Solving Climate Change.

[RCSaunders]

The problem with magma energy technology is unlike r and d of bicycles, refrigerators, electric lights and most of those machineries. Magma energy is more comparable with the Victorian rebuilding of London sewerage, a huge project that could not be financed by a man, his family, and friends.

Really? Where exactly did the funds that financed the project come from? Certainly not out of the pockets of the politicians. And who actually did the work? Again, certainly not the politicians. And just why could not the real engineers and workers who actually planned, financed, and performed the work, not have done it without the politicians?

[RCSaunders]

The problem with magma energy technology is unlike r and d of bicycles, refrigerators, electric lights and most of those machineries. Magma energy is more comparable with the Victorian rebuilding of London sewerage, a huge project that could not be financed by a man, his family, and friends.

Really? Where exactly did the funds that financed the project come from? Certainly not out of the pockets of the politicians. And who actually did the work? Again, certainly not the politicians. And just why could not the real engineers and workers who actually planned, financed, and performed the work, not have done it without the politicians?

It doesn't really matter. If the only way something can be done is by forcing people who haven't chosen it to pay for it and forcing others who don't want it to do it, whatever you call it, it is slavery and oppression. It's how all the things government supposedly provides are done.

[RCSaunders]

I don't suppose the inventor of the refrigerator lost a lot of sleep about the iceman, or the inventor of the motorcar lost sleep about blacksmiths and farriers. Or the light bulb - and candlemakers etc, etc. The planet bursting into flames around us is telling us we need to move past fossil fuels. Magma energy can more than meet that demand - and they've known that for over 40 years.

This comment is not for the poster (Vitruvius), because his mind is already made up and it's not my business to change it.

You couldn't change my mind if you had a gun to my head.

But for others, who may read this comment and suspect there is something a bit off-kilter with it, the comparison between the successful development of past technology and the wishful thinking for not-yet developed technology is misleading. Refrigeration, automobiles, electric lighting, and almost all other successful technological developments did not come about as a result of political propaganda and programs,

That's incorrect. A lot of research and development is publicly funded. The university system, government grants, military tech, tax breaks, and so on at the R+D phase. As your post says nothing else, and is all based on that false premise, I've deleted the rest. You don't know what you're talking about which is why you can't change my mind. Don't waste your time taking pot shots at me - read something instead:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_re ... evelopment

Your continued evasions are not going to win you much support for your agenda.

Why not just be honest. You have no intention of developing "magma energy," technology yourself. You are just promoting the idea with the goal of instituting some program or policy that will make someone else develop and implement the technology. Just how would such a program be financed and executed? 1. It can be done as a private enterprise. 2. It will require some kind of government financed and regulated program.

Most people, including me, could support #1.
It will be difficult to either justify or gain much, if any, support for #2.

What's your plan?

[Belinda]

The problem with magma energy technology is unlike r and d of bicycles, refrigerators, electric lights and most of those machineries. Magma energy is more comparable with the Victorian rebuilding of London sewerage, a huge project that could not be financed by a man, his family, and friends.

Really? Where exactly did the funds that financed the project come from? Certainly not out of the pockets of the politicians. And who actually did the work? Again, certainly not the politicians. And just why could not the real engineers and workers who actually planned, financed, and performed the work, not have done it without the politicians?

Parliament financed engineer Bazalgette to build the sewerage system in London.

Parliament initially offered £2.5 million, somewhere between £240 million and over a billion pounds in today's values.

I think many Irish navvies did the digging and shovelling.

[Vitruvius]

I don't suppose the inventor of the refrigerator lost a lot of sleep about the iceman, or the inventor of the motorcar lost sleep about blacksmiths and farriers. Or the light bulb - and candlemakers etc, etc. The planet bursting into flames around us is telling us we need to move past fossil fuels. Magma energy can more than meet that demand - and they've known that for over 40 years.

This comment is not for the poster (Vitruvius), because his mind is already made up and it's not my business to change it.

