 | DrumBeat: May 13, 2009 | The Oil Drum | Livable Streets and Reclaiming Public Space for People (Instead of Automobiles) |  |
325 comments on On American Sustainability - Anatomy of Societal Collapse (Summary)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
325 comments on On American Sustainability - Anatomy of Societal Collapse (Summary)
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“Most people spend more time and energy going around problems than in trying to solve them.”
—Henry Ford
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
Thanks Chris! This is just part of Chris's 79 page document, available at this link. In that, Chris gives more background and links.
I think all of us hope that things don't turn out quite this badly. I expect people will have a lot of questions.
One thing Chris says is
Chris, do you put building additional wind turbines and associated transmission lines in this category? Or does this relate to cars run through electric batteries? What do you think we should be doing?
I find these kinds of posts interesting but not particularly useful. I don't know what your sources for data are for your charts but it would take some pretty heavy studies to back up your estimated sustainability levels and on the face give no credence at all to the notion that technology provides anything relative to sustainability.
I will have to think about it. At the same time, like the Book of Revelation, some day your 'prediction' will come true. Just like I can begin to predict our sun exploding into a Red Giant. Some day that will come to pass. These kinds of posts remind me of the Woody Allen movie where a fifth grade Woody Allen is sitting in the principals office for refusing to do any homework after he finds out the Sun will one day explode. He looks at everybody and says 'What's the point?'
Does it count for anything that the US controls all the oceans of the world. Given the military position of the US it would tend to make more sense that other societies will collapse as the US hegemony drains their environments to supplement its own. I would tend to see America as the country that circles the drain on the way down if this scenario were to play out. In other words I do not necessarily see the collapse in the US. We are in too dominant a position to allow it to play out as displayed here, it will not just happen.
The only other comment is how lightly populated the US is relative to the rest of the world. I know energy use is high, but the US has more parks than almost anywhere, more unused land. So to look to areas more heavily populated, and I do not see collapse in those heavily populated regions. This is complex and I don't think a chart that shows we are here followed by a straight line down that says collapse really says anything.
AFA data sources, I invite you to check out the "long version". Chapter 7, "Evidence", provides compelling evidence of both ecological overextension and economic overextension. Also please check out the Endnotes--most of my numbers are obtained from the US government--EIA, USGS, Federal Reserve, etc.
AFA our collapse scenario, I agree that specific timing and circumstances are impossible to predict. In a general sense my view is:
I do not believe that the populations of industrialized societies such as America, who take for granted a lifestyle paradigm characterized by “continuously more and more”, will accommodate gracefully the ecological reality of “continuously less and less”. Nor do I believe that the populations of emerging societies, who are now aspiring to lifestyle paradigms characterized by “more and more”, will accommodate gracefully the ecological reality that there are insufficient resources to fulfill their aspirations.
My view is that the populations of both industrialized and emerging societies will fight against each other and among themselves—ultimately to the death—for remaining increasingly-scarce resources, and that the US will be among the most active (and devastated) in this regard.
I hope--every day--that I am wrong...
If you have any hope for your work to see a wider audience, keep in mind that "read my 80-page thesis" is not an acceptable response to "where is your evidence".
Your article here had plenty of space for supporting evidence; that it contained none made the article completely unpersuasive. Indeed, quite the opposite: you kept making exceptional assertions and insisting they were "the truth", which is one of the hallmarks of cranks and deluded zealots. That's not to say you are a crank or deluded, simply that your article reads like that.
***
As far as the evidence in your "long version", you are still confusing "my opinion" with "the truth". For example:
"It is obvious that...our current total debt level is [not] sustainable" (p.41)
Saying that something is obvious to you is not evidence, it's opinion.
Moreover, you make a variety of claims that aren't even true, and insist there are no alternatives; for example:
"Our only options for resolving our social entitlement dilemma are to increase payroll taxes by over 100%, from 15.3% to 33.3% of earnings, immediately and forever; to cut all social entitlement benefits by at least 50%, immediately and forever; to cut all non-entitlement federal government spending by 77.8%, immediately and forever; or some combination thereof." (p.42)
The overwhelming majority of these future costs is medical expenses; the overwhelming majority of those is due to rapid growth in medical spending, only a tiny fraction of which is due to demographics. You can see for yourself from that CBO chart that if healthcare expenses stop growing faster than the rate at which the population is growing and aging - essentially, if current healthcare is maintained forever - then there's no problem.
There doesn't need to be any cut; all that's needed is a slower rate of cost growth (which appears to be happening). So you're factually incorrect when you assert that massive and immediate cuts are the only options.
