Economists, Apologists and Sophists for Usury. Positive Money sells out to Bankers? Or Donald Wheres ya Trousers. https://t.co/RN1q1yNUZl via @rld_real_CPR
Remember that you must behave in life as at a dinner party. Is anything brought around to you? Put out your hand and take your share with moderation. Does it pass by you? Don’t stop it. Is it not yet come? Don’t stretch your desire towards it, but wait till it reaches you. Do this with regard to children, to a wife, to public posts, to riches, and you will eventually be a worthy partner of the feasts of the gods. And if you don’t even take the things which are set before you, but are able even to reject them, then you will not only be a partner at the feasts of the gods, but also of their empire. For, by doing this, Diogenes, Heraclitus and others like them, deservedly became, and were called, divine. http://classics.mit.edu/Epictetus/epicench.html
The Simon–Ehrlich wager was a 1980 scientific wager between business professor Julian L. Simon and biologist Paul Ehrlich, betting on a mutually agreed-upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. The widely-followed contest originated in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich’s published claim that “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000” Simon offered to take that bet, or, more realistically, “to stake US$10,000 … on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run.”
Simon challenged Ehrlich to choose any raw material he wanted and a date more than a year away, and he would wager on the inflation-adjusted prices decreasing as opposed to increasing. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The bet was formalized on September 29, 1980, with September 29, 1990, as the payoff date. Ehrlich lost the bet, as all five commodities that were bet on declined in price from 1980 through 1990, the wager period.[1]
Just by way of explanation by Profession I am a Chartered Surveyor and Valuer. I began my Career at Shell UK Limited where I was involved in the Tax Assessment of the St Fergus Gas Terminal in Peterhead. To Tax large oil industry plant and machinery open market valuations of Property Value based on open market transactions do not exist as for Property Rateable values based upon rentals. As Open market comparables do not exist, to calculate a property value for taxation purposes for large Capital Plant, a Valuation Technique called the contractors principle of Valuation is employed.
The Contractors Principle of Valuation is a residual method of valuation which adds up all the qualifying input costs and then applies a discount rate to generate an annual economic rent, ( Net Present Value )
which can then be used to calculate the rating assessment. At Shell I did hundreds of these types of Valuations and the Largest such valuation was for the St Fergus Gas Terminal.( In excess of £300 million in the mid 1980’s)
Concepts such as Embodied energy also feed nicely back into measures of Levelized costs of electricity. Pulling these concepts of energy value as opposed to financial value into the equations should hopefully result in seeing what the problem we are trying to solve is?
Do we want to save Society or the financial system as it currently operates?
Discount rates based upon the cost of Capital are pretty subjective , but it seems to me, that EROIE measures Levelised costs of Electricity production and so forth and a residual valuation approach can yield a good method by which to assess the Economic potential for future prosperity based upon access to energy.
Energy and Capital are very different things.
The best description of this dichotomy I have encountered is this from Carol Quigley in Tragedy and Hope, ”Thus, clearly, money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary,
exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from a failure to recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is not wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. They always behave in opposite ways, just as they usually move in opposite directions. If the value of one goes up, the value of the other goes down, and in the same proportion.”
Quigley Tragedy and hope.
Energy and Money are different.
⨊Före(s) The store of Value component of the föres, Lagom dynamic currency complex.
The first two articles demonstrate a mistake in Logic engendered by treating energy assets as a Debt Based Financial Asset, Energy is either there or not there once you have nothing there is nothing you can not have less than no energy. Therefore any stock of energy must always be positive although if one adopts the Energy Cost of Energy measure, you may need to use more accessible Energy to extract untapped energy. On the Energy Returned on Energy invested Curve the current state of the art for this concept looks like this. http://euanmearns.com/eroei-for-beginners/
Energy Cost of Energy is explained here by Dr Tim Morgan.
SEEDS uses an alternative measure, ECoE (the Energy Cost of Energy), which expresses cost as a percentage of the gross energy accessed.Because the world economy is a closed system, ECoE is not directly analogous to ‘cost’ in the usual financial sense. Rather, it is an economic rent, limiting the choice we exercise over any given quantity of energy. If we have 100 units of energy, and the ECoE is 5%, we exercise choice (or ‘discretion’) over 95 units. If ECoE rises to 10%, we now have discretion over only 90 units, even though the gross amount remains 100.This is loosely analogous to personal prosperity. If someone’s income remains the same, but the cost of essentials rises, that person is worse off, even though income itself hasn’t changed.
Understanding ECoEECoE evolves over time. In the early stages of any given resource, ECoE is driven downwards by geographic reach, and by economies of scale. Once maturity is reached, depletion takes over as the driver, pushing ECoE upwards.
In the pre-maturity phase, technology accelerates the fall in ECoE driven by reach and scale. Post-maturity, technology acts to mitigate the rise caused by depletion. But – and this is often misunderstood – the capabilities of technology are limited to the envelope of the physical characteristics of the resource.
Divestment and creative destruction
The process of transition towards a low-carbon economy is now becoming inevitable, as policies supporting this change have been developed and gradually implemented for some time. “New efficiency standards imply that we do more with the same amounts of energy, as older, less efficient technologies are gradually phased out. The transition is therefore irreversible; however its pace can vary according to whether and how new climate policies are implemented.”
The scientists conclude that further economic damage from a potential bubble burst could be avoided by decarbonising early. “Divestment is a prudential thing to do. We should be carefully looking at where we are investing our money.(1) For instance, much like companies, pension funds and other institutions currently invest in fossil-fuel assets. Following recommendations from central banks, commercial banks are increasingly looking at the financial risks of stranded fossil-fuel assets, even though their possible impacts have not yet been fully determined. Until now, observers mostly paid attention to the likely effectiveness of climate policies, but not to the ongoing and effectively irreversible technological transition. This level of ‘creative destruction’ appears inevitable now and must be carefully managed,” Mercure concludes.
(1)ED. This is the key misunderstanding, the whole basis of this analysis should look at Net Energy Surplus over cost of energy extraction, then in a real sense the Sentance , “We should be carefully looking at where we are investing our Energy ( qua, Energy )”, would have money taking the Debt based monetary unit as a referent renders the statement meaningless a per pro-energy capital allocation decisions.
Story Source:
Materials provided by Radboud University Nijmegen. Note: Content may be edited for style and length.
Journal Reference:
J.-F. Mercure, H. Pollitt, J. E. Viñuales, N. R. Edwards, P. B. Holden, U. Chewpreecha, P. Salas, I. Sognnaes, A. Lam, F. Knobloch. Macroeconomic impact of stranded fossil fuel assets. Nature Climate Change, 2018; DOI: 10.1038/s41558-018-0182-1
Here is a Graph of World energy use in terms of TerraWatt Hours,
My own analysis and synthesis of the World Debt Money economy and the world Energy economy is given below. I must say the Financial economy serves only one purpose and that is a one-time conversion reference point for explanatory purposes. The Financial System based on debt will, in time be recognised as and studied as an artefact of late-stage financialised Capitalism. Energy Cost of Energy, makes much more sense and tracking real energy wealth and prosperity if Tims hypothesis is correct, that Energy is the driver of prosperity, which I think he is, will see an energy-based unit of accounting for currencies adopted as a better standard or referent for Capital allocation decisions.
Embodied energy cost of opportunity cost. Which would be a true metric of decision making where resource constraints involve mutually exclusive investment decisions.
Debt in Energy terms would be borrowing future Energy and using it up so that it is not available in the future In a very great sense this Energy Future Budget is Unknown. We have Proven Reserves and so forth and existing known Generating and refining and conversion capacities but until a sensible measure of debt based upon known future energy resources and their rate of use are coupled with ideas of a Unit of Debt, in the sense of Using future supplies or reserves Now instead of at some point in the future the Notions of Debt in financial terms are meaningless.
We do Know that all Debts and Credits do not sum to Zero in the existing system and this is due to the Principal Debt being issued without the Interest Element , it is from this simple fact that Money Scarcity exists as an idea and gives a notion then of a Time value of money expressed as a rate of Interest. GLOBAL PRIMARY ENERGY USE ASSOCIATED WITH PRODUCTION, CONSUMPTION AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
I have spent a Week Assembling Data available through public API’s so that I can build a model of World Economy based upon Energy Generation and Energy Consumption. Most of all of that has already been done what has not been done is creating a Money that embodies embodied energy as its objective valuation basis, The Value basis of money is subjective and as a subjective phenomenon is also a variable. A Bugbear expressed and repeated in the pages of this Blog more than once.
Introduction to Technocracy – 1933 https://archive.org/details/introductiontotec00tech
discussions — of ‘value,’ of fluctuating prices, of the gold standard, of changing interest rates, of items of pecuniary wealth which are at the same time items of debt — are
merely discussions looking toward a readjustment of the factors which prevent them
The problem of analysing political choices against the metric of a Monetary measure is the Money as a Thing is most certainly a Variable and as any good technologist, scientist or metrologist will tell you a unit of measurement has to be clearly defined and fixed.
The dollar. He notes that it is a variable. Why anyone should attempt, on this earth, to use a
variable as a measuring rod is so utterly absurd that he dismisses any serious
consideration of its use in his study of what should be done.
He also considers ‘price’ and ‘value’ and the fine- spun theories of philosophers and
economists who have attempted to surround these terms with the semblance of meaning.
These terms, like the monetary unit, may have had meaning to men in the past but they
mean nothing whatsoever to the modern technologist. The standard of measurement is
not relevant to the things measured; and the measuring rod and the things, measured as if
they were stable, are all variables.
This comparison of different energy solution uses ERIO
Abstract
The Energy Returned on Invested, EROI, has been evaluated for typical power plants representing wind
energy, photovoltaics, solar thermal, hydro, natural gas, biogas, coal and nuclear power. The strict exergy
concept with no ”primary energy weighting”, updated material databases, and updated technical procedures
make it possible to directly compare the overall efficiency of those power plants on a uniform mathematical
and physical basis. Pump storage systems, needed for solar and wind energy, have been included in the
EROI so that the efficiency can be compared with an ”unbuffered” scenario. The results show that nuclear,
hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than
photovoltaics and wind power. http://letthemconfectsweeterlies.blogspot.se/2017/09/money-does-not-initiate-economic.html
Click the Link Below and please read this book, written by a Physicist, Engineer and sadly now departed all round good egg Prof. Sir David MacKay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay
International Trade is relevant, the relevance economically is relevant at the EROI embodied energy level though. Money in International Trade is a Convenient Posit ( Quine)(1) What is important regarding that is that the receipt of currency can be exchanged for something tangible, the money receive is not an end in itself. Looked at in EROEI and embodied energy terms it actually makes your point crystal clear. That said its pretty clear to those who are objectively considering the point.
(1)P.41 para 2.
MMT’s ignorance of economic thought,
May 24 at 11:10am Bill Mitchell has a new post “A surplus of trade discussions” responding to some of the criticisms of the MMT position on trade deficits (though he didn’t link to any of them, including my post “Some Preliminary Questions for MMT“). He opens with the proposition that “exports are a cost and imports are a benefit”, and reaches the following
conclusion:
When it comes to trade, MMT focuses, initially on the real layer of the analysis.Thus it is undeniable (and I am surprised to read all those who are torturing themselves trying to deny it) – exports are a cost and imports are a benefit.
Giving some real thing away is a cost. Getting some real thing is a benefit.That doesn’t equate, as I have been reading the last few weeks, in a conclusion that MMT’s preference is for a nation to have a current account deficit.
It just states the obvious fact that exports, by definition, involve sacrificing real resources and depriving a nation of their use.
Imports on the other hand clearly involve receiving final goods and services where the real resource sacrifice has been made by the exporting nation.
In a world where we produce to consume – not for its own sake – then receiving goods and services is better (real terms) than sending them elsewhere.
Steve Keen Responds.
Since I was one of the ones denying Mitchell’s opening gambit—though there must have been other people “torturing themselves”, since all I noted in my post was that I disputed it as a premise—I had better reply now on this issue.I do not deny the proposition that “Giving some real thing away is a cost. Getting some real thing is a benefit”: that’s obvious in a materialist world. What I do deny is that this proposition has any relevance to either macroeconomics or trade theory. And I am not the first one to deny this: that honour goes to Karl Marx.This raises one of my major issues with MMT: advocates know their own economic logic very well, but they seem to have little knowledge of compatible precursors to their views (or even compatible contemporaries, like complexity theory). Consequently, whether they realise it or not, they often end up making arguments that would be right at home in a conventional Neoclassical textbook. These arguments are just as wrong in MMT hands as they are in Neoclassical ones.This “exports=cost, imports=benefit” MMT analysis of international trade is a classic case in point. There are at least three ways in which this MMT perspective is a backward step in relation to preceding enlightened work in economics:
Standard Neoclassical work on the irrelevance of opportunity cost below full employment
Marx’s arguments on the irrelevance of the seller’s utility in trade
The extensive Post Keynesian research on declining marginal costs of production and economies of scale.
INAPPLICABILITY OF OPPORTUNITY COST EXCEPT AT FULL EMPLOYMENT
Here is my Working Draft spreadsheet for the synthesis of the Energy Production of the world in kilowatt-hours and the Debt Based world Financial economy based upon local dollar parity currency exchange rate basis from the CIA World Fact Book.
Is it not really just another species of American Exceptionalism, is it perhaps White American Supremacy. With respect to Exceptionalism rather than the theme of this article, it is ubiquitous in societies going back through history.
We find it in Plato’s Noble Lie, We find it in The God Pharaohs in Egypt, Chosenness is perhaps the oldest form of Idolatry.
We find it in Calvinism in the Unconditional election and we find it in Judaism. Far from being sui generis to this time and place in history, it is ubiquitous.
All that said it is, of course, evident that the USA has had a tremendous decline in its Civil Society and Presidents Trumps approach seems to be to double down on American Exceptionalism and America First, as one Green Party Wag said about Brexit, It is an imaginary solution to Real problems the same could be said about American Exceptionalism, White Amerian Supremacy and to Netanyahu Zionism.
The foundations of the cause of the current discontents lie in two things, Misallocation of Financial Capital due to late-stage financial Capitalism.
The Misallocation of Capital is also compounded by the Logical mistake of Mistaking Money for wealth. Prosperity is founded upon Human Creativity and Conversion of Energy neither of which are present in the calibration of the Debt Based financial unit of account.
Here we see the real exceptionalism at play in modern America, The Washington consensus and the Globalised Neo-Liberal project. The Rise has been the Rise of the Barbarians at the gate of The masters of the Universe coupled with their Goons, the Military Industrial Complex.
So in Brexit, In MAGA and in White supremacy we have imaginary solutions to real problems.
The Answer to the problem is to put the Conservatism back into Fiscal Conservatism re-defined into an Energy-Based Currency Unit, Bingo!
The Simon–Ehrlich wager was a 1980 scientific wager between business professor Julian L. Simon and biologist Paul Ehrlich, betting on a mutually agreed-upon measure of resource scarcity over the decade leading up to 1990. The widely-followed contest originated in the pages of Social Science Quarterly, where Simon challenged Ehrlich to put his money where his mouth was. In response to Ehrlich’s published claim that “If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000” Simon offered to take that bet, or, more realistically, “to stake US$10,000 … on my belief that the cost of non-government-controlled raw materials (including grain and oil) will not rise in the long run.”
Simon challenged Ehrlich to choose any raw material he wanted and a date more than a year away, and he would wager on the inflation-adjusted prices decreasing as opposed to increasing. Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The bet was formalized on September 29, 1980, with September 29, 1990, as the payoff date. Ehrlich lost the bet, as all five commodities that were bet on declined in price from 1980 through 1990, the wager period.[1]
In thermodynamics, the exergy of a system is the maximum useful work possible during a process that brings the system into equilibrium with a heat reservoir, reaching maximum entropy.[1] When the surroundings are the reservoir, exergy is the potential of a system to cause a change as it achieves equilibrium with its environment. Exergy is the energy that is available to be used. After the system and surroundings reach equilibrium, the exergy is zero. Determining exergy was also the first goal of thermodynamics. The term “exergy” was coined in 1956 by Zoran Rant (1904–1972) by using the Greek ex and ergon meaning “from work“[1][3], but the concept was developed by J. Willard Gibbs in 1873.[4]
Energy is neither created nor destroyed during a process. Energy changes from one form to another (see First Law of Thermodynamics). In contrast, exergy is always destroyed when a process is irreversible, for example loss of heat to the environment (see Second Law of Thermodynamics). This destruction is proportional to the entropy increase of the system together with its surroundings (see Entropy production). The destroyed exergy has been called anergy.[2] For an isothermal process, exergy and energy are interchangeable terms, and there is no anergy.
Fig. 8. Imbalance in the intermediate trade and final
trade (The size of the sphere represents the corre-
@article{article,
author = {Wu, Xiaofang and Chen, G.Q.},
year = {2017},
month = {12},
pages = {85-94},
title = {Global primary energy use associated with production, consumption and international trade},
volume = {111},
journal = {Energy Policy},
doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.024}
I have spent a Week Assembling Data available through public API’s so that I can build a model of World Economy based upon Energy Generation and Energy Consumption. Most of all of that has already been done what has not been done is creating a Money that embodies embodied energy as its objective valuation basis, The Value basis of money is subjective and as a subjective phenomenon is also a variable. A Bugbear expressed and repeated in the pages of this Blog more than once.
Introduction to Technocracy – 1933 https://archive.org/details/introductiontotec00tech
discussions — of ‘value,’ of fluctuating prices, of the gold standard, of changing interest rates, of items of pecuniary wealth which are at the same time items of debt — are
merely discussions looking toward a readjustment of the factors which prevent them
The problem of analysing political choices against the metric of a Monetary measure is the Money as a Thing is most certainly a Variable and as any good technologist, scientist or metrologist will tell you a unit of measurement has to be clearly defined and fixed.
The dollar. He notes that it is a variable. Why anyone should attempt, on this earth, to use a
variable as a measuring rod is so utterly absurd that he dismisses any serious
consideration of its use in his study of what should be done.
He also considers ‘price’ and ‘value’ and the fine- spun theories of philosophers and
economists who have attempted to surround these terms with the semblance of meaning.
These terms, like the monetary unit, may have had meaning to men in the past but they
mean nothing whatsoever to the modern technologist. The standard of measurement is
not relevant to the things measured; and the measuring rod and the things, measured as if
they were stable, are all variables.
This comparison of different energy solution uses ERIO
https://festkoerper-kernphysik.de/Weissbach_EROI_preprint.pdf
Abstract
The Energy Returned on Invested, EROI, has been evaluated for typical power plants representing wind
energy, photovoltaics, solar thermal, hydro, natural gas, biogas, coal and nuclear power. The strict exergy
concept with no ”primary energy weighting”, updated material databases, and updated technical procedures
make it possible to directly compare the overall efficiency of those power plants on a uniform mathematical
and physical basis. Pump storage systems, needed for solar and wind energy, have been included in the
EROI so that the efficiency can be compared with an ”unbuffered” scenario. The results show that nuclear,
hydro, coal, and natural gas power systems (in this order) are one order of magnitude more effective than
photovoltaics and wind power.
Click the Link Below and please read this book, written by a Physicist, Engineer and sadly now departed all round good egg Prof. Sir David MacKay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_J._C._MacKay
So I can get back to my own number crunching I have made my blogging task easier by leaving what I find pertinent links to the question at the Surplus Energy Economics Blog of Dr Tim Morgan, ( Sorry Tim) Here are the two Blogs and Attachments concerned:
The Book is an easy read and the examples are very intuitive as they break back to the idea of how many 40 watt light bulbs different energy solutions break down as in per capita energy resources.
There are some very good Sites which have well-embedded energy databases particularly in the Construction industry which uses 48% of global energy annually building and running domestic and commercial property.
http://symposium.arch.tamu.edu/2017/ Project Summary: Buildings consume approximately 48% of global energy each year in their construction and operation alone adding proportionally to global carbon emission.
The problems in Political Economy as it stands presently and the question of future Political Economy based upon future Energy realities are I think helpfully separated which is something Prof. David MacKay is very successful with, in his presentation of the question.
The Problems are only weakly related with respect to future solutions and breaking the process into 3 parts is useful rather than lumping them all together. It is clear that the existing Form of Market economy and political economy is not able to solve the problem at stage 3 ( I.E Post 2050 post-Oil Economy)
Stage 1 requires a reform of the existing paradigm which involves facing up to the broken debt-based money system. Pension provision, the sovereign debt crisis and Public debt crisis are all addressable and will see improvements even within the deteriorating Cost of energy inputs as a share of output. We could call this stage lets fix what we know is not working.
Stage 2 covers the Post Financialised ( Big Bang Experiment) period to the oil running out in 2050.
This requires a much more long-term investment horizon and complicating the energy mix by overstating the ”Climate Change question** seems to be counterproductive, again I like the way Prof David Mackay dealt with the question including stating the necessities of **Clean Coal and Nuclear”. In this stage, we will be implementing ideas previously barred due to the denial inherent in clinging to a failing system.
Stage 3 Post 2050, This part is much easier than Stage 2 and stage 1, in my opinion, the myth-busting and levelling out inherent in solving the political problems at stage 1 and the challenge to vested interests in stage 2 are by far and away the largest obstacles to getting down to Brass tacks in my opinion.
There is no doubt that you also see renewables as highly dependent on fossil fuels.
However, I see your graph “ECoE by fuel group, 1980-2030F” as a stand-alone proof
that renewables will compete with fossils in the near time span. Normally you give a full explanation of how you reach your figures. But not this time. Do you base your assumptions on figures from ‘renewables interest groups’? Are subventions ex- or included? Costs in connection with the integration and accumulation of intermittent energy? Unfortunately there are lots of negatives which you do not mention. I very much hope that you will take all minusses into account by your next article about the usefulness of wind, waves and sun.
On Evaporated Water technologies I used to work in this very good project Waterstillar. https://www.waterstillar.com/ , It is an invention of a Friend and Neighbour of mine.
With ECoE by fuel group, you need to remember that the energy used in contructing renewables equipment comes overwhelmingly from fossil fuels. Therefore, even as technology and economies of scale are lowering the ECoEs of renewables, the ECoE of their input costs will be rising. I am very far from convinced that we could – for example – extract or process copper or steel without using fossil fuel energy.
I look at every information source that I can, trying to avoid anything that looks like lobbying. Taking PV just as an example, there are some arguments that it will never cover its energy costs, and others saying it’ll almost “too cheap to meter”.
As you may know, I’m convinced that big commercial and official organisations are going to need to build something like SEEDS as conventional models become ever less useful. I’m not going to hand them the information to do that. So that’s why I publish ECoEs by fuel groups, but not by fuel types – it gives readers what they need, but doesn’t enable someone to build something like SEEDS.
Also ‘discretionary’
resources after essentials’ should read disposable resources after essentials in my opinion.
A great report overall and easy to read. Excellent.
Thanks Steve. Actually, I think this IS a paper on SEE, isn’t it?
I use the term “discretionary” meaning “resources over which we exercise choice”. What we spend on essentials isn’t discretionary – what we spend on meals out or CDs is.
Of course it is. I was humbly suggesting that your paper would go well with this conference.
Apologies, I failed to make the connection between the link and the comment.
The link invites submissions for attendance at a workshop, whilst isn’t really my scene nowadays.
Dear Tim
As always, many thanks for your work. I’m intrigued by your Prosperity Calculations to 2030. The HSBC Report on Global Oil Supply to 2040 infers an annual decline of 5% to 7% in oil production from 2016 onwards (doesn’t seem to have started yet though) :
Under these circumstances could Germany, a country so reliant on export volumes and in particular the car industry, really experience nothing worse than stagnation up to 2030 ? How will Spain achieve a growth in prosperity of 3.2% in this time period ? Intuitively, I would expect depression and worse in ALL the world’s economies if these predictions are even remotely accurate. I note that you predict that for most of them, by the way.
In the absence of replacement developments, oil production in non-OPEC countries declines at rates of between 6% and 8% annually. (Shales alone decline much more rapidly, sometimes by as much as 65% in the first year after start-up).
Countering this requires new field starts. For this, you have to have both capital and viable projects. Availability of capital has slumped since the oil price nose-dived, and discovery rates are at all-time lows.
I didn’t think the HSBC report told us much that we didn’t aslready know, but such views from such a source are significant – a bit like Tullett publishing “Perfect Storm” when I was head of research there.
Another good piece Dr. Morgan!
Leaves me with the uncomfortable feeling that nothing can be done as I look for ways to make investments to provision for my own retirement. I am a hard working ‘have’ who would like to remain a ‘have’. SO much of what you write makes me think I should be in cash except for the fact that cash is a store of value that isn’t stable either.
If a person had say $20k to invest what would he do? Solar seems to be the most likely answer, with the rising cost of energy being a given, so would the output of solar rise as well?
Investment advice is an area I don’t go into. But I reckon we can think through the areas that aren’t going to do well, even if it’s harder to identify those who will do better. In the situation described in my report, success is very much a relative concept.
It’s interesting to note sectors that are already struggling, including retailing, restaurants, car sales and contractors like Carillion. It’s a strange kind of ‘recovery’ when these businesses are struggling….
Businesses supplying essentials should fare better than those selling discretionaries, though we need to beware of anything (such as some utilities) which is emphatically in the political arena.
It’s interesting that smartphone sales have peaked. I anticipate problems in the travel, advertising and car hire sectors.
”Therefore, even as technology and economies of scale are lowering the ECoEs of renewables, the ECoE of their input costs will be rising. I am very far from convinced that we could – for example – extract or process copper or steel without using fossil fuel energy.”
Fossil Fuels clearly need to be used wisely certainly whilst the transformation process is attempted.
Solar Breeders and another energy plant will surely produce the industrial quantities of Electricity required, why would that be impossible?
to imagine the future, distributed networks and symbiotic systems have to be embraced. Top Down centralised command and control systems simply do not lend themselves to whole system thinking.
The Old stories no longer work especially the Binary stories of left and right Elites and plebs found in Political economy.
Thanks. Quite some time ago we had an article here about why both right and left have become outdated terms. Both are corporatist, either private or state, and both require loyalties (to the corporation, government department, etc) which can conflict with broader loyalties (to other people, to the truth, and so on).
I’m not at all sure about fast breeders. It seems to be in the category of ‘ideas that have been around for a long time but are still not proven’.
03.09.2017
MENA solar farms to power Europe underway – Ambitious Tunisian solar project may one day provide electricity to European home
The Tunisia based company TuNur launched a request to export 4.5 GW of solar energy to Europe. It firstly will link Tunisa and Malta by 2020 and further links to the middle of Italy and southern France are planned. It is a project both sides can profit from – Europe by getting clean energy and Tunisia by getting the economy, jobs and investments, stimulated. Finally there has come a chance to realise the project Desertec tried to launch a decade ago.
I Guess Rome was not built in a day , The Technology is way ahead of the FInancial and political infrastructure. The competitive side of Markets and tendency to monopoly of Financialisation really does make for very slow progress.
My Experience with waterstillar showed that even though a clear workable model to solve one of the great problems of the world Clean Pottable water even struggled in a No Brainer Market. Why? becuase it is up against one of the biggest captured markets in the world Bottled Water.
Distributed networked energy Grids are not easily monopolised and controlled they are anti-ethical to the COntrol models of late-stage financialised capitalism.
The Physics is quite straightforward, the political Economy not so simple.
With prosperity in decline in the west, covered up by monetary adventurism, China must feel the impact in due time. Everything is interconnected as we know. By the way, China too is on the highway to hell;
I cannot see why China’s prosperity could rise further with the west in decline?
Dear Tim,
Thank you for your reply (regarding current Peak Oil reports). I did indeed read your ‘Perfect Storm’ report back in 2013 .
Like houtskool in his comment above, I find it difficult to imagine that certain countries will avoid the permanent recessions experienced by the majority of nations. Specifically your projections for Spain (+3.2%) and Germany (+0.1%) are difficult to understand as these countries will be embedded in a recession bound Europe (UK -10%, France -6.9% etc.). Could you explain this briefly ?
Just by way of explanation by Profession I am a Chartered Surveyor and Valuer. I began my Career at Shell UK Limited where I was involved in the Tax Assesment of the St Fergus Gas Terminal in Peterhead, To Tax large oil industry plant and machinery open market valuations of Property Value based taxes like Property Rates do not exist and to calculate a property value for taxation purposes a Valuation Technique called the contractors principle of Valuation is employed.
The Contractors Principle of Valuation is a residual method of valuation which adds up all the input costs and then applies a discount rate to generate an annual economic rent ( Net Present Value )
which can then be used to calculate the rating assessment. At shell I did hundreds of these types of Valuations and the Largest such valuation was for the St Fergus Gas Terminal.
Concepts such as Embodied energy also feed nicely back into measures of Levelized costs of electricity. Pulling these concepts of energy value as opposed to financial value into the equations should hopefully result in seeing what the problem we are trying to solve is? DO we want to save Society or the financial system as it currently operates?
Discount rates based upon the cost of Capital are pretty subjective as you will know Tim but it seems to me that EROIE measures Levelised costs of Electricity production and so forth and a residual valuation approach can yield a good method by which to assess the Economic potential for future prosperity based upon access to energy.
Energy and Capital are very different things.
The best description of this dichotomy I have encountered is this from Carol Quigley in Tragedy and Hope,
”Thus, clearly, money and goods are not the same thing but are, on the contrary,
exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from a failure to
recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is not wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. They always behave in opposite ways, just as they usually move in opposite directions. If the value of one goes up, the value of the other goes down, and in the same proportion.”
Quigley Tragedy and hope.
Are you using the most recent download from the “resources” page here?
If so, I’ll soon be loading a new version.
Hi Tim yes the most recent one is what I am using
I’m working on a version of prosperity data for selected countries (and world overall) which will be more up-to-date. I expect to publish it here quite soon.
This is a fun tool and database which I plan to make some use of.
this to me is pretty impressive that phase 2 was cancelled points to pretty short term political expediency and a failure to understand the question at hand.
Having dived in deeper than ever to this question Frankly I am more optimistic than ever.
the main obstacle to delivering energy as required for society is the tendency to reward gaming the system to create super profits for a small number of people at the expense of the general population.
Sadly people buy the cons and fairy tales and mythologies. I have very little doubt that much political effort is used to protect the centralised command and control model of late financialised Capitalism, that said creating artificial deadlines is always a sure fire way that nefarious motives are being pursued.
Hi Tim, I look forward to seeing that in due course, what is your definition or what are the components of Energy Economic rent? I do not have any formulas just the individual data entries so I could not reverse engineer to a definition.
https://www.energy.siemens.com/mx/pool/hq/energy-topics/publications/living-energy/pdf/issue-09/Wind-Trade-London-Array-offshore-Living-Energy-9.pdf This really is a huge achievement why it is not trumpeted more or jumped on by Politicians I really do not know. I was heavily involved with the early days of Canary Wharf and with the London Docklands Development Corporation there were no shortage of Political johnny come lately’s who claimed the credit after the event , I guess in due course this Huge achievement will see all the wrong people claiming credit for something they really had not realised was a great achievement at the time.
This project is visionary and for people like me who oppose capitalism quite frankly, it is a strong argument against our case that Capitalism does not deliver, in this case, it has.
”For Bombay to get all of its energy needs from solar in my hypothetical future it would need to harness almost 100% of the solar radiation that strikes it, a remote prospect. This extremely high population density is routinely ignored by western environmentalists calling for distributed energy to be the solution to India’s energy problems. It quite clearly is not.”
This article challenges one of my own Cherished stories regarding distributed networks, I accept they are not a panacea and take on board this argument that clearly defeats any sensible defence I can make against its logic.
Hi guys, what do you make of this comment by a Nick G. at Peak Oil Barrel regarding Tim’s PDF?
“The info about renewables and EVs is unrealistic. One example: it argues that the grid can’t supply enough electricity for EVs, starting from the premise that power demand is growing at 2.5% per year – that’s no longer true. US power demand has been flat for a decade. And, EVs would only require an expansion of roughly 20% over 20 years – obviously not a big deal, especially when EVs are synergistic with renewables. EVs can charge when renewable output is high and other demand is low. That minimizes CO2 and cost for the driver, and raises prices for renewable power sellers. It’s a win-win.”
He is correct.
Tims SEEDS is a very important insight into energy based economics it is not in my opinion fully reflective of advances in technology or indeed technology generally.
Read David MacKays Book its free on line and does what it says on the tin, although simplified and de jargonised it adds up and debunks.
3 Cars
For our first chapter on consumption, let’s study that icon of modern civi-
lization: the car with a lone person in it.
How much power does a regular car-user consume? Once we know the
conversion rates, it’s simple arithmetic:
For the distance travelled per day, let’s use 50 km (30 miles).
For the distance per unit of fuel, also known as the economy of the
car, let’s use 33 miles per UK gallon (taken from an advertisement for a
family car):
33 miles per imperial gallon ≈ 12 km per litre.
Rather than willfully perpetuate an inaccurate estimate, let’s switch to the
actual value, for petrol, of 10 kWh per litre.
Congratulations! We’ve made our first estimate of consumption. I’ve dis-
played this estimate in the left-hand stack in figure 3.3. The red box’s
height represents 40 kWh per day per person.
In general, I don’t comment on comments made elsewhere. First, I haven’t the time. Second, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
But I note that data for the US is cited, the point being that electricity demand in the US is flat. Given population growth, it’s arguable that consumption per person is dropping.
But didn’t I hear there was a world beyond the US?
The US numbers, of course, are consistent with my report, which concludes that prosperity in the US is declining. Logically enough, if you’re getting poorer, you’re likely to use less electricity.
My growth projections, however, were based on world trends. These are consistent with trend growth of 2.5%.
We’re also using more of our energy as electricity, and less in other forms. This puts upwards pressure on generation even where total use of energy is flat.
Seems to take the energy analysis of economies to a degree that will enable sensible decisions to be made economically based upon economic realities.
The analysis could only be dreamed about in the Early 80’s when this paper with Energy expåpressed as BTU’s was the norm. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6029194_Embodied_Energy_and_Economic_Valuation
Demand management using electric vehicles
To recap our requirements: we’d like to be able to store or do without
about 1200 GWh, which is 20 kWh per person; and to cope with swings
in supply of up to 33 GW – that’s 0.5 kW per person. These numbers are
delightfully similar in size to the energy and power requirements of electric
cars. The electric cars we saw in Chapter 20 had energy stores of between
9 kWh and 53 kWh. A national fleet of 30 million electric cars would store
an energy similar to 20 kWh per person! Typical battery chargers draw a
power of 2 or 3 kW. So simultaneously switching on 30 million battery
chargers would create a change in demand of about 60 GW! The average
power required to power all the nation’s transport, if it were all electric, is
roughly 40 or 50 GW. There’s therefore a close match between the adoption
of electric cars proposed in Chapter 20 and the creation of roughly 33 GW
Can I ask, politely, why you post so many links here? Speaking personally, I don’t have the time to follow them up, though of course others may. I’m pretty busy and have to plan prettycarefully.
For instance, right now I’m looking into what SEEDS might tell us about shock exposure risk. We have good data on financial exposure, such as debt and financial assets. What SEEDS can do is compare these exposures with prosperity, instead of reported GDP. We can look at energy supply patterns, dependency on incremental borrowing, and other metrics. If we back-test this far enough we can strengthen the ability to use it predictively.
My view now is that some kind of shock is becoming more likely. You’ll have seen in the report that an increasing proportion of “growth” is either cosmetic, and/or is the result of spending borrowed money. Mainstream news sources will show you how many sectors are already in trouble, and the next ones to struggle are fairly predictable.
No Problem at all Tim, Regarding Shocks and predictions based on past financial data, good luck with that.
I’m quite optimistic, because of what SEEDS brings to the table.
For example, if debt increases, but a lot of it is pushed through consumption, GDP looks better as well, moderating any apparent rise in debt/GDP ratios. Set prosperity against that debt increase and things begin to show up. We’ll see if it works out like that – pretty big project…..
Tim, before I left the national security research/policy area there were a number of “resilience” research programmes considering non-linear abrupt events referred to as “systemic shocks”, looking at how and why they occur, why they aren’t anticipated, and how a system deals with them. Dstl’s Policy and Capability Studies, and Human Systems Departments were heavily involved programmes. Maybe some FOI requests with these terms might yield something useful? I can’t think of any sensitivity issues that would restrict access.
The new tool focuses on Emissions, quite frankly looking at emissions misses the real point regarding prosperity and I suspect its the old story that belief systems are easier to bull shit about.
Tim, outstanding as always. As some of your readers mentioned, the forecast of continued economic growth for China and India while Western economies experience a decline appears cognitively dissonant. The Seeds model may be underestimating some covariances likely due to the linearisation of feedback loops. In nonlinear dynamical terms models fail to predict phase changes that are common in complex systems. I realize that we may be asking the impossible of the SEEDS model yet something to ponder.
You are right, of course. For instance, can China keep on growing if its markets in the US and Europe are in decline? I mention this in the report, albeit obliquely, as “collateral damage”.
I try to take this issue into account, which is why my projections for China and India (in particular) are pretty conservative. BTW, of the two, I’m more optimistic about India.
This said, SEEDS is way off the consensus in arguing that global prosperity has flattened out, that emerging economies are going to slow, and that prosperity is declining in most western countries. For instance, SEEDS puts the UK -10% poorer in 2030 than now, and estimates the peak of prosperity there was 2003. If it turns out that the drop is -15% rather than -10%, SEEDS will still be a lot more correct than the consensus, which believes in continued growth!
Incidentally, we’re seeing increasing signs that prosperity IS deteriorating. When you tot up the negatives – not just failures, cut-backs and earnings declines, but the sheer extent of cash-burn as well – it’s mystifying that the consensus still buys the ‘growth’ story. The next sectors to slump are becoming more apparent as things unfold.
The next piece here is likely to be shock risk. It’s a big project. Like this one, I might make it a PDF.
Current seeds numbers should tell us enough about where we are heading.
We have numbers and we have words. Mixing up those doesn’t add anything to the conclusion.
Its like putting a ‘price’ on gold. In my opinion, dear doc, you can skip efforts putting numbers on words and let the blog figure it out.
The analysis regarding EROEI and its effect on prosperity potential is one thing, Continuing Economic models are failing for other reasons in addition to available cheaply priced Energy. ( Crony Capitalism is the buzz term I believe)
Placing all of ones’ analytical ammo into the seeds weapon would be a strategic mistake.
Another mistake is accepting the starting assumptions and definitions moulded in the Growth Paradigm and applying them to a post-growth paradigm.
Finally, Seeds is not looking at the embodied energy question which gets very interesting when one considers re-cycling and circular economy, this question gets into use models over ownership models, this speaks to efficiency of energy use and not to some ideological measure of fairness or equality, or indeed some subjective voodoo related to the time value of money.
For SEEDS and an EROEI perspective on our Industrial and Domestic energy budgets transparency is essential.
The jist of the attached article is that corrupt rent-seekers in the Green Lobby ( Al Gore Anyone) are instituting an ideologically driven energy solution onto the poorest in society completely ignoring the sensible transition that is possible for the payback of large subsidies from Big Central Government.
The Problem that Gore and his like say they are urgently solving is Climate Change, as a climate realist i do not burden my investigations into energy budget solutions with Climate Alarmist dogma that many do make it very easy for StopTheseThings to call out the renewables lobby who have been economic with the actualite much of the time and who are fanatically closed minded to mixed solutions at the expense of upfront pain.( bourne as a sort of penance for past sins).
The Energy Cliff does not make an appearance in the linked article and SEEDS would add rather a lot to StopTheseThings advocacy, Australian energy abundance surely leads to the idea that they have far more than they can use themselves and can use surpluses to exchange for what they do not have enough of?
At this point things like Leitaers TERRA currency proposals come to mind but most of all this quote from Benjamin Franklin which fits the polarised and binary state of the renewables versus legacy fuels debate.
In 1729 Benjamin Franklin wrote a pamphlet ´´A modest Enquiry into the nature and the necessity of a paper Currency.”
a modest enquiry,
”There is no Science, the Study of which is more useful and commendable than the Knowledge of the true Interest of one’s Country; and perhaps there is no Kind of Learning more abstruse and intricate, more difficult to acquire in any Degree of Perfection than This, and therefore none more generally neglected. Hence it is, that we every Day find Men in Conversation contending warmly on some Point in Politicks, which, altho’ it may nearly concern them both, neither of them understand any more than they do each other.
Thus much by way of Apology for this present Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency. And if any Thing I shall say, may be a Means of fixing a Subject that is now the chief Concern of my Countrymen, in a clearer Light, I shall have the Satisfaction of thinking my Time and Pains well employed.
To proceed, then,
There is a certain proportionate Quantity of Money requisite to carry on the Trade of a Country freely and currently; More than which would be of no Advantage in Trade, and Less, if much less, exceedingly detrimental to it.
This leads us to the following general Considerations.” http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-01-02-0041
Population gets a few mentions above, a key question is ”Who’s Reality * are we setting for the benchmark metric?
The Oligarchy is a bad idea, they are big enough and ugly enough to look after themselves time for some more bottom-up joined up distributed network thinking,
N2 – Presented in this study is a comprehensive analysis for energy use of different economic entities in global supply chains, including the exploiter, producer, consumer, intermediate trader and final trader. The systems input-output analysis method is adopted to trace the direct and indirect energy use associated with both intermediate production and final consumption activities in the economic system. In the world economy, 15% of the energy use embodied in trade turns out to be induced by final consumption, and 85% is attributed to intermediate production. Different trading patterns for different economies are identified with the separation between energy trade for intermediate production and that for final consumption. For Japan with a production-oriented trading pattern, intermediate trade should be a top priority in local trade structure adjustment, while final trade needs more attention for the government in the United States as the country is in a consumption-oriented trade pattern. This analysis aims to provide an in-depth insight into energy sustainability, as well as a sound scientific reference for policy making at the regional, national and global scale.
JF – Energy Policy
T1 – Global primary energy use associated with production, consumption and international trade
VL – 111
DO – 10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.024
ER –
@article{article,
author = {Wu, Xiaofang and Chen, G.Q.},
year = {2017},
month = {12},
pages = {85-94},
title = {Global primary energy use associated with production, consumption and international trade},
volume = {111},
journal = {Energy Policy},
doi = {10.1016/j.enpol.2017.09.024}
On Notions of Debt, GDP and monetary measures of the Dismal science one asks the question what is the blogger problem, The end of Cheaply available Oil or the End of the Debt Based Petro Dollar?The Story of the petro dollar figures in my on Line PDF for understanding Climate Science. Which draws on the drilling into debt report linked above.
The Oligarchical temper would seem to consist in a love of authority, covetous, not of gain, but of power.
The Oligarch is one who, when the people are deliberating whom they shall associate with the archon as joint directors of the procession, will come forward and express his opinion that these directors ought to have plenary powers; and, if others propose ten, he will say that ‘one is sufficient,’ but that ‘he must be a man.’. Of Homer’s poetry, he has mastered only this line, —
No good comes of a manifold rule; let the ruler be one:
of the rest, he is absolutely ignorant.
The Modern Monetary Theory ( Stalinist/Fascists) are really pushing their poison and they mean to Cull the Human Race with their misanthropic elitist dogmas. All Hail Ehrlich and the Mann/Hansen/Schmidt disciples of Agenda21/30. https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/?s=MMT+
In our requirements for prosperity and more energy production, we need to take heed of the Late Prof. Sir David McKay “”Every Big Helps”
Liberty Loving Human beings are under attack, make no mistake it is an attack on several fronts and all patriotic, family-loving god fearing and right-minded people must understand we need a resolution to our own Byzantine Generals dilemma. Articles such as this only serve to muddy the waters, Large FInance Capital and Big Corporations and the State are all one and the same subsidiaries of the Oligarchy. And guess what The Oligarchy isn’t really into us unless it is stealing the sweat off our brows or exploiting our nearest and dearest to satisfy its own depravity. https://notthegrubstreetjournal.com/2019/03/26/eats-shites-and-leaves-brexit-brexit-brino-eumilitaryunification-what-about-the-military-industrial-complex/
Strong Stuff , you may well say that and the onus of proof rests with us at #Moduloft to advocate for our Customers wishing to become stakeholders within the UK’s Homeowning, Stakeholder democracy.
DOn’t just take my word for it, here is Per Kurowski an Executive Director #WorldBank #BancoMundial from 2002 – 2004
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
UN, World Bank, IMF, and NGO’s: Give the SDGs a fair chance. Kick out Basel Committee’s bank regulations
The Sustainable Development Goals seem all very laudable, but given that bank credit is one of the most important financial resources, in order for these to stand a fair chance of being met, one would have to kick out all current bank regulators… or at least their regulatory pillar, the credit risk weighted capital requirements for banks.
Hear me out!
"quod erat demonstrandum", Doubling Back to make sense of the doubling down, Double Speak and Double Plus Good, Beware Thought Crime ahead! https://t.co/A3aampt99K via @rld_real_CPR
Money does not initiate Economic activity, in all cases, it is an intermediary token or rain check which has profound effects on social relations and commerce between individuals and nations, but money is a mere Idea and can be anything we imagine it to be.
Embodied energy and carbon – The ICE database
Embodied energy is the amount of energy consumed to extract, refine, process, transport and fabricate a material or product (including buildings). It is often measured from cradle to (factory) gate, cradle to site (of use), or cradle to grave (end of life). Likewise, embodied carbon footprint is the amount of carbon (CO2 or CO2e emission) to produce a material.
Embodied energy and carbon is a topic of rising importance. In fact, it is normally possible to reduce the embodied energy and carbon of a building or construction project by 10-20% without adding to the build cost. What’s more embodied carbon is often 20-50%, or so, of the whole life energy and carbon of a building, i.e. when operational carbon emissions are considered.
The embodied energy and carbon life cycle of a building can be expressed on a single diagram, as below.
Global Building Information Modelling (BIM) and Digital Twin Market Opportunities in the Architecture, Engineering, and Construction Industry, 2020-2026 https://t.co/rLDjwcDcW0
This is part of the Sustainable development Goals , FInance and the Built environment series . Focusing on the emerging residential mortgage market with particular emphasis on the Volume budget homes and First time Markets of the UK.
In Part 2
In part 2, we looked at Mark Carney’s new role as set out in the Guardian in december 2019 and consider these statements with the Great Reset narratives coming from the World economic Forum and previous papers on World Reserve Currency reform from after the Global Financial Crisis. And Also going back further to the Nixon Shock, when Connolly famously said Its our Currency but your problem and Degaulle famously quipped. La réforme, oui. La chien-lit, non !
In Part 1 https://www.yumpu.com/s/H8n64zmFkLTPGMRN
we had this as our primer statement.
Following the second Lockdown and the huge QE bail outs ostensibly for Main Street but largely for massive concentration of Corporate Wealth and control , this booklet gives a framework of how free markets and market led credit based distributed sovereign money is the way to build back better.
The present course led by Mark Carney throws the main street baby out with the Surveillance Capitalism #4IR Bath Water.
“LA RÉFORME OUI, LA CHIENLIT NON”
This is a summary of and response to the New Horizons WEF session from november 10th. Mark Carney is the Keynote and there are also contributions from Christine Lagarde and Andrew Bailey.
Moduloft is committed to the Entry Level budget homeownership Market. Delivering affordable Homes and the means to Finance them literally without costing the earth.
Moduloft is Green by design, and Affordable by design , we are experts in materials passports, Energy based economics and Placemaking.
We do have questions though; regarding the Agenda 2030 sustainable development goals, and whether financial products are being developed for our Customer price point?
This coming week we will publish a series of discussion papers surrounding this question:
Is 21st Century Britain, in 2021, going to be a Home Owning democracy or, a Rent seeking Banana Republic?
Carbon emissions and the building and construction industry along with heating , cooling and lighting of the built environment are large emitters of CO2 and users of energy.
As such Embodied energy, Embodied Carbon and finance linked to embodied carbon or Carbon emissions reporting, are especially relevant to charting a course for our future business planning at Moduloft.
Follow the money, The green New Deal sustainable development goals , Planning policy, Land Value capture. Why the UN do not want people to own their own home and achieve financial independence.
Personal protective equipment (PPE) is protective clothing, helmets, goggles, or other garments or equipment designed to protect the wearer’s body from injury or infection. The hazards addressed by protective equipment include physical, electrical, heat, chemicals, biohazards, and airborne particulate matter. Protective equipment may be worn for job-related occupational safety and health purposes, as well as for sports and other recreational activities. “Protective clothing” is applied to traditional categories of clothing, and “protective gear” applies to items such as pads, guards, shields, or masks, and others. PPE suits can be similar in appearance to a cleanroom suit.
Philosophy, politics and economics, or politics, philosophy and economics (PPE), is an interdisciplinary undergraduate or postgraduate degree which combines study from three disciplines. The first institution to offer degrees in PPE was the University of Oxford in the 1920s. This particular course has produced a significant number of notable graduates such as Aung San Suu Kyi, Burmese politician and State Counsellor of Myanmar, Nobel Peace Prize winner; Princess Haya bint Hussein daughter of the late King Hussein of Jordan and wife of the ruler of Dubai; Christopher Hitchens, the British–American polemicist,[1][2] Oscar winning writer and director Florian Henckel von Donnersmarck; Philippa Foot and Michael Dummett, British philosophers; Harold Wilson, Edward Heath and David Cameron, former Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom; Hugh Gaitskell, William Hague and Ed Miliband, former Leaders of the Opposition; former Prime Minister of Pakistan Benazir Bhutto and current Prime Minister of Pakistan Imran Khan; and Malcolm Fraser, Bob Hawke and Tony Abbott, former Prime Ministers of Australia.[3][4] The course received fresh attention in 2017, when Nobel Peace Prize winner Malala Yousafzai earned a place.[5][6] PHILOSOPHY. PREFACE TO THE FIRST EDITION, 1781
Human reason, in one sphere of its cognition, is called upon to consider questions, which it cannot decline, as they are presented by its own nature, but which it cannot answer, as they transcend every faculty of the mind.
It falls into this difficulty without any fault of its own. It begins with principles, which cannot be dispensed with in the field of experience, and the truth and sufficiency of which are, at the same time, insured by experience. With these principles it rises, in obedience to the laws of its own nature, to ever higher and more remote conditions. But it quickly discovers that, in this way, its labours must remain ever incomplete, because new questions never cease to present themselves; and thus it finds itself compelled to have recourse to principles which transcend the region of experience, while they are regarded by common sense without distrust. It thus falls into confusion and contradictions, from which it conjectures the presence of latent errors, which, however, it is unable to discover, because the principles it employs, transcending the limits of experience, cannot be tested by that criterion. The arena of these endless contests is called Metaphysic.
Time was, when she was the queen of all the sciences; and, if we take the will for the deed, she certainly deserves, so far as regards the high importance of her object-matter, this title of honour. Now, it is the fashion of the time to heap contempt and scorn upon her; and the matron mourns, forlorn and forsaken, like Hecuba:
Modo maxima rerum,
Tot generis, natisque potens…
Nunc trahor exul, inops.
Ovid, Metamorphoses.
[xiii, “But late on the pinnacle of fame,
strong in my many sons.
now exiled, penniless.”]
“Whenever you get two people interpreting the same data in different ways,” “that’s metaphysics.”
is a quote from an interview published in Scientific American with Thomas Khun
the coiner of the term and proposer of the concept of paradigm shifts.
“Remember that we sometimes demand explanations for the sake not of their content, but of their form. Our requirement is an architectural one; the explanation a kind of sham corbel that supports nothing.”
― Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations POLITICS
Tractatus politicus (TP) or Political Treatise is a political paper by Baruch Spinoza written in 1675–76 and published posthumously in 1677. This paper has the subtitle, “In quo demonstratur, quomodo Societas, ubi Imperium Monarchicum locum habet, sicut et ea, ubi Optimi imperant, debet institui, ne in Tyrannidem labatur, et ut Pax, Libertasque civium inviolata maneat.” (“In which how a society, may be monarchy or aristocracy, can be best government, and not to fall into tyranny, and peace and liberty of citizen must not violated is demonstrated”).
A planet to its Star must look
The planet no less needs its moon.
As the Sun is the store of energy, New.
The moon drives and regulates currents,
of the tides , time and the nature of things.
That Golden Orb gives all
That silvery Moon regulates all
Both work together even as the other
Seemingly sleeps and yet currents
of the tides, Time and the nature of things pass.
On the nature of Man made things
On a standard of gold which
Jennings would not be crucified upon ,
That cross Of Gold-alone hard food of Midas.
No tides to complement the Orb
For Silver was its currency,
the Silvery moon to that crosses Golden Sun
which means of exchange fed the common man
The Silver Moon drives and regulates
Currencies of the tides, Time and the nature of things.
Time passed and Man forsakes the Golden Orb
and its silvery moon. No credit he gave
to drivers of Tides, Time and the nature of things
Fiat of imperial rule enforces debts,
new tides in political Economy.
FIAT dictates the new tides of Commerce.
Ephors of debt above and astride the law.
No silvery moon complementary to the Golden Orb.
There are no tides by means of which the common man
may be fed. Hard food of Midas alone- Starvation.
King Kanute Like those ephors
wave bidding the advancing tide backwards
Still they advance tides in a tsunami of debt
Tides of a Dollar moon by fiat
Hegemonic Tides of the Dollar Moon.
This is a summary of and response to the New Horizons WEF session from november 10th. Mark Carney is the Keynote and there are also contributions from Christine Lagarde and Andrew Bailey.
Moduloft is committed to the Entry Level budget homeownership Market. Delivering affordable Homes and the means to Finance them literally without costing the earth.
Moduloft is Green by design, and Affordable by design , we are experts in materials passports, Energy based economics and Placemaking.
We do have questions though regarding the Agenda 2030 sustainable development goals and whether financial products are being developed for our Customer price point.
This coming week we will publish a series of discussion papers surrounding the question is 21st Century Britain in 2021 going to be a Home Owning democracy or a Rent seeking Banana Republic?
The world of science
also available on Bitchute.
THE CARTOGRAPHY OF POST-COVID-19 GREEN GROWTH Transcript.
. Mark Carney Keynote. The Pivotal Role of Finance.
on resilience and on sustainability governments have now committed to
net zero including three global giants china japan and south korea in the last few weeks
and more and more countries are recognizing that green stimulus is essential.
Building a sustainable future will be capital intensive after a period when there’s been too
little investment it will be job heavy when unemployment is soaring. It’s what the world needs
for its future and it’s what we all need right now given the wholesale shift in economic
and social drivers of values since covid.
It will be a rare company whose pre-crisis strategy remains optimal and so businesses of all
stripes increasingly recognize that changing consumer preferences and new climate policies
are creating the greatest commercial opportunity of our time the leaders
are publishing their transition plans for net zero
there’s now major companies that have science-based targets and there’s a further
in the pipeline by glasgow
net zero transition plans will become the norm for large companies private finance
will fund the initiatives and innovation of these plans provided that is, provided that private
finance has the necessary information and the tools and markets and that’s whyour objective
for cop 26 is to build the framework so that every financial decision can take climate change
into account we’re publishing today our
cop 26 (https//www.ukcop.org/wp-content/uploads///COP-Private-Finance-Hub-Strategy_Nov-v..pdf)
private finance strategy to build a market in that transition it rests on four pillars
three r’s comprehensive climate reporting a transformation in climate risk management
and mainstreaming of climate returns and creating new markets to mobilize private
capital especially private capital and investment into emerging and developing economies now i want
to spend the balance of my time outlining the progress that has been made since
february in the guildhall and setting out what more needs to be done by the time we arrive in glasgow
we start with reporting we all know what gets measured gets managed and companies
need to report systematically their climate-related risks and opportunities that climate
change poses to their business models and okay to recap investors representing over 140 trillion of
assets are demanding this information and disclosure in line
with tcfd they’re also calling on companies to disclose whether or not the assumptions in their
financial statements are compatible with the paris agreement with ireland’s announcement last week
over countries and national authorities now support the tcfd and the most forward-looking
are enshrining it in law with new zealand leading the way regulators are moving as well the fca in
the uk has completed its consultation on comply explained disclosure obligations
and as the lord mayor just said you’ll hear more from the ceo uh later in this summit since february
guidance from international standard setters has sharpened the iasb has made clear
that where climate change risk is considered material he standards already require that it’s
disclosed in mainstream financial statements and the i double asb’s guidance to auditors
shows that climate change is an issue that must be regularly assessed by the accountancy and audit
professions so allow me to translate we have governments setting the goal of
net zero we have over a hundred and hundred trillion dollars of capital demanding action
at a minimum companies must disclose whether the assumptions in their accounts
are aligned with paris in other words are they joining us on the road to
glasgow or not now the best companies are responding almost half
of companies with market capitalization greater than billion are disclosing in line with most of the
tcfd recommendations but most isn’t yet enough we need full disclosure
and we need full disclosure particularly about forward-looking strategies and this
underscores the need to make climate-related disclosures mandatory
now there are many routes to mandatory um and they are complementary um but the important thing is to
agree the direction of travel and so we’re calling on governments by glasgow to use the tcfd as the
starting point for any mandatory disclosure regime secondly to publish pathways to show how
authorities in their respective jurisdictions will be responsible for implementing climate-related
reporting rules and thirdly to work with international standard setters particularly the ifrs
foundation and that’s the body responsible for the accounting rules in over
jurisdictions and it is currently consulting on sustainability standards and how they might be developed
and we would urge all companies particularly in the financial sector
to engage in that consultation
let me turn to the second r which is risk like in the case of reporting there has been considerable
progress since we met in the guild hall in february the ngfs the group of central banks and
supervisory authorities has grown to over members accounting for jurisdictions that
represent over two-thirds of global emissions it’s now developed standards for
supervision and the management of climate risks
as well as approaches for climate stress testing and central bank policies for
climate change of those authorities major authorities are issuing guidance to
major banks and insurers the ngfs has published its set of scenarios for climate stress testing
which will allow investors to compare results and readily differentiate the strategic resilience of companies
they lend to and ensure central banks have committed to running climate stress testing
and the ngfs scenarios will be important to aligning these approaches
and reduce the burden on firmsand allowing comparison across jurisdiction
and you’ll hear more about these approaches when the governor of the bank of england speaks later this morning
international authorities are also starting to embed this approach
the imf included the impact of climate-related financial risks in its most
recent financial sector assessment of norway and we’d encourage the imf to now mainstream
this approach and in recent months as you heard from the lord mayor
some of the world’s largest banks including
barclays hsbc and morgan stanley have committed to net zero by on a
scope basis which means bringing all of their financed emissions in line with net zero
for glasgow we’re calling on more firms to use these ngfs scenarios more central banks to conduct climate stress
tests and to develop and disclose and manage the climate risks on their
balance sheets turning to returns given that climate change is an existential risk it follows that
those companies that are part of the solution to climate change will create enormous
value the financial sector is increasingly focused on this opportunity of a lifetime in fact it’s
an opportunity for a lifetime
as one illustration the assets under management for the un’s
principles for responsible investment have grown over twenty percent
this year to over a hundred and two hundred trillion dollars and valuations in the market are
beginning to
goldman sachs estimates that the implied carbon price for long-term oil projects
is around eighty dollars a ton and that hurdle rates for renewable power
investment are one quarter of that of long term oil developments
investors are increasingly calling as a result for credible transition
plans from all companies climate action plus a group of institutional investors
controlling almost trillion dollars of assets recently demanded that the world’s
largest emitters emitters that count for more than three quarters of global industrial emissions published
SIDE BAR From Clive Spash and The Brave New World of Carbon Trading Indulgences.
their strategies to reach net zero by and on the road to glasgow investors are clarifying those expectations
for those plans with emerging best practice being publishing plans that include scopes one two and ideally three
targets balancing absolute emissions with appropriate offsets governing the management of those risks at the board
level and tying executive compensation to their
achievement transition plans will reveal the leaders and laggards on the road to glasgow but rather than have authorities
be overly prescriptive on plans it may be desirable to have investors have a say on transition in other words an automatic
annual advisory boat vote on transition plans just as they have a say on pay this would establish a critical link between
responsibility accountability and sustainability now over time investors won’t just judge company transition plans they too
shall be judged
investors should disclose how closely their portfolios are aligned with the transition to net zero
and some of the world’s largest and most influential asset owners already doing
that the members of the net zero asset owner alliance trillion of assets have committed to
manage down their carbon footprint by up to on a scope basis by and to be net zero compliant by
and such a metrics based approach will become increasingly common so one of the challenges
by glasgow is for investors to agree how best to demonstrate how their clients investments are
aligned with climate targets a measure of portfolio alignment needs
to be forward-looking it needs to be anchored in real world targets and it needs to be dynamic
and these are the criteria that will ensure that investors are engaged with
companies that are seeking to decarbonize because and i mean all companies because we will
not get to net zero in a niche it requires a whole economy transition
now the ways there are several ways to measure who’s on the right and wrong
side of climate history and today the measuring portfolio alignment report
published by a private sector team led by david blood the founder of generation
investment management assesses various metrics including the percentage of assets that
are net zero aligned secondly transition progress against scientifically determined transition pathways that vary by sector
and thirdly calculation of a portfolio warming metric to assess the quality of those plans
over the next months on the road to glasgow the industry should use david’s report
s a basis for discussion and consensus on the most useful measurement and as you’ll hear from
richard curtis later in the summit investors need will need transparent
and readily understandable answers when their clients ask
whether their money is being invested in line with their values
the challenge to the industry is to make a material and meaningful metric so that people can
make their money matter turning to the last pillar mobilization climate change is clearly a global challenge much of the critical
investment will take place in emerging and in developing economies in fact probably
three quarters of the infrastructure investment the . trillion of annual Infrastructure investment that’s required for decades will
happen there so we need to turn billions of public capital into
trillions of private capital part of this will be through scope emissions transition plans part will be through investing to mitigate
physical risk by increasing infrastructure investment resilient infrastructure investment and widening insurance cover
part will be
through new platforms such as the GISD for blended finance and part will be through the creation of new markets particularly one for
carbon offsets as more and more companies commit to net zero demand for credible and verifiable offsets will soar and the most cost
effective of these with the greatest emission reduction potential will be in emerging and developing economies these can generate
large flows of capital for many decades now
currently that market doesn’t properly exist it’s opaque it’s cumbersome it’s fragmented
the amount of offsets last year was just over 300 million dollars in order to conserve the carbon budget we need to spell million
with a b for finance for finance to flow to these projects we need professional transparent and resilient market so we put together
a group of experts under the leadership of bill winters the
ceo of standard chartered overseen by annette nazareth former sec commissioner and now davis polk and under the sponsorship of the
institute for international finance and tim adams this group has been moving at lightning speed and it’s on track to deliver a blueprint for a professional carbon offset market earlier next year tomorrow they’ll launch the consultation for that blueprint
and we’re calling on all interested parties to engage so to conclude i’ve only highlighted a few of the vehicles on the caravan
of private finance towards glasgow and you can learn more about them in the detailed private finance strategy published today
but i want to finish by thanking the very many of you from thousands of organizations around the world in the private sector in
the public sector and ngos that are working tirelessly to make this journey a success your ideas energy and innovation are critical
my lord mayor there’s an old proverb if you want to go fast go alone if you want to go far go together the private sector has gone
a long way in a short period of time it’s moving fast on the road to Glasgow with the uk and Italian presidencies of cop 26
the g and g next year governance now have a unique opportunity to amplify these efforts and ensure that we go far towards our
objective of net zero thank you
The Word Cloud is generated from the full transcript generated by the Youtube video platform. Click on the 3 dots to the right of the thumbs up and click open transcript the transcript can then be copied , cut and pasted for further analysis.
Timings.
00.00 Mark Carney Keynote. The Pivotal Role of Finance.
17.09 Introduction Christine Lagarde ECB
30.41 Intermission
32.21 Kristalina Georgieva MD IMF
37.51 Paolo Gentiloni European Commissioner for Economy
46.43 John Green CCO Ninety One
58.49 ROund Table Mobilising FInance For the Economy Moderator Liv Garfield , CEO , Severn Trent
Participants. Angela Darlington, CEO, Aviva Life, David Schwimmer, CEO, London Stock Exchange Group, Jes Staley, Group Chief Executive , Barclays.
1.38.00 The Green Horizon Summit Barclays Bank Film.
1.39.27 Andrew Bailey , Governor , Bank of England
1.50.00 Nikhil Rathi , Chief Executive, Financial Conduct Authority
1.58.23 Compere Comments announces 2 hour break.
Here is the Report which Mark was launching in his Keynote.
“Promoting sustainable human settlements development” is the subject of Chapter 7 of Agenda 21
, which calls for 1) providing adequate shelter for all; 2) improving human settlements management; 3) promoting sustainable land-use planning and management; 4) promoting the integrated provision of environmental infrastructure: water, sanitation, drainage and solid waste management; 5) promoting sustainable energy and transport systems in human settlements; 6) promoting human settlements planning and management in disaster-prone areas; 7) promoting sustainable construction industry activities; and 8) promoting human resource development and capacity-building for human settlements development.
46. We commit ourselves to promoting the role of affordable and sustainable housing and housing
finance, including social habitat production, in economic development, and the contribution of the
sector to stimulating productivity in other economic sectors, recognizing that housing enhances
capital formation, income, employment generation and savings and can contribute to driving
sustainable and inclusive economic transformation at the national, subnational and local levels.
Live Stream Dialogue with John Hearne. A LIVE STREAMED DIALOGUE ON MONEY, BANKING AND POLITICAL ECONOMY. “TINA” THE VILLAGE BIKE OR TEMPLE WHORE. https://t.co/aGJtrxfQg0 via @rld_real_CPR
Redefining Fiscal Conservatism. The Terra/Energy Based Fiscal Unit. Föres and Lagom White Paper, Boundary Conditions for a Fiscal Conservatism based upon Circular Economics. PART ONE Scope. https://t.co/rD5bfSJLsn via @rld_real_CPR
This SVT documentary has a segment on Concrete that does not omit co2. Carbon emissions and the building and construction industry along with heating , cooling and lighting of the built environment are large emitters of CO2 and users of energy
as such Embodied energy, Embodied Carbon and finance linked to embodied carbon or Carbon emissions reporting are especially relevant to charting a course for our future business planning at Moduloft.
Part 13 of 18: The technicians who want to hack the climate. Climate change is becoming increasingly apparent and emission reductions have been postponed to the future. Now some scientists and engineers want to try to influence the earth’s climate in a technical way. These include absorbing carbon dioxide from the air and burying it, or physically blocking the inflow of sunlight. Can such technical solutions really work? How much would it really cost? And what are the risks? Host: Victoria Dyring.
Information about the world of science – The technicians who want to hack the climate
Sun 8 Nov 02:00
CAN BE SEEN
Sat 8 May 2021 (6 months left)
100 people and top academics around the world signing letters did not come out of no-where. XR can be traced back to https://web.archive.org/web/20151015172755/https://compassionate-revolution.net/ and this Compassionate Revolution Ltd. is a company that then has Rising Up! and Extinction Rebellion derived from it. Wayback machine has it appearing in 2015. The campaign of Extinction Rebellion began in the planning in 2018, in the Spring. BUT even looking in 2015 there were people thinking about ecological politics involved from the start. Many of the figures involved were activists long before Occupy emerged around 2011. IN fact some can trace their direct action to the Reclaim the Streets! of the 1990s. How tenuous this chain is or how much this influenced the modern XR is not easy to say. There are probably not sources that say this to wikipedia standards. Rather looking at the key individuals and their histories would be a better way of assessing this. However a lot were not activists and not involved in any groups or gatherings. — Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.249.7.24|84.249.7.24]] ([[User talk:84.249.7.24#top|talk]]) 18:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Greta Thonberg responded [1] to concerns of corporate capture of her message which has been expressed by the Wrong Kind of Green [2], an Indigenous peoples environmental group. [3] “We attempt to expose those who undermine the People’s Agreement. One role of the non-profit industrial complex is to undermine, marginalize and make irrelevant, the People’s Agreement. The reason being, to protect corporate interests by which they are funded. As well, the non-profit industrial complex protects the industrialized, capitalist economic system, responsible for the capitalist destruction of our shared environment. Those groups who continue to protect such interests must be considered complicit in crimes against humanity. RogerGLewis (talk) 19:16, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
References
https://www.ecowatch.com/greta-thunberg-climate-strike-2627956100.html http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/2019/02/03/the-manufacturing-of-greta-thunberg-for-consent-the-house-is-on-fire-the-90-trillion-dollar-rescue/ http://www.wrongkindofgreen.org/about-us/
/* Concerns of Corporate Green-washing / I am reverting this new section if you wish to suggest and edit then please do It is clearly a concern looking at previous comments . I will initiate a consensus process if the revertiung continues. WH RogerGLewis (talk) 19:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
The section about “Green-washing” is not appropriate in this article and is not sourced – please do not revert without further discusssionBorisAndDoris (talk) 21:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
This content shouldn’t be anywhere: it totally lacks secondary sources and thus fails WP:V spectacularly–not just because of lack of reliability, but the quality of the sourcing indicates this isn’t noteworthy. Moreover, it’s grammatically challenged: the “which” in “which has been expressed” refers in a very wonky way to “her message”, since that is the closest antecedent, but I think it’s meant to refer to “concerns”, which is a plural and too far away for proper anaphoric reference. Finally, I think you left out a closing quotation mark in this longer comment; at first I thought you, RogerGLewis, were making a statement about complicity. Drmies (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
It contains WP:SYNTH because Thunberg’s words addressing pushback in general does not name the other sources provided here. That means RogerGLewis is doing WP:Original research to connect the dots. It is also a neutrality/BLP problem because the “About us” text from the criticizing blog is being used to imply Thunberg is an example of the those things the criticizing blog exists to do battle against. Another problem is the long quute from the criticizing blog is about the criticizing blog, not about the subject of this article, so it is off topic. And the text fails WP:Verification because none of the sources identify the criticing blog as “an indigenous people’s environmental group”. If it were not for all the other problems we might be able to say something with inline attribution to the authors of the blog column. Something like, “According to….”. Maybe. But what we have here are self publishing people who self-describe their obvious advocacy pieces as “independent jouranlism”. Who cares, everyone is entitled to an opinion and WordPress blogs are free. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[1] The concerns section is I think relevant to both articles which Page should we conduct the discussion it is probably easier to find consensus on one page and then discuss any changes to the core point which I think is a general point on most polarised positions in Political economy./ Criticism */ Consensus process nominate talk at extinction rebellion page for this discussion as well?[2] RogerGLewis (talk) 05:22, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Sources supporting this content are too weak for a BLP article (probably also weak for any contentious claim in any article). Without better sourcing, there is no place for this in the article. Pavlor (talk) 06:13, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
More comments by Roger NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 12 February 2019 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eseb User:Esebtalk)I wonder if you might like to comment on the proposes edit I share your concerns. RogerGLewis (talk) 06:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
SOme cririsisms of The Rong Kind of Green etc.. also some grammarian stuff, all very interesting Eats shoots and leaves and all that. LOL,
On the problem of Notability I offer two Searches One for Duck a Go Go [3] and one for Google [4]
You will note that the Wrong Kind of Green article comes in at no 3 in Duck a Go Go and on google the search term itself is cleary the subject of a dynamic shadow ban in the google algorithm itself. RogerGLewis (talk) 06:45, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
The Wrong Kind of Green is a collective and not a hierarchical patriarchal organisation as such it does not fit within the Categorisation negation of the media-industrial censorship complex barre mechanism, they avow to these principles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_People%27s_Conference_on_Climate_Change [5] The real grassroots of Environmental activism which Greta complains of not reading about in the Newspapers. These are all matters which Professor Piers Robinson[6] has been studying and publishing on, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piers_Robinson, and drawing the ire of the Huff post etc.. [7], corporate greenwashing and capture of well-meaning movements is a part of the study of Manufacturing Consent. [8] and useful idiots[9] , gatekeepers [10] and controlled opposition [11] do of course populate the organs of the Fourth Estate [12] including Wikipedia articles. RogerGLewis (talk) 07:04, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Clearly if wikipedia allows a person who reveals their political agenda (see attached) to edit pages, there is a huge problem. This is clearly visible on my entry which has been overwhelmingly edited by Cross and which is clearly unbalanced. pic.twitter.com/jNjWT4Qnsp
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2018/12/10/pier-d10.html https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gatekeeper https://www.quora.com/What-is-a-controlled-opposition https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
@Roger,
(A) When determining WP:CONSENSUS no one cares about the dubious WP:GOOGLETEST.
(B) Helpful suggestion, study WP:Arguments to avoid in discussions in general.
(C) Whatever else the WrongKindOfGreen might be, for Wikipedia purposes we care a great deal about the fact that it is a SELF PUBLISHED source. We have an explicit prohibition on self published sources in biographies of living people. That means you MAY NOT USE this blog on Greta’s article. See WP:BLPSPS. On the flip side, Greta’s self published words about herself are permitted, WP:BLPSELFPUB. As for using the blog in Extinction Rebellion, that gets back to the general rule about SELF PUBLISHED sources. We can’t use self published criticism about third parties, especially when the criticism is advocating the self-publishing authors’ own political and economic goals. Sorry.
(D) At article talk we should be focusing on content not our Wikipedia colleagues so I am troubled by your tendency to imply that one or more of us other editors are “useful idiots. gatekeepers… (who) populate the fourth estate”. Please see WP:No personal attacks.
(E) Finally, if you keep beating the drum about the blog, without addressing the comments I and others have provided, you will drift across the line from new editor learning the ropes to an editor determined to engage in WP:Tendentious editing, which is an example of WP:Disruptive editing. We have a procedure for temporarily blocking editors from making changes, and its purpose is to prevent future problems rather than punish for past behavior. That is also the goal of my long comment here, prevention.
(F) Sure we can have a criticism section that meets our policies and guidelines. Please look for what Wikipedia defines as a reliable source, and steer clear of WP:PRIMARY sources. What we need for a good criticism section are secondary or tertiary sources. Although Wikipedia is a tertiary source, we are not allowed to cite ourselves as a reference. On the talk page, its OK to help others know what you’re talkinga about, but we can’t cite Wikipedia in a Wikipedia article. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:49, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
First I want to say thank you to Roger for consolidating the discussion on one article talk page and to NewsandEventsGuy for helping Roger with the housekeeping. I agree with the above editors that the paragraph quoted above should not be included. XR and Thunberg don’t seem to be related to The Wrong Kind of Green blog in any way; and the blog itself is not (yet) a reliable source or a notable organization. I sympathize with the issue that the blog discusses but including quotes from the blog’s “about us” web page in these articles does not comply with our policies, guidelines, and best practices, especially for a BLP. Leviv ich 16:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
Thank you both for very helpful guidance, I will see what I can do time allowing. Regarding the allegation of biased canvassing, That was something of a fly in the appointment I reject the accusation, but I will not get in the way what is turning out to be a rather spiffing learning curve for my Wikipedia journey which is intermittent at best. It will take a while to read all the articles, the arcana of Wikipedia is endlessly fascinating of course, Yet one, as we all do I am sure, has to put Bread on the Table, the dreaded Day Job etc. Anyway, have a good evening Its 98 PM here in Sweden and I have a long night of Code Hacking ahead of me. Thanks again Levivich & NewsAndEventsGuy. RogerGLewis (talk) 19:02, 12 February 2019 (UTC) 😉
, , , Proposed new section revised.
Criticism and resignation from We do not have time
Thornberg responded to criticism of being a hired activist by resigning from the organisation we do not have time , which was accused of profiting from Greta’s celebrity.[1][2][3] ” Ps I was briefly a youth advisor for the board of the non-profit foundation “We don’t have time”. It turns out they used my name as part of another branch of their organisation that is a start-up business. They have admitted clearly that they did so without the knowledge of me or my family. I no longer have any connection to “We don’t have time”. Nor has anyone in my family. They have deeply apologised and I have accepted their apology.” [4] RogerGLewis (talk) 05:17, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Opposed proposed text says nothing about the subject of this article, so it is off topic here. However, this matter is being discussed at Talk:Greta_Thunberg#We_Don’t_Have_Time NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
Oppose – I also don’t see the connection between the Thunberg/WDHT issue and XR. Leviv ich 22:16, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
“In yet another meandering press conference, Mr Giuliani — at times sweating so profusely that what appeared to be black hair dye ran down both sides of his face — came armed with a map highlighting the states where he believed the results could be overcome in the courts. Marked in red were Arizona, Nevada, Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Georgia.”
Urine-indicator dye
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Urine-indicator dye is a substance which is supposed to be able to react with urine to form a colored cloud in a swimming pool or hot tub, thus indicating the location of people who are urinating while they are in the water.[1] A 2015 report from the National Swimming Pool Foundation called this “the most common pool myth of all time”, with nearly half of Americans surveyed by researchers believing that the dye existed.[2]
Urine is difficult to detect as many of the naturally occurring compounds within urine are unstable and react freely with common disinfectants like chlorine, creating a large number of disinfection by-product (DBP) compounds from the original organic chemicals in urine.[3]
In an article published in 2000, Snopes confirmed such a dye did not exist.[1] However, a study published by the University of Alberta in 2017 identified urine in hot tubs and swimming pools based on other markers such as acesulfame potassium, used extensively as an artificial sweetener, being passed chemically unchanged in urine, and not suffering from DBP-related changes in water.[3]
Rumours of the origin of urine indicator-dye go back at least as far as 1958,[1] and the story is commonly told to children by parents who do not wish them to urinate in the pool.[2] A 1985 biography of Orson Welles describes him using such a dye as part of a prank in 1937.[1]
On Tower Hamlets objecting to a new Chinese embassy over Beijing's treatment of Uighurs muslims, architect @elsie_owusu says architects should refuse commissions depending the politics of a client country#Newsnightpic.twitter.com/mYhlEahNCZ
In Part 1 https://www.yumpu.com/s/H8n64zmFkLTPGMRN
we had this as our primer statement.
Following the second Lockdown and the huge QE bail outs ostensibly for Main Street but largely for massive concentration of Corporate Wealth and control , this booklet gives a framework of how free markets and market led credit based distributed sovereign money is the way to build back better.
The present course led by Mark Carney throws the main street baby out with the Surveillance Capitalism #4IR Bath Water.
“LA RÉFORME OUI, LA CHIENLIT NON”
In Part 2, we look at Mark Carney’s new role as set out in the Guardian in december 2019 and consider these statements with the Great Reset narratives coming from the World economic Forum and previous papers on World Reserve Currency reform from after the Global Financial Crisis. And Also going back further to the Nixon Shock, when Connolly famously said Its our Currency but your problem and Degaulle famously quipped. La réforme, oui. La chienlit, non !
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chienlit
Chienlit
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigationJump to search
Chienlit is a traditional French term typically translated as masquerade (French: Mascarade) or carnival/chaos. It was brought to notoriety by General Charles de Gaulle in an angry speech during the student protests in Paris during May 1968 in France, when he used the vernacular term as a scatological pun “La réforme oui, la chie-en-lit non” meaning Reform yes, but chaos – no whilst the pun was Reform – yes, shit in bed – no .
The term is now common parlance in French political commentary, used both critically and ironically referring back to de Gaulle.
ENERGY ECONOMICS, ENERGY, STATISTICAL TURN IN PHYSICS, ATOMISM, REDUCTIONISM, CLUB OF ROME. CLAES JOHNSON, STEINMETZ, IRONSIDE, MAXWELL. ELECTRONIC UNIVERSE, ALFVEN, HOYLE, WOLFRAM COMPUTATION, APPLIED MATHS. IDIOTIC CLIMATE CHANGE COMMUNICATORS AND THEIR MAGICAL MORONIC SHAUPENHAUERIAN EVASIONS. DR FAUSTUS OF MODERN PHYSICS. #INFOWARS #GOLDENGLOBES #RICKYJERVAIS ALL WARS ARE BANKERS WARS!#TWOFINGERS2BRINO #4PAMPHLETEERS
FACTIONS. IN THE GE2019 WHAT HAVE THE TROTS EVER DONE FOR US?#TWOFINGERS2BRINO @WIKI_BALLOT #4PAMPHLETEERS @GRUBSTREETJORNO @SURVATION @WIKI_BALLOT @FINANCIALEYES #WIKIBALLOTPICK #IABATO #SAM #GE2019 ROGER LEWIS ( PORTHOS) @JOEBLOB20
There is an online book here,
http://www.withouthotair.com/Contents.html
This requires a much more long-term investment horizon and complicating the energy mix by overstating the ”Climate Change question** seems to be counterproductive, again I like the way Prof David Mackay dealt with the question including stating the necessities of **Clean Coal and Nuclear”. In this stage, we will be implementing ideas previously barred due to the denial inherent in clinging to a failing system.
However, I see your graph “ECoE by fuel group, 1980-2030F” as a stand-alone proof
that renewables will compete with fossils in the near time span. Normally you give a full explanation of how you reach your figures. But not this time. Do you base your assumptions on figures from ‘renewables interest groups’? Are subventions ex- or included? Costs in connection with the integration and accumulation of intermittent energy? Unfortunately there are lots of negatives which you do not mention. I very much hope that you will take all minusses into account by your next article about the usefulness of wind, waves and sun.
https://www.waterstillar.com/ , It is an invention of a Friend and Neighbour of mine.
Would be great to see a paper on SEE.
resources after essentials’ should read disposable resources after essentials in my opinion.
A great report overall and easy to read. Excellent.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/discretionaryincome.asp
Bernard Hartley
Solar Breeders and another energy plant will surely produce the industrial quantities of Electricity required, why would that be impossible?
to imagine the future, distributed networks and symbiotic systems have to be embraced. Top Down centralised command and control systems simply do not lend themselves to whole system thinking.
Thank you for your reply (regarding current Peak Oil reports). I did indeed read your ‘Perfect Storm’ report back in 2013 .
Like houtskool in his comment above, I find it difficult to imagine that certain countries will avoid the permanent recessions experienced by the majority of nations. Specifically your projections for Spain (+3.2%) and Germany (+0.1%) are difficult to understand as these countries will be embedded in a recession bound Europe (UK -10%, France -6.9% etc.). Could you explain this briefly ?
Bernard
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_thermal_energy_conversion
The Contractors Principle of Valuation is a residual method of valuation which adds up all the input costs and then applies a discount rate to generate an annual economic rent ( Net Present Value )
which can then be used to calculate the rating assessment. At shell I did hundreds of these types of Valuations and the Largest such valuation was for the St Fergus Gas Terminal.
Concepts such as Embodied energy also feed nicely back into measures of Levelized costs of electricity. Pulling these concepts of energy value as opposed to financial value into the equations should hopefully result in seeing what the problem we are trying to solve is? DO we want to save Society or the financial system as it currently operates?
Discount rates based upon the cost of Capital are pretty subjective as you will know Tim but it seems to me that EROIE measures Levelised costs of Electricity production and so forth and a residual valuation approach can yield a good method by which to assess the Economic potential for future prosperity based upon access to energy.
exactly opposite things. Most confusion in economic thinking arises from a failure to
recognize this fact. Goods are wealth which you have, while money is a claim on wealth which you do not have. Thus goods are an asset; money is a debt. If goods are wealth; money is not wealth, or negative wealth, or even anti-wealth. They always behave in opposite ways, just as they usually move in opposite directions. If the value of one goes up, the value of the other goes down, and in the same proportion.”
Quigley Tragedy and hope.
Energy economic rent row 94.
the main obstacle to delivering energy as required for society is the tendency to reward gaming the system to create super profits for a small number of people at the expense of the general population.
Sadly people buy the cons and fairy tales and mythologies. I have very little doubt that much political effort is used to protect the centralised command and control model of late financialised Capitalism, that said creating artificial deadlines is always a sure fire way that nefarious motives are being pursued.
https://www.nrel.gov/analysis/economic-financial-tools.html
This project is visionary and for people like me who oppose capitalism quite frankly, it is a strong argument against our case that Capitalism does not deliver, in this case, it has.
Tims SEEDS is a very important insight into energy based economics it is not in my opinion fully reflective of advances in technology or indeed technology generally.
For our first chapter on consumption, let’s study that icon of modern civi-
lization: the car with a lone person in it.
conversion rates, it’s simple arithmetic:
car, let’s use 33 miles per UK gallon (taken from an advertisement for a
family car):
Rather than willfully perpetuate an inaccurate estimate, let’s switch to the
actual value, for petrol, of 10 kWh per litre.
played this estimate in the left-hand stack in figure 3.3. The red box’s
height represents 40 kWh per day per person.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/320445428_Global_primary_energy_use_associated_with_production_consumption_and_international_trade
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321586512_Global_energy_flows_embodied_in_international_trade_A_combination_of_environmentally_extended_input-output_analysis_and_complex_network_analysis
The work of
Xiaofang Wu
21.81Zhongnan University of Economics and Law
The analysis could only be dreamed about in the Early 80’s when this paper with Energy expåpressed as BTU’s was the norm.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6029194_Embodied_Energy_and_Economic_Valuation
To recap our requirements: we’d like to be able to store or do without
about 1200 GWh, which is 20 kWh per person; and to cope with swings
in supply of up to 33 GW – that’s 0.5 kW per person. These numbers are
delightfully similar in size to the energy and power requirements of electric
cars. The electric cars we saw in Chapter 20 had energy stores of between
9 kWh and 53 kWh. A national fleet of 30 million electric cars would store
an energy similar to 20 kWh per person! Typical battery chargers draw a
power of 2 or 3 kW. So simultaneously switching on 30 million battery
chargers would create a change in demand of about 60 GW! The average
power required to power all the nation’s transport, if it were all electric, is
roughly 40 or 50 GW. There’s therefore a close match between the adoption
of electric cars proposed in Chapter 20 and the creation of roughly 33 GW
http://old-interface.2050.org.uk/pathways/3111444444444442111441111333111111111111111111122111/primary_energy_chart
Placing all of ones’ analytical ammo into the seeds weapon would be a strategic mistake.
Another mistake is accepting the starting assumptions and definitions moulded in the Growth Paradigm and applying them to a post-growth paradigm.