GDP and energy production
Over the past 50 years, there has been a close correlation (0.97) between total energy production and inflation-adjusted GDP in the US. We have seen a slow increase in energy efficiency averaging about 1% per year, but otherwise an increase in GDP generally requires a proportional increase in energy production.
The latest statistics (2022) show that 80% of total energy consumption in the US still comes from oil, natural gas, and coal, and that consumption of fossil fuels is still growing nominally faster than consumption of non-fossil fuels.
This is why I assume that if we were to completely stop using fossil fuels, GDP would decline by 80%. If this decline were shared equally, median household income would drop from $75,000 to $15,000 -- plunging the median household below the official poverty line.
Banning fossil fuels is therefore the Poverty Platform.
Sure, we can continue expanding energy production from non-fossil fuels as Biden is encouraging with his massive subsidies, and we can continue increasing energy efficiency by 1%/year, but in the entire history of our country we've only built up our non-fossil fuel energy production to 20% of the total. How long would it take to quintuple that level? 5x as many nuclear power plants, hydroelectric facilities, wind turbines, and solar panels? And would voters put up with freezing our economic growth at 0% while we waited for non-fossil fuels to fully replace fossil fuels?
I advocate doing this, but no political party honestly advocates doing this. The Green Party presumes that we can undertake a WW2-level authoritarian reorientation of our economy and more than quintuple non-fossil energy production over a 10-year period, while also expanding the social welfare net. I'd like to see them try! But then, what about the rest of the world? The US could completely retool our economy to go Net Zero Emissions, but the US is only about 14% of global emissions. How would we get the rest of the world to follow our lead?
This is all fantasy politics, because the Green Party candidate is only polling at 2% in the US, and its nominee has never received as much as 3% at the national level, even with Ralph Nader's high name recognition in 2000. Generally minor-party candidates poll better than their showing on Election Day, because people fear participating in a spoiler effect, so we're highly unlikely to see Jill Stein win more than 2% of November's total, no matter how hard she campaigns over the next five months.
-----
But I'm afflicted by an honesty mutuation in my DNA. My own 20-year Global Green Communism path that I've chosen to undertake for myself is clearly a Path into Poverty. I'm taking a long time to get there, from a relatively well-off starting point. Under my plan I don't even spend down to the median household income for the first 12 years. [Presumably I'll retire before then.] I don't spend down to the poverty level until after 17 years. Then after 20 years I would live on $2,300 per year -- the per capita share of sustainable global GDP. We'll see whether I can squeeze my wallet that far. Right now, giving away 20% is pretty easy for me. I expect 25% will be easy next year.
Voluntary Poverty! It's mainly something that highly spiritual people do, like Catholic Nuns and Buddhist Monks. I may yet enter a Buddhist monastery. There's still time in my life for that.
-----
Time to stretch, then breakfast, then a walk, then telework, then a massage, then B is coming over.
The latest statistics (2022) show that 80% of total energy consumption in the US still comes from oil, natural gas, and coal, and that consumption of fossil fuels is still growing nominally faster than consumption of non-fossil fuels.
This is why I assume that if we were to completely stop using fossil fuels, GDP would decline by 80%. If this decline were shared equally, median household income would drop from $75,000 to $15,000 -- plunging the median household below the official poverty line.
Banning fossil fuels is therefore the Poverty Platform.
Sure, we can continue expanding energy production from non-fossil fuels as Biden is encouraging with his massive subsidies, and we can continue increasing energy efficiency by 1%/year, but in the entire history of our country we've only built up our non-fossil fuel energy production to 20% of the total. How long would it take to quintuple that level? 5x as many nuclear power plants, hydroelectric facilities, wind turbines, and solar panels? And would voters put up with freezing our economic growth at 0% while we waited for non-fossil fuels to fully replace fossil fuels?
I advocate doing this, but no political party honestly advocates doing this. The Green Party presumes that we can undertake a WW2-level authoritarian reorientation of our economy and more than quintuple non-fossil energy production over a 10-year period, while also expanding the social welfare net. I'd like to see them try! But then, what about the rest of the world? The US could completely retool our economy to go Net Zero Emissions, but the US is only about 14% of global emissions. How would we get the rest of the world to follow our lead?
This is all fantasy politics, because the Green Party candidate is only polling at 2% in the US, and its nominee has never received as much as 3% at the national level, even with Ralph Nader's high name recognition in 2000. Generally minor-party candidates poll better than their showing on Election Day, because people fear participating in a spoiler effect, so we're highly unlikely to see Jill Stein win more than 2% of November's total, no matter how hard she campaigns over the next five months.
-----
But I'm afflicted by an honesty mutuation in my DNA. My own 20-year Global Green Communism path that I've chosen to undertake for myself is clearly a Path into Poverty. I'm taking a long time to get there, from a relatively well-off starting point. Under my plan I don't even spend down to the median household income for the first 12 years. [Presumably I'll retire before then.] I don't spend down to the poverty level until after 17 years. Then after 20 years I would live on $2,300 per year -- the per capita share of sustainable global GDP. We'll see whether I can squeeze my wallet that far. Right now, giving away 20% is pretty easy for me. I expect 25% will be easy next year.
Voluntary Poverty! It's mainly something that highly spiritual people do, like Catholic Nuns and Buddhist Monks. I may yet enter a Buddhist monastery. There's still time in my life for that.
-----
Time to stretch, then breakfast, then a walk, then telework, then a massage, then B is coming over.