Federal employees have been living high off the hog for a very long time. It’s time they start feeling economic pain like those who didn’t go into government work. The reality is, Pres. Trump and his advisors are finally providing some accountability to hugely bloated agencies. In spite of whatever the vocal minority huffs and puffs here and elsewhere, the vast majority of Americans agree this is long overdue.
A math teacher friend of mine has spent years struggling with the reality that a large number of people either cannot understand simple math/facts, choose not to try, or are ready to simply ignore and distort facts when they don’t serve their interests or world view. He continues to beat his head against the wall trying to explain simple truths. Certainly 1plus 1 must equal 2, and if only I try hard enough they will get it. Sadly, the pervasiveness of ‘alternate facts’ and propaganda has helped change this perspective.
As of November 2024 around 3mm (1.87%) of all workers work for the government. As percentage of the federal budget payroll+ bennies is around 4.3% of total spending. So even if one were to cut that in half it wouldn’t move the needle with respect to the deficit.
Any organization after a while gets bloated and trimming it makes sense, just like Clinton did in ’94 when he signed the “Federal Workforce Restructuring Act”.
The way Trump /Musk go about it is to vilify government workers and throw red meat to their followers, who are most likely to get hurt by the seeming borderline random cuts.
That said, pruning an organization as large as the Federal government probably makes sense if it were done in a thoughtful manner. I would not be surprised if this rough way of cutting sets the table to do equal cuts to medicare/aid, SS, and also the military. Cutting the deficit is a good thing but it looks like the savings are not going there but rather to extend/ expand tax cuts to those who didn’t ask for it and don’t need it, otherwise there would be no need to increase the debt ceiling by 4T.
Rgds
WP
I’m guessing that some of your numbers came from the 1/7/25 Pew report on federal workers. Good stuff. In particular, it was a good reminder about how much of the federal workforce is defense related. Almost half of the 3 million civilian workers are directly or indirectly part of the military/defense mission. Add in the 1.3 million military and that’s roughly 2/3 of the 4.3 million total federal employees.
What do they do, besides go on expenses paid trips to foreign countries. Like that parasite in Los Angels who was on trip to African country while fires raged through the city. This being after she cut fire department budget despite being told the dangers of not clearing dry areas.
The YR4 asteroid now has a 1.5% chance of hitting earth. It’s like 200ish feet long according to Wikipedia. We can just nuke it into smaller pieces right?
We don’t yet know the composition of the rock. If it hits earth it will be on a well defined line near the equator, somewhere between central America and India. Most likely it will a Tunguska scale air burst explosion. 50% chance of it being over water, no damage. If it explodes over a major population centre, most likely over India, it could kill millions.
Only the US would have the resources to launch an interception mission in the time scales available. In the current political environment, would they even bother?
I used to read quite a bit about the history of the nazis prior to WWII in order to gain some understanding of how they came to power. Some people accused me of sympathizing with them and even supporting them.
Now I see the same thing happening in my own country. The every day working class people with the most to lose are the backbone, the foot soldiers, of the emerging nazi class here in my own country.
I’m not yet saying it’s all over for us as a free society but unless we come to our collective senses soon ……………
“Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And hain’t that a big enough majority in any town?”
( Twain of course)
I personally know dozens of people who fervently believe trump and company can do no wrong. When they’re reduced to living under bridges they will still be blaming the Democrats for any and every problem.
For those who are not Trump diehards, which includes not just democratic voters but also republicans who silently are disgusted by him and his camp, a major overhaul of the parties is in order.
Neither can or should simply rewind to prior platforms or stances. What is relevant for the 2030’s and beyond?
I haven’t heard from anyone just what will be practical, appealing, sane, and forward leaning. A hell a lot of work to be done.
Perhaps we are now going into long term reversal mode, with re-concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few. And the power of the state isn’t just in control of the swords like in past centuries, but also more and more so the digital, the robotic, the information world, the financial world. The tools under control of the state are hard for most people to fathom.
The US is being exposed as what it is, a full blown oligarchy. The Citizens united Supreme Court decision sealed it’s fate and now you have shadow president Musk. Who needs to actually be president whn you can buy one?
This is in the context of how people are divided and headstrong steadfast in their opinions. On the 10-year anniversary, what color is The Dress: Black/Blue or Gold/White?
What does this imply to grouping of people in their ability to process information? Are they easily manipulated by other factors and by their preconceived notions?
