![\"\"](\"https:\/\/olduvai.ca\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/12\/Today-30-192-tulum.jpg\")
<\/a><\/p>\nTulum, Mexico. (1986) Photo by author.<\/p>\n
In a truly stereotypical Canadian way, I begin with an apology to those who might disagree with or be affronted by what I am about to argue\u2026<\/span><\/p>\n I\u2019m sorry, but non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies (aka \u2018renewables\u2019) are NOT going to save humanity\u2019s modern complex societies from impending \u2018collapse\u2019 or the planet\u2019s fragile ecosystems from continuing breakdown.<\/span><\/p>\n I could back this up with the increasingly evidence-based assertion that we are so far into the predicament of ecological overshoot (and the vast array of negative consequences that will flow, or should I say are already flowing from this) that there is nothing we can do to avoid the impending \u2018population collapse\u2019 that accompanies a species when a finite, primary resource (in our case, hydrocarbons) can no longer support the growth of, or even sustain at its present size, the population\u2013and for humans, this also includes the complexities that support our various societal institutions and modern living standards.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I could also add the burgeoning empirical observations and data that demonstrate the ecosystem destruction being wrought by our attempts to \u2018power\u2019 our energy-intensive complex societies and maintain much of our food production.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Yes, hydrocarbons have contributed to and caused the vast majority of this but the industrial processes necessary for \u2018renewables\u2019 are only adding to it and not improving things as most believe thanks to massive marketing propaganda\u2013especially the ideas that they are \u2018green\/clean\u2019 and can be an adequate substitute for hydrocarbons.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But I won\u2019t say much about these things because, for the most part, you either accept what I am arguing or you don\u2019t\u2013evidence be damned. So, the following will either support your confirmation biases or it will challenge them. In fact, chances are that ecomodernists and technocornucopians that hold onto the idea that \u2018renewables\u2019 are some sort of technological saviour for our species haven\u2019t even read this far; instead, they probably stopped after the second paragraph.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Regardless, I believe it\u2019s past time for all of us to move beyond the initial grieving stages of denial, anger, and bargaining, and to accept that we are in a self-made predicament that has no \u2018solution\u2019 and recognise that it\u2019s all over but the crying. Perhaps, as a result, we should do as Erik Michaels advises: <\/span>Live Now!<\/span><\/a> Or, as John Michael Greer has argued: <\/span>Collapse now, and avoid the rush<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n Of course, being who and what we are (along with increasing avenues for disseminating our beliefs and defending them), we find ourselves increasingly enmeshed in \u2018narrative wars\u2019 about what our issues are and how we might \u2018solve\u2019 or \u2018mitigate\u2019 them. One of those narrative battles we are caught up in concerns the role of non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies and the industrial products that they would power.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n I offer a brief introduction and then comment I posted on a Facebook post in a group I help to administer regarding this conundrum.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The post in question is the sharing of a clip making the social media rounds for those engaged in our energy dilemma from the new television series <\/span>Landman<\/span><\/a> starring Billy Bob Thornton and as imdb.com states about the show, it is \u201cA modern-day tale of fortune seeking in the world of West Texas oil rigs.\u201d\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Here is a <\/span>link<\/span><\/a> to the youtube video clip that was shared as well as a transcript of the dialogue in the clip. It gets right to the point of what some of the critics of \u2018renewables\u2019 have been arguing for the past number of years. And, of course, raises the hackles of those that support these technologies.<\/span><\/p>\n \u201cDo you have any idea how much diesel they have to burn to mix that much concrete or make that steel, and haul this shit out here and put it together with a 450 foot crane? You wanna guess how much oil it takes to lubricate that thing or winterize it? In its 20-year lifespan it won\u2019t offset the carbon footprint of making it.<\/span><\/p>\n And don\u2019t even get me started on solar panels and the lithium in your Tesla battery. And never mind the fact that if the whole world decided to go electric tomorrow, we don\u2019t have the transmission lines to get the electricity to the cities. It would take 30 years if we started tomorrow. And unfortunately for your grandkids, we have a 120-year petroleum-based infrastructure. Our whole lives depend on it.