[Oldmanmatt]

The free public transport point is interesting, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I'd recommend giving Freakonomics Ep 513 a listen as they covered this in detail. It's been seriously considered by some US cities.

One of the main purported benefits is enhanced social mobility and economic opportunity - the jobs are often not close to where the poorest people live, who also don't have personal transport. The time and cost of public transport can make a lot of jobs unviable.

Then there's the massive improvements in efficiency by public transport being widespread and well used, as well as fewer vehicles on the road, environmental benefits etc.

I can't see how it would be done in a rural setting, and there's definitely flaws - but it also has its merits.

It is a potentially very useful thing, that would have very positive effects in other areas of the economy and environment. It would not be free, in fact quite expensive, as others have mentioned. Funding it is a political nightmare.
On the other hand, the road network doesn’t magically fall from the sky every spring and that is publicly (under)funded.
For very human reasons, I think, the political sell of the road network is a lot easier.

I would posit that in the minds of many:

Road network/car = individual freedom.
Public transport = crowded, dictated, herded.

I’m not suggesting this is “correct” only that THE PEOPLE tm, often react from deep, subconscious, reasoning, that they then construct their “logical”, conscious, beliefs around (castles built on sand etc) and individual freedom is one of the most powerful. Many, of course, don’t seem to feel the need to extend that courtesy or respect that base desire, in any other individual…

Perhaps then, in the interests of “easing people in” to a more collective approach to transportation, cheaper but not free, based on the existing road network, improvements in bus services and active encouragement of hailed personal transport ( Uber type), would begin to shift that base emotion towards the ultimate goal of an extensive, free, ultra low emission, public transport network.

Back to my trains again, sorry, people will not just jump on a speeding train, heading the opposite way. However, a subtle nudge, a small change in direction, can bring on a surprisingly rapid increase in turn rate, as long as each move of the curve doesn’t throw people from their seats.

The UK national grid is a prime example:

Think of the push back against Wind farms, Solar farms, yet see the progress! Once the wheel starts to turn…
How many of you have gone to buy a new car in the last 12 months?
I mean showroom, off the production line, new.
You were offered a hybrid or full E, weren’t you?
There weren’t any conventional cars in the showroom, they might have been out on the forecourt, but they definitely couldn’t be called flagship models.
Aside: Methanol, converting a petrol engine to methanol is “relatively’ straight forward ( not so much in the existing vehicle, I’m thinking at production/design stage). Methanol emissions are much lower than petrol, can be stored at normal temps and pressures, low flash point and less energy dense than petrol but, not too far away. Very, very possible to produce almost completely green. Give it a ten year phase in (look at E vehicle time scales, novelty to market dominance. Ten years from today almost all petrol/diesel vehicles will have been scrapped). I design/buy propulsion systems ( marine, not automotive) I think I have a handle on the direction (if not I’m going to be unpopular and unemployed in five years), interim 10-20 years, methanol, phasing in from 5-10 years time, fuel cells (not going to be energy dense enough for another 10 years for transport applications, several ships are launched or launching this year with methanol + cracker H fuel cell plants for harbour/port generation (ie. Zero emissions in port) but pulling out the big kWs isn’t there yet).

Again, I don’t just keep mentioning this because I get excited about it, my base point is to illustrate how fast change can occur, once a subtle pull on the wheel begins and I’m certain the same psychology applies in political and social matters.

Let THE PEOPLE, have a sniff, then a taste, then add a course into the set menu, in a very few years, it’s the new normal and most of them will have “always said it was the best dish, very tasty. Been saying it for years, haven’t I Mildred?”…

[lukeyboy]

I think you're spot on with the psychology OMM.

[Oldmanmatt]

You’d have to translate your response into a cogent argument as to why you think elite theory is nonsense. Otherwise it reads like an ad hominem attempt to humiliate.

Fine.

But:

If you plump for the melodramatic, I’ll swing back with a balloon on a stick and silly makeup.

I think you are projecting your own anger and frustration onto THE PEOPLE at large and I do not think that’s how it works, not anymore.

One: The Genie is out of the bottle, education is virtually universal in the Western world and way more common beyond that, than it was even fifty years ago. We can argue about social media and whipping up extremism, but it swings both ways and I’m not so sure a sustainable push to one extreme or the other is as easy as all that.

Two: Thinking of the conditions that lead to real revolution, historically, we are still a long way short of the kind of oppression, poverty and societal injustice, required to provoke 70% of the “low masses”(is that what you called them/us? Charmed, I’m sure. Please do not consider a career in PR, speaking as a friend there) to rise up blah blah.

Absolutely poverty still exists and is dire in many cases, huge disparity is real. However, in the Western world (and increasingly beyond) it has a very different colour to that which existed as little as 100 years ago. My Grandfather (paternal) grew up in Coventry, in a single, rented room, with one bed, thirteen brothers and sisters, three of whom died before the age of five, a mother who “took in laundry” and a father who worked in the Mill and IT WAS NORMAL. Hundreds, if not thousands of families crammed into slums (long bulldozed) and that was between the wars.
Yet, despite the very loud example playing out in Russia, and much more provocative conditions, your vision did not play out. Now, a social revolution, a resurgence in the Labour movement? Different story, but even then, it will look quite different from what happened then.

[andy popp]

I'm not sure your debunking is quite as thorough as you believe it to Sean. We all pay (through taxes) for lots of things we don't use or derive direct benefit from, though we will very often derive some indirect benefit. Anyone absolutely dependent on a private car will benefit from reduced congestion and pollution the more passenger miles are shifted to public transport. Of course, a political argument always has to be made, but that's not the same as saying it would be impossible.

In any case, Stone made it very clear that was a wish list, not an expectation. A more honest engagement would be to take a more qualified proposition: e.g. public buses should be free in major metropolitan areas. As others have pointed out several European cities already do this and more are considering it. Yes, they present different contexts and contexts matter, but they are not immutable givens. They can be changed, even if that is not easy.

Thus, I don't think anyone, including Stone, is arguing that the scale of change the UK needs could ever happen overnight, but all too often the default reaction seems to be to throw our hands in the air, proclaim that it's too difficult, can't be done, and there's no point in trying. Perhaps I'm being unfair, and as I said before, I know people are frustrated and exhausted, but I think I detect elements of that reaction in this thread.

I’m at least in part dismissive of him having a very limited range of sources; a position I’d expect a history professor to heartily endorse.

Amazingly, I don't actually apply the same evidential standards to a post on a climbing forum as I do to the papers submitted to the journal I edit.

[andy popp]

Rather more amusingly, the rats - Redwood, Gove, Leadsom among them - are fleeing a sinking ship with amazing rapidity. And, somewhat incredibly, Sunak is taking today off from active campaigning to huddle in private with advisors. Denials that the campaign already requires a reset are not wholly convincing.

[Hoseyb]

A history professor and an engineer. All we need now is an economist and a psychiatrist and we'd have a perfect think tank.

[Oldmanmatt]

A history professor and an engineer. All we need now is an economist and a psychiatrist and we'd have a perfect think tank.

I believe Sean is an Economist. Pete, of course, is a remote working “Gentleman of the City” and… Isn’t Bradders senior in the insurance/underwriting world? Will is deeply involved in utilities, at least as far as water goes and certainly seems to speak from a senior viewpoint. Someone else is clearly quite involved in the renewables sector, but I forget who right now. I’m often struck by the depth of knowledge and experience bandying about this little backwater of the internet. Certainly several medical professionals and many quite qualified to speak with authority on mental health issues. Academics of all stripes and not a few Chairs and senior faculty. Now, who’s the parasite, sorry, Lawyer?

Edit: …and all because we share an unnatural fascination for obscure lumps of geology and plastic blobs bolted to walls…

[ToxicBilberry]

Apologies for what seemed a melodramatic post, I think the point I was trying to make was misunderstood. I like Stone's ideas about public transport, and other social changes. The point I was making is that it isn't possible without a dramatic change to the system as a whole, this is because the 'power elite' that govern - transnational corporations, banks, etc will only decide to implement a policy like that if it fits in with their goals. Politicians serve their interests and not the interests of 'the people'. In this sense liberal democracy - i.e. the idea that casting a vote makes any difference whatsoever - unless by luck or chance your ideology or wishes are shared in that moment - is an illusion.

I don't believe there is any hope whatsoever of a 'peoples revolution', what I was asking (which I don't know the answer to), is how the Labour party appeals to the bottom 70%? As if it doesn't then in the long run this paves the way for alternative elites who might have less liberal values to mobilise the population against whatever foe they choose.

'Thomas Dye, a political scientist, and his students have been studying the upper echelons of leadership in America since 1972. These "top positions" encompassed the posts with the authority to run programs and activities of major political, economic, legal, educational, cultural, scientific, and civic institutions. The occupants of these offices, Dye's investigators found, control half of the nation's industrial, communications, transportation, and banking assets, and two-thirds of all insurance assets. In addition, they direct about 40 percent of the resources of private foundations and 50 percent of university endowments. Furthermore, less than 250 people hold the most influential posts in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, while approximately 200 men and women run the three major television networks and most of the national newspaper chains.
Facts like these, which have been duplicated in countless other studies, suggest to many observers that power in the United States is concentrated in the hands of a single power elite. Scores of versions of this idea exist, probably one for each person who holds it, but they all interpret government and politics very differently than pluralists. Instead of seeing hundreds of competing groups hammering out policy, the elite model perceives a pyramid of power. At the top, a tiny elite makes all of the most important decisions for everyone below. A relatively small middle level consists of the types of individuals one normally thinks of when discussing American government: senators, representatives, mayors, governors, judges, lobbyists, and party leaders. The masses occupy the bottom. They are the average men and women in the country who are powerless to hold the top level accountable.'

'

[seankenny]

The free public transport point is interesting, and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I'd recommend giving Freakonomics Ep 513 a listen as they covered this in detail. It's been seriously considered by some US cities.

This is a great podcast! (Though thank goodness for transcripts.) It’s really a discussion of trade offs, which is exactly what I’d expect when one economist interviews another economist, because economists love thinking about trade offs. And aside from any conclusions they may or may not come to in the show, it really illustrates my broader point, that populist viewpoints such as that espoused by Stone do not consider trade offs - and that is why they are bullshit. “I wish a thing, and it will be amazing”. Uh huhhhhhh. Sure. Then when amazing things don’t occur, there has to be a nefarious “they” stopping it. This is of course entirely obvious when it’s Brexit or Trump, less so when it’s fundamentally for aims one might share.

One of the main purported benefits is enhanced social mobility and economic opportunity - the jobs are often not close to where the poorest people live, who also don't have personal transport. The time and cost of public transport can make a lot of jobs unviable.

Then there's the massive improvements in efficiency by public transport being widespread and well used, as well as fewer vehicles on the road, environmental benefits etc.

I can't see how it would be done in a rural setting, and there's definitely flaws - but it also has its merits.

One important point in the show - so important that it was the only paper they linked to - is that metro usage in the cities they studied was much more responsive to improvements in service than in cost. This is not counter intuitive, right? And it’s the heart of the point I made originally when I said that in most British cities public transport use is not a demand issue. It’s not like people want to use Manchester’s incredible tube system but can’t because it’s too expensive. Manchester’s incredible tube system does not exist - it’s a supply problem. There is just not an adequate supply of transportation services across many parts of the U.K.

So I don’t want to see public money spent on solving what I see as a second order problem when the first order problem - really terrible public transport outside London - remains very pertinent.

There is a broader point here too. American jobs tend to be highly productive and can be well paid. Eg: https://x.com/ClayTravis/status/1728946831567003868

(I’m not arguing in-work poverty doesn’t exist in the US. I’m merely saying it has a much, much stronger labour market than the U.K.)

So yes, getting to those jobs can make a big difference. In the U.K. we don’t have that option, in my view because a lot of cities simply aren’t dense enough and with good enough transport links to create the large enough labour markets that help enable productivity improvements (and hence wage improvements). So for me, expanding access to good labour markets in non-metropolitan Britain is really, really important. In fact, I think it’s also important in London, and I’d like to see a second Crossrail and the current one extended. That should be the focus of investment, not free fares for all. Which would also be a massive subsidy to well off travellers who don’t need it (a point also made in the show). Yes, I get that fares are not an enormous proportion of metro funding (don’t know the figures for TfL), but again, budget constraints are a thing. We have a huge under-investment problem. Spending that money on things we know work, like improving services instead of ticket cost reduction, has to be the priority.

Once you’ve got that great public transport then car reduction becomes so much easier. There is no freedom argument to be made for me for any visit to central London when, thanks to the new Elizabeth Line, I can get there in half an hour on a quick, clean, air conditioned train.

As for the psychology of environmentally beneficial change, this is a short read on how the most pro-fossil fuel state in the US is now a leader in renewables:

https://archive.ph/2024.05.25-012621/https://www.ft.com/content/ef2f6f8e-60df-4ccd-8c4f-ef5cd0eb3176

[danm]

Had quite the discussion about who to vote for this week, with a group of climbing friends who are all very left leaning. Some of them live in a swing constituency and were grappling with not wanting to vote for Labour (not left enough) but not risking the Tory keeping their seat.

I campaigned for Labour in 2017, when under Corbyn they scared the living daylights out of the existing power structures by coming worryingly close to winning with a very progressive manifesto. It was pretty clear over the next 2 years that the entire apparatus was geared towards expunging any threat from that source (not helped by the utter lack of pragmatism and political nous displayed by the Corbynistas) and the relentless propagandizing duly manifested in the slaughterhouse that was 2019.

I think what we have now in Labour is probably about the best that we're going to be allowed to vote for that stands a realistic chance of forming a government. It sucks but it is what it is.

My main area of concern right now is how broken the institutions and services of the country are; are they even fixable, and if so at what cost? Worryingly, there doesn't seem to be much if anything on climate change and access to the countryside/green space in Labours pre-election talk, and how they intend to position us on China is unclear. Worrying signs this week that we are still keen to cozy up to them because our economy is too weak to allow disengagement . If that is the case, then they have us right where they want us.

Interested to hear other folks take on this, especially those of a less left leaning persuasion than myself.

[Oldmanmatt]

Apologies for what seemed a melodramatic post, I think the point I was trying to make was misunderstood. I like Stone's ideas about public transport, and other social changes. The point I was making is that it isn't possible without a dramatic change to the system as a whole, this is because the 'power elite' that govern - transnational corporations, banks, etc will only decide to implement a policy like that if it fits in with their goals. Politicians serve their interests and not the interests of 'the people'. In this sense liberal democracy - i.e. the idea that casting a vote makes any difference whatsoever - unless by luck or chance your ideology or wishes are shared in that moment - is an illusion.

I don't believe there is any hope whatsoever of a 'peoples revolution', what I was asking (which I don't know the answer to), is how the Labour party appeals to the bottom 70%? As if it doesn't then in the long run this paves the way for alternative elites who might have less liberal values to mobilise the population against whatever foe they choose.

'Thomas Dye, a political scientist, and his students have been studying the upper echelons of leadership in America since 1972. These "top positions" encompassed the posts with the authority to run programs and activities of major political, economic, legal, educational, cultural, scientific, and civic institutions. The occupants of these offices, Dye's investigators found, control half of the nation's industrial, communications, transportation, and banking assets, and two-thirds of all insurance assets. In addition, they direct about 40 percent of the resources of private foundations and 50 percent of university endowments. Furthermore, less than 250 people hold the most influential posts in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the federal government, while approximately 200 men and women run the three major television networks and most of the national newspaper chains.
Facts like these, which have been duplicated in countless other studies, suggest to many observers that power in the United States is concentrated in the hands of a single power elite. Scores of versions of this idea exist, probably one for each person who holds it, but they all interpret government and politics very differently than pluralists. Instead of seeing hundreds of competing groups hammering out policy, the elite model perceives a pyramid of power. At the top, a tiny elite makes all of the most important decisions for everyone below. A relatively small middle level consists of the types of individuals one normally thinks of when discussing American government: senators, representatives, mayors, governors, judges, lobbyists, and party leaders. The masses occupy the bottom. They are the average men and women in the country who are powerless to hold the top level accountable.'

'

Hmmm…
How many people should be in control? How should they (and how do they really, now) get there?
What was that bit about casting a vote being meaningless? Well, if the sheep are being herded along the lane, one deciding to stop and graze or walk the other way, might be unnoticed by the herd, mildly irritate the shepherd, but is soon chased back into line by the sheep dog. I have, however, watched herds defy the best dogs. Once, there was an Adder in the pen. Stubborn buggers, sheep and not half as dumb as most people think.
Anyway, people aren’t sheep, they really aren’t as dumb as they look.
Being a Shepherd means, somehow, you must want to be a Shepherd. Stacking shelves in a Supermarket will give much less stress and probably pay more. Sometimes, I have to remind myself that politicians must have chosen this. Whatever their motivations. For sure, many like the idea of fleecing the flock and light indoor work that doesn’t seem too demanding. But, actually, the flock needs feeding, needs care, needs responsibility on the part of the Shepherd. The dogs don’t get it all their own way either, and angry ewe with a lamb will give the best dog one hell of a fight, if she thinks her lamb is threatened. Where the Shepherd is negligent, the flock becomes restless and uncooperative, unmanageable. You’ve just watched that happen in real time to an apparently unassailable Tory government. They could not have been more the chosen stooges of your “Elite”, what ever you think of the current Parliamentary Labour party. This government were given every bit of support, positive press, financial inducement, nudges, winks and outright love, from your “Elite”.
Yet…

Authoritarian regimes have rarely lasted very long. Soviet Union, once the greatest bogeyman in human history, worse than Genghis and Hitler rolled into one; didn’t even bowl a century. Do you think Xi doesn’t know he can push his people too far? Do you think his hold is unassailable? Don’t you think Putin is wobbling? Or think about how oddly timed helicopter crashes lead to fireworks on the streets of Theran?

[teestub]

Worryingly, there doesn't seem to be much if anything on climate change and access to the countryside/green space in Labours pre-election talk, .

There was a promise this week for some proposals on environment, so hopefully we will see that soon.

[stone]

If the methanol is sourced from biomass (rather than from extremely expensive CO2 capture and green hydrogen) then it has HUGE problems. Perhaps seaweed biofuels might in the future be worked up into being sustainable. I don't see how land based biomass for fuel ever can be. All land/fresh-water is needed for food production or wildlife (already dire shortages for both).

I really worry that methanol is a phoney "look busy" not-too-hard "we're on track" non-solution to a very hard problem.

[stone]

Wouldn't a sincere intention to use green hydrogen derived liquid fuel use ammonia rather than methanol anyway?

[stone]

Authoritarian regimes have rarely lasted very long.

The Egyptian pharaohs had quite a long run.

Seriously I think democracy is something very rare, difficult and precious. I think maintaining it requires constant vigilance and determination.

[Oldmanmatt]

If the methanol is sourced from biomass (rather than from extremely expensive CO2 capture and green hydrogen) then it has HUGE problems. Perhaps seaweed biofuels might in the future be worked up into being sustainable. I don't see how land based biomass for fuel ever can be. All land/fresh-water is needed for food production or wildlife (already dire shortages for both).

I really worry that methanol is a phoney "look busy" not-too-hard "we're on track" non-solution to a very hard problem.

Ah, yes. It does look that way, I can quite see why and of course “interim” can seem like that.

So let me describe Monday’s meeting as I saw it, Stone. Felt it, rather.

First off, I was amongst the least consequential of the invited delegates. I was invited because I have bought a few engines from MTU (owned by RR) and, when the full yard comes online in six months or so, will represent the largest such thing outside of Europe. Still, small fry compared to most of the delegates.
Over the years, I’ve had a few similar invites, these things get tacked to trade events, always they mean somebody has a new product launch and usually the invite arrives with a load of bumph about said product.
Let me insert a little context:
We’re about to launch into building something quite expensive, on spec, and a surprising amount of agonising and outright arguing goes in to deciding how expensive it should be. Part of that discussion is “how much will this thing be worth in ten years time?” Because nobody is going to spend tens of millions on something that might very well halve in value over five years and possibly be worthless in ten. Where commercial ship owners and operators might expect government support in updating their fleets etc, can you imagine such a scheme to compensate mega rich yacht owners?
We’re not constrained by normal commercial cost /benefit ideas, we can experiment, new tech is a positive selling point etc etc, so we’ve been making enquiries, those enquiries probably helped with the invite.

Anyway, there was something different about this meeting, first off, it was supposed to be “coffee and talk, a chance to network across the maritime sector”. So far so buzzword, but where’s the bumph? Where’s the rider “and a chance to view our new X before it comes market”? These things are usually standing tables, circulating canapés and drinks and the host endlessly repeating “oh, you must come and meet…” and moving people on. With a bloody great engine, or whatever in the corner and some expensive graphics, plus more of the bumph (pens, corporate shite (why the fuck would I want a polo shirt with some other company’s logo all over? Who fucking dreams that up. Nice pen, cheers) etc) in a fancy goody bag.
Nope.
There are rows of desks, a pen, notepad, bottle of water and most surprisingly a panel. Reps from each of RR’s R&D divisions. I’m struck by how young they are. The VP is a forty-something lady and she opens the session with a speech that immediately pricks up my ears, that included the phrase “I’m sure we all have children”. This was not a normal speech by any standard. The floor goes to each rep in turn and (raised eyebrows around the room here) at one point they’re arguing with each other. In a very German, polite, way, but arguing nevertheless. By the time they open to questions from the floor, the gasps and muttering is bordering on unruly. I said before it was heated, it was.

You see Stone, just because someone is senior in some massive corporation, it doesn’t mean they’re stupid (pretty much the opposite) or inhuman automatons, even in the oil and gas sector ( about the worst of the bunch, I don’t have too much to do with the Financial world, so I’ll allow my natural bias to continue there and say they’re all bastards. I’m sure you agree Comrade).
If you don’t grasp that we are all fucked if we don’t act now (it probably isn’t too late.  Maybe. Uh… I mean..( happy thoughts Matthew, happy thoughts)) then you must be an idiot. These people are not idiots. The VP summed it up. The Tech isn’t all the way there yet, but we have to change, the best we can, and now. When challenged that (quite petite) woman told the hulking, very important (eye roll) Arab gentleman “you will have to”.

I’m biased I suppose, but I have a lot of faith in Engineers, Engineers with their backs to the wall, a sudden influx of cash and children at home, at risk? Those fuckers will shift the planet’s orbit if required.

Happy thoughts, Matthew, happy thoughts.

[Oldmanmatt]

Wouldn't a sincere intention to use green hydrogen derived liquid fuel use ammonia rather than methanol anyway?

Yeessss, but you see, energy density sucks and storing the stuff is, um, problematic?
Plus, realistically, the best way to produce it is via nuclear power in the first instance and you lot have a morbid fear of the big bad nuclear. We could mostly end this issue with small scale nuclear plants for individual communities. Of course some dick with a book and imaginary friend in the sky, would blow one up, first chance that presents.

Edit: meant to say, do not even sniff fuel grade ammonia, it will clear your sinuses permanently.

[Oldmanmatt]

Authoritarian regimes have rarely lasted very long.

The Egyptian pharaohs had quite a long run.

Seriously I think democracy is something very rare, difficult and precious. I think maintaining it requires constant vigilance and determination.

Rather a lot of evidence seems to paint ancient Egypt in much more harmonious light these days, doesn’t it? Respected and affluent middle class and artisans etc.

I mean, and I’d lay a small bet as a layman, on it; they persisted because the people were happy.

[stone]

Googling said energy densities were
ammonia: 18.6 MJ/kg
methanol: 15.8 MJ/L

My guess is that they will be successful in selling methanol engines (that and only that is what the engineers need to do). They will run on methanol made from maize or whatever that has full cycle CO2 emissions as bad as just using diesel. They will claim their boats are zero C. Meanwhile 99.99% of shipping has no conceivable way of sourcing methanol fuel but it will be said that is their fault.

Consider a back-of-the-envelope for how much food crop would be required to replace global diesel consumption (even ignoring the full cycle CO2 emissions which is what actually matters). https://www.withouthotair.com/cD/page_284.shtml :-
"The power per unit area of bioethanol from corn is astonishingly low.
Just for fun, let’s report the numbers first in archaic units. 1 acre produces
122 bushels of corn per year, which makes 122 × 2.6 US gallons of
ethanol, which at 84 000 BTU per gallon means a power per unit area of just
0.02 W/m2E – and we haven’t taken into account any of the energy losses in
processing!"

[ToxicBilberry]

Authoritarian regimes have rarely lasted very long.

The Egyptian pharaohs had quite a long run.

Seriously I think democracy is something very rare, difficult and precious. I think maintaining it requires constant vigilance and determination.

Hi Stone, I was having a look at the Labour party website earlier looking for how they will bring ‘hope to the masses’ and am still struggling to find anything substantial? 

As for liberal democracy, the idea that people’s votes have any meaningful affect on policy strikes me as delusional. We ‘the people’ don’t put people in power, we’re presented with an illusory choice between one middle manager or another.

There is no bottom up, just top down.

One prediction for the next 5 years is - an increase in mass migration providing cheap labor e.g. for the gig economy. There will be further balkanisation in populations who have stronger work ethics and greater cultural-social and spiritual cohesion. The knock on effect will be increased discontent in the disaffected native population which can only be contained so long through cannabinoids, Netflix and internet pr0nography.

While ‘climate’ may be top of the list of educated environmentally minded middle classes, Daz and his pals in Moston or Wythenshawe have got no hope.

OMM- apologies, I can’t understand your points and find your writing style a bit patronising. Probably just the internet. Elite theory is quite mainstream and evidenced in many texts such as The Populist Delusion (Neema Parvini) End Times (Peter Turchin) Tragedy and Hope (Prof. Carol Quigley - see abridged version), The Power Elite (C Wright Mills) etc. Very far from talking about ‘sheeple’ and other such things

Basic wikipedia page - apols for the link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory#:~:text=The%20theory%20posits%20that%20a,is%20independent%20of%20democratic%20elections.

[teestub]

Hi Stone, I was having a look at the Labour party website earlier looking for how they will bring ‘hope to the masses’ and am still struggling to find anything substantial? 

As for liberal democracy, the idea that people’s votes have any meaningful affect on policy strikes me as delusional. We ‘the people’ don’t put people in power, we’re presented with an illusory choice between one middle manager or another.

Do you have any potential policy ideas on how they might give ‘hope to the masses’? You seem to be very well read, with your politics and philosophical references, so hopefully you have some workable ideas alongside criticism?

[ToxicBilberry]

I have hope for humanity and belief in a god of sorts, but no hope for the current political system and no hope that anything I’ve said will be taken seriously. I’m not criticising Stone, I think his ideas are admirable as is his will to put himself out there, I truly hope his dreams become a reality.

[Oldmanmatt]

Googling said energy densities were
ammonia: 18.6 MJ/kg
methanol: 15.8 MJ/L

My guess is that they will be successful in selling methanol engines (that and only that is what the engineers need to do). They will run on methanol made from maize or whatever that has full cycle CO2 emissions as bad as just using diesel. They will claim their boats are zero C. Meanwhile 99.99% of shipping has no conceivable way of sourcing methanol fuel but it will be said that is their fault.

Consider a back-of-the-envelope for how much food crop would be required to replace global diesel consumption (even ignoring the full cycle CO2 emissions which is what actually matters). https://www.withouthotair.com/cD/page_284.shtml :-
"The power per unit area of bioethanol from corn is astonishingly low.
Just for fun, let’s report the numbers first in archaic units. 1 acre produces
122 bushels of corn per year, which makes 122 × 2.6 US gallons of
ethanol, which at 84 000 BTU per gallon means a power per unit area of just
0.02 W/m2E – and we haven’t taken into account any of the energy losses in
processing!"

Dude! Clearly I’ve been glossing over and I hate bandying about numbers that I can’t verify.
I do know that Bio fuels are not considered to be the answer and you’ve given a couple of examples why, but you could have mentioned, there really wouldn’t be much left for eating, something which humans seem quite attached to. Who knew?

Production of H by electrolysis, catalytic conversion to Methanol, is, as far as I can tell, where the hope lays.

Which is why the debate is so tied up with “initial” power generation, renewables and (shudder) Nuclear.

Fortunately, NUCLEAR tm marketing has been handled, adeptly, by those well known PR firms  Good’ol Soviet Incompetence & Co and Let’s builder reactors in one of the worlds most active tectonic regions & Partners.

Anyway, short paper with a basic outline:
https://matthey.com/documents/161599/440829/Reprint+-+Green+methanol+%28c2020%29.pdf/f9f3ace6-e6c0-0892-7864-78608b59102a?t=1653488567511#:~:text=There%20are%20various%20methods%20for,with%20CO%E2%82%82%20to%20make%20methanol.

Finally: reiterate “interim”, “10 years” and “you will have to”.

Then, since we have digressed hugely from the thread topic, if we’re going to continue, we should take this outside.
I suppose we could each spend a couple years preparing a thesis on the topic, then resume, but anything more now is well into speculation territory.

Parting: Do not imagine for one moment that I think you are dumber than me or that I am smarter/more knowledgeable. There is a reason I chose to write in the way I have and I am very worried. I am not the least surprised that Labour are not over-egging a “we will save the world” manifesto.

[Oldmanmatt]

Sorry Toxic. No it’s not meant to be patronising. We quite clearly look at the world from different perspectives and I can’t  stop seeing everything as an analogy for something else. I guess I just more drawn to practical solutions than philosophical.I tend to throw out hyperbole to illustrate, not intending to belittle. Here’s one: if every person on the planet, adopted some ascetic life of quiet contemplation, tilled a little plot and foraged only for our own needs, turned the car into a hen coop, shut the power off at the main breaker; our little bits of agriculture and the smoke from our candles and cooking fires…
Would probably still fuck the planet, half of us would starve inside six months and a year in, the tomato growers would be at war with the potato heretics. That’s a joke. I’ll try and think how to express what I think is off on your perspective, from my (probably equally flawed) perspective; but it’s hard to articulate.

As I said to Stone, don’t imagine I think you are dumb or I’m smarter or I have all the answers or think your contribution worthless.

[Oldmanmatt]

Authoritarian regimes have rarely lasted very long.

The Egyptian pharaohs had quite a long run.

Seriously I think democracy is something very rare, difficult and precious. I think maintaining it requires constant vigilance and determination.

Hi Stone, I was having a look at the Labour party website earlier looking for how they will bring ‘hope to the masses’ and am still struggling to find anything substantial? 

As for liberal democracy, the idea that people’s votes have any meaningful affect on policy strikes me as delusional. We ‘the people’ don’t put people in power, we’re presented with an illusory choice between one middle manager or another.

There is no bottom up, just top down.

One prediction for the next 5 years is - an increase in mass migration providing cheap labor e.g. for the gig economy. There will be further balkanisation in populations who have stronger work ethics and greater cultural-social and spiritual cohesion. The knock on effect will be increased discontent in the disaffected native population which can only be contained so long through cannabinoids, Netflix and internet pr0nography.

While ‘climate’ may be top of the list of educated environmentally minded middle classes, Daz and his pals in Moston or Wythenshawe have got no hope.

OMM- apologies, I can’t understand your points and find your writing style a bit patronising. Probably just the internet. Elite theory is quite mainstream and evidenced in many texts such as The Populist Delusion (Neema Parvini) End Times (Peter Turchin) Tragedy and Hope (Prof. Carol Quigley - see abridged version), The Power Elite (C Wright Mills) etc. Very far from talking about ‘sheeple’ and other such things

Basic wikipedia page - apols for the link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elite_theory#:~:text=The%20theory%20posits%20that%20a,is%20independent%20of%20democratic%20elections.

Ah! Bollocks. 01:45 here but I’m intrigued.
Please, tell me why, Toxic.
Not what somebody else wrote in some scholarly treatise, I mean you, your thoughts.
Why are the party which has had almost unlimited funding, seems to best represent any potential Elites, has had unprecedented media support, had almost complete control of the state media, a massive majority in the house, more than a decade to cement control, seemingly about to be all but erased from power?
How, if this election is meaningless, if nobody’s votes count, despite the iniquities of FPTP and gerrymandered constituencies and further, despite policies dictated by opaque Think Tanks and vested interests, is this possible?