Climate is changing as humans put more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. With CO2 levels today around 400ppm, we are clearly committed to far more climate change, both in the near term, and well beyond our children’s future. A key question is how that change will occur. Abrupt climate changes are those that exceed our expectations, preparedness, and ability to adapt. Such changes challenge us economically, physically, and socially. This talk will draw upon results from ice core research over the past twenty years, as well as a new NRC report on abrupt climate change in order to address abrupt change, as seen in the past in ice cores, as seen today in key environmental systems upon which humans depend, and what may be coming in the future.
~ James White, Institute of Arctic and Alpine Research
I need to get a small rant off my chest. I promised myself no finger-pointing on this site but I have to make an exception for Economists. With a total disregard for physical laws, the scientific method, and insufficient calculus skills to create a model that reflects reality, the embarrassing discipline of Economics makes it possible for anyone to prove anything. And they do. All the time. Not one economist in a hundred has a clue. And these people are the most important advisors to our governments. Perhaps it is the fact that economists can generate any answer to any question that makes them popular with politicians, who to get elected, must tell voters what they want to hear.
The only economist I listen to is Steve Keen. He has a lot of important things to say. What distinguishes him from the crowd, and you are really not going to believe this, is that he includes debt in his models. Do yah think debt might be important? Duh. He’s also well grounded in thermodynamics which is vital to understanding the economy.
Credit Money: How it Works and Why it Fails, Part 1
Credit Money: How it Works and Why it Fails, Part 2
Credit Money: How it Works and Why it Fails, Part 3
It’s a simple question.
You’ll hear different simple answers depending on the politics of the speaker. Talking heads on the news will usually say it’s to stimulate growth or to create jobs.
It’s also a big clue.
Large scale money printing has been tried many times in history and it never ends well. We can expect modest inflation at best, high inflation, social unrest, and war at worst. We’ve been printing full steam for 5 years. They must know it’s risky. They must have a good reason. What’s the real reason?
Could it be?
1) The government is unable to borrow sufficient funds to cover their large deficit without causing interest rates to rise, which would force large cuts in services, and so makes up the shortfall with printed money.
2) The government is worried that if they stop printing the stock market will fall because it has become dependent on easy money. And they don’t want the stock market to fall because then people feel less wealthy and spend less.
3) The government wants to encourage retirement accounts to switch from low risk interest bearing investments to high risk equities, thus stimulating the stock market and increasing investment in companies that might create growth.
4) The big banks are in trouble and are dependent on money printing from which they skim fees and carry trades to rebuilt their reserves.
5) The government wishes to debase the currency to improve export competitiveness.
6) The government seeks to cause inflation as a means of reducing real levels of public and private debt because they know the underlying economy is struggling to service its high debt level.
7) There is little or no real growth which means the money supply is not growing fast enough to cover interest owed on existing debts, and given high debt levels, a large deflationary collapse would occur without a continual injection of new printed money.
There may be some truth in all 7 possibilities, but I discount the first 5 because we’ve had government cutbacks, high interest rates, stock market crashes, bank failures, and competitiveness problems in the past, and we recovered just fine.
I also discount 6) because inflation will cause interest rates to rise which will be a very big problem for governments with high debt.
That leaves 7) which I think is the main reason.
We’ve bumped up against limits to growth.
One of the best talks I’ve seen by an oil industry analyst.
The Center on Global Energy Policy hosted a presentation and discussion with Steven Kopits, Managing Director, Douglas-Westwood, on the different approaches to global oil market forecasting. Mr. Kopits’ remarks focused on both supply and demand-based methodologies, including how these models result in different assumptions and implications for oil supply (OPEC and non-OPEC), total oil demand and oil price. He also reviewed other key drivers such as changes in the transport sector and overall economic growth and discussed how these variables can further impact oil demand and supply.
