The Most Significant Climate Decision

This is a Roboeconomic post, which is about the now budding awareness of the fatal flaw in Capitalism. Repairing it does not turn it into Communism or Marxism. That is just the dumb Pavlov-response of the proponents of the current style of Capitalism. Any argument against it ends up with “Ah so you’re a communist!” just like any argument against what the state of Israel does ends up with “Ah so you’re an anti-semite”. You know you hit on a very strong ideological bastion if you get such a “there are only two choices” response. This is because capitalism in its current form is not designed to bring wealth but to protect the power of the banks.

The simple principle banks follow when doing business is to ask this question : “Does whatever it is increase my cashflow?”. If the answer is “Yes” the bank will do it (within the law mostly, but banks have done many things to find cashflow while breaking the law or at least moral standards). If the answer is “No” then they don’t do it! Wall Street banks have opened offices on tax havens to handle drug money, they opened loanshark offices in poor neighborhoods to extract onerous interest from already destitue people, they handled the credit card transactions of porn websites, banks generally don’t give a flying fuck about anything but increasing cashflow. I really believe that all misery in the world is caused by banks. 99% of all tragic content in the media is because of what banks did. I live in a nation anxious for homes and affordable energy and food because of what banks did.

This is not capitalism. It is just blind capitalism. It is not the process of increasing wealth of people. It is the process of increasing wealth for a very select nr. of people, those to gain from increased bank cashflow. The part where all the financing leads to more happiness (or could) is presented to us, as well as what happens if =people= make mistakes. Of course it is not people that do drugs that are wrong, it is those that produce the drugs and make it so that its the only affordable escape. It is not prostitutes that choose their seedy life, but the criminals that are somehow also making financial transactions that ship them to where they are totally disoriented and have no friends, because of migrant policies that the bank lakeys in politics have to promote in order to keep control over the biggest threat to their power, the less educated and less patient people in society.

It is clear that banks do not consider consequences as they maximize their cashflow. The obvious tweak we need to do to capitalism is to make sure they do. When it concerns climate change however we then discover that there is a dark relationship between fossil fuels and banks : The main source of cashflow for banks is the use of fossil fuels. In fact most of bank cashflow, if not 90% is related to consumption (burning) of fossil fuels. This is the reason the transition has to be financed by government or private investors, banks only step in when the immediate cashflow gain is just to big to ignore, which usually means there is a large fossil energy investment. The whole Hydrogen story that has no trouble whatsoever to find bank investment is exactly designed to secure bank cashflow and delay the transition to solar/wind/wave/geothermal

This is why any suggestion to change anything about the freedom of banks is immediately stomped on as ‘communist’ or ‘marxist’ or ‘socialist’. By whom? By obvious bank lakeys, fans of the banks, servants, people that feel exceptional because they have been chosen to sing praise to blind capitalism. People that all have no care for what happens after they die.

Making Highly Reflective Paint

To cool your roof or car or boat, you can paint it with special paint that will become highly reflective, so that the Sun is not able to warm it anymore. If you watch the video below from minute 13 you will see how it is done. In the first part he shows how to make a reflective paint but with risky material and waay more complicated.

The maker of the video above uses Acetone, which you should not handle without gloves! I may have given him this idea through a comment with links and am very happy he picked it up! 😉

How to make it:

  • Prepare Aceton and pieces of acrylic plastic
  • Put pieces of clear acrylic plastic in the aceton
  • Wait untill the acrylic is dissolved
  • Add a bit of aceton to a seringe, mixed with a bit of water 1 (water) to 4 (Acetone)
  • Add the water acetone mixture to the acetone with dissolved acrylic (amount depends on the dryness of the acetone)
  • Now you can apply it as a paint but wear gloves and do it outside close the bottle

The cooling effect in the video above has three causes

  1. Light reflection
  2. Emission by a material
  3. Thermal radiation


When light is reflected it just bounces off the electrons, that absorb the energy of a photon and then throw out the same photon. This is why metals are reflective : Lots of electrons, and silver being the most conductive is also the most reflective.

What goes on in the bubble paint is that light bounces off spherical voids in the material multiple times until it leaves the material again.


Now every material has an absorbtion spectrum, meaning it will absorb light energy of certain frequencies and not of others well. This is because the energy of light in certain bands will push the electrons to another band, one it is used to occupying, and when the electron falls back the light is emitted again. This is what makes some materials emit light in certain frequency bands. The maker says that calcium emits in the infra red region that means the material can cool to outer space. This makes one paint cooler during the day than another, and this is what makes the paint he creates special.

Calcium has some emission bands in the IR, barium has less

Thermal radiation

The idea of radiation is based on temperature. It is based on the energy in the material that can cause photons to be emitted. Because of quantum dynamic principles the light can not contain more energy than is available, which then determines its color. This is why for example LED lamps have a ‘color temperature’ of say 2700 for sunlight and 4000 for bleuish (more higher frequencies). All materials radiate photons, and warm materials radiate infra red photons (we call it heat).

The neat thing about the paints is that thermal radiation happens no matter what, a black material radiates as much as a white material. This is why there is no difference between the paints at night : Its all just thermal radiation. The cool thing is (literally) that if the paint is on a heat conductive material it can suck heat from below and radiate it to the sky all night, but then during the day it will not allow it to heat up.

A Global Effort on Albedo

The warming planet needs to be cooled down. People are fleeing from the desert regions because they just can’t deal with the heat anymore. Heatwaves predicted for the 2050 wash over Europe in 2022. Meanwhile a real solution is available : Increase Albedo. In hot cities like Phoenix, Arizona in the US this is done already. Streets are painted with lighter paint. It shaves 10 degrees of the daytime temperatures!

“The atmospheric and ocean circulation processes that redistribute energy are the same for CO2 radiative forcing and albedo change” (source)

In the literature you can read the above, so albedo change and CO2 radiative forcing (and Methan forcing) are the same. In other words increase Albedo and you neutralize CO2 radiative forcing. This is exactly what we need. I am still trying to find out what the real real truth is on this, so how local albedo changes affect temperature of the entire ‘atmospheric column’. This needs to be simulated using real world data, and if you can help with that let me know at

Meanwhile it seems sensible to start a global campaign for increasing albedo in cities but also on farmland. Crops can suddenly survive if they are in an area that sheds a large percentage of the solar radiation, instead of turning it all into local heat. I have experimentented and it is possible to make biodegradable (metal free!) high albedo materials. We don’t need glass mirrors or silver covered mountains.

The oceans are a challenge, because they are absolutely vast. But they also produce the materials we need to increase albedo. It is just more difficult to do anything there. We need to find methods and experiment.

A global Albedo Challenge would be a good idea, because every Joule we shed to space is one that does not warm our atmosphere. The sooner we have global awareness of this option to keep temperatures reasonable, the better. We need to cooperate to achieve it, we need to find methods and ways (there are many) and need to know where we’re at. It is also about food security, water preservation, Albedo is a real way to cope with both the challenges and the final threat of climate change.

I will be developing the webpage, looking for support on this, there will be a global overview of albedo, and a way to share information on increasing albedo as well as a knowledge base.

If you have suggestions or want to help out let me know via!

Women and Climate Action

The face of climate action is often female, we see Greta Thunberg and other young women advocate for action, scolding the leaders of the world, trying to rally the public into action. The more social side of the right wing parties is often so popular with women that it becomes somewhat intimidating. Left wing and social parties often have women as leaders and climate as one of the main concerns. There is something going on that is more than a growing equality in roles and responsibilities though.

Greta Thunberg

Even local women are always happy to help with kids and animals and gardening if they can. Of course that is what we see. I think the truth is also visible. The majority of women does not care and aspires to a life that is safe and secure, partly because they are shown it is possible, partly because they know they are vulnerable.

Climate protesters

The women in the picture above are a mix of girls without anything on their name, students, maybe some professionals. They can all not help but be part of the economic system that is destroying the planet. Where to get a megaphone without it, where to find the carton and pencil to make a sign. This seems like the most lame retort from a pro-fossil advocate, but it is also a true challenge for people that want change, especially women. They still have to fight for rights, after having fought for the right to vote, to be educated, to have abortions. The reason for this is that some men look that the situation and conclude “women did not create this world, women did not invent it, women are a guest in it” and such men often find women that will accommodate to their beliefs.

Women seem to get ahead in politics

The above shows how women are making headway into political roles, but we should not kid ourselves in what type of society this happens : It is in the well organized fossil fuel economic societies, or the rare rural societies that do not need too much fossil fuel (but those are considered undeveloped). The irony is of course that women have a role to play, and politics is not a role anyone should be playing if you look back on our evolution and history. A politician should be a decision maker that lives his decisions, but these days a politician is the one that most cleverly can aquire the influence over decisions, no matter what they are. Banks, fossil, the economy does not care about them, because they know people only fight over riches, and the fossil/banking sector provides those.

My point above is that women in ‘positions of power’ are anti-climate because ‘power’ is anti-climate. Even the women in Africal asking for climate justice belong to the money hungry kind, the women that attend a twitter talk about the Great Green Wall are after the billions that are promissed for it. A big payout to Africa for climate will flow right back to industries in Europe, the US, China and pollute the atmosphere because the money will buy fossil fuels to make whatever will help the africans.

Laura wants to attend the COP27 meeting, which is a perk fest for local stalling representatives mixed with many people that still believe in the attempt.

Laura above wants to go to the COP27 meeting, to ask for climate justice. This is great, because 1. If you don’t give it all that happens is more asking. 2. If you do give it it drives the dependence on fossil fuels and means work for western companies. Much of the 3d world development aid given over the decades flowed back to western companies. It was a largely ignored subsidy. sometimes simply theft. I wrote about 200.000 Euro going to a charity that provided solar cooking systems, which where priced at 25 Euro per piece and consisted of some aluminium foil laminated carton (purchasable for about .25 Euro?).

What women want

As a man I don’t profess to know exactly what women want, but I will make a guess :

  1. Security
  2. Sovereignty over their body
  3. Food, water, shelter
  4. A constructive role in society

My point in this post is that in the west women get this by complying with the economy, no matter how climate active they are. The threat of men is constantly exaggerated (I suspect an islamic influence). You can barely look at a women in a store anymore because they are told men are all rapists. Wokeness is part of it, and it works because a woman can just cancel everything that does not provide her with the top 4 items above. Like in the islamic world the growing frustration among men for being punished for the crimes of a few makes them more single minded. There is no conversation possible in the end, both sexes live separate lives.

Look at us being total consumers destroying the planet..laugh about it!

Another version is the domesticated man. Where the man is completely ‘owned’ by his desire for a peaceful life. This means the women is the boss around the house, the men dresses like Homer Simpson, and basically doesn’t care about anything anymore. In that situation the women also have what they want, and that is where their ambition stops.

What women need to do

I am a man, so I should not try to tell women what to do. This is the problem of analysis. Women simply shut men up if the opinion doesn’t suit them or it exposes them as comfort seeking frauds. The position of a women is so precarious in many places that any success is clung onto, and morality is jettisoned. This often means climate concerns are out the window as well. The most important point to make is perhaps that any division is artificial. Men and women have had roles in society, love has been mutual and helping each other has been the norm. It is the fossil banking economy that put men and women on an island, and oil rich countries happen to already have an ideology that works very well with that separation : the faith of islam.

So :

  1. Women need to find men to cooperate with
  2. Women need to realize the 4 points above -without using the fossil/banking economy-
  3. Women need to put local first and fight to get rid of interference.
  4. Women need to support technical education and making products out of innovations. They need to drive results. “What do I want to see? More cheap solar!”
  5. Increasing independence from the fossil/banking economy must be the ongoing effort, so don’t seek money, seek ownership.
  6. Implementing real climate solutions would be almost automatic, but should be concerted with other groups of men and women that are independent. This is both Extraeconomic and Roboeconomic.

The economy will help nobody that attempts the above, and laws are against people that try it. Many people have done it though, the sad aspect is that it is not easy to achieve significant results outside the economy, fossil fuels and the whole system of manufacturing of it are just so powerful. To use it one needs to use only solar, wind, wave, geothermal energy. Then the economic system turns into the Roboeconomic system, becomes more benign to the planet, and can provide the 4 items women want (according to me) without dragging life on Earth to its grave.

Stop asking. Stop being a victim. Stop hanging out at Starbucks.

There is already a strong network of women active in climate action, but they need to read this blogpost and get real about their ambitions. If they get together and accept my arrogant manly analysis, they might turn into a more effective group..

SpaceFlakes To Shield Earth

Its not easy to imagine a way to shield Earth of the accumulating heat from the Sun. We have seen a serious acceleration of warming and its not clear if this will result in more radiative cooling, in other words if this is stabilized at this moment. The problem is that heat accumulates in the oceans, it builds up because the atmosphere above it reflects radiation back (because CO2 absorbs it) which would otherwise have escaped to space.

It is not entirely clear what our options are, whether Albedo increase is a real solution and in case it is in what way. We basically have no good models yet of actual effects, only ballpark estimations. A fundamental truth is that all radiation that does not reach our atmosphere will not warm it. So how can we ‘regulate’ that?


The idea is pretty simple, first of all you don’t try to stop all the light everywhere, but only around the equator. After all we are seeing hot temperatures because of desert heat blowing to the North. This is the heat of equatorial deserts. If we can reduce the insolation (solar power) around the equator that is a plus. How? By lauching reflective flakes into space.

The flakes can be metal but it is possible to make highly reflective material using polymers, which are also lighter and easier to come by (less energy intensive to make). Next step is to launch them into an orbit around the equator, at a respectable altitude. We use a starship for that, but a Falcon 9 can probably also achieve some results. A third alternative is to make flakes on the Moon or elsewhere, the advantage being that launching them into an Earth orbit is easier.

Non metalic flakes will not block radio signals

The flakes will simply float at 17.000 km/hour around Earth (That would be geostationary) or smarter still move around Earth along with the Sun, a so called Sun Synchronous Orbit (SSO) this minimizes the material needed. It will be like there’s a dark spot in the center of the Sun, but really it will be hard to notice because the sun is still very bright.

The flakes will be in some orbit around Earth, and will slowly fall down. To keep them up there we can deploy lasers or directed sunlight, so that somewhere along the equator there is a station that will hit them from below, pumping them to a slightly higher orbit. It can be a good idea to make the top white (or silver) and the bottom black, so that the bottom absorbs any radiation and sends at least 50% out to space. The top will send most radiation back to space.

Flakes can be added and because it will take some time to see any effect their amount can be precisely determined. After a while they fall back into the atmosphere, so no harm done!

Fish Homes ( Rumpon) of Indonesia

For ages fishermen in Indonesia have build off shore rafts that fish could find shade and protection from sea birds under (also from hunters from down below). They get blown away by storms, then replaced again. The designs are still very primitive. You can see more videos here.

Fishermen deploying a Rumpon
Rumpon being prepared..

There’s two ways to view them, one is that they help deplete the oceans of fish, by making them easy to catch. The fishermen still need to go out 30 miles or so, this is expensive (because they use fuel not solar electric or sailing boats). Indonesia is actually stimulating the creation of Rumpons, here 1000 of them, but its not clear if this is good for fish stocks.

Kelp farming can be used to increase nutrition for fish..

Because the ocean is warming due to more CO2 in our atmosphere, and this in turn means the air is not cooled causing highr temperatures, there is a need to increase the Albedo of the oceans. Of course they are vast, its not easy to make any change to the global climate, and this is a good thing. It seems that simply blocking the sun from getting into the ocean is a good way to keep it a bit cooler. It does radiate a lot, and normally it absorbs nearly all solar heat that hits it.

Sealife can really thrive if it gas somehting to hold on to. Coastal sealife is much more diverse both because of the nutrient rich water usually upwelling from the deeper ocean and because of the many nooks and crannies life can cling on to and hid in. The open ocean doesn’t have these things which is why it can really be quite dead. We can change that.

Wind and Wave Albedo

Today is not a great day, because the fossil/banking system has managed to get my parliament to agree to join #CETA which means more cashflow for banks and fossil, more suffering and needless transportation of animals, more emissions, more ecological damage and less chance of survival for humanity. Temperatures rise to 27 degrees and will get much higher as Earth’s ability to shed heat from the sun has halved since 2005 (source). The loss of polar albedo and addition of water vapor in the atmosphere where not included in many older models.

Still it is important to share ideas if they can be useful. Albedo is one of those ideas. Send heat back into space. The same paper above concludes that although radiation is stronger when Earth warms, suggesting more heat is lost, it does not mean we are going to be cooler. Some noobs present it as such, try to be climate deniers and fudgers by claiming that higher temperatures mean higher radiation and more cooling. But everyone has had a pan on the stove, when its cold it doesn’t radiate much, when it gets hotter you start to feel it. Does it get colder as the pan radiates more? Hell no. Weak nonsense. Our planet is heating up fast.

Albedo is sending radiation, light or infra red, back up from the Earth, hopefully into space.

The radiation band that is not absobed by the atmosphere, so called outgoing longwave radiation (OLR), is like a window to space. If you send radiation in that frequency window it does not come back. Now I wrote about light albedo, and the radiation of warm surfaces that have been under the sun, at night. But any source of OLR pointed to the sky will radiate to space. So if you can convert energy in the weather system of Earth into OLR, you can chuck it out to space! This includes wind and wave energy.

Wind is converted into heat which is radiated out into space..

