Quote from: jupiviv on Apr 15, 2024, 02:31 AMWe appear to be having ourselves an online debate even if I didn't ask for one.

Here on the Diner you don't have to ask for a debate in order for one to pop into existence out of the infinite pool of ideas out in the ether waiting to be explored by curious sentient life forms, in this case homo saps.  It's the distinguishing feature of Diner participation.  So are disagreements on core beliefs and periodic napalm contests where members involved in a particularly heated disagreement devolve into ad hom argument and language usage generally not considered acceptable in a court of law or formal debate according to Robert's Rules.    I try to maintain order when things get out of hand.  So far, you guys are doing fine, just a reminder to stay cool.

RE

Quote from: jupiviv on Apr 15, 2024, 03:18 AMTo answer your question, democratic management is necessarily rational.

I haven't found that to be true, since a democracy is composed of people and people aren't always rational.  In fact, as often as not they are irrational, governed by emotions and seduced by their appetites.  They are easily habituated and addiction prone.  The are not created equal in many respects, from physical attributes like size and strength to a range of intelligence that goes from dumb as rocks to theoretical physicists and social, religious and mystical philosophers.  They have hormonal differences that make some incredibly aggressive and others ridiculously passive.  Half carry & birth new ones, the other half doesn't. Some are followers who if you don't tell the to tie their shoes they will trip every day, others are leaders who won't do anything anybody else tells them to do.  etc, etc, etc.

Democracy tends to fail because of all of these inequalities, and you can't legislate them out of existence.  The larger and more complex the society becomes, the greater becomes the problems inherent in all these differences.  Our genetic evolution and reproductive strategy is closest to Bonobos, and anthropologically speaking, the best we ever did on a social level was as small groups of Hunter-Gatherers.  With the advent of agriculture and large civilizations, a whole slew of moral imperatives, rules and social structures have evolved to keep these unwieldy size groupings of people organized, and all of them are flawed.  The Nation State was bad enough, Globalism has made it totally unsustainable.  Most of the problems we have as a society actually predate industrialization and Marx, they go back to the dawn of civilization in prehistoric times.

Far as my claims for what human nature is, it is to live as Bonobos do.  But ya can't do that with 8 Billion people infesting every square inch of habitable land.  If were going to have a society of Homo Saps that accurately reflects human nature, we'll need a serious reduction in population.

RE

Quote from: jupiviv on Apr 15, 2024, 03:18 AMThe majority of people aren't choosing to do anything with fossil fuels........ Why wouldn't they choose to rationally manage fossil fuels, population etc?

Excellent point. 

The way we live our lives is dictated by culture and power.  As citizens we are dis-empowered.  With isolating technologies now deployed to make sure people only connect in ways power finds acceptable.

A tax on carbon paid to all citizens (with which they can buy anything they want) What would happen?

This dog would make sure I spend less on carbon.  I would want to use less than average so I have tax money left to invest on happiness.

Others would ENVY the prosperity of my ways.

A low carbon lifestyle would become socially acceptable and common.  There would be a cascade effect. Low carbon would become a thing. All this would happen from a tax on carbon that gets distributed as a UBI.

Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 16, 2024, 12:34 AMA tax on carbon paid to all citizens (with which they can buy anything they want) What would happen?

Although I agree a Carbon tax is an essential component of reducing consumption of FFs, like all end-user sales taxes it's highly regressive and hits low income people much harder than it does the rich.  Fuel for transpotation to work and home heating consumes a much larger percentage of a min wage worker than it does a CEO.  While the Starbucks barrista may not be able to afford gas for the beater he drives to work to serve lattes to the CEO, the CEO will still easily have plenty of money to buy fuel for his Private Jet to fly down to Brazil for afternoon coffee break and have his coffee brewed from beans recently picked and roasted on his plantation just outside of Rio.

How would you structure the carbon tax scheme to in a progressive manner so that it hits the rich harder than the poor?



RE

QuoteAlthough I agree a Carbon tax is an essential component of reducing consumption of FFs, like all end-user sales taxes it's highly regressive and hits low income people much harder than it does the rich.  Fuel for transpotation to work and home heating consumes a much larger percentage of a min wage worker than it does a CEO.  While the Starbucks barrista may not be able to afford gas for the beater he drives to work to serve lattes to the CEO, the CEO will still easily have plenty of money to buy fuel for his Private Jet to fly down to Brazil for afternoon coffee break and have his coffee brewed from beans recently picked and roasted on his plantation just outside of Rio.

I am going to be blunt.  I thought you had a brain.  You totally do not understand how CARBON DIVIDENDS work and how they are fundamentally different than a CARBON TAX. 

