SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
The world's fossil fuel companies risk wasting billions of dollars of investment by not taking global action to fight climate change seriously, according to the chief economist of the International Energy Agency (IEA).
Fatih Birol, who will take the top job at the IEA in September and is one of the world's most influential voices on energy, warned that companies making this mistake would also miss out on investment opportunities in clean energy.
...
The World Bank and Bank of England have already warned of the serious risk climate action poses to trillions of dollars of fossil fuel investments and the G20 is investigating the risks. The think-tank Carbon Tracker has estimated that over $1tn (£0.6tn) of oil investments and $280bn of gas investments would be left uneconomic if the world's governments succeed in their pledge to limitglobal warming to 2C.
The warnings are based on policy proposals that are entirely creatures of human decisions rather than hard economic realities. Then again, all demand is ultimately the product of human decisions.
Original Submission
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday July 15 2015, @05:29PM
2. A pseudo-religious belief in infinite economic growth, which AGW specifically challenges
I'm curious about this idea. How does AGW specifically challenge infinite economic growth? I thought the point was to move to renewables, conservation and increased efficiency and away from fossil fuels. One of the selling points I hear all the time is that don't have to give up industry and jobs, just have more green jobs that will improve the economy. Is your view that it requires contraction? Limiting population growth is certainly part of the solution space, but not economic improvement.
Besides, the driver of this infinite economic growth requirement is not fossil fuels, it's the fiat monetary system and central banking in a fractional reserve banking system, as well as a significant welfare state (social safety net, if you prefer). A comprehensive global plan for climate change would actually increase the reliance on these things.
Just curious what your viewpoint is on point.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fritsd on Wednesday July 15 2015, @11:04PM
I have unfortunately forgotten most of what I read about this topic on the Oildrum blog. So correct me if I'm wrong.
The maximum energy input at the moment is maxed out fossil fuels (we're there) + maxed out renewable sources (we're not there yet).
After the fossil fuels are gone, the maximum energy input is determined by the maxed out renewable sources.
The ultimate source of energy for all renewable sources is the sun, which is a constant.
So we're on an asymptote to a constant energy influx. How then can you have infinite economic growth, when just the population growth leads to a "Stand on Zanzibar" in a really short time (centuries)?
And about money: money is a lot less real than the other things mentioned here. Wasn't there some economic bureau that defined the "Big Mac index", what amount of money do you need to buy a hamburger in your country?
So with your "fiat monetary system" and "fractional reserve banking", you might have infinite economic growth, yes, but it doesn't matter for people if they have to work hard for a day to buy 3 hamburgers for $ 3, or if they have to work hard for a day to buy 3 hamburgers for 3 000 000 "zimbabwe $". And if you can't put food on the table with a day of work, as an average world citizen / breadwinner, then there's a problem.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday July 16 2015, @12:20AM
So with your "fiat monetary system" and "fractional reserve banking", you might have infinite economic growth, yes, but it doesn't matter for people if they have to work hard for a day to buy 3 hamburgers for $ 3, or if they have to work hard for a day to buy 3 hamburgers for 3 000 000 "zimbabwe $". And if you can't put food on the table with a day of work, as an average world citizen / breadwinner, then there's a problem.
Well, yes, you're correct. But the other feature is that it perpetually concentrates wealth. Eventually, regardless of the numeric value of the currency, it takes more and more work to make up for the continually inflating cost of goods. We are seeing this now in the disparate income growth of people in the US. Studies show how most incomes since remained flat, while high earners have seen income growth and low earners seeing less income (adjusting for inflation).
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday July 16 2015, @01:38PM
Here's the expanded version of that argument:
Premise A. Economic growth requires energy.
Premise B. The only known sources of consistent energy are fossil fuels and biofuels, but biofuels have a maximum capacity that is far too inefficient to use universally.
Conclusion C. Ergo (per A and B), sustainable economic growth demands consistent access to and use of fossil fuels.
Premise D. AGW says you can't use fossil fuels in anything close to the levels we currently are.
Conclusion E. Ergo (by contrapositive C and D), AGW puts an end to sustainable economic growth.
I don't entirely agree with this argument, but many do (it's been driving US foreign policy for approximately the last 40 years). The weak point in the argument is Premise B: Environmentalists argue that solar + wind + biofuels + other alternatives + batteries + improved energy efficiency can provide the necessary capacity for growth, while technological utopia believers argue that a yet-to-be-discovered system for energy extraction (e.g. cold fusion) will come along and solve everything. I personally land mostly on the environmentalists' side on this question, but reasonable people can disagree about it.
All of this is about real material economic growth, as in the expansion of the productive capacity of a society, as in producing 105 widgets when a year ago the same amount of human labor produced only 100 widgets. That is only tangentially related to fiat currency and central and reserve banking, which has to do with nominal growth (measured in money) more than real growth (measured in actual useful goods and services).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.