The Oil Drum

45 comments on The Tragedy of Elections

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

NC on May 29, 2007 - 11:05pm

HO,

First, nice post. I agree with you and GreyZone that we have a focus problem not a technical problem.

In my simplistic mind I have boiled this down to the inability to craft a viable business plan based on using less. Less of anything, but particularly less energy.

How does one get funding for launching projects with the defined goal of ultimately using less than the existing infrastructure. Why would a bank or government fund it? There is more return in the status quo system. Until the system of lending money (to get more money returned) breaks, we won't use money to build infrastructure that consumes less energy.

It not about being efficient with energy or food. It is about being efficient with money. What is the best way to multiply it? I don't see that model having a lot to do with using less.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Aniya on May 30, 2007 - 11:10pm

Hi NC,

I appreciate your comments, which I'd like to understand a little better.

1) re: "In my simplistic mind I have boiled this down to the inability to craft a viable business plan based on using less. Less of anything, but particularly less energy."

Well, for sure, we can say: given no change, on the global scale, "we" are (in global total from all sources, already? not sure) (or will be soon) using less energy.

However, it seems that regarding what appears to be (on the technology side of things) - the "need" to expand the renewable wedge for the predicted shrink of the FF wedge in HO's article...

This isn't exactly "less" in every framework.

To expand the renewable wedge is "more".

So, part one is: If we stop building roads tomorrow, and start putting in wind farms - do you mean...no business plan that does not count on re-directed tax revenue and/or subsidies?

And part two: If renewable energy technologies are manufactured, this means (perhaps) electricity will (still) be available, hence the infrastructure that uses electricity presumably can still use it.

Yes? No? Maybe?

2) What am I missing? In other words, yes, on the large scale - less energy. However, for any particular piece of it - I'm not so sure. How would you address this?

3) Someone has written previously with the example of Starbucks, along the lines (to put it in my own words), some times the material component of a price is very small - it's a kind of tokenism, really, not reflecting the material of the product.

So, for example, if every coffee customer brought in his/her own cup...? Don't know what this might do to the arrangements, in terms of money flow. Also, strictly speaking, in terms of energy, if each cup is washed by the user. Still...?

4) Of course, the rationale for the "ultimate goal" part is - do with less or do without altogether. We each have our personal preferences, which may make the problem seem intractable. Still, there are some "goods" people can agree on. Maybe - ?