“Global carbon emissions must drop by 50% by 2030 to keep on track with internationally agreed targets for limiting global heating.” – The Guardian – from Huge expansion of oil pipelines endangering climate, says report | Oil | The Guardian
Read that title again. Let it sink in.
It’s soon to be 2023. So we’re talking about seven years to reduce fossil fuel use by half.
Some part of me says “that will never happen”. It’s by far the bigger part of me.
But if we don’t do this?
What if we fail to do this? The result would be beyond horrific. Already, the world is experiencing extreme consequences of our failure to address the climate crisis in time to prevent massive, major anthropogenic climate disruption.
I know enough about our world’s technological energy systems and dependencies to know without a doubt that there is only one way we could possibly reduce emissions by this amount in this time frame, and that’s by essentially replacing the most fundamental and basic features of our material and economic culture almost instantaneously, beginning immediately. In historical context, seven years is but an instant.
We’d have to rapidly phase out automobiles, for starters. (Electric cars are no solution!) We’d have to do the same with mass global tourism, and flying more generally. We’d have to immediately relocalize the vast majority of our food sourcing — within a regenerative approach to food production. (Consider that my computer’s spell check system doesn’t recognize the word ‘relocalize’.) We’d have to dramatically reduce our consumption of most everything, because everything takes energy to manufacture and transport. And there is mining and extraction of materials for manufacturing, which too requires energy inputs.
And 84% of the energy we use in the world each day, week and year is currently fossil fuel energy.
There is absolutely no way that in seven years we could build out ‘renewable energy infrastructure’ to replace the energy now being consumed. The only way to dramatically reduce fossil fuel emissions is to embrace energy descent.
“Energy descent is a process whereby a society either voluntarily or involuntarily reduces its total energy consumption,”
says Wikipedia’s article on Energy Descent. (I wrote most of that article in a heavy edit a couple of years ago, so that definition is mine.)
Let’s say, however, that we try to maintain a material and economic culture much like the one we now have by replacing current fossil energy with ‘renewable’ energy sources. That is, if we try to simply replace current energy use levels with ‘renewable’ energy while maintaining a material and economic way of life very similar to the one we now have. What would happen? Well, there would be an immediate and long-lasting (about seven years long, at least!) dramatic increase in fossil energy use to mine for materials, manufacture, transport and install all of that infrastructure — and all of those electric cars, etc. That is, we’d be running our material culture and economy much like it is while adding onto it a massive increase in the production of these new infrastructures and devices. The only way to do this is to use more energy — and most energy is fossil energy, by far.
(I put the phrase “renewable energy” in scare quotes because these systems require a vast input of fossil fuels to manufacture and use, and that so rarely gets mentioned by the mainstream propaganda.)
I believe you now understand why this sort of “energy transition” can’t possibly work. It’s contradictory. And yet mainstream media and politicians are selling us this story, which they call “the energy transition”.
My point in revealing the falsity of the mainstream narrative on “energy transition” is not to say that we’re utterly forked (a sanitized slant rhyme for another familiar word) no matter what we do. My point is that if we’re going to really have an energy transition it will have to be primarily a transition to a much less energy intensive economy and material culture. Because mining for minerals, manufacturing, transport and installation of…, well, anything, requires energy inputs, a smaller use of energy will also necessitate a smaller use of materials. And this means any culture and economy which is consistent with anything other than utterly horrific climate (and biodiversity) dystopia is not only inconsistent with economic growth, but also necessitates rather dramatic and rapid economic downsizing.
Politicians are not telling us this. Governments are not telling us this. The mainstream media is not telling us this. And they won’t. Not anytime soon. What they are telling us is that we can have our cake and eat it too. In fact, we’re being told we can grow our cake by 2-3% per year, and that this cake growing is the reason for human existence. It’s what makes life good. It’s what matters most.
If you have read this far (and obviously you have), you’re perhaps wondering why there is a picture of a flying saucer from outer space atop this essay.
Let me explain.
I’m an eco-cultural philosopher — which is a fancy way of saying I am obsessed with trying to understand our human relationship to ecosystems and the biosphere in relation to philosophy of culture. (My way of understanding philosophy of culture is much less restrictive and narrow than the definition at Wikipedia.) I have been obsessively thinking about culture in this way for most of my adult life. I’m now aged 56. And one thing is clear. Cultures have a heck of a lot of systemic inertia.
[slide-anything id=’3472166′]
When we consider how little time (maybe seven years) it is we have to enact a very dramatic transformation of our culture; and when we consider how very profoundly challenging this transformation must be…, and how much resistance there will be, it’s clear that something dramatic must happen to shift our course. Whatever that something may be, it would have to be as potent a collective psychological force as the arrival of aliens from outer space … on a peaceful mission to bring us Earthlings into the Galactic Federation of Living Planets. These Galactic beings might inform us that while they’d like us to be members of the Federation, we currently do not qualify because we’re knowingly destroying our own biosphere so that we can live a luxury-based economic way of life which takes no one and nothing into account other than our momentary convenience and personal desires.
