The Plan

The IPCC has produced rapport after rapport detailing the facts of climate change. Due to the worlds largely carbon based economics leaders have been passive and reluctant to even take the realities on board, helped by a concerted effort detailed by Naomi Oreskes, using the same doubt propaganda used for delaying the response to nuclear waste, DDT and tabacco. There is no reason to despair though, but there is a reason for a real plan. It is a shocking fact no such plan is known to the world.

As long as politics is divided on climate action,

you know it is infested with fossil fuel lakeys

The main reason for the timid attitude to climate action is twofold. First there is the belief that climate action is limited by our economic resouces. It is not because it can use renewable resources. Making a business plan for a renewable initiative however always restricts us within the boundaries of what the econmic system thinks is viable. The second reason is the ‘geoengineering’ smear, that is somehow feared. All over the world ignorant people that just want to keep their jobs and carreers are helping to demotivate anyone trying to fray the fabric of carbon dominance.

The world burned a pool of oil the size of the North Sea, yes it’s hard to reverse that!

Fear or despair are no options, because they do not allow us to respond to climate change. Thinking within our economic restraints is also no option, it would be foolish to allow banks to limit our actions, they are after all only administrators of our resources, while we allowed them to become the owners and distributors. The control of money is the biggest problem, but solving the problem of money will take to much time, which is why we propose extraeconomics. Extraeconmics is about maximizing independence and surplus, instead of effectively minimizing it as economics does. Extraeconomic plans can work in places no economic plans can work, for instance because logistics would be to costily. Extraeconomics provides a planning framework to tackle climate change using only renewable resources. This is perhaps the most important aspect of ‘The Plan’ : Independence of the world economy and financial system.

Make a plan that (after its startup) invloves no fossil fuel inputs, then it will be cheapest and most secure

Extraeconomic projects can be set up where there is enough renewable resouces to make them work. The most fit places are perhaps the deserts, especially near the coast in Africa, Texas and elsewhere. There are few people there to oppose their land being repurposed, although like multinationals they can be bribed (we don’t advocate killing as f.i. the Soy loggers of the Amazon do). Water and solar energy combined can generate hydrocarbons, which can be reduced to carbon to get the maximum effect of CO2 reduction. The oceans themselves are also giant areas where solar energy can be harnessed using deep oceanic nutrients (at about 200 meter) to grow organic materials, again capturing carbon like the forrests that created coal.

Capturing carbon means generating resources we can’t use, but we don’t need them

The fight against CO2 pollution will generate immense amounts of carbon containing compounds, for instance methane, hydrocarbons, plastics, cellulose, and all these compounds can not be used to generate wealth. Still even if we had to abandon10 times the amount of energy resources we have today we would still have more than 2240 times as much energy from renewables available to us. The task is doable, so let’s do it.

Extraeconomic principles are described here and here. The concept is that one creates regions or areas that are autonomous, that harbour a small population that sustains itself and that also runs a eco restauration or climate mitigation process. The goal is not to produce economic gain, but to survive in wealth with minimal exchange of goods and services outside the region.

Another extraeconomic pillar is that there is no patent recognition. IP is not protected, and external IP is not recognized. This is necessary to allow innovation and all available technology to be adopted. If an area is extraeconomical no external law applies, no suits can be filed for patent infringement, for the simple reason that the inventions are not used for economic gain or profit. No resource of extraeconomic origin can be monetized in the economic system. All surplus will go towards capturing CO2 or restoring eco systems.

Economics Extraeconomics
Intl law No outside legal control
Driven by banks Designed
‘Free market’ Closed system
Exploit and Forget Overproduce
Fossil fuel dependent Renewable dependent
Bank credit and debts No bank credit or debts
Goal is Profit Goal is CCS
Protected by MIC Protected by UN?
Global dependencies Local autonomy
Patents No restrictions on tech

Zonleningen.nl Samen Investeren in Zonneinstallaties

We werken al een tijdje aan een crowdsourcing methode met een twist, namelijk een waar tussenpersonen geen rol spelen. Dit betekent dat de kosten een stuk lager zijn dan gebruikelijk. De methode is gebaseerd op onderhandse leningen, dat zijn leningen tussen mensen zonder notariele stukken, echter wel met een contract. Het contract kan bij de belastingdienst worden geregistreerd en in sommige gevallen kan de lening en aflossing zelfs van de belasting worden afgetrokken. 

We zoeken mensen die met de buren hun zonneinstallatie willen financieren door directe leningen onderling. Wie geinteresseerd is kan zich inschrijven op zonleningen.nl . Wij nemen dan contact met u op.

Zonleningen 

Zonleningen zijn leningen die u direct van een ander ontvangt. Dit kan zomaar, maar ook met gebruik van een contract. In het contract staat precies hoeveel geleend wordt, door wie en wat de rente moet bedragen. U tekent het contract met uw financier en bent vervolgens de rente schuldig, of kunt op gegeven moment de schuld aflossen (door de 100 Euro terug te betalen).

Stel u heeft ruimte voor zonnepanelen. Dan kunt u zich bij Zonleningen registreren. Daarop maakt zonleningen een kosten raming binnen uw budget. Dit resulteert in een bedrag dat het zal kosten om bij u een installatie aan te brengen (kunnen zonnepanelen zijn, maar ook bijvoorbeeld isolatie).

Stel de kosten van de door u gewenste zonnepanelen zijn 4000,- Euro. Een deel betaalt u zelf, dus dan rest bv. 2000,- Euro. Deze verdelen we in 20 contracten van 100,- Euro. We rekenen vervolgens het rendement op uw panelen uit, dat is bv. 8%. We bieden de leningen aan tegen een rente van 5%. Er zijn nu 100 leningen van 100 Euro tegen 5% te koop. Mensen die interesse hebben kunnen zich inschrijven. Ze kunnen de contracten reserveren.

