Brands's List: Bucky Fuller, Biomimicry, Solutioneering, and Design Science

"A green economy is an economy that imitates green plants as far as possible. Plants use scarce terrestrial materials to capture abundant solar energy, and are careful to recycle the materials for reuse. Although humans are not able to photosynthesize, we can imitate the strategy of maximizing use of the sun while economizing on terrestrial minerals, fossil fuels, and ecological services. Ever since the industrial revolution our strategy has been the opposite. Fortunately, as economist Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen noted, we have not yet learned how to mine the sun and use up tomorrow’s solar energy for today’s growth. But we can mine the earth and use up tomorrow’s fossil fuels, minerals, and waste absorption capacities today. We have eagerly done this to grow the economy, but have neglected the fact that the costs of doing so have surpassed the benefits – that is to say, growth has actually become uneconomic.

In spite of the fact that green plants have no brains, they have managed to avoid the error of becoming dependent on the less abundant source of available energy. A green economy must do likewise – seek to maximize use of the abundant flow of solar low entropy and economize on the scarce stock of terrestrial low entropy. Specifically, a green economy would invest scarce terrestrial minerals in things like windmills, photovoltaic cells, and plows (or seed drills) – not squander them on armaments, Cadillacs, and manned space stunts. A green economy can be sufficient, sustainable, and even wealthy, but it cannot be a growth-based economy. A green economy must seek to develop qualitatively without growing quantitatively – to get better without getting bigger.

There is another kind of green economy that seeks to be green after the manner of greenback dollars, rather than green plants. Green dollars, unlike green plants, cannot photosynthesize. But dollars can miraculously be created out of nothing and grow exponentially at compound interest in banks. However, Aristotle noted that this kind of growth is very suspe

Also see Herman Daly on an Ecological Steady State Green Economy that mimics the life of plants.
EROEI is fundamentally important to our civilization. Having good, sound, scientifically-based numbers is critical to making good policy decisions in the near term for the long-term. Suppose wind electricity doesn't have the industry-claimed 20:1 EROEI. Suppose it turns out, once all the relevant cost factors are taken into account, that the true EROEI is only 2:1 (an order of magnitude less). Then what? Should we spend billions of dollars setting up wind farms to supply the grid (no matter how smart)? More to the point, what is the EROEI that is necessary to have a sustainable energy source and supply society with the needed power to sustain some particular life style?

These are absolutely critical questions that, unfortunately, our politicians don't even realize they need to ask. The suppliers of these new technologies are in it for the profit; they are not motivated to tell the truth, or, for that matter, even understand that there is a truth that may differ from their own desires! Green is the new bottom line generator. But very few actually grasp what is green, what is a net energy gain versus a wowy-zowy technology that has the appearance of green.

I guess this is why I am pessimistic. We humans want to believe in progress and are willing to let ourselves be fooled by the appearance of progress. Anything that claims to provide greater energy out than was put in gets our support. Even if we don't know that, in fact, the claims are true. I know how to address the scientific issue of EROEI but will probably never get the chance. There are many other scientists who know this as well. But as with global warming, our message isn't hopeful for the masses. So it will be ignored.
"Or, How I Learned to Stop Fearing the Future and Learned to Love "Green"
Basics

An interesting discussion regarding energy return on energy invested (EROEI) has developed in response to an article posted on The Oil Drum by Charles Hall and

"The framing question of the casino economy is: "Which of the available resource allocation choices will produce the greatest financial return." The framing question of a living economy is: "Which available resource allocation choices will make the greatest contribution to the long-term health and well-being of people and the larger community of life on which human well-being ultimately depends." These contrasting questions assume very different forms of economic organization and lead to very different resource allocation choices with very different outcomes. [See An Epic Choice] Living Earth economies:

* Nurture the health and well-being of people, community, and the natural environment by growing knowledge, creativity, caring relationships, and the ecosystem's regenerative capacity;
* Favor locally owned enterprises that work in harmony with natural systems, provide meaningful living-wage jobs, treat profit as a means rather than an end, and cooperate with other businesses to create community wealth for all stakeholders;
* Support regional self-reliance in meeting needs for food, energy, waste absorption, and other basic needs in balanced relationship with local ecosystems;
* Cooperate with their neighbors through the free sharing of knowledge and technology and the fair and balanced exchange of surplus production for that which they cannot readily produce for themselves;
* Distribute wealth equitably and feature broadly based participation in ownership of homes and businesses;
* Foster a joyful cultural life that nurtures a distinctive sense of cultural identity and connection to place.

Living Earth economies offer more life for less money. They support greater equality, stability, self-reliance, fulfilling work, leisure, and caring relationships with less debt, less wasteful consumption, less violence, and less energy consuming travel and transport."