I really don't see anything that disproves original "it's a myth" statement..
Energy is not equal to money, money are not equal to physical production and thus GDP is not equal to energy and physical production.
- Can production of physical things increase in quantity while energy supply and efficiency of use decrease?
NO
- Can GDP (measured in money) grow while production og physical things and energy use declines?
YES
There is no reason for economy and GDP to stop growing while energy consumption goes down. And there are numerous examples of it.
Aaaron, eastern european countries currently don't have any serious problems in terms of GDP growth or energy use, economies of Poland, Czech rep. Hungary and Slovakia as well as all 3 baltic states and Slovenia have stable growth far higher than current EU average and energy use is still lower than 1990 in some..
These economies maintained growth in GDP while energy consumption declined. Of course, different things are produced, but thats the point..
Post peak some physical transport/energy intensive things will be too expensive, so growth will happen in other sectors.. For example, instead of internal combustion car industry, growth will continue to happen in electronics, and high-tech industries. (Unless real depression hits whole world)
PeakOil is You
The Myth of energy and GDP
by tokyo_to_motueka » Mon 18 Apr 2005, 06:51:30
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', 'C')uba is an impoverished nightmare supported by vice industries which compose their lucrative black market. Poverty is widespread, and living conditions 3rd world for most of it's population. And I don't have to google for that... I have been there and seen this "oil free" country myself.
Aaron,
unlike you i have not been to Cuba to see for myself what the state of their society/economy is in. so i have to rely on the hard data available.
UNICEF, "The State of the World's Children 2004" Table 1. Basic indicators
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '2')002 Under-5 mortality rate:
(per 1,000 live births)
Cuba 9
Haiti 123
United States 8
2002 Infant motality rate:
(per 1,000 live births)
Cuba 7
Haiti 79
United States 7
1996-2002 Net primary school enrolment/attendance:
Cuba 97%
Haiti 54%
United States 95%
2000 Total adult literacy rate:
Cuba 97%
Haiti 50%
United States - (data not available for most OECD countries)
2002 Life expectancy at birth (years):
Cuba 77
Haiti 49
United States 77
so what you say you saw doesn't seem to stack up against the data.
Any ideas as to why this is the case?
i am not convinced Cuba is in as bad a state as you say when many of its social indicators (health, education) are much better than the rest of Latin America and on par with the US.
-
tokyo_to_motueka - Coal
- Posts: 486
- Joined: Tue 19 Oct 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Tochigi
by jato » Mon 18 Apr 2005, 07:35:02
Tab. Y 7: Electricity Consumption, 1970 - 1997 (TWh), UK
1970 208.7
1980 241.7
1990 284.4
1995 302.2
1996 314.3
1997 317.5
UK Natural gas consumption:
Transportation:
GDP:
Something is fishy here! The energy line is flat on the chart posted at the beginning of this thread:
However, all of the evidence I posted shows the UK using significantly more energy than in 1970.
1970 208.7
1980 241.7
1990 284.4
1995 302.2
1996 314.3
1997 317.5
UK Natural gas consumption:
Transportation:
GDP:
Something is fishy here! The energy line is flat on the chart posted at the beginning of this thread:
However, all of the evidence I posted shows the UK using significantly more energy than in 1970.
Last edited by jato on Mon 18 Apr 2005, 07:51:37, edited 1 time in total.
- jato
by Aaron » Mon 18 Apr 2005, 07:44:38
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')uba is an impoverished nightmare supported by vice industries which compose their lucrative black market
Drugs, prostitution & gambling...
The customs guy will not stamp your passport if you ask.
No problem
Actually it's been a couple of years since i was there, but I'll be there in a couple of weeks for a short visit and I'll report back on that.
This is a dictatorship.
I question the validity of these UNICEF figures.
So sure the Cuban example works if we don't mind turning the US into one big Las Vegas.
I should mention that I have a great fondness for the people of Cuba, Mexico and central/south America. I have found that there is little or no anti-American sentiment in these places, rather they don't like assholes who think they are better than they are.
If you visit Mexico and make no attempt to speak the language, stay at the Hilton and eat at TGI Fridays not only are you an ivory tower jerk off only tolerated because you spend money, but you missed the best part of traveling there.
When I visit Mexico I stay on a small coastal island off Cancun in a modest dwelling, eat with the locals at restaurants they frequent, make friends and hang out with locals, shop at their grocery markets, and avoid anyplace Paris Hilton might go. You will never find a more generous and friendly people anywhere.
I must say that after spending time with these real people, I find much of what passes for American culture offensive.
Many of these folks live more before noon than most Americans will all year long.
But Cuba as an example of a successful no oil society... please.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most Eastern European countries subsidize their nationalized industries which skews the GDP vs Energy numbers.
Licho & I have been arguing this point for about a year now, with neither side giving much ground. But after extensive googling it is clear that without these government subsidies the numbers would tell a very different story.
Same thing for Canadian Tar Sand projects.
It's only viable because of massive government subsidies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a bit startling that some of us believe energy has little or no impact on GDP.
This is only true when energy is plentiful and cheap as it has been for 50 years running.
This is so obvious that I find it difficult to respond seriously...
The problem is, of course, that not only is economics bankrupt, but it has always been nothing more than politics in disguise... economics is a form of brain damage.
Hazel Henderson
Hazel Henderson
-
Aaron - Resting in Peace
- Posts: 5998
- Joined: Thu 15 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
- Location: Houston
by Wildwell » Mon 18 Apr 2005, 08:01:54
1. Electricity consumption has gone up due to more gadgets in the home: Washing machines, Electric razors, Food mixers, Dishwashers etc. These are not necessary for life, they reduce human workload. Imported goods also have a negative effect on ‘balances of payments’ trade deficits.
2. Gas consumption has gone up after a switch away form coal for Power stations and home heating. There’s nothing to say renewable energy and waste couldn’t replace this in the future. Most of the Gas fired power stations have been built in the last 15 years and are situated in the East midlands/East Anglia replacing coal fire plants in Yorkshire and the midlands.
3. Oil consumption has risen by the extra use of cars and planes. More holidays and less walking and cycling and the sudden ability to the ability to travel ‘at will’. This is not necessary for life and creates balance of trade problems and in the case of air takes money out of the country. It is a myth that all travel creates economic growth and in some cases (such as road congestion) can reduce it.
4. There’s nothing fishy about the line, in part it denotes the death of coal as a primary fuel of the UK. The relationship between the consumption of goods and energy use doesn’t necessarily mean a linear relationship been energy and GDP. Some goods are energy intensive to make and transfer and don’t necessarily generate more GDP than those less so. Some goods are bought on credit; therefore they create profits for financial institutions more so than those bought with liquid cash. There has been a heavy rise in credit in the UK in the last 30 years.
5. GDP does not necessarily mean everyone is better off, indeed in a capitalist economy most of the wealth is held by the top few percent of the population.
2. Gas consumption has gone up after a switch away form coal for Power stations and home heating. There’s nothing to say renewable energy and waste couldn’t replace this in the future. Most of the Gas fired power stations have been built in the last 15 years and are situated in the East midlands/East Anglia replacing coal fire plants in Yorkshire and the midlands.
3. Oil consumption has risen by the extra use of cars and planes. More holidays and less walking and cycling and the sudden ability to the ability to travel ‘at will’. This is not necessary for life and creates balance of trade problems and in the case of air takes money out of the country. It is a myth that all travel creates economic growth and in some cases (such as road congestion) can reduce it.
4. There’s nothing fishy about the line, in part it denotes the death of coal as a primary fuel of the UK. The relationship between the consumption of goods and energy use doesn’t necessarily mean a linear relationship been energy and GDP. Some goods are energy intensive to make and transfer and don’t necessarily generate more GDP than those less so. Some goods are bought on credit; therefore they create profits for financial institutions more so than those bought with liquid cash. There has been a heavy rise in credit in the UK in the last 30 years.
5. GDP does not necessarily mean everyone is better off, indeed in a capitalist economy most of the wealth is held by the top few percent of the population.
Last edited by Wildwell on Mon 18 Apr 2005, 08:15:26, edited 2 times in total.
-
Wildwell - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1962
- Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: UK
by Wildwell » Mon 18 Apr 2005, 08:03:26
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Aaron', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')uba is an impoverished nightmare supported by vice industries which compose their lucrative black market
Drugs, prostitution & gambling...
The customs guy will not stamp your passport if you ask.
No problem
Actually it's been a couple of years since i was there, but I'll be there in a couple of weeks for a short visit and I'll report back on that.
This is a dictatorship.
I question the validity of these UNICEF figures.
So sure the Cuban example works if we don't mind turning the US into one big Las Vegas.
I should mention that I have a great fondness for the people of Cuba, Mexico and central/south America. I have found that there is little or no anti-American sentiment in these places, rather they don't like assholes who think they are better than they are.
If you visit Mexico and make no attempt to speak the language, stay at the Hilton and eat at TGI Fridays not only are you an ivory tower jerk off only tolerated because you spend money, but you missed the best part of traveling there.
When I visit Mexico I stay on a small coastal island off Cancun in a modest dwelling, eat with the locals at restaurants they frequent, make friends and hang out with locals, shop at their grocery markets, and avoid anyplace Paris Hilton might go. You will never find a more generous and friendly people anywhere.
I must say that after spending time with these real people, I find much of what passes for American culture offensive.
Many of these folks live more before noon than most Americans will all year long.
But Cuba as an example of a successful no oil society... please.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most Eastern European countries subsidize their nationalized industries which skews the GDP vs Energy numbers.
Licho & I have been arguing this point for about a year now, with neither side giving much ground. But after extensive googling it is clear that without these government subsidies the numbers would tell a very different story.
Same thing for Canadian Tar Sand projects.
It's only viable because of massive government subsidies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
It's a bit startling that some of us believe energy has little or no impact on GDP.
This is only true when energy is plentiful and cheap as it has been for 50 years running.
This is so obvious that I find it difficult to respond seriously...
Okay if it's obvious, please make the case for how cars increases GDP and their energy use as it's half of all UK oil consumption?
-
Wildwell - Heavy Crude
- Posts: 1962
- Joined: Thu 03 Feb 2005, 04:00:00
- Location: UK
