I think there’s a lot of good analysis here, and I agree that Europe in general seems mixed at best about growth and innovation. Many cities and some countries are doing great things, but the EU likes to slow everything down, even the things they themselves mandate need to happen on a deadline. As an American, I care about the well being of Europeans, but really, that’s their own deal. They’re well-off enough to survive their own mistakes and change course if they want.
I care more about how de-growth politics in Europe affects the development of the world as a whole, and in that regard, I’m a bit less concerned (though not unconcerned). As you noted, there’s a lot of good technology and software being developed in Europe. But, it seems to me that to a greater extent than in the US, the money isn’t being captured by European GDP, and in many cases the projects using such technology that enable further growth are happening outside European borders.
In other words: there’s a potential timeline where ITER goes great and the result is that KEPCO and TEPCO and SP Group higher Chinese and Indian ITER partners to build the first commercial plants in Korea and Japan and Singapore (whose current best options include things like building undersea HVDC cables to Australia) to prove out the technology, which lets them get costs down enough to decarbonize China and India and Indonesia and the rest of APAC. Europe, maybe, follows 20-30 years later to finish whatever is left to be done after pushing wind and solar as far as they can manage. Probably using lots of American and Canadian technology for the wind and solar and energy storage, as well as their own, of course. This is not the best timeline for fusion, but it’s a very good one.
I once joked with a (Dutch) coworker that the traditional American approach to stagnation is to go build a new city. We’ve been going West and South for 400 years. The traditional European approach is to wait for someone or something to raze your city and then rebuild with newer stuff and a better plan. They’ve been doing that for 1600 years. Europe today has pretty much successfully ended the specter of being razed, and the US has run out of West and South, but neither Europe nor America really knows how to renew itself in place. We just started later and with a few useful differences in ideals.
b> Many cities and some countries are doing great things, but the EU likes to slow everything down
If it was that simple, its a whole mess with both EU and member states implicated:
In 2008, the EU established a European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) with the aim of replicating the success of institutions like MIT. If you have not heard of it, it is not your fault. The effort went badly from the start, as EU countries couldn’t agree on where to put it. So, in true EU fashion, governments compromised by breaking it into pieces and spreading it across multiple cities. So much for agglomeration effects.
But, it seems to me that to a greater extent than in the US, the money isn’t being captured by European GDP, and in many cases the projects using such technology that enable further growth are happening outside European borders.
Case in point: Germany subsidizing early development of solar. But there is longer any production of solar panels in Germany.
The traditional European approach is to wait for someone or something to raze your city and then rebuild with newer stuff and a better plan.
I think I’ve even seen a study about areas bombed out during WWII performing better economically today.
If it was that simple, its a whole mess with both EU and member states implicated:
Of course, I was definitely oversimplifying for my comment!
I think I’ve even seen a study about areas bombed out during WWII performing better economically today.
One good example is the collapse of the steel industry in the US, hastened by Europe and Japan using newer and better equipment. I haven’t looked into direct comparisons between cities in Europe, that would be interesting.
I think there’s a lot of good analysis here, and I agree that Europe in general seems mixed at best about growth and innovation. Many cities and some countries are doing great things, but the EU likes to slow everything down, even the things they themselves mandate need to happen on a deadline. As an American, I care about the well being of Europeans, but really, that’s their own deal. They’re well-off enough to survive their own mistakes and change course if they want.
I care more about how de-growth politics in Europe affects the development of the world as a whole, and in that regard, I’m a bit less concerned (though not unconcerned). As you noted, there’s a lot of good technology and software being developed in Europe. But, it seems to me that to a greater extent than in the US, the money isn’t being captured by European GDP, and in many cases the projects using such technology that enable further growth are happening outside European borders.
In other words: there’s a potential timeline where ITER goes great and the result is that KEPCO and TEPCO and SP Group higher Chinese and Indian ITER partners to build the first commercial plants in Korea and Japan and Singapore (whose current best options include things like building undersea HVDC cables to Australia) to prove out the technology, which lets them get costs down enough to decarbonize China and India and Indonesia and the rest of APAC. Europe, maybe, follows 20-30 years later to finish whatever is left to be done after pushing wind and solar as far as they can manage. Probably using lots of American and Canadian technology for the wind and solar and energy storage, as well as their own, of course. This is not the best timeline for fusion, but it’s a very good one.
I once joked with a (Dutch) coworker that the traditional American approach to stagnation is to go build a new city. We’ve been going West and South for 400 years. The traditional European approach is to wait for someone or something to raze your city and then rebuild with newer stuff and a better plan. They’ve been doing that for 1600 years. Europe today has pretty much successfully ended the specter of being razed, and the US has run out of West and South, but neither Europe nor America really knows how to renew itself in place. We just started later and with a few useful differences in ideals.
b> Many cities and some countries are doing great things, but the EU likes to slow everything down
If it was that simple, its a whole mess with both EU and member states implicated:
Case in point: Germany subsidizing early development of solar. But there is longer any production of solar panels in Germany.
I think I’ve even seen a study about areas bombed out during WWII performing better economically today.
Of course, I was definitely oversimplifying for my comment!
One good example is the collapse of the steel industry in the US, hastened by Europe and Japan using newer and better equipment. I haven’t looked into direct comparisons between cities in Europe, that would be interesting.