Scientists’ warning on affluence(nature.com)
nature.com
Scientists’ warning on affluence
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16941-y
102 comments
It’s more cost effective to use solar hot water heaters than crazy amounts of insulation in a wide range of climates. Which is one reason regulations should focus on outcomes not methiods.
How do you measure the outcomes? It seems easier to me to change regulations depending to local climate.
It's far harder to change regulations once new technology comes into the market. There is always a delay between introduction and legalization, and sometimes it doesn't happen at all.
Remember,the beneficiaries of the old system will be lobbying to prevent progress.
For a trivial example, direct manufacturer car sales are effectively banned in many US states. Dealerships are an entrenched and hated third party.
They exist out of "concerns" about rural car maintenance. If there had been a law that mandated X percentage of the population must have a way to repair their car within Y miles, that would have been less distortionary.
The average American drives something like 13k miles per year, and modern cars tend to not need an oil change for 10k miles or even longer. Tires last for years. Other maintenance is less frequent.
Meanwhile in the 60s you'd change your oil every 3k miles. I'm sure in the 20s or 30s you'd have all kinds of maintenance to do
This concern about maintenance is obviously not as critical as it was in the 20s and 30s when these laws were created.
100 years of technical progress with little to no legal progress.
Remember,the beneficiaries of the old system will be lobbying to prevent progress.
For a trivial example, direct manufacturer car sales are effectively banned in many US states. Dealerships are an entrenched and hated third party.
They exist out of "concerns" about rural car maintenance. If there had been a law that mandated X percentage of the population must have a way to repair their car within Y miles, that would have been less distortionary.
The average American drives something like 13k miles per year, and modern cars tend to not need an oil change for 10k miles or even longer. Tires last for years. Other maintenance is less frequent.
Meanwhile in the 60s you'd change your oil every 3k miles. I'm sure in the 20s or 30s you'd have all kinds of maintenance to do
This concern about maintenance is obviously not as critical as it was in the 20s and 30s when these laws were created.
100 years of technical progress with little to no legal progress.
In this particular case - taxing [carbon footprint of] electricity at source and letting the market do it's magic.
As a bonus point: taxes can be redistributed equally to citizens so it's revenue neutral.
As a bonus point: taxes can be redistributed equally to citizens so it's revenue neutral.
I'm in favor of a carbon tax, but I believe it would need to be too high at this point to effect change with the necessary speed. Imo a combination of price signals and regulation is needed.
On the other hand, if I'm trying to keep a volume cold for as long as possible, how can I do that without "crazy amounts of insulation"?
I can use a Stirling engine driven by the solar gain to run a heat pump to push the temperature gradient, but I still need a large-ass amount of insulation to beat the radiating heat creeping into the cold volume.
Lots of HVAC discussions revolve around keeping people comfortable and happy, but I'm trying to figure out how to keep a cold space at that set point regardless of what goes on outside it. And if your definition of "crazy amounts" includes cost, then aerogel-core vacuum insulated panels are right out (though in terms of volume occupied, they're nifty, but only a 50 year lifecycle unfortunately).
I can use a Stirling engine driven by the solar gain to run a heat pump to push the temperature gradient, but I still need a large-ass amount of insulation to beat the radiating heat creeping into the cold volume.
Lots of HVAC discussions revolve around keeping people comfortable and happy, but I'm trying to figure out how to keep a cold space at that set point regardless of what goes on outside it. And if your definition of "crazy amounts" includes cost, then aerogel-core vacuum insulated panels are right out (though in terms of volume occupied, they're nifty, but only a 50 year lifecycle unfortunately).
The cost effectiveness of insulation is a function of the cost of solar power which has been dropping. The most efficient ratio 10 years ago is now outdated.
Further, heat transfer is only half the story. A delta of 100f vs 72f is the same as 44f vs 72f which is not that cold. What makes AC consume so much energy is dehumidifying the air, and that varies wildly. That and everything heating the space like people and electronics is helpful in the cold and counterproductive in the heat.
Clearly there is always some value in more insulation, it’s simply less important than generally assumed.
Further, heat transfer is only half the story. A delta of 100f vs 72f is the same as 44f vs 72f which is not that cold. What makes AC consume so much energy is dehumidifying the air, and that varies wildly. That and everything heating the space like people and electronics is helpful in the cold and counterproductive in the heat.
Clearly there is always some value in more insulation, it’s simply less important than generally assumed.
Aha, I see where we are coming at this from different angles. Thanks for your feedback.
I'm looking for designs that incorporate passive elements that last ideally 100+ years that are reusable in modular sections, amortizing cost-effectiveness over generations. For that criteria, below-frost-line earth-covered, foamed glass building envelopes meets my requirements, and I'm happy to set aside 6-12 feet of foamed glass insulation after digging down enough to get below the frost line to achieve the thermal control I'm seeking.
I'm looking for dehumidification to consistently 5-8%, with temperature in deep freeze range (-30 to -50°C).
I've so far been stumped finding someone who has already, or figuring out myself how to passively (or with about the energy consumption of a Pi Zero per day) capture and use elsewhere the heat hitting panels to manage their thermal cycling. Nor have I been able to find a self-cleaning (superhydrophobic and/or appropriate wettability) coating that can be lifecycle rated to the timeframe I'm seeking. I think if we can control those, then solar panel lifetimes can be extended to 100 years at 20% degradation ("80% 'efficiency'").
Unfortunately, I've been stymied trying to find the lifespan of gallium-arsenide solar panels. Probably because their three-order of magnitude cost differential limiting them mostly to outer space applications where the weight-to-efficiency savings are the primary design motivator, and no one particularly cares about lifespan as long as it outlasts the design life of the satellite, which is way less than the 100+ years I'm seeking.
Solar panels already have a pretty decent LifeCycle Assessment compared to coal and natural gas, though their de-manufacturing/re-manufacturing tech is still at a nascent stage. I simply have a different goal than most people with my requirements for long duration lifespans.
I'm looking for designs that incorporate passive elements that last ideally 100+ years that are reusable in modular sections, amortizing cost-effectiveness over generations. For that criteria, below-frost-line earth-covered, foamed glass building envelopes meets my requirements, and I'm happy to set aside 6-12 feet of foamed glass insulation after digging down enough to get below the frost line to achieve the thermal control I'm seeking.
I'm looking for dehumidification to consistently 5-8%, with temperature in deep freeze range (-30 to -50°C).
I've so far been stumped finding someone who has already, or figuring out myself how to passively (or with about the energy consumption of a Pi Zero per day) capture and use elsewhere the heat hitting panels to manage their thermal cycling. Nor have I been able to find a self-cleaning (superhydrophobic and/or appropriate wettability) coating that can be lifecycle rated to the timeframe I'm seeking. I think if we can control those, then solar panel lifetimes can be extended to 100 years at 20% degradation ("80% 'efficiency'").
Unfortunately, I've been stymied trying to find the lifespan of gallium-arsenide solar panels. Probably because their three-order of magnitude cost differential limiting them mostly to outer space applications where the weight-to-efficiency savings are the primary design motivator, and no one particularly cares about lifespan as long as it outlasts the design life of the satellite, which is way less than the 100+ years I'm seeking.
Solar panels already have a pretty decent LifeCycle Assessment compared to coal and natural gas, though their de-manufacturing/re-manufacturing tech is still at a nascent stage. I simply have a different goal than most people with my requirements for long duration lifespans.
In a wide range of climates, maybe, but in northern Europe, in winter, that is not going to give you a lot of hot water.
Do mandated green initiatives in this vein have a history of eating into the profits of construction companies in the UK?
At a naive, laymen’s first glance I’d imagine it creates opportunity for more!
At a naive, laymen’s first glance I’d imagine it creates opportunity for more!
The ideal situation for a construction company is where the house they sell has the best cost to manufacture / sale price ratio. People buy houses without living in them first, so the best strategy is to build a house that is very cheap, but is visually impressive.
Consequently, developers tend to build houses that are barely functional as such, with all sorts of damp/heating/basic liveability problems, but which look impressive.
Green initiatives are a sort of nightmare for developers, because the energy efficiency of a house is a cold, uninteresting metric that is not immediately present to the potential buyer.
Consider windows, for example. In an unregulated market, the cheapest, most crappy windows are absolutely the optimal choice for a developer. The fact that they are going to be drafty, break within the first few months, and quickly become covered in mold is simply impossible for a buyer to know, before they've lived in the house for a year or so.
Green windows, however, have to meet energy efficiency ratings - which means they must actually work. They have to keep cold out and heat in, or vice-versa. They can't be giant condensators. They probably don't look quite so pretty, and much worse, they are far more expensive. So the developer actually loses perceived property value, while paying more!
Consequently, developers tend to build houses that are barely functional as such, with all sorts of damp/heating/basic liveability problems, but which look impressive.
Green initiatives are a sort of nightmare for developers, because the energy efficiency of a house is a cold, uninteresting metric that is not immediately present to the potential buyer.
Consider windows, for example. In an unregulated market, the cheapest, most crappy windows are absolutely the optimal choice for a developer. The fact that they are going to be drafty, break within the first few months, and quickly become covered in mold is simply impossible for a buyer to know, before they've lived in the house for a year or so.
Green windows, however, have to meet energy efficiency ratings - which means they must actually work. They have to keep cold out and heat in, or vice-versa. They can't be giant condensators. They probably don't look quite so pretty, and much worse, they are far more expensive. So the developer actually loses perceived property value, while paying more!
This happened to a family member, looked great, expensive looking house and high price, but shoddy work, all sorts of basic problems with the house in the first year.
I wonder if this couldn't be mitigated somewhat by a clause that makes the developer liable for all problems in the first year. (I know one potential loophole would be that the developer could use a proxy to "buy" from themselves and hold for a year, but it seems like that could be appropriately handled through existing or minimally altered fraud laws.) It's hard to see how we could get from our present situation to something like that, but it might improve craftsmanship, but would also make new houses even more expensive.
I wonder if this couldn't be mitigated somewhat by a clause that makes the developer liable for all problems in the first year. (I know one potential loophole would be that the developer could use a proxy to "buy" from themselves and hold for a year, but it seems like that could be appropriately handled through existing or minimally altered fraud laws.) It's hard to see how we could get from our present situation to something like that, but it might improve craftsmanship, but would also make new houses even more expensive.
New builds will already come with a guarantee. In the short term the developer will send someone to fix issues and may well still have people working on site. In the long term there will be insurance policy. But it just happens that there is sometimes an economic incentive to accept lower quality in order to meet some other objective. Maybe the electrical contractor put in a low bid and wants to finish the job. Or maybe the developer is running low on cash within the project budget. Or perhaps the project manager is under pressure to hit a target.
Developers are just like any other complex corporation. Quality is just one thing that has to be balanced. And it is a market with massive pent up demand and buyers everywhere. And customers who have very little choice after they have signed on the dotted line.
Developers are just like any other complex corporation. Quality is just one thing that has to be balanced. And it is a market with massive pent up demand and buyers everywhere. And customers who have very little choice after they have signed on the dotted line.
A lot of it also has to do with a broken court system.
I now live in the Netherlands, and in the 80s, developers also started to pull this shit. Soon the lawsuits came, and very quickly they learned not to do this.
Most Dutch people have both comprehensive house insurance _and_ legal insurance!
I now live in the Netherlands, and in the 80s, developers also started to pull this shit. Soon the lawsuits came, and very quickly they learned not to do this.
Most Dutch people have both comprehensive house insurance _and_ legal insurance!
I've lived through this and seen this in histories of home purchases. It's the reason I don't recommend buying a brand new home unless you oversaw its construction.
The ideal situation in my experience is to find a home maybe 10 years old. Problems don't necessarily become evident the first year.
Then again homes of any age have issues creep in, so maybe there's always risks.
The ideal situation in my experience is to find a home maybe 10 years old. Problems don't necessarily become evident the first year.
Then again homes of any age have issues creep in, so maybe there's always risks.
Humans won't get it until they get their faces rubbed in it, and then it will be decades too late.
We are evolved to react incredibly well at about a 100ms threshold. Through agriculture, humans have taught themselves to plan in terms of a whole year. Beyond that people can't really understand.
If you offered most people this deal, "I'll give you $10 billion today but in exchange the whole world is destroyed 150 years from now," I think 90% of humans would take it.
"I'll be dead anyway."
We are evolved to react incredibly well at about a 100ms threshold. Through agriculture, humans have taught themselves to plan in terms of a whole year. Beyond that people can't really understand.
If you offered most people this deal, "I'll give you $10 billion today but in exchange the whole world is destroyed 150 years from now," I think 90% of humans would take it.
"I'll be dead anyway."
I would take it because there's no way the person offering could build a system (human or technological) that would last 150 years. Because you're right about the ability of humans to plan that far ahead.
I agree with everything except the blanket need to make all of these things mandatory without some sort of aid (such as a subsidy) and the bit about banning home furnaces. Homes built today might not be around by the time the grid is carbon neutral. Burning fuel for heat is absurdly thermodynamically efficient compared to burning fuel to heat water to spin a turbine to induce a current to push electrons around over miles to resistively heat a coil. The grid has a very long way to go before home furnaces become less pollutant than home electric heaters.
Wikipedia claims:
The COP for heat pumps range from 3.2 to 4.5 for air source heat pumps to 4.2 to 5.2 for ground source heat pumps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump
Whereas a resistive heat coil has a COP 1.
The COP for heat pumps range from 3.2 to 4.5 for air source heat pumps to 4.2 to 5.2 for ground source heat pumps.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_pump
Whereas a resistive heat coil has a COP 1.
A heat pump could never bring water up to 120F.
Whenever you believe you are so certain of a thing that you’re prepared to say something like “x could never do y” you should search the internet for x doing y.
Heat pump water heaters for either space heating or hot water production are most certainly a product you can buy today.
Eg, Rheem sell these two models in Australia https://www.rheem.com.au/products/residential/heat-pumps
Heat pump water heaters for either space heating or hot water production are most certainly a product you can buy today.
Eg, Rheem sell these two models in Australia https://www.rheem.com.au/products/residential/heat-pumps
[deleted]
I think one point of the article is that there are few structural incentives for adoption of these sorts of technologies. It's let up to the good will of the consumer, who in almost all cases has to spend a lot more for what is an external benefit.
For another example, I subscribe to Ethical Consumer magazine [1], who rate products and companies on everything from carbon impact to animal use/abuse to tax avoidance. Invariably, the most ethical products are the most expensive. It simply costs more when you don't externalize negative effects. So the products are there, but they're only purchased by the small cross section of folks who can afford to and choose to essentially double their cost of living. What we need is (at the very least) societal, structural incentives towards more ethical capitalism.
[1] https://www.ethicalconsumer.org
For another example, I subscribe to Ethical Consumer magazine [1], who rate products and companies on everything from carbon impact to animal use/abuse to tax avoidance. Invariably, the most ethical products are the most expensive. It simply costs more when you don't externalize negative effects. So the products are there, but they're only purchased by the small cross section of folks who can afford to and choose to essentially double their cost of living. What we need is (at the very least) societal, structural incentives towards more ethical capitalism.
[1] https://www.ethicalconsumer.org
There is also the aspect that "responsible" companies know that they cater to affluent consumers and simply can afford to charge more. Vegetarian products for example shouldn't be more expensive than meat, because the raw materials are quite cheap compared to raising animals, yet they usually cost more.
It’s really hard to compare, as everything related to food is subsidized and distorted to some degree today.
HFCS is more expensive to make than sugar, but it is cheaper in the US (and through exports this bleeds to other places) due to corn subsidies.
Similarly, there are a lot of meat subsidies and oil subsidies - to the point that market pricing only matter within small sectors, but not replacement sectors that aren’t the same commodity.
HFCS is more expensive to make than sugar, but it is cheaper in the US (and through exports this bleeds to other places) due to corn subsidies.
Similarly, there are a lot of meat subsidies and oil subsidies - to the point that market pricing only matter within small sectors, but not replacement sectors that aren’t the same commodity.
Oat milk may be inherently cheap, but building an oat milk factory is still expensive. Beyond meat factories and their supply chains are even more expensive to develop. Buying them now means you're subsidizing them for the future. Obviously, vegan companies still want profit, but regular food always makes more money than niche luxury food.
An oat milk factory would be importing bulk quantities of oats and flavoring agents like cinnamon, vanilla, maple syrup (which maybe be processed by expensive factories). I would just be going out and buying these things separately and tossing it in a blender with random measurements until it tasted the way I like. No factory required for me. T'would be even better to grow the ingredients myself, but I do not think a vanilla bean vine tolerates low temperatures. Same with cinnamon. Oats would be easiest to grow, and I'd imagine there would be some threshing and winnowing involved (manual labor opportunity). Might as well let the combines and tractors harvest millions of bushels and I just spend my nations currency to acquire a 50 lb bag every few months (storage in cool/dry place).
I suppose purchasing a colorful carton adorned by lots of writing in the "Vegan Isle" of a grocery store could be an easier way because the aforementioned steps may be far too time consuming for most people who want everything pre-prepared for them by a favorite brand and stored in plastic/cardboard/glass individual packaging.
Meat is a different story, because coordinating the grazing routines, herding (some canine breeds are helpful for this), winter hay feeding stockpile, veterinary treatments, calf birthing, nutrition feed deficiency compensation, slaughter (bolt-gun to forehead is most humane), blood drain (good composting material), and butchering into desired cuts would be consuming much more time than available in a highly specialized life.
I suppose purchasing a colorful carton adorned by lots of writing in the "Vegan Isle" of a grocery store could be an easier way because the aforementioned steps may be far too time consuming for most people who want everything pre-prepared for them by a favorite brand and stored in plastic/cardboard/glass individual packaging.
Meat is a different story, because coordinating the grazing routines, herding (some canine breeds are helpful for this), winter hay feeding stockpile, veterinary treatments, calf birthing, nutrition feed deficiency compensation, slaughter (bolt-gun to forehead is most humane), blood drain (good composting material), and butchering into desired cuts would be consuming much more time than available in a highly specialized life.
Solar panels and heat pumps sound expensive, and it feels like that’s laying the burden on the landlords to install these technologies.
Wouldn’t it be more productive to centralize an efficient form of power generation, and let the consumers choose how much they can afford to pay for through their electricity meters?
Wouldn’t it be more productive to centralize an efficient form of power generation, and let the consumers choose how much they can afford to pay for through their electricity meters?
In the context of the cost of a building, the cost of these elements is near-insignificant. Less true if you're retrofitting them to an existing building, but for new builds (which is what OP suggested) they ought to be mandatory.
IIRC there is a limiting factor with (ground-based) heat-pumps, though... the in-earth elements can't be placed too close to each other before they lose efficiency badly through competition for the same heat energy stocks. (Somebody who knows more about this should correct me.)
IIRC there is a limiting factor with (ground-based) heat-pumps, though... the in-earth elements can't be placed too close to each other before they lose efficiency badly through competition for the same heat energy stocks. (Somebody who knows more about this should correct me.)
>In the context of the cost of a building, the cost of these elements is near-insignificant.
The same could be said of 99% of building code requirements...and it adds up.
The same could be said of 99% of building code requirements...and it adds up.
Houses in Europe have such building code requirements and yet don't seem outrageously expensive by any means.
Shock! It turns out that doing it right at scale just isn't much harder, and pays society back in spades over the life of the building.
Shock! It turns out that doing it right at scale just isn't much harder, and pays society back in spades over the life of the building.
Isn’t that completely missing the point laid out in the paper?
The paper is say that those who have more money pollute more and consume more resources. Your solution seems to be to let people with more money consume more resources, rather than building more efficient buildings that reduces everyone’s resource consumption.
The paper is say that those who have more money pollute more and consume more resources. Your solution seems to be to let people with more money consume more resources, rather than building more efficient buildings that reduces everyone’s resource consumption.
> let the consumers choose how much they can afford to pay
The article you're commenting under talks about why this leads to poor outcomes.
The article you're commenting under talks about why this leads to poor outcomes.
Superinsulated houses are in practice a fad. Build as usual just with thick polystyrene insulation (afaik not recyclable) on the facade vulnerable to moisture when the surface is punctured (possible with a fingernail). It also requires air recirculation which is too prone to moisture.
The push for greener homes produces living environments which are just fragile, full stop. For example, they're 100% reliant on grid electricity for heating, ventilation, cooking, etc whereas older and less efficient homes usually aren't. This is happening at the same time as there's a push to loosen up on grid robustness in the name of greener electricity. That does not seem like a good combination.
Use mineral wool instead of polystyrene, also for fire safety.
Anyway, nearly zero-energy buildings are now mandated for all new buildings in the EU, so hardly a fad.
Anyway, nearly zero-energy buildings are now mandated for all new buildings in the EU, so hardly a fad.
I am living in the EU and writing from personal experience. Fad is fad even if it makes it into law. Mineral wool has other disadvantages.
But we digress, I am firmly convinced that such narrow focus on energy efficiency of buildings to the detriment of other things is exactly the "affluent" technological solution the paper is critical about.
But we digress, I am firmly convinced that such narrow focus on energy efficiency of buildings to the detriment of other things is exactly the "affluent" technological solution the paper is critical about.
I understand that, but also think what makes it a not-fad is that EU does not have a lot of its own energy sources and winters can be hard. So to me it makes sense to try to be as energy efficient as possible and also not send a lot of money to e.g. Russia if it's avoidable.
I also understand that constructing low-energy buildings is much harder than the standard ones. But I fully believe that science and engineering, when given such task, can master that, given enough time.
It's not so hard, but EU is so far removed from practice that it can't set up the incentives right. There's a parallel with EU's policy on biomass energy that ended up (partially) driving deforestation here in Slovakia.
In addition to that, buildings should be made to last. Badly designed or built houses can be just ticking time-bombs for mold and other air-quality issues, and certainly not sustainable.
On the contrary, it is not possible to foresee kind of houses and places people will want to live in 50 years in the future. So,it makes much more sense to make it easy to tear down and rebuild houses-aiming for reusable (like brick) or biodegradable (like untreated wood) building materials.
> On the contrary, it is not possible to foresee kind of houses and places people will want to live in 50 years in the future.
People have been doing it and usually getting it right for millenia. 38% of the UK's housing stock dates from before 1946; much more than was built in the last forty years.
And one of the few really consistent objections to older buildings is 'the architects assumed nobody would still be living in it fifty years later'...
People have been doing it and usually getting it right for millenia. 38% of the UK's housing stock dates from before 1946; much more than was built in the last forty years.
And one of the few really consistent objections to older buildings is 'the architects assumed nobody would still be living in it fifty years later'...
Not sure on getting it right. Old houses in the UK are a nightmare in term of thermal and sound insulation (basically none). Sure, it protects your head from the rain (when it doesn’t leak). But in a discussion about consuming less energy, thery are pretty much a counter-example of what to do.
I'm living in a seventy-year old building - maybe older. It's just lovely, I can't say enough good things about it. It has new windows and such, of focurse.
Do it right in the first place and it will be livable forever.
People are physical beings with well-known needs - warmth, protection from the elements, water and plumbing, privacy, comfort, sunlight, air, lack of health risks (fire, unsafe water, outgassing materials, damp, mold, etc).
A good solution to this problem will be a good solution a century from now, with minor modifications.
People should be less into ripping things up just because they get bored with them. Even if we reuse materials, the environmental cost of a new building is huge.
Do it right in the first place and it will be livable forever.
People are physical beings with well-known needs - warmth, protection from the elements, water and plumbing, privacy, comfort, sunlight, air, lack of health risks (fire, unsafe water, outgassing materials, damp, mold, etc).
A good solution to this problem will be a good solution a century from now, with minor modifications.
People should be less into ripping things up just because they get bored with them. Even if we reuse materials, the environmental cost of a new building is huge.
Do you think majority of people living in 70+ year old houses have such luck that it satisfies everything you write about? Considering people I know, I doubt it. The upkeep can require as big expenses (not just financial, also environmental) as tearing down and building anew.
it is possible to build sustainable and to last, while at the same time be easy to tear down and reuse.
one key seems to be to avoid concrete.
broad.com, a company in china, has developed a lightweight, energyefficient, durable, and reusable way to build using steel.
i am pretty sure there are others out there with other good alternatives
one key seems to be to avoid concrete.
broad.com, a company in china, has developed a lightweight, energyefficient, durable, and reusable way to build using steel.
i am pretty sure there are others out there with other good alternatives
You can design buildings built to last and simultaneously reuse with little to zero waste far into the future. But it is much more expensive, because the current economic-political order favors externalizing tons of costs onto the environment and into the future.
Example. Concrete foundations don't have to be slabs that are torn up when a new house is built on the lot with a different footprint. They're just cheaper that way. You can instead use a modular foundation if you are willing to pay for it and give up flexibility in foundation footprints. Design the modules using 800 MPa ultra-high strength pozzolanic concrete, pre-stressed basalt fiber reinforcement, and carbon fiber reinforcing filaments, with basalt ducts for carbon fiber post-tensioning cables to connect the modules together, all covered on the envelope with foamed glass insulation to protect from UV.
A foundation system like this would have a lifecycle rated in multiple hundreds of years. Might have to replace the carbon fiber post-tensioning cables sooner than 100 years, but we're still figuring out the lifecycle of those; they're rated about the same as steel as far as we know from current lifecycle testing, possibly longer because they aren't subject to the corrosion concerns of steel, but no one knows for sure yet.
You'd be able to repurpose these modules indefinitely. If foundations like these were commonplace in average residential and commercial buildings, breaking out the jackhammers to toss out a foundation would only be reserved for one-off projects where the compressive load far exceeds what these could take. Used for just your average residential projects, and they'd be fine from SFH up to mid-rise multifamily projects; I'd have to retain and pay structural and civil engineers to figure out what these could ultimately take.
Such a foundation though, is fantastically expensive compared to how we currently build foundations. If you put a gun to my head to force a guess, I'd pluck an order of magnitude out of thin air. I wouldn't be surprised if it is acutally more. I can't even find someone who makes basalt post-tensioning ducts that are textured on the surface to simultaneously serve as reinforcing rods.
I'd like to eventually see if carbon nanotube-based cables can be used for filaments and post-tensioning, possibly pre-tensioning, as carbon fiber manufacturing emits lots of CO2 while there are some interesting processes shown in the lab for making carbon nanotubes that consume CO2.
Concrete and foundation companies wouldn't like it if their customer base shrunk to only bespoke foundation gigs for megascale projects and new customers needing new modular foundation modules. If common foundations were like this, we'd be used to thinking of foundations as some object we simply pass along for multiple generations, and re-purpose as modules across that entire timespan. The amount of concrete manufactured per year after the initial production of modules is satisfied would be alarming to many in the concrete and related industries (don't forget n-th order effects onto real estate and finance among others, for example). I don't even know if we have enough volcanic basalt to satisfy global demand.
Example. Concrete foundations don't have to be slabs that are torn up when a new house is built on the lot with a different footprint. They're just cheaper that way. You can instead use a modular foundation if you are willing to pay for it and give up flexibility in foundation footprints. Design the modules using 800 MPa ultra-high strength pozzolanic concrete, pre-stressed basalt fiber reinforcement, and carbon fiber reinforcing filaments, with basalt ducts for carbon fiber post-tensioning cables to connect the modules together, all covered on the envelope with foamed glass insulation to protect from UV.
A foundation system like this would have a lifecycle rated in multiple hundreds of years. Might have to replace the carbon fiber post-tensioning cables sooner than 100 years, but we're still figuring out the lifecycle of those; they're rated about the same as steel as far as we know from current lifecycle testing, possibly longer because they aren't subject to the corrosion concerns of steel, but no one knows for sure yet.
You'd be able to repurpose these modules indefinitely. If foundations like these were commonplace in average residential and commercial buildings, breaking out the jackhammers to toss out a foundation would only be reserved for one-off projects where the compressive load far exceeds what these could take. Used for just your average residential projects, and they'd be fine from SFH up to mid-rise multifamily projects; I'd have to retain and pay structural and civil engineers to figure out what these could ultimately take.
Such a foundation though, is fantastically expensive compared to how we currently build foundations. If you put a gun to my head to force a guess, I'd pluck an order of magnitude out of thin air. I wouldn't be surprised if it is acutally more. I can't even find someone who makes basalt post-tensioning ducts that are textured on the surface to simultaneously serve as reinforcing rods.
I'd like to eventually see if carbon nanotube-based cables can be used for filaments and post-tensioning, possibly pre-tensioning, as carbon fiber manufacturing emits lots of CO2 while there are some interesting processes shown in the lab for making carbon nanotubes that consume CO2.
Concrete and foundation companies wouldn't like it if their customer base shrunk to only bespoke foundation gigs for megascale projects and new customers needing new modular foundation modules. If common foundations were like this, we'd be used to thinking of foundations as some object we simply pass along for multiple generations, and re-purpose as modules across that entire timespan. The amount of concrete manufactured per year after the initial production of modules is satisfied would be alarming to many in the concrete and related industries (don't forget n-th order effects onto real estate and finance among others, for example). I don't even know if we have enough volcanic basalt to satisfy global demand.
I think the article is right. Vaclav Smil has pointed out that today the share of fossil fuels, at about 90% of global energy consumed[1] is actually higher than in 2000, and falling at a snails pace.
There is a worrying trend emerging, fuelled by the tech industry of performative environmentalism that seeks to promise absolution like the church did by buying Tesla's and biodegradable cups while the real-world impact is marginal while leaving the fundamental flaws of the system untouched. We won't consume ourselves out of the doghouse.
Russ Ackoff in a great talk about systems thinking[2] once pointed out a few salient things
1. Counter to intuition one does not improve a system by merely removing deficiencies. Doing away with what you don't want doesn't get you what you want.
2. Incrementalism doesn't solve fundamentally new problems, rearranging deck chairs on the titanic is pointless, and people confuse efficiency with effectiveness. Doing the wrong thing right is worse than doing the right thing wrong.
3. One must recognise that like an architect, a designer does not design rooms independently of the house. One starts with the house, and only changes parts as to improve the overall functioning of the system, never the parts alone.
This is what needs to be applied to modern environmentalism. Woke green consumerism and tech worship is useless. The entire global system needs to be redesigned, instead of trying to fix individual parts. We need to think in holistic terms rather than trying to remove individual problems.
[1]https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/meet-vaclav-smil-man...
[2]https://youtu.be/OqEeIG8aPPk
There is a worrying trend emerging, fuelled by the tech industry of performative environmentalism that seeks to promise absolution like the church did by buying Tesla's and biodegradable cups while the real-world impact is marginal while leaving the fundamental flaws of the system untouched. We won't consume ourselves out of the doghouse.
Russ Ackoff in a great talk about systems thinking[2] once pointed out a few salient things
1. Counter to intuition one does not improve a system by merely removing deficiencies. Doing away with what you don't want doesn't get you what you want.
2. Incrementalism doesn't solve fundamentally new problems, rearranging deck chairs on the titanic is pointless, and people confuse efficiency with effectiveness. Doing the wrong thing right is worse than doing the right thing wrong.
3. One must recognise that like an architect, a designer does not design rooms independently of the house. One starts with the house, and only changes parts as to improve the overall functioning of the system, never the parts alone.
This is what needs to be applied to modern environmentalism. Woke green consumerism and tech worship is useless. The entire global system needs to be redesigned, instead of trying to fix individual parts. We need to think in holistic terms rather than trying to remove individual problems.
[1]https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/03/meet-vaclav-smil-man...
[2]https://youtu.be/OqEeIG8aPPk
I grew up in the 1970's when environmentalism was just getting started (I can recall the 4th or 5th Earth Day[0] being celebrated). Back then the concern was population growth[1] and the consumption of resources.
Fossil fuels were a major concern then as well, mostly because of automobile exhaust. During the current pandemic, people have posted before/after photos of their cities. But places like Los Angeles had smog so thick that the skyline was hidden[2]. Since then, better engine controls and catalytic converters have reduced emissions to amazingly low levels. If you're behind an older car that has a carburetor some time, you'll definitely notice the smell of raw gasoline. Imagine millions of cars emitting that!
There's no question that the more people, the more resources get consumed. However what is an important question is: Is world population growth exceeding our ability to engineer lower per-person resource usage? Right now, that curve has positive slope, and we need to get it to a slight negative slope, without losing the advantages of a technological civilization.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Day [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth [2] https://timeline.com/la-smog-pollution-4ca4bc0cc95d
Fossil fuels were a major concern then as well, mostly because of automobile exhaust. During the current pandemic, people have posted before/after photos of their cities. But places like Los Angeles had smog so thick that the skyline was hidden[2]. Since then, better engine controls and catalytic converters have reduced emissions to amazingly low levels. If you're behind an older car that has a carburetor some time, you'll definitely notice the smell of raw gasoline. Imagine millions of cars emitting that!
There's no question that the more people, the more resources get consumed. However what is an important question is: Is world population growth exceeding our ability to engineer lower per-person resource usage? Right now, that curve has positive slope, and we need to get it to a slight negative slope, without losing the advantages of a technological civilization.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_Day [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Population_growth [2] https://timeline.com/la-smog-pollution-4ca4bc0cc95d
> However what is an important question is: Is world population growth exceeding our ability to engineer lower per-person resource usage?
That's a trick question. The answer is that human population increases by about 1.1% a year; and independently, individual human consumption increases exponentially as well.
The exact rate depends on the specific resource or commodity being consumed of course.
Now, you're right that technology allows individual things to be manufactured more effectively, with less waste. What you miss is that this causes people to buy a lot more things, so it more than cancels out.
I spent some time looking at this, and I found a few resources that had decreased consumption. Freon is the most obvious one, but it's important to notice that it was replaced by another safer but rather similar gas - raw material consumption did not decrease.
Even things like biofuels - wood, dung, or other biological products that are burned for heat. They used to be nearly all the world's energy production - now they're a tiny part but on their own, their growth is now and has always been exponential. It's just that fossil fuels grew much faster - we never cut down on anything.
We need to use less of absolutely everything.
For us not to such the world dry, we individually and as a species need to decrease our consumption by as much an order of magnitude. If we are not to decimate our biosphere, we need both far more efficient manufacturing, but also a lot less manufacturing.
That's a trick question. The answer is that human population increases by about 1.1% a year; and independently, individual human consumption increases exponentially as well.
The exact rate depends on the specific resource or commodity being consumed of course.
Now, you're right that technology allows individual things to be manufactured more effectively, with less waste. What you miss is that this causes people to buy a lot more things, so it more than cancels out.
I spent some time looking at this, and I found a few resources that had decreased consumption. Freon is the most obvious one, but it's important to notice that it was replaced by another safer but rather similar gas - raw material consumption did not decrease.
Even things like biofuels - wood, dung, or other biological products that are burned for heat. They used to be nearly all the world's energy production - now they're a tiny part but on their own, their growth is now and has always been exponential. It's just that fossil fuels grew much faster - we never cut down on anything.
We need to use less of absolutely everything.
For us not to such the world dry, we individually and as a species need to decrease our consumption by as much an order of magnitude. If we are not to decimate our biosphere, we need both far more efficient manufacturing, but also a lot less manufacturing.
Buying a Tesla is certainly not marginal - it's lifetime carbon footprint incl manufacturing is still huge, it's wastefully big, and the owners previous car will in 90% of cases just continue life with the next owner, ending up with one more car in the world.
The alternative co2 reducing uses of 1 Tesla worth of money would be very significant in the $2 earnings/day part of the world, so the opportunity cost is enormous.
The alternative co2 reducing uses of 1 Tesla worth of money would be very significant in the $2 earnings/day part of the world, so the opportunity cost is enormous.
Is was just wondering the other day: do we have something like the IPCC currently charged with doing exactly that?
It's sad to see something like this in Nature. Science can tell us what actions will lead to what outcomes, but it can't tell us what outcomes we should aim for. Different people have different preferences, and there's certainly no objective measure of the value of preserving the environment vs people's quality of life.
Trying to push a certain set of values like this risks giving science a bad name in the public eye, and making the public less willing to accept actual scientific facts. Because many people lack the ability to distinguish between facts and opinions in scientific publishing, so they just end up distrusting all science.
Trying to push a certain set of values like this risks giving science a bad name in the public eye, and making the public less willing to accept actual scientific facts. Because many people lack the ability to distinguish between facts and opinions in scientific publishing, so they just end up distrusting all science.
> Science can tell us what actions will lead to what outcomes
That's what this paper does.
It seems like you may have missed the part that this situation is not sustainable, as well as the prior science that establishes that quality of life depends on the environment, which is why many people care about phenomena like polution and climate change.
> Recent scientists’ warnings confirm alarming trends of environmental degradation from human activity, leading to profound changes in essential life-sustaining functions of planet Earth
It's going to be hard to argue that the life-sustaining capacity of Earth is not a universal subjective value of all life but the paper isn't arguing the opposite anyway.
This paper simply identifies causes contributing to the unsustainablity of the current system and makes some proposals to mitigate or eliminate it. It's analyzing and providing options.
Make sure you understand what unsustainability means as far as consequences. Moreover, that's hardly a subjective value judgement. It's simply a measurable property of systems.
That's what this paper does.
It seems like you may have missed the part that this situation is not sustainable, as well as the prior science that establishes that quality of life depends on the environment, which is why many people care about phenomena like polution and climate change.
> Recent scientists’ warnings confirm alarming trends of environmental degradation from human activity, leading to profound changes in essential life-sustaining functions of planet Earth
It's going to be hard to argue that the life-sustaining capacity of Earth is not a universal subjective value of all life but the paper isn't arguing the opposite anyway.
This paper simply identifies causes contributing to the unsustainablity of the current system and makes some proposals to mitigate or eliminate it. It's analyzing and providing options.
Make sure you understand what unsustainability means as far as consequences. Moreover, that's hardly a subjective value judgement. It's simply a measurable property of systems.
>It seems like you may have missed the part that this situation is not sustainable, as well as the prior science that establishes that quality of life depends on the environment, which is why many people care about phenomena like polution and climate change.
It seems you missed the fact that many people don't care about sustainability, and are unwilling to accept even a small reduction in quality of life in the name of the environment. Clearly their values differ from the values of the paper's authors regarding what is "necessary societal change".
>It's going to be hard to argue that the life-sustaining capacity of Earth is not a universal subjective value of all life but the paper isn't arguing the opposite anyway.
If we look at sustainability from the perspective of "preserving human existence as long as possible", then the only long-term solution is expanding to other planets/solar systems. The more limits there are on economic growth, the longer this will take. Similarly, life-extension technology will allow people to extend their lives longer; the slower the economy grows, the longer it will take to develop this. The paper didn't even consider this, or any other downsides of limiting economic growth.
>Make sure you understand what unsustainability means as far as consequences. Moreover, that's hardly a subjective value judgement. It's simply a measurable property of systems.
The language and tone used in the paper is not in the format "if we want to increase sustainability, this is what we should do", it's in the format "this is what we should do". For example: "economic systems that exploit nature and humans" - that's clearly a value judgement, not science.
It seems you missed the fact that many people don't care about sustainability, and are unwilling to accept even a small reduction in quality of life in the name of the environment. Clearly their values differ from the values of the paper's authors regarding what is "necessary societal change".
>It's going to be hard to argue that the life-sustaining capacity of Earth is not a universal subjective value of all life but the paper isn't arguing the opposite anyway.
If we look at sustainability from the perspective of "preserving human existence as long as possible", then the only long-term solution is expanding to other planets/solar systems. The more limits there are on economic growth, the longer this will take. Similarly, life-extension technology will allow people to extend their lives longer; the slower the economy grows, the longer it will take to develop this. The paper didn't even consider this, or any other downsides of limiting economic growth.
>Make sure you understand what unsustainability means as far as consequences. Moreover, that's hardly a subjective value judgement. It's simply a measurable property of systems.
The language and tone used in the paper is not in the format "if we want to increase sustainability, this is what we should do", it's in the format "this is what we should do". For example: "economic systems that exploit nature and humans" - that's clearly a value judgement, not science.
> If we look at sustainability from the perspective of "preserving human existence as long as possible", then the only long-term solution is expanding to other planets/solar systems.
That's not really true, there are other solutions. Bombing us back to stone age, or keeping everyone poor and occasionally decimating the population through resulting pandemics and wars, are both working solutions that align well with the ideology behind the article.
Now if we want civilized solutions that actually improve life for everyone, becoming an interplanetary species is mandatory.
That's not really true, there are other solutions. Bombing us back to stone age, or keeping everyone poor and occasionally decimating the population through resulting pandemics and wars, are both working solutions that align well with the ideology behind the article.
Now if we want civilized solutions that actually improve life for everyone, becoming an interplanetary species is mandatory.
I feel like you didn't read what I wrote or the article: Life itself depends on sustainability.
> If we look at sustainability from the perspective of "preserving human existence as long as possible", then the only long-term solution is expanding to other planets/solar systems.
Or not have a system of infinite growth at all.
> The language and tone used in the paper is not in the format "if we want to increase sustainability, this is what we should do"
It's literally what the paper says.
> "economic systems that exploit nature and humans"
This is also objectively measurable. They're talking about externalities. Is economics also a bunch of value judgements now too?
> If we look at sustainability from the perspective of "preserving human existence as long as possible", then the only long-term solution is expanding to other planets/solar systems.
Or not have a system of infinite growth at all.
> The language and tone used in the paper is not in the format "if we want to increase sustainability, this is what we should do"
It's literally what the paper says.
> "economic systems that exploit nature and humans"
This is also objectively measurable. They're talking about externalities. Is economics also a bunch of value judgements now too?
>Life itself depends on sustainability.
"Life" isn't a sentient being with values, people are. Humanity makes decisions based on some aggregate of the preferences of living humans. If most humans want to enjoy a good life now at the expense of the future environment, there's no objective standard to say they're wrong. It's a classic argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument , as noted by Sextus Empiricus, the founder of empiricism. There's no way to empirically justify a moral judgement.
>Or not have a system of infinite growth at all.
This betrays a misunderstanding of what growth means in an economic context. If your barber learns how to cut your hair twice as fast, that's economic growth. If the paperboy adopts a more efficient paper route to deliver papers faster, that's economic growth. If enough paperboys adopt more efficient routes, that shows up in GDP growth.
>This is also objectively measurable. They're talking about externalities. Is economics also a bunch of value judgements now too?
Yes of course it is. It's based on utilitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism), basically the philosophy that there is some quantitative form of value that we should aim to maximise. That's why there are different schools of economics: they disagree on the foundations.
"Life" isn't a sentient being with values, people are. Humanity makes decisions based on some aggregate of the preferences of living humans. If most humans want to enjoy a good life now at the expense of the future environment, there's no objective standard to say they're wrong. It's a classic argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regress_argument , as noted by Sextus Empiricus, the founder of empiricism. There's no way to empirically justify a moral judgement.
>Or not have a system of infinite growth at all.
This betrays a misunderstanding of what growth means in an economic context. If your barber learns how to cut your hair twice as fast, that's economic growth. If the paperboy adopts a more efficient paper route to deliver papers faster, that's economic growth. If enough paperboys adopt more efficient routes, that shows up in GDP growth.
>This is also objectively measurable. They're talking about externalities. Is economics also a bunch of value judgements now too?
Yes of course it is. It's based on utilitarianism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarianism), basically the philosophy that there is some quantitative form of value that we should aim to maximise. That's why there are different schools of economics: they disagree on the foundations.
> This betrays a misunderstanding of what growth means in an economic context.
Nope, you're just ignoring the limits of optimization.
Nope, you're just ignoring the limits of optimization.
We're so far away from those limits for them to be irrelevant to any practical considerations. Compared e.g. the performance per unit energy of the human brain to that of the best current CPU designs.
> Trying to push a certain set of values like this
"This science disagrees with my political beliefs so it must be wrong." -you
> there's certainly no objective measure of the value of preserving the environment vs people's quality of life.
If we fail to preserve the environment, there will be no quality of life, there will be no life.
We are literally talking about a universal mass extinction as we simply outconsume the planet's ability to support us.
> they just end up distrusting all science.
No, YOU distrust all science and you project this on others.
I mean, you don't question your airplanes, cars, or internet, do you? You only question the parts of science that disagree with your personal political beliefs.
The consequences of a population overshoot http://www.approachingthelimits.com/CC_Overshoot.html are unbelievably terrible. The consequences of uncontrolled climate change are also unbelievably terrible.
These negatives are so bad that a rational, prudent person would expend almost anything to prevent them.
When your eminent scientists uniformly warn you that a mass extinction is underway, you should listen.
---
I love old SF novels, and every permutation of catastrophe was worked out, except this idea - that the scientists of the world warn that catastrophe is coming and people say, "Fake news!"
Humans are addicts, and the addiction is consumer goods. This addiction will decimate the planet, and you might well live to see it happen.
"This science disagrees with my political beliefs so it must be wrong." -you
> there's certainly no objective measure of the value of preserving the environment vs people's quality of life.
If we fail to preserve the environment, there will be no quality of life, there will be no life.
We are literally talking about a universal mass extinction as we simply outconsume the planet's ability to support us.
> they just end up distrusting all science.
No, YOU distrust all science and you project this on others.
I mean, you don't question your airplanes, cars, or internet, do you? You only question the parts of science that disagree with your personal political beliefs.
The consequences of a population overshoot http://www.approachingthelimits.com/CC_Overshoot.html are unbelievably terrible. The consequences of uncontrolled climate change are also unbelievably terrible.
These negatives are so bad that a rational, prudent person would expend almost anything to prevent them.
When your eminent scientists uniformly warn you that a mass extinction is underway, you should listen.
---
I love old SF novels, and every permutation of catastrophe was worked out, except this idea - that the scientists of the world warn that catastrophe is coming and people say, "Fake news!"
Humans are addicts, and the addiction is consumer goods. This addiction will decimate the planet, and you might well live to see it happen.
As other commenters have pointed out, a quality life is dependent on a liveable environment. Moreover, the article isn't making value judgments -- it is just discussing outcomes. This really seems like you're projecting your own political stance, and aren't engaging at all with what is written in the article.
Also, if someone were to distrust science because of a factual article -- well, I don't think science could really do much for them, and at this point in history they're probably best ignored.
Also, if someone were to distrust science because of a factual article -- well, I don't think science could really do much for them, and at this point in history they're probably best ignored.
> Science can tell us what actions will lead to what outcomes, but it can't tell us what outcomes we should aim for.
I'm really disappointed to see anti-intellectual nonsense like this on HN. Science can be positive and normative, when it needs to be.
Maybe people do have different preferences, but there are objective, universal goals that benefit 99.9% of people and improve their quality of life. We are content with a minority in a democracy not getting their way when their candidates lose, but suddenly, in science, if 0.1%'s preferences aren't exactly in line with the rest, it's a grave offense?
Fresh water, heat, electricity, all available as many hours a day as possible aren't objective goals? Is there a person on this planet that would refuse a washing machine or a refrigerator?
Please.
> Trying to push a certain set of values like this risks giving science a bad name in the public eye, and making the public less willing to accept actual scientific facts.
The only thing trying to give science a bad name here is your comment, through inventing unreasonable and ever-moving goalposts, hiding behind individual preferences of people.
I'm really disappointed to see anti-intellectual nonsense like this on HN. Science can be positive and normative, when it needs to be.
Maybe people do have different preferences, but there are objective, universal goals that benefit 99.9% of people and improve their quality of life. We are content with a minority in a democracy not getting their way when their candidates lose, but suddenly, in science, if 0.1%'s preferences aren't exactly in line with the rest, it's a grave offense?
Fresh water, heat, electricity, all available as many hours a day as possible aren't objective goals? Is there a person on this planet that would refuse a washing machine or a refrigerator?
Please.
> Trying to push a certain set of values like this risks giving science a bad name in the public eye, and making the public less willing to accept actual scientific facts.
The only thing trying to give science a bad name here is your comment, through inventing unreasonable and ever-moving goalposts, hiding behind individual preferences of people.
I suspect the Venn diagram of people who read Nature and people inclined to altogether lose their faith in the concept of science if they encounter a scientist's opinion they dislike consists of two separate circles that don't intersect. It would certainly be odd for Nature's editorial priorities to focus on the latter group.
You only need to look further down in the comments section here to find people dismissing the paper as leftist/Marxist propaganda. I'd bet that if it was written in a more neutral tone, such people would be more likely to actually read it. It's harder for people to trust a paper when it's author clearly has an agenda because it's hard to trust the author to be unbiased and include all relevant information.
I’ve been thinking a lot about the relationship between affluence and environmental impact recently. It seems that in general, the richer you become, the more garbage and pollution you tend to produce. I am far from being rich myself but compared to people from less affluent countries I have a lot of free income, and while I try to reduce my environmental impact I have to say it’s worrying how much trash I have produced and how many resources I have used over the years: Electronics, furniture, clothes, travel, food, .... If I was more affluent this would only become worse I suppose.
I think the problem is that a rational person (in our current definition) is incentivized to spend most of the available income/wealth during his/her lifetime, so as peoples income grows they find new ways to spend it: Get a new car every two years, buy a weekend house, go on expensive travels, buy lots of expensive clothes or furniture, always have the newest tech gadgets, etc.. All this incurs more pollution and resource usage. I don’t see how we can break this cycle without fundamentally changing our economic system, as right now almost everything is optimized to continuously increase output and create more consumption.
I think the problem is that a rational person (in our current definition) is incentivized to spend most of the available income/wealth during his/her lifetime, so as peoples income grows they find new ways to spend it: Get a new car every two years, buy a weekend house, go on expensive travels, buy lots of expensive clothes or furniture, always have the newest tech gadgets, etc.. All this incurs more pollution and resource usage. I don’t see how we can break this cycle without fundamentally changing our economic system, as right now almost everything is optimized to continuously increase output and create more consumption.
Also as humans get richer, they almost never consider themselves ‘rich’. If you’re born into affluence, it’s almost impossible to comprehend this.
I’ve watched people living in a rich western democracy, who are rich by the standards of their host country, travel to India and see the grinding poverty of so many people’s lives. Their assessment was not that they themselves are rich, but that those people are poor.
It’s also incredibly difficult for those living higher up on Maslow’s hierarchy to see that it’s their entire level of society that is - in aggregate - a force for negative environmental impact. Individuals won’t admit to this, and will instead say it’s fine because they sort their recycling and only have one car and... but the macro scale is ignored because the self-defense mechanism won’t allow it to be fully understood or admitted to.
Those who manage to admit and realise this is a problem may try to help - or at least not contribute - by doing their best, but usually this means keeping as clean as they can personally, while still taking advantage of most of the trappings of their bubble. Il not saying they’re bad people or they shouldn’t make an effort, but ten people picking up litter versus ten million dropping it is never going to work out.
I’ve watched people living in a rich western democracy, who are rich by the standards of their host country, travel to India and see the grinding poverty of so many people’s lives. Their assessment was not that they themselves are rich, but that those people are poor.
It’s also incredibly difficult for those living higher up on Maslow’s hierarchy to see that it’s their entire level of society that is - in aggregate - a force for negative environmental impact. Individuals won’t admit to this, and will instead say it’s fine because they sort their recycling and only have one car and... but the macro scale is ignored because the self-defense mechanism won’t allow it to be fully understood or admitted to.
Those who manage to admit and realise this is a problem may try to help - or at least not contribute - by doing their best, but usually this means keeping as clean as they can personally, while still taking advantage of most of the trappings of their bubble. Il not saying they’re bad people or they shouldn’t make an effort, but ten people picking up litter versus ten million dropping it is never going to work out.
>It’s also incredibly difficult for those living higher up on Maslow’s hierarchy to see that it’s their entire level of society that is - in aggregate - a force for negative environmental impact. Individuals won’t admit to this
Or maybe they just don't care? It's not exactly a stretch to imagine people value their wellbeing in the present over some impact to the environment. Most people don't even care about other people enough to give to charity, let alone care about the environment.
Or maybe they just don't care? It's not exactly a stretch to imagine people value their wellbeing in the present over some impact to the environment. Most people don't even care about other people enough to give to charity, let alone care about the environment.
I’m sure if they were able to understand their own position - and had enough confidence that it was possible for them to contribute to realistic change for the better - that they would show that they do actually care.
Until there is understanding and some route to channeling the will of the larger populations of affluent societies, however, I think we are stuck in a downward spiral.
The only realistic scenario I can conceive of is that eventually enough damage will reflect back on the affluent to effect a change in mindset. I regretfully believe that the poor all over the world will suffer a great deal before this begins to occur.
Until there is understanding and some route to channeling the will of the larger populations of affluent societies, however, I think we are stuck in a downward spiral.
The only realistic scenario I can conceive of is that eventually enough damage will reflect back on the affluent to effect a change in mindset. I regretfully believe that the poor all over the world will suffer a great deal before this begins to occur.
I think a lot of this is related to class. In the US at least rich is sometimes used in relation to money/lifestyle and sometimes (usually?) used to refer to class. Class wise it refers to upper-class or people who don't have to work. So if you asked one of these affluent tourists if they are rich, they might say no as in 'no, I work for a living'.
>I think the problem is that a rational person (in our current definition) is incentivized to spend most of the available income/wealth during his/her lifetime
This is not necessarily a problem; there's no objective way to weigh up the satisfaction of somebody alive now against the satisfaction of some hypothetical person alive in future. And attempting to do so introduces some interesting questions, e.g. if we seek to maximise the satisfaction of future people, as individuals should we try to have as many children as possible? Because more people means more overall satisfaction.
This is not necessarily a problem; there's no objective way to weigh up the satisfaction of somebody alive now against the satisfaction of some hypothetical person alive in future. And attempting to do so introduces some interesting questions, e.g. if we seek to maximise the satisfaction of future people, as individuals should we try to have as many children as possible? Because more people means more overall satisfaction.
Model around consumption should get deeply revised if we want to leave the world in a good state for our children.
Refurbish rather than build new buildings
Build sturdy hardware with replaceable parts
Build from natural materials as much as possible, and invent a new concrete
Stop polluting by sprinkling deadly stuff to grow crops and make things
Develop recycling aggressively (98%)
Stop using oil derivates everywhere
Stop using nuclear fission as a power source
...
Problem is that it is antipodal with current economical growth models
Refurbish rather than build new buildings
Build sturdy hardware with replaceable parts
Build from natural materials as much as possible, and invent a new concrete
Stop polluting by sprinkling deadly stuff to grow crops and make things
Develop recycling aggressively (98%)
Stop using oil derivates everywhere
Stop using nuclear fission as a power source
...
Problem is that it is antipodal with current economical growth models
You had me until "stop using nuclear fission..."
If everyone agreed on everything, the world would be less fun ! My main problem with nuclear fission is that we generate a lot of waste that is almost impossible to dispose of and very dangerous. We don't even know, in case of a civilization breakdown, how people would manage the situation if knowledge was lost. [0]
edit : ray of hope here [1b]
Currently there has been many accidents with nuclear power, and we don't know how to manage those. Fukushima is still releasing lots of radioactivity in the sea. Yet radio activity about this is close to zero. [1]
And new ways to tap into fission power (pressurized reactors) are dangerous and hard to build.
Yet, I shall agree with you, that there is no definite solution to the energy problem, consuming less would be a good start.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_(film)
[1] http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13228942
[1b] https://futurism.com/the-byte/nobel-prize-lasers-destroy-nuc...
edit : ray of hope here [1b]
Currently there has been many accidents with nuclear power, and we don't know how to manage those. Fukushima is still releasing lots of radioactivity in the sea. Yet radio activity about this is close to zero. [1]
And new ways to tap into fission power (pressurized reactors) are dangerous and hard to build.
Yet, I shall agree with you, that there is no definite solution to the energy problem, consuming less would be a good start.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Into_Eternity_(film)
[1] http://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/13228942
[1b] https://futurism.com/the-byte/nobel-prize-lasers-destroy-nuc...
"Any transition towards sustainability can only be effective if far-reaching lifestyle changes complement technological advancements."
How can they possibly know this for sure? My intuition is that sustainable energy, over the long term, will lead to more consumption and improved lifestyles.
How can they possibly know this for sure? My intuition is that sustainable energy, over the long term, will lead to more consumption and improved lifestyles.
This is not a good article and it has a very patronizing/inflammatory title. There is only 1 figure and that one is , if anything , hopeful. It shows that GDP growth has bent the curve of CO2 since the 2010s. They seem to be arguing about what was happening in the 20th century without taking into account current trends?
This is supposed to be a review, but it doesn't really review much, they make various statements with references, but they often do not state the facts which they are referring to. There are also grammatical errors
An example: > The positional consumption behaviour of the super-affluent thus drives consumption norms across the population, for instance through their excessive air travel, as documented by Gössling73.
That Gosling73 study is a 2017 study of 10 celebrities including Meg whitman, emma watson, felix von derleden and Karl lagerfeld (are these people considered influential?) Celebrities and the "affluent" are different things. Plus i believe most air travel in the past 10 years was "influenced" by middle-to-low income influencers on youtube/instagram/etc. Importantly, that paper presents conjectures but no data that people are actually following the flight patterns of celebrities.
> Whilst a number of countries in the global North have recently managed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions while still growing their economies30, it is highly unlikely that such decoupling will occur more widely in the near future, rapidly enough at global scale and for other environmental impacts
Why not? Every technology that the west built was quickly adopted by the rest of the world. What kind of inane/ahistorical statement is that ?
This is supposed to be a review, but it doesn't really review much, they make various statements with references, but they often do not state the facts which they are referring to. There are also grammatical errors
An example: > The positional consumption behaviour of the super-affluent thus drives consumption norms across the population, for instance through their excessive air travel, as documented by Gössling73.
That Gosling73 study is a 2017 study of 10 celebrities including Meg whitman, emma watson, felix von derleden and Karl lagerfeld (are these people considered influential?) Celebrities and the "affluent" are different things. Plus i believe most air travel in the past 10 years was "influenced" by middle-to-low income influencers on youtube/instagram/etc. Importantly, that paper presents conjectures but no data that people are actually following the flight patterns of celebrities.
> Whilst a number of countries in the global North have recently managed to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions while still growing their economies30, it is highly unlikely that such decoupling will occur more widely in the near future, rapidly enough at global scale and for other environmental impacts
Why not? Every technology that the west built was quickly adopted by the rest of the world. What kind of inane/ahistorical statement is that ?
>Why not? Every technology that the west built was quickly adopted by the rest of the world. What kind of inane/ahistorical statement is that ?
Those countries pay high costs for their energy because their alternative energy sources are in no way cost competitive yet. They can afford those high costs. Less rich countries will never adopt fancy, expensive technologies if they're not cost effective.
India and most of Asia are building coal plants as we speak, because they're cost effective (to them). They've also, at most COP meetings, pushed back any initiative to tax carbon emissions, as they see that (probably justly) only as a brake on their development. Their social stability would fall apart quickly if they can't deliver the economic development.
For these reasons, the majority of future carbon emissions are projected to occur in Asia and Africa. There's very little Western countries can do, except some novel form of imposing their will on other countries, which would quickly and justly be denounced as neo-colonialist.
Those countries pay high costs for their energy because their alternative energy sources are in no way cost competitive yet. They can afford those high costs. Less rich countries will never adopt fancy, expensive technologies if they're not cost effective.
India and most of Asia are building coal plants as we speak, because they're cost effective (to them). They've also, at most COP meetings, pushed back any initiative to tax carbon emissions, as they see that (probably justly) only as a brake on their development. Their social stability would fall apart quickly if they can't deliver the economic development.
For these reasons, the majority of future carbon emissions are projected to occur in Asia and Africa. There's very little Western countries can do, except some novel form of imposing their will on other countries, which would quickly and justly be denounced as neo-colonialist.
To highlight some important elements of their work:
A group of researchers, led by a UNSW sustainability scientist, have reviewed existing academic discussions on the link between wealth, economy and associated impacts, reaching a clear conclusion: technology will only get us so far when working towards sustainability—we need far-reaching lifestyle changes and different economic paradigms.
In their review, published today in Nature Communications and entitled Scientists' Warning on Affluence, the researchers have summarized the available evidence, identifying possible solution approaches.
"Recent scientists' warnings have done a great job at describing the many perils our natural world is facing through crises in climate, biodiversity and food systems, to name but a few," says lead author Professor Tommy Wiedmann from UNSW Engineering.
"However, none of these warnings has explicitly considered the role of growth-oriented economies and the pursuit of affluence. In our scientists' warning, we identify the underlying forces of overconsumption and spell out the measures that are needed to tackle the overwhelming 'power' of consumption and the economic growth paradigm—that's the gap we fill.
"The key conclusion from our review is that we cannot rely on technology alone to solve existential environmental problems—like climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution—but that we also have to change our affluent lifestyles and reduce overconsumption, in combination with structural change."
A group of researchers, led by a UNSW sustainability scientist, have reviewed existing academic discussions on the link between wealth, economy and associated impacts, reaching a clear conclusion: technology will only get us so far when working towards sustainability—we need far-reaching lifestyle changes and different economic paradigms.
In their review, published today in Nature Communications and entitled Scientists' Warning on Affluence, the researchers have summarized the available evidence, identifying possible solution approaches.
"Recent scientists' warnings have done a great job at describing the many perils our natural world is facing through crises in climate, biodiversity and food systems, to name but a few," says lead author Professor Tommy Wiedmann from UNSW Engineering.
"However, none of these warnings has explicitly considered the role of growth-oriented economies and the pursuit of affluence. In our scientists' warning, we identify the underlying forces of overconsumption and spell out the measures that are needed to tackle the overwhelming 'power' of consumption and the economic growth paradigm—that's the gap we fill.
"The key conclusion from our review is that we cannot rely on technology alone to solve existential environmental problems—like climate change, biodiversity loss and pollution—but that we also have to change our affluent lifestyles and reduce overconsumption, in combination with structural change."
So there's a big question here (beyond the obvious, existential one) for the VC and startup community. What role do we play in all of this? Can we play a constructive role? What might that look like?
The picture isn't really so good for a lot of these startups, no.
You know it in your heart.
It's very unclear how an ethical person is supposed to be behave. If we believe that this huge machine is destroying the planet, surely we should stop participating in it - and yet if we do that, we become unable to support ourselves.
I compensate by trying to consume as little in my personal life, and trying to get jobs that aren't unethical.
You know it in your heart.
It's very unclear how an ethical person is supposed to be behave. If we believe that this huge machine is destroying the planet, surely we should stop participating in it - and yet if we do that, we become unable to support ourselves.
I compensate by trying to consume as little in my personal life, and trying to get jobs that aren't unethical.
In fact, the researchers say the world's affluent citizens are responsible for most environmental impacts and are central to any future prospect of retreating to safer conditions.
"Consumption of affluent households worldwide is by far the strongest determinant—and the strongest accelerator—of increased global environmental and social impacts," co-author Lorenz Keysser from ETH Zurich says.
"Current discussions on how to address the ecological crises within science, policy making and social movements need to recognize the responsibility of the most affluent for these crises." ... "The structural imperative for growth in competitive market economies leads to decision makers being locked into bolstering economic growth, and inhibiting necessary societal changes," Prof Wiedmann says.
"So, we have to get away from our obsession with economic growth—we really need to start managing our economies in a way that protects our climate and natural resources, even if this means less, no or even negative growth.
These quotes taken from: https://phys.org/news/2020-06-overconsumption-growth-economy...
"Consumption of affluent households worldwide is by far the strongest determinant—and the strongest accelerator—of increased global environmental and social impacts," co-author Lorenz Keysser from ETH Zurich says.
"Current discussions on how to address the ecological crises within science, policy making and social movements need to recognize the responsibility of the most affluent for these crises." ... "The structural imperative for growth in competitive market economies leads to decision makers being locked into bolstering economic growth, and inhibiting necessary societal changes," Prof Wiedmann says.
"So, we have to get away from our obsession with economic growth—we really need to start managing our economies in a way that protects our climate and natural resources, even if this means less, no or even negative growth.
These quotes taken from: https://phys.org/news/2020-06-overconsumption-growth-economy...
Other than the minor detail that only the affluent think about these problems, have the resources to solve them, and the spare time to do anything about them.
I've increasingly become convinced the environmental problem is really a socioeconomic problem. This is in some ways the point of the paper, but in other ways the paper misses the point completely, by focusing on affluent lifestyles rather than how to meet human needs in a sustainable way.
I don't think we are competent to solve this when we can't generally trust each other to keep our word, and especially when we have rejected the specific advice of the planet's Creator. I realize many will think that is silly, but I have put reasons I think this, and why I believe this, in depth, at my simple site (no JS etc): http://lukecall.net/e-9223372036854581820.html -- for what it's worth. And why we can really be OK.
Edit: I think expecting honesty, penalizing the lack of it, (and probably the Golden Rule) are prerequisites to solving many things. Etc.
Edit: I think expecting honesty, penalizing the lack of it, (and probably the Golden Rule) are prerequisites to solving many things. Etc.
No mention of reducing population growth. There never seem to be anymore.
The trajectory we're on is either toward ecological catastrophe or, if we manage to avoid that, a bimodal distribution of quality of life between an affluent few and the immiserated (if distracted) masses.
The trajectory we're on is either toward ecological catastrophe or, if we manage to avoid that, a bimodal distribution of quality of life between an affluent few and the immiserated (if distracted) masses.
We're set to hit below replacement birthrates for most of the world, and those parts of the world, being the most developed, are the places that consume the most fossil fuels, among other resources.
>It is clear that prevailing capitalist, growth-driven economic systems have not only increased affluence since World War II, but have led to enormous increases in inequality, financial instability...
Globally it's not at all clear there have been increases in inequality. When I was a kid in the 60s '3rd world nations' were impoverished going on starving, now they are mostly prosperous, have 4G, plenty of food etc. China especially was getting by on maybe $300/yr GDP and now has western style prosperity. The US may be more unequal but there is 90%+ of the world that is not the US.
It may seem nitpicking but it's basically an essay on economics and it makes me disregard the rest a bit when they get basic facts wrong. Also in terms of stability things have been fairly stable given the pandemic, fingers crossed.
Re affluence and the environment probably what we need is pricing for externalities in things like fossil fuels - people can be rich in non damaging ways - make artworks and sell them to each other for $1m+, build eco buildings, gardens etc - it doesn't have to be SUVs.
Globally it's not at all clear there have been increases in inequality. When I was a kid in the 60s '3rd world nations' were impoverished going on starving, now they are mostly prosperous, have 4G, plenty of food etc. China especially was getting by on maybe $300/yr GDP and now has western style prosperity. The US may be more unequal but there is 90%+ of the world that is not the US.
It may seem nitpicking but it's basically an essay on economics and it makes me disregard the rest a bit when they get basic facts wrong. Also in terms of stability things have been fairly stable given the pandemic, fingers crossed.
Re affluence and the environment probably what we need is pricing for externalities in things like fossil fuels - people can be rich in non damaging ways - make artworks and sell them to each other for $1m+, build eco buildings, gardens etc - it doesn't have to be SUVs.
It's important to keep that in mind re: improvements in inequality, but at the same time, for example, there is a refugee crisis that's been steadily increasing over time worldwide in recent times. GDP per capita is not the only metric of inequality, nor is China the only exception to the US.
I basically agree with everything you're saying, I just think something is going on that's not nearly captured by a lot of traditional metrics.
I basically agree with everything you're saying, I just think something is going on that's not nearly captured by a lot of traditional metrics.
From the Wikipedia article on Economic inequality:
"In 1820, the ratio between the income of the top and bottom 20 percent of the world's population was three to one. By 1991, it was eighty-six to one."
The article does say that global inequality may have decreased in the last few decades. However, considering that the richest 85 people have a combined wealth equal to the bottom half of the world's population (according to the same article), the claim that the capitalist, growth-driven economies have led to enormous inequalities is a basic fact.
"In 1820, the ratio between the income of the top and bottom 20 percent of the world's population was three to one. By 1991, it was eighty-six to one."
The article does say that global inequality may have decreased in the last few decades. However, considering that the richest 85 people have a combined wealth equal to the bottom half of the world's population (according to the same article), the claim that the capitalist, growth-driven economies have led to enormous inequalities is a basic fact.
Sorry, but this is a purely political piece of garbage.
It's full of claims unsupported by their data. For example, all their data shows population growth is a central issue but they focus on "affluence" and then they cherry-pick the (already affluent, saturated in consumption) first world to attack and suggest improvements for when the elephant in the room is the third world with its not exactly "affluent" but at least no longer starving population that is beginning to do what they suggest we stop doing. Then the typical radical left / eco-socialist "solutions" appear out of nowhere. It's disappointing that such political pieces are now in mainstream science publications (presumably because it's en vogue to kneel to the radical left...).
It's full of claims unsupported by their data. For example, all their data shows population growth is a central issue but they focus on "affluence" and then they cherry-pick the (already affluent, saturated in consumption) first world to attack and suggest improvements for when the elephant in the room is the third world with its not exactly "affluent" but at least no longer starving population that is beginning to do what they suggest we stop doing. Then the typical radical left / eco-socialist "solutions" appear out of nowhere. It's disappointing that such political pieces are now in mainstream science publications (presumably because it's en vogue to kneel to the radical left...).
The same group of people were obsessed with population growth decades ago, when the wrong kind of people were the ones having babies. That problem is solved, and so they have moved on to the next one, which is the pastoralization of the West. It's crazy, but the left has won every single battle it has fought. So, get ready...
The radical environmentalists (really, they’re just marxists) finally starting to admit what they want to take from us.
Here is a lifestyle change for you: ‘A step farther out’ by Jerry Pournell.
Anti-humanism on nature.com rubs me the wrong way.
So there's a big question here (beyond the obvious, existential one) for the VC and startup community. What role do we play in all of this? Can we play a constructive role? What might that look like?
The current Silicon Valley model of pursuing hyper-growth and aiming at making a few people (founders and investors) very rich is part of the problem, not the solution.
However, a more balanced startup culture that focuses on people well-being and environment sustainability as their ultimate goals could be part of the solution if they manage to find a working model within the current capitalist framework. The problem is that such framework is intensively individualistic and, without Government intervention, creates the worst possible outcome from a sustainability point-of-view because it assumes eternal growth and results in the concentration of resources into only a few hands.
I would love to see a startup that focuses on making its customer's lives more fulfilling while at the same time less "affluent", which is possible to because after you have all your basic needs covered (food, shelter, medical care), no amount of money can make you happier... but small things, like a stimulating social life, or a sense of pride on what your work produces, definitely can. The founders of course, would need to be living proof that their startup delivers on that promise, so they wouldn't make a penny more than necessary to live a fulfilling life where most fulfillment came from bringing happiness to others. That's where I think this idea breaks down! I am sure there would be founders doing this if they thought they could make a billion $$$ first :D but if they could do that, the whole motivation for the project would've been undermined already.
I would love to see a startup that focuses on making its customer's lives more fulfilling while at the same time less "affluent", which is possible to because after you have all your basic needs covered (food, shelter, medical care), no amount of money can make you happier... but small things, like a stimulating social life, or a sense of pride on what your work produces, definitely can. The founders of course, would need to be living proof that their startup delivers on that promise, so they wouldn't make a penny more than necessary to live a fulfilling life where most fulfillment came from bringing happiness to others. That's where I think this idea breaks down! I am sure there would be founders doing this if they thought they could make a billion $$$ first :D but if they could do that, the whole motivation for the project would've been undermined already.
[deleted]
The paper would perhaps have a greater impact if I didn't have to google for the meaning of the word in the title ("affluence").
It’s a common English word.
With the internet you can look up information anytime, and it’s super easy!
[deleted]
affluence (n) a state often correlated with both influence and effluents.
Superinsulated, almost airtight houses with ground and air source heat pumps and solar PV should be mandatory, as should banning of all in home boilers in new builds.
That’s all easily achievable even without some of the recent novel inventions such as engineered wood: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25476
We have to stop treating the atmosphere as a free line of credit with no limit that we can just dump all our externalities into, or we’ll find out very soon that there is no such thing as an externality at planetary scale. We’re all in the same hermetically sealed box, breathing each other’s farts.
Sorry for the rant. It’s hard to stop once the despair creeps in.