Cornucopians -- A Guide for the Perplexed

[4dsc]

Another great article from the oildrum.com..

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/27/9544/28473#more

Cornucopian Fallacies

The Cornucopian always views the glass as half-full and being ever replenished. In his 1992 essay, Lindsey Grant (link above the fold) listed the characteristics of such thinking summarized here.

1. The implications of endless growth are understated or rejected out of hand.
2. Past economic trends are projected automatically onto the future.
3. Evidence that doesn't fit growth scenarios is dismissed.
4. There is an extraordinary faith in technology to solve all problems.

The true endless growth optimist usually has all of these properties, appealing to one or another in various arguments at various times. Underlying all of these fallacies is the presupposition that endless growth is possible because human cleverness is unlimited. It's not the case that historical arguments relying upon faith in economics or technology are completely wrong. Far from it. The point is that Cornucopians take these arguments to an irrational extreme, ignoring pertinent realities about limits. This is an important point. Moreover, one can argue that human stupidity often outweighs the ingenuity that can be brought to bear but that is a subject for another post.

[bananas]

1. "Doomers -- A Guide for the Bewildered"

Someone wrote this comment to that article:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/8/27/9544/28473#87

garyp on Sunday September 03, 2006 at 5:15 AM EST Comments top

I look forward to volume 2
"Doomers -- A Guide for the Bewildered"

After all there are many strange variants of Doomer:

* The Greenie: Who looks at peak oil as a way of forcing everyone to grow their own organic carrots.

* The Technophobe: Who seeks a world somewhere around 1800 and believes peak oil will do away with all those nasty computers and machines.

* The Chicken Little: Who's moved from Y2K, to peak oil via bird flu.

* The Never Never: The pessimist that seeks one tiny problem with an alternative technology as a reason why the whole thing will never work, shouldn't be considered, stick fingers in the ears the hum "la la la, I'm not listening".

* The Survivalist: Who loves his guns and is looking forward to the opportunity to protect his homestead from the Mad Max hoards.

* The Statistician: Who takes one version of a technology process, a few handwaving numbers and says "the EROEI is 0.823 so the whole technology is bunk". In a past life he was happy to prove a bee could never fly and spent many a happy hour swatting those bees that didn't listen.

When do you think we might expect your taxonomy of that end of the spectrum?

[4dsc]

2. Sadly I miss alot of comments

Inasmuch as I love the article posted at the oildrum, too many times there are too numerous replies for me to read.. I love this one though.. It goes well with this graph:

[Dead_Parrot]

4. Hmmm. I think I'm "All of the above"

:D

Doom! Doom!

[brokensymmetry]

3. Good post. n/t

.

[muesa]

5. Really

4. There is an extraordinary faith in technology to solve all problems.

The article demonstrates a mocking dismissal understanding of "... faith in technology to solve ... problems."

Two counter examples:

1. The replacement of high energy cathode ray tubes in television and in the workplace with flat panel displays -- flat panel displays use much less energy then cathode ray tubes, and they radiate much less I2R heat.
2. The integration of microprocessors in the automobile to integrated continuously variable transmissions with microprocessor controlled mixture control, timing, suspension, braking, etc. -- not as dramatic as hybrids, but ...

The daughter (MSEE + gourmet cook) of a good friend (PhD physics + basic foods) is heading a project for smart microwaves and smart food containers -- the food container has a second set of ubiquitous bar codes that "program" the microwave oven --- less electricity used, less loss of flavor or nutrients.

[skids]

6. Ah, but here's the catch...

What faith-in-technology folks are missing is a lack of faith-in-advertising.

We've demonstrated that time and time again, superior products undersell compared to more well marketted products. To believe that technology will be easily adopted is folly -- sure, LCDs are one success story, but for every success story there are hundreds of failures. Heck even CF bulbs have to be practically forced into the hands of some people.

I suppose as the screws really start to tighten people will wake up. But the answer to the followup question is "will they wake up too late" is not necessarily "no." We may in fact already be too late to wake up and start behaving like adults.

[4dsc]

8. Too bad Peak Oil is not a technology issue

"There is an extraordinary faith in technology to solve all problems" Most people I talk to about peak oil almost always come back with the response that technology will somehow save the day!! If only we applied more technology we will somehow resolve the problem.. Too bad the problem is oil depletion and no amount of technology will put more oil into the ground. ALthough technology is allowing us to deplete oil reserves faster than ever before..

People have this BLIND FAITH about technology which allows them not to think about the big picture. It allows them to be in denial about their own future and the ramifications of living in a world with less oil, alot less oil!!

Most people are very afraid of a future world where oil becomes scarce.. They don't want to believe it can happen to them.. But it will..

[bananas]

9. So exactly when do we run out of oil?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html

[hunter]

13. That's the graph that ought to be on the tombstone of the USA.

To remind survivors what went wrong.

The first thing I think when I see that graph is "suicide cult." There are leaders who would rather watch their followers suffer and die than have their insane ideologies challenged.

[jpak]

16. That graph is wrong

Renewables can NEVER produce more energy than nuclear power.

They have never produced an ex-o-joule of energy - and never will!!!

It's the 4th Law of Thermodynamics!!!!1111

[hunter]

17. Dam it.

No really.

Three Gorges Dam, China

Narmada Project, India

Itaipu, Brazil/Paraguay

Guri, Venezuela

etc.

Other renewables are a drop in a bucket compared to those.

[depakid]

19. Actually the "4th Law"

involves Georgescu-Rogen's concept of "matter entropy."

In a closed system, material entropy would maximize, because complete rcycling is impossible- leaving many materials dissipated or of lower quality- and unavailable for use.

He argued that material entropy- rather than energy flows or "values" (like Odom and Constanza argue) will ultimately be the more important limiting factor on the economy.

[hunter]

22. That's why there is no life left on earth after 4 billion years.

All the materials life depended on have been dissipated.

:silly:

[depakid]

23. Think in terms of human societies

particularly industrial society as a system with "elements" and subsystems that rely on "low entropy" materials. Some of those can be substittued for- though you'll end up with lower quality "tools."

The Norse Greenlanders for example lost their supply of low entropy iron ore- and so ended up using bone and shell. In doing so, they lost their advantage over the Inuit- and so of course, they all died out (or were killed off).

There are dozens of examples of finite resourses becoming depleted on a societal scale- and they apply on a larger gobal scale too.

U.S. reserves of oil, aluminum ore, and iron ore are disappearing. At today's rates of consumption, world copper reserves will be depleted in less than 100 years.

Hubbert's Peak doesn't just apply to oil.

[jpak]

24. The Norse colony at L'Anse aux Meadows, Newfoundland used "bog iron"

They gathered iron pyrite from local peat bogs and smelted it with charcoal to make iron implements.

You can still see the iron hearths there (and stand in Leif Erickson's cellar hole too).

[hunter]

25. "world copper reserves will be depleted..." has no meaning.

There's plenty of copper, it's just that it's being used at the moment, or sitting around in landfills. Look at all the wiring in my house, all that #10, #12, and #14 cable sitting around doing nothing most of the time.

There's no law of nature that says I couldn't build a very comfortable house for my family that only required a single five amp circuit, or even no electric service at all, in which case all that heavy copper wire would become superfluous.

It's not hard to imagine a highly developed civilization that doesn't need many of the things we only think we need now. The biggest problem will be transforming this civilization into one that can thrive within it's means. I'm pessimistic that we will do so in any graceful fashion. Instead of a soft landing we will crash because our leaders are terrible pilots.

[depakid]

27. Of course it has meaning!

It's one small part of a larger whole- one exemplification of a broader principle that most people (even educated ones) fail to grasp.

Sure, you can do without copper in particular because there are substitutes. Fresh water on the other hand- that's a little trickier (ask the folks in Texas who've overbuilt and depleted their aquifers).

There are plenty of other materials that are finite (or not renewable in the short or even medium term).

BTW: I completely agree with your last paragraph- and unfortunately, history tends to bear this out with respect to complexity costs and diminishing returns. Though not always.

[hunter]

28. How about steel?

There ought to be plenty of SUVs just sitting around as the price of gasoline increases. We can "mine" steel from those. (I was joking around in E/E somewhere how car and truck leaf springs can be hammered into very nice swords... )

If the human population starts crashing, it won't be the result of any sort of "entropy," it will be because we didn't have the political and social skills necessary to keep us all living. I expect we will see some sort of 1930's style "dust bowls" again, and we will probably deal with them much as we did in the past, and much as we did with victims of Katrina and Rita... We have the resources to deal with problems like these, but not the will.

[muesa]

11. Peak oil is a multi-discipline issue

1. Geology "How much petroleum remains at any point in time, over the multi-dimensional space of:
   
   
   
   1. at what depth, and
      
   2. in what kind of deposit?"
   
   
2. Politics "Where is the remaining oil? Can we buy it? At what price? For how long?"
   
3. Technology "What drilling and refining technologies?"
   
4. EconomicsHow much are the "substitutes?" What "trade-off" does each "substitute" represent?
   
5. "People" "As "cheap and readily available" petroleum becomes less plentiful, as petroleum incurs greater costs, as substitutes enter the market place - with some increased cost over "yesterday's" petroleum and some reduced convenience over "yesterday's" petroleum -- what will people "buy"?
   

[Odin2005]

15. Yes, it is a technological issue.

Just as England swithing from wood to coal in the 1700's because they had chopped down a lot of thier forests was ultimately a technological issue. Oil is not some unique thing that cannot be replaced, that shows a lack of imigination.

[Odin2005]

7. I can't believe "faith in technolgy" has become an insult.

Luddites suck.

[Ready4Change]

10. I'd say BLIND faith in technology is a problem.

A lot of people who wipe away future problems with the idea that technology will solve them are the exact same people who will refuse to PAY for developing that technology.

I believe there IS a path through this maze we are in. But I'm not so sure we humans, as a species, have the wisdom required to locate and walk that path.

So, I guess I'm both a cornucopian AND a doomist?

[muesa]

12. I are a injunear

I do not have "Blind Faith" in technology - but I have educated faith in technology - if we exercise the discipline, wisdom. and judgement to make correct choices.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

14. I can't believe the sniping in this forum

It's pretty silly that almost every thread here degerates into name calling and personal attacks.

There is no need to call somebody a "Luddite" because they don't believe in the wonders of technology in the oil industry. The corporations in this industry lie to us constantly and have a history of subverting all technology that challenges their monopoly on energy. They had a role in buying mass transit companies in the 1930s and 1940s and replacing the streetcars with buses.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_streetcar_conspiracy)

Truth be told, we need to quit using fossil fuels because of GHG whether they are running out or not. And petroleum does appear to be nearing the peak, in my non-engineer, non-geologist opinion.

That is another issue. Why snub non-expert opinion? We might bring a unique thought to the table that is technically feasible. If we quit fighting with each other, we might make more progress in finding workable solutions.

Just my two cents worth. I'm sure nobody will lose any sleep over it.:-)

[hunter]

18. Wear a flack jacket.

Much of the problem is that people don't understand the scale of the problems. You really can't play the game if you can't do the math. You don't have to be an "expert" to have an opinion, not at all, but for an opinion to matter, it has to have some foundation in reality.

So fine, put some solar panels on the roof of your golf cart, but then tell us how far you can actually drive with that setup. Any engineer could tell you about how far you could drive with just a small bit of research, and without actually building the machine.

If you want to calculate what kind of impact some proposed alternative energy scheme will have, the numbers are usually all there to grind.

[ItsTheMediaStupid]

26. I don't have solar panels or a golf cart

You don't have to be an engineer to know there is a huge problem here.

I don't see the benefits of being unfriendly to those who aren't experts.

[depakid]

21. It's not a matter of being "Luddites"

It's a matter of economic fallacies.

Technological "fixers" often have an irrational belief in substitutability, which can be seen in the traditional neoclassical production functions, where you can theoretically substitute (human based) capital and labor for finite natural resources and ecosystem services.

As should be obvious to most scientists, there aren't substitutes for quite a few sorts of things- and even if there are- they end up being VERY expensive- and uneconomic.

Technology (like all forms of capital) is ultimately based on natural capital- which once "spent" or depleted, takes decades to replenish- if it can be replenished. Oil- for all intents and purposes- can't and won't. Neither will fossil water in the South West aquifers.

[ramapo]

20. Not much to argue with if you use common sense

Items 1 & 2 are one in the same. Most people and all politicians subscribe to growth without limit and an ever growing economy. To place limits on growth, at virtually any level, is deemed anti-capitalist socialism/communism, and looked what happened to that.

So society (and the world in general) goes along on its merry way, drawing down the bank account that is our planet's limited resources. I define limited as those resources that exist on Earth. There are the extraordinarly faithful who beleive we'll find salvation from resources beyond our Earth. It's a nice thought but not very realistic.

At some point, perhaps sooner than we'd like, it'll become difficult to pump enough oil to satisfy the ever growing economies of the world. It'll become environmentally untenable to continue burning coal and like resources (god forbid, shale). At some point, enough fresh water will have been pumped out of the aquifers to make this another problem resource. And at some point, we'll have sufficiently fouled the environment to cause even greater disruption to the life of thousands of species, ours included.

Now the economy....the idea of a steady-state economy is basically verboten. But how long can growth continue? How absurd can inflation become? During the 1960s a $100,000 home was a contemporary mansion, today it is a shack in a flood plain. Add two zeros to get your very basic mansion (maybe make that three zeros for the mansion). A $40,000 salary in the 1970s was very fine indeed. You don't have to add zeroes but you do need your multiplication table to make this a decent salary in today's terms.

Now this is not real growth, much of it is inflation, but inflation is a good thing as nobody, but nobody, wants deflation. So since steady-state is verboten, then we must have inflation. High far will it go? How high can the debt go? Common sense says it can't go on forever.

Now Item Three just points out that everybody is much happier ignoring Items one and two, so the media, et.al. have built a magnificant happy-talk propaganda machine.

Item Four is the most suspect. Technology could (or could have) helped limit or alleviate many of the problems we face today, but in many ways there is not much desire for the latest technological solutions. Take coal plants as an example. The technology has existed for many years to dramatically limit harmful emissions yet it is not used.
The claim is it would cost jobs because it would cost a lot of money to implement. So while technology could help, the business and political powers have refused to take advantage of it.

There are limits on everything. Our lives, the speed we drive our cars, the amount we can eat. Some are trivial, some will bend, others cannot be negotiated.

Someday this simple fact will become very apparant to all.

[bhikkhu]

29. How many "unlimited cheap energy" promises do you remember?

There was nuclear, or course, then fusion. The pebble bed reactor is the latest cheap-and-easy-nuclear story. Solar has been promised for so long...now we have a new solar technology just ramping up, supposed to be 1/10th the cost of the previous.

When I was a kid I read all the Popular Mechanics and Popular Science magizines, so I am somehwat disappointed to be now not driving an automated jet car about the clean and well lit planet, but to be struggling to pay my water bill in spite of a dry brown yard this year, to be scrimping to pay for gas for the old car, to be weighing the options of turning the furnace down even further this winter, or perhaps sawing up all that old lumber in the yard to burn...