The Green Paradox

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
WanderingGaze22
Posts: 223
Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am

The Green Paradox

Post by WanderingGaze22 »

The Green Paradox refers to an undesirable effect of environmental measures.

People believe that environmentally-friendly legislation that lowers demand for fossil fuels can reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thus protect the climate. But how is that supposed to work? We cannot cancel out the worldwide supply of carbon with our energy-saving policy. We are only partially reducing demand and are thus lowering the increase in world market prices, but no more than that. We in a way only making the problem worse. The resources available still have to be extracted if they are to be used. If we threaten resource owners with ever more environmentally-friendly policy that will destroy their future business, they preempt the threat and extract their resources even faster. Instead of slowing down climate change, we accelerate it.

Watching how many time we flush in one day and reusing every plastic is not enough. What DIY tactics can be used to combat a preemptive maneuver? How can we be able to apply electric motors and city layouts so that where we need to go on a weekly basis is within a convenient area such as markets and other essentials.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The Green Paradox

Post by Pattern-chaser »

WanderingGaze22 wrote: November 14th, 2021, 2:50 am The Green Paradox refers to an undesirable effect of environmental measures.

People believe that environmentally-friendly legislation that lowers demand for fossil fuels can reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thus protect the climate. But how is that supposed to work? We cannot cancel out the worldwide supply of carbon with our energy-saving policy. We are only partially reducing demand and are thus lowering the increase in world market prices, but no more than that. We in a way only making the problem worse. The resources available still have to be extracted if they are to be used. If we threaten resource owners with ever more environmentally-friendly policy that will destroy their future business, they preempt the threat and extract their resources even faster. Instead of slowing down climate change, we accelerate it.

Watching how many time we flush in one day and reusing every plastic is not enough. What DIY tactics can be used to combat a preemptive maneuver? How can we be able to apply electric motors and city layouts so that where we need to go on a weekly basis is within a convenient area such as markets and other essentials.
What tactics? For the reasons you have described here, the only answer to that question is "coercively". Anything less than an absolute mandate will be ignored, or evaded.
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7094
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Green Paradox

Post by Sculptor1 »

WanderingGaze22 wrote: November 14th, 2021, 2:50 am The Green Paradox refers to an undesirable effect of environmental measures.

People believe that environmentally-friendly legislation that lowers demand for fossil fuels can reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thus protect the climate. But how is that supposed to work? We cannot cancel out the worldwide supply of carbon with our energy-saving policy. We are only partially reducing demand and are thus lowering the increase in world market prices, but no more than that. We in a way only making the problem worse. The resources available still have to be extracted if they are to be used. If we threaten resource owners with ever more environmentally-friendly policy that will destroy their future business, they preempt the threat and extract their resources even faster. Instead of slowing down climate change, we accelerate it.

Watching how many time we flush in one day and reusing every plastic is not enough. What DIY tactics can be used to combat a preemptive maneuver? How can we be able to apply electric motors and city layouts so that where we need to go on a weekly basis is within a convenient area such as markets and other essentials.
This is quite a confused statement. with several non sequiturs and misconceptions.
One point you are missing is that prodcers should redirect their efforts to sustainable fuels systems. The limiting supply s of oil and coal can stay undersground. No one has an inalienable right to extract those resources.
restricting resources will not lower prices but increase them.
Engineering these changes politically would include removing subsidies directed towards fossil fuels and spending them on alternative sustainable energy.
WanderingGaze22
Posts: 223
Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am

Re: The Green Paradox

Post by WanderingGaze22 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 14th, 2021, 8:01 am
WanderingGaze22 wrote: November 14th, 2021, 2:50 am The Green Paradox refers to an undesirable effect of environmental measures.

People believe that environmentally-friendly legislation that lowers demand for fossil fuels can reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thus protect the climate. But how is that supposed to work? We cannot cancel out the worldwide supply of carbon with our energy-saving policy. We are only partially reducing demand and are thus lowering the increase in world market prices, but no more than that. We in a way only making the problem worse. The resources available still have to be extracted if they are to be used. If we threaten resource owners with ever more environmentally-friendly policy that will destroy their future business, they preempt the threat and extract their resources even faster. Instead of slowing down climate change, we accelerate it.

Watching how many time we flush in one day and reusing every plastic is not enough. What DIY tactics can be used to combat a preemptive maneuver? How can we be able to apply electric motors and city layouts so that where we need to go on a weekly basis is within a convenient area such as markets and other essentials.
What tactics? For the reasons you have described here, the only answer to that question is "coercively". Anything less than an absolute mandate will be ignored, or evaded.
I mean using recycling to reduce going to markets and purchasing extravagant items such as pencil holders and seasonal decorations. As for the mandate tactic, I imagine using less would catch on eventually.
WanderingGaze22
Posts: 223
Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am

Re: The Green Paradox

Post by WanderingGaze22 »

Sculptor1 wrote: November 14th, 2021, 12:00 pm
WanderingGaze22 wrote: November 14th, 2021, 2:50 am
This is quite a confused statement. with several non sequiturs and misconceptions.
One point you are missing is that prodcers should redirect their efforts to sustainable fuels systems. The limiting supply s of oil and coal can stay undersground. No one has an inalienable right to extract those resources.
restricting resources will not lower prices but increase them.
Engineering these changes politically would include removing subsidies directed towards fossil fuels and spending them on alternative sustainable energy.
I had a hard time with this as well, but much of our way of life is near dependant on fossil fuels and oil. We managed to reduce the use of nuclear energy to around 10% worldwide so unless we are able to prove environmentally-friendly fuel sources can be used especially in places like Africa and China, we could just as easily end up where we started with nuclear energy being up to 40%.
Alias
Posts: 3119
Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett

Re: The Green Paradox

Post by Alias »

WanderingGaze22 wrote: November 15th, 2021, 3:00 am so unless we are able to prove environmentally-friendly fuel sources can be used especially in places like Africa and China,
Those are two places where sustainable energy generation is most successful. https://hellosewing.com/flexible-nose-piece-materials/https://www.csis.org/east-green-chinas- ... ble-energy even though the one can't afford all the technology it needs and the other can't meet all the demand yet.

[quot]we could just as easily end up where we started with nuclear energy being up to 40%.[/quote]
Not without a massive investment, and I don't know how many investors are up for the risk, the wait, the hassle of regulation and the lawsuits - when they could get a tax break and a faster return on renewables.
Those who can induce you to believe absurdities can induce you to commit atrocities. - Voltaire
User avatar
Sculptor1
Posts: 7094
Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am

Re: The Green Paradox

Post by Sculptor1 »

WanderingGaze22 wrote: November 15th, 2021, 3:00 am
Sculptor1 wrote: November 14th, 2021, 12:00 pm
WanderingGaze22 wrote: November 14th, 2021, 2:50 am
This is quite a confused statement. with several non sequiturs and misconceptions.
One point you are missing is that prodcers should redirect their efforts to sustainable fuels systems. The limiting supply s of oil and coal can stay undersground. No one has an inalienable right to extract those resources.
restricting resources will not lower prices but increase them.
Engineering these changes politically would include removing subsidies directed towards fossil fuels and spending them on alternative sustainable energy.
I had a hard time with this as well, but much of our way of life is near dependant on fossil fuels and oil. We managed to reduce the use of nuclear energy to around 10% worldwide so unless we are able to prove environmentally-friendly fuel sources can be used especially in places like Africa and China, we could just as easily end up where we started with nuclear energy being up to 40%.
Most people think that nuclear will form a large part of out future energy requirements, since wind, solar, tidal are transitory. Nuclear is constant and can make up the difference when the wind does not blow.
User avatar
Pattern-chaser
Premium Member
Posts: 8268
Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
Location: England

Re: The Green Paradox

Post by Pattern-chaser »

WanderingGaze22 wrote: November 14th, 2021, 2:50 am The Green Paradox refers to an undesirable effect of environmental measures.

People believe that environmentally-friendly legislation that lowers demand for fossil fuels can reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thus protect the climate. But how is that supposed to work? We cannot cancel out the worldwide supply of carbon with our energy-saving policy. We are only partially reducing demand and are thus lowering the increase in world market prices, but no more than that. We in a way only making the problem worse. The resources available still have to be extracted if they are to be used. If we threaten resource owners with ever more environmentally-friendly policy that will destroy their future business, they preempt the threat and extract their resources even faster. Instead of slowing down climate change, we accelerate it.

Watching how many time we flush in one day and reusing every plastic is not enough. What DIY tactics can be used to combat a preemptive maneuver? How can we be able to apply electric motors and city layouts so that where we need to go on a weekly basis is within a convenient area such as markets and other essentials.
Pattern-chaser wrote: November 14th, 2021, 8:01 am What tactics? For the reasons you have described here, the only answer to that question is "coercively". Anything less than an absolute mandate will be ignored, or evaded.
WanderingGaze22 wrote: November 15th, 2021, 2:54 am I mean using recycling to reduce going to markets and purchasing extravagant items such as pencil holders and seasonal decorations.
Recycling alone is a tiny part of the action we need to take to have any effect on Climate Change.


WanderingGaze22 wrote: November 15th, 2021, 2:54 am As for the mandate tactic, I imagine using less would catch on eventually.
"Eventually" sounds like too long a timescale to me....
Pattern-chaser

"Who cares, wins"
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Green Paradox

Post by Steve3007 »

WanderingGaze22 wrote:People believe that environmentally-friendly legislation that lowers demand for fossil fuels can reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thus protect the climate. But how is that supposed to work?
There isn't a demand for fossil fuels, as such. There's a demand for being able to move around quickly and conveniently. Currently that demand is most quickly and easily met using vehicles powered by fossil fuels. But that is now genuinely starting to change.
We cannot cancel out the worldwide supply of carbon with our energy-saving policy. We are only partially reducing demand and are thus lowering the increase in world market prices, but no more than that.
We're not really reducing demand much at all. Post covid, it's bouncing back to pretty much where it was before. What is happening is that we're making oil companies less confident in the long term future of pumping oil, with the result that long term oil exploration activity has reduced and oil prices have gone up, not down, because of (among other things) uncertainty about future supply meeting demand. Just look at the price of Brent and WTI since they crashed to below zero last year.

The ideal scenario is that oil companies use this extra income to secure their own long term futures and invest in renewables. Some, such as BP, are doing just that. They were slow doing it. But they didn't have the commercial incentive before because it's only recently that we've really got serious about leaving oil behind in a way that makes them seriously doubt their long term viability if they stick with finding more oil reserves.
We in a way only making the problem worse. The resources available still have to be extracted if they are to be used. If we threaten resource owners with ever more environmentally-friendly policy that will destroy their future business, they preempt the threat and extract their resources even faster. Instead of slowing down climate change, we accelerate it.
They don't extract it any quicker just because they think legislation is going to ban them from extracting it in the future. They can't do that. There's not enough storage space. If they do that they just have to pump it back into the ground again (into storage tanks like the ones in Cushing, Oklahoma, US.) The thing which controls how quickly they pump it is demand - the speed at which it gets burnt in order to move people around.
WanderingGaze22
Posts: 223
Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am

Re: The Green Paradox

Post by WanderingGaze22 »

Steve3007 wrote: November 15th, 2021, 8:14 am
WanderingGaze22 wrote:People believe that environmentally-friendly legislation that lowers demand for fossil fuels can reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thus protect the climate. But how is that supposed to work?
There isn't a demand for fossil fuels, as such. There's a demand for being able to move around quickly and conveniently. Currently that demand is most quickly and easily met using vehicles powered by fossil fuels. But that is now genuinely starting to change.
We cannot cancel out the worldwide supply of carbon with our energy-saving policy. We are only partially reducing demand and are thus lowering the increase in world market prices, but no more than that.
We're not really reducing demand much at all. Post covid, it's bouncing back to pretty much where it was before. What is happening is that we're making oil companies less confident in the long term future of pumping oil, with the result that long term oil exploration activity has reduced and oil prices have gone up, not down, because of (among other things) uncertainty about future supply meeting demand. Just look at the price of Brent and WTI since they crashed to below zero last year.

The ideal scenario is that oil companies use this extra income to secure their own long term futures and invest in renewables. Some, such as BP, are doing just that. They were slow doing it. But they didn't have the commercial incentive before because it's only recently that we've really got serious about leaving oil behind in a way that makes them seriously doubt their long term viability if they stick with finding more oil reserves.
We in a way only making the problem worse. The resources available still have to be extracted if they are to be used. If we threaten resource owners with ever more environmentally-friendly policy that will destroy their future business, they preempt the threat and extract their resources even faster. Instead of slowing down climate change, we accelerate it.
They don't extract it any quicker just because they think legislation is going to ban them from extracting it in the future. They can't do that. There's not enough storage space. If they do that they just have to pump it back into the ground again (into storage tanks like the ones in Cushing, Oklahoma, US.) The thing which controls how quickly they pump it is demand - the speed at which it gets burnt in order to move people around.
I see your logic there. Still, keeping that fact in mind may not be as helpful in the long run.
WanderingGaze22
Posts: 223
Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am

Re: The Green Paradox

Post by WanderingGaze22 »

Pattern-chaser wrote: November 15th, 2021, 7:32 am
WanderingGaze22 wrote: November 14th, 2021, 2:50 am
WanderingGaze22 wrote: November 15th, 2021, 2:54 am As for the mandate tactic, I imagine using less would catch on eventually.


