Friam - bigger plans, bigger little mistakes

Friam

bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry

Posted by Bill Eldridge on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/bigger-plans-bigger-little-mistakes-tp523782p523822.html

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 <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