|
|
The Critical Driving Forces and Factors Insuring The Extinction of All Species in 100 Years, plus or minus, 50 years
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasts, "The Limits to Growth" forecasters, Peak Energy forecasters, and Demographers forecasting the risks of global aging and fiscal gaps, do not consider my "Critical Driving Forces and Factors Insuring Extinction of All Species in 100 Years, plus or minus, 50 years!":
1. The enormous drop in solar growth, due to "frack baby frack," Dark Money, the Koch Brothers and OPEC's war on renewable energies, from 78% per year from 2006-2011, down to 4% per year (US EIA) from 2012-2014.
2. The fact that renewable energy stocks would be the worst performing sector on Wall Street from 2007 to today (8/8/16), due to "frack baby frack" collapsing fossil fuel prices, and OPEC seeking to keep prices low, to stop the transition to renewable energies, primarily solar and wind..
3. The recent findings by Hansen, et. al, that with only as little as a 2C rise in global mean temperatures, there could be super storms capable of moving thousand ton boulders around.
4. The recent findings by a team from San Diego State University, that roughly half of the methane emissions from the Arctic tundra occur during the zero curtain, September through December, and from the drier upland tundra, versus simply from the summer, in primarily the wetlands.
5. The recent findings by Hansen, et. al, that with only a 2C rise in global mean temperatures, global sea levels rose by 6 feet.
6. The fact that global carbon levels have hit 409 ppm already, similar to what they were during the Pliocene period, when they were 380 to 450 ppm.
7. The recent findings discussed in "Antarctica: Secrets Beneath the Ice," which found that with only a 3-4C rise in global mean temperatures, during the Pliocene period, most of Antarctica's ice melted.
8. The findings also discussed in the prior mentioned documentary, that global sea levels rose by up to 60 feet, due to this low of a rise in global mean temperatures, during the Pliocene period, when global carbon levels were similar to today.
9. The significant lag-time in global carbon levels, and more importantly, global mean temperatures, due to current carbon and methane being released into the air.
10. The unbelievable rise in the war against renewable energies waged by the Koch Brothers and the Kochtapus, detailed in "Dark Money," and by OPEC, to stop the transition to renewable energies globally, primarily wind and solar, globally.
11. The likely ongoing effort by OPEC, the Koch Brothers and the Kochtapus, and the Evil Wrong billionaires and centimillionaires to keep energy prices low, to insure that the world will not transition to renewable energies, and thereby, forcing the world to transition to hard fossil fuel production (tar sands to oil, shale to oil, and coal to oil), and methane hydrate production, when the world falls off "Hubbert's Cliff."
12. The possible escalating rise in global mean temperatures, due to already high carbon levels similar to the Pliocene period. Specifically, I argue that global mean temperatures have lagged the rapid rise of carbon levels, as carbon levels rose rapidly over the past 150 years, versus slowly, over thousands of years, during the Pliocene period. My argument is that global mean temperatures will "catch up" to carbon levels, which I guesstimate will reach 500 ppm by 2050, beyond the Pliocene period levels of 380-450, and hence, global mean temperatures will rise to 3-4C by 2050-2070.
The Second Derivative of The Rate In Growth of Global Mean Temperatures will be Positive and Increasing, in my opinion, from Now, Through Most of The Second Half of This Century, and quite possibly, until the likely Two Massive General Releases of Methane Hydrates from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf Insures The Death of Our Species: In modeling terms, just to help the people at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories (LBNL) and other groups, modeling the risks of climate change for the IPCC, the second derivative for the rate of growth in global mean temperatures, in my opinion, will be positive and increasing from now, until the second half of this century.
The primary driving force of this increasing rate of change, in the rate of change (the second derivative) is primarily the rapid growth in carbon levels, versus the Pliocene and other periods, relative to the rate of growth in global mean temperatures. Also, the consequential more rapid rate of ice melt on Greenland and Antarctica; the likely much more rapid future release of methane hydrates from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf and the Siberian and Arctic tundra; the more more rapid desalination and warming of the Atlantic, slowing the Gulf Stream System more rapidly than other time periods, etc., etc.! If you need some help understanding what this means, send me an email, and I can help you incorporate The Critical Forces and Factors insuring "It Is THE END," which are constantly increasing, so you don't look like you are just forecasting BS (billions) for the Billionaires, after people read my work!
Using Bayesian statistics, your "priors" are that the second derivative on these rates of change of the Critical Factors and Forces affecting global temperatures, and especially, the second derivative of global mean temperatures will be positive and increasing from now, through the second half of the century, due to the rapid growth of carbon levels, versus prior periods. In simple terms, the rate of acceleration of global mean temperatures will likely, in my opinion, be increasing until what I believe, will be two massive general releases of methane hydrates from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and the Siberian and Arctic tundra, when global mean temperatures hit the critical thresholds to cause these two massive general releases of these massive stores of methane hydrates, causing the final extinction of our species, and most, if not all, species.
13. The more rapid slowing of the Gulf Stream than forecast, due to a more rapid increase in the desalination of the Atlantic, as a result of the more rapid melting of Greenland, and hence, larger inflow of water into the Atlantic than anticipated.
14. The potential massive increase in hard fossil fuel and methane hydrate production, due to the fossil fuel interests, including the Koch Brothers and Kochtapus, when the world falls off "Hubbert's Cliff."
15. The potential rapid rise in carbon levels, due to the potential massive rise in hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates production, in my guesstimates, rapidly scaling up in the thirties.
16. The consequential rapid rise in global mean temperatures, due to the rise in carbon levels, which may be due to the potentially rapid scaling up of hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates production, when the world falls off "Hubbert's Cliff."
17. The likely rapid rise in global sea levels by as much as 6 feet, with only a 2C rise in global mean temperatures, my guesstimate, by 2030-2050, due simply to current economic growth, particularly the growth of China and India, increasing global carbon levels.
18. The likely rise in global sea levels by up to 60 feet, due to 3-4C rise in global mean temperatures, which I guesstimate, will occur between 2050-2075, due to the scaling up of hard fossil fuel production from 2030-2050.
19. The potential implosion and explosion of many of the world's 448 and growing nuclear reactors which are located on the ocean, due to a global sea level rise of 30-60 feet, combined with super storms, due to only a 3-4C rise in global mean temperatures, like the Pliocene period.
20. The potential for a Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop, should sea levels rise by as much as 30-60 feet, combined with global super storms, with only a 3-4C rise in global mean temperatures, causing the implosion and explosion of many of the world's nuclear reactors, due to the likely scaling up of hard fossil fuel production, when the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff. The implosion and explosion of a meaningful number of Japan's and Asia's nuclear reactors, could warm the waters going into the Arctic, releasing a meaningful amount of the methane on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which could then result in large methane releases, resulting in more sea level rise, which could then result in more nuclear reactors imploding and exploding, warming the sea more.
21. Should the "Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop" get released when global mean temperatures rise by as little as 3-4C, due to a potential rise in sea levels by 30-60 feet, combined with super storms, this potential chain of massive methane releases, and subsequent implosion and explosion of nuclear reactors, reinforcing each other, may well raise global mean temperatures by 6-10C by 2100. It is around this temperature range, where some scientists argue that massive methane general releases occurred causing the Permian Extinction. Add the massive potential radiation contamination problems globally, the Homogreedious Induced Sixth Great Extinction, I argue, may well result in the extinction of all species. My final argument is that this will happen around 2100, plus or minus 50 years. Minus would be good, plus would not be good, as I argue that it will be "hell on earth" from roughly 2030-2050 on, when the world falls off "Hubbert's Cliff." Get the arguments?!
In short, I don't think the IPCC, or any of these other forecasters focusing on only one of these Critical Forces and Factors, have any clue as to the extinction level risk to all species that I believe the world is facing, due to the fact that they are not incorporating all of these political economic (distribution of wealth and power), market, financial, demographic, energy, fiscal policy, legal, and other critical forces and factors in generating their forecasts! I will detail these forces and factors in the following chapters. As none of their models take into consideration these critical factors and forces, it renders their forecasts incomplete, and quite frankly, dangerous, as people believe that their models are a complete assessment of the global risk of climate change.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) forecasts, "The Limits to Growth" forecasters, Peak Energy forecasters, and Demographers forecasting the risks of global aging and fiscal gaps, do not consider my "Critical Driving Forces and Factors Insuring Extinction of All Species in 100 Years, plus or minus, 50 years!":
1. The enormous drop in solar growth, due to "frack baby frack," Dark Money, the Koch Brothers and OPEC's war on renewable energies, from 78% per year from 2006-2011, down to 4% per year (US EIA) from 2012-2014.
2. The fact that renewable energy stocks would be the worst performing sector on Wall Street from 2007 to today (8/8/16), due to "frack baby frack" collapsing fossil fuel prices, and OPEC seeking to keep prices low, to stop the transition to renewable energies, primarily solar and wind..
3. The recent findings by Hansen, et. al, that with only as little as a 2C rise in global mean temperatures, there could be super storms capable of moving thousand ton boulders around.
4. The recent findings by a team from San Diego State University, that roughly half of the methane emissions from the Arctic tundra occur during the zero curtain, September through December, and from the drier upland tundra, versus simply from the summer, in primarily the wetlands.
5. The recent findings by Hansen, et. al, that with only a 2C rise in global mean temperatures, global sea levels rose by 6 feet.
6. The fact that global carbon levels have hit 409 ppm already, similar to what they were during the Pliocene period, when they were 380 to 450 ppm.
7. The recent findings discussed in "Antarctica: Secrets Beneath the Ice," which found that with only a 3-4C rise in global mean temperatures, during the Pliocene period, most of Antarctica's ice melted.
8. The findings also discussed in the prior mentioned documentary, that global sea levels rose by up to 60 feet, due to this low of a rise in global mean temperatures, during the Pliocene period, when global carbon levels were similar to today.
9. The significant lag-time in global carbon levels, and more importantly, global mean temperatures, due to current carbon and methane being released into the air.
10. The unbelievable rise in the war against renewable energies waged by the Koch Brothers and the Kochtapus, detailed in "Dark Money," and by OPEC, to stop the transition to renewable energies globally, primarily wind and solar, globally.
11. The likely ongoing effort by OPEC, the Koch Brothers and the Kochtapus, and the Evil Wrong billionaires and centimillionaires to keep energy prices low, to insure that the world will not transition to renewable energies, and thereby, forcing the world to transition to hard fossil fuel production (tar sands to oil, shale to oil, and coal to oil), and methane hydrate production, when the world falls off "Hubbert's Cliff."
12. The possible escalating rise in global mean temperatures, due to already high carbon levels similar to the Pliocene period. Specifically, I argue that global mean temperatures have lagged the rapid rise of carbon levels, as carbon levels rose rapidly over the past 150 years, versus slowly, over thousands of years, during the Pliocene period. My argument is that global mean temperatures will "catch up" to carbon levels, which I guesstimate will reach 500 ppm by 2050, beyond the Pliocene period levels of 380-450, and hence, global mean temperatures will rise to 3-4C by 2050-2070.
The Second Derivative of The Rate In Growth of Global Mean Temperatures will be Positive and Increasing, in my opinion, from Now, Through Most of The Second Half of This Century, and quite possibly, until the likely Two Massive General Releases of Methane Hydrates from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf Insures The Death of Our Species: In modeling terms, just to help the people at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories (LBNL) and other groups, modeling the risks of climate change for the IPCC, the second derivative for the rate of growth in global mean temperatures, in my opinion, will be positive and increasing from now, until the second half of this century.
The primary driving force of this increasing rate of change, in the rate of change (the second derivative) is primarily the rapid growth in carbon levels, versus the Pliocene and other periods, relative to the rate of growth in global mean temperatures. Also, the consequential more rapid rate of ice melt on Greenland and Antarctica; the likely much more rapid future release of methane hydrates from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf and the Siberian and Arctic tundra; the more more rapid desalination and warming of the Atlantic, slowing the Gulf Stream System more rapidly than other time periods, etc., etc.! If you need some help understanding what this means, send me an email, and I can help you incorporate The Critical Forces and Factors insuring "It Is THE END," which are constantly increasing, so you don't look like you are just forecasting BS (billions) for the Billionaires, after people read my work!
Using Bayesian statistics, your "priors" are that the second derivative on these rates of change of the Critical Factors and Forces affecting global temperatures, and especially, the second derivative of global mean temperatures will be positive and increasing from now, through the second half of the century, due to the rapid growth of carbon levels, versus prior periods. In simple terms, the rate of acceleration of global mean temperatures will likely, in my opinion, be increasing until what I believe, will be two massive general releases of methane hydrates from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and the Siberian and Arctic tundra, when global mean temperatures hit the critical thresholds to cause these two massive general releases of these massive stores of methane hydrates, causing the final extinction of our species, and most, if not all, species.
13. The more rapid slowing of the Gulf Stream than forecast, due to a more rapid increase in the desalination of the Atlantic, as a result of the more rapid melting of Greenland, and hence, larger inflow of water into the Atlantic than anticipated.
14. The potential massive increase in hard fossil fuel and methane hydrate production, due to the fossil fuel interests, including the Koch Brothers and Kochtapus, when the world falls off "Hubbert's Cliff."
15. The potential rapid rise in carbon levels, due to the potential massive rise in hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates production, in my guesstimates, rapidly scaling up in the thirties.
16. The consequential rapid rise in global mean temperatures, due to the rise in carbon levels, which may be due to the potentially rapid scaling up of hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates production, when the world falls off "Hubbert's Cliff."
17. The likely rapid rise in global sea levels by as much as 6 feet, with only a 2C rise in global mean temperatures, my guesstimate, by 2030-2050, due simply to current economic growth, particularly the growth of China and India, increasing global carbon levels.
18. The likely rise in global sea levels by up to 60 feet, due to 3-4C rise in global mean temperatures, which I guesstimate, will occur between 2050-2075, due to the scaling up of hard fossil fuel production from 2030-2050.
19. The potential implosion and explosion of many of the world's 448 and growing nuclear reactors which are located on the ocean, due to a global sea level rise of 30-60 feet, combined with super storms, due to only a 3-4C rise in global mean temperatures, like the Pliocene period.
20. The potential for a Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop, should sea levels rise by as much as 30-60 feet, combined with global super storms, with only a 3-4C rise in global mean temperatures, causing the implosion and explosion of many of the world's nuclear reactors, due to the likely scaling up of hard fossil fuel production, when the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff. The implosion and explosion of a meaningful number of Japan's and Asia's nuclear reactors, could warm the waters going into the Arctic, releasing a meaningful amount of the methane on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, which could then result in large methane releases, resulting in more sea level rise, which could then result in more nuclear reactors imploding and exploding, warming the sea more.
21. Should the "Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop" get released when global mean temperatures rise by as little as 3-4C, due to a potential rise in sea levels by 30-60 feet, combined with super storms, this potential chain of massive methane releases, and subsequent implosion and explosion of nuclear reactors, reinforcing each other, may well raise global mean temperatures by 6-10C by 2100. It is around this temperature range, where some scientists argue that massive methane general releases occurred causing the Permian Extinction. Add the massive potential radiation contamination problems globally, the Homogreedious Induced Sixth Great Extinction, I argue, may well result in the extinction of all species. My final argument is that this will happen around 2100, plus or minus 50 years. Minus would be good, plus would not be good, as I argue that it will be "hell on earth" from roughly 2030-2050 on, when the world falls off "Hubbert's Cliff." Get the arguments?!
In short, I don't think the IPCC, or any of these other forecasters focusing on only one of these Critical Forces and Factors, have any clue as to the extinction level risk to all species that I believe the world is facing, due to the fact that they are not incorporating all of these political economic (distribution of wealth and power), market, financial, demographic, energy, fiscal policy, legal, and other critical forces and factors in generating their forecasts! I will detail these forces and factors in the following chapters. As none of their models take into consideration these critical factors and forces, it renders their forecasts incomplete, and quite frankly, dangerous, as people believe that their models are a complete assessment of the global risk of climate change.
Just a quick joke to lighten the conversation. What do they call a super computer, used to model the extinction risk of methane hydrates and carbon general releases in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf and the Siberian and Arctic permafrost for the IPCC, with completely inaccurate assumptions? A black hole, they dump enormous amounts of Dark Money and Near-Dark Money into, which then spews out volumes of non-science, to insure that the flow of BS (billions) for the Billionaires is not interrupted, even at the risk of extinction of all species! In short, a "Super Computer Spewing out BS for the Billionaires!"
As Bill notes, they are the ones that are seeking to estimate the most critical factor, in my opinion, of the extinction risk of climate change, the potential release of methane and carbon from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and the Siberian and Arctic tundra, respectively. Did you get the assumptions that mad me absolutely burst out laughing? The are stated when a woman from the audience asked about the limitations of the IPCC modeling, due to not including the methane risk in these two critical areas in the IPCC models. He notes that, there is only two times the amount of carbon in the permafrost as there is in the earth's atmosphere. Say what?! The current concentration of carbon in the earth's atmosphere is roughly 407 ppm (NOAA.gov). According to Wiki, each part per million (ppm), represents 2.13 gigatons of carbon, for a rough estimate of around 867 gigatons of carbon in the earth's atmosphere. Now to refresh your memory, her is the link to the review article that Paul Beckwith overviewed, titled "Effects of climate change on methane emissions from seafloor sediments in the Artic Ocean: A review" published May 17, 2016.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.10307/full
If you take a look at the table on the estimates of how much methane is estimated to be in Marine sediments, the amount of Methane hydrate is a range of 30 - 9,000 gigatons, and in Submerged permafrost, from 2 - 1,400 gigatons of methane hydrates; and in Terrestrial Permafrost Carbon, 1,330 - 1,580, for a total estimate of 32 gigatons to 10,400 gigatons of methane hydrates, and 1,330 to 1,580 gigatons of carbon. It notes that the atmospheric burden of methane is 4.95 gigatons around the globe. I don't know about you, but at the low end, 1,330 gigatons of carbon, is much more than roughly 867 gigatons, don't you think!? Plus, he does not even consider the 30 - 9,000 gigatons of methane hydrates estimated to be in the marine sediments, primarily the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and the 2 - 1,400 gigatons of methane hydrates estimated to be in the submerged permafrost.
