Comments not related to oil or natural gas production in this thread please, thanks.
138 thoughts to “Open Thread Non-Petroleum, June 5, 2024”
Most of the trump signs in yards and trump junk at flea markets disappeared in my neighborhood months ago. On a forty mile drive today I spotted only two pro trump signs or flags.
I can’t say what this means in terms of how his supporters will vote, but I’m encouraged by the fact that they have at least done away with their signs, bumper stickers, hats and such for the most part.
The steady drip of dirty trump news seems to be having a serious effect.
I still kinda see that as unlikely. The people infatuated with Trump aren’t oblivious, they just don’t care or like what he does. Being a convicted felon? That’s him sticking it to the system, or whatever.
It’s the fence sitters who will be vital, and I’m not sure how many of them would be displaying a poster or sign for their candidate.
That said, between the Trump indictment and the stories of Biden losing the plot, this year will be a vote for Alzheimer’s or dementia, unless some miracle happens.
To me it comes down to whether one likes the rule of law and Democratic institutions, a vote for Trump is a vote for anti-democracy, listen to On-point from NPR from June 5, 2024.
“‘We are underreacting to how serious this moment is’”
I have been thinking this for years. For at least the last 6 months, five nights a week I stream Tubi, documentaries, World War era. And before I fall asleep, I say to myself “This is the same shit that is happening now”.
Inter war european fascist shirt movements were composed of young men, veterans from WW1, who’d fight you in the streets with a bullwhip. Hitler was a street brawler. Geriatric boomers with MAGA hats and a twitter handle are not a realistic comparison. They won’t win in the streets, as long as someone’s willing to beat their ass to the curb. Fascism’s only hope to win is if it’s coming from the bottom up. MAGA hat boomers would become road side grease stains rather quickly if things got ‘revolutionary’.
FWIW- keep an eye out for street fighter shirt movements (proud boys, Patriot prayer, whatever); if there is a realistic threat it’ll come from them. But, those kids are cosplay booger eaters. They’ll tap out after a few rough days in the field.
MAGA hat boomers can’t fight; and fascism doesn’t win without plenty of it.
Racism or discrimination against a demonized “Other”, such as homosexuals, ethnic minorities or immigrants – check
Unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens, Abortion – check
Proud Boys are an exclusively male North American far right, neo-fascist militant organization that promotes and engages in political violence – check
Trump rejects assertions that violence is inherently negative or pointless, instead viewing imperialism and political violence as means to national rejuvenation. – check
Political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood. – check
Fascist leaders typically claim to support the everyman, in reality, their regimes often align with powerful business interests. – check
Trump believe in the supremacy of certain groups of people based on characteristics such as race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality – check
First, fascist parties gained a foothold in government through initially democratic means. However, over time, the party consolidated power, and ultimately secured their dictatorship. – in process
The economic crisis that followed World War I further eroded public confidence in the existing political establishment. Parallel 2008 financial crisis – check
Gaining power via right-wing partnerships – check
Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice – check
Genocide Joe it is, then.
If only there was another option on the ballot.
Green Party 2024
Survivalist,
Might as well stay home if you think there is no difference between Trump and Biden, a vote for a third party in a US presidential election is equivalent to leaving your ballot blank as far as the Executive Branch election, everyone has that option.
In Europe, we have the election of the EU parliament this weekend, but it really is a complete waste of time since it´s The Commission that runs things, together with the Minister Council, (and you can´t vote into either) and thus the parliament is basically powerless.
But it´s good bread and circus.
Perceptions of political differences are relative to one’s personal interests. Do you think people living in Gaza notice a difference?
It was once the case that DevGru delivered war criminals to The Hague. Now, perhaps they’ll soon be breaking them out; so I suppose that’s a difference.
It seems that both the Republican and the Democrat candidate are equally capable of undermining America’s standing in the global order. The USA’s assertion of a Rules Based World Order is being exposed for being the BS that it is.
The reason USA supports Israel so strongly is because of a security policy to maintain a geopolitical shatter belt in the most oil rich part of the planet. Rather than explicitly state that policy, Washington has decided to unfurl moral exportations. It’s easy to see.
To you. Vote for whoever you like, if it is not a vote for Biden or for Trump, then in terms of the presidency, it is like not voting. Biden may not be great, Trump would be far worse in my view, if you fail to see the difference, there is nothing more to say.
Quick question for you, who do you believe will win the election? What is the likelihood that the candidate you vote for will win the Presidential election?
If the answer is close to zreo, then in terms of the Presidential Election your vote has no impact on the election and the outcome would be no different if you had not voted. Perhaps you may want to vote for local offices or ballot measures or because you like the act of voting. In many places in the US a vote for only candidates that are in the Green Party is pretty much a no vote.
In my view the person who holds becomes POTUS makes a difference and I will choose the lesser imperfect of two imperfect men (in my view). Perhaps all the Republican rhetoric about not trusting elections will result in many who are right leaning politically to stay home.
It will be a sad day when a convicted felon is elected president if it occurs.
I forecast that Biden will win the election.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” ~ Marcus Aurelius
Most of my hero’s don’t appear on postage stamps.
Imagine thinking the Democrats have done anything of worth lately.
Yeah, MAGAtards are dumb, but lol if you think Biden is somehow winning hearts and minds.
November going to be rough for a lot of people in denial it seems.
Except one is fact, and one is fiction. Russian state fiction. Along with Israeli state misinformation (reported widely in the last few days – Israeli state sponsored AI fake news and fake posters – here even?) it is widely accepted that Netanyahu wants Trump to win. Trump is guilty of fraud, sexual assault, illegal business practices, defamation, bilking university students, etc etc. Russia and America’s enemies want you to believe that Biden has dementia, and that he is a genius mastermind behind widespread indictments and convictions, even at the state level. Listen to Trump unedited for 5 minutes and tell me he is fit for office. Your fake news about what the vote is about is wholly false.
Biden can have dementia AND have handlers calling the shots. You think POTUS is there drawing up the battle plans for Ukraine or telling Bibi what to do next or how to sanction China? Guy’s brain freezes when too many people shout a question at him in a press conference. It’s mush.
Trump’s mental troubles are at least funny. Biden is just sad now. Let the guy sundown in peace.
Other words:
Espionage
Obstruction of Justice
Sexual Assault
Insurrection
Tax Fraud
Interfering with an Election
Trump is an obvious and unrepentant criminal: a one-man crime wave.
And if a Democrat had done those things, you’d be foaming at the mouth to lynch him now, no need for a trial, because the hypocrisy of the Right knows no bounds.
What are you talking about? Lots of people don’t vote and don’t give a shit about the system.
Hi Klieber,
I agree that it’s going to be the fence sitters, the people in battle ground states, who determine who wins the White House… as well as a number of seats in the House and Senate…… plus more at the state and local level too.
But I’ve been paying a LOT of attention to Biden, and to trump as well, for a long time now.
Biden is old, but he’s not senile by any means.I’m old myself, and I’ve been living with and caring for even older people for a long time now. I have medical people in my family who although they are conservatives , are quite clear about their opinions regarding Biden. He’s NOT senile. He WILL listen to professional level advice…. such as Presidents get from medical professionals, professional law enforcement, etc.
I’m sorry if you take this the wrong way, from your personal pov, but if you really believe that Biden is even REMOTELY comparable to trump in ANY respect, you’ve been had by one branch of the right wing propaganda machine……
Because the people running it know trump supporters are stupid as shit and will vote for him in any case…… but that middle of the road people who fall for the BIden’s an idiot argument will as likely as not just stay home and not vote at all.
This could mean a state goes to trump that would have other wise gone to Biden.
I repeat that I’ve been in INTIMATE contact with a LOT of elderly people, including some in my own family with various dementia’s … and Alzheimer’s as well….. which technically is just one MORE dementia… although it’s often discussed separately.
It’s not at all hard to know the difference.
It’s easy as pie, as easily as saying a house is on fire when smoke and flames are rolling out the windows, it trump’s case.
Trump has something VERY seriously wrong with him. Anybody with two working brain cells to rub together absolutely HAS to agree on this point, if they’ve been actually WATCHING and LISTENING to him. I’m not saying it’s dementia….. but dementia could very well be a component part of his overall mental condition.
I can’t get it across to hardly anybody at all, among the every day people I know in my area, because there’s no cure for stupidity or ignorance, so most of them will be voting for trump, if they vote at all.
If he wins, and has control of Congress, this country, as we know it, will be history by the time he’s out of office again.
Take it from those who knew and work for him-
“Former White House chief of staff, retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, has told friends that President Donald Trump “is the most flawed person” he’s ever known”.
He did. He remembered five words: Person, man, woman, camera, TV.
He thought that meant he was a genius. And because he thought that, it really meant he was an idiot.
Many think Biden and Trump are distractions somewhat because it’s the deep state that appears to be more what is running things, and what might be scared of the prospect of Trump returning, or RFK Jr. as an upset win.
Also, when do politicians who say one thing (before the election) actually do it after the election if they get elected?
Not sure how many people want all these wars and money for them under Biden when it could be put to better use at home, such as WRT national security, like at the borders, and homelessness and infrastructure maintenance.
Biden successfully worked across the aisle to pass the $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Biden successfully passed the Chips Act which aims to:
“Reduce U.S. reliance on foreign sources, especially Taiwan and China, for advanced chips critical to national security and economic competitiveness.”
Biden successfully passed the The Inflation Reduction Act, which is the most significant climate bill the US has ever passed, and promotes US produced renewable energy projects. .
We don’t even get to pick a candidate who meets all of our personal check boxes, as if something like that is even possible.
We get the chance the pick the one who is simply better than the other.
I rank Biden high in many ways since I first became aware him when he was a young man.
I wouldn’t choose Trump to even be a grade school principle…character unsuited to hold any public position. And goals always are oriented to serve himself above all and everything else.
Not sure we’d get any wars with Trump. That’s on most people’s checkboxes I would think. Many don’t believe Trump was treated fairly now, before his term, or during it. Witch hunts as he and others have called some of them. Also, on the odd occasion when I hear Trump speak, how he does so and how he comes across is generally at odds with how some of the legacy media portray him and maybe as a result, how some of their viewers view him. Everyone knows Trump’s (and others’) feelings about the legacy media too, so what do you think they’re going to do? Make an example of him. Lawfare only seems to be helping Trump in the polls. Trump seemed to hit it off well with Macron, Putin, Xi and Kim Jong Un for examples. Trump’s a business man first, not a politician, and I think that might be a big advantage in many ways over a career politician. He might be called bombastic and so on, but if you look closely at how he is with people, and look through the media frame there seems to be a fundamental respect and humility there. To say nothing of the possible parenting differences between Biden and Trump. Given Biden’s propensity for girl hair-sniffing or the diary’s inappropriate showers and so on, it’s odd that a school principle scenario would be brought up, except maybe as some odd Freudian slip or preemption.
Gary your parroting of mainstream media talking points (along with Ms Kleiber) reveal much more about you than any truth or issue. Can’t you see when you spout inaccurate conspiracy theories that you reveal yourself for an uneducated consumer of huge bundles of fake news?
Here’s a step towards media literacy: Have you ever, just once even, asked what the agenda is of the people supplying the information you consume? Have they gone through all that effort simply to inform you of what is true?
Well I’ve listened to Trump, like in interviews, and he seems rather down to earth and just doesn’t seem to fit some of the media’s portrayals of him. At the same time, I’ve also heard some of the questions the media have asked of him before and it seems he had a point to have been indignant, angry or insulted by them.
I have an alternate response saved, but decided against using it.
Well I’ve listened to Trump, like in interviews, and he seems rather down to earth and just doesn’t seem to fit some of the media’s portrayals of him.
Listen to some of his recent speeches, and you’ll hear someone deep in dementia.
As in 2020 when the election approached, I’m seeing a lot of popup “Trump shops” going into vacant retail space in MAGA friendly areas of Midwestern swing states again this year, selling nothing but Trump paraphernalia like hats, flags, t-shirts, bumper stickers, cardboard cutouts, etc. I don’t think they can sell the bibles because they aren’t associated with the official Trump store selling those. Anyway, still seems to be a healthy market for the goods. Lots of homes and businesses still displaying the Trump flags or the GOD, GUNS & TRUMP signs. Google “Trump shop near me” and you may be surprised with the number of such stores out there.
I’ve been reminded just how poorly humanity does at identifying facts and falsehoods. Look no further than religious teachings to understand this. We are trained from the start to be poor at this.
And now we have a massive data barrage of poorly based or false stories.
Too many politicians/policy makers are subpar at sorting out good data and good advisors, from bad.
It feels to me that we are drifting to disorder. Not just a reshuffling of the cards, but also a destruction of some important cards…such an effective legal process and judicial branch just to name one small facet.
All of the pending charges against trump in state and federal cases should have been complete 2 years ago, one outcome or another, for example.
A reasonable immigration policy should have been hammered out 30 years ago.
The example list of dysfunction is long.
I have very low expectations for stability or constructive changes.
CHAKRABARTI: That’s Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s Secretary of State. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, in all we’ve just heard, if you removed the words United States, what country and what year do you think, could you imagine we’d be talking about?
BEN-GHIAT: It could be any authoritarian regime, but fascism started this way at the local level and the police didn’t respond. I want to say that Jocelyn Benson is a democratic hero. So is Secretary Aguilar. They’re trying to do their jobs in an atmosphere of enormous threat. And ultimately, Donald Trump has been working since 2015 to change the perception of violence among his followers.
That’s what fascists did. That’s what you have to do to install autocracy. You have to present violence as something patriotic, necessary to save the nation and save the beloved leader. And that connects to him calling himself a political prisoner, but also the January 6th thugs who have been sentenced as political prisoners.
And ultimately, violence becomes the way you move history forward. Not elections. It becomes a way of doing politics. And Matt Gaetz, the MAGA loyalist from Florida, he showed up at the Iowa state fair in August 2023 at a Trump campaign rally. And he said, only force can bring change to a corrupt town like Washington, D.C.
Wikipedia:
According to a study by researchers from the University of Liverpool and University of Dundee, published in the journal Discourse & Society, the headline in another 2020 article in Raw Story engaged in the fallacy of ambiguity by using “the phrasal verb ‘cashing in on’” to create the appearance of impropriety in reporting on a business owned by Jared Kushner when, according to Snopes, there was “no evidence that the startup is linked to any public damage”. According to the researchers, this use of “polysemous terms in news titles … [is] potentially misleading for the majority of readers who are used to getting their daily news feed scrolling through news titles”.
You’ve posted some good graphs on forecast per-capita oil use, along with your source for the population trends (Lutz).
Tom Murphy does some excellent work quantifying and bounding a number of topics related to energy, growth and options. He has a new post up in which he critiques UN population assumptions and shows how the rest of this century might unfold. Spoiler : an earlier peak and faster drop doesn’t look unreasonable.
I think it was OFM that was asking if/when there will be a widespread realization of the types of resource constraints we’re headed towards. I suspect the per capita availability will be a big factor. If so, the potential for an earlier population peak and subsequent decline should be a real consideration.
Murphy’s results are consistent with the latest updates to Limits to Growth BAU model run.
Peaking population before 2050, 2040ish. Our current trajectory of moving to “renewable” energy, but not embracing the suite of policy changes necessary for sustainability, could move us more towards the LtG BAU2 World3 model run. This would allow the peak population to move a little higher, peak a little later and crash faster. Same result. Hard to find holes in Tom Murphy’s work.
I think the Lutz/Samir scenarios (SSP1) seem reasonable, we need to ditch neoliberal ideology and move to reduce poverty, reduce inequity, empower women, transform agriculture, and transition to non-fossil fuel energy.
Dennis could you point to which exact reports you envisage a solution, ones that we can read without having to pay for. What I’ve from those various reports is a whole lot of bullshit wish lists of what we should do, but nothing about How any of it could be implemented in the real world and always assuming that as X, Y, Z are being dismantled everything else just happens normally, in other words no consideration of systems thinking that changing A will lead to consequences in B, C, and D….
Which specific ones and I’ll go read them (if I haven’t already)…
Dennis, I’ve gone and read a few of the documents from that general link from club of Rome, I was wondering which ones in particular.
I’m also halfway through reading the Earth4all technical notes, and my first impression is that they make the same mistake as just about every economic modelling I’ve ever seen. (The Main Causal Model on pg 12). Their initial main model has no resources in it at all. They must be considered everywhere and abundant.
It does have energy and food, which is interesting if they leave out all other resources.
It looks like a standard economic model that has greenhouse gases and wellbeing tacked on at the sides…
There is a mistake in the LTG model from 50 years ago, and replicated in this model. That being; They have left out how gaining whatever resource necessary can only come at an increasing cost of energy use over time. It’s because humans, like every species will use the easiest and closest resources first, then start gathering from further afield and lower grade when initial resources are diminished.
To maintain a constant flow of metals will require an exponential rise in energy use in the future.
This little reality alone blows their entire concept out of the water, let alone other mistakes they make which compound the errors.
They also make gross statistical errors, which they compound. Taking their ‘World Guides’ section they have 10 regions for the world, which they discuss in per capita terms, yet weight each region equally when there are vast differences in population.
The weighting should be proportional to the population, if you want to make conclusions on a per capita basis of the directions!! It would fail 101 statistics every day of the week!!
What’s even worse is they don’t use what their faulty statistics actually show!! They pretend the graphs show something different!! On pg 20 the energy use per person, clearly shows every area has growing energy use as GDP/p grows, even above $40k, then claims that energy use ‘stagnates’ once income goes above $40k/yr in the lower population rich countries.
This despite the graph showing that it still is RISING in those areas. However they ignore the exponential growth in the ‘China’ region at the same time, because so much energy use from the richer, lower population areas has been outsourced to the China region…
It’s a classic case of GIGO in their model, by ignoring the reality of what’s reduced some of the gain of energy use in western countries. Of course there is complete silence about the exponential rise of energy use in the China region, which doesn’t exist anywhere else in the graph. Then make the stupid assumption that the whole world will have an energy based smooth curve in the opposite direction of the China region, with zero explanation. Then they base all their future assumptions on this totally flawed reading of the actual presented statistics!!
