Rees, July 2021
Through the Eye of a Needle:
An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy Transition
Auszug: Seine Vorschläge zur Vermeidung der Apokalypse:
4. Summary and What Might Actually Salvage Civilization
We have exposed fatal weaknesses in society’s dominant aspirational pathway for combating climate change. The GND illusion paints a picture of “affordable clean energy” that ignores innumerable costs that cannot be afforded by any reasonable measure. It suggests solutions to the climate–energy conundrum that are impossible to deliver with current technologies, and certainly not within the timeframe specified by the IPCC and Paris Agreement.
Not only is the GND technically flawed, but it fails to situate climate disruption within the broader context of ecological overshoot. Anthropogenic climate change is merely one symptom of overshoot and cannot be treated in isolation from the greater disease. The GND offers little more than a green-washed version of the unsustainable growth-based status quo. Even if feasible, its operationalization would only exacerbate human ecological dysfunction.
What, then, might actually salvage a fossil-dependent world in overshoot? The answer is both stunningly simple and wretchedly complex: the world must abandon neoliberal capitalism’s material growth imperative and face head-on that material life after fossil fuels will closely resemble life before fossil fuels. Put another way, we must act on the ecological imperative to achieve one-Earth living. This entails moving on three broad fronts.
4.1. Energy Realism
First, we must relinquish our faith in modern high technology and instead shift our attention to understanding what a genuinely renewable energy landscape will look like. As noted, the so-called RE technologies being advanced as solutions are neither renewable nor possible to construct and implement in the absence of FFs. They are not carbon neutral and will simply increase human dependence on non-renewable resources and cause unacceptable social and environmental harm.
Truly renewable energy sources will be largely based on biomass (especially wood), simple mechanical wind and water generation, passive solar, and animal and human labor. This means society will have to innovate and adapt its way through major reductions in energy supply. The upside is that new variants on old extraction technologies will be more ecologically sophisticated than today’s so-called renewables, closely tuned to essential needs, and cognizant of the conservation imperative. On this latter point, it is important to highlight that approximately 62% of energy flow through the modern economy is wasted through inefficiency [97], and more still is wasted through trivial or at least non-essential uses (think leaf-blowers and recreational ATVs). Globally, per capita energy consumption has increased nine-fold since 1850, though perceived well-being certainly has not. Together, these facts show there is much latitude for painless reductions in energy use.
A reduction in energy means there will be a resurgence in demand for human muscle and draft animals. Denizens of FF-rich societies tend to forget that that industrial energy now does the work that people and animals used to do. How many Americans are conscious of the fact that they have hundreds of “energy slaves”, per capita, in continuous employment to provide them with goods and services they have come to take for granted? According to Hagens and White [98], if we ignore nuclear and hydropower electricity,
“99.5% of ‘labor’ in human economies is done by oil, coal, and natural gas” (for a summary of the energy slave concept and various definitions, see [99]). It is again important to highlight the silver lining accompanying this shift. More human labor will mean more physically active lives in closer contact with each other and Nature, which can restore our shattered sense of well-being and connection to the land. Similarly, a waning focus on material progress will allow for emphasis to shift to progress of the mind and spirit—largely untapped frontiers at present with unlimited potential.
On the draft animal side, the number of working horses and mules in the United States peaked at 26 million around 1915—when the human population was about 100 million— only to be gradually replaced by fossil-powered farm and industrial equipment [100]. Should the United States again become as dependent on animal labor, the country may once more need this many draft animals if the population shrinks to 100 million. If human numbers remain in the vicinity of 2021’s population of 333 million, the required horse/mule population might be as high as 87 million and require around 172 million acres of land for range and fodder production (note that of the five to 10 million horses in the United States today, only about 15% are working farm or ranch animals [100]).
4.2. Population Reduction
The second front in a one-Earth living strategy is a global one-child fertility standard. This is needed to reduce the global population to the one billion or so people that can thrive sustainably in reasonable material comfort within the constraints of a non-fossil energy fu- ture and already much damaged Earth [101,102]. Even a step as seemingly bold as this may be insufficient to avoid widespread suffering, as such a policy implemented within a decade or two would still leave us with about three billion souls by the end of the century [91]. Failure to implement a planned, relatively painless population reduction strategy would guarantee a traumatic population crash imposed by Nature in a climate-ravaged, fossil- energy-devoid world. (A human population crash imposed by a human-compromised environment (not Nature) may already be underway. Controversial studies have docu- mented evidence of falling sperm counts (50%+) and other symptoms of the feminization of males, particularly in western countries, caused by female-hormone-mimicking industrial chemicals; see, for example, [103]).
Concerns over the restriction of procreative freedom, racism, and physical coercion that dominate much of the present discourse on population reduction must be put into perspective. Population is an ecological issue that, if left unchecked, can have catastrophic consequences. The human population growth curve over the past 200 years resembles the
boom, or “plague”, phase of the kind of population outbreak that occurs in non-human species under unusually favorable ecological conditions (in our case, the resource bounty made available by abundant cheap energy). Plague outbreaks invariably end in collapse under the pressure of social stress or as crucial resources are depleted [104].
Previous cultures have recognized this fact, along with the need for population reg- ulation, for thousands of years [105,106]. A judicious balance between the freedom and well-being of individuals and society involves knowing when to arc nimbly between these poles as circumstances change. There is perhaps no greater rallying cry for the restriction of certain individual freedoms than the imminent threat of global social–ecological collapse.
Though it hardly seems worth stating, a universal one-child policy applied globally is not discriminatory. Moreover, it is entirely justified when the restoration of ecological integrity for the well-being of present and future generations—of humans and non-humans alike—is the motivation. Fortunately, there is a full toolbox of socially just and humane tools for bringing about the necessary population reduction [107,108]. That some inhumane practices have been used in particular circumstances historically is no reason to ignore the gravity of contemporary overshoot and the ample mechanisms available for sustainable population planning. When it comes to both the environmental and social aspects of over- shoot, no other single individual action comes close to being as negatively consequential as having a child [109].
We should note that the human population at carrying capacity is a manageable variable whose magnitude will depend, in part, on society’s preferred material standard of living. This is a finite planet with limited productive capacity. A constant, sustainable rate of energy and material throughput will obviously support fewer people at a high average material standard than it will at a lower material standard.
We cannot stress enough that a non-fossil energy regime simply cannot support anywhere close to the present human population of nearly eight billion; this urgently necessitates reducing human numbers as rapidly as possible to avoid unprecedented levels of social unrest and human suffering in the coming decades. (This flies in the face of mainstream concerns that the falling fertility rate in many (particularly high-income) countries is cause for alarm; see, for example, [110]).
4.3. Radical Societal Contraction and Transformation
The third major front of a one-Earth sustainability strategy is a fully transformative plan to reshape the social and economic foundations of society while simultaneously managing a systematic contraction of the human enterprise (the latter to be consistent with Global Footprint Network estimates that humanity is in 75% overshoot). This is necessitated, in part, by the need to phase out fossil energy within a set time and carbon budget. (The situation is becoming increasingly urgent; Spratt et al. [111] argue that little or no budget exists to remain even within 2 ◦C). Whatever the identified FF budget, it must be rationed and allocated to: (1) essential uses, such as agriculture and essential bulk transportation; and (2) de-commissioning hazardous fossil-based infrastructure and replacing it with renewable-based infrastructure and supply chains.
Other elements of such a plan would include: (3) economic and political restruc- turing in conformity with the new energy and material realities (e.g., the cessation of interest-bearing debt and possibly even a shift to negative interest; a renewed focus on community building and regional self-reliance; re-localization of essential production and other economic activities; emphasis on economic resilience over mere efficiency; and a down-shifting of control over land and resource use to local self-governing bodies); (4) worker retraining for new forms of work and employment; (5) social planning to ensure a just allocation and distribution of societal resources, as it is inherently unjust for some individuals to appropriate much more than their fair share of the Earth’s limited bounty; (6) planned migrations and resettlement from unsustainable dense urban centers and vulnerable coastlines; and (7) large-scale ecosystem restoration. Restoration would serve the multiple purposes of not only creating meaningful employment but also reclaiming
ecosystem integrity for the benefit of humans and non-humans alike, capturing carbon, increasing social–ecological resilience, and increasing the stock of biomass available for human energy consumption. In many respects, this endeavor will resemble Polanyi’s [112] Great Transformation (about the emergent dominance of neoliberal market economics) in reverse, all contained within an envelope of ecological necessity.
Actions to embark swiftly, judiciously, and systematically on the transformation will be of a far greater scale and level of effort than WWII mobilization and will involve unprecedented levels of global cooperation. In our view, two main conditions must be satisfied concurrently for such an undertaking to have any chance of succeeding. First, we must have politicians in office who care about people and the planet (i.e., who are not beholden to corporate, monied, or otherwise compromised interests) and who are willing to fight fiercely for ecological stability and social justice. This starts with whom we choose to elect (politicians do not magically fall into office—we put them there), holding them relentlessly accountable, and fighting to get money out of politics. Second, history shows that monied and ruling elites do not relinquish their power willingly—their hand must be forced. Virtually no important gain has ever been made by simply asking those in power to do the right thing. Unrelenting pressure must be exerted such that the people and/or systems in question have no choice but to capitulate to specific, well-thought-out demands. We must reacquaint ourselves with the revolutionary change-makers of the past who, at great cost, delivered for us the better world we live in now through intelligent, direct action and risk-taking.
To adopt a biblical metaphor, it may very well be easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for humanity to shift its prevailing paradigm and embark on a planned, voluntary descent from a state of overshoot to a steady-state harmonic relationship with the ecosphere—in just a decade or two. On the other hand, history shows that virtually all important achievements have only ever arisen from a dogged pursuit of the seemingly impossible. To contemplate the alternative is unthinkable.
Nix dagegen zu sagen, aber ..
Naiv und blauäugig.
Ich wünsche ihm Glück.
Vollkommen außer Betracht bleibt die gegenwärtige ökonomische Wirtschaftsform und ihr innerer Antrieb:
die endlose, immer schneller sich steigernde, exponentielle Akkumulation von Kapital, also abstraktem Reichtum in Form von Geld als sich (scheinbar) selbst verwertendem Wert, Wertsteigerung aus dem Nichts.
(3) Rees: Growth through contraction: Conceiving an eco-economy
(GrowthThroughContractionRWERRees2021.pdf)
(Dies ist ein Text analog zu den Videos von 2021)
(4) Herrington (=Branderhorst), Gaya; 2021; Update to Limits to Growth: Comparing the World3 Model with Empirical Data
Herrington (=Branderhorst)(Sustainability and Dynamic System Analysis Lead at KPMG)
(5) Study: Which Countries Will Best Survive a Collapse?
https://news.slashdot.org/story/21/08/03/2039248/study-which-countries-will-best-survive-a-collapse
Posted by BeauHD on Tuesday August 03, 2021 @11:30PM from the advantages-of-islands dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The New York Times:
Will civilization as we know it end in the next 100 years? Will there be any functioning places left? These questions might sound like the stuff of dystopian fiction. But if recent headlines about extreme weather, climate change, the ongoing pandemic and faltering global supply chains have you asking them, you're not alone. Now two British academics, Aled Jones, director of the Global Sustainability Institute at Anglia Ruskin University in Cambridge, England, and his co-author, Nick King, think they have some answers. Their analysis, published in July in the journal Sustainability, aims to identify places that are best positioned to carry on when or if others fall apart. They call these lucky places "nodes of persisting complexity."
The winner, tech billionaires who already own bunkers there will be pleased to know, is New Zealand. The runners-up are Tasmania, Ireland, Iceland, Britain, the United States and Canada. The findings were greeted with skepticism by other academics who study topics like climate change and the collapse of civilization. Some flat-out disagreed with the list, saying it placed too much emphasis on the advantages of islands and failed to properly account for variables like military power. And some said the entire exercise was misguided: If climate change is allowed to disrupt civilization to this degree, no countries will have cause to celebrate.
"For his study, he built on the University of Notre Dame's Global Adaptation Initiative, which ranks 181 countries annually on their readiness to successfully adapt to climate change," the NYT adds. "He then added three additional measures: whether the country has enough land to grow food for its people; whether it has the energy capacity to 'keep the lights on,' as he put it in an interview; and whether the country is sufficiently isolated to keep other people from walking across its borders, as its neighbors are collapsing."
"New Zealand comes out on top in Professor Jones's analysis because it appears to be ready for changes in the weather created by climate change. It has plenty of renewable energy capacity, it can produce its own food and it's an island, meaning it scores well on the isolation factor, he said."
An Analysis of the Potential for the Formation of ‘Nodes of Persisting Complexity’
https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/13/15/8161/htm
sustainability-13-08161.pdf
Will These Places Survive a Collapse_ Don’t Bet on It, Skeptics Say.pdf
Wackernagel; 2016
Footprint: Die Welt neu vermessen 2016 (Der Kollege von Rees, beide Erfinder des Footprint)
Daraus:
Meine total vereinfachte “Kleine 1x1 Rechnung” die ich noch zu leisten imstande bin:
Stand heute:
10 Mia (Milliarde) gha produktive Fläche der Welt + 30 Mio ha nicht nutzbar für den Menschen
= 40 Mia (Milliarde) ha Planet
10 Mia (Milliarde) Menschen
= 1 gha je Mensch
Für eine sinnvolle Zukunft mal angedacht:
1 Mia (Milliarde) Menschen > 1 gha / Mensch (schlage ich mal vor)
davon 50% Natur zur Selbstentwicklung/ Diversität (schlagen manche mal vor)
bleiben 0,5 gha / Mensch
Meine unmaßgebliche Schätzung, die u.a. von den Francé beeinflußt ist:
(darin: Berücksichtigung der evolutionär entwickelten physischen und psychischen Bedürfnisse)
90 % Natur Diversität, 10% Mensch : 0,1 gha / Mensch
Das sollte erforderlich/ausreichend sein, um die Natur als bestimmenden Faktor in der planetaren Entwicklung zu erhalten.
Das ist aber kein Rückfall in ein Leben als Neandertaler, da jetzt die Basis von > 100.00 Jahren an wissenschaftlicher Erkenntnis und Technik vorhanden ist, die zur Entwicklung eines wirklich menschlichen Lebens genutzt werden kann (inklusive einer dramatischen Reduktion bisher entwickelter “unmenschlicher” Bedürfnisse).
Mehr gibt mein bald 80-jähriges Hirn für einen Blick in die Zukunft nicht her.
Erleben oder erleiden werde ich diese zum Glück sowieso nicht mehr.
Primärproduktion
Menge organischen Materials, die von autotrophen Organismen mit Sonnenenergie fixiert wird
Netto-Primärproduktion
Für heterotrophe Organismen zur Verfügung nach Abzug des Eigenbedarfs der autotrophen Organismen
Menschen nutzen derzeit 1 / 4 davon, gewaltig für nur eine einzelne Spezies
von Milliarden weiterer Spezies und Abertrillionen von Einzelindividuen.
Pfeifenträume eines Lehnstuhlphilosophen
nach: Pipedream of a armchair philosopher
-
Update 2022:
<1-2 Milliarden : Dennis Meadows
2017, Dennis Meadows, co-author of The Limits to Growth (1972)
Alle Fragen nach den Grenzen des Wachstums kondensieren letztendlich in diesem Punkt.
Meadows reist noch immer durch die Welt, auch öfter in Deutschland.
Er kennt auch William Rees mit seinem Ecological Footprint, der ebenfalls auf
<1-2 Milliarden kommt.
Wie berechnet man auf diese Zahl?
Da die Herren (Rees und Meadows) mir nicht geantwortet haben hier meine eigene Milchmädchenrechnung:
Die USA haben einen Footprint von 5 Erden, bei demnächst 10 Milliarden mit ähnlichem Footprint: 10 / 5 = 2 Milliarden Menschen, die die Erde regenerativ ernähren kann.
Was noch keineswegs der ästhetische Garten Eden ist sondern immer noch der verwüstete Planet wenn keine Transformation in einen “besseren” Zustand erfolgt - sofern überhaupt noch möglich.
Für mich wäre der oberste Maßstab:
Die Natur bestimmt überwiegend die Entwicklung und der Mensch beschränkt sich entsprechend seiner Naturerkenntnis und seiner daraus folgenden Lebensweise. Das mag auf einen Anteil von <10% hinauslaufen.
Ist natürlich illusorisch, wo heutzutage vom gesamten Planeten das Unterste zuoberst und das Oberste zuunterst gekehrt wurde und es faktisch keinen Ort mehr gibt, der nicht vom Menschen “gestaltet” d.h. vernichtet wurde.
Literatur
Mathis Wackernagel and Bert Beyers 2019
Ecological Footprint Managing Our Biocapacity Budget
Wackernagel Ecological Footprint 2019.jpg
(Englische Übersetzung der deutschen Ausgabe 2016)
Mathis Wackernagel and Bert Beyers
Footprint: Die Welt neu vermessen. 2016
Wackernagel Footprint- Die Welt neu vermessen 2016.jpg
Erstausgabe in Deutsch
Bild: Weltbevölkerung.jpg
