70 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, January 15, 2020”

  1. Seeing happy faces in the clouds

    “Previously an energy editor at the Telegraph, Ambrose has written at length about the accelerating ‘energy death spiral’ that expensive non-renewable renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) have helped to generate. In short, as the price of electricity increases, those at the bottom of the income ladder disconnect themselves while those at the top invest in NRREHTs- mainly solar- to lower their outgoings. The result is that the ever rising price of electricity falls onto a shrinking middle which cannot maintain its level of consumption. Individual energy supply companies become unprofitable and this spreads to the energy suppliers until, ultimately, the electricity system as a whole goes bust.

    Guardian readers though, need their daily dose of hopium to see them through the otherwise gloomy drudgery of life in a collapsing post-Brexit pandemic Britain. This is why they regularly treat us to headlines about ‘Britain running on renewables’ while overlooking regular periods when the UK’s vast arrays of wind turbines are barely moving and we are forced to turn to decimated American forests, the remaining handful of coal plants and a massive volume of gas to prevent us from shivering in the dark; as was the case during the cold snap just last week:

    This is not just newspaper bias; it is existential. Like Herr Schwab at the World Economic Forum, Guardian editors are strong ‘believers’- as if physics can be overcome with faith- in renewable energy as the power source behind the promised ‘Great Reset’ and fabled ‘fourth industrial revolution’. And so renewable energy has to be ‘getting cheaper’ (referring to the seldom-met bid price in auctions to deliver energy to the grid) even though energy prices for most consumers continue to increase; flattening the prosperity of ordinary households and businesses and removing demand from the economy.”

    The Last Day of Summer

  2. UK economy ? I’d rather have Germany’s economy than ours , or even have France’s

    Over the past 5 years our GDP per capita has fallen 6% whilst Germany went up 12% and France by 9.5% .
    GDP did increase for France 10.4%, Germany 13.5% and we achieved -3.6% .

    That’s regardless of pandemic costs.

    As this is an energy site I can say we have given Wind and Solar a good run and we have inter connectors to
    purchase approx 10% of our electricity supply from abroad (and yes that’s a two way thing). Grid watch will show you the
    issues we face with supply. And yes we burn wood in old coal power stations( my own opinion is that is not really sustainable
    , either in supply ( distance of source) or carbon “saved” , but hey ho at least its not coal …).

    I hope now we have a different president in charge of the US that you guys can do much of the same, that is inter
    connectors between states , closing down coal fired stations in favour of gas when the wind doesn’t blow.
    Build out of wind and solar, so many potential sites compared to the UK ( well we are going to fill up the Dogger bank with
    windmills, or try too) .

    Frankly I’m envious because you have so much potential to cut fossil fuel consumption and really become energy independent.
    ( ok I know many readers already know that on this site)

    But we all know we need to stop burning fossil fuels , they’re not going to be around for ever . Yet China
    will take and burn any coal or oil we don’t use . India too , and Africa when it gets going.

    Sorry if this sounds like a depressing rant , I guess being locked -up for months is getting to me (!).

    Forbin

    1. Forbin , I guess you are based in USA . You are lucky to have an economy . In the real world if 21 trillion economy needed a stimulus (debt) of $ 10 trillion to produce 30 million unemployed would be toast . Thank your stars that the USD is the reserve currency . Biden just put proposals for $ 1.7 trillion even before he is POTUS . So what will be in 2021 ? I shudder .
      P.S : My comment is based that you are USA based . If UK based , then you are FUBAR . Don’t get me started .

      1. If your FUBAR was with reference to UK, I could not totally disagree, but Forbin is not FUBAR. The UK has done far more to decarbonise electricity than the US. Last year our carbon emissions were 222 gCO2/KWh. the US was 420 gCO2/KWh in 2019. We have a target to get that down to 100 gCO2/KWh by 2030, and we might just reach it.

        We have almost eradicated coal from electricity production, and have plans to electrify cars with new ICE cars totally banned by 2035. We have a mountain to climb to reduce NG consumption for home heating, our housing stock is terrible by European standards and the big house building corporations totally own the government.
        Burning US wood in UK power plants is bad news, but it is less than 8% of our production, less than 20TWh/year other renewables are over 27% and rising rapidly.

        The UK economy is FUBAR. UK society is becoming more American than ever, and that is not a compliment.

        1. Mr Williams , my post has nothing to do with carbon footprint or decarbonisation of energy,climate change etc . It is purely based on economics . When I said FUBAR , I meant the UK economy and not Forbin .You are evidently in full agreement with me as per your last statement which is “The UK economy is FUBAR. UK society is becoming more American than ever, and that is not a compliment. ” Best of luck .
          P.S : The climate change train has already left the station .

        2. Hi Ralph,

          I hope so too but I think we need China , India and Africa on board. Just being like Oz and selling the stuff ( coal) abroad and pretending you’ve done your job will not cut it.

          Also the storage issue needs resolving .

          Hydrogen – engery intensive to make ( we’re not talking about Nat gas conversion here) and difficult to store ( brittle metalurgy )

          Ammonia – easier to make , not so good to burn because of low level pollution . Fuel cells may help.

          both can be used as transport fuels if we can make them cheap enough – who has the better chance ? the US , not the UK. I’d posit.

          Then there’s battery storage – again expensive , may get cheaper still with time but today the US could switch over to Nat Gas ( I beleive you guys already are ) more rapidly .

          You guy have much more potential that even the EU.

          As for the UK , well we’re good at manufacturing house price rises apparently……. oh dear .

          Interesting times

          Forbin

      2. UK based I’m afraid.

        I was hopeing that with a new POTUS that the US could follow our lead , so much potential there, even if I think we have many issues to resolve on the energy front that won’t get solve by just banning things . Carrot and stick work best together I think in many areas .

        take care

        Forbin

        1. Forbin , I have been working on sustainability issues since 15 years . A Brit industrial photographer in Dubai asked me a question and I sent him this reply in 2015 . He has now immigrated to Canada . I warned please don’t get me started . For me UK and Japan are canaries in the coalmine because they import more than 50% of their energy and 50% of their food . So here goes.
          “Guys , a UK citizen based in Dubai asked for my opinion on some questions of sustainability . Below is my response .What do you think ?

          Japan will survive ( it imports 100 % energy 65 % food)and UK will not (imports 85% of energy 65 % food)? Not a lot of difference since this is unsustainable for both societies . The future belongs not to the “strongest” but to the more “resilient”. This is what one has to study . So here goes :

          1. The Japanese society is homogeneous . Hardly(less than 1% immigrants) so chances of conflict are greatly reduced . Too many immigrants of different makes in UK who are now permanently settled . Indians,Pakistanis, West Indians etc . All have a different “point of view” on a common issue . Chances of conflict very high .
          2. The UK is in “population overshoot” and is still importing immigrants . This is leading to a stress on resources . The Japanese society is on the other hand going thru a stage of “depopulation” ,deaths are more than births . Fewer people fighting for resources . Always remember ” Only in a world of unlimited resources can men live as brothers ”
          3. In a society religion is a binding factor . 99% of the Japs are Buddhists . Religion in the UK is a mess
          it is fracturing society . The majority “whites ” are leaving churches,while the minority are building mosques and temples at full speed .
          4. Discipline . The Japanese have a disciplined social system , respect for elders ,respect for teachers, rituals etc . In UK discipline is down the drain . Have you ever heard of “Japanese Hooligans ” or seen video´’s of Japanese vomiting ,abusing after getting drunk? .
          5. Organisation : The Japanese society is highly organised . It has it`s own system of hierarchy which keeps things in check . In UK “the organised society” is no more . All is disorder, kept in control by heavy policing ,cameras, surveillance, prisons etc .
          6 . Huff&Puff : The UK punches above it´s weight . It follows USA into unwanted conflict/adventures, spending treasure when it is itself is ” a basket case looking for a basket” . The Japanese punch underweight . Buy influence and don`t show it .They keep their powder dry for the bad days .
          7 . I will end here with some information and some history . The Japanese were/ and are a closed nation . Their first ship was built by a Dutchman . They were not interested in going outside Japan until Admiral Perry ( US fleet commander) forced them to open up . They lived a sustainable life in harmony with nature till up to year 1600 . When the movie “The Last Samurai” was released in Japan it bought a release of pent up cry in the Japanese people,they wanted “that Japan” and not “electronic Japan . Look at Japanese miniaturization it is nothing but proof that the society had always tried to do with the minimum . In the UK it is about maximum “shopping till you are dead ” Like I said it is not about “strength” but about “resilience” . Too many fault lines in UK society, race,color,religion,income,education which highly increase the possibilities of chaos in a limited resource world .

          8.
          See on You Tube about Japanese History ,see “The Last Samurai” (I have seen it five times), see a lecture by “Morris Brennen” Japan–Stagnation or sustainability .
          Hungarian language : The tricks are the same for all languages . However since you are already in “Language Overload” ,I will refrain from adding .
          Wish you well.
          P.S : For energy do not think of “North Sea Oil” . It is as dead as a Dodo.

          —————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

          Hi,

          Last week I had received a question from someone in Scotland who wanted my opinion on Scotland leaving UK and on North Sea oil . There was a lot of exchange . I am forwarding you an e mail exchange from the thread which I hope you will find interesting because it relates to sustainability .

          Virus-free. http://www.avast.com

          1. Forbin , to add , now you have an extra problem of Brexit Scottish independence North Ireland where a majority want to leave the UK . Wales is currently 35% leave but increasing by the day . Why ? Wales is the exit port to Ireland (EU) . If Wales is in UK they have to pay tariffs . If Wales separates and joins EU then all exports via Wales to Ireland are tariff free and ofcourse no paper work and bureaucrats . Best of luck .

          2. Hole in the head,

            You have some “interesting” ideas. What is the basis for your conclusions about the UK and Japan? Have you spent considerable time living in both societies? How many non-Caucasian friends do you have?

            I’ve lived in Britain for 12 years and visited Japan for extended trips over the past 35 years and, I would say that my observations are somewhat different than yours.

            For example, in my opinion, non-Caucasian immigrants enrich our society and not only because of the great foods they bring with them but, also because they bring different perspectives than our typically colonial views.

            Christianity, along with other religions, has its fair share of undesirable baggage, as evidenced by the recent revelation of the large number of remains of babies found in the recent report about Catholic homes for young Irish unwed mothers.

            There are plenty of “wing nuts” on the margins of all religions and societies, including us Caucasians. So please, try not to generalize so broadly about ethnic/religious groups because, if you open your mind, you’ll find there are many more good people who are trying to contribute positively to society in all ethnic/religious groups than those that are not.

            Late night drunkedness, and an occasional associated patch of puke, is quite common in many larger Japanese cities. As is domestic abuse and raciism. So, although I love spending time in Japan and enjoy a lot of their unique customs, Japanese society is not without its own problems.

            Let’s all just try to get along and cherish what we each add to our communities.

            1. Longview , I am a non Caucasian ,non white immigrant in Europe so your questions about any racial bias in my post is answered . No , I have never been to Japan . Yes , I have been several times in UK for business but come from a country which was the jewel of the crown and my schooling was in Ireland so I know British history pretty well . Anyway in the current age of communication you really don’t have to live in a country to know it . I learnt all about Japanese history ,customs and culture by watching about 6-7 hrs YT ,must have patience and curiosity to learn .
              I have worked on sustainability for over 10 years and my grounding is based on several readings of ” Overshoot ” , ” Limits to growth” and ” The collapse of complex societies ” . Highly recommended .
              My post was written in 2015 and is based on connecting the dots between 3E (Energy,Economy , Ecology ) and 3D( Debt ,deficits, demographics) . The ideas I had written about then still hold with an extra burden for UK which are Brexit , Scotland devolution and North Ireland . Please point out any flaws in my writeup .
              I agree that immigrants contribute to society but it depends on the timing . Immigration is nett positive in time of economic expansion ( post war period) and nett negative in an economic contraction ( ask Mrs Merkel who took in a million ) . I am not painting this matter with a single brush as I am myself a ” political /religious atheist “. My post is about how different societies are geared up to meet the coming contraction . It is not about groups or subgroups .
              You wrote ” Let’s all just try to get along and cherish what we each add to our communities. ” . I support it 100 % , However in the real world we are now in an economic contraction . As is said ” High tide lifts all boats but when the tide runs out only then we know who is swimming naked ” . Well , we will find that soon .
              We must understand that ” Only in a world of unlimited resources can men live as brothers .” Hope my post will assist you in understanding events as they unfold in your part of the world . Collapse like the virus does not choose caste,color creed . It grinds everybody without seperation . Best of luck .
              Just in case you missed . Bad things happen .
              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vV_z05gH_RA&ab_channel=EpicEconomist

            2. HiH,

              Are you referring to “The Collapse of Complex Societies” by Tainter?

              Look at the subtitle: “New Studies in Archeology”. What does that tell you? It says that this is not the study of modern societies.
              A helpful perspective on analyses of the collapse of civilizations: pre-modern civilizations were primarily agricultural, and had very, very low growth rates. So, agricultural problems were key, and empires with high growth rates were essentially Ponzi schemes: when the underlying economic growth rate is .01% per year, an empire can only grow temporarily by stealing. The core of the empire exploits (loots) the periphery. The periphery expands until the empire becomes too large, and then it collapses due to the lack of new victims. Agricultural products include food and wood, and a common symptom of collapse is Peak Wood, as observed for both Athens and Rome.

              Any analysis of the growth and decline of pre-modern civilizations has very, very limited application to modern times. Modern civilizations are different. For example both Japan and the UK are far more affluent now than they ever were during the heyday of their empires.

            3. HiH,

              Another thought, this time about the Limits to Growth studies:

              “Can anything be learned from such a highly aggregated model? Can its output be considered meaningful? In terms of exact redictions, the output is not meaningful.…The data we have to work with are certainly not sufficient for such forecasts, even if it were our purpose to make them” (Meadows et al. 1972, p. 94).”
              http://wtf.tw/ref/costanza.pdf

              That’s exactly right – the Club of Rome LTG models were not predictions, they weren’t forecasts: they were *scenarios* that assumed limits to growth, and simply modeled the dynamics we’d see in the model outputs when the economy hits those limits. Basically, they modeled “overshoot” – what happens when there are lags, delays and positive feedback between between the points of hitting limits and seeing the results in the economy.

              Most of all, they *assumed* limits to growth – they didn’t prove that those limits existed.

              Sadly, Dennis Meadows has forgotten this basic fact, or chooses to not remember it, and lately has been talking as if those scenarios were in fact forecasts, and discussing how close they came to reality. In fact, the overshoot modeled in those scenarios has not been seen in any way – so far the world economy is pretty much simply growing in the same exponential way as before.

              The Club of Rome models did do us a service, by showing us what overshoot might look like, and showing us the impact of lags and delays. This appears to be relevant to Climate Change, though probably not relevant to Peak Fossil Fuels – for Fossil Fuel the lags, delays and positive feedbacks that might impair mitigating the impact of a peak are much smaller and shorter.

      1. These kids need to ride bikes to school like we did. Many have a waist diameter > 1m by 14 years old which will handicap them and society for Life.

        1. True, but unfortunately the schools are often built on cheap lots out of town with no pedestrian or bike infrastructure.

    2. Logistics companies and hire car companies

      Are they also switching over there? ( Tesla’s lorries come to mind )

      2. I’m not optimistic on the Tesla Semi. Whats·his·face seems the easily distracted type. He looks better under longer timelines; when the deliverables don’t fail to deliver until 2050.

        Tesla: 3 Years After Its Public Unveiling, The Tesla Semi Is Still Stuck In Development
        “ In November 2017, Musk declared confidently that the Tesla Semi would reach customers in 2019.”
        “During Tesla’s Q1 2018 earnings call in May, he stated that the Semi was “not something we really think about much.”
        https://seekingalpha.com/article/4397998-tesla-3-years-after-public-unveiling-tesla-semi-is-still-stuck-in-development

        NFI is now testing ten eCascadias.
        https://ajot.com/premium/ajot-is-the-electric-semi-ready-to-charge-down-a-highway-near-you

      3. Since oil is so expensive compared to electricity, it seems reasonable to expect vehicles that are heavily used to switch to electric before more lightly use vehicles.

    3. S, already commented on this on the last thread . Colombia is broke . Who will pay for it ? Obviously the CCP . Call it buying influence , call it vendor financing , call it what you may , I really don’t care with such boondoggles .

      1. Broke? Boondoggle? That’s a very knee jerk response in terms of the depth that factors need to be examined. Are you suggesting that the benefits of bogota public transport going electric are null and void because nobody has yet taken the time to teach you about the financing arrangements? Sounds like a suboptimal analysis.

        This information you lack, how Columbia manages to get busses and shit, is not exactly carved in a stone tablet and hidden on the dark side of the moon.

        FINANCING ELECTRIC AND HYBRID BUSES IN COLOMBIA.
        SHIFTING INVESTMENTS FROM DIESEL TO ELECTRIC URBAN BUSES IN BOGOTA.
        “ Bogota has a very sophisticated bus transit system, which transports more than four million people per day.”
        https://energy-base.org/projects/financing-electric-and-hybrid-buses-in-colombia/

        My goodness, even Chile figured out how to acquire buses.

        Societe Generale finances new e-Buses in Chile with $129.5 M
        https://www.finchannel.com/business/finance/79405-societe-generale-finances-new-e-buses-in-chile-with-129-5-m

        1. Survivalist , thanks for the links . It is not what I guessed it was . Clarity prevails . Better understanding of the matter . Must commend the initiative .

      2. Columbia is a net importer of oil, so replacing oil burning vehicles with vehicles that can run on locally generated energy sources should be a net improvement of their current account.

        Put another way, reduced oil imports will probably pay for it.

  5. Not good but something, it seems, we’ll have to live with.

    A REBOUND IN GLOBAL COAL DEMAND IN 2021 IS SET TO BE SHORT-LIVED, BUT NO IMMEDIATE DECLINE IN SIGHT

    “The future of coal will largely be decided in Asia. Today, China and India account for 65% of global coal demand. With Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Southeast Asia included, that share rises to 75%. China, which currently accounts for half of the world’s coal consumption, will be especially influential. By 2025, the European Union and United States will account for less than 10% of global coal demand, down from 37% in 2000. This will make the impacts of any further changes in demand in these markets very limited.”

    https://www.iea.org/news/a-rebound-in-global-coal-demand-in-2021-is-set-to-be-short-lived-but-no-immediate-decline-in-sight
    https://www.iea.org/ne

    1. Meanwhile,

      INNER MONGOLIA PURSUES COAL-LED RECOVERY, DEFYING BEIJING’S CLIMATE GOALS

      “The region approved power and industrial facilities with an estimated energy demand equivalent to 80 million tonnes of coal a year. As the largest coal-producing province in China, Inner Mongolia is expected to meet most of this energy demand with polluting coal.

      Inner Mongolia was the most striking example of a nationwide trend of increased coal consumption. Recent figures show China’s coal production in 2020 reached its highest level since 2015 and imports were up year on year.

      China’s emission rebound after the Covid lockdowns has been very steep and rapid and in fact steeper than the economic rebound because it has been driven by the most polluting and energy consuming parts of the economy.”

      https://www.climatechangenews.com/2021/01/18/inner-mongolia-pursues-coal-led-recovery-defying-beijings-climate-goals/

    1. It seems to be entirely incompetent, as usual for this administration.

      From the article:

      “The rule, issued by acting Comptroller of the Currency Brian Brooks on his last day in office, was finalized at lightning speed as the Trump administration winds down, and its critics widely expect the Biden administration or congressional Democrats to render it void.”

      “…“The rule lacks both logic and legal basis, it ignores basic facts about how banking works, and it will undermine the safety and soundness of the banks to which it applies,” Bank Policy Institute head Greg Baer said in a statement. “Its substantive problems are outweighed only by the egregious procedural failings of the rulemaking process, and for these reasons it is unlikely to withstand scrutiny.” BPI represents large banks.”

      1. >> as usual for this administration. <<

        Nick, so glad that it's now the "previous administration". Loved the inaugural poem…

        1. I couldn’t agree more. I expected relief after the election, and that’s been postponed until now. But now….life seems brighter.

    1. Combine that with a dramatic increase in EV sales, and it appears we’ve reached a tipping point: peak ICE.

  9. And now the good news.

    ON DAY 1, BIDEN MOVES TO UNDO TRUMP’S LEGACY

    Many of Mr. Trump’s most significant actions as president were aimed at limiting regulation of the environment and pulling back from efforts to combat climate change. Mr. Biden’s earliest actions as president will take aim at those policies. Today he will sign a letter indicating that the U.S. will rejoin the Paris climate accords, reversing Mr. Trump’s departure from the global organization. He will then sign an executive order beginning the process of overturning environmental policies under the Trump administration, including rescinding rollbacks to vehicle emissions standards; imposing a moratorium on oil and natural gas leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge; revoking the permit for the Keystone XL pipeline; and re-establishing a working group on the social costs of greenhouse gasses.

    “The Day 1 climate executive orders will begin to put the U.S. back on the right footing, a footing we need to restore American leadership, helping to position our nation to be the global leader in clean energy and jobs,” said Gina McCarthy, Mr. Biden’s national climate adviser.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/20/us/politics/biden-executive-action.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage

  10. Hi gang, Ron here. I had decided that I would retire from Peak Oil Barrel but I still read it occasionally but decided I would just not reply anymore. But… but… but Nick has posted something so outrageously unbelievable that I just had to say something.

    “Most of all, they *assumed* limits to growth – they didn’t prove that those limits existed.”

    Good God, have we come to this? Are there really intelligent people in this world who still believe that there may be no limits to growth? And make arguments based on such disbelief?

    That there are limits to growth is so obvious that it must be *assumed*. There is no requirement to prove it. If one examines nature it becomes obvious All evolution is based on limits to growth of every species. Every species produces far more offspring than possibly survive. Nature simply limits their survival rate. Therefore only, on average, only those fittest for survival, do survive. Just imagine if every rabbit survived. The world would be, in short order be covered with rabbits. One could not take a step without squishing a rabbit.

    All species have been, for hundreds of millions of years, been competing with other species for food and territory. But nature has always limited their numbers. Every preditor is limited by the prey available. And every herbivore is limited by its food supply and predators who cull their numbers.

    But a few hundred thousand years ago there evolved a predator, a superpredator, who could take food and territory from every other animal without any apparent repercussions. Only the food supply in nature limited its numbers. But this predator has of late figured out ways to increase its food supply to such an extent that almost every offspring managed to survive. Every offspring managed to survive to produce more offspring who produced more offspring and more….

    And this superpredator is still going full blast. It is killing off other species, taking over their territory and food supply without even a whimper from those other species. Every square inch of these animals’ habitat is being taken over to produce food for the superpredator. And their chemicals is causing even the disappearance of the insects of the world. And there is no slowing down of this carnage. Those who believe it will stop soon are living in a dreamland. The carnage will not stop until they are all gone. And we will discover, to our horror, that our survival depended on the survival of other species, other insects and animals that kept nature in balance.

    We will hit our limits to growth. Our numbers will plummet just as the numbers of almost every other species are plummeting right now.

    Wake up and smell the coffee. All is not well with this world. We are very clearly headed for disaster.

    1. The superpredator has the tools to save itself and earth for a long time. But the masses have to get past faith base religion and replace it with science. We have the power to limit our population. The question is will we do it willingly or have it forced on us.

      Education, education, education

      1. HB, that is a hypothesis, not a proven fact. The scientific community does not have the power to educate most of humanity of the correct facts about nature. We do not have the power to do that therefore we do not have the power to limit our population. To use your term, the masses will not do what they HAVE to do. And it is not within the power of science to change that simple fact.

        “Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.”
        ― Francis Bacon

        But really, that is all academic. The world is already in deep, deep, overshoot. We are already way over twice what the planet can support. Were that not so, we would not be destroying the environment at the speed we are doing it. So even if we did limit our population to around 9 billion, and then slowly start to reduce it. That would take several hundred years to reduce it any significant amount.

        No, we will hit the limits then began a slow but certain die-off. There is no avoiding that. ?

        1. The power to educate the masses has to come from government, not the scientific community. It’s clear currently that mass education doesn’t seem to be thought of being in the best interest of the wealthy and powerful. It’s been under attack from the powers to be for the last 50 years of my observation.

          Failure is guaranteed when one surrenders. It’s human nature to fight to survive. As we bump up against limits and quality of life decline. It will naturally motivate the educated to limit their own reproduction. Which I think for some is already happening. Family size in America are much smaller than 50 years ago. I would expect that to continue.

          Technology and knowledge can rise the sustainable carrying capacity of earth. It can also destroy our environment. We will evolve and rebalance. It just won’t look like what we know of the world today.

          When it comes to life, in time it will all end. It’s about the journey.

          1. The power to educate the masses has to come from government, not the scientific community.

            Well, I was just being optimistic. Governments know nothing about population growth. Most governments are corrupt and looking out for their own survival, not the survival of the earth. There are 54 countries in Africa and not one of them has any kind of population control program.

            Failure is guaranteed when one surrenders.

            Oh, get real. We are not talking about ONE surrendering, we are talking about the behavior of almost 8 billion people. And almost every damn one of them is looking out for their own survival, screw the survival of everyone else.

            Family size in America are much smaller than 50 years ago.

            Oh, now I see where your optimism is coming from. America has 4% of the world’s population. African population is expected to double by 2050. Asia has 60% of the world’s population and it is increasing by almost 1% per year.

            Technology and knowledge can rise the sustainable carrying capacity of earth. It can also destroy our environment.

            It already has already raised the population to unstainable levels, and it already is destroying the environment.

            We will evolve and rebalance.

            That is a statement of faith with no evidence to even suggest it is correct. In less than 50 years every species of megafauna on earth will be extinct except humans and their domestic animals. You cannot “rebalance” an extinct species.

            “Man prefers to believe what he prefers to be true.”
            ― Francis Bacon

    2. Yes, to give but one example, in just 40 years, a forest area the size of Europe has gone; half of the world’s rainforest has been destroyed in just one century. If we don’t act and the current rates of deforestation continue, the world’s rainforests will be gone in 100 years, the blink of an eye. It is estimated that the Amazon alone is currently vanishing at a rate of 20,000 square miles a year.

      1. Doug,

        I agree, deforestation is a huge problem. But what does it have to do with Limits to Growth? Is land being cleared because there is a shortage of wood, soybeans or beef in Brazil? No, really not. Instead we have problems of poverty and inequality of income.

        Focusing on LTG promotes the wrong approaches and ideas. It creates despair, and makes people think that we’re dealing with a zero-sum game.

    3. Ron, thanks for chipping in and good to learn you are still around . Frankly I had no intention of replying to Nick’s post because it was so out of whack , but you have echoed what is required . Tks and be well .

      1. HOLE IN HEAD —

        L.O.L. Yeah, Nick lives in an alternate reality where ALL mankind’s problems will be solved in short order with widespread adoption of EVs and windmills. Must be nice?

      2. Doug,

        It would help if you actually read what I write. I very rarely use phrases like “problems will be solved”. I try to point out that there are solutions available, and that it’s worth working to get them done.

        If you want to live in a world where “windmills” are the problem I suppose that’s your option, but I don’t know how it helps your children and grand children.

      3. HiH,

        Too bad – you might learn something useful, instead of wasting your time on things that really aren’t.

    4. Boy, we’ve had this argument about a dozen times before.

      Okay, first of all, you’re not talking about limits to growth: you’re talking about limits to environmental damage. Habitat destruction, species extinction: these things are happening not because humans are running out of resources, they’re happening because humans either want to destroy animals they perceive as pests or threats, or because humans simply don’t think those things are important enough to protect.

      Why is this important? Because the solutions are different, based on how we frame the problem. If we talk about limits to growth based on resource limits then people start thinking of self-defeating things like a need to hole up in the mountains, or start living on subsistence farms. If we realize that current measures of “overshoot” are based on GHG emissions that simply could be eliminated if we chose to, then we can prioritize that.

      If we think that excessive population is the problem then we focus on ineffective or counterproductive solutions, like immigration restrictions. If we agree that destructive farming, cattle ranching and urban planning practices are core problems we can find real solutions like proper water and soil management, synthetic meat and land conservancy.

      This is a big topic, with lots and lots of sub-topics, but I’ll leave it at this simple stab at a summary for the moment.

      1. Habitat destruction, species extinction: these things are happening not because humans are running out of resources, they’re happening because humans either want to destroy animals they perceive as pests or threats, or because humans simply don’t think those things are important enough to protect.

        Bullshit! The animals are being driven into extinction because of habitat loss. A perfect example is the soon to be extinct orangutan. The orangutan will become extinct in the lifetime of most people on this blog.

        WHY IS THE ORANGUTAN IN DANGER?

        The primary factor causing the decline of orangutan populations is the destruction and degradation of their tropical rain forest habitats. Human activities and development, such as logging, conversion of forest to palm oil plantations, mining, and urban expansion, are the major contributors to the loss of orangutan habitat.

        Too many people trying to eke out a living on this tiny planet is the cause of megafauna extinction. We are simply taking over their habitat to raise cattle, to cut timber for our homes, to cultivate and grow food for our massive population.

        Habitat destruction Nick. That is not an argument but a simple statement of fact. It is blatantly obvious. It is as plain as the nose on your face. If you cannot see that then your warped worldview has made you stone cold blind to obvious facts.

        1. Ron,

          Please read more carefully. I agree that habitat destruction is key. I’m disagreeing about the causes.

          ” Deforestation for the benefit of oil palm plantations, mining, infrastructure, illegal logging, forest and peat fires, illegal hunting, and illegal wildlife trade are just a few of the threats against the wild orangutans….In 2005-2015 alone, 50% of deforestation in Borneo is thought to have benefitted oil palm plantations.”

          https://savetheorangutan.org/threats/

          So, the first cause is palm oil. Is there a shortage of palm oil in Indonesia and Malaysia? Is anyone deprived of palm oil there? No. It’s an export, and it has lots of substitutes. Why is palm oil still being produced? It’s handy. It’s convenient. There’s money to be made. And…. almost no one inside the country cares about protecting the forest and the orangutans.

          It’s neglect, not Limits To Growth.

          1. Nick, the same thing is happening all over the world, not just in Indonesia and Malasia. Just because most people don’t give a shit what happens to orangutans or other animals, don’t make habitat destruction avoidable. Most habitat destruction is due to human encroachment to grow crops, graze domestic animals, build cities, and cut timber for construction.

            Yes, Indonesia could do without palm production. But they simply don’t want to. They are just human Nick. That is the one thing you guys who always blame human greed for the problem. Nick, you cannot change human nature. I know that is a hard pill for most people to swallow. But if your solution is eliminating human greed then you do not have a solution.

            The problem is too many people taking the habitat of all other wild species. Too many people Nick. You can bitch about their behavior until the cows come home but you, nor anyone else, is going to change human behavior. To believe that you can is to believe you can change human nature. No, that cannot be done. Too many people Nick, that is the problem. They can and will take habitat from other species at any time they desire. And the other animals cannot do a damn thing about it.

            Okay, so now you can blame governments for not insisting that their citizens stop that shit. But all governments eventually serve at the will of their people. If they keep them happy then they have a better chance of staying in power. That, and the fact that they are just as damn greedy as their subjects, likely even more so.

            1. Yes, Indonesia could do without palm production. But they simply don’t want to.

              I think we’re in agreement: it’s not Limits to Growth, it’s just that people generally either don’t like wildlife or don’t value it. Do we need to log virgin forest? Of course not, it’s just…convenient. It’s there…why not.

              Can people change their valuation of wildlife? Sure:

              50 years ago diamond engagement rings were unknown in Japan. Now, they’re required. Why? A thorough ad campaign by DeBeers.

              50 years ago SUVs were just work trucks in the US. Now, they’re required. Why? A thorough ad campaign by car makers.

              50 years ago government was valued in the US, Australia, UK, etc. Now, 40% of people in those countries (esp the US) thinks that government is the source of all evil. Why? A thorough ad campaign by Koch, Murdoch, Reagan, Thatcher, Trump, et al.

              For better or worse, minds can be changed.

            2. I think we’re in agreement: it’s not Limits to Growth, it’s just that people generally either don’t like wildlife or don’t value it.

              No, fuck no, we are not in agreement on that. Human overpopulation is encroaching on the habitat of all wildlife. Nothing on earth is more obvious than that simple fact. Yet you want to blame it on human frailty. It is comical that something so damn obvious is totally blind to you. You just refuse to see the blatantly obvious.

              You seem to think that the fact that fashions change means that human nature can change. Damn Nick, you have to know that is bullshit. Fashions are the whims of human nature. It is human nature to be fickle with fashions. But human nature never changes except over tens of thousands of years, driven by evolution.

              Nick. your philosophy is really comical. It is really silly, absurd. I double over laughing at it. But you have taught me a lot. A person’s worldview is who they are. They have everything invested in their worldview. It is astonishing the absurd lengths a person will go to in order to defend their worldview. You are the living proof of that. Your position on overpopulation is indefensible. Similar to a person defending his flat-earth worldview. But yet you persist in the face of overwhelming evidence.

              Thanks for the exchange, it has been an education. Hilarious but educational nevertheless.

            3. Social Viscosity: Technological Solutions To Technological Problems Create Limits/Problems To Their Growth

              “50 years ago government was valued in the US, Australia, UK, etc. Now, 40% of people in those countries (esp the US) thinks that government is the source of all evil. Why? A thorough ad campaign by Koch, Murdoch, Reagan, Thatcher, Trump, et al.” ~ Nick G

              Reagan, Thatcher and Trump were all ‘government’ and the other two were following government legal scripture, along with its loopholes and if not always to the letter perhaps, as it applied to their respective areas.
              Most of us do, if only because of the threats of social ostracism, imprisonment, impoverishment and/or outright violence (etc.) if we do not.

              Government is a technology– a social one, if with material/energy attributes– but a technology, or a ‘technological system of technologies’, nonetheless.

              So how do we get to where we are with some if not most or all of our technologies?

              My thesis is we, in part, monoculturalize/overspecialize ourselves– our humanity– we strip out and oversimplify our human ‘ecosystem’ so that it’s out of context and out of whack with our true nature– just like those palm oil plantations vis-a-vis Earth/nature. Practically the same thing.

              We career/job/overspecialize ourselves, and we effectively outsource; the raising of our children, our education, the growing of our food, the process of our water/wastes, the making of our clothes, the making of our general necessities, the building of our shelters and the initiation/maintenance/administration of those sorts of processes to big government/business.

              In effect we essentially turn ourselves, our lives, into a monoculture, like a palm oil plantation.

              That’s failure, baked-in.

              Oh, and that can also be interpreted as a limit to their growth, incidentally.

              “The ‘iron law of oligarchy’ states that all forms of organization [like large-scale technology, corporations/businesses and government], regardless of how democratic they may be at the start, will eventually and inevitably develop oligarchic tendencies, thus making true democracy practically and theoretically impossible, especially in large groups and complex organizations. The relative structural fluidity in a small-scale democracy succumbs to ‘social viscosity’ in a large-scale organization. According to the ‘iron law’, democracy and large-scale organization are incompatible.” ~ Wikipedia

              The Matrix– Battery

            4. Hint:

              Over the last 200,000 years, homo sapiens have had a population of 1-10 million, with a near extinction 65,000 years ago.

              7.8 billion in a collapsing ecosystem? I think we are close to another extinction.
              But I have been wrong before

            5. Ron, 2 questions:

              What the heck do you mean by human nature? What do you mean by “changing human nature”?? And,

              You seem bothered by my not agreeing with you. So, let me ask: are you open to new ideas? what evidence would you need to agree with me? Specifically?

            6. Nick, I have taken your two questions to the new Non-Petroleum thread. However, it will be a little while before they will be up. The human nature question requires some deep explanation. I was shocked by that question. I was under the assumption that everyone knew what human nature was.

            7. Ron,

              You also have a worldview. Human nature does not change, human society and norms do change. If you believe that is not the case, I would point to human history which suggests this is true.

              Nick agrees there is a problem and believes there are potential solutions even though human nature is unchanged. Human behavior is influenced by their society to a large degree.

            8. Dennis, of course, I have a worldview. Everyone has a worldview. Your worldview is who you are. Your worldview defines you.

              Of course, Nick believes he has solutions to the world’s problems. And of course, human behavior changes. Very slowly to be sure, but it does occasionally change. But Nick’s changes require human nature to change. That is simply not going to happen. That was what I was trying to explain to him.

    5. Damned glad to see you post something Ron!

      And you win by tko.

      Nick has some points, but he assumes too much, gives too much credit to the neocortex.

      It can send down suggestions, and it does occupy the top floor, but the real boss is the mid brain.

      1. assumes too much, gives too much credit to the neocortex.

        I’d be curious what specifically makes you say that. Are we powerless? I suspect not, but I make no promises. I never said change was easy, just that it makes sense to try.

        For everyone else:

        I think the key question here is: are we powerless due to geology, or other limits to resources? Or, is our fate in our hands, and does it depend on our behavior and management of our economy?

        The point about the Limits to Growth study is that is is NOT evidence for “limits to growth”, it’s simply an analysis of what it might look like if we DID hit resource limits.

        Similarly, Tainter does not provide evidence for limits to growth: his work is about agricultural societies, which are dependent on biomass. We are in a different world now, with wind, solar, hydro, nuclear, etc.

        Now Ron presents evidence in the form of species extinctions and habitat destruction. But…I’m not sure how this is evidence for the idea that we couldn’t manage pollution and environmental damage should we make it a priority: for instance, it’s perfectly obvious that we could eliminate fossil fuels if we chose to.

        Ron can argue that humans simply aren’t smart enough to do the right thing, but how does that we face collapse due to resource limitations?

        1. Hi Nick,

          There are two differences I have with you from above. I get the sense that you don’t count land as a resource. I thing one could make an argument man has been bumping up against it’s limits since before Columbus sailed and discovered America. Second, SUV’s needed or were marketed to us. I switched to one 15 years ago from a 4 door sedan and near looked back. It’s utility is far superior and as I get older it is much easier to get in and out of. It weighs about 200 pounds more than the sedan with maybe 20 percent more frontal area. With the same ICE power train is rated just 1 mile less city and highway or about 4 percent. Not that big of deal. Also, as EV’s replace ICE. It’s a great platform to mount batteries in the floor. You also promote car pooling a lot. Which makes me wonder your means of transportation and type of urban terrain?

          We are all animals. What makes us different is knowledge and our educational system to pass it on to the next generation. Oh, and two opposing thumbs. We aren’t like wilded wolves, we’re more like domesticated dogs. We have the gray matter between our ears to make a choice not to destroy planet earth. Human nature is an excuse for uneducated selfish losers in life. When was the last time a murder defense in court, “Sorry your honor, it’s just human nature”.

          1. I get the sense that you don’t count land as a resource.

            Oh, I definitely would. The questions I have in mind are things like: Is a shortage of land likely to cause a collapse of civilization? Is a decline in wildlife a necessary result of current population levels?

            Shortages of food contributed to the European great plague in the 14th century. Shortages of food and wood contributed to the collapse of Athens and Rome. So there are historical precedents. But agriculture isn’t likely to cause a collapse of modern civilization. Food and agricultural products, adjusted for inflation, have never been cheaper, and there’s no sign of that changing.

            And IMO we’d see similar declines in wildlife even if human population was at 25% of the current level, because most people don’t yet appreciate wildlife. Just ask any urban dweller: do you like rodents in your city? They’ll say “Rats! OMG!! Kill them all!!!”. Try it…

  11. About that pipeline……….

    I understand why Biden cancelled the permit. That was more or less a necessity, as a matter of internal Democratic Party politics.

    But it was a real world mistake.

    Other than preventing the construction of the NEW PART, which wasn’t going to be an environmental disaster by any means, it’s not going to accomplish a goddamned thing, in environmental terms.

    But the cancellation is going to be used as a very handy and very potent club to beat the crap out of the environmental camp for the next couple of election cycles. Nuther zampel uh them there commie libtards dis troy ‘n the ‘conomy and our jobs!

    Furthermore, it’s the sort of thing that gives our POTENTIAL worst enemy ( and potential great friend) China the opportunity to forge ever stronger economic ties with Canada, maybe right up to the point of getting dibbs on Canadian oil production.

    I’ve always maintained that the SMART thing to do would have been to twist some oil arms. We could have gotten a few nice pieces of land at the oil industry’s expense to add to the nation’s park system, where in such land would be protected from development.

    And these parcels, or one big one maybe, would have represented a big net gain for us, in environmental terms, because cancelling that permit isn’t going to have diddly influence on the amount of oil the world burns on a daily basis.

    1. As you speak the Trans Mountain Pipeline, built in 1953 (and continues to operate safely today), is being rapidly expanded. I’m not a fan of more pipelines but they are a hell of a lot better than oil-by-rail, especially when the rails run along the steep sides of the Fraser and Thompson Rivers — a disaster waiting impatiently to happen.

      CRUDE-BY-RAIL SEES MASSIVE INCREASE SINCE TRANS MOUNTAIN WAS PITCHED IN 2012

      More than 200,000 barrels of oil are now carried by rail each day, up from less than 30,000 in 2012. In 2017, Canadian crude oil supply grew to 4.2 million barrels a day — exceeding total pipeline capacity leaving Western Canada. As a result, a record-setting volume of oilpatch output is now moving by rail to refineries in the U.S. “Pipelines have 4.5 times fewer accidents/spills than oil-by-rail and while every oil spill represents a catastrophe, spills from pipelines do not hold a candle to the apocalyptic aftermath of rail accidents,” Blair King, an oil spill remediation specialist from Langley, B.C., said in his submission to a panel studying the Trans Mountain expansion.

      https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/tasker-crude-by-rail-eight-fold-increase-1.4842410

      1. Doug,

        This may change your mind on pipelines, I agree. Obviously if I agree with you, we must both be wrong. 🙂

Comments are closed.