6 ms·

We are (probably) willing to set aside places for Luddites to live. For now, you can go to North Korea or some other nice place without much energy use... (Be

by berntb 15y ago

We are (probably) willing to set aside places for Luddites to live. For now, you can go to North Korea or some other nice place without much energy use... (Be careful when choosing, poor countries have lots of environmental destruction which they can't afford to clean -- it might be bad for your health.) :-) Edit: It is not a false dichotomy; I compared to the only known low-energy societies. My point is that there is no low energy using society, where anyone would want to live (except the local junta). (And the expensive alternative to nuclear is coal, which is arguably worse with its climate effects.)

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
raganwald 15y ago
This is a false dichotomy. You need not choose between cheap energy and no energy, you can also have expensive energy, and I do not see how expensive energy implies North Korea. (UPDATE: Although you can also have expensive energy that is unpleasant!)
eliasmacpherson 15y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_note-19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_n... Table for figure 54 World power use by region, 1990–2008, TWh Europe: 2857 US: 4533 pdf warning - albeit free of charge. By your logic - europe is for luddites because it approaches half the consumption of the US per captita.
- berntb 15y ago
  If you really are going to argue that Europe is a low energy society, sure... :-)
  - eliasmacpherson 15y ago
    No, it's a place that's energy demands are lower, are growing at a lower rate, while offering a comparable standard of living. Why do you keep trying to make a false dichotomy? It's not a binary choice that has to be made.
    - berntb 15y ago
      Yes, the US system seems to have bad incentives and waste energy. At least, compared to Europe. >>Why do you keep trying to make a false dichotomy? I am not, you didn't read read what I argue against. :-) I started by answering a comment by "Andi" above. He/She argued against growth and technical development. Which is just stupid, since pollution and energy use gets less with better economy/technology. (E.g., not so many decades ago there were no cleaning facilities on coal plants and no waste management for cities.)
      - eliasmacpherson 15y ago
        I read it a few times before I replied. Andi was making a comment about the costs of energy for us and for future generations. Andi was saying that ignoring the cost for future generations is typical behaviour of people "who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take." You are mistaking that as an argument against all future technical development. It's easy to see that better technology can be more efficient. I disagree that pollution and energy use gets less with better economies and technology as a rule, even if there has been some progress as you mention. EU, US and Asia are all guilty of creating percentage wise more pollution and using percentage wise more energy over the last ten years, have a look at the PDF.
        berntb 15y ago
        Let me tell you a story about Sweden. A few hundred years ago, they realised they would soon get low on trees suitable for critical parts of war ships. So they planted a lot of them. An early triumph of ecological resource awareness. Those trees are ready about now, but won't be used for their original intent... :-) Re nuclear waste -- it can always be made into a slurry pumped down into old oil wells. There is absolutely no connection to ground water, so it won't come back. (It is probably a bad idea, since there might be uses for it in a few decades.) Quote I argue against: "who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take." >>You are mistaking that as an argument against all future technical development. It is really hard to read any other way than as a Luddite. In addition, I note that you made a claim -- but didn't present any other way of reading that sentence... >>I disagree that pollution and energy use gets less with better economies and technology as a rule, even if there has been some progress as you mention Go check some statistics for pollution for e.g. Northern Europe over the last 50-60 years. (Much less Mercury contaminants, waste water treatment, no low Ph rain, etc, etc.) Less energy is used to create new units of GNP increase. Energy is used better. Some of that GNP is used to find alternative energy implementations.

by berntb 15y ago

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

raganwald 15y ago

This is a false dichotomy. You need not choose between cheap energy and no energy, you can also have expensive energy, and I do not see how expensive energy implies North Korea. (UPDATE: Although you can also have expensive energy that is unpleasant!)

eliasmacpherson 15y ago

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_note-19 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption#cite_n... Table for figure 54 World power use by region, 1990–2008, TWh Europe: 2857 US: 4533 pdf warning - albeit free of charge. By your logic - europe is for luddites because it approaches half the consumption of the US per captita.

berntb 15y ago
If you really are going to argue that Europe is a low energy society, sure... :-)
- eliasmacpherson 15y ago
  No, it's a place that's energy demands are lower, are growing at a lower rate, while offering a comparable standard of living. Why do you keep trying to make a false dichotomy? It's not a binary choice that has to be made.
  - berntb 15y ago
    Yes, the US system seems to have bad incentives and waste energy. At least, compared to Europe. >>Why do you keep trying to make a false dichotomy? I am not, you didn't read read what I argue against. :-) I started by answering a comment by "Andi" above. He/She argued against growth and technical development. Which is just stupid, since pollution and energy use gets less with better economy/technology. (E.g., not so many decades ago there were no cleaning facilities on coal plants and no waste management for cities.)
    - eliasmacpherson 15y ago
      I read it a few times before I replied. Andi was making a comment about the costs of energy for us and for future generations. Andi was saying that ignoring the cost for future generations is typical behaviour of people "who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take." You are mistaking that as an argument against all future technical development. It's easy to see that better technology can be more efficient. I disagree that pollution and energy use gets less with better economies and technology as a rule, even if there has been some progress as you mention. EU, US and Asia are all guilty of creating percentage wise more pollution and using percentage wise more energy over the last ten years, have a look at the PDF.
      - berntb 15y ago
        Let me tell you a story about Sweden. A few hundred years ago, they realised they would soon get low on trees suitable for critical parts of war ships. So they planted a lot of them. An early triumph of ecological resource awareness. Those trees are ready about now, but won't be used for their original intent... :-) Re nuclear waste -- it can always be made into a slurry pumped down into old oil wells. There is absolutely no connection to ground water, so it won't come back. (It is probably a bad idea, since there might be uses for it in a few decades.) Quote I argue against: "who see technical progress as a kind of god given fact or as the natural direction humanity must take." >>You are mistaking that as an argument against all future technical development. It is really hard to read any other way than as a Luddite. In addition, I note that you made a claim -- but didn't present any other way of reading that sentence... >>I disagree that pollution and energy use gets less with better economies and technology as a rule, even if there has been some progress as you mention Go check some statistics for pollution for e.g. Northern Europe over the last 50-60 years. (Much less Mercury contaminants, waste water treatment, no low Ph rain, etc, etc.) Less energy is used to create new units of GNP increase. Energy is used better. Some of that GNP is used to find alternative energy implementations.