@StephanieKelton No, Stephanie, b/c solar & wind lock in fossil fuels (dying for resource availability reasons). Solar & wind are low to negative EROEI. Money is a function of energy. ( Garrett 2011 https://t.co/PO9tWAipSE) Xi is suckering the Wes
@DrPhiltill @LordMartinRees @elonmusk "[GDP] grows by a feedback loop wherein consumption rate of primary energy resources stays tied to the historical accumulation of global economic production—or p×g—through a time-independent factor of 9.7±0.3 mW per i
@peterrhague Here. This may get your attention if nothing else will. 50 years of the production integral has flat monetary valuation in 1990 dollars of 9.7±0.3 mW per dollar. https://t.co/PO9tWAipSE
@PeterBrannen1 Wow. In years of posting, this is what you decide to respond to? Interesting. Energy is the foundation of money. Obviously, the energy would not be harnessed here on this planet. That frees things up with other methods. https://t.co/PO9tW
@katiedimartin Perhaps the most groundbreaking econ ... atmospheric science. https://t.co/PO9tWAipSE ... feedback loop ... rate of primary energy resources tied to accumulation of global production—or p×g—through a time-independent factor of 9.7±0.3 mW pe
@peterrhague The valuation of money is energy. Demand for energy is determined by capacity to use it for GDP. Restriction of energy contracts GDP in real terms. (Inflation adjusted.) https://t.co/PO9tWAipSE
@LeeCamp Money is not just a metaphysical belief. "9.7±0.3 mW per inflation-adjusted 1990 US dollar " The value of money is directly tied to GDP (real production of things) which has a foundation relationship to energy. https://t.co/PO9tWAipSE
@WEschenbach Quite true. One theory is China is happy to continue to see the West get deeper into the solar panel energy pit, and is burning massive amounts of coal to do it. When that clearly fails, the West will be be in energy poverty & that = monet
@Jaczko 1st: Why do so many smart people pin their hopes on #nuclearpower? Because EROI is basis value of money. Energy is 50 year stable at 9.7 ±0.3 milliwatts per 1990 dollar (Garrett, 2011). https://t.co/PO9tWAipSE
@peterrhague Empirical relation of energy to economy. https://t.co/PO9tWAipSE
@peterrhague You might want to take a look at Garrett's work on valuation of money. https://t.co/PO9tWAipSE This piece is very good.
@newsvandal QE as methadone is a quite false metaphor. We need vast money creation. How money works is still being elucidated. This is the forefront that I am aware of. We correspond, there's issues, but I think a version of this will bear out. https://t.c
Are there basic physical constraints on future anthropogenic emissions of carbon dioxide? https://t.co/fgA7iIwTfD or https://t.co/Py8tZFEv0r "For laymen: Energy poverty = poverty of goods." #nuclear #uranium #thorium #repeal140A #auspol #AusPol2022 https:/
RT @Quantling: @7Kiwi Right now I like this article best. I'll slightly rephrase the key statement. https://t.co/PO9tWAipSE Consumption r…
@ErikLindy @7Kiwi Right now I like this best. I'll slightly rephrase the key statement. https://t.co/PO9tWAipSE Consumption rate of primary energy ≈flat to historical accumulation of global economic production Σ (GWP-depreciation) at 9.7±0.3 mW per infla
@7Kiwi Right now I like this article best. I'll slightly rephrase the key statement. https://t.co/PO9tWAipSE Consumption rate of primary energy ≈flat to historical accumulation of global economic production Σ (GWP-depreciation) at 9.7±0.3 mW per inflatio
@Mining_Atoms Right now I like this best. I'll slightly rephrase the key statement. https://t.co/PO9tWAipSE Consumption rate of primary energy ≈flat to historical accumulation of global economic production Σ (GWP-depreciation) at 9.7±0.3 mW per inflation
We give valuable fuel to Russia. This is a treaty requirement, but only because USA/EU leadership are, well, dolts in thrall to big oil, & fossil fuel execs don't give a damn about harming their nations. https://t.co/PO9tWAipSE 9.7 mW per 1990$
@Heather_mom4nuk @ElephantEating Yes. We hit the current tipping, manifesting as inflation early due to the astounding stupidity of the current administration & lapdog docility of our broken 4th estate. Energy poverty = fiscal poverty b\c money measure
@BosephDidley @Mining_Atoms Garrett originally found this energy to money lockstep flat relation through production when trying to figure out the limits of global CO2. https://t.co/PO9tWA0gEw ...consumption rate of primary energy => GWP —or p×g— 9.7±0.
@LinusMattauch @JosephEStiglitz @SCEDjournal @MCC_Berlin @INETOxford @ecioxford @oxmartinschool @EricBeinhocker @TheSmithSchool @TUBerlin 9.7±0.3 mW of energy is required for each inflation-adjusted 1990 US dollar of growth. https://t.co/jPhx5pYCn1 Net Z
@Atomicrod @mtaylor_nz Problem is, there is a lockstep link of money to energy. https://t.co/PO9tWA0gEw The physics definition of work explains it. C-tax just forces inflation because there isn't any available alternative. Nuclear is already disadvantaged
@Dr_Keefer Of course. https://t.co/PO9tWA0gEw "the consumption rate of primary energy resources stays tied to the historical accumulation of global economic production—or p×g—through a time-independent factor of 9.7±0.3 mW per inflation-adjusted 1990 US do
@EnergyWrapAU Let's see. The USA has dropped over $40 billion on Ukraine. The military budget for this year is $765 billion. And, we can spend as much as we like, while the real backing of money is energy production. So it's no problem in reality. https://
The financial system displays a lockstep correlation of energy consumption and money, when corrected for inflation. 9.7+/- 0.3 milliwatts per 1990 dollar. https://t.co/PO9tWA0gEw This means energy is the physics of money. This makes sense because in physic
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @nephologue: @MvKutzschenbach First paper, though many since. https://t.co/gAhNIRPDPJ Also https://t.co/6FyWmwe12T for thermodynamics wi…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
RT @ClimateBen: 'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away fr…
'The larger we get, the more energy and raw materials we require.. Absent an extraordinarily rapid metabolic shift away from carbon based fuels, persistence of growth implies that we will face a likely 4 °C to 9 °C temperature rise within the lifetimes of
RT @nephologue: @MvKutzschenbach First paper, though many since. https://t.co/gAhNIRPDPJ Also https://t.co/6FyWmwe12T for thermodynamics wi…
@MvKutzschenbach First paper, though many since. https://t.co/gAhNIRPDPJ Also https://t.co/6FyWmwe12T for thermodynamics without equations
@bookcheekite @DTCochrane Yeah I just got booted from it because a pro-nuclear MMT guy posted this (in my opinion, crank) journal article and within 3 or 4 back and forths called me mentally ill for saying GDP growth can't be measured, so I called him an a
@crentsch My computer and matlab are bust. Forget how I treated that special case (which hasn’t happened on multi-year averages). Probably just d(ln(x))/dot = 1/x(dx/dt) Otherwise Eq. 9 in the first paper explains the rational (and all others after too) h
@valdra76 Un po' datato, ma di estremo interesse per l'individuazione di una costante tra disponibilità (e conseguente utilizzo) di energia elettrica e sviluppo ➡️ https://t.co/9lp5gJrhP8 https://t.co/HOrUEjuL9Y
@maxim_k @HenzeTimon @_ppmv @jasonhickel @ProfSteveKeen Implying that the constant lambda not only can decline, but that it should have also in the past since E/Y has declined. Counterintuitive, but it turns out even globally declining E/Y accelerates grow
RT @nephologue: @ClimateOpp This paper in Climatic Change, perhaps familiar, may help explain the underlying physical reasons why it probab…
@ClimateOpp This paper in Climatic Change, perhaps familiar, may help explain the underlying physical reasons why it probably wasn't achievable, even at the turn of the millennium. Still open to providing a response to the critiques published alongside the
@stevenlevy Re: Sale/Fitzpatrick bet - While technology makes possibility, economic organization within politics makes possible futures. And energy = wealth per Garrett 2009. https://t.co/PO9tWA0gEw
@george67177333 @gordonschuecker @libshipwreck @NJHagens @SaraSchurmann @sixtus @GesaSchulz @nephologue @g_kallis @jasonhickel Gracias, these are very helpful, George! 🙏 On limits: here a good basis for discussion from the climate angle, Tim Garrett’s 2011
Why thermodynamics: Carbon as a waste product links to, & constrains, the sum of human activity; this is far from a ‘climate’ question in a policy field view. Instead, it encompasses all past current & future human activity. Good starting point @ne
@hausfath @AndrewDessler Thanks, but that is still not the unit (in physical terms), is it? Its just a number of given amount of money (currency) what it means 1000 dollars, or 1000 000 dollars? I like the energy analogy per @nephologue: https://t.co/ZJ6SR
@NickCowern @nephologue @Lacertko @RasmusBenestad 1. so,"it's likely" that we get to defy the laws of thermodynamics? is that it? 2. what `existing techs` is there that would allow the growth paradigm to continue within the physical boundaries? I am all ea
@FowlerNed @funylibertarian Unrestrained capitalism has been running for over 200 years, only to lead to this looming catastrophe. Don't complain to me, I can't change the laws of physics and thermodynamics. What this boils down to is fig. 6 and 7. https:/
@tan123 Yes of course, it's mathematically proven that continued economic growth and associated CO2 production will eventually lead to a collapse of civilization. Not that we could ever expect Tom to read some hard science. https://t.co/rjJvwwPMZE #Climate
RT @ProfSteveKeen: @t0nyyates Try atmospheric physicist Tim Garrett @nephologue https://t.co/W4CiWBg60D
@t0nyyates Try atmospheric physicist Tim Garrett @nephologue https://t.co/W4CiWBg60D
@SkylerOfCASSE Can't go into the thermodynamics here, but it turns out these are the same thing. Eq. 8 and Appendix A and B here: https://t.co/jLXe9V65Br
@DrMattHenschke @shawn_whatley What Rex Murphy has wrong is that it is not what "greens and enviros say is necessary" it is the level of change that science and the laws of thermodynamics show is necessary: https://t.co/VEkeUHldre #RexMurphy has no science
@derekmc_ Yes! This concept is pretty natural if you think about how organisms work, and it leads to the simplifiying result I mentioned, but it is totally absent from any current macroeconomic models. If you are interested in more, see https://t.co/h2qlum
RT @nephologue: A friend asked how I got interested in econ. 1. We need accurate econ. forecasts to forecast climate 2. Cool! Econ. systems…
RT @nephologue: A friend asked how I got interested in econ. 1. We need accurate econ. forecasts to forecast climate 2. Cool! Econ. systems…
RT @nephologue: A friend asked how I got interested in econ. 1. We need accurate econ. forecasts to forecast climate 2. Cool! Econ. systems…
A friend asked how I got interested in econ. 1. We need accurate econ. forecasts to forecast climate 2. Cool! Econ. systems behave as simple physical systems 3. Woah...Climate economists do not use the scientific method, e.g. hindcasts 4. We can do better!
@GhostPanther Civilization cannot continue using fossil fuels, and cannot stop quickly either. Need to change civilization, or accurately change the energy usage parameters. https://t.co/VEkeUHldre #climatechange
RT @nephologue: We assume a power of political will to choose paths for future climates - without considering how physical laws constrain t…
RT @nephologue: We assume a power of political will to choose paths for future climates - without considering how physical laws constrain t…
RT @nephologue: We assume a power of political will to choose paths for future climates - without considering how physical laws constrain t…
RT @nephologue: We assume a power of political will to choose paths for future climates - without considering how physical laws constrain t…
RT @nephologue: We assume a power of political will to choose paths for future climates - without considering how physical laws constrain t…
We assume a power of political will to choose paths for future climates - without considering how physical laws constrain the possible. Is human will divorced from thermodynamics? How? Are our neural networks not composed of matter and run off of energy? h
RT @nephologue: To stabilize global CO2 emissions at its already high level, our only option is to decarbonize at about the same rate at wh…
@mtobis This discussion calls for mention of T. Garrett (2009) https://t.co/n6Hald8qlX assumes boundary between entity, environment, surroundings for thermo calc's, integration along boundary, fascinating, detailed and involved. Easier presentations online
RT @nephologue: To stabilize global CO2 emissions at its already high level, our only option is to decarbonize at about the same rate at wh…
RT @nephologue: To stabilize global CO2 emissions at its already high level, our only option is to decarbonize at about the same rate at wh…
RT @nephologue: To stabilize global CO2 emissions at its already high level, our only option is to decarbonize at about the same rate at wh…
RT @nephologue: To stabilize global CO2 emissions at its already high level, our only option is to decarbonize at about the same rate at wh…
RT @nephologue: To stabilize global CO2 emissions at its already high level, our only option is to decarbonize at about the same rate at wh…
RT @nephologue: To stabilize global CO2 emissions at its already high level, our only option is to decarbonize at about the same rate at wh…
RT @nephologue: To stabilize global CO2 emissions at its already high level, our only option is to decarbonize at about the same rate at wh…
RT @nephologue: To stabilize global CO2 emissions at its already high level, our only option is to decarbonize at about the same rate at wh…
To stabilize global CO2 emissions at its already high level, our only option is to decarbonize at about the same rate at which the economy is growing. This works out to ~2%/yr, or construction of 1 new nuclear power plant or renewable equivalent a day. h
RT @fardos: @justinmcbrien Tim Garrett`s argument describing civilization as a heat engine is quite compelling https://t.co/10OsaNktCd htt…
@justinmcbrien Tim Garrett`s argument describing civilization as a heat engine is quite compelling https://t.co/10OsaNktCd https://t.co/8r7D8gKR1Z however deterministic views are toxic.Let`s overthrow capitalism and create a new eco-centred civilization
@hsaunders6 Have you seen the work of Tim Garrett at Utah? Shows rebound >=100% from thermodynamic principles. https://t.co/vAaQaUUZiO
@BoultR Not every transaction nets to zero, but the average does. Garrett 2011 shows formal proof in thermodynamic context. https://t.co/vAaQaUUZiO
RT @tensiontest: "approximately one new nuclear power plant per day." #climatechange https://t.co/1lQOE9tAZN @Guy_McPherson
"approximately one new nuclear power plant per day." #climatechange https://t.co/1lQOE9tAZN @Guy_McPherson
@RisetoClimate Tim Garrett's work was instrumental in shaping my views. https://t.co/lJSTsK8rhF
To review @theresphysics here is @KeithAPickering's proposed law: https://t.co/Q0UoZr2jpq
@ameliatimbers @JesseJenkins @HillaryClinton EE Rebound +=100% thru entire economy; see https://t.co/qafuG6KrPs for thermodynamic proof.
@mtobis @PeterWSinclair Not an easy read here: https://t.co/vA99NijgIu But Garrett's work helped me find a deeper appreciation for
@swimsure Here's an excellent place to start if you want to explore what I'm talking about. https://t.co/atbUqGFZw5
@MarkHBurton @Zapaman Not a subscriber $39 a bit steep. But here's the paper I find most helpful https://t.co/vA99NijgIu
@BillGates Here's one of Garrett's key papers on the subject of society, wealth and energy. https://t.co/vA99NijgIu Essential to discussion.
@lbergkamp @RichardTol energy availability. https://t.co/vA99NijgIu