What Are Your Energy Policy Recommendations?
Posted by Robert Rapier on February 2, 2007 - 11:15am
Topic: Policy/Politics
Tags: conservation, energy policy, gas tax, sustainability [list all tags]
Let’s brainstorm some solutions to our fossil fuels crisis. Let’s say that you have been made dictator of the world. Your policies are going to be implemented without question. What energy policies would you enact? (Let’s restrict this to energy, as this could really get way off topic otherwise.)
Here is what I would do (with respect to the U.S.) I would go on TV and just have a frank conversation with the public. I would hit on both Global Warming and Peak Oil, explaining that we have to find other energy solutions because 1). Peak Oil is going to force us to; and 2). Global Warming is strongly suggesting that we do it ASAP. I would go on to explain that there are no magic technological solutions waiting in the wings to save us. We aren’t going to go to the filling station and fill up on E85 or hydrogen. At least not any time soon. Sacrifice is required, for the sake of future generations. I would explain some of the possible scenarios if we don’t begin to sacrifice now. We either plan it now, or it hits us later with no parachutes for the fall.
The problem, I would explain, is that fossil fuels are simply too cheap. We use them too casually. We must stop doing this. We have to stop and really think about our fossil fuel usage. So, starting today, the tax on fossil fuels will be increased by $3/(barrel of oil equivalent) each month for at least the next 3 years, at which time this tax will be reviewed. The tax will apply to crude oil, natural gas, coal, tar sands, shale oil, etc. All fossil fuels. This tax increase is only $0.0714 per gallon per month (with an additional increment of $0.0714 per gallon each month), and a tax credit will be initially be provided for those making less than $50,000 a year (because I am a benevolent dictator). The tax credit in the early years will be high enough to offset the impact on the average consumer’s life. However, given that you know prices are going to be increasing, there is a tremendous incentive to begin conserving. Our ultimate objective is sustainability.
The money raised from this tax will be funneled into public transportation, alternative fuel research, conservation incentives, and the development of walkable communities. Proposals will be reviewed by a panel of scientists and engineers from the appropriate disciplines in academia and industry. Suggestions from the public are welcome, and will be considered based on technical merit. (No cars that run on water, though).
So, that would be the cornerstone of my energy policy. What are your suggestions? What are some alternatives to this? Or do you believe the market will provide, and such steps are unnecessary?
Dang R2, now for a second repost!
-------
I think you misunderstand what I am trying to get at. Let me be a little more elaborate on what I was thinking. Contrary to what many might say, there is more then enough uranium and thorium to allow us to produce most if not all of our electricity via nuclear fission. The current breakdown in energy generation in the US is:
18% Nuclear
15% Hydro
2% Wind and Solar
5% Oil
14% Natural GAs
46% Coal
From my understanding, Coal and Nuclear are considered 'base load' energy producers, as they can not be turned off and on quickly enough to meet rising and falling energy demand. Instead we use oil, gas and hydro with a dash of renewable energy generation to meet peak load.
As per these limitations, its hard to have more then 50% nuclear energy generation unless you have a viable way to either store the energy, or export the energy to other countries. France does the latter, but no one does the former.
Hydrogen of course is extremely difficult to store for long durations, and very difficult to transport from one location to another for on site use, such as in transportation. But it seems to me that people have largely ignored one option.
What I'm suggesting, or at least asking questions about, is what is preventing the US, aside from political opposition, from increasing our nuclear energy generation ratio to around 60%, and using the excessive energy generation for hydrogen production from electrolysis. The hydrogen could be stored in large containers at night time when not needed, and used in hydrogen fired power plants during the day to meet peak load, as opposed to using NG.
Any excessive hydrogen generation could be processed into ammonia for fertilizers and for upgrading very heavy hydrocarbon deposits for limited oil use in earth moving equipment or transportation. Granted, such a schemed would reduce the already extremely high EROEI of nuclear from 100+ to 1 to perhaps 33% less, as energy is obviously lost in creating and storing hydrogen than can be produced by using hydrogen in a gas fired plant.
The benefits of such a setup are numerous:
1. As I already mentioned, the hydrogen can be used for a variety of critical fields.
2. We would not require a complete retooling of our infastructure to store energy, unlike other proposals to have giant molten salt flats or huge caverns of latent wind energy, or even pumped water storage in a mountain hold.
3. It would replace most, if not all of our electrical carbon pollution in the long term.
4. We could build both nuclear and hydrogen fired gas plants at the same site, eliminating much of the transportation costs.
Assuming such a plan were put into place, I could easily see a setup like this:
60% Nuclear
15% Hydro
25% Hydrogen Gas
+10% Hydrogen 'storage' and 'upgrading'
In short, to me it seems to be a win-win situation for all. But that brings me back to my original question:
Assuming this setup in which hydrogen generation is obviously not a problem, what are the technical limitations to using hydrogen instead of natural gas in a gas fired power plant?
-------
Now, in addition to this, I would mandate that all new vehicles produced would be hybrids, followed by plug in hybrids and eventually full EVs. This transition would take 5-10 years until every new vehicle produced is an EV. I would also ban incandescent light bulb sales from the beginning, and set up a new building code that requires one light switch operated power outlet to be placed in every room in the house. Think of all the 'phantom load' energy we would save :P
Hothgor - If the issue is one of short term energy storage why not use compressed air in salt caverns? The geology can accept a high degree of overpressure; Spindletop proved that. When generation is greater then demand you run compressors rather then the generators. When peak loads come on you begin to draw down your compressed air storage.
I may be wrong here but it seems this would be a lot cheaper to implement then hydrogen storage. As for storage locations, I understand the USA has something called an SPR which will probably empty out pretty quick once peak oil arrives.
Cheers!
There are only certain geographical areas where compressed air or water storage is actually viable. For the vast majority of the country, no such options are available. The hydrogen storage is not really a costly part of this setup: we are talking about storing hydrogen over night to be used during the day. Some leaking is expected to happen, but the point is that you can build these storage tanks on site of your dual nuclear/hydrogen gas power plants and use it as needed. The rest could be siphoned off for ammonia production and heavy hydrocarbon upgrading, as I already mentioned. The total EROEI of the nuclear plant would most likely only be reduced by about 33%. When your talking about a setup that has 100+ to 1 EROEI, its a non-issue.
From an economic standpoint, I think it would be FAR cheaper to do this then to build high capacity power lines to 'ship' power from storage sites to where its needed, not to mention build the infrastructure required for geological energy storage. And as I mentioned on another thread, the cost of such a system is probably dramatically cheaper then trying to build enough wind turbines to meet our base load. Someone mentioned it would cost $600 billion to 1 trillion to build the 240 nuclear power plants needed. How much would it cost to build 1.2 TWh of wind turbines?
Edit: I seem to recall that our power grid was estimated to need 1-2 trillion in funding to upgrade it for variable energy production. The economic benefits of this setup should speak for itself.
If you are dictator of the world, you can build as many nuclear power stations as you like. You can even elect to throw 50% of their power output away to sattisfy peak without storage because on this massive scale you can build them so cheaply that even that won't matter. And since your underlings can't complain when a couple of them blow up because you chose not to install any safety measures, even that won't matter. That's how the USSR used to deal with problems. Look how well it worked for them.
The bottom line is that if you are a democratically elected politician, you can't do any of this.
The challenge is therefor posed in the wrong way. Not every technical solution that would work in principle will be practical in the real world.
"Not every technical solution that would work in principle will be practical in the real world."
true, but EVERY solution that will be practical in the real world will work in principle. So RR is proposing a brainstorming session to come up with technically feasible strategies. It is like in an intro physics class when they say "assume no friction" it is to make the problem work with the pure equation. There are thousands of environmental and political/economic factors in the experiment but are ignoring those for the initial session. Hammer out the details later.
Thats why I'm focused on liquid nitrogen or frozen C02 storage. Liquidfied methane or other organic or cheap refrigerant is a possibility.
Liquid nitrogen is the most interesting IMHO.
Use corn or other biological material instead oil,gas,coal for generation of electicity seems like an obviously solution. Railroad instead of trucks must be a very good idea the energy consumption is much lower and maximum allowed speed for freighter trains at least in sweden are 120km/h = 74.6mph which is faster than the maximum allowed speed for trucks.
Great discussion topic. Thanks, Robert.
Tradeable credits (or, somewhat less effectively, a tax credit that is independent of quantity consumed) give a strong incentive to conserve. When this was suggested a few months ago, numerous flames erupted, and that response puzzled me. If you're rich, you can still drive your Hummer. If you're not, you can drive less and more economically, share rides, and so on-keep your costs lower and make money on selling the credits. They could be made easily tradeable on the web or with ATM cards.
I'd not be keen on pouring lots of money into research, knowing how easy it is for working scientists to promise never to be realized benefits, and also knowing the very LONG (sometimes infinite) time lag between scientific feasibility and significant practical implementation. We know lots of actions that have large, early benefit, such as electrified rail and reducing the use of trucks and single person cars, hybrid or diesel vehicles.
If dictator of just the US, I would make Nevada (yes 3% of the US) into the national Solar panel.
Why not every southern aspect rooftop first, with a mandate of all new construction has a roof corresponding to its latitude and one continuous slope facing south?
If you solar panelled all of nevada how would that power get to Miami?
At the same time why not place offshore wind up the whole eastern seaboard and great lakes? The population densities are high along those coasts as is the wind resource.
Oilrig medic writes
"Why not every southern aspect rooftop first, with a mandate of all new construction has a roof corresponding to its latitude and one continuous slope facing south?"
I couldn't agree more. Use the grid to transfer N,S,E,W,
:-)
Except for a few differences and an addition, I think you are right on. Basic negative incentive is a carbon tax, possibly with some loopholes for use in food production persuits (fertilizer, farming etc). I wouldn't say what would or will not replace fossil fuel, leave that to the market. In addition to a major effort to invest in transit, I would also offer grants, education etc for localities persuing compact, walkable, sustainable communities. To me, this has to proceed with the investment in public transportation or else it won't work. These would mostly be offered as incentives to the private sector (deferred/waived taxes on land improvements in the right place of the right type). I would try to avoid negative disinsentives (other than the carbon tax).
Edit: Actually I see I missed the mention you made of walkable communities in your spend plan - so I guess you covered it all!
If something becomes expensive enough the price will encourage illicit activity: theft, smuggling etc. I have visions of security guards at every gas station, observation cameras along every pipeline. You can drain most vehicle gas tanks in a few minutes by simply undoing a plug at the bottom. And so on. Look what the recent price of copper has done for the theft of everything from brass plaques on monuments to live telephone cable. Otherwise this is a great idea. I don't have a better one.
Remembering the Archdruid's triage article from the other day, I think silicon-based microelectronics and PV power are two technologies worth hanging on to...
Cap and trade is not a nonsensical loophole. It allows the market to most efficiently reach a particular level of emissions.
"A carbon tax, with no cap-and-trade or other nonsensical loopholes. Repeal most other taxes and replace them with the carbon tax. It would serve 2 purposes:
* Encourage conservation;
* Make the price of fossil-based energy more constant, or at least predictable."
There are 2 actors in every tax scheme. This one would make gov't more dependant on carbon use for its income base, thus creating a motivation for them to encourage it
Ahh, but I'm the dictator of the world. If the carbon tax isn't supplying enough revenue, I'll just demand tribute from all my li'l subjects out there :-)
The main point of the tax is to make carbon-based fuel relatively expensive and thereby discourage its use. There is, of course, the sometimes conflicting goal of maintaining a steady, consistent price for FFs to keep the economy going.
Sound's like you have this "dictator" thing figured out according to the "traditional" model from history, pity that.
You could have chosen to reduce consumption with a non-price based system i.e. rationing, (The "Oil depletion protocol" would be an example of such a scheme) but instead you chose a price based one i.e. a "consumption tax".
The critical difference is that consumption taxes on universally consumed goods are highly regressive i.e. the bill is paid disproportionatly by the poor vs the rich.
This will make the worlds rich happy, and as we know any tyrant requires a base of support, yours will come from the rich far more than from the poor....
A modest tax yes that's fine. A significant tax on an item central to the economy, well that's now where DIYer's tribute comes from, he can't stop receiving tribute That is to say if you tax the heck out of oil to the point it becomes a large part of government revenue, don't you run the risk of the government now having a vested interest in seeing that revenue protected. "Vice taxes" on less lucrative things are fine. I'm just saying I'd be a little careful with setting things up so that the government receives a significant portion of its revenue from carbon being expelled into the atmosphere. Sure the right things will be said but some of those conservation measures might just die in committee. Also a large tax might kill off innovation not to mention wreak havoc with the economy that you'll need to implement solutions. So I'd say yes to a tax increase, maybe even an additional 50% but I think a a very large tax increase could backfire in a number of ways. In general though I agree with most of the proposals and well-researched ideas for moving forward I've found here. If I can think about it for a while I'll try and post some myself, but just as a silly pet peeve. Why the heck do mopeds get such relatively bad mileage. A 1.2 liter gasoline car can get 45 mpg and has 80 Hp why can't Honda make 0.2 liter moped that gets 225 mpg and has 12 hp?
Regarding mopeds:
First, a small point: Moped engines are only 0.05 liter i.e. 50 cc. and you'r right, the fuel consumption per unit power is pretty bad compared to a car.
I drive a 0.25 liter scooter, Honda "Big Ruckus", the manual says the engine produces 23 h.p. max. Running at highway speed I get about 80 miles / Canadian gallon (All figures actual measure, not some "standard" test results), about 75 m.p.g. city I had a moped at one time, and only got about 100 m.p.g. in city driving even though the engine was 1/5 the size of my current bikes engine
http://powersports.honda.com/assets/images/model/model_hero_shot/Scooter...
My wife drives a Toyota Echo (automatic transmission), which is one of the better cars for fuel economy short of going to a hybrid. 1.5 liter engine, manual claims about 100 h.p. max Running at the same highway speed she gets about 43 Miles /Cdn Gal.
The Echo power plant is a lot more complex than my scooter: Fuel injection, and computer engine control for things like ignition timing etc. Also a sophisticated transmission and cleaner aerodynamics than my scooter. Other than electronic ignition on the other hand my scooter is all mechanical i.e. carb., rather than injected, no engine computer etc. etc. If it was built with those systems the fuel economy gap would probably be a lot narrower. But the engine would probably also be bigger, heavier, and more expensive all of which I suspect were factors that got put above fuel economy in the design decision process.
At least the scooter is a 4 cycle, and does have a catalytic converter, and cool air injection into the exhaust, so they did put a lot more effort into the pollution side of things than they used to. No cloud of blue stink behind this bike unlike the scooters of days past.
Lets assume that I drive 6,000 miles a year on my scooter. at 75 m.p.g. that would be 80 gallons of fuel. Lets assume that gas goes to $3 per gallon in the near future, thats $240 a year in fuel. Now if Honda was to say double the fuel economy of my scooters engine that would save me $120 a year, which would be nice, but at the cost of great increase in the complexity and other trade offs of the bike. And how much would they have to increase the sticker price of the bike to get that savings in fuel?
If PO really bites soon however and fuel goes way up and stays there I have little doubt that more efficient bikes will appear.
I noticed 2 years ago that some sporting goods stores in Houston were selling both Chinese 50cc 2-stroke and electric scooters for $199. This got my attention because the listed top speed and range were about the same for both models. It appears that if you make a scooter small enough, the price advantage of gas disappears.
Therefore, what we might as well do is ban 2-stroke scooters entirely, letting the electrics take over on the bottom end and presumably 4-strokes hanging on in bigger ones until better Chinese batteries crowd them out. This is hugely relevant to transportation needs in the fastest growing economies like China, India, and whomever strikes oil next. Get 'em hooked on electrics now and they'll view open-bodied gas vehicles as vile and smelly for the rest of their lives.
This dependence can be reduced to almost nothing by making the tax revenue neutral. Just divide the total tax revenue equally among all citizens. This could also make the tax an easier sell because most people would mistakenly think that they are lower than average users (just like 70% of drivers consider themselves better than average).
Using the 2000 statistics for per-capita Canadian gasoline consumption, a 25-cent per litre revenue neutral tax, would give every Canadian a yearly check for $305.25. Obviously, that figure matches the average rate of taxation for the scheme. If all fossil fuels were similarly taxed that figure would probably be in the $500 range.
The thing I haven't figured out is how to apply the tax to business. Obviously, we want to encourage business to conserve and explore alternatives, so the tax has to apply to them as well. It seems like imports would have to be taxed based on their embodied carbon emissions or else local manufacturers couldn't compete on the local markets. Locally produced product intended for export markets presents thornier problems. Any export that is taxed would be unable to compete on the global market. Excepting the tax on companies producing exported goods doesn't seem like a good solution to me.
The best way to collect a tax, or, conversely, to require permits is at the level of the carbon emitter. (if the government awards no permits to existing polluters, and auctions them, then the effect is as of a tax.
If the US had a tax of $100/tonne of carbon, that would be $200bn or about $600/American in 'energy credits'. A family of 4 would be $2400 off per annum. This is more or less the system used in Alaska, to dividend out its revenues from oil and gas.
So in short, require permits at the oil refinery gate, at the gas pipeline mouth, and at the coal mine head.
http://www.cramton.umd.edu/papers2000-2004/02ep-tradeable-carbon-permit-...
*that* plus some arrangement for industrial processes (cement manufacture) would cover something like 90% of the carbon in the economy.
How that would play out in consumer prices is unknown although we have some good estimates.
In practice, like a VAT, the companies would simply pass it down the value chain into the hands of the consumer, eventually. This is true of all taxation on companies.
The Stern Review (the UK Treasury Report on Climate Change) looked quite carefully into the question of corporate location. There are certain industries which would be heavily affected competitively-- most particularly aluminum smelting. However in general, a carbon tax wouldn't increase their input costs by enough to change radically their location decisions.
I think, practically, it is difficult for Canada alone to do something-- companies would switch production to the US (unless we grandfathered existing polluters with carbon permits which they would lose if they relocated).
However NAFTA would be a large enough bloc. NAFTA +Europe + Japan would definitely be a large enough bloc- something over 60% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.
That was essentially my idea. Get rid of the personal income tax, which has evolved into a very regressive, uneven tax and invades everyone's privacy. It might even be popular even though it would make everyone's transportation fuel more expensive.
Since I'm the dictator of the world (not my local precinct, county, state etc.), your Mondo Megacorp won't avoid that tax by moving to Mexico. Being dictator solves a lot of thorny problems...
If I were world dictator, I would:
1. Nationalize the entire oil industry
2. Do away with the commodities market
3. Tell Americans to learn to live without cars
4. Bring consumerism to an end
5. Transfer wealth from the prosperous North to the impoverished South (hemispheres).
6. Do away with the world's militaries
7. Dismantle the world's stockpile of nuclear bombs & WMDs
8. End all coastal development immediately
9. Bring an end to the coal, natural gas and nuclear power industries
10. Insist that the prosperous people of the world wean themselves off of the technological crutch
11. Bring an end to all industries that pollute the air, land and water
12. Stop the destruction of the rain forests in Brazil and elsewhere, and allow the forests to regrow in the deforested areas
That's just a beginning. Humankind's destruction of the world must end. If humans won't make the necessary sacrifices, Nature will.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
In addition, and justification for these most severe of recommendations, there is this news today:
I don't know how your local area will be impacted by global warming, but I live in Florida -- a state which is remarkably flat and close to sea level. A three foot rise is sea levels would constitute a major catastrophe for Florida (the loss of the entire coast and Everglades National Park to the ocean), and a 20 meter rise in sea levels result in the loss of half the peninsula (including the loss of Miami, St. Petersburg, Tampa).
At least Orlando would survive. Disney World is safe.
Ironically the best estimate IPCC is:
4.2 degrees centigrade.
NOT 3 degrees.
Your measures would work out to completely destroy the planet because within weeks your people would go hungry, grow desperate and start cutting trees and ripping out everything from the ground they could get their hands on. 400 million Mexicans, Americans and Canadians would loot the things they can get their hands on after the oil is gone.
Either that or you will have to open death camps and systematically eradicate your people "to save the planet". Those who are forced into submission and will not fertilize the fields with their bodies will starve to death more slowly.
Industries like the oil industry and markets like the commodities market are infinitely more efficient in organising the world than an ideological position like yours can be. Look at the former USSR and NK for guidance what happens when ideology trumps pragmatism (and industries are nothing but applied pragmatism, despite what you might think). So if you think that the current system is bad, you might be right, but if you can't imagine how much worse your ideas are (and that is an experimental fact), you might want to think some more about it.
Hello I.P.,
I expect that Americans, Canadians and Mexicans will burn up everything during this terminal phase of human history. We've built an entire civilization upon the principle that humans should consume everything and burn the entire world up. That's why I am certain that the ultimate outcome of technological civilization is humankind's extinction.
I am not impressed by the work of industries and markets. The world looks like a mess to me. Humans have transformed the only living planet in the Universe into humankind's sewer. The future promises to bring more horrors as humans desperately burn everything up to maintain a lifestyle which is both unhealthy and unsustainable. The outcome of this experiment is bleak: Either a planet without life or a planet with Homo sapiens.
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1
"I expect that Americans, Canadians and Mexicans will burn up everything during this terminal phase of human history."
Why would they do that? If you can give them the same amount of comfort for twice the price they will do nothing like that. They will simply restructure their spending habits around the new price schemes and live happily ever after. Of course, in order to do that, you have to leave pretty much everything in its place as it is and simply make renewables available as replacement for carbon. Which is exactly what many nations are already doing. Not everyone is so far behind the times as the Americans.
"That's why I am certain that the ultimate outcome of technological civilization is humankind's extinction."
Did you consider that you might be wrong?
"I am not impressed by the work of industries and markets."
I am. But then... I was born in a socialist country. I have seen what happens when you don't have markets and properly regulated industries. I can only give the advice to go to a country like NK and look for yourself. I promise, you will change your mind if you have any interest in the truth, at all.
"The world looks like a mess to me."
That does not mean the world is a mess. It only means that you seem to have a perceptual problem.
"The future promises to bring more horror..."
The future never promises anything. We can't tell the future except for a few pretty hard core things like the sun becoming a red giant. But none of those are relevant. If you see bad things in the future it is an artefact of your way of thinking. Maybe you see what you want to see?
What I see is that the immediate future depends on my actions and that the far away future depends on the sum of my actions. I am responsible for the future. Which also means that I have to WORK HARD today to shape the future into what I want. There are no excuses for me to slack. But what I get from your way of looking at things is that you don't really care about the future. You only care about your own desperation. You are like the teenager who is laying on the sofa all day long, blaming his parents for having ruined his future before he was even born. Well, that teenager has an excuse: puberty and messed up hormones. You, David, you don't have that excuse. You are expected to get a grip and start working on a better future for all of us, teenagers included.
IP, very nicely said. Thanks, I always like to read your point of view, it is lucid, and considered.
History shows us we can use technology to destroy. Our brains are wired to see and fear it.
But there is a difference in utility to the human species between reasonable fear - requiring immediate and determined action - and an incohate fear from deep within the brain that impedes the operation of the immensely powerful forebrain and subverts useful action to *deal* with the challenges of a presenting future.
The driver of action is 'seeing', putting fear aside, determining a logical course of action, and persisting as new knowledge requires 'unexpected' corrective action/additional action.
Decision requires information that is inclusive of as many ways of thinking about facts as possible, while parsing out communally held errors of fact and false premises.
People here bring many ways of looking at this challenge; the engineering coupled with commercial reality way is *outstandingly important* to this specific challenge.
Thanks.
Lorenzo
IP,
You're from North Korea?
Wow. You should check out some of the other socialist countries in the world. They have had a bit more success.
My solution? Just let nature do what it will do. Problem solved.
One way or another, we will have a change.
However, if the premise were to come true......
As dictator of the world I would inventory the planet, figure out how much arable land is available, figure out the water supply. Then I would work towards establishing local communities built around resources such that each community has what it needs to be self-sustaining and the right population for that resource.
All factories that do not recycle by-products and waste as per "Cradle to Cradle" will be given five years to reinvent themselves. These factories must also be entirely energy self-sufficient and deliver to a local community. International trade will be limited to sailships.
Ecologically devastated areas such as the industrial belt in China must immediately shut down all activities and focus on cleaning up.
Ninety-five percent of women and men on the planet must either have a vasectomy or have their tubes tied. This will be accomplished randomly. Everyone will undergo the operation, thus leaving a scar in order that no one can tell who is fertile. This operation will also be performed on ninety-five percent of all newborns. Medical care will cease for all people who develop a terminal condition. Only palliative care will be allowed. CIties will be inventoried for recyclable material. No more mining. All minerals will come from cannabalizing cities and from mining landfills.
All vehicles will carry its full capacity on pain of death. No new automobiles will be built. Bicycles will be allowed. Rail transport will also be allowed until the foodshed system is setup.
No food will leave its foodshed. No food will be transported more than one day's ride on a horse at a walk. Money will lose value to prevent its rising once again -- i.e. negative interest.
Information about craft industries such as raising sheep, carding wool, creating yarn, weaving clothes, blacksmithing, harness manufacture, permaculture, shoe-making, ceramics, cob, hay-bale housing, glass-making, first aid, midiwifery, and so on will be gathered and disseminated per each foodshed's microclimate. Guilds, designed to maintain knowledge, must be set up in every field. A schooling system must be designed to perpetuate the system for the time being. Once the earth regains its balance and the temptations of fossil sunlight fall to the wayside, the need to enforce the culture will subside. Nature will enforce the culture.
The random sterilization would not work at that high of a rate (95%). You would be better off sterilizing anyone with a genetic defect and anyone who commits a crime and couples who have one child. This would provide a slow draw down in population >50% per generation. Exceptions could be made for certain categories (high IQ for example) but the 95% would require a logans run euthanization at an age before retirement. elders need youth to provide food and shelter etc.
Your dictatorship would fall quickly if you only travel by horse and sail. in your low tech future the sterilizations would cease and a new dark age with guns and modern weapons would ensue (children of man mixed with current day sudan)
Shoot for population stability or slow drawdown, such a rapid method would destroy any remaining civility or technology.
Hello IP,
> Why would they do that?
IP, humans have already destroyed the Earth. Only the smallest fragments of ecosystems remain and all of these are polluted. The human values which have motivated people to abuse the Earth so horrendously are the same ones which will lead future generations to burn all that remains.
> Did you consider that you might be wrong?
Absolutely not. The collapse of civilization and the extinction of Homo sapiens are too events which are guaranteed to occur in the future. This present civilization is not an eternal civilization. Homo sapiens are not an immortal animal. Collapse is both inevitable & inescapable. Just as it is impossible for you to avoid death, it is also impossible for our species to avoid extinction.
> That does not mean the world is a mess. It only means that you seem to have a perceptual problem.
There isn't any perceptual problem. Humans have polluted the entire globe. Humans have eradicated entire ecosystems and driven species to extinction. Humans have modified the climate in a potentially catastrophic manner. Humans have invented weapons of genocide sufficient to drive our own species into nuclear annihilation. Humans are unhealthy, unfit and unable to handle the Earth's present climate without technological crutches. The Earth is a mess. Humans have transformed the Earth from a living planet into humankind's sewer.
> am. But then... I was born in a socialist country. I have seen what happens when you don't have markets and properly regulated industries. I can only give the advice to go to a country like NK and look for yourself. I promise, you will change your mind if you have any interest in the truth, at all.
The free market appears good but ends in global tragedy. The free market generates present day prosperity at the expense of future poverty. The free market generates present day luxury at the expense of consuming and polluting an entire planet. The free market will die in a horrendous fashion.
> The future never promises anything. We can't tell the future except for a few pretty hard core things like the sun becoming a red giant. But none of those are relevant. If you see bad things in the future it is an artefact of your way of thinking. Maybe you see what you want to see?
I see bad things in our future. More importantly, I see horrendous things occurring on this Earth right now. Billions of humans are suffering. Humans are destroying Nature at an ever-accelerating pace. Pollution is rendering the Earth inhospitable to human life. Thousands of nuclear weapons still remain a threat to human survival.
The future of civilization is also bleak for another reason: Our civilization was not built to endure forever. Our civilization will die. Just as all the previous civilizations have collapsed, the present global civilization will also collapse.
> What I see is that the immediate future depends on my actions and that the far away future depends on the sum of my actions. I am responsible for the future. Which also means that I have to WORK HARD today to shape the future into what I want. There are no excuses for me to slack.
You are seriously mistaken about your role in the Universe, IP. The Universe does not rotate around the Earth. Nature does not rotate around Homo sapiens. What you do does not determine your own fate or civilization's fate or humankind's fate. The forces of Nature are a great deal more powerful than humankind, they are also more powerful than humankind's technology, and they are certainly more powerful than you.
In other words: Civilization will end whether you work really hard or do nothing at all. On the other hand, Homo sapiens will go extinct a lot quicker if you work really hard rather than do nothing at all.
In other words: Your work to "save" civilization only serves to accelerate the extinction of humankind. Present-day gains come at the expense of future losses, except that in all cases the losses will exceed the gains.
> But what I get from your way of looking at things is that you don't really care about the future. You only care about your own desperation.
I care about the future, but (more importantly) I care about Nature and the crimes which humankind contines to commit against Nature. Homo sapiens have nearly destroyed the one and only planet hospitable to human life in the Universe. By working really hard we humans will finish this work of destruction and soon discover that our species has run out of time.
The end of technological civilization is the extinction of Homo sapiens. Those who work really hard at "saving" technology & the present lifestyle of the morbidly obese are accelerating the demise of our species.
I care about the future and that is why I advocate a cessation of all this work. The animals survived & prospered for millions of years without technology. Homo sapiens wouldn't survive for a century without technology. Don't you see that humankind's addiction to technology only serves to make our species weaker and at a great disadvantage from the standpoint of natural selection?
David Mathews
http://www.geocities.com/dmathew1