Thanks, Rob! I meant to call your attention to the fact that I linked to your excellent and highly illuminating series, but it looks like you saw it already!
You write "the potential of “green energy” generation to be “carbon free” doesn’t start until after it’s all set up". Even then it's far from "carbon free". As just three of many examples: 1) switching stations, substations, etc. use SF6 to insulate electrical gear (to keep it from catching fire and exploding). The gas has a warming potential 23,000 times that of CO2 and is used all over the grid. Needless to say, it leaks (as all gases do). 2) wind turbines contain oil, grease and hydraulic fluids, around 800 gallons of lubricants. Needless to say, it often leaks. And it must be replaced regularly. 3) All technologies on a grid from the solar and wind to the grid lines and stations to the grid stabilization centers to the computers used throughout the grid need constant maintenance. This often requires workers traveling to stations and remote areas in, you guessed it, diesel trucks. I can go on. There is nothing "carbon free" about so-called "renewable" energy.
Thank you for adding all that! I've run across most of those figures in my reading, but failed to include them in this piece, so I'm grateful that readers will have your addendum to show a more complete picture. I'll add a note in the text directing attention to your comment.
I really appreciate the work you do raising awareness on these topics, so thank you very much!
At some point, all this complexity on top of complexity to maintain current and future levels of complexity will have to collapse under its own weight. Add to that the insane amounts of computer processing necessary to keep this house of cards from falling and the insane amounts of energy to power that processing. To call this scenario "renewable", "green" or "sustainable" is next-level delusion.
Indeed. The complexity is not sustainable at all. The more complex the systems get, the more fragile they get. Once you start digging into everything that's required to create the complex system and keep it running, you quickly realize the insanity and hubris and cruelty our modern lives entail.
Excellent article! I agree completely. The myth that we can keep our precious lifestyles through "sustainable development" has done more damage than climate denial.
People have been saying this for a long time, but there are just too few of us saying it. I wrote something similar a few months ago. (Well, maybe more favorable to distributed rather than centralized solar.) https://larryhogue.substack.com/p/embracing-my-inner-luddite
This is excellent - thanks so much. I’m so glad that there are others who can’t see the logic of this green revolution in its present form, which seems only designed to make corporations more money and destroy the earth on slightly different ways.
I can't even bring myself to read this thoroughly because I know, and it pains me to my very core. How do we convince individuals that this is not actually in their best interest? That's what needs to happen and I find that it often falls on deaf ears.
Morris's insights are evergreen. For example, he broadly defined "waste", which he regarded as the quintessential characteristic of capitalism, as that state of affairs in which, paraphrasing, "some have more than they could ever use, while others have not enough to satisfy the minimum to sustain a dignified life".
Also, there's the "second product" of human labor, which socialist thinkers like Michael Lebowitz have insisted was of paramount importance to Marx's humanistic vision. In short, all work simultaneously produces tangible goods and services, while also changing and molding the very human beings performing that work. So it follows that, in organizing that work, a society has to consider out of what kinds of human beings it wants to constitute itself. (https://links.org.au/michael-lebowitz-if-you-dont-understand-second-product-you-understand-nothing-about-marxs-capital )
By the way, yes, a reduction in TOTAL consumption is imperative, even if only because there are no realistic prospects for miraculously converting to "green energy" on a scale that could replace certain uses of fossil fuels, eg, for conventional aviation. Bring back hot air balloons. But focusing on total consumption is not helpful in a world where we rightly understand "waste" in the way William Morris did. Rather, a few people need to consume vastly less, but a vastly larger number need to be able to consume more! That is why waste and inequality are inseparable, and therefore ecology and economy are, too. Or, to quote from another excellent essay by Nobel winning economist Thomas Piketty, "the compression of social inequalities at all levels" is indispensable. (https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/piketty/2019/06/11/the-illusion-of-centrist-ecology/ )
Whereas, if we (those of us who side with people and planet over profit) headline our rhetoric with austerity slogans, all we are doing is playing right into the hands of pseudopopulist fascism, which we already see playing out around the world.
I agree with you one hundred percent. But it wasn’t that long ago that I was all in for a green energy transition with a ‘humans first’ personal philosophy. Then I turned off the mainstream news, started reading indigenous writers, shut my mouth, listened carefully to nature, began to think and reflect, and five years later I’m a totally different person than I was. My own journey makes me hopeful that others like me can also learn to shut up and listen and learn from people like you. Thank you.
I can relate, I'm less than a year into my new way of viewing these matters, and seeing this for what it really is, not what it's marketed as. Though I've suspected for years that something was definitely off, I felt I was the only one who felt that way.