He said that the critical question is how this carbon in the permafrost comes out as carbon or methane? Then notes that the "good news" is that it comes out as carbon. Seriously! Guy McPherson noted they measured 50,000 times the normal methane levels in 2014 in the Laptev Sea area. Again, he is misleading the woman, noting the carbon release from the permafrost, not noting the massive risk of methane hydrates in the marine sediments, or in the submerged permafrost, and the enormous rise of methane measurements that Guy McPherson noted. Plus, the number of large holes, believed to be caused by methane releases, have increased substantially since this time, which many scientist believe is the methane in the permafrost being released, much sooner, and at a much lower temperature than most scientists estimate it would be released.
From my perspective the critical factors are the 32, to more likely, in my view, 10,440 gigatons of methane hydrate estimated to be in marine sediments, primarily the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and the submerged permafrost, that represents the species level extinction risk, that the woman asking the question was referring to. At the mid point of these methane hydrates estimates, it is an estimate of 5,232 gigatons of methane hydrates in marine sediments and submerged permafrost. This is 1,057 times the global atmospheric burden of 4.95 gigatons of methane, that the woman was correctly referring to as the species level extinction risk that the IPCC is not modeling, and apparently, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories (LBNL) new Super Computer will not be either!
I think the real honest answer to her question about what LBNL or the IPCC are doing to estimate the extinction level risk of methane hydrates and permafrost carbon in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and the Siberian and Arctic permafrost, is NOTHING!
As we know now (10/15/16), the IPCC is also not modeling the fresh water run off from Greenland that is increasing the desalination rate of the Atlantic ocean, and hence, causing the Gulf Stream System to slow. This risk, although not as significant as the two primary risks I discuss below where I present this new video, is right up there at the top of risks to the extinction of the species. I hope this work helps the LBNL to improve their modeling assumptions, and get the EMM&MS to transition to solar and wing before falling off Hubbert's Cliff, how about you?
Dr. Shakova, from the International Arctic Research Center (IARC) in Russia, that has been researching this area since the early nineties, is a bit more accurate in my opinion, stating that they estimate that there are hundreds to thousands of times the amount of the atmospheric burden of methane in these areas! Plus, her statement that they are very worried about the extinction level risk of methane hydrates and permafrost carbon in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and the Siberian and Arctic permafrost, and that they fear that the "worst thing" might happen, not in hundreds to thousands of years, but in decades, to the end of the century, at most! In my opinion, gets to the real point - TransitioNOW or It Is THE END! Remember, Dr. Shakova's dire prediction does not even include my 16 Critical Driving Forces and Factors.
No wonder people see the IPCC as nothing but a political front group. If this presentation is not one of the significant factors behind why "It Is THE END!", I don't know what is. That factor is the widespread manipulation of scientific data, and a broad and pervasive media campaign, to misrepresent the species level risk of climate change by the Koch Brothers, the Kochtapus, the billionaires in the book "Dark Money," and even the "Near Dark Money," the scientific community bought and paid for by the trillions of dollars of corporate and financial interests backing the IPCC and climate related organizations, summits, etc., etc. These financial interests do not want to interrupt the flow of BS (billions) to the Billionaires, and it is actually the likely disruption of hundreds of trillions of dollars over the coming years, whether they are war and oil lords, or the technology, farming and animal agricultural products companies, and/or EMM&MS of Wall Street. This "buying off" by Dark Money, and Near Dark Money, insures that the world will not be fully educated about the species level risk that the world is facing, and that it is either TransitioNOW or It Is THE END!" But make no mistake, the ones insuring the deaths of billions and billions of people, are the Dark Money Monsters and the Fossil Fuel Industries. The others are co-conspirators, but the liability for the future death of billions and billions of people, if I am correct, lies with these Dark Money, Fossil Fuel, EMM&MS!
Now watch Jeff Severinghaus, from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on "The Reverse Keeling Curve," (May 2016). I like his research, and conclusions of transition to solar and wind. I believe that the Dark Money will not let this happen, and that it will be the most massive change in wealth and power the world has ever experienced, and be hundreds of times more challenging than the Manhattan Project, WWII and the space race combined, as Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, notes in the four part presentations below on "peak energy." Plus, I have no idea where he gets his estimate of a 6 foot sea level rise in 100 years.
As Bill notes, they are the ones that are seeking to estimate the most critical factor, in my opinion, of the extinction risk of climate change, the potential release of methane and carbon from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and the Siberian and Arctic tundra, respectively. Did you get the assumptions that mad me absolutely burst out laughing? The are stated when a woman from the audience asked about the limitations of the IPCC modeling, due to not including the methane risk in these two critical areas in the IPCC models. He notes that, there is only two times the amount of carbon in the permafrost as there is in the earth's atmosphere. Say what?! The current concentration of carbon in the earth's atmosphere is roughly 407 ppm (NOAA.gov). According to Wiki, each part per million (ppm), represents 2.13 gigatons of carbon, for a rough estimate of around 867 gigatons of carbon in the earth's atmosphere. Now to refresh your memory, her is the link to the review article that Paul Beckwith overviewed, titled "Effects of climate change on methane emissions from seafloor sediments in the Artic Ocean: A review" published May 17, 2016.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/lno.10307/full
If you take a look at the table on the estimates of how much methane is estimated to be in Marine sediments, the amount of Methane hydrate is a range of 30 - 9,000 gigatons, and in Submerged permafrost, from 2 - 1,400 gigatons of methane hydrates; and in Terrestrial Permafrost Carbon, 1,330 - 1,580, for a total estimate of 32 gigatons to 10,400 gigatons of methane hydrates, and 1,330 to 1,580 gigatons of carbon. It notes that the atmospheric burden of methane is 4.95 gigatons around the globe. I don't know about you, but at the low end, 1,330 gigatons of carbon, is much more than roughly 867 gigatons, don't you think!? Plus, he does not even consider the 30 - 9,000 gigatons of methane hydrates estimated to be in the marine sediments, primarily the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and the 2 - 1,400 gigatons of methane hydrates estimated to be in the submerged permafrost.
He said that the critical question is how this carbon in the permafrost comes out as carbon or methane? Then notes that the "good news" is that it comes out as carbon. Seriously! Guy McPherson noted they measured 50,000 times the normal methane levels in 2014 in the Laptev Sea area. Again, he is misleading the woman, noting the carbon release from the permafrost, not noting the massive risk of methane hydrates in the marine sediments, or in the submerged permafrost, and the enormous rise of methane measurements that Guy McPherson noted. Plus, the number of large holes, believed to be caused by methane releases, have increased substantially since this time, which many scientist believe is the methane in the permafrost being released, much sooner, and at a much lower temperature than most scientists estimate it would be released.
From my perspective the critical factors are the 32, to more likely, in my view, 10,440 gigatons of methane hydrate estimated to be in marine sediments, primarily the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and the submerged permafrost, that represents the species level extinction risk, that the woman asking the question was referring to. At the mid point of these methane hydrates estimates, it is an estimate of 5,232 gigatons of methane hydrates in marine sediments and submerged permafrost. This is 1,057 times the global atmospheric burden of 4.95 gigatons of methane, that the woman was correctly referring to as the species level extinction risk that the IPCC is not modeling, and apparently, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratories (LBNL) new Super Computer will not be either!
I think the real honest answer to her question about what LBNL or the IPCC are doing to estimate the extinction level risk of methane hydrates and permafrost carbon in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and the Siberian and Arctic permafrost, is NOTHING!
As we know now (10/15/16), the IPCC is also not modeling the fresh water run off from Greenland that is increasing the desalination rate of the Atlantic ocean, and hence, causing the Gulf Stream System to slow. This risk, although not as significant as the two primary risks I discuss below where I present this new video, is right up there at the top of risks to the extinction of the species. I hope this work helps the LBNL to improve their modeling assumptions, and get the EMM&MS to transition to solar and wing before falling off Hubbert's Cliff, how about you?
Dr. Shakova, from the International Arctic Research Center (IARC) in Russia, that has been researching this area since the early nineties, is a bit more accurate in my opinion, stating that they estimate that there are hundreds to thousands of times the amount of the atmospheric burden of methane in these areas! Plus, her statement that they are very worried about the extinction level risk of methane hydrates and permafrost carbon in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, and the Siberian and Arctic permafrost, and that they fear that the "worst thing" might happen, not in hundreds to thousands of years, but in decades, to the end of the century, at most! In my opinion, gets to the real point - TransitioNOW or It Is THE END! Remember, Dr. Shakova's dire prediction does not even include my 16 Critical Driving Forces and Factors.
No wonder people see the IPCC as nothing but a political front group. If this presentation is not one of the significant factors behind why "It Is THE END!", I don't know what is. That factor is the widespread manipulation of scientific data, and a broad and pervasive media campaign, to misrepresent the species level risk of climate change by the Koch Brothers, the Kochtapus, the billionaires in the book "Dark Money," and even the "Near Dark Money," the scientific community bought and paid for by the trillions of dollars of corporate and financial interests backing the IPCC and climate related organizations, summits, etc., etc. These financial interests do not want to interrupt the flow of BS (billions) to the Billionaires, and it is actually the likely disruption of hundreds of trillions of dollars over the coming years, whether they are war and oil lords, or the technology, farming and animal agricultural products companies, and/or EMM&MS of Wall Street. This "buying off" by Dark Money, and Near Dark Money, insures that the world will not be fully educated about the species level risk that the world is facing, and that it is either TransitioNOW or It Is THE END!" But make no mistake, the ones insuring the deaths of billions and billions of people, are the Dark Money Monsters and the Fossil Fuel Industries. The others are co-conspirators, but the liability for the future death of billions and billions of people, if I am correct, lies with these Dark Money, Fossil Fuel, EMM&MS!
Now watch Jeff Severinghaus, from the Scripps Institution of Oceanography on "The Reverse Keeling Curve," (May 2016). I like his research, and conclusions of transition to solar and wind. I believe that the Dark Money will not let this happen, and that it will be the most massive change in wealth and power the world has ever experienced, and be hundreds of times more challenging than the Manhattan Project, WWII and the space race combined, as Republican Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, notes in the four part presentations below on "peak energy." Plus, I have no idea where he gets his estimate of a 6 foot sea level rise in 100 years.
Potential Critical Desalination Point Being Reached Affecting the Gulf Stream System in the Atlantic
2016 - 10 - 13 "Is The Gulf Stream System Slowing? By Stefan Rahmstorf, Postdam Institute - Uploaded 10/10/16 - These findings are so critical, as they note on the video, that they are portrayed in the movie - "The Day After Tomorrow." This video is quite technical, so you will want to watch it a number of times, and review any segments that are unclear. The findings are that the Atlantic may be reaching a "critical desalination point," which could radically change the Gulf Stream System in the Atlantic Ocean, with potentially cataclysmic climate change impacts. As Stefan notes, the flow of fresh water into the Atlantic from Greenland is not even modeled by the IPCC, let alone, the possible impacts of hitting this critical desalination point, which may affect the Gulf Stream System in the Atlantic, causing potentially cataclysmic climate impacts. He is more subdued about the possible impacts than the movie, and notes that they could be cataclysmic, but we really don't know how hitting this critical desalination point will affect the global climate, so they are certainly critical to monitor, but uncertain, as to their global impacts. As he notes, we certainly are close to hitting this point, so it is a very important variable to monitor.
https://www.wunderground.com/resources/education/thedayafter.asp
The link above is to a discussion by Jeffrey Masters, PhD, from The Weather Underground, titled "The Day After Tomorrow: Could It Really Happen," cataclysmic climate change. As I lay out here, in my opinion, the massive risk is not cataclysmic climate change, it is global mean temperatures catching up to the already high carbon level just reached in 2016 of 409 ppm, the mid point of where the global atmospheric carbon level was during the Pliocene period, 380-450 ppm. Which during the Pliocene period, resulted in 3-4C rise in global mean temperatures (carbon and temperatures rose together, due to the fact that it took thousands of years, not 150 years for carbon levels to rise), and resulted in a sea level rise of up to 60 feet. Only a 2C rise resulted in super storms (Hansen), and a 6 foot sea level rise. It is not a cataclysmic change, but simply global mean temperatures catching up with already high global atmospheric carbon levels that existed during the Pliocene period, resulting in significant sea level rise, combined with super storms, and ocean based nuclear reactors, that are the cataclysmic risks, in my opinion - not one factor, such as reaching a threshold desalination point in the Atlantic!
Although the cataclysmic risk of reaching a threshold temperature that results in significant general releases of methane hydrates from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf and/or the Siberian Arctic tundra, that spikes global mean temperatures up by 2-3C level quickly, 3-4C above baseline, is a threshold cataclysmic risk, that I believe, is an extinction level risk to be seriously worried about. It is this risk of a massive general release of methane hydrates, that in the opinion of Dr. Sahakovia, from the International Arctic Recearch Center (IARC), which she discusses in the video "Arctic Emergency: Scientists Speak," is possible, as they conclude that these massive stores of methane hydrates are close to being released, that is the true "doomsday risk," in my opinion, portrayed in "The Day After Tomorrow" film.
When the East Siberian Arctic Shelf looks like a pot of boiling water during a month or more in the summer, or worse yet, like a 1.2 million square mile fountain, bubbling up, due to massive releases of methane hydrates, this, I argue, will be when the rapid melting of Greenland and Antarctica is not far off. Probably not the doomsday scenario depicted in "The Day After Tomorrow," but not too far off. This type of event will signify a massive release of methane, and the very likely spike in global temperatures, that will likely melt most of Greenland and Antarctica. Will global mean temperatures catching up to already high carbon levels, which I argue, will be greatly increased (carbon levels) due to scaling up hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates production when the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff and due to the growth of China and India, cause this massive melt, seal level rise and super storms first, or will the melting of the Arctic summer ice, which is close to already occurring, and a decade(s) of an ice free Arctic, cause the release of these massive stores of methane hydrates first? In my opinion, this is the only question determining how soon most, if not all, species will go extinct on Planet Titanic! Both of these two primary scenarios will be enhanced by the slowing of the Gulf Stream, due to increasing desalination and warming of the Atlantic, caused by Greenland's ice melting, however in my opinion, I see this as a secondary driving force.
I hope this latter threshold, the rapid melting of Greenland and most of Antarctica, will wait until I am off Planet Titanic, before it happens, but this type of event would certainly be one that, in my opinion, may result in the rapid demise of all species. This type of cataclysmic climate change is what, I believe, Guy McPherson is expecting. Although I hope he is wrong, as I personally don't want to experience this type of global disaster, if it were to occur, it may wipe off the species on the planet, due to the potential for "The Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop," in a short period of time! My forecast is that these massive general releases of methane hydrates, in typically two sequential massive releases, the top layer of methane hydrates reaching that critical temperature to release large amounts of methane into the atmosphere, followed by a second massive general release of methane hydrates being warmed deeper in the sedimentary drape of the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, due to the rapid warming caused by the first release, will not happen, in my opinion, until around the turn of the century. By this time, I believe, most species will already have gone extinct, due to The Critical Forces and Factors.
"Is The Gulf Stream System Slowing? By Stefan Rahmstorf, Postdam Institute - Uploaded 10/10/16 - click here for full screen, click little box
"The Day After Tomorrow," Movie Trailer, click here for full screen, click little box
"The Day After Tomorrow," Movie on Amazon to rent or buy
Because it is so critical, in my opinion, I have duplicated the next section, THE MOST IMPORTANT DISCUSSION ON MY SITE - Why "It Is THE END." It is the possibility of a massive general release of methane hydrates from the enormous East Siberian Arctic Shelf, that is "The Day After Tomorrow" type of doomsday scenario, that the world may face. I detailed this on the bottom of the page titled "Why It Is THE END!" The documentary where Dr. Sahakovia discusses this risk, and there findings is at the bottom of that page, here is the link again.
Arctic Emergency: Scientists Speak, click here for full screen, then click box
THE MOST IMPORTANT DISCUSSION ON MY SITE - WHY "It is THE END!"
This is the most critical point, made by Dr. Natalia Sahakovia, Director, U.S. - Russia Methane Study, International Arctic Research Center. Please, please, watch her comments a number of times, as in my opinion, they are THE most critical, along with the documentary "Antarctica: Secrets Beneath The Ice," plus her English is good, but the technical nature of the discussion, combined with a slight language difference, makes it important that you watch her discussion on this topic three times. As she states, the sedimentary drape in the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is up to 20 kilometers thick (12.4274 miles), versus around 1 kilometer thick in the rest of the ocean. The sedimentary drape area on the East Siberian Arctic Shelf is huge, it is 2 million square kilometers (1,242,740 square miles), it is the largest shelf in the world oceans. This sedimentary drape is where the massive amounts of methane hydrates are stored, and due to the fact that this drape is roughly 20 times as thick as it is in most of the ocean floor and because it is the largest ocean shelf in the world, it is estimated to hold these massive amounts of methane hydrates. In the ocean, when the methane hydrates are released, the methane is absorbed and used on its way to the surface. On the East Siberian Arctic Shelf, because it is so shallow, the methane reaches the atmosphere. Warming these methane hydrates may release these massive stores of methane, and they will make their way to the atmosphere, potentially causing a massive increase in the atmospheric burden of methane, which may then spike global temperatures. As a result of their drilling of this sedimentary drape, they have concluded that the methane hydrates are close to being released NOW! The result of this potential massive general release of methane, I argue, may result in melting not only the Arctic and Greenland, but as we know now, potentially much of Antarctica' ice. Further, this potential warming may cause super storms and when combined with global sea level increases, may then result in the implosion and explosion of many of the world's ocean based nuclear reactors, resulting in, I argue, "The Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop."
Animal Agriculture - A Massive Driving force of Climate Change Risk - Ignored until "Cowspiracy!"
Another area of political economic "BS for the Billionaires," is in the area of "animal agriculture." I call this "Near Dark Money!" As the Democrats and scientists are in large part, financed by the Agriculture and related industries. Cowspiracy and my follow up research, certainly has convinced me that a majority of the carbon problem is due to animal agriculture. You can package this problem in terms of fossil fuels and over population, because if the world did not have so many people, that are culturally conditioned to eat large quantities of animal agricultural products, me being one of them, the carbon problem would be much less. If this were not the case, the world would not critically need fossil fuels to produce sufficient animal products, to feed the 7.3 billion and growing people, who eat large amounts of animal agricultural products. However, if the world would all consume significantly less animal products, not to mention, if the world were to convert to being vegan (no animal products), the carbon in the world, and the threat of climate change, would drop significantly. Take a watch of this documentary titled "Cowspiracy!" It is available on Netflix, here is the link.
https://www.netflix.com/watch/80033772?trackId=13752289&tctx=0%2C0%2C8a449408fcc725a5c2013304f06f92bd87ccaceb%3Aed022d8af39488c43ccc7ca78b07ef3358821081
It should give you a good overview of this factor and the force of the animal agriculture industry. The following is a link to a series of debates about what "Cowspiracy" means to climate change and public policy, and includes the trailer. As you will note, one of my TransitioNOW objectives is to have schools, colleges and universities use organic and locally grown products, with annual stated reductions in the amount of animal based products. We must change the diet of the world, and the easiest way, is to do it though schools, in my view. I can only hope that my work on "TransitioNOW or It Is THE END" has the world impact on the level of Cowspiracy.
Global Warming's Great Hiatus Gets Another Debunking
There has been a consistent position put out by "client skeptics" that there has been a hiatus in temperature rise, debunking the idea that the global climate is warming. This scientific study by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), finds that "the world's warming never really stalled during the last fifteen years - it was just masked by incomplete data records that have been improved and expanded in recent years." The paper titled "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus," is the second link, the first link is a review of the paper.
https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04062015/global-warming-great-hiatus-gets-debunked-NOAA-study?gclid=Cj0KEQjw0rm-BRCn85bm8uS-zK0BEiQAHo4vrGv1CvsWR8JDXJSH_2RgQt_904Awk5Y7jwb8YvqsaooaAqRg8P8HAQ
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/348/6242/1469.full
"The rate of temperature increase during the last half of the 20th century is virtually identical to that of the 21st century," said Tom Karl, director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information and lead author of the study.
The abstract for the paper states: "Much study has been devoted to the possible causes of an apparent decrease in the upward trend of global surface temperatures since 1998, a phenomenon that has been dubbed the global warming “hiatus.” Here, we present an updated global surface temperature analysis that reveals that global trends are higher than those reported by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, especially in recent decades, and that the central estimate for the rate of warming during the first 15 years of the 21st century is at least as great as the last half of the 20th century. These results do not support the notion of a “slowdown” in the increase of global surface temperature."
Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Outpace Renewable Support
This video "Global Fossil Fuel Subsidies Outpace Renewable Support," documents that G20 fossil fuel production subsidies for oil, gas and coal, are $444 billion per year, versus $121 billion a year going to subsidies for renewable energies. Interesting is that a Koch Brothers add in my state of Nevada, plays before this video, decrying subsidies for solar. They are aggressively trying to reverse all subsidies for solar and wind, and net metering, and have been successful in many states, while they support their own government subsidies for tar sands, oil and other fossil fuel interests. They are fossil fuel socialists, being technically correct, they are Fossil Fuel Fascists, like their father was, who built the most important refinery for Hitler, that provided the Nazi's critical jet fuel, which insured the death of so many Americans, and people globally, during WWII. Now Charles and David Koch are some of the leading EMM Fossil Fuel Fascists that are insuring the death of all species, if these arguments are correct. Even one of their own, Bill Buckley, called the Koch Brothers, "Totalitarian Libertarians." I prefer Evil Money Monsters, or Satin's Warriors insuring the death of all of God's species on Planet Titanic! Have fun in hell boys! I am sure you will be down there at the right hand of Satin, with the Rothchilds, Rockefellers, Dark Money billionaires, etc., what an accomplishment. Plus, if you really do get to experience the insane pain and suffering you caused billions and billions, for your billions and billions for eternity, just think of how horrific that will be, if these arguments are correct, that you and yours will be responsible for unleashing "The Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop!"
"The Limits to Growth" - Proof that the Business, Political and Religious Leaders Will Continue to Ignore All Limits to Growth - "It Is THE END!"
The following documentary on "World Population" provides an interesting view of population growth using dots. As an economic demographer (population analyst) by education, I originally studied "The Limits to Growth" in a doctoral symposium, as an undergrad student at the University of Utah in the early eighties, under a visiting prof from Stanford.
China vs India: Race to The Top of The World - Or - Race to The End of The World?
"China vs India: Race to the Top of The World," BBC Documentary details these emerging super powers race to be the World's Sovereign nation, beating out the United States. Imagine what is going to happen to China's massive trade imbalance, when the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff, and global energy prices skyrocket! Imagine what this enormous rise in the price of oil and gas, will do to these emerging super powers insatiable demand for growth. The commentator notes that India use to see its rising population as a burden, more mouths to feed. But now, China, with its more stable and aging population, is seen as likely to have challenges in feeding their aging population, with fewer young working people. While India, with its rising numbers of young working age people, is seen as having the upper hand on fueling phenomenal future growth. This population growth is now seen as helping India lead "the race to the top of the world." Mohandas Pai, Vice-President, Infosys, India's top computer software company, states that there is no parallel to India and China, as the growth in these two countries is unprecedented. China has lifted more people out of poverty in a shorter time, than any other country, and now, India, he believes will do the same. Together, these emerging super powers represent 40% of the world's population, and if they do well, the world will do well. From my perspective, it it weren't for the harsh realities of climate change, and the ravages of over population.
"Bridging Asia: China or India - Who Will be Ahead in 2030?"
If this debate doesn't validate my argument that the world carbon levels will rise significantly more than currently forecast, and that global mean temperatures will be driven past the 3-4C level by the second half of this century, I don't know what would. The pressure to scale up hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates production to fuel this growth, will only be second, I argue, to the insatiable greed of the fossil fuel EMM&MS! Underlying this race, from my perspective, is how this race will increase the speed at which the world carbon levels rise, increasing global mean temperatures by 3-4C, and hence, resulting in global sea levels rising by up to 60 feet, imploding and exploding the world's ocean based nuclear reactors, and releasing "The Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop." This "race to the top of the world," in my opinion, is a "race to the end of the world!" At least, all, if not all most all, species, most critically, homogreedious!
"China lifts one-child policy amid worries over graying population" this Washington Post article (10/29/15 ) declares. Take a look at the population distribution graphs in this article. Note how they go from an inverted cone in 1950, with many more younger than older people. To a forecast distribution where the largest number are older, by 2050. This will place an enormous burden on younger people to pay for the elderly. This problem is similar in the US, Western European countries, and other countries that experienced the Post WWII baby boom.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-lifts-one-child-policy-amid-worries-of-graying-population/2015/10/29/207fc0e6-7e2b-11e5-beba-927fd8634498_story.html
The problem of using government enforced population control are many, as the following documentary on China's "One Child Policy."
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/china-lifts-one-child-policy-amid-worries-of-graying-population/2015/10/29/207fc0e6-7e2b-11e5-beba-927fd8634498_story.html
The problem of using government enforced population control are many, as the following documentary on China's "One Child Policy."
Obviously, forced birth control doesn't seem to be the answer either. Religious groups all seem to believe in the idea that you should have as many children as God blesses you with. In my own Catholic tradition, the only birth control methods allowed have been referred to as "Vatican Roulette!" It appears that Mother Nature is going to take care of the problem of over population of the planet, due to climate change, and ocean based nuclear reactors. I would suggest that God must not have wanted the world to have so many people, given the underlying structure of climate change, pollution, deplete-able natural resources (fresh water, farmable land, etc.). Too bad the religious leaders can't see this in the design of the planet, that God must have wanted us to voluntarily control the numbers of people on this earth, especially, given that all most all of the gains since the rise of the Radical Right, have gone to 1%, or more realistically, one tenth of one percent (0.1%) of the worlds population!
China's Growth and Ghost Cities - Preparing for the World Falling Off "Hubbert's Cliff" - Dialectical Materialism Based?
China's amazing growth since the turn of the century, has been fueled by a number of massive driving forces: cheap fossil fuels, slave equivalent labor, no-pollution controls, export subsidizes, manipulation of their currency, intellectual property theft, product theft, and a massive growth boom, which has resulted in over 50 ghost cities, to name the primary driving forces. Take a look at these three documentaries, the first discusses these massive "ghost cities," and their role in China's growth, and their potential to collapse that growth. The second, "The Great China Crash (2016)" discusses how this phenomenal growth in manufacguring is starting to collapse. Is this massive growth, what I believe, a rush to build as much manufacturing, infrastructure and housing as possible before the world falls off "Hubbert's Cliff?"
Worse yet, could it be as a result of the belief in "dialectical materialism?" Dialectical materialism is the idea that communism did not become the great success it was hoped for by Karl Marx, because countries needed to build wealth, through the greed of capitalism, then mature to a more humane market socialism, to ultimately reach the ideal of enlightened communism, with all the wealth and manufacturing capabilities that it has acquired from the West. Is the Communist Party of China planning on nationalizing all of these industries when the world falls off "Hubbert's Cliff?" I don't think that I can even imagine how horrific nationalizing most of the world's manufacturing companies, or divisions of companies, would be, just when the world may be cascading into a Global Inflationary Great Depression, due to running out of cheap oil and gas.
If China is having troubles now, how bad will it get when energy prices soar, due to the world running out of cheap oil and gas? Will this miracle of growth since the turn of the century, become the engine of global collapse, as I fear, from the thirties on, or even sooner? This is the "best case scenario," in my view. We shall see, surely many people are discussing this possibility. The third documentary, "Death by China," discusses these issues in detail.
China's Growth and Ghost Cities - Preparing for the World Falling Off "Hubbert's Cliff" - Dialectical Materialism Based?
China's amazing growth since the turn of the century, has been fueled by a number of massive driving forces: cheap fossil fuels, slave equivalent labor, no-pollution controls, export subsidizes, manipulation of their currency, intellectual property theft, product theft, and a massive growth boom, which has resulted in over 50 ghost cities, to name the primary driving forces. Take a look at these three documentaries, the first discusses these massive "ghost cities," and their role in China's growth, and their potential to collapse that growth. The second, "The Great China Crash (2016)" discusses how this phenomenal growth in manufacguring is starting to collapse. Is this massive growth, what I believe, a rush to build as much manufacturing, infrastructure and housing as possible before the world falls off "Hubbert's Cliff?"
Worse yet, could it be as a result of the belief in "dialectical materialism?" Dialectical materialism is the idea that communism did not become the great success it was hoped for by Karl Marx, because countries needed to build wealth, through the greed of capitalism, then mature to a more humane market socialism, to ultimately reach the ideal of enlightened communism, with all the wealth and manufacturing capabilities that it has acquired from the West. Is the Communist Party of China planning on nationalizing all of these industries when the world falls off "Hubbert's Cliff?" I don't think that I can even imagine how horrific nationalizing most of the world's manufacturing companies, or divisions of companies, would be, just when the world may be cascading into a Global Inflationary Great Depression, due to running out of cheap oil and gas.
If China is having troubles now, how bad will it get when energy prices soar, due to the world running out of cheap oil and gas? Will this miracle of growth since the turn of the century, become the engine of global collapse, as I fear, from the thirties on, or even sooner? This is the "best case scenario," in my view. We shall see, surely many people are discussing this possibility. The third documentary, "Death by China," discusses these issues in detail.
Death by China - Using a Command Economy to Hijack our Market Based Manufacturing Jobs and Businesses - Just Before the World Falls off Hubbert's Cliff - Dire Consequences for the United States
The third documentary, "Death by China," a must watch, discusses how since the turn of the century, 57,000 manufacturing firms have been closed in the US, due to China joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, as a result of these massive driving forces. Just to remind you these primary driving forces are: cheap fossil fuels, slave equivalent labor, no-pollution controls, export subsidizes, manipulation of their currency, intellectual property theft, product theft, and a massive growth boom, which has resulted in over 50 ghost cities. Imagine how difficult it will be for the world to TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, and local manufacturing, based on solar and wind, given that China now manufactures such a large portion of global products, and 57,000 manufacturing firms have closed in the US, just since the turn of the century. Imagine what is going to happen when the world runs out of cheap oil and gas. Not only will the rush to develop hard fossil fuel production (tar sands to oil, coal to oil, and shale to oil) and methane hydrates production be monumental, to keep Chinese manufacturing going, hence insuring the rise in global mean temperatures, I argue, to 3-4C by 2050-2070, but the global economy, I believe will cascade into an Inflationary Global Great Depression around 2035-2050, like the world can simply not even imagine. I would add to "Death by China's" ending requests, call your Representative and tell them, if the world does not TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind based US manufactured products before the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff, "It Is THE END!"
Death by China - Using a Command Economy to Hijack our Market Based Manufacturing Jobs and Businesses - Just Before the World Falls off Hubbert's Cliff - Dire Consequences for the United States
The third documentary, "Death by China," a must watch, discusses how since the turn of the century, 57,000 manufacturing firms have been closed in the US, due to China joining the World Trade Organization in 2001, as a result of these massive driving forces. Just to remind you these primary driving forces are: cheap fossil fuels, slave equivalent labor, no-pollution controls, export subsidizes, manipulation of their currency, intellectual property theft, product theft, and a massive growth boom, which has resulted in over 50 ghost cities. Imagine how difficult it will be for the world to TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, and local manufacturing, based on solar and wind, given that China now manufactures such a large portion of global products, and 57,000 manufacturing firms have closed in the US, just since the turn of the century. Imagine what is going to happen when the world runs out of cheap oil and gas. Not only will the rush to develop hard fossil fuel production (tar sands to oil, coal to oil, and shale to oil) and methane hydrates production be monumental, to keep Chinese manufacturing going, hence insuring the rise in global mean temperatures, I argue, to 3-4C by 2050-2070, but the global economy, I believe will cascade into an Inflationary Global Great Depression around 2035-2050, like the world can simply not even imagine. I would add to "Death by China's" ending requests, call your Representative and tell them, if the world does not TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind based US manufactured products before the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff, "It Is THE END!"
World In The Balance: China Revs Up
This Nova documentary, "World in the Balance: China Revs Up" discusses the enormous number of problems, due to the over population of China, its growth so far, and desired growth in the future. Add to these findings, the ones that I present here. It Is THE END!
Confessions of an Economic Hitman
John Perkins, is famous for his work on "Confessions of an Economic Hitman," and "The New Confessions of an Economic Hit Man." He details how he was paid to go into countries, bury them in debt, buy off their leaders, or put in place leaders that they could buy off, steal their natural resources, exploit their populous at slave labor rates and living conditions, keep the countries under the terror of a totalitarian regime, all for the benefit of multi-national, and now, trans-national corporate monsters. I was offered a position to be a money manager for one of these EMM in Brazil, but turned it down, see my bio. John discusses his extensive history as an "economic hit man," and how the corporate state terrorizes emerging market economies and people for their insane greed for money and power. Trust me, what he is telling you that happens, is more the norm, than the more positive relationships, by far. The documentaries "Death by China," and "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man," are more the reality of international trade, than are the sweet stories of "gains from international trade," and "gains from implementation of free markets and democracies," like modern economic departments teach, and the Rothschilds, Koch Brothers, and Dark Money EMM&MS try to brainwash people into believing.
Some of My Related Work on "The Limits to Growth," and International Economics and Trade
My Master's thesis (3/1984) was a critique of the Reagan policies, arguing that they were the primary cause of the decline in manufacturing in the early eighties, due to the massive tax cuts for the rich and massive increase in war spending (easy fiscal policies), coupled with tight monetary policies to stop the inflation of the seventies, that caused a very large rise in the government deficits, and enormous rise in real interest rates. These high real interest rates, attracted hundreds of billions in investments in US Treasury bonds, not US business, increasing the value of the major dollar index from 82.47 (10/78, macrotrends. net), to 124.42 (12/84). This caused imports (think Toyotas) to be very inexpensive in the US, roughly 1/3 less than before the dollar rise, with exports (think Fords) to be very expensive abroad, roughly 50% more expensive before the dollar rise. This mismatch of fiscal and monetary policies, I argued, caused manufacturing to be offshored more than any other factor in US history. I concluded that Reagan's policies were very bad for US business wanting to produce in the US, and were the primary stimulus driving the offshoring of manufacturing.
My educational background includes year long doctoral symposium in international trade and ecnomics, a doctoral symposium in international law, and the doctoral symposium in international finance. My paper topics have included "international venture arrangements and technology transfer to Brazil," "appropriate technology transfer and venture arrangements," and "Brazilian finance and ecnonomics," to name a few. I facilitated many international relationships with primarily European partners, but also, one Asian company.
My second position out of graduate school, was turning around a Chapter 11 auto parts manufacturing firm in a Detroit suburb. I was able to import parts, with much higher quality control specs, from Taiwan, than I could purchase the cold rolled steel from in the United States to make the parts. Talk about living the conclusions of your thesis! Even after restructuring the complete facility, implementing computerized just-in-time quality control measures, developing a complete job enrichment and design program, and restructuring the debt for the plant, reducing secured debt by 65%, and unsecured debt by 75%, the plant was not even close to being competitive with the Taiwan plant produced products. Our only competitive advantage, was that the auto firms, at that time, required some portion of your products to be produced locally from suppliers. Not any more!
My life work has revolved around all of these issues of over population and "The Limits to Growth," but also includes the likely impacts on these trends, due to political economics (the study of wealth and power), as I sat in a year long doctoral symposium in political economics as a sophomore at the UofU.
I have anticipated the ultimate demise of the species since this time. As I expected, the "business as usual" case depicted in The Limits to Growth has been exceeded, worse than this base case, in almost every time period. The only thing that was not evident at the time, was the extent to which climate change would play a role in the demise of the species. Remember, this was the early eighties at the height of the first oil crisis, and my roommate was a petroleum geophysicist, and the professor living below us, was a nuclear physicist that worked on the Manhattan project. So I have anticipated the end of the species since this time, due to the insatiable greed of man, the over population of the planet, peak energy, pollution, and either nuclear war or nuclear related problems. What wasn't evident at the time, was the extent to which technology would push off falling off Hubbert's Cliff, and then climate change would accelerate the demise of the species.
My work on the baby boom, in this graduate symposium, became an extensive study, which I titled "The Utah MX Baby Bomb," on the potential impacts of the proposed land basing of the MX Nuclear Missile System in Southern Utah and Nevada in the early eighties. The MX Nuclear Missile System was the largest, and I would argue, the most insane project ever proposed by mankind, even up to today. In this study, I documented the first case of what I termed "the baby boom-town syndrome." The MX and fifty of the proposed 52 high development projects, in the "Utah 2000 High Development Scenario," had similar boom town labor demand, with large demand to build these projects, and then a massive drop in labor demand, to run the projects. The majority of Utah's population growth was due to babies of the baby boom generation, a baby boom wave cycle. Both the fall off in labor demand from the MX and 50 of the 52 high development projects, I forecast would likely be occurring at the same time, as the entrance into the workforce of the baby boom wave cycle youth - "the baby boom-town syndrome."
My conclusion was that Utah's Land of Zion would be threatened, due to the likely out-migration of their youth to get jobs elsewhere, and due to the large in-migration of non-Mormons to built the MX and other high development projects. Two weeks after submitting my project, which if my information was correct, was the only one submitted to the Mormon Church and Defense Department for three months prior to the final submission date, the Mormon Church came out against the MX. Shortly after the Mormon Church came out against the project, the Defense Department scrapped the project.
I would like to think that my work may have been "the straw the broke the back" on the insane MX deployment, by making the Mormon Church aware of the risk to The Land of Zion. Obviously, the Money Monsters would no more give me credit for this effort, then they would for my current work, "TransitioNOW or It is THE END!"
I hope to stop the extinction of homogreedious by making the Evil Money Monsters and Money Sluts (EMM&MS) aware of the fact that they will die, along with the rest of us, if the world does not TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind! As the chances of getting the EMM&MS to implement "The ONLY Solution" are, in my opinion, less than the chances of me winning a $500 Trillion dollar lottery, and transitioning the world myself to solar and wind, preparing people for what I believe is the coming economic and environmental "hell on earth," caused by these EMM&MS, and helping to save souls are my real primary objectives.
The Limits to Growth: A Final Warning
A Must Watch Documentary as well, I have been sounding the warning of the likely ravages of over population since 1980, these experts have been since 1972. This is their story. In my view, the history of abuse of these authors and their work, is what the "climate scientists and authors" are experiencing now, and proof that the business, political and religious leaders will ignore all limits to growth, due to the insane greed of the EMM&MS, to the extinction of all species. Hence, in my view, "It Is THE END!"
Jorgen Randers is my favorite author of The Limits to Growth, here is his TEDxMaastricht presentation on his latest update "2052: A Global Forecast for the next Forty Years."
Keep in mind that the research on "the limits to growth," does not take into consideration these new findings in the first documentary on how low of a temperature rise it took to melt most of Antarctica, and the possible implosion and explosion of the world's nuclear power plants. "The Limits to Growth" modeling does not take into consideration my "19 Critical Forces and Factors Insuring The Extinction of All Species in 100 Years."
One of my other long-term heros who is fighting over population is Lester Brown, founder of Earth Policy Institute, a must see site.
http://www.earth-policy.org/
His book "World On The Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse," is one of my favorites, and his Plan B was a very viable option to save the planet. Too bad the billionaires and their followers are trying to stomp on all of us that are trying to stop them from killing all species, and they have hundreds of billions to do it with.
http://www.earth-policy.org/books/wote
His most recent book "The Great Transition: Shifting from Fossil Fuels to Solar and Wind Energy," (2015) is a good read. Many of us who are big fans of his, believe he way understated the urgency of making this change; the enormous technical, financial, business and political challenges of making this change; and, the massive resistance by the fossil fuel EMM&MS against this change.
Here is a presentation by Lester titled, "Mobilizing for Climate Change" (published 5.12.15).
One of my other long-term heros who is fighting over population is Lester Brown, founder of Earth Policy Institute, a must see site.
http://www.earth-policy.org/
His book "World On The Edge: How to Prevent Environmental and Economic Collapse," is one of my favorites, and his Plan B was a very viable option to save the planet. Too bad the billionaires and their followers are trying to stomp on all of us that are trying to stop them from killing all species, and they have hundreds of billions to do it with.
http://www.earth-policy.org/books/wote
His most recent book "The Great Transition: Shifting from Fossil Fuels to Solar and Wind Energy," (2015) is a good read. Many of us who are big fans of his, believe he way understated the urgency of making this change; the enormous technical, financial, business and political challenges of making this change; and, the massive resistance by the fossil fuel EMM&MS against this change.
Here is a presentation by Lester titled, "Mobilizing for Climate Change" (published 5.12.15).
The problems with not including the numerous driving forces and factors, that I do, in the IPCC and LBNL modeling, is a similar problem with "The Limits to Growth" modeling, which does not incorporate any of the above 19 critical risk factors and forces, and other modeling on any one of these forces and factors as individual risks, like peak energy proponents (Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, Al Bartlett, etc.), and global aging experts (Kotlikoff and Burns).
We should basically say, OK - this is where these various researchers on each of these critical risk factors and forces think the world is going without these other dominant forces and factors considered. Now, how do we enrich these modeling conclusions and make them much richer, by considering these other primary driving forces and factors all together. This is what I hope to do in this work, with the sad conclusion "It is THE END."
Deflation of Global Asset Bubbles - A Global Soft Deflationary Recession from Now until 2025
My guesstimate is that the world is entering a global soft deflationary recession from now until around 2025, as the impacts of "global aging" start slowing global growth; global stock, housing and commercial real estate bubbles potentially implode; and due to the fact that the average pre-retirement savings in the US of 55-64 year olds' is only $12,000, primarily.
The math of the markets, in my opinion, proves that the stock market indices are significantly over valued. The simple math is:
ER(s) = Y + E(EPSG)
The Expected Return on Stocks ER(s), is equal to the dividend yield (Y) plus the Expected Earnings per Share Growth E(EPSG) on stocks.
The current dividend yield on the Standard and Poors 500 Index (S&P500, multpl.com, 10/14/16) is 2.08%, click on the following link to see the declining yield on the S&P500, as prices have risen much faster than dividend growth for the majority of the past three decades now.
http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-dividend-yield/
Earnings per Share Growth (EPSG) has been negative from September 2014 every month, through the last month on this table as of 10/14/16, March 2016 for the S&P500 index. Click on the following link to see the EPS of the S&P500.
http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-earnings/table?f=m
Note how EPS for the S&P500 peaked on this monthly table, September 30, 2014 at 107.22. EPS declined every month since this time, to the last date on this table, March 31, 2016, at 87.43. This is a decline of (107.22 - 87.43 = 19.79 / 107.22 = -18.45%) of 18.45% from September 2014 to March 2016. On a simple average basis, for the eighteen months ending March, 2016, the S&P 500 earnings declined by more than -12% per year.
Although I do not expect that the decline in earnings will continue at this rate going forward, for illustration purposes, if you were in my investment class, and I were to ask you to calculate the expected return on the S&P 500 going forward, assuming this dividend yield, and given this trend in earnings per share decline for the past 18 months, rounded to whole numbers, the correct answer would be:
ER(-10) = Y (2) + E(EPSG) [– 12]
The expected return on the S&P 500 would be a negative, -10%, per year, assuming a 2% dividend yield, and declining earnings per share growth of -12% per year going forward.
Although I do expect that earnings per share will continue to decline by -12% per year, I do assume that it will continue to decline annually, most years, going forward into what I believe will be a Global Soft Recession, followed by a Global Soft Deflationary Depression.
In 1980, when the dividend yield was 5-6%, I hypothesized that stock prices would rally significantly, due to the spending and investing of the baby boom generation, and speculation by investors and Wall Street, until income from stocks dropped to very low levels. Stocks would drop, I theorized, when the baby boom generation entered their fifties, due to siblings typically getting out of school, and the need to invest substantially more for retirement. The peak birth year of the baby boom generation was my birth year, 1957, add fifty years, and I thought in 1980, that stocks would drop around 2007, due to earnings growth starting to decline, which they do when people enter their fifties.
Stocks would rally back, due to the greed of Wall Street, the top 1%, and political interests. They would ultimately drop back to where they were when I made this forecast in a doctoral symposium in economic demography when I was an undergraduate student, I guesstimated, to around a 5-6% dividend yield, when the baby boom retired in full, around 2025-2030. To get to a 5%-6% dividend yield, from a 2.08% dividend yield on the S&P500 index, the stock market would have to drop by 58% - 65%. This is assuming that the dividend payout ratio increases at least by the amount that dividends drop by 2025-2030, due to what I believe will be ongoing declining earnings per share growth. Which in my view, is an optimistic assumption.
I fully expect, right or wrong, that the stock market, the S&P500 index, will decline by 50% or more, by 2030. Think about the math above, if earnings growth continues to decline into the future, forcing an ongoing decline in dividends, a 5-6% dividend yield, less expected earnings per share decline, is not even an exciting return. Hence, why I believe 30-year Treasury bond yields will decline to less than 1%, and relatively more secure dividend yields to drop from around 5% to around half this amount by this time. Trillions and trillions of dollars invested in growth assets, I argue, will flood into secure income assets, from growth assets, driving income from these secure income assets to very low levels, like it has in Germany, Japan and Switzerland already!
“Global Soft Deflationary Recession” - Slowing Growth continues into the future
The economies of the world, I believe, will continue to show ongoing slowing in economic and earnings growth into the future, for decades to come, in my view, due to: global aging; a massive US fiscal gap; slowing growth in China, Western Europe, emerging markets, and most countries; rising climate change costs, and other over population related costs.
Global Aging
The primary driving force slowing economic growth, I believe, is what I have been studying for roughly 36 years now, "global aging" (see Kotlikof and Burns, "The Clash of Generations," (2014) and "The Coming Generational Storm," (2005)).
The aging of the Post WWII baby boom generation (boomers), born from 1946-1964, with the peak birth year in the US being 1957 ("Age and Sex Composition: 2010," 2010 Census Briefs, May 2011, Census.gov). These boomers are now 53-70 years old. The largest group of boomers are now heading into their retirement years 65 plus, or what I also call the "layoff years." During the Great Recession, 2008-2009, many boomers were laid off, and either did not get new jobs, or needed to take a job, or many jobs, with significantly lower pay.
I anticipate that many boomers that get laid off this time, will not as easily be able to get new lower paying jobs, due to their older age, and due to ongoing slowing economic growth, pressuring ongoing "downsizing" by companies globally. The ongoing retirement, or laying off, of many of the highest paid workers in the aging economies of the world, is likely to result in dropping "aggregate demand" for most goods and services, resulting in downward pressure on prices and economic growth, and hence, possible deflation.
How much will Boomers Incomes Drop?
Your likely highest income potential is at the end of your earnings cycle, just before retirement (“Mean Household Income and Expenditures: from 2003-2009, Across Ages,” figure 4, in “How Does Household Expenditure Change with Age for Older Americans?” Employee Benefit Research Institute, ebri.org, Sept 14, 2014, Vol. 35, No. 9). What do you think that the average retirement savings is per household? Take a look at these findings of a recent study by The National Institute on Retirement Security, in their study "The Retirement Savings Crisis: Is it worse than we think?"
http://www.nirsonline.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=768
This new study documents that retirement savings are dangerously low. In fact, the average working household has close to no retirement savings!
Even those nearing retirement age, 55-64, only have an average balance of $12,000. Can you believe that? Of the top income earners, boomers that have 401k retirement accounts, the average balance for those 55-64 years old is only $100,000, (figure 9, "Typical Working Age Household only has $3,000 in Retirement Account Assets, Typical Near-Retirement Household has only $12,000).
Now, most of you are all too familiar with how difficult it is to get a net portfolio yield of 4-6% in this market, imaging living off a yield of 5%, on a $12,000 retirement account! That is only $600 per year! Even if you have a $100,000 retirement account balance, assuming a relatively high 5% retirement portfolio net income, the expected retirement income is only $5,000 per year.
I believe, many boomers are likely to see their incomes "fall of a cliff," when they have to live off their Social Security payments, and their incomes on their potentially limited retirement portfolios.
Declining Earnings Growth May Facilitate Declining Dividend Payments
More importantly, in my opinion, potentially declining growth in earnings per share, may facilitate an ongoing drop in the average dividend payment on the S&P500. So I expect that the dividend received for investors in this index will decline, due to potentially ongoing declining earnings growth over the coming decade.
Therefore, in my opinion, stocks in general, as represented by the S&P500 index, are significantly overpriced relative to what the current and future, earnings per share and dividend per share, are likely to be. Housing and commercial real estate, in general, due to these market driving forces, in my opinion, are over priced as well, and are likely to decline meaningfully by 2030.
Global Aging and Fiscal Gaps - A Global Deflationary Soft, then Great Depression - 2025 to 2035
The world, I believe, will cascade into a global soft deflationary depression from around 2025-2035, as the global baby boom generation enters retirement in mass, and the roughly $222 Trillion US fiscal gap (2010 Fiscal gap, Wiki), and large fiscal gaps in some Western European and Asian countries, become massively rising current and structural debts globally. These forces will be significantly augmented by the aging of China, and likely collapse of China's economy, due to the slowdown in manufacturing demand caused by global aging, and the enormous impacts of aging of their economy, due to the one child policies (see population graphs above).These events, may cause global financial chaos, when coupled with the massive collapse of global stock markets to where the dividend yield equals a reasonable risk adjusted return of around 5 to 6 percent, which is where it was when I forecast that this event would occur in the early eighties.
When I was doing the doctoral symposium on economic demography as an undergrad student at the UofU, I theorized that "the financial markets (stock, real estate and bond markets) would rise dramatically as the global baby boom generation aged, spending and investing more. Asset prices would rise to where the income on assets dropped to very low levels, just before the baby boomers entered their fifties, which is when spending historically drops meaningfully, and growth would begin to slow. I was born in the peak birth year of the baby boom generation, 1957, add fifty years, I expected spending to start dropping by around 2007, in the early eighties. I postulated that the markets would drop meaningfully as spending dropped, but due to the greed of Wall Street and the Billionaire class, markets would rebound.
They would then drop again into the retirement of the majority of the baby boom generation, around 2020-2030, to where the income from stocks provided a reasonable risk adjusted total return, in my view, around 5-6%, which is where it was when I first made this forecast in 1980. Housing and other commercial real estate would likely follow stocks lower, only real estate targeted at the aging baby boom generation would likely do well." This has been my operating investment thesis all of these years, and has proven, in my opinion, to be sound.
These likely rapidly rising deficits may necessitate massive cuts in government spending. These events, I argue, will result in a massive collapse in global housing, and commercial real estate markets. Financial institutions are likely, in my view, due to this chain of events, to be in large part bankrupt.
The US fiscal gap was $222 Trillion, based on the Congressional Budget Office's 2012 Alternative Fiscal Scenario extended by Dr. Laurence Kotlikof (Wikipedia, fiscal gap), and rose $11 Trillion from 2011 to 2012. The fiscal gap is the present value of the US current and future pending deficits, given current tax and spending plans into the future. To close this fiscal gap, they estimate that it would either take a 64% increase in all federal taxes, or a 40% cut in all federal purchases and transfer payments.
To put the size of this fiscal gap in perspective, the value of all global financial assets, according to McKinsey and Company's study "Mapping Global Capital Markets" (2011) in 2010 was $212 trillion. This includes global stock market capitalization, public debt securities outstanding, financial institution bonds outstanding, nonfinancial corporate bonds outstanding, securitized loans outstanding, and nonsecuritized loans outstanding. The size of the US fiscal gap in 2012 was larger than the value of the global capital stock in 2010!
Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns in their books "The Clash of Generations" (2012), and "The Coming Generational Storm" (2005) are the leading authors on the massive risks of these deficits. What is interesting is comparing their 2005 work, to the incredible rise in this measure, the fiscal gap, by their 2012 book.
