The Economist’s Solution To Clean Energy And Global Warming

[7DSUSYstrings]

Not only that, but solar output has been doubling every two years for the last 20-30 years, whether governments are interfering or not. Ray Kurzweil estimates that in a further 10 doublings - or 20 years - all the worlds energy will come from solar.

 

Obviously it's not that simple in terms of delivering energy to peoples homes, but it does raise questions about the urgency.

 

So the total energy output from solar energy devices doubles every 2 years? Is that because more people are employing solar energy type systems or the government is creating more solar farms or both?

 

to the Launch Post: Are you saying solar will overtake, and make obsolete, wind power, or we will be using all the above?

[Qfwfq]

The antecedent is in the future tense...

In the future tense? The English Language doesn't even have one! You still haven't demonstrated the theorem you stated.

 

What came after "If we continue to..." has been true for a mighty while. When's the consequent gonna become true enough to avert disaster? It's already getting to be too late.

 

"We see mighty changes already" to the price of oil. I don't call that a guess, but it is rhetoric that doesn't solve the question we are guessing at.

Exactly. Despit these mighty changes in price, we do not see nearly enough of a reduction in fossil fuel consumption and even less of carbon fuels overall. We are OTOH seeing mighty changes in the climate which won't be trivially reversible.

[modest]

In the future tense? The English Language doesn't even have one!

In english the future tense has the same form as the present tense. This doesn't mean English doesn't have one any more than "I have the same model car as my friend" means that I don't have a car.

 

You still haven't demonstrated the theorem you stated.

this?...

 

"If we continue to emit more CO2 from fossil fuel than earth can sequester the price will become prohibitive."

 

If demand stays constant and supply decreases then price will increase. Economics 101. You can't give a counterargument because there isn't one.

 

What came after "If we continue to..." has been true for a mighty while.

If we continue to extract ground water at current rates there will not be enough water for our crops in 20 years.

 

What came after "If we continue to..." has been true for a mighty while. Does this imply that the statement is false? No. It isn't an argument.

 

When's the consequent gonna become true enough to avert disaster?

That is my question which neither you nor anyone else can answer.

 

It's already getting to be too late.

Good guess.

 

Despit these mighty changes in price, we do not see nearly enough of a reduction in fossil fuel consumption and even less of carbon fuels overall.

Fossil fuels are cheaper.

 

It's like you're trying to argue that jumping off a 200 foot cliff won't kill a person because jumping off a 2 foot ledge doesn't hurt and jumping off a 3 foot ledge doesn't hurt and jumping off a 4 foot ledge doesn't hurt. So, when, after all, is it going to kill? Maybe it never will :rolleyes:

 

We are OTOH seeing mighty changes in the climate which won't be trivially reversible.

Mighty changes in the supply of oil won't be trivially reversible. Rhetoric.

 

Fossil fuels will be replaced by renewable energy sources through economic forces. Neither you or I know when that will happen and neither of us knows what the climate will look like when it happens. Only one of us is claiming to know.

[Qfwfq]

In english the future tense has the same form as the present tense.

Gee I didn't know you're a ***, ya coulda told me! :P I know ***s have this habit cuz it is frequent to do it in Italian and so, from the occasional ELT I have done, I know it can sometimes be an effort to change their habit.

 

More seriously, mine was a quip due to the fact that many in English teaching prefer to talk about future forms (and for good reason) even though the word tenses is sometimes used. Still, I would never have expected you to give such a reply, I never imagined you were really convinced of that, I thought it was distraction. Get a Murphy's or an OUP New English File. When I tried for a bit of extra money last year, but I didn't pass the "Ruth test" due to my scant familiarity with the levels, I learned that they now focus on the use of present continuous and going to (NEF, pre-intermediate, 3A for example) and complain when students have previously been taught the use of will as "the future tense". Guess, the same paper I was given also listed the Italian habit of erroneously using present simple for the future in English. Ruth told me she began her career by taking an ELT course in London and suggested I take one too, but some of the other colleagues disagreed with her rejection. Anyway she has a mighty experience in teaching English and she would never tell students what you said.

 

AS for your antecedent, it is in the present simple and contains no gerund; the words continue to mean that you refer to something we already do, not something we're going to start doing in the future. Your consequent OTOH has the modal will, used in the manner called "the future tense" in past times but now taught as "a form for making predictions" but, as for demonstrating it:

If demand stays constant and supply decreases then price will increase. Economics 101. You can't give a counterargument because there isn't one.

But I can instead point out the difference between increase and become prohibitive, with only the latter being what I raised my objections about, then the fact that you rely on constant demand which itself implies the problem is not avoided. What's more, as for your corollary:

What came after "If we continue to..." has been true for a mighty while. Does this imply that the statement is false? No. It isn't an argument.

Actually it is a strawman argument. Your contention was that price will become prohibitive before it is too late. It is an undemonstrated theorem.

 

The real solution to the problem is to make consumption of carbon fuels cease (become negligible), which would reduce demand. When fossil fuels become mighty scarce it will be far, far too late and it alone still wouldn't halt the use of other carbon dioxide emitting fuels.

 

That is my question which neither you nor anyone else can answer.

Actually your question was why we should worry when free market ought to suffice. I've been trying to get the answer across. As for that question, I've been saying that it won't be soon enough, disaster won't be averted, if we follow your argument and no great novelty pops up very soon.

 

Fossil fuels are cheaper.

Than what? This reply misses the point of what you quoted and:

It's like you're trying to argue that jumping off a 200 foot cliff won't kill a person because jumping off a 2 foot ledge doesn't hurt and jumping off a 3 foot ledge doesn't hurt and jumping off a 4 foot ledge doesn't hurt. So, when, after all, is it going to kill? Maybe it never will

This is another strawman and:

Mighty changes in the supply of oil won't be trivially reversible. Rhetoric.

This totally misses the point. :shrug:

 

Fossil fuels will be replaced by renewable energy sources through economic forces. Neither you or I know when that will happen and neither of us knows what the climate will look like when it happens. Only one of us is claiming to know.

I'm only saying that, at the current rate, free market will not suffice. I don't have a crystal ball. However, there isn't nearly enough effort being put into carbon free energy sources (at least, ones that don't pose hazards such as nuclear fission does). Even if, hypothetically, the barrel cost ten times more from tomorrow mornig onward, the increased investment in alternatives would not so quickly give benefit and the greatest change would be switches to other carbon containing fuels and cutting of trees would increase in a jiffy due to the very fact that firewood value would increase. Yeah, maybe the shrewdest folks would plant trees too, because of it, but that's a longer term thing and they would be doing it for the sole purpose of firewood. More likely deforestation would increase overall. Edited April 3, 2012 by CraigD
***s per member requested

[modest]

Gee I didn't know you're a wop, ya coulda told me! :P I know wops have this habit cuz it is frequent to do it in Italian and so, from the occasional ELT I have done, I know it can sometimes be an effort to change their habit.

I'm sure it's unintentional, but wop is a derogatory racial slur. I would edit the post.

 

 

Guess, the same paper I was given also listed the Italian habit of erroneously using present simple for the future in English...

 

AS for your antecedent, it is in the present simple and contains no gerund; the words continue to mean that you refer to something we already do, not something we're going to start doing in the future.

You are giving me english lessons now? Good times! I said both of the following:

 

If we continue emitting above that level...

If we continue to emit more...

The first is the progressive form which can refer to the present or the future. Here are some future examples:

 

• Aren't you studying for your exam tomorrow?
  
• If you keep whining in the morning you'll lose your allowance for the month!
  
• I'm not going to the party tonight.
  

 

The second (if we continue to emit) is a future infinitive, indicating the future carries a prediction or some conditional uncertainty. Some sources to explain,

 

The 'continue to infinitive' construction, on the other hand, normally encodes a general validity prediction. Let us look at some examples of the construction in which the matrix verb is also a to infinitive.

 

(520) On Sept. 23 the Philippines

asked the USA to

continue to

prevent

Marcos's corpse from being returned to the Philippines [see p. 38398]. (HLB 1592)

 

(521) MTM's bankers

have agreed to

continue to

provide

funds for the deeply troubled chemicals group until the end of the month.

 

In both (520) and (521) the first to infinitive, the complement of the Forward-looking matrix verbs

ask

and

agree

points the way to a targeted alternative

in the projected future

. The prevention of the return of Marcos's corpse, and the provision of funds for the chemical grop, are both profiled as occurring

after

the

asking

and

agreeing

.[my bold]

 

google book — Non-finite complementation — 2008

 

 

Gerunds are used to describe an "actual, vivid, or fulfilled action" whereas infinitives are better used to describe "potential, hypothetical, or

future events

" (Frodesen & Eyring 297). This is especially true with three kinds of verbs: verbs of emotion, verbs of completion/incompletion, and verbs of remembering.

 

COMPLETION/INCOMPLETION : Potential Event:

 

We will continue to work on this project for the next four months. I wonder when we will start to wrap up this project.

 

http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=Gerunds+are+used+to+describe+an+%22actual%2C+vivid%2C+or+fulfilled+action%22&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCUQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fgrammar.ccc.commnet.edu%2Fgrammar%2Fverbs.htm&ei=dndyT_-8I8Tg2QWlhuzHDg&usg=AFQjCNGAcZjZxdqgAteZYbbr1FWdgASgZA

 

I know you like the study of language so I'll give one more showing how it can be used for both a future contingency and a present (or indefinite) supposition:

 

The distinction between a future contingency, or a contrary fact implied, both of which require a verb in the subjunctive, and the conditional statement of a fact, which requires a verb in the indicative, is a very nice one.

 

Ex.—

"If he continue to improve [he may not] he will in time become a fair scholar."

"If he were wise [as he is not] he would heed your advice."

"If he continues to improve [and it is assumed that he will] he will soon be well."

"If he is wise [and it is assumed that he is] he will heed your advice."

 

Practical English grammar and correspondence: for use in business colleges

 

 

Anyhow, getting back to my point: "If we continue emitting / to emit..." refers to the future. It doesn't make logical sense to object by denying the present lack of the consequent and saying that the antecedent was true in the past. The price and supply will be different in the future from what they were in the past.

 

 

I can instead point out the difference between increase and become prohibitive, with only the latter being what I raised my objections about,

Then I doubt you understand my proposition. Please check it again:

 

Earth can sequester a certain amount of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon each year. Emitting more forces the equilibrium level of CO2 in the atmosphere up and emitting less forces it down. If we continue emitting above that level (my premise) then fuel prices will quickly become prohibitive. If we don't then we are alleviating the problem rather than aggravating it.

 

Of course that premise is flawed, and that's my point. In the real world as fossil fuel supply decreases demand in alternative fuels will increase and we will emit less and less CO2. The problem is that the climate models which everyone is thumping don't recognize this fact. They assume that the world population will double while less developed nations become more developed, GDPs will go up across the board — all fueled by hydrocarbons indefinitely. This is the one thing we can be sure won't happen.

 

So we don't know what a realistic economic future will do to the climate.

 

An indefinite increase in price becomes prohibitive.

 

then the fact that you rely on constant demand which itself implies the problem is not avoided.

I'm taking the climate model's assumption (your assumption as well) that the problem is not avoided... that we continue burning fossil fuels indefinitely. I'm pointing out what would be the real world consequence of that assumption: an indefinitely and exponentially increasing fuel price that would eventually (sooner or later, who could say?) become prohibitive.

 

What's more, as for your corollary:Actually it is a strawman argument. Your contention was that price will become prohibitive before it is too late. It is an undemonstrated theorem.

most certainly not. I have frequently and aggressively made clear that I do not know, and cannot know, if that is the case.

 

The only

open question

is which comes first:

 

1. Because of the crash of the fossil fuel markets civilization either takes a catastrophic hit with no means of keeping entropy low — or we capitalize on some renewable energy source like the sun — before major damage to the species from global warming.

 

2. We manage to burn enough hydrocarbons (and quickly enough) to damage the species before either of the two above scenarios plays out.

 

I suspect the answer is far more likely to be #1, but that is a complete guess.

The real question I have is the damage done to the future of our species by way of the environment before that type of thing happens in the different energy markets. I have a feeling that neither the predictions of climatology or economics (let alone anthropology and sociology) are accurate enough to give anywhere near those kinds of predictions.

I don't think it possible to model when that type of paradigm shift will happen

I wish it were something that could be more accurately modeled so that we could do more than guess.

I know this is a long post, but please read them. You've said something that completely mischaracterizes my position.

 

 

The real solution to the problem is to make consumption of carbon fuels cease (become negligible), which would reduce demand. When fossil fuels become mighty scarce it will be far, far too late and it alone still wouldn't halt the use of other carbon dioxide emitting fuels.

I get it. You assume that fossil fuels will be "mighty scarce" when we emit less CO₂ than earth can sequester. You assume it will be "far too late". That's fine. I'm not trying to change your mind.

 

I'm interested in finding a way to determine the truth of that guess. I strongly suspect economics cannot be accurately enough modeled to know for sure.

 

However, I've said in the thread previously... I believe limiting emissions *now* is the only smart thing to do (for a variety of reasons).

 

 

Actually your question was why we should worry when free market ought to suffice. I've been trying to get the answer across. As for that question, I've been saying that it won't be soon enough, disaster won't be averted, if we follow your argument and no great novelty pops up very soon.

If you have the impression that I believe normal economic forces absolutely will solve global warming before it threatens our species then I guess I haven't said otherwise repeatedly and emphatically enough. Will economic forces drive us to renewables soon enough is the open question of the thread. I understand your opinion. I'm unconvinced by it.

 

 

Fossil fuels are cheaper.

Than what? This reply misses the point of what you quoted and:This is another strawman and:This totally misses the point. :shrug:

If you don't know to what I'm referring then how can you possibly call it a strawman? How can you possibly know if it misses the point? It's like a Stephen Colbert impression: "I don't know what your argument is but it's a strawman argument. I don't know what your point is but it totally misses the point".

 

I meant that fossil fuels are currently cheaper than renewable. You said that prices have risen a lot but that we haven't seen a corresponding reduction in fossil fuel consumption. I expect we will see a radical reduction when the price of fossil fuel rises above renewable. For example, when solar or nuclear heats homes cheaper than oil and natural gas everyone will very quickly invest in the latter. The past isn't an accurate predictor of future paradigm shifts.

 

This is why I gave the analogy of the person jumping off a cliff of increasing height.

 

 

It's like you're trying to argue that jumping off a 200 foot cliff won't kill a person because jumping off a 2 foot ledge doesn't hurt and jumping off a 3 foot ledge doesn't hurt and jumping off a 4 foot ledge doesn't hurt. So, when, after all, is it going to kill? Maybe it never will

This is another strawman and:

I'll stop giving analogies if you recognize my point.

 

1. If we continue emitting carbon at a rate greater than earth can sequester the price will become prohibitive
    
   
2. If town X continues drawing groundwater from their underground reservoir at the current rate they will run out of reservoir water and be unable to water their crops
   

 

You have said that we have been emitting carbon and the cost, while it has gone up, hasn't become prohibitive as if that disproves #1.

 

By the same logic you should be able to say that town X has been drawing groundwater from their underwater reservoir for some time, and while the volume of groundwater has gone down it hasn't prevented them from watering their crops.

 

I reject the argument on the basis that past trends and future trends cannot be so directly correlated.

 

Even if, hypothetically, the barrel cost ten times more from tomorrow mornig onward, the increased investment in alternatives would not so quickly give benefit and the greatest change would be switches to other carbon containing fuels and cutting of trees would increase in a jiffy due to the very fact that firewood value would increase.

It would be difficult to avoid a worldwide depression destroying the global economy if there were an overnight tenfold increase in the cost of oil. We would be lucky to have food to cook over a wood fire.

 

~modest

[JMJones0424]

While the possible damage done to the environment in global warming through the combustion of fossil fuels is obviously limited, it may be a mistake to conclude that scarcity alone will prevent a substantial warming. Please read George Monbiot's article "How much fossil fuel can we burn", in which he makes the case that we can only burn (depending on the figures being used) anywhere from 61% of presently identified reserves from now on to 33% of year 2000 known reserves between 2000 and 2050.

 

Though it may seem narcissistic, I'm quoting myself to add support to my assertion from a few years ago. I don't think there's any reason to believe that scarcity of fossil fuels is sufficient to limit the damage caused by burning fossil fuels. For instance, take this Bloomberg article, Kyoto Veterans Say Global Warming Goal Slipping Away

 

The only three living diplomats who have led the United Nations global warming talks said there’s little chance the next climate treaty will prevent the world from overheating.

...

To meet the 2-degree target, about two-thirds of proven fossil-fuel reserves must remain in the ground, mostly coal, according to the Paris-based International Energy Agency.

...

 

The situation doesn't seem to have improved. Given that cheap energy sources are desirable, and that as a larger quantity of people around the world desire greater access to energy, I see no reason to believe that even given current fossil fuel resources, scarcity alone will be enough to limit AGW. The economic impacts work both ways. As the supply reduces, the price increases, which makes finding new sources more lucrative. The only way out of this trap, if we agree that it is worthwhile to limit AGW, is to either limit energy consumption through force worldwide against the economic interest of the people, or to identify and promote an economical alternative.

Edited November 6, 2013 by JMJones0424

[Eclipse Now]

Though it may seem narcissistic, I'm quoting myself to add support to my assertion from a few years ago. I don't think there's any reason to believe that scarcity of fossil fuels is sufficient to limit the damage caused by burning fossil fuels. For instance, take this Bloomberg article, Kyoto Veterans Say Global Warming Goal Slipping Away

 

 

 

The situation doesn't seem to have improved. Given that cheap energy sources are desirable, and that as a larger quantity of people around the world desire greater access to energy, I see no reason to believe that even given current fossil fuel resources, scarcity alone will be enough to limit AGW. The economic impacts work both ways. As the supply reduces, the price increases, which makes finding new sources more lucrative. The only way out of this trap, if we agree that it is worthwhile to limit AGW, is to either limit energy consumption through force worldwide against the economic interest of the people, or to identify and promote an economical alternative.

 

Yep, that's pretty much my opinion now. If I ever disagreed and suggested that peak oil would save us from global warming, it was probably at the peak of my own fear-factor concerning peak oil: a fear of an oil crisis smashing us back to the Stone Age. *IF* I suggested it to you guys (I've lost track of all the conversations I've had over the years and who said what where and when), then I apologise. I also don't think the peak is going to be that severe. With the amount of tar sands coming on, it will probably be more like a long, increasingly dirty plateau. All of which spells disaster for the climate. White Skies, here we come! (That's what I call the sulphur shield we're making inevitable by our current behaviour).

[JMJones0424]

EN, I don't recall you claiming as much, though as you've said, the conversations are old and my memory is suspect. However, and off topic, I do seem to recall you (or maybe others and I have misattributed it to you), to decry the advent of peak phosphorous. I think the idea of peak oil is just as flawed as the idea of peak phosphorous, or peak anything. Malthusian ideas have not been shown to be accurate, as the marketplace is a complex, adaptive system that seems to me to respond adequately to scarcity. Many of the claims made by peak enthusiasts rely on the assumption that future activities will be the same as present or past activities. I think this is a fundamentally false assumption, and I see no evidence to support it. If the concern is excess CO2 emissions, we shouldn't rely simply on projections based on past emissions to formulate our approach. If the concern is the scarcity of an important nutrient, we are no more justified in applying the same failed logic.

 

In fact, I see a distinct difference between the issue of peak oil and peak phosphorous. Oil is only useful prior to being consumed, due to the potential chemically bound energy or chemical structure. Phosphorous is phosphorous, no matter how many times it has been utilized. As the supply of phosphorous decreases, recycling, fertilization efficiency, and new sources will likely become economically desirable.

Edited November 12, 2013 by JMJones0424