"The late economist and physicist Robert Ayres explained that wasting energy is what drives the economy. It is the economy."
It ISN'T "wasting" energy. It IS the productive use of energy. Yes, you are correct - without abundant and cheap energy, there is no economy. Or, a very limited one.
And there's your problem. While the Third World is already at the "energy place" you wish everyone else to be, what are your steps to force First Worlders to willingly embrace that standard of living?
Or, as I hold, "willing" is the wrong word. What's the plan for selling that notion?
In nation after nation, the pragmatics are already disposing of the notion that REs are cost effective. Project after project are being cancelled when the "free govt money" of cheap loans and outright grants are withdrawn, proving that their "lower cost" was always a sham and a grift. If they really were low cost, they could stand on their own financially. But as recent history has shown us (and the short term future as well), they can't. Lots of plugs (pun intended) are being pulled a six-pack at a time.
And for the record, ALL govt subsidies should be withdrawn from energy providers. It's not called "the private sector" for nothing. ENOUGH with rent-seekers!
No, I am someone that ALWAYS challenges what others hold.
Want me to shut up? The scenarios here are presented in rather gauzy manners - as an engineer, I deal in facts. As a retired project manager, I dealt with budgets, timelines, and resources - and NONE of them were gauzy in nature.
Lloyd and Dr. Teel have presented future scenarios that they desperately want to see happen. That's fine and dandy.
But it seems that when I, putting on my political blogger hat and challenged unserious and pretentious politicians for a couple of decades, they did the same thing. Which is obfuscated, told me more stuff that was untrue thinking I wouldn't check them, or simply retorted as you did.
Meaning, you can't answer my simple questions either and resort to ad hom responses.
Answer my questions and you will find that you have taken my ammo away in this debate; a much better ending.
You have never agreed with anything I have written and you are driving away other commenters. I value differing opinions, but this is getting tiresome.
Actually, I have Lloyd. No, not a lot but it has happened in the past here and at TH.
I understand your WHY in speaking as you do - everyone is entitled to opinions. However, I'm generally asking for something that is riling people up - the HOW part. HOW do you get from Point A (today) to Point B (your end point)?
Is that so unreasonable - how will you have people living your self-adopted lifestyle? I've said before - I applaud those that have done so; many kudos in denying themselves what others take for granted in their lives. You know that as I've said it quite a number of times.
You write about stuff I know nothing about - the technical aspects of Passive Haus et all. That's interesting and you go into great detail. That is part of why I come here.
So why do you find it tiresome that I challenge the Process going forward? Given the level, again, of technical detail you DO go in, why is moving entire societies to your 1.5 degree Life not treated in the same detail? The former gets adopted one at a time but that's not scaling to an entire society thus far.
Bring your detail-oriented point on buildings to that scaling - let us know how you would start. You have your starting point as well as your end point; what does that Middle part work? What would you propose to make it work?
And that's all I've been asking - for years. If it is not addressed, it won't be reached.
I don't believe that for a second. I have no doubt that you are firmly entrenched in your position, are uninterested and engaging anyone who thinks differently and will just move on to the next argument. I'm sure it is very obvious to you that you are very out of step with about 98% of other commenters here and you don't care. You are not here to learn. You are not here to brainstorm Solutions. You are not here to change anyone's mind. You are simply here to troll.
It is very hard to brainstorm solutions when none have been given. Stating "less fossil fuels" is not a solution - DETAILS about how one graduates the largest and most complicated economy in the world IS showing a solution. That, I'm willing to brainstorm for or against. And trust me, it isn't just a technical solution.
It is a LARGE cultural and political Gordian Knot that is going unaddressed. I've been trying to prod people here to address that as failing to do so will surely end in failure.
This is the hardest of them, and progress is made. They are not a long term answer, but the fact is people are trying. You get a lot more hits on recycling solar panels. Cleantechnica has a number of articles in its archive. Batteries are similar. The fire issue is addressed. It is why Lithium iron phosphate batteries are dominating now, and new battery technologies are working out kinks and problems. Skepticism and critique are welcome, but at least look up the literature.
I make no claims about utopia. You are putting words in my mouth. The transition to a ecological world from consumptive materialism will not be easy. Electric bikes may not be a long term solution, but they are a transitional one, with 1/40 the footprint of an electric car. Trashing the lifestyle of indigenous communities who model the endpoint for successful transition is a mistake. Part of their misery now stems from the consumptive west trashing their ecosystem. They had better answers to how to live on the planet sustainably than we do. By the way, "third worlders", a horrible term, live a lot more pleasantly than you think. Having lived nine years in Africa, and made multiple trips since helping with water supply and tree planting, organized by local communities, not international NGOs, I have seen what self-help can do. Again, not perfect, but better than we do. We are not the wisdom and wisdom will not die with us.
I have to disagree that solar is a cheap energy source, unless you have deep pockets and have an extra 70k burning a hole.
Also, most (if not all) solar set-ups I've seen usually have a back-up genertor that burns fossil fuel just in case of those pesky clouds, dust storms or what have you.
But I did like the article, and only have this to add: That burning things might also be in our DNA. Back in the murky history of time, someone discovered fire, fire for heat, cooking and protection against things that go bump in the night. For instance many new homes do not need fireplaces but yet they do for no other reason than a psychological comfort, when it burns. And while there are electric fireplaces, given the choice between real fire and electric, most people choose the real fire over the electric. Or is there nothing cozier than a campfire when out camping? For most, no.
Now to Darwin's theory (while sorta) that only the strong and adaptable survive. Those who knew how to make fire and burned things probably outlived those that did not. Therefore those that could burn not only passed on their knowledge, but also passed on the neeed if not the desire to burn.
Fire bad is a relatively new philosphy. and man will adapt (Darwin again) but it does take time. And hopefully technology's pace will advance faster and somehow help humans to adapt sooner, rather than later.
It's interesting and sad to see the number of smart, well meaning, climate concerned people that can't seem to even entertain the possibility that we may simply be out living the planet, and for that matter, are unlikely to find anything else suitable for a great long while, if ever. At some point, we may have to figure out how the manage something like degrowth to survive. Economists that are not taking that seriously and planning for the possibility are doing us all a disservice. It's willful ignorance at some point.
Since we now know that RE is not going to be what it is and we still want to end fossil fuels, what are we going to get rid of to make this happen? How are we going to tell people that they can't have their widget because it uses to much energy from nothing to trash?
I like the term "energy blind". I think it accurately describes the state of the vast majority of humanity. I'm pretty sure hardly anybody thinks about or is aware of just how much energy fossil fuels contain. I was trying to figure out a way to illustrate this once and I came up with this:
I had a 125cc motorbike. It weighed about 350 lb and would go roughly 40 km in 20 minutes on 1 litre of gas. So I would explain this to someone and then ask them to imagine what it would feel like in their body to push that motorbike 40 km! That would probably take a fit person two or three days and they would be wrecked. That's how much power there is in a liter of gas and it's pretty mind-boggling!
"That would probably take a fit person two or three days and they would be wrecked."
Absolutely true; more energy dense than coal, for sure.
California is about to find out what having little to no gas is like as refineries are popping out of existence like Fourth of July (the US Independence day) fireworks in the sky. Thanks to historical supplies, the Uniparty that governs CA thinks they can keep the strangulation going on forever.
Slowly, then suddenly.
They will lose 20% of capacity within the year. More will also close. All that energy gone.
We need to slow down and take a few deep breaths. Too many people are lost at this time. People are scared and prefer to distract themselves with action because they are confused and lost. We need to debate and envision what an ecologically advanced society will look like.
We need to stop using GDP and GNP as our measures of economic growth. The Earth is for all people, and they have great ideas. They need help from skilled communicators and entertainers to make their plans more appealing. This is where you'll need to step in.
For short-term relief, watch " The Biggest Little Farm " or the Irish mythology trilogy of the Book of Kells, Song of the Sea and Wolfwalkers or The Camino Voyage or The Eternal Song or any Films for the planet.
"We need to stop using GDP and GNP as our measures of economic growth. "
This discussion topic has happened before either here or at TH on one of Lloyd's posts (now lost in the mists of antiquity due to the utter stupidity of Lloyd's former employers). What are your replacement metrics?
"They need help from skilled communicators and entertainers to make their plans more appealing."
This really is kinda amusing, given that most here HATE Big Marketing which is exactly what you are proposing. Just wrap it up in more flowery language.
Being a person that is seemingly immune to Big Marketing, I dryly note that from one of the major political parties in the US, they are saying similar things - it isn't the Product they are trying to pitch that's their problem, it's their Messaging.
My response is akin to "You can put lipstick on a pig but...". How would you tell a middle class American that they would have to give up 60-80% of what they have and live like a Third Worlder (as a commenter here said)? And how would you PR their children "Oh, sorry, you cannot have as much as your parent have?".
Sorry Geoffrey, that IS the Product. Which leaves two things:
- How can anyone really Message that?
- What are the steps to have everyone reach the level of only having 20-40% of what they have now.
I'm not being a troll in asking these questions. They are REQUIRED in order to have others accept what you wish to do to them (if they are not willing to do it to themselves). I've exposed politicians before that promised wonderful things for everyone but we all found out, based on penetrating questions, they were frauds looking to implement the opposite and not willing to be truthful about what they really wanted to do.
I hope we Canadians can review the work of Earth 4 ALL. They are a little-known International group of earth scientists and economists who work together, or we can say this is too Scandinavian for Canada. I worry about the anti-science and vaccination trolls. Decades ago, I saw babies and people of all ages die from a lack of basic hygiene and immunization. Have you seen this? I lived in the 60s without all the toxic plastic garbage marketed on Temu, and I am none too keen to be burned alive in a wildfire. There never has been a golden age, and there never will be, but we do need to have conversations about what makes people relatively happy and healthy. It is not living as a slave to Musk and Tiel controlled by AI, and it certainly is NOT falling apart and suffering hell for years from secondary cancer from Agent Orange. I am not being a troll either, I just have buried too many people I love to cancers linked to excessive industrialization. Few of us can go live like Zen monks, but I do not for an instant think that Peter Thiel and Elon Musk are happy individuals. Yes, I need more than just aesthetics, but the data clearly shows that life expectancy increased when a majority of people had some disposable income. Then it follows a U-shaped curve in highly unequal societies. People at the very top and the bottom surprisingly have similarly super high stress levels. That data was published decades ago by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in The Spirit Level. People are wise to be suspicious about being asked to sacrifice. Yuval Noah Harari is much smarter than I am, and he warns about artificial intelligence. There are blue zones in several places around the world where many people live to 100 and remain functioning and independent. I most definitely do not have the answers, and I intend to heed the advice of Vaclav Havel, who wrote to seek out people searching for truth and to run like hell from all those who claim they have found it.
I am happy to have this discussion and I will go point by point - but a bit later as a close family member is having health issues and I have to plug myself into other stuff for a while.
However, and in the mean time, let's just start with your words, and my question concerning them, first. I do have responses to your missives but I currently lack the time to write.
Your statement: "We need to stop using GDP and GNP as our measures of economic growth. "
My question: "What are your replacement metrics?" [GDP/CNP]. Without objective measurements, there can be no management of such processes.
Methinks that relationship is backwards. Just like with "wage slaves". WE, the population at large, control the energy we use
"We also have to make less stuff and use less stuff, and figure out what’s enough. And that is always a hard sell."
Who is this "we" bit and, as always, the trite phrase of "what's enough"? Sorry Lloyd, but until you answer both of those questions/voids in your arguments, you will ALWAYS have a hard sell. Actually, no "sell" at all. You refuse to even tell the rest of us what your mechanism should be to limit people to your idea of what "enough" should be. Heck, says the guy that seems to be racking up more air/travel miles than ever before, tell us what is "enough" for every man, woman, and child on this planet? Or (I'll make your problem domain easier to manage) just even in Canada?
Where's your transparency and openness in all this? You've been saying all of this for years so I know you mean and want it. But why the hesitancy in letting the rest of us know how you want to achieve it? Saying "less, less, less" is not a solution. It's not even a "sell".
Complaining doesn't solve anything until you provide hard and fast solutions. Not once, in the years I've been reading your stuff, have you actually produced a complete and detailed solution (or set of solutions) of how to get from "increasing wealth and standards of living via thermodynamics" to "selling" First World people to accept Third World living standards. "Upfront Bitching!" about what you see is wrong solves nothing - that's no "sell" there.
I will, once again, repeat the verbiage on the T-shirt my son gave me: "Stop Whining. Do Something". Bitching without offering concrete solutions is just whining, IMHO.
So, as Andrew Breitbart famously said "Be Brave"; tell us your pathways to "less stuff" and "you now have enough so be happy about it".
Isn't it always the duty, beyond that of listening to their professors, of students to also challenge what a professor is telling them? I got that a lot - and there were times when I had to think things through before mandatorily giving them my answers that they truly deserved - and for which they had paid.
After all, they had a contract for knowledgebase transfer from their professors to them - I was duty-bound to fulfill my part of that contract.
In this we are in complete agreement. Solar, wind, geothermal, still have footprints, whether we admit it or not. While the source of energy matters, we cannot forget that energy use is always accompanied by entropy, and that dissipation of heat to the environment (with or without pollution) is a cost. Ecosystems have a way of maximizing energy flow, and using waste as a resource, if they are intact. Our extraction of resources, degrades those ecosystems, and alternative energy still requires extraction. Unless we learn from natural systems how these elemental resources are cycled, and solar is used to maximum effect (not efficiency), we will not solve the material problem of the planet. I have a complementary take on this here: https://wayneteel513055.substack.com/p/economy-and-ecology
We have NO energy sources, traditional or "alternative" (re: REs) that are recyclable. We just do not have the technology to do recovery all of that energy and turn it into "useful" (as opposed to entropy as you rightly and correctly state, or as Lloyd calls "waste") energy.
Yes, we require extraction of all kinds of base materials, then manufacture them into "useful" forms that can then end up into and driving the economy. I will point out that REs also have tremendous end-of-life waste impacts being either from windmills or PVs. We have little means to truly deal with those waste fallout scenarios (at scale) other than just burying them and letting them leach out.
Thus, we should all heed what economists hold to: "there are no optimal solutions, only tradeoffs". This holds not only with carbon based energy sources but REs as well. What are we willing to put up with, given the technology in its present form, to judge one from another?
And since energy is merely an input but the economy is the end product, what are those downstream tradeoffs in the economy that the vast majority of the Earth's population are willing to trade away? They rightly put the end product, their standard of living, ahead of the energy sources supply that input to their SoL.
So what do you consider to be reasonable tradeoffs and how to achieve them?
I am not a techno optimist, but I am a promoter of biological solutions and biomimicry. You seem, somewhat justifiably, skeptical of recycling in solar, wind, and batteries. While I see progress, especially with solar and batteries, I don't think they will hit the 98% target some aim for, though I applaud the target. Ultimately, and this is where I think you disagree, it comes down to willingness to decrease the standard of living, and move to a much more biologically appropriate way to live. We have to live in a way that does not diminish the ecosystems of our place, whether that be northern Canada, Florida, the Amazon or the South African Karoo. Biological systems know how to rely on the sun. Though only 1% of the energy is converted by photosynthesis, the rest is useful, then sent to space as dissipated heat, entropy. We should live within those natural limits and rely, as far as possible, on present solar input and growth of plants. Yes, this means degrowth. The wealthier you are the more you shrink your SoL. I don't pretend this will be a pleasant switch, but I can tell you that some parts of the switch are wonderful, like riding an electric bike (15 miles to run errands this morning), eating fresh food from a garden, and converting a lawn to perennial flowering plants, shrubs, and fruit trees. The key to doing this is developing a community and doing it together. Indigenous peoples always lived in communities. Rugged individualism got you eaten. That is the biggest trade off: materialism traded for community, including the biological community. If we don't make the switch to a smaller personal and global footprint, i.e. near zero energy input from fossil fuels, and significantly lower energy use overall, the result is heat death, which you might call entropic overheating.
Somewhat justifiable? I'm open to be educated further but as far I know right now, there is no recycling of the blades and the only solution currently is ditching them into rather large landfills.
For PVs, there is barely rudimentary extraction of the heavy metals required for the retiring panels (or, the newer ones broken up by "bad local climate" mishaps.
And for the utility grade batteries, a fair number of them are literally going up in smoke spewing cancerous billows of smoke. Even Teslas get declared to be hazardous material when they combust. And those other EVs that were coming across on the Morning Midas will now be polluting the ocean bottom with the fire that started on board.
"Indigenous peoples always lived in communities."
Are you willing to live totally like they did, back when, with no modernity at all? What HARD aspects of today's First World would have to be trash canned for this Golden Utopia. Certainly, you'll lose the e-bike. Most medicines, almost all technology, the ability to easily get the seeds you speak of, the clothes you wear, and all the other thing of today's life will, necessarily, go POOF!
So I will ask you as I have Lloyd (or anyone else here) - when people reject your utopia (Greek for "no place" or "nowhere"), then what is your solution? And what are you going to tell the Third Worlders that they are doomed to live in poverty forever? And what will THEIR response be - and how will you handle it?
OK, Professor - I am ready to be educated for reasonable scenarios as everyone else DO get votes in all this.
I was wondering what I was going to write about. Now I know. Thanks, Lloyd!
I have that problem three times a week
"The late economist and physicist Robert Ayres explained that wasting energy is what drives the economy. It is the economy."
It ISN'T "wasting" energy. It IS the productive use of energy. Yes, you are correct - without abundant and cheap energy, there is no economy. Or, a very limited one.
And there's your problem. While the Third World is already at the "energy place" you wish everyone else to be, what are your steps to force First Worlders to willingly embrace that standard of living?
Or, as I hold, "willing" is the wrong word. What's the plan for selling that notion?
In nation after nation, the pragmatics are already disposing of the notion that REs are cost effective. Project after project are being cancelled when the "free govt money" of cheap loans and outright grants are withdrawn, proving that their "lower cost" was always a sham and a grift. If they really were low cost, they could stand on their own financially. But as recent history has shown us (and the short term future as well), they can't. Lots of plugs (pun intended) are being pulled a six-pack at a time.
And for the record, ALL govt subsidies should be withdrawn from energy providers. It's not called "the private sector" for nothing. ENOUGH with rent-seekers!
YOU ARE A FUCKING BROKEN RECORD
No, I am someone that ALWAYS challenges what others hold.
Want me to shut up? The scenarios here are presented in rather gauzy manners - as an engineer, I deal in facts. As a retired project manager, I dealt with budgets, timelines, and resources - and NONE of them were gauzy in nature.
Lloyd and Dr. Teel have presented future scenarios that they desperately want to see happen. That's fine and dandy.
But it seems that when I, putting on my political blogger hat and challenged unserious and pretentious politicians for a couple of decades, they did the same thing. Which is obfuscated, told me more stuff that was untrue thinking I wouldn't check them, or simply retorted as you did.
Meaning, you can't answer my simple questions either and resort to ad hom responses.
Answer my questions and you will find that you have taken my ammo away in this debate; a much better ending.
You have never agreed with anything I have written and you are driving away other commenters. I value differing opinions, but this is getting tiresome.
Actually, I have Lloyd. No, not a lot but it has happened in the past here and at TH.
I understand your WHY in speaking as you do - everyone is entitled to opinions. However, I'm generally asking for something that is riling people up - the HOW part. HOW do you get from Point A (today) to Point B (your end point)?
Is that so unreasonable - how will you have people living your self-adopted lifestyle? I've said before - I applaud those that have done so; many kudos in denying themselves what others take for granted in their lives. You know that as I've said it quite a number of times.
You write about stuff I know nothing about - the technical aspects of Passive Haus et all. That's interesting and you go into great detail. That is part of why I come here.
So why do you find it tiresome that I challenge the Process going forward? Given the level, again, of technical detail you DO go in, why is moving entire societies to your 1.5 degree Life not treated in the same detail? The former gets adopted one at a time but that's not scaling to an entire society thus far.
Bring your detail-oriented point on buildings to that scaling - let us know how you would start. You have your starting point as well as your end point; what does that Middle part work? What would you propose to make it work?
And that's all I've been asking - for years. If it is not addressed, it won't be reached.
I don't believe that for a second. I have no doubt that you are firmly entrenched in your position, are uninterested and engaging anyone who thinks differently and will just move on to the next argument. I'm sure it is very obvious to you that you are very out of step with about 98% of other commenters here and you don't care. You are not here to learn. You are not here to brainstorm Solutions. You are not here to change anyone's mind. You are simply here to troll.
"You are not here to brainstorm Solutions."
It is very hard to brainstorm solutions when none have been given. Stating "less fossil fuels" is not a solution - DETAILS about how one graduates the largest and most complicated economy in the world IS showing a solution. That, I'm willing to brainstorm for or against. And trust me, it isn't just a technical solution.
It is a LARGE cultural and political Gordian Knot that is going unaddressed. I've been trying to prod people here to address that as failing to do so will surely end in failure.
For months, economists have been saying that inflation will rise due to Tariffs. Hard to take them seriously at this point. https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/on-god-no-cap
Are you willing to do a tiny bit of research on your own? Do a simple search. Plug in wind turbine blade recycling. People are working on this and making progress: https://cleangridalliance.org/blog/137/wind-turbine-recycling-and-disposal#:~:text=Mechanical%20recycling%20entails%20cutting%20and,for%20use%20in%20various%20products.
This is the hardest of them, and progress is made. They are not a long term answer, but the fact is people are trying. You get a lot more hits on recycling solar panels. Cleantechnica has a number of articles in its archive. Batteries are similar. The fire issue is addressed. It is why Lithium iron phosphate batteries are dominating now, and new battery technologies are working out kinks and problems. Skepticism and critique are welcome, but at least look up the literature.
I make no claims about utopia. You are putting words in my mouth. The transition to a ecological world from consumptive materialism will not be easy. Electric bikes may not be a long term solution, but they are a transitional one, with 1/40 the footprint of an electric car. Trashing the lifestyle of indigenous communities who model the endpoint for successful transition is a mistake. Part of their misery now stems from the consumptive west trashing their ecosystem. They had better answers to how to live on the planet sustainably than we do. By the way, "third worlders", a horrible term, live a lot more pleasantly than you think. Having lived nine years in Africa, and made multiple trips since helping with water supply and tree planting, organized by local communities, not international NGOs, I have seen what self-help can do. Again, not perfect, but better than we do. We are not the wisdom and wisdom will not die with us.
I have to disagree that solar is a cheap energy source, unless you have deep pockets and have an extra 70k burning a hole.
Also, most (if not all) solar set-ups I've seen usually have a back-up genertor that burns fossil fuel just in case of those pesky clouds, dust storms or what have you.
But I did like the article, and only have this to add: That burning things might also be in our DNA. Back in the murky history of time, someone discovered fire, fire for heat, cooking and protection against things that go bump in the night. For instance many new homes do not need fireplaces but yet they do for no other reason than a psychological comfort, when it burns. And while there are electric fireplaces, given the choice between real fire and electric, most people choose the real fire over the electric. Or is there nothing cozier than a campfire when out camping? For most, no.
Now to Darwin's theory (while sorta) that only the strong and adaptable survive. Those who knew how to make fire and burned things probably outlived those that did not. Therefore those that could burn not only passed on their knowledge, but also passed on the neeed if not the desire to burn.
Fire bad is a relatively new philosphy. and man will adapt (Darwin again) but it does take time. And hopefully technology's pace will advance faster and somehow help humans to adapt sooner, rather than later.
It's interesting and sad to see the number of smart, well meaning, climate concerned people that can't seem to even entertain the possibility that we may simply be out living the planet, and for that matter, are unlikely to find anything else suitable for a great long while, if ever. At some point, we may have to figure out how the manage something like degrowth to survive. Economists that are not taking that seriously and planning for the possibility are doing us all a disservice. It's willful ignorance at some point.
Since we now know that RE is not going to be what it is and we still want to end fossil fuels, what are we going to get rid of to make this happen? How are we going to tell people that they can't have their widget because it uses to much energy from nothing to trash?
"what are we going to get rid of to make this happen?"
ExACTLY!
And further, what will the process be for those that refuse to do it willingly as they can see into the future and its place within it?
I like the term "energy blind". I think it accurately describes the state of the vast majority of humanity. I'm pretty sure hardly anybody thinks about or is aware of just how much energy fossil fuels contain. I was trying to figure out a way to illustrate this once and I came up with this:
I had a 125cc motorbike. It weighed about 350 lb and would go roughly 40 km in 20 minutes on 1 litre of gas. So I would explain this to someone and then ask them to imagine what it would feel like in their body to push that motorbike 40 km! That would probably take a fit person two or three days and they would be wrecked. That's how much power there is in a liter of gas and it's pretty mind-boggling!
"That would probably take a fit person two or three days and they would be wrecked."
Absolutely true; more energy dense than coal, for sure.
California is about to find out what having little to no gas is like as refineries are popping out of existence like Fourth of July (the US Independence day) fireworks in the sky. Thanks to historical supplies, the Uniparty that governs CA thinks they can keep the strangulation going on forever.
Slowly, then suddenly.
They will lose 20% of capacity within the year. More will also close. All that energy gone.
And then what?
Hi Lloyd,
We need to slow down and take a few deep breaths. Too many people are lost at this time. People are scared and prefer to distract themselves with action because they are confused and lost. We need to debate and envision what an ecologically advanced society will look like.
We need to stop using GDP and GNP as our measures of economic growth. The Earth is for all people, and they have great ideas. They need help from skilled communicators and entertainers to make their plans more appealing. This is where you'll need to step in.
For short-term relief, watch " The Biggest Little Farm " or the Irish mythology trilogy of the Book of Kells, Song of the Sea and Wolfwalkers or The Camino Voyage or The Eternal Song or any Films for the planet.
Kind Regards,
Frances Scully
"We need to stop using GDP and GNP as our measures of economic growth. "
This discussion topic has happened before either here or at TH on one of Lloyd's posts (now lost in the mists of antiquity due to the utter stupidity of Lloyd's former employers). What are your replacement metrics?
"They need help from skilled communicators and entertainers to make their plans more appealing."
This really is kinda amusing, given that most here HATE Big Marketing which is exactly what you are proposing. Just wrap it up in more flowery language.
Being a person that is seemingly immune to Big Marketing, I dryly note that from one of the major political parties in the US, they are saying similar things - it isn't the Product they are trying to pitch that's their problem, it's their Messaging.
My response is akin to "You can put lipstick on a pig but...". How would you tell a middle class American that they would have to give up 60-80% of what they have and live like a Third Worlder (as a commenter here said)? And how would you PR their children "Oh, sorry, you cannot have as much as your parent have?".
Sorry Geoffrey, that IS the Product. Which leaves two things:
- How can anyone really Message that?
- What are the steps to have everyone reach the level of only having 20-40% of what they have now.
I'm not being a troll in asking these questions. They are REQUIRED in order to have others accept what you wish to do to them (if they are not willing to do it to themselves). I've exposed politicians before that promised wonderful things for everyone but we all found out, based on penetrating questions, they were frauds looking to implement the opposite and not willing to be truthful about what they really wanted to do.
I hope we Canadians can review the work of Earth 4 ALL. They are a little-known International group of earth scientists and economists who work together, or we can say this is too Scandinavian for Canada. I worry about the anti-science and vaccination trolls. Decades ago, I saw babies and people of all ages die from a lack of basic hygiene and immunization. Have you seen this? I lived in the 60s without all the toxic plastic garbage marketed on Temu, and I am none too keen to be burned alive in a wildfire. There never has been a golden age, and there never will be, but we do need to have conversations about what makes people relatively happy and healthy. It is not living as a slave to Musk and Tiel controlled by AI, and it certainly is NOT falling apart and suffering hell for years from secondary cancer from Agent Orange. I am not being a troll either, I just have buried too many people I love to cancers linked to excessive industrialization. Few of us can go live like Zen monks, but I do not for an instant think that Peter Thiel and Elon Musk are happy individuals. Yes, I need more than just aesthetics, but the data clearly shows that life expectancy increased when a majority of people had some disposable income. Then it follows a U-shaped curve in highly unequal societies. People at the very top and the bottom surprisingly have similarly super high stress levels. That data was published decades ago by Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett in The Spirit Level. People are wise to be suspicious about being asked to sacrifice. Yuval Noah Harari is much smarter than I am, and he warns about artificial intelligence. There are blue zones in several places around the world where many people live to 100 and remain functioning and independent. I most definitely do not have the answers, and I intend to heed the advice of Vaclav Havel, who wrote to seek out people searching for truth and to run like hell from all those who claim they have found it.
I am happy to have this discussion and I will go point by point - but a bit later as a close family member is having health issues and I have to plug myself into other stuff for a while.
However, and in the mean time, let's just start with your words, and my question concerning them, first. I do have responses to your missives but I currently lack the time to write.
Your statement: "We need to stop using GDP and GNP as our measures of economic growth. "
My question: "What are your replacement metrics?" [GDP/CNP]. Without objective measurements, there can be no management of such processes.
"energy slaves.”
Methinks that relationship is backwards. Just like with "wage slaves". WE, the population at large, control the energy we use
"We also have to make less stuff and use less stuff, and figure out what’s enough. And that is always a hard sell."
Who is this "we" bit and, as always, the trite phrase of "what's enough"? Sorry Lloyd, but until you answer both of those questions/voids in your arguments, you will ALWAYS have a hard sell. Actually, no "sell" at all. You refuse to even tell the rest of us what your mechanism should be to limit people to your idea of what "enough" should be. Heck, says the guy that seems to be racking up more air/travel miles than ever before, tell us what is "enough" for every man, woman, and child on this planet? Or (I'll make your problem domain easier to manage) just even in Canada?
Where's your transparency and openness in all this? You've been saying all of this for years so I know you mean and want it. But why the hesitancy in letting the rest of us know how you want to achieve it? Saying "less, less, less" is not a solution. It's not even a "sell".
Complaining doesn't solve anything until you provide hard and fast solutions. Not once, in the years I've been reading your stuff, have you actually produced a complete and detailed solution (or set of solutions) of how to get from "increasing wealth and standards of living via thermodynamics" to "selling" First World people to accept Third World living standards. "Upfront Bitching!" about what you see is wrong solves nothing - that's no "sell" there.
I will, once again, repeat the verbiage on the T-shirt my son gave me: "Stop Whining. Do Something". Bitching without offering concrete solutions is just whining, IMHO.
So, as Andrew Breitbart famously said "Be Brave"; tell us your pathways to "less stuff" and "you now have enough so be happy about it".
I think I am done here.
Isn't it always the duty, beyond that of listening to their professors, of students to also challenge what a professor is telling them? I got that a lot - and there were times when I had to think things through before mandatorily giving them my answers that they truly deserved - and for which they had paid.
After all, they had a contract for knowledgebase transfer from their professors to them - I was duty-bound to fulfill my part of that contract.
In this we are in complete agreement. Solar, wind, geothermal, still have footprints, whether we admit it or not. While the source of energy matters, we cannot forget that energy use is always accompanied by entropy, and that dissipation of heat to the environment (with or without pollution) is a cost. Ecosystems have a way of maximizing energy flow, and using waste as a resource, if they are intact. Our extraction of resources, degrades those ecosystems, and alternative energy still requires extraction. Unless we learn from natural systems how these elemental resources are cycled, and solar is used to maximum effect (not efficiency), we will not solve the material problem of the planet. I have a complementary take on this here: https://wayneteel513055.substack.com/p/economy-and-ecology
We have NO energy sources, traditional or "alternative" (re: REs) that are recyclable. We just do not have the technology to do recovery all of that energy and turn it into "useful" (as opposed to entropy as you rightly and correctly state, or as Lloyd calls "waste") energy.
Yes, we require extraction of all kinds of base materials, then manufacture them into "useful" forms that can then end up into and driving the economy. I will point out that REs also have tremendous end-of-life waste impacts being either from windmills or PVs. We have little means to truly deal with those waste fallout scenarios (at scale) other than just burying them and letting them leach out.
Thus, we should all heed what economists hold to: "there are no optimal solutions, only tradeoffs". This holds not only with carbon based energy sources but REs as well. What are we willing to put up with, given the technology in its present form, to judge one from another?
And since energy is merely an input but the economy is the end product, what are those downstream tradeoffs in the economy that the vast majority of the Earth's population are willing to trade away? They rightly put the end product, their standard of living, ahead of the energy sources supply that input to their SoL.
So what do you consider to be reasonable tradeoffs and how to achieve them?
I am not a techno optimist, but I am a promoter of biological solutions and biomimicry. You seem, somewhat justifiably, skeptical of recycling in solar, wind, and batteries. While I see progress, especially with solar and batteries, I don't think they will hit the 98% target some aim for, though I applaud the target. Ultimately, and this is where I think you disagree, it comes down to willingness to decrease the standard of living, and move to a much more biologically appropriate way to live. We have to live in a way that does not diminish the ecosystems of our place, whether that be northern Canada, Florida, the Amazon or the South African Karoo. Biological systems know how to rely on the sun. Though only 1% of the energy is converted by photosynthesis, the rest is useful, then sent to space as dissipated heat, entropy. We should live within those natural limits and rely, as far as possible, on present solar input and growth of plants. Yes, this means degrowth. The wealthier you are the more you shrink your SoL. I don't pretend this will be a pleasant switch, but I can tell you that some parts of the switch are wonderful, like riding an electric bike (15 miles to run errands this morning), eating fresh food from a garden, and converting a lawn to perennial flowering plants, shrubs, and fruit trees. The key to doing this is developing a community and doing it together. Indigenous peoples always lived in communities. Rugged individualism got you eaten. That is the biggest trade off: materialism traded for community, including the biological community. If we don't make the switch to a smaller personal and global footprint, i.e. near zero energy input from fossil fuels, and significantly lower energy use overall, the result is heat death, which you might call entropic overheating.
Somewhat justifiable? I'm open to be educated further but as far I know right now, there is no recycling of the blades and the only solution currently is ditching them into rather large landfills.
For PVs, there is barely rudimentary extraction of the heavy metals required for the retiring panels (or, the newer ones broken up by "bad local climate" mishaps.
And for the utility grade batteries, a fair number of them are literally going up in smoke spewing cancerous billows of smoke. Even Teslas get declared to be hazardous material when they combust. And those other EVs that were coming across on the Morning Midas will now be polluting the ocean bottom with the fire that started on board.
"Indigenous peoples always lived in communities."
Are you willing to live totally like they did, back when, with no modernity at all? What HARD aspects of today's First World would have to be trash canned for this Golden Utopia. Certainly, you'll lose the e-bike. Most medicines, almost all technology, the ability to easily get the seeds you speak of, the clothes you wear, and all the other thing of today's life will, necessarily, go POOF!
So I will ask you as I have Lloyd (or anyone else here) - when people reject your utopia (Greek for "no place" or "nowhere"), then what is your solution? And what are you going to tell the Third Worlders that they are doomed to live in poverty forever? And what will THEIR response be - and how will you handle it?
OK, Professor - I am ready to be educated for reasonable scenarios as everyone else DO get votes in all this.
Thanks! Another exceptional piece of analysis !