Blog recommendation - The Archdruid Report

[Greendruid]

I wasn't quite sure where to put this blog recommendation so it'll start off in the religion section only because of the author's religious connexion to me. Feel free to rearrange it oh powers that be! It is a blog written by John Michael Greer who is the current Archdruid of a small group of druids known as the Ancient Order of Druids in America. I'll spare you the details of the group's origins, etc. I simply wanted to direct our readers here at DWF to his blog called "The Archdruid Report" (http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/). My reasons for doing this are not religious in nature at all but rather because I think he would fit in well in this forum and perhaps some of his "reports" would/could serve as a jumping off point for other peoples' discussions here. It is a weekly blog, faithfully (pun intended) being produced once a week on a Wednesday. He has some interesting thoughts on the current world economic situation and of course, being a druid, his thinking is very similar to mine on many of the world's problems at the moment. Check it out!

[Michael]

This section seems reasonably appropriate. If we ever create a separate section for "blog recommendations" then I'll move it - until then, this section works for me since 'all religions are religion'. ;)

Interesting blog. I'll bookmark it and put it on my 'regular cycle' for a while. :)

He gets 'bonus points' for mentioning Arnold J. Toynbee in today's post! :D
(I've got a fine 2 volume abridgement of Toynbee's great work A Study of History - first American edition, 1947, on my bookshelf).

Btw, my friend Big Jay has emailed me links to articles there a few times in the past - I'm thinking he's a regular reader of that blog too - I don't think you know him - I've been inviting him to join this forum for quite a while. Hopefully he shows up sometime.

[Michael]

Btw, the mention of Toynbee's theory of history in that article (highly recommended) had me thinking over the weekend...

I remember when I first read Toynbee (and the 2nd time), I got really into trying to figure out if our current western society was 'in decline' or 'in the ascendant' according to Toynbee's theory. I could never find sufficient evidence of one or the other. But the Archdruid's point seems correct - this financial debacle, coming on the heels of the dot-com bubble, which followed the Savings & Loan financial debacle does appear to demonstrate "epic failure" of the elite class. If that's the case, the West just lost its ascendancy.

(the most accurate sign of elite failure is when the same policy solution is repeated over and over, with the same disasterous results).

We can expect our elites to be all about 'preserving the status quo' now - that's all they've got and they are going to fight like dogs to keep it.

[Greendruid]

New segment up in the Archdruid Report. He seems to have been a little late with this one and I'm a little disappointed with it. I haven't read the book he reviews but I agree with his assessment to an extent of the spiritual crisis that isn't being dealt with. Of course, I'm also aware that this will not be the way that most people look at this issue, which is why I was a little disappointed with it. :shrug:

[Michael]

I think this week's entry from the Archdruid is a particularly good one. He raises the issue of 'shifting paradigms' with specific reference to Thomas Kuhn.

The particular paradigm that is referenced is that of "improved technology will save us" - a theory that is becoming increasing weaker over time. There is no magic technology bullet that is going to save us from the industrial destruction of this planet. But the fact that an apparent majority believes that there is one is probably the greatest barrier to actual real-world environmental policies that could mitigate some of the damage we are causing.

The Archdruid believes (just like in the field of science) that we will have to wait for the 'old guard' to die off before the new paradigm can really become the norm.

[Greendruid]

The Archdruid Report for July 1 and July 8 are fantastic! Check them out for a good set of arguments about the limitations of our mostly closed system.

[andrewl]

The Archdruid Report for July 1 and July 8 are fantastic! Check them out for a good set of arguments about the limitations of our mostly closed system.

I am just reading the "Wealth of Nature" and this specific point struck me:

"Garrett Hardin’s famous essay “The Tragedy of the Commons” built on that insight to remind us that a society that permits the advantages of ecological abuse to go to individuals, while the costs are shared by the whole society, is effectively subsidizing the destruction of its environment."

http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/2009/07/wealth-of-nature.html

It seems to me this is a bind we are in. I had read somewhere that the reason we spread the costs of environmental destruction to the whole society is because the typical liabilities for damage are far too high for any single corporation to absorb, so in order to ensure the existence of industrial corporations, governments made it so that clean up costs are paid for by the state. Essentially, the larger an industrial corporation gets, the more damage it causes, and the more expensive the cleanup. Having the taxpayers absorb this burden in turn ensures the continued survival and growth of the industry, or "effectively subsidizing the destruction of (the) environment".