Here is an interview with Dr. Kotlikoff on the importance of the massive US fiscal gap:
The world, I believe, will cascade into a global soft deflationary depression from around 2025-2035, as the global baby boom generation enters retirement in mass, and the roughly $222 Trillion US fiscal gap (2010 Fiscal gap, Wiki), and large fiscal gaps in some Western European and Asian countries, become massively rising current and structural debts globally. These forces will be significantly augmented by the aging of China, and likely collapse of China's economy, due to the slowdown in manufacturing demand caused by global aging, and the enormous impacts of aging of their economy, due to the one child policies (see population graphs above).These events, may cause global financial chaos, when coupled with the massive collapse of global stock markets to where the dividend yield equals a reasonable risk adjusted return of around 5 to 6 percent, which is where it was when I forecast that this event would occur in the early eighties.
When I was doing the doctoral symposium on economic demography as an undergrad student at the UofU, I theorized that "the financial markets (stock, real estate and bond markets) would rise dramatically as the global baby boom generation aged, spending and investing more. Asset prices would rise to where the income on assets dropped to very low levels, just before the baby boomers entered their fifties, which is when spending historically drops meaningfully, and growth would begin to slow. I was born in the peak birth year of the baby boom generation, 1957, add fifty years, I expected spending to start dropping by around 2007, in the early eighties. I postulated that the markets would drop meaningfully as spending dropped, but due to the greed of Wall Street and the Billionaire class, markets would rebound.
They would then drop again into the retirement of the majority of the baby boom generation, around 2020-2030, to where the income from stocks provided a reasonable risk adjusted total return, in my view, around 5-6%, which is where it was when I first made this forecast in 1980. Housing and other commercial real estate would likely follow stocks lower, only real estate targeted at the aging baby boom generation would likely do well." This has been my operating investment thesis all of these years, and has proven, in my opinion, to be sound.
These likely rapidly rising deficits may necessitate massive cuts in government spending. These events, I argue, will result in a massive collapse in global housing, and commercial real estate markets. Financial institutions are likely, in my view, due to this chain of events, to be in large part bankrupt.
The US fiscal gap was $222 Trillion, based on the Congressional Budget Office's 2012 Alternative Fiscal Scenario extended by Dr. Laurence Kotlikof (Wikipedia, fiscal gap), and rose $11 Trillion from 2011 to 2012. The fiscal gap is the present value of the US current and future pending deficits, given current tax and spending plans into the future. To close this fiscal gap, they estimate that it would either take a 64% increase in all federal taxes, or a 40% cut in all federal purchases and transfer payments.
To put the size of this fiscal gap in perspective, the value of all global financial assets, according to McKinsey and Company's study "Mapping Global Capital Markets" (2011) in 2010 was $212 trillion. This includes global stock market capitalization, public debt securities outstanding, financial institution bonds outstanding, nonfinancial corporate bonds outstanding, securitized loans outstanding, and nonsecuritized loans outstanding. The size of the US fiscal gap in 2012 was larger than the value of the global capital stock in 2010!
Laurence Kotlikoff and Scott Burns in their books "The Clash of Generations" (2012), and "The Coming Generational Storm" (2005) are the leading authors on the massive risks of these deficits. What is interesting is comparing their 2005 work, to the incredible rise in this measure, the fiscal gap, by their 2012 book.
Here is an interview with Dr. Kotlikoff on the importance of the massive US fiscal gap:
Here is a copy of the transcript of Dr. Kotlikoff's testimony to the Senate Budget Committee on "America's Fiscal Insolvency and Its Generational Consequences" (2/25/15).
http://www.kotlikoff.net/…/…/Kotlikoffbudgetcom2-25-2015.pdf
Per Dr. Kotlikoff's testimony, what is amazing is that the 2012 fiscal gap as a share of the present value of Gross Domestic Product (fiscal gap to GDP ratio) for major developed market countries he calculates: U.S. 13.7, Germany 1.4, UK 5.4, Netherlands 5.9, France 1.6, Spain 4.8, Italy -2.3, Sweden 1.7. He notes that Italy's tight control of government health expenditures and two pension cuts that have reduced pension benefits by 40%, account for their negative fiscal gap.
How many people in the US do you think would believe that the US fiscal gap to GDP ratio is more than double the worst developed country in Western Europe in his list, the Netherlands, and over 8 times the fiscal gap to GDP ratios of Sweden, Germany and France?
http://www.kotlikoff.net/…/…/Kotlikoffbudgetcom2-25-2015.pdf
Per Dr. Kotlikoff's testimony, what is amazing is that the 2012 fiscal gap as a share of the present value of Gross Domestic Product (fiscal gap to GDP ratio) for major developed market countries he calculates: U.S. 13.7, Germany 1.4, UK 5.4, Netherlands 5.9, France 1.6, Spain 4.8, Italy -2.3, Sweden 1.7. He notes that Italy's tight control of government health expenditures and two pension cuts that have reduced pension benefits by 40%, account for their negative fiscal gap.
How many people in the US do you think would believe that the US fiscal gap to GDP ratio is more than double the worst developed country in Western Europe in his list, the Netherlands, and over 8 times the fiscal gap to GDP ratios of Sweden, Germany and France?
Falling off Hubbert's Cliff, 2030-2050, A Global Inflationary Great Depression
I argue that unless the world transitions to substantially a global renewable energy sustainable society before the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff, which will be when the world starts running out of cheap oil an gas rapidly, which I guesstimate will be in the thirties, the end of all species is cast in "ice, dirt and rocks."
The documentary "Aftermath: World without Oil," is a good one on what I believe the world will cascade into between 2030-2050, after falling off "Hubbert's Cliff." Due to the scaling up of hard fossil fuel production, I trust that it will take a bit longer to collapse completely, than the documentary shows, however the net result may be in my view, to kick start "100 years of Hell on Earth."
I argue that unless the world transitions to substantially a global renewable energy sustainable society before the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff, which will be when the world starts running out of cheap oil an gas rapidly, which I guesstimate will be in the thirties, the end of all species is cast in "ice, dirt and rocks."
The documentary "Aftermath: World without Oil," is a good one on what I believe the world will cascade into between 2030-2050, after falling off "Hubbert's Cliff." Due to the scaling up of hard fossil fuel production, I trust that it will take a bit longer to collapse completely, than the documentary shows, however the net result may be in my view, to kick start "100 years of Hell on Earth."
The basic math on when the world may fall off Hubbert's Cliff is simple, the US Energy Information Association (US EIA, 2013) shows 1,656 billion barrels of proven oil reserves in the world. However, if you read Peak Oil on Wikipedia, under concerns over stated reserves, or on the table on the page on Oil Researves in the link below, and the graph of stated OPEC reserves, which is the following first link, you will see that OPEC increased their stated reserves by 249.1 billion barrels, 250 billion in reserves, to make the math easy, in the eighties, when OPEC tied production quotas to stated reserves. So these 250 billion are fabricated reserves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#/media/File:OPEC_declared_reserves_1980-now_BP.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
Plus, OPEC has never decreased their stated reserves, see the graph above, all the while providing roughly 1/2 of the world's oil supply. This is simply impossible, so if we take off another 456 billion in a rough guess that they have used around 50% of their early eighties stated reserves (1,137.9 - 250 = 887.9, 456/887.9 = 51.4%), you have roughly 1 trillion barrels of reserves. This makes the amount the world has used in oil, roughly 1/2 of what is remaining, just what most people have estimated it is.
On the table of OPEC reserves (click on Oil Reserves link above), in 2010, OPEC claims 1,137.9 billion barrels of proven reserves, of the 1,656 billion barrels of proven reserves the US EIA estimated in 2013. If you take off the 250 billion added in the eighties, and deduct the 456 billion I guesstimate to have already been extracted, you end up with my guesstimate that OPEC has 431.9 billion barrels of proven reserves, and the world roughly has 1 trillion barrels. OPEC, based on these rough calculations still has close to half of global reserves.
Then you can make a further assumption that the amount that we may find over the coming years, is equal to the amount we can't get to of the remaining stated reserves.
Consumption of oil was just over 33 billion barrels per year in 2013 (US EIA). Estimates are around 50 billion barrels per year demand by 2050. If you take 40 as a low average over these years, this results in around 25 years of oil remaining. I assume that the world will start running out rapidly in 15-25 years, around 2030 to 2040, very likely at the beginning of this period, and quite possibly, much earlier, if most stated reserves are way over stated, like OPEC's and Brazil's reserves are.
http://www.reuters.com/article/brazil-petrobras-reserves-idUSL2N15D165
Venezuela represents 298 billion (see US IEA 2013), of the non-revised world reserve estimates, and roughly 150 billion barrels of my revised estimate of 1 trillion barrels remaining. This is not only heavy crude, much more costly to refine, there is the big question of how accurate are the estimates. What do you think?
"Crude: The Incredible Journey of Oil," is one of the best documentaries I have seen, and explains why we know how much oil is on the planet and where it is.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves#/media/File:OPEC_declared_reserves_1980-now_BP.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_oil
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves
Plus, OPEC has never decreased their stated reserves, see the graph above, all the while providing roughly 1/2 of the world's oil supply. This is simply impossible, so if we take off another 456 billion in a rough guess that they have used around 50% of their early eighties stated reserves (1,137.9 - 250 = 887.9, 456/887.9 = 51.4%), you have roughly 1 trillion barrels of reserves. This makes the amount the world has used in oil, roughly 1/2 of what is remaining, just what most people have estimated it is.
On the table of OPEC reserves (click on Oil Reserves link above), in 2010, OPEC claims 1,137.9 billion barrels of proven reserves, of the 1,656 billion barrels of proven reserves the US EIA estimated in 2013. If you take off the 250 billion added in the eighties, and deduct the 456 billion I guesstimate to have already been extracted, you end up with my guesstimate that OPEC has 431.9 billion barrels of proven reserves, and the world roughly has 1 trillion barrels. OPEC, based on these rough calculations still has close to half of global reserves.
Then you can make a further assumption that the amount that we may find over the coming years, is equal to the amount we can't get to of the remaining stated reserves.
Consumption of oil was just over 33 billion barrels per year in 2013 (US EIA). Estimates are around 50 billion barrels per year demand by 2050. If you take 40 as a low average over these years, this results in around 25 years of oil remaining. I assume that the world will start running out rapidly in 15-25 years, around 2030 to 2040, very likely at the beginning of this period, and quite possibly, much earlier, if most stated reserves are way over stated, like OPEC's and Brazil's reserves are.
http://www.reuters.com/article/brazil-petrobras-reserves-idUSL2N15D165
Venezuela represents 298 billion (see US IEA 2013), of the non-revised world reserve estimates, and roughly 150 billion barrels of my revised estimate of 1 trillion barrels remaining. This is not only heavy crude, much more costly to refine, there is the big question of how accurate are the estimates. What do you think?
"Crude: The Incredible Journey of Oil," is one of the best documentaries I have seen, and explains why we know how much oil is on the planet and where it is.
Must See Oil Peak - Parts 1-4, by Roscoe Bartlett, is one of the best presentations on peak oil I have seen, and it is from a Republican Congressman. Be sure to watch Part 4, as it includes his recommendations that the world must drop everything NOW, with the ambition of the Manhattan Project, WWII and the space race, combined, to prepare for falling off Hubbert's Peak, which I believe will be Hubbert's Cliff roughly 25 years out. I not only agree wholeheartedly, I believe it is critical to the survival of the species. Roscoe is primarily concerned with the economic mayhem from falling off Hubert's Peak. I think he is not only correct, I believe, it will be economic hell falling off Hubbert's Cliff! If that is not bad enough, scaling up hard fossil fuel and methane hydrate production, when this occurs, in my opinion, will be the demise of the species! See if you can guess why I believe at the very end of his presentation, is the reason it will never happen!
However, his presentation has the same problem most peak energy arguments contain, in my view. They do not factor in the impact of new technologies, like fracking, on increasing the length of time the world can produce large amounts of oil and gas. As one VP from Saudi Aramco noted, new technology has allowed us to suck out what oil and gas is left more rapidly, but hasn't helped us find any meaningful new reserves, with the exception of possibly Brazil, from his perspective. We now know that much of Brazil's findings were fabricated.
As this point is absolutely critical, in my opinion, the bad news is when the world begins to run out of cheap oil and gas, it is likely to run out rapidly, what I refer to as Hubbert's Cliff. It is at the point where global production of oil drops by roughly 10% annually when global chaos is likely to explode, and the world will rapidly cascade into an Inflationary Global Great Depression, if these arguments are correct, until the death of all species. This potential rapid decline in production capabilities of easy oil and gas, I believe, will necessitate rapid growth in hard fossil fuels (tar sands to oil, shale to oil and coal to oil) and methane hydrates production to fuel industrial society; mitigate the impacts in the US, Western Europe and Asia of this Inflationary Global Great Depression; stuff the pockets of the world billionaires invested in hard fossil fuels; and, to fuel the US, China and Russia war machines, which will be busy protecting the world from the billions of starving people that will likely be rioting, looting, and doing anything, just to eat and survive.
Hence, the risk of increasing global mean temps by 3-4C by 2050-2075, and the likely subsequent rise of global sea levels by 30-60 feet, resulting in the potential implosion and explosion of many of the ocean based nuclear reactors. Which may then cause "The Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop," to be unleashed on the world, until the end of all species.
Arithmetic, Population and Energy, by Al Bartlett, is a timeless classic.
As this point is absolutely critical, in my opinion, the bad news is when the world begins to run out of cheap oil and gas, it is likely to run out rapidly, what I refer to as Hubbert's Cliff. It is at the point where global production of oil drops by roughly 10% annually when global chaos is likely to explode, and the world will rapidly cascade into an Inflationary Global Great Depression, if these arguments are correct, until the death of all species. This potential rapid decline in production capabilities of easy oil and gas, I believe, will necessitate rapid growth in hard fossil fuels (tar sands to oil, shale to oil and coal to oil) and methane hydrates production to fuel industrial society; mitigate the impacts in the US, Western Europe and Asia of this Inflationary Global Great Depression; stuff the pockets of the world billionaires invested in hard fossil fuels; and, to fuel the US, China and Russia war machines, which will be busy protecting the world from the billions of starving people that will likely be rioting, looting, and doing anything, just to eat and survive.
Hence, the risk of increasing global mean temps by 3-4C by 2050-2075, and the likely subsequent rise of global sea levels by 30-60 feet, resulting in the potential implosion and explosion of many of the ocean based nuclear reactors. Which may then cause "The Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop," to be unleashed on the world, until the end of all species.
Arithmetic, Population and Energy, by Al Bartlett, is a timeless classic.
What about other possible energy options?
This MUST WATCH documentary titled "There's No Tomorrow," by the Post Carbon Institute, should help you understand the other possible energy options, how peak energy fits into the picture of a sustainable planet, and the other forces behind "The Limits to Growth." As much as I like this documentary, it fails, as most do, to take into consideration my "critical driving forces and factors," that I believe, will ultimately result in the extinction of all species in 100 years, plus or minus, 50! Their web site is also a must visit often site.
http://www.postcarbon.org/
This MUST WATCH documentary titled "There's No Tomorrow," by the Post Carbon Institute, should help you understand the other possible energy options, how peak energy fits into the picture of a sustainable planet, and the other forces behind "The Limits to Growth." As much as I like this documentary, it fails, as most do, to take into consideration my "critical driving forces and factors," that I believe, will ultimately result in the extinction of all species in 100 years, plus or minus, 50! Their web site is also a must visit often site.
http://www.postcarbon.org/
Hard Fossil Fuels: Fracking, Tar or Oil Sands to Oil, Coal to Oil, Shale to Oil, and Methane Hydrates
Fracking Gas and Oil
As the above documentary, "Fracking: The True Costs of America's Gas Rush," documents the risks of fracking for gas, are significant. The most important points that I took away from this documentary were, first, a spokesperson from the Marcellus Shale Coalition, which represents fracking companies doing business in the massive Marcellus Shale area, stated that "gas extracted from fracking is both safe, and represents a panacea for America, offering a fuel that is both cleaner and a more secure choice than relying on foreign energy supplies." As Dr. Tony Ingraffea notes, "natural gas burns cleaner than any other fossil fuel. But it is not cleaner in its life cycle. Studies that are being done at Cornell University, that are going to be released soon, in pear reviewed journals, will show conclusively, that the life cycle costs in terms of carbon dioxide emissions, and methane emission, from the development of gas from unconventional sources like shale, is at least as dirty as coal." The next video is Dr. Ingraffea's presentation on "Facts on Fracking." Note that this a 2011 presentation, in my research, the facts have become worse since this time.
Dr. Ingraffea co-authored a paper titled "Examining the feasibility of converting New York State's all-purpose energy infrastructure to one using wind, water, and sunlight." Energy Policy 57: 585-601. Here is a summary of that paper, and an article about the paper.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2013/03/new-yorks-fossil-fuel-gone-wind-water-and-sun
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/03/12/can-wind-water-and-sunlight-power-new-york-by-2050/?_r=0
The article that Dr. Ingraffea was referring to is titled "Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations," Howarth, Santoro, and Ingraffea (3/13/11). Note the final conclusions in their Abstract, our bold.
http://www.eeb.cornell.edu/howarth/Howarth%20et%20al%20%202011.pdf
"Abstract - We evaluate the greenhouse gas footprint of natural gas obtained by highvolume hydraulic fracturing from shale formations, focusing on methane emissions. Natural gas is composed largely of methane, and 3.6% to 7.9% of the methane from shale-gas production escapes to the atmosphere in venting and leaks over the lifetime of a well. These methane emissions are at least 30% more than and perhaps more than twice as great as those from conventional gas. The higher emissions from shale gas occur at the time wells are hydraulically fractured—as methane escapes from flow-back return fluids—and during drill out following the fracturing. Methane is a powerful greenhouse gas, with a global warming potential that is far greater than that of carbon dioxide, particularly over the time horizon of the first few decades following emission. Methane contributes substantially to the greenhouse gas footprint of shale gas on shorter time scales, dominating it on a 20-year time horizon. The footprint for shale gas is greater than that for conventional gas or oil when viewed on any time horizon, but particularly so over 20 years. Compared to coal, the footprint of shale gas is at least 20% greater and perhaps more than twice as great on the 20-year horizon and is comparable when compared over 100 years."
