3 ms·

This article makes a terrible argument. > As economists Professor Tim Jackson and Dr Andrew Jackson of the University of Surrey have shown, there is now abunda

This article makes a terrible argument. > As economists Professor Tim Jackson and Dr Andrew Jackson of the University of Surrey have shown, there is now abundant scientific evidence that the decline in EROI is an underlying driver of the decline in economic growth. > This suggests that the last two decades of global economic turbulence are closely related to the global economy’s continued structural dependence on fossil fuels: a dependence that, if it goes on, will guarantee a grim future of energy and economic decline amidst mounting environmental crisis. It argues that increasing EROI has led to decreased economic growth, and therefore we should switch to renewables before EROI increases for oil in order to make sure we fuel economic growth. But it ignores how EROI decreases growth (mentioned in the article they link to), it does it through increased energy prices. But a switch to renewables is not going to decrease energy prices, if it did we wouldn't need to subsidize renewables.

kjksf 5y ago
> if it did we wouldn't need to subsidize renewables According to IMF report, in 2020 fossil fuel industries received $5.9 trillion in direct and indirect subsidies. Not a typo. $5.9 TRILLION You're partially right: we wouldn't need to subsidize renewables if they were playing on even field. But they are not. Fossil fuels receive orders of magnitude more subsidies. And things would be even more in favor of renewables if we addressed externalized costs (BP oil spill and such) by doing e.g. carbon tax. https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/19/oil-coal-gas-got-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-imf-report/ https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/19/oil-coal-gas-got-5-9-tr...
- missedthecue 5y ago
  Almost all of that figure is "breathing pollutants, and environmental damage". Not the government giving Exxon money. Which first off, I wouldn't really call a subsidy, and second, is unquantifiable. You can't tally up the cost of breathing polluted air as if it's a line item in a balance sheet. For me, that casts some serious doubts on the accuracy of the $5.8T figure.
avianlyric 5y ago
> But it ignores how EROI decreases growth (mentioned in the article they link to), it does it through increased energy prices. But a switch to renewables is not going to decrease energy prices, if it did we wouldn't need to subsidize renewables. Renewables are still rapidly developing, and prices are falling precipitously. The subsidies are achieving their goal of funding and encouraging investments renewables and their rapid improvement. Every year the MwH price of renewables falls, the opposite is true of fossils. Even now Solar and wind outcompete a number of fossil technologies on price. So your point is completely wrong and totally misunderstands the purpose and achievements of renewable energy subsidies.
FooHentai 5y ago
>It argues that increasing EROI has led to decreased economic growth Decreasing, not increasing. EROI = The amount of usable energy delivered from an energy source versus the amount of energy used to get that energy resource. So if we consume 1KwH of energy to make 20KwH of energy available, that's an EROI of 20x. Your point about price is partially correct but what matters is the future projection. If fossil fuel EROI is only going down in future, that means price will only go up. If renewables EROI is projected to improve, stay the same, or even decline but not to the same extent as fossil fuel, then there comes a point where you want to be on renewables and away from fossil fuels. Since that transition takes time and re-aligns a whole bunch of major things in our economy and society, it would be foolish to wait for the cost balances to have flipped. And this is the purely economic argument, putting aside the climate change/environmental impact stuff.

kjksf 5y ago

> if it did we wouldn't need to subsidize renewables According to IMF report, in 2020 fossil fuel industries received $5.9 trillion in direct and indirect subsidies. Not a typo. $5.9 TRILLION You're partially right: we wouldn't need to subsidize renewables if they were playing on even field. But they are not. Fossil fuels receive orders of magnitude more subsidies. And things would be even more in favor of renewables if we addressed externalized costs (BP oil spill and such) by doing e.g. carbon tax. https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/19/oil-coal-gas-got-5-9-trillion-in-subsidies-in-2020-imf-report/ https://cleantechnica.com/2021/10/19/oil-coal-gas-got-5-9-tr...

missedthecue 5y ago
Almost all of that figure is "breathing pollutants, and environmental damage". Not the government giving Exxon money. Which first off, I wouldn't really call a subsidy, and second, is unquantifiable. You can't tally up the cost of breathing polluted air as if it's a line item in a balance sheet. For me, that casts some serious doubts on the accuracy of the $5.8T figure.

avianlyric 5y ago

> But it ignores how EROI decreases growth (mentioned in the article they link to), it does it through increased energy prices. But a switch to renewables is not going to decrease energy prices, if it did we wouldn't need to subsidize renewables. Renewables are still rapidly developing, and prices are falling precipitously. The subsidies are achieving their goal of funding and encouraging investments renewables and their rapid improvement. Every year the MwH price of renewables falls, the opposite is true of fossils. Even now Solar and wind outcompete a number of fossil technologies on price. So your point is completely wrong and totally misunderstands the purpose and achievements of renewable energy subsidies.

FooHentai 5y ago

>It argues that increasing EROI has led to decreased economic growth Decreasing, not increasing. EROI = The amount of usable energy delivered from an energy source versus the amount of energy used to get that energy resource. So if we consume 1KwH of energy to make 20KwH of energy available, that's an EROI of 20x. Your point about price is partially correct but what matters is the future projection. If fossil fuel EROI is only going down in future, that means price will only go up. If renewables EROI is projected to improve, stay the same, or even decline but not to the same extent as fossil fuel, then there comes a point where you want to be on renewables and away from fossil fuels. Since that transition takes time and re-aligns a whole bunch of major things in our economy and society, it would be foolish to wait for the cost balances to have flipped. And this is the purely economic argument, putting aside the climate change/environmental impact stuff.