Yeasayers Yea-Say Break Through
January 9, 2008 |
A member of the new band, "Yeasayer," yea-says Break Through in Pitchfork magazine:
I've been reading this book called Break Through. I read about it in Wired magazine. It sparked my interest because it's about global warming. But it's saying the liberals have it just as wrong as the republicans. It's basically saying that there needs to be a paradigm shift completely... Basically what these guys are proposing is that the only way you could fix the problem is by linking economic progress with environmentalism, through a kind of Manhattan Project sort of thing, where you get a president in power who realizes we're fucked here, and we need to send $300 billion to employee people to solve this problem, to fix up our world. And what they're saying is there's limitless potential for human creativity, which is something Yeasayer firmly believes in.
Here's a picture of the band:
Comments
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Morbi aliquam laoreet metus, id elementum tellus vulputate et. Mauris eros est, pulvinar vitae condimentum ac, laoreet tincidunt sem. Proin vel lacus mattis libero varius iaculis. Morbi rutrum porta tristique. Pellentesque pharetra vehicula ante, sed aliquam nibh condimentum ut. Morbi sapien sapien, convallis vitae aliquet eu, tempor nec purus. Quisque at dui quis turpis tempus facilisis non eget arcu. Cras rhoncus tincidunt lorem id pharetra. Morbi dignissim purus nec lacus convallis pretium.
By Another comment on 2012 09 12
Don't argue with Bill Gates. He knows what he is saying.
By Eva on 2010 03 16
Nowadays seem to everywhere already alert about energy crisis. It's definitely good way to save the world by start to use green power solution.
By DIY Solar Panels on 2009 09 28
Breakthroughs are not that far away, with modest investments in R&D for advanced nuclear power. For example, the liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) can produce electricity cheaper than from coal. This is the only way we will ever convince nations to stop burning coal. You quote Jeffrey Sachs "It is difficult to see how coal-based developing economies such as China and India will subscribe to tight targets on emissions.." as I do in the presentation on the technology and benefits of LFTR. Here is a technology that produces < 1% of the waste of existing nuclear power plants, that runs on inexhaustible (for many millennia) thorium fuel, can burn existing nuclear waste, and is being pursued by hundreds of scientists and engineers, on a voluntary basis, with hardly any R&D funding. Concepts were proven in the 1970s. It now desperately needs funding to actually construct a prototype. Yet a proposal to ARPA-E for a bit over $100,000 to pursue one of the benefits (waste destruction) was rejected. There is a groundswell of consensus that somehow "renewable" or "green" technologies will solve our climate and energy problems, but anything related to "nuclear" is a priori dismissed. Please visit the Aim High presentation about the technology and benefits of the liquid fluoride thorium reactor at http://rethinkingnuclearpower.googlepages.com/aimhigh
By Robert Hargraves on 2009 08 02
Great post! Thank you for given this...
By Solar Products on 2009 06 04
Thank you very much for given this great post!!!!
By Solar Power on 2009 06 03
Thanks for this good post.........
By Solar Power Business on 2009 05 29
Thank you for this great post.!!!!!!!!!!
By Solar Power Business on 2009 05 22
Wilmot, Joe Romm does indeed "support" some investment in R&D in passing, but it's far from "a large increase in R&D funding for clean tech," as you write. In the "Breakthrough Illusion" piece I referenced above Joe Romm writes this (after writing at length about why we don't need, can't count on, and otherwise are wasting our time focusing on transformational innovation):
"Obviously government R&D, and especially first-of-a-kind demonstration programs, are critical before the technology can be introduced to the marketplace on a large scale
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 04 14
Joe Romm actually recommends a large increase in R&D funding for clean tech. His point in emphasizing deployment, as I understand it, is that time is short and we can't wait for better solutions to be discovered, given what he knows about how the research game is played. He has good grounds for pessimism. So at least have some respect for his sincerity, and give the author of "The Hype about Hydrogen" -- a great book -- a break here.
Pure science research, as pursued at universities and national science labs, should give way to mission-driven research, like the Manhattan Project or the effort that produced the transistor at Bell Labs. Pure science has so far failed to produce anything scalable and realistic to solve the basic problem, which is that the world, especially India and China, needs coal to satisfy the increasing demand for electricity, and there is presently no available CO2 capture and storage (or conversion) technology. DOE research money goes to string theory, supercolliders, hydrogen cars, etc. The academic caste system stands in the way of practical solutions.
We need some way to crowdsource the breakthrough search for post-combustion carbon capture and conversion (viz. "Crowdsourcing," by Jeff Howe (2008)). Maybe BI can help by defining problems and offering incentives for solutions, as InnoCentive does for private industry. (Id. at 42-45).
By Wilmot McCutchen on 2009 04 11
Thanks for this useful blog.To know about solar
energy visit http://www.solarenergy-solarpower.com.
Solar Energy - Solar Power site is providing all the information and products you need to start your own solar power project.