This is frightening. In Alberta this is being played out as we speak. The government of Alberta is absorbing the costs of dealing with oil sands pollution, not the industry. This literaly means a bunch of industrial corporations come in and poison the rivers, poison the air, deforest the boreal, etc... take most of the profit elsewhere, and the Canadian taxpayer is left to foot the bill for whatever they can hope to clean up.

Andrew

[Lily]

I think this week's entry from the Archdruid is a particularly good one. He raises the issue of 'shifting paradigms' with specific reference to Thomas Kuhn.

The particular paradigm that is referenced is that of "improved technology will save us" - a theory that is becoming increasing weaker over time. There is no magic technology bullet that is going to save us from the industrial destruction of this planet. But the fact that an apparent majority believes that there is one is probably the greatest barrier to actual real-world environmental policies that could mitigate some of the damage we are causing.

The Archdruid believes (just like in the field of science) that we will have to wait for the 'old guard' to die off before the new paradigm can really become the norm.

I disagree. I think a "magic techonology bullet" is exactly what we need. I don't believe we can rely soley on legislating our way out of industrial destruction. Witness the latest G-8 summit on global warming: China and India both have refused to back the G-8's goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Why should they? What incentive do they have at this point? Both are enjoying tremendous growth and are following the economic formulas that were successful in the West and using the same techology that spurred that growth.

[Michael]

I disagree. I think a "magic techonology bullet" is exactly what we need. I don't believe we can rely soley on legislating our way out of industrial destruction. Witness the latest G-8 summit on global warming: China and India both have refused to back the G-8's goals to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Why should they? What incentive do they have at this point? Both are enjoying tremendous growth and are following the economic formulas that were successful in the West and using the same techology that spurred that growth.

"Magic technology bullet" is exactly what is needed, no doubt of that, I just don't see it as a very practical assumption.

Energy is an issue that does not admit of any easy solution.

And the size/scale of our economy makes these kinds of transitions very challenging and slow-moving to begin with. For example, even if we fill the auto market with hybrids, it will take 35 years to turn over the entire North American auto fleet to these new types. Oil is quite likely to be entirely run out before we even get all the cars switched over to hybrid models - that still require fossil fuel that won't be there.

Likewise with nuke power - we just don't have enough uranium to build a hundred new nuclear power stations to replace all the oil/gas/coal power generators and even if we did, it takes 10-20 years to build them.

And the only large resources of oil known that are not presently being tapped are the oil sands (Canada and Venezuela have huge piles of this stuff) that requires massive amounts of greenhouse gas emissions in order to convert into usable oil.

And I just don't see it very likely that we are going to invent something that is going to suck up all the excess CO2 emissions that are causing global climate change - which itself is likely to increase demand for energy which only increases the problem.

And most significantly, since I believe we are at or near 'peak oil', all of these changes are going to have to be initiated during a period of extremely fast rising energy costs (making all such enterprises vastly more expensive).

And the end of the era of 'cheap oil' (the concept our whole economy is built on) is likely to act as a drag on the overall economy and that means higher debt levels and higher taxes - which will also act as 'drags' on alternatives.

Fact is, we've dug a pretty deep hole here. We may work ourselves out of it, but I can't see us doing it with sprawling suburban car-oriented lifestyles trying to maintain present living standards.

Perhaps if we started to address these problems when we first identified them back in the 1970s, we might have a chance, but we've pretty much wasted 35 years by ignoring the problem already. With this background, I don't see us leaping into any meaningful solutions any time soon.

[andrewl]

Technology has only served to make our predicament worse over time, not better. Dreaming of a technological magic bullet is identical to sitting around waiting for the messiah to return.

Andrew

[Michael]

Technology has only served to make our predicament worse over time, not better. Dreaming of a technological magic bullet is identical to sitting around waiting for the messiah to return.

Andrew

Agreed. Our track record since the 1970s is pathetic - when the problems of finite fossil fuels and increasing greenhouse gas emissions was first clearly identified in the 1970s, nothing was done about it.

Pretty much all of the technological advancements in the field of gasoline engine efficiency since the mid-1970s has been used to build larger and more powerful vehicles (i.e. SUV's).

None of that efficiency was used to make smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles. Consumers and governments have of course fully supported this process.

On this basis, I just don't see any probability that technology will provide a solution to these inter-related ecological problems. Our track record suggests that any new technologies will be used to preserve the status quo, rather than reducing it.

[andrewl]

Agreed. Our track record since the 1970s is pathetic - when the problems of finite fossil fuels and increasing greenhouse gas emissions was first clearly identified in the 1970s, nothing was done about it.