Even the South Asia graph looks to be the early stages of exponential rise, yet this is also ignored.
Do they have any explanation of why the earlier developed areas had a linear rise in the graph compared to China’s and probably S Asia’s exponential rises, Nope. However the answer would be along the lines of huge efficiency gains in the west that are already incorporated into the developing world and are no longer there to be gained, once their income started to rise, plus of course the outsourcing of heavy energy use industries.
Dennis, your a smart person with numbers and graphs, so how did you fall for this rubbish?? Was it a case of you wanted to believe their outcomes so didn’t pay attention to the details they based everything upon, or something else??
That is why God lets a deceptive influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie,
Hideaway
No level of logic can break what they want to believe. Everything you point out clearly shows their narrative is faulty but it simply is dismissed because it doesn’t support their narrative.
Hideaway,
At the World level resources seem to be adequate and technology in all forms (not simply making larger dump trucks) along with substitution (aluminum and fiber optic cable for copper for example), there are many resources whuch are plentiful (iron, and sand for example), they focused on the resources which are more scarce such as energy and food, as well as land and water. I have not looked into the details of how they aggregate things, my guess is that the present the data in per capita terms and when they aggreagate at the World level multiply each region’s data by population and then add them up. I don’t have access to their data, but this is pretty basic stuff. For you to assume they do not do it correctly seems a poor assumption in my view.
Also note that energy use per unit of real GDP at the World level has been decreasing, your thesis suggests the opposite should be occurring.
Dennis …”For you to assume they do not do it correctly seems a poor assumption in my view.”
Why don’t you go and look at that information presented again, then come back before assuming I made a mistake and not them? It clearly states per capita, without any reservation.
Dennis the only way they can draw the larger curves, which is the basis they go off, is treating each region equally, so the USA region with ~360m if counting Canada, equals China region, more than ~1.4B if counting other countries in the ‘region’ bit.
Population wise, that’s a 5:1 ratio, yet they count ‘equally’ in their per capita calculations presented, without allowing for this population difference.
If they reweighted according to actual population, the exponential rise in China region energy use per capita would overwhelm the stats of the smaller in population regions.
They didn’t even draw the curves according to what their data showed, despite the discrepancy above. There would be huge error margins in drawing their ‘average’ curves, based on the individual regions curves, which often don’t look anything like the actual curves of different regions, then treat their average curves as the facts.
They tortured the data, then misrepresented the data to say what they wanted to believe, which has nothing to do with the actual data they present!!
Hideaway,
Just because the regions are presented on a per capita basis does not mean the World charts are not aggregated appropriately, you assume they are not, I think you are wrong.
Dennis, they presented curves as their evidence. The conclusions they have drawn from their own graphs is totally wrong.
What the graphs actually show and what we know from the real world is that a smaller population can level off their energy use as income rises, while offshoring the heavy energy use to high population regions (cheap labor), that seem to accelerate energy use as income rises.
It doesn’t matter how wrong they are, you want to believe what they are saying, even if their evidence doesn’t support their arguments.
It’s why I keep coming back to what’s happening with the new Adaro smelters in Indonesia as an example. We get cheap aluminium for EV panels and solar panel frames by ripping up more rainforest in Indonesia, for a new coal mine to power the cheap smelter, using cheap local labor, instead of building them in say the desert of Australia using much more expensive solar power and batteries, while pretending the world can go ‘green’ using ‘renewables’ in wealthy countries to save a bit of coal use…
The people of Indonesia, have higher incomes, the energy use per capita goes up, while in the west where the Aluminium is used we are ‘better off’, because of the cheap Aluminium in our EV panels and solar panel frames, reduces our overall costs.
If we had to build the solar panels and EVs and all their parts from raw materials in the west, from local sources, using local labor and local energy (solar and wind), they would no longer be cheap, which would restrict production (reduced demand), meaning less energy for the population and a spiral downward.. Likewise for the rest of the world if they ever ‘caught up’ in energy and incomes.
Equity for everyone is a great concept, except it’s not possible with 8, 7 or 6 Billion people. We are in deep overshoot and slight population changes between now and the end of the century make no difference.
If the world only had 1 billion people in total, all with a bit of equality of lifestyles similar to the west of today, then we wouldn’t be getting cheap solar, wind, EVs, inverters, wiring, piping, etc. We wouldn’t have the ‘cheap’ labor to make any of it.
Fossil fuel use might be a bit lower than today, but it would only buy modern civilization a bit of time. Once fossil fuels and resources get into low states of energy returns, it still couldn’t continue, with inequality in the 1 billion growing until the system breaks (as in collapses).
Collapse of civilization as we know it is probably a feature of civilization, as it has happened to every single one before ours. People just can’t see it, as huge rapid change and unavailability of everything is so far out of their experiences, so denying it’s possible with the current one, seems like a happy, comfortable place to be. Even though it defies reality.
.
I mean, good luck on trying to upend that ideology. This is why BRICS is basically around, because maybe it will make a difference in some manner to the economic fundamentalists in the West.
But I won’t hold my breath. Also, the planet is dying, so it’s likely we rid the shackles of late stage capitalism and then fall into Mad Max world instead anyway.
I agree that climate change is a huge problem, and burning more fossil fuels is not helping. We’ve added many thousands of Twh’s worth of energy burning in the last 20 years. Perhaps we should stop making all the new things we are making from this burning.
Perhaps there should just be a blanket 10% reduction every year and let the competitive market sort out what the 90% gets spent on next year, then another 10% cut the year after, world wide no exceptions… how long before we collapse the whole system doing this?? one or 2 months?
we have an entire system that is rapidly heading for collapse when it can’t maintain growth in energy use, from ALL sources. There is no replacement, nor has there every been any type of energy production replacing prior ones. We add them on top of each other, we burn more biomass now than 200 years ago, we burn more coal than we did 120 years ago, despite oil replacing a lot of coal uses. We started using gas to replace oil uses, like the old oil heaters in houses, but did it cut overall oil use? No, we are still near record levels of all fossil fuels!!
We build new coal power stations in China, India and Indonesia, to make products so we can reduce a bit off coal use in the west, but overall fossil fuel use is still going up..
Hideaway,
Often when our energy reality is seriously examined, as Tom Murphy, Canton, Donella Meadows, and many, many others have done, their conclusion is that we are in Overshoot. In attempting to present this simple fact to others they experience some real cognitive dissonance in their audience. To avoid the painful process of objectively examining our collective dilemma, people often begin to attempt to marginalize the messenger with labels. We are told that we are really fossil fuel advocates, or we are using right wing talking points, we have “given up”, our analysis is flawed, technical and social policy solutions are available (not in place mind you), etc, etc.
In reality they are Overshoot Deniers, searching desperately for a solution to keep our comfortable way of life moving forward. You understand that the solution is LESS. Less energy use, material consumption, population, environmental destruction. As in starting NOW. That is the process that corrects overshoot, to delay it will only cause a steeper and more painful fall later.
You also understand that the set of policies that would have to be put in place today to correct Overshoot are politically and socially unacceptable. No one would ever get elected to enact those policies if they spoke the truth about our situation. The majority don’t understand it, don’t believe it, don’t want to understand and believe it, don’t have the background to understand it or believe that the green miracle or drill baby drill will solve the problem.
The deniers will debate endlessly at the micro economic level, about solar PV, EV’s vs ICE, etc, etc, while comfortable ignoring the scale of the dilemma. It is not a question of whether Solar is better than X or Y. It is a matter of scale. We are too little too late, and unable to tap the brakes on growth. The Hirsch Report made that clear years ago. The socioeconomic and political structures of our institutions and systems have us locked into this dilemma. They are hardwired into short term problem solving and perpetual growth.
Hell if we had a stable global population of a billion humans, we could likely use fossil fuels for several millenniums, not to say there would not be issues or that it would be good for the biosphere, but it wouldn’t be a show stopper climate wise or depletion wise, we would not be in Overshoot.
We will put in place a lot of solar, wind, battery storage, light EV’s in the next 10 to 15 years. It will be done at enormous cost environmentally and economically. At that point (or sooner) fossil fuels will begin their relentless decline. Declining Net Energy and Total Energy will effect food production and industrial production and negative feedbacks will accelerate the decline. Population will begin to decline for demographic reasons as well as declines in health services and declining food production. The decline will be very uneven regionally, some places will fair better than others.
We have been on this path since LTG was first released 50 years ago and we have not stepped off of it. The policy changes recommended have not been successfully integrated nor are they likely to be given the social understanding of our dilemma.
The messengers have all been Shot at. Believing this narrative is not “giving up”. Adaptation is not giving up, it is what humans do very well. It is simply our future. Early adapters may be more successful. Success, however, will be defined differently in the future.
For a long time the truth of our collective Overshoot was painful and depressing to acknowledge for me. Finally i have begun to accept it, and i have begun to simply adapt by simplifying my life, living closer to the Earth, expanding my garden and orchard, reducing my fossil fuel use and trying to become the change I wish to see. This has brought me peace with our dilemma.
I wish the same for you.
There will be some on this board that will start shooting now, I understand it for what it is.
Thanks Dennis.
I have read it. Have read quite a bit of Jordan Randers work. Earth 4 All is a ray of optimism and hope. Some of the policies have been embraced in some regions, but I am skeptical about our ability to get on the proposed track. For many it is pretty radical thinking, but it is the type of change that would be required.
I have been drawn more to the low tech solutions at the grassroots level and investing myself in that direction.
I appreciate your willingness to take the time to point me in that direction, you obviously are a caring person and give a lot to this board beyond the huge task of sharing your models, data and thinking.
I have said what I feel I needed to say on the subject of collapse, felt it needed some air time to balance a little bit of the hand waving I see sometimes about the Green Miracle. I have participated in installing solar PV and batteries at my home, using ultralight electric vehicles so it would be somewhat hypocritical to continue to rail against it, but I have come to embrace conservation and low tech solutions more. I understand that we will be very happy to have as much solar and wind as possible one day, but also acknowledge the environmental cost of doing so.
i
I agree there is an environmental cost to a BAU scenario and that wind, solar, EVs, etc will not solve all problems, there is much more that needs to be done.
The low tech option seems even less likely to solve the problem in my view, than the proposed solution by Randers et al. Though moving in that direction (towards less technology) as World population peaks and declines would likely make society more resiliant.
Personally I don’t see these as mutually exclusive policies, they could be complementary.
Consider the World with 8 billion people and low technology, perhaps where we were 1000 years ago in terms of technology. I cannot imagine the World would be in better shape environmentally.
I may not understand what you mean by low tech.
Pardon butting in, but I’ll give a few simple examples of low tech applications to life that we should lean toward as much as possible-
insulation, bicycles, unprocessed foods, and of course… banjos.
Hickory,
I agree those are all good ideas, realized later Tom gave some of the low tech ideas, all of which are good. I think all of these are part of the solution. Perhaps things cannot change, it seems there are examples from the past (US and UK tax policy from 1945 to 1970) and present (Scandinavian nations) of social policy that we could move towards and a dumping of neoliberal orthodoxy at the IMF and World Bank to enable better policy to reduce poverty. There are excellent policy options that could mitigate some of the problems of overshoot (including the ideas that you and Tom have mentioned.)
Tom,
As far as radical ideas, democracy was considered a radical idea in 1750, social change can happen, but I tend to agree that it seems a long shot. Part of the process is putting the ideas up for discussion, the Club of Rome has done this.
Some of the principles are in place in some nations such as in Northern Europe.
Well said Tom.
These things are very difficult for people to acknowledge, since there is no solution that does not entail contraction. The collective, no matter in which economic or political system, will remove any leadership that does not fight contraction.
I do not have hope for a good solution…good being a gradual, deliberate and compassionately managed contraction.
From a pragmatic perspective I fully expect humanity to attempt all aspects of adaptation to the situation, even if we tend to react very late and in dysfunctional manners (warfare for example).
We will explore chaos, and surveillance state authoritarianism.
Us older guys (over 50) are going to have to yield to much younger people, one way or another.
“There will be some on this board that will start shooting now”
I have been reading comments here for to long to believe your denial strawman claim here at POB. I’m pretty sure the regulars here understand overshoot and have moved on to dealing with it without putting their head in the sand.
OFM- “Giving up is not an option.”
BTW, chaos is a right wing talking point and is used for politcal means. example-
Fascist Trump- “I Alone Can Fix It” Trump is chaos, promotes it and campaigns on it. Yet, he hasn’t fixed anything including the border. Collapse is chaos.
I see chaos around me in the form of an information tsunami, and much of it is toxic and/or completely irrelevant. The fragile minds of humanity are swamped with sewage information, flashing lights, and eye candy.
Its not new, but the volume is many magnitudes greater.
I don’t see how to put the genie back in the bottle.
HB,
I am not a Trump supporter, quite the opposite. I am nor affiliated with either the Republican or Democratic parties, but am registered independent, and am dissatisfied with the state of the political situation here in the US, but that is another discussion.
Chaos can be a right wing talking point, however, in the context in which I present it, it is not. I simple believe that collapse is one of the probable paths that we may likely take and there is some very good science that suggests that this probability is quite a bit larger than zero. To label my post as putting my head in the sand or giving up is childish.
To admit that collapse is one of the probable outcomes of our overshoot invites discussion. What technologies should society try to triage? What are low tech solutions to some of our problems? How about more focus on conservation?
You seem to have a paranoia about the issue of collapse. Further I see a lot of posts on this board which continue to sell the green miracle of technological solutions that are continuing to promote growth, consumption, environmental decay and that is why I give the probability of collapse some air time.
As far as giving up, I am not “giving up” by admitting that we have created a scenario where collapse is one of the probable outcomes. I am actively engaged in organic agriculture, ultralight electric vehicle use, solar PV, heating with biomass, permaculture on my property, ultra efficient home design, foraging, food preservation techniques, and the list goes on. I am particularly drawn to low tech solutions.
You can return to your dream state, sorry for disturbing you with thoughts of chaos. Since you are a long time members of this board and have accepted the possibility of collapse as you say, how are you dealing with it?
Tom, I’m not concerned about resource collapse in my life time and not the one who brings up the subject three times a day. Conservation has to be the base of any fossil fuel replacement system. We fly at 600 mph and drive at 70 mph because we can, not because we need too. A world without enormous amounts of fossil fuel doesn’t have to mean collapse but could mean a better quality of life. Economics teaches us we will find substitutes. I’m much more worried about freedom, democracy, equality, imprisonment camps, forced labor, dictatorships and the environment. Our educational system is key to our survival and growth.
Solar Passes 100% of Power Demand in California! First they said more than 5% renewables would destabilize the grid, then 10%, then 20, then 50%, then 80%. Now what? This is not the island of Barbuda in the Caribbean, this is the fifth largest economy in the world!
The regulars here who insist renewable energy is a waste of resources are constantly telling us it won’t work because it doesn’t work perfectly, lol.
They’re not giving much if any consideration at all to the obvious fact that technical progress is a real thing, that economies of scale are a real thing, that we can change the way we do things in order to get satisfactory results using less material resources. It’s rather likely that within three or four years a couple of new battery technologies will be scaling up. They may or may not be more powerful, but they’ll work ok, and they’ll be made of readily available and cheaper materials.
They blither on about the rare earth mining issue, while ignoring strip mining for coal and common metal ores, etc. They never have anything to say about the environmental cost of drilling for oil and gas.
They talk about electric cars and trucks as if they will always be substantially more expensive than a conventional vehicle.
They seem to believe as a matter of revealed truth that there will never be enough charging stations.
They believe wind turbine blades and electric car batteries cannot be recycled.
I could go on all day.
They seem to be incapable of understanding that while industrial civilization, as we know it, at this time, is capable of discovering and implementing new ways of getting things done…… and that the job doesn’t have to be finished immediately.
After all, Rome wasn’t built in a day.
Countries with the power to do so will trade for or simply seize what they want in the way of rare earth metals, etc, from weaker countries.
And once the chips are really and truly all on the table, we can manage on a third or less of our current energy per day per person. . We aren’t going to go bankrupt if we have to buy cars that will only go a hundred miles or so on a charge.
OFM please enlighten us how we can turn wind turbine blades back into wind turbine blades through recycling, and show what’s needed to do this in terms of energy, chemicals and equipment. Thanks…
They don’t HAVE to be turned back into new wind turbine blades.
We don’t HAVE to solve every problem to suit a nutcase environmentalist in every respect right away. We can do what we CAN, for now, so long as it’s an improvement over what we’re already doing.
Turbine blades can be cut into pieces, hauled to a recycling center, and ground up. Some of the materials can be salvaged for immediate reuse, such as any aluminum or steel in them.
The rest of it can be ground up and used to mix into concrete, or with gravel and used to make a new roadbed under pavement. If necessary, the remains can be landfilled. Hint…. coal ash piles, on a per kilowatt hour basis, are MUCH MUCH bigger.
But those of us who insist it’s a lost cause never seem to have anything to say about the environmental costs of coal mining….. never mind the costs of actually BURNING it.
And while it’s too expensive and trouble some to recycle the resins and fiber glass for now, it’s very likely going to be possible later, as the volume increases….. considering that the manufacturers will be coming up with materials that ARE more easily recycled.
But my at this minute MAIN point is that there isn’t going to be any gigantic land fill every couple of miles full of turbine blades. That’s pure and simple right wing/ fossil fuel bullshit propaganda.
There won’t be any shortage of materials needed to make new blades for a very long time to come, and the amount of electricity generated by a turbine is greater by a factor of ten or more, compared to the energy that goes into making blades…… plus right now half or more of that energy is being pissed away lighting up skyscrapers at night or hauling beer five hundred miles from brewery to retail store, etc.
We may have to pay a wind tax someday…. but we aren’t about to run out of wind.
