You know, it may be that electricity is currently overpriced, but the general tendency will be for prices to rise and rise and rise. You do not run an industrial civilization on renewables, and non-renewables are just that: non-renewable (unless you can wait a few million years for the renewing to happen, that is).
It's a shame about wind and solar. That stuff is actually quite useful if you do it the right way: just ask the Dutch, who've been using wind for centuries. But that only works on a small scale, for certain types of tasks (e.g. grinding grain), when you can deal with intermittency. It sure helps to have the right kind of climate. These industrial-grade windmills and solar panels (and nuclear power plants, while we're at it, though nuclear is not renewable either) get huge fossil fuel subsidies to build (that would include mining whatever minerals you need for them), maintain, and finally decommission. Try building an industrial-grade windmill, from start to finish (mining included), with only wind inputs! (You can try the same exercise with nuclear, if you feel like it.)
So anyway, it's all a pipe dream. That's what you get when you "marry" two contradictory ideas: (1) industrial civilization is unsustainable, and (2) industrial civilization is non-negotiable.
As for climate change: nothing (useful) will be done about climate change. Every last drop of oil that can economically be extracted and burned will, in fact, be extracted and burned. It's possible that some of the non-economic stuff (the stuff with EROEI of less than 1) will also get extracted and burned, essentially for reasons of vanity and prestige. But anyway, then it's over. The best we can hope for is that it's gradual rather than sudden, because gradual gives you time to adapt...
(Oh, and btw, the last bits of highly concentrated energy will go to the military. The most competitive states will have an air force long after their citizens - or subjects - no longer have a functional power grid.)
"(1) industrial civilization is unsustainable, and (2) industrial civilization is non-negotiable."
Applause, really. Such a bitter truth, especially to progressive both left, right and centre.
Your point about air-power is an especially scary one. Since power and wealth is to a large degree relative that of others, the easist and cheapes way to become more powerful and wealthy is to make others powerless and poor. That's a much surer bet than taking the risk of spending assets to increase power and wealth relative your starting point.
So keeping others down may also mean stopping them from exploiting resources on their territory until it becomes profitable for you to move in and take it.
Exactly. Wasn't it Dick Cheney who claimed, in the context of '9/11', that 'the American Way of Life' was non-negotiable?
Since post-1945 Europe is a kind of pseudo, or fake, version of the US, that also means 'us'.
You raise valid points, certified by all of human history, with perhaps Ancient Egypt--a civilisation running (at least) for 3,500 years whil our 'industrial' civilisation is coming apart at its seams after some 300 years--one of the main exceptions.
(Why I don't point to Greece and Rome, by the way? Easy: the former self-destructed well before the Macedonians and Romans put an end to them while the latter saddled posterity with contract law and creditor protections, enforced by the imperial state…)
I know these facts, you know them, and I suppose that a sizeable portion of the readers here know, too.
Re the Dutch: true enough, but keep in mind that their wind mills weren't historically for milling grains (yes, they did that, too), but their main purpose was keeping the polders and other low-lying (i.e., below sea-level) areas comparatively drier than, well, the sea.
Agriculture--as in grain cultivation--used to be all but impossible in the Netherlands before the advent of industrial machinery, maiinly because land at, or under, sea level, even if dry enough to grow grass (and thus feed livestock) has too much salt in it to make grain growing a commercial enterprise (before, that is, industrialisation). Hence, lots of windmills to pump out water from below sea level and lots of livestock, esp. cattle and goats, which eat the grass growing on the earthen dykes while keeping them steadfast, too (via walking and standing on them): just look at any pre-modern landscape painting ;-)
As to the other two issues (climate change and sustained military spending): agreed on both of them, esp. considering the fact that the US military (army, navy, marince corps, etc.) is the single-biggest emitter of CO2 emissions on this planet. Wanna 'do something' about this, Mr. Biden? Abolish the US DoD…
(Agreed on this one, too, but these things, while certainly sustainable for a bit longer than, say, the power grid, only work so long. Esp. 'modern', Western-style armies, and their 'fancy' equipment. Just take NATO in Afghanistan as an example: most assault rifles did'nt really work very well due to sand and wind problems--in the desert, no less--hence many forces deployed switched to AK-47s and the like…)
You know, it may be that electricity is currently overpriced, but the general tendency will be for prices to rise and rise and rise. You do not run an industrial civilization on renewables, and non-renewables are just that: non-renewable (unless you can wait a few million years for the renewing to happen, that is).
It's a shame about wind and solar. That stuff is actually quite useful if you do it the right way: just ask the Dutch, who've been using wind for centuries. But that only works on a small scale, for certain types of tasks (e.g. grinding grain), when you can deal with intermittency. It sure helps to have the right kind of climate. These industrial-grade windmills and solar panels (and nuclear power plants, while we're at it, though nuclear is not renewable either) get huge fossil fuel subsidies to build (that would include mining whatever minerals you need for them), maintain, and finally decommission. Try building an industrial-grade windmill, from start to finish (mining included), with only wind inputs! (You can try the same exercise with nuclear, if you feel like it.)
So anyway, it's all a pipe dream. That's what you get when you "marry" two contradictory ideas: (1) industrial civilization is unsustainable, and (2) industrial civilization is non-negotiable.
As for climate change: nothing (useful) will be done about climate change. Every last drop of oil that can economically be extracted and burned will, in fact, be extracted and burned. It's possible that some of the non-economic stuff (the stuff with EROEI of less than 1) will also get extracted and burned, essentially for reasons of vanity and prestige. But anyway, then it's over. The best we can hope for is that it's gradual rather than sudden, because gradual gives you time to adapt...
(Oh, and btw, the last bits of highly concentrated energy will go to the military. The most competitive states will have an air force long after their citizens - or subjects - no longer have a functional power grid.)
"(1) industrial civilization is unsustainable, and (2) industrial civilization is non-negotiable."
Applause, really. Such a bitter truth, especially to progressive both left, right and centre.
Your point about air-power is an especially scary one. Since power and wealth is to a large degree relative that of others, the easist and cheapes way to become more powerful and wealthy is to make others powerless and poor. That's a much surer bet than taking the risk of spending assets to increase power and wealth relative your starting point.
So keeping others down may also mean stopping them from exploiting resources on their territory until it becomes profitable for you to move in and take it.
Exactly. Wasn't it Dick Cheney who claimed, in the context of '9/11', that 'the American Way of Life' was non-negotiable?
Since post-1945 Europe is a kind of pseudo, or fake, version of the US, that also means 'us'.
You raise valid points, certified by all of human history, with perhaps Ancient Egypt--a civilisation running (at least) for 3,500 years whil our 'industrial' civilisation is coming apart at its seams after some 300 years--one of the main exceptions.
(Why I don't point to Greece and Rome, by the way? Easy: the former self-destructed well before the Macedonians and Romans put an end to them while the latter saddled posterity with contract law and creditor protections, enforced by the imperial state…)
I know these facts, you know them, and I suppose that a sizeable portion of the readers here know, too.
Re the Dutch: true enough, but keep in mind that their wind mills weren't historically for milling grains (yes, they did that, too), but their main purpose was keeping the polders and other low-lying (i.e., below sea-level) areas comparatively drier than, well, the sea.
Agriculture--as in grain cultivation--used to be all but impossible in the Netherlands before the advent of industrial machinery, maiinly because land at, or under, sea level, even if dry enough to grow grass (and thus feed livestock) has too much salt in it to make grain growing a commercial enterprise (before, that is, industrialisation). Hence, lots of windmills to pump out water from below sea level and lots of livestock, esp. cattle and goats, which eat the grass growing on the earthen dykes while keeping them steadfast, too (via walking and standing on them): just look at any pre-modern landscape painting ;-)
As to the other two issues (climate change and sustained military spending): agreed on both of them, esp. considering the fact that the US military (army, navy, marince corps, etc.) is the single-biggest emitter of CO2 emissions on this planet. Wanna 'do something' about this, Mr. Biden? Abolish the US DoD…
(Agreed on this one, too, but these things, while certainly sustainable for a bit longer than, say, the power grid, only work so long. Esp. 'modern', Western-style armies, and their 'fancy' equipment. Just take NATO in Afghanistan as an example: most assault rifles did'nt really work very well due to sand and wind problems--in the desert, no less--hence many forces deployed switched to AK-47s and the like…)
I would rather spend my time and finances to reduce my demand and install personal renewable energy devices.