The way to do this is simply to convert wind or wave energy to heat in say a vertical cilinder. Then you make sure the top of the cilinder is open, and the heat is concentrated in it. The heat will radiate up, into space, and out of Earths system. There are many ways to implement this idea, even if it is a bit complex, especially compared with increasing ocean albedo which is super low. So for any practical purpose it makes no sense to build a wind or wave albedo device to rid Earths system of energy. \

One could imagine storm brake systems in the shape of big turbines that will turn in the wind of a storm, generate incredible heat in the nacelle which creates a beam of bright light upwards into space. This will reduce the energy in the storm, but it may also heat up any rain and wind above it.

The world is trapped in our money system that is based on fossil fuel credit, and the people that live of it are not going to let us escape if they can help it. Their arrogance and lack of empathy, egotism is what keeps a system going that is now rapidly cutting our chances for survival. We need a herculean effort to change our fate. We need to start now.

Happiness as a Graph Problem

Most of us seek happiness in life, its even in the US constitution, we read :

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”

Sadly its quite enigmantic how to achieve happiness. Some say its doing what you love or you can only expect to be happy some of the time or you can’t be happy without also being miserable. I think a person can be happy most of the time, but only if he organizes his life by a specific strategy, which I will propose in this post.

Happiness can be a trap, a bubble, with dire consequences for others

I am not saying that organizing your life for happiness is optimal for society or anyone else but you. This is the challenge, we need to risk losing some happiness at times to find it in a different way, maximizing total happiness. It is possible a group of people is not able to all be happy while being together.

What is the way I think we should look at achieving happiness? It lies in analyzing your behavior, how often it is succesfull and what needs it satisfies. Of course you can’t be happy if you neglect to address a basic need in your activities.

We cycle through the same behaviors every day, week, month

So the way to analyse it is to look at things you do often, and make behavioral units of them. So activities are ‘working’, ‘cooking’, ‘sleeping’, ‘reading a book’, ‘talking to family’ etc. They can be more detailed if you do them often, but detail is not a good sign. More units in your life (statistically) means less happiness. The next question to ask is “How often are these behavioral units a succes, how often do they fail”. Which really tells you if you are struggling with life.

Simply said the more behavioral units if ordered by frequency of occurrence that are highly successful the happier you will be. If the they also satisfy all you needs then you are even more likely to be happy.

You can draw a graph of the activities you perform in your life, in time, and the likelihood they succeed. They loop back on themselves if you say “I buy groceries” then “I cook” a couple of times then you have to buy groceries again. But then you also need to earn money to buy groceries, which is another branch of the graph. How well is that going?

A simple graph means a happy life

For most people part of the graph works, but a lot of it is open ended. People that just satisfy their needs, not being too critical of how its done, can be happy more easily, say a couple that stays together in a boring job being pretty mediocre, is actually likely to be pretty happy -if- that is all they care about. If their mind wants things to be different, they could be miserable. For some people a boring life means succes, for others it means failure. That should however show up in the graph.

Cutting loose ends off the graph makes it simpler

The people saying “keep it simple, you will be more happy” are right : The less complex the graph is the more likely the activities in them will be a success, as you are doing it more often. This is a very Japanese way of living, where you hone a couple of skills and just don’t do anything else.

Religions often provide regularly occurring rituals that although they don’t satisfy any real need, give you a sense you are succeeding

Meditation, focus on the now, also works to make the graph more simple, or to get more out of success for specific activities. Of course meditation itself is something you can’t fail at really, unless there’s some priests that needs to make a living off your inaptitude.

Adding more useful succesful activities builds a better graph

The constitutional right to be in ‘persuit of happiness’ is somewhat misleading. If you are looking for happiness you are probably not satisfied and you probably do not have recurring behavior that covers all the existential bases. But your mind can redefine itself as an explorer, a person who’s activity is ‘to discover and meet challenges’ and defined this way you can be hitting the bulls eye every day, and have an exciting and happy life.

A seeker can be happy if he accepts his nature, he will be unhappy if he rejects it

Our brain seeks happiness but without any specific objective. It just tries to be efficient because it has a limited supply of energy, it tries to keep us alive and safe by inhibiting damaging behavior. It tells us what it needs, and makes us interested in anything that may lead to what it needs. Happiness is what happens if it manages to meet its needs without to much effort, and there’s no reason for it to assume it can get much better. This in turn is why most people become boring : It’s a sign of success. But if it makes you unhappy, you need to step into the unknown. Pick a few new activities, or eliminate some you are used to. Or.. accept a happy simple life.

