Welcome to new Forum Visitors
Join the forum now and benefit from discussions with thousands of other green building fans and discounts on Green Building Press publications: Apply now.
Posted By: tonyI saw this phrase in an article the other week end "Sustainable use of fossil fuels"
For me it is the final nail in the coffin of the "S" word. rendering it meaningless -- we need a new word if it can be used like thathttp:///forum114/extensions/Vanillacons/smilies/standard/cry.gif" alt="" title="" >
Tony
There is nothing wrong with the sustainable use of fossil fuel. My house is supported by coal and so long as nobody extracts the coal I have a sustainable use for it. I will go and get my coat
Think I described 'Sustainable' as a migrating metaphor. Nothing is sustainable, so it should be dropped as a word completely. But suspect that will be a long drawn out process.
Except on earth, for the foreseeable, because a principal feature of life is that it apparently pushes entropy 'back uphill', locally, by making use of an external energy source (the sun), and by robbing negative entropy from elsewhere in the cosmos.
Anyway, come the next Big Bang, all the accumulated entropy is cancelled. Roger Penrose in fact suggests how this could be a continuous process.
Posted By: SteamyTeaSecond Law of Thermodynamics. Everything cools and eventually stops moving, just the way it is.
I don't think the heat death of the universe is actually imminent. Given that it won't occur until a long, long, long, long time after it becomes impossible for complex life to exist I don't really think we need to take it into consideration ;)
I suppose theoretically there is a sustainable rate at which we could consume fossil fuels, but it'd be pretty low. Divide the total amount of coal in the world by the amount of time it takes to form and that's the sustainable rate.
Posted By: SeretDivide the total amount of coal in the world by the amount of time it takes to form and that's the sustainable rate.
Very true, and it is still being made today. Another way to work it out is to calculate how long humans will be on the Earth. You could just base it on an individuals life. So there is a good chance that fossil fuels will be sustainable for me. Is it written in stone that 'sustainable' must include all future generations or is that just one definition. Or 'how long should we sustain sustainability' which I think was what Tony was getting at.
Posted By: SteamyTeacalculate how long humans will be on the Earth ... how long should we sustain sustainability
So is it just about the comfort and convenience of humans, and hang the rest? Even ignoring that as an ethical question, what makes us think that we can succeed at anything as long as we see ourselves as somehow separate from the rest in that way? Complete delusion.
Other threads confirm that we ignore our impact on immediate neighbours and sadly today it appears any life that does not have the ability to be exploited is now considered to be automatically dispensable so what hope for protection of future generations?. Sustainable appears to be another abused word like renewable ,green, clean and eco- friendly. Local Authorities are rushing into EfW claiming sustainable energy but the reality is waste reduction year on year and increased recycling means the feedstock will not sustainable. Sheffield EfW already 50,000 tonne shortfall requiring extended haulage to sustain the plant. Lincolnshire committed a basic £140 million to 150,000 tonne EfW project but are now cutting back on recycling facilities to find cost savings. It becomes obvious the burning project will not be sustainable without impact on superior waste streaming. The useful power generated likely to be over 1000 times dirtier than alternative combustion systems and far dirtier than Continental equivalents and we know the resulting degradation of air quality impacts across all life. Surely the fundamental consideration should be to pass through this short life with the lightest footprint possible in order to preserve the planet for future generations . We have the knowledge to minimise the use of all precious resources but appear reluctant to establish priorities due to the overpowering and sadly misplaced financial influences. This report indicates Germany anticipates 45% renewable energy input by 2020 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/sep/20/cem-ozdemir-green-politician-germany Unfortunately this report suggests domestic green energy initiatives are not such a good idea http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/sep/21/householders-green-heating-costs Based on current decisions by the Administration the question could be, is life sustainable in the UK ? 1,100,000 tonnes of food grade wheat to be diverted to a single biofuel plant!!
Posted By: BrianwilsonLocal Authorities are rushing into EfW claiming sustainable energy
To be fair, being green isn't really their primary motivation for EfW. They need to get rid of their waste somehow, and landfill is becoming less of an option. As long as the waste "goes away" in a manner that complies with whatever legal obligations they have, they'll simply pick the cheapest option. Green issues come somewhat down the list.
BrianWilson said, Surely the fundamental consideration should be to pass through this short life with the lightest footprint possible in order to preserve the planet for future generations . We have the knowledge to minimise the use of all precious resources but appear reluctant to establish priorities due to the overpowering and sadly misplaced financial influences. I agree with the comment totally. I have kids, they will have kids. Look after the lovely planet that is out home for future generations.
Posted By: SeretIt's the generally accepted definition from the Brundtland Commission:
One hastily drafted statement from one EU president 20 odd years ago is not grounds for world policy, especially as it has been bastardised by just about all industries and sectors every since. As an example, during my teacher training I had to do 'sustainability in education', does that mean we teach less so future generations can learn something new. Or reach the end of the lesson without any tears.
Posted By: fostertomSo is it just about the comfort and convenience of humans, and hang the rest? Even ignoring that as an ethical question, what makes us think that we can succeed at anything as long as we see ourselves as somehow separate from the rest in that way? Complete delusion.
Not really about comfort and convenience, just seems to be a natural order of things. We can use a lot of stuff at the beginning and ration out the rest later on, or ration right from the start. Neither method tells us how long a resource will last, if there is more or less than we thought or if it is more environmentally sustainable. There are some things which we just don't know the answer to at the moment. I am with Gusty and the 'reduce, reduce, reduce camp rather than the hell in a hand cart camp..
Posted By: SteamyTeaWe can use a lot of stuff at the beginning and ration out the rest later on, or ration right from the start
Right there is the assumption that any human activity can only deplete a resource, and the only question is how fast. Why are humans the only species for whom that is inevitable, a given? Do we not notice that no other species does that, at least not nett across ecosystems. Do we not notice that we are the freaks? Is it unimportant, to be a freak? Are freaks sustainable?
Posted By: SteamyTeacalculate how long humans will be on the Earth ... how long should we sustain sustainability
Posted By: fostertomSo is it just about the comfort and convenience of humans, and hang the rest?
Posted By: SteamyTeaNot really about comfort and convenience, just seems to be a natural order of things.
Only if 'natural order of things' is what supra-natural minded humans had got used to doing, before insight into consequences became widespread. After that insight, it's just perverse, stupidity without excuse.
Posted By: fostertomRight there is the assumption that any human activity can only deplete a resource, and the only question is how fast. Why are humans the only species for whom that is inevitable, a given?
Any species will use resources as fast as it can until it runs into some limit.
What's special about humans is that we can see the limit coming and the consequences of hitting it - and still carry on.
... because the unique ability to find novel ways to evade getting stopped, to double the bet and carry forward the forfeit every time, makes respect for limits seem optional, indeed wimpish. Is doubling the bet and carrying forward the forfeit, sustainable (i.e. forever)? On whose watch will the bets start to fall in?
Posted By: fostertomOn whose watch will the bets start to fall in
On a future generation, and this is the important bit, that may or may not exist.
For what it is worth, I agree that it it is, on the face of it, strange that we carry on, and most of us on here are doing our bit to change things and use less. But on mass I cannot see any significant changes coming in the near to medium future. I think per capita energy use will increase (though emission may well decrease per kWh consumed), population will still increase up to about 9.5 - 10 billion and this is probably the most controversial bit, I think the World will become a more peaceful and cooperative place as it has been getting steadily better for the last 600 years. My two favourite economic theories will (both which are always true) will limit growth, mainly though population, but will spread wealth more evenly eventually.
On a future generation ... that may or may not exist
Surely we aren't betting on that outcome, and how should that possibility influence what we do now?
Anyway, why so sure
Posted By: SteamyTeaa future generation
won't be this generation, or your own children's generation? And are non-human generations in the picture at all?
Do
Posted By: SteamyTeaMy two favourite economic theories
contain any 'always truths' about whether the planet will still be inhabitable and viably resourced by then, or does economics not have a view on such 'soft' matters?
Posted By: fostertomSurely we aren't betting on that outcome, and how should that possibility influence what we do now?
Not betting on it personally, but as there are several unknowns i.e. population, technology, attitudes, standards of living etc I suspect that policy makers are, especially in the UK.
Posted By: fostertomor does economics not have a view on such 'soft' matters?
Some economists do, falls into the realms of social science, hence I just stick to supply and demand and division of labour as the key theories when it comes to energy policy. If you want to have 'soft' views on the market place, look into how market failures are justified in hindsight.
Posted By: SteamyTeaI just stick to supply and demand and division of labour as the key theories when it comes to energy policy
It's 100% fine for economics to say 'we only deal with supply and demand and suchlike'. It's something else to go further, and claim that these are the 'key' theories. It's really arrogant to believe that only the bits covered by economics are 'key' and all the rest is soft, peripheral, optional. It turns economics from faithful servant to humanity, into dogmatic ruler of humanity. Or so economists would wish, or are trained to believe, or comfortably agree amongst themselves.
Tom, economics is humanity. Its basically the study of human behaviour. You can't understand society without understanding economics.
Any sensible long term economic view will consider the affect of environmental damage. We already do this to a degree, for things like factoring damage to forests into the external costs of coal.
Posted By: Sereteconomics is humanity. Its basically the study of human behaviour
If by that you mean 'all significant/important aspects human behaviour', then that's dangerously wrong.
Economics is the study of a specialised subset of human behaviour, artificially isolated (for study convenience) from all sorts of equally (or more) 'real' subsets of human behaviour (as well as 'real' planetary issues). Economics systematically disregards lots of vitally important things, with an air of confident (or rather, smug) supremacy, which is a comfortable delusion.
Economics-minded people really do have that dangerously wrong belief. This thread is full of the language and certainty that flows from that implicit belief system.
Scientists likewise. Religious fundamentalists likewise.
Posted By: SeretAny sensible long term economic view will consider the affect of environmental damage. We already do this to a degree, for things like factoring damage to forests into the external costs of coal.
It's a reluctant start, but barely scratches the surface, and when push comes to shove ...
How does economic theory allow for the effects of greed, and the drive to look after your own, on "supply and demand and division of labour"? That is not a rhetorical question. The economic effects of these deeply embedded drivers of human behaviour are clearly huge and, on the face of it, seem to have trumped supply and demand many times.
Bella A simplistic view would be that greed is just saving for a rainy day and it stems from the need to protect your kin from an uncertain future. Greed does not affect supply and demand or division of labour, it is just a part of it. So imagine that a few city traders speculate on the price of oil, or corn, or iPhones. They buy up as much as they can. This reduces supply and forces the price up, most people will now pay the higher price if it is not too high until there is no spare cash to pay it, then the trader is left with unwanted stock and has to reduce the price until it sells, nothing unusual there. While that is going on, someone will be developing an alternative (the division of labour bit this is), the greedy trader may well invest in several of those technologies hoping that one will be a game changer. The trader can then dump his stock at a loss and use the cash to promote the new winning product. it is not unusual for a company to introduce a more expensive to make product at a lower price than an existing one purely as a market test. Think VAG with the Golf, rebody it and call it an Audi, Seat, Skoda. So that greedy trader is both a buyer and a seller, a seller and a consumer and possibly an investor and a savour. All economic theory does is explain the paths that the cash and goods takes. It makes no judgement on people or what they do. Greed is a corner stone of Adam Smith's 'Wealth of Nations'.
Tom,I wasn't suggesting economics could explain all human behaviour, that would be just silly. It's major flaw is that it assumes everyone acts rationally, which in reality they don't. My point was that economics isn't an entirely dehumanised pursuit. It is however a very important tool in understanding why societies do the things they do, and a very reliable predictor of how they will act in the future. I'm firmly of the opinion that if you want to predict how the future will play out, look at the direction the money points. It's the only really reliable motivator of large groups IMO.
Books 
