[FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron Symmetry

Mon Apr 30 22:32:09 EDT 2007

Well, as an alternate to the CO2 game solution we could create a virtual
China and pay it the estimated real cost to the earth of China's
products and only pay the real China the price they'd accept.   Then we
could use the money (essentially the blood money for China's
environmental exploitation) to pay smart guys like you and me to think
of great things to do with the money!     ...well I suppose some better
use should be proposed before anyone votes on it.. but you would clearly
begin to have "the full cost of [the] demand reflected in [the] supply".

China's sudden wealth is based largely on their finding a way to break
in on someone else's business world and not follow a lot of the
unwritten standards (common practices and expectations) and catching
that host world quite off guard.  We're paying a very heavy cost as a
result, because its our demand for cheap goods causing the imbalance.
It's not just job loss and a serious looming environmental dilemma, but
I think we're also giving away enough equity to finance our trade
imbalance to mortgage an entire state a year, or something on that
order.  There's not end in sight to that at all it seems, except that
the press is tired of talking about it.   Talk about resource depletion!

The broader idea I had in using that phrasing was that the full price of
what we buy is often hidden from the buyer (like throwing the world out
of balance).  One of the things the price mechanism is horrible at
reflecting is future costs and consequences.  If we were to do something
about the few select distortions of the price mechanism that could be
identified with some confidence, and bias the markets for them, it would
be called 'steering'.

Phil Henshaw                       ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave 
NY NY 10040                       
tel: 212-795-4844                 
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>     

-----Original Message-----
From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
Behalf Of Robert Howard
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 6:37 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron
Symmetry

REFERRING TO:

*	Nah, first put the screws to ourselves, and if necessary the
rest of the hemisphere. 

Here’s the argument as I understand it:

“We have invented a game called Carbon Offsets. But to be effective, it
really requires everyone’s cooperation. Unfortunately, we can’t get them
to play. They just don’t get it! Here, I’m referring to us being the USA
and they being China, and the game is something like the Kyoto Protocol,
which China and India are exempt from many of the rules. Fortunately, we
can get them to play by setting a good example. The USA should TIT first
in hopes that they TAT back. Since we believe so strongly in our
convictions that our proposed rules of play should be followed by all
players cooperatively, we can entice China to play by merely playing
solitaire first. They will ultimately like the outcome of our game so
much that they will beg us to let them play too.”

Well, if that’s true, then it should also be true for a finer
resolution, such as those US citizens that believe in the game versus
those that haven’t quite made the leap of faith. So I propose that we
politically self-partition of our population. Those US citizens that
wish play register online with the government. Next, we create a big
government regulatory department of lawyers that enforce just those that
have registered to be measured for their carbon output and to buy carbon
offset certificates. In time, the other citizens will eventually
register too. And this will cascade up to include the entire Earth’s
population. Those that saw the light early have proof that they were
smarter, and are entitled to the bragging rights that they helped make
the world a better place or everyone.

But if the argument turns out to be wrong, and the game is just another
utopian ideal (i.e. a system in which a few defectors can spoil the
whole lot and which must spend enormous amounts of energy suppressing
them) then at least the adverse effects generated by those that
improperly “put the screws on themselves” are confined to just
them—truly a sincere hedging of risk.

Also Phil, could you clarify what you meant by “The global solution is
to have the full cost of demand reflected in supply”. Assuming I
understand it right, doesn’t the distributed price system do that
already?

Robert Howard
Phoenix, Arizona

  _____  

From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
Behalf Of Phil Henshaw
Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 4:34 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron
Symmetry

There's some humor in this of course... black market money does at least
travel in real suite cases, and black market electrons do look quite
alike on the common carrier, but electrons all have lawyers to solve
that sort of thing don't they???

______

The dilemma that conservation (by one group) actually stimulates waste
(by another group) is the way I like to frame the core problem,   I have
just never understood why people advocate personal restraint in resource
use, like water, as a response to overwhelming societal waste of the
same resource.   Sure, it's hard to pull together any whole system
problem statement or model for response, but just ignoring the
difference seems to be most everyone's favorite solution.

______

The global solution is to have the full cost of demand reflected in
supply... and not surprisingly, that requires some systems thinking we
haven't done yet.

Phil Henshaw                       ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave 
NY NY 10040                       
tel: 212-795-4844                 
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          
explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/>     

-----Original Message-----
From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
Behalf Of Robert Howard
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 4:56 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes - Electron
Symmetry

Here are some problems with carbon offsets I never hear in debates:

o        Electrons cross both state and country borders. There’s a whole
“futures” industry on buying electricity for speculative market demand.
For example, California
<http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=3062&sequence=0> in 2000.

o        All electrons look the same. It’s impossible to look at an
electron on the grid and say, hey, that electron came from a coal fired
plant in Russia and that one came from solar cells in Tucson. We have
the same problem with shady black markets that move tons of cash. At
least cash comes in suitcases owned by people and moves far slower than
the speed of light. And, since the grid uses alternating current,
electrons really only move about most 3000 miles before they make a 180
turn round trip back to where they started from. It’s the
electromagnetic field that crosses borders.

If we raise the price of “our” electricity through carbon offsets, then
up goes the demand of some other defecting country’s coal-produced force
field. They’d make much more off the market differential than any CO2
subsidy they’d get after the administration took its share. This
recursively works for all products that depend on electricity, such as
aluminum cans, airplanes, and vacations. Right now, the US can produce
petroleum-driven electricity far cleaner, cheaper and efficiently than
any third-world country. If the goal is “clean”, wouldn’t we rather get
our electricity from us than them?

Robert Howard

Phoenix, Arizona

-----Original Message-----
From: friam-bounces at redfish.com [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On
Behalf Of Phil Henshaw
Sent: Sunday, April 29, 2007 5:54 AM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes

Or somewhat equivalently, getting us to pay carbon taxes on what we

consume...  To do that we'd need some way guess the carbon content (and

other earth insults) for products the manufacturer didn't provide

verifiable data for... and just as necessary, some believable plan for

using the money collected.  *But* that too would still provide only

temporary relief!!  The co2/$ ratio for total economic product (economic

efficiency) can only be reduced toward a positive limit and not toward

zero (real 2nd law).

Phil Henshaw                       ¸¸¸¸.·´ ¯ `·.¸¸¸¸

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

680 Ft. Washington Ave 

NY NY 10040                       

tel: 212-795-4844                 

e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com          

explorations: www.synapse9.com    

> -----Original Message-----

> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com 

> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Robert Howard

> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 11:23 PM

> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group'

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes

> 

> 

> Now, if we can just get those Chinese to pay carbon taxes, we 

> might be able to compete. :-)

> 

> Robert Howard

> Phoenix, Arizona

> 

>  

> -----Original Message-----

> From: friam-bounces at redfish.com 

> [mailto:friam-bounces at redfish.com] On Behalf Of Marcus G. Daniels

> Sent: Saturday, April 28, 2007 2:03 PM

> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group

> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] bigger plans, bigger little mistakes

> 

> phil henshaw wrote:

> > The consensus response to global warming relies on reducing the

> > impacts of economic growth by improving the efficiency of economic 

> > growth!

> So we need a lot more clean power, and we need it fast.   

> Time to spend 

> some money on figuring out how to do it!

> Without efficiency gains, it's estimated 10 TW are needed globally by 

> 2025. [1] 

> The ITER/DEMO fusion reactor only promises net 1.5 GW by 2045 

> [2], and 

> the largest hydroelectric facilities (Three Gorges Dam in 

> China) are at 

> about 22 GW [3].   There's not enough high-grade silicon for 

> dozens of 

> square miles of conventional photovoltaic solar [4]. Meanwhile, China 

> builds a new coal fired planed every week [5] and apparently can keep 

> doing that for 100 years [6].  

> 

> Seems to me any cost imbalance of solar, etc. is easily fixable by 

> taxing the hell out of CO2 energy emissions while subsidizing the 

> development of new solar, fusion, carbon sequestration 

> technology (etc). 

> 

> [1] http://t8web.lanl.gov/people/rajan/Gupta_energy_for_all_2007.pdf

> [2]  http://fire.pppl.gov/isfnt7_maisonnier.pdf

> [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three_Gorges_Dam

> [4] http://www.ft.com/cms/s/e50784ea-78cb-11db-8743-0000779e2340.html

> [5] http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html

> [6] 

> http://www.technologyreview.com/printer_friend>

ly_article.aspx?id=17963

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ============================================================

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

> 

> 

> 

> ============================================================

> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

> lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

> 

> 

============================================================

FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv

Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College

lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070430/454ec469/attachment-0001.html 