Emerging Propaganda Trends: Faux on Clean Energy

Well, the last sentence suggests removing government rigging from energy policies. For some readers this would mean removing financial subsidies for fossil fuels and accounting for environmental/health effects of fuel extraction and combustion. I would not be quick to oppose such a monumental policy shift.

Incidentally, the leader of Areva (French nuclear company) was interviewed on China TV the other day. She strongly disputed the notion that any country subsidises nuclear power at present.

From this we can conclude that paying for insurance and cleanup (on the rare occasions of isotope releases etc.) are not subsidies. Or, that she just forgot. Hey it could happen.

 

If somebody else pays for it in any way, it's a subsidy. How can that be such a difficult concept to understand?

It's like we can give massive tax breaks for oil exploration, or expect the state to clean up after oil spills and nuclear 'incidents', but when it comes to grants for solar power..."Oh no, that's a subsidy."

 

how about trying to deal with the spent fuel?

 

That article is from a Libertarian think tank "Ayn Rand Center For Individual Rights".
Liberty (i.e. less or no government regulation) for nuclear industry when it comes to reaping profits,.
But let the government guarantee loans and clean up meltdowns and radioactive waste.

 

Gee I thought the article did a good job of explaining the debate. It was a valid description of the enviromental position, that renewable energy is already better, cleaner, cheaper than fossil fuels, and there is no reason we cannot immediately phase out fossil fuels over the next ten years as needed to save the planet, as a small side benefit. The "dirty secrets" rebuttal arguments were weak. I may need to help them re-write that section. Either that or, the enviromentalists are correct? If so I need to ditch my Prius ASAP.

 

I have no doubt externalised costs aren't something new to this way of thinking - it's the very school of thought that dismisses them as not 'real' and thus not worthy of being counted. All the better to show a profit with.

 

That's the idea, alright. The mantra is 'socialise losses, privatise profits'.

I started reading Ayn Rand when I was a teenager, but stopped in disgust. Had I known how prevalent the selfish, short-sighted ideas would become, I would have burned the books instead of returning them to the library.

 

So, this is fiction, inspired by fiction.

 

Here what's happening. Epstein got close but did not quite nail it.
We do have a growing loose coalition of special interests in the USA.
Somebody give it a name, let's call it the-

Black and Green Coalition-
Members:
1. Environmentalists (anti-Fossil Fuel, Pro-EV, Nukes optional)
2. Electrification Coalitionists (Pro-EV, anti-Oil, pro-coal-nuke-gas)
3. Pickens Plan Pundits (Pro-American energy sources)
4. Others? Energy venture capitalists?

The Electrification Coalition of course is a real organization, with FedEx CEO comments posted recently on PriusChat.

 

I think you misunderstand that group, it is definitely not libertarian.
The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights: Libertarianism: What It Isn't

Libertarianism is also quite radical as it was the philophy of Jefferson. Some of the parties leaders like rands support of individual rights and call for small government, but that is were the similarities end.

+1

I think that would satisfy both free market capitalists and the environment movement, unfortunately IMHO both of the majority parties do not support these ideals. Let's try to move both of them in that direction.

Burning books, really, I'm surprised. That seems quite reactionary. Maybe try something earlier and less political like "anthem". Its important to separate the artist from the art, and liking the art doesn't mean you agree with the artist on politics. But censoring it, or burning books, leads to bad abuses of power. I don't think that mantra is part of her politics either, but her politics are quite harsh, probably greatly shaped by her experience in communist Russia as against anything in that system. She had things against all parties, but there is one thing in her philosophy that drives much of the new popularity is her absolute disgust in things like government bailouts of companies too big to fail that were built by government regulations.

 

Agreed, the burning books comment went too far. I've never done that, and can't see myself ever doing that. Nor did I mean to connect the 'socialise losses' mantra with Ayn Rand - that's a more recent development; a perversion, if anything. I find parts of her philosophy quite attractive - the rejection of religion in favour of reason, in particular. Perhaps it's Ayn's personal rebellion against her upbringing, but the extreme individualism becomes almost an 'every donkey for himself' kind of attitude that goes too far.

I'm not sure about separating artist from art. At its best, art is deeply personal and cannot help but embody the thoughts and emotions of the artist. Perhaps if Ayn Rand's life were not as 'harsh', then the politics woven into her art would not have been, either.

 

She was 12 when the communist revolution started, and she went from middle class to almost starving. Because of the communists allowed women to be more equal she was allowed to go to college, then the communists threw her out of college just before graduating because she was bourgeois. Then international pressure made her able to graduate. Its pretty f-ed up. I'm sure those tea-party types wouldn't like the pro-choice anti-religion, Hollywood elite NY intellectual, but they do like some of the twists after her death. I don't really like her political philosophy but that goes for both major parties also.