The amount of increase in the amount of oil from fracking is estimated to be only 17 (confirm numbers) billion barrels, as the US proven reserves of oil have only risen from around 20 billion barrels in 2006, to 37 billion barrels in 2014 (US EIA). The current global consumption of oil is over 33 billion barrels of oil. So the estimated amount of additional oil reserves that the US has, has risen from just over a half of years of global demand, to just over one year of global demand. Given the enormous risks to increasing carbon in the atmosphere, ground water contamination, and other health risks, is fracking really worth it? Not in my opinion.
Tar / Oil Sands
The above documentary, "Canadian Tar Sands: The most destructive project on earth," discusses the very destructive nature of Canadian tar sands, or what some like to call, oil sands. The climate impact, not to mention impact on the natural resources and beauty of this enormous project, is well documented in this video. In Dark Money, it is stated that the Koch Brothers not only own 25% of Canadian tar sands, they own one of the most polluting, if not the most polluting refinery, Pine Bend, in Minnesota, that their father purchased an interest in during the fifties, and Charles, purchased controlling interest in the sixties.
Gauging The Carbon Cost Of Fuel From Canadian Oil Sands
The above titled article (6/22/15) summarizes a new study that concludes that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from Alberta oil sands are 20% greater than US crude oil GHG emissions.
http://cen.acs.org/articles/93/web/2015/06/Gauging-Carbon-Cost-Fuel-Canadian.html
"Canadian Oil Sands and Climate Change," is a review paper discusses the impact of oil sands on greenhouse gasses (GHG), their conclusions are: "that GHG emissions per unit of energy produced from Canadian oil sands crudes are higher than those of other crudes imported, refined, and consumed in the United States. The studies identify two main reasons for the difference: (1) oil sands are heavier and more viscous than lighter crude oil types on average, and thus require more energy- and resource-intensive activities to extract; and (2) oil sands are chemically deficient in hydrogen, and have a higher carbon, sulfur, and heavy metal content than lighter crude oil types on average, and thus require more processing to yield consumable fuels by U.S. standards."
https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42537.pdf
The key findings of the literature surveyed are:
• "Canadian oil sands crudes are generally more GHG emission-intensive than other crudes they may displace in U.S. refineries, and emit an estimated 17% more GHGs on a life-cycle basis than the average barrel of crude oil refined in the United States;
• compared to selected imports, Well-to-Wheels GHG emissions for Canadian oil sands crudes range from 9% to 19% more emission-intensive than Middle Eastern Sour, 5% to 13% more emission-intensive than Mexican Maya, and 2% to 18% more emission-intensive than various Venezuelan crudes;
• compared to selected energy- and resource-intensive crudes, Well-to-Wheels GHG emissions for Canadian oil sands crudes are within range of heavier crudes such as Venezuelan Bachaquero and Californian Kern River, as well as lighter crudes that are produced from operations that flare associated gas (e.g., Nigerian Bonny Light);
• discounting the final consumption phase of the life-cycle assessment (which can contribute up to 70%-80% of Well-to-Wheels emissions), Well-to-Tank (i.e., “production”) GHG emissions for Canadian oil sands crudes are 9%-102% higher than for selected imports."
Tar Sands, Coal to Liquids, and Oil Shale
The following paper, "GHG Emission Factors for High Carbon Intensity Crude Oils," (9/2010, V 2), Mui, Tonachel, McEnaney, and Shope, sponsered by the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), documents that the increase in GHC emissions, wheel to wheel, above the US 2005 average for tar sands, coal to liquids, and oil shale, not including Carbon Capture and Sequestration (CCS), whose effectiveness is seriously questioned, range from an increase at the low end of 14% above 2005 levels, to as high as 128% above US 2005 average levels. If we rapidly scale up hard fossil fuels, when the world runs out of cheap fossil fuels, especially given that the world is already hit 409 ppm of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, like the Pliocene period, and based on the recent findings that this level of carbon during the Pliocene period, was associated ultimately with a 3-4C rise in global mean temperatures, and sea level rise of up to 60 feet, is in my opinion, the equivalent of global genocide! In fact, if the world does not TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, in my opinion, it is the equivalent of global genocide, as the Fossil Fuel Fascist EMM&MS will force the world to transition to hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates production, when the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff, due to their insane trillions of dollars of financial interests, due to the need to use China to manufacture most products, and due to the need to still build out a solar and wind global infrastructure! It Is THE END!
https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/ene_10070101a.pdf
Natural Gas
You can read about the US reserves of natural gas, estimated to run out around the same time period 2040-2050, click on the following article, "What the Frack: Is there really 100 years of gas under the US."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2011/12/is_there_really_100_years_worth_of_natural_gas_beneath_the_united_states_.html
These scientists argue their is at most 33 years of gas remaining, and if we use natural gas for coal fired power plants, and long-haul trucking, their estimate is that we only have roughly 11 years remaining.
Uranium and Nuclear Power
A read of peak uranium on Wikipedia, suggests that we may run out of uranium around the same time period. Watch the presentation noted above by Dr. Hosea, the first MUST WATCH documentary on Fukushima and Cherynobyl, and consider my arguments about sea level rise potentially causing many of these 448 and rising number of nuclear reactors to implode and explode, and you should get a good understanding why many of us feel nuclear is not the answer. In spite of Bill Gates apparently wanting to supersede the Rothchild's wealth by investing in IVth generation nuclear! Plus, IVth generation nuclear is only a theoretical idea, like either hot or cold nuclear fusion reactors, without any concept test reactors, let alone, any full scale production reactors. Too bad Gates doesn't use Buffet's and his wealth to transition the world to wind and solar now. Obama's support for nuclear power, I have been told, is due to Gates views. If all of the reasons that I have given so far, haven't convinced you that nuclear is not the answer, I will provide further detail about the true costs of nuclear power, the life cycle carbon foot print, the liability risks, insurance risks, and a host of other problems that make it the horrific choice, in my view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
Thorium
Thorium, which is more abundant than uranium, has been posited as a more available source for nuclear power. But thorium has problems as energy sources. As noted in Wikipedia, there are several challenges to the application of thorium as a nuclear fuel, particularly for solid fuel reactors: They state (Thorium, Wikipedia): "In contrast to uranium, naturally occurring thorium is effectively mononuclidic and contains no fissile isotopes; fissile material, generally 233U, 235U or plutonium, must be added to achieve criticality. This, along with the high sintering temperature necessary to make thorium-dioxide fuel, complicates fuel fabrication."
Hydrogen
Elon Musk calls hydrogen cars - fool cells.
http://gas2.org/2015/02/24/elon-musk-shreds-hydrogen-fuel-cells/.
He notes on the link above: "Hydrogen is an energy storage mechanism. It is not a source of energy. So you have to get that hydrogen from somewhere. If you get that hydrogen from water, so you’re splitting H20, electrolysis is extremely inefficient as an energy process…. if you say took a solar panel and use the energy from that to just charge a battery pack directly, compared to try to split water, take the hydrogen, dump the oxygen, compress the hydrogen to an extremely high pressure (or liquefy it) and then put it in a car and run a fuel-cell, it is about half the efficiency, it’s terrible. Why would you do that? It makes no sense. That doesn’t even bring into account the various problems building an all-new infrastructure, as well as the environmental impact of sourcing hydrogen from natural gas, currently the most popular way to produce vehicle-grade hydrogen."
I would also stress, using natural gas to produce hydrogen, does not consider the fact that we will likely run out of natural gas in the period from 2040-2050, if not sooner, if we use it for coal fired power plants, long-haul trucking, and to make hydrogen. We may only have five years of natural gas remaining!
TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind - Limits to Solar and Wind - Lack of Energy Density, Intermittency, Storage Capabilities, But Unlimited Potential with the Primary Limited Downside of needing to Reduce the Energy Density of our Life Styles - and Less BS for the Billionaires!
Lester Brown discusses some of the limits to transitioning the world to primarily solar and wind in his new book "The Great Transition: Shifting from Fossil Fuels to Solar and Wind Energy," (2015), these include the lack of energy density. In simple language, you can't run, let alone produce, a plane, ship, space shuttle, crane, jet boat, Hummer, let alone, massive amounts of war machinery to go blow up places to steal their fossil fuels, with solar and wind. The simple answer to this objection, is if you use solar and wind to produce all of the less energy dense applications you can use it for, cars, trucks, homes, businesses, etc., you reduce carbon by an enormous amount by the time the majority of the economy is transitioned to solar and wind, leaving more fossil fuels for the energy dense needs. The second answer is, you reduce the energy dense applications dramatically, in spite of the massive reduction of BS (billions) to the Billionaires.
The intermittency problem, where sun and wind have slack periods, sun at night and with overcast conditions, wind at various times, will in part be reduced, by the development of a national smart grid system. The lack of storage capabilities, costs, and related problems, is being reduced by various advancements, like drawing water up into ponds on hills during peak times for wind and solar, and releasing it to create energy, during slack times for solar and wind.
TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, I argue, will generate enormous amounts of new technologies, once the world has committed trillions and trillions of dollars to transitioning to solar and wind, and shuts off the flow of trillions and trillions of dollars to exploiting the remaining fossil fuels of the planet, with what I argue are extinction level risks of exploiting these remaining fossil fuels. These remaining fossil fuels, will ultimately be used up, as they take millions of years to create, even if you are a believer in the idea that using these fossil fuels will not cause the extinction of the species! So the world would have to transition to primarily solar and wind, ultimately, if the species does not go extinct before using up the remaining fossil fuels.
The technological problems of these issues, I will address more in my hoped for book, and on these pages, under The ONLY Solution, and the TransitioNOW page. The bottom line is that the camps are divided, the Dark Money/Koch Brothers/Fossil Fuels Camp, which is focused on developing hard fossil fuels (tar sands to oil, coal to oil, and shale to oil), and I argue, ultimately methane hydrates production, starting now, and in a massive frenzy, I believe, when the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff. Where the possible extinction risks of climate change, causing super storms, combined with a sea level rise that may implode and explode ocean based nuclear reactors, and the possible start of "The Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop," are denied, but the ease of utilizing our current fossil fuels infrastructure to continue to burn fossil fuels, to maintain our highly energy dense lifestyles, and to provide trillions of dollars to the fossil fuel EMM&MS and fossil fuel industries, are paramount.
The Gates/Obama/Nuclear Camp, where the massive energy density of nuclear power is focused on, and the risks of a nuclear disaster that wipes out the species are seen as minimal. Plus, there are enormmous number of other issues, just to mention a few: government insuring and financing nuclear power, without these socialistic energy policies, nuclear will not be financed or insurable by the private sector; storage of nuclear waste, would you like some spent fuel rods in your garage? The life cycle carbon footprint of nuclear, and the risks of rising sea levels. Oops, did anyone see where they put all of those nuclear power plants on the coasts, my fish seem to be a bit deformed, is this natural? Come to think of it, my grandchild looks a bit odd, is this "the new normal!" But let's not forget the positive factors, think of how the life expectancy of people living around Fukushima and Tokyo has been reduced. Now the real "business and political question," from a cost-benefit analysis, is - which costs you more, the medical costs of all of the radiation related illnesses, diseases and deaths of Fukushima and Cherynobyl, or people living longer healthier lives? Seriously!
And what I would like to call the Musk/Brown/Caldicott TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind Camp. I was thinking that there was not a billionaire in this camp, as most are in the Dark Money/Koch Brothers Fossil Fuels Camp, but then I remembered my hero, Elon Musk, and my other heros, Lester Brown and Dr. Helen Coldicott, hence the name. In the Musk/Brown/Caldicott TransitioNOW Camp the risks of both The Koch Brothers/Fossil Fuels Camp, and the Gates/Obama/Nuclear Camp, are seen as very real and near-term extinction level risks, and proponents like myself, believe that we would rather be forced to reduce our energy dense lifestyles, which mainly means in my opinion less BS (billions) for the Billionaires, and set up a solar and wind driven sustainable renewable energy world, without the risks of these two other approaches/camps, than we would risk the extinction of all species, continuing to pursue these other two energy paths.
Another massive problem implicit in my argument that the world must TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind before the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff, is that you need fossil fuels to build out a solar and wind infrastructure globally. So if you do not do it now, with the less expensive, easier to get to, and most importantly, less carbon intensive, oil and gas, the world will have to scale up hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates, to create a global solar and wind infrastructure. This, I argue, will insure the rise of global mean temperatures to 3-4C, by 2050-2075, resulting in sea levels rising by up to 60 feet, imploding and exploding ocean based nuclear reactors, and potentially, starting "The Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop," insuring the death of the species.
If the time period of the 3-4C rise is off any amount, say 100 years, does it really matter? It still, if these arguments are correct, results in the extinction of the species in the not too distant future! Quite frankly, I hope that both my estimate for when the world will fall off Hubbert's Cliff and when the world will achieve a 3-4C rise in global mean temperatures are way off. Why do you think that I am doing all of this work on "TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind or It Is THE END," certainly not for the pay! Not to mention, I certainly don't want to live in a world of economic and environmental hell the remaining years of my life, I don't want it for my wife, Tracie, and for our families, and their families. How about you? The sad news, based on my analysis, is that all of the science is pointing to the time periods that I present here, as still too optimistic!
The following Youtube video titled "Helen Caldicott vs Bill Gates on Nuclear" discusses some of these issues. I am looking for a more sophisticated analysis of these trade offs, so if you have a suggestion, please send it. The bottom line, though, I just stated. In the TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind Camp, the extinction level risks of continuing to use fossil fuels, then going to hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates, or scaling up nuclear, are seen as simply insane. As the extinction level risks are seen as way to possible and near-term. TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, is seen as the only way to reduce these risks, in spite of the need to reduce the energy density of our lifestyles, and more importantly, I believe, is the flow of BS (billions) to the Billionaires, which is actually trillions and trillions to the fossil fuels and nuclear industries. If we put these trillions and trillions of dollars toward TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, we may just stop the extinction of the species, which would be a plus, don't you think?! If we don't do this rapidly, I argue, there will not be more BS for the Billionaires, as we will all be dead in 100 years, plus or minus, 50!
You will hear all kinds of claims about solar growth, even by people whom I support, as represented by Alex Lightman's TedX High Point presentation titled "Eliminating fossil fuel use by 2030." Must I simply state the obvious, Alex is CEO, and key salesperson for Everblaze Energy Systems. Love his energy and ideas, but don't believe they have a chance of transitioning the world to solar by 2030. He claims that solar grew 41% in 2014, and then extrapolates this to 100% solar by 2030. Now take a look at the following piece, "Today In Energy," (August 25, 2016, US Energy Information Association [US EIA]). Take a look at the table titled "Capacity additions for utility-scale renewable technologies 2010-2016 Gigawats," note the enormous drop in wind installations from 2012 to 2013, and how in recent years, we are just starting to regain meaningful growth. Solar utility-scale installations increased significantly from 2010-2013, but growth in installations has been flat to declining since this time.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=27672
Global solar photovoltaic manufacturing production slows in recent years
In the US EIA publication above, with the link below, see the graph titled, "Global solar photovoltaic (PV) manufacturing production and capability (2006-2013)." As they note "Growth in solar photovoltaic (PV) module production has slowed in recent years to 4% annually from 2011 to 2013 after increasing by an average of 78% from 2006 to 2011. In addition, the gap between global PV module manufacturing capability and production has grown, leading to lower utilization rates of manufacturing facilities.
The utilization rates of PV module manufacturing facilities (in terms of actual production as a percent of maximum throughput) peaked in 2011, when production was 36.6 gigawatts (GW) and capability was 52 GW, giving a utilization rate of 70%. In 2013, although production and capability increased slightly, the utilization rate of manufacturing facilities declined to 66%.
The market is reacting to the slow growth of module production and the decreased utilization of PV manufacturing capability by downsizing and consolidating PV manufacturing companies. For example, Germany reported to the International Energy Agency that there were a total of 11,000 employees working in 40 PV companies operating in Germany at the end of 2013, compared with 32,000 employees in 62 companies at the end of 2008. Similar trends were reported in China, with Chinese PV module and cell manufacturers decreasing from 300 companies to fewer than 100 companies."
Not quite the picture in these two US EIA reports, that Alex Lightman gives in his presentation, "Eliminating fossil fuel use by 2030," wouldn't you say! Worse yet, the infrastructure and number of employees in solar and wind industries globally is declining meaningfully, just when it should be rising at 41% per year, as the Alex Lightman suggested it was! Business people, they are all "birds of a feather!" Even when I like what they are selling!! Sadly, the same is true for politicians, religious leaders, and even scientists, if Dark Money, and "Death of the Liberal Class," (below) are correct. From my extensive and horrific experiences since 1980 seeking to stop the end of the species, due to the "Limits to Growth," and now, due to the 19 Driving Forces and Factors, it is all "political economics," as the then Chairman of the Economics Department at the University of Utah once told me. Or as I put it, it is all "BS (billions) for the Billionaires" to the death of all species!
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22912
I argue that this dramatic drop in solar and wind growth is primarily due to the enormous drop in fossil fuel prices, in part due to "frack baby frack," and the enormous drilling, which Obama noted opened up 75% of US gas and oil reserves. This latter decision, I consider to be Obama's biggest mistake, personally. The other primary driving force, the Koch Brothers, the Kochtapus and Dark Money's assault on subsidies for renewable energy installations and net metering. Also of note, I watched a presentation by the head of OPEC, which I am still searching for, where the person noted that they were very concerned about the growth in solar and wind, in particular, as these alternative energies, they viewed as a major competition to their oil interests. So with the drop in energy prices, the US and world has seen a major drop in solar and wind growth, along with other renewable energies, which in my view, are not capable of being scaled up like solar and wind, hence of a much less importance. If this control of oil prices, keeping all fossil fuel prices lower, to stop the growth of solar and wind is not insuring the rapid growth of hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates production when the world falls of Hubbert's Cliff, insuring "It Is THE END," I don't know what would!
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22912
You can read about the US reserves of natural gas, estimated to run out around the same time period 2040-2050, click on the following article, "What the Frack: Is there really 100 years of gas under the US."
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/future_tense/2011/12/is_there_really_100_years_worth_of_natural_gas_beneath_the_united_states_.html
These scientists argue their is at most 33 years of gas remaining, and if we use natural gas for coal fired power plants, and long-haul trucking, their estimate is that we only have roughly 11 years remaining.
Uranium and Nuclear Power
A read of peak uranium on Wikipedia, suggests that we may run out of uranium around the same time period. Watch the presentation noted above by Dr. Hosea, the first MUST WATCH documentary on Fukushima and Cherynobyl, and consider my arguments about sea level rise potentially causing many of these 448 and rising number of nuclear reactors to implode and explode, and you should get a good understanding why many of us feel nuclear is not the answer. In spite of Bill Gates apparently wanting to supersede the Rothchild's wealth by investing in IVth generation nuclear! Plus, IVth generation nuclear is only a theoretical idea, like either hot or cold nuclear fusion reactors, without any concept test reactors, let alone, any full scale production reactors. Too bad Gates doesn't use Buffet's and his wealth to transition the world to wind and solar now. Obama's support for nuclear power, I have been told, is due to Gates views. If all of the reasons that I have given so far, haven't convinced you that nuclear is not the answer, I will provide further detail about the true costs of nuclear power, the life cycle carbon foot print, the liability risks, insurance risks, and a host of other problems that make it the horrific choice, in my view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peak_uranium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_IV_reactor
Thorium
Thorium, which is more abundant than uranium, has been posited as a more available source for nuclear power. But thorium has problems as energy sources. As noted in Wikipedia, there are several challenges to the application of thorium as a nuclear fuel, particularly for solid fuel reactors: They state (Thorium, Wikipedia): "In contrast to uranium, naturally occurring thorium is effectively mononuclidic and contains no fissile isotopes; fissile material, generally 233U, 235U or plutonium, must be added to achieve criticality. This, along with the high sintering temperature necessary to make thorium-dioxide fuel, complicates fuel fabrication."
Hydrogen
Elon Musk calls hydrogen cars - fool cells.
http://gas2.org/2015/02/24/elon-musk-shreds-hydrogen-fuel-cells/.
He notes on the link above: "Hydrogen is an energy storage mechanism. It is not a source of energy. So you have to get that hydrogen from somewhere. If you get that hydrogen from water, so you’re splitting H20, electrolysis is extremely inefficient as an energy process…. if you say took a solar panel and use the energy from that to just charge a battery pack directly, compared to try to split water, take the hydrogen, dump the oxygen, compress the hydrogen to an extremely high pressure (or liquefy it) and then put it in a car and run a fuel-cell, it is about half the efficiency, it’s terrible. Why would you do that? It makes no sense. That doesn’t even bring into account the various problems building an all-new infrastructure, as well as the environmental impact of sourcing hydrogen from natural gas, currently the most popular way to produce vehicle-grade hydrogen."
I would also stress, using natural gas to produce hydrogen, does not consider the fact that we will likely run out of natural gas in the period from 2040-2050, if not sooner, if we use it for coal fired power plants, long-haul trucking, and to make hydrogen. We may only have five years of natural gas remaining!
TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind - Limits to Solar and Wind - Lack of Energy Density, Intermittency, Storage Capabilities, But Unlimited Potential with the Primary Limited Downside of needing to Reduce the Energy Density of our Life Styles - and Less BS for the Billionaires!
Lester Brown discusses some of the limits to transitioning the world to primarily solar and wind in his new book "The Great Transition: Shifting from Fossil Fuels to Solar and Wind Energy," (2015), these include the lack of energy density. In simple language, you can't run, let alone produce, a plane, ship, space shuttle, crane, jet boat, Hummer, let alone, massive amounts of war machinery to go blow up places to steal their fossil fuels, with solar and wind. The simple answer to this objection, is if you use solar and wind to produce all of the less energy dense applications you can use it for, cars, trucks, homes, businesses, etc., you reduce carbon by an enormous amount by the time the majority of the economy is transitioned to solar and wind, leaving more fossil fuels for the energy dense needs. The second answer is, you reduce the energy dense applications dramatically, in spite of the massive reduction of BS (billions) to the Billionaires.
The intermittency problem, where sun and wind have slack periods, sun at night and with overcast conditions, wind at various times, will in part be reduced, by the development of a national smart grid system. The lack of storage capabilities, costs, and related problems, is being reduced by various advancements, like drawing water up into ponds on hills during peak times for wind and solar, and releasing it to create energy, during slack times for solar and wind.
TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, I argue, will generate enormous amounts of new technologies, once the world has committed trillions and trillions of dollars to transitioning to solar and wind, and shuts off the flow of trillions and trillions of dollars to exploiting the remaining fossil fuels of the planet, with what I argue are extinction level risks of exploiting these remaining fossil fuels. These remaining fossil fuels, will ultimately be used up, as they take millions of years to create, even if you are a believer in the idea that using these fossil fuels will not cause the extinction of the species! So the world would have to transition to primarily solar and wind, ultimately, if the species does not go extinct before using up the remaining fossil fuels.
The technological problems of these issues, I will address more in my hoped for book, and on these pages, under The ONLY Solution, and the TransitioNOW page. The bottom line is that the camps are divided, the Dark Money/Koch Brothers/Fossil Fuels Camp, which is focused on developing hard fossil fuels (tar sands to oil, coal to oil, and shale to oil), and I argue, ultimately methane hydrates production, starting now, and in a massive frenzy, I believe, when the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff. Where the possible extinction risks of climate change, causing super storms, combined with a sea level rise that may implode and explode ocean based nuclear reactors, and the possible start of "The Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop," are denied, but the ease of utilizing our current fossil fuels infrastructure to continue to burn fossil fuels, to maintain our highly energy dense lifestyles, and to provide trillions of dollars to the fossil fuel EMM&MS and fossil fuel industries, are paramount.
The Gates/Obama/Nuclear Camp, where the massive energy density of nuclear power is focused on, and the risks of a nuclear disaster that wipes out the species are seen as minimal. Plus, there are enormmous number of other issues, just to mention a few: government insuring and financing nuclear power, without these socialistic energy policies, nuclear will not be financed or insurable by the private sector; storage of nuclear waste, would you like some spent fuel rods in your garage? The life cycle carbon footprint of nuclear, and the risks of rising sea levels. Oops, did anyone see where they put all of those nuclear power plants on the coasts, my fish seem to be a bit deformed, is this natural? Come to think of it, my grandchild looks a bit odd, is this "the new normal!" But let's not forget the positive factors, think of how the life expectancy of people living around Fukushima and Tokyo has been reduced. Now the real "business and political question," from a cost-benefit analysis, is - which costs you more, the medical costs of all of the radiation related illnesses, diseases and deaths of Fukushima and Cherynobyl, or people living longer healthier lives? Seriously!
And what I would like to call the Musk/Brown/Caldicott TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind Camp. I was thinking that there was not a billionaire in this camp, as most are in the Dark Money/Koch Brothers Fossil Fuels Camp, but then I remembered my hero, Elon Musk, and my other heros, Lester Brown and Dr. Helen Coldicott, hence the name. In the Musk/Brown/Caldicott TransitioNOW Camp the risks of both The Koch Brothers/Fossil Fuels Camp, and the Gates/Obama/Nuclear Camp, are seen as very real and near-term extinction level risks, and proponents like myself, believe that we would rather be forced to reduce our energy dense lifestyles, which mainly means in my opinion less BS (billions) for the Billionaires, and set up a solar and wind driven sustainable renewable energy world, without the risks of these two other approaches/camps, than we would risk the extinction of all species, continuing to pursue these other two energy paths.
Another massive problem implicit in my argument that the world must TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind before the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff, is that you need fossil fuels to build out a solar and wind infrastructure globally. So if you do not do it now, with the less expensive, easier to get to, and most importantly, less carbon intensive, oil and gas, the world will have to scale up hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates, to create a global solar and wind infrastructure. This, I argue, will insure the rise of global mean temperatures to 3-4C, by 2050-2075, resulting in sea levels rising by up to 60 feet, imploding and exploding ocean based nuclear reactors, and potentially, starting "The Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop," insuring the death of the species.
If the time period of the 3-4C rise is off any amount, say 100 years, does it really matter? It still, if these arguments are correct, results in the extinction of the species in the not too distant future! Quite frankly, I hope that both my estimate for when the world will fall off Hubbert's Cliff and when the world will achieve a 3-4C rise in global mean temperatures are way off. Why do you think that I am doing all of this work on "TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind or It Is THE END," certainly not for the pay! Not to mention, I certainly don't want to live in a world of economic and environmental hell the remaining years of my life, I don't want it for my wife, Tracie, and for our families, and their families. How about you? The sad news, based on my analysis, is that all of the science is pointing to the time periods that I present here, as still too optimistic!
The following Youtube video titled "Helen Caldicott vs Bill Gates on Nuclear" discusses some of these issues. I am looking for a more sophisticated analysis of these trade offs, so if you have a suggestion, please send it. The bottom line, though, I just stated. In the TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind Camp, the extinction level risks of continuing to use fossil fuels, then going to hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates, or scaling up nuclear, are seen as simply insane. As the extinction level risks are seen as way to possible and near-term. TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, is seen as the only way to reduce these risks, in spite of the need to reduce the energy density of our lifestyles, and more importantly, I believe, is the flow of BS (billions) to the Billionaires, which is actually trillions and trillions to the fossil fuels and nuclear industries. If we put these trillions and trillions of dollars toward TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, we may just stop the extinction of the species, which would be a plus, don't you think?! If we don't do this rapidly, I argue, there will not be more BS for the Billionaires, as we will all be dead in 100 years, plus or minus, 50!
You will hear all kinds of claims about solar growth, even by people whom I support, as represented by Alex Lightman's TedX High Point presentation titled "Eliminating fossil fuel use by 2030." Must I simply state the obvious, Alex is CEO, and key salesperson for Everblaze Energy Systems. Love his energy and ideas, but don't believe they have a chance of transitioning the world to solar by 2030. He claims that solar grew 41% in 2014, and then extrapolates this to 100% solar by 2030. Now take a look at the following piece, "Today In Energy," (August 25, 2016, US Energy Information Association [US EIA]). Take a look at the table titled "Capacity additions for utility-scale renewable technologies 2010-2016 Gigawats," note the enormous drop in wind installations from 2012 to 2013, and how in recent years, we are just starting to regain meaningful growth. Solar utility-scale installations increased significantly from 2010-2013, but growth in installations has been flat to declining since this time.
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=27672
Global solar photovoltaic manufacturing production slows in recent years
In the US EIA publication above, with the link below, see the graph titled, "Global solar photovoltaic (PV) manufacturing production and capability (2006-2013)." As they note "Growth in solar photovoltaic (PV) module production has slowed in recent years to 4% annually from 2011 to 2013 after increasing by an average of 78% from 2006 to 2011. In addition, the gap between global PV module manufacturing capability and production has grown, leading to lower utilization rates of manufacturing facilities.
The utilization rates of PV module manufacturing facilities (in terms of actual production as a percent of maximum throughput) peaked in 2011, when production was 36.6 gigawatts (GW) and capability was 52 GW, giving a utilization rate of 70%. In 2013, although production and capability increased slightly, the utilization rate of manufacturing facilities declined to 66%.
The market is reacting to the slow growth of module production and the decreased utilization of PV manufacturing capability by downsizing and consolidating PV manufacturing companies. For example, Germany reported to the International Energy Agency that there were a total of 11,000 employees working in 40 PV companies operating in Germany at the end of 2013, compared with 32,000 employees in 62 companies at the end of 2008. Similar trends were reported in China, with Chinese PV module and cell manufacturers decreasing from 300 companies to fewer than 100 companies."
Not quite the picture in these two US EIA reports, that Alex Lightman gives in his presentation, "Eliminating fossil fuel use by 2030," wouldn't you say! Worse yet, the infrastructure and number of employees in solar and wind industries globally is declining meaningfully, just when it should be rising at 41% per year, as the Alex Lightman suggested it was! Business people, they are all "birds of a feather!" Even when I like what they are selling!! Sadly, the same is true for politicians, religious leaders, and even scientists, if Dark Money, and "Death of the Liberal Class," (below) are correct. From my extensive and horrific experiences since 1980 seeking to stop the end of the species, due to the "Limits to Growth," and now, due to the 19 Driving Forces and Factors, it is all "political economics," as the then Chairman of the Economics Department at the University of Utah once told me. Or as I put it, it is all "BS (billions) for the Billionaires" to the death of all species!
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22912
I argue that this dramatic drop in solar and wind growth is primarily due to the enormous drop in fossil fuel prices, in part due to "frack baby frack," and the enormous drilling, which Obama noted opened up 75% of US gas and oil reserves. This latter decision, I consider to be Obama's biggest mistake, personally. The other primary driving force, the Koch Brothers, the Kochtapus and Dark Money's assault on subsidies for renewable energy installations and net metering. Also of note, I watched a presentation by the head of OPEC, which I am still searching for, where the person noted that they were very concerned about the growth in solar and wind, in particular, as these alternative energies, they viewed as a major competition to their oil interests. So with the drop in energy prices, the US and world has seen a major drop in solar and wind growth, along with other renewable energies, which in my view, are not capable of being scaled up like solar and wind, hence of a much less importance. If this control of oil prices, keeping all fossil fuel prices lower, to stop the growth of solar and wind is not insuring the rapid growth of hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates production when the world falls of Hubbert's Cliff, insuring "It Is THE END," I don't know what would!
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=22912
Dark Money - Responsible for Killing All Species as it is Driving The World to Scaling Up Hard Fossil Fuels and Methane Hydrates Production - Versus Solar and Wind - When the World Falls Off Hubbert's Ciff
Why do I believe the death of our species is "cast in ice, dirt and rock" already? Because scaling up of hard fossil fuel production (coal to oil, shale to oil and tar sands to oil, which have low net energy) along with the production of methane hydrates (estimates are that there are more of these than all other fossil fuels combined, which are very volatile), will be necessary when the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff, running out of cheap oil and gas, which I guesstimate will be in the thirties, to run industrial society. These have many times, to many hundreds of times, the carbon impact as do current oil, gas and coal production. Plus, scaling up hard fossil fuel and, god forbid, methane hydrate production, is much more time intensive and costly, so replacing rapidly declining easy oil production will only happen slowly, I believe, insuring the collapse of global economies, as the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff.
Renewable energies do not have enough energy density to build out a renewable energy world, so this will be absolutely necessary.
Most importantly, the billionaires are mostly invested in the fossil fuel and war industries, insuring that this will occur. The Koch Brothers' war against the spread of solar is just one example. These billionaires, the 5th and 6th richest on the planet, and one of the richest combined, are at the forefront of the war to kill the planet and insure the death of all species for their insane profits.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-koch-brothers-dirty-war-on-solar-power-20160211?page=2
The new book "Dark Money," by Jane Mayer, provides a good overview of these billionaires extensive and long-term efforts to insure the death of all species for their insane greed. Watch Dark Money: Parts 1-3, or better yet, read the book. As it notes, the Koch Brothers own 25% of the Canadian tar sands, and the most polluting tar sands refinery, Pin Bend, in Minnesota. Their father purchased a position in the refinery in the fifties, and Charles Koch purchased controlling interest in the sixties. So they are heavily invested in scaling up tar sands to oil, and other hard fossil fuel interests. Their father made his fortune building out the Siberian oil fields for Stalin, then developed the most important oil refinery for Hitler, which was critical to the Nazi's power, as it provided most of their jet fuel.
The forced transition to scaling up hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates production, by Dark Money, instead of solar and wind, I argue, will increase the likely rise in global mean temps to 3-4C by 2050-2075, and to 5-7C by 2100. The consequential rise in global sea levels, along with the implosion and explosion of the world's ocean based nuclear reactors, along with land based nuclear reactors, due to the collapse of global society, will insure the extinction of all species in roughly 100 years. Bernie Sanders frequently quotes this temperature range, but I do not think he really understands what this would mean. I guess I will have to send him this overview of "TransitioNOW or It Is THE END!"
This is another good documentary, "People & Power: The Koch Brothers," of how the Koch Brothers waged their war on transitioning to renewable energies, for their fossil fuel interests, by buying out the US Congress, and insuring that laws that support their fossil fuel interest and business interests are passed.
"Merchants of Doubt" provides a good overview of the history of these EMM&MS, and how the were partially responsible for the deaths of billions, including my Mom, who died of lung cancer, smoking 3-4 packs a day, until she died of lung cancer. This time, these EMM&MS have insured the death of our species, if these arguments are correct, selling "doubt" about the science of climate change, to insure that the world continues to use their product "fossil fuels," transitioning to hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates, when easy fossil fuels run out.
"Merchants of Doubt" provides a good overview of the history of these EMM&MS, and how the were partially responsible for the deaths of billions, including my Mom, who died of lung cancer, smoking 3-4 packs a day, until she died of lung cancer. This time, these EMM&MS have insured the death of our species, if these arguments are correct, selling "doubt" about the science of climate change, to insure that the world continues to use their product "fossil fuels," transitioning to hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates, when easy fossil fuels run out.
The People Who Control America - The Evil Money Monsters
Who are "The People that Control America," is the topic of the next documentary above. Surprise, surprise, it is not you and I! Guess who? You got it, the Evil Money Monsters! Always have, and always will. Well for another 100 years, plus or minus 50, if my arguments are correct. The following paper, "Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens," by Martin Gilens and Benjamin I. Pageput, of Princeton University, basically argues that the Money Monsters control America. We are an oligarchy, rule by the rich, with little impact on political decisions being the result of the "will of the people."
https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/mgilens/files/gilens_and_page_2014_-testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Dark Money's Biggest Money Monsters - The Rothschilds - Debt Based Currency and the logic of a "UN Save the Species Non-Debt Based Currency Plan"
When you spend your life studying political economics, you find out early on the the earth is really more accurately called "Planet Rothschilds," the name of the two part book that I am currently reading titled, "Planet Rothschild: The Forbidden History of The New World Order, Part I & II," also a must read.
https://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_2?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=planet+rothschild
Here is a link to a good overview of who they are, and the way they control our country, pollute every place where they have industry, always on the top of the worst lists. How they have used non-profit front groups, and their insane wealth, to control America, and take America into the "Modern Dark Ages," with the Rothschilds, fossil fuel interests, and other Dark Money Monsters, where we have basicall, the modern version of Kings and a few Queens. They say their contributions to their non-profit front groups are for education about Freedom in America. How much the Rothschilds are a part of, or orchestrating the efforts of the Koch Brothers, The Kochtapus, and Dark Money Billionaires, is hard to decipher. This documentary notes that in WWI, JP Morgan was thought to be the richest man in America. After his death, it was found out that he was only a Lieutenant of the Rothschilds, owning only 19% of his companies. Guess who owned most of the remaining shares? Are the Koch Brothers and Dark Money Billionaires, Lieutenants of the Rothchilds? I think the appropriate question is which billionaires and centimillionaires are their Lieutenants.
The Rothchilds are invested heavily in the fossil fuel industries, and have been politically active in support of the fossil fuel industries since the emergence of the industry! Plus, as the third video on "The Rothchild Conspiracy Explained in 4 Minutes," argues, they own and control all mot all Central Banks in the world. The following documentary, "How the Rothschilds and Bankers Control America," will provide a good overview, along with an overview of debt based currency, Central Banks, and why I propose a "UN Save the Species NON-DEBT Based Currency Plan." For those wanting to know more about the Rothschilds, the second documentary "The Rothschild Family - Richest Family on Earth," provides additional information about who they are. Using non-debt based currency, which is the basis of "The ONLY Solution" will place the ownership and control of all fossil fuels and Central Banks under the the people of the country.
The forth documentary, and the book (above), "Planet Rothschild The Forbidden History of the New World Order 1763 1939," Vol I & II, lay out the argument that we live on Planet Rothschild quite well. "The ONLY Solution" is directly focused of returning "Power to the People!" Any of you that have spent your lives pursuing this "dream," you will know all to well, that the EMM&MS will NOT let that happen! But in my view, it is critical to saving the species, and having a sustainable renewable energy world, given the much less wealth and GDP of all countries in a significantly lower energy dense world, driven by solar and wind. It is all about the this transformation from "Power to the Plutocrats," to "Power to the People," to save all species from the hell that the EMM&MS have damned us to, which is directly what "The ONLY Solution," and "TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind," are all about. But these EMM&MS will not let this happen, all the way to the death of all species. Make no mistake, they would rather allow the death of all species, than they would relinquish their insane "Power over the People!" hence, why "It Is THE END!"
Dark Money - The Secret of the Seven Sisters - What TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind is Really Facing - Oil Money Monsters!
"The Secret of the Seven Sisters" will provide a foundation for what the world is facing, to get these EMM to allow the world to TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, and why "The ONLY Solution" is to purchase all fossil fuels and Central Banks, with non-debt based currency, to hopefully, stop these EMM&MS from ever bringing the earth this close to extinction of all species, if it is not too late already, which I believe it is, as I do not expect "The Only Solution," or something similar, will be implemented. My only prayer, is that they realize that they will all die horrific deaths with all of us, and not inherit this planet, while the rest of us die horrific deaths. You EMM&MS certainly don't want to get to hell any sooner than you have to, believe me!
5 Most Powerful Families that Secretly Control the World
Not to leave any of the EMM out of the parade, as they may feel belittled, this is a quick overview of the "5 Most Powerful Families that Secretly Control the World," and "A New World Order: A 6000 Year History HD!" Regardless if you want to call these people Psychopath and Sociopaths with insanely too much wealth and power, or if you want to call them Evil Money Monsters and Money Sluts, the net result is the same. They are insuring the extinction of all species, if these arguments are correct, for their insane greed for money and power.
Note that you never see these names on the Forbes Billionaire list, as they are the Darkest of Dark Money. Hope they all have fun in the depths of hell together. If they don't want to get there any sooner than possible, they may want to implement the "UN Save the Species Non-Debt Based Currency Plan," or something similar, and TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, or, as I have detailed here, "It Is THE END!" Hate to use the UN, Central Banks, or any of their front groups for this effort, but what other options are there? This is why having the country take back the Central Banks of each country from the Rothschilds and the other EMM&MS is critical. Then the UN and each country owned and managed Central Bank, without any ability to lend any multiple of deposits, can be used. You scale up deposit requirements to 100%, as you buy out the EMM&MS of their Central Bank and fossil fuel interests. They deposit these funds, and increase the banks holdings to 100%. If GDP, is declining at 3% per year, and you are spending an additional 5% per year on TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, then you are growing your money supply by 2%, while reaching a 100% deposit ratio, after buying back all government bonds, fossil fuels, and central banks, using non-debt based currency. This currency would then be deposited by the EMM&MS to raise the reserve ratio to 100%, which is then maintained. Banks could only lend what people deposited, not 10 times that amount, as it is today.
Dark Money Ushers in "The Modern Dark Ages" insuring "It Is THE END" - Going out in a "Blaze of Evil!"
Dark Money has been around for all ages, but its clout has really increased since the rise of the Radical Right, as the book Dark Money details, and the "Citizens United" decision by the US Supreme Court, allowing these EMM&MS to use unlimited amounts of money in shadow non-profits to buy off the US government for their own financial interests, in the name of educating the populous. Chris Hedges book, "Death of the Liberal Class," I have always seen as a description of my life, and how the radical right have thrashed me personally, professionally, financially, and in just about every way you can imagine. I discuss some of this in My Story, but hope to do a book titled "My Career In Hell," which will detail how this has occurred from my perspective. Watch Chris Hedges discuss his book "Death of The Liberal Class," and Shawn Otto discuss his new book "The War On Science." Better yet, read the books for "the rest of the story!"
Dark Money and The Depopulation Agenda - Going out in a "Blaze of Evil"
There has been a conspiracy theory out there for decades now, that basically argues that the EMM&MS have known that "The Limits to Growth" findings were correct, the sustainable population of the planet was around 4 billion, which is around where it was when I first read The Limits to Growth in 1980. The theory argues that the EMM&MS have allowed the population to expand, due to their insane greed for money and power. They expect that they will be able to "depopulate" the planet, down to around 1-2 billion of their chosen few, by the end of the century. The 1-2 billion population level is what some people guess is now the sustainable population, due to the over population of the planet for so long, reducing the level of deplete-able natural resources to a level that would only sustain 1-2 billion people.
One of the first shows that I watched on this theory was Jesse Venture's "Conspiracy Theory" show, which follows. Although the show is cut short, and I can't seem to find the whole show, as it appears to have be taken off the Internet. If anyone has the link to the complete segment on the Bilderberg Conference, I would appreciate it if you sent it to me at m email on the top of the first page. He went to the Bilderberg Conference, and other private meetings of the EMM&MS, asking if these secret meetings were all about this "depopulation agenda." Of course, no one would say anything. What was most interesting to me, as I recall, is that he received a communication from one of the Rockefeller family members, stating that his family was spearheading this "depopulation agenda," and that they had been doing so for quite some time. This Rockefeller family member felt so horrified by this effort, he wanted Jesse and the world to know, as I recall. He sent a communication from one of his family members, confirming this statement. Hence, why I believe, this segment of his show does not appear to be available on the net.
The second link is Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory segment on the US police state, FEMA camps, and fusion centers, that some argue are a part of the US depopulation effort, or at least, are the government's efforts to prepare for the coming economic and environmental hell described here, primarily falling off Hubbert's Cliff, and the potential ravages off climate change. God help us if this depopulation conspiracy theory, is not just a theory!
A quick search on Youtube of "depopulation agenda," provides a host of videos on this conspiracy theory. If the theory, is as many believe, not just a theory, it would represent the most psychopathic evil agenda ever thought of, not to mention, attempted by the EMM&MS. I would not want to be in the souls of these EMM&MS when they close their eyes for the last time on Planet Titanic, as in my beliefs, they will experience the most horrific hell that they imposed on God's billions of children, for eternity, for this insane evil.
The specific agenda of my work on "TransitioNOW or It Is THE END" is to prove to the EMM&MS that their efforts to depopulate the planet, assuming that this is their evil and insane agenda, and have the planet to their own, will not work! Even if this is not their "agenda," per say, and the EMM&MS think that the world will depopulate itself, leaving them and theirs as the primary principal survivors, as they have fleeced the billions of people on Planet Titanic, for their billions, filling up their lifeboats, prior to the sinking of Planet Titanic, based on my analysis, this will not work either. It is either "TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind" using my "UN Save the Species Non-Debt Based Currency Plan," or something similar, or "It Is THE END!"
CHECKMATE Evil Money Monsters & Money Sluts (EMM&MS)! I would certainly not be in any hurry to get to hell any sooner than you have to, as I am quite sure it is going to be horrific for you for eternity. So I would place your emphasis on implementing either "The ONLY Solution" or something similar, soon! Who knows, God may reduce your sentence for helping to save Planet Titanic!
Scaling Up Hard Fossil Fuels and Methane Hydrates Production from 2030-2050 Drives Carbon Levels and Temps up to 3-4C by 2050-2075 releasing "The Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop," Driving Global Temperatures up 5-7C by 2100 - The End of All Species
The following documentary on "Six Degrees could change the world!" is depressing enough. Now factor in the idea that, if the world scales up hard fossil fuel production, around 2030-2050, when the world runs out of cheap oil and gas, falling off Hubbert's Cliff. That this rise in hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates production, combined with global growth, primarily China and India, may increase global mean temperatures by 3-4C degrees by 2050-2075, which could raise global sea levels up to 60 feet, and release gigatons of methane hydrates and carbon in the Siberian and Artic permafrost and on the East Siberian Arctic shelf. Which may then result in the explosion and implosion of the 448 and growing nuclear power plants, ocean based, due to sea level rise, land based, due to the likely collapse of civilization globally. The release of "The Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop" may then drive global temperatures up to 5-7C by 2100, resulting in the extinction of all species. See the arguments?!
As I like to put it - life on a planet was an interesting idea, too bad it has to end so soon for the insane greed of so few!
Earth 2100 - Worse than this "Worst Case Scenario" due to Sea Levels Rising up to 60 feet With only a 3-4C Rise releasing "The Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop"
Now watch this fictional documentary featuring Lucy, born June 2, 2009, and the hypothetical world she ended up living in by 2100. Sad news, I believe that even this documentary, "Earth 2100" is optimistic. Notice how the commentator discusses how in six short years from now, 2015 (2009 documentary), the world's best laid plans are getting under way, Scotland has harnessed the ocean, Vatican City has gone completely solar, and here in the America, cars are running cleaner, and oil is getting more expensive and harder to find.
Well, here we are and it is 2016: solar and wind growth has dropped off a cliff; renewable energy stocks have been the poorest performing sector, since the top of the 2007 market bubble, and have yet to stage a rebound; as "frack baby frack," the Koch Brothers, the Kochtapus and OPEC have waged a war against renewable energies, insuring that oil prices stay low, to stop the transition to renewable energies, and the Koch Brothers and Kochtapus are waging massive advertising campaigns to reverse subsidies for solar and wind, and net metering in many of our states.
What they portray as the shortage of oil conditions of 2015, due to "frack baby frack," and new extraction technologies, I believe will be forestalled until 2030. They note that 2015 is on track to be the hottest on record. This was not only true, 2016 is on record to be another record breaker, and may result in the first ice free Arctic summer! The latter, if not this year, will be in the next few years. John Holdren, Harvard University, notes that if we are still dragging our feet on climate change by 2015, it will be difficult for the world to avert a degree of climate change that we simply can't manage. I concur and believe we are more than dragging our feet, we are going backward rapidly.
In the hypothetical crisis of 2015, being played out in 2009, the leaders can't get agreement to make any significant changes. In my view, the world is much worse off than portrayed in this documentary, due to the war on renewable energies being waged by the Koch Brothers, the Kochtpus, the Dark Money Billionaires, and OPEC, and due to Obama's "frack baby frack" campaign.
As they note, the Mayan civilization was the peak of the known world at the time, but due to climate change, they died horrific deaths, when they could not produce the food to sustain their culture. So too, with the Roman Empire, which after expanding across three continents in a few hundred years, simply could not produce enough to feed its rulers and army. Sound familiar?! The commentator notes: "The pattern is clear. Civilizations that grow to large, and consume to much, damage their own life support systems. Resources run out, and they begin to fight each other over what little is left. Then they either starve or leave. In this case, where can we go?" How history repeats itself, this time, if these arguments are correct, to the end of all civilizations, our species, and most, if not all species.
Note the discussion on how pandemics become a massive risk in this type of world scenario in cities. Imagine, they suggest, that it is 2070, and the ocean has risen 3 feet. Note how the scientists discuss the massive release of methane as the most critical risk, and with a massive burp from the Arctic tundra, it could raise temperatures dramatically. In the time scale of a decade, sometimes even less than a decade! As Dr. John Holdren, from Harvard University notes, "Maybe the tipping point is where you heat up the tundra so much that there is a huge burp of methane and carbon dioxide out of those northern soils." It notes that if the large store of methane in the Arctic tundra was released, global temperatures would soar. It shows "Global Temperature Earth 2071: +4C." Just what I am expecting!
Since this 2009 documentary, "Earth 2100," was created, science has taught us that even a 2C rise in the earth's temperature can cause super storms, New York has already been flooded by hurricane Sandy in 2012, and as "Antarctica: Secrets Beneath the Ice" taught us, a 3-4C rise can cause most of Antarctica to melt and sea levels to rise up to 60 feet. As they note, with a sea level rise of even a few meters, 6 feet, you would change society as we know it. "Society is not set up to deal with rapid sea level rise, It would be a catastrophe of a magnitude we've never experienced."
James Howard Kunstler notes that "One of our political leaders stated that the American way of life is non-negotiable. We're going to discover the hard way that when you don't negotiate the circumstances that are sent to you by the universe, you automatically get assigned a new negotiating partner named reality, and then it will negotiate for you. You don't even have to be in the room!"
With a 30-60 foot sea level rise, I argue, it may cause the implosion and explosion of many of the ocean based nuclear reactors, which may then unleash the "Radioactive Methane Monster Feedback Loop." Even the worst-case scenario portrayed by "Earth 2100," I believe is optimistic. I hope and pray not, but unless the world TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, I sincerely believe, "It Is THE END!"
"Earth 2100," click here for full screen
"Earth 2100" ends by discussing a future we could create. We have a chance to get it right. They note that by 2015, if we do the right things, we could see the world starting to rebound, due to investment in green jobs, green energies and green technologies. They state that it will take a radical change toward renewable energies, with the commitment of WWII, for the President to say, as FDR did, we will TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind. I only wish this would happen NOW! As in my view, just the opposite has occurred since 2009 when this documentary was created.
"By the time we get to 2100, the challenge of building a global green economy, where we are sharing technologies, not fighting wars over water and oil, that's going to bring out the best in the human family," states Van Jones, White House Green Jobs. Humanity will be relatively disease free. Children will be treated as rare treasures. "Most people don't realize that not only can we change, we must change," states Peter Demenocal. "And I think that's how you own the future. That's how you take control of your destiny." "I have a huge faith in humanity," states Professor Stuart Pimm. "We will be able to create a world that will have a livable planet for our kids and their kids, that is our opportunity, that is our destiny," states Thomas Friedman. The kids born today will see us navigate past the first greatest test of humanity, which is can we actually be smart enough to live on a planet without destroying it.
I believe the world has radically continued to cascade down from the turn of the century, even with the "Audacity of Hope" of Obama, as I have outlined here in detail, due to "frack baby frack," and the rise of Dark Money, the Koch Brothers, the Kochtapus, and OPEC's war on renewable energies, and their buying out of the Legislative Branches of Congress; Senate and House of Representatives, due to the Citizens United decision allowing unlimited funding of shadow non-profits to buy Congresspeople who implement laws that benefit their financial interests. Which I believe, will insure the ongoing destruction of our society, and ultimately, the transition to hard fossil fuels and methane hydrates production, when the world falls off Hubbert's Cliff. The result, if these arguments are correct, "It Is THE END!"
However, if we do TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, we still may be able to transition the world to the amazing future that they portray at the end of this documentary, "Earth 2100." We can only hope and pray that we do. I will try to facilitate the TransitioNOW to Solar and Wind, but sadly, do not really believe that it will happen! I believe that the EMM&MS have insured that "It Is THE END!"