Collapse

316 readers

31 users here now

This is the place for discussing the potential collapse of modern civilization and the environment.

Collapse, in this context, refers to the significant loss of an established level or complexity towards a much simpler state. It can occur differently within many areas, orderly or chaotically, and be willing or unwilling. It does not necessarily imply human extinction or a singular, global event. Although, the longer the duration, the more it resembles a ‘decline’ instead of collapse.

RULES

1 - Remember the human

2 - Link posts should come from a reputable source

3 - All opinions are allowed but discussion must be in good faith.

4 - No low effort, high volume and low relevance posts.

Related lemmys:

founded 5 months ago

MODERATORS

eleitl@lemm.ee

maketotaldestr0i@lemm.ee

eris@lemm.ee

This Is How Oil Ends | Art Berman (www.artberman.com)

submitted 1 month ago by eleitl@lemm.ee to c/collapse@lemm.ee

2 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] 31337@sh.itjust.works 2 points 1 month ago (1 children)

This was hard for me to follow. I think it's targeted toward people steeped in "peak oil" discourse.

His first assumption seems to be that economic growth is primarily caused by fossil fuel consumption (which probably is largely the case for the last couple hundred years or so).

He postulates, based on data trends, we are nearing worldwide "peak oil demand," which will cause worldwide economic stagnation for the foreseeable future. This thinking is kinda of the reverse of how I normally think of it (economic growth drives oil demand), but I suppose it's valid if fossil fuels are consistently too expensive to extract more of (lowering demand).

My takeaway: without growth, capitalism becomes a zero-sum game and cannot function "properly," so this peak-oil-demand will result in world-wide economic collapse or probably something slower (a crumbling?).

However, his analysis states as a fact that renewables aren't as "productive" as fossil fuels, so won't be able to cause future growth, or at least growth at the same pace as the last couple hundred years. I'm not sure I agree with that because I've seen charts that show the levelized cost of renewable electricity production to actually be significantly lower than that of fossil fuels.

[–] eleitl@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago

You might find related https://ourfiniteworld.com/2024/10/14/oil-shortages-lead-to-hidden-conflicts-even-war/ to be also of interest. For another view angle check out the surplus energy economy blog.

The problem with current fossil is that it is no longer cheap even if it wasn't peaking while also cooking us in the process.

The problem with current renewables is that they need fossil or battery backup to be dispatchable which makes the aggregate even more expensive than current fossil. Worse, they are not autopoietic (self sustaining) so only extendeders or boosters of fossils.