Steve Bull's Blog, page 64
March 26, 2024
Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh LXXXII–Government: Constantly Forsaking Our Ecological Systems to Chase the Perpetual Growth Chalice
December 7, 2022 (original posting date)
Chitchen Itza, Mexico. (1986) Photo by author.Government: Constantly Forsaking Our Ecological Systems to Chase the Perpetual Growth Chalice
Todays’ contemplation has been prompted by the usual shenanigans of government. In this case, the government of my home province of Ontario, Canada.
As regular readers of my posts are acutely aware, I have a strong belief that the primary guiding principle/motivation of our ruling caste is the control/expansion of the wealth-generation/-extraction systems that provide their revenue streams and thus positions of power and prestige. Everything they touch is leveraged towards this goal.
Not surprisingly, the political elite within this caste always twist/market their actions/policies that serve to meet the above principle as a social service for the masses because regardless of their power/influence they continue to require the ‘support’ of the hoi polloi so as to avoid revolution/overthrow (they are, after all, hugely outnumbered and depend upon the non-elite for their labour and taxes). If the masses were ever to come to the realisation that our governments are, for all intents and purposes, little more than criminal organisations using their positions and power to funnel wealth from national ‘treasuries’ to their families and ‘friends’, and create legislation that strengthens this corruption, the reaction could be, well, who knows…history suggests it doesn’t end well for some of the elite.
As archaeologist Joseph Tainter points out in The Collapse of Complex Societies, the activities surrounding legitimising the status quo power/wealth structures is common in any society in order for the political system to survive. While coercion can ensure some compliance, it is a more costly approach than moral validity. States tend to focus on a symbolic and scared ‘centre’ (necessarily independent of its various territorial parts), which is why they always have an official religion, linking leadership to the supernatural (which helps unify different groups/regions). This need for such religious integration, however, recedes — although not the sense of the scared — once other avenues for retaining power exist. In modern nation states, this ‘sacred’ has become ‘government’; an organisational structure whose existence and necessity is rarely questioned.
It is for the reason of enhancing/maintaining government legitimacy that domestic populations are constantly exposed to persuasive narratives that paint its sociopolitical ‘leaders’ as beneficent servants of the people — thank you narrative control managers (especially the legacy media) for this. This recurring phenomenon rings true throughout time and regardless of the form of government.
Back to the target of this contemplation…
My provincial government has recently opened up a bit of a hornet’s nest around the expansion of housing upon significantly ecologically-sensitive lands of the Oak Ridges Moraine[1] that had been ‘protected’ from such exploitation since 2005 by a legislative act of our provincial parliament[2]. The narratives around the ‘protection’ of this area are interesting to peruse[3].
There has been a flurry of media articles and social media posts revealing the cronyism between the current government and certain landowners that stand to profit handsomely from this policy shift[4] — many of whom purchased the land in question in just the past few years. And while these revelations are interesting and serve to confirm my bias regarding the ruling caste, this is not what I wish to focus upon.
I want to talk a bit about the Overton Window[5] or ‘controlled opposition[6]’ that I have noticed in my province around this issue and the related notion of growth, especially population growth and its concomitant impact on the environment and ecological systems.
Virtually every article and citizen comment I’ve read around this issue responds in a relatively tightly closed worldview that assumes a few things, particularly that growth is not only beneficial but must and will occur. Since it is good and will continue, the ‘debate’ becomes one of urban sprawl verses densification.
It would be best, the argument goes, for the environment and ecological systems if we were avoid expanding into this ‘Greenbelt’ and to contain our growth within tightly-packed urban centres. This perspective is heralded far and wide but especially by so-called environmentally-minded groups/individuals.
For example, the Greenbelt Foundation — an “organization solely dedicated to ensuring the Greenbelt remains permanent, protected and prosperous” — argues that “Growing in more compact ways, relying more on intensifying existing urban areas and creating dense, mixed-use new communities can reduce long-term financial commitments and ensure better fiscal health now and for generations to come.”[7]
None realise that increasing density does not necessarily equate to environmental soundness since it is the numbers of people that leads to the most significant drawdown of finite resources, not necessarily how they are distributed — particularly in ‘advanced’ economies where consumption is significantly higher than other economies. Yes, small and walkable communities do tend to show a decrease in certain resource needs but one cannot keep packing more and more people into tight spaces and argue the environment and ecological systems are ‘saved’ in such a scenario.
The many cons of densification are ignored. Such as the ‘heat island effect’ that increases energy consumption, the increased economic activity and consumption that tends to accompany dense urban centres, and traffic congestion that can cause emissions increases — to say little about the social pathologies and negative health impacts found in higher density settlements, such as the increased prevalence of anxiety/depression or the speed with which epidemics can spread[8].
Nowhere does one read a challenge to the very foundation of this interpretive lens that growth is good and inevitable. Nowhere is a discussion of halting growth or, God forbid, reversing it (i.e., degrowth). Growth MUST continue, and this pertains to both economic and population growth.
Growth is of course a leverage point for our ruling caste. It is used, in my opinion, to continue to expand the wealth-generation and -extractions systems but also, and perhaps more importantly, to maintain the Ponzi-like nature of our financial/economic systems. It is, however, as are all policies/actions, marketed as the means to ensure our prosperity.
Here I am reminded of a passage from Donella Meadows’s text Thinking in Systems: A Primer (2008):
“…a clear leverage point: growth. Not only population growth, but economic growth. Growth has costs as well as benefits, and we typically don’t count the costs — among which are poverty and hunger, environmental destruction and so on — the whole list of problems we are trying to solve with growth! What is needed is much slower growth, very different kinds of growth, and in some cases no growth or negative growth. The world leaders are correctly fixated on economic growth as the answer to all problems, but they’re pushing with all their might in the wrong direction. …leverage points frequently are not intuitive. Or if they are, we too often use them backward, systematically worsening whatever problems we are trying to solve.”
The thinking outlined above by Meadows regarding negative growth and pushing in the wrong direction is completely foreign to the discussions I am witnessing on the expansion into Ontario’s ‘Greenbelt’. None dare challenge the mythical narrative that growth is good and inevitable. Such out-of-the-box thinking is not allowed. If such a thought is shared, the speaker is marginalised or ignored by most.
This is particularly so if one enters the kryptonite-like morass that is population growth in ‘advanced’ economies where such growth is ensured by skimming people from other countries — spun as a social service to the world’s needy — but is really about keeping the financial/economic Ponzi from collapsing because domestic populations are not reproducing fast enough[9].
And here I am reminded of another text passage, this time by Noam Chomsky in The Common Good (1998)[10]:
“In general, the mainstream media [everyone] all make certain basic assumptions, like the necessity of maintaining a welfare state for the rich. Within that framework, there’s some room for differences of opinion, and it’s entirely possible that the major media are toward the liberal end of that range. In fact, in a well-designed propaganda system, that’s exactly where they should be. The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively debate within that spectrum — even encourage the more critical and dissident views. That gives people the sense that there’s free thinking going on, while all the time the presuppositions of the system are being reinforced by the limits put on the range of the debate.” ~Noam Chomsky
This appears to be the crux of the matter when it comes to many issues. The ruling caste, with the help of the mainstream media and others, circumscribe the range of the debate. This provides cover for the ultimate endgame — in the issue over the Greenbelt expansion it is the accommodation of population expansion through the construction of millions of homes (and it matters not whether these are on ecologically-sensitive lands or not in the long run) from which the ruling caste will undoubtedly make billions of dollars in profits…while the finite resources necessary to support this growth become more rare and costly to extract/process, and the environment and ecological systems upon which we depend continue to experience disruption and destruction.
We are continually fed a mythical narrative about growth and then set to debate and argue each other over how to accommodate it while ignoring the only way that might help to mitigate — at least marginally — our ecological overshoot predicament: degrowth.
[1] See this, this, this, and/or this.
[3] See this, this, and/or this.
[4] See this, this, this, this, this, this, this, and/or this.
[5] See this, this, and/or this.
[6] See this, this, and/or this.
[8] See this, this, and/or this.
[10] Hat tip to Erik Michaels who reminded me of this passage in his latest writing, that I highly recommend.
Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh LXXXI–Diminishing Returns On Investments In Complexity
December 4, 2022 (original posting date)
Chitchen Itza, Mexico. (1986) Photo by author.Diminishing Returns On Investments In Complexity
Another very brief contemplation prompted by The Honest Sorcerer’s latest writing regarding our energy predicament.
What you have described so well is perhaps the conundrum faced by every complex society throughout history: diminishing returns on investments in complexity.
This phenomenon appears to apply to almost everything in the human realm but most importantly resource extraction and use as you suggest.
We do tend to put into action the easier and cheaper solutions to our perceived problems with those, in turn, adding to our complexity and creating even more problems that need even more attention (i.e., energy and other resources).
I have argued before and continue to believe that the ‘best’ use of our remaining energy resources would be to encourage local communities to become self-sufficient (especially in terms of potable water procurement, food production, and regional shelter needs) but perhaps even more importantly decommission those complexities that pose significant risk to present and future species.
As I wrote some time ago: “Three of the more problematic [complexities] include: nuclear power plants and their waste products; chemical production and storage facilities; and, biosafety labs and their dangerous pathogens. The products and waste of these complex creations are not going to be ‘contained’ when the energy to do so is no longer available. And loss of this containment will create some hazardous conditions for human existence in their immediate surroundings at the very least — in fact, multiple nuclear facility meltdowns could potentially put the entire planet at risk for all species.”)
I believe ‘simplification’ is coming but am highly doubtful it will be through much if any ‘coordinated’ effort by our ruling caste. As many who have studied our predicament have argued, it will be Nature that imposes the ‘solution’ to this conundrum that is humanity and we will have little to say about it.
As walking, talking apes that tend to deny reality and believe in ‘magic’, we will continue to weave comforting narratives that our human ingenuity and concomitant technological prowess can save us from ourselves.
Imagination, however, is not reality and while we can think up all sorts of possibilities the starkness of physical laws and biological principles stand firmly in the path ahead preventing our magic from having any real impact — except, perhaps, to exacerbate our predicament.
Civil Liberties Supporters Sue Trudeau’s Government for Freezing Bank Accounts
Defend free speech and individual liberty online. Push back against Big Tech and media gatekeepers. Subscribe to Reclaim The Net.
SubscribeTwenty plaintiffs heavily embroiled in the 2022 Freedom Convoy, have initiated a legal battle against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and other high-ranking members of his cabinet, at the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
The lawsuit results from the government’s decision to freeze their financial assets under the measures of the Emergencies Act—an act which they feel breached their Charter rights.
The list of defendants includes not only Trudeau, but names such as Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland, former ministers Marco Mendicino and David Lametti, ex-RCMP commissioner Brenda Lucki, acting Ottawa Police commissioner Steve Bell, and numerous banks across Canada. The lawsuit, lodged by the Calgary-based Loberg Ector LLP, calls for a total of $2.2 million in compensation for each plaintiff.
We obtained a copy of the complaint for you here.
The defendants are accused of malicious and high-handed misconduct, breaching contractual agreements, and committing an “assault and battery” on the plaintiffs by unlawfully seizing their bank accounts. These actions, the plaintiffs argue, violate section 2(b) and section 8 Charter rights, which protect their freedom of expression and safeguard against unauthorized search and seizure.
Text exchanges between Ben Chin and Tyler Meredith, senior advisers to the Prime Minister, reveal that the seizure of Freedom Convoy assets was planned as early as early February of 2022 when the Prime Minister’s Office started applying pressure on banks to do so.
Even given the political context, concerted efforts of banks and insurers to resist making moves against their clients were recorded. These exchanges were admitted into the Public Order Emergency Commission as evidence since the commission evaluates the appropriateness of invoking the Emergencies Act in situations like convoy protests.
…click on the above link to read the rest…
Global News: The Wrap-up Smear & More Nazi Talk.
Yet more propaganda and censorship, domestic and foreign
The Wrap-up Smear.
Although this Substack is about international news, I want to start with a five-year old old video of Nancy Pelosi describing a tactic used by democrats and the deep state to target and defame conservatives and people they deem unacceptable, like me. Have a listen. [go to article to view]
“You smear somebody with falsehoods and all the rest and then you merchandise it and then you write it and they’ll say, see, it’s reported in the press that this, this, this and this, so they have that validation that the press reported the smear and then it’s called a wrap-up smear. Now I am going to merchandise the press’ report on the smear that we made. It’s a tactic, and its self evident.”
Representative Nancy Pelosi
This gambit is used a lot. This is what the deep staters used on the original signers of the Great Barrington Declaration. During the Covidcrisis and beyond, it has been utilized by the deep state to divide the sovereignty movement. Of particular interest and relevance is the number of “hit” pieces by conservative influencers to get the leaders of the movement. It you are playing into this gossip game, you are part of the problem. The deep state is using you by getting you to amplify messages that will divide people and organizations that the government doesn’t approve of.
This is a form of black propaganda being used against us by our own government.
As the Supreme court decides the fate of free speech in America today, never forget what we are up against.
Funnily enough, NATO actually has a 2020 report titled “Information Laundering in Germany”, which includes a graphic that describes the “wrap-up smear”.
…click on the above link to read the rest…
Most Americans Believe US Will Be in World War Within Next Decade
The majority of Americans believe it is likely that the US will be involved in a world war during the coming decade. Under President Joe Biden, the US is preparing for great power wars with Russia and China, engaged in multiple Middle East conflicts, and posturing for a confrontation with Iran and North Korea.
According to a new YouGov poll, 61% of Americans responded that it is very or somewhat likely that a world war would break out in the next five to ten years. About two-thirds of people responding to the poll said they believe the war will turn into a nuclear conflict.
When asked what countries would be aligned against the US, a majority of Americans said that North Korea, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and China. Americans identified NATO members such as France and the UK, as well as Israel and Ukraine, as allies in the coming world war.
Americans are not overly optimistic about the potential conflict. A slight majority believe the US and its allies would defeat Russia. While under half of respondents said the US would lose a war with Russia or against an alliance between Moscow and Beijing.
While most Americans believe a global conflict is on the horizon, they are not interested in fighting the war. More than twice as many respondents said they would refuse service even if drafted than stated, they would volunteer if the war broke out. Americans responded that they were more likely to serve in non-combat roles or if the homeland was threatened.
…click on the above link to read the rest…
Dominoes Falling As Biden Admin Deals With Twin Energy Crisis In Russia, Middle East
A twin crisis is unfolding for the Biden administration as the US tax-payer-funded Ukrainian military bombs key crude refineries deep within Russian territory with suicide drones. The administration has pleaded with the Ukranians to halt strikes on Russian energy infrastructure as this will only contribute to tightening global supplies and push energy prices higher, as well as inflation in the US, hurting Biden’s re-election odds.
Now for the other crisis that’s unfolding in the Middle East: US Vice President Kamala Harris told ABC’s “This Week” that a major attack on the Gazan city of Rafah, where more than a million Palestinians have sought refuge, “would be a huge mistake.”
“We have been clear in multiple conversations and in every way that any major military operation in Rafah would be a huge mistake,” Harris said.
She added: “I have studied the maps – there’s nowhere for those folks to go. And we’re looking at about a million and a half people in Rafah who are there because they were told to go there.”
Harris was asked whether there would be “consequences” from the US on an Israeli counteroffensive in Rafah. She responded, “I am ruling out nothing.”
This comes as The Jerusalem Post said Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and other senior officials say an operation into the southern Gazan city is “imminent.”
Bloomberg quoted Israeli intelligence that estimate about 5,000 to 8,000 Hamas fighters are in Rafah.
As we’ve explained before, in the note titled “Terrified” Joe Biden Demands Ukraine Halt Strikes On Russian Refiners As It Is Sending Oil Prices Surging,” Biden’s foreign policy has been and always been about crude markets.
…click on the above link to read the rest…
Port Of Baltimore Paralyzed After Container Ship Strike Collapses Bridge
Update (0645 ET):
A massive container ship chartered by Maersk and moving outbound from the Port of Baltimore struck the Francis Scott Key Bridge around 0130 ET. The bridge collapse has paralyzed a large swath of the largest inland port on the East Coast. The port is ranked 9th for total dollar value of cargo and 13th for cargo tonnage among US ports.
Governor Wes Moore released a statement on the collapse, declaring a State of Emergency in Maryland:
“My office is in close communication with US Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg, Baltimore Mayor Brandon Scott, Baltimore County Executive Johnny Olszewski, and the Baltimore Fire Department as emergency personnel are on the scene following the collapse of the Francis Scott Key Bridge. I have declared a State of Emergency here in Maryland and we are working with an interagency team to quickly deploy federal resources from the Biden Administration. We are thankful for the brave men and women who are carrying out efforts to rescue those involved and pray for everyone’s safety. We will remain in close contact with federal, state, and local entities that are carrying out rescue efforts as we continue to assess and respond to this tragedy.”
Chief Kevin Cartwright, the Baltimore City Fire Department’s director of communications, told Fox Baltimore that at least 20 people and several vehicles had fallen into the river.
* * *
Shocking footage is coming from Baltimore City, home to one of the nation’s largest marine ports. It shows a container ship striking the 1.6-mile-long Francis Scott Key Bridge and collapsing it
Here’s another view of the container ship strike.
“This effectively shuts down the Port of Baltimore completely. I’m truly speechless,” one X user said.
Fox Baltimore’s Olivia Dance describes the scene as “devastating.”
…click on the above link to read the rest…
March 25, 2024
What Happens When There’s Nobody Left to Save Us?
It’s no exaggeration to say that our way of life depends on somebody somewhere saving us from the excesses that are the bedrock of our way of life. What excesses, you ask? There are none. This is true in one sense: all the excesses have been normalized by previous “saves”: whenever the bedrock excesses threaten to collapse under their own weight, the Federal Reserve or the Federal government rush in to save us from the excesses they’ve created.
Stripped of artifice, the bedrock excess that has been completely normalized is to goose consumption by borrowing from future earnings and resources. As long as growth is eternal, this works great: we can always pay more interest on ever-expanding debt with future earnings because those will be inevitably be even larger than the interest due.
Creating money out of thin air is another mechanism that achieves the same goal: goosing consumption via boosting the value of assets to generate a “wealth effect” that lifts all boats. This is also predicated on the eternal expansion of earnings, so wage earners can afford to consume as new money ceaselessly devalues the purchasing power of existing money (what we call inflation).
The problem is these “saves” only work if the interest rate is eternally near-zero and the costs of production are eternally declining: as long as it costs almost nothing to borrow more money into existence and production costs continue to drop, enabling consumers to afford more goodies even as the purchasing power of their wages declines, then all is well.
…click on the above link to read the rest…
Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh LXXX–Ignoring Ecological Systems Destruction
November 28, 2023 (original posting date)
Chitchen Itza, Mexico. (1986) Photo by author.Ignoring Ecological Systems Destruction
This contemplation shares a response of mine to another within an ongoing discussion regarding a Facebook post by Clean Energy Canada[1] highlighting one of Canada’s major energy companies’ offshore wind farm projects. This ‘think tank’ out of Simon Fraser University in British Columbia, Canada works “…to accelerate Canada’s clean energy transition by sharing the story of the global shift to renewable energy, clean technology, and sustainable industries…”[2]
The energy dilemma our species has found itself immersed in is much, much more complex than just fossil fuels versus non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHT) — aka ‘renewables’ — and about energy-return-on-energy-invested (EROEI). Mind you, the numbers you provide for various EROEI seem rather generous towards renewables and not in line with numbers I have seen[3]; of course, there is much disagreement amongst analysts about not only the numbers pertaining to EROEI but how to best evaluate them. And while EROEI is an important concept and analytical tool for evaluating the potential benefit:cost ratio of fuels, focusing solely upon it and related measurements/analyses often if not always leads to a neglect of the very real ecological consequences of human energy use and the significant extractive and industrial processes associated with it.
And this plight we find ourselves in as we explore (and disagree about) alternatives to fossil fuels is certainly much more complicated than just the focus upon the atmospheric loading due to carbon emissions that most concentrate upon.
Research suggests biodiversity loss, land-system change, and biogeochemical flows are three planetary limits we have more drastically surpassed compared to atmospheric pollution-loading and subsequent changes to climate[4]. These aspects of our ever-increasing impact upon the planet are invariably overshadowed by the clarion calls to reduce carbon emissions and transition to low- or no-carbon technologies.
‘Renewables’ may be marginally better in certain aspects, but they are also less better in others; for example, the energy density of certain fossil fuels is far, far better than solar/wind that must be stored in batteries[5]. They also require storage technologies (and thus materials) whose production wreak havoc upon our ecological systems[6]. This observation should in no way be construed as support for fossil fuels.
Regardless of these observations, my initial and subsequent assertions were to focus attention upon misuse of the term ‘clean energy’.
The terms ‘green’, ‘clean’, and ‘sustainable’ when referring to the products of the energy complex are bold-faced lies and this is what I was pointing out. These are marketing/propaganda terms meant, when it gets right down to it, to sell stuff. But also to advance an idea — an idea that allows people to continue consuming and also feel good about such consumption while simultaneously dispensing with the notion that consumption and the associated penchant to chase the infinite growth chalice is bad for the planet — an increasing concern over the past few decades but increasingly denied/ignored by many because it can all be done with ‘green’ growth via ‘clean’ technologies (oxymorons if ever there were ones).
The ecological damage that we continue to perpetrate upon the planet in our attempts to sustain our complex energy-intensive conveniences (that we have come to depend upon as we’ve lost the skills/knowledge to be locally self-sufficient) via non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies is for the most part completely and utterly left out of the propaganda/marketing we are exposed to; or, rationalised away by the fanciful narratives weaved about ‘clean’ technologies.
These comforting narratives, much like everything else, are leveraged by the ruling caste and profiteers (and there is much overlap between these two groups) to meet their primary motivation: control/expansion of the wealth-generation/-extraction systems that provide their revenue streams and thus power and wealth. And the narrative control managers that work with and on behalf of these groups know full well that significant psychological mechanisms (e.g., reduction of cognitive dissonance, obedience/deference to authority, groupthink, etc.) can be activated to support such stories.
Some have argued that the industrial processes necessary for these technologies (especially the battery components for storage, the scale necessary to replace fossil fuel power, and the massive electrical infrastructure required) is as bad as that created by our use of fossil fuels — to say little about the observation that we lack the finite resources to do this[7].
While we continue to argue over ‘solutions’ for addressing climate change (i.e., fossil fuels vs renewables in order to reduce carbon emissions), we fail to recognise that this particular conundrum is just one of the symptoms of ecological overshoot.
So rather than addressing our fundamental predicament we seek to attempt to solve one of its many consequences, and in a way that exacerbates overshoot. We ignore the ongoing and massive ecological systems destruction and compound it via marginal improvements in technology not realising that it is our technology that has placed us in overshoot.
We weave stories to tell each other that no sacrifices are necessary (especially within so-called ‘advanced’ economies) and that we have the ingenuity to ‘solve’ anything thrown our way.
And rather than confronting our predicament, admitting the scale of its impending consequences for our (and likely every other) species, and getting down to discuss the really hard choices we need to be making, we continue to not only rationalise away the anxiety-provoking thoughts such an approach would lead to but ‘allow’ the worst of us to ‘control’ our collective future.
[1] It is clear that the algorithms that track my social media interactions recognise my interest in energy issues and periodically place in my Facebook feed these type of posts.
[2] While I have neither the time nor inclination to attempt a ‘forensic audit’ of the funding of this ‘think tank’, it seems self-evident that it’s part of a growing ‘industry’ to market ‘clean’ energy products via the notion that these are ‘green’ and ‘sustainable’ (even if they’re not) and receives substantial financial support from the ‘clean energy’ industry.
[3] See this, this, this, and/or this.
Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh LXXIX–Non-Renewable Renewable Energy-Harvesting Technologies (NRREHT): A Paradox For Our Times?
November 24, 2022 (original posting date)
Chitchen Itza, Mexico. (1986) Photo by author.Non-Renewable Renewable Energy-Harvesting Technologies (NRREHT): A Paradox For Our Times?
A short contemplation after reading Richard Heinberg’s latest article and the apparent paradox that is evident in the musings of a number of writers in the energy-ecology nexus.
Paradox: “…having qualities that seem to be opposites” ( Reference )
In his latest post, that highlights the failings of the ‘renewable’ energy transition, Richard Heinberg seems to be arguing in terms of contradictory assertions, and ones which I am not sure can be overcome — at least, not without exacerbating our primary predicament of ecological overshoot[1].
On the one hand he points out the significant failings, limitations, and negative consequences of NRREHT, but on the other argues for our pursuing them at great haste so as to attain a ‘soft landing’ for our species’ inevitable energy descent.
For example:
1) Greenhouse gas emissions continue to increase despite an increase in NRREHT (in other words, their distribution/use is supplementing continued economic growth/consumption);
2) NRREHT require continued and increased use/extraction of non-renewable resources that are already demonstrating declining marginal returns (i.e., their scarcity is already apparent);
3) There is competing evidence/data regarding the availability of materials/minerals as to whether even a single generation of NRREHT can be produced to substitute for fossil fuel energy;
4) The energy costs of recycling suggests even in a best-case scenario NRREHT simply kicks-the-can-down-the-road for industrial civilisation;
5) NRREHT continue to require industrial production processes that degrade the environment and destroy ecological systems — perhaps just at a slightly less intensive rate.
While he does also argue for a significant powering-down of our energy-intensive ways — perhaps the easiest and most straightforward means of slowing down the speed of our destruction — I fear the concerted push for NNREHT he also argues for does little but, via A LOT of denial and bargaining, simply kicks-the-can-down-the-road in terms of confronting our predicament (especially as it pertains to significant and necessary fossil fuel inputs as well as the negative impacts upon ecological systems and mineral resource communities/regions).
My sense is that despite all the obvious pitfalls of NNREHT and significant negative consequences (particularly ecological) they will continue to be pursued with this strategy sold/marketed as the ‘solution’ to transitioning from fossil fuels.
This will not be the first time that our ruling caste and profiteers have leveraged a ‘crisis’ to enrich themselves…but it may well be the last.
A handful of other views/comments within the energy-ecology nexus regarding ‘renewables’ (in no particular order and all have some great insights/arguments):
Gail Tverberg: this, this, this, and/or this.
Simon Michaux: this, this, this, and/or this.
Ugo Bardi: this, this, this, and/or this.
Alice Friedemann: this, this, this, and/or this.
Peak Prosperity (Chris Martenson/Adam Taggert): this, this, this, and/or this.
The Honest Sorcerer: this, this, this, and/or this.
Erik Michaels: this, this, this, and/or this.
Raúl Ilargi Meijer: this, this, this, and/or this.
Rob Mielcarski: this, this, this, and/or this.
John Michael Greer: this, this, this, and/or this.
Tim Watkins: this, this, this, and/or this.
Tim Morgan: this, this, this, and/or this.
Kurt Cobb: this, this, this, and/or this.
Mike Stasse: this, this, this, and/or this.
Charles Hugh Smith: this, this, this, and/or this.
Nate Hagens: this, this, this, and/or this.
Another view on Heinberg’s article can be found here.
