Thank you for this incredibly well-researched and thought-provoking article! I'd like to see a seminar series to teach people about corporate state propaganda and the toxic effect it has on their lives. This piece would be required reading on day one. The effort you put into writing this is truly admirable. Cheers!
As a retired academic historian, I am always thrilled to see people engage in this much-needed process of demonstrating "how we came to be thus." Social engineering, manufactured consent, and unquestioned addiction to technologies are not just accidents, even though they usually result in some unforeseen consequences. Thank you so much for the labor and commitment that you put into this and several other pieces of yours that I have read. I have cited your "Carbon Tunnel Vision" illustration in a few of the open access, non-monetary articles that I have published on my blog, "Learning Earthways." I, too, have questioned whether we should continue to use electricity, since there really is no "clean" way to produce it at current (and ever-accelerating) societal scale. Most of the applications of electric, and all other forms of energy use, are unnecessary and harmful to life on Earth. Thank you also for mentioning just how recently humans were doing fine without all of these motors, engines, and life-destroying "power." We used our muscles and engaged in group labor projects, helping and getting to know our neighbors. I am encouraged to see that many young people are learning how to return to that healthier way of life, and how to live without money, in direct, symbiotic relationship with local ecosystems. Lastly, I just want to add that we are not actually "substituting fossil extractivism with mineral extractivism," because capitalists will continue to use fossil fuel powered equipment for mining, extracting, transport, and other parts of the "green" machine slight of hand, as long as it is available and provides 50 times the energy density of electricity, to maximize their profits or just their competitive edge. Humans want to believe that whatever we are addicted to is safe and will always be there for us and we have an incredible, tragic, ability to deny any facts that tell or show us otherwise.
Thank you for your comment George, and for mentioning your blog--nice discovery for me!
I agree completely that we're not actually "substituting fossil extractivism with mineral extractivism," although the claim and support for energy transition is an attempt to do that, but of course, as you say, in reality, we simply just extract more of everything. I recently read More and More and More by Jean Baptiste Fressoz, which should be required reading for everyone, thoroughly debunking the notion of "transition" of energy and materials.
I find the history of propaganda fascinating, but if you don’t, you could scroll down to today’s perilous situation under Elisabeth Robson’s subhead ‘The Renewables-Era Revival of Electrification Propaganda’ …. “The messaging echoes earlier propaganda in tone—glossy, optimistic, often uncritical—but reframes the moral purpose: not modernization for its own sake, but decarbonization. The tools remain similar: media campaigns, federal incentives, public-private partnerships….”
Here's the situation: “One of the most striking revivals is the push for nuclear power... Once considered politically radioactive and dangerous, nuclear is now rebranded as a clean energy savior. The Biden administration has supported small modular reactor (SMR) development and extended funding for existing nuclear plants. More recently, President Donald Trump announced plans to reinvest in nuclear infrastructure, positioning it as a strategic national asset and imperative for national security and industry. The messaging is clear: nuclear is back, and it’s being sold not just as a technology, but as a patriotic imperative.”
I hope that many readers see and consider what Elisabeth Robson has to say in her thoroughly researched article!
Excellent. Especially needed now as the government has turned its back on the people in preference for corporations. What I want to know is who is paying the electric costs for massive data centers, chip manufacturers, and especially all the AI and surveillance tech? When they come into my state the governor touts the relatively few jobs they will produce but fluffs over all the tax subsidies the state government will give away. And not included in this article is the very high cost to the nation's economy the massive wars we are running that are not just immoral but so expensive our economy is about to crash. Most of these wars are over control of oil and rare earth minerals. I choose non-electric whenever possible, or very low-electric (like my pre-WW2 wringer washing machine) when possible. When the electric goes off I still have a dug well, multiple oil lamps, a small solar generator, axe, etc. In my opinion, most of our social ills are the result of electrification (and reliance on gasoline and diesel, the latter of which smells so much I can always tell when a diesel engine has passed by my house 15 minutes after they are long gone. My internet accounts for at least third of my electric consumption (necessary for my work, unfortunately, but not for long)--our electric bills have tripled in the last two years and no one can tell me why. Most likely a bribery case which threw one legislator into jail but we're astill paying a nuclear reactor-based energy corporation to keep it from going bankrupt. How is that free market? Looks like extreme corporate welfare that benefits only its shareholders. I don't even get electric from that plant. But I appear to be subsidising it.
Nuclear reactors are not for producing electricity. That is a cover story to get the public to allow them. The real reason for building them is to produce radioactive material for military purposes. Look up ''depleated uranium''. Artilery shells are made from recycled reactor fuel rods. These shells pulverize into microsopic dust particles upon impact. More than 150,000 of them were shot off in Iraq alone and more in Afganistan. Both those countries, plus Bosnia, Syria, and others, have been permanently poisoned by radioactive dust.
Iraqi doctors are seeing thousands of cases a year more than before the American ivasion of miscariages, stillbirths, serious birth defects, childhood cancers, and leukinia than before the invasion.
It is called an ''area interdiction weapon'' The intention is to make it impossible for any future people who live there to ever challenge the USA again. Uranium has a half-life of 4.5,000,000,000 years so if anyone is alive in those countries thousands of years from now, long after the very name of the United States of America has been forgotten, they will still have to spend most of their energy caring for the sick.
That is the real motive for the Pentagon trying to convince the public to build nuclear reactors. Power generation is only a side-effect, not the actual goal, but it can be used to win the political support needed for the program.
Thank you for this incredibly well-researched and thought-provoking article! I'd like to see a seminar series to teach people about corporate state propaganda and the toxic effect it has on their lives. This piece would be required reading on day one. The effort you put into writing this is truly admirable. Cheers!
Well researched and fascinating... thank you.
Someone once said, "What I miss most about childhood is living off the grid and not knowing it."
As a retired academic historian, I am always thrilled to see people engage in this much-needed process of demonstrating "how we came to be thus." Social engineering, manufactured consent, and unquestioned addiction to technologies are not just accidents, even though they usually result in some unforeseen consequences. Thank you so much for the labor and commitment that you put into this and several other pieces of yours that I have read. I have cited your "Carbon Tunnel Vision" illustration in a few of the open access, non-monetary articles that I have published on my blog, "Learning Earthways." I, too, have questioned whether we should continue to use electricity, since there really is no "clean" way to produce it at current (and ever-accelerating) societal scale. Most of the applications of electric, and all other forms of energy use, are unnecessary and harmful to life on Earth. Thank you also for mentioning just how recently humans were doing fine without all of these motors, engines, and life-destroying "power." We used our muscles and engaged in group labor projects, helping and getting to know our neighbors. I am encouraged to see that many young people are learning how to return to that healthier way of life, and how to live without money, in direct, symbiotic relationship with local ecosystems. Lastly, I just want to add that we are not actually "substituting fossil extractivism with mineral extractivism," because capitalists will continue to use fossil fuel powered equipment for mining, extracting, transport, and other parts of the "green" machine slight of hand, as long as it is available and provides 50 times the energy density of electricity, to maximize their profits or just their competitive edge. Humans want to believe that whatever we are addicted to is safe and will always be there for us and we have an incredible, tragic, ability to deny any facts that tell or show us otherwise.
Thank you for your comment George, and for mentioning your blog--nice discovery for me!
I agree completely that we're not actually "substituting fossil extractivism with mineral extractivism," although the claim and support for energy transition is an attempt to do that, but of course, as you say, in reality, we simply just extract more of everything. I recently read More and More and More by Jean Baptiste Fressoz, which should be required reading for everyone, thoroughly debunking the notion of "transition" of energy and materials.
I look forward to reading your blog.
Thank you, Elisabeth for your kind response and I look forward to reading some of those great links that you provided, along with your future posts.
For a disturbing look at what could happen if the fragile, overly-complex grid was attacked: https://archive.org/details/blackoutnovel0000elsb
That looks good! thx!
Couldn't put it down! Finished it in about 20 hours!
As an electrical and software engineer, it didn't require *too much* "suspension of disbelief".
Excellent article! I shall add this to a couple of my articles as it is very important material for others to comprehend.
I find the history of propaganda fascinating, but if you don’t, you could scroll down to today’s perilous situation under Elisabeth Robson’s subhead ‘The Renewables-Era Revival of Electrification Propaganda’ …. “The messaging echoes earlier propaganda in tone—glossy, optimistic, often uncritical—but reframes the moral purpose: not modernization for its own sake, but decarbonization. The tools remain similar: media campaigns, federal incentives, public-private partnerships….”
Here's the situation: “One of the most striking revivals is the push for nuclear power... Once considered politically radioactive and dangerous, nuclear is now rebranded as a clean energy savior. The Biden administration has supported small modular reactor (SMR) development and extended funding for existing nuclear plants. More recently, President Donald Trump announced plans to reinvest in nuclear infrastructure, positioning it as a strategic national asset and imperative for national security and industry. The messaging is clear: nuclear is back, and it’s being sold not just as a technology, but as a patriotic imperative.”
I hope that many readers see and consider what Elisabeth Robson has to say in her thoroughly researched article!
I remember that chocolate cake mother use to make!
Excellent. Especially needed now as the government has turned its back on the people in preference for corporations. What I want to know is who is paying the electric costs for massive data centers, chip manufacturers, and especially all the AI and surveillance tech? When they come into my state the governor touts the relatively few jobs they will produce but fluffs over all the tax subsidies the state government will give away. And not included in this article is the very high cost to the nation's economy the massive wars we are running that are not just immoral but so expensive our economy is about to crash. Most of these wars are over control of oil and rare earth minerals. I choose non-electric whenever possible, or very low-electric (like my pre-WW2 wringer washing machine) when possible. When the electric goes off I still have a dug well, multiple oil lamps, a small solar generator, axe, etc. In my opinion, most of our social ills are the result of electrification (and reliance on gasoline and diesel, the latter of which smells so much I can always tell when a diesel engine has passed by my house 15 minutes after they are long gone. My internet accounts for at least third of my electric consumption (necessary for my work, unfortunately, but not for long)--our electric bills have tripled in the last two years and no one can tell me why. Most likely a bribery case which threw one legislator into jail but we're astill paying a nuclear reactor-based energy corporation to keep it from going bankrupt. How is that free market? Looks like extreme corporate welfare that benefits only its shareholders. I don't even get electric from that plant. But I appear to be subsidising it.
Great piece! Deep research.
Nuclear reactors are not for producing electricity. That is a cover story to get the public to allow them. The real reason for building them is to produce radioactive material for military purposes. Look up ''depleated uranium''. Artilery shells are made from recycled reactor fuel rods. These shells pulverize into microsopic dust particles upon impact. More than 150,000 of them were shot off in Iraq alone and more in Afganistan. Both those countries, plus Bosnia, Syria, and others, have been permanently poisoned by radioactive dust.
Iraqi doctors are seeing thousands of cases a year more than before the American ivasion of miscariages, stillbirths, serious birth defects, childhood cancers, and leukinia than before the invasion.
It is called an ''area interdiction weapon'' The intention is to make it impossible for any future people who live there to ever challenge the USA again. Uranium has a half-life of 4.5,000,000,000 years so if anyone is alive in those countries thousands of years from now, long after the very name of the United States of America has been forgotten, they will still have to spend most of their energy caring for the sick.
That is the real motive for the Pentagon trying to convince the public to build nuclear reactors. Power generation is only a side-effect, not the actual goal, but it can be used to win the political support needed for the program.