But that’s not going to happen, is it?
I guess we’ll have to create our own initiatory event. But what would that look like? And how can we manage to initiate ourselves? And when will we begin?
After Note:
After writing the above I made this note in the comments:
After writing what I did in this little essay, I realized that Wikipedia’s article on philosophy of culture was extraordinarily bad — to the point of uselessness in the context in which I speak of philosophy of culture. Not only that! But also this: I could not swiftly find a better short intro to the topic. But it gets worse than that. It would seem to me that philosophy of culture is, at its best, incipient and highly under-developed as a field or ‘discipline’. I say this as a philosopher of culture! As a philosopher, my interests are mainly about culture — as sociologists and anthropologists define ‘culture’. Sadly, the world apparently presently lacks a coherent, cohesive and apt philosophy of culture. I’m working on it!
From my perspective, a genuine philosophy of culture would, of course, draw upon anthropology, history and sociology … but also ecology … and even economics, ethics and aesthetics. It’s concern would not be so much with whether one is a Kantian, a Hegelian, or any of that sort of claptrap, but with the concerns of political theory, ecosystems, biodiversity — human ecology. When I say I am a philosopher of culture, I mean it in a strictly eco-cultural sense, as an ecologist who studies culture in relation to ecosystems and biology. Those who tend to get tossed in as philosophers of culture tend not to have any real acquaintance with the idea that humans are cultural animals.
I’ve corrected typos and such, and added a few words, to this comment. I will point the reader to this after having deleted the comment.
Photo credit: Richard Elzey – Creative Commons Attribution 2.0 – no changes made –File:Flying Saucer (5757968693).jpg – Wikimedia Commons
.jpg){kind=link}
Comments
Welcome to the new Resillience commenting system!
We have moved from the former Disqus commenting system to a new system as of September 10, 2026.
We made this change because of privacy concerns regarding Disqus. It's also part of a set of changes to bring more services to the Resilience community under a single login: commenting, (coming September 2026), and online courses (coming 2027). Unfortunately, your old Disqus comments may not reliably link to your account in this new system. Please contact us if you have any questions or concerns.
Allow me to correct myself. I said
“And this means any culture and economy which is consistent with anything other than utterly horrific climate (and biodiversity) dystopia is not only inconsistent with economic growth, but also necessitates rather dramatic and rapid economic downsizing.”
That was put a bit sloppily. I was basically addressing an audience in what Jason Hickel calls ‘the global north’ (rich countries) Hickel rightly points out that some countries in the ‘global south’ (poor countries) could grow their economies a bit as rich countries adopt pathways toward smaller economies (measured in GDP). So not all economic growth is deleterious, in every context. But on a global scale we must rather dramatically reduce our economies (GWP) if we are to mitigate the climate crisis.
Yes James, but I fail to see the followup answers to your questions, “But what would that look like? And how can we manage to initiate ourselves? And when will we begin?”
I’ll answer for you:
It would look like economic decline so rapid that most people would call it collapse. We’re talking economic contraction twice as bad as what happened during the first year of the pandemic, but adding an additional decline of similar magnitude every year for the next six years thereafter. The result would be a world GDP (GWP) about that of the early 1990’s but with 45% more people. Unemployment rates would be about 33%. Hunger would be rampant even in the rich world. Death rates would skyrocket.
I don’t see how an event like this could be self-initiated. Doing it would require voluntarily consigning one’s self and family to excruciating poverty, especially since a depression of the magnitude required could be self-reinforcing and quickly cause GWP to plummet even faster. Every society will do everything it can to keep rapid energy descent from happening. Look what is happening in Germany now. Green Germany is turning to coal and wood to fill the gap left by greatly diminished gas supplies. Energy descent will not be voluntary.
For the sake of the planet and future generations we should begin tomorrow.
As Joe Clarkson points out, the process of economic contraction will not be self-initiated. As Dave Burke points out, the energy descent cannot be voluntary. This helps explain why those of us “working for the revolution” for the last fifty+ years have been unsuccessful. What we have been successful at are small wins; ending the military draft, roadblocking nuclear power, expanding farmers markets, etc. So this small win idea can be applied to collapse in general. Those of us who have been preparing and actually thriving under a lower carbon/energy footprint will continue to rise above the crust of the broken septic tank that is civilization and flow out onto the drain field where we can fertilize the trees in the new orchard that will grow up. Of course – as I say quite often – we have an obligation to feed those people who are unprepared.
A note on game theory and the Nash equilibrium. The Nash equilibrium assumes: 1) complete information and 2) not changing your strategy. Both of these are false assumptions in the real world. A better model is poker, where you: 1) have incomplete information and 2) can change your strategy. Keep in mind that von Neumann’s inspiration for game theory was poker. Also keep in mind that both Harry Truman and Richard Nixon were very good poker players. Nixon funded his first political campaign on his poker winnings during WW II. Both these jokers were bad presidents BUT they were successful in implementing their own personal agendas. Harry Truman was instrumental in fostering the Cold War based on Kennan’s containment concept. He also established the nuclear foundation of US hegemony by actually using nuclear weapons. We see the end game now in the Ukrainian War. Nixon was instrumental in revamping the Republican Party after the debacle of Goldwater’s 1964 presidential campaign. (Perstein’s book Nixonland is fabulous BTW.) We see the end game now in the complete capture of the GOP by the Tea Party and other rightwing whackos. I daresay Barry Goldwater, as well as Margaret Chase Smith, would be appalled. There is a flow in history, but it is not in grand theories or high-falutin’ notions of cycles favored by people like Toynbee and Spengler. It is based on people getting power and using their power to advance their own interests.
A note on poker since it was the inspiration for game theory. Postmodern poker strategy is based on the forever game. Each poker session is just a session of the one long game of poker you play throughout your life. If you lose $400 tonight, you keep playing your best game the next time. This does not mean you keep the same tactics. You must adapt to the other players at the table, who may or may not be rational. You adapt especially when another player goes on tilt or is a fish. The key is to be ahead in your lifetime winnings. This includes the comps you get and any income you may receive by publishing your poker books. If you are one of the Phils (Ivey or Hellmuth) you also receive income and other considerations for public appearances as a postmodern rockstar. (Influencers like the Kardashians are best understood as postmodern rockstars. The key is the broadening of consideration beyond mere money from album sales and concerts.)
In my own life, I am ahead on my poker winnings and almost even on blackjack. But more importantly, I am thriving because I am playing the long poker game of revolutionary politics. I use my best strategy of doing the manual work and adapt my tactics as needed. In 1970 it was a food co-op. The emphasis on food has morphed into growing my own, then starting farmers markets, then teaching sustainable methods, then research on landraces, and now giving food away to initiate a gift economy. These are all small actions, but they provide me with a better life AND a better life for those I teach and encourage. The postmodern poker paradigm is very useful.
I’m glad to see you posting here, James! I’ve already commented on this on The R Word.
At my birth (1949) there were 2.5 billion of us. End of this year, we’ll number 8 billion. To all living nature, we’re a horrible locust plague. Imagine the elephant having his teeth sawn off!
Every try to solve envirnmental issues will backfire. Continue BAU is far preferable above installing windmills (think of the balsa wood implied) or solar cells.
This short article was meant to introduce unacquainted R-Word readers to Nate Hagens, but it’s also some commentary on why we ought not to automatically assume that voluntary energy descent is a non-starter.
Energy Blindness – The R-Word: https://rword.substack.com/p/energy-blindness
Get your mind right with Jesus, because we aren’t going to. Not willingly anyway, and not with some major help. A pandemic wiping out 3/4’s of the world population might come in handy…perhaps a cosmic collision that does the same? Find me a a million people who make it happen and I’ll find you 5 million new births in the Third World all yearning to have an American McMansion and two gas guzzlers. And at least a million of them will make it, balancing at the million who made it happen, leaving me with the other 4 million to become lesser consumers of stuff, but consumers none the less.
In the sixties people like the Ehrlichs, Rachel Carson, Club of Rome, Jacques Cousteau, Martin Luther King, Norman Borlaug and almost all Nobel Prize winners were all warning us about the dangers of overpopulation, and that was when there were only three billion of us; if we headed their advice and humanity was currently approaching four billion instead of eight, climate change would be distant blip on our radar, the Gulf Spill, fracking and the development of Canada’s tar sands would not have happened because we would not be that hard up for oil yet, and the word Anthropocene would not have been coined to label mankind driving all other species to extinction.
As Einstein said, “Insanity Is Doing the Same Thing Over and Over Again and Expecting Different Results,” so we are going to grow by another couple billion by midcentury, half of which is going to be Africa.
As the animals we are, we are predisposed to exploiting any energy source available. Fossil energy has caused the growth of the human endeavor (including cultural attributes) to the point of changing our habitat beyond its ability to sustain. If we were successful in replacing fossil nothing would change as we would still have an energy source driving growth. Not only does fossil energy need to be eliminated to cope with the symptom of climate change, but it cannot be replaced. We need to learn the limit that was in place before fossil energy, we need to voluntarily forego energy use.