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: 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