Why We Want Growth, Why We Can’t Have It, and What This Means

I want to talk a little about growth and why it is such a powerful force in society.

Growth is an interesting denial topic because it is obvious, even to a child or uneducated person, that infinite growth is not possible on a finite planet. Yet growth is a top priority for every country in the world, and most citizens. I have a hunch that most of our leaders and citizens do not understand the real reason they want growth which makes this topic even more interesting.

Albert Bartlett argued that part of the problem is that the human brain does not understand the exponential function. He has a point. I have taken about 10 university level mathematics courses and I still needed to create a little spreadsheet to satisfy myself that Bartlett was correct. Anything that grows exponentially, regardless of how small the exponent is, will eventually explode into a hockey stick. So if you want society to become more sustainable, it is not sufficient to argue that we should reduce our goal of say 4% annual growth to a smaller number. Any growth rate bigger than zero is a problem.

But even without this advanced understanding of exponential growth, it is still obvious that growth creates many problems. Why then does almost everyone want growth?

I think most people want growth because most people want the future to be better for themselves and their children. The logic being that in a growing economy there is a good chance my income and wealth will grow. There are other human behaviors that create a desire for growth such as competition for status, the maximum power principle, and our dopamine response to novelty. But I think most people mainly want the future to be better rather than worse. More is a happy thought. Less is a depressing thought.

There is in fact a much bigger reason to desire growth that few people understand and it has to do with the design of our monetary system.

We have a debt based fractional reserve monetary system. Money is not created at the same time that we create real stuff to buy. Money is created in advance of us creating real stuff to buy. In other words, money is loaned into existence on the promise of it being repaid from future earnings. The mathematics of this system requires growth to pay the interest on debt. I may write another essay to explain this in more detail but for the purposes of this essay please assume these statements as true, because they are.

The real reason growth is so important is not because growth will give us a little more next year, it is because growth gives us A LOT more today.

It’s all about debt. An example is probably the best way to explain this.

Let’s assume you are an environmentally aware person trying to live a low impact life. You need and want a place to live. A small used house will suffice. Lets say it costs $200,000. You have a modest income and you are able to save $10,000 per year. In a no-growth economy the only money available to borrow is surplus money saved by someone else. Therefore a no-growth economy has very little credit available and you would probably have to live with your parents and save for 20 years before you could buy the house. In a growing economy, you can save a down payment for 2 years and then borrow the balance of $180,000 to be repaid over the next 18 years. No other people had to save the $180,000 you borrowed. The $180,000 was created out of thin air on the promise of you repaying it with interest. Even though you only own 10% of the house, you get to enjoy 100% of the house now. You do not have to wait 20 years.

This logic applies to everything we typically purchase on credit like education, cars, furniture, appliances, and vacations. For many people struggling today, this logic also applies to necessities like groceries and gasoline.

Back to the original example. You are a green aware person. You did your best by buying a small used house. To enjoy the house now rather than waiting 20 years you needed an economy that is growing. What are the implications of an economy that is growing at say 3%? Anything that grows at 3% per year will double in size every 25 years (5% doubles in 16 years, 2% doubles in 36 years). So if you live for 75 years in an economy that is growing at 3% then the human footprint will be 8 times larger when you die than when you were born. Eight times! Think about that. Imagine you have a baby today and imagine Earth with 8 x 7=56 billion people and an economy of 8 x $108 = $864 trillion dollars when your child dies. Obviously this is not going to happen and we will destroy our home and most other life if we try to get there.

We all need some form of shelter to survive. A house with furniture and appliances and plumbing really does improve the quality of our lives. But we can’t destroy the planet to have a house. What to do?

There are no easy answers to this conundrum. There may be no answer. Perhaps in the long run we won’t be able to live in a nice house. I need to think more about this but my current belief is that if we could constrain our population to zero growth, and if we adopted policies to ensure the economy does not grow, then it probably means that multiple generations of a family need to share a house. For example, in a richer world, newly weds would move into their grandparent’s home and the grandparents would move into the space vacated by the newly weds in their child’s home. In a poorer world, all 3 generations would live in the same house.

There are many other deep implications of a no-growth world.

Most of the technology we enjoy today requires a large amount of up-front capital. For example, a television takes hundreds of people to design, billion dollar mines to extract the raw materials, billion dollar factories to produce its components, a billion dollar global supply chain of ships and trucks for transport, a many billion dollar energy infrastructure for oil and electricity, a billion dollar industry for television program content creation and fiber optic distribution. None of this is possible without a lot of debt to build and maintain the infrastructure.

