Slashdot Mirror
Living On a Carbon Budget: The End of Recreation As We Know It?
Lasrick writes Dawn Stover looks at unrealistic expectations and the distribution of limited energy resources: 'This is a question that should move from the fringes of the energy debate to its very heart. Economists and energy experts shy away from issues of equity and morality, but climate change and environmental justice are inseparable: It's impossible to talk intelligently about climate without discussing how to distribute limited energy resources. It's highly unlikely that the world can safely produce almost five times as much electricity by 2035 as it does now—which is what it would take to provide everyone with a circa-2010 American standard of living, according to a calculation by University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. The sooner policy makers accept this reality, the sooner they can get to work on a global solution that meets everyone's needs. First, though, they need to understand the difference between needs and wants.' Not something most people even think about.
It didn't take long for him to reach to the bottom of the barrel on this one to scare up conservative excitement. Samzenpus, you made it almost a full week without going there - how does it feel?
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Also, I bet computer gaming uses a lot less carbon than most pre-computer leisure activities.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
It's yet another Marxist attack on liberty and the individual.
While environmental studies professors continue to pump out ready excuses for imposing increasing economic feudalism in Europe and North America, China and India are going to build out nuclear power and produce energy. I doubt they'll be dissuaded from trying because of anything this professor says.
When people like this say, "the world can't" remember that they actually mean, "we aren't going to let you."
lot's power and it can be real same with a no homer and homers rule.
From each according to his carbon ability, to each according to his carbon needs!
Yep, good luck convincing everyone that they should live on only what they "need" to survive, because the mud-hut dwellers in third world countries "deserve" to live like 2010-era Americans.
Capitalism already handles this automatically, at least in the long run—no central planning required.
I'll play the asshole in this comic bit: Why should everyone in the world have 2010 American standard of living? We're wasteful, bigoted, conspicuous consumers at (or near) the top of the consumption food chain. This is like expecting everyone to be a 1%er (in American parlance), somehow, or for all of us to be above average drivers. We can't all be rich and good looking. Remember - when everyone is special, no one is special. We need classes just to keep the system churning.
Of all the possibilities, striving for the American 2010 standard makes no sense on so many levels.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Why should I have to live on a carbon budget? Just because Al Gore or some other liberal nutcases (with an agenda to promote green products, of course) tell me so? No way. If I make enough money to live an extravagant lifestyle, you can bet your bottom dollar I'm gonna do it! Global warming is happening regardless of what we do , and there's nothing we cab do to stop it. The best we can do is mitigate its effects. It's largely a natural cycle that has happened time and time again in the earth's past, and we just have to adjust to it. And as humans, the most intelligent creature on this rock, we sure as hell will find a way to do so. Long story short, we should focus our energies on adapting rather than running around in circles screaming that the sky is falling.
Tell the defamatory truth: Genocide.
"It's highly unlikely that the world can safely produce almost five times as much electricity by 2035 as it does now"
In the 7 years I have lived in my house, I have reduced my electricity consumption by 50%. There is nothing magical about what I've done. Insulation, replacing AC units with energy efficient ones as they wore out, LED light bulbs, energy star appliances. I used a "TED" (The Energy Detective) to figure out what my big users of electricity were. These upgrades have already paid for themselves in lower energy bills. Last year the addition of solar PV and a solar water heater have further reduced my electric demand by 2/3. These upgrades will pay themselves back in about 12 years.
My overall demand is 1/6th of what it was 7 years ago and I have sacrificed no enjoyment of life to get it. If anything, my house is more comfortable and better lit and my appliances work better. And there are still planned improvements that will further reduce my demand, probably by 1/2 over the next few years. I live in a 75 year old 3000+ sq ft house and my energy usage is lower than the median energy usage in Florida, while being 50% larger than the median house size.
I agree it's foolish to try to increase global electricity production by a factor of 5. What we should do is relentlessly pursue efficiency until we reach the threshold of diminishing returns.
period.
First, though, they need to understand the difference between needs and wants.
i.e.
We the central planners will determine what you need, because anything you think you need, is just a want -- at least that's what we think -- and since we're in charge, we decide. This is just not something you little citizens think about enough!
If I had read the whole thing I'd probably be dead by now.
Lot of blathering about what's "fair". Wishing for "Climate Justice". Carbon allocation according to need (presumably at the diktat of the author and his friends). The whole thing is just so far out there on the Marxist scale, it would scare even socialists like Nancy Pelosi.
I think the idea that by 2035, we should expect every country in the world to have a comparable standard of living to America today is nothing short of laughable. So that blows a big hole right through the main premise.
Furthermore, aren't there figures that show that we could supply enough energy to power the entire world with a solar farm of a few (few dozen, few hundred, whatever) square miles in the Sahara, or something like that? Obviously that in itself isn't necessarily a practical solution, but it should demonstrate that the idea that we can't provide enough power to the entire world to match America's level of consumption right now is, at best, a shaky one.
It sounds to me like they picked an arbitrary date when we were somehow supposed to get everyone's standard of living up to America's, without considering what would actually be required to do that (hint: it includes stopping an awful lot of violence that's not likely to stop any time soon). If you are going to assume that we can raise everyone's standard of living like that in the first place, why would you not also assume that we can build out solar, wind, and other renewable energy sources to match?
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
Close enough that we have to DO SOMETHING NOW!, but far enough that no one will ever be called to account for being wrong, but not so far away that it's not in our life time and can be ignored. Having lost track of the number of such deadlines for the point of no return that have already passed in my life time let me just say I am a little skeptical.
And you know the Indians, the Chinese, and many others could care less and are going right on growing their populations and carbon production and there is no chance they will do anything but grow for the next 30 years. So if the author is right and we have only that long before we have irrevocably ruined our environment, then the choice for those of us in the industrial world is clear.
