Book Review: Energy—Overdevelopment and the Delusion of Endless Growth

Energy—Overdevelopment and the Delusion of Endless Growth, Edited by Tom Butler and George Wuerthner, published by the Foundation for Deep Ecology, the Postcarbon Institute and Watershed Media, 2012.

This is no doubt the heaviest book I've ever read, and I mean that literally.   The 275 page book measures about 12 x 15 inches.  It is full of dramatic photographs showing both the beauty of nature and the devastation caused by industry, especially fossil fuels.  I like the sentiments—e.g. "beauty is that which is life affirming.  And I appreciate the wealth of information—e.g. I learned that oil shale is not the same as shale oil.

I can't quite agree with much of the text, but I value the book's point of view.  Clearly the authors are part of the struggle to solve our global environmental problems, and have assembled an impressive array of commentators with varying perspectives.  I don't usually spend this much time reading a book with which I have so many disagreements, but I felt that I needed to understand these arguments, or I wouldn't be able to defend solar power and electric cars effectively as an important part of the solution to global warming.

I certainly agree with the authors that we have to learn how to live without fossil fuels.  And I agree that conservation and environmentally sensitive renewable energy is the best way forward.  I differ on three points that come up repeatedly in the book:

            1.  Peak oil is going to force us to consume less oil, and will have major economic impacts.

            2.  Wind and solar pose as many problems as they solve.

            3.  We have to create a new economic system to solve our environmental problems—i.e. one that is not based on growth.

           

To be fair, the book, which is a collection of essays, has various differing perspectives—e.g. Amory Lovins promotes a vision of a very comfortable standard of living based on clean energy.  But most writers adhere to the three arguments above. 

1.  Regarding peak oil and economic impacts, I argue, with Bill McKibben from 350.org, that we have so much fossil fuel in the ground that we cannot burn it without causing catastrophic climate change.  Therefore peak oil is not the problem—we have to leave the coal in the hole, the oil in the soil, and the gas under the grass.  So, while the book argues,  "whether peak oil has occurred, is imminent, or remains years or decades off makes little difference...the era of inexpensive oil is closing." (p 25), I would argue, along with climate science, that it makes a lot of difference when we stop burning oil, and we have to do so well before "decades" or we will be committing planetary suicide.  Since we have to stop using fossil fuels whether we are at the peak or not, the peak oil issue is moot.

The peak oil line of argument also predicts economic crisis.  Most dramatically, John Michael Greer predicts that the " decline of world's oil reserves . . . Will most likely lead to something like the technology and society it had before the industrial revolution began." (p 89)  I argue that electric cars and solar power can sustain a comfortable lifestyle; we don't have to go back to the 18th Century. 

Lisa Krall suggests, "Perhaps poverty is growing exponentially." (p 273) even though the dramatic decline in poverty in China over the past three decades has meant that poverty is actually decreasing worldwide.  Too much doom and gloom is not helpful to our movement to get off fossil fuels.

The editors argue that the age of abundance is nearly over, and that  "Confronting the population problem is the preeminent challenge of our time." (p 21)  I agree that overpopulation is not sustainable, but the numbers show that population levels off in urbanized societies, and wherever women are educated.  The climate crisis is the preeminent challenge of our time, not population.

2.  I have disagreements with the way the book presents the case for renewable energy.

My strongest reactions come when various writers equate the problems of renewable energy with the problems of fossil fuels.  For example, in the introduction Richard Heinberg decries, "a landscape disfigured by a coal mine or drill pads or giant industrial windmills".  Similarly, David Murphy is critical of efforts to "search for oil under the arctic ice cap and coat the deserts with solar panels" (p 93).  And below is a photo from the book that is captioned "visual blight".  Personally, I usually find windmills to be rather attractive when I see them along the roadside.  Is this visual issue really a problem that compares to the destruction of civilization by fossil fuels?

A stronger argument against renewable energy is the question about whether it can really replace fossil fuels.  E.g. the editors assert,  "the conversion of coal to electricity is over two times more efficient than solar panels." (p 121).  This point is used by those who argue that the Energy Returned on Energy Invested (EROEI) is getting lower and lower as cheap fossil fuels run out, and that renewables are not viable.  However, the EROEI for solar panels is around 9:1 (there is some debate about this on the internet, but that looks like a reasonable number to me).  Therefore, it is a good investment, especially over the lifetime of the solar panels.  Whether coal is more energy intensive is irrelevant, since burning coal is destroying the climate.

And finally, the argument against renewables is, "Emerging technologies fail in one or more of the crucial categories in which fossil fuels excel--energy density, accessibility, transportability, storability, and sheer abundance." (p 135).  My thought on that is that solar power has energy density (see EROEI), accessibility (nearly any rooftop), transportability (the grid), and abundance (except in December at higher latitudes).  This leaves storability, which is an important issue.  Fortunately wind and sun complement each other—it's windy at night.  And hydro and geothermal power can provide energy in the early morning or early evening.  This still leaves a problem for the dark times of the year.  I agree that storage—possibly all of our car batteries—needs to be improved.  Perhaps in December we could burn biomass or biofuel or even natural gas with carbon capture and sequestration (CCS) to generate electricity.  True, we don't have all the solutions, but the answers are not that far from current technology.

The summary of the book states, "We hear from the techno-optimists that, with the right mix of innovative energy generation and efficiency technologies, we can run a growth economy on wind, solar, hydropower, and biofuels. (p 257)  The authors are skeptical because such a transition would "require a phenomenal re-tooling of our energy and transportation infrastructure."  But as Bill Nye, the Climate Guy, says, "Let's get 'er done!"

 I argue that renewables, combined with conservation and improved efficiency can replace fossil fuels if we, as a world civilization, devote our resources to that end.  Regarding conservation, I agree with  Juan Pablo Orrego's comment that it is "Amazing how superfluously and frivolously electricity is utilized." (p 157)

3.  The third line of argumentation where I have a problem is the viewpoint that an economy based on perpetual growth cannot be ecologically sustainable. Philip Cafaro asks, "Can an economy really be "robust" [that is, rapidly growing], without causing environmental harm?  The evidence suggests not." (p 253)

A weakness of the book is that the discussion of economics is way too vague or inadequate.  References to "A development model that demands economic growth" (p 8.) should be explicit.  I believe the writers are saying that capitalism is incompatible with ecological sustainability.  If so, they should say that and offer an alternative.

One writer who does focus on the economy is Lester Brown.  He points out the failure of markets to protect earth's natural aspects.  He argues that indirect costs from gasoline "now total some $12 per gallon" . . . "but the market tells us it is cheap." (p 58)

Besides being generally weak on economics, the text is weak on history.  The 20th Century is full of revolutions and reforms against the excesses of capitalism.

• The progressive era in the U.S. with the income tax, civil service, health and safety codes
• The Russian revolution with a complete takeover of all private property
• The New Deal with social security, unemployment insurance, tax rates of 90% on the rich, the WPA; unionization of major industries
• Revolutions in China, Vietnam, Cuba and elsewhere similar to the Russian revolution
• Social democratic programs in most capitalist countries such as free health care, a welfare safety net;
• Environmental regulations for air and water quality, banning lead in gasoline and paint, banning chlorofluorocarbons, cleaning up toxic sites, requiring catalytic converters in cars, California's global warming act, etc... 

If the writers are indeed against capitalism, they need to build on this history and say what they see as the lessons of all these struggles.  What has worked, and what has not?

Because the writers are not explicit, it is also possible that they are not really anti-capitalism.  Certainly Amory Lovins, author of Reinventing Fire: Bold Business Solutions for the New Energy Era, is not. Lovins points out that "California held per capita use of electricity flat for three decades while real income per capita grew by four-fifths" (p 232), certainly within a capitalist framework.  Also within a capitalist framework, Sheila Bowers and Bill Powers write in favor of distributed (local, decentralized) energy production, mostly solar panels. The book's very brief discussion of "What We're For" lists seven topics:  Energy Literacy, Conservation, Resilience, Eco-Localism, Beauty, Biodiversity, and Family Planning.   The text shies away from details, and none of these lay out a clear political-economic strategy.  

