Economic decline as a solution to global warming

[GliderGuider]

I've made a couple of provocative posts recently, advocating for a global economic crash as the solution to the fossil-fuel-driven climate crisis. I'd like to explain why I think such a crash would reduce our CO2 output, and why I think it may be the only path left open to us.

To start with, I think that the IPCC's AR4 "high scenario" median projection of a 4° C rise in average global temperature by the end of the century will be found to be too low once the methane feedback loops are factored in. I expect we will see the high end of that scenario (6.5° C) gradually moved to the center of the probability spread, with the possibility that it could go even higher. That expectation is what drives the urgency of my speculations.

To set the stage for what follows, here is a graph of the year-over-year change in recent global CO2 emissions plotted against the YOY change in world GDP:



First, notice the nice linear correlation: more economic growth corresponds to higher CO2 emissions, less growth to lower emissions. Next, it's handy to know that all the scatter points where the change in CO2 is negative (except for one) correspond to American recessions: 1974-75, 1980-82, and 1991. The other point is the Asian financial crisis of 1998. There was also a small decline in global GDP and CO2 emissions in 2009. Over the last 45 years any GDP growth over 2.5% has guaranteed an absolute increase in CO2 emissions, and economic slowdowns have been correlated with lower emissions.

During this period the CO2 intensity of the world economy (expressed in dollars of GDP earned per tonne of CO2 emitted) has consistently improved: from 1965 to 1979 it improved by 0.8% a year, and from 1980 to 2001 by an average of 1.7% a year. Over the period from 1965 to 2002 carbon intensity improved by 60%, but since 2002 it has remained flat. CO2 emissions have of course increased despite this improvement in carbon intensity. This means that increases in the use of hydro and nuclear power have improved the carbon intensity of the world's economy, but have not prevented the use of fossil fuels. Essentially, we have used those sources in addition to fossil fuels, not instead of them. Until we uncouple the global economy from fossil fuels, this situation is unlikely to change.

If we want to keep our economy intact, uncoupling it from fossil fuels will require two fundamental changes to the world's energy supply picture.

First, we will need a benign and publicly acceptable (i.e. non-nuclear) source of electricity that is enough cheaper than coal and natural gas so as to make the continued use of fossil fuels uneconomical for the generation of electricity. In addition to being cheaper, this new source also has to be as available as coal and NG across as wide a range of environmental conditions, and as reliable as coal in terms of the stable delivery of electricity. In my opinion, wind and solar in their current forms don't meet these requirements.

The second nut we need to crack is transportation fuel. We currently use 70% of all the oil (about 60 million barrels per day) for transportation. This capability needs to be completely replaced, again with a source that is at least as cheap, universally available and reliable as oil. As with coal and natural gas, there is nothing currently on the horizon that meets these requirements.

Both of these goals could be met, with time and enough R&D. Unfortunately, time is one thing we probably don't have. If we want to keep the global temperature rise down to something survivable (like 6° C or so), we probably need to get off fossil fuels within the next 20 years. As in completely off - incremental approaches won't work fast enough. The realistic chance that this will happen is zero. We may make strides in this direction, but unless we have cut our fossil fuel consumption by 80% or more in that time, we will have failed - failed ourselves, and failed much of the life on the planet.

So, how do we do it? I've been (semi-)facetiously suggesting that an economic crash could do it, based on my assumption that the strong coupling of fossil fuels and economic output would hold as the economy trends down as it did when the trend was up. Of course nobody would ever seriously suggest implementing this approach as a "solution" to the problem of climate change (as indeed I am not). The reasons are both moral and practical. Nobody wants to be responsible for the immiseration and deaths of so many people, and the political agreement needed to undertake such a course is utterly absent in any event. To wax a bit cynical, it seems we would rather take our chances on killing the planet than give back any of the money.

There is however the outside possibility that a serious involuntary economic slowdown, sustained over a number of decades, could move us in that direction against our will. Possible triggers for such a slowdown could be a decline in oil output that is fast enough to trigger a worldwide economic crisis. If the resulting crisis unfolded at just the right speed, it might be possible that CO2 emissions would decline sufficiently while still giving most individuals and communities enough time to adapt. I'm guessing here, but a sustained average global economic decline of 3-4% per year - sustained over 20 years or so - would likely accomplish those two goals. The ramifications for some countries of a decline like that would be horrific, but the alternative - a world warmed by an average of 6.5 degrees, with the poles experiencing possibly twice that increase, would be even worse.

We have backed ourselves into a corner with our use of fossil fuels. If we stop using them we may kill the economy and a lot of people, and if we don't stop we will eventually kill even more. The only moral wiggle room we have left is for circumstances beyond human control to take the matters out of our hands. Until then we will continue to muddle along, doing the best we can - and praying that somehow it will be enough.

[slackmaster]

1. I like graphs, but not feeding straight into right-wing talking points

[GliderGuider]

2. I thought reality had a well-known liberal bias...

:shrug:

[kristopher]

3. Even without the graph the conclusions are largely supportable, except...

The way infrastructure changes isn't determined exclusively by direct costs, there is also the flow of power to established elements of the social order. The distorting economic effects of that kind of concentration of power are very strong and will only give way in a condition like we have (ie leaving money in the ground) when there are competing powerful interests that stand to profit from the transition. When the bulk of power reaches a tipping point, change is likely to occur.

The second point is that your evaluation of renewables is inaccurate. It is the entire system that makes any power source have the characteristics you request - cheap, available and reliable. Even coal and nuclear could not do it as stand alone generating sources. Can you imagine having all or your electricity come from a nuclear plant and then having to go through a refueling? Or how cheap would coal plant electricity be if that plant had be sized to maximum demand and had to burn 3 times as much coal because it needed to cycle up and down so frequently for load following?

We have everything we need to deliver *more stable*, *more reliable* electricity to a wider swath of mankind with current renewable technologies than we have any hope of with centralized power. The problems we face are ones where you not only have to look at the problems as ones of what scales up; you also need to consider when smaller is better.

[GliderGuider]

11. You yourself have said that we can't get there by 2030 with renewables.

I agree with everything you say, but in the face of world politics and the entrenched interests that run the joint it's just not going to happen. Not in the 20 years we have left.

[kristopher]

21. Why won't it happen?

The reality the theory informs is that the forces that have no vested interest in maintaining the use of fossil fuels are reaching critical mass even as we write this. Some examples are China which doesn't have vast pools of wealth that will be lost if we transition and does have more than a billion people it needs both energy and a future for. Of electronic makers, they are a very strong global political force that stand to profit hugely with a transition. All of the industrial potential of a rapidly expanding global wind turbine market are acting to effect transition.

And here is the fact that is important above all, global warming IS real. The media spin of the fossil industry is just that - media spin. Policy makers the world over (structure) are intensely aware of the true facts of the matter and WANT change (superstructure). The obstacle that has prevented action has been viable alternatives to fossil fuels (infrastructure) that they can lock in with their policies directing transition. That infrastructure now exists. To prevent confusion let me point out that in the context of cultural theory the infrastructure doesn't just mean the concrete that has been poured, it also refers to the tools and knowledge that are here and able to be picked up and used. For example, finding a river with a large deposit of flint is infrastructure only if the knowledge of a skilled knapper is there to make it so. But if that knowledge is there, the deposit's potential becomes part of the "infrastructure" even though it hasn't been made into a spear point yet.

Your comments dismiss these factors too quickly. Believing that we should change means nothing without the option to change being present. But when the the option is there, change does happen as a result of beliefs. And the option for energy *is* there - massive and easy to access renewable resources are available to be plucked. And plucked they will be by an energy hungry world.

The abilities of the entrenched energy interests are great but they are not omnipotent. Their success at blocking change to date has actually been far less than it might appear, IMO. Think about this for a moment, if they had what they wanted, there wouldn't be a single wind farm or solar array anywhere in the world. But the reality is that the trend lines for renewables are telling us that the entrenched interests are no longer controlling the discussion or events. They are an influence, but they are no longer in control.

ETA: Perhaps you should reread this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html


Will Big Business Save the Earth?

By JARED DIAMOND
Published: December 5, 2009

THERE is a widespread view, particularly among environmentalists and liberals, that big businesses are environmentally destructive, greedy, evil and driven by short-term profits. I know — because I used to share that view.

But today I have more nuanced feelings. Over the years I’ve joined the boards of two environmental groups, the World Wildlife Fund and Conservation International, serving alongside many business executives.

As part of my board work, I have been asked to assess the environments in oil fields, and have had frank discussions with oil company employees at all levels. I’ve also worked with executives of mining, retail, logging and financial services companies. I’ve discovered that while some businesses are indeed as destructive as many suspect, others are among the world’s strongest positive forces for environmental sustainability.

The embrace of environmental concerns by chief executives has accelerated recently for several reasons. Lower consumption of environmental resources saves money in the short run. Maintaining sustainable resource levels and not polluting saves money in the long run. And a clean image — one attained by, say, avoiding oil spills and other environmental disasters — reduces criticism from employees, consumers and government.

What’s my evidence for this? ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/opinion/06diamond.html

[GliderGuider]

23. I come back to a very simple underlying point.

Fossil fuel will only be displaced if some low-carbon source becomes cheaper, more functional, more available and more reliable than fossil fuels.

As long as FF is cheaper (especially for electricity) or more useful (especially for transportation) it will continue to be used by someone. Probably by enough "someones" to keep burning all we can pull out of the Earth.

I'll even bring up the dreaded Jevons Paradox again. Assume that some large fraction of FF is displaced in some affluent regions of the globe by the renewable energy system of our dreams. What happens to global demand for FF? It drops. What happens to the world price? It falls. As a result of the lower price previously marginal uses of FF become affordable, and the FF displaced in the rich regions is bought and burned by the poorer regions.

Until the price, functionality, availability and reliability advantages of the replacement energy source are available to essentially everyone who is now using fossil fuels, those fuels will continue to be used. This usage will happen in addition to the new energy source, not instead of it, because the global principle of economic growth (or at least the global aversion to economic decline) demands it.

It's not that corporations are greedy (though some are), or that leaders are sociopathic (though some are). It's simply that there are 6.9 billion people out there who don't want to risk going without the amenities they are used to, and want their kids to have a materially better life than they do. If the energy is available at a reasonable price they will insist that it be used, and damn the consequences.

[kristopher]

25. Then you don't understand Harris.

There is no more essential infrastructure than the ecosystem itself. The threat is real and the only thing that stops us from responding to the threat is the power of the entrenched interests. Once that power block is broken by the availability of alternatives, what does the power structure then do?
You presume it will continue to protect and nourish the source of the problem by helping it expand by insinuating itself into developing areas.

That isn't a safe assumption. It is more likely that once the power block shifts to those who want change, they will act to curtail and inhibit the use of the competing resource that continues to threaten all aspects of the means of production/reproduction. You are neglecting to imbue the new political power structure with the same qualities you have no trouble attributing to the old.

[GliderGuider]

28. And you don't understand simple ideas.

Most people don't recognize the nature of the threat, and won't until the oceans are lapping at their front doors. The power block will not be broken, the power will not shift until average citizens see evidence that the old power block can't spin away. Hell, they convinced most of your country that W and Cheney were a great leadership team fergodsake - if they can do that, don't count on them to let Inhofe lead any anti-Exxon protests. We need action within the next twenty years. The old guard can hang on and block it for that long with no problem at all.

You are speaking your wishes very eloquently, I just happen to think they are completely out of touch with the reality I experience every day out on the street.

[kristopher]

32. Let's see what is meant by "action"

I can see where you are coming from. The top-down international cooperative approach has failed, and to many that equals "no action". However the items I listed above where new actors are entering the scene are actually what the GOAL of those failed-to-launch international policies were aiming to accomplish. There is not and never has been a switch marked "action", but that is what the international diplomatic process was falsely equated to. If we had the most binding and favorable agreement conceivable there would still be a period of building the manufacturing base to make the change occur.

[GliderGuider]

29. A thought just occurred to me

You're assuming that the "new power block" will want alternatives that will be available.

What happens if the alternatives aren't available when people realize that AGW is killing the planet and they want the coal-burning to stop? So they decide they want to displace coal. What if the only alternative that's available is nuclear power, and the people decide that's OK with them? According to Harris, it's a possibility, yes? So how do you cope with that outcome?

[kristopher]

33. The alternative ARE available.

[GliderGuider]

37. We may have different definitions of the word "available".

In this thread I mean something like "available for commodity-level purchase".

For instance, if the world had production facilities capable of turning out 20 million electric cars a year at an average purchase price of $20,000, and new wind and solar powered charging facilities keeping pace with car sales, or the ability to produce and install the equivalent of a terawatt of grid-tied wind capacity a year world-wide, at an installed cost of $1.00 a watt.

If we could get to that point, I'd say renewables were "available".

[kristopher]

38. That's absurd.

You wrote: "What happens if the alternatives aren't available when people realize that AGW is killing the planet and they want the coal-burning to stop? So they decide they want to displace coal. What if the only alternative that's available is nuclear power, and the people decide that's OK with them? According to Harris, it's a possibility, yes? So how do you cope with that outcome?"


I replied: "The alternative ARE available."


You responded, "We may have different definitions of the word "available". In this thread I mean something like "available for commodity-level purchase". For instance, if the world had production facilities capable of turning out 20 million electric cars a year at an average purchase price of $20,000, and new wind and solar powered charging facilities keeping pace with car sales, or the ability to produce and install the equivalent of a terawatt of grid-tied wind capacity a year world-wide, at an installed cost of $1.00 a watt.
If we could get to that point, I'd say renewables were "available"."


So nuclear power plants that aren't yet built are "available" but factories to manufacture batteries and solar panels that haven't yet been built are "not available".

I thought you were having a discussion in good faith. Apparently I was wrong.

[GliderGuider]

39. You're pretty quick to take offense, pardner.

Yes, I was a little off track in that comment. I was thinking of what I meant by the word when I used it a little higher up this sub-thread: "Until the price, functionality, availability and reliability advantages of the replacement energy source are available to essentially everyone who is now using fossil fuels, those fuels will continue to be used."

That obviously doesn't apply in this case. Sorry I got confused.

[kristopher]

43. Deloitte: 'A Domestic Energy Roadmap Is Emerging'

Deloitte: 'A Domestic Energy Roadmap Is Emerging'

A new study from Deloitte has found that 52% of companies are working to reduce their energy costs by 25%, on average, over the next two to three years, suggesting a "new attitude toward energy consumption in the U.S.," the company says.

Consumers are also becoming more engaged in understanding and controlling their energy usage, the study says. Deloitte notes that 68% of the consumers it surveyed are "taking extra steps to cut their electric bills because of the recession." The study, "reSources 2011," additionally states that 95% of consumers said they do not intend to increase their electricity use even as the economy improves.

According to Deloitte, cost consciousness and social awareness are the key drivers behind corporate energy management, with 70% of companies reporting the desire to cut costs as a driver behind their energy management goals, and more than half (53%) saying that their companies have set energy-related goals, at least in part, because it is "the right thing to do."

"Our study indicates that a domestic energy roadmap is emerging, and it is coming from an increasingly motivated and aggressive commercial base that sees being resourceful with energy as being good for business," says Greg Aliff, vice chairman and U.S. energy and resources leader for Deloitte...

http://www.renewgridmag.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.6785

What does this say to you?

[GliderGuider]

47. What does this say to me?

It says that in times of economic downturn people look for ways to reduce their consumption of energy. Which supports my thesis.

A quote from the article (the emphasis is mine):

68% of the consumers it surveyed are "taking extra steps to cut their electric bills because of the recession."

[GliderGuider]

30. My point is also made in an article linked here

Phantom Efficiencies: US Economy Still Running Very Slow

While I’m heartened that US consumption of oil has fallen quite alot since 2007, and that we are building solar and wind power, do not be falsely cheered: all that “extra” oil we freed up simply went to the developing world, along with “extra” coal supplies as well. There, it is transformed into the manufactured goods that steam into US ports each day, which the US economy is still consuming.

The point is well taken that the fossil fuels not burned in one place get burned in another. It's all one world.

(Thanks to phantom power for linking to the article originally.)

[napoleon_in_rags]

4. Thank you for that provocative post.

Now is a good time for crazy talk.

The basic issue I see with what you are suggesting is the resiliency of markets. Watching the oil prices is a really good metric of everything... Watch how the economy collapses when the prices go high, then watch how after it collapses, reduced demand lowers prices and the economy starts to grow again. Markets are intrinsically adaptive entities, the adapt to the more fundamental resource issues. They are powered by self interest. If the prices of a commodity is artificially driven up for a time by a cartel, then it becomes increasing profitable for a member of the cartel to defect, and others will follow not to be left holding the empty bag.

What I'm saying is that people can affect markets but nobody ultimately controls them, they have a mind of their own. And they are more or reflective of the situation on the ground with resources. So the issue is moot, nobody can make the economy do anything.

So don't get me wrong, I think you have a good idea looking at the whole thing in terms of economy and environment, but I think in some ways you may have the cart before the horse... I for one think we need to focus on fundamental resource issues first, and create economic systems that reflect more long term fundamental realities, like that if we use resources wrong in certain areas we could all be dead, and there's not a lot of value in that.

That's my two cents. Thanks for sharing.

[GliderGuider]

16. Markets

IMO there is a fundamental first principle to human activity. It is this: All human activity depends on available physical resources.

In a previous post I discussed the goal of human activity being the acquisition of food - that's a subset of this principle. No matter what elaborate structures we build on top of this principle - markets, political systems, economic theories or technological paradigms - it remains the bedrock for assessing the possibilities for human activity.

Markets are funny beasts. They alternately obscure and clarify what's going on at the underlying resource level, and they can hinder, misdirect and over-amplify society's response to resource changes.

I've always felt that oil prices were a good first approximation of what's going on with the resource. They're no better than a first approximation though, because there are so many non-resource factors confusing the signals. Fortunately with oil at least we can look at the actual supply in conjunction with the price signals to make more sense of the situation. Looking at both supply and price makes it clear, for example, that we hit some kind of a roadblock with oil production in 2005. Whether the roadblock is geological will take a bit more time to tell, but I think this is it.

Any political move governments or cartels make in response to that underlying resource limitation amounts to a deck-chair waltz, because in the the end human activity depends not on politics or markets but on the consumption of physical resources. Limited resources imply limited activity, and in the big picture political adaptations are a meager response. No matter who gets rich or impoverished in the interim, in the final anaysis humanity as a whole is the one left holding the empty bag.

I don't think we "create" economic systems. Y ou point out that nobody ultimately controls markets . Similarly, I don't think we "create" economic systems. I think they largely emerge from the pre-existing resource and human environment, Some people learn to modify them for greater or lesser good. However, the underlying principle of activity depending on physical resources means that making economic changes in a constant resource environment amounts to changing the colour of the pig's lipstick. Resources are definitely where our attention should be focused.

If we pay too much attention to the structures we have elaborated around resources, and too little to the resources themselves, we run the risk of missing the crucial message when limits appear. In my opinion, we have already made this mistake as a civilization. No amount of tinkering with the superstructure or structure of civilization (to use Marvin Harris' terms) will alleviate any fundamental obstacles we may encounter at the level of resources.

[kristopher]

19. What "fundamental obstacles" are you talking about? nt

[GliderGuider]

24. Peak Oil for instance, or

declining copper ore concentrations, or food shortages. If we look just at prices, we could assume some pretty bizarre things, like speculators run the entire world or fracking is a perfectly natural way to mine natural gas...

[napoleon_in_rags]

40. The Magician

Okay, we clearly both agree that resources are the fundamental issues. We both agree that we are in trouble. Do we both agree that the centralized models to address this have fundamentally failed? I believe that's so. So what are we left with?

The only thing you said I don't agree with: I don't think we "create" economic systems

Well maybe WE don't, but somebody does. Somebody drew a magic eye and pyramid on a piece of paper and convinced us that it had value...And because we believed them, an economic order to society ensued. But in the beginning, it was a piece of paper. Similarly, with Hawala... The system only has veracity because of a perception of integrity of the brokers. Money is a social phenomenon. You're clearly right in suggesting that its emergent, but the application of human will also plays a role in creating these social phenomenon. Look at Facebook: Somebody built the framework, and the people came. With careful introspection and analysis systems can be built like Facebook or currency that people find good, and choose to partake in. To me that represents hope. The fatalistic view that we're done for just doesn't work for me. I know from experience that when the shit hits the fan, I will not only desperately dive out of the way, I will also with I had bought a raincoat...Even if in the days before I was lamenting that life has shit on me so much the extra shit from the fan couldn't make it worse. So to me it makes sense to look at what hope we have and try to do something now.

What to do is less clear. But I am convinced that its the outsiders, the weirdos, who have the capacity to think outside the box enough see the solution. Its like the magician or medicine man from old cultures, somebody needs to seek the visions to help bring about the healing. enough is enough.

[GliderGuider]

46. I agree, enough is enough.

I've said many times that what we need is revolutionary change on some level. So far though, all we have seen is evolutionary tinkering.

I had a discussion on another thread a couple of weeks ago about money and interest. IMO the shamanic shift it would take to change the course we're on is on the order of getting rid of the concept of money - or at least changing its fundamental properties so much that it could not longer be reified, could no longer be a thing in its own right, and no longer supported a culture of material growth. That's what I think it would take, but the vested interests arrayed against such a shift have the weight of 5,000 years of history and the entire structure of our civilization supporting them. And the vested interests aren't just the Bernankes and Geithners of the world. They include everybody who has ever put money in a savings account for their kids' education or borrowed to buy a car. We can think outside the box all we want, but until the world decides that the pain of change is less than the pain of not changing, we won't change that system.

The money-based economic system we use today was invented 5,000 years ago, and has been honed ever since to support two primary goals: material growth, and the consolidation of power (at the peak of that "pyramid with the magic eye". We didn't create that system, and we haven't created a new system that's had any broad buy-in for the last 5.000 years. We have created new mechanisms to make it more effective at achieving its two goals, but that's not the same as "creating an economic system".

This is why I'm so convinced that little is going to change from voluntary, proactive, rational behaviour. Much will change, even on fundamental levels, but I expect it to be driven by changing physical circumstances, and to be largely reactive. That which must be done to prevent calamity will be done only as its consequence.

[napoleon_in_rags]

48. I was thinking something similar today.

You write about the concept of currency as a deeply ingrained cultural phenomenon. I was thinking today about the western religions in contrast to the eastern ones, due to their long time historical role in shaping our thought. The western religions all come from the middle east, and have this sort of linear time description of the universe and life with a beginning, end, and eternal consequences. The eastern religions have a circular view, with reincarnation (with finite consequences) and universes being breathed in and out of krshna in a cyclical manner or whatever. The western culture is where the science took hold, and the science spread east, but it took with it western culture not related to science, that more short term view of the world, that linear view of expansion until the "end of history", with out contraction, which deeply shapes our economy. and balance eastern thought had historically.

Anyway, so in some ways the whole last 150 year can be described as a kind of cultural imperialism of western thought... It conquered often not by force, but by choice: In a world with a large amount of exploitable resources many people adapted it as the best way to live up until the present. So it was, to use your words, a reactive change... People reacted to new opportunities and possibilities put forth by technology and changed their ways. What I wonder is if a world with depleted resources will see a reversal of that trend, and a new sort of cultural imperialism taking hold on older models from the east, near or far.

IF that is the trend in the world, the GREAT peril at this point is that the baby will be thrown out with the bathwater: science will be rejected, and we will see the increase of fundamentalist worldviews, eastern in origin but just as intolerant as anything you can think of.

I read your post some time ago and went to do things. Its the last paragraph I can't get our of my head. In some way I don't want to admit that its right, but KNOW its right. But maybe there is some power in acknowledging that fact... I need to think more, but I know that's going to bother me for awhile.

Thanks for sharing.

[GliderGuider]

49. Imperialism of the East

That's an interesting idea, one that I haven't thought about much yet. There's no question that Eastern ideologies can be as imperialistic as Western ones. For me, one of the more interesting cultural developments of the past 40 years has been the penetration of Eastern non-dualist philosophy into the spiritual awareness of the West. Approaches like Zen and Taoism have had a strong influence, especially in the environmental movement. I read something very interesting recently about the difference between Confucianism and Taoism - both Chinese philosophies that arose fairly contemporaneously. Confucianism was the religion of hierarchy, favoured by the imperial system. Taoism is essentially an anarchist philosophy - a trait that it shares with other personal non-dualist systems like Zen and Advaita.

It's interesting to me that this is the stream that has penetrated the West, rather than Confucianism. I put it down to two factors. The first is that we already have our own well-entrenched hierarchical, imperialistic religion in Christianity. In addition, the cultural underpinnings of Confucianism don't travel well, which can also be said of classical Hinduism with its strong karma-based caste-consciousness. On the other side of the coin, the non-dualist streams seem to be more culture-independent, and since they all lead to an 'all-is-one" perception they are very accessible to westerners with a growing ecological consciousness.

I have written one article that touches on this theme: http://www.paulchefurka.ca/NaturalOrder.html">Creating a new "Natural Order":

So what do we do about this sad state of affairs: seven billion alienated beings, removed from our evolutionary physical and social habitat, working in hierarchies as indentured servants in service to a concept of "progress" that none of us had any say in defining?

The most effective action we can take, in my opinion, comes from examining the ground on which that tripod (GG: of agriculture, technology and money) is erected - our sense of separation. If I was able to truly understand that there is a deep connection between you and me, between animals, plants and me, between me and every aspect of the world, if I was able to see that there is actually no difference between you and me - that we are the same and anything I do to you I am doing to myself - that understanding would change all my actions.

This is why I champion the development of individual consciousness. I see it as the most effective action one person can take against the negative effects of the system of civilization. With the clarity of perception that such development brings I can understand what's going on around me, and see opportunities for change in my own circumstances. Interestingly, non-dualist philosophies such as Taoism and Buddhism contain strong streams of anarchism. There is a good historical foundation for this approach to social change. On another continent, the African ethical system of ubuntu also supports the development of a holistic, interdependent view of human relationships, though without the anarchist flavouring.

Such a course of action might not result in the immediate removal of hierarchies or the other sources of alienation from the social landscape, but it will inevitably advance the human condition in some degree. If you wish to topple kings, the surest way is to remove the ground they are standing on. "We are One" is the essential revolutionary awareness that can accomplish that task.

As the world's economic and social systems begin to unravel we could easily wind up with a range of authoritarian political regimes propped up by hierarchical religious justifications from any corner of the globe. So my suggestion is that we all self-innoculate with a good dose of anarchistic, anti-authoritarian non-dualism.

[napoleon_in_rags]

52. Wow - you're talking about the political ramifications of consciousness of unity

And empathy. I've got to tell you: in this political climate, with what I see on TV...MAN that's fresh!

Yet also ancient, the very roots of civilization lie in some extent with what you are talking about. Its literally the basis of our thought and language: somebody sees a deer and says "unga", and it is through empathy and mimicking (seeing ourselves in them) that we do the same, so later when one man says "unga" we can relate it enough to our own experiences of what we saw through that empathy, and understand the meaning of the 'word'. And through this our ancestors hunted better, thus they survived and passed it on, thus we speak today. Empathy is the parent of meaning, and meaning the parent of reason.

You know what else manages to be both fresh and ancient like that? Nature. I saw this movie lately, called "Death by Design". It was about programmed cell death, but it went over the whole story of cells from the beginning. The amazing step is how they became multicellular organisms. basically practicing trade, forming colonies. But their union was not ultimately (individually) self interested, they learned to lose them selves in serving the larger body of the organism, even die when they were signaled to. Or at least the multicellular organisms that had those traits were the ones that survived.

To me the most appealing Eastern system is Taoism. The Tao just is. Its the way of things, the directions things will take. Its what we are beholden too. The unfolding of the Tao is behind the smallest union of cells, and behind the vast unfolding of civilizations. Its inevitability of entropy and love. Its the turning wheels of karma.

Ultimately, we are beholden to the Tao. We are part of this universe unfolding by its own rules, and yet we remain unaware of the exact nature of these unfolding events, so we are inexorably held by the illusion of choice... I'm still struggling with the end of your post before the last. We ARE reactive beings. We react to an unfolding of events that is largely beyond our control. When I read that, I felt really challenged by a hard truth but also felt that truth was something that could be turned around, be made into a weapon for our advancement. Maybe that's what Taoism is to me: Its that acceptance of what is, and that desire to conform to it in thought and deed.

Trite. That's how that sounds, but its really a tall order when you try it...But try it I must. That's why I feel like I've got to tell you, I think we're beyond the point of trying to convince everybody of anything at all, non-dualism or whatever. I think we are at the point where what we want to do is gather groups of like minded, loving beautiful smart people together and get focused on the fundamental human endeavor, survival. I feel convinced that's what we WILL do, so I am advocating it. If you look coldly at the path of nature, the great creatures didn't grow from cells sending signals to algae cells that weren't equipped to hear them, rather they found those who could hear them, and they bonded with them to form something greater than the sum of their parts. I think the challenge we are faced with is figuring out how to do that.

(You're a great writer BTW, I really enjoyed the excerpt from that article.)

[GliderGuider]

53. Yes, perzackly. "The political ramifications of the consciousness of unity" is right.

The deeper I get into all this, the more impressed I am by the conundrum of the fundamentally paradoxical qualities of humanity. Our sense of having free will despite feeling that we're ruled by destiny, our need to be part of a larger whole as much as we need to be autonomous, our ability to flow with the Tao while remaining in some way "in control", our coexistent altruism and selfishness, the fact that we are both reactive and proactive - it's a marvelously tangled skein that can take a lifetime to unravel.

The paradoxical nature of our existence is another reason I like non-dualist philosophies. Rather than trying to untangle life to find the "one true way", non-dualism encourages us to embrace the contradictions - to live within them, to recognize that we each hold all possible human qualities, no matter how apparently opposed they are. Like accepting that each of us are both Mother Teresa and Pol Pot at the same time. In this reality there are no one-sided coins.

The embracing of contradiction leads to a position from which the unity of all things is obvious. That perspective can be enormously liberating. From a liberated perspective everything seems possible - and much more actually becomes possible.

[bloom]

55. Eastern Ideas have been managing to become

more integrated especially since the 1800s.

With Britain going into India - old texts were translated and read by the likes of Emerson and Thoreau - who have influenced countless others.

Also - the whole thing with various artists in the 1800s impressionists - Monet, others, Van Gogh brought concepts such as the divinity of nature, connections to nature into the culture.

Yes John Lennon and others went to India in the 70s - but the foundations were already there.


This is one of my line of interests - I think the the approach to nature by the east is far superior than "Western" ideas.

I am also interested in pre-patriarchal religions.

[NYC_SKP]

5. I'm right there with you, GliderGuider...

...And, sooner or later, the unsustainable economic growth model we've been experiencing, promoting, will crash.

[GliderGuider]

14. It's fascinating how hard people resist acknowledging the facts that are staring them in the face...

[Bill USA]

54. people are refusing to face the rising price of oil and what it will do our economy

... unfortunately, people continue to refuse to see that the rising price of gas is going to sink our economy (and the worldwide economy) and refuse to embrace those things that can be done now that could minimize the rise in the price of oil and perhaps save the economy - or at least minimize the damage to the economy.

I think it's called ...Cutting one's nose off to spite your face.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x586115">how to preclude an energy cost induced Depression - warning it involves becoming a heretic


also see: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=585378

[wtmusic]

6. Where did your plot come from?

There is some confusion of terms.

GDP refers to gross domestic product (US), I think you mean GWP (gross world product).

You have CO2 intensity backward: it's the ratio of CO2/dollars, and the fact that it's improved only means that we're eking more product out of the same amount of carbon. That could be because of improved production efficiency or any number of other factors, i.e. it's impossible to conclude that the source of utility power had any meaningful causative relationship.

[GliderGuider]

10. World GDP is a commonly accepted term

Carbon intensity is usually given as the amount of carbon emitted per unit of activity, but it doesn't really matter if we use the reciprocal so long as the meaning of the term is respected. The point of my observation was that any pleading that hydro and nuclear are permitting us to avoid the emission of some carbon is irrelevant if the use of fossil fuel continues to rise with increased economic output. The effects of increased efficiency in the direct use of fossil fuels and the use of low-carbon energy sources are indistinguishable when one is looking at economic output and carbon emissions. The lesson is that the only thing we have observed so far that correlates to decreased CO2 production is economic decline.

[wtmusic]

17. Your conclusion is unfounded.

If hydro and nuclear permit us to avoid the emission of some carbon, they can permit us to avoid the emission of more carbon. Though there's a limit to how much hydro can contribute, there's no theoretical limit to how much nuclear can contribute, even to the point of reducing carbon emissions.

Past performance is no guarantee of future profits, and trying to quantify ignorance as a factor into why nuclear isn't as publicly "acceptable" as coal is futile.

[GliderGuider]

18. Hydro and nuclear haven't helped so far

What you call "ignorance" is seen by most people as simple risk aversion. Regardless of where the aversion comes from, and whether you approve of it or not, if the public won't permit new nuclear plants to be built or existing ones to continue operating, the technology is as dead as a doornail. Since that seems to be the mood of the world public, then unless circumstances change dramatically nuclear power is no longer an option. Insisting in the face of all this that it "ought to be" an option seems pretty futile to me.

As long as we keep using all the fossil fuels we want, it doesn't matter how much low-carbon energy is added to the mix - CO2 levels will keep going up as long as economic activity increases. This will hold true until the amount of fossil fuel we burn begins to actually decline.

Fossil fuel use will decline only if:
a) some low-carbon source becomes cheaper, more functional, more available and more reliable than fossil fuels; or
b) physical resource limits kick in to limit FF availability; or
c) economic activity declines such that less FF is required to support it.

I don't think that a) is probable within the next 20 years. My money is on b) triggering c).

[wtmusic]

26. During solar eclipses, some pregnant women in rural Mexico

hold copper pots over their abdomens to protect their unborn fetuses from the rays of the sun's corona. They see it as simple risk aversion. I have no feelings of approval or disapproval, but their aversion to this "risk" is based on ignorance just as is most opposition to nuclear power.

Dead as a doornail? Outside of Germany's pledge to shut down domestic nuclear by 2022, there's been very little change in the international long-term outlook. China and other countries have suspended new construction pending safety approval, but there have been no cancellation of planned builds. Fourth generation development in China is full-speed ahead.

"Richard Samuels, head of MIT's Center for International Studies, and Granger Morgan, head of the engineering and public policy program at Carnegie Mellon University, predicted that the Fukushima accident could slow but not stop the nuclear energy renaissance. 'I just don't see how the world continues without nuclear as part of the portfolio,' Morgan said. 'It looks like a few years until we get back on an even keel as a result of this.'"

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2011/05/a_closer_look_the_future_of_nu.html

Using past economic downturns as a gauge as to how the world will deal with global warming is problematic, especially when all three of the ones you cite were before AGW was identified as a global threat (it's akin to basing the potential for new treatments for AIDS on the number of treatments discovered before 1985). And you seem to have a mental block about avoidance being different than reduction - of course hydro and nuclear have helped, unless you believe that without these two sources the public would have conscientiously scaled back its demand for energy over the last fifty years. Things are bad, but they would have been considerably worse.

[GliderGuider]

27. We'll see what happens when nuclear companies try to put shovels in the ground.

Or conduct permit hearings.

Even if a few Chinese or American central planners decide to ram through some new builds, nukes aren't going to save our ass when it comes to cooking the last polar bears.

I think you totally miss my point about previous downturns. I'm just citing them as evidence that economic slowdowns reduce our CO2 emissions, when nothing else does. My position is that we (the global we) will do nothing whatsoever about global warming until it's far, far, far too late. I'm looking at what might happen involuntarily without our planning or intention that could alter the trajectory of AGW, and I think that if the world were to experience a prolonged economic crisis our CO2 emissions would go down. Frankly, that's the only thing I've seen so far that I think could reduce them, based on our experiences at Kyoto, Bali, Copenhagen and Cancun.

Avoidance and reduction are completely different concepts. Reduction means the number went down. Avoidance means the number would have gone up more than it did. Pleading "avoidance" is a mealy-mouthed, pusillanimous way of justifying increases. If emissions are going down, that's reduction. If they're going up, it doesn't matter how much higher they might have gone in some alternate universe. This planet needs reductions, not avoidance.

[dkf]

7. And if that doesn't work peak oil will get us.

In the end lack of food production will deplete us I'm sure.

[notesdev]

8. The non crash solution

is to replace fossil fuel based energy with the only alternative presently available that can generate power on that scale... which would be the nuclear power plants currently being demonized

Keep in mind that a crash of the magnitude you describe is very likely to have human casualties numbering over a billion. The human race requires a certain level of industrial civilization if for no other reason than to produce the food necessary to survive.

So before you go hoping for an all-out crash, keep in mind the cost - unimaginable levels of human suffering and death, in which you personally are very unlikely to escape unscathed.

[kristopher]

9. Nuclear energy is not "the only alternative presently available" and you know it.

In fact, it is a "third tier, not-recommended alternative" when it is diligently and comprehensively compared to the alternatives. If you can present a peer reviewed comparative analysis of energy technologies that supports your conclusion I'd love to see it, because it is contrary to what ALL of the peer reviewed papers I've read say.

What the universe of data advocating nuclear is based on is the presumption that nuclear is needed; not the evidence based analysis that must be there to support that presumption. The renaissance was already collapsing because the projects are too big and too risky to be financed; now they've proven themselves to be too risky to be insured by the public.

See the information at the link in my signature line if you need to know more.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[notesdev]

15. I see that

Some people have trouble with the concept that choosing not to choose is still making a choice.

[kristopher]

22. And some people have a problem acknowledging the truth. Where is your evidence?

If your claim is true it should be easy to find a reference proving it. Surely one of the nuclear industry lobbying groups has a page FULL of peer reviewed analysis showing that renewables are not a viable option, right? I mean it would be the best single bullet in their gun to eliminate the competition from renewables and establish a preeminent market position for the next 100 years, right?

So why is it you can't produce even one?

[notesdev]

31. "peer reviewed"

Anytime I see that phrase I know I have a propagandist on my hands. Argument from authority is a sign of a strong lack of critical and independent thinking. The consensus of a bunch of stuffed shirts is meaningless, and if you put stock in that then the failure is your own.

[kristopher]

34. So you have no sources where an academic is willing to lay their name on the line...

... and provide a checkable analysis saying that renewable energy sources cannot do the job as you said. Therefore you resort to "poisoning the well" (since you like the names).

Sorry, but is accepted that peer review separates the facts from fantasy. It isn't perfect, but it is better than the alternatives.

There is a hierarchy of validity to information sources:
Peer reviewed
Academic White Papers, Government and NGOs
Industry
Used toilet paper
Nuclear bloggers

All of them offer good points and a legitimate argument can be found in any source. What distinguishes them is the degree of accountability for error or the degree to which publishing false data provides a reward.

[notesdev]

35. I do not share your worship of academia

Nor do I share your willingness to outsource higher brain functions.

We are not even going to begin to see eye to eye here so don't bother.

[kristopher]

36. Meaning you cannot support your statement.

Trying to bias people against academics is a trademark tactic of the Rush Limbaugh type of discussion where beliefs are divorced from reality.

"poison the well" - look it up.

[GliderGuider]

13. Nuclear power fails on any number of counts:

Cost. Inability to provide transportation energy. Lack of public acceptability. Non-carbon externalities. Too much technical complexity. Unexpected vulnerabilities. Time needed to build. Consequences of failure...

It's a wonder the stupid technology got off the ground in the first place. Of course, if it wasn't for our desire to crisp each other in huge numbers with atomic bombs, it probably wouldn't have. But finally, with Fukushima, the kabuki theater of nuclear power is over. The face paint has been wiped away to reveal the broken-down alcoholic actor underneath.

Regarding crashes:

If a decline in economic activity does happen I don't actually think it will be a crash. It will likely take a hundred years for us to finish burning all the furniture.

And finally, your fulminations about misery and death:

Humanity is no stranger to misery, we're just a bit out of practice with it. High levels of physical discomfort and fear have been more the norm through our history than they have been for the last hundred years, though there is plenty of unimaginable suffering and death around us right now if we care to look. We all die one way or another, me included. And there is nothing in heaven or on earth that gives us some inalienable right to flat screen televisions and air conditioning.

[Nederland]

41. It took France 15 years to go nearly all nuclear

What is the basis for your assumption that the same success cannot be replicated elsewhere?

[GliderGuider]

42. The basis for the assumption is the shift in public opinion since then. nt

[Nederland]

44. Is that all that has changed since then?

If so, aren't you basically admitting that the only thing that is standing in the way of large scale nuclear adoption is public opinion?

[GliderGuider]

45. Public opinion can always change, of course.

However, it's going to be much harder now for the corporatist opinion-shapers from the nuclear industry to shift the prevailing sentiment back towards nuclear power - especially as that sentiment was pretty anti-nuclear in general even before the Fukushima Fuckup. Since 1989 the global build-out of nuclear power has been pretty anemic - on average less than 2% per year.

Of course, events might intervene again to re-tilt the playing field (anything is possible) but given the newly added weight on the anti-nuclear side it's going to be pretty hard to convince people they should opt for nuclear over wind power when it comes to new builds.

Given that the global economy is going to be in the doldrums - if not in outright decline - for the foreseeable future, unless some new, compelling reason comes along why the world needs to add yet more big lumps of centralized power, nuclear power is dead.

[Karenina]

20. You GO, GG!

"Until we uncouple the global economy from fossil fuels..."
Mankind will continue running off the cliff like lemmings, taking out as many other life forms as ignorance, arrogance and exploitation with impunity allow.

You tell me. Exactly WHY has R&D on renewables been so s-l-o-w??? Patent buying mebbe? Them shelves, ever wonder how filled they are? ;-) I jes LUBS the technocrats spewing future fixes. I heard that tripe 50 years ago and it ain't happened yet! :rofl:

Tante K.

[The Croquist]

50. So how many people do you expect to die?

A lack of economic growth equals a drop of standard of living equals a lack of foreign aid equals more poverty, starvation, less medical care equals more death. Ironically it will also mean more people living in the world especially in 3rd world countries.

Poverty also means more pollution. Rich countries can afford to not pollute. Poor countries can't. Look at pollution levels in China or Mexico City compared to the US.

[GliderGuider]

51. It all depends on how long the global economy stays in depression.

Eventually everybody dies. The question is, how many new people will be born to replace those who die.

I suspect that rich countries will be hit at least as hard in the kind of energy-driven decline I'm talking about as the poor countries - they are far more dependent on high energy consumption per capita for their personal survival.

Remember, I'm not talking about a plan here, just an observation. I'm just saying that the only thing that brings down CO2 emissions (so far anyway) is economic difficulty. There is no chance that we will implement a plan to reduce the world's energy usage by 75%, but we may find by the end of the century that the global use of energy has involuntarily fallen by 75% due to economic decline.

If that sort of decline happens, yes, lots of people would suffer, even more than are suffering now. People would be suffering in different places, to different degrees and for different reasons than now. Suffering is part of the human experience, but the nature of the suffering and the identity of the afflicted changes from time to time. We will all strive mightily to prevent that from happening, but it will happen anyway, as it always has. The tragic irony is that in our efforts to prevent it, we may in fact make the outcome worse.

[The Croquist]

56. Eventually everybody dies.

How clinical of you. I guess you supported George W. Bush and his two wars that killed thousands of Americans and God knows how many others because "Eventually everybody dies".

I suspect that rich countries will be hit at least as hard in the kind of energy-driven decline I'm talking about as the poor countries - they are far more dependent on high energy consumption per capita for their personal survival.

You are correct except the minor detail that the poor countries are dependent on the rich countries for survival. The rich countries will stop sending aid to the poor countries. Think about China without their manufacturing, India without their call centers or both without petroleum based fertilizers. Think about Pakistan with no foreign aid. Pakistan and India are sure to get into a spat. A spat with nukes.

The US is the worlds largest food exporter. No more. The populations of the poor countries will be hit the hardest.

Remember, I'm not talking about a plan here, just an observation.

It sounds more like a hope then anything else.

[GliderGuider]

57. Food, energy, economics and social stability are inextricably bound together.

Shortfalls in food production will definitely hit poor nations harder than rich ones. Rich nations, on the other hand, tend to have more complex social-stability mechanisms than poor ones. Oil decline (and consequent rising prices) will impact the social stability of rich nations through their economic systems, while social unrest due to rising food prices will hit the poor ones hardest. Rising oil prices of course pull food prices up along with them. Over the next two decades food production is going to be most strongly affected by increasing climate instability, while food processing and distribution will be hit hardest by rising oil prices.

So I agree that the poor are going to take the hardest blow in the coming two decades – as they always have. They are most vulnerable to difficulties an any of the areas - food price/availability, energy price/availability and economic recessions.

Rich nations are hardly immune though. The complexity of our financial systems, and the corruption that has eaten the heart out of them, has made them obvious points of failure. They are stressed so much right now that even a small flick – like $150/bbl oil, or the disruption of Japanese supply chains, or a couple of simultaneous harvest failures, or a loss of institutional faith in the soundness of the banking system – could trigger waves of economic and social breakdown. Hell, it’s already happening – look at American unemployment rates, at the decimation of social services, at state budget shortfalls – or at Detroit.

So our civilization faces interlocking difficulties on three levels – energy, food and economics. Those three domains define the legs of the tripod that supports our civilization. A failure in any one of them affects the stability of the whole structure. Weaknesses in all three at the same time is irremediably catastrophic.

The first thing we need to know in order to fix a problem is what the problem is. The reason the fixes so far aren't working is because we don't have a clue what the real problem is. That's because what we face is not a problem in the usual sense, but a predicament.

problem: 1. A question to be considered, solved, or answered;
predicament: 1. A situation, especially an unpleasant, troublesome, or trying one, from which extrication is difficult.

For this particular predicament I would personally upgrade "difficult" to "extremely difficult", "improbable" or even "impossible." But that's just me.

[The Croquist]

58. Maybe the reduction of CO2 emissions aren't worth it

if it will kill hundreds of millions of people, throw billions more into poverty, cause revolutions and generally degrade civilizations. Maybe we should try birth control.

[GliderGuider]

59. Oh, I don't think we'll be reducing CO2 emissions at all.

Nobody wants to accept the political risk of trying to seriously decarbonize the world economy and destabilizing it in the process. So, I think we will continue with something that looks very much like BAU until we can't any more.

I think the world economy is about to come unglued no matter what we do about CO2 (which will be effectively nothing).

You think we that if we try to reduce CO2 emissions the economy will destabilize as a result. I think the economy will destabilize by itself, and CO2 emissions will fall as a side effect. The endpoint is the same in either case: a destabilized economy and lower CO2 emissions.

Fertility rates will continue falling as they are now, just nowhere near fast enough to offset the effects of a declining global economy. Eventually death rates will rise to overtake birth rates and population will begin to fall - as it has in every other civilization in history.

IMO the middle path - the one in which we manage to reduce CO2 emissions and keep the economy ticking over and the death rate does not increase - is improbable in the extreme.

[The Croquist]

60. CO2 emissions per capita

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

US CO2 emissions per capita peaked in 2000 at 20.0 metric tons. As of 2007 it stood at 18.9 metric tons. Keep in mind that the economy was doing fine in 2007. That's down about 5% without signing Kyoto.

Maybe fertility rates will continue to fall but, if quality of life declines, I doubt it. The poorest countries have the highest fertility rates. Of the 222 countries rated, I've listed the top 20. What you are predicting is more poverty. That will translate into more people.

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2054rank.html?countryCode=xx#xx

1 Niger 50.54 2011 est.
2 Uganda 47.49 2011 est.
3 Mali 45.62 2011 est.
4 Zambia 44.08 2011 est.
5 Burkina Faso 43.59 2011 est.
6 Ethiopia 42.99 2011 est.
7 Angola 42.91 2011 est.
8 Somalia 42.71 2011 est.
9 Burundi 41.01 2011 est.
10 Malawi 40.85 2011 est.
11 Congo, Republic of the 40.55 2011 est.
12 Mozambique 39.62 2011 est.
13 Chad 39.40 2011 est.
14 Sierra Leone 38.46 2011 est.
15 Benin 38.11 2011 est.
16 Sao Tome and Principe 38.03 2011 est.
17 Afghanistan 37.83 2011 est.
18 Congo, Democratic Republic of the 37.74 2011 est.
19 Madagascar 37.51 2011 est.
20 Liberia 37.25 2011 est.

You don't see allot of wealth there do you?

[GliderGuider]

61. Of course I'm predicting more poverty.

Whenever an economy (whether national or global) takes a dive an increase in poverty is the usual outcome. It's unpleasant, but it's normal.

A lot of whether there will be more people as a result depends largely on what happens to the food supply at the same time, and whether Dr. Virginia Abernethy's Fertility Opportunity Hypothesis plays out in poor countries instead of the better-known Demographic Transition Theory. If Abernethy is right, then fertility will fall in poor countries when people see that economic times are turning bad for the long haul - like they did in Russia starting in 1987 as the Soviet empire began to collapse: