Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Environment & Energy
In reply to the discussion: The Paradox of Energy Efficiency [View all]GliderGuider
(21,088 posts)34. You do me a disservice. I'm MUCH more pessimistic than that.
Here's a link to a dispassionate, well-reasoned analysis that was just published by David Korowicz:
Trade Off: Financial system supply-chain cross contagion (PDF)
It is argued that in order to understand systemic risk in the globalised economy, account must be taken of how growing complexity (interconnectedness, interdependence and the speed of processes), the de-localisation of production and concentration within key pillars of the globalised economy have magnified global vulnerability and opened up the possibility of a rapid and large-scale collapse. Collapse in this sense means the irreversible loss of socio-economic complexity which fundamentally transforms the nature of the economy. These crucial issues have not been recognised by policy-makers nor are they reflected in economic thinking or modelling.
The point Korowicz makes, in 77 pages of "simple ideas drawn from ecology, systems dynamics, and the study of complex networks" is that our global enterprise is teetering on the brink, vulnerable to shocks starting in the financial system and amplified through the disruption of global supply chains. He makes a damn good case, and his analysis fleshes out what I think is the most probable near-term scenario.
If things begin to come apart in this way (which is my core assumption these days) then funding for all the shiny toys you talk about will simply evaporate as the world tries to keep the lights on and the food moving. In a situation like that, the world is going to stick with sunk-cost infrastructure until the rubble stops bouncing. No solar farms, no wind farms, just coal, oil and gas - not only because the infrastructure is there, but because all those jobs in the coal, oil and gas fields depend on it. And ain't nobody going to shut down those jobs so somebody somewhere else can try their hand at building a few wind turbines.
I encourage you to read the paper - it's a barn-burner. If nothing else it would give you a good idea of just how pessimistic I really am.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
35 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Rush Limbaugh: Institute for Energy Research is "the energy equivalent of the Heritage Foundation"
bananas
Jul 2012
#3
It's telling that none of your posts addressed the substance of the article.
GliderGuider
Jul 2012
#14
LOL - "lack of political purity" - it's a politically-pure right-wing front group. nt
bananas
Jul 2012
#18
This from someone who says anything more than a couple of sentences is too long to read
kristopher
Jul 2012
#20
The efficiency is good, but of little value with increased consumerism and greed.
Starboard Tack
Jul 2012
#8
Socialism or high regulation. Rebound is a definite characteristic of capitalism.
joshcryer
Jul 2012
#16
Socialism and high regulation need to have this outcome as one of the goals.
GliderGuider
Jul 2012
#17