It’s quite possible that we won’t be able to have advanced technology products like cars and airplanes and televisions and cell phones in a no-growth world.

A no-growth world also has huge implications for governments. Every country in the world today operates with a deficit which means they spend more than they collect in taxes by borrowing money. This in turn means that most citizens enjoy many more services like health care, education, water, sanitation, security, unemployment insurance, and old age pensions than they pay for. This is only possible when governments have access to large amounts of credit and this is only possible in a growing economy.

Politicians usually get elected by promising things to citizens that cost money. Since all countries are already running large deficits, our leaders are highly motivated to achieve more economic growth because this helps them stay in power. This dynamic also explains why government deficits tend to grow and often become dangerously high.

Banks make money by loaning money and more growth means they can loan more money. A no-growth world would have many fewer banks.

The value of a company is primarily determined by the growth rate of its profits. It’s much easier for a company to grow when the overall economy is growing. Managers are often compensated based on share price and are highly motivated to grow their company.

The concept of retiring and living on a pension depends on growth. If the value of money invested by pension funds in company shares did not grow there would not be sufficient funds for most people to live on at retirement. It may not be possible to retire in a no-growth world.

Last but not least, growth is required to maintain the value of the majority of our wealth which is in the form of debt. Without growth it is not possible to make interest payments and the debt will default and lose its value. This in turn will reduce the value of assets purchased with debt. Goodbye investment portfolios and million dollar shacks in San Francisco. Hello a much poorer world.

Clearly there are some very good reasons for growth. At the same time, growth cannot continue forever due to physical limits, and because we are already destroying the planet with our current footprint.

Today’s myriad economic problems and our weird and unprecedented responses to these problems are primarily due to the fact we have hit limits to growth.

Everything we do and make requires energy. By using external energy, in addition to our muscles, we increase our productivity and ability to create wealth. Energy extraction and consumption must increase for the economy to grow. Efficiency can help, but we have already harvested most of what is possible and are bumping up against the laws of physics for any further efficiency gains.

Most of our energy is fossil carbon which is a depleting non-renewable resource and extraction rates cannot increase without higher energy prices. Higher energy prices, above say $80 (not the current temporary $30 deflation price), are not possible because consumers and governments have already borrowed the maximum that is possible, even at zero interest rates.

Most renewable energy costs more than most non-renewable energy, and renewable energy is dependent on non-renewable energy so the price of both tend to scale together. It is therefore unlikely we could run today’s civilization on renewable energy, but even if we could, switching over would require a huge amount of up-front debt that will not be available in our growth constrained world.

It’s too late to change, and it probably never was possible to continue this lifestyle without cheap fossil energy.

Pain is on the horizon. It can’t be avoided. I think a proactive response of conservation, austerity, and population reduction measures might help by slowing us down in a more controlled manner, rather than our current high-speed trajectory towards a brick wall.

In conclusion, the end of growth is a really big issue.

We are not considering wise strategies to mitigate the problem.

We don’t even talk about it.

We deny the problem exists.

By Dermot O’Conner: There’s No Tomorrow

This excellent video was produced in 2012. You can see how people in denial who viewed it then are saying to themselves today that they were right not to worry. Hell, I bought gas today for $0.88 per liter. What’s the problem?

Read some of the YouTube comments for scary insight into the views of our citizens. It’s going to be a gong show when decline begins in earnest.

These comments by the producer in the FAQ speak directly to denial:

Would you do it again if you knew how long it was going to take?

No. In the intervening years, it’s become clear that people are deeply set in their opinions, and that most of the writing/commentary/movies that are made simply reinforce existing beliefs, rather than change them. In addition, dealing with this subject is likely to have one labeled a Eugenicist/Genocidal-maniac/NWO-puppet/Illuminati/Oil-industry-shill/The AntiChrist, or worse.

It would have been wiser to create a cartoon about crime-fighting squirrels with super-powers.

Here is an overview of the film from its home site:

“This is a quick journey through the subjects of oil formation, peak oil, energy, economic growth, and resource depletion. I’ve condensed several years of reading and research into little over half an hour. The most important sequence is around the 17min mark, dealing with Growth…the real subject of the film.”

There’s No Tomorrow is a half-hour animated documentary about resource depletion, energy and the impossibility of infinite growth on a finite planet.

Inspired by the pro-capitalist cartoons of the 1940s, the film is an introduction to the energy dilemmas facing the world today.

“The average American today has available the energy equivalent of 150 slaves, working 24 hours a day. Materials that store this energy for work are called fuels. Some fuels contain more energy than others. This is called energy density.”

“Economic expansion has resulted in increases in atmospheric nitrous oxide and methane, ozone depletion, increases in great floods, damage to ocean ecosystems, including nitrogen runoff, loss of rainforest and woodland, increases in domesticated land, and species extinctions.”

“The global food supply relies heavily on fossil fuels. Before WW1, all agriculture was Organic. Following the invention of fossil fuel derived fertilisers and pesticides there were massive improvements in food production, allowing for increases in human population.The use of artificial fertilisers has fed far more people than would have been possible with organic agriculture alone.”

http://www.incubatepictures.com/notomorrow/tnt.shtml

 

By Nate Hagens: A Birds Eye View of the Future

Nate Hagens recently presented an updated version of his excellent overview of human overshoot.

I still consider Nate’s talks to be the best big picture view available anywhere.

Religion Evolves (Baba Brinkman): We Need a New One

Religion is one of the most powerful forces that has shaped human history.

A new religion based on reverence for the diversity and complexity of life on earth, and on the rare privilege of having an evolved brain powerful enough to understand our place in the universe, and on how we are harming our precious home might help our predicament.

The logistics seem feasible. Christianity took over the Roman empire in a very short period of time.

The big question is, is it possible to have a popular religion that conflicts with what our genes want to do, namely maximize resource capture and reproduction, which of course is what is causing us to kill the planet.

I’m guessing not, but it’s worth a try.

Here’s an excellent new rap from Baba Brinkman titled Religion Evolves.

COP21: Doubling Down on Denial

What have we done to date?

  • We set a goal to limit temperature rise to 2 degrees, despite it being clear that the current 1 degree rise is already unsafe.
  • We did absolutely nothing to achieve the goal; we didn’t even try.
  • We emitted enough CO2 to guarantee at least 2 degrees, even if we stopped all emissions today.
  • No one knows for sure, but we may have already triggered self-reinforcing feedback loops that will increase the temperature by a civilization killing 4-6 degrees; the point being that time is of the essence.

What should we have done at COP21?

  • We should have acknowledged the severity of our predicament.
  • We should have discussed the relationship between wealth and climate change; namely that wealth is proportional to energy consumption, CO2 emissions are proportional to energy consumption, and temperature is proportional to accumulated CO2; therefore to mitigate climate change we must reduce our total wealth.
  • We should have discussed the differences between fossil energy and renewable energy, and why the latter do not have the density, quality, or scale to run our advanced civilization.
  • We should have discussed the depletion of fossil energy and why aggressive conservation now would be a really good idea for both climate change and world peace.
  • We should have acknowledged that there are no easy solutions but lifestyle changes to focus on needs rather than wants, and population reduction policies would help.
  • We should have acknowledged that rich people and countries will have to reduce consumption much more than the poor if we want to maintain peace.
  • We should have acknowledged the good news that most people in developed countries have much more than they need to have a comfortable life.
  • We should have explained all of this to the citizens of the world and asked for their cooperation.

What did we actually do at COP21?

  • We changed the already impossible goal of 2 degrees to a more impossible goal of 1.5 degrees, thus grossly misleading the citizens of the world that our leaders are doing something useful.
  • We took no actions that will reduce CO2 emissions.
  • We made the situation worse by emitting tons of CO2 to fly 40,000 people to Paris to achieve nothing, and set a bad example in the process.
  • In summary, we doubled down on denial, instead of having an adult conversation.

By Steve Ludlum: Climate Tactics Redux

The most effective policy is to pay people to conserve: to offer a basic income conditioned to meeting conservation standards; to pay citizens who do not have children or own cars.

Steve Ludlum has long been one of my favorite thinkers on the relationship between energy and the economy. He predicted today’s low oil price 3 years ago and got it right to within a few months.

This is Steve’s first significant foray into climate change (that I can recall) and he nails it. Steve presents a long list of proposals for addressing the problem, many of which seem feasible to me, unlike the proposals presented by most climate “experts”.

