bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
Locked
12
12
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
 
|
Robert,
As to "which 2nd law"? I guess I try to be consistent in allowing people their regular meanings for their own terms while also trying to connect those meanings to others that come from other perspectives. I don't mind being called on the ambiguities at all. Some people think nothing is real unless it can be defined and other people think nothing is real unless it can't be defined. These both make perfect sense to me, referring to different meanings of 'real'. The first meaning of 'real' as 'well defined' means 'part of a language' and the second meaning of 'real' as 'needing to be undefined' means 'part of the physical world'. I think this is a fascinating dichotomy, and especially curious that our normal way of speaking uses the exact same terms to refer to both meanings, (like the word 'apple'), though our references are usually distinct (to either the thing or the idea). I guess the '2nd law' I refer to beyond the world of precise mathematical definitions may well originate with my dad's very skillful explanation and demonstrations of physical properties that I thoroughly enjoyed from age 1 on. I didn't learn the theory part till high school. My dad was a college physics prof. who was a true master of the lab demonstration method of teaching, which of course modern teachers have tried to replace with theory, the whole theory and nothing but the theory. I suspect it's my very clear perception, that the theories are failing to communicate huge parts of what they mean in the physical world, that partly motivated my expanding on explanatory principles for 'indefinable' physical things from ones for definable ones. One thing I do more than others is use my models to study the data that does not fit them. Its one of the most curious aspects of physics that the theory of physics actually never refers to any physical thing, but only to idealized relationships between measures. There are dozens of ways to show that there is really a very large difference between the idealized model of physics and the ordinary things of experience, like, well, all individual events. Physics describes a statistical world, not an actual world, and all actual events progress differently than described by physics. That doesn't mean the explanatory principles of physical wouldn't apply to 'undefined' physical events, just that we haven't learned how. Great useful explanatory principles like the 2nd law of thermodynamics get short shrift as a consequence. The conservation laws too. I think if we were able to show that our global warming strategy violates the 2nd law as expressed in physical systems in general, we'll save 50 years of pursuing a demanding strategy that, as planned, is sure to fail. Preventing the greater disruptions of global warming is important to do, of course, but partly to give us time to fix the real source of the problem that is actually fixable. The present plan is go to all that trouble in order to perpetuate the underlying problem. It's all ridiculous, of course, except that continually doubling the real size of the world economy every 20 years, forever, if you count real physical things anyway, is infinitely more ridiculous!! :-) Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:42 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes On 4/29/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote: <snip> Thus it would still appear to me that the plan for fixing global warming violates the 2nd law, ... Which 2nd law, Phil? Not the one generally recognised by the scientific community, as discussed earlier. It rather reminds me of scene in "Through the Looking Glass" where Alice meets Humpty Dumpty: ...There's glory for you!' [said Humpty Dumpty] `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected. `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' Sound familiar? R -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070430/d83545b2/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> I think it overlooks that we have a finite earth and an infinite expectation for exploiting it. I don't have those expectations. You are proven wrong! Going back to the prisoners dilemma, it is hard to know how to rationally set expectations when the worst defectors of all can be found at the top... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/hotpolitics/reports/suppressed.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
Humpty,
OK, I give up. Even though I may agree with your conclusions (yup, doubling the world economy ever couple of decades is probably not a good thing) I can't find any scientific validity in the arguments you use to get there. Real science does not give equal weight to your version of the second law as it does to Clausius's, no matter how much you may want it to. Your constant redefinitions of scientific terms to mean something you want them to mean rather than what they mean for everyone else makes conversations bizarre and frustrating. Robert On 4/30/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote: > > Robert, > > As to "which 2nd law"? I guess I try to be consistent in allowing people > their regular meanings for their own terms while also trying to connect > those meanings to others that come from other perspectives. I don't mind > being called on the ambiguities at all. Some people think nothing is real > unless it can be defined and other people think nothing is real unless it > can't be defined. These both make perfect sense to me, referring to > different meanings of 'real'. The first meaning of 'real' as 'well > defined' means 'part of a language' and the second meaning of 'real' as > 'needing to be undefined' means 'part of the physical world'. I think this > is a fascinating dichotomy, and especially curious that our normal way of > speaking uses the exact same terms to refer to both meanings, (like the word > 'apple'), though our references are usually distinct (to either the thing or > the idea). > > I guess the '2nd law' I refer to beyond the world of precise mathematical > definitions may well originate with my dad's very skillful explanation and > demonstrations of physical properties that I thoroughly enjoyed from age 1 > on. I didn't learn the theory part till high school. My dad was a college > physics prof. who was a true master of the lab demonstration method of > teaching, which of course modern teachers have tried to replace with theory, > the whole theory and nothing but the theory. I suspect it's my very clear > perception, that the theories are failing to communicate huge parts of what > they mean in the physical world, that partly motivated my expanding on > explanatory principles for 'indefinable' physical things from ones for > definable ones. One thing I do more than others is use my models to study > the data that does not fit them. > > Its one of the most curious aspects of physics that the theory of physics > actually never refers to any physical thing, but only to idealized > relationships between measures. There are dozens of ways to show that > there is really a very large difference between the idealized model of > physics and the ordinary things of experience, like, well, all individual > events. Physics describes a statistical world, not an actual world, and > all actual events progress differently than described by physics. That > doesn't mean the explanatory principles of physical wouldn't apply > to 'undefined' physical events, just that we haven't learned how. Great > useful explanatory principles like the 2nd law of thermodynamics get short > shrift as a consequence. The conservation laws too. > > I think if we were able to show that our global warming strategy violates > the 2nd law as expressed in physical systems in general, we'll save 50 years > of pursuing a demanding strategy that, as planned, is sure to > fail. Preventing the greater disruptions of global warming is important to > do, of course, but partly to give us time to fix the real source of the > problem that is actually fixable. The present plan is go to all that > trouble in order to perpetuate the underlying problem. > > It's all ridiculous, of course, except that continually doubling the real > size of the world economy every 20 years, forever, if you count real > physical things anyway, is infinitely more ridiculous!! :-) > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On > Behalf Of *Robert Holmes > *Sent:* Monday, April 30, 2007 4:42 PM > *To:* The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > On 4/29/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > Thus it would still appear to me that the plan for fixing global warming > > violates the 2nd law, ... > > > > Which 2nd law, Phil? Not the one generally recognised by the scientific > community, as discussed earlier. It rather reminds me of scene in "Through > the Looking Glass" where Alice meets Humpty Dumpty: > ...There's glory for you!' [said Humpty Dumpty] > `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. > Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell > you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' > `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected. > `When *I* use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it > means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' > > Sound familiar? > > R > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070430/1e6fa090/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
|
|
Yes, well that brings up one of the other interesting things my dad
taught me... :-) People are really really stubborn. When I started explaining to him the details of how you could draw reliable explanatory principles while referring to physical things rather than mathematical constructs based on measures he gave up in emphatic exasperation, saying, "Everything you say is true Phil, it's, just, not, physics!!". Look, it's not up to me to get anyone to admit that physics exists in a real world. That's up to you. The evidence is pretty clear that we need to figure out the connection somehow though. The evidence is very strong that the aggregate global efficiency of economic processes [DOE figures -http://www.synapse9.com/issues/GroEfficiency40.ppt] is improving as one would expect if there were something like the 2nd law operating (i.e. reducing waste by a decay curve not tending toward zero), and that that pattern is consistent with all personal experience, that resource exploitation ending in successively improving efficiency follows the same developmental 'bump on a curve' starting with easier steps and ending with waste reduction following the same decay curve that does not tend to zero. It's quite validly demonstrated by the productivity of cleaning your plate after a meal. Licking your plate after scraping up the food with utensils with increasing effort and getting diminishing returns, is a very productive last little refinement for getting all there is, and still leaves some behind. Licking a plate again and again, or after someone else has already licked it, though, is not productive. You're still wondering whether any true thing can be said about anything that is not well defined mathematically. That's a real hurdle. How about trying an example of some statement or principle or behavior or anything that seems to suggest the physical world is not constrained by natural limits? Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 12:46 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes Humpty, OK, I give up. Even though I may agree with your conclusions (yup, doubling the world economy ever couple of decades is probably not a good thing) I can't find any scientific validity in the arguments you use to get there. Real science does not give equal weight to your version of the second law as it does to Clausius's, no matter how much you may want it to. Your constant redefinitions of scientific terms to mean something you want them to mean rather than what they mean for everyone else makes conversations bizarre and frustrating. Robert On 4/30/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote: Robert, As to "which 2nd law"? I guess I try to be consistent in allowing people their regular meanings for their own terms while also trying to connect those meanings to others that come from other perspectives. I don't mind being called on the ambiguities at all. Some people think nothing is real unless it can be defined and other people think nothing is real unless it can't be defined. These both make perfect sense to me, referring to different meanings of 'real'. The first meaning of 'real' as 'well defined' means 'part of a language' and the second meaning of 'real' as 'needing to be undefined' means 'part of the physical world'. I think this is a fascinating dichotomy, and especially curious that our normal way of speaking uses the exact same terms to refer to both meanings, (like the word 'apple'), though our references are usually distinct (to either the thing or the idea). I guess the '2nd law' I refer to beyond the world of precise mathematical definitions may well originate with my dad's very skillful explanation and demonstrations of physical properties that I thoroughly enjoyed from age 1 on. I didn't learn the theory part till high school. My dad was a college physics prof. who was a true master of the lab demonstration method of teaching, which of course modern teachers have tried to replace with theory, the whole theory and nothing but the theory. I suspect it's my very clear perception, that the theories are failing to communicate huge parts of what they mean in the physical world, that partly motivated my expanding on explanatory principles for 'indefinable' physical things from ones for definable ones. One thing I do more than others is use my models to study the data that does not fit them. Its one of the most curious aspects of physics that the theory of physics actually never refers to any physical thing, but only to idealized relationships between measures. There are dozens of ways to show that there is really a very large difference between the idealized model of physics and the ordinary things of experience, like, well, all individual events. Physics describes a statistical world, not an actual world, and all actual events progress differently than described by physics. That doesn't mean the explanatory principles of physical wouldn't apply to 'undefined' physical events, just that we haven't learned how. Great useful explanatory principles like the 2nd law of thermodynamics get short shrift as a consequence. The conservation laws too. I think if we were able to show that our global warming strategy violates the 2nd law as expressed in physical systems in general, we'll save 50 years of pursuing a demanding strategy that, as planned, is sure to fail. Preventing the greater disruptions of global warming is important to do, of course, but partly to give us time to fix the real source of the problem that is actually fixable. The present plan is go to all that trouble in order to perpetuate the underlying problem. It's all ridiculous, of course, except that continually doubling the real size of the world economy every 20 years, forever, if you count real physical things anyway, is infinitely more ridiculous!! :-) Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto: <mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com> friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:42 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes On 4/29/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote: <snip> Thus it would still appear to me that the plan for fixing global warming violates the 2nd law, ... Which 2nd law, Phil? Not the one generally recognised by the scientific community, as discussed earlier. It rather reminds me of scene in "Through the Looking Glass" where Alice meets Humpty Dumpty: ...There's glory for you!' [said Humpty Dumpty] `I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said. Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"' `But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected. `When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' Sound familiar? R ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070501/7e88d0be/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> Well, as an alternate to the CO2 game solution we could create a > virtual China and pay it the estimated real cost to the earth of > China's products and only pay the real China the price they'd > accept. Then we could use the money (essentially the blood money for > China's environmental exploitation) to pay smart guys like you and me > to think of great things to do with the money! ...well I suppose > some better use should be proposed before anyone votes on it.. but you > would clearly begin to have "the full cost of [the] demand reflected > in [the] supply". > rest of the world wants. When these resources were spread out more to the rest of the world, we didn't notice them as much. Now that they're consolidated more in fast-growing China, we blame China for it and want her to pay. Regarding China and India being exempt from Kyoto (mentioned elsewhere), that loophole was fixed in February's Washington Declaration to supercede Kyoto (which came with the odd curiosity of George Bush officially accepting that man-made global warming is a real issue, even while undermining the issue on most other fronts). > China's sudden wealth is based largely on their finding a way to break > in on someone else's business world and not follow a lot of the > unwritten standards (common practices and expectations) and catching > that host world quite off guard. China's sudden wealth is based largely on providing better goods at much lower cost, a common recipe for business success for thousands of years, and it's hard to see how anyone can be caught offguard, it's been in all the papers. That the host world frequently makes much more money off this arrangement (from a $20 Barbie, 35 cents stays in China) should not be a surprise, and that the host countries invariably complain about a deal that heavily tilts in their favor is also pretty common. In the old days we'd send a gunship up the Pearl River to demand satisfaction. Not sure what we'll do now, though will probably involve more self-defeating Congressional tax legislation. > We're paying a very heavy cost as a result, because its our demand for > cheap goods causing the imbalance. It's not just job loss and a > serious looming environmental dilemma, but I think we're also giving > away enough equity to finance our trade imbalance to mortgage an > entire state a year, or something on that order. There's not end in > sight to that at all it seems, except that the press is tired of > talking about it. Talk about resource depletion! > > The broader idea I had in using that phrasing was that the full price > of what we buy is often hidden from the buyer (like throwing the world > out of balance). One of the things the price mechanism is horrible at > reflecting is future costs and consequences. If we were to do > something about the few select distortions of the price mechanism that > could be identified with some confidence, and bias the markets for > them, it would be called 'steering'. approach taken. In this case we can turn Marx on his head by punishing uppity backwards countries that compete with us by using state sponsored socialism to put them back in their place. "Reducing consumption" as mentioned elsewhere is not a palative for our ills by itself either - it can buy us some time on some problems (global warming) and do next to nil on other problems (fossil fuel supply in the long run), but if seen as an output of a real program of hyper-increase in efficiency through improved technology, alternate sources, improved consumption patterns, etc. can help. Of course part of the reason China is using more resources is that she's gotten much more efficient so we can afford more and more of her goods for a song. If someone wants to be more balanced on these issues, they might take a look to see how much money China is pouring into environmental measures and analyze how much progress they've made. And I've yet to see any other country in the world show the voluntary self-control the Chinese have with their birth control program. Of course Mao exacerbated the populaton problem in the first place, but China's since taken the tough road. Perhaps Turkey's modernization program under Ataturk might be comparable. > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com <mailto:pfh at synapse9.com> > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert Howard > *Sent:* Monday, April 30, 2007 6:37 PM > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - > Electron Symmetry > > REFERRING TO: > > * Nah, first put the screws to ourselves, and if necessary the > rest of the hemisphere. > > > > Here's the argument as I understand it: > > "We have invented a game called Carbon Offsets. But to be > effective, it really requires everyone's cooperation. > Unfortunately, we can't get them to play. They just don't get it! > Here, I'm referring to us being the USA and they being China, and > the game is something like the Kyoto Protocol, which China and > India are exempt from many of the rules. Fortunately, we can get > them to play by setting a good example. The USA should TIT first > in hopes that they TAT back. Since we believe so strongly in our > convictions that our proposed rules of play should be followed by > all players cooperatively, we can entice China to play by merely > playing solitaire first. They will ultimately like the outcome of > our game so much that they will beg us to let them play too." > > > > Well, if that's true, then it should also be true for a finer > resolution, such as those US citizens that believe in the game > versus those that haven't quite made the leap of faith. So I > propose that we politically self-partition of our population. > Those US citizens that wish play register online with the > government. Next, we create a big government regulatory department > of lawyers that enforce _just those_ that have registered to be > measured for their carbon output and to buy carbon offset > certificates. In time, the other citizens will eventually register > too. And this will cascade up to include the entire Earth's > population. Those that saw the light early have proof that they > were smarter, and are entitled to the bragging rights that they > helped make the world a better place or everyone. > > > > But if the argument turns out to be wrong, and the game is just > another utopian ideal (i.e. a system in which a few defectors can > spoil the whole lot and which must spend enormous amounts of > energy suppressing them) then at least the adverse effects > generated by those that improperly "put the screws on themselves" > are confined to just them---truly a sincere hedging of risk. > > > > Also Phil, could you clarify what you meant by "The global > solution is to have the full cost of demand reflected in supply". > Assuming I understand it right, doesn't the distributed price > system do that already? > > > > Robert Howard > Phoenix, Arizona > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > *From:* friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Phil Henshaw > *Sent:* Monday, April 30, 2007 4:34 AM > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - > Electron Symmetry > > > > There's some humor in this of course... black market money does at > least travel in real suite cases, and black market electrons do > look quite alike on the common carrier, but electrons all have > lawyers to solve that sort of thing don't they??? > > ______ > > > > The dilemma that conservation (by one group) actually stimulates > waste (by another group) is the way I like to frame the core > problem, I have just never understood why people advocate > personal restraint in resource use, like water, as a response to > overwhelming societal waste of the same resource. Sure, it's > hard to pull together any whole system problem statement or model > for response, but just ignoring the difference seems to be most > everyone's favorite solution. > > > > ______ > > > > The global solution is to have the full cost of demand reflected > in supply... and not surprisingly, that requires some systems > thinking we haven't done yet. > > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > NY NY 10040 > tel: 212-795-4844 > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com <mailto:pfh at synapse9.com> > explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] *On Behalf Of *Robert Howard > *Sent:* Sunday, April 29, 2007 4:56 PM > *To:* 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > *Subject:* Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - > Electron Symmetry > > Here are some problems with carbon offsets I never hear in > debates: > > o Electrons cross both state and country borders. > There's a whole "futures" industry on buying electricity for > speculative market demand. For example, California in 2000 > <http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3062&sequence=0>. > > o All electrons look the same. It's impossible to look > at an electron on the grid and say, hey, that electron came > from a coal fired plant in Russia and that one came from solar > cells in Tucson. We have the same problem with shady black > markets that move tons of cash. At least cash comes in > suitcases owned by people and moves far slower than the speed > of light. And, since the grid uses alternating current, > electrons really only move about most 3000 miles before they > make a 180 turn round trip back to where they started from. > It's the electromagnetic field that crosses borders. > > If we raise the price of "our" electricity through carbon > offsets, then up goes the demand of some other defecting > country's coal-produced force field. They'd make much more off > the market differential than any CO2 subsidy they'd get after > the administration took its share. This recursively works for > all products that depend on electricity, such as aluminum > cans, airplanes, and vacations. Right now, the US can produce > petroleum-driven electricity far cleaner, cheaper and > efficiently than any third-world country. If the goal is > "clean", wouldn't we rather get our electricity from us than them? > > > > Robert Howard > > Phoenix, Arizona > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw > Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:54 AM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > > > Or somewhat equivalently, getting us to pay carbon taxes on > what we > > consume... To do that we'd need some way guess the carbon > content (and > > other earth insults) for products the manufacturer didn't provide > > verifiable data for... and just as necessary, some believable > plan for > > using the money collected. *But* that too would still provide > only > > temporary relief!! The co2/$ ratio for total economic product > (economic > > efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and > not toward > > zero (real 2nd law). > > > > > > Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > > 680 Ft. Washington Ave > > NY NY 10040 > > tel: 212-795-4844 > > e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com > > explorations: www.synapse9.com > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Howard > > > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:23 PM > > > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > > > > > > > > Now, if we can just get those Chinese to pay carbon taxes, we > > > might be able to compete. :-) > > > > > > Robert Howard > > > Phoenix, Arizona > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > > > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > > > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:03 PM > > > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > > > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > > > > > phil henshaw wrote: > > > > The consensus response to global warming relies on reducing the > > > > impacts of economic growth by improving the efficiency of > economic > > > > growth! > > > So we need a lot more clean power, and we need it fast. > > > Time to spend > > > some money on figuring out how to do it! > > > Without efficiency gains, it's estimated 10 TW are needed > globally by > > > 2025. [1] > > > The ITER/DEMO fusion reactor only promises net 1.5 GW by 2045 > > > [2], and > > > the largest hydroelectric facilities (Three Gorges Dam in > > > China) are at > > > about 22 GW [3]. There's not enough high-grade silicon for > > > dozens of > > > square miles of conventional photovoltaic solar [4]. > Meanwhile, China > > > builds a new coal fired planed every week [5] and apparently > can keep > > > doing that for 100 years [6]. > > > > > > Seems to me any cost imbalance of solar, etc. is easily > fixable by > > > taxing the hell out of CO2 energy emissions while subsidizing > the > > > development of new solar, fusion, carbon sequestration > > > technology (etc). > > > > > > [1] > http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/rajan/Gupta_energy_for_all_2007.pdf > > > [2] http://fire.pppl.gov/isfnt7_maisonnier.pdf > > > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam > > > [4] > http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e50784ea-78cb-11db-8743-0000779e2340.html > > > [5] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html > > > [6] > > > http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friend> > > ly_article.aspx?id=17963 > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ============================================================ > > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070501/048b0b4d/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
Bill, I think we're mostly using different ways of saying much the same
thing. What I see as the difference between 'punitive tariffs' and 'steering' is how well you can see the 'road ahead'. Lots of people think there is no road, and that the usual effort to change directions only after we've run into a ditch has nothing to do prior choices. I think we mainly need to learn how to separate observation from fantasy. I'm really delighted the subject of 'real categories', as contrasted to abstract ones, has come up here, since learning rigor with undefinables is absolutely key. No doubt we seem to have a ways to go! Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Bill Eldridge Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 8:30 AM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry Phil Henshaw wrote: Well, as an alternate to the CO2 game solution we could create a virtual China and pay it the estimated real cost to the earth of China's products and only pay the real China the price they'd accept. Then we could use the money (essentially the blood money for China's environmental exploitation) to pay smart guys like you and me to think of great things to do with the money! ...well I suppose some better use should be proposed before anyone votes on it.. but you would clearly begin to have "the full cost of [the] demand reflected in [the] supply". Much of China's "consumption" is the resources used to make what the rest of the world wants. When these resources were spread out more to the rest of the world, we didn't notice them as much. Now that they're consolidated more in fast-growing China, we blame China for it and want her to pay. Regarding China and India being exempt from Kyoto (mentioned elsewhere), that loophole was fixed in February's Washington Declaration to supercede Kyoto (which came with the odd curiosity of George Bush officially accepting that man-made global warming is a real issue, even while undermining the issue on most other fronts). China's sudden wealth is based largely on their finding a way to break in on someone else's business world and not follow a lot of the unwritten standards (common practices and expectations) and catching that host world quite off guard. China's sudden wealth is based largely on providing better goods at much lower cost, a common recipe for business success for thousands of years, and it's hard to see how anyone can be caught offguard, it's been in all the papers. That the host world frequently makes much more money off this arrangement (from a $20 Barbie, 35 cents stays in China) should not be a surprise, and that the host countries invariably complain about a deal that heavily tilts in their favor is also pretty common. In the old days we'd send a gunship up the Pearl River to demand satisfaction. Not sure what we'll do now, though will probably involve more self-defeating Congressional tax legislation. We're paying a very heavy cost as a result, because its our demand for cheap goods causing the imbalance. It's not just job loss and a serious looming environmental dilemma, but I think we're also giving away enough equity to finance our trade imbalance to mortgage an entire state a year, or something on that order. There's not end in sight to that at all it seems, except that the press is tired of talking about it. Talk about resource depletion! The broader idea I had in using that phrasing was that the full price of what we buy is often hidden from the buyer (like throwing the world out of balance). One of the things the price mechanism is horrible at reflecting is future costs and consequences. If we were to do something about the