Als het volledige bedrag aan leningen voor uw installatie is gereserveerd wordt over gegaan tot betaling door de mensen die u geld lenen. Deze betaling gaat direct richting de leverancier van uw installatie. Wordt het volledige bedrag niet betaald binnen de gestelde termijn dan wordt al het geld terug gestort. Om meer zekerheid te hebben wordt een reserve pool aangehouden. Mensen die betalen sturen tevens getekende contracten op. Is de betaling compleet dan moet u die contracten tekenen. U heeft dan 20 contracten met verschillende mensen die u verplichten rente te betalen over de lening of deze af te lossen.

De installatie wordt geinstalleerd en u heeft hier financieel voordeel van. Elk jaar wordt u gewaarschuwd dat u de rente moet betalen aan uw financiers. U kunt die rente echter aftrekken van de belasting, dus u betaalt minder! Als u wilt lost u een of meerder contracten af. Zonleningen houdt bij wie welk contract heeft. U heeft uw installatie en uw financieer heeft een hogere rente dan elders.

Zonleningen werkt op basis van vertrouwen, het is de keuze van uw financiers om in uw installatie te investeren. Kunt u de rente niet betalen dan zijn maatregelen mogelijk, maar meestal zijn de kosten voor u een fractie van uw inkomen. Doordat het om veel kleine leningen gaat is het risico gespreid. Zonleningen treed niet op als bank dan wel incasso bureau, maar kan deze wel inschakelen. 

In eerste instantie zal de installatie door zonleningen zelf geleverd worden. Het kan ook voorkomen dat zonleningen de offerte voor de installatie uitzet aan de laagste bieder. 

Interesse? Registreer voor de pilot bij zonleningen.nl 

5+ redenen om niet aan Schaliegas te beginnen, of waarom heeft die koe geen staart?

Update : Schaliegas veroorzaakt een radioactief afval probleem http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-04-15/radioactive-waste-booms-with-oil-as-new-rules-mulled.html

Update : Gas emissions from wells is 1000 times bigger than estimated previously http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/15/methane-natural-gas-epa_n_5153205.html?1397574838

Update : Dodelijk schaleigas ongeluk bij Chevron, toezichhouder geweerd http://stateimpact.npr.org/pennsylvania/2014/04/09/chevron-blocked-access-to-dep-after-fatal-well-fire-in-southwest-pa/

Update : Kleine aardbevingen veroorzaakt door fracking http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/11/ohio-geologists-link–earthquakes-to-fracking

Update : Radioactief afval wordt zomaar gedumpt in de VS. De filters van het water dat uit de schaliegas site komt vangt oa radon en andere isotopen af. De frackers moeten deze vervolgens ergens kwijt en dumpen ze of begraven ze. De isotopen kunnen long kanker veroorzaken.

Update : Fracking in the US, lijkt grappig, maar willen we dat hier? Video.

Update : Schaliegas levert de eerste 15 jaar niks op

Update : Schaliegas rapport Witteveen en Bos  Mulder Kaalberg (EZ)

Update : Schaliegas gebruikt al het water in Texas video

Update : More methane emitted by fracking than claimed.

Update : Mexico sells its water to fracking companies while it suffers drought.

Update : Hoge concentraties arsenicum, selenium gelinkt aan schaliegas bronnen.

Update : Schaliegas gelinkt met hoger sterftecijfer, een duidelijke trend in North Dakota

Update : Aparte categorie? Schaliegas bedrijven liegen en lappen de regels aan hun laars

Update : Schaliegas verhoogt de concentratie methaan in waterbronnen. Metingen aan bronnen in gebieden waar naar schaliegas werd geboord en gebieden waar dat niet zo was werden vergeleken. Bronnen in boorgebieden bevatten tot 17 maal meer methaan. Dus “er was altijd methaan” is waar, en “het boren heeft methaan in het water gebracht” is ook waar.

Update : Schaliegas en borstkaner. Shale gas and breast cancer and violence against women Art 1 Art 2 

Toxins in Fracking Linked to Breast Cancer (webinar)

Toxins linked to Spontaneous Abortion and Birth Defects,Crimes Against Women on the Rise in Some Energy Boom Towns

Update : Methaan lekkage van schaliegaswinning maakt het vervuilender dan kolen.

Update : Kankers en huid en long aandoeningen en aanvallen, verschrikkelijke gezondheidsklachten in Pennsylvania. Meer video’s over Shale vs. Health.

Shale oil : “Only skin cancer, with six observed deaths, was in excess, with an estimated relative risk of 4.9 (95%CI: 2.2–10.9).” (bron)

“Elevated levels of stomach cancer incidence in rural areas of Kohtla-Järva district remained unexplainable. In a retrospective cohort study of 2069 workers who had been exposed to oil shale products from 10 to 20 years an excess of skin cancer in females was found.” (bron)

Update : Mensen die benedenwinds van schaliegas gebieden wonen worden ernstig ziek.

Update : Parlement van Engeland bespreekt noodzaak omkoping locale overheden Schaliegas bedrijven riskeren “company-killing” .. environmental damage.

Update : Brouwers keren zich tegen Schaliegas. Vitens waarschuwd voor schaliegas

5+ redenen om niet aan Schaliegas te beginnen, of waarom heeft die koe geen staart?

Schaliegas (in het engels shale gas of Fracking genoemd) wordt gepushed in Europa. Er zit veel geld achter. De fossiele industrie wil door ongeacht de lange termijn schade die schaliegas en het verglijkbare koolzoomgas (coalseamgas) veroorzaakt. Maar waar hebben we het over? Wat wordt er gerapporteerd over schaliegas?

Wie niet weet wat schaliegas is, het is gas dat vrijkomt uit klei/leisteen/rotslagen nadat deze met gigantische hydraulishe druk zijn verbrijzeld. Er wordt een gat geboord, en via dat gat worden dmv vloeistoffen (fluids) zulke krachten onder de grond opgewekt dat deze verpulvert, zodat gas vrijkomt. Dit wordt dan verondersteld via het gat te worden afgevoerd maar het kan natuurlijk alle kanten op.

Probleem 1. Fracking Fluids (vloeistoffen gebruikt voor het kraken van de grond en losweken van gas)

Bij schaliegas boringen worden vloeistoffen gebruikt om de gassen makkelijker vrij te laten komen. Deze zijn giftig. Ze nemen ook gifstoffen, metalen e.d. op uit de grond en moeten in veel gevallen worden afgevoerd, iets dat echter zonder enige zorgvuldigheid gebeurt.

