Andrew Nikiforuk writes that we are being sold a Big Green Lie. What is the big lie?
Thanks to bright green technologies, we can continuously grow the level of consumption on planet Earth and deliver a bloated North American lifestyle to all without inviting climate catastrophe or a general breakdown of natural ecosystems that support all living things.
But that's magical thinking:
The appeal of the “tech will save us” charade crosses ideological lines. No sacrifice is necessary; no wisdom is required; no change is necessary. Both Green New Dealers and the Business-as-Usual Crowd believe a variety of so-called green technologies forged by the burning of more fossil fuels will save the day and postpone what is already happening: a great unsettling.
The majority of so-called renewables require extensive mining of scarce rare earth minerals and fossil fuels for their construction and maintenance. And that means devastated communities and mountains of toxic waste. Others, such as a hydrogen-fuelled future hoax, have been repeatedly pulled out of the ideas closet and abandoned, because an energy sink can never become a viable energy source.
So what's the alternative? Energy ecologist Vaclav Smil says the solution is to power down:
“I could design you the global system today without any horrible loss of standard of living all around the world,” he recently told David-Wallace Wells.
“Consuming 30, 40, 50 per cent less of everything that we are consuming, be it water, or steel, or energy. But we are not willing to go down that route. Technically, it doesn’t require any new inventions, nothing, and it will actually save us money in many ways.”
And while some people worry that inflation will lead us back into the 1970's, Smil believes that the '70s do point to a better way of doing things. We need to grow less:
Growth is a ponzi scheme. Increased prosperity depends on making more people because more people consume more goods.
If we don’t prioritize the health of the planet over our short-term economic interests the oceans will sicken with acid, the forests will die, and the fisheries will disappear. Nature will reduce our numbers if we do not scale down our appetites and ambitions.
We have exploited the richest of our fossil fuels, and renewables can’t offer the same energy density and quality. That is why energy conservation is the only way forward. Our energy use must consistently drop by three or four per cent a year over the next decade.
And it can be done. About 62 per cent of the energy flowing through civilization is now wasted and ends up in our atmosphere — our landfill for CO2.
This enormous waste gives us lots of room to cut and prune and scale back. An economic contraction, or what Gaia theorist James Lovelock calls a “sustainable retreat,” will dramatically reduce emissions and forestall a collapse.
It will result in more localized production and much less global trade and travel.
Almost all products will cost more but last longer. The era of buying cheap clothes and gadgets that end up in a landfill within a year of their purchase must end. No other civilization has ever bought food and thrown 40 per cent into the garbage and survived to tell the tale.
Technology won't save us. But modesty will.
Image: Democracy Docket
13 comments:
This is true. And truly important. I've started a new blog post about "the high cost of crap" that tries to say something similar. (I don't know if I'll ever finish it and post it.)
But the massive amounts of junk we tell ourselves we need, and the enormous resources used to ship that junk all over the world, it could all be done away with, with no ill-effects on individual happiness.
The old adage, "Less is more," is true, thwap.
Sometimes it's not what needs doing or what is possible that matters. Sometimes the inertia of the status quo cannot be overcome.
A study published in the latest Nature Energy suggests the dirtiest fossil fuels (and it singles out Athabasca bitumen) will be stranded assets by 2036. Hurrah, hurrah! Then the other shoe drops. This report predicts that will trigger another economic collapse to rival the Great Recession of 2008.
We use money as our unit of exchange. What's the value of a dollar? It's worth no more than what people are prepared to believe it's worth. Think of Germany in the 20s or, more recently, Zimbabwe.
Now imagine not dollars or marks but shares in the fossil fuel markets. It's been said there is more than 28 trillion dollars of proven fossil energy reserves subscribed on global markets. As we know we cannot burn more than a small fraction of those fuels without destroying most life on Earth, we're in a Carbon Bubble. All that keeps it from bursting like a cheap party balloon is investor confidence.
Every world leader is afraid. It's not just the petro-states either. We're trapped by our own perceived success. The first leader to shout "fire" is probably going to take a lot of heat. A global pariah.
There's an axiom attributed to fighter pilots. Better to die than look bad. It's bad enough that fighter jocks think such things. It's far worse when politicians think like that.
Nikiforuk is right that renewable energy sources require extensive mining of rare earth elements. Advanced batteries, fuel cells, electric motors, light bulbs and wind turbines all require them. But rare earths aren't scarce, indeed they're widely dispersed in the earth's crust. They're just not often found in economically exploitable forms.
There's a reason why China is one of the world's biggest producers of rare earths. With cheap labour and virtually no environmental laws, China is able to produce these elements at a profit. Appalling work conditions, industrial diseases, cancers and birth defects among workers' families don't register there. Mobile phones, electric cars, flat screen TVs are all built on the backs of workers living in unimaginable squalor. The rest of the world turns a blind eye and this is rarely reported. As Gord Downie said, "It'd be better for us if you don't understand."
Nikiforuk is right though, technology isn't the answer to what irks the planet. Scaling back our population and its demands is the only way.
Cap
Yeah, it's a Big Green Lie but, for most of us, we like it well enough.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/nov/07/few-willing-to-change-lifestyle-climate-survey
We've become prisoners of our economic paradigm, Mound. As Macbeth said, "I am in blood so far that, should I wade no more, returning were as tedious as go o'er."
Scaling back population is critical, Cap. But I see no critical mass forming to do that.
We continue to party on, Mound.
I agree, Owen, there aren't many volunteers for scaling back the population. Wars, plagues and famines are the usual means to that end. As the climate changes, we're bound to see more of those.
Cap
There will be more pandemics in the future, Cap. The old rules still apply.
Until Politicans begin to speak about “over population and the so- called Religious Leaders do the same, it will be “Buy, buy, buy and buy some more , so corporations and banks can brag about all the money they made in the last few months, then that is what it will be, a continuation of the rape of Mother Earth. Anyong
If we burn down the planet, Anyong, what have we accomplished?
8:08...Nothing!
Post a Comment