Page added on August 24, 2011
n Part Three of this blog series I looked at John Michael Greer’s argument in The Wealth of Nature: Economics as if Survival Mattered that natural processes provide three quarters of the input into virtually all industrial outputs. Greer bases his thinking on Ernest Schumacher’s argument that energy has to be considered as foremost among Nature’s goods when taking stock of what it is that we are starting with as “natural capital” – and depleting at a lunatic rate.
In his final chapter, Greer looks at the road ahead for modern industrial societies. Seen through his eyes, it doesn’t make for a pretty picture. He picks up on the arguments of the much vilified 1973 study, “The Limits to Growth”:
“An industrial economy pursuing limitless growth in a finite world, that study pointed out, will have to contend with a steadily depleting resource base and rising pollution generated by the process of industrial production. As resources deplete, the cost of keeping them flowing into the economy will increase in real terms, as more labor and capital have to be invested to extract a given amount of each resource; as pollution levels rise, in turn, the costs of mitigating their impacts on public health, agricultural productivity and other core economic factors go up in the same way and for the same reasons. Those costs have to be paid out of current economic output, leaving less and less for other uses, until economic output itself begins to fall and the industrial world begins its terminal decline.”
If we leap out of Greer for a moment to consider our age’s most vivid example of an emerging economy moving from low-tech to high-tech, namely China, it is already clear that the strain on the world’s resources imposed by China’s great leap forward is virtually non-repeatable. Add India into the equation and there really isn’t enough left in Nature’s bank for a third miracle leap forward on that scale. At least, not in the chaotic way that matters are now being carried forward. The spectacle of Chinese “acquirers” charging around the globe trying to corner the raw commodities China needs just for this year’s growth push should make that plain enough…
If there is a weakness in Greer’s account of where industrial society is going, it is not with the general thrust, but with the sense that his arguments always move towards a conclusion that he has already reached. In this sense his book is polemical, which is no bad thing if, like him, you are trying to wake people up to a coming disaster. But it does mean he generates a momentum and a flow that dashes towards these conclusions and doesn’t admit of the fact that, well, markets react to feedback. Challenges, even environmental challenges, become fresh opportunities for new businesses to develop, bringing new services to market which are not necessarily going to be services of which he would disapprove. Hopelessly optimistic? Perhaps but, then again, perhaps not.
Greer is very dismissive of “alternative energy sources”, which he names as “nuclear reactors, solar thermal power plants, algal biodiesel or what have you”. It is hard to get more cavalierly dismissive of a hugely serious effort that cost many billions of dollars than his “or what have you…”. Personally, I would have wanted him to look a little more seriously at offshore wind, which is going to make available an impressively large amount of power in a very short (relatively speaking) time frame. A concept like the European Super Grid (which is worth Googling if you haven’t heard of it) has some relevance for his vision. Again, his arguments rush towards the inevitable conclusion that there won’t be enough resources left for these things to be built on a scale that can reverse “inevitable” industrial decline:
“This is the trap hidden in the limits to growth; once those limits begin to bite, the spare economic capacity that would be needed to build a way out of trouble no longer exists.”
Really? If you want to see a truly eye-popping engineering feat aimed at solving the Earth’s energy requirements in, say 35 years time, do a web search for ITER, the demonstration fusion reactor now being built in the South of France. Does this mean that we’re going to pull off a “with one bound Jim was free” leap out of our energy predicament? I don’t know, but hey, it’s at least interesting – or, to put it another way, at least as interesting as contemplating a return to low-tech living and zero tourism unless you can paddle across the oceans. I loved Greer’s book, but I really do hope he’s wrong. The Middle Ages weren’t that much fun, after all…
You can buy John Michael Greer’s The Wealth of Nature: Economics as if Surivival Mattered from the New Society Publishers house website.
3 Comments on "Collapse scenarios – satire or vision of the future? Part 4"
sunweb on Wed, 24th Aug 2011 2:00 pm
Off shore wind done without fossil fuel backup for materials, transportation, maintenance and replacement?
The so called “renewable” energies are still business as usual. They are not renewable, no green, not clean and not sustainable. There are massive fossil fuel inputs and other nonfuel mineral inputs into these “renewables”. But there is this implicit dream of a continued material wealth that is a further illusion.
Solar and Wind are not renewable. The energy from solar and from wind is of course renewable but the devices used to capture the energy of the sun and wind is not renewable. Nor are they green or sustainable.
An oak tree is renewable. A horse is renewable. They reproduce themselves. The human-made equipment used to capture solar energy or wind energy is not renewable. There is considerable fossil fuel energy embedded in this equipment. The many components used in devices to capture solar energy, wind energy, tidal energy and biomass energy – aluminum, glass, copper, rare metals, petroleum in many forms to name a few – are fossil fuel dependent.
Wind used by sailing ships and old style “dutch” wind machines is renewable and sustainable.
From: Energy in the Real World with pictures of proof.
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/01/energy-in-real-world.html
Cabra1080 on Wed, 24th Aug 2011 5:20 pm
I see alternative energy sources supplying up to about ten percent of current energy use, no more. That is only achievable with a major political push and funding which at present seems unlikely. We will have alternative energy in our future, coupled with lifestyles very different and more localized than that of today. Human and animal labor will again become a major input to (post) industrial society. The silver (or bronze) lining will be there will be no shortage of jobs.
Alan Cain on Wed, 24th Aug 2011 9:36 pm
Hasn’t fusion power always been between 20 and 40 years in the future? What we clearly need is a time machine to go forward those few decades that seem to continually recede, and bring back the plans.
If we could just use that infinite amount of energy today, why, we’d be well set to do whatever we want – infinite abundance!
Grand Galactic trips! Fur coats for your dog that didn’t originally belong to the dog’s genome; glowing multicolor twitter-streams displayed by your literally neon fish!! Grain fields that spell out your fave sports team with live scores!(TM, Pat. applied for, et cetera)
And the cost of that fusion reactor which isn’t working, and continually recedes? Isn’t it always just a few billion more than what is available?
Nature is likely to reduce the demands on the world’s resource base in his/her own time, and that time frame will be mighty inconvenient for a large tribe of naked monkeys. Not optimistic, not pessimistic; just likely. And the tribe of monkeys will be much smaller.
In fact in the face of some scenarios, mine is blindingly optimistic in that there may well be monkeys left. They may not need those coats at all,either.