Ashwani says (and ascribing to Ernie), conservation alone would allow
us to grow into the foreseeable future (say, 50 years), without ANY
increase being needed in energy production. I disagree. By
definition, conservation is not growth, but rather maintenance of
natural capital stocks.
I think what Ashwani meant was increased energy efficiency, but I
still disagree because of the mixture of the second law of
thermodynamics and the political economy of growth (which you systems
ecologists might view as the application of Odums maximum power
principle to the economic system (and see that what is selected for is
production/profit, not efficiency)).
Really, its' the macroeconomic goal that counts. Once it's set
correctly, then of course efficiency gains are always welcome. Until
then, efficiency gains are more likely to be limited and will be, in
any event, pyrrhic victories.
Brian Czech, Ph.D., President
Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy
SIGN THE POSITION on economic growth at:
www.steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html .
EMAIL RESPONSE PROBLEMS? Use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-- Ashwani Vasishth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Actually, Ernie's two key points: a) that the US is an astoundingly
wasteful nation when it comes to energy, and so, conservation alone
would allow us to grow into the foreseeable future (say, 50 years),
without ANY increase being needed in energy production; and b) that
the ways in which we are currently responding to the "energy crisis" is
hands down the wrong way to go--what we are doing is merely pandering
to established vested interests, rather than pushing for doing the
right thing (surprise, surprise).
Could we use, say, the ESA, to put a unified message from the ecology
community out there in a clear, simple and loud voice? As matters
stand, we're all chasing our own private Idahos, so to speak.
Cheers,
-
Ashwani
Vasishth [EMAIL PROTECTED] (818) 677-6137
http://www.csun.edu/~vasishth/
http://www.myspace.com/ashwanivasishth
At 08:39 PM +0000 3/31/07, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>"Let's stop crying about the problems and get to work," Ernie Rogers
>says. It's easy to agree, but we should leave Ernie and other
>technologists to get to work on green technology, while others of us
>get to work in explicating, for publics and polities, the fundamental
>conflict between increasing production and consumption of goods and
>services and environmental protection. And a certain amount of
>"crying," as it may be portrayed, is necessary to get voters and
>politicians motivated.
>
>Cheers,
>
>
>Brian Czech, Ph.D., President
>Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy
>SIGN THE POSITION on economic growth at:
>www.steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html .
>EMAIL RESPONSE PROBLEMS? Use [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>-- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>
>I was impressed by the clarity of Wayne Tyson's statement of the
>question.
>The question does deserve an answer. I am quite sure I can refute the
>points
>made by Monbiot. My chosen work is to deal with the energy problem,
>looking
>for solutions. The problem here is whether I should devote the time
>required to make a proper reply, or if I should focus on finding
>solutions.
>
>If you will forgive me, for now I will just offer a general criticism
>that
>applies to most papers like Monbiot's. These writers usually focus on
>the
>problems and don't think through the opportunities. For example,
>inevitably
>there is a cry about the amount of farmland and fresh water that must
>be redir
>ected to biofuel crops. The answer to this is simple-- I agree, we
>should not
>detract from food needs to grow fuels. But, is that an essential part of
>biofuel production? Do we need fresh water, wouldn't deep ocean
>water, rich in
>phosphorus and nitrogen, be a much better source? Would cyanobacteria
>provide a better biofuel "crop," in which case there may not be a
>competition for
>farmland? Lastly, are we sure that a suitable fermentation process can't
>provide both useful food and fuel at the same time?
>
>I am distressed by the almost constant clamor that the U.S. will need "x
>percent more energy" by some future date. This is simply ignoring part
>of the
>solution. We can live very well with much less energy, as other advanced
>countries have already demonstrated. And, if we put our shoulders
>behind finding
>better technology, we can live very well indeed. As an example, I just
>finished a calculation, defining a new transportation vehicle that is
>able to
>travel (in air) at 200 mph carrying 8 passengers and with a fuel
>economy of 113
>miles per gallon. That's five times more efficient than today's best
>transportation system (the Greyhound bus at 160 passenger-miles per
>gallon). With a
>well-developed "bus system" using this new vehicle, U.S. transportation
>requirements could be met with about one-tenth of current fuel needs, all
>supplied very nicely by biofuels.
>
>Let's stop crying about the problems and get to work. I get depressed
> when
>I read about foolish men tearing up precious ecosystems to make fuel.
>
>THE GREATEST DANGER TO EARTH'S DIVERSITY IS GLOBAL WARMING.
>We must stop burning fossil carbon!
>
>Ernie Rogers
>
>>> Is there anyone on this list who can refute the
>>> essential points made in this article?
>>
>> I don't think so. It's a question of quantity. Even
>> if we devote large amounts of cropland to ethanol
>> crops (substantially reducing food production in the
>> process), there's no way to replace
>> soon-to-be-dwindling oil supplies even as demand keeps
>> increasing. The "hard science" can be found in
>> countless posts at www.theoildrum.com and elsewhere.
>>
>We need to stop worrying about global warming and
>start figuring out how we will cope with an economic
>collapse driven by the inability of fuel supply to
>keep up with demand. The subsequent demand
>destruction won't solve the problem either, because
>falling demand will be chasing falling supply levels.
>
>JG
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>************************************** See what's free at
>http://www.aol.com.
