Support the Arctic Sea Ice Forum and Blog

Author Topic: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?  (Read 56041 times)

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #50 on: March 16, 2015, 05:31:06 AM »
Nice rant, Jim.

Now please tell us how we lower CO2 emission levels rapidly other than efficiency and switching from fossil fuels to renewable energy.


JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #51 on: March 16, 2015, 05:58:29 AM »
Degrowth or, as I like to call it, managed collapse.   
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #52 on: March 16, 2015, 06:16:18 AM »
Quote
Degrowth or, as I like to call it, managed collapse. 

And exactly how is this to be accomplished?

How does one manage collapse? 

Who does the managing? 

How is it to be planned and begun on a world wide basis? 

How long would it take to get the world to agree to "collapse"?

What would you do if some countries refuse to collapse?

Who would have the job of assuring that collapse was evenly or fairly distributed?

What steps do you see it requiring?

How would you keep armed bands of angry people from commandeering coal and gas plants and keeping them in service?  Are you thinking some sort of super-army that would blow them away or a military strike on fossil fuel plants in order to put them out of commission?



What would life be like for those people left after the collapse who would be limited, I suppose, to only the wind, solar, hydro and nuclear energy now installed?

Are you envisioning a return to the days of pre-Industrial Revolution and a return to agrarian lifestyles for the majority of people left after the collapse?

How would you assure that the surviving people wouldn't patch together coal and gas plants and start using fossil fuels once more?  Are you thinking a permanent occupying force?

Please answer these questions for me.  I find your concept so interesting....

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #53 on: March 16, 2015, 06:34:15 AM »
I'm rather fascinated with the idea of managed collapse.  Perhaps I misunderstand but what I envision is that countries need to collapse to the extent that they use no more fossil fuels. 

Would that mean that the US would need to collapse down to it's ~35% renewable and nuclear plus losing all petroleum based transportation? 

What about the countries which get 90% to 100% of their electricity from renewable sources - would they be exempt from collapse?  Would the countries that get 60% to 90% be allowed to collapse only 40% to 10%?

Albania (100% hydro in 2008).
Angola (96.45% hydro in 2008)
Austria (73.86% renewable in 2009, 12.5% of that non hydro)
Belize (90.91% hydro in 2008) Update: REEGLE says only about 80%.
Bhutan (99.86% hydro in 2008)
Brazil (88.88% renewable with 4.93 non hydro in 2009)
Burundi (100% hydro in 2008)
Cameroon (77.31% hydro in 2008)
Canada (61.95% renewable, with 1.86% non hydro in 2009)
Central African Republic (81.25% renewable in 2008)
Columbia (85.67% hydro in 2008)
Congo (82.22% renewable in 2008)
Costa Rica (93.11% renewable in 2008)
DPR Korea (61.86%  hydro in 2008)
DR Congo (99.46% hydro in 2008)
Ecuador (64.12% renewable in 2008, with 2.21% non hydro)
El Salvador (62.24% renewable in 2008, with 26.92 non hydro)
Ethiopia (88.17% renewable in 2008, with 0.27% non hydro)
Fiji (68.04% renewable in 2008)
Georgia (85.52% hydro in 2008)
Ghana (75.03% hydro in 2008)
Guatemala (61.31% renewable, with 17.5 non hydro in 2008)
Iceland (100% renewable, with 26.27% geothermal in 2009).
Kenya (62.59% renewable, with 21.06% non hydro in 2008)
Kyrgyzstan (90.85% hydro in 2008)
Lao PDR (92.46% hydro in 2008)
Latvia (62.23% renewable with 1.96% non hydro in 2008)
Lesotho (100% hydro in 2008)
Madagascar (66.67% hydro in 2008)
Malawi (86.31% hydro in 2008)
Mozambique (99.87% hydro in 2008)
Myanmar (62.05% hydro in 2008)
Namibia (70.91% hydro in 2008)
Nepal (99.67% hydro in 2008)
New Zealand (72.52% renewable, including 15.42% non hydro in 2009)
Norway (97.11% renewable, including 0.93% non hydro in 2009)
Paraguay (100.00% hydro in 2008), exporting 90% of generated electricity (54.91 TWh in 2008)
Peru (60.53% renewable, including 1.47% non hydro in 2008)
Sweden (60.42% renewable, including 10.58% non hydro in 2009)
Tajikistan (98.25% hydro in 2008)
Tanzania (61.45% hydro in 2008)
Uganda (74.77% hydro in 2008)
Uruguay (61.98% renewable, with 9.33 non hydro in 2008)
Venezuela (69.57% hydro in 2008)
Zambia (99.69% hydro in 2008)

And if so, what would keep people from collapsing countries from pouring into those countries?  Are you thinking that first we build walls and militarize all the boarders?

Or are you seeing the guilty taking down the innocent with them?

Get back to me.  I need some guidance on which direction to go with this.

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #54 on: March 16, 2015, 08:05:45 AM »
Since analogies have come into play earlier, perhaps one may help here. A party finds itself on a rather narrow ledge high in the mountains. The only ways down are a sheer cliff dropping hundreds of feet to sharp rocks below (to which cliff there are two short paths, one brown, the other green), and off to the side a very steep and rocky slope, the path down which is obscured by rocks and trees.

One in the party proclaims that the green path over the cliff is clearly preferable, since its a nice easy path and everyone is going roughly that direction anyway. When another points out possible descent down the steep path, the first speaker scoffingly asks, insisting that all these questions be answered before such a ridiculous idea could ever be considered:

"And exactly how is this to be accomplished?

How does one manage this descent?

Who does the managing?

How is it to be planned and begun on a climbing-party wide basis?

How long would it take to get us to agree to "descent"?

What would you do if some members refuse to descend?

Who would have the job of assuring that slope was evenly or fairly descended?

What steps do you see it requiring?

How would you keep armed bands of angry people from attacking us during our descent..."

"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #55 on: March 16, 2015, 08:09:47 AM »
Thanks, but I'd prefer Jim flesh out his plan. 

Facts, not analogies.  I need something more than -

a) Settle on managed collapse
b) ?
c) Success

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #56 on: March 16, 2015, 08:54:51 AM »
Sweden is one of the greenest western countries in the world according to germanwatch and has even been prasied by James Hansen.

Image below (SwedenRenewable) from this: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6734513/8-10032015-AP-EN.pdf

Our leaders cheered when ECB announced their decision in January because it will promote growth and consumption. Our prime ministers view.
http://finance.yahoo.com/video/sweden-positive-ecb-qe-pm-133000968.html

And at the other end.

Emissions from the average resident in Gothenburg.


Emissions from Swedish consumption between 1993-2011 has increased 17%.
http://www.naturvardsverket.se/Sa-mar-miljon/Statistik-A-O/Vaxthusgaser--utslapp-av-svensk-konsumtion/

I just observe and what I think won't matter. But as long as the only solution to our leaders is to Get (y)our motor runnin' it seems more like Fire all of your guns at once
And explode into space.




LRC1962

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 446
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #57 on: March 16, 2015, 09:27:54 AM »
In reality to get temperatures and therefore things like sea ice melt under any form of returning to norma, in the end not only must we control emissions to stop the climb of CO2, but also reduce the amount of CO2 already there.
At this point you have 3 camps:
1) The dreamers who think it is possible and want to get there as fast as possible.
2) the lethargic who do understand we need to get there but do not think it really is possible and every little step seems like a giant leap.
3) the giant walls who do not want to change anything, because they are very comfortable the way things are now and who cares about tomorrow.
At this point an old proverb I think is applicable, "a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step".  Mahatma Gandhi I think is a very good example. He had a vision for an independant India. Question: What can 1 man do against the might of the British Empire? Answer: Take a single step, and then another, and then another.
The problem we face today is that we have a lot of willing participants, we desperately need the Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Churchill, Roosevelt, Alexander the Great.. in short we need a leader. That is what so discourages me. And yet I know from history that when things are at their worst leaders do show up, and it is up to the rest of us it be ready. Who knows maybe it is one of us and we do not even know it.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #58 on: March 16, 2015, 02:43:01 PM »
I'm rather fascinated with the idea of managed collapse.  Perhaps I misunderstand but what I envision is that countries need to collapse to the extent that they use no more fossil fuels. 

Would that mean that the US would need to collapse down to it's ~35% renewable and nuclear plus losing all petroleum based transportation? 

What about the countries which get 90% to 100% of their electricity from renewable sources - would they be exempt from collapse?  Would the countries that get 60% to 90% be allowed to collapse only 40% to 10%?

Albania (100% hydro in 2008).
Angola (96.45% hydro in 2008)
Austria (73.86% renewable in 2009, 12.5% of that non hydro)
Belize (90.91% hydro in 2008) Update: REEGLE says only about 80%.
Bhutan (99.86% hydro in 2008)
Brazil (88.88% renewable with 4.93 non hydro in 2009)
Burundi (100% hydro in 2008)
Cameroon (77.31% hydro in 2008)
Canada (61.95% renewable, with 1.86% non hydro in 2009)
Central African Republic (81.25% renewable in 2008)
Columbia (85.67% hydro in 2008)
Congo (82.22% renewable in 2008)
Costa Rica (93.11% renewable in 2008)
DPR Korea (61.86%  hydro in 2008)
DR Congo (99.46% hydro in 2008)
Ecuador (64.12% renewable in 2008, with 2.21% non hydro)
El Salvador (62.24% renewable in 2008, with 26.92 non hydro)
Ethiopia (88.17% renewable in 2008, with 0.27% non hydro)
Fiji (68.04% renewable in 2008)
Georgia (85.52% hydro in 2008)
Ghana (75.03% hydro in 2008)
Guatemala (61.31% renewable, with 17.5 non hydro in 2008)
Iceland (100% renewable, with 26.27% geothermal in 2009).
Kenya (62.59% renewable, with 21.06% non hydro in 2008)
Kyrgyzstan (90.85% hydro in 2008)
Lao PDR (92.46% hydro in 2008)
Latvia (62.23% renewable with 1.96% non hydro in 2008)
Lesotho (100% hydro in 2008)
Madagascar (66.67% hydro in 2008)
Malawi (86.31% hydro in 2008)
Mozambique (99.87% hydro in 2008)
Myanmar (62.05% hydro in 2008)
Namibia (70.91% hydro in 2008)
Nepal (99.67% hydro in 2008)
New Zealand (72.52% renewable, including 15.42% non hydro in 2009)
Norway (97.11% renewable, including 0.93% non hydro in 2009)
Paraguay (100.00% hydro in 2008), exporting 90% of generated electricity (54.91 TWh in 2008)
Peru (60.53% renewable, including 1.47% non hydro in 2008)
Sweden (60.42% renewable, including 10.58% non hydro in 2009)
Tajikistan (98.25% hydro in 2008)
Tanzania (61.45% hydro in 2008)
Uganda (74.77% hydro in 2008)
Uruguay (61.98% renewable, with 9.33 non hydro in 2008)
Venezuela (69.57% hydro in 2008)
Zambia (99.69% hydro in 2008)

And if so, what would keep people from collapsing countries from pouring into those countries?  Are you thinking that first we build walls and militarize all the boarders?

Or are you seeing the guilty taking down the innocent with them?

Get back to me.  I need some guidance on which direction to go with this.

Need I point out that this list contains many, if not most, of the poorest nations in the world whose contribution to global warming is negligible. This is nothing but a stark reminder that the problem of AGW is almost exclusively a developed world problem. If anything, it is a philosophical argument for "managed collapse" of the developed world. I can appreciate your arguing for a green future as it holds out promise of the developed world continuing on a path of wealth and growth needed to sustain that wealth. I am not optimistic that this green approach will allow us to achieve the elimination of CO2 emissions by the middle of the century which we need to do to avoid the devastation of the planet. And if we are going to allow market forces to guide this green revolution then I am certain we are doomed. Whatever solution we, in our limited intelligence devise, will necessarily occur outside of the growth system of capitalism. I have said this before and I will say it again.  We simply cannot grow ourselves out of a problem whose root cause is growth.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #59 on: March 16, 2015, 03:05:25 PM »
I actually had someone here once reply to me that the system of capitalism was not dependent on growth. I was absolutely stunned by the assertion. This idea requires that a person embrace a  complete denial of every single piece of daily evidence to the contrary.

Even if we are able to eventually return to a growth system, the transition to a system, wholly independent of fossil fuels, will take gut wrenching decades and this transitional period can't possibly be one of growth as much of the wealth of the developed nations will have to be poured into the transition. This transition will absolutely devastate entire sectors of the world economy. The fossil fuel industry must cease to exist in decades. This will lay waste to the world wide financial system dependent on the fungible asset of oil. Much, most actually, of our existing capital structure depends on the fossil fuel industry that we need to destroy. Houston, without the oil industry will be a very different place indeed. Walmart, dependent on ocean going transport of 90% of the world's socks will no longer be a viable retail model. I would challenge anyone to point out any significant industry that will not be slammed by this rapid transition and it needs to be rapid.  This level of disruption cannot possibly be absorbed by the system of capitalism.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #60 on: March 16, 2015, 03:14:58 PM »
I wish this were not the case. I've grown up in the wealthiest country in the world. By any measure, I have been highly successful in this system. My children were able to attend some of the finest private universities in the world. They, themselves, have continued on this path as my youngest contemplates medical school and my oldest son begins graduate school in Hawaii, studying tropical  agriculture. As you point out Bob, we have the technology to avoid our fate. What we lack is the  political will.

LRC1962

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 446
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #61 on: March 16, 2015, 03:43:27 PM »
Much, most actually, of our existing capital structure depends on the fossil fuel industry that we need to destroy. I would challenge anyone to point out any significant industry that will not be slammed by this rapid transition and it needs to be rapid.  This level of disruption cannot possibly be absorbed by the system of capitalism.
Granted, There would be major changes. Walmart maybe gone, but are you crying over all the stores it shut down and the number of people put out of work and never got a similar paying job because of their model? Has the economy really gotten better since they started? Going from FF to renewables may put a lot of people out of work. But I think it would actually create more jobs because renewables can actually be produced locally rather then in a massive structure regionally. Will it take decades? Only if it is left up to individuals. If governments forced the issue by law and enforce it by hefty penalties, the transition can be made in a very few years.
Take for example WWII Factories that produced wooden furniture, retrofitted themselves to manufacture one of the most versatile planes of the war, the Mosquito bomber. It did not take years, it took days!
If Walmart was told it was only allowed to sell goods made within 200 miles of its store, out of material that was 100% recyclable and/or 100% compostable for human consumption (compost put on plants that humans then can eat). They would scream and holler, but if the government did not fold, I assure you Walmart would find a way to get it done.
The question is not if it can be done and done quickly. The issue is for the ones at the top they see far more money for them sticking with the status quo than to make any significant industry wide changes. The argument against EVs is there are not enough places to recharge. Simple. Force every gas station to have an electrical charging station. Force every car manufacturer that wishes to sell a vehicle in your country must have an equivalent EV at the same price that can travel the same distance and speed on one 'fill up' and 'filling up' would take the same amount of time. I assure you within a year they would all have those vehicles ready to be sold. The technology is all there at least in the labs. The problem is there is absolutely NO incentive to get it out to market.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #62 on: March 16, 2015, 03:50:07 PM »
LRC...

I am not saying the transition is not possible. It is. What I am saying is it is not possible within the system of capitalism.

LRC1962

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 446
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #63 on: March 16, 2015, 03:54:13 PM »
Another big problem is local bylaws making it very expensive/difficult/impossible to produce your own renewable energy. Simple. Feds tell local bodies that if you wish to get fed money, by next year 10% of all energy used in your area must be renewable and that must double each year thereafter or no fed money. You can take it to the bank that the local body will use every tool it has include land taxes, by laws etc. to meet the targets. And they would be met. Why? Fed money.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

LRC1962

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 446
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #64 on: March 16, 2015, 03:59:17 PM »
LRC...

I am not saying the transition is not possible. It is. What I am saying is it is not possible within the system of capitalism.
Sure it is. Capitalism exist as it is because it is protected and capitalized (how much money do the big businesses get every year from tax breaks to large handouts just to be located where they are) by all levels of government. Since that is the case, Government can easily change the rules of the game. Will it disrupt how businesses work. certainly. will it kill the economy. Not on your life, because those businesses live to keep living.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #65 on: March 16, 2015, 04:04:19 PM »
Another big problem is local bylaws making it very expensive/difficult/impossible to produce your own renewable energy. Simple. Feds tell local bodies that if you wish to get fed money, by next year 10% of all energy used in your area must be renewable and that must double each year thereafter or no fed money. You can take it to the bank that the local body will use every tool it has include land taxes, by laws etc. to meet the targets. And they would be met. Why? Fed money.

Again, you are missing my point. It simply does not matter what policy tools and political decisions  are made to effect this rapid transition, draconian taxes, outright decree or martial law. The destruction of the fossil fuel industry will lay waste to the Houston economy, all of Texas actually. Every single resident will watch the value of their property plummet towards zero as will their hopes  for a comfortable retirement. Everyone else whose investments in the stock market are dependent on the healthy functioning of the current system will see this as well.

The financial news has been dominated by the drop in the price of a barrel of brent crude from over  $100 to $50. Banks will fail, the financial system will take a huge  hit.  Imagine if the price of a  barrel of oil went to $0?

LRC1962

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 446
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #66 on: March 16, 2015, 04:19:15 PM »
So you are saying the only important place in the whole world is Houston.
I will give you an example for the 1700's I believe. The third largest, wealthiest city in the world was (unless you really know you history and geography you could not guess) Potosi, Bolivia. Why it had a mountain with so much silver in it it basically kept the Spanish Empire running on its own. When the Spanish were thrown out of South America and the mines dwindled granted Potosi became a nothing town by world standards. Did the world economy collapse with the loss or economic ruin come to most. No. The world economy adjusted and moved on. Get over it. FF must go. The faster the better for all. FF will not save it from 120F blast furnace it it does not happen, nor from the rage of the rest of the world when they decide Big Oil must pay for all the costs CO2 will cost countries that had nothing to do with that in the first place. Houston has gotten wealthy from the burning of FF. Maybe now it is time to pay the piper.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #67 on: March 16, 2015, 04:27:33 PM »
Get over it. FF must go. The faster the better for all.

I really can't quite understand how you are misunderstanding me so badly.

Fossil fuels must go, every last one of them, within a decade if possible (3 decades at most) and along with their elimination will come the destruction of the system that has been built over the past 150 years on the exploitation of these fuels. We simply will not recognize the economic system that will remain. It will be unbelievably painful and is absolutely necessary.

And this rapid change can only be achieved outside the system of capitalism as it goes against the very logic that the system is built on, the exploitation of capital in the pursuit of wealth.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2015, 04:34:59 PM by Shared Humanity »

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2476
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #68 on: March 16, 2015, 04:47:58 PM »
I actually had someone here once reply to me that the system of capitalism was not dependent on growth. I was absolutely stunned by the assertion. This idea requires that a person embrace a  complete denial of every single piece of daily evidence to the contrary.

It's an empiric question, not philosophical.  By capitalism I take it you mean economic activity happening within a context of money, prices for goods and services, property and property rights, lending and borrowing at interest.

Well, then, in societies which have historically not grown economically for significant periods of time, do these things disappear?  I think the answer is no.
The exception would be episodes of social collapse -- wars, or revolutions that descend into lawless anarchy.  Capitalism depends on a system of government that defines and defends property rights (including that property called money/currency), and regulates marketplaces against things like fraud.  I think that's all that capitalism requires to persist, not growth.

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #69 on: March 16, 2015, 04:48:29 PM »
I actually had someone here once reply to me that the system of capitalism was not dependent on growth. I was absolutely stunned by the assertion. This idea requires that a person embrace a  complete denial of every single piece of daily evidence to the contrary.

Even if we are able to eventually return to a growth system, the transition to a system, wholly independent of fossil fuels, will take gut wrenching decades and this transitional period can't possibly be one of growth as much of the wealth of the developed nations will have to be poured into the transition. This transition will absolutely devastate entire sectors of the world economy. The fossil fuel industry must cease to exist in decades. This will lay waste to the world wide financial system dependent on the fungible asset of oil. Much, most actually, of our existing capital structure depends on the fossil fuel industry that we need to destroy. Houston, without the oil industry will be a very different place indeed. Walmart, dependent on ocean going transport of 90% of the world's socks will no longer be a viable retail model. I would challenge anyone to point out any significant industry that will not be slammed by this rapid transition and it needs to be rapid.  This level of disruption cannot possibly be absorbed by the system of capitalism.

Possibly me?

I still don't see it. We have had rapid globalisation which possibly isn't seen as 'disruption' but it has as much effect on organisation of businesses which have been rapidly changing and will continue to rapidly change even if there isn't such 'disruption'.

"This level of disruption cannot possibly be absorbed by the system of capitalism." makes little sense to me or I struggle to believe things will be as bad as necessary to get that to be near to true or struggle to understand what you are on about.

There will still be people willing to work for what remuneration they can get. Now maybe if EROEI falls inevitably result in much lower standards of living there will be riots and maybe if I imagine the riots to be bad enough maybe most companies won't survive that. But then what? Riots make everyone worse off and if successful maybe there are more government policies to distribute income more fairly. Continuing to riot til we are all dead seems rather pointless and counterproductive. We attempt to cope with the situation as it is then, which means what? a) Entrepreneurs set up businesses again to restore capitalism or b) the government steps in with some alternative system for rationing, and government run businesses to generate those rationed items ???? (I imagine govt to be the target of the riots at least as much as if not more so than businesses, so are they in a position to rapidly expand their activities?) or c) something else - if so, what?

capitalism:
Quote
Capitalism is an economic system in which trade, industries, and the means of production are largely or entirely privately owned and operated for profit.[1][2] Central characteristics of capitalism include private property, capital accumulation, wage labour and, in many models, competitive markets.[3] In a capitalist economy, the parties to a transaction typically determine the prices at which assets, goods, and services are exchanged.

I believe capitalism is remarkable good at getting people to focus on coping with the situations that exist at the current time. I think a) is far more efficient and far more likely than b) and I am not sure what c) is.

Am I managing to talk about capitalism is a state of collapse ie highly negative growth rather than several people suggesting that growth is a requirement for capitalism.

To me some long posts which are described as well written just seem long rants with scattered assertions of things being far worse than scientists are saying they are. Maybe I am just hopelessly optimistic but such posts are read and just seem like pessimistic assertions. Bob's posts seem sensible challenging such negative assertions. Replies like 'that is deluded' do not seem convincing.

Now where is my 'complete denial of every single piece of daily evidence to the contrary'? Has capitalism stopped on previous recessions? How can there be daily evidence? Surely you need evidence of government actions being needed to stop recessions leading to the end of capitalism? Sure governments do try all sort of things, infrastructure investment, monetary policy loosening, QE interest rate reductions.... but do you believe that without such stimuli capitalism would cease to function as a result of a recession? (As opposed to possibly taking a bit longer before growth returns.)

ERORI declines will make people worse off - more inputs are required to get the same energy output so the total of all goods and services are less and these get shared about according to what is negotiated.

Where is the requirement for growth?

LRC1962

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 446
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #70 on: March 16, 2015, 04:56:28 PM »
SH Sorry thought your point was saving status quo. As for capitalism or pursuit of wealth. Sorry that is here to stay. The issue is the balance of power. At one time it resided all in the hands of the king and lords. It was capitalism most of it held by a very few and they had all the power. Same as today. In all eras of world history capitalism was there in one form or another. The only question is who has most of the power and who has the money and where do they want to put it.
In theory the ones who control the law hold the power. The problem is that the ones who hold the money own the own who control the power, and they also keep it for themselves. The ones who control the law must be the ones to take back control of that power (or be forced to), and the ones who hold the money must be willing to spread it around (or be forced to). In the 60's-70's that was very common even in the US. In fact if things were done in the US at that time as they are now. Jobs, Gates, ..... would not have happened.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #71 on: March 16, 2015, 05:15:01 PM »
I actually had someone here once reply to me that the system of capitalism was not dependent on growth. I was absolutely stunned by the assertion. This idea requires that a person embrace a  complete denial of every single piece of daily evidence to the contrary.

Possibly me?

I still don't see it.....

.....Now where is my 'complete denial of every single piece of daily evidence to the contrary'? Has capitalism stopped on previous recessions? How can there be daily evidence? Surely you need evidence of government actions being needed to stop recessions leading to the end of capitalism? Sure governments do try all sort of things, infrastructure investment, monetary policy loosening, QE interest rate reductions.... but do you believe that without such stimuli capitalism would cease to function as a result of a recession? (As opposed to possibly taking a bit longer before growth returns.)

Where is the requirement for growth?

You ask where the requirement for growth is while simultaneously suggesting (correctly I might add) that the system will return to growth absent  intervention by governments.

Meanwhile, we all carefully manage our investments, seeking the kinds of returns (growth in our  investments) to have a secure retirement and, perhaps, leave a bit for our children.

The very logic of the system, its raison d'etre, is growth.....I am not criticizing the system, simply recognizing the pervasive nature and need for growth. The whole point of investment, all investment, is to secure a return on capital. This growth system, fueled by fossil fuels is really quite remarkable and the impact can be found in all manner of charts that trace macro trends in human civilization. All growth systems display a single, unavoidable characteristic, exponential growth. It is why we are encouraged to start saving as young adults...start early and the compounding interest rates will result in far more wealth.

It is not an accident that these charts show an undeniable exponential trend and it is not a coincidence that each does simultaneously. They are inextricably linked.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2015, 05:29:30 PM by Shared Humanity »

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #72 on: March 16, 2015, 05:32:00 PM »
crandles wrote:
Quote
"This level of disruption cannot possibly be absorbed by the system of capitalism." makes little sense to me

Do you think GW is a lesser threat to society than was WWII? Did the US (or any other major power) just leave it up to capitalism to 'solve' that 'problem'? Why do you think we should do so now? Has capitalism gotten much more enlightened in some way than it was then?

"capitalism is remarkable good at getting people to focus on coping with the situations that exist at the current time." ???!!!

Capitalism has been phenomenally bad at getting people to focus on coping with the very biggest situations that exist at the current time: species extinction, GW, resource depletion, overpopulation, nuclear proliferation...

It has been very good at exacerbating the first three of those, and in general in very rapidly turning much of what should have been a rich legacy of vibrant living earth full of various resources for our progeny into endless quantities of local and global toxins.

In fact, looked at from the outside, capital industrial society mainly does that--turns the earth and its resources into poison and waste. Mostly for the dubious benefit of the topmost .001% of the capitalist class (not surprising, since that's what it's named for).

Hooray for capitalism!!
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #73 on: March 16, 2015, 05:41:48 PM »
I know I have taken some heat for using the term capitalism and suggesting the system has only been  in place for, at most, 200 years. I draw a distinction between the nature of human economic activity prior to the industrial revolution and that which has followed. Certainly those who lived through this economic transition saw it as a fundamental transformation (Adam Smith, Marx etc.). I prefer  to think of the pre-industrial economy as a system of mercantilism.

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #74 on: March 16, 2015, 05:50:12 PM »

You ask where the requirement for growth is while simultaneously suggesting (correctly I might add) that the system will return to growth absent  intervention by governments.

It has certainly been normal for there to be growth. That is quite different from a requirement for growth.

If ERORI falls and significantly enough over a certain period such that as a whole we can do less, will there be growth or contraction. Will such contraction necessarily mean the end of capitalism?

Similarly if lots of people decided they want more time with their family and so were increasingly only willing to work part time rather than full time and this was a significant trend, will there be growth or contraction. Will such contraction necessarily mean the end of capitalism?

If it is possible to have contraction rather than growth and for capitalism survive, why do people suggest growth is a requirement? Isn't it more accurate to say it is a usual outcome?



A completely separate question is whether EROEI falling will matter much. If the cost of solar is falling rapidly and is close to or cheaper than ff currently then it seems to me as if Energy return on finance invested (EROFI) will rise. If EROFI rises aren't we better off even before considering externalities?

There is plenty of space in deserts for solar panels without affecting farmland availability for food.
Finance seems the main input for solar and wind unlike ff burning which has marginal costs of use. So this is why I think EROFI is a better measure than EROEI.

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #75 on: March 16, 2015, 05:52:40 PM »


"capitalism is remarkable good at getting people to focus on coping with the situations that exist at the current time." ???!!!

Capitalism has been phenomenally bad at getting people to focus on coping with the very biggest situations that exist at the current time: species extinction, GW, resource depletion, overpopulation, nuclear proliferation...

oops, I think I should have written 'for the time in question' and probably added something about strong tendency to ignore externalities.

I don't think that affects the argument that capitalism can survive without growth so growth is an outcome not a requirement.
« Last Edit: March 16, 2015, 06:05:14 PM by crandles »

AbruptSLR

  • Multi-year ice
  • Posts: 19703
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 2268
  • Likes Given: 286
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #76 on: March 16, 2015, 07:13:43 PM »


"capitalism is remarkable good at getting people to focus on coping with the situations that exist at the current time." ???!!!

Capitalism has been phenomenally bad at getting people to focus on coping with the very biggest situations that exist at the current time: species extinction, GW, resource depletion, overpopulation, nuclear proliferation...

oops, I think I should have written 'for the time in question' and probably added something about strong tendency to ignore externalities.

I don't think that affects the argument that capitalism can survive without growth so growth is an outcome not a requirement.

It seems to me that many people assume that the current socio-economic system that dominates the world marketplace at the moment is pure capitalism; while in fact it is closer to rigged (or crony) capitalism.  There are many different types of capitalism and before we talk about making changes we should be clear about what it is that we are proposing to change.
“It is not the strongest or the most intelligent who will survive but those who can best manage change.”
― Leon C. Megginson

SteveMDFP

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2476
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 583
  • Likes Given: 42
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #77 on: March 16, 2015, 07:33:29 PM »
...
Meanwhile, we all carefully manage our investments, seeking the kinds of returns (growth in our  investments) to have a secure retirement and, perhaps, leave a bit for our children.

The very logic of the system, its raison d'etre, is growth.....I am not criticizing the system, simply recognizing the pervasive nature and need for growth. The whole point of investment, all investment, is to secure a return on capital.
...

Nope.  Imagine an economy in which there is 10% annual inflation, and the best-performing investment classes (stocks, bonds, real estate, whatever) return, on average, 5%.  What do you do with your wealth?  You invest it fully, and watch it lose value by about 5% per year.  The alternative is to stick it under your mattress and watch it lose value by 10% per year.

The system persists, even with negative growth.

LRC1962

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 446
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #78 on: March 16, 2015, 08:14:34 PM »
It seems to me that many people assume that the current socio-economic system that dominates the world marketplace at the moment is pure capitalism; while in fact it is closer to rigged (or crony) capitalism.  There are many different types of capitalism and before we talk about making changes we should be clear about what it is that we are proposing to change.
You are right AbruptSLR. Capitalism is in reality what we perceive it to be or what it should be. I think of capitalism at its core is the movement of goods and services in exchange of other goods or services. The simplest form is the barter system. I grow tomatoes the make things out of wood. I exchange tomatoes for a chair. We now do the same thing but we use some form of cash or credit. The problem today is that such a high percentage of cash and credit is controlled by so few people, the can actually fix the market for their benefit. Much like in the days of the mining towns where the owner of the mine owned everything in the town also including housing with the prices and wages fixed in such a way that the worker entered the town with nothing and left it with nothing and the owner got all the benefits of the number of hours the worker worked. If you do not think it is that bad, follow the money and see who owns what and you will find that the vast majority of this planet is owned by very few people. How it was changed? Government broke up the monopolies and passed a lot of laws to make that impossible to happen again. Unfortunately most current governments have wished to forget what those times were like and gotten rid of all those laws and we have returned to those times.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

crandles

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3379
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 239
  • Likes Given: 81
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #79 on: March 16, 2015, 08:22:55 PM »

It seems to me that many people assume that the current socio-economic system that dominates the world marketplace at the moment is pure capitalism; while in fact it is closer to rigged (or crony) capitalism.  There are many different types of capitalism and before we talk about making changes we should be clear about what it is that we are proposing to change.

Completely agree.

We should regard crony capitalism as a heinous crime. We should pay politicians higher salaries and ban them from second jobs and revolving doorways. Now how can I get elected on such a ticket?  ;) >:( :-\

Capitalism does encourage overspending (and more earning) in a 'keeping up with the Jones' sort of way and advertising assuming that works. We need a social ethic of regarding all advertising as trash that we shouldn't give in to. How do we make that happen?  ???

Cold calling and pressure selling should be banned but politicians don't want to appear anti-business.

Businesses also encourage a laissez-faire capitalism whereas it would be better with politicians believing they have an important role in internalising externalities.

These things are fairly obvious but how do we get them to happen more completely?


Social change is difficult to achieve and often only changes slowly. It is part of the changes needed and so shouldn't be ignored. But I don't expect instant dramatic results. Nor do I expect reaching 100% renewable energy to happen quickly. There is a lot of climate change locked in and more to come because these things take time. There are also risks of passing tipping points before we get to 100% renewable energy so a bumpy ride is quite likely. There is a lot more to be done than a bit of social change and increasing renewables to get to a sustainable future but those are a lot easier if we get the renewable percentage up as quickly as we can.

Am I talking 'managed collapse'? I doubt it collapse seems much to abrupt and dramatic. Managed continuation of capitalism along a green BAU is more what I regard as should and could happen and the name I would apply to it.

Maybe I am too optimistic but pessimism seems counter-productive.

Shared Humanity

  • Guest
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #80 on: March 16, 2015, 08:50:58 PM »
......so growth is an outcome not a requirement.

A distinction without a difference.

JimD

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 2272
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 6
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #81 on: March 16, 2015, 08:53:48 PM »
Quote
Degrowth or, as I like to call it, managed collapse. 

And exactly how is this to be accomplished?

How does one manage collapse? 

Who does the managing? 

How is it to be planned and begun on a world wide basis? 

How long would it take to get the world to agree to "collapse"?

What would you do if some countries refuse to collapse?

Who would have the job of assuring that collapse was evenly or fairly distributed?

What steps do you see it requiring?

How would you keep armed bands of angry people from commandeering coal and gas plants and keeping them in service?  Are you thinking some sort of super-army that would blow them away or a military strike on fossil fuel plants in order to put them out of commission?



What would life be like for those people left after the collapse who would be limited, I suppose, to only the wind, solar, hydro and nuclear energy now installed?

Are you envisioning a return to the days of pre-Industrial Revolution and a return to agrarian lifestyles for the majority of people left after the collapse?

How would you assure that the surviving people wouldn't patch together coal and gas plants and start using fossil fuels once more?  Are you thinking a permanent occupying force?

Please answer these questions for me.  I find your concept so interesting....

I find it pretty amusing that someone who so strongly supports a clearly irrational approach based upon some faith in technical progress and no logical plan at all demands a perfectly detailed plan in its entirety from those he doesn't like.

Anyone can figure out ways to start the process - even you. 

The actual detailed mechanics are not the point .  The point is that degrowth leads towards a much better possible result so that is what you do.  We can figure the details out as we go.  But a few things are certain.  The US, the EU and other wealthy countries must undergo dramatic reductions in lifestyles, energy consumption and consumption of all kinds.  As SH has indicated our economies must move away from capitalism towards sustainable economic systems (a working definition of capitalism is the debt based growth dependent financial system designed to facilitate business growth following the beginning of the Industrial Revolution - it did not exist before that time).  Many confuse free market based concepts with capitalism - they are not at all the same thing.

Besides reducing our carbon emissions we must start the process of dramatic population reductions.  Another hard task admittedly.  But the number one item to deal with.

Yes we must stop burning any fossil fuels and just stopping that will set the path for most changes just as the growth of fossil fuel burning led to most of our bad practices. 

And so on.

We don't have a real alternative so we have to do this.  As difficult as much of what we have to do will be, the thing to keep in mind is that things will be so much worse if we continue on the BAU paths you have been advocating.  It is the path of least pain and suffering, but that in no way means it will be painless.   

Keep in mind that what we are trying to advocate for here is the path which results in the least amount of total pain and suffering.  Nothing else.  It is the only moral and ethical path to take in my opinion.

We are heading to similar places in many respects.  BAU paths will result in a catastrophic collapse which history shows takes one below the sustainable levels and does much more harm to the carrying capacity.  And then there is a rebound.  That rebound depends on the amount of available resources left to utilize, what technical knowledge remains, and how much damage human culture has suffered.

Managed collapse 'should' result in a decline sooner that will see less of the extreme effects of catastrophic collapse.  This 'should' lead to less harmful effects due to declining global carrying capacity and climate change as we will have prevented much of the damage which would occur by following BAU paths.  So one ends up with more resources, less adverse climate effects, greater global carrying capacity, and a higher population base to rebuild from.  Thus less pain, suffering and deaths. 
We do not err because truth is difficult to see. It is visible at a glance. We err because this is more comfortable. Alexander Solzhenitsyn

How is it conceivable that all our technological progress - our very civilization - is like the axe in the hand of the pathological criminal? Albert Einstein

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #82 on: March 17, 2015, 05:27:09 AM »

Quote
Degrowth or, as I like to call it, managed collapse. 

And exactly how is this to be accomplished?

How does one manage collapse? 

(cut to save space)


Please answer these questions for me.  I find your concept so interesting....

I find it pretty amusing that someone who so strongly supports a clearly irrational approach based upon some faith in technical progress and no logical plan at all demands a perfectly detailed plan in its entirety from those he doesn't like.

Anyone can figure out ways to start the process - even you. 

The actual detailed mechanics are not the point .  The point is that degrowth leads towards a much better possible result so that is what you do.  We can figure the details out as we go.  But a few things are certain.  The US, the EU and other wealthy countries must undergo dramatic reductions in lifestyles, energy consumption and consumption of all kinds.  As SH has indicated our economies must move away from capitalism towards sustainable economic systems (a working definition of capitalism is the debt based growth dependent financial system designed to facilitate business growth following the beginning of the Industrial Revolution - it did not exist before that time).  Many confuse free market based concepts with capitalism - they are not at all the same thing.

Besides reducing our carbon emissions we must start the process of dramatic population reductions.  Another hard task admittedly.  But the number one item to deal with.

Yes we must stop burning any fossil fuels and just stopping that will set the path for most changes just as the growth of fossil fuel burning led to most of our bad practices. 

And so on.

We don't have a real alternative so we have to do this.  As difficult as much of what we have to do will be, the thing to keep in mind is that things will be so much worse if we continue on the BAU paths you have been advocating.  It is the path of least pain and suffering, but that in no way means it will be painless.   

Keep in mind that what we are trying to advocate for here is the path which results in the least amount of total pain and suffering.  Nothing else.  It is the only moral and ethical path to take in my opinion.

We are heading to similar places in many respects.  BAU paths will result in a catastrophic collapse which history shows takes one below the sustainable levels and does much more harm to the carrying capacity.  And then there is a rebound.  That rebound depends on the amount of available resources left to utilize, what technical knowledge remains, and how much damage human culture has suffered.

Managed collapse 'should' result in a decline sooner that will see less of the extreme effects of catastrophic collapse.  This 'should' lead to less harmful effects due to declining global carrying capacity and climate change as we will have prevented much of the damage which would occur by following BAU paths.  So one ends up with more resources, less adverse climate effects, greater global carrying capacity, and a higher population base to rebuild from.  Thus less pain, suffering and deaths.
[/size]

Quote
a clearly irrational approach based upon some faith in technical progress and no logical plan at all

Holy horseshit!  Have you paid no attention?

We, over the next 20 to 35 years replace fossil fuels with renewable energy.  What little we've done so far has worked like a charm.  Now we need to do more.  Is that not clear to you?



Quote
we must start the process of dramatic population reductions.

So what are you thinking - infect a lot of volunteers with Ebola and send them scurrying around the globe so that about 90% of us die off?

Brilliant.

Quote
The actual detailed mechanics are not the point .  The point is that degrowth leads towards a much better possible result so that is what you do.  We can figure the details out as we go.

In other words, you don't have a clue.  You don't know where you want the world to go except "down".  You have no idea how to get there.  You've no concern for the misery you would inflict on the world.  You have no idea what the post-apocalypse world would look like.

You're just blowing smoke.

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #83 on: March 17, 2015, 09:00:26 AM »
What do you think of Sweden, Bob?
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1178.msg47707.html#msg47707
It's one of the western countries from the list you posted above.
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1178.msg47698.html#msg47698

In my mind, it's a perfect example of a present western country that's green BAU.

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #84 on: March 17, 2015, 10:30:33 AM »
In other words, you don't have a clue.  You don't know where you want the world to go except "down".  You have no idea how to get there.  You've no concern for the misery you would inflict on the world.  You have no idea what the post-apocalypse world would look like.

You're just blowing smoke.

It's easy, safe and comfortable to talk from a known situation and criticize people who propose stepping into the unknown. That's one of the two main reasons people won't even consider stepping away from BAU, the other reason being decades of consumption culture conditioning and the belief that progress will always find a fix.

A lot of Roman senators probably said the same things in the 4th and 5th century AD.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

Gray-Wolf

  • Grease ice
  • Posts: 948
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 131
  • Likes Given: 458
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #85 on: March 17, 2015, 10:48:40 AM »
We've all seen the forecasts and we don't like to look at the B.A.U. scenario but is not 'stalled' output just a 'B.A.U. /no change indication?
KOYAANISQATSI

ko.yaa.nis.katsi (from the Hopi language), n. 1. crazy life. 2. life in turmoil. 3. life disintegrating. 4. life out of balance. 5. a state of life that calls for another way of living.
 
VIRESCIT VULNERE VIRTUS

LRC1962

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 446
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 11
  • Likes Given: 3
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #86 on: March 17, 2015, 12:19:42 PM »
In some ways I have to smile over BAU.
Anyone remember B&W TVs? How about rotary phones? How about car engines that a handyman could actually do most of the work on himself to keep things going? How about the idea that that everything you needed including jobs was actually within walking or biking distance for the majority of people? How about the days where it was normal for siblings to share bedrooms? How about the day where you could find businesses that you could go to and repair virtually anything you owned? How about being taught by your father that most times cheaper did not save money as you need to replace it more often?
Granted that is showing my age, but when I was young that was BAU. Anyone remember what BAU was like circa 1980? BAU is vastly different in 2014, so successful businesses change fast all the time. It all depends on where the trendsetters are pushing things. Right now it is the Walmarts and Big Oil. If Government did what it should and protected its people for the long term, then it would be the trendsetter.
"All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second,  it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident."
       - Arthur Schopenhauer

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #87 on: March 17, 2015, 02:15:20 PM »
We've all seen the forecasts and we don't like to look at the B.A.U. scenario but is not 'stalled' output just a 'B.A.U. /no change indication?
Some fraction of the CO2 emissions may be 'stalled', but the numbers are not in yet, and he won't say what part of it he refers to. I'd say it's non–news and propaganda, for now. Like saying in March that September sea ice will be back to 1980s averages.
[]

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #88 on: March 17, 2015, 02:20:31 PM »
In other words, you don't have a clue.  You don't know where you want the world to go except "down".  You have no idea how to get there.  You've no concern for the misery you would inflict on the world.  You have no idea what the post-apocalypse world would look like.

You're just blowing smoke.

It's easy, safe and comfortable to talk from a known situation and criticize people who propose stepping into the unknown. That's one of the two main reasons people won't even consider stepping away from BAU, the other reason being decades of consumption culture conditioning and the belief that progress will always find a fix.

A lot of Roman senators probably said the same things in the 4th and 5th century AD.
In a sense, because BAU is theft from future generations, Bob is asking us here:

'Without theft, what would people do all day in the big cities? I want exact info on what everyone in the city will do all day and through the year, when they can no longer steal.'  ;D
[]

P-maker

  • Frazil ice
  • Posts: 389
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 72
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #89 on: March 17, 2015, 03:26:06 PM »
BAU means growth!

We may discuss details and colours, but essentially all kinds of BAU dogmas implies some kind of material or economic growth somewhere in the system.

Sleepy was asking Bob, whether Sweden could be considered an example of a Green Growth economy.

In my opinion, no! Let me try to explain.

Over the past 50 years the growth rates in Sweden have gone down, natural resources have been depleted and many large companies sold to foreign investors. An increasing amount of goods are now being imported from abroad. If no immigration had occurred, the population would also have declined.

Degrowth on the other hand would have included a larger focus on energy efficiency – spending less energy overall – and importing less of the useless stuff from abroad. Renewable energy could have been spent more wisely – e.g. on sustainable mining and manufacturing processes. Research and development could have led to more efficient production of sustainable biofuels. Forests could have been trimmed and thus less vulnerable to insect attacks, storms and fires. Power lines could also have been more secure (of great benefit to your neighbours) in a tighter economy based mainly on local resources.

Sweden may look green on the outside, but is still red and social democratic inside. Water melons grow fine, if you add water and plenty of horse shit…

Sleepy

  • Guest
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #90 on: March 17, 2015, 05:05:31 PM »
P-maker, did you read my previous post?
Has the growth rates gone down the last fifty years?


The color doesn't matter. We just shifted from blue to the new blue, red.

Lewis C

  • New ice
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #91 on: March 17, 2015, 05:46:15 PM »
In other words, you don't have a clue.  You don't know where you want the world to go except "down".  You have no idea how to get there.  You've no concern for the misery you would inflict on the world.  You have no idea what the post-apocalypse world would look like.

You're just blowing smoke.

It's easy, safe and comfortable to talk from a known situation and criticize people who propose stepping into the unknown. That's one of the two main reasons people won't even consider stepping away from BAU, the other reason being decades of consumption culture conditioning and the belief that progress will always find a fix.

A lot of Roman senators probably said the same things in the 4th and 5th century AD.

BAU seems to me a deficient term for this discussion - it has changed massively in my lifetime, for the worse, in that resource consumption and wastes dumping have been and still are increasing, and that sense of 'Usual' is understood only by an elite of specialists who focus on the issue. Business-as-Despoiler would be nearer the mark.

Plainly to propose the alternative of a steady state economy at a time where we are on track to crash the ecological system - with the proximate threat being of the onset of serial global crop failures during the 2020s - would demonstrate a detatchment from present reality in favour of some future idyll.

The present goal clearly needs to be of declining resource consumption and the terminantion of dumping. Given the elemental forces our misconduct has empowered, such as the acceleration of Albedo Loss, beside that goal we plainly also have to cleanse the system of our wastes and to treat the symptoms they generate - most particularly the warming - during the decades that cleansing will inevitably require.

That immense new economic activity cannot rationally be called 'degrowth', not least because it includes such changes as the growth of a new global forest industry in "Carbon Recovery for Food Security" across around 1,600 million hectares of non-farmland, employing up to 100 million people. "Global Re-orientation" might be a more apt term for the changes needed.

'Degrowth' appears to be used as a euphemism for the decline of a technologically advanced society with an accompanying population crash, which it is wrongly assumed would resolve not only the climate threat but also other issues of declining resources.
There are various flaws in that assumption:
- that the desperation of those up against the wall would not lead to conflict and the permanent widespread loss of soil fertility - through nuclear and other contamination such as chem/bio-weapons;
- that the Major Interactive Feedbacks would not continue their acceleration pushing climate destabilization and ocean acidification far beyond the possibility of reliable food suppies;
- that a crash would not lead to a marginally reduced population under a high tech dictatorship that applies unchecked power to operate a society where the remaining resources are consumed in succession supporting a steadily declining global population under worsening conditions.

In arguing for a crash, and so scorning global efforts for a soft landing, a proponent appears to seek an abdication of responsibility for the outcome - without local, provincial, regional and global coherence being maintained and raised, that coherence is declining into an increasingly chaotic flux where the bully/bandit/warlord is increasingly irresistable, and concerns for resources, future generations, etc are off the table. (Note that 'coherence' is used here in the sense of formal fully accountable co-operation, not the rigidity of a coersive hierarchy's control).
OTOH if that coherence is being raised to improve society's chances of a soft landing with minimal resource consumption and an end to dumping, then the goal is definitely not of achieving a crash.

I've yet to see any case presented where a crash can be proposed as part of raising the coherence of popular interactions - apart from occasional death-cults people generally have no interest in discussing the voluntary intentional collapse of all they hold dear. It is a doomer ideology that serves no one but the organizers of denial of the need for radical change who want to see the status quo maintained.

Here's to the softest landing that consensual politics allows !

Regards,

Lewis






viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #92 on: March 17, 2015, 06:52:31 PM »
I've yet to see any case presented where a crash can be proposed as part of raising the coherence of popular interactions - apart from occasional death-cults people generally have no interest in discussing the voluntary intentional collapse of all they hold dear. It is a doomer ideology that serves no one but the organizers of denial of the need for radical change who want to see the status quo maintained.

Here's to the softest landing that consensual politics allows !

Cheers, there, Lewis!

Seems pretty clear from your writing that you believe in some pie–in–the–sky wonderful techno–fix (sulphur–related) to save the day for humanity and Big Business. Well, I hate to break it to you, son, but that's not gonna happen. Not for the lack of trying, mind you, but the lack of it having the intended effect. We're currently in atari, and it's not a pretty sight, with people clinging on to their beliefs in more–of–the–same, only with a tint of green. Landing will not be soft only because you close your eyes; if you jump from a skyscraper, it makes no difference what your thoughts are as you fall closer and closer and faster and faster to the ground. Nor will averages save you from the end result. It's the end that matters, and 'soft' is not the appropriate word to describe it.

I'm pretty sure the national security apparatus has its plans for the endgame, and that society will be ever more openly despotic as we proceed towards a collapse, one way or the other. The continuity of government with no voting booths. Deciding will not be up to us ordinary folks, and the info shared with us will be scant, at best. However, we have to assume these people will not be fools, that they to a degree are 'the best and brightest'. Does that mean we'll have Green BAU as de–facto endgame strategy? I seriously doubt it. Deciders will more likely opt for a snappy collapse, wiping us out, hoping for a Clean Break tabula rasa fresh start.
[]

wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #93 on: March 17, 2015, 07:40:32 PM »
Lewis, you can make assumptions about what people are using as euphemisms for what, or you can actually search for terms like 'degrowth' (or it's fancier sounding French equivalent, décroissance --everything sounds better in French, after all!  ;)) and see that there is already a fairly large body of scholarly work on the subject. You can start with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth and go from their links. The school of thought is already nearly a half century old.

Here's another website devoted to the project of moving to something like a sustainable society without causing more than necessary pain and suffering on the way there: http://prosperouswaydown.com/

Another topic to search is Contraction and Convergence, starting again with good ol' wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contraction_and_Convergence

I can supply dozens of other links immediately and with a bit of searching, probably thousands more than that, if you really are interested in something other than your own dismissive assumptions and want to bother doing your own search. 

Keep in mind that there is no monolithic rigid ideology in any of these approaches, and there is much debate within and between them about details. What everyone mostly gets, though, is that anything resembling BAU--green, brown, or any other color--is not in the cards and not something we should be aiming for.
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Neven

  • Administrator
  • First-year ice
  • Posts: 9470
    • View Profile
    • Arctic Sea Ice Blog
  • Liked: 1333
  • Likes Given: 617
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #94 on: March 17, 2015, 08:38:18 PM »
You can't just lump in décroissance, steady state economics, and planned collapse with each other, just to make it easier to wipe everything except the known and conventional off the table. They are all alternatives to BAU (ie the neoclassical model of infinite GDP growth), but that doesn't mean they don't have anything to offer. Just like your geo-engineering ideas and Bob's pushing of renewables have something to offer, but will not take away the root cause of most, if not all, global problems.

Quote
Plainly to propose the alternative of a steady state economy at a time where we are on track to crash the ecological system - with the proximate threat being of the onset of serial global crop failures during the 2020s - would demonstrate a detatchment from present reality in favour of some future idyll.

It sounds like you want to grow away the crash of the ecological system, which of course sounds paradoxical, to say the least. Perhaps it would even be possible if AGW was the only limit we're bumping into because of the exponential growth so far. But we aren't, we're bumping into other limits as well, the global financial crisis being the most conspicuous.

These other problems will drag any solution for one problem down into quicksand. And so you need to not only implement your solution (be it renewables or massive biochar production), but at the same time do everything you can to remove the root cause.
The enemy is within
Don't confuse me with him

E. Smith

viddaloo

  • Nilas ice
  • Posts: 1302
  • Hardanger Sometimes
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 1
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #95 on: March 17, 2015, 09:10:02 PM »
What everyone mostly gets, though, is that anything resembling BAU--green, brown, or any other color--is not in the cards and not something we should be aiming for.
How about Pink BAU? BAU women on top instead of BAU men? Likely quick fix, no?

[]

Lewis C

  • New ice
  • Posts: 62
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 0
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #96 on: March 17, 2015, 10:31:58 PM »
Neven -

I hope we may agree the need of the massive growth of new aspirations, new politics, new conduct and new technologies as being pre-requisite for the control of the predicament we face.

It is for this reason that I find 'decroissance' to be a crass misnomer, in that is profoundly unhelpful as a title for the growth we need. It is in origin reactionary, in that it is a reaction against the absurd assumptions of infinite growth, rather than a commensurate response to that folly that describes the necessary change. For that purpose a title of 'global re-orientation' seems more apt, though there may well be better terms. That re-orientation then obviously demands a new metric for the equitable and efficient evaluation of societies' economic performance.

My revered acquaintance, the late Fritz Schumacher (if anyone's unaware, wrote "Small is Beautiful" around 1971) spoke not of degrowth but of building a new and sustainable economy as the old one decayed around us. Many who heard his talks and read his books responded by getting trained in rare skills and starting small enterprises, but without the accompanying political changes most were wiped out in later recessions, and society's course was little changed. The lesson for us was that without re-orienting the politics the physical changes we seek will not take root and flourish.

You'd be wrong to think I oppose a steady state economy in the slightest; but it doesn't seem relevant in our present circs where we face an existential struggle against diverse threats, of which AGW is only the nearest. The point perhaps needs making that if some generations hence our descendants achieve a steady state economy then they will have wiped out imperialism globally, for any residual aspiration to dominance would of course break the boundaries of resource use for the wealth to build weaponry that other peaceable states could not resist. The aspiration to dominance is in my view the underlying driver of unsustainable resource extraction, with the historical record showing this to be the case as far back as Mesopotamia.

By contrast the proposal of 'managed collapse' doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. While it is standard practice to demolish structures of steel and concrete such as the twin towers into their own footprint, attempting to collapse a structure of people's loyalties, dependencies and desires is nothing like predictable as to the outcome. For a start resistance will take unexpected forms as individuals apply their imaginations to the threat they face. And we can be sure that the forces of stasis will utilize every scrap of polarization of opinion that our efforts generate.

Ending a social construct safely is thus nothing like a collapse; it is a deliberate process of dismantling while providing the attraction of a desirable alternative for a minimum of resistance and maximum speed of change. While the intent and also the outcome may appear revolutionary, the process has to be one of perestoika - restructuring - to be efficient in resources and time expended and outcome achieved. (Gorbachev is worth reading on the issue)

From this I hope that it is plain that I fully agree with your statement:
Quote
These other problems will drag any solution for one problem down into quicksand. And so you need to not only implement your solution (be it renewables or massive biochar production), but at the same time do everything you can to remove the root cause.

However, to hold coherent discussions on particular aspects of the mitigation of climate destabilization, and to make useful progress, it is surely necessary to focus rather than being continuously diverted into the grand overall picture ? Or by others trying to explain how we are doomed by the evil plans of the plutocratic far right ?  There may be such plans - that demand concerted resistance rather than defeatism - but at what point are they simply off-topic in a thread on Emissions Control ?

Regards,

Lewis
(Master Wheelwright & Carriage-builder)



wili

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3342
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 602
  • Likes Given: 409
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #97 on: March 17, 2015, 11:44:12 PM »
Lewis, how cool that you knew Shumacher. He was truly an inspiration. And many in the degrowth movement see him as a predecessor.

If small is indeed beautiful--and I hope you can see that most of what current modern industrial society is, is not small or beautiful--then clearly we have to shrink or 'degrow' a lot of things to get to the desired small steady state.

But degrowth doesn't mean that absolutely nothing ever grows one inch.

It means that the size of the overall economy needs to shrink, and especially the levels of hyper-consumption...

I could go on, but you should really read a bit about it before making broad, dismissive assumptions about it.

ETA:

And here's a new essay by Heinberg relevant to the general discussion: http://www.resilience.org/stories/2015-03-16/only-less-will-do

Only Less Will Do

Quote
When I’m not writing books or essays on environmental issues, or sleeping or eating, you’re likely to find me playing the violin. This has been an obsessive activity for me since I was a boy, and seems to deliver ever more satisfaction as time passes. Making and operating the little wooden box that is a violin is essentially a pre-industrial activity: nearly all its parts are from renewable sources (wood, horsetail, sheepgut), and playing it requires no electricity or gasoline. Violin playing therefore constitutes an ecologically benign hobby, right?

It probably was, a couple of centuries ago; now, not so much. You see, most violin bows are made from pernambuco, a Brazilian hardwood that’s endangered because too many bows have already been made from it. Ebony, too, is over-harvested; it’s used for making fingerboards, tuning pegs, and bow parts. Some fancy older violin bows are even decorated with tortoiseshell, ivory, and whalebone. And while maple and spruce (the main woods from which violins are constructed) are not endangered, whole forests are being cut in China to meet the burgeoning global demand for student instruments. Modern strings (most of which are made using petroleum derivatives) are often wound with nonrenewable silver or aluminum, and almost nobody tries to recycle them.
You see, the real problem with violins is one of scale. If there were only a few thousand violinists in the world, making and playing fiddles would have negligible environmental impact. But multiply these activities by tens of millions and the results are deforestation and species extinctions.

Quote
Maybe the bright greens (or should I say, pseudo-greens?) [his term for what we have been calling 'Green BAU'] are right in saying that “less” is a message that just doesn’t sell.

But offering comforting non-solutions to our collective predicament accomplishes nothing.

Maybe the de-growth prescription is destined to fail at altering civilization’s overall trajectory and it is too late to avoid a serious collision with natural limits. Why, then, continue talking about those limits and advocating human self-restraint? I can think of two good reasons.

The first is, limits are real.

When we decline to talk about what is real simply because it’s uncomfortable to do so, we seal our own fate.

I, for one, refuse to drink that particular batch of Kool-Aid.

The second and more important reason: If we can’t entirely avoid the collision, let us at least learn from it—and let’s do so as quickly as possible.
 

All traditional indigenous human societies eventually learned self-restraint, if they stayed in one place long enough...
« Last Edit: March 18, 2015, 02:27:40 AM by wili »
"A force de chercher de bonnes raisons, on en trouve; on les dit; et après on y tient, non pas tant parce qu'elles sont bonnes que pour ne pas se démentir." Choderlos de Laclos "You struggle to come up with some valid reasons, then cling to them, not because they're good, but just to not back down."

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #98 on: March 18, 2015, 06:07:16 AM »
What do you think of Sweden, Bob?
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1178.msg47707.html#msg47707
It's one of the western countries from the list you posted above.
http://forum.arctic-sea-ice.net/index.php/topic,1178.msg47698.html#msg47698

In my mind, it's a perfect example of a present western country that's green BAU.

Gets pretty cold there in the winter.  (I haven't paid a lot of attention to Sweden.) 

Different countries are going to find different routes to cleaning their grids.  Resources vary from country to country.

Actually, I think we look at Europe as a whole (excluding Russia).  I suspect the EU will end up operating as one big grid as is happening in the 'lower 48' US.

Bob Wallace

  • Young ice
  • Posts: 3855
    • View Profile
  • Liked: 41
  • Likes Given: 5
Re: Can we ever stop the rise of CO2?
« Reply #99 on: March 18, 2015, 06:09:52 AM »
In other words, you don't have a clue.  You don't know where you want the world to go except "down".  You have no idea how to get there.  You've no concern for the misery you would inflict on the world.  You have no idea what the post-apocalypse world would look like.

You're just blowing smoke.

It's easy, safe and comfortable to talk from a known situation and criticize people who propose stepping into the unknown. That's one of the two main reasons people won't even consider stepping away from BAU, the other reason being decades of consumption culture conditioning and the belief that progress will always find a fix.

A lot of Roman senators probably said the same things in the 4th and 5th century AD.

So you also think we should start a campaign of actively killing people?  Get rid of a few billion so that our CO2 levels drop?