Kyoto now embraced by Big Business

[err]

well there you go, getting rid of juries because of the OJ verdict might be somebodies idea of a fantasy but it's not mine.  I think the economist and other reactionary political bodies like the Fraser Institute for example,  have a feeling that money makes the world go round,mostly because money makes them go around. The reality is that the world is more complex and money cannot solve all problems.  Of course it causes more than it solves, but who's counting.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Oh right. Sure it does. Its only given us unprecedented living standards, an ease of life unheard of at any other time in history, breakthroughs in medicines and other health technology, etc., etc., etc. Life would be so much easier on the fantasy utopian commune, where everybody was happy and we could eat unicorn every day.

If you let things grow, grow, grow, without protection for the environment, you will certainly have problems. Think about a fish tank... If you just let everything grow, grow, grow, the algae will choke the life out of the tank.... Like unchecked growth will choke the life out of our planet....

[Toro]

If you let things grow, grow, grow, without protection for the environment, you will certainly have problems.  Think about a fish tank... If you just let everything grow, grow, grow, the algae will choke the life out of the tank.... Like unchecked growth will choke the life out of our planet....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't necessarily disagree that there are limits on the planet. However, that's not what restricts the growth of human existence. What restricts the growth of human existence is man's ability to adapt to his constraints, which are technological by nature.

[speaker]

Toro, I don't understand the last bit of your point about our constrants being technological by nature I expect you just got a little ahead of yourself and meant something else. But the earlier part about us being so well off by reason of our money, at least that's what I was referring to although it might have better been the marketplace, I disagree with you on. at least in part.

While we certainly have an incredible standard of living in N America, Europe or parts of it, and small enclaves scattered throughout the rest of the world, still the vast majority of people are so far below our poverty standards that the world must look upside down to them. and our market place and our money is directly, but not wholly responsible for the conditions we are so pleased to have avoided.

None of us or perhaps very few of us are responsible for the abject poverty and inhuman conditions into which the third world is manouvered, but collectively we might grab a brain and realize that as we force nations to strip their forests, minerals, agricultural lands and fishing heritage, so shall we reap.

[Toro]

Toro,  I don't understand the last bit of your point about our constrants being technological by nature  I expect you just got a little ahead of yourself and meant something else.  But the earlier part about us being so well off by reason of our money, at least that's what I was referring to although it might have better been the marketplace, I disagree with you on.  at least in part. 

What I mean by man being constrained by the limits of technology is that mankind's ability to adapt to dwindling resources is the key to future growth. I do not believe there are any limits to growth outside the bounds of technological progress. For example, we use less energy per economic output due primarily to technologicaly innovation. We will use less in the future. At some time, I would imagine that demand for hydrocarbons will fall as pricing sends signals to the market for alternative energy sources. You are seeing that already as consumers are switching to more fuel efficient cars and solar panels are being offered more and more to new home buyers. The age of oil will end long before we run out of oil. Nanotechnology could be revolutionary in how we deal with resources. I am optimistic about mankind's ingenuity and ability to adapt.

As for "money", its not money per se. Rather, money represents a fixed stock of economic wealth, which is essentially the sum of all transferable, measureable utility. That stock of utility grows almost every year, or at least it does in the modern economy. That stock of utility, over the long-run, is determined primarily through innovation, be it process innovation or goods innovation. To put it into English, if you create something that either makes people's lives better or something cheaper that allows for people to use their resources elsewhere, then you are increasing wealth. So to create more utility, a system must be in place that incentivizes people to create innovation. And that incentive usually, but not always, comes in a system that both allows individuals to profit from innovation - which usually means letting people get rich - AND provides a mechanism that channels resources to the new areas of innovation - which usually, but not always, means the pricing mechanism, ie the free market.

[Toro]

Oops!

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Toro,

I do not believe there are any limits to growth outside the bounds of technological progress.

