Climate Change IS Worse Then Expected – But Here’s a Dangerous Proposal To Fix It

Here is factual proof regarding climate change and my predictions that we were consistently and faithfully, underestimating it’s impacts.

Several critical points that I’ve brought forth on this blog before:

a) We’ve known about it for a long time;

b) We are not working on ANY real solutions at all;

c) We’ve effectively accomplished nothing in the past 50 years;

d) Emissions are accelerating beyond our worse case fears.

David Keith is also wrong about our ability to gain anything by deploying wind or solar power as a means of reducing human impacts. Although this video is NOT about this particular issue, permitting or perpetuating human activity by enhancing our electrical production cannot possibly “reduce” environmental impacts.

Not only is the payback on such system measured in centuries, they consume as much electricity in their production as they actually produce, and perpetuate the human activity that is causing climate change in the first place and allow even more to occur (Jevon’s Paradox).

I fail to see why “environmentalist” repeatedly cannot see this simple truth. It is fundamental to the entire issue of human-caused or human-induced or human-contributed climate change (take your pick).

This video is really about geo-engineering, with huge, catastrophic risks. You decide, I already have. Everything mankind does to “fix” things for the better, backfires with huge long term risks and consequences.

Worse, such “engineering” does not fix the root problem of human caused emissions, it just permits them to continue. How stupid is that? This would simply permit more of the same problems that caused the problems in the first place.

This proposal is not only “daring” but dangerously irresponsible. But even more dangerous then this, is the basic premises that science, and tinkering with something as complex as a living Earth, is our playground to “experiment” with.

Underlying this premises is the so-called “faith” in science itself. The belief claims that our ingenuity and daring, exploring and even changing the unknowns, will NOT have catastrophic and long term effects, such as wiping out all life on Earth, through our well-intended “tinkering”. This is a total unknown and will forever remain a total unknown, and certainly not worth the risk.

In a “science” that is still under a raging debate as a well-understood discipline, how can we honestly think that “clever things to do” will “fix” what we have caused? Why not finally and forever ADMIT to what the root causes are and FIX THAT INSTEAD? Why expose the entire human race and every living species on the planet to even more of our tinkering and live “experimentation”?

It’s not “more leverage” that we need, but RESPECT for natural systems.

I’ve said it before and I will say it again, the Earth does not “need” our help. It needs for humans to leave it ALONE and it will naturally heal itself, for good or for bad. Adaption is a natural fact of all life forms, this is also true of human life forms. Either we adapt, or we remain forever dependent upon our failed technology and science, which will always have the same ultimate outcome (no technology or the ability to maintain it lasts forever).

Making the entire human race and all other life on this planet totally and forever dependent upon technology is got to be one of the stupidest ideas I’ve ever come across. This is contrary to all forms of natural life and life systems, including human life and is already doomed to failure for that reason.


admin at survivalacres dot com

14 thoughts on “Climate Change IS Worse Then Expected – But Here’s a Dangerous Proposal To Fix It

  • December 28, 2007 at 6:10 pm

    Your statement about solar taking a century to payback the energy to produce the device is completely wrong.

    Solar’s energy payback period is typically between 2 and 4 years, depending on the location (shorter energy payback for high sun places like Southern CA, AZ, Las Vegas) and the solar technology (shorter for thin films; higher for mono or polycrystalline modules). There have been multiple studies measuring the energy return on energy invested for solar. The trend is towards shorter paybacks, even for polycrystalline modules that use lots of silicon. Also, these are paybacks for entire installations so they include the energy for the modules, the inverters, the installation, the transportation etc.

  • December 28, 2007 at 6:58 pm

    I wish what you claim were true, but the reality is very different. If such a payback were possible, there would be widespread use of solar and wind power, but this is not the case. And there is of course, a set of reasons why this is so.

    PV panels have a limited life span, and must be periodically replaced. Also requiring replacement is everything else that makes them work, inverters, batteries, cabling, etc. All of these have energy costs too in their production.

    Actual costs to provide conventional amounts of power to the average home is significantly higher then the “optimistic estimates” often given. You must size your system to account for voltage loss at every step of the process and conversion of whatever energy is stored. This increases the cost dramatically.

    Moreover, actual efficiency of current production PV panels (and wind generators) is often, if not always, significantly lower then the published data by the manufacturer, and therefore, also requires a scaling up in panels or turbines with additional cabling and hardware.

    All energy costs must be factored in, whenever using any form of alternative “energy” solutions. This is often not the case in published studies, which seek an optimistic answer instead of real life.

