Recent comments
ADHD: Hunter in a Farmer's World
Thom Hartmann has written a dozen books covering ADD / ADHD - Attention Deficit Hyperactive Disorder.
Join Thom for his new twice-weekly email newsletters on ADHD, whether it affects you or a member of your family.
Thom's Blog Is On the Move
By webmaster
Hello All
Thom's blog in this space and moving to a new home.
Please follow us across to hartmannreport.com - this will be the only place going forward to read Thom's blog posts and articles.
The only way to counteract the corporate media (CM) propaganda is with an well-informed vote. That you'll have to spend some time on because the CM certainly won't help you.
Oh, and get angry! A few oligarchs want to control your country and tell you what you can and can't do on things like birth control.
It would be that simple Thom if uk / us did not live under a system named fascism
Two world wars were fought to prevent such system dominating our free world
Why do we collectivelly engage in believing propaganda?
I like how the Greenie religious types count dirty waste burning as "Renewable Energy" and "Sustainable energy". Even more stupidly "Clean Energy".
By that standard CANDU reactors which can & do burn nuclear waste should also be called "Renewable Energy".
Consider the waste from one Rare Earth mine, which makes raw materials for current Wind turbine & Solar PV production. The waste contains Thorium, which the mines have to pay to get rid of. Free for the taking, anyone who wants it. About 15 thousand tons per year of thorium from one mine. Burn that yearly in a LFTR or Liquid Flouride Thorium Reactor, and it would produce the World's entire energy supply. On a minute land area. That's energy 24/7 whether or not it is night or day, summer or winter, north or south, cloudy, sunny, a volcanic eruption or monsoon season, windy or calm, forested or barren landscape, snow, ice, hail, rain or dust storm. So I guess that should be called "Renewable energy" as well.
Molten Salt Nuclear Reactor Review and Presentations:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/09/molten-salt-nuclear-reactor-review-and....
LFTR — A Nuclear Reactor That Can’t Melt Down? No High Pressure Coolant? Consumes Nuclear Waste? Are You Dreaming?:
http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/2012-what-is-a-lftr/
Economics of Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors:
http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/2012-economics-of-liquid...
Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors have Passive and Inherent Safety:
http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/2012-liquid-fluoride-tho...
No Long-Term Toxic Waste Storage:
http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/2012-no-long-term-toxic-...
Useful LFTR Fission By-Products:
http://liquidfluoridethoriumreactor.glerner.com/2012-useful-lftr-fission...
Robert Hargraves - Thorium Energy Cheaper than Coal @ ThEC12:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayIyiVua8cY
home.comcast.net/~robert.hargraves/public_html/AimHigh.pdf
LFTRs to Power the Planet:
To generate electricity for a city of 1 million people for 1 year:
Mine 3,200,000 tonnes of coal - emit 8,500,000 tonnes of greenhouse gases and particulates - landfill 900,000 cubic metres of toxic/radioactive fly-ash. There is enough thorium in the fly-ash to power an equivalent size LFTR for 13 years.
Or Mine 50,000 tonnes of uranium ore, enrich & burn in a standard light water reactor - emit no greenhouse gases - produce 24 tonnes of radiotoxic 'waste'.
Or Mine 50 tonnes of equivalent thorium ore, burn in a LFTR, emit no greenhouse gases - produce 0.8 tonnes of radiotoxic 'waste':
http://lftrsuk.blogspot.ca/
Yottawatts From Thorium:
http://yottawattsthorium.blogspot.ca/
Thorium Ignited Nuclear Fusion:
http://www.yottawatts.net/
http://home.comcast.net/~aeropharoh/site/?/blog/
It is amazing to what lengths the ruling elites will go to in order to sucker gullible fools into believing they are really are doing something to alleviate the climate change, peak oil, high energy price crisis. What incredible bull.
Thom claims: "25% green energy by 2020".
False. I looked up this non-peer reviewed piece of tripe from the IEA, but they have blocked it from public view with a paywall. So exactly how they invented those bogus numbers is unknown. Typically they do things like deflate real energy sources by counting only end-use energy while inflating renewable sources by factors of 3X, or counting passive solar heating, like how your home gets heated by the summer sunshine when you don't want that heat. And counting things like cooking fires or burning peat, actually non-renewable. What other creative accounting methods they are using, one thing is certain, mostly they are talking about biomass & conventional hydro.
Biomass is not sustainable and it most certainly is not Green. Destroying a complex tropical ecosystem, that has survived for 50 million years, with ten's of thousands of living species, a web of life, just so that all the biomass can be stupidly burned for heat & power. Outrageous destruction. Causing soil erosion, pollution, massive releases of greenhouse gases, soil mineral depletion, in fact, biomass burning is often a worse climate change agent than Coal and certainly pollutes just as bad, if not worse. The WHO has calculated biomass burning kills 3.5 million people every year.
And most Hydro expansion is in developing countries where vast areas of beautiful, productive ecosystems, are being decimated by giant hydro reservoirs. The huge reservoirs destroy enormous stores of vegetation and soil, causing massive releases of methane through rotting biomass, which makes the hydro almost as bad as fossil fuels in terms of GHG emissions. And large populations dispaced by the land destruction. Some reservoirs as much as 7000 sq.km. producing as much power as Fukushima did, but even counting all the temporarily radioisotope contaminated land near Fuku was 400 sq.km., which still remains a wildlife paradise & natural ecosystem, that has <1/10th the radiation level of a popular beach in Brazil. Hydro using some 1200X more land than Nuclear power. And climate change causes draught leading to low hydro output. And one Hydro dam failure in China killed ~200 thousand people. A near hydro dam collapse in Colorado in 1983 was one inch from being the worst natural disaster in US history:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/07/28/363471/-A-Tale-of-Two-Centimete...
Compared to that Fukushima plus Chernobyl look like a bad rainy day.
So to see the facts, not propaganda look here:
http://www.mdpi.com/sustainability/sustainability-06-05378/article_deplo...
That is a graph of World energy consumption by fuel in MToe (millions of tonnes of Oil equivalent), 1990 to 2014 , with projections to 2035. This is from a peer reviewed analysis that uses standard accepted primary energy criteria. See any indication of " massive growth and salvation from renewable energy" in that? Didn't think so.
As you can see, total renewables, which includes biomass, waste-burning & conventional hydro, is 14% of total world energy consumption by 2020 and expected to remain at 14% by 2035. Whereas you see projected rapid growth in coal, oil & gas consumption over the same period. That is called realism, no fantasies here. No climate change solution in that. CO2 emissions, not only not being reduced, but actually rapidly increasing right through 2035 and beyond. So much for the renewables hype.
So the reality is that 94% of Thom's "Green Energy" is filthy, eco-destructive, unsustainable Biomass & Hydro. 75% Biomass. Hydro and Biomass are extremely limited by geography and not capable of much growth, so that is NOT going to even come close to solving the problem, not even capable of stopping the growth in energy & emissions.
The only theoretically expandable growth in renewables is solar and wind. Mostly solar, wind has resource limitations. And in 2014 total solar was 0.12% of world energy, wind was 0.47%. Not even close to viable as a solution. The EROI for wind & solar is well below the minimum required for a modern civilization. Just a pipe dream.
http://energyskeptic.com/2015/tilting-at-windmills-spains-solar-pv/
http://www.bravenewclimate.com/2014/08/22/catch-22-of-energy-storage/
All of these renewable energy fantasy scenarios for our future energy needs are scams:
http://grist.org/climate-energy/we-can-solve-climate-change-but-it-wont-...
A critical review of global decarbonization scenarios: what do they tell us about feasibility?:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.324/abstract
The truth is, only Nuclear energy is capable of replacing Fossil Fuels. A fact all fossil fuel interests know very well, which is why they heavily promote the renewable energy bait-and-switch scam.
I did get to look at the surveywhich was found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/285396771/NBC-SurveyMonkey-ToplinesMethod10-15. I see that only 24% of the respondents actually watched the debate so the rest made ther decision by either media reports or previously held positions. So the conclusion that Hillary won, based on this poll is erroneous. I am sorry too that Thom Hartmann is passing on this media "story".
Hilary didnt win a damn thing. id be willing to bet that this 'poll' wasnt conducted scientifically or was extremely biased towards hilary. extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I tried to link to the survey itself and it was a survey unrelated to the debate.
Also look at connections between those conducting the survey and big banks ,.Survey Monkey- In 2010, the company received US$100 million in debt financing from Bank of America Merrill Lynch and SunTrust Robinson Humphrey.[12]
a nice TARP bailout for an online survey company.
"Russia is the world's third largest coal exporter, with the World Coal Association estimating that in 2013 it exported 118 million tonnes of thermal coal and 22 million tonnes of metallurgical coal.[2] The Australian Government's Department of Industry and Science estimates that in 2014 Russia exported 120 million tonnes of thermal coal and 22 million tonnes of metallurgical coal.[3]
The US Energy Information Administration noted in July 2015 that Russian coal exports "have almost tripled over the past decade."[1]"
...and:
"Government plans for 2020 would increase the proportion of coal-fired plants in the national fuel mix from 25% to 37%, and decrease the share of natural gas from 70% to 58%.[8]"
Anyone who thinks India, China and Russia are going to give up fossil fuels to chase the "renewable" dream is kidding themselves. Barring some "orders of magnitude" increase in the efficiency of solar cells, our determination as a Country to kick coal to the wayside will come to the detriment of our security.