Enjoy all the vacations and recreational activities you can now. No seriously, if they are right then we are doomed, so you might as well enjoy it while you can, and they are wrong then you will have the last laugh while they sit around entertaining themselves doing the crossword puzzles, while they suffer without air conditioning.
-jon
The problem is purely political/cultural (okay, it boils down to biological, but who's counting?). The technology is comparatively easy. Right now we create poverty out of abundance, simply to support the financial systems we have surrendered control to. All our energy is spent putting up barriers.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
The average amount of solar energy that reaches the surface of the earth is 6KWH/m^2. The earth has 510,072,000,000,000 m^2. We have only scratched the surface of what we are capable of consuming.
Half of it's supposed academic writings in this supposed economic journal are editorials about how unfair the media is to conservatives. Now, that kind of writing, in moderation and in an appropriately academic framing can fit within the model of a good journal. I don't mean to say "Journals can't have editorial". But half, with a message-based push is past the point of credibility.
Take this piece as an example. It sort of adopts the tone of an academic writing, but is clearly out of place in an "economic" journal. It'd be a perfectly reasonable piece I'd disagree with on a number of points in a newspaper editorial, but what the fuck does it have to do with economics?
This is not honest analysis. Not even remotely.
It's highly unlikely that the world can safely produce almost five times as much electricity by 2035 as it does now
We could if environmentalists and NIMBY's would stop blocking new nuclear power plant construction.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
Meanwhile, I'll continue harvesting my 30kWh/day from my SunPower panels on my little rooftop, and storing it in my 100kWh LifePO4 pack. One day, when I can afford a Tesla, I'll charge it here.
I'll continue to vote for candidates that support the advancement of nuclear fission, wind, hydro, and solar deployments, pumped water storage, and other such things.
Honestly, is anyone paying attention to what's going on these days?
provide everyone with a circa-2010 American standard of living
You can't be serious. This isn't desirable at all.
Love from Europe
CLI paste? paste.pr0.tips!
"Global Solutions" is the code word. These guys think they should be in charge of everything. Same as always.
Or, and this is an idea I have, we could stop assuming that we are at the peak of technological development. We could let people use as much energy as they want and are willing to pay for, and allow it to correspondingly get more expensive over time. Then, every energy company and enterprising researcher on the planet will have an incentive (namely, the promise of riches) to find new sources of energy. Yes, energy resources are technically limited. But in practical terms, they are unlimited. The amount of oil available for consumption today is GREATER than it was a decade ago, not less, because we have new ways to get to unreachable or unknown deposits. Likewise, we have more nuclear power today than before the Manhattan Project started. We have more usable solar power because the solar cell technology continues to get cheaper and more efficient.
Consider that fracking has, by itself, made the US no longer dependent on foreign oil in any meaningful sense, something that was believed impossible just a few short years ago. But, you know, it's new, so it's considered bad by the environmentalists, just like every form of energy production, even the green ones. I bet if scientists found a way to get energy out of sand, the environmentalists would march in the streets over the destruction of desert and beach habitats.
Give me my nuclear reactors that use designs invented less than 10 years ago. Put 100 of them in Montana. Power most of the country.
Please ignore this silly tripe. Samzenpus is polluting Slashdot with political controversy.
There isn't going to be any 'global solution' because you can't get everyone in the world on the same page about pretty much anything; you get more than five people together in a group and you can't even agree on where to go for lunch without there being a problem. You might get the U.S. and it's 1st-world allies on-board with programs to be more energy efficient, but does anyone really think you're going to convince China and India? Pretty much everyone else is too busy trying to be competitive with everyone else to be worried about little things like what's going to happen to the world in a couple hundred years so you can't expect them to help.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Living on a budget killed my recreation outside of the home (well beyond the city anyway...).
Who invited the SJW to a scientific discussion? Since when does addressing global warming require that we also provide everyone on the planet with an "American" standard of living by 2050?
Most forms of recreation don't consume much natural resources compared to production of food and other basic necessities. On the other hand, unchecked population growth is the most fundamental cause of today's social and environmental problems. We need to get serious in combatting religious and cultural superstitions that prevent billions of people from using effective birth control. Then wealthy nations need to make access to condoms and birth controls pills free and ubiquitous worldwide. Then we just have to desperately hope this will work, else the future is tens of billions of people living and dying in misery.
We need to stop thinking of this like a disaster that's suddenly going to happen. There's no magic date where the climate is going to be "destroyed". What's going to happen is the climate is going to change, and much of our way of life and infra-structure is going to suffer because of that. We can't "destroy" the climate, we can only make it harder on ourselves and have to do a lot of work to adapt. But there's not exactly an armageddon that's going to unfold. Food production is going to be harder, and the places to grow crops are going to shift.
The article itself is a little silly. Climate scientists don't debate whether global warming is real, and human caused. But they DO debate like hell about what's going to happen, how much carbon is "too much", etc. So to make any decisions about "30 more years" or making some silly prediction about everyone living like Americans in just 20 years is incredibly stupid, and counter-productive. Those issues are FAR from settled, unlike the clarity that the article presents.
As far as wants and needs, that'll be settled like it always has, through cost. It's already happening. The SUV craze of the 90s through the 2000s is already on the wane. Gas is more expensive and is going to remain so for a while, and that gas-guzzling Suburban is not only expensive to fuel, it makes you look like a bit of a pig now. People in European countries aren't somehow more altruistic, and care about others more than the US (and therefore drive smaller cars), it's just that gasoline is quite expensive, and the streets are smaller. So the giant car thing is totally impractical. Eventually Americans are going to start driving smaller cars just like they do in much of Europe.
AccountKiller
I installed solar panels this summer and they should generate 100% of my electric use (including electric car) over the course of a year.
I probably have an average American standard of living.
So I see no need to huddle in the dark and cold this winter and there is no reason the rest of the world could not enjoy this same standard of living.
Of course, investments will be needed in the grid and storage and base load but these can be made relatively cheaply, especially if there is a carbon tax to shift investment decisions from carbon to renewables.
Also... stop eating meat. Meat production worldwide produces more greenhouse gasses (16%) than transportation (13%). It's also cheaper and healthier to stop eating meat.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Stop all agricultural meat production and replace it with vegetable production. I say agricultural because I'm not aware of the impact innovative lab-grown meat has on emissions. But if we can stop clearing forests for animal husbandry and soybeans to feed those animals, we'll lower emissions by more than the entire world's fossil fuel use produces combined. Don't forget the irreparable damage being wreaked on the ocean's fisheries too.
But IMHO it will be impossible to break the first world's meat addiction in time to do anything, and it seems more impossible in light of the billions of dollars in industry (and connected industries) riding on such production.
Living On a Carbon Budget: The End of Recreation As We Know It?
Oh my god! Whatever will we do?!? We'll have to come up with some way to allocate scarce resouces based on competing wants! If only there were a science that studies economic activity to gain an understanding of the processes that govern the production, distribution and consumption of goods and services in an economy. If we had that, then it would imply we already have an enormous, global system for handling this exact problem.
Not that it doesn't need tweeking, and we need to internalize the cost of carbon emissions, but this isn't just a solved problem; it is one of the most intensely studied and tested fields of sociopolitical theory that there is. And it doesn't mean we banned recreation. As it turns out, some recreation is actually good for the system, because it increases productivity.
And can we produce five times as much energy? Ummm, yeah. Real easy. There is a shitload of energy falling out of the clear blue sky at all times. If we have the resources, we can grab more of it. So that completes the whole "productivity" loop back to increasing production of energy.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
Let's just presume that there is such a thing as 'catastrophic man-made global warming', in spite of there NOT being any such thing, and then shout "Carbon! Carbon! Carbon!" over and over again, until the sheeple (including most Slashdotters, who are idiots) believe it, and then worse of all, DEFEND it, as if it's heresy to think and question these blatant lies.
www.climatedepot.com
That "recreation" is responsible for "wasting gas" or "adding to the carbon debt". While both cases are arguably true, a little perspective is in order. On any weekday in the city where I live, I can count thousands of commuters driving to work, one to a car. And I can't count fast enough or high enough. Weighed against that, the "extravagance" of motor racing, for example (and the one that gets trotted out every time fuel gets the least bit scarce), is insignificant. The same goes for electricity, the few kwh I might spend on watching TV or driving my PC for recreational purposes, are dwarfed by many other day-in, day-out uses of electricity. Yes, yes. It all adds up, but the key word is "all", and it's the big stuff that could make the biggest difference if we were to get serious about conserving.
In other words, you think the guys you like should be in charge.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
slashdot is home to GOP'er FUD...it's not a big problem, but it's a problem
imho, it goes to false equivalence...the idea that to be fair you have to give each side "equal time" by having 3 'liberal' and 3 'conservative' leaning major contributors...that's a guess but it appears that way when reading slashdot
rarely is it this blatant...but i still think slashdot is good and relevant even though sometimes we see stuff like this story
Thank you Dave Raggett
There are a lot of assumptions going on here. First, that anyone in the first world would even seriously consider living the "mud hut" life in the name of climate change. Second, that the ruling class in the first world would ever permit the rest of the world entry into the first world. Third, that energy consumption must be severely restricted since there are no safe ways to produce first world quantities of power absent carbon-based fuels.
The world's present energy mix, and consumption practices are built on a history of cheap, readily available fossil fuels. Properly incentivized (read: the external costs of carbon-based fuels captured), the world's production would quite naturally swing towards "green energy." Any gaps in technology would be researched and quickly filled. Efficiency can and would be found. There's no reason we can't do things differently and yet maintain a high standard of living except that entrenched interests on the production side like it the way it is.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
I don't want to hear any more about individual power consumption until they stop building casinos every half mile.
Proverbs 21:19
But doesn't the energy consumption start with the home? If we had major appliances consuming less than a watt of power, yeah, we would not have an energy crisis down the road. I think google and facebook buildings are using solar energy.
Tablets and mobile devices will replace the majority of the power hungry desktops, the average joe does not do graphics rendering(maya) or heavy photo imaging that requires a freaking 600-1000 watt desktop, actually, tablets and laptops handle maya, 3d studio max, autocad, photoshop pretty damn well. It would be amazing to run all electronics at or below milliwatts.
Science please save us.
I believe that University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr.should start us off by reducing his carbon footprint to 3rd world levels as an example.
-Styopa
In 1890 a similar egg-head "predicted", Manhattan will be feet-deep in horse manure by 1930. A similar prediction was made for London of 1950 — the number of horses required to bring in supplies necessary for the growing population and its growing demands was calculated, along with the amount of excrement the beasts produced. The volume was then divided by the area of the city's streets to produce the depth of "coverage". An easy mathematical problem, a high-schooler solve it, so it had to be correct — and any attempts to argue against the conclusions were, of course, "anti-science".
Of course, as we know now, the automobile arrived to save the environment. But the fear-mongering did not cease...
Why exactly is humanity "highly unlikely" to be producing as much electricity as it wants to by 2035? Even today's technologies allow for that, and in 20 years we are bound to see improvements in both electricity production (higher) and consumption (lower).
I for one refuse to feel guilty about my recreation.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
1. Most Americans and Canadians are already reducing their carbon impact, but are held back by artificial tax subsidies for coal, oil, and natural gas that prop up those dying industries.
2. Your major carbon impact in North America, unless you commute more than an hour each way every day (in which case - move), is from flying on old jet airplanes. This can be solved by two things: 1. build high speed rail (200+ mph) in places like the West Coast and South 2. use turboprop and 787 planes instead (half or less the fuel and impact).
3. A lot of zoning and house regulations (associations) don't permit on roof solar in many areas - get rid of that and require all utilities to purchase excess solar at peak rates and you can get 50 percent solar by 2020. As in, now.
4. Most impact is from China, not India. India energy use per capita and per GDP unit is much much lower than China. Stop buying stuff from inefficient China. Buy American or Canadian.
5. Half measures cause massive change. You don't have to "live green" to have a major impact - just recycle your old fridge for a new one, replace light builbs with LED lights as they burn out, replace old trucks and SUVs that get 13 mpg with ones that get 26 mpg, and improve energy efficiency in buildings and existing coal plants (you can cut energy use in half by retrofitting an old coal plant with co-generation, which pays for itself in 2-5 years). Do the stuff that's easy to do and don't worry about doom and gloom pessimists.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Because, these days, if you're not growing 5-10% per annum, you must be in decline.
No, you just have to be growing faster than the population grows. While it's a bit more complicated than this, if your economic growth is slower than the rate of increase in the population then you are spreading resources among more people and therefore everyone is on average a little bit worse off. Since there has been no prolonged decrease in human population in recorded history you have to have a few percent of economic growth merely to stay right where you are.
For an economy like the US a growth rate of 2-4% annually is normal. That 3% is $486 billion in GDP growth - that means to grow at 3% the US has to create the 23rd largest economy in the world EVERY YEAR. Larger than the entire economy of Norway.
People make a big deal out of China's Growth rate (around 8%) but in total dollar amounts China's growth isn't much higher than the US at $668 billion. As China's economy gets larger it will necessarily slow its growth rate. The only reason they've been able to keep such a high growth rate is that their per-capita GDP was quite low until recently.
No, I believe you'll find Mr Coward thinks no-one should be in charge, because they'll only make things worse, and loot the poor while they fly from dasha to dasha in their executive jets.
is about 1700kW/h electric.
Not impressed? Was not meant to impress you. That is per year not per month.
Quick pedantic note: the unit is kWh, not kW/h. Watt is energy over time. So Watt / hour would be energy over time squared. Your energy consumption per year is 1700 kWh or 6120 Megajoules.
I'm no fan of poorly regulated financial systems, but you'd throw the baby out with the bath water. The financial system facilitates investment in the research and development, exploration and production of that abundance. While it may not seem fair that some people live in poverty when there is abundance it is short sighted to blame the people, institutions and systems that created the abundance in the first place. The primary cause of poverty in the world is lack of social institutions and the rule of law that make it safe four our financial system to facilitate investment in the economic progress of the people living in poverty. Every person living in true poverty is an untapped labor resource. Given time and the right conditions the system we have would put them to work producing enough to lift themselves out of poverty. In the past 20 years (really since the fall of communism cleared one of the main obstacles) roughly two billion people of been lifted out of poverty.
the polar bears will be fine - Freeman Dyson
It didn't take long for him to reach to the bottom of the barrel on this one to scare up conservative excitement.
It is also dishonest scaremongering. An American-level standard of living does NOT require American-level energy consumption. Plenty of other rich countries have much higher Energy/GDP ratios. America's high energy consumption is a result of urban sprawl, SUVs, etc. Those are not necessary to have a nice lifestyle. Even in America, energy consumption has been falling as GDP has been rising, and should continue to fall due to urban gentrification, electric cars, LED lights, etc.
Finally! A climate change article that actually exposes the real motivation of the climate change snake oil salesmen - that "climate change" has nothing to do whatsoever with the climate. It is and always has been about wealth distribution on a global scale.
Those that claim not to understand the difference between needs and wants generally do know the difference but will not deal with it. They are an odd type of coward and will throw fits if they can't get their way. Some will even die before they are wiling to change. One type would be similar to the audiophile who simply can not survive without their very high tech sound systems. Incidents such as drafting into the military will often result in suicides as they very thought of subjecting themselves to the sounds of gun fire or grenades sends them into a panic over potential subtle hearing loss. You either have to exempt them from service or expect a worthless soldier who can not function at the very best. Another type seeks the admiration of family and must be above the herd no matter what over the supposed thrill at looking back over a succesful career. The notion of putting his future at risk is enough to effectively kill him. The ideas that poverty and a not so long life can still be joyful is absent in their psychological build. Sometimes there are very common themes as well. A person who simply can not imagine being happy without making babies will not confront the notion that a fine life can be had by anyone without having children. They can not feel it. They can not believe it. In essence all a person needs is some decent health, a scrap of food and enough clothing to keep from being arrested. Even having a happy life in prison is possible for some inmates. To help youth survival hikes are good training. Those hikes can be absolutely horrid, uncomfortable, painful and very exhausting. Five or six days in the wild trying not to die can show a person what they need to survive. It may mean eating a raw frog or having close encounters with poisonous snakes or preditors and it is risky. But it will bring some youth square into reality. Those who know what they really need are far less likely to commit absurd crimes such as an armed robbery to get cigarettes or a bit of pot.
Just get a handle on the Promoters of Oil and Gas (Greenpeace et al).
We had a nice 300MWe Thorium reactor here, before it got killed by a U.S. sponsored "NGO". Plus we can certainly make Fission happen. Let some REAL engineers do it, as opposed to some moneypussies.
We have free markets to adjust for market imbalances and allocate resources in a productive fashion, but more importantly, the professor is not including advances in technology. First electric cars will be better than gasoline cars and use 1/3 of the energy, so if we increases the number of cars by 5 times, we will only need 1.66 times the power today (5*1/3). Second, solar is consistently getting cheaper and more efficient. If Swason's law continues (a sort of Moore's law for solar panels) solar power will be 1/4 the price of Coal electricity within 10 years. Right now given currently solar power efficiency, solar panels on the land area the size of Spain would supply all the world's energy needs. If energy efficiency doubles, we would only need solar panels on land area the size of 2.5 Spains to produce 5 times power of today's energy output.
I haven't run the numbers yet, but there are two problems I see right off the bat:
1) the standard of living does not require the same amount of energy in different places
An good chunk of the US's 97 quads of energy goes into heating. You, obviously, don't need as much of that in Kenya as you do in Toronto. And before you say "I always heard... about aircon", the energy budget of cold areas is higher than warm:
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/1/014050/article
While this article focuses on the US, its unlikely that other areas of the planet adjust this enough to account for the **3.5 times** difference in energy budgets. So if one looks at Germany and US as two bookends on an energy budget, one might expect that the same standard of living in Kenya could take half as much energy in terms of heating/cooling.
2) it assumes that future economies will be industrial
Take a look at this graph:
http://www.eia.gov/beta/MER/?tbl=T02.01#/?f=M
Note that energy use for Residential and Commercial are seasonal, peaking in the winter - that's the heating load. Note that transportation and industrial aren't really seasonal, at least nowhere near as much. Now consider that the #1 item on that list is industrial.
Ok, do you think the African economies of 2050 will use as much energy in their industrial sector as the most heavily industrialized nation does? I don't. In fact, I think that they will have both less industrialization and less energy intensity in that industrialization.
3) ...and long distance
On that same graph you see that transport is the 2nd largest energy use. This is in a nation that developed when energy for transit was essentially free. That is not the case anywhere else, in the past or future. European cities, especially older ones (which tends to be most of them) are generally denser, because they were developing much of their structure in an era when transport was essentially infinitely valuable. I strongly suspect that the sort of low-density urban sprawl encountered from the 1950s through to 2000 is largely burned out. There are still suburbs going in in Toronto, but the condo boom drawfs them. And let's not forget that cars in 2050 will likely be twice as efficient as today.
So, as I said this is number free, but I strongly suspect that if one applies reasonable estimates to the figures and considers what economies might be like that different conclusions will be reached.
Considering that most people have enough trouble governing themselves, I'm not convinced that letting people govern other people is ever a good idea.
I write sci-fi for metalheads
Self-deprecating humor can be funny even if it's outdated or for that matter was never completely true in the first place.
Texas A&M University is one of Texas's two flagship universities, and it is highly-ranked in some academic areas not related to agriculture or mechanics. Yet "Aggie Jokes" are common and most Aggies (present tense - there's no such thing as an "ex-Aggie") understand and even partake in the humor value.
The time to stop telling jokes like this is when either 1) a significant percentage of Slashdot regulars no longer think they are funny or 2) the telling of such jokes is causing a non-negligible amount of real-world harm. I'm not seeing either of these happening this year. I would say "or this decade" but technology and life move too fast to predict "Slashdot culture" 5-6 years down the road.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Since the summary didn't do a great job here, let me translate 'To each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities.'...strange but I think we've seen that someplace before & it didn't particularly work out last time it was tried.
There are only 2 things humans NEED to survive:
1) Safety against the elements (shelter, clothing)
2) Food
EVERYTHING else is a luxury or 'want' not a 'need'. But here's the thing, everything developed that doesn't directly fulfill those needs works in some way to provide those 2 'needs' to MORE and MORE people. Even the absolutely most useless 'consumer good' in existence; when it is bought; fills these needs for someone. So the problem isn't being able to fulfill the needs, its the number of people we have to fill the needs for, even climate change as a 'human induced behavior' is directly attributable to the number of people not necessarilly the activities. Consider that even if every car in existence was suddenly transformed overnight to running on 'water vapor producing clean energy'...well then you have a PISS pot more water vapor in the air and since it's a strong contributor to the 'green house' effect we'll next being talking about how to get rid of it! Of course someone will tell me how I'm wrong etc. but it's the # of people not the activities we perform or the methods we use to produce energy...but hey, I'm not going to say who gets to cut the population down to the minimum necessary to sustain life. Push comes to shove it comes down to 1 thing 'Entropy is a bitch!'...until or unless we figure out a way to get off our single planet in droves we're doomed...hey, teenagers are pushed out of the home for a freakin' reason, the same goes for the human race as a whole...we need more homes to live in & we need them fast.
A passenger mile and automobile mile emit about the same amount carbon, i.e. about a pound of CO2 per mile. Its just a single trans-ocean flight will exceed the amount of driving most do in a year. I dont think many people who go on these international eco-trips pay much attention to this. I have seen some disclaimers in adventurer documentaries that the makers purchased carbon offsets to make trips carbon neutral. Wink wink. Offset try to pay others to cut their consumption so you can increase yours. Or plant a certain number of trees.
Although ground transportation made great strides in employing renewable energy, its hard to see how air travel can. Planes have run off of biofuels. Its hard to see how a plane can store enough electromotive energy to be practical. Requires two orders of magnitude beyond what struggling ground EVs can do. Dsytopian scfi novels have air travel as an extreme luxury when carbon fuels run out, whenever that is.
If recreation for you is driving a gas guzzler cross-country while "turning on both heating and air conditioning", then yes. On the other hand, for most people recreation involves relaxing activities which have somewhere between a low or even negative carbon footprint (like gardening).
I find it ironic that with a 9+ year old account, I'm still "newer" than either the very-long-time 5-digit-userid Slashdotter Hedrick who criticized my humor or the somewhat-senior-to-me (by userid) editor gurps_npc who made the original sex comment.
I wish I'd realized gurps_nps's lower userid before making my first reply - I might have included a few more "old-timer in-jokes."
Cue "get off my lawn" in 3...2...1...
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Shh, don't tell anyone but part of what makes this joke so funny (IMHO) is that 1) the truth about geek sex lives is far closer to the "average person" than it is to the "can't get a date - ever" stereotype 2) we (geeks) know it, and 3) we are comfortable enough in our own skin to tell this joke about ourselves.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
See for example the book "superfreakonomics". One topic discussed is the wat,
for a few million a year, to cool the planet with sulfur. Demonstrated by natural events to work, with
basically no side effects, and easily adjustable should the calculations go off. In the
short run it can be said to buy time to figure how to store energy from other sources
and is obviously simpler and far easier to implement than spending trillions on
making everyone live on a 3rd world energy budget (which those in the 3rd world
want to stop doing btw). Also lets you avoid a government with that kind of authority
which many view as a bad thing.
Remember Lord Acton: "Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
They will likely institute a policy to export Ebloa via air-transport to major population center of the world exclusively for culling humanity.
There's plenty of Electricity....
From dipping a probe in the ionosphere and beaming it back to earth to Tesla's background radiation pumps...
But that would mean showing the public how energy could be freely produced (almost) after decades of outright fraud.
The summary and the articles linked have almost no facts in common. There are so many absurd claims in the summary ("five times"? really?) that I'm kind of surprised that this made it passed even the most lax and inclusive editorial process.
The summary is the equivalent to saying that "If the sun had gone out in 1992, and all human beings had three heads, Al Gore would have gone back in time to take away our guns. Goddamn Obama..."
No joke. That's how much sense this summary makes, and that was also pretty much the intended message.
You are welcome on my lawn.
It's highly unlikely that the world can safely produce almost five times as much electricity by 2035 as it does nowâ"which is what it would take to provide everyone with a circa-2010 American standard of living
I agree that this is unlikely. But I disagree on why. The "safe production" level is probably at least five orders of magnitude larger than present. That's when you start running into problems with dumping heat of power generation and consumption to the environment. It's remarkable how full of bullshit some of the climate change alarmists are.
This is just an excuse to keep people crippled and starving. What is missed is that energy just isn't that scarce. It's a classic case of creating artificial scarcity probably in large part because of perceived immoral aspects of society. How about instead we have a little less misanthropy and a little more care about the well being of ourselves and future generations?
This is the same old, not just dishonest (you have to know the truth to be dishonest) but RETARDED, 18th century way of thinking in the line of Thomas Robert Malthus.
I.e. Prediction of the future anchored in the inability to imagine or even comprehend change.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Is exterminate all the white people. Except of course for MSNBC viewers. Sure it's tough solution but.....the TREES!
not only that, but why are we talking global population and american standards anyway? Last I checked, countries were free to operate how they see fit.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Thank you. One of the best articles on /. in a long time.
Haters gonna hate, but we'll come back to this article in a few years and say :
"We told you so".
1. You don't need to use as much energy as Americans to lead a modern lifestyle, here in Europe we use a fraction of the amount per capita.
2. That's irrelevant anyway because there's a giant fusion reactor in the sky which can provide 1000x more than we need.
So, the premise is wrong - that there is limited energy, so the conclusion is naturally wrong too.
See diagram:
http://azizonomics.files.wordp...
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
See this nice description of a solar power facility on the lunar surface.
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
just try to have a rational discussion with a liberal about the heritability of intelligence, genetically modified crops, or the economics of light rail.
because supporting light rail is unscientific and irrational?
heritability of intelligence? we're not on that again are we?
the issues you picked do not support your contention...the conservative/GOP position is squarely against science, in lockstep across the issues
Thank you Dave Raggett
This is a standard fallacy, that there's a direct correspondence between energy use and standard of living. Take a look at the actual numbers for what a "circa-2010 American standard of living" actually means for energy:
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/el...
The average person in Wyoming used more than four times as much energy as the average person in California. Do you think that means their standard of living was four times as high? And no, it's not just that Wyoming is a large rural state. California has huge rural areas too. And Washington DC consists entirely of one city, but its per-capita energy use was nearly three times higher than California's.
What this actually means is that California has taken energy conservation seriously for decades, and has had government policies designed to promote energy efficiency. And those policies have worked, really really well. An "American standard of living" does not require ridiculously high energy use.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
Color me selfish and flame me if you will, but as an American citizen, why would I care to solve the whole world's energy problem from my hard earned tax dollars. I don't even know if I will be alibe by 2035, as I am expected to be in my 70s if I haven't kicked the bucket. I don't have any children to leave the world as a better place for. So, why would I pay more taxes so that some dude in a lab can spend money that he didn't work for, in the name of renewable energy research while my quality of life diminishes. Sorry about being selfish but self preservation is the most basic human instinct.
__________
The more I know people, the more I love animals
There are no socio-economic problems that cannot be solved by a 100 meter rise in the sea level.
AGW? Problem solved.
All those who are truly concerned about global warming caused by human activity should either immediately stop using anything that generates CO2 or, if they are truly committed to their cause, commit hari kari.
The fact that virtually none of these people take either option screams that they really don't believe the stuff they are saying.
When you and yours are living the caveman life, come and talk to me about CO2. Until then, talk to the hand because the face ain't interested.
Both of these concepts are stalking horses for Democrats to indulge in their most fascistic fantasies, and they will lead to where fascism always has: poverty, misery, and no end of severe damage to the environment. Centralized government control has never been a friend of the environment, and trying to pretend you are doing for unnamed other people deserving "justice" will not improve it, and may well make it much, much worse. And these are facts much better supported than any "climate change" statistics. The climate will always change - it did so before there were humans, it will do while there are humans, it will do so long after there are humans. Even if we did every damn-fool thing you want to do in the name of "climate-change" the best projections for their effects on the environment are rated in hundredths of a degree.
And I can't help but point out yet once more that liberals are all about "science" when whining about "climate change" but they aren't so keen on it when the facts supported reduction in violent crime with conceal carry laws. When you start supporting all science, I will then and only then reconsider my utter dismissal of your fascist designs.