<\/span><\/p>\n Hell, it\u2019s in everything\u2026 that road we came in on, the wheels on every car ever made, including yours, tennis rackets, lipstick, refrigerators, antihistamines, anything plastic, your cell phone case, artificial heart valves, any kind of clothing that\u2019s not made with animal or plant fibers, soap, hand lotion, garbage bags, fishing boats, you name it\u2026 every fucking thing. And you know what the kicker is\u2026 we\u2019re gonna run out before we find a replacement.<\/span><\/p>\n And believe me, if Exxon thought them fucking things were the future, they\u2019d be putting them all over the goddamn place. Getting oil out of the ground is the most dangerous job in the world, we don\u2019t do it because we like it, we do it because we\u2019ve run out of options. And you\u2019re out here trying to find something to blame for the danger besides your boss. There ain\u2019t nobody to blame but the demand that we keep pumping it.\u201d<\/span><\/p>\n As is typical when \u2018renewables\u2019 are criticised, a response to the post stating that all of the above was completely untrue and oil industry propaganda was made.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Now, I understand this \u2018instinctual\u2019 response to a firmly held belief. It\u2019s so easy and natural to dismiss\/deny the criticisms made about \u2018renewables\u2019 as simply oil industry propaganda\u2013especially given the rising awareness that all monied interests engage in such marketing propaganda to sell their products: they highlight and repeat the supposed benefits of their product and\/or the drawbacks of any competition (this holds true for ideas and narratives as well).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Only it doesn\u2019t make much sense for this issue since the large hydrocarbon-extraction companies are <\/span>heavily<\/b> invested in \u2018renewables\u2019…but that\u2019s a whole other kettle of fish that gets overlooked by many\/most.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Anyways, humans tend to be loathe to hold conflicting thoughts, almost as much as anxiety-provoking ones. The internal stress due to the cognitive dissonance created \u2018motivates\u2019 us to reject ideas that challenge our beliefs\/preconceived notions. It doesn\u2019t matter how \u2018true\u2019 or reflective of \u2018objective\u2019 reality the challenging beliefs\/notions are. We deny\/ignore them. We then tend to double down on our own beliefs to reduce the stress\/anxiety that arises and protect them, sometimes quite vociferously (oftentimes simply internally), against the \u2018offending\u2019 opinion\/idea\/argument.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n But the assertions made in the show\u2019s dialogue are not untrue. In fact, virtually every statement is true once one moves aside the opaque curtains that have been drawn around the \u2018renewables\u2019 industry by its marketers and supposedly well-meaning, environmentally-supportive advocates of them.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n These items are not \u2018green\/clean\u2019 but finite resource-dependent, industrial products requiring massive energy and material inputs, and creating significant ecosystem destruction and gargantuan waste streams (and again, sorry, but recycling doesn\u2019t eliminate these).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In particular, these \u2018renewables\u2019 require significant quantities of hydrocarbons up and down their production chains, meaning the carbon footprint is huge, as is the ecosystem destruction beyond carbon emissions\u2013especially if one considers the massive mining and material refinement necessary (and, no, you can\u2019t electrify most of the equipment or processes required\u2013to say little about the scale of such an undertaking that would be needed, sorry).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In addition, there do not exist the mineral resources to scale these \u2018clean\u2019 technologies up and build out the infrastructure to supply the electricity they would produce to the extent being suggested by their advocates (and yes, sorry, but attempting this would create massive ecological-systems destruction\u2013massive).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n The reality is that hydrocarbons, and especially oil, are the master resource for the vast array of complexities our modern world has developed over the past 125+ years. They are indeed in almost everything and help to ensure most food production, potable water procurement, and regional shelter needs\u2013the truly fundamental things we need.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Without hydrocarbons our modern, industrialised world and its many complexities are fully and completely fubar. And given it is a finite resource that has encountered significant diminishing returns on our investments in its extraction, the writing is on the wall for what lies ahead\u2026and it\u2019s not pretty, not at all. Sorry.<\/span><\/p>\n This is in no way to suggest that we need to or should encourage \u2018drill, baby, drill\u2019 for more hydrocarbons. I am not a \u2018fossil fuel shill\u2019 as I have been repeatedly accused of when I criticise \u2018renewables\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n What I believe we should be doing (but won\u2019t except for some small pockets here and there) is using our knowledge about ecological overshoot and pre\/historical episodes of societal collapse to inform our path going forward. For me that means encouraging purposeful \u2018simplification\u2019 so that we have some kind of say in our inevitable contraction\u2013as minimal as this input may be.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n We should not be (as we seem to be) doubling\/tripling down on our standard problem-solving strategy of attempting greater complexity, especially via increased growth and technological innovation. I say this because this approach results in an exacerbation of our drawing down of finite resources and overloading of compensatory sinks that are contributing to an even more precipitous \u2018collapse\u2019 when it inevitably appears at our doorstep.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n In addition, and perhaps more importantly, I would encourage everyone to be making one\u2019s local community as self-sufficient\/-reliant as possible.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Finally, sorry if this argument challenges your beliefs, but that is what the overwhelming evidence shows\u2013not that I need to stress that here at the end of my thoughts given that if you\u2019ve read this far, you probably agreed with most I\u2019ve what I\u2019ve had to say here and already know this.<\/span><\/p>\n I close with my comment on that post discussed above:<\/span><\/p>\n The \u2018electrify everything\u2019 via an \u2018energy transition\u2019 narrative is a ruse. It is designed to market industrial products and the idea that we can and will replace hydrocarbons with \u2018clean\/green\u2019 energy then carry on with our business-as-usual trajectory\u2026growing, expanding, improving, etc., etc..<\/span><\/p>\n It is making a shitload of money for those that already sit atop our wealth and power structures while exacerbating our finite resource drawdown and ecological systems destruction. It is not doing any of the beneficial things its marketers claim.<\/span><\/p>\n Just as we have been repeatedly lied into wars through massive propaganda, we are being led astray about the efficacy and \u2018sustainability\u2019 of \u2018renewables\u2019 so that a few can benefit from what is for all intents and purposes just another profiteering racket.<\/span><\/p>\n It also attempts to create an Overton Window where the necessary but neglected concept of degrowth with its economic contraction aspect is overlooked\/dismissed\/ignored.<\/span><\/p>\n The \u2018renewables\u2019 industry is NOT a friend of the planet nor any kind of saviour. It is a big industrial business selling products.<\/span><\/p>\n See: <\/span>https:\/\/stevebull.substack.com\/p\/todays-contemplation-collapse-cometh-16f<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n If you\u2019ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, <\/span>please consider ordering the trilogy of my \u2018fictional\u2019 novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian)<\/b>, via my <\/span>website<\/span><\/a> or the link below \u2014 the \u2018profits\u2019 of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers).<\/span><\/p>\n 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).\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n 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.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n Costs (Canadian dollars):<\/span> Feel free to throw in a \u2018tip\u2019 on top of the base cost if you wish; perhaps by paying in U.S. dollars instead of Canadian. Every few cents\/dollars helps\u2026\u00a0<\/b><\/p>\n https:\/\/paypal.me\/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US\u00a0<\/b><\/a><\/p>\n If you do not hear from me within 48 hours or you are having trouble with the system, please email me: <\/span>olduvaitrilogy@gmail.com<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n You can also find a variety of resources, particularly my summary notes for a handful of texts, especially Catton\u2019s Overshoot and Tainter\u2019s Collapse: see <\/span>here<\/span><\/a>.<\/span><\/p>\n Released September 30, 2024<\/b><\/p>\n It Bears Repeating: Best Of\u2026Volume 2<\/b><\/p>\n A compilation of writers focused on the nexus of limits to growth, energy, and ecological overshoot.<\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/span><\/p>\n 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\u2013and most certainly than what mainstream media\/politics would have us believe.<\/span><\/p>\n
\n
\n
\n
\n
\n<\/span>Book 1: $2.99<\/span>
\n<\/span>Book 2: $3.89<\/span>
\n<\/span>Book 3: $3.89<\/span>
\n<\/span>Trilogy: $9.99<\/span><\/p>\n
\n