Yes, imagine a world with all these old steel, iron and alloy objects just lying around, rusting and corroding away uselessly because in a world without coal they couldn’t be recycled.
Imagine a world where, when the cops hit you over the head with a (wooden) baton, it can’t be stitched up. In fact, there’d be no surgery as there’d be no high-carbon special steels and no surgical instruments, so a friend of mine and her baby wouldn’t have made it through a difficult birth last year and would both be dead now.
A future without coal doesn’t need much imagining, you just have to work it out.
What the hell was the point of the coal caravan if this sort of rubbish is still being spouted? Hasn’t the concept of “slow coal” penetrated? This just discredits opposition to the consumerist madness of burning massive quantities of coal to generate power for crap we don’t need. It divides the world three ways:
* People who don’t give a toss for the future, who just want their profits and / or their profligacy undisturbed.
* Those conned by the “clean coal” finger-crossing techno-fixery and greenwash.
* A small, clueless element of the middle class who don’t understand how things are made, don’t really want to know, and come up with half-baked impracticalities and hippy fantasies like “you can make a wooden bike”. Doh!
There’s a fourth group, of course, comprising sensible people with their feet on the ground, but they’re just proles or old farts, so can be ignored.
Far from “no new coal” or “a future without coal”, new coal is exactly what we DO need –a new type of coal industry, based on slow extraction by drift mining as the first option, deep mining only as a fallback, no opencasting at all, and no pissing coal up against the wall (well, the stratosphere, actually) in power stations. The point of “slow coal” is to extract only what’s needed, as it’s needed, for the future purposes below. It’s the opposite of ripping it all out now to feed an artificially inflated “market” and sod the future.
Come on, let’s get real and start working out constructively how to use coal in the sort of sustainable moderation which the planet can handle, how to limit its use to only those purposes and processes which are really necessary and for which there’s no substitute –including making the means of meeting our needs, getting around, and generating a sensibly frugal amount of electrical current (i.e. a lot less than now) without further emissions and damage to the atmosphere. That’s “slow coal”.
I thought we’d made a start on this with the coal caravan, but apparently not. Is there a chance we can oppose coal-fired power generation (and oil, gas, nuclear and big hydro involving dams), together with the gangster or consumer capitalism which drives it, without making complete numpties of ourselves and looking like fantasists who don’t know our arse from our elbow?
If you’re an extreme and dogmatic primitivist (which most Climate Campers aren’t) who envisages no other sustainable future for the planet than supporting only a tiny fraction of its present human population by pre-bronze age means, then I suppose you can “imagine a future without coal”. But you’d better “imagine” the resulting fate of most -nearly all- of the world’s people. You’d better not ride a bike, run a wind genny or use any other metals. Oh, and you’d better not go to Climate Camp either. Very coal-based. Not just the bikes, but all those steel marquee pegs, sledgehammers to knock them in with, loads of other tools, Haras fencing to keep the cops out, screws, nails, 12v electrics, cooking gear…the list goes on. I saw people chopping veg with metal knives, writing with metal-tipped pens, erecting tripods made from scaff tubes and wearing glasses! Bastards! Some of them even had decorative metal studs or rings in piercings, too. Coal, coal, coal -none of these things are possible without it. OK, maybe a few of them (and it’s only a few) could be made using charcoal (which also emits CO2, of course) as long as no steel is involved. Ooops! Where have all the trees gone?
No coal means no metals, hence no electricity -however generated- and no transport other than walking and carrying stuff. No, not even horses as they need shoes to be exploited by humans. Leave the horses alone, not the coal! No coal means trying to cultivate the land and harvest crops without metal implements. When our ancestors found that insufficient to feed the growing population and started smelting ores with charcoal to make tools, the planet’s population was a fraction of what it is now. Even then, the timber required gobbled up most of the world’s forests in a relatively short time. There is no way we could go back to just bronze and crude iron, weak with impurities, without the rest of the trees going in a trice. And those metals still wouldn’t make a bike, or a wind genny, or a solar panel, or a surgical instrument, anyway, never mind an ear piercing. A plough which would last a bit longer and go a bit deeper than a wooden one would be about the best you’d get before the last tree disappeared. Oh, and a crude, blunt sort of sword which might be a bit more effective than a flint-tipped spear. You’d need the weapons to defend yourself as the planet’s billions of people turned to fighting over the diminishing means of life in a world without coal.