***
I could go on like this, but hopefully you get the idea: there's a large difference between "my opinion" and "the truth", and very few people are going to take your document seriously until it clearly distinguishes between the two. You need to support your claims much more tightly with evidence (and don't use end-notes, use foot-notes), and you need to dig down to the source of that evidence, rather than relying on what other people assert. (For example, several of your points cite the Cato Institute, which is a libertarian/anti-government think tank with notorious biases of its own.)
You need to keep asking "why is this the case?" until you dig down to the raw numbers. Nothing less will persuade doubters.
Pitt: I think you're right in sticking your neck out on these points. It's clear that Chris's lack of background in writing up "academic"/"scientific" type articles (rather than waffly glossy management reports) shows up here. I find I agree with most of his conclusions but would have got to them by radically different argument and presentation.
Chris's referring people to his full report is just following of what is the standard practice in many bureaucracies (which are not particularly interested in really informing their readers of what is involved).
Pitt, I remember you thrashing me soundly about the head and shoulders for the very same transgression during my short posting career on TOD. You were right then, and you're right now. This subject brings up strong emotions, and it's hard to resist the temptation to disguise opinions as truth in order to validate the emotions. I plead retrospectively guilty to that charge.
Well, it's quite obvious to me that our current debt level is not sustainable. I'd like to see a realistic scenario that demonstrates that it is sustainable.
On the contrary. As to national debt, it *is* sustainable, after all, we're not in default at this point. If we cut off our deficits, and are able to refinance at current interest rates, the debt will be sustainable for 30 or 40 years. It's possible, with a decrease in spending, to reduce the debt.
The part that isn't sustainable is Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid. The solution to the projected Social Security shortfall is to revise the actuarial assumptions about Social Security to the equivalent of where they were in 1937, where the life expectancy was 59 years, whereas now median life expectancy is almost 20 years greater. This might mean setting the retirement age for people who were born in, say, 1948 and beyond to 75 years of age. It could also spell the end of the Social Security Disability Income program, and benefits to dependents. As for Medicare/Medicaid, the program faces imminent insolvency, so the solution might be a lot more drastic, perhaps involving the drafting of doctors and medical personnel into the Public Health Service (whose chief officer is the Surgeon-General) and the provision of medical care at reduced pay. Actually, what's more realistic is that the medical-industrial complex will collapse, being unable to sacrifice the smallest amount of its prerogatives, perhaps aided by persistent and incurable insolvency on the part of third-party insurors.
Thanks Pitt. It's remarkable how often you say more or less the same thing I would.
Caveat, I have not yet read Chris's pdf. Chris's post follows The Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update which shows many different scenarios and that collapse is the likely outcome of most. I strongly recommend this book.
A bit disappointing that the post equates living standard with consumption, much of which is unnecessary.
Whilst very American centric applies to all of us, population and consumption can't continually keep growing. There is plenty of room for spending cuts, just to take one example America's military (not confusingly called defense!) spending is slightly less that the rest of the world combined.
Pitt,
Thanks for taking your time, and for your comments.
Re: the lack of references in the "short version"; Gail had asked me to limit my post to 2000 words--it was just under that number as I submitted it to her... There are so many references and so much evidence, I decided that it was best to summarize my case in the post, and refer interested readers to the "long version" for the details.
The comments you selected regarding our fiscal unsustainability are interesting. The conclusions are not mine; they are those of folks like David Walker (ex-Comptroller General of the US) and the "Trustees" (lead by the Treasury Department) who put together the yearly assessment of social entitlement program viability. Check out the references in the "endnotes"; it's all in there!
Pitt, I agree we all want certified evidence. Chris, like any supporting evidence, the conclusions are arrived at by making assumptions about what evidence is admissible to the discussion. So to that point I ask:
Given that nearly all resources are in fact abundant on the Earth, but not necessarily easily accessible, the ultimate question is: Do we have enough cheap energy to make acquiring those critical resouces economically feasible?
I am a supporter of renewable energy as a long term sustainable power source, but in reality renewables are insufficient to provide for the energy needs of a resource starved world.
Thus some flavor of Fast Neutron Reactors is needed if we are to avoid undershooting the "Sustainable Population and Living Standard" level.
Ultimately long term, no matter what we do, if we do not address the collective birth control issue, overshoot and undershoot seem like a given.
Politically a massive Fast Neutron Reactor construction program seems unlikely. Any delay will only hasten the overshoot.
So I would personally like to see a post directed specifically at the issues related to Sustainability and the expediting of massive Fast Neutron Reactor construction.
Chris, Thanks for the broad overview of this pertinent topic!
Pitt - You do yourself a disservice by not reading the entire 77 page PDF. While the paper excites the emotions in a number of ways due to overreach in some depicted scenarios, Chris is to be commended for an excellent and well researched paper.
With respect to your point about the present and future fiscal state of US entitlement programs, I think you are way too optimistic. Perhaps Chris' "opinion" on Americans' view of our special place in the world hit a nerve with you.
I suppose I should let Pitt speak for himself, but 1) it's clear that he did read the whole thing, and 2) I felt the same way - see my comments below on energy and minerals.
As to US entitlement programs, I have to disagree. The US has an actuarial problem: entitlements are scheduled to grow, and the US can't afford that. The simple answer: stop the growth. Easy to do (just takes legislation - there's no guarantee to Social Security or Medicare benefits), and there's an easy method: just make eligibility ages rise as life expectancy rises. Easy.
Gail,
Thanks for the post!
The answers to your questions are covered in detail in the "long version" of my paper. My thoughts on renewable energy sources start on page 34; and my thoughts on what we should be doing start on page 25. (Is that an inducement to read the whole thing, or what?!)
But the short answer to the first question is - Renewable energy initiatives, while essential to our sustainable future, must be presented, evaluated, and assessed objectively—from the perspective of their economic return on investment (ROI), their energy return on investment (ERoEI), and their scalability. While it is true that renewable energy sources will provide all of the energy in our sustainable future, it is also true that renewable energy sources will never supply more than a small fraction of the total energy to which we have become accustomed and upon which our American way of life depends.
To the second - The only rational solution to our predicament is an American Cultural Revolution (ACR), during which we transition voluntarily, quickly—within 25 years—and beginning immediately, from our unsustainable American way of life to a sustainable and self-sufficient lifestyle paradigm—-a lifestyle paradigm in which we will live within our means ecologically and economically, forever.
Among the most salient ACR requirements: we must change fundamentally both our existing worldview and our existing resource utilization behavior; we must use remaining resources to facilitate our transition process, rather than waste them on futile attempts to perpetuate our unsustainable American way of life; and we must all participate—an ACR is an all-or-nothing proposition.
We live in a dynamic, chaotic world and I would postulate that living 'sustainably' is impossible if you mean a static level of consumption per head of population effectively forever.
Let's take the scenario where we attempt BAU as long as possible and hit some cliff -there will be huge resources remaining for any survivors. So this is not a steady state as they can then use these resources to expand. If on the other hand we attempt to transition to renewables the world is awash with energy -200 times more solar energy hits the Earth than humanity uses- so although we again might see a die off ultimatley we would expand into this massive supply until we hit some other non-sustainable impediment.
So my question to you is what exactly do you mean by 'sustainable'?
Nick.
I thought the point had already been cleared up on tod that even though there is this huge surplus solar energy coming in, there is little prospect of the huge ready capacity to harvest it, in which case it means diddly-squat. Or are you playing a cracked record here?
Actually, no. That hasn't been cleared up at all.
If you want to discuss it, though, I'd focus more on wind, because the case for wind's success is far clearer. Multiple posts on TOD have shown it has high E-ROI, current large scale, and scalability to provide most of the energy we need.
Ok. Though from my own reading of previous TOD I got the impression, perhaps false, that both wind and solar would depend on substantial oil inputs for their construction and maintenance, to the extent that they would not be anything like as fab as might otherwise appear. I think I recall Gail considering them to be more like investments of foss-fuels rather than genuinely 'renewables'. Anyway, this probably isn't the ideal location to re-discuss such an important and complex question -- beyond perhaps adding some links in support of your last sentence above.
That is a thesis of one poster with some followers here.
Yes, the wind turbine manufacturer work force drives to work (the USA ones anyway) today. This does not mean that they could not 1) bicycle or 2) take a streetcar or 3) take an EV to work in the future.
Oil will become scarcer but not disappear for many decades. Work arounds exist today and will be progressively implemented if social organization does not collapse.
Alan
I don't think the transportation of the workforce is the issue. Truly sustainable windmills or solar panels will have to be manufactured, installed and maintained using the power from those same windmills and solar panels. As now, we get what is left.
Wind turbines produce electricity, so what you're saying is that we'll need to do these things with electricity.
Well, most manufacturing is powered by electricity right now, so that's straightforward.
Installation (transport and construction) takes a very small amount of liquid fuel, and that eventually will be electrified.
Maintenance takes a tiny amount of energy, and also eventually will be electrified.
we get what is left.
Given that wind has a very high E-ROI, that's no problem.
RobinPC,
In the discussion there are some links to EROEI just after Gail asked this question.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/5291#more
About 2-5% of the energy used in manufacturing and installing turbines is for transportation, including transport of overseas components. This may be a bit high now because larger turbines are assembled closer to final sites. Larger turbines also have a much higher EROEI paying back energy uses in weeks or months. If you include the potential energy used by the workers employed ( ie personnel use based on value of turbines and energy/GDP) the energy payback is still less than 2 years.