How much do YOU thing natural gas will cost ten or twenty years down the road? How much will a barrel of oil cost?
Sure coal is cheap……. if you happen to be located in the right place. If you’re depending on buying it across blue water, you’ll be doing without sooner or later…. because the colliers won’t be leaving port without navy escorts.
OFM …. “They believe wind turbine blades and electric car batteries cannot be recycled.
I could go on all day.”
Here is a claim by a wind turbine blade recycler of being part of the circular economy, which even you acknowledge is incorrect.
Downcycling is not proper recycling, but seems to be used by all as if it were just as good, then the usual handwave that ‘new’ as in not yet invented technology, will save us to allow for ‘proper recycling’.
BTW adding plastics to roads just increases the amount of micro plastics spread through the environment, as those roads are used.
In the long term, none of it’s possible, as it’s all based upon fossil fuels, for materials, chemicals and high heat needed for recycling. Apparently all this just appears out of thin air and is something EXTRA modern humans can do with a wave of the hand…
The belief in technology to solve everything is in the same category as religious beliefs that god/gods will save us.
I’ve already stated numerous times that I don’t believe we have much of a future for modernity at all, as once oil production declines really accelerate to the downside, modern civilization is all over because of a multitude of feedback loops that affect every section of the modern world. There is just too many people on the planet and the complexity we have comes from the large population in a relationship with the materials, energy and technology we use.
We lose complexity with population reduction, yet our built world will require a growing quantity of energy to maintain. In thermodynamic terms it’s impossible in the long term.
Of course there are huge costs environmentally in continuing to mine, transport and burn fossil fuels, there always has been and always will be, I’ve never denied any of that at all. Plus because of depletion it can’t continue for much longer, again because of feedback loops that technology allows us to make such huge quantities available. Once modernity collapses so will our ability to gain access to the remote and deep quantities of fossil fuels. The feedback loops that allowed us to grow will work in reverse on the rapid downslope.
For example when xanthates are no longer able to be manufactured, because the supply of pure carbon (from coal or gas) and sulphur (also from oil and gas production), ceases, then the type of mining, using floatation ceases, as xanthates are the main chemicals used in the process. No chemicals to make metals float, and no new base metals.. One simple feedback loop, never considered by those that think we can ‘muddle’ on without fossil fuels. We now use floatation to gain over 90% of base metals, even though it’s a process we’ve used for only around a century. Before these processes were used the low grade ores were just waste. Now low grade is all we have left..
There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of these type of feedback loops, never considered, which is why most people cannot put the big picture together.
BTW I’ve voted green and the left of politics most of my life, which shows how poor your assumptions can be. The real problem is that the left and green parties have been hijacked by commercial interests about the (mythical) green future.
We are fiddling at the edges of the problem, believing that putting a finger in the small hole, in our compartment of the Titanic will stop the leak while the huge 10 foot long 6 foot wide gashes in the 6 compartments next to us flow in massive quantities.
I had to deal with that idiot as both Governor, and President.
Cancelled a class I was attending, but the UC put me in another.
Could lie like the best of criminals.
Reagan was a dunce and a fabricator.
However the comment was right in that economics is more about information (ideas) than it is about energy. It’s unlikely that Reagan came up with the idea. Most of his quotes are by Peggy Noonan or Pat Buchanan, his speech writers.
Obviously if your paycheck depends on selling energy, you may find that hard to believe.
Here is a company that’s recycling wind turbine blades. I wonder if any of the promoters of circular economy, that this mob claim to be part of, can actually see the weakness in their model…
“Biden administration signals it will support bipartisan push to sanction ICC”
So, the guy running on “protecting democracy” is teaming up with Republicans (who he is supposedly saving democracy from) to threaten the International Criminal Court.
Ta-dah!
After the war in former Yugoslavia DevGru were deployed to track down accused war criminals and bring them to The Hague to stand trial. They apprehended Radislav Krstić, the Bosnian general who was indicted for his role in the Srebrenica massacre. Now Biden is looking for a bipartisan deal to buck the ICC.
but there is no mention of how currency movements are accounted for, or what the currency is even used to construct the index. Do you have any insight into that aspect of constructing an index that refers to products which are produced and consumed in a variety of countries?
Thanks
If I may guess, it would be a dollar based food price index. And that would mean that prices would hurt locally many places, but not show up in the index, when the dollar is strong compared to other currencies. It makes sense that the lower FAO index levels of 2023-24 partially have something to do with dollar strength. Lower energy prices (oil/LNG) and fertilzer/pestilence costs are those that would fundamentally shift costs down probably. No clear signs of that downward trajectory as of yet. But food prices are under control in a lot of countries compared to 2022.
I know the US exports food, but could you explain how it also exports food inflation. How does the US cause the cost of grain imported by Egypt to be higher? Regardless of the currency that they pay in, the costs to import depend on many factors including Russian invasion of Ukraine, rainfall in Australia or India or Kazahkstan, labor costs at the dock and on the farm, oil costs at many points along the chain.
I can think of one concrete reason that Europe and the US export food inflation to the rest of the world- it is by consuming biofuels. That production displaces grain and oil seed production from the food supply.
The wholesale farm gate or elevator price of grain here in the USA is seldom more than ten percent of the price of bread at the super market.
I don’t know what a ton of imported wheat sells for in Egypt, but I’m cynical enough to guess that whoever controls the distribution thereof is making a KILLING…… one way or another.
But looking at the bigger picture……… world wide grain production is not now and will not likely be keeping up in relation to population ….. painting with a broad brush.
We’re using up fossil water, land is going under pavement or down rivers as mud, or turning to desert. The usual industrial inputs we farm with today are going to be ever more expensive as depletion and hoarding play bigger roles. Diesel fuel, manufactured fertilizers, pesticides, machinery….. inflation affects everything.
A large part of production is goes to producing meat…. from chicken to beef. This pushes prices way up…. for people who just need flour and meal.
Not just food. Remember, the USA did this in the ‘70s and gutted the likes of Europe’s industries as consequence of the Volcker shock doctrine and unpegging of the gold standard.
“People who get their news from legacy TV live in a fake alternate reality.
Those so-called “toughest reforms” would have made invasion-level migration permanent.
That diabolical “Border Bill” deserved to die and shame on those who supported it.”
This is copied from a web site that took it directly from Elon Musk’s own personal X account… it’s a direct quote.
Back when everybody was talking about him being an idiot for being willing to lose so much money buying Twitter…….. I was one of the few that pointed out that the money, given that he has so much, means nothing much to him at a personal level…… IF he’s getting something he WANTS for it…. something potentially worth FAR MORE to him than the money itself.
I suggested then that it was POWER he wanted, and that it was POWER he was buying.
It’s clear to me that he’s pretty much a trump type right winger in political terms, although he does radically oppose the right wing trump/ fossil fuel camp in respect to electric vehicles.
He’s not going to anything like as powerful as the Murdoch outfit that owns Faux News, but he’s one more multi billionaire who is likely going to have a huge influence on control of state and federal government offices.
From here on out, I’m going to be pointing out who he is, in political terms, anytime I mention him or Tesla.
We have regulars who are constantly pointing out that we’re using more fossil fuels, more wood, etc, than ever before.
But what they’re NOT pointing out is that every year we’re increasing production of wind and solar power at a FAR FASTER RATE. The percentage of total power produced by wind and sun is increasing from year to year.
A lot of this link is sort of pink tinted, but it points out some real possibilities.
I don’t know how long we will be able to build new wind and solar farms….. but I’m willing to bet my farm that once it’s obvious to the general public that fossil fuel supplies are going critical, there will be people enough who understand what’s happening to push for and get funding for the emergency construction of wind and solar farms just as we always find money and manpower to build tanks, ships, and planes when war breaks out, or seems to be sure to break out.
The naysayers seem to have a mindset that precludes any sort of organized proactive response at the local to national level to overshoot and or fossil fuel depletion, etc.
A significant portion of the world population will probably perish simply BECAUSE there is no such organized proactive work done in their home country. More, maybe several times more, will die no matter what. We’re deep into overshoot. Nobody with any real understanding of the big picture could possibly believe otherwise.
But nevertheless, there WILL BE quite a bit of organized work done, at the personal, corporate, and government levels. Some of it will very likely, FOR SURE 100 percent, imo, be along the lines of government management of the economy during WWII.
Will it be enough to prevent a crash and burn landing?
It’s impossible to say……. but it will mean we have some additional time to do as much as we can, personally and as communities, to save what we can going forward.
I’m reasonably sure that here in the USA, and in a fair number of other western countries, that the federal level government will be strong enough to maintain civil order as necessary, assisted by state and local level law enforcement of course.
I know a shit load of maga idiots myself. Maybe one out of a hundred of them will actually go out and riot. The other ninety nine will shoot their mouths off, bluster and threaten, but they’ll stay home in just about every single case.
They don’t have the energy, or the money, to leave home to create trouble. They’re mostly close to broke, living from paycheck to paycheck or welfare check to welfare check.
And they’ll be dealing with their own women and children who in more cases than not will be adamant that they STAY home……… the majority of them being men.
It won’t take them more than a few days to rationalize STAYING home because they’re afraid otherwise that libtards or minorities will rampage thru THEIR neighborhood, burning THEIR homes and businesses, etc.
I’ve lived among such people, in intimate contact with them, off and on all my life…. and continuously for the last twenty years or so.
They’re mostly ignorant, and scared, and easily manipulated….. but if you point out to one of the SMARTER ones of them that if they take over, and get what they want…… especially very low taxes…… that Momma or Daddy will be living with them, because the S S checks, etc, won’t be coming . That Medicare knee replacement your older brother is counting on….. forget it.
The first time they hear from friends and acquaintances that their city or county government has failed, and there’s no water to drink or bathe or flush the toilet……. and that they’re THEMSELVES on city water……… a LOT of them will be doing some serious thinking about whether they really want their own state and local government to collapse.
If anybody in particular WANTS to believe that a crash and burn collapse is inevitable, no matter what……. well, maybe that person has simply made up his mind that anybody who believes otherwise is ignorant, or ill informed, or a pink eye glasses optimist, or whatever.
Such a collapse is possible, there’s no question at all about that. Whether it’s INEVITABLE at the global level…… that’s a matter of opinion, based on certain assumptions that might or might not hold true.
And for what it’s worth, it’s worth remembering what one of our greatest fictional leaders has to say about such things.
Paraphrased, Gandalf says that all we can do, is what we can with the time given us…… .
There’s a lot we can do.
Realistically speaking, we can continue to do every thing we can to go renewable …… because this is a politically feasible course of action. Simply talking about any other solution essentially means giving up…. there’s no way IN HELL the general public will ever accept a shrinking life style voluntarily…. but once it’s clear to even a trumpster that the shit REALLY IS well and truly in the fan…. then it’s at least possible that we will collectively be willing to deal with a falling standard of living….. and putting as much sweat into proactive measures to prevent outright collapse as we possibly can.
People have a way of responding to a crisis, under certain conditions, and pulling together in a way that simply seems impossible to people who don’t study history. We did it here in the USA within a couple of days after Pearl Harbor.
With some luck, we could do it again, here in this country, and in many other countries, if the citizenry once comes to understand the stakes …….. living under wartime economic conditions ……… or going to hell with the water, sewer, electricity off, gangs on the street ( on bicycles maybe ) instead of cops, etc.
Rationed basic or staple foods in the stores……. versus no stores.
He gets some things right. His concluding statement-
“The history of energy transitions shows that no energy source has never before replaced another. If it is happening now, it will be too late to make a difference at the present pace of climate change and ecological collapse. Energy substitution is a doomsday stratagem that condemns civilization to its status quo path of growth & biophysical destruction.”
-Yes, the attempted weaning off fossil energy has begun in earnest about 50 years late. And even now the global attempts are lukewarm.
-At this point we facing a scenario where non-fossil energy deployment will serve only to partially blunt the severe ramifications of vast fossil energy consumption Overshoot (what might have been consumed over a couple thousand years has been consumed in just 100 years).
-His last statement is not one of wisdom, quite the opposite…blaming a path of destruction on attempted energy diversification rather than the primary culprit which is fossil fuel mass over consumption and all of the Overshoot growth it has enabled.
Once again, as OFM has pointed out at every turn, some places will fair better than others. Part of that depends on the ability to live with less fossil fuel.
OFM
Your entire theory is flawed. Money and Political will won’t matter once energy is in decline. WII is a poor example because at the time industrial production was in its infancy and ramping up. Energy was growing at 6% per year. That’s why we were able to pull the system back on to the rails.
We are presently facing an extremely different set of conditions. Resources are diffused and difficult to extract which means more energy intensive at the same time as energy supply can’t grow.
You do understand that coal generation is also increasing particularly in heavy industries in China, India, Indonesia. Which allows us to import their production and believe we’re going green.
The world will someday realize we have a real energy crisis but likely not until the supermarket shelves are empty. Then they’ll blame Trump or Biden or some other group they hate. I wouldn’t bet the farm on sudden cooperation perhaps forced labor but it will be for food power.
If I reach into my wallet a grab a $100 bill and loan it to you. Then a week later you give me $100 back. There is no increase in the money supply.
But when you go to a bank and borrow money to purchase a home or car. They don’t go to their vault and get the money. They create a book entry, a credit. That is how the vast majority of money is created. And they also tack on an interest expense so they can make a profit. The collateral backing the loan is the home or car itself.
It’s no different when a large corporation borrows money to do stock buybacks. They post collateral and the bank creates a credit or money. Stock market doesn’t go up because the FED cut interest rates or does QE. It goes up because people borrow money from banks. There is zero liquidity that leaves the FED and finds its way into stocks, real estate, or the economy. Commercial banks that the FED buys treasury debt and MBS’s from have already purchased those securities. There is no increase in the money supply when the FED does QE. There is no decrease in the money supply when the FED does QT.
There is a lot of talk of central banks and CBDC’s.
But CBDC’s don’t really change anything. They don’t change how money is created. Just like the commercial banks the central banks won’t be going to their vault to get the money. They just create a bank entry or credit.
Only difference I see beyond the central banks having access to everyone’s purchases is instead of commercial banks being defaulted on it will be the central banks that are defaulted on.
Loans require the use of energy to be repaid. What does the world look like if you are trying to expand credit in an energy contraction? Even a small percentage wise energy contraction will have devastating consequences for the money supply.
I respect and always listen to what you have to say, but are you sure QE does not increase money supply?
This is how I understand QE works:
1) Government spends more than it taxes.
2) Goverment offers treasuries for sale to fund deficit.
3) Commercial banks buy treasuries with intent to resell.
4) There are insufficient buyers for all the treasuries.
5) Fed buys surplus treasuries from commercial banks by creating credit out of thin air.
So yes, QE does result in more money circulating in the economy.
Think of QE as an asset swap. It doesn’t increase the money supply. The banks already own and paid for the assets.
FED just moves the asset to their balance sheet by swapping bank reserves for the assets. Those bank reserves never leave the banking system and make their way into asset prices like nearly everyone seems to believe.
It’s part of the narrative. FED printer goes burr and everything is fine again. The amount of bank reserves in the system doesn’t really matter. It’s not money in the real economy chasing goods and services.
QT has no effect on stock market prices because they aren’t linked. QT or the reduction of bank reserves doesn’t take liquidity away from stocks.
The asset bubbles we currently have aren’t due to the amount of bank reserves. They are due to credit that was created and extended by commercial banks.
Loans that are actually chasing goods and services and stock prices and real estate prices in the economy.
As long as there is sufficient energy QE looks like it works. Because commercial banks continue making new loans. In an energy crunch or shortage you’ll see that all those banks reserves can’t prop up prices because commercial banks will stop lending.
Thank you.
Let’s assume you are correct. This implies governments can supercharge spending and deficits when SHTF (like covid or WWIII) without the Fed swapping bank reserves for treasuries.
Really?
Nobody completely understands “the economy”. They only pretend they understand it or they understand it only in discrete blocks of their own specializations.
Rob –
You are mixing up deficit spending and QE.
Deficit spending is simply when, as you correctly point out, the government spends more than it collects in taxes. It then sells bonds via an auction process to cover the difference between what it spends and collects.
QE, and to a certain extent open market operations as well, are monetary operations with the intent of alleviating any potential reserve shortage that banks may have in addition to broadly lowering interest rates. Banks need to have a certain amount vault cash on hand along with reserves parked at the Fed.
When the Fed engages in QE it will purchase a relatively large quantity of (generally) government guaranteed fixed income instruments via the Fed’s primary dealers. As an aside, the notion of failed auctions, where the government offers more bonds than the dealers want to buy is actually impossible – in order to be a dealer you agree to purchase such a quantity at any auction that the quantity demanded is be definition more than the quantity offered.
When QE happens, the Fed will pay a little more for bonds than what they are trading at in the market to ensure that they can buy the quantity that they want. When a bank sells to the Fed the reserve balance of that bank at the Fed increases, thus enabling it to make more loans ( in case that bank was reserve constrained, something that almost never happens anymore). The second step is probably more important: the bank will start the purchase bonds from it’s clients such as pension funds and insurance companies. Those clients now own a deposit rather than an interest-bearing asset so they will immediately turn around and buy other interest bearing assets, thereby driving up the price and therefore down the yield. Those lower yields are then stimulative to the overall economy. A side effect is that the net interest that the government pays out goes down because the Fed (effectively an agent of the government, at least when it comes to collecting interest on those bonds that it holds) returns the interest it receives back to the treasury, lowering the actual net interest expense to the tax payer.
HTH
Vince
Prior to 2008 there was something like $80 billion in bank reserves. Banks had no problem whatsoever expanding the money supply.
Now we have over $7 trillion bank reserves. Banks don’t need bank reserves to create new loans and expand the money supply.
Our monetary system isn’t based on bank reserves. Treasuries are way more useful than bank reserves. You can use a treasury as collateral to borrow and finance in the real economy.