You have not bothered to do any research on the subject.  If you had you would know they are fundamentally different.

If you don't like me being so blunt, too bad.  If I am not blunt about this then you (concerning this idea) are no better than a troll who comes in and throws a hand grenade into this discussion.

Get clear on this.  What you call a 'tax' is collected at the point of origin AND NOWHERE ELSE. This is an iron clad rule of carbon dividends.  This way all proceeds are passed on to all people equally.  As it can only be collected at the point of carbon extraction carbon dividends cannot be an actual tax.  It is impossible to itemize carbon dividends on a receipt.  Taxes can always be visible.

Iron clad rule number one, essential for equal distribution of dividends.

Second rule, you can't call carbon dividends a tax.  GOVERNMENT DOES NOT GET THE MONEY.  Tax money always goes to the government. 

Carbon dividends never do.  The money is EQUALLY DISTRIBUTED TO ALL CITIZENS. 

Iron clad rule number two, essential for equal distribution of dividends.

This second rule makes sure the final math is not fucked up so pay attention. 

If your CEO fuels his private jet and carbon dividends have added $250 dollars on the cost of an hours flight the CEO is going to get $125 dollars BACK into his personal account.  On which he will pay income tax.  Unearned riches transferred from the corporation to the rich, the horror you think?  Like that never happens?  Relax there is more.

THE BARISTA GETS THE OTHER $125. On which they too will pay income tax if they manage to make more than the standard deduction, which AS A BARISTA they will not!

This is not a new idea.  The man on the right (Robin Hood) had a similar idea centuries ago.  He too started collecting 'tax'.  For the government of the people.

Calling carbon dividends a 'tax' makes sense insofar as it is money collected by the government.  But there any similarity ENDS.

Carbon dividend is not a 'tax", as the money  DOES NOT GOT TO GOVERNMENT.  None of it.  No sixty-forty split, nothing to fuck up the math of the final distribution checks. 

Back to the weekly distribution.  The barista only spent $80 for the week on gas.  The Barista only paid $12 extra because of what was taken by collecting the carbon dividend when the oil came out of the ground.

The fucker who flew in the private jet is going to get $6 from the barista, and the barista is going to get $6 back.

Now add it up.  Both the CEO and the barista get a weekly distribution.  Your troll comment:

QuoteFuel for transpotation to work and home heating consumes a much larger percentage of a min wage worker than it does a CEO.

Is irrelevant.  Percentage here is without any relevance at all.  What matters here is that the barista will always use less fuel than the CEO.  They pay less and get more back than they pay in.

$125 + $6 = $131

The barista only spent $80 on gas but got $131.  That is $51 ahead and the barista will be able to get a coffee at AM PM and a $2 chocolate twist on their way to work every day FOR FREE.

And so will I.



* Some say citizen assemblies would determine the tax rate.  Iron clad rule three.

** The cost of the fuel in the private jet was about $1670.00 A 15% carbon dividend was collected in that total.

*** To all Putin haters.  Hope Putin does not find out about Carbon Dividends and order that all Russians get one.

**** The CEO spent his $125 on cheap sex, got a disease from it.  Then he wound up getting a divorce.

Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 16, 2024, 11:52 AMThe man on the right (Robin Hood) had a similar idea centuries ago.  He too started collecting 'tax'.

Blunt is fine, and no I haven't done any research on it which was WHY I asked you to elaborate.  Really, take a chill pill.  The BOLD and Big Fonts are wholly unnecessary.

Still not clear on how it works. When does Robin Hood steal the money?  From who does he steal it?  How did the person RH steals the money get it? All the money collected over the year by RH from this person/entity is thrown into a pile divided equally among all citizens?  Does that include all the kids also?

RE

The money is taken at the wellhead.  At first sale.  If a dollar worth of oil is pulled out of the ground a percentage of value is taken.  The percentage determined by a citizens assembly.  After that the cost is simply passed on as markup in the distribution chain. 

The money is equally distributed and kids get a percentage starting at 16.  Younger kids don't use gasoline or diesel, and the money needs go to people who use oil products.  Young kids are excluded.  They do not buy anything.

The users of oil products need to use their part of the payout to offset the extra cost that must be passed on after collecting the dividend.  The point of the dividend is to compensate the average user for now more expensive gasoline or whatever carbon product they are addicted to.  If everyone used the same amount of carbon, carbon dividends would do absolutely nothing.

But some people use more fossil fuel products than others do.  Those who use more wind up giving money to people who use less.  That is the whole point of carbon dividends, and why money should not be given to citizens too young to drive.  Age 16 makes sense for a lot of reasons as the starting age.  Younger kids use fossil fuel products, but adults pay for them.

It is essential that all the money collected be equally distributed.  The point is to make carbon dividends invisible to the average user.  But those who use more fossil fuel products than average will pay more because they use more.  People who use less than average essentially get a small UBI.

The barista who only rides the bus makes bank.  She only pays a slightly higher bus fare. 

Homeless people get the most money from Carbon Dividends.  Maybe enough to keep them fed and in a good tent.  A lot better than the fuck all they get now.

Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 16, 2024, 11:52 AM

QuoteFuel for transpotation to work and home heating consumes a much larger percentage of a min wage worker than it does a CEO.

Is irrelevant.  Percentage here is without any relevance at all.  What matters here is that the barista will always use less fuel than the CEO.  They pay less and get more back than they pay in.

$125 + $6 = $131

The barista only spent $80 on gas but got $131.  That is $51 ahead and the barista will be able to get a coffee at AM PM and a $2 chocolate twist on their way to work every day FOR FREE.

This works only if there is a CEO for every J6P, but there isn't.  10,000 J6Ps pay in the tax on the $80/wk of gas for every 1 CEO that pays in tax on $1670 in jet fuel.  Lets use round numbers now to make the calculations easier.  Say it's $100 for the gas & $2000 for the jet fuel.  Make the tax 10%.  Each J6P pays $10 X 10,000 J6Ps = $100,000.  CEO pays $200 in tax.  Total Revenue = $100,200.  When the tax is returned, each person gets $100,200/10,001 people, or >$10 but <$10.01 back.  The CEO has paid $200, each J6P received less than a penny more than they paid in.  Granted, the scheme doesn't cost J6P any more money, but nobody's getting rich on their carbon dividend here.  Nor will the CEO be too worried about spending $200 extra for his jet fuel.  You also have to pay the bureaucrats running this scheme.

If I missed something here, please lemme know without the big fonts.  I still may not understand how it's supposed to work correctly.

RE

Quote from: RE on Apr 17, 2024, 01:43 AMIf I missed something here, please lemme know without the big fonts.  I still may not understand how it's supposed to work correctly.

RE

While it is true that most carbon taxes are regressive, there is one carbon pricing policy that is actually anti-regressive and helps lower income people the most. It's called Fee and Dividend and it is quite simple: A fee is collected from fossil fuel companies at the point where fossil fuels enter the domestic market — at the mine, well or port of entry. The fee starts small — about $15 per ton of carbon dioxide embedded in the fuel – and goes up $10 every year.

What does that mean for consumers? By the time it reaches $100 per ton, the fee will raise gasoline prices 90 cents per gallon. It will also raise the price of every product or activity that relies on fossil fuels. This higher price will spur development of low carbon energy and products made with little or no fossil fuels, driving a transition to a clean energy economy.

Here is the key to Fee and Dividend: The money collected — every penny — is distributed as a dividend to all legal residents on an equal basis. You and Bill Gates get the same amount, received every month in your bank account, or on a debit card if you have no bank. The dividend will be substantial — a $100 per ton carbon fee with today's fossil fuel use translates to about $5,500 per year for a family of four — a significant sum for lower income Americans.

Because wealthy people generate much more carbon dioxide than poor or middle-class people do, the dividend for almost all lower income people will exceed the increased prices they pay due to the carbon fee. In fact, the U.S. Treasury Department estimates that the bottom 70 percent of households by income will make money under Fee and Dividend, with the poorest having the biggest increase. The top 30 percent of households will pay more in higher prices than they get in the dividend, but it won't be a big relative cost for them. 

source: JAMES E. HANSEN

Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 17, 2024, 11:30 AM

Quote from: RE on Apr 17, 2024, 01:43 AMIf I missed something here, please lemme know without the big fonts.  I still may not understand how it's supposed to work correctly.

RE

While it is true that most carbon taxes are regressive, there is one carbon pricing policy that is actually anti-regressive and helps lower income people the most. It's called Fee and Dividend and it is quite simple: A fee is collected from fossil fuel companies at the point where fossil fuels enter the domestic market — at the mine, well or port of entry. The fee starts small — about $15 per ton of carbon dioxide embedded in the fuel – and goes up $10 every year.

What does that mean for consumers? By the time it reaches $100 per ton, the fee will raise gasoline prices 90 cents per gallon. It will also raise the price of every product or activity that relies on fossil fuels. This higher price will spur development of low carbon energy and products made with little or no fossil fuels, driving a transition to a clean energy economy.

Here is the key to Fee and Dividend: The money collected — every penny — is distributed as a dividend to all legal residents on an equal basis. You and Bill Gates get the same amount, received every month in your bank account, or on a debit card if you have no bank. The dividend will be substantial — a $100 per ton carbon fee with today's fossil fuel use translates to about $5,500 per year for a family of four — a significant sum for lower income Americans.

Because wealthy people generate much more carbon dioxide than poor or middle-class people do, the dividend for almost all lower income people will exceed the increased prices they pay due to the carbon fee. In fact, the U.S. Treasury Department estimates that the bottom 70 percent of households by income will make money under Fee and Dividend, with the poorest having the biggest increase. The top 30 percent of households will pay more in higher prices than they get in the dividend, but it won't be a big relative cost for them. 

source: JAMES E. HANSEN

Well, I get the concept there to make it antiregressive and transfer money from the rich to the poor, but I would have to see the way the money distributes out, and my sense is that the estra cost will not affect Bill Gates at all, obviously he can pay anything you could charge.

For the really poor who make less than $50K year, an extra $5K will be a nice bonus if they drive 0 miles, and don't take public transport, but few are that low in carbon footprint.

The average person with average income driving average miles will end up even at zero.

As you move outward on the curve away from the median, above average consumers would pay more and get back less on a scale going from 0--->$5500  Below average $5500-->0.  Basically it would be a reversion to the mean with some above average income people spending less, but past a certain income they don't give a shit.  Lower income people would get a bonus, but would probably use the money to take a vacation or burn carbon in some other way.

So, bottom line I still don't see it reducing consumption all that much.

RE

Quote from: RE on Apr 15, 2024, 04:13 AM

Quote from: jupiviv on Apr 15, 2024, 02:31 AMWe appear to be having ourselves an online debate even if I didn't ask for one.

Here on the Diner you don't have to ask for a debate in order for one to pop into existence out of the infinite pool of ideas out in the ether waiting to be explored by curious sentient life forms, in this case homo saps.  It's the distinguishing feature of Diner participation.  So are disagreements on core beliefs and periodic napalm contests where members involved in a particularly heated disagreement devolve into ad hom argument and language usage generally not considered acceptable in a court of law or formal debate according to Robert's Rules.    I try to maintain order when things get out of hand.  So far, you guys are doing fine, just a reminder to stay cool.

RE

I get it but was caught off guard by this particular disagreement, which is mea culpa for reading the title as being critical of Malm & co in the same way I tend to be.

Quote from: RE on Apr 15, 2024, 04:55 AM

Quote from: jupiviv on Apr 15, 2024, 03:18 AMTo answer your question, democratic management is necessarily rational.

I haven't found that to be true, since a democracy is composed of people and people aren't always rational.  In fact, as often as not they are irrational, governed by emotions and seduced by their appetites.  They are easily habituated and addiction prone.  The are not created equal in many respects, from physical attributes like size and strength to a range of intelligence that goes from dumb as rocks to theoretical physicists and social, religious and mystical philosophers.  They have hormonal differences that make some incredibly aggressive and others ridiculously passive.  Half carry & birth new ones, the other half doesn't. Some are followers who if you don't tell the to tie their shoes they will trip every day, others are leaders who won't do anything anybody else tells them to do.  etc, etc, etc.

Democracy tends to fail because of all of these inequalities, and you can't legislate them out of existence.  The larger and more complex the society becomes, the greater becomes the problems inherent in all these differences.  Our genetic evolution and reproductive strategy is closest to Bonobos, and anthropologically speaking, the best we ever did on a social level was as small groups of Hunter-Gatherers.  With the advent of agriculture and large civilizations, a whole slew of moral imperatives, rules and social structures have evolved to keep these unwieldy size groupings of people organized, and all of them are flawed.  The Nation State was bad enough, Globalism has made it totally unsustainable.  Most of the problems we have as a society actually predate industrialization and Marx, they go back to the dawn of civilization in prehistoric times.

Far as my claims for what human nature is, it is to live as Bonobos do.  But ya can't do that with 8 Billion people infesting every square inch of habitable land.  If were going to have a society of Homo Saps that accurately reflects human nature, we'll need a serious reduction in population.

RE

Human nature is what human society makes of it, hence not really human nature. The alternative view, yours, is to bring in a third factor which in the post 19th century world tends to be some combination of 1> genes 2> culture and ideology, ie culture/ideology sublimated out of social determinations (at least the direct material/economic kind). I disagree, but without erring in the opposite direction. Those things can and do affect what people become, but I'm unaware of any compelling evidence or theory indicating they override or at any rate function independently of socio-economic constraints and incentives.

Most of the bio/gene stuff was soundly debunked in the 70s and 80s by people like Stephen Jay Gould. The debates today are derivatives of derivatives of the original. We know that genes are not blueprints, that individual genes have diverse expressions across the whole phenotype, and also that Mendelian inheritance patterns only work as they should in theory for artificially regulated and purified lineages.

All of this is uninteresting to me because reality itself as I see it flatly contradicts it, especially through the lens of Marxism + resource-constraint-based analysis that I subscribe to. It is blatantly clear that the standard of what human nature entails is overwhelmingly determined by the given social structure. For example, the slave-based ancient societies thought slaves were naturally inferior to slave-owners, or the members of a powerful genos/clan/tribe superior to weaker ones. Nowadays no one thinks like that, not only because it's considered immoral but also because it doesn't fit in with how this society works. Even human traffickers are just trying to make a buck, same as everyone.

You're expressing the logic of decadent bourgeois liberalism when you postulate an impartial biological lottery, combined with a substratum of flawed human nature being the downfall of civilizations throughout history. If you'd lived in the middle ages, these ideas would have been incoherent (e.g the idea of 'history' as we use it simply did not exist back then). To sum up, your opinion on innate human nature is itself a product of socially determined human nature. Funny ain't it?

I find much more interesting your statement that most of the problems of society predate capitalism/industry. This I absolutely agree with. Capitalism is just the latest, greatest manifestation of the rule of alienated wealth over society. Capital is the transhistorical contradiction and capitalism (wage-based profit accumulation), feudalism, slavery etc are the historically progressive stages or forms. Marx himself acknowledged and wrote about this. His magnum opus is after all Capital, not Capitalism.

Anyway, so regardless of the changing structure, the social metabolism has always been rooted in the contradictory metabolism between mankind and nature. To be human is to be conscious of pain, death and scarcity. But that means the contradiction existed ever since humans attained consciousness and was always going to progress towards larger more complex forms of organization capable of manipulating nature in the service of human needs.

This is where the collapse angle is useful. Maybe things just didn't line up the right way for it to reach the stage of (real) democracy. After all capitalism did not develop equally all over the world. It developed in Europe/N America who were insatiable parasites on the global south, which developed only later on and within the severe constraints imposed by the effects of said parasitism. The ability of imperialist countries to stabilise their domestic class antagonisms, combined with discovery of cheaper-than-free oil in the colonial and settler-colonial regions has prolonged capitalism far beyond its historically tenable limits. Marx and Engels predicted socialism--->communism within 50 years, which didn't happen despite the USSR. Even Lenin thought W Europe would be socialist by 1925. Nothing worked out like it should have, and there's no certainty it will this time around.

Hunting-gathering could well be the future... although the level of destruction it would take to get there is likely to cause extinction, not to mention lingering effects of industrial civ like pollution bio-diversity loss and radiation with no means to ameliorate let alone erase them. But even if it happens, it cannot be the solution cus if it was we wouldn't have come to this point to begin with. And it still wouldn't be caused by 'human nature'.

Quote from: K-Dog on Apr 16, 2024, 12:34 AM

Quote from: jupiviv on Apr 15, 2024, 03:18 AMThe majority of people aren't choosing to do anything with fossil fuels........ Why wouldn't they choose to rationally manage fossil fuels, population etc?

Excellent point. 

The way we live our lives is dictated by culture and power.  As citizens we are dis-empowered.  With isolating technologies now deployed to make sure people only connect in ways power finds acceptable.

A tax on carbon paid to all citizens (with which they can buy anything they want) What would happen?

This dog would make sure I spend less on carbon.  I would want to use less than average so I have tax money left to invest on happiness.

Others would ENVY the prosperity of my ways.

A low carbon lifestyle would become socially acceptable and common.  There would be a cascade effect. Low carbon would become a thing. All this would happen from a tax on carbon that gets distributed as a UBI.

My problem with these types of ideas is they're always premissed on a 'this far but no further' technocratic logic. Who is defining carbon footprint, what part of that is taxed, and in whose interest? If you say by and for the people, well in that case they would skip this roundabout system of economic redistribution and just organize in a way that minimizes unnecessary surplus/waste. Rainfed tropical land gets less fertilizer than irrigated temperate land unless the added surplus is useful/can be distributed at reasonable energy cost. At that level of international working class coordination production will be centrally directed (just like now). No need to punish/incentivize owners of production, as if that has ever actually helped the mass of producers.

Currently we have nice companies making up reasons for why they're green, then selling the carbon credits they've earned to the naughty companies who can't afford to pretend. Judging by your description I don't see how carbon dividends will work any better under this system. And under a democratic system they'd be unnecessary.

Quote from: jupiviv on Apr 22, 2024, 01:31 AMHuman nature is what human society makes of it, hence not really human nature.

That is a circular argument I won't bother giving any credibility to by debating it.

QuoteThe alternative view, yours, is to bring in a third factor which in the post 19th century world tends to be some combination of 1> genes 2> culture and ideology, ie culture/ideology sublimated out of social determinations (at least the direct material/economic kind). I disagree, but without erring in the opposite direction. Those things can and do affect what people become, but I'm unaware of any compelling evidence or theory indicating they override or at any rate function independently of socio-economic constraints and incentives.

Lack of anybody else proposing a theory has never been an impediment for me, I just make my own theories based on what I observe in behavior, both in the animal kingdom and in human society.  There are analogues all over the place in survival strategies for different species, and homo saps demonstrate many of them at different times under different circumstances.  Stockholm Syndrome is a classic example, where captives come to identify with their captors.  Imprinting is another, catch a child early enough in development al sorts of odd behaviors can manifest later.  And so on and so forth.  All of these macro effects come from associations made in the brain by neurons, all mediated by connections that are genetically determined at birth, then react to stimuli along the way.  More or less of various neurotransmitters get produced, further developing a given personality.  Depending of the nature of the environment, it will develop in many different ways.  Your example of slaves in a slave society would be one of a myriad of possible outcomes.  All I am saying is that generally we were most successful as a species under the least complex social organizations.  That would be the baseline of human nature.  All the rest are environmental factors determined by therule set and organization of the society.

QuoteMost of the bio/gene stuff was soundly debunked in the 70s and 80s by people like Stephen Jay Gould. The debates today are derivatives of derivatives of the original. We know that genes are not blueprints, that individual genes have diverse expressions across the whole phenotype, and also that Mendelian inheritance patterns only work as they should in theory for artificially regulated and purified lineages.

All genes do is code for proteins.  We really have no clue how genes program the shysiological structure of the body or brain, why we have 5 fingers and toes, opposed thumbs, a large cerebral cortex, blah blah, but we know all Homo Saps have them unless their genetic code is wickedly messed up.  All our brains are built in basically the same way and respond to stimuli the same way.  Human nature begins inside this structure and is circumscribed by it.  It is genetic, we are born with it before ever being exposed to language or social structures.  Once we pop out of somebody's vagina, we each begin to develop inside that social setting, so thereafter things can change quite a bit.  We nevertheless still have the structure and neuroons and transmitter system we were born with no matter what.  It can and does adapt and change along the way, sometimes irrevocably.  That doesn't mean there isn't a best or at least better set of social conditions for that brain to operate.

QuoteYou're expressing the logic of decadent bourgeois liberalism when you postulate an impartial biological lottery, combined with a substratum of flawed human nature being the downfall of civilizations throughout history. If you'd lived in the middle ages, these ideas would have been incoherent (e.g the idea of 'history' as we use it simply did not exist back then). To sum up, your opinion on innate human nature is itself a product of socially determined human nature. Funny ain't it?

Now you're devolving into ad hom argument, name calling me as a "decadent bourgeois liberal".  I thought that kind of nonsense went out of style in the 1920s.  Shall I retaliate and call you a commie pinko leftist?  I don't live in the Middle Ages, evidenced by the fact they didn't have the internet back then.  Obviously I argue based on what I know about the world and biology, behavior and neurochemistry based on stuff that has been elucidated over the last few hundred years.  If you consider scientific knowledge to be bourgeois, I plead guilty.

QuoteHunting-gathering could well be the future... although the level of destruction it would take to get there is likely to cause extinction, not to mention lingering effects of industrial civ like pollution bio-diversity loss and radiation with no means to ameliorate let alone erase them. But even if it happens, it cannot be the solution cus if it was we wouldn't have come to this point to begin with. And it still wouldn't be caused by 'human nature'.

Don't know if it will be the future or the solution, I never said it would be.  I merely said it was the type of organization we were most successful with as a species.  Would it necessarily lead to the same outcome if we did end up returning to that style of living?  No, it can't, because fossil fuels were a onne time shot for homo saps, the earth won't have time to collect them up again for another round of burning.  Also, surviving Homo Saps would not be the same as the original cro-magnons that bootstrapped up from stone tools.  Some knowledge gained over the millenia will persist.  It's not definitive that the same mistakes would be repeated if there is enough left for 1000 breeding pairs to survive this knockdown, as there were 75,000 years ago.

Neither of us will be around to find out thoough, so it's a moot point.

RE

Biofuels Will Be A Key Part Of The Net-Zero Solution.


Imagine a world where jets fly around the planet on fuel sourced from plants, replacing fossil fuels at cost parity, all without displacing huge amounts of forest land and animal life.

Today, such a fantasy probably seems as distant as Mars. Biofuel, which is a type of renewable energy made from living matter, makes up just 10% of U.S. gasoline, mostly in the form of ethanol. Ethanol made from corn provides the equivalent of about 1 million barrels of oil per day, according to Daniel Schrag, a professor of public policy, environmental science and engineering at Harvard University. It's far from enough: the U.S. uses 20 million barrels of oil per day.

"But you can't grow 20 times as much corn to actually eliminate oil from our energy system," Schrag points out. While many motor vehicles will become electrified in the long run, "what you need is oil for the rest of the demand, such as from trucks, ships, and airplanes. There's a big debate about what that winning technology will be."

Environmentalists contend * that the fuel of the future should be green hydrogen energy, which is produced by splitting water into hydrogen and oxygen using renewable electricity and is neutral in carbon emissions. However, the costs are too high to be competitive with fossil fuels for the foreseeable future and experts acknowledge it is not an immediate next step in transitioning the economy to a cleaner fuel source.
"If we're going to replace petroleum and avoid really catastrophic climate change, biofuels will be part of the solution," Schrag says. "The challenge is to make biofuels with the lowest cost and the lowest land use footprint."

To realize the vision of carbon-neutral aviation, there are outstanding questions that must be solved: What's the best organic source material of the fuel? Wood chips, agricultural waste, crops? What's the yield, and at what cost? And what's the final product?

While there's still a long way to go, the good news is that innovative companies are working on the problem and making progress.

An established player in the space is Poet, the largest producer of ethanol in the world. A privately held company, Poet, based in South Dakota, buys about seven percent of the industrial corn grown in the U.S. and produces three billion gallons of ethanol annually. They have 34 bioprocessing facilities in eight states that produce ethanol, animal feed, and other products.

Doug Berven, Vice President of Corporate Affairs at Poet, sees "tremendous potential" for agricultural products like ethanol to underpin a significant shift from fossil fuels to renewables.

The current blend rate – the percent of ethanol per gallon of gasoline – is 10% in the U.S. That reduces the price per gallon roughly 40 cents, while also reducing particulate emissions in the air. Berven says it's possible to scale up to 15% without planting any more corn. That's because advances in seed technology and farmer tools are allowing for greater yield, even as climate and growing conditions are less than ideal.

Not that anyone expects ethanol to replace or eliminate fossil fuels – but more biofuels per gallon are beneficial for both the planet and consumers. Berven says that a 15% blend rate would reduce the price at the pump another 10 cents to a dollar per gallon as well as secure a dependable domestic market for America's corn farmers.

Berven sees the latter point as key for scaling biofuels in developing countries * . Right now, it's cheaper in Kenya, for example, to import corn rather than grow it. However, by enhancing agricultural practices with better seeds and practices, Berven says, they could increase their yield up to nine times and service an "untapped" market for ethanol with their excess grain.

"Biofuels are a catalyst for successful agriculture, and successful agriculture is the key to solving the globe's most pressing issues with hunger and energy," says Berven.

Another company tapping into an agricultural resource for biofuel is CoverCress Inc. (CCI), which was originally a Leaps portfolio company that later became majority owned by Bayer together with Bunge and Chevron. CCI, which just won recognition as a BloombergNEF Pioneer in the category of net-zero fuels, uses plant breeding to improve yield and maturity and gene-editing to modify the oil and fiber composition of a common winter weed. Through these product development efforts, CCI has created CoverCress®, the first rotational cash crop of its kind. It grows well in the Midwest during the winter without requiring new land, and its grain can be crushed to make an oil that is an ideal feedstock source for producing sustainable aviation fuel and renewable diesel. Meal, the other co-product produced when the grain is crushed, is a high-protein animal feed.

The first commercial crop was planted last fall on 3,000 acres and will be harvested in late spring. It's a win-win for farmers, who get paid $175 per bushel under contracts with CCI for harvested CoverCress® grain grown between their traditional corn and soybean rotation. CCI will initially sell the harvested grain as an ingredient for broiler chicken feed and in the future the grain will be sold to a crusher, who turns the grain into an oil and animal meal product.

"We need to take every step we can to lower our carbon emissions," says CEO Mike DeCamp. "I'm a big believer that it takes a village to get that done. * For the role that renewable fuels will play, you need sustainably produced feedstock sources to make that work. I know we've got a product to do that."

Countering Objections

To be sure, those who are critical of biofuels as an alternative fuel source worry that growing the plants needed for wide scale risks harming biodiversity.

"In Malaysia," Schrag acknowledges, "a quarter of land is deforested for palm oil plantations. That's been an ecological disaster. You don't want to do that on steroids. So that's the challenge: Pursue conservation strategies while pursuing biofuels. With innovation, yield can be improved. Find the most efficient plants that grow the most in the smallest land area with the least inputs."

Schrag is excited by pyrolysis, a technique that heats the plant biomass without air and turns it into charcoal and liquid that could be turned into a form of crude oil — but isn't ready to call a winner.

"Whether it's woodchips, agricultural waste, or energy crops, whatever the feedstock, we don't yet know the right technology. It's too early to say. We need to let early-stage research and demonstration play out."
As far as the deforestation concerns, Berven of Poet contends that more land is not necessary. "We are completely against cutting down trees," he says. "We need to manage the land that is available properly." He points to recent scientific reports that one billion acres of former farmland around the world are now abandoned.

Berven believes the biggest challenge to a broader market for biofuels is not land availability, but rather what he views as the oil companies' monopoly on fuel. Yet those companies are also conscious of their greenhouse gas emissions and are investing in alternatives. In fact, Chevron is a minority stakeholder in CoverCress.

"The only solution for them to reduce their emissions is to put additional cleaner fuel into the marketplace," Berven says. "Existing and emerging biofuels are the best path forward to reduce transportation emissions around the globe. *"

* Oh Really?

* Colonialism relabeled.

* Unfucking believable. Yes CEO man, it takes a village to support your lifestyle.

* Reducing travel of any kind not being on the path at all.

This article from Forbes is disgusting.  Things jumped out at me, and I was compelled to add highlights.  The Author is:  Juergen Eckhardt  Head of Leaps by Bayer and Head of Pharma Business Development and Licensing. Executive Vice President, MD, MBA



I know at least one person who would consider Juergen to be part of The New World Order.  Dedicated members of the hooked-up affluent who intend to magnify class differences as long as they can.  Business as usual, because they make out big.  My friend would take out certain members of the 0.01% on sight.

I won't say I approve or disapprove of his urge, but I know a detail or two that makes him feel this way.  I will say I understand. 

And jets must fly while people die.  NOT

How much fuel to get from LA to New York.

• Flying: Approximately 12.7 gallons per person
• Driving with a car: 28 gallons per person (4 people in a car)
• Driving with a bus: 9.34 gallons per person
• Driving with a train: 6.22 gallons per person

Driving with a car should not really be considered.  That would be a days long road trip and not a logical choice only considering long distance transportation.  Days on a bus would totally suck, but I have gone from Seattle to Chicago on a bus so it can be done..  The train makes sense.

And in my world Juergen will be on the bus with us or Juergen will be meeting some citizens who go from LA to NY on a chopper when he gets off his jet.  And not these two.  The ones he would meet would be less in a hurry, but they would be very angry.

The bottom line on ethanol is a choice being made: feed the people or feed the machines?  In many 3rd world countries the price of grain for both human consumption and animal feed has reached the point where people are getting priced out of minimum caloric intake.  As the price of oil rises, the price a farmer can get for corn to be converted to ethanol increases in lock step with it.  The more corn you devote to the machines, the less left over for the people to eat.

About the only tie biofuels don't compete with the food market is with the waste products from some crops and wood chips and sawdust that are byproducts of the milling process.  In that case also though, you sometimes have a choice in land use made for wood over crops again because a better total price per acre comes from the wood+waste than from an alternative food crop.  Not always true, sometimes the land isn't suitable for a food crop but will grow some type of fiber crop.  One thing not mentioned is Lucid Dreams favorite plant, Bamboo from which you can get food or fiber.

With the steadily decreasing cost of solar PV and wind, combined with the fact it looks like a long haul before a grid connection is made for some plants, the cost of carbon free hydrogen is coming down fast and seems to me to be a better choice than biofuels for aviation at least.  Nuke seems better for container ships and tankers, we already use it for aircraft carriers and subs.  That is of course a huge increase in nuke plant numbers, and many of those ships are flagged with Libyan, Saudi and Iranian ownership.  Forgetting the politics though, it seems the better choice of alternative energy for this purpose.

RE