Race Condition

That is not sustainable.

The New Scientist article that graph accompanies makes the following point: taking only CO2 emissions into account, we currently emit 0.5 tonnes of CO2 per $1000 of global GDP. To stabilise CO2 at a reasonably safe level of 450 ppm, we need to reduce current emissions of 28 billion tonnes/year to 5 billion tonnes per year by 2050. We therefore need to reduce the carbon cost of GDP to 0.08 tonnes per $1000 of GDP - a six-fold reduction.

By 2050, though, how big will the world economy be? Assuming it grows at the current rates, with all the current inequities (business as usual), we'll need to reduce carbon emissions per $1000 GDP to 0.03 tonnes - a 15-fold reduction.

If we tried very hard to eliminate global poverty at the same time, those reductions get even larger. And either way, they don't stop at 2050 - if the world economy continues to grow, carbon emissions per $1000 GDP must continue to fall.

That's just one limit - there are plenty of others. We cannot continue to grow forever.

New Scientist

Indeed.

It looks eerily like the other graphs we've seen a lot of recently - house prices, google share prices, oil etc.but take heart! have a look at what's happening now and the shapes these graphs are taking over time - the Sudden Stop! (iseq dow and ftse100 5-year )

I'm not sure how it works but isn't carbon credits a form of money ? Shouldn't the printing of money not be restricted by lack of gold but over-production of carbon ? if your economy is growing by too much then you must pay a fine or something.

It isn't only CO2 either, there are plenty of other disappearing and pressured resources as you say.

Ok i'm off to read that article now..

ibis wrote:

By 2050, though, how big will the world economy be? Assuming it grows
at the current rates, with all the current inequities (business as
usual), we'll need to reduce carbon emissions per $1000 GDP to 0.03
tonnes - a 15-fold reduction.

It can't grow at current rates though, can it. I don't think it can. For one, the graphs will be like asymptotes and I don't think the planet has enough resources - human or mineral to sustain that.

So something will fall over - almost has to fall over mathematically.

What, I don't know.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

ibis wrote:

By 2050, though, how big will the world economy be? Assuming it grows
at the current rates, with all the current inequities (business as
usual), we'll need to reduce carbon emissions per $1000 GDP to 0.03
tonnes - a 15-fold reduction.

It can't grow at current rates though, can it. I don't think it can. For one, the graphs will be like asymptotes and I don't think the planet has enough resources - human or mineral to sustain that.

Exactly so.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

So something will fall over - almost has to fall over mathematically.

What, I don't know.

I don't either. I'm reluctantly forced to conclude that we can either have a revolution, or have one forced on us. Since one of those we can plan, and the other we can't...

whats the solution? reverse technology and human development back to 1750s standards.

better throw away your computer, your house, your car, your local hospital (the local ponds leeches are sufficient for all ailments, your tiny infant mortality rate, your liberty, your participation in a democracy, in fact, you should probably top yourself for the good of the planet.

for any dismal scientist out there, i refer you to the Simon-Ehrlich bet in which the pessimist lost a bet to an optimist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager

http://www.finfacts.ie/irishfinancenews/article_1015045.shtml


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2008/1022/breaking16.htm

This blogger or youtuber (?) believes the Dow will fall to 2500 ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfJfiAuIGhw

All this is an opportunity but people will have to adapt their lifestyles to changes and expect and lot less than they currently have. Small might not only be beautiful but plenty for some in the time to come. I wonder how those people who built mcmansions will feel ? Will our society and economy be re-oriented to support a layer of rich who have unsustainable and outmoded lifestyles - huge houses, cars, appetites for consumption and for the new and disposable ? Are we seeing effects of that already in our budget ?

zakalwe wrote:

whats the solution? reverse technology and human development back to 1750s standards.

better throw away your computer, your house, your car, your local hospital (the local ponds leeches are sufficient for all ailments, your tiny infant mortality rate, your liberty, your participation in a democracy, in fact, you should probably top yourself for the good of the planet.

for any dismal scientist out there, i refer you to the Simon-Ehrlich bet in which the pessimist lost a bet to an optimist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager

Well, no - the question is how we get to keep those things while dealing with the fact that the world has finite capacities and resources. Optimism will not solve anything by itself.

Quote :

This blogger or youtuber (?) believes the Dow will fall to 2500 ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfJfiAuIGhw

All this is an opportunity but people will have to adapt their lifestyles to changes and expect and lot less than they currently have. Small might not only be beautiful but plenty for some in the time to come. I wonder how those people who built mcmansions will feel ? Will our society and economy be re-oriented to support a layer of rich who have unsustainable and outmoded lifestyles - huge houses, cars, appetites for consumption and for the new and disposable ? Are we seeing effects of that already in our budget ?

There is a storm gathering amongst very sensible bloggers in the States. Many are mentioning the prospect of martial law. Scary

ibis wrote:

zakalwe wrote:

whats the solution? reverse technology and human development back to 1750s standards.

better throw away your computer, your house, your car, your local hospital (the local ponds leeches are sufficient for all ailments, your tiny infant mortality rate, your liberty, your participation in a democracy, in fact, you should probably top yourself for the good of the planet.

for any dismal scientist out there, i refer you to the Simon-Ehrlich bet in which the pessimist lost a bet to an optimist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon-Ehrlich_wager

Well, no - the question is how we get to keep those things while dealing with the fact that the world has finite capacities and resources. Optimism will not solve anything by itself.

Great thread Ibis. I fall half way between the optimist and the pessimist being raised to expect the best and prepare for the worst. Barring nuclear war or asteroid hit, or sudden climatic shift, the immediate prospect seems to the living in a progressively degraded planet. The medium and longer term are uncertain. Having read Collapse, some of the islands Jared Diamond writes about show a trajectory of population growth on the basis of quarrying out virgin resources (top soil, forests, birds eggs) followed by a contraction to a fairly impoverished and miserable existence of a much smaller population in a depleted environment.

I have read various Irish reports on the possible effects of a couple of degrees warming which I feel are over optimistic and narrow. The speed of the change is a big problem, as the assumption that one species will neatly and rapidly take over from another seems unrealistic. We are in the process of losing a number of horse chestnut trees here to disease associated with wetness. We are looking at planting Irish oak, or ash, which will like the damp, but may not like the higher temperatures (who can give me the answer to that?). I'm sure this kind of thing is happening right across the country, in response to the increased rainfall in the last few years.

The human species is very adaptable and has also learned within limits to adapt nature to humanity, but is not immune to the laws of nature. We don't have a certain future and we can't be certain we have a future. There is an immense amount that could be done to improve our chances, and that needs not only an awakening of understanding, but also transformation of how we organise ourselves economically and socially.

I found Zakalwe's link and your data very helpful. Do you agree that population trends indicate a decline after 2040 ?

What I can't help noticing is that in every "advanced" economy that birth rates are dropping very quickly. In fact, if immigration was taken out of the equation, most Western economies and Japan would be experiencing significant population declines over the coming decades.

Everything else being steady, this would be a perfect scenario whereby resource usage in the West is declining while it is rising in the East. Eventually, and given the pace of modern economic growth, the East might experience such a population demographic change. It would almost be poetic if the depletion of resources where matched by a fall in population due to a convergence of economic/technological know-how and the necessity to use renewable technologies in a resource depleted world.

There is, however, one fly in the ointment. Our economic philisophy requires that economic growth occur on a quarterly basis. Even if we don't produce enough finished goods for trade, we must at least buy and sell goods to each other in order to produce excess profits to satisfy shareholder's demands for return on investment. Changing this system will be pretty tricky.

rockyracoon wrote:

What I can't help noticing is that in every "advanced" economy that birth rates are dropping very quickly. In fact, if immigration was taken out of the equation, most Western economies and Japan would be experiencing significant population declines over the coming decades.

Everything else being steady, this would be a perfect scenario whereby resource usage in the West is declining while it is rising in the East. Eventually, and given the pace of modern economic growth, the East might experience such a population demographic change. It would almost be poetic if the depletion of resources where matched by a fall in population due to a convergence of economic/technological know-how and the necessity to use renewable technologies in a resource depleted world.

There is, however, one fly in the ointment. Our economic philisophy requires that economic growth occur on a quarterly basis. Even if we don't produce enough finished goods for trade, we must at least buy and sell goods to each other in order to produce excess profits to satisfy shareholder's demands for return on investment. Changing this system will be pretty tricky.

interesting thought, i would agree with your comment on the fixation with quarterly results. medium term planning should be encouraged, not quarter by quarter policy. i deliberately do not agree with long term planning as, to quote keynes, in the long run we are all dead. continual medium term planning will take care of the long term but tell people today that by sacrificing thier heating and cars in the faint hope that our grandkids' grandchildren will live in a better society will cause resentment and will be counterproductive.
remember you need a carrot with the stick!

zakalwe wrote:

rockyracoon wrote:

What I can't help noticing is that in every "advanced" economy that birth rates are dropping very quickly. In fact, if immigration was taken out of the equation, most Western economies and Japan would be experiencing significant population declines over the coming decades.

Everything else being steady, this would be a perfect scenario whereby resource usage in the West is declining while it is rising in the East. Eventually, and given the pace of modern economic growth, the East might experience such a population demographic change. It would almost be poetic if the depletion of resources where matched by a fall in population due to a convergence of economic/technological know-how and the necessity to use renewable technologies in a resource depleted world.

There is, however, one fly in the ointment. Our economic philisophy requires that economic growth occur on a quarterly basis. Even if we don't produce enough finished goods for trade, we must at least buy and sell goods to each other in order to produce excess profits to satisfy shareholder's demands for return on investment. Changing this system will be pretty tricky.

interesting thought, i would agree with your comment on the fixation with quarterly results. medium term planning should be encouraged, not quarter by quarter policy. i deliberately do not agree with long term planning as, to quote keynes, in the long run we are all dead. continual medium term planning will take care of the long term but tell people today that by sacrificing thier heating and cars in the faint hope that our grandkids' grandchildren will live in a better society will cause resentment and will be counterproductive.
remember you need a carrot with the stick!

I always thought that statement confirmed the ultimate bankruptcy of Keynes' ideas. As we have seen, flushing fictious capital through the system inevitably ends in a crash. This crash will see a lot of people lose their cars and their heating.

I tried reading Douthwaite's "Growth Illusion" - about zero growth economics, but couldn't feel convinced by it - if anyone want's to have a "book club" read of it here, I would try again.

http://www.aislingmagazine.com/aislingmagazine/articles/TAM24/Sustainable.html

We need a new economic model. The central command economy seems to be too top down and cumbersome, in spite of offering the potential for a zero growth model. Is there any solution to hand, or do we have to invent one from scratch ?

cactus flower wrote:

I always thought that statement confirmed the ultimate bankruptcy of Keynes' ideas. As we have seen, flushing fictious capital through the system inevitably ends in a crash. This crash will see a lot of people lose their cars and their heating.

I tried reading Douthwaite's "Growth Illusion" - about zero growth economics, but couldn't feel convinced by it - if anyone want's to have a "book club" read of it here, I would try again.

http://www.aislingmagazine.com/aislingmagazine/articles/TAM24/Sustainable.html

We need a new economic model. The central command economy seems to be too top down and cumbersome, in spite of offering the potential for a zero growth model. Is there any solution to hand, or do we have to invent one from scratch ?

The suggestion I like is one that deals with the essential limits - put caps on emissions of pollutants and consumption of raw materials. Leave everything after that up for grabs, but accept the limits we have to observe in any case. Let people apply their ingenuity to making things work better within those limits. Currently, we're really lazy - our solution to a better tomorrow is just to have a bigger economy. Our solution to reducing poverty is simply to make everybody richer (and make the rich richer by many times the amount that the poor get richer). It works, but it's the same as flooding your garden to water the flowers, and it's not sustainable.

There's no reason we can't continue improving our standard of living, but we need to do it by building smarter economies, not bigger ones. We're being lazy, like rich kids spending their inheritance rather than working, and it will come to an end when the capital runs out.

Maybe mother nature has the equivalent of a centrifugal safety brake ? And maybe it has kicked in already.

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I always thought that statement confirmed the ultimate bankruptcy of Keynes' ideas. As we have seen, flushing fictious capital through the system inevitably ends in a crash. This crash will see a lot of people lose their cars and their heating.

