Greencheck.nl

We read a lot about how to deal with climate sceptics lately, mostly suggesting we should politely present our views in response to that of the denier or sceptic. This is a lofty ambition, but frankly, there is no time for that. It is not smart to waste your time as a climate activist or climate action driver or simply a sensibel private person to tolerate climate sceptics and deniers. Here I will try to outline your reasoning to have no patience with these kind of people.

Climate deniers and sceptics always want you to prove your claims, or they present evidence they believe is relevant. It is like talking to an economist, all you say is only helping them to hone their arguments, because their position has two origins, either it is ignorance or political. You can’t argue with either of them.

Say a person is ignorant and only wants to provoke a response and vent their point of view. Don’t argue with them because clearly this individual is not using logic to come to their point of view, only anticipating the effect it will have on others. If suchs a person is in a panel discussion leave the discussion or try to shut him/her up. This is not polite. Don’t be polite. Tell them they never doubted whether the Earth was round, why should they doubt the climate science ? The fact with these people is that even if you motivate them to take another point of view (which you don’t do with arguements) they are useless to your cause.

You can tell these people they are dumb because a basic education should be enough to understand the science, specifically that CO2 block heat radiation. This can even be demonstrated if needs be. It is no crime to think climate change is a hoax, but if you profess it openly as if you can teach others about the world you are dumb.

If a person is not ignorant but chooses to be a sceptic to create an illusion of uncertainty this is more repulsive than if a person is dumb. These kind of deniers are slick as grease, they will have excellent debating skills. If not its a bit sad. Don’t argue with them. The are even less likely to be of any use if you (in some imaginary world) convince them. Usually these people don’t respond to any type of reasoning, because they are the original deniers, working by the same playbook als the nuclear promotors that also worked for the tobacco industry. This has been described in the Merchants of Doubt by Naomi Oreskes

If you are in some panel with a political denier don’t argue with them, but tell them they are displaying signs of madness by rejecting the help of so many scientists, who they will readily trust if they get a medical test. So many times in life they trust others who are experts, when they get their car fixed or heating installed or someone cooks for them in a restaurant, they don’t doubt its ok. But with climate for some reason, in spite of armies of normal respectable people telling them they have doubt. That is crazy. They are deranged and you wish them a quick recovery.

Those sceptics and deniers who are telling others how the world works, like Lord Monckton who in the above video claims to have references on something that is simply not true. He talks jibberish but mentions a lot of details which convinces people that he must be sane. Such liars, need to be kept from speaking except to small groups of the ignorant. Never on a public platform, it is a climate activist duty to prevent it.

Some famous climate sceptics who probably hope you forget about them

To his point in the above video : our oceans have now absorbed so much extra heat that if the same heat was added to the lower 10 km of our atmosphere (which is about 16 km high) it would warm an additional 36 degrees Celsius. So it would not be 12 degrees which is already rediculously warm in Januari, but 48 Celsius. This also means that the oceans will get very warm and as they cover 90% of our planet we are in very very deep shit, and amongst others, because of dickheads like Monckton. So shut these types up!

Litium ion batteries are causing a revolution around the world. The energy density of batteries of this type is still increasing, and prices are rising as production capacity of new batteries is not keeping up with demand. But to anyone with a basic science education its pretty strange to see this intense focus on Lithium, while there are plenty of other metals to choose from that are more abundant and cheap. Two of them are Sodium (called Natrium in Europ) and Potassium (called Kalium in Europe). Sodium or Na is part of what we know as common table salt which is NaCl. Potassium is in all life because it actually stores energy in plants and animals.

We may be looking at an economic effect in the sense that the battery that generates the most cashflow is invested in more, because banks rather loan for projects that generate a lot of cashflow. Sodium and Potassium batteries as you can see below have mega potential and the fact we aren’t using them widely yet is hard to explain.

Sodium-ion batteries or NIB

Sodium batteries are about as easy to make as lithium ion batteries, but they require a different kind of electrode, because sodium does not ‘dissolve’ in grafite as lithium does. Sodium-ion Batteries Market is expected to exceed more than US$ 1.77 Billion by 2024 which is tiny compared to what it could be if we started way earlier. These batteries are amongst other uses expected to be replacements for lead-acid but with better characteristics. There are different ways to build a sodium battery, so with either a liquid electrolyte or a non-aqueous one, with sodium as cathode or only in the electrolyte. More information can be found here. We will list some companies that are working on Sodium-ion batteries.

AMG batteries is a cooperative with Renault working to create sodium-ion batteries for use in cars. The energy density can be as high as Lithium also because there is no need for copper electrodes. A lot of patents on sodium batteries are held by Faradion. Above you see a graph that shows the different electrolytes being tested and how they perform (the dots not the formulas).

Chinese NIB producers are HiNa Battery Technology, Wuhuhaili (Sodium-sulfur), Qintang New Energy, Liaoning Hongcheng (Liaoning Xingkong), NGK, Zhejiang Lvming Energy (Durathon), Sodium-sulfur batteries have been applied for large scale energy storage, but they are high-temperature (300-350 Celsius), now room temperature variants are being developed which is promissing.

Other projects around Sodium batteries are the Naiades EU project. Interestingly there is a spinoff towards desalination because sodium is one of the main ions in seawater, and sodium batteries separat the sodium towards or away from the electrodes. Once you have a positively charged membrane that repulses sodium you can use it to filter water. This electrochemical approach to desalination is usually less energy intensive than the market dominating (and aggresively monopolizing) reverse osmosis filtering method.

Natron Energy makes Sodium-ion Batteries for utility scale power for now

Australia will have a 30 kWh sodium ion battery pack in a trial led by the University of Wollongong’s Institute for Superconducting and Electronic Materials (ISEM). It seems this project could be copied quickly and widely.

About the 30 kWh Sodium battery in Australia

Many universities research Sodium Ion batteries, but seem to give them less priority. We hope to see more examples and wider attention soon.

Potassium-Ion or KIB (also PIB)

Potassium-Ion batteries seem to be even easier than Sodium yet get even less attention. The battery potential of KIB batteries will be closer to that of Lithium-Ion batteries, making them an easier replacement than NIBs. The challenge seems to be smaller which makes it puzzling why we don’t see them offered much more yet.

“Potassium batteries can accept a wide range of cathode materials which can offer rechargeability lower cost. One noticeable advantage is the availability of potassium graphite, which is used as an anode material in some lithium-ion batteries. Its stable structure guarantees a reversible intercalation/de-intercalation of potassium ions under charge/discharge.”

A common mistake that is being made is to strive for high energy density right away, high performance of KIB batteries is not needed as long as the cost/performance is attractive in the market. The article that the above image comes from was more negative than one would expect. It may be that lower cachflow alternatives to Lithium-Ion are not that welcome, so then people say “more research is needed”. This is the “go look for a solution” strategy when the solution is not desired by the banks that control the market.

It is certainly great to read this in the press “Skoltech researchers led by Professor Pavel Troshin have made significant advances in the development of sodium and potassium batteries based on organic cathode materials” and ” sodium and potassium batteries that charge in 30 to 60 seconds while retaining their energy storage capacity after thousands of charge-discharge cycles”. So apparently these scientists tested things for all three metals Sodium, Lithium and Potassium (and alloys!). They tried different polymers and found that a dihydrophenazine-based one had great characteristics.

The world is not an island, so it seems we are about to see a rapid growth of Sodium and Potassium batteries to replace and augment the current Lithium capacity. As these metals will never run out (and are actually an undesired by product of desalination for example), the development of batteries will certainly be exiting in the next decade!

The problem is corruption. In Holland we see one minister after another pushing the interests of the fossil industry, only to reverse course after they lose power. Leaders of parties land attractive jobs after their tenure and promote gas or nuclear or airtravel or some other fossil intensive activity. It is “pay later corruption” (as explained by Herman Scheer below) where people with influence get hired to speak for exorbitant amounts. It happens all over the world.

We need to get money out of politics. Profit, in many cases is bad, especially when it incentivises wastefull use of energy. In politics time and again we see the abuse of power because politicians can gain money now or later, take from cashflows they have access to. Our democratic leaders should be entirely cashless and maybe be income restricted for the rest of their lives. They are leaders of the dutch population, not hobbyists or creatives invited to have entertaining ideas. We seem to have forgotten that leaders are there to protect us, why else would we hand control over our lives to them?

Governments like that of the US but also of Holland have become completely corrupt. You don’t even have to see money end up in the hands of politicians, it is simply that money dictates policy. Police find they don’t have enough cash to deal with crime because they are not supported, meanwhile the ING bank is laundering billions in drug money for drugs traded in Amsterdam and gets away with a fine. It’s perfectly clear why (according to the minister of justice) “politics” meaning his corrupt party “has been sleeping for 10 years”. As long as we don’t wonder why these representatives move around at banks (one former prime minister, one minister of finance) and energy companies (one party leader) we are not awake.

Now with the salaries and “waiting salaries” for members of parliament that are waiting for something (they still get payed) some politicians have to be exposed to get double income they don’t need. The atmosphere is “who makes the most money” and at the same time the right wing unegalitarian policies create a big pool of corruptable people. This pushes us all into what we think is the universal cause of destruction of civilizations : everyone becomes corruptable, every action and object becomes for sale. Nobody moves anymore unless they are payed. The internal motivation is replace by indignation that one is not getting payed enough to have the same.

The solution is that anyone choosing to become a member of government is also choosing to earn a specific amount annually for the rest of their lives. Total net worth can not rise above a certain level at any time or it will be taxed away. Simply said if there is a reward for being in power, that reward is owed to the voters who granted the politician that power. Its not to say a person needs to live in poverty, but certainly the goal is to make it impossible for extraneous (corrupting) incentives to work. To become a leader you have to put others above yourself, and you can’t do that if you are trying to find the most lucrative job. Our parliament has at least 3 members who are there by lying and misrepresenting and saying what their (industrial) sponsors want them to say. They make a nice buck doing it.

The left wing party lobbied for more cash for assistants to MPs, that makes a lot of sense, and it means you produce/vet/develop your knowledge “in house” instead of getting it offered by industry to adopt in return for future speaking jobs. We want to see more moves towards demonlishing the value of being a MP, more limits to mobility between industry and politics (which have been put in place). Everyone knows what the problem is. Sad thing though is that its likely the right wing parties would completely evaporate. But the goal is that leaders work for an ideology (which implise reward for all), not only for own reward!

This is a bold statement, but let’s analyse. First off, we have banks who seek profit. This is the root of all evil so to say, because what does it mean to make profit? It means you earn more than you need, even for your plans. Banks borrow money to citizen, and the less money citizen have, the more banks can borrow out, and so there is a double incentive for banks to make profit: If they do people need to borrow more!

But lets take the housing crisis, where does it come from? Well, banks taught poeple that if you buy a house its an investment. The price of the house will rise (apart from it becoming your property so being a savings account). Banks had the incentive to make this true so they could lend more. They lobbied for 1. lower rates 2. bigger lending share (so les smoney up front), creative instruments (once people started to believe their story, you got investment mortgages that where payed by the hous price rise), they made renting more expensive (in holland), they arranged special loans for ‘starters’ (which drove up prices), they reduced social housing by putting these cooperations into debt and forcing them to sell their real estate, the now have lobbied for a rule so that couples can lend more (1+1 = 3), and of course at the same time they reduced construction.

The result? People are stuck in their homes, they can’t move to job opportunities. New homes being build are all expensive. People are forced out of their cheap homes by semi-criminal investment groups who want those high prices. This leads to homelessness, crime, probably abuse and poverty. This is shown on TV, the sad man that could not find a place to rent, and if you don’t rent (or buy) you can’t get social security or a job. In the US we know houses where kept off the market, because for a while the opposite was true of what happens in Holland, anyone could buy a house. Why, because banks lowered their lending standards to create investment instruments (credit default swaps) and this resulted in what? Misery, the 2008 financial crash. Who suffered? so many.

How about medicine? That used to be a sad profession when you want to believe Celine (Voyage au Bout de la Nuit), but of course that all changed for the better with the discovery of Penicilline and other breakthrough, now it really is a vibrand industry that does incredible work, not to mention the incredible care given by nurses and staff, who have to constantly deal with their humanity and that of the patients.

But how about health care cost? How about insurance. Why do people in the US pay ten times as much as in the EU for the same healthcare. Why can pharamaceutical companies keep renewing patents or even repatent expired ones? How can a company Pfitzer sell a heart health pill for 10 years making hundreds of billions while its effect is a 1% improvement over placebo? This all happens because of the financial context created by banks, because shareholders need to see profit, and profit is unnecessary squeezing of customers (because profit is all you have after you payed all your cost, including reservations for your plans). So banks have lobbied for privatization, always looking for ways to make more money.

And what is the result? Suffering, early deaths, broken lives, time spend by political players like Obama to fight it, but guess what, the US electoral system is now based on how much cash you can collect from your voters, The US shows in extrema what total surrender to banks leads to. Still anyone in congress can trade with insider knowledge. Does that create a way to bribe? Of course! Who do that? People in the banks. The same who create the financial instruments that the whole economy crashes on.

Just to give this a break, what happens if a country is not financialized to the extend the US is. We mean poor countries. They can have good healthcare, good education (we will get to that) good housing all good, the only simple rule is that you make lending difficult, and of course you need energy sources. In poor countries that energy comes from manual labour. India and Brazil for a while didn’t care about patents. They rebelled and made medicine themselves, at much lower cost. This is now happening in Europe as well, companies are making rare and less demanded medicine themselves, and escape the normal pricing policies this way. Of course there is a lobby to stop that. Health should cost you all you have at the end of your life, so that your children will need to work for the same things all over again.

How about education? Holland tried the US system because we have had 9 years of US-lakey goverment and every trick tried in the US was also tried here, including prison labour. So students had to borrow money to study, and cost went through the roof, Universities liked it a lot, it caused a building and renovation boom which was a way for banks to capture the institutions because now how could the pay their debts if not by increasing cost of tuition etc. Luckily sanity is returning somewhat because we in the EU are more social, so it is likely this system will be reversed, but a least 10 generations of students are deep into debt and will be. For whom? THE BANKS.

The suffering this causes is not small, not only will you see people doing jobs they hate, jobs that are harmfull others, in an world where you need to pay, but of course some won’t make it and end up destitute and who knows kill themselves. Students don’t even protest anymore because of course they changed into a group of willing slaves that believe that if they work hard they will get a great job. But like in the US the courses proliferated, more students where allowed in, and many come out not knowing what they should be doing. Stuck in the homes of their parents (which should be fine by the way) not able to make enough to buy or rent.

Soo who else, farmers? Of course farmers have been in the news a lot lately because the EU decided Holland should limit its Nitrogen emissions. Builders, farmers, airports, cars all emit NOx and NH3/4 (which for the sake of confusion is being bunched together), and so all these have to reduce emissions. The farmers have been investing in intensive cattle farms, of which at least 3 burn down with all the souls in them every summer (or all animals die because the ventilation breaks down). Why these farms? Not for Holland, we only consume about 20% of the meat we produce. So its for export, for cashflow, from the Amazon soy fields, grains etc. back to the world. Dutch is a meat hub. The farmers have been allowed to borrow to grow their business, to such an extend that the businesses arn’t even profitable yet, they need to grow more. The banks allowed them to get started and did not do their due dilligence on what farmers where actually allowed to build. Now with the enforcement of the Nitrogen limit the farmers see their future destroyed, and they are payed by the feedstock suppliers and dominant meat exporter to disruptively protest this situation. Who is served by this? The banks. Who suffers? The farmers.

We can go on here about how banks have ruined everything. This constant need to compete, not on quality but on volume, this drive to automate and destroy jobs people enjoy, and replace them with jobs people hate. From income you can have a nice life off to income you can barely get by on. A key to the suffering is not only that banks want to make profit, but that the credit they give is consumed by buying fuels, energy. All the money ends up with the energy companies. No matter how low the interest rates, this system is causing ‘hypertension’ where we could all get along fine with a couple of companies like this and a couple like that. We actually see this in some sectors, like soda drinks, which in itself is a rediculous racket that generates such enormous amounts of cashflow for banks : Hauling sugared water half across the globe for the ephimeral superior experience or just for the sugar high.

Banks thus cause obesitas, banks ruined nice cities because they fund flights and they lobbied for plane fuels to be tax exempt. All because the supply of fuels was much bigger than demand, and people will spend at their destinations even if they are super crowded and expensive. Bank. Cashflow. Not human enjoyment. Monetization of everything ensures banks control everything.

So our claim is this : All problems we Face are caused by Banks

We have not even mentioned climate change, but you can easily see that selling more cars, more fuel, more plastic more food was all done to generate more profit to pay the loans of the banks. They have caused it, and it makes total sense, banks loan out carbon credit, credit that buys you fossil fuels, and thus their business is based on the expansion of fossil credit cashflow and as a consequence of carbon emissions. They have no alternative. They renamed fossil credit “Capital” which it isn’t.

We already wrote about how to beat this cancer to our societies, and this is by building renewable energy sources. They will allow for renewable energy credit to be distributed, not by banks but by the owners of those installations. Of course right now the ‘market’ is being developed such that you never own renewable energy installations and don’t easily think about this option because you have to repay your debt for your installation, but given time and price drops the fact that a renewable energy installation in your hands means you own production capacity, means you can distribute it through credit. And there will be more credit of this renewable kind than there ever was of the fossil kind. Hopefully then the suffering caused by banks will stop.

As former neuroscientist we have a fascination with human psychology and cognition, and are amazed at how well some forms of influencing work. For instance the suit, a neat suit, can protect the most horrendous people. Neatness, looking clean and untouched, seems to have a hypnotizing effect on people such that they think they can never touch the individual that is neat.

Where does this reverence and respect come from? We think, we will propose, that most animals including humans have a mental state that we could call prey hypnosis, there must be a better name for it. It is the passive attitude when we find ourselves captured by a superior force. It happens in animals who are calm when they get captured by a predator, it has been described in humans who where mauled by lions and tigers and bears.

The truth is, death is not horrible, you don’t experience it. We can fear a predator when we can outrun it, we must fear it then, and do our best, but when we are caught the fear loses its purpose and is only likely to evoke aggression and thus pain. Pain is something all animals try to avoid, and if they can’t avoid it try to hide and ignore. In short we would be inclined to believe all animals including humans have a pleasant passive behavioural/mental state between fear and death, and we can be tricked into believing we should enter that state.

The only think that can save us in that state is beauty, youth, and perhaps pleading. Tigers have been known to capture young animals and let them go and even try to care for them. Pleading has of course helped in humans, but animals also plead, cry, and this may also help them escape this limbo between life and death. Often if a human captures a falcon or eagle that got stuck, the bird will do nothing as it is handled. This calmness and surrender rings a bell. How would one evoke it in humans, and what will humans do in such a situation?

First example is the church, what does the Roman Catholic Church do? It traches us to fear hell and hope for heaven, as we place ourselves in the hands of its ministers. There we can pray, plead, for mercy, forgiveness and help, but we also experience comfort and peace of mind as we navigate our way -in that state of submission-. By whom? The almighty and his dressed up minions. Our mind is shocked by the frock, it goes blank, and if we believe we in God we believe we are captured and destined to suffer or be shown mercy depending on how we interpret and follow the minions or the word.

When leaders project weakness they inspire their followers to feel weak, which makes it even more easy to keep them in their prey hypnosis (hint : Corbyn)

Second example is the economy, how does this economic system present itself? It shows itself by people in suits who everyone believes wield great power, who manage and control a beast that can build and destroy our lives. We hear them speak about “this will stimulate the economy” or “this will hurt the economy” as if they are feeding and taming Baäl. They are already superior to us, they fight the fight for us, we are not in the hands of the monster but in the cradle of those that fight it. We are asked to do our part : Work hard.

Sanity by one definition is the state of mind in which we respond only to actual cues in our internal or external environment in relation to our needs. A man who starts singing the national anthem loudly in the toilet or starts to undress in the kitchen we think is crazy. We’d ask : “Why?”. It is actually almost impossible to do something without any cause, our physical body has no inclination to suddenly commit to random behaviour, and rightly so. This means that we have to be cued to do most things we do. We can be hypnotized by situations that do not provide us with a cue, internally or externally, and then we will wait for one to occur. Fear can make us reject cues, so it is easier to hypnotize a fearfull person, and believing we are in a situation where no action is needed will also desensitize us to cues.

Our mental state is : We are not predators, we are cared for in our predicament, we should not show initiative, we would only hurt ourselves. Those who do are “Risk takers”, not like us!

The people that want to keep earning income from fossil fuels, that want us to be hard workers, are using all the means at their disposal to keep us in the submissive state, the state in which we are waiting for cues. Of course they will never provide them, they will not remind us of something that may trigger exploration or action. We see this with Scott Morrison in Australia, he only talks about money, his body language projects nothing, his internal state must be one of resentment of people and their idiotic worries, and when you hear him speak you really don’t hear anything else but calming pragmaticism in his voice. His facial expression is one of oblivion and torture, he is suffering more than you yet he’s not aware of anything to worry about.

At the same time people are pleading him to do things. The citizen of Australia believe they are in the hands of this government and need to plead, ask for help. They can not overcome the belief that they are in the hands of their government, that the system of neat calm people has power over them. They think it has. The fires in Australia have devestated many lives, people who are now in need of help. Morrison has allied with the fires by not showing any emotion of compassion other than with his own fate. He has used the fires like a religious leader would use a solar eclipse. It is said he believes the fires fit in his system of beliefs about an end time and rapture, a process where individuals will suddenly disappear because God took them up to heaven. The irony would be that Morisson himself is a hypnotized submissive person.

We need to snap ourselves out of this hypnosis, there is no force field around neat people in suits, they are not more powerfull than you and me, they should not stop us from responding to our reality, which will become a lot more harsh if we decide to explore it. The economy is not going to save us, not one that builds infrastructure and only looks at money, not human lives, as a measure of achievement. Why do those banks with neat people manage our money? What gives them that right? On every level we need to decide if we still need to be passive, if we need to pray, plead or take other measures. Who is served by our passive attitude, what can we do to improve our chances today. Because only when we are actually in the claws or a tiger or lion or being mauled by a bear, we should be passive.

We have written about the Roboeconomy, this is the economy that aknowledges automation and robotics as a means of producing our wealth, but does not want humans to keep competing with those machines. This is achieved by making the machines run on renewables, so that humans and they do not compete for the same fossil fuels, but each has their own energy sources that are not on the market.

This type of economy is not compatible with the current economy because the current economy tries to maximize bank cashflow by expanding the use of fossil fuels and creating markets for everything. More trade means more cashflow and more dependence on bank credit. Fossil fuels have had a major role in establishing the power of banks we see today, fossil fuels are stored energy and they can and have been made available to people through credit, and every money transaction we make shifts the access to fossil fuels to the producers of wealth (if they use fossil fuels).

Its extremely hard to get away from the fossil fuel economy because we are so indoctrinated to respect banks and see them as allies in our quest for wealth. In fact they are a major obstacle, they need our dependence on them and to that end they drive up the price of anything we are interested in. Flying is a exception because flying generates cashflow in the destintation and drives greed there, so people with money are encouraged to spend it on holidays, not on anything that reduces the power of banks.

How to reduce the power of banks? The best way to do that is to build renewable energy sources without going into debt. If you do go into debt to realize say a solar farm, you are pricing the debt into the solar energy you produce, and that causes the price to reach for the fossil based energy price, and thus you undo any advantage to wealth creation due to using renewables. Banks always force you to increase the price to the ‘market price’ (one they usually control through fake trading on exchanges).

The way to reduce that power is to build renewable energy sources and use them for wealth creation without going into debt. Alternatively you could realize that solar farm by selling ownership to individuals, not investors or investment banks. You then repay in energy (kWh). The same goes for machines that make stuff. As a town you could own your own bread factory (even though bread is not a healthy food) or farm with electric equipment. You could provide for your own community from local sources. Banks will not support that, because such local economies do not need credit and do not participate in the market. To prevent those kinds of economies from developing banks and other big agro companies try to restric local farming, trading, credit creation etc. and they force the price of food down so it out ‘competes’ the local or biological or organic farming produce (at a cost to f.il the amazon and the environment).

We have to get to the Roboeconomy though, and this is a war of attrition. While our food security is collapsing we need to untie ourselves from the market matrix that becomes increasingly unreliable. We need to own the land (that has been priced up by banks so we need them for mortgages) and the real estate (that has been priced up by banks so we need mortgages). we need to come together and find the cash to do these things. Banks at the same time try to lower our income to the level where we can exist but not develop any initiative. They also lobby for rules that make anything we do without them hard.

It seems the western world is sinking in a sea of dispair due to financialization. The pest of bankers that are involved in anything and everything. Why is a house 500.000 Euro that was 40.000 Euro 20 years ago? What value does it bring to the owner? Is it like a machine in a factory that increases productivity 4% yielding 100.000 Euro extra on an annual basis so it can be written of in 5 years? No it is a money sink that banks created so you can’t do anything to free yourself from their grip. Working with this economy is like fighting with other fish to swim deeper into a net. The ones deepest are often helped to drive the others crazy “the good stuff will happen to you when you are rich!”. Its a simple marketing trick.

Eroding the need for credit by building renewable energy sources is the best way to forge ahead to a society where needs are taken care of, houses are owned, people can rely on their jobs and machines are not our enemy. Less bank power will allow politics to propose laws that make machines serve the entire community, not just the competing producer. Producers will compete over quality, not cashflow and turnover. Life will be so much easier. The lazy bankers will have to find something to do that is less leechy though.

When we can use all inventions and common sense because there is no more pressure to create fossil cashflow for banks, we can create renewables that generate much more energy than fossil does now, 2500 times more. We will have so much solar and wind that we can cool our farms to grow crops, we can oxygenize the oceans, we can grow biomass to capture CO2 and store that Carbon back into our Earth, all using machines, robots, AI and techniques like low pressure desalination that is no pushed out of sight by the high pressure and cost reverse osmosis lobby. Banks and their economic philophy that assumes infinite resources and drives people to behave like locusts needs to go. Now you know how.

Our oceans are losing oxygen. This is because they are warming up, and warmer water can contain less gasses. Nitrogen, CO2 and O2 are dissolved (along with other gasses like methane) and will gas out as our oceans warm. The warming is hard to prevent as only a small percentage of sunlight that hits our oceans is reflected. Large parts of our oceans are already anoxic, and fish can’t live without oxygen, even if they only need very little.

We have to do something about our oceans, because gradual acidification due to absorbtion of CO2 from the atmosphere is a problem for its oxygen generating plantlife, as well as all other life. Acidification inhibits growth, especially in cell processes during procreation, in other words, acidification makes it harder for many species to procreate.

Any CO2 that is turned into O2 and sugars through the well known photosynthetic process is a win against acidification. We have written that to achieve more photosynthesis we can pump nutrients from deeper water to the surface, to fix the nitrogen shortage. Another limiting factor is iron. Many people have looked into this and its actually a viable way to increase oxygen production and stimulate life in the oceans. Sadly companies involved in this have been obstructed or have failed.

A paper considering deep ocean fertilization was against it on the grounds that it would help (in several ways) but if we stopped we would have warmed the water more. Of course there is only one thing our oceans are going with current CO2 levels and emissions : Warmer! Due to above described problems from acidification there actually is a window in which we can try, of about 30 years some estimate.

So what can we do? We could start growing seaweed near the surface on a gigantic scale, fertilized by deep ocean water we pump to the surface using wave pumps. That’s an idea. We could increase ocean albedo in some way, by creating something reflective that floats well. We have seen enormous pumice islands, these have prevented warming of the ocean below it. We could create something artificial with the same effect. We have written about floating islands of biomass, grown at sea for instance. We could use plastic as well, that would still be a good tradeoff against boiling oceans.

So what would it take to actually capture carbon at sea and adding oxygen to the deeper oceans so fish an trhive (and capture carbon as well). It would in fact be a matter of generating electricity, then using that to split water down below, then burning the hydrogen (or using it as fuel) at the surface, while leaving the oxygen dissolved in the deep water.

Then you would have to have a CO2 reactor at the surface, the availability of water would be a plus. You use the H2 in the following reaction

CO₂ + 2 H⁺ + 2 e⁻ → CO + H₂O

Then you are left with highly reactive CO, which you can turn into C and O2. Of course the available Hydrogen can also be used to make hydrocarbons, methan and even oils, which can then be sunk to the ocean floor and stay there. This process, which removes Carbon and H2 from oils and gas from our atmosphere have gotten a lot of attention.

Even though its kind of the premise of this post, using oceanic real estate to fight climate change makes a lot of sense, because it is much easier to traverse, is extremely vast so there is plenty of room. Here are a few more methods we found :

Recently more direct methods of turning CO2 into Carbon have been developed using liquid metal as a cathalyst. This method works at room temperature.

” Cerium-containing LM were utilised as an electrocatalytic system, successfully converting CO₂ to carbonaceous and graphitic products at room temperature. “

Another way is to use Magnetite, which can be primed using H2 to cause the decomposition of CO2 into Carbon.

” The oxygen-deficient magnetite, which is obtained by flowing H₂ gas through the powder magnetite at 300°C for 2h, efficiently decomposes CO₂ into C at 300°C.  “

Methods using lower cost metals have been developed, using Copper and Tin. Of course we should not be surprised about the possibility of splitting CO2 back into its constituents or even making methane with it, after all plants do it all the time. The metals available to them are mainly Iron, Zinc, Copper and Manganese. As rust can be photoactivated oxygen evolution may even have occured without life. Once life harnessed the water splitting ability of iron, binding CO2 into cellulose and sugars became an option that provided much needed and lighter protection than Calcium.

Of course the easiest way to return CO2 back to the deep ocean would be to use a floating plant that can stand the acidification and spread long enough. According to geologists this happened when an ancient version of Duckweed covered an enormous sweet water lake close the the North Pole (can’t find source). There is no salt water version but we can certainly create sweetwater basins to grow duckweed in our oceans!

When sequestering CO2 we should really look at the option of also providing more O2 to our oceans. Oceans are a better source of CO2 than our atmosphere because the CO2 dissolve to higher concentrations. This may make the ocean the best place to capture and sequester carbon and return hydrocarbons back into our Earths crust.

We are living in a world divided by people who want to keep using fossil fuels and nuclear and those that want to tap the vastly bigger potential of renewables. Renewables have 2500 times more potential, you can run 2500 more world economies on solar and wind than you can with fossil fuels.

But for now fossil fuels really have a grip on our economy, because it is so convenient, the fuel is its own storage medium, you can (if you are a bank) create credit and whoever you give it to can go out and buy products and services all generated for a large part with fossil fuels. We call that the carbon/credit cooperation between banks and oil companies. It drives incredible corruption of our politics.

But soon countries will stop using fossil fuels entirely, many already have targets of net zero emissions in 2050 or earlier. This is unavoidable, and for as long as humanity will continue to exist we will create zero carbon economies. Many will be happy about that but that happiness will be killed (quite literally) by the heat and unbearable climate we will see around 2060 but also before. A few days at 40 degrees with high humidity will have a serious impact everywhere, especially where there are no airconditioners.

It is unavoidable people will try to trace back what happened, just like many of us are doing right now. We can point to australian PM Morrison who sabotaged the COP25 to protect his life and that of his wife at the cost of millions of others. We can point at many politicians who simply deny climate change exists or aknowledge it but don’t accept the cause. All these liars and their comrades will be known and many will be alive when we find out there is no easy way back.

We sometimes talk to the mostly right wing confabulators, who simply say “well, you know the Sun gets brighter and dimmer” or “well you know our planet will survive” (but their children will suffer and they don’t care, imagine the egotism). They think like Giuliani who said something to the effect of “I don’t give a fuck about my legacy” because of course he’ll be dead and won’t suffer under the consequences of his actions.

There are some who actively piece together the future, but almost everyone likes to piece together the past

We expect there to be a sizable group of people who want to bring the pain to those that caused it. We are not saying this should be done, but this has been the norm for a long time. Even after the wars those in the wrong have been punished, later. We know about the Neurenberg trials, about the abduction of Eichman. These german officers may have operated with impunity during the war, after the war they became exposed. Still many of them left to places where they lived in peace for many more years. This is a testament to the desire of humans to live peacefully, not exact vengeance at all cost.

There are list being made, some are quite public, of people that have knowingly misled and lied and bend the truth to serve themselves or some sick political agenda when it comes to climate. Not only oil companies themselves who spend billions on lobbying while they already had models of the disastrous effects of their products, but also politicians and pundits, scientists and IPCC and COP panel members who clearly did not respect the outcome of flawless sciencific research. They are know.

It is time to hint on this eventuality in conversations, because there is no better way to expose the fact these people know damn well they are committing a crime than to see their faces when they start feeling like someone may come back to them to settle the score. They instantly show their deep understanding of the climate problem, the risks and that they are exposing themselves. They now expect distractions and climate chaos (and death) to shield them, they should feel like we are on to them.

For them there is a simple rule : The truth will set them free. We can warn about climate change, but out of empathy for these people, we should start warning them about climate vengeance.

We are seeing an onslaught of right wing pro-fossil lies based politics on our democracies around the world. The tools to manipulate popular opinion have been automated and exposure to fake and personally tailored misrepresentations of reality is still great for a large portion of the world population. Removing the options to target voters with tailored but dishonest messages should be on the top of the agenda to protect our democracies.

Beyond that the socialist ideology has been corrupted in most countries. That is because the economy has been made so important, to the point that a cashless society becomes a real possibility. People will always have to trade in order to exist. True independence is not achievable, safe freedom is only survivable if you take part in the economy. Of course if it is up the the fossil economy you can be poor and die early if you choose to, you are nothing but a natural resource after all.

How can socialist really take a position that is stronger, more future proof, more acceptable and more social? How can they paint a future that people can embrace? The answer lies in aknowledging the current forces at play and how the economy operates. From thinking about these things a new vision follows that is simple, attractive and safe, and which is not offered by right wing conservatives.

Premise nr. 1. : We compete for fossil fuels through income. We compete with companies and machines, and we are obviously losing that competition as citizen.

Because the right wing dominated economy is build on fossil fuels, this is what we divide through our competition for income. If we can reduce cost to our employer we get a cut of access to fossil resources (our salary) but if we can’t because we are old and/or sick, employers lose interest. We become a burden because through social mechanisms we recieve benefits which reduce the resource pool employers can use to produce and make profit. Because we all compete for the same resource (fossil fuels) this dynamic results and individuals that are not ‘economically attractive’ are dumped.

Fossil Fuel Giants Claim To Support Climate Science, Yet Still Fund Denial

What socialists have done up until now is to work for more jobs, more access to a cut of the resources for people, better protection against the inclinations of employers to automate and fire people. This has never really worked because the reward for firing people is high. What socialists have done is to make that reward smaller and increase the value of employing someone. But the true insight is to step out of this entire dynamic, and there is a reason for that :

Premise nr. 2 : Automation will continue and conquer not only mechanical production but also white collar work, to the point that fully automated companies can exists in nearly every field, meaning close to 80% of the able workforce be redundant for the essential manufacturing jobs.

You can try to hang on to jobs, but in doing that you are supporting the right wing pro-fossil conception of our economy. Some say “automation will cost jobs but also allow the creation of new ones” but research shows automation means the replacement of high paying jobs by lower ones, if they are replaced at all. Part of that trend is of course also caused by the high cost of starting any initiative and the requirement of making profit as a new company doing new things. Socialists should hope for new jobs to emerge but it is naieve to trust there will, that is just what economists say to get you to accept the right wing perspective. Assume most important jobs will be automated and only low skilled work will remain.

The right wing attitude to this trend is “Great, we have all the money, all the resources, we’ll be rich, the rest can be servants!”. All those that think to much and can easily be bullied and intimidated or impressed will be either poor or serving us or whatever they can be with their low wage jobs. What should the socialists respons to this be? It is not easy to peal your mind off of injustice, to disengange from right wing anti-social attitudes, because the right is so good at pretending it has something it is not sharing. The right manipulates to get what it wants, every time, all the time. Socialists should look away.

What do they see when they are not caught in the mess created by the right wing distractors? Two things, first : Renewables are cheap and can produce energy in proportion to the needs of the economy. Renewable energy can replace fossil in every application, everywhere, and can be sourced indefinitely such that competition over access to them is NOT necessary.

Sure the right wing economy has brought renewables into its ‘energy markets’ and those markers are now leading us to more wind, more solar, more storage while at the same time companies and home owners are disappearing from the market entirely. Socialists should see that in long term having energy markets makes no sense at all. You produce energy in the quantities you need, yourself, or you rent an installation to do it (which forces you to earn money so less ideal).

So first of all there is no competition for energy, not between people, not between people and machines or people and machines and companies. This makes society more social. The goal of a socialists should therefore be to realise the absolute maximum growth of renewable energy utilization possible.

Second thing is : Automation is your friend, once you have energy covered. Once people no longer compete for income with machines or AI taking their place in companies, there is no harm in that trend to continue. What this implies is that everyone receives income based on the renewable energy utilization in the essential production. So lets say that production chain makes bread and does healthcare etc. Everyone should get credits to spend on bread and healthcare (or health insurance). This credit should be proportional to the renewable energy capacity available. This would amount to a kind of basic income for all.

A basic income has been proposed because fossil economists see as well as anybody that giving more money to people stimulates the economy, this has worked many times in soo many ways. The difference with that kind of basic income (one that does not differentiate between the source of energy) and what we propose here is that it creates resource competition, that it flies in the face of what companies like to see, that it sounds like a nice dream but that it can only be ‘afforded’ for a certain period after which (if there is no renewable energy base) the industrial lobby will reverse it after smearing it for as much time as it needs.

What a socialist can say is thus : “We want 100% or more renewables to support our lives and economies, we will then share access to that energy with anyone (with a basic minimum) while the market based on quality and style of things remains. This way of doing things will not burden anyone because renewables carry the burden. People will not be automated away as fast because the company will know its a trade off between atmosphere and profit, in fact the incentive for cut throat competition is reduced. With more and more renewables and more automation will come price drops, more freedom, more basic income etc.”

We think all socialists should think about this, not dismiss it outright but rather look for the pieces that need to come together. We are not there yet, and we need a lot more renewable energy sources. Some countries may demonstrate the lightness of being if renewables take over from fossil fuels, like for Morocco for instance. The fossil industry is working hard to prevent any positive examples, or ones where the economy is converted to renewables with less pain or at low cost. Socialist should adopt this vision and point to examples and highlight the cost reducing effect of not competing for energy (of course the effect of subsidies and price controls in fossil should be exposed).

We call the economy where renewables and automation make life easy for all the “Roboeconomy”, an economy in which robots can even restore the ecology. Socialists should get us there, but should also start to paint this picture, something that is not happening enough today.