tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post545340559096257374..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: Nature is not a Budget ItemMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-25787653502671599532007-10-26T14:37:00.000-07:002007-10-26T14:37:00.000-07:00Blogger seems to have clobberred tidal's links. He...Blogger seems to have clobberred tidal's links. Here they are again:<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.cge.uevora.pt/aspo2005/abscom/ASPO2005_Ayres.pdf" REL="nofollow">pdf</A><BR/>and<BR/><A HREF="http://www.cge.uevora.pt/aspo2005/abscom/ASPO2005_Hall.ppt" REL="nofollow">ppt</A><BR/><BR/>People invoking the laws of thermodynamics would do well to understand them; say well enough to do undergraduate problems about the Carnot cycle. From what I can tell this whole sub-field has made a bad false start. Some of the insights are very much in line with what I'm trying to say here. Unfortunately the arguments from physics appear to be fundamentally unsound. It's hard to base a useful quantitative theory on a misinterpretation of physics.<BR/><BR/>I agree that an alternative quantitative economic formulation is needed, but I don't see much basis for one here. <BR/><BR/>I think biogeochemistry may present a sounder basis than thermodynamics. Thermodynamics tells us we have are a very long way from our limits. Negative entropy is not our limiting resource, and talking about it because it seems so, um, scientific doesn't actually form a basis for substantive reasoning.<BR/><BR/>I agree we need to come up with a new quantitative theory of economics that accounts for our constraints. Unfortunately, thermodynamics will not help, because our constraints are not thermodynamic.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-25781263141999691232007-10-26T11:10:00.000-07:002007-10-26T11:10:00.000-07:00The latter slide show is excellent, though I don't...The latter slide show is excellent, though I don't agree with some of its thrust.<BR/><BR/>Energy is not wealth. My present requirement to drive to work when in the past I could take a train or a bicycle I consider a setback, a form of poverty.<BR/><BR/>The second law still offers us very little guidance. There's no lack of thermodynamic entropy gradients for us to work with, and the Rifkinite generalization of the concept is pseudoscientific bilge.<BR/><BR/>However, I really liked the block diagram of "how a real economy works". That part is where we need to put our minds.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-16579461642602462472007-10-26T10:57:00.000-07:002007-10-26T10:57:00.000-07:00Neo-classical economic theory arose in an world wh...Neo-classical economic theory arose in an world where our footprint on the earth was much less. Consider when/where Wealth of Nations was written, for instance. The focus was on the "scarcities" in the system at the time - e.g. labour and capital - and the abstractions (whether intentional or not) that resources were limitless and that there were no meaningful externalities were "accurate" enough that the models worked reasonably well.<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, the economy was always a subsytem of the environment, so those abstractions were always in error. Fast forward a few centuries you have a neo-classical economic paradigm that is trying to retrofit to accommodate resource depletion, atmospheric commons, negative externalities on environment and ecosystem services, etc.<BR/><BR/>Nevertheless, we need some economic paradigm to organize our thinking about human economic activity that both reflects observed behaviour and natural realities/limits. Michael, I recall on the globalchange thread that you made some comment about Kenneth Sayre's book, where you took issue with the concept of integrating entropic theories with economics. I am not quite sure why that was, but I think that we will eventually see thermodynamics deeply integrated into mainstream economics in order to deal with the existing model's shortcomings. Georgescu-Roegen, Daley, Ayres & Warr, etc. are right. Check this for a concise discussion http://www.cge.uevora.pt/aspo2005/abscom/ASPO2005_Ayres.pdf or, a little lighter here http://www.cge.uevora.pt/aspo2005/abscom/ASPO2005_Hall.ppt . I think you would get a kick out of the last slide in that latter link!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-56594083849206065232007-10-26T07:50:00.000-07:002007-10-26T07:50:00.000-07:00Well, Joe Romm over at ClimateProgress recently ha...Well, Joe Romm over at ClimateProgress recently had numerous screeds against Schellenberger and Nordhaus for pointing out this very thing and offering alternative frames. So you should watch out for dissent. <BR/><BR/>And this is notwithstanding that almost every aspect of our society is set up to separate us from nature.<BR/><BR/>Best,<BR/><BR/>DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.com