What is energy, actually? (2011)
jancovici.com
What is energy, actually? (2011)
1–10 of 286 posts
Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)
#2Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)
#3If everyone use such amounts there were no global warming. But humans always have not enough stuff...
Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)
#4Give up population growth. This really is key but too often overlooked.
Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)
#5I calculated that I use 3000kwh per year (only direct electricity+gas) If everyone use such amounts there were no global warming. But humans always have not enough stuff...
Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)
#6Give up population growth. This really is key but too often overlooked.
Population growth is slowing, and population is predicted to flatten out. So yay!
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 probably stabilise at 11 billions... that's fine. On the other hand, we must be emissions-neutral and stop using plastics by tomorrow." That's totally incoherent.
Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)
#7Yet, reduction of energy use per unit of GDP is not impossible. In the last 28 years there has been reduction by 35% overall.
Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)
#8I calculated that I use 3000kwh per year (only direct electricity+gas) If everyone use such amounts there were no global warming. But humans always have not enough stuff...
Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)
#91. 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 demand growth because they want a certain minimum return on investment.
4. Investors need to invest money in instruments with a certain minimum ROI because if they don't, inflation will erode their savings.
5. This continuous growth requirement forces companies to compete for larger and larger portions of market share, which in turn forces their competitors to compete harder in response.
6. The end result is a sort of "Red Queen" effect where everyone is forced to compete harder and harder just to maintain his/her existing standard of living.
7. We know that the more extreme a competition becomes, the more ruthless the participants become, often to the point of acting immorally.
8. Therefore, we should focus on curbing inflation to curb the pace of overwhelming growth, and thereby restore some measure of social justice.
Re: What is energy, actually? (2011)
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Population growth is slowing, and population is predicted to flatten out. So yay!
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…
We just need to learn to be efficient.