|
|
| Readers Journal blog | home | |
|
On Energy and Optimism (Maclean, February 2010) The Wall The upward slope we have stood on for three generations has only gotten steeper; it’s more like a wall. We have all seen it in graphs. Perhaps Al Gore’s is the most famous. But it’s not just Greenhouse Gases; It is Population; it is Production; it is Consumption; it is the number of people living on $2 a day; it is the amount of money hoarded by billionaires; it is resource depletion. It is, ladies and gentlemen, continual economic growth. But fundamentally, if you think about it in ecological terms, it is no more than Energy Input, without which we come nowhere near to the civilisation that has mushroomed before our eyes. In the end it is Petroleum. The Wall before us is the upward slope of modern progress that has always been there. We take it for granted, and it affords us (at least those of us who make considerably more than $2 a day) an unshakable optimism. For three generations, that optimism has been justified. We have continuously enjoyed the payback of technology that runs on our beloved, once cheap and abundant source of energy. We know leisure time like no other culture. We know instant gratification like no other. We know more gadgetry and the information that goes with it than we have ever known. And yet we suffer from an ignorance of such a magnitude that the near future’s shock will be so utterly unexpected. The Wall before us is blocking our vision. The wall is the side of a mountain which we have climbed ever since we decided to put our faith in an economy of an unbridled market consuming ever more. The Peak Now the slope we climb is becoming a floor once again. Energy input can no longer be what it once was, thanks to some basic physical, geological principles combined with a continued increase in demand. Soon the floor will be a wall once again. But it will be at our backs: a slippery slope where each day there will be less energy to burn that the day before, which means our society, accustomed to more of everything all the time, will have some adjustments to make. The march of time will continue. How steep the downward slope becomes depends on how well, how quickly we can adjust. Conventional wisdom would suggest that this demand spurs us to innovate and procure ever more (free market economists actually believe that demand for a resource creates more of that resource, even in the case of non renewables like petroleum). So far this has held true enough for the theory to float, but when the commodity is energy itself, it must necessarily require less energy to procure the energy sought. Once it takes a barrel of oil to extract a barrel of oil, the operation is more or less futile. This is the defining moment. Growth as an economic model, for which the politicians and theorists will take credit, having implemented free markets and globalisation or what-have-you, becomes questionable when its source of energy is also put into question. Tilting the playing field in the favour of the few, and speaking of the trickle down benefits for all may continue as a matter of course, but slowly the mechanisms that make this process so very efficient will grind to a standstill. [Note that the same would also be true of other industrial/economic systems such as communism, which could not have occurred or thrived without the massive inputs of fossil fuels.] Industrial growth, like ecological growth, is a simple function of an abundance of energy. The crude oil that has gushed forth for more than a century is the reason for the population bloom that characterises present-day global society. With abundant cheap energy we have learned to streamline and specialise, developing incredible, mind-boggling, often dehumanising technology, infrastructure and architecture along the way. The most developed corners of the world are hyper-developed, and even the least developed areas have been transformed in some way (not always for the better) by 20th century technology such as the diesel engine and chemical fertiliser. This is the age of petroleum and the growth that we have witnessed has been more or less inevitable. We have feasted on the vastness of the resource, and very many (though probably not a majority) have learned to afford a life of amenity and leisure, if not outright luxury. Good for us, I suppose – though the global disparity weighs in the back of my mind…. The ongoing lie (back to the “trickle-down effect) is that the have-nots only need be patient and work hard; that free markets need only be freer. Maybe these promises are enough for a great many to also be optimistic. This keeps the machinery of the market moving. For the “haves” the optimism comes naturally. It’s a function of abundance. Neither growth, nor the associated optimism it engenders is, however, due merely to an abundance of human ingenuity (which is not to say that ingenuity is in short supply – and we’ll need lots of it), but ingenuity is not energy; technology is not energy. These things together simply access energy and will not replace it. So the convenient optimism that “they will think of something” needs to be looked at and held up to scrutiny. It may prove to be the tragic flaw that prolongs the inaction, and delays the necessary shift to a completely re-organised society. The energy we have accessed to date has overwhelmingly been from fossil fuels (petroleum, natural gas and coal), which has geological tendencies and limitations of which the general population is largely unaware. It is certainly not by virtue of an understanding of this resource that we have been able to flourish in its abundance. The same lack of understanding will accompany its depletion. Even a cursory look at the numbers and the science of depletion and alternatives is cause for concern, or even alarm. Alternative sources of energy can be great, but under no scenario can they be realistically expected to rival the sheer output of fossil fuels. Conservation and sacrifice will be our only recourse whether we plan on it or not. Our unawareness is the flipside of our optimism. Believing that the growth we count on is endless, we are blind to its constraints. Optimism based on nothing but habits and assumptions is worse than useless: so long as it engenders inaction, it is detrimental. Fortunately, it quite likely can only appease even the laziest mind for so long. Hopefully, once reality kicks in, pragmatism will supplant all illusions. But of course the ideal scenario is not just to wait until the shit hits the fan. The Leap So what is the answer to this shortcoming of blind optimism? Clearly those leading the bandwagon make sure to deride anyone who tries to hold this fool’s optimism up to the test of reality as a “gloom & doomer”. Pessimists are seen as party poopers. But as far as I can tell this is just a simple case of shooting the messenger. The message is all about knowing what’s going on, by having a look at the big picture. No sound governance, planning or policy can occur without this. After the pessimists complete the necessary reality check (by being honest about what we know) then we can nurture a true, reality-based optimism. To put it another way, perhaps quite simply, holding a macro-pessimistic view does not preclude living with a solid optimism at the micro level. Indeed, faith and optimism are almost certainly essential for survival, but it will not prevent an economic depression that stems from decades of the systemic, blind optimism/ debt-deferral/ squandering of wealth. In order to navigate optimistically the changing economic and environmental terrain of the 21st Century, all the best information has to be brought forth and considered, as bleak as that outlook may seem. Only then can the best community-building and survival mechanisms be developed, which will require positive action and forward-looking participation. After all there’s no sense in getting depressed about a Depression, nor is there any point in simply wishing it away. © 2009 Maclean I am an artist working in Montréal and have been developing a manifesto along these lines. I welcome all feedback. For more on a wide array of other topics, please visit the oftwominds.com weblog. 
All content, HTML coding, format design, design elements and images copyright © 2010 Charles Hugh Smith, copyright to text and all other content in the above work is held by the author of the essay as of the publication date listed above. All rights reserved in all media. The views of the contributor authors are their own, and do not reflect the views of Charles Hugh Smith. All errors and errors of omission in the above essay are the sole responsibility of the essay's author. The writer(s) would be honored if you linked this Readers Journal essay to your site, or printed a copy for your own use.
|
|
|
| WANM | blog fiction/novels articles my hidden history books/films what's for dinner | home email me | ||