Richard Heinberg: Slo-mo splat

[GliderGuider]

http://www.energybulletin.net/node/47632">Slo-mo splat

Remember the wall that environmentalists (like the 1972 "Limits to Growth" authors) have long been saying that industrial society would eventually hit? Permit me to make the formal introduction: Industrial society, meet wall; wall, meet industrial society.

It's understandably taking a while for the recognition to seep in. We are not accustomed to seeing every indicator of economic well-being, in virtually every country in the world, slam into reverse over the course of a few short months. I still have random conversations with businesspeople and bankers who say we've hit bottom and recovery is at hand; in their view, this is just another business cycle. I see things a bit differently: to my eyes the world situation looks like a slow-motion film of a train wreck, and the sheet metal at the front of the locomotive has only just begun to crumple.

Globalization was the one trend we could all count on in perpetuity (the world is flat, remember?), but now every metric of global trade is plummeting, and national leaders are worrying much less about lowering trade barriers than they are about how to protect their domestic economies from the cross-border plagues of currency collapse and banking failure.

Within a year or two we may even begin to see world population growth go into reverse—though not because of policy shifts.

It's not the end of the world—yet. There is still opportunity to manage economic collapse in such a way as to lay the groundwork for a recovery to low-flow sustainability. But not if we concentrate our efforts on denial, blame, or the propping up of old institutions and industries that have no chance of survival—all of which are the obsessions of our current leadership.

A new economic world requires new institutions and new thinking. These will take a while to emerge. We can lay the conceptual groundwork now (as the ecological economists and localists have been doing for some time), but implementation will require cool heads and collective effort.

Meanwhile, individuals will need to protect themselves as best they can by developing social and practical coping skills: know your neighbors, garden, repair, make, and make do.

[Citizen Number 9]

1. This wall isn't so high...

We need a plan, but I think we can get over it with a little teamwork.

You guys come over here and form a base.....

[Bigmack]

3. That's always been my problem...

there's always guys who want to "organize" the solution on MY back. I'm supposed to be the "base" or some kind of pyramid.

One of the ways suggested out of this mess is that working people.. in Bangladesh or Berlin or Boston .... just shut up and work for the wages that the CEOs offer. I mean, if the companies are strong, or get bailed out, or get the humongous tax breaks.. or all of the above, then the workers will be just fine.

To some people, any recovery is going to result from people making low wages buying lots and lots of stuff. I doesn't compute.

How about a little socialism for the little guys for a change, instead of the big guys only?

How about some health care? How about control of the banks and lenders that we just bailed out going to the people? How about control of some of the busted companies going to the people who actually make the shit?

I get scared as hell when I hear something like you suggest. I hear "Let's have a duck dinner... you bring the duck."

[Citizen Number 9]

6. I've got a duck.

Say....dinner at nine?

I know that's late for most folks, but by the time I handle responsibilities I can't make it home too early and cook the duck.

But about this wall....if you don't want to be on the bottom, just drive your car over here and we can get on it together.

[GliderGuider]

4. Why do you believe "the wall isn't so high"?

That's one of those unexamined pre-conscious cultural assumptions I keep going on about. What evidence can you point to that supports this belief?

The reason I ask is that I've been researching that wall for the last four or five years, and frankly to me it looks a lot like this:

[Citizen Number 9]

5. See? Maybe that's a difference between you and me...

I'm pretty sure I could climb that, especially if it wasn't too rotten.

[GliderGuider]

8. Mountain-climbing metaphors aside

What evidence do you base your optimism on? You appear to believe that whatever converging economic/ecological/energy limits we face are easily surmountable. I say the facts do not support that position, and I can point to a number of references to buttress my argument. What supports the opposing position, beyond the assertion that, "Well, things never haven't gotten insurmountably bad in the recent past?"

[Citizen Number 9]

11. Since you felt the need to put it in there,

(I didn't) What's your definition of "easily"?

[GliderGuider]

12. That's just how you appear to me.

I'm really interested the answer to my main question. What evidence do you base your apparent optimism on?

[Citizen Number 9]

14. People who accomplish things in spite of the Naysayers don't

always have evidence to base their hope on.

Seriously, I can't believe you're really asking this.

Not much has changed from several years ago. A lot of the inflated economy has deflated, but there are still fundamentals in place. At worst, the pain will be felt in the contraction to fit the new reality, not in the new reality itself.

[GliderGuider]

15. Thanks

[GliderGuider]

16. And yes, I am a Naysayer.

Not by nature, but because I follow observed facts to their conclusion.

Humanity is engaged in an entropic enterprise that appears to be accelerating. The evidence of this is the continuing degradation of the world's physical environment -- rising atmospheric CO2, declining ocean fish stocks, degraded agricultural land, declining fresh water supplies, declining metal ore quality, Peak Oil etc. -- as well as the current financial/economic crisis.

I see no opportunity to turn this situation around voluntarily, because human behavior, mediated by deep and mutually reinforcing genetic and cultural influences, is enormously resistant to any change that implies a loss of status or power, and conversely is enormously attracted by change that implies a gain in status or power.

What this means is that despite the protests and warnings of people like me, humanity will continue on its present course until it no longer can -- until it is constrained by external events such as lack of energy, food shortages, rising sea levels and changing rainfall patterns, the destruction of the financial capital needed to address these issues, and social breakdown of various sorts.

At that point we will change, of course. But the converging ecological, financial, political, energy, soil, medical, and water crises cannot be averted. They cannot be, because the things that must happen to avert them will only happen as their consequence.

Humanity doesn't need my concurrence to "accomplish things in spite of the Naysayers". We do need the concurrence of the physical world, however. And for anyone who's been watching, it's clear that the physical world is withdrawing its consent.

This is why I champion "responses to our predicament" rather than "solutions to our problem".

[Citizen Number 9]

17. As citizens of the developed world

we waste half of what we have and we only really need a portion of the remaining half. That gives us some breathing room for now. The squealing you hear is primarily from those who don't want change of any kind. As a young student I had a friend whose answer for a wide range of bad human behavior was "People are creatures of habit". That's pretty wise for a twenty year old. Not only do people resist change, but if the best path is pointed out to them, they will invariably choose any other out of a sense of petulant independence. People need to be able to come to certain realizations on their own and will only arrive there after having been thoroughly battered by their previous choices.

[GliderGuider]

18. As far as I can tell

"those who don't want change of any kind" constitute a very large majority of the citizens of all developed (and even not-so-developed) nations. The fact that people are creatures of habit cuts a lot deeper than most realize -- there is a genetic component to that behavior that is very hard to change. It's wrapped up with the fact that people have a very steep discount function when it comes to assessing future risks.

One of the things to keep in mind about the current depression is that it very quickly is removing a lot of the consumption cushion we thought we had. I expect that by the end of the year people will be thoroughly battered, and some major shifts in behavior will be underway. I just hope those shifts won't include embracing too many fascist dictatorships.

[Citizen Number 9]

19. All that is precisely why the solution needs to be economic.

And I think this turmoil is part of the solution. Recently, I believe you were one of the posters calling for substantial taxes on petroleum based fuels. It's only that sort of thing that will help us solve these problems before they become a real crisis.

Behavior has a complex genetic base and I don't know how to get at that, even if society as a whole decided to address it. More concerning is that recent research shows that what people learn in their first few (formative) years at home is more powerful than we had previously thought. An example is families in which children are taught that Global Warming is a bunch of hogwash and that they are a tool if they ever fall for the "propaganda" they hear. These citizens are unlikely to participate in the solution unless there is an economic component. If I want to put 1500 gallons of kerosene in a biz jet I should be able to do that if I believe paying $5 a gallon is worthwhile. Same goes for large SUVs and diesel pickup trucks. I think we have seen that most people don't feel their gas guzzlers are that important. Many other things may go this way as well, including large homes and 40 minute commutes. It's just that there will be an adjustment period. We may be starting that period right now.

Are we still on topic? ;-)

[GliderGuider]

20. I think we're still on topic.

We're closer together on this issue than I thought at first. Yes, we need a massive gasoline tax. No, we won't get one. What we will get (eventually) will be gasoline rationing, along with rationing of many other commodities, because we are so reluctant to be proactive but are unfailingly reactive.

Your observation of early childhood learning is exactly correct, and very significant. This is the portal through which cultural values embed themselves in our psyche, and is the reason our cultural narrative (of perpetual growth, hierarchy, competition, scarcity amid surplus, human exceptionalism and dominion over nature) feels so self-evident. The combination of genetics, childhood imprinting and lifelong cultural reinforcement makes that story both irresistible and utterly transparent to most of us. This in turn explains the palpable sense of horror most of us feel when we contemplate the notion of a society in contraction.

Collectively we will not decide to address the grip that genetics has on our behavior because we don't see it as any kind of problem.

IMO there is no way to "solve these problems before they become a real crisis". The crisis has already arrived. What we can, must, do is act to keep it from getting as deep as it will if we sit by and do nothing. We must do this as individuals and small groups, because that pesky genetic thing will keep the majority of people from even admitting there is a problem until they are personally affected. We must each do what we can, but destiny, as always, will take care of itself.

[Citizen Number 9]

21. I expect the next round of petroleum rationing to be economic

rather than government mandated.

If the producers can get it together and restrict output the prices will spike, savaging small business yet again. I don't think it can spike high enough in the next cycle to threaten basic functions, though, mostly because I don't think producers can get it together. They are getting desperate for revenue. Look at the Russian/Ukrainian gas issues. That has potential to degrade into something quite serious. If that blows up, all bets are off, although I don't think its a given that will affect gasoline for us.

As the recession deepens folks will be carpooling more, taking mass transit and unnecessary trips will be further curtailed resulting in some savings. I'm pretty sure sales of big vehicles aren't going to recover simply because so many of them were financed with cheap credit and ballooning home equity. That will result in further conservation.

[Warpy]

2. Damn, somebody else is reading the Economy forum

There is no right way or wrong way to do this right now. We won't know what the "smart" thing to do is until it's over and we count up who has what. By this time, it's going to be how well we weather the crash.

That last line is what I've been saying for the last six months.

[teotwawki]

7. Perpetual growth

I really don't understand why *EVERYBODY* doesn't see that perpetual exponential growth
isn't a viable option. It seems like a concept that most reasonably bright twelve year olds could grasp, yet our world leaders continue to talk about growing the economy.

[GliderGuider]

9. The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.

Thanks to Dr. Albert Bartlett for that succinct statement of why we are in our present predicament.

[lostnotforgotten]

22. In 1996 I Was In The Final Semester Of Business School And Asked My Macro Economics Professor

How do the macro economic models of perpetual global growth behave in a resource constrained environment?

Professor asked for clarification?

I clarified, for example energy constraints via oil.

He replied, that possibility is not considered because inputs to the macro models are considered infinite i.e. unconstrained.

My response, have you considered modeling scenarios were that assumption is no longer valid?

Professors response, no.

My response, might that be a problem at some point in the future?

Professors reply, I am not paid to be a pessimist.

Discussion ends.

[Citizen Number 9]

23. What a slug.

Where did you take B-School?

[lostnotforgotten]

24. George Mason University In the DC Suburbs - Same Place Obama Is Giving His Economic Speech Tomorrow

eom

[Citizen Number 9]

25. No kidding?

I would have haunted that Professor, though.

What a tired attitude.

[lostnotforgotten]

26. No Kidding - Remember Though That This Is In The Halcyon Days Of Alan Greenspan's Fed

"Everything's working so why challenge assumptions."

[Citizen Number 9]

27. I think it might speak more to the educational philosophy and commitment

of the educator than the current Fed policy.

[lostnotforgotten]

28. Back Then, Mid 90s, The Economics Professors In The DC Area Were Infatuated With Greenspan

eom

[BeFree]

10. Yeah

It puts us in a quandary when the majority of the most massive consumer society the world has ever seen,
think that things can continue, on and on, evermore, forevermore.

Of course, the wise folks at the top of the pyramid know there are limits.
They don't like to think about it but they do.
So it becomes just a game to them as they strive for more, evermore, forevermore.

Until the end.

Are we at, or near the end? Could be. Looks that way to me. But I have been wrong before.
Ecologically and environmentally, it looks close. But the earth heals all the time.
In fact, the earth has no limits to growth, not really. Its always growing something, somewhere.

Financially? Its just money, and money is an illusion. Money is a Dream?
The American Dream = Money? Money evermore, forevermore? Dream on, sucker?

It really is quite amazing how Money has grown, tho. You'd think there'd be a limit.
And maybe that is what we are seeing the end of? The American Dream. Is it over?

Considering that most Americans are living a nightmare these days, it seems the dream sure has changed.

[Bigmack]

13. What you said....

only add this part.... Continued growth - exponential or not - is impossible in a finite system.

Ms. Bigmack