I tried reading Douthwaite's "Growth Illusion" - about zero growth economics, but couldn't feel convinced by it - if anyone want's to have a "book club" read of it here, I would try again.

http://www.aislingmagazine.com/aislingmagazine/articles/TAM24/Sustainable.html

We need a new economic model. The central command economy seems to be too top down and cumbersome, in spite of offering the potential for a zero growth model. Is there any solution to hand, or do we have to invent one from scratch ?

The suggestion I like is one that deals with the essential limits - put caps on emissions of pollutants and consumption of raw materials. Leave everything after that up for grabs, but accept the limits we have to observe in any case. Let people apply their ingenuity to making things work better within those limits. Currently, we're really lazy - our solution to a better tomorrow is just to have a bigger economy. Our solution to reducing poverty is simply to make everybody richer (and make the rich richer by many times the amount that the poor get richer). It works, but it's the same as flooding your garden to water the flowers, and it's not sustainable.

There's no reason we can't continue improving our standard of living, but we need to do it by building smarter economies, not bigger ones. We're being lazy, like rich kids spending their inheritance rather than working, and it will come to an end when the capital runs out.

Wouldn't we add to that a bottom/ safety limit ? A level below which people and the environment should not be allowed to go?

cactus flower wrote:

ibis wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

I always thought that statement confirmed the ultimate bankruptcy of Keynes' ideas. As we have seen, flushing fictious capital through the system inevitably ends in a crash. This crash will see a lot of people lose their cars and their heating.

I tried reading Douthwaite's "Growth Illusion" - about zero growth economics, but couldn't feel convinced by it - if anyone want's to have a "book club" read of it here, I would try again.

http://www.aislingmagazine.com/aislingmagazine/articles/TAM24/Sustainable.html

We need a new economic model. The central command economy seems to be too top down and cumbersome, in spite of offering the potential for a zero growth model. Is there any solution to hand, or do we have to invent one from scratch ?

The suggestion I like is one that deals with the essential limits - put caps on emissions of pollutants and consumption of raw materials. Leave everything after that up for grabs, but accept the limits we have to observe in any case. Let people apply their ingenuity to making things work better within those limits. Currently, we're really lazy - our solution to a better tomorrow is just to have a bigger economy. Our solution to reducing poverty is simply to make everybody richer (and make the rich richer by many times the amount that the poor get richer). It works, but it's the same as flooding your garden to water the flowers, and it's not sustainable.

There's no reason we can't continue improving our standard of living, but we need to do it by building smarter economies, not bigger ones. We're being lazy, like rich kids spending their inheritance rather than working, and it will come to an end when the capital runs out.

Wouldn't we add to that a bottom/ safety limit ? A level below which people and the environment should not be allowed to go?

The limits would have to worked out based on that.

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Maybe mother nature has the equivalent of a centrifugal safety brake ? And maybe it has kicked in already.

That's kind of the problem - within the limits we have negative feedback loops, but there are plenty of positive feedback loops in the system as well - the so-called 'tipping points'.

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Maybe mother nature has the equivalent of a centrifugal safety brake ? And maybe it has kicked in already.

That's kind of the problem - within the limits we have negative feedback loops, but there are plenty of positive feedback loops in the system as well - the so-called 'tipping points'.

What does this mean - there is some class of equilibrium that the planet goes back to ... what would that be and who's to say it wouldn't be in our favour? For example, if the earth gets used to us (I know the time is too short, I know) then perhaps the natural equilibrium point will be tied to us. Maybe it's 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere or something - any more and bad stuff starts to happen and we need to adjust our CO2 output.

The north pole is more or less gone I think by the way.

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Maybe mother nature has the equivalent of a centrifugal safety brake ? And maybe it has kicked in already.

That's kind of the problem - within the limits we have negative feedback loops, but there are plenty of positive feedback loops in the system as well - the so-called 'tipping points'.

What does this mean - there is some class of equilibrium that the planet goes back to ... what would that be and who's to say it wouldn't be in our favour? For example, if the earth gets used to us (I know the time is too short, I know) then perhaps the natural equilibrium point will be tied to us. Maybe it's 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere or something - any more and bad stuff starts to happen and we need to adjust our CO2 output.

The north pole is more or less gone I think by the way.

Any photos audi? We could send johnfás...

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Maybe mother nature has the equivalent of a centrifugal safety brake ? And maybe it has kicked in already.

That's kind of the problem - within the limits we have negative feedback loops, but there are plenty of positive feedback loops in the system as well - the so-called 'tipping points'.

What does this mean - there is some class of equilibrium that the planet goes back to ... what would that be and who's to say it wouldn't be in our favour? For example, if the earth gets used to us (I know the time is too short, I know) then perhaps the natural equilibrium point will be tied to us. Maybe it's 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere or something - any more and bad stuff starts to happen and we need to adjust our CO2 output.

Yes, the earth has a lot of different possible 'states' - ice age, hothouse, possibly snowball, anaerobic, etc, plus the possible runaway situations that give us Mars and Venus. These states are 'metastable' - you can think of them like dimples in a lumpy sheet. Like a ball, when you're in any particular state, then if you push the ball a little way, it tends to roll back in. However, if you give it a good push, or keep pushing it, it will eventually come out of the dimple it's in, and roll into another one - that's your tipping point.

The big problem there is that all current life on Earth is adapted to the current equilibrium state, and the transition to a new state will probably be too fast for adaptation for many species. We'll see.

ibis wrote:

Auditor #9 wrote:

ibis wrote:

EvotingMachine0197 wrote:

Maybe mother nature has the equivalent of a centrifugal safety brake ? And maybe it has kicked in already.

That's kind of the problem - within the limits we have negative feedback loops, but there are plenty of positive feedback loops in the system as well - the so-called 'tipping points'.

What does this mean - there is some class of equilibrium that the planet goes back to ... what would that be and who's to say it wouldn't be in our favour? For example, if the earth gets used to us (I know the time is too short, I know) then perhaps the natural equilibrium point will be tied to us. Maybe it's 400 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere or something - any more and bad stuff starts to happen and we need to adjust our CO2 output.

Yes, the earth has a lot of different possible 'states' - ice age, hothouse, possibly snowball, anaerobic, etc, plus the possible runaway situations that give us Mars and Venus. These states are 'metastable' - you can think of them like dimples in a lumpy sheet. Like a ball, when you're in any particular state, then if you push the ball a little way, it tends to roll back in. However, if you give it a good push, or keep pushing it, it will eventually come out of the dimple it's in, and roll into another one - that's your tipping point.

The big problem there is that all current life on Earth is adapted to the current equilibrium state, and the transition to a new state will probably be too fast for adaptation for many species. We'll see.

Planets and feedback loops. I love both equally.

Yet every feedback loop has a transfer function, so there are time constants and 'event frequency' things to be considered.

The earths natural state would appear to me to be astable. (is that the same as metastable ibis - I know not). Due to all the external and internal events, it's state is never stable imo, rather continuously changing.

However, to us humans it is at equilibrium. I would suggest the reason for this human observation is because human time constants are miniscule compared to planetary time constants. Humans do stuff on the nanosecond scale compared to earth's notion of time. We are just sampling a waveform that has been playing on an ipod for billions of years.

Which brings me to the other bit about feedback loops. Gain.

I think the gain is low. We've been hammering away at the planet for 200 years and hardly a blip. It's blipping now - but I think that's because of the response time, not the gain. That can change though.

The reason I was thinking about the nature's centrifugal brake was because I think planetary feedback has variable gain. It's a bit like what I call Thermal runaway

The hotter it gets the quicker it gets hotter. The centrifugal brake does nothing until a parameter is exceeded, then a completely different event is executed. A quasi-binary response to an analogue input ?

Now that's not nice as you know, because every event gets amplified. It does not occur faster necessarily, but it does get worse in amplitude....usually exponentially worse. Which may explain the worsening weather based devastations - bigger but not closer apart.

Apologies if that is all incoherent. I have no excuse. Apart from entertaining 3 dozen cub scouts this evening.

That issue of the New Scientist also has an article by Andrew Simms of nef, The New Economics Foundation. They have published A Green New Deal this Summer. Sorry, no idea yet if any good, only just downloaded it to read tomorrow.

http://www.neweconomics.org/gen/

What interesting posts.