The Burning Question and Jevon's paradox

The Burning Question is a global warming book that has come out recently and thus has been getting the lecture circuit.



The above is showing how much 'current' edit: probablereserves there are, shown next to the amount that we 'may' burn to stay within a 50% or 75% probability of not going above (iirc) 450 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. It's not a super-tight number, because biomass naturally sequesters CO2 over time and so the timing of the burning can really matter, but ehn.

Jevon's paradox points out that as efficiency improves in producing a resource for end users, the consumption of that resource goes up. Mainly because it's easier to get utility from cheaper inputs than from expensive inputs. Additionally, there's a tremendous current correlation between fossil fuel use and economic growth. In casual usage, we can give nods towards the concept of carbon intensity.


The author's thesis is that we can really only burn about 'half' of our remaining oil. And, I think it's a great idea if we do, with an eye towards increasing efficiency so that we can squeeze every dollar that we can out of each liter of oil. So, we certainly want efficiency, but we also need hard limits on the amount of oil we 'allow' ourselves to pull out of the ground. It's a problem that needs to be confronted from two directions: efficiency (to create economic wealth) and hard limits (to stop Jevon's paradox from kicking our butts). Now, that '50%' number is still in the early stages of estimation, but I think it might be pretty clear that coal should become increasingly off limits unless it can replace some of our oil allotment.

On the entirely other hand of this debate is the concept of negative externalities. If each additional liter of oil causes 'less' ecological damage than it creates in economic prosperity (especially if signficantly so, which is where we are currently) then economic theory predicts that such a scenario where the 'bad part' becomes increasingly affordable and so it never actually makes sense to wean yourself off. But, calculating those numbers (as done in the Stern report) is still at the early stages.

What is a 'lecture circuit'?

Also, subscription post.

A lecture circuit is where various (reputable) organizations invite an author to give a lecture based on their book. Ostensibly, it's to promote booksales. Because I subscribe to a number of 'intellectual' podcasts, I often hear the same author give variants of the same lecture a number of times. Usually 3 at most, so it doesn't become super boring, merely allows me to review their thesis after mulling it over, and commonly the audience has different questions (during Q&A) at the end of the talk.

I get too depressed to read about climate change anymore. It seems pretty clear to me that any of the "best case" scenarios aren't going to happen. The majority of people don't have any interest in efficiency or the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. There are no aggressive plans to make them care (or make the corporations who control public behavior/opinion care).

These "if you just listen to me we can save the world" books are the most depressing at all cause you know those in control aren't going to listen even if the author is right.

I blame anticommunal positive hedonism.

Don't get depressed. We might be shafted but we'll make it through. Life always finds a way, and (though we're hard on ourselves) we're (still) quite clever as a species. If anything at least we'll learn from the past. We might have lost some of our former dreams; we'll probably lose a lot of people. Things go on. It'll all always go on. Perhaps one day, perhaps if we are lost, when some new intelligence arises from the wastes, they'll (too) see our once prosperous civilization as a lesson. All of our achievements dashed by our short-sightedness. Stories of what we were shared amongst the stars. Or we might just all turn into oil and power the machines of the subterranean squid people of 260,000,000 AD. (How ironic a fate, to be turn into the very stuff which brought about our demise!) All of it forgotten. But at least we were here and happy, once. Our unique instance within the universe, likely not seen again. (Stellar Ejecta and) Energies coalesced to form this unique chain of chemical reactions, this race which calls itself "humanity". Like mayflies, cut short in their prime.

Sorry for going off topic. Interesting stuff, shame the direction we're heading looks rather awkward for us.

EDIT 3: Added some (interjections) I had after the post.

Yup, I try to seize the moment as best I can. What else? The tide is too strong to fight really so may as well enjoy the calm waters while we can. :bittersweetsmiley:

If you are so certain that CO² then why isn't it being banned? We have banned other harmful products in the past and if you are so certain that it is harmful them why aren't you trying to get it stopped?

I'll definitely keep an eye out for this book, seems to confirm that what I've thought for awhile the whole alternative oil boom is actually costing us in the long run.

I am glad that a lot of people are beginning to realize that it will be impossible to stop burning fossil fuels until (and if) we suffer calamity.

El_Machinae said:

The author's thesis is that we can really only burn about 'half' of our remaining oil. And, I think it's a great idea if we do, with an eye towards increasing efficiency so that we can squeeze every dollar that we can out of each liter of oil. So, we certainly want efficiency, but we also need hard limits on the amount of oil we 'allow' ourselves to pull out of the ground. It's a problem that needs to be confronted from two directions: efficiency (to create economic wealth) and hard limits (to stop Jevon's paradox from kicking our butts). Now, that '50%' number is still in the early stages of estimation, but I think it might be pretty clear that coal should become increasingly off limits unless it can replace some of our oil allotment.

Click to expand...

I don't like this thesis for a couple of reasons:
- 450 ppm seems to be an arbitrary number and thus any hard limit derived from that is also arbitrary
- It creates the impression, that it's somehow safe to burn 50% of the oil we have. i don't think that is the case. We are already beyond what is safe without reasonable doubt. Even if we stopped emitting CO₂ now, we would have to deal with the consequences of the last century. Adding more isn't going to make this any easier.
- A hard limit does not make any sense economically. You cannot switch an economy away from oil from one day to the next. There is no point in growing economic wealth with the oil we have if all is lost in the transition. We need to be independent from fossil fuel before we reach any limit. However until the limit is reached there is no economic incentive to go for more expensive alternatives.
- You need somebody to enforce the limit. Who would that be?
- And if there was, you can bet there will be intense lobbying to extend the limit to avoid economic disaster (even if that fear will be unfounded). If that is granted, the hard limit will not be so hard anymore

How can we even begin to counter this when we just get accused of "eco-fascism" and Nazism whenever we warn people about the problems climate change causes?

Solar panel every rooftop, switch to electric everything.

Jevon's Paradox is one of the most interesting issues is resource economics. I wish more people knew about it.

uppi said:

- 450 ppm seems to be an arbitrary number and thus any hard limit derived from that is also arbitrary

Click to expand...

You're right, 450 ppm is the political number. The political target is '2 degrees of warming, no more' and 450 ppm is one of the target ppms that 'might' keep us in range. I think it's the 50% number? So, keeping below 450 ppm gives us a 50% chance of staying below 2 degrees of warming, iirc. That's why there's a 50% and a 75% component to the OP graph.

It's a political number, it's assumed to be 'doable, if hard' and 'not extraordinarily damaging'. That very well might be true. There's the 350.org people, saying we've already gone too far. I don't think it's a viable political target.

- A hard limit does not make any sense economically. You cannot switch an economy away from oil from one day to the next. There is no point in growing economic wealth with the oil we have if all is lost in the transition. We need to be independent from fossil fuel before we reach any limit. However until the limit is reached there is no economic incentive to go for more expensive alternatives.

Click to expand...

People knowing there was a limit would create the transition incentive, much the same as knowing there's an actual limit. It's like watching an aquifer drop or the needle gauge on your gas tank go down. Now, I never (er, rarely) went below 1/4 tank, and so I arranged to deal with the gastank as it got towards 1/4.

The author's other point is kind of interesting. Oil&Gas spend pathetically little on R&D (1/4 what the rest of society does; 0.5% of revenues vs. 2.0% of revenues) and the majority of that is 'new exploration' despite the fact that we cannot burn all the current proven reserves safely. There's no clearer evidence that they're not on our side.

El_Machinae said:

You're right, 450 ppm is the political number. The political target is '2 degrees of warming, no more' and 450 ppm is one of the target ppms that 'might' keep us in range. I think it's the 50% number? So, keeping below 450 ppm gives us a 50% chance of staying below 2 degrees of warming, iirc. That's why there's a 50% and a 75% component to the OP graph.

It's a political number, it's assumed to be 'doable, if hard' and 'not extraordinarily damaging'. That very well might be true. There's the 350.org people, saying we've already gone too far. I don't think it's a viable political target.

People knowing there was a limit would create the transition incentive, much the same as knowing there's an actual limit. It's like watching an aquifer drop or the needle gauge on your gas tank go down. Now, I never (er, rarely) went below 1/4 tank, and so I arranged to deal with the gastank as it got towards 1/4.

Click to expand...

These points are linked: If there is a real hard physical limit, then people might adapt in time. But if it is a political limit (and for the moment it seems to be what countries can only agree on in a non-binding way and nobody seems to be actually doing anything to actually reach it), then a lot of people might not care until it is too late and then argue why they need an extension: "We are in an economic crisis right now, would it be so bad if we went for 470ppm instead?" - and so on. Too often I have seen people going for the business as usual strategy, until it is (almost) too late. Especially when you have to give up competitive advantage for going first.

The author's other point is kind of interesting. Oil&Gas spend pathetically little on R&D (1/4 what the rest of society does; 0.5% of revenues vs. 2.0% of revenues) and the majority of that is 'new exploration' despite the fact that we cannot burn all the current proven reserves safely. There's no clearer evidence that they're not on our side.

Click to expand...

Does this surprise anyone? Anyone expecting Oil&Gas to give up profits voluntarily is naive in my view.

Narz said:

I get too depressed to read about climate change anymore. It seems pretty clear to me that any of the "best case" scenarios aren't going to happen. The majority of people don't have any interest in efficiency or the amount of carbon in the atmosphere. There are no aggressive plans to make them care (or make the corporations who control public behavior/opinion care).

These "if you just listen to me we can save the world" books are the most depressing at all cause you know those in control aren't going to listen even if the author is right.

Click to expand...

^

I once was working towards environmental engineering/research. I found that field to be very depressing because a lot of it is about cutting our losses, learning about how much contamination/damage is within allowable limits, and how we are all basically screwed in the long haul. What also didn't help is that I was studying/working with wide-eyed hippies and egotistical wannabe-businessmen (Note; There's a whole science behind gaming the environmental regulations to help businesses legally pollute).

In the end, I just ditched the entire field after the courses/projects were done, covered my ears about global climate change, and went onto computational biology and software development.

What does make me feel ashamed from time to time is that a tiny part of me did remain hopeful that this whole global warming thing is a farce, which is a mindset that would've infuriated me when I was still a college liberal years ago.

ywhtptgtfo said:

What does make me feel ashamed from time to time is that a tiny part of me did remain hopeful that this whole global warming thing is a farce, which is a mindset that would've infuriated me when I was still a college liberal years ago.

Click to expand...

That would be great. Who cares who is right, when our and our fellow humans' lives are on the line. Too bad it's not true.

Phrossack said:

How can we even begin to counter this when we just get accused of "eco-fascism" and Nazism whenever we warn people about the problems climate change causes?

Click to expand...

Namely by getting less preachy and more practicey. Forcing involvement by government regulation is more counterproductive than attempting to make a fashion statement.

Biochar?

Biochar is completely on the menu of tools. And not just a little. It's not enough, it's not nearly enough. Biochar is vastly, vastly better than the dude who burns french fry oil, and that's because of the net scale possible. French Fry dude is helping, no doubt, but it's clearly not a scalable solution.

I like biochar, a LOT.

My thread from 5 years ago.

The seminar lecture from Stanford's Energy Seminar series.
I like it because it's carbon negative, because it can be a source of energy, and because it can be used to benefit cropland soils. Win/win/win. It's not infinitely scalable, but it's in the right direction.