The sharpest political analysis in the book comes from Bill McKibben who proposes three steps to fight global warming:

            1.  Focus on global warming (not green jobs, not energy independence)

            2.  Demand a stiff price on carbon that is returned directly to American pockets.

            3.  Build a movement.

This is clear.  This is explicit.  We don't need to be anti-capitalist—we need to be anti-carbon.

I wished the other contributors in the book were so clear. 

Philip Cafaro argues that climate change is not the only area where humanity is pushing up against global ecological limits. (p 253).  This is a point well taken, but climate change is the one area that threatens us all right now.  If we solve climate change we can also deal with water conservation, resource depletion, air quality, etc.  If we don't solve climate change, everything else is moot, because we will destroy ourselves.

I think the question of whether capitalism can be made to become ecologically sustainable is an important one.  Right now, however, our work is very clear—we have to get off of fossil fuels if we want to survive.

That's a relief!

We have four more years with a president who understands that climate disruption is a serious threat.  And we have four more years with a president who understands that electric vehicles and renewable energy are important ways to address this problem.

That's a relief!

But we still have a Senate where it takes 60% to get anything passed since the Republicans shamelessly use the filibuster to block even the most modest legislation.  And we have a House of Representatives that is still controlled by tea-party influenced Republicans who are totally under the sway of big oil, gas, and coal.  (I couldn't help but notice the irony when I heard the announcer say "CNN's election night is brought to you by clean coal" and other fossil fuel advertisers.)

So the chances of getting any new national legislation passed is dim.  However, state and local legislation are very possible.  And with more Sandys, droughts, and increasing extreme weather certain in the next two years, perhaps we can elect a new Congress in 2014 that "gets it". 

A great post-election action is to attend Bill McKibben's "Do the Math" speaking tour around the U.S. throughout the month of November.  See 350.org for locations and schedule.

For those in the San Francisco Bay Area, please attend one of Bill McKibben's talks on November 9 and 10.  See 350 Bay Area for details and join us for ongoing actions!

More Action ----> Less Hot Air

Book reviews

Book Reviews for New Year Reading

Here are some reviews of books that I highly recommend for grappling with climate change, oil, coal, solar, electric vehicles and political action.  Thank goodness for libraries! I have organized the reviews into four categories, although there is some overlap:

1.  Science of Global Warming

2.  Climate Chaos--what’s happening and what’s in our future

3.  Politics of Climate Change

4.  Strategies for Making Changes

1.  Regarding Science, James Hansen is the leading climate scientist in the U.S.  He warned Congress that global warming was already detectable in 1988.  His latest book, Storms of our Grandchildren, explains why CO2 and other greenhouse gasses are the only viable explanation for the increasing global temperatures.  Sunspots, eccentricity of the earth’s orbit, and other theories are dealt with scientifically and thoroughly.  Arm yourself with this book.

2.  This is the scary part--Climate Chaos.  These books tell of the terrifying situation we are in.  It’s like we’re on the Titanic at the stage where the life boats weren’t getting filled because people couldn’t believe the ship was going to sink.  Actually, all of these authors also discuss what we need to do to get off of fossil fuels, but I think these books are strongest on the consequences of failing to do so.

            I previously reviewed Joseph Romm’s book Straight Up, a collection of posts from his excellent blog, www.climateprogress.org.  For my review see:  http://solarpowerelectriccars.blogspot.com/2011/06/straight-up-by-joseph-rommbook-review.html  I heartily recommend following Romm’s blog for the latest information on global warming.

            Six Degrees, by Mark Lynus.  This book takes the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) estimate that temperatures will increase from 1 - 6 degrees Celsius over the next century, and looks at what will happen under each of these scenarios.  Given that we are now at 1 degree, and climate is already out of whack, all of the scenarios are very frightening. 

Two degrees as an upper limit on temperature increase now seems out of reach given the inaction of the past two decades since climate change became scientifically understood.  Still, with two degrees droughts, floods, storms, crop failures and heat waves will be much worse than today. 

Three degrees tips us into the realm of likely positive feedbacks (where melting tundra, for example, emits more methane, which stimulates more melting, . . .)  And all of the effects that come with two degrees become much worse.

Four degrees makes it pretty certain that Greenland, if not major portions of Antarctica will melt, meaning that most of humanity will have to relocate from inundated coastal areas. 

Five degrees and six degrees become so extreme that civilization itself is threatened. 

            Hot, Living on Earth for the Next 50 Years, by Mark Hertsgaard.  I reviewed this book previously; please see:  http://solarpowerelectriccars.blogspot.com/2011/03/book-review-hot-living-through-next.html  Here are some of the likely catastrophes the book points out that we face by 2050:

·         Results of a possible three feet of sea level rise:

o   Shanghai--”one third of the city underwater.”

o   Bangladesh—“20 percent of Bangladesh underwater and 30 million refugees”

o   New York--the probability of extra large floods will increase from 1 in 100 to 1 in 20 annually

o   Worldwide--”$3 trillion in assets are located at or below three feet above sea level”

·         Four more Category 4 and 5 hurricanes each year (currently 13 worldwide per year).

·         “Record drought will become the norm across the western third of North America”

·         Andean glaciers will disappear by 2030; 40% of Himalayan glaciers will disappear by 2050

·         98% of the world’s coral will be gone by 2050

Eaarth, by Bill McKibben.  Bill is the leading climate change activist in the U.S.  Founder of 350.org and organizer of the Keystone XL Pipeline demonstrations at the White House (see:  http://solarpowerelectriccars.blogspot.com/2011/11/report-from-washington-tar-sands.html for my description of this event, including a photo of Bill speaking). His book spells Eaarth differently because the old earth that we knew and loved “is gone” and has been transformed into a rapidly changing and uncertain new world with a volatile new climate.  Here are some points from the book:

·         “In Glacier Park, only 25 of the 150 glaciers that were there in 1850, still exist, and all of them are shrinking rapidly.” (p 43)

·         “The new planet is inherently more expensive than the old one.  The wind blows harder; more rain falls; the sea rises.”

·         “A two foot rise in sea level ‘would make life in South Florida very difficult for everyone.’” (p 64)

·         He quotes Swiss Re, the world’s biggest insurance company, “parts of developed countries would experience developing nation conditions for prolonged periods as a result of natural catastrophes” (p 67)

·         “Global warming is a negotiation between human beings on the one hand and physics and chemistry on the other.  Which is a tough negotiation, because physics and chemistry don’t compromise.  They’ve already laid out their nonnegotiable bottome line:  above 350 ppm the planet doesn’t work.” (p 81)

·         “The next decade will see huge increases in renewable power; we’ll adopt electric cars far faster than most analysts imagine.  Windmills will sprout across the prairies.  It will be exciting. . .But it’s not going to happen fast enough to ward of enormous change.” (p 52)

·         “We need to build a movement more powerful than the energy industry.” (p 56)

·         “By midcentury. . . as many as 700 million of the worlds’ 9 billion people will be climate change refugees.”

But Bill is fighting the good fight to save us from ourselves.  See his book Fight Global Warming Now, below.



Add caption



Tropic of Chaos, by Christian Parenti.  This is a terrifying book.  It combines economic insight along with climate change, and the picture that emerges is one of failed states with banditry, piracy, terrorism, and desperate surges of refugees.  These violently unstable states are unable to compete in the global economy and are battered by crop failures, storms, droughts, and climate chaos.  Meanwhile the developed countries become obsessed with border security--fencing, helicopters, drones, dogs, klieg lights, motion sensors, detention facilities, etc.--to keep out 700 million climate refugees.  Not a pretty picture. 

      One important point is that Parenti recognizes that stopping climate change does not require overturning the world’s economic system.  He points out that it's not a technical problem; we have  the tools—renewable energy, conservation, electric cars, etc.  He argues that it's not even an economic problem--corporations have huge cash reserves that could go to solving the problem.  The problem is the political power of the fossil fuel industry.  From 1998-2008 Exxon spent $23 million to deny climate change.  From 2005-2008 the Koch brothers spent $24.9 million to deny climate science.  While critical of neoliberal economics, he argues, "If we put aside capitalism's limits and deal only with greenhouse gas emissions, the problem looks less duanting." (p 242)  "Either capitalism solves the crisis, or it destroys civilization." 

     

           

3. Politics is the greatest obstacle we face to stopping global warming.  As Bill McKibben said in a speech in Oakland earlier this year, “The scientists have done their job,” i.e. explaining the facts about global warming and that it is caused by fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases.  And “The engineers have done their job,” coming up with solar power, wind turbines, electric cars, and all of the technology necessary to provide clean, green energy.  The problem boils down to politics.  Here are four books that help clarify this:

Big Coal, by Jeff Goodall, Houghton Mifflin, 2006.  This is a very well written and dramatic account of the coal industry--its history and evolution in concert with utility companies.  He tprovides personal accounts ranging from miners deep underground, to mountaintop removal, to immense mining operations in Wyoming.  He shows how coal produces ¼ of the CO2 in the U.S.  He also travels to China to document the destruction caused by coal burning there, although he does point out that China still consumes less than ½ the amount of coal per capita that the U.S. does.  But their power plants are dirtier, and there are a lot more people in China, so that is a big problem.

Crude World, by Peter Maas, Alfred Knopf, 2009.  This book shows that more often than not oil has proven to be curse for the countries where it is found.  He travels to Nigeria where environmental damage is rampant, to Guinea where the oil money lines the pockets of its rulers and the people are destitute, to Iraq where the destruction of the country is apparent for all to see.  One important fact is that Exxon is not in the top ten of those who control the world’s petroleum reserves (top four are Saudi Arabia, Russia, Venezuela, and Iran, in that order).  He also tells how 80% of the former Soviet Union’s hard currency came from oil.  The drop in oil price from $30/barrel in 1985 to $12/barrel in 1986 “doomed the dysfunctional corpus that was the Soviet economy.”  Overall I came away with the impression that the world today is controlled by a ruthless quest for oil where we are all the losers.

Tyranny of Oil, by Antonia Juhasz, This book has lots of history of the oil industry, written in the spirit of Ida Tarbell, the muckraker who helped break the Standard Oil monopoly 100 years ago.  Unfortunately, I can’t find my notes on the book right now, so all I can say is that it is well written and I enjoyed reading it.  Make no mistake, oil companies are a powerful and ruthless opponent, and they will not quietly concede that fossil fuels are destroying the planet, and that they need to find other ways to earn a living.

4.  The fun part is Making Changes.  Here are some books with ideas about how to do this:

Fight Global Warming Now, by Bill McKibben, 2007.  This book describes McKibben’s vision of a creative, loving but insistent movement full of art, music, laughter, and positive energy.  It also has a comprehensive list of links to organizations doing climate change work.

Profit from the Peak, by Brian Hickes and Chris Nelder, 2008.  I was interested to see if this book’s predictions about peak oil would hold true.  In some ways they are right on the mark--i.e. oil prices have spiked since 2007 when it was written; also, I understand that many more new oil well drills come up dry than in the past and that new discoveries are not able to keep up with current demand.  On the other hand, world production has risen from 65.7 million barrels of oil per day in 2006 to 87.5 million barrels per day in 2010 (per wikipedia), so it is possible that we are still not at the peak.  The book argues that tar sands will never be a viable source of oil since the energy return on investment is only about 5:1--much less than the 17:1 ratio for most crude oil supplies today, although better than the heavily subsidized corn ethanol ratio of 1.2:1.  It also argues that the amount of natural gas needed to burn the tar sands to make them into oil is excessive and unrealistic.  However, with $90+ per barrel oil prices, today it seems that tar sands exploitation is profitable (ignoring all the polluted lakes and clear cut forests).  The book explores alternative technologies such as geothermal, biofuels, solar, and wind and takes global warming seriously.  The book points toward companies that are providing alternatives to oil, coal, and natural gas; I found it quite informative in many ways.

Solar Revolution, by Travis Bradford, 2006.  This book convinced me to add solar panels to our house.  It also gives me hope for the future.  The key point is that solar prices are dropping every year, and are already below the peak prices for fossil fuels. In other words, at least in California, if you are paying more than the baseline for your electricity, you can already save money by installing solar panels.  Since that includes most people, I’m not sure why nearly everyone isn’t doing it—right now!  Anyway, Travis is a brilliant economist, masterful with numbers, and has a broad uplifting vision of the industry and the future.  I strongly recommend the book.

Plug-in Hybrids, by Sherry Boschert, 2006.  I picked this up shortly before we bought our Chevy Volt, and found it to be a very fun read.  It talks about people like Felix Kramer and Ron Gremban from http://www.calcars.org/, who have led the movement to transform the U.S. auto industry.  She points out that many conservatives, such as former CIA director R.James Woolsey favor electric cars in order to get the U.S. off of oil imports.  She chides the major environmental groups for being slow to support electric vehicles (although the Sierra Club is on-board now with it’s http://sierraclub.org/electric-vehicles/news.aspx Go Electric project).  And, like me, she cheers for the film “Who Killed the Electric Car”.  





Of course reading books is fun, but making changes is even more fun.  So let's do this--we can get off of fossil fuels and onto clean energy and electric vehicles!

Scary USA Today editorial

USAToday gave me a Halloween scare with their editorial:  Say yes to building the Keystone oil pipeline. 

Then I noticed that the USA Today editorial was written by James Taylor, who fits the description of what Joe Romm calls "climate zombies".  Taylor edits the Heartland Institute's Environment and Climate News publication.  Nature magazine, one of the stalwart defenders of climate science, says that the Heartland Institute is "happy muddying the waters" when it comes to global warming (see SourceWatch for more details).  And then I remembered that the mainstream media is controlled by Big Oil, so, what could I expect?

Actually, to be fair to USA Today, they did allow Bill McKibbin to write a rebuttal.  (See McKibben's article here.)  But this still reflects an irrational "balance" by USA Today.  Would they give equal weight to articles that uphold the flat earth theory?  How about the talking snake story of creation?  Climate change denial is nonsense and should not be given equal weight to those trying to solve the problem.

Nonetheless, since the article is out there, it's worth considering Taylor's points. 

• Spills:  I'm not in a position to know whether he is right when he says that the environmental dangers of oil spills from the pipeline are "overblown".  The disastrous impacts of mining the tar sands on the environment in Canada, however, are well known.  The point is that we should not be part of promotoing this environmental destruction.
• Energy Security:  His major point is that Canada is one of the United States' "closest and most reliable allies," and that not building the pipeline would "undermine U.S. energy security."  McKibben responds that the pipeline oil is planned for export--i.e. it won't even help the energy security of the U.S.  Taylor denies that point, but he does admit that there is no guarantee that the oil will be used in the U.S.  Taylor goes on to add, in a condescending tone,

  "In a different world, we might be siding with the protesters. In that world, Canada wouldn't mine its tar sands, the U.S. wouldn't import tar sands oil, refineries here wouldn't process it and U.S. consumers wouldn't use it. Instead, everyone would drive electric cars and trucks powered by sun and wind and other renewable energy."

  But that is just the point.  He and his allies are blocking this very solution.  With a proper price on fossil fuels, we could make the shift to renewable energy and solar power in a short time.  There is no need for the pipeline or mining the tar sands, and most importantly, we have to stop global warming.
• They'll Mine the Sands Anyway:  He argues that the Canadians will simply route the tar sands oil to the west coast and sell it to China.  This sounds like telling the highway patrol, "But officer other people were speeding too."  Or telling your parents, "All  the other kids are doing it", even though you know it's wrong.  If we are going to save civilization, we can't mine the tar sands.  It's that simple. 

So, I'm planning to be part of the demonstration November 6 at the White House demanding that President Obama NOT approve the Keystone XL pipeline (See Tar Sands Action to join up).  And in addition, I subscribe to Joe Romm's cure for the climate zombies:

"In summary, a zombie outbreak is likely to lead to the collapse of civilization, unless it is dealt with quickly. While aggressive quarantine may contain the epidemic, or a cure may lead to coexistence of humans and zombies, the most effective way to contain the rise of the undead is to blog hard and blog often. As seen in the movies, it is imperative that zombies are dealt with quickly, or else we are all in a great deal of trouble."

Happy Halloween!