The Heat Factor in Power Generation

The world is trying to move to a less carbon intensive way to power itself. CO2 emissions, methane leaks, NOx emissions are all undesirable, unhealthy and above all in the process of pushing us into a hothouse climate scenario. The proper response to this is to find ways to generate (mainly) electricity that ideally does not produce CO2. One of them is nuclear energy, and because of that the nuclear lobby gets a lot of support from citizen that try to think along the lines of emissions minimization.

But the problem in the short term is not really CO2 or Methane, although a serious cut in Methane emissions will cool the planet. The problem is the heat, the temperature maxima, the effect on soil moisture. We need to fight the heat as we reduce CO2. It may become so dramatic that the heat prevents us from growing food or biomass because we don’t focus on managing it directly, but spend energy on transitioning to low emission technology. Nature always laughs last though, so a serious famine will reduce emissions, while preventing one won’t.

If you consider Earth like a steel drum that is out in the sun, heating up inside, then you can consider a heat generating power plant as a heat source inside the drum, that will raise temperatures even more. Considering that its already too hot inside the drum this is not what we want. How do energy sources compare in this respect?

Coal/Gas powered powerplants

These power plants exploit chemical energy stored in carbon or hydrocarbons. The oxygen in our atmosphere wants to combine with the hydrogen and carbon, from which it was split by photosynthesis millions of years ago, ending up stored deep underground. The flame of your stove, the engine of your car, the powerplant all heat up air eventually. This adds to heat ‘inside the drum’. Not good.

Nuclear power

Nuclear power is derived from splitting atoms of Uranium. They do decay naturally, but in a nuclear plant they are bombarded with slow neutrons which speeds up this process. The heat is used to heat steam and drive turbines much like in coal and gas plants. The heat comes from inside the drum. If you decide to power the planet with nuclear you do cut CO2, but the existing CO2 is not reduced fast enough to have a temperature effect. You are however adding a lot of heat ‘inside the drum’. Not good.

Wind Energy

Wind turbines use air pressure differentials in our atmosphere, that cause wind, the wind pushes the blades. Some of that friction is turned into energy, some of it into heat. But the air was already moving ‘inside the drum’. It is not adding to the heat inside, even if the electricity from the turbine is used in a stove. It does not add heat. Good.

Solar Energy

Solar energy can be solar thermal (heat collected from the sun) or electricty (photovoltaics). You could imagine this as a patch on the outside of the drum. The sun shines on it. A photovoltaic or solar thermal panel gets hot because the conversion into electricity is not very efficient, and a thermal panel is supposed to get hot. In fact you can make a solar thermal panel that reaches 500 Celsius if you just prevent convection losses. There is no heat added from any other source than the Sun though, so this is good.

But there’s another aspect to these panels, and that is they radiate heat. A photovoltaic panel heats up until it can radiate and convect (heat up the air which then rises) all the heat it receives. It should be quite a termal column above a solar power plant of rising hot air. A lot of heat is also radiated in the infrared spectrum, which is good, because light in the mid IR can reach space (doesn’t heat up the atmosphere). So someone has to do the exact math to determine if a solar (thermal or PV) power plant doesn’t actually cool Earth because it prevents heat from lingering in our atmosphere. We associate Albedo with white surfaces, but black surfaces are better radiators, especially when we don’t allow them to heat the surrounding air.

I think we may want to revisit the design of solar panels, to perhaps add copper film to the front of the panel, so that it reflects a lot of heat radiation (which it doesn’t convert into electricity anyway) directly back to space. Its a simple improvement that (if practical) can help cool Earth.


Geothermal heat is from inside the drum. It normally doesn’t heat the atmosphere, but because we drill for it and get it to the surface now it does.


Wave and tidal energy derive from movement of water due the wind or the orbit of our Moon. Water has huge mass, it lends itself to conversion into electricity well, but it has such power that the installations to harvest it can be expensive (although if you consider the tidal dam in St. Malo, France has been operational since 1963, it can be very cost effective). It does not add heat inside the drum, the energy was already there as kinetic/potential energy of water.

Best options

To keep it cool wind, tidal and solar energy seem the best options, and solar PV can even be optimized to shed as much heat as it can because its not used anyway (but one has to see what the efficiency is without interventions). Nuclear, coal, gas, geothermal are adding heat, heat we don’t need!

Geef Boeren hun Land

Nederland wordt geplaagd door boeren met trekkers en andere voertuigen. Rechts zoekt naarstig naar een manier om de ontevredenheid op te blazen tot een democratie verwoestende volksopstand, maar eigenlijk is er niet zo veel aan de hand. Van rijkswege is er bepaald dat de totale stikstof depositie (een onhandige verzamelterm) een maximum heeft en boeren zijn voornamelijk door banken ertoe gebracht hun stikstof uitstoot te vergroten. Nu moet een aantal hun activiteiten staken, en in plaats van een mea culpa van oa de Rabobank wordt Nederland getrakteerd op ongekende boosheid en onbegrip.

