Home » Posts tagged 'energy skeptic' (Page 2)

Tag Archives: energy skeptic

Carbon sequestration, wind, solar, geo-engineering, and other remedies are trivial compared to the effect declining fossil fuels will have on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The natural rate of decline today is 8.5%, exponentially increasing, and offset by 4%, so the gap will continue to grow wider, with petroleum eventually decreasing by 6% and more a year in the future.

Climate change is also a symptom of overpopulation and overshoot of the planet’s carrying capacity. If family planning became the green new deal, there would be a chance for all problems to be reduced in severity. “Renewables” are certainly not a solution since transportation and manufacturing can’t be electrified or run on anything else (see Chapter 6 and 9 of “Life After Fossil Fuels”).

Climate models developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) show a range of greenhouse gas trajectories. The worst-case IPCC scenario is Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 8.5. This predicts a rise of temperature by 5°C, and this is the scenario you read about daily in the newspapers as being the most likely “business as usual” future. But lately many scientists think around 3 °C (RCP 4.5 to RCP 6) is more likely (Hausfather and Peters 2020).

Geologists have a far more optimistic outlook. Using realistic fossil fuel reserves in climate models, they predict an outcome from RCP 2.6 to RCP 4.5 (Doose 2004; Kharecha and Hansen 2008; Brecha 2008; Nel 2011; Chiari and Zecca 2011; Ward et al. 2011, 2012; Höök and Tang 2013; Mohr et al. 2015; Capellán-Pérez et al. 2016; Murray 2016; Wang et al. 2017).

The IPCC scenarios do not model fossil fuels at all, since their assumption is that we will be burning fossil fuels, at exponentially increasing amounts until 2400. The IPCC RCP 8.5 hothouse world scenario assumes a fivefold increase in coal use by 2100 (Ritchie and Dowlatabadi 2017), even though coal production may have peaked, or will soon (see chapter 6 of “Life After Fossil Fuels”).

So rather than becoming crisply well-done, perhaps we’ll scrape by with a medium rare sunburn.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Oil shocks and the potential for crisis U.S. House 2007

March 22, 2022

Oil shocks and the potential for crisis U.S. House 2007

Preface. U.S. Congressional hearings have boasted of America’s energy independence for several years. For those of you with a longer view, and doubts about the shale “fracked” oil revolution, here’s a house hearing about oil dependence. Much of the testimony revolves around an exercise called “Oil ShockWave”, which Admiral Blair describes as “an executive crisis simulation to illustrate the strategic dangers of oil dependence. Oil Shockwave confronts a mock U.S. cabinet with highly plausible geopolitical crises that trigger sharp increases in oil prices. Participants must grapple with the economic and strategic consequences of this ‘oil shock’ and formulate a response plan for the nation.” Some of the participants were Robert Rubin, former secretary of the Treasury, Carol Browner (former head of the EPA), Richard Armitage former deputy secretary of state, Retired General Abizaid, John Lehman, former secretary of the Navy, Gene Sperling former national economic adivisor, Phhilip D. Zelikow executive director of the 9/11 commission, and Daniel Yergin.

The best “solution” offered is by Edward Markey of Massachusetts: …a nationwide oil savings plan saving of 10 million barrels of oil per day by 2031. Heinberg proposed this in his 2006 book “The Oil Depletion Protocol: A Plan to Avert Oil Wars, Terrorism and Economic Collapse“. Ah well, with peak oil likely in 2018 (Peak Oil is Here!), we’ll be forced to reduce consumption without having made plans. Though I fear the plan is War: the 1980 Carter Doctrine states that the United States will use military force, if necessary, to defend its national interests in the Persian Gulf.

Some of the interesting bits include:

ADMIRAL DENNIS BLAIR, USN (RET.), Former Commander in Chief, U.S. PACIFIC COMMAND

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Food shortages as the energy crisis grows and supply chains break?

March 22, 2022

Food shortages as the energy crisis grows and supply chains break?

Preface. This is a long preface followed by two articles about how supply chains and complex tractors may be affected by energy shortages and consequent supply chain failures in the future.Which we’re already seeing as massive numbers of ships sit offshore waiting to be unloaded, and a shortage of truckers to deliver goods when they do arrive.

Supply chain failures will only get worse, affecting food supply and making the prediction of 3 billion more people by 2050 unlikely. We are running out of time to replace fossil fuels with something else that is unknown and definitely not commercial for transportation, manufacturing and other essential services and products. Even the electric grid needs natural gas to stay up, no matter how many wind turbines or solar panels are built (Friedemann 2016).

The reason time is running out is that global conventional oil, where 90% of our petroleum comes from, peaked in 2008 (EIA 2018 page 45), and world oil production of both conventional and unconventional oil in 2018 (EIA 2020).

In the unlikely event you don’t know why this is scary, consider that we are alive today thanks to heavy-duty transportation, which runs almost exclusively on diesel, four billion of us are alive due to finite natural gas derived fertilizer, 500,000 products are made out of fossil fuels, and much of our essential manufacturing (cement, steel, metals, ceramics, glass, microchips) depend on the high heat of fossil fuels. There is not much time to come up with processes to electrify or use hydrogen to replace fossil fuels, which don’t exist yet, let alone rebuild trillions of dollars of infrastructure and a new unknown energy distribution system, triple the electric grid transmission system, and replace hundreds of millions of vehicles and equipment to run on “something else” (Friedemann 2021).

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Why liquefied coal (CTL) and natural gas (GTL) can’t replace oil

March 21, 2022

Why liquefied coal (CTL) and natural gas (GTL) can’t replace oil

Preface. Here are just a few of the reasons why we aren’t likely to convert enough coal to diesel to matter as oil decines (see Chapter 11 Liquefied Coal: There Goes the Neighborhood, the Water, and the Air for more details on this in When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation)

It is not likely much coal will be converted to diesel, because if all global coal production were converted to liquid coal, perhaps 17 million barrels a day (Mb/d) could be produced. That amounts to 22 % of current world oil production. If more efficient liquefaction technologies came along, and coal now used to generate electricity and make cement, steel, aluminum, paper, and chemicals were all diverted to make liquid fuels, as much as 54 Mb/d could be made. But roughly 17 Mb/d is more likely because diverting most or all of the coal from other uses to make CTL is not realistic. After all, we do need cement and steel to build the CTL coal liquefaction plants, roads, and the trucks and pipelines to transport the CTL itself.

In the U.S. coal production could be doubled to make CTL, but that might cut reserve life in half. In the U.S., there may be 63 years of reserves at current rates of production, but only 31.5 years if we doubled coal production.

The thermal efficiency of liquefaction is roughly 50–60 %; hence, only half the coal energy used in liquefaction will come out as the energy available in the CTL fuel. And there may be other losses. An inconvenient truth about coal is that it is a dirty fuel. If carbon capture and sequestration were to be required, 40 % of the remaining energy in a liquid coal power plant would be consumed.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Is there a long emergency plan for peak oil?

February 12, 2022

Ever since I first learned about peak oil in 2000, the Master Resource that makes all other resources and activities possible, I’ve wondered what The Plan to cope with its decline and eventual disappearance was. So it wouldn’t be just a long emergency plan, but a permanent emergency plan.

There have indeed been plans: Nixon launched “Project Independence” after the oil shock of 1973 to wean the U.S. from its dependence on imported oil by 1980 with kerogen shale oil, hydrogen fuel vehicles, and nuclear power.

When that didn’t pan out, further government attempts were made to find alternatives for fossil fuels, for example (NRC 2009):

Richard Nixon’s “Project Independence” (1974)
National Renewable Energy Laboratory (1974)
Gerald Ford’s “Energy Independence Act” (1975)
Energy Policy & Conservation Act (1975) to restrict exports of coal, petroleum products, natural gas, petrochemical feedstocks, and supplies of materials and equipment for the exploration, production, refining, and transportation of energy.
Jimmy Carter’s “National Energy Plan” (1977)
Department of Energy (1977)
Ronald Reagan’s “Energy Security” report (1987)
George H.W. Bush’s “National Energy Strategy” (1991)
Bill Clinton’s “Federal Energy R&D for the Challenges of the 21^st Century” report (1997)
George W. Bush’s “Reliable, Affordable, and Environmentally Sound Energy for America’s Future” report (2001).
John Kerry’s plan: “Kerry Aims to Reduce Foreign Oil Reliance,” Associated Press (2004).

But Senator Lugar pointed out in 2006 that despite Project Independence and other plans, the world has become more reliant on the three-quarters of reserves concentrated in unstable regions, where the risk of wars over remaining energy supplies will dramatically increase.

Or as Jay Hanson (2004) once wrote: “I am convinced thatafter the PROJECT INDEPENDENCE fiasco, our rulers reached the same conclusion I have: since no solution exists, there is no point in scaring Joe Six-pack…

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Climate change will damage energy infrastructure, costing trillions

February 7, 2022

Climate change will damage energy infrastructure, costing trillions

Preface. Climate change and extreme weather will harm oil and gas exploration and production, electric power generation and increase energy demand due to sea level rise, heat, drought, floods, more storms, and blackouts. Extreme heat and drought will force electric power plants to shut down from lack of cooling water. Our continuing exponentially growing population will increase demand on our falling apart energy infrastructure. This report says that climate caused disasters are already costing billions of dollars, and in the future, trillions.

Climate change will makes blackouts and brownouts more common. It already is: Rising heat in the West has driven a steep increase in demand for air conditioning, bringing the electric grid down at times. As have wildfires. And as a preventive measure, utilities in California take the grid down for days if high winds are forecast, leaving millions in the dark. In Texas, an ice storm nearly blacked out the electric grid for months (Douglas 2021).

***

USDOE. July 2013. U.S. Energy Sector Vulnerabilities to Climate Change and Extreme Weather. U. S. Department of Energy.

Summary. Natural disasters and climate change are already affecting our ability to produce and deliver energy from oil, natural gas, coal. Climate change will make matters worse:

Energy infrastructure is at or past its lifetime yet expected to operate in ranges it wasn’t designed for.
Heat, drought, and floods reduce power output for both fossil fuel and renewable energy generation. Heat increases wildfires, which reduce power output
Energy infrastructure along the coast is at risk from sea level rise, increasing intensity of storms, and higher storm surge and flooding, potentially disrupting oil and gas production, refining, and distribution, as well as electricity generation and distribution. Sea level rise will flood roads and rail lines, halting receipt or delivery from ships at ports.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Peak Fossil Fuels: overview of world peak oil, peak coal, & peak natural gas

February 4, 2022

Peak Fossil Fuels: overview of world peak oil, peak coal, & peak natural gas

Source: World gas peaks in 2040 roughly. Delannoy L et al (2021) Assessing Global Long-Term EROI of Gas: A Net-Energy Perspective on the Energy Transition. Energies. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14165112

Preface. Below are overviews of peak oil, coal, and natural gas, each followed by additional reading material from my book “When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”, which explains why we are unlikely to be able to electrify transportation, or run trucks on anything else besides diesel, and why the electric grid will come down for good when there’s no natural gas to balance wind and solar as well as provide peak power.

And my book Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy explains why the manufacturing of cement, steel, smelting of metals, glass, microchips, ceramics and more requires the high heat of fossil fuels to reach up to 3200 F, which can’t be electrified, run on hydrogen or anything else (see chapter 9). Worse yet, even if there were an existing commercial solution, which there isn’t, we are out of time to replace fossil fuels, since oil, the master resource that makes all others possible, probably peaked in 2008 at 69.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) (IEA 2018 p45), or in 2018 (EIA 2020).

The good news is that the worst IPCC projections are less likely to be reached (see chapter 33 of Life After Fossil Fuels). And as oil declines exponentially faster, perhaps from now onward, CO2 will decline: About 50% of carbon dioxide emitted by human activity will be removed from the atmosphere within 30 years, and 30% more within a few centuries. The remaining 20% may stay in the atmosphere for many thousands of years (GAO (2014) CLIMATE CHANGE: Energy Infrastructure Risks and Adaptation Efforts GAO-14-74. United States Government Accountability Office).

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Peak oil is here!

February 2, 2022

Peak oil is here!

Preface. Peak oil is here! The global production of crude oil happened in November of 2018 (EIA 2020), and has declined for four years, enough time to officially declare global peak oil production. Conventional crude oil production leveled off in 2005, and peaked in 2008 at 69.5 million barrels per day (mb/d) according to Europe’s International Energy Agency (IEA 2018 p45). The U.S. Energy Information Agency shows global peak crude oil production in 2018 at 82.9 mb/d because they included unconventional tight oil, oil sands, and deep-sea oil. Below is a chart created by Tad Patzek from EIA data:

Nor will we ever reach “peak oil demand” because heavy-duty transportation (trucks, locomotives, ships), manufacturing, the 500,000 products made out of petroleum, and natural gas fertilizer that keeps 4 billion of us are utterly dependent on fossil fuels. Even the electric grid depends on fossil fuels to provide two-thirds of the energy, and nearly all of the energy to construct ReBuildables (they are NOT renewable). This is explained in great detail in my latest book “Life After Fossil Fuels: A Reality Check on Alternative Energy” and previous book” When Trucks Stop Running: Energy and the Future of Transportation”

The IEA forecast a supply crunch by 2025 in their rosy and very unrealistic New Policies scenario, which assumes greater efficiencies and alternative fuels and electric cars are adopted (Figure 1). By 2025, with 81% of global oil declining at up to 8% percent a year (Fustier 2016, IEA 2018), 34 mb/d of new output will be needed, and 54 mb/d if facilities aren’t maintained. That is more than three times Saudi Arabian production. The 15 mb/d of predicted U.S. shale isn’t likely — indeed, the IEA shows it declining in the mid-2020s (IEA 2018 Table 3.1).

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

How to fix our inland waterway system

January 25, 2022

How to fix our inland waterway system

Preface. As you can see in Table 1 below, water transport is far more energy efficient than land transport, especially once we’re back to muscle power after fossil fuels are gone.

Kilojoules of energy used to carry one ton of cargo one kilometer	Transportation mode
50	Oil tankers and bulk cargo ships
100–150	Smaller cargo ships
250–600	Trains
360	Barge
2000–4000	Trucks
30,000	Air freight
55,000	Helicopter

Table 1 Energy efficiency of transportation in kilojoules/ton/kilometer. Source: Smil (2013), Ashby (2015).

To prepare for energy descent, more canals should be created now, while we still have cheap plentiful energy. We’ll also need to keep in mind the maintenance and dredging of canals after fossils as well (De Decker 2018).

The National Academy of Science study (159 pages) found that the selection of waterways projects for authorization has a long history of being driven largely by political and local concerns. The approval and funding process is an irrational, byzantine mess.

***

NRC. 2015. TRB special report 315: funding and managing the U.S. inland waterways system: what policy makers need to know. National Resource Council Transportation research board, National Academy of Sciences.

Inland waterway system stats:

The inland waterways system moves 6 to 7 percent of all domestic cargo in terms of total ton-miles, mostly coal, petroleum and petroleum products, food and farm products, chemicals and related products, and crude materials.
Inland waterways include more than 36,000 miles of commercially navigable channels and roughly 240 working lock sites.
Barges mostly carry energy: coal, crude petroleum, petroleum products, and natural gas based fertilizers

2013 Commodities carried by USACE at http://www.navigationdatacenter.us/wcsc/pdf/pdrgcm13.pdf

Tons
Millions Commodity
312.3 Coal
418.9 Crude petroleum
508.6 Petroleum products
39.9 Chemical fertilizer
140.6 Chemicals excluding fertilizers
53 Lumber, logs, wood chips, pulp
163.5 Sand, gravel, shells, clay, salt, and slag
85.4 Iron ore, iron, and steel waste and scrap
29.5 Non-ferrous ores and scrap
45 Primary non-metal products
72 Primary metal products
270 Food and food products
121 Manufactured goods
62.3 Unknown and not elsewhere classified products
2,275 TOTAL

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Insect & other BioInvasions

January 24, 2022

Insect & other BioInvasions

Preface. Invasive insects that have no predators in the U.S. can only be somewhat reduced with pesticides, which are made out of oil, and sprayed by diesel machinery and transportation. To prepare for oil decline, more research needs to be done to study native predators as pest control, which takes time since since they might do as much harm as the invasive species. There are 83 known invasive insects harming forests alone, and far more devouring food crops, all of them developing resistance to whatever pesticides are thrown at them within 5 years on average.

Invasion by non-native insects expected to increase 36% by 2050. Europe is likely to experience the strongest biological invasions, followed by Asia, North America and South America (USDA 2020).

Worldwide, forests are increasingly affected by nonnative insects and diseases, some of which cause substantial tree mortality. Forests in the United States have been invaded by a particularly large number (>450) of tree-feeding pest species, with 41.1% of the total live forest biomass in the conterminous United States is at risk of future loss from just 15 pests. Since forests contribute ~76% of North America’s net terrestrial carbon sequestration, this loss may accelerate climate change (Fei 2019).

Perhaps postcarbon survivors will find yet another solution: eating insects, and why not, over 2 billion people eat bugs as a standard part of their diet (Mishan 2018).

Below are specific species that I’ve run across in the news, clearly hundreds of other species could be added.

* * *

Lambert J (2021) These are the 5 costliest invasive species, causing billions in damages. Science News.

The impact from all invasive species cost the global economy at least $1 trillion since 1970. $149 billion: Aedes mosquitoes (A. albopictus and A. aegypti), $67 billion: Rats, $52 billion: Cats, $19 billion: Termites, $17 billion: Fire Ants

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Your life and the economy depend on biodiversity

January 18, 2022

Your life and the economy depend on biodiversity

Preface. We are trained in school, newspapers, and TV to view the world politically and economically. Not ecologically. Or with energy awareness, which those of us following limits to growth, peak oil, and peak everything else call energy blindness.

The World Economic Forum article below is an excellent summary of why biodiversity is so important, even more so than climate change, which will soon stop increasing because oil production peaked in 2008 (IEA 2018 p 45) or 2018 (EIA 2020). And this is our one hope to stop destroying biodiversity as well. Now oil burning ships can go to the end of the earth to get the last schools of fish, diesel logging and road trucks destroy rain forests, and oil-based pesticides destroy soil ecosystems and pollute land, air, and water.

***

Quinney M (2020) 5 Reasons Why Biodiversity Matters – to Human Health, the Economy and Your Wellbeing. World economic forum.

Biodiversity is critically important – to your health, to your safety and, probably, to your business or livelihood.

But biodiversity – the diversity within species, between species and of ecosystems – is declining globally, faster than at any other time in human history. The world’s 7.6 billion people represent just 0.01% of all living things by weight, but humanity has caused the loss of 83% of all wild mammals and half of all plants. (Biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse is one of the top five risks in the World Economic Forum’s 2020 Global Risks Report, too.)

In celebration of the International Day for Biological Diversity, we break down the five ways in which biodiversity supports our economies and enhances our wellbeing – and has the potential to do even more.

1. Biodiversity Ensures Health and Food Security.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

The latest monster ships could be a disaster

December 2, 2021

The latest monster ships could be a disaster

Preface. The article below makes the case for the hazards of one of these enormous ships running aground or sinking, blocking a major shipping line, leaking oil, and possibly impossible to salvage.

In 2020, the largest container ship is the HMM Algeciras at 1,312 feet (400 m) long and 200 feet (61 m) wide, much larger than the Titanic, which was 882 feet long and 92 feet wide (Bell 2020).

To see where the all ships are go this marinetraffic.com link, where you can filter the map by type of ship, weight, and other parameters in the tool bar on the left side.

Gray, W. 20 November 2013. Don’t abandon ship! A new generation of monster ships will be even harder to rescue. NewScientist.

Should any of the new monster-sized ships run aground or sink, the resulting chaos could block a major shipping lane and create an environmental disaster that could bankrupt ship owners and the insurance industry alike. With vessels of this size conventional salvage will be all but impossible.

Despite a steady rise in air and road transport, our reliance on shipping remains overwhelming: ships move roughly 90% of all global trade, carrying billions of tons of manufactured goods and raw materials.

These monster ships are already plying the seas. There are 29 bulk carriers about 360 meters long (1181 feet). Designed to feed Brazilian iron ore to furnaces in China and Europe, each is capable of carrying up to 400,000 tons. More are on order.

The most rapid increase in size has come with container ships. In the 1990s the largest carried about 5000 shipping containers; the Maersk Mc-Kinney Møller can carry 18,000. Shipyards will soon begin work on the next generation, some 40 meters longer and capable of carrying 20,000 containers, and there are rumors of even larger vessels to come.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Material and other limits to scaling wind up to 24 GW by 2050

October 23, 2021

Material and other limits to scaling wind up to 24 GW by 2050

Preface. Here are just a few of the many important points made in this excellent paper:

Research showing no constraints on the materials needed to build wind turbines “dismiss potential physical constraints and issues with natural resource supply, and do not consider the growth rates of the individual technologies needed or how the energy systems are to be sustained over longer time frames”
Wind turbines and solar panels depend on scarce minerals (i.e. rare earth)
A fast growth of renewables would add new fossil fuel demand to current demand during a transition period

And ramping up wind turbines given their 25 year lifespan is fraught with difficulties:

“This study investigates the implications of fulfilling these growth patterns by letting wind energy grow exponentially reaching 19 TW by 2030 and 24 TW by 2050. These capacities are then assumed to be sustained to the year 2100. Laxson et al. (2006) describes a sustained manufacturing model, where installed capacity of wind energy grows to reach 1%, 20% and 30% of U.S. electricity demand by 2020 or 2030. After 25 years the capacity installed 25 years earlier are replaced (repowered). The need to replace the capacity after the end of the service life of the wind turbines affects the desired manufacturing capacity of the wind industry. If the installed capacity of wind is to be sustained over a longer time frame, an industry capable of replacing the capacity taken out of use must exist. If the growth trajectory is too slow to reach a manufacturing capacity large enough to replace the old turbines in the future, the actual wind capacity in use can in fact see a drop after the initial goal is reached. On the other hand, if the manufacturing capacity is expanded too fast, the demand for new turbines will drop and leave manufacturing capacity idle.

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

How will 500,000 products made with fossils as feedstock & process energy be created post fossil fuels?

October 9, 2021

How will 500,000 products made with fossils as feedstock & process energy be created post fossil fuels?

Preface. It is quite likely that after fossils are gone, plastics will no longer be made, since they are incredibly complex – PhDs in numerous fields make them possible – and most kinds have been around for only 50 years or less. Thwaites (2011) showed how hard replicating a complex process that we take for granted would be by performing a simple exercise: He tried to make an ordinary toaster from scratch. Even the simplest toaster had 404 parts of plastic, steel, mica, copper, and nickel. After a great deal of struggle, he was able to make the metal pieces, which mankind has made since the Iron Age. But plastics were beyond him. He’d have had to refine crude oil to make propylene, which takes at least six chemical transformations to make into the simplest plastic, polyethylene.

Crude oil is the feedstock for half a million products. What follows is a description of how plastic is made. My book “Life After Fossil Fuels” discusses plastic in more depth — how much biomass is needed, how to replace asphalt and lubricants, and recycling.

***

We consume about ONE BILLION TONS of products a year. We live like kings. Of all the fossil fuels we use in a year, about seven percent – 500 million metric tons of oil equivalent, the weight of all the people on earth – is used as both feedstock and energy to make these one billion tons of products (IEA 2018). Mostly its oil for high-value chemicals. Natural gas and coal are used to make ammonia and methanol, but difficult to turn into other products because they require multiple energy-intensive steps (IEA 2018, KAUST 2020).

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Rex Weyler: Why is the political process so slow to respond to our ecological crisis?

September 21, 2021

Rex Weyler: Why is the political process so slow to respond to our ecological crisis?

Preface. Rex Weyler is one of the co-founders of Greenpeace in Canada, a brilliant ecologist and journalist, and more. His blog is here: https://www.rexweyler.ca/greenpeace

***

Rex Wyler. September 2021. Ecological crisis: Might as well speak the truth

Why is the political process — worldwide — so slow in responding appropriately to our ecological crisis?

We may point out that most political processes are hobbled by corruption, self-interest, and bureaucratic incompetence. However, there may be a deeper reason, connected to how the status quo protects itself, not just against foreign aggressors, but against dissident ideas that threaten its accepted narrative.

Regarding our ecological problems, the popular narrative of most societies and governments today is that we have a “climate problem,” which can be solved with “renewable technologies” such as windmills, carbon capture, and efficient batteries.

However, global heating is a symptom of a much larger, more fundamental ecological crisis articulated by William Rees, the Limits to Growth study, the Post-Carbon Institute and other ecologically aware observers. Humanity’s urgent and primary challenge is what ecologists call “overshoot,” the predicament of any species that grows beyond the capacity of its environment. Wolves overshoot the prey in their watershed, algae overshoot the nutrient capacity of a lake, and humanity has overshot the entire capacity of Earth. Global heating, the biodiversity crisis, depleted soils, and disappearing forests are all symptoms of ecological overshoot.

All paths out of overshoot (genuine solutions) involve a contraction of the species and a decline of material/energy throughput. There are no exceptions.

Furthermore, the contraction of humanity is inevitable, so all genuine options exist within this framework, whether we respond appropriately or not…

…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…

Tag Archives: energy skeptic

Content

Post categories

Economic Links

Energy/Resource Links

Environmental Links

Geopolitical Links

Liberty Links

News Links

Other Links

Survival Skills

Post Archives by Category

Post navigation

Latest Posts