TonyPrep
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
By the way, Nassim, that study that you linked to (or rather, you linked to a blog post about it) does not show what you (or the blogger) think it shows; perhaps you should read it.
It is quite remarkable that readers of this blog are so in denial with reality. I’ve even detected signs that there are Trump supporters here. I’m quite amazed but also saddened as it shows just how out of touch many people are. Environmental degradation will likely continue apace until not even Cruz can deny it. It’ll be too late by then, but it’s probably too late now so, ah, what the heck.
TheTrivium4TW, please check multiple sites that have dealt thoroughly with all of the denier arguments. I won’t rehash them here but if you really want to understand the world then look at the science. From being a fervent denier, 15 years ago, I started to look at the science and realised I’d been really stupid and ignorant about the issue.
Nassim, look at the totality of the scientific evidence and research, not single snippets which you think support your desired opinion. By the way, a study last year showed Spring in the US is coming earlier. Doesn’t prove anything long term but there is plenty of other evidence. Plenty, even if 14 monthly records in a row doesn’t impress you (and try calculating the odds of that happening without global warming).
It’s hard to believe that Euan is really surprised that the idea of stranded resources that can’t be burned caught on. After all, 190-odd countries signed an agreement in Paris, recently, and we’ve just had 14 months in a row of record monthly surface temperatures. I realise that Euan is something of an AGW contrarian but he really can’t be surprised by that notion catching on. He should stick to the strict analysis of Peak Oil and not offer unfounded opinions.
On Peak Oil, I had always thought that the peak discussed last decade was about conventional crude oil, without adding all the bits and pieces that get added these days (including tight oil and deep offshore oil). It would be interesting to know how the BTU value of oil production has changed over the years (with the BTU costs of producing the oil removed), though I don’t think there has been any serious study on this aspect.
Oh yes, Doctor, there have been indications for years that the situation is deteriorating but I’m talking about “imploding”. That word implies a rapid deterioration and that doesn’t seem to be happening right now. The ability of the elites to keep things going, against the tide, is remarkable. I realise that, at some stage, the magic will no longer be enough and a much more rapid deterioration will set it but can they keep it going for months, years or decades? It’s all just speculation, and until people actually see it going on all around them, they simply will refuse to believe it and that lack of belief will, in some small way, help to maintain this failed system for a little longer. Allied to the fact that people want to believe it will all come right in the end, I think it could even be a decade or more before the system can be said to be “imploding”. However, I think the environment could throw a spanner in the works. The climate almost seems to be on the brink of something akin to a collapse but the speed is still unknown, at this point.
How long have we had a “rapidly imploding global economic system” and how much longer will it continue to implode before we can say it has actually imploded? It seems to have held together with string and tape for many years but they seem to be sort of still holding.
I’ve been in the UK for the past month or so and, you’re right, calling it a “debate” is highly questionable. I’ve heard precious little “facts”, though both sides claim to be giving us loads of them. I don’t think I’ve even heard Cameron detail what it was, exactly, that he negotiated for Britain, last year. In the end, it’ll be an emotional decision (it’s just not possible for it to be anything else) and the Remain crowd are certainly trying to scare people into voting to stay. I don’t live here, so it’s not for me to say but I don’t think the future looks rosy whatever the outcome of the referendum.
Ilargi,
I agree with most of this except the implication that a human life is more important than climate change. CC is just one aspect of the broader environmental destruction that humans are responsible for. Such destruction is already taking many lives, and not just human ones. It will take many more as the sixth extinction continues. In that sense CC is far more important than human life; all life needs a habitable planet.
COP 21 won’t save us, nor will protests but environmental degradation is easily the most important predicament we have.
Well, the linked article wasn’t sure how significant USD recession is and noone here seems to know so I guess it’s just an interesting observation.
I don’t really understand the significance of the apparent global USD “recession”. Is it significant? In what way?
RE doesn’t really think through what he’s saying. When he talks about reducing electricity demand to just the essentials, with remaining fossil fuels used to help make/repair the much smaller non-renewable infrastructure for renewables, he not only assumes that future generations will figure out how to manage without fossil fuels, as they decline but he also assumes that a vastly reduced market for fossil fuels will still allow fossil fuel companies to profitably (both in money and energy terms) to supply that vastly reduced demand. I don’t think he’s quite cottoned on to the fact that everything is changing. Nicole is absolutely right that you can’t run an industrial economy on renewables. Nor can RE run his SUN economy with them, for very long.
US dry gas production is going up again (and has been for quite some time) after a long recent plateau. Why is that? I was expecting a fall, after the plateau, but it started rising again, and continued. If the gas rig count is down and wells are depleting at 60% per year, I don’t understand how production can continue to rise, even while wholesale prices remain depressed.
Wow, I was just stepping back into TAE, after a time away, and thought I’d check on Nicole’s posts. Looks like this was her last post. Is she no longer contributing to TAE? My comment, here, is about 18 months after this post by Nicole.
The BBC reports 36.9% of the vote for the Tories, 30.4% for Labour. The final BBC poll of polls gave The Tories 34% and Labour 33%. I always seem to remember opinion poll uncertainties at plus or minus 3%. So I guess the pollsters could claim to have got it right. Tories, 34% + 3% = 37%. Labour 33% – 3% = 30%. Spot on!
Of course, you’re right, it’s not a democracy. With nearly two thirds of the voters (63.1%) voting for candidates of other parties, a functioning majority for the party getting just over 1/3 of the vote is not exactly representative, is it? And how about Scotland versus the rest of the UK? How can Cameron claim to work for one Britain?
It’s a farce, but then is there a functioning democracy in any country that claims to be one? I’d be interested in examples.
I don’t think we base our economy on one client and industry. Putting it that way implies agency. No, it just happened because some people made money from it for a while. And dairy farmers expecting the good times to roll for ever is just plain human nature. But when it goes wrong, then bad stuff happens.
I’ve though that the average Joe isn’t doing better, despite government figures. Independent figures had the median income falling in 2013, so it’s no surprise that “real incomes” fell last year. I’m not sure how housing fits into the official GDP figures but the real economy can’t be growing if incomes are falling, to my mind.
You just can’t believe official numbers any more, in any country.
I agree with that, Ann. However, I’ve come to expect bloggers and politicians to never say they got something wrong.
I’d echo the hope that Nicole expands on the problems of eco-villages and/or community land trusts. Kotare Village, mentioned in a post last year, seems to have gotten over some issues (primarily financial, unfortunately) that almost caused it to fail and seems to be headed in the right direction. I’d have loved to have given that a chance but familial responsibilities makes that impossible.
It’s a shame that Nicole couldn’t make a “living” without needing (more) cash. Such is the world we live in.
Ann, yes, one might say that Nicole’s judgment was off but no-one has all the answers – that is what we must always remember. You make the best judgement you can with whatever information you have at the time. You’re lucky if you get the chance to change your mind, in light of new information. Not everyone has that chance.
Thanks for the update, Nicole.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do and wherever you decide to go.
Don’t know if you’re heading up to the Auckland region but it would be great to attend one of your events, though things are a little hectic at the moment. However, I would happily offer a place to stay for a day or few (but I’d have to OK it with my wife, of course), if it was before April, even if it is still a bit of a mess then (I won’t go into why).
I’m interested to hear that Nicole is moving to Wellington. I thought Atamai was her new long term home. As she was inviting others to join, I wonder what changed her mind after only a year (is it a year?) and what she’s moving into in Wellington, a “big” city.
By the way, it’s “the Interweb, not Interwebs”, at least here in NZ. A combination of Internet and World Wide Web.
Didn’t BRIC become BRICS, with the addition of South Africa? How is that country doing?
With Brazil, it is also suffering its worst drought in 80 years, I believe.
Nicole, you may have said the timelines are probabilistic but in the quotes from 2009 that Cory gave, last year, I don’t recall any probabilities being attached to the “within 5 years” thought. To be fair, though, you did say, then, that you “think” prices may have fallen that far within 5 years, which is different from saying that they “will” fall that far.
So, do you have any thoughts now on when house prices will tumble here in New Zealand, and what probability is attached to that? (Aren’t I evil?). I ask only because I also expected prices to start falling after they stalled about 5 years ago. But the pressures that stopped prices falling much before recovering to new highs (average asking price now over $500,000 and well over $700,000 in Auckland) seem to be set in for some time.
I was hoping to see some comments from you when you became a spokesperson for the New Economics Party, last August, but haven’t seen anything from you in that time. Anything planned?
Interesting back and forth. I must admit that I found the notion that banks would call in loans from sound mortgagees, during a financial crisis, bizarre. Aside from what Ann writes, wouldn’t that be cutting off their noses to spite their faces? With good payers, they have a steady income and the property as collateral (and all bankers know that property values can only rise in the long term ;)).
One of the lessons, though, that I hope Nicole has learned is not to place time lines on her analysis because they are virtually certain to be wrong. I think it would be appropriate for Nicole and Ilargi to admit that they got the timing wrong 6 years ago. Nicole seems to be desperately trying to avoid saying that, even though it is patently obvious (indeed, a fact of history).
Exactly how to approach our uncertain future is a gamble. All one can do it try to take on board what everyone is saying, examine it, and take a stab at some strategy for oneself, accepting that the only one truly responsible for that decision is oneself.
Why is Caper’s comment still here? (Sheesh, some people have no empathy)
Nicole is right, she’s not to blame (i.e. her accepting blame is “inappropriate” as she inappropriately puts it). However, this episode does highlight the tendency of bloggers (and, perhaps, all of us) to put across their views as though they were the absolute truth (“hold a position one <b>knows</b> to be right”) and never admit when they got it wrong. I see it everywhere, not just here. For sure, Nicole got the timing wrong and she may get the sequence wrong, also. Gosh, if I had blindly followed the advice of every blogger who sounded plausible, I’d be in a perilous position now, hanging on for the long term which would surely prove them all right. Eventually. One has to take account of one’s own situation before acting on advice from others. Nicole’s notion that renting gives flexibility to move for work may be fine, if one ignores friends and family and is not intent on finding somewhere for the long term, whilst society is just about holding together. But it’s far more complex than that.
Read opinions and perhaps weight them appropriately but, in the end, you make your own choices; no-one else makes them for you.
Ann,
I’m really sorry to hear about Cory. It’s hard to know what to say but I think I’ve been through a fraction of what he’s been through, though he was clearly much braver than I in taking decisive steps. The worst I did was listen to Chris Martenson and buy some gold, several years ago. It was a small but significant amount. It was pretty much at the most recent top of the market and has since fallen substantially. This is in no way comparable to what Cory decided to do, though I assume he got agreement from his spouse. I know from my own experience that it’s hard to talk about this stuff and to be on the same page.
The conversation you’re referring to is, I think, in the comments to the article about Nicole moving to New Zealand.
Reading through those comments, I have sympathy for Cory’s point of view. If his quotes are accurate, then the message certainly was, get out of property and wait for the housing market to crash within 5 years and Nicole or Ilargi certainly didn’t appear to realise that what they said in that comment conversation is somewhat different from what they were saying in 2009. Having said that, I’ve always taken specific timing of predictions with a pinch of salt. No-one knows the future and so we take the best stab that we can at preparing for an uncertain future. This follows on from what I wrote in earlier comments – there is no knowing just how long the powers that be can kick the can down the road. it’s impossible to know when the top or bottom of a particular market is reached and this is only determined with hindsight.
Please accept my condolences to you and Cory’s family for your loss.
Tony
Nicole, with respect, I think you missed my points:
1) Not talking about climate change is not an option, just as collapse is not an option. Certainly, this year, climate change will be talked about a lot, due to, at least, COP 21 in Paris – the day of decision.
2) It’s not an absolute certainty that money will stop circulating before climate becomes a widespread problem and starts to have severe impacts for the majority. I’m sure that you, like me, are completely dumbfounded that things have more or less stayed afloat for as long as they have and completely incredulous at the way financial markets seem to defy gravity, year after year. I have no idea how long this can go on. I feel sure they will collapse soon but then I felt that sure about 5 years ago and even 10 years ago.
The other point, I suppose, raised by some of the panel, is that post collapse, the ability to adapt to climate change is severely reduced. I’m not totally sure about this but it’s a point worth considering. If we don’t talk about climate change, at least in terms of adaptation, if not mitigation, then we won’t address it – I don’t think the appropriate actions are necessarily exactly the same as for financial and industrial collapse, in all respects.
Tony
One thing I’d disagree with Nicole about is that the best way to address climate change is not to talk about it. For a start, just as she says that economic and industrial collapse is inevitable (so there is no point in either pressing for it or trying to speed it up), it is also true that climate change will remain on people’s lips for a long time, regardless of whether one wants people to stop talking about it. Remember, also, that this is the year that “THE SOLUTION” will be agreed on, so hoping people don’t talk about it is rather forlorn.
Climate change is also relentless. Whilst humans can kick the can down the road, in many ways, on finance and the economy, for some time (though collapse is, in the end, inevitable), there is no way to do that with the climate. The glaciers and ice sheets continue to melt (which is proof positive that warming never stopped, for those who think it stopped in 1998), the oceans continue to warm and acidify and extreme weather events are becoming increasingly evident. Climate change does and will affect people in a very personal way, just as collapsing economies do. But it also affects the necessities of life (food, water and shelter) in a way, I think, that collapsing economies don’t (though, obviously, in our crazy world, many people need to get money in order to buy things they could perhaps supply for themselves in different circumstances).
Yes, I thought Nicole was probably the most lucid. I have no idea what version of capitalism Jess thinks is possible without growth. If it is profitable, that leads to growth; if it’s not profitable, it won’t be done. I suppose Monbiot is hoping for a non-collapse collapse. The others seems to be wishing on a star.
However, Nicole also said the consequences of the debt bubble are going to be visited fairly soon. This is a constant theme of hers and, though perhaps the consequences are already here for many, I wonder just how soon is “fairly soon”. Monbiot thinks the system is fairly resilient and I guess that’s why we’re still waiting. Nicole said don’t worry about whether collapse is coming, it is. But it can be “coming” and still take another few decades, could it not?
Hah. Obama has declared the financial crisis to be over, in his SOTU speech. Well, there you are then. All it takes is a declaration by the boss man.
Nice. Thank, Ilargi.
I always feel I should be amazed when some body like the IMF lowers (or, perhaps occasionally, raise) their forecasts. It shows that they got it wrong the first time (and probably the second and third times) but the economists (and others) still lap up their every word as though it was gospel. They have very poor memories.
Wow, Brent has fallen to below WTI now. Brent was at $47.60, 21 cents below WTI at the time I checked on Bloomberg, at the time of this comment.
What I don’t understand is that despite the low rig count for gas, and despite the price of gas being apparently well under the break even price for quite some time (years), dry gas production never fell, though it levelled out for a year or more, and is now rising.
What gives? Perhaps the reality analysts got it wrong and shale gas (and maybe shale oil) are profitable at much lower prices than we thought? Does anyone have any ideas on this one?
<i>Remember when they all said low oil prices would boost the economy through higher consumer spending? Heard anything much about that lately? </i>
Actually, that’s exactly the way it was spun on our main news programme here in New Zealand.
Going to war over this? Hmm, I just can’t see the reasoning there. Could you enlighten us, Illargi?
I share jonabark’s disappointment that so many deniers are present on a site that tries to show the reality of what we’re facing but happily surprised that Energy Matters would implicitly support the notion of AGW (but I may have that wrong).
The basic physics is well known and increasing numbers of studies show that increased CO2, and all of its effects, will not benefit humanity. CO2 traps heat, the energy imbalance (sunlight in versus heat escaping) shows that the earth as a whole continues to warm (hint, only a tiny proportion of the excess energy is taken up by the atmosphere, though 2014 looks like being the warmest on record). I agree with Roger Andrews that the political 2C limit is beyond us. That “limit” is set to be reached in less than 20 years, 30 years if we do something significant but the effects will be even more obvious than now, well before that.
I’d take anything written at Energy Matters with a great amount of skepticism as that site often publishes posts that play down the climate change predicament, often sailing very close to denial. Doesn’t seem like they examine subjects dispassionately.
Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t it the job of fund managers to make money from money? If that’s true, then I think it’s perfectly OK to judge them. It’s a useless profession offering nothing to society except misery down the line.
