The Other Side Of God.

Abstract: Both the financial plutocracy and the biosphere catastrophe from CO2 poisoning are self feeding exponential phenomena (as Nazism was). CO2 poisoning is with no historical precedent since there were dinosaurs, and they died.

Any exponential phenomena affecting humanity is, by definition, immoral (I explain why, and what it means). The CO2 curve is not just immoral but also pathological. Only extreme force can be called upon crushing such spiralling towards destruction. In such cases,  violence, the usage of extreme force, has to rise to the ultimate occasion. That is moral. Appeasement is immoral.


Introduction: Most of the worst civilization destroying calamities are self feeding, vicious spirals down the abyss. Rarely, the disaster is purely launched by nature.

This happened with Crete, which was devastated by the eruption of Thera (Santorini) volcano. The generated huge tsunamis, formidable ash fall, and devastation of the economy of the Orient. Crete did not recover. A more subtle case was Sumerian civilization, even earlier, destroyed by man-made salination and, supernatural flooding. The latter, I would venture to suggest, may have been caused by ecological man-made devastation, upstream.

Famous examples of man induced calamities are tied to the plutocratic phenomenon as happened in Rome and for the Mayas (the Yucatan drought was probably human engineered, and massive wars failed to improve the situation, until the population crashed, and stayed crashed, just as happened with the collapse of Rome, but even worse). “Pluto” is pretty much synonymous to “Dark Side” and “evil”. In all cases the inclination to view elimination as the ultimate solution.

In my view of meta morality, the Dark Side pretty much arose as the ultimate safety mechanism, the one that sacrifices Homo to save Gaia.

Voltaire recommended to “crush infamy“: he was talking about crushing the most outrageous aspects of plutocracy (the doubled headed hydra of the aristocracy and the theocracy). He was certainly not talking about crushing nascent international finance (because the roue’ Arouet was an extremely rich, not to say dishonest, international financial speculator himself).

Now the many headed calamity hydra is clearly graced with a globalized financial front (with a picturesque touch, we just learned that Bank of America was used massively by Mexican drug cartels for laundering), but also, worst of all, it sports the greatest disaster in dozens of millions of years: a man made CO2 rampage. We must speak more harshly than Voltaire to save civilization and its supporting biosphere (that’s why I call on the powers of the son of his friend Sade: only Pluto can fight Pluto). 



A TALE OF TWO MORALITIES: Reality Versus Superstition (Plutocracy):

Dostoyevsky has one of his characters proclaims that:“If God does not exist, everything is permitted.”

Now, of course, God cannot be defined, so it does not exist, thus everything is permitted to the members of the plutocracy. This is, so to speak, the other side of god, the one rarely talked about (although obsessing about this is one of Nietzsche’s fortés).

The other side of God was the huge reality of the Middle Ages. The top members of the plutocracy at the time believed fervently in God, especially when it was highly convenient to them. Otherwise, they made fun of god, sometimes in the cruelest manner, as when they went to the Middle East, supposedly to free the house of Christ, while eating and roasting the local children (when it was expedient to do so).

Faced with thousands of prisoners, only some of them heretics, the following declaration was attributed to the Pope’s legate: “Cædite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius:”  (“Tuez les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens!”, “Kill them all, Dominator will recognize who is his own.” The same concept, and word, dominate, was used for emperor, and god…)

Although the attribution is dubious in that particular case, it symbolizes well the mentality of the Middle Age plutocracy while it reigned. Amaury, the legate, had trespassed the Pope’s instructions by invading the giant, republican minded Toulouse County (this hints that Amaury was conspiring with the secular plutocrats in Paris, led by the king there, and the heresy was just a pretext, so what they were after was truly finding cause to kill as many citizens of the county as possible: no plutocrats love a republic, when they can kill it.)

Augustine famously said that there were two cities, one built by greed (civilization), the other by love (for god, the elusive notion nobody sane can define). Instead what Augustine made possible was a tale of two moralities. That of the slave (Christianism), and that of the masters. This is what Nietzsche found while analyzing scripture, and what the historical record makes plain. I would add it made possible a tale of two mentalities: those who care about reality, and those who hate it. Unsurprisingly, at least in the USA, those who love CO2, love Augustine, that is, fundamentalist Christianity, and hate reality. The reality being that, with what they want not to do, Florida will soon be underwater.



Sartre said that all of French existentialism held in ‘If God does not exist, everything is permitted.’ That of course makes existentialism into a big nothing, because only Nazis and the like believed in such a thing, that “everything is permitted“. It is precisely because Nazis felt thus, that everything was permitted, that they did what they did.

As Nietzsche had guessed, nihilism was a rising scourge. So, the same mood that infected the Nazis, that everything was permitted extended much further, including in places which opposed the Nazis. Nowadays, many of the Internet stupid out there have erected as a nihilistic moral principle, at the grass root level of their subjection, that one has lost the argument, each time one mentions Hitler and company.

In other words, every time one rises an objection to “everything is permitted”, their minds leave the room, and, moreover, they insult you.

In any case, if “everything is permitted” is the definition of French existentialism, one arrives to the apparently paradoxical conclusion that the Nazis were actually French existentialists… It’s paradoxical until one realizes that many of the French existentialists were partial to Nazi like theories… Before, during, and well after the occupation of France by the Nazis.

Some of these Nazi fellow travellers, such as Beauvoir, deliberately collaborated with the Nazis! Sartre proved that aplenty later, with his hysterical support for various Nazi like movements (“of liberation“, instead of deliberation), all the way to Mao’s senile “Cultural Revolution”.

But maybe all what Sartre meant was that everything was permitted to Sartre…

Contrarily to what Sartre and company affected to believe, ever since there are civilizations, there has been interdictions springing out of morality.

An army is crucial for establishing a civilization, as is a treasury and a government (learn Europa, learn…). But morality holds all of it together. “Civilization is repression.” As Freud more or less said, in his Civilization and Its Discontents.

More generally civilization provides the context that individual human logics need to operate. In other words, civilization, all civilizations, determine what minds are going to be, and decree that, out of this arena, immorality reigns.

This fundamental precondition, a common experience, in that case, of (fascist) disaster, all of Europe (more or less) shares. That is why it was part of a healthy debate for the Greeks to remind the Germans what the old reigning German mentality, circa 1941 did to them, and that one should take a wide berth from a repeat performance.

And that is why there is good hope for Europe, and, why, paradoxically, any hard times presently encountered ought to forge some more, with fire and beating, of that common hard steel of moral resolve which forges the hardest, and hardiest civilization.



The Nazis’ teachings were deliberately insane, they thought that was very smart. They despised those who could not be as insane as them, such as democracies (the fly in the ointment was that the French republic was much crazier than the Nazis had anticipated, and went right ahead to make war to the Great 1,000 years Reich).

The theory behind this was explained thoroughly by Hitler. Stalin made similar declarations.

The general idea was: “Nobody is as crazy as us, so we will win” and… Stalin was right, as its Soviet organization proved even more ready to kill anybody in the way than the Nazis themselves…. Nazis never had “blocking sections“, killing any soldier seen retreating. The Nazis found that method inhuman, and were unwilling to apply it to their Alte Kameraden!

In 2003, as the USA invaded Iraq, clever conservative commentators argued that none of the reasons for invading Iraq made much sense, but for one, that was in no way official. That was that, if the USA invaded Iraq, other countries would believe the USA was crazy, drunk on its power, thus dangerously unpredictable, hence to be left alone, and treated with the respect extended to an unpredictable predator, such as a grizzly bear.

The same ones are now supporting the CO2 built up in the atmosphere. One can see their crafty reasoning from here: climate catastrophe will bring a world war, so we will win the big enchilada (again). As happened in 1945, when the American plutocratic support for the fascists (mostly pre-1942) was determinant to destroy the supremacy of European democracies and other (not so democratic) states.

That strategy of insanity is, of course, nothing new: besides Hitler and Stalin, many brutes, throughout the ages, have argued just the same. If we act really crazy, people will make way.



A famous example: when the Swiss, the 380,000 Helvetii, a race of Celts, surrounded as they were, by mountains, decided that they would prefer to control a greater territory than Switzerland, they marched West, something they had long planned. They had defeated the Romans two generations earlier, they were unafraid.

So that everybody would understand that the Helvetii meant business, they destroyed all their grain, but for what they could carry, and burned all their cities, villages and houses. There was no going back. That was crazy. That craziness was the point, entirely. Caesar, who knew how to think, was impressed enough to do what it took to stop them. (After Caesar killed all of them but for 110,000, mostly in one tremendous battle, the imperator forced the survivors to rebuild their nation, lest the Germans invade Helvetia, and he obliged the Allobroges to the south to feed the dishevelled tribe.) 



Thus, how can one argue intelligently and politely with Nazis, and the like, when they are often using insanity as a tool, or weapon? This is the question exquisitely civilized people had in 1930s. Following the letter, but not the practice, of great Christian monarchs (the archetypes being Constantine, Justinian, Charlemagne) they embraced a sort of policy of “turning the other cheek, until brutes are ashamed, or their hands tired”. Those naive critters felt they would solve, if not dissolve, the brutes, by being ever more refined. Hence the strategy of “appeasement”. (To call off appeasement, the French republic overwhelmed her distaste, and pushed for a military alliance with the Polish colonels, dragging Britain in the small letters of the appendix; Hitler reacted by making official his long military alliance with Stalin, in the hope of scaring away the French… But France declared war nevertheless, to Hitler, Stalin, and their American plutocrats in attendance… and their snivelling allies in the U.S. congress.)

When facing real brutes, and humoring them, one may as well go to a swamp and read Homer to hungry crocodiles. Ultimately, the only civilized way to handle crocs or crooks basking in the greatest physical violence is according to what they are the most competent at: brute force. It is actually immoral for moral people to expect angry crocodiles to behave. Being moral does not mean to just turn the other cheek, but to know how to draw a line.

Some will notice that my drift tends to justify Obama’s execution policy. Sort of. What I contest with the execution policy is the details of how it is carried out (in particular targeting for death innocent families is not acceptable to me, although carpet bombing was in WWII. Why? Because Obama has other means at his disposal, patience being one of them; that was not available in WWII; in the present case, legal precedent is more important than just winning on the ground, because the battle is all in the minds now (forgetting 9/11), and has already been won on the ground).



Which brings us to those who deny the immorality of the steep CO2 curve. CO2 and associated, even worse, man-made industrial gases, cannot be denied. However, some still deny them, called them insignificant, or even life giving. Those self fascinated crooks are denying the significance of the steep rise in these atmospheric poisons. They are having martinis, and the good life (because they get paid for broadcasting their absurdities) while the biosphere tumbles towards catastrophe.

The phenomenon is exactly the same as with the crooked financiers. They get paid for their criminal absurdities, and the more absurd, the more criminal, the more money they get, a form of compensation for being immoral fools for all to see. Only brute force, jailing them, will solve the …. exponentiating problem they are creating. If one does nothing, just as with Hitler, the situation becomes quickly worse, and for the same reason: it’s self feeding.



Both financial destruction of the economy and greenhouse heating of the planet are self feeding mechanisms. The evil blooming of the financial plutocracy and of the biosphere catastrophe are two illustrations of the exponential. Below the incapacity to do anything about both, lays a deep ignorance of the mathematical nature of that most important piece of mathematics, the exponential.

As Martin Lack, from “Lack Of Environment” points out: “Hi Patrice. You talk of the “immorality of the steep CO2 curve”, which reminds me of a point… If people look at the graph of atmospheric CO2 (with its annual peaks and troughs reflecting variations in photosynthesis by plants) they may notice that the long term-trend is not linear – it is accelerating slowly. However, what many fail to appreciate is that, if you look at the data in the context of CO2 levels over the last few hundred years, we are now in the near vertical part of a J-curve. As someone once said, the main reason Hockey Stick graphs seem to appear whenever you look at climate-related data is because they are there; and we are causing them:
See page 6 of the Introduction to David Mackay’s book Sustainable Energy – Without Hot Air.”

