 | Shell Sponsoring Peak Oil Communication? | The Oil Drum: Europe | McCain wants a gas tax "holiday." It's a no-brainer, right? |  |
34 comments on Andris Piebalgs' priority number one
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
34 comments on Andris Piebalgs' priority number one
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
I am always suspicious when someone is advertising his ideas with the argument that "they would create jobs". If creating jobs was always good by itself the best thing to do is to hire every unemployed around to dig holes by hand and then fill them back again.
Clearly jobs which in reality correspond to money a society spends, have to be balanced against the other part of the equation - the benefits they bring. This is what is missing from Andris' arguments - the simple economics of what he's advocating. Investing in efficiency is not always the wisest thing - for example if you already have 10 inch of insulation making that to 20 inch is not going to bring you much extra benefit, and certainly not for the money you spend. Without economic analysis, such pleads smell more like another calls for subsidies and more government pork.
Another irritating thing is the use such large grained indicators as "fossil fuels used per euro of GDP". Which fossil fuels and whose GDP? Is it fair to compare UK with its easy access to natural gas with GDP mostly comprising of overvalued financial services, to more industrial Poland which has nothing but coal?
Otherwise I am also welcoming this refreshing shift away from biofuels of Andris Piebalgs. I am tempted to hope that his experience with contacting the public has helped him realize how disastrous idea biofuels are going to turn out to be in the long run (at least these biofuels produced with current technology).
What do you prefer, to be unemployed or to have a job?
Coal and Natural Gas are both fossil fuels, why can't they be compared? And both states have Transport infrastructures largely based on Oil.
Still, I'm all ears for alternative metrics.
What do you prefer, to be unemployed or to have a job?
Would you want your taxes to be spent for digging holes in the sea?
Still, I'm all ears for alternative metrics.
What about real net* CO2 emitted per capita? It is safe to say that a Polish, Italian or a UK citizen have pretty much the same needs and wants. If the Italian citizens emit more GHG per capita then the UK ones, Italy should be incentivised to reduce its emissions and UK should be rewarded. This is the only fair approach to the problem.
GDP-metrics is loaded with so much crap inside it and by definition rewards rich countries on the expense of poorer ones, developed service-oriented economies on the expense of poor, production oriented economies. I wonder why are they still using it?... or is this a rhetorical question?
* For the products and services a country exports, the CO2 emitted during their production and transport must be subtracted from its total emissions. Similarly the CO2 used for producing its imports in the origin country must be added to the country's emission.
Ah! CO2! How could I have forgotten that?
Hope you are not being sarcastic here, because in case you do I fail to see the reason.
For the record I wasn't really addressing the CO2 or boe part of the indicatior, but the GDP part. Using higher GDP as a justification to pollute more or use more FFs for me is borderline absurd.
I think your insulation must be made of straw , at least it sounds like a strawman argument to me. Of course investing in adding unneeded pork at this point would not only be useless, it borders on stupid and unethical. However I find it beyond disingenuous to imply that a widely implemented policy of conservation would be a bad thing. What is even more important is that it seems Piebalgs seems to be initiating the necessary paradigm shift from status quo to what needs to be. To the point is that right now nothing could be wiser than that!
To the point is that right now nothing could be wiser than that!
Under different circumstances and in a perfect world I would certainly agree. But my impression is that efficiency measures way too often turn into smoke and mirror for the populace... a political show for the masses to convince the sheeple that we are doing something.
Here are few types of smoke:
1) Feel good measures of token importance. How much good for example the initiative not to use plastic bags? If you drove to the store instead of taking the bus you would burn hundreds of times the energy used to make a plastic bag, but no biggy, we are still green aren't we?
2) Schizophrenic policies. I despise for example the policies of Germany with their obsession with super-insulated houses and wind mills on one hand and on another no speed limits on the autobans, production of muscle cars and a alive and healthy coal industry, even rewarded with increased emission quotas.
The bottom line: the devil is in the details and what exactly AP will suggest. I admit I have a preconception about him and the EC in general and I wouldn't say I am thrilled with this latest jump to the efficiency bandwagon.
Let's face it, politicians are in the business of making people believe that they will be better off doing A than doing B, and if A creates jobs and cuts the gas bill then all the better. Taking politics out of the equation is not going to solve anything - it is the world that we live in. As far as I'm concerned, any initiative taken to reduce consumption rather than switching to a new source to depend on (ex. corn ethanol) is a great agenda to push. The price of oil is rising, and with it are all the alternative sources of fuel, heating, and even food.
"Efficiency is not always the wisest thing.."? Are you kidding me? At this point in time, we'd better become more efficient or figure out how to live in a seriously energy-difficient world. If everyone lived and worked in energy efficient homes and buildings we might not be in this predicament right now. It's time to change our attitudes and make conscious decisions to invest in technologies that are going to cut our consumption levels significantly no matter the cost.
From what has been said recently on the Oil Drum and elsewhere, ethanol is no longer the way to go. It wreaks havoc on world food prices will making no significant dent on our oil dependency. Now is the time to start talking efficiency, whether it cuts jobs or increases them. Any politician who is willing to take any kind of stand to that effect is okay in my books. If he/she has to do a little "embellishing" to get their policy through then so be it.