Global warming: Anthropogenic factor or business on CO2
February 21/ 10:51
Nizhnevartovsk. Key issues of global climate change, increase in greenhouse gases, as well as increase in air temperature in the northern regions were discussed by participants of the video conference of the Oil and Gas Information Agency. The event was attended by experts of the Oil and Gas Information Agency and industry representatives.
The main speaker – Honored Geologist of Yugra, PhD in Geology and Mineralogy, expert of the Agency Alexander Shpilman devoted his speech to the key issue of the last decades – warming. To begin with, the expert cited data on the geological history of temperature changes on Earth. According to him, over the past 10 thousand years, the temperature on Earth has changed insignificantly and remained at the same level.
As Alexander Vladimirovich added, the concept of “global warming” appeared in the 80s, when the international group on climate change IPCC noted a systematic increase in temperature, which caused concern. But then the indicator changed by 1 ° C in 120 years.
“If we go back to our time, then, according to ROSHYDROMET, modern warming continues throughout Russia, in general, for the year and in all seasons. The growth rate of the average annual temperature in Russia for the period 1976-2022 was 0.49℃ / 10 years,” the speaker noted.
Table from the speaker’s presentation
To track temperature changes, experts conducted an analysis in three points on Earth – Tyumen, Khanty-Mansiysk and Salekhard. According to weather stations, changes in the average annual temperature over the past 30 years in Tyumen were +1 ° C, in Khanty-Mansiysk +1.2 ° C, but in Salekhard +2.13 ° C.
As the expert explained, over the 30-year period under study, a trend towards an increase in the average annual temperature by 1–2 ° C has been observed.
Table from the speaker’s presentation
“At the same time, the Arctic territories are warming up much faster. This conclusion requires verification at other weather stations located in the Arctic. High correlation of data on average annual temperatures at stations located far from each other indicates the planetary nature of these changes,” added Alexander Vladimirovich.
Also in his report, the expert addressed the study of the concentration and change of CO2 in the atmosphere.
“Carbon dioxide is an integral part of the air mixture, but its concentration outside is about 400-450 ppm (parts per million), which corresponds to 0.04% of the volume concentration. Indoors, the concentration of CO2 reaches about 800 ppm. A dangerous indicator for humans begins at 4000-5000 ppm. And, I also want to remind you that CO2 is a heavy gas, with an atmospheric density of 1.20 kg/m3, it weighs 1.9 kg/m3,” said Alexander Shpilman.
In this regard, ideas arise that this gas, when it settles on the ground, causes a greenhouse effect.
Table from the speaker’s presentation
For example, Alexander Vladimirovich presented data on how much CO2 is produced and consumed by humans on Earth. He noted that all burned fossil fuels emit ~ 46 billion tons of CO2 per year when burned, and all volcanoes – 0.3-0.4 billion tons. 100 times less than the burned hydrocarbon fuel.
“People exhale ~ 2.8 billion tons of CO2 per year. This is 10 times more than volcanoes, but 10 times less than CO2 from burned coal. If we take into account ~ 130 billion mammals on Earth, assume that they exhale only 10 liters of CO2 per hour, then this will amount to 87 m3 or ~ 170 kg per year. In total, all mammals emit 22 billion tons of CO2 per year. There are ~3 trillion trees on Earth. One tree absorbs ~100 kg of CO2 per year. All trees absorb ~300 billion tons of CO2 per year. But this carbon is reversible, trees end their lives and return to carbon in various states, some of it is buried in sediments,” the speaker added.
Alexander Vladimirovich noted that people should take this CO2 cycle into account in nature.
Summarizing his speech, the expert noted that the changes in temperature that are currently observed on the planet cannot be explained by changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Their causes are of a planetary nature, therefore, regardless of whether they are biological or geological, it is imperative to study and develop measures.
The next report within the framework of the conference was presented by the General Director of the State Commission on Mineral Reserves Igor Shpurov on the topic “Using the concept of the clean energy index (CEI) for sustainable development.”
According to Igor Viktorovich, the Clean Energy Index allows you to form a sustainable development strategy, evaluate the efficiency of clean energy production, while taking into account the accumulated experience, risks and threats, as well as all factors influencing technological aspects on the economic and environmental consequences of using various energy sources. Thanks to the ICE, you can analyze the situation on the energy supply market, determine the most economical way to safely and sustainably provide the population with energy in the medium and long term.
“The Clean Energy Index will also contribute to the formation of a sustainable economy and integrated management of natural resources,” the expert added. “In the field of sustainable development, Goal 7 stands out, which talks about ensuring universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all. But the question arises: how inexpensive, how clean? And in general, can clean energy be inexpensive? And can inexpensive energy be clean? We proclaim such principles, but we do not really understand what is behind them.”
To calculate the CEI, the experts used artificial intelligence, for this, the ChatGPT 3.0 model was chosen. The calculation uses a database that includes data from the IEA (International Energy Agency), World Bank Energy Data, Global Carbon Atlas, WHO (World Health Organization) and others.
Table from the speaker’s presentation
“The results of the study turned out to be quite interesting. We formed types of fuel by emission volumes from the dirtiest, coal, to the cleanest – solar energy. But when the ICHE was formed, it turned out that coal had the lowest index, and therefore the best one. After it came gas and oil, then hydropower, wind, nuclear and solar. So why is this happening? It’s simple, the cost of coal and all stages of energy production for fossil fuel extraction is much lower. Nuclear energy is a fairly expensive type. At the stage of extraction, disposal of radioactive waste structures, a huge number of costs are generated. Yes, this is a very clean type of energy, but very expensive,” Igor Shpurov emphasized.
According to him, such data indicate only one thing – there is a lack of technology that would make nuclear and wind generation clean energy. In the world, contradictions arise between technological development and good intentions to provide expensive and clean energy.
“That is why today we are talking about the fact that the 21st century is the century of fossil fuels. Because in order to be “clean” and inexpensive, a lot of time, effort and money are needed,” the expert said.
Igor Viktorovich also highlighted issues for further development of the Clean Energy Index. As the expert noted, the indicator evaluates the cost of generating clean energy for a full cycle. In addition to what has already been done, it is necessary to evaluate each direct project for the extraction of minerals. But, unfortunately, today it is not possible to implement this, but it is necessary to work on this issue.
“Some colleagues tried to persuade us to include social aspects in the clean energy index. We believe that this should not be done, because social aspects are still a completely different chain. Although a person who lives without energy, strictly speaking, does not care whether it is “clean” or not. He still needs to get it here and now,” Igor Shpurov summed up.
The moderator of the conference, Agency expert Alexander Khurshudov, in conclusion of his speech clarified when we will be able to manage these energy processes: in the distant future or still not very distant? Igor Viktorovich noted that this issue should be primarily addressed by the state.
“The state should regulate business development in such a way that technologies emerge that could ensure the future. From the figures given in the report, it is obvious to me that we have no developments in this area today. And they will not appear in the near future, especially for those areas that would replace fossil fuels in this regard. And if we had come to these conclusions 10-15 years ago, we would have understood this earlier. Geological exploration for oil and gas was curtailed, and renewable sources did not go, and we essentially stopped developing. This is why we need a clean energy index in order to carry out visible planning and assess our capabilities,” noted Igor Shpurov.
In turn, Alexander Khurshudov wondered why everyone focuses so much on CO2? According to him, methane produces exactly the same greenhouse effect, even stronger. Finally, water vapor produces a greenhouse effect. Why is no one talking about it, maybe because it cannot be traded?
Alexander Shpilman noted the well-known fact that among gases that can cause a greenhouse effect, water vapor is in first place. And, according to experts, it accounts for about 50% of the greenhouse effect.
“But you understand, if you decide to fight life, CO2, organic carbon, and then fight water, then you have decided to destroy life on earth at the root? You can’t fight all this, it is the basis of life for any creature, not just humans. At first, the study of CO2 was a scientific discussion, until they said that they would take and transfer money for it, it immediately became clear that there were many who wanted to “fight” it. And, of course, make money on it. In connection with this, the US President withdrew from the Paris Agreement, refusing to pay,” he specified.
Alexander Vladimirovich returned to Igor Shpurov’s report, which clearly demonstrates the fact that wind and solar generation have not taken root. And it was not surprising for the expert that coal and gas became the cheapest types of energy.
“My opinion is that all the interest in CO2 is not related to concern for nature,” the expert emphasized.
In conclusion of the conference, PhD, Honored Geologist of Russia Valery Karpov emphasized that the problem that was raised during the discussion is understandable to every ordinary person. But some things are still in the fog. He agreed with Igor Shpurov that the transition to environmentally friendly types of fuel is too far away, due to the fact that technologies lag behind needs. The expert noted that coal, oil and gas will remain a priority for a long time.
“If these resources remain a priority for many years, then it is necessary to seriously think about increasing the efficiency of geological exploration. Otherwise, very soon they will also be included in the number of, so to speak, unreliable and uneconomical. Because this process is very capital-intensive and costly. And here we need to look for ways to make them cheaper and increase efficiency,” summed up Valery Karpov.
————-
In this article, several diagrams can be found at the link. I believe that it is stupid to discuss the topic of reducing hydrocarbon consumption – all available ones will be extracted and used sooner or later, regardless of anything. Global warming exists, as does the anthropogenic factor, but how great the influence of the anthropogenic factor is is not exactly known, this is a topic for speculation. Scientists in pursuit of grants or due to their beliefs can be biased. If they close an aluminum smelting plant in Europe, then they will build it in Indonesia, this is wrong. Several decades ago, the fight against freon gases was also discussed. In my opinion, it is more important to fight deforestation and forest fires and immigration. Immigration contributes to overpopulation of the planet, which leads civilization to disaster. https://www.angi.ru/news/2923125-%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%3A%20%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%20%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%20%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%A1%D0%9E2/
https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=252847
UK government orders Apple to provide access to all user data including USA citizens.
I hate that my government is being sold.
Piece by piece.
Mostly by first dibbs.
What will we do when it is gone?
It’s not all being sold. Some is being stolen and a lot more is just being trashed.
Nothing lasts forever.
Federal employees have been living high off the hog for a very long time. It’s time they start feeling economic pain like those who didn’t go into government work. The reality is, Pres. Trump and his advisors are finally providing some accountability to hugely bloated agencies. In spite of whatever the vocal minority huffs and puffs here and elsewhere, the vast majority of Americans agree this is long overdue.
A math teacher friend of mine has spent years struggling with the reality that a large number of people either cannot understand simple math/facts, choose not to try, or are ready to simply ignore and distort facts when they don’t serve their interests or world view. He continues to beat his head against the wall trying to explain simple truths. Certainly 1plus 1 must equal 2, and if only I try hard enough they will get it. Sadly, the pervasiveness of ‘alternate facts’ and propaganda has helped change this perspective.
“Vast majority”? Try that math again
As of November 2024 around 3mm (1.87%) of all workers work for the government. As percentage of the federal budget payroll+ bennies is around 4.3% of total spending. So even if one were to cut that in half it wouldn’t move the needle with respect to the deficit.
Any organization after a while gets bloated and trimming it makes sense, just like Clinton did in ’94 when he signed the “Federal Workforce Restructuring Act”.
The way Trump /Musk go about it is to vilify government workers and throw red meat to their followers, who are most likely to get hurt by the seeming borderline random cuts.
That said, pruning an organization as large as the Federal government probably makes sense if it were done in a thoughtful manner. I would not be surprised if this rough way of cutting sets the table to do equal cuts to medicare/aid, SS, and also the military. Cutting the deficit is a good thing but it looks like the savings are not going there but rather to extend/ expand tax cuts to those who didn’t ask for it and don’t need it, otherwise there would be no need to increase the debt ceiling by 4T.
Rgds
WP
Agreed WP…once again.
Thanks WP, agreed.
I’m guessing that some of your numbers came from the 1/7/25 Pew report on federal workers. Good stuff. In particular, it was a good reminder about how much of the federal workforce is defense related. Almost half of the 3 million civilian workers are directly or indirectly part of the military/defense mission. Add in the 1.3 million military and that’s roughly 2/3 of the 4.3 million total federal employees.
Weekend
It is not just federal government employees.
https://publicpay.ca.gov/Reports/PositionRpts.aspx?rpt=Mayors
What do they do, besides go on expenses paid trips to foreign countries. Like that parasite in Los Angels who was on trip to African country while fires raged through the city. This being after she cut fire department budget despite being told the dangers of not clearing dry areas.
Funny how people who don’t know what the fuck they’re talking about feel emboldened these days to run their mouths.
“The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”
The Andrew Bird version ain’t too bad neither:
“Well, the best lack all conviction
And the worst keep sharpening their claws”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YEFLR2JnMd0
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
The YR4 asteroid now has a 1.5% chance of hitting earth. It’s like 200ish feet long according to Wikipedia. We can just nuke it into smaller pieces right?
We don’t yet know the composition of the rock. If it hits earth it will be on a well defined line near the equator, somewhere between central America and India. Most likely it will a Tunguska scale air burst explosion. 50% chance of it being over water, no damage. If it explodes over a major population centre, most likely over India, it could kill millions.
Only the US would have the resources to launch an interception mission in the time scales available. In the current political environment, would they even bother?
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/china-s-ghost-cities-the-story-behind-the-country-s-many-ghost-towns-of-abandoned-mansions?utm_source=firefox-newtab-en-us
The are so many things wrong nowadays that what used to be headline disaster news is hardly ever mentioned in the mainstream press.
I used to read quite a bit about the history of the nazis prior to WWII in order to gain some understanding of how they came to power. Some people accused me of sympathizing with them and even supporting them.
Now I see the same thing happening in my own country. The every day working class people with the most to lose are the backbone, the foot soldiers, of the emerging nazi class here in my own country.
I’m not yet saying it’s all over for us as a free society but unless we come to our collective senses soon ……………
“Hain’t we got all the fools in town on our side? And hain’t that a big enough majority in any town?”
( Twain of course)
I personally know dozens of people who fervently believe trump and company can do no wrong. When they’re reduced to living under bridges they will still be blaming the Democrats for any and every problem.
For those who are not Trump diehards, which includes not just democratic voters but also republicans who silently are disgusted by him and his camp, a major overhaul of the parties is in order.
Neither can or should simply rewind to prior platforms or stances. What is relevant for the 2030’s and beyond?
I haven’t heard from anyone just what will be practical, appealing, sane, and forward leaning. A hell a lot of work to be done.
Perhaps we are now going into long term reversal mode, with re-concentration of wealth and power into the hands of a few. And the power of the state isn’t just in control of the swords like in past centuries, but also more and more so the digital, the robotic, the information world, the financial world. The tools under control of the state are hard for most people to fathom.
The US is being exposed as what it is, a full blown oligarchy. The Citizens united Supreme Court decision sealed it’s fate and now you have shadow president Musk. Who needs to actually be president whn you can buy one?
Market taking a hit.
Is reality sinking in?
Really? S&P was 5750 in Nov and 5866 last month. Today 6136. Let me know when it goes below 5866 again…
Good Riddance.
Mitch McConnell Finally Announces He Won’t Run Again.
Get the scum out.
This is in the context of how people are divided and headstrong steadfast in their opinions. On the 10-year anniversary, what color is The Dress: Black/Blue or Gold/White?
https://geoenergymath.com/2025/02/21/subjectivity-and-perception/
What does this imply to grouping of people in their ability to process information? Are they easily manipulated by other factors and by their preconceived notions?
Global warming: Anthropogenic factor or business on CO2
February 21/ 10:51
Nizhnevartovsk. Key issues of global climate change, increase in greenhouse gases, as well as increase in air temperature in the northern regions were discussed by participants of the video conference of the Oil and Gas Information Agency. The event was attended by experts of the Oil and Gas Information Agency and industry representatives.
The main speaker – Honored Geologist of Yugra, PhD in Geology and Mineralogy, expert of the Agency Alexander Shpilman devoted his speech to the key issue of the last decades – warming. To begin with, the expert cited data on the geological history of temperature changes on Earth. According to him, over the past 10 thousand years, the temperature on Earth has changed insignificantly and remained at the same level.
As Alexander Vladimirovich added, the concept of “global warming” appeared in the 80s, when the international group on climate change IPCC noted a systematic increase in temperature, which caused concern. But then the indicator changed by 1 ° C in 120 years.
“If we go back to our time, then, according to ROSHYDROMET, modern warming continues throughout Russia, in general, for the year and in all seasons. The growth rate of the average annual temperature in Russia for the period 1976-2022 was 0.49℃ / 10 years,” the speaker noted.
Table from the speaker’s presentation
To track temperature changes, experts conducted an analysis in three points on Earth – Tyumen, Khanty-Mansiysk and Salekhard. According to weather stations, changes in the average annual temperature over the past 30 years in Tyumen were +1 ° C, in Khanty-Mansiysk +1.2 ° C, but in Salekhard +2.13 ° C.
As the expert explained, over the 30-year period under study, a trend towards an increase in the average annual temperature by 1–2 ° C has been observed.
