Energy

January 24, 2009

I see the media care about the likely systems of energy proposed to replace oil and suppress contamination, and apparently everything points out to nuclear energy, deceitfully advising it to be the least contaminating.

Nuclear energy is dangerous on one side because it is subject to human control and on the other because their waste is very difficult, if not impossible,  to dispose of without contaminating. And I wonder why solar, wind and sea energies are not more researched, being as they are natural, cheap sources of energy. In my opinion there is a fundamental cause for the preference: its set-up costs place it very far from a relatively average pocket. Corporations – again this word! – must be formed to organise power plants. We, the people in general, the only part that can have in it is our investment in those corporations and which in fact helps to exploit us, ironically.

In effect, the costs of building wind mills to produce energy would little by little decrease as  demand grows, placing them at the reach of households. The same would happen with solar and marine energies.

In real fact, what makes governments  opt for nuclear energy,  in my opinion,  is that obtaining the source of energy – uranium – is not at the reach of any household, therefore practically impossible that the power (not a pun) given by the privately controllable sources: oil and uranium,  would always be held by the powers-that-be (not a pun,  either).

Energy is the real source of power for those who command. We need it and are ready to pay for it: in homes, motor-cars, aeroplanes, industry, sea craft, war machines, everything relies on energy, and…we pay for it the price which curiously enough is not inside the frame of the “free market”. At least that gives a subtle appearance of public control, but we all know that eventually it is not so.

The control keeps being held by those who control the governments.

It is so easy if we unite, but no,  every effort is done to keep us the furthest from one another.

On this the strength of power is based. (Again not a pun).

Obliteration

September 7, 2007

At the receiving end of a giant telescope, a man of science – an astronomer – watches a large scope of the universe in search of phenomena and other events that he must note down with exact Earth’s time for ulterior study by colleagues using special programmes in an attempt to determine likely causes and effects of the phenomena, in most cases unsuccessfully. He suddenly detects an explosion occurred at several light years from his emplacement: his immediate guess is that a star has exploded, but it could as well be a planet, a planet like ours. Immediately he makes an entry in his note pad for development later on.

Having done this he notices a tremor under his feet growing in intensity until it reaches catastrophic effects. A earthquake of the highest magnitude has occurred, allegedly because tectonic plates under the surface of the planet have been displaced.

But, let us imagine that on top of the problems we are experiencing due to the enlargement of the holes in the ozone layer giving way to  unopposed sun rays which heat the planet to temperatures becoming more and more unbearable, temperatures that dilate firstly the surface of the Earth and  then keep on dilating the following layers until vent is given to the unknown forces contained in the core; fire from the inner part of the planet will add to the uncontrolled heat being received from the sun, the expansion of the planet exceeding the limits of resistance and causing an immense explosion that will terminate with all kinds of life: human, animal or vegetable, everything; as I say let us add to the problem that a nuclear war broke out, with thousands of intercontinetal ballistic missiles soaring the skies to and fro, deteriorating more rapidly the conditions that have permitted the earth to live so far. The acceleration of the destruction of the ozone layer would be immediate, to me there is not the slightest doubt, and I believe the disparition of planet Earth, which would be turned into stellar dust, unstoppable.

God’s present problems with humans would go for good, it would be the very humans who will assume the task of doing away with them.

Another man of science in another planet several light years afterwards would be trying to determine the causes of that explosion he has just observed and its likeliest consequences, of course so unsuccessfully as his predecessor on the Earth was many light years before.

Let’s talk Earth

May 2, 2007

We have been reading and hearing continuously these days about the degradation of the climatic conditions in our planet. Scientists warn states that continuous dirtying of the atmosphere will result in an irreversible status where the Earth might afford the worst habitable conditions for human beings and the rest of living organisms.

And this has made me think whether everything is true or deceitful in this rotating mass where we have been allowed to coexist.

Why can it not be that old theories of glaciation, of the Ice Age, be true? Let us imagine for a moment that conditions on the Earth trillions of years ago were the same as they are today. Warming of the planet ended most of life on it, the seas grew as a consequence of full thaw of the ice, the air became unbreathable. The Earth was practically dead.

