Richard Heinberg 2013 BCEA keynot

14 Comments on "Richard Heinberg 2013 BCEA keynot"

Arthur on Tue, 23rd Jul 2013 5:35 pm 



Watched this clip one continent away for probably less than one millicent worth of energy. Obviously I could have travelled per airplane, taxi and train to the conference center to achieve by and large the same effect. Morale: technology has an enormous potential to reduce energy needs.

Arthur on Tue, 23rd Jul 2013 5:46 pm 



Full 47 minute speech here:

http://vimeo.com/67178575

Myopic Hyperbole on Tue, 23rd Jul 2013 7:36 pm 



Seems like the video gets cut off before he’s done. Is there a part two?

Arthur on Tue, 23rd Jul 2013 7:47 pm 



@Myopic Hyperbole,

Maybe you would care to read the second comment to find the full speech.

BillT on Wed, 24th Jul 2013 1:14 am 



Yes, Arthur, it could have been done via the internet but the presentation would not have been the same. And, likely, he was the only one to travel very far. About like watching a blockbuster 3D movie on your laptop monitor. It’s what still draws tens of thousands to the stadiums for game. No comparison with actually being there. TV is for couch potatoes and the poor.

John_A on Wed, 24th Jul 2013 3:31 am 



None of this could have happened…without the human ability to manipulate their environment. This guys fascination with oil is just ridiculous.

John_A on Wed, 24th Jul 2013 3:38 am 



What a crock. When he implies that everyone only buys SUVs and the economy tanks because idiots living 40 miles from work (a particularly ignorant California habit). Everyone isn’t as silly as you Californians Richard.

Airwicky on Wed, 24th Jul 2013 4:36 am 



Arthur was say technology saves energy. But he didnt mention the energy used to keep up the infrastucture

GregT on Wed, 24th Jul 2013 5:41 am 



We did a study of sustainable building materials and practices a decade ago. Our goal was to figure in the factors of energy costs, and especially fossil fuel inputs, in an attempt to be ‘carbon’ neutral.(whatever that means) As we dug deeper into the study, we found it to be a lesson in futility. The further we explored down the chain of resource extraction, manufacturing, transport, labor, transport of labor, food production and energy requirements for that same labor, etcetera, the more that we came to the realization that we were pursuing a goal that was simply not possible.

We have created a vast, complex, interconnected, multitude of systems. All of which rely on each other to achieve an end result. To only look at one small part of any given system, without including every, single, one, of the multitudes of underlying processes and supporting systems, is to not look at the overall big picture. Ignoring reality, is only another form of denial.

Arthur on Wed, 24th Jul 2013 8:42 am 



“But he didnt mention the energy used to keep up the infrastucture”

Have mentioned it several times before: keeping the internet going + embedded energy of all devices (servers + clients) is 1-2% of the current global electricity budget, tendency downward as everybody (private people) switches to mobile clients like tablets and smartphones. The oldskool Windows desktop is megaout and the laptops are doing hardly better. Meanwhile microprocessors are underway that can operate mobile devices for 100 mW. In a few years the backside of a tablet will be covered with solar cells, reducing the external energy needs to zero. The internet is here to stay and will function as the backbone of the economy of the 21st century, largely replacing the need to move people around in cars.
19th century: coal
20th century: oil
21st century: data, powered by wind and solar

GregT on Wed, 24th Jul 2013 1:06 pm 



Here might be a more realistic way to look at things.
*
*
*
*
*
*
Wood 0-1800. Pop. 300-900 Million
Coal. 1800-1900. Pop. 900-1.4. Billion
Oil 1900-2000. Pop. 1.4-6.8. Billion
Data 2000-2100. Pop. 6.8- <1 Billion

Arthur on Wed, 24th Jul 2013 1:34 pm 



Well Greg, it seems like we’re in agreement, except that I do not really have a clue what is going to happen with population numbers. For the West and Russia I do not foresee any form of dieoff. Not sure about the ‘third world’. Looks, but <1B global population in 2100 seems too pessimistic to me.

GregT on Thu, 25th Jul 2013 2:20 am 



Arthur,

I concur, I don’t know exactly what is going to happen either. What I do know for sure is, neither one of us will be here, we will both be dead, long before 2100. I also know that there is a growing acceptance within the scientific community that we are heading for a global mass extinction well before then.

We are both going to die. Nothing is going to change that. What we can change, is whether or not we a leave a planet capable of sustaining life for our children, and future generations of all life on this planet.

It is my greatest hope that we do, but I don’t see any action indicating that we will. Our focus appears to be, on sustaining the unsustainable.

The longer we continue pursuing our technological comforts, the more of the planet we will continue to destroy. If we do not stop, we are greatly compromising all future life on this planet.

I personally have a big problem with that.

Your take may be different.

Arthur on Thu, 25th Jul 2013 4:51 pm 



Greg, as you might have guessed I am less pessimistic than you. I do not see cancelling cars and planes and 3-5 star vacations far away as the end of civilization, let alone of the world. Life will continue, regardless of the development in time of the GDP per capita.

The name ‘Holland’ comes from the German ‘Holzland’, which means woodland. 200 years ago it was possible for a squirrel to travel from the German border to the Northsea coast without touching the ground, from treetop to treetop. That’s impossible these days, not much forest left here. But if the Dutch were no longer around, nature would bounce back in a few decades and in five centuries time only archaeologists would notice something peculiar about the place.