The climate change movement: July 28, 1995 to August 14, 2020 RIP

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

CO2 emissions are a function of wealth, and as far as I know, there isn't a difference in the wealth of Red vs Blue teams. Wealth is a function of free markets (capitalism) with rule enforcement and high trust. Wealthy economies spend fossil fuels to achieve their standard of living.

There is no difference between economic well-being and fossil fuel consumption, and there are zero examples of countries that have decoupled that relationship.

I expect that relationship to decouple at some future date, but this isn't the future.

The closest one to even start is France with all their nuclear power plants.
Germany tried to do it without nuclear and has appeared to lower their standards of living, even going back to burning brown coal, ect.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

There is no difference between economic well-being and fossil fuel consumption... I expect that relationship to decouple at some future date, but this isn't the future.

Wrong from one end to the other. Since 1981 [Critical Path]:

The purpose of our lives is to add value to the people of this generation and those that follow. Nature is a totally efficient, self-regenerating system. If we discover the laws that govern this system and live synergistically within them, sustainability will follow and humankind will be a success. Wealth is a measure of a person’s ability to survive so many days forward. Wealth is the product of energy times intelligence: energy turned into artifacts that advantage human life.

Consumption times intelligence.

I highly recommend everyone read and take to heart the entire article:
excellencereporter.com/2020/01/20/r-buckminster-fuller-on-the-wisdom-and-the-purpose-of-life/
It ends with:

Never forget that you are one of a kind. Never forget that if there weren’t any need for you in all your uniqueness to be on this earth, you wouldn’t be here in the first place. And never forget, no matter how overwhelming life’s challenges and problems seem to be, that one person can make a difference in the world. In fact, it is always because of one person that all the changes that matter in the world come about. So be that one person.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Wrong from one end to the other. Since 1981 [Critical Path]:

Consumption times intelligence.

I appreciate many of his reframes, as I'm of a similar nature to not accept things without scrutinizing it for myself.

The word wealth has a meaning that most every roughly conceives of the same way, and surviving a long time doesn't fit in with that definition. If a genie were to offer a person the most minimal provisions of food, water, and shelter for as long as they live, or a million bucks, everyone picks the million because surviving in this modern western place is easy, but excess is fun and presents more opportunities.

Our wealth (and Bucky's) was and is afforded by leveraging organic chemistry, and this will likely remain so for years to come.

[freebeard]

Bucky' wealth was in doing ever more with ever less. He called it ephemeralization.

Ephemeralization
Ephemeralization, a term coined by R. Buckminster Fuller in 1938, is the ability of technological advancement to do "more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing," that is, an accelerating increase in the efficiency of achieving the same or more output while requiring less input. Wikipedia

Nanotechnology, not organic chemistry.

"The world has enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed." ― Mahatma Gandhi A good example is abiotic oil production.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Bucky' wealth was in doing ever more with ever less. He called it ephemeralization.

Yeah but, most people call that efficiency.

When energy is relatively cheap, the impetus to conserve it is not there. One source says we spend 10 units of energy to produce 1 unit of food energy. In other words, an extremely low EROI of 0.1

I expect energy to become cheaper over time due to innovation, so I also expect the poor EROI to continue.

Jevons Paradox. Once we figure out how to be extremely efficient with some resource, we'll figure out new ways to spend that resource so that overall consumption remains high.

[freebeard]

When energy is relatively cheap, the impetus to conserve it is not there.

Not if you work from first principles. Jevons Paradox is the first entry under See Also on the Wikipedia page. Did you find it there or was it on the tip of your tongue the whole time?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Not if you work from first principles. Jevons Paradox is the first entry under See Also on the Wikipedia page. Did you find it there or was it on the tip of your tongue the whole time?

I hadn't visited the wiki yet, but I did read the Bucky article linked. The concept has been incorporated into my understanding long ago (broad concepts stick with me but specifics and jargon do not), but more recently I've been listening to the catastrophist Nate Hagens who has a consistent philosophy and rigorous reasoning, and he mentions Jevons Paradox. Nate also had doomberg on his show, which gives him even more credibility as a person capable of wrestling with ideas. Doomberg of course is more pragmatic and much less catastrophist. Doomberg believes innovation, markets, and adaptation will provide a generally improving future for the next several generations, while Nate predicts doom.

[aerohead]

AeroStealth read Jevon's 1865, 'The Coal Question', and what the Chicago School of economics creatures do with it, mischaracterizes what he actually said ( convenient for present fossil-fuel lobbyists, climate deniers, and Americans who don't read.
Nobody ought to use it in conversation without its context.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inverted-Rate scales for 'energy' have been adopted in some locals.
Once one consumes some 'reasonable' ( statistical average mean for a family unit ) amount of energy ( let's say electricity ), the 'next' block of kilowatts rises to 'twice' the price.
At each 'doubling' of consumption, the price 'doubles', in a geometric trend, to protect the innocent from the stupidity of the well healed.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

CO2 emissions are a function of wealth, and as far as I know, there isn't a difference in the wealth of Red vs Blue teams. Wealth is a function of free markets (capitalism) with rule enforcement and high trust. Wealthy economies spend fossil fuels to achieve their standard of living.

There is no difference between economic well-being and fossil fuel consumption, and there are zero examples of countries that have decoupled that relationship.

I expect that relationship to decouple at some future date, but this isn't the future.

* You're mistaking the 'Chicago School of Economics brand of wealth' for 'wealth'.
The fatal mistake which is going to cause our extinction.
* I agree about Red CO2 and Blue CO2 completely.
* There never existed 'free markets.' It's a myth.
* POTUS is going to guarantee we destroy any remnants we might have had.
* 'Rules' appear to be as fickle as political winds.
* Ditto for enforcement.
* I don't normally associate sociopaths with 'trust'.
* Facts seem to support the notion that economies spend fossil-fuels to achieve their standard of killing.
* What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his planet?

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

AeroStealth read Jevon's 1865, 'The Coal Question', and what the Chicago School of economics creatures do with it, mischaracterizes what he actually said ( convenient for present fossil-fuel lobbyists, climate deniers, and Americans who don't read.
Nobody ought to use it in conversation without its context.

Do you care to enlighten us?

Inverted-Rate scales for 'energy' have been adopted in some locals.
Once one consumes some 'reasonable' ( statistical average mean for a family unit ) amount of energy ( let's say electricity ), the 'next' block of kilowatts rises to 'twice' the price.
At each 'doubling' of consumption, the price 'doubles', in a geometric trend, to protect the innocent from the stupidity of the well healed.

I've considered that strategy for other things as well, like water or natural gas. The way you encourage conservation and make necessary resources affordable to the poor is to have a rate schedule that starts off very small for the first units of consumption and increases from there.

Not sure this is a good idea, but my other thought when hearing about CA brownouts/rolling blackouts was to have a law that requires homes with greater than 200A service be connected with a smart meter that the utility controls. Rather than shutting off power to tens of thousands of homes, just cut it to the top hundred or so that are heating pools and cooling 15,000 sq/ft interiors, and who already have backup power installed.

Originally Posted by aerohead

* You're mistaking the 'Chicago School of Economics brand of wealth' for 'wealth'.
The fatal mistake which is going to cause our extinction.
* I agree about Red CO2 and Blue CO2 completely.
* There never existed 'free markets.' It's a myth.
* POTUS is going to guarantee we destroy any remnants we might have had.
* 'Rules' appear to be as fickle as political winds.
* Ditto for enforcement.
* I don't normally associate sociopaths with 'trust'.
* Facts seem to support the notion that economies spend fossil-fuels to achieve their standard of killing.
* What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his planet?

Free markets were the first that existed. Every time 2 parties agree on a trade, they have engaged in a free market.

Trust requires a culture that places honesty very high in the value structure and has laws enforcing major violations of trust (theft, price fixing, bribery, etc).

Even if we all agree about climate catastrophism, it's not a politically solvable problem because it is global in nature and not inherent to any particular political structure.

Those nations who choose to limit their wealth by limiting fossil fuel consumption will lose their military might to defend against countries who do not limit their wealth. That culture disappears, and is replaced by the Chinese Communist Party.

What good is it to conserve oil and lose a culture (while that oil gets consumed by the adversary)?

When rational people are given the choice between assured catastrophe now, vs possible catastrophe very far into the future, they choose the latter.