Securities lending in itself is poorly understood. And I’m talking about the actual borrowing of securities. A lot of the collateral used to finance is borrowed collateral. Banks and even insurance companies don’t mind lending securities for a profit.
All I’m saying is in an energy crunch the monetary system will break down. And central banks aren’t the center of the monetary system. Their one product which is bank reserves aren’t even the center of the monetary system.
Collateral will be hoarded and loans not made. Dollar shortage. As demand for dollars to repay debt goes through the roof while supply of dollars contracts.
CRE loans are packaged into securities and bought by large pension funds. These securities are also used to finance and make new loans. Pension funds can make money by lending securities. What happens when the value of the securities declines by 30-40%?
If you used CRE securities as collateral for a loan then you have to post more collateral. If you can’t come up with the collateral then you must sell and exit. If you borrowed the collateral there will be collateral damage to the entity who you borrowed the collateral from.
We will see cascading defaults due to collateral chains breaking down.
The problem is that people argue about stuff they should know but don’t because the system is too complex. A too complex system probably inevitably fails in large part because it takes too much energy and effort (like arguing about it) to keep it maintained and no one quite knows how it operates. Climate’s probably simpler. 😉
Assuming that AI applications depend on human input I decided to get ChatGPT to tell me about the future of renewables. This was the response.
The Paradox of Renewables: A Fossil-Fuel-Dependent Future
The vision of a future powered entirely by renewable energy is often depicted as a world free from the environmental and economic shackles of fossil fuels. Solar panels glistening in the sun, wind turbines gracefully turning on the horizon, and hydroelectric dams silently generating power from flowing rivers create a compelling image of sustainability. However, this vision may not be as straightforward as it seems. The lifecycle of renewable energy infrastructure, from production to disposal, reveals a paradoxical dependence on fossil fuels that could challenge the very essence of a renewable future.
The Lifecycle of Renewables: An Inconvenient Dependency
Renewable energy technologies, while operationally clean, require significant inputs of fossil fuels during their lifecycle. Manufacturing solar panels, wind turbines, and battery storage systems involves energy-intensive processes that currently rely heavily on fossil fuels. For instance, the production of photovoltaic cells necessitates the use of high-purity silicon, which is extracted and processed using electricity and heat predominantly generated from coal and natural gas. Similarly, the construction of wind turbines involves the smelting of steel and the fabrication of composite materials, both of which are energy-intensive and fossil-fuel-dependent processes.
Moreover, the transportation and installation of renewable energy infrastructure require diesel-powered machinery and vehicles. Even the maintenance of these systems, often located in remote areas, relies on the availability of fossil fuels. Thus, the current deployment of renewable energy systems is intricately tied to the availability of dense fossil fuels.
The End of the Line: Disposing and Replacing Renewables
As renewable energy systems reach the end of their operational lifespan, typically 20-30 years for solar panels and wind turbines, the challenge of disposal and replacement looms large. Recycling and safely disposing of the materials used in renewables require sophisticated technologies and significant energy inputs. For example, decommissioning a wind turbine involves dismantling its massive blades, towers, and foundations, a process that is both labor- and energy-intensive.
If society continues to rely on fossil fuels to manage this end-of-life phase, the sustainability of renewables comes into question. The energy required to recycle or dispose of old infrastructure and manufacture new replacements could perpetuate a cycle of fossil fuel dependence. Without substantial advancements in renewable-powered industrial processes, the notion of a completely fossil-fuel-free renewable energy future remains elusive.
The Path Forward: Breaking the Fossil Fuel Cycle
To truly realize a sustainable renewable energy future, a radical transformation of the current energy paradigm is necessary. This involves not only increasing the efficiency and deployment of renewable energy systems but also revolutionizing the way these systems are produced, maintained, and recycled.
One potential pathway is the development and scaling of renewable-powered manufacturing. Innovations in solar-powered silicon refining, hydrogen-based steel production, and electric transportation could significantly reduce the fossil fuel footprint of renewable energy infrastructure. Additionally, advances in recycling technologies could enable the recovery and reuse of materials from old renewables with minimal energy input.
Furthermore, investing in research and development of alternative materials that require less energy to produce and have longer lifespans could mitigate the dependency on fossil fuels. For example, organic photovoltaic cells and biodegradable materials for turbine blades are areas of ongoing research with promising potential.
Conclusion: A Renewable Paradox
The pursuit of a future powered entirely by renewable energy is fraught with complexities that challenge the simplistic narrative of a fossil-fuel-free world. The current dependence of renewable energy infrastructure on fossil fuels for production, transportation, and disposal presents a paradox that must be addressed to achieve true sustainability.
Breaking this cycle requires bold innovation, substantial investment in renewable-powered industrial processes, and a commitment to developing sustainable materials and recycling technologies. Only by confronting and overcoming these challenges can we hope to create a future where renewable energy is truly renewable, independent of the very fossil fuels it seeks to replace.
I’m highly doubtful we ever achieve that goal of a renewable energy system that is free of fossil fuel input at any meaningful scale in any meaningful time-frame.
For practical purposes, its simply off the table of viable scenarios. I don’t ponder it for a minute.
Vastly more relevant is the attempt to gradually use less and less fossil fuel for the processes of civilization. Stay ahead of the depletion curve, but also of supreme importance is reducing the combustion carbon load pushed into the atmosphere as quick as feasible (until someone comes up with a magical mechanism to sequester vast amounts of combusted carbon without using yet more energy to do so).
I’ll also put up the goal avoiding a rapid collapse. I have a strong preference for gradual downsizing where possible. In a rapid collapse 9-10 billion humans will take down every single last damn tree, and eat every last mammal left in the zoo.
I see the role of non-fossil energy mechanisms as helping to cushion the downside to some degree…more in some places than in others. With that in mind, I advocate for pushing extremely hard for non-fossil development/deployment, in order to get some of the job done. I have no illusion that it will be enough, and certainly it has been no where fast enough. Too many drag-butts.
I have no illusion that nonfossil energy will somehow cure the 10,000 year human propensity to destroy the world around them. And so no I don’t call anything related to human economic activity as ‘green’. Poor labeling.
I think industry and the system, itself, though, as currently contrived, is a large part of the problem. So I find it hard to see it as something that’s going to smoothly glide us down to avoid a harder crash.
And the end of coral, which provides protein for over a quarter of the human population, slows down coastal erosion and are the single biggest carbon dioxide sink:
Yes. We’re in the pincer’s grip. No doubt at all. 8 Billion people dependent on finite sequestered carbon for their existence, an economic system based on a misunderstanding of how the physical world works, and the pillaging of the biosphere, which is also being destroyed by the results of burning that sequestered carbon.
I live about 75kms west of the Great Barrier Reef, probably the most wondrously magnificent ecosystem that has existed. It has maybe a decade or so before the increasingly frequent bleaching events destroy it completely.
In the geological blink of an eye, industrial civilisation is creating a wasteland of a previously vibrant biosphere. The tragedy of it all is beyond words. I’m 69 now. Some of us saw this coming 50 years ago. I left uni in second year for a life immersed in plants, had no kids to add to the unsustainable population balloon,and am basically just an observer of the unfolding tragedy now.
Impending mass extinction event… I wonder what the future historians will learn or hypothesize about why our powerful high-tech civilization with the greatest minds couldn’t stop it.
• This essay evaluates past carbon emission reduction and the feasibility of eliminating fossil fuels to achieve net-zero carbon by 2050.
• Despite international agreements, government spending and regulations, and technological advancements, global fossil fuel consumption surged by 55 percent between 1997 and 2023. And the share of fossil fuels in global energy consumption has only decreased from nearly 86 percent in 1997 to approxi- mately 82 percent in 2022.
• The first global energy transition, from traditional biomass fuels such as wood and charcoal to fossil fuels, started more than two centuries ago and unfolded gradually. That transition remains incomplete, as billions of people still rely on traditional biomass energies for cooking and heating.
• The scale of today’s energy transition requires approximately 700 exajoules of new non-carbon energies by 2050, which needs about 38,000 projects the size of BC’s Site C or 39,000 equivalents of Muskrat Falls.
• Converting energy-intensive processes (e.g., iron smelting, cement, and plas- tics) to non-fossil alternatives requires solutions not yet available for large- scale use.
• The energy transition imposes unprecedented demands for minerals includ- ing copper and lithium, which require substantial time to locate and develop mines.
• To achieve net-zero carbon, affluent countries will incur costs of at least 20 percent of their annual GDP.
• While global cooperation is essential to achieve decarbonization by 2050, major emitters such as the United States, China, and Russia have conflicting interests.
• To eliminate carbon emissions by 2050, governments face unprecedented technical, economic and political challenges, making rapid and inexpensive transition impossible.
Net-zero is wishful thinking. Its a nice goal that won’t happen until carbon fuels run out.
Peak global fossil combustion in roughly 10 years.
Still something like 40% of total combustion load yet to come.
By 2050 atmospheric CO2 will be over 500ppm,
and the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) will be approaching 2.0!
Net-zero’s social engineering. It’s social engineers and big biz types that got us into this mess in the first place. I’m with Hickory in the easy carbon fuels running out that’ll stop us properly.
Jet fuel demand is rebounding across regions as people have shaken off the pandemic years and are traveling en masse again, with kerosene demand driving global oil demand growth this year. Total passenger numbers on airlines are set to hit a record high this year, at 4.96 billion, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) said last week in its latest forecast of airline profitability. “With a record five billion air travelers expected in 2024, the human need to fly has never been stronger,” IATA’s Director General Willie Walsh said.
Let’s hope the worst scenarios of the climate change models or predictions are wrong, Javier’s right, or that we’re robust enough as a species to handle the next mass extinction bottleneck. This culture and many of the people in it suck anyway.
I can confirm the airports and airplanes are as busy as ever. There have been some good deals on flights to Europe though if your willing to put up with the crowds. Wife and me got a deal to Scotland for less than $500 a person round trip back in April, then to Copenhagen for not much more in September, and we’re looking at either France or Greece to round out just our overseas travel for the year. With the way flying has gotten cheaper from all the cheapie carriers springing up in the last couple decades, I think the US is really behind in investing in even bigger airports to handle this increasing demand. Well, let me rephrase that, lots of smaller markets in the country have built bigger, improved terminals to handle more traffic, but it seems that most of the largest airports haven’t really had significant expansions for the most part, and that’s just sad.
To the contrary, I think it is time to remove airport capacity.
Air travel is an optional economic activity that is extremely wasteful of fuel.
It is one of the prime examples of how we trash the earth in order to gain some personal convenience.
We are at peak fuel. The time is now to rapidly fade out the flight industry, except for certain applications like local search and rescue, heavy lift industrial applications.
No need for any more planes or runways.
North America should imitate China and build out high speed rail to replace short hop flights. There are several regions that would benefit greatly from this.
I’m not holding my breathe though. Look at these idiots stopping congestion pricing on Manhattan island.
It’s a mystery to me that anyone could be so dumb. Car traffic in Manhattan is a failed experiment and needs to be rolled back. You can literally cross the island on foot as fast as in a taxi.
What we should do and what we will do are entirely different things. We will phase out air travel when the ticket price is more than anyone can afford, not one day before that.
Massive changes in human behavior are driven by economics, not what is best for the planet. Humans act in their own personal interest. They are concerned only with personal comfort and survival for the next day or next year. They are never concerned with the distant future. Of course, I do not mean everyone, just the overwhelming majority of the population.
Any and all proposals that demand a change in human nature are doomed to failure.
The thing is that high speed rail is a much faster cheaper and more convenient form of travel under about 600 miles. It isn’t economic pressure, just bad planning, that suppresses it in North America.
Thanks for the request, Andre. Yes, I am told the book will be published this week or next week at the latest. I will post a link when it is published.
Please understand that the book is not about resource depletion, which is what this site is all about. Or that was my intention when I started it in 2013. That we now discuss other subjects, I think, is a plus, not a minus.
I will have a website in about two or three weeks, where I will post videos and debates about the subjects covered in the book. I am looking forward to having those discussions.
In case you were wondering.
FASTEST CARBON DIOXIDE SURGE EVER DURING YEAR OF EXTREMES
Ralph Keeling, director of the Scripps CO2 program that manages the institution’s 56-year-old measurement series, noted that year-to-year increase recorded in March 2024 was the highest for both Scripps and NOAA in Keeling Curve history. He said: Not only is CO2 now at the highest level in millions of years, it is also rising faster than ever.
Miami Independent:
Law Professor Who Wrote 1989 Biological Weapons/Antiterrorism Act Provides Affidavit That COVID 19 mRNA Nanoparticle Injections Are Weapons Of Mass Destruction
“Dr. Francis Boyle, the Harvard educated law professor that drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act, which passed both houses of Congress unanimously, provided an affidavit stating that Covid 19 injections and mRNA nanoparticle injections violate the law he wrote. Dr. Boyle asserted that ‘COVID 19 injections’, ‘COVID 19 nanoparticle injections’, and ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’ are biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction and violate Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023).”
Of course, Twitter, before Musk took it over, knocked off Robert Malone from it. Censorship is misinformation.
Gary, what kind of shit are you trying to sell here? Please understand this is not a conspiracy theory site. If you think the mRNA Injections Are Weapons Of Mass Destruction, then you are just STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. All the doctors who developed this vaccine are trying to do is save lives.
Don’t get me wrong. This site welcomes honest political discussions. But we do not want conspiracy theory bullshit. Take it somewhere else. Facebook is the place for stupid conspiracy theory bullshit. Not here. Shut up about your theories. We do not want them here.
Millions of people died in the Covid 19 pandemic because people like you told them the vaccine was a conspiracy theory to kill them. You, or the likes of you, were the real murders by preventing these people from getting the injections that could have saved their lives. Conspiracy theory idiots like you are guilty of murder.
I just reread your post. You wrote, bold mine:
Most of the trump signs in yards and trump junk at flea markets disappeared in my neighborhood months ago. On a forty mile drive today I spotted only two pro trump signs or flags.
I can’t say what this means in terms of how his supporters will vote, but I’m encouraged by the fact that they have at least done away with their signs, bumper stickers, hats and such for the most part.
The steady drip of dirty trump news seems to be having a serious effect.
I still kinda see that as unlikely. The people infatuated with Trump aren’t oblivious, they just don’t care or like what he does. Being a convicted felon? That’s him sticking it to the system, or whatever.
It’s the fence sitters who will be vital, and I’m not sure how many of them would be displaying a poster or sign for their candidate.
That said, between the Trump indictment and the stories of Biden losing the plot, this year will be a vote for Alzheimer’s or dementia, unless some miracle happens.
Yeah, both sides are bad has been the Republican position for decades.
To me it comes down to whether one likes the rule of law and Democratic institutions, a vote for Trump is a vote for anti-democracy, listen to On-point from NPR from June 5, 2024.
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510053/on-point
The podcast is entitled:
‘We are underreacting to how serious this moment is’
Meghna Chakrabarti is excellent in my view. One of her guests likens Trump to Benito Mussolini.
Historian Heather Cox Richardson’s substack blog is worth reading. Very little opinion, mostly just documenting who is doing what.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/
“‘We are underreacting to how serious this moment is’”
I have been thinking this for years. For at least the last 6 months, five nights a week I stream Tubi, documentaries, World War era. And before I fall asleep, I say to myself “This is the same shit that is happening now”.
Inter war european fascist shirt movements were composed of young men, veterans from WW1, who’d fight you in the streets with a bullwhip. Hitler was a street brawler. Geriatric boomers with MAGA hats and a twitter handle are not a realistic comparison. They won’t win in the streets, as long as someone’s willing to beat their ass to the curb. Fascism’s only hope to win is if it’s coming from the bottom up. MAGA hat boomers would become road side grease stains rather quickly if things got ‘revolutionary’.
https://brewminate.com/shirt-movements-in-interwar-europe-a-totalitarian-fashion/
FWIW- keep an eye out for street fighter shirt movements (proud boys, Patriot prayer, whatever); if there is a realistic threat it’ll come from them. But, those kids are cosplay booger eaters. They’ll tap out after a few rough days in the field.
MAGA hat boomers can’t fight; and fascism doesn’t win without plenty of it.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puget_Sound_John_Brown_Gun_Club
Propaganda, FoxNews, Trump lies – check
Racism or discrimination against a demonized “Other”, such as homosexuals, ethnic minorities or immigrants – check
Unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens, Abortion – check
Proud Boys are an exclusively male North American far right, neo-fascist militant organization that promotes and engages in political violence – check
Trump rejects assertions that violence is inherently negative or pointless, instead viewing imperialism and political violence as means to national rejuvenation. – check
Political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation, or victimhood. – check
Fascist leaders typically claim to support the everyman, in reality, their regimes often align with powerful business interests. – check
Trump believe in the supremacy of certain groups of people based on characteristics such as race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality – check
First, fascist parties gained a foothold in government through initially democratic means. However, over time, the party consolidated power, and ultimately secured their dictatorship. – in process
The economic crisis that followed World War I further eroded public confidence in the existing political establishment. Parallel 2008 financial crisis – check
Gaining power via right-wing partnerships – check
Extreme right-wing, authoritarian, or intolerant views or practice – check
Genocide Joe it is, then.
If only there was another option on the ballot.
Green Party 2024
Survivalist,
Might as well stay home if you think there is no difference between Trump and Biden, a vote for a third party in a US presidential election is equivalent to leaving your ballot blank as far as the Executive Branch election, everyone has that option.
In Europe, we have the election of the EU parliament this weekend, but it really is a complete waste of time since it´s The Commission that runs things, together with the Minister Council, (and you can´t vote into either) and thus the parliament is basically powerless.
But it´s good bread and circus.
A difference for who? Very parochial, Dennis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parochialism
Perceptions of political differences are relative to one’s personal interests. Do you think people living in Gaza notice a difference?
It was once the case that DevGru delivered war criminals to The Hague. Now, perhaps they’ll soon be breaking them out; so I suppose that’s a difference.
It seems that both the Republican and the Democrat candidate are equally capable of undermining America’s standing in the global order. The USA’s assertion of a Rules Based World Order is being exposed for being the BS that it is.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_international_order
One of the important functions in a society is who controls the blame pattern.
I won’t be staying home. I’ll be voting; very poor advice Dennis.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4007281
The reason USA supports Israel so strongly is because of a security policy to maintain a geopolitical shatter belt in the most oil rich part of the planet. Rather than explicitly state that policy, Washington has decided to unfurl moral exportations. It’s easy to see.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shatter_belt_(geopolitics)
Survivalist,
To you. Vote for whoever you like, if it is not a vote for Biden or for Trump, then in terms of the presidency, it is like not voting. Biden may not be great, Trump would be far worse in my view, if you fail to see the difference, there is nothing more to say.
Quick question for you, who do you believe will win the election? What is the likelihood that the candidate you vote for will win the Presidential election?
If the answer is close to zreo, then in terms of the Presidential Election your vote has no impact on the election and the outcome would be no different if you had not voted. Perhaps you may want to vote for local offices or ballot measures or because you like the act of voting. In many places in the US a vote for only candidates that are in the Green Party is pretty much a no vote.
In my view the person who holds becomes POTUS makes a difference and I will choose the lesser imperfect of two imperfect men (in my view). Perhaps all the Republican rhetoric about not trusting elections will result in many who are right leaning politically to stay home.
It will be a sad day when a convicted felon is elected president if it occurs.
I forecast that Biden will win the election.
“The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane.” ~ Marcus Aurelius
Most of my hero’s don’t appear on postage stamps.
Imagine thinking the Democrats have done anything of worth lately.
Yeah, MAGAtards are dumb, but lol if you think Biden is somehow winning hearts and minds.
November going to be rough for a lot of people in denial it seems.
Except one is fact, and one is fiction. Russian state fiction. Along with Israeli state misinformation (reported widely in the last few days – Israeli state sponsored AI fake news and fake posters – here even?) it is widely accepted that Netanyahu wants Trump to win. Trump is guilty of fraud, sexual assault, illegal business practices, defamation, bilking university students, etc etc. Russia and America’s enemies want you to believe that Biden has dementia, and that he is a genius mastermind behind widespread indictments and convictions, even at the state level. Listen to Trump unedited for 5 minutes and tell me he is fit for office. Your fake news about what the vote is about is wholly false.
America’s moribund, Hon. No nation full of idiots, no Trump. Protect yourself, and get ready to watch things unravel.
G2S, you made my day. I thought I was alone.
Today is a day when we all need to think very hard about what Got2surf has to say. He’s dead on.
Biden can have dementia AND have handlers calling the shots. You think POTUS is there drawing up the battle plans for Ukraine or telling Bibi what to do next or how to sanction China? Guy’s brain freezes when too many people shout a question at him in a press conference. It’s mush.
Trump’s mental troubles are at least funny. Biden is just sad now. Let the guy sundown in peace.
One word: Lawfare.
Another word: Mistrial.
Other words:
Espionage
Obstruction of Justice
Sexual Assault
Insurrection
Tax Fraud
Interfering with an Election
Trump is an obvious and unrepentant criminal: a one-man crime wave.
And if a Democrat had done those things, you’d be foaming at the mouth to lynch him now, no need for a trial, because the hypocrisy of the Right knows no bounds.
“You can fight evil, but you can’t fight stupid”
Many of our fellow humans will still vote for Trump
No vote IS (can be) a vote against the system.
With the electoral college that is very seldom true.
What are you talking about? Lots of people don’t vote and don’t give a shit about the system.
Hi Klieber,
I agree that it’s going to be the fence sitters, the people in battle ground states, who determine who wins the White House… as well as a number of seats in the House and Senate…… plus more at the state and local level too.
But I’ve been paying a LOT of attention to Biden, and to trump as well, for a long time now.
Biden is old, but he’s not senile by any means.I’m old myself, and I’ve been living with and caring for even older people for a long time now. I have medical people in my family who although they are conservatives , are quite clear about their opinions regarding Biden. He’s NOT senile. He WILL listen to professional level advice…. such as Presidents get from medical professionals, professional law enforcement, etc.
I’m sorry if you take this the wrong way, from your personal pov, but if you really believe that Biden is even REMOTELY comparable to trump in ANY respect, you’ve been had by one branch of the right wing propaganda machine……
Because the people running it know trump supporters are stupid as shit and will vote for him in any case…… but that middle of the road people who fall for the BIden’s an idiot argument will as likely as not just stay home and not vote at all.
This could mean a state goes to trump that would have other wise gone to Biden.
I repeat that I’ve been in INTIMATE contact with a LOT of elderly people, including some in my own family with various dementia’s … and Alzheimer’s as well….. which technically is just one MORE dementia… although it’s often discussed separately.
It’s not at all hard to know the difference.
It’s easy as pie, as easily as saying a house is on fire when smoke and flames are rolling out the windows, it trump’s case.
Trump has something VERY seriously wrong with him. Anybody with two working brain cells to rub together absolutely HAS to agree on this point, if they’ve been actually WATCHING and LISTENING to him. I’m not saying it’s dementia….. but dementia could very well be a component part of his overall mental condition.
I can’t get it across to hardly anybody at all, among the every day people I know in my area, because there’s no cure for stupidity or ignorance, so most of them will be voting for trump, if they vote at all.
If he wins, and has control of Congress, this country, as we know it, will be history by the time he’s out of office again.
Take it from those who knew and work for him-
“Former White House chief of staff, retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, has told friends that President Donald Trump “is the most flawed person” he’s ever known”.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/16/politics/donald-trump-criticism-from-former-administration-officials/index.html
Why didn’t he take the dementia test then?
He did. He remembered five words: Person, man, woman, camera, TV.
He thought that meant he was a genius. And because he thought that, it really meant he was an idiot.
Many think Biden and Trump are distractions somewhat because it’s the deep state that appears to be more what is running things, and what might be scared of the prospect of Trump returning, or RFK Jr. as an upset win.
Also, when do politicians who say one thing (before the election) actually do it after the election if they get elected?
Not sure how many people want all these wars and money for them under Biden when it could be put to better use at home, such as WRT national security, like at the borders, and homelessness and infrastructure maintenance.
The Democrats were ready and willing to pass H.R.2 – Secure the Border Act of 2023, but it was scuttled by Trump.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/118th-congress/house-bill/2/text
https://jabberwocking.com/why-did-republicans-vote-down-the-immigration-reform-bill/
Biden successfully worked across the aisle to pass the $1.2 trillion Bipartisan Infrastructure Law.
Biden successfully passed the Chips Act which aims to:
“Reduce U.S. reliance on foreign sources, especially Taiwan and China, for advanced chips critical to national security and economic competitiveness.”
Biden successfully passed the The Inflation Reduction Act, which is the most significant climate bill the US has ever passed, and promotes US produced renewable energy projects. .
We don’t even get to pick a candidate who meets all of our personal check boxes, as if something like that is even possible.
We get the chance the pick the one who is simply better than the other.
I rank Biden high in many ways since I first became aware him when he was a young man.
I wouldn’t choose Trump to even be a grade school principle…character unsuited to hold any public position. And goals always are oriented to serve himself above all and everything else.
Not sure we’d get any wars with Trump. That’s on most people’s checkboxes I would think. Many don’t believe Trump was treated fairly now, before his term, or during it. Witch hunts as he and others have called some of them. Also, on the odd occasion when I hear Trump speak, how he does so and how he comes across is generally at odds with how some of the legacy media portray him and maybe as a result, how some of their viewers view him. Everyone knows Trump’s (and others’) feelings about the legacy media too, so what do you think they’re going to do? Make an example of him. Lawfare only seems to be helping Trump in the polls. Trump seemed to hit it off well with Macron, Putin, Xi and Kim Jong Un for examples. Trump’s a business man first, not a politician, and I think that might be a big advantage in many ways over a career politician. He might be called bombastic and so on, but if you look closely at how he is with people, and look through the media frame there seems to be a fundamental respect and humility there. To say nothing of the possible parenting differences between Biden and Trump. Given Biden’s propensity for girl hair-sniffing or the diary’s inappropriate showers and so on, it’s odd that a school principle scenario would be brought up, except maybe as some odd Freudian slip or preemption.
Young Donald Trump predicts Joe Biden in 1980 interview
Gary your parroting of mainstream media talking points (along with Ms Kleiber) reveal much more about you than any truth or issue. Can’t you see when you spout inaccurate conspiracy theories that you reveal yourself for an uneducated consumer of huge bundles of fake news?
Here’s a step towards media literacy: Have you ever, just once even, asked what the agenda is of the people supplying the information you consume? Have they gone through all that effort simply to inform you of what is true?
It’s not a pretty look, just sayin’.
Well I’ve listened to Trump, like in interviews, and he seems rather down to earth and just doesn’t seem to fit some of the media’s portrayals of him. At the same time, I’ve also heard some of the questions the media have asked of him before and it seems he had a point to have been indignant, angry or insulted by them.
I have an alternate response saved, but decided against using it.
Well I’ve listened to Trump, like in interviews, and he seems rather down to earth and just doesn’t seem to fit some of the media’s portrayals of him.
Listen to some of his recent speeches, and you’ll hear someone deep in dementia.
As in 2020 when the election approached, I’m seeing a lot of popup “Trump shops” going into vacant retail space in MAGA friendly areas of Midwestern swing states again this year, selling nothing but Trump paraphernalia like hats, flags, t-shirts, bumper stickers, cardboard cutouts, etc. I don’t think they can sell the bibles because they aren’t associated with the official Trump store selling those. Anyway, still seems to be a healthy market for the goods. Lots of homes and businesses still displaying the Trump flags or the GOD, GUNS & TRUMP signs. Google “Trump shop near me” and you may be surprised with the number of such stores out there.
Hmmm I wonder if Trump is getting a cut. He’s demanding 5% of the campaign donations to any politicians using his name, so I guess so.
I’ve been reminded just how poorly humanity does at identifying facts and falsehoods. Look no further than religious teachings to understand this. We are trained from the start to be poor at this.
And now we have a massive data barrage of poorly based or false stories.
Too many politicians/policy makers are subpar at sorting out good data and good advisors, from bad.
It feels to me that we are drifting to disorder. Not just a reshuffling of the cards, but also a destruction of some important cards…such an effective legal process and judicial branch just to name one small facet.
All of the pending charges against trump in state and federal cases should have been complete 2 years ago, one outcome or another, for example.
A reasonable immigration policy should have been hammered out 30 years ago.
The example list of dysfunction is long.
I have very low expectations for stability or constructive changes.
First step is realizing there is a problem before any steps might be taken to correct the problem.
For those that don’t like to listen to information on a broadcast, a transcript of the On Point broadcast is below
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/06/05/democracy-election-denial-trump-2024-congress
An excerpt:
CHAKRABARTI: That’s Jocelyn Benson, Michigan’s Secretary of State. Ruth Ben-Ghiat, in all we’ve just heard, if you removed the words United States, what country and what year do you think, could you imagine we’d be talking about?
BEN-GHIAT: It could be any authoritarian regime, but fascism started this way at the local level and the police didn’t respond. I want to say that Jocelyn Benson is a democratic hero. So is Secretary Aguilar. They’re trying to do their jobs in an atmosphere of enormous threat. And ultimately, Donald Trump has been working since 2015 to change the perception of violence among his followers.
That’s what fascists did. That’s what you have to do to install autocracy. You have to present violence as something patriotic, necessary to save the nation and save the beloved leader. And that connects to him calling himself a political prisoner, but also the January 6th thugs who have been sentenced as political prisoners.
And ultimately, violence becomes the way you move history forward. Not elections. It becomes a way of doing politics. And Matt Gaetz, the MAGA loyalist from Florida, he showed up at the Iowa state fair in August 2023 at a Trump campaign rally. And he said, only force can bring change to a corrupt town like Washington, D.C.
And he sounded just like Mussolini in 1923.
Also this essay by Ruth Ben-Ghiat is interesting
https://lucid.substack.com/p/violence-is-trumps-brand-60e
‘Deflated buffoon’
https://www.rawstory.com/trump-convicted-felon-2668469898/
Lets not put down buffoons by comparing them to Trump
Wikipedia:
According to a study by researchers from the University of Liverpool and University of Dundee, published in the journal Discourse & Society, the headline in another 2020 article in Raw Story engaged in the fallacy of ambiguity by using “the phrasal verb ‘cashing in on’” to create the appearance of impropriety in reporting on a business owned by Jared Kushner when, according to Snopes, there was “no evidence that the startup is linked to any public damage”. According to the researchers, this use of “polysemous terms in news titles … [is] potentially misleading for the majority of readers who are used to getting their daily news feed scrolling through news titles”.
Lazard’s Levelized Cost of Energy updated.
https://www.lazard.com/media/xemfey0k/lazards-lcoeplus-june-2024-_vf.pdf
Thanks! I’ve been looking out for this.
Hey Dennis,
You’ve posted some good graphs on forecast per-capita oil use, along with your source for the population trends (Lutz).
Tom Murphy does some excellent work quantifying and bounding a number of topics related to energy, growth and options. He has a new post up in which he critiques UN population assumptions and shows how the rest of this century might unfold. Spoiler : an earlier peak and faster drop doesn’t look unreasonable.
I think it was OFM that was asking if/when there will be a widespread realization of the types of resource constraints we’re headed towards. I suspect the per capita availability will be a big factor. If so, the potential for an earlier population peak and subsequent decline should be a real consideration.
https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2024/06/peak-population-projections/
Murphy’s results are consistent with the latest updates to Limits to Growth BAU model run.
Peaking population before 2050, 2040ish. Our current trajectory of moving to “renewable” energy, but not embracing the suite of policy changes necessary for sustainability, could move us more towards the LtG BAU2 World3 model run. This would allow the peak population to move a little higher, peak a little later and crash faster. Same result. Hard to find holes in Tom Murphy’s work.
World population has more than tripled, from when I was born.
T Hill,
I think the Lutz/Samir scenarios (SSP1) seem reasonable, we need to ditch neoliberal ideology and move to reduce poverty, reduce inequity, empower women, transform agriculture, and transition to non-fossil fuel energy.
See recent reports (2022) from Club of Rome
https://www.clubofrome.org/publications/?filter=reports-to-cor
Dennis could you point to which exact reports you envisage a solution, ones that we can read without having to pay for. What I’ve from those various reports is a whole lot of bullshit wish lists of what we should do, but nothing about How any of it could be implemented in the real world and always assuming that as X, Y, Z are being dismantled everything else just happens normally, in other words no consideration of systems thinking that changing A will lead to consequences in B, C, and D….
Which specific ones and I’ll go read them (if I haven’t already)…
Hideaway,
See the following comment for something specific (second link in that comment).
https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-june-5-2024/#comment-776547
Other free stuff at
https://www.clubofrome.org/publications/?filter=cor-reports
and
https://earth4all.life/the-science/
The status quo is not a viable option we need some creative thinking.
Dennis, I’ve gone and read a few of the documents from that general link from club of Rome, I was wondering which ones in particular.
I’m also halfway through reading the Earth4all technical notes, and my first impression is that they make the same mistake as just about every economic modelling I’ve ever seen. (The Main Causal Model on pg 12). Their initial main model has no resources in it at all. They must be considered everywhere and abundant.
It does have energy and food, which is interesting if they leave out all other resources.
It looks like a standard economic model that has greenhouse gases and wellbeing tacked on at the sides…
There is a mistake in the LTG model from 50 years ago, and replicated in this model. That being; They have left out how gaining whatever resource necessary can only come at an increasing cost of energy use over time. It’s because humans, like every species will use the easiest and closest resources first, then start gathering from further afield and lower grade when initial resources are diminished.
To maintain a constant flow of metals will require an exponential rise in energy use in the future.
This little reality alone blows their entire concept out of the water, let alone other mistakes they make which compound the errors.
They also make gross statistical errors, which they compound. Taking their ‘World Guides’ section they have 10 regions for the world, which they discuss in per capita terms, yet weight each region equally when there are vast differences in population.
The weighting should be proportional to the population, if you want to make conclusions on a per capita basis of the directions!! It would fail 101 statistics every day of the week!!
What’s even worse is they don’t use what their faulty statistics actually show!! They pretend the graphs show something different!! On pg 20 the energy use per person, clearly shows every area has growing energy use as GDP/p grows, even above $40k, then claims that energy use ‘stagnates’ once income goes above $40k/yr in the lower population rich countries.
This despite the graph showing that it still is RISING in those areas. However they ignore the exponential growth in the ‘China’ region at the same time, because so much energy use from the richer, lower population areas has been outsourced to the China region…
It’s a classic case of GIGO in their model, by ignoring the reality of what’s reduced some of the gain of energy use in western countries. Of course there is complete silence about the exponential rise of energy use in the China region, which doesn’t exist anywhere else in the graph. Then make the stupid assumption that the whole world will have an energy based smooth curve in the opposite direction of the China region, with zero explanation. Then they base all their future assumptions on this totally flawed reading of the actual presented statistics!!
Even the South Asia graph looks to be the early stages of exponential rise, yet this is also ignored.
Do they have any explanation of why the earlier developed areas had a linear rise in the graph compared to China’s and probably S Asia’s exponential rises, Nope. However the answer would be along the lines of huge efficiency gains in the west that are already incorporated into the developing world and are no longer there to be gained, once their income started to rise, plus of course the outsourcing of heavy energy use industries.
Dennis, your a smart person with numbers and graphs, so how did you fall for this rubbish?? Was it a case of you wanted to believe their outcomes so didn’t pay attention to the details they based everything upon, or something else??
2 Thess 2:11
That is why God lets a deceptive influence mislead them so that they may come to believe the lie,
Hideaway
No level of logic can break what they want to believe. Everything you point out clearly shows their narrative is faulty but it simply is dismissed because it doesn’t support their narrative.
Hideaway,
At the World level resources seem to be adequate and technology in all forms (not simply making larger dump trucks) along with substitution (aluminum and fiber optic cable for copper for example), there are many resources whuch are plentiful (iron, and sand for example), they focused on the resources which are more scarce such as energy and food, as well as land and water. I have not looked into the details of how they aggregate things, my guess is that the present the data in per capita terms and when they aggreagate at the World level multiply each region’s data by population and then add them up. I don’t have access to their data, but this is pretty basic stuff. For you to assume they do not do it correctly seems a poor assumption in my view.
Also note that energy use per unit of real GDP at the World level has been decreasing, your thesis suggests the opposite should be occurring.
Uhh, Dennis?
https://theweek.com/news/science-health/960931/why-is-the-world-running-out-of-sand
Dennis …”For you to assume they do not do it correctly seems a poor assumption in my view.”
Why don’t you go and look at that information presented again, then come back before assuming I made a mistake and not them? It clearly states per capita, without any reservation.
Dennis the only way they can draw the larger curves, which is the basis they go off, is treating each region equally, so the USA region with ~360m if counting Canada, equals China region, more than ~1.4B if counting other countries in the ‘region’ bit.
Population wise, that’s a 5:1 ratio, yet they count ‘equally’ in their per capita calculations presented, without allowing for this population difference.
If they reweighted according to actual population, the exponential rise in China region energy use per capita would overwhelm the stats of the smaller in population regions.
They didn’t even draw the curves according to what their data showed, despite the discrepancy above. There would be huge error margins in drawing their ‘average’ curves, based on the individual regions curves, which often don’t look anything like the actual curves of different regions, then treat their average curves as the facts.
They tortured the data, then misrepresented the data to say what they wanted to believe, which has nothing to do with the actual data they present!!
Hideaway,
Just because the regions are presented on a per capita basis does not mean the World charts are not aggregated appropriately, you assume they are not, I think you are wrong.
Dennis, they presented curves as their evidence. The conclusions they have drawn from their own graphs is totally wrong.
What the graphs actually show and what we know from the real world is that a smaller population can level off their energy use as income rises, while offshoring the heavy energy use to high population regions (cheap labor), that seem to accelerate energy use as income rises.
It doesn’t matter how wrong they are, you want to believe what they are saying, even if their evidence doesn’t support their arguments.
It’s why I keep coming back to what’s happening with the new Adaro smelters in Indonesia as an example. We get cheap aluminium for EV panels and solar panel frames by ripping up more rainforest in Indonesia, for a new coal mine to power the cheap smelter, using cheap local labor, instead of building them in say the desert of Australia using much more expensive solar power and batteries, while pretending the world can go ‘green’ using ‘renewables’ in wealthy countries to save a bit of coal use…
The people of Indonesia, have higher incomes, the energy use per capita goes up, while in the west where the Aluminium is used we are ‘better off’, because of the cheap Aluminium in our EV panels and solar panel frames, reduces our overall costs.
If we had to build the solar panels and EVs and all their parts from raw materials in the west, from local sources, using local labor and local energy (solar and wind), they would no longer be cheap, which would restrict production (reduced demand), meaning less energy for the population and a spiral downward.. Likewise for the rest of the world if they ever ‘caught up’ in energy and incomes.
Equity for everyone is a great concept, except it’s not possible with 8, 7 or 6 Billion people. We are in deep overshoot and slight population changes between now and the end of the century make no difference.
If the world only had 1 billion people in total, all with a bit of equality of lifestyles similar to the west of today, then we wouldn’t be getting cheap solar, wind, EVs, inverters, wiring, piping, etc. We wouldn’t have the ‘cheap’ labor to make any of it.
Fossil fuel use might be a bit lower than today, but it would only buy modern civilization a bit of time. Once fossil fuels and resources get into low states of energy returns, it still couldn’t continue, with inequality in the 1 billion growing until the system breaks (as in collapses).
Collapse of civilization as we know it is probably a feature of civilization, as it has happened to every single one before ours. People just can’t see it, as huge rapid change and unavailability of everything is so far out of their experiences, so denying it’s possible with the current one, seems like a happy, comfortable place to be. Even though it defies reality.
.
I mean, good luck on trying to upend that ideology. This is why BRICS is basically around, because maybe it will make a difference in some manner to the economic fundamentalists in the West.
But I won’t hold my breath. Also, the planet is dying, so it’s likely we rid the shackles of late stage capitalism and then fall into Mad Max world instead anyway.
The Climate Denial Machine: How the Fossil Fuel Industry Blocks Climate Action. I have identified several folks in this forum that are either victims of this misinformation scheme or active (paid?) participants in it.
IslandBoy, finger pointing, that helps…
I agree that climate change is a huge problem, and burning more fossil fuels is not helping. We’ve added many thousands of Twh’s worth of energy burning in the last 20 years. Perhaps we should stop making all the new things we are making from this burning.
Perhaps there should just be a blanket 10% reduction every year and let the competitive market sort out what the 90% gets spent on next year, then another 10% cut the year after, world wide no exceptions… how long before we collapse the whole system doing this?? one or 2 months?
we have an entire system that is rapidly heading for collapse when it can’t maintain growth in energy use, from ALL sources. There is no replacement, nor has there every been any type of energy production replacing prior ones. We add them on top of each other, we burn more biomass now than 200 years ago, we burn more coal than we did 120 years ago, despite oil replacing a lot of coal uses. We started using gas to replace oil uses, like the old oil heaters in houses, but did it cut overall oil use? No, we are still near record levels of all fossil fuels!!
We build new coal power stations in China, India and Indonesia, to make products so we can reduce a bit off coal use in the west, but overall fossil fuel use is still going up..
Growth in fossil fuel use has slowed.
Hideaway,
Often when our energy reality is seriously examined, as Tom Murphy, Canton, Donella Meadows, and many, many others have done, their conclusion is that we are in Overshoot. In attempting to present this simple fact to others they experience some real cognitive dissonance in their audience. To avoid the painful process of objectively examining our collective dilemma, people often begin to attempt to marginalize the messenger with labels. We are told that we are really fossil fuel advocates, or we are using right wing talking points, we have “given up”, our analysis is flawed, technical and social policy solutions are available (not in place mind you), etc, etc.
In reality they are Overshoot Deniers, searching desperately for a solution to keep our comfortable way of life moving forward. You understand that the solution is LESS. Less energy use, material consumption, population, environmental destruction. As in starting NOW. That is the process that corrects overshoot, to delay it will only cause a steeper and more painful fall later.
You also understand that the set of policies that would have to be put in place today to correct Overshoot are politically and socially unacceptable. No one would ever get elected to enact those policies if they spoke the truth about our situation. The majority don’t understand it, don’t believe it, don’t want to understand and believe it, don’t have the background to understand it or believe that the green miracle or drill baby drill will solve the problem.
The deniers will debate endlessly at the micro economic level, about solar PV, EV’s vs ICE, etc, etc, while comfortable ignoring the scale of the dilemma. It is not a question of whether Solar is better than X or Y. It is a matter of scale. We are too little too late, and unable to tap the brakes on growth. The Hirsch Report made that clear years ago. The socioeconomic and political structures of our institutions and systems have us locked into this dilemma. They are hardwired into short term problem solving and perpetual growth.
Hell if we had a stable global population of a billion humans, we could likely use fossil fuels for several millenniums, not to say there would not be issues or that it would be good for the biosphere, but it wouldn’t be a show stopper climate wise or depletion wise, we would not be in Overshoot.
We will put in place a lot of solar, wind, battery storage, light EV’s in the next 10 to 15 years. It will be done at enormous cost environmentally and economically. At that point (or sooner) fossil fuels will begin their relentless decline. Declining Net Energy and Total Energy will effect food production and industrial production and negative feedbacks will accelerate the decline. Population will begin to decline for demographic reasons as well as declines in health services and declining food production. The decline will be very uneven regionally, some places will fair better than others.
We have been on this path since LTG was first released 50 years ago and we have not stepped off of it. The policy changes recommended have not been successfully integrated nor are they likely to be given the social understanding of our dilemma.
The messengers have all been Shot at. Believing this narrative is not “giving up”. Adaptation is not giving up, it is what humans do very well. It is simply our future. Early adapters may be more successful. Success, however, will be defined differently in the future.
For a long time the truth of our collective Overshoot was painful and depressing to acknowledge for me. Finally i have begun to accept it, and i have begun to simply adapt by simplifying my life, living closer to the Earth, expanding my garden and orchard, reducing my fossil fuel use and trying to become the change I wish to see. This has brought me peace with our dilemma.
I wish the same for you.
There will be some on this board that will start shooting now, I understand it for what it is.
Tom,
One of the original authors of Limits to Growth is Jorgen Randers, he has co-authored a book with other members of the Club of Rome.
https://www.clubofrome.org/publication/earth4all-book/
Yes we are in overshoot, the question is what to do now, the book has some suggestions.
A summary of the model in paper linked below
https://eartharxiv.org/repository/view/5111/
Thanks Dennis.
I have read it. Have read quite a bit of Jordan Randers work. Earth 4 All is a ray of optimism and hope. Some of the policies have been embraced in some regions, but I am skeptical about our ability to get on the proposed track. For many it is pretty radical thinking, but it is the type of change that would be required.
I have been drawn more to the low tech solutions at the grassroots level and investing myself in that direction.
I appreciate your willingness to take the time to point me in that direction, you obviously are a caring person and give a lot to this board beyond the huge task of sharing your models, data and thinking.
I have said what I feel I needed to say on the subject of collapse, felt it needed some air time to balance a little bit of the hand waving I see sometimes about the Green Miracle. I have participated in installing solar PV and batteries at my home, using ultralight electric vehicles so it would be somewhat hypocritical to continue to rail against it, but I have come to embrace conservation and low tech solutions more. I understand that we will be very happy to have as much solar and wind as possible one day, but also acknowledge the environmental cost of doing so.
i
Tom,
I agree there is an environmental cost to a BAU scenario and that wind, solar, EVs, etc will not solve all problems, there is much more that needs to be done.
The low tech option seems even less likely to solve the problem in my view, than the proposed solution by Randers et al. Though moving in that direction (towards less technology) as World population peaks and declines would likely make society more resiliant.
Personally I don’t see these as mutually exclusive policies, they could be complementary.
Consider the World with 8 billion people and low technology, perhaps where we were 1000 years ago in terms of technology. I cannot imagine the World would be in better shape environmentally.
I may not understand what you mean by low tech.
Pardon butting in, but I’ll give a few simple examples of low tech applications to life that we should lean toward as much as possible-
insulation, bicycles, unprocessed foods, and of course… banjos.
Hickory,
I agree those are all good ideas, realized later Tom gave some of the low tech ideas, all of which are good. I think all of these are part of the solution. Perhaps things cannot change, it seems there are examples from the past (US and UK tax policy from 1945 to 1970) and present (Scandinavian nations) of social policy that we could move towards and a dumping of neoliberal orthodoxy at the IMF and World Bank to enable better policy to reduce poverty. There are excellent policy options that could mitigate some of the problems of overshoot (including the ideas that you and Tom have mentioned.)
Tom,
As far as radical ideas, democracy was considered a radical idea in 1750, social change can happen, but I tend to agree that it seems a long shot. Part of the process is putting the ideas up for discussion, the Club of Rome has done this.
Some of the principles are in place in some nations such as in Northern Europe.
Well said Tom.
These things are very difficult for people to acknowledge, since there is no solution that does not entail contraction. The collective, no matter in which economic or political system, will remove any leadership that does not fight contraction.
I do not have hope for a good solution…good being a gradual, deliberate and compassionately managed contraction.
From a pragmatic perspective I fully expect humanity to attempt all aspects of adaptation to the situation, even if we tend to react very late and in dysfunctional manners (warfare for example).
We will explore chaos, and surveillance state authoritarianism.
Us older guys (over 50) are going to have to yield to much younger people, one way or another.
“There will be some on this board that will start shooting now”
I have been reading comments here for to long to believe your denial strawman claim here at POB. I’m pretty sure the regulars here understand overshoot and have moved on to dealing with it without putting their head in the sand.
OFM- “Giving up is not an option.”
BTW, chaos is a right wing talking point and is used for politcal means. example-
Fascist Trump- “I Alone Can Fix It” Trump is chaos, promotes it and campaigns on it. Yet, he hasn’t fixed anything including the border. Collapse is chaos.
I see chaos around me in the form of an information tsunami, and much of it is toxic and/or completely irrelevant. The fragile minds of humanity are swamped with sewage information, flashing lights, and eye candy.
Its not new, but the volume is many magnitudes greater.
I don’t see how to put the genie back in the bottle.
Good luck with it all folks.
HB,
I am not a Trump supporter, quite the opposite. I am nor affiliated with either the Republican or Democratic parties, but am registered independent, and am dissatisfied with the state of the political situation here in the US, but that is another discussion.
Chaos can be a right wing talking point, however, in the context in which I present it, it is not. I simple believe that collapse is one of the probable paths that we may likely take and there is some very good science that suggests that this probability is quite a bit larger than zero. To label my post as putting my head in the sand or giving up is childish.
To admit that collapse is one of the probable outcomes of our overshoot invites discussion. What technologies should society try to triage? What are low tech solutions to some of our problems? How about more focus on conservation?
You seem to have a paranoia about the issue of collapse. Further I see a lot of posts on this board which continue to sell the green miracle of technological solutions that are continuing to promote growth, consumption, environmental decay and that is why I give the probability of collapse some air time.
As far as giving up, I am not “giving up” by admitting that we have created a scenario where collapse is one of the probable outcomes. I am actively engaged in organic agriculture, ultralight electric vehicle use, solar PV, heating with biomass, permaculture on my property, ultra efficient home design, foraging, food preservation techniques, and the list goes on. I am particularly drawn to low tech solutions.
You can return to your dream state, sorry for disturbing you with thoughts of chaos. Since you are a long time members of this board and have accepted the possibility of collapse as you say, how are you dealing with it?
Tom, I’m not concerned about resource collapse in my life time and not the one who brings up the subject three times a day. Conservation has to be the base of any fossil fuel replacement system. We fly at 600 mph and drive at 70 mph because we can, not because we need too. A world without enormous amounts of fossil fuel doesn’t have to mean collapse but could mean a better quality of life. Economics teaches us we will find substitutes. I’m much more worried about freedom, democracy, equality, imprisonment camps, forced labor, dictatorships and the environment. Our educational system is key to our survival and growth.
Solar Passes 100% of Power Demand in California! First they said more than 5% renewables would destabilize the grid, then 10%, then 20, then 50%, then 80%. Now what? This is not the island of Barbuda in the Caribbean, this is the fifth largest economy in the world!
The regulars here who insist renewable energy is a waste of resources are constantly telling us it won’t work because it doesn’t work perfectly, lol.
They’re not giving much if any consideration at all to the obvious fact that technical progress is a real thing, that economies of scale are a real thing, that we can change the way we do things in order to get satisfactory results using less material resources. It’s rather likely that within three or four years a couple of new battery technologies will be scaling up. They may or may not be more powerful, but they’ll work ok, and they’ll be made of readily available and cheaper materials.
They blither on about the rare earth mining issue, while ignoring strip mining for coal and common metal ores, etc. They never have anything to say about the environmental cost of drilling for oil and gas.
They talk about electric cars and trucks as if they will always be substantially more expensive than a conventional vehicle.
They seem to believe as a matter of revealed truth that there will never be enough charging stations.
They believe wind turbine blades and electric car batteries cannot be recycled.
I could go on all day.
They seem to be incapable of understanding that while industrial civilization, as we know it, at this time, is capable of discovering and implementing new ways of getting things done…… and that the job doesn’t have to be finished immediately.
After all, Rome wasn’t built in a day.
Countries with the power to do so will trade for or simply seize what they want in the way of rare earth metals, etc, from weaker countries.
And once the chips are really and truly all on the table, we can manage on a third or less of our current energy per day per person. . We aren’t going to go bankrupt if we have to buy cars that will only go a hundred miles or so on a charge.
Giving up is not an option.
OFM please enlighten us how we can turn wind turbine blades back into wind turbine blades through recycling, and show what’s needed to do this in terms of energy, chemicals and equipment. Thanks…
They don’t HAVE to be turned back into new wind turbine blades.
We don’t HAVE to solve every problem to suit a nutcase environmentalist in every respect right away. We can do what we CAN, for now, so long as it’s an improvement over what we’re already doing.
Turbine blades can be cut into pieces, hauled to a recycling center, and ground up. Some of the materials can be salvaged for immediate reuse, such as any aluminum or steel in them.
The rest of it can be ground up and used to mix into concrete, or with gravel and used to make a new roadbed under pavement. If necessary, the remains can be landfilled. Hint…. coal ash piles, on a per kilowatt hour basis, are MUCH MUCH bigger.
But those of us who insist it’s a lost cause never seem to have anything to say about the environmental costs of coal mining….. never mind the costs of actually BURNING it.
And while it’s too expensive and trouble some to recycle the resins and fiber glass for now, it’s very likely going to be possible later, as the volume increases….. considering that the manufacturers will be coming up with materials that ARE more easily recycled.
But my at this minute MAIN point is that there isn’t going to be any gigantic land fill every couple of miles full of turbine blades. That’s pure and simple right wing/ fossil fuel bullshit propaganda.
There won’t be any shortage of materials needed to make new blades for a very long time to come, and the amount of electricity generated by a turbine is greater by a factor of ten or more, compared to the energy that goes into making blades…… plus right now half or more of that energy is being pissed away lighting up skyscrapers at night or hauling beer five hundred miles from brewery to retail store, etc.
We may have to pay a wind tax someday…. but we aren’t about to run out of wind.
How much do YOU thing natural gas will cost ten or twenty years down the road? How much will a barrel of oil cost?
Sure coal is cheap……. if you happen to be located in the right place. If you’re depending on buying it across blue water, you’ll be doing without sooner or later…. because the colliers won’t be leaving port without navy escorts.
OFM …. “They believe wind turbine blades and electric car batteries cannot be recycled.
I could go on all day.”
Here is a claim by a wind turbine blade recycler of being part of the circular economy, which even you acknowledge is incorrect.
Downcycling is not proper recycling, but seems to be used by all as if it were just as good, then the usual handwave that ‘new’ as in not yet invented technology, will save us to allow for ‘proper recycling’.
BTW adding plastics to roads just increases the amount of micro plastics spread through the environment, as those roads are used.
In the long term, none of it’s possible, as it’s all based upon fossil fuels, for materials, chemicals and high heat needed for recycling. Apparently all this just appears out of thin air and is something EXTRA modern humans can do with a wave of the hand…
The belief in technology to solve everything is in the same category as religious beliefs that god/gods will save us.
I’ve already stated numerous times that I don’t believe we have much of a future for modernity at all, as once oil production declines really accelerate to the downside, modern civilization is all over because of a multitude of feedback loops that affect every section of the modern world. There is just too many people on the planet and the complexity we have comes from the large population in a relationship with the materials, energy and technology we use.
We lose complexity with population reduction, yet our built world will require a growing quantity of energy to maintain. In thermodynamic terms it’s impossible in the long term.
Of course there are huge costs environmentally in continuing to mine, transport and burn fossil fuels, there always has been and always will be, I’ve never denied any of that at all. Plus because of depletion it can’t continue for much longer, again because of feedback loops that technology allows us to make such huge quantities available. Once modernity collapses so will our ability to gain access to the remote and deep quantities of fossil fuels. The feedback loops that allowed us to grow will work in reverse on the rapid downslope.
For example when xanthates are no longer able to be manufactured, because the supply of pure carbon (from coal or gas) and sulphur (also from oil and gas production), ceases, then the type of mining, using floatation ceases, as xanthates are the main chemicals used in the process. No chemicals to make metals float, and no new base metals.. One simple feedback loop, never considered by those that think we can ‘muddle’ on without fossil fuels. We now use floatation to gain over 90% of base metals, even though it’s a process we’ve used for only around a century. Before these processes were used the low grade ores were just waste. Now low grade is all we have left..
There are tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of these type of feedback loops, never considered, which is why most people cannot put the big picture together.
BTW I’ve voted green and the left of politics most of my life, which shows how poor your assumptions can be. The real problem is that the left and green parties have been hijacked by commercial interests about the (mythical) green future.
We are fiddling at the edges of the problem, believing that putting a finger in the small hole, in our compartment of the Titanic will stop the leak while the huge 10 foot long 6 foot wide gashes in the 6 compartments next to us flow in massive quantities.
“There are no great limits to growth because there are no limits of human intelligence, imagination, and wonder.”
– Reagan
I had to deal with that idiot as both Governor, and President.
Cancelled a class I was attending, but the UC put me in another.
Could lie like the best of criminals.
Reagan was a dunce and a fabricator.
However the comment was right in that economics is more about information (ideas) than it is about energy. It’s unlikely that Reagan came up with the idea. Most of his quotes are by Peggy Noonan or Pat Buchanan, his speech writers.
Obviously if your paycheck depends on selling energy, you may find that hard to believe.
Digest this, regarding big data and electricity demand
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/artificial-intelligence-doubles-data-center-demand-2030-EPRI/717467/
https://www.utilitydive.com/news/ai-data-center-electricity-demand-advanced-nuclear-investment-Robb/718181/
Here is a company that’s recycling wind turbine blades. I wonder if any of the promoters of circular economy, that this mob claim to be part of, can actually see the weakness in their model…
https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/carbon-rivers-makes-wind-turbine-blade-recycling-and-upcycling-reality-support
“Biden administration signals it will support bipartisan push to sanction ICC”
So, the guy running on “protecting democracy” is teaming up with Republicans (who he is supposedly saving democracy from) to threaten the International Criminal Court.
Ta-dah!
After the war in former Yugoslavia DevGru were deployed to track down accused war criminals and bring them to The Hague to stand trial. They apprehended Radislav Krstić, the Bosnian general who was indicted for his role in the Srebrenica massacre. Now Biden is looking for a bipartisan deal to buck the ICC.
Did anybody notice that?
Hey Survivor. I thought of you recently when I was listening to a podcast interviewing a guy with urban warfare expertise.
Thought you’d find it interesting-
https://www.samharris.org/podcasts/making-sense-episodes/366-urban-warfare-2-0
I hike up the trail near us just about everyday, and sometimes listen to shows when I do.
Cheers Hick. Much appreciated.
Irregular Warfare Podcast by Ben Jebb is also quite good.
Nasty business.
Only the Repugnicans do stupid shit like attack The Hague and Rules Based International Order. Democrats uphold moral decency and the rule of law.
*holds finger to ear*
Hold on, I’m getting some new information…
FAO [Global] Food Price Index slightly up in May…
Mr. Norris,
I just read the “FAO’s Food index revisited”, which is kind of an explanation of how the index is calculated.
https://www.fao.org/docs/worldfoodsituationlibraries/default-document-library/fo-expanded-sf.pdf?sfvrsn=3c4de4a_11
but there is no mention of how currency movements are accounted for, or what the currency is even used to construct the index. Do you have any insight into that aspect of constructing an index that refers to products which are produced and consumed in a variety of countries?
Thanks
Good question
If I may guess, it would be a dollar based food price index. And that would mean that prices would hurt locally many places, but not show up in the index, when the dollar is strong compared to other currencies. It makes sense that the lower FAO index levels of 2023-24 partially have something to do with dollar strength. Lower energy prices (oil/LNG) and fertilzer/pestilence costs are those that would fundamentally shift costs down probably. No clear signs of that downward trajectory as of yet. But food prices are under control in a lot of countries compared to 2022.
Look at the 300% price increase in Egypt for bread and grain and the food inflation the US is exporting globally.
Remember 2011? Wonder what happens when we repeat that again.
I know the US exports food, but could you explain how it also exports food inflation. How does the US cause the cost of grain imported by Egypt to be higher? Regardless of the currency that they pay in, the costs to import depend on many factors including Russian invasion of Ukraine, rainfall in Australia or India or Kazahkstan, labor costs at the dock and on the farm, oil costs at many points along the chain.
I can think of one concrete reason that Europe and the US export food inflation to the rest of the world- it is by consuming biofuels. That production displaces grain and oil seed production from the food supply.
Well said, as usual, Hickory.
The wholesale farm gate or elevator price of grain here in the USA is seldom more than ten percent of the price of bread at the super market.
I don’t know what a ton of imported wheat sells for in Egypt, but I’m cynical enough to guess that whoever controls the distribution thereof is making a KILLING…… one way or another.
But looking at the bigger picture……… world wide grain production is not now and will not likely be keeping up in relation to population ….. painting with a broad brush.
We’re using up fossil water, land is going under pavement or down rivers as mud, or turning to desert. The usual industrial inputs we farm with today are going to be ever more expensive as depletion and hoarding play bigger roles. Diesel fuel, manufactured fertilizers, pesticides, machinery….. inflation affects everything.
A large part of production is goes to producing meat…. from chicken to beef. This pushes prices way up…. for people who just need flour and meal.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/28/investing/fed-interest-rates-dollar-global-consequences/index.html
Not just food. Remember, the USA did this in the ‘70s and gutted the likes of Europe’s industries as consequence of the Volcker shock doctrine and unpegging of the gold standard.
“People who get their news from legacy TV live in a fake alternate reality.
Those so-called “toughest reforms” would have made invasion-level migration permanent.
That diabolical “Border Bill” deserved to die and shame on those who supported it.”
This is copied from a web site that took it directly from Elon Musk’s own personal X account… it’s a direct quote.
Back when everybody was talking about him being an idiot for being willing to lose so much money buying Twitter…….. I was one of the few that pointed out that the money, given that he has so much, means nothing much to him at a personal level…… IF he’s getting something he WANTS for it…. something potentially worth FAR MORE to him than the money itself.
I suggested then that it was POWER he wanted, and that it was POWER he was buying.
It’s clear to me that he’s pretty much a trump type right winger in political terms, although he does radically oppose the right wing trump/ fossil fuel camp in respect to electric vehicles.
He’s not going to anything like as powerful as the Murdoch outfit that owns Faux News, but he’s one more multi billionaire who is likely going to have a huge influence on control of state and federal government offices.
From here on out, I’m going to be pointing out who he is, in political terms, anytime I mention him or Tesla.
https://www.iflscience.com/the-largest-solar-power-plant-in-the-world-just-got-switched-on-74560
We have regulars who are constantly pointing out that we’re using more fossil fuels, more wood, etc, than ever before.
But what they’re NOT pointing out is that every year we’re increasing production of wind and solar power at a FAR FASTER RATE. The percentage of total power produced by wind and sun is increasing from year to year.
A lot of this link is sort of pink tinted, but it points out some real possibilities.
I don’t know how long we will be able to build new wind and solar farms….. but I’m willing to bet my farm that once it’s obvious to the general public that fossil fuel supplies are going critical, there will be people enough who understand what’s happening to push for and get funding for the emergency construction of wind and solar farms just as we always find money and manpower to build tanks, ships, and planes when war breaks out, or seems to be sure to break out.
The naysayers seem to have a mindset that precludes any sort of organized proactive response at the local to national level to overshoot and or fossil fuel depletion, etc.
A significant portion of the world population will probably perish simply BECAUSE there is no such organized proactive work done in their home country. More, maybe several times more, will die no matter what. We’re deep into overshoot. Nobody with any real understanding of the big picture could possibly believe otherwise.
But nevertheless, there WILL BE quite a bit of organized work done, at the personal, corporate, and government levels. Some of it will very likely, FOR SURE 100 percent, imo, be along the lines of government management of the economy during WWII.
Will it be enough to prevent a crash and burn landing?
It’s impossible to say……. but it will mean we have some additional time to do as much as we can, personally and as communities, to save what we can going forward.
I’m reasonably sure that here in the USA, and in a fair number of other western countries, that the federal level government will be strong enough to maintain civil order as necessary, assisted by state and local level law enforcement of course.
I know a shit load of maga idiots myself. Maybe one out of a hundred of them will actually go out and riot. The other ninety nine will shoot their mouths off, bluster and threaten, but they’ll stay home in just about every single case.
They don’t have the energy, or the money, to leave home to create trouble. They’re mostly close to broke, living from paycheck to paycheck or welfare check to welfare check.
And they’ll be dealing with their own women and children who in more cases than not will be adamant that they STAY home……… the majority of them being men.
It won’t take them more than a few days to rationalize STAYING home because they’re afraid otherwise that libtards or minorities will rampage thru THEIR neighborhood, burning THEIR homes and businesses, etc.
I’ve lived among such people, in intimate contact with them, off and on all my life…. and continuously for the last twenty years or so.
They’re mostly ignorant, and scared, and easily manipulated….. but if you point out to one of the SMARTER ones of them that if they take over, and get what they want…… especially very low taxes…… that Momma or Daddy will be living with them, because the S S checks, etc, won’t be coming . That Medicare knee replacement your older brother is counting on….. forget it.
The first time they hear from friends and acquaintances that their city or county government has failed, and there’s no water to drink or bathe or flush the toilet……. and that they’re THEMSELVES on city water……… a LOT of them will be doing some serious thinking about whether they really want their own state and local government to collapse.
If anybody in particular WANTS to believe that a crash and burn collapse is inevitable, no matter what……. well, maybe that person has simply made up his mind that anybody who believes otherwise is ignorant, or ill informed, or a pink eye glasses optimist, or whatever.
Such a collapse is possible, there’s no question at all about that. Whether it’s INEVITABLE at the global level…… that’s a matter of opinion, based on certain assumptions that might or might not hold true.
And for what it’s worth, it’s worth remembering what one of our greatest fictional leaders has to say about such things.
Paraphrased, Gandalf says that all we can do, is what we can with the time given us…… .
There’s a lot we can do.
Realistically speaking, we can continue to do every thing we can to go renewable …… because this is a politically feasible course of action. Simply talking about any other solution essentially means giving up…. there’s no way IN HELL the general public will ever accept a shrinking life style voluntarily…. but once it’s clear to even a trumpster that the shit REALLY IS well and truly in the fan…. then it’s at least possible that we will collectively be willing to deal with a falling standard of living….. and putting as much sweat into proactive measures to prevent outright collapse as we possibly can.
People have a way of responding to a crisis, under certain conditions, and pulling together in a way that simply seems impossible to people who don’t study history. We did it here in the USA within a couple of days after Pearl Harbor.
With some luck, we could do it again, here in this country, and in many other countries, if the citizenry once comes to understand the stakes …….. living under wartime economic conditions ……… or going to hell with the water, sewer, electricity off, gangs on the street ( on bicycles maybe ) instead of cops, etc.
Rationed basic or staple foods in the stores……. versus no stores.
‘
Absolutely. Solar is already at 0.8%. Wind at 1.2 %. Looking good.
https://www.artberman.com/blog/its-too-late-for-renewables/
He gets some things right. His concluding statement-
“The history of energy transitions shows that no energy source has never before replaced another. If it is happening now, it will be too late to make a difference at the present pace of climate change and ecological collapse. Energy substitution is a doomsday stratagem that condemns civilization to its status quo path of growth & biophysical destruction.”
-Yes, the attempted weaning off fossil energy has begun in earnest about 50 years late. And even now the global attempts are lukewarm.
-At this point we facing a scenario where non-fossil energy deployment will serve only to partially blunt the severe ramifications of vast fossil energy consumption Overshoot (what might have been consumed over a couple thousand years has been consumed in just 100 years).
-His last statement is not one of wisdom, quite the opposite…blaming a path of destruction on attempted energy diversification rather than the primary culprit which is fossil fuel mass over consumption and all of the Overshoot growth it has enabled.
Once again, as OFM has pointed out at every turn, some places will fair better than others. Part of that depends on the ability to live with less fossil fuel.
OFM
Your entire theory is flawed. Money and Political will won’t matter once energy is in decline. WII is a poor example because at the time industrial production was in its infancy and ramping up. Energy was growing at 6% per year. That’s why we were able to pull the system back on to the rails.
We are presently facing an extremely different set of conditions. Resources are diffused and difficult to extract which means more energy intensive at the same time as energy supply can’t grow.
You do understand that coal generation is also increasing particularly in heavy industries in China, India, Indonesia. Which allows us to import their production and believe we’re going green.
The world will someday realize we have a real energy crisis but likely not until the supermarket shelves are empty. Then they’ll blame Trump or Biden or some other group they hate. I wouldn’t bet the farm on sudden cooperation perhaps forced labor but it will be for food power.
If I reach into my wallet a grab a $100 bill and loan it to you. Then a week later you give me $100 back. There is no increase in the money supply.
But when you go to a bank and borrow money to purchase a home or car. They don’t go to their vault and get the money. They create a book entry, a credit. That is how the vast majority of money is created. And they also tack on an interest expense so they can make a profit. The collateral backing the loan is the home or car itself.
It’s no different when a large corporation borrows money to do stock buybacks. They post collateral and the bank creates a credit or money. Stock market doesn’t go up because the FED cut interest rates or does QE. It goes up because people borrow money from banks. There is zero liquidity that leaves the FED and finds its way into stocks, real estate, or the economy. Commercial banks that the FED buys treasury debt and MBS’s from have already purchased those securities. There is no increase in the money supply when the FED does QE. There is no decrease in the money supply when the FED does QT.
There is a lot of talk of central banks and CBDC’s.
But CBDC’s don’t really change anything. They don’t change how money is created. Just like the commercial banks the central banks won’t be going to their vault to get the money. They just create a bank entry or credit.
Only difference I see beyond the central banks having access to everyone’s purchases is instead of commercial banks being defaulted on it will be the central banks that are defaulted on.
Loans require the use of energy to be repaid. What does the world look like if you are trying to expand credit in an energy contraction? Even a small percentage wise energy contraction will have devastating consequences for the money supply.
I respect and always listen to what you have to say, but are you sure QE does not increase money supply?
This is how I understand QE works:
1) Government spends more than it taxes.
2) Goverment offers treasuries for sale to fund deficit.
3) Commercial banks buy treasuries with intent to resell.
4) There are insufficient buyers for all the treasuries.
5) Fed buys surplus treasuries from commercial banks by creating credit out of thin air.
So yes, QE does result in more money circulating in the economy.
If my understanding is wrong, what is my error?
Think of QE as an asset swap. It doesn’t increase the money supply. The banks already own and paid for the assets.
FED just moves the asset to their balance sheet by swapping bank reserves for the assets. Those bank reserves never leave the banking system and make their way into asset prices like nearly everyone seems to believe.
It’s part of the narrative. FED printer goes burr and everything is fine again. The amount of bank reserves in the system doesn’t really matter. It’s not money in the real economy chasing goods and services.
QT has no effect on stock market prices because they aren’t linked. QT or the reduction of bank reserves doesn’t take liquidity away from stocks.
The asset bubbles we currently have aren’t due to the amount of bank reserves. They are due to credit that was created and extended by commercial banks.
Loans that are actually chasing goods and services and stock prices and real estate prices in the economy.
As long as there is sufficient energy QE looks like it works. Because commercial banks continue making new loans. In an energy crunch or shortage you’ll see that all those banks reserves can’t prop up prices because commercial banks will stop lending.
Thank you.
Let’s assume you are correct. This implies governments can supercharge spending and deficits when SHTF (like covid or WWIII) without the Fed swapping bank reserves for treasuries.
Really?
Nobody completely understands “the economy”. They only pretend they understand it or they understand it only in discrete blocks of their own specializations.
Rob –
You are mixing up deficit spending and QE.
Deficit spending is simply when, as you correctly point out, the government spends more than it collects in taxes. It then sells bonds via an auction process to cover the difference between what it spends and collects.
QE, and to a certain extent open market operations as well, are monetary operations with the intent of alleviating any potential reserve shortage that banks may have in addition to broadly lowering interest rates. Banks need to have a certain amount vault cash on hand along with reserves parked at the Fed.
When the Fed engages in QE it will purchase a relatively large quantity of (generally) government guaranteed fixed income instruments via the Fed’s primary dealers. As an aside, the notion of failed auctions, where the government offers more bonds than the dealers want to buy is actually impossible – in order to be a dealer you agree to purchase such a quantity at any auction that the quantity demanded is be definition more than the quantity offered.
When QE happens, the Fed will pay a little more for bonds than what they are trading at in the market to ensure that they can buy the quantity that they want. When a bank sells to the Fed the reserve balance of that bank at the Fed increases, thus enabling it to make more loans ( in case that bank was reserve constrained, something that almost never happens anymore). The second step is probably more important: the bank will start the purchase bonds from it’s clients such as pension funds and insurance companies. Those clients now own a deposit rather than an interest-bearing asset so they will immediately turn around and buy other interest bearing assets, thereby driving up the price and therefore down the yield. Those lower yields are then stimulative to the overall economy. A side effect is that the net interest that the government pays out goes down because the Fed (effectively an agent of the government, at least when it comes to collecting interest on those bonds that it holds) returns the interest it receives back to the treasury, lowering the actual net interest expense to the tax payer.
HTH
Vince
Prior to 2008 there was something like $80 billion in bank reserves. Banks had no problem whatsoever expanding the money supply.
Now we have over $7 trillion bank reserves. Banks don’t need bank reserves to create new loans and expand the money supply.
Our monetary system isn’t based on bank reserves. Treasuries are way more useful than bank reserves. You can use a treasury as collateral to borrow and finance in the real economy.
Securities lending in itself is poorly understood. And I’m talking about the actual borrowing of securities. A lot of the collateral used to finance is borrowed collateral. Banks and even insurance companies don’t mind lending securities for a profit.
All I’m saying is in an energy crunch the monetary system will break down. And central banks aren’t the center of the monetary system. Their one product which is bank reserves aren’t even the center of the monetary system.
Collateral will be hoarded and loans not made. Dollar shortage. As demand for dollars to repay debt goes through the roof while supply of dollars contracts.
CRE loans are packaged into securities and bought by large pension funds. These securities are also used to finance and make new loans. Pension funds can make money by lending securities. What happens when the value of the securities declines by 30-40%?
If you used CRE securities as collateral for a loan then you have to post more collateral. If you can’t come up with the collateral then you must sell and exit. If you borrowed the collateral there will be collateral damage to the entity who you borrowed the collateral from.
We will see cascading defaults due to collateral chains breaking down.
The problem is that people argue about stuff they should know but don’t because the system is too complex. A too complex system probably inevitably fails in large part because it takes too much energy and effort (like arguing about it) to keep it maintained and no one quite knows how it operates. Climate’s probably simpler. 😉
This was an interesting post from Surplus Energy
Assuming that AI applications depend on human input I decided to get ChatGPT to tell me about the future of renewables. This was the response.
The Paradox of Renewables: A Fossil-Fuel-Dependent Future
The vision of a future powered entirely by renewable energy is often depicted as a world free from the environmental and economic shackles of fossil fuels. Solar panels glistening in the sun, wind turbines gracefully turning on the horizon, and hydroelectric dams silently generating power from flowing rivers create a compelling image of sustainability. However, this vision may not be as straightforward as it seems. The lifecycle of renewable energy infrastructure, from production to disposal, reveals a paradoxical dependence on fossil fuels that could challenge the very essence of a renewable future.
The Lifecycle of Renewables: An Inconvenient Dependency
Renewable energy technologies, while operationally clean, require significant inputs of fossil fuels during their lifecycle. Manufacturing solar panels, wind turbines, and battery storage systems involves energy-intensive processes that currently rely heavily on fossil fuels. For instance, the production of photovoltaic cells necessitates the use of high-purity silicon, which is extracted and processed using electricity and heat predominantly generated from coal and natural gas. Similarly, the construction of wind turbines involves the smelting of steel and the fabrication of composite materials, both of which are energy-intensive and fossil-fuel-dependent processes.
Moreover, the transportation and installation of renewable energy infrastructure require diesel-powered machinery and vehicles. Even the maintenance of these systems, often located in remote areas, relies on the availability of fossil fuels. Thus, the current deployment of renewable energy systems is intricately tied to the availability of dense fossil fuels.
The End of the Line: Disposing and Replacing Renewables
As renewable energy systems reach the end of their operational lifespan, typically 20-30 years for solar panels and wind turbines, the challenge of disposal and replacement looms large. Recycling and safely disposing of the materials used in renewables require sophisticated technologies and significant energy inputs. For example, decommissioning a wind turbine involves dismantling its massive blades, towers, and foundations, a process that is both labor- and energy-intensive.
If society continues to rely on fossil fuels to manage this end-of-life phase, the sustainability of renewables comes into question. The energy required to recycle or dispose of old infrastructure and manufacture new replacements could perpetuate a cycle of fossil fuel dependence. Without substantial advancements in renewable-powered industrial processes, the notion of a completely fossil-fuel-free renewable energy future remains elusive.
The Path Forward: Breaking the Fossil Fuel Cycle
To truly realize a sustainable renewable energy future, a radical transformation of the current energy paradigm is necessary. This involves not only increasing the efficiency and deployment of renewable energy systems but also revolutionizing the way these systems are produced, maintained, and recycled.
One potential pathway is the development and scaling of renewable-powered manufacturing. Innovations in solar-powered silicon refining, hydrogen-based steel production, and electric transportation could significantly reduce the fossil fuel footprint of renewable energy infrastructure. Additionally, advances in recycling technologies could enable the recovery and reuse of materials from old renewables with minimal energy input.
Furthermore, investing in research and development of alternative materials that require less energy to produce and have longer lifespans could mitigate the dependency on fossil fuels. For example, organic photovoltaic cells and biodegradable materials for turbine blades are areas of ongoing research with promising potential.
Conclusion: A Renewable Paradox
The pursuit of a future powered entirely by renewable energy is fraught with complexities that challenge the simplistic narrative of a fossil-fuel-free world. The current dependence of renewable energy infrastructure on fossil fuels for production, transportation, and disposal presents a paradox that must be addressed to achieve true sustainability.
Breaking this cycle requires bold innovation, substantial investment in renewable-powered industrial processes, and a commitment to developing sustainable materials and recycling technologies. Only by confronting and overcoming these challenges can we hope to create a future where renewable energy is truly renewable, independent of the very fossil fuels it seeks to replace.
Reply ↓
I’m highly doubtful we ever achieve that goal of a renewable energy system that is free of fossil fuel input at any meaningful scale in any meaningful time-frame.
For practical purposes, its simply off the table of viable scenarios. I don’t ponder it for a minute.
Vastly more relevant is the attempt to gradually use less and less fossil fuel for the processes of civilization. Stay ahead of the depletion curve, but also of supreme importance is reducing the combustion carbon load pushed into the atmosphere as quick as feasible (until someone comes up with a magical mechanism to sequester vast amounts of combusted carbon without using yet more energy to do so).
I’ll also put up the goal avoiding a rapid collapse. I have a strong preference for gradual downsizing where possible. In a rapid collapse 9-10 billion humans will take down every single last damn tree, and eat every last mammal left in the zoo.
I see the role of non-fossil energy mechanisms as helping to cushion the downside to some degree…more in some places than in others. With that in mind, I advocate for pushing extremely hard for non-fossil development/deployment, in order to get some of the job done. I have no illusion that it will be enough, and certainly it has been no where fast enough. Too many drag-butts.
I have no illusion that nonfossil energy will somehow cure the 10,000 year human propensity to destroy the world around them. And so no I don’t call anything related to human economic activity as ‘green’. Poor labeling.
Hickory,
Well said. I agree.
You mean you are concerned about 8 billion people in a collapsing ecosystem?
Must be a socialist,
(s)
Maybe even a communist…if I could just find some perfectly wise and benevolent leadership somewhere in this universe.
I think industry and the system, itself, though, as currently contrived, is a large part of the problem. So I find it hard to see it as something that’s going to smoothly glide us down to avoid a harder crash.
Tim Garrett on why fossil fuels aren’t going to be replaced by renewables and civilisation’s growth imperative:
https://www.syoutube.com/watch?v=M01Q3ZR-Mzs
Art Berman on how EVs are really just whistling past the graveyard:
https://www.artberman.com/blog/the-u-s-will-lose-the-economic-industrial-war-with-china-on-the-renewable-energy-front/
Tom Waits, a voice for the collapse, “Whistlin’ Past the Graveyard”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAx8Ly4Hp1s
And among the consequences of those things are:
https://essd.copernicus.org/articles/16/2625/2024/essd-16-2625-2024.pdf
And the end of coral, which provides protein for over a quarter of the human population, slows down coastal erosion and are the single biggest carbon dioxide sink:
https://www.ecoshock.org/2024/06/dead-coral-the-metabolism-of-capitalism.html
George, thanks as usual For the great readings. Berman’s piece is especially profound — and scary
Yes. We’re in the pincer’s grip. No doubt at all. 8 Billion people dependent on finite sequestered carbon for their existence, an economic system based on a misunderstanding of how the physical world works, and the pillaging of the biosphere, which is also being destroyed by the results of burning that sequestered carbon.
I live about 75kms west of the Great Barrier Reef, probably the most wondrously magnificent ecosystem that has existed. It has maybe a decade or so before the increasingly frequent bleaching events destroy it completely.
In the geological blink of an eye, industrial civilisation is creating a wasteland of a previously vibrant biosphere. The tragedy of it all is beyond words. I’m 69 now. Some of us saw this coming 50 years ago. I left uni in second year for a life immersed in plants, had no kids to add to the unsustainable population balloon,and am basically just an observer of the unfolding tragedy now.
Impending mass extinction event… I wonder what the future historians will learn or hypothesize about why our powerful high-tech civilization with the greatest minds couldn’t stop it.
Halfway Between Kyoto and 2050, by Vaclav Smil
https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/halfway-between-kyoto-and-2050.pdf
• This essay evaluates past carbon emission reduction and the feasibility of eliminating fossil fuels to achieve net-zero carbon by 2050.
• Despite international agreements, government spending and regulations, and technological advancements, global fossil fuel consumption surged by 55 percent between 1997 and 2023. And the share of fossil fuels in global energy consumption has only decreased from nearly 86 percent in 1997 to approxi- mately 82 percent in 2022.
• The first global energy transition, from traditional biomass fuels such as wood and charcoal to fossil fuels, started more than two centuries ago and unfolded gradually. That transition remains incomplete, as billions of people still rely on traditional biomass energies for cooking and heating.
• The scale of today’s energy transition requires approximately 700 exajoules of new non-carbon energies by 2050, which needs about 38,000 projects the size of BC’s Site C or 39,000 equivalents of Muskrat Falls.
• Converting energy-intensive processes (e.g., iron smelting, cement, and plas- tics) to non-fossil alternatives requires solutions not yet available for large- scale use.
• The energy transition imposes unprecedented demands for minerals includ- ing copper and lithium, which require substantial time to locate and develop mines.
• To achieve net-zero carbon, affluent countries will incur costs of at least 20 percent of their annual GDP.
• While global cooperation is essential to achieve decarbonization by 2050, major emitters such as the United States, China, and Russia have conflicting interests.
• To eliminate carbon emissions by 2050, governments face unprecedented technical, economic and political challenges, making rapid and inexpensive transition impossible.
Net-zero is wishful thinking. Its a nice goal that won’t happen until carbon fuels run out.
Peak global fossil combustion in roughly 10 years.
Still something like 40% of total combustion load yet to come.
By 2050 atmospheric CO2 will be over 500ppm,
and the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index (AGGI) will be approaching 2.0!
Net-zero’s social engineering. It’s social engineers and big biz types that got us into this mess in the first place. I’m with Hickory in the easy carbon fuels running out that’ll stop us properly.
Doesn’t sound very green to me.
GLOBAL JET FUEL DEMAND SOARS, BOOSTING OIL PRICES
Jet fuel demand is rebounding across regions as people have shaken off the pandemic years and are traveling en masse again, with kerosene demand driving global oil demand growth this year. Total passenger numbers on airlines are set to hit a record high this year, at 4.96 billion, the International Air Transport Association (IATA) said last week in its latest forecast of airline profitability. “With a record five billion air travelers expected in 2024, the human need to fly has never been stronger,” IATA’s Director General Willie Walsh said.
https://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Global-Jet-Fuel-Demand-Soars-Boosting-Oil-Prices.html
Let’s hope the worst scenarios of the climate change models or predictions are wrong, Javier’s right, or that we’re robust enough as a species to handle the next mass extinction bottleneck. This culture and many of the people in it suck anyway.
I can confirm the airports and airplanes are as busy as ever. There have been some good deals on flights to Europe though if your willing to put up with the crowds. Wife and me got a deal to Scotland for less than $500 a person round trip back in April, then to Copenhagen for not much more in September, and we’re looking at either France or Greece to round out just our overseas travel for the year. With the way flying has gotten cheaper from all the cheapie carriers springing up in the last couple decades, I think the US is really behind in investing in even bigger airports to handle this increasing demand. Well, let me rephrase that, lots of smaller markets in the country have built bigger, improved terminals to handle more traffic, but it seems that most of the largest airports haven’t really had significant expansions for the most part, and that’s just sad.
To the contrary, I think it is time to remove airport capacity.
Air travel is an optional economic activity that is extremely wasteful of fuel.
It is one of the prime examples of how we trash the earth in order to gain some personal convenience.
We are at peak fuel. The time is now to rapidly fade out the flight industry, except for certain applications like local search and rescue, heavy lift industrial applications.
No need for any more planes or runways.
Fix up your local area.
North America should imitate China and build out high speed rail to replace short hop flights. There are several regions that would benefit greatly from this.
I’m not holding my breathe though. Look at these idiots stopping congestion pricing on Manhattan island.
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/06/05/new-york-city-toll-hochul-democrats-00161930
It’s a mystery to me that anyone could be so dumb. Car traffic in Manhattan is a failed experiment and needs to be rolled back. You can literally cross the island on foot as fast as in a taxi.
What we should do and what we will do are entirely different things. We will phase out air travel when the ticket price is more than anyone can afford, not one day before that.
Massive changes in human behavior are driven by economics, not what is best for the planet. Humans act in their own personal interest. They are concerned only with personal comfort and survival for the next day or next year. They are never concerned with the distant future. Of course, I do not mean everyone, just the overwhelming majority of the population.
Any and all proposals that demand a change in human nature are doomed to failure.
The thing is that high speed rail is a much faster cheaper and more convenient form of travel under about 600 miles. It isn’t economic pressure, just bad planning, that suppresses it in North America.
You might enjoy this video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4
Thing is, people want their personal transportation.
Ron, you had previously mentioned you were working on a new book?
any updates?
Thanks for the request, Andre. Yes, I am told the book will be published this week or next week at the latest. I will post a link when it is published.
Please understand that the book is not about resource depletion, which is what this site is all about. Or that was my intention when I started it in 2013. That we now discuss other subjects, I think, is a plus, not a minus.
I will have a website in about two or three weeks, where I will post videos and debates about the subjects covered in the book. I am looking forward to having those discussions.
In case you were wondering.
FASTEST CARBON DIOXIDE SURGE EVER DURING YEAR OF EXTREMES
Ralph Keeling, director of the Scripps CO2 program that manages the institution’s 56-year-old measurement series, noted that year-to-year increase recorded in March 2024 was the highest for both Scripps and NOAA in Keeling Curve history. He said: Not only is CO2 now at the highest level in millions of years, it is also rising faster than ever.
https://earthsky.org/earth/fastest-carbon-dioxide-surge-ever-during-year-of-extremes/
Meanwhile,
Daily CO2
Jun. 10, 2024 — 427.59 ppm
Jun. 10, 2023 — 424.10 ppm
1 Year Change +3.49 ppm
Hunter Biden found guilty on all counts in gun case
https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/hunter-biden-trial-06-11-24/index.html
Miami Independent:
Law Professor Who Wrote 1989 Biological Weapons/Antiterrorism Act Provides Affidavit That COVID 19 mRNA Nanoparticle Injections Are Weapons Of Mass Destruction
“Dr. Francis Boyle, the Harvard educated law professor that drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons and Antiterrorism Act, which passed both houses of Congress unanimously, provided an affidavit stating that Covid 19 injections and mRNA nanoparticle injections violate the law he wrote. Dr. Boyle asserted that ‘COVID 19 injections’, ‘COVID 19 nanoparticle injections’, and ‘mRNA nanoparticle injections’ are biological weapons and weapons of mass destruction and violate Biological Weapons 18 USC § 175; Weapons and Firearms § 790.166 Fla. Stat. (2023).”
Of course, Twitter, before Musk took it over, knocked off Robert Malone from it. Censorship is misinformation.
Gary, what kind of shit are you trying to sell here? Please understand this is not a conspiracy theory site. If you think the mRNA Injections Are Weapons Of Mass Destruction, then you are just STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. All the doctors who developed this vaccine are trying to do is save lives.
Don’t get me wrong. This site welcomes honest political discussions. But we do not want conspiracy theory bullshit. Take it somewhere else. Facebook is the place for stupid conspiracy theory bullshit. Not here. Shut up about your theories. We do not want them here.
Millions of people died in the Covid 19 pandemic because people like you told them the vaccine was a conspiracy theory to kill them. You, or the likes of you, were the real murders by preventing these people from getting the injections that could have saved their lives. Conspiracy theory idiots like you are guilty of murder.
I just reread your post. You wrote, bold mine:
A new Open Thread Non-Petroleum has been posted.
https://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-non-petroleum-june-12-2024/
A report on February World and Non-OPEC oil production has been posted
https://peakoilbarrel.com/march-non-opec-and-world-oil-production-rises/