Gee, Tony, ever herd of "excess heat energy" or "waste heat"? Read Jeff Goodell's "The Heat Will Kill You First". No-one, including you, addresses the excess heat energy production from burning fossil fuels or any other form of work energy production, not to forget that us humans and ALL animals are heat energy producers, and, god forbid, the monstrous Data Centers. We have reached the end of viable human civilization, and, now, madmen rule and only fools rush in. Have a blessed day.
Tony, I hear you. we are tearing up this planet at a scale never seen before. Your concern that the ecology may not recover from the increased pace of its destruction is valid.
My experience with human psychology is that people aren’t going to willingly and voluntarily scale back their energy use, definitely not by a third.
But you are correct that producing more energy, no matter from what sources will encourage further use. Chalk it up to Jevons paradox.
Like you, I think we need to scale back so I would respectfully offer some unsolicited advice from a like-minded individual.
The message is worthy, but even though I understand that you appreciate the need to convert energy production methods, you writing makes it sound like it’s not that important…unless you read to the very end of your article.
These people are fanatic about conversion and your right, many fail to acknowledge the other more important reality that there are too many of us using too much stuff too quickly.
My advice is to emphasize both strategies as concurrent priorities. That way you may deliver the third rail message about population in a way that can be palatable and more accepted by the mainstream environmentalist movement.
We need these people on our side, so I respectfully suggest that any statement that appears to argue against transition is counter to the cause.
You’re not wrong, in fact I think you’re absolutely right, but transition minded people will never listen to your logic. As Rumsfeld said, you go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had. These are soldiers we need to convert to the anti-pronatalist protocol and the educate and empower women movement.
Overpopulation is the cause of all other major problems. That’s the most important message. If these people don’t think you’re one of them, they won’t listen and your most important message gets lost in the kerfuffle.
Thanks, Robert, for your thoughtful comments. I wouldn't mind actively soliciting your advice, if you don't mind! You're a much better diplomat than I. However, if I were to say that I solidly support the "transition" and then insist that a given solar development not happen because of its impacts on wildlife, I doubt I'd be welcomed any longer by transition minded folks. I suspect the non-profit Population Balance would agree with your analysis. They seem to have shifted away from directly promoting contraception, small family size, and other measures to lower fertility, and have adopted a strong anti-pronatalism approach that's more palatable to most environmentalists. Maybe that's more effective, but I'm skeptical.
When I speak to the possibility of responsible population “reform”, I get allot of the one child policy failure rhetoric. It may very well be that this turned out to be our biggest problem because so few are willing to discuss it, much less be an advocate. I’ve made some progress convincing climate scientists to include the subject in their discussions, but it’s an uphill battle, mostly because they’re afraid of what it may do to their reputations.
Thanks! It seems harder to get through to people on overpopulation than on overconsumption. In both cases, numbers matter, which should be self-evident.
Thank you. It’s heartening to see an established environmental scientist willing to address the alt energy conundrum. Bright Green Lies put it on my radar long ago. Jevon’s Paradox is a phrase you may want to push back at the mainstream nay-sayers.
Tragic-comically DJT/Bebe’s Iran blunder and the consequential Straits straight-jacket in the coming year will supercharge awareness of our global dependence on diesel for everything that is modern society — even, of course, alt energy which requires it for mining and shipping of the materials required. Those of us paying attention knew the peak oil days were coming, but their idiocy has rushed the timeline forward.
People talk glowingly about human creativity. Hurray then! Surely we can find an ecologically-sound alternative recipe that works for (all) life. Perhaps affluent countries will learn something from the current oil shortage. How to get by and live well on less. People need to talk about it. Otherwise, there's no hope and there'll be a mad rush to produce ever more energy from ever more sources until "Pop Goes the Weasel."
Agree. However, let’s not forget the very probable “mad rush” for simple things of survival, like basic food, safe fresh water, heat in cold times, and in many now heavily populated regions, relief from heat half of the year. Talk of gaining access to Greenland’s resources is not just grandstanding. The recent devil-may-care attitude about the once “saved and safe” Boundary Waters are good examples of what’s to come as our society refuses to let go of its ways.
As Nate Hagens has wisely begun pointing out, nearly all our ecological-oriented non-profits, institutions, and think tanks are looking to save or preserve wild systems with the current (albiet evermore shaky) civil order intact.
Further along, but not too far off, almost no one is considering that as things shift and we no longer have what we require for this lifestyle, there will be a scramble for access to resources, especially those not needing infrastructure. IE: imagine basics like reliable heat or cooking energy becoming scarce, the US and the industrialized nations will quickly be looking to dung, peat, or wood for heat and cooking, as most “3rd world” people are obliged to do.
Unfortunately, that's not an unreasonable scenario you describe. Many people are already scrambling for the basics. At the same time, many are looking to consume well beyond that. There are certainly social as well as ecological justice issues involved.
Renewable energy without degrowth just encourages us to use more energy. I think energy availability drives use. The more there is, the more we find ways to use it. This parallels the principle of food-limited population growth. The more food we have, the more babies we produce. Why would it not work the same way with energy? Thanks for the article, and the Beach Boys exigesis.
Saving this recipe! Kudos to all who are working on this problem or scaling back themselves. Special kudos to those deciding to adopt instead of adding yet more consumers to the overshoot.
Spot on with your comments. As a geologist, I can confirm that mining on scales never attempted before would be required to built out fossil generated electricity. 10 g of gold = 20,000 kg of rock waste, and we don’t really need gold in most industry! Even worse, the element grade of many ores is decreasing, so we need even more energy and rock waste for future extraction. Porphyry copper deposits often have only 0.5% Cu in the rock. All mining needs diesel. A lot of ore processing needs gas or coal energy sources. “Green” energy is fossil energy. Renewable energy breaks the first law of thermodynamics. Is it rebuildable infrastructure. Now that looks very different to the usual narrative. Cheers
Trying to explain reality to folk who (want to) believe some fairy godmother is going to wave her green wand and open the gates to eco-paradise is futile.
As I point out in the article, I'm in favor of improved sufficiency measures. But you are right about the peddling of the false premise that if we only come up those, alternative energies, and new technologies all will be fine. People do have a tendency to adhere to one-track solutions.
Yes, the renooble energy transition is another human narrative to make us feel good about ourselves, a bit like economics and religion.
All renewables require fossil fuels to extract the minerals required to make them;
they require fossil fuels to actually make the infrastructure, you can't smelt iron and coke into steel at 1200*C on scale with electricity (there might be a couple of prototypes in action - at scale is the issue);
all renewable require fossil fuels to transport, erect and install on site. A wind turbine requires 130t of concrete. Try making concrete with solar panels....
And then there is Simon Michaux, a geologist engineer who worked out how many rare earth metals and bog-standard metals are needed for the "energy transition". At current rates of extraction it would take 22,000 years to get everything we need to electrify the entire economy.
As pointed out, electricity is only 20% of our energy use. Renewables only account for 3-5% of total world energy use. Not one iota of fossil fuel power generation has been displaced by renewables. All they have done is added to the total energy generation. Jevons paradox indeed!
Yeah, great, we get days when 100% of electricity is generated by wind and solar, but it's not every day; and 100% electricity is only 20% of total energy.
Lets not kid ourselves, renewables are just another way to use fossil fuels.
Am I against renewables? No, because they would be a good way of decentralising energy generation to small co-operative levels instead of big corporate ownership. But if oil refineries are shut down due to some airey-fairey transition, , then renewables will cease to be built.
Nope, the only "transition" that will work is to use less energy. Which either requires voluntary de-growth (ain't gonna happen) or the existing catabolic collapse of global industrial civilisation currently being speeded up by Trump's war in the Persian Gulf. Art Berman and Richard Murphy have been as been quite strident about this. We've just cut off 10-20% of the fuel of the world's economy. That is going to lead to a level of demand destruction greater than 1929. At the same time as an El Nino that is going to be stronger than the 1877 one that caused multiple breadbasket failures leading to over 30 million deaths in a population of 1.5 billion.
Did somebody mention over-population? Sssshhhhh, we're not allowed to talk about that...... :)
Gee, Tony, ever herd of "excess heat energy" or "waste heat"? Read Jeff Goodell's "The Heat Will Kill You First". No-one, including you, addresses the excess heat energy production from burning fossil fuels or any other form of work energy production, not to forget that us humans and ALL animals are heat energy producers, and, god forbid, the monstrous Data Centers. We have reached the end of viable human civilization, and, now, madmen rule and only fools rush in. Have a blessed day.
It sounds pretty grim because it is pretty grim.
Tony, I hear you. we are tearing up this planet at a scale never seen before. Your concern that the ecology may not recover from the increased pace of its destruction is valid.
My experience with human psychology is that people aren’t going to willingly and voluntarily scale back their energy use, definitely not by a third.
But you are correct that producing more energy, no matter from what sources will encourage further use. Chalk it up to Jevons paradox.
Like you, I think we need to scale back so I would respectfully offer some unsolicited advice from a like-minded individual.
The message is worthy, but even though I understand that you appreciate the need to convert energy production methods, you writing makes it sound like it’s not that important…unless you read to the very end of your article.
These people are fanatic about conversion and your right, many fail to acknowledge the other more important reality that there are too many of us using too much stuff too quickly.
My advice is to emphasize both strategies as concurrent priorities. That way you may deliver the third rail message about population in a way that can be palatable and more accepted by the mainstream environmentalist movement.
We need these people on our side, so I respectfully suggest that any statement that appears to argue against transition is counter to the cause.
You’re not wrong, in fact I think you’re absolutely right, but transition minded people will never listen to your logic. As Rumsfeld said, you go to war with the army you have, not the one you wish you had. These are soldiers we need to convert to the anti-pronatalist protocol and the educate and empower women movement.
Overpopulation is the cause of all other major problems. That’s the most important message. If these people don’t think you’re one of them, they won’t listen and your most important message gets lost in the kerfuffle.
It’s just politics…
Thanks, Robert, for your thoughtful comments. I wouldn't mind actively soliciting your advice, if you don't mind! You're a much better diplomat than I. However, if I were to say that I solidly support the "transition" and then insist that a given solar development not happen because of its impacts on wildlife, I doubt I'd be welcomed any longer by transition minded folks. I suspect the non-profit Population Balance would agree with your analysis. They seem to have shifted away from directly promoting contraception, small family size, and other measures to lower fertility, and have adopted a strong anti-pronatalism approach that's more palatable to most environmentalists. Maybe that's more effective, but I'm skeptical.
I would be honored!
When I speak to the possibility of responsible population “reform”, I get allot of the one child policy failure rhetoric. It may very well be that this turned out to be our biggest problem because so few are willing to discuss it, much less be an advocate. I’ve made some progress convincing climate scientists to include the subject in their discussions, but it’s an uphill battle, mostly because they’re afraid of what it may do to their reputations.
I’ve got your back
Thanks! It seems harder to get through to people on overpopulation than on overconsumption. In both cases, numbers matter, which should be self-evident.
Thank you. It’s heartening to see an established environmental scientist willing to address the alt energy conundrum. Bright Green Lies put it on my radar long ago. Jevon’s Paradox is a phrase you may want to push back at the mainstream nay-sayers.
Tragic-comically DJT/Bebe’s Iran blunder and the consequential Straits straight-jacket in the coming year will supercharge awareness of our global dependence on diesel for everything that is modern society — even, of course, alt energy which requires it for mining and shipping of the materials required. Those of us paying attention knew the peak oil days were coming, but their idiocy has rushed the timeline forward.
https://youtu.be/Gk6xm5IuY4w?si=6YiyTL-kE3vxhel5
People talk glowingly about human creativity. Hurray then! Surely we can find an ecologically-sound alternative recipe that works for (all) life. Perhaps affluent countries will learn something from the current oil shortage. How to get by and live well on less. People need to talk about it. Otherwise, there's no hope and there'll be a mad rush to produce ever more energy from ever more sources until "Pop Goes the Weasel."
Agree. However, let’s not forget the very probable “mad rush” for simple things of survival, like basic food, safe fresh water, heat in cold times, and in many now heavily populated regions, relief from heat half of the year. Talk of gaining access to Greenland’s resources is not just grandstanding. The recent devil-may-care attitude about the once “saved and safe” Boundary Waters are good examples of what’s to come as our society refuses to let go of its ways.
As Nate Hagens has wisely begun pointing out, nearly all our ecological-oriented non-profits, institutions, and think tanks are looking to save or preserve wild systems with the current (albiet evermore shaky) civil order intact.
Further along, but not too far off, almost no one is considering that as things shift and we no longer have what we require for this lifestyle, there will be a scramble for access to resources, especially those not needing infrastructure. IE: imagine basics like reliable heat or cooking energy becoming scarce, the US and the industrialized nations will quickly be looking to dung, peat, or wood for heat and cooking, as most “3rd world” people are obliged to do.
Unfortunately, that's not an unreasonable scenario you describe. Many people are already scrambling for the basics. At the same time, many are looking to consume well beyond that. There are certainly social as well as ecological justice issues involved.
Great article Tony. You might appreciate this article about the Cognicist Theory of Capitalism:
https://medium.com/@speakerjohnash/the-cognicist-theory-of-capitalism-e104e2b8f072
Thanks Barbara.
Renewable energy without degrowth just encourages us to use more energy. I think energy availability drives use. The more there is, the more we find ways to use it. This parallels the principle of food-limited population growth. The more food we have, the more babies we produce. Why would it not work the same way with energy? Thanks for the article, and the Beach Boys exigesis.
Thanks Chris.
Saving this recipe! Kudos to all who are working on this problem or scaling back themselves. Special kudos to those deciding to adopt instead of adding yet more consumers to the overshoot.
Thanks Dusti.
Spot on with your comments. As a geologist, I can confirm that mining on scales never attempted before would be required to built out fossil generated electricity. 10 g of gold = 20,000 kg of rock waste, and we don’t really need gold in most industry! Even worse, the element grade of many ores is decreasing, so we need even more energy and rock waste for future extraction. Porphyry copper deposits often have only 0.5% Cu in the rock. All mining needs diesel. A lot of ore processing needs gas or coal energy sources. “Green” energy is fossil energy. Renewable energy breaks the first law of thermodynamics. Is it rebuildable infrastructure. Now that looks very different to the usual narrative. Cheers
The problem of scale is serious, very serious, and too easily ignored.
The delusional blather from peddlers of "solutions" is as sad as it is shocking.
See this example:
https://youtu.be/hMK9blAZ4l0
Trying to explain reality to folk who (want to) believe some fairy godmother is going to wave her green wand and open the gates to eco-paradise is futile.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdXdaIsfio8
As I point out in the article, I'm in favor of improved sufficiency measures. But you are right about the peddling of the false premise that if we only come up those, alternative energies, and new technologies all will be fine. People do have a tendency to adhere to one-track solutions.
RE propaganda drives my neurodivergent ass absolutely mad. I opened one of my posts about it https://gnug315.substack.com/p/our-planet-sized-gordian-knot
I hope more people are listening. Thanks!
Yes, the renooble energy transition is another human narrative to make us feel good about ourselves, a bit like economics and religion.
All renewables require fossil fuels to extract the minerals required to make them;
they require fossil fuels to actually make the infrastructure, you can't smelt iron and coke into steel at 1200*C on scale with electricity (there might be a couple of prototypes in action - at scale is the issue);
all renewable require fossil fuels to transport, erect and install on site. A wind turbine requires 130t of concrete. Try making concrete with solar panels....
And then there is Simon Michaux, a geologist engineer who worked out how many rare earth metals and bog-standard metals are needed for the "energy transition". At current rates of extraction it would take 22,000 years to get everything we need to electrify the entire economy.
As pointed out, electricity is only 20% of our energy use. Renewables only account for 3-5% of total world energy use. Not one iota of fossil fuel power generation has been displaced by renewables. All they have done is added to the total energy generation. Jevons paradox indeed!
Yeah, great, we get days when 100% of electricity is generated by wind and solar, but it's not every day; and 100% electricity is only 20% of total energy.
Lets not kid ourselves, renewables are just another way to use fossil fuels.
Am I against renewables? No, because they would be a good way of decentralising energy generation to small co-operative levels instead of big corporate ownership. But if oil refineries are shut down due to some airey-fairey transition, , then renewables will cease to be built.
Nope, the only "transition" that will work is to use less energy. Which either requires voluntary de-growth (ain't gonna happen) or the existing catabolic collapse of global industrial civilisation currently being speeded up by Trump's war in the Persian Gulf. Art Berman and Richard Murphy have been as been quite strident about this. We've just cut off 10-20% of the fuel of the world's economy. That is going to lead to a level of demand destruction greater than 1929. At the same time as an El Nino that is going to be stronger than the 1877 one that caused multiple breadbasket failures leading to over 30 million deaths in a population of 1.5 billion.
Did somebody mention over-population? Sssshhhhh, we're not allowed to talk about that...... :)
Concisely said, Mark. There's a dearth of systems thinking among environmentalists today.