I guess Xtrix is in the camp that endorses the juxtaposition of either we "solve the climate change" or "we think of economics" where "economics" is the filthy "capitalism" of everything bad in the World for him. — ssu
Do notice what I said. If alternative energies ARE MORE CHEAPER than fossil fuels, then the transformation will be rapid. And do notice what is happening in the World. Things don't happen in an instant, but they do change in decades.Without further use of fossil fuels there can be no growth economy as we know it. — ChatteringMonkey
I disagree. There are alternatives that are totally realistic. Just look at how for instance the price of solar energy has come down. In fact, the situation where non-fossil fuels are cheaper than fossil fuels isn't at all a distant hypothetical anymore. It is starting to be reality.There are no alternatives that work because fossil fuels were a one-time, easy to use energy-dense source of energy. — ChatteringMonkey
Since economic growth tracks energy consumption, it doesn't look to hot for the economy going forward. — ChatteringMonkey
But just how limited is the question. That's why the economy is far more capable to deal with these changes.The whole discussion is moot anyway because fossil fuels (and other resources too) are a limited resource. Even if we would want to keep using them, we can't because we will run out of them soon enough. The economy will have to collapse no matter how you want to look at it. — ChatteringMonkey
The long time question is of course if we need economic growth after we have hit peak human population. More prosperous people have less children, and when the fertility rate is well below 2, do we in the long run need perpetual growth? It's more a like a question for our debt-based monetary system, which needs perpetual growth itself. But otherwise, I don't think so. — ssu
Hmm, looking at this statistic, comes to my mind a statistic of the consumption of whale oil. The 19th century likely would produce such a graph. Yep, whales were really hunted down to extinction in the 19th Century, but then came an alternate way of producing similar oil. — ssu
Do notice what I said. If alternative energies ARE MORE CHEAPER than fossil fuels, then the transformation will be rapid. And do notice what is happening in the World. Things don't happen in an instant, but they do change in decades. — ssu
I disagree. There are alternatives that are totally realistic. Just look at how for instance the price of solar energy has come down. In fact, the situation where non-fossil fuels are cheaper than fossil fuels isn't at all a distant hypothetical anymore. It is starting to be reality. — ssu
The real hurdle are niche things like aircraft. But here the also there is a lot of investment in hydrogen fueled or electric aircraft. (Hydrogen can be made by electrolysis without causing emissions) — ssu
The real problems happen when don't invest and just ruin our economies. Then there isn't going to be any investment and then we will have to rely on fossil fuels just to keep our present energy consumption. Ruining the global economy will create political instability and at worst widespread war. Not much investment will then go to climate change. And just notice how for example the US energy consumption has leveled off in this millennium. And do note from below how huge the level of fossil fuels are in the US. But in for example France, it's a different matter (as they have opted smartly for nuclear energy). — ssu
So I do disagree in the idea that the global economy cannot grow without fossil fuels. The way things are going now, with little and sporadic investment in technology, with pompous declarations by politically correct politicians (who know people don't remember the promises six months from now), it's going to be a bumpy ride.
Now things might prevail somehow, but likely that isn't enough for those who are against the how our society works in general. They surely will be as disappointed as now are, even if we do manage along for the next one or two hundred years without any cultural collapse. — ssu
Market mechanism creates the obvious limits. But if those are disregarded, then simply you will have "official" prices that nobody can get the stuff and then a black market. Perhaps the following remark on what you later note sheds light what I'm trying to say.It's not a serious question, we can't grow perpetually. The only question is how long can we grow before we bump against all sorts of limits? — ChatteringMonkey
Glad you take this up. First of all, market mechanism will stop the use far before you get negative ROE. Negative ROE is for research stuff. For example, we are quite capable of making Fusion reactors with very low or negative ROE. Profitability goes negative far before a negative ROE is reached.At some point fossil fuels will become so expensive that it costs more energy to extract them then you are getting from the extraction. Let's call that a negative Return On Energy (ROE). If ROE is negative it's not worth is from an energy-point of view to extract them... maybe you'd still do it for other applications like plastics, lubricants etc etc, but not for the energy. — ChatteringMonkey
Well, energy policies DO MATTER. The fixation on the US based fossil fuel guzzling economy doesn't tell the truth. Let's compare it with another country.Yeah solar-panels that are produced by a fossil-fueled economy and mass-production process. I'd want to see how that works without fossil-fuels to jump-start the whole process. — ChatteringMonkey
Have we really tried? Have we had enormous Manhattan-project like programs on this?And even if it would be theoretically possible, it surely isn't in practice as we haven't even succeeded to reduce fossils fuels one iota since we started trying to reduce them consciously — ChatteringMonkey
Yes, but doesn't put carbon into the atmosphere, especially when made by non-fossil fuel energy.Hydrogen is no source of energy, just a way to store it. — ChatteringMonkey
Do notice what is important for climate change is the amount of carbon released to the air. Having lubricants or hell, I warming my sauna in the countryside with wood isn't as important as gas engines being the dominant vehicle motor or the coal plants producing energy. It's the aggregates that matter.I don't know if you even can have a "production-proces" without oil. — ChatteringMonkey
You are totally correct and I agree with you. It isn't at all simple. And likely there isn't the actual political will.I dunno,I think people just all to easily gloss over the fact that it's not evident (not possible I'd say) to just replace oil and gas, which is solar-energy densely-stored over millennia gushing out of the ground. — ChatteringMonkey
I still am an optimist and think that we can prevail. We are still standing on the "shoulders of giants" and all that gathered knowledge that science has given us is available for us. The economy hasn't collapsed as it did during antiquity and we haven't gone full backward that we would be going back to the "dark ages part 2". I'm not sure that it will happen. I think it's going to be just a bumpy road. After all, we are living during a global pandemic right now, @ChatteringMonkey. :mask:We were born and raised in the candy-store, never to know anything else, how could we realistically conceive and really feel like it was not to last. Fossil-fuels being such a potent, yet one time source of energy, really threw us a nasty curve-ball there. — ChatteringMonkey
Market mechanism creates the obvious limits. But if those are disregarded, then simply you will have "official" prices that nobody can get the stuff and then a black market. Perhaps the following remark on what you later note sheds light what I'm trying to say. — ssu
Well, energy policies DO MATTER. The fixation on the US based fossil fuel guzzling economy doesn't tell the truth. Let's compare it with another country. — ssu
End result? An actual real difference. — ssu
Have we really tried? — ssu
You are totally correct and I agree with you. It isn't at all simple. And likely there isn't the actual political will.
The worst thing is that people won't understand it when or as the climate change is happening. Because the real outcome of draughts, famines, economic crises is political crises and wars. And those have a different narrative: it was this and that politician, it was these factions that started the conflict. Nowhere do you see an link to some political conflict to truly happened because of climate change. Now every smart facet will understand this (like the US Armed Forces), but it simply won't go down to the level of political narrative on how we explain political developments.
In the end, people will take the weather as "Gods will", if the link isn't as obvious as the London smog was to how houses were heated back then. This is the real problem. — ssu
I still am an optimist and think that we can prevail. We are still standing on the "shoulders of giants" and all that gathered knowledge that science has given us is available for us. The economy hasn't collapsed as it did during antiquity and we haven't gone full backward that we would be going back to the "dark ages part 2". I'm not sure that it will happen. I think it's going to be just a bumpy road. After all, we are living during a global pandemic right now, ChatteringMonkey. :mask: — ssu
Now if there indeed needs to be made a choice between those two, then the choice should be pretty clear, because without a livable planet you can have no economy. — ChatteringMonkey
China's approach is significant because of the way that it contrasts with the Western approach which is neoliberal.
This contrast will provide future generations with empirical data about which approach works best; central planning or free markets. — frank
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.