I know I’m not as educated as all of you who read this and I’m a 69 year old grandma, but can’t we power DOWN? Go back to using way less energy. We’re going to have to do that at some point anyway. It upsets me to think about deserts and other natural places being totally destroyed so we can have an energy transition??? And all these minerals mined by little children?? Aren’t we an evil bunch.
Sep 29, 2023·edited Sep 29, 2023Liked by James R. Martin
And here you didn't even mention the Michaux Monkeywrench.
Another way to put this: a buildout of renewable energy is not a way to reduce emissions. it's a way to ensure that the people coping with a warmed-up world have a little bit of advanced power to make their lives easier. Too many people assume that adding 100 megawatts of renewable energy subtracts 100 megawatts of fossil fuel energy, with its emissions. If we had started 30 years ago, when environmentalists were suggesting it, it could have worked that way. Maybe. But it's too late now. Adding renewables comes at the cost of making the climate problem worse. A related assumption is that we MUST supply every desired watt of electricity, find a way to enable any desired journey. If the problems with fossil fuel mean we must phase them out then we have to find some other magic energy source, because reducing our demands can't be countenanced. Or even imagined. This attitude guarantees a hard landing; it also likely will lead to an even uglier inequality, with the underdeveloped countries supplying the raw materials whether they like it or not, to extend The American Way of Life in the global North, while they are themselves lucky if they can even grow enough food to fend off starvation.
"We all know what needs to be done: reduce carbon emissions. But so far, we members of global humanity just haven't been able to turn the tide. The latest IPCC report documents that carbon emissions are still increasing, despite all the promises and efforts of the past few decades. The report tells us there's only a narrow (and rapidly shrinking) pathway to averting climate catastrophe. That path requires us to cut emissions 50 percent by 2030, and to reach net zero emissions by 2050. So far, we're going in the opposite direction.
Why is this so hard? Because it would require sacrifice. Why would it require sacrifice? Let's walk through the logic:
1. Lowering emissions requires reducing our extraction and burning of fossil fuels. But right now, 85 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels, and energy is what makes the economy go and grow.
2. Replacing fossil fuels with low-emissions energy sources like solar and wind would still give us energy, but right now it takes fossil energy to build solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and all the other electrical infrastructure we would need to replace the fuel-based infrastructure we now have.
3. Renewable energy sources require energy investment up front for construction; they pay for themselves energetically over a period of years. Therefore, a fast transition requires increased energy usage over the short term. And, in the early stages at least, most of that energy will have to come from fossil fuels, because those are the energy sources we currently have.
4. Again, the only way to reliably reduce emissions is to cut fossil fuel extraction and combustion directly and immediately. As we have seen over the past decades, just waiting for renewables to replace fossil fuels is too slow. Global emissions increased last year despite a record nearly 10 percent growth in renewables.
5. So, if more fossil energy will be needed for the energy transition, but we need to extract less coal, oil, and gas overall, that means that, at least over the next couple of decades, much less fuel will be available for non-transition purposes—i.e., for transport, manufacturing, and food production, which are the mainstays of the economy." -
The R-Word has a few hundred subscribers (all free; nothing is for sale here). We have several thousand readers all over the world. And yet we're a pretty small outfit.
For this article to work its necessary magic, we need you to help to distribute and share it. It belongs to everyone. Feel free to share it widely and freely, so long as you provide basic / standard attribution to the author and publisher, and include a link to The R-Word.
I can't say you're free to do the same with the work of other R-Word contributors, only with my writing -- any of it. It belongs to the world, not to me. Share it widely with attribution. It's in the Commons. It's ours.
While I much prefer to talk with humans on these topics, it is a rare (and usually very busy) human who has the relevant expertise in the relevant fields to answer my questions at all. So sometimes I ask the free version of ChatGPT questions, and then I challenge my fellow humans to do better than the robot.
That said, I asked some questions of ChatGPT:
1. What advice would you provide for those who would assemble a team of experts to quantify the energy costs of energy transition?
2. How would you define the distinction between "energy costs" and "financial costs" in energy transition?
Unfortunately, the so-called "Heinberg Pulse" is a sort of necessary evil at this juncture of history. Either that, or an immediate and permanent reduction of the world's population by at least 90%, which obviously could not be done even remotely ethically and quick enough at the same time. Anything else would be a nonstarter, human nature being what it is, and the status quo is not an option either.
I know I’m not as educated as all of you who read this and I’m a 69 year old grandma, but can’t we power DOWN? Go back to using way less energy. We’re going to have to do that at some point anyway. It upsets me to think about deserts and other natural places being totally destroyed so we can have an energy transition??? And all these minerals mined by little children?? Aren’t we an evil bunch.
And here you didn't even mention the Michaux Monkeywrench.
Another way to put this: a buildout of renewable energy is not a way to reduce emissions. it's a way to ensure that the people coping with a warmed-up world have a little bit of advanced power to make their lives easier. Too many people assume that adding 100 megawatts of renewable energy subtracts 100 megawatts of fossil fuel energy, with its emissions. If we had started 30 years ago, when environmentalists were suggesting it, it could have worked that way. Maybe. But it's too late now. Adding renewables comes at the cost of making the climate problem worse. A related assumption is that we MUST supply every desired watt of electricity, find a way to enable any desired journey. If the problems with fossil fuel mean we must phase them out then we have to find some other magic energy source, because reducing our demands can't be countenanced. Or even imagined. This attitude guarantees a hard landing; it also likely will lead to an even uglier inequality, with the underdeveloped countries supplying the raw materials whether they like it or not, to extend The American Way of Life in the global North, while they are themselves lucky if they can even grow enough food to fend off starvation.
Excerpt:
"We all know what needs to be done: reduce carbon emissions. But so far, we members of global humanity just haven't been able to turn the tide. The latest IPCC report documents that carbon emissions are still increasing, despite all the promises and efforts of the past few decades. The report tells us there's only a narrow (and rapidly shrinking) pathway to averting climate catastrophe. That path requires us to cut emissions 50 percent by 2030, and to reach net zero emissions by 2050. So far, we're going in the opposite direction.
Why is this so hard? Because it would require sacrifice. Why would it require sacrifice? Let's walk through the logic:
1. Lowering emissions requires reducing our extraction and burning of fossil fuels. But right now, 85 percent of our energy comes from fossil fuels, and energy is what makes the economy go and grow.
2. Replacing fossil fuels with low-emissions energy sources like solar and wind would still give us energy, but right now it takes fossil energy to build solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, and all the other electrical infrastructure we would need to replace the fuel-based infrastructure we now have.
3. Renewable energy sources require energy investment up front for construction; they pay for themselves energetically over a period of years. Therefore, a fast transition requires increased energy usage over the short term. And, in the early stages at least, most of that energy will have to come from fossil fuels, because those are the energy sources we currently have.
4. Again, the only way to reliably reduce emissions is to cut fossil fuel extraction and combustion directly and immediately. As we have seen over the past decades, just waiting for renewables to replace fossil fuels is too slow. Global emissions increased last year despite a record nearly 10 percent growth in renewables.
5. So, if more fossil energy will be needed for the energy transition, but we need to extract less coal, oil, and gas overall, that means that, at least over the next couple of decades, much less fuel will be available for non-transition purposes—i.e., for transport, manufacturing, and food production, which are the mainstays of the economy." -
- Richard Heinberg
-- excerpted from https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/failure-to-curb-emissions
And human nature being what it is, that would clearly be a nonstarter. So, we are left with taking a chance on the so-called "Heinberg Pulse".
The R-Word has a few hundred subscribers (all free; nothing is for sale here). We have several thousand readers all over the world. And yet we're a pretty small outfit.
For this article to work its necessary magic, we need you to help to distribute and share it. It belongs to everyone. Feel free to share it widely and freely, so long as you provide basic / standard attribution to the author and publisher, and include a link to The R-Word.
I can't say you're free to do the same with the work of other R-Word contributors, only with my writing -- any of it. It belongs to the world, not to me. Share it widely with attribution. It's in the Commons. It's ours.
While I much prefer to talk with humans on these topics, it is a rare (and usually very busy) human who has the relevant expertise in the relevant fields to answer my questions at all. So sometimes I ask the free version of ChatGPT questions, and then I challenge my fellow humans to do better than the robot.
That said, I asked some questions of ChatGPT:
1. What advice would you provide for those who would assemble a team of experts to quantify the energy costs of energy transition?
2. How would you define the distinction between "energy costs" and "financial costs" in energy transition?
Here's what Mr. Roboto said in response:
https://chat.openai.com/c/77642066-015b-4634-a4ab-0ff86212ecd8
More related questions of Mr. Roboto:
https://chat.openai.com/share/e652cde4-62d7-439b-8c40-5052c5faedc4
Please check out the very sobering youtube talk by Peter Carter titled Climate Emergency Update Sept 2023
Unfortunately, the so-called "Heinberg Pulse" is a sort of necessary evil at this juncture of history. Either that, or an immediate and permanent reduction of the world's population by at least 90%, which obviously could not be done even remotely ethically and quick enough at the same time. Anything else would be a nonstarter, human nature being what it is, and the status quo is not an option either.
what does it mean "unless they enable payments"?
there are many writers for the R-Word? And some of these contributors charge?
I am new here & not sure where I am! But I know I live fairly close to the fabulous Mary WIldfire.
Dielle -
Where did this "enable payments" question come from? The R-Word has never charged a penny, and it never will.
Scroll down here for a list of contributors. https://rword.substack.com/about
don't see it now but it was a weird ask, which is why I asked about it.