Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCIII–
We Must Destroy the Earth To Save It
If you’re new to my writing, check out this synopsis.
As I have done a handful of times in the past, I offer some conversations I had with others regarding a post shared on Facebook. Take from it what you will…
I would love to hear from some readers their thoughts on the subject.
The post by: WH – Permaculture Apprentice
Some good news, but note that much of this growth has been driven by China, which by 2023 accounted for about 43% of the cumulative installed capacity worldwide.
Me: Great news for those who own: the land that the finite resources must be extracted from; the mining companies that perform the extraction; the refineries that process the minerals; the industries that produce the technologies; the retailers that sell the products; [Also]: the installers; those who maintain them; the financiers who create the debt to support all the above; and the governments who tax everything and need the continued growth to support the gargantuan Ponzi that is the financialised economy they have helped create. Not so great for our sensitive and fragile ecosystems that suffer from the continuing extractive and exploitive processes these industrial technologies require.
NP: SB, Steve just found out what it takes to build stuff, but he’s only mad about this particular thing.
Me: NP, Industrial technologies, all of them, are detrimental to our ecosystems. I never claimed otherwise.
AD: SB, no, they are not. They only do so because human consumers demand energy, goods and services
Me: AD, So, only human demand motivates industry? Not profit?
JT: SB, you should raise a support ticket with Meta as the last 4 characters of your surname are not showing
Me: JT, Please prove me wrong.
AD: SB, only shareholders demand profits. All shareholders are ultimately humans.
SL: SB, you just described fossil fuels
Me: SL, Agreed. And let’s also not lose sight of the fact that massive amounts of hydrocarbons are required for these ‘renewables’.
LB: SB, ,,,you “lost sight” when you ignored full lifecycle accounting of grams CO2/kWh.
Grams CO2/kWh:
Off Shore Wind 9
Onshore Wind 10
Hydroelectric 11
Run of the river 200kW 13
Solar PV 32
Geothermal 38
Nuclear 90-140 (highly dependent on fuel ore quality)
Methane gas peakers 500
Fuel cell 662
Methane gas 443 (excluding leaks)
Scrubbed coal 960 (excluding mine methane leaks)
MD: SB, I just brought 36 panels. 6mm thick glass. no frame.. so mostly made of sand… when done. they grind back to sand or recycle..
Me: MD, Aside from the issue of entropy, recycling is energy intensive, creates ecologically-destructive pollutants and toxins, and ineffective for parts of the panel, the charge controllers, and inverters. And then there’s the battery issues…‘Renewables’ are no panacea and are, in fact, additive to our energy consumption.
MD: SB, running our house on old batteries. cost not much and saves a bunch.. seem to be getting value them..
Me: MD, Now, scale the production of your items up to meet the needs of everyone on the planet. Then factor in that current electric needs are a tiny fraction of the power required to support the complexities of modernity for 8+ billion.
LB: SB, …those are all lame opinions.
Me: LB, Once again we will have to agree to disagree. Perhaps peruse physicist Dr Tom Murphy’s work on the math behind why ‘renewables’ won’t ‘save’ humanity, but instead help us destroy the planet. Perhaps start with this one: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/…/08/mm-11-renewable-salvation/
LB: SB, …no. It is your claim. I don’t have to do the work of figuring out why you like degrowth.
If we are playing “appeal to authority” here is who supports AGW:
–every scientific institution on Earth in every scientific discipline. Individual scientists are just people until they falsify journal literature. And there is 200 years of journal literature on AGW.
–195 nations of Earth as members of the Paris Accord 2050 Net Zero plan.
–195 nations of Earth as members of the IPCC.
–All the O&G executive who confessed in US Congressional testimony to having lied and obfuscated their role and contribution to AGW so as to hinder RE and the remedy of AGW. We have their internal memos.
That leaves you with nothing.
DT: SB, yea ignore the oil man who does the same thing lmfao. Ignore the tailpipes making the only habitable planet man knows of becoming less habitable.
-Ignore the last oil platform, tanker, or pipeline disaster.
-The solar panels and wind turbines are recycled.
Me: DT, Where do I ignore such things. Hydrocarbon extraction and use is highly problematic for the planet, and it has helped to put our species into ecological overshoot. I have never said anything positive about them or favoured their use. But I am also not blind to the significant destruction being wrought via the production of ‘renewables’.
DT: SB, renewables are definitely the lesser of two evils
Me: DT, But one of the significant issues (of many) that the ‘renewables’ faithful ignore is that their power generation is additive to our energy needs; in fact, the growth of them over the past few decades is not even keeping pace with the growth in energy demand resulting in increasing hydrocarbon extraction and use. In other words, we are painting ourselves further and further into a corner…
DT: SB, do u refer to the making of them? Yes unfortunately ai has taken up any benefits of renewable installations. Not sure what to say other than putting limits on ai installations and scaling up of renewable energy sources. Do u have any solutions?
Me: DT, The issue far predates AI. And this is a predicament not a solvable problem. I have long advocated that local communities relocalize as much as possible, but especially food production, potable water procurement, and regional shelter needs to be as self-sufficient as possible then cross your fingers. Modernity cannot be saved.
DT: SB, I agree modern man’s ways are not sustainable.
Me: DT, Every experiment our species has attempted in large, complex societies has failed. Every. One. Throw the predicament of ecological overshoot on top of that recurring phenomenon and the writing is on the wall. Unfortunately, most adhere to a faith in technological ‘solutions’ (that are simply expediting our collapse this time around, and overshoot—and are being pushed by the world’s profiteers and snake oil salesmen), and rather than move through the grieving stages to acceptance, they remain stuck in denial and bargaining arguing over ways to sustain the unsustainable.
LB: SB, …there! You made a verifiable claim.
So what counts as evidence, and how does the evidence verify that “the growth of them [RE] over the past few decades is not even keeping pace with the growth in energy demand resulting in increasing hydrocarbon extraction and use. In other words, we are painting ourselves further and further into a corner…”
It is empirically clear that RE is 30% of all electrical energy now, trending to 50% in 2035 and 90% by 2050. RE typically adds two GW per day of load following capacity. It is also empirically clear that unless address AGW by 2050, our current societal, ecological, and industrial vectors will be terminally disrupted.
And where in your degrowth agenda do you address the 4-5 billion new middle class of the 2050s?
Degrowthers never have a plan for anything. They just harp on the Fallacy of Perfection as if all growth in civilization and science is terminally extractive.
LB: SB, ….more opinions. Still no evidence. Never any comparisons. Never a reasoned plan for anything.
LB: ….all fair critique requires evidence based comparison to alternatives. LCoE, final phase ERoI, grams CO2/kWh, externalized social cost, retail $/kWh, upstream fuel and water infrastructure, downstream waste and pollution management, and a hundred other things you either ignore or gloss over with opinion.
Me: LB, There’s plenty of research showing the negative environmental impacts of ‘renewables’ production; particularly beyond the carbon tunnel vision most view the issue from.
LB: SB, …no there isn’t any such journal research. NONE. You can’t produce it. And you weaken your claim further by resorting to ad hominem characterization. I offered several terms of comparison. Which ones are you using?
Me: LB, So, you are claiming that there is no peer-reviewed evidence showing that there are negative consequences to the industrial production of technologies? On this, we will have to disagree.
And, I would suggest that you get a better handle on what the logical fallacy of ad hominem is—it is not arguing that most people fail to acknowledge the ecological destruction caused by the production of ‘renewables’ beyond the one of carbon emissions.
LB: SB, …ad hominem is personal characterization as an argument against fact. I gave you several measures of COMPARISON for renewables vs. legacy power. You can’t apply any of them. If you also chose the Fallacy of Perfection and Unreasonable Expectations, then you add another flaw to your claim.
For context, fossil extraction today is 535 times greater than that of all renewables tech materials… as fossil at 15 billion tons per year… and RE peaking in the 2040s at 28 million tons per year. But after the 2040s, most all new renewables will be made from recycled renewables. The one-time production of renewables technology is thus superior to the recurring commodity cost of fuel based generation, its upstream fuel and water supply infrastructure, and its downstream waste and pollution cost management. ….just for starters.
Me: LB, Please show me where I attacked any person’s character.
LB: SB, ..you don’t recognize your accusations of criminal behavior?
Me: LB, What on earth are you referring to?
LB: SB, ..these are your accusations of criminal and antisocial behavior, for which you provide zero evidence, reasoning, or comparative critique. Because you cannot do so.
“…governments who tax everything and need the continued growth to support the gargantuan Ponzi that is the financialised economy they have helped create. Not so great for our sensitive and fragile ecosystems that suffer from the continuing extractive and exploitive processes these industrial technologies require….”
Me: LB, Governments do tax all the activities I listed. A financialised economy that governments have helped to create and that requires perpetual growth (increasingly through the creation of debt/credit) fits the definition of a Ponzi scheme. So where is the personal attack in that statement?
BTW, I am finished discussing this with you today. I have far better things to do, such as get all my seedlings into my ever-expanding food gardens.
LB: SB, Ponzi schemes are illegal and antisocial. You paint all government, regulation, investment, industry, science, and technology with the same brush of immoral behavior. That not only makes discourse impossible, it renders your claims ridiculous. In fact, all professions are based on altruistic service to society. All members in violation are decertified. See any code of professional conduct.
[Insert laugh track here!!]
WL: SB, from the same guy that will swear that humans have no effect on the climate when talking about fossil fuels.
Me: WL, And I say this where? I am not and never have been in favour of hydrocarbon extraction and use, but I am also not blind to the ecological destruction that occurs with the creation of ‘renewables’.
GG: SB, Oli companies are no profit institutions
Me: GG, Of course they are. I never claimed otherwise.
DM: SB, you mean the oil companies?
Me: DM, Well, oil companies are huge investors in ‘renewables’. And the production of ‘renewables’ requires massive amounts of hydrocarbons.
DM: SB, well that’s an interesting take, but it’s actually rather like your name….
Me: DM, Do some research.
From the Large Language Model AI DeepSeek:
“Yes, many **large oil companies** have invested in **renewable energy**—though the extent and motivations vary. Here’s a breakdown:
**Major Oil Companies & Their Renewable Investments**
– **BP**
– Plans to invest **$7–9 billion annually** in renewables (wind, solar, biofuels, EV charging) by 2030.
– Aims for **50 GW of renewable capacity** by 2030 (up from ~3.4 GW in 2022).
– Acquired **Lightsource BP** (solar) and invested in offshore wind (e.g., **Empire Wind** in the U.S.).
– **Shell**
– Targets **$10–15 billion** in low-carbon energy (2023–2025), including wind, solar, hydrogen, and CCS.
– Developing **offshore wind farms** (e.g., **Hollandse Kust Noord** in the Netherlands).
– Expanding EV charging networks (e.g., **Shell Recharge**).
– **TotalEnergies**
– Plans to invest **$5 billion/year** in renewables (mostly solar & wind) by 2030.
– Owns **Total Eren** (solar/wind developer) and has stakes in **Adani Green Energy**.
– Expanding battery storage and renewable hydrogen.
– **ExxonMobil & Chevron (More Cautious Approach)**
– **ExxonMobil** focuses on **carbon capture (CCS), hydrogen, and algae biofuels** rather than wind/solar.
– **Chevron** invests in **renewable fuels (biofuels) and hydrogen**, with limited wind/solar exposure.
– **Equinor (Formerly Statoil)**
– Leading in **offshore wind** (e.g., **Hywind Scotland**, the world’s first floating wind farm).
– Plans to spend **$23 billion on renewables by 2026**.”
“Yes, the production of **renewable energy technologies** currently relies on **hydrocarbons (fossil fuels)** at various stages, from raw material extraction to manufacturing and transportation. Here’s how:
### **1. Key Renewable Energy Technologies & Their Fossil Fuel Dependencies**
**A. Solar Panels**
– **Polysilicon Production:** Requires high heat (~1,000°C), often generated using **natural gas or coal** (especially in China, where ~80% of solar panels are made).
– **Materials:** Silver (conductive paste), aluminum (frames), and glass all involve mining and refining—energy-intensive processes often powered by fossil fuels.
**Transportation:** Shipping panels globally relies on **diesel-powered ships and trucks**.
**B. Wind Turbines**
– **Steel & Concrete:** Turbine towers and foundations require vast amounts of steel (made using **coking coal**) and cement (a major CO₂ emitter).
– **Fiberglass & Carbon Fiber:** Derived from petroleum-based resins.
– **Rare Earth Metals:** Neodymium and dysprosium (for magnets) are mined and processed using fossil fuels.
**C. Batteries (For EVs & Grid Storage)**
– **Lithium, Cobalt, Nickel Mining:** Heavy machinery runs on diesel; refining is energy-intensive.
– **Electrolyte & Plastics:** Derived from petrochemicals.
**D. Hydrogen (Green vs. Blue/Gray)**
– **”Green” Hydrogen** (made via electrolysis using renewables) still often depends on fossil fuels for:
– Electrolyzer manufacturing (steel, plastics).
– Transport (compressed H₂ may use methane-derived energy).
– **”Blue” Hydrogen** is made from **natural gas + carbon capture**, keeping fossil fuels in the loop.”
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.
