[MonteQuest]

It seems to me that SERIOUS conservation (not BS lip service or just gradually increasing fleet CAFE standards) would certainly be seriously helpful.

SERIOUS conservation results in a SERIOUS reduction in economic activity. Who decides who loses his job? And what you conserve, someone else will use if they don't have the same constraints.

And it should certainly be more economical to, say, take public transportation (if it were made widely available and reliable in terms of service hours and frequency) vs driving and maintaining one's own car.

1 out of every 6 jobs is tied to the auto industry. It's not more economical to the individual who loses his job.

We could even force the issue with high energy taxes (balanced with some kind of family tax credit) to STRONGLY incent people to conserve energy -- and let them figure out the efficiency via their own needs and the efficient private sector.

And what happens to that tax money? It gets spent and demands the energy you just conserved.

Conservation measures are a death knell to a growth based economy. It is "demand destruction" that singles out certain segments of society for the job dustbin. Perhaps, an across the board initiative that would downsize everyone's consumption equally would work. I.E. a lower standard of living. Haven't thought that one through.

[ennui2]

SERIOUS conservation results in a SERIOUS reduction in economic activity.

Efficiency saves money and increases profits. Just ask Wal-Mart. Sure, Wal-Mart is part of the problem, but within their microcosm, their supply-chain is the most efficient there is. How about truckers who put wind-dams on their 18-wheelers?

You are painting with too broad a brush and drawing simplistic conclusions.

Eliminating true waste is a net gain.

Perhaps, an across the board initiative that would downsize everyone's consumption equally would work. I.E. a lower standard of living. Haven't thought that one through.

It's called a carbon-tax and yeah, it would be good, but nobody will support it.

[MonteQuest]

Efficiency saves money and increases profits/

Initially, over time, it increases consumption. Jevons Paradox. Besides, we were taking about imposed conservation measures.

You are painting with too broad a brush and drawing simplistic conclusions.

150 years of empirical data says otherwise. Look to the austerity measures in Europe. Didn't go over too well, did they?

Eliminating true waste is a net gain.

One man's waste is another man's job. Everything that one might consider waste was bought and paid for before it was wasted. It added to GDP. It created a job.

I'm not saying we shouldn't conserve or increase inefficiencies, but we have to understand our economy doesn't run in reverse. Might have to ditch a debt-based money system that requires growth.

[MonteQuest]

It's called a carbon-tax and yeah, it would be good, but nobody will support it.

Not broad enough. It would need to be a consumption tax.

[onlooker]

Might have to ditch a debt-based money system that requires growth.

Precisely, and the point with our economies and energy sources and in fact the entire edifice of modern civilization is that it will be changing dramatically whether we wish to effect this change voluntarily or not. Better if we at least attempted to interject some sort of order to this collapsing dynamic so as to prevent undesirable outcomes and human dislocations and harm, than to let the randomness of Nature dictate. I may add, the longer we wait the greater the likelihood that Nature will dictate.

[MonteQuest]

Efficiency saves money and increases profits. Just ask Wal-Mart. Sure, Wal-Mart is part of the problem, but within their microcosm, their supply-chain is the most efficient there is. How about truckers who put wind-dams on their 18-wheelers?

But did overall energy use decline? No. They used the gains to expand. Same thing in the early 70's when more efficient cars hit the market, more miles were driven, then came SUV's. Efficiency gains in electrical products relegated the single 60W bulb in the center of the room to the dustbin of history. Small houses gave way to mega mansions.

In 150 years of emprical data show that energy efficiency improvements that, on the broadest considerations, are economically justified at the microlevel, lead to higher levels of energy consumption at the macrolevel.

"The end result is a new balance between supply and demand at a higher level of supply and consumption than if there had been no efficiency response. Increased energy efficiency can increase energy consumption by three means. Firstly, increased energy efficiency makes the use of energy relatively cheaper, thus encouraging increased use. Secondly, increased energy efficiency leads to increased economic growth, which pulls up energy use in the whole economy. Thirdly, increased efficiency in any one bottleneck resource multiplies the use of all the companion technologies, products and services that were being restrained by it."-- Khazzoom–Brookes postulate

[ennui2]

Might have to ditch a debt-based money system that requires growth.

And even if you did that, you'd have to stop population growth. That's not going to happen voluntarily. So in the larger frame, yes, I know it's not sustainable. However, I believe what's been happening and what will continue to happen is the invisible hand will continue to try to tackle the problem through efficiency and cutting the fat out of the system. The energy intensity of US GDP is a lot less now than it was, let's say, back in 1970 when conventional US oil peaked and we went off the gold standard. To a great extent, the shift towards automation is efficiency. And not just BTUs. In business, JOBS are considered waste. It may not be good for society overall, but as far as keeping profits up, reducing labor costs is one of the top targets for efficiency gains. And that's what we're seeing. More and more classes of work made obsolete by computer services and robots. This is part of the flawed social compact and making corporations pseudo-living-entities. However, ask anyone who starts a company and they'll be hard pressed to say they'll employ people for the sake of employing people at the cost of reducing profitability. So it's not that anyone's "evil" as much as it's the equivalent of tragedy of the commons in business.

[MonteQuest]

Might have to ditch a debt-based money system that requires growth.

And even if you did that, you'd have to stop population growth.

Yes, or reduce the standard of living. Of course, as the population grows the SOL must therefore decline even farther.

However, I believe what's been happening and what will continue to happen is the invisible hand will continue to try to tackle the problem through efficiency and cutting the fat out of the system.

Oh, I agree. Gains at the microlevel will be the impetus. A Tragedy of the Commons.

The energy intensity of US GDP is a lot less now than it was, let's say, back in 1970 when conventional US oil peaked and we went off the gold standard.

But that was largely due to outsourcing and a massive debt increase.

[vtsnowedin]

The constant growth dynamic or should I say religion annoys me. I think we are confusing which is the nose of the dog and what is it's tail.
Due to increases in human knowledge and technology the human population has been growing rapidly sense about 1800. At the same time we have had a constant increase in our use of energy and growth in our economy. But which one leads the other? If there were not more people would we seek out and acquire more energy? Did the presence of more cheaper energy cause the population and the economy to grow or did increasing technology cause the growth in population and the increase in energy use was just a byproduct of that growth?
I think that energy has been over rated and not the main driver of growth. Once the energy supply reaches it's limits we will stop wasting such prodigious amounts of it and worldwide energy consumption per capita will fall. At the same time we will use technology to increase per capita GDP.and find once and for all that the two are not hard linked.
But then we will come up against the limits of population, those limits being food and water and we will either solve the population problem or suffer a die off of biblical proportions.

[ennui2]

But did overall energy use decline? No. They used the gains to expand.

Yes. It's a can-kicking measure. But it worked and continues to work, diminishing returns or no diminishing returns.

[MonteQuest]

Did the presence of more cheaper energy cause the population and the economy to grow or did increasing technology cause the growth in population and the increase in energy use was just a byproduct of that growth?

Decreasing the death rate via microbiology (1865) and sanitation allowed more children to survive to adulthood was the primary cause for the population explosion. Biomass would not have supported the population growth that followed. The advent of fossil fuels did support it. The need to pump water from the coal mines gave us the steam engine. The industrial revolution produced items in abundance and filled the warehouses. Advertising created the demand to sell the surplus. Then came lay-away, then installment loans, then credit cards. The rest is history. So, population, debt, advertising, technology, and readily available cheap energy drove grow.

I think that energy has been over rated and not the main driver of growth.

Since the 1970's in the US, debt has been the only driver of growth.

Once the energy supply reaches it's limits we will stop wasting such prodigious amounts of it and worldwide energy consumption per capita will fall.

Then our monetary system collapses and we are reduced to barter. Can't grow; can't service the debt.

At the same time we will use technology to increase per capita GDP.and find once and for all that the two are not hard linked.

No. Technological advances will cease once growth is no longer possible. Back yard contraptions will be the norm. Even so, technology wouldn't be able to stave off the new hungry mouths to feed from a growing population. The pie would get smaller and the portions allotted smaller. Besides, technology just makes us consume energy faster.

But then we will come up against the limits of population, those limits being food and water and we will either solve the population problem or suffer a die off of biblical proportions.

Not necessarily, the operative principle in determining the carrying capacity of an ecosystem is known as Liebig’s Law, which states that whatever necessity is least abundant, relative to per-capita requirements, sets the environment’s limit for the population of any given species. Climate change may well be the limiting factor or water availability, but energy seems to be forefront, for now.

The population problem needed to be solved back when we started to decrease the death rate. We are now billions in overshoot, and the sequel to that is always a die-off.

[MonteQuest]

Yes. It's a can-kicking measure. But it worked and continues to work, diminishing returns or no diminishing returns.

We only think it worked. Tragedy of the Commons.

[Outcast_Searcher]

It's called a carbon-tax and yeah, it would be good, but nobody will support it.

Not broad enough. It would need to be a consumption tax.

Actually, I think all we need is an extremely broad consumption tax to replace the other taxes.

The books I've read about carbon footprints point out that spending some amount of money (say $1.00 generally equates to producing a certain amount of CO2.

So if you had leaders who could be rational and honest (I know, we don't), then a consumption tax could reflect the total amount of damage thing "X" does. The rich who consume a lot would still pay far more taxes -- just on what they spend, not as punishment for earning a good living.

Not that I would ever expect this to happen, but taxing, for example, gasoline based on ALL its negative social consequences, including all the military spending it induces -- would be a good start. $15 to $20 a gallon in gasoline taxes, anyone?

(And yes, your reference to a lower standard of living in other posts is correct -- we need this badly if we're not going to dramatically lower the population).

[Outcast_Searcher]

It seems to me that SERIOUS conservation (not BS lip service or just gradually increasing fleet CAFE standards) would certainly be seriously helpful.

SERIOUS conservation results in a SERIOUS reduction in economic activity. Who decides who loses his job? And what you conserve, someone else will use if they don't have the same constraints.

And it should certainly be more economical to, say, take public transportation (if it were made widely available and reliable in terms of service hours and frequency) vs driving and maintaining one's own car.

1 out of every 6 jobs is tied to the auto industry. It's not more economical to the individual who loses his job.

We could even force the issue with high energy taxes (balanced with some kind of family tax credit) to STRONGLY incent people to conserve energy -- and let them figure out the efficiency via their own needs and the efficient private sector.

And what happens to that tax money? It gets spent and demands the energy you just conserved.

Conservation measures are a death knell to a growth based economy. It is "demand destruction" that singles out certain segments of society for the job dustbin. Perhaps, an across the board initiative that would downsize everyone's consumption equally would work. I.E. a lower standard of living. Haven't thought that one through.

Over time, jobs change radically, as people's needs change. How many buggy whip makers do we need with the modern automobile, for example? Refusing to change anything because it will impact some jobs, while we collectively kill ourselves to maintain the status quo isn't working. I'm suggesting an alternative. I'm open to better alternatives. Not doing nothing, while we all slide over the cliff.

I'm saying we need conservation because the PLANET clearly needs it. And yes, that implies a lower standard of living, and that's a good thing. The conservation would just be a (rational) tool to force the issue, since 99% of individuals appear to be hell-bent to consume with all the money they can spend and borrow, and ruin the biosphere in the process.

Maybe it's time to have an economy based on intelligence (how much can we have IF we do it sustainably) instead of a growth based model. Again -- not that I would expect the masses or their elected poo-bahs to support such a thing.

[ennui2]

Yes. It's a can-kicking measure. But it worked and continues to work, diminishing returns or no diminishing returns.

We only think it worked. Tragedy of the Commons.

It worked, for now. When I say can-kicking, that's all I'm saying. Really, a lot of what passes for disagreement here, when you strip it all away, amounts to competing views on the timing and specific causative factors of the crash and what the wailing and gnashing of teeth will look like at ground level, not whether there will be one.

[MonteQuest]

Actually, I think all we need is an extremely broad consumption tax to replace the other taxes.

It would have to be progressive. Otherwise, you are targeting the poor. Not sure how that would even work.

(And yes, your reference to a lower standard of living in other posts is correct -- we need this badly if we're not going to dramatically lower the population).

Every year forever, and more each year? The pie is shrinking and the hungry mouths are increasing.

By design or by default; folks, we are going to fight.

[MonteQuest]

Over time, jobs change radically, as people's needs change.

Over time is the key. Jobs change, but not overnight and not in such a broad way. Think of all the industries that are supported by the automobile, from batteries to tires, fast food to motels, insurance, auto body, etc.
Think of all the industries their incomes support. A domino effect would sweep society. Scarcity breeds poverty, and poverty breeds conflict.

Refusing to change anything because it will impact some jobs, while we collectively kill ourselves to maintain the status quo isn't working.

Some jobs? I could type for an hour and not name them all.

I'm saying we need conservation because the PLANET clearly needs it. And yes, that implies a lower standard of living, and that's a good thing. The conservation would just be a (rational) tool to force the issue, since 99% of individuals appear to be hell-bent to consume with all the money they can spend and borrow, and ruin the biosphere in the process.

I don't disagree that we need to consume less, but who will stand for a self-imposed depression without end?

Maybe it's time to have an economy based on intelligence (how much can we have IF we do it sustainably) instead of a growth based model.

Well, we can't have agriculture. By it's very nature it is unsustainable. So, that brings us back to hunter gatherers. Back then, the earth could support maybe 3 billion. But we have so destroyed the carrying capacity with our numbers, it's probably more like a billion or less could be supported sustainably.

Kind of late to envision a small healthy population, relatively free of disease and suffering with a high quality of life.

[MonteQuest]

It worked, for now. When I say can-kicking, that's all I'm saying.

It worked at the micro level. It works for the individual. But not the macro level; not for the commons.

[ennui2]

A domino effect would sweep society.

But Monte, we've already seen domino effects sweep society. The industrial revolution is nothing BUT a series of domino effects. In the 1800s we were a mostly agrarian society. Then we became a factory society in the first half of the 20th century. Then we became an information society. All of this required that people change careers to stay competitive.

The #1 piece of career advice out there currently is to PLAN on making at least one or two career changes and to CONSTANTLY LEARN in order to stay competitive, because the days of working for one job forever and getting the gold watch at the end are LONG GONE.

And all this without the threat of doom.

So you are painting a doomy scenario that already exists without doom.

People just have to BUCK UP and adapt or die.

Well, we can't have agriculture. By it's very nature it is unsustainable. So, that brings us back to hunter gatherers. Back then, the earth could support maybe 3 billion. But we have so destroyed the carrying capacity with our numbers, it's probably more like a billion or less could be supported sustainably.

Again you are falling back to describing the end-game. Malthus figured most of this stuff out a long time ago. He couldn't reliably tell us when the die-off would start though.

The one thing I fixate on is the LTG charts. Wherever the LTG charts indicate a plateau and negative population, that's where I'm going to be most concerned. That is still off a ways.

This is one of many LTG charts. They're all slightly different.



This is pretty much how I see it. A confluence of negative feedbacks starts to raise the death rate (which is what is really going to drive lowering population) starting around 2030.

We're getting close, but not quite there yet.

[MonteQuest]

But Monte, we've already seen domino effects sweep society.

Not overnight by decree we haven't. How would a self-imposed depression via serious conservation measures not sweep through society like wildfire?

The one thing I fixate on is the LTG charts.

These projections ignore the biological history of organisms and their environments. They also assume the TFR will decline through demographic transition. It won't. The energy required to urbanize the developing world isn't gong to be there. At the present population growth rate of 1.14%, the world's population will double to 14.7 billion in 61 years.

Populations in overshoot do not slowly decline; they die-off. Suddenly. I have written extensively about this on this site. Don't wish to rehash it in this thread. Keep on believing those rosy scenarios if you like.