50 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, January 12, 2024”

      1. Mike B:
        What would your response have been had I only posted the article, not the YT link? ( message / messenger…)
        rgds
        WP

        1. I am incapable of reading scientific papers such as the one you posted, which is why I rely on experts, which is why shitheads like “Dr” Campbell piss me the fuck off.

            2. I’m sorry for being so crabby about this, but a lay person is expected to know SO MUCH these days, and yet there is so much crap in the offing that it is nearly impossible so separate sense from nonsense.

    2. Weekendpeak,
      It is kind of sad that we seem to not have any of the long winded posts from OFM any more, but the one comment from the last thread was kind of thought provoking from you. “The question is more if we keep on consuming more of the f-150 Ford instead of using some of the same resources to renewables”.

      It is probably an all hybrid approach from now on. What do I mean by hybrid? The electricity grid resolving to all measures to keep it going. Not at least a forced option to get the current system going to serve a lot of short term purpuses. The art of prepearing for a downslope of resource consumption should be all but imminent; but who knows?

      What I can say is that the wind power and probably also solar would half way serve our needs, and that the other part would be some kind reductionist scheme of consumption a lot of places. The peak fossil combustion hinges on a lot of South American, African and Central Asian nations in my opion. And they keep on going about their business.

    3. Mask up, get a booster at least once a year, and remember if it’s Covid…Paxlovid.

  3. Fantastic paper posted last fall: World scientists’ warning: The behavioural crisis driving ecological overshoot

    From the Abstract:

    Previously, anthropogenic ecological overshoot has been identified as a fundamental cause of the myriad symptoms we see around the globe today from biodiversity loss and ocean acidification to the disturbing rise in novel entities and climate change. In the present paper, we have examined this more deeply, and explore the behavioural drivers of overshoot, providing evidence that overshoot is itself a symptom of a deeper, more subversive modern crisis of human behaviour. We work to name and frame this crisis as ‘the Human Behavioural Crisis’ and propose the crisis be recognised globally as a critical intervention point for tackling ecological overshoot. We demonstrate how current interventions are largely physical, resource intensive, slow-moving and focused on addressing the symptoms of ecological overshoot (such as climate change) rather than the distal cause (maladaptive behaviours). We argue that even in the best-case scenarios, symptom-level interventions are unlikely to avoid catastrophe or achieve more than ephemeral progress. We explore three drivers of the behavioural crisis in depth: economic growth; marketing; and pronatalism. These three drivers directly impact the three ‘levers’ of overshoot: consumption, waste and population. We demonstrate how the maladaptive behaviours of overshoot stemming from these three drivers have been catalysed and perpetuated by the intentional exploitation of previously adaptive human impulses. In the final sections of this paper, we propose an interdisciplinary emergency response to the behavioural crisis by, amongst other things, the shifting of social norms relating to reproduction, consumption and waste. We seek to highlight a critical disconnect that is an ongoing societal gulf in communication between those that know such as scientists working within limits to growth, and those members of the citizenry, largely influenced by social scientists and industry, that must act.

    1. Thanks, it’ll take some time to absorb but it looks like a great find, but,: ” …we propose an interdisciplinary emergency response to the behavioural crisis by, amongst other things, the shifting of social norms relating to reproduction, consumption and waste. We seek to highlight a critical disconnect that is an ongoing societal gulf in communication between those that know such as scientists working within limits to growth, and those members of the citizenry, largely influenced by social scientists and industry, that must act. … Proponents of ‘green growth’ may argue that there is a way to avoid this, however, ‘the burden of proof rests on decoupling advocates’”

      Another of our adaptive traits is to tow the tribal party line and avoid individual change. Is there the slightest hope of anything even close to what’s proposed happening (hint just read half the comments in any thread here or, more so, on the other side).

  4. A new post from Tim Morgan.

    https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com

    Here’s the best description of economics that I’ve read.

    The idea that the economy is entirely under our control is nothing more than formalised hubris. The “dismal science” of economics may or may not be dismal, but it certainly isn’t a science. The “laws” of economics are nothing more than behavioural observations about the human artefact of money, and are in no way analogous to the laws of the physical sciences.

    1. The last 3 paragraph is my sentiment exactly. The ‘everything bubble’ is something the fed and other central banks created to avoid recessions and bankruptcies.

      They have no choice now to keep the ponzi going with cheap credit. But when the buck stops and no one knows when, it will be apocalyptic and affect every facet of our lives.

    2. Mike B’s definition of Economics Science:

      Yeast cells solving equations.

    2. 17% risk over 10 years on a global scale.
      And 100% risk at certain regions.
      No one lives in a region that is immune to these various risks.

      What they call ‘Societal Polarization’ is putting nice package term on a process that could turn a civil society into a train wreck, with things like ethnic cleansing, economic depression, death squads, coups, loss of legal due process, breakdown of the electoral process and peaceful transfers of power, loss of basic services including grid and health care access, loss of police protections, border controls, and property or personal rights.

      It didn’t take long in 1930’s Germany, Cambodia in the 1970’s, or Rwanda in the 1990’s, among just a few episode examples. These things don’t always last for just a decade…they can play out as an indefinite failed state, totalitarianism, or terminal decline.

      Most people seem to have no idea just how precious and fragile is the whole fabric of society. Similar story when it comes to the web of life itself.

  6. GLOBAL WARMING PUSHES OCEAN TEMPERATURES OFF THE CHARTS

    Oceans cover 70 percent of the planet and have kept the Earth’s surface livable by absorbing 90 percent of the excess heat produced by the carbon pollution from human activity since the dawn of the industrial age. In 2023, the oceans soaked up around 9 to 15 zettajoules more than in 2022, according to the respective estimates from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the Chinese Institute of Atmospheric Physics (IAP).

    Scientists are concerned about the long-term capacity of the oceans to continue absorbing 90 percent of the excess heat from human activity.

    https://phys.org/news/2024-01-global-ocean-temperatures.html

    1. Meanwhile GHGs continue to build,

      December CO2
      Dec. 2023 = 421.86 ppm
      Dec. 2022 = 418.99 ppm

  7. O my f. G.

    A 2020 calculation by academic researchers estimated health care’s GHG emissions equaled 553 million metric tons of CO2e in 2018. (CO2e, or carbon dioxide equivalent, is the term used to express how much a particular GHG would contribute to global warming if it were carbon.) Per the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), this amount equaled 12 percent of total U.S. emissions in 2018. For perspective, U.S. health care emissions are nearly five times that of the U.S. military — the world’s single largest institutional fossil fuel consumer.

    The social costs of greenhouse gas emissions in health care are astounding . . .

    Also:

    . . . the EPA does not calculate the social cost of anesthetic gasses beyond nitrous oxide — this is especially problematic because commonly used desflurane, isoflurane and sevoflurane have much higher GWP [global warming potential] scores. Desflurane, for example, has a GWP of 2,540 compared to nitrous oxide’s 289.

    1. Mike B

      Thanks, never heard of health care’s GHG emissions before. And think aging populations!

      1. Due to impacts of overshoot, climate change and peak oil, I forecast decreased empathy from Gen Z and beyond with regards to extending life into the elderly years at great cost. Goals of Care (a nice way of saying when you’re cut off and where you’re not going) may become something like ‘No ICU Over 70’, for example.

        “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)

        The most important thing I learnt in school was Don’t Get Sick; prob heard it from my Gran too.

        1. And furthermore:

          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.

          What Moral Distress in Nursing History Could Suggest about the Future of Health Care
          Andrew Jameton, PhD

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

    1. https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=250526

      “The reason is simple: You cannot charge them when the battery is below 32F — that is, freezing.”

      “If its reasonably below 32F then the vehicle’s software can use various strategies to warm the battery up some. For example, intentionally dissipating power in the motor(s) without moving the vehicle (e.g. opposing fields) which of course generates heat and the motor’s cooling system can circulate that into the pack. Once the pack is above 32F you can charge it.”

      “But these strategies fail when its -10F out and worse, windy besides because the heat is dissipated faster than you can generate it.”

  11. Dennis Coyne

    The car sales for 2023 in EU are now published.

    https://www.acea.auto/pc-registrations/new-car-registrations-13-9-in-2023-battery-electric-14-6-market-share/.

    As a % of sales there was a decline in BEV sales ( and PHEV) from 15.1 to 14.6%. That actual units sold were almost the same at 1.5333 million out of total sales of 10.5 million.

    BEV population in the EU is <5 million out of 300 million vehicles. It is going to take a long time for any meaningful change in gasoline consumption when gasoline vehicle sales are actually increasing.

    Various reasons for the slowing sales are suggested:

    1.Cost of vehicles
    2.Insurance
    3. Charging
    4. Running costs
    5 Depreciation.

    1. From that link:

      Battery-electric cars established themselves as the third-most-popular choice for buyers in 2023. In December, market share surged to 18.5%, contributing to a 14.6% share for the full year, surpassing diesel, which remained steady at 13.6%. Petrol cars retained their lead at 35.3%, while hybrid-electric cars claimed second spot, commanding a 25.8% market share.

      Interesting that:
      Petrol 35.3%
      Hybrid 25.8%
      BEV 14.6%
      Diesel 13.6%

      Count hybrid and BEV together as ‘electric’ and they are the biggest component of the market at 40.4%

      1. I drive a hybrid. I would not class it as a electric car as it does not have the ability to plug -in and be charged. It rums solely on gasoline so is a gasoline vehicle in most people’s view.

        Are you confused with PHEV’s. These are declining in popularity( I had not guessed that) but they have a limited range (typically 30 miles if you are lucky) and use mainly gasoline, unless used for very short distances.

        1. Hence my suggestion to/plan to buy a gen 2/3 Prius and put in more batteries. Then according to some you could pull the fuelpump fuse, forcing it to run electric only. Haven´t tried it, would love to try.
          Fully electric would work great for me, had -35C last week, had to jumpstart the gasoline Volvo twice, but haven´t heard of any EV problems, know of 4 around work, but they are still a bit expensive.

    2. Carnot,

      I agree it will take some time, for demand to fall significantly.

      On electric cars from ACEA

      …the overall volume for the full year of 2023 surpassed 1.5 million units, reflecting a substantial 37% increase compared to 2022. The battery-electric car market share reached 14.6% in 2023.

      European demand for petrol and gasoil started its downward trend in 2005, it was particularly strong from 2006 to 2013 when prices were high. Data from statistical Review of World Energy 2023, link below

      https://www.energyinst.org/statistical-review

      The rate of decrease has been very slow only about 0.7% per year on average from 2005 to 2022.

      For North America the rate of decrease in gasoline and diesel fuel consumption has been even slower at about 0.55% per year.

      1. Carnot,

        If we consider the Asia Pacific region (as defined by the Statistical Review of World Energy 2023, see below)

        Asia Pacific:
        Brunei, Cambodia, China†, China Hong Kong SAR*, China Macau SAR*, Indonesia, Japan, Laos, Malaysia, Mongolia, North Korea, Philippines, Singapore, South Asia (Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Myanmar, Nepal, Pakistan and Sri Lanka), South Korea, Taiwan, Thailand, Vietnam, Australia, New Zealand, Papua New Guinea and Oceania.
        † Mainland China
        *Special Administrative Region

        Petrol and gasoil consumtion grew at about 3.4% per year from 2005 to 2019 and since 2019 has been relatively flat, this may be due to China’s aggressive sales growth in EVs and plugin hybrids. Data again from Statistical Review of World Energy 2023.

      2. Is the data on a per capita basis or absolute? Also, the EU has added countries between 2005 and now, so that changes both consumption and population.
        Come to think of it, is it possible that as lower income countries are added the consumption on a per capita basis goes down more than if they weren’t? And when the UK left that would have been a significant change in both consumption as well as population
        rgds
        WP

        1. Weekend Peak,

          It is total consumption not per capita.

          The nations included in Europe are static, it is the continent of Europe, not the EU.

          From Stat Rev of World Energy (SRWE) 2023

          Europe:
          European members of the OECD plus Albania, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, North Macedonia, Georgia, Gibraltar, Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Romania and Serbia.

          OECD members (Organization For Economic Co-operation and Development)
          Europe: Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom. Other member countries: Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, Israel, Japan, Mexico, New Zealand, South Korea, US.

        2. 1 million

          The average number of Hispanics who turn 18 each year and become eligible to vote.

      3. Dennis Coyne

        Please enlighten me on the above graph because it makes little sense. From which page did you extraact the data because it does not agree with page 22 of the data source, and only goes back to 2012? Why are you conflating gasoline and gas oil.

        They are used in differnt combustion engines and for different purposes, and have very different combustion regimes. About 50 % of the EU diesel/ gas oil is used in heavy vehicles and industrial applications. The share of diesel in light vehicles is falling quite quickly whereas gasoline is static to rising as new light vehicles are mainly gasoline powered. PHEV’s should be seen as gasoline vehicles.

        aggain form where did you derive you Asia Pacific data? You are also muddying the water with Covid.

        1. Carnot,

          There are both diesel and gasoline light duty vehicles in Europe. The EVs replace either.

          The data is the data, yes there was covid, but if we ignore 2020 and 2021 when this was important, we still have flat output from 2019 to 2022. Yes obviously heavy duty trucks use diesel and perhaps even some water transport. Is there evidence that the consumption of heavy duty trucks has decreased? Look at tab for regional oil consumption in SRWE 2023 spreadsheet.

          Asia Pacific data is from Statistical Review of World Energy (SRWE) 2023.

        2. Carnot,

          For Asia Pacific Region as defined by SRWE in previous comment (see definition tab) the gasoline consumption is shown below, from 2005 to 2019 the average annual rate of growth using an OLS fit to natural logs is 4.65% per year. From 2019 to 2022 (dropping 2020 covid year) the rate of decrease in gasoline consumption is about 1.1% per year, so a net change in the rate of growth of -5.75%.

    1. I’ve been reading a book that includes information about climate variations in the past 30,000 yrs. Its a reminder of how the climate stability in this Holocene is an exceptional thing. Humanity has come to rely on this stable ‘normal’, and is so overextended (multiply by a 1000). Conditions are ripe for very fast change.
      So many people are going to perish within sight of border walls around the world.

  13. Up and up it goes, where it stops, nobody knows.

    Daily CO2

    Jan. 18, 2024 422.83 ppm
    Jan. 17, 2023 419.07 ppm

    1 Year Change 3.76 ppm (0.90%)

    1. EXPECTED CO₂ LEVELS IN 2024 THREATEN 1.5°C WARMING LIMIT

      “Increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere this year will exceed key trajectories for limiting warming to 1.5°C, Britain’s Met Office predicted Friday, with researchers reaffirming that that only “drastic” emissions cuts can keep the target in sight.”

      https://phys.org/news/2024-01-threaten-15c-limit.html

Comments are closed.