What could governments do to encourage a real transition?

[biffvernon]

IMHO TEQs don't do enough to encourage reduced demand in the greediest countries, and, at the other end I doubt much of the money would benefit the general population. As now, most would go into government hands and never emerge. 'Here's your 10mil USD for your TEQs Mr Mugabe' Hmmm.....

I think there are two misconceptions there.

1. TEQs have within themselves the ability to reduce demand to any desired level - the level is agreed and set for each period.
2. TEQs are fiscally neutral - there is no flow of money 'into government hands'.


I wonder why it is that so many folk are so reluctant to admit that TEQs do actually solve the problems. Are we so pessimistic and cynical that we have come to believe there can be no solution and that anything that pretends otherwise must be snake-oil?

[SleeperService]

IMHO TEQs don't do enough to encourage reduced demand in the greediest countries, and, at the other end I doubt much of the money would benefit the general population. As now, most would go into government hands and never emerge. 'Here's your 10mil USD for your TEQs Mr Mugabe' Hmmm.....

I think there are two misconceptions there.

1. TEQs have within themselves the ability to reduce demand to any desired level - the level is agreed and set for each period.
2. TEQs are fiscally neutral - there is no flow of money 'into government hands'.


I wonder why it is that so many folk are so reluctant to admit that TEQs do actually solve the problems. Are we so pessimistic and cynical that we have come to believe there can be no solution and that anything that pretends otherwise must be snake-oil?

I concede both points. Lesson: As always, go to the source and don't be swayed by blogs etc

I understood that TEQs were to be internationally tradeable. I now know better. Please accept my apologies. I am now convinced that they could work very well. They could be made better if Ken's insulation scheme was run as well, this would give the poorer households a fair chance of benefiting as the wealthy who can afford to modify or build their own houses already. Ordered a copy of the report to read later. Need something to occupy me on the train down to my brother's

[Little John]

IMHO TEQs don't do enough to encourage reduced demand in the greediest countries, and, at the other end I doubt much of the money would benefit the general population. As now, most would go into government hands and never emerge. 'Here's your 10mil USD for your TEQs Mr Mugabe' Hmmm.....

I think there are two misconceptions there.

1. TEQs have within themselves the ability to reduce demand to any desired level - the level is agreed and set for each period.
2. TEQs are fiscally neutral - there is no flow of money 'into government hands'.


I wonder why it is that so many folk are so reluctant to admit that TEQs do actually solve the problems. Are we so pessimistic and cynical that we have come to believe there can be no solution and that anything that pretends otherwise must be snake-oil?

There are no solutions, at least for humanity as a whole. For individuals, particular communities or particular countries there will be variability of severity of outcome. But, overall, there are no solutions. There's just too damned many of us.

Humanity as whole is headed for an inevitable fall and it's going to be catastrophic for the majority of it.

[biffvernon]

But TEQs are a mechanism for weaning us off fossil carbon. That is a necessary, though perhaps not sufficient, condition. It's about harm reduction and mitigation, creating soft landings as we make the transition.

If you want to just say 'We're doomed whatever', that's fine - just party.

[Ludwig]

The real issue is not whether TEQs are theoretically implementable and useful. Of course they are, otherwise they wouldn't fool anybody. The issue is the intentions of those who suggested and implement them, and those intentions are entirely cynical. At best they persuade people that something is being done, at worst they may have less obvious benefits to the world's biggest economies. (Similar story to giving "aid" to the Third World.)

Don't trust any of 'em.

[biffvernon]

The real issue is not whether TEQs are theoretically implementable and useful. Of course they are, otherwise they wouldn't fool anybody. The issue is the intentions of those who suggested and implement them, and those intentions are entirely cynical.

Eh??!!??

But it's us that are doing the suggesting!!! TEQs are our baby - not something that came out of the dark side.

[hodson2k9]

IMHO TEQs don't do enough to encourage reduced demand in the greediest countries, and, at the other end I doubt much of the money would benefit the general population. As now, most would go into government hands and never emerge. 'Here's your 10mil USD for your TEQs Mr Mugabe' Hmmm.....

I think there are two misconceptions there.

1. TEQs have within themselves the ability to reduce demand to any desired level - the level is agreed and set for each period.
2. TEQs are fiscally neutral - there is no flow of money 'into government hands'.


I wonder why it is that so many folk are so reluctant to admit that TEQs do actually solve the problems. Are we so pessimistic and cynical that we have come to believe there can be no solution and that anything that pretends otherwise must be snake-oil?

There are no solutions, at least for humanity as a whole. For individuals, particular communities or particular countries there will be variability of severity of outcome. But, overall, there are no solutions. There's just too damned many of us.

Humanity as whole is headed for an inevitable fall and it's going to be catastrophic for the majority of it.

I find "there are NO solutions" very hard to believe. If you would of said "a solution is highly unlikely" or "there is no solution at the moment" then that i could believe and agree. No one knows what the future holds.

Weather people on here like it or not, there is a CHANCE (even if its only a slight chance) that we could have a new form of energy on our hands, which would be a sloution to our problems.

If we can learn how to control the LENR phenomenon, thus commercialising it, then we have a real game changer on our hands. Not only would we have a cheap, abundant and clean energy source, but LENR also enables transmutations of elements and metals (including rare earth) and thats just at the moment while were still at the learning stage (transumtations of elements and metals has already been achieved).

Im of the opinion that if you have, clean, cheap and abundant energy then you can solve virtually every problem.

Even without LENR i still find "there is no solution" hard to believe (i could be tottally wrong here, but this is just my opinion). Granted there is no solution for BAU to carry on, but theres so much waste in our system, i find it hard to believe that we couldnt find a solutuon so that the basics of our survival are met.

For example of the 80 odd million barrels of oil used daily, how much of that is used in just our food process (from growing to transportation etc). I would excpect it to be pretty low compared to our daily oil consumption.

Then you have things like TEQ, permaculture or resource based economy etc. Surely with the amount of waste we could cut plus combining some of the other ides (like the above), and trying to stop the population rise then a solution could be found to ensure people have there basic daily needs?.

Dont get me wrong, i doubt any of the measures i mentioned would be enforced by TPTB but that doesn't mean solutions don't exist.

[Ludwig]

The real issue is not whether TEQs are theoretically implementable and useful. Of course they are, otherwise they wouldn't fool anybody. The issue is the intentions of those who suggested and implement them, and those intentions are entirely cynical.

Eh??!!??

But it's us that are doing the suggesting!!! TEQs are our baby - not something that came out of the dark side.

Ah, sorry... that will teach me to skim-read.

[UndercoverElephant]

I find "there are NO solutions" very hard to believe. If you would of said "a solution is highly unlikely" or "there is no solution at the moment" then that i could believe and agree. No one knows what the future holds.

Weather people on here like it or not, there is a CHANCE (even if its only a slight chance) that we could have a new form of energy on our hands, which would be a sloution to our problems.

Would it really solve our problems? Let's imagine somebody works out how to harness the energy from fusion, and we now have access to limitless energy. What happens next?

Well, we can stop burning so much fossil fuel and build lots of fusion plants, slowing down the rate we pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Big step in the right direction!!! But what about all the other problems?

How does this impact our freshwater security problem? Idea!! Let's build lots of new desalinisation plants to use up that electricity to produce fresh water from sea water! Sounds good, but it turns out that this will just kill the oceans, as is currently happening in various places in the middle east, by causing massive increases in the salinity of the surrounding water.

How does it impact our industry? Well, there's no shortage of energy anymore, but what about the raw materials? What about all the copper and silver and all the trace metals we need? I saw a recent study (can't remember where) which pointed out "peaks" in at least twenty different sorts of non-renewable resource (i.e. they follow the same "Hubbert" pattern as oil). Of these, 8 have already peaked and most of the others are due to peak in the next thirty years.

How does it impact food production? Well, there's no shortage of energy, but what are we going to do when the phosphorus starts running short?

What about our dwindling fisheries?

Peak oil and the energy problem is just the first "Liebig bottleneck" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s ... he_minimum) we've hit. If we solve this problem, we are guaranteed to run into another one almost straight away, because, as Steve said, there's just too many of us.

There is only ONE physically-possible way we could avoid a catastrophe now, and that is a radical transformation in human behaviour (everybody starts behaving like a saint.) Do you believe that is going to happen?

[hodson2k9]

I find "there are NO solutions" very hard to believe. If you would of said "a solution is highly unlikely" or "there is no solution at the moment" then that i could believe and agree. No one knows what the future holds.

Weather people on here like it or not, there is a CHANCE (even if its only a slight chance) that we could have a new form of energy on our hands, which would be a sloution to our problems.

Would it really solve our problems? Let's imagine somebody works out how to harness the energy from fusion, and we now have access to limitless energy. What happens next?

Well, we can stop burning so much fossil fuel and build lots of fusion plants, slowing down the rate we pump greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Big step in the right direction!!! But what about all the other problems?

How does this impact our freshwater security problem? Idea!! Let's build lots of new desalinisation plants to use up that electricity to produce fresh water from sea water! Sounds good, but it turns out that this will just kill the oceans, as is currently happening in various places in the middle east, by causing massive increases in the salinity of the surrounding water.

