Talk:Energy economics/Archive 1

mismash
The definition of "Energy Economics" which now exists in Wikipedia is a horrible mismash cobbled together by a bunch of obscure individuals preoccupied with their own narrow aspect of a much broader subject. Someone needs to stand back and write an objective, broader definition of an important subject.

O.K., but while we're waiting for that rewrite to happen, this article could be improved by substantially expanding whilst focussing on market structure, behaviours as they currently exist, pricing models, capital utilisation as compared to other market sectors and flows through various market levels between producers and end users. This might best be done by someone with technical knowledge of the energy industry or financial sector energy specialist.

--Theo Pardilla 09:43, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

multiplier effect
In the "Environment vs. Economy" section, the explanation for "multiplier effect to the decline of surplus value" confused me. By moving from violin teacher to carrot picker, one does not deplete the carrots available to feed violin teachers. The carrots available to violin teachers should increase because carrot production has more labor capacity. I'd really like to see a clarification of the "multiplier effect" in the article. Rtdrury 02:04, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Interest in developing this article?
I have to agree with the above comments, at least in that the article could use some serious work. It is my understanding that energy economics and ecological economics have a significant intersection. Wouldn't it be a good idea to develop these two with some coordination? Is there a community of interested parties who will work on this? Gmobus 04:19, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

The multiplier effect is completely muddled! What happens is that the violin teacher switches to hoeing carrots because it pays better, which is a result both of the fact that people generally are spending more on carrots and less on violin teachers as the costs of both rise, the first because growing carrots is becoming more labor-intensive and the latter because the cost of carrots has gone up for all violin teachers who accordingly raise their rates. But the overall output gradually declines and is exacerbated by every additional person who hoes carrots during this process of declining productivity.

Energy economics redefined
A Google search of "Energy economics" yields 116 million titles - it is obviously a very broad subject, and that is one of the problems. Energy economics is not a single, well rounded scientific discipline.

I agree that the Wikipedia article needs a broader view, but obviously that is not an easy task, especially as the starting point (text) does not stimulate such initiative.

Some definitions of the scope are offered by prominent scientific magazines, such as:

Energy Economics, Elsevier
 * This journal provides a serious forum for research papers concerned with the economic and econometric modelling and analysis of energy systems and issues. Contributions to this theme can arise from a number of disciplines, including economic theory, financial economics, regulatory economics, computational economics, statistics, econometrics, operational research and strategic modelling. A wide interpretation of the subject is encouraged to include, for example, issues related to forecasting, financing, pricing, investment, taxation, development, policy, conservation, regulation, risk management, insurance, portfolio theory, fiscal regimes, accounting and the environment. The journal is of interest to professional economists, financial analysts, consultants, policy makers as well as academic researchers concerned with the economic analysis of energy issues, broadly interpreted.

IAEE Call for papers 2007:
 * Plenary sessions topics


 * Sustainability:
 * Implications of different scenarios for energy supply and demand
 * Technology outlook response
 * Security of supply: Availability of oil
 * The role of natural gas in Europe
 * A wider EU energy market: From Eastern Europe to the Mediterranean Evolution in market regulation
 * Implementing renewables.


 * The topics of the papers to be presented in the concurrent sessions. Four of the concurrent sessions should be devoted to the four themes covered in the plenary sessions, both to present additional papers on these subjects and to discuss the presentations in the plenaries.


 * The following is an indicative list of other themes that will be accommodated in the concurrent sessions:


 * Transmission and transportation infrastructures in a liberalised environment
 * Experience curves cost development vs. value
 * Policy measures to accelerate development of RES
 * Integration of intermittent RES into energy markets
 * Market instruments to improve energy efficiency
 * Improving social acceptance of energy infrastructures
 * Liberalisation and regulation of the European energy markets
 * Supply and security in oil and gas European market
 * Regulatory regimes in the larger Europe
 * Geopolitics of energy
 * Understanding energy demand
 * Energy, environment and emission trading
 * Environment and the Kyoto Portocol: further development Post Kyoto

'''It takes some (collective) effort to provide a good starting definition. Please "vote" on the proposal to relaunch the article on a broader base!'''

MGTom 23:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * 1) I agree that the new article is a good start, but let's keep this article in place until we've written something. I'll add a bit if I have a chance. CRGreathouse 14:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The old definition of Energy Economics is really bad. The new start is much better. I need to look into the definition of Energy Economics anyway during the next few months, so I may as well contribute my findings here as well. I really think the current page should be removed. --Juvepa2002 14:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I would like to see a section, which I have not found on wikipedia, about the costs at which different sources of energy become economically efficient, with and without government subsidies. This article is extremely vague regarding any energy economics. Let's get specific! - BB —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.48.147 (talk) 18:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I vote for the "new" version as a good start. Lorclyons 13:22, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

starting brand new article still an issue?
The discussion about starting a new article seems to have dropped dead. Is there a verdict yet (or even a new article)? V8rik (talk) 17:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)


 * replaced old article with new article V8rik (talk) 20:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Section on energy accounting
Also mentions Thermoeconomics and proposals for energy accounting systems.skip sievert (talk) 17:10, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

what belongs
I removed a lot of material as not being related to the field of energy economics. It may be realted to energy, and it may be related to economics, but it's not related, or not that closely related to the field energy economics.

Material removed included:
 * Thermoeconomics
 * Energy accounting
 * Population dynamics
 * Ecodynamics
 * Bioeconomics
 * Econophysics

I also removed external links related to these topics as well as some external links to material on Ecological economics. Ecological economics is certainly somewhat related to energy economics, which is why I left it in the "See also" links. Ecological economics and Environmental economics should reasonably be part of the text of the article when it's developed. But it's only related, and external links should be kept to a minimum. Some of these might be appropriate in other articles.

Energy economics is a field of study in economics. I haven't seen any evidence that energy economists give any thought to thermoeconomics or energy accounting (in the Technocracy sense). I don't think this material belongs in this article at all. If it can be described concisely, it could perhaps be put into a section on heterodox approaches to energy economics. But it certainly isn't a "Key concept" as it was set up before. C RETOG 8(t/c) 02:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I do feel you are stalking my edits and removing good information... and information that is trying to be improved. I do not feel you have any understanding of this subject, and it is becoming a little boring to try and educate you because it appears you are not looking at the information trying to be given.