Here are a few of the highlights:

  1. CO2 emissions are going to decline soon regardless of what we do because of resource depletion and economic collapse. We should focus on other forms of pollution because we have solutions and because there will be indirect benefits to climate change, not to mention our and the planet’s health.
  2. We should pay people to conserve rather than spending money on green growth “solutions” that make things worse.
  3. Climate scientists should lead by example. They have no credibility today because they are hypocrites.

Lots of good stuff here.

It’s sad that none of our leaders will ever read this.

http://www.economic-undertow.com/2015/12/10/climate-tactics-redux/

By Jack Alpert: Sustainable Civilization Analysis

Jack Alpert released a new video. He’s one of the few not in denial.

The word “sustainable” is overused and misused. This video provides some insight into what true sustainability means.

A sustainable world is a much different world than we live in, and much less abundant than most people imagine.

Notice the low YouTube view count. It seems reality is not popular.

un-Denial Manifesto: Energy and Denial

Winners and Losers

This essay launched and defined un-Denial.com.

This is the story of the two most important things that enabled the success and possible demise of humans: energy and denial.

Simple single cell (prokaryotic) life emerges as a gradual and predictable transition from geochemistry to biochemistry, in the presence of rock, water, CO2, and energy, all of which are found within alkaline hydrothermal vents on geologically active planets, of which there are 40 billion in our galaxy alone, and probably a similar number in each of the other 100 billion galaxies.

Simple life like bacteria and archaea is therefore probably common throughout the universe. Strong evidence for this is that prokaryotes appeared 4 billion years ago, as soon as the earth cooled down enough to support life, and never once winked out despite many calamities throughout geologic history.

LUCA (the Last Universal Common Ancestor), and all life that followed, is chemiosmotic meaning that it powers itself with an unintuitive mechanism that pumps protons across a membrane. This strange proton pump makes sense in the light of its hydrothermal vent origins. For a sense of the scale of life’s energy, consider that the human body pumps a staggering 10**21 protons per second of life.

The transition to, and existence of, complex multicellular life, like plants and animals, is much less predictable and certain. All of the complex life on earth has a common eukaryote ancestor, and it appears this ancestor emerged only once on Earth about 2 billion years ago. This is a vital but rarely acknowledged singularity in biology.

The eukaryote cell was created by a rare endosymbiosis (merging) of prokaryotes (simple cells) somewhat analogous to a freak accident. The resulting LECA (Last Eukaryotic Common Ancestor), having 2 genomes that needed to cooperate and evolve in harmony, was probably fragile, sickly, and vulnerable to extinction which forced it to evolve many unusual characteristics common to complex life such as the nucleus, sex, two sexes, programmed cell death, germline-soma distinction, and trade-offs between fitness and fertility, adaptability and disease, and ageing and death.

As the endosymbiont (cell within the cell) evolved into mitochondria (energy powerhouses), eukaryotes were able to break through the energy per gene barrier that constrained the morphological complexity of bacteria and archaea for 2 billion years. Suddenly there was enough energy to power the evolution of complex structure, multi-cellular life, a symphony of fungi, plants and animals, and one single hominid with an extended theory of mind that took over the planet.

The magnificent and varied life we enjoy on Earth may not be unique in the universe, but is probably very rare, and our existence and ability to understand and discuss the origin of this life, is extraordinarily rare and precious.

Life at its core is chemical reactions that consume energy to replicate themselves. There is a minimum quantity of energy required to sustain life. This subsistence energy supports growth to sexual maturity, finding and winning a mate, reproducing, and feeding the offspring. It also includes the energy for shelter and clothing to create a hospitable environment for the chemical reactions to operate, energy to power the muscles used to evade or fight threats, and energy for the cells to repair damage from sickness or injury.

All of this subsistence energy must come from the surplus left after using energy to gather, hunt, grow, steal, or purchase energy. In other words, life must obtain more food than the food it takes to obtain food. Otherwise it dies. For example, if a coyote burns 2 rabbits worth of energy to capture 1 rabbit then it will die. If on the other hand, a coyote burns 1 rabbit of energy to capture 2 rabbits then it might be able to produce offspring that survive to repeat the achievement. Similarly, an ape that sells life insurance and uses its wages to buy food must be employed by a life insurance company that makes a profit. Without a profit the ape will lose its job and ability to buy food. Profit is an energy surplus.

Energy is required to produce anything and everything. For example, your coffee mug required diesel-powered machines to dig up and transport clay to a factory that used natural gas-fired furnaces to fuse the clay into a durable ceramic container that was then transported by a diesel-powered ship and diesel-powered trucks to a store that you drove to in a gasoline-powered car and purchased with wages your earned from a company that generated a profit by using energy to create something worth more energy. Money is a token we can exchange for real things. Therefore money is a claim on energy.

If a species finds a way to capture more energy than is required to subsist, then its probability of survival and population increases. Additional surplus energy is first used by life to increase fertility and decrease mortality. This makes intuitive sense because the chemical reactions at the core of life are replicators that replicate until some resource shortage constrains them. The most important resource, by far, is energy because with sufficient energy many other resource shortages can be overcome. For example, a well fed coyote can range farther to find water, and an ape can use natural gas generated steam to extract oil from sand.

Until recently all species obtained their energy from the current flow of sunlight (e.g. grass) or the recent flow of sunlight (e.g. wood). As an aside, a few species use instead chemical energy from geothermal processes but I will not discuss this since the ideas are analogous. An ape that eats a cow uses current solar energy via the photosynthetic grass eaten by the cow to produce flesh, and recent solar energy via the wood used to predigest (cook) the meat.

The sun shines at a relatively constant intensity and the earth is a fixed size at a relatively constant distance from the sun. Therefore the available sunlight on earth is finite and fairly constant. If one species captures more energy it must come at the expense of a different species. This tension is the driving force behind evolution.

The competition for finite resources as governed by the laws of evolution has created many amazing variations of life. For example, trees that grow tall to capture more sunlight than its neighbors, cheetahs that run faster than their prey, giraffes that eat high leaves, and birds that migrate with the seasons. One species emerged with a unique capability to out-compete all other species for available sunlight, and then used this same capability to break through the sunlight barrier.

About 100,000 years ago there were several intelligent social species of hominids spread around the world, all with about the same brain size and power. For some period of time, perhaps several million years, these species bumped up against evolving an extended theory of mind, which would have been advantageous for these social species because it enhances cooperation by enabling an individual to understand the minds of other individuals. Each time an individual was born with a mutation for an extended theory of mind they would have observed, through the normal course of daily activities like hunting and childbirth, other individuals being killed or injured, and therefore would have come to understand their own mortality. All animals have a very useful inherited behavior that causes them to fear and avoid injury, and therefore mortality awareness caused fear, depression, and risk avoidance, which reduced their reproductive fitness, and so the mutation for an extended theory of mind did not fix in the gene pool.

Then one day, through random chance, a member of one tribe in east Africa was born with a mutation for an extended theory of mind plus denial of reality.  The two independently maladaptive behaviors, when improbably combined, became highly adaptive. The genes from that individual became fixed in her tribe and the resulting improvement to the tribe’s ability to communicate and cooperate increased the success of the tribe.

Having broken through the mortality barrier, it now became advantageous and probable for natural selection to evolve a larger and more powerful brain with complex symbolic language, planning and analytic skills, and increased memory capacity. An additional fortuitous side effect of denial of reality was the optimism bias it created which the intelligent species used to advance technology, hunt dangerous animals, wage war, and explore new continents.

This new species that emerged from a small tribe of hominids, that we now call human, and that is sometimes referred to as the chosen people, used its new abilities to out compete all other hominid species.

The mutation for denial of reality, which was essential for dampening the inherited fear of injury and death, caused each new human tribe to create life after death stories which served to define, unite, govern, and entertain the tribe. Thousands of different stories, which we now call religions, were created by thousands of tribes, with their one and only common feature being, due to its genetic foundation, a life after death subplot.

Over this same period of time, and probably even longer, there were other intelligent social species like chimpanzees, dolphins, elephants, and crows that were bumping up against the mortality barrier to evolving an extended theory of mind. Some of these species achieved partial theory of mind as demonstrated, for example, by behavior consistent with mourning their dead and revenge, however because of the improbability of mutating an extended theory of mind simultaneous with denial of reality, these species never evolved brains similar to humans.

The enlarging human brain soon became constrained by the size of the birth canal and associated pregnancy health risks. Because of the strong fitness advantage a larger brain provided, evolution found a clever way to work around the birth canal constraint by delivering babies with undeveloped brains. Therefore, as humans became smarter, parents were required to care for their offspring for a longer period before they became independent and able to breed. This led to other behavioral and cultural changes, such as pair bonding, and religions with stories that discouraged adultery.

The humans used their intelligence and social skills to develop technologies to capture a larger share of solar energy. Examples of these technologies include mastery of fire for cooking, heating, and land clearing; domestication of animals initially for protection and hunting assistance and later for transportation, agricultural labor, and sources of food; metal for weapons and tools; projectile weapons for extending its lethal range; replacement of indigenous plants with cultivated food plants; redirection and storage of water; methods and vehicles for migrating to all available continents and islands; shelter and clothing to survive in all climates; architectural structures for defense; and written language to store and transmit the technologies.

The human population increased rapidly and spread to all continents. Large prey went extinct everywhere shortly after the arrival of humans, except in Africa, where the large animals co-evolved with early humans. All of the humans’ close relatives were out-competed and went extinct. Human civilizations like the Egyptians, Romans, Mound Builders, and Mayans, experienced cycles of growth, overshoot, and collapse as they bumped up against the barrier imposed by finite solar energy.

Then, 200 years ago, humans used their intelligence to discover a new technology that fundamentally changed the rules. Humans learned how to exploit a new source of energy to augment finite sunlight. This energy is ancient buried biomass commonly called fossil energy. Unlike sunlight that is constrained to the real-time flow from the sun, fossil energy accumulated over millions of years and therefore acts as a giant solar energy battery. Now humans could not only exploit current solar energy (e.g. grass) and recent solar energy (e.g. wood) but also ancient solar energy (e.g. coal, oil, natural gas).

Because energy is the master resource that can be used to extract other resources, including more energy, fossil energy created a positive feedback driven 200 year period of explosive population, wealth, and technology growth. With surplus energy available to replace human labor with machines such as tractors and combines, fewer humans were required to work on subsistence activities and more humans could specialize in a wide variety of scientific, engineering, and cultural domains.

Food production was increased through the use of natural gas derived nitrogen fertilizer, oil based pesticides, diesel-powered tractors, combines, and irrigation, and diesel-powered trucks, trains, and ships to deliver it. More food enabled the population to increase from 1 billion to 7 billion. New technologies that used the surplus fossil energy improved the quality of human life such as housing, drinking water, sanitation, medical and dental care, communications, transportation, labor-saving machines, and entertainment. Humans used the surplus fossil energy to make amazing advances in science and technology including traveling to the moon and understanding the origin of life and its respiration, replication, and photosynthesizing chemical reactions, and invented light speed digital networked communications technology to share and discuss this understanding with other members of the species anywhere on the planet.

Some side effects of the new technologies also reduced the quality of life for some humans. These included health problems caused by pollution and the new abundance of delicious but unhealthy foods such as sugar that were evolutionarily scarce.

Almost all other species, except those cultivated or domesticated by humans, and those that piggyback on the success of humans, like rats, suffered from the success of humans. The rate of species extinction increased to unprecedented levels. Rather than using fossil energy to replace sunlight energy, thereby freeing some energy for other species, humans used fossil energy to add to the solar energy they already commanded, and most wild species declined. Fast and powerful fishing boats capable of scooping and scraping all life from the ocean anywhere on the planet are one of many examples.

The purpose of the universe, if it can be said to have a purpose, is to increase entropy. The universe abhors an energy gradient and life is its best invention for degrading energy gradients. Humans are the champions of life at degrading energy, and from this perspective, may be the universe’s pinnacle of invention.

Conflict between tribes is a persistent feature of human history with periods of calm and periods of extreme violence. The inherited denial of reality enables a high level of violence without the temper of empathy because tribes with different gods are viewed as lesser humans. For example, one large civilized tribe exterminated millions of “inferior” humans using gas chambers. Another large civilized tribe routinely kills innocents labeled as terrorists with automated drones to protect sources of fossil energy while telling itself it is spreading democracy.

There are three dark clouds looming over human success.

First, climate change and pollution.

The use of fossil energy releases CO2 into the atmosphere which acts as a blanket to trap solar energy which increases the temperature of the planet. Human released CO2 has already increased the earth’s temperature by about 1 degree resulting in many problems including droughts, storms, ice loss, and sea level rise. The CO2 already released by humans guarantees another 1 degree of rise, even if all fossil energy emissions were stopped today. It is now clear that the 2 degree limit agreed by many countries is not a safe target and is in fact very dangerous for civilization. Worse still, probable future human emissions will cause a 4-6 degree rise which raises the possibility of human extinction.

Sea level rise predictions from melting ice on Greenland and the Antarctic increase with each new study. At least a meter of sea level rise by the end of the century is now probable and subsequent predictions are expected to worsen. This is a significant problem because much important land for agriculture and cities is near sea level. There will be heartbreaking refugee migrations, starvation from decreased food production, and loss of capital property this century.

CO2 also acidifies the ocean which harms many species such as shellfish and corals, both of which are in sharp decline. Another large and widely unrecognized problem is that byproducts of fossil energy combustion create ozone which harms plants and trees. There is evidence that trees are in global decline. This should concern humans for many obvious reasons. One not so obvious reason is that planting trees is one of the few things humans can do that might succeed in removing CO2 from the atmosphere. If trees are being killed by the same activity that puts CO2 in the air then this strategy will not work.

Climate change is a wicked problem. A rising temperature creates other self-reinforcing feedback loops such as ice loss and methane release which act to further increase the temperature. At some point these feedback loops may dominate over human influences thus eliminating any ability for humans to affect the outcome. No one knows for sure, but we may be near or passed this tipping point.

Choosing to act on climate change in a meaningful way will also create new problems. Wealth is proportional to energy consumption. More specifically, $1 US adjusted for inflation to 1990 equals about 10 mW of energy. Over 90% of our energy comes from fossil energy. Therefore any meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions must shrink the economy, and because we have a debt backed fractional reserve monetary system with a large and rising quantity of outstanding debt, a meaningful reduction in CO2 emissions will probably cause an economic depression, at best. Thus a political platform promising to actually do something about climate change is unlikely to be elected, or re-elected.

Furthermore, a decline in economic activity will result in a rapid reduction of aerosols that currently mask some UV radiation resulting in a warming impulse of about 0.5 degrees thus making climate change worse in the short-term.

Second, finite and non-substitutable fossil energy.

The fossil energy that supports 7 billion humans is finite and rapidly depleting. The easy low cost oil is gone. The oil that remains, while substantial, is expensive, and becoming more expensive to find and extract. Each year it takes more energy to produce the same quantity of energy.

The fossil energy that remains is also dirtier and creates more pollution and CO2.

As the cost of energy goes up, the amount of energy society can afford to leverage productivity goes down. Thus productivity and incomes are falling at the same time that the cost of producing energy is increasing. This is the root cause of the worldwide economic problems that began in 2008 and persist today.

The price of energy required for energy companies to produce the quantity of energy necessary to maintain our current standard of living is now higher than society can afford. We have masked this problem with near zero interest rates and a huge increase in debt. These are temporary solutions that will soon be overridden by the laws of thermodynamics and mathematics, and will most likely end with an economic depression more painful than that had we chosen to take our medicine in 2008.

Think of a coyote forced, because rabbits are becoming faster, to burn 2 rabbits worth of energy to catch 1 rabbit. Even though there are plenty of rabbits, the coyote is in serious trouble. The coyote could switch his diet to mice (solar & wind energy) but then he’d have to burn 3 mice of energy to catch 1 mouse. The coyote is able to lead a fairly normal life for a while because he burns fat (debt) that he built up in previous good years. The coyote knows it could make do with less food if it quit fighting, played slower games, and had fewer pups, but prefers not to change its lifestyle. Over time, the coyote becomes weak and sick, and then decides to change, but no longer has the strength to catch even mice.

Any system in nature, including human civilization, is sustainable only if it survives on the interest generated by the capital of the system. For example, bison on prairie is a sustainable system surviving on the interest generated by sunlight, soil, and rainfall. Replacing the bison and grass with wheat fertilized with natural gas generated nitrogen and irrigated with diesel pumped non-renewable aquifers converts the capital (soil, aquifer, and fossil energy) into income (calories).

Debt at near zero interest rate is a means of converting capital into income. Our recent increase in debt can therefore be viewed as energy that would otherwise have been available to future generations. We are aggressively impoverishing our grandchildren (and other species) in an attempt to maintain our current privileged lifestyles.

Depleting fossil energy is a wicked problem. A law of thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created. The battery we have been relying on is running low and will take millions of years to recharge, and may never recharge unless the planet’s biological and geological processes realign in the necessary and fortuitous configuration that created fossil energy the first time.

Renewable energies such as wind and solar do not have the density, scalability, or storability necessary to replace the fossil energy humans currently depend on. Most importantly, we do not have a viable alternative to the diesel that powers our critical life support network of trucks, trains, ships, tractors, combines, and mining machines. If trucks stop running, for any reason, all of civilization will be in immediate and extreme danger.

Renewable energies cannot stand on their own without fossil energy to create, install, and maintain their materials and infrastructure. For example, wind turbines use large quantities of concrete, steel, and copper that cannot be made without fossil energy. Renewables are at best fossil energy extenders. At worst they accelerate economic growth and burn up the remaining fossil energy faster to capture some wind or solar energy with equipment that will wear out in less than 50 years when there will be little or no fossil energy needed to replace the equipment.

Nuclear energy has the required density and scalability but lacks the storability necessary to replace vital diesel discussed above. In addition, current nuclear technologies rely on non-renewable and possibly peaked uranium fuel, plus non-renewable fossil energy for infrastructure, materials, transportation, construction, and maintenance. Future nuclear technologies might address these shortcomings but are many years and trillions of dollars away from deployment. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, the combined threats of climate change, fossil energy depletion, and limits to growth caused economic instability, make it a very dangerous bet that we will be able to properly govern and maintain nuclear facilities in the future.

Third, denial of reality.

Humans succeeded as a species due in large part to their evolved denial of reality. This behavior is now a disadvantage because it prevents the majority of humans from recognizing and acting on climate change and fossil energy depletion. It is noteworthy that there is not one senior leader in any country on any continent that has publicly communicated an understanding of what is going on and what we should be doing at this time, even after leaving office. Likewise, all groups including climate scientists, climate deniers, fossil energy experts, renewable energy experts, environmentalists, capitalists, socialists, communists, conservatives, liberals, Christians, Muslims, Scientologists, you name it, everyone is in denial about human overshoot. This is of course what we should expect given the genetic basis for denial. But it is nevertheless a concern.

The human brain, the God it believes in, and the overshoot it enabled and denies, all resulted from the same improbable genetic adaptation that occurred about 100,000 years ago.

What should we do?

There are no painless solutions to our predicament. The problems are wicked and politically intractable:

  • problems are complex and difficult to understand;
  • there are no easy or short-term solutions;
  • solutions that improve the long-term are likely to worsen the short-term;
  • solutions usually conflict with evolved human behavior;
  • some problems are out of our control.

We are in a severe state of overshoot which guarantees some form of bottleneck and collapse. Our aim should be to slow the descent and prepare a softer landing zone.

Despite the depletion of fossil energy we still have a lot more surplus energy than is required for subsistence. Remaining surplus energy should be redirected from activities that have no future such as air travel, automobiles, military, and advanced technology; and towards infrastructure and skills that will be required in a simpler low energy world such as local food production, resilient water supplies, and energy conservation.

Policies should be implemented to reduce the population as quickly and humanely as possible. Paraphrasing Albert Bartlett, there is no problem on the planet that does not improve with fewer people.

After the inevitable economic reset, a new monetary system will be required, preferably an energy-backed full-reserve system,  as we move into a long-term energy constrained contracting economy. Wealth redistribution and rationing policies should be developed in anticipation of their need.

Citizens should be proactively educated on the root causes of our problems to avoid inappropriate blame and wars which will only worsen the situation by accelerating the depletion of non-renewable resources.

What will we do?

Evolved denial of reality will probably continue to block any constructive discussion or proactive action. When a crisis forces action we will probably blame the wrong actors. Our responses are not likely to be rational or optimal. Expect chaos.

A few people have broken through inherited denial. So it is possible. But scaling this to the majority will be a challenge.

The singular emergence of human intelligence, and its ability to write and read this paragraph, evolved in a gene controlled machine with an unusually powerful computer, that was created by an improbable simultaneous adaptation for an extended theory of mind with denial of reality, and whose complexity was enabled by the increased energy per gene provided by mitochondria, that resulted from an accidental endosymbiosis of two prokaryotes, powered by an unintuitive chemiosmotic proton pump, that originated in an alkaline hydrothermal vent, on 1 of 40 billion planets, in 1 of 100 billion galaxies, and that planet had an improbable store of photosynthetic and geothermal generated fossil energy, that the species leveraged to understand and appreciate, the peak of what may be possible in the universe, before it vanished, because it denied the consequences of its success.

A good place to go next is Why My Interest in Denial?

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.