There are no socio-economic problems that cannot be solved by a 100 meter rise in the sea level.
Since we are talking about imaginary scenarios, why not wish for the full blown 8800 meter sea level rise? Imaginary half measures are so lame.
What a crock. All resources are limited. Nothing special here...
The problem is purely political/cultural (okay, it boils down to biological, but who's counting?). The technology is comparatively easy. Right now we create poverty out of abundance, simply to support the financial systems we have surrendered control to. All our energy is spent putting up barriers.
I'd love to see your numbers for those ideas.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So, you are a libertarian that believes the fate of your money should be decided by others, and should be used by large government to fund incredibly expensive programs?
To quote Fezzik from the princess bride, "I don't think you know what that words means."
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
fu beta
All theories of the future become amusingly wrong after a few score of years. In 1900 the big ecological problem facing humanity was what to do with increasing piles of horse shit. Automobiles were a solution to that sanitation and olfactory problem. Today we have several million brilliant minds working on Internet stuff, cosmetics, military advances and only about 120 scientists working on fusion.
Of greater interest may be the "impossible rocket engine" that is now treated as a slightly interesting oddity. Doesn't anybody think it odd that the scientific establishment is so vitriolic against this development that uses relativity differences to produce thrust with no fuel? Yes, it is a small step, but the resistance indicates the blinkered vision of current understanding of possibilities regarding energy.
We will need boundless energy in the future, we don't know how to do that right now. But the need will drive the innovation. It's always worked this way. Imagination and creativity are the ultimate resource.
Florida Republican Congressman Steve Southerland in a bat-guano-crazy political spew sent out an invitation to an all-male fundraiser: “Tell the Misses not to wait up because the whiskey & cigars will be smooth and the issues to discuss will be many.” Quoted in The Economist Sept 27 - Oct 3, 2014, an issue with the ironic cover lead “Inside This Week: Intelligent Life”. Not in this bit for sure - what, the little woman now has a vote?!!)
[Stover] Economists and energy experts shy away from issues of equity and morality, but climate change and environmental justice are inseparable: It's impossible to talk intelligently about climate without discussing how to distribute limited energy resources.
Just what I needed today, someone who uses 'friendly UN language' in an earnest attempt to empower me to speak intelligently about climate. To do so I need to add the term environmental justice to my vocabulary. There is another pill to swallow too, the implied mandate that someone must decide how to distribute limited energy resources.
I piss in the general direction of anyone who would impose such a nebulous definition of justice and attempt to frame un-settled science in some gilded moral context... but especially anyone who (clumsily) declares that energy resources are limited.
I will try to explain why I think those ideas are not merely wrong or bad but in light current events, actually deserving of contempt.
First, why any idea may deserve contempt is simply this --- 'we' as a modern society are facing an existential threat. It arises not from a crisis of 'sin' or 'shortage' or even 'hubris', it is just our failure to get off our asses to do something that needs to be done. This is a people-crisis. What needs to be done is different things to different folks, but at present very few practical solutions are being pursued on a time table that befits the threat. Things you could stand up to yourself and say, this could work,
Energy resources are NOT limited. They have never been nor will they ever be. The only thing in short supply at the moment is our own resolve and progress to unlock more or better ones. If people say, "I'm talking about x" then let them talk about x without you but keep one hand on your wallet. If they go on to suggest that additional governance or taxation is necessary for x, press them to pose whether everyone on the planet would adopt this scheme, and get them thinking about what we might do to those who don't go along.
All paths towards global taxation (such as so-called 'carbon credits') or enforced conservation of energy sources lead to war. ALL OF THEM. Everything that has been discussed from Club of Rome to Kyoto to Obama's tactic of declaring CO2 an EPA-regulated poison is a failure in progress. That is --- unless war or control is what you're really after. Hint hint. As a (struggling) American and (modern) human, I feel contempt for things that lead into war. Because war sucks.
I piss in the general direction of anyone who asks me to reduce my "per capita energy usage" for any reason, or even suggests that it might be a solution for anything. This is because the whole idea that anyone on Earth could (or should) make do with less is --- you guessed it --- a path to war.
That is because when you plea to the modern world at large to consume less energy, you are asking people to die. They must die to make your 'models' work. They must die because they fight to the death to avoid your government-imposed child limits (gwarsh, who'da thunk it?) They must die because you are importing their oil and feel the need to install friendly governments. They must die because they insist on breaking your rules, rules that must lead to war to keep the rest of the world in line.
Why do *I* feel rising contempt in general? Because after years of discourse on energy, I feel that a great many people --- while enjoying the gigawatt fruit to its fullest --- are just sitting on their asses. And posing 'solutions' that (ultimately) lead us all to WAR. (It still sucks!)
And they have the GALL to tell me to end my 'recreation
<blink>down the rabbit hole</blink>
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That would solve so many problems. Never going to happen, but since we're talking about making people do silly bullshit because it's cheaper, let's make a list:
- Don't have any pets. They aren't strictly necessary anyway. Sure, they improve our quality of life and many studies show they can increase our lifespan, but fuck that noise.
- Only eat Government Mandated Nutrient Paste. Taste receptors? What are you, a hedonist?
- No more chairs, sofas, etc. You shouldn't be relaxing anyway. Any time spent not working is wasted, and you can work standing. Speaking of which...
- Observe Government Mandated Sleeping Hours. We need you to sleep the exact minimum amount of time to not be worthless.
I could go on, but why bother? This guy is such a complete moron, he probably doesn't even realize my list isn't a collection of sincere advice.
