Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 15 Jul 2015, 10:14:03

Most mainstream economists are still wed to the idea of limitless growth on a limited planet, but they put lipstick on that pig by calling it 'green growth,' 'sustainable growth,' or some similar absurdity.

Here are some articles addressing the issue:

Premises for a New Economy
Marglin et al 2010
http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/dsd_aofw_sdkp ... tement.pdf

For now, I pull this passage from this report to emphasize that, as enormous as GW issues are, they represent only one portion of the multidimensional sh!t storm we've gotten ourselves into:

the growth regime of the past is problematic. The CO2 barrier is only one of many constraints: without absolute decoupling, continued growth on a global scale at historical rates will sooner or later bring us up against barriers such as toxification, exhaustion and pollution of fresh water supplies, and loss of genetic diversity, not to mention shortages of raw materials, or, equivalently, sharply increasing costs of raw-material extraction.

In short, succeeding beyond our wildest expectations with respect to energy will stabilize the climate, but will also exacerbate these other problems and bring us more quickly up against other barriers to the planetary safe operating space—and perhaps barriers that have not yet been identified.



Building a Sustainable and Desirable Economy-in-Society-in-Nature

Costanza et al 2012
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/c ... Nature.pdf

No, economic growth and climate stability do not go hand-in-hand

http://grist.org/politics/no-economic-g ... d-in-hand/

Green Growth is a Fantasy

http://www.brusselsblog.co.uk/is-green- ... a-fantasy/

And in case anyone had any doubts, we don't have much of any 'carbon budget' to 'spend' on 'green growth':

Are we overestimating our global carbon budget?

A: YES

When analysts say we have just 400 billion tonnes of carbon left that we can safely burn to stand a good chance of keeping global warming below 2 degrees, they usually are not factoring in permafrost thaw or Amazon forest die-back effects. That 400 billion tonne allowance should probably be reduced to 300-350 billion tonnes once we take the permafrost and tropical forest feedbacks into account.

And, when we hear that we have just 35 years left at current emissions rates before we cross the dangerous climate change threshold, we should reduce that time limit by five or 10 years, since nature will be quietly boosting our carbon emissions over the coming decades.

That effect hasn’t yet been factored into most of the studies.


https://www.skepticalscience.com/are-we ... udget.html
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16758
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Unread postby Pops » Wed 15 Jul 2015, 11:01:02

The key concept I think is the conflict between consume and sustain; one meaning use up and one; preserve/perpetuate.

I'd like to see PO.com instigate a new minimalism where itty Bitty houses, tiny jobs, small income, small consumption is cool.

I'll start:
Income last year= $24k (12k/person)
Kids = 3 (well, 3 for DW, 1 for me, LoL)
SqFt = 1,200 / 50x100 lot
miles driven = 4k x 25-30mpg (total guesses, excluding moving)

Theme Song
If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.
-- Abraham Lincoln
User avatar
Pops
Elite
Elite
 
Posts: 17642
Joined: Sat 03 Apr 2004, 03:00:00
Location: QuikSac for a 6-Pac

Re: Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Wed 15 Jul 2015, 11:28:28

The Ontario Green Energy Act was very much premised on the idea that it would create lots of jobs, especially in the manufacturing sector. In other words, promoting renewable energy was just another way to keep the economy growing. Many other countries that came out with generous feed in tariffs, especially for solar pv, had the same idea. It really didn't work out the way the government had hoped in Ontario.
yellowcanoe
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 466
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 13:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Unread postby Newfie » Wed 15 Jul 2015, 16:21:39

Pops wrote:The key concept I think is the conflict between consume and sustain; one meaning use up and one; preserve/perpetuate.

I'd like to see PO.com instigate a new minimalism where itty Bitty houses, tiny jobs, small income, small consumption is cool.

I'll start:
Income last year= $24k (12k/person)
Kids = 3 (well, 3 for DW, 1 for me, LoL)
SqFt = 1,200 / 50x100 lot
miles driven = 4k x 25-30mpg (total guesses, excluding moving)

Theme Song


You are doing better than us Pops. But we will improve next year when retired.

In our own defense we do have our wood lot "sequestered" which should count for something.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9415
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Unread postby Peak_Yeast » Wed 15 Jul 2015, 19:51:41

Income last year: 36K (me alone before tax) part time job (remember danish tax is approx 50% and price levels about twice of U.S.).
Wife is an energy sink taking education.
Kids: 1@2y.o (both of us)
House: 1300 sq.ft (extra 800 being built), property: 17000 sq.ft
miles driven excl. work: about 2000km (me) 15000km (wife) @62 mpg (same car)
Electrical usage: 7000KWh/y - solarpanels produced 6000kwh/y.
"If democracy is the least bad form of government - then why dont we try it?"
User avatar
Peak_Yeast
Heavy Crude
Heavy Crude
 
Posts: 270
Joined: Tue 30 Apr 2013, 16:54:38
Location: Denmark

Re: Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Unread postby joewp » Wed 15 Jul 2015, 21:46:46

Ya know, this whole "Green" thing ticks me off.