 * Georgescu-Roegen introduced into economics, inter alia, the concept of entropy from thermodynamics (as distinguished from the mechanistic foundation of neoclassical economics drawn from Newtonian physics) and did foundational work which later developed into evolutionary economics. His work contributed significantly to bioeconomics and to ecological economics.    skip sievert (talk) 02:51, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * What I'm doing is removing information not because it's bad information but because it's wrong or very over-emphasized for this article. Energy economics is a field of study in economics. There certainly can be a place in this article for material which relates to both energy and economics, but it needs to be a relatively small place and clear that it's not mainstream "energy economics". I searched for thermoeconomics in Review of Economic Studies (0 results), American Economic Review (0 results), Journal of environmental economics (0 results), Resource and Energy Economics (0 results), Energy Economics (0 results). There was 1 result in Energy Journal, and there were 4 in Ecological Economics. This makes me think that thermoeconomics can be treated as a moderate part of Ecological economics, as well as possibly something of its own field. There's no evidence that it's part of energy economics. (BTW, I think all those searches are good, I apologize if a typo led me astray.) C RETOG 8(t/c) 03:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems to me that you are not understanding that energy economics and this are mostly one and the same connected, and prefer to engage in a petty edit war about expanding information or not. Georgescu-Roegen introduced into economics, inter alia, the concept of entropy from thermodynamics (as distinguished from the mechanistic foundation of neoclassical economics drawn from Newtonian physics) and did foundational work which later developed into evolutionary economics. His work contributed significantly to bioeconomics and to ecological economics.     See article link to Georgescu-Roegen skip sievert (talk) 03:19, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if we're disagreeing or failing to understand each other. If Thermoeconomics is energy economics, but a little-used expression for energy economics, that might explain why I'm not finding many references to it. If that's the case, then the thermoeconomics article should redirect here, and this article should still reflect mainstream energy economics. I don't think that's the case. My impression is that "thermoeconomics" is an expression which means different things to different people who use it, but that most of those uses are not a major part of energy economics. Again, energy economics is a field of study in economics. It does things like look at pulling oil out of the ground and moving electricity around and demand for stuff like that. Certainly, physical laws are important for a good bit of that, but it doesn't seem that thermoeconomics, or the insights of Georgescu-Roegen are particularly important in the field. C RETOG 8(t/c) 03:26, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you find me useful references that are recognizably within the field of energy economics? None of the Georgescu-Roegen references you cite are in energy economics sources. (I'm thinking we're going to need to go to wp:3o on this, but hopefully not. C RETOG 8(t/c) 03:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Go to Georgescu-Roegen page. This guy was a well known ... famous you could say economist.. who basically set the scene for bioeconomics and ecological economics. Those are connected to energy and thermodynamics and thermoeconomics... but I am repeating myself. skip sievert (talk) 03:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, I have already been to that page, and have known about him some previously. You say above that he set the stage for bioeconomics and ecological economics. Obviously, neither of those is energy economics. C RETOG 8(t/c) 04:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Come on ... look at the information in that article. An example of some of this information http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/71007254/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0 It is all about energy information and energy economics, and environment resources and economics. skip sievert (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Cretog8 is correct. Skip Sievert is wrong. Energy Economics is commonly understood to be the subdiscipline of economics that studies the role of energy in the economy. Most energy economists adhere to the received wisdom of mainstream economics. I am aware that there is a heterodox school of economics that argues that one can build a model of the economy that is very similar to a thermodynamic model as one would find in physics. That should be covered on a different page, under its correct name of thermoeconomics. Ditto for econophysics, which is not about the role of energy in the economy at all. Richard Tol 12:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but apparently you do not understand some aspects of energy economics and its history
 * http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics - Commonly understood?.., you say? You are ignoring the links on the page... it is well known and cited info. The received wisdom of mainstream economics.. you say?.. that is not how Wikipedia works... it is a presentation of all sides concerned and connected with the subject in a neutral way. And, no you are wrong about economics and energy its present and historical context. This method is widespread http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml - Apparently you are not looking enough into the connection of what energy economics is. Please read the links here and do not remove cited reffed information. Also added another citation to information connected in context http://www.eoearth.org/article/Industrial_ecology - Thanks. skip sievert (talk) 16:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, please stop your vandalising. Please place this stuff at thermoeconomics where it belongs. Energy economics is not a synonym of thermoeconomics. It is something else entirely. By the way, if you want to be taken seriously in a discussion like this, please identify yourself. Richard Tol Richard Tol 08:35, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It is bad form to call other users names. You have reverted the article without being involved in the discussion much at all or addressing the issues. I never said any thing was a synonym for anything. If you look at Wikipedia guidelines you will see how discussions work. Please do not personalize the editing here as you are doing. Discuss content. This is only about information... hopefully presented fully and neutrally. By removing cited and pertinent information from the article, the article is diminished. skip sievert (talk) 21:28, 16 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I shifted the material to thermoeconomics where it belongs.Richard Tol 08:17, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Because you are reverting without real discussion... and it appears you are a published mainstream writer on part of this subject a conflict of interest may arise. Leading information to your own publications etc... and not looking at the larger picture of energy economics... which is a broad field that includes ecological economics environmental economics and lots of ways of looking at energy http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml beyond the view of information only directly related to your particular interest area. It probably is a good idea to sign your posts here also with your electronic sig. skip sievert (talk) 17:25, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, can you kindly identify yourself as an authority in these matters? If you had read your sources, you would have noticed that your assertion that energy economics includes ecological and environmental economics is not supported by that material. Energy economics is a small and simple subdiscipline. Nothing more. Nothing less. I shifted your material to thermoeconomics, where it belongs.Richard Tol 08:25, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Sign your posts please. Energy economics is all about ecological economics and environmental economics for multiple reasons... and things like Industrial ecology Systems ecology etc. are energy based thermoeconomics based natural capital based, like Energy economics is a general term that covers lots of ground. Not just a small sub topic that you are familiar with. It is not a patented phrase. It means something in context and particularly in historical context as a term. The term is not original to the beginning of the energy crises of the 70's. It was written about by this person many years ago... Frederick Soddy among others in his book Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt By deleting material from the article a broad understanding is not given. Please leave the cited and reffed material in... and notice that the material is in the history section mostly. Please do not assume ownership of the article because you have written in regard to the term... elsewhere. I am thinking you may be in a conflict of interest to push one variety of thinking about this subject... when this term is much broader that you are indicating here in my opinion, and covers much more information. skip sievert (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Soddy was a chemist. A brilliant one, but that does not make him an authority in economics. Richard Tol 08:19, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I did not say that Soddy was an authority on economics. You seem to be missing my points or not addressing them. Energy economics is a general term...not patented information from articles you apparently have advocated on the internet, and a number of things can go into an article related to the ideas... for instance, Methods of Energy Cost Accounting
 * http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis
 * There are two general methods of calculating the embodied energy cost of goods and services: process analysis and input-output analysis. Both process and input-output analyses condense the use of energy in production into two general types: fuel burned at the site of energy extraction (direct fuel use), and fuel burned in other sectors to produce the materials purchased and used as inputs at the site of extraction (indirect fuel use). Process analysis and energy input-output analysis, and variants of each, differ in the way the flow of material is traced through the extraction process, the types of energy costs included in the analysis (e.g., just fuel, or fuel, capital, and labor), and the energy equivalents assigned to the three factors of production. As a result, the methods give somewhat different values for embodied energy even when applied to the same set of data.


 * Energy Versus Economic Analysis Energy Return on Investment (EROI)-Energy Return on Investment (EROI) EROEI


 * The energy events of the 1970’s raised the issue of whether economic measures such as price or cost accurately captured all the relevant features of an energy supply process. Economists generally argue that, by definition, the price of a fuel automatically captures all such relevant features. Yet, a strong case can be made that the standard economic approach to measuring the economic usefulness of a fuel yields one type of information and only partially informs us about all relevant aspects of resource quality.


 * It has already been pointed out that the information you are reverting is also in the history section. By narrowing this subject down to information that you have a stake in... it appears that you, as an editor are in a conflict of interest with your published material and pushing a p.o.v. that is not expansive for presenting the idea of energy economics. Also as an editor it is guideline to sign your comments here on the discussion page. skip sievert (talk) 16:16, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Skip, can you please stop this. You are still anonymous, so I do not know your native language. Your user page does not disclose this information either. In English "noun1 noun2" is a special form of "noun2", not a special form of "noun1". (It's different in other languages, I know.) Energy economics, therefore, is a special form of economics. Energy economics does not encompass all energy research. Richard Tol 12:05, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Please do not personalize the editing here. It is about content and expanding information that is appropriate in a related way. Also... as mentioned you are not signing your posts here. This has been mentioned multiple times now. In effect you seem bent on edit warring instead of an actual discussion or at least this is the case so far. There is no discussion of issues you are making... just reverts and proclamations. Native language? That is probably not a part of the discussion here. Does Energy economics include all energy research as you have implied I am inferring... no.. and it never was said that it is. Energy economics is not a set in stone thing that you yourself can say exactly what it is. It is not a patented term. It can describe a number of related things in a historical sense... and heterodox sense also. It is a broad description which includes topics related to supply and use of energy in societies. Removing things in the article to make some point... that you personally believe or think true... is not a good idea. Trying to limit information to a very concentric view does not inform to the topic. Removing basic things like EROEI Energy qualityInternational Energy Agency List of energy topics and even removing nuts and bolts formatting of things like 'div col' formatting seems very much not a good idea. It appears to me like you are in a conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor. skip sievert (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, there is no conflict of interest. This is not a discussion about the journal energy economics (where I do have a conflict of interest). This is a discussion about the subject energy economics. I do not speak for the subject, as I am but one practioner. I do not speak for the association, as I am but one member. Richard Tol 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, the only one thing that is going on here is that you insist on placing those things that are usually referred to as thermoeconomics under the heading of energy economics to the confusion of everyone. The sources that you quote do not support your confusion. I know of only two real people that make this mistake. You are either number three or one of them. Three is not a crowd. As I said before, the simple solution is to create a disambiguation page. Richard Tol 16:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Removing things in the article to make some point... that you personally believe or think true... is not a good idea. Trying to limit information to a very concentric view does not inform to the topic. Removing basic things like EROEI Energy qualityInternational Energy Agency List of energy topics and even removing nuts and bolts formatting of things like 'div col' formatting seems very much not a good idea. It appears to me like you are in a conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor, and it also appears that you are edit warring to make points that confirm a personal point of view. skip sievert (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, stop playing games. You put in a series of minor, innocent, constructive edits to shield your vandalism. You continue to be anonymous, and thus without any claim of authority in this matter. I forgot to respond to one earlier point. Note that Cretog8 has exactly the same objections as I do. Cretog8 is anonymous like you, but is working towards a PhD in economics and thus has some notion on what is and isn't part of the discipline. Richard Tol 20:37, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Skip and Richard, both of you have misunderstood Wikipedia policies and their application. Slow down. I highly recommend reading WP:DGAF to start, and reflect on it. Wikipedia process depends on editors seeking consensus instead of battling each other. I'll be deconstructing the errors that have been expressed, one at a time; please be assured that my goal is to maximize the effectiveness of both of you at maintaining or improving the project. Just so it is clear, I'm not an administrator, but I know a few and know how to get administrative attention when it's needed. My hope is that it isn't. --Abd (talk) 01:07, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Tainter and energy econ.
Added some info on eroei to the article in the history section --- Joseph Tainter Tainter, Joseph A. (1990). The Collapse of Complex Societies (1st paperback ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-38673-X. suggests that diminishing returns of the EROEI is a chief cause of the collapse of complex societies. Falling EROEI due to depletion of non-renewable resources also poses a difficult challenge for industrial economies.' skip sievert (talk) 01:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Richard Tol don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edits to Energy economics or other recent edits going back in time. Also the guidelines here ask editors to please sign their editing name on talk pages using four tildes that means 4 of these things > ~ this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions.


 * Also it is not a part of civil discourse in this format to call people names like you have done now twice even though asked not to do that, (you can be blocked for that, and it is assuming bad faith, which is never really a good idea to do as an editor), and this could be viewed as engaging in use of distraction fallacies also because while reverting the page of every thing you are not saying why you are doing it, in your editing or addressing the issues brought up on the discussion page here, about reverting simple things like removing things like EROEI & Energy quality & International Energy Agency & List of energy topics and even removing nuts and bolts formatting of things like 'div col' formatting.List of energy topics that relate to economics. Please do not remove information like this from the article. A see also section is designed to broaden the info. skip sievert (talk) 03:46, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring on this article, please stop. This is a friendly warning.
Two editors have been edit warring on this article. I find it necessary to point out that an editor can be blocked for edit warring, even if what they are asserting with the edits is correct. Edit warring, as well as incivility, poisons the environment and the consensus process that is necessary to maintain and increase the reliability of Wikipedia. Because the correctness of a position is irrelevant to this -- with few exceptions -- two editors should never edit war with each other; the situation here has already come to the point that an administrator might block both editors. So, immediately, stop, and it doesn't matter if the current version is the "correct" one. We'll get there, if we respect Wikipedia dispute resolution process; edit warring isn't a part of that. I will formally warn both editors, if that hasn't already been done.

This is a point that often confuses inexperienced editors, and they will be puzzled and perhaps angry to be blocked for asserting what they say is correct text or correct policy regarding sources, etc. I hope to avoid that, starting with an assumption of good faith on the part of all involved editors. --Abd (talk) 00:59, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like to start putting some of the information back into the article that has been reverted, without edit summaries... or discussion... article links like the ones mentioned.. and some of the other information information... but I will wait a while to see if other parties are interested in discussing this. skip sievert (talk) 02:04, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, Skip. Now we can move to resolve this dispute; the content matter will be discussed separately; under this header, I'm just addressing editor behavior. First of all, Richard Tol does appear to be an expert on the the field of energy economics, and experts should be particularly careful here on Wikipedia not to assert a superior right to control content, it's a common error. On the other hand, we should carefully consider expert opinion, which can be particularly important as to balance. I'll note that your edits, Skip, aren't being removed because of lack of reliability, but for balance and undue weight issues. I'll start a new section where we can discuss this specifically, I suspect that there is a compromise that should satisfy both of you. --Abd (talk) 12:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed additions to the article on related fields
I would like to start by adding these wiki article links: things like Thermoeconomics EROEI & Energy quality & International Energy Agency & List of energy topics that relate to economics. A see also section is designed to broaden the information and it does not seem like any of these articles that relate directly to energy economics would be an out of place addition... but would broaden the scope of information and expand the perspective. Also article links like this would broaden the info. - Systems ecology & Industrial ecology. These are all about energy and economics and resources/environment.

''Most energy economists adhere to the received wisdom of mainstream economics. I am aware that there is a heterodox school of economics that argues that one can build a model of the economy that is very similar to a thermodynamic model as one would find in physics. That should be covered on a different page, under its correct name of thermoeconomics. Ditto for econophysics, which is not about the role of energy in the economy at all.'' R.T. previously stated this.

I disagree that http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics or thermoeconomics or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bioeconomics or econophysics are not related here enough to be part of the article... these things are a major part of energy economics... as they relate particularly to ecological economics Sustainability issues and Environmental economics. Also I think this article link should be included Energetics as it is also directly related.skip sievert (talk) 16:06, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Good, Skip. Now, Rtol, or anyone else, what would you consider sufficiently related to or a subfield of Energy economics to be minimally mentioned in this article? Please focus, first, on what you can agree on, not where you might differ. What we can agree on can then go into the article without fuss, and we can continue to discuss disagreements later. If you cannot agree to a proposal as-is, then please suggest an alternate proposal that you'd suspect might resolve a dispute. Given that your last edit removed material like that proposed, it would be a showing of good faith if you put back in anything that you consider even marginally acceptable. --Abd (talk) 17:16, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks Abd for taking the time to mediate. My position is quite clear. Energy economics is a subdiscipline of economics. Environmental economics is another subdiscipline of economics. As many environmental problems are caused by energy use, there is some overlap between energy economics and environmental economics. Ergo, the two Wiki pages should refer to one another -- but neither should be subject to the other.


 * Thermoeconomics, biophysical economics and econophysics are a different story altogether. These fields propose an alternative to the whole of the economic orthodoxy. Treating these areas as a PART OF energy economics is illogical: A subset of a subset is the superset. The confusion arises because thermoeconomics and econophysics often use physical theories of energy to describe the economy -- while energy economics (in my definition) uses economic theory to describe energy use. Ergo, this calls for clarity and separation.


 * Ecological economics is different again. Some people see it as a subdiscipline of economics, while others see it as an alternative form of economics.


 * Bioeconomics, in my mind, is the application of economic theory to describe non-human ecology and biology. This has nothing to do with energy economics.


 * Sustainability is a concept, not a scientific discipline.


 * Energy accounting and EROEI avoid economic terms altogether. They are an important part of energy research, but have little bearing on energy economics.


 * As I repeatedly said, I'd be perfectly happy with a solution with two separate pages and a disambiguation page. Richard Tol (talk) 20:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Energy economics is a subdiscipline of economics. R.T. --- Thats fine and your definition... and I have never argued that it is not a type of discipline and known also as a type of discipline, but it is also connected with the information connected to energy and economics in more than the narrow sense you are conveying.


 * Energy economics is not a patented phrase or a certain term relating to a certain discipline... only, and is not the domain of mainstream economists only. There is a long history that says other wise http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis that goes back to concepts that include areas outside of the limited definition you would like to use in the article. http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics and Thermoeconomics is pretty much the same thing. There is no patent or dictum that defines this subject according to your wishes or perceptions or views. Energy accounting does not avoid economic terms and is in wide use today... so you are wrong about that above as to your claim that it avoids economic terms http://telstar.ote.cmu.edu/environ/m3/s3/05account.shtml this concept is used in the current mainstream economic system to determine many issues. I think this link proves that. It is mainstream.


 * Since things like this are monetized Energetics, the scientific study of energy flows and storages under transformation. Because energy flows at all scales, from the quantum level, to the biosphere and cosmos, energetics is therefore a very broad discipline, encompassing for example thermodynamics, chemistry, biological energetics, biochemistry and ecological energetics. Where each branch of energetics begins and ends is a topic of debate. For example, Lehninger (1973, p.21) contended that the science of thermodynamics deals with energy exchanges of all types and energy exchanges involve money. There is no getting away from energy economics being about these areas. Energy flows are monetized and looked at from a money perspective. Always. Even in ecological economics, though it may claim not as much.


 * Ecological economics is different again. Some people see it as a subdiscipline of economics, while others see it as an alternative form of economics. end R.T.....Subdiscipline of economics? Who would those people be who say this is an alternative form of economics? Unless you can give a mention that is not an argument. Some people does not count as sourcing here, nor does others. I have never heard of ecological economics as a alternative form of economics? I doubt it. And energy plays a crucial role in ecological economics and Environmental economics and Sustainability.


 * One technique for evaluating energy systems (energy economics) is net energy analysis, which seeks to compare the amount of energy delivered to society by a technology to the total energy required to find, extract, process, deliver, and otherwise upgrade that energy to a socially useful form. Energy return on investment (EROI) is the ratio of energy delivered to energy costs (economics). Biophysical (thermoeconomic) and ecological economists argue that net energy analysis has several advantages over standard economic analysis. First, net energy analysis assesses the change in the physical scarcity of energy resources, and therefore is immune to the effects of market imperfections that distort monetary data. Second, because goods and services are produced from the conversion of energy into useful work, net energy is a measure of the potential to do useful work in economic systems. Third, EROI can be used to rank alternative energy supply technologies according to their potential abilities to do useful work in the economy. Most neoclassical economists reject methods of economic analysis that are not based on human preferences, arguing that net energy analysis does not generate useful information beyond that produced in a thorough economic analysis. http://www.eoearth.org/by/Topic/Ecological%20economics - It appears that an editor is arguing for this position. But how is it that all ways to look at this would not be better? In the interests of neutral information?


 * There are no right or wrong answers to these issues, making it impossible to state just how "physical" a measure the EROI is, or how "economic" prices are. The important point is that any analysis which posits to bridge the two approaches should explicitly recognize and consider their different assumptions and value judgements. EROI emphasizes the physical underpinnings of scarcity, while acknowledging the importance of economic factors. It implicitly assumes that changes in the energy cost of energy have important economic implications that may or may not be reflected in prices. So... I believe that R.T. is rejecting perfectly good information that is directly related to the topic but not in a way he personally likes. So I now think that R.T. is actually ax grinding a p.o.v.-- one that he may have invested some writing capital into (my opinion right now). The reason I say this now is because the information that I am giving is well known, and also apparently in opposition to positions publicly taken by R.T. who may be a special interest or faction here in this regard. No compromise of information is suggested from his response.


 * Sustainability is a concept, not a scientific discipline. quote R.T. - I beg to differ. Look at this please http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=745 or this http://www.ecoeco.org/education_encyclopedia.php one link, another http://ejournal.nbii.org/
 * http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=469 and another http://sustainability.nationalacademies.org/ and another http://www.sustainability.k.u-tokyo.ac.jp/ and these are just a few of many that prove other wise.


 * R.T. has identified himself more or less previously as a neoclassical economist in regard to his approach and his field. That is fine. But... that should not get in the way of making other viewpoints that may be valid known in the article. Presenting well rounded information as to topics. When R.T. started editing this page a bit ago he wrote on this discussion page Most energy economists adhere to the received wisdom of mainstream economics. That may be, but I am not so sure... but this is not an energy economics journal... it is an all around view and look at energy economics also as a concept, field, associated material, etc. - skip sievert (talk) 00:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I see that I never responded to the proposed addition of the International Energy Agency. No objection there. The IEA is a well-respected source of data, and they have an economics division that interesting work.Richard Tol (talk) 08:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, this is a repetition of moves, and you well know that I am not swayed by your arguments. You argue that energy economics is a subdiscipline of energy research (I disagree; energy economics is a subdiscipline of economics) and that environmental problems are exclusively caused by energy use (I disagree; take endocrine disruptors as an example). Shall we move to a split article: energy economics (neoclassical) and energy economics (heterodox)? Richard Tol (talk) 08:20, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it makes more sense to have one article that covers all perspectives and issues, since in real life all the issues are not separated, but discussed and debated. That is then a way for people to look at information themselves and have a well rounded view. You notice that I have never removed information or sources/citations from the article? I have only expanded the article with perspectives not already in it. In your short response you never addressed the various issues brought up.... only that you will not compromise much if any in information presentation.


 * You argue that energy economics is a subdiscipline of energy research (I disagree; energy economics is a subdiscipline of economics) and that environmental problems are exclusively caused by energy use R.T. end quote. No... I do not argue that. I never said that. I do not think that I ever even implied that. Unless you address the issues I have brought up... at some point I will reintroduce information back into the article that you have previously deleted. I do not find that your response above is connected with the detailed aspects of information presented in links. I do find your point of view to be concentrically involved with a narrow definition of the subject and what it means, in regard to other perspectives... that are mainstream or well known. In effect I do feel you are trying to control the information, or have assumed ownership of the article. I would have no problem with that, if I felt the article was improved and got at all the elements of the subject... and that you were a neutral observer. It seems not though.


 * Energy economics (neoclassical) and energy economics (heterodox)? What is the point when a section can cover both. Are you saying make two separate articles? or split the same article into different idea sections? The latter would be fine... but I think it would still be an artificial divide that is not needed if the article in general is just a neutral information provider... instead of a 'belief' stepping stone to one thing or another. skip sievert (talk) 16:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, we're not getting anywhere this way. Let's take the points one at the time. Let's start with environmental economics. In my mind, this is a subdiscipline of economics, just like energy economics. Many environmental problems are caused by energy use, but not all (e.g., endocrine disruptors). Many energy issues are affected by environmental regulation and concerns, but not all (e.g., capacity payments for peak power). So, energy economics and environmental economics should sit next to one another and cross-reference, but there is no need to embed one in the other. Agreed? Richard Tol (talk) 17:08, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) It seems to me that the two of you have made progress. You are actually discussing possible solutions instead of simply defending positions. I'm not likely to stand against any solution that both of you find acceptable, and would rather not intervene to confirm either one of you alone, so any content argument I make here must be considered dicta. With a relatively short article, splitting it into distinct fields would seem inappropriate; however, where problems with WP:UNDUE arise, which is not uncommon with controversial subfields, a specialized article can be created which covers the controversial subfield and the controversy, with the subfield article being represented briefly in the main field article using summary style. Both articles should remain rigorously NPOV; if it falls to only those who "believe" in the subfield to edit it, there is a danger that the subfield article will be proposed for Deletion as a POV fork, and there is often a knee-jerk response to subarticles that results in deletion, with a dumping of the content back into the main field article. So, very important: any editor who thinks that a subfield, if covered in an article on the field, using what's available with reliable sources, would result in imbalance, should watch the subfield article to make sure that mainstream opinion isn't out of balance there. (In a subfield article, "balance" has to do with how the subfield is framed, not with quantity of text. We would not expect an article on Flat earth to give the most text to opinion and proof that the earth is not flat, but rather to the history and opinions and notable arguments of those who do assert or have advocated a flat earth.)

