GDP, growth and ecology: why is it blocking?

Current Economy and Sustainable Development-compatible? GDP growth (at all costs), economic development, inflation ... How concillier the current economy with the environment and sustainable development.
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 24/09/07, 16:29

Coin wrote:Is not it time to focus on an index that adds the wealth creations and subtracts the cost of cleanup?


The conclusion of this subject / reflection was good to reach this conclusion and to offer reflections on an alternative index.

This is what I had implied in the corresponding news: https://www.econologie.com/pib-developpe ... -3483.html

But you went a little too fast (or me too slowly) ... : Mrgreen: I'm trying to take care of the second part tomorrow!

Otherwise the human development index proposed by Surfou is a much "better" index than the GDP but it is far from being suitable for sustainable development. There should be an index that takes into account, for example, the reduction of fossil fuel consumption at the national level, the number of solar systems installed, the air quality in big cities etc etc ...
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 25/09/07, 16:19

GDP, growth and ecology: the inevitable blockage!

The demonstration consists in taking 3 heating fuels from the least econological to the most econological and of simply show that these 3 examples are econologically inversely proportional to the GDP created.

In other words: GDP = f (1 / econology) or even more it is econological the less it is good for the GDP.

Conclusion: econology is not compatible with GDP.
corollary: il faut urgently another measure of wealth creation and growth.

We will quickly compare the following means of heating: oil, pellets, wood (or other "raw" biomass fuel) and "self-produced" biomass.

Demonstration is also possible with fuel types: diesel, diester and pure vegetable oil; self-made hvb or frying. The reflection and conclusion is exactly the same, obviously the figures will be slightly different.

We assume the 4 cases in 4 recent identical 120m² houses, well insulated whose annual gross energy requirements are: 120 kWh per m2. Therefore 14 400 kWh gross energy is required per year.

To simplify, we assume the cost of the identical heating system (or already depreciated) and we are only interested in fuel costs.

1) Oil heating:

a) Impact on GDP

14 kWh = 400 L of fuel oil.
At 0.65 € per L an invoice of 936 € / year.

It is not the bill that is important but rather what is counted in the GDP.

GDP is the sum of added values ​​+ taxes

GDP = Sum of Added Value Excluding Tax + Value Added Tax + Customs Duties

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Produit_in ... rieur_brut


One L of fuel oil is sold € 0,65 incl.
A barrel of oil costs € 57 ($ 80 a barrel and $ 1,4 / €) makes 159L or € 0,36 of raw material.

The rest, about 0,30 € are compatibilized for GDP, or 3 cents of € per kwh of raw energy.

b) Impact on the environment

Oil is obviously the worst energy (after coal) in terms of CO2 during the stages of exploration, extraction, transport, transformation and combustion ...

2) Pellet heating

a) Impact on GDP

14 kWh = 400 kg of pellets
If the kg of Pellets is sold in large quantities at € 0,30 per kg (minimum price), an invoice of € 864 / year is obtained.

What is the price of the raw material needed for Pellets?
In any case, the selling prices are clearly aligned with those of fuel oil (see https://www.econologie.com/forums/speculatio ... t3820.html ).

We can therefore assume that pellet energy occurs at about the same height as fuel oil in GDP, obviously related to kwh i.e. 3 cts per kWh energy

b) Impact on the environment

The impact on the environment, especially CO2, is greatly reduced compared to fuel oil, but it is not zero.
Transport and processing but above all drying sawdust (in order to meet standards) are the main energy-consuming steps in the production of pellets.

3) Wood heating

a) Impact on GDP

Here too, prices are aligned with the price of fuel oil. The stere is negotiated from 40 to 50 € TTC.

For beech we have:

a) 450 kg / stere
b) 3.5 kCal / kg (1 Cal = 1000 calories) or 4,1 kWh / kg

See: https://www.econologie.com/pouvoirs-calo ... -1437.html

A stere of beech thus gives approximately: 1850 kWh (that is to say the equivalent of 185L of fuel oil). It would therefore take 7.83 cubic meters to heat the 120m², or € 391 / year to € 50 per stere.

It is the cheapest energy (and 50 € it is already expensive for wood) but it is also the most restrictive.

However, we are therefore at 391/14440 = 2,7 euro cents per kWh energy. The share of wood heating in GDP is therefore necessarily much lower than the 2 other type of heating since the selling price is already lower than the contribution to the GDP of fuel oil or pellets.

We can assume that the share of GDP in wood heating is of the order of 1,4 cts per kwh.

This value can be further greatly reduced by: self-production of firewood (impact on zero GDP limited to costs) but also, unreported sales, something that is more difficult to achieve in other cases ...

b) Impact on the environment

Raw wood is the most ecologically interesting energy because it is the shortest production cycle: in almost all cases it is local production and requiring only a very low energy -vore transformation (especially if you split with an ax, a widely used practice).

Besides, in terms of CO2, even ADEME considers wood heating to have zero emissions.

4) Self-production

This is a somewhat special case and the reasoning above cannot be applied to it since it must be seen on a case by case basis.

Take the example of Miscanthus planted at the bottom of the garden.

Impact on GDP: 0 since it was not the subject of any monetary exchange!

Environmental impact: 0 if no chemical fertilizer is used.

Let us summarize the impacts from 0 to 3 according to the importance of the impact:

oil:
a) GDP: 3 euro cents / kWh
b) Environment: 3

pellets:
a) GDP: 3 euro cents / kWh
b) Environment: 1

Wood:
a) GDP: 1,4 euro cents / kWh
b) Environment: 0,2

autoproduction:
a) GDP: 0 euro cents / kWh
b) Environment: 0

Conclusion

It is clear that the more it is good for the environment, the less it creates GDP.

Isolated cases will I say the skeptics? Que Néni! Take the same reasoning with Fuels (in the same order: diesel, diester, hvb, hvb auto produced) or even for other types of heating (oil, electricity, heat pump, solar) and the results will appear in the same order!

Conclusion: GDP is therefore simply NOT compatible with the concept of sustainable development.
Last edited by Christophe the 26 / 09 / 07, 10: 30, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 6




by bham » 25/09/07, 17:58

Christophe wrote:
Conclusion: GDP is therefore simply NOT compatible with the concept of sustainable development.


Not bad as a demonstration!
It's a bit the same as VAT, the more intermediaries, the richer the state.
But you could also have taken an energy that you know is solar. This brings GDP to investment, but no longer after. Not good for GDP.
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 25/09/07, 18:59

Exactly! The same goes for solar and I mentioned it.

Isolated cases will I say the skeptics? Que Néni! Take the same reasoning with Fuels (in the same order: diesel, diester, hvb, hvb auto produced) or even for other types of heating (oil, electricity, heat pump, solar) and the results will appear in the same order!


Besides I even hesitated before choosing the example on fuels ... now if kk1 else wants to demonstrate with fuels and types of heaters ... I can only encourage it :)
0 x
User avatar
bham
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 1666
Registration: 20/12/04, 17:36
x 6




by bham » 25/09/07, 21:01

Christophe wrote:Exactly! The same goes for solar and I mentioned it.

Ah sorry Christophe, I read too quickly and had not seen this reference. :|
0 x
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 26/09/07, 10:47

Seen as the demonstration is "confused" (I think) there is no harm in having missed a few passages ...

I will put it in an article on the site, trying to brighten up a bit with some illustrations ...
0 x
yensial
I discovered econologic
I discovered econologic
posts: 7
Registration: 25/09/07, 23:04
Location: Houilles (78)




by yensial » 03/10/07, 14:37

Overall agree with the arguments put forward, with a small downside.

The real confusion is to equate GDP and wealth creation, the term is ambiguous and generates real misunderstanding.
The above I want to say, the production of wealth we do not care, however the GDP is an indicator that makes sense (which does not mean that we must fix it, well agree !!)

GDP is indeed the sum of added values, and is made up of wages + taxes / profits + (to put it simply).
Any policy tends to distribute these 3 components differently.

The fixette on the GDP tends to a recurring argument: more jobs requires that the GDP increases (cqfd).

Obviously or can put into perspective. First there are jobs that disappear and others that are created (see a century ago the share of workers in workshops or mines ...).
We can also campaign for a reduction in profits in favor of wages, without falling into caricature because profit is also the income of artisans or liberal professions (it's not just the CAC40 ...)

In short, on the issue of growth / ecology compatibility, in my opinion, we must be nuanced:
- if I buy a big car, I favor the GDP, but it takes more material and energy to produce it,
- if I hire a cleaning lady, I create GDP, but she will use my vacuum cleaner or my iron for me, so the energy consumption is the same.

Can an economist (a real one, a pro!) Explain to us why growth is inevitable according to most politicians (of all stripes ...)?

:?:
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963




by Ahmed » 28/02/08, 20:11

Hello,
I would like to try to answer Yensial:
Can an economist (a real one, a pro!) Explain to us why growth is inevitable according to most politicians (of all stripes ...)?

I think first of all that it is time to do without the crutches of "experts" of all kinds and to think for yourself; then the question is a little wonky: you ask the opinion of an economist on the opinion of politicians ...
That said, the question of growth economic can be approached from several angles:
History: the simple search for survival has long implied this search for an increase in production to adjust it to the level of needs.
Micro-economic: a company has an interest in producing or / and selling at the maximum of its capacities because in this way it can benefit from economies of scale, lower purchase prices and reduce the share of its fixed costs.
Psychological: according to an economist there would be a need for "ostentation" which would push everyone to want to satisfy beyond their real needs, particularly compared to others.
Philosophical: the possession or use of goods allows us to escape (partially) our contingencies: gold is unalterable, the car allows us to move faster than nature allows us ...
Social: the allocation of the resources produced, between the various economic agents is the main object of contention due to the great existing disparities. Growth seems to allow the most disadvantaged to have access to a larger share of the pie, while the wealthiest increase their fortunes.

We can therefore see that the idea of ​​growth has solid foundations, which explains its success with our policies, and all the more, as indicated in the previous paragraph, because it claims to reconcile opposites. This carefully maintained myth is a mild drug that treats symptoms without addressing the causes.

The idea of ​​decrease is that the indefinite increase in the possession of material goods has serious human consequences: conflictual relationships, individualism, loneliness, frustrations. The environmental consequences are well known. Growth cannot be infinite, biologically only cancer has this property.
0 x
gilgamesh
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 144
Registration: 11/07/07, 19:51




by gilgamesh » 07/04/08, 11:53

Hello...

I want to contribute with an article from alterinfo which explains very well what is happening now:

http://www.alterinfo.net/L-arnaque-mone ... 18457.html

It is by becoming aware that we take the first step to regain our rights. Ecological problems are well linked to this subject because they are just the result of this kind of irresponsible and criminal attitude.
0 x
there is no absolute truth in the realm of phenomena

gilgamesh
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79117
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 07/04/08, 11:56

0 x

Back to "Economy and finance, sustainability, growth, GDP, ecological tax systems"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 156 guests