First of all, absolutely none of it is sustainable in the least. The way I look at it, the societies of North America before 1492 were more or less sustainable. Yes there were several booms and busts, but they were mostly localized and recovered from them quickly. I would have to say that the way the Northeast tribes, for instance, were living was sustainable over the long term. They even had a policy to consider the impact of their decisions on the seventh generation after them, we worry about next quarter.

Green economy or green growth they probably both mean, I would imagine, solar panels. If you think solar panels are in any way sustainable, you have another think coming. I was just reading about how solar panels are made and one of the ingredients is boron. Here's a nice, sustainable boron mine:
Image
How "green" is that?
And oh yeah, it was also phosphorus, too. Hey, don't we need that stuff to like, uh, fertilize our food? I keep hearing there is not that much of that to go around. You wanna recharge your phone or eat?

And then, titanium dioxide.
Image

But ok, since I'm getting bored, you must be too, so here's the rest of the process:
The solar module consists of the silicon semiconductor surrounded by protective material in a metal frame. The protective material consists of an encapsulant of transparent silicon rubber or butyryl plastic (commonly used in automobile windshields) bonded around the cells, which are then embedded in ethylene vinyl acetate. A polyester film (such as mylar or tedlar) makes up the backing. A glass cover is found on terrestrial arrays, a lightweight plastic cover on satellite arrays. The electronic parts are standard and consist mostly of copper. The frame is either steel or aluminum.

Read more: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Solar-C ... z3g19ZWrvB


Sounds to me like there's fossil fuel components in there, and some standard metals. Do I need to post an iron or aluminum mine picture to make my point? Please note that without the extra energy background of fossil fuels, those mines would not exist. Not to mention all the GHG emitted during the mining and manufacturing processes probably cuts in half the "green" claims of solar panels.
Oh, I forgot to add, the silicon has to be refined to 100% pure by heating it up to 2400F... I hope you don't think they're using solar for that heat. More GHGs... green my posterior.

I'm sorry, I think that if you use it and it doesn't grow from the ground every year or so, it's just not sustainable.

Ask me where I got this attitude, go ahead...

I won't keep you in suspense. It's because I've posted and lurked (and read many, many, many of the excellent links you folks supply) for 10 friggin' years.

Thanks for that, by the way. [smilie=adora.gif]
Joe P. joeparente.com
"Only when the last tree is cut; only when the last river is polluted; only when the last fish is caught; only then will they realize that you cannot eat money." - Cree Indian Proverb
User avatar
joewp
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 2054
Joined: Tue 05 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: Keeping dry in South Florida

Re: Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 26 Apr 2016, 13:51:33

Thought I'd bump this old thread.

Beyond specifics like flying and meat/dairy eating, there is just plain old consumption of crap that is mostly driving the world rapidly into oblivion. One part of that which is particularly bad wrt GW is all the transport that moving 11 billion tons of crap a year involves.

Now you can get a nice visualization of all that moving sh!t around.

(Some wit once, when it was pointed out that Denmark sells some thousands of pounds of a particular kind of cookie to the UK, while the UK sells a similar quantity of another kind of cookie to Demark, opined, "Why not just swap recipes?? :-D )

http://www.vox.com/2016/4/25/11503152/s ... routes-map
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16758
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Tue 26 Apr 2016, 15:27:00

Pops wrote:The key concept I think is the conflict between consume and sustain; one meaning use up and one; preserve/perpetuate.

I'd like to see PO.com instigate a new minimalism where itty Bitty houses, tiny jobs, small income, small consumption is cool.

I'll start:
Income last year= $24k (12k/person)
Kids = 3 (well, 3 for DW, 1 for me, LoL)
SqFt = 1,200 / 50x100 lot
miles driven = 4k x 25-30mpg (total guesses, excluding moving)

Theme Song

There is more than one route to more sustainable living.

My income is relatively large ($100K to $200K on average), though inconsistent, since the vast majority of it comes from investment income (from 35+ years of saving, investing, and living on a small fraction of my total income. so I don't apologize for that).

However, I have no kids. My house, miles driven, etc. compare closely with yours. I focus on buying very little consumer cr*p and having a small energy footprint by doing common sense things like minimizing heating/cooling, travel, etc.

I only spend a small fraction of my income on myself. I spend much more on taxes, my sister's family (via gifts), helping friends (via gifts) and charity than I do on myself -- and yes, I still save (and invest the savings) when I can -- a lifetime of ingrained habits dies hard).

Spending money on "stuff" generally equates to a larger carbon footprint, so to me, this both helps people and avoids the carbon footprint of most of "the stuff". I've never understood why big cars, houses, and fancy stuff are equated with happiness -- once I'm warm, dry, fed, have decent medical care, basic clothes, etc., climbing Maslowe's heirarchy has very little to do with spending money aside from having access to media.)

One doesn't have to be an idiot and live large like Al Gore, just because one has a larger income.
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 4050
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 20:26:42

Re: Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Unread postby Tanada » Tue 26 Apr 2016, 16:33:47

joewp wrote:Ya know, this whole "Green" thing ticks me off.