Otherwise, without that care, we'd be right back where we started: a conflict between completeness and balance. So, I asked, first of all, what can you agree to, Richard, that you think Skip would like to see, here? I see that you have already permitted a See also link to Thermoeconomics. That link includes an opinion ("heterodox"); such an opinion should be reliably sourced and probably attributed ("according to ..."). I'll also note that the link doesn't make clear what the relationship, if any, of thermoeconomics to energy economics is. If thermoeconomics isn't a subfield of energy economics, or doesn't significantly overlap, then the link probably doesn't belong in this article. However, if the minority view (the heterodox view) is held by notable economists or other experts, and there is reliable source for this, to be related to energy economics, then there is more basis, not only for a link, but for a section. You are the expert, Rtol, and quite possibly represent the mainstream; but as an academic, I'd also expect you to be able to make a case for the "other side" and to be better able to come up with neutral text and explanations than non-experts. And thanks to both of you for pursuing consensus, it takes patience and perseverance.

Because you can easily be diverted by your disagreements, I'm asking you to stop, for the moment, arguing for what you believe to be best, but rather explore your agreements. Don't even suggest something unless you think it reasonably possible that the other will agree. Build agreements first. As you do so, you can cooperatively edit accordingly. If Rtol agrees to put back some text that he previously removed, it's best if he does it. (Skip can do it, with apparent permission, but it can then create an appearance of edit warring, sometimes admins shoot first and ask questions later.) But whatever you agree to, you can do with relative freedom. (Other editors may disagree, of course, but we can deal with that if or when it arises. They deserve to be a part of this process too, if they care.) I might also suggest that you read back over the previous Talk on this. Try to look at your own comments critically and at the other "side's" comments sympathetically. It's just an exercise, but it can be a valuable one. For starters, it will help you to anticipate what the other editor may accept. If you give what you can, you may get some of what you want. If, doing this, either of you finds something that would have been better not said, use strikeout to show that you no longer support the statement. That's done with tags in the wikitext: like this renders like this. Remember the tag or everything on the page after your strikeout will be struck out! Been there, done that. --Abd (talk) 19:53, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

One more thought: I'm going to create a page, User:Abd/Dispute over thermoeconomics. I'm going to ask the two of you, and anyone else who cares to participate, to make that page a concise and NPOV description of the dispute. It has an attached talk page which can be used for comments. Because it's in my user space, I will referee any disagreements over it, but my goal is that both of you will, when we are done, say, yes, my arguments are completely and fairly represented there. Keep this in mind: if the arguments are profuse, they are likely to not be read. So, here in the real article talk, just seek simple agreements. Use the Dispute page to jointly create a document on the dispute, to make it easy for others to come to a judgment. So that's the place where you may, usefully, pursue your preferred position, but still cooperatively. *Both* of you have a sensible motivation for that document to be clear. I'll help you with it. Opinions should be attributed. It doesn't have to be complicated. Want some extra points that would speed things up? Express the other "side's" position, as clearly as you can. (The other side gets to take it out if they disagree with that expression, but it would be better if they edit it to make it correct.) I'll write more about the process there. --Abd (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Made a couple of very minor changes in the article for neutrality and clarity. Also added some article links that are directly related. The article can not be in denial of information that has direct aspects of the subject. I made very minor alterations. Some other slight changes are in order. Information that is scholarly and directly related... biophysical economics http://www.eoearth.org/article/Biophysical_economics  - Also in the external links section or in another area, I am going to add a link to this page which is all about the monetizing of energy and the debate in general between people involved in thermo... and money aspects... the confusion or misunderstanding of many of the issues involved http://www.eoearth.org/article/Net_energy_analysis skip sievert (talk) 16:59, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merger with Relative cost of electricity generated by different sources
Good idea. Richard Tol (talk) 07:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think they should be merged, Relative cost of electricity generated by different sources is a nicely self contained article which could give readers a clear idea of the relative costs......why mix it up with a lot of economic theory and jargon which most people won;t beinterested in and or understand??Engineman (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposing merger
I propose that Economics and energy be merged into this article. --I dream of horses (T) @ 18:45, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Too many separate and distinct issues that fall outside of the mainstream discipline as to energy related theories of value or energy related views of economics not related to Keynes etc. The article Economics and energy is just barely started. Kind of soon to not wait and take a look at what develops isn't it?. Lots of information will go into the new article which is not viable for this one. A proposed merger article is not suggested because the two articles while associated will be very different. Tagging the new article within 5 minutes of its creation seems a little over much, as no content had even been put in it. I suggest you take the tag off for a day or two and then look again. No sense in tagging something so quickly that was just created. Your comment? - skip sievert (talk) 18:51, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Economics and energy is an obvious POVFORK. Merger is indicated.JQ (talk) 22:41, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Your pov of mainstream as weight on the wiki economics project page is noted on the project page. Now that an article is trying to point out some of the finer points you want to make it dissapear??, though the topic and subject is related but different. skip sievert (talk) 23:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge. Both articles contain useful information and merging will create a comprehensive coverage of this discipline. At the same time reasoning that the Economics and energy was created because of it will consist of non-mainstream information which is not viable for the existing article about the same topic is an obvious classical POVFORK. Beagel (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge indeed. POVFORK. See also the tedious discussion above, the edit warring, and the results of arbitration. Richard Tol (talk) 06:50, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I think a fork makes sense, in this case, because it's less a POV fork and more a definitional fork. There's energy economics which is a field within standard applied economics, just like agricultural economics, for instance. And then there's other stuff which connects energy and economics, in terms of theoretical borrowings from one field into the other, for instance. We don't want energy economics to get too cluttered with completely different ideas, so having an alternative article makes sense. There should be a section of Economics and energy devoted to a summary and "main article" link to energy economics, and just because economics and energy looks at different ideas doesn't mean it should be a wp:coatrack for misrepresenting the weight of various ideas. C RETOG 8(t/c) 18:08, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Cretog8. "Economics and energy" is about economics, otherwise it should not start with that. Economics is an academic discipline. "Economics and energy" suggests that the page is about the energy use of economists or something. In fact, the page is about the economics of energy supply and use (which belongs in "energy economics") and about heterodox economics with superficial connections to the physical theory of economics (which belongs in "heterodox economics"). Richard Tol (talk) 07:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think everything which is cross-discipline to energy and economics should be in this article, because energy economics means something pretty specific. Some f'rinstances:
 * Some analysis of logit discrete choice considers its relationship to entropy in the thermodynamic sense. (This is unusual, mostly if entropy is addressed for logit it's more in the information-theory sense.)
 * Some biologists apparently use an economics approach to studying how energy is used in an ecosystem or even within an individual organism.
 * Neither of those is particularly "heterodox" economics, the biology one isn't even really economics. They're just cross-discipline. I think it's reasonable for cross-discipline things like that to have a home article, which isn't here. Probably most of that article would be short snippets which link to "main article" somewhere else. Some of the material at that article could be on heterodox economics which connects to energy, but that shouldn't be the focus of the article. C RETOG 8(t/c) 09:32, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If logit can be reinterpreted as entropy, that should be mentioned in the articles on logit and entropy. If theoretical biology and microeconomics are converging, that should be mentioned in the articles on theoretical biology and microeconomics. There is no need to create a page "economics and energy" for this purpose. In fact, it would just be confusing to have a page that connects two such different connections. Richard Tol (talk) 15:18, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You may want to give this a general read Rtol for more general information connected with the new article Net energy analysis, also this about energy accounting. - skip sievert (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

This http://www.nytimes.com/gwire/2009/10/23/23greenwire-new-school-of-thought-brings-energy-to-the-dis-63367.html?pagewanted=all darn New York Times article is support for Skip. -- RLV 209.217.195.185 (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The New York Times is not an authority in academic matters. Besides, the articles is about "biophysical economics". Richard Tol (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow, that's quite striking. And if it's a fair representation of the movement, it's really clear they just don't get it. "The basic issue is very fundamental: Why should economics be a social science, because it's about stuff?" C RETOG 8(t/c) 00:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Economics is a social science because is is about what people do with stuff. It's not about the stuff itself. Richard Tol (talk) 07:45, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Pretty obviously there is no consensus to bring the information from the Economics and energy article into the energy economics article page here mostly for reasons given by Cretog8. I will remove the merge tag later from both articles in that regard. Very different info. as to neo classical approach and bio physical thermo approach in an economic sense. Both are mainstream as to published material and representation in economic discourse and notable for that reason. The new article explains details of differences and also explains the traditional Keynes approach. skip sievert (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Skip, there certainly isn't a consensus to not merge. If anything, the consensus approaches merge, in spite of what you and I think. Please leave the tags up so others will be pointed to this discussion. C RETOG 8(t/c) 15:31, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I seriously doubt that Richard Tol <---Wiki Article link, would agree to merging the information, and yes that means pretty much all the information from that article to this, because of the topic differences and especially the ones he perceives. The separate article for reasons given is most likely the best course. skip sievert (talk) 16:59, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I support the merge, just because I don't see an actual topic difference. I could change my mind if someone actually gave a coherent argument for it rather than continuing with skip's "everyone is against me" canard.  CRGreathouse (t | c) 17:41, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Attention. Lets not use personality arguments. I never said every one is against me, so that is a falsehood. Is that clear? You may not know much about the subject and how mainstream energy economics differs from Economics and energy or the history of that, and if you are not informed as to that, then you can read this for information from the N.Y.Times. Lets not turn things into personality issues. Ok? Lets discuss by factual arguments. skip sievert (talk) 17:56, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked for, and have not received, factual arguments to sway my position. The NYT article had already been posted and didn't tell me anything I didn't already know. CRGreathouse (t | c) 21:22, 30 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I posted here before taking the tag off at the econo project. You did not involve yourself in the debate there. Why do you support the merge? Why did you not get involved in a discussion about it when it was posted on Wiki economics projects for a long while now? What point are you trying to make by your confronting manner? Would you like to see ALL of the content from that article go to this article? The subject and context is different. This article is oriented to the neo classical pov. The other is more concerned with Economics and energy in history, and more rounded as to the history of energy accounting and notable views on hetero thought which is included in a well rounded view. The article WAS tagged in the first three minutes of its making when there was NO content in the article. Since you are the only one here Greathouse that wants to merge... I think there is a consensus to not merge. If it were to be merged what approach would you take? skip sievert (talk) 03:40, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Without indicating this is a vote, by my reckoning there are 5 editors here who think they should merge, two (including myself) who don't, and one who's commented without giving a judgment. C RETOG 8(t/c) 05:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't involve myself with the earlier discussion because I was busy with real-world concerns. I don't think I'm posting with a "confronting manner"; I posted an opinion and mentioned that it was liable to change.  I certainly don't think that we need one article for the neoclassical perspective and another for the historical.  Further, as Cretog8 mentions my (slight) preference for merging puts me in the majority, not as the sole proponent of a minority.
 * But I repeat my plea: give arguments for keeping these separate! I get the impression that you have reason but aren't sharing them for some reason.
 * CRGreathouse (t | c) 00:24, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Someone inadvertently removed the merger notice. Now restored. Richard Tol (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a suggestion/question: Would there be agreement to have a disambiguation page "Economics and energy interdisciplinary approaches" or something like that, and keep the page limited to being disambiguation? That's essentially what I see as the appropriate place for the Economics and energy article, anyway. C RETOG 8(t/c) 06:32, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So far, it's 5-3 for a merger. In an earlier attempt, user:Skipsievert tried to rewrite the article "Energy Economics" into something that is not recognizable to the average energy economist. Now she seeks to restore her ideas under the heading of "Energy and economics". In as far as Skip's ideas are valid, related to economics, and related to energy, they should be accomodated in "Energy Economics". Skip's ideas that are valid but unrelated to economics or to energy should be accomodated elsewhere.
 * There is no reason to have an article on Skip's ideas. She is anonymous. She has not identified herself as any authority in any field, nor is there an obvious link between Skip and an academic authority. There is no noticeable following in academic circles of Skip's ideas. Richard Tol (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Number one the article is not about average energy economists such as yourself, and it is doubly noted your conflict of interest and pov here. Merging would be a mistake. It is different subject matter. As an editor that is concerned with a narrow definition of mainstream approach it will just cause conflict as you have demonstrated previously about adding other than that approach in the article.


 * Also as someone that has displayed a conflict of interest to your pov on Wikipedia... it is probably a mistake to narrowly define things to your expert credential pov.. conflict of interest.


 * Your article rtol is Richard Tol, and it is noted that there are connected problems to your being an expert in the narrow neo classical approach you promote. The article title here is Energy economics. That could cover everything including biophysical economics extensively and other aspects of the history of that including the social history of it, but I got the impression, that was formerly met with mostly uninformed views by Richard Tol as to anything other than his editing specialty. I suppose all the content from the other article could fit in here, but it does not seem like a good approach given editing problems previously here with Richard Tol. No doubt it is all notable on the other article. Do you really want all that information here R.T.?


 * Not sure what to make of your ideas about other editors linked to academic authorities, but that is not how Wikipedia works. Read this for more information here Also as a self identified experts as apparently you define yourself as, you should be aware that you do not have special rights as to editing, and actually will be under more scrutiny. Energy economics is connected with more than the view you represent in your auto-biography and mainstream does not have any particular weight. Reliable sources to good information and pertinent aspects does though. I think your article on yourself mostly written by yourself should show a pretty strong conflict of interest concerning all this within the context of Wikipedia editing Richard Tol, the history button points that out in my opinion. As has been pointed out now several times the original tag was a drive by. It was made before content was put on the Economics and energy page. It is noted that you seem to be an advocate in a conflict here for the oil and gas industry as an editor, or could be viewed as such, because of your views on climate change, but that is another subject. skip sievert (talk) 17:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's leave the article about Richard Tol aside. That is not the subject here. Nor are my views on climate change, or my presumed links to the oil and gas industry.
 * As argued previously, I think that every heterodox school of economics should have a page on Wikipedia.
 * For the sake of clarity, we should distinguish between "schools of thought" and "fields of application".
 * "Energy economics" is generally understood to be "economics applied to energy", that is, a field of application. It is a well-defined field, with associations, conferences, and journals.
 * You argue that "energy economics" is a school of thought. As far as I know, you are alone in that argument. In support, you offer references to schools of thought like biophysical economics, thermoeconomics, and ecological economics. As these fields are defined and named already, there is hardly any need to create another name for the same thing; and if a new name is to be invented, then we should pick one that does not cause confusion.
 * As to the matter of authority, "energy economics" is an academic discipline. "economics" is an academic discipline. Academic disciplines are defined by a coherent body of literature and coherent community of scholars. I am an insider, with the vested interests of being on the inside. I'm an insider because I have a PhD in economics, I am faculty in a department of economics, I am a member of the International Association of Energy Economists, and I have produced a body of academic work in energy economics as defined by IDEAS/RePEc. I am a relatively senior member of this community, as I am an editor of one the field journals and by virtue of my publication record. I therefore roughly know what is going on the field. You, Skip, are not identifiable as an insider or an expert -- not in energy economics, not in energy, and not in economics. You are free to declare a new field of investigation; and you are free to try and revolutionise any existing field. But you cannot just declare obsolete other people's work. Richard Tol (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope realize your conflict of interest here. And as said also as a self identified expert as apparently you define yourself as, you should be aware that you do not have special rights as to editing, and actually will be under more scrutiny. Energy economics is connected with more than the view you represent. skip sievert (talk) 03:57, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no conflict of interest. There is no financial gain, no career advantage, no gain in prestige for me or anyone I know if this page is better or worse.
 * You've played the man twice now. Can we please return to the subject? Richard Tol (talk) 09:10, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Seeing that there is no consensus to merge, I've decided to go ahead and not merge. While I support a merger, it seems that such an action would excaberate conflict (the tag itself seems to have done so, anyway). I'll go ahead and remove the tags, but feel free to revert me. --I dream of horses (T) @ 02:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I reinserted the merger. There is a majority in favour of a merger, with a single voice of opposition. The opposition has little substance. Richard Tol (talk) 06:07, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that Skip has been blocked indefinitely, I think it should be possible to make some progress on this and many other projects he has been disrupting. Merging back this POVFORK would be a good start. JQ (talk) 09:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As the single active voice of opposition, let me make my case one more time. My argument actually applies much more broadly than just the economics and energy article, because it's about how to treat inter-disciplinary subjects generally. I think it makes sense to have an article which is anything from a straight disambiguation-style page to a slightly-more-than-disambiguation-style summary page, which identifies inter-disciplinary work, gives some context, and links to it. How that relates to economics and energy specifically is that there are things (I don't really know how many significant things, but some things anyway) which are colloquially "energy economics" but are not jargonically energy economics. I think we want to exclude those things from this article, reserving this for stuff that would be recognized as energy economics by someone in that field. But I still think it's appropriate to provide some place for those ideas so that a person searching who isn't familiar with the jargon, or doesn't know how to look past the jargon can find the alternatives. These concerns of mine are probably irrelevant if there's already a good way to search for inter-disciplinary material. C RETOG 8(t/c) 10:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * @Cretog8: If I understand correctly, you propose that "economics and energy" has no actual content, but refers the reader to pages on the "economic theory of energy", the "energy theory of economics" and so on. I have no problem with that proposal whatsoever. Richard Tol (talk) 12:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I also agree with the idea of a slightly elaborated disambiguation page, replacing the current POV fork. JQ (talk) 23:01, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Energy industry
IMHO it is just another article on the same thing. Any opinions? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 21:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Energy industry should not be merged here; energy economics is a subtopic of the energy industry. Neelix (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Merge with Energy and the Macroeconomy
The Energy and the Macroeconomy article does not present sufficient information to stand on its own. It should be merged here. Neelix (talk) 00:35, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Support and agree. Johnfos (talk) 01:25, 6 June 2011 (UTC)