For new Readers: I have posted several articles (in german) on what I consider to be a widespread discrimination of youth. Our civilisations are waging a war against youth, we can see that
from spain to egypt. Young people are forcefully kept out of
participating in society and have their future stolen by the rich old
men.
I also think, what lies in the future will not only be a class struggle but will also be the most vicious conflict between generations ever. It seems I am not alone with this theory.
On TruthDig.org, "
professor, critic and political theorist Henry A. Giroux talks about a
subject in which he’s become expert: the systematic ways that
governments across the globe visit violence on young people."
Montag, 3. Dezember 2012
Montag, 26. November 2012
Was Ökonomen noch nie über Wachstum wissen wollten
... und auch nie zu Fragen getraut haben.
Dies ist ein Beitrag zur Blogparade des Wirtschaftswurms zum Thema Grenzen des Wachstums.
Wachstum ist ein positiv besetzter Begriff. Er trägt das Versprechen vom Grünen und Blühen in sich. Wachstum wird gleichgesetzt mit Wohlstand und Fortschritt. Kritiker des Wachstums befinden sich dadurch in einer schlechten Ausgangsposition um ihre Argumente vorzubringen. Hat uns nicht Wachstum all diese Errungenschaften unserer Zivilisation beschert, die unser Leben lebenswert machen? Wie kann ein Wachstumskritiker dies nur in Frage stellen?
Wer Wachstum kritisiert muss also eine Hürde des Missverständnisses überwinden bevor er überhaupt anfangen kann seine Argumente vorzubringen. Diese Einstiegshürde in die Diskussion verwehrt der Wachstumskritik den Zugang zur öffentlichen Meinung und die Meinungshoheit im öffentlichen Raum hat der Wachstumsjünger.
Wachstumskritiker sind „Untergangspropheten“ und „Schwarzseher“, ihre Ausführungen zeitraubend und mühsam. Das Buch „Grenzen des Wachstums“ des Club of Rome wurde von weit weniger Menschen gelesen als es angegriffen und kritisiert wurde.
Der Wachstumsjünger muss nicht erklären was er unter Wachstum versteht. In einer Diskussion wird niemals festgelegt für was der Begriff in seinen Augen steht. Das Wohlwollen des Zuhörers ist ihm von vorneherein sicher. Der Kritiker ist zu langen Ausführungen gezwungen bevor er überhaupt seine Argumente vorbringen kann.
Was wir Kritiker aber verlangen, ist, dass die unangenehmen Fragen gestellt werden die sich die Ökonomen oder Wirtschaftspolitiker offenbar nicht stellen wollen.
Von was für einem Wachstum sprechen wir überhaupt?
Wer profitiert vom Wachstum wirklich, leiden auch Menschen unter dem Wachstum?
Gibt es einen Preis des Wachstums und sind wir bereit ihn zu Bezahlen?
Wie funktioniert Wachstum aus der Sicht der Ökonomen, wo sind ihre blinden Flecken?
Diese Fragen sind meiner Meinung nach berechtigt und von ungeheurer Tragweite für unsere Gesellschaft.
Es gibt seit geraumer Zeit offenbar keinen Zusammenhang mehr zwischen gemessenen Wachstum und Wohlstandszuwachs in hochindustrialisierten Ländern wie Deutschland oder den USA.
Der Produktivitätszuwachs kommt seit über 20 Jahren nur noch wenigen zugute. Anscheinend kam es zu entscheidenden Änderungen seit dieser Zeit, die die Auswirkungen des Wachstums auf die Gesellschaft betreffen.
Die negativen Auswirkungen des Wachstums allerdings, müssen von allen getragen werden. Die Verursacher von Umweltschäden oder Klimaerwärmung sind schwer zu ermitteln und oft nicht mehr greifbar, die Auswirkungen bekommen alle zu spüren.
Im Namen des Wachstums sind wir bereit immer fragwürdigere Energiequellen anzuzapfen um den Energiehunger zu Stillen der aus dem Wachstum erfolgt. Fracking und Tiefsee-Ölplattformen verursachen stetig neue Rekorde der Umweltzerstörung, dennoch werden die Wachstumsversprechen der Wirtschaftsprognosen meist nicht erfüllt, die Profitprognosen der Ölindustrie aber durchaus.
Die Krisen der Finanzwelt, der der Löwenanteil an den Profiten des Wachstums der letzten Jahrzehnte zugute kam, konnten von den Ökonomen und Wachstumsjüngern nicht vorhergesagt werden. Die Kosten der Krise tragen genau die Steuerzahler und die Bezieher von Sozialleistungen, die bestimmt keine Vermögensgewinne in den letzten Jahren erzielt haben.
Einen Zusammenhang zwischen dem Wachstum und dem Vermögenszuwachs weniger sehr reicher Individuen ist dagegen durchaus zu erkennen. Sie sind es die offensichtlich Profitiert haben vom Wachstum der letzten Jahre.
Was also ist gemeint mit einer Politik die alles daransetzt neues Wachstum zu generieren?
Ist damit gemeint, dass wir weiterhin die Ressourcen unserer Erde verschwenden, damit einige wenige profitieren aber alle die langfristigen Kosten tragen müssen?
Ist damit gemeint, dass Ungerechtigkeit weiter wächst? Oder die Umweltzerstörung? Oder die Konten in Steueroasen?
Wachstumskritiker wollen diese Fragen klären bevor sie mit einer fertigen Politik im Namen des Wachstums konfrontiert werden.
Wachstum wurde in jüngster Vergangenheit gleichbedeutend mit Ausbeutung. Stellt man die Frage nach den Grenzen des Wachstums mit dem Begriff der hinter dem Wachstum verborgen ist, wird klar was Wachstumskritiker umtreibt.
Frage: Gibt es Grenzen der Ausbeutung?
Antwort: Ja, und hoffentlich haben wir diese bald erreicht!
Unendliches Wachstum/Ausbeutung klingt dann wie eine Drohung und nicht wie die Verheißung als die sie uns verkauft wurde.
Man stelle sich bei jeder Erwähnung des Wortes Wachstum an dessen Stelle das Wort Ausbeutung vor und plötzlich erlebt man Wirtschaftsminister Rösler ganz neu.
Ich habe in Rahmen dieses Blogs eine neue Definition vorgeschlagen die Wachstum so definiert, dass ich mit einer echten Wachstumspolitik einverstanden wäre. Ich würde gerne eine offene Diskussion mit Ökonomen über das Wachstum führen. Vielleicht fühlt sich ja irgendein Ökonom der den Wirtschaftswurm verfolgt dazu berufen sich diesen Fragen ehrlich zu stellen.
Dies ist ein Beitrag zur Blogparade des Wirtschaftswurms zum Thema Grenzen des Wachstums.
Wachstum ist ein positiv besetzter Begriff. Er trägt das Versprechen vom Grünen und Blühen in sich. Wachstum wird gleichgesetzt mit Wohlstand und Fortschritt. Kritiker des Wachstums befinden sich dadurch in einer schlechten Ausgangsposition um ihre Argumente vorzubringen. Hat uns nicht Wachstum all diese Errungenschaften unserer Zivilisation beschert, die unser Leben lebenswert machen? Wie kann ein Wachstumskritiker dies nur in Frage stellen?
Wer Wachstum kritisiert muss also eine Hürde des Missverständnisses überwinden bevor er überhaupt anfangen kann seine Argumente vorzubringen. Diese Einstiegshürde in die Diskussion verwehrt der Wachstumskritik den Zugang zur öffentlichen Meinung und die Meinungshoheit im öffentlichen Raum hat der Wachstumsjünger.
Wachstumskritiker sind „Untergangspropheten“ und „Schwarzseher“, ihre Ausführungen zeitraubend und mühsam. Das Buch „Grenzen des Wachstums“ des Club of Rome wurde von weit weniger Menschen gelesen als es angegriffen und kritisiert wurde.
Der Wachstumsjünger muss nicht erklären was er unter Wachstum versteht. In einer Diskussion wird niemals festgelegt für was der Begriff in seinen Augen steht. Das Wohlwollen des Zuhörers ist ihm von vorneherein sicher. Der Kritiker ist zu langen Ausführungen gezwungen bevor er überhaupt seine Argumente vorbringen kann.
Was wir Kritiker aber verlangen, ist, dass die unangenehmen Fragen gestellt werden die sich die Ökonomen oder Wirtschaftspolitiker offenbar nicht stellen wollen.
Von was für einem Wachstum sprechen wir überhaupt?
Wer profitiert vom Wachstum wirklich, leiden auch Menschen unter dem Wachstum?
Gibt es einen Preis des Wachstums und sind wir bereit ihn zu Bezahlen?
Wie funktioniert Wachstum aus der Sicht der Ökonomen, wo sind ihre blinden Flecken?
Diese Fragen sind meiner Meinung nach berechtigt und von ungeheurer Tragweite für unsere Gesellschaft.
Es gibt seit geraumer Zeit offenbar keinen Zusammenhang mehr zwischen gemessenen Wachstum und Wohlstandszuwachs in hochindustrialisierten Ländern wie Deutschland oder den USA.
Der Produktivitätszuwachs kommt seit über 20 Jahren nur noch wenigen zugute. Anscheinend kam es zu entscheidenden Änderungen seit dieser Zeit, die die Auswirkungen des Wachstums auf die Gesellschaft betreffen.
Die negativen Auswirkungen des Wachstums allerdings, müssen von allen getragen werden. Die Verursacher von Umweltschäden oder Klimaerwärmung sind schwer zu ermitteln und oft nicht mehr greifbar, die Auswirkungen bekommen alle zu spüren.
Im Namen des Wachstums sind wir bereit immer fragwürdigere Energiequellen anzuzapfen um den Energiehunger zu Stillen der aus dem Wachstum erfolgt. Fracking und Tiefsee-Ölplattformen verursachen stetig neue Rekorde der Umweltzerstörung, dennoch werden die Wachstumsversprechen der Wirtschaftsprognosen meist nicht erfüllt, die Profitprognosen der Ölindustrie aber durchaus.
Die Krisen der Finanzwelt, der der Löwenanteil an den Profiten des Wachstums der letzten Jahrzehnte zugute kam, konnten von den Ökonomen und Wachstumsjüngern nicht vorhergesagt werden. Die Kosten der Krise tragen genau die Steuerzahler und die Bezieher von Sozialleistungen, die bestimmt keine Vermögensgewinne in den letzten Jahren erzielt haben.
Einen Zusammenhang zwischen dem Wachstum und dem Vermögenszuwachs weniger sehr reicher Individuen ist dagegen durchaus zu erkennen. Sie sind es die offensichtlich Profitiert haben vom Wachstum der letzten Jahre.
Was also ist gemeint mit einer Politik die alles daransetzt neues Wachstum zu generieren?
Ist damit gemeint, dass wir weiterhin die Ressourcen unserer Erde verschwenden, damit einige wenige profitieren aber alle die langfristigen Kosten tragen müssen?
Ist damit gemeint, dass Ungerechtigkeit weiter wächst? Oder die Umweltzerstörung? Oder die Konten in Steueroasen?
Wachstumskritiker wollen diese Fragen klären bevor sie mit einer fertigen Politik im Namen des Wachstums konfrontiert werden.
Wachstum wurde in jüngster Vergangenheit gleichbedeutend mit Ausbeutung. Stellt man die Frage nach den Grenzen des Wachstums mit dem Begriff der hinter dem Wachstum verborgen ist, wird klar was Wachstumskritiker umtreibt.
Frage: Gibt es Grenzen der Ausbeutung?
Antwort: Ja, und hoffentlich haben wir diese bald erreicht!
Unendliches Wachstum/Ausbeutung klingt dann wie eine Drohung und nicht wie die Verheißung als die sie uns verkauft wurde.
Man stelle sich bei jeder Erwähnung des Wortes Wachstum an dessen Stelle das Wort Ausbeutung vor und plötzlich erlebt man Wirtschaftsminister Rösler ganz neu.
Ich habe in Rahmen dieses Blogs eine neue Definition vorgeschlagen die Wachstum so definiert, dass ich mit einer echten Wachstumspolitik einverstanden wäre. Ich würde gerne eine offene Diskussion mit Ökonomen über das Wachstum führen. Vielleicht fühlt sich ja irgendein Ökonom der den Wirtschaftswurm verfolgt dazu berufen sich diesen Fragen ehrlich zu stellen.
Dienstag, 23. Oktober 2012
The farmland analogon
Growth is a complex matter. Its measurement as GDP gain has given reason for debate as we now see that GDP gain alone will not define a society’s wellbeing. Herman Daly, growth critic for decades, has summarized the fallacies of growth on the casse website (second part).
Criticism of GDP growth can be summarized in the following arguments:
These arguments above give rise to the most important questions everybody has to ask himself and the leaders he has chosen:
Above fallacies of growth and open questions can be formulated as one central question:
Is our (growth capitalist) society so dependent on unsustainable growth that it will collapse if growth comes to its inevitable end?
All these open questions about growth will define our future first and foremost. As long as these questions are not answered all other discussions are moot. How we answer those questions, will affect every aspect of our life.
And yet, the economic and political leaders and our media are stonewalling this discussion. Growth economics are presented as the only possible alternative for our society to thrive.
