Nuclear Fusion: How many people is too many?

Why the Environmental Left Is Secretly Petrified by Truly Renewable Energy

The hypocrisy of the environmental left is well documented: Al Gore, Leonardo DiCaprio, and the other Hollywood eco-saints travel far and wide in their gas-guzzling limos and private jets to preach the importance of riding bicycles and to spread the gospel of wind and solar power.  However, perhaps more astounding than their “green life for thee, but not for me” lifestyle is the reality that environmental radicals, despite all their hollering to the contrary, don’t actually want truly cheap and renewable energy.  In fact, the creation of affordable, clean, widely available energy is one of their greatest fears.

On March 9, a team from MIT and Commonwealth Fusion Systems announced in the academic journal Nature that they are closer than ever to making nuclear fusion a reality.  If successful, nuclear fusion would provide incredibly cheap, environmentally friendly energy to the world – and the researchers believe that the technology could be ready for a commercial rollout in as few as fifteen years.

As Fox News noted in a recent report on the potential discovery, “[n]uclear fusion is the be-all and end-all source of energy because, in theory, it’s practically unlimited and has almost no downside.  It doesn’t put carbon into the atmosphere like the burning of fossil fuels or generate radioactive waste like nuclear fission, which is the technology in current nuclear power plants.”

If nuclear fusion is achieved, it will in relatively short order render much of the existing energy market useless.  Many traditional power plants would close.  Carbon dioxide emissions would be cut dramatically in countries with enough wealth to build nuclear fusion plants.  Billions of people would have access to affordable energy that they never had before.

This scenario might sound as though it’s every environmentalist’s paradise, but there’s more to leftist environmentalism than obsessing about global warming.  For many on the left, growing human population sizes and their effect on the environmental is also a very serious concern.  For instance, in his population control book Ten Billion, environmentalist Stephen Emmott wrote, “Only an idiot would deny that there is a limit to how many people our Earth can support.  The question is, is it seven billion (our current population), 10 billion or 28 billion?  I think we’ve already gone past it.  Well past it.”

University of Hawaii at Manoa professor Camilo Mora wrote in a 2014 paper in the journal Ecology and Society, “What caught my interest on this whole issue is how humans are causing the destruction of ecosystems.  At the end of the day … we cannot stop hurting biodiversity if we don’t stop reproducing so quickly.”

Liberal environmentalists believe that more people means more problems, and history has repeatedly proven that when electric power and technological advancements become readily available, population growth inevitably follows.  During the twentieth century, Earth’s population expanded by 400 percent, largely thanks to fossil fuel-powered societal improvements.

If nuclear fusion becomes a reality, billions of people who now live in extreme poverty (and thus don’t consume many resources) would likely gain access to affordable energy, helping people living in communities plagued by disease and famine live longer, healthier lives.

From the leftist environmentalist’s perspective, this effectively means that cheap energy is dangerous.  This is precisely why environmentalist Jeremy Rifkin said, “It’s the worst thing that could happen to our planet” when the possibility of nuclear fusion was discussed in 1989.  Similarly, biologist Paul Ehrlich said it would be “like giving a machine gun to an idiot child.”

If environmentalists are so concerned about population growth, why do they seem to unanimously support the use of wind and solar power?  The answer is because these forms of energy are more expensive than fossil fuels, which means it’s unlikely they could soon catalyze population growth in the same way nuclear fusion could.  For example, the Institute for Energy Research found that solar power is three times more expensive than power generated from existing natural gas or nuclear plants.

If nuclear fusion becomes the world’s most important power source in the twenty-first century, you can expect the climate change crisis to quickly evaporate.  In its place, the “Population Bomb” fear-mongering of the 1970s will once again rear its horrifying head.

 

 

Author: Glock-N-Load

Simply a concerned, freedom loving American.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
anarchyst
anarchyst
March 30, 2018 7:53 am

Environmentalism has been the method used to impose communist principles on western society–especially in the USA.
Environmentalists are not content with promoting clean water, air and land, but are hell-bent on controlling human behavior, and yes, promoting extermination plans for much of humanity as these “anointed” types consider mankind to be a pestilence (except for themselves) to be reduced in population “by any means necessary”.
Environmentalists HATE the God-given concept of private property and have imposed government-backed and enforced “land use controls” on private property owners without compensation–clearly an unconstitutional “taking” of private property. If environmentalists want to control land use, let them purchase it themselves–not by government force. Today the only method of negating government-imposed land use restrictions is “shoot, shovel, and shut up”.
If environmentalists had their way, the earth’s human population would be reduced by approximately 90%, with the remainder to (be forced) to live in cities, in soviet-style high rise apartments, utilizing bicycles, buses and trains for transportation. The use of automobiles and access to “pristine wilderness (rural) areas” would be off-limits to us mere mortals, and would only be available for these “anointed” environmentalists.
The “endangered species act” is another abuse of environmentalism. Species are always changing, to adapt to their environments–”survival if the fittest”. In fact, the hoopla over the “spotted owl” (that placed much northwest timber land “off-limits” to logging) turned out to be nothing but scientific misconduct and arrogance. There are virtually identical species in other parts of the northwest.
More scientific malpractice occurred when government biologists attempted to “plant” lynx fur in certain areas to provide an excuse for making those areas “off-limits” for logging or development. Fortunately, these “scientists” were caught–however, no punishment was given.
In a nutshell, today’s environmentalism IS communism… like watermelon…”green” on the outside and “red” (communist) on the inside…
It is interesting to note that communist and third-world countries have the WORST environmental conditions on the planet. Instead of the USA and other developed countries spending billions to get rid of that last half-percent of pollution, it would behoove the communist countries to improve their conditions first.

anarchyst
anarchyst
March 30, 2018 7:55 am

The term “fossil fuel” was coined in the 1950s when not much was known about the nature of naturally-occurring hydrocarbon products. Environmentalists have used this misconception about naturally occurring oil to their advantage; hence, the now-discredited concept of “peak oil”.
Oil is abiotic in nature, being produced deep within the earth by yet-unknown processes. Russian oil interests have been drilling deep wells, as much as 30,000 feet deep and coming up with oil deposits–far deeper than that of decayed plant and animal materials.
It turns that many of our depleted oil wells are “filling back up”; oil is migrating from deep within the earth, upward to many of our present drilling sites.
There are certain interests that do not want to see oil as a plentiful, renewable natural resource–FOLLOW THE MONEY…

kokoda the Deplorable Raccoon and I-LUV-CO2
kokoda the Deplorable Raccoon and I-LUV-CO2
  anarchyst
March 30, 2018 8:28 am

I won’t be technically correct on how I phrase my below comment, so give me leeway:

The ‘Abiotic Oil’ is not a proven scientific process. Probably due to science not understand how it occurs, if it is true.

Wolverine
Wolverine
  anarchyst
April 1, 2018 2:59 pm

anarchyst.

Sorry, abiotic oil is a bullshit fairy tale spun by the Russians. The process of oil formation is clearly understood and it takes millions of years and defined depths and pressure to make it. Variations in oil viscosity are due to variations of depth, pressure and original organic content. As plate tectonics change the landscape (above and below the surface) there very well be more oil being made but it is in no way “abiotic”. If it were abiotic don’t you think it would show up everywhere? Instead you have pockets, some large and some small, spread through out the world. If the Saudis oil wells were magically refilling, do you thing they would be building the worlds largest solar installation and selling Aramco to the world – not a chance in hell.

Anonymous
Anonymous
March 30, 2018 8:10 am

Any belief with an “ism” on it is probably a substitute for God, you go attacking “environmentalism” and you are attacking the god of its believers.

credit
credit
March 30, 2018 8:44 am

My generation was taught to have no more than 2 kids to save the environment. Then we were taught to feed starving Africans having 12 children. As a side note, the flabby cunt Leo DiCaprio flew a makeup specialist to do his eyebrows for Oscar night. Somebody please kick his ass.

Dutchman
Dutchman
March 30, 2018 9:23 am

Fusion / self driving cars / flying taxis / drones delivering pizza – all hype.

DRUD
DRUD
March 30, 2018 10:32 am

I’m quite sure this is hype…. not because i don’t believe clean abundant energy is possible…I just think almost everyone trying has the wrong information. The sun is NOT a gigantic nuclear furnace. Fusion happens of course, but not in the way most physicists believe.

Oilman2
Oilman2
March 30, 2018 11:14 am

Abiotic oil is REAL!!!

It is normally found associated with large deposits of unobtainium or within high permeability reservoirs of hopium. Abiotic oil can be produced by applying a time dilation machine to each well, allowing millions of years of accumulation in mere months.

Yes, there have been non-commercial quantities of abiotic “hydrocarbons”. Please note the hyphenated word in the previous sentence. Now, please read it again, just to insure yourself that you understand the concept embodied in that hyphenated word.

So please go reread that hyphenated word once again. It’s the only one in my comment, so you can find it, I promise.

The ability to parrot a dogma or an idea does not make it real, only entertaining.

As to the actual article – I am well past the half century mark in age, and have spent the better part of my life reading about how amazing things will be when atomic fusion is controlled.

I think a much better lead in to population control agenda of the communists could have been thought of.

Administrator
Administrator
  Oilman2
March 30, 2018 11:38 am

Thank you for kicking the abiotic idiots in the balls. I got tired of doing it.

daddysteve
daddysteve
March 30, 2018 12:39 pm

The “real” cheap and safe energy source would be molten salt thorium reactors. I wonder why they’re never mentioned?

Fleabaggs
Fleabaggs
March 30, 2018 12:43 pm

The lab in Oak Ridge developed a Thorium reactor quite a while back. There is lots of it and they don’t produce radioactive waste but I haven’t bothered to look into it beyond that simply because I have no passion for that part of the envirowakko?population control con job.
I’m one of those guys who has to do the math on things. It takes or did take as recent as 3 years ago 1.25 gal. of fossil fuel equivalents to produce 1.o Gal. of Ethanol. And that’s not even discussing the harm done to the poor in the form of higher corn prices. The bulk of Iowas corn crop goes to Ethanol. It also is bad for engines unless money is spent on special materials and additives.
I did the math on population growth. All 7 billion of us despicable enviro destroying air hogs would fit somewhat comfortably into the state of Texas and still have a little patch of lawn. Not that Texans would want us mind you, and not that we would want to live that close to Texans either. Just sayin.

karl
karl
  Fleabaggs
March 30, 2018 1:11 pm

Ethanol isn’t quite that bad. It is closer to .75 per gallon of ethanol.
and ethanol has replaced lead and m?te as octane boosters. Growing the corn is destroying much of the fertility of the midwest. The real longterm crime.

Fleabaggs
Fleabaggs
  karl
March 30, 2018 3:28 pm

The figures are 3 years old. They removed lead decades ago. You’re right about the soil. The herbicides, pesticides, Petro based or produced fertilizer in ever increasing amounts and I’m not an envirowakko.