4 ms·

> Fortunately, “economy is fossil fuels” is nonsense Is it? The economy is what we produce and consume. The economy grows when we produce and consume more, it

by palata 3mo ago

> Fortunately, “economy is fossil fuels” is nonsense Is it? The economy is what we produce and consume. The economy grows when we produce and consume more, it shrinks when we produce and consume less. How do we produce stuff nowadays? With fossil fuels. There is not a single object around you that did not require fossil fuels at some point. Economy "does well" when we have easy access to fossil fuels, it doesn't when we don't. We can observe the impact on countries where fossil fuels get harder to get. An example would be Europe, where fossil fuels have been harder and harder to get since 2007 (which corresponds to the global peak of conventional oil). Since then, Europe has been slowing down if you look at physical indicators (like which surface is built or what weight is transported by trucks). GDP is artificial, it's arbitrarily modified to "compensate" for inflation. People in the US love to say that Europe is slowing down because of regulations and laziness and all the smart people moving to the US, but the truth is that it is slowing down because of fossil fuels. To stop destroying the climate, we need to stop using fossil fuels, and therefore we need to redefine what we expect from "the economy", because without fossil fuels there is no way we keep producing and consuming more. But that's not all! Even if there was a way (!), it would not resolve the problem of biodiversity loss. We are currently, measurably living in a mass extinction that is happening orders of magnitudes faster than the one of the dinosaurs. If we don't get food problems because of climate change, chances are that we will because of the mass extinction. Climate change is just one existential problem we are facing. In Europe, we have lost 80% of insects in the last 20 years, and that has NOTHING to do with climate change. Just loss of habitat, which is a consequence of our economy growing (and humans doing what humans do, like tourism and parking lots and cutting trees and overfishing). Climate change will just make that worse, it's just starting. > It will literally require global economic collapse, mass death and starvation and a civilisational reset. This is a certainty if we don't do anything. Now the more we do, the more we preserve. It will still be bad, make no mistake. But there is no such thing as "it's too late to act". The less we do, the worse it gets.

adrianN 3mo ago
Fossil fuels can be replaced for every use case by electricity from carbon-free sources and some chemistry. The price point for replacement of course varies by application. There is no reason to assume that we can't have the same kind of economy we have today without fossil fuels. Some things will naturally become more expensive, but other things might also became cheaper.
- palata 2mo ago
  > There is no reason to assume that we can't have the same kind of economy Has there been, in history, the same kind of economy we have today without fossil fuels? No. That's a first reason. Are there practical replacements for every use case of fossil fuels? Most definitely not! I don't know where you get that. For those replacements we know, it has never been done at scale, so we don't know if it's possible or not. And for those we don't know... well we don't know. Just have a look at what petrochemicals are used for. And how do you make fertilisers without fossil fuels, at today's scale?
  - adrianN 2mo ago
    You seem to believe that proof of feasibility is impossible before actually finishing the task. I disagree. And for the record, profit oriented market economies are extremely old. Much older than any large scale use of fossil fuels.
    - palata 2mo ago
      > And for the record, profit oriented market economies are extremely old. Of course it works if you take the part that is convenient to your argument. What about globalised economies?
      - adrianN 2mo ago
        Trade routes spanned Eurasia before we invented writing. Faster transportation and communication only expanded economic ties. Transportation is something that is fairly easy to do without fossil fuels.
        palata 2mo ago
        Again, you conveniently forget the important part. Before we invented writing, we were not remotely transporting as much stuff as we are today. I mean, before fossil fuels, the world ran on renewables. But that's not at all a proof that we can easily go back to renewables: it was a different world then.
JumpCrisscross 3mo ago
> There is not a single object around you that did not require fossil fuels at some point This is sort of like saying the economy is air or the economy is sand. (What is closer to correct is the economy is, within approximation, energy.) > the truth is that it is slowing down because of fossil fuels American emissions per capita have been falling alongside rising GDP/capita. Europe’s malaises are broader than this. > This is a certainty if we don't do anything If action requires literally replacing and restarting the global economy, there is no hope. Might as well party. If, on the other hand, it’s a rewiring, it’s rational to do. I thought we learned our lesson around hyperbolic environmental doomerism, but apparently not.
- palata 2mo ago
  > American emissions per capita have been falling alongside rising GDP/capita GDP is artificial. Did you ever check how they correct for inflation? GDP is worth nothing for science, it's just there for economists to do... whatever they do. > If action requires literally replacing and restarting the global economy, there is no hope. Might as well party. I don't know how you read that from what I say. I say, "if we don't do anything, we're completely screwed. The more we do, the better it gets". But yeah, if we keep doing what we are doing, we're doomed, that's certain.
  - JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
    > GDP is artificial …all economic metrics are artificial. Society is artificial. How are you defining an economy? Or is your original statement (“economy is fossil fuels”) just a tautology? > don't know how you read that from what I say There is no political system on the planet that can enact and survive economic collapse. If that’s what’s required, this is a fool’s errand. Fortunately, again, you’re wrong. It’s not required, though I’m sure we’ll keep seeing governments who try the silly route replaced. The best we can do in the meantime is politically sideline folks who believe this stuff.
    - palata 2mo ago
      > How are you defining an economy? I said it above. The economy is what we produce and consume. Because the metrics economists use (like GDP) make no sense does not mean that the economy does not exist. There are physical metrics to measure how the economy is doing (that I mentioned above). For instance, you can look at how many tons of stuff are being moved by trucks. If many trucks move a lot of stuff, then it means that stuff is being produced and consumed. Another one you can measure is the surface that is being constructed. When humans in a country build houses and buildings, it is a sign that "the economy" is growing. And it is difficult to cheat with those "physical" metrics. Whereas cheating GDP is absolutely trivial. Do you know how they correct for inflation? There is no way to "measure" inflation, it's a guesstimate. But depending on how you guesstimate it, you increase or decrease the GDP. What we see in Europe since 2007 (the peak of fossil fuels for Europe) is that trucks are moving less and less stuff, and the surface built by humans in Europe is slowing down. Those physical estimators show that Europe is slowing down, completely correlated to fossil fuels. GDP is growing, sure... but again GDP is "manipulated" (consciously or not, that's not the point) by the numbers we put in the "inflation" box.

by palata 3mo ago

adrianN 3mo ago

Fossil fuels can be replaced for every use case by electricity from carbon-free sources and some chemistry. The price point for replacement of course varies by application. There is no reason to assume that we can't have the same kind of economy we have today without fossil fuels. Some things will naturally become more expensive, but other things might also became cheaper.

palata 2mo ago
> There is no reason to assume that we can't have the same kind of economy Has there been, in history, the same kind of economy we have today without fossil fuels? No. That's a first reason. Are there practical replacements for every use case of fossil fuels? Most definitely not! I don't know where you get that. For those replacements we know, it has never been done at scale, so we don't know if it's possible or not. And for those we don't know... well we don't know. Just have a look at what petrochemicals are used for. And how do you make fertilisers without fossil fuels, at today's scale?
- adrianN 2mo ago
  You seem to believe that proof of feasibility is impossible before actually finishing the task. I disagree. And for the record, profit oriented market economies are extremely old. Much older than any large scale use of fossil fuels.
  - palata 2mo ago
    > And for the record, profit oriented market economies are extremely old. Of course it works if you take the part that is convenient to your argument. What about globalised economies?
    - adrianN 2mo ago
      Trade routes spanned Eurasia before we invented writing. Faster transportation and communication only expanded economic ties. Transportation is something that is fairly easy to do without fossil fuels.
      - palata 2mo ago
        Again, you conveniently forget the important part. Before we invented writing, we were not remotely transporting as much stuff as we are today. I mean, before fossil fuels, the world ran on renewables. But that's not at all a proof that we can easily go back to renewables: it was a different world then.

JumpCrisscross 3mo ago

> There is not a single object around you that did not require fossil fuels at some point This is sort of like saying the economy is air or the economy is sand. (What is closer to correct is the economy is, within approximation, energy.) > the truth is that it is slowing down because of fossil fuels American emissions per capita have been falling alongside rising GDP/capita. Europe’s malaises are broader than this. > This is a certainty if we don't do anything If action requires literally replacing and restarting the global economy, there is no hope. Might as well party. If, on the other hand, it’s a rewiring, it’s rational to do. I thought we learned our lesson around hyperbolic environmental doomerism, but apparently not.

palata 2mo ago
> American emissions per capita have been falling alongside rising GDP/capita GDP is artificial. Did you ever check how they correct for inflation? GDP is worth nothing for science, it's just there for economists to do... whatever they do. > If action requires literally replacing and restarting the global economy, there is no hope. Might as well party. I don't know how you read that from what I say. I say, "if we don't do anything, we're completely screwed. The more we do, the better it gets". But yeah, if we keep doing what we are doing, we're doomed, that's certain.
- JumpCrisscross 2mo ago
  > GDP is artificial …all economic metrics are artificial. Society is artificial. How are you defining an economy? Or is your original statement (“economy is fossil fuels”) just a tautology? > don't know how you read that from what I say There is no political system on the planet that can enact and survive economic collapse. If that’s what’s required, this is a fool’s errand. Fortunately, again, you’re wrong. It’s not required, though I’m sure we’ll keep seeing governments who try the silly route replaced. The best we can do in the meantime is politically sideline folks who believe this stuff.
  - palata 2mo ago
    > How are you defining an economy? I said it above. The economy is what we produce and consume. Because the metrics economists use (like GDP) make no sense does not mean that the economy does not exist. There are physical metrics to measure how the economy is doing (that I mentioned above). For instance, you can look at how many tons of stuff are being moved by trucks. If many trucks move a lot of stuff, then it means that stuff is being produced and consumed. Another one you can measure is the surface that is being constructed. When humans in a country build houses and buildings, it is a sign that "the economy" is growing. And it is difficult to cheat with those "physical" metrics. Whereas cheating GDP is absolutely trivial. Do you know how they correct for inflation? There is no way to "measure" inflation, it's a guesstimate. But depending on how you guesstimate it, you increase or decrease the GDP. What we see in Europe since 2007 (the peak of fossil fuels for Europe) is that trucks are moving less and less stuff, and the surface built by humans in Europe is slowing down. Those physical estimators show that Europe is slowing down, completely correlated to fossil fuels. GDP is growing, sure... but again GDP is "manipulated" (consciously or not, that's not the point) by the numbers we put in the "inflation" box.