Yesterday we visited Solar Solutions, an annual B2B fair for solar energy related products. The products ranged from solar panels to storage solutions, and solar related services. Some interesting new products where presented some of which we will discuss below.
Ultra High Vacuum Solar
Solar thermal panels are quite common, but their yield and generated temperatures are relatively low. Non-vacuum go to about 80 Celsius, vacuum tubes go higher, but both are limited in their utility because many processes require higher temperatures.
One of the optimization problems of these systems is the loss of heat due to convection currents of the air in the collectors/panels. The heat causes the air to circulate and this helps transport heat from the hottest parts (inside) to the coldest (the outside). This limits the caacity of systems especially in winter when air temperatures are below zero.
There are several solutions to this problem, one is to compartmenalize the space in which air likes to move, but has advrse efects on the absorption and leads to occlusion of the collector parts of the pannel. An easier soluion is to replace the air with another gas (done in double glazing) or remove it all together. This last option is tried in vacuum panels and tubes.
Vacuum means no air, no air pressure inside, but that stil leaves te air pressure outside, which is about 1 kg / cm2 at sealevel. The weight on one m2 is 10.000 Kg! Tis means that if you remove all from a space the forces on it will become considerable. Because of this vacuum tube solar collectors have used tubes, cilinders, a shape able to withstand a lot of pressure. Due to the necessary use of tubes the area actally able to collect solar energy is limied, causing a kind of tradeoff betwen increased efficiency and yield/m2. Still vacuum tbe collectors can generate high temperatures even when it is freezing.
One drawback of the common vacuumtube collctor is hat the strength of the vacuum is not that great. Vacuum means no gas, and even though glass is a formidable gas barrier some will sneak in over time,and the vacuum will be lost.
The climate negotiations in Paris have very little teeth. Most countries are at emissions reduction trajectories that are almost natural considering the advantages of renewables over fossil fuels. Not trying to set binding targets makes the COP20 very weak, but the question could be asked: Is that the right strategy anyway. Herman Scheer already dismissed it as “Globally acting, locally postponing”, a deeper problem may exist.
A carbon emissions satellite image
How do you know what impact a climate target will have on your economy? You really have to know your economy to begin with, then there are many unknowns to consider, especially in a free market economy. What would setting a global reduction target to stay below 2 degrees mean anyway? What counts is how it would be executed, and setting that in some kind of contract is next to impossible.
COP Meetings are basically fossil fuel representative gatherings where they can argue about who can use the most the longest
Even if a system gets introduced to curb CO2 emissions, for instance the Emissions Trading System or ETS, we see that it is on the one hand used to financialize (increasing emissions) and on the other hand weakend by an abundance of ‘rights’, there will be a 2 billion surplus in 2020. Such a solution that is introduced over a large zone proves less effective than the cure to its flaws applied in the UK : A local carbon tax that leads to a minimum price for ETSes bought by companies in the UK.
Perhaps states should not be asked to agree on targets, but compete over them. They should show to be the lowest emitter year on year or even month on month in return for a serious bonus. Judgement should be pooled in one organization under the UN, or IPCC. A constant tally of all emissions per jurisdiction should be kept and every month and year, a reward for reduction should be payed out from a global fund everyone pays into. The goal would be to lower the emissions per capita and even make them negative (something some consider impossible, but which is as simple as planting a tree and not burning it).
A precentage reduction metric would slow down progress eventually, because 5% of 100 = 5 but 5% of 20 = 1
What is lacking right now is insight into the numbers. There are complex models but we have not seen a ranking of countries by emissions that is detailed to show individual actions that led to the reductions yet. Many states instead still choose (or are corrupted into) increasing emissions.
Divide the CO2 above a territory by its surface area and you have its CO2 score. This score could be compared by month or even week, year on year. Ranking is by approximation of 1990 CO2 ppm levels.
A competitive system makes it unnecessary to agree, except on the rules of the competition, which are pretty clear and will become more clear as more satelites can observer CO2 pollution directly. Of course care must be taken to find the sources of CO2 so to attribute them correctly. Alternatively this can be considered a ‘known bug’ competitors simply have to deal with.
Climategames can be divided in leagues, with the little league for developing countries taking small steps and the big league for big countries
It’s a “I don’t care how you do it, just do it!” method that seems much more efficient than giving the fossil fuel economy every opportunity to defend itself in COP negotiations.
Another way to incentivise action is to have a running lottery. The advantage is that it delivers bigger prices (to fewer). A point about any climate game is that it has to reward the citizen, not the government. Then if you consider the popularity and low cost of lotteries citizen will appreciate it when they recieve prices for their territory making most headway. The choice of which territory gets a reward is based on science, the choice of who will recieve that reward is based on a lottery.
You are in the lottery by definition, or maybe you have to sign up to be able to recieve a price
Perhaps the lottery can use the metric of the trajectories so that if a country is faster than it’s business as usual trajectory it gains points.
The dutch state has been sued in court by the Urgenda Foundation and supporters for putting its citizen in harm’s way by not adopting more agressive emissions targets. We are waiting for the verdict which (in the best possible world) will take the form of a minimum mandatory emissions trajectory. Greencheck also looked into the legal options regarding the climate threat around 2010. We first looked into suing the state but didn’t consider a human rights or international justice approach easy to execute. We also investigated another option, which is self defence (against extinction).
To that end we where able to talk to a lawyer at a established law firm located in The Hague, for free. The question we asked was : “Is there a way to justify direct action against pollutors based on defending yourself against the ultimate effects of that pollution.” The ultimate effects of the current pollution (be it with CO2 or otherwise) of our environment is that humanity goes extinct. This is a scientific certainty if we do not act more responsibly and a big risk by now even if we do.
Holland has self defence laws that allow you to destroy property and even kill if you do it in defence of your own life. If you are woken up by a burglar and he confronts you on the stairs and you kick him down it, causing serious injury, the judge will rule that you did this because you feared for your life, not because you had an intent to harm. This defence wouldn’t work normally because the pollutors, take for example internal combustion cars, are not a direct threat to our lives and safety (at least most of the time). We can simply avoid them.
Civil disobedience may be the best direct action for now
The discussion with the lawyer came to a case where a girl killed her father after years of abuse (these things get extreme, of course killing anything is not under discussion here). There wasn’t a real cause at the moment she acted, but she had been fed up with the accumulation of abuse. The judge accepted that she experienced a temporary madness in which she killed her father brought on by many small (or bigger) abuses over a longer timeperiod. She was not punsished for her behaviour.
Long periods of abuse can cause moments of madness
Analogous one could say (in principle) that any individual that has to confront polluting cars on a daily basis, or read about species going extinct, environmental damage and moves by companies and individuals to further destroy and pollute the world we live in, could build up a rage against this which could express itself in a brief episode of madness and rage, directed at for instance a car or property of the ones doing the polluting. The damage done in such a moment of madness could be dismissed by a judge, because we are allowed to defend ourselves to real threats.
A climate-mad individual would not know where to start
Of course it is not a clear cut defence, because causality and reasons to feel abused have to be made understandable. The person in question has to be sensitive to the pollution. Any such act can not somehow follow from understanding this self defence option, because that would not constitute an act of madness anymore. But if a person knows that his/her surroundings he/she are what supports their lives, and identifies pollutors as directly harming the integrity of this support, then that person could after fighting the urge to disrespect the property of the pollutor for a long time, fail to subdue him/her self one time, and go mad, damaging whatever embodyment of that pollutor presents itself during that fit of rage.
Inhibition can fail
This type of reasoning shows an interesting aspect of justice, namely that scientific causality is not really respected or seen as an adequate motivator per se. Consider that using scientific methods that are agreed upon by the majority of scientist, and a judge that also believes in these methods (and the subsequent reliability of causal chains considered highly likely as a result), it should be easy to justify damage to CO2 pollutors as they threaten our lives indirectly and sometimes even directly.
Dead oceans are certain if we don’t act, and dead oceans produce gasses that kill oxygen breathing organisms on land, plants and animals. This happened before.
For instance the acidification and deoxygenation of our oceans will bring about the production of toxic gasses in them that will most likely kill all large land mammals and plants. It has done so before and all the conditions for a repeat are met. So you know this and you find it unacceptable and you damage a car or something that is part of the cause. Court respects expert opinions, so such acts of self defence (or indeed protection of fellow citizens) should be considered just. Will it?
If an enemy has many seemingly harmless embodiments, can we say we fight that enemy if we disable the embodiments?
Many people today know about the prospects of humanity in the next decades and the effect activities around us every day influence those prospects. As the damage becomes more real in the form of floods and droughts more people will see that you can rely on scientific predictions. Even the dutch state believes that by 2100 hunderds of thousands more will die because of climate change in Holland. It seems there is ample reason for more people to go crazy and judges (at least in Holland) to accept that. Especially because there is are many ways for society to avoid this calamity, and all involve stopping the current pollutors.
The dutch state is in court, sued by the Urgenda foundation and about 800+ individual citizens. They crime it is accused off is one against future generations, it is accused of not doing enough to target an emissions trajectory that allows global average temperatures to remain below 2 degrees Celsius more than pre-industrial levels.
It is a difficult case, because the causality and direct victimization are hard to prove. Also there needs to be some benefit from any conviction which will take the form of the court ordering the dutch state to keep with a certain more agressive emissions reduction trajectory.
The demands are not unrealistic, because several european and non european countries are targeting twice the reductions Holland is targeting. So clearly judgement there is that this is the right thing to do, and feasible. Holland is stuck with a right wing government that has paralized en effective response to climate change since about 2007.
This option of legal action is advised by the legal experts, it has taken 3 years to develop its momentum and justified recourse to the court (because you can’t go to court if the government was somehow responsive to the demands). We investigated the options for another tactic one can apply for climate action which is altogether more agressive, but worth mentioning in this context, it is described here.
Right now the judge is considering many aspects of the case, from whether it is up to a judge (instead of politics) to consider these facts to whether the claims made by the state are true and those made by Urgenda are true, to whether there are real victims and benefit. It could be the case is dismissed on a technicality, it could be the case is dismissed because any order to act is superfuous (the state is considered to be doing or promising to do enough). We will know more on june 24th, when the verdict is delivered.
Basic agreed assumptions
Climate change is man made and can be influenced by policy
Current policy is not ambitious
Holland has had twice the ambition but this is reduced by the right wing government
Emissions Trading Scheme
The scheme will retain a surplus of about 2 billion rights
Many states have suplemantary carbon taxes to reduce CO2 This is allowed within the EU
Emissions moving elsewhere due to measures
Companies moving to less strickt countries
Predicted that any reduction of emissions will be 82%-88%
Carbonleaking to outside the EU is not observed
Lawyer explaining to the court that reducing emissions early is a lot more effective than later, and that one can lose the chance to control temperatures below 2 degrees.
The court can not argue that it can’t act because of ineffectiveness
The state claimed it was tied to EU ETS, this is not true
The economic crisis has caused an emissions reduction
Emissions targets need to be independent of the economic situation
The state will have to choose stronger targets to achieve their stated reduction goals
Germany targets a 55% reduction in 2030 which is much more ambitious than the EU target
English reports show that the EU target of 40% in 2030 does not suffice
The EU economy will suffer 0,04% from more ambitious climate policy
If the EU doesn’t stive for more ambitious targets the cost will have to be carried by emerging economies
The EU talks about 80% in 2050, but 80-95% was originally required
The EU target of 40% is not certain due to a ‘flexibility clause’ that requires all members to match the commitments.
To achieve a 40% reduction in 2050 we need 25% reduction in 2020
The court should and has no reason to not dictate at least 25% in 2020The court can dictate a faster trajectory, as is followed by GermanyWe have 1000 Gigaton emissions left, which will run out in 2035, meaning that we should be 100% carbon neutral in 2035. This means we have to do the maximum possible at the shortest possible terms.Current trajectory makes 2 degrees Celsius unavoidable. This drives citizen to demand the court to order the state to take stonger action.Remarks second lawyer
What the state does is a matter of politics.
The state has been locked up in a “You first” mentality.
All negotiations have failed to meet the required targets.
We are facing 4 degrees catastrophic climate change.
Dutch government is aware it is not meeting targets.
Binding reduction targets are no longer the goal of the climate conference.
Holland doesn’t negotiate at the COP 20 meeting.
