141 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, December 17, 2021”

  2. Quick! Drive more EVs!

    Satellite data show that over the last 30 years, the flow of Thwaites Glacier across land and toward the sea has nearly doubled in pace. The collapse of this “Doomsday Glacier” alone would alter sea levels significantly, but its fall would also destabilize other West Antarctic glaciers, dragging more ice into the ocean and raising sea levels even more.

    Antarctica’s Thwaites Glacier ice shelf could collapse within five years

    1. Hmmm. The article says that climate change is a serious problem. But the first sentence in your comment ridicules the idea of taking action to reduce fossil fuel consumption.

      Seems contradictory.

      1. Nick G,

        The way you speak is as if peakoilbarrel is where representatives of countries and corporations come and make decisions. Hilarious.

        It does not matter one bit what people say or think on here, everyone just regurgitates their own particular conditioning including me.

        Paris, COP26, and all other climate summits have not since their beginning put even a small dent in the GHG footprint. And they won’t, you know why? Because they aren’t serious about it.

        Let me give you an example about my home country of Australia. The governments pledge to slow down GHG is nothing but a farce. Why have i come to that conclusion you might ask?

        Because on the one hand they go to all these summits and take photo ops for world media to act like they are doing something. However for the keen observer paying attention to google earth, on the east coast of Australia, where the majority of forests lie and to the north the unique rainforests, land clearing is fucking rampant. It hurts my heart everytime i look at google earth I notice new patches of forest being completely devastated. God knows how many animals have lost their habitats as a result of human greed, in the form of developers and agriculture.

        So, i conclude, they aren’t serious. They never were serious. Because, the only REAL way to stop GHG emissions, is to stop the economic system. Which they won’t, unless they are forced involuntarily, they will never in my opinion change the economic system out of their own volition.

        You and I will never see eye to eye. I think the main reason is, i know i am addicted to the system. System being the industrial revolution and the technological revolution. I depend on big food, big pharma, big oil etc. As long as i do, i am part of the problem. I don’t think you realise you are addicted.

        1. the only REAL way to stop GHG emissions, is to stop the economic system.

          Fossil fuel producers would like you to believe that, but it’s not so. Most GHG emissions are caused by burning fossil fuel, and FF is not essential to life or our economic system.

          Now, agriculture is an important source of GHs (maybe 25%, according to some estimates), but changing agriculture does not require stopping the economic system. Greatly reducing beef consumption, reducing habitat loss, etc., can be done without stopping the economic system.

          The right wing subisidized by Koch, et al are working hard to spread the idea that oil etc are essential to “our way of life”. They want to say that FF is essential, so we should do nothing to move away from FF.

          But…it’s not so.

          1. Nick, I wish I could believe you, but I don’t. I’ve been around a long time, have studied this as much as a lay person can hope for, and have watched and watched as my hopes have gradually fallen apart.

            The flip side of AGW denialism is the denialism you express above: that FFs are not essential to our economic system. The exploitation of FFs has been arguably the most tragic mistake humans have ever made. But there is nothing I can do about it. Not even “green” energy can save the day. Even the author of the concept of the ecological footprint disagrees with you:

            William Rees.

            Once the damage is on the apple, it is too late to spray.

            1. > The exploitation of FFs has been arguably the most tragic mistake humans have ever made. But there is nothing I can do about it. Not even “green” energy can save the day.

              This is the propaganda (or spin, as we say in America) the fossil fuel industry would like you to believe.

              > I’ve been around a long time,

              This may be less useful than you might think. One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of people underestimate the enormous rate of change in the world today.

              Anyway, whether you like EVs or not, they are coming. Car manufacturers (and governments around the world) have already decided.

              https://cleantechnica.com/2021/12/15/the-success-of-the-mustang-mach-e-is-forcing-ford-to-adjust-its-production-plans/

              https://cleantechnica.com/2021/11/18/30-plugin-vehicle-share-in-german-auto-market/

              You might as well grumble about how much you miss typewriters and eight track tape. We are at the end of the age of internal combustion engines (and thermal power plants).

            2. >>This is the propaganda (or spin, as we say in America) the fossil fuel industry would like you to believe.<<'

              It is exactly this refuge into conspiratorial thinking that discredits much of the "Green Energy" movement. William Rees is no FF industry shill.

            3. Mike B
              I don’t know who this guy William Rees is and don’t really care. He’s entitled to his own opinion, but it doesn’t need to concern me.

              It isn’t a conspiracy theory to claim that the fossil fuel industry claims that the world can’t do without fossil fuel, because they do it quite publicly.

            5. >>One thing I’ve noticed is that a lot of people underestimate the enormous rate of change in the world today.<<

              Yes. The Late Bronze Age collapse only took about 50 years.

              Oh, the irony…

      2. Nick, you equate EVs with action on climate change and reducing FF consumption. The two are so linked in your mind you cannot think of one without the other. I, and many others here, don’t think there is a relationship.

        From this perspective, mocking EV’s while also thinking climate change is bad makes perfect sense.

        1. Yep, EVs are inextricably linked to reducing FF consumption.

          Oil is the single biggest part of FF consumption. EVs are THE way to reduce oil consumption.

          1. As long as there is growth, there will be no (voluntary) reduction in oil consumption. Anytime some oil is freed by introduction of an EV, it will be used somewhere else. The world never stopped increasing the burning of wood for fuel. We burn more now than we ever have. Oil, coal, and gas will be the same. EVs will roll out, and the world will be astounded to see that demand for oil is not decreasing. But it’s easily predictable.

            And even if EVs roll out very quickly in a very successful manner (a big if), they are currently and for the foreseeable future only capable of replacing light transport and some smaller trucks. All the other uses of oil will still be around. And they’ll now be cheaper! Which will increase their application and remove the decreases elsewhere.

            EVs are a non-solution.

            1. As long as there is growth, there will be no (voluntary) reduction in oil consumption.

              The evidence says otherwise. The US’ GDP has grown substantially since 2005, yet it uses less oil than it did then. GDP has grown 150% since 1979, and it uses substantially less per capita than it did then. From 1979 to 1982 the US reduced oil consumption by 18% even though GDP grew. Why?
              Because the price went up. US oil consumption for passenger transportation is twice as efficient as it was in 1975. Germany and Japan both have decreased oil consumption significantly over time.

              People don’t care about consuming oil. There’s no benefit to it. They care about the services that it has traditionally provided, which is transportation. If transportation can be done more cheaply without oil, people will forget oil in a heartbeat.

              The world never stopped increasing the burning of wood for fuel. We burn more now than we ever have.

              That’s not really relevant: no one has made a reduction in wood burning a serious public policy goal. But, it sounds a bit off, so I’d be curious to see the data for that, especially for in OECD countries.

              EVs…are currently and for the foreseeable future only capable of replacing light transport and some smaller trucks.

              Which is 80% of oil burned in transportation! It’s possible that other things will work better for long-haul tractor-trailers, like H2 or synthetic methanol or diesel. It’s likely that other things will work better for aviation, seasonal agriculture and container shipping, like ammonia. But those are only 20% of transportation: EVs are the primary thing.

              Oil is substantially more expensive than it’s competitors, even without including external costs like pollution and insecurity of supply – EVs are growing fast for a reason. Oil can be eliminated by a deliberate set of public policy choices, just as leaded paint, leaded gas, and thermometer mercury have been eliminated.

            2. The evidence says otherwise. The US’ GDP has grown substantially since 2005, yet it uses less oil than it did then. GDP has grown 150% since 1979, and it uses substantially less per capita than it did then. From 1979 to 1982 the US reduced oil consumption by 18% even though GDP grew. Why?
              Because the price went up. US oil consumption for passenger transportation is twice as efficient as it was in 1975. Germany and Japan both have decreased oil consumption significantly over time.

              Nick, this exactly proves my point. Tell me, did global consumption of oil go down over this time period? But if Germany and the US made such great increases in efficiency of use, shouldn’t it have? Yet, it did not. Consumption continued to increase, despite MASSIVE increases in efficiency in all of the worlds developed nations. Because global growth continued. All reductions in use via efficiency were offset by growth elsewhere. In effect, those increases in efficiency just freed up more oil for others to use.

              If transportation can be done more cheaply without oil, people will forget oil in a heartbeat.

              And when demand for oil drops off a cliff, what happens to the price of oil? And suddenly it looks attractive again…

              But, it sounds a bit off, so I’d be curious to see the data for that, especially for in OECD countries.

              https://ourworldindata.org/energy-mix

              “Traditional biomass” is wood. It dropped a bit recently just like everything else due to the pandemic, but the global trend is up. And by the way, I’m sure you’ve heard of Europeans buying American trees to burn (as pellets) as a way to make “green” electricity… It’s always the same effect. Reduce American demand for wood, and someone else uses it! Over and over…

              It’s because of GROWTH. This does not stop until growth ends. Growth will ALWAYS eat any gain in efficiency or otherwise. In 20 years there may be half a billion EVs on the road. Mark my words, we’ll be using just as much oil then as we are now (assuming that growth continues. If growth stops, all bets are off.)

            3. if Germany and the US made such great increases in efficiency of use, shouldn’t world oil consumption have dropped?

              The argument you made earlier was that growth in oil consumption will never stop. The OECD countries prove that’s not the case. People’s appetite for transportation is limited: once they get enough, growth stops.

              Secondly, oil isn’t essential to transportation. Once people convert to electric transportation demand for oil will go away. That’s what’s happening in Norway right now: very roughly 80% of new vehicles are electric. Oil consumption in Norway is dropping, and it won’t come back no matter how cheap oil becomes.

              The same is happening in Germany, and starting to happen in China, the largest car market in the world. Car companies don’t really like EVs because they’re less profitable, but they’re converting to EVs. The writing is on the wall.

            4. On Overshoot, Nick, and EVs.

              Nick will not accept any construction of the overshot/climate change problem definition that does not allow for EVs to be the only necessary and sufficient solution. The reality is far too complex for Nick; just as it is far too complex for Trumpsters and Qtards. Different strokes for different folks.

            5. Nick will not accept any construction of the overshot/climate change problem definition that does not allow for EVs to be the only necessary and sufficient solution.

              Nope. I’ve repeatedly said that it was not sufficient. No one is saying that – that’s a strawman.

              But it is necessary.

            6. EV’s will help with climate change, and will enable some portion of civilization to avoid a steep decline in function after oil begins to fade in earnest.

              But they will not help at all with the many other aspects of this overshoot condition.
              Whether its soil degradation or deforestation, there is no benefit.
              Also, I wonder if anyone has come up with good numbers on the amount of copper, steel, aluminum, plastics required per GWhr of electricity generated by various sources?
              I suspect the analysis would not paint a very pretty picture on this aspect of ‘electrification’ of the world energy system.
              Add the issue of battery industry environmental affects to the equation.

              This overshoot condition all a very ugly scenario for the health of the world ecosystem and the ability of the planet to sustain the soon to be 9 billion people in the decade of the 2030’s.
              I have been to places where every animal over the size of a dime had already been collected for direct eating, or to be sold in the crowded marketplace. A few birds here and there were still free and living. I met a some 60 year olds who were so poor they had never even eaten at a street stall or any other place where you had to pay money. They were very small.
              There are almost 8 billion of us, and animal life other than pets or livestock are just a thin shadow of the past.

      1. I would hazard to guess that the lion’s share of the commenters to this website are middle class or better. The invisible billion or so of the world’s poor people who know of this middle class life but aren’t going to be able to reach it. The Western elite have demonized the carbon atom and wind and solar will never provide their path out of poverty. Germany and the UK have been obsessed for 30 years in eliminating FF energy and now heading into an average winter the prices for energy are already ruinous for their citizens. Because of the religious aspect, the only fix I read about is more of the same. If there are any replies to the post please address the plight of the worlds poor and no comments about me.

        1. This is perhaps the most terrifying aspect of our current situation: The Divide.

          Having recently taken a course in the history of the Bronze Age in the Near East, I’m even more rattled. The parallels to now are disheartening. Those folks could have done nothing to avoid their plight, either.

          Climate stress (megadrought) and subsequent famines, earthquake swarms, and intense “globalization” during that time (yes, you read that correctly: the Late Bronze Age was the first truly globalized trade network, with “world” being defined as Iberia to E. Afghanistan, N. Anatolia to Punt), led to the interruption of those trade networks (particularly tin/copper for bronze) and the sudden collapse of whole empires–Mycenaean/Minoan, Hittite, Babylonian–with severe damage inflicted on Egypt and Assyria.

          How?

          Refugees fleeing S. Europe/W. Mediterranean (the so-called Sea Peoples), AND starving residents of the empires, attacked and burned Mycenae, Knossos, Pylos, Hattusa, Ugarit, and on and on. Discontent had always marked the era, for reasons similar to those Ervin mentions, above. Outsiders/malcontents/escaped slaves long known as habiru/apiru were emboldened to plunder their overlords. Historians have always wondered about the resemblance of the word to “Hebrew.” Notably, the later dates proposed for the Exodus (AND the fall of Troy) coincide with this sudden collapse of civilization. It was an era of “mass migration of climate refugees,” as it were.

          Nearly all was lost–many cities were never resettled; a centuries-long Dark Age ensued; even literacy disappeared in some places. That the Hebrews/Canaanites made it through and managed to change subsequent history is one of the wonders of the period.

          One shudders to imagine the rapine that prevailed in the decades after 1200 BC.

          2. Yes Mike B , OIl ,electricity and metals the three legs of the stool called industrial civilisation . What will the current short supply of Magnesium do to alumnium production ? Chile and Peru the world’s number 1 and 2 producers of copper just elected leftist Presidents . There election platform was higher taxes on copper and copper ore exports . Your post is informative and eye-opening .

      2. The Western elite have demonized the carbon atom and wind and solar will never provide their path out of poverty.

        Sadly, you’re repeating classic fossil fuel industry propaganda. Wind and solar are cheaper and more widely distributed than fossil fuels: they are better for the poor.

    3. It is one of those snarky comments that makes the author feel superior but adds no value to the discussion. We have a billion cars in the world and people are not going to stop driving them. Given this immutable fact, isn’t driving an EV better than driving an ICE car? We are not going to succeed in reconfiguring the society anytime soon to make cars unnecessary.
      Incidentally the single largest source of greenhouse gases is not cars but animal agriculture. How many people here are vegan ?

      1. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, I feel “superior” for observing that we have not made a DENT.

        IT DOESN”T FUCKING MATTER WHAT I FEEL

        Edit: “Given this immutable fact, isn’t driving an EV better than driving an ICE car?”

        I drive to work twice a week (8 miles one way), go to the store twice a week (3 miles one way), go to my old time jam once a week (18 miles one way). My 2018 ICE Nissan truck should last a long time. Fuck EVs.

        BTW: I have no kids (don’t have a womb), I grow my own vegetables and meat, and I will be dead within 20 years or so.

        Ask me how many fucks I have to give.

        Again: fuck EVs and the twats making billions with them.

        1. I drive to work twice a week (8 miles one way), go to the store twice a week (3 miles one way), go to my old time jam once a week (18 miles one way).

          That seems to add up to about 4,000 miles per year, which is about 30% of the average. Your truck isn’t the primary problem.

          I completetly understand how you feel. I drive about 800 miles per year, and I have an ICE sedan that doesn’t really make sense to replace.

          On the other hand, you’re probably only getting about 15MPG, so you’re spending about $800 per year, and probably causing another $1,000 in pollution and other external costs. That begins to add up.

          So, should you feel guilty for not replacing your truck with an EV? No, I don’t think so. I think this is a societal problem, which needs to be solved on a societal level. It’s unreasonable to expect people to unilaterally sacrifice to fix a societal problem. Instead I think we should have a hefty gas tax, which is rebated to people: you’d pay per gallon, and get a rebate which was the average revenue per person. That would incentivize buying the right vehicle, and eliminate most of the pain.

        2. I will offer a contrary view here Mike B, et al.-

          Don’t drive …(or fly)!!!

          But if you must, ditch the oil.
          Plug in, because the damage is simply less.
          Less helps.

          There was a guy who used to come here (GF) who expressed considerable rage at any talk of innovation or adaptive efforts. He thought its all a lost cause and we should just fade away. And I harbor that mindframe quite often- but its not going to happen. Humanity will continue to drive the bulldozer. So I applaud efforts to downsize and use less of everything. Innovation is part of that story.

          1. I can’t help but be reminded of the story of the guy who stumbles unto the beach where the newly hatched turtles are trying to make their way to the sea while the seagulls are having a feast eating them. The guy starts to pick up individual turtles and tossing them into the waves. So, of course, some wise guy comes along and sees the dozens of gulls eating hundreds of baby turtles and says (as might Mike B.) “Don’t waste your time you aren’t making a particle of difference”. The first guy continues to pick up another turtle and says “It makes a difference to this one”.

            And here’s humanity in a nutshell. Some can only think of their own short term desires, others care. The first group are rational, the second are the ones with a sense of human decency. I prefer the company of the latter.

            1. Good analogy.
              i think I’d like to hang out with both you and Mike.
              All good food for thought.

            2. JJ, I love that story (it’s a parable!–see below) but I don’t know how to respond to it in the context of the currect worldwide climate crisis. I can only control my own behavior in that regard. I stay home, grow animals and vegetables, and drink hard cider.

              Will that help?

              Also: I have published a book of such parables and fables, but with a Darwinian spin:

              Metazoan Variations.

      2. Agriculture on a world wide basis may contribute close to twenty percent of all man made green house gas emissions.
        The percentage in terms of the developed countries with industrialized agriculture and lots of motor vehicles is far smaller.

        The low hanging fruit consists of electrifying transportation to the extent it’s possible to do so… and this is GOING to happen. It’s already happening. It will happen faster and faster, year after year.

        But it will take a damned long time to wear out the existing fleet of ICE cars and trucks, and new ice vehicles will continue to be sold by the tens of millions world wide for years to come.

        The issue of burning oil for transportation is going to solve itself, in terms of the big picture, given another decade or so, because it’s a depleting resource being chased after by more and more people year after year……. meaning the price of it will go so high that it’s going to be a no brainer to go electric by then.

        But even so, I will continue to drive my old truck and my old car, rather than buy new ones…. because even at six or eight bucks a gallon, it will be cheaper for me than buying an electric car and truck, given that I don’t drive much these days.

        I’m too old, and there are things to spend the price of a new vehicle on that APPRECIATE, often rather sharply, rather than depreciate by half every five years or so.

        The electric vehicle revolution is going to take off mostly in the industrial and commercial markets like sky rockets within the next couple of years…. which is as soon as viable electric vehicles will be available for commercial purposes in substantial numbers.

        The personal vehicle market won’t grow even a third as fast….. not until you can buy electric cars with more reasonable up front purchase costs.

      3. Suyog —

        Incidentally the single largest source of greenhouse gases is not cars but animal agriculture. How many people here are vegan ?

        This is probably an exaggeration, but a good question nonetheless. One answer may turn out to be meat substitutes. Although people love meat and eat more and more of it, they are getting farther and farther away from the animal, and eating more and more highly processed meat, like sausage varieties in Europe, ground beef in North America and noodles filled with ground pork in China.

        These are easy to fake. About 60% of American beef consumption is ground beef, and in a spicy dish you don’t really taste the difference. Taco Bell figure that out decades ago. Perhaps more importantly, prices are crashing and big players are entering the market. For example, American McDonald’s customers eat about 5 million cows a year, but McDonald’S is investing heavily in meat substitutes.

    4. 1) The volume of the Thwaites glacier is 483000 cubic kilometers. The current loss of ice of Thwaites glacier is 50 cubic kilometers or so per year. At this rate, there is nothing to worry about. But effectively, by removing the current ice-shelf which no longer retains much and that’s why it is torn by the thrust of the glacier, the glacier will be allowed to increase again its output. 2) About the possible outcome of Marine Ice-Cliff Instability (MICI). I listened a press conference given on the web by scientists of different ITGC teams. Apparently, there are a lot to discuss about the physic involved with MICI. One element is the formation of an horseshoe like embayment in front of the glacier (a big one) and this embayment would be rapidly crowded with a lot of icebergs and sea-ice : indeed, by melting, the icebergs will freshen the surface layer of the oceanic embayment and this will ease the formation of sea-ice, not mentioning the katabatic winds which could both push away the icebergs or/and cause the formation of sea-ice. According to a not still published article, the combined melting of Pine Island and Thwaites glacier will make rise sea level by 120 cm in 100 years after the begining of the processus of MICI with the hypothesis of the MICI process being slowed or interrupted momentarily by the presence of a mélange of icebergs and sea-ice. This rate would be amazing. Indeed, it means the calving of 8900 cubic kilometers of icebergs per year or so. Even the mighty Laurentide Ice-Sheet was not able to calve more than 2000 cubic kilometers of icebergs per year or so when it was collapsing during the Heinrich events which occured during the glaciation. As far as I know, the process of MICI requires an ice cliff which is, at minimum, 130 m high. It is also possible that deformation processes (see the references therein) could reduce the height of the ice cliffs or/and the MICI processes could be mixed with phases of Marine Ice-Sheet Instability (MISI) depending on the physical behavior of the ice and the climatic conditions. With only MISI or basal melt, the sea level rise would be, after 100 year, of 60 cm, implying a discharge of 4460 cubic kilometers of icebergs per year. Anyway, the process of MICI is not going to start immediately as the height of the glacier at the grounding line is not enough to allow it everywhere on the 120 km glacial front. https://tc.copernicus.org/preprints/tc-2021-238/

      1. Nice analysis. The next part is what the effect of the 1.2 meters of sea rise is going to have on western civilization.

  3. Just a few thoughts about “doomerism” not being part of “climate change”.

    Human nature is to secure and expand energy usage for the individual and extended family. In the face of resource scarcity, it makes sense to chose the best path forward. Humans are also benefit maximising creatures and therefore will slow down the impact of the problem.

    Standing up to the doomerism predicament, people will accept a lower standard of living and policies designed to curb any form of population growth. Elites that can make changes in the right direction will be rewarded; the ones that can not will get a rebellion against them. Even rising sea levels and higher temperatures would not hinder humans to adapt in a “selfish” way.

    If I were to guess, 2050 touted as a probable collapse date, 2050 would probably just be a point in time with gradually worsening environmental and resource related problems where people have adapted to the situation. But we are far past peak consumption by then and hopefully overpopulation can be somewhat manageable. Of course a nuclear meltdown or two and a few major wars would make it all much worse.

    1. In the face of resource scarcity, it makes sense to chose the best path forward.

      In other words, you’d recommend taking action to improve our future. That does make sense.

    2. Standing up to the doomerism predicament, people will accept a lower standard of living and policies designed to curb any form of population growth.

      Oh good gravy, do you really believe that. Do you know what the word “rationalize” means? It means people will find reasons to believe what they desire to believe. There is a small percentage of people who can see what a catastrophe overpopulation really is. However, the vast majority wish to believe all is right with the world. They wish to believe that there is no overpopulation problem whatsoever. So they just don’t believe a damn word of it. After all, if they believed that, then it would mean they would have to accept a lower standard of living in the future, whether they desired to or not.

      1. Hi Ron,
        I’m afraid you are totally correct, in terms of people rationalizing and believing what they want to believe…….. in the short and medium terms.

        But we can and do change our ways, at least sometimes, in the long term, once it’s fairly obvious that it’s better to change than to suffer the consequences of doing nothing.

        This is why I occasionally remind people to pray to their favorite entity, stone, snake, bear, sky daddy or mommy, cult leader, whatever, for a SERIES of what I usually refer to as Pearl Harbor Wake Up Events.

        A hot little war or two that would keep the oil tankers in port for a few months would go a damned long way toward speeding up the transition to electric vehicles.

        A Covid variant that would very quickly kill ten thousand people a day in the USA who refuse to get the vaccine would rather quickly result in vaccination rates reaching into the high nineties.

        Education works, but it works too damned slow. It’s taken three generations for the medical profession and the educational system to get the “tobacco kills” message across, and we still have thousands of kids taking up the tobacco habit every damned day.

        Levianthan, the nation state, can and will take meaningful action to preserve itself, meaning preserving the people as well, once the people come to accept the idea that action is NECESSARY, and necessarily immediate.

        1. I do like the idea of little Pearl Harbors but I think that the current path of humanity will rationalize them if they are too small and if they are too large we will be in a world where all of the leaders will be versions of Trump, Putin, Assad, Kim, and Orban. A classic Goldilocks situation.

  4. “Again: fuck EVs and the twats making billions with them.”
    So, you’d prefer to spend billions with other ‘billionaires’ (ICE and Oil). You’re choice.

    1. Please don’t interrupt the Two Minutes of Hate. It’s the opiate of the people.

      1. This is fascinating! I linked to William Rees above, who makes it clear that the obsession with climate change and EVs is beside the fucking point in light of ecological overshoot, and you have done EXACTLY what he says people always do: you have ignored it and clung more tightly to your point of view (in addition to issuing an ad hominem.

        Here’s another angle in a paper he co-authored: Through the eye of a needle.

        1. Rees makes the same arguments that we’ve discussed, and made clear that we disagree with.

          Here’s one example: he argues that we’re in overshoot, and that only “degrowth” will fix that. On the other hand, here’s a widely used estimate of the human ecological footprint:

          http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/living_planet_report2/
          footprintnetwork.org/en/index.php/GFN/page/world_footprint/

          Except, if you look closely at the data you’ll see that the Footprint is primarily about fossil fuel. Here’s a quote:

          “It would take 1.5 Earths to produce the resources necessary to support humanity’s current Ecological Footprint. This global overshoot means, for example, that we are cutting timber more quickly than trees regrow and releasing CO2 faster than nature can sequester it.

          Growth in the Ecological Footprint is largely attributable to the carbon Footprint, which has increased to comprise 53 percent of our Footprint in 2010 from 36 percent in 1961.”

          If our carbon footprint is 53% of our overall footprint of 1.5 Earths, then if you subtract the 53% you’re left with 47% of 1.5, which is .71 Earths…which is lower than overall capacity.

          Eliminate fossil fuels, and we’re no longer in overshoot.

          1. In my wildest dreams I can’t imagine any scenario wherein we give up fossil fuels within the next half a century or so…… other than maybe ones in which industrial civilization ceases to exist, and the population crashes back to a minor percentage of pre Industrial Revolution levels.

            But in half a century, we can and will transition away from fossil fuels to the tune of fifty to possibly as high as eighty percent or more……….

            Renewable electricity is going to be so cheap and plentiful that we can manufacture limited amounts of synthetic liquid fuels to run ESSENTIAL machinery such as used on farms in the boonies, etc.

            Too many of us are incapable of seeing the handwriting on the wall, when it comes to changing technologies. I suppose it helps because I knew my great grand parents well, who lived to see the arrival of motor vehicles, motorized farm machinery, and in some cases, electricity……. but electricity didn’t make it into this community until some of them were dead of old age. I actually met people, when I was a kid, who knew people who hit the ground praying when they saw their first airplane…….. thinking it was something out of the Book of Revelations.

            Now I have my very own crystal ball…… except that it’s flat rather than round.

            Fossil fuels are on their way out, due to changing technologies and depletion, no matter what. The so called third world is never going to own oil fueled cars and trucks the way the rich western world owns them today.

            The real question is whether the climate will change for the worse to the point that collapse on the grand scale is inevitable, or whether some parts of the world will still be relatively decent habitat for naked apes.

            I don’t know.

            But I’m somewhat hopeful that at least some portions of the human race will survive and thrive to the point that here and there there will still be people who have electricity, stores with food, hospitals, cops…… and even some cars.

            The entire planetary ecology is somewhat like a planet wide spider web. Touch it anywhere and the touch can be felt everywhere.

            You can knock down half a spider web, and the spider can still catch some food while repairing the downed half.

            My personal opinion is that while planet wide collapse is possible, regional collapse is far more likely….. and that such regional collapse, happening several times over, might solve the problems associated with over consumption and over population over areas as large as half a million or a million square miles in fairly short order……. thereby reducing the strain on whatever remains of the functional planetary ecology.

            1. The Great Disruption – Rethinking Energy, Transportation, Food & Agriculture / August 17th, 2021(Tony Seba – YouTube)

              A counterpoint to the likes of William Reese (I assume since I have not read Reese’s work). What concerns me is that Seba’s projections kick limits to growth down the road and will allow more humans to exist on the planet (overshoot to get worse). At about 45 minutes into the above video Seba goes into the disruption of agriculture, livestock and dairy to be precise.

              There are hundreds of companies today going after eggs, pork, fish, and so on, so all animal extraction, food essentially is on the block for disruption. So we expect that by 2030 the market’s going to reduce the need
              for cows by 50% and 90% by 2035. We have never seen this this quick disruption of the food industry. I mean some of the implications are pretty astonishing. For instance, um because so much of America i mean almost half, like I said 40%, of the landmass of the country is used for uh livestock, freeing up all of this land because of the pf disruption will free up a landmass the size of the Louisiana purchase, free.

            2. In my wildest dreams I can’t imagine any scenario wherein we give up fossil fuels within the next half a century or so…… other than maybe ones in which industrial civilization ceases to exist, and the population crashes back to a minor percentage of pre Industrial Revolution levels.

              Archaeological Historian Ian Hodder (expert of the Neolithic village Catalhoyuk) discusses a concept he calls entanglement, whereby our understanding of another time and place can only be approached through the people’s things (a word he uses with special emphasis) viewed within their context. The term thing encompasses all tools, matter, ideas and concepts that define a people. A culture and the very experience of the people’s existence, that is, their Dasein (from the German word meaning something like “presence”), is accessible to us–however–indistinctly–only through contemplation of their things.

              The chief thing which defines the modern world is fossil energy-based growth. All else is predicated on it. “Alternative” sources–even in their very definition (“alternative” to exactly what?)–are simply ersatz fossil fuels–and just as doomed, as they are proposed to continue this catastrophe called growth. We are programmed in this Dasein to replicate the achievements of the fossil fuel revolution. We are rapidly becoming a Cargo Cult of Carbon.

              As OFM says, balance will occur once a worldlwide population within carrying capacity is restored.

          2. “Eliminate fossil fuels, and we’re no longer in overshoot.”

            That is a gross misunderstanding of the status of the world conditions.

            Unless perhaps you mean that after fossil fuel and the subsequent steep and rapid decline of human beings that the world population will settle down in the roughly 600 million size, and then will no longer be in overshoot condition.

            In 1910 WA state population was around 200,000 people.
            That was enabled by wood energy in the form of massive unsustainable deforestation, and coal energy on a large scale. Without those fuel sources the population would probably have maxed out far below 100,000 in the best of circumstances.
            Now there are 7,700,000 people in the state.

            And its not just energy that is the problem.
            That is just one of the big facets.

            For example roughly 16 million Salmon used to have their life-cycle centered on the Columbia River watershed, now its less than a million. And they are much smaller than they used to be. A shadow of the original life (what the humans call a resource).

            1. Thanks, Hickory, great post and spot on.

              Nick wrote: “Eliminate fossil fuels, and we’re no longer in overshoot.”

              Really now? Nick, do you have the slightest idea what the word “overshoot” means? It means one hell of a lot more than just our carbon footprint. It means we are taking over the niche of almost every animal species on earth. And as we take over their territory, their population declines. And one by one each species becomes extinct.

              We are destroying the earth. I have, on this blog, over the years listed every form of destruction we are causing the earth to suffer. But the cornucopians simply cannot grasp such a simple principle. That says something very profound about them. And that something just ain’t pretty.

              I will leave it at that.

            2. Ron , I put up a post on the oil thread for Hicks to think about . Very close to what you postulated . We are up the creek without a paddle .

    1. Very interesting. Wind resource is remarkably widely distributed – much more than fossil fuels…

      1. The offshore wind is not all one animal.
        The shallow waters where platforms can be directly anchored are an easier and less expensive development.
        The deeper waters will be likely reserved for the windiest spot deployment, since the anchoring will be more expensive.
        It is a huge perpetual resource.

    2. Hickory and Nick, question for the two you.

      With todays technology, what percent of todays transportation and electrical generation could be replaced by non fossil fuel means ? My guess would be both are over 80% and could be done over a 30 year life cycle. I would also guess if a new low cost electrical storage technology became available, that 80% could go to 98% plus.

      1. HB,

        There’s an important distinction between technology and engineering. We have all the tech we need to replace all transportation and generation with non-FF sources. Developing the engineering to scale things up and then actually making the stuff and accumulating manufacturing knowledge to do it cheaper and cheaper is another stage. The stuff I’m thinking about includes utility scale H2 storage for seasonal backup; synthetic fuels for aviation and water shipping, heat pumps and building retrofits, etc.

        I think your 80% and 98% estimates are pretty good for the two stages.

      2. HB, your guess is as good as any I could offer.
        Its all speculation about what could happen vs what will.

        I think cost considerations, poor planning, and failure to take the predicament seriously will result in a vast under performance of what may be possible.

        1. I’d agree, though it’s worth pointing out that resistance to change in this area is not an accident. It’s not poor planning or a failure to take it seriously, because those things imply simple negligence. That’s not the problem. The problem is conscious sabotage by the industries that would be hurt by a transition away from FF: primarily investors but secondarily the workers in those industries. This includes FF producers, as well as industries that are accustomed to the use of FF: refining, vehicle manufacturers, vehicle manufacturer suppliers, etc.

          You might be surprised by the inclusion of suppliers. Well, one of the primary partners in the post-WWII destruction of mass transit was a tire manufacturer…

          1. Thanks Nick and Hickory,

            “what could happen vs what will”

            My intent of the question was to focus on “what could happen”. Regarding the “will”, failure is guaranteed form the doomers and deniers. Claiming the great apes nature of selfishness for survival is just an excuse of poorly educated with nonsense. Transition is required for survival. Any educated survivalist who prepares would understand this. Overshoot is a separate beast that needs to be dealt with and being used as a distraction from transition.

            Nick, I get the sense the distinction between what your saying about technology and engineering is what can be done and what has been done. What stands between the two is the “will” to do it.

            Thanks again

        1. Thanks Island,

          Between minutes 3 and 4 Jacobson explains how he developed a computer model of Los Angeles air pollution and expanded it to world climate change. It’s this type of correlation and California’s experience is why I believe California is leading in the transformation from fossil fuel. The majority of Californians understand it’s a process like a marathon runner putting one foot in front of the other until the finish line.

          “I grew up in the LA basin in the 60’s. When visibility was less than 1000 feet 50% of every day of the year. Today you can count those kind of days on your hands every year with twice as many people living in the same area. I’m thankful Californians aren’t quitters.

          You snooze, you loose”

          https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleumoctober-23-2021/#comment-728678

          Thanks again

          1. I worked downtown LA in the early 1960s. I remember the air was horrible and I remember the streetcars were replaced in 1963 with GM diesel buses.

            1. Yep, the San Gabriels would disappear, even if you were right next to them.
              Things have changed.

  6. I notice more Tesla vehicles all the time when I drive near cities. I still see few around where I live, but l live in a very rural place.

    I read an article today by IHS Markit which concerns a looming shortage of electrical steel.

    What’s that all about?

    1. Electrical steel is a special type of alloy used in making motors, transformers, generators and such.

      I don’t know anything about it, other than that you can’t weld it without destroying the properties that make it suitable for this specialized purpose.

      My guess is that the people that make it laid off a lot of employees when the economy slowed down, with some maybe even selling out or mothballing their facilities.

      Now that the economy is picking up again, they’re probably in tall cotton, able to raise prices at will, selling to the highest bidders, lol.

      Just another bottle neck in the supply chain, which will be blamed on Covid, no doubt, perhaps even with some justification, is my guess.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_steel

  8. Forget peak oil (and gas) for a moment, when will we get to peak coal?

    THE WORLD IS BURNING THE MOST COAL EVER

    “Coal-fueled generation is set to jump 9% from last year, according to an International Energy Agency report released Friday. That U-turn from the declines of the previous two years threatens the world’s trajectory to reach net-zero emissions by 2050. The U.S. and European Union had the biggest increases in coal use at about 20% each, followed by India at 12% and China, the world’s largest consumer, 9%. The comeback is being driven by economic recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic, which is outpacing the ability of low-carbon energy sources to maintain supply…

    Carbon dioxide emissions from coal in 2024 are now predicted to be at least three billion tons higher than in a scenario reaching net-zero by 2050. The IEA expects peak coal to occur next year at 8.11 billion tons, with the biggest production increases coming from China, Russia and Pakistan.”

    Meanwhile global energy-related carbon dioxide emissions are on course to surge by 1.5 billion tonnes in 2021 – the second-largest increase in history – reversing most of last year’s decline caused by the Covid-19 pandemic, according to the IEA. This would be the biggest annual rise in emissions since 2010, during the carbon-intensive recovery from the global financial crisis.

    Now, lets hear from the shoot-the-messenger trolls.

    https://phys.org/news/2021-12-world-coal.html

    1. This decade.
      Poor people will resort to increase use of local wood if they can’t get coal.

      Hi stranger.

      1. Hicks , already happening in India . Forest rangers are now in jeopardy as they are being killed by the illegal tree smugglers . Worse even the tribals who use fallen twigs and branches are targets . Humans will burn everything until there is nothing left to burn or till we burn ourselves . We are going to burn our house furniture to keep warm . The media will espouse this as innovative . Sad , very sad .

    2. I think for most of the world, standard of living trumps climate change.

      If people are worried about loss of home heating or air conditioning, most will say ‘we’ll worry about climate change later. Open up that coal mine now!”

      1. Sure. No one thinks blackouts are a good idea.

        In the longer term, there’s not a conflict between standard of living and reducing climate change: electric transportation, wind and solar, etc., are cheaper than FF.

        When you actually do a little planning, things get cheap: for example improving efficiency in appliances, HVAC etc is much cheaper than generating additional power.

    3. Nuclear is better for us than coal I believe.
      But also more dangerous.

      1. Especially dangerous after the collapse and all of that nuclear waste is unguarded.

    4. when will we get to peak coal?

      Doug, your quote answers your question: “The IEA expects peak coal to occur next year”.

      So what’s your real point? That eliminating coal (and other FF) is hard, so we should just do nothing?

    5. Hi Doug . Long time , no see . Glad to see you are ok . I miss your posts on the Arctic ice .

    6. I continue, after forty years of thinking about this, to be endlessly boggled by it all. Yes, it’s really as bad as experts said it could be, way back in the dark ages of pet rocks and prog rock.

      It’s my view that human appetite trumps human ingenuity, every time, but most folks don’t want to hear it.

    7. Coal consumption peaked in 2013 i believe. Year on year growth this year only happened because of the pandemic.

    1. I’m glad to see Nikola isn’t one hundred percent vaporware.

      But it appears to me that all they’re actually doing is adding batteries and electric motors to an existing truck chassis, deleting the usual engine and transmission arrangement.

      Nevertheless this business model may turn out to be a huge success…….. if Nikola and other such companies can get the necessary batteries at competitive prices.

      1. OFM , what happened ? You are as sane as sane can get . You must have heard ” One swallow does not the summer make ” . Respects .

      2. Hi Mac, how’s your father doing?

        “all they’re actually doing is adding batteries and electric motors”

        I don’t think that’s fair to say. By looking at the photos, It looks like a complete different drivetrain. The electric motor, any transmission and rear axle all in the bogie is all new. That’s a big change. The cab looks European forward for a short wheelbase for city and yard. Likely cab and frame modified for the lack of engine and driveline. Batteries replacing tanks hanging off the frame.

  10. Coal Use Is Reaching Record Levels In India And China

    Executive director Fatih Birol said: “Coal is the single largest source of global carbon emissions, and this year’s historically high level of coal power generation is a worrying sign of how far off track the world is in its efforts to put emissions into decline towards net zero.”

    More than half of global coal-fired electricity generation takes place in China, where coal power is expected to grow by nine percent in 2021 despite a deceleration at the end of the year.

    In India, it is forecast to grow by 12 percent.

    The world could burn a record amount of coal next year despite efforts to scrap the dirtiest fossil fuelM/i

    The IEA said global power generation from coal was expected to reach 10,350 terawatt-hours in 2021, up 9%, driven by a rapid economic recovery that has “pushed up electricity demand much faster than low-carbon supplies can keep up.”

    Up 9% in just one year. Wow, at that we should reach zero emissions at about the time the world runs out of coal.

    1. From the article

      Overall coal demand worldwide, including uses beyond power generation such as cement and steel production, is also forecast to grow by six percent in 2021.

      That increase will not take it above the record levels it reached in 2013 and 2014, but weather patterns and economic growth could boost coal demand to new peaks as soon as 2022 and remain at that level for the following two years.

  11. Hi Hickory

    “I think cost considerations, poor planning, and failure to take the predicament seriously will result in a vast under performance of what may be possible.”

    Dead on.

    What’s your opinion as to whether any of the more advanced nations will actually ….. at some future time…. proactively work on overshoot on a planned economy basis…. the way we have been fighting major wars for the last century or longer, diverting resources and man power to the war effort as deemed necessary by the national leadership?

    Anybody else?

    1. Well OFM, I think many of the countries will be forced to take the energy situation seriously by high expense and shortage. And efforts will be centrally planned in most countries to some degree, whether it is enabling big projects like electrical transmission, permitting nuclear plants and offshore wind, reforging geopolitical relationship to serve the interests of those others who can supply them with energy, rationing fuel, incentivizing energy storage, etc.
      Whether and where these kind of reactions to difficulty will be coordinated, effective and timely is the big question.
      This country will continue to approach energy policy in a haphazard, jerky, spotty and aimless manner indefinitely, ike we do most other issues. Lack of clear thinking and unity of purpose.
      Some countries may have more functional decision making facilities and get things changed and focused quicker. Norway is a very fortunate (oil/gas/hydro/wind) and good example. Argentina is an example where they have great resource, but notoriously poor policy function.
      There are a thousand big stories that will happen.

    1. How about, ‘it’s beside the point’?

      It’s never been the case that there are no solutions. The solutions have been apparent for decades…and we didn’t do squat.

      And now that the damage is on the apple, it’s too late to spray.

      EVs will not unmelt the arctic, and windmills can’t stitch the jetstream back together.

      1. <EVs will not unmelt the arctic, and windmills can’t stitch the jetstream back together.

        Nobody in their right mind ever made either of these claims, so I don't see what you are arguing.

        2. Sorry to butt in Alim . All your posts plus Nick G etc point in that direction . You do what is called in journalism as ” omission of facts ” . I support Mike B .

      2. Mike B,

        Who are you to say it’s to late? The apple on the tree is going to decompose either way. The problem are people like yourself. Who think humanities timeline needs to run on your schedule. There has never been solutions to return planet earth back in time. We can only move forward as we evolve. It’s others, that you have now joined, for “decades” that “didn’t do squat” that influence others to not “do squat”. You have become a quitter before the game is over. Very sad.

        If your not part of a solution. Your part of the problem.

        “We will evolve. Change is a given. The future is ours to make history.”

          1. Mike B,

            I’m not mad. Like I said, I feel sad for you.

            The future is yours to make history

  13. “It will be over my dead body that I’ll have to get a shot,” [said Sarah Palin]. “I will not do it.”

    JFC! It sounds like a line from the falling action of a Greek tragedy.

      1. Bob, for 1 to 2 percent you have it wrong. It’s don’t tell me how to die.

        1. What now? .02 mortality rate from vaccines? Got some data on that?

          For Covid vaccination:

          “Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine recipients had a mortality rate of 4.2 deaths per 1,000 vaccinated people per year after first dose, and 3.5 deaths after second dose.
          The unvaccinated comparison group had a mortality rate of 11.1 deaths per 1,000 people per year.
          Moderna COVID-19 vaccine recipients had 3.7 deaths per 1,000 people per year after the first dose, and 3.4 deaths after the second dose.
          The unvaccinated comparison group had a mortality rate of 11.1 deaths per 1,000 people per year.
          Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine recipients had 8.4 deaths per 1,000 people per year.
          The unvaccinated comparison group had a mortality rate of 14.7 deaths per 1,000 people per year.

          […]”The study looked at only non-COVID-19-related deaths to avoid masking any safety concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccine-related death with the protective effects of COVID-19 vaccine.”[…]

          https://about.kaiserpermanente.org/our-story/health-research/news/mortality-study-reinforces-safety-of-covid-19-vaccinations

          Similar story for vaccines generally.
          ” A large body of evidence supports the safety of vaccines, and multiple studies and scientific reviews have found no association between vaccination and deaths except in rare cases.”
          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4599698/

          1. “Anti-vaxxers”

            “The unvaccinated comparison group had a mortality rate of 14.7 deaths per 1,000 people per year”

            That’s 1.47% or

            “1 to 2 percent “

            1. It appears I misunderstood your comment HB.
              I understood you to mean that vaccination had a mortality rate of 1% to 2%.
              My original post was just an attempt to make a joke using a pun.

          2. You are looking at apples and oranges here Bob. The figures you show are not about the general population at all. They are about non-covid related deaths. That is people who died from other causes and how many of them had been vaccinated. From your link, from the headline, bold mine:

            Kaiser Permanente study shows people vaccinated against COVID-19 had lower non-COVID-19 death rates than people who were not vaccinated.

            And from the text:

            The study looked at only non-COVID-19-related deaths to avoid masking any safety concerns regarding COVID-19 vaccine-related death with the protective effects of COVID-19 vaccine.

            The study clearly shows that vaccination does not increase the death rate from other causes. In fact, it greatly decreases the death rate from other causes. All the more reason to get the vaccination. Of course, it is not that simple. What it really shows is that people have a far greater chance of dying from cancer, heart problems, or other things if they get covid. Their death will not be from covid but from other causes. Their death will be only indirectly caused by covid.

          3. Totally agree when it comes to that vaccines does in fact work!

            It is completely OK to be suspicious about vaccines, but to think that all of the most democratic nations at the same time are promoting this to harm the population is lunacy. The opposite is most likely most true, and that is the cost that anti vaxxers would have to face. That is why they are pushing so hard to get everybody vaccinated. The notion that the ultra rich (not that many) and “elites” are out to get everyone is probably not the truth.

            In Norway the left would not in their wildest dreams be out to profit on other people. They now are in charge. So compliance to vaccines without the strongest of lockdown is the policy; and still they get people to get vaccinated. More so, they tell directly to people that a more stringent approach would probably not work. The elite corruption notion is not there in Norway as in many other countries; the second notion is that the country is a bit too wealthy. Trust to authorities are high due to how dominating the state is; but still the private sector is valued (but not unconditionally). A socialist country with a bit too much energy resources per capita cooperating with the western ideals. So they are perusing people to trust in institutions. And it is working, since institutions have built up trust in here as int the most wealthy European countries (concentrated in the north).

  15. Food for though:

    “I feel that in order for health care to adapt to environmentally driven shifts in long-term health risks, health services need to adapt to a drastic decline in population health status, climate refugees, disasters, and disruptions to the supply chain. I don’t see anyone planning for that. Everyone seems to be on the historical trajectory of anticipating status quo and evermore budgets.”

    “I anticipate future healthcare moving towards an environmental philosophy that will challenge the strong commitment to individual autonomy seen in traditional bioethics, and the extensive and intensive care of the very sick and dying.”

    “Tertiary healthcare is expensive and therefore environmentally costly. Technologically extending a life at great cost to the environment is increasingly meaningless in the context of the long-term need to maintain the human and nonhuman biosphere.”

    https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/article/what-moral-distress-nursing-history-could-suggest-about-future-health-care/2017-06

    Synopsis: Gen Z is gonna “pull the plug” on the Boomers. And so they should.

    One of the key features of Late Capitalism is perhaps the moral distress that those who participate in it tend to feel.

    1. I doubt it’ll happen in the US where healthcare is the greatest extortion scheme ever devised. Far too lucrative, and, as always, money (perceived wealth) trumps everything else.

  16. I’m with Ghung. The leftish liberalish establishment is all for decent one payer health care on the Western European model, or something similar, but it’s also totally committed to looking after everybody, in principle, which means old farts like me.
    Nobody is going to pull the plug on boomers, at least not anytime before nearly all of us are gone. Old folks are too numerous, and vote, and neither party can hope to win elections over the next ten to twenty years without at least forty percent of us, maybe more.

    So neither party is going to turn it’s back on us, at least not in such a way that it’s obvious.

    But having said this much, the Republicans might figure out a way to do it stealth fashion, so that it’s a done deal a few years before the boomers figure it out, by which time it would likely be too late to reverse course.

    1. You don’t get the choices you would like to have. You only get the choices that are on the table.

      “The practice of opulent tertiary medicine in the present context of increasingly desperate public health problems worldwide and an approaching catastrophe of human misery is not only immoral, it is obscene, horrible, terrible, and repellant.” ~ Andrew Jameton, Casuist or Cassandra? Two Conceptions of the Bioethicist’s Role (1994)

      Cue the inter generational conflict. It’ll be interesting to see who the youngsters decide to blame. I predict a decrease in the delivery of opulent tertiary medicine.

      1. “Opulent tertiary medicine.” Golly, I love that phrase.

        We practice it here, in spades. My husband has hit the Trifecta health-wise: Lifelong Type 1 diabetes, stroke, AND cancer. Diabetes is managed through high-tech continuous glucose monitor, electronic home testing machines, pre-filled injection pens of insulin, and regular visits to young endocrinologists with advanced degrees.

        The ischemic stroke in his left occipital artery led to several CT scans and MRIs, visits to hospitals and rehabilitation clinics, but aside from a brief stint on Clopidogrel and daily ASA, no meds.

        Cancer was solved (or at least delayed) by the resection of a tumor along with his right parotid gland (sadly, margins not clear, but he has refused radiation for plus-2 years).

        He continues to be a master cabinetmaker and works every day restoring our farmhouse in Maine, and contemplates the folly of a civilization on the brink.

        We are both fully aware of his immediate demise following Collapse.

        1. Hi Mike,
          I wish I could offer more than a couple of sympathetic words . I have a similar situation at home, with my dear old Daddy in his mid nineties, kept alive only by a constant stream of drugs, doctors, nurses, and aides.

          While I don’t fore see the boomers being “cut off” by the younger generations, it’s likely that by the time the last of them are gone, the younger people will have voted in a single payer European style health care system, and that some hard limits will necessarily be put on what society will pay in terms of care for simply keeping extremely old people alive for a few more days or weeks.

          This would be an extraordinarily good thing for just about everybody……. excepting those within days of inevitable death anyway, assuming the resources saved by doing so are applied to maintaining better health longer for everybody.

          I would personally be tickled pink right now to take that deal for myself…. having an extra fifty or hundred grand available for care over my remaining few years, for giving up life saving measures that can only prolong my life a few days or weeks in the end game.

          1. Thanks. We’re actually good here. Don is enjoying his retirement and puttering around the house. His health has stablized, and you would never know he has had so many issues.

            I cook, take care of the animals, grow vegetables for the larder and apples for market in the summer.

            I am 90% convinced I might see a collapse of civilization in my lifetime, for no other reason than that our culture strenuously ignores the issue of overshoot. Commenters here seem to think I “hate” alternative energies and EVs, but that’s ridiculous. They’re lovely technologies, just too little, too late.

            I love them like I love sprinkler systems. Unfortunately, the house is fully engulfed in flames.

        2. Continuous thoughts and prayers for the health of you and your husband, Mike. Happy holidays! 🏳‍🌈

  17. Merry Winter Solstice to you all!

    I no longer associate this season with any ancient book of fairy tales, preferring to acknowledge the absolutely heathen rites celebrating the rebirth of the immortal sun. I could never understand what many of the traditions and festivities surrounding this season had to do with religion. Strangely enough, it was a presentation given by a religious person that brought me to my epiphany. The presentation centered on the pagan origins of the Yuletide celebrations. Christmas lights and trees and Santa Claus (Odin) and a whole host of things totally unconnected to anything religious. Twelve days of Christmas? Yuletide was celebrated for twelve days starting on the winter solstice. While acknowledging much of this makes Christiians in particular very uncomfortable, it makes infinitely more sense to me.

    1. Quite right. And while we are re-centering our feast days upon the solar cycle, we should scrap the Julian calendar altogether while we’re at it (seriously, September and October are the ninth & tenth months WTF!). With absolute sobriety I humbly propose we replace it with the Nicksonian(tm) calendar which features 13 months of 28 days each. Each week, and each month always begin on a Solday. There would be a free ‘non-day’ of celebration each year to make the math work, and an extra ‘non-day” every four years for the same reason. Any children born on non-days will be sacrificed to the gods of sustainability. Our sacred book of modern fairy tales will be the Liber Cornucopia Teslacus, where the announcement dates of significant battery advancements shall be recorded and forever revered.

    1. That is a good video and I have a quibble about his framing ev adoption in terms of a tipping point metaphor. When there’s a growing demand that force, like gravity on the beam balance “naturally” pulls the adoption into common use. But if the demand for automobiles slows down and declines what is being adopted is fewer vehicles not EVs as replacements for ICEs.

  19. How Corporations Are Ruining Your Health (Food Industry Documentary) | Real Stories

    A look into the causes of the poor health in North America and increasingly in Europe. Corporations have created an industry that is producing obesity, diabetes, cardiovascular disease and a whole host of health problems and are exporting those problems to the developing world. The current pandemic could be considered the culmination of this effort. Really makes you question the virtues of unfettered capitalism!

    1. “Really makes you question the virtues of unfettered capitalism!”

      I wasn’t aware that unfettered capitalism was strong on virtues.

      Rather, capitalism works well it is smartly fettered [which another word for restrained, or regulated in this case]
      Devils in the details.

      -Why is all the font in bold now?

      1. “Environmentalism Without Class Struggle is Just Gardening.” ~ Chico Mendes

    2. The industrial age and later technologies have contributed to the cheaply produced, nutritionally unbalanced and often toxic food that floods our planet, but the corporations would never have had the ability to take over the entire food chain so completely without the ability of banks to create almost limitless amounts of credit out of thin air. And it’s not only our food, but most of the things and services that we spend the majority of our dollars on. https://www.bitchute.com/video/2tFstBs61PE5/

      1. “create almost limitless amounts of credit ”

        Is that a bad thing? It sounds like opportunity for people who otherwise couldn’t start a business or afford a home.

    1. “Today is 12-22-21” er, yes, in North America. But in Europe (inc UK) we would say today is 22/12/21. We go day-month-year. So in fact, yesterday was 21/12/21, which has a nice symmetry.

  21. Rio Tinto has entered into a binding agreement to acquire the Rincon lithium project in Argentina from Rincon Mining, a company owned by funds managed by the private equity group Sentient Equity Partners, for $825 million.

    Rio Tinto said the acquisition demonstrates its commitment to build its battery materials business and strengthen its portfolio for the global energy transition.

    Rincon is a large undeveloped lithium brine project located in the heart of the lithium triangle in the Salta Province of Argentina,

    https://www.greencarcongress.com/2021/12/20211222-rincon.html

    1. ‘Green’ Extractivism and the Limits of Energy Transitions: Lithium, Sacrifice, and Maldevelopment in the Americas

      “Months after former Bolivian President Evo Morales was forced from office in October of 2019, Elon Musk triggered conspiracy theorists across the political spectrum when he tweeted “We will coup whoever we want! Deal with it.”

      https://gjia.georgetown.edu/2021/07/20/green-extractivism-and-the-limits-of-energy-transitions-lithium-sacrifice-and-maldevelopment-in-the-americas/

      Rio Tinto: A Shameful History of Human and Labour Rights Abuses And Environmental Degradation Around the Globe

      https://londonminingnetwork.org/2010/04/rio-tinto-a-shameful-history-of-human-and-labour-rights-abuses-and-environmental-degradation-around-the-globe/

      Australia accepts human rights complaint against Rio Tinto over Bougainville

      https://www.mining.com/bougainville-residents-applaud-australias-decision-to-accept-human-rights-complaint-against-rio-tinto/

      Sacrifice Zone
      https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrifice_zone

      Rio Tinto controversy: Has the EU designated Serbia as a “sacrificial zone” for lithium extraction?

      https://europeanwesternbalkans.com/2021/12/22/rio-tinto-controversy-has-the-eu-designated-serbia-as-a-sacrificial-zone-for-lithium-extraction/

      We need lithium for clean energy, but Rio Tinto’s planned Serbian mine reminds us it shouldn’t come at any cost

      “An environmental impact study commissioned by Rio Tinto, and obtained by Reuters, found the project would cause “irredeemable damage” to the environment, concluding the project should not go ahead.”

      https://theconversation.com/we-need-lithium-for-clean-energy-but-rio-tintos-planned-serbian-mine-reminds-us-it-shouldnt-come-at-any-cost-167902

      1. Stuff like this is why I scoff when it is suggested that EVs and “green” tech are a pathway towards saving the environment.

        1. They certainly WOULD have been “pathway[s] towards” at least reversing global climate change, had they been implemented about 35 years ago. Goodness knows, I was all for “green tech” back then.

          Now, they are like advanced fire suppression technologies being implemented during a fully involved structure fire. Too little, too late.

        2. Clearly the cornucopians don’t live in a sacrifice zone, or indeed have even ever heard of them. Serbia managed to avoid becoming one, for now. Other parts of the world are not so lucky (see skin color). The Cornucopians don’t sound like a very worldly lot, perhaps only ever flying from gated community to gated community.

          Rather than making poor people in poor countries pay the price for our first world transportation needs by hosting lithium mines, perhaps globally distributed CO2 pollution is more equitable, that is to say everybody pays the price; something The Cornucopians find unacceptable, or are indeed even aware of, as it includes them.

          As for me, I chose to live close to the bone (thanks for that one Mike B) and hardly ever drive. Last I heard HB drives 5 miles to the gym to ride a stationary bike. But hey, I’m The Asshole.

    1. Global warming of at least 2°C is now baked into Earth’s future. That level of warmth will occur by midcentury. Thus, it is now certain that Earth will soon be warmer than it was during the Eemian period.

      Fascinating.

      Human knowledge is vast; but appetite, infinite.

      1. Happy Holidays Mike B. What a time to be alive!
        My grans, RIP, raised all their kids without the luxury of home refrigeration. I never missed an opportunity to hear them talk about their lives. I’m sure most folks today would complain they’re living in the Stone Age if they lost home refrigeration; naw its just our grandparents age. My grans had a narrow closet in the kitchen that had a dirt floor with a shallow hole and a flat stone where they stood the bottled milk; delivered fresh everyday by a man with a horse and wagon. Horse shit that fell in the streets lasted about 1 min before someone ran out with a shovel to collect it for their garden. Oranges came once a year at Christmas. I’m trying to emulate them in these waning days of Babylon; hauling my own water from the creek and chopping my own firewood.

        O tempora, o mores!

        1. Interesting story! When I first moved to this small town in New England in 1985, I got to know the last “horse farmer” in the area, our neighbor, who hayed, grew crops and hauled firewood with his team. Members of the family continue to be our friends. They hardly choose to live the hardscrabble lives of their parents.

          We’ve always chosen to live “close to the bone” [Thoreau] here in the woods, growing much of our own food, raising a few critters, using firewood and anthracite in old iron stoves for heat, staying home, etc.

          Unfortunately [as I mention above somewhere] my partner’s life depends on “opulent tertiary medicine.”

          Grateful for every day. Much happiness to you, too, Sir S.

          1. Thanks Mike B.
            To all the peeps here at POB, have a great holiday season!

Comments are closed.