Okay, all–this is a slow developing post. I hope you can stick with me to the end here.
If you’re reading this, the chances are better than even that you are a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement. That’s if respondents to last year’s survey of WUWT visitors told the truth.
If it is true, it may surprise you to learn that there is a body of medical and sociological literature written specifically about you. The theme of the literature is how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.
It isn’t aimed directly at you, but at your wives, doctors and nurses, which is why you may never have heard of it. The literature is big on prevention–getting you to finally put down the cigarettes, lose the weight and lay off the hard liquor so you don’t keel over too soon.
Whatever man-made climate change turns out to be, it is not a permanent state. This is something that is not often discussed, but is very true. This is a ‘life stage’ the human race is going through–probably not late middle age, but late adolescent–but it is certainly a phase, not a permanent condition.
The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today. The textile workers in Vietnam making $84 a month? Their grandchildren will be making more than our national average today.
During the next 65 years the world’s energy consumption will skyrocket, both because of more people and because so many will be adopting western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.
But it won’t be permanent. Here in the US, our energy consumption per capita is already declining, and it is declining or very stable in most of the richer countries of the world. About 20 years after world population peaks, shortly before 2100, the world’s energy consumption will peak as well, and both will start to decline.
At that point (and maybe long before, if technology does what technology normally does), our impact on this planet and its atmosphere will begin to slowly decrease. We will have passed the crisis point, and will be moving into–what? Adulthood? Middle age? I guess they’ll come up with a cute name for it.
The two points I’d like to make is, first, that whatever we do on behalf of the planet can be looked at as our generation’s contribution to a future that is almost in sight already. 90 years? Kids being born today will see it.
Second, those who are trying to push apocalyptic scenarios for political reasons need to keep their story lines straighter than they have so far. There are far more reasons for optimism than pessimism.
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this, it may be because I’m looking at this as just part of our generational duty–a far lighter duty than previous generations had to shoulder.
Yes, I think we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2. Yes, I believe that we should spend more of our money on researching energy efficiency and things like utility level storage of energy.
But like most of you, I am an optimist at heart. I am truly confident that we have the system in place to find the solutions that we need and to put them in place. If we’re wrangling about it now, it’s a combination of anger at those who have blown this out of proportion and sticker shock at what the solution may cost.
But I do believe we’ll get there, and without having the revolutionary upheaval so many think is the only way to get through this.
Okay, all–this is a slow developing post. I hope you can stick with me to the end here.
If you’re reading this, the chances are better than even that you are a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement. That’s if respondents to last year’s survey of WUWT visitors told the truth.
If it is true, it may surprise you to learn that there is a body of medical and sociological literature written specifically about you. The theme of the literature is how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.
It isn’t aimed directly at you, but at your wives, doctors and nurses, which is why you may never have heard of it. The literature is big on prevention–getting you to finally put down the cigarettes, lose the weight and lay off the hard liquor so you don’t keel over too soon.
Whatever man-made climate change turns out to be, it is not a permanent state. This is something that is not often discussed, but is very true. This is a ‘life stage’ the human race is going through–probably not late middle age, but late adolescent–but it is certainly a phase, not a permanent condition.
The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today. The textile workers in Vietnam making $84 a month? Their grandchildren will be making more than our national average today.
During the next 65 years the world’s energy consumption will skyrocket, both because of more people and because so many will be adopting western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.
But it won’t be permanent. Here in the US, our energy consumption per capita is already declining, and it is declining or very stable in most of the richer countries of the world. About 20 years after world population peaks, shortly before 2100, the world’s energy consumption will peak as well, and both will start to decline.
At that point (and maybe long before, if technology does what technology normally does), our impact on this planet and its atmosphere will begin to slowly decrease. We will have passed the crisis point, and will be moving into–what? Adulthood? Middle age? I guess they’ll come up with a cute name for it.
The two points I’d like to make is, first, that whatever we do on behalf of the planet can be looked at as our generation’s contribution to a future that is almost in sight already. 90 years? Kids being born today will see it.
Second, those who are trying to push apocalyptic scenarios for political reasons need to keep their story lines straighter than they have so far. There are far more reasons for optimism than pessimism.
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this, it may be because I’m looking at this as just part of our generational duty–a far lighter duty than previous generations had to shoulder.
Yes, I think we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2. Yes, I believe that we should spend more of our money on researching energy efficiency and things like utility level storage of energy.
But like most of you, I am an optimist at heart. I am truly confident that we have the system in place to find the solutions that we need and to put them in place. If we’re wrangling about it now, it’s a combination of anger at those who have blown this out of proportion and sticker shock at what the solution may cost.
But I do believe we’ll get there, and without having the revolutionary upheaval so many think is the only way to get through this.
John Whitman says:
It is the distinguishing characteristic of human nature that he is born tabula rasa and defines his own nature. That is the objective definition of human nature.
It’s not circular; it is self fulfilling.
The standard of value for any living thing is its own life as the thing it is. That which achieves and maintains a value is named ‘virtue’.
Thinking is our primary virtue.
To choose according to a standard of value is to be moral. Morality is the science of choice and a standard is required to evaluate any choice.
Humans have an organ for thinking. It has become a tribal fashion to mutilate it. It has become fashionable to be a mutilator.
That’s the negation of the means by which human beings achieves what his nature requires. That is evil. To choose this as a virtue is pervert morality.
Hope that’s all clear. I know a 4 year old who can explain it if I failed.
Mikael Pihlström
September 7, 2010 10:30 am
Djozar says:
September 7, 2010 at 9:26 am
“The whole history of Man is an interaction between private and public, between individual and society, between tribe and state. There is no point in entertaining some counterfactual dream image of a totally FREE man.”
I believe this is paraphrased from “Thus Spake Zarathustra”
———–
Really? I read it (or parts of it) so long ago, I cannot tell. But,
wouldn’t Nietzsche have said nearlythe opposite: “If you are Super Man,
(Ubermensch) screw the others and realize your destiny”
Djozar
September 7, 2010 10:58 am
Mikael Pihlström says:
“Really? I read it (or parts of it) so long ago, I cannot tell. But,
wouldn’t Nietzsche have said nearlythe opposite: “If you are Super Man,
(Ubermensch) screw the others and realize your destiny””
Different section: I believe the first part where he’s indicating that freedom is an illusion. Been a while for me too; just sounded similar. Plus I don’t read Ubermensch as superman but overman seeking be created.
Djozar
September 7, 2010 11:08 am
Mikael Pihlström;
I don’t claim to be a Nietsche expert, and I tend to read different views from his works than other people. I believe the quote is in part 1 of “Thus Spake Zarathustra”, and I thought it was were he was scoffing at the overall concept of free men. But I also don’t read Ubermensch as conventional superman, but as a “over” man using his will to approach that state. Of course my grades were crappy in philosophy, so I’m probably wrong.
Mikael Pihlström
September 7, 2010 1:03 pm
Overman seeking be created, yes. I guess N. is difficult to fit into
one dimension
TinyCO2 wrote:
“Now tell me that watching the TV uses less energy than it used to. You can do similar time lines for other items and get a familiar pattern of energy inflation. ”
Gladly. The old teevees used to suck a ton of juice just by turning them on. Our old console TV used to cause lights to dim when you turned it on. Modern widescreens don’t use much juice at all, compared to older versions. And frankly, the trend is away from group viewing now, since you can stream damn near anything, and younger folks think the crappy resolution they get for both video and audio on their handhelds is just fantastic.
You used to be able to find a “Stereo/HiFi” dealer in almost any town of size. They sold big amps and bigger speaker systems.
What do the kids listen to now? Ear buds. Ear Buds! Goodbye HiFi stores.
Now, worldwide you sure have an increase, since all of India and China rely heavily on cellphone tech for comms and Internet service. And yes, more and more poor folks are getting access to cheaper gadgets. But we’re talking the difference between locomotives (old tvs and phones) and windup toys here. And the efficiency scales are getting better for each gadget, not worse. Why? because that’s how you stay in business.
Oddly enough, cheaper housing has impacted kitchen appliance consumption negatively in some (some) ways. Many people discover that a good quality set of knives and *enough counter space with which to work*, ends up taking less time and produces better outcomes than operating countertop appliances. (Cleaning time for such gadgets is a major turn-off.)
Add to that the huge benefits from such things as on-demand water heating, LED lighting, solar-powered exterior lighting, etc, and you can see that the situation gets better per-individual, all the time.
So the notion of “energy inflation” is not cut and dried. You need to factor in use trends, economies of scale, and efficiency improvements.
We haven’t even tested the limits of our technological capacity yet, and the AGW folks seem to think we have only a few tools with which to solve problems.
My money is on tech and industry to solve any climate problems.
H.R.
September 7, 2010 2:59 pm
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:58 pm “Thanks for a detailed answer. Short comments below,”
And I appreciate that you took the time to read and respond. I wasn’t sure if yours was a “hit and run” post. I guess not; and thank you.
Mikael Pihlström replied
——————— “Charity is good, but I feel the default and guarantee option should
be public service. There is always a ‘middle man’, overhead or such. In
your example somebody at least feeds the volunteer, or if totally on free time
basis, there is a ‘deprivement cost’ for the volunteer’s close ones.
If a private company has raw material costs of 4-5% of the product price,
everybody finds it normal that most of the money paid by consumers goes to
‘middle men’ and administration. How could government provided services
run on zero inputs?”
You asked for examples of schemes that were more efficient than government of some sort and so examples are what you received. (BTW the volunteers provide for their own upkeep whether or not they perform charitable acts. Their overhead is zero.)
As you point out, government has a cost as a middleman. The higher the level of government administering a program, the more money is wasted in “middleman” costs. In the U.S. the governmental layers are the individual, village/town/city, township, county, state, and then federal government. That’s just cost. As the level of administration goes higher, mistakes are made, square pegs are forced into round holes, unintended consequences arise, and if the problem is temporary, the bureaucracy remains behind long after it has served its purpose.
Mikael Pihlström also replied
—————————- “[H.R. wrote] Which scheme is more efficient, direct action or layers of government? Rinse and repeat for any federal program. The most efficient and lowest cost action takes place at the lowest level necessary to effect the action.
————————–
In a modern society like the U.S. allocation of the decision to the lowest level
is not as cost-efficient as it seems. A central bureaucrazy can stamp and post
quite a number of letters per day.”
Yeah, but… at the local level, you know the letter is going to the right person for the right reason. And the larger the organization, the more diffuse the responsibility. When citizens have problems with government, it’s “the rules;” the government no longer serves the individual but instead lives only to perpetuate itself.
Mikael Pihlström replied
———————– “I thought Soc Sec had a stand-alone budget, running surplus and
that it is a small fiscal component, compared to e.g. Bush tax cuts
weighing heavily on the Nation deficit?”
No. All of the money collected for S.S. is spent in the year it is collected. There is no seperate account where the overage is safely kept. The U.S. congresscritters spend it just as they would general revenue. The only thing that can be said for now is that current revenues exceed current payouts. That won’t be true in a few years. BTW, tax cuts: what’s wrong with keeping your own money? Why does the government have a right to any of it? They do, by but consent of the governed? If I think they are taking too much, I vote for someone who will take what I think is really needed to fund the country and not every pie-in-the-sky cockamamie program. I’m not against government, just wasteful government spending and spending on things that are not the legitimate business of government.
Mikael Pihlström replied
——– ” I don’t have enough knowledge on your HC system. But, in
international comparisons it is both economically inefficient and
less covering than other OECD countries with universal HC.”
Absolutely! Your perceptions are correct. We have our government to thank for that. BTW, NO ONE, in the U.S. is denied basic medical treatment. It is a requirement for hospitals to accept and treat all-comers, regardless of ability to pay. That is the current system. Healthcare costs to those who actually pay for healthcare reflect that reality.
If energy consumption is indeed decreasing in developed countries, wouldn’t that largely be because of concerns about the environment, climate change and so on?
If nobody cared about the environment, do you think energy consumption would have decreased?
biglee57
Editor
September 8, 2010 3:57 am
Joe Earth says:
September 8, 2010 at 3:46 am
If energy consumption is indeed decreasing in developed countries, wouldn’t that largely be because of concerns about the environment, climate change and so on?
That …. or….. the need for consumption has been reduced by industry leaving those countries for developing countries which provide lower costs and less regulation / taxes, etc.
The other issue is; what is the energy used for. The US could greatly reduce its energy consumption if we quit feeding the rest of the world. That of course would leave a lot of hungry people while at the same time reduce our GDP.
Gnomish says:
September 7, 2010 at 10:23 am
————-
Gnomish,
I was taking it one step at a time. I like to start with man’s nature and move backwards toward metaphysics from there, then move forward from man’s nature to ethics, politics and ending with esthetics. It seems to work much better with people who have not walked through the fundamental concepts before rather than just starting with metaphysics.
Your philosophy’s overview was classic Aristotle/Rand.
John
Djozar
September 9, 2010 11:05 am
Joe Earth 3:46 am
“If energy consumption is indeed decreasing in developed countries, wouldn’t that largely be because of concerns about the environment, climate change and so on?
If nobody cared about the environment, do you think energy consumption would have decreased?”
While there are some who are driven by the environment, I see it more as engineers striving to provide the most cost effective solutions. This isn’t just efficiency, but life cycle costs; this is why solar and wind will not have a payback until other energy costs increase.
Another factor in the U.S. include the reduction of industrialization (along with the loss of jobs). It doesn’t mean the world is using less energy, just that the markets have shifted to areas with lower production costs. A large part in the cost is the paperwork hurdles imposed on any new venture in the Western world. As a working professional engineer, my clients would rather outsource the work to a third world country where all they have to invest beyond cost is a bribe.
John Whitman says:
It is the distinguishing characteristic of human nature that he is born tabula rasa and defines his own nature. That is the objective definition of human nature.
It’s not circular; it is self fulfilling.
The standard of value for any living thing is its own life as the thing it is. That which achieves and maintains a value is named ‘virtue’.
Thinking is our primary virtue.
To choose according to a standard of value is to be moral. Morality is the science of choice and a standard is required to evaluate any choice.
Humans have an organ for thinking. It has become a tribal fashion to mutilate it. It has become fashionable to be a mutilator.
That’s the negation of the means by which human beings achieves what his nature requires. That is evil. To choose this as a virtue is pervert morality.
Hope that’s all clear. I know a 4 year old who can explain it if I failed.
Djozar says:
September 7, 2010 at 9:26 am
“The whole history of Man is an interaction between private and public, between individual and society, between tribe and state. There is no point in entertaining some counterfactual dream image of a totally FREE man.”
I believe this is paraphrased from “Thus Spake Zarathustra”
———–
Really? I read it (or parts of it) so long ago, I cannot tell. But,
wouldn’t Nietzsche have said nearlythe opposite: “If you are Super Man,
(Ubermensch) screw the others and realize your destiny”
Mikael Pihlström says:
“Really? I read it (or parts of it) so long ago, I cannot tell. But,
wouldn’t Nietzsche have said nearlythe opposite: “If you are Super Man,
(Ubermensch) screw the others and realize your destiny””
Different section: I believe the first part where he’s indicating that freedom is an illusion. Been a while for me too; just sounded similar. Plus I don’t read Ubermensch as superman but overman seeking be created.
Mikael Pihlström;
I don’t claim to be a Nietsche expert, and I tend to read different views from his works than other people. I believe the quote is in part 1 of “Thus Spake Zarathustra”, and I thought it was were he was scoffing at the overall concept of free men. But I also don’t read Ubermensch as conventional superman, but as a “over” man using his will to approach that state. Of course my grades were crappy in philosophy, so I’m probably wrong.
Overman seeking be created, yes. I guess N. is difficult to fit into
one dimension
TinyCO2 wrote:
“Now tell me that watching the TV uses less energy than it used to. You can do similar time lines for other items and get a familiar pattern of energy inflation. ”
Gladly. The old teevees used to suck a ton of juice just by turning them on. Our old console TV used to cause lights to dim when you turned it on. Modern widescreens don’t use much juice at all, compared to older versions. And frankly, the trend is away from group viewing now, since you can stream damn near anything, and younger folks think the crappy resolution they get for both video and audio on their handhelds is just fantastic.
You used to be able to find a “Stereo/HiFi” dealer in almost any town of size. They sold big amps and bigger speaker systems.
What do the kids listen to now? Ear buds. Ear Buds! Goodbye HiFi stores.
Now, worldwide you sure have an increase, since all of India and China rely heavily on cellphone tech for comms and Internet service. And yes, more and more poor folks are getting access to cheaper gadgets. But we’re talking the difference between locomotives (old tvs and phones) and windup toys here. And the efficiency scales are getting better for each gadget, not worse. Why? because that’s how you stay in business.
Oddly enough, cheaper housing has impacted kitchen appliance consumption negatively in some (some) ways. Many people discover that a good quality set of knives and *enough counter space with which to work*, ends up taking less time and produces better outcomes than operating countertop appliances. (Cleaning time for such gadgets is a major turn-off.)
Add to that the huge benefits from such things as on-demand water heating, LED lighting, solar-powered exterior lighting, etc, and you can see that the situation gets better per-individual, all the time.
So the notion of “energy inflation” is not cut and dried. You need to factor in use trends, economies of scale, and efficiency improvements.
We haven’t even tested the limits of our technological capacity yet, and the AGW folks seem to think we have only a few tools with which to solve problems.
My money is on tech and industry to solve any climate problems.
Mikael Pihlström says:
September 6, 2010 at 12:58 pm
“Thanks for a detailed answer. Short comments below,”
And I appreciate that you took the time to read and respond. I wasn’t sure if yours was a “hit and run” post. I guess not; and thank you.
Mikael Pihlström replied
———————
“Charity is good, but I feel the default and guarantee option should
be public service. There is always a ‘middle man’, overhead or such. In
your example somebody at least feeds the volunteer, or if totally on free time
basis, there is a ‘deprivement cost’ for the volunteer’s close ones.
If a private company has raw material costs of 4-5% of the product price,
everybody finds it normal that most of the money paid by consumers goes to
‘middle men’ and administration. How could government provided services
run on zero inputs?”
You asked for examples of schemes that were more efficient than government of some sort and so examples are what you received. (BTW the volunteers provide for their own upkeep whether or not they perform charitable acts. Their overhead is zero.)
As you point out, government has a cost as a middleman. The higher the level of government administering a program, the more money is wasted in “middleman” costs. In the U.S. the governmental layers are the individual, village/town/city, township, county, state, and then federal government. That’s just cost. As the level of administration goes higher, mistakes are made, square pegs are forced into round holes, unintended consequences arise, and if the problem is temporary, the bureaucracy remains behind long after it has served its purpose.
Mikael Pihlström also replied
—————————-
“[H.R. wrote] Which scheme is more efficient, direct action or layers of government? Rinse and repeat for any federal program. The most efficient and lowest cost action takes place at the lowest level necessary to effect the action.
————————–
In a modern society like the U.S. allocation of the decision to the lowest level
is not as cost-efficient as it seems. A central bureaucrazy can stamp and post
quite a number of letters per day.”
Yeah, but… at the local level, you know the letter is going to the right person for the right reason. And the larger the organization, the more diffuse the responsibility. When citizens have problems with government, it’s “the rules;” the government no longer serves the individual but instead lives only to perpetuate itself.
Mikael Pihlström replied
———————–
“I thought Soc Sec had a stand-alone budget, running surplus and
that it is a small fiscal component, compared to e.g. Bush tax cuts
weighing heavily on the Nation deficit?”
No. All of the money collected for S.S. is spent in the year it is collected. There is no seperate account where the overage is safely kept. The U.S. congresscritters spend it just as they would general revenue. The only thing that can be said for now is that current revenues exceed current payouts. That won’t be true in a few years. BTW, tax cuts: what’s wrong with keeping your own money? Why does the government have a right to any of it? They do, by but consent of the governed? If I think they are taking too much, I vote for someone who will take what I think is really needed to fund the country and not every pie-in-the-sky cockamamie program. I’m not against government, just wasteful government spending and spending on things that are not the legitimate business of government.
Mikael Pihlström replied
——–
” I don’t have enough knowledge on your HC system. But, in
international comparisons it is both economically inefficient and
less covering than other OECD countries with universal HC.”
Absolutely! Your perceptions are correct. We have our government to thank for that. BTW, NO ONE, in the U.S. is denied basic medical treatment. It is a requirement for hospitals to accept and treat all-comers, regardless of ability to pay. That is the current system. Healthcare costs to those who actually pay for healthcare reflect that reality.
If energy consumption is indeed decreasing in developed countries, wouldn’t that largely be because of concerns about the environment, climate change and so on?
If nobody cared about the environment, do you think energy consumption would have decreased?
Joe Earth says:
September 8, 2010 at 3:46 am
If energy consumption is indeed decreasing in developed countries, wouldn’t that largely be because of concerns about the environment, climate change and so on?
That …. or….. the need for consumption has been reduced by industry leaving those countries for developing countries which provide lower costs and less regulation / taxes, etc.
The other issue is; what is the energy used for. The US could greatly reduce its energy consumption if we quit feeding the rest of the world. That of course would leave a lot of hungry people while at the same time reduce our GDP.
Gnomish says:
September 7, 2010 at 10:23 am
————-
Gnomish,
I was taking it one step at a time. I like to start with man’s nature and move backwards toward metaphysics from there, then move forward from man’s nature to ethics, politics and ending with esthetics. It seems to work much better with people who have not walked through the fundamental concepts before rather than just starting with metaphysics.
Your philosophy’s overview was classic Aristotle/Rand.
John
Joe Earth 3:46 am
“If energy consumption is indeed decreasing in developed countries, wouldn’t that largely be because of concerns about the environment, climate change and so on?
If nobody cared about the environment, do you think energy consumption would have decreased?”
While there are some who are driven by the environment, I see it more as engineers striving to provide the most cost effective solutions. This isn’t just efficiency, but life cycle costs; this is why solar and wind will not have a payback until other energy costs increase.
Another factor in the U.S. include the reduction of industrialization (along with the loss of jobs). It doesn’t mean the world is using less energy, just that the markets have shifted to areas with lower production costs. A large part in the cost is the paperwork hurdles imposed on any new venture in the Western world. As a working professional engineer, my clients would rather outsource the work to a third world country where all they have to invest beyond cost is a bribe.