173 comments on How to Address Contrarian Arguments – part III
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
173 comments on How to Address Contrarian Arguments – part III
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Editors
Contributors
Peak Oil Primers
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
Vital Trivia
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Being both an engineer and an economist I can vouch that for the most part each profession sees the other as short-sighted fools. Pity indeed.
Hellasious and jkissing:
Those folks that I referenced on the Conclusion are trying to do just that, bring Economics and Engineering/Environments together. Also I used the term ‘Regular Economist’ because there are Economists out there that acknowledge these problems; I have the luck to know some.
The connection between energy, economic activity and money is organically obvious.
In a comment to Robert Rapier's recent request for alternate energy policy recommendations "If I were a global dictator", I offered this: tie money supply growth with renewable energy production growth. Properly done, nothing else is required policy wise. No tax revisions, no incentives, no CAFE regulations, no pollution agreements - nothing. It will all be done through this "simple" measure.
If anyone has questions on this, fire away...
A bright remark. Although to be done correctly it has to relate to exergy not plain energy, and that’s all but easy.
By exergy I take it you mean the thermodynamic definition, yes? Excellent remark and ultimately that is the theoretical limit one would strive for, but from a practical standpoint I really don't think you need to get nearly so complicated.
Equivalent renewable-source BTU or KWh will do just fine for a long time. Just the transition alone from a purely fiat currency to one backed by "green" BTU will take decades.
I call it the "Greenback"... But if we used your exergy suggestion we should call it the "Carnot(e)".
(smile)
Regards
That is hilarious! Thanks... gave me the best laugh of the morning.
:-)
Hi H,
Okay, so I have a question: Could you please expand and explain?
For example:
1) renewable energy prod. growth - you mean what and who exactly?
2) Who counts the "production growth"?
3) No money supply growth allowed otherwise? How do you stop it? Who stops it?
4) Can this be done unilaterally, eg. by the US only?
And so forth.
Hello Aniya,
The first two questions are pretty simple, really - solar, wind, geothermal, fusion,...the list is pretty long. It could also be defined as non-fossil and non-fission. Who counts? The same people that count it today..power cos., national and int'l agencies.
Now as to the other, more complicated questions:
(3) If you want true sustainability, no money supply beyond that will be allowed. But there has to be a very long transition period, too. Eventually, imagine a currency that is backed by say, 1 Greenback = 100 000 "green" BTU. This is not so far-fetched as it sounds: the US dollar today depends on oil for its global reserve status. Who and how stops money supply? The same people who regulate it today: central banks.
(4) Yes it can, and that is very intriguing because it IS feasible, by comparison with a single, global currency. It could happen thus: say today the split in production between "black"/"green" energy is 95%/5% and that production (in BTU) is rising 5%/20% respectively.
The "strictest" money supply policy would only allow M3 to rise by only 5%*20%= 1%. That would be so restrictive right now it would immediately throw the economy into a deep recession.
The "loosest" policy would be 95%*5% + 5%*20% = 5.75%. This would accomplish nothing.
A "transition" policy would be something like this: (1/2)*95%*5% + 5%*20% = 3.375%, i.e. you "penalize" black energy by 50%. At the very start of the transition period that "penalty" could start at 5% and rise gradually.
Monetarism with a twist..."green" monetarism.
Regards