- our incomes are not rising…
- which prevents us from increasing our already high debt…
- which prevents us from affording higher oil prices…
- which prevents an increase in oil production…
- which prevents an increase in productivity…
- which prevents an increase in wealth creation…
- which prevents our incomes from rising (see above)…
- which prevents the money supply from increasing…
- which threatens our ability to pay interest on existing debts…
- which threatens the value of debts…
- which threatens a deflationary collapse…
- which threatens social unrest…
- which threatens politician’s jobs…
- which guarantees money printing will continue until it can’t…
- which erodes the value of our retirement savings…
- and someday (probably after a crash) will cause fierce inflation…
- which will make food and other necessities very expensive…
- which will create social unrest…
- which will threaten politician’s jobs…
- which will encourage despots…
- and thanks to geology…
- it will cost more next year to produce the same quantity of oil…
- and the year after…
- and so on until it costs 1 barrel of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil…
- and then we will use 100% renewable energy…
- just like the Romans…
- except we have to feed 7 billion instead of 100 million…
- and producing food will be a challenge…
- with most of the good soil, fish, and forests gone…
- and an unstable climate…
- and rising sea levels…
- and scarce fertilizer…
- and wars between tribes over remaining resources.
I have read many books on astronomy and physics. Here are a few of the important ideas that stuck with me:
- We have deduced mathematical laws of physics that accurately describe and predict the universe’s behavior.
- Some of the laws of physics, such as quantum mechanics, are very strange but they work remarkably well.
- The universe began about 13.8 billion years ago as a big bang of extremely dense energy.
- A few constants define how the universe evolved after the big bang. It seems these constants could have been different resulting in a completely different universe. We do not know why they are the way they are.
- We do not and probably never will know what existed before the big bang, nor whether our universe is unique or one of many, nor whether our universe is infinite or finite.
- As the big bang expanded and cooled some of the energy converted into light gases.
- These gases formed clouds which collapsed under gravity to form stars.
- As these stars aged some exploded and created heavier elements like carbon and other materials necessary for life.
- Some of these heavier elements collapsed into new stars and planets including our sun and earth about 4.5 billion years ago. All life is thus amazingly composed of exploded star-dust.
- There are a mind-boggling 300 sextillion (3×1023) stars in the universe and probably more planets.
- Shortly after our earth formed it was randomly struck by a mars sized body which created our moon.
- The moon helped to create an environment hospitable for life by stabilizing earth’s rotation and creating tides.
- Our sun will use up its fuel and consume the earth in about 6 billion years.
- The universe’s expansion is accelerating and we do not know what the “dark energy” is that is causing this.
- We calculate more gravity than should exist for the mass we observe and we do not know what this “dark matter” is.
- 95% of the universe is dark energy and dark matter (the stuff we do not yet understand).
- The universe began as high quality dense energy and most scientists think it will end in about 100 trillion years as low quality diffuse energy – cold, black, and without life.
The amount we understand about the universe is quite remarkable and is something to be genuinely proud of as a member of the human species.
We have found no need for a god to explain anything in the universe, unless we want to assign a reason for the laws of physics being the way they are, in which case such a god would have no resemblance to any of the gods worshiped by our many religions.
I find it enlightening to contemplate the purpose or objective of the universe.
Since the universe started as high quality dense energy and its destination is low quality diffuse energy it is reasonable to state that the objective of the universe is to degrade energy.
Structures and mechanisms which degrade energy can and will form provided they are consistent with the laws of physics. Those structures and mechanisms which degrade energy the most effectively are the most likely to exist.
Another way to think about this is that wherever an energy gradient exists, things (work) can happen, and given enough time they will happen, provided the laws of physics permit it.
Humans are the Earth’s most effective species at degrading energy. We dominate the planet because of this talent, and although in the process we are causing the extinction of many other species and probably causing our own collapse, it is interesting to observe that humans are doing what the universe wants. That is, burning all of the fossil energy as quickly as possible to convert it into low quality waste heat thus helping the universe to arrive at its destination as quickly as possible.
If humans had not learned to exploit fossil energy then some other species would probably have evolved to exploit this energy gradient.
It is probable that intelligent life has evolved many (but not too many) times in the universe but always collapses shortly after it learns how to exploit fossil energy. This may explain why we have not heard from any other intelligent life despite years of listening.
This interactive tool titled The Scale of the Universe 2 by Cary Huang is excellent for helping to visualize our place in the universe:
Or if you prefer to watch it as a video:
Many people understand pieces of our predicament. Very few understand all of the pieces.
Nate Hagens has the best big picture understanding of anyone I know.
Over the years I have collected a large library of books, articles, and video. If I had to chose only one item that best explains what is going on, this talk by Nate Hagens would be it.
And here is a different version of the same talk targeted at a younger audience with less background knowledge.
This talk by Jeremy Jackson nails the causes, severity, and urgency of our overshoot, and what we need to do in response.
Here is a classic by physicist Tom Murphy.
This is my favorite talk on limits to growth, the most important topic almost no one discusses, including people who should know better, like the Green Party.
Note that Murphy does not mention the explosive worldwide growth in debt, which is the only reason the game has continued longer than engineers like myself predicted it should.
The problem with our reliance on debt is that when the correction comes, it will be much more violent and damaging than it needed to be, which is another topic that the Green Party, and almost everyone else, does not discuss.
In summary, the most important things we should be discussing, are the things we never discuss.
Isn’t that an amazing behavior for an otherwise intelligent species?
This is a review of James Hansen’s 2009 book “Storms of My Grandchildren”. James Hansen is the most respected climate scientist in the world. He is naturally shy and avoids publicity but decided to write this, his only book, after the birth of a grandchild. He wanted his grandchild to know later in life that his grandfather had done everything he could to warn the world. I’m of the opinion that Storms of My Grandchildren is the definitive book on climate change.
The density of information in the book is very high so it won’t be possible for me to summarize all of it. Instead I will try to convey the big takeaways for me. Hansen did a remarkable job of summarizing all of the important science. This science is much more complex and nuanced than I had previously thought. I was surprised how deep our understanding is, and the stability of the foundation upon which it rests. I was under the mistaken impression that most predictions had been drawn from computer models, the accuracy of which is of course dependent on model assumptions. It turns out that most of the important predictions are drawn from studying climate change throughout the geologic history of our planet, and they know a surprising amount about past climate.
Before I discuss Hansen’s conclusions, I need to digress for a moment. Experts in the fields of energy, economy, and climate tend to have narrow fields of view. Economists generally know very little about or deny the physical realities of energy and climate. Energy experts frequently dismiss climate change or are ignorant of the science. Climate scientists frequently do not understand or include the implications of peak energy and peak debt in their forecasts. These blind spots are remarkable given the intimate inter-dependencies of energy, economy, and climate.
James Hansen is no exception. From his book I conclude that he does not understand the implications and timing of peak oil, and seems to be unaware of our monetary system mathematics that guarantee collapse in the absence of growth. Therefore it is very important to place Hansen’s climate predictions in the context of his energy and economy assumptions.
Hansen assumes the economy (and hence energy consumption) will continue at roughly its current level. He makes a very compelling case that if we continue to burn coal, oil, and natural gas at the current rate, then global warming will make the lives of our grandchildren miserable at best, and unlivable at worst. The most important impacts being significant sea level rise, agriculture disruption, storm damage, and species extinction.
He further asserts, with no uncertainty, that if we burn all of the remaining coal plus non-conventional oil (tar sands and oil shale) then the planet will experience runaway warming and will end up like Venus with all life extinguished.
Hansen concludes (with supporting analysis) that there is only one possible solution to maintain a planet that is hospitable (if somewhat damaged) for our grandchildren:
1) We must reduce CO2 from today’s 392 ppm to below 350 ppm, and very soon. It was refreshing to hear him acknowledge how difficult this will be. For example, every single country that signed the Kyoto protocol, which promised CO2 reductions, actually saw CO2 increases, and CO2 is still increasing today. Furthermore, even countries that signed with honest intentions and worked hard on renewable energy and conservation, like Japan, still saw CO2 go up. In case you are puzzled by this, it is exactly what one would expect given that GDP is proportional to energy consumption, and 90+% of our energy comes from burning fossil fuels.
2) To achieve 350 ppm we must stop all use of coal, plus stop non-conventional oil (tar sands & oil shale), plus implement a carbon tax, plus stop deforestation, plus control population growth. Again, it was refreshing to hear him acknowledge that we cannot stop using our remaining conventional oil because there is no alternative and because we will need it for the following step.
3) To maintain civilization as we know it, and to have any hope of public support, we must replace most of the electricity that was previously generated by coal. Again I was impressed that Hansen understands that the low power density and intermittency of solar and wind eliminates them as candidates for coal replacement. Hansen says our only choice is nuclear. But current nuclear produces too much waste and consumes too much depleting non-renewable uranium. Therefore we need a crash program to develop 4th generation nuclear and a little luck. If successful, 4th generation nuclear will burn waste from today’s reactors and will produce very little new waste.
I have studied energy in sufficient depth to know that Hansen is correct about the need to replace coal with nuclear, assuming lifestyles as usual. More specifically, I agree with Hansen that when you hear people promote clean coal (which means carbon capture and storage) you can rest assured that this is green-wash that will never happen for a variety of solid technical and economic reasons.
It’s worth reflecting on the precariousness of our grandchildren’s situation, when the only possible solution that maintains current lifestyles and a livable planet requires a new nuclear technology that is still in the R&D phase and may not work.
But now we need to circle back and revisit his initial assumption that the economy (and hence energy consumption) will continue at roughly its current level. As you know from my analysis of energy and the economy, I am certain that we are facing a global collapse. What does this mean for Hansen’s climate prediction and prescription for avoiding a disaster for our grandchildren?
When collapse occurs we can conservatively expect half of the wealth and economic activity on the planet to be wiped out. And it’s entirely possible that the decline will be much deeper than 50% given the huge levels of debt and derivatives that need to be unwound. This means that there is no chance of us being able to afford the nuclear replacement of coal given the many trillions required for the switch. Which means we will continue to burn coal but at a reduced rate because of reduced economic activity. Will this reduced energy consumption be sufficient to save our grandchildren?
But it gets more complicated. At the end of his book Hansen summarized the key uncertainties in our understanding of climate science. One of the big uncertainties is the effect of aerosols on the earth’s energy balance. Aerosols are the particulates (soot) that are emitted from the combustion of coal and diesel and other industrial processes. Aerosols tend to mask the effect of CO2 by blocking sunlight. But unlike CO2 which remains in the atmosphere for centuries, aerosols fall out of the sky after a week or so. So when economic collapse occurs, we can expect energy production and industrial activity to dramatically drop and thus aerosol production to dramatically drop. Which means that in a very short period of time we will experience increased effect of our CO2, which means we may experience a global warming “surge”.
Climate scientists acknowledge the presence of a tipping point beyond which the climate will warm no matter what we do. Many scientists are very scared that we are close to this tipping point. Hence Hansen’s call to arms for us to get back below 350 ppm. Will the warming surge caused by economic collapse push us past the climate’s tipping point?
So now let me try to sum this all up.
If you do not believe Hansen’s predictions and prescriptions, then you really should read his book. It is very persuasive and I think it will give you confidence that he knows what he is talking about. In fact you should read it regardless. We all need to understand this stuff given the stakes.
If you do not believe that the economy will collapse, and you believe Hansen’s science, then you know exactly what needs to be done. You should push the Canadian and Alberta governments to shut down the tar sands immediately. You should push for replacing all of our coal-fired power plants with nuclear plants. You should support a carbon tax. You should support sending aid to developing countries to discourage deforestation. And you should support government policies to control population growth.
If, on the other hand, you believe my prediction of economic collapse, then our actions are less clear. We need to ask our scientists to answer the questions: 1) How much economic activity reduction is required to get us back to below 350 ppm? 2) What are the implications of a sudden drop in aerosols? With answers to these questions we can derive any further actions required to protect our grandchildren. Hopefully nothing more will need to be done than to survive a permanent economic depression.