Middle East, the beginning of the end

With not only roughly two-thirds of the world’s remaining oil, but also the easiest and cheapest to get at, with the highest EROEI, any major disruption instantly throws the world into hard times and a die-off if nations don’t share the remaining oil supplies.

Pipelines are easy targets because they’re too long to entirely protect, and in the Middle East, sandstorms provide cover for sabotage.

List of 469 Attacks on Iraqi pipelines, oil installations, and oil personnel from 2003 to 2008

But the biggest threats are destruction of oil refineries and other oil infrastructure, or a blockade of the straits of Hormuz.

The problem for governments for all disruptions like this is that citizens assume corruption or incompetence is holding back supplies and create tremendous civil unrest, or nations go to war, and even more infrastructure is destroyed, accelerating crises beyond what harm they may have caused on their own.

 

Posted in 2) Overshoot, Middle East | Comments Off on Middle East, the beginning of the end

The Onion (satire): Scientists: ‘Look, One-Third Of The Human Race Has To Die For Civilization To Be Sustainable, So How Do We Want To Do This?’

26 Jan 2012.  Scientists: ‘Look, One-Third Of The Human Race Has To Die For Civilization To Be Sustainable, So How Do We Want To Do This?

WASHINGTON—Saying there’s no way around it at this point, a coalition of scientists announced Thursday that one-third of the world population must die to prevent wide-scale depletion of the planet’s resources—and that humankind needs to figure out immediately how it wants to go about killing off more than 2 billion members of its species.

Representing multiple fields of study, including ecology, agriculture, biology, and economics, the researchers told reporters that facts are facts: Humanity has far exceeded its sustainable population size, so either one in three humans can choose how they want to die themselves, or there can be some sort of government-mandated liquidation program—but either way, people have to start dying.

And soon, the scientists confirmed.

“I’m just going to level with you—the earth’s carrying capacity will no longer be able to keep up with population growth, and civilization will end unless large swaths of human beings are killed, so the question is: How do we want to do this?” Cambridge University ecologist Dr. Edwin Peters said. “Do we want to give everyone a number and implement a death lottery system? Incinerate the nation’s children? Kill off an entire race of people? Give everyone a shotgun and let them sort it out themselves?”

“Completely up to you,” he added, explaining he and his colleagues were “open to whatever.” “Unfortunately, we are well past the point of controlling overpopulation through education, birth control, and the empowerment of women. In fact, we should probably kill 300 million women right off the bat.”

Because the world’s population may double by the end of the century, an outcome that would lead to a considerable decrease in the availability of food, land, and water, researchers said that, bottom line, it would be helpful if a lot of people chose to die willingly, the advantage being that these volunteers could decide for themselves whether they wished to die slowly, quickly, painfully, or peacefully.

Additionally, the scientists noted that in order to stop the destruction of global environmental systems in heavily populated regions, there’s no avoiding the reality that half the world’s progeny will have to be sterilized.

“The longer we wait, the higher the number of people who will have to die, so we might as well just get it over with,” said Dr. Chelsea Klepper, head of agricultural studies at Purdue Univer­sity, and the leading proponent of a worldwide death day in which 2.3 billion people would kill themselves en masse at the exact same time. “At this point, it’s merely a question of coordination. If we can get the populations of New York City, Los Angeles, Beijing, India, Europe, and Latin America to voluntarily off themselves at 6 p.m. EST on June 1, we can kill the people that need to be killed and the planet can finally start renewing its resources.”

Thus far, humanity has been presented with a great variety of death options, among them, poisoning the world’s water supply with cadmium, picking one person per household to be killed in the privacy of his or her home, mass beheadings, and gathering 2.3 billion people all in one place and obliterating them with a single hydrogen bomb.

Sources confirmed that if a death solution is not in place by Mar. 31, the U.N., in the interest of preserving the human race, will mobilize its peacekeeping forces and gun down as many people as necessary.

“I don’t care how it happens, but a ton of Africans have to go, because by 2025, there’s no way that continent will be able to feed itself,” said Dr. Henry Craig of the Population Research Institute. “And by my estimation, three babies have to die for every septuagenarian, because their longer life expectancy means babies have the potential to release far more greenhouse gases going forward.”

While the majority of the world’s populace reportedly understands this is the only option left to save civilization, not all members of the human race are eager to die.