Het is misschien niet gek dat je als je een groot deel van je leven in de fijnstof, nitraten en pesticiden doorbrengt je lontje wat korter wordt. Hersen \ontstekingen hebben dat effect, en het is aangetoond dat boeren die veel tijd in pesticide rijke omgevingen doorbrengen een grotere kans op Alzheimer hebben, dwz de hersens lijden er onder.

Neem je die laag van extra irritabiliteit even weg dan merk je dat er iig een groep is die NIET zal lijden onder welke maatregel dan ook : De banken. De Rabobank protesteert hevig tegen de stikstof plannen. Alle boeren moeten worden ‘uitgekocht’. Denk maar niet dat ze hier dan rijk van worden want een groot deel van dat geld gaat zitten in het aflossen van investeringen, dwz is bedoelt om de banken te vrijwaren.

Met Covid zijn veel ondernemers geholpen en dit maakte een belangrijk principe zichtbaar waar ik al jaren over schrijf, nl dat schulden geen betekenis hebben, maar alleen de beschikbaarheid van productiemiddel (met name fossiele energie) van het moment. Is dat productiemiddel er dan kunnen we geld aan mensen toewijzen, is dat er niet dan komt alles tot stilstand (zoals nu door de reductie van russische olie en gas op de markt). Het rijk kon dus geld uitdelen, de ondernemers konden kopen wat ze nodig hadden met dat geld en die dingen konden gemaakt worden met de fossiele energie die met dat geld gekocht kon worden.

Wat het bovenstaande illustreert is dat als een bank jou geld leent en jij geeft dat uit die schuld de bank niks kost. Je kunt die in principe vergeten. Dat gebeurt niet omdat de bank zijn macht wil houden over de geldhoeveelheid. Door terugbetaling te eisen zorgt de bank dat de geldhoeveelheid afneemt. Zolang de bank het lukt om de geldhoeveelheid in omloop schaars te houden moeten we steeds weer door een hoepel springen om geld van de bank lost te peuteren. De Rabobank laat dit principe niet los, ook al drijft het de boeren tot wanhoop en woede die wordt gericht op de politici die niet met de banken willen meewerken! We zien dus geen boeren terreur maar bank terreur.

Eigenlijk zie je dat rechts een soort Stalinistische tegenstelling wil creeren tussen de boeren en de stedelingen. Het FvD doet zijn oprui ding er nog eens overheen, die partij is er uitsluitend om onrust te stoken. De Telegraaf geeft het weer als een maatschappelijke omwenteling. Dit is allemaal angstzaaierij van een niveau waar de gemiddelde boer in zijn eentje nooit op zou komen.

“Een gouden toekomst voor extensieve boeren!”
(John Arink)

Natuurlijk zijn er aan de oplossingkant alleen opties waar banken blij van worden. Louise Vet stelt op NPO1 voor dat boeren gewassen gaan verbouwen met grotere economische waarde (meer cashflow voor banken) terwijl Louise Fresco haar lobbybaan voor de intensieve landbouw verlaat met de ongeveer boodschap “Wordt eten duurder wees blij, dan waardeer je het meer” (bordeline sadistisch, ze zegt in feite ‘arme mensen, krepeert!’). Kortom we hebben in onze kenniseconomie een aantal egogestreelde bank lakei hoogleraren waar we zo snel mogelijk van af moeten. Vrouwen die door het glazen plafond breken hebben er vaak een deel van hun ziel voor moeten inleveren.

Maar wat is dan de oplossing? Frido Kraanen die ook in gesprek is op NPO1 laat intussen een deel van de vaak door mij beschreven Roboeconomie in wording zien. Dat kan kennelijk op Texel. Texel is kennelijk relatief oninteressant als het om bancaire cashflow gaat, of te eigenzinnig (verstandig). De boeren daar zijn wat meer op zichzelf teruggeworpen en misschien mentaal gezonder aangezien ze niet tussen de megastallen en industrieele gebieden leven? Kraanen werkt aan samenwerking met ziekenhuizen, zodat deze hun voedsel van boeren op Texel betrekken, biologische ook nog, zodat de patienten die de groenten eten wat van het leven in de grond meekrijgen, iets wat om verschillende redenen erg goed voor ons is. Afgezien van de afgelopen 150 jaar in het westen waren mensen immers in vrijwel constant contact met de aarde.

Zo’n samenwerking tussen boer en ziekenhuis noem ik een ‘extraeconomische’ activiteit. Het staat namelijk buiten de economie, er hoeft in principe geen geld rond te gaan. Dat doet het wel natuurlijk maar in principe zou het ziekehuis ‘zorg vouchers’ kunnen betalen aan de boer, en de boer zou deze weer kunnen uitdelen om zijn kosten te betalen. De boer kan schulden vrij werken, als hij eigenaar is van zijn land. Daardoor kan hij de kosten zo berekenen dat iedereen er tevreden mee is. De kosten hoeven niet maximaal te zijn zoals een boer met flinke schulden zal willen. Natuurlijk is mijn voorstelling van zaken idealistisch, dat komt omdat ik zoek naar tekenen van de ideale situatie, niet de situatie waar bankiers van in extase raken. Ik pleit er al een tijd voor dat essentieele diensten zoals gezondheidszorg zich losmaken van de economie, en een extraeconomisch gaan functioneren. De economische matrix kan namelijk schadelijk zijn voor veel sociale diensten, omdat het goedkoper is deze niet uit te voeren dan wel!

De boze boeren met hun stikstof uitstoot en schulden zijn niet zo vrij als de boeren op Texel. Dat is het uiteindelijke probleem wat al deze ellende veroorzaakt. Deze boeren zitten in een economische matrix waarin ze hun dromen eigenlijk alleen kunnen waarmaken als ze allerlei dingen doen waar banken blij van worden, simpel gezegd de cashflow in het systeem helpen maximaliseren. Wat zou zo’n ‘trekkerterrorist’ doen als hij niet in een financieel spinneweb vastzat? Exact hetzelfde? Dat is onwaarschijnlijk.

Het zal nooit in ons rechts kabinet opkomen maar de oplossing is simpel : Laat de boeren failliet gaan. Stel persoonlijk vermogen vrij van de schuldbetalingen en/of geef ze een herstrart vergoeding. Laat ze een plan schrijven voor het biologisch bewerken van hun land, en als ze zo’n plan hebben geef ze dan het land voor een laag bedrag in gebruik. Dan heb je in een klap gezondere boeren, een bron van goedkoop voedsel voor Nederland en een reductie in stikstofdepositie. Het kan zeker zo zijn dat de boeren in kwestie niet geschikt zijn, aangezien ze zo goed functioneerde in in finacieele stalen maagd die voor hen was ontworpen. Misschien is er een andere boer die het land dan wil gebruiken volgens de nieuwe schuld en stikstof minimaliserende principes.

Nederland kan zich voeden zonder de hele chemische kermis er omheen. Met minder kunstmest kan het zeker volgens de Guardian. We gebruiken ook niet alle hulpbronnen die we hebben, wederom door de banken. Een goed voorbeeld is de ammoniak. Ik heb hier al vaak geschreven over ammoniak als brandstof, als waterstof drager. Over dat je het van de stallucht kunt filteren met speciale membranen en dan in brandstofcellen gebruiken. Maar je voelt hem al : Dat reduceert de cashflow van banken. Dat en ammoniak is een waterstof drager waar al een infrastructuur voor bestaat, dus het botst met de waterstof economie, waar banken de opmars van laag cashflow hernieuwbare energie mee willen vertragen. Ammoniak gebruiken in plaats van als afval zien maakt boeren zelfstandiger. Je kunt het bijvoorbeeld direct als brandstof in je tractor gebruiken!

Nu met door de oorlog in Oekraine veroorzaakte kunstmest tekorten komen boeren weer tot het besef dat je prima zelf kunstmest kunt maken van lucht en water en bv. wind energie. Maar vooralsnog verspillen we deze bron en injecteren we digistaat braaf in de grond alsof we er niks aan zouden kunnen hebben. Vroeger scheten de boeren op de eigen mestvaalt, want elk onsje mest was meegenomen!

We moeten naar een “use it or lose it” economie, met duurzaamheid als basis principe

Geef boeren hun land, zonder verstorende economische krachten die hen tot slaven van de agro-industrie maken. Stuur ze in de duurzame richting waar ze hun oorsprong vonden. Help ze de obstructie van banken tegen werkelijke kosten reductie en innovatie te overwinnen. Laat de banken het eigen risico dragen. Er komen nog genoeg uitdagingen, dus het motto moet zijn : In één keer goed!