6 ms·

I'm surprised the author tackled this topic without mentioning World3 from The Limits to Growth or the heavy reliance of modern, developed societies on fossil f

by Kydlaw 5y ago

I'm surprised the author tackled this topic without mentioning World3 from The Limits to Growth or the heavy reliance of modern, developed societies on fossil fuels? Thus it's a very interesting economical opinion, but without adding the physical aspects (energy consumption) into the reflection, I don't see any interesting result.

perrygeo 5y ago
This! In a world where oil discovery, extraction and distribution was ever increasing, betting on a bigger energy pie in the future made sense. All of our macro-economic theories were developed under the naive assumption of an increasing fossil-fueled bonanza. But in a world of no new oil fields and increasing costs for extraction, we no longer have the ever-growing pie to fund our future financial obligations. Credit looks risky and economic decline seems inevitable based on the energy availability alone. That's not even mentioning the externalities of fossil fuel consumption: climate impacts, ocean acidification, mass extinction, etc. make these economic issues even harder. Or is it the other way around? Either way, "this can't go on" and fossil fuels are a central part of the equation.
- ravi-delia 5y ago
  There is every likelihood that we could in principle just keep drilling new oil. Our ability to extract oil at a cost effective rate scales almost exactly with the depletion of easy reserves. The reason we need to switch out is the devastating environmental impact, and only the devastating environmental impact.
  - AstralStorm 5y ago
    It's not the drilling, but leaks of oil, gas, fires and obviously actually burning this fuel without full recapture. (Not offset, that is insufficient and sleigh of hand.)
- kiba 5y ago
  The externality of fossil fuel consumption by far is the most problematic part of our economy. We have more energy than we ever meet from the sun, nearly all of which is uselessly radiated out into space, never mind what we don't use when sunlights hit our Earth.
- bryanlarsen 5y ago
  Wind and solar are cheaper sources of energy than fossil fuels and are going to be a lot cheaper soon. They're going to fuel a boom we haven't seen since the energy crisis of the seventies.
  - AstralStorm 5y ago
    Unfortunately physics and mechanics of these sources are not unlimited either. Current renewables would require huge expanding battery capacity as well as mega production and construction we likely won't have in a few decades yet. (And we're already about 30 years too late handling the global warming.) The problem is caused by energy density per manufactured unit panel/turbine, and additionally basic physics of the energy source.
    - soared 5y ago
      We have huge expanding battery capacity and construction. That is literally a thing right now. And confidently saying we’re too late on global warming is an absolutely absurd claim.
      - javajosh 5y ago
        I don't like it when people say we're "too late" on global warming either. But the narrative behind that is not physically absurd - as atmospheric CO2 density increases, the temperature rises, which makes in turn causes increased CO2 (increased fires), and this causes a runaway effect resulting in something like Venus. It's not too late. And even if things become really dire, even apocalyptic, we may as well face it open-eyed and do our best to survive (in earthbound arks) and recover (applying all those science fictional terraforming ideas...to Terra). It seems highly unlikely that we'll survive (Fermi paradox and all) but that shouldn't stop us from giving it the old college try!
        AstralStorm 5y ago
        No, you're reading too much into "too late" part. We're unable to prevent reaching 3.5 C rise in 25 years and are clearly on track to exceeding it even more. This is the "too late" part. We're not too late to mitigate the damage from it. And it will be a lot of damage requiring serious ingenuity to thrive under. Perhaps even survive. Making the problem worse obviously makes it harder.
randallsquared 5y ago
Is it not interesting because there's nothing to argue? If the author focused on something from Limits to Growth, it would be possible to argue about whether the world was actually that way. As a logical argument based only on historical trends and physical impossibility, it's a much stronger argument than it would be were it possible to pick holes in the detail.
fallingfrog 5y ago
The world3 model is not really something you can use to make predictions- it’s got variables like “resources” with no units. And the conclusion you get from it was programmed into it. I’d put my money on “steady state” or maybe “steady state but after a contraction due to climate change”, but not due to the world3 model.
rasengan0 5y ago
https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37364868 https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37364868 my digital person from the CT camp will intersect with this BAU2 version or ... not

by Kydlaw 5y ago

perrygeo 5y ago

This! In a world where oil discovery, extraction and distribution was ever increasing, betting on a bigger energy pie in the future made sense. All of our macro-economic theories were developed under the naive assumption of an increasing fossil-fueled bonanza. But in a world of no new oil fields and increasing costs for extraction, we no longer have the ever-growing pie to fund our future financial obligations. Credit looks risky and economic decline seems inevitable based on the energy availability alone. That's not even mentioning the externalities of fossil fuel consumption: climate impacts, ocean acidification, mass extinction, etc. make these economic issues even harder. Or is it the other way around? Either way, "this can't go on" and fossil fuels are a central part of the equation.

ravi-delia 5y ago
There is every likelihood that we could in principle just keep drilling new oil. Our ability to extract oil at a cost effective rate scales almost exactly with the depletion of easy reserves. The reason we need to switch out is the devastating environmental impact, and only the devastating environmental impact.
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  It's not the drilling, but leaks of oil, gas, fires and obviously actually burning this fuel without full recapture. (Not offset, that is insufficient and sleigh of hand.)
kiba 5y ago
The externality of fossil fuel consumption by far is the most problematic part of our economy. We have more energy than we ever meet from the sun, nearly all of which is uselessly radiated out into space, never mind what we don't use when sunlights hit our Earth.
bryanlarsen 5y ago
Wind and solar are cheaper sources of energy than fossil fuels and are going to be a lot cheaper soon. They're going to fuel a boom we haven't seen since the energy crisis of the seventies.
- AstralStorm 5y ago
  Unfortunately physics and mechanics of these sources are not unlimited either. Current renewables would require huge expanding battery capacity as well as mega production and construction we likely won't have in a few decades yet. (And we're already about 30 years too late handling the global warming.) The problem is caused by energy density per manufactured unit panel/turbine, and additionally basic physics of the energy source.
  - soared 5y ago
    We have huge expanding battery capacity and construction. That is literally a thing right now. And confidently saying we’re too late on global warming is an absolutely absurd claim.
    - javajosh 5y ago
      I don't like it when people say we're "too late" on global warming either. But the narrative behind that is not physically absurd - as atmospheric CO2 density increases, the temperature rises, which makes in turn causes increased CO2 (increased fires), and this causes a runaway effect resulting in something like Venus. It's not too late. And even if things become really dire, even apocalyptic, we may as well face it open-eyed and do our best to survive (in earthbound arks) and recover (applying all those science fictional terraforming ideas...to Terra). It seems highly unlikely that we'll survive (Fermi paradox and all) but that shouldn't stop us from giving it the old college try!
      - AstralStorm 5y ago
        No, you're reading too much into "too late" part. We're unable to prevent reaching 3.5 C rise in 25 years and are clearly on track to exceeding it even more. This is the "too late" part. We're not too late to mitigate the damage from it. And it will be a lot of damage requiring serious ingenuity to thrive under. Perhaps even survive. Making the problem worse obviously makes it harder.

randallsquared 5y ago

Is it not interesting because there's nothing to argue? If the author focused on something from Limits to Growth, it would be possible to argue about whether the world was actually that way. As a logical argument based only on historical trends and physical impossibility, it's a much stronger argument than it would be were it possible to pick holes in the detail.

fallingfrog 5y ago

The world3 model is not really something you can use to make predictions- it’s got variables like “resources” with no units. And the conclusion you get from it was programmed into it. I’d put my money on “steady state” or maybe “steady state but after a contraction due to climate change”, but not due to the world3 model.

rasengan0 5y ago

https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37364868 https://dash.harvard.edu/handle/1/37364868 my digital person from the CT camp will intersect with this BAU2 version or ... not