[...] groei in een wereld met eindige natuurlijke hulpbronnen en ruimte uiteindelijk vastloopt. Het Impossible Hamster scenario. Historische ervaringen met centraal geregelde economieën geven alleen weinig hoop op een [...]

The inescapable conclusion in 2010 is that continued economic growth at near 20th century rates in the 21st century is incompatible with taking positive, effective steps to mitigate anthropogenic climate change. Moreover, such assumptions are not compatible with a near-term peak in the conventional oil supply. Our species faces unprecedented challenges in this new century. Our response to those challenges will define Homo sapiens in ways we never had to come to grips with during the Holocene (roughly the last 10,000 years) or before that in the Pleistocene. The problems we face in this century are unique, even on geological time-scales extending far into the past beyond the 200,000-year-old Human experience on Earth.

Both our limitations and our abilities, such as they are, will be displayed in the bright, harsh light of the energy & climate outcomes in the 21st century. Regardless of who we pretend to be, our response to these challenges will tell us who we really are.

In a Renewable Energy World, Is There an Alternative to Growth?
There are two questions that I find interesting. The first is whether it can be proven — and quickly, since we’re potentially racing against the clock of climate change — whether it’s indeed possible ot not to reduce our carbon intensity by an average of 2.7 percent (the NEF’s figure) per year for the next several decades.

My second question, and the truly important one if the NEF is correct, is how the report’s authors expect to gain any support.

Even supposing the NEF got a fair hearing, it’s highly unlikely that our culture could choose to turn around and adopt new goals in any time frame sufficient to deal with climate change. The first step, of course, would be for both sides to start talking and reconcile their views.

But at this point, there’s an undeniable ideological split. I definitely don’t believe everything the NEF has to say — but I do think that both the think tank and its opponents, not to mention our politicians, should engage in a real debate.

Niet dat het er zoveel toe doet.

Verleden voorspellingen. Ik wacht nog steeds op de $200 dollar die een vat olie *vorig jaar* had moeten bereiken.

Natuurwetenschappers in academia willen graag lekker dwars zijn, en dat kan soms nuttig zijn. Maar ik vaar er niet blind op nee.

Yale Environment 360: A Timely Reminder of the Real Limits to Growth
Yes, it’s hard to change ways of life, and hard to break addictions, and hard to turn your economic systems and political goals away from the constant expansion that have been their target for more than 200 years. But now we know — with the cold precision offered by numbers — that there’s something that’s harder to imagine, which is going on as we’ve been going.

American Scientist: Revisiting the Limits to Growth After Peak Oil
Although we do not necessarily advocate that the existing structure of the limits-to-growth model is adequate for the task to which it is put, it is important to recognize that its predictions have not been invalidated and in fact seem quite on target. We are not aware of any model made by economists that is as accurate over such a long time span.

Our “modern” economic theory even predates thermodynamics! How can we possibly still use Adam Smith as our economic foundation, without first integrating real science into markets and money so that they are at least compatible with the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics? After all, isn’t the real economy all about the transformation of matter and energy? Or have we focused so much on money, finance and intangible assets that we have come to think of them as the economy?

And when I say “real science” I certainly don’t mean the thin veneer of financial engineering that was applied onto the rotten surface of structured finance (CDO-cubed?!), but something entirely different. For example, why don’t we start by including into our econometric models those pesky “externalities” (pollution, environmental degradation, resource depletion…) that Adam Smith left out? Maybe he (and so many others after him) was right in ignoring them, living as he did in an 18th century world that seemed boundless. But can we ignore them today?