You can find the numbers yourself if that is what is important to you. I prefer pictures.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I prefer pictures
That doesn't surprise me. Learn to think more deeply.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Policy makers? I thought this was a representative republic. I thought we voted on stuff, and it was applied to everybody. Ha-ha. Just kidding. I didn't roll off a turnip truck. Yep. Policy Makers. They make policy for everybody... except those with enough money to buy out of it. IMHO, Policy Makers need to do one thing: Go into a corner and fuck themselves. Of course they're not going to do that. They'll make some kind of "carbon policy" or "water policy" or whatever. Then some corporation will buy their way out of it. You and I? I say, hop in the car and guzzle while you still can. Whatever nightmare that will be created by Policy Makers is inevitable. You might as well have some fun before it happens.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Yes, that will make things better. Do what you can to ignore the problem.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
If you spend a little time and do the research on top 10 vehicles sold in the USA., you find that they are not SUVs. Yes there are trucks but also a bunch of compact cars. I live in a big farm state where SUVs and sub compact cars won't do the job here.
At least this Climate Change article is labeled "Flamebait". Maybe eventually we'll make the improvement of you leaving these trash articles completely out of the site and focus on tech articles instead.
You'll note I was talking about the stock markets.
Doesn't matter. Same arguments still apply.
Which are operating under the unsupportable, and irrational premise that all companies need to grow every single year, and that it's mathematically unsustainable without new markets.
There's nothing irrational about investors wanting a return on their investment. If I'm going to buy a stake in your company then as an investor I have a reasonable expectation that the company will provide me with a return on my investment proportional to the risk I am taking. Furthermore that return on investment needs to be greater than the alternative investment opportunities available to me. Why would I ever invest in a risky tech startup if the return on my investment is less than that of a much safer government bond?
Nobody (rational) expects "all companies" to grow every year. Some are going to succeed, others are going to go out of business, still others will just continue to exist not doing much. Some companies like power utilities What investors DO expect is that if you want investment in the company that you will have to provide an expected return and that generally requires growth of the company to achieve.
So, the way the stock market operates these days is a giant ponzi scheme which can't possibly be sustained.
Aside from some fancier technology the stock market operates no differently than it ever did.
I just realized the article is TL;DR.
If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
Yes, that will make things better. Do what you can to ignore the problem.
"Don't just stand there, do something!!!" The actual problem is, I don't believe your point in the first post. Furthermore, it seems like a point someone picked up in some moronic youtube video (although you've been around long enough, that I give you more credit than that and figure you might have some reasonable plan worked out somewhere).
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
So this is all based on models/theories that have CO2 controlling the climate. There is a huge discrepancy between the global climate models and reality. The GCMs run way too hot. The obvious answer is that the models are broken but we can't have that because "we know" certain facts. Well in reality we don't know those "facts" at all.
A great explanation of why the GCMs are in epic fail mode can be read here.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/06/real-science-debates-are-not-rare/
That is a long but very excellent post by Dr. Robert G. Brown (Lecturer in Physics at Duke University).
Now if we were doing science then the choices when your model/theory and reality don't agree is to abandon or modify your model/theory. The fact that there are now dozens of explanations for the "missing heat" shows just how far from science the subject of climate has gone. Unless you care to correct Dr Brown about the validity of the models the obvious answer is also the correct one: The Models/Theory of CO2 controlling the climate are WRONG.
So no we don't have to give up vacations or any of modern life's conveniences. We shouldn't be stupid and waste resources either but to give up a way of life based on pseudo-science that is more religious belief than science is just as stupid.
"It's highly unlikely that the world can safely produce almost five times as much electricity by 2035 as it does nowâ"which is what it would take to provide everyone with a circa-2010 American standard of living, according to a calculation by University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. "
Working to "meet everyone's needs"? since when have the powers-that-be cared one whit about "meeting everyone's needs"? If the ruling classes cared, long ago they would have started implementing very different energy policies. As it is, those who profit from dirty energy will never give it up unless forced.
What a bunch of progressive trash.
No no, hey, you're right. It's much better to just keep on killing people and taking their shit. You gotta go with what works, right? Survival of the fittest! The devil you know is always the best. Don't want to take any unnecessary risks... You just keep on counting those "numbers". That's what makes the world go 'round.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I'm interested in hearing alternative solutions, you don't have any. Lastima.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Well, I guess that's your excuse, and you're stickin' to it. Ni modo
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
it's not an excuse lol, it's a question
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
Walking around in a long robe with a sign that says "The World Is Going To End Tomorrow!"
It's not that they don't have a valid point (maybe), but that they are not actually concerned with fixing anything...
GOP'ers hate science...and work in lockstep to oppose it by policy
that's not in dispute here...anyone rational enough to understand how our system works and looks at policy rhetoric and votes can draw this conclusion from basic information
that's your problem, you're using rhetoric to support a position that is unsupportable
i'm not stereotyping 'GOP'ers'...here is a stereotype: "all asians are bad drivers"
stereotypes are unfairly categorizing a group of people based on non-relevant information
GOP'ers choose to support anti-science policies of their own free will, which makes them fair game
Thank you Dave Raggett
list the GOP's recent policies on anything dealing with science or the application thereof and that is also a list of anti-science GOP policies...they are the same list
look, everyone knows you are trolling...i'm conversing with you for my own reasons...but it's this simple...**you** pick any policy that deals with science and i will explain why the GOP's policy, especially in congress, is anti-science
so you tell me a US policy issue that involves science and i'll take it from there
Thank you Dave Raggett
if any part of you was interested in productive conversation you would have listed a policy...
idk...
> pollution regulation
> "global warming"
> fracking
> NSF funding
> religion in school textbooks
any of those would have been fine...but you're just trolling, so you just highlighted and blockquoted me and continued your logic-offending rhetoric
again...you proved to be trolling by not even attempting to engage in rational discussion
Thank you Dave Raggett
is it REALISTIC to expect the entire planet with the projected population growth by 2035 to have a USA 2010 standard of living level in terms of energy consumption?