Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Economic growth is green

Discussions about the economic and financial ramifications of PEAK OIL

Economic growth is green

Unread postby Graeme » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 01:54:02

Economic growth is green

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')un 31 Jul 2005
THE Kyoto Protocol? That was so last century. Even the Japanese, who founded it, have moved on to the next big thing. The plastic wristbands aren't yet printed, but the new logo is complete: growth is green.
Last week, a new environment pact was agreed in Laos by India, China, South Korea, Australia, Japan and the US: to go for economic growth and use the proceeds to produce new, clean energy technology.
The Laos deal argues growth is the solution to the environmental problems. The creed behind last week's deal was that economic growth - not placing shackles on energy consumption - is the best way to helping the environment. Growth is not only good: growth will save the planet.


http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/op ... 1707202005
User avatar
Graeme
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13258
Joined: Fri 04 Mar 2005, 04:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Unread postby merecat » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 06:41:50

This is bullshit, it reminds me of when many consumer products started to print a big green recyclable logo on their products, but still the product would be wrapped in a cellophane bag, that was sat in a vacuum formed plastic tray that was sat in a colour printed cardboard box and the sticker touted "this product is environmentaly friendly" because you could push the packaging back through a recycling plant, well shit, why dont we quadruple the amount of packaging in order to increase the green-nes even further!
User avatar
merecat
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri 22 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby Kaare_Mai » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 08:37:54

Most people, including journalists and politicians will never get it:

Growth is not sustainable! How can these 4 words be sooo hard to grasp?

That Laos deal is nothing but bullshit and excuses to continue wasting our planet and use up mother natures dear resources.

Our world is truly lead by Fools & Idiots Inc. (tm)
User avatar
Kaare_Mai
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun 02 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Denmark (Scandinavia)

Unread postby linlithgowoil » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 08:45:43

i think people need to realise - 'mother natures resources' are self replenishing. therefore, some growth is sustainable.
User avatar
linlithgowoil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon 20 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Scotland

Unread postby EnergySpin » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 11:13:47

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

Some growth is sustainable UNTILL one reaches the limit of what the ecosystem can absorb. Then it is either a steady state economy or dieoff. To complicate the matters further, without a reliable energy source even staying at the maximum capacity will be impossible. Hence a contraction will follow.
Mother's nature resources are not replenishable; they are recyclable provided the self sustaining mechanisms of biogeomistry are left intact. If they have been damaged then it is bye bye.
It appeares that the human species has reached both the "self-replenishing" capacity and the energy limits. Figure out the consequences ....
"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

Unread postby Sys1 » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 16:24:13

"Economic growth is green"

Reminds me some sentences in "1984" like "WAR IS PEACE; FREEDOM IS SLAVER, IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH"... :?
They are absolutely crazy, those people are far more dangerous than Al Qaeda.
User avatar
Sys1
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 983
Joined: Fri 25 Feb 2005, 04:00:00

Unread postby jaws » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 17:34:45

Economic growth can be green if natural resources are managed properly. The rest of the economy will then adapt itself to the green resource management and productivity will grow from it.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00

Unread postby Raxozanne » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 17:50:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')Climate change deal better than Kyoto: Howard
Prime Minister John Howard says the agreement on climate change formally announced in Laos is a significantly better than the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The pact has been made with the United States, India, China, Japan and South Korea.

Mr Howard says the agreement puts more emphasis on new technologies aimed at reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from the use of fossil fuels.

"It is a matter of the national interest and of common sense that Australia should associate herself very vigorously with such a process," he said.


First off and most importantly Im sure you'll all agree is:
Why is Australia a she? What make Australia a she? Are all countries shes?

And also I thought the Kyoto involved green technology to reduce emissions so why do they think their version is better?
Raxozanne
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 945
Joined: Thu 24 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby Kaare_Mai » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 18:37:09

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'E')conomic growth can be green if natural resources are managed properly. The rest of the economy will then adapt itself to the green resource management and productivity will grow from it.


And again: Growth is NEVER sustainable

By saying growth can be green and sustainable you're saying that using more and more and more resources and space to an increasing population which is essential to growth, is something that is in balance with mother nature? It sounds like some people on this earth thinks that earth itself grows by 3% per year :lol:
User avatar
Kaare_Mai
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun 02 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Denmark (Scandinavia)

Unread postby jaws » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 18:50:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Kaare_Mai', 'A')nd again: Growth is NEVER sustainable

By saying growth can be green and sustainable you're saying that using more and more and more resources and space to an increasing population which is essential to growth, is something that is in balance with mother nature? It sounds like some people on this earth thinks that earth itself grows by 3% per year :lol:
Economic growth actually involves using less resources and space to increase human wealth because exploiting natural resources is costly.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby linlithgowoil » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 19:33:59

also - economic growth doesnt necessarily mean using ever more resources. efficiency and new ways of doing things can work wonders. people 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.
User avatar
linlithgowoil
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 828
Joined: Mon 20 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Scotland

Unread postby Rincewind » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 20:51:33

It depends how you define economic growth. The commonly accepted view is increasing GDP is a measure of economic improvement (and social well being).

This of course is crap. Even the inventor of the GDP methodology, Simon Kuznets (yes him) stated

‘The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income…’

Speaking to the U.S. Congress (1934).

GDP does not measure the loss of natural capital so we don't know if our increasing human capital is offsetting any loss (assuming you believe that human capital and natural capital are fully substitutable).

GDP measures expenditure on 'bads' such as cleaning up after pollution spills as contributing to the economy. Every time an ambulance rushes out to a car crash that is helping economic growth.

Basically GDP measures the speed of the economy not its quality.

Herman Daly and others have attempted to propose alternative economic improvement models (i.e. Steady State economy). These basically argue that economic improvement must be divorced from increased consumption of resources (natural and human) and move to increasing the quality of production. So instead of producing more produce less, but better and to last longer.

But I bet everyone here has thought along those lines anyway.

Cheers Rincewind
User avatar
Rincewind
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 197
Joined: Thu 17 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: New Zealand

Unread postby jtmorgan61 » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 21:22:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')limate change deal better than Kyoto: Howard
Prime Minister John Howard says the agreement on climate change formally announced in Laos is a significantly better than the Kyoto Protocol on reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The pact has been made with the United States, India, China, Japan and South Korea.

Mr Howard says the agreement puts more emphasis on new technologies aimed at reducing the greenhouse gas emissions from the use of fossil fuels.

"It is a matter of the national interest and of common sense that Australia should associate herself very vigorously with such a process," he said.


Another right-winger with no respect for the environment, so who believes anything he says? There are no mandatory caps, and no real way this plan will cut emissions, just a fuzzy reliance on "technology" to somehow make everyone stop polluting, which requires a total lack of understanding of Jevon's Paradox.

Most green groups are in fact concerned that countries previously on the Kyoto wagon will pull out and tie themselves to this accord instead.
User avatar
jtmorgan61
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 235
Joined: Sun 17 Jul 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby merecat » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 21:35:48

Sys1: 1984 is now oh yes! :lol: :lol:

The world is truly our of balance and I can't think of anything that will bring it back in trim :(

The fire that is the "free" market burns mercilessly through the beautiful body that is the planet Earth, some people shout "She's screaming! Quench the flames with water!" whilst others chant, their brains stupified by the virus, "More fire! More fire! We can do anything, we just need more fire!".

The irony is that if any human were in the Earths position, i.e. infested with troublesome parasites that bored into their body to greedily feast on their blood, then the human host would more than likely apply a topical treatment of parasite killing cream straight away, get an early night and hope it was all better in the morning!

The cornucopian unlimited growth mantra always reminds of that marvelous Escher drawing, where the zombie like drones walk round the tower top, always marching up the stairs but never getting any higher, you'd think they'd cotton on after a few laps:

Image
User avatar
merecat
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 181
Joined: Fri 22 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: UK

Unread postby EnergySpin » Sun 31 Jul 2005, 22:47:01

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')erman Daly and others have attempted to propose alternative economic improvement models (i.e. Steady State economy). These basically argue that economic improvement must be divorced from increased consumption of resources (natural and human) and move to increasing the quality of production. So instead of producing more produce less, but better and to last longer.

Yep Herman Daly's ideas are interesting. He even tried to come up with a model that allowed the free market (regulated) to operate in a SS economy. Most of his ideas would require an ecological model of industrial production i.e. the output of one industry feeding into another and a big recycling sector. He never (at least not to my knowledge) discusses the role of the energy sector in such a system and whether it should be publicly owned or not. Just reading through his ideas though, it would seem that raw material inflow, energy production and waste management should be firmly within the public sector. I would be interested to read more about those issues in his system (provided someone can provide PDFs :P)
"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 Kaare_Mai » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 11:18:58

$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. people 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.


Oh 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...
User avatar
Kaare_Mai
Peat
Peat
 
Posts: 59
Joined: Sun 02 May 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Denmark (Scandinavia)
Top

Unread postby jaws » Mon 01 Aug 2005, 18:14:17

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'w')ait a minute. Isn't human wealth outhouses, and running water, and Ipods? Don't these require more resources and space?
What requires more resources and space, an ipod or a vynil turntable? The former is greatly superior to the other.
User avatar
jaws
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1228
Joined: Sun 24 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Top

Unread postby EnergySpin » Tue 02 Aug 2005, 00:31:49

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'o')h that's right. Ipods are going to save the world. I hear that the next model is under development. Stever Jobs said that it has cold fusion battery, AI tuning (it figures out what you want to hear), neural network volume, and nanotech hand grips. ah can't wait!

The sad thing is that neural networks , field programmable devices (the iPOD has a couple of those) can be used to do useful stuff: i.e. predict the weather, run renewable electricity plants, sustain communication (cell phone networks have done wonders for Africa), provide access to information at the point it is needed (hell I'm carrying the equivalent of 20000pages of medical knowledge at work on a Palm flashcard). Science and technology is not inherently good or bad ... we never put them under societal control the way it should have been since day 1
"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

Next

Return to Economics & Finance

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron