Posted by
Phil Henshaw-2 on
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/bigger-plans-bigger-little-mistakes-tp523782p523823.html
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