Have We Learnt Nothing?

In 2022 Economist Jeffrey Sachs wrote an article, first published in II Sole 24 Ore. His article reflected on the progress humanity has made in the fifty years since The Limits to Growth was first published.

He noted: “Fifty years later, and after countless international meetings, conferences, treaties, thousands of weighty research studies, and most importantly, after another half-century of our actual experience on the planet,” the warnings were justified. The growing economy is surpassing the Earth’s finite resources, threatening humanity and our physical systems. The market economy alone won’t stop this destruction, as many dangerous actions don’t have market signals attached. Earth is treated as a free dumping ground for destructive practices.

In 2012, it was recognized that treaties signed intending to limit humanity’s impact on the environment were ineffective. Therefore, the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) were proposed and later incorporated into the 2015 Paris Climate Agreement. The SDGs have not helped, as William Rees, Professor Emeritus at the University of British Columbia, points out. In his presentation, he says, “Propelled by this constructed growth narrative, we cannot even implement our own negotiated climate agreements.”

A key insight for our future, the report provided, is understanding the difference between mere “economic growth” and “real economic progress.” While economic growth focuses on raising national income, it often leads to increased pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and deforestation. In contrast, true economic progress aims to improve humanity’s well-being by ending poverty, promoting a fair and just economy, providing quality education, preventing disease outbreaks, and adopting sustainable technologies and practices to raise living standards.

THE ENERGY TRANSITION.

Last year, The Energy Transitions Commission (ETC), a global coalition of leaders from the energy sector, said in its report, ETC (2023), Fossil Fuels in Transition:

“The ETC Commissioners not only agree on the importance of reaching net-zero carbon emissions from the energy and industrial systems by mid-century but also share a broad vision of how the transition can be achieved. The fact that this agreement is possible between leaders from companies and organisations with different perspectives on and interests in the energy system should give decision-makers across the world confidence that it is possible simultaneously to grow the global economy and to limit global warming to well below 2°C. Many of the key actions to achieve these goals are clear and can be pursued without delay.“

It would appear that we have another report that does little to examine the reality of our situation. While our leaders “share a broad vision of how the transition can be achieved“, they seem to avoid considering the planet’s limited resources or providing any specifics on how it will be achieved.

WE DO NOT HAVE THE RESOURCES TO MAKE THE TRANSITION.

In 2021, Simon Michaux, of The Geological Survey of Finland completed an Assessment of the Extra Capacity Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace Fossil Fuels. The abstract of the report concludes with the following two paragraphs.

“Current expectations are that global industrial businesses will replace a complex industrial energy ecosystem that took more than a century to build. The current system was built with the support of the highest calorifically dense source of energy the world has ever known (oil), in cheap abundant quantities, with easily available credit, and seemingly unlimited mineral resources. The replacement needs to be done at a time when there is comparatively very expensive energy, a fragile finance system saturated in debt, not enough minerals, and an unprecedented world population, embedded in a deteriorating natural environment. Most challenging of all, this has to be done within a few decades. It is the author’s opinion, based on the new calculations presented here, that this will likely not go fully to as planned.”

“In conclusion, this report suggests that replacing the existing fossil fuel powered system (oil, gas, and coal), using renewable technologies, such as solar panels or wind turbines, will not be possible for the entire global human population. There is simply just not enough time, nor resources to do this by the current target set by the World’s most influential nations. What may be required, therefore, is a significant reduction of societal demand for all resources, of all kinds. This implies a very different social contract and a radically different system of governance to what is in place today. Inevitably, this leads to the conclusion that the existing renewable energy sectors and the EV technology systems are merely steppingstones to something else, rather than the final solution. It is recommended that some thought be given to this and what that something else might be.”

Simon Michaux’s report is thorough and well documented, but the fact that other experts from various backgrounds say similar things adds veracity to his message. Examples include Mark Mills, the team that published Limits to Growth in 1972, who warned us about overreach fifty years ago, and Nate Hagens, who talks about “The Great Simplification”.

THE END OF OIL.

Petroleum geologist Art Berman’s words ring true: fossil fuels are not just crucial in transport, where there are alternatives. They are the lifeblood of modern civilisation, playing a vital role in the production of concrete, steel, plastic, and fertilisers at the volumes we currently use them. Their depletion would have far-reaching consequences.

However, the previously mentioned report, ETC (2023), Fossil Fuels in Transition, does not mention how society will change or function without these crucial materials. Not knowing how we will produce concrete, steel, plastic, or fertiliser is not to say we should not eliminate carbon emissions. On the contrary, it is more important to restructure now while our current systems still function.

We are aware that oil is a finite resource and will eventually run out. Other experts, including Nate Hagens and Sam Foucher write about it. Some predict it will happen in around fifty years, while others believe it could occur in forty years or earlier. The actual year depends upon our consumption levels, which are increasing. However, we know that we tend to extract the reserves that are easier and cheaper to access first, leaving the more challenging and expensive ones for later. As a result, oil extraction will become increasingly complex and costly over time.

WHY IS IT NOT PUBLICISED?

Gene Cooperman, Professor at Northeastern University, writes: “If oil depletion is imminent, why is it not publicised more?” He says it appears occasionally in the press and on the web, but it does not make the headlines as no corporations or politicians are stressing the issue. Oil companies do not publicise the issue as they prefer stable markets with predictable prices and fear that governments will accelerate the transition to alternative energy sources. We know it will take years to develop alternatives. We know the infrastructure we are building now should be built with a transition in mind. That will not happen if it is not openly discussed.

WHAT DOES HISTORY TELL US?

These things are important to the future. But why are our leaders not talking about them? What historians and anthropologists have to say about these topics can be valuable. Jared Diamond is known for his study of complex societies. His research provides valuable insights into why societies thrive or fail, which is important because if we do not consider why societies fail, we are likely to fail.

Jared Diamond offers two generalisations that contribute to a society’s collapse:

1. When decision-making elites prioritize their short-term interests over the long-term interests of society, it can lead to collapse. This is especially true when the elites are insulated from the consequences of their actions.
2. It is challenging for a society to make good decisions when there is a conflict involving firmly held values that are good in many circumstances but poor in others. For instance, the First Amendment to the US Constitution did not account for the misuse of new technologies that enable the spread of untruths or misleading information, polarizing society. The solution, however, is not to limit free speech but to promote better education and restraint.

Harald Sverdrup, a Norwegian Professor of Systems Dynamics used a causal loop diagram to analyse flows. He observed resource extraction peaks, then leads to wealth peaks, and increasing costs lead to empire collapse.

It is simple, we have reached a critical point in our history where significant societal changes are necessary for our survival.