Less Stuff or Less Additional Stuff?

Less stuff. Absolutely. Lots less stuff. I'll start, because I'm a Leader, a Visionary, a Winner: I pledge to turn down the heat a full degree in my pool house.

We in the first world (or is the US the second world now?) will probably be fine with the same amount of stuff, if it is all a whole lot more energy efficient and non-polluting than the stuff we have now.

What we don't want to do is freeze the stuff-having levels of folks who have basically no stuff (or food) at all, just so we can all keep driving the exact same number of Hummers.

"Conservation may be a sign of personal virtue but it is not a sufficient basis for a sound, comprehensive energy policy." –Dick Cheney, Toronto, April 30, 2001

Barring catastrophe. Ha Ha
Kolbert's Field Notes from a Catastrophe not on many reading lists and certainly not M.Y.'s. No doubt a work to be dissed as in sky falling genre. Less knowledge about more and more equals speculation time.

The distinction between less stuff and less extra stuff is particularly sharp if you distinguish between consumer stuff, like happy meal toys and disposable everything, and durable stuff like buildings, plumbing, and factory automation.

The benefit/pollution ratio of something like plumbing, that our friends in the third world will hopefully adopt soon, are not an ongoing source of pollution but have tremendous life changing impact.

Where as the billions of Happy Meal toys have virtually no benefit and lots and lots of downside.

If we (Americans) freeze the amount of stuff we have at today's levels, we (Americans) will generate more of a environmental footprint by 2026 by the proportion of population growth that occurs between now and then (if we grow 10%, but have exactly the same per capita environmental footprint, then our total environmental footprint will grow by 10%).

If we want to freeze our environmental footprint to today's level (remember, today's level is causing Global Warming), we will have to reduce our individual environmental footprint by a proportion equal to the growth of the country (if 10 people burn 100 gallons of gas today, they burn 10 gallons each. If 11 people want to burn 100 gallons in 2026, they get to burn 9 or so gallons each).

If we want to reduce our environmental footprint (remember, today's level is causing Global Warming), we not only have to reduce enough to cover the population growth mentioned above, we have to reduce to cover our desired overall reduction (let's say its 20%). Thus, 10 people burning 100 gallons today allows 10 gallons per person. 11 people burning 80 gallons in 2026 allows 7.3 gallons.

This all assumes that the other 5.7 billion people on earth (including 2 billion Chinese and Indians) don't grow AT ALL, and in fact, also reduce by 20% (in spite of their own population growth between now and 2026).

So, if you are serious about Global Warming, and seriously think its a threat, the glib solution that we will just have 'people in 2026 should have less additional stuff relative to 2006-people than they would otherwise have had were we to just ignore the problem,' is patent nonsense.

Liberal Arts majors may be able to write, but for gods sake take an introductory engineering class. Learn how to understand problems, and not just write about them.

Sk

Matt, you don't go far enough. Stopping global warming will leave subsequent generations _wealthier_ not poorer due to the enormous costs that unchecked global warming would impose on those future generations. A real global warming strategy will have a substatial up-front cost but those costs are _investments_ that yield substantial returns in the future. In the language of finance, stopping global warming is a positive Net Present Value project. It's not the cost that matters most here, it's the return on investment.

Regarding your statement:
"The proposition that we should take bold action against global climate change isn't a proposal that people in 2026 should have less stuff than people in 2006 for the sake of preserving the environment in 2046. Rather, the proposal is that people in 2026 should have less additional stuff relative to 2006-people than they would otherwise have had were we to just ignore the problem."

I'm not even sure that this is true. The reason that the GOP is host to climate change deniers is the same reason that economic growth overall is lower when the country is governed by Republican politicians. The GOP isn't really pro-business rather they are pro-existing wealth. If you have significant assets you don't want to change things and are willing to cling to the status quo.

We don't know what the economic results of policies that attempt to forestall climate change will be. The costs to the public of attempting to maintain the status quo (e.g. refugee relocation) do seem horrific and will be a significant drain on the economy.

Sk is only part right. It is true that we will have to consume fewer inputs in the future, but history shows that technological advances have allowed us to produce more economic output (GDP) per unit input over time. Matt is refering to economic outputs rather than inputs so even with a stable or modestly declining rate of consumption of inputs we are still likely to enjoy greater outputs in the future. This is what Matt is talking about.

Engineers may be able to write stuff like that, but for heaven's sake take an introductory economics class.

Sk,

In specific reference to gas economy, I've long maintained that CAFE standards are good for the economy. They increase our productivity. We, as a nation, get to work on fewer gallons of gas per capita per mile than we used to. The money our economy would have spent on gas we now spend on happy meal toys, larger cars, and huge executive bonus packages. And maybe even invest it in productivity improvements.

In addition, Sk, as an engineer, I'm sure you appreciate that we can build in better enviromental performance up front or not. For example, places like China and India already have high urban densities that are beneficial in regard to carbon emissions. If the US were to take Kyoto seriously instead of undermining it, those countries would most likely maintain those densities as they grow. Instead, they may follow our lead and spread out as far and wide as they can and compound the contribution to pollution that their growth will cause.

Perhaps you could do some calculations for us and let us know if in this case prevention is cheaper or more expensive then remediation?

"Stiff carbon-reduction policies" will make energy produced with carbon more expensive not all energy. You would expect the free market (probably with some government assistance) to come up with a variety of alternative sources of energy that don't use carbon or use less carbon and thus cost the same or less.

Sorry Matt you sound just like all the politicians who promise we can solve the problem of resource shortages without any sacrifice by Americans.

We are 4% of the world's population and use 40% of the resources. This is unsustainable, efficiency does not create water or arable land or even declining raw materials like Tantalum.

If the rest of the world were to progress to a level similar to Bulgaria this would require the 1.3 billion people earning under $1 per day ($300 per year) moving to about $10,000 per year. Then add in all those making $2+ per day (the UN's poverty limit) and tell me where the resources are going to come from to make this happen.

A truly sustainable economic system in the US would have a standard of living of, perhaps, 20% of our current rate. Technological progress may push this up a bit, but if you think people are going to own 4 or 5 private autos per family in 50 years in the US you are misreading the international social forces in play.

We need to refocus on moderation, not growth and not even on reduced growth. There is a school of people now working on increasing happiness rather than material wealth as the proper goal of society. I suggest looking into their work.

Matt, I think you've said it exactly right. The catch is, it only works if we implement a steady, deliberate expansion of nuclear energy. Renewables are a big part of the solution, and conservation may even be a bigger part. But look what nuclear gets us:

(1) An electricity source that doesn't depend on wind or sunlight or the limited amount of energy storage available, and emits virtually no greenhouse gases. It could reduce CO2 emissions by 40%.

(2) An energy-efficient way to produce hydrogen, which could be used directly in automobiles and trucks or, more likely, could be added to biofuels to make their production higher by a factor of three. Presently, transportation accounts for about 33% of greenhouse gases; all of that could be eliminated through conservation, electrification, and alternate fuels.

(3) A huge reduction in air pollution, lowered trade deficits, and freedom from the demands of foreign kings.

Maybe you can answer this for me: how can we get Mr. Gore on board? He thinks energy gimmicks will solve the problem. No disrespect intended, but I don't think he's looking at the problem realistically.

Thanks
Best regards
mirc
mirç
mırc
mırç
mircturk
turkmirc
mirc indir
mirc yukle
mirch
mırch
mirc turk
turk mirc
mırcturk
turkmırc
mırc turk
turk mırc
turkiyemirc
türkiyemirc
turkiye mirc
türkiye mirc
mircturkiye
mirctürkiye
mirc turkiye
mircturk
turkmırc
muhabbet
mirc sohbet
mırc sohbet
mirc chat
mırc chat
mırc ındır
mirc ındır
Türkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Turkçe mirc
Türkce mirc
Türkçe mırc
Türkce mırc
Turkçe mırc
Turkce mırc
mirc
mirc
forum
forum
turkforum
turkiyeforum
mirc
turkmirc
toplist
site ekle
pagerank
turkmirc
turkforum
sohbet
chat
sohbet odaları
bedava sohbet
bedava chat
türk
karar