Once the human beings disappeared,  contamination disappeared with them giving way to a period of recovery that lasted again trillions of years. The micro-organisms that could save themselves because of their innate conditions of resilience started again what scientists call evolution. This does not mean to say that creation did not exist, but it might have started aeons ago, cycles of death and evolution destroying and recreating life respectively. A game where living beings played an endless role, emerging from simple cells up to exceptional intelligent aptitudes. And again that very same intelligence being responsible for another destructive period.

So we should not be worried that our planet’s life be destroyed, because there again the history will repeat and everything will re-start as it did on the last cycle of its existence. Or will it?

The human being considered the most intelligent of the living beings is not capable of discerning what is true and what is not. We keep carrying on our existence as though nothing were going to happen, in such a state of dumbfoundedness that we are not able to react before the awful existence that looms in the not too distant future. We might not suffer from it because we might already be dead by then, but our descendants will and it is our unavoidable duty to watch over their future now and not let them try to solve the problem when it will not be easily solvable.

I cannot stop thinking about it.

Equilibrium vs. Chaos

February 24, 2007

I have being going through a hurtful lumbalgia and a bothersome flu these days, which has been coincidental with my stoppage in posting, and that circumstance made me consider how important is equilibrium in everything which exists.

As we all know the universe must be perfectly balanced if we do not want that chaos prevails and everything returns to its origins, which I do not believe existed in material terms. We have been seeing for a number of years now, how the powerful of the Earth have been sending alien objects to the outer space, how they have dared to set foot on the moon, and how a series of artificial satellites are orbiting us continuously, a proof of unbalanced morality in our leaders, or is it that they know that what they are doing to our planet is not within the canons of a balanced existence and want to see what effects it could cause the Earth? Recently China has launched a missile to destroy one of its old satellites in space. The test was successful, the Chinese say. I wonder whether this test together with the rest of man-made junk material that is lost up there will not with time contribute to cause imbalance in the Universe, a universe which is ruled by unwritten laws of equilibrium.

The same thing happens with our planet, if the Earth is not perfectly balanced, if its necessary elements are not present in their exact quantity and quality then the Earth will start suffering chaos in a lesser measure that may be increased if the imbalance persists. This is what has happened with pollution, the greenhouse effect and the ozone layer. It is imperative that all the elements be brought again to a perfect equilibrium if we want to live in a durable place for us and our descendants.

Everything depends on equilibrium: wealth and poverty, war and peace, happiness and unhappiness, health, etc.

If the distribution of richness in the world is not balanced, then we have that while some have a superabundance of welfare, others, the most, have to content themselves with the crumbs that fall from the table. And even some without those miserable crumbs. Which in turn will bring delinquency, unrest and unhappiness. If a country has got superabundant quantities of a particular resource, then it is the object of envy on the part of others that have not. This envy eventually leads to war. As we are so much used to of late. This, however, is not due to the fact that the former has superabundance, it is due to the fact that the latter “want” that superabundance, because resources imply power. Again the necessary balance is not sought.

We human beings, people who are born and die, must also have all the ingredients to keep us balanced. The necessary food, the necessary vitamins, the necessary minerals, etc., but, mind you, never exceeding or lacking in quantity and quality, otherwise the imbalance would be provoked with fatal consequences if it is not redressed rightaway.

All of us should seek equilibrium in everything, otherwise nothing but chaos will wait for us at the other end of the tunnel.

I read that a panel has met to reach this conclusion: humans are to blame for the warming of our planet. The emissions released by human activities are the reason we are having so many natural catastrophes and scientists of all over the world who meet regularly at the behest of the UN to say so. This is not new to me and I agree that is the “direct” reason. It is not necessary to be a scientist to get to that finding. We all know, because we have been hammered into thinking so, that we are ruining planet Earth, third big rock from the Sun.Why it is necessary that hundreds of scientists have to meet to reach this conclusion is a question that assails me. My answer to that question cannot be in my opinion other than the blame of this extraordinary circumstance be not attributed to those who really are to blame, because we have not invented those kinds of contrivances that have been put in our hands and that have made some people almighty along the centuries, some people without scruples helped by scientists without scruples, too.

