The Human Ecology of Collapse, Part One: Failure is the Only Option

[The2ndWheel]

http://www.energybulletin.net/50942

The old legend of the Holy Grail has a plot twist that’s oddly relevant to the predicament of industrial civilization. A knight who went searching for the Grail, so the story has it, if he was brave and pure, would sooner or later reach an isolated castle in the midst of the desolate Waste Land. There the Grail could be found and the Waste Land made green again, but only if the knight asked the right question. Failing that, he would wake the next morning in a deserted castle, which would vanish behind him as soon as he left, and it might take years of searching to find the castle again.

As we approach the twilight of the age of cheap energy, we’re arguably in a similar situation. It seems to me that a great deal of the confusion that grips the peak oil scene, and even more of the blind commitment to catastrophically misguided policies that reigns outside peak-aware circles, comes from a failure to ask the right questions. A great many people aware of the limits to fossil fuels, for example, have assumed that the question that needs answering is how to sustain a modern industrial society on alternative energy.

Ask that, though, and you’re back in the Waste Land, because any answer you give to that question is wrong. The question that has to be asked is whether a modern industrial society can exist at all without vast and rising inputs of essentially free energy, of the sort only available on this planet from fossil fuels, and the answer is no. Once that’s grasped, other useful questions come to mind – for example, how much of the useful legacy of the last three centuries can be saved, and how – but until you get past the wrong question, you’re stuck chasing the mirage of a replacement for oil that didn’t take a hundred million years or so to come into being.

[GliderGuider]

1. Greer is the thinking man's Kunstler

More measured rhetoric, but essentially identical conclusions. I agree with Greer that despite the fervent hopes and endless calculations of the renewable energy crowd we are unlikely to ever see a global industrial civilization powered by windmills and turbines. Certainly not one that provides anything like the level of material comfort (aka entropy) that this one does.

I especially like these bits:

Notice that what’s happening in all these cases is that the system is working the way it’s supposed to work. Elected representatives, after all, are supposed to worry about what their constituents back home will think; the excesses of each party are supposed to be held in check by the well-founded worry that the other party can and will make political hay out of any missteps the party in power might happen to make. For that matter, national governments justify their existence by defending the interests of their citizens in international disputes. In most cases, these checks and balances are not only useful but vitally important; unchecked power in any aspect of human life pretty consistently turns into tyranny. In certain cases, though, these otherwise helpful protections turn into barriers that keep necessary decisions from being made.

Nobody, but nobody, is willing to deal with the harsh reality of what a carbon-neutral society would have to be like. This is what makes the blame game so popular, and it also provides the impetus behind meaningless gestures of the sort that are on the table at Copenhagen. It’s a common piece of rhetoric these days to say that “failure is not an option,” but this sort of feckless thoughtstopper misses the point as totally as any human utterance possibly could. Failure is always an option; when trying to prevent it will lead to highly unpleasant personal consequences, without actually having the least chance of preventing it, a strong case can be made that the most viable option for anyone in a leadership position is to enjoy the party while it lasts, and hope you can duck the blame when it all comes crashing down.

In the face of this reality it becomes ever more clear that acceptance and adaptation are the only way we have left to go. The choices about how we come to acceptance and how we adapt will always be individual, but ignoring the fact that the living room has been taken over be a whole herd of elephants is no longer an option.

[tabatha]

2. Acceptance and adaption

The acceptance won't come until it all comes crashing down - which means that Mother Nature is going to be the most powerful disciplinarian - no-one else will be listened to. And at that point, we will have to adapt or die.

It is the only way that the population is going to be kept in check, and people who dream of having 19+ children are going to be slapped on the wrist by Mother Nature.

Other populations are kept in check by natural forces. Mankind has overcome those checks, to the point that it is fouling its own nest on a daily basis. There is just so much that Nature can clean up - there is a limit.

[kristopher]

4. How does he establish what ...

I see you are STILL arguing for nuclear via the back door...

How does he establish what "the harsh reality of what a carbon-neutral society would have to be like"?

That premise is fundamental to the argument. It is also an unsupported personal opinion that contradicts the well informed opinion of professionals that have produced all those "endless calculations" used by "the renewable energy crowd".

In other words there is a vast body of empirical data that says you and your "thinking man's Kuntsler" are wrong. Since you have zero empirical data to support your assertions that "we are unlikely to ever see a global industrial civilization powered by windmills and turbines" your position is intellectually untenable.

[GliderGuider]

6. I'm not asking you to share my position, I'm merely stating it.

No, I'm not arguing for nuclear by the back door.
You are precisely one of the "renewable energy crowd" I was talking about.
I suspect that myth will have more bearing on the outcome of this predicament than science will.

[kristopher]

7. Sure you are

You post with a purpose. You are using the same argument for nuclear by process of elimination that you used to base around the peak oil crap.

Otherwise why are you so intent on discrediting a huge body of empirical evidence that says your most basic premise is false?

[GliderGuider]

9. I post mostly for entertainment.

Convincing people of one thing or another on a board like this has absolutely no discernible impact on the real world. If I had a "purpose" I'd be out in the world, not here. Posting here is purely social for me. I'm interested in these issues, so I post on a board where others share that interest. No great agenda here.

Similarly, I'm not trying to "discredit a huge body of empirical evidence". I'm just saying I don't believe it will be implemented. I see the barriers to implementation more as shortcomings in human neuropsychology than any deficiency in the evidence. You say "could", I say "probably won't".

[kristopher]

10. Probably won't?

That is an odd interpretation of your words from the OP, "I agree with Greer that despite the fervent hopes and endless calculations of the renewable energy crowd we are unlikely to ever see a global industrial civilization powered by windmills and turbines. Certainly not one that provides anything like the level of material comfort (aka entropy) that this one does."

How do "shortcomings in human neuropsychology" result in the failure you spoke of? It seems pretty evident that the remark is aimed directly at the technical capability of renewables to meet the demands of "global industrial civilization" and that it has absolutely nothing to do with the way humans are hardwired nor how that wiring translates into cultural institutions and actions.

It is, in other words, a direct statement that intends to discredit the proven potential of renewable energy to meet our needs.

That in turn brings us back to the issue of nuclear power. The issue of climate change is pressing and action must be taken. The Republican plan to take such action (insomuch as one exists) involves massive deployment of nuclear power. Most analysts completely disagree with the premise that nuclear is a viable option in either the short or long term and they conclude that the Democratic position aiming to meet our needs with renewable energy is greatly preferred. Your attempt to falsely discredit renewable energy has the result of being a defacto endorsement of Republican energy policy.

Let's add the assumption implicit in your statement quoted above:
"I agree with Greer that despite the fervent hopes and endless calculations of the renewable energy crowd we are unlikely to ever see a global industrial civilization powered by windmills and turbines. Certainly not one that provides anything like the level of material comfort (aka entropy) that this one does. <For that we must have nuclear power.>"

I know that you will now disavow nuclear also, for this conversation is one of many similar ones. The thing that argues against your sincerity, however, is that the pattern is always the same - a rejection of the recommended course of action built around renewables while no mention is made of nuclear, and THEN a "correction" when you're called on the bias. This isn't an isolated instance in other words.

Perhaps such instances of miscommunication could be avoided by bearing in mind that Republican efforts aimed at spreading disinformation have made some of us particularly sensitive to such repeated misstatements.

If you want to argue against the willingness of people to take action that is a legitimate point of view - but arguing against the ability of renewable technology to meet our needs is PURE REPUBLICAN SPIN.

[Terry in Austin]

11. Renewable sources able to meet our needs? Yes -- necessarily

Once fossil energy has dwindled out of the picture, renewables will be it. (Forget nuclear.)

The only hitch comes with that little thing we call "needs." Reduce them by, say, two-thirds, and you can be sure that renewables will meet them. The modest amount of energy available then will define the upper limit of what our "needs" are.

Like the man says, "accept and adapt."

Let the bargaining continue -- depression is not far behind.

[kristopher]

12. Those are totally false statments that are completely disproved. Why do you make them?

There are no end of studies showing that your statements are false, so the onus is on you to present some sort of valid analysis supporting your claim that all of those studies are reaching invalid conclusions.

Do you have some sort of citation that can validate your statements?

Here are a couple of mine:
This is from 2002 and the final sentence regarding the need for R&D has since been shown to be overly pessimistic. Existing technologies are completely able to deliver the fundamental infrastructure and further developments will only enhance the economics.

Science 1 November 2002:
Vol. 298. no. 5595, pp. 981 - 987
DOI: 10.1126/science.1072357
ENGINEERING:
Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet

Martin I. Hoffert,1* Ken Caldeira,3 Gregory Benford,4 David R. Criswell,5 Christopher Green,6 Howard Herzog,7 Atul K. Jain,8 Haroon S. Kheshgi,9 Klaus S. Lackner,10 John S. Lewis,12 H. Douglas Lightfoot,13 Wallace Manheimer,14 John C. Mankins,15 Michael E. Mauel,11 L. John Perkins,3 Michael E. Schlesinger,8 Tyler Volk,2 Tom M. L. Wigley16

Stabilizing the carbon dioxide-induced component of climate change is an energy problem. Establishment of a course toward such stabilization will require the development within the coming decades of primary energy sources that do not emit carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, in addition to efforts to reduce end-use energy demand. Mid-century primary power requirements that are free of carbon dioxide emissions could be several times what we now derive from fossil fuels (~1013 watts), even with improvements in energy efficiency. Here we survey possible future energy sources, evaluated for their capability to supply massive amounts of carbon emission-free energy and for their potential for large-scale commercialization. Possible candidates for primary energy sources include terrestrial solar and wind energy, solar power satellites, biomass, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, fission-fusion hybrids, and fossil fuels from which carbon has been sequestered. Non-primary power technologies that could contribute to climate stabilization include efficiency improvements, hydrogen production, storage and transport, superconducting global electric grids, and geoengineering. All of these approaches currently have severe deficiencies that limit their ability to stabilize global climate. We conclude that a broad range of intensive research and development is urgently needed to produce technological options that can allow both climate stabilization and economic development.

1 Department of Physics,
2 Department of Biology, New York University, New York, NY 10003, USA.
3 Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, CA 94550, USA.
4 Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of California, Irvine, CA 92697, USA.
5 Institute of Space Systems Operations, University of Houston, Houston, TX 77204, USA.
6 Department of Economics, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2T7, Canada.
7 MIT Laboratory for Energy and the Environment, Cambridge, MA 02139, USA.
8 Department of Atmospheric Sciences, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL 61801, USA.
9 ExxonMobil Research and Engineering Company, Annandale, NJ 08801, USA.
10 Department of Earth and Environmental Engineering,
11 Department of Applied Physics and Applied Mathematics, Columbia University, New York, NY 10027, USA.
12 Lunar and Planetary Laboratory, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
13 Centre for Climate and Global Change Research, McGill University, Montreal, Quebec H3A 2K6, Canada.
14 Plasma Physics Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC 20375, USA.
15 NASA Headquarters, Washington, DC 20546, USA.
16 National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO 80307, USA.
* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: marty.hoffert{at}nyu.edu

You could also consult Renewable energy: Sources for fuels and electricity by Johansson, T.B. ; Kelly, H. ; Reddy, A.K.N. ; Williams, R.H. 1993

Available at fine libraries everywhere or from amazon http://www.amazon.com/Renewable-Energy-Sources-Fuels-Electricity/dp/1559631384

[Terry in Austin]

14. Probably for the same reasons you make yours

Why do you ask?

B-)

[kristopher]

15. No, there is an essential difference which I noted

"There are no end of studies showing that your statements are false, so the onus is on you to present some sort of valid analysis supporting your claim that all of those studies are reaching invalid conclusions.

Do you have some sort of citation that can validate your statements?"

So my question stands; why do you promote false information?

[muriel_volestrangler]

58. How does quoting something from 2002, and then saying it's wrong, and naming a book 10 years older

than that, help at all? Nothing there 'validates your statements' at all.

[IrateCitizen]

59. Now, now. Don't muddle the picture with such unpleasantries.

When your primary focus is to be "right" rather than to have fun or learn something, such inconsistencies are to be overlooked. :evilgrin:

[kristopher]

61. the book is one of the first comprehesive works on the question of energy security

...through renewable energy. It details the resources and capabilities in much greater detail than the 2002 article - which is a recap of the book that basically just reiterates the same conclusions from the book that was written so long before. What the article provides that the book doesn't is availability, unless you want to shell out the $90 for the book.

The original claim is directly a statement of the CAPABILITY of renewable resources to provide for our industrial culture. Both the article and the book make clear that they can.

The part I warn is obsolete is the part that says we need more R&D. That was a standard belief in 2002. It has since been shown to be wrong. There are a whole slew of plans to effect the transition that are built on the knowledge gained since 202. See Al Gore's website for his newest book where he lays out one such plan.

[muriel_volestrangler]

62. The 'original claim' (ie what you quoted, I presume) includes nuclear and 'clean coal'

"terrestrial solar and wind energy, solar power satellites, biomass, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, fission-fusion hybrids, and fossil fuels from which carbon has been sequestered"

which didn't seem to be what you were arguing yourself. Now, perhaps the full paper ends up saying the various nuclear and 'clean coal' options aren't needed, but there's no indication of that from the quote you gave.

[kristopher]

63. Each is treated individually.

Sometimes thought is required for understanding - but you aren't aiming for understanding are you.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. Thery're not treated individually in what you copied here

and since you didn't give a link either (and it looks like a paper you'd probably need a subscription for, being from 'Science'), it's not just 'thought' that was required. It's a subscription, or a search for it being published (or nicked) for free somewhere else too. This is why your post wasn't helpful.

[kristopher]

65. Then perhaps you should do some legwork yourself.

If I recall the article was from the National Academy of Science website and was, I believe open access. If it isn't then go to Gore's new website, or googles website on energy or to the link elsewhere in the thread where bananas posted another abstract that might serve your needs better.

The over riding point was and is that the statement made asserting that renewables can't meet our needs is *so* fucking preposterous as to be nothing more than right wing slander of the Democratic party's energy policy.

[Dead_Parrot]

66. Awesome argument.

"I can't prove my own point, could you do it for me?"

Tune in next week to see Richard Dawkins prove that the creationists were right all along.

[kristopher]

67. Or it could be titled - enough of arguing with an idiot.

[muriel_volestrangler]

69. OK, I searched for a summary of it, since you couldn't find us one

and since that paper is subscription-only on the Science site (something you obviously haven't bother checking before presenting it to us).

The important points made in the article are:

"Energy sources that can produce 100 to 300% of present world power consumption without greenhouse emissions do not exist operationally or as pilot plants."

Improved efficiency in use of fuels is possible, although many uses are already very efficient.

"10 TW from biomass requires >10% of Earth's land surface, comparable to all of human agriculture." And, we are now using 12 TW, and we will use around 30 TW by mid century. Already, by 2008 the demand for biofuels collided with the demand for more and better food in developing countries leading to soaring food prices and food riots in many countries.

"The electrical equivalent of 10 TW requires a surface array ~470 km on a side (220,000 km2). However, all the PV cells shipped from 1982 to 1998 would only cover ~3 km2"

"The main problem with fission for climate stabilization is fuel...Current estimates of U in proven reserves and (ultimately recoverable) resources are 3.4 and 17 million metric tons, respectively ...At 10 TW, this would only last 6 to 30 years--hardly a basis for energy policy.

http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/environment-book/energyE.html

So its summary is: further work is needed, on efficiency or new technology. Now, your argument is that this is wrong; but you just asserted that, without an attempt at explanation.

Your claim "Existing technologies are completely able to deliver the fundamental infrastructure" is at odds with what that paper said.

So, yet again, I still have to point out you haven't backed up your position at all. You've linked to something that disagrees, and then said "but they're wrong".

[bananas]

71. Here are free links to the full papers - kristopher is correct

In post #12 kristopher said:

This is from 2002 and the final sentence regarding the need for R&D has since been shown to be overly pessimistic. Existing technologies are completely able to deliver the fundamental infrastructure and further developments will only enhance the economics.

His statement is correct - yes, it's at odds with the 2002 paper, because the 2002 paper has since been shown to be overly pessimistic.
The summary website you used quotes the 2004 Pacala-Socolow paper right below their quote from the 2002 Hoffert paper.
The 2004 Pacala-Socolow paper says:

Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world's energy needs over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric CO2 to a trajectory that avoids a doubling of the preindustrial concentration. Every element in this portfolio has passed beyond the laboratory bench and demonstration project; many are already implemented somewhere at full industrial scale. Although no element is a credible candidate for doing the entire job (or even half the job) by itself, the portfolio as a whole is large enough that not every element has to be used.

If you use "the google", you can find the full papers online for free:
The 2004 Pacala-Socolow paper: http://carbonsequestration.us/Papers-presentations/htm/Pacala-Socolow-ScienceMag-Aug2004.pdf
The 2002 Hoffert paper: http://fire.pppl.gov/science_adv_energy_103102.pdf

It's been five years, there has been a lot of follow-up work since then.
Joe Romm has an excellent analysis of both technology and policy at Climate Progress:

How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution
March 26, 2009

In this post I will lay out “the solution” to global warming, focusing primarily on the 12 to 14 “stabilization wedges.” This post is an update to “Is 450 ppm (or less) politically possible? Part 2: The Solution.”

I have argued that stabilizing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at 450 ppm or lower is not politically possible today, but that it is certainly achievable from an economic and technological perspective (see Part 1). I do, however, believe humanity will do it since the alternative is Hell and High Water.

It would require some 12-14 of Princeton’s “stabilization wedges” — strategies and/or technologies that over a period of a few decades each reduce global carbon emissions by one billion metric tons per year from projected levels (see technical paper here, less technical one here). The reason that we need twice as many wedges as Princeton’s Pacala and Socolow have said we need was explained in Part 1. That my analysis is largely correct can be seen here: “IEA report, Part 2: Climate Progress has the 450-ppm solution about right.”

I agree with the IPCC’s detailed review of the technical literature, which concluded in 2007 that “The range of stabilization levels assessed can be achieved by deployment of a portfolio of technologies that are currently available and those that are expected to be commercialised in coming decades.” The technologies they say can beat 450 ppm are here. Technology Review, one of the nation’s leading technology magazines, also argued in a cover story two years ago, “It’s Not Too Late,” that “Catastrophic climate change is not inevitable. We possess the technologies that could forestall global warming.”

I also agree with McKinsey Global Institute’s 2008 Research in Review: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero.

<snip>

[kristopher]

72. Listen to those crickets... nt

[muriel_volestrangler]

74. 'Crickets'? Someone else does your work for you

using a paper you never even quoted from, and you then post about your own 'crickets'?

I'll say 'thank you' to bananas for linking to something worth reading. I won't thank you for calling me an idiot, kristopher. Maybe that surprises your sense of entitlement. Get off your arse and back up what you claim, next time.

[IrateCitizen]

68. +1

:thumbsup:

[GliderGuider]

16. Probably won't.

I think it may be technically possible for renewables to power an industrial civilization. I'm not 100% convinced, but given the right starting assumptions and the right expectations for the level of industrial activity, it should be possible. My objection has nothing whatever to do with technical feasibility. It used to, but I no longer think that technical feasibility will play a role in the outcome.

I refer to neuropsychology because I think that our evolved brain structure has bequeathed us with a number of key psychological qualities that will act as impediments in this situation. Those qualities include our herding behaviour, our steep discount rate for abstract threats, our tendency to see the world as separate from us, and our urge to seek power on the one hand and defer to it on the other. All these qualities seem to be exquisitely suited to supporting and defending Business As Usual.

The reason "we are unlikely to see a global civilization powered by windmills" has nothing to do with whether such a thing is technically possible, and everything to do with whether the psychological framework that underpins our industrial civilization will permit that to happen.

The rest is your projection.

[kristopher]

18. Since it is my "projection"

You'll be able to answer the question I posed:

That is an odd interpretation of your words from the OP, "I agree with Greer that despite the fervent hopes and endless calculations of the renewable energy crowd we are unlikely to ever see a global industrial civilization powered by windmills and turbines. Certainly not one that provides anything like the level of material comfort (aka entropy) that this one does."

How do "shortcomings in human neuropsychology" result in the failure you spoke of? It seems pretty evident that the remark is aimed directly at the technical capability of renewables to meet the demands of "global industrial civilization" and that it has absolutely nothing to do with the way humans are hardwired nor how that wiring translates into cultural institutions and actions.



Your entirely unsatisfying answer was "I refer to neuropsychology because I think that our evolved brain structure has bequeathed us with a number of key psychological qualities that will act as impediments in this situation. Those qualities include our herding behaviour, our steep discount rate for abstract threats, our tendency to see the world as separate from us, and our urge to seek power on the one hand and defer to it on the other. All these qualities seem to be exquisitely suited to supporting and defending Business As Usual."

How do you go from that to a world where the "calculations of the renewable energy crowd" are negated by behavior where people CHOOSE to live at a "level of material comfort" that is dramatically lower than what we now have?

How does that work? The ONLY way your words make any sort of sense is as a statement on technical capabilities.

I'd really love to hear a solid explanation of the path to social rejection of affordable, abundant, clean renewable energy in favor of dramatically lower standards of living.

[GliderGuider]

19. I'm about to go out for my birthday dinner, so I'll answer you later.

Cheers.

[kristopher]

20. Enjoy. nt

[joshcryer]

22. Happy birthday. :)

[Dead_Parrot]

23. Happy birthday, Paul...

:toast:

...Crikey, how many candles? No wonder the icecaps are melting! Quick, blow then out...

;)

[bananas]

28. Happy Birthday!

:party:

[GliderGuider]

43. Thanks for the good wishes, everybody.

Dinner was outstanding. My Beloved took me to an aboriginal bistro where we dined on bison and duck, and sipped the nectar of each other's souls. And now, back to the fray...

[GliderGuider]

44. Here's how I see it working.

First of all, we have evolved a steep discount function with respect to abstract risks like global warming. This means that the more abstract and remote a threat is, the less urgently we respond to it. In fact, it's difficult for most people to perceive such things as threats. We tend to respond urgently only to immediate, tangible difficulties. There is a paper by a prof at UC Berkeley on this effect and its application to global warming here.

Next there's the herding instinct. Like the discount rate, this appears to be a product of our limbic brain. What it does is makes us very susceptible to popular opinion - we tend go along with the herd unless there are urgent personal reasons not to do so. It's why we respond so well to to advertising, why stock market bubbles develop, and why the "War on Terror" meme was so successful. In each case we adopt rational justifications for our behaviour, but the behaviour itself is actually rooted at a very deep level in our brain's wiring.

Third is deference to authority. That comes from even deeper down, from the "reptilian" brain that was laid down hundreds of thousand years ago. This part of our brain generates behavior related to survival and hierarchy. It's where the "fight or flight" mechanism resides, and where our urge to dominate or submit to other troop members comes from. Because of this, when an alpha asserts themselves, large numbers of "average citizens" immediately and unquestioningly accept their leadership.

These three qualities define the behaviour of the vast majority of people when it comes to a threat like like AGW. They don't see it as an immediate threat, so they're not prepared to spend significant time, energy or attention on it. When they see their friends and neighbours ignoring it this reinforces their assessment and makes them feel perfectly justified in their non-response. In the US, the RW noise-box makes all kinds of authoritative-sounding pronouncements against action, so the three tendencies line up to make people believe such stupidity as, "The calls of alarm are coming from eggheads with agendas who are just getting their panties in a bunch over grant money and academic empires." They'll stop driving their SUV to work when the neighbours do: the neigbours haven't stopped, there's no sign around them that this "global warming" thing is even real, the kids still need to get to football practice, and everybody on Fox news is telling them not to fall for that baloney. So they keep on driving.

That's the innocent side of the equation. Now let's look at the darker, more cynical side. Politics. In the USA your representatives are elected by the people I just described above. If an individual politician awakens and starts promoting renewable energy, this leaves an opening the size of the Kasserine Pass for their opponents. All the opponent has to do is appeal to the three instincts I described above, and the result is virtually a foregone conclusion. They paint the concerned politician as slightly hysterical, say that the proposals are going to cost people their jobs, point out that everything is OK and that if there is a problem that it can be taken care of later since everything is just fine right now, trot out a bunch of scientists with opposing views to weaken the perception of consensus, and reassure the voters that they have their best interests at heart - unlike the self-serving, hysterical greenie they're opposing. On election day it's game over.

Now why would a politician be so cynical? It all comes back to the power-seeking aspects of the reptilian brain. To an alpha, being top dog is more important that anything else in the universe. Ordinary people are simply resources to them, because they have a very strong sense of separation between self and other. As long as their nest is appropriately feathered today, they really don't care if ten million Bangladeshis will be displaced by a rising ocean in 30 years. It's simply not an issue. This applies in spades to the corporate interests that control many (or most) of the successful politicians in the world today. In most countries you don't become a successful politician unless you have a commonality of interest with the corporate power brokers. You can disguise it (as Obama has until recently) but it's a fact of political life. Such politicians will not permit the adoption of any legislation that threatens their corporate symbiotes. If there is pressure to adopt something, it will be weak, unenforceable and full of loopholes.

The major corporate interests are not about to risk their entrenched powers by taking a gamble on renewable energy or conservation, especially if they worry that it might erode their position. And since ethics is not a fiduciary requirement for a corporation, they are under no obligation to fight fair. Buying politicians and funding disinformation campaigns are all in a day's work.

So the way I see it, cynical politicians tend to win, their agenda is always in favour of the moment, they are supported by corporate interests that are both risk-averse and amoral, and the voting public is easily led by those who knows a bit about evolved neuropsychology and are prepared to put their own interests ahead of those of the voters.

This is the recipe for Business as Usual. The boffins can develop all the clever technology they want, the activists can rant and rail, the enlightened policy wonks can write papers until their fingers are worn to stubs -- in the face of the forces I've described above, nothing will change until the problems are so overwhelming that they can no longer be denied. Even then, the politicians will misdirect the public away from the real causes (generally by scapegoating a person or group of people) if it's in the interests of their corporate string-pullers to do so.

So people won't "reject affordable, abundant, clean renewable energy in favor of dramatically lower standards of living." They will see it as rejecting the lower standard of living that the greenies want to impose on them in support of a self-righteous agenda that puts the needs of animals and plants ahead of those of human beings. By doing this we will of course back ourselves right into the corner of lowered standards of living, but those in power won't ever put it that way.

I suspect that you see people by and large as rational actors, driven largely by neocortical reasoning. I don't. I see people as largely irrational. Most of us are subject at all times to the unconscious influences of our reptilian and limbic brains, with the neocortex providing little more than post-hoc rationalization to validate the unconscious decisions that drive our behaviour. This is why I believe the green revolution as it is currently formulated is doomed.

[kristopher]

47. "I suspect that you see people by and large as rational actors"

Not at all.

I see people as being more inclined to post hoc rationalizations of their actions. The actions themselves are largely emotive, and you've described a few (far too few) of the triggers that are in our daily environment.

I can agree to an extent with your first three observations as generalized tendencies in behavior, however from there we start to encounter some poorly defined concepts that have a strong bearing on the conclusions.

First is the obvious way you are defining diverse groups with a single profile. For example, you've described the right wing propaganda effort accurately but applied the associated values that it is targeting to everyone. If that were accurate, DU wouldn't exist.

Some people fear are motivated by fear of loss. Pay attention to any salesperson (particularly insurance) and you'll see the way this fear is exploited; people will spend significant sums to ensure the security they've worked to provide their family is maintained.

When one disciplines a child, it is often through fear of loss; eat your peas, or no desert.

A Western child's prayer: Now I lay me down to sleep, I pray the lord my soul to keep. If I should die before I wake I pray the lord my soul to take. That is religious indoctrination based on fear of loss of life.

That was just to display that the motives that push us are very basic emotional responses that can work to motivate pursuit of any number of goals. What I see you doing is describing everyone as having the same goals. I might look to my neighbor for cues as to appropriate social behavior, but when the neighbor on the left is giving me different cues than the neighbor on the right, then what happens?


You've done the same with corporations; companies who make batteries and solar panels are pursuing different goals than ExxonMobile and Phelps Dodge. It simply can't be argued that there are not strong dynamics at work where conflicting interests pursue power through various avenues, including the ones you describe.

I certainly agree with the lack of ethics portion of your thoughts, but again, it isn't universal nor is it necessarily the defining input into the way events unfold.

What I see is a complex system that is extremely flexible. This system is oriented around two physical realities - reproduction to ensure the species and production of goods and services to provide for human needs. These are fundamental drivers for our lives and our cultural constructs reflect the physical realities associated with performing these tasks. This cultural "infrastructure" is adaptable in the same way that a multicelled organism is adaptable through evolutionary forces. However where evolution on the physiological level is a rather slow process by standards of human lifetimes, the cultural evolutionary process can be extremely rapid.

The evolutionary forces that have the most pronounced impact on the shape of the culture are those that affect the way we produce our food and other necessities of life. When a segment of the cultural infrastructure is successful it is usually because it is a positive force in production with implications for reproductive success (note that limiting overpopulation can be just as important as repopulation of a decimated group). Harris terms this "the primacy of infrastructure".

What the infrastructure is the dominate over is 1) the values and beliefs that people hold and 2) the way social groups and institutions form and interact.

Given that this is how I organize my perception and interpretation of events, I come to disticntly different conclusions than you do about the way things work. Since I've posted the results of that view many times, I'll give you a birthday gift and spare you the repetition.

[GliderGuider]

48. Fear is a very powerful (de)motivator

Fear is a reptilian-brain survival response, so it's very deep and intense. Thanks for bringing that out.

My discussion of corporations targets only those that are symbiotic with politicians. The battery and solar panel makers don't reach that threshold by and large -- certainly not in comparison to companies like the oil majors, General Dynamics, Halliburton etc.

I agree that cultural evolution can be very rapid. That underpins the hope I find in Hawken's "Blessed Unrest" movement. I think the situation I'm describing here is one that will impede progress, possibly until long after major damage has been done. It may not prevent progress entirely, but I expect to see ferocious attempts to do just that. I think the email hack and the leak of the Denmark Text (as distinct from the emails or the text itself) are instances of that.

My pessimism may turn out to be unfounded, but I've seen precious little evidence of that yet. Right now I place all my hope in the grassroots, because I think the playing field at the higher levels is essentially controlled by the political and corporate interests I've described. As an anarchist I prefer to see power devolve to small autonomous groups of people rather than remain vested in large centralized social structures, so that's where I direct my energy.

[zazen]

8. beautifully stated . . he's my favorite writer on the Net today

His work on economics is elegantly lucid and mind-blowing. I still think my favorite essay of his, as odd as it sounds, is "The Theology of Compost." He's great at synthesizing, and while I appreciate many of Kuntsler's insights, JK is just so angry that it undercuts many of his points. Greer comes off as a lot more humble, so I take him more seriously.

[joshcryer]

21. "unlikely to ever see"

I don't know about that, I think that it's an almost certainity we will have a renewable civilization, and this is within 50-60 years or thereabouts. The key is what a carbon neutral society would look like, once we have it, and how we get to it. If you're looking at a society with 6C temperatures the civilization looks dramatically different.

I see "acceptance and adaptation" as the current paradigm, the politicians and those with power accept that the scientists are right, secretly, in private, but they believe that a future society can adapt to any dramatic climate change that their current policies accept and do nothing about.

So in the end I don't believe that's a good path to take at all.

[Speck Tater]

3. K&R Time for mankind to stop living in fantasyland. nt

[pscot]

5. The Grail castle is an elegant, but depressing

analogy. Greed and self interest prevent one even seeing it, much less asking the right question. And even if the right question is asked and answered, the problem seems insoluble. Given our numbers and the logistical requirements of meeting our basic needs, ít's very hard to see how we can change enough, soon enough to pull back from the brink. Our problems are Newtonian. Mass and momentum are working aginst us.

[TxRider]

24. Greed may be the answer

Fossil fuel prices will increase to a point that alternatives will become cheaper, and alternatives will step in and replace them, as well as drive efficiencies as people become more price conscious.

But unless and until fossil fuels become that expensive to consumers we will not likely see change. As the saying goes, money talks.

Will it happen in time?

[kristopher]

25. We are in the midst of the crossover point right now.

Investment is abandoning fossil fuels and turning to renewable deployment.

[joshcryer]

26. That's a flat out lie, read EIA IEO 2009.

[kristopher]

27. LOL you have an amazing record of being wrong, ralph.

Remember what I said about winners and losers; that we have to create conditions where there is opportunity for a new class of winners to emerge so that they have a motive to fight economically against the entrenched system?
This is what that is all about.

I told my "lie" as you call it at 11:34. Here is the quote of my words: "Investment is abandoning fossil fuels and turning to renewable deployment."

And at 12:59 I posted a comment here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x221376
From the article on the investment report: "Clean energy technology is on track to become the third largest industrial sector globally with a rapidly increasing share taken up by China, predicted a WWF report released at the UN climate summit in Copenhagen today...In 2007, clean energy technology had a sales volume of €630 billion and was already larger than the global pharmaceutical industry."

Now please explain how your chart on generation by fuel addresses the flow of capital into the two sectors. It doesn't, you know.
Anyone capable of even the most basic reasoning can see it doesn't go to the matter of investment, which is an absolute leading indicator of the economic viability for the relative sectors.

The WWF report is damned strong evidence of the validity of my opinion.

Liar, huh?

[joshcryer]

29. Dollar for dollar renewable gets more investement money. That isn't changing the fact...

...that per watt fossil is being invested in and built more. The lie is that we are by no means anywhere near a "crossover point."

[kristopher]

30. Just digging your hole deeper.

You poor feller, I feel for you, I really do. It must be miserable to be so wrong, so often, so publicly.

[joshcryer]

31. I do admit I thought you meant investment in an abstract sense, and not monetarily.

Monetarily sure, there is more money invested in renewable. As far as wattage is concerned, nope. The graphs are clear.

Even money investment wise, we are still, of course, no where near a crossover point.

I assume you know what "crossover point" means.

[kristopher]

32. As far as "crossover point"

I'm referring to momentum in the sector. US coal plant investment is at a virtual standstill and has been for 2 years now, the only appreciable investment in the fossil electric sector is natural gas.

Petroleum is the same way; the IEA has been bitching about impending limits of capacity to pump for several years and the reason is always the same - no one wants to invest *heavily enough* in new exploration or development.

On the other hand, money is flying into all phases of renewables.

this isn't a trickle, it is the beginning of a fairly substantial flood.

[joshcryer]

34. OECD fossil utilization has flatlined, that is not new.

Until your trend is global then I do not see it as a useful "crossover point."

[kristopher]

36. You don't see most things unless they are in the rear view mirror.

The trick is seeing what's ahead.

[joshcryer]

38. I place a lot of value on EIA projections, tbh.

They're very good projections, they've been dead on for nearly a decade that I've followed them. (Started when a friend of mine who believed in nuclear started talking conspiracy talk, and I looked up the numbers and realized how expensive it was and explained to him there was no conspiracy.)

[kristopher]

40. EIA projections suck - seriously.

Compare the past decade of annual projections for wind with the results achieved. After years of double digit growth they were still predicting 2-3% annual increases in capacity. It has been astonishing.

[joshcryer]

42. Who would you trust for wind growth projections?

I trusted the EIA because their latest report (post-stimulus) seems to give wind a lot of room (though why it stops growing in their projections is unclear).

[TxRider]

45. They are throwing up windmils in Texas like crazy

They have already built the worlds largest windfarm here, and they are adding more huge windmills at a pretty astounding rate, or were until the recession hit anyway.

Solar has yer to get anywhere, but it likely will eventually.

Problem is neither is really relieable enough and we have to keep coal plant capacity to back them up currently.

[bananas]

50. Joe Romm at Climate Progress: "you can pretty much ignore the post-2012 projections by EIA"

Joe Romm has the most reality-based information out there.
Read this whole post:

http://www.climateprogress.com/2009/05/18/eia-stimulus-wind-power-renewable-energy/

<snip>

Significantly, the EIA, which is the DOE’s independent analytical arm, is no fan of safe sources of energy that never run out. When I was at the DOE in the mid-1990s, we uncovered a key reason there was so little wind in EIA’s modeling of federal climate action: Their original forecast had in fact shown a huge upsurge, so the EIA analysts tweaked the model to artificially suppress wind. And today, the EIA is run by my old friend, Howard Gruenspecht, who was a Bush Sr. holdover at DOE’s office of policy when I started there in 1992 and a Bush, Jr. appointee at EIA. He ain’t progressive. Obama should replace him. But I digress.

<snip>

Now you can pretty much ignore the post-2012 projections by EIA since they have self-inflicted myopia — EIA’s basic forecasts assume “no further energy and climate policy” and “no peak oil.” For instance, their analysis notes “wind capacity growth is projected to slow significantly after the expiration of the Federal tax credits in 2012.”

<snip>

[kristopher]

52. Where would we be without Joe?

I suspected that was what was happening. Glad to have some confirmation.

Thanks.

[joshcryer]

53. They lowball everything, including emissions.

[bananas]

57. You asked who you can trust

Paul Krugman trusts Joe Romm on climate.
Do you trust Paul Krugman?
Joe Romm predicts US emissions peaked in 2007:

http://climateprogress.org/2009/05/11/us-carbon-dioxide-emissions-peaked-in-2007/

May 11, 2009

I am predicting that U.S. energy-related carbon dioxide emissions will never exceed 2007 levels. We have peaked.

<snip>

So you see, what looks like a bold prediction is not terribly bold at all. I think this is much more of a sure thing than, say, my standard bet that the Arctic will be 90% ice free by 2020.

<snip>

[joshcryer]

73. EIA predicted that, and the trend is that, indeed.

Worldwide EIA is off on CO2 emissions, they're always higher end of the estimates, and over. I expect EIA 2010 to even be more bleak.

[kristopher]

51. The trade organizations

Danish Wind Energy Assoc. http://www.windpower.org/

American Wind Energy Association http://www.awea.org/

British Wind Energy Association http://www.bwea.com/

Many more by googling "wind power association" or "wind energy association".

You can probably find the near term projections somewhere on their websites, but if you subscribe to a couple of newsletters and read them, you'll surely see various discussions of the topic over time.

[joshcryer]

54. Thanks, I'll try to find it.

[bananas]

56. Paul Krugman: "I trust Joe Romm on climate"

You asked "who would you trust?"
Paul Krugman trusts Joe Romm:

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/a-counterintuitive-train-wreck/

October 16, 2009, 10:10 am
A counterintuitive train wreck

Uh oh. I trust Joe Romm on climate — and his verdict on Superfreakonomics is pretty damning. I’ll get to work on the book myself, but it doesn’t look good.

<snip>

[kristopher]

33. If you really want to do something positive

Turn your attention to business and go out there and become involved in renewable energy development. If you don't want to be tainted by money, there are lots of opportunities in developing countries to bring some basic power to people who need it desperately.
There are also lots of chances to get in on the ground floor of environmentally oriented energy development project here.

Go get it done and stop whining.

[joshcryer]

35. I am going to work on wind, I think I stated that before.

I think it will be a very lucrative business in the coming years. *Very fucking lucrative.*

[kristopher]

37. In what capacity?

[joshcryer]

39. Start off with 100kw turbines probably, then see where it takes me.

I know that's small time stuff but where I am buying land there are a lot of folks who would love to have their own turbine powering their house.

edit: I should say I plan to build one for *myself* and we'll see how it goes from there, I am very good with machining and engineering stuff. There are plans everywhere online for small time turbines.

[kristopher]

41. I'd recommend against going into it that way.

Small turbines are very hard to make an honest case for - most of the time you'll be either starving or deceiving people.

We need BIG change - aim for the billion dollar projects. Go to school to prepare yourself in the area of project development. Maybe Jacobson of someone like him would take you on as a grad student for example. There are also policy programs that would prepare you in that area.

Electrical engineering is the surest route though.

If you want to go into it for yourself at the small business level, solar is probably a much better business than small scale wind (even in eastern CO).

There are good strategies for leasing that allow home owners to just divert the general amount they are now paying into a lease program for PV. This was good two years ago, and with the declining price of PV production it stands to get much better.

Good luck.

[Terry in Austin]

13. A little something for the "X will meet our needs" crowd

As usual, Greer gets right to the heart of it. The questions we ask still assume we will continue to "need" a level of energy that can sustain an industrial society like the one we got accustomed to in the 20th century. The questions are about satisfying the need, not about the need itself.

Moral issues aside, the practical one is even ruder:

"No existing alternative energy source, nor combination of sources, currently exists that could adequately replace the energy produced by fossil fuels."

This was the conclusion of a major study published in Science magazine back in 2002. No doubt, there's an arsenal of counter-arguments and objections, but I for one find it persuasive.

Here's a little more of the story:

... focused on the following alternative energy sources: terrestrial solar, wind, and solar power satellites, biomass, nuclear fission, nuclear fusion, fission-fusion hybrids and fossil fuels from which carbon has been removed or "sequestered". Scientists evaluated the different technologies for their capability to supply mass amounts of carbon-emission-free energy required to satisfy current world energy consumption (estimated at 10 terawatts of power), their ability to meet future energy consumption (estimated at 30 terawatts of power) and their potential for large-scale commercialization.

[kristopher]

17. That is going to be quite a surprise to Al Gore

The claims in that article on the 2002 NASA study are obsolete. Your link states: "The study concluded that massive research commitments are needed to develop these technologies in order to effectively slow global warming and adverse regional climactic changes from the fossil fuel greenhouse effect."


Since the study was undertaken we have (among many other critical developments):
loads of new data and wind technology from Europe's response to Kyoto,
we have new concepts such as V2G energy management and storage,
we have developed plans for a smart grid,
we have proven the vast global offshore wind resource,
we have incredible advances in energy storage by lithium batteries,
we have developed thin film solar technologies that have resulted in plummeting solar energy prices, and
we have rapid progress in deploying wave/tidal/current energy.

All of these developments have shown that renewable energy sources harvested with existing technologies are more than ample to meet our energy needs.

Here is the proposal made by Gore:
http://ourchoicethebook.com/chapter0/

I look forward to reading your rebuttal.

[Terry in Austin]

46. No rebuttal

I appreciate the civility, but I think you and I are at a basic impasse. We can both read tons of the same stuff and come away with very different views.

You're persuaded that we'll get "enough" from those technologies. I'm persuaded that we won't.

You and I start from different premises about rational action.

You and I have different values about what level of material aspiration we're entitled to.

And we're both engaging in the prediction business, with all its hazards.

As ever, YMMV.

:shrug:

[bananas]

49. Obsoleted by a major study published in Science magazine back in 2004

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5686/968

Science 13 August 2004:
Vol. 305. no. 5686, pp. 968 - 972
DOI: 10.1126/science.1100103

Stabilization Wedges: Solving the Climate Problem for the Next 50 Years with Current Technologies
S. Pacala1* and R. Socolow2*

Humanity already possesses the fundamental scientific, technical, and industrial know-how to solve the carbon and climate problem for the next half-century. A portfolio of technologies now exists to meet the world's energy needs over the next 50 years and limit atmospheric CO2 to a trajectory that avoids a doubling of the preindustrial concentration. Every element in this portfolio has passed beyond the laboratory bench and demonstration project; many are already implemented somewhere at full industrial scale. Although no element is a credible candidate for doing the entire job (or even half the job) by itself, the portfolio as a whole is large enough that not every element has to be used.

Since then, these technologies have been analyzed in greater depth,
here's what we'll be doing over the next several decades:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=115x191961

The full solution to global warming, from Climate Progress

How the world can (and will) stabilize at 350 to 450 ppm: The full global warming solution

<snip>

I also agree with McKinsey Global Institute’s 2008 Research in Review: Stabilizing at 450 ppm has a net cost near zero.

<snip>

This is what the entire planet must achieve:

<snip>

There may also be breakthroughs in additional technologies, such as polywell fusion or space-based solar power, but we don't have to rely on that happening.
The 2002 study you refer to is here: http://fire.pppl.gov/science_adv_energy_103102.pdf

[Terry in Austin]

55. Dare to dream

:toast:

[IrateCitizen]

60. But prepare for worst-case contingencies "just-in-case"

:toast:

[wtmusic]

70. "of the sort only available on this planet from fossil fuels"

Fail.