Home » Posts tagged 'Nathan Surendran'

Tag Archives: Nathan Surendran

Olduvai
Click on image to purchase

Olduvai III: Catacylsm
Click on image to purchase

Post categories

Post Archives by Category

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh LXXV–Decoupling Energy Use From Growth: More Bargaining


Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh LXXV

November 9, 2022 (original posting date)

Chitchen Itza, Mexico. (1986) Photo by author.

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…

[1] See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and/or this.

[2] See this.

Ha Joon Chang’s ‘Shortest Economics Textbook Ever’

Ha Joon Chang’s ‘Shortest Economics Textbook Ever’

The 5 things they don’t tell you about economics…

Economics in brief from Ha Joon Chang

At the time of writing this textbook, he was Professor of Economics at Cambridge University, UK, now with SOAS University of London? Chang has created some great resources, I’ve linked to some more of his work, below this one page, 5 point economics textbook.

And here they are…

95% of economics is common sense

You don’t need a degree to understand it.

We’ve got this profession wrong; a lot of professional economists think what they do is too difficult for ordinary people. You’d be surprised how often these people are stupid enough to say things, at least in private, like ‘you wouldn’t understand what I do even if I explained it to you’. If you cannot explain it to other people, you have the problem.

People express strong opinions on all sorts of things despite not having the appropriate expertise: climate change, gay marriage, the iraq war, nuclear power stations. But when it comes to economic issues, many people are not even interested, not to speak of not having a strong opinion about them. When was the last time you had a debate on the future of the euro, inequality in china or the american manufacturing industry, despite the fact that these issues can have a huge impact on your life, wherever you live?

Economics is not a science

Despite what the experts want you to believe, there is more than one way of ‘doing’ economics.

People have been led to believe that, like physics or chemistry, economics is a ‘science’, in which there is only one correct answer to everything; thus non-experts should simply accept the ‘professional consensus’ and stop thinking about it.

…click on the above link to read the rest…

The decoupling canard won’t die…

The decoupling canard won’t die…

aka, ‘Green Growth is an oxymoron’! I keep coming across people contending that decoupling will allow continued economic expansion, whilst reducing emissions. I put together this summary of rebuttals:

This is a great starting observation from Tim Morgan at Surplus energy economics:

“At the same time, we should dismiss the idea that we can somehow “decouple” the economy from energy. Fortunately, a quite superb recent report from the European Environmental Bureau (EEB) has debunked the concept of “decoupling” so comprehensively that we can defer detailed consideration to a later discussion.

“Our finding is clear”, the EEB report concludes – “the decoupling literature is a haystack without a needle”.

There – political leaders please note – goes your cherished ambition to deliver “sustainable growth”. ‘Sustainable’ is something to which we can and must aspire. But “growth” is not.”

More: https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2019/09/02/155-the-art-of-dark-sky-thinking/

Here’s the direct link to the EEB’s comprehensive debunking of the decoupling canard… https://eeb.org/decoupling-debunked/ summarised as:

Although decoupling is useful and necessary, and has occurred at certain times and places, ‘green growth’ cannot reduce resource use on anywhere near the scale required to deal with global environmental breakdown and to keep global warming below the target of 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, the threshold established as part of the Paris Agreement.

This is the conclusion of ‘Decoupling debunked: Evidence and arguments against green growth as a sole strategy for sustainability’. Published by the European Environmental Bureau (EEB), the report reviews the empirical evidence and theoretical literature to assess the validity of the decoupling hypothesis.

The report, whose lead author is Timothée Parrique of the Centre for Studies and Research in International Development (CERDI), finds that there is no empirical evidence supporting the existence of an absolute, permanent, global, substantial and sufficiently rapid decoupling of economic growth from environmental pressures. Absolute decoupling is also highly unlikely to happen in the future, the report concludes.

…click on the above link to read the rest…

Energy’s role in economic production is severely underestimated!

Energy’s role in economic production is severely underestimated!

Another brilliant exposition by Prof Steve Keen. The wording below is from a LinkedIn post I made tonight, targeted to Megan Woods (NZ Energy Minister) and Tina Schirr (BEC Lead)

I posted the following to LinkedIn tonight, here’s the link to the OP: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/nathansurendran_friede-gard-prize-lecture-05-energy-in-production-activity-6994962828289851392-oU7s

Friede Gard Prize Lecture 05 Energy In Production Functions – Both Neoclassical and Post Keynesian economic models have been “energy blind”, as Dr. Steve Keen outlines in this 23 minute talk: https://lnkd.in/gmCn6hzA

(- I’ll update this post with an embed of this video, once it’s available on YouTube.)

Megan Woods – MBIE’s modelling fails to take this reality into account, and you are getting erroneous assurances (the magnitude of risk is massively underestimated, potentially by a factor of 20 or more) on the magnitude of energy supply fluctuation risks, from the SADEM and GEM economic modelling.

Tina Schirr – this line of thinking is fundamental to getting the scenarios in your BEC Energy Scenarios to properly reveal the relative risk to business of energy supply challenges. This is of critical importance, as the current tightening global diesel supply is a huge risk to BAU and the proposed transition scenarios, which your current modelling is failing to identify.

The fundamental risk that this points to is a cascading failure of the financial system, as FEASTA analysed in this report: bit.ly/trdoff. This could easily be triggered by energy supply disruptions, as explored in this article: https://lnkd.in/gtbPP8im

#energy #business #energytransition #biophysicaleconomics

Olduvai IV: Courage
Click on image to read excerpts

Olduvai II: Exodus
Click on image to purchase

Click on image to purchase @ FriesenPress