Workplace as political experience, here.
Article on COP25 by Roz Corbett, Landworkers Alliance.
Overlap in food and technological sovereignty.
Overlap in Small Farm Future approach to decentralized, interlocking, self-provisioning families or communites, on the one hand, and the 'small workshops' economy envisioned by those attempting to relocalize economies / production.
What insights does 'self-provisioning' in the food context bring to local industrial infrastructure? And vice versa?
2020-11-25 09:15:51
Slobodian interview (via The Dig, [ link ]). A fine analysis of the origins of neoliberal philosophy, and how neoliberals of various types approached global coordination. In response to a question by Denvir at the end as to what prospects there may be for international, democratic, egalitarian coordination, S. says that he doesn't think it likely that we'll see global coordination from nation states to combat climate change; but that he hopes that the inevitable crises that arise will create new spaces for international alliances.
Interesting discussion around egalitarianism that reminded me of discussion with E. Anderson -- I feel the notion of egalitarianism here is less sophisticated, more based on 'equality of outcome', and that this has real consequences for political strategy & coordination. Explore this further.
Would also like to explore S.'s ideas on Rothbard, and review Carson's approach to Rothbard, all around the topic of egalitarianism.
The arc of thought in S's summary is something like this (if I recall, need to review again): Rothbard (and Von Mises?) were committed to the idea that people are not naturally equal, and fought socialism from an anarcho-capitalist perspective that included elements of scientific racism.
My impression was that for S., the idea that people are not equal is a moral error that can lead to e.g. scientific racism.
2020-11-26 20:04:39
Panel discussion by authors of A Planet to Win.
Dig Radio interview with authors of A Planet to Win.
I feel I've been exposed to arguments recently that from a political organizing and self-provisioning point of view, food is a key site of organization. This dicussion made me realize how important shelter and land are, too. Just as de-commodification of food seems an important next step, so does de-commodification of land and shelter.
Another Dig, interview with significant overlap in content / people, seems to be here.
Gather is a food sovereignty documentary focused on indigenous communities.
2020-11-28 15:07:46
Hyper-specialization is a bit of a luxury; it typically requires that one's food, shelter are secured by someone else. All well and good if the system as a whole is stable and headed in a good direction. In a time of crisis, it's hard to relax into esoteric pursuits.
Reasoning from 'first principles', rather than by analogy ...
One can start with: what at minimum do humans need for survival? Are those systems stable and guaranteed? If not, how at risk are they?
Given the likely trajectories outlined by scientists and analysts these days, it does seem that a 'local first' approach is sensible when it comes to resilience / adaptation / survival: figure out what systems are required, and might be relied upon, in the near-term and in local geography. The answer might be: not enough. Or: best from an adaptation perspective to expand the circle. But it seems to be a useful exercise to start from the individual or small-group analysis, given how difficult global coordination seems to be (at least currently).
2020-11-29 05:18:17
Reading Smaje's blog post on SFF. He links to the following 'shelfie':
Really useful discussion in the comments!
Comment by Jag_Levak on that page:
"And there's no need to remind me that nuclear energy is unpopular and getting the world on side is a huge challenge. I know! But one has to start somewhere. I have started, at the beginning."
You've started at one possible beginning. The problem is that the anti-nukes, and the anti-capitalists, and the de-growthers, and the doomists, and the deniers have all started at different beginnings.
I look at this in terms of probabilities. Any approach that relies on strong public consensus and energetic government action is, at best, going to be a country-by-country solution, with low odds of success in any country. Any approach that relies on mass public direct action also has poor odds. Also any approach that requires people to give up their modern conveniences, or their hope of attaining a lifestyle with modern conveniences. Or that requires most people to do more physical labor. Or that requires a large reduction in world population.
I don't hold out any hope for a global cultural, or social, or political, or economic revolution. Global technology revolutions, on the other hand, are remarkably commonplace. Nearly every field of technology has seen multiple revolutions. All it takes is something that can deliver market-competitive benefits. That is definitely not old-tech nuclear. But some of the new kinds of nuclear in development look like they have very good potential. And when they can deliver safe, clean energy at a good price, the markets will decide. And if they deliver, public opinion will follow.
Bielger paper that is pro-nuclear
Some great ideas by Jag Levak in his comments here, too.
And Levak quoted on Hackaday, too.
Reply to Jag's comment as a full blog post, here
Jag's full commentary on Chris' article, here:
[arguments from the article]
"1. The major resource and biophysical crises we face today on Earth, and many of the cultural and political ones, are ultimately traceable to humanity’s worldwide investment in powerful, strongly centralized, capital-accumulating political states."
The same was true of certain notorious non-capitalist alternatives, and most of these problems pre-date nuclear power, and are found in nations without nuclear power. Nuclear power is not the source nor cause of these problems.
"But nuclear power absolutely relies upon and justifies powerful, strongly centralized, capital-accumulating political states."
Nuclear power has needed strong state support because the kind of nuclear power that governments developed--to serve political and military priorities--were not market-competitive. Market-competitive nuclear would have the potential to operate without the need for governments propping it up.
"Therefore I see it as incompatible with sustainable human culture."
If we develop market-competitive nuclear, it would be compatible with the system we have now, and are likely to have for the foreseeable future. We don't need to consider whether it can be sustained forever. We only need to consider how much it can help with the problems that are right in front of us.
"2. Current nuclear technologies produce small but significant quantities of high-level waste which, as I understand it, remains dangerous for generations and has not yet been rendered safe – largely because it’s too expensive."
It is too soon to be deciding the ultimate fate of our spent fuel stockpiles. We are still in the process of developing options.
'It seems likely that it will be even more expensive for future societies, and probably beyond their technical capacities."
Roughly 96% of today's "spent" fuel would simply be fuel in a molten salt fast reactor. Several molten salt fast reactors are already in development (eg. Elysium, and Moltex) and first prototypes could be here later this decade.
"Dr Biegler writes of the need to combat “deep-seated anti-nuclear sentiment” in relation to issues including waste disposal. The best way of combating this ‘sentiment’ is surely to solve the issue giving rise to it."
Same for other concerns about old-tech nuclear power. So if future forms of nuclear can reduce some of those problems, or eliminate some of them entirely, that could actually improve the viability of nuclear power.
"In the meantime it seems to me quite rational not to further invest in technologies until their products can be made safe for future generations."
It can be quite rational to invest in developing safer technologies.
"3. If we could swap out all fossil fueled energy for nuclear-powered electricity, we would still be facing numerous resource crises concerning water, nitrogen, phosphorus, metals and soil, along with political and economic crises."
And a lot more problems besides. Yes, nuclear power will not be able to fix everything. But none of our options have that capacity, so that is not an argument against any one of our options.
"One response to that might be to say that at least with abundant nuclear energy we’d have one less crisis on our hands."
Possibly several less crises on our hands.
"But it’s surely reasonable (rational, even?) to suggest that the very multiplicity of these crises is telling us that our problems aren’t fundamentally about energy, and nor are the solutions."
We don't know of a fundamental solution which will solve all the problems we create. But until we get that figured out, we should at least work on solving the problems we can.
"4. Talking of water, nuclear power stations such as the gigantic Hinkley C now under construction not too far from my home are often located next to the ocean because of their need for abundant water. But given the uncertainties about future climate change and sea level rise, it might be rational not to do this."
There is a lot about Hinkley C which was not rational. That does not establish that nuclear power itself is inherently irrational. Anything can be done badly. Solyndra was an irrational investment too, but that doesn't mean that solar power itself is not worthwhile.
"5. There are only about 30 countries worldwide generating nuclear power, mostly rich ones with extensive electricity infrastructures. Electrifying and transitioning most of the other countries to nuclear power within the next few decades is, to say the least, unlikely,"
It's too early to reach that conclusion. In another ten years or so, we'll be in a much better position to evaluate the costs of next-gen nuclear--as well as the cost of other low-emissions options. And relative cost is what will determine the speed of deployment.
"and in any case would raise numerous further problems."
Every solution to problems has problems of its own. It can still be worthwhile if we are trading bad problems for lesser problems, and/or many problems for fewer problems.
"The climate impact of feasible nuclear transitions therefore seems likely to be slight."
Climate impact is long-term. The most you can say at this point is that nuclear's contribution to any further carbon emissions reductions over the next ten years are likely to be slight.
"6. Bringing together the previous points, I do not trust a society that commits itself so insouciantly to capital-accumulating state centralism, to leaving dangerous waste as a legacy for future generations to deal with, to meeting systemic crisis with piecemeal solutionism, and to policies that benefit the few and not the many."
Recycling previous points does not create a new point.
"Is my mistrust rational? I think so, but others might say it’s merely emotional or spiritual. If so, then I guess I’m for mere emotions and spirituality, and against rationality."
And so says every person out there who disregards reason when it conflicts with their preferred beliefs. If you can do it, so can they.
"7. But, against such spiritual arguments, I’ve heard people make the case for nuclear power through the analogy of a physician treating a critically ill patient: however spiritually misguided the patient was in their lifestyle choices that led to the illness now killing them, the physician’s job is to try to keep them alive using whatever technologies are available. By analogy, nuclear power may save the life of our present civilization, however decadent it is."
In the analogy, the physician seeks to keep the body going. Collectively, the body we depend on is the Earth. As with the patient's body, our Earth body is in crisis because of our past behaviors and decisions. Nuclear power might yet be a useful tool towards saving the Earth. Reforming civilization itself will still be up to us. No technology can do that for us.
Wow, and Jag Levak's subsequent comment:
"I was going to compile a list of all the arguments made against nuclear energy"
Woof. Tough task. But maybe I can offer a starter category list of arguments I have encountered--or at least, the ones I can remember offhand. (Anyone who can think of others, feel free to add to this list.)
Mostly applicable to old-tech nuclear:
meltdown risk and other contaminant release risks (from sloppy fuel reprocessing, corporate greed, managerial or operational incompetence, sabotage, terrorism, war, volcanoes, meteorite impacts, etc.) harms from nuclear fear (chronic stress, actual deaths from panicked evacuations) unresolved spent fuel status (subdivided into cost, containment failure risk, and proximity radiation risk arguments) need for enrichment has been used as cover for nuclear weapons programs the byproduct from enrichment is depleted uranium, which has been used to kill people cost too high, not competitive in a free market permitting and build times too slow lack of flexibility--does not mix well with highly-erratic intermittent sources of energy wildlife impact due to waste heat and aquatic life getting sucked into the cooling water pumps bird deaths from flying into cooling towers
Historical and retributive arguments:
harms from past nuclear power disasters harms from old-style uranium mining practices large carbon footprint for diffusion enrichment military origins association with waste contamination from nuclear bomb production association with unethical radiation experiments linkage to instances of graft and political corruption
Speculative and fanciful arguments:
supposed elevated cancer risk near nuclear power plants We don't know all the ways we could misuse a large supply of clean energy. Finite fuel supply means it is not indefinitely sustainable. Siting requirements mean there are not enough places for a large increase in number of plants. Plutonium in spent fuel could be used to make nuclear bombs. Carrington-scale CME could cause mass meldowns--possible extinction-level event Pandemic could cause mass meltdowns--possible extinction-level event. Collapse of civilization could cause mass meltdowns--"" "" Energy return on energy invested is too low, possibly even zero or negative. Any money spent on nuclear power is money taken from renewable energy. Any time spent on developing and building nuclear power only delays renewable energy deployment. Nuclear potential gives aid and comfort to enemies of renewable energy. Support for nuclear power is associated with support for coal, political conservatism, and male gender (hashtag patriarchy). tool of colonialism for controlling developing nations obstacle to energy-conservation campaigns obstacle to decentralized power obstacle to social justice obstacle to moving past capitalism obstacle to degrowth and back to nature unnatural possibly demonic possible xenoforming alien tech anti-neutrino radiation could be doing untold harm to our spiritual energies (auras, chakras, etc.) nuclear-based water desalination destroys the health-giving vibrational energies in water
And finally, the catch-all handwaving arguments:
Nuclear is complicated, and it is hubris to think we can ever master it. Humans are fallible and we don't have perfect knowledge and foresight, so there could be harms and dangers we haven't even imagined yet.
"Anti-nuclear sentiment developed at a time when nuclear energy was a shiny novelty, indistinguishable to the end user from electricity from more familiar established sources. To the customer it offered no benefits whatsoever"
--aside from reducing the huge number of deaths and illnesses from coal power pollution.
"In a hypothetical future where all energy is clean the full life-cycle emissions related to nuclear energy, including power station construction, will be zero."
Nuclear power overall could reach net zero (or net negative) sooner if some nuclear power were used to drive carbon sequestration projects--such as heating and injecting seawater into peridotite formations.
"If you want clean energy then you should stop opposing nuclear."
Too broad. Pretty much everyone who is sane opposes some kinds of nuclear. The question for most people is where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable kinds.
An episode, here
2020-12-18 09:15:21