Economic Growth at the crossroads?

[DBT]

The concept of economic growth (the need for growth) is an issue that is brought up by our political leaders practically on a daily basis.

Well, they are idiots

Of course they are. We can agree on that point.

 

[arkirk]

Well, they are idiots

Of course they are. We can agree on that point.

I think the notion of economic growth itself is not well defined. It usually is some arbitrary measurement of an amorphous mix of products produced. This is usually expressed as the totality of value added to the goods circulating in society and this usually portends (especially with fuels) consumption of non replaceable resources. For instance, the making of metalic products portends increased mining and increased destruction of ecological service commons (usually regarded by miners as "overburden") to gain access to the valuable ore body. But there might just be a better way to measure economic efficiency which simply escapes those who regard nature as man's storehouse of sub surface treasures. That might be to attempt to balance the depletive aspects of human production with restorative ones and count BOTH in the GNP.

What I am speaking of here is the maintenance of the commons. This is truly production of ecological projects that increase nature's capacity to provide the true needs of our species....air to breathe, water to drink, fish to eat, etc. etc. etc. Unfortunately, our economic assessors have hewed to the path only of commercial (for sale) value added production of goods by industrial means. I for one believe that our economy will have to GROW massively in restorative production and we are barely on the cusp of starting this activity as a society. This is one of the reasons we will ultimately forced to have ever increasing intervention by government in the determination of economic activity in the future. Today, the industrial and financial sectors of our economy has captured not only all the monies that should be circulating in our society, but also the definition of the economy itself.

We have in America a massive labor force that has been sequestered from actual participation in the economy. As our environment deteriorates, ecological restorative operations have a smaller and smaller place in our economy and environmental concerns are constantly sidelined and minimized in economic consideration. This is done because the industrial and profit seeking model existing alone does not stand any chance whatever of continuing to grow. I feel there may well be room for both a public sector (much expanded in scope from where it is today) AND a private sector with all of its innovations, but one that pays its dues in maintenance of society and the ecological services upon which all life on earth depends. This private sector must simply accept the changes we must make for the survival not just of any one nation, but for the survival of humanity at large. I feel the human race could make it to the 22nd century if we can only stop hating one another and genuinely seek better lives, and definitely a wider scope of human activity. The man who says categorically, "There will always be war and we will always need warriors," becomes a resistor of necessary human change. We need to back away from this terrible pride in our industrial technologies and analyze these closely and critically. We need to stop fighting each other because humanity as a whole is facing multiple existential threats....mostly of our own making.

 

[DBT]

Good post arkirk

I'm use a fairly standard definition for the term 'economic growth'

Economic Growth
''An increase in the capacity of an economy to produce goods and services, compared from one period of time to another. Economic growth can be measured in nominal terms, which include inflation, or in real terms, which are adjusted for inflation. For comparing one country's economic growth to another, GDP or GNP per capita should be used as these take into account population differences between countries.''

Challenging the Economic Oxymoron
''Economists will complain that growth in GNP is a mixture of quantitative and qualitative increase and therefore not strictly subject to physical laws. They have a point. Precisely because quantitative and qualitative change are very different it is best to keep them separate and call them by the different names already provided in the dictionary. To grow means "to increase naturally in size by the addition of material through assimilation or accretion." To develop means "to expand or realize the potentialities of; to bring gradually to a fuller, greater, or better state." When something grows it gets bigger. When something develops it gets different. The earth ecosystem develops (evolves), but does not grow. Its subsystem, the economy, must eventually stop growing, but can continue to develop.'' (My emphasis)

 

[arkirk]

Good post arkirk

I'm use a fairly standard definition for the term 'economic growth'

Economic Growth
''An increase in the capacity of an economy to produce goods and services, compared from one period of time to another. Economic growth can be measured in nominal terms, which include inflation, or in real terms, which are adjusted for inflation. For comparing one country's economic growth to another, GDP or GNP per capita should be used as these take into account population differences between countries.''

Challenging the Economic Oxymoron
''Economists will complain that growth in GNP is a mixture of quantitative and qualitative increase and therefore not strictly subject to physical laws. They have a point. Precisely because quantitative and qualitative change are very different it is best to keep them separate and call them by the different names already provided in the dictionary. To grow means "to increase naturally in size by the addition of material through assimilation or accretion." To develop means "to expand or realize the potentialities of; to bring gradually to a fuller, greater, or better state." When something grows it gets bigger. When something develops it gets different. The earth ecosystem develops (evolves), but does not grow. Its subsystem, the economy, must eventually stop growing, but can continue to develop.'' (My emphasis)

What I was trying to point out is that the economy can also be described as the work humans do to keep their kind alive. We don't seem to be sharing this goal...keeping humanity alive, well and functional. Well our industrialized sector makes our toasters and our cars and our food, but in doing so, it pollutes and appropriates natural resources to these many differing ends we call production. Our survival as a species however has some requirements the industrial model does not meet and our monetary system is so adjusted as to ignore these needs as an actual part of our economy. There is just a bad balance in our society between restorative technologies and labors and industrialized production. Both forms of production need to be done. Therefore our economy should include these functions and actually be rating itself on them as well as the usual industrial production for profit. What I was getting at is that we should be able to have BOTH industrialized production and restorative production. It need not be a matter of totally dropping one and only practicing the other. If we cannot establish this balance, we will remain an immature dominant species with a very questionable future.

Your post indicates you do see what I am talking about, albeit in different language. One of the reasons I did not use the word develop is because as an environmental activist, I fought "developers" who in reality were galloping consumers of ecosystems without thought of replenishing what they changed and growth was their goal. Landfill fight all the time to "grow." Mining and food production just seem to be de-linked from any need to consider how their actions on the environment create changes that must ultimately be undone. My field was wastewater treatment. The nuances of that business are discouraging to say the least, we always faced the ugly problem of problem transfer,...Clean up the water....send the solids to landfill....dirty the groundwater below the landfill....etc. just one example.

 

[NobleSavage]

Two Stanford PhDs working at Google on their alternative energy program said "It won't work" wrt global warming.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/1...simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

The Register is a little hyped.. The original article is better:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

Google shut down the project and paid these guys to reflect. I remain unconvinced.

 

[DBT]

Your post indicates you do see what I am talking about, albeit in different language. One of the reasons I did not use the word develop is because as an environmental activist, I fought "developers" who in reality were galloping consumers of ecosystems without thought of replenishing what they changed and growth was their goal. Landfill fight all the time to "grow." Mining and food production just seem to be de-linked from any need to consider how their actions on the environment create changes that must ultimately be undone. My field was wastewater treatment. The nuances of that business are discouraging to say the least, we always faced the ugly problem of problem transfer,...Clean up the water....send the solids to landfill....dirty the groundwater below the landfill....etc. just one example.

I agreed with what you said and added my quotes for general interest, it wasn't directed at you. I agree that there are many 'developers' who are ''galloping consumers of ecosystems without thought of replenishing what they changed and growth was their goal.'' They give lavish lip service about how they'll protect the environment if allowed to build their new suburb, resort or casino on 'undeveloped; land, but it's essentially about the money.

 

[barbos]

Two Stanford PhDs working at Google on their alternative energy program said "It won't work" wrt global warming.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/1...simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

The Register is a little hyped.. The original article is better:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

Google shut down the project and paid these guys to reflect. I remain unconvinced.

Yes, original is much better.
They took some specific CO2 doomsday scenario and found out that getting rid of Coal plants will not be enough to prevent it. Don't see much effort on proving that Solar is not good enough to replace the whole thing.

 

[Togo]

Two Stanford PhDs working at Google on their alternative energy program said "It won't work" wrt global warming.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/1...simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

The Register is a little hyped.. The original article is better:

http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change

Google shut down the project and paid these guys to reflect. I remain unconvinced.

Yes, original is much better.
They took some specific CO2 doomsday scenario and found out that getting rid of Coal plants will not be enough to prevent it. Don't see much effort on proving that Solar is not good enough to replace the whole thing.

Their argument is that solar power, although effective, wouldn't be enough by itself. They mention power transmission technologies, an increase in basic research, and alternative turbine and generation techniques, all of which need to go on top of renewables, in order to get the earth back to the carbon levels it used to have.

 

[barbos]

Yes, original is much better.
They took some specific CO2 doomsday scenario and found out that getting rid of Coal plants will not be enough to prevent it. Don't see much effort on proving that Solar is not good enough to replace the whole thing.

Their argument is that solar power, although effective, wouldn't be enough by itself. They mention power transmission technologies, an increase in basic research, and alternative turbine and generation techniques, all of which need to go on top of renewables, in order to get the earth back to the carbon levels it used to have.

Yes, they claim all that. Don't see much of the proof behind these claims.
They have this naive notion that expensive renewable energy will kill "growth" (whatever that is) and make poor even more poor. Of course they exclude environmental costs and define growth as simple function of amount of energy produced. I think you can have growth from having more efficiency

 

[Togo]

Their argument is that solar power, although effective, wouldn't be enough by itself. They mention power transmission technologies, an increase in basic research, and alternative turbine and generation techniques, all of which need to go on top of renewables, in order to get the earth back to the carbon levels it used to have.

Yes, they claim all that. Don't see much of the proof behind these claims.
They have this naive notion that expensive renewable energy will kill "growth" (whatever that is) and make poor even more poor. Of course they exclude environmental costs and define growth as simple function of amount of energy produced. I think you can have growth from having more efficiency

Wait, who have this notion? The article that cites their work may have spun their research in that way, but the original article doesn't say any of that.

 

[NobleSavage]

Yes, original is much better.
They took some specific CO2 doomsday scenario and found out that getting rid of Coal plants will not be enough to prevent it. Don't see much effort on proving that Solar is not good enough to replace the whole thing.

Their argument is that solar power, although effective, wouldn't be enough by itself. They mention power transmission technologies, an increase in basic research, and alternative turbine and generation techniques, all of which need to go on top of renewables, in order to get the earth back to the carbon levels it used to have.

I understand that. I'm not convinced. Anyhow, I'd do straight up nuclear for baseload. Remove the regulation bullshit that takes 20 years to get a reactor working. This would give us a buffer to develop renewables. Give some immunity from lawsuits. We could make a set of universal plans and modular parts. In this instance I don't see the bullshit correlating with safety.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Their argument is that solar power, although effective, wouldn't be enough by itself. They mention power transmission technologies, an increase in basic research, and alternative turbine and generation techniques, all of which need to go on top of renewables, in order to get the earth back to the carbon levels it used to have.

I understand that. I'm not convinced. Anyhow, I'd do straight up nuclear for baseload. Remove the regulation bullshit that takes 20 years to get a reactor working. This would give us a buffer to develop renewables. Give some immunity from lawsuits. We could make a set of universal plans and modular parts. In this instance I don't see the bullshit correlating with safety.

It's not the regulation per se that causes the delays. It's the fact that the system allows opponents to delay and delay and delay--and then they can change their mind and not allow the plant to operate after it's built.

The fix is simple: All paperwork comes *FIRST*. You make your plans, you do the environmental impact study etc. You submit the plans. Once they're approved the state has no say other than if the approved plans aren't being followed.

Likewise, if an inspection is needed the state has a reasonable time window to do it. A delay is deemed approval.

(Note that I would apply this to all such things, not merely nuke plants. I would also impose a reasonable time window to evaluate plans, a failure to act is deemed approval.)

 

[arkirk]

I understand that. I'm not convinced. Anyhow, I'd do straight up nuclear for baseload. Remove the regulation bullshit that takes 20 years to get a reactor working. This would give us a buffer to develop renewables. Give some immunity from lawsuits. We could make a set of universal plans and modular parts. In this instance I don't see the bullshit correlating with safety.

It's not the regulation per se that causes the delays. It's the fact that the system allows opponents to delay and delay and delay--and then they can change their mind and not allow the plant to operate after it's built.

The fix is simple: All paperwork comes *FIRST*. You make your plans, you do the environmental impact study etc. You submit the plans. Once they're approved the state has no say other than if the approved plans aren't being followed.

Likewise, if an inspection is needed the state has a reasonable time window to do it. A delay is deemed approval.

(Note that I would apply this to all such things, not merely nuke plants. I would also impose a reasonable time window to evaluate plans, a failure to act is deemed approval.)

Nukes...you guys ever heard of Fukushima? You ought to visit Japan and go to that location. There's plenty of nuclear material there. Just because we built a fossil fuel house of cards is no reason to jump into the fire with lax rules for nuclear plants that just boil water and pollute and leak constantly. In my estimation, there is no move more unwise than building any more nuclear plants. We are a society that is wallowing in our own chemical waste. Why add nuclear waste to it? Because somebody wants to live a life of ease and have it all powered by nature? Is that a reason? I am not against modern technology. We should abandon this quest for a safe way to boil water with fission reactors. When you find a fatal flaw (waste, leaks, meltdowns, catastrophic failures) it is time to look elsewhere for A BETTER ANSWER. I recommend a DELAY TILL FOREVER for this ridiculously unsafe and polluting technology.

 

[bilby]

It's not the regulation per se that causes the delays. It's the fact that the system allows opponents to delay and delay and delay--and then they can change their mind and not allow the plant to operate after it's built.

The fix is simple: All paperwork comes *FIRST*. You make your plans, you do the environmental impact study etc. You submit the plans. Once they're approved the state has no say other than if the approved plans aren't being followed.

Likewise, if an inspection is needed the state has a reasonable time window to do it. A delay is deemed approval.

(Note that I would apply this to all such things, not merely nuke plants. I would also impose a reasonable time window to evaluate plans, a failure to act is deemed approval.)

Nukes...you guys ever heard of Fukushima? You ought to visit Japan and go to that location. There's plenty of nuclear material there. Just because we built a fossil fuel house of cards is no reason to jump into the fire with lax rules for nuclear plants that just boil water and pollute and leak constantly. In my estimation, there is no move more unwise than building any more nuclear plants. We are a society that is wallowing in our own chemical waste. Why add nuclear waste to it? Because somebody wants to live a life of ease and have it all powered by nature? Is that a reason? I am not against modern technology. We should abandon this quest for a safe way to boil water with fission reactors. When you find a fatal flaw (waste, leaks, meltdowns, catastrophic failures) it is time to look elsewhere for A BETTER ANSWER. I recommend a DELAY TILL FOREVER for this ridiculously unsafe and polluting technology.

You mean the Fukushima where despite a massive earthquake and tsunami, resulting in severe damage to an outdated design of plant, not one single person died or became seriously ill as a result of radiation exposure?

Still, if safety is your big concern, no doubt you are much more vehement in your opposition to the coal, oil, gas, wind, and solar power generation industries?

All of them more deadly than nuclear.

The Piper Alpha gas rig explosion in the North Sea killed more people than all the nuclear power accidents in history. How much lobbying have you done against gas power plants?

Your rant is just mindless propaganda with no knowledge of, nor respect for, the facts. You are bent on imposing your beliefs on the world, just like all the rest of the fundamentalists.

 

[Togo]

You mean the Fukushima where despite a massive earthquake and tsunami, resulting in severe damage to an outdated design of plant, not one single person died or became seriously ill as a result of radiation exposure?

cite please?

All of them more deadly than nuclear.

Why are you talking about deadliness, rather than safety? Is it because you have no evidence nuclear power is safer?

Your rant is just mindless propaganda with no knowledge of, nor respect for, the facts. You are bent on imposing your beliefs on the world, just like all the rest of the fundamentalists.

I'd point out that you're selectively quoting conclusions from a study based on a methodology you know others dispute. That's hardly treating facts with respect.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not the regulation per se that causes the delays. It's the fact that the system allows opponents to delay and delay and delay--and then they can change their mind and not allow the plant to operate after it's built.

The fix is simple: All paperwork comes *FIRST*. You make your plans, you do the environmental impact study etc. You submit the plans. Once they're approved the state has no say other than if the approved plans aren't being followed.

Likewise, if an inspection is needed the state has a reasonable time window to do it. A delay is deemed approval.

(Note that I would apply this to all such things, not merely nuke plants. I would also impose a reasonable time window to evaluate plans, a failure to act is deemed approval.)

Nukes...you guys ever heard of Fukushima? You ought to visit Japan and go to that location. There's plenty of nuclear material there. Just because we built a fossil fuel house of cards is no reason to jump into the fire with lax rules for nuclear plants that just boil water and pollute and leak constantly. In my estimation, there is no move more unwise than building any more nuclear plants. We are a society that is wallowing in our own chemical waste. Why add nuclear waste to it? Because somebody wants to live a life of ease and have it all powered by nature? Is that a reason? I am not against modern technology. We should abandon this quest for a safe way to boil water with fission reactors. When you find a fatal flaw (waste, leaks, meltdowns, catastrophic failures) it is time to look elsewhere for A BETTER ANSWER. I recommend a DELAY TILL FOREVER for this ridiculously unsafe and polluting technology.

Yeah, I've heard of Fukushima. Nowhere near as bad as coal plants despite your nuke hysteria.

And while you're looking for a better answer you'll starve. I would prefer to live.

 

[bilby]

cite please?

... 146 employees and 21 contractors received a dose of more than 100 millisieverts (mSv), the level at which there is an acknowledged slight increase in cancer risk. Six workers received more than the 250 mSv allowed by Japanese law for front-line emergency workers, and two operators in the control rooms for reactor units 3 and 4 received doses above 600 mSv, because they had not taken potassium iodide tablets to help prevent their bodies from absorbing radio*active iodine-131 (see ‘In the zone’). So far, neither operator seems to have suffered ill effects as a result of their exposure.
...
Experts agree that there is unlikely to be a detectable rise in thyroid cancer or leukaemia, the two cancers most likely to result from the accident.

(Source)

And the total of future deaths is likely to be so small as to be undetectable; Maybe zero, maybe not - but certainly far fewer than are caused by typical Coal-fired power plant operations as a matter of course.

Significance
There is a potential risk of human exposure to radiation owing to the March 2011 Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant accident. In this study, we evaluated radiation dose rates from deposited radiocesium in three areas neighboring the restricted and evacuation areas in Fukushima. The mean annual radiation dose rate in 2012 associated with the accident was 0.89–2.51 mSv/y. The mean dose rate estimates in 2022 are comparable with variations of the average 2 mSv/y background radiation exposure from natural radionuclides in Japan. Furthermore, the extra lifetime integrated dose after 2012 is estimated to elevate lifetime risk of cancer incidence by a factor of 1.03 to 1.05 at most, which is unlikely to be epidemiologically detectable.

(Source).

All of them more deadly than nuclear.

Why are you talking about deadliness, rather than safety? Is it because you have no evidence nuclear power is safer?

Deadliness is a fairly easy thing to define. 'Safety' is not - how do you define it? Give me your definition of 'Safety', and I will see what I can find out about the relative risks of Nuclear vs Coal power based on that definition if you like. I am pretty confident that I can find good evidence that Nuclear is safer based on any reasonable definition of the term; but until you tell me what you mean, deadliness makes a pretty good proxy - if someone dies, that's a fairly sure pointer that the situation that killed them was unsafe.

Your rant is just mindless propaganda with no knowledge of, nor respect for, the facts. You are bent on imposing your beliefs on the world, just like all the rest of the fundamentalists.

I'd point out that you're selectively quoting conclusions from a study based on a methodology you know others dispute. That's hardly treating facts with respect.

Until this reply, I quoted nothing from any study. So this accusation is premature to say the least. That's hardly treating facts with respect.

 

[DBT]

I think you can have growth from having more efficiency

But when is enough, enough? People never stop talking in terms of 'it'll kill growth' or 'stifle growth' implying that growth is essential and you must never ever stifle growth. But no matter how efficient we become, growth still entails expanding our business activities. So at some point, with ever expanding human activity, we may find that our environment no longer supports our business activities and our expanding economy with its irrepressible mantra of 'growth.'

 

[Togo]

And the total of future deaths is likely to be so small as to be undetectable; Maybe zero, maybe not - but certainly far fewer than are caused by typical Coal-fired power plant operations as a matter of course.

Against a background of 130,000 people, with a host of cofounding variables, and with no specific means of telling radiation induced cancer from naturally occurring cancer, that's likely to be the case. Note this assumes the success of a government program to decontaminate the area, and the successful screening of fish and other seafood for large amounts of radioactive contamination before consumption.

What you said was that not one person died. What the study you've cited said is that the numbers of people who die are likely to be hard to detect against background deaths. Can you not see the difference between these two statements?

Deadliness is a fairly easy thing to define. 'Safety' is not - how do you define it?

The more usual standard is the morbidity rate. Mortality is generally used by pro-nuclear campaigners for the same reason that it was used by tobacco companies for so long - because it's very hard to drive a causal link between a given death and radiation exposure, just as it's hard to forge a link between a given death and smoking.

Your rant is just mindless propaganda with no knowledge of, nor respect for, the facts. You are bent on imposing your beliefs on the world, just like all the rest of the fundamentalists.

I'd point out that you're selectively quoting conclusions from a study based on a methodology you know others dispute. That's hardly treating facts with respect.

Until this reply, I quoted nothing from any study.

Your conclusion is not based on a scientific study? What is it based on then?

The last time we discussed this topic people were citing a study that claimed to add up the deaths from coal extraction transport and consumption, compared them to those for nuclear extraction transport and consumption, and concluded that coal killed more people. Do you have different evidence now?

 

[bilby]

Against a background of 130,000 people, with a host of cofounding variables, and with no specific means of telling radiation induced cancer from naturally occurring cancer, that's likely to be the case. Note this assumes the success of a government program to decontaminate the area, and the successful screening of fish and other seafood for large amounts of radioactive contamination before consumption.

What you said was that not one person died. What the study you've cited said is that the numbers of people who die are likely to be hard to detect against background deaths. Can you not see the difference between these two statements?

Deadliness is a fairly easy thing to define. 'Safety' is not - how do you define it?

The more usual standard is the morbidity rate. Mortality is generally used by pro-nuclear campaigners for the same reason that it was used by tobacco companies for so long - because it's very hard to drive a causal link between a given death and radiation exposure, just as it's hard to forge a link between a given death and smoking.

Your rant is just mindless propaganda with no knowledge of, nor respect for, the facts. You are bent on imposing your beliefs on the world, just like all the rest of the fundamentalists.

I'd point out that you're selectively quoting conclusions from a study based on a methodology you know others dispute. That's hardly treating facts with respect.

Until this reply, I quoted nothing from any study.

Your conclusion is not based on a scientific study?

I didn't say it wasn't based on a study (or studies). I said that you were premature to talk about me 'selectively quoting' a study when I had yet to make a reference to (much less quote from) any such thing.

What is it based on then?

The last time we discussed this topic people were citing a study that claimed to add up the deaths from coal extraction transport and consumption, compared them to those for nuclear extraction transport and consumption, and concluded that coal killed more people. Do you have different evidence now?

Well I fail to see how I need different evidence if you accept that the lifecycle mortality rate for coal is vastly higher than for nuclear.

Unless you have some evidence that massive discrepancies - two or three orders of magnitude - in mortality are completely reversed in the morbidity statistics.

It is a rare (to the point of non existence) industry that produces millions of incapacities, and yet only dozens of deaths. Do you have any evidence that the nuclear power industry is such a rarity?

Regardless, I have used unrelated studies to back my current argument; referring to previous arguments which you might want to believe have less force is dodging the issue.

Nuclear power isn't safe. But it is not demonstrably less safe than the alternatives - quite the reverse.

It is certainly better than coal, in terms of the risk posed to humanity; and when taking into account AGW, it suddenly becomes not only better, but far better.

I would love to see solar, wind and tidal as our only sources of power - as long as they can produce reliable, cheap, and always available power.

But they can't (yet), so today's choice is coal or nuclear. Nuclear is far better on every measure except public trust. And the public are as wrong about their distrust of nuclear power as they are about their distrust of Romanian immigrants, flouridated water, and the CIA involvement in 9-11.