The Green Energy Fantasy: Green energy policies would hobble

[Riprion]

Everyone is not harmed. Everyone benefits in the manner illustrated by Tolthar, and by everyone I mean the people that actually exist. The harm is attributed to people that don't even exist yet. How can something that doesn't exist be harmed? Sure you can imagine that their lives will be worse off because of some fear that energy will be expensive, or New York will be underwater, or Pakistan will start a global thermonuclear war because of energy price shocks caused by extreme AGW induced climate change. This is just fear and fear doesn't harm those which don't exist. Along with this line of reasoning, what would be the proper limit or penalty to levy against the person that exists in order to compensate for the harm, which may or may not occur, to the person that does not exist? How far out into the future do you extend this claim, one generation or fifty? Wouldn't the law of unintended consequences lead us to consider that the limits on oil consumption might slow economic growth, thereby stagnating technological development and stalling the development or discovery of an alternative source of energy?

Now as far as the free market is concerned, are there any examples that you can think of where a natural resource was limited and the market didn't find a solution or an alternative? I think of the near extermination of whales, and then along comes kerosene. We still have whales. Ok sorry, that was a little glib. Isn't the free market working right now? We had a price spike in oil and now hybrids are everywhere, you can't give away an SUV, and the US produces the most electricity from wind in the world. (yeah i know there were subsidies involved in that but we all know there really isnt a free market, right)

[musashi]

How far out into the future do you extend this claim, one generation or fifty?

Aye there is the rub!

As Tolthar wrote there was a system of life before the consumption of all this oil and coal – and there will be a similar system of life after (assuming there will be no apocalypse.) It seems the ultimate driver in the matter is selfishness. I decide that my comfort today is more important than my internal satisfaction from creating a more sustainable future world.

This seems rather short sighted, but it is a choice, burn the candle at both ends and the party is over when it is gone, further it is the path we are on.

This whole drama will play out well after we are all gone, so I suppose it is not a serious question for consideration. On the other hand, if we consider Objectivism a utopian concept – shouldn’t perpetual sustainability be one of the characteristics we seek? To conceive a society with a definite expiration date seems like a flawed proposal.

To consider that the only way an Objectivist society could work is in a pre-industrial societal frame work just does not sit right with me. It just seems too much like the 8th century world the Muhammadins want to give me with their Sharia law. Again it will not be me riding my ox cart to the free market of the future, so I guess it is someone else’s problem.

[Petyr Baelich]

How far out into the future do you extend this claim, one generation or fifty?

Aye there is the rub!

As Tolthar wrote there was a system of life before the consumption of all this oil and coal – and there will be a similar system of life after (assuming there will be no apocalypse.) It seems the ultimate driver in the matter is selfishness. I decide that my comfort today is more important than my internal satisfaction from creating a more sustainable future world.

This seems rather short sighted, but it is a choice, burn the candle at both ends and the party is over when it is gone, further it is the path we are on.

This whole drama will play out well after we are all gone, so I suppose it is not a serious question for consideration. On the other hand, if we consider Objectivism a utopian concept – shouldn’t perpetual sustainability be one of the characteristics we seek? To conceive a society with a definite expiration date seems like a flawed proposal.

To consider that the only way an Objectivist society could work is in a pre-industrial societal frame work just does not sit right with me. It just seems too much like the 8th century world the Muhammadins want to give me with their Sharia law. Again it will not be me riding my ox cart to the free market of the future, so I guess it is someone else’s problem.

You have exactly the same responsibility to unborn humans as you do to wookies. Save the wookies! They don't exist, but they might! What does it matter to you what happens after you die, and why is it being short-sighted to look only at your own lifespan? It is impossible to "use up" the energy in any system. Mass and Energy are always conserved, they just change form. When it becomes profitable, and by that I mean when it becomes in one's own rational self interest to use alternative forms of energy to the ones we're using today, then we will do so! Provided, of course, that we are all not sacrificed to each other, or worse, to potential, non-existant humans, fuzzy animals, or yet worse, po'mo concepts.

Will these problems we face take care of themselves? No. Rational, selfish, intelligent heroic humans will step up and create the processes by which they shall save themselves and others. (IF such men still exist). Have you noticed that art and literature is dying in our society today? When's the last time you watched a movie in which romantic heroes were depicted positively and achieved greatness for their own sakes? This theme used to be quite common. Now we have dark antiheroes, or "troubled" geniuses who cannot achieve anything for themselves and must sacrifice their own goals to even be considered heroic by their target audience.

Our philosophy, (and by that I am speaking primarily of Americans) has undergone a fundamental shift. No longer do we admire greatness, intelligence, virtue, and industry. Our new "virtues" are the old vices of selflessness, cravenness, irresponsibility, and sloth. I believe we are fast approaching a time when honest, rational men must shrug, or be consumed as a willing sacrifice to those who embrace evil.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

I have no idea how Musashi made those conclusions about what I said.

Musashi, your version of an objectivist society is basically a bunch of lemming walking towards a cliff.

Like I said before, if you want life to get better for you and those you love, you should advocate a rational philosophy. One that advocates self-responsibility and LONG RANG THINKING.

Otherwise you will end up like a Wynand... thinking humans are helpless and miserable. But we wouldn't have computers and forums for you to tell me all this if humans were what you think they are.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

I'd also like to point out, that even if people would think long range, they would probably still stick to oil for now. Like I said, there is no shortage, and no bad effects other than some smog here and there.

So if you are trying to make some type of inductive proof based on evidence.... this is a horrible example.

But as oil gets scarce (way into the future), other forms of power will come up if people live in a mostly- rational society and a mostly-free society. So if you are worried about this problem, advocate the ideas to fix it: Objectivism.

[musashi]

Good Stuff Save the Wookies indeed

Musashi, your version of an objectivist society is basically a bunch of lemming walking towards a cliff.

Not an “Objectivist” society, but all society is headed towards a very big fall (again this is probably 5 or 10 generations away – so not my problem).

As far as the conservation of matter and energy… Errrr no. Once we transform matter to energy we have to cope with the effects of entropy. The energy dissipates (it is not gone, but its ability to do work is gone). As far as I know President Obama has not repealed the second law of thermodynamics.

An Objectivist society or not, there is a finite resource being depleted. The processes that created fossil fuels took place over hundreds of thousands of years, and mankind will consume the meaningful bulk within a few hundred years. And when the fossil fuels are depleted society (as we know it) goes with it. The unfettered market gets us to the end point by the quickest path.

I do believe that the rational mind is our only solution to the problem. I just predict that the solution may not come in time (I’m pessimistic that way). And if my pessimism is validated then yes, society will be forced back to an agrarian form.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

But it is not "free market" that will get us to that point, nor is the free market the essential cause of the solution.

The solution is man taking up a rational philosophy once again (which also happens to be the cause of a free market).

We went from the dark ages, through the enlightenment period, and to the creation of America in a few hundred years. But we have something now they did not: Objectivist Epistemology. Pre-Ayn Rand, the best descovered was basically Aristotelian Epistemology.

All over economist magazines, news paper op-eds, etc, more and more people are emerging with the right cause of our current crisis: socialism. Ayn Rand's name is showing up more and more, and book sales of Atlas Shrugged have (I believe) trippled since the recession started. People are catching on.

We could be heading towards a rebirth of reason here sooner than you think.

[Petyr Baelich]

An Objectivist society or not, there is a finite resource being depleted. The processes that created fossil fuels took place over hundreds of thousands of years, and mankind will consume the meaningful bulk within a few hundred years. And when the fossil fuels are depleted society (as we know it) goes with it. The unfettered market gets us to the end point by the quickest path.

Yes. It will be replaced by a better society. What happened when people decided to stop using animals and manual labor for everything and built the first machines? That ended society as they knew it too! For the better. When we get close to running out of oil, there will be an immense amount of motivation for people to devise new ways to power the devices that increase our quality of life.

I do believe that the rational mind is our only solution to the problem. I just predict that the solution may not come in time (I’m pessimistic that way). And if my pessimism is validated then yes, society will be forced back to an agrarian form.

What do you gain by this outlook? If you're right you're leading an unhappy existence now and will enjoy a worse one in the future. I don't believe that pessimists can be capable of anything positive for themselves or anyone else. You must be focused on achieving positive goals in order to enjoy a happy, fruitful life. Your views, even if they were correct, are in complete opposition to the moral purpose of your life -- pleasure.

[musashi]

Yes. It will be replaced by a better society. What happened when people decided to stop using animals and manual labor for everything and built the first machines? That ended society as they knew it too! For the better. When we get close to running out of oil, there will be an immense amount of motivation for people to devise new ways to power the devices that increase our quality of life.

It certainly is a nice sentiment. But let’s just open the hood and consider the underpinnings of this idea. We certainly use a great deal more energy than was used prior to the industrial revolution. Any idea how much more? Here is my quick estimate….

• World wide consumption of just crude oil is roughly 85,000,000 barrels a day, that is 31,046,250,000 barrels a year.
  
  One barrel of oil can do the work of about 2,411 horsepower-hours.
  
  One year’s global oil consumption amounts to 74,852,508,750,000 horsepower-hours.
  
  Assuming you have horses that work 8 hours a day seven days a week, we’d need 25,634,420,805 horses to roughly equal the amount of energy we are consuming in oil alone. This does not even take coal consumption into account, albeit coal is supposed to hold out longer than oil.

I make this computation to help illustrate how very different our world today is from our agrarian past. I can’t be sure - but I don’ think there were 25 trillion horses running around back then.

And the computation kind of illustrates the immense scope of the problem to be solved. Granted people will be very motivated, but it just ain’t gonna happen. We’ve been living on borrowed time (pre-historic time).

Here is a nice Wiki on peak oil (I know Wikipedia is not a valid reference, but it is quick). From this article it would appear that were are living in the zenith of oil production.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

I like your model Musashi. It is where everyone puts all the oil in the world into a big funnel, and then don't do anything about it until they see it around the rim of the spout.

In truth, what would probably happen is that we'd slowly start finding less sources of oil. The price would slowly start to go up, and it would be a gradual change to something else (like nuclear).

Even if we couldn't figure out another cheap alternative, in a free market, as prices go up (which would happen slowly as oil becomes harder to find), other sources like wind, hydro, nuclear would be starting to pop up. Then, when those get used in a significant way by businessmen, they will become more efficient and more dependable. Just like, say, engines.

The first engine horribly wasted the fuel it used. But over the years, without changing the basic concept of a combustion engine, it has become multiple times more efficient with much more output in power. Alternative sources that we have now would, probably work the same if used to a higher degree (and not subsidized to do so).

There has never been anything in history like you are saying. Your lemmings view of the human race (and therefore of individuals too), is collectivistic. And then you say that the free market has issues, and basing it on your lemmingistic/collectivistic assumptions.

In a seciety where rationality is generally considered virtuous, and a government that is hands off, things don't happen just ALL OF A SUDDEN in terms of supply and demand. It never has in the past, and won't in the future. And I believe we will see this type of change in just 2-3 decades.

Some evidence for this claim:

Check out Atlas Sales spikes
http://www.economist.com/finance/displa ... d=13185404

Rick Santelli calls himself an "Ayn Rander"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lkMyozdfFTc

Rick Santelli creates a vote to see who will join his Tea Party (a pro-capitalism rally). Out of 235644 people, 94% say 'yes'.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/29301208/

Talks about how industrialist are using the term, "going galt," as meaning cutting back because of government interviening.
http://www.patriotpost.us/opinion/miche ... tors-.html

There are many others. But look at these links. They are arguing for the moral case for capitalism.

It is time to get off "the human race sucks" crap, and start advocating for something that will work: Objectivism.

[Tolthar Lockbar]

Talks about how industrialist are using the term, "going galt," as meaning cutting back because of government interviening.
http://www.patriotpost.us/opinion/miche ... tors-.html

Another thing on this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1XFSlZTEE8

[Tolthar Lockbar]

It it definitely a moral revolution happening, not just an economic one.

http://www.johncoxart.com/2009/02/todays_special.html

[musashi]

I agree, it appears we are entering an age of opportunity. Sorry for not responding to your ideas about the possibilities in this thread Tolthar - I was considering responding by creating a whole new post.

[Riprion]

This article is particularly germane to this discussion.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/132111.html

I think that climate change is the dominant hysteria of the early 21st century on par with witch hunts and pedophilia scares. I thought that terrorism might take that place, but demonizing brown people in poor countries is too poitically incorrect to morph into full blown hysteria. Climate change on the other hand paints the wealthy as the destroyers of the future. This falls well within the acceptable standards of debasement.

This also gets into the discussion about deferring to authority. Science holds a special place in society. Claims gain a special force if backed by a "study" or "scientists". There is a belief that scientists are above "base" motives such as profit. They are insulated from these forces by their ivory towers. Unless, they are sponsered by a corporation in which case they are corporate schills. Of course, this is not true. Scientists are in competition with each other for research dollars and as such, they may be inclined to exaggerate the importance of their work. They are far more likely to receive funding if there is a threat of global annihilation as opposed to the ocean rising a mere 6 inches. Of course even the claim of a six inch sea level rise is couched in doomsday predictions of decimation of Myanmar or Florida. Apparently they had never heard of a dike or The Netherlands. I was a policy debater in High School. Everything had to end in nuclear war in order to be a convincing harm. Everytime I hear a doomsday predicition regarding climate change I always think of our rhetorical claims such as, "providing toilets to the homeless will lead to a nuclear war", and wonder will six inches really be that bad?

[musashi]

There has never been anything in history like you are saying. Your lemmings view of the human race (and therefore of individuals too), is collectivistic. And then you say that the free market has issues, and basing it on your lemmingistic/collectivistic assumptions.

We’ve got a new concept

Lemming-ism: The effect of uncontrolled over population of a species on an ecosystem.

I think you nailed my perspective perfectly Tolthar. It is Lemmingistic! I think we have too many people on this darn planet. I just can’t figure out who to kick off – and I know I don’t want to be first. In my mind the human race has become much like a lemming swarm. And I think governments put collectivistic structures in place to defeat those events that traditionally regulated population growth.

I don’t blame the free markets for of this – free markets are simply a tool, a mechanism. I see the free market as neutral, (of course I also see the free market as an unachievable singularity – we can get close, but we can’t get there completely). Further I consider the least constrained market as most efficient. As constraints are put on markets, they become less efficient at satisfying supply and demand, but they can be used as a tool to achieve a desired outcome.

In the Lemmingistic world we live in an unconstrained market just allows the lemmings to multiply faster. Unlike the Mormon, Catholic and Islamic churches – I do not believe people should “go forth and multiply” just because they can. I can not pick out which lemmings I would kill off, but I dam sure think we should be producing fewer people.

Actually I think there have been historical times where over population has lead to Lemming-ism. I am thinking about the human sacrificing worlds of the Meso Americans like the Aztecs and Mayans. I am also thinking about the Japanese feudal societies. In both those situations they had a high degree of resource constraint and over population. The situation led to some absolutely brutal customs. The Aztecs got so good that they could cut a human heart out of a person before the heart stopped beating! Unlike myself, these cultures figured out who to kick off the planet.

[musashi]

This article is particularly germane to this discussion.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/132111.html

Great find, yes this is very significant.

"They want to operate technologies that have only one defect," said Klaus. "They have not been invented." Klaus added, "There is no known and economically feasible a way for an economy to survive on expensive unreliable clean green energy."

I agree with Klaus here. Viable green technology does not exist today. It may never be achieved. But does its absence de-fuse the ticking time bomb of resource depletion? Does its absence mean that it is not a priority?

Klaus called into question the common notion of inter-generational equity—that the current generation should sacrifice now to benefit future generations. Should we have a preference for future generations over poor people today? Klaus ended by observing that environmentalist ideologues say that they want to "save the planet. The question is from what and for whom?"

Klaus and I don’t exactly agree here. I can’t deny the rights of people that are currently in existence. But can I deny them the right to breed unchecked by market constraints? I think this is a fair constraint on the current population. These un-born generations do not have the right to exist – until they exist.

[Riprion]

I can’t deny the rights of people that are currently in existence. But can I deny them the right to breed unchecked by market constraints? I think this is a fair constraint on the current population. These un-born generations do not have the right to exist – until they exist.

The unborn don't have a right to exist as we have established that a non-entity cannot have rights. What about the right to procreate? I don't see how you could mandate that people not reproduce. I suppose the government could encourage people not to reproduce, but that leads to other problems as illustrated by the one child program in China. There would be the option, at least in the US, to eliminate the enticement to reproduce in the form of tax credits. Ultimately, I think that the population bomb issue is a red herring. People have been making Malthusian disaster claims for a long time and they have been wrong every single time. Technology has advanced carrying capacity more quickly than population has grown. Industrialized nations are starting to show declining birth rates and the birth rates in developing nations are slowing as well.

[Riprion]

Since Reason magazine is blogging on the International Conferance on Climate Change, I thought I would link to it in this thread.

http://www.reason.com/news/show/132145.html

[musashi]

People have been making Malthusian disaster claims for a long time and they have been wrong every single time. Technology has advanced carrying capacity more quickly than population has grown.

True enough about the false predictions of future doom. Thomas Malthus’ work was certainly weak in regards to technology’s ability to cheat fate. But just because Malthus could not completely describe the process 200 years ago does not mean population explosions and declines are not natural phenomenon.

We see dramatic fluctuations in many ecosystems. Crown of Thorns star fish and jelly fish are currently booming. There are whole lists of endangered species. Granted technology has made the difference in the recent past. I think it would be plainly foolish have perfect faith that mankind is immune to population fluctuations (up to and including extinction), just because we have technology on our side. Technology has to save us EVERY TIME, but the probability is that at some point we will encounter a problem beyond our abilities.

I think the Club of Rome has done a nice job of extending some of the ideas of Malthus. Yes their assumptions have been challenged by many great minds, but they are attempting to predict end points from many sources and about many resources. Predictive precision is not the debate in my mind. Is their thinking accurate about key resources and population growth? Overall I believe they have expanded the discussion of resource limitations on population.

[Riprion]

I dont believe that mankind is immune to population pressures, but it seems the best way to deal with these pressures has been economic advancement. With economic advancement comes both technological advancement which increases the carrying capacity of the land, and lower infant mortality rates which ultimately leads to the reversal of population trends.

*edit* And also women's lib. which also contributes to the reduction of the reproduction rate.

[musashi]

I don’t believe that mankind is immune to population pressures, but it seems the best way to deal with these pressures has been economic advancement. With economic advancement comes both technological advancement which increases the carrying capacity of the land, and lower infant mortality rates which ultimately leads to the reversal of population trends.

What if the carrying capacity of planet were not the goal?

Clearly that metric and those like infant mortality rates have been the past focus. And our technological development has slanted in the direction of greater quantities of people over people of greater quality.

What if different metrics had higher value? What if per capita GDP became more important than total population? Would the daily news have an editorial policy of promoting expanded economies and reducing population? Would the newsmen stop chasing ambulances?

What if the literacy level or economic status of the parents of new born children became key the metric instead of infant mortality? Would the legions of charitable organizations put their resources towards improving these metrics instead of building wells and transporting rice?

To me both the shifts above make the world a better place.

[musashi]

Keith Lockitch has expanded on his earlier environmental post. I think he does a fair job of illustrating that the Atlas holding up our world is fossil fuel.

Unfortunately he does not consider finite nature of the fuel. The future Keith illustrates will happen without an as yet un-conceived & dramatic technological shift. The question is not if, but when …

Also I have to disagree with one other comment. I believe industrial civilization is negatively impacting global climate. And I would provide a reference link to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Brochure which also reaches this conclusion. There is debate on this subject, but the majority of the data seems to indicate that industrial civilization is influencing global climate. I found this brochure to be fairly high level. It appears to be heavily peer reviewed.

The Real Meaning of Earth Hour

On Saturday, March 28, cities around the world will turn off their lights to observe “Earth Hour.” Iconic landmarks from the Sydney Opera House to Manhattan’s skyscrapers will be darkened to encourage reduced energy use and signal a commitment to fighting climate change.

While a one-hour blackout will admittedly have little effect on carbon emissions, what matters, organizers say, is the event’s symbolic meaning. That’s true, but not in the way organizers intend.

We hear constantly that the debate is over on climate change--that man-made greenhouse gases are indisputably causing a planetary emergency. But there is ample scientific evidence to reject the claims of climate catastrophe. And what’s never mentioned? The fact that reducing greenhouse gases to the degree sought by climate activists would, itself, cause significant harm.

Politicians and environmentalists, including those behind Earth Hour, are not calling on people just to change a few light bulbs, they are calling for a truly massive reduction in carbon emissions--as much as 80 percent below 1990 levels. Because our energy is overwhelmingly carbon-based (fossil fuels provide more than 80 percent of world energy), and because the claims of abundant “green energy” from breezes and sunbeams are a myth--this necessarily means a massive reduction in our energy use.

People don’t have a clear view of what this would mean in practice. We, in the industrialized world, take our abundant energy for granted and don’t consider just how much we benefit from its use in every minute of every day. Driving our cars to work and school, sitting in our lighted, heated homes and offices, powering our computers and countless other labor-saving appliances, we count on the indispensable values that industrial energy makes possible: hospitals and grocery stores, factories and farms, international travel and global telecommunications. It is hard for us to project the degree of sacrifice and harm that proposed climate policies would force upon us.

This blindness to the vital importance of energy is precisely what Earth Hour exploits. It sends the comforting-but-false message: Cutting off fossil fuels would be easy and even fun! People spend the hour stargazing and holding torch-lit beach parties; restaurants offer special candle-lit dinners. Earth Hour makes the renunciation of energy seem like a big party.

Participants spend an enjoyable sixty minutes in the dark, safe in the knowledge that the life-saving benefits of industrial civilization are just a light switch away. This bears no relation whatsoever to what life would actually be like under the sort of draconian carbon-reduction policies that climate activists are demanding: punishing carbon taxes, severe emissions caps, outright bans on the construction of power plants.

Forget one measly hour with just the lights off. How about Earth Month, without any form of fossil fuel energy? Try spending a month shivering in the dark without heating, electricity, refrigeration; without power plants or generators; without any of the labor-saving, time-saving, and therefore life-saving products that industrial energy makes possible.

Those who claim that we must cut off our carbon emissions to prevent an alleged global catastrophe need to learn the indisputable fact that cutting off our carbon emissions would be a global catastrophe. What we really need is greater awareness of just how indispensable carbon-based energy is to human life (including, of course, to our ability to cope with any changes in the climate).

It is true that the importance of Earth Hour is its symbolic meaning. But that meaning is the opposite of the one intended. The lights of our cities and monuments are a symbol of human achievement, of what mankind has accomplished in rising from the cave to the skyscraper. Earth Hour presents the disturbing spectacle of people celebrating those lights being extinguished. Its call for people to renounce energy and to rejoice at darkened skyscrapers makes its real meaning unmistakably clear: Earth Hour symbolizes the renunciation of industrial civilization.

[Riprion]

Now for a little hope.

Scientists found a way to use sunlight, water and nanotubes to turn CO2 into CH4 (methane).

http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2009/03/2 ... -fuel.html

[musashi]

Actually the chemical pathway to organic carbon has been known for about a hundred years, the Wurtz reaction is widely given credit for this achievement. The original reaction used UV light to react bromine and/or chlorine gas with CO2. Then reacted the Alkylhalide with sodium to create an organic bond.

The nanotube approach is a more direct method. Surface catalysts have rate limits and finite lives. Regeneration of the carbon based-catalyst is the big challenge. It will be interesting to learn how they bring this basic science to commercial reality. The fun is in the development.

See the thing is that we’ve known how to make organic carbon for years. The issue has been and will continue to be that the transition from inorganic to organic carbon requires a thermodynamic investment and has a large activation energy to overcome.

[musashi]

I came across Dr. Albert A. Bartlett's lecture’s The Most Important Video You’ll Ever See – part 3.

I really enjoyed his growth analogy of bacterium in a bottle. I could see similarities between the perspective of those bugs on the threshold of resource depletion, and our situation with need for sustainable energy.