Hey Arjun, really great post. I was wondering if you know of any work down to try and quantify a lower limit for an Everyone is Rich demand level; under conditions where the leading international concern isn’t simply reducing hydrocarbon usage, but ensuring the hydrocarbons we do use are put to their most efficient uses.
For example, flaring is a 0% efficiency (maybe even negative) use of hydrocarbons. Natural gas powered pneumatic devices (and the associated leaks) are also low efficiency uses. Compared to fertilizer, petrochemicals, plastics, transportation fuels in high efficiency engines with no substitutes and other similar applications.
If we worked towards an everyone is rich, and hydrocarbons are only put towards their highest value, highest efficiency, most difficult to replace uses. What kind of minimum demand does that create? That seems like a better minimum demand scenario than the 1.5 Degree one that you so effortlessly deconstructed in the video.
Thanks, look forward to seeing you at the fireside chat.
John, thank you very much! I have seen estimates for the "max efficiency/highest possible use" that could shave one-third or more off demand. Jevon's Paradox (efficiency leads inevitably to incremental demand) would be one of the debates on whether that would be fully realized. And that of course is also the argument for "electrify everything" where primary energy usage would in theory be drastically improved.
Thanks Arjun. Your comment about protesters and considering alternative points of view struck a nerve.
A big mistake I made in the 2000's was not understanding the severe imbalances developing in Toronto real estate. I spent a long time thinking about why I made that mistake and eventually I realized the problem: I had spoken to lots of people about it but their arguments weren't very good, my subtle but CRITICAL mistake was that I didn't steel-man their arguments enough. I listen to their arguments, dismissed them because they were not very good, and then assumed without even realizing that I had made the correction decision. Big mistake.
That experience taught me the hard way that we have to seek out the most intelligent version of whatever positions we are debating, it is very dangerous to deal only with the 'average' or 'general' narrative floating around because it is usually not very well thought-through, there may be a much more intelligent version of it, we just haven't encountered it yet.
So I'm always curious to know what the most intelligent versions of peak demand, end-of-fossil-fuels and rapid EV adoption are, rather than the muddled versions of those positions we usually encounter. The last thing we want to do is dismiss a mediocre argument, only to realize too late that there was a better version we didn't know about.
While watching, something struck me: how do you frame the reality of this data in a way the opponents will be willing to hear?
The climate alarmists who push these absurd net zero narratives garner sympathetic supporters using the Critical Theory narrative of “Oppressor vs Opressed” and that everyone is one or the other.
What if us sober-minded folks start showcasing this data from the same perspective? I can think of scantly worse oppressive behavior than to deny the “other 7 billion” of affordable and reliable energy. It’s economic colonialism for the “lucky billion” to commandeer the economies of the rest of the world and suppress their growth.
Maybe by speaking their language they’ll start to listen. 🤷🏻♂️. In any case, thanks again for the thought provoking work.
I actually spend a lot of time with those that consider climate as an urgent priority to deal with. It is one the purposes of Super-Spiked. This is my attempt to reach them!
Arjun, good sir, that was some of your finest work and I say that as a huge admirer of your entire body of work since joining the Veriten team. Thanks for all you do!
Hey Arjun, really great post. I was wondering if you know of any work down to try and quantify a lower limit for an Everyone is Rich demand level; under conditions where the leading international concern isn’t simply reducing hydrocarbon usage, but ensuring the hydrocarbons we do use are put to their most efficient uses.
For example, flaring is a 0% efficiency (maybe even negative) use of hydrocarbons. Natural gas powered pneumatic devices (and the associated leaks) are also low efficiency uses. Compared to fertilizer, petrochemicals, plastics, transportation fuels in high efficiency engines with no substitutes and other similar applications.
If we worked towards an everyone is rich, and hydrocarbons are only put towards their highest value, highest efficiency, most difficult to replace uses. What kind of minimum demand does that create? That seems like a better minimum demand scenario than the 1.5 Degree one that you so effortlessly deconstructed in the video.
Thanks, look forward to seeing you at the fireside chat.
John, thank you very much! I have seen estimates for the "max efficiency/highest possible use" that could shave one-third or more off demand. Jevon's Paradox (efficiency leads inevitably to incremental demand) would be one of the debates on whether that would be fully realized. And that of course is also the argument for "electrify everything" where primary energy usage would in theory be drastically improved.
Let’s get together soon, and thanks
Arjun, very thought provoking, especially as a longtime Equity Analyst. Thank you.
Thank you TMacro06...and great to have you as a fellow equity analyst subscriber!
Thanks Arjun. Your comment about protesters and considering alternative points of view struck a nerve.
A big mistake I made in the 2000's was not understanding the severe imbalances developing in Toronto real estate. I spent a long time thinking about why I made that mistake and eventually I realized the problem: I had spoken to lots of people about it but their arguments weren't very good, my subtle but CRITICAL mistake was that I didn't steel-man their arguments enough. I listen to their arguments, dismissed them because they were not very good, and then assumed without even realizing that I had made the correction decision. Big mistake.
That experience taught me the hard way that we have to seek out the most intelligent version of whatever positions we are debating, it is very dangerous to deal only with the 'average' or 'general' narrative floating around because it is usually not very well thought-through, there may be a much more intelligent version of it, we just haven't encountered it yet.
So I'm always curious to know what the most intelligent versions of peak demand, end-of-fossil-fuels and rapid EV adoption are, rather than the muddled versions of those positions we usually encounter. The last thing we want to do is dismiss a mediocre argument, only to realize too late that there was a better version we didn't know about.
Appreciate your sharing that Investor. Thanks for all your engagement here.
While watching, something struck me: how do you frame the reality of this data in a way the opponents will be willing to hear?
The climate alarmists who push these absurd net zero narratives garner sympathetic supporters using the Critical Theory narrative of “Oppressor vs Opressed” and that everyone is one or the other.
What if us sober-minded folks start showcasing this data from the same perspective? I can think of scantly worse oppressive behavior than to deny the “other 7 billion” of affordable and reliable energy. It’s economic colonialism for the “lucky billion” to commandeer the economies of the rest of the world and suppress their growth.
Maybe by speaking their language they’ll start to listen. 🤷🏻♂️. In any case, thanks again for the thought provoking work.
I actually spend a lot of time with those that consider climate as an urgent priority to deal with. It is one the purposes of Super-Spiked. This is my attempt to reach them!
Sprinkle in the notion that these policies are “oppressing” the developing world and let us know how they respond. 😜
Arjun, good sir, that was some of your finest work and I say that as a huge admirer of your entire body of work since joining the Veriten team. Thanks for all you do!
Really appreciate that NTX Oilman! thank you so much. Arjun