Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

What would you do with: Absolute power?

What's on your mind?
General interest discussions, not necessarily related to depletion.

What would you do with: Absolute power?

Postby asdar » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 11:49:19

I was thinking about what steps I'd take if I had absolute power in the U.S. I'm a slight doomer, I think that we're in trouble, but I'm not sure that we can't get out yet.

My steps would be to make what I consider key industries able to function without oil, or at drastically reduced levels of oil use.

The first, and most important in my opinion, is the coal industry. We need to keep the grid pumping out power, and at least in the short term that means coal with all it's dirt. I would locate coal to liquid research right at the coal mines with the most estimated capacity. Then I would do a sweep of all of the equipment used and re-engineer it so that it could run on fuel created right there. This would include coal trucks that deliver to power plants.

The second would be farms. I'd put the ag department to good use for once and work on ethanol/biodiesel farm equipment so they can grow their own corn and use it as an emergency fuel for the farm equipment.

The third would be the railway system. I'd upgrade that to pre-1960s levels, with modern equipment.

My first steps would be to secure electric generation where possible, then food production. The next priority would be getting everything running on electric, with lubrication for machinery coming from artificial sources locally.

I don't think rationing is the way to go, because if we ration the fuel will just go to other countries. Not to be selfish, but we're going to need that fuel to transition. I would tax fuel more to pay for the conversion and take the economic hit.

What would you do, or do you think there's no hope?
User avatar
asdar
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri 06 Oct 2006, 03:00:00

Re: Steps to take

Postby azreal60 » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 12:15:54

That's not a bad list of steps at all. Especially if your trying to keep the machinery working and just focusing on that. The question is, what are you going to do with the machinery once you have it mostly functional for quite a few more years?

I see alot of those steps being taken honestly. Not yet, but soon.
Azreal60
azreal60
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1107
Joined: Sat 26 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Madison,Wisconsin

Re: Steps to take

Postby steam_cannon » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 14:36:18

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('azreal60', 'T')hat's not a bad list of steps at all.
Yeah, asdar's list is a very good list... Now here's the very bad list!

I would take all the scrubbers off of coal plants and purposefully spread dark soot over polar ice! :lol:

Image

But seriously, I have good reason for saying this. Taking scrubbers off coal plants would increase efficiency a few percent and more importantly it would keep up global dimming. Global dimming is caused by soot in the atmosphere and since the 1950's has been blocking 10% average of the worlds sunlight (20% in the northern hemisphere). Our past was literally a brighter time. And global dimming seems to be the reason the world has only heated by 0.6 degrees from global warming thus far, it would be at least 1.8 degrees higher then that.

So I would encourage wind power with extra sooty coal power as backup power. That way we could cut carbon emissions and maintain the same soot levels in the atmosphere. This plan might put us on track to a gentle powerdown scenario and a soft landing for global warming, if implemented over the next hundred years.

Basically it's the "Highlander II" problem. Sharply ending mixed CO2 / soot emissions could trigger catastrophic global warming. It has been suggested that an alternative method to encourage global dimming would be to seed the upper atmosphere with sulfur compounds, but dirty burning of coal might be a simpler solution. Ironically the fact that only the dirtiest fossil fuels are left at the end of this age might be a good thing...

Also, I might suggest purposefully spread dark soot over polar ice to melt the poles. This would be to deepen the oceans and stabilize clathrate deposits. Melting the polar ice could deepen the oceans and stabilize ocean clathrate deposits in a warmer world. And yes, melting floating water can deepen the ocean because of salt/freshwater density differences. But I would focus on the ice on land.

Destabilizing clathrates can release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere. Such releases have been implicated in mass extinctions in the earths past, when the sun was a dimmer star. People can move to higher ground if sea levels rise. But if clathrate destabilization happens again and causes run away global warming, this ice will melt anyway and people can't move to a different planet.

Another strategy, make a big push to burn clathrates and encourage the release of CFC's! Burning the methane clathrate deposits would dam the earth, guaranteeing the earth would probably not recover from the next ice age. Clathrates bubble up if the sea levels dip too low from glaciers forming on land. The methane then holds heat in and melts the ice... But if we didn't care about damming the earth to a cold death in < 10,000 years, we could burn the clathrates... Burning them into carbon dioxide could avert the clathrate gun hypothesis and catastrophic global warming in the present with minimal rising sea levels.

Also it seems the ozone hole may be influencing winds such that warm air is staying away from the poles. This means there is a lot less melting then there should be. If we want to keep that up, pumping out CFC's to maintain the ozone hole might be a way to keep the ice unmelted and prevent sea level rise.

Well, all amusing ideas... Personally, I think the clathrates should stay in place to protect the earth from turning into a permanent iceball planet after the next ice age. And not be allowed to bubble up as that could cause runaway global warming in the present. Talk about walking a knifes edge...

So my suggestions are cooling the earth with particulates and possibly melting the poles to stabilize clathrates, even though this would risk stagnation of the oceans and could result in dangerous levels of sulfur dioxide in the atmosphere. But it might be possible to purposefully melt polar ice if done done carefully so that outflows are in areas that minimally disrupt ocean currents...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wiki', '
')Clathrate gun hypothesis
Image
The clathrate gun hypothesis states that as sea temperatures rise the sudden release of methane from methane clathrate compounds buried in the seabeds will cause a drastic alteration of the ocean environment and the atmosphere of earth, as recent analysis concerning the Permian extinction event indicates may have happened in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis
It's a good idea to try to avoid extinction level events, IMO...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('globalissues.org', '
')Currently, most climate change models predict a 5 degrees increase in temperature over the next century, which is already considered extremely grave. However, global dimming has led to an underestimation of the power of global warming.

Global dimming can be dealt with by cleaning up emissions.

However, if global dimming problems are only addressed, then the effects of global warming will increase even more. This may be what happened to Europe in 2003...
http://www.globalissues.org/EnvIssues/G ... imming.asp
Another way of looking at this data, if civilization has a "fast crash" get ready to run for the poles cause when the dust settles we're going to cook!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('wiki', '
')Some scientists now consider that the effects of global dimming have masked the effect of global warming to some extent and that resolving global dimming may therefore lead to increases in predictions of future temperature rise.[14] According to Beate Liepert, "We lived in a global warming plus a global dimming world and now we are taking out global dimming. So we end up with the global warming world, which will be much worse than we thought it will be, much hotter."

...the three days following the September 11, 2001 attacks afforded a rare opportunity in which to observe the climate of the United States absent from the effect of contrails. During this period, an increase in diurnal temperature variation of over 1 °C was observed in some parts of the U.S., i.e. aircraft contrails may have been raising nighttime temperatures and/or lowering daytime temperatures by much more than previously thought.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
And keep those planes flying!

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('grist', '
')...but if you missed the story, you would not be the only one. Until Ohmura poked his nose into the radiation record, nobody had noticed that between 1958 and 1988, a whopping 10 percent of solar radiation had disappeared...

...The sweetness of white wine grapes is a function of solar radiation. The more sun a grape plant's leaves absorb, the more sugar the plant produces and the more sweetness it infuses into the fruit. So if you pay really close attention to the global meteorological records, and in particular the geographic distribution of solar radiation, then when you sense a wine's sweetness, you can infer its region of origin. "I really trained my tongue for that!" Ohmura exclaims.
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2004 ... n-dimming/
Amusingly, wine was sweeter in the past...

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('guardian', '
')Most startling of all was the discovery that levels of solar radiation reaching parts of the former Soviet Union had gone down almost 20% between 1960 and 1987
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/ ... 53,00.html
Imagine what happens for the north when that 20% of sunlight comes back. Great for crops, but temperatures will be way up!

Hahaha, well that's an alternative way to look at the problem! If you support clean energy, you support global warming!?! We'll probably find next that Metallica is good music for babies...

I am so going to get so flamed, but I hope you all enjoyed!!! :lol:
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: Steps to take

Postby Pops » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 15:47:32

I’d guess my thoughts are more structural; actually they may be more along the lines of knocking out some of the existing structure:

Institute a gradual increase to maybe a $20/gal petroleum tax and the equivalent on all other energy sources.

Institute a flat federal income tax with NO subsidies/credits/allowances/distinction between income sources except for charitable giving and impose it on all imports/transactions as well, no matter the base of the importer. Eliminate all sales/state/local/special district taxes. Distribute a portion of federal income taxes to states and localities uniformly by population. Any tax money to only be spent in return for meaningful work.

Strictly, and I mean strictly, no, really; strictly regulate whatever financial institutions may be left.

Eliminate all overseas military bases. Institute a mandatory 2 year military or civilian service requirement at 18 years of age paying room and board. Arm and train every male age 18-35.

Make concealed carry mandatory for all able bodied adults. Eliminate all drug laws, make any drug involved crime and any existing fixed-sentence punishment over ten years a death penalty offence – lesser crimes are punishable by old fashioned hard labor.

Make voting mandatory. Make professional lobbying illegal and punishable by death, cap political contributions at $100, re-define political districts to existing municipal or county boundaries and allow no further changes.


Then go to my undisclosed location and watch things unfold on CNN - wait a minute, I would also make owning more than one media outlet illegal too.

It might not have helped but it would sure be interesting to watch…
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Steps to take

Postby steam_cannon » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 16:20:05

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'I')’d guess my thoughts are more structural; actually they may be more along the lines of knocking out some of the existing structure
Those would be some great moves that US should take!
User avatar
steam_cannon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 2859
Joined: Thu 28 Dec 2006, 04:00:00
Location: MA
Top

Re: Steps to take

Postby BigTex » Wed 18 Jul 2007, 17:22:53

How about increase federal funding for alternative energy to equal the Pentagon's budget, since future energy sources represent at least as much threat to national security as anything the Pentagon is protecting us from.

Also, don't permit any car to roll off an assembly line that doesn't get more than 40 miles per gallon.

Build more nuclear power plants. Start right now. That's what M.K. Hubbert assumed we would be doing.

Have the government buy up every commercial slot during the Super Bowl and provide 30 second segments on peak oil, alternative energy, and the need and rationale for greater efficiency and conservation.

Rearrange the tax system to make rail transport more economical than long haul trucking in virtually all cases.

Raise the gas tax, but earmark the revenue for alternative energy research only.

Fund full scholarship degree programs for professions in the alternative energy field.

Put an excise tax on new homes that are more than 2500 square feet.

Change building codes to require state of the art efficiency measures to be built into every new building and home.

Offer buyback programs for especially inefficient old cars and appliances.

I don't know what to do about the developing world. Almost all of my suggestions are going to increase the cost of transportation and housing. Something tells me these ideas are not going to take root in countries where the government and its people are already broke.
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland

Re: Steps to take

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 01:10:45

All Solutions in Isolation.

There is no techno-fix.

We must powerdown by design or by default.

Rebuilding the railroads is a good idea under any scenario, though.

But CTL or biofool's?

Do some homework.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: Steps to take

Postby TonyPrep » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 05:28:17

Step 1. Educate the public on reality and on the meaning of sustainability (and the consequences of unsustainability).
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand

Re: Steps to take

Postby Curlew » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 07:41:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'H')ave the government buy up every commercial slot during the Super Bowl and provide 30 second segments on peak oil, alternative energy, and the need and rationale for greater efficiency and conservation.

A brilliant idea!
User avatar
Curlew
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun 20 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: London
Top

Re: Steps to take

Postby Roy » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 08:45:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'S')tep 1. Educate the public on reality and on the meaning of sustainability (and the consequences of unsustainability).


That's an excellent suggestion. To most folks, the word sustainability and its meaning are as foriegn to them as particle physics.

Also I'd like to add:

Pops for President!

:-D :-D
Roy
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 1359
Joined: Fri 18 Jun 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Getting in touch with my Inner Redneck
Top

Re: Steps to take

Postby TheTurtle » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 09:50:59

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'M')ake concealed carry mandatory for all able bodied adults.

8O I don't know, Pops. I'm a firm believer in the RKBA, but mandatory? There are quite a few able bodied adults that probably shouldn't be forced to carry concealed (unless, of course, this is part of a clever population reduction scheme 8)).

Maybe the Barney Fife approach ... they can carry concealed, but it has to be unloaded and they can only carry a single round of ammo buttoned up in their pocket. :P
“Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it. Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.” (Ted Perry)
User avatar
TheTurtle
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 1905
Joined: Sat 14 May 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Along the banks of the muddy Mississippi
Top

Re: Steps to take

Postby evilgenius » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 10:24:55

I would enter into negotiations to make friends with Iran. That would strip the Russians of their proxy in the ME. I would begin to understand that the KSA will soon cease to dominate ME affairs like it used to. Getting control of ME oil will soon mean dealing with lots of players rather than dominating via one swing producer.

I would prepare the population for gas rationing. I would subsidize solar and wind applications to homes. Also I would make sure that if a huge demand for batteries for said systems comes up then the demand can be met. Introduce a subsidized home insulation program likewise.

I would keep all of the Trident missle boats in the water that the navy found possible on a round the calendar basis.

I would make sure that the Chinese were on the same page as me and that they saw my interests as their interests.

I would slap a tax on anything new that gets less than 30mpg of 50%. And a road tax of 10% extra of book value on all current vehicles gettng less than 30 mpg. The only exception would be ranchers. Yes, introduce a 60 mph speed limit.

Encourage strongly all coal power plants to have a 180 day extra supply on their premises. Establish a second SPR in another part of the country.

Withdraw all nuclear weapons from foreign military bases. Shut down a huge number of foreign bases as well.

Examine the water carrying strengths and weaknesses of various regions of the country that are likely to receive cold weather refugees.

Think about what it will take to exploit West Africa and share it with Europe.

Encourage the capacity for heavy oil upgrading pre-refinery as well as at the refinery.

Call in a task force to consider what to do with suburbia.

etc.
When it comes down to it, the people will always shout, "Free Barabbas." They love Barabbas. He's one of them. He has the same dreams. He does what they wish they could do. That other guy is more removed, more inscrutable. He makes them think. "Crucify him."
User avatar
evilgenius
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3730
Joined: Tue 06 Dec 2005, 04:00:00
Location: Stopped at the Border.

Re: Steps to take

Postby BigTex » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 11:05:06

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'A')ll Solutions in Isolation.

There is no techno-fix.

We must powerdown by design or by default.



Isn't increased efficiency through technological improvements, as part of a larger conservation oriented strategy, a design-based powerdown--i.e., you are using less AND what you are using is being used more efficiently or in a more renewable manner?

I understand that in the short term increased efficiency may increase consumption, but longer term it seems like accelerating the development of alternative energy sources, along with a commitment to increased efficiency in the fossil fuel space, will not necessarily solve our problems, but won't it increase the POSSIBILITY of arriving at a solution--i.e., if a powerdown becomes imminent, won't it be less disastrous if we have mature alternative energy technology than if we don't?

It's a little bit like a teenager getting his or her driver's license. It's not a good idea, but if they are going to do it anyway, wouldn't it make sense to give them as much driver training as possible, put them in a safe car, put one of those breathalyzer things that you have to blow a 0.0 for the car to start, etc.?

If PO is the teenager driving, then increased efficiency from fossil fuels and increased investment in alternative energy are the driver training, safe car, etc.

Perhaps I am too quick to take the "middle way", but I am as hesitant to commit to the "we're doomed no matter what" approach as I am to the "stick your head in the sand" strategy. A powerdown is almost certain to occur at some point, but it seems like we still have many options to determine how traumatic the powerdown will be, and it seems like technology can potentially play a big role in mitigating the impact of this sea change from endless growth to sustainability.
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Steps to take

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 11:38:32

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', ' ')Isn't increased efficiency through technological improvements, as part of a larger conservation oriented strategy, a design-based powerdown--i.e., you are using less AND what you are using is being used more efficiently or in a more renewable manner?


In a free market system, this leads to increased consumption via Jevons' Paradox.

You must raise the price of the products in which you have efficiency gains, or ration them to prevent increased use due to lower price.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I') understand that in the short term increased efficiency may increase consumption, but longer term it seems like accelerating the development of alternative energy sources, along with a commitment to increased efficiency in the fossil fuel space, will not necessarily solve our problems, but won't it increase the POSSIBILITY of arriving at a solution--i.e., if a powerdown becomes imminent, won't it be less disastrous if we have mature alternative energy technology than if we don't?


A powerdown has become imminent. As long as we have population growth, any, and all, efficiency/conservation gains will be eaten up by growth alone in a few years.

Short-term, selfish solution. Gives the illusion of a fix.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')erhaps I am too quick to take the "middle way", but I am as hesitant to commit to the "we're doomed no matter what" approach as I am to the "stick your head in the sand" strategy. A powerdown is almost certain to occur at some point, but it seems like we still have many options to determine how traumatic the powerdown will be, and it seems like technology can potentially play a big role in mitigating the impact of this sea change from endless growth to sustainability.


We are not "doomed, no matter what". We are doomed, no matter what, however, if we continue with a techno-fix mindset that ignores restricting consumption and addressing population reduction at the same time.

This just kicks the can down the road for the next generation to deal with.

We want to mitigate nature's correction to our overshoot.

Sorry, the correction comes no matter what. We can choose to implement it by design, rather than by default, to prevent the worse case scenario that comes by default to nature.

In other words, we need to implement a traumatic powerdown by our own design; one that replaces unsustainable systems with sustainable ones while downscaling everything we do.

We don't need more energy capacity, we need sustainable energy capacity.

We need a sustainable energy regime to meet a sustainable population, not an energy regime to meet demand for a growing population.

As I said in my Tip of the Iceberg thread:

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'S')eems this “transition and grow” mindset has only the near-term future in mind.

In my opinion, any proposed solutions to the peak oil issue must address the following criteria to be viable long-term solutions.

1. They must address population growth.
2. They must address the global warming issue.
3. They must address the consequences of conservation efforts/efficiency gains.
4. They must address the economic issues of a no-growth economy and past debt.
5. They must be sustainable/ renewable and the least toxic to the environment.
6. And probably most important, they must be global in perspective.

Only a powerdown embraces and addresses these issues on a long-term sustainable basis.

Anything else just pushes the day of reckoning into the future and makes the cliff steeper.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Steps to take

Postby Pops » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 13:38:36

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TheTurtle', ' ')(unless, of course, this is part of a clever population reduction scheme 8)).

:lol: I hadn't thought of that! Actually I was thinking of able-minded as well but didn’t type that far.

My main idea was to make energy much more expensive through big taxes which of course should lead to less demand and more efficiency. No big idea there, the Europeans started way back. As well cutting out subsidies and loopholes and the cost of military bases around the world and reducing the massive cost of enforcing ineffective drug laws plus instituting mandatory service would probably increase the coffers as well. I’m not really sure where that tax money should go but paying off the debt and funding a mightily reformed SS system would be a start.

I am not big on big government programs but leveling the tax field and giving an incentive to more efficient transport might spur private sector development of rail for example better than a government program.

OTOH, there probably would be a big surge in unemployment and make work programs and funding mandatory service would also suck up tax money. I would probably concentrate on reviving local farming, walkable neighborhoods, ripping out lawns to be replaced by gardens, the list here could go on and on.

Through artificially induced energy cost increases the motivation would be to adjust and innovate while there is still power available, as opposed to waiting till the price rises because there is no power available. We know folks won’t do it unless forced.

Of course the rest of the world will go merrily on their way gulping and guzzling and breeding and belching carbon but what can I do, I am only the Emperor of America for Crimeny sakes!
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac
Top

Re: Steps to take

Postby BigTex » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 14:28:26

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', ' ')Isn't increased efficiency through technological improvements, as part of a larger conservation oriented strategy, a design-based powerdown--i.e., you are using less AND what you are using is being used more efficiently or in a more renewable manner?


In a free market system, this leads to increased consumption via Jevons' Paradox.

You must raise the price of the products in which you have efficiency gains, or ration them to prevent increased use due to lower price.


I understand Jevon's Paradox, but didn't the efficiency gains following the 1970s price shocks suggest it doesn't always work that way? As I recall, there was a period in the late 1970s and 1980s where our energy consumption was flat or declining and our economic growth was continuing? Wouldn't Jevon's Paradox suggest that there should have been no plateau or decline in consumption during that period of increased efficiency?

All I'm suggesting is that Jevon's Paradox may not actually occur in all improved efficiency situations. I would put it on the short list of possible outcomes, but I wouldn't say that it was certain to occur.
User avatar
BigTex
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3858
Joined: Thu 03 Aug 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Graceland
Top

Re: Steps to take

Postby Pops » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 14:49:46

Look, Jevon is a good tool as far as it goes - reduced demand leads to reduced price leads to increased consumption of a constant or increasing supply.

Fine.

The problem with throwing Jevon out at every suggestion of conservation is this site is about diminishing supply.

At some point there will be no increase in consumption because there will be a constant reduction of supply and Jevon will be moot - or mute, as you like.

There are only two choices as I see it:

Voluntarily reduce your dependence on cheap energy now
Or
Involuntarily reduce your dependence on expensive energy later

Everything else (as in everything) is just talk...
The legitimate object of government, is to do for a community of people, whatever they need to have done, but can not do, at all, or can not, so well do, for themselves -- in their separate, and individual capacities.
-- Abraham Lincoln, Fragment on Government (July 1, 1854)
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 19746
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 04:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Steps to take

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 14:59:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', ' ')I understand Jevon's Paradox, but didn't the efficiency gains following the 1970s price shocks suggest it doesn't always work that way?


In one of your previous posts, you had the effects of Jevons backwards. Near term, you get the gains, but long-term, the increased efficiency leads to even greater use.

And to date, it has never been observed otherwise.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')s Professor Paul Ekins, head of the Environment Group at the Policies Studies Institute and co-Director of the new United Kingdom Energy Research Centre (UKERC), told us, "In the economics literature it is … well known that increased efficiency in the use of a resource leads over time to greater use of that resource and not less use of it" (Q 261).[29] This might explain, for instance, why there appears to be no example of a developed society that has succeeded in combining sustained reductions in energy consumption with economic growth. Mr Alan Meier, of the IEA, referred to "several countries that, for brief periods, reduced their electricity consumption or their energy consumption"—often in response to short-term supply crises—but such reductions in demand have never been sustained. This does not mean that sustained reductions in energy consumption are impossible—simply that it is yet to be demonstrated that they are possible.


Link to quote

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')ll I'm suggesting is that Jevon's Paradox may not actually occur in all improved efficiency situations. I would put it on the short list of possible outcomes, but I wouldn't say that it was certain to occur.


Yes, as long as the gains are not made available to the public in a free market to consume, conservation and efficiency gains will go a long way.

If one was to embrace your thinking, then as the price declines due to efficiency gains, people won't use more of it?

Putting something on sale does not increase it's consumption?

That aside, the point everyone is missing is this:

(Maybe it will make the "member quotes.")

If we magically made every car on earth an electric one, and had every home in the world install solar technologies, grow everything within 200 miles of where it was consumed, and replace all fossil fuels with renewable systems, we’d still have 3.7 to 4.7 billion too many people on earth today, and 6 to 7 billion too many by 2050.

There is no "techno-fix" for overshoot.

If you don't address population, then any proposed solutions are short-term and selfish, period.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Steps to take

Postby MonteQuest » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 15:11:07

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Pops', 'T')he problem with throwing Jevon out at every suggestion of conservation is this site is about diminishing supply.

At some point there will be no increase in consumption because there will be a constant reduction of supply and Jevon will be moot - or mute, as you like.


At some point, but not yet.

And before that becomes reality is when we need to conserve the most.

Drawing people's attention to the consequences of conservation and efficiency gains in a free market needs to be thrown out at every juncture.

Jevons' Paradox is not an argument against conservation or efficiency gains, it is a wakeup call to the reality of the expected results.

That is why it is called a paradox.

People treat it as if it was a theory. It is not; it is an observation of past and current reality.

Jevons' Paradox will never become moot, as any efficiency gains will increase the available supply relative to what it would have been...even in a declining supply scenario.

More supply=cheaper price...relative to what it would have been without the efficiency gains.

We must conserve and increase the efficiency with which we use energy and resources. There is no valid argument against that.

The debate must lie in how to offset Jevons' Paradox in a free market.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Fri 20 Jul 2007, 11:42:56, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: Steps to take

Postby nas635 » Thu 19 Jul 2007, 15:19:19

Long time lurker - first post

CAVEAT: This is what I think the US could do, not what it will would do and not what I endorse.
WARNING: Severe doomer porn

Situation: US aware of the following:
1. Belief in the peak oil scenario for many years.
2. Global fiat monetary system on shaky ground, possibly ready for economic collapse
3. World population numbers much greater than can be reasonably supported

Goals:
After causing a fast crash scenario, US ends up still in control, technology intact, world population greatly reduced, sufficient oil/resources for reduced population to buy time for alternatives


Actions:
Multiple nuke and/or dirty bomb false flag incidents in US and Western countries
Blame pinned on Iran
Nuclear retaliation on Iran
Escalate war in Mideast
Destabilize Pakistan & India
Get China involved on the wrong side
World War 3/4 started
US missile sheild installed in Europe
To end war US nukes or causes others to nuke the following countries: China, India, Pakistan, and Indonesia -
countries with large dense populations and no or little resources

US and Russia cooperating in this scenario, last details agreed to in Kennebunkport.

REPEAT: I do not endorse this but I think it is a possible worst case scena

Hows that for a first post?
User avatar
nas635
Wood
Wood
 
Posts: 1
Joined: Thu 19 Jul 2007, 03:00:00

Next

Return to Open Topic Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron