Peak Resources: crisis

Showing posts with label crisis. Show all posts

The central assumption of the neoliberal economic model that material consumption and industrial expansion can continue without devastating political and environmental consequences is known to be false. Yet, every politician on Earth is pushing for further material growth which in a time of resource scarcity only leads to rapidly increasing income inequality. This in turn undermines the stability of society. And vulnerable societies that suffer major economic downturns are known to elect dangerous people and do some crazy stuff.

Overexploiting and degrading both ecological and social capital to gain ephemeral financial capital is the pathway to collapse of a society. Anthropological and agent-based modelling studies have shown that any society that undermines its ecological base runs into declining marginal returns from further material growth. When a threshold is passed, and net energy starts to fall, society can no longer afford to maintain its social organisation and infrastructure and starts to decay. If the ruling elite refuses to give up on trying to push the economy to grow the remaining resources will simply be swallowed up by the resource sector and benefit only a small minority of rich elites while the majority grows poorer over time. This will of course cause political turmoil as even the middle class starts to voice their dissatisfaction. And the entire process makes any democracy open to totalitarianism, a form of government in which the state has no limits in authority and does whatever it wants.

Full collapse from over-depletion and high levels of inequality. Source: Castro et al. 2014

“Democracy is first and foremost about equality: equality of power and equality of sharing in the benefits and values made possible by social cooperation” (Sheldon Wolin, 2010, p. 61).

Most societies have no mechanisms for sharing power and the benefits of cooperation in a time of involuntary degrowth, which we are currently in. Every government policy since the 1970s have only worsened the issue by promoting the enrichment of the capital owning class over the worker class through financialisation. Giving out cheap credit has masked the systemic issues and kept the middle class happy for a while, as they get to continue consuming resources in the moment, but its a giant ponzi scheme that will collapse eventually. Meanwhile, the working class has only suffered since the 70s, with falling living standards and increasing poverty, and thus started to heavily mistrust the ruling elite.

Furthemore, wealth equalizing institutions, such as income taxation, has become ineffective in a globalised world. Big corporations and rich individuals can escape national laws and continue to enrich themselves at the cost of everyone else and nature. The world's richest 1 percent now owns as 82% of global wealth, while the poorest 3.7 billion people saw no increase in their wealth in 2018.

When people are desperate for change, ideology becomes a powerful weapon. If people have no way to influence the political system, no equality in control of the instruments of persuasion, other than voting every four years it cannot be called a true democracy. Private control over the media and higher education are examples of public loss of instruments of persuasion.

Rising inequality opens up a power vacuum that is easily filled by leaders of business or populistic parties in order to extract what they want from the system. The rich business elites usually claim the “trickle down” doctrine or that “government is the problem” to justify deregulation and tax cuts for the rich. While populistic parties (left and right) exploit the working class hate of elites and fuels polarisation and division in society while arguing for a centralised strong government. We see this type of development all over Europe and in the US.

The only way to combat this negative development, as I see it, is to promote decentralization of power and strengthening local economies with circular resource flows that stay within certain boundaries through for example a local currency. And promoting self-sufficiency. Also trying to even the playing field by offering alternative stories through online platforms when the mainstream media is failing. I know that many instead are calling for global governance to reign in multinational corporations but that won't be possible in a resource constrained world and it's certainly not what people are going to vote for.

If no credible options are put forward as the old story breaks apart there is a high chance that people will turn to “strongman” governance in their desperation for change. With potentially catastrophic consequences for peace and security. It's now 100 years since the end of World War I and we are again living in very dangerous times. Europe is so fragile that it feels like any shock could trigger something major, especially if we have a major financial collapse. Unfortunately, such a financial crisis looks increasingly likely as the global debt bubble has started to unravel. I hope there is still some sanity left among people to resist another major war.

We are in a double bind. Growing the economy will cause catastrophic climate change and massive biological extinction. But not growing the economy will lead to lots of suffering under the current neoclassical economic structure. Of course, we could chose to change our entire economic system so that its in line with the biophysical reality we live in, i.e. we would have to give up on growing materially and lower our consumption radically but do so in a more orderly and just fashion. But no, we have made no such decision, instead every government on Earth is trying to push its economy to grow further while dabbling in some greenwashing on the side.

Because we, especially the ruling elites, don't like the alternatives we have to choose from in this dilemma we have tried to maintained status quo at any cost. With the consequence of rapidly rising inequalities, failing infrastructures, collapsing ecosystems, climate disruption and failing states. But now this strategy has reached its end game. The global economy which has been stagnating and on life-support by central bankers stimulus for over a decade is starting to fall apart. All the while people around the world are electing unsavory authoritarian leaders “strong men”, that promote heavy extractive practices, due to increasing mistrust of the ruling elite. The latest example being Brazil.

And nowhere in the mainstream media or from elected politicians do we hear about the underlying issues of our current predicament. About how net energy decline restricts growth and forces the economy to contract. The fact that trying to push for further material growth now costs more than it benefits society. Or that it's simply not possible to fuel our current overconsumptive, overpopulated and destructive techno-industrial society with renewable energy. Not to mention the fact that it's not desirable since it would destroy the ecosystems upon which our very survival depends.

Using total factor productivity as an indicator of returns on innovation, Bonaiuti (2018) has shown how industrial nations have gone through three industrial revolutions of which the latest is now coming to an end. After the peak in the 1930s, when global oil and gas EROI hit a peak, productivity decreased until it reached only 0.34% in the period 1973-95. When US oil production peaked and massive privatization and debt accumulation took off to fund further consumption. The third industrial revolution, known as ICT, has not been powerful enough to compensate for the declining returns of the second industrial revolution. This is evidence that advanced capitalist societies such as the US, Europe and Japan have entered a phase of declining marginal returns or involuntary degrowth with detrimental impacts on societies capacity to maintain its institutional framework.

Total Factor Productivity % of the Private Non-Farm Business Sector (1750-2014). Source: Bonaiuti (2018)

Historical estimate of the global EROI of oil. Source: Court and Fizaine (2017)

In other words, fundamental resources are becoming scarce and expensive and we are becoming poorer and cannot afford to maintain or grow our current society so it starts to crumble. This shows up in the economy in terms of increasingly expensive basic resources like food, rising levels of debt, rising income inequality, underinvestment in infrastructure (e.g. health care, education, railways), and higher unemployment etc.

People are experiencing their living standards falling while politicians are telling them everything is just fine as is, or that the issue can be solved by tweaking the system. But this is no longer enough, people are fed up with false promises and incompetent governments. And rightly so, but the thing people don't realise is the fundamental drivers of our current situation and the fact that no matter how much more they exploit and destroy nature will it improve their lives. Actually, the opposite is true, it only undermines their own wellbeing in the long run. Only investments into low-energy infrastructure and restructuring of the entire economy, focusing on increasing social and ecological capital, can lessen people's suffering. Yet people around the world are voting for violent idiots that promises economic growth by aggressive exploitation of the remaining ecosystems that sustain all biological life.

For example, if the new president of Brazil Jair Bolsonaro has his way the Amazon rainforest will be decimated to give way for unsustainable soy plantations. The biodiverse rich region and home to traditional peoples will be destroyed and the ecosystems capacity to oxygenate the planet and store carbon will be greatly impacted. Bolsonaro also has plans to legalise the use of weapons on a wider scale which will probably lead to further indiscriminate killings of people trying to safeguard the Amazon and promote wide scale illegal logging. This of course will only undermine Brazilians wellbeing but the majority believe the opposite to be true.

Economic decline led by net energy decline doesn't have to result in despotism, although it can. A number of other factors are likely influencing how politics in resource scarce times turns out. Weak institutions, dysfunctional media, high levels of inequality, high population growth, high levels of private debt, a powerful military, and high vulnerability to changes in environment are other generic factors likely playing a role. Other factors tied directly to energy include: high dependency on food imports, government budgets tied to fossil fuel exports, high per capita energy use, and high dependency on energy imports.

There are several measures governments and organisations can take to reduce the risk of a society falling into the hands of a dictator. For example by promoting independent media, investing in low-energy infrastructure, reducing political polarization, strengthening democratic institutions, discouraging inequality, building local food production capacity, decentralising the economic and political system, limiting population growth, and reducing financial instability. In other words, the opposite of what many governments are trying to do currently. So people need to wake up to the realities of our situation and demand change, but such change needs to be guided by the understanding of biophysical realities. Otherwise it is doomed to fail, will only promote further violence and destruction.

Turtle caught in plastic pollution in the Ocean.

Humanity's population explosion and massive overconsumption of natural resources is killing off wildlife at an unprecedented rate. In the 2018 Living Planet Report by the World Wildlife Foundation (WWF) we come to understand that there has been a 60% decline in species population sizes since 1970. Especially hard hit are the tropics in South and Central America, which have seen a 89% loss compared to 1970. And freshwater ecosystems, like rivers and lakes, have experienced the largest decline of 83%. We have killed off 83% of all mammals and 50% of all plants since the dawn of civilisation, and its irreversible on human timescales. It is truly a biological annihilation as coined in a scientific study published by Ceballos et al. in PNAS last year.

In 2017 the world lost an amount of forest area equivalent to the size of Italy, destroying habitats, causing biodiversity loss and polluting the environment. There is a growing number of scientists that are now calling for a global deal for nature, creating vast nature reserves to prevent biological armageddon.

The loss of biodiversity is a tragedy in itself but it also threatens the survival of civilisation says experts to the Guardian. People don't understand that biodiversity underpins ecosystem health and thus human health. We already see a dramatic rise in chronic diseases caused by unhealthy diets and pollution. Around 93% of the world's children under the age of 15 years, 1.8 billion children, breathe air so polluted it puts their health at risk and tragically about 600,000 children die from acute lower respiratory infections every year. Studies have also shown that it's not just seabirds that have plastic in their stomachs but we humans have it too.

Can we turn this development around? We only have until the year 2020 to get our act together according to the WWF-report or it will be too late. Governments need to increase investments several fold into safeguarding biodiversity on land and in the oceans. Protected areas should be expanded to cover at least 20 percent of natural habitats on land and 30 percent of habitats in the ocean. But I'm having a hard time seeing that happening in a world of depleting resources and growing population. Do we have foresight enough to safeguard life on Earth for our own survival? It remains an open question I guess...

There's an ongoing debate in the scientific community regarding the threshold value, tipping point, for frozen grounds in the Arctic, permafrost, to start thawing irreversibly. And whether released methane from the permafrost will occur gradually over time or more abruptly. There is more stored carbon in frozens soils than we currently have in the atmosphere.

There are basically two camps, some believe the permafrost to be stable with a threshold value around <3°C while others claim 1,5°C is enough to start thawing large parts of the frozen grounds and lakes in the Arctic.

For a lay person this is quite confusing, but it simply means that there isn't enough data to know for sure and so some scientists are more or less conservative in their estimates. Then there is the question of using climate models to try and predict potential threshold values or doing actual fieldwork and extrapolating conclusions from that. To my knowledge, climate models have a pretty bad track record of capturing highly non-linear dynamics in the climate system. For example, Arctic sea ice passed a tipping point in 2007 and is now in a death spiral but models had predicted sea ice to remain until the end of this century. Pretty high margin of error if you ask me. Also, we are learning that there seems to be differences in how permafrost soils and lakes thaw.

According to a recent field research study funded by NASA of thermokarst lakes, formed by thaw of permafrost below the soil, in Alaska and Siberia the potential for abrupt thaw (decades) is now likely and irreversible. As the Arctic warms more of these lakes are appearing and growing in size which expands the thaw below. It has been estimated that they now cover about 20% of northern permafrost regions. This could double the release from terrestrial landscapes by the 2050s. A carbon cycle feedback that is not yet included into climate models.

"Within decades you can get very deep thaw-holes, meters to tens of meters of vertical thaw"

This is bad news for climate change mitigation efforts. This feedback is significant because methane is about 30 times more potent than carbon dioxide as a heat-trapping gas. And the lakes are expected to thaw even under the lowest IPCC emissions scenario, adding further warming. Since we most likely are already committed, warming yet to come from current emissions, to 1,5-2°C this extra warming from the permafrost reinforcing feedback could take us above the 2C threshold for potentially catastrophic warming. Unless we rapidly decarbonize our economy and try to take out carbon from the atmosphere by for example large-scale reforestation efforts. Time is not on our side. We need a climate emergency plan.

Climate mayhem, falling net energy and debt deflation

We are in for another global oil supply crunch from 2018 onwards that many experts say will trigger another severe economic recession if not depression. A fragile global economy, with a massive debt overhang, cannot handle too high oil prices. A large portion of most countries budgets, and individuals budgets as well, are spent on fossil fuel energy. That's why rapid price increases (over $60 per barrel) crushes demand and flips the economy over into a recession. In turn, leading to the bankruptcy of non-profitable unconventional energy ventures like tar sands and fracking. Thus further reducing supply over the long term.

Since the early 1970s global energy costs have steadily increased. Even if oil prices have oscillated with recurring spikes and drops, as the economy tries to adjust, the overall trend is a steady increase. This is due to the fact that extraction has become increasingly difficult and costly, yielding ever lower return on investment. The problem of course is that we built our economies based on cheap energy that yielded relatively high net energy to society. But that is a thing of the past and now we are struggling to afford our current lifestyles. Thats basically why we started this massive global debt bubble, pulling forward future consumption with cheap credit. But costs will eventually have to be paid.

We have now reached a point when all the energy and resources available to society are required just to maintain our existing level of complexity. A phenomenon puzzling many commentators, calling it secular stagnation. All these factors have made the global economy so fragile that even small perturbations from climate change, wars or falling credit could tip the system over into a deflationary spiral. With economic inequalities already increasing, increasing social instability, this is a recipe for disaster.

No economy will be able to recover unless it transitions to non-fossil fuel energy sources and writes down its debts. And even then net energy will likely be much lower, meaning that society still has to lower its overall consumption of energy and resources. Implying a voluntary measure to reduce organizational complexity in society. Something few previous civilisations managed, perhaps the British did when they dismantled their empire.

Implication for food security

Global food prices have increased steadily since 2005, about the time of global peak oil, now at 1970s highs or above. Further exacerbating the problem is booming populations, freshwater scarcity and climate change.

Today’s population levels depend on fossil fuels and industrial agriculture. Especially vulnerable to rising food prices are people with low purchasing power and without subsistence farming to fall back on. We know that food price increases that reach 200 on the FAO index have led to riots and unrest.

Many countries in the Middle East are especially vulnerable due to convergence of several different crises. State revenue losses from falling oil exports, due to depleting resources and higher domestic consumption, with a need to cut food and fuel subsidies usually make people very upset. Especially when, as is the case in the region, people have no way of making a living coupled with overexploited water reservoirs and eroded soils. As if that wasn't enough, scorching heat and significant risk of recurrent droughts makes the entire region utterly unsustainable. Without energy they have nothing. The chances for further conflict and wars in the region are high. Massive, continuing, migration flows towards Europe is to be expected.

The infamous ‘Doomsday Clock’ is again at two and a half minutes to midnight - the closest since 1953

We know from our, humanity's, ancient history on this planet that rapid climatic changes ruin agrarian societies. Especially vulnerable are societies that mismanage their resource base and/or live on the margins, for example, in extremely arid regions that are wholly dependent on predictable precipitation patterns. But even societies that manage to survive periods of, say, extreme drought may suffer as they become increasingly fragile to any perturbations to the system.

A changing climate is not bound by any borders and often occur within whole regions or on a global scale. When highly populated areas undergo climatic fluctuations it often cause people to migrate in search of better lands. Which can collapse other, already fragile, societies as the extra pressure from the inflow of people pushes the system over the edge.

This is demonstrated in the German documentary How Climate Made History (2017), above. I highly recommend it and other videos about climate on the youtube channel Hazards and catastrophes. More informative than American or British counterparts.

What can we learn from history?

Well, first of, Homo Sapiens hunter-gatherers, a generalist species, could adapt easier to extreme environmental conditions than neanderthals which were restricted to specific food sources, methods of hunting, or climates. This ability may have been the result of humans cooperative nature. It had nothing to do with brain size or intelligence.

Second, a relatively stable mild climate and fertile land, with ample and reliable sources of freshwater, plant and animal life, where instrumental to rise of agriculture. People settled and surpluses (food energy) from agriculture could be stored, freeing up time from simply collecting food, and giving rise to specialist occupations. It also gave rise to hierarchies, inequality, as some had more of a surplus than others. Humans also started worshipping the sun (source of energy).

Third, thriving agricultural civilisations were more vulnerable to changes in climatic conditions than nomadic peoples. When the climate changed rapidly and rainfall became unpredictable or rivers dried out people were forced to move in search of new lands to survive. Especially if they managed their lands unsustainably, degraded the land, and were more vulnerable to shocks.

Fourth, in highly populated regions such drastic changes in climatic conditions impacted civilisations both directly and indirectly. High pressure on the land from a large population made societies more susceptible to shocks. As people migrated from poorer lands into other richer areas they tended to destabilise societies that could have survived longer if not for the extra pressure. It also led to unrest and conflict over remaining resources.

Fifth, when civilisations collapsed people spread out to look for resources and knowledge was lost. What we call a dark age occurred.

Implications for modern society

Climate change is occurring rapidly and it is uncertain to what degree we will manage to adapt. We still live in agrarian type societies and are dependent on predictable rainfall, some regions more than others of course. Desertification and water scarcity is a major problem in many parts of the world already. Many societies are extremely fragile to shocks due to overexploitation and land degradation. Crop yields are falling. Seas are rising. Taking for granted that fossil fuels will save us is not a good idea for several reasons. Some societies may succeed better than others in managing their resources but will be vulnerable in other ways, e.g. to climatic changes, financial shocks, trade shocks and/or migration flows. Today there are no new/empty regions to populate once other areas fail. Resources are limited on a global scale. Tensions over scarcity are rising. Some societies, like Syria, have already collapsed. While others, where most of the remaining resources are located, are having issues with immigration. It will be a very difficult journey for humankind. But as history shows, even if civilisations collapse, humanity survives. We are a tenacious species.

Charles Blomfield's painting of the 1886 eruption of Mount Tarawera based on eyewitness accounts

Are we headed for the next succession of financial destruction? It’s been ten years since the global financial crisis (GFC) of 2008 that almost ruined western industrial civilisation. And while rich people in the west, at least mainstream media, seem to have the impression that we now are “back to business” lots of people around the globe are suffering from the reality of limits to growth that struck at the heart of the global economy in 08. Even if more fortunate people, like Swedes, can go on deluding themselves (for a little while) that there’s no problem with our current perverse growth paradigm there are people who don't have that luxury. Just take a look at most of the countries in the Middle East and you will quickly understand how peak oil, water scarcity, food crises, overpopulation and climate change can trigger endless misery and suffering (read Nafeez Ahmeds excellent book on this).

Contrary to the dominant narrative of “progress” I see major systemic crises converging towards the year 2020, or sooner! Are we reaching a major tipping point or simply another wave of entropy entering the system?

The symptoms of this can be found in the global economy itself with the rate of global growth stagnating (i.e. energy and debt limits) and tensions between countries competing for limited resources increasing. We also see it in the political sphere where maniacs with empathy deficit disorder get into power as a response to people's frustrations and start talking about all kinds of warfare: cultural, economic and military. We already see social unrest, conflict and trade wars but also talk about military wars connected to resources, mainly oil. Most societies are already very vulnerable, lack resilience to withstand further shocks, so a global financial meltdown could escalate fairly rapidly into chaos and destruction. When people lose everything, and they don't know why, they tend to get angry and violent. How will the US act? Will they unwind the empire, all military bases etc., or spend every bit of their last resources to plunder the planet? The place is more like an oligarchy so the über rich might decide they want the last of the oil, not for the people but for themselves. Europe is a basket case and is likely to break down, every nation on their own eventually. If a economic collapse doesn't do it, the flood of climate refugees will.

As for Sweden, we will see our massive housing bubble pop and a deep recession meanwhile people fleeing from the middle east will want to immigrate here. With the nationalist and xenophobic party, the Sweden Democrats, now being the third largest party things could turn out to their advantage as people become poorer and are likely to blame immigration issues. Similar to what we see in the rest of Europe. There is, however, a fairly strong left still in play in Sweden and to my surprise they got 10% of the votes in this year's election. So perhaps there is still some balance left in the political system, but without any major blocs the grownups in the government has yet to come to an agreement about how to rule, so maybe not. While they argue about who get what seat the world is on fire, and so it goes with large bureaucratic structures that become incompetent. And so the likelihood of social unrest increases.

As for the UN climate targets last chance of bending the emissions curve, I'm pretty pessimistic. A global financial meltdown will put all those hopes on hold and even if action did occur its likely too late to stop the climate from going above the 2C target. Moreover, what we need is not “green growth” but actual downsizing which would happen when the economy contracts. If we won't voluntarily give up consumption, mother nature will do it for us. But of course, it won't be what most people hoped for, it likely won't be a civilised and peaceful decent.

Will there be a global financial meltdown soon? Somewhere between 2018-2020? Well, I don’t know, but what's certain is that something has to give since we live on a finite planet where endless growth is impossible. There's no negotiating with nature.

Wishful thinking is today so prevalent that it even has infected the brain of people who are trained not to be biased, scientists. I mean sure, economists have always been blissfully ignorant and wrong in their predictions but what I’m talking about is more widespread. It's a deep denial among the people researching our most critical issues: climate change and energy limitations.

You see it in the media when scientists discuss oxymorons like “green growth”, or proclaim that we can “decarbonize our entire economy within 20 years”, or that “agriculture will save biodiversity”, or that “lab grown meat will solve our food problems” and so on. It's nothings but grasping at straws in a world that is on fire. Such delusional statements are more about belief systems and identities reflecting values than science. It's also because climate scientists have been told by behavioural psychologists not to scare people as it may hamper action. But isn't it odd that the profession that claims to be devoted to curiosity and truth seeking wants to restrict exploration of future possibilities and censor people due to how it might come across to others?

Our climate reality is harsh. Most scientists tend to underestimate our predicament because they are too conservative, not the other way around. But now it's becoming clear, predictions made by oversimplified climate models have underestimated the changes we're already witnessing due to climate change. Earth, the biosphere, ecosystems and human systems such as the economy are dynamic complex systems and their behaviour is nonlinear. A model that does not include critical feedbacks in the system will not be able to accurately predict results in the real world. This has now become obvious as real world observations about the sad state of our climate is pouring in. Climate change is accelerating.

Sea ice in the Arctic is melting at an alarming rate and looks to be completely gone summertime some time in the coming years (2022?), accelerating global warming further. Ice and snow reflect about 80 percent of the Sun’s energy back into space while the darker ocean and land will absorb 90 percent of that heat. The albedo effect due to vanishing sea ice is already responsible for about 25 percent of global warming (Pistone et al. 2014). Greenland shed about 280 gigatons of ice per year between 2002-2016 and the island’s lower-elevation and coastal areas experienced up to 4 meters of ice mass loss (expressed in equivalent-water-height) over a 14-year period (NASA, 2018). Accelerating rates of ice loss also implies accelerated rates of sea level rise. Certain cities will have to be abandoned. In ten years prior to 2016 the Atlantic Ocean soaked up 50 percent more carbon dioxide than it did the previous decade, speeding up the acidification of the ocean (Woosley et al. 2016). And the list goes on and on with increasingly worrisome observations.

With an increase of carbon emissions of 2% in 2017 (Carbon Brief, 2017), the so called “decoupling” of economic activity from emissions is not yet making a net dent in global emissions. Even if we start reducing emissions now it's not going to be enough to prevent dangerous climate change since there is about a decade lag between emissions and resulting warming (Ricke & Caldeira, 2014). We have already (95% probability) gone past the 2°C warming point/UN target (Raftery et al. 2017), and are likely headed towards 4-5°C (Steffen et al. 2018). That's because the Earth system is dynamic and is more likely to continue warming until it stabilises at another point, which in the Earth's past occurred at about 4-5°C warmer than pre-industrial levels. By the way, it is generally accepted that a 5 degree rise in temperature is not compatible with human civilisation as we know it. At the same time, perhaps a complete collapse of civilisation could prevent the worst climate change outcomes (Garrett, 2012). But no one is going to promote or talk about that in public. Even if diminishing returns on resources, especially oil, likely will shrink our civilisation in the near future, whether we like it or not (Turner, 2014).

No one likes either outcomes of this predicament and that's why most experts are basically just arguing over different options of removing carbon from the atmosphere through geoengineering. Using machines to suck out carbon, however, is not feasible both in terms of cost and scale and could cause more harm than good. Current technology would have to be scaled by a factor of 2 million times within 2 years. That's just not going to happen. Biological approaches to carbon capture such as planting trees, restoring soils, holistic grazing, and growing seagrass and kelp appear far more promising.

Anyway, the real issue for ordinary people is how to adapt to a world that is increasingly hostile while using less energy? Not wasting time listening to myths about "green tech" or believing in fantasies like "colonising Mars" or "geoengineering the entire planet"

"Until my gastly tale is told, this hearth within me burns" - Samuel Taylor Coleridge

Midway atoll, located at the middle of the remote North Pacific Ocean, is the farthest you can get from any continent on Earth. There, tens of thousands of Laysan albatross chicks lie dead on the ground, their bodies filled with plastic. Chris Jordan, artist and filmmaker, started visiting this remote place in 2009 and returned again and again over eight years to document the cycles of life and death of these magnificent seabirds.

Its a movie that moves you to tears of sadness and joy over the way the Albatross fights to survive in a world degraded by humans. Most of all, its a beautiful piece of art. Its hard, emotionally, to watch but we cannot turn our eyes away from reality. Can we let ourselves be moved deeply, to take action to transform our socities for a better future, not just for us but also for the sake of other living beings on this planet? I hope so, I sure do.

You can watch the entire movie for free at www.albatrossthefilm.com/watch-albatross

Pagoda Japan. Source: WaSZI CCO Creative Commons

How to handle a crisis of overexploitation

Throughout history, agricultural societies have had to struggle with the balance between population growth and maintaining sufficient resources to support themselves. Some failed to manage their resource base sustainably which lead to collapse or disbanding while others took measures to ensure more sustainable use of their lands and persisted.

In modern times we all assume that democracy is a better option than authoritarian forms of government. Of course no one likes the idea of abuse of power and state violence that usually comes along with such forms of government. But are democracies inherently superior to authoritarian regimes in dealing with crises such as resource depletion?

To adapt to/or manage scarcity governments may have to do some unpopular things like restricting consumption, manage usage rights of natural resources and punish offenders. Can leaders find support for such policies through elections? Its very much an open question. Small communities have been known to manage pasture lands in a democratic manner more sustainably. But today's societies are huge in comparison.

Let's look at a historical case in which the Japanese, that had relatively large cities in terms of number even back during feudal times, managed to establish more sustainable forest management through both top-down and bottom-up practices.

Forest Management in Feudal Japan

Ecological crisis

Japan had a serious deforestation problem 300 years ago as a consequence of a growing population and unsustainable forest use. Forests were overexploited by logging mainly for timber and fuelwood. By 1570 Japan's population had reached 10 million people and needs for forest products had increased correspondingly. With the advent of the Tokugawa shogunate and peace, followed by rapid growth of cities and construction of castles, temples and shrines, logging increased during the 1600s to a scale never before experienced in Japan. Conflict between villagers and rulers over the use of forest lands became intense. By 1670 the population had increased to nearly 30 million and all the old growth forest had been completely logged, except for in Hokkaido. The supply of timber and other forest products was running out. Soil erosion, floods, landslides and barren lands were becoming common. Japan was headed for ecological disaster.

Feudal lords take action

There were three principal types of forest land tenure during the Tokugawa period (1603-1867). Feudal lords tenure, communal tenure and individual tenure. Individual tenure failed to develop because individual land ownership was prohibited in principle by the Tokugawa Shogunate. Therefore, almost all Japanese forest land tenure was either the feudal lords tenure or communal.

Access to the forest owned by feudal lords was strictly limited and those who logged illegally were severely punished. A typical example of forest owned and managed by a feudal lord was the Kiso area that was owned and managed by a relative of the Shogun.

The two major cities Edo and Osaka and forest management places like Kiso. Source: Iwamoto (2002)

Before the Tokugawa period, Kiso was covered with thick forest but by the late 17th century iso forest resource had deteriorated greatly. The feudal lord therefore carried out the first reform in 1665, instituting seedling protection, strengthening of patrols and selective cutting. The reform reduced timber production by half and cut the feudal lords income severely. Only a few years later the lord ordered an increase in timber production for financial reasons. Even though the reform first failed the second reform was planned in 1724. In this reform, timber production was reduced by more than 60% and this time it succeeded, carrying on for 30 years and thus allowing the forest to recover.

Common lands

During the Tokugawa period most Japanese people made their living by agriculture, managing uncultivated mountainous common lands surrounding their villages. Common forest lands provided a wide variety of ecosystem services such as timber, fuelwood, fertilizer, feed, clean water, erosion control etc. In the late 17th century, intensive forestry with artificial planting was begun by members (farmers) of the commons in response to increasing demand for wood. People planted valuable conifers such as sugi and hinoki and developing new techniques for planting, thinning and pruning plantations necessary for high-quality timber. Wandering scholars wrote silviculture manuals and traveled around the country spreading the new technology from village to village. Forest management stimulated new social institutions for the ruling elite and villagers to cooperate on timber production in a way that provided villagers incentives to produce timber: yamawari (dividing use rights of common lands among families), nenkiyama (long term leases of forest lands to villagers by the rulers), and buwakibayashi (villagers producing timber on rulers land and sharing the harvest with the elites). Slowly but surely reforesting took place.

Lessons from history

First of, action on the part of the ruling elite and villagers did not happen until forest resources were severely degraded and conflict arose between the two. New management practices were forced upon the population and breaking the rules meant severe punishment. Reforms sometimes failed due to financial interests and needs. Relying heavily on one sector for the majority of income was a bad strategy. A more diversified income probably helped later reforms to succeed. New forest management practices lead to the development of new social institutions that were more cooperative and respectful of usage rights. During hard times forests may have been overexploited but reforestation efforts during easier times helped prevent the worst of outcomes. The feudal lords were probably not very lenient towards villagers and ordinary people must have, at first, disliked the decision to cut back on timber production and being punished for logging in certain areas. However, they adapted to this new reality and started planting trees to meet the demand. Its a case of non-democratic rule that actually had a positive outcome in terms of more sustainable use of Japan's forests. Now, it should be mentioned that forests were again overexploitation during the second world war. And perhaps the previous reforms only succeeded due to times of peace. It also should be mentioned that after the war forests, both from common and lords lands, where taken up into public lands managed by the state. But it's still an interesting example to ponder. Perhaps a mix of both top-down and bottom-up rules is needed but to achieve successful management but its hard to imagine it happening without some amount of unpopular decision-making if the society is large.

Credit: Devfactory, CC-BY-SA 2.0

Another great systems theory based book on why nations fail is out. This time its academic, journalist and writer Nafeez Ahmed, who long wrote for the Guardian but now has his own crowdsourced news site (Insurge-intelligence), who has delivered the goods.

In his book, "Failing states, Collapsing systems: Biophysical Triggers of Political Violence", Nafeez presents the essential data on resource depletion, net energy decline, economic stagnation (debt bubble) and ties it nicely together with the acceleration of civil unrest around the globe. It's a big picture analysis of how the triple crises of energy, climate and food production impact societies around the world. A current example, according to Ahmed, of how these multiple stressors interact and can lead to systemic failure is war torn Syria.

Syrian oil production peaked in 1996 while population, and thus consumption, kept increasing. By 2008 the government, who relied on petrol money for maintaining the state budget, had to slash fuel subsidies which tripled the price of petrol and food almost overnight. A huge deal to anyone already spending almost half of their income on food. At the same time as an ongoing drought in the eastern part of Syria devastated harvests and drove people from the countryside into the cities. Yemen experienced a similar fate of depleting resources, peak oil, and the resulting high vulnerability to shocks. Based on these two cases it takes about 15 years for a country that experiences its peak in oil production before additional pressures, such as climate change, contribute to systemic failure.

It's not only the Middle East. Many other countries, for example Mexico, are well on their way of having little to no extra oil to export for keeping their budget in balance or pay for subsidies that people depend on. And the counties who are still able to import some oil or have some mix of energy sources to depend on will be a target of immigrants looking to flee bankrupt and failing nations. Which in turn will fuel the nationalist sentiments and a grab for what's left, military interventions. Something we are already witnessing in Europe and the US.

For a summery version of the book, read "How global economic growth will drown in Trump's oil glut after 2018"

Source: Free great pictures, CC0 Public Domain

It’s too late when someone is already gone. That is the lesson one learns when a close relative dies. I have witnessed up close how truly crushing futile optimism can be. The fact that our human brain refuses to accept sad news and tries to cope by counteracting it with hope right up until the end can be a very cruel thing. Not being mentally prepared for the misery to come causes a shock so severe it puts one in a state of almost complete apathy. I am both lucky and cursed that I have experienced plenty of misery, both in my work as a nurse and in my own life, to know how bad things can get and therefore be somewhat mentally prepared for it. Some may call me a pessimist but I prefer the term realist. It´s not that I don’t have hopes, dreams and wishes just like anybody else. I obviously do. It’s simply that I am aware of the human brain's tendency for denial in face of difficult truths, like one’s own mortality. Denial is not only a coping mechanism but also an inherent trait of the human species. Because we are aware of our own and others suffering we realize our own mortality, which is a terrifying thing, that could lead to fear and depression that hinders reproduction and survival. Thus we need to deny death risks and mortality to keep on going, in evolutionary terms. That’s why we are overly optimistic, despite difficult circumstances, because we are wired for it.

Sure, unwarranted optimism (or reality denial) can be a good thing in certain situations, giving people extra strength to carry on despite high odds of failure. But it can also be very detrimental. For example in the case of climate change or species extinction where there is no going back. In these cases blind optimism in high tech solutions or unknown future discoveries etc. is actually dangerous. We have already perturbed the climate system to such a degree that it may change abruptly and shift into another stability domain, a much hotter and hostile one than we humans have never experienced. This is a fact. It’s not a very pleasant one but denying it doesn’t change anything. It only makes things worse, both in terms of not mitigating the worst impacts and being prepared for them. Without, at least, mental preparation people will be shocked, confused and in a panic when devastation hits. They will likely blame other people around them instead of understanding the underlying reasons for why such events happened. Like two rats in a cage getting electrocuted they won't know what to do but fight to the death.

Accepting one’s own mortality and living in a meaningful way to minimize regrets is a better way to deal with unpleasant facts. Accepting, for example, death, climate change and biodiversity loss doesn’t imply we like it. It simply means that we understand it and that we can take constructive action to build a life that is more meaningful and resilient to future shocks and disturbances. We can all find a life of meaning that is also beneficial for society and nature. A farmer knows this. We simply have to have the courage to strive for it. One day it’s truly too late...

Sweeping the pengő inflation banknotes after the introduction of the forint in August 1946. Source: Mizerák István (CC-BY-SA 3.0)

I must say that I'm amazed over the fact that the international monetary system is still intact. It's now eight years since the global financial crisis first broke out. Irresponsible lax monetary policy in the belief of a "perpetual money machine", i.e lowering interest rates and expanding monetary supply, has lead to several bubbles and bursts. A process that started in the 1980s when industrial economies stopped generating GDP growth from productivity increases. And eight years is about the interval between every bubble bursting since then. 2017 could be the year when people finally lose faith in the system.

Of course there's a much deeper story to all this. The massive debt explosion that started in the 1980s has to do with diminishing returns on resource extraction. As real GDP growth slowed down, and wages stagnated, the cost of basic goods and living increased. People and governments started taking on huge loans to cover their continued consumption. An act of postponing the harsh consequences of going broke into the future, on to the next generation, while enjoying the present. By now we all know that most nations, and its peoples, are basically bankrupt since global GDP growth has come to a standstill while debts, not even including liabilities, have increased and are now impossible to pay back.

Instead of dealing with the real underlying issue, most nations have decided to double down on a failing policy of ever lower interest rates that keeps inflating markets and creating massive bubbles in stocks, bonds and housing. Sweden is a prime example of a country that never deleveraged during the last crisis and thus runs a much higher risk of having to face a major financial crisis soon. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that with its negative interest rates and massive housing bubble Swedes are living way beyond their means. A small 40 m2 flat in central Stockholm cost at least 2-3 million SEK which makes it the third most overvalued housing market in the world, after Vancouver and London.

Mainstream media is still mostly blind to all this, claiming rising prosperity and a bright future ahead. And the few people who do stick their neck out are ridiculed based on silly arguments like "if it's a bubble why hasn't it popped yet?" as if that proves anything but faulty linear thinking of complex systems. It takes time for instabilities to build up. At a certain point, incremental change is suddenly replaced by abrupt change that can collapse the entire system. This is well-known within systems theory. To bad most economist never even study this and thus understands nothing about how the financial system or economy actually works as a whole.

Who knows how long this pretend and extend game can go on for, but one thing is certain, people are starting to lose faith in the system. We see that clearly in the political arena and spread of alternative media. We also see it in the rise of ever more elaborate conspiracy theories. The status quo is breaking down.

Unfortunately there are plenty of madmen and privileged people who are ready to use the resulting polarisation and confusion for their own benefit. The "let's blame immigrants" card is already in full swing. Cutting funding for climate change research is another type of witch hunt that's not happening only in the US, for example, the Sweden Democrats want to do something similar here claiming the meteorological authority's scenarios, which are based on IPCC's research, are too alarmist. For us who study the topic of climate change this statement is laughable as it's more like the other way around, most projections underestimate the risks. Also, the increasing flow of refugees are partly a consequence of depleting resources and climate change. Perhaps politicians fear a loss of voters if the public understood that fact properly.

Anyway, 2017 looks to me as a year of high risk of political turmoil, social unrest, and financial calamity. Drawing most attention away from the underlying issues: resource depletion, biodiversity loss, climate change and overpopulation.

At the same time as the US have elected a science denier as their president a new study in the Journal Science indicate that our planet's temperature could rise by between 4.78°C to 7.36°C during a lifetime (by 2100). Much higher than the IPCC estimated 2.6°C and 4.8°C. A higher climate sensitivity indicates just that, that warming will occur faster than previously expected, giving less time for species to adapt and survive.

Global mean temperature anomaly. Left panel: Reconstruction of last 784,000 yrs. Right panel: Global warming projection to 2100 based on newly calculated paleoclimate sensitivity. Credit: Friedrich, et al. (2016)

We already know that 2°C of warming is considered dangerous and that 4°C would be utterly devastating. A 4°C scenario could include consequences like: the inundation of coastal cities, loss of food production, malnutrition and hunger, unprecedented heat waves, extreme water scarcity in many regions, increased frequency of tropical storms, irreversible loss of biodiversity etc.

Furthermore, a dramatic rise in temperatures would trigger reinforcing feedback processes in the climate system (e.g. warming→ polar ice melts → more warming → more ice melts) that are pretty much irreversible. Leaving us with no choice but to adapt to the harsh realities of abrupt climate change.

President-elect Trump has promised to halt all US climate change politics, including the Paris Accord, and bet all cards on fossil fuel extraction. If so, there will be no international climate agreement worth mentioning and North Americans will be lost in a dark age.

All while the planet keep on getting warmer, generating extreme events, creating more climate refugees and conflict over scarce resources. Until it becomes so unbearable that only a few places on Earth remain as safe havens. It is truly an apocalyptic vision of humanity's future.

Child labourers, Macon, Georgia, 1909

A growing population and dwindling natural resources, with rapidly rising extraction costs, implies increasing poverty. And this is also what we are noticing among the general populace, a shrinking economic pie has meant smaller pieces for everyone but the super rich who can bet on government stimulated markets. According to McKinsey (2016), real incomes of some 65-70% of households in 25 advanced economies have been flat or falling between 2005-2014. Crushing the long held belief that "the next generation will be better off than their parents".

As people have started to realise that they are having a tougher time to get by economically, or simply less able to buy lots of stuff, trust in governments and social cohesion has fallen. And that is also why we see the phenomena of populist, extremist, politicians gaining more traction as ordinary people become increasingly dissatisfied with status quo.

The divide between the younger and older generation is also growing as younger people are experiencing a harder time finding good paying jobs, saddled with student debt, while expected to provide for a growing share of pensioners. This at the same time as savers, e.g. pensioners, are suffering from negative interest rates and rising living costs.

