Migrant watch (merged topic)

[biffvernon]

The Palestinians, and the North and South American aboriginal people might take my view rather than yours.

Those are not good analogies of the current situation.

As for 'survivalist' if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck....

[johnhemming2]

Explain, in terms, how economic growth (meaning, by definition, an increase in primary wealth) can occur in a capitalist system of debt based money creation in the absence of primary resource consumption.

Firstly I said "Growth for all that it matters"
Secondly Growth is the change in GDP. GDP is not actually a measure of wealth. It is a measure of the total income in any one year. (there are variations because of export issues).
Hence I do not agree your definition of growth.

Nor do most people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

Biff and I at least agree as to what we are talking about. I agree with some of what he says, but not the whole of it.

[Little John]

Then you should change the word from "growth" to something else. Or, at least, so long as you do not want to deny the first/second law of thermodynamics.You are committing the same error of thinking, in the broader economic arena, as the money printers do in the monetary arena.

There is no such thing as a free lunch

[peaceful_life]

Explain, in terms, how economic growth (meaning, by definition, an increase in primary wealth) can occur in a capitalist system of debt based money creation in the absence of primary resource consumption.

Firstly I said "Growth for all that it matters"
Secondly Growth is the change in GDP. GDP is not actually a measure of wealth. It is a measure of the total income in any one year. (there are variations because of export issues).
Hence I do not agree your definition of growth.

Nor do most people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product

Biff and I at least agree as to what we are talking about. I agree with some of what he says, but not the whole of it.

GDP isn't a true measure of anything, least of all the consequences of it's actions ,again though, you're confusing, as per the monetary systems requirements, finance with economy .

Finance, is the abstract representation of money making money, and yes, can appear to have an increase in GDP with a misrepresentation of growth, but it isn't growth in anything other than increased digits in things like the housing bubble and derivatives, whereby a few can take advantage by extracting the abstract money and then buy real assets, which in turn concentrates those assets into the hands of a few and actually decreases the potential of any real growth by means of monopoly. It's a 3 card trick.

The total yearly income is no reflection of the actual make-up of that annual figure, but if someone considers that they're benefiting from that system, then to them.....that's all that matters. So..as the primary energy source needed for any growth contracts, the trick being played here is to bloat the abstract in order to extract.

[johnhemming2]

Again you can operate on different definitions if you wish. However, if you do that then we cannot have a sensible debate.

[kenneal - lagger]

The difference between an acoustic gig and an electric one is extremely marginal and comes down to the amount of electricity used by the instruments. All other inputs would be the same; the running of the club; getting the punters there; the drinks input. In fact it might be possible to show that because the acoustic gig is smaller than an electric one the larger audience to crew ratio of an electric gig might make it more efficient!

There is a slight reduction in GDP to energy use over time but the efficiencies suffer from the law of diminishing returns over time. Technology which improves with time still uses energy; it doesn't save it. Productivity replaces human labour with technological input and hence greater energy use.

It could be said that productivity is the enemy of climate change as it means more energy use and we have to find more work for humans to do to make up of the productivity job losses and hence use even more energy and resources.

The GDP increase since 1800 has been 90% fuel/energy driven. And green energy doesn't exist in sufficient quantities to produce no change in GDP. To give an idea of our reliance of fossil fuel energy, the average human lives with the fossil fuel energy equivalent of 200 human slaves working for them while in the west the average energy use is equivalent to 500 to 1000 human slaves.

In 1800 the average farm worker produced enough food for 1.5 people so when we reduce our energy use in farming we will require a massive migration of people back to the land. In the UK we only just have enough land, according to the third Zero Carbon Britain report from CAT, to feed and provide energy for our current population and some space for wildlife. Any increase in population takes land away from the little wildlife that we have left.

Oil consumption in Europe overall has dropped by 18% since 2006 and gas supply is down 22%. Individual output has been dropping since 2005 except in Germany, where it is the same, and in the US where an increase has been fuelled by shale oil and gas. How much of that output increase is purely the energy going into getting the shale gas and oil out, Mr Jancovici didn't say but given the much lower EROEI of shale products a fair proportion of the increased output would have been within the industry itself.

This is another of the problems we face; the decrease in EROEI of our energy sources. A much greater proportion of our energy and investment goes into producing energy, especially with renewable energy. It might not cost anything to run renewables but the EROEI is much lower than conventional oil, gas and coal. This point is made very well in Energy and the Wealth of Nations: Understanding the Biophysical Economy by Charles A. S. Hall, Kent A. Klitgaard (ISBN: 0001441993975) One of their major points is that there will be a shortage of available investment to fuel the change over from fossil to renewable energy. This point is also alluded to in the Hirsch Report when they say that it would take 30 years to transition from the current economic system to a renewable one.

Getting back to my original point of a few posts ago, we have to start mitigating against sea level rise very quickly as, added to the other costs we will face of replacing the massive loss of capital and infrastructure to rising waters, we will be hard put to cope with our current population let alone one increased by millions, possibly tens of millions, of refugees. Added to this will be the problem of climate change interfering with the agricultural production on what will be overall much smaller area of much poorer farm land.

[AutomaticEarth]

All kicking off in Kos....

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... n-Kos.html

[AutomaticEarth]

Interesting....

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 49452.html

I never claimed benefits as a 20 year old, but to be fair, I'd rather see our young receiving essential benefits than foreigners. They can claim elsewhere.

[AutomaticEarth]

Not a fan of the Daily Mail, but this is a interesting view...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ation.html

Greece is especially in a bad place considering they are broke. Surprised the far right hasn't risen in Greece.

[kenneal - lagger]

The Jean-Marc Jancovici Lecture to the UCL Energy Institute is avaliable here and the full series of lectures here.

[Mark]

Very true. Let's use the current situation as an exercise to build solutions that don't fail for large numbers. What, for instance, will be done when Alexandria and, later, Cairo become part of the Greater Mediterranean Sea and their people need new homes?

Biff, what would YOU do ????
As ever, you're long on moralising, but short on practical solutions.
Given your stance, assume you'd be happy for them all to rock up in Lincolnshire ?

Why ME, Mark? Let's stick to rational discussion and not get personal.

CLV101 shows the way to practical solutions. Climate mitigation has to be top of the list. I argued a long time ago (before most other people noticed) that the Syrian conflict had its origins in the 2005-2010 drought, possibly the worst drought in the 'fertile crescent' since agriculture was invented there in the Neolithic.

I make no apologies for moralising, and, even though I'm an atheist, drawing on the words of St. Paul as quoted by the Bishop this morning.

Mark, there's a framing problem in your question when you use the word 'them'. I know what you mean but therein lies a basic difference in outlook between myself and some folk on PowerSwitch. The 'us' and 'them' thing. I don't see there should be much difference in the way people get treated just on the basis of where they were born.

As for 'assume you'd be happy for them all to rock up in Lincolnshire', well that's not going to happen. As I've often pointed out, most folk want to live and die in the same place as their ancestors. And those that aren't given that opportunity because of global warming, wars and bad government won't all want to 'rock up in Lincolnshire'. The world is a big place and we need to have international agreement on the fair and just distribution of refugees. Right now the UK is not doing its bit.

And what could be our bit? Well, I think we could have a constructive discussion about just what would be the practical implications if the UK took in, say, a million refugees over the next couple of years. It's a mind-boggling thought but rather than allowing the mind to be boggled, let's consider, as a 'tactical exercise without troops', what that would mean in terms of land-use, building costs, infrastructure and the social implications.

Short term, I've a big tent, a patch of lawn and a plot big enough for a family to grow their own veg, that I'd be happy to lend to a refugee family if other people made similar gestures. If they didn't know how to already, I'd teach them how to grow stuff and build a low-impact house for almost no cost.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
Or maybe it was 'De chacun selon ses facultés, à chacun selon ses besoins' - Louis Blanc, 1851.

I directed it at you because YOU'RE the one espousing the ill-judged and idealistic opinions - in my opinion of course.
I've never met you, so feel assured it's nothing personal.....

As has been said by others, the vast majority knocking on the door today are fleeing war or are economic refugees. I see no/little evidence that climate change is the major cause, although I would agree that this might change in time.

There are 7+ billion on the planet and rising..... trans-locating large numbers to other places just moves the problem.
It certainly won't solve it, and in my opinion will probably make it worse.....

Why stop at A MILLION REFUGEES ? Why not 2 million, 5 million ?
Still not a drop in the ocean when you're looking at the total problem... I haven't seen a figure, but I wouldn't be surprised if we're soon looking at a billion ??
However many we take, it will never be enough and it will never solve the problem.

So you'd lend them a tent and a plot of land and teach them how to grow veg and build a house.... Very noble - and afterwards ? Where would they get a plot of land ? how would they get planning permission ? How would they buy the materials...... I think they'd be on your lawn for some considerable time......

As I said, ill-judged and idealistic in the extreme.......

[biffvernon]

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'primary wealth'.

Have you actually read my posts?

Yes, I did read it, but, as I indicated, I was not quite sure what you meant by 'primary wealth'. I was hoping for a bit of explanation. I agree with JohnH about the generally accepted measures of growth and GDP, so was puzzled by your comment.

[biffvernon]

Getting back to my original point of a few posts ago, we have to start mitigating against sea level rise very quickly...

I'm all for that but let's keep some perspective. Just near me the EA has recently completed a massive improvement in the sea defences, shifting lord knows how many million tonnes of earth at enormous cost. But rather less than the cost of a typical Premier division footballer's transfer fee.

I'm also very wary of the doomer side to food production arguments. I've seen the enormous amount of produce that comes out of local greenhouses and how automation can mean that the food can still be produced with low labour (and energy) input, leaving humans free to do the things that make us human, like playing in jazz quartets.

[biffvernon]

In the UK we only just have enough land, according to the third Zero Carbon Britain report from CAT, to feed and provide energy for our current population and some space for wildlife. Any increase in population takes land away from the little wildlife that we have left.

Leaving aside for the moment whether the CAT report got it correct, we have here again a system boundary problem. If the area we are interested in is just urban London, then there's not enough land to feed the people. If the system boundary is the county of Lincolnshire, then there is a vast surplus of potential production. Fortunately we invented trade so that surplus production in one place can be transferred to a region of production deficit. Within the food system boundary we have often included areas beyond the UK's political border so that pastures in New Zealand and ocean around Iceland are included.

So we can debate whether or not it is physically possible to produce a certain amount of food within mainland Britain and we can also debate whether it is desirable to import food from off-shore areas of surplus production. The UK population is an influencing but not a deciding factor in the equation.

[johnhemming2]

Getting back to my original point of a few posts ago, we have to start mitigating against sea level rise very quickly...

I'm all for that but let's keep some perspective. Just near me the EA has recently completed a massive improvement in the sea defences, shifting lord knows how many million tonnes of earth at enormous cost. But rather less than the cost of a typical Premier division footballer's transfer fee.

There are questions, however, about how practical it is to work to resist the loss of land on the east of the country in certain locations. There are limits as to the practicalities.

There are then questions as to whether we might see substantial increases in Sea Level or just a metre or two.