The content of this page is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Quick view of the model (open complete model with iMODELER):

present thumbnailKai Neumann (#1) has provided a description of the model with the iMODELER Presenter.

Description

Being tired of the complaints that renewable energy is expensive, that we cannot afford the conservation of natural habitats, that not all people can purchase organic products, that our industry looses jobs, our citizens cannot bear the burden of the costs of sustainable solutions, and so forth I started this model.


As it turned out it is not as easy as I thought. My original assumption was that any additional expenses should - with a high domestic value creation compared to the import of fossil fuels - help the domestic economy as a whole: higher expenses but lots of more jobs and income for domestic companies. 

While this holds true for most regions in the world (Consideo together with Ecologic and others has modeled it based on WEO data:  https://www.consideo.com/files/consideo/pdfs/papers/eng/ConsideoPaper-GEER-Engl.pdf) we also have to consider some balancing loops and the importance of delays as well. 

That means there is a lot of "yes, but...." that I would like people with their very biased and negative speech in social media to grasp.

So, here is my approach to it as I have enhanced the model two times. (Note: I have started the model on a smartphone in portrait mode - thus the different look of the screenshots from the presenter).

Within to model there are further references to other models. The tool is described here:  https://www.consideo.com/files/consideo/pdfs/papers/eng/Why_iMODELER.pdf

Let the discussion begin :-)

217 views

Add Your Comment:

Comments (1)

Kai Neumann

Kai Neumann

1. It's not costs but investments - we need to make the increased income more just to help low incomes.
2. The costs from the consequences serve as a systemic sink of money, the investments into action are a systemic source for productivity and happiness. That argument should count for the rich as well.
3. Both, the benefits and the costs of inaction come with a delay - that makes it so hard to change today and this whole topic a war of narratives/memes (I have written a book chapter on that: http://www.ilsa-consulting.com/KaiPublications.html).

After all it is a psychological effect. Most of the populations have a strong middle-class and could easily increase the tax for the rich to help the poor. For the middle class it is psychologically crucial to have as much as their peers - so more quality and less quantity with the prospect of a future with fewer disasters in particular for our children would be doable. Maybe we even learn to work less and have more joy?

Email notification

More models from Kai Neumann