Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is it not a solution? It decouples transportation from fossil fuels. Yes, the energy can still come from fossil fuels, but it no longer has to. The entire transportation fleet could now be nuclear powered, for example.
Because it doesn't address the ridiculous amount of energy and resources spent on private transportation to begin with. I see many people excited about the fact that electric cars can be powered by renewables, and efficiency gains automation can bring, without acknowledging the downsides of an auto-dominated society. What it does not solve is: * The energy spent producing a 2000kg+ car (there's 255 million cars in th…
Ecological Wealth of Nations
111–120 of 133 posts
Re: Ecological Wealth of Nations
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Ideal" growth of an economy is 3% Would you mind to source and explain that ?
Three percent shall be the number thou shalt grow, and the number of the growing shall be three. Four shalt thou not grow, neither grow thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out.
Re: Ecological Wealth of Nations
#113Consider this: In 1950, population was 2.5 billion. In 2000, 6 billion (i.e: 2.4x in only 50 years) In 2010, 7 billion (16% growth in only 10 years) Is this sustainable? clearly not the way things are right now.
Re: Ecological Wealth of Nations
#114We need to live in harmony with Nature. This kind of awareness (hard metrics) has to be fed back into our decision making to do it. I believe we can support current population density with ecological enrichment through "applied ecology", e.g. Permaculture, etc. but only if we are aware of the need and priority. --- For example see David Blume's concept for small-scale organic alcohol fuel production integrated with P…
There does also exist other means of reaching this goal -- a lot of low hanging fruit, actually.
Public policy could do a lot more to provide incentives which reward for increasing sustainability, and punish for decreasing it.
For example, when I go camping here in the States, especially now in the summer months, I see a lot of people running generators, and sometimes this is even to run AC units.
I look at their rigs: A white roof could reduce heat. Generators and fuel adds weight to haul on the road, decreasing MPGs. Solar panels could add charge at reduced weight. It would be massively more efficient to have the solar panels that are located at solar powerstations, located on top of someone's RV, instead, but we don't do this.
The reason that does not happen is because the incentives for consumers don't line up. Fuel is cheap, and solar panels are expensive. Energy production must be subsidized with taxpayer dollars and heavy handed regulation to create solar generation facilities that then lose power as current is transmitted over the grid.
Still, the difference is close enough that a nudge from effective public policy would make a big difference. Some people do own their own panels. I own one that can charge my laptop and smart phone. It's great, actually.
The correct answer is not a system of carbon credits and tax incentives, creating more heavy handed regulation, bureaucracy, and power to government -- exactly what politicians want. The right answer is to do what America will never vote for: tax gasoline.
If gas taxes actually accounted for the externalities they produce: local pollution, global warming, noise, etc., people would think twice about investing in that solar panel. And the rest of us wouldn't have to live with the externalities.
Taxes will net you less of what you are taxing. Perhaps that doesn't sound so illuminating, but a person from another planet visiting earth would scratch their head looking at our choice to heavily tax things we always desperately want more of (employment), and to subsidize through world policy and military expenditure things we want less of (oil).
Just getting the economics of public policy right can have a big impact on our ability to live in better harmony with nature.
Re: Ecological Wealth of Nations
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem with your argument is that it assumes technical progress continuing eternally. For instance Malthus himself was mostly preoccupied with the idea, that the population might increase faster than the agricultural output. Through the use of chemical fertilizers there has been a breakthrough in how much food we can produce, so the malthusan catastrophe was averted. Agricultural output is still growing, but the…
At least in the US, the proportion of land needed to produce food is steadily declining. For lack of a better metaphor, we have a race between galloping food supply and the propagation of the idea that smaller family sizes are a good thing. Given what I know now, I'd bet on human reproduction declining before food does. The big monkey wrench is political instability. We have much less of an understanding of it than p…
As an aside, I wonder how much more vulnerable this makes the food supply to shocks, coupled with the increased supply chain length and how many additional points of failure that introduces.
Not necessarily in terms of the frequency of those shocks increasing, rather the compounded impact of those shocks given the number of people being supported by smaller agricultural bases.
Re: Ecological Wealth of Nations
#116> A national ecological deficit means that the nation is importing biocapacity through trade, liquidating national ecological assets or emitting carbon dioxide waste into the atmosphere. Before we had this trade and industrial activity that outputs all of this carbon dioxide waste life spans of humans were 3 times shorter than today. And by the way the world population was also 8 times smaller, meaning that we today…
> if we go down this path they'll simply slaughter us Not before they "slaughter" themselves with pollution.
See: Chernobyl fallout carried west on the wind across Europe, and sea-level rises caused by human-accelerated global warming disproportionately impacting poor island nations not responsible for said global warming.
There are of course still very local, direct harms from pollution, but the most severe, long-term effects eventuate globally.
Re: Ecological Wealth of Nations
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least in the US, the proportion of land needed to produce food is steadily declining. For lack of a better metaphor, we have a race between galloping food supply and the propagation of the idea that smaller family sizes are a good thing. Given what I know now, I'd bet on human reproduction declining before food does. The big monkey wrench is political instability. We have much less of an understanding of it than p…
>At least in the US, the proportion of land needed to produce food is steadily declining. As an aside, I wonder how much more vulnerable this makes the food supply to shocks, coupled with the increased supply chain length and how many additional points of failure that introduces. Not necessarily in terms of the frequency of those shocks increasing, rather the compounded impact of those shocks given the number of peop…
It hardly perfect, but it's been polished and debugged over decades. The film "King Corn" does a good job of a layman's exposition of at least the subsidy system.
Re: Ecological Wealth of Nations
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is no technology available today that would allow an industrialised country like the Netherlands to get to a zero carbon dioxide footprint. It sounds like sarcasm but the only realistic way to do this is to significantly reduce your population and have the remaining people live in mud huts or caves like our ancestors did many millennia ago. (which would be insane)
People had moved on from mud huts by the 1600's, and yet had a pretty small (though non-zero) carbon footprint. I do agree that population, especially the population of people living a carbon-intense lifestyle, is a serious concern. Many people point a finger at poor nations with high population growth rates while failing to acknowledge that people in those countries tend to emit very little.
I'm currently reading Vaclav Smil's Energy in World History and the two volumes of Manfred Weissenbacher's Sources of Power: How energy forges human history. They're impressive and sobering.
While there are a range of estimates, there are a substantial group of population theorists, largely grounded in ecology, who see the population levels of 1650, roughly 500 million worldwide, as a likely long-term maximum.
(The broader range runs from as few as 50 million, which still exceeds virtually all large land mammals, to several trillion. I find the lower bound potentially plausible, though pessimistic, the higher range delusional.)
Re: Ecological Wealth of Nations
#119"Ideal" growth of an economy is 3%. Growth takes resources(fossil fuels, ore, etc). Compound growth takes more and more resources over the whole planet. Free market fundamentalism means we're not investing so heavily into alternative sources but burning what we've got. Compound that 3% and it's just a metter when we'll be fucked unless things change a lot.
> Growth takes resources(fossil fuels, ore, etc). This is simply wrong. We produce vastly more GDP per unit of energy than we did a century ago, and will do the same a century from now. The size of an economy is a measure of what people will pay for a good. It's not a measure of how big a pile of steel you can make. The most expensive goods nowadays, services and computing, do not take vast piles of resources. In fac…
1. Total energy usage has increased.
2. There's been significant increased inequality within those nations. Particularly the US, also major industrial countries (G-7, OECD, etc.).
3. Many of these countries are exporting heavy manufacturing, with energy and other resource utilisation, and pollution generation, particularly to China and India.
"The material footprint of nations ", Thomas O. Wiedmanna, Heinz Schandl, Manfred Lenzenc, Daniel Moranc, Sangwon Suhf, James Westb, and Keiichiro Kanemotoc. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1220362110. PubMed ID24003158. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/08/28/1220362110
"The true raw material footprint of nations ", September 3, 2013. "The study, involving researchers from UNSW, CSIRO, the University of Sydney, and the University of California, Santa Barbara, was published today in the US journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. It reveals that the decoupling of natural resources from economic growth has been exaggerated."
https://web.archive.org/web/20130906063246/http://newsroom.u...
Re: Ecological Wealth of Nations
#120So what are the real options of survival? a) accelerate migration to Mars b) population control? Anything else we can do to prevent "fucked"?