Targets for the COP20 meeting are already set and for 2030.
All emissions should stop asap
CO2 will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years
Warming is linear with emissions
Zero emissions is expected to be reached in 2050-2070
Dutch State Defence Responses
State is aware of climate change and the need for action
Since 1995 governmental action was to keep below 2 Celsius degrees warming
Holland can not do it alone
Holland is pleading for climate action at the COP20 meeting in Paris
There is no legal binding law telling Holland to reduce emissions
The emission reduction target can not be checked on validity by the state
Any decision by the judge should be to some advantage, what is that advantage? It has to be new law. And a judge can not order the creation of new laws.
As long as Holland is acting on the climate threat a supplementary ruling by the judge is unecessary.
With current targets extra measures are needed to achieve 40% reduction in 2030.
Climate problem is a global commons problem, needs to be tackled together
Limits should be widespread and pervasive in each industry plus monitoring.
In 2014 Holland has -pledged- 100 mljn in the green climate fund.
Human rights only valid within the participants of the human rights agreement
It is not yet sure that the 2 degree targets are not going to be met.
Risk will always remain
EU court judges climate and other diseaster responsibility in terms of specific risks and victims.
State considers itself to have a wide margin for action, so it can not be forced to specific constraints from Urgenda
Judges should not talk about specific targets
The conditions of the unjust act are not met, there is no clear causal link.
Also the human rights act does not force countries to protect its citizen.
More details to follow..
Verdict will be delivered on the june 24th at 10:00 am.
A Basic income has been on the lips of a growing number of people. Switzerland recently held a referendum on it, an income of about 2500,- Euro per citizen. Some pundits (not real thinkers) like Guy Standing try to create a new class of people, the Precariat, just another name for ‘the poor’, trying to sell raising people out of poverty as somehow the effects of a basic income (duh).
There is nothing miraculous or innovative about the benificial effects of giving poor people some money
What is wrong with his ideas we explain below. Other ‘examples’ are the way Alaska pays its citizen an annual divident (because it sells its oil). Again nothing different from simple common economics. Also quite often people are shown talking about a basic income as a response to automation, focusing on job losses and the impossibility to find any work that generates income. Still most of these people miss the key ingredient that would make their argument solid as a rock, because : Yes, automation is making it impossible to earn a living for a growing number of people.
Wealth = Materials x Skills x Energy
The big mistake or ommision in these examples and debates is the focus on money and jobs. This focus leads to a lack of attention to the key incredient necessary to support a basic income. Most people don’t understand that if you say : “Money is not enough to support a basic income, in fact, if you need it you will surely fail” because to them money is something independent of everything else, a controlling currency that can be applied to problems like water quenches thirst.
Money is a means of exchange, so if you think it has value you have to specify what money represents to make that true
Money represents something. You may say it represents everything you can buy with it, but that hides the fact that to MAKE everything you can buy with money you need something more fundamental, which you have to be able to buy with the same money. That something is energy. To buy bread you need to buy the energy to bake it, plough the field, irrigate, mill, transport etc etc. Right now that energy is owned by oil/gas/coal or renewable enery companies first. They need money or they won’t deliver the energy. You need that to happen to have your basic income. Unless you find a solution to that need, you will see one of two things:
You can’t get people to make the money available, the energy lobby doesn’t allow it, money given away will buy their stuff.
You get a stipend, a bit of money accepted by the energy lobby. This money however does not create a sustainable basic income situation you envision (the Alaska situation).
Even if the energy lobby is ok with it, banks don’t like the idea because it decreases the competitive atmosphere that drives companies into debt. They will lose customers as well as a way to scare workers into doing shit jobs.
The idea of the basic income can not work unless the resources needed to sustain the recipients of that basic income to come from the recipients. So we can create a basic income society that lasts forever with any group as long is this system does not depend on anything from outside the system. As long as we use fossil fuels or renewable sources that are not part of the system that condition can not be met.
You can’t build a basic income scheme if you are dependent on people outside it to support it
Doing an experiment where people recieve a bit of money without having to work for it without creating a closed system is simply subsidizing the manufacturers. It has been going on for decades in the form of easy jobs, economic booms like the dot.com and housing bubbles. The economy provides people with a basic income when it makes it easy to earn the money to sustain onesself. Now because fossil fuels are under growing pressure, these types of incomes are being cut and the fight is between those that think the ‘precariat/poor’ should die and those that want to find a solution.
A working Basic Income scheme
What basic income scheme would work? The answer lies in looking at the complete system, including all the inputs needed. The key to making it work lies in not depending on anyone for the basic necessity of energy. Energy combined with skilled labour (and automated systems) can use available resource, waste even and recycle it into whatever is needed. This is how farmers lived for millenia, with fixed recyclable biomass, solar energy (and occasionally wind), and locally manufactured technology.
We don’t claim we should go back to some primitive society, only that those societies where autonomous, people didn’t have to work all the time, there was always something to do for who wanted it, and there was plenty of food for everyone. Today we can do even better. The setup we can choose is the following:
People wanting a basic income can pool their resources to unburden the food supply chain from all recurrent energy cost. Farmers can produce all the energy they need to work the farm themselves, make fertilizer themselves, repair their equipment themselves. This is the firs step. Using a new currency a basic income is distributed to those in the pool that allows them to get their daily food, essentially for free or in return for a bit of work. This is an example of an extraeconomic closed system, but it can be interwoven in normal society.
The pool of basic income initiators will replace all energy needs in important parts of the economy with renewables in return for currency to buy the products created with the energy. Either the raw materials will become owned by the basic incomers or they will set up renewable based waste recycling plants to gather them where nobody wants to look. This is part of a strategy to reduce cost by applying renewables, and creating currency to allow those that reduced the costs to buy the now nearly free products.
Basic incomers adjust their lifestyle to fostering a growing closed, mostly local system that provides them with what they need. They can use automation, technology and their own labour, but what they guarantee themselves is that they can stay alive and healthy.
There is even a perfect demographic to become basic incommers, and those are the pensioners and retired people of the world. If they invest their money into the renewable resouces to build local closed systems to sustain themselves, they will not only secure themselves against fossil fuel calamities but will also be the first generation to enjoy a truely sustainable lifestyle.
Money can facilitate trades that are not possible by barter, so introduction of a currency in itself can free up economic potential
The observation that poor people benefit from free money is nothing to be surprised about. What they mainly observe is that money can create economic liquidity, meaning it can allow equitable exchange of work over larger timespans. This is true even if the money doesn’t buy anything to begin with.
We’re witnessing a development in car driving that has yet unexplored consequences. It is an example of automation and it should lead to less cost for all, because computing power is dirt cheap and cars will be all electric and freely charged (because sunlight is free isn’t it?).
But an alternative scenario is more likely. It is one in which autonomous driving becomes a service you need to subscribe to. How to introduce it? Through the trusty tool of big everything : Fear.
Already some are comparing the safety of autonomous vehicles to those with drivers. As the security standards of driverless cars have to be higher than cars with drivers the safety argument will be used to push every car towards being autonomous. This opens up some possibilities.
First people will be told they are irresponsible if they drive their dangerous cars themselves, and slowly driving will become a thing of the past, everyone sitting in cars moving from A to B autonomously.
As this happens there will already be quality difference between one autonous car and another. Differences in acceleration, turning, routing, general speed and ability. This will develop in a competition between almost equal systems. This happens because fossil credit banking will create a competitive environment to load each competitor to the maximum with debt. A trick they use all the time.
Driver monitoring station, empty of course, what don’t you get about ‘autonomous’
Because of the ubiquity of wireless, autonomous cars will become centrally controlled by a big computer that models the movements of all cars. This allows predictive driving, anticipating roadblocks and adapting speed to allow optimal interweaving of traffic. All this requires a lot of computing power, in fact, it will be the question if what will be claimed is computed will actually be, because routing problems are NP complete, meaning the time to compute them explodes very quickly and real answers soon take more time to compute than there is left in our universe. Multiply that by a couple of billion cars.
So the centrally offered driving service will never be perfect, and will require real computing power (even if such is not delivered, meaning as a non driver you can no longer oversee whether the car drives a smart route or not). We’ll have bronze driving for suckers in the lowest cost electric cars, then silver driving for workers that need to be on time and feel rewarded, and gold driving for those that don’t need to be anywhere they don’t want to be. All subscription services, monthly fees.
If you don’t work hard to earn enough, your driving will SUCK
Result : Everyone will be paying for their car on a contiuous basis again. Autonomous cars turn out to be a gateway to totally dependent cars.
This scenario nicely demonstrates that it is possible to gain no freedom from automation, especially if it delivers a complex service we can’t perform ourselves. In the case of driving many will be scared away from driving themselves, hoping to live longer easier lives. But all will have to work to earn the money to drive somehow, just like today, while we are seeing a window open where we buy a car and never have to pay for fuel or driving again (Tesla being the most prominent).
There’s a lot more to say about the future mentioned above, but let’s see if the scenario painted actually materializes.
We’ll say it first, with good reason : Prices of renewables will go negative soon. This will be a result of two factors: 1. Production cost will go negative, meaning production can happen without returns 2. Governments will adopt a policy of maximum rollout speed, aided by the negative costs.
How can cost of anything go negative? The first step is to be able to originate the products without help. Think of a well spring which produces water, it has to because of geology and rainfall patterns. Nobody has to buy water to replenish the spring, it flows on its own. The same way solar panel producers will find they have reduced cost in the supply chain to zero, and can go negative. How is this done? By using renewables in every step, renewables owned by the producers themselves.
Negative electricity prices in the US
Paint a scenario in which a solar panel factory has to source its silicon, glass, aluminium from different producers. First it cuts cost by using solar electricity to refine the Silicion (which has to be separated from oxygen and purified in an energy intensive process), this already happens. Then it can cut cost by turning the glass manufacturing in gas based to electrical, and providing the glass producer with solar panels to cover its melting needs (another silicium oxide proces by the way). Third it sources the alumium from iceland, where it is processed using geothermal heat at competitive cost. This is the start of the process of cost reduction, but ultimately the cost will not only be zero, they will go negative. How?
Negative prices in Europe
For a while now we have seen negative electicity costs in the european market. Germany at times produces to much wind electricity, and as storage is being delayed by the fossil credit based economy the market price of megawatthours of electricity can go as low as minus 200 Euro. This has promted a dutch aluminium smelter to restart its operations. How nice if you can melt aluminium when the cost of doing so is zero or negative!
There need to be many changes in the production and logistics chain to get real negative prices, so a bonus for installing solar for instance, but it is an eventuality that seems unavoidable. Not only because it makes good business sense, but also because for instance, energy storage will lag behind the rise in production, so the use of the energy in production processes will become very attractive and stay attractive for ever. The obstruction of storage by the central distributing fossil based producers will bite it in the tail.
Holland will soon have an aluminium smelter, its own silicon refiners and solar panel factories. It can recycle glass with clean energy. It may be the first to produce at negative prices, extraeconomically, if it doesn’t sell to the international market.
Of course governments, as they are being cleansed of climate denier and fossil fuel lakeys, will become more agressive in preventing the catastrophic changes we (as predicted by the IPCC) see unfolding under our eyes. Part of that is not only going carbon neutral, but going seriously carbon negative. It will be come clear that we can do that, so leaders will step up that will do that. Like Paris no longer allows a roof to be carbon neutral, dictating it has to be either a green or a solar roof, governments will dictate there can be no unused space, roof or garden that could catch carbon or reduce emissions.
This possibility of negative prices shows the invalidity of classic fossil credit based economics
But there is another step that will change the game completely. That is the advent of what we call Extraeconomics. Extraeconomics is the framework of thinking about Extraeconomic zones. What are those? Extraeconomic zones are zones that 1. Have no ties with the world economy, 2. Run entirely on renewables and 3. Are dedicated to increasing carbon capture. They will come about because economics is too greedy and to dirty to fight climate change effectively. We have written about this before see here.
The key to Extraeconomics is to aknoweldge two facts : 1. Economics is about exploitation of available resources. Not the creation of them. Using fossil fuels. and 2. Renewables redraw the map of economic viability of our planet. Areas that before looked like they where uninhabitable now suddenly look perfectly capable of sustaining life.
The first fact is what has been getting us into this diseastrous state of near depleted resources, toxic oceans and atmospheres. The reason being that the economic model works like this : You see an opportunity to create a product or service of value? Ok, we give you the fossil fuel credit to bring that about. In return you help us keep money scarce (pay interest) and we can enjoy some of the fruits of your labour.
What this amounts to is :
You : “Hey, a pristine forrest! If I had fuel for chainsaws, trucks and the sawmill, I could sell the wood into ‘the market’!”
Bank : “Ok, here’s fuel credit. We’ll be rich!”
You : “Hey, these are fertile lands for tree planting. If I plant trees here and wait 12 years I can cut them down and do the same thing as the other guy.”
Bank : “Hold on! That’s 12 years of investment without returns! And how much fuel do you need? Not much huh? Ok, scram buddy!”
The above happens every time when the value to be traded is a result of a long process. This is why resources are being depleted. Oil itself is a good example, it’s “Get rich now” stuff as opposed to waiting 250 million years for plant biomass to fossilize and turn into coal, oil etc.
So there needs to be a separate paradigm to restore and replenish earths resources, and it can not be based on bank investment models (which are designed to run a fossil fuel credit system). Even though one may invest fossil fuels in an extraeconomic project, it will never produce a return to any lender and what is more shocking, it will produce value without bringing it to the market. What it will do is keep the community running it alive and well.
Extraeconomics is about overproducing carbon capturing commodities and not selling to the market
We will see that with the rise of renewables and the dire situation humanity finds itself in combined with the feasibility of extraeconomic projects, these projects will be set up and extraeconomic zones will grow in the heart of Africa, Australia, Chile and other now barren regions. The oceans similarly will become a tool to grow food and recapture carbon. All these things will be possible because renewable energy is so much more abundant than fossil energy ever was, and it is spread out over the surface of earth. It will bring about a revolution from the myopic city oriented visions of the future to one where people live across the globe, connected, productive and happy. One in which ‘classic’ economics is dead, and nobody is mourning.
[Update 8-4: Well, the below post has become a irrelevant as Tsipras has agreed with Putin to build a new Greek pipeline from the turkish border into Greece (which putin hopes will supply as far as Italy). This sellout means Greece will be a slave nation like Ukraine for the forseeable future. Tsipras can be quoted as “Greece is a sovereign nation” but he obviously is to weak to notice he sold out. Its always easier to negotiate when you’re too lazy to do anything painfull. This move also means that Greece is less protected by the EU countries as long as this stupid antagonism (which started over gas) continues]
Greece is in trouble, it has build up a significant debt with the ECB, IMF and other creditors and it doesn’t generate the money to serve those debts. Yanis Varoufakis explains how the debt Greece has was only a tool for the German economy to allow its exports to grow, so more a gift to Germany than to Greece. He is right when het describes a system in which rich countries circulate money to foreign countries to drive their own economies. To him the predicament Greece is in is just a lack of honesty about this strategy on the part of banks, a strategy that never served Greece. That’s what he’s been trying to make Germany see in the last weeks, with little succes.
The fundamental flaw he points out in Greece is that it can not produce enough interesting products to generate export revenue sufficient to be independent of the (selfish) external cash injections. The idea of loans to Greece (as long as they where not of the Goldman Sachs loanshark type) was to give it the challenge to create enough exportable goods with 100% of the loan to generate income for say 5% of interest payments. That is the basic principle of investments. It didn’t work because in reality they where not investments, they where money to spend on European imports. They did nothing to reduce Greeces lack of export potential.
Yanis’s thinking on Greek debt.
The current fight Yanis has is to get rid of the ‘debt’ in a way that doesn’t drag the country down into chaos, as the banks maintain that the primary objective was never for Germany to help Germany. Why? Because a completely broke Greece still has a lot of value the banks like to monetize on. What Greece lacks is control over these malignant sharks. Also Europe can not afford to break the pretense of these self interested ‘investments’ because the system they are part of keeps the Eurozone together.
Money Greece borrows is spend on fossil fuels, which are burned without leaving anything to pay the interest on the loan
It is easy to see how Greece needs to produce Euros to pay the debts, while it also needs Euros to function. It now rings the doorbel of Russia (and other parts of the BRICS group) and asks for help there, which should not be a big political thing, but what can Greece offer Russia in return that would not ameliorate its problems with Europe? Russia and Europe are in the middle of a rearrangement to reduce the gas dependency of Europe. Greece imagines itself as a hub for Russian oil and gas, and if that happens it certainly can count on financial support from it.
The system Yanis has to demolish is the carboncredit system. He can with renewable energy
The sad thing about all this is that this would not reduce Greeces dependency on foreign cash, it would start to work for Russia in moving the dangerous and polluting hydrocarbons, to be burned into the atmosphere at immense cost down the line. It would perhaps develop gas/oil dependent industries usefull to Russia, but it would stay weak as it is now.
The alternative though is for Greece to literally fight a war of independence. It would have to reorganize itself in a shocking way, to make the greek citizen realize the energy and food potential the country clearly has. It would have to mobilize to create so much renewable energy capacity that it can take care of itself, produce goods and services for itself, without the need of exteral (carbon)credit. (We all know that money is primarily a means to allow the owner to purchase fossil fuels, or allow it to be purchased to support the production/logistics/sales chain).
A destructive too course for Greece also creates European tensions
Of course this state of independence shall -never- be, because Greece is weak and that is pretty usefull to all its neighbours, that is, independence won’t be allowed, it has to be fought. Yanis doesn’t seem to contemplate it now, but he (or his replacement) might have to if the country wants to escape more and more humiliation and depravity.
A Greek currency gives Greece control over the activities of its population
One important step to take for Greece is to get a handle on its own workforce and market. It has to reinstate an independent currency to achieve that, it can stay in the Euro, but part of mobilizing its workforce in more flexible ways is to reinstate a Drachme or perhaps a cryptocurrency. Bitcoin was suggested as an Apri Fools measure, but it is not far off. The problem with Bitcoin is that lots of foreigners own it, it has to be mined at great energy expense, and the blockchain servers are few and not in Greece. It would be much easier to simply start a Greekcoin, even using the same ledger system as bitcoin, just without the mining.
Pockets of autonomy would have to be developed, primarily in agriculture sector
Having an internal currency would allow Greece to peel away parts of its economy in which it doesn’t need the Euro. Parts that are more or less autonomous. Those Euro’s can be used to pay of debt and get rid of loans. This would start a ‘mining’ operation to find and develop autonomy in Greeces economy. A major tool in that efford would be the introduction of renewable energy and sustainable farming methods.
Hmm.. not so foolish after all?
The ‘greekcoin’ approach would also enable Greece to mobilize workers and direct activities in its economy outside the control of the Eurobankers. Even if it doesn’t solve the debt, it allows flexibility to implement changes that will reduce dependence on Europe.
We may have entered an era in which no region is ever allowed to develop (economic) independence, for simple security reasons. Most problems today emanate from independend regions and nations.
Introduction of the Drachme is often described as an exercise where the Drachme will be worthless or have some fixed value against the Euro. The key is that Greece doesn’t have to care what its internal currency is worth against any external ones. It can even prohibit the exchange and mandate (similarly to countries) that the Euro is used for some transactions and the Drachme for others. It just needs to use its currency to the best effect for Greece.
The altenative to loyalty to a Greek currency is mobilization and forced labour, or dependence
It seems Greece may not be there yet, it may not be ready yet to put it’s shoulders under such a currency, like it would put its shoulders under a rebuilding of the country after a world war. That is the effort needed from it to become independend, to escape the fossil fuel credit chains. Maybe it finds leaders that can inspire it to move that way, but more likely at this time, as it is not mobilizing and working frantically to reduce it’s dependence, it first has to sink deeper to see the key ingredient to free itself : Renewable energy.
P.S Perhaps Greece should follow through on building the first Rossi e-cat power plants as multiple studies report cold fusion is real.
Update : Asking for war reparations doesn’t solve the issue, although it does create an opportunity for Germany to build and install renewable energy capacity in Greece that can help the country sustain itself. The worst that can come of such a request is increased antagonism in Greek society against Europe and Germany, while the problem is only with the economic policy, not with its people. Those that want Greece to destroy itself will surely polarize whoever they can over this issue.