Table from the speaker’s presentation
“At the same time, the Arctic territories are warming up much faster. This conclusion requires verification at other weather stations located in the Arctic. High correlation of data on average annual temperatures at stations located far from each other indicates the planetary nature of these changes,” added Alexander Vladimirovich.
Also in his report, the expert addressed the study of the concentration and change of CO2 in the atmosphere.
“Carbon dioxide is an integral part of the air mixture, but its concentration outside is about 400-450 ppm (parts per million), which corresponds to 0.04% of the volume concentration. Indoors, the concentration of CO2 reaches about 800 ppm. A dangerous indicator for humans begins at 4000-5000 ppm. And, I also want to remind you that CO2 is a heavy gas, with an atmospheric density of 1.20 kg/m3, it weighs 1.9 kg/m3,” said Alexander Shpilman.
In this regard, ideas arise that this gas, when it settles on the ground, causes a greenhouse effect.
Table from the speaker’s presentation
For example, Alexander Vladimirovich presented data on how much CO2 is produced and consumed by humans on Earth. He noted that all burned fossil fuels emit ~ 46 billion tons of CO2 per year when burned, and all volcanoes – 0.3-0.4 billion tons. 100 times less than the burned hydrocarbon fuel.
“People exhale ~ 2.8 billion tons of CO2 per year. This is 10 times more than volcanoes, but 10 times less than CO2 from burned coal. If we take into account ~ 130 billion mammals on Earth, assume that they exhale only 10 liters of CO2 per hour, then this will amount to 87 m3 or ~ 170 kg per year. In total, all mammals emit 22 billion tons of CO2 per year. There are ~3 trillion trees on Earth. One tree absorbs ~100 kg of CO2 per year. All trees absorb ~300 billion tons of CO2 per year. But this carbon is reversible, trees end their lives and return to carbon in various states, some of it is buried in sediments,” the speaker added.
Alexander Vladimirovich noted that people should take this CO2 cycle into account in nature.
Summarizing his speech, the expert noted that the changes in temperature that are currently observed on the planet cannot be explained by changes in the concentration of greenhouse gases. Their causes are of a planetary nature, therefore, regardless of whether they are biological or geological, it is imperative to study and develop measures.
The next report within the framework of the conference was presented by the General Director of the State Commission on Mineral Reserves Igor Shpurov on the topic “Using the concept of the clean energy index (CEI) for sustainable development.”
According to Igor Viktorovich, the Clean Energy Index allows you to form a sustainable development strategy, evaluate the efficiency of clean energy production, while taking into account the accumulated experience, risks and threats, as well as all factors influencing technological aspects on the economic and environmental consequences of using various energy sources. Thanks to the ICE, you can analyze the situation on the energy supply market, determine the most economical way to safely and sustainably provide the population with energy in the medium and long term.
“The Clean Energy Index will also contribute to the formation of a sustainable economy and integrated management of natural resources,” the expert added. “In the field of sustainable development, Goal 7 stands out, which talks about ensuring universal access to affordable, reliable, sustainable and modern energy for all. But the question arises: how inexpensive, how clean? And in general, can clean energy be inexpensive? And can inexpensive energy be clean? We proclaim such principles, but we do not really understand what is behind them.”
To calculate the CEI, the experts used artificial intelligence, for this, the ChatGPT 3.0 model was chosen. The calculation uses a database that includes data from the IEA (International Energy Agency), World Bank Energy Data, Global Carbon Atlas, WHO (World Health Organization) and others.
Table from the speaker’s presentation
“The results of the study turned out to be quite interesting. We formed types of fuel by emission volumes from the dirtiest, coal, to the cleanest – solar energy. But when the ICHE was formed, it turned out that coal had the lowest index, and therefore the best one. After it came gas and oil, then hydropower, wind, nuclear and solar. So why is this happening? It’s simple, the cost of coal and all stages of energy production for fossil fuel extraction is much lower. Nuclear energy is a fairly expensive type. At the stage of extraction, disposal of radioactive waste structures, a huge number of costs are generated. Yes, this is a very clean type of energy, but very expensive,” Igor Shpurov emphasized.
According to him, such data indicate only one thing – there is a lack of technology that would make nuclear and wind generation clean energy. In the world, contradictions arise between technological development and good intentions to provide expensive and clean energy.
