Does Matt understand Thermodynamics?

[spark_]

i'm not a fan of fracking but "it causes earthquakes" is not definitely not the main reason we should be careful about injecting chemicals into possibly water-bearing strata.

[CarrieB]

i'm not a fan of fracking but "it causes earthquakes" is not definitely not the main reason we should be careful about injecting chemicals into possibly water-bearing strata.

 

Oh you mean because it could get into our water supplies? Yes that too.

[spark_]

That is the reason. The earthquakes business is a furphy.

 

(in general, i mean. there are other issues related to the specific task that is being attempted - gas leakages if that's what you're going for etc)

[Shrinking Universe]

Is the earth a closed system because it is surrounded by the biosphere?

 

No, it receives energy from the Sun (and lots of it).

[jTc42]

I had to sit a horrifying degree level thermodynamics exam a couple of days before they announced the new albums "theme".... Somehow I feel f****d over by it! I'm trying to forget about the exam

 

But yeah, it makes little sense as an analogy. While yes it's obviously true that entropy must increase in a closed system such as the universe, the universe is really pretty darn big so we can effectively "dump" positive entropy changes elsewhere in order to reduce the disorder in some sub-system (think air-conditioning). Whether the economy is a thermodynamic sub-system is a good question and many nerds on my course (myself included) have had many a discussion about it over many a drink.

 

No conclusion has been reached....

[jdeboer01]

I still haven't managed to read the book linked (well it's a lot of text and I have plenty of other things to do too! <guilty>). Anyway, some thoughts, still pretty uneducated, about the posts others have done. God it's long, well uninterested please just skip it.

 

jdeboer, I don't have the solid scientific background to make claims about nature's resiliency either, but I do know from physics that it's well possible that a system has several stable states. Take for example a ball on a bumpy terrain, it won't stay on any peak of the terrain, but it can be stable in a small bit - then it gets lifted from that pit by an external force, but doesn't stay on the nearby peak but falls into a deeper pit next to the peak. There it is stable again, but it takes a lot of external force to get it back to the original pit. To put this example back on Earth climate, we know that Earth has been much much warmer than it is nowadays millions of years ago. I'm not sure how many years ago exactly, and what kind of life there was at the time, but I think the Earth was much warmer at the era of dinosaurs (Greenland for example has been green once upon a time, according to something I think I've read). It can very well move back to the previous state, or to another state, maybe badly deserted... It's true what Carrie said, the Earth or probably even some forms of life will survive even if the state of the climate changes, but quite a lot of humans and definitely our economical system will not. The modern society is quite vulnerable. Besides, the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been increasing from the start of the industrial era, and it might well be that the resiliency capacity of the Earth has been used already - although I don't know exactly, and if I have understood even scientists do not know.

 

Another point jdeboer, don't be so bloody US centric - the electricity grid in your country may be in a bad shape, but not allover the planet. Also roads and bridges in your country are in bad shape, all a result of the long policy of tax decreasing. Ok sorry, I don't want to start a war between Europe and US The results of tax decreasing are visible also on European roads, although for I know electricity network is in a relatively good shape in different countries. Connections between countries are bottlenecks. But it's not the first time I hear of the distributed energy production, so that idea is quite good basically. It might be something also for countries like India where, afaik, the electricity network really is bad.

 

There are already small windmills on sale, for family houses - the price I think was around 10 000 eur, which is quite a lot when the electricity for electrically heated house costs only around 1000 -1500 eur per year, and the own personal windmill does not even cover all heating costs.

 

Then about windmills, solar panels, and how much energy can be extracted from those sources: one good thing I've read about those energy sources is that they are annoyingly inefficient... Meaning that they cannot absorb too much of the energy around them. That of course means that the price of the resulting energy is high, but also that they do not disturb the system around them that much. I haven't heard of radial wind bursts from the windmills, and I doubt they can create too much disturbance, that would make them even more inefficient as they are today, plus they would break structurally. I would be interested to hear more about this? Carrie mentioned water energy, well there are quite a lot of experimental work going on trying to win energy from tides (?) and waves. They are not as ready as wind energy technologically, there are several competing mechanisms experimented at the moment, but the good thing about those is that they are not as visible as windmills. Technical problems in salty seawater are huge, afaik...

 

On the fuel and transport side of things (it's fine to win a lot of energy from wind and sun and waves and whatever, but that energy is really difficult to store, and the problems become very difficult in automotives as long as there is no better battery technology than the present one) there is research going on on algae, plus there are already methods, commercially competitive methods to produce diesel from plants.

 

One interesting article I read a while ago was artificial meat - and I mean real artificial meat, not something produced from plants. It is relatively easy to let muscle cells grow in those solutions they use in biological studies, and it can be made taste like chicken or beef or whatever. The problem is that since they don't know how to grow blood veins, the meat starts to rotten in the middle. Hmm, I guess at the point where the medicine manages to grow whole new organs, we will also get artificial meat - that means a large drop in the need of grass land for cattle, plus that methane emissions of cattle also decrease. Plus of course no need anymore for the cruelties for the cattle... One thing in the first chapter of that booked linked was that animals are actually not very efficient in producing work. I presume they are also not very efficient in producing meat :/

 

Then there is energy saving. People start thinking of switching off lights, using public transport or not travelling altogether, not using plastic bags etc when they hear about this, but if I think of UK, for example, I see such a waste of energy in buildings... Centimetre wide gaps in windows, poor insulation, ventilation based on gravity, stuff like that. UK is a warm country, buildings shouldn't need much heating at all if they were properly insulated. There is also potential in industry (in all countries), pumps and so. In industry the energy savings happen anyway because the cost for energy is calculated all the time, but if the price of energy increases the investments into saving it become productive sooner. That kind of stuff can be done without people changing their behaviour much at all, which seems to be the aim of the green idealists - they mostly try to change people's behaviour, often based on emotions rather than physics. For example those plastic bags are peanuts in the energy balance. Well, one thing about industry - the price of energy has to rise in all industrial countries, including China and India, in order to any changes to happen. I think that is the biggest problem at the moment, that those countries do not want to harm their industry in any way to tackle a problem western countries have created.

 

Umm, this became a list of things I think can be done and should be done. I'm not hopeless about whether we can change the direction of the climate change, but there isn't much time and it takes a lot of money (well each of you think the investment into an own windmill, UK residents think of the cost of renewing all windows, extra insulation and machine driven ventilation with heat pump - there must be thousands of things I don't know that take money) plus that people won't do these things if it is not politically driven. In that way I appreciate a band bringing the subject up, it quite simply increases awareness. Without the awareness there is no political pressure, and without the pressure there are no laws that either directly force people do the investments or drive the energy price so high that people have to do the investments to keep the energy bill affordable.

 

I have a fucking headache!

 

Kati, what no one seems to consider with these idealistic (and very expensive) theoretical energy sources (and the attempt to globally legislate their use) is that they completely fuck under-developed countries up the ass!

 

When cheaper sources of energy exist, forcing the use of the more expensive ones will not work.

 

It seems that human nature is never considered when grandiose ideas of a potential utopia are brought up as solutions.

[jdeboer01]

Is the earth a closed system because it is surrounded by the biosphere?

 

The Earth is NOT a closed system. There is energy input from the sun. How do you think plants grow? There are some who believe that life on earth was placed here by asteroids. The earth doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

Incidentally I think manufacturing meat sounds disgusting. I read Kati's post too! But then I think killing animals for meat, although natural, is something best avoided.

 

We should eliminate all carnivores from the planet because killing animals is "disgusting" and "is best avoided".

 

The fracking that is going on now seems indicative of human arrogance. Seen as a no brainer because it is a way of bringing down energy prices, despite the fact that it has been causing mini earthquakes. That's an illustration of the economy being seen as king despite the fact that we can have more control over it than we have over the natural world.

 

What the frack? Are you fracking kidding me?

 

I mean does anyone understand why mini earthquakes result from fracking? Does anyone know whether it could cause more major earthquakes? But it seems that it is good for the economy so we need to do it anyway.

 

So, "frack" all of the world populations who can't afford solar panels and windmills. If the can't afford it, then frack them.

[Urgamanix]

Poor Matt has gotten himself into a pickle.

 

In thermodynamics, entropy is the level at which energy is not available for work. The classic example is ice in a drink in a warm room - the heat energy does work and transfers from hot --> cold, melting the ice and making the drink warm. As the drink warms and everything hits a balanced temperature, entropy increases. When everything is the same temperature, no more energy is transferring and entropy is at it's maximum.

 

It's generally considered that in thermodynamics, entropy is a 'bad' thing, as with no energy transfer, we can't have things such as engines. In fact one common way the universe is predicted to die is through entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_Universe).

 

Now, if you try to apply this to economics (and in some ways you can), heat energy = cash. In this case, increasing entropy would mean cash flowing from those that have lots of it, to those that don't.

 

In other words, cash flowing from rich to poor until everyone has equal amounts and no 'work' is done in the flow of cash. Which I'm sure supports Matt's stance and opinion on this. Yet, it seems he is complaining economic entropy is a bad thing! Effectively he is saying that the massive economic divide between rich and poor is good!

 

TL;DR:

 

High entropy in thermodynamics = balanced energy = bad

High entropy in economics = balanced wealth = good

 

Trying to equate two opposite concepts = VERY bad

[kueller]

I actually have no idea what side Matt is taking on this. But either way the application doesn't make sense.

[CarrieB]

The Earth is NOT a closed system. There is energy input from the sun. How do you think plants grow? There are some who believe that life on earth was placed here by asteroids. The earth doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

 

 

We should eliminate all carnivores from the planet because killing animals is "disgusting" and "is best avoided".

 

 

 

What the frack? Are you fracking kidding me?

 

 

 

So, "frack" all of the world populations who can't afford solar panels and windmills. If the can't afford it, then frack them.

 

In the main I haven't the foggiest what you are on about.

 

Anyway I believe it is true that we shaft the underdeveloped countries. We have done that for yonks. They are also likely to suffer most from climate change as the result of our energy use which far outstrips their own use. It is basically an issue of social justice therefore that rich countries support poorer countries in using less environmentally damaging sources of energy as well as doing that ourselves.

[CarrieB]

Poor Matt has gotten himself into a pickle.

 

In thermodynamics, entropy is the level at which energy is not available for work. The classic example is ice in a drink in a warm room - the heat energy does work and transfers from hot --> cold, melting the ice and making the drink warm. As the drink warms and everything hits a balanced temperature, entropy increases. When everything is the same temperature, no more energy is transferring and entropy is at it's maximum.

 

It's generally considered that in thermodynamics, entropy is a 'bad' thing, as with no energy transfer, we can't have things such as engines. In fact one common way the universe is predicted to die is through entropy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_Universe).

 

Now, if you try to apply this to economics (and in some ways you can), heat energy = cash. In this case, increasing entropy would mean cash flowing from those that have lots of it, to those that don't.

 

In other words, cash flowing from rich to poor until everyone has equal amounts and no 'work' is done in the flow of cash. Which I'm sure supports Matt's stance and opinion on this. Yet, it seems he is complaining economic entropy is a bad thing! Effectively he is saying that the massive economic divide between rich and poor is good!

 

TL;DR:

 

High entropy in thermodynamics = balanced energy = bad

High entropy in economics = balanced wealth = good

 

Trying to equate two opposite concepts = VERY bad

 

Hmm, this is a good post I think. Clear and straightforward in the explanation of entropy to those of us with little understanding of physics.

 

The only thing though is whether an analogy is intended. I'm not sure it is. It seems to me from reading sections of the book posted earlier (though I may be wrong as I had to skip much of the mathematical based argument, plus it may not be what Matt has based his thoughts on) that the connection is that economics doesn't take account of energy processes and constraints imposed by the natural world, not that it can be seen as similar.

[CarrieB]

No, it receives energy from the Sun (and lots of it).

 

Yes of course. Though, presumably the issue is that the harmful gasses can't leave the system or be neutralised as the volume is too high? Somehow or other that seems to be being linked to entropy.

 

I'm not sure how, if entropy is balance between energy forces and global warming is related to too much carbon.

 

Unless... it is something to do with the earth rebalancing in a disordered fashion.

 

Confusing.. just trying to make some sense of it from a layman's point of view.

 

Sorry for the multiple posts, quoted first and then went back.

 

Also just thought maybe "the economy is unsustainable" is shorthand for "life as we know it is unsustainable, if we continue to live under the illusion of the value of the same economic rules".

[Kati]

I have a fucking headache!

 

Kati, what no one seems to consider with these idealistic (and very expensive) theoretical energy sources (and the attempt to globally legislate their use) is that they completely fuck under-developed countries up the ass!

 

When cheaper sources of energy exist, forcing the use of the more expensive ones will not work.

 

Sorry about the headache... About poor countries, I maybe didn't write about it, but surely people involved in that climate change conference whatever negotiations process have thought about that. The idea is that developed countries support and help the poorer countries, the actual amounts of money and the mechanisms for help cannot be agreed on, as far as I have understood. There are some good things like that quite many populated, poor countries are located in areas where solar power is a meaningful option (unlike northern countries) besides it offers a way to do a distributed power generation, which in countries of poor quality electricity network is a good thing. Another thing is that those poor countries will suffer of the climate change even more than rich countries, and in that situation you cannot much ask what is fair and what is not. Btw there is an example about telecommunications where poor countries have not gone through the same development path as western countries - African countries (ignorant generalisation here, I can't remember which country) never built a cable based broad telephone network. They went directly to mobile phones.

 

That as long as cheaper sources exist forcing to use more expensive ones would not work at all is not quite true. Clearly in Europe the SOx and NOx emissions have been reduced with expensive filtering/catalyst technologies in power plants, forced by legislation (I don't know about US). There are also examples of reducing see, lake or river pollution even though that increases costs. It just takes political will. Globally, using more expensive energy sources in countries like China or India, or other new industrialised countries, is a must if western countries want to be in any way competitive(?) (able to compete) in production of goods. This is difficult, but it seemed in the last meeting of that negoatiation process that China is giving in. They are not stupid. It's not in their interests to even let western countries collapse, they wouldn't have a market for their products anymore.

 

Besides, all new energy sources are not that horribly expensive, and price of some will reduce when used more, like solar panels. For western world the problem is new investments when the old ones to fossil fuels could still be used. The whole infrastructure will change too, increasing the costs.

 

The Earth is NOT a closed system. There is energy input from the sun. How do you think plants grow? There are some who believe that life on earth was placed here by asteroids. The earth doesn't exist in a vacuum.

 

This is true. Heat is also removed from Earth with infrared radiation.

 

We should eliminate all carnivores from the planet because killing animals is "disgusting" and "is best avoided".

 

Badly off-topic here... There was a video of a bear killing and eating a moose somewhere in internetz (from Sweden I think). The bear didn't first kill the moose mercifully. The moose was alive and kicking and trying to escape while the bear was tearing parts from it. It really did look disgusting. I started thinking that humans actually are an advanced species with traces of empathy. Anyway, the stories of how chicken are killed (hanged from legs and head chopped off before skinning, or something, except some manage to avoid the head chopping and are skinned alive) would alone make me eat artificial meat if it was available, regardless of climate change

 

Poor Matt has gotten himself into a pickle.

 

 

High entropy in thermodynamics = balanced energy = bad

High entropy in economics = balanced wealth = good

 

Trying to equate two opposite concepts = VERY bad

 

I'm still not through that book (well I have read now pretty much three first chapters, the one about economics I haven't started) so I shouldn't comment, but I don't think Matt meant anything that simple. It seems that people talking about this stuff link entropy with economy in a more complicated way.

 

I'm not sure how, if entropy is balance between energy forces and global warming is related to too much carbon.

 

Unless... it is something to do with the earth rebalancing in a disordered fashion.

 

Also just thought maybe "the economy is unsustainable" is shorthand for "life as we know it is unsustainable, if we continue to live under the illusion of the value of the same economic rules".

 

Kuemmel seems to link entropy increase first with emissions, not with economy (well in the first three chapters!). You might have something there. And sure Matt might have just meant the latter statement - it's not that the entropy link with environment and economy is that well known that it would be banal to make an album about it (can be disputed of course, I just know that I hadn't thought about entropy at all or seen articles about it although I do follow the climate change, new energy sources etc news).

[CarrieB]

Kuemmel seems to link entropy increase first with emissions, not with economy (well in the first three chapters!). You might have something there. And sure Matt might have just meant the latter statement - it's not that the entropy link with environment and economy is that well known that it would be banal to make an album about it (can be disputed of course, I just know that I hadn't thought about entropy at all or seen articles about it although I do follow the climate change, new energy sources etc news).

 

Actually have to point out my error *before someone else feels the need to* that Matt actually tweeted/ and the words in the trailer were "an economy based on endless growth is (unsustainable)", but I think it could be said to mean the same. It definitely is in the language of the Green argument, at least.

[spark_]

I want to state at the outset that I am absolutely in favour of serious action to both mitigate and adapt to climate change. Now...

 

Sorry about the headache... About poor countries, I maybe didn't write about it, but surely people involved in that climate change conference whatever negotiations process have thought about that. The idea is that developed countries support and help the poorer countries, the actual amounts of money and the mechanisms for help cannot be agreed on, as far as I have understood.

 

Uh

 

The primary reason poor countries will/should suffer more severely from climate change is because they're poor. Not because they're inherently predisposed to more intense effects. So you'd think that one way of lessening the impact of any effects (from an adaptation) POV is to make them, well, less poor.

 

But ofc experience has dictated time and time again that if you just throw money at third world countries very little will actually happen as a result.

 

Now. As for the disagreeing thing, it has to be noted China (who were the prime drivers behind the scuttling of Copenhagen), India and others feel that they should be able to boost their living standards to West-comparable, which of course requires lots of power, which requires carbon emissions. Which, when you think about it, is absolutely fair - we get it, why shouldn't they? - but raises a hellish international policy dilemma which is far more complex than you suggest here.

 

There are some good things like that quite many populated, poor countries are located in areas where solar power is a meaningful option (unlike northern countries) besides it offers a way to do a distributed power generation, which in countries of poor quality electricity network is a good thing.

Do you know how much solar costs and equally importantly how it scales? Hint: neither are good. I can't recall the effective carbon tax required to make solar economically viable and hence a sensible option, but it's definitely three figures and hence waaaaaaaaaaaay above what is politically viable now, or indeed economically sensible.

 

This is not to mention the scaling issues, the technological issues, the efficiency issues, the whole "mining bucketloads of rare earths" thing and the like which are covered extensively all over the place. Solar is by no means a silver bullet, and romantic/aesthetic notions aside, doesn't actually do too great on the metrics that actually matter.

 

Another thing is that those poor countries will suffer of the climate change even more than rich countries, and in that situation you cannot much ask what is fair and what is not.

Because they're poor.

 

Btw there is an example about telecommunications where poor countries have not gone through the same development path as western countries - African countries (ignorant generalisation here, I can't remember which country) never built a cable based broad telephone network. They went directly to mobile phones.

 

That as long as cheaper sources exist forcing to use more expensive ones would not work at all is not quite true. Clearly in Europe the SOx and NOx emissions have been reduced with expensive filtering/catalyst technologies in power plants, forced by legislation (I don't know about US).

Exceptionally poor analogy, not least because power is power regardless of the means of generation. The differences are environmental impact, scaling and cost - the end result is identical.

 

There are also examples of reducing see, lake or river pollution even though that increases costs. It just takes political will.

Yes, because the cost (not just in financial terms) of allowing the pollution is seen as greater than the financial cost of a cleanup. It's a trade-off that has to be made, but the key point to make here is that it is a trade-off. It's not just "oh things would be so much better if we just spent the money!"

 

Globally, using more expensive energy sources in countries like China or India, or other new industrialised countries, is a must if western countries want to be in any way competitive(?) (able to compete) in production of goods.

???

 

This is a complete contradiction. More expensive energy ---> higher production costs ---> less competitive. Whilst clean energy does have major advantages, you have completely failed to mention them, and as presented here it makes absolutely no sense.

 

This is difficult, but it seemed in the last meeting of that negoatiation process that China is giving in. They are not stupid. It's not in their interests to even let western countries collapse, they wouldn't have a market for their products anymore.

See above. They want a living standard for their 1.4 billion (or however many) people comparable to ours. Is it not grossly unfair to deny them that? But of course if they do so on the back of coal-fired power generation is a recipe for environmental disaster, and therein lies the problem. To their credit, they seem increasingly aware of this - but again, it's not a "oh just do x y z and everything will be fine" - it's a trade-off, costs on one side against costs on the other.

 

Besides, all new energy sources are not that horribly expensive,

Yep, nuclear isn't in theory (once you get past the huge capital investment required to actually build the things etc), nor is wind (apart from its baseload abilities being non-existent) or geothermal (apart from... something?)

 

and price of some will reduce when used more, like solar panels.

It'll have to reduce a hell of a lot. Currently twice as expensive as geothermal, nuclear, wind, modern coal-fired, natural gas etc (which on a pure cost basis are actually all quite similar. It's just solar that is exorbitantly expensive - though ofc doesn't take into account all the other costs associated with a certain generation source)

 

For western world the problem is new investments when the old ones to fossil fuels could still be used. The whole infrastructure will change too, increasing the costs.

So you see why it's rather hard to do now?

 

This is true. Heat is also removed from Earth with infrared radiation.

The point remains - the system is not closed.

[jdeboer01]

In other words, cash flowing from rich to poor until everyone has equal amounts and no 'work' is done in the flow of cash. Which I'm sure supports Matt's stance and opinion on this. Yet, it seems he is complaining economic entropy is a bad thing!

 

Does anyone really know what Matt's political positions are? I don't think he's ever elaborated. I think the most he's said is that he doesn't trust government at all -- left or right. I get the impression that he doesn't classify untrustworthy politicians by the side of the aisle they stand on. My guess is that he'd rather see all powerful politicians neutered, and to take that power away, which (despite the probable revulsion of many on this board) is actually a very right leaning position -- along the lines of Libertarian. We do know that complete wealth redistribution IS unsustainable.

 

It's also possible that he's a climate change skeptic, and sees the concept as manufactured by politicians in order to cause fear in the populace and a power grab in government.

 

From Uprising:

 

And all the, green belts wrapped around our minds

And endless red tape to keep the truth confined

 

Financially, Matt isn't exactly a "plebian" anymore. So to assume he's all for wealth redistribution may be inaccurate.

[CarrieB]

Does anyone really know what Matt's political positions are? I don't think he's ever elaborated. I think the most he's said is that he doesn't trust government at all -- left or right. I get the impression that he doesn't classify untrustworthy politicians by the side of the aisle they stand on. My guess is that he'd rather see all powerful politicians neutered, and to take that power away, which (despite the probable revulsion of many on this board) is actually a very right leaning position -- along the lines of Libertarian. We do know that complete wealth redistribution IS unsustainable.

 

It's also possible that he's a climate change skeptic, and sees the concept as manufactured by politicians in order to cause fear in the populace and a power grab in government.

 

From Uprising:

 

And all the, green belts wrapped around our minds

And endless red tape to keep the truth confined

 

Financially, Matt isn't exactly a "plebian" anymore. So to assume he's all for wealth redistribution may be inaccurate.

 

I would guess that Matt is more Libertarian left. I seem to remember he said recently he was Libertarian but ideas he has expressed are not in line with the right. He apparently supports Georgism, which makes the argument that land can't be owned as it's a natural resource; but I think supports ownership of self. So tax shouldn't be on labour but on the land that is occupied, the money going back to supporting the community.

 

He has also said he would be voting for The Green Party in the past and the last general election said he would be voting for the Lib Dems who appeared, at the time, to be on the left of New Labour. I think you are right that he seems anti-authoritarian however, which is obviously a central tenant to both kinds of Libertarianism.

 

An argument from the left, I think I have seen about the green belts is that they preserve the nicer areas for the few and push up property prices. I think there are different stances on conservation - the more conservative stance is of course "don't put windmills on our landscapes as it spoils our pretty view". That is in contradiction to those who argue for cleaner energy.

 

Hmm you were possibly a little selective re Uprising.

 

What about:

 

"Another packaged lie to keep us trapped in greed" and "it's time the fat cats had a heart attack".

 

Though the fact that it is meant to be based on rioting football hooligans kind of brings into question any depth of meaning.

 

Matt did a very good German interview however where he spoke a bit about his political outlook in relation to this song.

 

 

Yes, so distrustful of any government but also seems aware of how wealth accumulation breeds unequal power relations.

[Kati]

I want to state at the outset that I am absolutely in favour of serious action to both mitigate and adapt to climate change. Now...

 

You seem to have a relatively pessimistic view on the possibilities though. What do you think should be done realistically (i.e. what do you think is possible) and what are the outcomes of that? Btw is this stuff your profession? (it's not mine, I'm an engineer on another field and I rely on news etc).

 

I have to admit that I have now been reading the Kuemmel book which I suppose is very optimistic. Before that I used to think there isn't much we can do anymore about climate change, it is going to happen anyway and it's more about what is politically done with the climate refugees (whether for example European countries set up stricter rules on immigration), what will happen socially, economically and so on.

 

Ok some notes on issues I thought are interesting for the sake of argueing

 

 

The primary reason poor countries will/should suffer more severely from climate change is because they're poor. Not because they're inherently predisposed to more intense effects.

 

No? Poor countries tend to be located closer to equator than the rich countries. Even though the effect of climate change is not equal increase of average temperature, it is logical to assume that regions now barely inhabitable would become clearly uninhabitable. I'm thinking of African countries. But whatever you say...

 

Btw I have no opinion about what should be done, if anything, about rich/poor countries in general. I don't know much anything about it and therefore don't want to get into an argument.

 

Now. As for the disagreeing thing, it has to be noted China (who were the prime drivers behind the scuttling of Copenhagen), India and others feel that they should be able to boost their living standards to West-comparable, which of course requires lots of power, which requires carbon emissions. Which, when you think about it, is absolutely fair - we get it, why shouldn't they? - but raises a hellish international policy dilemma which is far more complex than you suggest here.

 

I guess you are right. I don't know details of politics, but the fact is there is interest in all countries to mitigate climate change, but sure it is extremely complicated. Especially now that so called "rich" countries cannot much cope with their debts anymore, i.e are not rich.

 

Do you know how much solar costs and equally importantly how it scales? Hint: neither are good. I can't recall the effective carbon tax required to make solar economically viable and hence a sensible option, but it's definitely three figures and hence waaaaaaaaaaaay above what is politically viable now, or indeed economically sensible.

 

No I don't. Here I actually believed the tone of the Kuemmel book, which suggested solar power is a realistic option, at least in areas close enough to equator (according to the book, there is enough area, theoretically Sahara desert alone would be enough for a reasonable energy consumption for 10 billion people - but he doesn't discuss political aspects of using Sahara at all). Also the price of solar panels has dropped significantly recently, and there are development efforts going on. Whether anything useful comes out of that in near-enough future, is questionable I suppose.

 

 

Exceptionally poor analogy, not least because power is power regardless of the means of generation. The differences are environmental impact, scaling and cost - the end result is identical.

 

Yes, because the cost (not just in financial terms) of allowing the pollution is seen as greater than the financial cost of a cleanup. It's a trade-off that has to be made, but the key point to make here is that it is a trade-off. It's not just "oh things would be so much better if we just spent the money!"

 

Which one was poor analogy? Sure it's not about just spending the money. Otherwise I really do not understand what you mean. I still don't think industry would have developed and applied the filter/catalyst technologies if there was no legislation.

 

This is a complete contradiction. More expensive energy ---> higher production costs ---> less competitive. Whilst clean energy does have major advantages, you have completely failed to mention them, and as presented here it makes absolutely no sense.

 

Oh does clean energy have advantages? Something else than artificial market, politically induced, which makes, at some point maybe, clean energy financially more lucrative? Not being sarcastic here, I just don't know what could be such advantages. And what I meant with my text was that if western countries via political decisions raise the energy price for the industry in these countries, and at the same time China (or other recently industrialised country with abilities to produce goods) does not make similar political decisions, the buyers in western countries will buy the products from China. Meaning the industry in western countries is less competitive. I think steel is such a product, it's production requires a lot energy and becomes non-profitable if the energy price gets any higher it is at the moment in western countries.

 

See above. They want a living standard for their 1.4 billion (or however many) people comparable to ours. Is it not grossly unfair to deny them that? But of course if they do so on the back of coal-fired power generation is a recipe for environmental disaster, and therein lies the problem. To their credit, they seem increasingly aware of this - but again, it's not a "oh just do x y z and everything will be fine" - it's a trade-off, costs on one side against costs on the other.

 

For I know, China or India cannot offer same living standard as western countries to their population regardless of energy price, and western countries are not in the position to deny or allow the improvement of living standard in those countries. Of course the whole situation is much more complicated than what I could squeeze into a couple of sentences, there is the debt situation, market for products, local environmental problems in China and political problems caused by them, possibility to shatter US' hegemony of the world, whatever. It's all negotiable, I believe, when there is a clear threat that concerns all countries.

 

But you know what, I don't think politicians in any country will go through those negotiations and carry out unpleasant decisions that will raise energy price, if there is no political pressure, i.e. voters following and understanding these issues. I'm not sure about your view, mine has been for a longer time that individuals, consumers, cannot stop the climate change, no matter how much we recycle paper, reduce flying or car driving or use own bags instead of plastic bags. The problem has to be solved on political level, with legislation and international treaties, and that doesn't happen without wide awareness and acceptance that there is, in general, a problem.

 

 

The point remains - the system is not closed.

 

At this point I started wondering whether I should have skipped the argument. Geez, when did I say the system is closed? I said true, and it also dissipates heat (not only absorbs). I do know enough of physics to understand Earth is not a closed system. Carrie didn't, she asked, which jdeboer correctly replied and I added a detail.

 

Does anyone really know what Matt's political positions are? I don't think he's ever elaborated.

 

In addition to what Carrie remembered, I think Matt once (recently, TR era) said something like "it's just music, you shouldn't earn so much with it".

 

Otherwise I think he is a bit of rebellion, always against everything most people think. He would fit nicely in the forum

[jdeboer01]

I would guess that Matt is more Libertarian left. I seem to remember he said recently he was Libertarian but ideas he has expressed are not in line with the right. He apparently supports Georgism, which makes the argument that land can't be owned as it's a natural resource; but I think supports ownership of self. So tax shouldn't be on labour but on the land that is occupied, the money going back to supporting the community.

 

WTF is "Libertarian left"? Kind of an oxymoron, isn't it? Maybe political leanings are described differently in the UK. In the US, the very basic explanation is left = more government, right = less government. However, in practice, both US Democrats and Republicans in the Federal Government have been wielding too much power. That's what the Tea Party movement has been about. They want to see more of a pure following of the US Constitution, and severance between wealthy corporations and individuals with government.

 

An argument from the left, I think I have seen about the green belts is that they preserve the nicer areas for the few and push up property prices.

 

I don't think Matt meant literal "green belts".

 

Hmm you were possibly a little selective re Uprising.

 

What about:

 

"Another packaged lie to keep us trapped in greed" and "it's time the fat cats had a heart attack".

 

Though the fact that it is meant to be based on rioting football hooligans kind of brings into question any depth of meaning.

 

Yea..... He's referring to the influence of money in politics. The whole song is very anti-authority and paranoia, basically.

[FabriPav]

How can you people write so much?

[CarrieB]

WTF is "Libertarian left"? Kind of an oxymoron, isn't it? Maybe political leanings are described differently in the UK. In the US, the very basic explanation is left = more government, right = less government. However, in practice, both US Democrats and Republicans in the Federal Government have been wielding too much power. That's what the Tea Party movement has been about. They want to see more of a pure following of the US Constitution, and severance between wealthy corporations and individuals with government.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

 

I don't think Matt meant literal "green belts".

 

Why not? I'm not sure what you find so funny.

 

What I was trying to point out is that it doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks environmentalism is a load of tosh as those who want to preserve the green belt are not always wishing to do it for the sake of avoiding climate change.

 

Also who is that mad American guy, the radio show host who, as I understand, supports all the Tea party type stuff? Anti national health provision etc. Can't remember the exact words but Matt said something like his views sounded suspect, so I would be surprised if he's jumped on that bandwagon.

 

Also the words:

 

"They'll laugh as they watch us crawl

the lucky don't share at all"

 

don't exactly smack of coming from someone with a right wing perspective.

 

But anyway, whatever Matt's views, it would be good to know what the themes of the album are based on and hopefully we will find out more soon.

[jdeboer01]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianism

 

Ummm yea. After reading that, I'm even more convinced it's an oxymoron. There's absolutely no way a system like that would work without oppressive government rules and regulations on all human activity.

 

Some of the concepts are technically already in practice, but most people don't think of things being so. For example:

 

Similarities with Georgism

 

There are obvious affinities between the Steiner–Vallentyne approach to left-libertarianism and the approach endorsed by Henry George and his followers.[original research?] Georgists tend to believe that all humanity rightfully owns all land in common and that individuals should pay rent to the rest of society for taking sole or exclusive use of that land. People in this movement are often referred to as "single taxers," since they believe that the only legitimate tax is land rent. However, they do typically believe that private property can be created by applying labor to natural resources.[26]

 

One could also say that even under the current system, nobody actually outright "owns" the land they have supposedly purchased. People "buy" the exclusive right to "rent" a property from the previous "renter". But there are plenty of publicly enforced rules and regulations regarding land use dictated upon said "owners" of that property, making it NOT theirs to do with whatever they may choose. Also, land owners do pay "rent" on the land they own -- only it's not called "rent". It's called real estate taxes.

 

Why not? I'm not sure what you find so funny.

 

What I was trying to point out is that it doesn't necessarily mean that he thinks environmentalism is a load of tosh as those who want to preserve the green belt are not always wishing to do it for the sake of avoiding climate change.

 

I sincerely doubt Matt had this^^^ in mind. Think about it.... A "belt wrapped around your mind" would constrict and inhibit free thought and ideas -- A form of brainwashing and zombie-like line towing. He could have said "green blindfold over our eyes" and it would have meant the same thing. I get the impression he's saying **don't always trust scientists because many are funded by the "fat cats", and science is often proven to be wrong**. I don't think he's talking about a park system of any kind.

 

Also who is that mad American guy, the radio show host who, as I understand, supports all the Tea party type stuff? Anti national health provision etc. Can't remember the exact words but Matt said something like his views sounded suspect, so I would be surprised if he's jumped on that bandwagon.

 

Probably talking about Glenn Beck. The man actually has some interesting ideas. Others are a bit "out there". The same can be said about many left-leaning commentators. Keith Olberman is a total wing nut, and Janeane Garofalo has a screw or two loose as well.

 

Also the words:

 

"They'll laugh as they watch us crawl

the lucky don't share at all"

 

don't exactly smack of coming from someone with a right wing perspective.

 

It's also a ridiculously stupid line -- a la Bellamy.

 

If he's referring to the "wealthy" not sharing money, it's patently false. If he's referring to his own 15.5 million dollar Malibu mansion, then he's being both truthful and hypocritical, don't you think?

[Hyper]

Holy mother of dragons. Was that post made by the same person claiming to have neither the time nor the energy to reply to a simple Sippe question?

 

it would be energy wasted

[Tim59]

How can you people write so much?

 

I know

[Kati]

One could also say that even under the current system, nobody actually outright "owns" the land they have supposedly purchased. People "buy" the exclusive right to "rent" a property from the previous "renter". But there are plenty of publicly enforced rules and regulations regarding land use dictated upon said "owners" of that property, making it NOT theirs to do with whatever they may choose. Also, land owners do pay "rent" on the land they own -- only it's not called "rent". It's called real estate taxes.

 

Georgism is a pretty old idea. The man lived in 19th century, and if I have understood anything about UK ownership issues in that era, there was a growing population without any possibility to buy land (which was mostly owned by aristrocracy) and that was causing a lot of political problems, for example many leaving to US as there was land given out for free. What happened then was that land ownership alone did not grant a good living anymore, industry owners became more wealthy, and the whole issue became obsolete. And nowadays we are (at least we are in Finland, I suppose in US too since you are writing the text above) in the situation you described. I don't think georgism is the best example describing libertarianism.

 

 

I sincerely doubt Matt had this^^^ in mind. Think about it.... A "belt wrapped around your mind" would constrict and inhibit free thought and ideas -- A form of brainwashing and zombie-like line towing. He could have said "green blindfold over our eyes" and it would have meant the same thing. I get the impression he's saying **don't always trust scientists because many are funded by the "fat cats", and science is often proven to be wrong**. I don't think he's talking about a park system of any kind.

 

Umm, I don't get that view at all from all his lyrics and interviews I've seen. Don't you have green belts in US? I presume not because there is plenty of land in the country, unlike in UK (don't know how much you have travelled in UK, I've been driving around there and noticed there isn't much regions which would seem uninhabited, well except in Scotland). I think this is what Matt had in mind:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_belt_%28UK%29

 

And like Carrie, I think his idea was that green belts are there to lull people believing that things are okay, while politicians and other establishment of the country are doing what they want. The song is also related to the parliament scandal in UK at the time, something about their expenses and that they were cashing too much on them... I don't remember, surely UK natives will remember this.

 

Are you saying you don't believe in the scientific reports of the climate change and stuff? I've understood there are quite many in US thinking so. (Personally I'm not completely sure but I tend to think the conspiracy would be too large to succeed, i.e. there is no mind game going on).

 

In general I think Matt is talking about people believing things are ok and that the politicians know what they are doing and the media tells truthful stories, when in fact some things are just not talked about with some sort of mutual contract between press and establishment. This stuff goes on now in UK, the close connection between tabloids and prime minister is making the titles.

 

Probably talking about Glenn Beck. The man actually has some interesting ideas. Others are a bit "out there". The same can be said about many left-leaning commentators. Keith Olberman is a total wing nut, and Janeane Garofalo has a screw or two loose as well.

 

Yeah, I think it was Glenn Beck, I've seen the name before. Never heard the other names you mentioned.

 

It's also a ridiculously stupid line -- a la Bellamy.

 

If he's referring to the "wealthy" not sharing money, it's patently false. If he's referring to his own 15.5 million dollar Malibu mansion, then he's being both truthful and hypocritical, don't you think?

 

Don't mix things, Unnatural Selection as well as Uprising was written 2008-2009, when Matt was living rather middle class life in Italy. He wasn't part of the jetset at the time. I wouldn't be surprised if he saw the establishment as very distant, and not caring what the plebeians thought about them. That's exactly what I would still say about the establishment in any country, btw. Don't know what Matt thinks now when he talks with politicians, according to twitter rumours.

 

It's quite interesting to see an American talking about US political ideas... You know, about everything I've heard about Tea Party would not just be unpopular in my country, it would quite simply be regarded as ridiculous. I don't think the definition of left and right is as simple as it seems in your country either. It's also about how the money collected is used - right wing wants to support business, whereas left wing wants to directly support people with low income. Only bankers talk about simply reducing the total taxing rate.

 

About left and right: It's peculiar how bankers blab about less government involvement, as long as banking business is good. Then when it's not good, they become more left than anyone and scream politicians for help (no alternative! banks must be saved!). That has happened in so many countries now