Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXCVII–‘Renewable’ Energy: See, Hear, and Speak No Evil, Part 3
In attempting to bolster the mass rollout of supposed ‘clean/green/sustainable’ ‘renewable’ energy technologies (and the necessary ‘investments’, particularly in terms of finite resources–especially energy), the marketers of these industrial products and their enthusiastic supporters have created and pushed a narrative/mythos surrounding them whereby the technologies are perceived as primarily environmentally-friendly but also capable of replacing our master resource: hydrocarbons. An increasing number of people have referred to this approach as ‘greenwashing’, a deceptive marketing strategy to persuade everyone that the technologies are legitimate and their production/use is environmentally-responsible.
As the chorus of critics of these industrial-based technologies has grown and increasingly exposed the erroneousness of their supporter’s assertions regarding the environmental ‘friendliness’ of their production, the cheerleaders have expanded the story surrounding these technologies to include their ability to address in a beneficial manner a variety of other issues humanity confronts: war, security, and prosperity.
My 3-part Contemplation attempts to demonstrate the falseness of these claims; or, at least, that the perspective that renewables are only of benefit is quite narrow and ignores/rationalises away some inconvenient realities. In Part 1 (see Website, Medium, Substack) I address two of the assertions made by those seeking to convince us to support mass production and distribution of these technologies: wars are not created as a result of them, and they do not pollute. In Part 2 (see Website, Medium, Substack) I look at the claim that their use results in greater ‘security’.
As I read the evidence, these assertions not only ‘overlook’ some uncomfortable negative consequences of our pursuit of ‘renewables’ but state the exact opposite of reality. The increasing and monumental ‘investments’ called for by ‘renewables’ supporters actually result in greater geopolitical competition (including war) over finite resources (including hydrocarbons) and significantly increases pollution of our planet–particularly due to the extractive and industrial processes required for their production.
In this post I will consider the claim that the use of ‘renewables’ is quite beneficial due to the jobs and wealth that are generated.
Jobs and Wealth are generated As with any expansion of industrial production, jobs are created and wealth can indeed be generated. There is little to no debate regarding this observation. And there has been exponential growth in the production of ‘renewables’ experienced over the past several decades. So, yes, wealth is generated and jobs are created via the production of ‘renewables.’
There are several aspects of this growth that must be kept in mind while considering whether this and a massive scaling up of these products is actually ‘beneficial’ to humanity and our planet or not.
From a relatively narrow ‘economic/financial’ point of view, especially as it pertains to individuals and families that depend upon employment income to ‘survive’, growing employment opportunities are fantastic. And for the local to national (even global) economists and politicians that signal their ‘success’ via indicators such as gross domestic product (GDP) and employment statistics, any economic growth is a benefit and must be pursued!
Such wealth ‘creation’ is particularly a motivating factor for the industrialists and ruling elite, who not only push persistently the pursuit of the infinite growth chalice but who have experienced a significant burgeoning of their personal/family wealth over the past few decades. So much so that they are leaving the masses well in the dust in terms of ‘income’, especially in the United States and China where close to half of the world’s wealth is concentrated (see graphic above). Coincidence? I think not.
Leaving aside the significant growth in inequality between the uber-wealthy and the hoi polloi that has accompanied global wealth production, the mythology that has been created surrounding the economic growth imperative is powerful. In fact, it may be one of, if not the most powerful to hold sway in our modern world zeitgeist. Within that worldview such growth is primarily perceived as only of benefit with economic contraction being seen as the most significant thing we must avoid at all costs.
Those ‘costs’, however, tend to be at the expense of the health of our planet’s ecosystems–among other negative aspects (especially socioeconomic disparity) that get left unsaid or rationalised away by our world ‘leaders’ when discussing the growth imperative and/or marketing their latest ‘solely beneficial’ policies. The graphic above shows the almost perfect correlation between the global material footprint (i.e., raw material extraction) and GDP. If one defines wealth generation via GDP, then it would appear that any increase in this metric coincides almost precisely with resource extraction–one of perhaps the most ecologically-destructive activities our species carries out.
Here I must ask critically: Is this really what we want for a species seemingly already well into ecological overshoot (due primarily to our expansion and its material-based requirements) and a planet experiencing the negative consequences of this overshoot, especially a loss of biosphere integrity, changes in freshwater, novel entity dispersal, etc.? When money/wealth–which are potential claims on future resources and their extraction, especially energy–is ‘created’, there is also created more resource extraction, refinement, and industrial production of some nature. More wealth = more ecosystem destruction. (see graphic above showing the material footprint relationship with GDP)
Azote for Stockholm Resilience Centre, based on analysis in Richardson et al 2023.
While wealth generation (especially through job creation) appeals greatly to the masses who hold out hope of achieving financial ‘prosperity’ through gainful employment, the illusory narrative about ever-greater prosperity for all seems to me to be mostly about sustaining the unsustainable and ensuring continued exploitation of our planet and continuing ecosystem destruction–and mostly for the benefit of those at the top of our power and wealth structures given that wealth tends to accrue extremely unevenly towards that class of our rather hierarchical complex societies.
So, the creation of evermore ‘wealth’ (via additional units of currency) added to our economies becomes ever-increasing potential claims on future energy and other finite resources (with their extraction and refinement requiring significantly ecologically-destructive processes). How is this in any way, shape, or form ‘beneficial’ except, and particularly for, the ruling elite who own and control the industries and resource lands that are supposedly generating ‘wealth’?
This is a troubling narrative for ‘renewables’ cheerleaders in the sense that the primary motivation given for transitioning to ‘renewables’ has been and continues to be one of reducing the negative consequences on the planet’s ecosystems of hydrocarbon use–especially the greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon.
But as I have argued and is perhaps the most obvious misinformed assertion, the continued and/or expanded pursuit of ‘renewables’ actually exacerbates the negative impacts on ecosystems due primarily to the extractive and industrial industries required for their production. How is this not recognised by those arguing in favour of the mass production of these industrial technologies?
In addition, I and others have tried to point out that the production of ‘renewables’ has been additive to our energy mix and serves to exacerbate our overshoot predicament. While the ‘renewables’ advocates often highlight the growing share of electrical-energy production these mass-produced industrial products provide, they leave out of any calculation the growth in electrical generation via hydrocarbons (especially coal)–particularly in those nations where much of the globe’s industrial production is carried out.
For example, in a recent post in the Facebook Group Peak Oil–Twilight of the Oil Age, a member highlighted a CarbonBrief article that focuses upon the plateauing of CO2 emissions in China and suggests that this ‘pause’ is directly due to the mass roll-out of ‘renewables’. Several members of the group challenged this interpretation, suggesting instead that it indicates an economic slowdown and has not been the result of ‘renewables’ being mass produced and adopted. What I pointed out was the additive nature of these technologies to China’s electrical energy production and that while China has been increasing their ‘renewables’, they have also been increasing their hydrocarbon-based electricity generation–reaching record levels (see graphic below).
And while China may indeed be experiencing an exponential increase in ‘renewables’ compared to hydrocarbon use, this is not unusual when a technology is in its infancy. The rate of growth is almost always larger when the base numbers are small. The point, however, remains: ‘renewables’ are adding to China’s energy mix and replacing little if any of that provided by hydrocarbons. This is true also for the world as a whole: ‘renewables’ are adding to the energy production and use by our species.
As for expanding or maintaining our financial and economic systems as constructed, these are among the most-impactful human systems that contribute to our continuing degradation of our planet and its ecosystems.
While the economic argument appeals to many (most?) and is often used by those pushing any number of agendas (especially the pursuit of the infinite growth chalice via economic expansion), it is probably the exact opposite of the trajectory our species needs to follow if we wish to focus upon long-term sustainability (or, at least attempt to mitigate somewhat the fallout of ecological overshoot). Degrowing these systems and the extractive and industrial processes they rest upon should be our primary ideology, not expanding them.
With ‘wealth’ (in the form of currency/money) being a potential claim on future resources (especially energy), the expansion of ‘renewables’ being called for necessitates destructive extraction processes to continue and grow substantially. Is this not paradoxical to the supposed reason for pursuing ‘renewables’? Are we having to destroy the planet to save it?
In the mind of many ‘renewables’ supporters it seems this paradox is ignored or rationalised away. They maintain such destruction is a ‘one-off’ or not anywhere near the negative impacts that hydrocarbons bring to the table (again, ignoring the hydrocarbon inputs into ‘renewables’).
Where is the alternative of halting our pursuit of the perpetual growth chalice or even reversing it via degrowth? It would seem to me that even the discussion of halting growth is mostly verboten in the public sphere except amongst a somewhat marginalised minority–who are often vilified by the perpetual-growth believers. The myth of infinite growth on a finite planet is not only alive and well but vociferously protected by its gatekeepers and adherents. The force shall not be disturbed.
These are not the droids you’re looking for… As I stated to one of the ‘renewables’ advocates–whom I’ve had ongoing disagreement with over this issue–when I shared the arguments made by those who disagree with their positive assessment of ‘renewables’ (and who countered that all of the critics are obsolete thinkers, haven’t updated their knowledge, have not taken account of new data, and are simply old dogs who can’t learn new tricks): it could be that “the evidence points to a very different conclusion for those scientists/researchers. One of the perhaps most important learnings of my extended post-secondary education was that even the exact same observable ‘facts’ can be interpreted in very different ways; sometimes ways that are diametrically opposed.”1
We all believe what we want to believe, regardless of ‘facts’. For die-hard ‘renewables’ cheerleaders, the negative aspects will mostly be denied/ignored/rationalised away–a response entirely encouraged by the marketers of these technologies. They cannot see (for reasons perhaps of cognitive-dissonance reduction) that these industrial products carry with them exceedingly non-beneficial consequences. They accept, usually without question, the ‘solely beneficial’ assertions made by the products’ manufacturers and the echo chamber of supporters.
One of the aspects that gets lost in this mythos, unfortunately, is the larger issue of societal sustainability–or should I say unsustainability and the evidence suggesting that by pursuing these industrial technologies we are adding fuel to the fire and exacerbating the fundamental predicament of ecological overshoot, making any possible and marginal mitigations all the less likely to be helpful for our species (or any and all non-human ones and the ecosystems humans depend upon for their very existence).
And this is especially true for analyses that focus on singular and/or narrow aspects such as carbon emissions or energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI); the latter of which can be useful (if agreement can be had over how to calculate/measure it) in evaluating energy ‘costs’ but tend to ignore completely the environmental/ecological and/or societal ‘costs’. Just because something may appear to be capable of supporting the energy ‘needs’ of industrial society (at least for a relatively short-term duration), does not mean its use is ecologically justifiable. A societal-supporting energy source can (and probably does) carry great ecologically-destructive ‘costs’ with it but is left out of an EROEI calculation.
When I raise such issues as the environmental costs of ‘renewables’, the tendency of advocates has been to either ignore my concern completely or simply rebut that the costs of hydrocarbons are much worse, and we need to reduce carbon emissions regardless of all other ‘costs’.
Without getting deeply into the carbon tunnel vision such rebuttals raise, ignoring all the other negative aspects of ‘renewables’ is highly dangerous in my opinion.
Such responses, however, are not surprising given another argument that is often made by those supporting the widespread use and distribution of ‘renewables’: we need to do something! And that ‘something’ is almost invariably more technology. But maybe we shouldn’t be attempting to sustain the unsustainable via industrial products. Maybe the only thing we need to be doing is deconstructing complex societies, not chasing the (impossible) dream of techno-utopia.
I find the entire narrative surrounding the ‘electrify everything’ mantra faulty–from top to bottom. From the energy-harvesting technologies to the products that would be powered by the stored power. None of it is ‘green/clean’ nor ‘sustainable’. Such claims are little more than marketing propaganda that has been turned into a mythology that cannot be questioned nor criticised.
Mythologies arise to try and help humans explain observed phenomena, and other complex societal issues in a relatively simplistic fashion. Those that meet this need (and especially if they appeal to broader wants/wishes/desires) tend to propagate through a society and become somewhat entrenched, oftentimes providing moral guidance.
It is difficult if not impossible to dethrone mythologies that have become rooted in a society, especially if they tend to alleviate powerful, anxiety-provoking thoughts–such as our complex societies are not sustainable and are actually destroying the ecosystems that we ultimately depend upon for our existence.
Creating a mythology about a product is one of many marketing strategies that seek to resonate with consumers and produce ‘brand’ loyalty. That ‘renewables’ are ‘clean’, ‘green’, and/or ‘sustainable’ are amongst the myths marketers have focused upon to sell their product. It resonates with consumers who recognise/acknowledge the impacts human society has upon our environment and allows them to reduce any cognitive dissonance that may arise. And for the majority that accept the narrative, it creates a sense of shared belief and identity: we, the ‘renewables’ advocates, care deeply about our world and support this industrial product as a ‘solution’ to human destructiveness–and those who challenge our mythos are part of an uncaring ‘other’ who must be silenced.
The myths that have arisen with regard to an energy ‘transition’ are another in a long line of stories told to soothe the savage beast that is Homo sapiens. In this vein, it is successful for the most part: there are a large number of people that believe the claims made about ‘renewables’ without question. But as with the many mythologies that exist and have preceded this one, when one digs below the surface claims the narrative is simple, inaccurate, and misleads.
Want to purchase an electric vehicle or put solar panels up on your property? By all means, do so but please don’t tell me, others, or yourself that you are doing it for any of the so-called ‘benefits’ that cheerleaders of these industrial products go on about–especially their marketers. That’s simply disingenuous.
‘Renewables’ are no ‘solution’ to our various predicaments. The idea that they are is part of a grand lie. A lie that ignores/denies/rationalises away all the glaring negative aspects that accompany them. The lie is readily accepted since it aids the story-telling apes who strive to avoid/reduce significant anxiety-provoking thoughts but it also adds to the height of the cliff directly ahead that our species is running full-steam towards, with the ‘leaders’ (who are actually at the back of the pack but projecting an air of ‘stewardship’ and ‘guidance’) urging on the masses…
As I did with Part 1, I will close with a passage from Charles Hugh Smith in a recent post on the various mythologies our societies hold with respect to technology, political institutions, and financial markets and their ‘ability’ to ‘solve’ all ‘problems’:
“We know we’ve entered the realm of mythologies when expressing doubts about the efficacy of tech, the market or the state unleashes an infuriated indignation that the gods of tech, the market and the state are being questioned, even as the proof of their powers are everywhere.
But once we’re embedded in a mythological structure, then we see play-acting as a legitimate solution.
Here is the real-world situation, stripped of mythology and play-acting: the majority of the core problems are either made worse by tech, the market and the state–Anit-Progress writ large–or they’re beyond the reach of these conventional tools.
This Venn diagram causes howls of protest and shrieks of agony: how dare you! Of course there are tech solutions, market solutions and government solutions to every problem under the sun. What else is there?
To state this out loud is deeply offensive, for we’ve been trained to worship at the altars of technology, the market and the state. It’s considered good sport to deride the limits of state solutions, but it’s anathema to question the limits of technology or the market.”
What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:
“Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better.
Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.
If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).
Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).
If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.
Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99
Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…
If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.
You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.
AND
Released September 30, 2024
It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 2
A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.
With a Foreword by Erik Michaels and Afterword by Dr. Guy McPherson, authors include: Dr. Peter A Victor, George Tsakraklides, Charles Hugh Smith, Dr. Tony Povilitis, Jordan Perry, Matt Orsagh, Justin McAffee, Jack Lowe, The Honest Sorcerer, Fast Eddy, Will Falk, Dr. Ugo Bardi, and Steve Bull.
The document is not a guided narrative towards a singular or overarching message; except, perhaps, that we are in a predicament of our own making with a far more chaotic future ahead of us than most imagine–and most certainly than what mainstream media/politics would have us believe.
Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.
I came to this observation after several years of interest in and extensive reading about hominid evolution, especially the physical markers that appear in skeletal remains. The exact same physical attribute was often perceived by different researchers in very different ways that resulted in very different interpretations as to the importance and meaning of the identified characteristic. And then there was the presentation by the university’s psychology department on human intelligence I sat in on where the guest professor began the gathering by asking the participants to consider that if one asks 100 psychologists the meaning of intelligence, you will likely get more than 100 different responses with each highlighting different aspects and resulting in different conclusions even using the same data. The point being that we see and interpret the world in a variety of ways that can sometimes be quite different from each other.
Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXCV–‘Renewable’ Energy: See, Hear, and Speak No Evil, Part 1
A recent post on environmentalism as a meme states that ‘renewable’ energy supporters hold that these technologies solve some significant problems that humanity faces.
‘Renewable’ energy enthusiasts claim the following: wars are not created as a result of them; they fight pollution; and through their use security is improved, jobs are created, and wealth is generated.
Each of these beliefs about ‘renewables’ could be argued to hold some ‘truth’ and be construed as positive, depending entirely upon one’s perspective. I would argue, however, that this perspective is relatively narrow and ignores much of the complexity surrounding our energy production, use, and especially the negative consequences that arise from such production and use.
I believe that these perceptions about renewables and the amplification of them by their cheerleaders feed into the monster that is the mythos (and false hope) around modern complex society ‘sustainability’ and a pending energy ‘transition’.
Let me deconstruct each of these ideas on our ‘renewable energy transition’ and its associated industrial technologies over this and my next Contemplation.
Claim #1: Wars are not created as a result of them Implicit in this first view is that wars have and are arising from societal competition over the energy source that ‘renewables’ are seeking to ‘replace’: hydrocarbons. I cannot disagree whatsoever with this implication: wars have and are occuring as a result of attempts to gain control over hydrocarbon resources.
Although not typically admitted by governments and/or a region’s ruling elite, there is plenty of evidence to support the argument that resources in general are a significant contributing factor to kinetic wars; they rarely, if ever, arise due to the reasons typically promoted by nations as they seek to garner the support of their citizens for military engagements. Our elite wish the masses to buy into the belief that wars are fought almost exclusively over moral issues–to simplify: good versus evil. It is just coincidental that those evil ‘others’ tend to be in possession of lands that hold lots of natural resources, such as: water, timber, fishing grounds, arable farmland, precious metals and gemstones, rare-earth minerals, hydrocarbons, and/or uranium.
Brave AI-generated summary
It can be stated with fair certainty that for the past 50+ years many wars have been fought over our industrial societies’ master resource: hydrocarbons. This appears particularly obvious when one considers the geopolitical gamesmanship surrounding the Middle East over this time, including a number of hot wars and the petrodollar deal between the United States and Saudi Arabia struck in 1974. And it is probably not coincidental that the increase in such wars and machinations occurred not long after the U.S. Empire passed its peak in cheap, conventional crude oil in 1970 (just as predicted by petroleum geologist Marion King Hubbert in 1956).
For a current example, one need look no further than the decade-old U.S. invasion and occupation of hydrocarbon-rich regions of Syria. (Interesting, isn’t it, how the sovereignty and border integrity of some nation states is unimportant or simply ignored, while for others it’s worth ‘investing’–with probably a lot of money laundering–billions/trillions of dollars and risking many lives. Can you say double standard? Perhaps it’s because that ‘evil’ Syrian government happened to be controlling an area with ‘our’ oil.)
Regardless, it seems obvious that competition over hydrocarbon reserves results in war.
But the production and use of ‘renewables’ won’t result in wars? Let’s glance behind the curtain for a moment to unpack this initial claim.
First of all–and although die-hard techno-optimists/ecomodernists may deny/ignore/dispute the following–’renewables’ depend upon significant inputs of hydrocarbons for their production, distribution, maintenance, and reclamation/disposal. Despite extremely small-scale examples of power derived via ‘renewables’ to carry out these processes (but greatly amplified by ‘renewables’ cheerleaders), huge amounts of hydrocarbons are indispensable to the supposed energy ‘transition’. Almost all the important industrial processes required to produce ‘renewables’ need hydrocarbons to power them.
And if we are to attempt what some are calling for–a ‘war-footing’ investment in a massive rollout of ‘renewables’–then one hell of a lot of hydrocarbons are required; probably more than can be garnered from existing global reserves for the scale of such a feat. And remember scale is significantly important to any energy ‘transition’ that depends upon ‘renewables’ since the electricity generated by these technologies accounts for only a smallish amount of the current power needs of modern, industrial societies–to say little about growing energy demands due to the ongoing pursuit of the perpetual growth chalice and the globe’s increasing population.
A very significant portion of humanity’s primary energy needs is still met by way of hydrocarbons–more than 80%. To replace our current demands (ignore for the moment that these demands keep growing–just think about the energy needs being bandied about for Artificial Intelligence and data centres) would require gargantuan numbers of solar panels, and/or wind turbines, and/or nuclear power plants.
For example, to replace the electricity portion of our energy demands (remember that hydrocarbons are used for much more than just electricity production) via ‘renewables’ would require tens of millions of solar panels, and/or many millions of wind turbines to be produced, and/or thousands of nuclear power plants to be constructed.
So the initial glitch in the ‘wars are not created as a result of them’ claim is that if wars are created as a result of competition over hydrocarbon resources and hydrocarbon resources are necessary for the creation (and re-creation) of ‘renewables’, then wars are indeed created as a result of them–their production necessitates that the competition/wars over hydrocarbons continue. And such competition would need to ramp up very significantly given the scale of ‘renewables’ being clamoured for and the hydrocarbons that would be needed.
The second major glitch for this ‘no war’ claim is stumbled upon once one is aware that ‘renewables’ also require a number of other finite and rare-earth mineral resources for their production. And the concentrated deposits of these minerals do not occur in equitable distributions across the planet. Some of those evil ‘others’ happen to be sitting on the lands that hold the minerals we need for our ‘renewables’. Oops…talk about bad planning.
And then there’s the ‘warfare’ being waged upon the peoples of some of the mineral-rich regions (particularly nations with emerging or developing economies) who are stripped of rights, forcibly removed/relocated, required to work under less-than-ideal circumstances, increasingly exposed to pollutants/toxins, etc.. To say little about the ‘war’ waged against our ecosystems by the pursuit of ‘renewables’ (see below for more on this aspect).
Our species has been carrying out the brutal phenomenon of war for millennia prior to the use of hydrocarbons and I have little doubt that this is not going to halt, dissipate, or even be reduced through the adoption of ‘renewables’ as the notion implies. In fact, quite the opposite may be true if ruling elites across the globe believe that their wealth, control, and prestige are in jeopardy because somewhere and someone else has the resources required to ‘power’ via ‘renewables’ their lifestyles and fiefdoms (or at least line their pockets with the wealth being funnelled into the ‘electrify everything’ racket).
In fact, societal competition over regions of the planet that hold some of the mineral resources listed above as needed for ‘renewables’ started decades ago and can only get worse as we have already draw down a lot of the lowest-hanging fruit (i.e., best deposits) of these finite materials.
So, sorry, not sorry; if wars are fought over resources that are perceived as being necessary for a society’s energy needs, then the claim that wars are not fought as a result of ‘renewables’ is completely and utterly erroneous. To argue that wars are not created as a result of ‘renewables’ being produced and used completely ignores reality through some significantly darkly-shaded blinders.
Claim #2: They fight pollution This is perhaps the most obviously misinformed assertion made by ‘renewables’ promoters. While within a narrow, keyhole perspective–focussed upon the lack of carbon emissions produced once the technologies have been manufactured and distributed–this may be accurate, such a statement completely ignores the massive ecologically-destructive mining required for the extraction and refinement of the minerals that help to create these technologies. It also overlooks the significant hydrocarbon inputs and their contribution to pollution of our ecosystems.
Mining is amongst the most polluting and destructive endeavours that humans engage in. To ignore this required activity in the production of ‘renewables’ technologies and then maintain that ‘renewables’ do not pollute is completely outlandish (bullshit, actually). But this fantastical belief is held tightly by many (most?) who assert that ‘renewables’ are and the energy ‘transition’ will be ‘clean/green’. This doesn’t just ignore reality, it distorts it beyond belief.
Some attempt to rationalise such destructive activities suggesting they are a one-off and everything is ‘clean/green’ once the products are manufactured. But this too ignores a lot. It ignores two very important facts: ‘renewables’ have a limited lifespan and/or can malfunction needing replacement; and, ‘recycling’ does not and cannot reclaim all the materials in them to ‘recreate’ them without more mining, to say little about the tremendous energy costs of recycling and pollutants/toxins that arise from the process.
This rationalisation also ignores the already overloaded planetary sinks and their increasing inability to absorb more pollutants/toxins. And the pollution and toxins that would be released into our ecosystems by the scale of ‘renewables’ production some are calling for would be monumental. Absolutely monumental.
Also keep in mind that the estimates provided above for how many solar panels and/or wind turbines would be required to replace the hydrocarbon-produced electricity that our complex societies demand do not take into account the number of additional panels or turbines that would be required to make up for the intermittency of these technologies. The sun only shines for a limited number of hours per day, and/or can encounter very cloudy or snowy conditions for many locations, and sometimes the wind doesn’t blow.
Then there are the massive and unprecedented battery storage facilities that would be required to store harvested energy for use when the sun is not shining or the wind is not blowing. The negative impact upon our ecosystems from the production (that also require massive finite and rare-earth minerals via mining), use of, and reclamation/disposal of batteries would also be tremendously monumental.
Add on top of these ‘roadblocks’ to some ‘green/clean’ utopian future the infrastructure build-out that would be required to support all this ‘electrification of everything’ and the replacement of all those hydrocarbon-dependent technologies and the impact on our ecosystems is beyond comprehension.
Just as they do not reduce the drawdown of hydrocarbons and their use but add to them, ‘renewables’ do not ‘fight’ pollution–they exacerbate it, significantly. To maintain that ‘renewables’ fight pollution is probably even more outrageously egregious than holding that they don’t result in war.
I close Part 1 of this Contemplation with a section of Charles Hugh Smith’s latest book–The Mythology of Progress, Anti-Progress and a Mythology for the 21st Century–that highlights the lore surrounding ‘clean’ technology:
The Mythology of ‘Clean Technology’ “The disconnect between the inspirational, make-believe story of Progress and the real world reaches its most jarring extreme in the mythology of clean technology, which imagines a wondrous utopia of clean skies and clean air delivered by clean technology.
The mythology neatly ignores the polluted air, ravaged landscape and exploited workers of the developing world nations that are being torn apart for the minerals needed to build the supposedly clean technologies for the wealthy developed nations.
This is mythology at its most appalling, a bizarre myopia to the dreadful environmental destruction and human suffering caused by wealthy nations’ stripmining developed nations for the resources needed for hundreds of millions of batteries, copper for expanding the electrical grid and all the other ‘clean technologies’ that are only ‘clean’ because wealthy nations have offloaded all the poisoned air and water, environmental damage and poor health onto the developing nations–the penultimate expression of the asymmetry of the global power structure created by the mythology of Progress.
‘Clean technology’ is nothing more than the distorted, self-serving fantasy of the wealthy exploiting the powerless for their own pleasures and profits. The clean skies and electric bikes of Amsterdam and dozens of other developed-world capitals come not from clean technology but from the exploitation of the planet and the powerless in distant lands, far from the clean skies and profits of the powerful and wealthy.” (pp. 168-169)
See also this recent article in The Tyee by Andrew Nikiforuk on the ‘energy transition’ arguing that there is no energy ‘revolution’, only addition to our growing energy use.
What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:
“Only time will tell how this all unfolds but there’s nothing wrong with preparing for the worst by ‘collapsing now to avoid the rush’ and pursuing self-sufficiency. By this I mean removing as many dependencies on the Matrix as is possible and making do, locally. And if one can do this without negative impacts upon our fragile ecosystems or do so while creating more resilient ecosystems, all the better.
Building community (maybe even just household) resilience to as high a level as possible seems prudent given the uncertainties of an unpredictable future. There’s no guarantee it will ensure ‘recovery’ after a significant societal stressor/shock but it should increase the probability of it and that, perhaps, is all we can ‘hope’ for from its pursuit.
If you have arrived here and get something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website or the link below — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).
Attempting a new payment system as I am contemplating shutting down my site in the future (given the ever-increasing costs to keep it running).
If you are interested in purchasing any of the 3 books individually or the trilogy, please try the link below indicating which book(s) you are purchasing.
Costs (Canadian dollars):
Book 1: $2.99
Book 2: $3.89
Book 3: $3.89
Trilogy: $9.99
Feel free to throw in a ‘tip’ on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents/dollars helps…
If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com.
You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially William Catton’s Overshoot and Joseph Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies: see here.
AND
Released September 30, 2024
It Bears Repeating: Best Of…Volume 2
A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.
With a Foreword by Erik Michaels and Afterword by Dr. Guy McPherson, authors include: Dr. Peter A Victor, George Tsakraklides, Charles Hugh Smith, Dr. Tony Povilitis, Jordan Perry, Matt Orsagh, Justin McAffee, Jack Lowe, The Honest Sorcerer, Fast Eddy, Will Falk, Dr. Ugo Bardi, and Steve Bull.
The document is not a guided narrative towards a singular or overarching message; except, perhaps, that we are in a predicament of our own making with a far more chaotic future ahead of us than most imagine–and most certainly than what mainstream media/politics would have us believe.
Click here to access the document as a PDF file, free to download.
We all want solutions to the world’s many crises but do we understand the underlying problems?
Everything in nature, including human society, relies on energy for production, consumption, recycling, and sustainability. Therefore, to understand things, we must first examine how energy is turned into work and power.
Steel, concrete, plastic, and fertilizer are fundamental to modern civilization yet we have no idea how to make any of them at scale without fossil fuels. Those who think that the solution to our climate crisis is to end the use of fossil fuels do not understand this. Ending fossil fuels would cause society to collapse, and result in more short-term human death and suffering than is expected even in the worst-case scenarios for global heating.
Those who think that a solution is to substitute renewable energy for fossil fuels don’t understand this either. Even if true, we’re a long way from that. At present, wind and solar account for only two-and-half percent of global energy consumption, and all renewables—including hydroelectric and nuclear energy—account for only seven percent using the direct equivalent method.
The larger problem is that energy substitution is only a theory. It is naive and flawed because it only considers amounts of energy while ignoring ratesof energy output.
Society runs on power, not energy. Energy is the potential to do work. Energy must be converted into work for anything to happen in the physical world. Work takes place when energy is transferred to an object by application of force along a displacement.
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
President Joe Biden keeps lecturing corporate America to “pay your fair share” of taxes. It turns out he’s right that some companies really are getting away scot-free from paying taxes.
But it isn’t Big Tech companies in Silicon Valley or the Wall Street financial company “fat cats” or big banks or Walmart. They pay billions in taxes.
The culprits here are the very companies that President Biden is in bed with: green-energy firms.
It turns out that despite all of the promises over the past decade about how renewable energy is the future of power production in the United States, by far the biggest tax dodgers in the country are the wind and solar power industries. Over the past several decades, the green-energy lobby—what I call the climate-change-industrial complex—hasn’t been paying its fair share. That’s because the vast majority of these companies pay nearly zero income taxes.
But they wade in rivers of federal direct and indirect subsidies that keep these zombie companies alive. Over the past two decades, the renewable energy lobby has collected more than $250 billion in subsidies—payments that we’ve been assured over and over would be temporary. The argument for these grants, loans, tax abatements, and other sweetheart kisses is that these were “infant industries” in need of a Head Start program for CEOs. Except that these companies have never even reached puberty after all these years.
What’s worse is that President Biden keeps spoiling the children with lavish gifts for bad performance. A new report by tax expert Adam Michel at the Cato Institute finds that the green-energy subsidies—mostly created by Biden policies such as the so-called Inflation Reduction Act—will drain the Treasury of as much as $1.8 trillion over 10 years.”
…click on the above link to read the rest of the article…
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.
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 BardiBreton 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.
[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.”
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.
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.
The writing is on the wall, but who cares. Photo by Phil Goodwin on Unsplash
It is now the second time I’m having afterthoughts upon publishing an article. After writing about how Europe’s well intended but disastrously planned environmental initiative puts us right on track to a permanent deindustrialization, thoughts kept coming up on why is that not seen as a problem by policy wonks. Perhaps understanding the parallels with what is currently unfolding in Eastern Europe could help lift the fog.
There is a looming sense of civilizational decline in Europe, stemming from the loss of cheap condensed energy. Yet, denial and hope, together with its eternal springs, still reign supreme in the higher echelons of power. There seems to be a firm belief, that no matter how unattainable the objectives we set to ourselves are, someone, somewhere will surely come up with something. Intermittent „renewables”? Costly, heavy, material and energy intensive to make batteries? Oh, someone somewhere is surely working on a storage solution (or more) to come around those minor technicalities. Not enough resources to build all that stuff? Oh, someone somewhere will surely open up a new mine… After all, demand and a good deal of subsidies always begets more supply, now isn’t it?
Well, no. That level of magical thinking is an insult on all practitioners of sorcery, and leaves even underpants gnomes’ green with envy. There are no more cheap and easy to get resources to extract, and what’s even more concerning, there are no more habitats left to destroy on this planet. Mining the seabed, and stirring up all the carbon stored in the sediment, is just one of the most disastrous ideas… Oh, and as an aside, there is no more surplus energy from oil left to do all that additional digging, smelting, transportation and manufacturing, but that’s really just me nitpicking on some minor details.
As we look toward the uncertain future, it may occur to some among us that we’ll need energy on Mars. How are we going to get it? Presumably Mars has no fossil fuels—although on the plus side its atmosphere is already 95% CO2, compared to Earth’s 0.04%, so they’re likely to be less uptight about carbon emissions on the red planet.
At this point, we could launch into an extensive discussion, full of quantitative detail and analysis about the solar potential: insolation, materials availability, dust storm mitigation, and on and on. But the real answer to how we will get energy on Mars is probably: we won’t. We’re extremely unlikely to set up a permanent presence on Mars, if humans ever even go there at all. So the exercise would be of questionable value.
I feel similarly about discussions of full-scale renewable energy and associated storage and grid shenanigans. How will we rise to the challenge to keep modernity powered into the future? In all likelihood, we won’t. Besides the misdirection of “inexhaustible flows,” keeping modernity powered by any means looks like game-over for ecological health, and therefore humans, if pursued at all costs. So, enough with the fantasy schemes.
Why so bold? Glad you asked.
Past posts of mine have dealt with the question of what sustainability means, and associated timescales:
Ultimate Success: thinking 10,000 years ahead, what’s still possible?
Can Modernity Last?: an attempt to synthesize why continuance is not in the cards
Inexhaustible Flows: the dead end of materials-hungry “renewable” energy technology
Additionally, The Simple Story of Civilization frames the current epoch as so mind-numbingly new and rapid that it boggles the mind how we could ever think of modernity as a normal time that might have staying power, rather than a fireworks show. It’s only because that’s all our short lives have shown us.
Renewable energy is a poor substitute for fossil fuels. That’s because renewables are a diffuse form of energy and produce power only about one-third of the time.
That doesn’t stop renewable energy true-believers from trying to bend the laws of physics to tell a story that’s not true. EROI** (energy returned on energy invested) was used in this way by Murphy et al in 2022 and more recently, by Delannoy et al in late 2023.
Louis Delannoy and twenty-one co-authors proclaimed the good news in November that there is now a consensus that renewable energy is cheaper and more efficient than fossil fuels.
“The EROI of fossil-fueled electricity at point of end use is often found to be lower than those of PV, wind and hydro electricity, even when the latter include the energy inputs for short-term storage technologies.”
That’s not true. There is great uncertainty about EROI and a range of net energy values for every type of energy source. It’s a blunt instrument at best. It requires knowing an unknowable array of complex inputs and outputs to be anything more than a high-level guess.
The reference for their claim is a 2020 paper by one of the co-authors about modeling carbon emissions in California that included simulations for future solar PV EROI . California is not the world, forward modeling is not historical data, and solar PV is not the renewable universe.
A few brief Facebook conversations I have had the past couple of days while I work on a longer Contemplation regarding binary thinking, particularly as it applies to sociopolitics.
The first shared this article featuring a picture of a massive ‘agrivoltaic’ project and entitled Sheep may soon graze under solar panels in one of Wyoming’s first ‘agrivoltaic’ projects.
My comment: All I can see is a shitload of ecological destruction in the wake of producing all those solar panels…all in the name of attempting to sustain the unsustainable.
GH: Steve Bull, it was never going to work burning 13 billion tonnes of coal oil and gas per year to keep the lights on . With at least another 2 billion people to add to the global population and up grade the remaining 80 per cent of the population to 1st World comfort
Me: GH, Nope, and all chasing ‘renewables’ is doing is exacerbating our ecological overshoot predicament.
GH: Steve Bull, i got no answers
Me: GH, There are none except what Nature has in store. The best our species can hope for is community mitigation/adaptation via relocalisation.
MC: Steve Bull, “Community mitigation/adaptation via relocalization”… Almost a bumper sticker… Thanks for that. I believe you are correct sir… How do we get on with this and how far can it be scaled up to include how many of us and how soon before the rest of us turn into a mob of armed hungry savages (strategy suggestions do not need to be pre-approved by ideologue peers and browbeaters [not that I notice that many in this in this group] and would be most welcome)…
Me: MC, I don’t have any suggestions beyond what I began last year: a community food gardening guild. Most people don’t want to hear the hard ‘facts’ on our predicament so I don’t discuss them with community members. Getting neighbours to begin and expand food gardening is the best I can offer in my suburban community on the outskirts of the sprawling city of Toronto. I do try to raise awareness of the insanity of pursuing the perpetual growth chalice by our politicians but, again, most people dismiss the notion so I do it infrequently.
TE: Steve Bull, and then a hailstorm hits and destroys the solar panels in about 3 minutes. Nice greenwash for intensive industrial agriculture tho
GH: TE, new panels have hail ratings .. although i see ( from reports ) hail is increasing in size
This second conversation is based upon this post:
My comment: There is nothing ‘sustainable’ about the complex, industrial products pictured here.
RH: Steve Bull, In this particular usage it means having energy forms that are renewable as opposed to those that are in the process of making life very hard if not impossible for a large percentage of the inhabitants of the world. You will notice for example that some of the people portrayed are growing plants.
Me: RH, Non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies are not sustainable and contribute to a host of ecologically-destructive processes, just as detrimental to the world’s inhabitants as hydrocarbons are. To say little of the fact that they depend significantly on hydrocarbon-based resources up and down their production and supply chains. Because of carbon emissions tunnel vision, these products are perceived as ‘clean/green’ but are nothing of the sort. They do zero to address our fundamental predicament of ecological overshoot. In fact, since ‘renewables’ have been additive to our energy use, there is a good argument to be made that our pursuit of them is simply exacerbating our predicament. Until we can stop our expansion/growth of both population and resource extraction/use, and reduce our energy/resource demands (significantly), then all the chatter about an ‘energy transition’ is just noise to help reduce our cognitive dissonance (and produce/sell more ecologically-destroying industrial products).
RH: Steve Bull, A significant part of the drive for sustainability is simply the reduction of wasteful uses of energy. And it isn’t simply chatter, there is a a lot of jobs and economic development involved in making our society more efficient.
Incidentally, there is now enough solar, wind, small hydro, geothermal, and other renewables on stream now to cover the energy requirements of producing additional similar energy systems right up to and including getting rid of fossil fuels.
While there may be some environmental advocates who see with tunnel vision, it isn’t nearly the number of fossil fuel cranks who have had the blinders on, concerning the impacts on all the cartoon categories mentioned, for decades.
RH: Steve Bull Yeah, I have seen some of those before, the death by hockey sticks was a new one. Other than saying what we are doing in terms of our fellow mammals, is not sustainable, how does it relate to the jobs bill?
Me: RH, It’s about sustainability and creating “…lots of jobs and economic development…” are the exact opposite of what sustainability requires. We need degrowth.
RH: Steve Bull, I wouldn’t say it is the exact opposite, but rather part of a direction that we need to compromise on with respect to other factors like a just transition, conservation, land use, and economics.
GW: RH, bs
And, finally, this one posted by PW to the Peak Oil Facebook Group I am a member of:
PW: SD, 😂🤣🥲😁😆…..we can’t even afford the infrastructure!!!
SD: PW, not really that expensive. Overhead wires for trolleys and busses were very common in the first half of the 20th century (1900s to 1950s.) The only reason they disappeared was because diesel became cheaper. But those days of cheap diesel are gone, and it wouldn’t take much to get the wires up again. In fact, it would create a lot of jobs. The only thing that is needed is the demand (electric trucks with cable attachments) and coordinated infrastructure development (government.) It’s the only solution.
PW: Here’s additional data of why the electric trolleys and other forms of transportation went out of business. Although GM was acquitted I feel that they somehow beat the charges with bribery and other means. You make it seem that the switch to electric as like hanging drapes. There is no solution. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy
Me: SD, Magical thinking solves everything.
SD: Steve Bull what’s magic about technology?
Me: SD, The idea that we have the resources (mineral and energy) to try and scale up to anywhere near replacement levels, that this can be done without further ecological systems destruction, that it can be accomplished without putting us further into ecological overshoot, and that we have the economic capacity to do this (because what’s a few quadrillion more in debt/credit?) are just a few examples off the top of my head of the magical thinking necessary to have complex industrial technology help to ‘solve’ anything in our future. Such thinking is simply exacerbating our predicament.
The CEO of TotalEnergies believes that the renewable transition will lead to higher—not lower—energy prices. That’s a very different view from the popular belief that renewable energy prices are falling so fast that electric power will become ever-cheaper.
“We think that fundamentally this energy transition will mean a higher price of energy.
“I know that there is a theory which says renewables are cheaper, so it will be a lower price. We don’t think so because a system where you [have] more renewable intermittency is less efficient . . . so we think it’s an interesting field to invest in.
La Camera’s statement is based on a 2021 report by IRENA (International Renewable Energy Agency) that evaluated the levelized costs for renewable energy sources. The problem is that IRENA’s study only evaluated generation costs and did not account for electric power backup and storage costs. Since wind and solar are intermittent sources of electricity, the cost of natural gas backup or battery storage must be included in their levelized cost.
Lazard published a report in 2023 that includes backup and storage costs. The data indicates that electric power costs from wind and solar are about 21% more than from combined-cycle natural gas and 44% more than from coal (Figure 1). At first glance, that doesn’t seem like an unreasonable premium to pay for cleaner electric power.
Figure 1. The levelized cost for electric power from wind and solar with backup is 21% more than from combined-cycle natural gas and 44% more than from coal. Source: Lazard & Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.
For anyone who has been following my writing over the past couple of years, you will know that I have been critical of non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies (aka ‘renewables’) and the ‘marketing’ that surrounds them[1]. My critiques are usually focused upon the resource limits and ecological systems-destruction blindness that appear prevalent in many (most? all?) of the mainstream narratives, and the subsequent cheerleading surrounding such products and their ability to transition us smoothly away from hydrocarbon-based fuels/products[2].
On top of this is the argument that as with much (most? all?) in our modern world, the pursuit of controlling/expanding revenue streams to sustain the power/wealth accumulation (and thus privilege/influence) of an ‘elite’ few of our species plays a key role in the narrative management surrounding these industrial products and their uptake; particularly the ‘Electrify Everything’ and ‘Net Zero’ stories[3]. It’s no secret that this is increasingly being accomplished through legislation under the guise of carbon emissions reduction to address concerns with climate change.
As a consequence of my highlighting the biogeochemical restrictions, negative ecological consequences, and the motivation behind the marketing and uptake of these industrial products, I have been the recipient of accusations regarding my motivation for pointing these aspects out. These have ranged from being labelled, in no particular order: a fossil fuel shill, conspiracy theorist, Big Oil accomplice, technophobia cult member, right wing (Republican) supporter, climate change denier, Malthusian doomer, left wing (Democrat) extremist, etc.[4].
And it’s not that I support the ongoing growth in complexities that hydrocarbons has brought. In fact, I have extensively highlighted that this resource has been one of the most significant catalysts to our ecological overshoot predicament and modern societal complexities[5]. Again and again I have pointed out that the rise in complexity of societies through time contributes to the recurring ‘collapse’ processes that pre/history has shown occur, and that hydrocarbons have contributed to this time the phenomena being important on a global scale.
I’ve also pointed out that I don’t criticise these non-renewable, renewable energy-products because I ‘hate’ them, and that I am not unfamiliar with them having constructed my own solar photovoltaic back-up system for my home[6]. I’ve simply come to the realisation and accepted that there are limits to their usefulness in supporting the extremely complex systems of our modern world, and that the industrial processes required to manufacture and dispose of/recycle them are costly in terms of ecological destruction and resource drawdown.
It seems to me that the failure to accept the limitations (and thus consequences) that these industrial technologies bring with them are for the most part ignored/denied or justified/rationalised away[7]. There is little if any recognition that not only is their pursuit adding to the destruction of our very important ecological systems, but that they are contributing to our resource drawdown rather than offsetting it, and making our ecological overshoot predicament worse.
Humanity is not ‘transitioning’ away from its unsustainable path but exacerbating it by both increasing the overshoot and decreasing the natural carrying capacity for our species through the pursuit of these complex, industrial products. And rather than acknowledge our mistaken choices, we are creating stories to double-down on them and attacking the messengers who point out our errant ways.
The vast majority of people are accepting of the dominant narratives because it helps to avoid the anxiety and stress of cognitive dissonance that arises otherwise[8]. What do you mean we can’t have our cake and eat it too? Hang on a minute, that’s not what we were promised…
In our mistaken beliefs that we stand above and beyond Nature, and that our tool (i.e., technology) innovativeness and use can address any issue/dilemma that arises, we continue our journey towards the inevitable consequences that any species experiencing significant overshoot must endure. In our uniquely human way, however, we are sharing stories to avoid this reality — because we can, and by doing so makes us feel better (or, at least, not as bad). We are avoiding pain to pursue pleasure. The most head-scratching to me are the ones that insist physical limits do not exist, and that infinite growth is indeed possible on a finite planet (with zero repercussions, of course).
In the end, we humans tend to believe what we want to believe regardless of evidence that challenges these beliefs. Rather than confront our misguided beliefs, we tend to justify/rationalise them. Our reactions to evidence that contradicts our views tend to be emotional in nature, lashing out at the naysayers and clinging more firmly to our beliefs because having our beliefs challenged is threatening to our personal identity and the social circle/echo chamber we live within[9].
And because we abhor uncertainty, we cling to the certainty espoused by our ‘leaders/authority figures’ even if it is wrong and leading to greater harm. It’s simply our way of avoiding anxiety-provoking thoughts and evidence for as long as we are able — forever if we can.
So, sure, call me a fossil fuel shill or engage in some other ad hominem attack if it makes you feel better when you don’t like what I’m saying about why non-renewable, renewable energy-products are no ‘solution’ to overshoot and that your promotion of them is actually making our predicament worse.
But make no mistake, the future ain’t what it used to be when we imagined it based upon a notion of limitless energy and other resources — not even close. We are, at our peril, ignoring the signals being sent by our planet and its other species in our ongoing narcissistic beliefs that Homo sapiens are in some way ‘special’ and above and beyond the reproach of Nature, the biogeophysical limits of existence upon a finite planet, and laws of the universe.
Payback for our behaviours is sure to be cruel and unforgiving. But then again, I’m just a Malthusian doomer and right-wing conspiracy theorist…or is that left-wing?
[1] See:
– A ‘Solution’ to Our Predicaments: More Mass-Produced, Industrial Technologies. BlogMedium
-To EV Or Not To EV? One Of Many Questions Regarding Our ‘Clean/Green’ Utopian Future, Part 1. BlogMedium – Electrify Everything: Neither ‘Green’ Nor ‘Sustainable’. BlogMediumSubstack – Electrify Everything: The Wrong ‘Solution’. BlogMediumSubstack
[2] See:
– The Pursuit of ‘Renewables’: Putting Us Further Into Ecological Overshoot. Medium – Roadblocks to Our ‘Renewable’ Energy Transition: Debt, Resource Constraints, and Diminishing Returns. Medium – Ignoring Ecological Systems Destruction. Medium – ‘Renewables’: Virtuous Circles, Resource Limits, and Ecological Systems. Medium
[3] See:
– Finite Energy, ‘Renewables’, and the Ruling Elite. BlogMediumSubstack – ‘Renewables’, Electrify Everything and Marketing Propaganda. BlogMediumSubstack – ‘Net Zero’ Policies: Propaganda To Support Continued Economic Growth. BlogMediumSubstack – The Ruling Class: Chasing Growth Regardless Of the Consequences. BlogMedium
[4] See:
– Thou Shall Not Disturb the ‘Renewables’ Force. Medium
– Criticising ‘Renewables’ is Not a Sin. BlogMediumSubstack – Sometimes People Don’t Want to Hear the Truth. BlogMediumSubstack – Differing Opinions On ‘Renewables’. Medium
[5] See:
– Finite Energy, Overconsumption, and Magical Thinking Through Denial. MediumSubstack – Fossil Fuels: Contributing to Complexity and Overshoot. BlogMediumSubstack – Ecological Overshoot, Hydrocarbon Energy, and Biophysical Reality. BlogMediumSubstack – Surplus Energy From Hydrocarbons: Another Predicament Catalyst. Medium
[6] See:
– Personal Experience With ‘Renewables’. Medium
[7] See:
– Infinite Growth, Finite Planet; What Could Possibly Go Wrong?BlogMediumSubstack – Growth Greenwashing: A Comforting Narrative. BlogMediumSubstack – ‘Renewables’ and the Overton Window That Ignores Biophysical Realities. BlogMediumSubstack – Climate Emergency Action Plan: Electrification and Magical Thinking. BlogMediumSubstack
[8] See:
– Grieving: There Are No ‘Solutions’ to Overshoot. BlogMediumSubstack – ‘Clean’ Energy and the Stages of Grieving. BlogMediumSubstack – Magical Thinking to Help Avoid Anxiety-Provoking Thoughts. BlogMedium – Magical Thinking About the Energy Transition. Medium
The way we like to think of “renewables”. No smoke, just green fields and a clear blue sky… Photo by Serge Le Strat on Unsplash
There are no “renewables” without mining, an unsustainable practice turbocharged by burning fossil fuels. Yet, advocates of green technologies still believe that we could somehow electrify the recovery of critical minerals, and continue with civilization in a “business as usual but greener” manner. In reality, this could not be further from the truth.
Before we delve into the topic of using renewables to continue extracting metals from Earth’s crust, let’s tackle the environmental aspects of this activity. And while at it, let me also draw your attention to the deep and intimate relationship mining has with burning fossil fuels. What a fascinating — but also disastrous — symbiosis of technologies…
Perhaps it’s no exaggeration to say that the term “building a mine” is actually an euphemism for environmental destruction on a truly industrial scale. First of all, opening a site for mineral extraction inevitably comes with destroying a green blanket of a living habitat. It takes large harvesting machines cutting down all those trees and shrubs — all powered by burning diesel fuel, as there are no power plugs nearby to do all this with electrified chainsaws. Then a bunch of diesel guzzling excavators and bulldozers are brought on site to build roads leading to the would be mining site. Next, a fleet of trucks arrive to haul all those logs away — again, by burning diesel — as the distance and load is usually far-far beyond what an electric semi could cover.
Can humanity eventually overcome its reliance on fossil fuel? The answer to that is certainly yes in the very long run, but an emphatic no in the next 25 years.
If the delusional but dead serious demands coming out of the international climate crisis community are to be believed, and as documented in the earlier two segments of this report, achieving universal energy security in the world will require wind energy capacity to increase by a factor of 60, while solar capacity increases by a factor of 100. The mix between wind and solar can vary, of course, but the required overall increase is indisputable. As noted in Part One of this report, that would be a very best-case scenario, where extraordinary improvements in energy efficiency meant that total energy production worldwide would only have to increase to 1,000 exajoules per year, from an estimated 600 exajoules in 2022.
Finally, and as explained in Part Two, this is preposterous. Wind and solar energy cannot possibly increase in global capacity by a multiple of 50-100 times. It is utterly infeasible. As noted, “The uptick in mining, the land consumed, the expansion of transmission lines, the necessity for a staggering quantity of electricity storage assets to balance these intermittent sources, the vulnerability of wind and solar farms to weather events including deep freezes, tornadoes, and hail, and the stupefying task of doing it all over again every 20-30 years as the wind turbines, photovoltaic panels, and storage batteries reach the end of their useful lives—all of this suggests procuring 90+ percent of global energy from wind and solar energy is a fool’s errand.”
One may nonetheless argue that other forms of energy can supplement wind and solar in order to still fulfill the climate community’s goal to completely displace oil, natural gas, and coal. But what then, and in what proportions? Here are the alternatives:
