Peak oil educator Richard Heinberg challenges “binary thinking”

Comments

When he scans the current geopolitical lay-of-the-land, California-based peak oil educator and author Richard Heinberg can only reach one conclusion.

"We’re fighting over the crumbs,” Heinberg told the Straight via cellphone from 100 Mile House, where he was giving a talk on February 8. “That’s what’s happening. The world is preparing to fight over the crumbs.”

The crumbs Heinberg speaks and writes of are finite fossil fuels, specifically those deriving from oil, natural gas and coal. In particular, we see current examples with the proposed continental pipelines, the tar sands of Alberta, and the Prime Minister’s boosterism of faster and faster exploitation of these resources.

Heinberg deals with them all in his upcoming book, The End of Growth: Adapting to our New Economic Reality (New Society).

The premise of the book, according to Heinberg, is that “not only is perpetual economic growth impossible in principle—because it implies ever-increasing consumption of resources on a finite planet—but actually we’re reaching the limits to economic growth in real time, right now.”

Heinberg’s general claim is backed by the basic premise that growth right now, and ever since the onset of real economic slowdown in 2008, is constrained by “debt, depletion and disaster.” He’ll be talking about all this when he presents the opening lecture of the World Community Film Festival, at Langara College on Friday (February 10).

It is pretty much the same subject matter contained in Heinberg’s 2003 early-summer visit to Vancouver, where he spoke alongside other members of the Post Carbon Institute, namely former Vancouver resident Julian Darley and UBC professor Bill Rees. The groundbreaking nature of that panel discussion, both at UBC and at the Planetarium, prompted the Straight to call them “Cassandras” at the time.

“Cassandra had the curse of predicting disaster and being right, but never being believed,” Heinberg quipped. “Basically it [the tag] is accurate.” The message is still the same, he added.

“Meanwhile, the global economy is hanging by a thread,” he said. “If what I am saying is true, then this is not just a recession that will be followed by a recovery; we’re at a fundamental turning point in our economic history. The reason I wrote the book is I think it’s really important that people understand this. Because if we’re planning for business-as-usual, and everyone thinks that this is just a little hiccup on the road to perpetual growth, then we won’t do the things that are absolutely necessary to prepare—I don’t want to say to defend ourselves—but to prepare ourselves for what’s coming.”

A good start would be to push governments to do the right thing, such as diverting investment toward cleaner alternative energy sources that are renewable or less-damaging. Heinberg noted that reducing consumption and other demand-side measures are also extremely important. (He said the same in his 2006 book The Oil Depletion Protocol, also published by New Society.)

As long as humanity can make the kinds of adjustments needed, and get off of the notion of cheap oil and endless growth, survival as a species is not out of the question, he claimed. Heinberg also said that, because we tend to think of things in “binary” terms, we tend to forget the reality is more complex than either economic abundance or species die-off.

“We went through the Great Depression and two world wars, and people survived,” Heinberg said. “And those were horrific, horrific events. But here we are. And I think the 21st Century is going to have its challenges that will be, in many ways, even harsher than the Great Depression and world wars. And I think that some of those challenges are on our doorstep. But that doesn’t mean that nobody will survive and life will be not worth living and so on. No, we are an amazingly-adaptable species and we’ll get through it. But I think it will sure help if we’re a little bit prepared, and if we have a sense of how to get through these times strategically, rather than being walloped in the face constantly by things that we should have seen coming.”

What do we do? “Anything to build local resilience,” answered Heinberg. “Oil depletion protocol is a good idea, but unlikely to be implemented. that means it's mostly up to local communities and households. Reduce transportation and fossil fuel inputs everywhere possible. Grow more of your own food. Share more with your neighbors. No silver bullets here, just a lot of copper BBs.”

Richard Heinberg speaks at the World Community Film Festival at Langara College on Friday (February 10), at 5:00

Comments (26) Add New Comment
Mike Smith
Economic growth is necessary so long as the population is growing. It appears to be the only way to provide employment for all the extra people that weren't there last year. So it would seem that to prepare for economic non-growth, we have to control population.
1
0
Rating: +1
John Weber
Heinberg’s message is critical. However I think he is still hanging on to a hope of living at some modified semblance of existent per capita energy use.

Solar and wind, energy capturing devices are not alternative energy sources. They are extensions of the fossil fuel supply system. There is an illusion of looking at the trees and not the forest in the “Renewable” energy world. Not seeing the systems, machineries, fossil fuel uses and environmental degradation that create the devices to capture the sun, wind and biofuels allows myopia and false claims of renewable, clean, green and sustainable.

Energy Return on Energy Invested (ERoEI) is only a part of the equation. There is a massive infrastructure of mining, processing, manufacturing, fabricating, installation, transportation and the associated environmental assaults. Each of these processes and machines may only add a miniscule amount of energy to the final component of solar or wind devices yet the devices cannot arise without them. There would be no devices with out this infrastructure.

How else would we do it? There is always the old way. Who of us will go down in the mine first?
A story in pictures and diagrams:
From Machines making machines making machines
http://sunweber.blogspot.com/2011/12/machines-making-machines-making.html
1
1
Rating: 0
NoLeftNutter
A low profile hack makes outrageous alarmist claims just prior to a paid speaking engagement to help pump up the audience. Whose economic reality is he talking about?
1
1
Rating: 0
Randy Gavin
The end of growth....What shortsighted thinking and how selfish. It is like 'I had my hey day and I used it all up and now all of you need to suck it up'. Well short sighted people have said that type of thing at every juncture of history, but the divine have seen another way to allow love to continue blooming and prospering. Yes to growing your own food and sharing with your neighbor but get a life man, without growth there is no life!
6
1
Rating: +5
James G
It is not wrong to understand that resources are limited and that an expanding population demanding growth will eventually hit the wall. It is the type of simplified 'motherhood' issue that Green and green-inspired political vehicles thrive on. It's just that it willfully and entirely ignores context.

If we recall American President John F. Kennedy's description of a growing economy being akin to an incoming tide causing all boats to rise, only growth gives the poor and the working class hope and a reason to participate at all in the economy. Without that, why ever would they bother to "sustain" anything, never mind the economic system that both exploits them and pays the bills for these bitch academics of the One Percent?

It makes little difference if they are patronized by Rupert Murdoch or George Soros -- unless they confront the intensity of the accumulation of wealth and resources by the super-rich over the last three decades, their ultimate end of their political grandstanding is to both distract people from meaningful political action and to steal (indeed the crumbs) from the working class and the poor to improve the future for the descendents of today's elite.
0
1
Rating: -1
Jerry McManus
I would agree with John Weber, so called "renewables" such as solar PV and wind turbines are not possible without the energy subsides provided by fossil fuels and the massive prior investment in our carbon intensive industrial infrastructure.

I would also add that climate chaos will make it increasingly difficult to grow food on anything like the scale we are now. As much as I respect Heinberg's work, he is far too optimistic that a potlatch and kitchen garden or two will make any difference.

What good is having a lifeboat if you are surrounded by millions of hungry, desperate, and de-moralized people?
5
1
Rating: +4
seth
Unfortunately, Heinberg's education seems to consist of two years in college and a period of personal study.

James Hansen the world's foremost climatologist along with pretty well all environmentalists with physical science cred's have patiently I'm sure explained to Heinberg and his ilk that nuclear power is an infinite resource which using our existing spare industrial capacity to build plant and existing stocks of nuclear waste to fuel it, can power the world and all its energy growth needs for a thousand years at zero environmental cost.

His argument is a canard.
seth
1
1
Rating: 0
Shawn Aune
Yes this is the end of typical economic growth. Instead people will be growing in spirit which will cause growth in the community.

Not before there is mass amounts of death due to huger or hunger related violence.

Enjoy.
3
1
Rating: +2
Shawn Aune
@seth

Ummmmmmmm.... Don't even know where to start.

Nuclear is not infinite.

Even if it were, you can't create a fleet of electric cars with nuclear energy. That would require all sorts of raw materials that have already peaked or are due to peak soon.

Abundant energy leads to human ingenuity. Not the other way around.
1
1
Rating: 0
seth
@shawn
Indeed it is infinite with a thousand years of fuel supply using Gen IV reactors to burnup nuke waste and seawater processing which the Japanese are using to accumulate uranium at twice todays .5 cent a kwh fuel cost.

Nuke energy is used to make synthetic liquid fuels like ammonia (subs for propane) and diesel at a lower cost than petrol. Electric cars are more efficient but in transition synfuels work fine.
seth
1
1
Rating: 0
paco
@seth

you are assuming that all the natural material and manmade parts for the thousands of components for a nuclear energy system will be available. its not just peak fossil fuels, its peak almost everything. we wont have everything available to us.
1
1
Rating: 0
Ray I
"Educator"? Really? I think not. This man is an alarmist hocking his book and nothing more. How is he an educator? What university does he teach at? What scholarly peer-reviewed articles has he published? Exactly!
1
1
Rating: 0
Shawn Aune
@seth

Must disagree. Gen IV reactors aren't viable for another 18 years or so and those estimates were created while crude oil production was still rising.

With the current plateau and the inevitable decline in crude oil production R&D is only going to become more difficult and expensive.

A majority of the ammonia made today requires large amounts of natural gas as a source of the nitrates. Yeah ammonia can be pulled out of agricultural waste water but there won't be any because we won't be able to produce enough ammonia to create the fertilizer needed to spray on the farms and create waste water.

Have you looked into what the adsorbents that pull uranium out of sea water are made of? Well the latest and greatest are made using oil shale and phosphorus.

Do you realize that it currently requires 40,000 tons of adsorbent to scrub any meaningful amount of uranium out of sea water and that 10,000 tons of the adsorbent would be used each year?

Only MC Escher could create a drawing of this system you're describing and make it look sustainable.

No, I'm sorry, nuclear will not save humanity.

Plan ahead. Plant a garden.
1
1
Rating: 0
Shawn Aune
@Ray

Unfortunately, the truth is as scary as the author makes it out to be.

The truth is the truth despite your irrational opinion of it.
1
1
Rating: 0
Jim Theide
@ shawn - alarmists have been crying "peak oil" since the oil crisis in the early 70's (and by people who actually have academic credentials). My opinion is not the irrational one. As oil prices climb them more money is spent on R&D and as if by a magic hand we discover more and apply better technology to the oil we already have identified to allow marginal deposits to be economical. We need viable alternatives and the will evolve but this book-pimping "the sky is falling" does no one any good but the author and his publisher.
1
1
Rating: 0
seth
@paco
Actually there are no exotic materials used in nuclear reactor construction really just rebar, concrete and stainless. The amount or such materials required to eliminate fossil fuel use over a ten year period is a small fraction of that used in construction and automobile manufacture annually

@shawn
Actually the Soviet Alfa sub was powered for years by a Gen IV reactor. At least 4 SMR designs are scheduled for production in less than 5 years make use of a modernized version of same.

India has a 500 MW Gen IV waste burner going on line this year first of 5 to 2020 at a lower cost than current PWR's. China has a least 3 scheduled in this time frame. GE has offered to build its design ready GEN IV IFR for England in 5 years or less. Startup Flibe energy staffed by America's foremost nuke engineers is planning a production model MSR for service in 5 years.

The Japanese seawater extraction technique uses persimmons and seaweed. Ignoring that with current supplies of nuke waste, thorium and uranium good for at least 100K years using Gen IV machines I'm sure we will have found new supplies elsewhere in the solar system or developed fusion before we run out.

Ammonium is easily made from hydrogen and atmospheric nitrogen using Haber Bosch.
seth
0
1
Rating: -1
Shawn Aune
@Jim Theide
The "alarmists" were right about the US crude oil peak and subsequent decline in the 70's.

The "alarmists" were right about world crude production peaking between 2000 & 2010.

You are right when you say that our technology will evolve to make dirty oil economical.

What you describe is part of the story the "alarmists" are telling and it seems you can only see that one small part of it.

Calling the author an "alarmist" doesn't change the facts.

The price of oil determines prices in almost every other asset class. As the price of oil increases, the price of R&D also increases so even if a ton of money is applied it will not be enough.
1
1
Rating: 0
Shawn Aune
@seth

Thanks for the info. I have reading to do.
0
1
Rating: -1
Anne Birthistle
AAARGH! was trying to tweet but too ancient to figger it all out!!!
Would you kindly look at www.vivisectionresearch.ca and scroll to Jane Goodall Ph.D.'s preface to the book "Sacred Cows and Golden Geese" by Drs. Ray and Jean Greek....
it tells all......
1
1
Rating: 0
jim fallon
exactly how much oil is left - one trillion barrels - 2 trillion barrels -
but its really about economics vis a vis population - the paradigm is growth - how else could it function - this has to be thought about -
sustainability is the inevitable problem...
1
1
Rating: 0

Pages

Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.