On the "principal challenge": I used to think that we should be helping low income countries more. But I have come to realize that that belief is paternalist and racist. Unless and until they want to help themselves by reforming their institutions and cultures, we ought to let them live the way they want to live. That's respecting their autonomy. It's time to stop pumping money into corrupt leaders' Swiss bank accounts.
This makes obvious sense. But it is SO obvious and SO well known that it makes one wonder who it is aimed at. Who is to be persuaded to do what?
Surely it is overkill as rebuttal of a position that poor countries should NOT increase their use of energy? [Perhaps some activist may hold that position, but are they anywhere near enough decision-making to warrant this post?]
Now perhaps it is aimed at a position that poor countries should not increase their use of energy generated by releasing CO2. That is a position worthy of refutation (even as it leaves open the question of just how SHOULD any country, poor or rich incorporate the costs of CO2 emissions into its energy and other policies), but this post does not address that head on.
Yet if you look at the current efforts to solve energy poverty -- such as the new World Bank & AfDB pledge to connect 300m people by 2030 -- you'll see that solar lanterns or other small systems will likely count. This is a symptom of defining energy poverty as merely household lighting for the extreme poor, rather than delivering energy at scale for an entire economy. The MDBs are not just random activists. They are major financiers of infrastructure and helping countries plan investments.
I'm also trying to make the point that countries at ~200 kWh per capita don't just need a little more power, they need orders of magnitude more. Much of the planning and modeling assumes modest/pathetic increases.
I wholeheartedly agree with your disagreement with (among others) my former employers the World Bank about absolutely not financing CO2 emitting energy generation. If a fossil fuel using plant passes a CBA including the shadow price equivalent of the CO2 emitted, it should be financeable. [But I wanted YOU to say that. :)]
It’s well established that rising energy availability, per capita, is a prerequisite for human progress. I have a new essay coming soon on this called the “Progress’s First Principles.”
I suggest that all human progress is, at its most fundamental level, the use of energy and matter, informed with knowledge, to create beneficial counter-entropic forms.
This isn’t “new", of course, but what I learned recently is that matter is also a form of “bound energy.” With this understanding, it’s less surprising that material wealth rises alongside energy consumption.
This means that there are only two elements at play: energy and information as matter is just a form of energy. Weird to think about, almost counterintuitive.
I wonder what all this means for the “Henry Adams Curve?” Did economic growth slow in the “developed” world because energy consumption per capita stalled? Or is there more to it?: https://www.lianeon.org/p/the-lost-future-we-never-had
Excellent work Todd--thanks for sharing.
On the "principal challenge": I used to think that we should be helping low income countries more. But I have come to realize that that belief is paternalist and racist. Unless and until they want to help themselves by reforming their institutions and cultures, we ought to let them live the way they want to live. That's respecting their autonomy. It's time to stop pumping money into corrupt leaders' Swiss bank accounts.
This makes obvious sense. But it is SO obvious and SO well known that it makes one wonder who it is aimed at. Who is to be persuaded to do what?
Surely it is overkill as rebuttal of a position that poor countries should NOT increase their use of energy? [Perhaps some activist may hold that position, but are they anywhere near enough decision-making to warrant this post?]
Now perhaps it is aimed at a position that poor countries should not increase their use of energy generated by releasing CO2. That is a position worthy of refutation (even as it leaves open the question of just how SHOULD any country, poor or rich incorporate the costs of CO2 emissions into its energy and other policies), but this post does not address that head on.
So, what gives?
I'm glad you think it's obvious, as do I.
Yet if you look at the current efforts to solve energy poverty -- such as the new World Bank & AfDB pledge to connect 300m people by 2030 -- you'll see that solar lanterns or other small systems will likely count. This is a symptom of defining energy poverty as merely household lighting for the extreme poor, rather than delivering energy at scale for an entire economy. The MDBs are not just random activists. They are major financiers of infrastructure and helping countries plan investments.
I'm also trying to make the point that countries at ~200 kWh per capita don't just need a little more power, they need orders of magnitude more. Much of the planning and modeling assumes modest/pathetic increases.
I wholeheartedly agree with your disagreement with (among others) my former employers the World Bank about absolutely not financing CO2 emitting energy generation. If a fossil fuel using plant passes a CBA including the shadow price equivalent of the CO2 emitted, it should be financeable. [But I wanted YOU to say that. :)]
Wonderful animations here Todd.
It’s well established that rising energy availability, per capita, is a prerequisite for human progress. I have a new essay coming soon on this called the “Progress’s First Principles.”
I suggest that all human progress is, at its most fundamental level, the use of energy and matter, informed with knowledge, to create beneficial counter-entropic forms.
This isn’t “new", of course, but what I learned recently is that matter is also a form of “bound energy.” With this understanding, it’s less surprising that material wealth rises alongside energy consumption.
This means that there are only two elements at play: energy and information as matter is just a form of energy. Weird to think about, almost counterintuitive.
I wonder what all this means for the “Henry Adams Curve?” Did economic growth slow in the “developed” world because energy consumption per capita stalled? Or is there more to it?: https://www.lianeon.org/p/the-lost-future-we-never-had