    These so-called studies assume several important points which misleads the casual observer, such as “operating at maximum efficiency over their course of their life”. And they often fail to account for voltage losses, degradation and parts replacements.

    A recent installation by Lonewolf here on this blog has demonstrated that his payback time for his wind turbines in a Class 5 windzone is quite literally “forever”. They will wear out before they even remotely break even on actual energy production .vs. the energy consumption it took to produce them.

    One huge factor nobody seems to consider is the rising energy costs themselves. A PV panel manufactured in 2003 doesn’t cost the same as a PV panel manufactured in 2008. This of course, only worsens as time progresses.

    This report on “Energy Payback” is worth reading, but even this fails to account for the rising costs of materials, extraction, production, manufacturing and shipping.

    The reality though, is the ultimate litmus test. And today’s reality is already apparent on solar and wind energy “farms” found throughout the world. If the EROEI was really “that good” as many claim, we would simply not have a global energy crisis, but we do. Therefore, somebody is lying, or at least grossly misrepresenting the facts.

  • December 28, 2007 at 7:11 pm

    Well, my ‘wind turbines’ will NEVER pay back shipping to me much less materials and manufacturing. Not even on the wire terminal (connectors) to say nothing of cable, mast, ‘turbine’, etc. And I’m not ‘talking ’bout’ paying back relative to grid costs of 7 to 10 cents per kilowatt hour, but relative to almost $2/kWh (at $3/gal for gas). NEVER aka Infinity. At a “Class 5” or better site!

    A complete PV system (here) to supply an average of 4 kWh/day (all year long) would cost at least $30K (more with hired ‘labor’) plus storage.
    So ball parking $50 grand with 2-axis tracking (plus replacement/back-ups of electronics & batteries)
    [BTW, panel wattage ratings are theoretical and relative, not actual output]

    Anyway, even at $40K, that buys about a half-million kilowatt hours (for gridites) or 25,000 kWh versus $3/gal gas)

    25,000 kwh / 4 kWh/d = 6250 days = 17.2 years

    on grid:
    500,000 kWh / 25 kWh/d = 20,000 d = 54.8 years


  • December 28, 2007 at 9:09 pm

    Science would be helpful, if we continued applying the scientific process to determine what the risks of the new lab experiment/technologies are, after we form our initial hypothesis.

    If the thought is that solar technologies could support an exponential increase in energy consumption, that could be the hypothesis we ask scientists to test. What experiment could they design to prove or disprove the hypothesis? Same process continues for risks of new applications, form an hypothesis about the risk or safety, design an experiment to prove or disprove…

    No one would think to change a 747 engine in-flight, when did it start making sense for ‘science’ to use the whole world as their laboratory? No one at NWA ever says, ‘hey it would slow us down too much to park the plane while we change the engine’ as people see the danger and would mutiny.

    The FDA’s definition of safe now has changed to: ‘if it kills less than 200 people a year in the US… it is safe’

    I can’t help but think that those 200 people would rather know the risk ahead of time so they could decide for themselves whether to eat the apple, or not. The 200 people may not even realize that there is
    any risk or that someone behind the curtain so graciously rolled the dice for them.

    There is a lot of speculation here on what our human cognitive stumbling block is when people don’t see visible risk. So much risk is cloaked like this in science and impersonal by design.

    Imagine if we put a label on every can of crystal lite that said ‘less than 200 people this year will die from drinking this’ It would be personal, how can we make science personal again?

    Can anyone see a way we can anchor the discussions to each person directly in their immediate future, and the clear risks and benefits to them personally? I am concerned that many people seem not to think abstractly at all anymore; and when we discuss probable outcomes or the big picture, it is just not getting processed.

    P.S. priced out solar a couple of years ago and it was around a 40 year pay back, not sure where the first numbers come from.

  • December 28, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    Admin’s appeal to the commonsense requirement that solutions not create additional problems would seem to be a no-brainer, but we know that is not the case. One only has to look at the history of tech in order to find thousands upon thousands of “solutions” gone awry.

    Asbestos is one “solution” that proved to be monumentally problematic.

    Ultimately the logic chain can be followed back to the principle embodied by Jevon’s paradox. Any attempt to keep business as usual as the underlying paradigm will result in uncontrolled growth and the collapse of the system. We are screwed. All of the people touting wind, wave, sun, geothermal, and bio-fuel are all asking that we keep the entire system and just replace the current go-juice with another form of go-juice.

    They will say, “But it works!”

    I will reply, “So what? You moron.”

    Even if we were to discover the solution to the fusion containment problem and be able to build fusion plants overnight all over the world (never mind the fact that we do not have enough minerals to accomplish this), we would still be growing the population. But we would not be growing any land. The ocean would continue to be over-fished, fresh water would remain scarce. Of course, the techno-fetishists will immediately point out that with all that cheap energy we could desalinate. They would fail to indicate what we would do with the salt. They would fail to indicate what such a major change in the sea’s salinity would change as far as the ocean’s biosphere. In other words, more problems.

    These are the last days. Like the wonderful analogy I heard all over the net but I first heard about from Dr. Bartlett, the planet is a petri dish. We are the organism growing in the medium. The organism can be said to be at its most successful one day before collapse. To most members in the community, things look great right up until collapse. That is why we will not fix it, will not mitigate it, will not have a great awakening. We will slam into the brick wall at full speed. Let’s hope that we take as few species as possible with us.

    If we are lucky, we may actually survive to start the ridiculous process all over again.

    I’m beginning to think that that may not be such a great idea.

    Oh. One other thing. I have an addendum related to an increasing number of people I’ve bumped into on the net who rake me over the coals, calling me a misanthrope and what not. The following message is to those cancer monkeys:

    Don’t go all ballistic on me for suggesting that we should not survive our cancerous ways. We are merely one species of many on this planet. Please do not let your ego or species-centric ideology get in the way of reality. It is precisely this mistaken belief in the primacy of our species that has caused the problem in the first place. Get over it.

  • December 28, 2007 at 10:58 pm

    On a similar line to ‘Jevon’s Paradox’, what is always overlooked is, supposing a zillion wind turbines were built, and nano-solar panels were made cheap, etc. etc. … people would consume that as well as all the fossil fuels. So no ‘green’ technology could possibly save the population. It will all be consumed, in addition to, the cheap energy from FF – and only lead to a larger population! The cheap energy from FF’s is like a cancer, intricalely woven, and cannot be surgically removed from the organism as it exists today.

  • December 29, 2007 at 8:31 am

    The Year in Review: The planet
    No denying the cold, hard facts

    “”We’re on strong spiral of decline; some would say a death spiral.”

    ” … if the emission of greenhouse gases continued unabated, with a potential rise in average global temperature of 6.4C by the end of the century, which would make life on the planet as we know it unviable.”

  • December 29, 2007 at 9:01 am

    The Post-Bush Regime: A Prognosis

    the “growth-thru-genocide agenda”

    All of this will be occurring in a context where we are facing a global food crisis generally. We havenâ’t seen many headlines on this topic, but the world is sitting on the brink of a major food crisis. Emergency stockpiles are at low ebb, production levels are down, crop failures are up, etc. Itâ’s a very nasty picture even without biofuels.

    In this context, the net consequence of a major biofuel agenda comes down to intentional genocide. In order to provide marginally more fuel to the over-consuming industrialized nations, untold millions will starve in the third world, in addition to those untold millions that are already starving. The marginal energy gain is so small by comparison, that we must accept that the biofuels agenda is primarily about genocide.”

  • December 29, 2007 at 4:40 pm

    It’s true that no solar, wind, etc., is going to get us out of the mess we’ve created and no amount of new technofixes will do anything but make matters worse.

    So what I ponder is, what are the most likely event(s) that might be the final straw to plunge the planet into headlong collapse at breakneck speed?

    Or, will there be no final straw, and food availability, water sources, i.e., the basics for barebones survival, will gradually dwindle into nothingness?
    I think about this a lot and the best I’ve come up with is that there might be a pocket of people here and there who might stand a chance (probably third worlders who are accustomed to living without electricity, etc.).

  • December 30, 2007 at 5:02 pm

    @Lynda: Historically, there has always been a trigger event that ‘tipped the scales’. It could be something a seemingly simple as an assasination of an Archduke, etc. Until then, the carnival performer will continue to spin all the pie plates, as do the leaders now, in keeping the status quo.

    Secondly, the only pockets of those living somewhat comfortably (which would be my goal 🙂 … will the the elite who’ve already made their plans, and those who have consciously made plans for food security. (This is actually a national priority for Switzerland.) As has been commented on here, it involves the food stock for the ‘bootleneck’ of the transition time, and then the skills/land to ensure food security thereafter.

  • December 30, 2007 at 5:09 pm

    Any survivors will have plenty of land since there will be no one left to claim ownership. One needs to survive the second die off.

  • December 30, 2007 at 7:20 pm

    Why do I have the image of an English peasant walking with the huge bundle of twigs on his back running through my mind? You could be put to death for poaching on the king’s land.

  • January 2, 2008 at 10:28 am

    felt a need to post this and here seemed as good a place as any.

    Surely, If We Believed Life Was Worth Living …
    by E.R. Bills / December 22nd, 2007

    French-Algerian writer, philosopher and 1957 Nobel Prize Laureate Albert Camus once suggested that the most important question philosophy had to answer is whether or not we should kill ourselves.

    Itâ’s a stupendous claim thatâ’s easy to dismiss, especially without careful consideration.

    Itâ’s controversial. Itâ’s spiritually and biologically blasphemous. It cuts to the metaphysical quick.

    Itâ’s such an abrupt statement that it seems like an attack; but itâ’s not. Itâ’s simply the ultimate reality check.

    In the grand scheme of things, we may be specks of dust gravitationally attached to a spinning pebble thatâ’s flying thru the universe at approximately 16,000 mph, surrounded by billions of other speeding, spinning pebbles powdered with trillions of other specks of space dust. Cosmically speaking, everything we do may be futile.

    Making matters worse, our smallish, brief existences are regimented by petty, slavish vocational requirements, ludicrous societal expectations and frivolous material wants. Instead of living, we are preoccupied with “making” a living. Instead of making sure we have what we need, we obsess over getting what we want. Instead of being ourselves, we resign ourselves to being who weâ’re expected to be.

    Clearly, ours is what Socrates condemned as the unexamined life—and our political, religious and economic institutions are ill-fatedly designed to ensure that things stay that way. Camus simply pointed out the obvious.

    Much of our existence is absurd. Too much of it runs contrariwise to our own innate wisdom and natural integrity. We are asked to accept and resign ourselves to travesties and incongruities that every cell of our being cries out against, but we ignore our internal unrest and assume our ignorance is simply a fundamental step towards growing up, gaining maturity and mustering prudence. The utter inanity of our surrender is what makes things absurd, and this absurdity is what begs Camusâ’ heretical question. It doesnâ’t matter if we despise his claim or resent the resultant query. Once the proposition of life or death is boiled down to a simple value judgment, we are compelled to weigh in.

    Obviously, most of us weigh in affirmatively, quickly finding ways to justify our lives. Many rationales may be shallow or contrived, but theyâ’re safe and sustainable, and they allow us to function as conventionally productive individuals.

    On an individual level then, our answer to Camusâ’ question is a resounding “Yes.” Life is worth living. We teach it, we preach it and we cling to it. We live our lives as if thereâ’s more to us than meets the eye, as if thereâ’s a reason weâ’re here, as if we have something to contribute. We affirm our lives every day, from the minute we get out of bed to the moment we fall asleep.

    Unfortunately, even as we individually clamor to proclaim that life is worth living, we collectively indicate the opposite.

    Collectively, we live self-destructively as if life is not worth living, much less preserving. We poison and pollute our natural habitat for the sake of mass production and steeper profit margins. We squander our natural resources to maintain cultures of indulgence and material extravagance. We base our politics on greed and brutishness. We base our economics on carbon-based fuels and war-mongering. We mortgage our future well-being for instant gratifications, short-term gains, and perpetual modes of entertainment, leisure and general escapism.

    Surely, if we collectively believed life was worth living, weâ’d be interested in conserving and protecting our natural resources for future generations. Surely, if we collectively believed life was worth living, we wouldnâ’t allow our political representatives to obstruct progress on climate talks, emissions reductions and renewable energy. Surely, if we collectively believed life was worth living, weâ’d be more committed to getting to the bottom of extraordinary renditions, outed CIA agents, destroyed interrogation tapes, nonexistent WMDs, Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, Blackwater, etc.

    Surely, if we collectively believed life was worth living, the ruling economic elite wouldnâ’t be permitted to reduce the middle and lower classes to Capitalist-sanctioned wage slaves. Surely, if we collectively believed life was worth living, we wouldnâ’t have a healthcare system based on exclusion instead of inclusion. Surely, if we believed life was worth living, purchasing power wouldnâ’t be prized over conscience and the dollar wouldnâ’t be mightier than the pen. Surely, if we collectively believed life was worth living, we wouldnâ’t live as though we were specks of dust with no hope of making a difference.

    Surely, if we believed life was worth living, weâ’d live more deliberately, more accountably, more responsibly.

    Surely, if we believed life was worth living, weâ’d live more worthwhilely instead of selfishly, cynically and fatalistically.

    E. Bills is a writer from Ft. Worth, Texas. His work appears regularly in The Paper of South Texas, Fort Worth Weekly, etc. He can be reached at: Read other articles by E.R..

Leave a Reply