Thank you James for this (and the rest of your writing). I am fascinated by what you're saying here. It falls inline with my sense about the topic. I wish I had some expertise to offer, but I can at least give some positive pulse to your project and will forward your idea to others who may be able to give real contributions.
Hi James, I agree that Richard Heinberg's pulse of GHG emissions and Simon Michaux's resource depletion story are both believable, they both point out limits to "green technology" that are generally not being acknowledged since they are very inconvenient truths. Being a pessimist (realist?), I think your analysis needs to pay more attention to the factors that will prevent your project from making a useful difference.
You've touched on these briefly in other posts, but I suppose they are inconvenient truths for you: our capitalist system drives hard in directions that are inimical to smart planning. Investments must make profits, or government investments and regulations must be limited to avoid impinging on capitalists' profits. Planning cannot admit significant depletion nor rising cost of energy, nor the need for degrowth, since that would upset investors and dry up the sources of debt to which the economy is addicted. Citizens, too, generally will not accept planning for fewer comforts, less discretionary income, and lower prospects for the next generations; they are all too ready to blame politicians or other nations, migrants, races, religions, and so on. Therefore the myth of progress must continue as a major point of propaganda, entertainment and international conflict must continue diverting the attention of the populace, and major political parties will be reluctant to upset their funders by even thinking about degrowth. (There may be some softening of these requirements in China, but they are pretty tied into the global economy too.)
Therefore whatever facts you uncover regarding the "Heinberg pulse" will not affect public policy. Like all the climate analysis, it may make the policy makers appear irresponsible, but it won't have a significant effect on our path to civilization collapse. (Just look at the recent history of carbon emissions, including inability of nations to meet "promises" for emission reductions and financial help for poorer nations.)
Perhaps your strategy for building alternative ways of living might bear fruit--though again, you are pushing uphill against our global system's demands and citizens' expectations. But I don't think a battle of facts will get you anywhere.
Yes, Josh Floyd, whom James mentioned below, did an inquiry into exactly this a few years back. You can find the write up at www.beyondthisbriefanomaly.org
I think one of the key insights is that all current energy production is spoken for. What industries do we sacrifice in order to power this transition...?
I've watched some of Alexander's videos on these subjects; he has an research center of some sort in Australia. Whether he has looked into this question I don't know. But it seems to me it's right up Post Carbon Institute's alley--or as we say these days, "in their wheelhouse." (what's a wheelhouse?) I am not equipped to do research of this sort. I agree it's a question that should be explored, even if it means widely varying estimates are posted. Even then, it gets the point across that--I mean, at the recent rally in DC one speaker said we should demand an end to fossil fuels, a transition to renewable energy, and good jobs. She presumably doesn't realize we can't do a transition and have lots of "good" (highly paid) jobs, AND quit fossil fuels. I think maybe MOST people don't realize this, and I believe the fossil fuel industry is about to launch a big PR push for the "hydrogen hubs" that are the latest version of the bullshit spraypainted green. My henchwomen and I are trying to get a statewide alternative newspaper consortium to do an expose, and also thinking it would be great if we could get John Oliver's Last Week Tonight to do one, as there is so much complexity needing explained, and he devotes 20 minutes or so to unraveling his topics. But how or whether it's even possible to contact his team, I dunno, and it likely takes months even if you succeed--we need to get the facts out there fast, before they can get written into law, their right to use funds intended for climate mitigation, for subsidizing and extending the fossil fuel industries. I read today that Governor Inslee, the climate champion, is now proposing major clearcutting in Washington, as supposedly a solution to climate change! This is what we're up against.
Originally a wheelhouse was a synonym for a pilot house, that is an enclosed structure on the deck of a ship from which it can be navigated. It later came to be used for one's area of interest and/or expertise.
As for the rest of what you said..., I may be able to respond to that sometime soon, maybe tomorrow.
PS - edit -
If you and your henchwoman (or just you) were to write up a good article on this hydrogen hub story I'd be very pleased to publish it here in the R-Word. The audience here is growing.
I have yet to read this book, but I really want to, and soon!
Carbon Civilisation and the Energy Descent Future: Life Beyond this Brief Anomaly
by Samuel Alexander, Joshua Floyd
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/42361795-carbon-civilisation-and-the-energy-descent-future
I plan to reach out to both of the authors to ask if they have anything to say about the matter of the Heinberg Pulse.
The Energy Descent Future
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-01-03/the-energy-descent-future/
Thank you James for this (and the rest of your writing). I am fascinated by what you're saying here. It falls inline with my sense about the topic. I wish I had some expertise to offer, but I can at least give some positive pulse to your project and will forward your idea to others who may be able to give real contributions.
Hi James, I agree that Richard Heinberg's pulse of GHG emissions and Simon Michaux's resource depletion story are both believable, they both point out limits to "green technology" that are generally not being acknowledged since they are very inconvenient truths. Being a pessimist (realist?), I think your analysis needs to pay more attention to the factors that will prevent your project from making a useful difference.
You've touched on these briefly in other posts, but I suppose they are inconvenient truths for you: our capitalist system drives hard in directions that are inimical to smart planning. Investments must make profits, or government investments and regulations must be limited to avoid impinging on capitalists' profits. Planning cannot admit significant depletion nor rising cost of energy, nor the need for degrowth, since that would upset investors and dry up the sources of debt to which the economy is addicted. Citizens, too, generally will not accept planning for fewer comforts, less discretionary income, and lower prospects for the next generations; they are all too ready to blame politicians or other nations, migrants, races, religions, and so on. Therefore the myth of progress must continue as a major point of propaganda, entertainment and international conflict must continue diverting the attention of the populace, and major political parties will be reluctant to upset their funders by even thinking about degrowth. (There may be some softening of these requirements in China, but they are pretty tied into the global economy too.)
Therefore whatever facts you uncover regarding the "Heinberg pulse" will not affect public policy. Like all the climate analysis, it may make the policy makers appear irresponsible, but it won't have a significant effect on our path to civilization collapse. (Just look at the recent history of carbon emissions, including inability of nations to meet "promises" for emission reductions and financial help for poorer nations.)
Perhaps your strategy for building alternative ways of living might bear fruit--though again, you are pushing uphill against our global system's demands and citizens' expectations. But I don't think a battle of facts will get you anywhere.
Yes, Josh Floyd, whom James mentioned below, did an inquiry into exactly this a few years back. You can find the write up at www.beyondthisbriefanomaly.org
I think one of the key insights is that all current energy production is spoken for. What industries do we sacrifice in order to power this transition...?
I've watched some of Alexander's videos on these subjects; he has an research center of some sort in Australia. Whether he has looked into this question I don't know. But it seems to me it's right up Post Carbon Institute's alley--or as we say these days, "in their wheelhouse." (what's a wheelhouse?) I am not equipped to do research of this sort. I agree it's a question that should be explored, even if it means widely varying estimates are posted. Even then, it gets the point across that--I mean, at the recent rally in DC one speaker said we should demand an end to fossil fuels, a transition to renewable energy, and good jobs. She presumably doesn't realize we can't do a transition and have lots of "good" (highly paid) jobs, AND quit fossil fuels. I think maybe MOST people don't realize this, and I believe the fossil fuel industry is about to launch a big PR push for the "hydrogen hubs" that are the latest version of the bullshit spraypainted green. My henchwomen and I are trying to get a statewide alternative newspaper consortium to do an expose, and also thinking it would be great if we could get John Oliver's Last Week Tonight to do one, as there is so much complexity needing explained, and he devotes 20 minutes or so to unraveling his topics. But how or whether it's even possible to contact his team, I dunno, and it likely takes months even if you succeed--we need to get the facts out there fast, before they can get written into law, their right to use funds intended for climate mitigation, for subsidizing and extending the fossil fuel industries. I read today that Governor Inslee, the climate champion, is now proposing major clearcutting in Washington, as supposedly a solution to climate change! This is what we're up against.
Hi Mary -
Originally a wheelhouse was a synonym for a pilot house, that is an enclosed structure on the deck of a ship from which it can be navigated. It later came to be used for one's area of interest and/or expertise.
As for the rest of what you said..., I may be able to respond to that sometime soon, maybe tomorrow.
PS - edit -
If you and your henchwoman (or just you) were to write up a good article on this hydrogen hub story I'd be very pleased to publish it here in the R-Word. The audience here is growing.