New element – Administratum – discovered

from facebook – here, originally.

“This bit of humor was written in April 1988 and appeared in the January 1989 issue of The Physics Teacher. William DeBuvitz was a physics professor at Middlesex County College in Edison, New Jersey (USA). He retired in June of 2000.”

‘The heaviest element known to science was recently discovered by chemists. The element, tentatively named Administratum, has no protons or electrons and thus has an atomic number of 0. However it does have:

1 neutron
125 assistant neutrons
75 vice-neutrons
111 assistant vice-neutrons

This gives it an atomic mass of 312. The 312 particles are held together by a force that involves the continuous exchange of meson-like particles called morons.

Since it has no electrons, Administratum is inert. However, it can be detected chemically as it impedes every action with which it comes in contact. According to the discoverers, a minute amount of Administratum causes one reaction to take four days to complete when it would have normally occured in less than one second.

Administratum has a normal half-life of approximately three years, at which time it does not actually decay but instead undergoes a reorganization in which assistant neutrons, vice neutrons, and assistant vice-neutrons exchange places. Some studies have shown that atomic mass actually increases after each reorganization.

Research at other laboratories indicates that Administratum occurs naturally in the atmosphere. It tends to concentrate at certain points such as government agencies, large corporations, and universities and can usually be found in the newest, best appointed, and best maintained buildings.

Chemists point out that Administratum is known to be toxic at any level of concentration and can easily destroy any productive reaction where it is allowed to accumulate.

Attempts are being made to determine how Administratum can be controlled to prevent irreversible damage, but results to date are not promising.’

 

While we wait, we could all learn the words to Tom Lehrer’s classic…

 

 

Blog- Thurs 6 to Sun 9 July

Thursday 6
Around the park  five times
Two hours at microfiche tracking down crucial newspaper articles for the carbon tax 1994/1995 story. Dead useful, developed a couple of new tricks of how to get the info v. quickly
Good meeting with a research librarian, who was super helpful, and put me onto an academic I am meeting up with on Thursday.
Scanning some important stuff (and also pages from John Howard’s  memoir ‘Lazarus Rising).
Cycled home and had three games of scrabble with dad, won two lost one.
Did lots more  grunt work around the stuff I collected earlier today (this matters – if I have learned anything it is the importance of doing the grunt work as you go!!)
Insomnia!
Reading Anna Krien’s excellent Quarterly Essay on coal, coral and climate change.  We’re toast, and she is almost as good as Elizabeth Kolbert, which is High Praise Indeed.

Friday 7
Insomnia – working on thesis at stupid o’clock.  Then, in the morning,  one game of scrabble with mum Lift into town (raining!)  Two hours in State Library – got the hang of some software/hardware, scanned some useful stuff. And some trainspottery stuff. It’s not always possible to know in advance which is which.
Very little/nothing in Keating biographies about climate, which is telling re: what a low priority it was – I don’t think he got involved at all in the spat over the tax itself.  And forestry took up all the oxygen.
Then fantastic meet up with lovely chap who it turns out I had met once before.  Really inspiring and energising to meet someone on the same wavelength.  He’s into Arendt, and a whole lot of other stuff. Looking forward to introducing him to various folks (inc The Wife).  Walked home, making it ahead of the rain.
Meanwhile, that March tweet by Elon Musk was coming true – the one about building a 100Mw power storage facility ‘or it’s free’.
More work (typing up bits of a book I read, then tracking down the relevant factoids. Never underestimate the willingness/brass neck of trade associations to just MAKE SHIT UP.

Saturday 8
Walked around the park times five, followed by scrabble tournament with my ma.  Played 6, won 4 (one by a single point). Got totally totally thrashed in the first game.  Largely enjoyable. People are strange.
A bus up to somewhere to see a film (not very good) and endure a truly excruciatingly bad meeting.  We will never learn, it seems. It was heart-breakingly bad.  Then long wait for a bus back, but that is a first world problem, and one of my own making (I shoulda left earlier).
In the meantime, read a lot of Mark Butler’s Climate Wars, and will be late getting the review written, but only by a day, so not the end of the world…
Got up to watch some Federer, but fell asleep towards the end of each set…

Sunday 9
Backpain, possibly from all that walking with a backpack…  I never learn.  Watched The Insiders, with Lenore Taylor, Shane Wright and Mike Seccombe (all journos I am referencing in my thesis) talking about the week’s events.  Barnaby Joyce trying and failing to minimise the significance of the Weatherill/Musk announcement.  That %#$* Chris Uhlman ripping into Trump (apparently it went viral in DC).
Turns out my Gunther Anders conversation piece has been popping up in different places. Currently over 28k views, putting it second in my most-viewed conversation pieces. Odd.
Then off to the library. Got a bit of reading of Senate stuff done (from the mid-1990s) and borrowed some books I will probably only read about ten pages of  (e.g.  a Joe Hockey biography. Srsly).  Then went through the print-off of the 94/5 chapter and then made changes, added bits etc. This took hours, but was worth it, because now aged female parental has a hard copy that she is very kindly reading. Must iterate, basically.  This can guide what else I do, research wise.  Actually would like to do a couple of interviews….
Thank goodness I had no money on me today, otherwise I would have bought an anthology of Meanjin for $2 and a zombie comedy memoir for 50c.  Cough, cough.

Blog Days 4 and 5

So, Monday night I got the parentals, both former hacks, to proof read an article about the interesting comments of a renewables engineer. They did this with aplomb, and I sent the thing off.
Tuesday 4th

Walked around the park again (5 laps, this time with three logs in the backpack) and then got on with more ‘grunt’ work on the thesis.  Good news then followed – the editor of reneweconomy said yes to running the piece.  Kept gruntworking on the thesis, then cycled in to meet my very smart and kind friend Heather Smith.  A good chinwag ensued about the state of play with renewables in South Australia.  Anyone who tells you that I then went to the Oxfam bookshop on Hutt Street and bought, for two bucks in toto the following

  • Vance Palmer, National Portraits: 25 Australian Lives
  • Nevil Shute, Requiem for a Wren
  • Frank Hardy, But the Dead are Many
  • Blanche d’Alpuget, Turtle Beach
  • Fred Pearce, Green Warriors

And, for $3.50, Best Australian Political Writing 09

is making an outrageous allegation, as the wife used to say.

Then I got on a train. Not quite the right train, it turned out, and thus had some extra cycling and navigating of suburban cul-de-sacs to do, before arriving at the site of an old car factory which is being repurposed (palimpsests, eh?) for the next economy.  An hour and a half of thesis reading followed by a two-part tour.  The building was 11 hectares, now reduced to 8.  There will be mixed used, student accommodation, better transport links etc.  The tour guide was understandably cagey on when the site might finally have 6,000 employees, but that’s the (aspirational) target.  The other tour guide, showing us around the other half of the building was much more blunt, and pointed out a series of decisions/actions which undercut the general green patina.

The point of the evening though was the hosting of a ‘conversation’ about sustainable buildings and the circular economy.  Hmmm.  If you only schedule an hour, then having a late start, a long lead in and then five (rather than the three advertised) speakers, means that there ain’t gonna be much conversation, now is there?

I stuck my hand up first, because I had to be on the (last) train out at 7.10.  A two header, offering speakers the chance to pick either the easy or hard one.  Easy one – “how is circular economy anything new, compared to typical make-do and mend, traditional ‘conserver’ economies.”  Hard one- “where is the sense of urgency, I heard nothing about changing the rules of the game. We’ve lost the reef, the arctic, the Antarctic is going…”

One chap chose the hard one and said yes, economic growth can’t continue.  Another person answered a totally different question. The author of a report on the Circular Economy went for the hard one and the answer is worth relating and commenting on.  In precis – yes, accepting the scale of the problem.  But Rachel Carson predicted doom, Ozone people predicted doom, didn’t happen. Therefore we need to work ‘with’ business to get anything done, can’t go around scaring people.

Hmm.  Actually, Carson offered possibilities, then action followed. Ditto on Ozone- if we had kept spewing CFCs up, then there would have been real trouble.  But beyond this historical inaccuracy, there is the point that it cuts both ways. “We” have been sucking up to business since the 70s, and where has it got us other  than [redacted on legal advice].  Where is the step change? Where is the game changing? Because on current trajectories, we are toast.

So, had to walk out during the  answer from a panellist, which was awkward, but there’s a podcast apparently… Train then cycle home, more grunt work.

Weds 5th

Walk around park again, scribbling on my thesis – first empirical chapter.  Then work at home.  Then went to this event in the city centre.  It was rather good. Home via shops (there’s only so long you can use an airline provided toothbrush).  Was supposed to be going to a community energy event with Heather, but I stuffed up the address, she couldn’t find me, so had to head on.  Pretty groggy though (a bit of jetlag) and probably good I wasn’t there (snoring in the front row a bad look).  So, a bit more grunt work on the thesis, and to bed…

Technology as fetish? South Australia and the Social Economy.

A rather interesting event today, high above the mean streets of Adelaide.  What place might “technology” (we will come back to the scare quotes) have in helping Adelaide (and South Australia more generally) cope with the slings and arrows of deindustrialisation and globalisation?

The event was organised by the Dunstan Foundation (named for the last SA Premier to properly shake things up. He stepped down in 1979), and sponsored by “Connecting Up”. The Dunstan Foundation is revivifying the ‘Thinkers in Residence’ programme, which started 15 years ago with the late great climate scientist Stephen Schneider.  The theme these days is ‘Social Capital’, and it was this context which brought people together to listen to (and engage with) Suzi Sosa. Who she? She is  ‘Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer of Verb, a global social enterprise producing large-the competitions focused on pressing social and environmental issues.’
And she’s a pretty good facilitator, when it comes down to it.  There were twenty of us, apparently a younger crowd than the previous roundtables that have taken place over the last few days (Adelaide as gerontocracy? Who knew?). The specific question was “Social Impact and ICT.’

As the chair said in his opening comments explaining the re-birth of the Thinkers in Residence programme, the ‘social economy´ matters; in the aftermath of a major employer shutting down, a report revealed that it is a significant employer, and the Dunstan Foundation is interested how to make the social economy work for SA, how to speed it up (with technology).

Ms Souza made some brief opening remarks – South Australia at fork in road, question of whether to try to entice a big employer or try for local entrepreneurship (that ‘endogenous growth that Gordon Brown used to talk about).  And meanwhile, Gen Y and Z types are restive – with 70% saying they are looking for purpose/meaning in their daily work.  There was a certain amount of buzzword bingo- cutting edge/going forward/DNA- but I think I detected a little self-knowingness in them.

We then had a name-go-round and brief self intro of the 20 of us.  I outed myself as a skeptic on ‘social capital’, saying at the time that my scepticism was down to the buzzword nature of it (compare sustainable development, participatory etc.). I didn’t say it’s because it’s part of the constellation of terms – resilience, continuous professional development/lifelong learning – which add up to the subjectification under neoliberalism, what Jurgie Habermas would call the colonisation of the life world. Why not? Time, cans and worms etc; see also.)

The conversation was relatively ahistorical, not-informed by sociology/ anthropology/ science and technology studies. The term ‘technology’ didn’t get thoroughly unpacked/critiqued, and there was uncertainty about who this ‘we’ was who was doing things, or planning to do so.  Nothing on hype cycles either. After a while, thanks to a couple of the women (especially the one sat opposite me) it picked up, with mention of participatory democracy.

At this point I pitched in and asked if anyone remembered the 1995 essay ‘the Californian Ideology’, which critiqued the rhetoric of empowerment around the coming of the World Wide Web and dotcom neoliberalism  (I might also have mentioned Clifford Stoll’s excellent Silicon Snake Oil).  I pointed out that each new technology – television, radio, newspapers, the printing press – came with expectations that it would solve social problems (poverty, ill-health etc) but that mysteriously they don’t, that questions of power and privilege cannot be buried under boosterism.

(I could have mentioned the Sustainability Fix,

but I didn’t want to give the (completely incorrect) impression of being an arrogant know-it-all.)

Ms Souza pushed me to explain what I thought about entrepreneurial ecosystems and how to help them along.  I suggested that there needed to be Devils’ Advocates and unusual supects  baked into the process, or else it would be a smart club which came up with some good ideas but didn’t reach its potential. I pointed out that there was a huge expat community of Adelaidians scattered around the world (not just in Sydney and Melbourne) who care deeply about the city, would like to come back, and that the technology surely existed to make them part of this conversation.

The conversation moved on in interesting ways; Adelaide is less staid than it was/young people no longer asking permission, there is still a braindrain, one of Adelaide’s advantages is that everyone knows everyone (1.5 degrees of separation), of the opportunity to something other than ‘catch up’ with Sydney, e.g. Austin’s “stay weird” slogan, human-centred design, volunteers as both asset but also inertial block, millennials wanting their superannuation to Do Good In The World., the problem of matching those with the skills and those who need them.

Ms Souza kept the conversation going in useful ways with a gentle nudge here and there. She told a good anecdote of having to switch a pitch from CSR departments (no money, risk averse) to HR departments, and the need to learn a new language and sell what was offering as talent retention rather than Doing Good in the World.  Her closing gambit was to do another systematic go-round of what should be in her report of recommendations of what is to be done.

Lots of useful ideas – including about the importance of business models, the risk-aversion of NGOs when their funding is on-the-line and much else. I pitched in the warning ‘if the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails and that there might be space for a monthly ‘lek’ complete with skype/facetime/livestreaming for people in the provinces. It would need to be well-designed, facilitated and enforced so people can actually properly meet and connect If it’s not, if those with the greatest social capital dominate, others will quickly vote with their feet, and things are worse than they were before…

Thoughts on the event.  Nicely done.  Good format, input from some very smart people.  However, nothing on the downsides of Big Data, on the downsides of meritocracy, the risks of volunteering as downward pressure on wages, the old saw ‘Not everything that counts can be counted, and not everything that can be counted counts.’  A touching faith in the power of our tools…

There was  a good practical focus on where is the money coming from/getting investment (and someone smart said afterwards, the impact of the State Bank collapse in the early 1990s has not been mentioned/understood).

There was, inevitably,  a game of buzzword bingo to be had-

Social imaginary, start-ups, tech savvy, siloed, entrepreneurial ecosystem, activate, leverage, hard infrastructure, soft infrastructure, technology as enabler (nowt on how technology can disable)

I’ve been to three things so far this week, (see this) and despite its silence on the pending ecological debacle,  this was by far the most interesting and fruitful.  It will be interesting to see what is in Ms Souza’s report, and what South Australia does next…

 

“That was a good meeting “– what the heck are your criteria?

So, went to an activist meeting that was dominated by a small core of people.  Afterwards they were heard agreeing that it was an excellent meeting.  And you have to wonder, what were their criteria. I think these.

  • “I got to speak a lot/display my virtue and or intelligence/be the centre of attention”
    (see also ego potlatch)
  • “Issues that were uncomfortable were not aired”
  • “There were agreed doable outcomes that the ‘group’ can do that will lead to benefits for the group and me.”

Other criteria, which would be regarded as irrelevant or hippy nonsense by those who found the meeting ‘a success’ but might actually make the whole damn thing sustainable.

  • Everyone present was given enough information and opportunities to ‘warm up’ so that they could both more easily absorb what was being said at (sorry, ‘to’ ) them and also participate in the conversation afterwards
  • The initial promises of interactivity and time-keeping were kept
  • People were not just encouraged to participate but the meeting was consciously structured in ways that lowered/eliminated the invisible barriers that are in place due to status, information differentials etc
  • The meeting was not dominated by a small core of high-status individuals who have the confidence/cultural and social capital to interact with each other over the heads of a silent observing group of people treated as ‘ego-fodder’

(e.g. in a group of 14 people, 5 people did all the speaking [bar one invited speaker and one self-serving ‘question’] for the first 105 minutes of a 120 minute meeting.  By the end of the 120 minutes, only 9 of the 14 people had said anything (and 3 of them had spoken only once).

 

The obvious retort is that by trying to abolish hierarchy you are pissing in the wind, futilely defying millions of years of evolution.

The retort to the retort is that no, we’re not trying to abolish it, just lessen its impact, and that by that argument, nobody ever managed to knock the rough edges of absolute dictatorship etc etc.   How come slavery was abolished, men can no longer ‘legally’ rape their wives etc  etc.

Blogging the days away. Day 1-3…

Friday/Saturday

Right, so – flight. Not much to say I guess.  It was 5 tonnes of carbon into t’atmosphere…  Flew in an A380 the first leg, read a bunch of stuff from the Palgrave Handbook of International Political Economy and energy.  Very very good stuff it was.  Also read a lit review on transitions and public policy theory, also v. good, and the comments of one of my supervisors on one of my empirical chapters.  And then, brain saturated and grimy (Singapore Airlines does better hot face towels, just saying), I started watching a Hollywood schlocker called ‘Life’. The pitch must have been ‘it’s Jurassic Park meets Alien’).  Forty minutes in, not caring who lived and who died, I started skipping forward.  Yeah, it ended how I thought it would. Ho and hum, and only useful as several kinds of cautionary tale…  Mercifully short layover (this was one of the factors that got me away from SIA, but I won’t be back). Managed to blag a double seat at the very back, which made the 12 hour leg bareable for my too long legs.  I think the air steward took a shine to me – he kept bringing me beer unsolicited.  I am of course, old enough to be his da….  Having (I thought) run out of post it notes so unable to read more Handbook, I watched

  • The Maltese Falcon – total classic of course. So much nasty dialogue!!  It was the making of Bogart, after ten years of gangsters. Apparently George Raft (who he?) didn’t want to be directed by some new schmuck called… John Huston).
  • Guardians of the Galaxy – yeah, quite fun!!! The raccoon was great….
  • Gifted – child prodigy tug of love. Trying to do a female Good Will Hunting?  Not as bad as it could have been, actually. Strong acting, reasonable if entirely predictable script.
  • Three episodes of  some American TV show called Blindspot – clearly the pitch was ‘female Jason Bourne meets NCIS’.  Bravura opening – naked woman in Times Square, covered in tattoos that are a ‘treasure map’. Oh, and she has complete, chemical induced, amnesia.   The leads are strong, but the ‘geeky girl scientist who feeds everyone clues’ is such a fricking cliché.  And it exists in a world like the latest (terrible) Bourne film, where there are no consequences, no media and no paperwork.  I mean, these guys are having running gun battles every day, and nobody has to fill in ANY paperwork about discharging their weapon etc etc…

Right, through immigration okay (though Skynet couldn’t recognise me with a beard).  Parentals collected me, bless, and I forced myself to stay awake in the (vain) hope of getting a decent zonky night of shuteye.

Sunday.

Walked (sans backpack) down to the South Parklands and back.  Then watched ‘Insiders’ – a politics show chaired by Barrie Cassidy (who wrote a book about the 2010 election called ‘The Party Thieves’, which has some useful gossip).  Last week they had a spoof video of Theresa May and the Holy Grail that basically broke the internet in the UK, and justly so.  Guests were the estimable Katherine Murphy (whom I cite in my GBR work), David Marr (elder statesman journo, also cited re his stuff on Rudd and Abbott) and Gerald Henderson, right-winger/libertarian./whatever of the Sydney Institute (IPA offshoot/renegade outfit).  Stuff on Christopher Pyne whose indiscretions about the non-lunar wing of the Liberal Party and gay marriage had distracted the commentariat from the clusterfuck that is Australian climate and energy policy.  Also an interview with Lee Rhiannon of the Greens, who is suspended (perhaps) as part of the Federal Greens effort to overturn NSW Greens relative independence on policy making.

Then did a bunch of archiving stuff – methodically going through things already collected and making sure I know what I’ve got, and referencing it.  Tedious, but if I HAD BLOODY WELL DONE THIS TWO YEARS AGO I WOULD BE A LOT BETTER OFF.

Pumped up bike tyres and cycled off to the local shopping centre.  Then went and bought The Saturday Paper and also the latest Quarterly Essay, which looks mouth-watering.  Couple of hours at the fantastic local library, doing research for thesis and some writing.  Borrowed the following

  • Kelly, P. 2014. Triumph and Demise: The Broken Promise of a Labor Generation.  I read this thoroughly a year ago, and only intend to skim/dip in.
  • Swan, G. 2014. The Good Fight. Ditto
  • Crabb, A. 2016. Stop at Nothing: The Life and Adventures of Malcolm Turnbull. Black Inc. Crabb writes brilliantly, and this will be a pleasure…
  • Patrick, A. 2013. Downfall: How the Labor party ripped itself apart. ABC Books; Skim for anecdotes etc
  • Tiffen, R. 2017. Disposable Leaders: Media and Leadership Coups from Menzies to Abbott. Sydney:  Newsouth Books; Skim, may include nuggets.
  • April and May 2017 issues of the Monthly
  • Corris, P. 2016. That Empty Feeling; Cliff Hardy!! Possibly one of the last, sadly…

Feeling pretty jetlagged and groggy, but got some reading done.  Then dinner with parents and neighbours plus brother and niece.

Forced myself to stay awake until 2130 and was as predicted asleep as head-hit-pillow.  But also woke a couple of times…

Monday

Walked around local oval, including press-ups and up and downstairs  times five.  Will do this daily with backpack of … logs (long story).

More archiving (see above) and a bit of writing (I figured out how to start my empirical chapters/keep my supervisors happy while walking around t’park.

Cycled into town, to bookshop.  Bought latest Arena magazine and also for five bucks a copy of a book that no library seems to have but will be super useful for The Thesis

  • Oakeshott, R. 2014. The independent Member for Lyne: A Memoir. Crows Nest, NSW: Allen & Unwin.

There’s a great epigram

“In political activity, men sail a boundless and bottomless sea; there is neither harbour for shelter nor floor for anchorage, neither starting place nor appointed destination. The enterprise is to keep afloat on an even keel; the sea is both friend and enemy; and the seamanship consists in using the resources of a traditional manner of behaviour in order to make a friend of every hostile occasion.”

Then to an ‘Accelerating Entrepreneurship Adelaide’ event, complete with free lunch.  Will blog about it in due course. Have written something short  on spec for an outlet I love. Fingers crossed…

Then off to university library, HUGELY helpful librarian.  Managed to reserve a bunch of useful books, and track down electronic copies of super-useful theses and other stuff that I didn’t even know existed until yesterday.

  • Anon, 1991. Australia’s malaise in mining development policy. Mining Magazine, 164,.4, p248.
  • Ayers, C. 2006. Australian Intergovernmental Relations and the National Emissions Trading Scheme.  Melbourne Journal of Politics, 36-55.
  • Cass, V. 1998. Australia’s Greenhouse Challenge: An Industry-Government Cooperative Approach to Compliance with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. PhD Thesis, University of California, Irvine.
  • Chambers, J. Miller, A. Morgan, R. Officer, B. Rayner, M. Sellars-Jones, G. and Quirk, T. 2013. A review of the scientific evidence underlying the imposition of a Carbon Tax or ETS in Australia.  Energy & Environment, Vol 26, 6, pp. 1013-1026.
  • Dodds, L. 2011. The virtuous circle of Gillard’s climate tax. Eureka Street, Vol. 21, 13, pp.  21-2.
  • Hodder, P. 2009. Lobby Groups and Front Groups: Industry Tactics in the Climate Change Debate. Melbourne Journal of Politics, pp.45-81.
  • Mildenberger, M. 2015. Fiddling While the World Burns: The Double Representation of Carbon Polluters in Comparative Climate Policymaking. PhD thesis, Yale University.
  • Sharova, N. 2015.  Australia’s Flirtation with Climate Policy: Role of Industry Groups, Environmental NGOs, Think Tanks, and Public Opinion, MA, Department of Global and Area Studies, University of Wyoming.
  • van Rood, S. 2000. The Heat is on – climate change in the new millennium. Habitat, August, pp2. 28-29.

Cycled home (bless my fluoro), did some thesis work (seriously, that is my life now)…
Watched a bit of some ABC news, now waiting for Q and A and Wimbledon…  (Goooo Roger….  (not playing until tmrw, I think)).

1973-5 warnings on #climate change #auspol

We were warned a very long time ago about climate change.  I don’t mean by the IPCC. I don’t even mean by James Hansen (bless him).  The warnings were there by the mid-1970s about what might be on the way.

In 1973, in the very first issue of Habitat carried an article by

W. Strauss (Clean Air, Options for the Future, 1, 1, pp.13-15.)

Here’s a screengrab-

1973 clean air strauss article page 15.JPG

The following year Habitat had an article devoted to the topic:

Mainwaring, S. 1974. Carbon Dioxide- Catalyst for Climate Change. Vol 2, 3, pp.20-22.

In 1974 John Coulter (later to be a Senator for the Democrats)\

1975 considerations coal coulter tcpa

Coulter, J.  1975. Considerations surrounding a decision to build another Coal Fired Power Station in Northern Spencer Gulf.  TCPA Newsletter no 45 , pp. 1-11.

And then there’s this, by  J. Bockris, J. Energy sources in a post-industrial society. again in the TCPA newsletter, from I think early 1976

1975 bockris in tcpa on coal climate

1975 bockris in tcpa on coal climate 2.JPG

We knew. Or should have.  We blew it. So it goes….

Words, ideas, videos