"India thinks of coal right primarily as a poverty-fighting tool. It's the most vocal and influential champion of the fuel these days now that China's industrial hangover has begun. China in March took the dramatic step of shutting down the last four major plants that serve smog-choked Beijing, and recent analyses suggest that its coal use overall may peak by 2020.
Indian coal demand could jump 42 percent, or 300 million metric tons, by 2020, and India is expected to add 124 gigawatts of electricity capacity in that time, according to Bloomberg Industries. In just two years, it may surpass China as the largest importer of seaborne coal."
...and:
"The upshot is that the U.S. is dropping coal plants at an unprecedented rate, but still nowhere near as quickly as India is adding them. By the end of this year, some 7.5 percent of the U.S. coal fleet will have disappeared, casualties of low natural gas prices, old age, and new regulations. That's a lot. But by 2020, India may have built about 2.5 times as much capacity as the U.S. is about to lose. "
As a friend of mine says, this is a poll testing the effect of the media pundits' own spin. All the mainsteam corporate media "reported" that Clinton had won, so polls taken days after are mostly measuing the people who heard about the debate and the biased clips shown on the news, and did not actually see the debate. On the night of the debate with the polls of people who actually watched the debate, Sanders was far and away the winner of the pubic polls with the pundits ignoring the viewing/listening audience responses. Also, every focus group that actually watched the debate had Sanders the winner. This is how the corporate media intends to hand the election to Clinton since they are financing her campaign.
P.S. I'm very embarassed for Thom that this shows up on his website without any analysis of the self-fulfilling spin effect.
"China has been praised recently for its investments in renewable energy. And the credit is well deserved as China's commitment to renewables dwarfs that of the U.S. and other industrialized countries. From 2010 to 2012 alone, China’s renewable electricity growth was double that of the U.S., and it is continuing to grow.
But all the accolades are distracting us from the reality that fossil fuels dominate China’s energy landscape, as they do in virtually every other country. Today, fossil fuels account for 87 percent of all energy used in China. And the focus on renewables also hides the fact that China’s reliance upon coal is predicted to keep growing.
Coal, the most carbon-intensive of the fossil fuels, accounts for 70 percent of energy used in China today and is responsible for about three quarters of electricity generation.
In just 5 years, from 2005 through 2009, China added the equivalent of the entire U.S. fleet of coal-fired power plants, or 510 new 600-megawatt coal plants.
From 2010 through 2013, it added half the coal generation of the entire U.S. again.
At the peak, from 2005 through 2011, China added roughly two 600-megawatt coal plants a week, for 7 straight years.
And according to U.S. government projections, China will add yet another U.S. worth of coal plants over the next 10 years, or the equivalent of a new 600-megawatt plant every 10 days for 10 years.
Helping China cut its coal emissions should be a top priority for all nations, including improving energy efficiencies further, using even more renewable energy, and deploying CO2 capture and storage technologies. The U.S. could go a long way to encouraging this by pursuing more aggressive CO2 reduction efforts at home.
China burns more than 4 billion tons of coal each year in power plants, homes, and factories. By comparison, the U.S. burns less than 1 billion, and the entire European Union burns 600 million. China surpassed the U.S. to become the largest global CO2 emitter in 2007, and it is on track to double annual U.S. emissions by 2017. While projections for the U.S. and Europe are for steady or decreasing coal use in the coming decades, barring major policy shifts, China’s coal use is expected to keep increasing."
...and that doesn't even begin to address India.
Sam, look up the pronunciation of "row" meaning argument. It's /rou/, not /roh/. To be honest, I'm a little surprised to hear an American use the word at all. I've only heard in the British dialect.
Also, Reykjavik: /rake-ya-vik/.
We tried to get this debate live over the internet, and it was malfunctioning, so had to get it on the radio through Cerus XM. Was using also a People's Revolution chat, it seems several people were having the same problem. If you don't have paid cable, you don't get the live program. Not fair to People who can not afford this. We need a debate that is televised to the People!
We're not talking about bad police. The reason trials are held is because not everyone that is arrested is guilty. Some people are legitimately arrested but found innocent. We should not let that ruin their lives. This affects poor people far more because they can't afford not to work. If they turn out to be innocent, they still can't get back to the way things were; they've typically lost their job, and maybe their home, by then.
You are operating under the assumption that the police just go around arresting innocent people because they have nothing better to do. I have no problem with excessive bail. It guarantees appearances. The only time that bail is high is murder charges. I'm tired of the I'm poor excuse. I'm poor but I was raised by my parents not to take items that do not belong to you. I'm african american and never had any problem with the police and yes I have been pulled over and I treat the officers with respect and do as I am told to do. Maybe if others would stop selling drugs and fleeing from police then a lot of this drama would cease. I know that there are a rotten 1% of police officers and the other 99% work to eliminate them from their ranks. But there is also a rotten 1% in any organization. People don't stop riding on airplanes because one pilot out of ten flies drunk. So why are all police percieved as bad because a rotten 1% misfit the uniform.
Bail is not harmful it ensures that the accused show up for his court appearances if they don't and are in a habit of missing court and the NYPD or the Marshals service has to bring them in I have no problem with them spending time in Rikers Island. They already get credit for time served so what time they spend in pretrial confinement is deucted from thier sentence. So they spend less time in jail. A good start for preventing crime would be repealing the Timothy Sullivan act of 1911. Sullivan was corrupt Tammany Hall politician who was paraniod about being assassinated so his bright idea was to ban private ownership, open carry or concealed carry on NY streets. Only rich can afford a carry license. The FBI fingerprint charge is $89.75 and the license to carry is $340. According to the NYPD website. I'm so thankful that I don't live in New York!
Excessive bail, UNC. Excessive. If someone turns out to be innocent, credit for time served doesn't help. The time served often ruins their lives--over nothing.
Thom, you need a "not" in the title.
kend, You clearly missed the line "regardless of innocence or guilt". What is it with conservatives not understanding why the bill of rights includes rights for the accused? Watch Last Week Tonight, ep. 2-16 and maybe you'll start to understand why excessive bail is harmful to society.
Whereas I can agree with most parts of comments # 1 and 2 above, with also factoring in that I (and the Mrs) would be considered as being Reagan type conservatives... But even with that, Thom's show (that we hear on kpfk in S. Ca.) convinced us to support Bernie Sanders, as the next "best hope" for this America!! That we as immingrants had come to love, but have been victimized by a morally bankrupt judicial system here in a Right-wing dominated section of California; that has a Judicial (Superior Court) system) that could use the like of that N.Y. Judge, that would put The Rule of Law ahead of "lets lock the bastids up "mentality"!! Which (in effect) we here in Norco, Ca. have been subjected to for 25+ years..... And rather than try to explain here, I/we will reveal the saudid details to Thom, via his best buddy Louise's contact #... And it will be up to Thom to decide if he wants the details or not???
I have a crazy radical idea. Stay out of jail. Obey the law and you have a very good chance of not doing any time. Just what New York needs, more criminals on the street. When they get out on bail NY state should give them all a mask and a gun. Not only rich poeple should be able to rob banks.
You hit the nail right on the head with this one Thom! Freedom, like health care shouldn't depend on how much $ one has. I agree with you and Bernie about most things except gun control. One has a basic right to be armed to protect self, family and others. An American also has a right and DUTY to be armed against government out of control. It ain't about duck hunting, or even self defense firstly, but the last check and balance in our legal system. That right was recognized by our founding fathers and included in the 2nd Amendment to our constitution for a very good reason that is as valid today as it was then.
Well, it turned out that my way of viewing the debate is exactly what Thom talked about. The live streaming of CNN on the Comcast website kept interrupting to tell me I needed to sign in or that the content was unavailable (for no reason) or that I was watching too many times at once (it seriously counted me three times at once, after three tries to get the streaming going). So I missed about 30 minutes' worth.
@cccccttttt, Chryslers' former CEO Lee Iacocca dedicated a chapter in his 2008 book "Where have all the leaders gone ?" to this issue ! His late wife had contracted the worst form of Diabetes and he, along with some of his well to do friends, established a research group to find a cure. Within a few years the prestigious woman doctor they chose to head the project developed a promising cure and that fact was announced to the public. In Mr. Iacocca's words, the atmosphere of mutual respect that existed between the various competing research groups quickly came to an end as the gloves came off and a battle ensued when the future flow of research grant money was threatened.
The two video presentations that are currently available, that challenge the authenticity of the Climate Change debate, make this same point as actual researchers in this field point out the fact that research funding is now systematically denied to those scientists who fail to include a link in their research that supports the Climate Change agenda !
Is it surprising that the same corporate media that has had a blackout on Bernie coverage would puff Hillary's debate performance and denigrate Bernie's?
What may be helpful is to search Mother Jones for "Burrowing In." It may explain ongoing perplexing screw-ups in O'B's tenure. e.g., conflicting/after-the-fact press releases by many depts (esp EPA, FDA. FCC. . .) The Secret Service embarrassment in Columbia several yrs back comes to mind. I believe those yahoos were inhrited by O'bama. Anyway, "just sayin." Look it up.