News and views on the coming collapse
Home » Posts tagged 'today’s contemplation' (Page 3)
December 9, 2022 (original posting date)
Ruling Class Endgame For Everything: Wealth Generation and Wealth Extraction
Todays’ contemplation has been once again prompted by a great article posted by The Honest Sorcerer, this time the second part of some observations regarding the complex and evolving European energy and economic situation.
Well said!
One of the things I have come to believe is that the ruling caste of our world is driven primarily by one overarching motivation: the control/expansion of the wealth-generation/-extraction systems that provide their revenue streams and thus positions of power and prestige.
Everything is leveraged towards this endgame. EVERYTHING!
The political/media arm of this caste spins/markets their policies/actions in ways to give the impression that they serve the masses, but this is simply a epiphenomena of their machinations. While some — even perhaps a majority — of their ‘ill-gotten’ wealth is directed towards ‘public’ services, much is siphoned off and directed up the power/wealth structures inherent in all complex societies to individuals/families within the privileged class. It is a skimming/scamming operation that takes no prisoners and encompasses all of society’s systems; in particular, our socioeconomic one where our financial institutions create credit/money-from-thin-air and then ‘invest’ it or charge interest for its use.
As the world’s current dominant hegemon, the United States does this ‘better’ and more broadly than everyone else.
What we seem to be experiencing with economic sanctions, energy infrastructure sabotage, false flag attacks, significant transfers of armaments and other military support, and finger pointing when events arise whose responsibility is in question, is a concerted effort by the United States and certain allies to not simply justify/rationalise/spin (re)actions but to assert and attempt to sustain its dominant role in global wealth-extraction/-generation.
Here I am reminded of a passage by Noam Chomsky from his 2003 book, Hegemony or Survival: America’s Quest for Global Dominance:
Those who want to face their responsibilities with a genuine commitment to democracy and freedom — even to decent survival — should recognise the barriers that stand in the way. In violent states these are not concealed. In more democratic societies barriers are more subtle. While methods differ sharply from more brutal to more free societies, the goals are in many ways similar: to ensure the ‘great beast,’ as Alexander Hamilton called the people, does not stray from its proper confines. Controlling the general population has always been a dominant concern of power and privilege…Problems of domestic control become particularly severe when the governing authorities carry out policies that are opposed by the general population. In those cases, the political leadership may…manufacture consent for its murderous policies.
As we continue to bump into the hard reality of biogeophysical limits to growth on a finite planet and the diminishing returns that inevitably result, I expect we will witness much more of this consent manufacturing — along with concomitant ‘devolution’ towards increased tyranny across the globe, but especially within the alliance of the United States and its supporters that repeatedly claim to be fighting for liberty and democracy.
We will likely also experience increased intervention in various sociocultural arenas but especially the economic realm, particularly as it pertains to increasing exponentially the creation of fiat currency (possibly in digital form) to ‘paper’ over out-of-control price inflation — which will likely be ‘controlled’ via continuing statistical manipulations of its measurement (if its measurement continues at all), with the ‘success’ of fighting it spread far and wide by the propaganda arms of the State.
The situation is no better in the nations that are challenging US hegemony. Controlling one’s domestic population, through overt force or covert narrative manipulation, is — as Chomsky points out above — a dominant concern of the ruling caste in every complex society in order to garner necessary support from the hoi polloi.
These machinations and legitimisation activities, however, are completely and totally unsustainable upon a finite planet for they require constant energy and material resource inputs. And in a world experiencing ever-increasing stress due to constant expansion of the human experiment (both on a resource extraction and an ecological systems destruction front), things appear to be approaching a significant inflection point.
Here I will close with a review of what archaeologist Joseph Tainter argues in his 1988 book The Collapse of Complex Societies with regard to peer polities caught in a competitive spiral while encountering the inevitable phenomenon of diminishing returns and the probability of global sociopolitical collapse.
“Collapse today is neither an option nor an immediate threat. Any nation vulnerable to collapse will have to pursue one of three options: (1) absorption by a neighbor or some larger state; (2) economic support by a dominant power, or by an international financing agency; or (3) payment by the support population of whatever costs are needed to continue complexity, however detrimental the marginal return. A nation today can no longer unilaterally collapse, for if any national government disintegrates its population and territory will be absorbed by some other.”
Past collapses have occurred in two different political situations: a dominant state in isolation or as part of a cluster of peer polities. With global travel and communication, the isolated dominant state has disappeared and only competitive peer polities now exist — this, of course, will eventually change as our complex global systems breakdown due to energy shortages.
Such polities tend to get caught up in spiraling competitive investments as they seek to outmaneuver others and evolve greater complexity together. The polities caught up in this competition increasingly experience declining marginal returns and must invest ever-increasing amounts leading to greater economic weakness.
Withdrawing from this spiral or collapsing is not an option without risking being subsumed by a competitor. It is this trap of competition that will continue to drive the pursuit of complexity regardless of human/environmental costs. Incentives and economic reserves can support this situation for a lengthy period as witnessed by the Roman and Mayan experiences where centuries of diminishing returns were endured.
Ever-increasing costs and ever-decreasing marginal returns typify peer polities in competition — a negative feedback loop that a State’s ruling caste will not abandon for fear of losing their privilege/power. This ends in either domination by one state and a new energy subsidy, or collapse of all.
“Collapse, if and when it comes again, will this time be global. No longer can any individual nation collapse. World civilization will disintegrate as a whole. Competitors who evolve as peers collapse in like manner.”
Be it from ecological overshoot (the root cause of all the above) or sociopolitical machinations of our ruling caste, the writing would seem to be on the wall for this latest hominid experiment we have, in a self-congratulatory manner, termed ‘wise man’…
December 7, 2022 (original posting date)
Government: Constantly Forsaking Our Ecological Systems to Chase the Perpetual Growth Chalice
Todays’ contemplation has been prompted by the usual shenanigans of government. In this case, the government of my home province of Ontario, Canada.
As regular readers of my posts are acutely aware, I have a strong belief that the primary guiding principle/motivation of our ruling caste is the control/expansion of the wealth-generation/-extraction systems that provide their revenue streams and thus positions of power and prestige. Everything they touch is leveraged towards this goal.
Not surprisingly, the political elite within this caste always twist/market their actions/policies that serve to meet the above principle as a social service for the masses because regardless of their power/influence they continue to require the ‘support’ of the hoi polloi so as to avoid revolution/overthrow (they are, after all, hugely outnumbered and depend upon the non-elite for their labour and taxes). If the masses were ever to come to the realisation that our governments are, for all intents and purposes, little more than criminal organisations using their positions and power to funnel wealth from national ‘treasuries’ to their families and ‘friends’, and create legislation that strengthens this corruption, the reaction could be, well, who knows…history suggests it doesn’t end well for some of the elite.
As archaeologist Joseph Tainter points out in The Collapse of Complex Societies, the activities surrounding legitimising the status quo power/wealth structures is common in any society in order for the political system to survive. While coercion can ensure some compliance, it is a more costly approach than moral validity. States tend to focus on a symbolic and scared ‘centre’ (necessarily independent of its various territorial parts), which is why they always have an official religion, linking leadership to the supernatural (which helps unify different groups/regions). This need for such religious integration, however, recedes — although not the sense of the scared — once other avenues for retaining power exist. In modern nation states, this ‘sacred’ has become ‘government’; an organisational structure whose existence and necessity is rarely questioned.
It is for the reason of enhancing/maintaining government legitimacy that domestic populations are constantly exposed to persuasive narratives that paint its sociopolitical ‘leaders’ as beneficent servants of the people — thank you narrative control managers (especially the legacy media) for this. This recurring phenomenon rings true throughout time and regardless of the form of government.
Back to the target of this contemplation…
My provincial government has recently opened up a bit of a hornet’s nest around the expansion of housing upon significantly ecologically-sensitive lands of the Oak Ridges Moraine[1] that had been ‘protected’ from such exploitation since 2005 by a legislative act of our provincial parliament[2]. The narratives around the ‘protection’ of this area are interesting to peruse[3].
There has been a flurry of media articles and social media posts revealing the cronyism between the current government and certain landowners that stand to profit handsomely from this policy shift[4] — many of whom purchased the land in question in just the past few years. And while these revelations are interesting and serve to confirm my bias regarding the ruling caste, this is not what I wish to focus upon.
I want to talk a bit about the Overton Window[5] or ‘controlled opposition[6]’ that I have noticed in my province around this issue and the related notion of growth, especially population growth and its concomitant impact on the environment and ecological systems.
Virtually every article and citizen comment I’ve read around this issue responds in a relatively tightly closed worldview that assumes a few things, particularly that growth is not only beneficial but must and will occur. Since it is good and will continue, the ‘debate’ becomes one of urban sprawl verses densification.
It would be best, the argument goes, for the environment and ecological systems if we were avoid expanding into this ‘Greenbelt’ and to contain our growth within tightly-packed urban centres. This perspective is heralded far and wide but especially by so-called environmentally-minded groups/individuals.
For example, the Greenbelt Foundation — an “organization solely dedicated to ensuring the Greenbelt remains permanent, protected and prosperous” — argues that “Growing in more compact ways, relying more on intensifying existing urban areas and creating dense, mixed-use new communities can reduce long-term financial commitments and ensure better fiscal health now and for generations to come.”[7]
None realise that increasing density does not necessarily equate to environmental soundness since it is the numbers of people that leads to the most significant drawdown of finite resources, not necessarily how they are distributed — particularly in ‘advanced’ economies where consumption is significantly higher than other economies. Yes, small and walkable communities do tend to show a decrease in certain resource needs but one cannot keep packing more and more people into tight spaces and argue the environment and ecological systems are ‘saved’ in such a scenario.
The many cons of densification are ignored. Such as the ‘heat island effect’ that increases energy consumption, the increased economic activity and consumption that tends to accompany dense urban centres, and traffic congestion that can cause emissions increases — to say little about the social pathologies and negative health impacts found in higher density settlements, such as the increased prevalence of anxiety/depression or the speed with which epidemics can spread[8].
Nowhere does one read a challenge to the very foundation of this interpretive lens that growth is good and inevitable. Nowhere is a discussion of halting growth or, God forbid, reversing it (i.e., degrowth). Growth MUST continue, and this pertains to both economic and population growth.
Growth is of course a leverage point for our ruling caste. It is used, in my opinion, to continue to expand the wealth-generation and -extractions systems but also, and perhaps more importantly, to maintain the Ponzi-like nature of our financial/economic systems. It is, however, as are all policies/actions, marketed as the means to ensure our prosperity.
Here I am reminded of a passage from Donella Meadows’s text Thinking in Systems: A Primer (2008):
“…a clear leverage point: growth. Not only population growth, but economic growth. Growth has costs as well as benefits, and we typically don’t count the costs — among which are poverty and hunger, environmental destruction and so on — the whole list of problems we are trying to solve with growth! What is needed is much slower growth, very different kinds of growth, and in some cases no growth or negative growth. The world leaders are correctly fixated on economic growth as the answer to all problems, but they’re pushing with all their might in the wrong direction. …leverage points frequently are not intuitive. Or if they are, we too often use them backward, systematically worsening whatever problems we are trying to solve.”
The thinking outlined above by Meadows regarding negative growth and pushing in the wrong direction is completely foreign to the discussions I am witnessing on the expansion into Ontario’s ‘Greenbelt’. None dare challenge the mythical narrative that growth is good and inevitable. Such out-of-the-box thinking is not allowed. If such a thought is shared, the speaker is marginalised or ignored by most.
This is particularly so if one enters the kryptonite-like morass that is population growth in ‘advanced’ economies where such growth is ensured by skimming people from other countries — spun as a social service to the world’s needy — but is really about keeping the financial/economic Ponzi from collapsing because domestic populations are not reproducing fast enough[9].
And here I am reminded of another text passage, this time by Noam Chomsky in The Common Good (1998)[10]:
“In general, the mainstream media [everyone] all make certain basic assumptions, like the necessity of maintaining a welfare state for the rich. Within that framework, there’s some room for differences of opinion, and it’s entirely possible that the major media are toward the liberal end of that range. In fact, in a well-designed propaganda system, that’s exactly where they should be. The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” ~Noam Chomsky
This appears to be the crux of the matter when it comes to many issues. The ruling caste, with the help of the mainstream media and others, circumscribe the range of the debate. This provides cover for the ultimate endgame — in the issue over the Greenbelt expansion it is the accommodation of population expansion through the construction of millions of homes (and it matters not whether these are on ecologically-sensitive lands or not in the long run) from which the ruling caste will undoubtedly make billions of dollars in profits…while the finite resources necessary to support this growth become more rare and costly to extract/process, and the environment and ecological systems upon which we depend continue to experience disruption and destruction.
We are continually fed a mythical narrative about growth and then set to debate and argue each other over how to accommodate it while ignoring the only way that might help to mitigate — at least marginally — our ecological overshoot predicament: degrowth.
[1] See this, this, this, and/or this.
[3] See this, this, and/or this.
[4] See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and/or this.
[5] See this, this, and/or this.
[6] See this, this, and/or this.
[8] See this, this, and/or this.
[10] Hat tip to Erik Michaels who reminded me of this passage in his latest writing, that I highly recommend.
December 4, 2022 (original posting date)
Diminishing Returns On Investments In Complexity
Another very brief contemplation prompted by The Honest Sorcerer’s latest writing regarding our energy predicament.
What you have described so well is perhaps the conundrum faced by every complex society throughout history: diminishing returns on investments in complexity.
This phenomenon appears to apply to almost everything in the human realm but most importantly resource extraction and use as you suggest.
We do tend to put into action the easier and cheaper solutions to our perceived problems with those, in turn, adding to our complexity and creating even more problems that need even more attention (i.e., energy and other resources).
I have argued before and continue to believe that the ‘best’ use of our remaining energy resources would be to encourage local communities to become self-sufficient (especially in terms of potable water procurement, food production, and regional shelter needs) but perhaps even more importantly decommission those complexities that pose significant risk to present and future species.
As I wrote some time ago: “Three of the more problematic [complexities] include: nuclear power plants and their waste products; chemical production and storage facilities; and, biosafety labs and their dangerous pathogens. The products and waste of these complex creations are not going to be ‘contained’ when the energy to do so is no longer available. And loss of this containment will create some hazardous conditions for human existence in their immediate surroundings at the very least — in fact, multiple nuclear facility meltdowns could potentially put the entire planet at risk for all species.”)
I believe ‘simplification’ is coming but am highly doubtful it will be through much if any ‘coordinated’ effort by our ruling caste. As many who have studied our predicament have argued, it will be Nature that imposes the ‘solution’ to this conundrum that is humanity and we will have little to say about it.
As walking, talking apes that tend to deny reality and believe in ‘magic’, we will continue to weave comforting narratives that our human ingenuity and concomitant technological prowess can save us from ourselves.
Imagination, however, is not reality and while we can think up all sorts of possibilities the starkness of physical laws and biological principles stand firmly in the path ahead preventing our magic from having any real impact — except, perhaps, to exacerbate our predicament.
November 28, 2023 (original posting date)
Ignoring Ecological Systems Destruction
This contemplation shares a response of mine to another within an ongoing discussion regarding a Facebook post by Clean Energy Canada[1] highlighting one of Canada’s major energy companies’ offshore wind farm projects. This ‘think tank’ out of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada works “…to accelerate Canada’s clean energy transition by sharing the story of the global shift to renewable energy, clean technology, and sustainable industries…”[2]
The energy dilemma our species has found itself immersed in is much, much more complex than just fossil fuels versus non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHT) — aka ‘renewables’ — and about energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI). Mind you, the numbers you provide for various EROEI seem rather generous towards renewables and not in line with numbers I have seen[3]; of course, there is much disagreement amongst analysts about not only the numbers pertaining to EROEI but how to best evaluate them. And while EROEI is an important concept and analytical tool for evaluating the potential benefit:cost ratio of fuels, focusing solely upon it and related measurements/analyses often if not always leads to a neglect of the very real ecological consequences of human energy use and the significant extractive and industrial processes associated with it.
And this plight we find ourselves in as we explore (and disagree about) alternatives to fossil fuels is certainly much more complicated than just the focus upon the atmospheric loading due to carbon emissions that most concentrate upon.
Research suggests biodiversity loss, land-system change, and biogeochemical flows are three planetary limits we have more drastically surpassed compared to atmospheric pollution-loading and subsequent changes to climate[4]. These aspects of our ever-increasing impact upon the planet are invariably overshadowed by the clarion calls to reduce carbon emissions and transition to low- or no-carbon technologies.
‘Renewables’ may be marginally better in certain aspects, but they are also less better in others; for example, the energy density of certain fossil fuels is far, far better than solar/wind that must be stored in batteries[5]. They also require storage technologies (and thus materials) whose production wreak havoc upon our ecological systems[6]. This observation should in no way be construed as support for fossil fuels.
Regardless of these observations, my initial and subsequent assertions were to focus attention upon misuse of the term ‘clean energy’.
The terms ‘green’, ‘clean’, and ‘sustainable’ when referring to the products of the energy complex are bold-faced lies and this is what I was pointing out. These are marketing/propaganda terms meant, when it gets right down to it, to sell stuff. But also to advance an idea — an idea that allows people to continue consuming and also feel good about such consumption while simultaneously dispensing with the notion that consumption and the associated penchant to chase the infinite growth chalice is bad for the planet — an increasing concern over the past few decades but increasingly denied/ignored by many because it can all be done with ‘green’ growth via ‘clean’ technologies (oxymorons if ever there were ones).
The ecological damage that we continue to perpetrate upon the planet in our attempts to sustain our complex energy-intensive conveniences (that we have come to depend upon as we’ve lost the skills/knowledge to be locally self-sufficient) via non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies is for the most part completely and utterly left out of the propaganda/marketing we are exposed to; or, rationalised away by the fanciful narratives weaved about ‘clean’ technologies.
These comforting narratives, much like everything else, are leveraged by the ruling caste and profiteers (and there is much overlap between these two groups) to meet their primary motivation: control/expansion of the wealth-generation/-extraction systems that provide their revenue streams and thus power and wealth. And the narrative control managers that work with and on behalf of these groups know full well that significant psychological mechanisms (e.g., reduction of cognitive dissonance, obedience/deference to authority, groupthink, etc.) can be activated to support such stories.
Some have argued that the industrial processes necessary for these technologies (especially the battery components for storage, the scale necessary to replace fossil fuel power, and the massive electrical infrastructure required) is as bad as that created by our use of fossil fuels — to say little about the observation that we lack the finite resources to do this[7].
While we continue to argue over ‘solutions’ for addressing climate change (i.e., fossil fuels vs renewables in order to reduce carbon emissions), we fail to recognise that this particular conundrum is just one of the symptoms of ecological overshoot.
So rather than addressing our fundamental predicament we seek to attempt to solve one of its many consequences, and in a way that exacerbates overshoot. We ignore the ongoing and massive ecological systems destruction and compound it via marginal improvements in technology not realising that it is our technology that has placed us in overshoot.
We weave stories to tell each other that no sacrifices are necessary (especially within so-called ‘advanced’ economies) and that we have the ingenuity to ‘solve’ anything thrown our way.
And rather than confronting our predicament, admitting the scale of its impending consequences for our (and likely every other) species, and getting down to discuss the really hard choices we need to be making, we continue to not only rationalise away the anxiety-provoking thoughts such an approach would lead to but ‘allow’ the worst of us to ‘control’ our collective future.
[1] It is clear that the algorithms that track my social media interactions recognise my interest in energy issues and periodically place in my Facebook feed these type of posts.
[2] While I have neither the time nor inclination to attempt a ‘forensic audit’ of the funding of this ‘think tank’, it seems self-evident that it’s part of a growing ‘industry’ to market ‘clean’ energy products via the notion that these are ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ (even if they’re not) and receives substantial financial support from the ‘clean energy’ industry.
[3] See this, this, this, and/or this.
November 24, 2022 (original posting date)
Non-Renewable Renewable Energy-Harvesting Technologies (NRREHT): A Paradox For Our Times?
A short contemplation after reading Richard Heinberg’s latest article and the apparent paradox that is evident in the musings of a number of writers in the energy-ecology nexus.
Paradox: “…having qualities that seem to be opposites” (Reference)
In his latest post, that highlights the failings of the ‘renewable’ energy transition, Richard Heinberg seems to be arguing in terms of contradictory assertions, and ones which I am not sure can be overcome — at least, not without exacerbating our primary predicament of ecological overshoot[1].
On the one hand he points out the significant failings, limitations, and negative consequences of NRREHT, but on the other argues for our pursuing them at great haste so as to attain a ‘soft landing’ for our species’ inevitable energy descent.
For example:
1) Greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase despite an increase in NRREHT (in other words, their distribution/use is supplementing continued economic growth/consumption);
2) NRREHT require continued and increased use/extraction of non-renewable resources that are already demonstrating declining marginal returns (i.e., their scarcity is already apparent);
3) There is competing evidence/data regarding the availability of materials/minerals as to whether even a single generation of NRREHT can be produced to substitute for fossil fuel energy;
4) The energy costs of recycling suggests even in a best-case scenario NRREHT simply kicks-the-can-down-the-road for industrial civilisation;
5) NRREHT continue to require industrial production processes that degrade the environment and destroy ecological systems — perhaps just at a slightly less intensive rate.
While he does also argue for a significant powering-down of our energy-intensive ways — perhaps the easiest and most straightforward means of slowing down the speed of our destruction — I fear the concerted push for NNREHT he also argues for does little but, via A LOT of denial and bargaining, simply kicks-the-can-down-the-road in terms of confronting our predicament (especially as it pertains to significant and necessary fossil fuel inputs as well as the negative impacts upon ecological systems and mineral resource communities/regions).
My sense is that despite all the obvious pitfalls of NNREHT and significant negative consequences (particularly ecological) they will continue to be pursued with this strategy sold/marketed as the ‘solution’ to transitioning from fossil fuels.
This will not be the first time that our ruling caste and profiteers have leveraged a ‘crisis’ to enrich themselves…but it may well be the last.
A handful of other views/comments within the energy-ecology nexus regarding ‘renewables’ (in no particular order and all have some great insights/arguments):
Gail Tverberg: this, this, this, and/or this.
Simon Michaux: this, this, this, and/or this.
Ugo Bardi: this, this, this, and/or this.
Alice Friedemann: this, this, this, and/or this.
Peak Prosperity (Chris Martenson/Adam Taggert): this, this, this, and/or this.
The Honest Sorcerer: this, this, this, and/or this.
Erik Michaels: this, this, this, and/or this.
Raúl Ilargi Meijer: this, this, this, and/or this.
Rob Mielcarski: this, this, this, and/or this.
John Michael Greer: this, this, this, and/or this.
Tim Watkins: this, this, this, and/or this.
Tim Morgan: this, this, this, and/or this.
Kurt Cobb: this, this, this, and/or this.
Mike Stasse: this, this, this, and/or this.
Charles Hugh Smith: this, this, this, and/or this.
Nate Hagens: this, this, this, and/or this.
Another view on Heinberg’s article can be found here.
November 20, 2022 (original posting date)
Personal Experience With ‘Renewables’
Let me begin this contemplation by stating that I do not hate ‘renewables’ nor am I a fossil fuel industry shill (the two common accusations lobbed at me whenever I criticise the notion of a ‘green/clean’ energy future). I have constructed my family’s 3.35 kW solar photovoltaic system from the ground up.
It consists of a variety of 100 and 150 watt panels placed upon our deck gazebo and two-car garage, lots of copper connectors, numerous charge controllers and deep cycle batteries (whose efficiency suffers in our Canadian winters due to their storage in our garage that despite being insulated is not heated and can get quite cold), and several inverters. What I am, I like to believe, is a realist that recognises this system’s limitations and implications for our world but especially for those colder-climate regions.
Here are a couple of recent pictures of part of our system, taken this past summer followed by one during the previous winter (those are 100 watt panels in the photo; there are 15 more panels on the garage directly behind the gazebo — 11 x 100 watt and 5 x 150 watt — and another 5 x 100 watt panels on the gazebo roof’s other side to capture late evening rays during our summers):
Here are my pre-gazebo versions that allowed me to periodically alter the angle of numerous smaller panels (40 watt) to better capture direct light:
Let me be frank, I truly believe that ‘clean/green’ energy is a misnomer; in fact, it’s a significant distortion of language that has been employed as a marketing scheme to sell products and a virtue-signalling myth to keep these products flowing to consumers. Not only does no such animal exist, but the complex narratives we’ve weaved about it are rife with the cognitive distortions of denial and bargaining, and heavily influenced by Big Money propaganda.
These stories we are told about a ‘clean/green’ energy future completely overlook a number of inconvenient facts.
First, the dominant narrative rarely if ever discusses all the fossil fuels that would be required to build out the non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies’ infrastructure and its products. Yes, there are arguments that ‘renewables’ can supply the energy required to replace these fossil fuel inputs. But this bargaining strategy ignores that almost all evidence/data supporting this perspective is dependent upon small-scale pilot projects that have not been and very likely will never be scaled up due to both technological and economic impediments. The tale is merely one of theoretical ‘possibilities’, predicated upon many as-yet-to-be-hatched chickens.
It’s also likely no coincidence that much (most?) of the capital funding going into ‘renewables’ and its widespread marketing campaign is being supplied by the corporate energy interests of Big Oil[1] and Wall Street Banks (who also fund Big Oil)[2].
The more damning issue, at least from a non-economic perspective (but has gargantuan economic implications if we were ever to deal with it properly — which we don’t), is the significant ecological systems destruction that would result from such a massive undertaking — to say little of the sociological/cultural implications for many of the regions home to the mineral extraction sites. Not only is there ample bargaining in this story as well — we can develop ‘cleaner’ means of doing business and ones that will benefit impacted peoples — but A LOT of denial regarding the significant environmental impacts (that mostly happen in faraway places that are out of sight — and therefore out of mind — and that can sometimes take years to manifest themselves).
The ‘green/clean’ energy-based, utopian future appears increasingly to have become a grand and extremely attractive narrative which its adherents have argued is the ONLY means of ‘solving’ our fossil fuel addiction. It reduces significantly the anxiety-provoking thoughts that accompany a realisation that humanity have severely overshot the natural carrying capacity of the planet, destroying it and untold numbers of other species, and faces a less than utopian future — to say the least. And it avoids, through the use of a tight Overton Window, the much more difficult option of a gargantuan ‘powering down’ our so-called ‘advanced’ economies and mitigating our overshoot in ways that most people (particularly in these ‘advanced’ economies) would not readily accept.”
But it also happens to bring with it a system of industrial production that sustains the status quo power and wealth structures. It’s no surprise, therefore, that the ruling caste of our planet is increasingly throwing its support behind this ‘solution’ to our energy ‘problem’. And, unfortunately, it seems a lot of very well-intentioned people and groups are being swayed by the widespread propaganda because after all who doesn’t want to avoid huge sacrifices and disruptions to the energy slaves and technological conveniences that provide our ‘advanced’ status.
As I argued in a previous contemplation:
“Keeping at the forefront of one’s thinking the fact that the future is unknowable, unpredictable, and full of unknown unknowns, anything is possible. But I would argue we do ourselves no favours in participating in and believing without full skepticism our various narratives about endless growth and technological ingenuity as the saviours that will make our utopian dreams/wishes of a ‘clean/green’ future come true.
Such magical thinking keeps us on a trajectory that increasingly is looking to be suicidal in nature, or, at the most promising, deeply ‘disappointing’ and broadly chaotic/catastrophic.”
P.S.
The solar photovoltaic system I have constructed for many thousands of dollars (Canadian) supplies very little in the way of sustained power for our household. I mainly rely upon it as a marginal emergency backup system during our periodic power grid losses. It was capable of running a refrigerator/freezer in our garage for about 3 days during a blackout we experienced due to a devastating derecho that hit most of Ontario, Canada this past spring, before the battery system was drained and required several days to recharge. We have come to rely far more on the gas/propane generators we have. With no other source of home heating as this time, I hate to think of what we would do if our natural gas heating system was down during one of our long, Canadian winters. I know that our solar-based system would not be of much use in that situation.
November 15, 2022 (original posting date)
It’s Too Late For Managed Degrowth
This contemplation is a ‘short’ comment I shared on an article by Martin Tye that showed up on my Medium feed and I read this morning. It asks an important question in whether the ‘action’ being called for by various groups/individuals to address climate issues are framed by an understanding of our fundamental predicament of ecological overshoot. He argues that with a proper framing of the issue the appropriate response is one of ‘degrowth’.
Yes, the evidence is accumulating quickly that we are significantly into ecological overshoot. And, yes, degrowing our ways (and totally rejecting the growth agenda being foisted upon humanity) seems the only means of addressing the core cause (exponential growth of population and its drain on resources and overloading of sinks — especially in so-called ‘advanced’ economies).
I understand the ‘merit’ of ‘softening the tone’ on the messaging of our dilemma, however, I fear that the degrowth movement, for the most part, continues to frame the predicament in too soft a way (in other words, still an awful lot of denial and bargaining by many degrowth advocates). An approach that may have been ‘achievable’ for more broad-based ‘success’ several decades ago but not nowadays given how much further we have travelled down the path of unsustainability and planetary damage we have caused. To say little about the momentum of this ever-enlarging avalanche we’ve set off.
It seems increasingly unlikely that we can ‘save’ everyone or everything. And while holding our sociopathic ruling caste’s feet-to-the-fire is a necessary action (if for no other reason than to get the message out to a wider audience), I’m leaning towards the notion that the best we can do is to attempt to make one’s local community as self-sufficient and resilient as possible for the exceedingly difficult journey ahead. Given we are sure to experience an increasing breakdown of the various complexities we’ve come to rely upon for our lifestyles, this approach is getting well past the critical stage of ‘necessity for survival’.
Potable water. Food. Shelter needs for the climate. Ensuring these basics are at the forefront of a community’s time and energy may help local peoples to get through the bottleneck we have led ourselves into.
On the other hand, the rest of the planet’s species may be hoping for us not be successful in this endeavour given how pre/history suggests for the last ten or so millennia pockets of humanity keep following this same suicidal path…only with the help of a one-time cache of relatively easy-to-access and readily-transportable energy we’ve encompassed the entire planet in this destructive tendency.
Infinite growth. Finite planet. What could possibly go wrong?
November 12, 2022 (original posting date)
Roadblocks To Our ‘Renewable’ Energy Transition: Debt, Resource Constraints, and Diminishing Returns
Today’s contemplation is a quick rundown of three of the roadblocks I see preventing us from achieving the utopian dream of a seamless ‘clean’ energy transition from dirty fossil fuels, or at least one as marketed by the ruling caste and leveraged by many (most?) businesses to sell their products/services (and virtue-signal their ‘progressive’ nature).
These few items have been percolating in my mind this past week or so with a number of articles I’ve perused during my morning coffee. If readers can add to these in the comments (with appropriate supportive links), I will begin to create a more comprehensive list to share periodically down the road…
Here, in no particular order, are three of the issues I’ve been pondering:
2.5 quadrillion in debt/credit[1]
For all intents and purposes, and by most observable accounts, our financial/monetary/economic systems are Ponzi-type systems requiring constant expansion/growth to keep from collapsing[2]. Many lay the beginnings of this treacherous trend upon Richard Nixon’s abrogation of the Bretton Woods Agreement that hammered the final nail in the coffin of a precious metals-based monetary system[3]. Others point to the introduction of fiat money/currencies as the initiation point, when the ‘constraint’ of physical commodities was removed from money and government/ruling elite solidified their monopoly of its creation/distribution. If one looks back even before modern fiat currencies, however, there is much written about how the Roman ruling elite were engaged in such manipulation of their money[4].
The Ponzi nature of these systems requires that perpetual growth be pursued. That such a pursuit is impossible on a finite planet should be self-evident but as I have highlighted previously we walking, talking apes are story tellers whose imaginations are creative at weaving tales to reduce anxiety-provoking thoughts — such as our ingenuity and technological prowess allows us to ignore/deny/rationalise away physical laws and biological principles and pursue infinite growth despite any bio- and geo-physical limitations.
That we have created and depend significantly upon such increasingly complex and fragile systems should give us pause, but this is rare and typically frowned upon. There seems only three basic means of dealing with such a situation: 1) inflate away the problem[5]; 2) debt jubilees[6]; 3) growth[7]. All of these approaches seem to have been used individually or in combination in history, and yet the endgame tends to be the same every time certain tipping points are reached: rejection of the monetary system of the time.
There’s been a boatload of analyses on what such a repudiation of a society’s currency system means to a people and their society[8]. While a currency ‘collapse’ does not necessarily lead to societal ‘collapse’, it does appear to throw economic systems into chaos for some time and destroy much in the way of societal ‘wealth’ and thus investment capital; and contributes to the eventual fall of a society — especially if there’s no lender-of-last-resort to ride to the rescue.
Such a situation would seem to negate the possibility of achieving the dream of transitioning to some ‘clean/green’ energy-based society given the magnitude of the debt that is currently present, the ‘wealth’ this represents, and the huge investments that would be necessary for a shift from our primary source of energy (fossil fuels).
Perhaps the most significant impediment going forward from a currency collapse would be the general lack of trust in government and financial institutions. And it is ‘trust/confidence’ that keeps these fragile systems from being totally abandoned; when it is lost, there’s no telling how quickly more widespread ‘collapse’ may occur. As archaeologist Joseph Tainter argues, it is when the economic benefits of participating in a complex society fall below the costs incurred that a populace begins to abandon its support of the various systems and ‘collapse’ can soon follow[9].
Mineral/resource constraints
That we exist upon a finite planet should also give pause to those cheerleading a ‘renewable’ energy transition in that geophysical realities limit what we can physically accomplish in terms of resource extraction and use.
Simon Michaux, Associate Professor Mineral Processing and Geometallurgy at the Geological Survey of Finland, has for some time been highlighting the impossibility of replacing our fossil fuel-based systems with non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHT)[10].
The main hyped-up narrative surrounding the utopian future we are constantly promised by our societal leadership (both political and corporate) is that of a clean-energy future that not only sustains our present-day energetic conveniences, but allows continual expansion, technological progress, and prosperity. Dr. Michaux asserts that this is a pipe-dream because there do not exist the needed minerals to carry out such a transition from fossil fuels. Not even enough to replace and thus sustain the current level of energetic needs, let alone continuing to pursue growth.
Advocates dismiss this inconvenient reality — to say little about the environmental/ecological system damage that would result from the mining and processing of all the minerals and products required — by suggesting this can be overcome by reducing our energetic consumption/needs to a far lower level such that the finite materials can meet our needs, or developing many as-yet-to-be-hatched energy-production chickens. They also raise the arguments that recycling will guarantee perpetual resource requirements failing to understand that this is a very energy-intensive process and not as effective in reducing energy-use and pollutants as marketed[11] and are even being abandoned in many regions due to increasing costs[12].
Diminishing Returns
The human tendency in addressing resource requirements (in fact, to solve most problems) is to utilise the easiest-to-access and cheapest-to-extract ones first, leaving the more expensive and difficult ones to a later time. This, of course, means we must invest greater and greater amounts of labour/energy into extraction and processing as time passes, even to simply maintain current levels. In economic parlance, this reality has become referred to as the law of diminishing returns/productivity.
In energy circles, this tendency has been used to develop the concept of energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI)[13]. Basically, this is the ‘net’ energy that one derives from energy production. The greater the EROEI, the greater the amount of energy that can be used for purposes other than accessing/extracting/producing the energy in the first place. But as EROEI falls, there is less and less energy available for non-energy extraction/production systems.
We have witnessed a significant and precipitous drop in EROEI for fossil fuels[14], and the EROEI for NRREHTs is quite a bit lower than the legacy oil/gas fields that our globalised industrial world has used to grow to its present complexity; in fact, some argue that the EROEI of NRREHT is so low as to be incapable of supporting today’s globalised civilisation at anywhere near the current level of complexities[15].
A Few Other Hurdles to Our ‘Renewable-Energy’ Utopia
Here are a few additional issues that would seem to make the dream of a ‘clean’ energy future anything but doable, especially to the degree some (many? most?) imagine.
1. Current advanced-economy lifestyles require more energy than can be provided by ‘renewables’[16].
2. ‘Renewables’ require significant fossil fuel inputs[17].
3. Significant industrial processes cannot be carried out via ‘renewable’ energies[18].
4. And, perhaps most importantly, both the upstream and downstream industrial processes necessary to create, maintain, and reclaim/dispose of ‘renewables’ wreak havoc on our environment and ecological systems[19].
I could write much more on each of these roadblocks to the idea of our complex global society transitioning to NNREHT. Whether one accepts these as insurmountable or not depends very much on one’s interpretation of the data/evidence — and probably to a greater extent on one’s hopes/wishes (i.e., personal biases).
Keeping at the forefront of one’s thinking the fact that the future is unknowable, unpredictable, and full of unknown unknowns, anything is possible. But I would argue we do ourselves no favours in participating in and believing without full skepticism our various narratives about endless growth and technological ingenuity as the saviours that will make our utopian dreams/wishes of a ‘clean/green’ future come true.
Such magical thinking keeps us on a trajectory that increasingly is looking to be suicidal in nature, or, at the most promising, deeply ‘disappointing’ and broadly chaotic/catastrophic.
Time, of course, will tell…
And please note, as I have had to emphasise with others whom I’ve disagreed with regarding this ‘clean’ energy transition and NRREHTs: “… it is not that I ‘hate’ renewables or am a shill for the fossil fuel industry (the two typical accusations lobbed at me); I simply recognise their limitations, negative impacts, and that they are no panacea.”
[1] See this, this, and/or this.
[2] See this, this, this, this, and/or this.
[4] See this, this, this, this, and/or this.
[5] See this, this, and/or this.
[6] See this, this, and/or this.
[8] See this, this, this, and/or this.
[10] See this, this, and/or this.
[11] See this, this, this, and/or this.
[12] See this, this, and/or this.
[15] See this, this, and/or this.
[18] See this. It’s imperative to note here that all rationalisations of ‘clean’ industrial processes rely upon as-yet-to-be-hatched chickens such as Carbon Capture and Storage or untenable energy production such as that based upon the use of hydrogen.
November 9, 2022 (original posting date)
Decoupling Energy Use From Growth: More Bargaining
Today’s short piece is a comment I shared on an article by Nathan Surendran that highlights a debunking of the idea that energy can be decoupled from growth and thus reduce carbon emissions whilst supporting continued economic expansion. Nathan has a number of great articles to read on our energy conundrum and related topics; if you’re not familiar with his writing, I recommend it.
Great piece, Nathan.
I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that all such narratives (those that argue for the continuation of ‘growth’) are readily accepted by most since they are part and parcel of our denial/bargaining of the bio- and geo-physical limits of existence on a finite planet.
More ‘nefariously’ these stories are simply marketing/propaganda by the ruling caste and its sycophants to support their primary motivation: the control/expansion of the wealth-generation/-extraction systems that provide their revenue streams and thus positions of power and prestige. Everything, and I mean everything, is leveraged to meet this overarching goal.
For example, the idea that a massive transition to ‘green/clean’ energy and related industrial products and processes — that are marketed as ‘net zero/carbon-free’ — can alter our climate trajectory completely overlooks the significant environmental/ecological damages that such a shift would entail.
That the ruling elite has created an Overton Window such that most people buy into this tale and cannot think outside the box created is not surprising. Carbon is our enemy and can be overcome via ‘carbon-free’ thinking and products; anyone who points out the flaws in this narrative are climate change deniers or shills for the fossil fuel energy.
Nowhere in the discussion is a realisation that the knock-on effects of the significant industrial processes that are involved or necessary to transition away from fossil fuels are problematic — in the extreme. Or, that land system changes[1] created because of our constant expansion are detrimental to our hydrological systems and thus creating the extreme weather events we are experiencing — perhaps even more so than ‘climate change’[2].
That land system changes are having a significant impact on our weather patterns cannot be considered at all since the idea that we need to stop altering the landscape of our world runs in a diametrically-opposed way from the expansion and growth of our human experiment. And this, of course, undermines the ruling caste’s power base. Better to leverage crises in a way that allows status quo power/wealth structures to be maintained and/or expanded, just as the idea of decoupling does.
The growth imperative must be maintained at all costs and perhaps as importantly the idea/belief that it can be must be adhered to by the significant majority of the population (or, at least, passively accepted) so that there is little to no rejection and thus counter-narratives to it.
For despite the seeming strength of the concept that infinite growth on a finite planet is entirely possible (because of technology and human ingenuity), if a tipping point of the populace comes to understand that our pursuit of growth is what has destroyed vast portions of our planet and other species leading us deeply into ecological overshoot — and subsequently rejects its pursuit — then the entire foundation of the ruling elite crumbles. And we can’t have that!
Better to double or triple down on the propaganda and censor/ostracise counter-narratives, thus allowing the game to go on just a bit longer…
November 7, 2022 (original posting date)
Our Ruling Class: Always Pushing In the Wrong Direction
A very brief contemplation that is a comment I posted on the Honest Sorcerer’s latest piece of writing.
It’s pretty self-evident (at least to everyone outside of the hypnotic manipulation of US propaganda) that the American ruling caste cares little (if at all) for any other group of people or nation — not even their own domestic population (or some in their own ranks). Of course, it’s also not hard to argue that this is true of any society’s ruling caste. Their primary motivation is the control/expansion of the wealth-generation/-extraction systems that provide their revenue streams and thus positions of power and prestige. Everything else is secondary/tertiary and even these are leveraged to help the primary goal.
While the endgame of all the machinations of our elite seems fairly obvious (complete and devastating global collapse of industrial civilisation — perhaps even worse — given how deeply into ecological overshoot our species is), it’s frustrating (to say the least) for those of us who view the world through the complexities that go beyond geo/politics and economics (i.e., include ecology, biology, physics, psychology, etc.) and understand the need for global leadership that differs significantly from that being shown by the sociopaths that do wield ‘power’ in our world.
Throw in the divisions that even exist within those circles that understand our overshoot predicament and how best to address this (I think of those who beat the drum about sustaining our complexities via some magical ‘clean’ energy transition — which is being leveraged by the elite to pillage national treasuries and peoples even further), and that endgame I mention above seems baked in at this juncture.
Attempting to make one’s local community as self-sufficient as possible in these crazy times seems the only sane course of action. Getting people on board with such a pursuit when society’s ‘leaders’ are pushing with all their might in the exact opposite direction[1] is, however, a task in and of itself — particularly when those who question mainstream narratives are increasingly being censored, vilified, deplatformed, ostracised, and even criminalised.
October 31, 2022 (original posting date)
Pessimists Are Optimists That Have All the Facts
This contemplation has been prompted by another great article by The Honest Sorcerer. If you’ve not read their work, I highly recommend it.
A couple of thoughts in reading your splendid piece (they always serve as a springboard for some reflection regarding my own thinking).
First, I have to wonder if the notion that most citizens in democratic societies have of ‘democracy’ (that they have agency via the ballot box) has ever truly existed. It seems to me that this idea has been perpetrated by the ruling caste of society in order to help legitimise their somewhat precarious positions of power so as to avoid mass protests and revolution. If people believe they have a say in how a society is organised and the policies it adopts, they are less likely to withdraw support or participate in resurrection. This widely believed narrative seems to me to be one of the most successful frauds/scams (along with the fiat currency monetary system) ever perpetrated upon the hoi polloi. It’s not that we’ve lost it; we never truly had it — it was simply more believable in the past for a variety of reasons (not least of which has been the increasing difficulty of keeping the fraudulent aspects and wealth siphoning hidden due to significant surplus energy and other resources that have served to mollify the masses — paying off one’s supporters with a small portion of the ill-gotten loot has its benefits).
Second, what you argue about the economic realm of our world (basically, that it is held together by magical thinking that denies bio- and geophysical reality, and ‘creative’ accounting) seems so self-evident but is so raggedly opposed by almost all (perhaps because none of us truly wants to look behind the curtain of the gargantuan Ponzi scheme we are all a part of). The ‘priesthood’ of economists that weave narratives to help society deny/ignore/rationalise away the barriers to perpetual growth upon a finite planet (and the negative consequences of such a pursuit) seems to hold a mesmerising sway upon the land. Their stories of growth/progress dominate almost all aspects of our lives, but especially the political realm — what politician doesn’t promise the glittering chalice of a constantly improving, prosperous, and growing society? Speaking truth to power about limits has little discernible benefit when on the campaign trail; better to promise endless improvement, especially when there’s no real accountability to such a false promise.
Given that we walking, talking apes are prolific story-tellers in our quest to share our understanding of this complex universe we exist within, I expect the narratives that aid our ruling elite in sustaining/maintaining their positions of power, prestige, and wealth to harden in the sense of increased vilification/censorship/ostracization (perhaps even criminalisation) of dissenting voices.
In addition, the human penchant for denial/anger/bargaining in the face of anxiety-provoking realities will lead to many (most?) rejecting the thesis that ‘collapse’ can or will befall us — even when it is too obvious to ignore. The stories told are already in desperate straits to counter the self-evident nature of our decline and the consequences of ecological overshoot and quickly dwindling resources. Counter narratives about the need for degrowth are slowly bubbling up to the surface of the mainstream/legacy media. Collapse (i.e., death of our global-industrial complex society), however, will be rejected by people because that is our nature — optimism bias is real and greatly impacts our thoughts about the future.
It’s difficult to go against the majority narrative that all is well and any perceived ‘crisis’ is the result of some evil ‘other(s)’; however, I am reminded of a recent meme that I saw: ‘Pessimists are optimists who have all the facts’. ‘Collapse’ cometh most assuredly but as has been argued: it’s difficult to make predictions, especially if they’re about the future.
P.S.
My ten-year old thoughts about Orlov’s text on collapse: https://olduvaiblog.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/collapse-of-trust-and-faith-in-the-system/
October 19, 2022 (original posting date)
Differing Opinions on ‘Renewables’
While I work on a longer (perhaps several part) contemplation regarding the myth of infinite growth on a finite planet that infiltrates and dominates many mainstream narratives — especially economic in nature — I thought I would share a back-and-forth conversation I’ve had with professor Ugo Bardi and another person on the Facebook group Dr. Bardi administers called The Seneca Effect regarding ‘renewables’.
It is a good example of the differing opinions regarding complex energy-harvesting technologies and their potential to offset the energy descent we seem to be experiencing.
First, I’d like to share an introductory statement from a relatively recent ‘essay’ by Megan Siebert and William Rees: “We begin with a reminder that humans are storytellers by nature. We socially construct complex sets of facts, beliefs, and values that guide how we operate in the world. Indeed, humans act out of their socially constructed narratives as if they were real. All political ideologies, religious doctrines, economic paradigms, cultural narratives — even scientific theories — are socially constructed “stories” that may or may not accurately reflect any aspect of reality they purport to represent. Once a particular construct has taken hold, its adherents are likely to treat it more seriously than opposing evidence from an alternate conceptual framework.”[1]
I am well aware that, for the most part, people believe what they want to believe. We defend our beliefs in various ways such as ignoring/denying opposing information, attacking the presenter of contrarian evidence, or confirming beliefs via selective interpretation of data/’facts’. And I am as guilty of such psychological mechanisms impacting my belief systems as the next person. We all fight hard to reduce the anxiety/stress created from the presence of cognitive dissonance and can be easily manipulated into believing certain narratives.
I have shared in previous contemplations my thoughts about non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies and my increasing belief that they are not the panacea they are being made out to be. You can read some of these here:
https://stevebull-4168.medium.com/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-lxxi-51db9bef29c9
https://stevebull-4168.medium.com/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-lxii-70865743f203
https://stevebull-4168.medium.com/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-lviii-721a00a87c2f
https://stevebull-4168.medium.com/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-xlix-60dc2287a2b9
https://stevebull-4168.medium.com/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-xlii-dee9d5cc5351
And my thoughts on how our beliefs are impacted by various psychological mechanisms:
https://stevebull-4168.medium.com/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-l-fcb81eb216be
The post in which the conversation took place shared a media publication[2] regarding a fusion reactor and its potential for providing unlimited, clean energy.
The presentation begins: “Imagine a world where energy was so clean and abundant that it was no longer a limiting factor in the growth of civilization.”
Infinite growth without a need to worry about what is ‘fuelling’ it or our ecological systems. What’s not to love?
Well…
My original comment on the link:
Steve Bull
Unlimited, ‘clean’ energy (an oxymoron) may address one ‘problem’ humanity faces (actually, a roadblock to continuation of our chasing of the perpetual growth chalice) , but it would exacerbate the various predicaments we have created — especially ecological overshoot.
Comment by another that kicked off the back-and-forth:
Breton Crellin
Yeah maybe for like a fraction of a second before they run out of fuel.
That’s the biggest hurdle at the moment.
Even if we can figure out how to keep it cool and controlled it still uses up an incredibly rare fuel incredibly fast.
Maybe one day.
But until then it’s a good thing we’ve got renewables.
Steve Bull
Breton Crellin Despite narratives to the contrary, ‘renewables’ are a can-kicking endeavour. They rely upon finite resources in perpetuity, while that reliance draws those resources down more quickly and exacerbates our fundamental predicament of ecological overshoot.
Breton Crellin
Steve Bull and how would you recommend we generate electricity without producing greenhouse gases?
Because ‘we can’t have clean energy since one day in the future we could run out of the resources we used to make it’ is a very poor argument that assumes we will use the same materials with no innovation until we run out and it ignores the damage burning fossil fuels is doing right now.
If we don’t stop burning also fuels we won’t be alive to see the end of any resources used to generate renewable electricity.
Steve Bull
Breton Crellin The laws of physics and biology care not one iota if our species survives. However, humanity survived for millennia without electricity. And, you can’t have non-renewable, renewable-energy harvesting technologies without fossil fuels — and A LOT of it to even come close to replacing what fossil fuels provide…to say little of their import to modern industrial agriculture that supplies our food. This is a predicament without a solution.
Breton Crellin
Steve Bull Your solution is a non-solution.
I asked you how You would recommend producing clean electricity and your answers to not produce electricity?
You can’t have renewable energy without fossil fuels?
That talking point is straight out of the climate change denial handbook.
Yes I’m well aware that concrete and steel have a carbon footprint and engineers take a gas burning car to work.
But those emissions are only made once and after that it’s decades of clean electricity.
Besides using petroleum products is not the problem. It’s burning them for heat electricity and transportation that is accelerating I possible extinction level event.
A predicament without a solution hey?
Sounds more like a predicament you have where your logic has pushed you in a corner you can’t find your way out of.
Sorry I shouldn’t make this about you.
Seriously though if climate change is a predicament without a solution then what is the harm in using renewable energy if we won’t survive on this planet long enough to use up the materials?
Ugo Bardi
Breton Crellin There is nothing to do, Breton, for some people, denigrating renewable energy is a crusade.
Steve Bull
Ugo Bardi You and I will have to agree to disagree regarding‘ renewables’. And as I have written before in responding to you: “… it is not that I ‘hate’ renewables or am a shill for the fossil fuel industry (the two typical accusations lobbed at me); I simply recognise their limitations, negative impacts, and that they are no panacea.”
Steve Bull
Breton Crellin You need to recognize the difference between problems with solutions and predicaments without them. Not only is there increasing data/evidence to point out that there exists nowhere near the mineral/material resources to achieve the ‘transition’ many desire (see this: https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/…/19-simon-michaux), but that the ecological system and environmental fallout from pursuing such a shift would be catastrophic (see this: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/a-climate-love-story/).
Steve Bull
Ugo Bardi Breton Crellin As physics professor Tom Murphy concludes in the piece I link: “Let’s not engineer a nightmare for ourselves in the misguided attempt to realize a poorly considered dream. It starts by recognizing that the vision many hold as “the dream” is itself utterly unsustainable and thus may even accelerate failure, rather than avert it. The predicament has wide boundaries that reach deep foundations of our civilization’s structure. We only succeed by altering our mental models of how we live on this planet — not by finding “superior” substitutes for the very things that have put us in this precarious position — and thus will only dig our hole faster, better, and cheaper.”
Breton Crellin
Steve Bull strongly disagree that using renewable energy instead of fossil fuels is a poorly realized dream.
And again to repeat myself those material estimations assume innovations or alternative materials between now and when we run out.
What are the timelines until we are expected to run out anyway?
Centuries?
Or do we have less than that?
Steve Bull
Breton Crellin First, you cannot have ‘renewables’ without fossil fuels — from the mineral extraction and processing industries to their maintenance and reclamation/disposal, fossil fuels have no replacements for these industries at scale; plus you require fossil fuels to back up renewable systems because of their intermittency. Note that humanity’s energy demand (including that of fossil fuels) has only increased over the past several decades despite the introduction of ‘renewables’. Renewables are best seen as an extension of fossil fuels, not a replacement. As for the mineral limitation issue, I will defer to Simon Michaux as the geologist who has studied the issue extensively. We need to be powering down significantly (plus reducing our population dramatically), not attempting to replace what fuels our energy-intensive civilisation with complex technologies that require significant drawdown of finite minerals that have for some time been encountering problematic diminishing returns (to say little of the ecological damage such a pursuit entails). Our fundamental predicament is ecological overshoot and chasing replacements for fossil fuels does zero to address it; in fact, it makes it worse leading to an even more difficult reversion to the mean for humanity.
Ugo Bardi
You see? It is a crusade.
Steve Bull
Ugo Bardi I view my attempting to point out the deficiencies and issues with renewables no more a ‘crusade’ than yours to push these technologies (and their environmentally-destructive production) as a ‘solution’ to our inevitable energy descent. The repercussions for our planet (and all life) of our continued pursuit of complex technologies are not inconsequential.
Ugo Bardi
Yours is a faith, mine is a scientific investigation based on data
Steve Bull
Ugo Bardi Many would argue that the idea that ‘renewables’ are a ‘solution’ to our energy descent as ‘faith-based’. I guess you missed (purposely ignored?) the links I shared of physics professor Tom Murphy and geologist Simon Michaux? We must agree to disagree over this…
Ugo Bardi
Steve, how many papers on renewable energy did you publish in peer-reviewed journals? I published at least three (actually more) during the past few years. For this reason I say that my opinion on renewables is based on data and facts.
Steve Bull
Ugo Bardi Yes, you are arguing based upon an appeal to ‘data’ and ‘facts’, as am I when I refer to the work of fellow academics and ‘experts’ in their fields. Simon Michaux, for example, is a geologist with the Geological Survey of Finland and has performed extensive work on the mineral requirement aspects for a transition to ‘renewables’. Tom Murphy is a practising physicist who looks deeply into the numbers and data. And then there are the countless ecologists who are witnessing horrific biodiversity loss and ecological system collapse from the continuing, and expanding, industrial processes required to pursue complex technologies. I am not basing my perspective on ‘faith’ as you have suggested. I am attempting to balance the ecological concerns (that are almost always ignored or rationalised away) with the human need for energy to sustain our current way of existence. The two seem quite incompatible.
I conclude with the notion that we all believe what we wish to believe; ‘facts’ make little to no difference to that human proclivity. And this is particularly so when one is ‘invested’ significantly in the belief. Dr. Bardi seems well invested in the concept of renewables being capable of replacing fossil fuels. Me…not so much.
Might my concerns for the environment and ecological systems because of our industrial processes and pursuit of increasingly complex technologies be overblown or misplaced? Perhaps. But if they’re not and we continue to chase them in our quest for some holy grail to sustain our current living arrangements, the reversion to the mean for humanity will not be very welcome. Not at all.
[1] https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/14/15/4508
[2] The media publisher is ‘Electric Future’ that offers the following information about itself on its YouTube channel: “Electric Future® is an independent media publisher that presents optimistic but realistic coverage of cutting edge sustainable technology… The operators of Electric Future may have material connection to organizations mentioned in video content.”
October 10, 2022 (original posting date)
The Pursuit Of ‘Renewables’: Putting Us Further Into Ecological Overshoot
Today’s very brief contemplation has been prompted by a couple of recent articles/posts (see links below) by thinkers/writers whose works/ideas I have followed for some time and respect greatly — but disagree with when it comes to non-renewable renewable-energy harvesting technologies.
I continue to be dismayed that many (most?) analyses of humanity’s predicament(s) seem devoid of the bio- and geo-physical constraints that exist on a finite planet and suggest quite strongly that the energy ‘transition’ argued for is, for all intents and purposes, dead on arrival — to say little about our fundamental predicament of ecological overshoot.
Not only is there increasing data/evidence to point out that there exists nowhere near the mineral/material resources to achieve the ‘transition’ many desire (see this: https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/19-simon-michaux), but that the ecological system and environmental fallout from pursuing such a shift would be catastrophic (see this: https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2022/09/a-climate-love-story/).
And please note, it is not that I ‘hate’ renewables or am a shill for the fossil fuel industry (the two typical accusations lobbed at me); I simply recognise their limitations, negative impacts, and that they are no panacea.
Our pursuit and leveraging of complex technologies, amongst a few sociocultural practices, is what has led us into ecological overshoot. The evidence appears to be accumulating that they are not likely to help us out of this predicament and pursuing them to the degree their cheerleaders suggest (many of whom stand to profit handsomely from during such a shift) would compound significantly the negative consequences of their production and distribution.
https://independentmediainstitute.org/is-the-energy-transition-taking-off-or-hitting-a-wall/
https://thesunflowerparadigm.blogspot.com/2022/10/hating-renewable-energy-something-went.html
October 6, 2022 (original posting date)
Democracy: It’s Not What You Think It Is
Today’s contemplation stems from a recent article about Canadian politics that has prompted me to reflect further on sociopolitics and belief systems[1], but not so much about the actual content of the article — except to include the comment I left.
I am interpreting the world from within and about a particular sociopolitical system termed ‘representative democracy’[2]. A system that gives decision-/policy-/legislative-making power to ‘representatives’ who are selected/elected by a set region/group. The basic premise is that chosen representatives serve the interests of the constituents whom have elected them[3].
For anyone disenfranchised with their current crop of politicians in office and believe they are not being represented, one of the automatic responses/thoughts that the vast majority of people have as its municipality/province/state/country approaches any election is something along the lines of: “This time, if we elect just the right people, I can be properly represented, and we can set things straight and get addressing/solving our problems.”
Along the lines of this reflexive thinking are a host of other similar notions about the sociopolitical system we are enculturated into.
Elections are important. Voting matters. It is a civic duty to be informed and participate in elections. Our political system is the best, anywhere, and in all of time; it can, given the proper resources and people, solve all our problems. Each election provides a fresh opportunity to improve society. Elections are my opportunity to provide input into my society and make a difference. I get a say in my society by voting.
Elections in the sociopolitical realm have a very long history (as do representative democracies). They have changed dramatically since their early iterations but their original intent remains: a population ‘votes’ to select an individual or group of individuals to organise/lead a particular aspect of society.
Although I have grown to know better, I have to fight against the misinformed but very widely held beliefs I outlined above constantly since they seem so ingrained in my psyche. It’s like the parable about fish not knowing what water is[4]. We don’t realise we are immersed in and greatly affected by certain narratives, and we certainly tend not to question them. They just are.
This, of course, should not be surprising to me. Widely-held beliefs, regardless of their obvious contradictions and counterfactual evidence, are exceedingly common in human societies. Sometimes they get overturned or experience significant shifts, but oftentimes they do not. This is particularly so with religions, that I would contend secularism[5] has — for all intents and purposes — become (and the sociopolitical organisations that have resulted from its philosophy),
Here I am reminded of that quote often attributed to Mark Twain: “It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble; it’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so.”
Increasingly I’ve come to view the notion that the only thing that actually changes after an election is the story we tell[6]. It goes something like this: “If my team wins, all is right with the world or soon will be if we can simply ‘fix’ all the horrendous things the other team did while in office or overcome their roadblocks to our utopia. If the other team wins, the world will soon go to or continue to go to hell in a hand basket because they hold the wrong view of the world (and tend to be misguided, even evil).” All subsequent events/decisions/actions are then interpreted through this lens.
It’s important to note that I have not always felt this way about politics and the idea that it is the best means of addressing a society’s pressing issues. When I was younger I held a strong belief that voting and good representation was critically important, and it was my civic duty to be engaged in an informed manner and support the system. I voted religiously from my first opportunity after turning 18 to well into my 30s.
Various opportunities arose for me to be more deeply involved in ‘political’ matters as I weaved my way through life. From being a union representative for part-time workers in the grocery store I was employed at; to getting involved with the student union within the department I was studying within during my university education; to being a representative, executive member, and political action committee chair of the teachers’ federation during my years as a classroom to teacher; and finally, to involvement as an executive member of our local administrators’ council and senior negotiator[7] as I finished out my career in education.
All of these experiences, however, had significant moments where I began to question quite critically the entire narrative I was interpreting the world through. More and more I reflected upon these as signals that something was just not right[8]. And more and more I came to view much (if not all) of what I was a participant in and active member of as mere theatre. A play that was being performed for the benefit of all: the ‘leaders’ sustained their hold on the status quo power and wealth structures while the ‘participants’ maintained their belief that they had agency in the decisions being made. A win-win for all.
Why is any of this relevant to the impending societal decline that will accompany ecological overshoot?
Apart from the observation that there is increasing evidence that there is no ‘solution’ to the predicament of ecological overshoot, I share these thoughts to try and point out why I firmly believe (and think others should as well) that our political systems should not be where we are looking for mitigation strategies since the kind of things we should be doing are not in the elite’s interest. As a result, the political systems that have been created and maintained by our ruling elite will avoid like the plague discussions/strategies that would undermine their goals. In fact, I would argue that they will do (are doing) those things that meet their primary concern and actually serve to make our predicament worse; all the while twisting narratives to suggest the opposite.
They will encourage growth at every opportunity. Some may wrap it up in a blanket of ‘green’ stating such things as ‘clean’ and ‘sustainable’, but it will be growth requiring a further drawdown of finite resources and increasing environmental degradation accompanied by a loss of biodiversity and important ecological systems.
They will not encourage self-reliance and self-sufficiency. Instead, they will increase those policies that create dependency upon government and large corporations. They will do this by promising more and more services and responsibilities be the purview of government (and select private partnerships) thereby requiring more taxes to increase the size of the systems they control and manage — while pillaging national ‘treasuries’ in the process.
They will pay what amounts to lip service to ecological/environmental concerns (see how they will spin narratives around growth above) to appease certain societal factions, but leverage this to their advantage.
In fact, they will leverage everything at each and every opportunity to meet their primary goal of control/expansion of those things that generate revenue for them (and thus their positions of power and prestige).
They will talk about freedom, democracy, and citizen input while they tighten the screws of narrative control, censorship, surveillance, deplatforming, etc..
The political system is not your friend and you should not be turning to it for any type of salvation as more and more crises emerge because of our overshoot.
As Johann Von Goethe stated several centuries ago: “None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.”
For the most part, ignore the theatre that is politics and move ahead in your preparations for a world experiencing significant diminishing returns on important resources and a slow (sometimes fast) breakdown in the complexities we’ve come to rely upon.
Organise locally with like-minded neighbours and/or family and begin to relocalise as much of the basic necessities of life and living. Learn those skills that are going to be needed as the world returns to a much ‘simpler’ way of living and without much (all?) of the technologies we currently have.
Ignore as much as you can the theatrical performance of the ruling elite as they weave narratives to convince you that you actually have agency in what is happening in the world outside your home/community. They only want you to believe that because having ‘legitimacy’ via narrative control and belief systems is so much easier and more efficient than having to use force[9].
But don’t fool yourself by believing that force won’t be used by our politicians if they deem it necessary. When narrative control fails, they will fall back upon their last vestige of control — physical force…only they won’t call it that and will likely spin it as for our ‘safety’ and ‘security’.
Finally, keep in mind that it takes much effort and constant vigilance to be aware of and avoid the mind traps of our societal enculturation. But it’s necessary to see and understand the world just a bit more clearly.
Finally, my comment on the article that prompted this contemplation:
One of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the hoi polloi by the ruling elite is that they have agency via the ballot box and thereby have some ‘influence’ in policy and actions of their government. The ruling elite have one motivation that is attempted to be met via the leveraging of everything, especially perceived crises: control/expansion of the wealth-generation/-extraction systems that provide their revenue streams and thus positions of power and prestige. Everything else is secondary/tertiary and ultimately also twisted to meet the first goal. This has been the way since the first large complex societies arose some 10,000 years ago and required organisational structures that opened the door to differential access to resources and thus power over others. One of the most effective and efficient means of maintaining the resulting power/wealth structures has been to ‘legitimise’ them in one way or another. From hereditary rule to descending from the gods to elections, the rule of the elite is assured and maintained. The plebes? They’re convenient labour, tax donkeys, and war fodder.
Article of interest:
Making the Case for Kleptocratic Oligarchy (as the Dominant Form of Rule in the United States) https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/23175300.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3A3ccd9f00397b32e538b8cfa4daebfa8a&ab_segments=&origin=&acceptTC=1
If you’ve made it this far, please consider visiting my website. It contains many relevant site links and articles. It also allows you to help support my internet presence via the purchase of my ‘fictional’ trilogy — Olduvai.
[1] This is particularly relevant right now as my municipality is littered (and I use that word purposively) with signs for its local election. I cannot stand the visual blight that election signs are.
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representative_democracy
[3] I almost spit my coffee out on my keyboard after rereading that sentence and chuckling…
[4] https://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/this-is-water; https://medium.com/age-of-awareness/you-dont-know-water-until-you-ve-left-your-fishbowl-8ad13e2a14b8
[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism
[6] It’s important to keep in mind that homo sapiens is a story-telling ape that weaves comforting and relatively simplistic narratives for a variety of reasons but mostly to rationalise our world and its complexities.
[7] I helped to negotiate multi-million dollar contracts for the hundreds of administrators in my board of education.
[8] When I sense that something is just not right, I’m reminded of a couple of lines at the beginning of a Men Without Hats’ song (Unsatisfaction) I listened to often in the 1980s: “I’m never satisfied when the answers could be real. I may not know what’s right, but I know this can’t be it!” https://youtu.be/m20F0g41ORg The ’80s had GREAT music!
[9] Please note, none of this contemplation should imply or be interpreted as a call to completely ignore the machinations of the ruling elite and allow them to run freely over the planet and its people and other species. Challenging their rule through civil protest and similar means should continue; perhaps even ramp up significantly. If nothing else, it may serve to slow their destructive policies; but don’t fool yourself and expect that it will stop it via elections and voting. I would love to see an election held and not one person shows up to vote. I would think the message from that event would resound through society for quite some time. Although at this juncture in time, I can imagine the knee-jerk response (i.e., leveraging of a ‘crisis’) would be to blame the episode on some outside state actor who hates us for our freedoms.
(originally posted September 21, 2022)
Growth is Great! Except It Isn’t.
Today’s contemplation is an open letter I am sending (perhaps presenting in person, I haven’t yet decided[1]) to my local town’s council and a developer regarding a ‘proposed’ development that is moving ahead directly across the street from our home. It is not the first time I have spoken up about such community projects but will probably be the last given I have lost all faith in our local council to understand the perils and act on them, since they continue to not only pursue but cheerlead the continuing expansion of our community. ‘Growth is great, it benefits everyone’ is a refrain often posited by them.
That we reside in a significantly environmentally-sensitive region of my Canadian province makes the continued ‘development’ of the lands particularly problematic[2]. There’s always discussion of ‘sustainability’ and ‘environmental awareness’ in such proposals but these are little more than greenwashed window-dressing to impact perceptions; marketing to help sell the narrative that our ‘leaders’ are acting ‘responsibly’ and that the pursuit of ‘sustainable growth’ is a noble and just action.
While they appear open to community dialogue and consultation, I have come to consider this appearance to be a charade; theatrics to give the impression of being ‘democratic’ and ‘consultative’ — which I have also come to understand about almost all ‘politics’. Little, if anything, about my decades-long experiences and observations about our Town ‘representatives’ leads me to conclude they actually understand or even want to know about the growing predicament they are contributing to — I can just imagine the overwhelming cognitive dissonance it would create; better to be immersed in significant self-deception and ignorance.
Dear Whitchurch-Stouffville Council and Mr. Spratley,
Mr. Spratley, in your recent letter to the community about the proposed development you are spearheading at 14622 Ninth Line, you claim to be pursuing “…responsible community and community-based development with the health of the lake in mind.”
Apart from not being directly consulted, as you claim you have done with all residents that live close to the proposed development, I must challenge you on your idea of ‘responsible community development’, especially in light of your proclaimed concern over the health of the lake.
The nature of what is considered ‘responsible’ has been shifting the past number of decades. Land use can and should no longer be viewed through a purely economic lens where everything is viewed as a commodity to be turned into a profit — especially land in ecologically-important regions, which the Oak Ridges Moraine certainly is. Such an antiquated view completely ignores and/or minimises the negative environmental and ecological system impacts human ‘development’ causes.
The Ontario government itself has recognised the importance of the moraine, stating it is “… an environmentally sensitive, geological landform…”[3], and thus the motivation for them to put in place policies to protect the ecological systems of the moraine (even though they often bypass such protections by encouraging and permitting continued settlement expansion despite repeated promises not to).
Of particular concern is the impact development has on the very important aquifers and contamination of them by human development. Musselman’s Lake sits in one of the areas identified as being highly vulnerable to such contamination. And the development you are proposing increases greatly the risk to the lake and regional aquifers.
In fact, there is growing evidence that allowing land to return to nature is a far, far more responsible act in terms of long-term sustainability and ecological enhancement than forcing land system changes and increasing population density — both of which serve to destroy/degrade the natural systems every species, including humans, depend upon for their very existence. But, of course, there’s no ‘profit’ in that.
The dangers of humanity’s continuing pursuit of the infinite growth chalice on a finite planet should be self-evident to everyone, but sadly this is not so. Perhaps because we continue to believe we stand outside nature and its ecological systems, and can control them. Or because we have grown to perceive everything from an economic perspective, where land is only viewed as having ‘value’ once it has been ‘developed’ and built upon. Possibly it’s because we have allowed those who stand to ‘profit’ from such a perspective to influence excessively and unreasonably our sociopolitical systems and sociocultural narratives and beliefs.
No amount of greenwashing by having a ‘butterfly parkette’ can counter the ecological damage of constructing a dozen homes (possibly many more) on a parcel of land that is located in an environmentally-sensitive region. That such a development is even being considered for the Musselman’s Lake area of the Oak Ridges Moraine is a travesty. Council would be wise to turn down the application and amendments.
The very fact that you are in need of plan amendments to allow the use of wells to provide water for these homes because the current water system is already ‘maxed out’, speaks volumes to the overuse/overpopulation of the area that currently exists — to say little of the rather undemocratic way in which the Town forced area residents to abandon fully-functioning wells several decades ago to hookup to Town water…at a significant personal cost.
Finally, your contention that “[t]he smaller size of homes compared to the overall lot size…respects the lake and the policies that guide development” is somewhat misleading in that it is not necessarily the footprint of a home that has a negative environmental impact on a region, but the number of people that occupy it. While a large home may have oversized influence upon the resources used to construct and maintain it (e.g., fossil fuels for heat), most of the environmental consequences flow from the density of a settlement. Putting more homes and people into an area has an outsized impact given all the waste produced and resources required to sustain each person.
You may actually be sincere in your wish to do what is ‘right’ by this development, although seeking to build far more homes on the lot than established by current plans suggests you are not. Regardless, the evidence that is building in this world about the negative consequences of human expansion is coming down on the side of your proposal being detrimental, very detrimental, not beneficial.
That developments continued to get approved by our Town Council with amendments to increase significantly the number of dwellings and density is very telling about their actual concern with environmental/ecological responsibility as well — it’s non-existent.
That we continue to ignore the signals being sent to humanity by the planet and its fellow species speaks volumes about our continuing misuses of our finite world and whether we actually are acting ‘responsibly’ in our behaviour and actions. The evidence is continuing to mount that we are not. In fact, that we are doing the exact opposite of what we should be doing — degrowing our existence.
Sincerely,
Steve Bull
Please consider visiting my website. It contains many relevant site links and articles. It also allows you to help support my internet presence via the purchase of my ‘fictional’ trilogy — Olduvai.
[1] I am aware that presenting an in-person comment is likely to be received better than a written one but I have never felt comfortable speaking in public, despite having put myself in a variety of situations where I have had to. It’s one of my least favourite actions/behaviours.
[2] We reside in a region called the Oak Ridge Moraine and look out over two nearby kettle lakes. The area is part of some very important aquifers for our province.
