PLEASE NOTE: This list is just ‘of interest’. It does not mean I personally endorse or agree with the content of a listed article; in fact, some I certainly do not agree with. But these are all part and parcel of stories told by our species about our world. Some are published by the authors for ‘educational’ and/or ‘informational’ purposes, some are for far more nefarious ‘narrative management’ ones–you, the reader, can decide which is which. Keep in mind a relevant passage from a Bill Rees paper: “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.”

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…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

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.

View more on Steve Bull's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on October 01, 2025 01:00

September 24, 2025

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXVI–We’re Saved! Fusion Energy Is Imminent.

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXVI–
We’re Saved! Fusion Energy Is Imminent.

This Contemplation has been prompted by a Zerohedge article (reposting of a The Epoch Times one) that highlights ‘progress’ by China towards achieving fusion energy.

CLICK HERE

If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview .

My initial reaction just to the article headline (China on Cusp of Commercializing US-Pioneered ‘Holy Grail’ Fusion Energy) was clear in my Zerohedge comment on the post: “Another “fusion is just around the corner…we just need financial support” moment. Funny how this has been happening over and over for close to a century now.”

And, sure enough, the article didn’t disappoint.

The article asserts that within the next handful of years (by 2030), China will be the first to master this “‘holy grail’ of energy solutions”. According to the MIT physicists involved in similar research, the lack of financial support by the US has been handicapping them and thus providing the Chinese the opportunity to leapfrog ahead of the US in fusion ‘breakthroughs’.

[NOTE: this article smells very similar to this one put out just three days prior to that of The Epoch Times. Coincidence? I think not. There’s also this one from last year highlighting all the potential benefits of fusion reactors and the need for its funding. It’s ‘interesting’ how every once in a while a new ‘breakthrough’ in the fusion research arena is announced…along with a request for increased funding.]

The possibility of such progress by Chinese scientists apparently provides the Chinese Communist Party with the opportunity to place a stranglehold on steering geopolitics and is just too much for US Representative Randy Weber (R-Texas) who chairs the House Science, Space, and Technology Committee Energy Subcommittee. He opened a recent meeting with the following declaration: “Fusion energy technologies must be developed and deployed by nations that uphold democratic values, transparency, and international cooperation—not by authoritarian regimes that might exploit energy dominance as a weapon.”

I could go off on a bit of a political tangent here. Heaven knows I’d like to, especially as it pertains to what amounts to yet another racket by the ruling elite (including privileged academics) to continue pillaging national treasuries; and/or the US assertion that it “…uphold[s] democratic values, transparency, and international cooperation” or “…exploit energy dominance as a weapon” (ah, wasn’t it the US that ‘weaponised’ oil with its petrodollar deal in the 1970s and has engaged in ongoing sordid forays into controlling oil and gas reserves across the planet with its hundreds of globe-spanding military installations and persistent regime change operations?), but will focus upon the prospects of fusion energy riding in to save humanity from its woeful ways.

A Quick Review Of Fusion Energy History

The theoretical basis for the harnessing of fusion energy began with early 20th century proposals regarding how stars fuse hydrogen into helium releasing immense energy. Practical research surrounding this idea accelerated during the Manhattan Project and led to the development of the hydrogen bomb in 1952 that proved fusion was indeed possible (but in an explosive and uncontrolled form).

Garnering control of the process became the focus for the next 20 years. Scientists in the USSR developed the most effective container for the plasma fuel, the tokamak (a doughnut-shaped magnetic bottle). In 1960, lasers were used to compress tiny fuel pellets to achieve fusion conditions, and was called inertial confinement.

For the next 30 years or so there occurred both progress and setbacks. Experiments in both the EU and US produced fusion reactions but energy output always failed to exceed energy input. The exorbitant costs and complexity of the research motivated the planning (initiated in 1985) and construction (ongoing) of a massive tokamak (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor–ITER) to try and demonstrate net energy gain–aiming for a 2025 successful demonstration.

The last 25 years has witnessed the ITER continuing to be constructed. It is still well behind schedule (the 2025 start has been pushed to 2035-2040) and over-budget (from an estimated €5 billion to €20 to €40 billion, so far)–quite typical of most (all?) government-supported boondoggles. A number of private industries have entered the fray during this period (and are receiving significant subsidies/funding from governments), with several pursuing supposedly faster and more compact designs using newer technologies such as high-temperature superconductors.

Milestones occurred in 2022 when the US National Ignition Facility achieved ‘ignition’ using inertial confinement. The following year, the Joint European Torus research that predated ITER claimed to have finally achieved positive energy output…for about 5 seconds.

Both of these events were heralded as significant ‘breakthroughs’ bringing commercialised fusion energy ever closer. Any. Moment. Now.

Fusion Is and Always Will Be 20-30 Years Away

An ongoing ‘joke’ regarding the commercialisation of fusion energy is based upon the observation that overly-optimistic timelines regarding its impending success have been repeatedly pushed further into the future. In the late 1990s, researchers claimed they were less than 20 years away from success. In the first decade of the current century that was extended to about 28 years. And only 10 years ago, their estimate was still about 28 years.

More recently, the timeline has been reduced significantly with private business pilot plants supposedly beginning to operate within the next 5-10 years and ITER in 10-15 years.

Hurdles Remaining For Commercialisation

There still remain significant impediments to achieving the promised land of widespread commercialisation let alone successful demonstrations of long-lasting energy output.

It has been argued that these snags are mostly engineering complications and not scientific in nature, so it’s simply a matter of getting some minor materials science and engineering right. And then there’s the economic difficulties to get figured out.

First, there’s the search for developing materials that can withstand the bombardment from high-energy neutrons that make the containment material radioactive and weaker, leading to quickened degradation and failure to contain the fuel. Then there’s the not non-significant scale difference between a small experimental setting and a reliable power plant in both materials and funding. In addition, engineers still have to figure out how to capture efficiently the heat from the reaction to convert it to electricity. Finally, there’s also the lack of sufficient fuel (e.g., tritium) and the costs associated with its procurement to overcome.

Let’s take a deeper dive into this last hurdle in the few listed above for the widespread commercialisation of fusion energy, let alone even small-scale prototypes: fusion reactor fuel.

The primary source of fuel for fusion reactors are two isotopes of hydrogen: Tritium and Deuterium.

Fusion enthusiasts point out that the fuel Deuterium (the one most commonly used in current fusion experiments) is widely abundant via sea water and as such could provide millions of years of fusion fuel. What they fail to mention is that while the primary process for extracting this stable hydrogen isotope is well-established (known as the Girdler Sulfide process), it is very technically complex and energy intensive. The industrial plants required to extract Deuterium are major facilities that require huge energy and resource inputs. The few that currently exist do so primarily to produce heavy water for fission reactors.

While Deuterium is the main fuel, Tritium has become very important as research has found that a Deuterium-Tritium mix is more successful for ‘ignition’. However, the process for procuring tritium is much more challenging. At present, the primary source is derived from CANDU heavy-water fission reactors. While there are plans for future fusion reactors to produce their own Tritium, this is currently not possible and depends upon the development and successful application of theoretical and untried technologies (e.g., ‘breeding’ blankets).

A further hiccup to the use of Tritium is the significant gap between current inventories (20-25 kilograms) and the amounts required for any commercial fusion reactors (55-125 kilograms per year for a 1 gigawatt reactor).

So, from a geologic standpoint the main fuel is relatively abundant but does require significant resource inputs to procure. The more efficient fuel mixture is theoretically possible but at present not available except for small, experimental settings, with needed supply demands depending upon as-yet-to-be-hatched technological chickens.

If It Walks, Looks, and Sounds Like A Duck…

If all of the above sounds rather resource intensive (especially in terms of energy), then you’d be spot on. And this is not a non-significant hurdle.

It’s somewhat oversimplified to argue that the ultimate goal of fusion is to achieve a higher energy output than the input required to create the reaction. An efficiency loop must be created where the electricity to heat the plasma must come from the reactor itself and there are a number of inputs that must be considered before any outputs to power grids can take place.

Massive and continuous refrigeration of the superconducting magnets is required–they need to be close to absolute zero. Enormous pumps must be powered to ensure the massive chambers are maintained in an ultra-high vacuum state. The processing of the required fuels must be carried out. And, extensive cooling loops must be maintained to manage the heat from the reactors and the breeding blankets.

The relatively minor energy outputs achieved thus far come nowhere close to being able to meet these needs.

But it’s more than just the energy and engineering needs. These reactors are materially intensive as well.

The high-energy neutron bombardment of reactor walls means conventional steel walls would require replacement frequently (perhaps every handful of years). The as-yet-to-be-developed breeding blankets must be integrated into the reactors and is expected to be exceedingly complex and a resource-heavy endeavour. The superconducting magnets are composed of extremely exotic materials (e.g., Niobium-Tin) and cooled by liquid helium whose supply chains are limited and quite expensive. And, the components are enormous in size; the ITER tokamak weighs 23,000 tonnes.

That’s one hell of a lot of energy and material/mineral resources for an unproven technology that has already consumed massive resources for its multi-decade experiments. So, to date, the quest for fusion energy has been an enormous resource sink with little if anything but a few well-lined pockets and academic careers to show for it.

Jevon’s Paradox, Entropy, and the Human Proclivity To Add New Energy Sources To Our Growth Tendencies

The efficiency trap of Jevon’s Paradox jumps to mind every time I read about the latest ‘breakthrough’ in the energy arena and successful fusion reactors would unlikely be an exception to it should they ever become commercially widespread.

Virtually every time there has been technological innovation that has resulted in resource efficiencies, the consumption of the resource increases rather than decreases and it would not be unprecedented for ‘clean’ and ‘inexpensive’ fusion-produced energy to result in the loosening of constraints on human activity (although, I’m still awaiting for the ‘too cheap to meter’ nuclear energy bonanza promised during its build up in the 1950s; a phrase uttered in1954 by Lewis L. Strauss, then Chairman of the United States Atomic Energy Commission, to the National Association of Science Writers in New York City and featured as a headline in the New York Times the next day). And expanding human activity is perhaps the last thing we need on a planet already experiencing the detrimental impacts of human ecological overshoot.

Then there’s entropy. While fusion-derived energy may address humanity’s thirst for energy, this does nothing to address the material sink dilemma. Human complex societies are dependent not just on energy flows but on finite material stocks. And while fusion may (I repeat, may) provide a massive flow of energy, the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates that any activity increases disorder so a massive energy influx would accelerate the planet’s ordered concentrations of natural resources towards waste and pollution.

And given the human tendency to take new energy sources and add them to those already in use (and not ‘transition’ to something new as is commonly discussed), we would experience additional pressure upon the planetary boundaries of Earth, most of which have already been breached due to our extractive and destructive practices.

In other words, the development of fusion-derived power would exacerbate our fundamental predicament of ecological overshoot making not only the cliff higher that we are heading towards, but increasing our speed toward the edge of it

We’re Really Saved This Time! No, Really!

The history surrounding the quest for harnessing the energy from a fusion reaction demonstrates a recurring pattern of ‘breakthrough’ announcements along with requests for further and increased funding, and postponement of commercial viability. Commercial application of the process has always been some years away but at the same time just around the corner, suggesting over-optimism or something more nefarious at play such as the prolongation of revenue streams for those involved in its pursuit.

There exist a number of intractable hurdles in both the technical and resource arenas. Fuel is scarce despite assertions to the contrary, and procurement of it is very energy-intensive with workarounds theoretical and unproven. The research is very materially- and energy-demanding resulting in net output being negative for the most part. In addition, there has yet to be a material created at scale that can withstand the neutron bombardment of the reaction without degrading quickly and requiring perpetual and frequent replacement.

There’s also a socioecological dilemma in that the success of net positive energy from any future fusion reactors would likely add to humanity’s growth-based economies and exacerbate the human ecological overshoot predicament and our breaching of safe planetary boundaries.

Fusion is no saviour in this light but yet another catalyst for even more ecological destruction at the hands of our species. But as is typical for this storytelling ape that when required conveniently ignores the fundamental Laws of Thermodynamics, ecology, and its own behaviour, it has crafted another narrative where the obviously misguided path it is following is wrapped up in a cloak that helps to reduce anxiety and pat itself on the back for its ingenuity and technological prowess.

A handful of relevant articles/posts:

Fusion | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse

Fusion is already running out of fuel | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse

Fusion: Book review of “Sun in a Bottle” | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse

Fusion at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse

Fusion: Tokamak Obstacles | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse

Why fusion power is Forever Away | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse

The future of energy: Why fusion power is always ’30 years away’ – NU Sci Magazine

Introduction—Fusion, forever the energy of tomorrow? – Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

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.”

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…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

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.

View more on Steve Bull's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 24, 2025 10:15

The Bulletin: September 17-23, 2025

The Bull etin: September 17-23, 2025This past week’s articles of interest…

CLICK HERE

If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview .

How to think about the prospects of truly green growth | Aeon Essays

UN Sessions on Solar Geoengineering Trigger Unease – Inside Climate News

Book Review: Small is Beautiful – by Shane

The Calculus of Collapse: Lessons from Lehman Brothers

Newsflash: Predicaments Are Not Problems

Water Wars Strike Again: How Afghanistan’s Hydropolitics Will Reshape Eurasia’s Geopolitics – Global Research

Echoes Of Collapse

Robin Hood Was Right. Shadow Libraries Are Too

Why the Forest Needs Dead Trees Dead. Dead Trees Are Not ‘Wood Waste’

Drill baby drill ‘will kill’

Big Ag Is Threatening New Mexico’s Water Supply

Bill McKibben’s Far-Too-Sunny Outlook for Solar Power | The New Republic

The Patterns Of Collapse From Rome To Today

Potemkin Sustainability – by Matt Orsagh

Grid Down: Death Of A Nation

Is This the Last Bubble

The planet is dying faster than we thought | Live Science

Russia’s Energy Crisis is MUCH Worse Than We Thought

Why are Humans so Smart? And so Dumb? – by Ugo Bardi

World Must Spend $540 Billion Every Year Looking For Oil Just To Maintain Current Output | ZeroHedge

Microplastics Explained: Latest Research Findings And A Quick Routine Change | ZeroHedge

Some Big Economic Pieces Starting to Break

Limits to Growth was right about collapse – the next wave

Global water supplies threatened by overmining of aquifers – Salon.com

How the West Snookered Itself in Energy Geopolitics

Not What We Expected: Why Our Fixes Will Fail

Thermodynamics takes no Prisoners | Damn the Matrix

Power To the People Why Energy Access Is the Backbone To Recovery From Collapse

What’s Missing In This Picture? – The Honest Sorcerer

How we turned everything to shit | Damn the Matrix

Devouring the Earth

New Zealand’s Gas Crunch

Shell Games – by Geoffrey Deihl

The 5 Arcs & 7 Cracks of Systemic Collapse

China On Cusp Of Commercializing US-Pioneered ‘Holy Grail’ Fusion Energy | ZeroHedge

Abundance is a Dead End – by Matt Orsagh

Does Our Growing Intolerance of ‘Others’ Portend, or Reflect, Collapse? | how to save the world

On How We Cope Or Not With An Overwhelming World

More Bubble Trouble

Price Arbitrage (Buy Low, Sell High) Dominates the Use of Utility-Scale Battery Systems | Wolf Street

An Impending Population Crisis? World Fertility Rate Hits 60-Year Low | ZeroHedge

Human activity has extended fire seasons across the world

The Hidden Risk In 90 Percent Of America’s Drinking Water – And How To Reduce It | ZeroHedge

Why I will celebrate Human Extinction

8 Billion Will Die! | Do the Math

Resource Insights: Can authoritarians solve our environmental problems?

The Luddite Renaissance is in full swing

Google Admits Biden White House Pressured Content Removal, Promises to Restore Banned YouTube Accounts

Money, Credit, Growth and Depression: It’s Complicated

Revealed: The Top 5 Myths of Modern Finance

Fatal Delusions and the Curse Of ‘Maximum Power’

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…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

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.

View more on Steve Bull's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 24, 2025 01:00

September 21, 2025

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXV–We’re Saved! Bamboo and Hemp.

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXV– We’re Saved! Bamboo and Hemp.

CLICK HERE

If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview .

Not long ago a Facebook Friend (someone I know through my brother) shared one of those clickbait FB Group posts that I couldn’t help but comment on (you can read the exchange at the end of this Contemplation). It got me doing some more extensive research on one of a variety of ‘panaceas’ touted by individuals and groups (many of whom are attempting to deal with their growing awareness of issues confronting our planet and complex societies, and have begun searching for ‘solutions’ and a sense of control–what some would refer to as the bargaining stage of grieving). In this particular case, it is bamboo and hemp riding in to save the day.

An often repeated claim is that these plants are there for the taking and can lead to the promised land of sustainable living arrangements, but we’re just not paying attention to the opportunity they provide.

Just look at the claims in the post replicated below. Bamboo and hemp are not only capable of changing the world with real solutions for a better future, but can create jobs while fighting climate change, and will replace hydrocarbons with ‘clean’ biofuels and hydrocarbon-based plastics with bioplastics. They apparently require little water and pesticides, grow quite quickly, and can keep soil healthy.

What’s not to love about the brighter and greener future these plants offer?

Well…

Hemp

Hemp (Cannabis sativa L.) is cultivated in a variety of nations (e.g., United States, Canada–prairies, China, France–northern) for industrial purposes (e.g., fiber for textiles and construction, seeds for food and oil, and cannabinoids). It grows best in temperate climates with well-distributed rainfall. The ideal soil is fertile and loamy with good moisture retention.

Despite being marketed as ‘eco-friendly’ and ‘sustainable’, the growing industrial cultivation and processing of hemp does not appear environmentally ‘friendly’ at all. In fact, quite the opposite.

While known for its water ‘efficiency’, hemp actually requires massive amounts of water (particularly when grown for its fiber) and has been known to add to local water stress, particularly when grown on large, industrial farms. Hemp is also considered pest resistant; however, large-scale monoculture growth results in ecological imbalances requiring the use of both herbicides and pesticides. The claim that it contributes to soil fertility is also not true when grown in large-scale, industrial settings as it is very nutrient intensive, requiring fertilisers to reach maximum yields–adding to pollutant run-off into local waters.

With its continuing growth in an industrialised-monoculture setting, it is being increasingly seen to: deplete soil nutrients, reduce biodiversity, and become more susceptible to disease and the need for increased chemical inputs. Grown organically and on a rotational basis, these concerns can be mitigated; however, yields are significantly lower and cannot be scaled up to meet growing ‘demand’, hence the growth in industrial-scale ‘farms’–which is putting at risk natural ecosystems that are increasingly being converted to large, monoculture settings.

Finally, hemp cultivation and processing is very resource intensive despite assurances to the contrary. The retting process (that converts stalks into usable fiber) requires large amounts of water or energy, depending upon the process used. This is also true of the procedure to extract cannabinoids where very complex equipment and controlled settings are required. Additionally, the fact that these plants are processed in countries far removed from where they are grown and sold (requiring significant transportation logistics), offset any supposed agricultural benefits.

Bamboo

Bamboo is a giant grass (not a tree) and is primarily cultivated for construction material and furniture, pulp for paper, and edible shoots. It grows best in tropical and subtropical climates with abundant rainfall, requiring well-drained, fertile soil but can grow in less fertile land. It is considered ‘highly’ renewable due to its 3-5 year regeneration cycle. This grass is grown mostly in China, India, Southeast Asia (e.g., Vietnam, Indonesia), Latin America (e.g., Columbia, Ecuador), and Africa (e.g., Ethiopia, Ghana).

Similar to hemp, there exist a number of caveats to bamboo’s supposed ‘clean/green’ narrative that asserts it will: create ‘green’ jobs, restore degraded soils, act as a carbon sink, and meet growing demands for ‘clean’ products. To meet growing ‘demand’, monoculture farms are being created via the clearing of natural and biodiverse forests. The processing of the very hard plant material requires massive amounts of chemicals, especially carbon disulfide–a neurotoxin that is often released into the air and waterways. This processing also needs huge amounts of water that regularly becomes contaminated with the chemicals used while also putting stress on local water availability.

Similar to hemp, bamboo cultivation, processing, and manufactured products are transported across long distances. Finally, the risk of some species of bamboo escaping these farms (as they spread via roots) and disrupting local ecosystems is real and has occurred. Thus, the same negative issues outlined above for hemp are present for bamboo.

It would appear that the idea that these plants offer a ‘sustainable’ resource for human consumption is based almost exclusively on the characteristics (e.g., fast growth, low pesticide needs) of their growth in natural settings and use by small, local communities, and not on the more prevalent and growing industrial cultivation settings and global distribution networks it increasingly relies upon and uses to grow its uptake.

The evidence shows that these hemp- and bamboo-based products are not ‘clean’ or ‘sustainable’ as advertised/marketed. But let’s set aside these ‘inconvenient truths’ for the moment to consider the assertion that the use of these plants can and is replacing significantly more-destructive resources and processes.

What does the actual data suggest about such claims?

First, let’s look at which resources are supposedly being replaced in this narrative.

Those marketing bamboo and hemp state that they are ‘clean’ and ‘sustainable’ replacements for: hydrocarbon-based plastics, especially single-use items; wood-based building/construction materials, and paper and packaging; textiles and fabrics; hydrocarbon fuels; and other various consumer goods (e.g., toothbrushes, cutting boards, kitchenware). [Note that a number of the resources being ‘replaced’ are ‘renewable’, but they are being consumed by humanity at a rate that increasingly surpasses natural replacement rates and their use has thus become unsustainable.]

Let’s first consider the ‘replacement’ of perhaps one of the more problematic modern, hydrocarbon-based products: plastics.

The development of plastics began in the 19th century with Alexander Parkes’ 1856 development of moldable cellulose-based thermoplastic. Due to its high costs, this ‘Parkesine’ did not catch on commercially. John Wesley Hyatt ‘improved’ on Parkes’ product in the 1870s by adding camphor and creating celluloid. This new product began to be produced on a larger scale due to its versatility and can be considered the first successful mass-produced synthetic thermoplastic. Unfortunately, celluloid was highly flammable (becoming more so with age) and led to a number of fires in both production factories and theatres where it was used in photographic film

BF Goodrich’s Waldo Semon furthered thermoplastic development in 1926 with his creation of plasticised polyvinyl chlorides (PVC) that led to thermoplastic elastomers (TPEs) and polystyrene, which eventually resulted in styrene-butadiene rubber.

Synthetic thermoplastic production continues to expand. It has been growing exponentially since the 1950s and is predicted to triple by the 2060s.

And while set to grow, bioplastics from plant matter is an incredibly small portion of the plastics market–estimated to be 0.5% at present. Its ‘phenomenal’ growth rate, however, continues to be less than the growth rate in traditional hydrocarbon-based plastics–and this is despite a trend of regulatory efforts to try and curb plastics use.

In other words, despite bioplastics’ recent significant increase in use worldwide—with the help of government legislation—it has simply added to the mix of plastics being produced and consumed by humanity. There is no replacement taking place, nor is there likely to be given the faster increase in traditional plastics.

The story is the same for the supposed replacement of traditional construction and building materials. The traditional wood and timber market continues to grow alongside growth in the use of bamboo- and hemp-based products which have tended to fill a rather small and niche market. Like bioplastics, these ‘clean’ and ‘sustainable’ wood alternatives have become complimentary and not competitive. There is no in-tandem decline in wood-based products as alternatives grow.

Alas, the statistics show the same phenomenon for biofuels. Despite significant increases in the production and use of biomass-based fuels, hydrocarbon production and use continues to increase. There is no in-tandem decrease in hydrocarbons as a result of the uptake of biofuels; they too have become additive to humanity’s energy production and use.

There are two significant pieces of data to keep in mind here for the much overhyped marketing of hemp and bamboo in providing biofuels. First, the vast majority of biofuel production does not use bamboo and hemp as feedstocks; their contribution is negligible relative to the primary ones of corn, sugarcane, soybean, and palm oil. Second, note the significant difference in energy production between the two fuel sources: 1400 TWh vs 53,000 TWh. It would require an almost 40x increase in all biofuel production to replace oil production, and this does not take into consideration any growth beyond current demands.

And the fact that some studies have found that greenhouse gas emissions are actually higher for the production and use of biofuels than for hydrocarbon-based fuels when all inputs and knock-on impacts are taken into account, suggests we should be rallying against their increasing use–not cheerleading it as many do for these fuels and other bamboo-/hemp-based products.

The actual story, once one moves aside the rather opaque and greenwashed curtains, does not reflect the marketing propaganda with respect to the replacement by bamboo- and hemp-derived products of what are viewed as much more destructive hydrocarbon-based ones.

The growth in the cultivation and processing of these plants for use in today’s complex societies has been dramatic over the past century, but much like that of non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies (aka ‘renewables’) that have seen tremendous growth the past fifty years or so, there has been no promised in-tandem reduction of hydrocarbon production and use. In other words, these plants and their use are–like ‘renewables’–adding to humanity’s extractive enterprises and consumptive growth. They are not replacing hydrocarbons as promised and continuing to be asserted.

Wikipedia:

Greenwashing (a compound word modeled on “Whitewashing“), also called green sheen,[1][2] is a form of advertising or marketing spin that deceptively uses green PR and green marketing to persuade the public that an organization’s products, goals, or policies are environmentally friendly.[3][4][5] Companies that intentionally adopt greenwashing communication strategies often do so to distance themselves from their environmental lapses or those of their suppliers.[6] Firms engage in greenwashing for two primary reasons: to appear legitimate and to project an image of environmental responsibility to the public.[7]

Based upon the above details and evidence, one should conclude that the narrative that hemp and bamboo are ‘green’, ‘sustainable’, and replacing finite and/or overused traditional resources is misleading–in the extreme. They not only involve ecologically-destructive practices, but are unsustainable given their growth trajectories and dependence upon finite resources. Like the much touted ‘renewables’ many/most believe can replace hydrocarbon-based energy, they are adding to the use of products that they are said to be replacing–and helping to exacerbate our fundamental predicament of ecological overshoot.

The narrative displayed in the post that initiated this Contemplation is ‘greenwashing’ at its finest. A fraudulent spin on products to sell them and the idea that they are ‘clean and sustainable’, and used by the poster to attract clicks to help generate revenue. The suppression of negative aspects and overhyping of supposed ‘benefits’ of products and ideas is commonplace in marketing and clickbait sites, and it seems to infect almost everything nowadays–especially energy production, mass consumption, the pursuit of economic growth, and social media.

Recent and related articles/posts:

What’s Missing In This Picture–The Honest Sorcerer

Newsflash: Predicaments Are Not problems–Problems, Predicaments, and Technology (Erik Michaels)

Why Sustainability Is Impossible Without Collapse–Transformatise (Paul Abela)

Bill McKibben’s Far Too Sunny Outlook For Solar Power–The New Republic (Alexander Zaitchik)

Potemkin Sustaiability–Degrowth Is the Answer (Matt Orsagh)

The conversation that ensued after my initial comment on the post:

Me: Even so-called ‘renewable’ resources are not sustainable when used at a rate far above natural replacement which is the predicament our species has found itself caught in (aka ecological overshoot). Neither hemp nor bamboo can help us in such a situation (amongst other issues with massive monocultures). And there are no adequate replacements for hydrocarbons in most industrial processes…

KWF: Steve Bull that may be true, but this stuff could be utilized far more than it is for many purposes

JT: Steve Bull not sure why you seem so negative about sustainability, as the beauty of increased usage of these products is they can also be recycled in a non-toxic way… hempstic can replace most plastics … hempanol can replace gasoline etc

Me: JT, There is little if anything that is ‘sustainable’ or ‘clean’ about the industrial use of these plants. Look behind the rather opaque and greenwashed curtains. They are also not replacing anything; they are adding to our continuing growth and the destruction of our ecosystems. And, by the way, I’m all in favour of sustainability but there is little if anything sustainable about human complex societies and our current living arrangements; we left that possibility behind many millennia ago.

JT: Steve Bull incorreect [sic]; you are just a negative person with a pessimistic outlook on life and technology… we can easily transition to sustainability, if not for the overlords who own the carbon combustion fuels

Me: How you can determine my outlook on life and technology via a truncated online discussion is fascinating.

As for your belief that humanity could easily transition to sustainability, may I suggest you do some critical reading and research rather than take at face value the ongoing marketing propaganda of ‘green’ technology and the like.

Look into: the dependence of virtually all industrial processes on hydrocarbons, including those that claim to be ‘clean/green’; the scale of what is required to replace our hydrocarbon-based products, especially for transportation and agriculture; the finite material and mineral needs of societies, and the shortages and bottlenecks already occurring (thus the growth in resource wars); the ecological destruction being wrought by the extraction and refining processes to maintain our living standards and technologies (leading to such predicaments as massive biodiversity loss and compensatory sink overloading); the evidence that despite decades of ramping up so-called ‘green;/clean’ technologies, there has been no displacement of hydrocarbon use and its growth continues–so these are merely adding to our growth and destruction; etc., etc..

And all of these issues are compounded by the fact that while existing on a finite planet, humanity continues to pursue growth (both economic and population) while already well into ecological overshoot.

This is a predicament that cannot be ‘solved’ regardless of our wishes to the contrary. What you call pessimism, I call realism based upon the biogeophysical limits and processes that we think don’t apply to our species. This, unfortunately, results in misguided narratives such as the ability of humans to bypass the laws of Nature and Thermodynamics to attain some utopian ‘green/clean’ world.

May I suggest you being with these handful of resources:

Archaeologist Ronald Wright’s text, A Short History Of Progress, based upon his CBC Massey lectures;

Environmental sociologist William Catton Jr.’s Overshoot: The Ecological Basis of Revolutionary Change;

Physicist Albert Barlett’s Arithmetic, Population, and Energy presentation;

Archaeologist Joseph Tainter’s The Collapse Of Complex Societies;

Meadows et al’s 50-year update on their seminal text, Limits To Growth.

You can find a summary of these here: https://olduvai.ca/?p=69225.

What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:

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…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

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.

View more on Steve Bull's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 21, 2025 07:45

September 17, 2025

The Bulletin: September 10-16, 2025

The Bull etin: September 10-16, 2025This past week’s articles of interest…

CLICK HERE

If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview .

Beyond Surplus: Rethinking How Civilizations Rose | Art Berman

Why There Will Be No Energy Transition | by Eric Lee | Sep, 2025 | Medium

Update: Why We Need Forests

Renewables, carbon and the energy crisis

Russia-Ukraine War Is a Jockey Between Two World Orders

How Did We Get Into This Mess Anyway? | how to save the world

Geoengineering = Peak Technohopium

EU Chat Control 2.0: Experts Warn Against Encryption Surveillance Law

China-Russia Pipeline Seen Displacing One-Third of LNG Imports, Analysts Warn | OilPrice.com

Trump Cryptically Writes “Here We Go!” In Reaction To Russia-Poland Drone Incident, Oil Spikes | ZeroHedge

Big AG Is Threatening New Mexico’s Water Supply

Alex Krainer: Economic Collapse and Civil War Fears

These Climate Hacks To Save the Poles Could Totally Backfire

Decades Old Waste Barrels Are Creating Toxic Dead Zones Off LA’s Coast

Is Earth’s climate in a state of ‘termination shock’? | New Scientist

France in Flames As the ‘Block Everything’ Protest Movement Sweeps the Country – PJ Media

CPI Inflation Dishes Up another Nasty Surprise, as it Tends to Do | Wolf Street

The Truth About How We Sacrifice People For Progress

Humans and Their Ecological Space

The Jenga Tower Economy Is Starting To Topple

Playing with Fire: Poland’s PM Tusk Accuses Russia of “19 Intrusions of Our Airspace”. Invokes NATO’s Article 4. Drago Bosnic – Global Research

Precarity and the Point of No Return

“Canada: The Industrial Implosion” v. the United States | Wolf Street

The Unholy Sin Of Carbon Offsetting

The Federal Deficit Surges again as Trump Spending Accelerates | Mises Institute

For The First Time, We’ve Found Evidence Climate Change Is Attracting Invasive Species To Canadian Arctic

Poland sends 40,000 troops to border amid Russia tension

Carbon Storage Was Never A Solution

How the Sustainability Movement Lost Its Way | Ralph Thurm

The End Of The Road – The Honest Sorcerer

Human civilization depends on permafrost

Putting It Together, Part One

“I’ve Seen States Collapse; Now I See It Happening Here” | naked capitalism

Your home has a 1 in 4 chance of being at severe risk from extreme weather | Grist

Me, the collapsnik!? – by Gunnar Rundgren

Science Snippets: Mass Extinction Event Targets Ocean Life

If Not Now, it Will Come Later – by Ugo Bardi

Civilization’s Weakest Link

When Empires Die – International Man

Insights From the Lotka-Volterra Model

We are inhaling stupidity: carbon dioxide threatens our brains

Inflation and Embezzlement | Mises Institute

It’s Time to Stop Eating Plastic. Start by Trashing These 7 Items Full of Microplastics – CNET

‘Maddening’ Proof Plastics Industry Knew Recycling Was False Solution in 1974, New Document Shows – DeSmog

Climate change is accelerating, scientists find in ‘grim’ report

Economists Predict When the US Economy Will Crash, THIS is the Date

Is the 6ME Hyperbole? | Do the Math

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…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

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.

View more on Steve Bull's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 17, 2025 01:00

September 11, 2025

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXIV–We’re Saved! Solar Photovoltaic Panels.

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXIV–We’re Saved! Solar Photovoltaic Panels.

CLICK HERE

If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview .

Recently, a member (JS) of a Facebook Group (Peak Oil) I am a member of posted a graph (see above) of the massive increase in the energy supplied by solar photovoltaic panels and led with the following statement and question:

“China, for all their faults, has ramped up solar panel production to civilizational scale levels. The entire energy consumption of the U.S is 4.3 Terrawatt (sic) hours, so they’re making a non-trivial impact. As China starts consuming less oil and electrifies everything they’re doing, they’ll take huge pressure off the rest of the world’s energy supplies. I don’t think anyone was predicting that fast of a ramp up. It’s essentially best case scenario. Anyone want to provide a good counterargument that we’re doomed?”

The various responses by Peak Oil group members is what follows. I share these as there are considerations that members of this group highlight that most people don’t use to assess narratives regarding ‘renewables’. [Note: I’ve tried to capture these in order of response except for mine which I close with and seems to have garnered the most secondary responses. I’ve also included all comments up until posting of this Contemplation and grouped them to reflect standalone ones vs. those with secondary responses.]

I follow up this conversation with an artificial intelligence large language model summary of the comments that captures the essence of the discussion.

DI: Just means China will last longer, long run tho we’re still doomed. Also China’s oil demand wont go down either way.

BS: And Spain and Portugal suffered a nationwide blackout due to the imbalance between actual spinning reserves and inverter power when one large inverter based solar system went off-line and shut both countries down in under 30 seconds due to a cascading shut down of inverters across both countries.

GH: Industrial solar (and wind, etc) still require fossil fuels. The net effect of ramping up these sources is just to keep economic growth going for as long as possible in the wake of peak oil. Will alternative industrial energy sources moderate the effects of peak oil for awhile and enable us to more effectively use the remaining fossil fuels (especially coal)? Yes. Will they fundamentally change the fact that industrialization is based on nonrenewable resources? And the exponential growth of consumption of non renewable resources? No.

Doomed either way. Just with solar we’re doomed at little later and we consume more coal along the way.

DI: I think China is hedging every bet. Going big on solar and coal, etc at the same time. They know climate mitigation is a lost cause that may actually hasten the decline. They’re trying to last as long as possible. I think it’s a smart plan. Stock the lifeboat and cover as many bases as possible mindset. Distinctly different than the bau with a bunker mentality in the West.

OK: We need to achieve a 90% recycling rate of energy related minerals for the whole world and for many other critical minerals too, if not – we are doomed.

PS: OK, I wouldn’t say “we’re” doomed. I would say, however, the economy at this size is doomed. That, in turn, will piss many people off to the point they will want some serious revenge. It will not be fun for many many many many many …. recipients of that revenge.

LS: OK, the problem is that isn’t economically feasible nor is it energetically viable for many of these minerals. And we’re solely focused on the minerals without recognising the energy inputs. You can’t recycle usable energy; it’s a one way process

KC: OK,

BC: And for all that PVP solar power to date not one piece of, well anything, has been manufactured by only, sorry, Renewable Energy Converters the likes of PVP’s WT’s; on the other hand that nuclear fusion plant in the sky has produced near everything, including ourselves.

But let’s look at some facts:

Globally only ~20% of energy is supplied in the form of electricity, and only ~2% of that is provided by REbuildables/Alternative Energy of which nuclear power is a fraction of that, leaving ~80% still reliant on FREE FINITE Flammable Fossils (FFFF), which are diminishing fast. So better get those REbuildables built quick pronto, before FFFF’s become unaffordable in an EROEI sort of way.

For all the PVP’s China has installed its hardly moved the needle, of course building massive AI data training centres consuming as much as a small city and hooking them up to the dispatchable power of coal and natural gas doesn’t help

PC: BC, y are no able to understand basic maths, and you show it. 2 TW equals 2600 TWh/year. Nuclear is less then 500 GW that equals to perhaps 300 TWh.

And it is becoming still more negligible, at 500 plus GWp installed each year. The curve is hyperexponential, for now. It will be 1 TWp/ year and then more.

This part of paradigm is already decided. Then there are more thing to understand.

Better concentrate on those issues.

BC: There was a time when giving a citation it was necessary to trawl through and mostly fall asleep over reading books the like of you’ve cited, but now all we’ve got likes of Gemini, GROK and ChatGPT, (other AI-LLM’s are available) and if one can’t help you, or you don’t trust it’s answer, then just try another

PGK: BC, If an AI-LLM was really intelligent its answer to “How can we save energy?” would be “Shutting down AIs like me would be a good place to start.

CR: Solar is still bad for the environment, didn’t ya know?

TA: As I understand it the Silicon in the solar panels is not taken from sand but quartz that requires mining or quarrying. The panels have a finite lifespan and are difficult to recycle so over the total life cycle of a solar panel the EROEI is low but positive.

As others have said it will buy some time but it’s can kicking not a solution.

Solar panels don’t work well at night or in snow so there’s a lot less utility from them. Gas turbines are generally used as a back up to provide grid energy when “renewable” energy is not available to avoid brownouts. To reliability use renewables an enormous amount of surplus energy must be stored for dark days and nights over winter, if I recall correctly Simon Michaux recommended around a month’s worth of energy as an absolute minimum to rely on renewables alone. This is difficult to achieve with current technology. The mineral requirements become very difficult achieve globally due to finite known reserves if every country turns to renewables

I would recommend watching planet of the humans as well Simon Michaux’s interviews and presentations. He has done a lot of work on the amount of available mineral resources

LM: As China begins to build the biggest gas pipe line in the world from Siberia to China.

That’s a BS example of exponential growth for solar. Now if that was a fracking graph

And for all China’s faults , FFS my ancestors in the UK demolished half the forests by the time Jesus was born and since then they destroyed 40% more , not to mention the British elites colonising great swathes of the earth. Shall we mention all the shit that’s gone on for the last 200 plus years and still goes on from collective western countries?

JS, sorry man you’re way of the reality. Not saying they’re perfect, but….China, For all their faults! . Come on

JD: It’s not just solar. Wind nuclear you name it China has and is ramping up the electrification. Add Battery technology and their dominance in EV vehicles.

EV vehicles out of China are now cheaper than IC and BRICS countries are buying them like hot cakes

PB: you’re going down punk

IL: Solar is unstoppable. A free energy source vs. one where you have to fuel it constantly will win every time.

Me: IL, ‘Free’? I assume you are not referring to the complex industrial panels that are referenced in the graph and introduction.

IL: Steve, sure. I mean what fuels them. Photons that knock electrons onto wires and are useful electricity.

Me: IL, You’re not being clear or I’m not understanding. Are you referring to solar panels providing ‘free’ energy? And their buildout is thus unstoppable?

IL: Steve, yes. They’re pretty incredible.

Me: IL, Your assertion that they provide ‘free’ energy is akin to calling an electric vehicle clean relative to internal combustion engines by only looking at tailpipe emissions. It is a significantly narrow perspective that ignores so much.

And, sure, they’re pretty incredible (for a limited time) if you ignore all the destructive processes that are required to produce, distribute, maintain, and reclaim/dispose of them. Or dismiss the fact that they are simply adding to our overshoot predicament and its symptom predicaments.

IL: Steve, okay. I think it’s going to be the last source of electricity. A tiny fraction of humanity will be using them to power small applications long after the rest of the world is back to stone tools.

Me: IL, So if most of the world’s people are depending upon stone tools in some future time, you might want to rethink your position that solar panel technology is incredible and their buildout unstoppable since the narrative most ‘renewables’ advocates support is that a mass production of these industrial technologies will soon replace hydrocarbons in a wondrous energy transition and ‘save’ our complex societies from catastrophic climate change and other symptom predicaments of ecological overshoot; thereby preventing any widespread ‘collapse’ scenarios.

IL: Steve, I don’t know about any wonderful energy transition, but for the time being solar is growing exponentially. It may not continue, but for the time being it’s seen as a solution.

Me: IL, Yes, it is being seen as a ‘solution’; especially by those marketing and selling them.

CG: No counter argument here, I thought 2008 or so was peak energy and shale come along. Solar could do the same and I’d be wrong about doom again, at least for now.

GH: CG, 2008 was peak net energy. If you read Tainter’s Collapse of Complex Societies it’s clear what section of his arc graph we’re on at this point in history. But yeah, it’s going to be awhile before things actually collapse to a lower order of social complexity.

To me it has nothing to do with what I want. What I might want either way is just irrelevant. But I do make it a point to try and embrace reality, haha.

CG: GH, Same, but I’m also fine if it doesn’t versus a lot of folks that want it to happen.

GH: CG, I understand, I’m 55 as well. But honestly I’m reconciled. Fine with watching it unfold if it happens within my lifetime.

CG: GH, Eventually it will get us and in the big picture the date doesn’t matter. I’m 55 though and ten years one way or another makes a huge difference to me.

SA: “As China starts consuming less oil” haha, good one, that made me chuckle.

The only thing that will reduce China’s oil consumption is collapse or war, both at the same time is possible suppose.

Me: There are so many errors in your assertions, it’s hard to know where to begin. Here’s a few areas off the top of my head for you to consider and do some homework on.

Perhaps you want to explore tech trends and the fact that early adoption does not a long-term uptake make.

Maybe look into what in-tandem reductions in hydrocarbons are occurring (or not) with this buildup of Chinese renewables.

You could also research the mineral and material limits and bottlenecks that exist to reach this promised land of the hydrocarbon replacement theory.

There’s also the fact that the vast majority of primary energy use continues to come from hydrocarbon sources despite a supposed mass increase in ‘renewables’.

Then there’s the dependency on hydrocarbons of many of the major industrial processes that procure and refine the necessary materials and produce, distribute, and maintain all the ‘renewables’ to consider.

And then there’s the material and mineral needs (and their limits) of the infrastructure and the energy storage facilities required.

Maybe explore the economic aspects and how much of China’s ‘renewables’ sector is heavily subsidised by a State running massive deficits to keep its economic Ponzi from collapsing, and how many of these businesses are on the verge of bankruptcy/collapse.

Add the ecological destruction that accompanies all the above and the replacement theory truly is one relying upon massive magical thinking.

SH: Steve, But… Moore’s Law !

Me: SH, I’ll see your Moore’s Law with Jevon’s Paradox.

SH: Steve, I’ll raise with Rebound Effect, Backfire Effect, Cognitive Biases, and Embodied Energy and Emissions… I’m all in!

Me: SH, Entropy…I win!

SH: Steve, I resign.

SH: Before one can really appreciate the predicament that humanity is in, they must adopt a very broad perspective. Anyway, for some reality based refinements, try reading through some of what Simon Michaux has written on mineral resources, what Alice Frideman has explored in relation to various alternative energy and storage schemes, and more important, a big dose of reality by way of a seminal text on biophysical economics… Like Charles A. S. Hall and Kent Klitgaard’s “Energy and the Wealth of Nations”. If you can even just skim through that book and have at least an atom of the prerequisite knowledge required to understand it, you may come away with a very different perspective. Of course it would also be of benefit to understand the broader context of Overshoot… So you might check out William Catton Jr. as well…

BC: SH, There was a time when to provide a citation with reference to a book it was necessary to have trawled through those books, and most probably falling asleep along the way. But now with the likes of Gemini, GROK, ChatGPT, (other AI-LLM’s are available) you can obtain the information near instantly, and if you want to cross check it, or you don’t like it, or don’t trust it, just ask another AI-LLM

SH: BC, You can also have A.I. summarize pretty much anything… premise, salient points, conclusions and all that… You can even do that with long video interviews and lectures… or entire books! You can have A.I. compare many sides of an issue from many sources to help you make a more complete and fair evaluation… It’s really up to your imagination… but that’s the problem. You’d think that aggregated summary and conclusions would be digestible… but most people I know seem to prefer popular tropes, or just plain ignorance.

SH: https://www.thegreatsimplification.com/episode/19-simon-michaux; Energy and the Wealth of Nations https://educons.edu.rs/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/2018-Energy-And-The-Wealth-Of-Nations.pdf ; Overshoot https://monoskop.org/images/9/92/Catton_Jr_William_R_Overshoot_The_Ecological_Basis_of_Revolutionary_Change.pdf

CR: SH, AKA, overpopulation…

LS: Steve, you summed it up nicely. I’m sure if China had an ample supply of oil they wouldn’t be so committed to electrification. This is an energy security issue, which is a sovereign security risk, first and foremost. What China does have a substantial domestic supply of is coal and minerals. If supply lines were to be cut off or restricted due to external forces solar has become a crucial factor in shoring up their energy independence. The downside is coal supplies have a limited timeframe of mere decades at current consumption rates. That implies no more solar construction. No different to US and impending shale cliff

Something you didn’t mention was the different (or rather additional) constraints associated with a society that has reached a critical scale of electrification. There are various videos showing electric car owners pushing their vehicles because they have been unable to recharge due to supply/access restrictions. Whilst this is reminiscent of the impacts from oil shocks there are additional vulnerabilities. Any disruption to electricity grids now impacts a far greater proportion of the social infrastructure and makes the system acutely vulnerable due to concentration of choke points for energy supply. This is felt particularly in high demand periods like summer extreme heat and day time peaks. Now transportation is competing with the provision of other services like cooling, heating, cooking, lighting etc

PS: HI Steve – To your point… here’s a 25 year proportional comparison between fossil fuels consumption and non-fossil fuel consumption. Less than 1% shift toward non-fossil fuels while increasing overall consumption by 52%.

A stand alone analysis offers a one dimensional perception. A comparative analysis offers perspective…

Me: PS, So, in other words, the uptick in ‘renewables’ is adding to our energy use and not replacing hydrocarbons like the cheerleaders of photovoltaics assert. Their relatively recent massive buildup is simply exacerbating all the negative aspects of our species growth and ecologically-destructive ways, and thus expediting the inevitable consequences of overshoot.

PS: Steve, They will likely be sustained at increasing cost over time as replacements become a competitive, demand driven market. That will yes make them unsustainable at the volume desired.

Artificial intelligence large language model summary of the above discussion [bold emphasis added]:

“The conversation centers on a post celebrating China’s massive scale-up of solar panel production, suggesting it could alleviate global energy pressures and questioning if “doom” is inevitable. The overwhelming response from the group is highly skeptical. While acknowledging the scale of the build-out, members argue it does not fundamentally change the trajectory of societal collapse due to ecological overshoot, resource depletion, and the inherent limitations of renewable energy technology itself.

Key Themes and Arguments

Solar is an Add-On, Not a Replacement: The primary critique is that renewable energy sources like solar are not replacing fossil fuels but are adding to total energy consumption, enabling further economic growth and resource depletion. One member (PS) provides a graph showing that despite growth in renewables, fossil fuel consumption has increased by 52% in 25 years, with less than a 1% shift to non-fossil sources.Fundamental Physical and Economic Limitations: EROEI (Energy Return on Energy Invested): The energy and resources required to mine, manufacture, transport, and maintain solar panels are immense and still depend on a fossil-fueled industrial base. The net energy gain is questioned. Mineral and Resource Bottlenecks: There are finite limits to the minerals (e.g., from quartz, not sand) needed for solar panels and battery storage. Achieving the necessary scale for a full transition is seen as physically impossible or energetically unviable. Intermittency and Storage: Solar power is intermittent. To rely on it alone would require storing a massive amount of energy (e.g., a month’s worth) for nights, winters, and low-production periods, which is not feasible with current technology and mineral reserves. Recycling is Not a Solution: Achieving a 90%+ recycling rate for critical minerals is deemed economically and energetically impossible.China’s Motives are Pragmatic, Not Idealistic: Many commenters see China’s renewable push not as a climate solution but as a strategic move for energy security and independence, given its vast domestic coal and mineral reserves but reliance on foreign oil. It’s noted that China is simultaneously expanding its coal power and building a massive gas pipeline from Siberia, hedging its bets to “last as long as possible.”“Doom” is Merely Delayed, Not Averted: The consensus is that solar energy may “kick the can down the road” by prolonging industrial civilization for a short while, but it ultimately exacerbates overshoot. The conclusion is that we are “doomed either way,” just slightly later and after consuming more coal and other resources. The conversation references thinkers like Simon Michaux (mineral limits), Joseph Tainter (collapse of complex societies), and William Catton (overshoot) to support this view.The “Free Energy” Fallacy: A brief exchange challenges the idea that solar energy is “free,” arguing this perspective is dangerously narrow. It ignores the vast, complex, and ecologically destructive industrial processes required to create and maintain the technology. The energy from the sun is free, but harnessing it at an industrial scale is not.

Conclusion of the Discussion

The group concludes that the narrative of a simple, smooth transition to renewables is a form of “massive magical thinking.” The build-out of solar is seen as a symptom of the attempt to maintain a growth-based system that is inherently unsustainable. It may moderate the effects of peak oil temporarily but will not prevent a larger civilizational-scale collapse driven by the fundamental laws of thermodynamics and ecological limits. The debate is not if the current economy is doomed, but when and how the consequences will unfold.”

A couple of my recent Contemplations on this subject:

Keep Calm and Carry On…Human Ingenuity and Technology Will Save Us! Part 1 Website Medium Substack Part 2 Website Medium Substack Part 3 Website Medium Substack

‘Renewable’ Energy: See, Hear, and Speak No Evil, Part 1 Website Medium Substack Part 2 Website Medium Substack Part 3 Website Medium Substack

What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:

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…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

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.

View more on Steve Bull's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 11, 2025 01:00

September 10, 2025

The Bulletin: September 3-9, 2025

The Bull etin: September 3-9, 2025This past week’s articles of interest…

CLICK HERE

If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview .

The Disruptor: William Rees Knows How to Save the World

Slow down or die (degrowth, collapse, strategy)

Collapse and the Consensus Trance

What Happens After Humans Go Extinct

How Water Shapes Our Planet

US Escalates Its Crawling Aggression Against Venezuela

EU Accelerating Toward Collapse

The UK Earns Status As a Censorship State

Which Housing Domino Will Fall First?

Bad Environmentalism | Gordon Katic – by Rachel Donald

The Rubicon Is In the Rearview

Anthropocentrism and Reality

The Next Inflationary Surge is About to Begin

Global methane levels continue rising as trade and developing regions fuel growth

Thom Hartmann: The Hidden History of Neoliberalism

Running Out Of Resources? The Real Shortages Are Clean Air and Plastic-Free Food

Microplastics Are Linked To Heart Disease – Here’s How To Lower Your Risk | ZeroHedge

Study Confirms ‘Abrupt Changes’ in Antarctica – And The World Will Feel Them : ScienceAlert

Why is Europe running out of water? – DW – 09/04/2025

Carbon storage may be 10 times less effective at fighting climate change than we thought

Addicted To Denial

European Troops in Ukraine Would Be Legitimate Targets: Putin | The Epoch Times

The Garbage Time Of HIstory Is Global

The Myth of Inevitability

WW3 IS INEVITABLE – COMPROMISE ISN’T AN OPTION DURING THE FOURTH TURNING – The Burning Platform

One Of Russia’s Largest Oil Refineries Once Again On Fire After Ukraine Drone Strike | ZeroHedge

Monopolization of agriculture: A handful of corporations control the inputs and outputs of American farmers

The Geopolitics of Green Colonialism: Global Justice and Ecosocial Transitions – resilience

Carbon Capture and Storage: DOA

Shale Gas Arithmetic

Sufficiency, Inequality, and Precarity Better Measures Of Quality Of Life

Many scientists don’t want to tell the truth about climate change. Here’s why

Key Atlantic current could start collapsing as early as 2055, new study finds | Live Science

Plastic Discovered In More Than 50% of Plaques From Clogged Arteries : ScienceAlert

Trump Warns Any Venezuelan Plane Threatening US Ships Will Be Shot Down | ZeroHedge

New research explores climate change and the limits of human progress

The Debt Surge Ahead

WW3: French Hospitals Told To Prepare For a Major Military Engagement Within Six Months

OPEC Accelerates Oil Production Hikes Despite Glut Concerns

‘Green Energy’ Discourse Is So Human-Centric

Wildfires producing ‘witches’ brew’ of air pollution: UN

Physics-based indicator predicts tipping point for collapse of Atlantic current system in next 50 years

Resource Insights: Wars and rumors of wars: America, Europe, Russia and China

Trump, Oil, and Gunboat Diplomacy. Kurt Nimmo – Global Research

Europe: the Final Spasms of a Collapsing Empire

The Events That Got Us Here

The UK Prepares For An IMF Bailout

Nine Meals from Anarchy – Doug Casey’s International Man

Envisioning A Degrowth Civilisation

How Long Could You Survive On What’s In Your House Right Now?

Nepal police open fire on crowd protesting social media ban, killing at least 17 people | PBS News

Growing Agricultural Failure

War With Venezuela? – Ken Klippenstein

Anthropological Summer | Do the Math

World War 3 and the Collapse Of the Dollar

“A Flashing Red Warning Light”: Big Oil Is Making Big Job Cuts | ZeroHedge

Nepal Descends Into Chaos After Social Media Ban, PM Resigns, Finance Minister Dragged Through Street | ZeroHedge

The Simple Truth About America’s Housing Crisis

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…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

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.

View more on Steve Bull's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 10, 2025 01:00

September 8, 2025

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXIII–Biophysical Economics

Today’s post is courtesy of a fellow traveller (Schuyler Hupp) on the collapse road that I’ve had the pleasure of communicating with and learning from for a number of years via a mutual Facebook Group (Peak Oil). I present a recent post of his to this Peak Oil FB group directly below, followed by some personal thoughts of mine on the AI response to his query.

CLICK HERE

If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview.

I just asked Google Studio AI what problems might be associated with having energy and economic policy makers with little or no science background and along with the written response it provided this illustration.

Here’s the gist of what it regurgitated and rearranged, apparently from biophysical economics literature on the Internet:

“Problems with Policymakers Lacking Science Backgrounds (Operating within the Current Western Economic Paradigm):

Blind Spot to Biophysical Realities: The current Western economic paradigm largely ignores the foundational role of energy, ecology, and natural capital. Policymakers trained solely in this paradigm tend to view the economy as a self-contained system, divorced from the biophysical world. They fail to understand that economic activity is a subsystem of the ecosphere and thus constrained by its limits.

Short-Termism and Growth Obsession: The prevailing economic model prioritizes short-term GDP growth, marginalizing long-term ecological and resource depletion costs. Policymakers without scientific understanding often see growth as an unalloyed good, even when it drives overshoot and undermines the very natural systems that support human well-being.

Misguided Energy Policies: Without a grasp of energy’s fundamental role, policymakers may underestimate the severity of peak oil or the energy costs of transitioning to renewables. They might push for solutions that are thermodynamically unfeasible or ecologically damaging, or fail to invest adequately in energy efficiency and conservation.

Discounting Future Costs: The economic paradigm often uses high discount rates, making future environmental and resource costs appear insignificant in present-day calculations. This leads to policies that externalize these costs onto future generations.

Belief in Infinite Substitutability and Technological Fixes: A lack of scientific understanding can lead to an unwarranted faith in technological solutions to overcome any resource or environmental constraint, without appreciating the fundamental limits imposed by energy, matter, and the laws of physics. They might believe that “the market will solve it,” even for non-substitutable ecosystem services or critical raw materials.

Vulnerability to Misinformation and Lobbying: Without a solid scientific grounding, policymakers are more susceptible to industry lobbying that downplays environmental risks or exaggerates the costs of regulation, especially when those arguments are presented with a veneer of economic “expertise” that ignores biophysical constraints.

Failure to Adapt to Crisis: As ecological and resource crises intensify due to overshoot, policymakers lacking scientific understanding may react with policies that double down on the very growth-oriented approaches that caused the problems, rather than pursuing fundamental systemic changes.

In essence, placing policymakers without scientific understanding in positions that formulate energy and resource policy is akin to having a financial manager with no understanding of accounting principles trying to run a complex corporation during a period of severe financial distress. They are operating with an incomplete and often fundamentally flawed model of reality, making them ill-equipped to navigate the challenges of the 21st century.”

Schuyler further shared the following with me when I asked about sharing the above:

“…from what I can tell, at least sometimes when you ask AI about economic policy issues, it will regurgitate popular narratives… So you ask it, “What’s the scientific perspective?” or even more specifically, “What is the biophysical economic perspective?”

When I don’t specify science, AI engines will often feed me with popular opinions or “common knowledge” that sounds like ideas that people who are pedigreed in journalism would recycle from the endless circle of uninformed opinion that seems to materialize out of nothing! ”

My thoughts…

My first reaction to the AI response to Schuyler’s query is, ‘of course’. Anyone who views our world in ways that mostly if not completely ignore the biogeophysical realities and limits upon a finite planet can’t help but ‘miss’ some (or all) of the complexities and have a somewhat tainted lens to view the world through. This narrow perspective leads them to believe that they can control many aspects that they in fact cannot via policy and other manipulations–although there exist many scientifically-trained individuals that believe humans can ‘control’ complex systems as well, so perhaps there is no significant difference.

It may be that those without the requisite background knowledge and training in the natural sciences are more likely to have such an impaired perspective. They may see and understand the world in a completely different way than those that are viewing things via a scientific paradigm (which scientific paradigm is also something to consider–a physicist will tend to see the world slightly differently than a biologist or economist or sociologist, for example–and then there’s the entire natural versus social science conundrum).

This being said, I’ve come to understand that many policy-/decision-makers trained in the natural sciences (and even practised it for some time) can and will support and proffer policies that are anything but grounded in ‘good’ science. The reason for this, I believe, is because those with such schooling that tend to get into positions of policy-making and decision-making have spent years within the echo chambers of government and associated institutions; they are, in some sense, no longer practising scientists but politicians and/or bureaucrats that have very different motivations. Those trained in science but with careers in politics/bureaucracies are not necessarily (and perhaps not at all) much better at shutting out the pressures and influences of the established sociopolitical and socioeconomic systems than those not so schooled. In other words, educational training in the natural sciences does not a good policy-maker necessarily make.

It does seem true that most of our ‘elected’ officials and bureaucrats are not well-trained in the natural sciences, if at all. Their schooling tends to be in social sciences or liberal arts (particularly law, economics, and politics) that view the world quite differently than those trained in biology, geology, ecology, physics, etc.. But, again, I’m not sure that those trained in the natural sciences could or would view our social systems and the policies that they are deciding on much differently after a few years or decades immersed in the systems that dominate our societies’ political institutions. [Note: it’s a very different conversation if one is in an ‘advisory’ role where there is no decision and policy making; my experience in such situations is that the policy that is implemented almost always reflects the sociopolitical and/or socioeconomic status quo–discussions and concerns voiced in advisory committees are rarely truly influential in institutional policy; and that was my personal experience for a few school board-level ones that I sat on as a teacher federation representative within the field of education.]

I’ve also witnessed a number of people in political positions acknowledge the negative consequences of our pursuit of perpetual growth on a finite planet (particularly the environmental impacts) yet support wholeheartedly continued growth. Such acknowledgements may be merely theatrical in nature, but their typical rebuttal is something along the lines of ‘It’s different this time because we can do it better/smarter’ or ‘We don’t want to avoid the good at the expense of pursuing the perfect’ or ‘We’re putting a butterfly parkette in to compensate for the wetlands and forest being paved over for the homes and roads’. These responses, to me, are rationalisations to continue with status quo policies. And most politicians/bureaucrats regardless of educational training go along with such things to avoid ‘rocking the boat’ and/or ensure continued advancement within the institutions in which they are employed.

I am not, therefore, convinced at all that putting those with a science background in positions of policy- and decision-making would change things much, if at all. It might work, in theory, but there’s often if not always a disconnect between theory and practice.

And then, of course, there’s the entire notion that we have little to no agency in changing the course our species seems to be on…or that ecological overshoot is a predicament that can at best be mitigated marginally and certainly not ‘solved’ via policy…or that our species’ problem-solving behaviour tends to exacerbate the issues that we are attempting to address…or that complex systems with their nonlinear feedback loops and emergent phenomena tend to react to perturbations (including human interventions) in completely unexpected, unpredictable, and uncontrollable ways.

Perhaps the issue here is not who is ‘in charge’ and their educational background but some deeper flaw in our species and its means of adaptation to an uncertain universe…

Thank you, Schuyler, for once again giving me something to ponder today as I spent a few hours in my food gardens harvesting some late-maturing veggies and preparing the beds for the coming Canadian winter…

What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:

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…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

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.

View more on Steve Bull's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 08, 2025 16:03

September 3, 2025

The Bulletin: August 27-September 2, 2025

The Bull etin: August 27-September 2, 2025This past week’s articles of interest…

CLICK HERE

If you’re new to my writing, check out this overview .

Experts Warn The Internet Will Go Down In A Big Way — And You’d Better Be Ready

Bioregioning Is Our Future – resilience

Forest Fires: The Disheartening Post of the Day

Data centers will tax Great Lakes water resources, report warns – mlive.com

America’s fragile drug supply chain is extremely vulnerable to climate change – Ars Technica

Renaissance Lessons for an Age of Collapse | Art Berman

Collapse Might be Different for Everyone – by Michael Campi

Collapse for the 99% | Luke Kemp – by Rachel Donald

Rethinking Biodiversity Loss

Radical Role Models

Greenland’s Energy Stakes Trigger Denmark-U.S. Diplomatic Clash | OilPrice.com

Collapse of critical Atlantic current is no longer low-likelihood, study finds | Oceans | The Guardian

How building soil and vegetation health helps weather climate extremes

Russia Uncovers 511 Billion Barrels of Oil Beneath Antarctica: A Fi…

Europe On Path To War Economy: Rheinmetall Opens Continent’s Largest Ammo Factory | ZeroHedge

The Artificiality Created Seed World

They’re Lying About Venezuela

The Great Experiment. Will We Survive It?

The Next Energy Crunch Has Arrived

Jack Alpert on Civilizations Predicament and Its Unwinding Behavior

Doing Everything Wrong

Government Of Canada: Disruptions On the Horizon

Global greening causes significant soil moisture loss, study find

Peak Water Security’ Crisis, Texas A&M Researcher Warns

We have a date for the zenith of civilization: 2025-2026 | Peak Everything, Overshoot, & Collapse

Context Matters

The Seed Underground

Large US Grid Lacks Capacity for New Data Centers, Watchdog Says

Drugs During Collapse

The Myth Of Complexity

The Energy Transition That Never Was

Humans inhale as much as 68,000 microplastic particles daily, study finds | Plastics | The Guardian

Maduro ready to declare ‘republic in arms’ if US forces attack Venezuela

Delusion Is the Ultimate Renewable Energy Source

Collapse Is a Group Project, and I’ve Signed You All Up

Our theory of collapse – by Richard Hames – Crude Futures

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…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

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.

View more on Steve Bull's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on September 03, 2025 01:00

August 29, 2025

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXII–A ‘Great Simplification’ Is On Our Doorstep, Redux

Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CCXII–A ‘Great Simplification’ Is On Our Doorstep, Redux

klementoninvesting.substack.com

A couple of months ago, I penned an article summarising a handful of resources that had helped to inform and guide my thinking on our various predicaments. Those five resources were just a sampling of the ones I’ve been exposed to over the years. During my initial exposure to the concept of peak oil and its implications for societal collapse, I devoured numerous resources as I struggled to understand the information and process the arguments being made.

Below you will find another half dozen summaries of additional resources I reviewed with an attempt to combine their arguments into a coherent ‘conclusion’ about what they suggest for humanity’s future….which is not unlike that reached in the first post. (see: Website Medium Substack)

Collapse

The 2009 documentary, Collapse, features the late Michael Ruppert and was the driving force for my journey into the rabbit hole of peak oil and a revisiting and deeper look into the idea of societal ‘collapse–I bought and read Joseph Tainter’s The Collapse Of Complex Societies not long after viewing the documentary.

I was somewhat aware of the notion of societal decline, having pursued an undergraduate degree and Master of Arts in anthropology (focussing mostly on North American archaeology; working on archaeological digs in Ontario, Canada, and near Oaxaca, Mexico), but never truly read much on it or its wider implications while a student–except for reading Bruce Trigger’s Times and Traditions: Essays In Archaeological Interpretation that, amongst other things, explored the notion of cultural continuity over time (I worked for/with and learned from two of his graduate students–one that remained in academia, Dr. David G. Smith). And I had never heard the term ‘Peak Oil’ prior to watching this documentary.

One fateful Friday evening in late 2010, on a family outing to our local Blockbuster to pick up some videotapes for weekend viewing, I came across Collapse and it sounded interesting. So, I rented it to watch sometime in the next few days–along with some others (probably a Pixar movie or two given the age of my daughters at the time), likely the latest Toy Story or The Incredibles.

The documentary is basically an extended interview with Michael Ruppert, a Los Angeles narcotics detective turned whistleblower, journalist, and author. While the director of the film was seeking Ruppert out to follow-up on his accusations about high-level drug smuggling by the CIA, he found Ruppert had become far more interested in the concept of Peak Oil, our debt-based and financialised economic system, government and corporate malfeasance, environmental degradation, and the implications of all of these for industrial civilisation and its sustainability.

forbes.com

The primary concern raised by Ruppert in the documentary is the peak of hydrocarbon resources, particularly oil. He argues that it is a key tipping point for societal collapse given the importance of this resource for maintaining virtually every complex system in modern societies–particularly manufacturing, transportation, and agriculture. He also stresses that oil is vital for sustaining the growth that underpins our monetary systems and financialised economies. He asserts that the decline of cheap, abundant oil means the decline of the energy available to keep our modern, global-industrial societies functioning, and certainly not growing as they have.

Ruppert goes on to argue that the much ballyhooed and trumpeted alternatives (i.e., nuclear, solar, biofuels, wind, hydrogen) cannot replace oil’s density nor its scale, being distractions or worse (i.e., scams). He is also highly critical of the Ponzi-type structure of our debt-based financial system and its dependence upon infinite growth on a finite planet. He argues that this is an entirely unsustainable system and is set up for a catastrophic collapse at some point.

Ruppert also points out that there is an awareness of the above converging crises by the world’s governments and corporations, and that they are covering them up in order to suppress dissent and maintain status quo economic and power structures. It was Ruppert’s growing awareness and investigations into CIA drug trafficking that opened his eyes to the systemic corruption prevalent in government and eventually led him to appreciating how important energy resources are to supporting industrial civilisation–a significant amount of government policy and action has been oriented towards securing and controlling energy (i.e., oil) reserves, regardless of the ‘costs’.

Ruppert highlights the undeniable fact that humanity has entered ecological overshoot by living far beyond the planet’s natural environmental carrying capacity through its consumption of resources in a manner significantly faster than they can be replenished. His contention is that modern, industrial civilisation founded upon cheap oil (and other hydrocarbons) and with a completely unsustainable economic system is on the precipice of ‘collapse’ with no ‘solutions’ to this predicament.

You can view this documentary here.

The End of Growth: Adapting to Our New Economic Reality

Ecologist Richard Heinberg’s 2011 text asserts that the exponential economic growth that has been present since the Industrial Revolution has basically ended due to fundamental biogeophysical limits. This, he argues, is a permanent decline and not a temporary phenomenon.

He posits that this cessation is due to: energy constraints (particularly easy- and cheap-to-access hydrocarbons); ecological systems degradation (most planetary boundaries have been breached–especially with respect to resource scarcity, biodiversity loss, pollution, and climate); and, economic instability (due to its debt-based foundation and the need for perpetual growth to sustain it).

resilience.org

Heinberg further challenges the concept of growth being synonymous with prosperity, stressing that the negative social and environmental costs are typically ignored. He contends that the growth imperative that societies pursue is completely unsustainable on a finite planet, and that the depletion of resources and falling net energy are limits that economic analyses overlook. He also argues that the technology and economic ‘solutions’ typically chased can only provide temporary relief, being unable to replace hydrocarbons at scale or energy density.

He believes that there is no immediate threat but that the growth we have known has ended and we have a choice to make between unmanaged ‘collapse’ and ‘managed’ decline towards a ‘steady-state’ economy that exists within ecological boundaries.

The components of his proposed response with respect to managing societal ‘degrowth’ include, in no particular order, efforts to: stabilise population growth in order to reduce increasing demand and stress on the planet; reduce consumption and waste, thereby conserving resources; relocalise economies to reduce dependence upon fragile, long-distance supply chains; abandon our debt-based monetary system and its dependence upon perpetual growth, and restructure/write-down current, unpayable debts; rapiding scale up ‘renewable’ energy sources; and, encourage sufficiency, sustainability, and community, while discouraging material accumulation.

Heinberg’s contention is that the 2008 financial crisis was not a one-off, isolated event but a symptom of deeper systemic limits to growth, and stresses the consequences of energy depletion on the financial system. He suggests that fundamental change to the system is necessary given the long-term prospects of continuing the growth imperative.

Basically, Heinberg presents the argument that the global economy has encountered a limit with significant headwinds caused by debt saturation, resource depletion, and environmental degradation. He concludes that disaster is guaranteed if we continue with the growth paradigm and that the best path forward is a conscious transition towards resilient communities and an ecologically-sustainable economy.

The Crash Course: The Unsustainable Future Of Our Economy, Energy, And Environment

Chris Martenson’s The Crash Course (2011) suggests that the next twenty years are going to be very different from the past twenty as three converging crises (i.e., energy, economy, environment) are increasingly impacting humanity and its modern societies. Martenson argues that our various systems are unsustainable and set up for a ‘crash/collapse’, primarily due to our exponential growth (population and economic) bumping into the biogeophysical limits of a finite planet.

The most fundamental issue, according to Martenson, is humanity’s poor understanding of the exponential function and our pursuit of growth. This is especially true as it pertains to population, debt, resource consumption, and the impacts of these on the environment. While things can appear stable for a long period of time, exponential growth results in dramatic, sudden consequences.

shutterstock.com

Of primary importance are the interlocking crises of the three Es: economy, energy, and the environment.

The current world economy has been founded upon ever-increasing debt (particularly since the gold-standard was abandoned) with a money system requiring continuous growth to avoid collapse. Massive unfunded liabilities are present (that likely won’t be met) along with destabilising inequality.

Our current societies depend upon energy for all its complex systems, particularly that derived from hydrocarbons. We have enjoyed more than a century of cheap, high-quality, and abundant hydrocarbons (especially oil) to build modernity, but that time has passed with the more expensive, more difficult to extract, and lower EROEI (energy-return-on-energy-invested) hydrocarbons now dominant. Given our dependency on this resource (and alternative’s inability to scale up, their intermittency, and increasing mineral/material challenges), the growth needed to keep our complexities functioning is at risk.

Not only is the exponential growth humanity is pursuing colliding with resource limits, but climate change has become a major threat along with pollution and degradation of our environment. These things are putting the planet’s ability to support human economic activity and all life at risk.

Martenson emphasises that these crises are interrelated in a complex manner with economic growth requiring energy, but the extraction and use of energy is resulting in ecological systems disruption and collapse. This environmental harm negatively impacts the economy with increasing amounts of energy necessary to mitigate the negative consequences. But debt-based money needs growth, requiring even more resources and energy–a very problematic feedback loop.

This pursuit of perpetual growth on a planet with finite resources is impossible and so the system will change, regardless of our wishes to sustain it. This ‘crash’ is a process, not an event, and will result in a lower-throughput world. We are likely to experience a long period of economic contraction, resource scarcity, environmental instability, and social disruptions.

Martenson offers some means of adapting on various levels. On a personal level, he suggests getting out of debt and putting any savings in tangible assets, learning some practical skills, and building local connections. For communities, he believes that they should build local food systems and economic networks, and create local energy production. Finally, on a societal level, he argues that there should be a proactive transition towards true sustainability. In particular, Martenson includes an entire chapter (What Should I Do?) on actionable advice, such as preparedness, personal finance, and community building.

This text outlines the systemic risks for modernity, highlighting the interlocking complexity of the environment, economy, and energy, and why the pursuit of perpetual growth on a finite planet is a dangerous myth. As a result, Martension stresses that humanity should begin immediate preparation by way of adopting adaptive strategies that provide communities with resilience.

You can access the video series of this text here.

The Long Emergency: Surviving the Converging Crises of the Twenty-First Century

James Howard Kunstler’s The Long Emergency (2005) presents the case that our modern world, built upon relatively inexpensive hydrocarbons (particularly oil), has begun an era of building crises and contraction. As a result of ‘Peak Oil’ a decades-long period of resource scarcity, economic contraction, social disruptions, and environmental degradation is upon us. This will result in the eventual collapse of modernity’s complex systems and a return to localised, agrarian communities.

Of particular importance to these crises is Peak Oil–the peak of the easy-to-access conventional oil is the ultimate catalyst to our predicament. With its portability, energy-denseness, and importance to virtually everything in our societies (especially agriculture, transportation, and manufacturing), its decline equals the contraction of human economies and interconnectedness.

The failure of ‘renewables’ to be able to be scaled up in time or be as effective to alleviate the eventual depletion of oil puts the continuation of modernity at significant risk. This risk is being exacerbated by a changing climate that is contributing to drought, floods, agricultural disruptions, and infrastructure damage and destruction.

But even with ‘renewables’, the issue of resource depletion is becoming problematic with shortages of fresh water, fish, topsoil, and various important minerals. On top of these issues is the rise of infectious disease and the likelihood of pandemics that can result in population displacement, antibiotic resistance, supply chain disruptions, etc..

As these predicaments combine to add increasing stress to our world, we are witnessing growing economic and political instability. Kunstler predicts the failure of centralised governments and our globalised and financialised economic systems as a result of this, leading to increased authoritarianism, international and domestic fragmentation, and conflict.

He further suggests that our world will soon witness the: ‘collapse of suburbia’ (“the greatest misallocation of resources in history”) due to its significant dependence upon cheap oil (e.g., cars and trucks), lack of local resources, and inefficient land use; end of globalisation as complex and fragile long-distance supply chains falter, alongside the growth of localised/regional economies; contraction of our finance-based and growth-dependent global economies; decline of populations because of famine, disease, and conflict; sociopolitical stress and extremism, accompanied by social unrest, mass migrations, and rising conflict over resources due to shortages; rise of ‘Agrarian Localism’ signalled by labour-intensive farming communities where skills and knowledge in farming, carpentry, and small engines will be vital to community survival. All of this will lead to geographic-based winners and losers where areas with potable water, fertile soil, and navigable waterways will fare much better than those without.

The book is a warning that the abundance of modernity (at least for some in so-called advanced economies) is approaching an end with the waning of inexpensive oil. Kunstler predicts an at-times chaotic restructuring of human societies and calls for a recognition of the ever-present risks of our globalised, industrial-based world and for building community-level resilience.

The Long Descent: A User’s Guide to the End of the Industrial Age

John Michael Greer’s 2008 text presents the case that industrial civilisation’s simplification will be a rather long and uneven decline by way of what he terms ‘Catabolic Collapse’. There will be long periods of stability with relatively shorter periods of crisis—a staircase-type descent over generations towards a deindustrialised future.

The idea of ‘catabolic collapse’ is based on the notion that a society will consume its capital (e.g., infrastructure, social complexity) to meet the needs that erupt during a crisis, similar to an organism cannibalising its body for energy when starving. When a crisis arises, such as an economic depression, breakdown and loss occurs but stabilisation at a lower level of complexity eventually takes place based upon use of ‘resources’ from the previous, higher level. This ‘cycle’ occurs periodically over decades/centuries leading to a much simplified society/civilisation with variability depending upon local context.

The impossibility of pursuing perpetual growth on a finite planet combined with diminishing returns on investments in complexity are the prime causes of ‘collapse’. Resource depletion (especially of oil), environmental damage, and economic instability have led to this irreversible predicament with the rate of decline and the challenges encountered varying widely depending upon regional context and the resources available.

Greer stresses that there will be significant sociocultural and psychological challenges to this descent, especially as it pertains to beliefs in progress and privilege. He is quite critical of the blind faith most have regarding technology and its ability to ‘save’ humanity from this predicament, especially because they all depend upon the resources that are quickly depleting and/or they almost always create new issues/problems.

Greer’s advice for addressing the issues is for individuals and communities to try and avoid the denial of this reality and build local resilience via practical skill development (e.g., traditional crafts, gardening, basic healthcare, etc.) to reduce as much as possible reliance upon the complexities of modern societies. He sees the attempts to save our industrialised societies as futile and argues that we would be better to learn how to repurpose equipment and preserve valuable knowledge and skills that will serve regions in a de-industrialised world.

Greer’s perspective is based upon pre/historical examples of ‘collapse’, ecology, and systems thinking. It focuses upon practical adaptation rather than attempts to maintain the unsustainable, arguing that the future will not be characterised by either the utopian nor apocalyptic predictions. The future will be one of a lengthy, descending staircase due to ecological limits and resource depletion. Its multi-generational descent affords the opportunity to those willing to accept its inevitability the time to prepare for a more localised and hopefully sustainable future.

[See: Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXXV–Collapse Now To Avoid The Rush: Our Long Emergency. Website Medium Substack]

The End of Growth: Adapting to a New Reality of Expensive Oil and Slower Growth

Economist Jeff Rubin’s 2012 text argues that high, sustained oil prices (due to geopolitical instability and scarcity) have brought an end to the ongoing economic growth of the past century. These high oil prices act as a ‘tax’ by increasing production costs across all sectors and typically trigger recessions. Rubin predicts that a permanent high price could prevent a robust recovery towards previous growth rates.

Moreover, inexpensive transportation fuels are what has aided the growth of globalisation, long-distance supply chains, and just-in-time delivery/inventory systems; higher prices put these all at risk. We should expect a relocalisation of production as a result; alongside more expensive consumer products.

Unconventional oil resources (i.e., shale and bitumen/tar sands) are not the saviours they are being touted as since they are far more expensive to extract. They will not bring lower costs back, nor result in the surplus net energy that sustains growth. Alternatives such as complex wind and solar technologies are also not helpful since they are expensive and cannot scale up rapidly. These ‘renewables’ require massive investments that are more difficult to make in an era of low growth and high debt.

Rubin argues that recessions and the debt crises and austerity that tend to follow are the symptoms of expensive energy and not the cause. The fallout from increasing energy prices are feedbacks that further depress demand and result in slower or stagnant economic growth and price inflation (i.e., stagflation).

With higher energy prices, we are likely to experience what Rubin terms ‘stagflation lite’ characterised by much slower growth and persistent price inflation. Central banks that are charged with stimulating growth (usually via attempts to reduce interest rates) while fighting price inflation (usually via attempts to increase interest rates) are caught in a dilemma.

Rubin predicts that consumers in ‘developed’ economies will experience a decline in their consumption due to price inflation caused by higher energy prices. There will also be a continued shrinking of the ‘middle’ class, and reduced trade deficits and volume for these economies. He further believes that expensive fuels will reduce long-distance commuting, making suburban communities less attractive and leading to a revitalisation of urban centres. There will also likely be a resurgence of local and regional goods production, especially of food.

As an economist, Rubin focuses mostly upon the price of oil and its knock-on impacts. He holds that this is the most important aspect and not resource depletion per se. He notes the historical connection between recessions and oil price spikes. Rubin considers the end of growth as an economic inevitability driven by market forces but not necessarily resulting in ‘collapse’.

Basically, he argues that the era of relatively cheap oil has ended and with it the end of the robust growth developed economies have experienced for decades. The hyper-globalisation characterised by this time will reverse and a relocalisation of goods production will ensue. This transition will see slower growth, higher prices, and a lower standard of living, particularly in terms of material goods.

These resources come to a relatively common conclusion: over the coming decades modern human societies will experience an inevitable transformation due to fundamental constraints and significant challenges.

Primary among their messages is that the growth human societies have experienced for some centuries (and especially the past two, thanks to cheap and abundant hydrocarbons) is approaching an inescapable end. Environmental degradation, the limits imposed by finite resources, and an unsustainable debt-based financial system have combined to bring a rather abrupt halt to the ongoing growth of humanity, particularly its population and economies. Founded upon the idea of perpetual growth, modern complex societies cannot continue on their current trajectory. A significant reduction in material throughput is guaranteed which can’t help but lead to economic stagnation/collapse.

The primary reason for all of this is that the relatively dense energy resource that has been easy-to-access and cheap-to-extract/-distribute–and enabled modernity (in the sense of industrialisation and massive, globalised energy-averaging systems)–has encountered significant diminishing returns. The consequence of this is that less and less net energy is available as time passes, and is made worse by our growth momentum. While some argue that alternative energy sources are important to pursue, they admit that they are insufficient to maintain societal complexity.

Given the above, it seems certain that the future of human societies will be one with far less energy available leading to far less complexity. This means the contraction and eventual loss of most long-distance supply chains, with more localised production of goods. The organisational and technological complexity of modernity will also contract and simplify, meaning less bureaucracy and much greater reliance on local knowledge/skills, manual labour, and simpler tools. Regions with ample local resources (especially water and arable lands) may fare relatively well but large urban centres that depend upon the inflow of resources will very likely struggle.

It’s important to note that while there may be very turbulent periods during this inevitable contraction, most authors contend that the coming simplification will be relatively gradual. ‘Collapse’ will not likely be ‘sudden’ but will be prolonged with periods of crises as well as periods of relative stability, and perhaps even some ‘recovery’ to a higher level of complexity–at least for a short time before continuing its simplification.

The consequences of the coming simplification will probably be uneven for regions, communities, and social classes. Much will depend upon local resources, infrastructure, leadership, and social cohesion. There is likely to be much turmoil, instability, and conflict. Societies are likely to experience resource conflict, political uncertainty, economic recession/depression, social discontent, and quite possibly violence. Many also suggest that climate change will act as a ‘threat multiplier’.

Overall, these individuals contend that extinction is not the likely outcome but a radical transformation of our global, industrialised societies is since these are quite unsustainable. The inevitable simplification/descent/collapse/decline of complex societies will likely experience bouts of drastic disruption and conflict, as well as severe hardships and increasing vulnerability to shocks (e.g., political, economic). Community/regional resilience via social cohesion, practical skills, local resources, etc., will aid in adapting to changes as they occur over decades/generations.

While the future is certainly uncertain, prospects strongly suggest it will be one of less complexity and energy, and one of increasing localisation. The speed of energy decline, climate impacts, and adaptive effectiveness will determine the path and severity of the trajectory for most.

Prepare accordingly.

What is going to be my standard WARNING/ADVICE going forward and that I have reiterated in various ways before this:

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…

https://paypal.me/olduvaitrilogy?country.x=CA&locale.x=en_US

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.

View more on Steve Bull's website »

Like • 0 comments • flag

Published on August 29, 2025 01:00

← Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 … 1380 1381 Next →

Steve Bull's Blog

Steve Bull's profile
1 follower