"Eventually" sounds like too long a timescale to me....


You're right, as someone else pointed out, pumping out as much oil as you can is self-defeating as it would result in storage issues.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Green Paradox

Post by Steve3007 »

WanderingGaze22 wrote:I see your logic there. Still, keeping that fact in mind may not be as helpful in the long run.
Which fact?
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: The Green Paradox

Post by Belindi »

WanderingGaze22 wrote: November 14th, 2021, 2:50 am The Green Paradox refers to an undesirable effect of environmental measures.

People believe that environmentally-friendly legislation that lowers demand for fossil fuels can reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thus protect the climate. But how is that supposed to work? We cannot cancel out the worldwide supply of carbon with our energy-saving policy. We are only partially reducing demand and are thus lowering the increase in world market prices, but no more than that. We in a way only making the problem worse. The resources available still have to be extracted if they are to be used. If we threaten resource owners with ever more environmentally-friendly policy that will destroy their future business, they preempt the threat and extract their resources even faster. Instead of slowing down climate change, we accelerate it.

Watching how many time we flush in one day and reusing every plastic is not enough. What DIY tactics can be used to combat a preemptive maneuver? How can we be able to apply electric motors and city layouts so that where we need to go on a weekly basis is within a convenient area such as markets and other essentials.
Unless scientists and technologists produce a deus ex machina pretty damn quick we will have either anarchy or martial law. A stark choice. Me, I'd rather have martial law than no law at all.
User avatar
Robert66
Posts: 521
Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm

Re: The Green Paradox

Post by Robert66 »

WanderingGaze22 wrote: November 14th, 2021, 2:50 am People believe that environmentally-friendly legislation that lowers demand for fossil fuels can reduce carbon dioxide emissions and thus protect the climate. But how is that supposed to work?
Well for example a government requires, via legislation, that manufacturers of passenger vehicles produce vehicles which, on average, create far fewer emissions than their current line-up. (Of course a Trump may be installed into political office at times and proceed to **** from a great height on such policies previously enacted in states like California. But now we are veering off-topic.) As the Californian experience showed, the positive effects of such legislation are enormous.

'If we threaten resource owners with ever more environmentally-friendly policy that will destroy their future business, they preempt the threat and extract their resources even faster. Instead of slowing down climate change, we accelerate it.'

Don't worry too much about the resorce owners. Changing market conditions and carbon taxation are also operating to transform rather than destroy their business.
Steve3007
Posts: 10339
Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm

Re: The Green Paradox

Post by Steve3007 »

Robert66 wrote:
WanderingGaze22 wrote:If we threaten resource owners with ever more environmentally-friendly policy that will destroy their future business, they preempt the threat and extract their resources even faster. Instead of slowing down climate change, we accelerate it.
Don't worry too much about the resorce owners. Changing market conditions and carbon taxation are also operating to transform rather than destroy their business.
The main flaw in WG's point there is that oil companies don't just pump more oil out of the ground to preempt a threat that they're going to be stopped from doing so by legislation in the future. They pump oil out of the ground to sell it. So the rate at which they pump it is determined by the rate at which consumers demand it. Currently, globally, the rate of production hasn't quite been keeping up with the rapidly recovering post-covid demand, so the price has gone up to about $80 per barrel. Americans particularly get all annoyed with their leaders when the amount they pay for gasoline goes up rapidly. Hence Biden, in cooperation with other countries, recently decided to start releasing oil from reserves to try to meet demand and push the price back down in time for midterm elections next year. OPEC+ doesn't want to increase production too quickly because, naturally enough, they like high oil prices. They certainly don't want a price crash like last year, even if us consumers do.

I think the best policy for governments over the next few years is to keep discouraging long term future oil exploration in various ways. If oil companies get the genuine sense that securing their own futures 10+ years from now doesn't mean looking for new sources of oil, then they'll start to diversify, as companies like BP and Shell have finally started to seriously do. The lack of long term oil exploration causes investors to think that there's going to be an oil supply crunch, so they push the price of oil up. That tends to both reduce use by us consumers and provide those oil companies with capital to invest in those diversified energy source. Ideally (assuming the T-man doesn't get back in as US president and smash the whole thing) that's win-win.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021