Forum

About tidal wave energy

FRIEDT21 — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 09:39:13 -0400

Tidal wave energy is a renewable energy resource. It is based on the power of ocean currents. Ocean wave energy is 100% environment-friendly and doesn’t emit any greenhouse gases. This creates a cleaner environment for future generations.

The source of tidal energy is the movement of tides. Wave turbines, which have a role similar to wind turbines, are placed under the sea water. The water movement results in the movement of turbines and thereby results in the production of electricity.

As the world is looking for renewable energy resources, tidal energy is getting more attention day by day. Tidal energy extraction works in two ways: it creates electric power from the horizontal movement of sea water and from the rise and drop of sea water levels.

Tidal energy is highly dependable and predictable. As tides do not depend on weather, their motion can be predicted. Tidal energy works in a similar way to hydroelectric energy. Tidal energy is one of the clean and cost-effective forms of alternative energy. The rise and ebb of the tides can be effectively used as an alternative energy resource.

More information about tidal energy and the methods of extraction can be obtained from the recent Energy Industry News reports [www.worldenergymedia.com].

Disappointed in the failure of an upside?

Robert Irish — Fri, 14 May 2010 01:42:08 -0400

In reading The Upside of Down, I was disappointed by the absence of any substantial solution to the fundamental issues raised by the book. Indeed, I felt like we are all unable to have any positive impact on the ultimately doomed world -- 10 chapters of down with not much up.

Toward the end, you suggest that moderate people have a "collective action problem" vs. extremists in those moments of contingency. Your solution: an online community. My initial reaction was that this was trivial. It certainly didn't leave me feeling that I have a great deal of power over the various extremist forces, I must confess.

So, tonight I came to the online community to see what it offered. Forgive me if I'm missing something deeper here, but what I see at first blush is a discussion-board kind of book club. If you hoped for a real and vital community that would be working online toward solutions to the five tectonic stresses or the multipliers you identify in the book, I think you must be very disappointed. Is such a thing even possible in a public forum? Or am I looking in the wrong place?

In the three years since the book, have you done any re-thinking about where we go from here, and whether we can get there from here?

I'd be interested to know of any real movements that are happening in the direction of preparing for catagenesis.

Western Roman Empire vs. Byzantium

jimg404 — Sun, 18 Apr 2010 21:10:25 -0400

Professor,

Your analysis of the fall of the Western Roman Empire based around declining EROI and increasing complexity is extremely thought-provoking. Many thinkers and commentators have argued that the modern western world is going the way of Rome, but your analysis provides more technical grounding for this hypothesis than any other that I am aware of.

But still, I wonder how the EROI/complexity paradigm holds up when applied to the fall of other long-lived empires. Would it be relevant to the Eastern Roman Empire, i.e. Byzantium, which began a long, mostly gradual contraction in the seventh century (but held out until the fifteenth century)? Did the east not experience the same EROI crisis due to warmer, sunnier climes and access to alternate food sources, from the sea for example (given that most of Byzantium was close to water)?

As to complexity, I do find it interesting that Byzantium, which certainly had its complexities (thus the term we use today for unnecessary complexity, i.e. "byzantine" ), was ultimately defeated by the Islamic Turks, who held to a much simpler religious and theological structure versus Eastern Christianity. So is the slow fall of the east more a question of accumulated complexity which fails to adapt to changing conditions? (Recall that the Turks and not the Byzantines used a new military innovation, gunpowder canons, in the final battles.)

So, at some point, do increasing levels of organizational, social and economic complexity cross a threshold that inhibits positive innovation? For example, when things get "too bureaucratic"? See, perhaps, the 2008 financial crisis, where government financial oversight mechanisms (complex arrangements across multiple agencies) couldn't respond quickly enough to increasingly complex financial instruments (despite documented awareness of the danger by people within those oversight agencies)?

Just wondered what your thoughts on this might be.

Thanks.
Jim Gerofsky

Re: It ain't gonna last 100 years

IjadoryaIdou — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:16:18 -0400

The future is a fancy land palace whose portals I cannot enter. Moving toward it from Here, I am charmed with its brilliant facade. What sculpted splendors--porticoes, pillars, statues, windows! What is within? As I advance, however, the airy structure recedes. I cannot push beyond its threshold; its doors never open; on their other side is silence and mystery. - James William Sullivan

Re: Optimism vs Pessimism

Tad Homer-Dixon — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 14:39:37 -0400

The quotation is from one of my Globe and Mail opinion articles, and these articles don't provide an opportunity to cite sources. Here is an endnote from my book The Upside of Down that includes sources:

"Psychological research shows that we have, on average, an optimistic bias when it comes to assessing possible threats in our environment and our ability to respond to those threats. Most of us tend to underestimate the difficulties facing us, and we tend to overestimate our ability to respond to those difficulties. The anthropologist Lionel Tiger writes that “anticipating optimistic outcomes of undecided situations is as much part of human nature, of the human biology, as are the shape of the body, the growth of children,and the zest of sexual pleasure” and that there is a “neurophysiology for a sense of the benignity of the future.” See Lionel Tiger, Optimism: The Biology of Hope (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1979), 15, 51. The psychologists Charles Carver and Michael Scheier argue that optimists “tend to take a position of confidence (even if progress is presently difficult or slow)”; people with confidence, in turn, will “continue to display efforts and engagement, even as the cues imply increasingly less basis for confidence.” See Carver and Scheier, “Optimism, Pessimism, and Self-Regulation,” in Edward C. Chang, ed., Optimism and Pessimism: Implications for Theory, Research and Practice (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 2001), 41, 46. And the researchers Lauren Alloy and Lyn Abramson have shown that nondepressives overestimate their personal efficacy. “Nondepressed people succumb to cognitive illusions that enable them to see both themselves and their environment with a rosy glow.” Alloy and Abramson, “Judgment of Contingency in Depressed and Nondepressed Students: Sadder but Wiser?” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 108, no. 4 (1979): 441–85."

Optimism vs Pessimism

mestable37 — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 06:36:09 -0400

In this publication, Fear is Good (http://www.homerdixon.com/download/fear_is_good.pdf)

You wrote, "Our innate capacity for fear clashes with another deep human characteristic - a tendency toward optimism.Contrary to Mr. Brown’s claims, people aren’t naturally pessimistic. Psychological research has shown that we have, on average, a bias toward hopefulness."

This is not actually true in any research I have read. I tried to see your source/reference list to see where you had determined this conclusion, but you did not list it? Don't take this the wrong way: but if you're a researcher and teacher, should not you list your sources on your articles?

I have been doing extensive research on the Positive Psychology movement by Dr. Seligman at Penn State, and he would actually disagree with you here. There are natural optimists, and there are natural pessimists. We are naturally born as one or the other, and while we can work to adjust our natural 'outlook' buffer-range, we cannot fully change it.

I agree that people are not all naturally pessimistic...but nor are they all naturally optimistic. There is a variance among humans, as both optimism and pessimism served a natural purpose (different ones) in the human evolutionary process. Both have their benefits and drawbacks to society. Not one or the other is better or worse. Instead, what matters is how, when and why each is applied.

Optimism vs pessimism

M
----
Michelle Estable
www.michelleestable.com

Sources:

Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happiness: Using the new positive psychology to realize your potential for lasting fulfillment. NY: Free Press.

Seligman, M. E. P. (2006). Learned optimism: How to change your mind and your life. NY: Vintage Books.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist. v55. no.1. Jan. pp 5-14.

Seligman, M. E. P., Steen, T. A., & Park, N., & Peterson, C. (2005). Positive psychology progress: Empirical validation of interventions. American Psychologist. v60. no.5. Jul/Aug. pp 410-421.

Seligman, M. E. P., Rashid, T., & Parks, A. C. (2006). Positive psychotherapy. American Psychologist. v61. no.8. Nov. pp 774-788.

Cars and complexity

Wojt — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 13:23:15 -0500

One example I still vividly remember from The Ingenuity Gap is about cars. How they (Oldsmobiles) were built in the '50s and how Thomas was able to rebuild one of them (p.107). "Dismantling that machine taught me that it was possible to analyse machines and the things in our world, to break them apart and grasp their inner workings" (p.108).

Quote from p.111 reads: "A 1999 Oldsmobile engine with its computerized control...has far more parts, and is therefore far more COMPLEX." That means more difficult to fix of course.

And indeed, things are as predicted by the author. Today we read in the news: "Consumers to see more recalls as auto technology becomes more complex. Vehicle recalls (Toyota) could become broader and more frequent as automakers use increasingly complex technology.., analysts say."

Why Neo-classical Economics needs to be recreated from the ground up

wealthofplanets — Wed, 03 Mar 2010 19:17:46 -0500

The Wealth of Planets

The Wealth of Nations brought to the Western world germinal insights into the fundamental drivers of production efficiencies and the power of supply chain feedback loops to effectively allocate resources and distribute goods.

Over the intervening 230 years, a complex set of mathematical formulations has evolved which govern most of the economically related regulation globally. Neo-Classical economic theory is currently the central framework guiding a significant portion of the economic, political and indeed social decision making in the West and increasingly throughout the rest of the world.

Its mathematical basis, the application of Helmholtz’s equations for energy dynamics (subsequently superseded by more robust theories of electromagnetism and thermodynamics) exchanging utility for energy, etc., has built into the entire edifice (built atop the basic paradigm) the fundamental assumption that equilibrium is the natural state of economic markets. Although this fundamental flaw certainly drives much of the inability to create market systems that avoid the asynchronous boom and bust behavior characteristic of global capitalism, I believe an even more serious outage exists.

Wholly aside from this question of whether the embedded mathematical assumptions and relationships are even vaguely suited to the physical behavior being modeled, there exists a more fundamental question of great importance. That question is whether the approach of Neo-classical economics - handling all factors beyond the limited set explicitly modeled within the framework as “externalities” - has any hope of leading to a model that can guide us to an ecologically, politically and socially stable global state.

Adam Smith’s Semi-Global Village

It is 1786 in a small town in Scotland. Adam Smith’s nephew Able has moved there 5 years after the publishing of The Wealth of Nations. He has purchased a tin flatware and cutlery factory where he intends to apply the power of the division of labor to make his fortune. He quickly transforms the group of individual craftsmen into an efficient factory process which produces 3 times as much product at half the cost.

Within one year he has increased his output fivefold, dominating the market within 20 leagues and has purchased the largest manor in the county. He has raised the wage of his craftsmen by 25% while expanding his workforce by twofold. His only problem seems to be that he can’t get sufficient tin and the cost has increased by half.

The local sheriff, a distant relation of the Sheriff of Nottingham, approaches Able and offers an exclusive supply relationship, promising to meet all requirements and maintain the current price for 3 years, which Able gladly accepts. The Sheriff immediately commandeers the local tin mine for lateness in paying retroactively defined taxes. He rounds up 100 men, women and children from surrounding villages to work in his newly acquired mine in order to pay off the same retroactive taxes.

Five years later, runoff from the mine has ruined the creek and much of the groundwater that supplied the town, rendering many small farms incapable of sustaining themselves. Most of the town’s men spend half their time in the militia trying to defend their families and crops from raids by the surrounding villages enraged over the enslavement of their relatives. As the decreasing supply of water and food increases the pressure on the townspeople, Able needs more and more private guards to protect his manor, grounds and factory. Finally, spreading consumption and an explosion of vermin in the growing squatters’ camp in the adjoining forest lead him to acquiesce to his young wife’s requests. He buys a castle on the south coast of France where he relocates permanently.

While writing to his uncle Adam to thank him for the profound insights into the division of labor, the natural and market price of commodities, and all the other subjects in The Wealth of Nations, and bemoaning the wretched state of his home village and the utter lack of industry and morals of the peasant population, Able falls into a dream. In this dream, he meets a visitor from the future. This visitor is a strange and profoundly annoying man holding a violin, upon which he occasionally produces horrible screeching noises. The visitor introduces himself as one Henny Youngman and proceeds to relate a strange tale. “There once was a man buying a suit. While trying on the suit the man tells the tailor that the pants are too long. The tailor says not to worry, pulls up the waist of the pants in the front to the man’s chest, places the man’s left arm across his chest to hold the pants in place and says, “There, just right”. The man looks in the mirror and says that the right sleeve is 4 inches too long. The tailor bunches up the right sleeve, places the man’s right arm on top of his head and says “There just right”. The man looks in the mirror, and says that the left lapel is longer than the right. The tailor pulls up the left lapel, places the man’s chin down on it to hold it in place and again states “There, just right”. The man takes one more look in the mirror, pays for the suit and proceeds down the sidewalk. Grossly contorted and walking as if seriously crippled, the man passes two little old ladies. After passing the man, the first woman says to the second, “Oh, did you see that poor man?” The second replies, “Yes, but didn’t the suit fit nice”… Mr. Youngman concluded before disappearing, “Great economic theory, how’d that work out for you?”

Life, Entropy, Perpetual Motion and Utility

Perpetual motion schemes, above unity motor plans and early proponents of life as anti-entropic all have one characteristic in common. They fail to comprehend all salient factors and mistakenly treat open systems as closed, therefore creating flawed models of physical systems’ behavior.

The fundamental variable in all flavors of economics is utility. Utility is a measure of the relative satisfaction from or desirability of consumption of goods. Upon this extremely limited basic definition, the very weak analogy of utility to energy and the use of Helmholtz’s “energetics”, the entire complex edifice of neo-classical economics is built.

If Able’s next dream introduced him to the most brilliant neoclassical economists of today, they could not employ the best current economic models to inform him how to create an economy in his new French community that would be much more stably sustainable than the destruction he just unintentionally wrought in his home town.

The entire concept of utility is so limited that it undercuts the ability of economics to usefully comprehend the interconnected complexity of the world’s dynamics. It has led to top decision makers forming globally impacting policy based on flawed beliefs that our economic models are optimizing what is important to our nation and the world.

Neo-classical economics addresses all factors not readily described by utility functions as “externalities”. Thus they model them as phenomena separate from the basic economic model. Any model that can’t quantify and process the value associated with incremental pollution, global warming, risks of political destabilization, terrorism, war, pandemics, etc. is so fundamentally flawed as to be dangerous. Global economic policy is a major factor in all such risks. Political beliefs governing social, currency, trade, medical and military policies impact the world in profound ways. Belief in the accuracy and efficacy of neo-classical free market capitalism has guided much of US domestic and foreign policy for decades. Critical government policy decisions in areas of healthcare, child welfare, education, trade policy, environmental protection and foreign aid hinge on the beliefs of policy makers regarding the ability of “the free market” to remediate large-scale social, environmental and political problems.

Behavior interacting in complex ways governs the variable risks of such critical “external” factors as those above in concert with macroscopic economic decision making, such as tax policies affecting energy and transportation industries, funding levels for education and welfare, tax and regulation policies for environment-impacting industries and activities, etc. Current economic theory is incapable of meaningfully assessing the risks and probabilities and appropriately modulating the investment or pricing decisions associated with such critical questions as:

• What cost to the world economy is represented by the following risks, and what level of investment in peace-keeping forces, medical and educational aid, and agricultural assistance to Africa would reduce these risks to levels acceptable to the developed world?
- A global pandemic of multiply resistant TB
- Exploding global terror attacks from the merging of middle eastern jihadism with the extreme social dislocation manifested in the Rwanda genocide as it spreads with the growing food shortage crisis

The potential costs are certainly in the trillions of dollars. In fact, a global pandemic with global mortality on the order of the Black Plague (30% on the low estimate) could conceivably reduce global GDP (US $65 trillion estimated in 2006) proportionately (>US $20 trillion). Similarly, a series of successful WMD strikes, such as 4 x 5 Kiloton “suitcase nukes” or 3 x 20 Kiloton theater nukes against major global cities would certainly cause trillions of dollars in cost from damage remediation, trade/economic disruption and military response expenditures.

• How much family services, educational and substance abuse treatment investment would lower the current incarceration rate and its total societal costs to the point of positive ROI?

• How much investment (including the value of a reduction in the gross product of specific industries) in regulation and enforcement, incentives and direct government investment would reduce the long term costs of environmental damage to a positive ROI?

The entire set of market mechanisms that result in pricing goods and services is decoupled from global costs/risks associated with their creation and delivery such as environmental, social and political risks/impacts.
There exists a large pool of individuals conversant in extremely sophisticated modeling of highly complex systems in various physical sciences, including physics and mathematics. It would serve us well to enlist these capabilities to build a new economic theory that encompasses all the critically relevant relationships that are day by day determining the ultimate livability of our planet. It could be that the current edifice of neo-classical economics can be fundamentally expanded to encompass the needed scope of global decision making or it could well be that its Helmholtzian foundation may need to be replaced with more powerfully appropriate tools developed over the last two hundred years. Either way, this task needs to be recognized as more critical than the moon landing and elevated accordingly in the national scientific psyche.

The Wealth of Planets is waiting to be written. Please help.

An Ode to Neoclassical feet of clay

wealthofplanets — Thu, 25 Feb 2010 11:58:54 -0500

The fundamental, defining characteristic of neoclassical economics, expected stable equilibria, is likely only an artifact of the wholly misguided application of an energy system model created by Helmholtz to economic theory, equating physical parameters like energy with economic concepts such as utility (see various writings by Dr. Robert Nadeau). The unbridled application of the resulting ideas as national policy has only been possible in highly distressed nations with essentially no recourse, through IMF interventions. No stable nation has allowed or would allow such drastic risks to be taken with their economic and societal order.

Helmholtzian Regrets
(with apologies to Longfellow, Poe and Suess)

By the shores of Michi-Gami
By the shining global market
Bringer of all things the market
Raiser of all boats the market
Stood the office of the Friedman
Father of the boon the Friedman
Arbiter of rates the Friedman
Stopping global scares the Friedman
Priest of Laissez Faire the Friedman

No?... OK…

Once upon a downturn dreary, global markets weak and weary
Over a quaint volume of forgotten economic lore
While I quaffed my fear a numbing, in my brain I felt a drumming
As a memory gently humming, strumming on my forebrain’s door
“Tis just a ghost of ancient physics“ strumming on my forebrain’s door
Only this and nothing more

Ah distinctly I remember, it was in a bleak September
Began liquidity dismember, signaling what was in store
Gnashed our teeth in pain and sorrow, as we vainly tried to borrow
“Not today, perhaps tomorrow” said the crack head banking whore
“No loans today from in my Caddy, try tomorrow, pay my Daddy”
“Then just post my bail once more”

Still No?...OK…Probably really a Seuss story anyway…

Neoclass Sneeches see invisible hands
Allocating resources across all lands
Removing barriers to equilibrate
Failing economies to set them straight
The ghost of Helmholtz spins in his grave
Vainly wishing his rep he could save
“I thought that ectoplasm made me look pretty bad”
“But using my Dynamics they made me look mad”
“Equating energy to utility was wholly misguided”
“And up here in heaven I’m constantly chided”
“For letting them do it, I look like a chump”
That basic mistake leads to bump after bump

My Energy Dynamics hidden deep inside
The neoclassic structures they built with such pride
You see, cried Schumpeter, we’re scientists too
Our bold intellectual prowess is just like you
What Mirowski calls emulation misbegotten
Recalls the theft I wish was forgotten
I take enough guff about mediums’ tappings
Without the heat for neoclass’ fake physics trappings

Closed energy systems do equilibrate
And if utility was conserved it just might work great
To steal my stuff for an econ theory-light
But utility and energy are nothing alike
No matter the edifice built on top
The neoclass endgame always will stop
In some form of stable configuration
Solved by neoclass confabulation
Or they would, except for the basic mistake
That utility energy’s mantle can’t take
So shaking economies up in the belief
That barrier downing always brings relief
Playing business and governments’ culpable cupid
Genius or selfish, destructive and stupid?
Increasingly frequent, increasingly global
Economic crises that are frightfully mobile
More higher peaks and more lower troughs
Strain the credulity of Krugman’s froths

As we shake the economies of the weak
(If we’d done such here we’d been shot in a week)
Equilibrium’s inevitable we boldly conclude
They just need more discipline, less heat and less food
Our thumb on the scale the table's been shifted
The worthy more worthy of what we have gifted
The strong are more strong now more able to rule
With us build those condos, just knock down that school
They now have the cash to hold off that mob
Of those without shelter, food or a job
With help from us winners we know they can hold
Off the hordes in the streets till their dead hands grow cold
Till we’re long retired and rich as we should
Can you say equilibrate, I knew you could

Worshipping in the church of Uncle Milty
Cleanses our sins, ensures we’re not guilty
Of any offences the IMF may commit
Removing barriers like a Mafia hit
To save economies in dire trouble
Just make sure you’re on the right side of that bubble

Doomsday Argument, Apocalypse..or slow decline?

Wojt — Tue, 09 Feb 2010 17:11:12 -0500

GW is not the only problem. Resources depletion (oil, rare and industrial metals) is a threat, as is overpopulation pressure and possible cataclysms - if not the ones caused on Earth (Yellowstone volcano) , then from the space (Sun activities in 2013 predicted by NASA, asteroids etc). Here on our planet, unsustainable ways of capitalism are a huge danger causing constant polarizations between nations and citizens. We constantly argue. There is no vision for the future, no consensus because it is all about money.

Here is a list of multiple problems that you are quite familiar with:

-We are destroying natural habitats at an accelerating rate.
-The great majority of valuable fisheries already either have collapsed or are in steep decline.
-A significant fraction of wild species, populations, and genetic diversity has already been lost.
-Soils of farmlands are being carried away by water and wind erosion at rates between 10 - 40 times the rate of soil formation.
-The world's major energy sources will be increasingly expensive to extract or process, or will involve higher environmental costs.
-Most of the world's fresh water in rivers and lakes is already being utilized for irrigation, underground aquifers are being depleted so they will eventually dwindle. Desalinization is too expensive to solve most of the world's water shortages.
-Since 1986, it has been projected that we will utilize most of the world's terrestrial photosynthetic capacity by the middle of this century. Little will be left over to support the growth of natural plant communities (forests).
-"Alien Species" devastate populations of natural species (damages are in millions/billions of dollars).
-It all comes down to a growing human population, but what really counts is not the number alone, but the impact on the environment.
When I see reports on research leading to extended longevity of Homo sapiens, I cringe despite the fact that such attempts are totally unrealistic.

Let's take metals:

Indium, gallium (semiconductors, solar cells) are estimated at best to last 10 years, platinum 15, antimony (flame retardants) 15, silver 10, zinc 25, hafnium (computers) 7,terbium (green phosphorus in bulbs) 3 !!

Uncertainties like this pose far-reaching questions. They call into doubt dreams that the planet might one day provide ALL its citizens with the sort of lifestyle now enjoyed in the west. The planet's booming POPULATION is set to put demand on the materials that only Earth can provide. And some technologies are not worth pursuing long-term. (Solar panel technology may not be available soon. Uranium for nuclear plants: if the world continues to consume it at today's rate, it is estimated that uranium will be gone in 50 years.)

If the oil peak is true, it is not an energy issue (this can be substituted with natural gas utilization), it is a matter of saying good-bye to PLASTICS and many types of fertilizers (cosmetics as well, but one can live without them).

On top of all this, we hear the mantra of GDP growth. This variable is very valid and meaningful. Societies cannot accept zero growth. And then we have the parasitic new technologies like flat TVs. Just recently, it has been announced they "eat" energy at double rate of old tube units. All this contributes to CO2 emissions.

After 1950, precise instrumental records began with respect to CO2 ppm, global temperature, GDP/capita and population. Therefore "hockey stick" graphs are not a hoax; all curves represent remarkable correlations with population growth!!

I selfishly have to state that I am lucky to be getting older and probably will not last long enough to see any dramatic events such as social upheavals, conflicts and large-scale wars, but we are moving towards them with increased speed. I am lucky to live my life without experiencing and suffering the consequences of any global wars (like civilians did in WWI and WWII, for example).

In summary: we can forget about the "Doomsday Argument" that says there is a 5% chance that some humans will still be alive in about the year 11125. No one will be alive by then.

Re: Malcolm Gladwell's "Blink"

sharon — Tue, 22 Dec 2009 00:35:54 -0500

The illustration of the "shortcut to treatment" decisions by the E.R. doctors touted as valid.....compared with the same technique applied to Malcolm because some police officers' "shortcut to treatment" wrongly labelled him.... really makes this book bizarre.

As he is an author of extremely short books at large prices focussed on "pop" science (not pop psych), I find myself wondering why the attention is being paid to him.....

Re: No "Carbon Shift" for me

RickSchultz — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 21:57:13 -0500

To blame capitalism for the current state of the world economy is the same as blaming Einstein for the bombing of Hiroshima. Capitalism is a potent, dynamic (and those can be pejorative, too) force, yes, but it is the unbridled nature of western capitalism which is to blame for evils listed above. Specifically, it is the lack of constraint and oversight (i.e., political will) which allowed capitalism to become the perceived destroyer of so much.

Compare the forests of Haiti and Oregon. In one, there was no political will opposing the capitalist, almost like having a combustion engine with unlimited fuel - the capitalism explodes, destroying the natural resource it was harvesting. In the other, the political will of many contained the capitalist force such that the forests were not overly depleted. In both cases, the capitalist urge was very similar; the difference was the political will in which it moved.

Capitalism provides a very powerful tool to effect change, and I think we all agree that change is necessary. However, until we reached the last half (maybe even the last quarter) of the 20th century, there was little, if any, understanding that capitalism NEEDED to be properly contained. I think we should demand that our politicians put in place those checks and balances that will force capitalism back to being a powerful tool, not an out-of-control force.

Lastly, to really understand the power and reasons for failure of western capital, I'd highly recommend Hernando de Soto's work, The Mystery of Capital. Dr. de Soto's excellent work brings to light the largely legal/political reasons why capitalism works reasonably well for western societies, and so poorly for the third world, using large amounts of data and scholarly rigour.

Responding to the sceptics

Peter Salonius — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 20:31:31 -0500

Thomas Homer-Dixon and Andrew Weaver, in their December 4, 2009, Globe and Mail article entitled 'Responding to the Sceptics' have referred to the reservations of people who do not subscribe to the IPCC gospel that "climate science is settled" and that we can be so confident about anthropogenic global warming (AGW) that major policies and regulations are necessary to limit human emissions of carbon containing gases. Homer-Dixon and Weaver suggest that there is a differnce between "science and ideology".

I have been reading climate science intensively for about a year and I have come across a lot of good "science" that runs counter to the IPCC's AGW hypothesis - AND - I have encountered considerable "ideology" from supporters of the IPCC / Kyoto / Al Gore / Michael Mann 'hockey stick graph' view that human activity is the main driver of the global climate.

I recommend reading Dr. Petr Chylek's December 5, 2009, very balanced, and charitable 'Open Letter to the Climate Research Community' for a summary of some of the egregious advocacy on the part of the leading proponents of the AGW hypothesis - AND - Chylek's take on the difference between "science and ideology" -- see:

[www.thegwpf.org]

Re: No "Carbon Shift" for me

Tad Homer-Dixon — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 09:02:53 -0500

I thnk both of these comments are right on the mark. I have a deep ambivalence towards capitalism, at least as it currently manifests itself -- and as I describe it in The Upside of Down. I think it's an open question whether more benign and constructive forms of capitalism are possible. I hope that they are, and that we can get there from here, because modern capitalist markets are probably the most innovative social arrangements that human beings have ever created. And we need as much innovation as we can get. But it must be innovation of the right kinds, which it currently isn't.

I expect to explore exactly this question through various research projects in coming years at the University of Waterloo.

Re: No "Carbon Shift" for me

Braum — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 11:04:26 -0500

I tend to agree with your thoughts on “Carbon Shift.” I, too, had felt that Upside of Down (and other writings) was a prelude for, and even demanded, a more radical economic reflection.

Homer-Dixon has written critically of the disparity between rich and poor in our globalized economy, the unimaginable creation of waste, the unsustainable consumption of resources, soul-less consumerism, and the resulting ecological destruction & species extinction.

He questions the legitimacy of capitalism: “The more people perceive that today’s globalized capitalism is making the already rich vastly richer while simultaneously leaving much of the world’s population behind, the lower will be its moral standing as a set of principles for ordering people’s social and economic lives. And any social system that loses its moral standing – its “legitimacy,” in the jargon of social scientists – is a target for rebellion” (p.186).

He notes the inequality and loss of resilience in the system: “During the decades from 1970 to 2000 – the very decades when globalization surged ahead and free markets penetrated every nook and cranny on the planet – economic crises became more common, the income gap between rich and poor stayed wide, and perhaps most surprisingly, the growth of average income per person declined” (p.192).

And he notes how the system works: “And to get this growth, our leaders and corporations – operating on the implicit assumption that people can be inculcated with insatiable desires and ever-rising expectations – relentlessly encourage us to be hyper-consumers” (p.196) and “Indeed, if Koestler is right that insecurity causes people to hold tenaciously to their core assumptions and values, and if capitalism itself is a prime generator of personal insecurity, then capitalism perversely reinforces its own appeal” (p.202).

These and many other quotes, to my mind, speak to a fundamental incompatibility between capitalism and what we might imagine to be a more sustainable economic system. The tweaking of the present system – an efficiency gain here, and a carbon tax there – does not address the fundamental issue: that capitalist economies must grow (accumulate), and growth means more consumption. [Homer-Dixon doesn’t seem to put much faith in a dematerialized economy, either: “In any case, much of the apparent decoupling of economic activity from resource and energy use is an illusion” (p.203).]

Clearly, more consumption by more people isn’t sustainable. In other words, we can’t consume our way out of a consumption crisis.

Yet, I don’t view Mr. Homer-Dixon as a ‘cornucopian’ – perhaps he fundamentally believes our best chance for survival is a "going-through" by applying human ingenuity & technology, and that ingenuity and technological advancement is best motivated by capitalism (?). I would like to see an exploration of the alternatives to capitalism by someone with Homer-Dixon’s curiosity and critical skills.

Re: Homer-Dixon and intellectual leadership

Abacus — Sat, 12 Sep 2009 14:22:08 -0400

The work that is required to transition our societies into something approaching 'sustainable' would represent one of the greatest efforts ever undertaken.

What will be your contribution Frank?

Re: Homer-Dixon and intellectual leadership

max — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 18:14:11 -0400

Carbon Shift struck me less as a change in trajectory and more as a widening of the discussion. Getting a few other experts to explore some of the complexities of our problems seems entirely appropriate. It is also very likely a kind of a side-trip--not as intense and all-consuming an endeavor as coming up with another major and important book, but still useful to the trajectory as you call it. In a world where messages about puffin poop have a much longer reach than a brilliant synthesis like The Ingenuity Gap, recruiting a few more articulate voices doesn't seem such a bad idea.

Re: Less organizational traveling can help the environment

Nader — Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:14:16 -0400

The evidence is that this can be done-and that it would have positive effects beyond the ecological.

Check out the following study:
[www.tandberg.com].

I remember one study suggesting that perhaps a third of business travel could be easily dispensed with.

Re: Less organizational traveling can help the environment

lanlananhanh — Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:09:38 -0400

credit auto

Thanks so much for sharing the post.

Re: CSIS Report

Tad Homer-Dixon — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 12:20:02 -0400

The CSIS report is entitled "The Age of Consequences," and it can be found on the CSIS website at [www.csis.org].

CSIS Report

Dave — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 22:14:07 -0400

In the introduction of Carbon Shift, it mentions a report from the Center for Strategic and International Studies regarding climate change. Does anyone have a link to that report? I tried their web site but couldn't find it.

Thanks,

Dave

Homer-Dixon and intellectual leadership

Frank Rotering — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 17:43:06 -0400

My previous posting (June 9/09) was very general and drew no response, so let me be more specific in my criticism of Homer-Dixon (H-D).

It’s clear to most progressive minds that the planet is in deep trouble, at least with respect to human and non-human habitats. In my view the root cause is humankind’s largely unconstrained biological drives. These drives, which are today expressed predominantly through capitalism, have caused us to overshoot our planetary niche. Overshoot manifests itself as ecosystem degradation, species decline, and rapid resource depletion.

I believe the correct strategy is to replace the logic of capitalism, modify its institutions, and shift from the biological to the conscious era of our history. (All this is explained in detail in the videos previously cited.) In medical terms, the disease is humankind’s expansionist nature; the symptoms are the various environmental disasters we’re now witnessing.

H-D’s new book, Carbon Shift,notes that two serious symptoms, oil depletion and climate change, are two sides of the same coin - the excessive use of fossil fuels (carbon) in our economies. The indicated strategy is therefore to address this common element by moving swiftly to clean (low-carbon) energy systems.

What H-D says is obviously true with regard to symptoms. Tying oil depletion to climate change is useful in reducing both, as has been suggested previously by Bill McKibben, Richard Heinberg, and others. The problem is that the underlying disease is ignored: why are we using fossil fuels excessively in the first place? Without making this crucial diagnosis, H-D and the other carbon-shifters will find that they’re simply removing a limit to growth. Other symptoms will soon become equally or more serious, and the original symptoms will eventually return - possibly with greater force than before.

The tragic aspect of Carbon Shift is what it implies about H-D’s role in shaping humankind’s strategic ideas. His previous books included some keen insights into our predicament and criticized the prevailing order in scathing fashion. After reading The Upside of Down (2007), I felt that H-D might move towards the consideration of root causes, thereby lending some weight to my feeble efforts in this sphere. If Carbon Shift is an accurate indicator, this possibility has evaporated.

This matters greatly because H-D is among the few intellectuals with the capacity and orientation to assume the role of planetary doctor. There are plenty of activists, scientists, writers, energy analysts, and talking heads out there, but only a handful of deep, critical thinkers. The world needs such people to probe the necessary civilizational transition, to analyze the prickly issues surrounding capitalism, and to formulate a new economic basis for human life on this planet. I find it lamentable that H-D has abandoned this central task in order to address the symptoms of our expansionist folly.

Of course, if I have misconstrued either Carbon Shift or H-D’s trajectory, I would welcome his corrective comments.

No "Carbon Shift" for me

Frank Rotering — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 13:55:45 -0400

After faithfully following Homer-Dixon's work for years - Ingenuity Gap, Upside of Down, articles, etc. - I'm jumping ship and will not be reading Carbon Shift. Essentially, I'm disappointed by his own shift - from a critical attitude towards capitalism to a lusty embrace* - and by his failure to address the fundamental issues facing our species. For my take on the latter, see the following two-part video:

Redirecting our Civilization - Part 1: From the biological to the conscious era
[www.youtube.com]

Redirecting our Civilization - Part 2: From capitalism to a new economy
[www.youtube.com]

Readers of Carbon Shift should note that two of its six essays are by conventional economists (Jeff Rubin, Mark Jaccard), and that a third is by a reporter who firmly supports conventional economics (Jeffrey Simpson). In Upside of Down, Homer-Dixon said that:

"Conventional economics is the dominant intellectual rationalization of today's world order." (p. 293)

My interpretation is that, despite his earlier pretentions, Homer-Dixon has fully succumbed to this world order, and now only supports modifications that fail to seriously threaten it.

Frank Rotering
(needsandlimits.org)

* Upside of Down (2007) contains some sharply critical statements about the language, logic, worldview, and ideology of capitalism (pp 216-218). A year later, in a Globe & Mail article ("The underground road to getting rid of carbon and saving us all," March 8, 2008, with David W. Keith), the capitalist system is characterized as "dynamic, innovative and adaptive," and as being indispensable for cutting the emissions it has produced.

Re: Danger and opportunity

Chantelle — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 09:07:08 -0400

Edward Butterworth,
You made my eyes water. Power to you, and always stay with your children. This world is depressing, but your words are music to me.

Re: Global awareness for teens

Chantelle — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 08:35:19 -0400

Hi Blake,
I think it's wonderful that you are aware, and I agree that more youth and adults need to be more aware. I think you are more aware than most adults. We are being misled, but to what extent do people just believe what they want to believe and just keep hearing it? It's called "supply and demand." The near sacred status of the economy has allowed business to (among many other injustices) deliberately lead children and young adults to believe they can have so much more than humanity and the Earth can afford. It is one of the cruelties of modern capitalism/Western culture.

Other sources you may wish to check out: The Long Emergency, James Howard Kunstler; and Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board, [www.milleniumassessment.org]. The IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) site is impeccable but longwinded! You've probably already checked TH-D's bibliography.

The best of luck to you in all your efforts to make others aware and prepare yourself for the challenges ahead.

Re: Look at the big picture!

Chantelle — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:57:28 -0400

Cuba is the only example of a society which has faced its own version of peak oil without mass starvation (as happened in N Korea due to the collapse of the Soviet). Their vital statistics are about the same as the US, yet their GDP is in the bottom third of all nations. They are a model of semi-sustainability, the best large-scale model we have, see , The Power of Community: How Cuba Survived Peak Oil. If you can get hold of the documentary it is inspiring and offers real hope.

Re: Renewable energy and world peace

Chantelle — Tue, 02 Jun 2009 02:47:55 -0400

There are exciting developments moving fast in nanotech solar (see: [www.abc.net.au], and , June 19, 2008), but it is US corporate money involved. Questions abound on where the balance of power will be globally after peak oil and Gaia hit us...

Will people ever put people before money?

Re: Geo-Engineering

dobermanmacleod — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 05:17:56 -0400

Any carbon diet strategy would be dependent upon clean coal:

"The vast majority of new power stations in China and India will be coal-fired; not "may be coal-fired"; will be. So developing carbon capture and storage technology is not optional, it is literally of the essence." --"Breaking the Climate Deadlock," Tony Blair, June 26, 2008.

But Vaclav Smil, an energy expert at the University of Manitoba, has estimated that capturing and burying just 10 percent of the carbon dioxide emitted over a year from coal-fire plants at current rates would require moving volumes of compressed carbon dioxide greater than the total annual flow of oil worldwide -- a massive undertaking requiring decades and trillions of dollars. "Beware of the scale," he stressed.

The world's emissions of the main planet-warming gas, carbon dioxide, will rise over 50 percent to more than 42 billion tonnes per year from 2005 to 2030 as China leads a rise in burning coal, the U.S. government forecast on Wednesday. China's coal demand will rise 3.2 percent annually from 2005 to 2030, the Energy Information Administration said in its International Energy Outlook 2008. --Reuters, 26 June 2008.

"I'm going to tell you something I probably shouldn't: we may not be able to stop global warming. We need to begin curbing global greenhouse emissions right now, but more than a decade after the signing of the Kyoto Protocol, the world has utterly failed to do so. Unless the geopolitics of global warming change soon, the Hail Mary pass of geoengineering might become our best shot." --Bryan Walsh, Time Magazine, 17 March 2008

"The alternative (to geoengineering) is the acceptance of a massive natural cull of humanity and a return to an Earth that freely regulates itself but in the hot state." --Dr James Lovelock, August 2008

Re: Can the West find peace with Islamic fundamentalists?

happypossum — Sat, 30 May 2009 05:12:23 -0400

I can only hope so.

Re: Young eyes

Chantelle — Fri, 29 May 2009 23:43:15 -0400

Hi Folks,
Geoffrey Edwards, I'm with you!

Also, I think that youth are undermined by the media and those in authority (generally baby-boomers, of course) precisely because they tend to be great activists! I have seen this in action at a "students and youth against the latest war on Iraq" demonstration. If you weren't there and you believed the press, then you would think the youth were a bunch of violent ratbags just making trouble for the fun of it; but the only violence was perpetrated by the police, and the students were passionate and knowledgable on the subject.

I am 38 with a baby and I am very concerned about the future beyond my own death. Sadly, many are not. If they were, then surely they would do something about it. Actions speak louder than words, no matter who it is you want to listen (your peers, another generation, corporate sector, government, media) and I agree with Veronica there. It is no use for every concerned person to be put off by the fact that they are only one. No matter your age or any other inadequacy you might perceive yourself to have, everyone can contribute.

To undermine any group is to be deprived of their unique perspectives and the energy of their empowerment. The problems ahead will require all willing hands on deck.