Freely quoting Laotse...

Taking others for a ride is an art.
Taking yourself for a ride is a higher art... 8-)

What a former vice presidential candidate knows - and what not, and what she and I have in common. Or not.

Yesterday I read in the notorious Newsmax newsletter, which I receive for unknown uncanny reasons: “Sarah Palin unaware that Bristol had sex”.  Umpf. Okay, I thought, not surprised. She did not know that Africa was a continent, so it struck me as consequent that she was not aware that people in the city of Bristol also are busy with common human activities. A moment later I realized that Ms Palin, who – like my good old self – once attended Hawaii Pacific University, has a daughter named Bristol. But the wondering went on: was Ms Palin aware that Bristol is the 11th largest city in the UK and former center of the British slave industry? Did she name her daughter after the city? And if so: why would she do that? If she didn’t, she would not only not be aware that her daughter was busy with general human activities – she also would have been unaware of the origins and meaning of her own daughters name.

P.S.: Ms Palin and I are no alumni – we both have in common that we did not graduate from HPU. I graduated, for example, from the University of London. London is the largest city in the UK and of the European Union. If it were situated in the US, it would be the 2nd largest city there. Not that it is important... I assume Ms Palin and I have a lot of things in common that we both did not do... I did not, among other things, become Vice President of the United States. Or any other vice president of any other state. Nor president. And I never will. Again something she and I have in common. I hope. For the well being of the world.

We can save the World - but NOT the economy!

I recently participated in the "Climate 2009" event - an online conference hosted by a Hamburg/Germany based university and the World Meteorological Organization - one of the pre-curser events to the Copenhagen conference next month. Having been involved in climate change science and policy in the one or the other way over the last two decades I have gotten somewhat tired. The discussion strikes me as if a ship is sinking from overload, and the passengers and crews are discussing whether one form of weight pulls the ship down more than another. They stay within the system, that is. I raised a question: Is it possible to ever achieve a net reduction of energy related emissions within a framework of forced continuous exponential economic growth? Is it principally possible to find a way of de-coupling economic growth and energy/resource consumption with related emissions? As far as I can tell fundamental physical laws stand in the way of constant exponential economic growth. Unfortunately raising this question means to question one of the leading global dogmas: that growth is the savior. Economic - or rather fiscal - growth is practically divine. That question is not asked. One quickly is viewed as a nutty doomsday prophet or conspiracy theorist. On the other hand - when talking to economists, businessmen and scientists individually on a one by one base they usually quickly admit: it is impossible. Simply impossible. This means our entire beautiful globalized economic system is based upon either a big lie or a big mistake. And - everyone who thinks about it quickly realizes it. And: the proportion of the issue is so enormous that nobody has even the remotest clue what to do about it. "Recycle Aluminum" is not really an answer. As a result everyone just closes their eyes and moves on as before.

When younger I argued against children, against population growth, and now I, myself, have three daughters and cannot even plausibly argue along these lines. I also drive a relatively big car because my job (in solar energy R&D) requires me to travel, our family of 5 plus dog won't fit in a GEO Metro AND we live in the country. So it goes. And we try to recommend not using excess resources on an individual level, yet the economy as it is is entirely based upon just that: ever more consumption of everything!

Be that as it may: arguing against forced economic growth as the fundamental cause of our future demise nowadays is like standing as an attorney in front of the grand inquisitor of medieval times saying "Sir - I herewith plead not guilty for these women accused of witchery, because God as well as the Devil and their ilk are cultural inventions and do not really exist, hence, they cannot serve as arguments in court."

Brainless American Right Wingers Scare me Shitless

The right extremist NEOnazi Newsletter NEWSMAX had a headline today: Radical Obama won’t be re-elected. I wonder what that means? Here is an example for something that I consider so radical and extremist that it does not fit into any mainstream description of political wings: The Government of a Superpower deliberately lies about evidence and reasons for a war and then, without any such reasons, goes about and bombs an entire a country to rubbles. The American right wing self proclaimed pro-lifers/pro gunners do not seem to have much difficulties carrying out mass-abortions by blowing the expectant mothers to pieces, if those mothers speak another language or carry another passport or killing pregnant women is in the “Pro Lifers” financial interest. This is what the American Military does. Among other things – like mass murdering wedding guests in Afghanistan. This is what EVERY military machinery does that embarks in a war. Which is one of the reasons why we should avoid war altogether. There are no heroes – only desperate young men and women who are forced to do and experience things nobody should ever be forced to do and experience.

I keep reading along the NEWSMAX newsletter, and I believe these people are in need of some serious mental treatment (of course the liberals do not force mental treatment upon others – only the right wing has such ideas like the “Freedom Commission on Mental Health”). I read things like “Obama care can be stopped”.  The majority of that sentence consists of the phrase “care can be stopped”. Care is an awful thing, isn’t it? It strikes me as if the believers of the market religion (who often falsely claim – or believe themselves – that they are Christians) find nothing more terrifying than the notion that people actually might CARE about each other. People apparently are not supposed to care about EACH OTHER. They are supposed to care about the market, their job, about consuming, about making money. About the economy. About paying their credit card debts. They are supposed to care about HAVING and not about BEING. All these people believe in is money. All they want is money. More of it, and ever more of it. That is their true and only faith. And there are millions of such believers – tens of millions in the US. That such people exist in the first place  scares me shitless.

Seeking Climate Change Solutions from within a Diseased Dystem?

I have been involved with global environmental and climate change related issues since my high school days in the 80s - that is well over 20 years. Having a geo and physical science background, I try to look at the entire problem from a whole systems perspective, and at the root of the entire global change syndrome seems to be the coupling of energy/resource use and economic growth. There is no evidence that economic growth (defined as fiscal/monetary growth) is going to be de-coupled from physical resource depletion anywhere soon (how could it?) - energy consumption and resource consumption pretty much follow the growth curve of the global GGP (gross global product). And yet aside from some fringe groups the topic of economic growth itself as the main cause of environmental degradation and, indeed, the main threat to the very planet itself is not taken up by anyone (Why do we need continuous economic growth? What drives it?), aside from a few fringe groups without influence in the political arena. Instead, enormous attempts are made to accommodate the climate change issue within the existing institutions and to find fixes that turn climate change into even further economic growth. In my view the wrong incentives are in place everywhere - e.g. Carbon trading focuses on trading profits, not on carbon reduction. In my view topics like our financial crisis and climate change also are deeply intertwined. And nobody could yet plausibly explain to me how a monetary and economic system requiring perpetual exponential growth in order to function could ever be sustainable - if I am not mistaken a physical and mathematical impossibility. I am not in any way ideological, but my prediction is that it will be impossible to adequately address the climate change issue within the existing economic and financial paradigm. Kyoto has been a band aid, and here in Germany - a world leader in renewable energy - the power hungry Internet alone easily outperforms all contributions of the renewable energy sector and the so called emission reduction successes in this country were nothing but a statistical trick made possible by the historical coincidence of the re-unification.

If anyone thinks that the issue will be solved by efficiency or a service oriented society: there is no 100% efficiency and there is no service that does not require any energy or resources at all, therefore a perpetual exponential growth is impossible in any case. And even if we consider that economic growth will more and more rest with non-material goods (e.g. software) there is another limited resource: consumer time. It does not matter how we look at it: perpetual exponential economic growth is not possible. And there also really is no need for it from an individual's point of view - it merely is a built in requirement of our financial system. Every single unit of money forming out of thin air results in a corresponding quantity of resource consumption and pollution.

If anyone can explain to me where I am wrong and how perpetual exponential economic growth in a limited world is possible without violating the most fundamental physical and mathematical laws, I would be very thankful. I also need to understand why even the richest country requires continuous economic growth in order to function properly. I hold a Ph.D. in Astrophysics, and studied Economics, Climatology Oceanography and more, so you are most welcome to throw some serious theory and math at me. Before you do that, however, you might want to read Prof. Binswanger's rather mathematical book "Die Wachstumsspirale", though.