By Tad Patzek: On the Green Queen’s Race


I wrote about the Red Queen’s race for diesel fuel here.

Tad Patzek today wrote about the Green Queen’s race for electricity.

Tad begins by pointing out that a recently update climate model is predicting more than 1 degree of additional warming than the previous model for our current CO2 levels. That’s bad news but seems consistent with what we observe every day in the news.

Then Tad gets to his main point:

…since 2004, the annual increases of total electricity consumption in the world have outpaced all electricity production by all PV arrays in the world…

This means that the Green Queen is not only not keeping up, she’s not even in the race. Except for one year, 2009, when the economy crashed.

Annual Electricity Change vs. Total PV Electricity

And we haven’t even begun to replace the other 84% of fossil energy that we use for non-electricity applications like heating, fertilizer, tractors, trucks, trains, ships, planes, mining, steel, cement, glass, etc..

Thus, there are no other paths but to shrink, shrink more and transit away from fossil fuels.

Once again I observe that facts don’t matter and denial defines our species.

28 thoughts on “By Tad Patzek: On the Green Queen’s Race”

    1. Agree – great series of articles with the addition of some killer quotes from some of his friends and correspondents.


    2. Yes, the other essays by Patzek in this series are also good…

      Part 1: The New Green Revolution, a.k.a. The Grand Transition to… ??

      Part 2: Green New Deal

      Part 3: Green New Deal, How?

      Part 4: Green New Deal, Any Other Paths?


  1. I like David Attenborough because he makes great nature docs that in addition to teaching about a particular species always stress & demonstrate the 1st rule of ecology – everything is connected. I think many people have learned more about the ‘natural’ world from watching Attenborough docs than they learned all through k-12.

    Just sharing this from today because it’s on topic

    David Attenborough says it’s ‘extraordinary’ climate deniers are in power in Australia

    “Appearing before the UK parliament’s business, energy and industrial strategy committee on how to tackle the climate emergency, the celebrated broadcaster and natural historian was asked about claims people were overreacting to the threat of a climate emergency.

    He replied: “I am sorry that there are people who are in power … notably, of course, [in] the United States but also in Australia [who are climate change deniers], which is extraordinary because Australia is already facing having to deal with some of the most extreme manifestations of climate change.”

    I don’t think it’s ‘extraordinary’ that climate deniers are in power in Australia or America. I think it’s absurd & to be expected givfn my understanding of what the humans are.

    What’s he difference between Trump & Trudeau? Trump denies AGW and uses what power he has to help the fossil fuel industry. Trudeau does not deny AGW & says all the right ‘fight climate change’ talking points and then uses what power he has to help the fossil fuel industry.

    What’s the diff?

    Deniers everywhere of all stripes. As far as I’m concerned anyone who thinks or hopes humans can change and mitigate the consequences of their self inflicted predicaments, at a scale that matters, or effectively address most of their myriad of self inflicted problems, is in denial.

    My question is how can hope continue when every year the things they hope to be remedied get worse? By the numbers it goes further in the opposite direction every year – across the board.

    The hope, like the denial & insatiable reward seeking is hardwired. Effectively unchangeable except for a few outliers on the behavioral bell curve who make no difference. Kinda like asexuals who live their lives without sex or reproducing. They have always been around but because they are such a tiny minority, they make no difference in population numbers one way or another. Through the evolutionary lens they don’t fit & nor do gays, but they are there, generation after generation regardless. I’m not sure about a genetic mutation in those ‘non denier’ doomer types, because I’m one of them – a thermodynamic & evolutionary determinist, but only changed my thinking to that, slowly over the last 20 years through much study & observation and only gave up all hope about 10 years ago. Perhaps it’s epigenitics? A no hope, no denial switch mechanism got turned on by our environment – the pending collapse of techno industrial civilization with a massive die-back and every increasing probability of die-off. That’ll throw that switch every time. I hope they isolate the no hope no denial gene, then that way we’ll be eligible for disability & possibly reparations if we can find someone or thing, living or dead, to pin it on. I await my monthly government cheques with bated breath.


    1. Haha. Nice one.

      I too am a fan of Attenborough. I have over 360 of his videos in my collection.

      You are right, there is no difference between Trump and Trudeau in what counts, behavior, although I suppose you could argue that Trudeau is a polite idiot rather than a rude idiot.

      I think denial, hope, and optimism in the face of unpleasant realities are all the same thing, and is uniquely hardwired in humans. Reward seeking, also hardwired, is present in all species.

      I did not become collapse aware until I was about 50 but I know that I’ve been different all of my life because the most important question for me about everything has always been why? For example, of course religions are wacky, but the really interesting question for me is why do the majority believe in them? Of course climate scientists are correct, but the really interesting question for me is why do they still fly and why do they remain willfully ignorant of the thermodynamic laws that govern our economy?

      I’m betting if you reflect on your early life you will see some differences that point to a genetic abnormality related to reality denial.


      1. It could be as our friend James has suggested, that some of us just have atypical brain wiring. If one has that & is exposed to at least some formal education & has access to the nearly unlimited knowledge base (libraries, internet, experts) like we had/have the privileged of having, that may be one of the reasons why. I’ve noticed something about many so called doomers – they seem to be very curious -Why daddy why? – regardless of their varied occupations and formal education levels.

        I played a number of sports at the most competitive levels as a kid & teen & it was/is a popular meme among coaches that you cannot teach speed. You can tweak it but, you either have it or you don’t. I think the same applies to curiosity – it can’t be taught. You either have it or you don’t.

        I dropped out in grade 9, but was always reading, reading, reading & asking people questions & never stopped, nor could I if I tried. I think it would make me feel uncomfortable & restless to give it up or have it taken away. I could manage, without the internet, which I never had until I was 30 years old, but not having books or access to them would be tough.

        My dad was an elementary school teacher & many friends would think that somehow was an advantage for me, but the only time my dad came to the kitchen table to assist me or my brother & sister was for math. My dad was also curious & a life long learner (to a lesser degree than me). Among my parents hundreds of books, they had an encyclopedia set, a bunch of different atlases & other reference books & for every non math question anyone of us asked dad gave the same answer every time – Look it up. If there was an advantage it was that he made us do the work. We also had a ‘chores’ scheduled on our fridge & they were kinda strict about it.

        Other than the extreme curiosity, I have what many people who have know me well, call a ‘freakish’ memory. Later in life, I realized I was intuitively doing a lot of association, but I’m not sure that explains all of it because there is a powerful emotional component to memories of experiences that is different than all the facts, figures & trivial bits of science, history, etc. It’s had it’s advantages, but it’s a double edged sword since I vividly remember most of the bad shit as far back as 4 years old & that has been troublesome to say the least. I’ve informally tested some of these memories by telling them to my aunts, uncles & family friends & comparing them to their memories of the same thing & they were impressed with my recall. Although most people have inaccurate memories and even rewrite them through the passing years, so I have to factor that in.

        About 5 years ago I recalled to my aunt a memory of the day my parents separated during the school summer holidays a couple of months before I turned 6. My dad, 2 uncles, 2 ants & 2 of their friends were all drinking & listening to music (Cat Stevens & Blood, Sweat & Tears albums). My mom was working, but was hours late getting home. When she finally showed up she was half drunk and with a coworker. They went to the Calgary Stampede on a whim after work for a few hours, but no phone call. Dad flipped out when mom got home and threw a bunch of my moms clothes on the road. My aunts gathered them up & dad threw them on the road again. My mom grabbed some of her stuff & my sister & I did not see them again for 18 months. My aunt started crying when I told her my recollection of that incident and said, “I always hoped you kids would not remember that day”. I asked both my brother & sister and they do not remember the incident, just that our family was broken up & separated for 18 months. I remember all sorts of things just as vividly with all these seemingly unimportant details like what music was playing, what people were wearing,the weather, etc.

        It appears there is something going on that prevents my cognitive biases from doing their job of filtering or scrubbing my unpleasant memories like they do for most people. This is most likely why I’m not in denial or willful ignorance about the big pickle we are in. Hell, many times I wish I was – wandering around our consumer paradise in beautiful blissful ignorance.


        1. Very interesting. I wonder if curiosity is a side effect of having a lower tendency to deny unpleasant realities? Seems to correlate well with the fact that people who think economic growth is good and normal never ask what the implications of exponential growth are.

          I too have some unpleasant memories of early life. They may be the source of my jaded view that love is just one of evolution’s inventions for increasing reproductive fitness, as is our insatiable desire for more which manifests as economic growth being the top priority of every country in the world.


  2. “the Green Queen is not only not keeping up, she’s not even in the race”

    Funny that this line appears immediately above a graph showing that that “green queen” is catching up, and catching up from an abysmally-low start just a few years previous. IOW, the “green queen” is doing just fine, and as good as could possibly be expected at this early date in its evolution.


    1. I think you may have misread the graph. It is a little confusing. It compares the annual CHANGE in total electricity consumption, with the annual TOTAL PV production. This does mean that PV is not even in the race.


  3. Tim Morgan today confirmed Patzek’s observation…

    – According to the International Energy Agency (IEA), additions of new renewable generating capacity have stalled, with 177 GW added last year, unchanged from 2017. Moreover, the IEA has stated that additions last year needed to be at least 300 GW to stay on track with objectives set out in the Paris Agreement on climate change.

    – The IEA has also said that capital investment in renewables, expressed at constant values, was lower last year (at $304bn) than it was back in 2011 ($314bn). Even allowing for reductions in unit cost, this reinforces the observation that renewables capacity simply isn’t growing rapidly enough.

    – In 2018, output of electricity generated from renewable sources increased by 314 TWH (terawatt hours), but total energy consumption grew by 938 TWH, with 457 TWH of that increase – a bigger increment than delivered by renewables – sourced from fossil fuels.

    The latter observation is perhaps the most worrying of all. Far from replacing the use of fossil fuels in electricity supply, additional output from renewables is failing even to keep pace with growth in demand.

    Morgan observes that the construction rate of renewable energy is proportional to available subsidies. I would add that subsidies are made possible by surplus wealth, and surplus wealth is made possible by affordable fossil energy, and so as fossil energy depletes we will build less renewable energy. Thus there will be no transition to anything other than a medieval lifestyle, at best.

    The deceleration in the rate at which renewables capacity and output are being added seems to be linked to decreases in subsidies.


  4. Tim Watkins elaborates on the same issue…

    Put simply, there is not enough Planet Earth left for us to grow our way to sustainability. The only option open to us is to rapidly shrink our activities and our population back to something that can be sustained without further depleting the planet we depend upon. Continue with business as usual and Mother Nature is going to do to us what we did to the dodo and the passenger pigeon. Begin taking some radical action – which still allows the use of some resources and fossil fuels – to switch from an economy of desires to one of needs and at least a few humans might survive what is coming.

    The final problem, though, is that very few people – including many of those who protest government inaction on the environment – are prepared to make the sacrifices required. Nor are our corporations and institutions prepared to forego their power and profits for the greater good. And that leaves us with political structures that will inevitably favour business as usual.

    So no, I don’t hate “renewables” – I just regard those who blithely claim that we can deploy and use them to replace fossil fuels without breaking a sweat to be as morally bankrupt as any climate change denying politician you care to mention. There is a crash on the horizon, the likes of which we haven’t seen since the fourteenth century. When the energy cost of securing energy – whether fossil fuel, nuclear or renewable – exceeds the energy cost of sustaining the system; our ability to take mitigating action will be over. Exactly when this is going to happen is a matter of speculation (we should avoid mistaking inevitability for imminence). Nevertheless, the window for taking action is closing fast; and promising Bright Green utopias as we slide over the cliff edge is not helping anybody.


  5. Germany is one of the few countries in the world that has made an honest effort to reduce carbon emissions by switching to non-fossil energy. Alice Friedemann explains that Germany’s program has failed, as will any other country that tries to run a modern civilization on PV and wind. The underlying physics won’t permit it. Rapid population reduction is the only useful policy for reducing future suffering.

    The goal of Energiewende was to make Germany independent of fossil fuels. But it hasn’t worked out. The 29,000 wind turbines and 1.6 million PV systems provide only 3.1% of Germany’s energy needs and have cost well over 100 billion Euros so far and likely another 450 billion Euros over the next two decades. And much more than that when you add in the extra cost of maintaining fossil generation systems to back up the lack of wind and sunshine from seconds to weeks.

    Other news about Energiewende:

    – Germany’s Federal Audit Office has accused the federal government of having largely failed to manage the transformation of Germany’s energy systems (Energiewende program), and will miss its targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions, energy consumption and the share of renewable energy in transport.
    – At the same time, policy makers had burdened the nation with enormous costs. The audit further concluded that the program is a monumental bureaucratic nightmare.
    – The build-up of renewables benefited from more than $800 billion in subsidies.
    – The country has not just been burning coal; it has been burning lignite, one of the dirtiest fuels on the planet. In fact, in 2016, seven of the 10 worst polluting facilities in Europe were German lignite plants.
    – When it’s windy and bright, the grid is so flooded with power that prices in the wholesale market sometimes drop below zero.
    – Transport consumes 30 percent and mining & manufacturing 29% of Germany’s power, but for each, only 4 percent of its energy comes from renewables. Households use 26% of power, but only 13% of it comes from renewables, and Trade, commerce and services 15% but just 7% renewables.
    – Germany’s carbon emissions have stagnated at roughly their 2009 level. The country remains Europe’s largest producer and burner of coal, which generates more than one-third of Germany’s power supply. Moreover, emissions in the transportation sector have shot up by 20 percent since 1995 and are rising with no end in sight


  6. Mac10 had a triple espresso today…

    “This is the first society in human history that is borrowing its way out of a debt crisis.”

    “Something” happened after 2008 whereby this society – monkey hammered by two asset bubbles in a row – decided to turn its back entirely on reality.”

    “Five of the top ten grossing movies of all time are comic book movies from the past decade. In other words, fifty years ago, the U.S. was launching 6 million pound rockets to the moon and back, at the beyond Earth’s orbit speed of 25,000 miles per hour, 15x speed of a bullet. Now we have record numbers of Disney comic book movies for adult audiences. The Saturn V remains the most powerful rocket ever launched into space. Do the words “what the fuck happened” ever come to mind?”

    “As it was in 2007, lenders are Ponzi lending to their own clients to paper over the erosion of solvency. Neither side wants to admit the party is over. Remember the ratings agencies that lied in 2007 and said all of that subprime alchemy was ‘AAA’? Well, they are lying again, because they have a conflict of interest in keeping this party going as long as possible.”

    “The amount of leverage, or debt to GDP, is up less dramatically, from 208 percent in June 2008 to 231 percent in June 2018.”

    Liked by 1 person

  7. The Stock-Buyback Swindle

    This article has 2 traits common to almost everything written by “experts” today.

    First, it observes some interesting fact:

    “Before the 1980s, corporations rarely repurchased shares of their own stock. When they started to, it was typically a defensive move intended to fend off raiders, who were drawn to cash piles on a company’s balance sheet. By contrast, according to Federal Reserve data compiled by Goldman Sachs, over the past nine years, corporations have put more money into their own stocks—an astonishing $3.8 trillion—than every other type of investor (individuals, mutual funds, pension funds, foreign investors) combined.”

    Second, the explanation offered by the experts demonstrates a total ignorance of the underlying cause. They never see the obvious:

    Q: Why do companies buy their own stocks?
    A: Because there isn’t an alternate investment that offers a better return.
    Q: Why isn’t there a better alternative?
    A: Because we’ve hit limits to growth caused by depletion of low cost energy.
    Q: Why don’t experts understand this?
    A: Humans evolved to deny unpleasant realities. In addition, some experts, like economists, are idiots.


  8. Report: Average American Must Have Life Ruined By Natural Disaster Every 6 Minutes To Fear Climate Change

    “EUGENE, OR—Outlining what a shift in public consciousness regarding global ecocatastrophe might require, a study published by researchers at the University of Oregon Monday found the average American must have their life destroyed by a natural disaster every six minutes in order to finally fear climate change. “According to our data, American citizens must lose their home to a flash flood, almost immediately watch a tornado ravage their hometown, and then succumb to heatstroke in 110 degree temperatures before recognizing climate change as a viable threat,” said head researcher and professor Vanessa Verrier, citing the tendency of U.S. citizens to forget about global warming roughly 10 minutes after their homes were devastated by wildfires. “Roughly seven minutes following a climate disaster, ambivalence sets in and Americans forget why these natural disasters have increased so dramatically in recent years. The good news, however, is that in the five minutes directly after losing a loved one in a hurricane, participants were much more likely to consider reducing their carbon footprint by taking public transit rather than driving.” The report estimated that the nation would have to suffer 34,000 consecutive natural disasters this month in order to garner significant support for climate change legislation.”

    h/t Apneaman


  9. Tim Watkins elaborates on the link between energy and the economy.

    On this side of the Atlantic, the trick has been to frame every item of bad economic news through the lens of Brexit. On the other side of the pond, Donald Trump must be held to blame for bad economic news. This is plausible enough simply because both Brexit and Trump have had a negative impact on trade; and thus can be held partially responsible for increasingly stormy economic headwinds. Behind the political froth, however, is a structural economic crisis that is simply not going to go away. This is the crisis of falling net energy (or rising energy cost of energy – ECoE) which means that no matter how the high priests of central banking manipulate the financial sector of the economy, we have now (in the absence of some energy miracle) reached the apex of human industrial growth.

    I have argued before that the interaction between the real and the financial economy is like a game of musical chairs. The slowdown that we are witnessing in the real economy is akin to the chairs being removed. But the hints at rate cuts and stimulus – and their eventual appearance – are the sound of the central bankers’ keeping the music playing. After all, none of the bankers, or the politicians and economists, or even the financial media wants the music to stop playing on their watch. And so each will play their allotted part in painting lipstick on what is looking increasingly like a big fat and ugly economic pig; in the hope that when the bubble finally bursts, someone else will be in charge.


  10. Earth Overshoot Day this year is July 29.

    On July 29 we will have used all of the resources that the planet can regenerate each year. The resources we consume for the balance of the year come from drawing down natural capital, aka eating our seed corn.

    Basically we’re consuming twice what the earth can provide in the long term. The reality is much worse if we consider the needs of other species which are going extinct at a record pace. In addition, some big factors like soil depletion, are apparently not included in the calculation.

    When I was 12 years old in 1970 we were not yet in overshoot.


  11. Another side effect of renewable energy. In this case our denial genes can take a break because it’s out of sight and out of mind.

    Imagine giant robots— like combine harvesters on steroids— scouring the bottom, hoovering up minerals from manganese to molybdenum and shitting out everything else, pulverized, in its wake. Although you don’t really have to, because they’re already building the fuckers.

    The mind-blowing irony is that all this imminent deep-sea devastation is being driven by our appetite for renewable energy. That’s what’s finally driven deep-sea mining out of the realm of wide-eyed speculation into red-hot profitability. Rare-earth metals are an essential part of the batteries required for energy storage in solar and wind-energy systems, not to mention the burgeoning population of electric cars. They’re scattered like doubloons across places like Clipperton, just waiting to be scooped up. This grand new vista of environmental destruction has been incentivized by the environmental movement.

    But hey, I’m an optimist. I can end on an upbeat note. It’s all going down at the bottom of the ocean, after all.

    At least none of us will have to see the damage.


  12. Tad Patzek in part 6 of his series explains that oil will begin to decline at about 7% per year any day now which means no one except the military will be flying in about 10 years and cars will stop shortly thereafter.

    Oh, and there’s also a heatwave in the Arctic and Greenland is melting much faster than the experts predicted.

    Where are the adults?


  13. Kurt Cobb: The wheels come off shale oil

    “So far this summer season we have heard two unthinkable utterances come from shale oil industry executives. The first linked above was that the industry has destroyed 80 percent of the capital entrusted to it since 2008. This came from a CEO no longer in the industry.

    The second, however, came from one of the largest players in the Permian Basin, the hotbed of shale oil activity. Pioneer Natural Resources CEO Scott Sheffield said that the industry is running out of so-called Tier-1 acreage. That’s oil-speak for “sweet spots.” Those are the circumscribed areas in shale deposits within which extraction costs are low enough to justify drilling.”


  14. When James Kunstler occasionally steers clear of politics and gender issues, and instead focuses on oil, he is an excellent read, as for example today’s piece.

    I would add to Kunstler’s observations that I don’t think Trump (and many other people) realize how dependent we have become on China for almost everything we need to maintain our lifestyles. That would include one of the foundations of our civilization, the parts necessary to build Caterpillar machines.

    China knows how to live with extreme poverty. We don’t.

    What’s at stake in all these international confabs like the G-7 are the tenuous supply lines that keep the global game going. The critical ones deliver oil around the world. China imports about 10 million barrels a day to keep its operations going. It produces less than 4 million barrels a day. Only about 15 percent of its imports come from next door in Russia. The rest comes from the Middle East, Africa, and South America. Think: long lines of tanker ships traveling vast distances across the seas, navigating through narrow straits. The Chinese formula is simple: oil in, exports out. It has worked nicely for them in recent decades. Things go on until they don’t.

    That game is lubricated by a fabulous stream of debt generated by Chinese banks that ultimately answer to the Communist Party. The party is the Chinese buffer between banking and reality. If the party doesn’t like the distress signals that the banks give off, it just pretends the signals are not coming through, while it does the hokey-pokey with its digital accounting, and things appear sound a while longer.

    The US produces just over 12 million barrels of oil a day. About 6.5 million of our production is shale oil. We use nearly 20 million a day. (We’re not “energy independent.”) The shale oil industry is wobbling under the onerous debt load that it has racked up since 2005. About 90 percent of the companies involved in shale oil lose money. The capital costs for drilling, hauling a gazillion truckloads of water and fracking sand to the rig pads, and sucking the oil out, exceed the profit from doing all that. It’s simply all we can do to keep the game going in our corner of the planet, but it’s not a good business model. After you’ve proved conclusively that you can’t make a buck at this using borrowed money, the lenders will quit lending you more money. That’s about where we are now.

    Europe is near the end of its North Sea oil bonanza and there’s nothing in the on-deck circle for them. Germany tried to prove that they could run the country on “renewables” and that experiment has flopped. They have no idea what they’re going to do to keep the game going in their patch of nations. They must be freaking out in their charming capital cities.

    The next economic bust is going to amount to the crack-up of the oil age, and the “global economy” that emerged in its late stage. It was all about moving fantastic quantities of things around the planet. The movements were exquisitely tuned, along with the money flows that circulated freely, like blood carrying oxygen to each organ. All of that is coming to an end. The nations of the world must be feeling desperate, despite the appearance of good manners at meetings like the G-7. What’s at stake for everybody in the dark background is the ability to maintain high standards of living only recently attained. And the fear behind that is not knowing just how far backward these high standards of living may have to slide.

    A lot of people still alive in China must remember a daily existence on par with the 12th century. In the USA, where democracy is mostly represented by low-order thinking skills, the memory of life before electricity and running water is long gone. We’ve been living in Futurama since the end of the last world war. That war, by the way, is not entirely forgotten in Europe, despite all the charm currently on display and the tourists swarming with their selfie sticks. The place was a charnel house for centuries and the Euro folk will do about anything to suppress conflict. Lately, it looks like they’re willing to give up on Western Civilization itself to keep the peace.

    Lord knows what Mr. Trump’s strategy is with these so-called “trade talks.” He has explicitly enough pushed for the re-industrialization of America, and that implies — among other things — decoupling from the China’s torrential merchandise supply lines, cutting off its revenues. Closing off China’s access to US markets itself might be enough to finally blow up China’s deeply fraudulent banking system. Maybe the aim is to just disable China, derail it from its seeming aim of becoming the next world hegemon. Does Mr. Trump think he can do that without blowing up the rest of the world’s financial arrangements? The stock markets haven’t been digesting that story very well lately. Could the US government be collectively dumb enough to think that shale oil will permit this country to re-industrialize while the rest of the world stumbles back into a dark age?

    More likely, all the advanced nations will make that downward journey together. The US is well on its way, despite all the MAGA bravado. The country is reeling in bad faith, delusion, official corruption, porno-pharmaceutical vice, and ethnic rancor. The people who live in FlyoverLand style themselves like Visigoths, all tatted up and armed to the teeth, moiling angrily at the edge of the Rome-like coastal enclaves. The elites want to stuff themselves inside their phones and live there. Guess what: that won’t be a “safe space.”


  15. Tad Patzek concludes his series by discussing 2 intersecting predicaments that I have discussed many times on this blog.

    Assuming it’s not already too late to constrain climate change from destroying civilization (and it may well be too late) we must rapidly reduce CO2 emissions, which can only happen with rapid voluntary reductions in population and wealth. In parallel with this reality, fossil energy depletion will reduce our total wealth by 50% (and population by some significant amount) within 20 years, regardless of what we want or do.

    This means that what we should do but won’t do will happen anyway, but probably too late.

    Where are the adults?

    In this series of posts, I have investigated whether humanity will sober up and transit to the less power-intensive lifestyles everywhere. To do so, will require a strong global control of birthrates in India, most of Africa, and many other places. Our survival also depends on depowering the richer countries and a wise transition to renewables everywhere. There is scant evidence that any of these globally-coordinated actions can happen, given the political reality in so many countries. If you still don’t understand what I am implying here, let me clarify: Humanity is on a straight short path to committing global suicide by massive social unrest, war and ensuing starvation.

    I have presented a restrained, but rather optimistic version of a possible future of global and US production of fossil fuels. Still, given the constraints I imposed on my vision of the future fossil fuel production, global carbon dioxide emissions will be cut by half by the year 2040.

    As a sidebar, Patzek makes an interesting observation that the current burning of the Amazon has been caused in part by the US’s decision to stop exporting soybeans and beef to China.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s