First of all, absolutely none of it is sustainable in the least. The way I look at it, the societies of North America before 1492 were more or less sustainable. Yes there were several booms and busts, but they were mostly localized and recovered from them quickly. I would have to say that the way the Northeast tribes, for instance, were living was sustainable over the long term. They even had a policy to consider the impact of their decisions on the seventh generation after them, we worry about next quarter.

Green economy or green growth they probably both mean, I would imagine, solar panels. If you think solar panels are in any way sustainable, you have another think coming. I was just reading about how solar panels are made and one of the ingredients is boron. Here's a nice, sustainable boron mine:
Image
How "green" is that?
And oh yeah, it was also phosphorus, too. Hey, don't we need that stuff to like, uh, fertilize our food? I keep hearing there is not that much of that to go around. You wanna recharge your phone or eat?

And then, titanium dioxide.
Image

But ok, since I'm getting bored, you must be too, so here's the rest of the process:
The solar module consists of the silicon semiconductor surrounded by protective material in a metal frame. The protective material consists of an encapsulant of transparent silicon rubber or butyryl plastic (commonly used in automobile windshields) bonded around the cells, which are then embedded in ethylene vinyl acetate. A polyester film (such as mylar or tedlar) makes up the backing. A glass cover is found on terrestrial arrays, a lightweight plastic cover on satellite arrays. The electronic parts are standard and consist mostly of copper. The frame is either steel or aluminum.

Read more: http://www.madehow.com/Volume-1/Solar-C ... z3g19ZWrvB


Sounds to me like there's fossil fuel components in there, and some standard metals. Do I need to post an iron or aluminum mine picture to make my point? Please note that without the extra energy background of fossil fuels, those mines would not exist. Not to mention all the GHG emitted during the mining and manufacturing processes probably cuts in half the "green" claims of solar panels.
Oh, I forgot to add, the silicon has to be refined to 100% pure by heating it up to 2400F... I hope you don't think they're using solar for that heat. More GHGs... green my posterior.

I'm sorry, I think that if you use it and it doesn't grow from the ground every year or so, it's just not sustainable.

Ask me where I got this attitude, go ahead...

I won't keep you in suspense. It's because I've posted and lurked (and read many, many, many of the excellent links you folks supply) for 10 friggin' years.

Thanks for that, by the way. [smilie=adora.gif]


yeah, I am with you on this one. If you want to be really green and sustainable then you have to build a home that doesn't need much in the way of external energy. You also have to make it as passive as possible so it gets its temperature control directly from the environment. That still leaves you with the open questions of running water, sewage disposal, food supply and on and on and on.

If we had a Billion humans who could spread out and live passive sustainable that would possibly work, but with 7.4 Billion of us and counting 'green' living becomes more and more of an oxymoron each day.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14053
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 02:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Unread postby ennui2 » Tue 26 Apr 2016, 17:50:44

This is the world we're actually living in.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016 ... ieu-paley/

Image

Yes, parts of the earth look like Wall-E already.

Image

Any coulda-shoulda-woulda talk about the proverbial good-old-days "before 1492" is less than worthless. We won't get back there outside of die-off.

P.S., if New Delhi weren't portrayed badly enough via that article as it is....
"If the oil price crosses above the Etp maximum oil price curve within the next month, I will leave the forum." --SumYunGai (9/21/2016)
User avatar
ennui2
permanently banned
 
Posts: 3921
Joined: Tue 20 Sep 2011, 09:37:02
Location: Not on Homeworld

Re: Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 26 Apr 2016, 20:11:51

Yeah, I heard about that fire in the museum. Whole new levels of tragic.

We're buying more and more crap that is all completely replaceable, but then letting these types of precious artifacts as well as whole ecosystems and species that can not every be replaced go up in smoke.

:cry: :cry: :cry:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16758
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00

Re: Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Unread postby onlooker » Sun 09 Jul 2017, 08:37:37

The Green Economy has been nothing but a gigantic scam and swindle
“"If you think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while counting your money"”
User avatar
onlooker
Anti-Matter
Anti-Matter
 
Posts: 8001
Joined: Sun 10 Nov 2013, 12:49:04
Location: NY, USA

Re: Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Unread postby Newfie » Sun 09 Jul 2017, 16:00:00

Doh,
Glad you bumped the thread. Me thtoo now a bunch of the stuff you put in "Happy Talk" belongs here.

Good to keep reminding ourselves of the basics.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 9415
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 03:00:00
Location: US East Coast

Re: Green Economy vs 'Green Growth'

Unread postby dohboi » Sun 09 Jul 2017, 21:21:22

Yeah, I mostly agree. But people were grousing that I wasn't ever posting anything positive, iirc, hence the happy thread.

The following is the kind of thing we will see more and more...basically green lipstick on a omnicidal industrial society mega-pig.

Billionaire Sanjeev Gupta appears to be carving out a new niche by buying out struggling metals manufacturers and returning them to profitability by powering them with cheaper energy sources – renewables of course.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-07-09/s ... ks/8691072

So now we can continue to rape the earth and turn her beauties and treasures into toxins and trash, but do it all with nice green energy...how nice! :) 8O :x :cry: :twisted: :badgrin:
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 16758
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 03:00:00


Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests