, good or even perfect decision-making without data would be truly transcendental, they lose all semblance of imagination and act like you’re trying to talk to them by squeaking like a dolphin.

          Plenty of times, they’re the ones who can only conceive of their own ‘one truth’ and just naturally assume that we’d all be feeding each other feces, immolating our children, and raping our pets if it weren’t for the government and other people like themselves.

    2. Oh, hell, most of the protesters believe in the Alternative Energy Fairy. You know, the magical creature that makes solar panels and windmills useful net contributors to the national grid.

      Dumb as posts, the lot of ’em.

    3. If you take into account carbon emitted for transportation and distribution of the food, it’s possible that they’re right. I’m not saying they are right, just that it’s not obviously false as Mr Bailey seems to think it is.

      1. Whut? The vast majority of the cost of any thing is the cost of the energy it takes to produce and distribute it.
        So yeah, it is as obviously false as Mr. Bailey thinks.

        1. The vast majority of the cost of any thing is the cost of the energy it takes to produce and distribute it.

          Going to have to dispute that, at least as a universal statement. There are some obvious counterexamples like Big Macs and perfume.

    4. They don’t care to know that fact. The environment isn’t their top priority, socialism is. The environmental arguments are just another way to attack capitalism, because destroying it is their primary goal. Let’s not pretend that we’d have a bunch of new libertarians on our hands if we could somehow show them that capitalism is better for the environment than socialism.

      1. “The environment isn’t their top priority, socialism is.”

        This.

        All the disparate groups find a home in environmentalism because it is the perfect pretense for destroying capitalism in their minds. Of course, they don’t really understand what capitalism is. Capitalism cannot any more be destroyed than gravity can.

        1. Capitalism cannot any more be destroyed than gravity can.

          This.

          The different factions of give me optimism that they’d have to gut each others’ or their own principles to achieve the direction and efficiency to produce 20-40 million dead komrades.

          At least, Hansen (or Bill Nye, or Neil deGrasse Tyson, or whomever) may have the science squared away about as well as Lysenko did, the political cult of personality and the power structure to support it isn’t there.

      2. Socialism isn’t a goal, it’s a means. If they had an attractive theory that said that a return to cannibalism would allow them to run the world, they would be quoting A MODEST PROPOSAL as if it were serious.

        These people aren’t Socialists, per se. They are Aristocrat wannabes. I’m not saying we shouldn’t keep an eye on Socialist claptrap; it certainly serves them. I’m saying we should never lose track of the fact that the problem is not Socialism, but the inevitable people who believe that they were placed upon Earth by Providence to tell the rest of us what to do. Eventually, even these morons will see that Socialism isn’t getting then what they want, and they will latch onto something else. Maybe the Divine Right of Kings will make a comeback.

        Keep an eye on the would-be Masters; the terms of their proposed Mastery do not matter.

        1. Do you have some deep-seated need for your ideological enemies to be moral monsters?

          Most of them are deluded by a nice-sounding goal (equality for all and freedom from want), and haven’t thought through the side-effects of their desired policies. And if you want to change minds you’re best off assuming good faith.

          1. If I saw any indication that they would be swayed by reasoned argument, I might agree with you. I don’t. There is always a segment of society with an awful will to power; they KNOW what is RIGHT and are willing to trample you flat to get it.

            I see the same thing on the Right with the opposition to Gay Marriage (not that the idiots who want to sue to force Fundamentalist twits to celebrate their Gay Marriage are helping). In the end all their arguments boil down to their religion.

            And if you tell me that Socialism, Environmentalism, and so forth are not religions, I will laugh at you.

            They aren’t necessarily monsters; monsters are what they could become if we let them. Most of us have these impulses, which is why the doctrine of Original Sin works so well, even if you don’t believe the rest of Christianity. I don’t necessarily hate these people. I hate what the represent; the overpowering hunger to tell people what to do. I hate it because I have it too, and despise it I’m myself.

          2. “Do you have some deep-seated need for your ideological enemies to be moral monsters?”
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEd17taOrmA

            1. “Do you have some deep-seated need for your ideological enemies to be moral monsters?”
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-woaDniFQc

              1. “Do you have some deep-seated need for your ideological enemies to be moral monsters?”
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dZRkoUTP_Cs

                1. “Do you have some deep-seated need for your ideological enemies to be moral monsters?”
                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wIhixcUEq50

                  1. “Do you have some deep-seated need for your ideological enemies to be moral monsters?”
                    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4d6c6Mr0c4

        2. Maybe the Divine Right of Kings will make a comeback.

          Heard of Neoreactionaries? It’s already happening. Pretty scary how many varieties of people all believe the “right person” in charge will fix everything.

          But in their defense, neoreactionaries loathe progressives with an admirable passion.

    5. I Got Hooked On Having An Online Business Almost A Decade Ago When I Created An Online Course And Made My First.

      —–http://tinyurl.com/cashclick1

    6. I Got Hooked On Having An Online Business Almost A Decade Ago When I Created An Online Course And Made My First.

      —–http://tinyurl.com/cashclick1

  2. Well, thanks a lot, Reason. Since this article contains every leftist trope I’ll save a lot of time by not having to read any more Reason articles this year!

    1. But how will you survive without constant nutpunches?

  3. Monsanto contributes to AGW? Seed patents are suspect but the AGW angle is weird.

    1. Go home, PB. You’re drunk.

      1. Could be he is trying to reduce his lunatic quotient.

    2. It’s the Illuminati connection.

    3. Everything evil is one big bag of inditinguishable evil in their heads. It explains quite a lot about their mindset, really.

  4. The number of first world spoiled brats who believe that holding their breath until they turn blue will solve something never ceases to amaze me.

    My hope for the 21st Century is to see the brown people of the Third World reject this condescending meddling and kick off their long delayed industrial revolution. Gods, how the Warmists with kvetch over that! The cold fact remains that if one actually cares about rare animals, over-use of cropland, overpopulation, etc. the introduction of industrial techniques to Africa and Asia is the way to go. Only people who live in a rich industrial society can AFFORD to worry about the disappearing snow leopard.

  5. Prominent marchers included former Vice President Al Gore, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon, and Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.), and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.), along with such leading environmentalists as Bill McKibben, Vandana Shiva, and Leonardo DiCaprio

    Holy shit, it was the perfect storm of derp. I’m suprised that nobody noticed these people just hovering over the crowd, screeching and shitting on everybody the entire time.

    1. Surprised Elizabeth Warren didn’t make it down.

  6. People around here will bitch about WestVaco clear cutting trees on their land.The don’t understand how good it is for wildlife. It always has the most Ruffed Grouse ,deer and turkey.If close to corn even better.clear cutting replaces the lack of wild fires and lets brush and young trees grow.This is needed for small and medium game and song birds. The farmers growing corn near the Ohio river has lead to a huge increase of geese and ducks. All quite tasty I might add.

    1. The geese especially. Stuff their fat faces with bread and then eat their tasty, tasty livers!

      *creepy sucking noise*

      1. Smoked goose is great too,dove ,quail,grouse,pheasant ,woodcock,wood duck ,mallard , I love them all with a good wine or porter or stout.

        1. woodcock

          Heh.

          1. They are a silly looking bird,great training for my dogs. I’ve hunt all these birds with labs,their so damn smart. A good,well trained lab is death on upland birds. As for ducks and geese,seeing them work is better than sex,they like beer too!

            1. All the labs where I live are functionally retarded. Maybe you have different bloodlines up there.

              1. Their show and house dogs,.Although,as with most dogs,it’s the owner .I’ve hunted mine in 75 degree dove fields to 0 degree waterfowl conditions.They never fail, unlike me and my hunting partners.A lab covered in ice after a fetch on the Ohio in January,worth it!

                1. I’ve never hunted for waterfowl. Used to rabbit hunt when I was a kid, sometimes deer. It was all beagles.

                  1. As long as you don’t mind being wet and cold and getting up 2 hours before daylight you can hunt waterfowl. I jump shot woodies in the warm fall and hut fields for geese.The toughest is being on the water an hour before daylight,making your blind in the boat and putting out decoys in almost chest deep water in the dark in freezing weather. In truth,it’s dangerous and nuts,but,with cigars,coffee,dogs and a few beers after,worth it!

              2. Depends on what you mean by retarded.

                My old lab/goldie mix was functionally retarded around the house. Once he got in the field, he was fucking death on 4 paws.

                My wife never figured out his split personality. All her friends had small clever dogs that would learn tricks. My dog would basically follow you around the house ready to do whatever, but he never learned tricks.

                She thought that that meant he was dumb. I tried to tell her that it was just that the dog had a mission in life (to drive pheasants before him, to flush them and then to listen to the lamentations of their hens). Everything else was just nonsense to be endured until the next hunting season.

                I had to put him down about a month ago. What a great 14 year run. Still miss him.

                1. “I’ll bark at this tree until it gives up” retarded

                  1. So you’ve met the dog in the next yard over from mine.

                2. Nothing’s worse than losing a dog. It’s the most private pain imaginable. My condolences.

    2. Yep, most old growth forest is pretty devoid of animal life. It is the younger forests that feed and cover the majority of critters.

      Also, young forests grow much faster than old ones and so are much more efficient carbon sinks.

  7. “We must have a better capitalism, better than the malignant corporate system we have now.”

    So close to the answer, yet so far.

    1. Capitalism without corporations…seems legit. Legitimately retarded.

      1. I was thinking capitalism without government interference in the markets myself.

      2. Lysander Spooner would approve.

        Why you guys can’t see that corporations are creatures of the state you claim to want to limit, is beyond me.

    2. How to make better Capitalism according to the left:

      1. Grow government to control markets.

      2. Through legislation and regulation control evil corporations. More importantly, enter into private/public relationships with the “correct” corporations.

      3. When cronyism proliferates and government control of markets has major negative consequences on the economy…
      then return to Step 1.

      It’s the only way to better Capitalism!

      1. Just reading that made me want to goose step

        1. Or bundle your kindling around the hatchet.

      2. Sounds suspiciously like fascism?

        Not that most progs are totally not fascists along with totally not being eugenicists and racists.

    3. Really, capitalism just needs a few tweaks to liability law, and a lot less regulation.

  8. Sometimes man you jsut have to rol lwith the punches.

    http://www.Way-Anon.tk

  9. As it stands now, that amounts to little more than a pious hope.

    Hopefully it will remain just that.

  10. Interestingly, the only thing all of these solutions have in common is placing the means of production under democratic control. Now, where have we heard that before?

    1. That’s just a coincidence!

  11. These people will moan and cry about CO2 levels but then reject the best method we have (that can be built almost anywhere) for producing electricity without producing CO2: Nuclear Power*.

    This shows that these people are nothing more than useful idiots to more powerful people who are attempting to use the monopoly on force provided by government for their own gains.

    *Hydro can only be built in certain locations and most of those locations have already been utilized in North America so it is no longer realistically an option to replace other forms of electricity production.

    1. CO2 emissions by country in a chart:

      http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-i…..ic-001.jpg

      1. Would be more informative if it were per capita

        1. http://www.economicshelp.org/w…..capita.png

          I aim to satisfy.

          1. AHA! I knew it! You Canadians are the scum of the earth!

      2. It is funny because Ontario gets ~60% of its electricity from CANDU nuclear reactors. Thus, Ontario is one of the cleanest industrialized regions to live, in terms of CO2 emissions (and overall pollution from electricity production).

        Yet, you still see people here pushing windmills and fucking solar panels because CO2!!!!11!! These people are so ignorant it astounds me. They want to systematically destroy our reliable grid with these abominations to efficiency and availability because they were told once a cocktail party that windmills and solar panels are the only way to save the polar pears. Fuck them and fuck their power to elect Liberal/NDP fucks to force this point of view on me.

        Just to note: I give two shits about CO2 emissions.

        1. ‘I give two shits’

          Hard or soft shits?

          1. Depends on if I have had my GMO Monsanto grown oat fiber today or not.

          2. You have to ask?

          3. By the way, happy new year Rufus! I hope all is well with the family in 2015 and hope to continue to see you on the comment board here.

            1. Same here. All the best.

              1. Happy New Year to all, especially to all the socialist turds who troll here that provide me with my daily ration of laughs.

        2. They want to systematically destroy our reliable grid with these abominations to efficiency and availability because they were told once a cocktail party that windmills and solar panels are the only way to save the polar pears.

          You mean like the Germans already did? In Germany they basically obliterated a reliable, clean energy system based on nuclear power, created a sporadic and much less efficient system founded around windmills and solar panels, and their emissions actually went up because they have to have backup generators for times when there’s low wind and sunlight. Also, they make up for energy shortfalls by burning biomass, which is another very environmentally unfriendly means of energy production.

          1. People died as a direct results of this green policies in Germany and the UK.

        3. Agreed, this province is fucked, you only need to look to Queens Park.

          BTW new legislation comes into effect today which outlaws smoking on patios at bars. I’m glad I live in the sticks and am self employed, the urban population seem to be a progressive monolith anymore.

          1. Yeah me and my buddy got into it last night over this.

            People kinda get the libertarian point but they can’t help themselves. He kept saying why should the ‘smoker in the park’ scenario get to stick around and I have to move?

            I also reminded him, and totally got this, was how originally the smoking crusade from the 1980s was ‘never’ gonna morph into trampling on civil liberties and yet here we are. A full blown irrational war not just through policies like in Ontario but manifests itself into hideous events like in NY with the killing of Eric Garner – all because the paternalist-mob state wanted a cut of a product they make illicit thus creating a black market.

            The people who create such policies are the ones who need to be thrown in jail.

            It’s sad what we’ve become.

            1. People kinda get the libertarian point but they can’t help themselves.

              Absofuckinglutely, they can’t see the consequences to liberty of progressive politics.

              Either that or they don’t give a fuck about liberty and merely want Big Gov to keep them safe.

            2. 30 years ago when this stuff was just getting off the ground, some people who opposed it said that the next thing you know, the banners will be telling us what we can and cannot eat. Such people were of course called crazy by the banners.

    2. To add to that, the massive regulatory hurdles placed on the development and proliferation of nuclear power has seriously damaged the technologies progress and has added massively to the cost to build and operate a plant.

      Nuclear power through fission reactors has much room for improvement. I’m talking order of magnitude improvement in cost and efficiency. IMO, if we stopped ham stringing fission development through harsh regulation, you would see a massive growth in innovation to the point that people would be scratching their heads wondering why we are trying to do fusion when it is so god damn difficult and fission is so god damn easy.

      1. What’s your opinion on the various thorium-based nuclear power concepts? I’m not informed enough on its intricacies to make a judgment.

        1. Promising, but not necessary yet. Uranium is too cheap to need thorium right now.

          People often conflate thorium and the molten salt reactor because the molten salt reactor was designed to burn thorium. However, the molten salt reactor itself is the real breakthrough and it can much more easily be run on uranium anyway.

          Thorium is everywhere in the solar system and massively abundant in the Earth’s crust so it really is a fuel that if we want to, we could travel all over the solar system and have a source of it available to be mined.

      2. But cheap fusion is going to be available as soon as Voyager leaves the solar system!

    3. Actually, hydro could be placed in a lot more places, provided we were ready to disrupt the environment in tha area. Carter had plans for that, and the enviros went berzerk on him, which I think contributed to his going neurotic.

      At the moment they are willing to accept environmental damage from wind and solar, but not hydro or geothermal. Frankly, I suspect that is because useful amounts of electricity could be extracted from the latter two, but not from the former two.

      The Left wants power ans transportation EXPENSIVE becuase it keeps the poor under control.

      The Left is a bunch of contemptable little shits. But we knew that.

      1. It’s a pretty big disruption. But if a company can buy the land that will be disrupted, or contract with land owners who will have their property altered by the construction of the dam, go for it. Hydro is the cheapest electricity source we have so the more the merrier, IMO.

      2. Love to see the watermelon’s do the chicken dance when the windmill’s propensity to chop up birds and bats by the hundreds of thousands is mentioned.

      3. A major difference is that windmills kill individual animals, while dams kill entire local ecosystems. There are places in Idaho, for example, where the ecosystem was dependent on dead salmon who had spawned there, and the Washington and Oregon dam projects had basically starved those ecosystems.

        I know it’s sad to think of a windmill killing an eagle, but keep in mind it was going to die eventually anyway. Windmills do not threaten to extirpate any animal from any of its habitats.

        1. keep in mind it was going to die eventually anyway.

          Wow.

        2. “I know it’s sad to think of a windmill killing an eagle, but keep in mind it was going to die eventually anyway.”

          Ah.

          Well.

          Greater good or something.

          The head spins.

        3. I suspect that wind farms and solar farms play almost as much hob with the local ecosystem as a dam. Certainly as much as, say, an industrial park.

          The thing is, the Greens are never, ever in havor of any energy source that might actually produce cheap energy. I don’t know that they actually plan this, but it certainly works out that way.

      4. Seriously. Nuclear power is the one energy source that just sits there in a small compact space and produces energy. It’s almost impossible to have less of an environmental impact.

        And yet, the morons in the enviro movement don’t like it because RADIATION is TEH SCARY.

      5. Of all the complaints about massive environmental disruption, the ones leveled at hydro are most justified. If you live in the flooded area, you’re fucked. The habitat is fucked. Hydro also has a surprisingly large body count and that is going to explode the next time there is an earthquake in China or BC.

        1. I think it was P. J. O’Rourke who wrote that, just upriver from Chernobyl, was a huge, badly maintained hyspdroelectric dam that was clearly going to scour the entire valley clean sooner than later.

    4. Cant do hydro either because it affects the local salmon population…

      1. If only there were a way to chop salmon into patties and can them when they went through the hyrdo plant.

        Fully automated system, just add fish! I feel like we could market this.

        Of course, you’d have to allow for other kinds of fish to get into the mix. I guess we could always just market it as “mixed fish”! Good for your brain, or some shit.

      2. If it wasn’t for the local salmon population we would have reached progressive derptopia years ago!!

    5. Nuclear is every bit the subsidy whore that renewables are. Nuclear gets loan guarantees and liability waivers up the wazoo and it is still a total bust. It is NOT regulations. France has more sensible nuclear regulations and their nuclear power is just as costly. IMSR and/or LM’s fusion might make nuclear power economical but until then, say no.

      1. Nuclear would not NEED to be anywhere near tye subsudy whore that the renewables are if a plant could be built in some reasonable time frame, imstead of having pants-wetting morons fighting ever step of the build as near to the Supreme Court as they can get.

        That said, a nuclear power plant will actually add useful amounts of stable power to the grid. Wind and solar WON’T.

        1. Like I said, France’s regulations are much more reasonable and it is the same cost. The core technology stinks and has to change.

  12. As it happens, in October, researchers at Lockheed Martin declared that they had devised a cheap fusion reactor that could be deployed in a decade.

    Oh, for Pete’s sake.

    1. I see new fusion technology announced on slashdot every other week.

    2. I really have a hard time believing that in 10 years, we will see the unveiling of a fusion reactor that works, let alone a cheap one that works.

      I hope LM is not bullshitting but I have many doubts.

      1. They also, have the cure for cancer.

        1. And the Philosopher’s Stone too, yes?

    3. Fusion power, like conscious AI and the practical electric car, will forever be just over the horizon.

  13. ‘Between 300 000 and 400 000 people.’

    Can’t they just run these people through a gate so we can properly count how many retards we have?

    1. Heh. I can only imagine how offended this group would be to being controlled and forced through a gate like that.

      Ironic since the goverment controls they so steadfastly crave would trample the shit out of our rights.

    2. As long as you are wishing, why can’t we run them through a gate and lock them out of the country, letting in an equal number of impecuious hispanics, and ereby raising the IQ of the nation?

      1. You think small because you’re American and have not considered the darker side of your loins and soul.

        Have them go through a gate that leads them over a cliff.

        1. Well, my first thought WAS run them tnrough a chipper….

          1. Go on…

            1. Run ’em through the salmon chopper/canner thing from the dams?

              “Mixed Derp”

              1. “Dolphin Friendly” (even though dolphins are assholes)

                1. Donphins have rape-caves, did you know that?

                  Underwater rape caves. They take things there, both alive and dead, and rape them to pieces.

                  Talk about rape culture. . .

          2. The more organic mulch for my gardens the better.

    3. Just vaporize them as they walk through

  14. my best friend’s step-aunt makes $67 hourly on the internet . She has been fired from work for 9 months but last month her check was $20596 just working on the internet for a few hours. you can try this out………….
    ????? http://www.netjob70.com

  15. The only two public parade functions Tony appears at is Gay Pride and this one. Yet we never receive a first person report. Fucking slakard.

  16. Mass killings and murders in Calgary and Edmonton:

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/…..-1.2887989

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/…..-1.2887332

    1. I’m glad all those Heroic(tm) gun laws Canada has stopped this ex-con from ascertaining a firearm and killing these people. I bet all those people are glad they had no rights to defend themselves against this fuck.

      1. ‘I bet all those people are glad they had no rights to defend themselves against this fuck.’

        It never dawns on them.

        That’s the pitiful reality of it all.

        1. Well, I’m sure it dawns on a few of them, as they wait for the nutcase du jour to get around to them….

  17. Sadly, many of the marchers oppose the only system that has ever enabled hundreds of millions of people to rise above humanity’s natural state of abject poverty.

    By adopting fractional reserve lending, central banking and fiat money, of course. We started to make progress in raising living standards when we abandoned the artificial, Malthusian constraint of the gold standard.

    You libertarians really need to make up your minds about this, because the gold standard and cornucopianism make contradictory assumptions.

    1. . . . . . . . . . .

      What?

    2. “We started to make progress in raising living standards when we abandoned the artificial, Malthusian constraint of the gold standard.”

      YES! CAPITALISM WAS USELESS UNTIL 1971!! WHY HAS NO ONE NOTICED THE MASSIVE WIDESPREAD PROSPERITY BROUGHT ABOUT BY THE GREAT NIXON?

      1. We would still be living in caves had FDR not saved us from all of that evil gold back in the 30’s.

    3. Right, we only started making progress in 1913. Before then, the US and Europe were starved wastelands.

  18. http://www.unionleader.com/art…../141229456

    “Speaking publicly for the first time, Janelle Westfall said state laws failed her after New London’s former police chief made her a proposition: If she posed nude for him, the underage alcohol charges against her would be dropped.”

    Where are all the New England progressives when it comes to condemning the rape culture of the thin blue line? I guess it’s easier to hate college jocks.

    1. To be fair, I’d like to see her naked too.

    2. They later explained that the only law applicable to the case was the abuse of power statute, under which a public official is guilty of a misdemeanor if he or she knowingly commits an unauthorized act “which purports to be an act of his office” or “knowingly refrains from performing a duty imposed on him by law or clearly inherent in the nature of his office.”

      Apparently the CT prosecutor interprets criminal statutes very, very, very narrowly. Like, narrowly enough to crush a gnat.

  19. “We must have a better capitalism, better than the malignant corporate system we have now.”

    Yeah! Those corporations are so terrible! I mean, look at what they do! They give jobs to people while providing goods and services to voluntary customers! That’s terrible! And meanwhile as retirees and such invest in these evil companies, their investments grow! Oh the humanity! There’s no force involved! No coercion! No compulsion! No threats of violence! It’s awful! Will government please come and save us!!!!

  20. I too would quibble with the specifics of Malthusian arguments though I’m generally sympathetic to people making arguments that rich corporations should clean up their own messes. I mean, at least they’ve got the general argument correct. Ron, you and I should go to the next Tea Party march on Washington and count how many idiotic and ridiculous signs there are. Those people think giving tax breaks to billionaires brings about prosperity!

    I think that Environmental protest marches need to be more media savvy and look out for what a right-wing troll might write about them in a magazine written by paid off ideologues.

    1. The left-wing troll is calling someone a right-wing troll. How devastating.

    2. rich corporations should clean up their own messes.

      They do.

      Those people think giving tax breaks to billionaires brings about prosperity!

      They do.

  21. my best friend’s mother-in-law makes $68 /hour on the computer . She has been fired for 10 months but last month her payment was $15958 just working on the computer for a few hours. view it now…….
    ?????http://www.netjob70.com

  22. my best friend’s mother-in-law makes $68 /hour on the computer . She has been fired for 10 months but last month her payment was $15958 just working on the computer for a few hours. view it now…….
    ?????http://www.netjob70.com

  23. I overhead one marcher explaining to another, “We must have a better capitalism, better than the malignant corporate system we have now.”

    I actually agree with that statement as written, though the person who said it probably meant a kind of “better capitalism” that is indistinguishable from socialism.

    1. No; he ment “better capitalism” that is indistinguishable from idiocy.

  24. So = topping their list of Enemies of the Planet and the Future are

    – Capitalism

    The very thing that has lifted billions of people out of subsistence living and enabled economic allocation of resources, allowing for the rapid increase in standard of living and the drop in the birth rates that completely undid the Mathusian illogic

    – Monsanto

    “By making it possible to grow more calories on less land, biotech crops helped conserve 123 million hectares from 1996 to 2012.””

    – Fracking

    The single most effective source of carbon-dioxide emissions reductions on the planet. Naturally they hate that!?

    – Nuclear power

    For people who claim to love the ‘idea’ of ‘alternative energy sources’ they seem to strangely hate the reality of the ‘most effective ones’, and vastly prefer technologies that actually destroy much more land and has no ability to scale upward with consumer demand.

    But seriously = they’re the Party of Science. really, stop laughing.

    1. ‘sup Gilmore?

      Quit hatin’.

      Them progs just be for shizzle like tha envirromunt an shit, ya feel me?

      They’z not hurtin nuthin. Leev um be.

    2. “The single most effective source of carbon-dioxide emissions reductions on the planet.”

      Says who? Real scientists? Uh, no.

      http://www.nature.com/nature/j…..13837.html

      1. Our results, based on simulations from five state-of-the-art integrated assessment models

        BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA THIS IS HOW CLIMATE SCIENCE ACTUALLY OPERATES

        Bullshit computer simulations for a bullshit study in a bullshit ridiculously over-rated journal.

        Here’s an article that uses real world data instead of feeding assumptions into computer programs built on assumptions.

        http://www.economist.com/blogs…..-emissions

      2. The US has reduced carbon dioxide emissions faster, at a far larger scale, and at almost negligible “cost”, relative to all the kyoto signatories entirely due to rapid conversion over to natural-gas fired electricity generation.

        This isn’t some bullshit “model” like what you’re citing = this is demonstrable fact.

        Emissions are at their lowest in 20+ years, and its due to plentiful nat gas derived from fracking processes which are improving in efficiency and productivity faster than any government subsidized green-tech bullshit

        “The reduction is even more impressive when one considers that 57 million additional energy consumers were added to the U.S. population over the past two decades. Indeed, U.S. carbon emissions have dropped about 20 percent per capita, and are now at their lowest level since… 1961.

        David Victor, an energy expert at UC-San Diego, estimates that the shift from coal to natural gas has reduced U.S. emissions by 400 to 500 megatons CO2 per year. To put that number in perspective, it is about twice the total effect of the Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions in the rest of the world, including the European Union.

        … Accounting for a reduction of 50 Mt of CO2 per year, America’s 30,000 wind turbines reduce emissions by just one-10th the amount that natural gas does. Biofuels reduce emissions by only 10 megatons, and solar panels by a paltry three megatons.”

        1. Thanks for the link. Really. do right-wingers like yourself cite anything other than oil company apologists or is there some other credible line of argument that is yet to be disseminated? I mean, I give you an article in Nature and you give me an article written by Bjorn Lomberg? Talk about a mismatch in the credibility department.

          I do enjoy the article’s thesis– written in 2012– if for nothing more than its attempts at pettifogging. First, There’s more oil drilling and less coal drilling. Second, there’s a drop in co2 emissions over the last 5 years. Voila, the reason why co2 emissions have dropped is because of fracking! Fantastic argument! Hmm, what other things have happened in the years 2007-2012 that might have caused this reduction in co2 emissions?

          1. I keep forgetting that you’re not worth treating seriously even for a second.

          2. american socialist|1.1.15 @ 5:46PM|#
            …”do right-wingers like yourself cite anything other than oil company apologists or is there some other credible line of argument that is yet to be disseminated?”

            Hi, shitbag!
            Do lefty ignoramuses like you ever argue facts?

            1. Hi, I don’t know what your problem is here exactly. The commenter above incorrectly assumed that fracking will decrease carbon emissions. I posted a paper from the science journal of record that dismisses that idea and I got in return a link to a popular article written by a discredited political scientist whose foundation gets funding from right-wingers. I’m the one arguing in facts here.

              It’s well known that lomberg gets his money from conservative interest groups. One article detailing these links can be found here: http://www.desmogblog.com/2014…..sus-center

              1. I’m the one arguing in facts here.

                No you’re not you don’t know what that means.

                It’s well known that lomberg gets his money from conservative interest groups.

                No one gives a shit. Lomborg has the facts and evidence on his side. You have nothing. You have a paper that makes predictions. We have facts.

          3. I give you an article in Nature and you give me an article written by Bjorn Lomberg? Talk about a mismatch in the credibility department.

            You’re completely right. Bjorn Lomberg is vastly more credible than a grossly over-rated journal-cum-pop science magazine. Not that this matters at all when there is evidence and arguments to consider.

            what other things have happened in the years 2007-2012 that might have caused this reduction in co2 emissions?

            The data is quite clear it is fracking.

  25. Here’s an interesting long photo-essay:

    http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2014…..st-agenda/

    “Climate Movement Drops Mask, Admits Communist Agenda”

    1. There was an article in The National Post way back in the late 90s early 2000s that seems prescient now. The writer’s point was the global warming agenda was all about eradicating capitalism. I have to find it but I don’t even remember her name. She left the paper soon after.

    2. Given that most ‘out’, open-Envirocommunists are harmless old women I worry about them far less than the OWS-type millenials who spread economic ignorance via a smattering of idiotic policy ideas rather than openly endorsing wholesale Marxism

      i.e. they mix their latent anticapitalism with enough ‘nice sounding’ ideas to make it seem like utopia is possible without a totalitarian state to deliver them the goodies.

      I’ve tried pointing out to some of these kids that they manage to simultaneously oppose ‘bank bailouts’ and endorse ‘debt relief’, which in actual practice are the exact same thing = forcing taxpayers to pay off bad debts incurred via shitty government incentive-programs.

      One person almost started to understand it and then got really upset and claimed ‘money is the problem in the first place’

    3. So many attractive intelligent people there, I don’t see how anyone could resist their charms.

  26. OT = I want one

    Because Tyranny by Balloon is Possible

  27. http://www.forbes.com/sites/je…..tists-say/

    No Doubt It’s A Climate-Change Drought, Scientists Say

    How do they know? Because proxies told them that Cali has not been this dry in a really long time. This is enough to make it a no doubt linkage. Never no mind that there has no increase in drought the world over, never no mind that Cali is pumping so much water out of the ground that it causes subsidence.

    This kind of thing has really opened my eyes to the shabbiness of climate science. They just don’t do harsh critical analysis like other fields do. I am a mediocre MSc and I am sure that I am a better scientist than the vast majority of climate scientists.

    1. But I thought climate change was supposed to cause more storms. Can not these people get their story straight?

    2. “To frame the drought we should be mentioning that much of the southwest and west has been in drought now for nearly 15 years, since 1999. This is important for California because a big part of that story is the Colorado River. The major storage, the biggest reservoirs in the United States are only half full now, and precipitation this winter has been lower than average there.”

      The globe hasn’t warmed in the past 15 years, yet somehow the drought that has occurred during that time is due to global warming. And yes, they’re claiming it’s a direct temperature effect, which is preposterous to begin with since even a 5 degree increase in temperatures (far more than anyone is claiming) has little effect on evaporation rates.

      The problem is that too many flerking people are living in the goddam desert.

      1. The other problem is that water is being giving away for nearly free.

      2. +1 Sam Kinison. To solve the problem of starving Africans is to bring Africans to where to food is!

  28. Here is the solution to climate change.

    If the Gazans does not unconditionally surrender to Israel by midnight Jan. 2 local time, nuke them.

    If we nuke them and they do not surrender by midnight Jan. 3, nuke them again.

    Repeat until climate change is stopped cold in its tracks.

    1. Ghis is awfully goddamned tempting. Could we add Iran, north Korea, amd California?

    2. Forgot to take your NAP?

      Seriously, trying to pick sides in Middle Easter conflicts is just stupid; they are all jointly responsible for being unable to settle their disputes peacefully, and it’s none of our business. Paying attention to these shitholes (and I include Israel in that; yes, I have been there several times) only encourages more of this stupid behavior.

      The US has no business getting involved there. Eventually, they’ll tire of killing each other when nobody pays attention to them anymore. It took millions of deaths and a couple of centuries for Catholics and protestants to stop bashing in each other’s heads over meaningless theological drivel.

  29. my neighbor’s ex-wife makes $68 /hour on the internet . She has been fired from work for eight months but last month her paycheck was $16325 just working on the internet for a few hours. check out this site…http://fave.co/14gVp3h

  30. My best friend’s step-mother makes $88 /hr on the computer . She has been fired for seven months but last month her paycheck was $14014 just working on the computer for a few hours.
    Why not check here ==~+~+~+~+~== http://www.jobsfish.com

  31. In fact, shortly before the march, the respectable journal Science published an article warning that world population will reach 11 billion by the end of this century. But the Science study misses the mark, mostly because nearly all of the projected increase-4 billion people-is in sub-Saharan Africa.

    That increase isn’t due to people having above two children per family, it’s due to people surviving longer; population growth isn’t driven by births anymore but by increases in life expectancy. 11 billion people is pretty much what the human population is going to be after Africa and Asia generally reach life expectancies of 60-70 years. Beyond that, every decade we add to life expectancy on average globally adds about a billion people.

  32. my neighbor’s step-aunt makes $80 an hour on the internet . She has been laid off for five months but last month her payment was $12901 just working on the internet for a few hours.
    website here……..
    ???????? http://www.paygazette.com

  33. “The demonstrators’ chief demand was “climate justice,” which broadly entails redistributing wealth from the countries and industries that have benefited from the consumption of fossil fuels.”

    Well, at least someone recognizes the fact that fossil fuel use is beneficial to civilization. Wouldnt it be easier to achieve “justice” by enabling more third world nations to obtain cheap fossil fuel based energy, rather than keeping them in the dark while “rich” nations are forced to send money to the dictators of the poor nations who haven’t had the luxury of a robust fossil fuel boosted economy?

  34. Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job I’ve had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for 74 this – 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringing home at least per hour. I work through this link, go to tech tab for work detail
    ———– http://www.paygazette.com

  35. I Got Hooked On Having An Online Business Almost A Decade Ago When I Created An Online Course And Made My First.

    —–http://tinyurl.com/cashclick1

  36. I Got Hooked On Having An Online Business Almost A Decade Ago When I Created An Online Course And Made My First.

    —–http://tinyurl.com/cashclick1

  37. ***I Got Hooked On Having An Online Business Almost A Decade Ago When I Created An Online Course And Made My First.
    —–http://tinyurl.com/cashclick1***

  38. I appreciate that you produced this wonderful article to help us get more knowledge about this topic.!@
    Love Relationship Problem Solution
    Husband Wife Dispute Relationship Problem Solution

  39. Nice and effective blog post. The content is too short but effective. I love the information you share here. Its an well written blog post by you. This is awesome blog post.
    Witchcraft Love Vashikaran specialist | Girl Vashikaran hair

  40. Nice blog! its interesting. thank you for sharing….

    Love Spells
    Love Marriage Specialist

  41. I would like to thank you for the efforts you have made in writing this article

    http://www.onlineastrologyconsultancy.com/
    http://www.onlineastrologycons…..strologer/

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.