Coal, Oil and the Human Difficulty of Grasping Long Duration Problems 12 comments
- Gregor Macdonald's articles on Seeking Alpha
- Visit: Gregor.us
- Gregor's Premium Newsletter
-
Font Size:
-
Print
- TweetThis
In the mid 19th Century, William Stanley Jevons patiently tried to explain to his fellow countrymen that the rich energy content in coal was not a marginal but a pervasive influence on nearly every aspect of the British economy. He warned that coal production would inevitably migrate away from the easy, near-surface deposits to the deeper deposits that would take more capital, more labor–indeed more energy–to extract. His point was rather simple, but, it of course escaped the understanding of the general public. Jevons held the view that British coal would attain, and then surpass, an optimal point of price, production, and therefore utility to the British economy.
Does any of this sound familiar? Jevons was repeatedly misunderstood as saying that Britain was running out of coal. He took great pains to explain the scale of the problem, but Jevons was talking about a cycle whose duration would extend beyond people’s immediate concerns. The Coal Question was first published in 1865. It is without question a brilliant probe into population growth, energy content, and the transformative power of coal. Moreover, Jevons displays the flair typical of the 19th century writer–in this case an economist–who is able to call upon a much broader array of subject matter. It was delicious, for example, to hear an economist draw a line from the power of coal to the flourishing of arts, and culture. This would be a rarity today, among our contemporary economists, who fly as a tight formation of cramped specialists. An economist now would nearly have to seek permission to write such things.
Jevons died young, a number of unfinished books still ahead of him. British coal production peaked in 1913. The decline of net energy earnings from British sourced coal was more than effectively masked by the profits from resource extraction elsewhere in the world, via the Empire. (Not to mention the built up capital which would endure for decades to come). Oil would then replace coal, roughly as coal had previously replaced wood. Still, Jevons’ attempt to master a long duration problem such as coal has implications for our situation today, with oil. For, it’s interesting to consider that in 200 years, having gone from wood to coal to oil, one of the more prominent solutions offered to society now is to return to wood. Or should I say, biomass.
The other limitation that Jevons’ work revealed was the human difficulty in seeing large scale, long duration problems. We are not wired to see large systems, as being in motion. The larger the phenomenon, the more stationary it is likely to appear to us. Given that Jevons was a polymath, with interests from art to topography and demographics, I thought it appropriate to link to a fantastic piece of contemporary art which reveals the problem of scale, and time. Slow Motion Car Crash by Jonathan Schipper advances two full sized automobiles slowly into one another over a period of 6 days, simulating a head on automobile collision. What is instructive is that no one visiting the gallery to see this work can actually see the cars moving. The movement is so slow as to be invisible.
Photograph: William Stanley Jevons, in Australia. 1858.
Related Articles
|
-
The Seeking Alpha 100
See allThe top 100 stock
market authors
selected for publication
Seeking Alpha 100 » -
Fastest Climbers
Authors with the largestSee all
increase in followers
in the last 7 days
Fastest Climbers » -
Top Commenters
Top commenters,See all
as ranked by their peers
Top Commenters » -
Top Instabloggers
The 100 most active
Instabloggers.-
1
TraderMark
-
2
Don Dion
-
3
Cliff Wachtel
-
4
Mike Havrilla
-
5
James Quinn
Top Instabloggers » -
1
-
Top StockTalkers
TopSee all
StockTalkers.
Top StockTalkers »
This article has 12 comments:
1. It is not actionable to look beyond the strategic horizon: there is no business or personal return today for trying to "solve" a problem where the payoff to a solution is far distant and most uncertain but the cost of the solution is immediate and certain
2. Very long range problems either do not materialize because too much changes along the way(technology, tastes, ideology,demographics, economic organization, balance of global power) or manifest themselves in ways not anticipated and perhaps incapable of being forecast. The "coal problem" became irreleavant, as you clearly noted, because oil , gas and nuclear drove coal out of many markets and vast, inexpensive coal reserves were discovered in places not much explored at the time the problem was articulated.
3. Political and economic elites routinely forecast long range "problems" that have no basis in truth so they can aggregate power by offering "solutions" only they can understand and execute( ordinary people are increasingly aware of this) and just as routinely fail to forecast genuine long range problems. As more and more people realize that the elites , for self serving reasons, want to use the money and labor of the middle class to "solve" fake long range problems( eg Fossil Energy depletion) while ignoring or failing to detect real long range problems( the suffocating growth of the Parasitic Economy in the West and the attendant compression of the Middle class; the rapid rise of the Global South) they naturally turn away from the distant future to focus on the much more tangible, urgent and threatening present and immediate future.
4. Only the very rich and secure have the self indulgent intellectual luxury to speculate about the long range. The rest must make a living today because if they dont there will be no tomorrow for them much less a future 50 years away.
The issue is closely tied into the matter of inter-generational discounting and the global warming issue.
The Stern report issued a couple of years ago suggested(in a nutshell) that we should discount the future at a much lower rate than we do which (too grossly simplify) would mean that we should take long duration problems a lot more seriously than we do.
so in attempting to avoid physical harm you have placed your daughter in an environment where free inquiry is avoided.
the 'christian academy' movement exists because a large number of u.s citizens are searching for absolute certainty in their lives. alas, on this planet there is so much chaos & uncertainty.
> jack
Fortunately there is always a cadre of idiosynchratic individuals prepared to take a stab at solving long-range problems - real or perceived - who, along the way, invent things that contribute immediately to our wellbeing. Without "grand challenges" it is difficult for us to think beyond incremental improvement. We certainly aren't going to run out of wood, coal or oil in our lifetime, but the inspired search for "ultimate solutions" will lead us to technologies and solutions that we would otherwise never strive to discover.
p.s. prevention is better than the cure
I will read "The Coal Question", but first the CliffNotes version in Tony Prato's book "Natural Resource and Environmental Economics".
“Jevons systematically rejected the possibility that this dilemma [increasing coal prices ultimately crippling British industry] would be resolved by substitution of petroleum for coal, technology-driven decreases in coal mining and transportation costs and the importing of coal from other countries. Jevons failed to understand that higher coal prices would stimulate development and use of petroleum products and that technological advances reduce coal mining and transportation costs.”
Jevons was wrong. Markets and technology will solve the problem of declining oil supplies. Markets work very, very well when supported by the rule of law and when they are not interfered with by government.
The next technology after petroleum will be nuclear, since it is safe, reliable and unlimited. The only reason it hasn't already been substituted (except in place like Japan, Spain and France) is government interference.
The next substitution will not be ethanol, biomass, wind, solar. They are either too expensive or not reliable enough for a base load or both.
Some say the world will end in fire;
Some say in ice.
From what I've tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice. </i>
That's not an answer, of course. But what, really, is the question?
On Jun 05 12:02 PM Jimbo wrote:
> I believe that user 353732 and Mr. MacDonald both have valid and
> challenging points.About 1977 a book was published entitled: "The
> Coming Ice Age". I seem to recall that Newsweek and Time both had
> cover stories about how we were going to freeze. I can't help being
> suspicious of totalitarian utopians who propose all manner of drastic
> steps to meet the coming incineration. I have practiced a frugal
> and environmentally sensitive lifestyle all my life. What I want
> to see is data that does not use terms such as "might" "may" "should"
> "could" etc.
Why is this not being discussed ? The number of known long-range problems in western civilization (at times when there was a LOT more christian "blindness") numbers in the hundreds, at least.
And you know what, those "blind" christians managed to solve every last one of them. For over a millenium various limits were hit, and dealt with.
Some of the things that were accomplished dealing with limits are simply amazing. Holland simply did not exist, neither did half of belgium and a significant part of france. Those areas were simply part of the sea. Those areas were drained. Conquered from the sea. They went from extremely difficult to navigate sandbanks, to swamps with a few settlements, to wetlands with a few cities, to polders where the water is tamed, forests have been planted, and huge cities are located. This did not happen magically, even if blind christians made it happen. It happened due to small communities each deciding a location and an approach, and bit by bit, the problems were conquered.
By the time global warming is supposed to affect us, one of two things will have happened : either it turns out to be wrong after all, or we will have adapted.
Well actually I lied, there's a third option : we make a wrong decision and enforce that decision via the UN or any global force, and that solution turns out to be wrong, there is noone left to care about our mistake. Isn't Darwin grand ?
In all three cases, the problem is solved. We don't have to do anything. In fact, history proves that by far the best course of action is to let every small group decide for themselves what to do about global warming. Some will ignore it, perhaps Osama and some muslims will attempt to make it worse, some will move, some will try to prevent it, some will pray, and some, like most churches will attempt to get communities to protect themselves. We don't know the correct course of action, but one of those reactions is the correct one. Doing this, the only liberal course of action, will yield the same result with a very, very large chance of success : a few will die, 99% will live.
BUT there is the option we seem to be taking : decide with a global government what to do, and use military might to force people to abide by it. This is what the UN and IPCC are about. There's a tiny problem with this approach, which many empires and "civilizations" that do not believe in a liberal approach experienced. The muslim mamluks, the ottomans, the incas, the mayans, the chinese, you name it... : the government decides. Two outcomes are possible : you're killing 99.99% of all humans or you're saving 99.99% of all humans. And then you get to repeat making decisions.
And indeed those empires in history made a few good calls, and they grew. But it only has to happen ONCE that they're wrong, and millions die. And let's not forget the sort of decisions these governments took : that no-one can win a battle against a wall, that allah will sustain muslims, that capturing a few scouts and eating their hearts will ensure victory against the main force, that the land will replenish itself ... and more recently the soviets ... we all know their decisions and the result ... 100 million dead, at least. More likely, for the first time in history, centralized decision making that wasn't even all that wrong, just not optimal, lead to the death of 1 billion humans.
Liberal policy = 99% will survive
UN (or any central govt. force) policy, no matter which policy = 99.99% survives a few times, then a sudden mass dieoff of people
Which do you want ? I find myself strongly in the camp of the "blind" Christians, and the liberal policy.
(and btw. oil exporting countries are the ones profiting from co2 production. If anyone should pay for co2 emissions, it should be them, not the countries forced to pay their profits)
With the North Sea oil peaking in only 30 years, god knows where production will be even by 2020.