You can do a few calculations about how much energy would be used to maintain all of the HV transmission lines in US(250,000 miles) assuming every pylon is inspected once a week by a 4 wheel drive crew, say 50,000 miles of travel per day at 1gallon diesel/25 miles= 2,000 gallons/day or 40 barrels/day(or I could be out by a factor of X10 lets say 400 barrels/day) compare this to 19,000,000 barrels/day used for transport in US, hard to see oil companies being excited about wind energy investments. It would be hard to think of what genuinely renewable would have to be if wind power doesn't quality. The biggest use of oil would be for lubrication of those turbines with gearboxes. Nick's point below about most of this EI being electricity is important for long term outcomes.
Neil1947: Thanks for carefully presenting this account. Just it appears to be bypassed into irrelevance by Rockman's proposed apology by Gail once someone starts spending the 10's of billions required to make it actually happen. Point is that technological feasibility counts for nothing if funding is not going to forthcome.
The project of my 2004 book www.lulu.com/content/140930 was designed to address the problem that "so many sound ideas....continue to be ignored...".
And on that basis, pending Gail having to send in that apology, my point appears to remain standing that:
Robin,
Here you are living through the worst recession in 80 years, and what is happening about renewable energy? Last 3 months 2,800 MW of wind capacity was built, another 3,000 MW under construction. How does that compare with similar Q1 2008 before recession really started to bite, Q1 2008, 1,400MW completed, and about 3,000MW under construction.
Also some major solar energy projects http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/05/arizona-largest-solar-plant.php
It may well be that some projects have been delayed or canceled due to financing problems, but wind turbine parts were back-ordered to 2011 and now costs for steel and cement have declined.
It's happening now! this seems to be one sound idea that isn't being ignored, you are fortunate that you now have a leader who is supporting renewable energy 100%.
Here's a good article on solar PV:
"The economics of solar power are changing rapidly. And if the Prometheus Institute for Sustainable Development (PI) is right that solar module prices will fall more than 50% by 2012, grid parity will be achieved across many parts of the US."
http://setenergy.org/2009/05/11/much-of-us-to-enjoy-solar-grid-parity-by...
The article cited claims grid parity in 2012 based on the anticipated cost of fossil fuel electricity midway through the life (i.e. in 2024) of the newly installed PV panels. Get serious.
I'm not sure what you feel is "un-serious". Do you disagree that electricity prices are likely to continue to rise?
Grid parity in 2024 in not the same thing as grid parity in 2012. Taking economic comfort in the fact that in three years time installing expensive PV generation will be our best option because of unstoppable energy price rises for a long time into the future does not seem very smart.
Well, that exaggerates the importance of the assumption of rising electricity prices.
The fact is, that PV grid-parity is beginning to emerge right now for a very few specific applications and locations. This will just expand over the coming years, and the assumption of rising power prices will only change the inflection point by 2-3 years.
Also, keep in mind that this is the unsubsidized price, which doesn't reflect any of the externalities, like CO2, sulfur, etc, etc.
The fact is, that solar is here: as production expands, prices will continue to fall, and demand will rise explosively.
It would be hard to think of what genuinely renewable would have to be if wind power doesn't quality
Hydroelectric is even better. And the USA has enough hydroelectric for "essential demand" in large areas of the USA.
Alan
Alan, what's the best source/explanation for that? Is there a good explanation of how it would satisfy those who have been opposing new hydro and pushing to dismantle old?
Most of the civil works for a dam will last centuries or millennium. One Chinese dam is about 4,000 years old. Earthfill dams get stronger over time.
If the reservoir fills up, the site can be converted to "run-of-the-river" powerplant by reworking the intakes.
"Good practice" is to rebuild the generator & turbine every 50 years; but many last longer than that. North Korea and Albania (in their decades of isolation) keep hydropower plants going with "minimal inputs".
Once built, minimal inputs required for centuries. Lots of power can be produced.
Best Hopes,
Alan
Ah. I thought you were saying that hydro could be expanded substantially in the US. 6% of current KWHs (248TWhrs/4,157) isn't nothing, but it's not quite as large as suggested by " enough hydroelectric for "essential demand" in large areas of the USA."
Depends on what defines as essential demand.
Some lighting (8 watt CFLs ?), refrigeration on the commercial & retail level at least, washing clothes with electricity is MUCH easier than the other way, some microwave cooking even. Machine tools, electrified railroads as well.
And the numbers a net loss from pumped storage (why hit hydro with that ?).
Some new small hydro in the USA and more large hydro from Canada (Manitoba is shopping 5 GW ATM).
Alan
These posts are really nice, but some comments are so naive that they actually reflect that naive American mentality that the author described so well... Many American are indeed naive (but not only Americans as this is a global issue). I think that the main contribution of this work is, in fact, to push the Americans (and not only) to think by using strong language and pictures. The author did a good job in this sense!
You don't need big numbers and equations (I am a mathematician btw) here to see the extent of the problem. You are speaking about building a network of wind power generators able to sustain the current lifestyle in the US. This is amazingly naive.
Have you any clue of how many different materials you need to put up even just one of these generators? First of all steel, do you know the temperature needed to bake steel? And you want to reach that temperature with wind power? Assuming that you are going to use the last remaining oil for baking the steel and care about manufacturing/maintenance of your fabulous network. Do you know that in order to transmit electricity over large distances you have to put the hell of a current in the cables otherwise it's all dissipated on the way after a few KMs? Are you going to put a wind generator every 5 KM^2? And when there is no wind? How are you going to power machinery for mineral extraction (assuming that some mineral is left), how are you going to guarantee basic services such as air transport? Do you realize to which extent our society relies on air transport? Do you know how long it takes to bring a letter for NY to LA without a plane? Or are you going to keep internet up? How? How do you dig and lie the cables? With DC powered excavators? Batteries today can barely keep up my pc for 3 hours and can push a plastic car at 70km/h!!! Is that enough? How do you manufacture the cables? How do you harvest mineral resources from all around the world? Hu yeah, with the US army, well you will need a big deal of oil as well, cause fighters and tanks are not working on DC. Furthermore, how do you deliver food? Have you any idea of how much oil the world food logistic network requires? I do research on this topic and two words must suffice to you: "A LOT".
This is not to be pessimistic and to speak like if I write the "Book of Revelation". But here we have a clear and well defined problem. Resources are running out and the impact of this depletion is clearly visible worldwide (otherwise we wouldn't be here to discuss). According to many respectable research articles, resources will become scarce within our lifetime. Up to now noone came up with a feasible solution. Feasible is not, we put up a solar/wind/whatever network. Feasible means that we achieve the same EROEI as OIL and we have got the same transportability, flexibility (think about the fact that oil is also used for making fertilizers, pesticides, and thousands of other essential things you need to sustain 5 BILLION people on this tiny Earth) and AVAILABILITY.
The problem is indeed "can we make it without oil?". The likely scenario is that we won't make it. Occam's razor is clear, the simplest answer is always the correct explanation. If you come up with a complex, tricky, and most of all vague and simplicistic explanation of how you are going to sustain our society without oil, well that's not the answer, the answer is that our society will collapse.
The fact is that, indeed, we are going to collapse if we carry on like we are doing now... the point is to prove that we have a workaround! When you are ill, it's pointless to point the finger against the doctor, you have to get a cure as soon as possible, before it's too late!
You don't need big numbers and equations (I am a mathematician btw) here to see the extent of the problem.
Actually, you do.
do you know the temperature needed to bake steel? And you want to reach that temperature with wind power?
Sure. Did you know that the primary energy source for steel mills is...electricity??
More later...
All of the steps required are perfectly doable with available resources.
Your lack of technical knowledge may make them seem intimidating. They are really not.
The resources devoted to supporting & expanding Suburbia are >> than those required to build a reasonable renewable future.
Best Hopes for 3 TW of wind turbines and a North American HV DC grid.
Alan
Alan, you meant to reply to Gwren, and replied to me by mistake.
You might want to repost your reply to Gwren, to make that clearer to readers.
gwren,
It is you who is showing a lack of knowledge about the world around you now in 2009. Wind power exists in the US, and is transmitted over long distances by HV transmission lines. Battery operated vehicles exist today that go more than 70km/h( actually more than 110km/h).
Wind turbines have a very high EROEI probably higher than oil extracted from US in 2009. Fertilizer is made form natural gas but can be made form electricity, see today's post. When you say "resources are running out" you probably are thinking of FF resources such as oil. We have been discussing resource depletion since at least "The Limits of Growth" was published in 1972, so far we haven't run out of any mineral resources, but will probably soon find oil less available than it has been in the past.
Thanks to you all for your answers :)
I thought I was late and the discussion was far too quick, instead someone read me ;)
I will answer only to Neil, cause he seem to summarize all the criticism above.
"Wind power exists in the US, and is transmitted over long distances by HV transmission lines."
I really cannot think about a non-hybrid wind network able to transmit over significant distances in a reliable way. Electricity CAN be produced from wind, that is out of doubt, the problem is HOW MUCH ELECTRICITY we can produce and is that enough to support suburbia? The point is that YOU are proposing this thesis, that it is possible, so YOU should provide data to support it, not just say "hey may I have a wind generator behind my house and it generate electricity". It is funny how people reverse the notion of "mathematical" proof on the oil drum. I know that OIL can support suburbia, I am not really sure that electricity can achieve that... numbers please...
"Battery operated vehicles exist today that go more than 70km/h( actually more than 110km/h)."
Battery operated vehicle DO NOT HAVE enough power to perform any work such as transporting and lifting heavy loads. I have never seen a battery operated CAT. I agree that there exists some very light prototype able to achieve 110... so is this invalidating my claim on the fact that you cannot rely on batteries for construction works or for transporting say 70 people on a bus at 110k/h?
"When you say "resources are running out" you probably are thinking of FF resources such as oil. We have been discussing resource depletion since at least "The Limits of Growth" was published in 1972, so far we haven't run out of any mineral resources, but will probably soon find oil less available than it has been in the past."
I know the limits to growth very well... I perfectly know that it is a capacity problem the one we are facing and not a problem of running out of something. Still, do you seriously think that when the world oil production will decline, you will be able to get oil as easily as today, but just in less quantity? I hope you are dreaming... people will fight like hell to get what remains!!! The cost will be prohibitive to allow any economic activity in the best scenario. In the worst... then war is the issue.
Battery operated vehicle DO NOT HAVE enough power to perform any work such as transporting and lifting heavy loads.
This is completely unrealistic. Electric power trains power freight trains, US military tanks, etc, etc.
Nick,
Here is my definition of "sustainable", as it pertains to a society or population:
A sustainable society utilizes renewable natural resources exclusively, at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are replenished by Nature; by extension, a sustainable society degrades natural habits at levels less than or equal to the levels at which they are regenerated by Nature—forever. All other resource utilization behavior, and all human societies that engage in this behavior, are unsustainable—period.
My view is that we don't really have a choice regarding whether or not we'd like to be sustainable; we'll either transition voluntarily to a sustainable lifestyle paradigm, or Nature will do it for us--horrifically. My money is on the second scenario!
This is a worthless definition for anything except the most abstract mind game theories.
Humanity can, and will, operate quite successfully with some minimal use of "non-sustainable" resource extraction for the next several thousand years.
For example, if coal use (to pick a bad resource extraction) is reduced to 1% of current levels (perhaps easier than charcoal for carbon steel), humanity will have thousands of years of coal left. And no noticeable climate impact by burning the coal.
There are lands that have been farmed for at least 4,500 years. Not "sustainably", but they have a few thousand years left.
Making decisions today because conditions in the year 4309 will force us to is not even prudent. Only a very few decisions need to consider impacts beyond a century in the future (and none past a half millennium that I can think of).
I appreciate the effort you have put forth, but you apparently think only in absolutes (X will not work do we must then go immediately to -X) with a bias towards the negative.
Your immediate conclusion that the USA cannot have better health care for less $ was clearly wrong (as I demonstrated with other nations). You appear to make the same limiting judgments in your long paper.
Best Hopes for Realistic Planning and Advocacy,
Alan
Nick asked for my definition of "sustainability" and I gave it to him. I never implied that "unsustainable" societies cannot and have not existed for long periods of time--they have! As you point out, agrarian societies are unsustainable, yet some have existed for centuries or more. Depending on soil quality and soil management techniques, it can sometimes take quite awhile to extract all of the nutrients--but it will happen eventually...
The issue with industrialized societies such as ours is that we are so overextended--dependent upon many nonrenewable resources, the supplies of which are unsustainable--that we are in a metaphorical sense driving full speed toward a minefield. We might be clever enough to dodge some of the mines, but we will not be able to dodge them all.
We need not experience exhaustion in all or even any of these resources in order to experience societal collapse--a permanent shortfall in a single critical nonrenewable resource, such as oil, could probably do the trick!
Hi Chris
There is strong evidence just above in some of the posts of the societal cognitive dissonance to which you refer. I recently finished a sustainability Masters degree; and I covered much of the material in your post at an academic level. The people who posted above know, at least intuitively, that we are suffering from oil depletion and that climate change is a serious risk management issue that is not being addressed. They may know about issues such as food shortages and what lies behind them. They will also be aware of conflict around the world and what is driving it. Failing to connect the dots between these issues, for they are all linked, is a good example of the cognitive dissonance we are talking about. Each of these issues is different and separate in most peoples minds; and they think a set of actions (no doubt according to their own political belief system) can fix each problem on its own, when of course systemic change is needed.
It all comes down to the scary fact that humans are in ecological overshoot. My children, (16, 13 and 9) will suffer the period when the die-back starts and that fact is deeply depressing for me. Mitigation is possible, but like you, I see scant evidence that we even recognize the problem, let alone are willing to do anything about it. Societal collapse is not new. It has happened many times before. What is different this time round is that it will be almost global. I am in awe of the grand arrogance we display. We think that all our knowledge and technology makes us smarter. But it doesn't; and deep down most people on this site know this is true.
BTW the Book of Revelations doesn't recognize overshoot. It was irrelevant in all previous societal collapses and is irrelevant now.
Saildog,
Thanks for your time and for your comments.
I'd be interested to know more about your formal education in "sustainability"; we didn't have such when I went to school! (Wish we would have!)
My kids are a bit older than yours, but I feel the same way. They were actually a primary motivator in my quest to research our predicament.
The interesting thing to me about impending societal collapses such as ours is that human societies have never been overextended to the extent that industrialized societies such as the US are today. When H-G or agrarian societies crashed, they didn't have that far to fall. If we're overextended on the order of 30 to 1, as my numbers suggest, we've got a LONG way to fall!!
You! Yes, you! STAND STILL LADDIE!
Pink floyd
Standing still and waiting is the hardest thing to do
possible.
Administration Official "Chrysler Bankruptcy Could Last Two Years"
Posted by Tyler Durden at 8:59 AM
And so the backpedaling begins. Bloomberg quotes an administration official who has stated that the D-3's "bankruptcy might take as long as two years, not the two months President Barack Obama suggested as a target."
How long for GM!?
Trying to put a happy face on a grim situation, continuing to do things which are transparent attempts to instill false confidence, and leaving in power the people who caused the crisis reinforces the market's convictions that (1) government and business leaders are behaving irresponsibly instead of addressing the fundamental problems and (2) there is no accountability.
So people's trust declines still further, thus substantially delaying any chance of a sustainable economic recovery. In other words, by trying too hard to instill confidence, the powers-that-be actually undermine it and exacerbate the financial crisis.
Keeping quiet about how bad things are won't help. As the leading independent economists and financial experts all agree, the three things that will help are:
1. Honestly addressing the causes of the crisis;
2. Honestly addressing the necessary - if bitter - medicine needed to get out of the crisis; and
3. Holding responsible those who caused the crisis.
http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/
http://www.fooledbyrandomness.com/imbeciles.htm
mcgowanmc in your post you said....
"Keeping quiet about how bad things are won't help. As the leading independent economists and financial experts all agree, the three things that will help are:
1. Honestly addressing the causes of the crisis;
2. Honestly addressing the necessary - if bitter - medicine needed to get out of the crisis; and
3. Holding responsible those who caused the crisis....."
Just a curious idea occurred to me....if all the doom and gloom are already on their way, as many posters here seem to acknowledge, then what exactly is the point to the third item in your list?? Wouldn't that just tie up resources that would be better aligned to saving our collective a$$. And if you do spend time and money going after the perps, I curiously wonder, would these people be in the 82% who stay or the 18% sent offshore....(TIC - gives a new meaning to 'offshoring'). (There's also the distinct possibility that we all would have to leave as the awakening to the problem has probably taken many of us some time to realize, therefore our past behavior might be somewhat culpable to being part of the cause)
Now all that said, what are the proposed solutions? One thing I continually see is very intelligent discussion, some rants, and parsing of the data on most all TOD posts, but often not much in posted, take the bull by the horns, solutions. A plan that has traction, it seems to me, is one that begins before the "the three things that will help", which for me, is primarily led by.....
1) Honestly admitting we have a problem.
....yes, that does sound like a 12 step program, which IMO is probably a good place to start.
Short of a bunch of folks going into survivalist mode, how can we get folks focused on a sustainable future and move the masses that way. Call me a manager, but focus on solutions is more effective than focus on fault, at least in my experience.
And forgive my novice question, but is there a place on TOD to share such?
Some possible other ways to share...
Sharing Sustainable Solutions
Northwest Institute
Thoughts?
Thoughts? Always and forever more. ;}
The development comes as dealer representatives have stepped up lobbying in Washington to try to slow down closures they estimate would cost 200,000 dealership jobs.
"
Just a curious idea occurred to me....if all the doom and gloom are already on their way, as many posters here seem to acknowledge, then what exactly is the point to the third item in your list?? Wouldn't that just tie up resources that would be better aligned to saving our collective a$$."
No. Like leaving termites in the foundation that you're rebuilding.
And, if you're not rebuilding then you still have to move the foundation out of the way. One or the other.
And the problem has to be neutered. At the least. Or what's to stop
the $$$ Resources from being taken and squandered still?
"Now all that said, what are the proposed solutions? One thing I continually see is very intelligent discussion, some rants, and parsing of the data on most all TOD posts, but often not much in posted, take the bull by the horns, solutions."
Again. The importance of ridding the foundation of termites.
How can we have a "solution" if the problem is still amonst us?
And I've got a solution. Stand Still. For now. But only for now.
Then think trains and rollind stock and bicycles. Mules
and maximum people in a completely revised agbizness.
"No. Like leaving termites in the foundation that you're rebuilding.."
I like that metaphor....and I agree that there is a problem with the $$ being drained away via those same "termites", however, are the $$ drained going after the termites versus the $$ drained by the termites relatively the same AND still, in either case, the focus is on the....termites? rather than solutions?
To use your foundation metaphor, it seems that we need to move the foundation anyway. That is a HUGE paradigm shift on so many levels. A gross simplification is like making the world work by moving from a Friedman model to a more Keynesian model (apologies to the economics folks here - flame away if you wish). Fast Forward a few decades to the grinding halt of industrialization based on oil and don't you have a situation where the $$ become irrelevant? Really, what is the medium of exchange? IMO, at that point, going after the perps seems as effective as witch trials - no one wins. So, given the slant in the current legal system (towards thems that have) it will likely be lots of $$ and lots of time before any "justice" is served, if it gets served at all.
Maybe you are suggesting that we 'keep em busy' (like a kind of termite bait)while real effective change can be taken??
I agree with you on the light rail, community agbusiness and bicycles...and, I would add, embracing the local farmer. (I don't own a mule, but could be convinced to own a draft horse) I do see a place for local cooperative land-based communities.
From a certain perspective it seems that computer networking models provide a framework to view the needed change. Over the years, it seems, that computing has moved from a central processor strategy to a distributed processing strategy. From my perspective, (Self)Governance will need to move that way if we have a chance at sustainability....and systems thinking will have to take precedence over the profit motive.
Thanks for the spark... ;-)
"Now all that said, what are the proposed solutions?...And forgive my novice question, but is there a place on TOD to share such?"
Yes, the Campfire on Saturdays generally has solution-orientated discussions. Lots of good ideas, I am planning to print out ALL the Campfire sessions and comments, and bind them into a book for my growing transition library.
Gosh Gail. You and Chris are such whiners. Just teasing. Unfortunately it’s difficult to disagree with much of his analysis. Coincidently, just this morning I received a joke from a friend that may highlight a factor which could make adjustments all the more difficult. Though I am now a card-carrying member of the OFS (Old F_rt Society) this isn’t coming from that perspective. The joke essentially highlights all the terrible conditions folks of our generation suffered through: mothers who drank and smoked while pregnant, no car seats for babies, no antibacterial hand wipes, etc, etc. You can imagine the long list of “horrors” the older generations not only survived but excelled in spite of. It’s not difficult to see daily examples of the younger generations’ potential to not deal effectively with future hardships.
And I don’t blame them. It’s our own doing. We moms and dads struggled to provide a better world for our kids. It would appear to be an unsustainable better world but we didn’t think in those terms “back in the day”. Just an unprovable hypothesis but had we run into the Unsustainability Brick Wall in the early 1900’s it’s not difficult to imagine the situation being handled better then what we might imagine will occur over the next 20 to 30 years. Again, not an indictment of the younger half of our society but of us elders. Not only have we not prepared ourselves for such a future but have shielded our offspring and thus impeded their coping skills. I’m as guilty as any. I continue to strive to give my 8 yo daughter a better life then I had growing up. Though I may offer her verbal lessons regarding potential hard times down the road, it doesn’t match the learning curve of suffering through bad times herself. IMO it’s the father/daughter paradigm which is the worst case scenario…we are such a soft touch.
There may be a small portion of the younger population that is acknowledging the unsustainability conversation and may envision dealing with the decline. But it’s still not the same as having a first hand experience dealing with a world deficit of what most consider basic needs. I have a fairly well developed set of survival skills. I can spend days explaining to my daughter what to do in this event or that. But that doesn’t compare to the actual experience of sitting under a tree in a cold drizzling rain trying to light a fire when everything is wet. At times like that it’s not so much a matter of skill sets as one’s mental attitude. I suspect emotional responses to the pending predicament will overshadow the actualities of the situation. There may be steps which could be taken to effectively deal with the unsustainability issue but, as with many of the other potential “solutions” for a variety of our problems, a lack resolve will defeat the best of plans.
Rock on, Rockman!
Agree 100% that it'll be lack of resolve that gets us in the end; who in their right mind wants to give up our American way of life? Not me! Problem is, I don't think we have a choice...
I could resist
Brilliant Rockman! I am also an Old Fart (kids 16, 13 and 9) who has raised a bunch of kids I love dearly; and who are being well educated; but are at the same time incapable of living in the bush on their own, even over-night.
I understand, deeply, sitting in the dark and drizzle trying to make a fire burn. It is a singular life experience that a "Camping Gaz" mini stove and Gore-tex has obliterated since those cold damp night times we spent all those years ago.