In an age of a warming planet, vanishing species, growing polarization, and deepening inequality, it is clear that our systems are no longer coping. Climate shocks, geopolitical tensions, supply-chain breakdowns, spiralling energy costs: the crises overlap and amplify one another, exposing the limits of the fossil‑fuelled global order that shaped the last century.
This is the terrain that Richard Heinberg discussed in a recent presentation for The Climate Dialogue Group. In this talk, he explained that humanity is now firmly in an era we now refer to as the polycrisis, a convergence of ecological, economic, and social disruptions, rooted in our dependence on fossil fuels and the devotion to endless growth.
Energy, he reminds us, is at the heart of everything we do. Without it, life simply can’t continue. With a surplus of cheap fossil energy, however, industrial civilization was able to multiply its impact many times over. Economic activity shot up exponentially over the past hundred years, and with it our collective pressure on the planet, leading us to “the disappearance of wild nature, the loss of mammals, vertebrates and invertebrates,” he cautioned, as well as the destabilization of climate systems. There is a cost for continual growth of both economies and populations, and “that cost includes climate change,” he said.
Heinberg’s message is stark but not fatalistic. There are “no easy answers here”, he says. Because the challenges we face are deeply interconnected, there can be no quick fixes, whether technological or political. Instead, he argues, the most meaningful work now lies in building resilience, particularly at the community level, for long-term sustainability. Rather than chasing ever-greater profits, societies will need to strengthen local ecological, food, and distribution systems, among others, to ensure communities can endure shocks and adapt to a more turbulent, less predictable future.
Can we transition to other forms of energy before we embark on catastrophe, for example, solar and wind? Why is climate change such a major issue? What happens as energy, food and supply chains become less reliable? How will climate‑driven disasters reshape cities? And what kinds of social fabric will we need if we are to navigate collapse without descending into chaos? These are among the questions Heinberg addresses in this session.
This webinar is moderated by polycultural systems scientist Alexander Laszlo, chair of A Growing Culture Robert Corman and peacebuilder and the Programme Coordinator and Officer for the Friends United Meeting (FUM) Africa Ministries Office, Getry Agizah.
For anyone trying to make sense of the polycrisis and to find constructive discussions beyond despair, this presentation offers a sober perspective. It does not promise easy answers, but it does suggest a different set of priorities: less about maximizing growth, more about nurturing the capacities that help communities hold together when former certainties fall away.
You can watch the full presentation and discussion here:







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.
Very good, thank you!
Community resilience, yes.
________________
I'm constantly amazed by Richard's insistence on bracing for collapse by building resilience in communities, "for long-term sustainability," as it says here. Richard published his Five Axioms of Sustainability many years ago and that's what really grounded my perspective in reality. A society can only be sustainable if it uses no resource beyond its renewal rate (which means no non-renewable resources) and doesn't damage the environment beyond its ability to assimilate those damages. I've simplified his axioms a little because a society can use non-renewable resources if that use declines at the depletion rate of those resources but, ultimately, it has to function without non-renewable resources.
Resilience can't make a society sustainable unless that resilience is by making the society sustainable according to the axioms. This can't support a modern society and, I think, this is where Richard, and almost all environmentalists, try to bargain away that fact. This post talks about transitioning to other forms of energy as though there is some form of energy which can be used to power a modern community in a sustainable way. I haven't come across such a form of energy. So-called renewables require non-renewable resources for the infrastructure, and the utilisation of that energy will be be unsustainable machines.
Perhaps Richard could revisit his axioms and tell us how they can be violated to provide a resilient modern community?