Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXV–We’re Saved! Bamboo and Hemp.
CLICK HERE
If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview.
Not long ago a Facebook Friend (someone I know through my brother) shared one of those clickbait FB Group posts that I couldn’t help but comment on (you can read the exchange at the end of this Contemplation). It got me doing some more extensive research on one of a variety of ‘panaceas’ touted by individuals and groups (many of whom are attempting to deal with their growing awareness of issues confronting our planet and complex societies, and have begun searching for ‘solutions’ and a sense of control–what some would refer to as the bargaining stage of grieving). In this particular case, it is bamboo and hemp riding in to save the day.
An often repeated claim is that these plants are there for the taking and can lead to the promised land of sustainable living arrangements, but we’re just not paying attention to the opportunity they provide.
Just look at the claims in the post replicated below. Bamboo and hemp are not only capable of changing the world with real solutions for a better future, but can create jobs while fighting climate change, and will replace hydrocarbons with ‘clean’ biofuels and hydrocarbon-based plastics with bioplastics. They apparently require little water and pesticides, grow quite quickly, and can keep soil healthy.
What’s not to love about the brighter and greener future these plants offer?
Well…
Hemp
Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) is cultivated in a variety of nations (e.g., United States, Canada–prairies, China, France–northern) for industrial purposes (e.g., fiber for textiles and construction, seeds for food and oil, and cannabinoids). It grows best in temperate climates with well-distributed rainfall. The ideal soil is fertile and loamy with good moisture retention.
Despite being marketed as ‘eco-friendly’ and ‘sustainable’, the growing industrial cultivation and processing of hemp does not appear environmentally ‘friendly’ at all. In fact, quite the opposite.
While known for its water ‘efficiency’, hemp actually requires massive amounts of water (particularly when grown for its fiber) and has been known to add to local water stress, particularly when grown on large, industrial farms. Hemp is also considered pest resistant; however, large-scale monoculture growth results in ecological imbalances requiring the use of both herbicides and pesticides. The claim that it contributes to soil fertility is also not true when grown in large-scale, industrial settings as it is very nutrient intensive, requiring fertilisers to reach maximum yields–adding to pollutant run-off into local waters.
With its continuing growth in an industrialised-monoculture setting, it is being increasingly seen to: deplete soil nutrients, reduce biodiversity, and become more susceptible to disease and the need for increased chemical inputs. Grown organically and on a rotational basis, these concerns can be mitigated; however, yields are significantly lower and cannot be scaled up to meet growing ‘demand’, hence the growth in industrial-scale ‘farms’–which is putting at risk natural ecosystems that are increasingly being converted to large, monoculture settings.
Finally, hemp cultivation and processing is very resource intensive despite assurances to the contrary. The retting process (that converts stalks into usable fiber) requires large amounts of water or energy, depending upon the process used. This is also true of the procedure to extract cannabinoids where very complex equipment and controlled settings are required. Additionally, the fact that these plants are processed in countries far removed from where they are grown and sold (requiring significant transportation logistics), offset any supposed agricultural benefits.
Bamboo
Bamboo is a giant grass (not a tree) and is primarily cultivated for construction material and furniture, pulp for paper, and edible shoots. It grows best in tropical and subtropical climates with abundant rainfall, requiring well-drained, fertile soil but can grow in less fertile land. It is considered ‘highly’ renewable due to its 3-5 year regeneration cycle. This grass is grown mostly in China, India, Southeast Asia (e.g., Vietnam, Indonesia), Latin America (e.g., Columbia, Ecuador), and Africa (e.g., Ethiopia, Ghana).
Similar to hemp, there exist a number of caveats to bamboo’s supposed ‘clean/green’ narrative that asserts it will: create ‘green’ jobs, restore degraded soils, act as a carbon sink, and meet growing demands for ‘clean’ products. To meet growing ‘demand’, monoculture farms are being created via the clearing of natural and biodiverse forests. The processing of the very hard plant material requires massive amounts of chemicals, especially carbon disulfide–a neurotoxin that is often released into the air and waterways. This processing also needs huge amounts of water that regularly becomes contaminated with the chemicals used while also putting stress on local water availability.
Similar to hemp, bamboo cultivation, processing, and manufactured products are transported across long distances. Finally, the risk of some species of bamboo escaping these farms (as they spread via roots) and disrupting local ecosystems is real and has occurred. Thus, the same negative issues outlined above for hemp are present for bamboo.
It would appear that the idea that these plants offer a ‘sustainable’ resource for human consumption is based almost exclusively on the characteristics (e.g., fast growth, low pesticide needs) of their growth in natural settings and use by small, local communities, and not on the more prevalent and growing industrial cultivation settings and global distribution networks it increasingly relies upon and uses to grow its uptake.
The evidence shows that these hemp- and bamboo-based products are not ‘clean’ or ‘sustainable’ as advertised/marketed. But let’s set aside these ‘inconvenient truths’ for the moment to consider the assertion that the use of these plants can and is replacing significantly more-destructive resources and processes.
What does the actual data suggest about such claims?
First, let’s look at which resources are supposedly being replaced in this narrative.
Those marketing bamboo and hemp state that they are ‘clean’ and ‘sustainable’ replacements for: hydrocarbon-based plastics, especially single-use items; wood-based building/construction materials, and paper and packaging; textiles and fabrics; hydrocarbon fuels; and other various consumer goods (e.g., toothbrushes, cutting boards, kitchenware). [Note that a number of the resources being ‘replaced’ are ‘renewable’, but they are being consumed by humanity at a rate that increasingly surpasses natural replacement rates and their use has thus become unsustainable.]
Let’s first consider the ‘replacement’ of perhaps one of the more problematic modern, hydrocarbon-based products: plastics.
The development of plastics began in the 19th century with Alexander Parkes’ 1856 development of moldable cellulose-based thermoplastic. Due to its high costs, this ‘Parkesine’ did not catch on commercially. John Wesley Hyatt ‘improved’ on Parkes’ product in the 1870s by adding camphor and creating celluloid. This new product began to be produced on a larger scale due to its versatility and can be considered the first successful mass-produced synthetic thermoplastic. Unfortunately, celluloid was highly flammable (becoming more so with age) and led to a number of fires in both production factories and theatres where it was used in photographic film
BF Goodrich’s Waldo Semon furthered thermoplastic development in 1926 with his creation of plasticised polyvinyl chlorides (PVC) that led to thermoplastic elastomers (TPEs) and polystyrene, which eventually resulted in styrene-butadiene rubber.
Synthetic thermoplastic production continues to expand. It has been growing exponentially since the 1950s and is predicted to triple by the 2060s.
And while set to grow, bioplastics from plant matter is an incredibly small portion of the plastics market–estimated to be 0.5% at present. Its ‘phenomenal’ growth rate, however, continues to be less than the growth rate in traditional hydrocarbon-based plastics–and this is despite a trend of regulatory efforts to try and curb plastics use.
In other words, despite bioplastics’ recent significant increase in use worldwide—with the help of government legislation—it has simply added to the mix of plastics being produced and consumed by humanity. There is no replacement taking place, nor is there likely to be given the faster increase in traditional plastics.
The story is the same for the supposed replacement of traditional construction and building materials. The traditional wood and timber market continues to grow alongside growth in the use of bamboo- and hemp-based products which have tended to fill a rather small and niche market. Like bioplastics, these ‘clean’ and ‘sustainable’ wood alternatives have become complimentary and not competitive. There is no in-tandem decline in wood-based products as alternatives grow.
Alas, the statistics show the same phenomenon for biofuels. Despite significant increases in the production and use of biomass-based fuels, hydrocarbon production and use continues to increase. There is no in-tandem decrease in hydrocarbons as a result of the uptake of biofuels; they too have become additive to humanity’s energy production and use.
There are two significant pieces of data to keep in mind here for the much overhyped marketing of hemp and bamboo in providing biofuels. First, the vast majority of biofuel production does not use bamboo and hemp as feedstocks; their contribution is negligible relative to the primary ones of corn, sugarcane, soybean, and palm oil. Second, note the significant difference in energy production between the two fuel sources: 1400 TWh vs 53,000 TWh. It would require an almost 40x increase in all biofuel production to replace oil production, and this does not take into consideration any growth beyond current demands.
And the fact that some studies have found that greenhouse gas emissions are actually higher for the production and use of biofuels than for hydrocarbon-based fuels when all inputs and knock-on impacts are taken into account, suggests we should be rallying against their increasing use–not cheerleading it as many do for these fuels and other bamboo-/hemp-based products.
The actual story, once one moves aside the rather opaque and greenwashed curtains, does not reflect the marketing propaganda with respect to the replacement by bamboo- and hemp-derived products of what are viewed as much more destructive hydrocarbon-based ones.
The growth in the cultivation and processing of these plants for use in today’s complex societies has been dramatic over the past century, but much like that of non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies (aka ‘renewables’) that have seen tremendous growth the past fifty years or so, there has been no promised in-tandem reduction of hydrocarbon production and use. In other words, these plants and their use are–like ‘renewables’–adding to humanity’s extractive enterprises and consumptive growth. They are not replacing hydrocarbons as promised and continuing to be asserted.
Wikipedia:
Greenwashing (a compound word modeled on “Whitewashing“), also called green sheen,[1][2] is a form of advertising or marketing spin that deceptively uses green PR and green marketing to persuade the public that an organization’s products, goals, or policies are environmentally friendly.[3][4][5] Companies that intentionally adopt greenwashing communication strategies often do so to distance themselves from their environmental lapses or those of their suppliers.[6] Firms engage in greenwashing for two primary reasons: to appear legitimate and to project an image of environmental responsibility to the public.[7]
Based upon the above details and evidence, one should conclude that the narrative that hemp and bamboo are ‘green’, ‘sustainable’, and replacing finite and/or overused traditional resources is misleading–in the extreme. They not only involve ecologically-destructive practices, but are unsustainable given their growth trajectories and dependence upon finite resources. Like the much touted ‘renewables’ many/most believe can replace hydrocarbon-based energy, they are adding to the use of products that they are said to be replacing–and helping to exacerbate our fundamental predicament of ecological overshoot.
The narrative displayed in the post that initiated this Contemplation is ‘greenwashing’ at its finest. A fraudulent spin on products to sell them and the idea that they are ‘clean and sustainable’, and used by the poster to attract clicks to help generate revenue. The suppression of negative aspects and overhyping of supposed ‘benefits’ of products and ideas is commonplace in marketing and clickbait sites, and it seems to infect almost everything nowadays–especially energy production, mass consumption, the pursuit of economic growth, and social media.
Recent and related articles/posts:
What’s Missing In This Picture–The Honest Sorcerer
Newsflash: Predicaments Are Not problems–Problems, Predicaments, and Technology (Erik Michaels)
Why Sustainability Is Impossible Without Collapse–Transformatise (Paul Abela)
Bill McKibben’s Far Too Sunny Outlook For Solar Power–The New Republic (Alexander Zaitchik)
Potemkin Sustaiability–Degrowth Is the Answer (Matt Orsagh)
The conversation that ensued after my initial comment on the post:
Me: Even so-called ‘renewable’ resources are not sustainable when used at a rate far above natural replacement which is the predicament our species has found itself caught in (aka ecological overshoot). Neither hemp nor bamboo can help us in such a situation (amongst other issues with massive monocultures). And there are no adequate replacements for hydrocarbons in most industrial processes…
KWF: Steve Bull that may be true, but this stuff could be utilized far more than it is for many purposes
JT: Steve Bull not sure why you seem so negative about sustainability, as the beauty of increased usage of these products is they can also be recycled in a non-toxic way… hempstic can replace most plastics … hempanol can replace gasoline etc
Me: JT, There is little if anything that is ‘sustainable’ or ‘clean’ about the industrial use of these plants. Look behind the rather opaque and greenwashed curtains. They are also not replacing anything; they are adding to our continuing growth and the destruction of our ecosystems. And, by the way, I’m all in favour of sustainability but there is little if anything sustainable about human complex societies and our current living arrangements; we left that possibility behind many millennia ago.
JT: Steve Bull incorreect [sic]; you are just a negative person with a pessimistic outlook on life and technology… we can easily transition to sustainability, if not for the overlords who own the carbon combustion fuels
Me: How you can determine my outlook on life and technology via a truncated online discussion is fascinating.
As for your belief that humanity could easily transition to sustainability, may I suggest you do some critical reading and research rather than take at face value the ongoing marketing propaganda of ‘green’ technology and the like.
Look into: the dependence of virtually all industrial processes on hydrocarbons, including those that claim to be ‘clean/green’; the scale of what is required to replace our hydrocarbon-based products, especially for transportation and agriculture; the finite material and mineral needs of societies, and the shortages and bottlenecks already occurring (thus the growth in resource wars); the ecological destruction being wrought by the extraction and refining processes to maintain our living standards and technologies (leading to such predicaments as massive biodiversity loss and compensatory sink overloading); the evidence that despite decades of ramping up so-called ‘green;/clean’ technologies, there has been no displacement of hydrocarbon use and its growth continues–so these are merely adding to our growth and destruction; etc., etc..
And all of these issues are compounded by the fact that while existing on a finite planet, humanity continues to pursue growth (both economic and population) while already well into ecological overshoot.
This is a predicament that cannot be ‘solved’ regardless of our wishes to the contrary. What you call pessimism, I call realism based upon the biogeophysical limits and processes that we think don’t apply to our species. This, unfortunately, results in misguided narratives such as the ability of humans to bypass the laws of Nature and Thermodynamics to attain some utopian ‘green/clean’ world.
May I suggest you being with these handful of resources:
Archaeologist Ronald Wright’s text, A Short History Of Progress, based upon his CBC Massey lectures;
Environmental sociologist William Catton Jr.’s Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change;
Physicist Albert Barlett’s Arithmetic, Population, and Energy presentation;
Archaeologist Joseph Tainter’s The Collapse Of Complex Societies;
Meadows et al’s 50-year update on their seminal text, Limits To Growth.
You can find a summary of these here: https://olduvai.ca/?p=69225.
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.