Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Discussions of conventional and alternative energy production technologies.

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby asg70 » Fri 15 May 2020, 14:45:11

Ibon wrote:Confession: I am a 3 million mile member with American Airlines. I have hardly flown the past 10 years. All those miles were accumulated when in International business. All these 400 acres of preserved cloud forest wilderness sit on the back of all that carbon that was burned as I was selling medical devices in Latin America for almost 20 years.


If only Plant could confess as much.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 15 May 2020, 15:09:32

The IEA says global energy demand declined by 3.8% in the first quarter of 2020. Coal use fell 8%. Oil fell 5%. Renewables were the only source that posted a growth in demand, driven by priority dispatch. Electricity demand has been depressed by 20% or more in some countries on lockdown. The IEA says the pace of renewable power capacity additions will decline in 2020 as supply chain disruptions and labor restrictions delay construction. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out going forward. At this junction, no one can make any predictions beyond it will be chaotic.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16589
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby Newfie » Fri 15 May 2020, 16:54:08

MONTEZ,

My fuzzy recollections of Limits to Growth was that their model fell apart once any one of the primary indicators bad. At that point it all became chaotic. The model still printed out curves, but the researchers had no confidence in those post peak curves.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15049
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby MonteQuest » Fri 15 May 2020, 19:49:05

Newfie wrote:MONTEZ,

My fuzzy recollections of Limits to Growth was that their model fell apart once any one of the primary indicators bad. At that point it all became chaotic. The model still printed out curves, but the researchers had no confidence in those post peak curves.


My recollection was that all those debunking claims failed to grasp what the modelers were saying. That “the earth is finite."

As Limits to Growth concluded in 1972:

"If the present growth trends in world population, industrialisation, pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable decline in both population and industrial capacity."

So far, there’s little to indicate they got that wrong.

"The 1972 book Limits to Growth, which predicted our civilisation would probably collapse some time this century, has been criticised as doomsday fantasy since it was published. This research paper has found the book’s forecasts are accurate, 40 years on."

Limits to Growth/Factcheck
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16589
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby ralfy » Fri 15 May 2020, 23:26:34

Newfie wrote:MONTEZ,

My fuzzy recollections of Limits to Growth was that their model fell apart once any one of the primary indicators bad. At that point it all became chaotic. The model still printed out curves, but the researchers had no confidence in those post peak curves.


AFAIK, the principles of the model (there are actually several runs) are the ff.: population goes up as industrialization takes place because of lower infant mortality rates and higher life expectancy rates. Birth rates go down due to better education, etc., leading to higher prosperity, which in turn means higher resource consumption per capita, which together with funny money are the main drivers of economic growth. Higher resource consumption is ultimately limited by biosphere limitations, leading to diminishing returns. The latter ultimately leads to lower resource consumption per capita. One aspect of limits to growth is peak oil, and what happens to oil also takes place with mining, etc.

Meanwhile, pollution goes up given more resource consumption which in turn decreases some resource availability. The model doesn't factor in the effects of climate change, which may include species die offs, storm surges, etc.

The model also doesn't factor in the effects of funny money creation, which in turn leads to cycles of booms and crashes, with some of the booms taking place because of even more funny money created.

I think the model also doesn't factor in increased complexity in industries, which in turn may actually make them even more fragile:

http://fleeingvesuvius.org/2011/10/08/o ... d-economy/

In short, we are looking at the ff.

1. Ave. ecological footprint per capita is in excess of biocapacity, leading to ecological damage on a significant scale;

2. Ave. ecological footprint is rising as more people join the global middle class, which is part of economic growth and has lowered birth rates, but has also led to even more damage;

3. Due to momentum, population continues to rise;

4. Peak oil, as part of limits to growth, has been taking place, with lower energy returns, in turn threatening that economic growth;

5. Climate change, as part of pollution and ecological damage, has been threatening supply chains, among others, that are part of that highly complex industrial civilization that powers economic growth;

6. Increasing debt has led to one crash after another, with other "black swans" appearing, such as epidemics and pandemics taking place given increased vectors in the spread of disease, more threats of conflict (especially over resources) given multi-fold increases in arms production and deployment worldwide;

and so on in a global economy that is based not on cooperation but on competition and maximization of profit.

The premise is that a "green new deal" is supposed to take place given that competition and can reverse limits to growth, i.e., diminishing returns.
User avatar
ralfy
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 5110
Joined: Sat 28 Mar 2009, 11:36:38
Location: The Wasteland

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sat 16 May 2020, 08:22:32

ralfy wrote:The premise is that a "green new deal" is supposed to take place given that competition and can reverse limits to growth, i.e., diminishing returns.


Every "Green New Deal" I've seen promises more unsustainable "growth." More jobs, higher wages, more prosperity, etc.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16589
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby mousepad » Sat 16 May 2020, 16:37:29

MonteQuest wrote:
ralfy wrote:The premise is that a "green new deal" is supposed to take place given that competition and can reverse limits to growth, i.e., diminishing returns.


Every "Green New Deal" I've seen promises more unsustainable "growth." More jobs, higher wages, more prosperity, etc.


Exactly. I've yet to meet the leaders who promote less consumption and less affluence. It's all about growth and more and then some more.
mousepad
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 247
Joined: Thu 26 Sep 2019, 09:07:56

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby asg70 » Sun 17 May 2020, 10:42:27

mousepad wrote:I've yet to meet the leaders who promote less consumption and less affluence.


I have. Jimmy Carter and the sweater speech. Didn't turn out well for him.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 15 Jun 2020, 20:28:32

kublikhan wrote:
MonteQuest wrote:2019's data will be out in June. I don't anticipate a huge jump from that .4%/yr growth rate. Any bet takers?
I'll take that bet. I've already seen the data for 2019 from global dashboard. Their values are slightly different from REN21 but in the same ballpark. They show coal generation falling. I'm betting wind & solar will increase their market share by at least double that rate.
Ok I won :) Wind and Solar increased their market share by exactly double your predicted value of .4%: .8%.

Wind & solar share of global electricity market
2014 4%
2015 4.9%
2016 5.5%
2017 7.5%
2018 7.9%
2019 8.7%
Global Status Report 2020

And covid19 is looking to make 2020 an even stronger year for market share growth of wind & solar:
Global electricity demand decreased 2.5% in the first quarter of 2020, and demand for coal and oil fell nearly 8% and 5% respectively. Renewables were the only source of electricity to record demand growth over this period, due to low operating costs and preferential access to electricity networks.

Electricity networks in major markets were able to accommodate huge changes in the energy mix as of mid2020, despite the challenges of maintaining operations amid social distancing rules. The share of supply met by renewables reached historic highs in China, Europe, India and the United States. In China, thermal power generation dropped 9% in January and February, whereas wind and solar power generation increased 1% and 12% respectively. In the EU and the United Kingdom, coal-based power generation fell 29% between 10 March and 10 April, while renewables delivered 46% of all power generation, up 8% compared to 2019.
Global Status Report 2020
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4643
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby kublikhan » Mon 15 Jun 2020, 20:52:42

MonteQuest wrote:Something is missing from the equation to account for the decline in energy consumption in the face of growing GDP, now, and into the future. Is it the continuing migration of economic activity away from making tangible things and toward providing services and virtual products such as games and binge-watchable TV series driving the decline?
That is certainly a large factor. Another large factor is increases in industrial energy efficiency.

Gains in industrial energy efficiency are responsible for much of the drop in overall energy intensity in OECD and non-OECD economies, as countries with heavy manufacturing tend to use more GDP per dollar. China alone cut its energy intensity by almost 20 percent between 2006 and 2010.

China’s services sector now makes up a larger portion of the economy than the industrial sector. That shift was one significant factor in China’s energy productivity increasing 133 percent in the past quarter-century.
Developing Nations’ Energy Intensity Down 40% Since 1990

With society becoming ever more globalised, there has been a shift in responsibility for manufacturing to countries with poorer economies. Many of these are facing huge increases in their cost of production – for example, India has faced 30 per cent increases in labour costs since 2010. As a result many have had to cut costs, a move that subsequently usually reduces energy consumption. This explains why non-OECD countries have seen a -40 percentage change between 1990 and 2015. Conversely, OECD countries have only seen a -28 percentage change.

‘Generally countries that become more prosperous, develop legislation/energy efficiency targets or invest in more energy efficient equipment, ie energy, becomes more of a priority,’ says Dr Charlotte Adams, a lecturer in geography at Durham University. ‘Developing countries do have an opportunity to learn from the progress of developed countries and there are some arguments to suggest their development may be less energy intensive because they can benefit from recent improvements in technology and practice.’
Global energy intensity levels on the decline
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4643
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 16 Jun 2020, 19:22:20

The Renewables 2020 Global Status Report for 2019 is out today. Despite the massive growth rates in installed capacity by renewables, fossil fuels increased their share of the overall energy pie from 79.7% in 2018 to 79.9% in 2019. Wind and solar PV decreased their capture of new shares in the energy pie from .3% in 2018 (1.7% to 2%), to just .1% in 2019, garnering less than 2.1% of the pie.

Image
Last edited by MonteQuest on Tue 16 Jun 2020, 19:28:08, edited 1 time in total.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16589
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby MonteQuest » Tue 16 Jun 2020, 19:26:17

In global electrical power generation for 2019, fossil fuel use declined from 73.8% to 72.7%. Wind and solar PV increased their share by just .8% to 8.7% in 2019 from 7.9% in 2018. Kublikhan wins the bet that it would double from .4% to .8% in its market capture. :) However, .8%/year is still almost meaningless. Even if it doubles again next year, it's still barely over 10%.

Image
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16589
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby kublikhan » Tue 16 Jun 2020, 20:23:48

MonteQuest wrote:The Renewables 2020 Global Status Report for 2019 is out today. Despite the massive growth rates in installed capacity by renewables, fossil fuels increased their share of the overall energy pie from 79.7% in 2018 to 79.9% in 2019. Wind and solar PV decreased their capture of new shares in the energy pie from .3% in 2018 (1.7% to 2%), to just .1% in 2019, garnering less than 2.1% of the pie.
Incorrect. The total energy values are two years behind. You are quoting old data for 2018. We already knew renewables lost ground in 2018 because of extreme weather. However according to the IEA, renewables gained ground in both 2019 and 2020:

In 2019 global energy demand increased by less than half the rate of growth in 2018, well below the average rate since 2010. This deceleration was due mainly to slower global economic growth and the impact of milder weather on heating and cooling. There was, however, significant variation across energy sources, with coal showing an absolute decline and renewables a record increase.

Energy demand growth was also pushed down by milder winters in 2019 than in 2018, when colder than average winters and hotter than average summers increased energy demand for both heating and cooling. The decline in energy demand growth between 2018 and 2019 was disproportionately felt by coal and gas. Renewables and natural gas both gained market share, with gas breaching 23% and renewables 14%. Renewables underwent both the largest absolute growth and the fastest rate of growth in 2019, with their overall use increasing by 75 Mtoe or 3.7%. Wind power and solar photovoltaic (PV) power experienced another year of double-digit growth.

Natural gas demand increased by 60 Mtoe, or 70 billion cubic metres (bcm), a 1.8% increase from 2018 levels. The rate of demand growth was well below the 5% increase observed in 2018 but marked a return to the average growth rate between 2010 and 2017. In contrast to 2018, when exceptional weather led to a jump in gas demand.
Global Energy Review 2019

In response to the exceptional circumstances stemming from the coronavirus pandemic, the annual IEA Global Energy Review has expanded its coverage to include real-time analysis of developments to date in 2020.

Global energy demand declined by 3.8% in the first quarter of 2020. Global coal demand was hit the hardest, falling by almost 8% compared with the first quarter of 2019. Oil demand was also hit strongly, down nearly 5% in the first quarter, mostly by curtailment in mobility and aviation, which account for nearly 60% of global oil demand. By the end of March, global road transport activity was almost 50% below the 2019 average and aviation 60% below. Renewables were the only source that posted a growth in demand, driven by larger installed capacity and priority dispatch.
Global Energy Review 2020

MonteQuest wrote:However, .8%/year is still almost meaningless.
What are you smoking meaningless? At that rate, in 10 years wind and solar will have nearly doubled their share of the global electricity market. In 30 years, wind and solar alone take a third of the electricity market, not even counting other renewables.
The oil barrel is half-full.
User avatar
kublikhan
Master Prognosticator
Master Prognosticator
 
Posts: 4643
Joined: Tue 06 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Illinois

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby AdamB » Mon 22 Jun 2020, 00:28:40

MonteQuest wrote: However, .8%/year is still almost meaningless. Even if it doubles again next year, it's still barely over 10%.


Says the same guy who claimed that the US peaked in natural gas production like 15 years ago.

"Meaningless" in some folks' world equating with "I'm going to proclaim silly stuff with certainty and hope no one notices how full of crap I've been for 15 years (at least) now"?
Peak oil in 2020: And here is why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2b3ttqYDwF0
User avatar
AdamB
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4994
Joined: Mon 28 Dec 2015, 17:10:26

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Mon 22 Jun 2020, 03:01:50

MonteQuest wrote:The IEA says global energy demand declined by 3.8% in the first quarter of 2020. Coal use fell 8%. Oil fell 5%. Renewables were the only source that posted a growth in demand, driven by priority dispatch. Electricity demand has been depressed by 20% or more in some countries on lockdown. The IEA says the pace of renewable power capacity additions will decline in 2020 as supply chain disruptions and labor restrictions delay construction. It will be interesting to see how this all shakes out going forward. At this junction, no one can make any predictions beyond it will be chaotic.

And that is true for MANY things, re trying to make predictions in lots of market chaos. Like flying, for instance. I have friends who just LOVE to travel and fly internationally a lot, but they're over 65 and tell me they likely will just stop flying from now on. They think the world has fundamentally changed, and we will have more dangerous viruses over time, etc. I wonder how many people might lean that way. I suspect it depends on how WELL and how LONG protection is conferred by the vaccines that make it to market for COVID-19.

I sure as HELL wouldn't fly in the short term for safety reasons, given the absolute CHAOS on airlines, including not making passengers follow the mask wearing guidelines. This might change, but typical of the airlines, their eyes are on their profits BEFORE taking care of the flying public.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/04/trav ... masks.html
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 8622
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby Ibon » Mon 22 Jun 2020, 09:01:58

Outcast_Searcher wrote:I have friends who just LOVE to travel and fly internationally a lot, but they're over 65 and tell me they likely will just stop flying from now on. They think the world has fundamentally changed, and we will have more dangerous viruses over time, etc. I wonder how many people might lean that way.


The major demographic of visitors to our eco resort are folks over 65. We definitely anticipate a reduction of visitors once things open up. We have been surprised though with how many new bookings we have for next year which is still way down but more than I would have thought.

I think folks will fly less but this will be reflected in how fearful they are of Covid19. Those that are afraid of the elevated risk will certainly change their habits. Others who are less afraid and less risk averse will see this as an opportunity to travel with less crowds and see this as a plus.

I can see this in the older entomologists and field biologists who are more familiar with statistics and have spent the last 40 or so years trudging into disease infested tropical jungles. They are just waiting for the international airports to open to book their visits. They see Covid19 as not a hindrance to their choice of continuing to do their fieldwork.

Covid19 pandemic is a Rorschach test to your level of fear. Everyone projects on to the microbe their level of fear and what reflects back is either a ferocious predator lurking on every door knob and on the breath of every coughing passenger sharing a row with you on an airplane or it reflects back an innocuous mild predator that has a tiny chance of doing you harm.

Am I suggesting that there is a right or wrong here? No. Just how much each individual is affected by what reflects back.. Does that skew ones analysis of the statistics and does this create a bias? Damn right it does!
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby asg70 » Mon 22 Jun 2020, 10:42:23

Remember that the survivors of the plagues of Europe were people like monks in monasteries. So don't knock the wisdom of fear. Another upside of staying huddled at home is you spend less money. GDP aside, it's too much wasteful consumption, both at the personal finance level and the BTU level. Powerdown (which at least in times past is what was advocated by doomers) is basically quarantining with less Amazon purchasing.

BOLD PREDICTIONS
-Billions are on the verge of starvation as the lockdown continues. (yoshua, 5/20/20)

HALL OF SHAME:
-Short welched on a bet and should be shunned.
-Frequent-flyers should not cry crocodile-tears over climate-change.
asg70
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Sun 05 Feb 2017, 14:17:28

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby Ibon » Mon 22 Jun 2020, 16:53:47

asg70 wrote:Remember that the survivors of the plagues of Europe were people like monks in monasteries. So don't knock the wisdom of fear. Another upside of staying huddled at home is you spend less money. GDP aside, it's too much wasteful consumption, both at the personal finance level and the BTU level. Powerdown (which at least in times past is what was advocated by doomers) is basically quarantining with less Amazon purchasing.


This is very true. I have mentioned while arguing with some of you judge me by what I do not what I say. Since February I have only gone down off this mountain a total of 4 times. My wife and daughter two times each. Each time we were no longer than 2 or 3 hours in the nearest village to us. We have only had a couple reservations and limited these to our cabins with self contained kitchens. We have shared meals with some guests but actually we have been very monk like in our interactions with other human beings since this pandemic started.
Patiently awaiting the pathogens. Our resiliency resembles an invasive weed. We are the Kudzu Ape
blog: http://blog.mounttotumas.com/
website: http://www.mounttotumas.com
User avatar
Ibon
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 8816
Joined: Fri 03 Dec 2004, 04:00:00
Location: Volcan, Panama

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby REAL Green » Tue 30 Jun 2020, 18:45:39

“Decoupling”
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2020 ... ecoupling/

“Is economic growth compatible with ecological sustainability? To answer this question, we need to talk about decoupling. The term ‘decoupling’ refers to the possibility of detaching economic growth from environmental pressures…Green growth vs. degrowth The debate on decoupling has two main sides. Proponents of “green growth” expect efficiency to enable more economic activity at a lower environmental cost; on the other hand, advocates of “degrowth” appeal to sufficiency, arguing that less goods and services is the surest road to ecological sustainability…For green growth advocates, decoupling is either inevitable or has not yet occurred because of lack of adequate policies and technological development. Degrowth proponents, however, argue that the reason why this long-awaited decoupling has not yet occurred is that because it is impossible. Here is a list of seven reasons why this is so:
(1) Rising energy expenditures
(2) Rebound effects
(3) Problem shifting
(4) The underestimated impact of services.
(5) Limited potential of recycling.
(6) Insufficient and inappropriate technological change
(7) Cost shifting.
Decoupling should today be recognised as what it is, a figment of statistical imagination. This should prompt us to reframe the debate altogether: what we need to decouple is not economic growth from environmental pressure but prosperity and the good life from economic growth.”

My comment to the article:
Excellent article that is honest about science and human behavior. Decoupling issues are complicated but simple in the black and white. It can work at the local but it is doomed at the macro is the simple. The complicated is everything in between. At the local people can make great strides in going local with living and eating. They can avoid traveling which is one of the biggest factors in lowering one’s footprint. This is more than the energy used it is about the presence of the individual that builds community. There is no community when people are traveling out of the local. People can eat local which lower’s goods travel another huge savings to ones footprint. They can downsize into a smart poverty of less satisfaction of material wants offset by more spiritual meaning that offers wonderful satisfaction.

At the macro the situation is far different. The globalized world is carbon trapped in path dependencies. These involve the production and distribution of goods but also the behavior of competitive cooperation. We agree to a game of competitive living. What has resulted is the current global system of economies of scale and comparative advantage driving value chains. These value chains are based on the only really solid variable in the competitive game and that is price and return with agreed to fiat currencies. This will not allow measurable decoupling because the global world is not onboard with the need to decouple. Many nations are more concerned with sustainable development or hegemonic development. These are just capitalism at is best/worst which is competitive production of goods and satisfaction of wants.

The green growth meme while worthy is caught up in the macro trap. It cannot be competitive unless it goes big with economies of scale. This is not green although it is greener than fossil fuels. We should pursue green growth but be honest about it. It is not green and it is not going to save us. The physics are not right and most of all the human behavior is very wrong. The biggest issue with why decoupling will not be meaningful is human behavior is not solidly behind it. If it were, we would be in a managed degrowth along with green growth but in an overall gradient of managed decline. IOW the world as a whole would be embracing relative poverty along with draconian efforts at population reductions. So, a combined consumption and procreation reduction with expanding material poverty. Be honest where in the world will that platform win votes!

This is why I promote REAL Green in my realgreenadaptation.blog. REAL Green is realistic green of the individual and small community. This is where one can relatively lower one’s footprint and find meaning in palliative care for the planet and the web of life. This is about lifeboats of things and hospices of behavior. The hospice revolves around acceptance of human failure. It recognizes we are trapped in limits of growth and at or near the inflection into forced planetary degrowth. IOW the planet is now driving degrowth and this means a randomness of decline with abandonment, dysfunction, and the irrational found in turbulent degrowth.

It is at the local where humans scale and can make a difference. We are trapped at the macro but this does not mean all is lost at the macro. Green growth is legitimate for resilience and sustainability but the key point is green growth at the local is the real force that should be promoted. It is not promoted there because the economics are not good. Low carbon capture at the local does not add up like at the macro with huge projects. Low carbon capture is about food and biomass for heating too. It is about little things that add up to amazing things. It is also about tough work that needs to be done daily with little reward. This is where the spiritual payoff has to be found. Meaning can go a long way to making up for physical loss.
realgreenadaptation.blog
User avatar
REAL Green
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Thu 09 Apr 2020, 05:29:28
Location: MO Ozarks

Re: The Green New Deal and the Growth of Renewables

Unread postby Newfie » Tue 30 Jun 2020, 19:13:02

Real,

Excellent post. The think there is also an age issue in here. Our our young folks are not encouraged to think along the lines you suggest, your suggestions are generally alien to the vast majority. And even if they “get it” how do they do it? The culture is against it. What cultural “revolutions” we have are driven along the lines of civil injustice not species survival.

That’s why I focus on my 5 BIG things.
Global financial system insecurity
Drug resistant disease
Climate change
Resource depletion: oil, water, soil, etc.
Over population

If you don’t have a meaningful list of things that are truly important then it’s easy to get derailed and off onto lessor things. Does BOM? Sure. Will it kill our species? No. Will climate change make us extinct? Very good chance. Will resource depletion destroy our culture, our knowledge base? Very good chance. Will over population destroy our natural planet and make it uninhabitable? Yes.

While we don’t have an organic farm we do the best we can by holding 168 acres of wood lot from clear cutting. That counts for something, and generally more than most folks do.
User avatar
Newfie
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator
 
Posts: 15049
Joined: Thu 15 Nov 2007, 04:00:00
Location: Between Canada and Carribean

PreviousNext

Return to Energy Technology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests