"System change is now inevitable. Either because we do something about it, or because we will be hit by climate change. '...

"We need to develop economic models that are fit for purpose. The current economic frameworks, the ones that dominate our governments, these frameworks... the current economic frameworks, the neoclassical, the market frameworks, can deal with small changes. It can tell you the difference, if a sock company puts up the price of socks, what the demand for socks will be. It cannot tell you about the sorts of system level changes we are talking about here. We would not use an understanding of laminar flow in fluid dynamics to understand turbulent flow. So why is it we are using marginal economics, small incremental change economics, to understand system level changes?"

Thursday, February 14, 2008

Austin Energy Eschews Nuke Opportunity

According to today's Statesman, "the Austin City Council is expected today to decline an invitation to invest in two new nuclear reactors".

Some predictable responses are quoted:
"We need more energy, but we don't need to destroy our planet in the process of getting it," said Cyrus Reed, conservation director of the Lone Star chapter of the Sierra Club.


"If you look at the demand for electric power, and likely constraints on carbon emissions," said [Richard] Lester, who helped author a 2003 MIT report, The Future of Nuclear Power, "I just don't see any chance of squaring the circle without a significant increase of nuclear power."

That or carbon capture/sequestration, or both, as I see it. I could be wrong, but here's another case where we need to start with the global numbers and work back to the local, not the other way around.

No comments: