Your post says just what I meant earlier when I noted that “this is really sad stuff.”
Sad, of course, that it is happening and also sad that some don’t seem to care.
That maybe true climber, but I’m here right now on this planet in this body. To me and my community, we matter and so do giraffes and whales, and (here in the northeastern U.S.) so do catbirds and common yellowthroats and Wolves and beech and white oak and white ash and hemlock and dragonflies and bumblebees and American ginseng and wild leeks and trillium and great blue herons and oyster mushrooms and painted turtles and blue spotted salamanders and the spring down in my woods and the swamp it feeds and … They really matter to me. They are my community and to a large extent, we thrive or struggle together.
We have managed to evolve into the only species that we know of in the universe that is capable of forethought, planning and conceptualizing beyond finding our next meal and a safe place to hide. Those abilities give us the opportunity and responsibility to protect and nurture life as we know it. The failure to do that will be monumental and horrendous. If we get it right we can build a world truly worth inheriting for succeeding generations of all species. How can we not try?
That argument about the earth recovering no matter what we throw at it sounds like an attempt to perpetuate the “business as usual” scenario that was well modeled in World3. It’s definitely the most profitable. So who benefits if we swallow that argument without blinking? It’s not 99.9% of us homo saps and ever other species out there.
My grandmother was born on a farm in rural Alabama in 1889. She died in 1985 and saw it all. Horses to moon rockets in a single lifetime. She was a suffragette and temperance organizer during WWI. She encouraged me to become a pastor, a calling that did not apply to me at all when I read LtG in 1974. I had read Lester Brown in Foreign Policy in 1972–“The Coming of the World Food Crisis” and wanted to engage in a social justice career. I joined Lester Brown’s ODC in 1975 but he had left to start a new non-profit called WorldWatch. I spent 4 years in a think tank considering how to include the desperately poor in the world economic system. My motto was “Think globally and act locally”. The answer was sustainable economic systems for the developed world which would include austerity for the rich and alternative development strategies for the poor. Limits to growth was clear that we needed to get busy providing a future for everyone or it was going to be the Four Horsemen. When Reagan was elected, I left DC and expected collapse by the Year 2000.
I have been wrong a long time.
So now I am a dentist facing retirement. My grandfather had left the farm in 1910 to become a dentist, my father became a dentist, as did I. I have considered buying land for the last 20 years in order to return to the land. But I have no idea how to farm. I share many commentators reluctance to take that on as a senior citizen. My wife and I have everything we need to make it to age 100 under current conditions. When will those assumptions become problematic? As everyone here knows–At any time.
But in dodge ball you don’t move until the ball is thrown even if there are 5 people throwing at you… And that’s where we are.
Now as for political action to be a “help” in these times, I am with Yeats: “We have no gift to set a statesman right, He has had enough of meddling who can please, a young girl in the indolence of her youth or an old man upon a winter’s night.”
We should enjoy our Fortune above the curve and educate the interested. My morning paper reports that a local business sold out to a conglomerate for $1.6 Billion, proceeds to be shared among the the 2,300 employees. Why would my neighbors (or mayor) listen to my concerns? Things are good in the defense contracting and security state world. So in my opinion, the money has to fail and soon… I don’t really like that solution since I have money but we are all going to need to sacrifice if we want to end up somewhere worth going.
Those abilities give us the opportunity and responsibility to protect and nurture life as we know it. The failure to do that will be monumental and horrendous. If we get it right we can build a world truly worth inheriting for succeeding generations of all species. How can we not try?Here's the place that I am in perfect alignment with you Doug. 100%
Such as Jamie Dimon? Who, I believe, is one example of many uber rich people that have completely lost their bearings on the meaning and purpose of life due to the immense wealth they’ve accumulated, morphing into evil enemies of mankind and the planet as a result.
As far as acquiring farmland, gotta wonder how long that will be effective. The climate is almost certain to deteriorate faster and faster, making worldwide ecological collapse inevitable. Maybe it’ll take 20 yrs or more–and I’m not criticizing those pursuing the farmland strategy-but I think we’re on borrowed, very short time, where growing food becomes impossible. Hope I’m way wrong.
This an Ezra Klein podcast with Saul Griffith who has a solid background into how to deal with climate change through decarbonization. Its an interesting and encouraging look at what is possible through looking at energy flows.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0wqsEYRK2ekZFuvHM6oF4R
Thank you Dave G for this link. It is good to know how/why the sociopath elite think how they we can continue exponential business as normal. Actually I learned much and liked much of what he said, but his PT Barnum style and obvious BS and lies overshadowed the interesting facts (aluminum cans now use something like 8X less aluminum, energy needed for manufacturing keeps going down etc)…
Christine Lagarde, CNN, NY Times etc are nuts for this guy and cite his view that the world problem of resource use and limits to growth due to exponential economic growth is solved by (what he calls) the “infinite creativity” of people.
All of his “data” comes from recorded information about consumption of what he calls “molecules” (including oil, plastic, paper, steel, concrete energy etc) inside the U.S. He points out that the US economic expansion since the 1970s is no longer correlated with resource consumption (except for plastics production). Further, increased energy is not needed for economic growth see 34, 35:40.
Agreement: he points out how paper use has declined much (due to internet and computers). In the same argument he explains that the smart phone is our savior because we no longer have to lug around manufactured cameras, clock radios, tape recorders, atlases, barometers, and geolocation devices everywhere we go, which saves resources. Hail to the mighty smart phone! (at 56:00)
He completely ignores 3 things in his conclusions that our economy is unlinked to resource use:
- the oil shocks of the 1070s, which forced decrease in consumption and higher efficiency due to economic pain was the major reason for a step down in energy/resource use that occurred then (why no mention?).
- He ignores the fact that most of the energy consumption and raw material consumption by Americans since the 1970’s has been location shifted from the U.S. to China. This is how he incorrectly concludes economic growth is unrelated to resource consumption. People buying crap in Walmart and manufacturing of hamburgers, plastic wrappers and soda cans is not a major use of resources, wherein most resource use, being outside the US, he simply ignored.
- Further, there is NO account for increased resource consumption by China for itself much less India and others (such as for example extreme increase in energy and resource use in recent years). The only real discussion of China is his argument that the one child policy did not have any significant effect on their population. (this is very wrong and indicates his inability to reason properly). But we have to believe him because he is from the Sloan Dept of Management at MIT!!
- he argues that recent 10 years has seen a leveling off in energy use. He does not connect this to the fact that middle income people were pushed down into the poor class via economic policies from guys like him and use less gasoline/energy because they are too poor now.
This elitist is narrow minded and bigoted in the same sense as AOC, who similarly overlooked China and India etc when she recently lectured us from a perch on high, that resource consumption in the planet is all due to the “white race.”
He argues near the end that we need a carbon tax because despite decrease in resource use, we need a tax to correct environmental problems with an economic tool given to us by our betters at Harvard and MIT.
His view on energy: “Fukushima was scary. Chernobyl was really scary. …(the) one energy source right now that is clean–super-clean–scalable, safe, and not intermittent.” fortunately, however, “[a] number of environmentalists have bravely spoken in support of nuclear power.” No acknowledgement of the value of large valuable land tracts that are removed from human civilization or the extraordinary costs to clean up the “super clean” technology in Fukushima, with no end in sight.
Most people are not concerned about resource (and energy) depletion. This self deluded and self appointed expert (and admiration of him by media pundits) is one reason. It may be a good idea to study what he is saying.
Doug
thank you for the reference. I recommend the Saul Griffith interview audio from 32-36 minutes. He explains parameters relevant for how to get energy in the future. Even if nuclear electricity were free, the average grid transmission cost of 7.8 cents alone is higher than the cost of rooftop solar electric. The data indicate that a small community that makes its own energy locally can greatly out-compete a globalist company that provides the energy from far away.
4. he argues that recent 10 years has seen a leveling off in energy use. He does not connect this to the fact that middle income people were pushed down into the poor class via economic policies from guys like him and use less gasoline/energy because they are too poor now.Mots - this is happy talk by Team Elite, telling themselves (and everyone else) what they most want to hear. Due to the nature of being able to ship off your energy consumption across the globe, one cannot look at any particular locale and say that "energy use is leveling off." It's complete garbage. Because it's now a global economy, we have to look at the whole world. Here's what we see.
Whoops! No "leveling off" yet to be seen anywhere in the data!
A second, and very large error he makes, is in using GDP as a divisor in the "things are getting better" argument he makes.
As I somewhat tediously point out, to the extent that GDP is comprised of consumptive debt spending, it is false. It is merely tomorrow's demand consumed today. One has to back out the debt to normalize the true organic GDP growth. Further, to the extent that abundant credit growth is there, so is financialization. Is the $50 billion that big banks "make" by being paid interest on money the Fed printed and handed to them in the first place really, truly the same as $50 billion of solar equipment installed? No, it is clearly not, but GDP measures it as exactly the same.
When tomorrow finally comes, GDP falls off, but energy use remains stubbornly high ("inelastic" because people still need to eat, stay warm, drive to work, etc).
The the ratio goes all to hell. Both GDP and energy use fall off, but GDP falls off far faster.
This is all utterly simply math and even easier concepts. Not hard. One has to be either completely deluded by one's own internal narrative, or willfully ignorant to avoid connecting these dots.
GDP (and what it really represents) as divisor is very interesting and helpful for me to understand.
At least the elite are thinking about the fundamental role of energy. People are waking up. Jeff Bezos in multiple interviews states that the most important thing in the world to him is stasis resulting from non growth of energy, and that is the main reason for his number one priority: space travel. https://youtu.be/SCpgKvZB_VQ?t=2294 https://youtu.be/LqL3tyCQ1yY?t=2061 https://youtu.be/KPbKeNghRYE?t=1840 So, some elites simply lie to themselves and some are thinking about how to get off the planet. As for me, I cant do either but plan on muddling through. But my aim for “Peak Prosperity” involves extensive use of appropriate technology, which can do much more than it has so far. I cannot go back to my grandparent’s agrarian lifestyle.
...seen a leveling off in energy use.?? Energy is so cheap today, why expect a "leveling off"? It's party time, price-wise. Look at the price of oil in gold if doubting this. Also, correlation is not causation. There is no proof GDP growth is dependent on cheap energy, and not the other way around. Should we not expect more energy use (and waste) with high GDP, and for it to be a nice linear relationship? We all like to consume more energy when flush, and stay home when tight. We simply do not know what will happen if the world runs short of energy. We have never see this before. But it's entirely possible we will just cut luxury energy waste and direct energy to productive GDP. Or conserve like hell with a victory garden in every yard. Or even discover fusion. But it's also very possible we melt down into endless war over energy and implode into a dark age. Myself, I make no prediction. And anyone familiar with the Black Swan or the 3-Body Problem should be with me. One possiblity: we use nuclear/coal/NG/conservation and see very little until the next generation. Or again, with a good war or two, energy could be on everyone's radar in 2020. A smart man remains open-minded and humble to events unless he has a long history of successful predictions, and even then should be cautious, since things change.
Also, correlation is not causation. There is no proof GDP growth is dependent on cheap energy, and not the other way around.Really? You think there's no proof? Interesting. The primacy of energy as THE master resource is so axiomatic to me that I've hardly thought it necessary to supply the proofs. Simple thought experiments should suffice. Food intake and the growth of a child are connected. Is it correlation or causation? Does food intake cause a child to grow, or is it the growing child that causes food to digest itself? Is it the work performed by gasoline that causes things to move about, or does moving things about cause gasoline to disappear? I guess we'll never know without 'proof.' :) GDP is the sum value add of all goods & services. Every single step of creating or adding value requires energy to be expended. Every one. If you can name some ways to add to GDP that don't require energy in some form, I'd be interested to hear what they are. Given that, how could it be that GDP causes energy, not the other way around?
The absolute dependence on energy to grow or to do anything primarily based on energy availability is dispositive to growth at the cellular level, micro level, organism level, society level… The essential role of energy is the most basic phenomenon potentiating or limiting growth of everything in the world. I don’t know why this should be in dispute.
In cellular biology, the intermediate form of energy (created by digesting/oxidizing food stuffs) is “ATP,” which is actually nicknamed “the currency of the cell” because of its primary role in everything that happens. ATP drives and its availability decides if an anabolic (building up: “growing”) reaction will even occur. This has a role similar to money as it is a universal currency for creating growth and is the prime form of available energy. If excess ATP is available, growth occurs.
Look around you, most everything colored in the natural world is a result of the competition for energy/growth. The greens, yellows/reds are molecules that absorb light energy and make it available for plants to grow, they are competing desperately for energy, and their energy competition success directly determines their growth. Much or most of the color you see in a leaf results from the competition for energy. Leaves in the forest understory are darker and broad in an attempt to get enough energy to grow. The main activity of animals is a search for energy and those that succeed the most grow the most. This is so basic that it is not even stated.
Human civilizations and their growth have ALWAYS been fundamentally based on energy. The ancient American civilizations and the rates of their growth were completely based on the availability of maize, which the government/gangsters took from the people and gave to their friends as a form of money. The more the community had, the more it could grow (or not contract). The store houses of maize were entirely analogous to the accumulation and use of money by modern societies. The culture and confiscation and storage/trading of energy in the form of rice allowed for and determined the growth of civilizations in Asia such as China and Japan. Similarly, the storable form of energy known as wheat was the basis for the organization and growth of Egypt and Roman empires. Rice, maize, wheat etc were forms of energy that were used very much like money is used today and were directly responsible for the growth of settlements and empires, not unlike how fossil fuel is used now.
There must be books somewhere written on this topic.
I have used the term catabolic collapse for a few years now. In cancer patients, the body eats itself to remain alive (a catabolic process) at the end. Unfortunately we are eating the seed-corn (and energy) that could have provided sustainability.
The reset of expectations that is necessary will not happen until the crisis cannot be avoided any longer.
Since listening to this podcast a couple of times something no one else picked up on has been bothering me. As I have said in the past I sometimes see or hear things differently than a number of the other regulars on this site, and so with this nagging thought I feel compelled to comment.
Dennis Meadows: In the early ‘70s, a group called the Club of Rome, which is an international network of mainly corporate leaders, became concerned about the interconnection of emerging problems, and out of their conversations evolved finally a project at MIT, which I directed over a course of two years.
We gathered available data going back to the year 1900 to create a computer simulation model showing the interaction between population, economic capital, and environmental resources, and used it to project out to 2100 under a bunch of different assumptions, assumptions about social change, technical change, and so forth.
And the basic conclusion was that if the policies which were then in force and which had produced enormous growth in in welfare around the world by early ‘70s, if those were continued, we would see further growth through maybe 2020, and then the physical realities would start to impress themselves and there would be decline.
Okay, my second thought first. Chris has said, in the past, and a number of others as well - “follow the money”, soooo lets take a look. First the Club of Rome got the Volkswagen Foundation to fund the study that Mr. Meadows researched and created. A brief search on the interned indicated the Club of Rome was created by the Rockefeller’s and other Industrialists. The Foundation was funded by wealthy and powerful people as well. It stands to reason that we could say that some of the richest, most powerful people on the planet wanted the information this study provided.
And the conclusion of the study?—
And the basic conclusion was that if the policies which were then in force and which had produced enormous growth in in welfare around the world by early ‘70s, if those were continued, we would see further growth through maybe 2020, and then the physical realities would start to impress themselves and there would be decline.
Wait, what, did I read that right??? Enormous growth in WELFARE around the world??? Perhaps I did not understand the sentence and or the meaning of welfare. So what is the meaning of welfare? -
"the health, happiness and fortunes of a person or group" "Statutory procedure or social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need." Sooo- the conclusion - policies produced a growth in welfare and because of welfare we would experience..... physical realities. Hmmmm lets see Mr. and Mrs. Middle and Poor class were Given so much welfare the planet is now going to experience "physical realities". Welfare as in clean water, nutritious food, a shelter to live in. Surroundings that were clean and fertile. Are those God given rights or Welfare? Welfare to be meted out for profit? And the millions of people who live in polluted, toxic, areas and forced to live in substandard shacks, forced to eat garbage food and drink dirty water? Is that welfare too? Put simply----- allowing people to exist---- is Welfare? And of course there is always some profit component in the equation.In the podcast the question was asked why didn't people seem to get our predicament and why weren't they doing more. I suggest that that's not the right question, rather - Why have the richest, most powerful, most influential and well connected people done so little with the information. THE most powerful people on the planet have known for almost 50 years the information in this study. JFK rallied a nation to put a man on the moon but this topic was not deemed to be priority number one by those with the power? This is the real story, a story not told. A story to be hushed up. A story ever so much more exquisitely interesting than the scientist who wrote the study. But I understand, following the money and telling the "real" story might offend and make important individuals uncomfortable. So the people of the world were given welfare and the world went to shit. Next they and we may just become the "expendable" class. Welfare indeed! AKGrannyWGrit
Every single step of creating or adding value requires energy to be expended. Every one.This simply isn't true. For example, I added real value (however defined) to my life just today by discovering a shortcut to a friend's house. Saves energy, saves time, and adds value. I added value to my life by using the web to send a large note with pictures rather than a postcard with no pictures like last year. Faster, saves money, better product for all involved, for less energy expended. I added real value to my health by intermittent fasting. Cost me nothing, even saves energy, plus saves on health bills for years to come, and adds real value to my life. Now, one could claim GDP is now "lowered" through my efficiency. But that's just playing word games, because my new resources and energy I've saved will merely be applied to GDP in the end by myself or others.