Global Warming and… Economics

[Ron L]

(AFAIK) Facts: Global average temperatures are increasing. CO^2 (and other) emissions play some part in this. These various emissions are generated by human activity.
(still AFAIK) Facts: We have no choice but to adapt to the process, since it cannot be reversed without reducing human population to stone-age levels. Given the history of predicted climatic changes, we do not take that drastic action.
(and more AFAIK) Facts: Economists will play a large part in the decisions of the adaptation, and the laws of economics will define the result absolutely.
So why is a subject as important as this not a required area of study? It's way more helpful than grammar...
Thanks,

[able83]

I would dispute your second point. (to some degree)

But for me this is an excellent topic and it probably ties in all the topics I've found interesting recently; but basically I agree with your thinking. (I think)

Given current technology the planet can be seen as a closed resource system, certainly in terms of food, water and land, it is a closed system.

So, both in terms of resource sustainability & managing climate change, how do we know what level of population is feasible? Actually we can’t answer that… because the sustainable population level is a completely different figure depending on whether we use energy and resources at the USA per capita level, or an African level, (or a different level in between)

And as you rightly point out this is absolutely a question of economics.

Do we in the first world continue to grow our economies at exponential rates and factor in increased living standards, (increased per capita energy use), as the norm? While at the same time advocating development in the 3rd world as the way to “close the gap”?

This is the current accepted economic paradigm, and (to me), it's very strange.

[Ron L]

I would dispute your second point. (to some degree)

You're right; the proposed population reduction is not a fact (AFAIK). It is a presumption on my part and could be hyperbole. My reasoning was as follows:
If an activity and the result are increasing exponentially, it seems that a reduction in either requires a similar, reciprocal, curve. Maybe not; climatic effects remain uncertain.
Can't find it right now (can someone help?), but I have a 'non-woo' book around here that postulates human influence of the climate began with animal husbandry ('way BC). If that's the case, we'd (all three of us) have to start chipping stones to make a difference.

But for me this is an excellent topic and it probably ties in all the topics I've found interesting recently; but basically I agree with your thinking. (I think)
Given current technology the planet can be seen as a closed resource system, certainly in terms of food, water and land, it is a closed system.

Land is surely finite, but we're not running out of that. Lots of it is empty. We populate the areas currently favorable, but that can and will change with the climate.
Food, no. Since the '50s or so, food production has increased many times more than population. I can't yet see a physical limit. Claims to the contrary haven't proven true; see Paul Erhlich (sp?)
Dunno about water. Again, there's a lot we aren't using and a lot we could re-use. Transportation and/or treatment costs seem to be the limits now, and those could change with the wealth of the world.

So, both in terms of resource sustainability & managing climate change, how do we know what level of population is feasible? Actually we can’t answer that… because the sustainable population level is a completely different figure depending on whether we use energy and resources at the USA per capita level, or an African level, (or a different level in between)
And as you rightly point out this is absolutely a question of economics.

I don't know that we have a lot of choice other than to let the market tell us. I know a lot of folks think we need to 'plan' and 'control' the issue, but if we don't listen to what the market says, how do you collect data and make any reasonable choice about control, even if we think we can control it? The last is questionable; centralized control of a market hasn't been shown to be a great success.
Historically, as the population has increased, the general welfare has done the same. I sure can't point to any time in the past and say: "That's the proper population." Even if we don't yet have a complete knowledge of economic laws, we really can't ignore that data.
We also can't ignore that the global temps have been increasing since the "Little Ice Age", so adaptation has been an on-going (and seemingly successful) process.

Do we in the first world continue to grow our economies at exponential rates and factor in increased living standards, (increased per capita energy use), as the norm? While at the same time advocating development in the 3rd world as the way to “close the gap”?
This is the current accepted economic paradigm, and (to me), it's very strange.

Again, I can't see a workable alternative. Adaptation and/or correction and the methods of doing so are not yet known AFAIK (except the adaptation mentioned above). Even if there is a mean that 'corrects' the problem, it'll be real hard to get any first-world country to do, what? Stop using concrete? Stop going places?
Wealth is not a finite resource, so there's not particular limit to that. While 'we' (first world?) grow the economies, it has come at a lower specific energy cost, so increasing the wealth of even Africa would seem to be helpful. And I'd be very embarrassed to suggest that those folks kinda keep starving (I know you didn't mean that).
Thanks,

[qwerty]

Ron L. wrote

Can't find it right now (can someone help?), but I have a 'non-woo' book around here that postulates human influence of the climate began with animal husbandry ('way BC).