“I personally would rather live, but taking the long view, I can see how ensuring the survival of humanity is best,” said Norwich, CT resident and father of three Jason Atkins. “I guess if we were to do it over again, it would make sense to do a better job conserving the earth’s finite resources.”

“Hopefully, the people who remain on the planet will use the mass slaughter of their friends and loved ones as an incentive to be more responsible going forward,” he added.

———————

The Onion is a satirical magazine, I hope you didn’t think this was real…

Posted in Extinction Experts | Comments Off on The Onion (satire): Scientists: ‘Look, One-Third Of The Human Race Has To Die For Civilization To Be Sustainable, So How Do We Want To Do This?’

Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. 2012. Doomsday Clock 1 minute closer to Midnight

It is Now 5 Minutes to Midnight. Doomsday Clock Moves 1 minute closer to midnight. 10 January 2012. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Faced with inadequate progress on nuclear weapons reduction and proliferation, continuing inaction on climate changeand the need to find sustainable and safe sources of energy, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (BAS) has moved the hands of its famous “Doomsday Clock” to five minutes to midnight. The last time the Doomsday Clock minute hand moved was in January 2010, when the Clock’s minute hand was pushed back one minute from five to six minutes before midnight.

It is five minutes to midnight. Two years ago, it appeared that world leaders might address the truly global threats that we face. In many cases, that trend has not continued or been reversed. For that reason, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists is moving the clock hand one minute closer to midnight, back to its time in 2007.”

Commenting on the Doomsday Clock announcement,  Lawrence Krauss, co-chair, BAS Board of Sponsors, foundation professor, School of Earth and Space Exploration and Physics departments, associate director, Beyond Center, co-director, Cosmology Initiative, and director, New Origins Initiative, Arizona State University, said:

“Unfortunately, Einstein’s statement in 1946 that ‘everything has changed, save the way we think,’ remains true.  The provisional developments of two years ago have not been sustained, and it makes sense to move the clock closer to midnight, back to the value it had in 2007. Faced with clear and present dangers of nuclear proliferation and climate change, and the need to find sustainable and safe sources of energy, world leaders are failing to change business as usual. Inaction on key issues including climate change, and rising international tensions motivate the movement of the clock.  As we see it, the major challenge at the heart of humanity’s survival in the 21stcentury is how to meet energy needs for economic growth in developing and industrial countries without further damaging the climate, exposing people to loss of health and community, and without risking further spread of nuclear weapons, and in fact setting the stage for global reductions.”

Allison Macfarlane, chair, BAS Science and Security Board, member, Blue Ribbon Commission on America’s Nuclear Future, and associate professor, George Mason University, said:  “The global community may be near a point of no return in efforts to prevent catastrophe from changes in Earth’s atmosphere.  The International Energy Agency projects that, unless societies begin building alternatives to carbon-emitting energy technologies over the next five years, the world is doomed to a warmer climate, harsher weather, droughts, famine, water scarcity, rising sea levels, loss of island nations, and increasing ocean acidification.  Since fossil-fuel burning power plants and infrastructure built in 2012-2020 will produce energy—and emissions—for 40 to 50 years, the actions taken in the next few years will set us on a path that will be impossible to redirect.  Even if policy leaders decide in the future to reduce reliance on carbon-emitting technologies, it will be too late.”

Jayantha Dhanapala, member, BAS Board of Sponsors, former United Nations under-secretary-general for Disarmament Affairs (1998-2003), and ambassador of Sri Lanka to the United States (1995-7), said:  Despite the promise of a new spirit of international cooperation, and reductions in tensions between the United States and Russia, the Science and Security Board believes that the path toward a world free of nuclear weapons is not at all clear, and leadership is failing.  The ratification in December 2010 of the New START treaty between Russia and the United States reversed the previous drift in US-Russia nuclear relations.  However, failure to act on the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty by leaders in the United States, China, Iran, India, Pakistan, Egypt, Israel, and North Korea and on a treaty to cut off production of nuclear weapons material continues to leave the world at risk from continued development of nuclear weapons. The world still has over 19,000 nuclear weapons, enough power to destroy the world’s inhabitants several times over.”

Robert Socolow, member, Science and Security Board, professor, Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, and co-principal investigator, Carbon Mitigation Initiative, Princeton University, said: “Obstacles to a world free of nuclear weapons remain.  Among these are disagreements between the United States and Russia about the utility and purposes of missile defense, as well as insufficient transparency, planning, and cooperation among the nine nuclear weapons states to support a continuing drawdown.  The resulting distrust leads nearly all nuclear weapons states to hedge their bets by modernizing their nuclear arsenals.  While governments claim they are only ensuring the safety of their warheads through replacement of bomb components and launch systems, as the deliberate process of arms reduction proceeds, such developments appear to other states to be signs of substantial military build-ups.

Kennette Benedict, executive director, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, said: “The Science and Security Board is heartened by the Arab Spring, the Occupy movements, political protests in Russia, and by the actions of ordinary citizens in Japan as they call for fair treatment and attention to their needs. Whether meeting the challenges of nuclear power, or mitigating the suffering from human-caused global warming, or preventing catastrophic nuclear conflict in a volatile world, the power of people is essential. For this reason, we ask other scientists and experts to join us in engaging ordinary citizens. Together, we can present the most significant questions to policymakers and industry leaders.  Most importantly, we can demand answers and action.”

BAS noted that other key recommendations for a safer world have not been taken up and require urgent attention, including:

  • Ratification by the United States and China of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and progress on a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty;
  • Implementing multinational management of the civilian nuclear energy fuel cycle with strict standards for safety, security, and nonproliferation of nuclear weapons, including eliminating reprocessing for plutonium separation;
  • Strengthening the International Atomic Energy Agency’s capacity to oversee nuclear materials, technology development, and its transfer;
  • Adopting and fulfilling climate change agreements to reduce carbon dioxide emissions through tax incentives, harmonized domestic regulation and practice;
  • Transforming the coal power sector of the world economy to retire older plants and to require in new plants the capture and storage of the CO2 they produce; and
  • Vastly increasing public and private investments in alternatives to carbon emitting energy sources, such as solar and wind, and in technologies for energy storage, and sharing the results worldwide.

Click here for a full copy of the BAS statement about the Doomsday Clock.

HOW THE DOOMSDAY CLOCK DECISION WAS MADE

The January 10, 2012 Doomsday Clock followed an international symposium held January 9, 2012 at the Jones Day law firm, 51 Louisiana Ave NW, Washington, D.C.  The Science and Security Board of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, with participation from the Sponsors, reviewed the implications of recent events and trends for the future of humanity with input from other experts on nuclear weapons, nuclear energy, climate change, and biosecurity.

Questions addressed on January 9th included: What is the future of nuclear power after Fukushima?; How are nuclear weapons to be managed in a world of increasing economic, political, and environmental volatility?; What are the links among climate change, resource scarcity, conflict, and nuclear weapons?; and, What is required for robust implementation of the Biological Weapons Convention?

Click here for the full program for the January 9th symposium.

ABOUT THE BULLETIN OF ATOMIC SCIENTISTS

Founded in 1945 by University of Chicago scientists who had helped develop the first atomic weapons in the Manhattan Project, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists subsequently created the Doomsday Clock in 1947 using  the imagery of apocalypse (midnight) and the contemporary idiom of nuclear explosion (countdown to zero), to convey threats to humanity and the planet. The decision to move the minute hand of the Doomsday Clock is made by the Bulletin’s Board of Directors in consultation with its Board of Sponsors, which includes 18 Nobel Laureates. The Clock has become a universally recognized indicator of the world’s vulnerability to catastrophe from nuclear weapons, climate change, and emerging technologies in the life sciences.

EDITOR’S NOTE:The full statement from BAS and a streaming audio recording of the January 10, 2012 news event can be found here.

Posted in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists | Comments Off on Bulletin of Atomic Scientists. 2012. Doomsday Clock 1 minute closer to Midnight

Yevgeny Chazov, Nobel Peace Prize Winner

11 Dec 1985. Nobel Lecture by Yevgeny Chazov, Nobel Peace prize winner in 1985.

Nuclear war, unless it is prevented, would lead to the extinction of life on Earth and possibly in the Universe. Can we take such a risk?

In our medical practice when we deal with a critical patient in order to save him, we mobilize all our energies and knowledge, sacrifice part of our hearts and enlist the cooperation of our most experienced colleagues. Today we face a seriously ill humanity, torn apart by distrust and fear of nuclear war. To save it we must arouse the conscience of the world’s peoples, cultivate hatred for nuclear weapons, repudiate egoism and chauvinism, and create favorable atmosphere of trust. In the nuclear age we are all interdependent. The Earth is our only common home which we cannot abandon. The new suicidal situation calls for the new thinking. We must convince those who take political decisions.

Our professional duty is to protect life on Earth. True to the Hippocratic Oath, physicians will dedicate their knowledge, their hearts and their lives to the happiness of their patients and the well-being of the peoples of the world.

Posted in World's Best Scientists | Comments Off on Yevgeny Chazov, Nobel Peace Prize Winner

Michael Smith, Nobel Prize winner

10 Dec 1993. Michael Smith, winner of Nobel Prize in Chemistry 1993, speech at the Nobel Banquet.

I believe that Alfred Nobel, in contemplating this munificent act of the Bank and in contemplating what might happen in the next 100 years, would be concerned about the problems of that next century. And, of course, there is one problem that would attract his attention beyond all others. That is the impact of the uncontrolled growth and demands of the human population on the finite capacity of planet Earth.

We, Homo sapiens, destroyed the majority of the large mammalian species in North America and Australasia just over 10,000 years ago.

We, Homo sapiens, now are destroying the other species that presently exist on this planet at a rate of about 15,000 to 20,000 per year. Given that the current estimate of the total number of species on the planet is about 2 million, this rate, by the end of the next century, will be equivalent in biological effect to the catastrophic event(s) of 65 million years ago that eliminated not only the dinosaurs but also the ammonoid cephalopods, many echinoids, and many genera of foraminifera and of calcareous phytoplankton, the kind of mass extinction that previously in the earth’s history has required 5 million years for recovery, such recovery resulting in a completely different biota from that preceeding it.

 

Posted in World's Best Scientists | Comments Off on Michael Smith, Nobel Prize winner

R. K. Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

10 Dec 2007. Nobel Lecture by R. K. Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), Oslo.
Climate change is likely to lead to some irreversible impacts on biodiversity. There is medium confidence that approximately 20%–30% of species assessed so far are likely to be at increased risk of extinction if increases in global average warming exceed 1.5–2.5 ºC, relative to 1980–99. As global average temperature exceeds about 3.5 ºC, model projections suggest significant extinctions (40%–70% of species assessed) around the globe. These changes, if they were to occur would have serious effects on the sustainability of several ecosystems and the services they provide to human society.

Posted in World's Best Scientists | Comments Off on R. K. Pachauri, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)

Die-off: several predictions of when and how bad will it be

Friedemann: it’s said that if fish were scientists the last thing they’d discover was water — it’s so ubiquitous and taken-for-granted that it’s not visible.  In the same way, oil permeates every tiny detail of our life support, from transportation, roads (bitumen), food (plant, harvest, process, deliver, preparation, cook), water (delivery, purification), shelter (materials, building), medicine, clothing, heat, computer chip manufacturing, manufacturing products, mining material to make products, air-conditioning…

I agree with Shedlock (below), but with a few differences.  The start is  after the oil production plateau ends (2012 to 2015), and accelerates as the depletion rate grows exponentially from geology, social chaos, and exporting countries keeping more oil for their own population, leading to war in the Middle East (again), leading eventually to destruction of Middle East oil infrastructure and “game over” for much of the developed world.  The die-off will be compounded by climate change, i.e. more wildfires, droughts, floods, and rising sea levels starting 2075 (or earlier if ice sheets melt), anti-biotic resistant TB and other diseases, pandemics having more effect due to malnutrition and starvation, etc.  Other huge discontinuities besides oil or in addition to declining fossil fuels, such as a nuclear war (ozone depletion and EMPs) will make the die-off curve more jagged.  Plus as earthquakes, tsunamis, and other natural disasters take their toll, we won’t have the energy and material resources to recover with.

The end population is likely to be less than 500 million because we’ve degraded and polluted so many other essential resources such as topsoil, aquifers, fisheries, etc.  Eventually as the earth recovers, rather quickly it appears from “The Earth Without Us”, the population may creep up to 1 billion or so.

But with climate change, biodiversity loss, and the other 9 boundaries we must not cross, there’s also a chance we’ll go extinct.  Running out of fossil fuels ASAP is our best chance of this not happening, if that’s any consolation for the end of civilization and your own untimely death!

Shedlock: Average excess death rate of 100 million per year every year for the next 75 years to reach a population of one billion by 2082. The peak excess death rate would happen in about 20 years, about 200 million. To put this in perspective, WWII caused an excess death rate of only 10 million per year for only 6 years.

Paul Chefurka: Population The Elephant in the Room.  See article for details and graphs.  Summary: population decline to 1 billion, starting by 2018, ending 2082, over about 75 years.  The rate of excess deaths starts off quite low, rises over the decades to some maximum and then declines.  The rise is driven by the worsening global situation as the overshoot takes effect, and the subsequent fall is due to human numbers and activities gradually coming back into balance with the resources available.  Based on this model we would experience an average excess death rate of 100 million per year every year for the next 75 years to achieve our target population of one billion by 2082. The peak excess death rate would happen in about 20 years, and would be about 200 million that year. To put this in perspective, WWII caused an excess death rate of only 10 million per year for only six years. Given this, it’s not hard to see why population control is the untouchable elephant in the room – the problem we’re in is simply too big for humane or even rational solutions. It’s also not hard to see why some people are beginning to grasp the inevitability of a human die-off.

PimentelFor the United States to be self-sustaining given our land, water, and biological resources, our population should be less than 100 million.

Pimentel, David (1) and Pimentel, Marcia (2). 1990. Land, Energy and Water: the constraints governing Ideal US Population Size,  NPG Forum. (1) Department of Entomology and (2) Division of Nutritional Sciences, , Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.

Shedlock, Mike. 10 Jan 2012. Population: The Elephant in the Room; Peak Oil Implications on Population Growth; What Level of Human Population is Sustainable?  globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com

 

Other die-off discussions

Pfeiffer, Dale Allen. 2004. Eating Fossil Fuels. fromthewilderness.com

Posted in By People | Comments Off on Die-off: several predictions of when and how bad will it be

Richard Heinberg

Heinberg, Kunstler, Foss, Orlov & Chomsky on A Public Affair

I think the likelihood of a coherent national, government-led strategy to adapt to the end of cheap energy and to the end of easy credit and so on is just not going to happen. I’ve walked the halls of Congress and knocked on doors of senators and congresspeople and tried to help them get to understand some of these things. We’re working against public perception and also against those who would manipulate public perception.  I have to agree with my colleagues that the likelihood of our coherently understanding all of this and working our way out is vanishingly small. Which means it’s really up to individuals, and households, and communities to do the best we can under the circumstances and not give up efforts to try to change perceptions, change policy and so on, but I think we have to assume the worst.

Nov 2014: 10 Years After ‘The Party’s Over’: an interview with Richard Heinberg

I think we have to assume that we have time to build community resilience, but while we’re doing that, it really makes sense, as families, as individuals, to have a well-stocked cupboard. The more prepared we are as households for disaster, the more resilient our communities are. If you have a whole community where nobody has any food put by, nobody has any backup systems ready, then the whole community is much less resilient. There’s every reason for people to have a sense of preparedness. I don’t want to encourage a survivalist mentality. Quite the contrary. The big thing that the survivalists miss is that the only way we’ll get through this is together. If it’s lone individuals with shotguns then kiss the human race goodbye … game over.

This life is a gift and we don’t know how many days of normal life we have. Being with friends and family, playing music, being out in the garden, spending time with nature, this is not something to take for granted.

 

The International Energy Agency has just released a new special report called “World Energy Investment Outlook” that should send policy makers screaming and running for the exits—if they are willing to read between the lines and view the report in the context of current financial and geopolitical trends. This is how the press agency UPI begins its summary:

It will require $48 trillion in investments through 2035 to meet the world’s growing energy needs, the International Energy Agency said Tuesday from Paris. IEA Executive Director Maria van der Hoeven said in a statement the reliability and sustainability of future energy supplies depends on a high level of investment. “But this won’t materialize unless there are credible policy frameworks in place as well as stable access to long-term sources of finance,” she said. “Neither of these conditions should be taken for granted.”

Here’s a bit of context missing from the IEA report: the oil industry is actually cutting back on upstream investment. Why? Global oil prices—which, at the current $90 to $110 per barrel range, are at historically high levels—are nevertheless too low to justify tackling ever-more challenging geology. The industry needs an oil price of at least $120 per barrel to fund exploration in the Arctic and in some ultra-deepwater plays. And let us not forget: current interest rates are ultra-low (thanks to the Federal Reserve’s quantitative easing), so marshalling investment capital should be about as easy now as it is ever likely to get. If QE ends and if interest rates rise, the ability of industry and governments to dramatically increase investment in future energy production capacity will wane.
Other items from the report should be equally capable of inducing policy maker freak-out:
The shale bubble’s-a-poppin’. In 2012, the IEA forecast that oil extraction rates from US shale formations (primarily the Bakken in North Dakota and the Eagle Ford in Texas) would continue growing for many years, with America overtaking Saudia Arabia in rate of oil production by 2020 and becoming a net oil exporter by 2030. In its new report, the IEA says US tight oil production will start to decline around 2020. One might almost think the IEA folks have been reading Post Carbon Institute’s analysis of tight oil and shale gas prospects! www.shalebubble.org This is a welcome dose of realism, though the IEA is probably still erring on the side of optimism: our own reading of the data suggests the decline will start sooner and will probably be steep.
Help us, OPEC—you’re our only hope! Here’s how the Wall Street Journal frames its story about the report: “A top energy watchdog said the world will need more Middle Eastern oil in the next decade, as the current U.S. boom wanes. But the International Energy Agency warned that Persian Gulf producers may still fail to fill the gap, risking higher oil prices.” Let’s see, how is OPEC doing these days? Iraq, Syria, and Libya are in turmoil. Iran is languishing under US trade sanctions. OPEC’s petroleum reserves are still ludicrously over-stated. And while the Saudis have made up for declines in old oilfields by bringing new ones on line, they’ve run out of new fields to develop. So it looks as if that risk of higher oil prices is quite a strong one.
A “what-me-worry?” price forecast. Despite all these dire developments, the IEA offers no change from its 2013 oil price forecast (that is, a gradual increase in world petroleum prices to $128 per barrel by 2035). The new report says the oil industry will need to increase its upstream investment over the forecast period by $2 trillion above the IEA’s previous investment forecast. From where is the oil industry supposed to derive that $2 trillion if not from significantly higher prices—higher over the short run, perhaps, than the IEA’s long-range 2035 forecast price of $128 per barrel, and ascending higher still? This price forecast is obviously unreliable, but that’s nothing new. The IEA has been issuing wildly inaccurate price forecasts for the past decade. In fact, if the massive increase in energy investment advised by the IEA is to occur, both electricity and oil are about to become significantly less affordable. For a global economy tightly tied to consumer behavior and markets, and one that is already stagnant or contracting, energy constraints mean one thing and one thing only: hard times.
What about renewables? The IEA forecasts that only 15 percent of the needed $48 trillion will go to renewable energy. All the rest is required just to patch up our current oil-coal-gas energy system so that it doesn’t run into the ditch for lack of fuel. But how much investment would be required if climate change were to be seriously addressed? Most estimates look only at electricity (that is, they gloss over the pivotal and problematic transportation sector) and ignore the question of energy returned on energy invested. Even when we artificially simplify the problem this way, $7.2 trillion spread out over twenty years simply doesn’t cut it. One researcher estimates that investments will have to ramp up to $1.5 to $2.5 trillion per year. In effect, the IEA is telling us that we don’t have what it takes to sustain our current energy regime, and we’re not likely to invest enough to switch to a different one.
If you look at the trends cited and ignore misleading explicit price forecasts, the IEA’s implicit message is clear: continued oil price stability looks problematic. And with fossil fuel prices high and volatile, governments will likely find it even more difficult to devote increasingly scarce investment capital toward the development of renewable energy capacity.

As you read this report, imagine yourself in the shoes of a high-level policy maker. Wouldn’t you want to start thinking about early retirement?

 

References

Video presentation May 2008

Richard Heinberg on Resilient Communities

2009: very wise and interesting interview between Heinberg and Hopkins on the preparing for the worst:

To Plan for Emergency, or Not? Heinberg and Hopkins debate

 

Posted in Advice, What to do | Comments Off on Richard Heinberg

Richard Heinberg vs Tom Athanasiou: Peak Oil or Climate Emergency?

Debate Dec 15, 2011 between Richard Heinberg (Post Carbon Institute) and Tom Athanasiou (Earth Island Institute) at the David Brower Center.  Peak Oil or Climate Emergency? We know we’re in Big Trouble. But What Kind Exactly?

Climate change books and articles all have the same solution: renewable energy and a green economy, a good reason to have a debate, since the Post Carbon Peak Oil message of living simpler lives isn’t being heard by our environmental comrades.  They still don’t understand the laws of physics and thermodynamics means renewable energy can’t replace fossil fuels, Hirsch’s DOE paper on why you’d want to prepare at least 10 to 20 years before peak oil production, and above all, the economy can’t continue growing, not even “greenly”.

Richard Heinberg spoke first, and said he didn’t think there was anything to argue about– Climate Change is a serious issue.  But Tom insisted there was a debate, because he believed there were techno-fixes to the Peak Oil problem and we must approach the future with 100% positive and hopeful attitudes.  He simply didn’t believe the scientists wouldn’t come up with something, and therefore he didn’t buy Heinberg’s premise that the first crisis to face us would be peak oil.  A techno-fix turned out to be Tom Athanasiou’s one and only idea.  It’s an economic and political rather than scientific idea, so perhaps another reason Peak Oil is dismissed by some environmentalists is their fear that their issue will be less important,  i.e. peak oil means less greenhouse gas emissions.

Heinberg was brilliant, wise, and thoughtful, and made a good case for peak oil in the very short amount of time he had to speak.  He briefly touched on Jevon’s paradox when the topic of efficiency came up. But since the room was 99% climate change people, I wish he’d been given more time to explain why a techno-fix isn’t going to happen, the scale of what fossil fuels do for us (i.e. cubic mile of oil http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil), and so on.

If Peak Oil and biophysical economics proponents are right, cutting  back on consumption, a much simpler lifestyle, basic gardening and other skills, fixing and re-architecting the existing infrastructure for a lower-energy world, lowering population and immigration, etc., are the only possible paths to less suffering and violent civil unrest, and we’re wasting the little time, money, and energy we have left.

It’s too bad environmental leaders spout impossible dreams of green growth and techno-fixes, but then again, since there are no solutions that allow us to maintain our current lifestyle, perhaps at this late stage it’s not worth trying to convince them.  Throughout history, only one percent or less of people were drawn to living austerely (now known as the “Simplicity movement”).  Gardening, bicycling, walking, traveling and shopping less don’t appeal to most people, no matter how idyllically a “Grandma Moses” portrait is painted.

The best news I heard all night was after the debate, when I had a chance to ask Richard Heinberg the question I’m most interested now.  I asked him if he thought we had enough fossil fuels left to drive humanity and most other species extinct on the planet, and he said that although we probably did, it wasn’t going to happen because of other factors.

He didn’t elaborate on the factors, but from reading his books and blog, I think those factors are economic (depression, companies going out of business, supply chains breaking, sovereign defaults), war, social unrest, and political issues.  In addition, if a long enough period of time goes by when fossil fuel production halts, then you have additional problems of a lack of engineers, and peripheral industries not functioning that are essential to oil, natural gas, and coal mining, i.e. highly refined metal machinery, microprocessors, etc, making it hard to get back to where you left off.

Posted in Richard Heinberg | 1 Comment

Fungi killed most of world’s trees during runaway greenhouse Permian Extinction

Marshall, M. 20 Aug 2011.  Mass-extinction fungi could turn on trees again. NewScientist.

“During Earth’s biggest mass extinction 250 million years ago, usually tame soil fungi ran amok, decimating most of the world’s trees. A repeat is possible, if climate change weakens trees too much.

The Permian extinction saw 95% of species wiped out, dwarfing the K/T extinction that ended the dinosaurs’ reign. According to Mark Sephton of Imperial College London, a knock-on effect of the vast volcanic eruptions that triggered the extinction was a global fungal plague”.

Trees were vulnerable to attack by fungi because they were already weakened by to much heat, drought, and acidification from volcanic eruptions.

Posted in Extinction | Comments Off on Fungi killed most of world’s trees during runaway greenhouse Permian Extinction