@enrique_lescure You seem to use the terms energy, exergy and emergy almost interchangeably, which makes things confusing. There seems to be a mixing of energy and labour in point 2) in the first post, which is problematic because energy is always conserved whereas value is continually created through labour. Exergy on the other hand isn't conserved. Exergy tends to be destroyed because entropy always increases, right?
I'm also a bit confused from the conversation earlier today since you said the idea isn't to use planning. If that isn't the intent then this only leaves exchange as the method of coordinating production, and exchange operates under the law of value. You call energy credits a currency which also implies exchange. You are therefore likely to run into the same kind of problems as the Owenites' labour money scheme. But you also say ECs don't circulate which makes them not currency but merely means of payment. This is why I say it is very important to be precise, to use established terminology. Claiming ECs are currency and not currency at the same time is a contradiction.
We define the total size of an economy from its total exergy within ecological constraints. We define the cost of operations and production according to their emergy, and could thus determine how many potential operations we are capable of conducting simultaneously.
We are not talking about labour in any other term than the emergy cost of operating machinery. In case for human labour, this would be the emergy cost of producing the food which they sustain themselves on, but our model is not based on a pre-modern technological level.
"You call energy credits a currency which also implies exchange."
There is not going to be any exchange, except for data, as energy credits are created when distributed to the users, and transformed into information when allocated by the users to what they want produced for themselves. One EC cannot be used more than once, because it represents production capacity.
I would argue that they are not even a means of payment, since nobody would receive any EC's as a result of the payment of EC's.
Regarding planning, Energy Accounting could be used both in the context of a centrally planned economy as in an economy without any planning at all, though I personally would view both these situations as theoretical. In some areas, it is prudent to use central planning.
In other areas, it would be better to have a holonic system, with cooperative groups (holons) which produce stuff because they want to. The users determine where they want to allocate their EC's, and the holons receive information and produce what the users want. If a holon is innovating or producing products and services which are popular and in high demand, the combined distribution of EC's for that holon will grow the next period, whereas if they produce subpar products and services, the distribution of EC's will decline.
"You call energy credits a currency which also implies exchange."
There is not going to be any exchange, except for data, as energy credits are created when distributed to the users, and transformed into information when allocated by the users to what they want produced for themselves. One EC cannot be used more than once, because it represents production capacity.
I would argue that they are not even a means of payment, since nobody would receive any EC's as a result of the payment of EC's.
Sounds like the purpose is primarily to steer production then, or as a way to democratize planning not dissimilar to some socialist proposals for carbon credit schemes. And as I've said, me and Dave are certainly interested in more remuneration schemes.
Capping exergy seems spurious or even counterproductive. A lot of socialist literature is rather the opposite. Socialism being a higher mode of production than capitalism, within the bounds given by our environment, part of the goal is to harness yet more energy before our ploughs. I may be wrong, but there seems to me to exist a danger that the exergy concept "fetishizes" reductions in energy use. A kind of hippiefication. Socialism is not pauperism.
Regarding planning, Energy Accounting could be used both in the context of a centrally planned economy as in an economy without any planning at all, though I personally would view both these situations as theoretical. In some areas, it is prudent to use central planning.
Carbon credit schemes in market economies will quickly run up against the law of value, which is why bourgeois schemes like cap & trade don't work.
"Capping exergy seems spurious or even counterproductive. A lot of socialist literature is rather the opposite. Socialism being a higher mode of production than capitalism, within the bounds given by our environment, part of the goal is to harness yet more energy before our ploughs. I may be wrong, but there seems to me to exist a danger that the exergy concept "fetishizes" reductions in energy use. A kind of hippiefication. Socialism is not pauperism."
How then do you suggest that we do not extend above our carrying capacity?
I challenge the idea that there is a fetishisation of nature based on emotional foundations. Currently, collectively we as a species are using the equivalent of what 1,7 earths can renew every year. Either we choose to ignore those numbers when politically convenient, or we adjust our set based on them and strive to make an equitable distribution of resources planet-wide.
"Carbon credit schemes in market economies will quickly run up against the law of value, which is why bourgeois schemes like cap & trade don't work."
That we agree with. There is no trading under Energy Accounting, except possibly bartering of second hand goods on the local level.
How then do you suggest that we do not extend above our carrying capacity?
With planning aka calculation in kind. No plan that exceeds the carrying capacity of Earth can be formulated, because it would violate the constraints of the system. The plan solver always spits out a feasible solution, if one exists.
Two example constraints are "atmospheric CO2 <= 300 ppm" and "atmospheric CH4 <= 1 ppm". Note how this is different from "atmospheric CO2 + 84*atmospheric CH4 <= 384 ppm" if one were to use GWP instead. CO2 = 200 ppm, CH4 = 2.19 ppm is a feasible solution despite having more CH4 than today, which we probably want to avoid.
Emergy/exergy has problems similar to the above, because they collapse everything into a single scalar. It is "fetishistic" in that it "veils" what you actually want to achieve. It seems an awkward proxy for explicit constraints.
How then do you suggest that we do not extend above our carrying capacity?
With planning aka calculation in kind. No plan that exceeds the carrying capacity of Earth can be formulated, because it would violate the constraints of the system. The plan solver always spits out a feasible solution, if one exists.
Two example constraints are "atmospheric CO2 <= 300 ppm" and "atmospheric CH4 <= 1 ppm". Note how this is different from "atmospheric CO2 + 84*atmospheric CH4 <= 384 ppm" if one were to use GWP instead. CO2 = 200 ppm, CH4 = 2.19 ppm is a feasible solution despite having more CH4 than today, which we probably want to avoid.
Emergy/exergy has problems similar to the above, because they collapse everything into a single scalar. It is "fetishistic" in that it "veils" what you actually want to achieve. It seems an awkward proxy for explicit constraints.
Yes, and Energy Accounting is - amongst other things - a tool to be able to conduct such planning. But it also establishes limitations by issuing a limited number of energy credits.
To revisit the topic.
Energy Accounting exists to measure the total exergy of our carrying capacity - thus determining the size of the economy of society during a specific time-frame. If we would add other values, for example some kind of additional measurement of the work input of workers into the frame, wouldn't that distort the information about the size of our production capacity?
@enrique_lescure The actual "carrying capacity" is vector valued, not a scalar. When you project all these different use-values onto the scalar "exergy" then you're throwing information away. One consequence of this is that the set of plans gets limited to the cone formed by the non-negativity constraints and the exergy constraint rather than the much larger polytope you get when you consider each constraint separately and explicitly. You will also likely have to keep changing the definition of exergy when the system gets close to any of these carrying capacities that are implicit in the concept.
@enrique_lescure The actual "carrying capacity" is vector valued, not a scalar. When you project all these different use-values onto the scalar "exergy" then you're throwing information away. One consequence of this is that the set of plans gets limited to the cone formed by the non-negativity constraints and the exergy constraint rather than the much larger polytope you get when you consider each constraint separately and explicitly. You will also likely have to keep changing the definition of exergy when the system gets close to any of these carrying capacities that are implicit in the concept.
Nah, what also is measured in is the cost of creating an ecological equilibrium in case industrial activity damages the environment.
So in short, the cost of an operation = Extraction+Refinement+Assembly+Transport+Storage(in case storage accrues emergy costs)+Restoration/Compensation of damaged environment.