The Burning Question and Jevon's paradox

[Rashiminos]

I'm sure the rope will be fine at the end of the story that it's being used as analogy for.

Not necessarily. If I may modify the metaphor... neither of us tied the rope. The planet did. The rope could possibly snap on the way down after serving its purpose.

 

[Farm Boy]

Solar panel every rooftop, switch to electric everything.

Simply not feasible for some industries. I don't want to stare at a horse's ass all day. Neither do you, I surmise. Nor does 25-40% of the population. Residential use is part of the pie, and depressingly enough, the easiest bit of it to solve, I think.

 

[peter grimes]

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'm sure you're aware of the political muscle behind the Oil & Gas industry. They work very hard to protect their obscene profits from being eaten away by pesky regulations. CO2 isn't inherently 'harmful' like benzene or formaldehyde (no relation to a certain reputable member of our community), but too much of it in the air and ocean certainly is.

Do you realise how damaging modern solar panel production is? Especially the mining process to get the rare earth minerals needed to make them?

You have to compare this to the alternative. Fracking, for example, is incredibly damaging to the environment. Strip mining for coal is, too. And then there's the oil spills that still happen with alarming frequency (though there have been very good improvements... after each spill ). What about the Niger Delta, or the Chevron settlement with Ecuador? These can't be ignored, and any damage from rare earth extraction must be measured against these other problems.

Simply not feasible for some industries. I don't want to stare at a horse's ass all day. Neither do you, I surmise. Nor does 25-40% of the population. Residential use is part of the pie, and depressingly enough, the easiest bit of it to solve, I think.

True. For electricity generation it's a no-brainer. And it can gradually supply transportation energy as well after some major changes to the status quo. There are schemes for swapping batteries out at filling stations, for instance. Personally I think we'll wind up with a wide-array of hybrid sources, wiht hydrogen fuel cells providing the bulk.

There's more than enough solar to cover the US's commercial and domestic electricity needs.

But once we factor in efficiency—say 10% for simplicity and conservatism—we need ten times the land area computed above. Still, it’s a pittance. I have used the following graphic before to illustrate how much land would be occupied by solar photovoltaics (PV) at 8% efficiency to produce 18 TW of electrical output (note that about half of the 13 TW consumption today is lost in heat engines, so 18 TW of electricity more than satisfies our current demand).

Source: http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/12/wind-fights-solar/

 

[classical_hero]

You have to compare this to the alternative. Fracking, for example, is incredibly damaging to the environment. Strip mining for coal is, too. And then there's the oil spills that still happen with alarming frequency (though there have been very good improvements... after each spill ). What about the Niger Delta, or the Chevron settlement with Ecuador? These can't be ignored, and any damage from rare earth extraction must be measured against these other problems.

Proper regulations will stop that from happening. If you do anything in a wrong manner it is going to cause problems, but the problem with extracting rare earth minerals from the ore is very environmentally damaging and no amount of regulation can stop the damage. Also most alternative energy sources right now are inefficient and vastly inferior to comparable technology that uses fossil fuels and you can remove the most dangerous particles out of the air. In Germany where they recklessly shut down their nuclear power plants, they realised they still had to produce energy, so they are turning to coal power plant to get their power, lest companies move to different countries where energy costs are lower. The only thing that alternative energy does right now is drive up costs and does nothing of value for he environment.

 

[tokala]

In Germany where they recklessly shut down their nuclear power plants, they realised they still had to produce energy, so they are turning to coal power plant to get their power, lest companies move to different countries where energy costs are lower.

This is simply wrong.

Some nukes were shut down already, that much is correct.
But the missing energy was more than compensated by additional renewable production.

The last two years, after the nuke shutdown, we exported record amounts of electricity.

What has happened is that hard coal has mostly replaced gas as a load balancer, due to the additional, next to-zero-marginal-cost renewables and the intentional failure of the CO2 certificate trading system.

There were no coal power plants constructed to replace nukes, that shutdown was a snap decision, and you don't plan, built and commision a major thermal powerplan in a year or two, at least not in red-tape Germany

And actually, electricity prices for heavy industry in Germany are cheaper than at least for a decade, and probably longer when considering inflation adjusted prices.
That same industry has no qualms however to lobby hard for yet more subsidies, tax breaks etc. and is using the record high price for small businesses and consumers as a debating tool to fool the public.

What is happening, is that an aluminum smelter was shut down in the Netherlands, because they couldn't compete with the cheap German electricity

That doen't mean that it's all fine and dandy regarding renewables in Germany, but this topic is much more complex than you apparently think.

 

[Hygro]

Not necessarily. If I may modify the metaphor... neither of us tied the rope. The planet did. The rope could possibly snap on the way down after serving its purpose.

The people who live the least environmentally sustainable are going to be far more likely to survive their abuse of the planet than not, simply because they live here in America. The rope doesn't have a "purpose", it represents a reality that we can't escape each others' decisions when it comes to climate change.

 

[peter grimes]

Proper regulations will stop that from happening. If you do anything in a wrong manner it is going to cause problems, but the problem with extracting rare earth minerals from the ore is very environmentally damaging and no amount of regulation can stop the damage.

Got anything to back that up? Seems to me that if oil can be safely extracted and transported then rare earths should be able to as well. And let's not forget that the quantities of material involved are a few orders of magnitude less than our current fossil fuel impacts...

Also most alternative energy sources right now are inefficient and vastly inferior to comparable technology that uses fossil fuels and you can remove the most dangerous particles out of the air. In Germany where they recklessly shut down their nuclear power plants, they realised they still had to produce energy, so they are turning to coal power plant to get their power, lest companies move to different countries where energy costs are lower. The only thing that alternative energy does right now is drive up costs and does nothing of value for he environment.

Right.... you should do a little googling before posting stuff from Creation.com or wherever it is that you come across these lies. Consider this clever website that claims to real-time track Germany's solar output:

http://www.sma.de/en/company/pv-electricity-produced-in-germany.html

Here's a little more about Germany's coal use. It's subtle, so read carefully:

the amount of brown coal used in the power sector (90 percent of total consumption) actually dropped in 2013 by 1.6 percent, though consumption of hard coal in the power sector was up by 6.7 percent last year. What’s going on?

Essentially, we are dealing with a difference between primary energy and final energy. The former is the energy contained in the lumps of coal; the latter, the electricity that comes out of the power plant. Recently, Germany has replaced a number of its old brown coal plants with a smaller number of new, bigger, and more efficient facilities – a move that has drawn international criticism. But the trend does make German coal consumption more efficient overall. Gerke put together this chart showing that the amount of coal going in per energy unit coming out has indeed improved over the past 20 years – and noticeably did so in 2013.

... Nuclear and brown coal plants generally run as often as possible, so when renewables dip into the baseload, they offset hard coal first (after having completely wiped out natural gas, which is even more expensive). Quite likely, the power plants fired with hard coal are ramping up and down so much that consumption of primary energy is becoming less efficient.

Source: http://www.renewablesinternational.net/coal-consumption-in-germany-a-closer-look/150/537/75863/

So now I'm expecting you to decry the widespread use of solar energy because it causes coal power generation to be less efficient.

Remember: the entire goal is to reduce environmental impact. Coal is massively damaging to the environment, just about the most damaging way to produce electricity or heat we've ever developed. The only thing worse is clear-cutting a forest. Anything that reduces coal consumption is a net benefit to humanity and the planet.

 

[El_Machinae]

Also, the specificity of the need for rare earths cannot be overstated. They might have high utility for certain types of solar power, but that's about it.
Again, this is still not a good reason to increase fossil fuel consumption. The fact that viable alternatives are not 'easy' indicates that further caution should be taken.

 

[uppi]

The last two years, after the nuke shutdown, we exported record amounts of electricity.

Problem is, we have to "sell" renewable energy at peak times at negative prices to get rid of it and buy energy from our neighbors when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. And that problem will only increase if the laws don't change. The only reason we can get away with it right now is that our neighbors aren't doing what we do.

What is happening, is that an aluminum smelter was shut down in the Netherlands, because they couldn't compete with the cheap German electricity

Because for those industries electricity is heavily subsidized.

 

[Samson]

Problem is, we have to "sell" renewable energy at peak times at negative prices to get rid of it...

What? You do not need to pay people / countries to take surplus electricity, you can just let it go to waste if required.

 

[Mise]

If anything, that's a reason to be more cautious with our fossil fuel consumption.

I made a mistake in the OP! I bought the book today and noticed I'd misunderstood something in the lecture The book calls the OP graph the 'probable' reserves, the reserves that are 50% likely to be economically extractable. The graph regarding 'proven' reserves (90% likely to be economically extractable) lets us burn all the proven gas and all the proven oil, but very little of the proven coal.

Well that makes it a lot less scary! Very interesting topic, both with my economist hat on and my scientist hat on.


Since we've kind of moved away from the specific topic, can anyone give me recommendations for carbon offsetting? E.g. which company, which sorts of projects, etc. About 2 years ago I did a fair bit of research into UK companies that offered it, and I know which company I picked. However, I can't remember why I picked that company - the articles I read or the data I used to come to that decision. For all I know I picked it out of a hat. So I can either trust that I have already researched this and have found the best way of offsetting, or I can do all that research again.

Or I can ask the internets

 

[tokala]

Problem is, we have to "sell" renewable energy at peak times at negative prices to get rid of it and buy energy from our neighbors when the sun isn't shining and the wind isn't blowing. And that problem will only increase if the laws don't change. The only reason we can get away with it right now is that our neighbors aren't doing what we do.

???

I don't have the numbers for 2013, but for 2012 the average price for electricity exports from Germany was higher than the average import price:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseSe.../04/PD13_125_51pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

with a net export price of about 6ct/kWh, way above the average spot market price in germany, and probably still above the price for long-term contracts.

 

[El_Machinae]

Well that makes it a lot less scary! Very interesting topic, both with my economist hat on and my scientist hat on.

"All gas, all oil, little coal" is for a 50% chance of not going above 2 degrees total warming. For a 75% chance of hitting our target, the budget is "all oil, little gas, no coal".

Considering that this week's the Economist has articles regarding Russia, the Ukraine, and gas .... I think that 'little gas' is already off the table. As well, the energy companies are spending their massive R&D budgets (0.5% of revenues!) on turning 'probable' into 'proven'. In other words, we've already proven more than we may burn, and the only momentum is to find/prove more reserves.

 

[uppi]

What? You do not need to pay people / countries to take surplus electricity, you can just let it go to waste if required.

That is a very dangerous misconception: You cannot simply let electric energy go to waste, the energy needs to go somewhere. If you have 10 GW of surplus power, where are you going to dump them? You can build facilities to waste electric energy on moments notice, but these facilities would have to be built, maintained and controlled. Nobody is going to do that for free, so in a free market you need to pay them to waste energy.

???

I don't have the numbers for 2013, but for 2012 the average price for electricity exports from Germany was higher than the average import price:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseSe.../04/PD13_125_51pdf.pdf?__blob=publicationFile

with a net export price of about 6ct/kWh, way above the average spot market price in germany, and probably still above the price for long-term contracts.

That might be true for now (although if we pay 10ct/kWh for solar power and sell it at 6ct/kWh that is still a net loss). But there were already periods where the price for electricity went negative. At the moment the peak capacity of installed wind and solar power plants in Germany is roughly the same as the peak power consumption in Germany. If new plants are built as predicted by the government, solar plant power production alone in 2050 will peak three times as high as (current) consumption - while doing nothing for power production at night. Where is all that power supposed to go?

At the moment, we can sell our excess power most of the time. But this cannot continue forever. Especially if our neighbors tried to do the same, they would also have surplus power at roughly the same time, so we rely on our neighbors not following us. In addition, there will be no market for renewable energy in Europe outside Germany when we flood the market with cheap electricity.

 

[classical_hero]

This is simply wrong.

Some nukes were shut down already, that much is correct.
But the missing energy was more than compensated by additional renewable production.

The last two years, after the nuke shutdown, we exported record amounts of electricity.

What has happened is that hard coal has mostly replaced gas as a load balancer, due to the additional, next to-zero-marginal-cost renewables and the intentional failure of the CO2 certificate trading system.

There were no coal power plants constructed to replace nukes, that shutdown was a snap decision, and you don't plan, built and commision a major thermal powerplan in a year or two, at least not in red-tape Germany

And actually, electricity prices for heavy industry in Germany are cheaper than at least for a decade, and probably longer when considering inflation adjusted prices.
That same industry has no qualms however to lobby hard for yet more subsidies, tax breaks etc. and is using the record high price for small businesses and consumers as a debating tool to fool the public.

What is happening, is that an aluminum smelter was shut down in the Netherlands, because they couldn't compete with the cheap German electricity

That doen't mean that it's all fine and dandy regarding renewables in Germany, but this topic is much more complex than you apparently think.

Well in the Netherlands they might have an even crazier energy policy than Germany. I haven't really looked much into that country since it is a small part of Europe whereas Germany is the economic power of Europe and the way it goes so does Europe, which is why I looked into the issue and the Germans are following crazy legislation that will eventually destroy their economy. Considering the amount of subsidies given to renewables is massive, and that now the cost of electricity in Germany. Perhaps this explains why some companies are not going to expand. http://www.euractiv.com/specialreport-industrial-renaiss/eu-industrialisation-plan-hostag-news-533723

Business representatives were unimpressed by last week's meeting of EU industry ministers, who backed a “European industrial renaissance” without tackling the issue of high energy prices. Hopes are fading that the European Commission can match “nice words” with action, EurActiv was told.

The EU's 28 industry ministers gathered in Brussels on 20 February for a meeting of the Competitiveness Council which discussed a European Commission policy paper (communication) for an "industrial renaissance", published earlier in January.

“As you know, for Europe, energy prices are a big problem," said Antonio Tajani, the Italian commissioner in charge of enterprise and industry behind the industrial renaissance initiative.

Speaking to the press after the meeting, Tajani said: “The first action by the European Commission is to put on the table for the first time the money for European re-industrialisation – one hundred billion euros coming from regional funds.” Other funds available for re-industrialisation include the €40 billion available for innovation and scientific research under the Horizon 2020 programme, which runs until the end of the decade.

“First of all, we aim to address the high cost of energy and the lack of a unified energy market. I believe that this is probably the most important priority," added Kostis Hatzidakis, the Greek minister for development and competitiveness who was chairing the ministerial meeting.

"We need to mitigate the negative impact of the high cost of energy which is twice higher than in the USA, or Russia. Especially, EU gas is three to four times more expensive [for EU companies] than for the USA, the Russian and the Indian competitors.”

Hatzidakis said the Greek EU presidency was preparing a letter with concrete proposals on energy prices for the spring EU summit on 20-21 March that will feature a debate on industrial competitiveness.

But he warned that the Greek EU presidency "cannot work out miracles within six months".

"What we can do is lay the foundation for the new European Commission that will be formed after the elections to bring forward concrete legislative proposals," Hatzidakis said.

'Nice words'

This came as a major disappointment for business representatives who claim ministers shied away from stating the obvious, that current energy and climate change policies deteriorate the EU’s competitiveness and therefore urgently need correction.

Instead of clear-cut language, the meeting's conclusions listed a number of research papers, including one by the European Commission on the high cost of energy in Europe, but stopped short of saying what needs to be done to correct the situation.

In the US, cheap shale gas has turned around the fortunes of the world’s largest economy. The cost of electricity in the United States is a third or half that of the EU and gas prices are just one third of those seen on the old continent.

“The USA currently attracts massively industrial investments and jobs: This is a true industrial renaissance in the US,” said Peter Botschek of the European Chemical Industry Council (CEFIC), which represents 29,000 companies, producing about a fifth of the world’s chemicals.

By contrast, EU statements about an “industrial renaissance” were just “nice words”, Botschek told EurActiv.

Europe is going backwards economically if they continue this policy they have regarding energy. It seems like the only way you can live a green life is if you live like the North Koreans do.

But Germany is turning to more coal since the shut down of nuclear power. http://theenergycollective.com/robertwilson190/328841/why-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-leading-more-coal-burning

In September 2012 Germany's Environment Minister opened a new lignite power plant, arguing the following: “If one builds a new state-of-the-art lignite power plant to replace several older and much less efficient plants, then I feel this should also be acknowledged as a contribution to our climate protection efforts.”

Peter Altmaier is not alone, recently the climate benefits of Germany's new and apparently ultra-efficient coal power plants have been extolled not only by manufacturers such as Siemens and power companies including RWE, but even some of the German nuclear phase out's most vocal proponents.

We are also now seeing increasing numbers of people suddenly noticing an uptick in coal power, and deciding it has little to do with Germany's decision to move away from nuclear energy. These arguments however require both an alternative arithmetic, and an alternative history. Here is why.

The policy to phase out nuclear power was vital to the decisions to build new coal power plants. Closing down a quarter of your electricity generation leaves a gap that must be filled by something, and Germany realised it would largely have to be filled by one thing: coal. This is more or less beyond doubt, because Germany's then Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said so. Gabriel, now Germany's Minister for Energy and Economics told climate scientist James Hansen that Germany had to build new coal power plants because of its nuclear phase out, and stated elsewhere that Germany would have to build 8 to 12 coal power plants to replace its nuclear fleet.

And this is exactly what he got. In the first half of this decade Germany will open 9 new coal power plants.

From the author in the comments section.

The world's best approach to reduce CO2 is that of France with 80% nuclear, AND the lowest CO2 emissions of any industrialized nation in the world, AND among the lowest electricity costs, c/kWh, in Europe.

Much of German energy-intensive heavy industry will move to France, Poland, the Czech Republic, etc., which have low energy costs, to survive on the world market.

Normal 0 0 1 316 1806 15 3 2217 11.0 0 0 0

Rich, smug, Germany is finally beginning to realize its RE leadership will go nowhere without other, poorer nations following them. German household electric rates at 29.5 eurocent/kWh are the 2nd highest in Europe, after Denmark.

In fact, by charging ahead, as Germany has been doing with much hubris, they will harm their formidable economy relative to competitors. France, 80% nuclear, much lower CO2 emissions than Germany, is smiling, while at the same time professing to be "onboard" for RE.

It is useful to look at rich Germany regarding renewable energy costs of its ENERGIEWENDE.

For the years 2008 -2013, payments to RE generators were 9.0, 10.8, 13.2, 16.8, 21.1, 22.9 billion euros

For the same years, the RE energy costs were 0.1265, 0.1433, 0.1603, 0.1629, 0.1783, 0.1730 euro/kWh; note the rising trend.

Because of additional payments (subsidies) to impacted companies, the actual RE costs are higher, to result is 0.2047 euro/kWh for 2013, instead of 0.1730 euro/kWh.

For the years 2008 – 2013, the RE was sold by utilities for 4.3, 5.5, 3.8, 5.8, 5.1, 6.7 billion euros on the open market, or for 0.0604, 0.0730, 0.0462, 0.0562, 0.0431, 0.0506 euro/kWh, i.e., sold at about 1/4 of the cost.

http://www.germanenergyblog.de/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/BT-Drs_18_242_EEG_Data.png

People think the Germans are so smart, but selling an item at 1/4 of the cost is stupid, AND unsustainable.

I, and many others, have been writing about this for some time, and it seems to have finally sunk in at the highest level.

To limit the damage of RE follies to rich German’s heavy industries, traditional utilities, and other businesses, Germany’s government has decided to reduce all RE subsidies, effective at start of 2015, from a weighted average of 0.1730 euro/kWh in 2013, to a weighted average of 0.12 euro/kWh in 2015. This is not a trivial reduction, as it will significantly slow the build-out of RE systems all over Germany, including offshore wind turbine plants.

RE businesses, et al., howled, but there was a big sigh of relief from other households and businesses, as sanity appears to have prevailed after all.

Here is more about Germany turning to coal power instead of nuclear power. http://www.forbes.com/sites/brighammccown/2013/12/30/germanys-energy-goes-kaput-threatening-economic-stability/

In an unexpected move, Germany approved its first coal-fired power plant in eight years, which is now up and running. The German energy company Steag says its 725-megawatt coal plant is just the beginning of coal’s German comeback, as the country has actually approved a total of ten new hard-coal plants. These facilities are scheduled to come online in the next two years, boosting the country’s coal capacity by 33 percent.

Yep, Germany has turned to coal for power. Obviously I was wrong.

Got anything to back that up? Seems to me that if oil can be safely extracted and transported then rare earths should be able to as well. And let's not forget that the quantities of material involved are a few orders of magnitude less than our current fossil fuel impacts...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=rare+earth+mining+environmental+impact

Right.... you should do a little googling before posting stuff from Creation.com or wherever it is that you come across these lies. Consider this clever website that claims to real-time track Germany's solar output:

http://www.sma.de/en/company/pv-electricity-produced-in-germany.html

Here's a little more about Germany's coal use. It's subtle, so read carefully:

Source: http://www.renewablesinternational.net/coal-consumption-in-germany-a-closer-look/150/537/75863/

So now I'm expecting you to decry the widespread use of solar energy because it causes coal power generation to be less efficient.

Remember: the entire goal is to reduce environmental impact. Coal is massively damaging to the environment, just about the most damaging way to produce electricity or heat we've ever developed. The only thing worse is clear-cutting a forest. Anything that reduces coal consumption is a net benefit to humanity and the planet.

Of course if you are happy that 10% of the German population are in Energy poverty, then you must have a massive grin from ear to ear. http://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20140321133218-322580126-german-energy-policy-is-failing-the-poor-while-being-a-poor-way-to-help-the-climate

The German government recently said that 6.9 million households live in energy poverty, defined as spending more than 10 per cent of their income on energy. This is partly a result of Germany's Energiewende, the country’s turn away from nuclear and towards renewable energies.

This year alone, German consumers are expected to subsidize green energy to the tune of a whopping €23.6 billion ($33 billion) on top of their normal electricity bills for the so-called “renewable energies reallocation charge.”

Since 2008, this charge has increasingly reallocated money from the poor to the rich, e.g. from poor tenants in the Ruhr area to wealthy homeowners in Bavaria who put solar panels on their roofs. The charge has skyrocketed from 1.15 ct/kWh in 2008 to 6.24 ct/kWh this year. Since then, another 1.4 million households slipped into energy poverty.

That's it making the rich even richer and the poor even poorer, lovely how things work out in real life rather than fantasy land, that you are currently living in. What happens in practice is always different from the theory. Basically Renewable energy right now is a sham.

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21594336-germanys-new-super-minister-energy-and-economy-has-his-work-cut-out-sunny-windy-costly

German consumers and voters like these targets. But they increasingly dislike their side-effects. First, there is the rising cost of electricity. This is a consequence of a renewable-energy law passed in 2000 which guarantees not only 20 years of fixed high prices for solar and wind producers but also preferred access to the electricity grid. As a result, Bavarian roofs now gleam with solar panels and windmills dominate entire landscapes. Last year, the share of renewables in electricity production hit a record 23.4%.

This subsidy is costly. The difference between the market price for electricity and the higher fixed price for renewables is passed on to consumers, whose bills have been rising for years. An average household now pays an extra €260 ($355) a year to subsidise renewables: the total cost of renewable subsidies in 2013 was €16 billion. Costs are also going up for companies, making them less competitive than rivals from America, where energy prices are falling thanks to the fracking boom.

To forestall job losses, Germany therefore exempts companies who depend on electricity and compete globally from paying the subsidy. But the European Union’s competition commissioner, Joaquín Almunia, has been investigating whether the entire package of subsidies and exemptions violates European law. Only concerted German lobbying in Brussels just before Christmas has held him back from seeking repayments for now.

So Mr Gabriel is in a bind. New estimates by McKinsey, a consultancy, suggest that there is almost nothing he can do to reduce the costs of the subsidy. Germany’s constitution forbids retroactively reneging on promises already made. Cutting subsidies for, say, new windmills by 15% in the next two years would reduce an average household’s annual electricity bill by only a cent. Even if Mr Gabriel decided to stop supporting renewable energy completely (which is unimaginable), the surcharge on consumers’ monthly bills would hardly decrease. And if he hypothetically scrapped all industrial exemptions (also unimaginable), the average bill would still fall only a little.

A lovely mess the Germans are in.

 

[Hygro]

Wait, you think the crux of European economic problems stem from their energy policies?

 

[Mise]

I think he has a vested interest in coal mining.

 

[Rashiminos]

The people who live the least environmentally sustainable are going to be far more likely to survive their abuse of the planet than not, simply because they live here in America.

Why do you think that?

The rope doesn't have a "purpose", it represents a reality that we can't escape each others' decisions when it comes to climate change.

Supposing that were the reality, wouldn't it work both ways? Would the people who "live in the least environmentally sustainable" fashion be able to escape the decisions of those who live more sustainably?

Spoiler :

If you decided to put it in your metaphor, it had a purpose. It may have just been rhetoric supplied to fit your point, but it had some purpose. Didn't care to explore the rope's representation of the "planetary system" as you proposed?

 

[Samson]

The people who live the least environmentally sustainable are going to be far more likely to survive their abuse of the planet than not, simply because they live here in America.

Why do you think that?

I think this is self evident. To live the "least environmentally sustainable" you need to consume a lot, which requires a lot of money. Having lots of money will insulate you from the worst effects of climate change (principally increased food prices). While this is far from restricted to Americans, there are lots of people who fit this bracket in America.

Note that when I say "a lot" above I am talking about on a global scale, so you need $34k per year to be in the top 1% (sorry about the source of the link, but I think it explains what I am saying)

Supposing that were the reality, wouldn't it work both ways? Would the people who "live in the least environmentally sustainable" fashion be able to escape the decisions of those who live more sustainably?

For the people who "live in the least environmentally sustainable" fashion to be constrained by the decisions of those who live more sustainably there would need to be a mechanism. The closest we have come to this is the Kyoto protocol, and that did not constrain people much.

 

[El_Machinae]

I'm really, really sure that energy subsidies are not 'economically damaging', merely that they prevent you from reaching a Pareto Optimum. Ostensibly, you can subsidize energy and still get consistent economic growth.