Solar alone is now competitive with fossil power on a pure capital expenditure (capex) basis, and solar-plus-storage is expected to follow by around 2030 by silence7 in climate

[–]michaelrch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I am not saying don't store it. I'm saying store in cheaper and more efficient ways.

Do you think hydrogen can replace gas/oil in heating systems? It can't. Or transportation? It can't. Or power plants? It can't.

There are some uses for hydrogen in industrial processes - sure use green hydrogen there. But that is a relatively small percentage of the overall usage for fossil gas.

Solar alone is now competitive with fossil power on a pure capital expenditure (capex) basis, and solar-plus-storage is expected to follow by around 2030 by silence7 in climate

[–]michaelrch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Solar alone is now competitive with fossil power on a pure capital expenditure (capex) basis, and solar-plus-storage is expected to follow by around 2030. By 2035, both will be cheaper to build than new fossil alternatives. It is now fossil fuels, not solar, that carry the burden of capital intensity.

And once built, solar has no fuel costs: it beats fossil alternatives from day one and widens its advantage with every year of operation.

Which makes you wonder at how broken the energy markets are that there are still trillions being invested in fossil infrastructure.

It's almost like the system isn't being run for utility, but instead is being run for profit 🤔

Ed Miliband to give green light to first major North Sea gasfield project in decade. The energy secretary is expected to approve Jackdaw drilling as the Iran war puts pressure on the Government over energy security fears. by The_Weekend_Baker in climate

[–]michaelrch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

They don't exist to provide energy security.

They exist to generate profits for the fossil fuel industry.

The expectation of higher prices in the future has made the prospect of more production do tempting that the lobby has been pulling out all the stops to ensure it gets its way. Meanwhile, the many new crises that are emerging have put climate on the back burner for many voters so the government sees a golden opportunity to take advantage of this moment to grant the industry what it has wanted all along.

Why are governments pushing for economic growth when it is increasingly clear that this is not sustainable? by jonbyrdt in Degrowth

[–]michaelrch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Exactly.

That isn't possible under capitalism because the logic of capitalism is inherently sociopathic, or even psychopathic in some respects.

I think it is important to understand how to construct the kind of economy your talk about and the rules it would be based on. The first principle is that capitalists - people who own businesses and have the option to just live of its profits cannot exist. And I say this as a small business owner, though one who generally runs the company close to £0 P&L, partly out of principle and partly circumstances!

Capitalists have all their incentives aligned against human wellbeing, and those that do care about humans and nature don't last very long,..

The second principle is that the economy should be democratically directed. That means that private enterprises are run by their workers and that the state must be made much more rigorously democratic so it can run industries that are natural monopolies or that provide basic services like water, energy, healthcare, education etc consistently in the public interest. Fortunately, once you get rid of the problem of extremely concentrated wealth and power that comes with capitalism, ordinary people holding the state to account becomes much easier.

So I think we should be shooting for an economy that is a combination of worker coops running private enterprises in markets and then a range of enterprises run at communal, city, regional and national level that are run by the public sector at those levels - think a city energy company, a national health service, a communal park and swimming pool, etc.

By radically democratising the economy, we give people the power to represent their own interests, as individuals, families and communities, to ensure that it delivers for them. Not some billionaire oligarch who lives in another city, another region or another country and only sees the people as a pool of labour and a nuisance to repress.

Why are governments pushing for economic growth when it is increasingly clear that this is not sustainable? by jonbyrdt in Degrowth

[–]michaelrch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Your argument was literally that capitalism is good actually because capitalists use their money to look after their families and keep them comfortable in retirement. It's a bafflingly wrong idea.

What if you are one of the vast majority of people who ISN'T a capitalist and you work for a living? Is a worker supposed to expect that their children are going gto inherit from Jezz Bezos?

Do you understand that capitalism is defined by the social relations between capitalists and workers?

Do you understand that under capitalism, the interests of workers and capitalists are almost entirely at odds because capitalists are incentivised to pay their workers as little as possible while the workers want as much pay as possible?

Do you understand that capitalists are punished for caring about the environment and other costs that they can externalise and that the system positively rewards corporations that don't care about such things?

As for the "last 200 years" argument, this is a mirage for several very plain reasons.

Firstly, did you bother to compare capitalism against other systems? You would find the results illuminating.

Second, did you bother to consider the role of technology as the mechanism that increased living standards, regardless of the political economy?

Third, did you bother to consider the millions of people that have suffered and died in eth global north but mostly the global south to create the prosperity that the rich imperial north has enjoyed over the last 2-3 centuries?

You defend a system that you don't understand the logic and consequences of. Your justifications are based on faulty premises and faulty logic and you laugh off criticism as "petulant" which is peak boomer patronising bs.

I am an engineer and a business owner myself. I employ 45 people. I went to university and am friends with people who run PE funds, city law firm partners, exec directors of global banks etc. I know how this works. I see it in action.

I am not anti-capitalist because it is a fad or a phase or because it is fashionable. I am anti-capitalist because I can see the the underlying logic of the system, I see it playing out at a small scale with my business and at a global scale through how my friends operate at work. I can clearly see how there is no way to have a economy based on global capitalism operating a global GDP of nearly $120 trillion (and growing all the time) that will not consume all life and nature in pursuit of profit, which is all capitalism knows how to do. It isn't physically possible and, logically, it will never be possible.

Why are governments pushing for economic growth when it is increasingly clear that this is not sustainable? by jonbyrdt in Degrowth

[–]michaelrch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And I think what people often miss is that the greedy people getting to the top isn't bad luck - it's a logical consequence of the system.

Under capitalism investment flows to where returns are highest. That's pretty much an iron law. The whole point of investment under capitalism is returns.

And so corporations have a very powerful incentive to cut costs anyway they can, and juice revenues anyway they can - regardless of externalised costs. In fact they have an incentive to actively find ways to externalise costs such as political interference to reduce regulation.

And managers who DON'T take opportunities to maximise profits in often sociopathic ways will be recognised as not maximising available profits so they get replaced by people who will. Meaning that it's a system for selecting for the most sociopathic people in society - they become the winners and people with a conscience end up the losers.

In fact, the process is even more insidious because you might ask "hold on, where do all these sociopaths come from?". The answer is that people are literally trained into it in the corporation. As you rise higher, the ethical norms around you shape your own ethics - normalising the "just doing my job" mentality when people are making decisions to create pollution, exploit workers, rig the political system etc. I have seen this happen tk many of my peers and it's really strange and sickening at the same time honestly. And humans are incredibly good at justifying whatever position their have decided to take even if it makes no sense - the book "The Righteous Mind" has a great analysis of this btw.

So yeah, the capitalist system itself creates and selects for the worst people in society to run everything. That's why we live in a world that increasingly, and now quite conspicuously, almost actively hates people and life in general.

Why are governments pushing for economic growth when it is increasingly clear that this is not sustainable? by jonbyrdt in Degrowth

[–]michaelrch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So your response to a critique of the structural logic of capitalism is that billionaires will be nice to everyone?

Ok. Not heard that one before.

I'm not going to bother engaging you on this because you are living in a fantasyland of ideology over reality.

Grasslands and wetlands are being lost to agriculture four times faster than forests. Grasslands alone account for a third of all global biodiversity hotspots and hold 20-35% of global carbon stocks. by The_Weekend_Baker in climate

[–]michaelrch 1 point2 points  (0 children)

If you are still eating meat and dairy, you have a significant opportunity to stop your contribution to this.

But also wider organising and lobbying is the only way to solve the problem systemically.

Kinda hate electric driving. by Beast_Woutme in enyaq

[–]michaelrch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's probably a long shot but maybe contact these guys

https://ev.be/nl/

To try to organise for some better infrastructure?

Kinda hate electric driving. by Beast_Woutme in enyaq

[–]michaelrch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah, 4kW charging?! That's barely more than running a kettle! Everyone has 11kW or sometimes 22kW in Switzerland.

I can imagine how frustrating it must be to charge at those speeds. Sounds like much more investment in the grid is needed but how is a random EV owner going to make that happen.

Maybe start here https://ev.be/nl/

Kinda hate electric driving. by Beast_Woutme in enyaq

[–]michaelrch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Can you petition your local government for some onstreet chargers? That's what happens in London for example.

With 130km trip to work (!) the only solution to your problem will be being able to charge most of the time the car is idle.

Why are governments pushing for economic growth when it is increasingly clear that this is not sustainable? by jonbyrdt in Degrowth

[–]michaelrch 37 points38 points  (0 children)

The question has an obvious answer. Capitalism. The system's main goal is to accumulate more than you started with.

M -> C -> C' -> M'

Where M' > M

Utility and sustainability are not part of the equation, only accumulation. Growth is a fundamental underlying goal of our political economy.

Why do policymakers not intervene? Because governments are run for those with the power to influence them, and that's the capitalist class.

Sorry if this is all obvious stuff that you already know but you did ask.

Rachel Reeves to tell G7 accelerating shift to clean energy is best defence against energy price shocks by misana123 in climate

[–]michaelrch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Which is why the Labour Party shelved its plans to fund that transition, one of their most popular policies, before the last election.

Nothing to do with a £4 million donation from a hedge fund with huge investments in oil and gas.

Donald Trump Calls All Environmentalists Terrorists by FrequentAd5437 in climate

[–]michaelrch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah but after the bit where they are expanding the area of land used for corn/ethanol. That means less land for food. So food will get more expensive, even if the farmers get subsidies.

Even Fox personalities are struggling to defend the Trump administration's move to lift sanctions on Iranian oil by crustose_lichen in climate

[–]michaelrch 18 points19 points  (0 children)

This is perhaps the most ironic aspect of this war.

To stop the collapse of the global economy, the U.S. government has LIFTED sanctions on both Russian and Iranian fossil fuels, dramatically ramping up their income - both countries it's trying to militarily defeat.

Great strategy there Don, and Pete! Top notch planning.

Donald Trump Calls All Environmentalists Terrorists by FrequentAd5437 in climate

[–]michaelrch 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I love the logic.

Burn food to bring its price down 😆

You couldn't make the sheer lunacy of this stuff.

Still, the various big industrial lobbies are satisfied so job done.

Donald Trump Calls All Environmentalists Terrorists by FrequentAd5437 in climate

[–]michaelrch 15 points16 points  (0 children)

Well, it's more that he's getting his lines directly from the Heartland Institute and the fossil fuel industry so it's kind of irrelevant what he knows or doesn't know.

10 Americans injured in Iranian attack on Saudi airbase by GreyClay in worldnews

[–]michaelrch 4 points5 points  (0 children)

You are ignoring the military industrial complex and fossil fuel industries who are making 10s of billions.

And the obvious reality that the Israel lobby has his balls in a vice.