Jack, thanks for commenting. Each of the points you make are good ones. As far as pricing carbon, I too prefer a carbon cap to a tax, but something is better than nothing. Maybe a future post needs to dive into that issue more.
As far as having fossil fuel companies becoming energy companies - I first and foremost think we need to degrow demand so there is less demand. And then the market can sort out what's left. That market should be highly regulated so people can have the minimum power they need, not based on their ability to pay. Composting an oil company means shutting it down, or transforming it into something else. Transforming it into something else won't be easy, and some companies will try and fail. How such a system would be set up is perhaps the topic for another blog. In any such system, energy use and the negative externalities of that energy use need to be factored into the costs so that we don't just trade an emissions problem for a mining problem.
James. I agree. I generally use stock photos and highlight the photographer so that they are seen. Something that comes from a human perspective is just going to be a better representation of an idea, or concept in most cases.
I looked for a picture at a couple of different places I usually go and couldn't find something that got to composting an oil company. I played around with AI images and got something that I thought was at the same time ridiculous and arresting. Composting an oil company is a phrase I heard from John Fullerton of the Capital Institute. I thought it was a great turn of phrase and an interesting topic to write about. Composting an oil company is a bit of a ridiculous concept to represent visually, which is why I went with AI for today's image and the one last week of the oil derrick overrun by moss and greenery.
I will likely use AI imagery sparingly in the future because I think a photo that came from a human being is just going to be better most of the time. If there is a concept I want to talk about and I can make something surreal or ridiculous that I can't find a photo for, then I'll use that.
Thanks for your post, and damn you, now I have to read that book.
Good article. People need to understand these facts. Degrowth is going to happen one way or another. Inflation in housing and food fueled by corporate greed is already affecting people's "disposable" income. As more environmental disasters occur from global warming, agriculture will be reduced and climate forced migration, happening now, will increase greatly. This is not the way we want to see degrowth happen, but given the corporate and political corruption and dysfunction we face, it's the most likely path we're on. FF subsidies are criminal, literally as far as I'm concerned.
some additional perspectives. 1. price mechanisms to reduce fossil fuel use are problematic ( carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes), because they increase the cost of energy. An alternative is to ration the availability of fossil energy directly (rather than attempting to manipulate behaviour thru pricing). Rationing schemes have been developed that do not by design increase the cost of energy (the market will do that anyway). Tradable Energy Quotas are such an example (google it). Quotas are issued free to all adults, so the total amount of fossil energy available to the public is controlled. These quotas decline over a few years, so everyone knows they have to prepare for fewer fossil fuels in the future. People are incentivized to work together to figure out how to best do with fewer and fewer fossil fuels. Companies and other organizations, including governments, have to purchase quotas, but again the total available is limited, so maximum emissions are controlled. Rationing is the only way to reduce emissions with certainty. And TEQs are designed to ensure fairness - everyone gets the same quotas to start with. If you succeed in reducing your need for fossil fuels, then you can sell your quotas to someone else. But the total remains within the designed limits. Trading is controlled by the government so the price of quotas is controlled.
2. suggesting fossil fuel companies transition to renewable energy may not be a good idea. Think for a moment what the consequences are of the market determining how fossil fuels were used a century ago. If private for profit companies are in control of the renewable energy market what do you think is likely to happen? Do you think private control of an essential service such as electricity that is motivated by profit will be concerned about reducing energy demand to remain within planetary boundaries? Perhaps public ownership of community energy systems is a better idea so that demand can focus on ensuring everyone's basic needs are met, rather than leaving this to the market. What the market does is ration goods based on ability to pay. This is not the way to ensure everyone's basic needs are met and remain within planetary boundaries.
Jack, thanks for commenting. Each of the points you make are good ones. As far as pricing carbon, I too prefer a carbon cap to a tax, but something is better than nothing. Maybe a future post needs to dive into that issue more.
As far as having fossil fuel companies becoming energy companies - I first and foremost think we need to degrow demand so there is less demand. And then the market can sort out what's left. That market should be highly regulated so people can have the minimum power they need, not based on their ability to pay. Composting an oil company means shutting it down, or transforming it into something else. Transforming it into something else won't be easy, and some companies will try and fail. How such a system would be set up is perhaps the topic for another blog. In any such system, energy use and the negative externalities of that energy use need to be factored into the costs so that we don't just trade an emissions problem for a mining problem.
Plenty to write about. Thanks for your input.
James. I agree. I generally use stock photos and highlight the photographer so that they are seen. Something that comes from a human perspective is just going to be a better representation of an idea, or concept in most cases.
I looked for a picture at a couple of different places I usually go and couldn't find something that got to composting an oil company. I played around with AI images and got something that I thought was at the same time ridiculous and arresting. Composting an oil company is a phrase I heard from John Fullerton of the Capital Institute. I thought it was a great turn of phrase and an interesting topic to write about. Composting an oil company is a bit of a ridiculous concept to represent visually, which is why I went with AI for today's image and the one last week of the oil derrick overrun by moss and greenery.
I will likely use AI imagery sparingly in the future because I think a photo that came from a human being is just going to be better most of the time. If there is a concept I want to talk about and I can make something surreal or ridiculous that I can't find a photo for, then I'll use that.
Thanks for your post, and damn you, now I have to read that book.
Good article. People need to understand these facts. Degrowth is going to happen one way or another. Inflation in housing and food fueled by corporate greed is already affecting people's "disposable" income. As more environmental disasters occur from global warming, agriculture will be reduced and climate forced migration, happening now, will increase greatly. This is not the way we want to see degrowth happen, but given the corporate and political corruption and dysfunction we face, it's the most likely path we're on. FF subsidies are criminal, literally as far as I'm concerned.
some additional perspectives. 1. price mechanisms to reduce fossil fuel use are problematic ( carbon taxes and emissions trading schemes), because they increase the cost of energy. An alternative is to ration the availability of fossil energy directly (rather than attempting to manipulate behaviour thru pricing). Rationing schemes have been developed that do not by design increase the cost of energy (the market will do that anyway). Tradable Energy Quotas are such an example (google it). Quotas are issued free to all adults, so the total amount of fossil energy available to the public is controlled. These quotas decline over a few years, so everyone knows they have to prepare for fewer fossil fuels in the future. People are incentivized to work together to figure out how to best do with fewer and fewer fossil fuels. Companies and other organizations, including governments, have to purchase quotas, but again the total available is limited, so maximum emissions are controlled. Rationing is the only way to reduce emissions with certainty. And TEQs are designed to ensure fairness - everyone gets the same quotas to start with. If you succeed in reducing your need for fossil fuels, then you can sell your quotas to someone else. But the total remains within the designed limits. Trading is controlled by the government so the price of quotas is controlled.
2. suggesting fossil fuel companies transition to renewable energy may not be a good idea. Think for a moment what the consequences are of the market determining how fossil fuels were used a century ago. If private for profit companies are in control of the renewable energy market what do you think is likely to happen? Do you think private control of an essential service such as electricity that is motivated by profit will be concerned about reducing energy demand to remain within planetary boundaries? Perhaps public ownership of community energy systems is a better idea so that demand can focus on ensuring everyone's basic needs are met, rather than leaving this to the market. What the market does is ration goods based on ability to pay. This is not the way to ensure everyone's basic needs are met and remain within planetary boundaries.
Of possible interest: https://lloydalter.substack.com/p/writers-stop-it-with-the-ai-images