Life does help direct art, but some of the most screwed up people make the most beautiful things. I like to listen to wagner even though he was a fascist racist, and and I like ayn's writing even though she was a speed freak. Neither of these are in my favorites though.

If you look at the libertarian platform, it does say the government should not provide the loans or insurance for nuclear power, but if they can get these on their own that utilities should be free to put nuclear power on the grid. They are also against oil subsidies both of these policies I am in favor of. The libertarian party though thinks there should be less regulation on oil drilling, and I am in favor of tighter environmental regulations since it is all too easy to spill without them.

 

She is a godfather (godmother?) of right wing propaganda, the first conservative to take the bolshevik propaganda methods and use it to progress conservative agenda. In a way it is not so different from them.

There is 15' statute of her in Fox HQ lobby, and you must bow to it 3 times when you enter and exit the building.

 

How 'bout a new rule: If you're going to post a screed against an organization, based on making up things you think they have done but they have not in fact done, then how about at least getting the name of the organization correct in your opening sentence? Even for Fox, is that too much to ask?

Because when you write a screed like that, and don't even bother to get the name right, in your opening sentence, that's a pretty good tip off that you're just pulling this out of your anus.

"For years, the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has demanded that the U.S. and other industrialized countries cut carbon emissions to 20% of 1990 levels by 2050."

Ok, first, that's not their name (try Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and second, they have done no such thing. Nor could they, because as a scientific advisory body they don't get to "demand" any policy actions. Their job is to lay out the likely consequences of policy actions.

Which they do, quite reasonably. Not that the average Fox News reader would ever bother, but if you want to see what the IPCC itself actually says about options for mitigation of climate change, you could read what they write.

The last official publications from the IPCC are the 2007 assessment reports. Here's the URL of the mitigation report:

Contribution of Working Group III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2007

If you want a quick overview of what they actually did in this area, look at this page:

D. Mitigation in the long term (after 2030) - AR4 WGIII Summary for Policymakers

Do you see a "demand" for an 80% reduction by 2050? I don't. I see a summary of the various studies that have been done, assessing costs and benefits of different levels and approaches to reductions.

And their conclusions? The all read kind of mealy-mouthed and reasonable, like this:

"22. A wide variety of national policies and instruments are available to governments to create the incentives for mitigation action. Their applicability depends on national circumstances and an understanding of their interactions, but experience from implementation in various countries and sectors shows there are advantages and disadvantages for any given instrument (high agreement, much evidence)."

Man, that's some radical stuff there, those liberal-whacko-enviro-nutsos.

As for the rest of that article, to me it showed the same lack of effort as the opening sentence. My favorite example is blaming the lack of new nuclear in the US on "environmentalists". I disagree. I think it's due to total costs that average 30% higher than new coal-fired capacity, plus almost inconceivable levels of liability (with a long time tail) despite a nominal Federal cap on liability. TMI brought the liability issue to the forefront. I think there's been no new nuclear because it hasn't been as cost-effective as coal.

Oh, and new hydro. Right. Outside of the national parks, the US is just teeming with great sites for new cost-effective hydroelectric.

Oh, and "clean" sources wouldn't need subsidy if they didn't cost more? Gosh, what a brilliant insight. Or did I mean tautology? One of the two.

Atheist philosophy (Ayn Rand) is no substitute for clear thinking. Or doing just a tiny bit of homework. As an expression of atheist philosophy, this is fine. No need to bother to look up the name of the organization you are pillorying. But as a serious discussion of policy, not so much.

But there's some good in everything. After reading the screed, I went and found the IPCC report that's the source of the "80% renewables is possible" quote. It's really "up to 77%", but hey, that's a detail. It's interesting reading. The summary is here. They discuss hydro as renewable. They mention nuclear as an option for reducing GHG emissions but they do not include it in the analysis as renewable energy. They don't explicitly explain why the group nuclear with non-renewable, but I'd have to guess that's based on current-generation nuclear. I had the impression thorium-based reactors had, for all intents and purposes, unlimited fuel available.

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sour...sg=AFQjCNG8ZLBdvLZezHEQTJK7x0djmRZ8hQ&cad=rja

 

R

Maybe a bit of each. There's no solid basis for a cogent philosophy, yet what there is seems to have been inflated beyond its intent - if there was any intent at all. She went from one extreme to another, and rejected the first as much as embraced the second. Neither pure communism nor pure capitalism can be the foundation of a functional, productive society. We need something in between that empowers everyone, yet recognises the value of the social and environmental fabric that sustains us all.

Funny how philosophy relates even to energy policy, isn't it?

 

Agreed. We should not blame environmentalists for nuclear weakness, especially now after Japan. My perception is that nuclear was getting some support from enviros, at least as a talking point to argue that EV is ever increasingly carbon-free.