Results 1 to 9 of 9

Thread: Scientists Warn the UN of Capitalism's Imminent Demise

  1. #1
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    13,993
    Thanks
    61,911
    Thanked 58,134 Times in 13,982 Posts

    Scientists Warn the UN of Capitalism's Imminent Demise

    Source: Motherboard


    A climate change-fueled switch away from fossil fuels means the worldwide economy will fundamentally need to change.




    Capitalism as we know it is over. So suggests a new report commissioned by a group of scientists appointed by the UN Secretary-General. The main reason? We’re transitioning rapidly to a radically different global economy, due to our increasingly unsustainable exploitation of the planet’s environmental resources.

    Climate change and species extinctions are accelerating even as societies are experiencing rising inequality, unemployment, slow economic growth, rising debt levels, and impotent governments. Contrary to the way policymakers usually think about these problems, the new report says that these are not really separate crises at all.

    Rather, these crises are part of the same fundamental transition to a new era characterized by inefficient fossil fuel production and the escalating costs of climate change. Conventional capitalist economic thinking can no longer explain, predict, or solve the workings of the global economy in this new age, the paper says.



    Energy shift

    Those are the stark implications of a new scientific background paper prepared by a team of Finnish biophysicists. The team from the BIOS Research Unit in Finland were asked to provide research that would feed into the drafting of the UN Global Sustainable Development Report (GSDR), which will be released in 2019.

    For the “first time in human history,” the paper says, capitalist economies are “shifting to energy sources that are less energy efficient.” This applies to all forms of energy. Producing usable energy (“exergy”) to keep powering “both basic and non-basic human activities” in industrial civilisation “will require more, not less, effort.”

    The amount of energy we can extract, compared to the energy we are using to extract it, is decreasing “across the spectrum—unconventional oils, nuclear and renewables return less energy in generation than conventional oils, whose production has peaked—and societies need to abandon fossil fuels because of their impact on the climate,” the paper states.

    The shift to renewables might help solve the climate challenge, but for the foreseeable future will not generate the same levels of energy as cheap, conventional oil.

    In the meantime, our hunger for energy is driving what the paper refers to as “sink costs.” The greater our energy and material use, the more waste we generate, and so the greater the environmental costs. Though they can be ignored for a while, eventually those environmental costs translate directly into economic costs as it becomes more difficult to ignore their impacts on our societies.

    And the biggest “sink cost,” of course, is climate change:

    “Sink costs are also rising; economies have used up the capacity of planetary ecosystems to handle the waste generated by energy and material use. Climate change is the most pronounced sink cost,” the paper states.

    The paper’s lead author, Dr. Paavo Järvensivu, is a “biophysical economist”—an emerging type of economist exploring the role of energy and materials in fuelling economic activity.

    The BIOS paper suggests that much of the political and economic volatility we have seen in recent years has a root cause in ecological crisis. As the ecological and economic costs of industrial overconsumption continue to rise, the constant economic growth we have become accustomed to is now in jeopardy. That, in turn, has exerted massive strain on our politics.

    But the underlying issues are still unacknowledged and unrecognised by most policymakers.

    “We live in an era of turmoil and profound change in the energetic and material underpinnings of economies. The era of cheap energy is coming to an end,” the paper says.

    Conventional economic models, the Finnish scientists note, “almost completely disregard the energetic and material dimensions of the economy.”

    “More expensive energy doesn’t necessarily lead to economic collapse,” Järvensivu told me. “Of course, people won’t have the same consumption opportunities, there’s not enough cheap energy available for that, but they are not automatically led to unemployment and misery either.”

    The scientists refer to the pioneering work of systems ecologist Professor Charles Hall of the State University of New York with economist Professor Kent Klitgaard from Wells College. Earlier this year, Hall and Klitgaard released an updated edition of their seminal book, Energy and the Wealth of Nations: An Introduction to BioPhysical Economics.

    Hall and Klitgaard are highly critical of mainstream capitalist economic theory, which they say has become divorced from some of the most fundamental principles of science. They refer to the concept of ‘Energy Return on Investment’ (EROI) as a key indicator of the shift into a new age of difficult energy. EROI is a simple ratio that measures how much energy we use to extract more energy.

    “For the last century, all we had to do was to pump more and more oil out of the ground,” say Hall and Klitgaard. Decades ago, fossil fuels had very high EROI values—a little bit of energy allowed us to extract large amounts of oil, gas and coal.

    But as I’ve previously reported for Motherboard, this is no longer the case. Now we’re using more and more energy to extract smaller quantities of fossil fuels. Which means higher production costs to produce what we need to keep the economy rolling. The stuff is still there in the ground—billions of barrels worth to be sure, easily enough to fry the climate several times over.

