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

81–90 of 286 posts

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#81

Post by Bostonian »

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?

How are people in developed countries who have exotic vactions etc. going to tell people in poorer countries that they should do without?

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#82

Post by matt4077 »

pjc50 wrote: post #65
projektfu wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not zero sum, even during recession, because each year the economy is still adding its GDP even if it is not growing. You don’t have to take someone else’s, but you might all take less than the potential.

> 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).

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#83

Post by new2628 »

pjc50 wrote: post #52
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…

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.

pet theory: Inflation is way way more than zero almost everywhere (prices of services and rents reflect this), but high inflation is masked by increased supply chain efficiencies, cheapening (in some cases worsening) of products and other factors, which keep prices of physical products relatively stable.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#84

Post by trophycase »

pjc50 wrote: post #52
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…

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…

If we assume that economic efficiency grows over time even in a non-inflation society, then it seems to me that the zero sum game argument doesn't exactly hold.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#85

Post by reacweb »

In the not so distant future, energy could become abundant thanks to solar energy. On the other hand, physical resources (rare earths but also the molecules contained in oil) are limited. I think it is more important to seek better recycling, reduce waste than to reduce energy consumption.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#86

Post by mytailorisrich »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #47
mytailorisrich wrote: post #2

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

Not necessarily. Africa, with 1.+2 billion inhabitants, has a tiny carbon footprint compared to the US (which as less than 1/3 of Africa's population). Source: https://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf...

They have a tiny carbon footprint because they are overwhelmingly poor compared to the West (granted, the US have a particularly large footprint).

So either we tell them that, sorry, but they have to stay dirt poor and also to stay away from their rain forests even if they starve, or the aim is to eradicate poverty on the planet, but in that latter case their resources footprint (this is more general than carbon alone) is bound to increase.

That's why the global population is a key factor in fighting climate change and protecting the environment.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#87

Post by eej2ya1K »

rcMgD2BwE72F wrote: post #47
mytailorisrich wrote: post #2

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

Not necessarily. Africa, with 1.+2 billion inhabitants, has a tiny carbon footprint compared to the US (which as less than 1/3 of Africa's population). Source: https://unfccc.int/files/press/backgrounders/application/pdf...

This is true, but people are not staying in Africa.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#88

Post by BjoernKW »

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 Earth can only sustain a maximum number of people (roughly 1 billion around Malthus' lifetime).

However, Malthus' theory has been disproven time and time again precisely because there have always been such paradigm shifts that allowed us to sustain more people with fewer resources, in others words to increase GDP/NRJ as well as NRJ/POP.

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.

I just don't get the seemingly recurring obsession with artificially limiting growth. Yes, thermodynamically the energy available ultimately is limited but that doesn't mean we should start to behave as if we've already reached thermodynamic equilibrium.

What supporters of artificially limiting GDP growth often don't acknowledge is that placing such a limit also places a hard limit on population growth or even necessitates a reduction in population.

In fiction, one staunch proponent of such an approach is Avengers villain Thanos, who doesn't want to decimate half of the Universe's population for a lark or because he's simply evil but because he's on a mission to free the Universe from growth and overpopulation.

I suggest that instead of obsessing with the NRJ/POP term in the equation we focus on GDP/NRJ instead.

Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)

#90

Post by hliyan »

pjc50 wrote: post #52
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…

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.

Post reply on HN