Yes, I can imagine a future without coal, but I don’t want to. I want to be constructive, cherish the planet, ALL its people and all its life and be working for the future. This daft, cloud-cuckoo land “no coal” nonsense is really depressing and de-motivating. It feels like the imposition of ignorance or watching books being burned. No, I’m not saying anyone is imposing anything or wants to burn books, it’s just that it feels almost like that, swimming against a tide of thoughtless dogma, devoid of analysis and without heed to consequences.
If anyone disagrees with this, I hope it’ll be on the basis of real-life practical technology, rather than hippy sci-fi and wishful thinking, which is little more than our equivalent of capitalist techno-fixery and greenwash. Similarly, impractical theory with no reference to scale won’t wash. An example of this is that you can make steel electrically. Sadly, about a third of the world’s steel is now made this way. So why not use solar power to generate the current? Wahey! It’s been done –on a small, benchtop scale. Problem is it requires eye-watering amounts so power. How many Saharas do we have available to cover with solar panels? What? Just one? Forget it then.
Did you know (gabbles the 1970s first-year bio-chemistry student) that you can get a cannabis-like hit from dried banana skins and the white sap in lettuce is an opiate? Wahey! Nearly-free drugs at the greengrocer’s! All true, but there’d be several lorry loads of dried banana skins to smoke or lettuce stalks to squeeze before the first wee buzz was in prospect. Scale makes a difference.
Comments
Hide the following 19 comments
But the action is at a power station...
16.09.2009 11:56
Herbert
deserts, dunes and the future.
16.09.2009 12:04
I liked this but it kind of strays into a pro-nuclear stance. No coal = nuclear (in the end, after all the arguments).
But I really liked the last bit. How many Saharas do we have, just one?
Well no. Every continent in the world has an area of sunlight density that would yield good returns from a solar setup. The Sahara: yes, but also Gobi, Sonoran, Mojave, Sechura, Libyan, Kalahari, Syrian, An Nafud, Ad Dhana, Great sandy and Simpson amongst others. A good spread of deserts around the world yielding high sunlight concentration which could all be tapped permanently.
There are good arguments for placing a solar provision in these places. Deserts do not have high domestic residences so little disruption to population. Pipelines in the form of electrical distribution feeds would be easy to mine and build and there are deserts in every continent in the world. Solar energy production in high sunlight fields also coincide with wealth generation for most of the worlds poor. Jobs, wealth, interdependance and global security all in one go.
The problem here is that we in the UK are reducing the environmental debate to a local, fragmented argument while trying to fit ourselves into a globalised unfolding reality.
Not difficult to see how thats going to end is it?
The solar argument is the only real realistic argument as far as the environment is concerned. We should not be debationg it, we should be racing away with it.
If we don't, somebody else will.
Frederika.
Responses
16.09.2009 12:49
Frederika- No coal does NOT = nuclear. I’m against nuclear power generation. That argument makes sense only if you think we can get away with the present level of consumption, which we can’t
Covering the world’s deserts with solar panels just means most of the power generated disappears in transmission losses. Electricity can’t be piped long distances efficiently as if it was water. That’s why a variety of local solutions, differing according to conditions and climate, is the only sensible approach. There’s no lack of solidarity with people in other parts of the world in that, but no magic-wand answers either. We’ve got to get away from the very wasteful, centralised, industrial model of electricity generation. An alternative, supposedly "green", centralised industrial model is not realistic nor would it be sustainable. How are you going to make all those solar panels, anyway?
Converse Fred
well said!
16.09.2009 13:34
For fuck sake, what have we learned from our discussions with Dave Douglas and the miners' union, what from Kingsnorth and the E.ON f off campaign, what about the economic crisis, what about the coal caravan, what about the criticisms of this vilification of carbon above anything else?
And what about the 200 people on the final strategy day at the camp who mostly felt that we need to talk politics again - not just scream CO2 = bad?
Have the last few years just not happened?
This is just the glorification of mass publicity stunts, without an underlying analysis of the root causes of ecological disaster!
one
Sunshiny day.
16.09.2009 13:36
I see what you are saying. Consumption goes down therefore responsible use of coal can become ok in that context. Bit slippery though because the current level of consumption is not static. It will last only as long as the public perception of recession and contraction can be maintained. The media and government are working hard on a daily basis to change this.
We should not be under any illusions. We will be back to where we were in a few years time and once again runaway growth will be back again. Where will your argument about responsible use of coal be then? The politics of the day will define that coal can be burnt willy nilly and that will be that.
"Covering the world’s deserts with solar panels just means most of the power generated disappears in transmission losses."
As does every energy supply line. That is not an argument against it. If an amount is lost then you simply increase the overall provision in order to take account of the loss. Our water is piped to us in underground pipes and that fact alone means we lose hundreds of thousands of gallons back into the water table every day through cracks, breaks and faults. It isn't lost completely. It dissapears into the water table which is where we get it from in the first place.
"That’s why a variety of local solutions, differing according to conditions and climate, is the only sensible approach. There’s no lack of solidarity with people in other parts of the world in that, but no magic-wand answers either."
War on Terror anyone? Your absolutely right of course. There is no lack of solidarity with other people around the world. Local solutions not for local problems, but for global problems. Take oil for instance. Most people labour under the assumption that oil is about to run out but it isn't. Its just that what is left in the ground cannot be got at due to local conflicts, divisions and societal problems. If local populations are able to generate their own energy for their own people then geo-strategic problems do not crop up. Local solutions for global problems.
"We’ve got to get away from the very wasteful, centralised, industrial model of electricity generation. An alternative, supposedly "green", centralised industrial model is not realistic nor would it be sustainable. How are you going to make all those solar panels, anyway?"
If we take this problem at face value then we will simply end up back at the very thing we were intending to break away from. Getting away from centralised, wasteful, industrial models of electricity generation is fine but the alternative "green" model will, in all likelihood, end up taking us back in that direction. The problem here is not the problem itself but more WHO is attempting to solve it. To put it bluntly the United Kingdom is a service economy and it is now dependent on other nations around the world for its income. Therefore, the UK is dependent on conflict, the causing of division and open warfare in order to force prepared solutions on other nations in order to generate wealth for its domestic population.
One way out of this 'terminal decline' is to recognise that we have the technological edge and to use that edge to forge ahead into markets that are currently undeveloped.
You ask how we make the solar panels to cover the deserts of the world. The answer, make an economy of supply of those panels. A lot will be needed and more will be needed over time.
Coal won't do it due to environmental hostility, nuclear is a potential nation killer, windfarms are a novelty and littel more. The solar solution is a global solution that is truly clean in a way that cannot be compted with.
Frederika.
the issues
16.09.2009 14:11
The energy intensity of solar energy is relatively low, even though sunlight energises virtually all processes on Earth, the amount of solar energy falling on one square meter of ground is actually pretty small. The average amount of sunlight reaching the surface of the Earth is about 300 Watts per square meter (about 10 sq. ft.). This value is larger in the tropics or where there are few clouds, smaller at high latitudes and where it is frequently cloudy. One rule of thumb is that a collector area equal to about 10% of the floor area of a house is required to provide most of the heating needs for that house. So for a 2,000 sq. ft. house, 200 sq. ft. of collector area would be needed. For centralised collection of solar energy, large land areas need to be covered with solar collectors in order to gather enough sunlight to generate a significant fraction of our energy needs. Concentrating the sunlight with mirrors does not increase the amount of energy that is collected. In fact, focusing the energy to produce higher temperatures usually leads to more loss of energy since the most efficient energy collection systems are those that run at temperatures close to the temperature of the environment around the collector.
The technology is expensive
Whether in the form of water-heating solar panels, or photovoltaics to generate electricity from sunlight, the solar energy technology is relatively expensive compared to, say, coal-fired power plants. Electricity costs in the UK average 7 pence per kilowatt-hour. A currently advertised inexpensive 3 kilowatt (peak) solar system bought in London, after a hefty government tax incentive, will cost £6,552. Running at an average of 30% of peak capacity (no sun at night, cloudiness, etc.), this system will take twenty years before it costs less than buying all electricity from utilities.
Looked into this a lot
good point, but....
16.09.2009 14:19
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&ei=Lu-wSujoGJCe4gap-vGsCg&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=carbon+free+steel%3F&spell=1
the page is the fourth one down.