Both moguls and scientists are to be held accountable for the enormous catastrophe that is looming and that may be the destruction of the planet.

There are questions as : “ Who is going to tell a billion people that they can’t have air-conditioning or an automobile? ” .

Yes, who is going to tell them that they must forget the use of everything that pollutes? Curiously enough nobody asks who is going to tell those who make those air-conditioners and automobiles that they stop production?

The human beings live longer and multiply themselves, the more human beings exist the more emissions are caused, is there no stop to this extraordinary growth? China has become a part of the capitalistic system as has India, and the capitalistic system is the indirectly responsible party of all this reasonless expenditure and waste that heats up our environment and our lives, something that will take us to inexorable mass extinction. But I wonder why China and India are taken now as main producers when we all know that so far the US and Europe have been the main industrialist sectors of the world. And this warming has been on for a long time before China and India started their industrial activities.

We are an endangered species. We have included all kinds of wild animals in our books as species worth being saved from extinction, we have not, though, included ourselves in that list and I wonder why the human beings have being so neglectful of their own existence, why they have forgotten the most elementary notions of survival.

Ultra-consumerism is the cause, people trying to become rich to be powerful are the means.

But we cannot complain at this stage of the problem, we can only act and act quickly and efficiently because time does not wait, it ticks on and on and every time more rapidly. Even these machines one of which I am using just now, are a cause for the warming, only that what I am doing I believe is useful at the present moment.

Something to thank technology for nevertheless.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6321351.stm

The Independent on Line edition today brings out a theme related to he increase of urban inhabitants, which in turn has caused depletion of rural areas.

http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2114489.ece

The newspaper deals only with the tendency of changing habitat among humans who prefer the life in towns rather than the more sedate life in rural zones.

People are little by little losing contact with Nature and turning their attention towards the comfort, luxe and other facilities given by modern highly populated centres. And, in my opinion, they are affecting the natural equilibrium of things.

Nature is a conglomerate of factors which, intermingled, contribute to a better development of natural habitats. That is what happens in rural zones, where the culture of fields, products that are staple in our feeding customs and which at the time serve to keep herds of the different animals that make up the fauna of farms and that are also necessary in the alimentary habits of the populations, is being abandoned little by little giving way to an industrial treatment of that culture and those herds.

That the inhabitants of a zone move to another zone that is superpopulated is something that affects the natural equilibrium. I have no doubt of that, and if we add to this that the new habitat is mainly composed by cement, iron, asphalt and other components of homes, roads, streets, big buildings… with a small proportion of green zones exclusively planted with ornamental or shady trees and shrubs and lawns, then we have that the ratio culture::population has been altered.

It is true that the world has grown in an extraordinary way. It is true that life in the countryside is full of problems, but there are more problems in town than in the countryside, and towns are far more contaminant than small villages.

The environment is affected, too. Plagues accompany people in their displacements and concentrate where people live. In this connection we can see the extraordinary proliferation of these plagues in towns, perhaps proportionally more than it occurs in rural zones.

I know it is almost impossible to make people change their views, after all we enjoy of freedom to move wherever we wish, but I suppose there are ways to convince them of the necessity to abandon that preference for big towns. One of them is the high rate of delinquency in towns as compared with that in villages.

The capitalistic system has made that this happens, industry is also replacing agriculture with the subsequent damages this change does to the places where we live.

I just felt I should give my opinion on this issue, an important part of our environment, no doubt, despite our unconscious ignorance of it.

There was a time when rulers considered that towns should have limited dimensions, that there were limitations to their demography, but that has been totally forgotten and I can see migrations are starting to affect our environment

There is a very interesting discussion at http://mrzhisou.wordpress.com/2006/12/06/green-from-brown/

Whose reading I recommend. Exchange of ideas in environmental problems might lead us finally to a conclusion of which is the best to solve them.

What a government must not say is try to convince us that the measures it takes are conclusive to reach a solution, when it is clear that these measures, as those taken by Gordon Brown, will not propitiate the reduction of carbon emissions.

If Gordon Brown had said the British government was considering the likelihood of changing to cleaner alternative energies, then that would be starting to work properly, but what he proposes in my opinion just makes contamination dearer and there is no reduction in emissions in perspective.

An article on today’s BBC : http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6194092.stm tells us of the decision to impose cuts on emissions of carbon in the European Union. 10 developping countries are sulky,  because of this measure  their industrial growth will be seriously affected, and the overall growth of the EU will be affected, too, naturally.

It is not enough. In these times when so many taxes are levied on the citizens, why is there not a change in the allotment of these taxes to ends that will really matter? Perhaps if the money wasted in so many meetings around the world to talk of the greenhouse effect or pollution or anything having to do with contamination, were invested in renewing the energies that will really be a positive step.

Why are countries permitted to compensate others for their increase of their own emissions? If the others are already adhering to the norms, the infringing countries should not be allowed to exceed their permitted quotas of contamination. Ridiculous, a loop in the system as there are so many loops in other sectors of our living standards.

China is growing rapidly. India is growing rapidly. Both countries are sending off so a large quantity of carbon emissions that any efforts Europe can exert to reduce its quota will be annulled by the Asian countries, together with the US, a large producer, perhaps the largest in the world.

The more I think about this problem the more I am convinced they are kidding. Everything is done to minimise the dangers scientists, doing their duty, warn us of.

When we will be tranquil in this connection must be the objective of our leaders, that is one of the reasons they are elected for.

The Environment Agency has invited experts to name people who have done most for the planet at all times.

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1958602,00.html

This is a good initiative to further the world’s interest in the defence of our environment which is no more no less that the interest in our survival. In effect, we must be all concerned in making our existence on earth cleanest and purest, and that people in past times have been conscious of this imperative is something worth prizing.

But today the most important aspect of this issue is to find out what are the main contaminants, those elements or individuals who contaminate the most and whose activities are bound to ruin our planet – I do not discard the perfect balance of our planetary system – if they persist in those activities.

The use of a new source of energy is top urgent and imperative. Studies that have been carried out by inventors and specialists have not had the necessary push by our authorities,  in benefit of the oil industry.

I am not totally against the oil industry, I am against the exclusive use of oil which has proved to be poisoning our atmosphere given the exaggerated amounts of this resource that are being employed in our daily life. Other sources such as the sun, the wind, the sea could replace oil in our daily needs, but the problem is that oil is at the base of every industrial activity in use by our capitalist system, and, of course, pulling down the whole set-up is too costly for those exploiting it.

Scientists have recently warned that the first consequences of the destruction of essentials in our environment will be seen and experienced in a shorter period than was being previously announced, the year 2010 being reckoned to be the beginning  of the end if solutions are not found before, and this very urgently.

It is a situation of emergency that should be dealt with right away.

We elect politicians to fight for our interests, not to fight for the interests of others.

Environment

November 26, 2006

There is a thread at http://chadstroh.wordpress.com/2006/11/23/global-warming-hype-is-cooling-down/ which has warned me what other people think about the planet warming, the greenhouse effect, the ozone layer and everything the scientists have been continuously telling us about. Many meetings have been held worldwide in a clear attempt to stop the pollution and contamination  the planet Earth is undergoing, but it appears there are still people who belittle the findings of those scientists who are really worried about the effects of that contamination and pollution on the flora, fauna and humankind. The governments of the world are also convinced of the threat that is hovering over us and that is why they meet to try and solve the contaminating effect of our industrial world. Although eventually their worries are not reflected by their attitudes after the meetings. We must be conscious of this danger and we must fight against it with all our determination.

 www.bbc.co.uk/…/greenhouse_effect_img.shtml