6 ms·

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 po

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.
        eliasmacpherson 15y ago
        I appreciate the story about Sweden. Andi said that ignoring the cost for future generations was the issue. He wasn't arguing against all technical progress. It's not just that one sentence I referred to, it's his entire comment. Perhaps the quotes confused you, they were there to give context. Pumping nuclear waste down old oil wells is not enough, what if someone nasty decides to make plutonium? Storage will need to be guarded, keeping a list of what has been stored provides an incentive for terrorists but offers the possibility of future reuse. Noted, go check some statistics for pollution during China's booming economy over the last twenty years, much worse in many regards. I refer you back to pdf I already linked for energy consumption. There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology.
        berntb 15y ago

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.
      - eliasmacpherson 15y ago
        I appreciate the story about Sweden. Andi said that ignoring the cost for future generations was the issue. He wasn't arguing against all technical progress. It's not just that one sentence I referred to, it's his entire comment. Perhaps the quotes confused you, they were there to give context. Pumping nuclear waste down old oil wells is not enough, what if someone nasty decides to make plutonium? Storage will need to be guarded, keeping a list of what has been stored provides an incentive for terrorists but offers the possibility of future reuse. Noted, go check some statistics for pollution during China's booming economy over the last twenty years, much worse in many regards. I refer you back to pdf I already linked for energy consumption. There is no rule that states pollution and energy usage reduce with better economies and technology.
        berntb 15y ago