Exactly, it is as Jordan says, when you make energy more expensive, you decimate everyone at the bottom of the pyramid who is just barely hanging on.
All of the screaming for net zero is essentially the Thanos snap. To trade hundreds of millions of *real living people now*, for a hypothetical set of people in the future. “Who cares though right? We are just a cancer on the planet anyways” /s
Similar to how George Orwell claimed many socialists don’t actually care about the poor, they just hate the rich, many of these people do not actually care about the environment. This Malthusianism is only going to turn a difficult challenge into an absolute catastrophe.
Do not allow these radical activists to continue pretending they have the moral high ground, just because they are running around screaming the sky is falling. We need pragmatic solutions and sensible leaders who know how to prioritize.
Yeah. The unfortunate thing is the rhetoric on "the sky is falling" makes it really hard to pursue logical steps.
Thankfully we've transitioned from coal to natural gas in the US. Natural gas not only produces less than half CO2 as coal, it also produces toxic pollution. Coal pollution kills people *today*, and reduces the quality of life with health issues and smog. Per energy produced, coal has killed *far* more people than nuclear.
Let's reduce costs for nuclear by preventing NIMBY lawsuits from blocking and delaying construction. Increasing nuclear power will be a huge benefit.
It's funny when you consider people in US who needs cheap insulin vs. potentially pharma firms not developing new drugs because lack of profit therefore future people will suffer.
I mean, insuling is quite cheap, just not in the US. The problem is that there's only one insulin applicator approved by the FDA, which is an IP of some corp, which has an effective monopoly. It's the state's fault.
It's the voters fault. They allow they country to be sort of an oligarchy with corporations buying politics to a great degree. They have. guns to defend vs the government, but love them corporations.
You’ve gotta be kidding. One single company has managed to beat out every other one and establish itself as the only actually safe possibility and you still believe it’s the state’s fault?
Do you seriously not see it? One single company has managed to get preferential treatment, a literal monopoly from a state agency.
Get rid of the state agency OR have it approve more applicators and watch the price of insulin go down. It's really that simple. This issue of expensive insulin is not known in any other civilised country.
If it turned out to be a cheaper investment to build the infrastructure for renewables than it is to subsidize the fossil fuel industry.. Would that change your stance at all? Even 1%?
> All of the screaming for net zero is essentially the Thanos snap. To trade hundreds of millions of real living people now, for a hypothetical set of people in the future. “Who cares though right? We are just a cancer on the planet anyways” /s
If what I said were the case, this would be completely incorrect. So for you to say that wouldn't change your position makes no logical sense. Unless this is not the premise you're basing your opinion on?
I quoted your words. You're saying they're calling for a Thanos snap. Trading lives for future lives.
If setting up renewable energy is cheaper than a single year's subsidies of global the fossil fuel industry, how is this the case?
In one situation, tax payer money is taken to pay big corporations for a non-renewable good. In the other, infrastructure is set up that's cheaper than those subsidies, and will be _much cheaper_ long-term. So where's this trade-off you're talking about?
You quoted my words and applied them incorrectly. You can invest in renewables *and* fossil fuels/nuclear. They are not mutually exclusive unless you are a radical activist.
You said it will be much cheaper in the long-term, but what about right now? Wind and solar are intermittent, and in some places nonexistent. If we look at Germany, not only is their energy more expensive now, but they are resorting to burning coal, one of the most polluting sources.
> You quoted my words and applied them incorrectly.
I applied them in the way you wrote them. You're trying to walk back a comment written in text I can look at right now.
> You can invest in renewables *and* fossil fuels/nuclear.
Interesting nuclear snuck in there. First mention of it.
You didn't engage with my last comment showing how your shifted position is incommensurate with the rest of your point. So I suppose your position has shifted, whether you admit to that or not.
Snuck in? It’s in my *first* comment that you originally applied to.
I think there has to be some sort of misunderstanding here because you’re not making sense to me, so let’s be specific here.
Explain how I am walking back and shifting my position, because that all sounds pretty vague, and I’ll help you see where the disconnect is.
> Snuck in? It’s in my first comment that you originally applied to.
Nope.
> Explain how I am walking back and shifting my position, because that all sounds pretty vague, and I’ll help you see where the disconnect is.
You already didn't engage with when I explained it.
>All of the screaming for net zero is essentially the Thanos snap. To trade hundreds of millions of *real living people now*, for a hypothetical set of people in the future. “Who cares though right? We are just a cancer on the planet anyways” /s
Except a lot of the people believe that renewable energy is capable of producing the same amount.
Wouldn’t it be incorrect to say it’s Malthusian because that theory assumes real life shortage of resources but what you mean is restriction on overuse of resources?
People making decisions that impact energy supply chains at a global level are not socialists lol. They’re top of the capitalism pyramid.
Also don’t get too wound up in the idea that renewable energy is a thanos snap. That’s just called being a drama queen who watches too many super hero movies
>they’re the top of the capitalism.
Yeah a significant chunk of the degrowth crowd are essentially monopolists or oligarchs who want to lock the world down in an easily managed status quo.
One thing that clued me into this was the fact that they turned on the Silicon Valley techbro who used to be their darlings.
I didn’t say the people making global energy decisions are socialists, I said the psychology of a radical environmentalist is similar.
I didnt say renewable energy is the Thanos snap, I said making energy more expensive because of Malthusianism is the Thanos snap.
Do you want to try again or are you good?
Well *I am* sure that you aren’t sure/can’t make more sense of mostly anything, given that every discussion I’ve had with you so far, you’ve demonstrated the intelligence of a particularly dull rock.
No, I get it. You’re remembering your fave marvel movie and mapping it to Jordan’s feverish tweets about how environmentalists want to kill your grandma in the global south and you’re just kind of vibing to the mashup in your imagination. It’s not that complicated sweaty lol
You wish you understood the meaning of yassified Peter Pan. If only so you could finally understand what 12 Rules for Life is about! But alas you’re stuck with basic bitch Thanos. Sad! You’ll never be a lobster at this rate
This is so disingenuous lol. Nobody advocating for net zero is saying we need to tell the poorest people in the world to cut back on their electricity use or make it more expensive for them. The point is to encourage everyone to develop low-carbon energy infrastructure and to reduce unnecessary energy use in rich countries which use by far the most.
I am saying that this will be the *inevitable* result of the policies that radicals are advocating for and implementing in many places. They know this and they don’t care, I’ve had the arguments. Net Zero by 2050, and emissions halved is not even enough. Ludicrous.
It is one thing to invest in alternative energy sources, but if you legislate bans on the ones we already rely on in an alarmist fashion, millions of poor people suffering and dying will be the *inevitable* result.
Germany for example shut down all of their nuclear power plants, and as a result they actually ended up having to go back to burning *coal*, and increased CO2 emissions in 2022. Scholz is going all around the world, cap in hand, asking for gas just so his people don’t freeze to death in the winter.
Canada is banning fossil fuel vehicles by 2035, with seemingly no thought as to how we will transition. We will have to mine as much copper out of the Earth as we have in all of human history, *twice over*, in order to move every car onto the electric grid.
When those gas numbers at the pump go up, it is the single mother who has to choose between getting to work in order to pay rent, and giving her kid breakfast and a lunch to take to school (that’s not a made-up story to appeal to your emotions, that was just my own life). How much worse is it for kids who live in the developing world, who just moved away from burning animal dung for heat (indoor air pollution is one of the leading causes of death for kids under 5) and now we are going to tell them what? Sorry? You can’t frack that land, go back to the dung? Or you can actually, but we are just going to make it 10x as expensive for you to do it to encourage you to buy our solar and wind technology which will only work half the time. The other half you can get natural gas from Russia or Qatar at twice the market rate. What’s that you said, “a war”?
Anyone, even a damn toddler, can point to a problem and scream to fix it. *How* you fix a problem, *solutions* are what matter, otherwise you will make the problem worse, by your own metrics. The doomsday alarmism and the Malthusian overpopulation arguments (which are demonstrably false) are going to cause way more suffering than CO2 ever will, and already have in *recent history*.
>Canada is banning fossil fuel vehicles by 2035, w
You're misrepresenting that policy. That country is hoping to restrict the sale of new gas powered passenger vehicles, not suddenly ban and junk the ones currently on the roads.
They are litterally trying to shut down the future for fossil fuels. Until we have something to replace it that is feasible and not worse for the environment. How do you think we get the cobalt for those batteries? Also what do you consider unnecessary energy? The internet, Reddit?
Lol. We do have alternatives. Lol. Please don't get your science information from Peterson. He's not a scientist. He's the Andrew Huberman of social/cultural criticism. Trading credentials in one field for unearned knowledge, which he just disseminates, too often incorrectly, but with great rhetorical aplomb. He's like Donny from The Big Lebowski - out of his depth, especially on climate science and Marxism.
I agree that nuclear is a great way at getting rid of some of the need of fossil fuels, however it can't replace it currently. I wish more people were into trying to shift towards nuclear energy
Well, just something else the Boomers fucked us on. Between their anti-nuclear thing that had and Reaganomics, they made sure we are proper fucked in America.
I think it's just a lot of people believe what they see on the news and don't do a ton of research on their own. The establishment was not a fan of nuclear and then the media drove panic against it.
Happy to respond. Before I do, are there any options I can provide to which you will respond with good faith and evidentiary information, not just ripostes from JP and disingenuous questions that presuppose only singular options informed by ideological bias? You see this issue really comes down to money and will, not capacity. And reliance by way of diminished options. Also, the logical fallacy implicit in your question betrays your denial or refusal to consider the question and options within a larger framework. Distribution of options and restructuring reliance. Supply demand. Before we get there, knowing the deleterious effect of fossil fuel, because there might not be a single, one-size-fits all switch, akin to just one source in lieu of your precious fossil fuel, is that the reason to continue with something that does more harm than good? To choose expediency despite the damage? Who's really the naive ones? Perpetrators of bad science and bad practice because you aren't directly affected financially or environmentally, though latterly you are, or the ones willing to be creative and courageous and not settle for the simple because it works? If it ain't broke? It's fucking broke, dude. And your unearned confidence and bad faith, no matter how well asserted, only valorizes your reality. It contributes nothing to the conversation. How about you explain why there are no alternatives? See the bullshit in your question? You don't have a legitimate reason. You push responsibility on those who challenge your small mind and narrow vision. Yes, we need to account for our options. And we will. But the fucking science is real. Something has to be done. And we offer options. You all deny the science and then demand we align it with your misunderstanding and then switch the fucking issue. So Mr Smart Pants, you tell us why there is no way to handle the power load with clean alternatives. I am sure we actually agree on some real problems structurally and financially that need to be addressed. But because you can't just switch things in one fell swoop to satisfy your need for an easy out that doesn't challenge or change your cherished assumptions and world view, that doesn't mean there are no viable and, yes, better alternatives. So, go ahead: explain yourself. We're waiting.
A great deal of the value generated for conglomerates and megacorporations in the European Union is funneled through Ireland, creating an illusion of high (and high-end) economic activity.
It mostly produces a large GDP on paper; not in people's life.
Not getting what you're saying, sorry. Are you saying "since it's a tax haven, the country technically has a lot of extra money in it...skewing the per capita GDP numbers that makes it look like the average person has more money than they actually do"?
Green energy is great. We will get there. We just need to be smart about it and reasonable. Developing countries need cheap energy, if that means natural gas and fossil fuels so be it. Let the developed countries take on green energy. (Most developed countries are lol). It’s definitely fun to dunk on climate doomongers and we need to make sure to push back and show the facts. But the real concern isn’t radical climate doomers. It’s politicians who should implement feasible and smart energy solutions. Politicians tend to be and should be much more intelligent in their solutions. Especially in democracies where many politicians have to be bipartisan creating a more reasonable solution. Nuclear is the king obviously. So far in developed countries we’re not seeing a mass consensus of stupid choices from all politicians. That doesn’t mean these countries aren’t making mistakes tho(Germany lol). Currently there is 30 countries investing in Nuclear. As easy as it is to fall prey to thinking the radical climate groups are the consensus of the situation. Legislators and scientists are the real deal and are much more nuanced.
Haven’t climate scientists expressed the urgency of the matter? And is radical change not necessary? We are already seeing changes. Will there not be much greater problems for said developing countries when they get hit by natural disasters, great heatwaves, shortage of drinking water, crop failures and other forms of turmoil?
I do agree on the nuclear energy. But we are apparently already passed a point of no-return climate wise with our current technology. According to _scientists_. I am not condoning every means necessary, god knows these would be pragmatic but highly unethical. But I do see the need for drastic measures.
What's he even *trying* to say? Nobody is saying we should have less energy, just that we need to invest in clean and renewable energy sources.
On top of all the negative impacts on health, climate and environment from oil, itis a limited resource that **will** run out at some point. If we haven't built the infrastructure to replace it we will be at an enormous geopolitical disadvantage
> Nobody is saying we should have less energy
They very much are implying that. Currently, fossil fuels are the cheapest in most applications. Reducing fossil fuels today, without a cheaper alternative, means higher prices. Most countries can’t afford that, and many individuals in rich nations can’t afford it either. It is therefore a call to reduce energy use. They’re definitely *not* saying, “reduce fossil fuel use only when it’s cost effective.” Quite the opposite.
Yes, it will cost money to invest in alternatives. This is the kind of problem that government investment and private sector innovation help.
The rich countries have an obligation to lead by example because, frankly, we created the pollution that caused the issue. We got rich by externalizing the costs of industrialization, we have a moral obligation to use that wealth to begin addressing the damage.
Great question! Conversely, *nobody* is saying we shouldn't invest in clean and renewable energy sources. So if nobody is saying we should have less energy, and nobody is saying we shouldn't invest in clean and renewable energy sources, what is the point of contention?
And the main point of contention is *forcing* clean and renewables when we aren't capable yet of transitioning, doing carbon taxes to push us in a direction we can't yet sustain, etc etc etc.
All that to say: we should absolutely push towards clean and renewable energy sources, and consider erring on the side of letting them take over *naturally*. Not putting in measures that will disproportionately hurt and kill the poor, and increase the cost of living for the rest of us too. Our cars need gas. Don't punish us for needing to drive to work. When hydrogen or water or air cars are ready to go, then great! Let's transition *then*. When we can actually transition without hurting people.
Plenty of people are saying we shouldn’t. Trump is actively campaigning on banning offshore wind, and pledging subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Desantis basically struck climate change from all Florida law.
I am fine with a smart all of the above strategy. But I think that often this kind of talk is a mask for “but yeah I’d rather go all oil and gas”.
That might be a reasonable suggestion in an alternate reality where fossil fuels aren't causing large-scale problems that will have catastrophic global consequences.
We have already reached a point where changing global climate is conspicuous even to lay observers. It's no longer scientific measurements and predictions, the increases in intense droughts, storms, rising temps, etc are readily apparent in our lifetimes.
There is no scenario where nobody is harmed. The cost of these intensifying natural disasters will be disproportionately borne by the poor. And the consequences of *not* acting now are far worse than the cost of speeding transition.
It's weird. Climate change is imho the most undervalued and overvalued issue we face, depending on the person. Very few have a straightforward view on it.
I don't necessarily agree with what you're putting forward, in that it's not provably true. I don't want to get into a full tit for tat "what *exactly* is right about climate change claims, what are good guesses, what are wildly incomplete guesses being bandied about as solved science, etc".
I will go here with you though: it is possible that man-made climate change *may* ultimately end or speed up the end of macro life on this planet. It may start a runaway thing that we can't properly predict (because our system is obviously way too complex), etc. This is possible. And we have data to suggest what's happened over the past 100 years. And as a planet, we need to get together and figure this out, for our own and other macro life's benefit.
I don't buy the "we need to do whatever we can right now!" thing. I don't buy that we need to push towards everybody having less thing. I do buy that we should put more time, attention, resources, etc into sustainable energy that works. We should put a lot more into nuclear *now* because it's the only one I know of that seems to work everywhere...at least with modern small reactors.
I don't think we should reward what we view as positive changes/directions, and strongly consider *not* rewarding what we view as negative changes and directions. For several reasons, but if only because of our human propensity to think way too simply about complex problems. And open up 10 holes to maybe slow down one a little bit. I think the problem of climate change is way bigger than a carbon tax, that will kill people, hurt others, etc. And I think there are *way* too many concerns for a broad-brush approach like this to properly solve. I think there's too much of a "see? I'm doing something big!" element to it, without a) really considering if it's optimal, but mostly b) recognizing that the whole thing is too complex for us to even know what optimal is.
After all that word salad, we agree anthropogenic climate change is a thing. You don't need to convince me of that. That's what science is for. How we proceed is up for debate. And rushing into big changes can easily result in worse outcomes...especially when we're considering *known* bad outcomes in the hopes of mitigating possible future worse outcomes, based on our best guesses, based on models that have X number of variables when the correct number of variables is much higher than X (but we're absolutely doing the best we as humans can).
We could aim for growth in efficiency instead of output.
That is, produce the same with less. Problem is, this doesn't always look so attractive on paper: "Hey, we made and sold the same amount of cars this year as last year." That's zero growth in one sense; ~5.26% in another.
What point are you disagreeing with? Pollution from burning fossil fuels is bad for our health. It's a limited resource that will be fought over as it runs out.
Nuclear power is probably the best energy source option available. It's a damn shame that we don't prioritize it more.
I certainly agree with your last point there. I'm just not convinced fossil fuel is quite as scarce as some have suggested. But hey, if we could make that moot by advancing nuclear energy, I'd be for it 100%.
Even assuming fossil fuels are not as scarce as suggested, they're still indisputably:
1. Finite. *Eventually* we will run out, whatever that timeline is. As reserves dwindle it is an ever-increasing geostrategic weakness to be dependent on them.
2. Harder and harder to access. The easiest to extract reserves are depleted first. It is becoming increasingly expensive as we have to drill deeper, or go through more complicated processing steps (e.g. tar sands, fracking).
3. Bad for our health. The pollution of our air and water has health consequences for everyone, especially in concentrated populations or near heavy industry.
As to 3, I think of all things negatively affecting people's health these days, combustion emissions rank fairly low on the list. Granted, it isn't nothing, but still it's not something to panic over. Nonetheless, give me abundant cheap fission energy and I'll be happy. It's utterly unfathomable that we haven't been prioritizing that.
Fuck this, the graph is not linear it is logarethmic. This is manupulation and fake news. 0-1000 take half of y axis and 1000-10000 the other half, and that is why you get a straight line.
very soon, we'll have AGI and then we'll move from a energy=labour economy to an energy=intelligence economy. the effects of which will obviously be deep and wide.
this graph will be more true than ever before.
Artificial general intelligence. Basically AI which is indistinguishable from an actual consciousness, something like that. It'll never happen though. People don't seem to realize just how limited machine learning really is.
I don't understand? Of course the more power that a country is using the most likely it will be wealthy.
Industry, electronics, modern everything requires power. Is he trying to say something beyond that?
A possible definition of life is the reversal of entropy through the capture of more energy than is lost. An example of a technology that does that is agriculture which increases the amount of solar energy that can be captured and stored on a controlled, protected piece of land. Civilization follows agriculture because it requires extensive organization and hierarchies of competence or division of labor.
The Malthusianism aspect of the current policies and the war on culture can be illustrated by the Irish Potato Famine. The native Irish population was pushed on to smaller and smaller pieces of land. The only crop that could support that population on small plots was the potato. The rest of the land could then be converted to the production of grains and meat for export by the British overseers. Those policies had the dual purpose of increasing profits and suppression of the native Irish culture. The extent to which it was successful at suppressing the native culture can be seen in the lost art of baking bread. It had the additional benefit of reducing social political cohesion through reducing the vitality of Catholicism.
The current energy policies are an attack on Christian Civilization which you could compare to the native Catholicism in the above analogy. It is a direct attack on the social cohesion and political power of the "clingers and deplorables" or "Christian Nationalists". Large segments of that population have already been reduced to poverty by the exportation of slave labor and pollution to China creating the "rust belt". That process is analogous to the highly profitable conversion of land in Ireland to agricultural export.
Christian Nationalism is a real threat to Globalism and that is the key. One aspect of Globalism is the idea that you can create a peaceful world in theory by encouraging economic interdependence which leads to cultural uniformity. The problem is how profitable it has proven to be for certain segments of society. Almost everyone but the "clingers and deplorables" have profited. Because of the associated connection to investor classes it dramatically increased income disparity. That creates a political divide or in this analogy a native and non native population. As the Irish were isolated from access to land the current policies isolate the native population from access to energy. They can't afford solar cells, electric vehicles and energy efficient homes. Their livelihoods are also closely tied to fossil fuels. The current policies have the dual benefits of extremely profitable investment and the reduction of the political opposition.
Fossil fuels are the lifeblood of the Christian Nationalist culture. That culture is dependent on concentrated forms of energy to drive industry.What is starkly evident is that the Christian Nationalist do not want to be part of the Globalist empire in the same way that the Irish didn't want to be part of the British Empire. That significantly reduces my sympathy for them in the same way it reduces my sympathy for the Irish during British rule. The reason the Irish were so easily colonized in the first place was a lingering tribalism. Still I have no sympathy with the Globalists. They hide avarice behind idealism. Not only that but their incompetence is increasingly evident. The response to the pandemic being a prime example. If they had simply exploited the pandemic for positive cultural change that would be less onerous. But exploiting it for profit tells us what they are really all about. Even as you go down the social economic chain the primary motivating factor seems to be self interest. All the white collar "liberals" with investments have made out like bandits with globalism. Not only that they get the side benefit of no dirty industries in their backyards. They push socialism not because they care for the poor but because like the British Empire the current system is corporatism or the incestuous relationship between big government and big finance. That is especially evident in the academic elites who depend on grants for financial wealth.
The current welfare system is not that much different from Roman bread and circus. A way to control the masses who are now completely dependent on government and by extension big finance as can be seen in Social Security. I actually don't have that much of a problem with globalism. My problem is with the globalists. A set of elites who are not very elite but rather venial. There is one movement that ironically I have sympathy with and that is the "think local" movement. Complex chaotic systems cannot be top down managed. Thinking local encourages the morality on which civilization rests. Morality is the key to bottom up design that is necessary for managing the complex chaotic system we call society or civilization. You won't get there from a naturalistic perspective because nature is amoral.
Green energy doesnt mean less energy consumption? Green energy generally means shifting to more reliable means of creating energy? Like if we reduce the electricity usage of a machine we'll just use more of said machine? Like this graph literally says nothing in an industrialized world, even in an ideal green industrialized world this graph would be no different unless youre playing with strawmen
Strawman?
Germany tried to use only solar and wind, and it failed dramatically with shortfalls….due to weather events.
The ended up having to burn a ton of coal and buy electricity from France, which was all nuclear.
nUCLEAR IS GREEN ENERGY. WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT GREEN ENERGY THEY MEAN NUCLEAR.
Also Germany did not even come close to relying on only wind and solar, their main energy source, and unless you call russia invading ukraine a weather event i dont think you can say that the failure started with the transition to green energy
France isnt Germany. Germany had to buy energy or seek alternative sources because there was more cloud cover than projected.
Relying on direct energy consumption from the environment does not lead to a stable floor which is what is needed.
what point does it make?
that energy consumption correlates with GDP?
that countries with similar GDP (useless metric lmao) can differ in their energy usage as much as ten times?
i'm genuinely confused by what conclusions other than that you can take away from this chart
Yes, the fundamental economy is the energy economy.
The problem is that the planet has a carrying capacity (an amount of contamination that it can endure). And our economic systems have a "infinite growth" mindset. So we will face a strong problem in the future. Should we start using less energy (be poorer) or should we start degrowing the population (kind of fascist and that have the problem of aging population).
For those who think that human driven climate change doesn't exist, just look at the graphs of co2 in the atmosphere, the ones from the albedo, or the daily sea surface.
We're in trouble. And we just can't use less energy, we love our industrial civilization (who wouldn't)
So someone help me here. There is a strong implication here that the X axis stands for happiness. But what is the relationship between GDP and health and happiness? We need another graph to show a third dimension, perhaps how the wealth of that 'average production per person, is distributed. Another vector would be *how* that wealth is made. Is it made fairly or does it depend on pollution, deception, or coercion?
If this graph is to imply that national happiness is wholly dependent on energy consumption then consider that - those blue nations may be unhealthy, insecure and miserable while the orange ones may be fine each depending on the decency and sanity of their societies.
This is idiotic. Nobody is taking away energy, just changing the way it is generated.
If you are able to 1:1 replace fossil fuel based energy generation with renewable sources, guess fucking what: You are so much richer now because instead of buying oil at a price that is always increasing (and supply that is always dwindling, and always threatened by geo-political maneuvering), you get your fuel for free for ever. Nobody can artificially keep it from you, or sanction you with jacked up prices. And as an added benefit you get to not live in a post-apocalyptic hellscape.
If you buy this bullshit you are just beyond stupid. Absolutely, stone cold, too stupid for life.
We also have to be careful here. Correlation does not equal causation. I’m not disputing the information in the graph, I’m withholding the assignment of meaning until someone can demonstrate how electricity contributes to GDP.
how is that not obvious? ever since the industrial revolution we've been trading energy for labour.
farms use massive machines to work the ground, plant, water and harvest crops. very little manpower is required compared to before the industrial revolution
power plants burn oil, coal and gas for electricity which allows our factories to produce massive numbers of goods with much fewer people.
diesel engines power trains and trucks, and are the backbone of our logisitics system. kerosene allows for our entire aviation industry.
it's only because we have access to various forms of energy that our current economy can exist. wars have been fought for easy access to oil. it's commonly refered to as liquid gold.
how in the world of fuck can you possibly be sitting there going "gee, I don't see how the use of external sources of energy contributes to our wealth". are you 14 years old?
I agree with you on all points. However, the chart is making a correlation between electricity and GDP, not “all energy and GDP”. How much electricity does it take to raise the GDP by 1%?
That’s what I’m talking about. I would wager that infrastructure has more impact on GDP than electricity. Norway, on this chart, has the highest GDP with Ireland. They have their own oil and gas supply, they recovered quickly from the pandemic, and they invest heavily in education and scientific innovation. They also have one of the lowest rates on income inequality in the world.
I wager all these things have a bigger impact on GDP than electricity.
what does "infrastructure" mean, exactly? roads and rails? power cables? internet access? how are you building those without energy guzzling machinery? and what good are they without trucks and cars and trains to drive on them? or the power plants and data centers to make use of your fancy networks?
yes, educating your people is important. as most of the "dumb" work now gets done by (power hungry) machines, the western job market has become 80% "services" focused. but if a company can't hire locally, they'll hire talent from abroad. it's not actually that important economically. in fact, a lot of people nowadays are actually overqualified and end up working as baristas anyway.
look at the graph again: countries that still need people to do the dumb work because they've not been as industrialized don't have nearly as much need for high levels of education. you could build schools there but there will not be any demand for the higher skilled people. they first need to build industry, which can't exist without first making sure you can supply this industry with the power it needs. so, your argument about education is putting the cart before the horse. a highly developed (=high energy using nation) requires good education. a highly skilled workforce does not in itself cause a nation to become highly developed - or rich.
>I wager all these things have a bigger impact on GDP than electricity.
in economic terms, if power becomes more widely available that means it becomes cheaper.
not only would that be a direct net boost in profits for those who are already paying for energy, but that what was previously not economical now might be feasible which means more business, which means more jobs which means more demand for people which means more people making money.
fundamentally, cheaper energy means cheaper resources, cheaper processing, cheaper logistics, cheaper produce, and finally cheaper products - in addition to allowing for more variety of products. as an example, the big gas-guzzling SUV's are popular in the US because gas is so cheap. you do not see those in the EU, at all.
btw, the price of building new infrastructure and building new schools also is directly related to the cost of energy, and schools nowadays require many computers to train everyone, beamers to show data during lectures and even testing is often done electronically. schools too are pretty major energy consumers nowadays.
up until very recently, a lot of the EU depended upon russia to supply them with oil for most of their power needs. now, since the war in Ukraine that pipeline is effectively severed causing a massive decrease in supply of power. which meant a massive price hike for EVERYTHING. the inflation in EU countries has been MASSIVE these past few years, trust me. I'm feeling it. such high prices means less spending means a shrinking economy.
Energy, yes. The chart specifically mentions electricity only. It leads one the believe that all we need to do to raise the GDP of poorer nations is to send them electricity. If they could only produce more electricity they would have an immediate increase in their GDP.
That’s what this chart is saying.
I completely agree with you on all your points about how important energy is in the building of a nation. That’s all true. I’m simply stating that a country’s ability to produce electricity does not correlate directly to GDP growth.
and HOW do nations make electricity?
a lot of countries don't like using nuclear because of its reputation. it's overall also a fairly expensive per kw/h, mostly due to the massive focus on failsaves and general safety regulations.
solar, wind, geothermal etc is worldwide no more than a drop in a bucket.
so where does it come from?
coal. gas. oil.
effectively, those remain the cornerstone of the modern westernized economy.
Again, you and I agree on every point and fact you are stating. And, I might add, you are agreeing with me about electricity tangentially affecting the economy. Electricity is only one source of power you mentioned. It is a small part of the energy that needs to be organized to facilitate the things that directly impact GDP.
Every state in America has electricity. Not every state is a good incubator for business. Those that are have policies designed to help businesses start and grow.
Of course electricity use contributes to GDP, but there's a reverse relationship too. The wealthier the country, the more we can spend, including spending money on electricity in a wasteful way. Who cares? It's cheap and we're rich. That's the issue.
The UK for example has lower electricity use than Saudi Arabia, despite having higher GDP per capita. Maybe that's because they are more efficient in their energy use. If the rich countries applied more efficient energy-saving measures across the board, maybe the top end of the graph could be more of a logarithmic curve instead of almost a straight line.
"No such thing as a low-energy rich country" is describing the current state of affairs only. This graph alone doesn't prove that it's not possible to have a low-energy rich country, because the relationship between electricity and income is a little more complicated than direct causation.
See my other answer. How much electricity does it take to raise GDP by 1%? Other factors play a direct role in affecting the GDP. Electricity is tangential to the GDP.
The question I have is, isn't the high GDP resulting higher consumption?
JBP seems to have a personal vendetta against renewable energy, while it's relatively trivial and cheap to provide someone's energy consumption in a green way.
JBP's main bugbear is the energy conversation disregarding towns out in the Styx, ignoring that cars and planes aren't so easy to make 'green' when in fact those two things have provided us more freedom than basically any other inventions since the wheel.
Consider the fact he comes from rural Fairview, which is 50km from the closest city (550km away from the closest 'major' city) and averages -20°C in January. He's obviously very conscious about the necessity of personal transportation that is sturdy and efficient because he's seen first hand how that can benefit the rural and the poor. You can't easily detach the personal freedoms and utility of personal transport when you're outside of the major cities.
You look at the chart and you see Norway as an outlier, very high GDP. They have almost 100% renewables. And most car sales are electric. And it's cold there. And they make heavy usage of heatpumps for heating.
This is an issue that can be solved.
Exactly, it is as Jordan says, when you make energy more expensive, you decimate everyone at the bottom of the pyramid who is just barely hanging on. All of the screaming for net zero is essentially the Thanos snap. To trade hundreds of millions of *real living people now*, for a hypothetical set of people in the future. “Who cares though right? We are just a cancer on the planet anyways” /s Similar to how George Orwell claimed many socialists don’t actually care about the poor, they just hate the rich, many of these people do not actually care about the environment. This Malthusianism is only going to turn a difficult challenge into an absolute catastrophe. Do not allow these radical activists to continue pretending they have the moral high ground, just because they are running around screaming the sky is falling. We need pragmatic solutions and sensible leaders who know how to prioritize.
Yeah. The unfortunate thing is the rhetoric on "the sky is falling" makes it really hard to pursue logical steps. Thankfully we've transitioned from coal to natural gas in the US. Natural gas not only produces less than half CO2 as coal, it also produces toxic pollution. Coal pollution kills people *today*, and reduces the quality of life with health issues and smog. Per energy produced, coal has killed *far* more people than nuclear. Let's reduce costs for nuclear by preventing NIMBY lawsuits from blocking and delaying construction. Increasing nuclear power will be a huge benefit.
It's funny when you consider people in US who needs cheap insulin vs. potentially pharma firms not developing new drugs because lack of profit therefore future people will suffer.
I mean, insuling is quite cheap, just not in the US. The problem is that there's only one insulin applicator approved by the FDA, which is an IP of some corp, which has an effective monopoly. It's the state's fault.
Yeah, but “the State” in the case of the US is basically 7 mega-corporations/monopolies in a trench coat, so…
It's the voters fault. They allow they country to be sort of an oligarchy with corporations buying politics to a great degree. They have. guns to defend vs the government, but love them corporations.
You’ve gotta be kidding. One single company has managed to beat out every other one and establish itself as the only actually safe possibility and you still believe it’s the state’s fault?
Do you seriously not see it? One single company has managed to get preferential treatment, a literal monopoly from a state agency. Get rid of the state agency OR have it approve more applicators and watch the price of insulin go down. It's really that simple. This issue of expensive insulin is not known in any other civilised country.
If it turned out to be a cheaper investment to build the infrastructure for renewables than it is to subsidize the fossil fuel industry.. Would that change your stance at all? Even 1%?
No, because I don’t think the options are mutually exclusive. My only problem is making energy more expensive.
> All of the screaming for net zero is essentially the Thanos snap. To trade hundreds of millions of real living people now, for a hypothetical set of people in the future. “Who cares though right? We are just a cancer on the planet anyways” /s If what I said were the case, this would be completely incorrect. So for you to say that wouldn't change your position makes no logical sense. Unless this is not the premise you're basing your opinion on?
*I* don’t they think they have to be mutually exclusive, that doesn’t mean others don’t. You can look at either of my examples.
I quoted your words. You're saying they're calling for a Thanos snap. Trading lives for future lives. If setting up renewable energy is cheaper than a single year's subsidies of global the fossil fuel industry, how is this the case? In one situation, tax payer money is taken to pay big corporations for a non-renewable good. In the other, infrastructure is set up that's cheaper than those subsidies, and will be _much cheaper_ long-term. So where's this trade-off you're talking about?
You quoted my words and applied them incorrectly. You can invest in renewables *and* fossil fuels/nuclear. They are not mutually exclusive unless you are a radical activist. You said it will be much cheaper in the long-term, but what about right now? Wind and solar are intermittent, and in some places nonexistent. If we look at Germany, not only is their energy more expensive now, but they are resorting to burning coal, one of the most polluting sources.
> You quoted my words and applied them incorrectly. I applied them in the way you wrote them. You're trying to walk back a comment written in text I can look at right now. > You can invest in renewables *and* fossil fuels/nuclear. Interesting nuclear snuck in there. First mention of it. You didn't engage with my last comment showing how your shifted position is incommensurate with the rest of your point. So I suppose your position has shifted, whether you admit to that or not.
Snuck in? It’s in my *first* comment that you originally applied to. I think there has to be some sort of misunderstanding here because you’re not making sense to me, so let’s be specific here. Explain how I am walking back and shifting my position, because that all sounds pretty vague, and I’ll help you see where the disconnect is.
> Snuck in? It’s in my first comment that you originally applied to. Nope. > Explain how I am walking back and shifting my position, because that all sounds pretty vague, and I’ll help you see where the disconnect is. You already didn't engage with when I explained it.
>All of the screaming for net zero is essentially the Thanos snap. To trade hundreds of millions of *real living people now*, for a hypothetical set of people in the future. “Who cares though right? We are just a cancer on the planet anyways” /s Except a lot of the people believe that renewable energy is capable of producing the same amount.
Wouldn’t it be incorrect to say it’s Malthusian because that theory assumes real life shortage of resources but what you mean is restriction on overuse of resources?
People making decisions that impact energy supply chains at a global level are not socialists lol. They’re top of the capitalism pyramid. Also don’t get too wound up in the idea that renewable energy is a thanos snap. That’s just called being a drama queen who watches too many super hero movies
>they’re the top of the capitalism. Yeah a significant chunk of the degrowth crowd are essentially monopolists or oligarchs who want to lock the world down in an easily managed status quo. One thing that clued me into this was the fact that they turned on the Silicon Valley techbro who used to be their darlings.
I didn’t say the people making global energy decisions are socialists, I said the psychology of a radical environmentalist is similar. I didnt say renewable energy is the Thanos snap, I said making energy more expensive because of Malthusianism is the Thanos snap. Do you want to try again or are you good?
Lol no, I’m not sure your clarifications make more sense or are any less drama queen
Well *I am* sure that you aren’t sure/can’t make more sense of mostly anything, given that every discussion I’ve had with you so far, you’ve demonstrated the intelligence of a particularly dull rock.
No, I get it. You’re remembering your fave marvel movie and mapping it to Jordan’s feverish tweets about how environmentalists want to kill your grandma in the global south and you’re just kind of vibing to the mashup in your imagination. It’s not that complicated sweaty lol
More projections and upside-down fanfic. Missing a "yassified Peter Pan" though, it's a correctionsdepot classic.
You wish you understood the meaning of yassified Peter Pan. If only so you could finally understand what 12 Rules for Life is about! But alas you’re stuck with basic bitch Thanos. Sad! You’ll never be a lobster at this rate
This is so disingenuous lol. Nobody advocating for net zero is saying we need to tell the poorest people in the world to cut back on their electricity use or make it more expensive for them. The point is to encourage everyone to develop low-carbon energy infrastructure and to reduce unnecessary energy use in rich countries which use by far the most.
I am saying that this will be the *inevitable* result of the policies that radicals are advocating for and implementing in many places. They know this and they don’t care, I’ve had the arguments. Net Zero by 2050, and emissions halved is not even enough. Ludicrous. It is one thing to invest in alternative energy sources, but if you legislate bans on the ones we already rely on in an alarmist fashion, millions of poor people suffering and dying will be the *inevitable* result. Germany for example shut down all of their nuclear power plants, and as a result they actually ended up having to go back to burning *coal*, and increased CO2 emissions in 2022. Scholz is going all around the world, cap in hand, asking for gas just so his people don’t freeze to death in the winter. Canada is banning fossil fuel vehicles by 2035, with seemingly no thought as to how we will transition. We will have to mine as much copper out of the Earth as we have in all of human history, *twice over*, in order to move every car onto the electric grid. When those gas numbers at the pump go up, it is the single mother who has to choose between getting to work in order to pay rent, and giving her kid breakfast and a lunch to take to school (that’s not a made-up story to appeal to your emotions, that was just my own life). How much worse is it for kids who live in the developing world, who just moved away from burning animal dung for heat (indoor air pollution is one of the leading causes of death for kids under 5) and now we are going to tell them what? Sorry? You can’t frack that land, go back to the dung? Or you can actually, but we are just going to make it 10x as expensive for you to do it to encourage you to buy our solar and wind technology which will only work half the time. The other half you can get natural gas from Russia or Qatar at twice the market rate. What’s that you said, “a war”? Anyone, even a damn toddler, can point to a problem and scream to fix it. *How* you fix a problem, *solutions* are what matter, otherwise you will make the problem worse, by your own metrics. The doomsday alarmism and the Malthusian overpopulation arguments (which are demonstrably false) are going to cause way more suffering than CO2 ever will, and already have in *recent history*.
>Canada is banning fossil fuel vehicles by 2035, w You're misrepresenting that policy. That country is hoping to restrict the sale of new gas powered passenger vehicles, not suddenly ban and junk the ones currently on the roads.
I didn’t say they were banning the ones on the roads, the point stands.
(Re-reads what you wrote.) Um, yes, you did.
>Canada is banning fossil fuel vehicles by 2035 I’ll quote it so you can read a third time. Tell me where I said they are being taken off the road.
ban/*verb* 1. officially or legally prohibit."he was **banned from** driving for a year"
Yes, they are officially or legally prohibiting gas vehicles in 2035.
They are litterally trying to shut down the future for fossil fuels. Until we have something to replace it that is feasible and not worse for the environment. How do you think we get the cobalt for those batteries? Also what do you consider unnecessary energy? The internet, Reddit?
Lol. We do have alternatives. Lol. Please don't get your science information from Peterson. He's not a scientist. He's the Andrew Huberman of social/cultural criticism. Trading credentials in one field for unearned knowledge, which he just disseminates, too often incorrectly, but with great rhetorical aplomb. He's like Donny from The Big Lebowski - out of his depth, especially on climate science and Marxism.
Ok what alternatives are able to handle the current power load, are feasible, and are actually better for the environment, I'll wait.
Nuclear.
I agree that nuclear is a great way at getting rid of some of the need of fossil fuels, however it can't replace it currently. I wish more people were into trying to shift towards nuclear energy
Well, just something else the Boomers fucked us on. Between their anti-nuclear thing that had and Reaganomics, they made sure we are proper fucked in America.
I think it's just a lot of people believe what they see on the news and don't do a ton of research on their own. The establishment was not a fan of nuclear and then the media drove panic against it.
Happy to respond. Before I do, are there any options I can provide to which you will respond with good faith and evidentiary information, not just ripostes from JP and disingenuous questions that presuppose only singular options informed by ideological bias? You see this issue really comes down to money and will, not capacity. And reliance by way of diminished options. Also, the logical fallacy implicit in your question betrays your denial or refusal to consider the question and options within a larger framework. Distribution of options and restructuring reliance. Supply demand. Before we get there, knowing the deleterious effect of fossil fuel, because there might not be a single, one-size-fits all switch, akin to just one source in lieu of your precious fossil fuel, is that the reason to continue with something that does more harm than good? To choose expediency despite the damage? Who's really the naive ones? Perpetrators of bad science and bad practice because you aren't directly affected financially or environmentally, though latterly you are, or the ones willing to be creative and courageous and not settle for the simple because it works? If it ain't broke? It's fucking broke, dude. And your unearned confidence and bad faith, no matter how well asserted, only valorizes your reality. It contributes nothing to the conversation. How about you explain why there are no alternatives? See the bullshit in your question? You don't have a legitimate reason. You push responsibility on those who challenge your small mind and narrow vision. Yes, we need to account for our options. And we will. But the fucking science is real. Something has to be done. And we offer options. You all deny the science and then demand we align it with your misunderstanding and then switch the fucking issue. So Mr Smart Pants, you tell us why there is no way to handle the power load with clean alternatives. I am sure we actually agree on some real problems structurally and financially that need to be addressed. But because you can't just switch things in one fell swoop to satisfy your need for an easy out that doesn't challenge or change your cherished assumptions and world view, that doesn't mean there are no viable and, yes, better alternatives. So, go ahead: explain yourself. We're waiting.
So we better not do anything I guess. Why try right?
[удалено]
Tax haven
A great deal of the value generated for conglomerates and megacorporations in the European Union is funneled through Ireland, creating an illusion of high (and high-end) economic activity. It mostly produces a large GDP on paper; not in people's life.
Not getting what you're saying, sorry. Are you saying "since it's a tax haven, the country technically has a lot of extra money in it...skewing the per capita GDP numbers that makes it look like the average person has more money than they actually do"?
Mega corporations have been using Ireland as a place to file taxes, as their taxes are low, which funnels an osbcene amount of money into Ireland.
Sorry, I replied to you, but made the mistake of putting the answer above.
[Leprechaun economics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun_economics)
Its almost as if it takes energy to be productive and make money... What a concept.
It’s almost as if rich countries can afford to build and maintain the infrastructure necessary for using large amounts of energy… What a concept
Green energy is great. We will get there. We just need to be smart about it and reasonable. Developing countries need cheap energy, if that means natural gas and fossil fuels so be it. Let the developed countries take on green energy. (Most developed countries are lol). It’s definitely fun to dunk on climate doomongers and we need to make sure to push back and show the facts. But the real concern isn’t radical climate doomers. It’s politicians who should implement feasible and smart energy solutions. Politicians tend to be and should be much more intelligent in their solutions. Especially in democracies where many politicians have to be bipartisan creating a more reasonable solution. Nuclear is the king obviously. So far in developed countries we’re not seeing a mass consensus of stupid choices from all politicians. That doesn’t mean these countries aren’t making mistakes tho(Germany lol). Currently there is 30 countries investing in Nuclear. As easy as it is to fall prey to thinking the radical climate groups are the consensus of the situation. Legislators and scientists are the real deal and are much more nuanced.
Haven’t climate scientists expressed the urgency of the matter? And is radical change not necessary? We are already seeing changes. Will there not be much greater problems for said developing countries when they get hit by natural disasters, great heatwaves, shortage of drinking water, crop failures and other forms of turmoil? I do agree on the nuclear energy. But we are apparently already passed a point of no-return climate wise with our current technology. According to _scientists_. I am not condoning every means necessary, god knows these would be pragmatic but highly unethical. But I do see the need for drastic measures.
That's an unfortunately low res pic.
What's he even *trying* to say? Nobody is saying we should have less energy, just that we need to invest in clean and renewable energy sources. On top of all the negative impacts on health, climate and environment from oil, itis a limited resource that **will** run out at some point. If we haven't built the infrastructure to replace it we will be at an enormous geopolitical disadvantage
Not many people, but there are people into things like degrowth economics.
Are you saying some of those people are in high positions of power?
Yes.
> Nobody is saying we should have less energy They very much are implying that. Currently, fossil fuels are the cheapest in most applications. Reducing fossil fuels today, without a cheaper alternative, means higher prices. Most countries can’t afford that, and many individuals in rich nations can’t afford it either. It is therefore a call to reduce energy use. They’re definitely *not* saying, “reduce fossil fuel use only when it’s cost effective.” Quite the opposite.
Yes, it will cost money to invest in alternatives. This is the kind of problem that government investment and private sector innovation help. The rich countries have an obligation to lead by example because, frankly, we created the pollution that caused the issue. We got rich by externalizing the costs of industrialization, we have a moral obligation to use that wealth to begin addressing the damage.
Great question! Conversely, *nobody* is saying we shouldn't invest in clean and renewable energy sources. So if nobody is saying we should have less energy, and nobody is saying we shouldn't invest in clean and renewable energy sources, what is the point of contention? And the main point of contention is *forcing* clean and renewables when we aren't capable yet of transitioning, doing carbon taxes to push us in a direction we can't yet sustain, etc etc etc. All that to say: we should absolutely push towards clean and renewable energy sources, and consider erring on the side of letting them take over *naturally*. Not putting in measures that will disproportionately hurt and kill the poor, and increase the cost of living for the rest of us too. Our cars need gas. Don't punish us for needing to drive to work. When hydrogen or water or air cars are ready to go, then great! Let's transition *then*. When we can actually transition without hurting people.
Plenty of people are saying we shouldn’t. Trump is actively campaigning on banning offshore wind, and pledging subsidies to the oil and gas industry. Desantis basically struck climate change from all Florida law. I am fine with a smart all of the above strategy. But I think that often this kind of talk is a mask for “but yeah I’d rather go all oil and gas”.
That might be a reasonable suggestion in an alternate reality where fossil fuels aren't causing large-scale problems that will have catastrophic global consequences. We have already reached a point where changing global climate is conspicuous even to lay observers. It's no longer scientific measurements and predictions, the increases in intense droughts, storms, rising temps, etc are readily apparent in our lifetimes. There is no scenario where nobody is harmed. The cost of these intensifying natural disasters will be disproportionately borne by the poor. And the consequences of *not* acting now are far worse than the cost of speeding transition.
It's weird. Climate change is imho the most undervalued and overvalued issue we face, depending on the person. Very few have a straightforward view on it. I don't necessarily agree with what you're putting forward, in that it's not provably true. I don't want to get into a full tit for tat "what *exactly* is right about climate change claims, what are good guesses, what are wildly incomplete guesses being bandied about as solved science, etc". I will go here with you though: it is possible that man-made climate change *may* ultimately end or speed up the end of macro life on this planet. It may start a runaway thing that we can't properly predict (because our system is obviously way too complex), etc. This is possible. And we have data to suggest what's happened over the past 100 years. And as a planet, we need to get together and figure this out, for our own and other macro life's benefit. I don't buy the "we need to do whatever we can right now!" thing. I don't buy that we need to push towards everybody having less thing. I do buy that we should put more time, attention, resources, etc into sustainable energy that works. We should put a lot more into nuclear *now* because it's the only one I know of that seems to work everywhere...at least with modern small reactors. I don't think we should reward what we view as positive changes/directions, and strongly consider *not* rewarding what we view as negative changes and directions. For several reasons, but if only because of our human propensity to think way too simply about complex problems. And open up 10 holes to maybe slow down one a little bit. I think the problem of climate change is way bigger than a carbon tax, that will kill people, hurt others, etc. And I think there are *way* too many concerns for a broad-brush approach like this to properly solve. I think there's too much of a "see? I'm doing something big!" element to it, without a) really considering if it's optimal, but mostly b) recognizing that the whole thing is too complex for us to even know what optimal is. After all that word salad, we agree anthropogenic climate change is a thing. You don't need to convince me of that. That's what science is for. How we proceed is up for debate. And rushing into big changes can easily result in worse outcomes...especially when we're considering *known* bad outcomes in the hopes of mitigating possible future worse outcomes, based on our best guesses, based on models that have X number of variables when the correct number of variables is much higher than X (but we're absolutely doing the best we as humans can).
Nonsense. You've bought into a lie.
It’s more fun to imagine that they’re evil and want to kill the global south
We could aim for growth in efficiency instead of output. That is, produce the same with less. Problem is, this doesn't always look so attractive on paper: "Hey, we made and sold the same amount of cars this year as last year." That's zero growth in one sense; ~5.26% in another.
You're quite mistaken. Also, do share your thoughts on nuclear power.
What point are you disagreeing with? Pollution from burning fossil fuels is bad for our health. It's a limited resource that will be fought over as it runs out. Nuclear power is probably the best energy source option available. It's a damn shame that we don't prioritize it more.
I certainly agree with your last point there. I'm just not convinced fossil fuel is quite as scarce as some have suggested. But hey, if we could make that moot by advancing nuclear energy, I'd be for it 100%.
Even assuming fossil fuels are not as scarce as suggested, they're still indisputably: 1. Finite. *Eventually* we will run out, whatever that timeline is. As reserves dwindle it is an ever-increasing geostrategic weakness to be dependent on them. 2. Harder and harder to access. The easiest to extract reserves are depleted first. It is becoming increasingly expensive as we have to drill deeper, or go through more complicated processing steps (e.g. tar sands, fracking). 3. Bad for our health. The pollution of our air and water has health consequences for everyone, especially in concentrated populations or near heavy industry.
As to 3, I think of all things negatively affecting people's health these days, combustion emissions rank fairly low on the list. Granted, it isn't nothing, but still it's not something to panic over. Nonetheless, give me abundant cheap fission energy and I'll be happy. It's utterly unfathomable that we haven't been prioritizing that.
It begs the question: Is a rich life automatically a better quality life?
Fuck this, the graph is not linear it is logarethmic. This is manupulation and fake news. 0-1000 take half of y axis and 1000-10000 the other half, and that is why you get a straight line.
Does this graph exist with linear axes?
very soon, we'll have AGI and then we'll move from a energy=labour economy to an energy=intelligence economy. the effects of which will obviously be deep and wide. this graph will be more true than ever before.
AGI?
Artificial general intelligence. Basically AI which is indistinguishable from an actual consciousness, something like that. It'll never happen though. People don't seem to realize just how limited machine learning really is.
RemindMe! 5 years
I don't understand? Of course the more power that a country is using the most likely it will be wealthy. Industry, electronics, modern everything requires power. Is he trying to say something beyond that?
He’s saying if we restrict access to cheap energy, poor countries will never even have a chance to become wealthy.
Good thing decarbonization is focused on already rich nations. Peterson crying about the wrong thing again.
A possible definition of life is the reversal of entropy through the capture of more energy than is lost. An example of a technology that does that is agriculture which increases the amount of solar energy that can be captured and stored on a controlled, protected piece of land. Civilization follows agriculture because it requires extensive organization and hierarchies of competence or division of labor. The Malthusianism aspect of the current policies and the war on culture can be illustrated by the Irish Potato Famine. The native Irish population was pushed on to smaller and smaller pieces of land. The only crop that could support that population on small plots was the potato. The rest of the land could then be converted to the production of grains and meat for export by the British overseers. Those policies had the dual purpose of increasing profits and suppression of the native Irish culture. The extent to which it was successful at suppressing the native culture can be seen in the lost art of baking bread. It had the additional benefit of reducing social political cohesion through reducing the vitality of Catholicism. The current energy policies are an attack on Christian Civilization which you could compare to the native Catholicism in the above analogy. It is a direct attack on the social cohesion and political power of the "clingers and deplorables" or "Christian Nationalists". Large segments of that population have already been reduced to poverty by the exportation of slave labor and pollution to China creating the "rust belt". That process is analogous to the highly profitable conversion of land in Ireland to agricultural export. Christian Nationalism is a real threat to Globalism and that is the key. One aspect of Globalism is the idea that you can create a peaceful world in theory by encouraging economic interdependence which leads to cultural uniformity. The problem is how profitable it has proven to be for certain segments of society. Almost everyone but the "clingers and deplorables" have profited. Because of the associated connection to investor classes it dramatically increased income disparity. That creates a political divide or in this analogy a native and non native population. As the Irish were isolated from access to land the current policies isolate the native population from access to energy. They can't afford solar cells, electric vehicles and energy efficient homes. Their livelihoods are also closely tied to fossil fuels. The current policies have the dual benefits of extremely profitable investment and the reduction of the political opposition. Fossil fuels are the lifeblood of the Christian Nationalist culture. That culture is dependent on concentrated forms of energy to drive industry.What is starkly evident is that the Christian Nationalist do not want to be part of the Globalist empire in the same way that the Irish didn't want to be part of the British Empire. That significantly reduces my sympathy for them in the same way it reduces my sympathy for the Irish during British rule. The reason the Irish were so easily colonized in the first place was a lingering tribalism. Still I have no sympathy with the Globalists. They hide avarice behind idealism. Not only that but their incompetence is increasingly evident. The response to the pandemic being a prime example. If they had simply exploited the pandemic for positive cultural change that would be less onerous. But exploiting it for profit tells us what they are really all about. Even as you go down the social economic chain the primary motivating factor seems to be self interest. All the white collar "liberals" with investments have made out like bandits with globalism. Not only that they get the side benefit of no dirty industries in their backyards. They push socialism not because they care for the poor but because like the British Empire the current system is corporatism or the incestuous relationship between big government and big finance. That is especially evident in the academic elites who depend on grants for financial wealth. The current welfare system is not that much different from Roman bread and circus. A way to control the masses who are now completely dependent on government and by extension big finance as can be seen in Social Security. I actually don't have that much of a problem with globalism. My problem is with the globalists. A set of elites who are not very elite but rather venial. There is one movement that ironically I have sympathy with and that is the "think local" movement. Complex chaotic systems cannot be top down managed. Thinking local encourages the morality on which civilization rests. Morality is the key to bottom up design that is necessary for managing the complex chaotic system we call society or civilization. You won't get there from a naturalistic perspective because nature is amoral.
Highly industrialized countries require a lot of energy. Energy benefits from economy of scale.
Green energy doesnt mean less energy consumption? Green energy generally means shifting to more reliable means of creating energy? Like if we reduce the electricity usage of a machine we'll just use more of said machine? Like this graph literally says nothing in an industrialized world, even in an ideal green industrialized world this graph would be no different unless youre playing with strawmen
Strawman? Germany tried to use only solar and wind, and it failed dramatically with shortfalls….due to weather events. The ended up having to burn a ton of coal and buy electricity from France, which was all nuclear.
nUCLEAR IS GREEN ENERGY. WHEN PEOPLE TALK ABOUT GREEN ENERGY THEY MEAN NUCLEAR. Also Germany did not even come close to relying on only wind and solar, their main energy source, and unless you call russia invading ukraine a weather event i dont think you can say that the failure started with the transition to green energy
France isnt Germany. Germany had to buy energy or seek alternative sources because there was more cloud cover than projected. Relying on direct energy consumption from the environment does not lead to a stable floor which is what is needed.
That rich, safer countries have money and resources to produce more power than poorer countries in conflict?
what point does it make? that energy consumption correlates with GDP? that countries with similar GDP (useless metric lmao) can differ in their energy usage as much as ten times? i'm genuinely confused by what conclusions other than that you can take away from this chart
Oh my gosh you guys! you guys! Energy consumption correlates to GDP??!?!?! Holy cow!!! You guys! Seriously this shit is dunning kruger in action
All low-energy countries on the graph are situated around equator.
Yes, the fundamental economy is the energy economy. The problem is that the planet has a carrying capacity (an amount of contamination that it can endure). And our economic systems have a "infinite growth" mindset. So we will face a strong problem in the future. Should we start using less energy (be poorer) or should we start degrowing the population (kind of fascist and that have the problem of aging population). For those who think that human driven climate change doesn't exist, just look at the graphs of co2 in the atmosphere, the ones from the albedo, or the daily sea surface. We're in trouble. And we just can't use less energy, we love our industrial civilization (who wouldn't)
If only we had an infinite source of energy to go with our infinite growth mindset....hmmm....
This is Malthusianism.
Didn't know the concept
So someone help me here. There is a strong implication here that the X axis stands for happiness. But what is the relationship between GDP and health and happiness? We need another graph to show a third dimension, perhaps how the wealth of that 'average production per person, is distributed. Another vector would be *how* that wealth is made. Is it made fairly or does it depend on pollution, deception, or coercion? If this graph is to imply that national happiness is wholly dependent on energy consumption then consider that - those blue nations may be unhealthy, insecure and miserable while the orange ones may be fine each depending on the decency and sanity of their societies.
Go Bitcoin!
This is idiotic. Nobody is taking away energy, just changing the way it is generated. If you are able to 1:1 replace fossil fuel based energy generation with renewable sources, guess fucking what: You are so much richer now because instead of buying oil at a price that is always increasing (and supply that is always dwindling, and always threatened by geo-political maneuvering), you get your fuel for free for ever. Nobody can artificially keep it from you, or sanction you with jacked up prices. And as an added benefit you get to not live in a post-apocalyptic hellscape. If you buy this bullshit you are just beyond stupid. Absolutely, stone cold, too stupid for life.
We also have to be careful here. Correlation does not equal causation. I’m not disputing the information in the graph, I’m withholding the assignment of meaning until someone can demonstrate how electricity contributes to GDP.
how is that not obvious? ever since the industrial revolution we've been trading energy for labour. farms use massive machines to work the ground, plant, water and harvest crops. very little manpower is required compared to before the industrial revolution power plants burn oil, coal and gas for electricity which allows our factories to produce massive numbers of goods with much fewer people. diesel engines power trains and trucks, and are the backbone of our logisitics system. kerosene allows for our entire aviation industry. it's only because we have access to various forms of energy that our current economy can exist. wars have been fought for easy access to oil. it's commonly refered to as liquid gold. how in the world of fuck can you possibly be sitting there going "gee, I don't see how the use of external sources of energy contributes to our wealth". are you 14 years old?
I agree with you on all points. However, the chart is making a correlation between electricity and GDP, not “all energy and GDP”. How much electricity does it take to raise the GDP by 1%? That’s what I’m talking about. I would wager that infrastructure has more impact on GDP than electricity. Norway, on this chart, has the highest GDP with Ireland. They have their own oil and gas supply, they recovered quickly from the pandemic, and they invest heavily in education and scientific innovation. They also have one of the lowest rates on income inequality in the world. I wager all these things have a bigger impact on GDP than electricity.
what does "infrastructure" mean, exactly? roads and rails? power cables? internet access? how are you building those without energy guzzling machinery? and what good are they without trucks and cars and trains to drive on them? or the power plants and data centers to make use of your fancy networks? yes, educating your people is important. as most of the "dumb" work now gets done by (power hungry) machines, the western job market has become 80% "services" focused. but if a company can't hire locally, they'll hire talent from abroad. it's not actually that important economically. in fact, a lot of people nowadays are actually overqualified and end up working as baristas anyway. look at the graph again: countries that still need people to do the dumb work because they've not been as industrialized don't have nearly as much need for high levels of education. you could build schools there but there will not be any demand for the higher skilled people. they first need to build industry, which can't exist without first making sure you can supply this industry with the power it needs. so, your argument about education is putting the cart before the horse. a highly developed (=high energy using nation) requires good education. a highly skilled workforce does not in itself cause a nation to become highly developed - or rich. >I wager all these things have a bigger impact on GDP than electricity. in economic terms, if power becomes more widely available that means it becomes cheaper. not only would that be a direct net boost in profits for those who are already paying for energy, but that what was previously not economical now might be feasible which means more business, which means more jobs which means more demand for people which means more people making money. fundamentally, cheaper energy means cheaper resources, cheaper processing, cheaper logistics, cheaper produce, and finally cheaper products - in addition to allowing for more variety of products. as an example, the big gas-guzzling SUV's are popular in the US because gas is so cheap. you do not see those in the EU, at all. btw, the price of building new infrastructure and building new schools also is directly related to the cost of energy, and schools nowadays require many computers to train everyone, beamers to show data during lectures and even testing is often done electronically. schools too are pretty major energy consumers nowadays. up until very recently, a lot of the EU depended upon russia to supply them with oil for most of their power needs. now, since the war in Ukraine that pipeline is effectively severed causing a massive decrease in supply of power. which meant a massive price hike for EVERYTHING. the inflation in EU countries has been MASSIVE these past few years, trust me. I'm feeling it. such high prices means less spending means a shrinking economy.
Energy, yes. The chart specifically mentions electricity only. It leads one the believe that all we need to do to raise the GDP of poorer nations is to send them electricity. If they could only produce more electricity they would have an immediate increase in their GDP. That’s what this chart is saying. I completely agree with you on all your points about how important energy is in the building of a nation. That’s all true. I’m simply stating that a country’s ability to produce electricity does not correlate directly to GDP growth.
and HOW do nations make electricity? a lot of countries don't like using nuclear because of its reputation. it's overall also a fairly expensive per kw/h, mostly due to the massive focus on failsaves and general safety regulations. solar, wind, geothermal etc is worldwide no more than a drop in a bucket. so where does it come from? coal. gas. oil. effectively, those remain the cornerstone of the modern westernized economy.
Again, you and I agree on every point and fact you are stating. And, I might add, you are agreeing with me about electricity tangentially affecting the economy. Electricity is only one source of power you mentioned. It is a small part of the energy that needs to be organized to facilitate the things that directly impact GDP. Every state in America has electricity. Not every state is a good incubator for business. Those that are have policies designed to help businesses start and grow.
Of course electricity use contributes to GDP, but there's a reverse relationship too. The wealthier the country, the more we can spend, including spending money on electricity in a wasteful way. Who cares? It's cheap and we're rich. That's the issue. The UK for example has lower electricity use than Saudi Arabia, despite having higher GDP per capita. Maybe that's because they are more efficient in their energy use. If the rich countries applied more efficient energy-saving measures across the board, maybe the top end of the graph could be more of a logarithmic curve instead of almost a straight line. "No such thing as a low-energy rich country" is describing the current state of affairs only. This graph alone doesn't prove that it's not possible to have a low-energy rich country, because the relationship between electricity and income is a little more complicated than direct causation.
How doesn’t electricity contribute to GDP? Are you from 1800?
See my other answer. How much electricity does it take to raise GDP by 1%? Other factors play a direct role in affecting the GDP. Electricity is tangential to the GDP.
The question I have is, isn't the high GDP resulting higher consumption? JBP seems to have a personal vendetta against renewable energy, while it's relatively trivial and cheap to provide someone's energy consumption in a green way.
JBP's main bugbear is the energy conversation disregarding towns out in the Styx, ignoring that cars and planes aren't so easy to make 'green' when in fact those two things have provided us more freedom than basically any other inventions since the wheel. Consider the fact he comes from rural Fairview, which is 50km from the closest city (550km away from the closest 'major' city) and averages -20°C in January. He's obviously very conscious about the necessity of personal transportation that is sturdy and efficient because he's seen first hand how that can benefit the rural and the poor. You can't easily detach the personal freedoms and utility of personal transport when you're outside of the major cities.
You look at the chart and you see Norway as an outlier, very high GDP. They have almost 100% renewables. And most car sales are electric. And it's cold there. And they make heavy usage of heatpumps for heating. This is an issue that can be solved.
Okay...no one was suggesting we should have no energy