On Mon, 5 Feb 2024 19:08:48 -0800 (PST), Rich <rander3128@gmail.com>
wrote:

>Remember when the French secret service sunk the Greenpeace vessel? They were one of the few groups with enough will to oppose radical environmentalism. We may need more of that to deal with these maniacs, or the atmosphere salters.

I prefer KSR's solution/prediction in Ministry for the Future.
Terrorists start blowing up airplanes and ships, which quickly ends
commercial air travel and container ship shipping. They are credited
with playing one of the most important roles in saving the planet.

On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 9:18:46 PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:

> I prefer KSR's solution/prediction in Ministry for the Future.
> Terrorists start blowing up airplanes and ships, which quickly ends
> commercial air travel and container ship shipping. They are credited
> with playing one of the most important roles in saving the planet.

I expect that the Houthi forces that have dared to attack
international shipping will be eradicated from the face
of the Earth, so that this will not happen again.

Of course we must stop global warming. But we also must
stop crime and terrorism. Commercial cargo ships should be
able to travel over all international waters in perfect and
absolute safety - because anyone thinking of doing anything
else would bring down the wrath of the world's major powers
upon themselves.

But just as the world's governments should act firmly against
terrorism, they must also act firmly against global warming. It
should be clear that it is simply irrational to permit changes to
the composition of the Earth's atmosphere on a global scale
when there is a strong likelihood of deleterious consequences
for weather and climate.

As I've noted, the fact that we know how to generate electricity
from fission, and we know how to build breeder reactors, so that
we have common U-238 as a source of fission fuel, means that
we are *not* forced to use fossil fuels even if we need much
more energy than can be derived from renewables.

To me, this fact is decisive, because it's possible otherwise for
people to argue, "oh, those eco-freaks have a back-to-nature
agenda; they want to make it impossible for the U.S. to have
enough heavy industry to support its military; which, of course,
will lead to Russia and China conquering the world, not to world
peace, the way they dream".

We need to prevent global warming, and we won't be able to do
so unless we manage to "de-politicize" the issue in this sense -
as long as a large number of people can be convinced that taking
the measures to stop global warming would be even more obviously
and quickly suicidal than not doing so, then those measures won't
happen.

You can argue that nuclear energy isn't needed or is too expensive,
but even if that were true, it wouldn't affect the central thrust of my
argument. I suspect that "too expensive" is because it's artificially
inflated by allowing environmentalists to challenge nuclear projects,
and that it's "not needed" if you think that a massive military buildup
by the United States isn't needed, though.

Of course, though, my solution is obsolete in one important sense.

I'm trying to meet the objections of the Republican voters of
fifty years ago. Today, because Russia is fascist instead of
Communist, Republicans have no problem with it gobbling up
neighboring countries like Ukraine - their attitude is like what
the Right had towards Hitler and Mussolini before World War II.

Today's Trump supporters, however, would not be won over to
stopping the flow of money to oil companies even by nuclear
power. Maybe Trump is their fault (the fault of the oil
companies, that is).

John Savard

On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:40:37 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Monday, February 5, 2024 at 9:18:46?PM UTC-7, Chris L Peterson wrote:
>
>> I prefer KSR's solution/prediction in Ministry for the Future.
>> Terrorists start blowing up airplanes and ships, which quickly ends
>> commercial air travel and container ship shipping. They are credited
>> with playing one of the most important roles in saving the planet.
>
>I expect that the Houthi forces that have dared to attack
>international shipping will be eradicated from the face
>of the Earth, so that this will not happen again.
>
>Of course we must stop global warming. But we also must
>stop crime and terrorism. Commercial cargo ships should be
>able to travel over all international waters in perfect and
>absolute safety - because anyone thinking of doing anything
>else would bring down the wrath of the world's major powers
>upon themselves.
>
>But just as the world's governments should act firmly against
>terrorism, they must also act firmly against global warming. It
>should be clear that it is simply irrational to permit changes to
>the composition of the Earth's atmosphere on a global scale
>when there is a strong likelihood of deleterious consequences
>for weather and climate.
>
>As I've noted, the fact that we know how to generate electricity
>from fission, and we know how to build breeder reactors, so that
>we have common U-238 as a source of fission fuel, means that
>we are *not* forced to use fossil fuels even if we need much
>more energy than can be derived from renewables.
>
>To me, this fact is decisive, because it's possible otherwise for
>people to argue, "oh, those eco-freaks have a back-to-nature
>agenda; they want to make it impossible for the U.S. to have
>enough heavy industry to support its military; which, of course,
>will lead to Russia and China conquering the world, not to world
>peace, the way they dream".
>
>We need to prevent global warming, and we won't be able to do
>so unless we manage to "de-politicize" the issue in this sense -
>as long as a large number of people can be convinced that taking
>the measures to stop global warming would be even more obviously
>and quickly suicidal than not doing so, then those measures won't
>happen.
>
>You can argue that nuclear energy isn't needed or is too expensive,
>but even if that were true, it wouldn't affect the central thrust of my
>argument. I suspect that "too expensive" is because it's artificially
>inflated by allowing environmentalists to challenge nuclear projects,
>and that it's "not needed" if you think that a massive military buildup
>by the United States isn't needed, though.
>
>Of course, though, my solution is obsolete in one important sense.
>
>I'm trying to meet the objections of the Republican voters of
>fifty years ago. Today, because Russia is fascist instead of
>Communist, Republicans have no problem with it gobbling up
>neighboring countries like Ukraine - their attitude is like what
>the Right had towards Hitler and Mussolini before World War II.
>
>Today's Trump supporters, however, would not be won over to
>stopping the flow of money to oil companies even by nuclear
>power. Maybe Trump is their fault (the fault of the oil
>companies, that is).
>
>John Savard

KSR concluded that the world governments wouldn't fix things. The
ecoterrorists were very effective. Turns out if you knock 50 airplanes
out of the sky on the same day, most people stop flying. No policy
required. You sink a few container ships (and indeed, you develop very
plausible weapon systems that are cheap and even military vessels
can't do much to stop) and it's cheaper to electrify the ships and
take a few days longer in transport.

We'll see. It's a sort of terrorism that our police and military are
not well equipped to deal with should it rise.

Nuclear power has no significant future, but neither do fossil fuels.