Spiral Dynamics Stage Yellow Examples Mega-Thread

[Taylor04]

I realized something: The core of environmentalist ideology is blue. I noticed this when I heard Mark Steyn compare warmists to ISIS. They both hate enlightenment-age modernity and want to return to pre-industrial poverty, authoritarianism and religiosity. How do you advocate that? Well, post-blue wealth and equality were created by hydrocarbon use. So you attack hydrocarbon use. Thats precisely what warmism was designed to do. And wanting to return to before orange is per definition blue. So green ideology is led by a cabale of blues at the center. All this talk of yellow and turquoise and coral is silly. Humanity is still largely engaged in a struggle of blue vs. orange.

[Kavv]

Check out Futurist Grey Scott's short playlist on future technologies.

 

[ValiantSalvatore]

 

Not sure if useful, the second video has subtitles. (Did not watch it) Seemed interesting.

[tenta]

 

[ValiantSalvatore]

Stage turquoise *cough* talking to yellow. P.S I don't cough, in reality, I think I need more skill. 

 

 

[Equanimitize]

 

Phil Jackson is a systemic thinker, was able to lead several difficult to manage egos and used basketball as his leadership vehicle, practiced Zen Buddhism.

 

[peqkno]

Using livestock to combat desertification.
- Creative new idea
- Studying other scientific fields
- Holistic solution (for the whole spiral)

[Key Elements]

 

[peqkno]

Probably Yellow.

[Bernardo Carleial]

 

[Outer]

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/

[Odysseus]

18 minutes ago, Outer said:

Why Renewables Can’t Save the Planet

https://quillette.com/2019/02/27/why-renewables-cant-save-the-planet/

Pseudo-scientific, short-term thinking reactionistic bullshit. Leave your bubble man. 

[Outer]

7 minutes ago, Odysseus said:

Pseudo-scientific, short-term thinking reactionistic bullshit. Leave your bubble man. 

How about actually reading the article? It's not psuedo-scientific, short-term or reactionistic.

Spoiler alert: It's about the case for nuclear power.

[Outer]

8 minutes ago, Odysseus said:

Pseudo-scientific, short-term thinking reactionistic bullshit. Leave your bubble man. 

Also, if you actually read the article, this forum isn't for spreading fake news and lies. Think before you post. Because anyone who actually read it know what you said isn't true.

Here's some of the "Psuedo-scientific" facts brought up in the article.

Quote

Consider California. Between 2011–17 the cost of solar panels declined about 75 percent, and yet our electricity prices rose five times more than they did in the rest of the U.S. It’s the same story in Germany, the world leader in solar and wind energy. Its electricity prices increased 50 percent between 2006–17, as it scaled up renewables.

Quote

Germany’s carbon emissions have been flat since 2009, despite an investment of $580 billion by 2025 in a renewables-heavy electrical grid, a 50 percent rise in electricity cost.

Meanwhile, France produces one-tenth the carbon emissions per unit of electricity as Germany and pays little more than half for its electricity. How? Through nuclear power.

Then, under pressure from Germany, France spent $33 billion on renewables, over the last decade. What was the result? A rise in the carbon intensity of its electricity supply, and higher electricity prices, too.

Quote

What about all the headlines about expensive nuclear and cheap solar and wind? They are largely an illusion resulting from the fact that 70 to 80 percent of the costs of building nuclear plants are up-front, whereas the costs given for solar and wind don’t include the high cost of transmission lines, new dams, or other forms of battery.

It’s reasonable to ask whether nuclear power is safe, and what happens with its waste.

It turns out that scientists have studied the health and safety of different energy sources since the 1960s. Every major study, including a recent one by the British medical journal Lancet, finds the same thing: nuclear is the safest way to make reliable electricity.

Quote

Even during the worst accidents, nuclear plants release small amounts of radioactive particulate matter from the tiny quantities of uranium atoms split apart to make heat.

Over an 80-year lifespan, fewer than 200 people will die from the radiation from the worst nuclear accident, Chernobyl, and zero will die from the small amounts of radiant particulate matter that escaped from Fukushima.

As a result, the climate scientist James Hanson and a colleague found that nuclear plants have actually saved nearly two million lives to date that would have been lost to air pollution.

Thanks to its energy density, nuclear plants require far less land than renewables. Even in sunny California, a solar farm requires 450 times more land to produce the same amount of energy as a nuclear plant.

Quote

The problem with nuclear is that it is unpopular, a victim of a 50 year-long concerted effort by fossil fuel, renewable energy, anti-nuclear weapons campaigners, and misanthropic environmentalists to ban the technology.

Quote

France shows that moving from mostly nuclear electricity to a mix of nuclear and renewables results in more carbon emissions, due to using more natural gas, and higher prices, to the unreliability of solar and wind.

 

[Odysseus]

1 minute ago, Outer said:

How about actually reading the article? It's not psuedo-scientific, short-term or reactionistic.

Spoiler alert: It's about the case for nuclear power.

I wouldn't have commented like this if I haven't read it. It's so far off from reality on this subject. Just populist crap. I won't debate with you.

[Outer]

The writer of the article. ALSO Bill Gates is the chairman and investor for a nuclear power company called TerraPower but of course they can't build their new power plants in the U.S.A because of ideologues who are doing massive amount of damage to the environment due to their ignorance.

[Outer]

1 minute ago, Odysseus said:

I wouldn't have commented like this if I haven't read it. It's so far off from reality on this subject. Just populist crap. I won't debate with you.

Lol. I guess 2+2 isn't 4. It's literally math, numbers and economics. See what happened in Germany once they shut off most of their nuclear power plants. They are now building new coal plants because unlike nuclear power, solar panels only work when the sun shines and wind turbines only work when the wind blows. And batteries are expensive.

[Outer]

Nuclear power is populist crap LOL. Guess Bill Gates is a populist.

[Outer]

Quote

 

Germany’s emissions in 2017 were flat compared to 2016 despite having produced 33 percent more electricity from wind.

According to the German Federal Environmental Office, emissions were 909 million metric tonnes (MMT) in 2016 and 905 MMT in 2017 — a 0.4% difference.

German emissions are likely to rise again in 2018 given the closure of nuclear reactor Gundremmingen B in the final hours of 2017.

Despite a nine percent increase in solar panels since 2015, electricity produced from solar power was slightly less (38.4 terawatt-hours) in 2017 than it was in in 2015 (38.7 terawatt-hours). The reason? It wasn’t very sunny.

German emissions are thus at approximately the same level as they were in 2009 — an amount that is 150 million tonnes (carbon dioxide-equivalent) higher than the country’s 2020 climate target, which was abandoned in 2017.

Closures of nuclear power plants wiped out emissions reductions from less coal power.

German electricity was 10 times dirtier than France's in 2018.

 

 

Maybe he's a shill for nuclear power...

https://environmentalprogress.org/germany

https://environmentalprogress.org/founder-president

 

[Forestluv]

As a general reminder: the yellow mega thread is for posting a variety of yellow-level videos by a variety of forum members. A couple comments about a video is fine. Yet the thread is not intended for extended discussions about videos or for a single user to post a series of videos on a particular topic. For those types of discussions, please start a separate thread.