There Are Many Scary Chemicals In Fracking Fluid 

The Big Secret? Fracking Fluids 

 Cathy Behr .. was working the day shift when a gas driller
worker, Clinton Marshall, arrived complaining of nausea and headaches.
Marshall had spilled “fracturing fluid” on his clothes .. Cathy Behr, without protection, had
meanwhile spent just ten minutes tending to Mr. Marshall. A few days after this ER visit, Cathy Behr appeared jaundiced and began
vomiting fluid and having difficulty breathing.  Behr’s husband took her
back to the emergency room where she was diagnosed with multiple organ
failure, including liver failure, respiratory distress and erratic blood
counts.

Fracking Fluids May Migrate to Aquifers, Researcher Says may? WTF

Vitens verwacht drinkwatervervuiling

Newest EPA Report Confirms Fracking Fluids Contaminating .. Water Supply 

Leaked fracking fluid contaminated groundwater near Grande Prairie: ERCB

Fracking Fluids Could Contaminate Freshwater Aquifers, Says Study

Etc. Dus fracking/schaliegas boormengsels zijn zeer giftig, bevatten vaak geheim gehouden oplosmiddelen (oa diesel) bedoelt om het gas vrij te maken door eventuele ondergrondse materialen op te lossen. De vloeistoffen worden tijdens en na het boren verwijderd maar niemand houdt hier zicht op. Soms wordt het ergens anders de grond ingepompt!

Probleem 2. Aardbevingen 

Zelfs in ons land wordt nonchalant gedaan over aardbevingen. Onze gasrobot Kamp moest er aan herinnerd worden dat er mensen wonen in de gaswin gebieden die misschien meer waarde hechten aan hun eigen huis dan aan de winst van de Gasunie. In de VS zijn er vele incidenten van aardbevingen ivm schaliegas. Logisch, je haalt iets weg van onder de grond, dan zakt de grond in.

“De minister liet vrijdag weten dat door de gaswinning zwaardere
aardbevingen kunnen ontstaan dan eerder werd gedacht. Hij wil duidelijk
hebben hoe zwaar die bevingen precies kunnen worden en wat daar de
gevolgen van kunnen zijn.” 

Aardbevingen door gaswinning heviger 

Kamp onderzoekt andere manier van gaswinning

US government scientists link shale gas .. to sharp rise in earthquakes

Britain lifts shale gas ban despite earthquakes 

UK firm says shale fracking caused earthquakes

‘Remarkable Increase’ In U.S. Earthquakes ‘Almost Certainly Manmade,’ 

“Our analysis showed that shortly after hydraulic fracturing began small
earthquakes started occurring, and more than 50 were identified, of
which 43 were large enough to be located. Most of these earthquakes
occurred within a 24 hour period after hydraulic fracturing operations
had ceased.” 

Probleem 3. Radioactiviteit

Door het kraken van de klei lagen/leisteen lagen waarin het gas zit komen radioactieve gassen en metalen vrij. Deze eindigen in het fracking fluid, het gas en het grondwater.

Shale gas: the view from Russia 

“All clays are mildly radioactive, and shale is a sort of heat-treated
clay. While Barnett shale is not particularly radioactive, Marcellus
shale, which has recently been the focus of frantic drilling activity,
is.” 

Radioactivity and Shale Gas 

The
shale deposits that have the US gas industry so excited were studied
after WWII by the Atomic Energy Commission and declared to be the
largest
uranium resource in the US. “ 

Natural Gas Drilling Produces Radioactive Wastewater 

Regulation Lax as Gas Wells’ Tainted Water Hits Rivers

“wastewater that is often laced with highly corrosive salts, carcinogens like benzene and radioactive elements like radium” 

Natural Gas Drilling Releases Uranium, Study Reveals

Probleem 4. Onbruikbaar grondwater

Op dit punt is schaliegas al afgeschreven wat ons betreft. Maar mensen laten zich omkopen, de krediteuren hebben daar momenteel in de VS en op veel andere plaatsen geen moeite mee, want lenen kost niks. Zo wordt er overal vrolijk geboord, wat funest blijkt voor het water. Niet voor een jaar oid, maar voor de volgende duizenden jaren. In sommige gebieden voeren de schaliegas bedrijven water aan als voorwaarde om te blijven boren. Maar wat als het schaliegasbedrijf failliet gaat?

Flaming faucets: Woman’s tap water is flammable

Cabot’s Methodology Links Tainted Water Wells to Gas Fracking 

Report Left Out Poisons In Drinking Water Near Fracking Site

Pennsylvania officials reported incomplete test results that omitted
data on some toxic metals that were found in drinking water taken from a
private well near a
natural gas drilling site“ 

Toxicology tests on the plaintiffs found the presence of toluene, benzene and arsenic in their bodies, according to the complaint.”

Scientific Study Links Flammable Drinking Water to Fracking.

“For the first time, a scientific study has linked natural gas drilling
and hydraulic fracturing with a pattern of drinking water contamination
so severe that some faucets can be lit on fire.”

Probleem 5. Het land wordt onbruikbaar 

Ook boven de grond is het ongezond. In een geval waar een bedrijf CCS wilde doen, althans onder het voorwendsel van carbon capture and storage CO2 gebruikte om gas uit de grond te pompen, bleek dat CO2 te lekken en stikte koeien in een dal waar het gas bleeft staan. Mensen zijn net zo vatbaar voor de gifstoffen als de dieren die er aan sterven.

Livestock falling ill in fracking regions

Fracking’s Toll on Pets, Livestock Chills Farmers

Their findings, published in “New Solutions: A Journal of
Environmental and Occupational Health Policy,” are a harrowing
account of sudden deaths of cattle, as well as reproductive and
neurological problems in horses, cats, dogs and other animals.
“ 

“These farmers are getting out of the beef business, in part
over concern that their animals will become delivery systems for
contaminants.” 

Fracking Makes Livestock Sick, Says Recent Study Of Natural Gas Drilling On Animal And Human Health: Commentary

“Animals can be used as sentinels to monitor impacts to human health” 

Cattle in fracking areas show side effects

Why Are Cows Tails Dropping Off?

