Don’t worry, just a little bump - $70 is just around the corner. Short traders just keep making those margin calls, mortgage the house if you have to. Fortunes await you! PO is for pansies and doomers. At $70 short some more ..... it is going back to $22 .... the world is awash with oil ........ reality has nothing to do with it, its all in those charts!!!!!!!!!!
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 6:29 pm Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
TonyPrep wrote:
Since I've failed to explain why recycling isn't mentioned explicitly, could you say how it might be incorporated into the axioms? I just can't see how it could affect the axioms or how another axiom that does mention recycling explicitly could improve the set. Do you not agree that if the axioms are followed, we would have a sustainable society? If you don't, please be explicit about how all axioms could be met and yet we'd still be unsustainable.
Recycling can be looked at from the perspective of what's needed in terms of additional non-renewable material to support a sustainable society for the next billion years given the inefficiency of recycling. Assuming of course we only stay on planet for said resources, which we may not. I've already posted what I considered to be the flaw I had with the axioms. Well, one axiom for starters.
yesplease wrote:
Richard Heinberg wrote:
To be sustainable, the use of non-renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is declining, and the rate of decline must be greater than or equal to the rate of depletion.
In other words, we can use non-renewable resources, lets say Al, from now until the Earth isn't inhabitable, a little under a billion years, at an increasing rate, so long as there is enough around to account for the increase in rate of use from now until it doesn't matter and it's extraction satisfies the other axioms. Anyway, recycling and re-use a crucial in any sustainable society, and not addressing that is odd to say the least.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
That being said, it is nice that instead of accusing me of saying or meaning something other than what I said, you're accusing others of similar.
I did no such thing. Recycling is a way of reusing what we've already used. It does not increase the yearly use of a resource, it decreases it. If recycling is one of the methods employed to reduce resource use then it is simply one way of meeting the axioms and so the axioms don't need to specify recycling, or any other method of reducing yearly resource use.
If you didn't mean to, that's fine, but we can't just say people meant something other than what they explicitly stated in a constructive talk. We could just change around anything to anything else and it would never end. D00m1
Anyway, I can use items with recycled materials just like I use items with virgin materials. The Platinum in a catalytic converter doesn't care whether it came from ore or another catalytic converter during it's use. What it seems like you're referring to is extraction, and extraction is not use. But, yes we can extract little to no additional resources if we can recycle the ones we currently have with a high enough degree of efficiency. That being said, the axiom I mentioned earlier still isn't rigorous enough IMO even assuming that by use the author means extraction, because use can vary widely. For instance, assuming we get most of what we can of some mineral assuming the rest of th axioms are followed, then after that point in time there will be little to no extraction. If, at some later point in time, we figure out a new way to extract that mineral according to the rest of axioms, and extract less than what's left, it could be, say, enough each year to satisfy the material loss due to the inefficiency of recycling, we wouldn't have to insure that resource extraction was declining. While I do think Heinberg's essay is pretty good, it isn't rigorous enough IMO. _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1971 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:15 am Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
I just can't see how it could affect the axioms or how another axiom that does mention recycling explicitly could improve the set. Do you not agree that if the axioms are followed, we would have a sustainable society? If you don't, please be explicit about how all axioms could be met and yet we'd still be unsustainable.
Recycling can be looked at from the perspective of what's needed in terms of additional non-renewable material to support a sustainable society for the next billion years given the inefficiency of recycling. Assuming of course we only stay on planet for said resources, which we may not. I've already posted what I considered to be the flaw I had with the axioms. Well, one axiom for starters.
I still don't understand the flaw. Recycling can't provide additional resources, it can only provide reuse of those items that are now considered end of life or not further reusable in their originally produced form. You still haven't explained how the axioms can be followed and yet still result in an unsustainable society. Nor have you shown that additional resources (through recycling) are needed for a sustainable society. Yes, recycling can help but is not an absolute requirement.
yesplease wrote:
That being said, the axiom I mentioned earlier still isn't rigorous enough IMO even assuming that by use the author means extraction, because use can vary widely. For instance, assuming we get most of what we can of some mineral assuming the rest of th axioms are followed, then after that point in time there will be little to no extraction. If, at some later point in time, we figure out a new way to extract that mineral according to the rest of axioms, and extract less than what's left, it could be, say, enough each year to satisfy the material loss due to the inefficiency of recycling, we wouldn't have to insure that resource extraction was declining. While I do think Heinberg's essay is pretty good, it isn't rigorous enough IMO.
If we have no extraction of non-renewable resources then, from the point of view of use of that resource, we are sustainable. Recycling then would be just a means of making best use of what we've already extracted but it would not make society any more sustainable (it is either sustainable or it isn't). If we choose to recycle as a means to lessen the depletion of a non-renewable resource, then it is a means to sustainability, not a requirement for sustainability.
Your example would not meet the axioms since if we have ceased extraction of a resource, resuming extraction would increase consumption of the resource beyond the depletion rate then in force (zero) and so would not meet the axioms.
You think that the axioms are not rigorous enough but have not shown how meeting the axioms would leave society unsustainable. You think they are not rigorous enough because they don't spell out explicitly that recycling is a requirement for a sustainable society but you have not shown that to be the case. Recycling is a likely feature of a sustainable society, I might add, but it is not a requirement (for example, we might all choose to use everything non-renewable until it wears out and then only use renewable resources, at or below their renewal rates). You might argue that recycling is one of the best strategies for a sustainable society but it is not an absolute requirement for one.
However, you do acknowledge that the Heinberg essay is good. I think it provides a good definition of sustainability, which was your question at the start of this sub-thread.
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 5:38 am Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
TonyPrep wrote:
I still don't understand the flaw. Recycling can't provide additional resources, it can only provide reuse of those items that are now considered end of life or not further reusable in their originally produced form. You still haven't explained how the axioms can be followed and yet still result in an unsustainable society. Nor have you shown that additional resources (through recycling) are needed for a sustainable society. Yes, recycling can help but is not an absolute requirement.
I never contended that the axioms being followed couldn't result in an unsustainable society, just that they were flawed in terms of a logically sound definition and what would likely happen IMO. We don't need to recycle if we were to use only inputs that regenerate sufficiently over some period of time, but we probably will because in order to maintain certain aspects of our life we would need to.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
That being said, the axiom I mentioned earlier still isn't rigorous enough IMO even assuming that by use the author means extraction, because use can vary widely. For instance, assuming we get most of what we can of some mineral assuming the rest of th axioms are followed, then after that point in time there will be little to no extraction. If, at some later point in time, we figure out a new way to extract that mineral according to the rest of axioms, and extract less than what's left, it could be, say, enough each year to satisfy the material loss due to the inefficiency of recycling, we wouldn't have to insure that resource extraction was declining. While I do think Heinberg's essay is pretty good, it isn't rigorous enough IMO.
If we have no extraction of non-renewable resources then, from the point of view of use of that resource, we are sustainable. Recycling then would be just a means of making best use of what we've already extracted but it would not make society any more sustainable (it is either sustainable or it isn't). If we choose to recycle as a means to lessen the depletion of a non-renewable resource, then it is a means to sustainability, not a requirement for sustainability.
It is given some standard of living. If we assume a standard of living where we don't need to recycle to maintain what we have, then yes it isn't a requirement. However, the author never touched on different requirements either. Another section I believe should be expanded/clarified.
TonyPrep wrote:
Your example would not meet the axioms since if we have ceased extraction of a resource, resuming extraction would increase consumption of the resource beyond the depletion rate then in force (zero) and so would not meet the axioms.
That's exactly the point I was trying to make. If we can construct a situation where something is clearly sustainable, ie that it satisfies all the other axioms and results in a society that can last as long as life on Earth, that violates one of the axioms, then the essay isn't logically rigorous and that axiom needs to be altered. In other words, since the axioms don't take into account fluctuations in use, or, assuming by use the author meant extraction, fluctuations in extraction, they aren't logically consistent. They, especially the one I mentioned, tend to be poorly defined.
TonyPrep wrote:
You think that the axioms are not rigorous enough but have not shown how meeting the axioms would leave society unsustainable. You think they are not rigorous enough because they don't spell out explicitly that recycling is a requirement for a sustainable society but you have not shown that to be the case. Recycling is a likely feature of a sustainable society, I might add, but it is not a requirement (for example, we might all choose to use everything non-renewable until it wears out and then only use renewable resources, at or below their renewal rates). You might argue that recycling is one of the best strategies for a sustainable society but it is not an absolute requirement for one.
That's true IFF the society in question doesn't need to recycle to be sustainable. On top of not being logically consistent, the essay also lacks a clear definition as to what the requirements are for different living standards, or even a definition of living standards.
TonyPrep wrote:
However, you do acknowledge that the Heinberg essay is good. I think it provides a good definition of sustainability, which was your question at the start of this sub-thread.
I said it was good, not that it provided a good definition of sustainability, those are two different things. In order to do that it needs a lot more IMO. _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1971 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 12:50 pm Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
However, you do acknowledge that the Heinberg essay is good. I think it provides a good definition of sustainability, which was your question at the start of this sub-thread.
I said it was good, not that it provided a good definition of sustainability, those are two different things. In order to do that it needs a lot more IMO.
You seem reluctant to accept the axioms despite not being able to show that following the axioms may not result in sustainability. Now, there may be a certain style or standard of living that you'd prefer a sustainable society to have but the axioms were drawn up only to indicate what is needed for sustainability, not a certain kind of sustainable society. In this light, they provide a good definition of sustainability and certainly good enough for this discussion. If you'd like to discuss other aspects of a society that you'd like to see, that would require opinion, not axioms.
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 1:40 pm Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
Why do you keep pointing I that I haven't shown they wouldn't result in a sustainable society? I never claimed they wouldn't.
I just stated they are not good enough for a logical definition IMO. Heinberg could just as easily have used a primate analog for a set of axioms that define sustainable, and that would provide an example, or set of examples, of what's sustainable. However, that is still not a good definition of sustainable in general, since there are other examples that could be sustainable, which is what I would consider useful. In terms of logic, to show something is true in general, it must be in all cases. Like I said before, I think the essay is a good start, however it is not logically rigorous in terms of defining sustainable since it only defines a subset of what's sustainable according to it's own axioms. With some changes it could provide a reasonable definition of sustainability in general.
If you feel that an essay where the violation of one or more of the axioms still results in a sustainable society because they aren't defined clearly or are poorly defined is good enough for yourself, that's fine. I however would like to use a definition of sustainable that's logical. _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1971 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 4:15 pm Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
yesplease wrote:
I just stated they are not good enough for a logical definition IMO. Heinberg could just as easily have used a primate analog for a set of axioms that define sustainable, and that would provide an example, or set of examples, of what's sustainable. However, that is still not a good definition of sustainable in general, since there are other examples that could be sustainable, which is what I would consider useful. In terms of logic, to show something is true in general, it must be in all cases. Like I said before, I think the essay is a good start, however it is not logically rigorous in terms of defining sustainable since it only defines a subset of what's sustainable according to it's own axioms. With some changes it could provide a reasonable definition of sustainability in general.
If you feel that an essay where the violation of one or more of the axioms still results in a sustainable society because they aren't defined clearly or are poorly defined is good enough for yourself, that's fine. I however would like to use a definition of sustainable that's logical.
It's not that I feel they are good enough, I feel they are sufficiently rigorous that any society claiming to be sustainable must follow those axioms. I cannot, currently think of examples (potential or actual) of societies that would not fit those axioms. I keep on about your not showing how a society that meets those axioms could not be sustainable because that is the clear impression I get from your answers (that the axioms are not sufficient for sustainability). So I ask again, do you think the axioms are sufficient for sustainability and, if not, which axiom is in error or what new axioms must be added? The only argument you appear to have put forward, against the axioms, is that, to you, the axioms aren't axioms at all but merely illustrate some possible characteristics of a sustainable society, when there may be other equally reasonable characteristics that either overlap or replace the axioms. However, you have yet to give such an example. Is there another set of axioms that you feel could characterise a sustainable society (i.e. one that could last indefinitely, provided unavoidable catastrophic environmental changes do not occur)? If you can, we may be able to distill the essence of a definition of sustainable that we can both agree on.
For me, the central theme of the axioms is this: a society, to be sustainable, must not use any resource beyond its renewal rate and must not produce waste at a rate, or of a type, that the environment cannot absorb without forcing significant change to that environment. Now I realise that some of this begs further definition and that some resources are so vast that use beyond their renewal rates may be viewed as sustainable. The axioms do a good job, IMO, of clarifying this simple statement of mine, but I think this simple statement is useful in providing a concise definition. I prefer it to the one used for "sustainable development", which is something along the lines of "meeting the needs of today, without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs". I feel sure you would find that definition far too vague, as I do, even though it fits with my concise definition and with the axioms.
Posted: Tue Mar 18, 2008 11:41 pm Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
TonyPrep wrote:
It's not that I feel they are good enough, I feel they are sufficiently rigorous that any society claiming to be sustainable must follow those axioms. I cannot, currently think of examples (potential or actual) of societies that would not fit those axioms.
Any society that has fluctuating usage of resources would qualify. That is to say non-renewable resource use does not to be monotonically decreasing, it can decrease or increase over some time period, but so long as the society doesn't violate the other axioms it will only have "X" amount of non-renewable resource to use which can be steady, fluctuating, or slightly increasing so long as it stays within the bounds of the other axioms and results in enough material for use up to the point where the Earth becomes uninhabitable.
TonyPrep wrote:
I keep on about your not showing how a society that meets those axioms could not be sustainable because that is the clear impression I get from your answers (that the axioms are not sufficient for sustainability). So I ask again, do you think the axioms are sufficient for sustainability and, if not, which axiom is in error or what new axioms must be added?
For the, third or fourth time (can't remember off-hand), the axiom that needs to be tweaked IMO is this one...
Richard Heinberg wrote:
4. To be sustainable, the use of non-renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is declining, and the rate of decline must be greater than or equal to the rate of depletion.
A society can be sustainable and use non-renewable resources at a rate that is increasing so long as the rate will not result in the society attempting to use more than is available given the other axioms. Also, a society can be sustainable if the rate of use is constant. Both those examples would result in a violation of that axiom, but clearly can still result in sustainable societies.
TonyPrep wrote:
The only argument you appear to have put forward, against the axioms, is that, to you, the axioms aren't axioms at all but merely illustrate some possible characteristics of a sustainable society, when there may be other equally reasonable characteristics that either overlap or replace the axioms.
No, I stated that there are societies that can violate the axioms and still be sustainable because there is a problem with the specific axiom I have illustrated a few times, in this post and in others. So... If the axioms defining sustainability don't always define it properly, those axioms aren't sufficient for a good general definition, even if they can define it adequately in specific cases.
TonyPrep wrote:
Is there another set of axioms that you feel could characterise a sustainable society (i.e. one that could last indefinitely, provided unavoidable catastrophic environmental changes do not occur)? If you can, we may be able to distill the essence of a definition of sustainable that we can both agree on.
Axiom four needs to be clarified/altered. The flaw specifically is the use of Barlett's supposedly mathematically rigorous definition...
Quote:
If the rate of extraction declines at a fixed fraction per unit time, the rate of extraction will approach zero, but the integrated total of the extracted resource between t=0 and t=infinity will remain finite.
Since, clearly, the Earth will not last an infinitely long period of time. Because the Earth's habitable lifetime is finite, as long as the integrated total of what's required for some society's functions is less that the URR given the other axioms, the society will still be sustainable. Resource use does not need to be monotonically decreasing because time is not infinite.
Shoot, I would go so far as to say that Barlett's assumption of infinite time is downright cornucopian. I certainly don't think we need to plan for an infinite sustainable existence, do you?
TonyPrep wrote:
For me, the central theme of the axioms is this: a society, to be sustainable, must not use any resource beyond its renewal rate and must not produce waste at a rate, or of a type, that the environment cannot absorb without forcing significant change to that environment.
As unsustainable as this may sound, we only need to avoid significant changes that will impact our own society's sustainability in order to be sustainable. Species loss is only a problem if it impairs our ability to extract resources within their natural renewal rates. That being said, since we don't know precisely what is going on, stating that what we're doing right now, in terms of species loss/etc, is tempting fate, would be an understatement. _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1971 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 1:29 am Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
yesplease wrote:
Any society that has fluctuating usage of resources would qualify. That is to say non-renewable resource use does not to be monotonically decreasing, it can decrease or increase over some time period, but so long as the society doesn't violate the other axioms it will only have "X" amount of non-renewable resource to use which can be steady, fluctuating, or slightly increasing so long as it stays within the bounds of the other axioms and results in enough material for use up to the point where the Earth becomes uninhabitable.
Technically, you're right, but the axioms formalise it. If a resource is so vast that small uses of the resource is equivalent to a truly tiny depletion rate, then a yearly reduction would not amount to much. I don't think it would be useful for the axioms to mention every single resource that could be used, estimate the size of the accessible resource base accurately and then provide a usage rate that would be sustainable. Thus, the axioms would fit the hypothetical example you give, to some significant statistical accuracy.
yesplease wrote:
For the, third or fourth time (can't remember off-hand), the axiom that needs to be tweaked IMO is this one...
Richard Heinberg wrote:
4. To be sustainable, the use of non-renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is declining, and the rate of decline must be greater than or equal to the rate of depletion.
My apologies for not spotting this in your earlier posts, but I don't think you mentioned the specific axiom. I've answered above why this is not much of a criticism of the axioms.
yesplease wrote:
Because the Earth's habitable lifetime is finite, as long as the integrated total of what's required for some society's functions is less that the URR given the other axioms, the society will still be sustainable. Resource use does not need to be monotonically decreasing because time is not infinite.
This is often stated, because there are clearly some resources having such a huge base that small uses can equate to tiny depletion rates, as I've mentioned. But, for all practical purposes, the axioms cover this, so I wouldn't agree that this detracts from the axioms.
yesplease wrote:
Shoot, I would go so far as to say that Barlett's assumption of infinite time is downright cornucopian. I certainly don't think we need to plan for an infinite sustainable existence, do you?
Well, why not? Apart from a few resources that have a huge resource base (though some of those may require other not so large resource bases in order to harness), what is the practical difference of shooting for, say, a thousand years, versus infinity? We are already close to decline in several resources that are currently vital to our societies. If we only want to shoot for a thousand years, who's to say we can even get there? Of course, there will be environmental impacts from events that we have no influence over but, putting that aside, if we aim for true sustainability, we are more likely to reach a thousand year sustainability than if we aimed for that more limited target. In this case, it makes sense to adopt the axioms and make minor adjustments for specific resources, where appropriate.
yesplease wrote:
As unsustainable as this may sound, we only need to avoid significant changes that will impact our own society's sustainability in order to be sustainable. Species loss is only a problem if it impairs our ability to extract resources within their natural renewal rates. That being said, since we don't know precisely what is going on, stating that what we're doing right now, in terms of species loss/etc, is tempting fate, would be an understatement.
I agree with that, by and large, though it is not just the effect on resource extraction (as the disappearing bees, whatever the cause, illustrates). Currently, however, other societies' behaviours affect our own, and ours theirs. We certainly are tempting fate by ignoring all of the impacts, as you say.
Posted: Wed Mar 19, 2008 7:58 pm Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Any society that has fluctuating usage of resources would qualify. That is to say non-renewable resource use does not to be monotonically decreasing, it can decrease or increase over some time period, but so long as the society doesn't violate the other axioms it will only have "X" amount of non-renewable resource to use which can be steady, fluctuating, or slightly increasing so long as it stays within the bounds of the other axioms and results in enough material for use up to the point where the Earth becomes uninhabitable.
Technically, you're right, but the axioms formalise it. If a resource is so vast that small uses of the resource is equivalent to a truly tiny depletion rate, then a yearly reduction would not amount to much. I don't think it would be useful for the axioms to mention every single resource that could be used, estimate the size of the accessible resource base accurately and then provide a usage rate that would be sustainable. Thus, the axioms would fit the hypothetical example you give, to some significant statistical accuracy.
They shouldn't fit the example at all unless we interchange "use" and "extract". Since, we'll likely use all of what we have in terms of non-renewable resources, over some time period, say a year. According to the definition of use, we would actually use an increasing, or static/slightly decreasing amount of a given resource depending on whether or not there's any left to extract, assuming we could recycle it with a high degree of efficiency. Extraction otoh, will likely vary YOY, and again, any axiom that requires even monotonically decreasing extraction will likely be incorrect over some time period.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Because the Earth's habitable lifetime is finite, as long as the integrated total of what's required for some society's functions is less that the URR given the other axioms, the society will still be sustainable. Resource use does not need to be monotonically decreasing because time is not infinite.
This is often stated, because there are clearly some resources having such a huge base that small uses can equate to tiny depletion rates, as I've mentioned. But, for all practical purposes, the axioms cover this, so I wouldn't agree that this detracts from the axioms.
The axioms don't cover this. At least not Heinberg's axioms. Unless something is explicitly stated, it cannot be rationally assumed. Like I said before, if you want to assume the author meant/implied something other than what they wrote, that's fine, but not logical per say.
TonyPrep wrote:
yesplease wrote:
Shoot, I would go so far as to say that Barlett's assumption of infinite time is downright cornucopian. I certainly don't think we need to plan for an infinite sustainable existence, do you?
Well, why not? Apart from a few resources that have a huge resource base (though some of those may require other not so large resource bases in order to harness), what is the practical difference of shooting for, say, a thousand years, versus infinity?
Because using less of a given resource every year means proportionally less utility from that resource. In this case, it would be for no reason other than someone wanted to assume we have an infinite amount of time. We can live sustainably according to the other axioms and still use more of a given non-renewable resource, up to what the Earth has that's available, given the other axioms, because the lifetime of the Earth as a habitable planet is finite.
Generally speaking, we're likely to see higher extraction rates with higher demand initially, because once that resource has been extracted, for the most part, it's value as a commodity increases due to having little or none left aside from what's owned been extracted, at least at the market price. That doesn't mean we seriously expect to continue to extract it at the rate of some specific time period for the rest of the Earth's habitable life, just that people will get what they can while they can in order to take advantage of it's wealth at some later point in time. Along the same lines, resources tend to vary in terms of both rates of extraction and use, and as such, any axiom that implies we need to have either be monotonically decreasing use or extraction because of an assumption of infinite time is logically flawed since the Earth isn't going to be habitable for an infinite amount of time.
TonyPrep wrote:
We are already close to decline in several resources that are currently vital to our societies. If we only want to shoot for a thousand years, who's to say we can even get there? Of course, there will be environmental impacts from events that we have no influence over but, putting that aside, if we aim for true sustainability, we are more likely to reach a thousand year sustainability than if we aimed for that more limited target. In this case, it makes sense to adopt the axioms and make minor adjustments for specific resources, where appropriate.
What resources are limiting us over the next 1000 years? _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1971 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:16 am Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
I'm really not sure what you're getting at with this line. The axioms mention extraction and most certainly imply extraction since a society that doesn't extract more resources and doesn't use what it has in an environmentally destructive way (axiom 5) must be sustainable and must meet the axioms as presented. The axioms also don't mention "monotonically", don't mention a fixed amount of decrease, nor a fixed rate of decrease. Nor do they mention that the resource base knowledge can never change. It seems to me that the axioms cover everything you'd like them to cover, either explicitly, or for all practical purposes. Impractical purposes aren't worth discussing, are they? They also can't go into every single non-renewable and renewable resource that we extract and use, since that would involve a tome of immense proportions. So I can't see that you have good reason to complain about them.
As for aiming for infinity, you claim there is no reason to, yet I have given you a reason. We have a better chance of reaching sustainability over a much shorter timescale if we aim for the long term, infinity. Our knowledge changes all the time, so we could be out on our estimations of resource base, biodiversity loss, and environmental effects, now an in the future. That changing knowledge could work either way, of course, but aiming for the longer time period would insulate us better against mistakes.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
We are already close to decline in several resources that are currently vital to our societies. If we only want to shoot for a thousand years, who's to say we can even get there? Of course, there will be environmental impacts from events that we have no influence over but, putting that aside, if we aim for true sustainability, we are more likely to reach a thousand year sustainability than if we aimed for that more limited target. In this case, it makes sense to adopt the axioms and make minor adjustments for specific resources, where appropriate.
What resources are limiting us over the next 1000 years?
Oil, gas, coal, topsoil, biodiversity, potable water, antimony, chromium, copper, gold, indium, lead, nickel, phosphorous, platinum, silver, tantalum, tin, uranium, zinc. Maybe you can think of more or maybe you can prove that these and all other finite resources we extract, and all other renewable resources that we extract at increasing rates, will not become a problem in the next 1000 years?
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 7:03 pm Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
TonyPrep wrote:
The axioms also don't mention "monotonically", don't mention a fixed amount of decrease, nor a fixed rate of decrease.
Monotonically decreasing just means at a rate that cannot increase. Heinberg stated...
Richard Heinberg wrote:
To be sustainable, the use of non-renewable resources must proceed at a rate that is declining
So according to the fourth axiom, we must always use less of a non-renewable resource. However, we can vary our usage, IE use less one year and more another, which contradicts what Heinberg stated, and still follow the other axioms in order to be sustainable. There is no need to use a non-renewable resource at a rate that is only declining. Only use it at a rate in accordance with the other axioms, up to the limit of how much we can extract and use.
TonyPrep wrote:
Nor do they mention that the resource base knowledge can never change.
I never stated that they mentioned that. I only used it as an example to show that axiom four wasn't logical.
TonyPrep wrote:
It seems to me that the axioms cover everything you'd like them to cover, either explicitly, or for all practical purposes.
They assume a usage rate of non-renewable resources that is always declining, which does not cover every sustainable society according to the other axioms. They could also assume that in order for a society to be sustainable all members must wear red hats, however that isn't required by the others either and as such would be superfluous and leave an illogical set of axioms.
TonyPrep wrote:
Impractical purposes aren't worth discussing, are they?
Recycling and re-use are quite practical however as I have said before, and am saying now, they aren't covered in that essay. If you wish to assume the author implied their existence via some non-standard language or other method, that's fine, but that is a personal choice and not something explicitly stated or implied via logic in the essay.
TonyPrep wrote:
They also can't go into every single non-renewable and renewable resource that we extract and use, since that would involve a tome of immense proportions. So I can't see that you have good reason to complain about them.
I have never complained about the author not going into every single non-renewable and renewable resource that we use, so I don't understand why you're saying I have complained about that.
TonyPrep wrote:
As for aiming for infinity, you claim there is no reason to, yet I have given you a reason. We have a better chance of reaching sustainability over a much shorter timescale if we aim for the long term, infinity.
Long term is not infinity. We have the best chance of reaching sustainability if we approach it and base it in logically sound ideas. Which definitely precludes assumptions of infinite time, Ironically enough by someone who supposedly opposes the cornucopian school of thought. The assumption of infinite oil by someone who is supposedly a corucopian is just as illogical as the assumption of infinite time by someone who claims to oppose the cornucopian.
TonyPrep wrote:
Our knowledge changes all the time, so we could be out on our estimations of resource base, biodiversity loss, and environmental effects, now an in the future. That changing knowledge could work either way, of course, but aiming for the longer time period would insulate us better against mistakes.
I agree that we should aggressive tackle the other issues brought up by the other reasonable axioms, however assumptions based on having an infinite amount of time are not logical or reasonable. In fact, given that measures to minimize the effects of pollution such as Carbon capture technologies, or even simple things like the catalysts used in pollution controls, if we are, as Heinberg suggested, to use fewer non-renewable resources each year, this could significantly compromise our ability to deal with waste.
yesplease wrote:
Oil, gas, coal, topsoil, biodiversity, potable water, antimony, chromium, copper, gold, indium, lead, nickel, phosphorous, platinum, silver, tantalum, tin, uranium, zinc. Maybe you can think of more or maybe you can prove that these and all other finite resources we extract, and all other renewable resources that we extract at increasing rates, will not become a problem in the next 1000 years?
What do you means by become a problem? _________________
Joined: Sep 25, 2005 Posts: 1971 Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Posted: Thu Mar 20, 2008 8:19 pm Post subject: Re: Is Solar Power a Perpetual Motion Machine?
yesplease wrote:
So according to the fourth axiom, we must always use less of a non-renewable resource. However, we can vary our usage, IE use less one year and more another, which contradicts what Heinberg stated, and still follow the other axioms in order to be sustainable. There is no need to use a non-renewable resource at a rate that is only declining. Only use it at a rate in accordance with the other axioms, up to the limit of how much we can extract and use.
I think you're being rather picky. I don't think Heinberg or anyone else would complain much if the use of a resource went up in the odd year, provided the long term trend was clearly in accordance with sustainability. This is hardly a reason to criticize the axioms but, I grant you that, perhaps they could be more specific about how to measure those long term trends.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
Nor do they mention that the resource base knowledge can never change.
I never stated that they mentioned that. I only used it as an example to show that axiom four wasn't logical.
Axiom four is perfectly logical, it's just that it doesn't go into some of the excruciating detail that you'd like, to cover all possible scenarios that could still claim sustainability. It actually doesn't specify a yearly decline, only that yearly would be the usual measurement of depletion rates. So it still covers occasional increases. Yearly decreases would seem to be the easiest measurement but, if you'd like to have increases for short term specific projects, without the increase being permanent, it would still fit the axioms.
yesplease wrote:
TonyPrep wrote:
It seems to me that the axioms cover everything you'd like them to cover, either explicitly, or for all practical purposes.
They assume a usage rate of non-renewable resources that is always declining, which does not cover every sustainable society according to the other axioms. They could also assume that in order for a society to be sustainable all members must wear red hats, however that isn't required by the others either and as such would be superfluous and leave an illogical set of axioms.
What!? You appear to be saying that a society that grows its use of a non-renewable resource (indefinitely) can be sustainable. You certainly haven't shown that to be the case. A society cannot be sustainable by some axioms if it falls down on one axiom that is essential for sustainability. If it's not essential, it is not an axiom. I don't think you've shown any axiom to be wrong (i.e. that a society based on something that violates one axiom would be sustainable).
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