Pretty much all of the technological advancements in the field of gasoline engine efficiency since the mid-1970s has been used to build larger and more powerful vehicles (i.e. SUV's).

None of that efficiency was used to make smaller and more fuel efficient vehicles. Consumers and governments have of course fully supported this process.

On this basis, I just don't see any probability that technology will provide a solution to these inter-related ecological problems. Our track record suggests that any new technologies will be used to preserve the status quo, rather than reducing it.

A significant cultural shift must precede any sort of technological innovation that helps us renew the ecological systems that regulate the biosphere. Any technological innovation under the current paradigm will necessarily be employed to increase production, economic growth, and further the ecological damage.

The question is whether we can cause such a shift without first experiencing a major ecological and humanitarian catastrophe.

Andrew

[Lily]

Technology has only served to make our predicament worse over time, not better. Dreaming of a technological magic bullet is identical to sitting around waiting for the messiah to return.

Andrew

That's not entirely true. Hybrid cars have and will save energy costs, for example. My on-demand water heater is significantly more efficient than the old style water tanks. Even something as simple as low-flow shower heads work to conserve. There are many young scientists and engineers out there who are wholly invested in finding solutions to the problems we face. I do have faith.

[Michael]

That's not entirely true. Hybrid cars have and will save energy costs, for example.
At normal rates of fleet conversion, it will take roughly 30 years to turn over every vehicle in North America to a hybrid. By that time, we are likely to be already out of commerically available oil.

At present rates of conversion, it will take over 100 years. Hybrids are not a solution - they are yet another attempt to delay the inevitable and make people feel 'good' about their pollution instead of feeling bad about it.

I don't see hybrids having any impact on oil consumption rates at all. They are a fashion/fad for people to pose as 'environmentally concerned' while still maintaining a polluting/wasteful lifestyle. I expect this to be the biggest boom market of all in the next few years of environmental denial while people persist in thinking that our system can go on for ever if only we just conserve a bit and use our energy more efficiently.

My on-demand water heater is significantly more efficient than the old style water tanks. Even something as simple as low-flow shower heads work to conserve. There are many young scientists and engineers out there who are wholly invested in finding solutions to the problems we face. I do have faith.
Both your examples merely reduce the rate at which we are increasing demand for energy.

If half the planet used even a quarter as much energy as you do as an American, the planet's energy supply would be wiped out pretty damn quick. Creating newer and better ways to consume energy is part of the problem, not the solution.

[andrewl]

That's not entirely true. Hybrid cars have and will save energy costs, for example. My on-demand water heater is significantly more efficient than the old style water tanks. Even something as simple as low-flow shower heads work to conserve. There are many young scientists and engineers out there who are wholly invested in finding solutions to the problems we face. I do have faith.

Efficiency under the current economic culture only serves to increase the rate at which non-renewables are consumed.

Generally this is referred to as Jevons paradox.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox

More specifically with regards to energy use it is referred to as the Khazzoom-Brookes Postulate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khazzoom-Brookes_postulate

in essence, as long as we exist under a paradigm where economic growth, profit, and resource extraction are the rules of the game, any gains in efficiency are only likely to escalate the problem.

Andrew

[Lily]

I understand the concepts you've put forth. My point is that making a blanket statement comparing the hope of new technology to waiting for the Messiah is downright pessimistic. While it may be true that the technological examples I've given will not solve our long-term problems, they are advances. Who's to say that the next generation of scientists and engineers won't come up with technology that will be real breakthroughs?

By the way, in a May 2009 report the EIA predicts that by 2015 it won't be the U.S. who will be consuming the most energy, but China.

[Michael]

I understand the concepts you've put forth. My point is that making a blanket statement comparing the hope of new technology to waiting for the Messiah is downright pessimistic. While it may be true that the technological examples I've given will not solve our long-term problems, they are advances. Who's to say that the next generation of scientists and engineers won't come up with technology that will be real breakthroughs?
You are correct that ultimately it is a matter of 'half-full or half-empty'. Nothing wrong with hoping or being optimistic.

The point andrew and myself are making here is that our track record strongly suggests pessimism on this issue.

As for other 'technology' solutions, it often takes decades to go from conceptual design/invention stage to product on the market stage. The only things that will be hitting the market in the next ten years are things that are already invented.

The biggest problem of all is the timeframe available. Its one thing to say that oil might run out by 2050 and that seems like 40 years away and that's a long time to make preparations, but that's a mirage. If oil actually does run out in 2050, that means that the entire western economy will be crippled by 2030 from astronomical oil prices and temporal shortages.

