A recent post on environmentalism as a meme states that ‘renewable’ energy supporters hold that these technologies solve some significant problems that humanity faces.

‘Renewable’ energy enthusiasts claim the following: wars are not created as a result of them; they fight pollution; and through their use security is improved, jobs are created, and wealth is generated.

Each of these beliefs about ‘renewables’ could be argued to hold some ‘truth’ and be construed as positive, depending entirely upon one’s perspective. I would argue, however, that this perspective is relatively narrow and ignores much of the complexity surrounding our energy production, use, and especially the negative consequences that arise from such production and use.

I believe that these perceptions about renewables and the amplification of them by their cheerleaders feed into the monster that is the mythos (and false hope) around modern complex society ‘sustainability’ and a pending energy ‘transition’.

Let me deconstruct each of these ideas on our ‘renewable energy transition’ and its associated industrial technologies over this and my next Contemplation.

Claim #1: Wars are not created as a result of them
Implicit in this first view is that wars have and are arising from societal competition over the energy source that ‘renewables’ are seeking to ‘replace’: hydrocarbons. I cannot disagree whatsoever with this implication: wars have and are occuring as a result of attempts to gain control over hydrocarbon resources.

Although not typically admitted by governments and/or a region’s ruling elite, there is plenty of evidence to support the argument that resources in general are a significant contributing factor to kinetic wars; they rarely, if ever, arise due to the reasons typically promoted by nations as they seek to garner the support of their citizens for military engagements. Our elite wish the masses to buy into the belief that wars are fought almost exclusively over moral issues–to simplify: good versus evil. It is just coincidental that those evil ‘others’ tend to be in possession of lands that hold lots of natural resources, such as: water, timber, fishing grounds, arable farmland, precious metals and gemstones, rare-earth minerals, hydrocarbons, and/or uranium.

Brave AI-generated summary

It can be stated with fair certainty that for the past 50+ years many wars have been fought over our industrial societies’ master resource: hydrocarbons. This appears particularly obvious when one considers the geopolitical gamesmanship surrounding the Middle East over this time, including a number of hot wars and the petrodollar deal between the United States and Saudi Arabia struck in 1974. And it is probably not coincidental that the increase in such wars and machinations occurred not long after the U.S. Empire passed its peak in cheap, conventional crude oil in 1970 (just as predicted by petroleum geologist Marion King Hubbert in 1956).

For a current example, one need look no further than the decade-old U.S. invasion and occupation of hydrocarbon-rich regions of Syria. (Interesting, isn’t it, how the sovereignty and border integrity of some nation states is unimportant or simply ignored, while for others it’s worth ‘investing’–with probably a lot of money laundering–billions/trillions of dollars and risking many lives. Can you say double standard? Perhaps it’s because that ‘evil’ Syrian government happened to be controlling an area with ‘our’ oil.)

Regardless, it seems obvious that competition over hydrocarbon reserves results in war.

But the production and use of ‘renewables’ won’t result in wars? Let’s glance behind the curtain for a moment to unpack this initial claim.

First of all–and although die-hard techno-optimists/ecomodernists may deny/ignore/dispute the following–’renewables’ depend upon significant inputs of hydrocarbons for their production, distribution, maintenance, and reclamation/disposal. Despite extremely small-scale examples of power derived via ‘renewables’ to carry out these processes (but greatly amplified by ‘renewables’ cheerleaders), huge amounts of hydrocarbons are indispensable to the supposed energy ‘transition’. Almost all the important industrial processes required to produce ‘renewables’ need hydrocarbons to power them.

And if we are to attempt what some are calling for–a ‘war-footing’ investment in a massive rollout of ‘renewables’–then one hell of a lot of hydrocarbons are required; probably more than can be garnered from existing global reserves for the scale of such a feat. And remember scale is significantly important to any energy ‘transition’ that depends upon ‘renewables’ since the electricity generated by these technologies accounts for only a smallish amount of the current power needs of modern, industrial societies–to say little about growing energy demands due to the ongoing pursuit of the perpetual growth chalice and the globe’s increasing population.

A very significant portion of humanity’s primary energy needs is still met by way of hydrocarbons–more than 80%. To replace our current demands (ignore for the moment that these demands keep growing–just think about the energy needs being bandied about for Artificial Intelligence and data centres) would require gargantuan numbers of solar panels, and/or wind turbines, and/or nuclear power plants.

For example, to replace the electricity portion of our energy demands (remember that hydrocarbons are used for much more than just electricity production) via ‘renewables’ would require tens of millions of solar panels, and/or many millions of wind turbines to be produced, and/or thousands of nuclear power plants to be constructed.

So the initial glitch in the ‘wars are not created as a result of them’ claim is that if wars are created as a result of competition over hydrocarbon resources and hydrocarbon resources are necessary for the creation (and re-creation) of ‘renewables’, then wars are indeed created as a result of them–their production necessitates that the competition/wars over hydrocarbons continue. And such competition would need to ramp up very significantly given the scale of ‘renewables’ being clamoured for and the hydrocarbons that would be needed.

The second major glitch for this ‘no war’ claim is stumbled upon once one is aware that ‘renewables’ also require a number of other finite and rare-earth mineral resources for their production. And the concentrated deposits of these minerals do not occur in equitable distributions across the planet. Some of those evil ‘others’ happen to be sitting on the lands that hold the minerals we need for our ‘renewables’. Oops…talk about bad planning.

And then there’s the ‘warfare’ being waged upon the peoples of some of the mineral-rich regions (particularly nations with emerging or developing economies) who are stripped of rights, forcibly removed/relocated, required to work under less-than-ideal circumstances, increasingly exposed to pollutants/toxins, etc.. To say little about the ‘war’ waged against our ecosystems by the pursuit of ‘renewables’ (see below for more on this aspect).

Our species has been carrying out the brutal phenomenon of war for millennia prior to the use of hydrocarbons and I have little doubt that this is not going to halt, dissipate, or even be reduced through the adoption of ‘renewables’ as the notion implies. In fact, quite the opposite may be true if ruling elites across the globe believe that their wealth, control, and prestige are in jeopardy because somewhere and someone else has the resources required to ‘power’ via ‘renewables’ their lifestyles and fiefdoms (or at least line their pockets with the wealth being funnelled into the ‘electrify everything’ racket).

In fact, societal competition over regions of the planet that hold some of the mineral resources listed above as needed for ‘renewables’ started decades ago and can only get worse as we have already draw down a lot of the lowest-hanging fruit (i.e., best deposits) of these finite materials.

So, sorry, not sorry; if wars are fought over resources that are perceived as being necessary for a society’s energy needs, then the claim that wars are not fought as a result of ‘renewables’ is completely and utterly erroneous. To argue that wars are not created as a result of ‘renewables’ being produced and used completely ignores reality through some significantly darkly-shaded blinders.

Claim #2: They fight pollution
This is perhaps the most obviously misinformed assertion made by ‘renewables’ promoters. While within a narrow, keyhole perspective–focussed upon the lack of carbon emissions produced once the technologies have been manufactured and distributed–this may be accurate, such a statement completely ignores the massive ecologically-destructive mining required for the extraction and refinement of the minerals that help to create these technologies. It also overlooks the significant hydrocarbon inputs and their contribution to pollution of our ecosystems.

Mining is amongst the most polluting and destructive endeavours that humans engage in. To ignore this required activity in the production of ‘renewables’ technologies and then maintain that ‘renewables’ do not pollute is completely outlandish (bullshit, actually). But this fantastical belief is held tightly by many (most?) who assert that ‘renewables’ are and the energy ‘transition’ will be ‘clean/green’. This doesn’t just ignore reality, it distorts it beyond belief.

Some attempt to rationalise such destructive activities suggesting they are a one-off and everything is ‘clean/green’ once the products are manufactured. But this too ignores a lot. It ignores two very important facts: ‘renewables’ have a limited lifespan and/or can malfunction needing replacement; and, ‘recycling’ does not and cannot reclaim all the materials in them to ‘recreate’ them without more mining, to say little about the tremendous energy costs of recycling and pollutants/toxins that arise from the process.

This rationalisation also ignores the already overloaded planetary sinks and their increasing inability to absorb more pollutants/toxins. And the pollution and toxins that would be released into our ecosystems by the scale of ‘renewables’ production some are calling for would be monumental. Absolutely monumental.

Also keep in mind that the estimates provided above for how many solar panels and/or wind turbines would be required to replace the hydrocarbon-produced electricity that our complex societies demand do not take into account the number of additional panels or turbines that would be required to make up for the intermittency of these technologies. The sun only shines for a limited number of hours per day, and/or can encounter very cloudy or snowy conditions for many locations, and sometimes the wind doesn’t blow.

Then there are the massive and unprecedented battery storage facilities that would be required to store harvested energy for use when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. The negative impact upon our ecosystems from the production (that also require massive finite and rare-earth minerals via mining), use of, and reclamation/disposal of batteries would also be tremendously monumental.

Add on top of these ‘roadblocks’ to some ‘green/clean’ utopian future the infrastructure build-out that would be required to support all this ‘electrification of everything’ and the replacement of all those hydrocarbon-dependent technologies and the impact on our ecosystems is beyond comprehension.

Just as they do not reduce the drawdown of hydrocarbons and their use but add to them, ‘renewables’ do not ‘fight’ pollution–they exacerbate it, significantly. To maintain that ‘renewables’ fight pollution is probably even more outrageously egregious than holding that they don’t result in war.

I close Part 1 of this Contemplation with a section of Charles Hugh Smith’s latest book–The Mythology of Progress, Anti-Progress and a Mythology for the 21st Century–that highlights the lore surrounding ‘clean’ technology:

The Mythology of ‘Clean Technology’
“The disconnect between the inspirational, make-believe story of Progress and the real world reaches its most jarring extreme in the mythology of clean technology, which imagines a wondrous utopia of clean skies and clean air delivered by clean technology.

The mythology neatly ignores the polluted air, ravaged landscape and exploited workers of the developing world nations that are being torn apart for the minerals needed to build the supposedly clean technologies for the wealthy developed nations.

This is mythology at its most appalling, a bizarre myopia to the dreadful environmental destruction and human suffering caused by wealthy nations’ stripmining developed nations for the resources needed for hundreds of millions of batteries, copper for expanding the electrical grid and all the other ‘clean technologies’ that are only ‘clean’ because wealthy nations have offloaded all the poisoned air and water, environmental damage and poor health onto the developing nations–the penultimate expression of the asymmetry of the global power structure created by the mythology of Progress.

‘Clean technology’ is nothing more than the distorted, self-serving fantasy of the wealthy exploiting the powerless for their own pleasures and profits. The clean skies and electric bikes of Amsterdam and dozens of other developed-world capitals come not from clean technology but from the exploitation of the planet and the powerless in distant lands, far from the clean skies and profits of the powerful and wealthy.” (pp. 168-169)

See also this recent article in The Tyee by Andrew Nikiforuk on the ‘energy transition’ arguing that there is no energy ‘revolution’, only addition to our growing energy use.

What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:

“Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better.

Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.

If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).

Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).

If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.

Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99

Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.

You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.

AND

Released September 30, 2024
It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 2

A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.

With a Foreword by Erik Michaels and Afterword by Dr. Guy McPherson, authors include: Dr. Peter A Victor, George Tsakraklides, Charles Hugh Smith, Dr. Tony Povilitis, Jordan Perry, Matt Orsagh, Justin McAffee, Jack Lowe, The Honest Sorcerer, Fast Eddy, Will Falk, Dr. Ugo Bardi, and Steve Bull.

The document is not a guided narrative towards a singular or overarching message; except, perhaps, that we are in a predicament of our own making with a far more chaotic future ahead of us than most imagine–and most certainly than what mainstream media/politics would have us believe.

Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.