Earth Overshoot Day is tomorrow, marking the fact that humanity has used up a year's worth of natural resources in only seven months. This have been made possible only by our discovering of stored fossil hydrocarbons which have provided us with cheap and abundant energy. Up until now. As we have plundered the planet for its resources we have hit limits to what Earth's ecosystems can provide without degrading or collapsing. Transgressing those limits means that we now have less resources available every year.

It's time to wake up to the fact that the world is changing and old beliefs have to be revised. Having children while wasting the Earth's resources is hypocritical if we now claim to be a species with some skill at foresight.

Heading for the next financial crisis?

When it comes to the topic of economics there are few trustworthy academics who know what they are talking about. However, an excellent one is prof. Steve Keen at Kingston University. He uses dynamic models and includes banks and credit/debt as key parameters to understanding financial crises. Something neoclassical economists totally ignore, which is ridiculous of course.

In one of Steve's latest blog posts, at debtdeflation.com, we find this interesting slide showing countries with rapid credit growth and accumulation of private sector debt since 2008. According to Keen these are the future debt-zombies, with a debt ratio of over 150% of GDP. Sweden (brown line) is among the worst of all countries and headed for a crisis. With private debt soaring to 237% of GDP and growing 15% of GDP per year it becomes clear that this is unsustainable and will have to end. Changes in the massive property bubble in Sweden will likely be a key indicator to the coming downturn. The new mortgage repayment requirements may function to slow down credit growth, and if so, most likely popping the bubble. We can't predict when the crash will happen but that it will happen is a sure thing.

Source: Steve Keen, presentation on growing private sector debt and financial crises

As for the US we can see in the chart below how credit growth picked back up again in 2010 after some deleveraging (2008-2009) but has once again started a downturn. A pattern similar to Japan's zombie-economy with rising and falling credit leading to recessions and ever more financial trickery from central banks.

Source: Steve Keen, presentation on inequality, debt and credit stagnation

This will affect the unemployment levels as, Keen shows in the chart below, there is a strong correlation between changes in credit and unemployment rates. More than 45 million Americans, about 20% of the population, are already on food stamps. According to shadowstats, real unemployment in America is at 23% as of May 2016, not 4.7% as the government claims. Not counting people who have stopped actively looking for a job, cherry picking data, is very dubious and has lead many mainstream media pundits to scratch their head as to "why so many americans are on food stamps?".

Because there is so much misinformation and propaganda regarding the true state of affairs most people will be surprised when the next crisis hits. They will be angry as to why politicians have not informed them of the dangers and will be even less happy when the government asks for more tax money to once again bail out the banks. But certain homogenous societies may still be stable despite such hardships, as is the case with Japan. While others may experience uprisings and mayhem.

Taking action to protect yourself and your community, getting out of debt, is all one can do at this point. Governments around the world are so blinded by their addiction to credit growth that they will do anything to keep the bubble going. Even if it only increases the income gap between the rich and the poor. Getting out of debt and investing in alternative energy sources and food production is the safer bet. And something we should all do to protect our families and future generations.

Mother Nature Strikes Back

Yes it's true that an El Niño period usually brings about certain weather extremes, however, the 2015/2016 El Niño has broken all records in terms of strength i.e. heat being released into the atmosphere from the oceans. This is to be expected as the climate is getting warmer from all the carbon pollution that has altered the chemistry of the planet. Climate change acts as a multiplier effect, increasing the frequency or amplitude of extreme weather events.

I'm sure most people have read the terrible news about the massive wildfires in Alberta or the flash floods in Germany, France and West Virginia. Few, however, may have heard about the deadly heat waves in India, floods in Pakistan or failing harvests in South Africa.

Sometimes it's hard to get a grip on what climate change will do to our environments and livelihoods. It can feel distant in time or abstract. But changes are already occurring and we have to start adapting now or more people will have to flee and become climate refugees.

These two videos give a good overview of some of the extreme weather events that have struck nations around the world lately and why it's happening. It should give us all pause, make us understand the urgency of tackling and responding to a rapidly changing climate.

Now that the english have voted to exit the european union one must ask if it's not about time to have a referendum here in Sweden. The results could mirror those of the brits, a slight majority preferring to leave. A divide mostly between the upper and lower class and the old and the young. Swedes already said no to join the Euro and NATO so the sentiment of wanting to keep self-determination has always been strong.

Opinion polls show loosing confidence in established parties and a turn towards more radical left and right wing politics as people become increasingly aware of the major challenges society is facing. The conservative Sweden Democrats is thought to have gained some 20% of voters while the Social Democrats and the Liberals have lost a significant number of voters.

Economic, environmental and energy problems keep piling up without any clear vision or united efforts to tackle them on a national scale. On top of that immigration has become a major issue that divides the country. At the same time property prices and rents are sky high in city regions leading to segregation that only intensifies conflicts between the have and have nots.

This meanwhile farmers are struggling due to unreasonable EU rules and practices. Sweden imports almost 50% of the food that is consumed despite all the fertile land and freshwater the country has. However, the trend is shifting towards more locally grown food as people become aware of the benefits and the enjoyment in knowing where their food comes from. But it's a slow process.

The danger of course, in these times of political turmoil, is for demagoguery to gain more traction as people struggle to make sense of shifting power structures and harsher socioeconomic conditions. There are no easy or quick fixes, even if Sweden leaves the EU we still have many problems that our own government is to blame for, the massive private debt burden for example. The rising economic inequality and unfunded pensions that indebted students without any sight of gaining high paying jobs will ever be able to pay for. Exiting the EU or stopping immigration won't solve these problems, we need structural change of our entire economic system. The question is if we have the courage to change our way of living before it is changed for us, whether we like it or not.

Inequality and economic crisis leaves democracies open to totalitarianism

Involuntary degrowth and its consequences

Rapid loss of life on Earth

Abrupt thaw of permafrost lakes in the Arctic

Converging crises - Synchronizing failure