The most important dynamic in the energy sector is under no circumstances allow a nationwide grid. Individual and community power generation, in other words micro grid is the obvious solution. Being more energy, conscious therefore lowering the demand, and using a fraction of the resources.
The paradigm you are speaking of is “industrial complex. We cannot replace one industrial complex with another. That is the solution of politicians and corporate stakeholders. Not an environmentally friendly possibility.
For instance, replacing fossil fuel combustion vehicles with electric vehicles. It’s not a statistically significant dynamic. What is needed in North America is a nationwide, high-speed rail, smartly, integrated with local white rail all powered by renewals. Removing 800 million of the almost 900,000,000 domestic flights, and 3/4 of the vehicles on the road.
Great write up, thank you. It's great that folks are finally starting to "get" climate change (I use that term loosely, hence the quotes), but the fact that climate change is but ONE symptom of ecological overshoot has gotten completely missed in the noise. We can't allow that to continue.
There’s a caveat. If we don’t address, climate change, none of the work needed in the bio regional Eco habitat restoration project on a global basis will be worth worth doing. It won’t survive.
We need solutions everyone. The problems are easy to see. Think bigger.
Excellent, we need more people standing up for nature and advocating a move towards using less energy. I've been impressed by how many essays sharing a similar point of view I've seen on Substack in the past couple of weeks. Hopefully a sign that more people are beginning to see sense.
Learned a new word from Zerzan's Anarchy Radio from 6/25/24: "solastalgia" - "a form of emotional or existential distress caused by environmental change". That's one word for it...
I share your rage. Thanks for speaking out for the real world.
Thanks, Rob! I meant to call your attention to the fact that I linked to your excellent and highly illuminating series, but it looks like you saw it already!
Thanks, Tara, and you're very welcome! I will be posting more on this topic. And there's a podcast episode coming too!
You write "the potential of “green energy” generation to be “carbon free” doesn’t start until after it’s all set up". Even then it's far from "carbon free". As just three of many examples: 1) switching stations, substations, etc. use SF6 to insulate electrical gear (to keep it from catching fire and exploding). The gas has a warming potential 23,000 times that of CO2 and is used all over the grid. Needless to say, it leaks (as all gases do). 2) wind turbines contain oil, grease and hydraulic fluids, around 800 gallons of lubricants. Needless to say, it often leaks. And it must be replaced regularly. 3) All technologies on a grid from the solar and wind to the grid lines and stations to the grid stabilization centers to the computers used throughout the grid need constant maintenance. This often requires workers traveling to stations and remote areas in, you guessed it, diesel trucks. I can go on. There is nothing "carbon free" about so-called "renewable" energy.
Thank you for adding all that! I've run across most of those figures in my reading, but failed to include them in this piece, so I'm grateful that readers will have your addendum to show a more complete picture. I'll add a note in the text directing attention to your comment.
I really appreciate the work you do raising awareness on these topics, so thank you very much!
Likewise, so much appreciation for what you do.
At some point, all this complexity on top of complexity to maintain current and future levels of complexity will have to collapse under its own weight. Add to that the insane amounts of computer processing necessary to keep this house of cards from falling and the insane amounts of energy to power that processing. To call this scenario "renewable", "green" or "sustainable" is next-level delusion.
Indeed. The complexity is not sustainable at all. The more complex the systems get, the more fragile they get. Once you start digging into everything that's required to create the complex system and keep it running, you quickly realize the insanity and hubris and cruelty our modern lives entail.
Excellent article! I agree completely. The myth that we can keep our precious lifestyles through "sustainable development" has done more damage than climate denial.
Thanks! 100% agreed on the damage caused by the narrative.
People have been saying this for a long time, but there are just too few of us saying it. I wrote something similar a few months ago. (Well, maybe more favorable to distributed rather than centralized solar.) https://larryhogue.substack.com/p/embracing-my-inner-luddite
Thanks, Larry! I consider myself a Luddite and look forward to reading your piece.
This is excellent - thanks so much. I’m so glad that there are others who can’t see the logic of this green revolution in its present form, which seems only designed to make corporations more money and destroy the earth on slightly different ways.
I can't even bring myself to read this thoroughly because I know, and it pains me to my very core. How do we convince individuals that this is not actually in their best interest? That's what needs to happen and I find that it often falls on deaf ears.
I should add that I was working in the desert for a few summers before this really started snowballing, so it's an issue very close to my heart.
I ♥️ the desert too and set up this website of my photography to highlight the beauty there: https://wildflowersofjoshuatreecountry.com/
Yes, but regular people can change like I did, see my comment below.
Check out any of the works of the celebrated artist and writer William Morris, a truly prophetic voice, and arguably the world's first revolutionary ecosocialist. Maybe start with his lyrical essay, "Under an Elm Tree" (https://www.marxists.org/archive/morris/works/1889/commonweal/07-elm-tree.htm ).
Morris's insights are evergreen. For example, he broadly defined "waste", which he regarded as the quintessential characteristic of capitalism, as that state of affairs in which, paraphrasing, "some have more than they could ever use, while others have not enough to satisfy the minimum to sustain a dignified life".
Also, there's the "second product" of human labor, which socialist thinkers like Michael Lebowitz have insisted was of paramount importance to Marx's humanistic vision. In short, all work simultaneously produces tangible goods and services, while also changing and molding the very human beings performing that work. So it follows that, in organizing that work, a society has to consider out of what kinds of human beings it wants to constitute itself. (https://links.org.au/michael-lebowitz-if-you-dont-understand-second-product-you-understand-nothing-about-marxs-capital )
Thanks, Guy! I'm sure there's more talk about these topics in Socialist circles than I'm aware of, so I appreciate the sources.
By the way, yes, a reduction in TOTAL consumption is imperative, even if only because there are no realistic prospects for miraculously converting to "green energy" on a scale that could replace certain uses of fossil fuels, eg, for conventional aviation. Bring back hot air balloons. But focusing on total consumption is not helpful in a world where we rightly understand "waste" in the way William Morris did. Rather, a few people need to consume vastly less, but a vastly larger number need to be able to consume more! That is why waste and inequality are inseparable, and therefore ecology and economy are, too. Or, to quote from another excellent essay by Nobel winning economist Thomas Piketty, "the compression of social inequalities at all levels" is indispensable. (https://www.lemonde.fr/blog/piketty/2019/06/11/the-illusion-of-centrist-ecology/ )
Whereas, if we (those of us who side with people and planet over profit) headline our rhetoric with austerity slogans, all we are doing is playing right into the hands of pseudopopulist fascism, which we already see playing out around the world.
Love this! Wish I had written it myself ;)
Thanks so much, Amy! I admire your work a lot so that's a very meaningful compliment to me.
Aww, the mutual admiration society on substack is a delight!
It's so nice, isn't it? So different than social media.
It says it all Kollibri! Spot on!
Thanks, Nikos!
Btw, I'm *finally* launching my new podcast next week and you're in line to be episode #3.
I agree with you one hundred percent. But it wasn’t that long ago that I was all in for a green energy transition with a ‘humans first’ personal philosophy. Then I turned off the mainstream news, started reading indigenous writers, shut my mouth, listened carefully to nature, began to think and reflect, and five years later I’m a totally different person than I was. My own journey makes me hopeful that others like me can also learn to shut up and listen and learn from people like you. Thank you.
I can relate, I'm less than a year into my new way of viewing these matters, and seeing this for what it really is, not what it's marketed as. Though I've suspected for years that something was definitely off, I felt I was the only one who felt that way.
The most important dynamic in the energy sector is under no circumstances allow a nationwide grid. Individual and community power generation, in other words micro grid is the obvious solution. Being more energy, conscious therefore lowering the demand, and using a fraction of the resources.
The paradigm you are speaking of is “industrial complex. We cannot replace one industrial complex with another. That is the solution of politicians and corporate stakeholders. Not an environmentally friendly possibility.
For instance, replacing fossil fuel combustion vehicles with electric vehicles. It’s not a statistically significant dynamic. What is needed in North America is a nationwide, high-speed rail, smartly, integrated with local white rail all powered by renewals. Removing 800 million of the almost 900,000,000 domestic flights, and 3/4 of the vehicles on the road.
Great write up, thank you. It's great that folks are finally starting to "get" climate change (I use that term loosely, hence the quotes), but the fact that climate change is but ONE symptom of ecological overshoot has gotten completely missed in the noise. We can't allow that to continue.
There’s a caveat. If we don’t address, climate change, none of the work needed in the bio regional Eco habitat restoration project on a global basis will be worth worth doing. It won’t survive.
We need solutions everyone. The problems are easy to see. Think bigger.
Excellent, we need more people standing up for nature and advocating a move towards using less energy. I've been impressed by how many essays sharing a similar point of view I've seen on Substack in the past couple of weeks. Hopefully a sign that more people are beginning to see sense.
Agreed. Sustainability is not sustainable.
Learned a new word from Zerzan's Anarchy Radio from 6/25/24: "solastalgia" - "a form of emotional or existential distress caused by environmental change". That's one word for it...