By Solar Power Business on 2009 04 08
The world needs a new basis innovation for a 6th Kondratieff cycle. Nefiodow tells us that the long-waves are becoming more powerful and closer together. Just think of where the world would be without the informatics boom.
Thank you for this timely report. I learned about your think tank through your twitter account (thank you IT).
The next innovation must be in clean and cheap energy production. Oh yea, and we need it NOW.
By Jim on 2009 04 08
Tim, thanks for the comment as well. Indeed, a variety of policies will be needed, but we also have to be clear about the scale of the challenge and not neglect key priorities, including efforts to dramatically accelerate technological innovation in the energy sector. Please keep commenting and voicing your reactions, questions and responses to our posts. Thanks and take care,
Jesse Jenkins
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 04 08
Asa, glad you find something of interest here, and it's always good to consult numerous sources. However, I want to point out that we are not, in fact, solely focused on "massive R&D" and have advocated major public investments in the direct deployment of clean energy technologies as well as a modest carbon price as a synergistic measure and a funding mechanism. See most recently, this post: http://theenergycollective.com/TheEnergyCollective/37028 but there's a lot more in our archives I can point you to if you'd like. We're definitely not advocating any delay in deploying current technologies at scale, even while we support the kind of transformational innovation the experts and organizations cited above all advocate. Sincerely,
Jesse Jenkins
By Jesse Jenkins on 2009 04 08
This is why I read both your blog and Joe Romm's (and others). Breakthrough is too quick to diss approaches other than massive R&D, and Romm is focused on exactly those approaches. Now, to find someone making a strong case for cap-(or tax-)and-100%-dividend, and I'll have my bases covered, and never agree with any one of them all the time.
By Asa on 2009 04 08
There could be no better investment in America than to invest in America becoming energy independent! We need to utilize everything in out power to reduce our dependence on foreign oil including using our own natural resources. Create cheap clean energy, new badly needed green jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil.The high cost of fuel this past year seriously damaged our economy and society. The cost of fuel effects every facet of consumer goods from production to shipping costs. It costs the equivalent of 60 cents per gallon to charge and drive an electric car. If all gasoline cars, trucks, and SUV's instead had plug-in electric drive trains the amount of electricity needed to replace gasoline is about equal to the estimated wind energy potential of the state of North Dakota.We have so much available to us such as wind and solar. Let's spend some of those bail out billions and get busy harnessing this energy. Create cheap clean energy, badly needed new jobs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. What a win-win situation that would be for our nation at large! There is a really good new book out by Jeff Wilson called The Manhattan Project of 2009 Energy Independence Now. http://www.themanhattanprojectof2009.com
By Sherry on 2009 04 08
Great post. I source a lot of stuff from CP for my own blog and learning, and whilst it's still very useful, I find one needs to be able to filter some stuff out.
This is one such instance.
Saving the world will comprise of
-tech breakthrough/innovation
-CO2 signal to market
-energy efficiency
-demand shifting
-energy source from renewables
-smart grid + appliances
Greentech needs to be a system, holistic system.
cheers
Tim M
Heresy Snowboarding
By Tim M on 2009 04 08
When I read such stories I hope rich nations are challenged to implement the Kyoto protocol. Presdient Obama, Will the United States lead the way? Many poor communities all over the world are struggling to adapt and cope with climate change because they dont have a choice - it is a matter of life and death. When I see local communities planting trees I ask myself even as I too plant trees: "What difference will this make?" Our efforts is like a drop of water in an ocean. But fellow friends of the earth let us do our bit however small as we wait for others to take responsibility before we all perish together. Moreover, as we say where I come from, it si drops of water that make up an ocean.
By Wakairitu on 2009 02 08
Nice post Zadam. What timing, with the fuel truck disaster and all.
By Chris on 2009 02 03
Populism has always been a movement of the left, not the right. Also being against radical egalitarianism is not elitism; radically egalitarian movements always come with an elite to make sure all the equality goes correctly (e.g. apparatchiks) and Brooks has a lot of explaining to do if he wants to sell the idea that meritocracy = elitism.
By Robert www.neolibertarian.com on 2008 09 17
R&D, which usually includes demonstrations anyway, does not distort markets or allow government to force bad, or just inefficient, solutions onto the country. That's why I'm with Lomberg on this one.
The current example of government support for deployment is ethanol: a monumental boondoggle that is doing little to advance any energy policy objective but which is making rich farmers richer and raising food prices world wide. Government control of 'deployment' doesn't engender "learning by doing" as much as it engenders "wealth transfer by lobbying."
Would you argue that, if the money spent on ethanol deployment had been spent on R&D for solar, wind, and nuclear would we be worse off?
By Robert L. www.neolibertarian.com on 2008 06 26
I agree. However, it's not as black and white as you make it sound. When the article refers to liberals, it's referring to mainstream liberals who believe that eating organic and driving prius's will solve the crisis. There are many other liberals who understand this is not enough.
By Steven S. Matt on 2008 04 07