The economy and the Green argument

cells

kabayiri wrote: »

Just occasionally, you hear a snippet on a debate program which makes you think. Most of these debates are the usual old rhetoric statements.

The debate was about being Green and each party was doing it's utmost to mostly talk about how worthy they were.

A point was then made. If you factor in the services and goods production work we have exported in recent decades, then we aren't really the Green economy the politicians would like us to be portrayed as.

Does this mean that the economics of being Green don't make sense at a national level? Should the argument soley be centred on environmental impact?

We don't import cement or bricks or steel on net and the energy content of an iplod is low

also why not apply the argument to services?
if the UK makes software or film or music or designs new drugs or a new type of aircraft and exports those there is a lot of embedded effort and energy in those services

cells

b wrote: »

what harm is done by throwing away the dvd player and buying a new one?

None at all. You would probably find that the energy to repair one is considerably more than the energy to manufacture an additional one.

The man coming to fix it will probably burn more fuel thsn the mass of the DVD player x10

cells

Generali wrote: »

Well yes. This is a big problem.

I would argue that environmental taxes would need to be set at a point where despoiling (or whatever term you'd rather use) the environment has no profit in and of itself.

I've been of the opinion for a very long time that we should tax bad things (smoking, ruining the planet) and not tax good things (people going out to earn a living). Much better to tax wrecking stuff than working for a living.



Yup, I agree. We're in a lunatic situation where some people are taking an ideological, anti-scientific position that global warming/climate change doesn't exist against all the evidence and others are prepared to justify almost any action in the name of climate change including fixing data to make a point.



Every MP should have the following words tattooed on his forehead:

"Don't just do something, stand there"!

The whole idea of a green movement is based on false premise on top of false premise on top of false premise

its no coincidence the greens are often closet communist socialist business is the root of all evil-ists

kabayiri

cells wrote: »

None at all. You would probably find that the energy to repair one is considerably more than the energy to manufacture an additional one.

The man coming to fix it will probably burn more fuel thsn the mass of the DVD player x10

Except it's not....unless you have evidence to the contrary and things have changed.

I have worked in value engineering a lot in electronics, and energy forms part of this. Tooling up alone is an expensive proposition especially when the consumer demands design changes every year.

Design for repairability is the key aspect though.

cells

kabayiri wrote: »

It would be a start if Car Brochures had Shipping Miles published alongside their CO2 figures.

All of a sudden that Prius doesn't look so saintly when you work out where the various materials that go into it's batteries come from; where they are processed etc.

Apparently, the UK's biggest export by volume is fresh air, in all these container ships. There's a PR opportunity right there. "UK - providing fresh air to the world for decades".

Volume of exports is irrelevant

import a million teddy bears for a dollar which takes up a thousand containers or export the IP for a mobile chip which takes up zero space

even the energy for the IP would probably be higher much higher than the teddy bears as it took maybe hundreds of thousands of man hours to design in an office which is heated and has lots of computers

cells

kabayiri wrote: »

Except it's not....unless you have evidence to the contrary and things have changed.

I have worked in value engineering a lot in electronics, and energy forms part of this. Tooling up alone is an expensive proposition especially when the consumer demands design changes every year.

Design for repairability is the key aspect though.

Manufacturing an item millions of times over is clearly much much less labor intensive than repairing one that bit is obvious especially if you look at the marginal labor cost

The same will be true for virtually ALL manufactured goods (except maybe cars) by the simple fact of size


lets take your DVD player as an example its mayne 300 grams. What do you think will cost more energy. To make one additional unit in an efficient supply chain or to pay bob the builder fixer to drive his 2 ton van 30 miles to your house. Spend half an hour opening it up. Then discovering it needs a replacement motor. Driving 30 miles to go buy that. Then 30 miles back to you. And then half an hour replacing it. Not only does this man justifiably want you to compensate him for half a days work and costs but he gas burnt 10kg of fuel tp repare ypur 300gr dvd player.

There is of course a point whereby the economics add up but its probably on items the size of large fridges and up so excludes most manufactured goods.


Also you need to consider the fact that buying a replacement will likely last longer than bob the fixers half !!!! manual fix job. So it might be yearly bob visits or once every three years replacement.


you could think of buying new as a total repaire of your old unit in an efficient factory and supply chain. They take your old DVD player and get rid of all the nin working bits (everything but the air inside it) and replace it

Generali

cells wrote: »

The whole idea of a green movement is based on false premise on top of false premise on top of false premise

its no coincidence the greens are often closet communist socialist business is the root of all evil-ists

IMHO there are two separate things:

1. The Watermelon/Green movement. A bunch of left wing extremists that basically want to force people to live in a particular way.
2. The Thatcherite environmental movement which believes that we hold the planet on a lifetime repairing lease (as Lady T once said). There is a moral and economic imperative to pass on the planet at the very least in the state in which it was found.

I am a very firm believer in #2. The Tragedy of the Commons means that we will need some legislation, almost certainly agreed internationally, to ensure that we hold up our part of the bargain.

cells

kabayiri wrote: »

Except it's not....unless you have evidence to the contrary and things have changed.

I have worked in value engineering a lot in electronics, and energy forms part of this. Tooling up alone is an expensive proposition especially when the consumer demands design changes every year.

Design for repairability is the key aspect though.

Think of cars

repaired all the time and designed to easily be so

Until it gets to a stage where repairing and maintaining costs more in energy and labour than a replacement

clearly everything has a finite life. That should be thr first thing to note in your value engineering

So then it becomes not a question of buy new or mend
but a question of replace NOW or Replace LATER (after a fix)


In some instances it will clearly be less labour and energy intensive to mend (you won't buy a new car if you get a flat tire you would instead replace the tire). Whereas on the opposite side it would be infinitely less labour and energy intensive to buy a new tooth brush than to try and repair the bristles.

Often its a simple question of size.
With small electronic not worth repairing while big items like cars or cranes or aeroplanes or homes definitely worth repairing

cells

Generali wrote: »

IMHO there are two separate things:

1. The Watermelon/Green movement. A bunch of left wing extremists that basically want to force people to live in a particular way.
2. The Thatcherite environmental movement which believes that we hold the planet on a lifetime repairing lease (as Lady T once said). There is a moral and economic imperative to pass on the planet at the very least in the state in which it was found.

I am a very firm believer in #2. The Tragedy of the Commons means that we will need some legislation, almost certainly agreed internationally, to ensure that we hold up our part of the bargain.

But we are not in anyway degrading the planet in a lasting way which is one of the foundation false premises

That was so clear that the bogy man has become a colorless orderless trace gas that is vital to life. A lasting damage whos impact won't be known for over a hundred years but let me RIRO you a computer simulation that will prove my confirmation bias

Generali

cells wrote: »

But we are not in anyway degrading the planet in a lasting way which is one of the foundation false premises

That was so clear that the bogy man has become a colorless orderless trace gas that is vital to life. A lasting damage whos impact won't be known for over a hundred years but let me RIRO you a computer simulation that will prove my confirmation bias

There are many demonstrable ways in which we are making the planet less able to support human life, for example overfishing. Catches are demonstrably falling.

As for CO2, I am highly sceptical as an economist of the predictive powers of modelling but at the same time the world does seem to be getting warmer and there is an apparent causal link.

If scientists start to doubt the validity of global warming en masse then I'd be very happy to look at my views again. Until that point I will believe in Global Warming as I believe in atomic theory, evolution and quantum mechanics.