Behind these false assumption lies the neoliberal ideology. Its mantras are: Growth is the answer to all problems of society, growth goes on forever, the invisible hand of the market will always ensure growth by inspiring innovations that deal with any obstacle to growth.
These assumptions can be falsified easily by numerous scientific studies, basic math or physics and by common sense. This does not impress our leaders at all. The growth doctrine is followed with fanatic fervor.
In the last post I presented a anthropological analysis of the findings of Robert J. Gordon. It might have helped to understand why growth had happened, and what forces drove it. I also tried to explain again why endless growth is impossible and that there is evidence that the end of growth has been reached.
Also, based on the analysis of Robert Gordons findings, I would put forward a systematic flaw in the capitalist growth economy. Growth in a capitalist system steers itself into situation where the friction between the state, the people and the capitalists interests must increase from the moment that growth can no longer keep up with capital gains (the increase of private capital by interests).
I will try to summarize my understanding of growth and to illustrate the inherent flaws of capitalist growth economy in an analogon.
The Farmland Analogon
For this analogon let us picture our society as a small village settling on a little Island. The villagers represent the society or the "state" in my analogon. The reasons for growth to happen, as described by Robert Gordon, were the industrial revolutions happening in our past.
In my analogon of the village, this is represented by the villagers reclaiming farmland on which to grow new crops. Let us say the farmers found a new well in an arid corner of the island. (Science and technology and the evolution of society open the possibility for an industrial revolution.)
Reclaiming this farmland (initiating the industrial revolution) can only be achieved by the villagers (the state) as it does not immediately produce returns (and thus is of no immediate interest to "the market"), but only opens the possibility to do so in the future. All hands have to invest work (taxes) to make the land arable.
To get returns, anybody who wants to produce on this new farmland has to have seeds to sow, and the ability to plow the field and harvest the crop.
In my analogon the seeds represent the investment that has to be made, by investors, banks or the state using "surplus from earlier harvests".
To sow and harvest the village will have to find somebody or something to do the work (The farmers, the work force of the population).
They would also need water and minerals for the crops to grow (resources like oil, ores, etc.). Without it the new farmland can’t produce yields at all.
If the village has all those things, the success of the undertaking is determined by the efficiency with which the workload is handled. It’s measured in the productivity they have invested in relation to the products returned per worker (unit labour cost).
How market forces drive innovation (or not)
In any society, be they "capitalist" or "socialist", these steps are the same. Market mechanisms did not come into play so far. The "market forces" and the "invisible hand" make their entry when the efficiency with which the claimed new marked is exploited is determined. (increasing production per worker).
If the village has a capitalist system the "market forces" will drive the invention of new machines for more efficient plowing and harvesting or an entrepreneur might invent new ways to enhance the harvest. (Fertilizers, Pesticides etc.). In a state socialist system this might take longer as the motivations for finding new efficient ways for production are lower.
But there are restrictions. The farmland is of a certain size that can’t be expanded and it will need water, sun and minerals to produce crops. This represents the natural boundaries of earth and the fact that resources are limited and efficiency can not exceed a maximum. So efficiency will rise steeply at first but to be more efficient will get harder with time.
Please refer to Stefan L. Eichner if you would like to know more about market forces, innovation and growth:
In the long run the villagers will have optimized all ways of producing crops on this newly claimed farmland. Production will not rise anymore but stay constant, provided I have enough farmers, water and minerals and my climate is stable. (market saturation is reached)
In the end, the field will only provide the village with the same amount of crops every year if they can somehow sustainably supply all the factors that are needed.
In our current economy, the "water" we use is oil. We are taking it from a finite resource. If the villages new found well runs dry the crops will wither and die no matter how many farmers they use to plow or harvest.
To rely on the market will not help if your production depends on finite ressources. Increasing efficiency will not fight the drought or "invent" new water.
(For explanations see my posts about the limits of growth due to finite ressources here, german only, or this one about the problems with compensating for peak oil, in english).
Even if the ressources are in endless supply the invisible hand will slow progress because it is attached to the arm of capitalism.
Why capitalism impedes innovation and growth:
When the end of growth is reached (either way) it depends very much on how the village has organized itself as a society. In western capitalist societies this land is now surely owned by some landlord. (The owner of the means of production and large capital, the capitalist in the classic sense).
This landlord is by now accustomed to the fact that his share of the yields grows every year (by the exponential effects of interest) and he thinks that this will go on forever (because he can’t see why not or does not care). His firm believe is, that he is entitled to an ever increasing share of the harvest. Many years growth only ensured the rise of his share and finally got to be the only reason why growth was needed (see here or here for scientific arguments for this development, german only).
To satisfy his greed the workers share will finally decline every year that growth did not keep up with the landlords demands (or they are laid off and less workers work overtime). The village that is raising taxes from all the workers (not the landlord) is getting poorer despite the successes of raising production for years and being the power that made reclaiming the field possible, while the landlord accumulates riches. (The neoliberal growth capitalist ideology holds to the myth that low taxation, especially low
taxation of the very wealthy is benefitial to growth, this is untrue as this study shows.)
Due to the dropping taxes the impoverished village is no longer able to afford to send out a geologist (scientist) to search for a new well, even if the well should fall dry. If the village did not find a well then now it might be too late. Also, finding the next well will be harder and will proabably provide less possibilities for new growth. (productivity growth was less for every cycle of industrial revolution.)
The landlord though is not at all interested in a new patch of land reclaimed or a new well found.This new field would belong to some other landlord and his profits and power would decline. Instead he raises productivity by carelessly endangering future yields. I.e. as the soils minerals are depleted he uses lime that will bring him more yields for some time but ruin the field for years to come.
In the real world "lime" stands for the harmful byproducts of growth that last longer than its short term benefits, like fracking waste, CO2 production, radioactive waste, etc. described by Gordon as the "downwind" of growth or by Herman Daly as uneconomic growth.
It is obious today, that unchecked, the growth capitalist system will not work to the benefit of mankind. Instead of heeding the warnigs of a climate collapse and investing into renewable energy, established giants in the (i.e. oil) industry intensivate production (fracking etc.) and increase the tremendous overshoot allready existing.
These big (i.e. big oil) players in the market use their considerate power to impede the development of alternative renewable energy sources. Meanwhile oils spills, toxic waste, radioactive waste, CO2 emissions etc. will bind future productivity in an ever increasing amount, denying future generations the benefits of growth or even the standard of living we have today.
In the end something happens that everybody thought would never happen again when the new field was reclaimed. The harvests decline and can no longer feed the grown population. Most people might still be better off as before the new well was discovered but now they are used to a higher standard of living and are getting angry, but some even might be facing starvation and get desperate.
Here the analogon ends. How the populace of the village reacts is random and we will see what the future will bring.
Criticism of GDP growth can be summarized in the following arguments:
- To have more is certainly not beneficial if we already have enough. There is no use in having more washing machines if everybody owns one already.
- The measurement of the GDP in currency falsely implies a decoupling from physical realities, while money supply might be endless, our world is not. Production needs the physical reality. There is only so much land to grow food on.
- The future costs of growth are not calculated into the GDP. The total benfits of growth can be smaller than its costs. Waste, pollution, etc. could bind more productivity over time than is gained by wasteful production.
- Consumption of resources and common goods is counted as growth (income) even if nothing was produced but money. (Cutting down a Forest is growth, depleting fishing grounds is growth, burning oil is growth etc.).
- Production and services that do not enter the market do not add to the GDP. The people in a rural society producing their own food, the practitioners of the new urban gardening trend or people that help somomebody out of friendship or kinship do not add to the GDP growth even if they produce essential goods and services for the survival of their society.
These arguments above give rise to the most important questions everybody has to ask himself and the leaders he has chosen:
- How did we grow in the past?
- Can we grow this way forever?
- Are there other ways for growth?
- Do we need growth in the future?
- What growth do we need, if any?
- Who will benefit from future growth who will suffer from it?
Above fallacies of growth and open questions can be formulated as one central question:
Is our (growth capitalist) society so dependent on unsustainable growth that it will collapse if growth comes to its inevitable end?
All these open questions about growth will define our future first and foremost. As long as these questions are not answered all other discussions are moot. How we answer those questions, will affect every aspect of our life.
And yet, the economic and political leaders and our media are stonewalling this discussion. Growth economics are presented as the only possible alternative for our society to thrive.
Behind these false assumption lies the neoliberal ideology. Its mantras are: Growth is the answer to all problems of society, growth goes on forever, the invisible hand of the market will always ensure growth by inspiring innovations that deal with any obstacle to growth.
These assumptions can be falsified easily by numerous scientific studies, basic math or physics and by common sense. This does not impress our leaders at all. The growth doctrine is followed with fanatic fervor.
In the last post I presented a anthropological analysis of the findings of Robert J. Gordon. It might have helped to understand why growth had happened, and what forces drove it. I also tried to explain again why endless growth is impossible and that there is evidence that the end of growth has been reached.
Also, based on the analysis of Robert Gordons findings, I would put forward a systematic flaw in the capitalist growth economy. Growth in a capitalist system steers itself into situation where the friction between the state, the people and the capitalists interests must increase from the moment that growth can no longer keep up with capital gains (the increase of private capital by interests).
I will try to summarize my understanding of growth and to illustrate the inherent flaws of capitalist growth economy in an analogon.
The Farmland Analogon
For this analogon let us picture our society as a small village settling on a little Island. The villagers represent the society or the "state" in my analogon. The reasons for growth to happen, as described by Robert Gordon, were the industrial revolutions happening in our past.
In my analogon of the village, this is represented by the villagers reclaiming farmland on which to grow new crops. Let us say the farmers found a new well in an arid corner of the island. (Science and technology and the evolution of society open the possibility for an industrial revolution.)
Reclaiming this farmland (initiating the industrial revolution) can only be achieved by the villagers (the state) as it does not immediately produce returns (and thus is of no immediate interest to "the market"), but only opens the possibility to do so in the future. All hands have to invest work (taxes) to make the land arable.
To get returns, anybody who wants to produce on this new farmland has to have seeds to sow, and the ability to plow the field and harvest the crop.
In my analogon the seeds represent the investment that has to be made, by investors, banks or the state using "surplus from earlier harvests".
To sow and harvest the village will have to find somebody or something to do the work (The farmers, the work force of the population).
They would also need water and minerals for the crops to grow (resources like oil, ores, etc.). Without it the new farmland can’t produce yields at all.
If the village has all those things, the success of the undertaking is determined by the efficiency with which the workload is handled. It’s measured in the productivity they have invested in relation to the products returned per worker (unit labour cost).
"Governments will always play a huge part in solving big problems. They set public policy and are uniquely able to provide the resources to make sure solutions reach everyone who needs them. They also fund basic research, which is a crucial component of the innovation that improves life for everyone." Bill Gates
How market forces drive innovation (or not)
In any society, be they "capitalist" or "socialist", these steps are the same. Market mechanisms did not come into play so far. The "market forces" and the "invisible hand" make their entry when the efficiency with which the claimed new marked is exploited is determined. (increasing production per worker).
If the village has a capitalist system the "market forces" will drive the invention of new machines for more efficient plowing and harvesting or an entrepreneur might invent new ways to enhance the harvest. (Fertilizers, Pesticides etc.). In a state socialist system this might take longer as the motivations for finding new efficient ways for production are lower.
But there are restrictions. The farmland is of a certain size that can’t be expanded and it will need water, sun and minerals to produce crops. This represents the natural boundaries of earth and the fact that resources are limited and efficiency can not exceed a maximum. So efficiency will rise steeply at first but to be more efficient will get harder with time.
Please refer to Stefan L. Eichner if you would like to know more about market forces, innovation and growth:
 |
| Thanks to S. L. Eichner for his great work explaining the mechanisms of growth and innovation in market driven economies (http://stefanleichnersblog.blogspot.de/) |
In the long run the villagers will have optimized all ways of producing crops on this newly claimed farmland. Production will not rise anymore but stay constant, provided I have enough farmers, water and minerals and my climate is stable. (market saturation is reached)
In the end, the field will only provide the village with the same amount of crops every year if they can somehow sustainably supply all the factors that are needed.
In our current economy, the "water" we use is oil. We are taking it from a finite resource. If the villages new found well runs dry the crops will wither and die no matter how many farmers they use to plow or harvest.
To rely on the market will not help if your production depends on finite ressources. Increasing efficiency will not fight the drought or "invent" new water.
(For explanations see my posts about the limits of growth due to finite ressources here, german only, or this one about the problems with compensating for peak oil, in english).
Even if the ressources are in endless supply the invisible hand will slow progress because it is attached to the arm of capitalism.
Why capitalism impedes innovation and growth:
When the end of growth is reached (either way) it depends very much on how the village has organized itself as a society. In western capitalist societies this land is now surely owned by some landlord. (The owner of the means of production and large capital, the capitalist in the classic sense).
 |
| Source: H.Genreith, Dead Man Walking Model (german) |
Due to the dropping taxes the impoverished village is no longer able to afford to send out a geologist (scientist) to search for a new well, even if the well should fall dry. If the village did not find a well then now it might be too late. Also, finding the next well will be harder and will proabably provide less possibilities for new growth. (productivity growth was less for every cycle of industrial revolution.)
The landlord though is not at all interested in a new patch of land reclaimed or a new well found.This new field would belong to some other landlord and his profits and power would decline. Instead he raises productivity by carelessly endangering future yields. I.e. as the soils minerals are depleted he uses lime that will bring him more yields for some time but ruin the field for years to come.
In the real world "lime" stands for the harmful byproducts of growth that last longer than its short term benefits, like fracking waste, CO2 production, radioactive waste, etc. described by Gordon as the "downwind" of growth or by Herman Daly as uneconomic growth.
 |
| Source: CASSE (steadystate.org) |
It is obious today, that unchecked, the growth capitalist system will not work to the benefit of mankind. Instead of heeding the warnigs of a climate collapse and investing into renewable energy, established giants in the (i.e. oil) industry intensivate production (fracking etc.) and increase the tremendous overshoot allready existing.
These big (i.e. big oil) players in the market use their considerate power to impede the development of alternative renewable energy sources. Meanwhile oils spills, toxic waste, radioactive waste, CO2 emissions etc. will bind future productivity in an ever increasing amount, denying future generations the benefits of growth or even the standard of living we have today.
 |
| Whenever a societies consumption is higher than its carrying capacity (overshoot), it reacts with intensivation that decreases the future carrying capacity. (Marvin Harris,Orna Johnson, cultural anthropology) |
In the end something happens that everybody thought would never happen again when the new field was reclaimed. The harvests decline and can no longer feed the grown population. Most people might still be better off as before the new well was discovered but now they are used to a higher standard of living and are getting angry, but some even might be facing starvation and get desperate.
Here the analogon ends. How the populace of the village reacts is random and we will see what the future will bring.
Montag, 22. Oktober 2012
Innovation Growth and Capitalism
Robert J. Gordon (Northwestern University) recently published this wonderful peace of science that was immediately and widely admired, discussed and then discarded. The reason why it has been discarded is obvious, Gordons point being:
To understand the patterns of growth in the past 250 years, Gordon defines three Industrial revolutions in this period of seemingly endless growth:
The described Industrial revolutions have several things in common:
As we can see from the above graphic, Gordon predicts growth to go on but to slow in the future.
We will also need to invest more and more into dealing with the negative effects of earlier revolutions and past growth. The effects of wasting fossil fuels will have to be faced. For this, there is no end in sight and climate change can go on to harras us for hundreds of years and bind a lot of productivity.
Dealing with these negative effects of past growth can only be achieved by a joint social effort and not by "the markets" which produced the problems we face today. Achieving the current productivity in the future without further exploitation of common ressources will require an industrial revolution itself, dealing with the climate crises another.
Benefitial innovations by "the market" will probably only deal with compensating these negative effects of past growth and not provide a new industrial revolution. These will have much less return in freed productivity, examples are energy efficiency, digitalization or automation. Most innovation though will try to cope with the ever decreasing sastisfaction of new consumer products in satuated markets by finding new excessive ways for wasteful consumption.
Economists and politicians promising endless growth do not have an answer to the arguments written here. The TINA (there is no alternative) propaganda is, of course, a lie. The assumption that only the invisible hand of the market provides the innovations we need for growth is also not only false, the neoliberal market ideology is very much opposed to real innovation.
Past growth was an interplay of investments by society and market mechanisms providing new means to free productivity based on innovations in science, social organisation and infrastructure.
Capitalism can be viewed as the part of the system that has provided individuals and companies the means to profit from the achievements of society by profiting from finding new ways of making use of these achievements or making production more efficient. As the mutual benefits of new applications of technology decline by the law of diminishing returns, capitalists seek also profits in disregard of the common good.
Today capitalism is a problem for society as profits of this interplay of society and the market accumulate in the hands of very few capitalists only. Capitalism today prohibits growth by draining ressources and productivity for wasteful production and accumulation of wealth and is not by itself able to start a new industrial revolution. Accumulated capital and power that was formed from the exploitation of achievements and ressources of society is itself wary of change as it undermines its means for profit and power.
State controlled socialism on the other side would be a problem as the benefits of this interplay for the individual and private company and thus the motivation for finding new applications are nonexistant and potential for productivity gains might not be realized. The political elite in state socialist systems is wary of change as it potentially undermines its source of wealth and power.
Corruption of the government and stagnation are the result of either of the two extreme ideologies, it seems.
This interdependence between state and markets is ignored by neoliberal economic ideology. the state is always pictured as inefficient and the private sector as the only source for innovation. Looking at Gordons analysis of growth we can only conclude that liberalisation, privatization and austerity are clearly in total opposition of what has provided us with growth in the past. It will take away freed productivity by controlling and taking away the commodities we need (water, gas, electricity, health care, education, homes). It is implemented solely for the sake of private capital gain and in disregard of the common good.
This course will inevitably lead to a new social revolution and it does so right now as many see that the chicago boys concepts are a total failure.
What social revolution the end of growth will bring us can only be guessed (the Bolivian water war could be a hint though) and I have tried to do so in this blog. I can only urge my readers to understand that endless growth is a dream and policies and ideologies that base themselves around endless growth will fail.
In short, the current policies ensure not only the end of growth but the collapse of society.
“Since Solow’s seminal work in the 1950s, economic growth has been regarded as a continuous process that will persist forever. But there was virtually no economic growth before 1750, suggesting that the rapid progress made over the past 250 years could well be a unique episode in human history rather than a guarantee of endless future advance at the same rate.”Of course this is not acceptable to anyone in the establishment, as growth ideology has “no alternative” in politics since the days of Thatcher, Reagan and Kohl.
To understand the patterns of growth in the past 250 years, Gordon defines three Industrial revolutions in this period of seemingly endless growth:
"The analysis links periods of slow and rapid growth to the timing of the three industrial revolutions (IR’s), that is,This is very consistent with the arguments I have presented here in this blog in which I have applied the Ideas of Marvin Harris Cultural Materialism to understand our society and provide an outlook to our future.
IR #1 (steam, railroads) from 1750 to 1830;
IR #2 (electricity, internal combustion engine, running water, indoor toilets, communications, entertainment, chemicals, petroleum) from 1870 to 1900;
and IR #3 (computers, the web, mobile phones) from 1960 to present.
It provides evidence that IR #2 was more important than the others and was largely responsible for 80 years of relatively rapid productivity growth between 1890 and 1972. Once the spin-off inventions from IR #2 (airplanes, air conditioning, interstate highways) had run their course, productivity growth during 1972-96 was much slower than before. In contrast, IR #3 created only a short-lived growth revival between 1996 and 2004. Many of the original and spin-off inventions of IR #2 could happen only once – urbanization, transportation speed, the freedom of females from the drudgery of carrying tons of water per year, and the role of central heating and air conditioning in achieving a year-round constant temperature.”
- All industrial revolutions have not been initialized by market forces but are the result of infrastructural investments made by “the State”. Providing the populace with access to water, electricity, sanitation, means of transportation, health care, free access to the internet are clearly in their essence of socialist and egalitarian character. I would also add, that the basis of these revolutions has been laid by government funded research and science and also needed a social revolution and the invention of the welfare state to come to pass.
- After the groundwork of an industrial revolution has been laid, the private sector and market mechanisms made use of it to provide the applications needed to benefit from this revolution. As households had access to water, gas and electricity the private sector could start selling them washing machines and dish washers, electrical stoves, central heating, electric light bulbs etc., freeing productivity for more and more production and thus growth.
- All revolutions depend on each other, take away energy and the returns of transportation or information technology will be taken away also.
- When a saturation of the markets opened by a revolution has been reached (the moment everybody has a washing machine) further inventions in this market provide less growth until the market degenerates into a consumer market that rather satisfies status symbols than freeing additional productivity.
- The returns of each industrial revolution, meaning the amount of freed productivity, diminish with every revolution. It is very probable that no future revolution will bring us the same returns that the beginning of the age of fossil fuels has brought us.
- The longer the basis for the industrial revolution has been established and the markets saturated, the more the private sector gained control over the distribution of the commodities to increase their profits. As this devolution has progressed, the less the private sector has contributed to growth by providing new applications of the revolution. Today more and more people are denied the commodities that led to freeing productivity by the private sector, making the private sector itself an important reason why real growth slows in the saturated industrialized societies and worldwide.
In the near future we will need to invest more and more productivity into compensating the loss of cheap energy resources that led to this chain of industrial revolutions. Freed productivity by cheap energy will so be lost to us for a long time until we have finished compensating, if we can compensate the decrease of oil production at all.
There are no efforts under way to find a new source of cheap energy. It is very likely that growth will not only stop, once oil production declines, but we will be thrown into the greatest recession of all times.
Dealing with these negative effects of past growth can only be achieved by a joint social effort and not by "the markets" which produced the problems we face today. Achieving the current productivity in the future without further exploitation of common ressources will require an industrial revolution itself, dealing with the climate crises another.
Past growth was an interplay of investments by society and market mechanisms providing new means to free productivity based on innovations in science, social organisation and infrastructure.
Capitalism can be viewed as the part of the system that has provided individuals and companies the means to profit from the achievements of society by profiting from finding new ways of making use of these achievements or making production more efficient. As the mutual benefits of new applications of technology decline by the law of diminishing returns, capitalists seek also profits in disregard of the common good.
Today capitalism is a problem for society as profits of this interplay of society and the market accumulate in the hands of very few capitalists only. Capitalism today prohibits growth by draining ressources and productivity for wasteful production and accumulation of wealth and is not by itself able to start a new industrial revolution. Accumulated capital and power that was formed from the exploitation of achievements and ressources of society is itself wary of change as it undermines its means for profit and power.
State controlled socialism on the other side would be a problem as the benefits of this interplay for the individual and private company and thus the motivation for finding new applications are nonexistant and potential for productivity gains might not be realized. The political elite in state socialist systems is wary of change as it potentially undermines its source of wealth and power.
Corruption of the government and stagnation are the result of either of the two extreme ideologies, it seems.
This interdependence between state and markets is ignored by neoliberal economic ideology. the state is always pictured as inefficient and the private sector as the only source for innovation. Looking at Gordons analysis of growth we can only conclude that liberalisation, privatization and austerity are clearly in total opposition of what has provided us with growth in the past. It will take away freed productivity by controlling and taking away the commodities we need (water, gas, electricity, health care, education, homes). It is implemented solely for the sake of private capital gain and in disregard of the common good.
This course will inevitably lead to a new social revolution and it does so right now as many see that the chicago boys concepts are a total failure.
What social revolution the end of growth will bring us can only be guessed (the Bolivian water war could be a hint though) and I have tried to do so in this blog. I can only urge my readers to understand that endless growth is a dream and policies and ideologies that base themselves around endless growth will fail.
In short, the current policies ensure not only the end of growth but the collapse of society.
Freitag, 27. Juli 2012
Biosprit und die Lufthansa
In der SZ habe ich dieses wunderbare Zitat gefunden:
Das Zitat aber ist angesichts der Flughafenausbaupläne der Lufthansa für mich ein echtes Fundstück. Offensichtlich ist sich die Lufthansa Peak Oil doch bewusst. Die Lufthansa rechnet (laut "ja zur 3" initiative) mit einem Wachstum des Flugverkehrs von 3,6% pro jahr.
In Deutschland werden heute "nur" ca 10 Millionen Tonnen Kerosin/Flugbenzin getankt.. (Quellen: Wikipedia). Bei konstantem Wachstum von 3,6% steigt der Bedarf in 30 Jahren auf über 30 Millionen Tonnen.
Wieviel Getreide oder Rapsöl man wohl benötigt um "Aviation Biofuel" herzustellen? Keine Ahnung. Meine grobe Abschätzung wäre 2T Biomasse für 1T Aviation Biofuel. Woher nehmen wir die?
Der Anbau und Transport von Getreide kostet leider ebenfalls Primärenergieträger. Woher nehmen?
Am besten betreiben wir auch die Traktoren und Lastwägen mit Biokraftstoffen. Das funktioniert sicher, oder?
Wieviel Tonnen Biomasse brauchen wir also um die Flieger in der Luft zu halten? Einverstanden mit 70 Millionen Tonnen? Bei einer Produktion von z.B. 44 Millionen Tonnen Getreide pro Jahr in Deutschland frage ich mich schon wie das mit dem Fliegen klappen soll.
Weiten wir das Szenario auf die Welt aus. Ein Mensch benötigt ca 100Kg Getreide pro Jahr um zu überleben. Allein um den Luftverkehr von heute aufrecht zu erhalten würden wir ca. 500 Millionen Tonnen Biomasse (Getreide usw.) benötigen.
Das ist Nahrung für 5 Milliarden Menschen in einem Jahr!
Wenn die Alternativen also laut Lufthansa "Biosprit oder gar nicht mehr fliegen" lauten, dann muss wohl "gar nicht mehr" die richtige Antwort sein. Warum wir uns diese Dinge immer selber berechnen müssen und unsere Medien diese Dinge nicht im Ansatz vermitteln, muss jeder für sich selbst beantworten.
Neuer Artikel dazu in der Zeit: Der große Selbstbetrug
"Die Lufthansa habe ihm gesagt, entweder fliege man in 30 Jahren mit Biosprit oder gar nicht mehr. Sämtliche skeptische Prognosen der Wissenschaft hätten sich in der Vergangenheit als Fehlprognosen erwiesen, sagt er gelassen." ( Helmut Lamp, im Hauptberuf Weizenbauer an der Kieler Förde )In dem relativ guten Artikel wird mit dem Glauben aufgeräumt Biosprit hätte etwas mit Nachhaltigkeit zu tun. Ich hätte mir jedoch eine bessere Aufarbeitung der Daten gewünscht. Auch der Autor in der SZ hatte wiedermal keine Ahnung von den Größenordnungen über die wir hier sprechen.
Das Zitat aber ist angesichts der Flughafenausbaupläne der Lufthansa für mich ein echtes Fundstück. Offensichtlich ist sich die Lufthansa Peak Oil doch bewusst. Die Lufthansa rechnet (laut "ja zur 3" initiative) mit einem Wachstum des Flugverkehrs von 3,6% pro jahr.
In Deutschland werden heute "nur" ca 10 Millionen Tonnen Kerosin/Flugbenzin getankt.. (Quellen: Wikipedia). Bei konstantem Wachstum von 3,6% steigt der Bedarf in 30 Jahren auf über 30 Millionen Tonnen.
Wieviel Getreide oder Rapsöl man wohl benötigt um "Aviation Biofuel" herzustellen? Keine Ahnung. Meine grobe Abschätzung wäre 2T Biomasse für 1T Aviation Biofuel. Woher nehmen wir die?
Der Anbau und Transport von Getreide kostet leider ebenfalls Primärenergieträger. Woher nehmen?
Am besten betreiben wir auch die Traktoren und Lastwägen mit Biokraftstoffen. Das funktioniert sicher, oder?
Wieviel Tonnen Biomasse brauchen wir also um die Flieger in der Luft zu halten? Einverstanden mit 70 Millionen Tonnen? Bei einer Produktion von z.B. 44 Millionen Tonnen Getreide pro Jahr in Deutschland frage ich mich schon wie das mit dem Fliegen klappen soll.
Weiten wir das Szenario auf die Welt aus. Ein Mensch benötigt ca 100Kg Getreide pro Jahr um zu überleben. Allein um den Luftverkehr von heute aufrecht zu erhalten würden wir ca. 500 Millionen Tonnen Biomasse (Getreide usw.) benötigen.
Das ist Nahrung für 5 Milliarden Menschen in einem Jahr!
Wenn die Alternativen also laut Lufthansa "Biosprit oder gar nicht mehr fliegen" lauten, dann muss wohl "gar nicht mehr" die richtige Antwort sein. Warum wir uns diese Dinge immer selber berechnen müssen und unsere Medien diese Dinge nicht im Ansatz vermitteln, muss jeder für sich selbst beantworten.
Neuer Artikel dazu in der Zeit: Der große Selbstbetrug
Donnerstag, 12. Juli 2012
Whistleblowers, where are you?
I am not sure if I have any readers from the rest of the world, and if yes, if they have read about the nazi terror cell known as "NSU". If not, please get yourself informed at wikipedia.
The institution that should protect the people in this country, namely the Verfassungsschutz (Secret Service equivalent) and the BKA (federal police), have become the target of an investigation comittee. As it appears, these instituitions have not only failed to stop a group of nazi terrorists that murdered people and robbed banks, they might even have supported them.
As of now, the comittee is being stonewalled by the agency and the police. Informations get out, because incompetence and corruption were too big to hide, but so far, there has been nobody that found his heart to really blow the whistle and shed some light on what really is going on. What is clear, the failures in arresting these terrorists are not explainable by incompetence only, somebody, has protected them. Was it one person, a group of people, a secret network? No one knows for sure.
This bothers me very much. That there is no employee of the Verfassungsschutz that feels bound to his conscience, the common good, democracy and the values this country ostensibly stands for, speaks volumes about the condition of this service.
Can it really be? Is there nobody in Verfassungsschutz or the police who is having the courage to speak out? Nobody who is willing to give us the german equivalent of "the pentagon papers" and be the german Daniel Ellsberg?
Being a whistleblower might feel like being a traitor, but, in times like these, keeping your mouth shut, not telling the comittee what you know, shredding evidence or deleting files is betrayal to the people you swore to protect.
We need to know from how high up the protection for the NSU nazis was coming from. Germans need the truth, and we need it now. If this crime is not solved, if not all the tiny failures come to light, if the ones responsible are not beeing taken to court, 70 years of dealing with our fascist past will be in question.
So please, somebody come out and bring us the truth!
The institution that should protect the people in this country, namely the Verfassungsschutz (Secret Service equivalent) and the BKA (federal police), have become the target of an investigation comittee. As it appears, these instituitions have not only failed to stop a group of nazi terrorists that murdered people and robbed banks, they might even have supported them.
As of now, the comittee is being stonewalled by the agency and the police. Informations get out, because incompetence and corruption were too big to hide, but so far, there has been nobody that found his heart to really blow the whistle and shed some light on what really is going on. What is clear, the failures in arresting these terrorists are not explainable by incompetence only, somebody, has protected them. Was it one person, a group of people, a secret network? No one knows for sure.
This bothers me very much. That there is no employee of the Verfassungsschutz that feels bound to his conscience, the common good, democracy and the values this country ostensibly stands for, speaks volumes about the condition of this service.
Can it really be? Is there nobody in Verfassungsschutz or the police who is having the courage to speak out? Nobody who is willing to give us the german equivalent of "the pentagon papers" and be the german Daniel Ellsberg?
Being a whistleblower might feel like being a traitor, but, in times like these, keeping your mouth shut, not telling the comittee what you know, shredding evidence or deleting files is betrayal to the people you swore to protect.
We need to know from how high up the protection for the NSU nazis was coming from. Germans need the truth, and we need it now. If this crime is not solved, if not all the tiny failures come to light, if the ones responsible are not beeing taken to court, 70 years of dealing with our fascist past will be in question.
So please, somebody come out and bring us the truth!
Dienstag, 3. Juli 2012
Natural Gas Liquids and infinite ressources of stupidity
According to this recent study of Harvard University, Peak Oil could indeed be delayed by some decades, due to the rapid development of Natural Gas Liquid (NGL) exploitation in the USA.
I admit, this post comes hard for me. After having tried to increase public attention to peak oil for years, it seems that the downslope is further off as I and many experts expected. The report seems to withstand closer scrutiny though.
Many will sigh a breath of relief when reading this. The exploitation of natural ressources will commence for another few decades in which we will have time to prepare for the decreasing oil production.
NGL production seems to grow fast enough to compensate the diminishing conventional oil production we face today for some time. It could even lead to a small increase of oil production if prices are high and stable.
To believe it will spur growth the same way that the exploitation of conventional oil did until recently, is expecting too much. I expect the current situation of effective stagnation of growth to continue while oil production plateaus and per capita oil production will continue to sink slowly with increased population. The current development of raking in capital gains by increasing social inequality will continue to hassle us.
If you have watched Prof Bartletts lecture about exponential growth against a finite ressource you will understand when I say: we only turned the clock back from 1 min before 12 to 1 min and 30 sec before 12.
I find it hard to believe that any western society will use this precious time we supposedly have gained before hitting the wall to prepare for a sustainable society.
The basic considerations about peak oil stay the same, the effects of wasting fossil fuels will become worse though. For future generations this news is bad indeed. As predicted by the Club of rome, CO2 emissions will inevitably increase for another few decades while we exploit these additional fossil fuels.
According to the new book by the Club of Rome the global climate collapse could happen in the second half of this century. World temperature could well reach a point soon when global warming becomes unstoppable and self enhancing. The reason is the inability of capitalism to bring about a change towards a sustainable society. If growth can be acchieved by any means capitalism will embrace it at all costs.
I was more optimistic concerning global warming than the Club of Rome. Until now there seemed to be a tight race between global warming and oil depletion that I thought would lead to future CO2 emissions well below the forecasts the Club of Rome worked with (due to the inevitable end of growth and its consequences that would bring the end of growth capitalism).
So I had had hopes that humans would be saved from their own stupidity and the global climate collapse by luck, but if there is one ressource to be counted on to be infinite its human stupidity.
To produce Oil from unconventional ressources will increase CO2 emissions drastically. Unconventional ressources are well below the EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) of 20:1 that conventional crude oil offers and range between 2:1 for tar sands to about 5:1 for NGLs. By exploiting NGL we will produce huge amounts of CO2 only to burn this expensively won energy to waste it for useless consumption, again.
Unconventional hydrocarbon ressources come with another price. The industry has yet to prove that this technology is safe for the environment and that they are able to recycle the huge amounts of contaminated water they are producing. Actually, I could not find evidence that recycling the contaminated water would not bring down the EROEI to below 1:1, as most of the millions of tons of water are contaminated with saline ingredients that can only be extracted by investing huge amounts of energy. Currently most of the contaminated water is dumped into rivers, pressed into the drilled holes or just dumped on waste disposal sites.
Btw: The recycling that has been implemented so far does not actually restore the water quality but makes parts of it reusable for more fracking while concentrating most of the unwanted chemicals in higher solutions that have to be disposed as toxic waste.
So even without adding the costs for many accidents that have happened, the hidden additional costs for society are high. Just like with nuclear energy, in the end the public sector will probably be made responsible to get rid of the waste that hydraulic fracking and tar sand minig will have produced.
I would also expect the competition for making NGL exploitation cheaper to lead to more sloppiness and an increased chance of accidents and widespread pollution by fracking chemicals.
The lecture, that growth capitalism brings about ruin to mankind will hit us later but harder.
The urgency to take action is higher than ever before. If you are expecting to still live in the year 2075 or if you care for your children enough you will have to actively bring about a change today, Its in your hands now.
(See also George Monbiot in the guardian )
I admit, this post comes hard for me. After having tried to increase public attention to peak oil for years, it seems that the downslope is further off as I and many experts expected. The report seems to withstand closer scrutiny though.
Many will sigh a breath of relief when reading this. The exploitation of natural ressources will commence for another few decades in which we will have time to prepare for the decreasing oil production.
NGL production seems to grow fast enough to compensate the diminishing conventional oil production we face today for some time. It could even lead to a small increase of oil production if prices are high and stable.
To believe it will spur growth the same way that the exploitation of conventional oil did until recently, is expecting too much. I expect the current situation of effective stagnation of growth to continue while oil production plateaus and per capita oil production will continue to sink slowly with increased population. The current development of raking in capital gains by increasing social inequality will continue to hassle us.
If you have watched Prof Bartletts lecture about exponential growth against a finite ressource you will understand when I say: we only turned the clock back from 1 min before 12 to 1 min and 30 sec before 12.
I find it hard to believe that any western society will use this precious time we supposedly have gained before hitting the wall to prepare for a sustainable society.
The basic considerations about peak oil stay the same, the effects of wasting fossil fuels will become worse though. For future generations this news is bad indeed. As predicted by the Club of rome, CO2 emissions will inevitably increase for another few decades while we exploit these additional fossil fuels.
Launch: "2052: A Global Forecast for the Next Forty Years"
According to the new book by the Club of Rome the global climate collapse could happen in the second half of this century. World temperature could well reach a point soon when global warming becomes unstoppable and self enhancing. The reason is the inability of capitalism to bring about a change towards a sustainable society. If growth can be acchieved by any means capitalism will embrace it at all costs.
"It is unlikely that governments will pass necessary regulation to force the markets to allocate more money into climate-friendly solutions, and (we) must not assume that markets will work for the benefit of humankind," (Club Of Rome)
I was more optimistic concerning global warming than the Club of Rome. Until now there seemed to be a tight race between global warming and oil depletion that I thought would lead to future CO2 emissions well below the forecasts the Club of Rome worked with (due to the inevitable end of growth and its consequences that would bring the end of growth capitalism).
So I had had hopes that humans would be saved from their own stupidity and the global climate collapse by luck, but if there is one ressource to be counted on to be infinite its human stupidity.
To produce Oil from unconventional ressources will increase CO2 emissions drastically. Unconventional ressources are well below the EROEI (Energy Return On Energy Invested) of 20:1 that conventional crude oil offers and range between 2:1 for tar sands to about 5:1 for NGLs. By exploiting NGL we will produce huge amounts of CO2 only to burn this expensively won energy to waste it for useless consumption, again.
Unconventional hydrocarbon ressources come with another price. The industry has yet to prove that this technology is safe for the environment and that they are able to recycle the huge amounts of contaminated water they are producing. Actually, I could not find evidence that recycling the contaminated water would not bring down the EROEI to below 1:1, as most of the millions of tons of water are contaminated with saline ingredients that can only be extracted by investing huge amounts of energy. Currently most of the contaminated water is dumped into rivers, pressed into the drilled holes or just dumped on waste disposal sites.
Btw: The recycling that has been implemented so far does not actually restore the water quality but makes parts of it reusable for more fracking while concentrating most of the unwanted chemicals in higher solutions that have to be disposed as toxic waste.
So even without adding the costs for many accidents that have happened, the hidden additional costs for society are high. Just like with nuclear energy, in the end the public sector will probably be made responsible to get rid of the waste that hydraulic fracking and tar sand minig will have produced.
I would also expect the competition for making NGL exploitation cheaper to lead to more sloppiness and an increased chance of accidents and widespread pollution by fracking chemicals.
The lecture, that growth capitalism brings about ruin to mankind will hit us later but harder.
The urgency to take action is higher than ever before. If you are expecting to still live in the year 2075 or if you care for your children enough you will have to actively bring about a change today, Its in your hands now.
(See also George Monbiot in the guardian )
Abonnieren
Posts (Atom)