Crippled economies in permanent 'recession' mode are not well equipped for launching adopting new and expensive technologies. Our whole western economies are built on the concept of 'cheap oil'. Without 'cheap oil' our economies appear to grind to a halt.

By the way, in a May 2009 report the EIA predicts that by 2015 it won't be the U.S. who will be consuming the most energy, but China.
That means that China has to almost triple their total consumption over eight years and US has to stop growing...

The data (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption) that I'm seeing shows US annual oil consumption in the 20.6 million barrels per day range and China at 7.6 million (2007 data).

China likely will overtake the USA as the world's largest consumer of oil, but I somehow doubt they are going to do it by 2015, but you never know.

[Lily]

You are correct that ultimately it is a matter of 'half-full or half-empty'. Nothing wrong with hoping or being optimistic.

The point andrew and myself are making here is that our track record strongly suggests pessimism on this issue.

As for other 'technology' solutions, it often takes decades to go from conceptual design/invention stage to product on the market stage. The only things that will be hitting the market in the next ten years are things that are already invented.

The biggest problem of all is the timeframe available. Its one thing to say that oil might run out by 2050 and that seems like 40 years away and that's a long time to make preparations, but that's a mirage. If oil actually does run out in 2050, that means that the entire western economy will be crippled by 2030 from astronomical oil prices and temporal shortages.

Crippled economies in permanent 'recession' mode are not well equipped for launching adopting new and expensive technologies. Our whole western economies are built on the concept of 'cheap oil'. Without 'cheap oil' our economies appear to grind to a halt.


Western economies. True. But what about China? That country is really just embarking on a journey of massive energy consumption. The government sees the same data we do. They also seem to be able to get any kind of production up and running faster than their western counterparts. Perhaps the hope for a breakthrough technology does not lie in the West.


That means that China has to almost triple their total consumption over eight years and US has to stop growing...

The data (http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption) that I'm seeing shows US annual oil consumption in the 20.6 million barrels per day range and China at 7.6 million (2007 data).

China likely will overtake the USA as the world's largest consumer of oil, but I somehow doubt they are going to do it by 2015, but you never know.


I saw that same data. The year 2015 seemed a bit fast to me, too. However, China's rate of growth is pretty amazing. What was it, 8-9% last year? That's a lot of capital. Plus, they seem to have access to a whole lot of Angola's oil. You never know...

[Michael]

Western economies. True. But what about China? That country is really just embarking on a journey of massive energy consumption. The government sees the same data we do. They also seem to be able to get any kind of production up and running faster than their western counterparts. Perhaps the hope for a breakthrough technology does not lie in the West.
Yes, if any decent breakthrough technology is going to come, I'd bet it will come from China or India. Western economies are way too hide-bound, oligarchic and/or too dependent upon oil-economy subsidies to expect anything truly innovative to come from them.

I saw that same data. The year 2015 seemed a bit fast to me, too. However, China's rate of growth is pretty amazing. What was it, 8-9% last year? That's a lot of capital. Plus, they seem to have access to a whole lot of Angola's oil. You never know...
Even at 15% actual growth per year in Chinese oil consumption, they won't hit the 2015 parity with USA.

Sounds like normal US propaganda trying to make China look relatively worse than they are and US look relatively less bad than they are. Typical stuff from US media (hard to take some US media sources seriously, and not just Fox, Reader's Digest, Time and Newsweek are notorious publishers of propaganda and/or blatant factual lies as well).

[andrewl]

I understand the concepts you've put forth. My point is that making a blanket statement comparing the hope of new technology to waiting for the Messiah is downright pessimistic. While it may be true that the technological examples I've given will not solve our long-term problems, they are advances. Who's to say that the next generation of scientists and engineers won't come up with technology that will be real breakthroughs?

By the way, in a May 2009 report the EIA predicts that by 2015 it won't be the U.S. who will be consuming the most energy, but China.

Im sure there will be breakthroughs, but the point im trying to make is that they will necessarily favor industry and corporations, and the effect will be to increase consumption, and hence ecological damage.

I.e., in Alberta industry and government are desperately trying to find technological breakthroughs that will allow them to extract more oil with less pollution and less GHG emissions. This sounds all happy and good on the surface, but the effect is ultimately just more consumers consuming more junk, and this means more damage in the long term.

Andrew

[Lily]

Im sure there will be breakthroughs, but the point im trying to make is that they will necessarily favor industry and corporations, and the effect will be to increase consumption, and hence ecological damage.

I.e., in Alberta industry and government are desperately trying to find technological breakthroughs that will allow them to extract more oil with less pollution and less GHG emissions. This sounds all happy and good on the surface, but the effect is ultimately just more consumers consuming more junk, and this means more damage in the long term.

Andrew

They will favor making money. I am hopeful that with declining non-renewables, there are industries out there who are looking to the future, and that future will have to include something to replace petroleum-based products.

[andrewl]

They will favor making money. I am hopeful that with declining non-renewables, there are industries out there who are looking to the future, and that future will have to include something to replace petroleum-based products.


Industry requires consumers, and in societies that demand constant economic growth. industry necessarily requires mass consumers and the result is always exponential growth. It does not matter in the long run what the products are based on, the end point is still ecological collapse.

This is why any technological innovation that is not tied to a significant cultural transformation is not a solution.

Andrew

[The Drunk Guy]

Industry requires consumers, and in societies that demand constant economic growth. industry necessarily requires mass consumers and the result is always exponential growth. It does not matter in the long run what the products are based on, the end point is still ecological collapse.

This is why any technological innovation that is not tied to a significant cultural transformation is not a solution.

Andrew
I agree. Furthermore, cultural transformation is all but impossible thanks to mass media. Kid's that care about the environment still worry about the Jonas' brothers love affairs.

I gotta admit that I'm a little bit confused.
Sometimes it seems to me as if I'm just being used.
Gotta stay awake, gotta try and shake off this creeping malaise.
If I don't stand my own ground, how can I find my own way out of this maze?

[Lily]

Industry requires consumers, and in societies that demand constant economic growth. industry necessarily requires mass consumers and the result is always exponential growth. It does not matter in the long run what the products are based on, the end point is still ecological collapse.

This is why any technological innovation that is not tied to a significant cultural transformation is not a solution.

Andrew


Okay, I can agree with that. What did you have in mind?

[Michael]

Okay, I can agree with that. What did you have in mind?

I suspect that the need for a "significant cultural transformation" would be high on the list.

I'm inclined to take the same argument. I'm not too sure about how to acheive that. Indeed, that just points us back to the 'time' issue because normally speaking, one has to wait full generations to affect any significant cultural transformations - the sexual-feminist revolution of the 1960s is still playing out today. These things take lots of time and time is not something we have a lot of on this issue (hence the reason for my pessimism).

[andrewl]

Okay, I can agree with that. What did you have in mind?

I honestly don't know. I only know what it doesn't look like.

Andrew

[Greendruid]

Another winning post from this blog is featured in his July 22nd contribution. The entire series of the last three or four posts is really quite a good, simple explanation of the big picture of what's going on in economics. As a complete novice to that field I really appreciate JMG's approach. I suppose it helps that I agree with a lot of the stuff he says but I challenge anyone on here to tackle any of his theoretical points about tertiary goods. This is a point that I've never been able to articulate but always just sort of "got". When you produce a secondary good from your own two hands and their manipulation of primary goods that you may also have acquired and processed yourself, you really get a sense that something is out of whack with the tertiary goods he talks about. It all just seemed like make believe to me. I guess the fantasy is over. I'm curious to see what he believes will happen now that the plane has left housing fantasy island!

[Michael]

Another winning post from this blog is featured in his July 22nd contribution. The entire series of the last three or four posts is really quite a good, simple explanation of the big picture of what's going on in economics. As a complete novice to that field I really appreciate JMG's approach. I suppose it helps that I agree with a lot of the stuff he says but I challenge anyone on here to tackle any of his theoretical points about tertiary goods. This is a point that I've never been able to articulate but always just sort of "got". When you produce a secondary good from your own two hands and their manipulation of primary goods that you may also have acquired and processed yourself, you really get a sense that something is out of whack with the tertiary goods he talks about. It all just seemed like make believe to me. I guess the fantasy is over. I'm curious to see what he believes will happen now that the plane has left housing fantasy island!

Yes, the last few entries have been excellent indeed. :thumbsup:

One thing that is critically important that the Archdruid Report seems to miss here though is that 'services' are tertiary goods by definition. This tends to complicate the big picture. 'Fake' financial goods are a problem, but not all 'tertiary' goods are bads.

[Greendruid]

Another fantastic post in the Archdruid Report yesterday. I liked the apples to orangutans analogy myself :) I think that JMG nails the philosophical, or as he puts it, metaphysical mistake that economists have made and have convinced the rest of us in the Western world to follow. I do part of a lecture on the difference between wealth and income to outline the wandering definition of poverty. I think I'll include parts of this argument about money as well now because it gets the point across so much more clearly, especially where dwindling resources are concerned.