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

21–30 of 286 posts

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#21

Post by nabla9 »

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 $ per kg of oil equivalent)

EU: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.GDP.PUSE.KO.PP.KD?lo...

US: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EG.GDP.PUSE.KO.PP.KD?lo...

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#22

Post by mytailorisrich »

TomMarius wrote: post #10
mytailorisrich wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That falls very short of what should be done to limit our impact on the planet for the sake of protecting the environment and remaining wilderness. I really don't understand this disconnect between the message of urgency about the environment and the climate, and the widespread complacency about an actual root cause of the issue (as illustrated by your comment), which is population growth: " Oh it's slowing and will…

Most of the world is empty: https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/world-... We just need to learn to be efficient.

If I look at the density map you posted: Oh look at the Amazon, it's all empty so we still have space to expand farming. Yay.

The world is not empty. It's either exploited to cater for human needs or wilderness that should be protected at the point we've reached.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#23

Post by deergomoo »

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 shares. The owner of a private company probably feels a certain amount of responsibility for the welfare of their workers. I'd be willing to bet most Amazon shareholders don't.

It's probably a naive opinion to hold, and I'm not saying every Amazon shareholder is personally responsible for the warehouse workers that can't use the bathroom without fear of reprisal, but the system is rotten.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#24

Post by tkyjonathan »

All countries in the world pursue growth. Forcing them to reduce their energy usage, is a non-starter.

Your best bet would be to reduce the energy consumption of things and have more power sources that have no CO2 emissions like hydro-electric and nuclear.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#25

Post by TomMarius »

pacala wrote: post #16
TomMarius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the world is empty: https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/world-... We just need to learn to be efficient.

Most of the "empty" space on the map world is an inhospitable desert. Sahara, Australian Outback, Namib, the Arctic, North American West, Tibet, Kazakhstan, Antarctica, Patagonia. Granted, a few pockets of wild forests left, Amazon, parts of Central Africa, New Guinea, Siberia. Under intense development pressure. Hard to call that "most of the world".

There certainly are ways to live there. Granted, it needs some colonization effort - still easier than colonizing Mars, and actually producing some technologies for that.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#26

Post by TomMarius »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #22
TomMarius wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the world is empty: https://geoawesomeness.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/world-... We just need to learn to be efficient.

If I look at the density map you posted: Oh look at the Amazon, it's all empty so we still have space to expand farming. Yay. The world is not empty. It's either exploited to cater for human needs or wilderness that should be protected at the point we've reached.

Perhaps you missed the empty desserts the other commenter has pointed out. If we want to colonize Mars, we should be able to colonize desserts.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#27

Post by diffeomorphism »

mytailorisrich wrote: post #2

Give up population growth. This really is key but too often overlooked.

Most of the "western world" already has barely growing or declining populations: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_decline

What you are proposing is thus an imperialist dictate on African and Asian countries, which is an obvious no go.

Instead you should advocate for improved standards of living and flourishing economies in all these countries, which is strongly correlated with stabilizing population levels.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#28

Post by supernova87a »

Kind of amusing that this idea is posted here on Hacker News, the center of people seeking jobs and companies that are the definition of growth.

If you didn’t have growth, you’d all be waiting for your promotion at the power plant when someone dies and frees up a position for you.

Post reply on HN