A tech industry journalist thinks that American chip manufacturers could find their technology outlawed in Europe once rising oil prices threaten the global economy with meltdown:
The straightforward argument is that the more expensive oil becomes the more expensive is power in all its forms. And that is as true for notebook computers as it is for mobile phones and basestations…
So power, green and recycling conscious have we become, there is even the prospect that Intel processors could become first unfashionable and then in an Orwellian European Union, illegal.
Sounds a bit hysterical, yes. But, wait…
The advent of ecodesign legislation in Europe directly targets power-consuming electronics products. For now the legislation is focused on the waste caused by standby operation, but increasingly the tone of the documentation is that designers must show that they have taken appropriate steps to reduce the power consumption of their products. And if they cannot do that there is the risk that the products will not be allowed to be marketed within the European Union.
Indeed, according to the “Energy” section of the European Commission’s website:
Apart from the user’s behaviour, there are two complementary ways of reducing the energy consumed by products: labelling to raise awareness of consumers on the real energy use in order to influence their buying decisions (such as labelling schemes for domestic appliances), and energy efficiency requirements imposed to products from the early stage on the design phase. (emphasis added)
Once the reality of a world without cheap oil starts to sink in, no doubt there will be many ways in which we will not recognize our current notion of the role of the State, the meaning of rights, and the nature of commerce. I tend to think there would be a bit more opposition to this kind of presumptuous intervention in the States compared to Europe, but honestly, when our backs are to the wall, who knows?
Originally published here.
]]>This clip features a scientist who claims there’s a 50/50 chance that this year we may see the total loss of summer sea ice from the North Pole, for the first time ever. This could be huge, as far as how the masses perceive climate change. The satellite time-lapse imagery is very powerful (“…visual, quantifiable, measurable,” as the scientist says).
Granted, it would be more overwhelming if there were large populations of humans living there, but the next-worst-thing to seeing human hardship has to be seeing polar bear hardship! And that there is, if the ice goes bye-bye.
One thing that fascinates me is if/when the general public begins to clamor for massive state involvement to “save” our society, in defiance of long-treasured civil liberties (especially “economic” ones). This is less a political fascination than an aesthetic one — I don’t have the special drive that activists possess to shout loudly about stopping certain trends. I do have a rubbernecker’s awe when witnessing large shifts in the relationship between state and individual.
The “War on Terror” has been one such shift, with regards to habeas corpus and wiretapping. Climate change is another; so is the end of cheap oil. I believe the world population will quickly abandon any and all “idealistic” values regarding meddling by the political class when imminent and widespread harm is demonstrated in concrete terms.
Originally published here.
]]>
As mentioned, the end of cheap oil is one of those concrete, society-wide phenomena that causes the masses to “wake up” and see a looming danger, and thereby let go of quaint political (and other) ideals. Permanently high gas prices have, today, led the Wall Street Journal to declare that “poor Americans” will abandon automobiles as if they were Europeans, once fuel inevitably hits $7/gallon. Which poor Americans?
The 57 million American households that have both cars and access to something resembling public transit. Gasoline at $7 begins to approach prices Europeans have paid for years, meaning that chunk of America “will start to act more and more like Europeans,” Mr. Rubin says. Not soccer moms in a minivan—soccer fans, searching for tokens…
But the dumping of the car for mass transit is only the beginning of the story. Such a shift will place a massive burden on the poorly-designed and indequately-managed transit systems of US cities at a time when the very cause of people’s behavior change, high fuel costs, will be draining government coffers because of the resulting recession/depression. So there’s that.
Worse still, what happens to all the folks who don’t live within the service range of mass transit and are too poor to move to a place that is? Do they begin bum-rushing the cities anyway, creating squatter communities and shanty-towns that are currently a symbol of the failures of the developing world?
The loss of the viability of cars is being hailed by some in the privileged class as a boon to everyone. But the ripple effects of this phenomenon on societies which are fundamentally predicated upon the existence of cars and cheap oil cannot be understated. They will be obvious and radical. And on top of the nightmarish logistical clusterfuck, will be the actions of inept governments local and federal to step in and try to “do something,” which will only exacerbate the crisis (or fulfill it, if you’re in the camp that sees all this as pre-determined given the loss of our key energy source).
Originally published here.
]]>CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ARTICLE ]]>