Why we should think....Part 2

biffvernon · Sep 17, 2007

Flyfisher said:
Even Biff admits that the outlook is bleak.

Even Biff? I thought I was more pessimistic than most folk. I work hard to keep a glimmer of hope alive but at present we're heading for Olduvai.

Penners · Sep 17, 2007

Nemesis said:
Hey though - this could make a difference when saving water:

http://www.waterbutts.com/Butt/index.html

Nemesis - you've definitely got too much time on your hands.

Flyfisher · Sep 17, 2007

biffvernon said:
Flyfisher said:

Even Biff admits that the outlook is bleak.

Click to expand...

Even Biff? I thought I was more pessimistic than most folk. I work hard to keep a glimmer of hope alive but at present we're heading for Olduvai.

'At present' or inevitably ?
Simplistically, it seems to me that the world can't sustain its current lifestyle without broadly maintaining its current energy consumption. The way this energy - mainly from fossil fuels - is currently used may or may not be leading us to climatic catastrophe, but does that really matter if we're already doomed by not having an alternative energy source - alternative in the sense of being able to provide the same amounts of energy.

NT has already outlined some of the reasons why trying to 'sell' a low-energy existence just isn't going to work in practice. Where is the promise of 'electricity to cheap to meter' when we most need it!

I'm still a fan of NT's "money = energy" maxim but this implies that the real way to be 'greener' is to live on less money, which seems completely at odds with an economic system that encourages us to earn and spend more and more. Based on all the reports about rising debt levels, it doesn't seem that people are learning to live on less money. They are all too busy aspiring to have two or three holidays each year.

Still, the savings on their utility bills as a result of buying energy saving devices will come in handy for an additional cheap flight out of the new Stansted runway :roll:

[Pt Fraser accent = on]
We're doooooomed Cap'n Mannering, we're all dooooomed.
[Pt Fraser accent = off]

biffvernon · Sep 17, 2007

Thought for tonight: most of the best buildings were built before the oil age.

(One might argue a similar case for painting, sculpture, music and literature. We may be addicted to oil and the lifestyle it provides and demands, but addictions can be kicked. There may be limits to economic growth based on energy in a finite world, but there is no limit to human creativity.)

Flyfisher · Sep 17, 2007

If you're suggesting that we used to be able to survive, even thrive, before the oil age then I would agree.

However, the global population in 1850 was around 1.2 billion souls (wiki) whereas today it is around 6.7 billion and predicted to be about 9.7 billion in 2050 . . . just 43 years away.

Are you confident that human ingenuity stretches to being able to sustain almost 10 billion people without recourse to oil (or equivalent amounts of energy) within just 4 decades?

There may well be lessons to be had from history but turning back the clock doesn't seem like an option to me. We are where we are.

Nemesis · Sep 17, 2007

I don't aspire to several cheap flights a year, just thought I'd mention that.

Please don't tar us all with the same unthinking consumerist brush.

It may be your lifestyle, it isn't mine.

NT · Sep 17, 2007

biffvernon said:
Does using low energy lightbulbs reduce energy use?

Click to expand...

You change your light bulb, and because it uses less energy your electricity bill is smaller. You spend the money saved on an extra trip in your car. Result: no net energy saving.

But if the light bulb's electricity was coal generated there may be a real saving. Coal gives off more CO2 than oil.

Are you saying that £1 spent on electricity produces more CO2 than £1 spent on any other assorted goods or service? I dont see how one could claim that.

Or do you mean that 1 molecule of CO2 produced by burning coal gives out less energy than one of oil? Doesnt the same number of carbon molecules burnt equal the same energy output?

And if the number is different, would buying goods made with chinese partly coal powered electricity be any different to buying electricity itself, also produced partly by coal?

NT

NT · Sep 17, 2007

biffvernon said:
The result has to be demand destruction. This affects the poor first, and we are already seeing this happen in parts of Africa.

But this has nothing to do with peak oil, it is due to the harsh economic and political climate in Africa.

NT

Flyfisher · Sep 17, 2007

Nemesis said:
I don't aspire to several cheap flights a year, just thought I'd mention that.

I think we'd already gathered that. Actually, I'm not keen on cheap flights either; I much prefer business class myself :wink:

Nemesis said:
Please don't tar us all with the same unthinking consumerist brush.

I was, of course, referring to the 'average consumer'. I doubt anyone would describe you as average.

Nemesis said:
It may be your lifestyle, it isn't mine.

Tut tut - who's wielding the tar brush now?

NT · Sep 17, 2007

Green Policy, the true Result
------------------------------------

Flyfisher said:
I'm still a fan of NT's "money = energy" maxim but this implies that the real way to be 'greener' is to live on less money, which seems completely at odds with an economic system that encourages us to earn and spend more and more.

That neatly illustrates what the greens want, to take us far back into the past (financially), about which so much romantic twaddle is written. They want us all to have very little, and to (be able to) spend almost nothing on nonessentials. Live off the land (ie become subsistence farmers earning a pittance) using hand made goods (which are unaffordably expensive) etc. Abolish all those nasty pesticides so we get to harvest even less food, etc.

I'm not a fan of the sheer quantity of frivolity of our present economic system, but it does mean the money and resources are there for both a huge range of needs, and also a large amount of research which makes our lives ever better as the years roll by. And of course that research is the one thing that can genuinely end CO2 production, should it ever be necessary.

We are so wealthy in UK that nearly all of us can have health care whenever we need it, we can get food even if we dont have work, we can afford a fairly thorough police service, education for everyone, and so on. These are all consequences of our profitable society. Taking those away would make life grim.

What would happen in reality if we went 'green' is the 1st and 3rd world would simply swap places. We would retreat into poverty while most of the 3rd world continue to forge ahead and outgrow us. The greens dont have any power over them.

We'd realise the mistake too late. You cant grow an economy at 100s of % a year, 100 years of financial progress would take another 100 years to get back to the wealth we have today.

[Pt Fraser accent = on]
We're doooooomed Cap'n Mannering, we're all dooooomed.
[Pt Fraser accent = off]

actually we're doing ever better. Mean age of death is getting longer and longer as a result. If we went back in time to historic living standards, over half of us here would already be dead. There is a reason why Britain supported so many fewer people 100 years ago.

NT

biffvernon · Sep 18, 2007

NT said:
Are you saying that £1 spent on electricity produces more CO2 than £1 spent on any other assorted goods or service?

No, not necessarily. A joule of coal generated electrical energy gives more CO2 than a joule of energy derived from burning petrol.

NT said:
Or do you mean that 1 molecule of CO2 produced by burning coal gives out less energy than one of oil? Doesnt the same number of carbon molecules burnt equal the same energy output?

with coal the energy comes from the oxidation of carbon, with oil and gas some of the energy comes from the oxidation of hydrogen, so you get more joules per CO2 emitted. That's why not burning coal is more important than not burning oil and gas. So long as a large proportion of electricity is coal generated, saving electricity should be a priority.

biffvernon · Sep 18, 2007

Flyfisher said:
Are you confident that human ingenuity stretches to being able to sustain almost 10 billion people without recourse to oil (or equivalent amounts of energy) within just 4 decades?

No, I'm not at all confident, but neither have I reached the point of utter despair and despond. Wholesale turning of the clock back won't work. But abandoning the use of cement in favour of mud and lime will make a useful contribution. Learning, or re-learning, the arts and crafts of building with locally derived, sustainably produced building materials with a low embodied energy, will help. Combining ancient wisdom with modern understanding about how to insulate houses effectively and heat them efficiently and generate electricity locally, is where the skills around this forum might be useful.

Nemesis · Sep 18, 2007

Nemesis
It may be your lifestyle, it isn't mine.

Flyfisher:
Tut tut - who's wielding the tar brush now?

No tar brush from this end - the word 'may' was used.

And you have stated yourself your preference for flying rather than taking the train - even on journeys within the UK.

OK maybe you pay full fare.

Not all of us have rising debt levels either, some of us are actually solvent, and unless you have evidence to show otherwise then possibly rising debt isn't because people wish to take more cheap flights.

biffvernon · Sep 18, 2007

Meanwhile, another 100000 square kilometers of Arctic ice has gone since the previous report on 9th September.

Why we should think....Part 2

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member