Re: [Phys-l] Climate skeptic convinced by data. Was: Re: Mike Mann _The hockey

["David Marx" <marx@phy.ilstu.edu>]

Hugh,

What you have said about increased GDP using less energy is true for the US as a whole since the 
mid-1980s.  Through the development of new technologies and the export of a lot of our industries, we 
have greatly reduced our energy usage, while GDP has continued to grow.  This is reflected in the 
parameter called energy intensity, defined as total energy/GDP.  Our economy has changed a lot in the 
past few decades.  My primary point was that if one is to build a new infrastructure utilizing new energy 
sources, one will have to have a supply of energy and a strong economy to do it.  A weak economy 
cannot obtain the necessary resources to undertake the effort.  Therefore, present policies that 
undermine the US' ability to obtain domestic and foreign energy resources prevent us from making the 
desired change.  It's nice to talk about "green jobs," but we've seen numerous examples of heavily 
subsidized "green companies" go bankrupt in the past three years.  Even established companies with 
renewable energy divisions have been unable to fair well, even though there is a huge effort to expand 
those energy sources.  Granted wind power has been in exponential growth for several years with a 
rate of growth of around 33 %, we've seen those companies struggle under the inability to obtain 
capital.

David 

On 20 Feb 2012 at 21:30, Hugh Haskell wrote:

> At 1:01 PM -0600 2/20/12, David Marx wrote:
>
> > There is a
> > correlation between per capita energy usage and GDP
>
> There is a relationship between the two, but it is much more complex 
> than your comment implies. California's per capita energy use has 
> been nearly constant for the past 40 years but the state's GDP has 
> increased well beyond inflation. The relationship between energy use 
> and GDP is changing in all developed nations, moving to less of an 
> effect, as exemplified by the California experience. A significant 
> fraction of China's recent increase in per capita energy use is due 
> to its heavy investment in manufacturing for other nations (not just 
> to sell their products to other nations but to build the products 
> specified by and designed in foreign industries, and intended for 
> sale in those countries rather than in China).
>
> Energy use reduction as a result of efficiency improvements will not 
> reduce GDP, and will more likely increase it.
>
> Energy use reduction by conservation efforts will more likely shift 
> the investment energy elsewhere than reduce it--from building new 
> power plants to other investments to take advantage of the newly 
> available capital and the available energy.
>
> Converting energy production from polluting and GHG-emitting sources 
> to clean sources will require capital investments and will also free 
> up more capital for more useful investments, such as modernizing the 
> electric grid and electrifying the transportation sector.
>
> Reduction in total energy use as well as pollution doe to energy 
> production will save billions of $$ in health care and environmental 
> damage mitigation.
>
> These actions will not damage our economy, they will energize it.
>
> Hugh
>
> -- 
> Hugh Haskell
> mailto:hugh@ieer.org
> mailto:haskellh@verizon.net
>
> I have been wondering for a long time why some of our own defense 
> officials do not
> put more emphasis on finding a good substitute for oil and worry less 
> about where
> more oil is to come from.  Our people are ingenious. New discoveries 
> are all around
> us, and when we have to make them, we nearly always do.
>
> 						Eleanor Roosevelt
> 						February 13, 1948
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2113/4822 - Release Date: 02/20/12