    But it’s harder and more expensive to get out. And the environmental costs of doing so are rising dramatically, as we’ve caught a glimpse of with this summer’s global heatwave.

    These costs are not recognised by capitalist markets. They literally cannot be seen by prevailing economic models.

    Earlier in August, billionaire investor Jeremy Grantham—who has a track record of consistently calling financial bubbles—released an update to his April 2013 analysis, ‘The Race of Our Lives.’

    The new paper, ‘The Race of Our Lives Revisited,’ provides a bruising indictment of contemporary capitalism’s complicity in the ecological crisis. Grantham’s verdict is that “capitalism and mainstream economics simply cannot deal with these problems,” namely, the systematic depletion of planetary ecosystems and environmental resources:

    “The replacement cost of the copper, phosphate, oil, and soil—and so on—that we use is not even considered. If it were, it’s likely that the last 10 or 20 years (for the developed world, anyway) has seen no true profit at all, no increase in income, but the reverse,” he wrote.

    Efforts to account for these so-called ‘externalities’ by calculating their actual costs have been well-meaning, but have had negligible impact on the actual operation of capitalist markets.

    In short, according to Grantham, “we face a form of capitalism that has hardened its focus to short-term profit maximization with little or no apparent interest in social good.”

    Yet for all his prescience and critical insights, Grantham misses the most fundamental factor in the great unravelling in which we now find ourselves: the transition to a low EROI future in which we simply cannot extract the same levels of energy and material surplus that we did decades ago.

    Many experts believe we’re moving past capitalism, but they disagree on what the ultimate outcome will be. In his book Postcapitalism: A Guide to Our Future, British economics journalist Paul Mason theorises that information technology is paving the way for the emancipation of labour by reducing the costs of knowledge production—and potentially other kinds of production that will be transformed by AI, blockchain, and so on—to zero. Thus, he says, will emerge a utopian ‘postcapitalist’ age of mass abundance, beyond the price system and rules of capitalism.

    It sounds peachy, but Mason completely ignores the colossal, exponentially increasing physical infrastructure for the ‘internet-of-things.’ His digital uprising is projected to consume evermore vast quantities of energy (as much as one-fifth of global electricity by 2025), producing 14 percent of global carbon emissions by 2040.



    Toward a new economic operating system

    Most observers, then, have no idea of the biophysical realities pointed out in the background paper commissioned by the UN Secretary-General’s IGS—that the driving force of the transition to postcapitalism is the decline of what made ‘endless growth capitalism’ possible in the first place: abundant, cheap energy.

    The UN’s Global Sustainable Development Report is being drafted by an independent group of scientists (IGS) appointed by the UN Secretary-General. The IGS is supported by a range of UN agencies including the UN Secretariat, the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, the UN Environment Programme, the UN Development Programme, the UN Conference on Trade and Development and the World Bank.

    The paper, co-authored by Dr Järvensivu with the rest of the BIOS team, was commissioned by the UN’s IGS specifically to feed into the chapter on ‘Transformation: the Economy.’ Invited background documents are used as the basis of the GSDR, but what ends up in the final report will not be known until the final report is released next year.

    Overall, the paper claims that we have moved into a new, unpredictable and unprecedented space in which the conventional economic toolbox has no answers. As slow economic growth simmers along, central banks have resorted to negative interest rates and buying up huge quantities of public debt to keep our economies rolling. But what happens after these measures are exhausted? Governments and bankers are running out of options.

    “It can be safely said that no widely applicable economic models have been developed specifically for the upcoming era,” write the Finnish scientists.

    Having identified the gap, they lay out the opportunities for transition.

    In this low EROI future, we simply have to accept the hard fact that we will not be able to sustain current levels of economic growth. “Meeting current or growing levels of energy need in the next few decades with low-carbon solutions will be extremely difficult, if not impossible,” the paper finds. The economic transition must involve efforts “to lower total energy use.”

    Key areas to achieve this include transport, food, and construction. City planning needs to adapt to the promotion of walking and biking, a shift toward public transport, as well as the electrification of transport. Homes and workplaces will become more connected and localised. Meanwhile, international freight transport and aviation cannot continue to grow at current rates.

    As with transport, the global food system will need to be overhauled. Climate change and oil-intensive agriculture have unearthed the dangers of countries becoming dependent on food imports from a few main production areas. A shift toward food self-sufficiency across both poorer and richer countries will be essential. And ultimately, dairy and meat should make way for largely plant-based diets.

    The construction industry’s focus on energy-intensive manufacturing, dominated by concrete and steel, should be replaced by alternative materials. The BIOS paper recommends a return to the use of long-lasting wood buildings, which can help to store carbon, but other options such as biochar might be effective too.

    But capitalist markets will not be capable of facilitating the required changes – governments will need to step up, and institutions will need to actively shape markets to fit the goals of human survival. Right now, the prospects for this look slim. But the new paper argues that either way, change is coming.

    Whether or not the system that emerges still comprises a form of capitalism is ultimately a semantic question. It depends on how you define capitalism.

    “Capitalism, in that situation, is not like ours now,” said Järvensivu. “Economic activity is driven by meaning—maintaining equal possibilities for the good life while lowering emissions dramatically—rather than profit, and the meaning is politically, collectively constructed. Well, I think this is the best conceivable case in terms of modern state and market institutions. It can’t happen without considerable reframing of economic-political thinking, however.”


    Source: Motherboard
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (28th August 2018), Elen (28th August 2018), giovonni (25th September 2019), Kathy (28th August 2018), modwiz (28th August 2018), NotAPretender (28th August 2018), Wind (27th August 2018)

  3. #2
    Moderator Wind's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th January 2015
    Location
    Just here
    Posts
    1,130
    Thanks
    8,226
    Thanked 6,296 Times in 1,133 Posts
    It never was a sustainable system...

  4. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Wind For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (28th August 2018), Dreamtimer (28th August 2018), Elen (28th August 2018), giovonni (25th September 2019), Kathy (28th August 2018), modwiz (28th August 2018), NotAPretender (28th August 2018), Shadowself (28th August 2018)

  5. #3
    Administrator Aragorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    17th March 2015
    Location
    Middle-Earth
    Posts
    13,993
    Thanks
    61,911
    Thanked 58,134 Times in 13,982 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by Wind View Post
    It never was a sustainable system...
    Greed and megalomania made everyone blind to that fact.
    = DEATH BEFORE DISHONOR =

  6. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Aragorn For This Useful Post:

    Dreamtimer (28th August 2018), Elen (28th August 2018), giovonni (25th September 2019), Kathy (28th August 2018), modwiz (28th August 2018), NotAPretender (28th August 2018), Shadowself (28th August 2018), Wind (28th August 2018)

  7. #4
    Senior Member NotAPretender's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd April 2017
    Posts
    4,061
    Thanks
    15,643
    Thanked 17,761 Times in 4,041 Posts
    It is hard to know which is the more remarkable- that it took 600 million years for the Earth to make its oil, or that it took 300 years to use it up.

    So long as oil is used as a source of energy, when
    the energy cost of recovering a barrel of oil becomes
    greater than the energy content of the oil, production
    will cease no matter what the monetary price may
    be.

    The steep ride up the and down the energy curve is the most abnormal thing that has ever happened in human history. Most of human history is a no-growth situation. Our culture is built on growth and that phase of human history is almost over and we are not prepared for it. Our biggest problem is not the end of our resources. That will be gradual. Our biggest problem is a cultural problem. We don't know how to cope with it.

    Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know.

    Were we a rational society, a virtue of which we have rarely been accused, we would husband our oil and gas resources.

    It is evident that the fortunes of the world's human population, for better or for worse, are inextricably interrelated with the use that is made of energy resources.

    Our principal constraints are cultural. During the last two centuries we have known nothing but exponential growth and in parallel we have evolved what amounts to an exponential-growth culture, a culture so heavily dependent upon the continuance of exponential growth for its stability that it is incapable of reckoning with problems of non-growth.

    History, human or geological, represents our hypothesis, couched in terms of past events, devised to explain our present-day observations.

    Growth, growth, growth -- that's all we've known . . . World automobile production is doubling every 10 years; human population growth is like nothing that has happened in all of geologic history. The world will only tolerate so many doublings of anything -- whether it's power plants or grasshoppers.

    Historical chronology, human or geological, depends... upon comparable impersonal principles. If one scribes with a stylus on a plate of wet clay two marks, the second crossing the first, another person on examining these marks can tell unambiguously which was made first and which second, because the latter event irreversibly disturbs its predecessor. In virtue of the fact that most of the rocks of the earth contain imprints of a succession of such irreversible events, an unambiguous working out of the chronological sequence of these events becomes possible.

    [The] first postulate of the Principle of Uniformity, namely, that the laws of nature are invariant with time, is not peculiar to that principle or to geology, but is a common denominator of all science. In fact, instead of being an assumption or an ad hoc hypothesis, it is simply a succinct summation of the totality of all experimental and observational evidence.

    - M. King Hubbert -
    Born: October 5, 1903, San Saba, TX
    Died: October 11, 1989, Bethesda, MD
    "We are one thought away from changing the world!"

  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to NotAPretender For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (28th August 2018), Dreamtimer (28th August 2018), Elen (28th August 2018), giovonni (25th September 2019), Wind (28th August 2018)

  9. #5
    Super Moderator United States Dreamtimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    9,320
    Thanks
    51,918
    Thanked 41,502 Times in 9,235 Posts
    I was watching a video covering the concepts of source and sink in terms of permaculture and household energy use/consumption.

    I had a convo with a guy a few years ago and I said to him, "Nothing can grow forever." He really had no reply.

  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (28th August 2018), Elen (28th August 2018), giovonni (25th September 2019), modwiz (29th August 2018), NotAPretender (29th August 2018), Shadowself (28th August 2018)

  11. #6
    Senior Member palooka's revenge's Avatar
    Join Date
    25th March 2018
    Location
    atlanta
    Posts
    435
    Thanks
    881
    Thanked 2,329 Times in 434 Posts
    Quote Originally posted by NotAPretender View Post
    It is hard to know which is the more remarkable- that it took 600 million years for the Earth to make its oil, or that it took 300 years to use it up.

    So long as oil is used as a source of energy, when
    the energy cost of recovering a barrel of oil becomes
    greater than the energy content of the oil, production
    will cease no matter what the monetary price may
    be.
    that is not all that is involved. far more significant is the role alt energy is playing now and the underlying agenda of big money, big oil toward that alternative.

    The steep ride up the and down the energy curve is the most abnormal thing that has ever happened in human history. Most of human history is a no-growth situation. Our culture is built on growth and that phase of human history is almost over and we are not prepared for it. Our biggest problem is not the end of our resources. That will be gradual. Our biggest problem is a cultural problem. We don't know how to cope with it.
    Well I don’t see it abby normal at all. $4+ gas has been tested in the US market. And I’m not talkin’ supply and demand, I’m talking control, control, control all the while milking as much as they think they can get away with until such time as they make it right time to completely high jack and control the alternatives. I can assure U the plan is operational, hidden in plain site. We can see it if we look. And they have the cash and intent to do exactly that - the same thing they did with oil. It is well know within financial circles that technology has crossed the tipping point in terms of return on investment.

    Yes, the big oil money is involved in advancing those technologies but with their wherewithal they could have been doing a whole lot more. That involvement is a red herring designed to present they are on board. Meantime they sat back and let the tree huggers and the high risk venture capitalists eat the high cost of start up and most of the learning mistakes.

    Those days are pretty much in the books. This was clearly lain out in a docu I saw a few months ago that I wish I’d bookmarked to share for just such occasions as this one. One of the key guys featured is the Citi Bank VP who has headed up their alt energy dept for years. He’s old and was going to retire. Not any more! He don’t want to miss out on all the fun hard nosed capitalist sharks are having in the name of progress…

  12. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to palooka's revenge For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (29th August 2018), Dreamtimer (29th August 2018), Elen (29th August 2018), giovonni (25th September 2019)

  13. #7
    Super Moderator United States Dreamtimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    9,320
    Thanks
    51,918
    Thanked 41,502 Times in 9,235 Posts
    Abby and Richard discuss socialism and economies. Debt and the failure of rising wages are among the issues covered.


  14. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (26th September 2019), Elen (26th September 2019), giovonni (25th September 2019), Wind (25th September 2019)

  15. #8
    Super Moderator United States Dreamtimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    9,320
    Thanks
    51,918
    Thanked 41,502 Times in 9,235 Posts
    At 14 minutes Richard discusses Marx's observations about the psychological effects of working for someone else and being separated from what was done and created.

    At 24 minutes he talks about leaders in China and Russia who declared vociferously that socialism would never happen there. He then goes into "what is going to make socialism return to the agenda of society."

    At the end, "It's not surprising that people in America are finding their way back to socialism. It's built into our history."

  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (26th September 2019), Elen (26th September 2019), giovonni (25th September 2019)

  17. #9
    Super Moderator United States Dreamtimer's Avatar
    Join Date
    7th April 2015
    Location
    Patapsco Valley
    Posts
    9,320
    Thanks
    51,918
    Thanked 41,502 Times in 9,235 Posts
    Here's another segment. It focuses on Jordan Peterson and the idea of 'cultural marxism'.


  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Dreamtimer For This Useful Post:

    Aragorn (26th September 2019), Elen (26th September 2019), giovonni (25th September 2019), Wind (25th September 2019)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •