Hello Arjun. On every Saturday that Super-Spiked is published I usually have gone trough the whole thing before the lunch time bell rings and this May 18 issue has been no exception. I would only like to comment on one word that you put on the screen and that you repeated a significant number of times.
The word in question is "CAN'T" and I just want to make sure that it's meaning is NOT that the "Developing world IS NOT CAPABLE to have developed world living standards" but specifically that the "Developing world SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to have developed world living standards".
This is where the hypocrisy and arrogance of what I call the "Climate Doomsday Cult" lie and it's gratifying to hear you challenge the notion.
Michel, correct, and it is what bothers me most. The idea that it will be terrible for our planet if they were to gain developed world living standards. There are some who will say some portion will never up the economic s-curve...that I find to be a reasonable counter argument to the full TAM. Sad, but true....some countries will probably stay poor over the very long run. It is the "they should not be allowed" that really bothers me. At the end of the day, it's not up to us (i.e., as an American or European).
"At the end of the day, it's not up to us (i.e., as an American or European)."
For investment I we should always:
(1) differentiate clearly between what is under one's control, and what is not under one's control, and;
(2) differentiate clearly between describing a situation, and giving an opinion about what we/you/us think should happen (the is/ought distinction).
As you say, all the debate about the 'should' is a moot point for virtually every investor, except perhaps for a very few with the ability to influence the developing world's trajectory (i.e. very senior people at big institutional firms, or very senior OECD government policy makers). But basically, the developing world will choose their own path, just like the OECD did. When I'm in Asia it's always weird to think that someone in the West believes they are calling the shots about how things are going to work there.
I do try to talk to people in East Asia when I'm there to get a sense of what people think about climate, my totally anecdotal personal sense is that educated people understand that emissions are an issue (though it's more about immediate air pollution, rather than climate change) but it doesn't have the apocalyptic tinge to the discussion that has developed in the West. What are your general impressions from abroad? What do people outside our cultural bubble think? Potential Super-Spiked blog post topic??
I love my four door pickup and would always choose to own one, but even I can recognize the value to the planet and my pocketbook of driving a smaller/lighter vehicle for day to day use. That message is much easier to sell to Americans than forcing them to use unreliable EVs. Even hybrids are an easier sell to the public than EVs.
This is my favorite podcast to date! A few thoughts on your commentary. First, weight issue on MPG for vehicles is spot on. I’d love to see more research on lightweight but strong as steel materials. We’ve come a long way but is there more? Can we use AI to develop new materials? To have a real energy transition, we need a materials transition. Second, on the question of whether O&G will have a merchant power moment, I think a governor on that could be the price demand response from the NOCs. If long term structural demand moves upward dramatically I think they will capture that market share. I do agree that US and Canada can 100 percent supply North America. Brazil and maybe Argentina are also poised to increase production. Midstream and OFS however, could have that moment. In this subsector global constraints are real in terms of technical talent and material supply chains. Maybe worth watching. Finally I continue to believe common sense will prevail,and we will realize we have time to adapt and mitigate whatever impact the thriving of human civilization has on the Earths ecosystem, whether climate or otherwise. Drastic action that either consigns billions to substandard living or worse, will never be tolerated by the general population.
@arjun you seem to have an imposter posting in this thread. Substack has been under attack like this lately.
thank you NTX for highlighting as did a few others. I have reported and banned, but guessing I'll need to be vigilant.
Good piece on copper
https://www.futurity.org/copper-renewable-energy-electricity-3220892-2/
Hello Arjun. On every Saturday that Super-Spiked is published I usually have gone trough the whole thing before the lunch time bell rings and this May 18 issue has been no exception. I would only like to comment on one word that you put on the screen and that you repeated a significant number of times.
The word in question is "CAN'T" and I just want to make sure that it's meaning is NOT that the "Developing world IS NOT CAPABLE to have developed world living standards" but specifically that the "Developing world SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED to have developed world living standards".
This is where the hypocrisy and arrogance of what I call the "Climate Doomsday Cult" lie and it's gratifying to hear you challenge the notion.
Michel, correct, and it is what bothers me most. The idea that it will be terrible for our planet if they were to gain developed world living standards. There are some who will say some portion will never up the economic s-curve...that I find to be a reasonable counter argument to the full TAM. Sad, but true....some countries will probably stay poor over the very long run. It is the "they should not be allowed" that really bothers me. At the end of the day, it's not up to us (i.e., as an American or European).
"At the end of the day, it's not up to us (i.e., as an American or European)."
For investment I we should always:
(1) differentiate clearly between what is under one's control, and what is not under one's control, and;
(2) differentiate clearly between describing a situation, and giving an opinion about what we/you/us think should happen (the is/ought distinction).
As you say, all the debate about the 'should' is a moot point for virtually every investor, except perhaps for a very few with the ability to influence the developing world's trajectory (i.e. very senior people at big institutional firms, or very senior OECD government policy makers). But basically, the developing world will choose their own path, just like the OECD did. When I'm in Asia it's always weird to think that someone in the West believes they are calling the shots about how things are going to work there.
I do try to talk to people in East Asia when I'm there to get a sense of what people think about climate, my totally anecdotal personal sense is that educated people understand that emissions are an issue (though it's more about immediate air pollution, rather than climate change) but it doesn't have the apocalyptic tinge to the discussion that has developed in the West. What are your general impressions from abroad? What do people outside our cultural bubble think? Potential Super-Spiked blog post topic??
if we could remove the apocalypse from all this, there would be a chance at better policy and perspectives.
I love my four door pickup and would always choose to own one, but even I can recognize the value to the planet and my pocketbook of driving a smaller/lighter vehicle for day to day use. That message is much easier to sell to Americans than forcing them to use unreliable EVs. Even hybrids are an easier sell to the public than EVs.
100% NTX!!! and frankly, the biggest issue I would say are the SUVs more than pickups.
This is my favorite podcast to date! A few thoughts on your commentary. First, weight issue on MPG for vehicles is spot on. I’d love to see more research on lightweight but strong as steel materials. We’ve come a long way but is there more? Can we use AI to develop new materials? To have a real energy transition, we need a materials transition. Second, on the question of whether O&G will have a merchant power moment, I think a governor on that could be the price demand response from the NOCs. If long term structural demand moves upward dramatically I think they will capture that market share. I do agree that US and Canada can 100 percent supply North America. Brazil and maybe Argentina are also poised to increase production. Midstream and OFS however, could have that moment. In this subsector global constraints are real in terms of technical talent and material supply chains. Maybe worth watching. Finally I continue to believe common sense will prevail,and we will realize we have time to adapt and mitigate whatever impact the thriving of human civilization has on the Earths ecosystem, whether climate or otherwise. Drastic action that either consigns billions to substandard living or worse, will never be tolerated by the general population.
Deborah, It is always great to hear from you and thank you so much! Excellent points and perspective as always. Arjun