Personally, I think it would be interesting to debate about what possibilities may be opened in terms of producing the technology we really need if the constraints of a market economy were lessened, or removed all together.
It is impossible in this day of age to not be a hypocrite unless you were to go to some pretty drastic extremes, so well done to Climate Camp for attempting to keep their damage minimal in a way which seems greatly less hypocritical than anything like carbon trading, or flying on more 'eco friendly planes' (a reference to Finnair's new advertising campaign)
RobA
Interesting video here on the subject
16.09.2009 14:22
A very informative documentary about the real cause of global warming. This documentary discusses many topics that are not covered in the Swindle such as the hockey stick graph, from the viewpoint of Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas. Very good scientific informations on the subject here: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=c6a32614-f906-4597-993d-f181196a6d71&k=0 http://infowars.net/articles/august2007/300807Warming.htm TAKE ACTION: Go sign this petition to force Al Gore to debate himself over is lies: http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?agdgw
Video watcher
Nice article
16.09.2009 14:39
give it a read, if you have some spare time.
RobA
Demographics in the non-western world.
16.09.2009 15:43
Fair point but isn't this coaching the argument in a western frame.
These figures about solar provision are not simply relative from a western point of view. 300 watts might not be much use here in the UK given the average power needs of the western household but other households around the world do not need or use this quantity of electricity.
I think its a question of understanding how much electricity a household needs to use to provide for all its energy needs. We here in the UK live in a northern temperate climate where sunlight levels are poor. Consequently we need much more electricity than is needed elsewhere in the world. We need to heat our water, heat our rooms and we need to do it 8 months in the year. This means that our 'demand' here in the UK is much higher than elsewhere.
To dismiss 'solar' on that basis is to look at it from our point of view, and no-one else's.
Lets make a theoretical continent to try to understand this.
Lets say we have a medium, 16 million square mile continent that has high, persistent sunlight levels in the south and moderate broken and intermittent sunlight in the north. And then lets assume that whatever energy provision is being used to power that continent suddenly fails.
The technology to provide replacement energy exists but in the north it won't work because they say there is not enough sunlight (correct). In the south it won't work because they say its too expensive (also correct). In the north the average household is terribly energy innefficient, in the south unusually energy light.
But the technology still works and the sun is still shining. What to do?
You make a regional, geographic assessment based on actual energy needs and supply on that basis. Not on the basis of a theoretical western household thats energy needs are unusually high and do not serve as an adequate example to base global statistical data on.
If it turns out that the northern household is simply too energy heavy to power itself with solar then you make the solar provision available to those in the south. In the meantime, the northern household needs to generate income to realise its own provisions and so pioneers the solar provision on behalf of the south until the north has a technology that it can fund and use. Competent research and analysis undertaken by the north in this pursuit allows it to find its own way forward. While this is happening, the north is not endlessly going to war with the south and the south is not endlessly having to defend itself from the north wasting the very money that is needed to solve the primary problem they both face.
The geo-strategic pattern that locks north and south into a permanent game of chance is undone and therefore both are saved.
Frederika.
Is Indymedia the place for this discussion?
16.09.2009 17:11
I don't think Indymeda is a good place for these discussions. The main reason is the structure of the site, which is predominantly for news. My reasons for saying this are:
1. This discussion will move down the newswire - so only people that log on in are relatively short time span (probably a couple of days) will probably not find it and contribute.
2. There is no 'reply to' feature - so direct replies to previous points become a bit hard to track (I think slashdot provides a model for how reply to discussions can work well - here's a link (the story isn't the thing I'm highlight, rather that it's easier to follow related parts of the discussion): http://news.slashdot.org/story/09/09/16/1440244/Mafia-Sinks-Ships-Containing-Toxic-Waste)
3. There are no user accounts - so it's harder to get where people are coming from by looking at what they've said in previous discussions, or even to spot regular trollers (not that I think any of the comments on this discussion are trollers - but they are out there on Indymedia). And I do think this (user accounts) is a tricky issue - the anonymity of Indymedia is good, but there is a cost involved.
Please don't misunderstand this comment:
1. I'm not saying Indymedia is bad - rather that it's better for news and not so good for discussion.
2. I'm definately not saying that this comment should not be on Indymedia (i.e. censorship).
I am thinking allowed, and asking if there's a better way we could have these discussions?
For what it's worth, I have now problem with going under the label "no new coal," but see it as a campaigning slogan. I think there is a place for coal in a low-carbon 'economy', but think that we have to worth in our current social environment, and stronger more definite messages (no more coal) work better to galvanise support and change opinion that qualified messages (no new coal except where it's essential, like producing the minimum amount of steel that we need). And on a very practical level, "no new coal" fits onto a banner a lot more easily.
Me
Frederica
16.09.2009 18:00
Converse Fred
The Great Climate Swindle movie.........
16.09.2009 18:36
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=boj9ccV9htk
Shock
Anti-Globalista.
16.09.2009 19:17
My fault.
I'm actually very interested in what is being discussed here and not making sarcastic comments and not trying to misunderstand the tone of this discussion. Its just one of those things with email conversations isn't it. If we were speaking face to face this wouldn't happen.
To return to what we have been discussing, indirectly. I think the tone of these discussions very properly answers the original question as to why this years CC didn't live up to expectations and perhaps didn't achieve what it should have.
Its a question of perception. The public perception of the CC is that its motivations are honest and even honourable...but doesn't really address the situation in a way the ordinary public can understand.
The nuts and bolts of it is...that the public see the environmental movement as an episodal tactic that is not taking account of the fact that a wider strategy is ongoing. Until the environmentalists take on the wider historical implications of their position, then they will always be seen as a tactic, rather than a movement. The debate about coal is not going to do it. Nor is the debate about CO2. Until we address the geo-strategic problem that sits at the heart of this problem, we will always be seen as small-fry.
As the original poster alluded to, its a question of scale.
Frederika.
What happens when the coal runs out?
16.09.2009 21:48
Whatever all the other arguments are, nothing can escape this obvious fact.
anon
limits to critique
16.09.2009 22:25
You are covering up your own ability to get your head round the current but worsening climate crisis, and the drastic steps that must be taken for humans to survive on this planet. You also fail to show an analysis of how social change happens, and that all demands must be pragmatically reasonable and achievable, otherwise the perpetrators of said demands are fools and haven't given any thought to the issue! Oh yes, every statement or slogan must have a full analysis of the root causes of the problem and all campaigns in the 90s were single-issues, oh the fools. Not.
People used to think the world was flat, that women shouldn't have the vote, and lots of other things heretics were burned for, because people couldn't imagine life to be any other way. It's just your turn; I hope you won't be lighting a pyre with me or any other people on it in years to come (PS I'll get you first!) (PPS don't claim to speak with the one voice of the Coal Caravan - there's people who were part of that who would say to you, "nonsense and fiddlesticks") (PPS if you're going to try to dismiss whole swathes of people, and claim to be being constructive, try more imaginative ways than via their class, your own issues around 'going back to the dark ages' or 'they're not perfect so how what right do they have to say anything' and other old bullshit).
A final challenge - imagine a different future, go on, I dare you...
Bob's a good 'un
indymedia software
17.09.2009 01:19
"1. This discussion will move down the newswire - so only people that log on in are relatively short time span (probably a couple of days) will probably not find it and contribute."
i like how the army rumour service do it, with this link http://www.arrse.co.uk/Forums that lists the 50 most recent comments -- "topics", which often begin with a post, or a repost of news, are kept "live" in the list, whenever someone adds to them
"2. There is no 'reply to' feature - so direct replies to previous points become a bit hard to track (I think slashdot provides a model for how reply to discussions can work well)"
i agree, i think threading would be good -- also the slashdot code also allows for comments to peer rated, and for the comments to be filtered upon this rating
"3. There are no user accounts - so it's harder to get where people are coming from by looking at what they've said in previous discussions, or even to spot regular trollers (not that I think any of the comments on this discussion are trollers - but they are out there on Indymedia). And I do think this (user accounts) is a tricky issue - the anonymity of Indymedia is good, but there is a cost involved."
i agree -- beats me though, where we can meaningfully discuss this
Me too no gyakushū
Don't see what the problem is
17.09.2009 08:07
Taking action on coal doesn't mean we can't critique the causes of climate change as well. The Great Climate Swoop isn't all we're doing this year - we're mobilising for Copenhagen as well.
Kia
continue the discussion
17.09.2009 19:33
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=302533
pete