“That is why today we are talking about the fact that the 21st century is the century of fossil fuels. Because in order to be “clean” and inexpensive, a lot of time, effort and money are needed,” the expert said.
Igor Viktorovich also highlighted issues for further development of the Clean Energy Index. As the expert noted, the indicator evaluates the cost of generating clean energy for a full cycle. In addition to what has already been done, it is necessary to evaluate each direct project for the extraction of minerals. But, unfortunately, today it is not possible to implement this, but it is necessary to work on this issue.
“Some colleagues tried to persuade us to include social aspects in the clean energy index. We believe that this should not be done, because social aspects are still a completely different chain. Although a person who lives without energy, strictly speaking, does not care whether it is “clean” or not. He still needs to get it here and now,” Igor Shpurov summed up.
The moderator of the conference, Agency expert Alexander Khurshudov, in conclusion of his speech clarified when we will be able to manage these energy processes: in the distant future or still not very distant? Igor Viktorovich noted that this issue should be primarily addressed by the state.
“The state should regulate business development in such a way that technologies emerge that could ensure the future. From the figures given in the report, it is obvious to me that we have no developments in this area today. And they will not appear in the near future, especially for those areas that would replace fossil fuels in this regard. And if we had come to these conclusions 10-15 years ago, we would have understood this earlier. Geological exploration for oil and gas was curtailed, and renewable sources did not go, and we essentially stopped developing. This is why we need a clean energy index in order to carry out visible planning and assess our capabilities,” noted Igor Shpurov.
In turn, Alexander Khurshudov wondered why everyone focuses so much on CO2? According to him, methane produces exactly the same greenhouse effect, even stronger. Finally, water vapor produces a greenhouse effect. Why is no one talking about it, maybe because it cannot be traded?
Alexander Shpilman noted the well-known fact that among gases that can cause a greenhouse effect, water vapor is in first place. And, according to experts, it accounts for about 50% of the greenhouse effect.
“But you understand, if you decide to fight life, CO2, organic carbon, and then fight water, then you have decided to destroy life on earth at the root? You can’t fight all this, it is the basis of life for any creature, not just humans. At first, the study of CO2 was a scientific discussion, until they said that they would take and transfer money for it, it immediately became clear that there were many who wanted to “fight” it. And, of course, make money on it. In connection with this, the US President withdrew from the Paris Agreement, refusing to pay,” he specified.
Alexander Vladimirovich returned to Igor Shpurov’s report, which clearly demonstrates the fact that wind and solar generation have not taken root. And it was not surprising for the expert that coal and gas became the cheapest types of energy.
“My opinion is that all the interest in CO2 is not related to concern for nature,” the expert emphasized.
In conclusion of the conference, PhD, Honored Geologist of Russia Valery Karpov emphasized that the problem that was raised during the discussion is understandable to every ordinary person. But some things are still in the fog. He agreed with Igor Shpurov that the transition to environmentally friendly types of fuel is too far away, due to the fact that technologies lag behind needs. The expert noted that coal, oil and gas will remain a priority for a long time.
“If these resources remain a priority for many years, then it is necessary to seriously think about increasing the efficiency of geological exploration. Otherwise, very soon they will also be included in the number of, so to speak, unreliable and uneconomical. Because this process is very capital-intensive and costly. And here we need to look for ways to make them cheaper and increase efficiency,” summed up Valery Karpov.
————-
In this article, several diagrams can be found at the link. I believe that it is stupid to discuss the topic of reducing hydrocarbon consumption – all available ones will be extracted and used sooner or later, regardless of anything. Global warming exists, as does the anthropogenic factor, but how great the influence of the anthropogenic factor is is not exactly known, this is a topic for speculation. Scientists in pursuit of grants or due to their beliefs can be biased. If they close an aluminum smelting plant in Europe, then they will build it in Indonesia, this is wrong. Several decades ago, the fight against freon gases was also discussed. In my opinion, it is more important to fight deforestation and forest fires and immigration. Immigration contributes to overpopulation of the planet, which leads civilization to disaster.
https://www.angi.ru/news/2923125-%D0%93%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B0%D0%BB%D1%8C%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B5%20%D0%BF%D0%BE%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5%3A%20%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9%20%D1%84%D0%B0%D0%BA%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%80%20%D0%B8%D0%BB%D0%B8%20%D0%B1%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%81%20%D0%BD%D0%B0%20%D0%A1%D0%9E2/