One would expect the CO2 curve to be non linear, because heating the planet is highly non linear. When there is such a thing as no more snow in August, the ground starts to warm up, the CO2 and methane in the permafrost bubble up, the dark ocean absorbs more heat, the tropical ocean makes more haze, steam (itself a most efficient greenhouse gas)… then there is no going back, and the climate will yo-yo, as happened many times in the past. Simply, this time, if we do not do something dramatic, we know that the yo-yo will beat anything viewed in at least 20 million years. And that means the yo-yo will break: no more glaciers. At all. (Smarty pants will point out that we will be able to put a planetary sized sunshade in orbit, someday. Maybe, but not before several billions dead, and not before we design safe and reliable nuclear rockets, or something like that!)

Thus I employ the adjective “immoral” deliberately, when referring to the CO2 curve, knowing full well that it is provocative. But it’s much more than that; it is correct. Morally correct. It goes at the heart of my theory of morality. It’s very simple: morality comes from “mores” the long term , thus sustainable, habits a civilization has.

That exponentiating CO2 curve is obviously not sustainable, thus it is immoral. And it is lethally immoral: CO2 is not just innocuous, life sustaining, growing big trees. It’s also lethal at very low concentrations: it became the major problem for the survival of the crew of Apollo XIII, after their fuel cell exploded.

Greed, itself exponential, feeds the CO2 curve. Exponentials feeding other exponential: a gory mathematical spectacle.



And why is greed exponential? Because the more greed brings, the more one wants more, from a phenomenon of habituation, the same one which makes addicts augment the dose. The exact same brain phenomenon is at play: desensitization, and thus frantic augmentation of the stimulation. That is why Larry Ellison, after refusing to pay tax to schools, and buying huge properties everywhere, has now bought an entire Hawaiian island. He was getting habituated to all these outrages: he needed more, to get the same spice, with spitting into civilization’s face.

And that is why the balanced life, long sung by ancient philosophers, is so important, and, ultimately moral: it prevents this neurological desensitization, from an overuse of some peculiar neuronal circuitry. It is also why to be ruled by wealth, by greed, Pluto, is to be ruled by addicts. 

One may also wonder if the same effect is not at work among those who are obsessed by power (on others). it is already known that animals who are dominant, or dominated, suffer important neurohormonal changes. In some fishes, the need for an all fascist, all dominant leader brings enormous physiological changes, from male to super male, and if, there is no male left, from female, to super male.

Thus representative democracy, by its need for super leaders, may lead not just to select for the rather psychopathic, but even to turn the mild ones into physiological psychopaths.

As the astoundingly naïve Obama recently declared:“I did not know that my job’s description required to kill people.” Well, I have other news for him: his job is changing him neurohormonally, transforming him indeed, into a super killer (if not a super leader)… supposing he did not have it in him all along.

Gandhi called Hitler “his friend“, and tried to prevent India to declare war to “his friend“. What Gandhi did not understand is that utmost morality requires using maximal force against maximal calamities. There are no ifs and buts, and appeals to pacifism when facing a lion’s jaw (the morality Obama has been all too enthusiastic to use against Muslim terrorists, perhaps to compensate not using it against banksters!)

Let me truncate and add some sting to a quote of Sade:“Nature put us all to be equal born; if fate is pleased to intervene, and upset the primary order of things, it is up to us to correct its caprices and, through our own skill, to repair the usurpations of the strongest… So long as our good faith and patience serve only to double the weight of our chains…” Our virtues will be as crimes. (What Sade said at this point was the obverse: “our crimes would be as virtues“, also a valid point, sometimes, such as when Obama feels virtuous when killing innocent families of dedicated terrorists…)

As long as we sit quietly in our corner as the CO2 keeps on climbing, our virtues are as crimes.

What to do right away, besides getting more informed? Well the USA should follow Europe, and put heavy taxes on energy and carbon (it would also help the deficit while broadening the tax base). Even Australia just did this (more exactly on mining and carbon, to the applause of even “The Economist“).

Next the EU and USA could plot together, and squeeze the rest of the planet into clean energy. If Obama were re-elected, and not just listening to clever crocs such as Messieurs Summers, Rubin, Dimon, and countless others, he could put such a plan in action within days. It would even bolster employment (see Germany, which has created 300,000 jobs in clean energies).

The statu quo has become immoral. Time to do triage among the mores, and move on boldly where no minds have been before, same as ever was.


Patrice Ayme

Tags: , ,

37 Responses to “IMMORAL CO2 Curve”

  1. EugenR Says:

    Out of ;

    4. USA federal budget deficit can be easily solved: put consumption tax in the US on the same level as it is in Europe (100% tax on fuel consumption and a 15-20% VAT), that would immediately reduce to minimum the federal deficit and increase savings. The reduced consumption would balance the current account. It is hard to say how the exporting countries will react to it.


    • pshakkottai Says:

      There is no need to increase taxes. The proper solution is to increase deficits for a money creator.

      Economics is algebra. It is the same for liberals, conservatives, communists or whatever. It is not a philosophy.
      (taxes = spending – “debt”) is NOT correct anymore. It was before 1971.

      Deficit spending is the only way to grow the economy. Not only in difficult times but ALWAYS.

      (Federal Deficits = Net Private Savings+ net imports), applies to USA and other nations that have their own currencies.
      If all deficits are added, the above equation leads to

      (cumulative total govt_deficit) = (total national private wealth) = 60 Trillion, approx. This is proved in

      In short, (govt debt) is (peoples’ anti-debt) and (govt surplus) is (peoples anti-surplus)!

      (Govt_debt / GDP) is exactly the same as (peoples’ wealth/ GDP) and can be any number not limited to 100%.
      A monopoly game to understand Monetary Sovereignty is
      It is worth reading. It should be required reading for all economists, journalists, congress, senate, presidents and all citizens!”

      That will show how nonsensical a “debt ceiling” is.


      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Dear Pshakkottai: Sorry about putting your comment up just now. It had gone to spam (!) probably because of the many links, although in theory you are supposeed to go through, and never be viewed as spam! This is not the first time this happens to comments of authorized people. But as there are dozens of spams a day, it’s hard to make sure that does not happen again.
        I do agrre that deficit spending is good, as long as it comes with its twin glued at the hip, profitable growth…
        More later…


      • EugenR Says:

        Dear pshakkotai,
        you say …(taxes = spending – “debt”) is NOT correct anymore since 1971.
        It is right for internal debt, that always can be recycled by purchasing back the government securities at times of deflation and unused production capacities, as it is now. But it is not the same for debts causing current account deficit and trade deficit, financed with debts to foreign countries. This causes transfer of production capacities to those countries. When one day they decide to stop to finance the deficit, the production capacity will not be restored in one day, and this mean economic crisis, that nobody can predict its scale. viz.

        Then you say,

        (cumulative total govt_deficit) = (total national private wealth) = 60 Trillion, approx.
        Total government debt is the total government bills, including dollar bills and government securities and it is about 10 trillion US dollars, out of it about 5 trillion are in foreign holdings. 60 trillion dollars you probably mean all the asset value of US, i valuated it between 40-100 trillion dollars. viz.

        Then you say;
        In short, (govt debt) is (peoples’ anti-debt) and (govt surplus) is (peoples anti-surplus)!

        Probably you mean that the government debt is the total peoples cash + financial savings. It is right, but as mentioned 5 trillion out of it is in foreign hands. And also the peoples wealth is not only cash and savings, it includes real estate, company ownerships etc. that are not financial assets.

        And again you confuse between wealth and cash and financial savings in,

        (Govt_debt / GDP) is exactly the same as (peoples’ wealth/ GDP) and can be any number not limited to 100%.

        Very shortly, at the end of the day there is no free lunch, even if you are an US citizen. The only question is when this end of the day will come.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Eugen: Slightly related, try to instruct me. What is the total USA government debt?

          Some use around $10 Trillion, as you do. Typically they are friends of American debt (for example Krugman). However the Europeans tend to use 100%+ GDP ($15 Trillion) for the debt of the USA. So what’s the truth? Weirdly, I have not been able to figure out that one.

          True the USA gov obligations founded on pay as you go should not be included in total debt… Is that what you say?

          My position is that debt is excellent IF & ONLY IF, it can be paid by growth (of what the debt was invested in). Otherwise, debt is bad. when debt cannot be reimbursed, as now, DEFAULT.

          All the more that, what we have now is private debt, and the government steps in, and assumes it, typically. That is both a violation of private free market capitalism and public socialism.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: That is entirely correct. If the USA decided to have the same taxation level as (say) Germany, (not to say France), the USA deficit would be replaced by a super giant surplus. That is why the (French controlled) rating agency Fitch just confirmed the AAA credit status of the USA. The top exporting countries in the world, per capita, are European. They certainly would not object if the USA were turning more European. Actually Europe wants the USA to adopt a carbon tax, and that tax would help the USA tremendously. I hope Obambi would push for one, if re-elected (not clear). but with bambi we never knows, he gets easily spooked by sounds, or mesmerized by bright lights, big cities…

      Related consideration also explain why France is now enjoying negative interest rates. Investors are paying the French state to accept their money!


  2. EugenR Says:

    And it would reduce the immoral curve of the CO2. But it can’t be done as one step. It has to be gradual and this is even harder. You know how keen i am for democracy, even if aware of its follies. Yet it seems to me that the problem of the CO2, you opened here, is one of the mail stone questions, if democracy is a system, that can save the humanity from itself and its lust for immediate satisfaction. I just recollect how one senator made a big fuss about snow in Virginia, a place where it never snows, and used it as a populist argumentation against the environmentalists. Until this kind of argumentation works politically better than a scientific report, with all its restrains and reservations about the results, i don’t see big hope for humanity. 😦


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Eugen: Australians used to be for a carbon tax. Of the G20 countries, Australia has the highest CO2 emission, per capita. So it has the motivation. I also think it’s the richest, per capita. So it has the means.

      Then came a new conservative leader, an uneducated crocodile. He made a brazen campaign against the carbon tax, and is not letting go. That brainless, avid, hungry saurian was able, all by its little reptilian brain, to change Australian public opinion! Of course, this is not exactly the first time such a thing happen. Germany turned fascist, over two generations, while being the world’s most literate country. Even Bismarck, who pretty much surfed and instigated much of the process, was dismayed…

      An essential part of historical, and philosophical education, ought to be to teach people that they are easily seduced by demagogy. Also civilizationally most advanced country should perhaps be equipped of a TRUTH COUNCIL. Constitutional courts are not enough. (And a fortiori,Supreme Courts!)

      PM Gillard in Australia nevertheless passed courageously a carbon tax. So now she trails the crocodile by 16 points in polls! Elections are in a year… And the crocs are singing over all rooftops, that they will remove the carbon tax…


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: Hence it is clear that people have to be taught how to think and learn, better. I persdonally knew quite a few scientists and mathematicians who, although highly successful at particular types of thinking, still, overall did not know how to think well enough, either from hubris, autism (cultural or not, induced by their activity or reciprocally), or plain nastiness…
      Thus one has pretty much to start from square one, on thinking and learning, and the right moods would help put things in the proper context, from the start.


  3. EugenR Says:


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Eugen: Very funny cartoon… Applies to Merkel well. Aber… Where does it come from? Old Nazi sense of humor? Zehr klar… Amusingly, when Britain and France declared war to Hitler, they thought they would starve the Reich out of gasoline and rubber, forgetting, or not knowing, that the Soviets, and their accomplices the American plutocrats and oilocrats would allow Hitler to be little affected by the embargo from the British and French navies.

      That’s why Britain and France then decided to attack Sweden, to cut Hitler off the crucial high grade iron sold to him by the perfidious Swedes. But then, of course, the two maritime democracies had to wait for the Nazi attack on Denmark and Norway… The Foreign Legion’s work was cut short, in May 1940, just after it routed the Nazis next to Narvick, and was poised to cut Sweden in two…
      Sweden should someday study all this fascinating history, and its pseudo-neutrality, even worse than Switzerland (itself worse than… Franco’s fascist Spain, I would boldly venture to suggest)…

      At this point, under plutocrat Cameron, Britain is in la-la land. After the LIBOR scandal, the bank cartel is obvious, and, as far as I am concerned, it should be treated worse than the Mexican drug cartels.


  4. Old Geezer Says:

    Really very simple. Put a large tax on carbon – use the proceeds to fund a Manhattan Project to develop solar energy within 10 years.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear OGP: Except that, in the USA alone millions of big, fat, angry guys depend upon carbon burning for their living. Or so they think. That’s why the conservatives are suddenly 16 point ahead of Gillard’s green-left coalition in Australia. Just an example. Similarly Angela’s crazy 26 new coal plants plan in Germany has gone down without much protest… BTW, Obama is highly unpopular in Appalachia, because the EPA, his EPA, is torturing king coal

      Solar energy’s main problem, at this point, is storage. So it’s not really a solar problem. Aside from artificial lagoons, the only plausible methods (compressed air, fuel cells) have not proved safe and effective (in theory they could be).

      When the nuclear bomb project was launched in Paris in January 1938, Irene Joliot-Curie was sure a bomb could be made. But the details could contain show-stoppers.

      Actually the French collaborated with the Norwegians to monopolize the world’s production of heavy water, thinking only this could slow down neutrons.
      Years later, in Chicago, it was found by Fermi and company that Boron worked even better.

      Solar cells are not in such a situation. They already work. The best ones in the lab, perfectly functional, are cheaper than diesel (up to the latitude of Spain, i.e., most of the USA).

      But let’s not be naive. A large part of American plutocracy, or even world plutocracy (Russia), is not just addicted to oil, it wants us to be addicted to carbon burning. The USA, as an imperial plutocracy, has no interest to see Italy running on solar power: recently all the Italian deficit problem was caused by unexpectedly high oil prices. No more oil, no more problem, and Krugman won’t be able to predict the desmise of the Euro everyday.

      The Manhattan transfer of the Paris project was because there was something to bomb. Nazism. Right now, plutocracy is not interested by bombing itself with solar energy. We have seen that movie before, in Rome. 2,000 years ago.



  5. Martin Lack Says:

    As a Citizen (i.e. born to Australian parents in the UK I have Dual nationality), the fate of Australia troubles me greatly. Although I do not like the way Julia Gillard ousted Kevin Rudd and got the job of PM in a bloodless coup, I am even more concerned about the way in which the anti-science-and-anti-carbon-tax Franchise has managed to engineer a State-by-State revolution; and install new anti-environment-pro-business governments.

    For example, in Queensland the new Liberal-National government is accelerating coal mining and building lots of new deepwater ports in the lagoon between the shore and the Great Barrier Reef – adding to the damage mankind is already doing to this fragile ecosystem.

    Martin Lack


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Martin: The Gillard-Rudd soap opera is one thing, backstabbing politics as usual, and I must confess a bias towards the (childless) Gillard, because she is a woman (a bit of reverse sexism sometimes good).

      Gillard seems an excellent PM to me, considering the prevailing mood in Australia.
      As I hinted, Australians are perhaps the most favored People on Earth. They are the only nation with a continent as their private property. They also massacred the original inhabitants (compare with French controlled New Caledonia, next door, where the Kanacs, the original inhabitants, make half of the population). So they have this big, mostly white place to themselves, full of riches, with the defense of the continent mostly farmed out to the usual suspects: USA, UK, France.

      And what do Australians do? Highest CO2 emissions in the world (but for a few fascist Middle Age theocracies bathing in oil…)
      Conclusion: the Australian MOOD has to be seriously changed. Move away from the barbie slowly, go below a shady tree, and start thinking…


  6. Old Geezer Says:

    The global (US Dollar based) banking system has been backed by oil since the 1970s. That is why the banksters have been able to print so much currency without setting off massive inflation. The latest 10 year T bonds are fetching 1.5%.


    Oil will still be with us in the 22nd century. That is no reason NOT to proceed with a massive solar program here in America. Yes, the sun only shines half the day, but there are many ways to store or convert it. Oil needs a lot of work before it is useful, too.

    What we need is the leadership to begin.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear OGP: IF (huge if) a breakthrough in storage happens, with batteries and fuel cells, to join hydro, oil will not make it to the 22nd century.

      The USA Navy prepares a gigantic exercise using only 2nd generation biofuels. That drove Congress crazy (because of the astronomical cost of the fuel, $27 a gallon). It interfered, led by the hysterical senator McCain, drawing contempt from the Navy, which let it know that Congress had no understanding either of strategy nor economics. The navy has already proven it can run planes and ships on biofuels. Now it remains to bring down the costs.

      To date the USA navy has tested camelina – a mustard seed variant – to fly its F18 fighter jets. It has also pursued algal oils, as well as a combination of agricultural waste oils and algal oils in a 50:50 mix with conventional fuels. it’s rather secretive about what it is doing, but is staying away from ecologically and energetically incorrect corn, which is an EXCELLENT thing… Here the Obambi administration is acting perfectly (for once!)

      Considering the southern position of the USA, it is clear that, with the solar cells that will be mass constructed by 2015, the entire national energy system could run on the sun (if one built dams everywhere, the fly in the ointment).

      There is something to be said about deploying some technologies too early. The French just terminated their Minitel, the one and only ancestor of dial-up Internet, worldwide. That was innocuous, and certainly played a positive role, but sometimes tech can have pretty bad effect. without going back to sumer and the Mayas, fossil fuels are now engineering what has the potential of becomiong the largest catastrophe (sorry, “change”) in 65 million years…

      How should the USA begin? Well, follow Australia last week, and install a CARBON TAX. Bambi, are you listening? (OK, he cannot do much as long as he has to deal with the present, USA Navy hating Congress! So may the common voters should listen, first! But at least Obama could play a FDR, and steer public opinion by more than singing the praises of Dimon the bankster, and Buffet, the hyper morphing conspirator, bankster, ratster (those who speculate with the rating agencies they own), etc…)

      The president of a republic can steer the moods. That’s amply clear in France with Hollande… And the 180 degree turns he has induced a bit everywhere, and not just in Afghanistan, and Berlin… The key is to strike early, something the USA navy understands, but neither Congress nor Obama did (as they were looking for an excuse to do nothing, lest their old financing schemes wane).


  7. Las Artes Says:

    The minimum extent of sea ice still varies from one year to another, influenced by natural variations in regional wind patterns. Indeed, the NCAR study, published in the journal Nature in early August, suggests that even within a long term warming trend, the loss of sea ice in the summer could stall, or even reverse itself for periods of up to a decade – at least through mid-century.

    las artes


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hello Las Artes!
      Loss of sea ice could stall??? This seems highly unlikely, using first order observations! The ice is waning quickly, to be replaced by dark seas. The related cooling in Europe is somewhat happening, as expected.

      The extent of the heating up of the Arctic is nearly baffling. Temperatures were recently observed, a kilometer above the ice, that were durably 4 to 9 (NINE) degrees Celsius above long terms norms (!). I have no doubt we will be at an all time low within 6 weeks.

      It looks more likely that sea ice will basically disappear within 5 years, and that ships may be able to go straight through the pole!

      BTW my spouse worked at NCAR a few years back, and I am very familiar with the trails in the mountains above. Professionals there had made a huge mistake on some computer sun spot studies, and all the data came out flawed my most significant other, a computer scientist, discovered, and corrected…


  8. EugenR Says:

    The energy question is not a simple one so the answers are also not easy. The question has two sides, political and technological-economic.

    1. The political question; does the todays political system, be it democratic or non democratic, (like in Chine), ready to make a major change in standard of living and way of life of the citizens or voters of his country? The answer is no. Even in Germany, the most advanced country in the world (i am not counting the scarcely populated Scandinavians) in the environment questions, decided stupidly to shot down the atomic plants and replacing them with coal plants. And don’t tell me Angela, a scientist, doesn’t know what she is doing.

    2. Technology; solar energy was intensively introduced in Germany Spain and other European countries, due to subsidy that put the electricity price paid to suppliers on 50 Euro cents per kWh, compared to 5 cents of atomic energy, and up to 10 cents to other sources. Even the wind energy costs only something between 20-30 cents, but its capacity is limited. The hope was that some technological breakthrough will happen in the field. Until now it did not happened, even if some advance was made, and in the laboratories some new finding were discovered. The main problem is to increase the efficiency of the solar panels by utilizing larger spectrum of electromagnetic waves coming from the sun, mainly the infra red scale and not only some of the spectrum as it is now. Then there are other solutions like multilayer panels etc., but non of them are economically feasible without subsidies and probably also not efficient as to CO2 footage. The most successful is the experiment Siemens is doing with the liquid salt in the Moroccan desert, but still only an experiment. So even without speaking about the day- night and the accumulation problem we are very far from using sun as energy source.
    The biofuel appears to be an economic disasters, good only for some agronomic Plutarchs, who intensively destroy the environment with their pesticides, and destroy the Amazon forest and not to speak about the increased food prices.
    All the other technological solutions, like fusion reactors, are probably 30-50 years away from us.

    3. To be realistic, the only realistic partial solution is transferring the energy industry from oil to natural gas. New technologies increased substantially the natural gas reserves, and its CO2 footprint is 30% down from oil. Some environmental conservatives are fighting against the new technologies with some esoteric argumentation. It is very contra-productive.

    4. Other big CO2 and methane “producer is the livestock for meat.There are technologies that can create meat artificially without the methane footage”. I never tried it (no beef meat on my diet) they say the taste is same. If someone really needs to eat steak, let him get used to the artificial one.

    5. If we fight against the US-Australian-Europen-Asian consumerism, and offer the CO2 tax as an only solution, we will fail, because there is no political system that can survive decision to sweep out private cars and energy wast from our everyday life.

    So we are for being right, or we are to give a chance to some positive development.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen:
      Second guessing Merkel is difficult. Apparently she is a weather wane, something that turns in the wind, and roars. I guessed right about the fact she would scream:”Heil Hollande!” rise her (left) arm, in a salute the Romans made famous, and do exactly what Hollande said. Even me, I was surprised how fast. OK, Hollande had the SPD come to Paris, and told them what to do too (funny like a little guy, widely viewed as innocuous and bland is ordering everybody around…) But then the German Constitution changed, faster than Krugman can write an editorial of anti-Euro absurdities.

      Merkel operated a 180 degrees on nukes. I would not be surprised she operates another 180 degrees on the coal plants. Someday, as she did on the EMU growth pact.

      The fact Germany is most ecological hinges on whether French nuclear energy (which reprocesses, and re-burn nuclear wastes) is viewed as ecological or not. I guess, as long as it does not explode, it is very much ecological.

      Notice that Fukushima’s four remarkably unsafe first generation reactors exposed to the enormous quake, followed by the giant wave, although they burned, melted and exploded, a completely as-bad-as-imaginable situation have not led to an infinitely disastrous situation. How many people got killed? Compare with one week of coal. Another point is that the reactors were not equipped with some basic safeties that reactors which were equipped with, in the same area, although also first generation, hence unsafe, totally went through the catastrophe with flying colors.
      It was just a question of having portable generators (which other first generation reactors on the same coast had).

      I am 100% against using corn for fuel. Or cane sugar. Second generation biofuels are used by the USA Navy, as I said in another comment, and they are NOT ecological disasters (potentially algae fuel could be produced in very compact, high rise installations, as in Saudi Arabia…)

      Natural gas bloom depends upon fracking in the USA, and Putin in Europe. Right now, gas is killing coal in the USA, a good thing. Of course Obama is not coming out, saying: “I think fracking is abominable, and I will kill it, but after it has killed coal…” After all, Obama is financing the Navy’s biofuels. So I am changing my mood about him there, and I give him at least three stars…


  9. EugenR Says:

    The question is not if we understand whats going on, but how to explain it to those who are unwilling to listen.
    O, yes Angela, forgive her, women like to dance.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Angela is dancing all around because she knows, in spite of her present crushing popularity, that something different will surely happen in the next elections. Germans may just vote SPD because the time has come, she may find herself in a grand coalition, then exit with the 26 coal plants… a lot hinges on what happens with PS in France (so far, so good), and whether Germany enters a recession soon (with the nice importers collapsing and using the not so nice high AVT German trick…)

      Anyway at this point she succeeded to take herself out of the debate, in one deft move. “I changed my constitution, I want growth and banks mutualization, so what have you been doing for yourself lately?”

      Some situations, such as the fractional reserve system, non linear, are not even considered by economists, let alone considered by the public. When confronted with it at the LSE in London, a few weeks ago, dear honorable professor Nobel consciously liberal Paul Krugman looked haggard, he turned white. He mumbled something about some things economists just don’t not talk about, whatsoever, ever, part of the landscape, a big no-no to even dare consider anything that way…

      However, harsh criticism of private-public fractional reserve has often been in the comments on his site, as I rampage there, when I don’t get censored…Anyway, I hope I infected the LSE, and, if not, I will try harder…


      • EugenR Says:

        Luckily the fractional reserve system works also on government securities and not only on cash bills. After all every bank gives to you cash of 95% against collateral of government security and it is as good cash as the one Ben Bernanke prints. So don’t be surprised if the monetary ease has no real effect on the economy at all. Anyway don’t worry, i just heard that the banks reached already reserves of 20% and soon there will be no fractional reserve system at all, this is the banks help to Obamas anti-deflationary policy.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          20%!! That’s the law in (extremely rich) Suisse (CH). Last I heard it was more like 3% in the USA, and the ECB lowered the reserve requirements, or was talking about it… Where did you hear that?

          …OK, The Economist pretends 10% for large USA banks in its last issue… But what is the independent agency certifying this? (The Fed, ha ha ha?)


      • EugenR Says:

        The reason they don’t give credit is because they lost the old good clients, the Greek, Italian and Spanish governments, or sub-prime mortgagors, all of them AAA by Moody’s, and they just don’t know how to give credit to a real economic activity.


      • EugenR Says:

        I will try to reply to you to your questions, even if i believe they were ask out of sarcasm and not that you don’t know the answer.

        1. The legal reserve requirements in US is 10%, but since the banks have no more AAA clients, Greece, Spain, sub-prime mortgages, AIG, General Motors, Enron, et.c. so they have no one to whom to borrow. so they keep it in the Fed reserve, that lately started to price them for it with interest rate. (Even very funny it is not a joke).

        2. In my sketch article;

        I collected some interesting data as to 12.2011, (Most of it published in CIA world book). The total US national debt is 15 trillion, out of it the public debt (Government securities) 10 trillion, the difference is between non-marketable and marketable securities. Out of the marketable about 5 trillion are hold by foreigners amazingly as reserves. Most of the remaining is probably hold by long term funds, like pension funds etc. At the end of the day, the public debt seems surprisingly healthy, until the foreigners are ready to hold their reserves in US dollars. this is how Ben can keep the interest rate so low.

        The M1 that includes in principle all the cash in the checking accounts, available to withdraw is about 12 trillion, and it is supported by real cash deposit of about 2 trillion, which is almost 20% against legal requirement of 10%. Next time i check for you the development of the ratio between M0 and M1. I believe to find there some interesting findings, like dramatic increase since 2008.


        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Dear Eugen: You comment was delayed by the AI because of the many links, sorry about that.
          I try to NOT use sarcasm, because it’s often misleading. Hard to be funny without sarcasm, though. No, I was not sarcastic about the 10% of reserve. Last time I looked at an independent study, it said it was rather 3%… I know the official number is supposed to three times that. Good point about the cash. However…

          What about financial derivatives? They say whatever they want (700 trillions out there, with, they meekly claim, 25 trillions or so in net positions…) But it is the (financial) derivatives’ debt that brought the system down in 2008…

          Debt peaked at the end of World War II (112.7% of GDP in 1945). As of June 2012, debt held by the public was $11.04 trillion, while the intra-governmental debt was $4.81 trillion, to give a combined total public debt outstanding of $15.85 trillion, roughly 103% of current dollar GDP. The public debt has increased by over $500 billion each year since fiscal year (FY) 2003, with increases of $1 trillion in FY2008, $1.9 trillion in FY2009, $1.7 trillion in FY2010, and $1.2 trillion in FY2011…

          My real question was what is intra gov debt made of, but I realize I knew the answer all along: when the gov uses revenues from trust funds such as Social Security and Medicare for invading Iraq… (Say)…
          What it really means is obscure. But maybe not: if the expenses of the trust funds augment (retiring boomers), then taxes will have to be raised…


  10. Daron Koehly Says:

    Over a long distance, you learn about the strength of your horse; over a long period of time, you get to know what’s in a person’s heart. Same with CO2.


  11. EugenR Says:

    Here it is the MB what is the reserve of commercial banks deposited in the Fed grew between 2008-2012 from 1 trillion to 2.5 trillion, roughly, and the M2 in the same period from about 8 to 10 trillion. And they call it quantitative easing. If the Fed continues, to purchase the treasuries, there will be no credit just cash deposited in the Fed.

    Is any exit from here? Only to roll up the sleeves.


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Eugen: The economy is first about giving meaningful work to people. Money is just one mean to that end. Work is what greed does not necessarily supply. That’s the fly in the ointment of the plutocratic Trojan Horse.


  12. partha shakkottai Says:

    Re:EugenR Says:
    July 14, 2012 at 11:01 pm
    dear Eugen,
    The cumulative deficit is obtained by summing all yearly govt deficits (= negative net_worths) after correcting for inflation using the GDP inflation factors published by Bureau of Economic Analysis. This cumulative sum is on the order of ten times the yearly deficit. For 2011 the deficit is 8746.2 billion and the cumulative deficit is 87120.5 billion in 2005 dollars. And the cumulated external account is $31788.4 in billion in 2005 dollars. The excel sheet S.7.a. Federal Govt says that many things are not counted in this sheet.
    Note. The Federal government accounts exclude Federal employee retirement funds (1) Government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) consist of Federal Home Loan Banks, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Federal Agricultural Mortgage Corporation, Farm Credit System, the Financing Corporation, and the Resolution Funding Corporation, and they included the Student Loan Marketing Association until it was fully privatized in the fourth quarter of 2004. (2) The statistical discrepancy is the difference between net lending or net borrowing derived in the capital account and the same concept derived in the financial account. The discrepancy reflects differences in source data, timing of recorded flows, and other statistical differences between the capital and financial accounts.(3) Excludes land and nonproduced nonfinancial assets and IMF International Monetary Fund.
    Peoples’ wealth is defined as the net worth of household and nonprofit sectors of the economy. In the USA, the figure regularly reported by the Federal Reserve of the US is household net worth, and includes corporations as they are essentially owned by American households.(?) from
    This includes foreign deposits, ownership of corporate and foreign bonds, real estate, financial assets, and mortgages.
    a) Federal Deficits – Net Imports = Net Private Savings, is strictly true. See fig4 of
    If this equation is summed over all years, we get
    b) Cumulative Federal Deficits – Cumulative Net Imports = Cumulative Private Savings, or,
    c) Cumulative govt “debt” = national wealth.
    The last equation is my definition of govt debt which is the left hand side of b). This definition accounts for the foreign sector also.
    I did this plot again using the latest data and will either replace or add to the one in my web site.

    {Then you say;
    In short, (govt debt) is (peoples’ anti-debt) and (govt surplus) is (peoples anti-surplus)!
    Probably you mean that the government debt is the total peoples cash + financial savings. It is right, but as mentioned 5 trillion out of it is in foreign hands. And also the peoples wealth is not only cash and savings, it includes real estate, company ownerships etc. that are not financial assets.
    And again you confuse between wealth and cash and financial savings in,
    (Govt_debt / GDP) is exactly the same as (peoples’ wealth/ GDP) and can be any number not limited to 100%.
    Very shortly, at the end of the day there is no free lunch, even if you are an US citizen. The only question is when this end of the day will come.}
    I still do not know why the govt debt is not the cumulated deficit which is five times $15 trillion, the number often quoted. I am not confusing wealth and cash etc. I am using the standard definitions except for govt debt which is defined by b).


  13. partha shakkottai Says:

    dear Eugen:This part got lost somehow. Please add this at the beginning.
    {Dear pshakkotai,
    you say …(taxes = spending – “debt”) is NOT correct anymore since 1971.
    It is right for internal debt, that always can be recycled by purchasing back the government securities at times of deflation and unused production capacities, as it is now. But it is not the same for debts causing current account deficit and trade deficit, financed with debts to foreign countries. This causes transfer of production capacities to those countries. When one day they decide to stop to finance the deficit, the production capacity will not be restored in one day, and this mean economic crisis, that nobody can predict its scale. viz.

    With title “Do the Chinese really fund our deficit? Or is this more Neo-classical money mythology?”
    This claim is seldom challenged, but our friend, Warren Mosler, recently gave an excellent illustration of this fact in an interview with Mike Norman. Mosler provides a hypothetical example in which China decides to sell us a billion dollars’ worth of T-shirts. We buy a billion dollars’ worth of T-shirts from China:
    “And the way we pay them is somebody pays China. And the money goes into their checking account at the Federal Reserve. Now, it’s called a reserve account because it’s the Federal Reserve, and they give it a fancy name. But it’s a checking account. So we get the T-shirts, and China gets $1 billion in their checking account. And that’s just a data entry. That’s just a one and some zeros.
    Whoever bought them gets a debit. You know, it might have been Disneyland or something. So we debit Disney’s account and then we credit China’s account.
    In this situation, we’ve increased our trade deficit by $1 billion. But it’s not an imbalance. China would rather have the money than the T-shirts, or they wouldn’t have sent them. It’s voluntary. We’d rather have the T-shirts than the money, or we wouldn’t have bought them. It’s voluntary. So, when you just look at the numbers and say there’s a trade deficit, and it’s an imbalance, that’s not correct. That’s imbalance. It’s markets. That’s where all market participants are happy. Markets are cleared at that price.
    Okay, so now China has two choices with what they can do with the money in their checking account. They could spend it, in which case we wouldn’t have a trade deficit, or they can put it in another account at the Federal Reserve called a Treasury security, which is nothing more than a savings account. You give them money, you get it back with interest. If it’s a bank, you give them money, you get it back with interest. That’s what a savings account is.
    The example here clearly illustrates that bonds are a savings alternative which we offer to the Chinese manufacturer, not something which actually “funds” our government’s spending choices.”

    {Then you say,
    (cumulative total govt_deficit) = (total national private wealth) = 60 Trillion, approx.
    Total government debt is the total government bills, including dollar bills and government securities and it is about 10 trillion US dollars, out of it about 5 trillion are in foreign holdings. 60 trillion dollars you probably mean all the asset value of US, is valuated it between 40-100 trillion dollars. viz.
    The x axis is the cumulative sum of T securities, savings bonds, other treasury and agency backed Govt supported enterprises (which are components of govt debt) adjusted for inflation in billion dollars. The y axis is the national wealth in the same units in


    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Partha: I am flying to Alaska, and I am not ready, so I cannot study what you wrote at this moment as much as it deserves.

      Please be aware that quotes with hyperlinks get delayed by the anti-spam system (when it has the kindness of not sending them directly to “Spam”). Hyperlinks are, of course, excellent, and you are, in theory authorized, so I will have to look into that further.

      Internal debt can be settled with tax differed, or internal cuts, so it’s indeed very different.
      The apparition of negative interest in some countries of the Eurozone is a sight to behold…
      Interestingly SOCIALIST France is one of those countries: some capitalists are so desperate, they pay French socialists to hold their money…


  14. Record Arctic Melt Down « Some of Patrice Ayme’s Thoughts Says:

    […] First one has to understand that the exponentially rising CO2 curve is completely amoral. In the deep sense of what “moral” means. See “Immoral CO2 Curve“. […]


  15. Climate Deterioration Update, March 2014 | Tyranosopher Overflow Says:

    […] 6) Indeed, as predicted years ago by Patrice Aymé, much of the energy of warming is going into potential (low and high pressure) and dynamic effects (winds and convoluted jet stream causing the intrusion of polar air way south on the Eastern sea board of the USA, among others). […]


What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: