Exclusive: leading greens in major nuclear U-turn

[fifthcolumn]

Sorry Dominic J, that's just wrong. Everyone in the UK is totally integrated into the country's economy.

No offense mate but I have to laugh at you.
Here is your assertion:

If the economy goes in one direction then EVERYONE's fortunes goes in that same direction.

Is that really what you are trying to say?

If it is I'm going to burst out laughing.

[clv101]

Sorry Dominic J, that's just wrong. Everyone in the UK is totally integrated into the country's economy.

No offense mate but I have to laugh at you.
Here is your assertion:

If the economy goes in one direction then EVERYONE's fortunes goes in that same direction.

Is that really what you are trying to say?

If it is I'm going to burst out laughing.

Nothing is that absolute - I'd never say everyone as there are always outliers. However on average the the wealth of a citizen will track that of the nation. I don't like to base any argument/reasoning on the outliers.

[fifthcolumn]

Nothing is that absolute - I'd never say everyone as there are always outliers. However on average the the wealth of a citizen will track that of the nation. I don't like to base any argument/reasoning on the outliers.

Actually I'm not going to laugh at you.
I'm just going to prove you wrong.

Here is just ONE example:

Aberdeen.

If oil prices go up Aberdeen booms while the rest tank.

Alberta is equivalent of Aberdeen for Canada. As oil prices boom, Alberta booms and Ontario busts.

On an individual organisational basis, ASDA and McDonalds BOOM while Waitrose and high end Restaurants tank.

Another example: Divorce Lawyers lose out and Liquidators win.

On a personal basis: How is it possible that I made money off of the banks collapsing while my mates were losing their shirts (and getting seriously angry and jealous at me)

Sorry mate, your assertion is bollocks.

Try again.

[clv101]

You're stating the obvious, those are the outliers.

As the economy shrinks (the pie gets smaller), there will be reallocation and some will do better than others. As the pie is getting smaller there will be more losers than winners. As the pie continues to get smaller, EVEN the reallocation won't be enough to offset the absolute decline and eventually the point is reached when everyone ends up being a loser.

[fifthcolumn]

You're stating the obvious, those are the outliers.

No, it's just that you don't appear to understand economics.

[qiote]
As the economy shrinks (the pie gets smaller), there will be reallocation and some will do better than others.
[/quote]
Yes this bit you got. Good. Now you and Dominic and I and in agreement on this bit.

As the pie is getting smaller there will be more losers than winners.

Not necessarily.

As the pie continues to get smaller, EVEN the reallocation won't be enough to offset the absolute decline and eventually the point is reached when everyone ends up being a loser.

Nope. You won't *ever* get the situation where everyone ends up being a loser. Those who gain from the loss would eventually end up owning everything.

Except that it doesn't work that way. The collapse is not total, it is cyclical.
It is boom and bust and boom again in constant and continual cycles of creative destruction.

This is something that is repeatedly misssed by hard core dieoff fanatics.

They argue that since endless growth is "impossible" we must have a collapse.
A collapse all the way to zero.

Nope. Doesn't happen that way not in physics and not in nature.

[clv101]

Urm - it's happened to lots of past civilizations. Collapse to ~zero is possible. Why assume a cyclical system?

[Bandidoz]

The cost of 1m sea level rise outweighs the value of all the electricity ever generated from coal - many times over.

Cost to who?

The councils that build sea defences to protect vulnerable property. Not to forget any insurance companies who pay out. Or social security for those who are displaced. Loss of ROI from investments washed away before they reach their payback point. There's bound to be plenty of others....

[Bandidoz]

The collapse is not total, it is cyclical.
It is boom and bust and boom again in constant and continual cycles of creative destruction.

This is something that is repeatedly misssed by hard core dieoff fanatics.

I think you're mis-interpreting Chris's point as "economic contraction means everyone's worse off" when he's really pointing out that, "economic contraction means many become worse off since the total is reduced so the average value per person is less".

Please tell me, who were the winners on Easter Island?

[fifthcolumn]

Urm - it's happened to lots of past civilizations. Collapse to ~zero is possible. Why assume a cyclical system?

Global collapse to zero has never happened before.
Dieoff fanatics are arguing that it's about to happen.

But I'm not even sure I agree with your assertion that we have had civilizations collapse to zero either. It's possibly semantics we're arguing about so I'm going to describe what collapse to zero means to me:

It means that all economic activity (including the growing of food and all trade) just stops.

You have had civilizations collapse but the people continued on at a lower level of economic activity or else were replaced by invaders who continued at a certain level of economic activity.l
In the worst of all scenarios you had situations like when the goths destroyed the aqueducts feeding rome that you had an overnight economic collapse in Rome itself but the people went to other cities in Italy or other regions. Rome itself became depopulated and the Rome Empire was defunct but things like the postal service still ran and people still grew food and there was *still* international trade.

So what do *you* mean by collapse to zero, because by my definition it doesn't happen without everyone dying off and I don't believe that's going to happen.

[fifthcolumn]

Please tell me, who were the winners on Easter Island?

Are you going to quote dieoff gospel at me?

LOL

[DominicJ]

Edited for stupidity

[DominicJ]

I think you're mis-interpreting Chris's point as "economic contraction means everyone's worse off" when he's really pointing out that, "economic contraction means many become worse off since the total is reduced so the average value per person is less".
Please tell me, who were the winners on Easter Island?

But as I said, being "on average" poorer doesnt mean everyone is poorer, or by the same amount.
Thats why its an average.
Tractors ruined ox plough makers, but made food much cheaper, some people won, others lost, sometimes theres more winners than losers, sometimes theres more losers than winners.

As for the Easter Island winners, the Porpoise?

[clv101]

So what do *you* mean by collapse to zero, because by my definition it doesn't happen without everyone dying off and I don't believe that's going to happen.

I didn't say zero, I said ~zero. I'd class an 80% decline in population as a collapse to ~zero. I don't think we're going to see that on a global scale (1.4bn population) this century but within centuries it's certainly possible.

However collapse to ~zero isn't the point here. Dramatic collapse can occur without dramatic population falls. Take the five years following the collapse of the Soviet Union. Population didn't fall much but economic activity fell through the floor and all but a handful of DominicJ's irrelevant oligarch outliers became poorer.

Maybe DominicJ will be the equivalent of a Russian oligarch as the UK's prosperity declines - but it's highly unlikely. More likely is that his prosperity will roughly track the nations prosperity so a prosperous country should be in his interest. Which brings us back to why every individual should value the ecosystem services upon which that national prosperity is based and which is currently threatened.

[DominicJ]

Maybe DominicJ will be the equivalent of a Russian oligarch as the UK's prosperity declines

I wish

but it's highly unlikely.

Sad but true

Which brings us back to why every individual should value the ecosystem services upon which that national prosperity is based and which is currently threatened.

But it doesnt, because some individuals will benefit from a 1metre sea level rise.
I'm not saying I will, I dont know, but some certainly will, so stopping them burning coal is going to be damn near impossible.
Unfortunatly, trade sanctions are not going to work, we arent the ones in a position of power.

[biffvernon]

Maybe DominicJ will be the equivalent of a Russian oligarch as the UK's prosperity declines

What a horrid thought.

The end-Permian event saw a collapse to zero for ~95% of fossil forming species. Lovelock now talks about 90% die-off by 2100.