The European Tribune is a forum for thoughtful dialogue of European and international issues. You are invited to post comments and your own articles.
Please REGISTER to post.
But now things change. If we talk in pure physics terms, what does the Second Law of Thermodynamics imply? Sure, it talks about zero energy throughput directly - but apparently a fixed finite value allows just limited valuable effects. Regardless of what money we may come up with. In other words:
There can be no perpetum mobile of a monetary (or social) kind!.
- Jake Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.
* Researchers record drop in nitrogen oxides and sulphur dioxide Fewer people using cars as householders save money in austerity cuts Reduction in industries of 30 per cent causes lesser emissions
If it smells like pine spirit in parts of Greece these days, they have the smoke from home heating fires to thank for it. And not in a good way. Air pollution is the latest fallout from the Greek austerity measures. People are burning trees from the parks, old furniture -- anything to avoid paying soaring new taxes on heating oil.
"People need to stay warm, but [they] face decreasing employment and rising fuel costs," explained Sioutas, senior author of the study in the journal Environmental Science & Technology. "The problem is, economic hardship has compelled residents to burn low-quality fuel, such as wood and waste materials, that pollutes the air." Since 2008 Greece's economy has shrunk by 23 percent and it has since been dependent on rescue loans from other European Union countries and the International Monetary Fund. Making matters worse, oil prices have almost tripled over the past few years due to tax hikes. In response to energy costs, Greeks have been turning to wood as a fuel source to heat their homes, which impacts air quality.
Since 2008 Greece's economy has shrunk by 23 percent and it has since been dependent on rescue loans from other European Union countries and the International Monetary Fund. Making matters worse, oil prices have almost tripled over the past few years due to tax hikes.
In response to energy costs, Greeks have been turning to wood as a fuel source to heat their homes, which impacts air quality.
Burning whatever you can to stay warm= distributed independent local small-scale generation :) Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
There are plenty of people who would dispute that proposition.
My point is that "local-ness" and "dependence" are not absolutes. Endeavours of different kinds may be more or less local, more or less autonomous.
If my municipality's electricity authority buys a turbine, it isn't buying local production and it isn't independent of non-local heavy industry. But that turbine installed on the river is local in the sense that the energy source is local, the finance is local, distribution is locally-owned, and the management is to some extent local. There's a degree of dependence and a degree of autonomy.
If I have a farm, that has distinct characteristics of "local-ness": the soil, the climate, the hydrography limit or potentiate my production. That production may also be locally sold. I cannot produce without the aid of industrial goods (tools), but the tools are useless without the other factors of production that I possess.
Why this matters to me is because, in my view, the richness and liveliness of a democracy are enabled by a degree of local autonomy, and depleted by the alienation of authoritarian top-down structures.
They probably fall apart the moment you consider them, like I assume Jake is doing, at the system-wide, global scale.
It reminds me of structural geology: on the basis of local observations one can only assume the geological history of one local area as true, for as long you don't look at the area at a regional scale - which can show you that your assumptions were perfectly holding for the scale you were using, but perfectly wrong for applying them at a larger perspective.
distributed independent local small-scale generation of wind and solar = heavy industry, because you need heavy industry to produce the solar panels and wind turbines.
That postulate seems limited to our not building larger wind/sun farms, big enough to make themselves so to speak.
Industry heavy enough to create turbines and multi-GW solar arrays is no more energy-demanding than other industries that were localised a century ago. Before we chose location for ease-of-transport reasons more as the international highway and railway infrastructure was not as fortified as it is now, sticking and hubbing mainly around big waterways, the obvious 'freebie'* at that time. With electricity abundance at low cost these industrial products (panels and turbines) are surely not more labour and resource hogs than building out the Nazi war machine for example in the 30's. And even if my analysis is wrong, it seems a no-brainer to use dwindling supplies of eco-expensive fossil fuels to build a bridge to the land where we would need less of them. Can't think of a better one in fact! Throw in bioplastics such as Henry Ford used for the Model T (hempseed easily, quickly and cheaply grown), nanotech and 3D printing and you have the perfect mix of techologies and low footprint energy needs to belie this myth that turbines and panels are advanced rocket science only appropriate to be made in behemoth Ruhr-like industrial centres using oil and/or gas as fuels. From Rurhal to rural!
With electricity abundance at low cost these industrial products (panels and turbines) are surely not more labour and resource hogs than building out the Nazi war machine for example in the 30's.
And even if my analysis is wrong, it seems a no-brainer to use dwindling supplies of eco-expensive fossil fuels to build a bridge to the land where we would need less of them. Can't think of a better one in fact!
Throw in bioplastics such as Henry Ford used for the Model T (hempseed easily, quickly and cheaply grown), nanotech and 3D printing
* Plastic is now being made from orange peels, egg shells, wood 'flour' and pretty much any organic matter, So you would have the knockon effect of safely recycling a lot of 'waste' as well.
The sooner this myth is dismantled the better, imo, as it is really holding us back, especially the biggest is bestest mentality that's baked into it. Surely you don't have to be a Schumacher to understand that.
There's a lot of continuum being skipped over between the poles of Krupp-Thyssen-sized Leviathans and candles in caves.
We may yet avoid the "Black Mirror" scenario of millions of unemployed manning stationary bikes to generate society's juice paid in 'credits' (scrips), but even that would be better than looking out your window at a new nuke plant and wondering if some series of trivial 'oopses' are going to cascade that day, as happened at Three Mile Island.
Or that some combo of earthquake and Climate Chaos-whipped Superstorm is going to make a very ocean-souring joke of our engineering hubris.
There's going to be a lot of re-tooling to do, by leaving it all to the last innings we are just upping the costs and killing ourselves with pollution while doing so.
** Wind and solar are the ultimate freebies, and ever so slightly less predictably dangerous than swollen rivers can be, cf Serbia recently, Somerset last summer etc etc. But that's another discussion more about transport, though it is intimately connected as the sooner we phase out FFs the less extreme our weather will be.
(Pace Bjinse) :) 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
Industry heavy enough to create turbines and multi-GW solar arrays is no more energy-demanding than other industries that were localised a century ago.
But your point on energy is important also in another respect: modern industrial technology is way more efficient in its use of energy and material resources than "traditional" production methods. That's what technological progress is about. It's not only improvements in final products but in every intermediate step of production.
And that, my friends, is why rolling industrialization back is definitely not the answer to resource constraints. A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
modern industrial technology is way more efficient in its use of energy and material resources than "traditional" production methods.
I'm not convinced this is true if you consider the resource cycle as a whole.
You can cherry pick items like electronics which look small and cheap, but the complete cycle includes ripping stuff out of the ground and shipping it around the world.
And you not only have to refine the stuff you're shipping, you also have to refine the stuff to build the things you're shipping it in. And fuel them.
And then there are the various levels of repetition and recursion involved in putting it all together.
A truly efficient technology would do this with no mess. We're a long way from anything like that - so far away that on a planetary scale, it's not obvious we've moved on from the 19th century.
A truly efficient technology would do this with no mess.
That's not an argument for returning back to "traditional" production methods, nor an argument that these would be more efficient, but only an argument that the current state of industrial process and the intermediate steps of production can be further optimised.
rolling industrialization back is definitely not the answer to resource constraints.
Who says it is, the straw man with his candle-lit romantic atmosphere?
It's about en -rolling industry into maxing out negative entropy 'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty
"traditional" production methods.
What are these, and who is advocating them?
"cars and heavy industry" have a rap sheet as long as your arm in terms of ravaging the environment. They are going to have to change, and don't tell us they will do so voluntarily, the evidence up to now is to the contrary.
The second part of your remark is not far off trolling.
Mankiw trolling is not the best start to the week. Jeepers! | How Inherited Wealth Helps the Economy http://t.co/zU4NhnN2QU— Nick Green (@NickMGreen) junio 22, 2014
Mankiw trolling is not the best start to the week. Jeepers! | How Inherited Wealth Helps the Economy http://t.co/zU4NhnN2QU
By the way, did not notice particularly bad air pollution in Athens. The usual car stink in summer heat is still most prevalent.
It does promise that it will always be possible to mobilize existing idle resources, and that it will be impossible for people to issue mnetary claims in excess of available money.
That's more than any commodity money can deliver. A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
If some resource (say, energy or water) would become an obvious bottleneck for "civilized" living, "indespensible" technology, or just survival, wouldn't that resourse become de facto hard currency?
The Austrian position is wrong.
What makes currency currency is that contracts and tax liabilities are enforced in terms of the currency.
Money is not a store of value. Money is a tool of contract enforcement. The state of scarcity or abundance has the next best thing to nothing to do with the rules for contract enforcement.
No. Money is not some natural product of human society. If the monetary economy breaks down and can't deliver live essentials it won't necessarily be replaced with a new one of the same kind. It's just as likely that money would loose all meaning in face of rationing. Or in the face of collapse of society.
By now, the ideology evolved to "a systematically organized body of knowledge" of how to keep the monetary control dominant (for as long as possible, at least).
And having rentier portfolios shift toward actually useful work would be a good thing.
Usually, they do it for money, and there's no percentage in cornering the market unless you plan to actually sell the product at some point.
by Frank Schnittger - May 31
by Oui - May 30 42 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 23 3 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 27 3 comments
by Oui - May 13 66 comments
by Oui - Jun 55 comments
by Oui - Jun 253 comments
by Oui - Jun 112 comments
by Oui - May 3172 comments
by Oui - May 3042 comments
by Frank Schnittger - May 273 comments
by Oui - May 2738 comments
by Oui - May 24
by Frank Schnittger - May 233 comments
by Oui - May 1366 comments
by Oui - May 928 comments
by Oui - May 450 comments
by Oui - May 312 comments
by Oui - Apr 30273 comments
by Oui - Apr 2662 comments
by Oui - Apr 8107 comments
by Oui - Mar 19145 comments