GDP growth produces CO2 growth.

[GliderGuider]

The following two graphs correlate the year-over-year growth of world GDP with the growth of CO2 emissions. The correlation of the two growth rates over the last 45 years is about 72%. That means that about 72% of the growth in CO2 emissions is attributable to economic growth.

This first graph also shows world recessions, illustrating how CO2 follows GDP down during recessions - i.e. the surest way to cut CO2 is to crash the economy.



This one shows the same data as a scatter plot, with a trend line to drive the point home.




Sarcastic opinion follows:

The world is emitting about 35 billion tonnes of CO2 per year. In order to bring that down by 80% over the next 20 years, we cannot rely solely on indirect methods such as low-carbon energy development leading to economically-driven source substitution. Even if energy costs can be jiggered to ensure substitution rather than supplementation of fossil fuels, this process will almost certainly take longer than we have left. Therefore, to ensure success we also need to attack fossil fuel use directly. The most effective technique will be to reduce the global economy by 80%. That will require us to reduce world GDP by 8% per year for each of the next 20 years.

This plan will require the committed participation of all nations. I wonder how many COP conferences it will take to get the "GliderGuider Accord" implemented?

[daleanime]

1. kick, kick, kick....

[GliderGuider]

2. Regarding the correlation (for the data geeks)

I mentioned above that 72% of the growth in CO2 is attributable to economic growth. More precisely, that means 72% of the year-to-year growth. I subsequently applied a 10 year trailing average to both the GDP and CO2 data sets in order to smooth out the year-to-year variations. When I did that, the correlation over the 40 years from 1970 to 2010 jumped from 72% to 90%.

The implication is that while GDP and CO2 growth may be somewhat decoupled over periods as short as a year, when you take a decade-long view they are very tightly coupled indeed.

[Gregorian]

3. The question is: does modern living improve life?

It's a dilemma. Who doesn't want to spend money to improve our infrastructure? When I hear the plans, I think it's great, and I know it will further climate change.

Living in a cave, hungry, cold, and injured, sucked. But sitting in an office after sitting in a traffic jam, while losing one's health from inactivity also sucks.

I see all of this as a population problem. In other words, there is a degree of modern living which even though unsustainable, will not destroy the planet. Maybe that's debatable, but one thing isn't: the speed at which decline occurs.

The bottom line is that this party is in full swing, and the new generation is having a ball. Travel, inventing, travel, travel. 1000 horsepower cars.

And one thing I learned very early in life is that most people won't change until there's a crisis.

Nothing new here. Just my peanut gallery comments.

[GliderGuider]

4. Happiness

Something I've always been fascinated by is how happy h-g types always seem. My impressions may not be correct, but it has always appeared to me that society-wide happiness has declined from h-g societies to feudal and early industrial societies. So I don't feel as much grief over the thought of humanity dropping back to h-g levels of energy, technology and social organization as I do over the thought of having to retrace some aspects of feudal society to get there.

I think that a lot of the unhappiness that has crept into modern industrial life comes from the resurgence of feudal-style values such as indentured servitude (aka workin' for da man...)

[Gregorian]

5. Yes. But there is a huge problem in that we cannot go back.

I see it as two facets: the biodiversity that exists today in combination with the massive overpopulation of humans simply will not allow going back to hunter gatherer. As an aside, I have to laugh because years ago a friend had a calling card made up that had his work title as hunter gatherer. We saw it coming forty years ago.

I live near a town called Elk. There are no elk there. None. There used to be. I lived near a river in N. California some years ago. There was an old lady who had lived there her whole life. One day while talking she mentioned that when she was a child she could almost walk across that river, there were so many fish. There are almost none now.

So when the power goes off, and the trucks stop delivering, I can't just walk down the hill to the creek at the bottom of my property, and eat. There is nothing in that creek. And there are no animals in any of the forests here. I had a scared bear running for it's life during logging a few years ago. I have half a dozen deer. It is barren. And I spent much of my time in the forests, so I know this is true.

In Oregon, I had a small herd of elk. I had some salmon in the creeks. I could have survived there. However, there were hundreds of others on my road who most likely would have come to live with me when things got rough. Then what? We fight over the last elk?

I don't know where you get the impression that the h-g societies were happy. I'm curious about that.

I am happy with modern living, at least as I have it set up. But I have a big property, and I don't have to work. However, now that I'm 59, I'm struggling to regain the health that I lost while living a poisoned lifestyle. I didn't know some of the things I was doing were bad for me. I was also super stressed. The Bush years also took a heavy toll on me. At this moment, my life is almost not worth living. My sleep is poor, my energy level is low. I was the poster child of good health until 25 years ago. And I'm doing well compared to most. The majority of Americans are living with high blood sugar, according to a recent study. But it's the stress that is the killer, I'm finding out. And not just immediate stress, but low level continuous stress. So hunter/gatherers may have encountered fear, and had adrenaline flowing like crazy, and then it's over. Whereas, people with job insecurity may be living a life full of low level continuous stress. That is not life. That' death. And I guess most of what I'm saying is that I agree with your assessment. And besides, how can destroying one's own means of sustenance be anything but stressful?

I'm designing and building a special drill press. I'm ordering precision linear bearings, and materials. As I do this, I have to wonder what effect it has on the planet. I bought a Chinese drill last night, which I'll disassemble. I'll throw most of it away. How long can that go on? Many people have their own machine shops at home. Plasma cutters, tig welders, lathes, etc. It's insane.

We could go on with this discussion for a long time. One thing more that I feel strongly about is that modern life has divided us. I think this is the biggest problem with it. We used to depend upon each other. You don't catch a tiger by yourself. Of course you don't land a car on the moon by yourself either. But the division is so comprehensive now. We get in our cars, and isolate not only from each other , but from nature. I commuted long distances to work by bicycle for many years. It was glorious, except for the clown parade on the highway that I had to watch every day. Going back is the only way forward. But we can't go back very far. Just one more thing: I see people in cars who wouldn't be alive if they had to go back. There's just no way they would survive moving their own body around.

It's a weird time to be alive, if you know what's going on. And another thing: I have just spent the last 25 years buying and selling property in an attempt to find a peaceful place to live. I couldn't find it. That was what really took my health away. When I discovered that silence no longer existed, for the most part, in a place where I wanted to live, I kind of lost my will to be happy.

Argh, maybe we should write a book. I just wrote one of the chapters! haha.

[GliderGuider]

7. Certainly all 7.3 billion of us couldn't go back.

But a population reduction to 10 million or so should make H-G lifestyles possible in many places.

Where do I get the idea they were happy? Mostly from reading anthropology books. I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Happiness doesn't depend on land ownership, material possessions, or even modern medicine. It's a state of mind that is largely independent of stuff like that. As far as I can tell happiness comes mainly from feeling that one has a degree of both personal autonomy and social connection.

My personal circumstances are more constrained than they have ever been in my life, and they show no sign of improving. Still, I'm happier than I have ever been. My basic needs are met; my work is honourable; I like the people I work with; and I am in love with a woman who is in love with me. I have a deep sense of contentment that flows from hard-won self-realization. I have let go of most expectations and attachments - including the need for others to be like me or agree with me about anything. I work hard, but I don't strive. I'm satisfied with who and where I am, and feel no need to change either myself or my situation.

It strikes me that this is precisely the kind of happiness that was available to our H-G forebears.

[Gregorian]

9. I just remembered something I have to share.

I'm doing my yoga, while watching machining videos. I know, talk about extremes. And I remembered something.

So basically what I have tried to do over the years is end up in a place where I didn't have to work, AND was in a place that was closer to the dirt than other places. Some friends have scolded me, and been bewildered why I want to isolate. Well, over the years as I've watched other people, it almost goes without fail that when someone makes a bunch of money, they buy land. For brevity's sake, since this day has vaporized, I'll spare the details, but what I've noticed is that in a "feudal" situation, which kind of includes our capitalism, people work like machines, and then drop dead, having lived a totally artificial life. But what does Marlon Brando do? What does Ingmar Bergmann do? What does Branson do? They all bought land. These three all happened to buy on islands. But from my observation, people want to get back to the hunter gatherer experience, or even lifestyle. Look at Bear Grylls. That is exactly what he's doing, even if it's for tv. And you even see more of this on tv now. Where is it so many want to go when they "make it"? Back to nature. I've always laughed when realizing that in order to live like we've lived for all of eternity, one has to "make it". Then they can go back and have what we always had. Except for pollution. While watching one of these shows, no matter how isolated they are, there is inevitably some contrail from some plane flying high above, complete with passengers eating their peanuts, and going wherever they're going. It's just ironic.

I think the point is, no one really likes how we're living. I've been doing some work to find peace of mind with pollution. This is my hardest task. I may die before I find a place where I can hide from it. From what I've gathered, disattachment is useful not for living WITH pollution as much as being able to consciously and responsibly make decisions which will lead to betterment of my life. But we're in a place now where the air we breath is no longer the air we were, nor should be, breathing.

But contrary to what I've said, it does surprise me that Warren Buffett still lives in a typical subdivision type of house. It's not universal, but most of the people I see who have made it big, want to get back to nature.

Alright, back to my yoga and machining.

[pscot]

6. It's obvious from this

that the reason global economic growth has stalled is that we aren't producing enough CO2. It therefore follows that renewables are bad for the economy. What's needed are more coal fired power plants.

[GliderGuider]

8. Ha! Finally, someone gets it!