This may not be the book you had in mind but William F. Ruddiman wrote an article in the March 05 issue of Scientific American entitled "How did humans first alter Global Climate?" As a paleoclimatologist, he noted that his ocean sediment cores indicated that atmospheric CO2 began rising about 8 thousand years ago. He argued that the source of the greenhouse gas was the wave of deforestation and paddy rice production that early farmers began at that time. It's an interesting thought.

I agree that Economics as a discipline has a lot to contribute to any discussion of climate change. Micro-economic theory in particular can be used to estimate how firms or individuals might adjust to changing conditions. Unfortunately, macro-economic theory isn't as useful because it is a static theory that only points to long-term equilibrium positions without giving any clue about how long it will take to reach equilibrium.

In general, making rapid changes in a planetary system will likely require  massive changes in either technology or social habits. Changes in technology seem to be a function of research effort so there is hope technology can help us cope with climate change if we have enough time. Social change, on the other hand, can be extremely slow (for the group) or extremely fast (for individuals) depending on unknown factors.

Question: When discussing problems raised by global warming, What should we set as a goal? survival of individuals, survival of specified civilizations? survival of humans as a species? survival of wildlife? survival of life on Earth?

[Chaos]

*snip*

I agree that Economics as a discipline has a lot to contribute to any discussion of climate change. Micro-economic theory in particular can be used to estimate how firms or individuals might adjust to changing conditions. Unfortunately, macro-economic theory isn't as useful because it is a static theory that only points to long-term equilibrium positions without giving any clue about how long it will take to reach equilibrium.

*snip*

I don´t mean to sound overly confrontational, but by that standard, microeconomics is not as useful, either, because it either pretends that changes happen instantly, or "from one period to the next", without saying a thing about how long "period" is.

You really cannot look at micro or macro in isolation. They are both parts of the same overall thing, and neither is complete (or really very useful, overall) without the other.

[qwerty]

Chaos, your comment about my last post was correct. I realize that my reference to a deficiency of macro-economics was primarily just a personal bias.

I'm still interested in discussing the effects of global warming on individuals or small groups. Personally, I have no confidence that large groups ( like nations) will be able to take any effective actions to either avoid or delay any effect of climate change. I feel the probability is high that our human species will simply have to face the full brunt of whatever secondary changes the greenhouse gas accumulation causes. As in all previous climate changes, some resilient, adaptable individuals survive while others do not. Do you have any recommendations for how to keep our species ( and our grandchildren) in the former group rather than the latter?

[Chaos]

Chaos, your comment about my last post was correct. I realize that my reference to a deficiency of macro-economics was primarily just a personal bias.

*applauds*

Too few people are willing to admit such things (and I don´t necessarily exclude myself there). It´s a pity, especially since too many people do such things.

I'm still interested in discussing the effects of global warming on individuals or small groups. Personally, I have no confidence that large groups ( like nations) will be able to take any effective actions to either avoid or delay any effect of climate change.

Inhowfar? Do you think they don´t have the means, or they don´t have the will?
FWIW, I think individuals don´t have the means and nations and corporations don´t have the will. So unless someone - the elusive "the people", for example - starts kicking the right posteriors pretty soon, I, too, think too little will be done too late.

I feel the probability is high that our human species will simply have to face the full brunt of whatever secondary changes the greenhouse gas accumulation causes.

Unfortunately, yes.

As in all previous climate changes, some resilient, adaptable individuals survive while others do not. Do you have any recommendations for how to keep our species ( and our grandchildren) in the former group rather than the latter?

No.

However, I still think it is possible to do something to try and prevent it. At least if *somebody* can make those who are responsible understand that pretending global warming is not happening, sticking their fingers in their ears and singing "la la la I can´t hear you" will not make the problem go away.

[qwerty]

querty wrote

I have no confidence that large groups ( like nations) will be able to take any effective actions to either avoid or delay any effect of climate change.

Chaos wrote

Inhowfar? Do you think they don´t have the means, or they don´t have the will?

I have a poster on my wall that says “If you have a job that needs to be done quickly, do it yourself. If you have plenty of time, delegate the task to a subordinate. If you have forever, form a committee.”

In my view, national governments are giant committees composed of politicians. While most politicians want to be decisive leaders, they  usually act as consummate followers. I fear that most major governments (including my own) will determine the precise nature and extent of the global warming problem and devise a very effective response plan about a decade too late.

Even worse, I fear that if my government does make a rapid decision and mobilizes the nation's resources to accomplish specific tasks, the situation may become even worse that if no action had been taken. For example, do we want George W. Bush to make another stab at solving world problems?

The most I expect from a national government is a legal framework that establishes a level playing field for human commerce. Note that a truly level playing field assumes that all external costs will be internalized. This is a legitimate governmental function that is too often ignored. For example, allowing individuals and firms to freely dump gaseous waste products into the common atmosphere lies at the very heart of our current global warming problem.

Keep in mind that only a minority of citizens push for government action on global warming. Polls show that up to 85 percent of Americans believe in some version of “creationism” rather than evolution. These people don't respond rapidly to scientific evidence. I fear that two-thirds of the global population identify global warming as the latest American/EU tactic to promote “imperialism”. I wonder how many billions of people will have to die before global public opinion forces governments to act?

Please don't be misled by these pessimistic comments. I am an ardent supporter of most rational plans for government action to minimize or postpone the adverse effects of global warming. My logic and biases, however, lead me to place a low probability on achieving successful, dramatic governmental actions. I much prefer to think about actions that individuals and firms can perform.

I've been wrong so many times in the past that I must admit the probability of being wrong now is uncomfortably high. Please explain the errors in my logic.

[Martin Brock]

(AFAIK) Facts: Global average temperatures are increasing. CO^2 (and other) emissions play some part in this. These various emissions are generated by human activity.
(still AFAIK) Facts: We have no choice but to adapt to the process, since it cannot be reversed without reducing human population to stone-age levels. Given the history of predicted climatic changes, we do not take that drastic action.
(and more AFAIK) Facts: Economists will play a large part in the decisions of the adaptation, and the laws of economics will define the result absolutely.
So why is a subject as important as this not a required area of study? It's way more helpful than grammar...
Thanks,

Economics is highly politicized unfortunately.  Useful economics says, "These proprieties have this effect, and those proprieties have that effect."  Too often, this formulation becomes, "These proprieties are correct, and those are not, and if you dispute me, you fail."  Since grammar is an artificial convention, de facto, the latter formulation is pedagogically more natural when teaching grammar.  A class on the economics of global warming would likely teach, "Al Gore is right, and if you dispute him, you might as well be a holocaust denier," or it might teach a view hostile to Al Gore, but a dispassionate view seems unlikely.  People aren't so passionate about the periodic table.

[Chaos]

*snip*  People aren't so passionate about the periodic table.

Are you certain? My high school chemistry teacher became very passionate when I stated that "tedium" was an element of the periodic table. (SCNR)


Seriously... people will become passionate about anything they have a stake in one way or the other. That´s just human. And I don´t see a way to avoid it, either. Blindly trusting in human rationality, as some do, is the road to disaster.

[qwerty]

Economics is highly politicized . . .

I agree that Economics debate is highly politicized but so is all other debate. That is why it is important to stay focused on the logic.

I think you and I are looking at the same problem but simply phrased the question differently.

The folks on this forum, including me, are enthusiastic about debunking religion even though we have precious little evidence that we are doing anything other than educating (and perhaps entertaining) ourselves. Now, in the face of a global warming threat, we are being asked to debunk economic fallacies among politicians and the general public. Why should debunking economic fallacies be more effective than debunking religion?

[qwerty]

[quote=”Chaos ”]
Blindly trusting in human rationality, as some do, is the road to disaster.[/quote]

At first, I was really confused by this sentence. I must admit that I wrote several paragraphs defending “human rationality”before I noticed the initial word in your sentence. You are absolutely correct in asserting that all human statements must be closely examined and tested before acceptance. Thank you for the lesson.

[Chaos]

[quote=”Chaos ”]
Blindly trusting in human rationality, as some do, is the road to disaster.

At first, I was really confused by this sentence. I must admit that I wrote several paragraphs defending “human rationality”before I noticed the initial word in your sentence. You are absolutely correct in asserting that all human statements must be closely examined and tested before acceptance. Thank you for the lesson.[/quote]

My pleasure.  

My point was that simply assuming that everyone will do what is best for him - or for humanity as a whole - is not, to put it diplomatically, a good idea. I mean, if people *did* rationally decide what was best for them, homeopathy as we see it today (i.e. as a purportedly superior alternative to real medicine) would be DEAD. There would be no psychics or faith healers. Nobody would bother investigating imaginary flying saucers or imaginary sea serpents. And so on.

At best, people will behave in the way they *think* is rational, and will do what they *think* is best for themselves. Which is very likely to lead anywhere else than to a workable solution to real problems.

[Mathew Scott Fitsgarrett]

Microeconomics is involved with economies of scale and marginal utility. Individual enterprises are studied and analyzed to find an optimum size. Herman Daley, in "Beyond Growth" makes this point to illustrate how modern macroeconomics, in contrast, assumes an infinite environment which both receives waste and supplies resources. Macro economic theory assumes growth forever on a finite planet is possible and that technology will provide the future with substitutes for any resources squandered today.

What we are dealing with, world-wide, is Economics which has not accepted some of its own most brilliant scholars, Nicholas Georgescu-Roengen is one. Why? Because scholars who tie economic theory to the laws of thermodynamics introduce physical limits upon creation and centralization of wealth which are apolitical.

I call it the invisible hand of blind justice. In economic terms, economies of scale are often nothing more than avoidance of the expense of cleaning up the messes created by the economic activity. Many apparently profitable economic activities are not actually profitable if entropic and/or social chaos is included in the balance sheet.

[Chaos]

So tell us, then, how does one "tie economic theory to the laws of thermodynamics"?

What does the IS-LM model look like with with thermodynamics added into the mix?

How about the Fisher equation?

How about Tobin´s Q?

Don´t leave us in suspense. Give us some solutions.

[Mathew Scott Fitsgarrett]

The IS-LM model itself looks no different when one is attempting to view the economy as a subset within the larger environment and subject to the constraints of thermodynamic principles. But let us imagine that we are looking at a particular industry which fits the given slopes and intersection of the IS and LM lines. Assuming a given money supply one can envision increasing the total demand by injecting additional present investment from the future by undervaluing the resources utilized, I am thinking here of timber cut and utilized as lumber. In our current economy this is an increase in GDP which apparently could go on ad infinitum.

Full accounting utilizing a thermodynamic type of reasoning would examine the solar power per square meter of forest land and convert that to a volume of wood produced by the sun and earth. If harvest per unit of time excedes the available solar power per unit of time expressed as lumber, then the actual price of the lumber should not be viewed as an injection of savings moving GDP upward but a sale of productive asset or capital which puts both GDP and its supporting environment in peril.

The problem with curves like this is that they do not adequately explain how the economy behaves as a subset of nature. I am not saying the exercise of comparing GDP to interest and money supply is pointless, only that it is intellectually limiting to view the economy as outside the bounds of its enclosing planetary ecology.

I'm sure the bee problem is known here, it has become suddenly worse this year. Some attempts to put a monetary value on the bee industry in perspective for Congress have come up with numbers around 15 billion by utilizing the limited measurement of closely associated dollars which are part of the GDP. However, looking at the bee problem where bees are part of the larger system which the human economy fits into will illustrate that bees do so much more for the environment as a whole that humans may not survive bee extinction and be around for global warming.

At this point I will stop for baseball practice and give you time to ignore or cut my primitive start on an answer to shreds. (Swamps which out produce with life-force productivity anything a human can do could be another thermodynamic example here).

[Chaos]

The problem with what you say is, macroeconomics is not the be all and end all of everything.

Macroeconomics is simply concerned with determining that, IF the condition are like this, THEN that will happen, or IF you what that to happen, THEN you need to do this.

It does not pass judgement on whether that is a good thing to have or want, or whether this is a realistic or feasible thing. Macroeconomics is a tool without moral value.

[Martin Brock]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... rming.html

I have no comment on the role of solar irradiance in climate change, but I'll say this.  If scientists measured this sort of change in the polar ice caps on Earth, human induced Global Warming would be the cause, in media accounts at least.

[Mathew Scott Fitsgarrett]

Macroeconomics far more than a tool, it is a field of study within the scientific discipline of Economics. Those who state that economics is not a science are referring to the ability of political elites to use governmental police powers to stack the deck to their advantage by cloaking clandestine piracy in economic terms.

One revealing test of rigid upper class control over macroeconomics is to examine beginning texts in the colleges. The basic gist of taught ideology is that thermodynamic principles are completely ignored in favor of "tools" for efficiency measurements of cash flow maximization. Scientific economic study starts with recognition that life is warm and keeps itself warm by eating, wearing clothes and living within shelter. Thermodynamic principles of physics and economics are not separate studies until embarking upon scientific analysis of human activities involved with securing the necessities of life.

The economics of global warming may be proven fallacious by astrophysicists who determine that the sun is growing warmer. Attempts to ridicule and stop scientific research into impacts of human economic activity upon planetary health were successful historically because the population was small relative to the environment. That day is gone, forever; even if the population settles to a lower level, the readily available natural resources have been used up and already reside in upper class bank accounts as cold and lifeless cash hordes. Scientific Economic research based upon thermodynamic principles may prove unnecessary for global warming but similar methodology can and will be directed toward other disturbances to planetary health.

Qualitative analysis marks an exciting vector for young economists. Try to think of growth in human consciousness as one of the primary directions of future growth as-well-as a possible organizing principle stretching all the way back to the big bang. Maximize quality and you will see that the hatreds inspired by economic domination based upon might-makes-right create social disruptions that adversely impact economic growth qualitatively and quantitatively.

[Chaos]

Macroeconomics far more than a tool, it is a field of study within the scientific discipline of Economics. Those who state that economics is not a science are referring to the ability of political elites to use governmental police powers to stack the deck to their advantage by cloaking clandestine piracy in economic terms.

You can keep claiming that until you turn blue in face, but that doesn´t make it true.

What macroeconomics is or is not is not determined by how some "political elite" or whatever uses it.

One revealing test of rigid upper class control over macroeconomics is to examine beginning texts in the colleges. The basic gist of taught ideology is that thermodynamic principles are completely ignored in favor of "tools" for efficiency measurements of cash flow maximization. Scientific economic study starts with recognition that life is warm and keeps itself warm by eating, wearing clothes and living within shelter. Thermodynamic principles of physics and economics are not separate studies until embarking upon scientific analysis of human activities involved with securing the necessities of life.

That´s because thermodynamic principle HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MACROECONOMICS - I can´t stress this often enough. Macroeconomists is not concerned with this particular thing, get that into your head already! You might just as well dismiss mathematics because its formulas don´t come in limerick form.

[Mathew Scott Fitsgarrett]

Chaos wrote:

"That´s because thermodynamic principle HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MACROECONOMICS..."
--------------------------------------------

Low entropy resources are removed from the planet which is the bounding box of human economic activity (read closed finite system). Humans use planetary resources and solar budget and return the residue to the enclosing planetary environment as high entropy waste.

How can this macroeconomic cycle be analyzed any other way than thermodynamically?

Assume for sake of discussion there is no conspiracy and that thermodynamic economic reasoning is simply too advanced for our present culture, even so, thermodynamic principles are the encompassing body of natural sciences that the human economy is described by.
-------------------------------------------
Chaos wrote:

You might just as well dismiss mathematics because its formulas don´t come in limerick form.
-------------------------------------------------------

Current macroeconomic principles are based on unending quantitative growth on a finite planet with a finite solar budget, this fundamental mathematical premise is impossible. The only viable direction of infinite growth on a finite planet is a qualitative increase in well being.

[qwerty]

Chaos wrote:

That´s because thermodynamic principle HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH MACROECONOMICS

It seems that Mathew has a valid point here. All Science is related just as all biological entities are related because they spring from a common origin. Every scientific discipline exists within a larger context.

[qwerty]

Mathew wrote:

The only viable direction of infinite growth on a finite planet is a qualitative increase in well being.

I suppose that the word "viable" has a connotation similar to "desirable". In that sense, I think I agree but I'm really confused by the term "well being".

Your sentence implies that the total population will suffer the same fate when population growth hits the limits imposed by finite resources. But that assumption seems too simple to be true. There is so much variation among humans, both genetically and culturally, that any possible future disaster will surely have have mixed results. If so, could human population simply oscillate between some upper and lower bounds over geologic time?

[Mathew Scott Fitsgarrett]

Well-being: sorry, this has been a topic of discussion by those much more articulate than I, for a long time.

The pessimistic viewpoint sees identical outcome at extinction. I would apologize again except that the oscillation and gated community models are not much fun to contemplate either.

MSF

[Raskolnikov]

It seems that Mathew has a valid point here. All Science is related just as all biological entities are related because they spring from a common origin. Every scientific discipline exists within a larger context.

Yes and No.

Yes, economics has to comply with the laws of physics. Any economic theory based on the notion that energy and matter could be created or destroyed, or gravity negated, or that the speed of light could be exceeded, would be nonsense.

But in a more important sense, there is no valid point to what Matthew claimed, because economics doesn't contradict physics in any meaningful way (I make allowances for simplistic thought experiments and models - the equivalence of assuming way friction in physics textbooks when discussing the laws of motion). Economists mostly ignore thermodynamics for the same reason that biology texts ignore quantum physics - its useless in answering the interesting questions. Yes, science at some level is all inter-related, but good luck using quantum equations to predict the effects of rent control, the impact of El Nino on coastal weather patterns, or the mating behavior of polar bears. There is a very good reason why there are more scientific disciplines than "physics".

I will also add that at a fundamental level, economics is the expansion of thermodynamic principles into the social realm. Not that thermodynamic equations are ever used, but economists are always the guys in the room saying you can't get something for nothing, or that there is no such thing as a free lunch - notions that physicists should be comfortable with.

[Hecateus]

[snip]

(still AFAIK) Facts: We have no choice but to adapt to the process, since it cannot be reversed without reducing human population to stone-age levels. Given the history of predicted climatic changes, we do not take that drastic action.

[snip]

Thanks,

I realise that you apologised for this already, but it must be emphasised that this notion of stone-age requiremnts exists mainly in the minds of Climate Cranks/Septics/Contrarians et al...and a very few über-Enviro-Nazis.  For example, the Sierra Club has a rather rational Two Percent Plan, which is a far cry from living in caves.  There are already plenty voices of moderation in response to climate mitigation and adaptation among the environmental community.

My Libertarian and lifestyle response is as follows:
Politically:
DO Require our government to become carbon-neutral via reducing its CO2 output directly, buying renewably/non-fossil energy, and buying certified Carbon Offset Credits to cover what else is otherwise not-cost effective/possible to reduce directly.  

DO End subsidization and other market protections of all fossil fuel enterprises, agriculuture, and if possible all corporate welfare.  

DO Impose Carbon-Tariff all imports not otherwise provably carbon-neutral.  

DO help consumers gauge their CO2 output via required labeling.  

DO Reward tropical nations for protecting exsting wild forests.  

DO require fuel taxes to completely cover the cost of maintaining roads, OR preferably privitise the roads with turn-pikes.

DO expand climate monitoring systems (left gimped by a certain Administration), such as DSCOVR

DO Not limit pro-sumers from making and trading to neighbors their own renewable fuels.

DO Not impose a Domestic Carbon-Tax or CO2 Offseting  (these will just be fiascos!)

Personal:
Aim to reduce personal actual CO2 production by 5% per year (not including personal exhalations   ) Lots of easy simple personal behaviour things and minor home improvements can do this.  It just takes practice and patience.

Buy Green-Energy as soon as possible, unless unaffordable or unavailable (current status).

Purchase Certified Carbon-Offsets, unless unaffordable (unlikely, this year cost me a mere $80).  Somewhere in the world, 5 tons of CO2 were not produced thanks to that.  Doing so personally would cost me thousands.

Don't go broke or greatly into debt.

[Mathew Scott Fitsgarrett]

It seems that Mathew has a valid point here. All Science is related just as all biological entities are related because they spring from a common origin. Every scientific discipline exists within a larger context.

Yes and No.

Yes, economics has to comply with the laws of physics. Any economic theory based on the notion that energy and matter could be created or destroyed, or gravity negated, or that the speed of light could be exceeded, would be nonsense.

.... But in a more important sense, there is no valid point to what Matthew claimed.... Economists mostly ignore thermodynamics for the same reason that biology texts ignore quantum physics - its useless in answering the interesting questions.

Biologists and economists agree that the economy of a particular bee hive or human grouping both operate within a closed and finite system known as the life supporting planetary environment.

The difference between biologists and economists is that biologists use accepted cost accounting principles when low entropy resources are extracted from the environment and returned to it as poisonous and life destroying pollution. Most economists ignore accepted cost accounting principles because their real job is publishing obscurantist propaganda to support suicidal systems serving a very small percentage of the population who find it uninteresting that they will die along with everyone else when the environment collapses.

The currently accepted economic theory is that human economies can outrun financial and environmental debts by growing faster and faster forever on a finite planet; it is nonsense.

[jj]

The currently accepted economic theory is that human economies can outrun financial and environmental debts by growing faster and faster forever on a finite planet; it is nonsense.

So, then, you reject absolutely the idea that we may move offplanet?

You reject absolutely the idea that we may (continue to) harvest resources from offplanet?

Why?

[Mathew Scott Fitsgarrett]

jj,

I do not reject absolutely that we may eventually move off planet or that we (continue to) harvest resources from off planet.

The off-planet resource harvesting program, however, if it grows too much beyond normal galactic and cosmic inputs, will require some sort of off-planet disposal system.

Disposal is turning out to be a bottleneck of nightmarish proportion. Single digit parts per trillion of odd trash molecules can be causal to symptoms ranging from human childhood hyperactivity to the zeta end of a very long and rapidly growing list which is excluded from the cost accounting system.

Humanity will eventually jump to the stars and simply ignore the speed of light barrier utilizing strange and quirky quark entanglements that utilize joy instead of energy. This will not happen overnight, it will take awhile to develop. We must survive and survive well and happy enough to be in the mood to accomplish our own full bloom. To do this wellness thing we will need to have a lot more fun and a lot less hyperactive rapacity, which does nothing for anybody but a few who fear death so much they try to acquire immortality via wealth.

We each live for a brief time but our specie stands on our shoulders for as long as it survives. People like George Bush throw opportunity into the trash and a lot of effort with it. Quiet, solid citizens who never make history are the ones who make the future. The regular, everyday folks are the ones who continuously reach for the stars because they are alive enough to recognize their own roots.

[Raskolnikov]

Biologists and economists agree that the economy of a particular bee hive or human grouping both operate within a closed and finite system known as the life supporting planetary environment.

The difference between biologists and economists is that biologists use accepted cost accounting principles when low entropy resources are extracted from the environment and returned to it as poisonous and life destroying pollution. Most economists ignore accepted cost accounting principles because their real job is publishing obscurantist propaganda to support suicidal systems serving a very small percentage of the population who find it uninteresting that they will die along with everyone else when the environment collapses.

The currently accepted economic theory is that human economies can outrun financial and environmental debts by growing faster and faster forever on a finite planet; it is nonsense.

It is nonsense. Its also nonsense that this is currently accepted economy theory. Please show me that this theory is currently accepted by finding it in anything like a basic economics textbook.

I studied environmental economics in college. The notion that the economy is sustained by a biological ecosystem with finite capacity for destruction/extraction and that environmental costs matter is completely mainstream, and was introductory material. Its so mainstream that environmental econ is pretty much an academic dead end. Ok, its obvious, now tell us something we don't know.

Crack open any microeconomic textbook and read what it says about the environment, "market failures", "public goods" and "externalities". You might disagree with with the way economists want to quantify environmental risks and costs and tally them up in monetary terms, but thats the opposite of ignoring accepted cost accounting principles.

[Mathew Scott Fitsgarrett]

Here's something far faster .....

You name one country that has an economic system which is not based on perpetual quantitative economic growth, compounded.

[DeusEx_Humana]

Here's something far faster .....

You name one country that has an economic system which is not based on perpetual quantitative economic growth, compounded.

North Korea.

[rrichar911]

how global warming has effected economics.  

Well, I'm not sure why but I have been observing crops in West Texas  since the mid 50's, and I have never seen one this good.  

The cotton is so high, that the machines are not designed to harvest it.  Normally irrigated cotton will produce 2 to 3 bales per acre, 3 being an adnormally abundant crop.  Well, this year they are looking at 4 or more.  

It is not certain whether or not global warming has anything to do with the bountiful crops or not, but it certainly has not hurt them.  

Thus I see no way in which that 1 degree of global warming has hurt the economy.  It in fact could be the reason for such wonderful harvests.

Now if global warming is the reason for the bounty, one could then use the excess funds that global warming has laid in man's lap, to reduce the effects of global warming and to the extent that global warming is the cause of the bounty, run out of bounty to squander to the degree that we are successful at reversing its cause.