The Green Paradox
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
The Green Paradox
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
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Green Paradox
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 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.
"Who cares, wins"
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7094
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Green Paradox
This is quite a confused statement. with several non sequiturs and misconceptions.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.
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.
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
Re: The Green Paradox
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.Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 14th, 2021, 8:01 amWhat 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 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.
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
Re: The Green Paradox
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%.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 14th, 2021, 12:00 pmThis 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.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: The Green Paradox
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.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,
[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.
- Sculptor1
- Posts: 7094
- Joined: May 16th, 2019, 5:35 am
Re: The Green Paradox
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.WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 15th, 2021, 3:00 amI 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%.Sculptor1 wrote: ↑November 14th, 2021, 12:00 pmThis 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.
- Pattern-chaser
- Premium Member
- Posts: 8268
- Joined: September 22nd, 2019, 5:17 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Cratylus
- Location: England
Re: The Green Paradox
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.
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 I mean using recycling to reduce going to markets and purchasing extravagant items such as pencil holders and seasonal decorations.
"Eventually" sounds like too long a timescale to me....WanderingGaze22 wrote: ↑November 15th, 2021, 2:54 am As for the mandate tactic, I imagine using less would catch on eventually.
"Who cares, wins"
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Green Paradox
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.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?
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.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.
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.
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.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.
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
Re: The Green Paradox
I see your logic there. Still, keeping that fact in mind may not be as helpful in the long run.Steve3007 wrote: ↑November 15th, 2021, 8:14 amThere 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.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?
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.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.
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.
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.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.
-
- Posts: 223
- Joined: June 9th, 2021, 12:39 am
Re: The Green Paradox
Pattern-chaser wrote: ↑November 15th, 2021, 7:32 amWanderingGaze22 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.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Green Paradox
Which fact?WanderingGaze22 wrote:I see your logic there. Still, keeping that fact in mind may not be as helpful in the long run.
-
- Moderator
- Posts: 6105
- Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm
Re: The Green Paradox
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.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.
- Robert66
- Posts: 521
- Joined: April 20th, 2014, 5:13 pm
Re: The Green Paradox
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.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?
'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.
-
- Posts: 10339
- Joined: June 15th, 2011, 5:53 pm
Re: The Green Paradox
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.Robert66 wrote: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.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.
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.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
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
by Chet Shupe
March 2023