Video

Great questions and responses. Thanks guys to share this fact based approach to water use and management.

Very well presented with a lot of good facts and even better ideas. I was also a bit disappointed that it was never pointed out that one of the major problems with factory farms are their gross exploitation of the non-human animals themselves and the obvious neglect of their wishes to remain alive.

nuclear would still be the best source of energy, the cost of removing/recycling nuclear waste compared to the profits would always be magnitudes apart in how cheap and sustainable it would be. I'd also argue if more countries went nuclear, countries would use most of their plutonium/uranium reserves for energy instead of weapons. I believe radioactive materials have a undeserved and tainted reputation because of their potential to be used as weapons and incidents from older nuclear reactors. If people could learn more about them and advocate for them I believe the world would steer towards a brighter future.

Here's a pleasant surprise: A resoundlingly collegial and frank conversation between nuclear proponent Chris King and opponent David Kraft. King, Brigadier General (Ret.), and Dean Emeritus, of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, has long been the US military's leading voice on enviornmental engineering, waste management and associated global security threats. Kraft, Director of the Nuclear Energy Information Service, has been a senior campaigner on nuclear, energy and environmental policy issues for decades. They entered the conversation on Pacifica Radio's Climate Hour prepared to do battle, and instead found themselves converging on common ground: * No, nuclear is not a solution to the climate crisis; * No, new nuclear reactor designs will not help with climate, energy costs or other problems, but wll instead contribute to existing delays and crises in most cases rather than sovle them; * Yes, we need rapid phase out of fossil fuels, decentralized resilient grid upgrades, continued rapid renewables and energy efficency buildouts, * We ahould be wary of nuclear export as a solution for countries like Saudi Arabia that have abundant renewable resources or whose nuclear programs pose climate or proliferation risks; * Risk analysis when it comes to climate and nuclear energy and weapons is complex and highly dependent on the assumptions of modellers - nuclear boosterism should be excluded from discussion when genuine risk analysis is performed; * We need stronger, not weaker, anti-proliferation measures applied to domestic and international nuclear waste management and new, unproven nuclear designs (backed by nuclear/AI tech bros like Sam Altman's Oklo, Billl Gates' Tererapower and Rachel Pritzekers Breakthrough bets) that attempt to cut costs by disregarding security and safety measures.. The remaining disagreement? How to manage the phase out of the existing nuclear fleet while bridging to renewables and how to identify the few exceptions where new nuclear might make sense. There were areas left unexamined, as Kraft noted, including the consequences of the inevitable nuclear colonialism that the nuclear power and weapons complex requires. And I wish there had been some discussion of other issues: >how< the industries' current stranglehold on legislative and agency politics might be broken; the looming dangers of new nuclear arms races that accompany the abandonment of much of the non-proliferation and disaarmament agendaof the past 75 years; the related calls for abandoning treaty and safety requirements in the pursuit of imposing new small modular, breeder, fuel and weapons facilities designs and construction; and the necessary roles of roles of global civil society in engaging much more searchingly in deliberative democracy and post-corporate global commons networking towards regenerative energy and sustainability policy. Somehow these two experts worked through complex arguments and potential disagreements in the course of an hour without flinching from the gravity of the issues and with courteous regard for each other's arguments. This consensus building offered a refreshing contrast to the shameful, uncivil proceedings of the Illinois legislature in following the lead of my (former) Representative Mark Walker this year, stampeding through a nuclear boosterism bill by means of jobs, climate and "the lights will go out" fear mongering aimed to "deregulate" the nuclear industry by stripping State EPA oversight of nuclear licensing and related waste regulation. A similar stampede is happening in the US Senate right now as yet another round of Federal nuclear bailout for the nuclear energy and weapns industries looks set to sail through Congress. Legislative leadership could have convened precisely the sort of dialogue offered by Kraft and King to develop consensus on paths towards realistic energy policy to meet the polycrisis. Instead we have legislators falling all over themselves to give the nuclear and utility industries everything they want, rather than what communities, country and the world need. Kraft and King both attempt to end their discussion on hopeful notes, pointing to examples of serious polcy and design work being done to actually understand the magnitude of the problems, avoid the worst risks, detail transition plans and accellerate existing solutions that already work. As the Illinois legistive leadership tries to whip members into overriding the Governors' veto of the nuclear boosterism bill and the US Congress takes up the Senate nuclear bailout bill, maybe someone in leadership will get the message that these are serious issues with hopeful solutions just waiting for authentic political leadership to step up to choose the sort of cautiously hopeful future KIng and Kraft converge on here. Well worth viewing.

Looks like a great time! Compost is a great Mother's Day gift for the garden!!

Really proud of this wonderful work going on!

proud of you cuz this is yuri keep up the good work bro

Fabulous webinar!

WE DO DAILY BEACH CLEAN UPS on OUR DAILY BEACH WALKS , every little bit helps, litter ends up in waterways through weather events.

What was that black car with the yellow stripe? It looked really cool....

Thank you for sharing

solar panels went from 9% efficiency to 17% . from 10-15 years life to 25-30 years. we shouldn't not throw away all of this because it's not efficient, but I think its obvious that we should focus more on cutting consumption. The film did not make this point clearly enough but lets not act like the mass mining, production, usage, and disposing of these materials are not a huge problem that is not being addressed.

Regarding biomass: There are unproblematic forms of biomass (no competition with food production, high enough EROI). For example: Everything you grow wheat or corn or and other food you get inediable plant matter (biomass). Or if you have a garden you'll also produce biomass (kitchen waste, garden waste etc.). This biomass can be turned into biogas and it can be very usefull and in some cases essential to achieve a 100 percent renewable energy system (replacing all fossil fuels). If you look at northern countries like Germany you generally have a huge energy gap in the winter, but this is the time when you need a lot of energy to heat the homes. Biomass is essential in those places. You can do the same wiht power-to-x, but then you'll need a lot more renewalbe energy, because of the losses and in some countries that's not possible. Also there's nothing wrong with biomass from forest if it's done right i.e. if you don't take more wood than the forest regrows. That way you can keep the size of the forrests. That's not needed in all places, but where it's neede we shouldn't be against it. It's still CO2 neutral and a lot better than fossil fuels. The only real argument against that seems to be that the forests could be used instead as carbon sinks by letting them grow to their full size and then taking out wood to store the carbon (in wooden buildings, wooden furniture, as charcoal etc.). PS: Of course no biofuel should be used in transport. Why not? Too much energy is wasted. The waste heat is just released into the enviroment. Instead biomass should be used with cogeneration of heat and for that it must be a stationary plant.

I agree. I have a background in physics and chemistry and i've been interested in the scientific literautre regarding global warming and regenerative energy systems for over 10 years now. It was imedialtely obvious that there were a lot of mistakes in this movie and that it clearly didn't reflect the current state of the scientific literature. In fact it seemed to not even try to look at the scientific literature, nor did it try to ask leading experts (scientists) in the field of regenerative energy systems to tell them about what's in the scientific literature. A movie about science is only as good as the sources and this movie was largely based on a layman perspective, instead of the scientific literature. It's also interesting how they then tried to make it look as if solar panels, wind and biomass were the idea of capitalists, when these are simply the most important energy sources to replace fossils fuels in the scientific literature. It's very obvious that no other energy sources even come close to wind and solar. What i don't understand is that the producers of the movie don't seem to take any of the criticism seriously. They just see it as being attacked and they defend even the most ridiculous points in the movie. It's quite sad and somewhat surprising. I haven't seen any meaningfull discussion between serious critics (with a scientific background) and the producers of the movie, which is a shame. I guess, in the end they really believe what they've presented. I think the problem is that people like Michael Moore and Jeff Gibbs are mainly political commentators. They are used to seeing everything through an ideological lense and they are used to there being multiple valid points of view on any issue. I think their mistakes and their lack of understanding their mistakes has to do with their inexperience in covering natural sciences. Science deals with facts and opinion A isn't just as valid as opinion B. When you want to stop global warming then there are certain limits and certain ways to achieve this. There are wrong answers in this regard. And to understand what's right and what's wrong or what's not known yet you have to look at the scientific literature. I don't think they understand this. They just approach this like any other political movie. You know, just go to some dramatic looking places, edit footage to get what you wanted, "follow the money" and all that nonsense. You can't approach natural sciences like that.

Is that kimberly birkin, “Tuesday” in here?