How does it impact our industry? Well, there's no shortage of energy anymore, but what about the raw materials? What about all the copper and silver and all the trace metals we need? I saw a recent study (can't remember where) which pointed out "peaks" in at least twenty different sorts of non-renewable resource (i.e. they follow the same "Hubbert" pattern as oil). Of these, 8 have already peaked and most of the others are due to peak in the next thirty years.

How does it impact food production? Well, there's no shortage of energy, but what are we going to do when the phosphorus starts running short?

What about our dwindling fisheries?

Peak oil and the energy problem is just the first "Liebig bottleneck" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liebig%27s ... he_minimum) we've hit. If we solve this problem, we are guaranteed to run into another one almost straight away, because, as Steve said, there's just too many of us.

Why you asking me for? Im no scientist and i cant predict the future!

I don't think you read my post fully, or you wouldn't of asked about the raw materials part as i have already answered that. Copper and silver have already been created through LENR transmutations along with other rare earth materials by the way.

As for the rest i don't know but as i said i am a BELIEVER that with unlimited energy you can solve most problems.

There is only ONE physically-possible way we could avoid a catastrophe now, and that is a radical transformation in human behaviour (everybody starts behaving like a saint.) Do you believe that is going to happen?

There you go then, so there is a solution, even though its higly unlikely to happen. Steve said and i quote "there is no solution".

[UndercoverElephant]

Steve said and i quote "there is no solution".

OK. Perhaps he should have said "The prospects of a solution at this point are so small that there is no point in considering them." They are tending towards zero.

"There is no solution" is just shorter.

I can't take LENR seriously. Not yet, anyway. And I think that as times get harder, people will probably act less like saints and more like wild animals.

[Snail]

Feel like saying "Bloody doomer peakers. If its not peak oil, its peak something else. And if a solution comes along, then that solution will only create additional problems sometime in the future."

Did people living in the 1000s worry so much about their descendants as we do now. Did they wonder how difficult their children's children children would cope 500 years later. What about those who originally promoted agriculture. Bloody farmers, didn't they realise!

i'm being a bit mischievous but we can't create a perfect legacy for our children. Or a blueprint masterplan. Only do the best we can do NOW, and if that introduces problems in the future then so be it. That's their problem. Nothing's perfect. Human beings have always lurched from one crisis to another.

[hodson2k9]

I can't take LENR seriously. Not yet, anyway. And I think that as times get harder, people will probably act less like saints and more like wild animals.

Well that doesn't surprise me UE. Let me guess you will only take LENR serious when mainstream science does yes? What exactly don't you take serious?

LENR is a real proven phenomenon, that's a fact, its been proved thousands of times. The only question still open is can it be controlled thus allowing successful commercialisation.

More than likely yes, but humans can be a surprising lot. When every one finally realises, that every single person in this world is facing a serious crisis and there and there children's lives are at risk, we may be surprised how quickly humans can come together. I have seen arch enemies come together many times in a crisis that affects both of them. Obviously it could quite easily go the other way but as i said when humans are faced with a crisis, nothing is certain.

[hodson2k9]

Feel like saying "Bloody doomer peakers. If its not peak oil, its peak something else. And if a solution comes along, then that solution will only create additional problems sometime in the future."

Did people living in the 1000s worry so much about their descendants as we do now. Did they wonder how difficult their children's children children would cope 500 years later. What about those who originally promoted agriculture. Bloody farmers, didn't they realise!

i'm being a bit mischievous but we can't create a perfect legacy for our children. Or a blueprint masterplan. Only do the best we can do NOW, and if that introduces problems in the future then so be it. That's their problem. Nothing's perfect. Human beings have always lurched from one crisis to another.

Quite right snail.

[UndercoverElephant]

Feel like saying "Bloody doomer peakers. If its not peak oil, its peak something else. And if a solution comes along, then that solution will only create additional problems sometime in the future."

That's because ultimately the problem is cultural, not technological. Unless we accept "no growth and de-growth" of the entire human operation on this planet, no solutions to component parts of the ecological problem will deliver us from catastrophe.

Unless we have a coherent, realistic, overall strategy, based on REAL sustainability, all tactical victories are phyrrhic victories.

Did people living in the 1000s worry so much about their descendants as we do now.

No.

Did they wonder how difficult their children's children children would cope 500 years later. What about those who originally promoted agriculture. Bloody farmers, didn't they realise!

Our situation is different, and we know that, unless we are wilfully ignorant.

i'm being a bit mischievous but we can't create a perfect legacy for our children. Or a blueprint masterplan. Only do the best we can do NOW, and if that introduces problems in the future then so be it. That's their problem. Nothing's perfect. Human beings have always lurched from one crisis to another.

All crises are not equal.