Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 271 posts

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#121

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

notamy wrote: post #113
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>the software produced 20 years ago still has value Which unmaintained piece of software written 20 years ago still generates revenue?

I would imagine that there's probably a _lot_ of industrial machinery control software out in the wild that's still running on Windows 95/98/etc., where the company that wrote it probably went out of business 20 years ago.

Agree, but old industrial software that saw no development and updates in 20 years is too small of a sample from which to generate the conclusion that all software generates value forever. Yes, in the case of industrial machinery it does, but that's mostly due to the hardware itself not becoming obsolete, not the software running on the machine. Often times, machine operators would love to have the software updated and modernized, as he hardware on which it runs is good for decades without any improvements.

Therefore I disagree with this conclusion. I think software is the thing which gets obsoleted and rots the fastest, not the hardware. Which is why SW development is in so high demand and wages so high in contrast to HW and mechanical engineering.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#122

Post by cfhhgtyg »

bheadmaster wrote: post #78
cfhhgtyg wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Degrowth doesn't imply that. You imply that population will increase indefinitely (max peak expected at 12 billion actually) or that degrowth needs to happen forever. Further you imply population development increases if degrowth is applies. Also, slippery slope argument.

> You imply that population will increase indefinitely You imply that it won't. I don't see a fundamental reason why humans would stop at 8 billion - yeah, currently, (my hypothesis is that) the world is kind of shit, so people stopped procreating due to stress. However, there's no reason to think that people won't procreate once the world becomes a better place to live. > or that degrowth needs to happen forever Ass…

> You imply that it won't.

How? Though, I am certain that it won't grow indefinitely on earth.

> I don't see a fundamental reason why humans would stop at 8 billion

It can stop at 9 billion and still not grow indefinitely. Currently a peak of 11 billion and no more than 12 billion is estimated. As said. Because of increased living standards.

> To keep total consumption constant, avg. consumption per person needs to decrease proportionally to the increase of the number of people.

It better to decrease proportionally with a coefficient smaller than 1 and bigger than 0 than decrease consumption not at all.

> Not a real counter-argument.

Yes, it is, because it implies a logical fallacy.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#123

Post by bheadmaster »

sveme wrote: post #89
bheadmaster wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a fundamental reason for it, or is it just the way it is right now? Because the world is kind of shit right now, and that could be the reason people don't procreate - I, personally, don't want to bring children into the world the way it is right now and the way it is going. The way I see it, as soon as the quality of life grows, people will continue procreating the way they did so far for decades.

It's dropping since the 1950s, so not a fluke. Major reasons are probably improvements in living conditions (yes, in comparison to the 50s), the invention and widespread use of contraception and social security (which removes the need for kids to support you in old age).

> It's dropping since the 1950s

So has quality of life, so it might have something to do with it.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#124

Post by w1nst0nsm1th »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #56
anemoiac wrote: post #35

I'll be casting my vote with the skeptics for this one. That said, even if economic activity was fully decoupled from emissions, Earth's environmental problems would remain overwhelming. Biodiversity loss, deforestation, aquifer depletion, desertification, etc. are just as concerning for most people here as rising global temperatures. My inner cynic sees headlines like the above and assumes that A) the writer/publish…

Even in the face of slowing population growth? That's the primary driver of increased consumption, and population growth has slowed dramatically. > If we suddenly weren't allowed to replace old-growth forests with mono-culture, pollute our groundwater, fill the earth with plastic, kill off a majority of animal species, and so forth, how much would the economy shrink? But would it? Such a transition would create a mas…

I watched The Kardashians for 15 mins for the first time yesterday on Disney+...

I already knew it was a pile of dog**, like most (all?) Reality TV show is, but I clearly underestimated how low the bar was.

What socked me the most was the celebration of mindless consumption.

It's hard to believe people watching that want less consumer craps and more clean environment.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#125

Post by ChuckNorris89 »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #112
ChuckNorris89 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then what's your definition based on your own goal posts? Making software that's sitting around and doesn't generate any revenue? That's either a hobby which is fine, or is a waste of resources, both in development and in storage/deployment. And if the 20 year old software isn't unmaintained but is actually constantly getting updated and support, then is it still 20 year old software or is it basically up-to-date sof…

It doesn't have to produce revenue, it just has to aid in the production of GDP. I don't pay for Linux, but it is a key part of the GDP I am responsible for. And while Linux is maintained, the vast bulk of the value it provides is quite old and almost unchanged.

But the Linux we use today isn't 20 year old software. Sure, the foundation is over 30 year old, but most of the Linux code we use today is relatively fresh and is constantly being improved and updated. Again, I bring the ship of Theseus argument. I doubt my Android phone has too many lines of code written by Linus on it.

Not many places are running software that saw no more active development for over 20 years. Even governments and banks are pushing updates to ancient codebases.

Unmaintained 20 year old software would be the firmware running on your 20 year old car or microwave oven, as that's frozen on that system, not getting any more development.

So, out of all products made by humans, software has by far the shortest expiration date, with the exception being food products.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#127

Post by Comevius »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #108
Comevius wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Software needs hardware to create economic growth, namely data centers and disposable computers (smartphones, notebooks, smart watches, routers and so on). It doesn't matter if they are more energy efficient either if you keep making more and more of them. Just the environmental impact of making them is unsustainable. Similarly it doesn't matter how much value new paradigms like Bitcoin or AI adds to the economy, it'…

When I was in high school, the standard weeknight entertainment was driving up and down main street in vehicles that got about 8 mpg. Today, standard weeknight entertainment for high school boys is multi-player video games. Yes, multi-player video games are still slightly carbon positive. But they're about a million times better than driving up and down main street. That's massive progress. Next, what's the environme…

On the contrary, consumption and energy use went up, not to mention waste. That video game needs 600-700 watts per client and most of it is created very inefficiently, using fossil fuels.

People still drive up and down too, and there are more people.

> the economy of 2200

The planet will be barely habitable, if at all.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#128

Post by thelastgallon »

Health spending accounts for nearly one-fifth of the U.S. economy [1]. Between 2000 to 2020 health expenditure tripled from 1.4 trillion to 4 trillion, at a 4.2% annual growth rate. This is projected to accelerate, grow at 5.3% and reach 6.8 trillion by 2030. [3]

Happening in other countries as well. Health spending set to outpace GDP growth to 2030 [2]

This shows up as economic growth (GDP), but really nothing has changed, does not require more emissions.

[1] https://www.healthsystemtracker.org/chart-collection/u-s-spe...

[2] https://www.oecd.org/health/health-spending-set-to-outpace-g...

[3] https://www.cms.gov/files/document/nhe-projections-forecast-...

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#129

Post by thiago_fm »

That's so wrong.

Many industry chains that are the basis for renewable energy(which many countries will need to transition to), generating wind, hydro and solar power equipment are responsible for a good load of emissions, like the steel industry.

It is close to impossible to grow an emerging economy without producing more energy, as more of the population would want to drive cars, have lights, sanitation etc.

Because of that, as almost all the economist articles, this is mostly centered around developed economies and even those that are developed have a big deficit in energy generation.

And I'm giving the simplest example ever. Imagine if we get into consumer habits and spending...

The truth is that many countries need to grow and need to raise emissions before lowering them. Not every country is Germany with a big industry and influx of cash to support its environment plans.

The "third world" doesn't need to accept living in the wood and shitting in a bucket while americans live in a house of the size of a football field with AC on. If they have nothing to win by caring about emissions, they shouldn't. Raise emissions if you must, to grow. Rich countries that need to set the example, but most of them just don't.

Re: Economic growth no longer requires rising emissions

#130

Post by w1nst0nsm1th »

myrmidon wrote: post #120
samatman wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are, as a sibling comment demonstrates, deluded, after decades of being maliciously lied to by 'environmental' movements with ties to the fossil industry. Anyone against nuclear is a shill for petrochemical power, there are no exceptions. There are the deluded and the liars, that's it.

Completely disagree. And I used to be strong nuclear proponent until 2015 or so. Nuclear power is no longer a viable pathway for a government to throw tax dollars at, and there are multiple reasons: 1) Nuclear power is not cost effective: Even right now, nuclear power is more expensive (LCOE) than solar or wind. 2) Nuclear power costs explode if the capacity factor of your plants decreases: Meaning that they are basi…

Not to mention nuclear waste, which is still an unresolved issue at current level of nuclear energy production.
Post reply on HN