You couldn't change my mind if you had a gun to my head.

But for others, who may read this comment and suspect there is something a bit off-kilter with it, the comparison between the successful development of past technology and the wishful thinking for not-yet developed technology is misleading. Refrigeration, automobiles, electric lighting, and almost all other successful technological developments did not come about as a result of political propaganda and programs,

That's incorrect. A lot of research and development is publicly funded. The university system, government grants, military tech, tax breaks, and so on at the R+D phase. As your post says nothing else, and is all based on that false premise, I've deleted the rest. You don't know what you're talking about which is why you can't change my mind. Don't waste your time taking pot shots at me - read something instead:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_re ... evelopment

Your continued evasions are not going to win you much support for your agenda.
Why not just be honest. You have no intention of developing "magma energy," technology yourself.

I would develop magma energy if I had the money to do so. Indeed, I'd feel obliged by Hardin's Tragedy of the Commons as a justification of my private holdings, to exploit a freely available resource to the max!

You are just promoting the idea with the goal of instituting some program or policy that will make someone else develop and implement the technology.

The first person I'd hire would be someone with a proven track record in project management. I'm a philosopher, because one can do philosophy with the nothing I've had for most of my life! I should have become a celebrity chef! They don't get this kind of grief.

Just how would such a program be financed and executed? 1. It can be done as a private enterprise. 2. It will require some kind of government financed and regulated program. Most people, including me, could support #1. It will be difficult to either justify or gain much, if any, support for #2. What's your plan?

I have suggested developing magma energy as a global good, initially employed specifically to tackle climate change by providing the raw power for carbon capture and storage, desalination, irrigation and recycling - while building capacity for a managed transition from fossil fuels, along the lines of a sectoral approach - with big energy users like steel, aluminium, cement, as whole industries - transitioning to magma energy, before going anywhere near things like transport. In this way, huge environmental gains can be achieved - without massive upfront infrastructure costs. And fossil fuel dependent economies have time to diversify.

[RCSaunders]

The problem with magma energy technology is unlike r and d of bicycles, refrigerators, electric lights and most of those machineries. Magma energy is more comparable with the Victorian rebuilding of London sewerage, a huge project that could not be financed by a man, his family, and friends.

Really? Where exactly did the funds that financed the project come from? Certainly not out of the pockets of the politicians. And who actually did the work? Again, certainly not the politicians. And just why could not the real engineers and workers who actually planned, financed, and performed the work, not have done it without the politicians?

Parliament financed engineer Bazalgette to build the sewerage system in London.

Parliament initially offered £2.5 million, somewhere between £240 million and over a billion pounds in today's values.

I think many Irish navvies did the digging and shovelling.

And Parliament found this money, where? Hanging on trees? By producing products and services it sold? (Ha ha) Or was is confiscated by means of taxes and tarifs, or, "borrowed," (bonds) from those who actually produced the wealth? In other words, the whole project was financed with stolen money and the thieves (Parliament) took credit for it.

[Belinda]

Really? Where exactly did the funds that financed the project come from? Certainly not out of the pockets of the politicians. And who actually did the work? Again, certainly not the politicians. And just why could not the real engineers and workers who actually planned, financed, and performed the work, not have done it without the politicians?

Parliament financed engineer Bazalgette to build the sewerage system in London.

Parliament initially offered £2.5 million, somewhere between £240 million and over a billion pounds in today's values.

I think many Irish navvies did the digging and shovelling.

And Parliament found this money, where? Hanging on trees? By producing products and services it sold? (Ha ha) Or was is confiscated by means of taxes and tarifs, or, "borrowed," (bonds) from those who actually produced the wealth? In other words, the whole project was financed with stolen money and the thieves (Parliament) took credit for it.

It was a civil project that saved many lives form cholera and other water borne diseases. Parliament gave the Metropolitan Board of Works permission to borrow three million pounds to finance the sewerage system. Bazalgette is still credited with the genius project.

[RCSaunders]

Just how would such a program be financed and executed? 1. It can be done as a private enterprise. 2. It will require some kind of government financed and regulated program. Most people, including me, could support #1. It will be difficult to either justify or gain much, if any, support for #2. What's your plan?

I have suggested developing magma energy as a global good, initially employed specifically to tackle climate change by providing the raw power for carbon capture and storage, desalination, irrigation and recycling - while building capacity for a managed transition from fossil fuels, along the lines of a sectoral approach - with big energy users like steel, aluminium, cement, as whole industries - transitioning to magma energy, before going anywhere near things like transport. In this way, huge environmental gains can be achieved - without massive upfront infrastructure costs. And fossil fuel dependent economies have time to diversify.

I think its clear what you have suggested. The question is, who is going to do it and who pays for it. The idea is just a pipe dream until it includes the a method of actually implementing it. If no one chooses to finance such a project or actually develop it voluntarily, it's just not going to happen. My question is, are you willing to settle for that, or would you advocate for some government to put the program over, if you could.

[Vitruvius]

Just how would such a program be financed and executed? 1. It can be done as a private enterprise. 2. It will require some kind of government financed and regulated program. Most people, including me, could support #1. It will be difficult to either justify or gain much, if any, support for #2. What's your plan?

I have suggested developing magma energy as a global good, initially employed specifically to tackle climate change by providing the raw power for carbon capture and storage, desalination, irrigation and recycling - while building capacity for a managed transition from fossil fuels, along the lines of a sectoral approach - with big energy users like steel, aluminium, cement, as whole industries - transitioning to magma energy, before going anywhere near things like transport. In this way, huge environmental gains can be achieved - without massive upfront infrastructure costs. And fossil fuel dependent economies have time to diversify.

I think its clear what you have suggested. The question is, who is going to do it and who pays for it. The idea is just a pipe dream until it includes the a method of actually implementing it. If no one chooses to finance such a project or actually develop it voluntarily, it's just not going to happen. My question is, are you willing to settle for that, or would you advocate for some government to put the program over, if you could.

The costs, shared between nations attending COP26 would be negligible. It would be tens of billions, but that's not a lot of money shared between nations, and it's the least expensive option on the table. The whole approach was designed to be the least disruptive, least expensive, most effective approach - one that sustains continued prosperity, while heading off the enormous costs of escalating climate emergencies.

Obviously, if no-one chooses to finance it, it won't happen. I would not settle for it per se - but I would wash my hands of this miserable business, and go enjoy my remaining years on this dying planet. I almost quit when I found out they've known about magma energy for over 40 years; because that is inexplicable. I don't know how, as a species we have managed to paint ourselves into such a corner. They say, never ascribe to malice, that which can be explained by stupidity, and I've operated on that axiom - offering a good idea at the right time, but they already knew there was limitless clean energy available from magma. I can't explain that.

If it were just me, and some rogue academic like Wilson Clarke - who discussed this in his encyclopaedia of energy technologies entitled 'Energy for Survival: the Alternative to Extinction' (1972) I could see how one book among millions gets ignored, but a seven year study conducted by NASA? I'm running out of excuses for that oversight. If they refuse to develop magma energy now, when it's blatantly obvious we are in a global emergency situation I will ascribe it to the malice of doom monkeys, conclude we deserve the heap of cosmic justice coming our way - and go do something less boring instead!

[Belinda]

RCSaunders, I agree with Vitruvius.

It's too expensive for a private enterprise which has to look to its shareholders, and so it must be financed by governments which represent one way or another all the people and peoples who will benefit. The cable between Norway and Northumberland is an example of international cooperation for mutual benefit.

[Vitruvius]

Greenpeace loses North Sea Vorlich field legal challenge

Environmental group Greenpeace has lost its case against the UK government over a North Sea oil field permit. Permission to drill the Vorlich site off Aberdeen was given to BP in 2018. Greenpeace argued in Scotland's highest civil court there had been "a myriad of failures in the public consultation" and the permit did not consider the climate impacts of burning fossil fuel. The Court of Session ruling means operations will continue at the field. Greenpeace plans to appeal.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland- ... d-58828308

This is interesting, but not in the way one might think. On the surface of things it looks like an environmental campaign group has had its case summarily dismissed by the Court of Sessions. (The Scottish High Court) But when you read the ruling that's not what happened at all. It's quite complicated - so stick with me.

The case was first brought in the High Court in England, and Greenpeace lost that case. The statutory authority in Scotland granted the permit, and the project proceeded. Then Greenpeace went to Scotland and appealed to the Court of Sessions, arguing that the statutory authority in Scotland had failed to take into account the emissions that would be caused by the gas and oil produced.

The problem for the Scottish High Court is that the English High Court had already ruled on that question, and Greenpeace had failed to appeal that decision in the English Court. So in short, Greenpeace failure to appeal the case in the English Courts - and seek injunctions to prevent the project going ahead, handed the statutory authority in Scotland an excuse to ignore their legal obligation to take account of the emissions that would be produced by the oil and gas when issuing the permit, and put the Court of Sessions in the difficult, if not impossible position and having to over-rule the English High court - which they rightly refused to do.

Res Jurisdicta - it has already been ruled upon by a competent court.

So Greenpeace get to shake their tin and it's win win - except for the environment. To my mind, Greenpeace have become and insider group and should not be trusted. Their failure to appeal the decision in England is worse than inexcusable; it's complicit - in that it absolved the statutory authority in Scotland from their obligations. And yet the headline reads like Greenpeace put a brave fight, and were treated unfairly. Greenpeace plans to appeal with your money - they'll come shaking their in your direction to finance another pre-doomed legal stunt any day now. I'd advise you keep the pound in your pocket - you're gonna need it!

[RCSaunders]

RCSaunders, I agree with Vitruvius.

That's nice, and all that really matters.

[Belinda]

RCSaunders, I agree with Vitruvius.

That's nice, and all that really matters.

That is a lie and well you know it! I have another, longer, paragraph in he same post that explains why I agree. We need public works when we are living in large cooperative groups such as nations and large towns, and cities.

[Vitruvius]

RCSaunders, I agree with Vitruvius.

That's nice, and all that really matters.

That is a lie and well you know it! I have another, longer, paragraph in he same post that explains why I agree. We need public works when we are living in large cooperative groups such as nations and large towns, and cities.

And I would argue, the world. Climate change is a global problem, and solving in one country is not solving it. That's part of the reason I suggest developing magma energy as a global good, used initially to address climate change directly through carbon capture, desalination, irrigation and recycling. Saw this video today:

Fast fashion: The dumping ground for unwanted clothes
Thomas Naadi BBC Africa
Fashion brands are overproducing to meet the demands of modern trends and countries in West Africa are drowning under the weight of waste shipped to their shores every week.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-africa-58836618

Some of it is good for resale, but what's leftover just gets dumped, and the landfill is miles long and sliding into the sea. If they had magma energy they could recycle all that unwanted stuff, render it down, and use it to make all sorts of things like insulation, plant pots, bicycle tires, anything. But without plentiful clean energy to process it, that externality cannot be internalised - and rather than an opportunity, causes an environmental catastrophe.

[RCSaunders]

RCSaunders, I agree with Vitruvius.

That's nice, and all that really matters.

That is a lie and well you know it!

Your really have a classy way of dealing with others.

I have another, longer, paragraph in he same post that explains why I agree. We need public works when we are living in large cooperative groups such as nations and large towns, and cities.

Have all the public works you want. If you're comfortable taking people's hard-earned money from them by force (or threat of it) to finance your pet Utopian projects, I certainly won't interfere. Your schemes will work out just well as all statist schemes do, just as well as they have in Cuba and Venezuela.