While it is a pretty safe bet to go with the spectrum of possibility (which is nearly infinite), that doesn't mean it has the ability to 'cross that finish line' without the granted grace of time.

[Toro]

Dear Toro,

I do not believe there are any limits to growth outside the bounds of technological progress.

While it is a pretty safe bet to go with the spectrum of possibility (which is nearly infinite), that doesn't mean it has the ability to 'cross that finish line' without the granted grace of time.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If that's the case, then growth will slow.

[speaker]

toro ooops?

that was very good, textbook stuff. Being a physical resource oriented person though I think you're wrong about the stock of utility growing in any given year let alone almost every year, and goods innovation has little impact on the majority of people in our modern world economy. As I mentioned earlier we are a relatively fortunate few.

It is a safe bet to predict that the demand for oil by the multitudes will drop off at least some time before we run out. sothebys will be selling it by the gram. The challenges will be whether our weather will allow us to adapt with all that green house gas in the air, whether our world economy, and it is a world economy in the same sense that it is a world ecology, can muddle through the high prices associated with depletion of oil stocks as we try to switch to the alternatives. If our stock of utility, or our money, our value in physical resources isn't further squandered trying to maintain a lifestyle that technology may or may not be able to extend.

the economy may slow? a gift for understatement.

[Riverwind]

If our stock of utility, or our money, our value in physical resources isn't further squandered trying to maintain a lifestyle that technology may or may not be able to extend.

I tend to agree that we will eventual rearch resource constraints that will cause the economy to stagnant. The question is when. The end of oil has been predicted for 40 years but we seem to keep find more of it. However, I believe there is a lot of room for our culture and economy to shift to less energy demanding forms of production. For example, the virtual world created by the online game called EverQuest has a real economy that is comparable to a small country.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1847

Obviously, we aren't going to abandon our jobs and go live in the 'matrix' but the example does show how technology can help find new ways to create wealth without consuming as many resources.

[err]

For example, we use less energy per economic output due primarily to technologicaly innovation.  We will use less in the future.  At some time, I would imagine that demand for hydrocarbons will fall as pricing sends signals to the market for alternative energy sources. 

You're suggesting that our usage of oil be regulated by pricing. There are probably more important things than price that should determine our useage/conservation of this limited commodity.

You are seeing that already as consumers are switching to more fuel efficient cars and solar panels are being offered more and more to new home buyers.  The age of oil will end long before we run out of oil.  Nanotechnology could be revolutionary in how we deal with resources.  I am optimistic about mankind's ingenuity and ability to adapt.

Nimbo-Neutrino technology could be a replacement technology in the future, but it doesn't exist now, and so it is not an alternative we can depend on. It is nice that you're optimistic, but it has to be balanced with a decent sized chunk of reality....

So to create more utility, a system must be in place that incentivizes people to create innovation. And that incentive usually, but not always, comes in a system that both allows individuals to profit from innovation - which usually means letting people get rich - AND provides a mechanism that channels resources to the new areas of innovation - which usually, but not always, means the pricing mechanism, ie the free market.

Allowing the status quo as far as our energy supply provides no incentive for innovation. Current energy policies are driven solely by greed.

Waiting for some time in the future to change our policies is probably not the best course of action. When you're free-falling from the aircraft isnt time to start thinking about parachutes. You have to use just a teeny bit of foresight... or the consequences could be devastating....

[Toro]

Being a physical resource oriented person though I think you're wrong about the stock of utility growing in any given year let alone almost every year,  and goods innovation has little impact on the majority of people in our modern world economy.  As I mentioned earlier we are a relatively fortunate few.

What I mean by utility is the textbook economics definition, not the stock of natural resources. The stock of non-renewable natural resources is depleting.

[Toro]

For example, we use less energy per economic output due primarily to technologicaly innovation.  We will use less in the future.  At some time, I would imagine that demand for hydrocarbons will fall as pricing sends signals to the market for alternative energy sources. 

You're suggesting that our usage of oil be regulated by pricing. There are probably more important things than price that should determine our useage/conservation of this limited commodity.

No, absolutely not. Pricing should be set by the market. However, countries can alter the consumption of hyrdocarbons through energy taxes on "dirty" sources and tax breaks and research credits for clean sources, i.e. solar power. In fact, governments already do this.

Waiting for some time in the future to change our policies is probably not the best course of action.  When you're free-falling from the aircraft isnt time to start thinking about parachutes.  You have to use just a teeny bit of foresight... or the consequences could be devastating....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

We have a couple hundred years of energy deposits to satisfy expected demand. Its just going to cost more to get it. However, governments and corporations are researching alternative energy sources, as they should. Like I said earlier, the age of oil will end long before the stock of supplies runs out.

[speaker]

If our stock of utility, or our money, our value in physical resources isn't further squandered trying to maintain a lifestyle that technology may or may not be able to extend.

[/quote+Toro]I tend to agree that we will eventual rearch resource constraints that will cause the economy to stagnant. The question is when. The end of oil has been predicted for 40 years but we seem to keep find more of it. However, I believe there is a lot of room for our culture and economy to shift to less energy demanding forms of production. For example, the virtual world created by the online game called EverQuest has a real economy that is comparable to a small country.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1847

Obviously, we aren't going to abandon our jobs and go live in the 'matrix' but the example does show how technology can help find new ways to create wealth without consuming as many resources.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I believe that the game everquest has an economy comparable to a small country, and I will again point out that we aren't dealing with a small country here we are dealing with the world economy. But aside from that does theeverquest rextbook style economy recognize that there is value in leaving fish in the ocean more than the fisherman gets for putting food on our table? or that there is some worth in having trees in the rainforests? or soil on our agricultural lands? or thaat people get some serious benefit from having air that we can breathe and from a climate that is less rather than more volatile?

I take the expression future option value to mean that economists have considered these factors and integrated them into the models that are used to define progress. And yet curiously enough there doesn't seem to be money changing hands to preserve them but rather lots of money being spent to decrease their utility as quickly as possible. more problems than solutions.

[Toro]

Food for thought.

Think Tanks Warn "Cost of Kyoto 10 to 15 Times Over EU Predictions"

and Call for Radical Rethink over 2012 Policy

International Council for Capital Formation

December 10, 2004

At a workshop co-sponsored by International Council for Capital Formation, Centre for the New Europe, Istituto Bruno Leoni and Institut Economique Molinari held on Wednesday, November 24th, 2004 in Brussels, a group of high-profile MEPs, hosted by the European Parliament's Vice President, Mr. Vidal-Quadras Roca and Mr. Giles Chichester, MEP and chairman of the EP Committee on Industry, Research and Energy, the think tanks warned that Europe's current approach to tackling climate change will seriously jeopardise the health of its economy over the next two decades. Their warnings reflect the latest research, which shows that implementing the Kyoto protocol might cost Europe's economy 10 to 15 times more than the Commission previously calculated.

http://www.iccfglobal.org/research/climate...-10dec2004.html

[speaker]

Toro,

I'm not sure that the International Council for Capital formation is necessarily the best body to be looking at as being objective, If you notice from the list of speakers given Mr Otto, of the dept. of sustainability at the University of Hamburg was the only person whose presentation was not provided by the Council.

However I think that the premise of the Councils release, being that our economies will be adversely affected as we accept responsibility for our pollution, and recognize that using the cheapest alternative, ie oil, coal, gas, is not going to be the best alternative in the long run. Burning them inefficiently may have been cheapest at one time but as we have improved efficiency, we have also expanded their use. to the effect of a net loss on environmental grounds.

Of course trying to be sustainable is going to cost more in financial terms than not, but the environmental costs of all our actions have costs as well. we need to put some of our capital formation towards environmental re-formation.