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

What is energy, actually? (2011)

jancovici.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 286 posts

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#121

Post by lonelappde »

CraigJPerry wrote: post #113

We make more things, but we consume less resources to do it today than ever before. That was the essential point of Andrew McAfee's book and his discussion on Econtalk the other week. https://www.econtalk.org/andrew-mcafee-on-more-from-less/ That appears to be backed up here too; this article reports that the $GDP per kWh is increasing over time. Does this then mean that reducing GDP will have disproportionately LESS…

You are conflating KWhr with KWhr/production. KWhr is increasing because production is increasing faster than efficiency is increasing.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#122

Post by jotm »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #106

That's easy to say from the First World, where they already traded our (global) environment for (local) gains. But what are the people in poor countries supposed to do? Just stay poor forever?

Here's the secret: few in the first world consider developing countries. No one cares about the brain drain (it's just people choosing where to live, right? lol) or their non-competitiveness due to rules imposed by first world countries. They got theirs, now we all need to work together snickers.

To be fair, EU investment for example, is biased towards equality instead of excellence, i.e. invest in poorer states to bring them up to speed instead of dumping everything on the best performers. Probably because of the nature of the union, where everyone has a decent say. Even so, some developed countries benefit disproportionately. But the world as a whole is not the EU.

What people in developing countries should do is say "yes sir, certainly", then proceed to work towards their own benefit. Like China did (the one thing they did right).

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#123

Post by saint_fiasco »

mrpopo wrote: post #118
saint_fiasco wrote: post #106

That's easy to say from the First World, where they already traded our (global) environment for (local) gains. But what are the people in poor countries supposed to do? Just stay poor forever?

The problem of excessive energy consumption isn't caused by the people in poor countries though.

It isn't now, but most countries that used to be poor and then ceased to be, did that by increasing energy consumption.

China is a recent example, hopefully India will soon be another.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#124

Post by martythemaniak »

abyssin wrote: post #39
nabla9 wrote: post #21

The argument is based on looking a the world as a whole. In developed world energy intensity of GDP is decreasing even when you take into account imports. Post-industrial economies can grow while decreasing energy use. What the author is suggesting is that the developing world should stop growing. I can't agree with that. They need their electricity and washing machines. GDP per unit of energy use (constant 2011 PPP…

They need their electricity and washing machine, but do they need exotic vacations and long commutes in powerful cars? Do they need clothes that are made to be worn for a very short time? Do they need technology that's cheap to the point of it being wasted without an afterthought?

Do you have any family or friends in the developing world? Have you ever tried convincing anyone of this view offline?

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#125

Post by BjoernKW »

abyssin wrote: post #39
nabla9 wrote: post #21

The argument is based on looking a the world as a whole. In developed world energy intensity of GDP is decreasing even when you take into account imports. Post-industrial economies can grow while decreasing energy use. What the author is suggesting is that the developing world should stop growing. I can't agree with that. They need their electricity and washing machines. GDP per unit of energy use (constant 2011 PPP…

They need their electricity and washing machine, but do they need exotic vacations and long commutes in powerful cars? Do they need clothes that are made to be worn for a very short time? Do they need technology that's cheap to the point of it being wasted without an afterthought?

> [...] long commutes in powerful cars?

People in developed countries don't need that either. Commuting being a hard requirement for modern life in an industrialised country is both a fallacy and perpetuated cargo cult.

Most people working in offices today effectively wouldn't have to commute but they still do because employers require them to do so, basically because "that's the way it's always been".

Doing away with lengthy commutes will be key to addressing many of today's problems, including climate change.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#126

Post by MaupitiBlue »

deergomoo wrote: post #23
hliyan wrote: post #9

Somewhat tangentially related: I wrote this in a private note to a friend last year. I don't believe this 100%, but the idea is worth exploring in my opinion: 1. Corporations desperately pursue continuous growth, even when they're already profitable, and do so at the expense of the environment, employee welfare and sometimes, the rule of law. 2. Corporations pursue growth because investors demand it. 3. Investors dem…

I've long been of the opinion that the public trading of companies is directly responsible for much of the social injustice we see in the West. As soon as there's a fiduciary duty to maximise ROI, morals go out the window. If you as an officer resist, the collective of shareholders will replace you with someone who will make more money. There's a dissolution of responsibility that comes with the distributed nature of…

> As soon as there's a fiduciary duty to maximise ROI ...

Your premise is wrong.

As the U.S. Supreme Court recently stated, "modern corporate law does not require for-profit corporations to pursue profit at the expense of everything else, and many do not do so." ( BURWELL v. HOBBY LOBBY STORES, INC. )

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#127

Post by pjc50 »

hliyan wrote: post #97
pjc50 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because each year the economy is still adding its GDP even if it is not growing Er .. "economic growth" and "increasing GDP" are usually considered to be synonyms? Do you have alternative definitions?

If your GDP is $100 billion and your growth rate is 0%, you're still adding $100 billion to the economy every year (assuming that not all wealth is not consumed within the same year).

If your GDP is $100 billion and your growth rate is 0%, then next year your GDP will be $100 billion. This is normally considered to be "economy is the same size", not "added to the economy".

GDP is nothing to do with wealth and entirely to do with income.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#128

Post by pjc50 »

hliyan wrote: post #90
pjc50 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Inflation is already almost zero in much of the West. People demand growth because they want to get richer, regardless of the prevailing conditions. I would also like to point out that if there were to be no growth and no inflation (edit: and a static population level!), then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer. That seems likely to accelerate the lethality of…

> Inflation is already almost zero in much of the West I'm not an economist, but the Big Mac Index would suggest otherwise. > then the only way to add a dollar to your pile is to permanently make someone else a dollar poorer What's suggested is not to stop the production of wealth, but the rate of growth of production of wealth.

Please please please can you (and everyone else) be clearer about whether we're talking about stocks or flows, and whether we're talking about money, financial assets or physical capital assets when we say "wealth"? Otherwise I can't make sense of this.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#129

Post by lapinot »

BjoernKW wrote: post #88

The title is misleading in that it's not exactly the conclusion the article arrives at. The article has it quite the other way round: Once energy consumption doesn't grow anymore we either need more efficient means of growth (i.e. less energy consumption per growth unit) or we have to forego growth. It's pre-Industrial-Age Malthus all over again: Barring paradigm shifts that allow for more efficient production planet…

> If NRJ/POP becomes stagnant either GDP/NRJ will have to grow rapidly or there won't by any GDP growth - and by extension population growth - anymore.

If i'm not mistaken that's a non sequitur. How do you link GDP growth and population growth? Why would an ever growing population even be a goal?

> there have always been such paradigm shifts that allowed us to sustain more people with fewer resources

No, paradigm shifts have allowed to sustain more people with more resources. Sure resources per people were smaller (eg more efficient processes), but global resource usage has always been growing (apart from recessions and other "bad" events where people actually died from stuff not working). This efficiency / resource usage counter-intuitive correlation is known as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#130

Post by pjc50 »

matt4077 wrote: post #82
pjc50 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> because each year the economy is still adding its GDP even if it is not growing Er .. "economic growth" and "increasing GDP" are usually considered to be synonyms? Do you have alternative definitions?

I believe they may be referring to the idea that not everything is consumed in the year it’s produced. Infrastructure, for example, is useful years or even decades after it is built (and, presumably, counted in GDP).

Perhaps surprisingly, neither capital stock nor asset price inflation is counted.
Post reply on HN