Summing up a Green position on SSPS

--- In ssi_list@... "Paul D. Fernhout"

> I don't think I'd agree this is an accurate characterization of my
> position.

I apologize for the mischaracterization and having read your entire
post before starting my reply I think it's best that you've
characterized youself in your own words. To tell the truth, in terms
of succinct summary I think I did you justice. Of course you put
more nuance into your position with increased length.

> Might be a nice time to sum up, as you have created a nice
> strawman environmentalist position here,

I think not, but I'd welcome specific rebuttals of points I've
raised that characterize the general position of environmentalists.

> As for employment, local energy production solutions might create
> more local job . . .

I included this part of the critique because the post I made wasn't
supposed to be portraying you and the debate we had, for we never
did touch on this point. This specifically references a Green
economic policy of looking for local self-sustainable communities.
This runs counter to much of the work on efficiency within economics.

> Also, the more general issue of economics I make is that most work
> in a modern economy is essentially optional to the life support of
> society, and so it can be a good idea to rethink work so as to
> make it of higher quality for the worker (even if the work then is
> less productive in a material sense). And in rethinking work, one
> may have to rethink the productive infrastructure for energy and
> other things.

This actually supports my point that much of the Green platform is
anti-Capitalist and looking to institute a more Socialist/Communist
economic system, and quite plauasibly a Socialist, Communist,
Marxist, Trotskyite political system as well. I've read the Green
Party platform in its entirety. This is also what Dr. Moore, the
founder of Greenpeace, was referring to when he mentioned the influx
of Pro-Communist groups into the environmental movement post-Soviet
Union era.

> As for cold showers, what I'm saying is that a decentralized
> energy system which requires only supplemental "luxury" power in
> winter still allows one in winter to continue to live in one's
> home (as opposed to evacuate to somewhere warmer)

As others have pointed out - how often do you have to evacuate your
home because of power failure?

This comes down to the same type of question of how much is a life
worth? If you have to design a car, let's say, that absolutely
prevents every threat to life, then the expense of making that car
will be astronomical. Carmakers look at probability of risk and make
judgements accordingly. Of course, some judgements are negligent,
but that's a matter for the courts.

> by living in a colder (but not freezing) house and by taking hot
> showers less often if the supplemental power is not available.

Most people don't want to live this way over the course of an entire
Winter season. Just when they want to feel warmer in their homes,
they have to confront a major amount of rationing of energy and
heat. Again this mindset references the Green ideology that I wrote
about.

> like landfills, by themselves (ignoring related ground water
> pollution) may not be a long term problem if creativity like in
> nanotech allows them to be turned into treasure mines (what I
> think when I throw things out these days).

From my understanding, the Greens are opposed to nanotechnology even
more than they are to GM Foods.

> So, as for pollution and SSPS, my position is that SSPS only
> solves the energy production part of the pollution problem --
> which I assert (without evidence, admittedly) is only somewhere
> between 1% to 10% of the overall world pollution problem. Thus,
> SSPS is at best only a minor contribution to solving environmental
> pollution overall.

Your playing sleight of hand here. SPS solves 100% of the pollution
caused by energy production. If all that SPS energy had to be
provided by wind turbines or rooftop PV, the creation of all those
turbines and PVs would cause a lot of pollution. That's the issue.
All the other pollution would remain in place whether your home was
getting power via SPS or a backyard wind turbine.

Also, if as you write, SPS is only a minor contribution to solving
the environmental problem and therefore shouldn't be implemented,
would you be consistent and also advocate that the Kyoto Treaty
should be scrapped because it only slows down pollution levels by
six years? (x pollution in 2025 with Kyoto, x pollution in 2019
without Kyoto.) This is exactly the same logic you're employing.

> The only long term solution is rethinking manufacturing and other
> productive and distributive processes to produce less pollution --
> ideally no pollution through 100% recycling and various closed
> loop manufacturing processes as well as using materials that
> safely biodegrade into relatively harmless products.

You're invoking magic technology to institute the values of the
Green movement that I wrote about. Further, with SPS you could still
institute your magic. There is no reason to go the route of
wind/solar/hydrogen.

This is transformational and expensive and challenging to implement.
This speaks to the societal reordering of values and principles that
are at the heart of the Green movement.

> My point is that we either solve the manufacturing process
> pollution issues on Earth or we are up to our ears in toxic waste
> on Earth in a thousand years -- with or without SSPS.

This is the same type of midset exhibited by Paul Erhlich, the Club
of Rome, Malthus, etc. It's been disproven time and time again. It
has been shown that as societies get wealthier they do spend more on
environmental mitagation. The US is cleaner today than it was 40
years ago despite the fact of increased energy use. Do yourself a
favor and read Lomborg's "Skeptical Environmentalist" for he too was
a rabid environmentalist and the data forced him to reassess his
position. I'm sure you'll dismiss much of his argument but at least
you'll have data that is counter to your world view. Break out of
the same sources of incestuous amplification. Just take a wquick
peek.

> Half of you arguments against local PV center around the economic
> cost of PV and the toxic waste produced by PV, which improved
> manufacturing technology would address.

What improved technology? There is currently no such thing as cost-
neutral pollution-free manufacturing.

> The other half revolves around a place to put the panels,
> intermittent energy storage possibilities, and maintenance costs
> and complexity -- which are all valid concerns, though we disagree
> on the feasibility of resolving these now or in 20 years time
> (such as with Hydrogen derived propane cogeneration or other power
> storage and regeneration systems).

Yes, we disagree. I've analyzed a few of the *most* efficient
storage technologies available and shown you their limits. You just
wave them away and hold fast to your ideology. This is where the
author of the EcoNot.com site was quite right in his assessment that
one can't use science, reason, or economics to argue with an
environmentalist. I'd expect you to specifically refute my analysis
and point out errors in order to invalidate it. Otherwise I'd expect
you to look at your worldview and realize that it can't come to be
for very valid reasons. You do neither and I'm left to assume that
this is so because logic, science, and economics are thoroughly
trumped by ideology. There are many in the Green movement who share
this characteristic with you.

> As for SUVs, which are an example of a larger class of luxury
> goods, while I'd say that current light truck based SUVs are a bad
> idea for most drivers and for drivers of other non-SUV cars

As Valens pointed out, it is the consumer's choice to buy SUVs and
other luxury goods. What you're displaying is the Green tendency to
reorder society with their vision. This type of social enegineering
is exactly what the Soviets did.

> While I'd agree many so called environmentalists may not be
> systems thinkers and the solutions some propose are
> counterproductive, and you are right in that many
> environmentalists are in a sense arguing for both preserving the
> environment and also for achieving some form of social justice
> (which causes confusion in their messages), in general the case
> many can make is much more complex and nuanced then what you
> typically outline,

Thak you for the agreement.

In broad strokes I think I got it right, in that their primary
concern, when push comes to shove, isn't with the environment but
with social engineering.

Also, it's not for me to make their nuanced case, as long as I don't
mischaracterize it, which I haven't. I'm not going to write their
manifesto for them.

> and if the SSPS idea (or space settlement in general) is to engage
> environmentalists or those pushing for social justice, it will to
> adapt to the sort of issues I have raised.

How do fire and water reach a compromise? The Green movement has a
large core of anti-human and anti-technology followers. Read the
Greenpeace founder's website. SPS stands for everything to which
they are opposed.

Their criticism of SPS would be even more rabid because they would
view it as the precursor to the disposable Earth syndrome and they'd
be fighting us to abort the effort before it literally got off the
ground.

> I have tried to try to reconcile the environmental and space
> settlement positions by both stating self-replicating space
> habitats could be designed and built in people's free time as an
> end in themselves

Others more qualified than I have raised objections to this point of
yours, but here too you just dismiss their objections.

> (And thanks also to the people who say it has been an interesting
> or informed debate. :-)

Yes, it's good to read that other's are following the debate. Also
let me extend thanks to you for a good debate effort.

> P.S. I'll admit this is starting to get repetitive, so I think I
> may have reached the law of diminishing returns of discussing most
> of these issues.

Just starting? :) LOL

TangoMan