Category: (Certified 100% Denial-Free™)

By Nate Hagens: Wise Words on Justice and Peace

I expect this post will upset many in my feed – so let me first clarify I am by no means an apologist for ISIS and abhor any act of violence. But the flood of ‘Pray for Paris’ comments and discourse on the internet is a microcosm of what currently ails our societies and has unexpectedly struck a nerve with me. First, it’s elitist. We don’t pray (or even notice) when bombs go off in Baghdad or Beirut or Bangladesh, but when an attack occurs in a white, rich, Christian country, it’s the most terrible event in the world and we are frozen with horror. There are approaching 7.4 billion hominids on this planet. Billions suffer everyday from not enough to eat or violence in their countries. Millions are displaced by military aggression (ultimately about access to fossil sunlight and other precious resources). To pray for our own comfort and convenience and ignore the suffering going on outside our bubble is such a narrow gesture it’s almost insulting.

And btw, the loss of the natural world continues apace. 90% of pellagic fishes gone. 50% of wild animals gone since Ive been alive. 40% of insects gone. These tragedies are accelerating and no one prays one whit. We are eating the earth. Who is praying about that!!!!? Despite talks about climate change etc, nobody is really campaigning for the earth yet. We’re southern belles being fanned by (fossil) slaves and saying “land sakes” as we fret about our dresses.

The basis of prayer (biblical contrition and a loving God and all that), is by definition non-elitist (or it should be). If you pray, pray that our species finds its moral compass and changes our aspirations away from novelty and profits to something of more lasting meaning. What happened in Paris was awful, and unprecedented, but can’t be all that surprising to those paying attention to the end of growth and alienation of large swaths of population. We best get ready for lots more of this as our current system not only doesn’t work for most, but can’t even continue in its present arrangement for more than a few more years. We are so tribal. The evolutionary origins of our ingroup/outgroup algorithms suggest the default response to climate change, energy depletion and the end of growth is going to be a series of big fat wars against ‘others’. It’s already begun. Pray for Paris to be sure, but with a view to the wider backdrop and a challenging future. We need society to be more ecologically literate, more tolerant of others and more awake to our time in history, from which all futures begin. Perhaps Im insensitive, but were I to pray for anything, Id pray for that. It’s not all about us, humans, alive today, in rich countries.

https://www.facebook.com/nathan.j.hagens/posts/10154296857148496?fref=nf&pnref=story

Not the Trees Too Damn It!: On Gail Zawacki

Gail Zawacki of the Wit’s End blog has waged a mostly solitary campaign trying to raise awareness of the worldwide decline of trees due to air pollution. It’s been a thankless struggle as experts and laypersons alike angrily reject her conclusions without consideration of the evidence, underlying science, or deductive logic.

There is something about trees that evokes passionate denial that we might be doing them harm. Yes, ok we are changing the climate, yes the coral reefs and fish stocks are collapsing, yes some animal species are going extinct, yes some nasty areas of the world are cutting down their forests so we can eat Palm oil and burn green biofuels, but the remaining trees are mostly healthy. They are too beautiful and important. We can’t be harming the trees too damn it!

I am typical. That was my initial reaction too. I consider myself well read on the problems we face. Nowhere in my travels had I encountered intelligent people discussing systemic problems with trees. Deforestation yes, pine beetles yes, drought here and there yes, but not a worldwide decline of trees. I walk a lot in the woods and a cursory review of the trees here suggested things were mostly ok. I also work with some environmentally wise people and they are not yet concerned. So I initially dismissed Gail’s premise and pushed back that it must be a localized east coast US problem.

I pride myself on having an open mind and a nose for people who know what they are talking about. So I started to read more and observe more closely. Gail has amassed a lot of evidence from all over the world that trees are in decline. I am starting to see the problem at home here on Vancouver Island too. The firs outside my door are off their normally deep green color and they have a considerable number of dead yellow branches. I don’t recall seeing these symptoms when we bought the property about 15 years ago. Many needles seem so fall after a breeze, it used to take a storm. In the woods that I walk I am seeing off colors and signs of sickness like cankers and many windfalls. A lot more windfalls and erosion than I remember as a kid in the same woods. Something not good is going on here.

The problem may be accelerating. A recent photo essay of Gail’s comparing the same locations in 2010 with today shows dramatic changes. I asked Gail to explain, and while she is not certain, the level of ozone pollution necessary to harm trees may have recently crossed a threshold.

A global decline of trees is a really big deal for many obvious reasons. One not so obvious reason that upsets me a lot is that planting trees is one of the few things we could do, and maybe the only thing that would work, to remove some of the CO2 we have already put in the atmosphere. But of course if the trees are dying from a different type of air pollution that results from burning the same fuel that puts CO2 in the air, then that plan won’t work.

Any and all actions we might take to mitigate the problems of human overshoot require dramatic changes to our lifestyles. Most importantly we must reduce per capita consumption and reduce population. Most people are not willing to make these changes yet.

Trees evoke passion in people. Perhaps there are memories of our hunter gatherer history embedded in our DNA. Passion is required to change behavior. It’s a long shot but I wonder if awareness of the tree problem might help bring about some behavioral changes we need.

Gail has been very prolific so I asked her for a short list of her favorite articles. I read them all and selected the following paper as my favorite. It provides a nice introduction to the impact of air pollution on trees, as well as an overview of the other overshoot predicaments we face.

Highly recommended and well worth your time.

A Fine Frenzy ~ the universal dance of delusion…and the paucity of hope

If you have time, this would be my runner-up essay which provides more history and detail.

Whispers from the Ghosting Trees

By Nate Hagens: Carbon Fee and Dividend: It Won’t Work

I’ve had an uneasy feeling for a long time that a carbon fee and dividend policy proposed by many bright minds such as James Hansen will not work. My feeling was based on the fact that wealth is proportional to energy consumption and most of our energy is fossil carbon so unless you are reducing wealth you are not reducing CO2.

Proponents of carbon fee and dividend policies believe that it will drive consumption towards renewable energy but do not understand that renewable energy cannot generate the same level of wealth as fossil carbon. So the policy will cause an economic decline and risks a public backlash when it becomes clear that the policy was falsely advertised.

The following comments from the Google discussion group America 2.0 by energy/economy analyst Nate Hagens were made in response to Robert Marston Fanney’s post titled Climate Change Changes Everything — Massive Capital Flight From Fossil Fuels Now Under Way.

Nate makes a strong case against a carbon fee and dividend and makes some important points that I missed.

https://www.reddit.com/r/collapse/comments/3f1oaq/nate_hagens_on_why_growing_the_economy_while/

I suspect you’ll agree this post is horribly naive. Scribbler gets the [climate] science right, but the systems analysis/economics wrong. The reason Arch coal and other energy firms have enterprise values heading south isn’t because of divestment but because of global deflationary depression – started by a continual money machine that creates principal out of thin air but not interest – and the interest (and eventually principal) has to be serviced and paid back with growth based on energy and non-renewable resources flows, which (still) cheap fossil co-workers account for 90%+ of the planetary labor force.

“investors by the droves are now engaged in removing their assets from fossil fuel based companies.”

Unless they also change their lifestyles ‘by the droves’ it won’ matter one bit.

I gave a talk locally last week to the Citizen Climate Lobby, following James Hansen. Hansen is championing a ‘fee and dividend’, where carbon is taxed and the revenue is then given to the poor (or other areas of society – not the government). I paste below what I wrote to some friends after my talk:

Though debating Fee and Dividend was a small % of the total event, I thought I’d lay out the logic I presented to see what I missed, or if you all disagree or agree or other.

Here is their logic/detail on Fee and Dividend… https://citizensclimatelobby.org/remi-report/#Overview

My main points:

1) I’m in favor of energy being more expensive as a transition to a different type of economic system, but taxing carbon by saying it will grow our economies is naive, ignorant and poses systemic risk.

2) Fee and dividend conflate the dollar value of carbon and the work value of carbon. When we tax say gasoline $1 and give that $1 to say, the poor, this is claimed by CCL to be ‘revenue neutral’ and the behaviors shift somehow so that the economies grow. This econometric-based analysis ignores the biophysical aspect of energy inputs. E.g. if we take 1 dollar of energy out of the economy and transfer it, we also are taking 90-100$ worth of ‘work’ done by that gasoline. So the dollars are the same, but the work is (much) less. Economies usually contract using this math, not grow.

3) The economy is a heat engine, requiring 7.1 milliwatts per $ (constant over time) http://www.inscc.utah.edu/~tgarrett/Economics/Physics_of_the_economy.html, but we now live in a world where financial claims far outweigh the natural resource and energy ability to service them. Any company or nation that reduces energy use (that can’t print their own currency) will be at severe disadvantage. 90% of global work force is carbon co-workers. We want to grow the economy but fire these workers. It doesn’t make any sense.

4) If we use $1 less of carbon, and give that $1 to someone who didn’t drive or use air conditioning etc., they will go spend that $ at a coffeeshop, at WalMart, at an amusement park, etc. There are extremely few activities in our world that are ‘carbon free’. Carbon free in our modern world is almost an oxymoron.

5) To distribute carbon fees as dividends to the poor as a combinatory climate mitigation and wealth inequality tool, risks a large backfire. The lowest 2 quintiles of our society spend 100% of their income. The top 5% spend 7% of their income. In a world with depleting oil fields (not 1 year view but 10 year view), a carbon fee with the money going to the poor quickly rebounds as a large call on more oil/gas/consumption as we are taking abstract wealth (digits in bank) and having them become an immediate call on natural resources.

6) British Columbia’s carbon tax is an excellent case study on why policy framed around climate action won’t ever work (in my opinion of course). Annual emissions declined from 2005-2013 but are now projected to significantly increase through 2020. This is happening because govt didn’t stick to the cost of accelerating carbon above $35 a ton, plus the carbon neutral projects were a colossal failure because developers just got $$ to develop property they would already destroy but just at a slower rate thanks to the carbon tax. And all this happened without accounting for the increase in carbon exported through BC through coal and shale oil.

7) As long as we optimize dollars (as in a market system), the dissipative structure that is the global economy will just get larger. So fee and dividend is just a feel good mechanism to shift where the heavy lifting is done. Arranging deck chairs without reducing emissions. And definitely without reducing emissions at the levels needed. http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21569039-europes-energy-policy-delivers-worst-all-possible-worlds-unwelcome-renaissance

8) As long as there are one or more countries that don’t tax carbon, (and as long as goods that are made with coal are not subject to a special tax), then adding the carbon tax will tend to move manufacturing toward countries without such a tax. This will increase the advantage that these countries already have because of the use of low-priced coal in manufacturing and home heating. (Wages can be less with coal, too!)

9) The dividend likely increases demand for products from these countries, because of the mix of products poor people buy.

My talk was well received but this aspect of it was very unpopular as I hit a lot of emotional buttons on people who are already fully committed to fee and dividend outreach and activism. I suspect leisure is a great supporter of virtue and when the ‘economy is going south or souther’, there will be some switching of teams. I hope to be wrong about that as I do think the sapient thing is for energy [prices] to be gradually become much more expensive, in an accelerating manner.

Nate

Jay Hanson’s response:  Nice summation Nate. Fossil fuels are a dirty word on Scribbler’s site. Try commenting about their importance to the economy and the modern world on his site and you will be censored and banned from further commenting. He believes renewables can replace all fossil fuels without drastically changing our way of life. Many prominent climate scientists believe that we can innovate our way out of this mess as well. This is the major disconnect preventing any substantive discussion on root causes for human overshoot and the inevitable collapse to follow.

Is Austerity Rational? I Think So

There is no painless solution to our overshoot. Our only choices are do we want to fall from a higher elevation later, or climb down from a lower elevation sooner?

I advocate for conservation and population reduction, despite knowing that these policies would result in an economic depression, at best, and much hardship.

Am I being rational? I think so.

Imagine being in a plane at 30,000 feet that is running low on fuel with no runways in range. The pilot has two options.

The first option is to not inform the passengers and do nothing. Everyone will remain calm enjoying their meals and in-flight entertainment until the plane falls out of the sky and everyone dies. Except perhaps a few crazy doomers that were wearing parachutes :).

The second option is for the pilot to explain what is going on, ask everyone to buckle up tight, save their meals because they will be hungry while waiting for help to arrive, and brace for impact, while he drops to a low elevation and makes a best effort to crash-land in a clearing. Many people will probably be hurt or killed, but many may survive.

The correct choice seems obvious.

Now consider a second scenario.

You and your tribe are climbing a steep mountain because you believe there are gold and jewels at the peak. Part way up you feel a tremor which you know from experience in this region presages a large earthquake.

If you stay where you are and get thrown off the mountain by the earthquake some people will be injured and die.

If you continue to climb higher, more people will be injured and die.

If you start to climb down, fewer people will be injured and die.

The correct choice seems obvious.

The equivalent of elevation for our civilization is debt and the overshoot it is temporarily enabling.

What I find really interesting is that I am the only person I know of that is overshoot aware and that thinks we should raise awareness of the problem and try to encourage a voluntarily elevation reduction.

I know and respect a lot of smart and aware people who think we should simply enjoy life and wait for the system to collapse. I’ve been trying to understand why these people think we should do nothing. Possible explanations might include:

  1. They think our current elevation is so high that no one will survive even if we start to climb down.
  2. They think inherited human behavior will prevent most from voluntarily climbing down and they do not want to sacrifice while most people are enjoying drinks in the Titanic’s bar.
  3. They are hoping for some divine or technological intervention.

These possible explanations imply that they are willing to give up on something rare and precious without even trying, or that they are in denial.

I would love to hear from readers who disagree with my logic and think we should continue to increase our elevation.

I wrote more on this issue here.

A Summary of Our Predicament: Overshoot Is a Bitch

Here is my understanding of the current situation. I think this is the most accurate and concise summary you will find anywhere.

1) 2 degrees rise is already certain and we are on a path for 4-6 degrees in the lifetimes of our grandchildren.

2) 2 degrees will be a disaster for human civilization and many other species, 4-6 degrees will be worse.

3) Wealth is proportional to energy consumption.

4) Wealth (at the current high level we enjoy) is enabled with debt which requires economic growth or else the system will crash.

5) Over 90% of our energy is fossil carbon which emits CO2.

6) Renewable energy does not have the density or qualities necessary to replace fossil carbon energy and maintain our current lifestyle.

7) We and other species cannot afford carbon capture technology and it will not scale.

8) Low cost fossil carbon energy is depleting rapidly and current economic problems are largely due to this fact; economic contraction is imminent even if we reject voluntary conservation.

9) Geoengineering at best will buy us a little time.

10) Self-reinforcing feedback loops may have already taken over from human emitted CO2 as the primary drivers for climate change.

 

Therefore, we cannot mitigate climate change without reducing total wealth, and we cannot reduce wealth without crashing the system.

If we choose not to voluntarily reduce wealth we will be forced to do so. By volunteering we might be able to control the contraction, rather than being controlled by the contraction.

Unfortunately, even when wealth does contract it may be too late to avoid unacceptable climate change.

Nevertheless, I think we should try to make the future less bad for our children with conservation and population reduction policies. More people and more consumption will make the future worse. Less people and less consumption will make the future better.

I doubt however that we have the ability to override our genes’ desire to maximize resource capture, nor our inherited denial of reality filter.

Overshoot is a bitch.

Canadian Election Choices

The Canadian election choices seem to be…

1) growth at the expense of the rich (Liberals)
2) growth at the expense of social harmony (Conservatives)
3) growth pretending to be socially responsible (NDP)
4) growth pretending to be sustainable (Greens)

All of these platforms will harm the future of our children and accelerate the collapse of our planet’s ecosystem.

Not one party is promising less now so that we step back from the cliff.

Not one party is promising population reduction policies which are needed to maintain a decent lifestyle for future generations and survival for many other species.

All of the parties see the painful symptoms of limits to growth and think that the policies of the other parties are to blame.

How can you construct a useful platform when you do not have a clue what is going on?

Climate Scientists Damage Their Own Credibility

Climate scientists damage their own credibility by being in denial about the reality of our situation.

1) The planet cannot feed more than a billion people without fossil energy.

2) Those of us fortunate to have comfortable lives owe it to fossil energy.

3) Over 90% of all wealth derives from fossil energy.

4) Renewable energy does not have the qualities, scale, or return to replace fossil energy.

5) There is no easy fix to climate change.

6) There may be no fix to climate change because it is possible that self-reinforcing positive feedback loops have taken over.

7) Assuming we can still influence the outcome, austerity, conservation, and population reduction policies are the only things that might help.

8) Most climate scientists don’t set a good example in their personal lives.

Perhaps if climate scientists started setting a good example and speaking the truth they might have more credibility and impact.

Or maybe it wouldn’t make any difference.

It would be nice to have an honest fight.

Time to Question the Pie

I have for a long time felt that the future pain we will experience from our zero interest rate policy will far exceed any benefit we obtain today.

Here is an excellent article by the ecological economist Herman Daly making this case and why we should move to a full reserve monetary system.

What is Wrong with a Zero Interest Rate?

Have you heard any of the candidates in the Canadian federal election discussing this vital issue? Or climate change, or peak oil, or species extinction, or fisheries collapse, or dying trees, or the disease epidemic caused by refined carbohydrates?

It seems our leaders are happy to discuss any issue except the issues that actually matter. Idiots. All of them.

It’s time to stop voting based on left versus right which is essentially a question of how to divide up the pie that is destroying our planet. It’s time to vote for people with the IQ and wisdom to question the pie.