Carbon dioxide and economics.

[GliderGuider]

The following graph shows the increase in annual global CO2 emissions and atmospheric CO2 concentration of since 1965, overlaid with the periods of economic recession.



The interesting thing about this graph is that there is no evidence that anything except global economic recessions have ever reduced or even slowed our carbon emissions.

Based on that observation, I would like to suggest that all the renewable and nuclear energy advocates are barking up the wrong tree. If we truly want to reduce CO2, the only effective means we have at our disposal is to slow or reverse the growth of the global economy.

Short of allowing the situation to self-correct (with probable adverse consequences for our society) do we have any suggestions about what to do, on a scale that might actually accomplish something over the next 20 years?

Even as a nuclear power supporter I really don't think the increased adoption of low-carbon energy will have any effect. I doubt we can accomplish much of anything by tinkering around the edges of our energy supply. We have no choice but to keep trying of course, but it's always a good idea when you're going into a fight to know how big your opponent really is and what his weaknesses are.

[RandomThoughts]

1. Local economies, and more self sufficient smaller systems in many places.

will reduce the need for transport that adds to much of the carbond dioxide, it will also reduce the 'they have more' concept that gets people to fight.

It loses some efficiency on production, but in a society where production is more then demand, efficiency is only important in race to the bottom.

So every society should be helped to build sustainable health care, food production, civil governments, private institutions of learning and health, and many other resource managements that allows for needs of a group.

Interconnectivity in trade is thought to stop wars, that just shifts wars to class wars. And it supports oil economies to ship raw goods half way across planet to make something to be shipped back to the same place the materials came from.

It is not that difficult to understand that local self sufficient economies, that trade in ideas and culture not needed base goods of survival, is a better model of trade. Since trading ideas has a very low carbon foot print compared to shipping of resources and goods.

[kristopher]

2. Again you chart something that really has no relevance to your conclusion

The worlds energy system is huge and it is based on carbon fuels - OF COURSE it hasn't changed direction yet. You have totally omitted from your "analysis" the historical and technological context of the problem. Instead you repackage your "doomer" outlook and ignored the most salient points needed to understand the cmplexities of our circumstances.

The actual effort to address AGW began with the establishment of goals a mere 18 years ago in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit. By 2000 there was action in Europe to start ramping up the industries required to support renewable energy and energy efficiency efforts. Note the words "ramping up". These industries have been producing phenomenal rates of growth in the decade since and real, significant progress has been made in establishing the basis of a noncarbon economy.

You apparently think that we can just snap our fingers and magically the entrenched energy interests will just lay down and sacrifice more than a thousand trillion dollars in earnings over the next 100 years.

In the past there has been no economic base of support to offset the massive economic influence of the current centrally controlled, large scale generating infrastructure. Now however, we have crossed a threshold of costs for both wind and solar. Their steadily declining costs - which are a direct result of the policies that flowed from the 1992 Earth Summit goal - have created the economic incentive for large companies that are NOT vested in the current bottlenecked system of centralized large scale thermal generation.

The aggregation of common interests for companies like Sharp, Mitsubishi, GE, BYD, Toshiba and many others is now reaching a critical mass where they are able to exert a positive influence on the policy process and act as a counter to the fossil and nuclear interests that have been actively obstructing the systemic changes required in our energy infrastructure.

The really positive development is that the changes we need to make are now favored by the economic fundamentals and existing market dynamics that I refer to above. Policy efforts can act to slow or accelerate the transition, but that transition is now an economic inevitability in my appraisal.

If readers want to help accelerate the pace of the transition then they should call their electricity provider and request 100% renewable energy. Their money will then go to support the development of renewable technologies that are already deployed because there is a market slot where their economics work. That, in turn will drive demand leading to increased manufacturing, competition among suppliers of renewables and lower prices that encourage the rising spiral of a greater supply of renewables coupled to a declining spiral of costs for those renewables.

IT would also be of great help if people like you would actually listen to the experts and work to promote the solutions that work, instead of repeating the memes of the entrenched energy interests constantly attacking those solutions.

[GliderGuider]

4. It's a piece intended to stimulate thought. I'm glad it's done that for you.

I have one comment on this thought: "You apparently think that we can just snap our fingers and magically the entrenched energy interests will just lay down and sacrifice more than a thousand trillion dollars in earnings over the next 100 years."

That's precisely what I don't think, and why my outlook is a touch gloomy. Entrenched energy interests are the problem, and will fight tooth and nail to keep anything that might affect their bottom line off the public agenda. I'm just saying that there isn't any evidence of a turnaround yet. If that's unacceptable, then there are things each of us can do to at least feel like we're part of the solution rather than part of the problem. However, we all deserve to be aware of just how big the problem is.

I buy local, eat vegetarian, use public transit, all that good stuff. What I will not do is pretend that I think the predicament we're in is manageable, or try in any other way to put lipstick on that pig.

[kristopher]

5. I don't see evidence of your stated beliefs.

All I see coming from you are arguments that, one way or another, are designed to push people towards accepting nuclear power. You ignore established scientific evidence and produce volumes of garbage that say absolutely NOTHING about the actual state of our effort to address the problem. Your graphs for years have been simplistic nonsense conveying nothing more than the obvious, and you know that. You assiduously practice the oldest tactic in the book of misinforming by first stating truths that are undeniable (the inertia of our present energy system is huge) and then you overlay that truth with pseudo-scientific babble that always ends up creating a reason to include nuclear power in the mix.

A tremendous amount of actual progress has been and is being made on creating the foundation for a noncarbon world, why don't you take a year and understand what those forces are.

[GliderGuider]

6. Oh well...

[NickB79]

7. "A tremendous amount of actual progress has been and is being made"

Yet we're almost to 400 ppm CO2 and show no signs of slowing down. If the amount of progress we've already made is "tremendous", then we need TREMENDOUS X 100 and in very short order to prevent the planet's ecosystems from unraveling in our lifetimes.

[kristopher]

9. What do you expect for the time we've been working on it?

In 18 years we've brought the price of wind and solar down to the point where they are the most economical choice for a wide array of applications in the grid. The supply chains are becoming well established and massive sums of private capital are flowing into the renewable sector - all a direct result of policies and goals being call ineffective.

The fact of the matter is that the chart used tells us NOTHING we wouldn't expect to see given the scale of the challenge, and it totally ignores the metrics that tell us whether the effort is moving forward or not.

[GliderGuider]

10. In other words,

"It's gonna start working any day now!"

I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, the last 5 years of looking into the interlocking set of problems we face, and the potential for solutions in any of them, have left me with a distinctly jaundiced outlook on the eagerness of human beings to change their comfortable ways.

Unfortunately, I think most people only make dramatic changes when their current situation becomes too uncomfortable. Fortunately, I think dramatic uncomfortable changes are coming that will indeed prompt people to shift their behaviour. Unfortunately, I think such shifts in behaviour will come too late to prevent dramatic ecological consequences from damage already done.

[kristopher]

11. So you believe in trend lines and predictions based on those trend lines yet

you don't believe them when they dispute your pronuclear thesis?

Got it.

[GliderGuider]

12. I believe what I believe, you believe what you believe

Neither of our beliefs have nearly as much to do with objective fact as we would like to think they do.

Trust me, your beliefs look every bit as absurd to me as mine do to you :-)

[kristopher]

13. There is a critical difference

My beliefs were not formed prior to intense academic study of the topic with some of the top people in the field of energy and envirnental policy. They are based on the best science available today, not made up bullshit provided for internet consumption by the nuclear industry.

[GliderGuider]

14. "Based on the best science available today"

OK, if you say so. But please don't blow your own horn in my ear...

[kristopher]

15. I'm just stating the facts, which as usual you can't accept.

[Nihil]

17. Hmmm ...

> OK, if you say so. But please don't blow your own horn in my ear...

Now you come to mention it ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R8JGhoVybkM

:evilgrin:

[kristopher]

3. Again you chart something that really has no relevance to your conclusion

The worlds energy system is huge and it is based on carbon fuels - OF COURSE it hasn't changed direction yet. You have totally omitted from your "analysis" the historical and technological context of the problem. Instead you repackage your "doomer" outlook and ignored the most salient points needed to understand the cmplexities of our circumstances.

The actual effort to address AGW began with the establishment of goals a mere 18 years ago in 1992 at the Rio Earth Summit. By 2000 there was action in Europe to start ramping up the industries required to support renewable energy and energy efficiency efforts. Note the words "ramping up". These industries have been producing phenomenal rates of growth in the decade since and real, significant progress has been made in establishing the basis of a noncarbon economy.

You apparently think that we can just snap our fingers and magically the entrenched energy interests will just lay down and sacrifice more than a thousand trillion dollars in earnings over the next 100 years.

In the past there has been no economic base of support to offset the massive economic influence of the current centrally controlled, large scale generating infrastructure. Now however, we have crossed a threshold of costs for both wind and solar. Their steadily declining costs - which are a direct result of the policies that flowed from the 1992 Earth Summit goal - have created the economic incentive for large companies that are NOT vested in the current bottlenecked system of centralized large scale thermal generation.

The aggregation of common interests for companies like Sharp, Mitsubishi, GE, BYD, Toshiba and many others is now reaching a critical mass where they are able to exert a positive influence on the policy process and act as a counter to the fossil and nuclear interests that have been actively obstructing the systemic changes required in our energy infrastructure.

The really positive development is that the changes we need to make are now favored by the economic fundamentals and existing market dynamics that I refer to above. Policy efforts can act to slow or accelerate the transition, but that transition is now an economic inevitability in my appraisal.

If readers want to help accelerate the pace of the transition then they should call their electricity provider and request 100% renewable energy. Their money will then go to support the development of renewable technologies that are already deployed because there is a market slot where their economics work. That, in turn will drive demand leading to increased manufacturing, competition among suppliers of renewables and lower prices that encourage the rising spiral of a greater supply of renewables coupled to a declining spiral of costs for those renewables.

IT would also be of great help if people like you would actually listen to the experts and work to promote the solutions that work, instead of repeating the memes of the entrenched energy interests constantly attacking those solutions.

[OnlinePoker]

8. Do you think that cutting and pasting the same post twice in 7 minutes

...helps your argument? Or do you not even look to see what posts you've already responded to before submitting the same information?

[Nihil]

16. Hey, don't knock it ...

A 7 minute gap between identical cut & pastes is a serious improvement
over recent performance!

> Or do you not even look to see what posts you've already responded to before
> submitting the same information?

Now you're getting closer.

:hi:

[GliderGuider]

18. Whoever this guy is,

Don't listen to him. He takes it waaaay too seriously.

Go outside and play with the dog.