“In New Mexico, hair testing of sick cattle that grazed near well pads found petroleum residue in 54 of 56 cows.” 

Study links fracking to livestock disease and death 

Newborn Birth Weight Drops In High Fracking Areas

Analysis of birth measures in Pennsylvania, which has a high
concentration of fracking operations, revealed that mothers exposed to
this dangerous method of natural gas extraction are 25 percent more
likely to deliver an underweight baby.”

Conclusie 

Reden nr 6 zou kunnen zijn dat de winst vaak tereurstelt. Reden nr. 7 zou kunnen zijn dat veel gas niet verkocht wordt, maar verbrand, dat het afvoeren ervan voor enorme overlast zorgt. Reden nr. 8 de betrokken bedrijven zijn absoluut onbetrouwbaar. Maar wie daar nog over wil kniezen en voor boren is heeft geen gezond verstand of hart. Wat als het gas op was? Wat deden we dan? Dat moeten we dan maar nu al doen.

De VS verbranden zoveel schaliegas zonder het te gebruiken dat dit op de satteliet zichtbaar is.   Ref frackreasons

Climate Change is going Lethal

But we have know about it for more than a century…

General Electric even gave a perfect explanation

The phenomenon was mentioned in the movie Soylent Green, with the added correct prediction that by 2019 the oceans would not produce algea anymore! (the reason why Soylent Green is People)

Extraeconomics

F. Rincker

What is Extraeconomics

Extraeconomics is a new kind of economic thinking, fit for the renewable energy age. Traditional economics as it is now practiced around the globe really constitute a fossil fuel marketing strategy and can be defined in short as “The maximization of the Utilization of Fossil Fuels”. It is immediately obvious that if fossil fuel streams would stop flowing today, the world would crash in a week. This to anyone analyzing the situation would seem like a major flaw.

Extraeconomics doesn’t intent to fix traditional economics, it proposes a way to create units of robust existence based on renewable energy sources //outside// the economic environment. Instead of trying to trade it proposes to create units, territories with their inhabitants, that do not trade with anyone except for specific items. The reason why trade is limited if not prohibited is that whatever trade supplies can be made within the territory. Also whatever the territory produces should not be destroyed/used outside it, to prevent energy and waste stream inbalances.

Extraeconomics is the key to solving the climate crisis. If the climate crisis is handled purely economical then a power plant colony in the Lybian desert will be build using fossil fuels, carry an enormous debt and thus have to supply its energy to the economy at large, basically powering the machines and appliances, homes that further destructive consumption of the ecosysytem.

The climate problem can not be solved by using fossil fuels. 1. It only increases the problem. 2. It’s not going to be applied to such goals, 3.You will run out of fuel before having any effect. Therefore normal (fossil fuel based) economics can’t solve the problem.

Would the power plant colony be build using extraeconomic principles the building would not create a debt, the energy produced could be used to capture carbon (basically transforming the electricity into carbon storage), and this process could sustain itself indefinitely while outside the colony economics continued to exploit and destroy the ecosystem. Even with that destruction the extraeconomical unit would be a safehaven for its inhabitants and beneficial to the planet.

Of course extraeconomical units or colonies can produce wealth for the economy at large, but in general this economy doesn’t like that as it depends on our struggle for our share of fossil fuel wealht, distributed through our monetary system. We need money to buy gasoline, food, shelter, to pay our debts and our freedoms. This is the economic system. This is why extraeconomics needs to be defined seperately : It can not evolve from present day fossil fuel scarcity dependend economics.

General principles

The first principle of extraeconomics is that it is the law in a specific ‘zone’, territory, area. Inside the ‘zone’ no other law applies. Trade can only occur (if it occurs at all) within the zone, NEVER to anyone outside the zone. A zone is 100% selfsufficient. People that live in the zone can not migrate in or out, can not maintain bank accounts outside the zone. They can travel and communicate.

The second principle is that it must be possible for renewable energy to power all activities in a zone. Fossil fuels are not avaiable except perhaps in the startup. Energy must be available in sufficient amounts in the zone for people to survive comfortable, for there to be farming, fishing, production of goods and services and for extraeconomic production of forrests, or carbon capture. This principle informs the amount of people that can live in a zone. Technology can help with this challenge if it is a challenge.

Third principle is that the purpose of the zone is capture carbon to combat global warming, strengthen the ecosystem and bring about vitality and beauty of our planet and its inhabitants. Other purposes can be to clean up specific pollution, to breed plants and animals to be released elsewhere. The purpose is never to gain access to goods or services in the ‘outside’ economy.

Wealth  =  Cybernetic agents X Energy X Raw materials

Designing an extraeconomical zone

Normal economics operates based on investments and market value of whatever is produced with the investment. Market value is ultimately only the value to the supplier of fossil fuels, and as a result economics produces enormous amounts of waste. Intermediaries in the fossil fuel tokens (fiat currencies) do not care how the fuels are applied, although it is in their interest to do it ‘efficiently’.  Extraeconomics can’t operate with the same mechanisms, it requires carefull design before a zone is declared.

A zone is not designed with money in mind, but with resources. The resources are invested in the zone and one can say it buys the livelyhoods of the inhabitants. Typically only a fraction of the wealth created in the zone will be from outside resouces, and sometimes even none at all. Elements that are needed repeatedly in every new zone can be defined as building blocks to be provided, and it can be such that some zones produce these building blocks for other zones.

The intermediaries in the traditionally economic zones will try to exploit whatever is produced in the extraeconomic zones, and so there can be no involvement of any party from regular economic zones in the creation or management of an extraeconomic zone. Money is of no value to extraeconomical zones. To protect the zones a governing body outside the zones must be established to protect them from raids and plunder.

Most military blocks are now serving fossil fuel interests, because most weapon systems depend on fossil fuels. There are clear initiatives to use renewable sources to power weapons, but in general the need for a strong army disappears once renewables are embraced. This means that only an enlightened military can be found willing to protect an extraeconomical zone.  Most extraeconomic zones will have to be created at a distance from civilisation at first.

Technology

All technology can be applied in an EE zone, regardless of patents, and regardless of it affecting fossil fuel use (because fossil fuels won’t be used). Normal law does not apply in the zones. Renewable energy techology, but also robotics and automated systems can all be used to maximize wealth provided the principles are adhered to. These technologies can be created in the zone, without outside help, or by sharing knowledge between zones.

Wealth being a function of cybernetics x energy x raw materials means that when humans or machines have the energy to process raw materials towards our desired goals (cybernetic feedback) they can create things that constitute wealth. Wealth can be defined as suporting the real needs of living human and other beings so they can live healthy, happy lives.

Government


Extraeconomical zones are designed to provide for themselves and serve the purpose of ecorestauration or carbon capture. As such they are closed economical systems where resources are applied optimally to the chosen ends. A currency can be used to allow inhabitants freedom to chose the kind of wealth they want to enjoy. All enjoy a basic income for their role in the zone.

Why money is not debt

Money today is not what it used to be at the start of the fossil fuel era. In the time manual labour was still the dominant factor in production of wealth the amount of money had to keep pace with the amount of skilled workers, and if something big had to be initiated it required that something als was not being achieved. Production of one thing meant not producing another thing.

This all changed with when industrialization happened based on coal driven steam engines. The machines broke the limitation set by the number of hands or horses able to help, and the value of labour became harder to determine. Unlike after the plague in England, when the noblemen and royals had to give in to the demands of the workers, because so little where left, now it was possible to wage wars slaughtering hundreds of thousends of men without ultimate negative impact on wealth for those left behind. In fact, fossil fuel driven wars became something ‘economics’ was very positive about.

When the amount of money was fixed, also because it was gold, and when our existence was predicated on many people cooperating, then money could be owed, or a debt. In fact most people intuitively feel debt when someone does something for them. That person is not free to enjoy his life while he performs the service, and so this means to recipient of the service should feel a debt to make sure he will do something back someday. Money helped shift the debt around so it could be repayed sooner and with more effect. This is the primary function of money.

It is easy to see that storing money even in this age would not be storing value, because a plague or other event could wipe out all people and who would then (even want to) provide services in return for money? Also many initiatives would invlove no money at all, or involve the creation of some kind of money independent of prevalent currencies.

Money as we know it after a century of fossil fuel industrialization no longer means manual labour. It means fossil fuels. Banks no regulate the amount of money to keep pace with the amount of fossil fuels available for production of goods and services. If they would not do that prices would fluctuate constantly, because demand (based on consumers with money) would not be in tune with supply (limited by the amount of fossil fuels available). This intimate link between money and fossil fuels is completely overlooked in modern economics, yet it is the absolute basis of its validity. Without fuel the economy would grind to a standstill in days.

This means one important thing : Profit is an illusion. Why? Because all gain in goods and services comes at the cost of a loss of fossil fuels (as the enabling resource). You are always left with less even if you make a Ferrari or you feed 100.000 children. Profit from fossil fuel investments mean money is taken out of circulation, at least as much as is spend on the project. This still doesn’t mean anything is gained, only that the loss is contained, the loss could have happened because of other processes (like people spending money to drive cars), but the money ended up in the pocket of the project.

What does it mean that a person that borrowed money from a bank to invest in a project has to pay that money back? The money is being spend on fossil fuels and other resources, it ends up mainly in the hands of these producers (fossil fuel, food, raw materials). The fuel is burned and the product is sold and all money gained except the profit has to be payed back to the bank. The question is : Why? What does it mean. The bank provided the money, but a debt in the true sense is not owed to the bank, it is owed to the suppliers of the fuel and materials needed to create the product or service. Somehow they accepted the money, especially the fossil fuel supplier. Why could the project not be done to the profit of the fossil fuel supplier and the other raw materials suppliers? That would make much more sense. Instead the bank pretends to have a right to both the money back and a piece of the action (interest).

The only reason one can think of why money should be returned to the bank (and this can be a way to aknowledge a debt) is that the bank wants money to remain scarce and more importantly (the real reason) because the bank wants to control what happens with the fossil fuels, how much of them are used how. If the bank allows money continue to circulate endlessly more and more would circulate and this would mean both inflation, but it would also mean less control over the projects that are initiated. The type of projects could be undesirable, and we all know what projects those are : Ones affecting the dominance of fossil fuels!

In economic theory money is created as debt because it has to return to the bank, because control over the amount is crucial for management of the fossil fuel consumption rate as well as the power of the banks. It is not debt in the classic sense because nobody in any bank loses sweat and no oil worker loses income over you not repaying it. It is a mere instrument of control.

If money really had to be repayed, the oil also would have to be unburned

On a small scale, locally money does play the classic role, but only because people really don’t think about whether there is still gas in the pump tomorrow, or whether bread will come to the bakery. So from the individual perspective it seems a mortgage is a debt to be repayed. It is not. Saying you need money to start something is like saying people can’t move except for money. They can and have and will.

The most imortant thing to keep the majority convinced money is the means to everything is to keep the fossil fuel based production machine going. If it is using renewables it has to be from a position of debt, not for free! This is why we need extraeconomical zones and thinking, because economics is bound to fossil fuels, and depends on our illusion of debt.

Privacy and Eugenics, or how Big Data opens the road to unnatural selection…

Everyone is aware of the creep in personal data retention by the almost every business or authority around. The NSA, Google, banks and companies all want datasets and/or direct knowledge concering your whereabouts. Smartphones seem to be expressly developed with GPS (something nobody really needed before) so owners can be tracked. Banks openly discuss selling your transaction data to companies so when you buy at particular store, the competition gets notified..

To make a list of types of data being retained we have:

  1. Your location, where and when you go about your life
  2. The stores you visit and what you buy
  3. Every fine, or crime you ever commited
  4. The people you have contact with, how long you talk
  5.  Your bank transactions
  6.  Your medical records, your biometrics, for instance an iris picture by your optometrist
  7.  Your genome (is being collected and organized in a European wide program)

One can argue that this data collection is for commercial reasons, partially it is. Part of it is industrial espionage. What happens is hard to tell,  there is no way to police the spread of your data as long as the privacy of companies is protected, and states remain sovereign. Simple information maximization results in enormous amounts of data being stored, looking for a use.

U.S. Agencies Said to Swap Data With Thousands of Firms

There are several problems with this trend. The first is that it turns the market into a planned economy, because it is clear what is needed where and by whom most of the time. Second, it opens avenues for political influencing, something that was reported by the University of Bath. Multinationals use private intelligence companies to gather data on possible political opponents, and actually infiltrate their ranks to either push them over the edge of legality or harm them in other ways.

“Large transnational corporations (TNCs) faced with political or consumer campaigns have a long history of countering criticism with dirty tricks, including: spying on activists and infiltrating their groups” (source)

The question rises, what is the role of the government in this. The answer is that the governmental institutions create forced trust that is abused by corrupted politicians. It is a willing host to parasitic infestations of non-democratic, malign and ill minded survaillance and enforcement. But due to the weakening of laws companies can now choose from an endless array of private companies (set up as part of ‘homeland security’) to help them spy on and subequently disabuse law abiding citizens.

But what world does this create? One in which you never know if what happens to you is an accident. One in which your internet is different from that of everyone else. One in which you can’t insure against genetic weakness. One in which your political choices influence your career. No matter how fragmented the buildup of this data mesh is, its ultimate effect will be one of either inclusion or exclusion for specific individuals. It creates a whole new landscape to navigate.

The first use of big data was by Hitler, who used IBM computers to track down and destroy the jews of Europe. (source)

This all does not happen in a neutral environment. The worlds resouces are being depleted and affected by climate change. Peak oil forces ever more polluting types of fossil fuel to be brought onstream. Scarcity is already pushing people into poverty on a massive scale, you can list the ‘revolutions’ that all don’t lead to a solid answer (more renewables), but instead can only amplify suffering. It is obvious why there is no relief achievable through the application of renewable energy, because most financial and real conflict aim to maintain fossil fuel as the dominant energy source.

The people that control the resources, whether they are armies in service of governments or individuals, all have the same dillema : Use the fuel (sell it at a price that people can afford) and have a society of some sort, but also get rid of those using the fuels without improving society, because that lengthens the period of possible enjoyment. Not selling it is not an option because the financial system will replace anyone with a mind to stop fossil fuel exploitation, even if it takes a war. Money flow is 100% contingent on fossil fuel flow, stopping it would kill the ‘carboncredit’ economy instantly and cost a lot of bankers their bonus.

The disconnect between the people and the elite lies where people become disinterested in laws, or where lawmaking is made so complex it is impossible to pinpoint those responsible for a law. This is the case in the US, where drafts of bills can change even after the final vote.

The challenge of the elite is to have a desirable society with less and less energy supply. The alternative (renewable based society) is avoided (fought tooth and nail) because it has an inverse power structure, it creates a patchwork of small ‘states’ that are relatively autonomous (although it will ultimatly adapt to its permanent and enormous energy surplus).

Using solar we can enjoy 2250 times the wealth we now get from fossil fuels.

How is this not going to lead to eugenics? The pressure is in favour of the most marketable people. This is because they most easily sell and perpetuate the consumer economy. Those that don’t look attractive, healthy and active don’t deserve as much investment, because they don’t generate as much cashflow.

NASA analysis “With a larger depletion rate, the decline of the Commoners occurs faster, while the Elites are still thriving, but eventually the Commoners collapse completely, followed by the Elites.” (source)

Medical services will be constrained to people with the potential to live long healthy lives. This is translated to high insurance fees and outright rejection. Jobs will be offered to people checking all the boxes.The waste of resources becomes increasingly problemantic as fossil fuel scaricty grows. Every weak country will be stripped of its assets, first weakend by financial sharks, like f.i. Greece and Italy, or the so called Piigs. Whole peoples will be pushed back into a more treacherous life, increasing death rates, forcing stronger effects of natural selection.

The data gathering we see (or accidentally discover) today all helps create a world in which your chances of succes are no longer in your hands. Your reality can be changed, your options changed, even your mind because the information you are exposed to is not accidental, but tailored to have a specific effect with you. The only way to counter it is to extract yourself from the information environment, but that does not help you apply for a job with a company that knows your history and kan easily find dozens of alternative less tainted applicants.

Many political parties on the right believe it’s your own work that brings you success, and everyone has equal opportunities. This is an old philosophy that serves those that are already successfull. It is true it used to take a stong man to master others and generate a stable and wealthy houshold, especially when lifespan was still about 40 years and most work was done by manual labour. These days the accomplisched rule machines, and indoctrinated people. They are mere machinists, soullessly watching dails, hiding weakness with arrogance.

The biggest problem ultimately is that there is no human-related goal in a carbon economy. The goal is to sell as much fossil fuels as possible. Beauty, life, children or happiness are not goals. Only the few people controlling the mechanical process will ultimately have to be satisfied and happy, but that’s only a tiny fraction of the total population. All the rest has to suffer in the mechamism serving fossil fuel monetization, or be rejected by it (which is more efficient and altogether more pleasant for the elite). Chances are your person has been rated, weighed and found to be a burden. Maybe you will feel this is right, as you see someone more healthy and beautifull thrive. But this cruelty is unnecessary. Your move has to be to disable the mechanism by destroying ‘big data’, reverse it’s creation, delete records kept on you person, and become the sole owner of it again.

 

 

Can a Coal mine Buyout Work?

In a piece in the Guardian it’s asked whether a couple of rich entrepeneurs like Bloomberg, Brandson and Grantham could buy out all coal mines and shut them down to stop carbon, heavy metal and radioactive pollution for good..

The idea of buying out carbon fuel producers seems straightforward, but it really isn’t. In the case of coal right now it might work, because our dependence on coal has shrunk so much, only power plants, heavy industry and people heating their homes use coal. Close down the mines and these players will need to pay more because market supply drops.

It is easy to see that buying mines to close them down is not the favoured option for power plants and heavy industry, but it is also not the favoured option for banks. It means on the one side that banks can create less credit because there is no way to use the credit to produce (if production requires coal). Less credit because credit extended for projects involving coal fired power plants and heavy industry will become less viable.

Carbon credit

The basic mechanism in our economy is that credit allows producers to buy the energy they need to produce, mine, transport their goods and services, and most of that energy is fossil fuel. Without that energy the credit in the system can’t be used to buy it, and production stops. Hyperinflation would be the effect if we shut down all fossil energy suppliers today. Money is intimately linked with the fossil fuel supply. This is what we call the carboncredit economic system.

Shutting down one carbon source may be possible, we may for instance simply not frack. But if the producers don’t shift their type of energy then the value of money, credit, is immediately affected. To replace the carbon type energy source with a renewable one we would again need (primarily) fossil fuels. Nobody is preparing to make renewable energy with renewables because the market is dominated by fossil credit. So just shutting down fossil energy only causes a drop in overal production, wealth, income.

Because shutting down coal means a dissapearance of cashflow however, one can predict that the banks will make sure it never happens.

How to do it right

To shut down coal it should be used to set up a renewable powered production line for coal replacing renewable energy sources. So the mines can be bought, and when that is done the coal is used to make these new energy sources. Coal is now used to make solar panels for instance. To make renewables with renewable energy should be the ultimate aim, and when that happens coal can be shut down, and renewables can grow without limitations, and at almost zero cost.

To put pressure on the coal, oil and gas industry money could be used to buy out experts in it. Money could be used to take apart the network supporting it, to smear people in it. But the fossil fuel industry is the most powerfull in the world, so the better strategy is to simply build up the renewable capacity, with money (which means you can use fossil fuels). Then coal, oil and gas can all die a slow and deserved death..

Why money is not debt

A piece to explain why extraeconomics is a neccessary thing to escape carbon pollution and climate catastrophy. See Extraeconomics.com

Money today is not what it used to be at the start of the fossil fuel era. In the time manual labour was still the dominant factor in production of wealth the amount of money had to keep pace with the amount of skilled workers, and if something big had to be initiated it required that something als was not being achieved. Production of one thing meant not producing another thing.

This all changed with when industrialization happened based on coal driven steam engines. The machines broke the limitation set by the number of hands or horses able to help, and the value of labour became harder to determine. Unlike after the plague in England, when the noblemen and royals had to give in to the demands of the workers, because so little where left, now it was possible to wage wars slaughtering hundreds of thousends of men without ultimate negative impact on wealth for those left behind. In fact, fossil fuel driven wars became something ‘economics’ was very positive about.

When the amount of money was fixed, also because it was gold, and when our existence was predicated on many people cooperating, then money could be owed, or a debt. In fact most people intuitively feel debt when someone does something for them. That person is not free to enjoy his life while he performs the service, and so this means to recipient of the service should feel a debt to make sure he will do something back someday. Money helped shift the debt around so it could be repayed sooner and with more effect. This is the primary function of money.

It is easy to see that storing money even in this age would not be storing value, because a plague or other event could wipe out all people and who would then (even want to) provide services in return for money? Also many initiatives would invlove no money at all, or involve the creation of some kind of money independent of prevalent currencies.

Money as we know it after a century of fossil fuel industrialization no longer means manual labour. It means fossil fuels. Banks no regulate the amount of money to keep pace with the amount of fossil fuels available for production of goods and services. If they would not do that prices would fluctuate constantly, because demand (based on consumers with money) would not be in tune with supply (limited by the amount of fossil fuels available). This intimate link between money and fossil fuels is completely overlooked in modern economics, yet it is the absolute basis of its validity. Without fuel the economy would grind to a standstill in days.

This means one important thing : Profit is an illusion. Why? Because all gain in goods and services comes at the cost of a loss of fossil fuels (as the enabling resource). You are always left with less even if you make a Ferrari or you feed 100.000 children. Profit from fossil fuel investments mean money is taken out of circulation, at least as much as is spend on the project. This still doesn’t mean anything is gained, only that the loss is contained, the loss could have happened because of other processes (like people spending money to drive cars), but the money ended up in the pocket of the project.

What does it mean that a person that borrowed money from a bank to invest in a project has to pay that money back? The money is being spend on fossil fuels and other resources, it ends up mainly in the hands of these producers (fossil fuel, food, raw materials). The fuel is burned and the product is sold and all money gained except the profit has to be payed back to the bank. The question is : Why? What does it mean. The bank provided the money, but a debt in the true sense is not owed to the bank, it is owed to the suppliers of the fuel and materials needed to create the product or service. Somehow they accepted the money, especially the fossil fuel supplier. Why could the project not be done to the profit of the fossil fuel supplier and the other raw materials suppliers? That would make much more sense. Instead the bank pretends to have a right to both the money back and a piece of the action (interest).

The only reason one can think of why money should be returned to the bank (and this can be a way to aknowledge a debt) is that the bank wants money to remain scarce and more importantly (the real reason) because the bank wants to control what happens with the fossil fuels, how much of them are used how. If the bank allows money continue to circulate endlessly more and more would circulate and this would mean both inflation, but it would also mean less control over the projects that are initiated. The type of projects could be undesirable, and we all know what projects those are : Ones affecting the dominance of fossil fuels!

In economic theory money is created as debt because it has to return to the bank, because control over the amount is crucial for management of the fossil fuel consumption rate as well as the power of the banks. It is not debt in the classic sense because nobody in any bank loses sweat and no oil worker loses income over you not repaying it. It is a mere instrument of control.

If money really had to be repayed, the oil also would have to be unburned

On a small scale, locally money does play the classic role, but only because people really don’t think about whether there is still gas in the pump tomorrow, or whether bread will come to the bakery. So from the individual perspective it seems a mortgage is a debt to be repayed. It is not. Saying you need money to start something is like saying people can’t move except for money. They can and have and will.

The most imortant thing to keep the majority convinced money is the means to everything is to keep the fossil fuel based production machine going. If it is using renewables it has to be from a position of debt, not for free! This is why we need extraeconomical zones and thinking, because economics is bound to fossil fuels, and depends on our illusion of debt.

Het Probleem met Biomassa

Centrales stoken steeds meer biomassa bij omdat dit een groen imago heeft. Biomassa is een verzamelterm voor alles wat van ooit geleefd heeft. Meestal wordt hiermee massa van plantaardige aard bedoelt, maar daaronder valt hout, algen, overproductie zoals bieten, groente afval, etc. Dierlijk materiaal laten we even buiten beschouwing, maar vet brandt goed, dus slachtafval en bijvangst wordt vast niet gemeden.

Het probleem is de netto CO2 neutraliteit van biomassa. Die is niet gegarandeerd. Neem de volgende voorbeelden:

1. De biomassa is afkomstig van intensieve landbouw. Dan is er veel CO2 vrijgekomen bij de verbouwing en logistiek, daarbij ook de emissies van kunstmest productie meerekenend. De fossiele investering is meestal een veelvoud van de calorische inhoud van het gewas (de energie van de zon die met 5% efficientie is vastgelegd). Verbranding is dus een ongewenste genadeslag na een al grondig gemaakte CO2 vlek.

2. Biomassa afkomstig van bossen en organische materiaal dat her en der wordt opgescharreld is ook niet neutraal als deze gewassen niet worden vervangen. Iedereen weet dat dit niet of nauwelijks gebeurt. Als dat wel zou zou zijn zouden we als het om hout gaat een ~12 jarige cyclus kunnen hanteren op een eindig stuk land (waarvan er genoeg is in Europa), want dan hebben bomen hun groeispurt wel gehad. Slimme oplossingen zijn niet welkom, er wordt voor miljarden aan turf verbrand in Azie (tbv van de aanleg van palmolie plantages).

De enige acceptabele biomassa is afkomstig van organisch verbouwde gewassen die specifiek voor dat doel worden verbouwd. Als dat al gebeurt voor bv. bijstook in centrales, is deze vast niet ‘rendabel’

Biomassa voor biogas

Lijst van afval dat mag worden vergist

De meeste mensen weten niet dat biogas gewoon suiker vergisting is. Er zit wat suiker in mest, dus mest is een van de bronnen, maar als het beetje suiker op is komt er als zn. digistaat uit, een vloeistof die veel (schoon) verbrandbare nitraat bevat die we echter uitrijden op het land met alle negatieve gevolgen van dien.

Rapport over de onbetrouwbaarheid van oorsprong van materialen voor covergisting

Dit betekent dat bij 75% van de 8 geïnspecteerde handelaren of leveranciers van 
coproducten sprake was van kleinere tot grotere overtredingen. Bij veel stromen 
kon niet met zekerheid worden vastgesteld dat deze niet op de bijlage Aa van de 
Uitvoeringsregeling Meststoffenwet (URM) voorkomen, omdat verificatie-inspecties 
bij de ontdoeners (met betrekking tot aard en samenstelling van de oorspronkelijke 
afvalstof) buiten de reikwijdte van dit project vallen.

De biovergassers worden soms gevuld met zoals hierboven genoemd organisch verbouwde gewassen. Maar meestal wordt er tot het maximaal toelaatbare aan landbouw overschot bijgevoegd. Dit is nodig om het suikergehalte hoog genoeg te krijgen. Dit landbouw overschot is echter zelden organisch van oorsprong, dus de CO2 neutraliteit is dan alweer van de baan. Voor elke eetbare calorie wordt volgens sommigen 10 fossiele callorien ‘geinvesteerd’. Pure waanzin. Biogas op deze manier is slechts een poging het verloren gas (dat bij de kunstmest productie is gebruikt) terug te winnen. Netto CO2 uitstoot neemt door gebruik ervan dus toe.

Biobrandstoffen

De lakmoes test voor een biobrandstof producent zou moeten zijn dat deze geen enkele fossiele input gebruikt, niet voor de voertuigen, landbouwerktuigen, niet voor de kunstmest productie. Dat zou een (door mij zo genoemd) voorbeeld zijn van een extraeconomische activiteit. Maar zo vind biobrandstof productie niet plaats. Het is een fossiele aangelegenheid met een 5% rendement vanwege de fotosynthetische plant processen. Dit om het vervolgens in een 20% efficiente auto te verspillen. Biobrandstoffen kunnen dus wel, maar wederom alleen organisch.

Conclusie

Biomassa is een mooi idee, maar de industrie die zich er mee bezighoud moet absolute regels worden opgelegd zodat het netto CO2 rendement negatief is. Dit is momenteel niet te handhaven omdat onze overheden worden ingepalmd door bv. de Gasunie, een bedrijf dat GAS wil verkopen.

We weten ook dat het ETS systeem, dat over CO2 rechten gaat, zo slecht werkt dat er wordt voorgesteld de doelstelling ervan te heroverwegen. “We doen het ETS omdat … [het goed is voor de kabouters? vult u maar in] “. Wie dus over CO2 rechten en certificaten begint kun je hard uitlachen.

Onze aan keynsian economie verslaafde PVDA en VVD en D66 beseffen niet dat dit type economie slechts werkt met fossiel, en hebben dus ook niet door dat al hun ideen en plannen eerst door een pro fossiele filter worden gehaald. Hebben ze dat gehad dan ontmoeten ze de gas en olie lobby, die omdat ze de basis van de economie zijn altijd genoeg geld hebben (schaliegas pot is > 700.000 aldus @schaliegasja). Dit bepaald het financiele beeld en zo het beleid dat desastreus is.

Oplossingen?

Nemen we de zuidelijke europese landen in de arm in plaats van ze de verachtten om daar biomassa te verbouwen, dan bestaat de kans dat blijkt dat dat helemaal niet de meest efficientste oplossing is (efficient in de zin van warmte aldaar verpakken in een brandstof voor gebruik alhier). Misschien is de productie van NH3 (ammoniak) met wind of zonlicht wel slimmer (komt helemaal geen CO2 bij kijken). Of productie van warmte uit wind in Nederland ( zoals wij voorstellen in windheatingsystem.com ) ! Of P2G in Spanje (hoewel men daar de zonnecentrales wil sluiten om gas rendabeler te maken).

Het is duidelijk dat er eerst een hoop politici met ondermaats IQ moet worden vervangen en lobbyisten worden weggestuurd alvorens we tot verstandig gebruik van biomassa kunnen komen.