Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Economic growth is green

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL
Post a reply

Unread postby Liamj » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 00:50:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', 'i') think people need to realise - 'mother natures resources' are self replenishing. therefore, some growth is sustainable.


Can you provide an example of sustainable use of resources, ANY resource? Forest cover continues to fall, fisheries are collapsing, fresh water aquifers are falling by metres/yr in some countries, where exactly is this fabled renewable resource? Some e.g.deforestion calls itself sustainable by ignoring the extinction of uneconomic species, that only works because we are ecologically illiterate and don't give a rats arse about anything but personal instant gratification.

A renewable resource is only renewable below a certain low level of extraction, and we are way past those limits.
Sure, maybe we could exploit at a sustainable level, but we could all live in harmony and hold hands & sing songs all day, but we don't.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'a')lso - economic growth doesnt necessarily mean using ever more resources. efficiency and new ways of doing things can work wonders.
.
Uh huh, so can you point to ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, where economic growth has coincided with declining resource consumption?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'p')eople on here always dismiss technology - but it has worked wonders in the past and will continue to in the future. we waste a lot of our energy. petrol engines are about 30% efficient. if we have to, we'll easily use the energy mor efficiently. we just havent had to yet, because its been so abundant and cheap.
We'll undoubtedly become less wasteful, but that doesn't create energy. You've been around long enough to hear of Jevons Paradox, maybe its time you actually looked into it, your unsubstantiated optimism would sound less wacky.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('jaws', 'W')hat requires more resources and space, an ipod or a vynil turntable? The former is greatly superior to the other.

'its smalller so it must use less resources'?!?! oh boy. So presumably a 1200cc Ducatti uses less resources than a horse eh jaws? Can you wind up an ipod, or does it require a battery factory on the other side of the planet sourcing materials from 6 other parts of the planet? You obviously have alot to learn about manufacturing, electronics & materials technology.
User avatar
Liamj
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Wed 08 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S
Top

Unread postby HeterosexOrgan » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 04:55:33

Raxozanne:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')hy is Australia a she? What make Australia a she? Are all countries shes?

I assume because Australia is part of the Commonwealth under the Queen.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd also I thought the Kyoto involved green technology to reduce emissions so why do they think their version is better?

Perhaps because it make smore money, and still allows these countries to retain their current aggressively competitive policies.

Liamj:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')an you provide an example of sustainable use of resources, ANY resource?

The idea of natural capitalism has been around for awhile, and is of course very problematic because it doesn't quesion the role of consumer, and has the potential to be totally disempowering and exploitative, especially to other sentient life on the planet. But there are some aspects of it which are amazing, and definately a cautious step in the right direction.
A good book to read is Cradle to Cradle by William McDonough. It's pretty controversial, and sometimes borders on cappo propaganda, but there are some noteworthy case studies where they put their ideas into action.
The basic idea is that there are natural and artifical ecological systems, and its only when one is infected by the other that products are degraded and resources wasted. If they are run on totally closed systems, it woulod be sustainable.
My favourite case study is this one on making toxic carpet 100% safe.
http://www.mcdonough.com/writings/transforming_textile.htm
The textile company was going under because they had to pay so much pollution tax. Their off-cuts were considered toxic waste. After they enacted teh necessary changes, the water coming out of teh factory was cleaner than when it came in , and could therefore be reused in a closed system.

I agree wholeheartedly though that the idea and reality of perpetual economic growth is totally fucked and absurd. But the philosophy of teh system I just described need not necessarily be one of perpetual growth. There's no such thing anymore anyway. Perpetual growth died in the arse almost forty years ago.
User avatar
HeterosexOrgan
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue 02 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: hole
Top

Unread postby seldom_seen » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 05:25:33

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Sys1', 'R')eminds me some sentences in "1984" like "WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVER, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"...

Yes, a perfect example of doublespeak.
seldom_seen
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2229
Joined: Tue 12 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Doly » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 05:59:35

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Raxozanne', '
')Why is Australia a she? What make Australia a she? Are all countries shes?


In Spanish, where every object has a gender, most countries are shes (has to do with the concept that land is a she, and many people seem to feel this is correct). There are a few exceptions to this rule: Japan, Portugal, Brazil, USA (plural male, because state is male), and a few others. I don't really know why some countries are male.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby HeterosexOrgan » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 06:19:32

Yeah. i mean, I call myself a heterosexual, but I would totally root the land up the dateline, even if it was a bloke. hey, if its just lyiing there, not moving, it's asking for it in my book.
User avatar
HeterosexOrgan
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue 02 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: hole
Top

Unread postby linlithgowoil » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 06:37:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')h i can see, technology has brought a halt to the ever more use of resources... We have never used as many resources as we use now.. And all sectors of resources are grwoing each year.. including the human population.

I bet that with zero population growth, falling resource usage, WILL lead to falling economic grwoth... Theres no such thing as a free lunch.

You must be one of them who thinks that when we are 10 Billion people here on earth, we'll just colonize another planet, and another planet and another planet...


There goes that comment again - 'theres no such thing as a free lunch'. I say that there is, and humans have been enjoying it since we came about. Nature is self sustaining. That is an undeniable fact. You can rape an area of land, leave it, and it will regenerate. That cant be disputed. Therefore, there must be some rate at which you can use natural resources sustainably. You can also boost the regenration of natural resources easily.

There is ever growing consumption by a minority of the earth's population. The majority arent really consuming any more energy at all, and if you believe Olduvai stats, then as a whole, the average person in the world is using LESS energy now than they did 30 years ago. We've experienced vast economic growth and improvements and we now use less per capita energy - isnt that awesome?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A') renewable resource is only renewable below a certain low level of extraction, and we are way past those limits.
Sure, maybe we could exploit at a sustainable level, but we could all live in harmony and hold hands & sing songs all day, but we don't.


Yes i agree. But it is renewable isnt it? I wasnt taking about renewable USE of resources, i was saying they are renewable. They are, end of story. If i cut down a tree every day, but plant 2 every day, then i can continue to cut down a tree a day forever - whilst expanding forest cover in the long term.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'U')h huh, so can you point to ANYWHERE, ANYTIME, where economic growth has coincided with declining resource consumption?


For every dollar/pound (whatever) of GDP, we now use far less energy than ever before. That is good progress, and remember, limiting energy use boosts other areas of the economy - as people require alternatives.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e'll undoubtedly become less wasteful, but that doesn't create energy. You've been around long enough to hear of Jevons Paradox, maybe its time you actually looked into it, your unsubstantiated optimism would sound less wacky.


I know about jevons paradox - i dont necessarily agree that it is some sort of magical rule that always applies. It probably doesnt apply to a situation where there is not an ever growing energy supply. I can also call you a purveyor of 'unsubstantiated pessimism' - you only offer predictions based on theories and projections etc. They've all been wrong in the past because they could not foresee technology improvements. I cant foresee what technology we will have in 5-10 years, can you? If i could, i'd be a very rich person.

Current trends dont necessarily flow into the future unchanged, technology will ensure that progress continues unabated.
User avatar
linlithgowoil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon 20 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Scotland
Top

Unread postby Liamj » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 21:44:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', '.')..
There goes that comment again - 'theres no such thing as a free lunch'. I say that there is, and humans have been enjoying it since we came about.
Uh huh, so once upon a time bison threw themselves off cliffs, landing already gutted and butchered on the campfires below?
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH.
Humans might be excellent at skipping out on the bill (lately thanks to mummys fossil fueled visa card), but our metaphorical lunch still costs us effort and there is still a cost to other living things.

I disagree with more that you say, but experience suggests little point in pursuing it.
User avatar
Liamj
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Wed 08 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S
Top

Unread postby EnergySpin » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 21:58:22

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', ' ')If i cut down a tree every day, but plant 2 every day, then i can continue to cut down a tree a day forever - whilst expanding forest cover in the long term.

Lin this is SOOO innumerate ... if you assume that a tree needs X time to grow at a certain size, then in order for you to have 1 tree at all times, you have to restrict your cutting activities to 1 tree in each X/2 period. A tree does not take 1 day to grow
"Nuclear power has long been to the Left what embryonic-stem-cell research is to the Right--irredeemably wrong and a signifier of moral weakness."Esquire Magazine,12/05
The genetic code is commaless and so are my posts.
User avatar
EnergySpin
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2248
Joined: Sat 25 Jun 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby Graeme » Wed 03 Aug 2005, 18:25:03

President Bush and the Asia-Pacific Partnership on Clean Development

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he United States is joining with Australia, China, India, Japan, and South Korea to accelerate clean development.
This partnership will focus on voluntary practical measures taken by these six countries in the Asia-Pacific region to create new investment opportunities, build local capacity, and remove barriers to the introduction of clean, more efficient technologies.
This partnership will help each country meet nationally designed strategies for improving energy security, reducing pollution, and addressing the long-term challenge of climate change.
We are focused on cooperation to achieve practical results.
The partnership will promote the development and deployment of existing and emerging cleaner, more efficient technologies and practices that will achieve practical results in areas such as:
Energy Efficiency, Methane Capture and Use, Rural/Village Energy Systems, Clean Coal, Civilian Nuclear Power, Advanced Transportation
Liquefied Natural Gas, Geothermal, Building and Home Construction/Operation, Bioenergy, Agriculture/Forestry, Hydropower/Wind, Power/Solar Power


http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases ... 27-11.html
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand
Top

Unread postby turmoil » Wed 03 Aug 2005, 19:57:29

this thread is depressing.
"If you are a real seeker after truth, it's necessary that at least once in your life you doubt all things as far as possible"-Rene Descartes

"When you have excluded the impossible, whatever remains however improbable must be the truth"-Sherlock Holmes
User avatar
turmoil
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1088
Joined: Fri 13 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Richmond, VA, Pale Blue Dot
Top

Unread postby Liamj » Wed 03 Aug 2005, 20:41:54

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('stupid_monkeys', 't')his thread is depressing.
Then to attempt some black nerdy humour, I agree with the proposition that 'economic growth is green', so long as green means putrid, as in the chaotic putrification of living tissue (the relatively stable matrix of life on earth) by homo economicus (sub.species detrivorous).
User avatar
Liamj
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 864
Joined: Wed 08 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: 145'2"E 37'46"S
Top

Unread postby HeterosexOrgan » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 04:19:18

Highly likely

Linlithgow:
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e've experienced vast economic growth and improvements and we now use less per capita energy - isnt that awesome?

But isn't that just because in the 50s and 60s in America, people were encouraged to consume huge/absurd amounts of energy? The more you consumed, the cheaper it was.
These days its the other way around because of supply/resource shortages, and growing awareness to a much smaller degree. Economic growth has become a bit of a fallacy, and therefore it just isn't possible to consume that much anymore.

I assume by and large that by 'rape the land' people mean that teh land is fucked/traumatised, i.e, suffering from salinity, toxicity etc.. and therefore doesn't replenish itself without added resources. I think first world countries are still incredibly wasteful, and the energy consumption statistics you mention may infact reflect the much bigger disparity between rich and poor, since these kinds of stats are just a broad average of the total population.
I don't think its anything to be proud of.
User avatar
HeterosexOrgan
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue 02 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: hole
Top

Unread postby Doly » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 04:28:42

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('linlithgowoil', '
')Current trends dont necessarily flow into the future unchanged, technology will ensure that progress continues unabated.


The trend of technology progressing is also a current trend. I don't really expect technology to stop, but I know that technology progresses in the direction it can, not in the direction one would like in an ideal world. Just because we need a particular technological advance, it doesn't mean we'll get it. We've been trying to fight cancer for a century, and people still die from it regularly.
User avatar
Doly
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 4370
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Top

Unread postby HeterosexOrgan » Thu 04 Aug 2005, 05:24:41

I think it;s time though that people stepped through the door and took control of cultural trends etc.. rather than leaving it up to power elites that don't care what happens to society or the average person of teh earth after they are gone.
We should be 'idealising' what we want, and working out how to achieve it.
-deciding whether we want fifty new varities of Ipod, or whether something else would be better.

The close systems of recycling resources that I mentioned before, if done holistically, could change teh economy to the point where people wouldn't be needing to buy new things. they could just have their old ones continuously replaced. Everyone would have enough, although of course, no one would be able to get rich of of it so easily. Or perhaps people would consume from other sectors rather than commodity focussed industries.
User avatar
HeterosexOrgan
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue 02 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: hole
Top
Previous
Post a reply

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest



cron