few select distortions of the price mechanism that could be identified with some confidence, and bias the markets for them, it would be called 'steering'. Or "Centralized planning" or "punitive tariffs", depending on the approach taken. In this case we can turn Marx on his head by punishing uppity backwards countries that compete with us by using state sponsored socialism to put them back in their place. "Reducing consumption" as mentioned elsewhere is not a palative for our ills by itself either - it can buy us some time on some problems (global warming) and do next to nil on other problems (fossil fuel supply in the long run), but if seen as an output of a real program of hyper-increase in efficiency through improved technology, alternate sources, improved consumption patterns, etc. can help. Of course part of the reason China is using more resources is that she's gotten much more efficient so we can afford more and more of her goods for a song. If someone wants to be more balanced on these issues, they might take a look to see how much money China is pouring into environmental measures and analyze how much progress they've made. And I've yet to see any other country in the world show the voluntary self-control the Chinese have with their birth control program. Of course Mao exacerbated the populaton problem in the first place, but China's since taken the tough road. Perhaps Turkey's modernization program under Ataturk might be comparable. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Howard Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 6:37 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry REFERRING TO: * Nah, first put the screws to ourselves, and if necessary the rest of the hemisphere. Here?s the argument as I understand it: ?We have invented a game called Carbon Offsets. But to be effective, it really requires everyone?s cooperation. Unfortunately, we can?t get them to play. They just don?t get it! Here, I?m referring to us being the USA and they being China, and the game is something like the Kyoto Protocol, which China and India are exempt from many of the rules. Fortunately, we can get them to play by setting a good example. The USA should TIT first in hopes that they TAT back. Since we believe so strongly in our convictions that our proposed rules of play should be followed by all players cooperatively, we can entice China to play by merely playing solitaire first. They will ultimately like the outcome of our game so much that they will beg us to let them play too.? Well, if that?s true, then it should also be true for a finer resolution, such as those US citizens that believe in the game versus those that haven?t quite made the leap of faith. So I propose that we politically self-partition of our population. Those US citizens that wish play register online with the government. Next, we create a big government regulatory department of lawyers that enforce just those that have registered to be measured for their carbon output and to buy carbon offset certificates. In time, the other citizens will eventually register too. And this will cascade up to include the entire Earth?s population. Those that saw the light early have proof that they were smarter, and are entitled to the bragging rights that they helped make the world a better place or everyone. But if the argument turns out to be wrong, and the game is just another utopian ideal (i.e. a system in which a few defectors can spoil the whole lot and which must spend enormous amounts of energy suppressing them) then at least the adverse effects generated by those that improperly ?put the screws on themselves? are confined to just them?truly a sincere hedging of risk. Also Phil, could you clarify what you meant by ?The global solution is to have the full cost of demand reflected in supply?. Assuming I understand it right, doesn?t the distributed price system do that already? Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona _____ From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:34 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry There's some humor in this of course... black market money does at least travel in real suite cases, and black market electrons do look quite alike on the common carrier, but electrons all have lawyers to solve that sort of thing don't they??? ______ The dilemma that conservation (by one group) actually stimulates waste (by another group) is the way I like to frame the core problem, I have just never understood why people advocate personal restraint in resource use, like water, as a response to overwhelming societal waste of the same resource. Sure, it's hard to pull together any whole system problem statement or model for response, but just ignoring the difference seems to be most everyone's favorite solution. ______ The global solution is to have the full cost of demand reflected in supply... and not surprisingly, that requires some systems thinking we haven't done yet. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Howard Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 4:56 PM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry Here are some problems with carbon offsets I never hear in debates: o Electrons cross both state and country borders. There?s a whole ?futures? industry on buying electricity for speculative market demand. For example, California in 2000 <http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3062&sequence=0> . o All electrons look the same. It?s impossible to look at an electron on the grid and say, hey, that electron came from a coal fired plant in Russia and that one came from solar cells in Tucson. We have the same problem with shady black markets that move tons of cash. At least cash comes in suitcases owned by people and moves far slower than the speed of light. And, since the grid uses alternating current, electrons really only move about most 3000 miles before they make a 180 turn round trip back to where they started from. It?s the electromagnetic field that crosses borders. If we raise the price of ?our? electricity through carbon offsets, then up goes the demand of some other defecting country?s coal-produced force field. They?d make much more off the market differential than any CO2 subsidy they?d get after the administration took its share. This recursively works for all products that depend on electricity, such as aluminum cans, airplanes, and vacations. Right now, the US can produce petroleum-driven electricity far cleaner, cheaper and efficiently than any third-world country. If the goal is ?clean?, wouldn?t we rather get our electricity from us than them? Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Phil Henshaw Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:54 AM To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes Or somewhat equivalently, getting us to pay carbon taxes on what we consume... To do that we'd need some way guess the carbon content (and other earth insults) for products the manufacturer didn't provide verifiable data for... and just as necessary, some believable plan for using the money collected. *But* that too would still provide only temporary relief!! The co2/$ ratio for total economic product (economic efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and not toward zero (real 2nd law). Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Howard > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:23 PM > To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > > Now, if we can just get those Chinese to pay carbon taxes, we > might be able to compete. :-) > > Robert Howard > Phoenix, Arizona > > > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:03 PM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes > > phil henshaw wrote: > > The consensus response to global warming relies on reducing the > > impacts of economic growth by improving the efficiency of economic > > growth! > So we need a lot more clean power, and we need it fast. > Time to spend > some money on figuring out how to do it! > Without efficiency gains, it's estimated 10 TW are needed globally by > 2025. [1] > The ITER/DEMO fusion reactor only promises net 1.5 GW by 2045 > [2], and > the largest hydroelectric facilities (Three Gorges Dam in > China) are at > about 22 GW [3]. There's not enough high-grade silicon for > dozens of > square miles of conventional photovoltaic solar [4]. Meanwhile, China > builds a new coal fired planed every week [5] and apparently can keep > doing that for 100 years [6]. > > Seems to me any cost imbalance of solar, etc. is easily fixable by > taxing the hell out of CO2 energy emissions while subsidizing the > development of new solar, fusion, carbon sequestration > technology (etc). > > [1] http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/rajan/Gupta_energy_for_all_2007.pdf > [2] http://fire.pppl.gov/isfnt7_maisonnier.pdf > [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam > [4] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e50784ea-78cb-11db-8743-0000779e2340.html > [5] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html > [6] > http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friend> ly_article.aspx?id=17963 > > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org _____ ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070501/cfb4caf5/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Holmes
Maybe the better approach is to look closely at the Clausius statement
of the 2nd law, and see what breadth of application has been ordinarily accepted as consistent with it. It refers to an 'isolated system'. No isolated systems actually exist but the principle is readily applied to physical systems that are both nearly isolated, and various, particularly thermal, equilibriums that are entirely unisolated. I think the reason 'isolated system' is in the statement of the principle is that it makes it easier to prove, not because concentrations left alone in whatever kind of system will only be certain to disperse if they are completely isolated. Isn't that correct? Is there anything about the isolation of a system either necessary for or by absence would invalidate the principle, or is it only that a lack of isolation would invalidate the proof? Isn't this a case where physics uses 'real categories (identifiable which are not strictly definable except by the procedure of identification, like 'apple') in applying a principle stated in terms of abstract ideals? -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Robert Holmes Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 9:24 AM To: the Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes Phil, I don't think that your reliance on the second law is correct. The Clausius statement of the 2nd law is: The entropy of an isolated system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium. The earth isn't an isolated system: the sun inputs energy. So I don't think you can use the 2nd law. Robert On 4/29/07, Phil Henshaw <sy at synapse9.com> wrote: Or somewhat equivalently, getting us to pay carbon taxes on what we consume... To do that we'd need some way guess the carbon content (and other earth insults) for products the manufacturer didn't provide verifiable data for... and just as necessary, some believable plan for using the money collected. *But* that too would still provide only temporary relief!! The co2/$ ratio for total economic product (economic efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and not toward zero (real 2nd law). Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070501/801230d4/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
In reply to this post by Robert Howard-2-3
Robert Howard wrote:
... Those that saw the light early have proof that they were > smarter, and are entitled to the bragging rights that they helped make > the world a better place or everyone. Ah, a gift economy somewhat like the open-source software world. -- Ray Parks rcparks at sandia.gov IDART Project Lead Voice:505-844-4024 IORTA Department Mobile:505-238-9359 http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641 http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288 |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
In reply to this post by Phil Henshaw-2
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> Well, as an alternate to the CO2 game solution we could create a virtual > China and pay it the estimated real cost to the earth of China's > products and only pay the real China the price they'd accept. > Then we could use the money (essentially the blood money for > China's environmental exploitation) to pay smart guys like you and me to > think of great things to do with the money! ...well I suppose some > better use should be proposed before anyone votes on it.. but you > would clearly begin to have "the full cost of [the] demand reflected in > [the] supply". I believe that what you are proposing is called a tariff. The US has given up its right to impose such tariffs to an international organization that does not support this type of action. > China's sudden wealth is based largely on their finding a way to break > in on someone else's business world and not follow a lot of the > unwritten standards (common practices and expectations) and catching > that host world quite off guard. Another problem with buying from China (figuratively and specifically) is that we keep rediscovering the consequences of their not following unwritten or written standards. The current pet food poisoning scandal is an example of this effect. The Chinese don't care that wheat and rice gluten is contaminated as long as it meets the contract requirements for protein levels. So far, we're lucky that this has only affected our pets (I'm not downplaying that effect - one of mine has been harmed - I'm just being realistic) and not people. The same products from the same sources are used in human foods. > The broader idea I had in using that phrasing was that the full price of > what we buy is often hidden from the buyer (like throwing the world out > of balance). One of the things the price mechanism is horrible at > reflecting is future costs and consequences. If we were to do something > about the few select distortions of the price mechanism that could be > identified with some confidence, and bias the markets for them, it would > be called 'steering'. Now you're talking about actions that have caused wars in the past. There are future costs and consequences and there are future costs and consequences. -- Ray Parks rcparks at sandia.gov IDART Project Lead Voice:505-844-4024 IORTA Department Mobile:505-238-9359 http://www.sandia.gov/scada Fax:505-844-9641 http://www.sandia.gov/idart Pager:800-690-5288 |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
Raymond Parks wrote:
> Another problem with buying from China (figuratively and > specifically) is that we keep rediscovering the consequences of their > not following unwritten or written standards. The current pet food > poisoning scandal is an example of this effect. The Chinese don't care > that wheat and rice gluten is contaminated as long as it meets the > contract requirements for protein levels. So far, we're lucky that this > has only affected our pets (I'm not downplaying that effect - one of > mine has been harmed - I'm just being realistic) and not people. The > same products from the same sources are used in human foods. > > AFAIK we're talking about 1 company out of how many in China? That regulating industry in China is difficult is no surprise - they have over 4 times the population, swiftly growing industry and less of a legal or regulatory structure to deal with it. However I had a client for an over-the-counter health supplement last year trying to get it into China, but had the effort fall apart - too many deaths on such unregulated products so the government had stepped in to make sure this stopped, making any new efforts unpropitious. Is that the action of a government that doesn't care about standards? Recently the government has been helping people understand better their legal recourse on environmental issues - at the same time a lot of corruption filters through the government to allow environmental abuse. It's a complicated situation, but I think the West would do well to try to understand the situation and how much China is working towards solutions even while there are areas of horrid weakness, little progress and excesses. I think we had such contradictions in our own 19th Century. As importantly, I think we have to understand how we're cooperating with and competing against China, and it's typically not in the way that makes Lou Dobbs. |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
MARCUS: ?I'm not so sure it really requires everyone's cooperation.?
My argument was: Case A: If it DOES require every USA citizen to cooperate, then it WILL require every other country to cooperate. It?s a ?global? issue! Case B: If it DOES NOT require every other country to cooperate, then it WILL NOT require every USA citizen to cooperate. (Case A) requires big USA government?s coercive power both foreign and domestic with threats of fines, wars, and sanctions. (Case B) requires neither. Only those USA citizens that cooperate are required. Regardless of how politics will eventually play out, the price of petroleum is going to rise in the USA merely because China and other growing foreign economies are now demanding more of (willing to pay higher prices for) this global commodity. So the "pain" in the USA will occur regardless of whether it?s "self-imposed". I can only assume that the ROI on solar cells and other alternatives will drop in response. Does <http://www.ecotality.com/blog/2007/does-solar-make-economic-sense-nyt-says- no-san-francisco-chronicle-says-yes/> Solar Make Economic Sense? NYT Says No, San Francisco Chronicle Says Yes Robert Howard Phoenix, Arizona -----Original Message----- From: [hidden email] [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:36 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry Robert Howard wrote: > ?We have invented a game called Carbon Offsets. But to be effective, > it really requires everyone?s cooperation. Unfortunately, we can?t get > them to play. What I think is that necessity is the mother of invention. Make some self-imposed pain to, say, radically reduce the number of internal combustion automobiles on the road, and get large scale solar, clean coal, or even fusion working (e.g. which I believe requires little more than having the governments of wealthy western nations stand up to their petroleum lobbies), and then the rest of the world will run with it, because it will be easy to do. Open source energy. Or if for some reason it is not desirable to share some of this technology with iffy nations, we can export the energy to them real cheap. Also, I'm not so sure it really requires everyone's cooperation. For example, the United States alone a large fraction of the worlds' electrical and petroleum energy usage. If that were all clean power it ought to help buy some time w.r.t. climate change. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070502/d4abc698/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
Robert Howard wrote:
> > /MARCUS: ?I'm not so sure it really requires everyone's cooperation.?/ > > > > My argument was: > > Case A: If it DOES require every USA citizen to cooperate, then it > WILL require every other country to cooperate. It?s a ?global? issue! > > Case B: If it DOES NOT require every other country to cooperate, then > it WILL NOT require every USA citizen to cooperate. > > > > (Case A) requires big USA government?s coercive power both foreign and > domestic with threats of fines, wars, and sanctions. > > (Case B) requires neither. Only those USA citizens that cooperate are > required. > > > cooperation of all citizens. Only a majority and sometimes not even that -- Bush was elected even though he lost by more than half a million votes -- or Bush's recent veto of the war bill and so on. It was designed that way in part to make it possible for leaders to be agile in situations like this. In the immediate term, breaking static friction is a first step. One way to do that is with state sponsored socialism, e.g. New Deal scale funding to deploy partial remedies, like large ongoing tax breaks for buyers of PHEV hybrids, cellulosic ethanol & electric cars, and however many billions of taxpayer dollars it takes to bring alternative technologies for low CO2, non-fossil fuel to market. (Then come things like city-sized CO2 scrubbing/sequestration systems, massive solar deployments, new fission reactors, etc.) Those that can't be convinced that catastrophes like Katrina may be increasing due to CO2, or that major coastal cities could suffer billions in damage due to climate change, can at least be motivated to rationalize the costs as a national security benefit. The U.S. could forget about expensive coercion of middle east governments for the sake of the oil reserves. Compared to the things the Bush administration has gotten away with, this ought to be an easy sell. |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
The physics analogies, like your saying we'd need to 'break static
friction', are possible to apply if done carefully to refer to real things and not just to project attitudes and stuff. I'd agree that in changing habits, if that's the model for the moment, that 'breaking' the old habit is necessary, but there may also be a 'potential well' to cut through before adopting the new habit can begin for the community as a whole. It almost seems like a 'critical mass' of people cutting through those barriers for doing something about global warming is well along, and it'll be just a matter of a small extra push to unleash a tide of change for all humanity (speaking somewhat optimistically). The question I've been raising, though, is whether achieving a new habit of improving efficiency is the appropriate change at all. I'm quite sure it's a blind alley. You may inspire everyone to go down it, but it doesn't go anywhere. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com > -----Original Message----- > From: friam-bounces at redfish.com > [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels > Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 1:01 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - > Electron Symmetry > > > Robert Howard wrote: > > > > /MARCUS: ?I'm not so sure it really requires everyone's > cooperation.?/ > > > > > > > > My argument was: > > > > Case A: If it DOES require every USA citizen to cooperate, then it > > WILL require every other country to cooperate. It?s a > ?global? issue! > > > > Case B: If it DOES NOT require every other country to > cooperate, then > > it WILL NOT require every USA citizen to cooperate. > > > > > > > > (Case A) requires big USA government?s coercive power both > foreign and > > domestic with threats of fines, wars, and sanctions. > > > > (Case B) requires neither. Only those USA citizens that > cooperate are > > required. > > > > > > > The U.S. system of government doesn't require the consent and > cooperation of all citizens. Only a majority and sometimes not even > that -- Bush was elected even though he lost by more than > half a million > votes -- or Bush's recent veto of the war bill and so on. It was > designed that way in part to make it possible for leaders to > be agile in > situations like this. > > In the immediate term, breaking static friction is a first step. One > way to do that is with state sponsored socialism, e.g. New Deal scale > funding to deploy partial remedies, like large ongoing tax breaks for > buyers of PHEV hybrids, cellulosic ethanol & electric cars, > and however > many billions of taxpayer dollars it takes to bring alternative > technologies for low CO2, non-fossil fuel to market. (Then > come things > like city-sized CO2 scrubbing/sequestration systems, massive solar > deployments, new fission reactors, etc.) > > Those that can't be convinced that catastrophes like Katrina may be > increasing due to CO2, or that major coastal cities could suffer > billions in damage due to climate change, can at least be > motivated to > rationalize the costs as a national security benefit. The U.S. could > forget about expensive coercion of middle east governments > for the sake > of the oil reserves. Compared to the things the Bush > administration has > gotten away with, this ought to be an easy sell. > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > > |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> The question I've been raising, though, is whether achieving a new habit > of improving efficiency is the appropriate change at all. Even if populations level out and changes in expectations occur within the various industrialized economies, there will still be large but finite energy needs. The technology is needed. |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
>From today's FT. Clearly the problem isn't getting China to play along, it's
getting the US to play along. Robert Carbon credits market triples to $30bn By Fiona Harvey in Cologne Published: May 3 2007 03:00 | Last updated: May 3 2007 03:00 The market in carbon credits grew faster than expected last year, tripling to $30bn from $10bn in 2005, the World Bank said yesterday. But the fledgling carbon credit industry is struggling to keep up with demand, the Financial Times has found, as there is now a shortage of skilled technicians to monitor carbon reduction projects and verify the claimed emissions cuts are taking place. Nearly $25bn (?13bn) came from transactions under the European Union's emissions trading scheme, while $5bn was from the sale of carbon credits by developing countries. China was the biggest beneficiary, selling 61 per cent of last year's carbon credits, while India took 12 per cent and Brazil 4 per cent. Credits normally sell for between $5 and $10. The UK was the biggest purchaser of credits, buying 50 per cent of supply. <snip> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070503/cdf4a52a/attachment.html |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
In reply to this post by Marcus G. Daniels
Sure, the technology is needed, but it'll only lower greenhouse gasses
if we end the exponential increase of energy use. Marcus wrote: > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > The question I've been raising, though, is whether achieving a new > > habit of improving efficiency is the appropriate change at all. > Even if populations level out and changes in expectations > occur within > the various industrialized economies, there will still be large but > finite energy needs. The technology is needed. > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> Sure, the technology is needed, but it'll only lower greenhouse gasses > if we end the exponential increase of energy use. > You keep assuming that energy use and net CO2 need to be correlated.. |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
Well, yes that's the next question. I'm not so much 'assuming' it, as
considering one thing at a time. It's the connection between energy use and CO2, through the uses that economic growth multiplies, that is why we're talking about them together. The question is how would you disconnect them? My reasoning is that if we continue growth and divert some % of fossil fuel use to other energy sources the fossil fuel use could feasibly decline temporarily but will still continue to grow in the long term as all shares of the growing total will. Similarly, the side effects of the alternate energy source uses will then be growing faster in assuming a larger share of the total burden, and these might well turn out to be just as bad as global warming. People, including myself I might add, have been going along for years not considering what would be the effect of switching over to 'renewable energy' sources when they begin to contribute a larger share of overall energy use growth. If those get too expensive the economies will just switch back to fossil fuels. There's a hard connection between energy use and growth visible in the evidence of approaching a global system maximum economic energy efficiency, and the reasons why that would necessarily be the case as we approach the limits of the earth. Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.???? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 680 Ft. Washington Ave NY NY 10040 tel: 212-795-4844 e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com explorations: www.synapse9.com Marcus wrote: > > Phil Henshaw wrote: > > Sure, the technology is needed, but it'll only lower > greenhouse gasses > > if we end the exponential increase of energy use. > > > You keep assuming that energy use and net CO2 need to be correlated.. > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > |
bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry
|
|
Phil Henshaw wrote:
> Well, yes that's the next question. I'm not so much 'assuming' it, as > considering one thing at a time. It's the connection between energy > use and CO2, through the uses that economic growth multiplies, that is > why we're talking about them together. The question is how would you > disconnect them? > Of course, a problem with fossil fuels is that the CO2 that gets generated by combustion wasn't recently matched with CO2->O2. Biofuels at least address the net CO2 gain. For example, biofuels are essentially available now, even cellulosic ethanol (ethanol from agricultural waste material) and its just a question of cost and scale of production -- an optimization process. |
«
Return to Friam
|
1 view|%1 views
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |