On Wednesday, March 5, 2014 9:42:57 PM UTC, cdemorsella wrote: > > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* John Clark <[email protected] <javascript:>> > *To:* [email protected] <javascript:> > *Sent:* Wednesday, March 5, 2014 7:39 AM > *Subject:* Re: The situation at Fukushima appears to be deteriorating > > On Tue, Mar 4, 2014 at 11:38 PM, Chris de Morsella > <[email protected]<javascript:> > > wrote: > > > The biggest energy source we have available in fact is energy efficiency. > > > >>I am certainly in favor of energy efficiency, only a fool would not be, > but it is not the solution to our energy problem because when a commodity > like energy becomes cheaper people simply use more of it. If somebody > invented a gadget that doubled the fuel efficiency of jetliners it would > not cut in half the amount of fuel that airlines use because people would > fly more often and airplanes would hold fewer people due to their larger > more comfortable seats. > > That is a failure of the markets. If energy efficiency marginally lowers > the rate of consumption of fossil (and other) energy resources thus > increasing the available current supply -- because we almost exclusively > rely on these short term market price signals to determine > consumption/production -- demand will tend to rise. This is well known.... > paradoxically in effect punishing virtue and rewarding a self centered > I-don't-give-a-damn mentality of consuming every resource as fast as > possible. > Over the long term this will lead to our species discovering what the > meaning of going over a cliff really is in the hardest of hard terms -- up > to and including species extinction. > Energy and all other non-renewable and critical resources should be taxed > and taxed heavily -- IMO. This is the other side of encouraging conserving > these critical and non-renewable resources. Take phosphate for example -- > the world is running out of the economically recoverable sources -- mined > principally from just three sources: in Morocco (land seized by Morocco > actually) , Florida, and if I recall somewhere in Russia. There is no > incentive to conserve this vital resource and global supplies seem to have > already peaked. Phosphorous is a critical ingredient of fertilizers. > Relying on market signals alone to determine how -- and at what pace -- > finite resources are consumed is a recipe for disaster. The market will > encourage us to burn through these resources as fast as we can, which is > precisely what our species is doing. > Not the wisest course of action though, and a clear example of how the > market mechanism is sending our civilization over the cliff. > Not you John, but this argument above that somehow made it past the John Clark check point, it's really one of the most gormless market orientations. We can't leave energy decided by the market, we have to ensure rising supply which means sustainable. This is because GDP is hard linked to energy consumptions, and that 'market adjustment' you were just talking about is what's known as a recession. Are you American? I thought you were English. This is the sort of ideology frazzled agenda peddling puke I'd normally associate with neoconservatives.
-- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
