Overshoot, Hydrocarbon Energy, and Denial: Avoiding the Pain

I share an ongoing conversation with others in my town of Stouffville regarding a post on a local Facebook Group discussing ongoing expansion of our suburban community. Note the common thinking along the lines of growth being a given and the energy blindness when discussing ‘development’, particularly in distant regions of our province.

The posted comment:
I’m concerned when I look around Main St. and see all these condos going up. We’ll be in constant gridlock. I do not see any potential to widen the road. Am I wrong? It’s going to be challenging at best to drive along Main St..

On the other hand, Stouffville also needs affordable housing.

My initial reply:

Perpetual growth on a planet with finite resources and fragile ecosystems…what could possibly go wrong?

MM:
Steve Bull well, if we sterilize every couple after having two children, and euthanize everyone once they reach the retirement age, we might be able to make the zero-population growth number work from an economic standpoint. Or cutting everyone off social assistance, and withdrawing healthcare insurance for the elderly might also work.

I think it might be a bit of a hard-sell, especially among those approaching their “golden years” and those who depend on government assistance to meet the costs of staying alive.

By the way the population density of Canada is less than 4 persons per square kilometre; are you at all familiar with population distribution of Canadians outside of the Golden Horseshoe?

MB:

MM, good thing you are not aging!

Me:
MM, It’s a wicked predicament that we’ve led ourselves into.

MM:

Steve Bull the die was cast when we decided that having public education, public healthcare, municipal services like police, fire & ambulance services, potable water supply and sewage service etc. were things that were desirable.

These things all cost money; and it is the nature of the human condition that we cannot each bear our share of these costs over the entirety of our life span, and that these costs fluctuate considerably over our lifetime.

This means that we have to rely on ever increasing numbers of working age members of our society to cover these costs. Or do we withdraw these services?

Me:
MM, The predicament is much deeper and complex than what you suggest. Look up what ecological overshoot is…and all our chasing of growth is simply exacerbating it.

JO:
MM, something I have often said, there is plenty of land for use outside he Golden Horseshoe. the problem is no one seems to want to develop it. Lots of land north of Parry Sound or even North Bay.

MM:

JO, Saskatchewan has a population density of 0.018 persons/ha. Manitoba is 0.025 persons/ha.

We need to do something to encourage employers to consider places like Regina & Saskatoon and Winnipeg & Brandon for new sites and not just the Golden Horseshoe.

TK:
JO, There wouldn’t be enough jobs to justify it and the land is rough and difficult to develop.

JO:

TK, unless you have personal experience of the area I would have to disagree with you. Having grown up there it has many attractions. It is not the easiest place to live but it is doable. Of course it is not for the faint of heart nor for pampered people.

MM:

MB, I wish that were true M, but I’m 3/4 home from the start to the end, and each year passes by more quickly than the year before.

MM:

Steve Bull, I am quite familiar with the concept of ecological overshoot; and I know that our calculations of regional and global carrying capacities have had to be reassessed countless times over the past 35 years that I have been a researcher and teacher of environmental science.

There is no reliable algorithm which can adequately predict changes in carrying capacity that can adequately make allowances for the unpredictable global climatic oscillations or the influence of developing resource technologies on net resource output.

The issue in Canada is the geographical concentration of the population, not the size of the population.

My final response:

MM, We will have to agree to disagree. I would argue Canada, and the entire planet, is already well into overshoot — I will assume you are familiar with Catton’s book on the subject and I don’t need to highlight his argument as to why this is so.

Simply because there is no perfect measure of overshoot or its changes does not negate the evidence that we are well into it, especially when one considers the finiteness of that most important resource to our continued expansion, and our societal complexities and their maintenance: hydrocarbons.

Virtually every aspect of the living standards of our modern, ‘advanced’ economies (and especially the ability to pursue expansionary policies the past century plus; particularly population, economic, geopolitical, and technological in nature) has been the result of surplus energy derived from hydrocarbon extraction and use. Of particular importance to current ‘modernity’ is diesel fuel that supports not only our long-distance supply chains but (with natural gas) industrial agriculture; both of which we have grown extensively dependent upon, particularly in Ontario where we import a good 80+% of our food needs for a growing population. (See Alice Friedemann’s work on this predicament, especially When Trucks Stop Running)

Of course, declining surplus energy due to significant diminishing returns as a result of our exponentially-expanding drawdown of this resource has led us to all sorts of machinations (especially economic and geopolitical — there’s a reason the Middle East is a quagmire and the world is awash in hundreds of trillions of dollars in debt and unfunded liabilities), along with magical thinking (i.e., ‘renewables’ can ‘power’ our complex societies and maintain our living standards and growth imperative), in our attempts to keep the party going and ignore the biophysical realities that exist. As some argue, we are extremely blind to our dependence/reliance upon the drawdown of hydrocarbon energy stores. (See Nate Hagen’s four-part series on this subject: Part 1)

And all of this is being carried out with zero regard (apart from significant greenwashing narratives to keep selling ‘stuff’ and keep the masses in denial/ignorance) to the ecological systems destruction it is resulting in — there’s a reason some call our present geologic epoch the Sixth Mass Extinction.

So, yeah, we can ignore the elephant in the room of overshoot and believe in magic (especially infinite substitutability, particularly of energy) to convince us we can continue to chase the perpetual growth chalice when what we need to be discussing is how to degrow in a managed way before it is forced upon us by circumstances and Nature. Because, frankly, we aren’t going to enjoy the way in which Nature responds to our misuse of our planet in our attempts to grow well beyond physical limits. (Here I recommend watching the late Dr. Albert Bartlett’s presentation on the exponential function)

Extending our carrying capacity through the leveraging of a one-time and finite cache of photosynthetically-derived energy was always going to end badly — it’s put us neck deep into overshoot. However, instead of discussing this and its inevitable consequences we have manipulated our economic systems and weaved comforting stories to ignore its significant anxiety-provoking fallout — most (all?) of which are completely energy blind. It’s much easier to believe in comforting narratives than discuss means by which we might mitigate some of the coming storm.

Regardless of the overwhelming evidence of this misguided trajectory, my guess (based upon pre/historical precedents, the human tendency to deny anxiety-provoking thoughts, and the Maximum Power Principle) is that we will continue to bargain with/rationalise away the Laws of Thermodynamics and biophysical limits and wholeheartedly pursue growth rather than confront the looming energy cliff and all that portends.

Certainly those that profit from this path will encourage it (particularly through their mouthpieces of the government and mainstream media) and tell us comforting stories about our ingenuity and technological ability to ‘solve’ what is for all intents and purposes an insoluble predicament.

Growth, to infinity and beyond…

Of course, only time will tell how this all turns out, but certainly the signs are all there that we’re on the wrong path. With the inevitable decline in surplus energy we should be discussing how to reduce our dependency upon long-distance supply chains and how to relocalise everything but especially food production, potable water procurement, and shelter needs; not deliberating how best to continue expanding — particularly since this approach, while helping to support the Ponzi that is our financialized economic system, exacerbates our overshoot and worsens the eventual correction.