Home
Artists
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register
Partychan Matrix ThePornDude
Home Artists Posts Import Register

【國際關係深度評：經典復刻】 不用理會環保的「西門定律」：氣候變化、環境危機是一個騙局嗎？ (Patreon)

Published:
2024-12-10 07:01:02
Imported:
2024-12
Tags:

Content

提及 truth Vs facts，我們必須重溫教經濟學家Julian Simon的名著《終極能源》（Ultimate Resources）。

在環保外交界，主流思想認為自由市場缺乏先天環保規範，不少大企業都是破壞環境的元兇。但與此同時，另有一個「市場環保學」流派持相反觀點，不但不認為自由市場破壞環境，反而相信絕對自由市場的自我調節機制，會自動解決環境問題和能源問題。Julian Simon是這學派的代表人物。

假如我們以道德角度審視上述理論，定會覺得政治不正確，正如一般人以道德角度閱讀國際關係新現實主義學派領袖Kenneth Waltz的「核武愈多愈安全」理論，只會感到匪夷所思。但單就經濟學的推論而言，Julian Simon是有嚴謹論證的。

在著作中，他比較了過去200年來能源價格和個人薪酬的比例，發現相對能源價格不斷下降；此外，他又發現新能源品種的出現速度，一直快於舊能源的耗盡速度。

根據上述觀察，Julian Simon 提出了一個非常大膽的定律﹕基於自由市場的調節機制、人性的動力和人類對創新科技的掌控，我們毫不需要擔心能源耗盡，因為規律告訴我們，舊能源耗盡前就會發現新能源，而這趨勢的持續發展，只會令能源的相對價格愈來愈低。

基於同樣原因，他也認為我們在中學教科書已開始學習的馬爾薩斯人口論乃「全盤錯誤」，相信人口膨脹不但不是導致能源危機的導火線，反而是解決能源危機的藥方。

雖然海耶克、佛利民等自由經濟領袖將Julian Simon引為知己，但可以想像的是，左派經濟學者、政治學者和環保人士對Julian Simon群起而攻。「西門定律」還引伸了另一個和經濟學沒有直接關係的觀察，就是能源在國際政治的角色，其實和能源的具體供求關係不一定直接掛鈎；正如油價的高低，和目前耗油量、儲存量和開發量也不一定構成關係。各國爭奪中東、中亞和非洲的天然資源，究竟是純粹為了擔心自己國家將無資源可用，還是為了在零和遊戲格局中打擊外交對手，兩者並不容易分辨。

*改編自沈旭暉《明報》文章

⏺ 【國際關係深度評 🌍】 Facts 不同 Truth：為甚麼未來世界會越來越不信任科學？
https://www.patreon.com/posts/116231326

Files

Comments

悉尼 袋鼠

暫時只係睇咗西門理論簡介，睇落佢係針對緊Malthusianism、Peak Oil 嗰一堆理論¹，以人類創新²來更有效使用資源，根本從來無話緊碳排放引致氣候變化³係騙局；根本係兩碼子事 (見²及³)。 套用佢講嘅嘢，佢直頭會話，再生能源，就係證明佢個理論，利用人類智慧嘅創新力量去解決問題。 ¹ 人口幾何增長，但資源有限，最終生活質素下降、甚至餓死） ² 同 Productivity 有關） ³ 同 (negative) Externalities有關 — 講緊第一個市場嘅成本，由第二個市場承擔時，結果第一個市場生產成本係打錯價，令第二個市場受損，所有市場加起嚟個效率就有損失）。 Julian Simon Was Right: A Half-Century of Population Growth, Increasing Prosperity, and Falling Commodity Prices https://www.cato.org/economic-development-bulletin/julian-simon-was-right-half-century-population-growth-increasing#

lyk

The biosphere is inherently limited. To feed 8 billion people we need to get nitrogen into the food chain through fertilisers, which is dependent on fossil fuel. Cement, steel and plastic all rely on fossil fuel processes to make them. Shale is a game changer for the US but not a game changer to the world’s biosphere problem. Energy transitions take a very long time — when you are attempting to rebuild the very foundations of civilisation from the ground up, it cannot be done in a decade or two. No AI, apps or claim of dematerialisation will change that. There is no disagreement on climate change taking place which is very measurable, how severe the consequences will be however is less clear. It will likely cause very large scale social and economic havoc particularly for poor countries, but it is unclear if it is an existential threat for humanity like those in Hollywood movies. What we need to do is bring better science into policy discussions, and bridge polarised opinions at extreme ends of the spectrum.

Kirishima

環保根本就係一個騙局啦 講真人類真係以為自己會影響到地球存亡？ 真自大 地球自己識得調節

Zero

一直認為拯救地球係偽命題，氣候變化係地球歷史上係出現過的，最明顯係冰河時期，而幾千萬年後依然可以回復至生機處處，物種繁多，可見地球係可以自我調節，生物亦可以適應，只係到時未必係人類作為主導，所以地球係唔需要拯救，只係人類文明需要而已

堅離地書院 College
>>157849911

他是針對人口論。但也主張不用刻意保護環境，而是以人類創造力改變先天設限。標題是後加。

堅離地書院 College
>>157850507

His logic is that when science progresses, new elements could be found / created to serve the same purpose automatically. Thus it's almost boundless.

Jasmine Chu
>>157886314

從來「世界末日」只係「人類末日」，地球呢塊頑石仲有排玩，大概捱到太陽變紅巨星，食埋地球。 既然人類不能/不想想像沒有人類嘅世界，所以咪以為係「世界一同末日」囉。正如有啲人不能想像世界沒有佢自己，咪將自己嘅死亡放到好大囉。

lyk
>>157850507

Then there is no reason for Musk to help humans migrate to Mars, nor for Bezos to relocate resource-consuming work outside planet earth. Apparently directing human ingenuity colonising Mars looks a lot less like science fiction than turning lead into gold. The most important thing about any working hypothesis is to know its limitations — bacteria looks like they are growing exponentially forever until they hit the edge of the plate. Solving one resource problem by creating two new ones won’t cut it. Human ingenuity has not helped to improve the basic necessities of life at rates anywhere remotely close to the speed we are improving AI and biotech. Even though resources maybe unbounded, time is not. Human ingenuity cannot be applied if there are no humans left on earth.

KTH
>>157850507

太陽能發電係明顯一個扭曲既市場，兼且長期扭曲。長期靠補貼賺錢，再由中共国輸出全世界，推翻晒外國所有太陽能發電板生產商。搞到太陽能發電科技毫無寸進，來來去去都仲係得十幾個%能源轉化率，因為現有既生意有錢賺，跟本無意慾去發展新技術，資源同注意力集中喺游說各國政府唔好 cut 補貼。 電動車又係同一個故事。

KTH

如果環保只係集中喺太多塑膠垃圾，呢個我絕對認同既，但係如果話因為人類行為令到全世界溫度上升幾多度，地球就會滅絕越推越遠，我覺得係理據太弱，因為既無法證明係啱，亦無辦法證明係錯。 如果話100年經濟學上算係長期趨勢，100年對地球黎講真係等於人類百萬份之一秒都不為過，就攞住嗰幾廿年數據就推論出全球氣候變化係人類做成並已形成不可逆轉趨勢，實在太無說服力。 最搞笑既係，環保膠一開始係嗌全球氣候 “暖化”，跟住俾事實狠摑數百巴掌，就改口做氣候 “變化”，真係咁樣搬龍門都完全唔知醜。

lyk

To put things into perspective: (1) We have been growing at the expense of other ecosystems on earth. Humans and their domesticated animals are now 98% of all the earth’s vertebrates by dry mass, and about a quarter of all living things on earth by the same measure. (2) Climate change is only one aspect impacting what and how humans can harvest from the earth’s biosphere — loss of biodiversity, deforestation, pollution, acidification of marine ecosystems etc. (3) Human activities are primarily about harvesting the biosphere, which is finite in aggregate — for the sake of (i) food for humans and their domesticated livestock (ii) fuel (iii) making things. Energy again is only one aspect. Hamburgers and smartphones also come from our biosphere (4) The current rate of harvesting our biosphere cannot go on indefinitely. The growth of our biosphere each year has roughly halved from about 200 billion ton to just over 100 billion ton over the last 2000 years as we make our mark on the planet, meanwhile our claim of that share (or harvest) has gone from close to zero to about 17% (or 17 billion ton). We only have one biosphere, there is no question of substitution as a whole (5) Price of individual resources is a question of economics (opportunity cost), not a reflection on the state of the biosphere. Oil for example is priced based on how much you have above ground, not how much below (6) We don’t know of any planet as good as earth, so the most sensible thing to do is live within our means (7) As far as geopolitics is concerned, one obvious question is: can our biosphere survive China’s success as it aspires to American levels of consumption? There is not one threshold but many thresholds. Vaclav Smil has written a ton on this subject if anyone wants more numbers to form an informed opinion.