Listen now | Professor Simon Michaux on how to navigate the climate crisis without triggering a global economic crash. Simon drops more than a few bombshells concerning energy use and politics, but also reveals a new energy paradigm he’s working on that could provide genuine zero emission energy.
you have invited Simon Michaux to Planet Critical where he argued that a transformation towards renewables needs way too much energy and materials than its (socially/ecologically) feasible.
Just came out Nafeez Ahmed’s paper* which challenges Michaux’s arguments, for example:
„the idea that renewables have a lower EROI than fossil fuels is a persistent misconception that has plagued numerous other studies that fail to make a full account of these technologies. These mistakes can be found in many places, not least in the famous feature documentary by Michael Moore, Planet of the Humans. More recently, the Geological Survey of Finland published [by Michaux] a paper repeating such errors, as did the journal Energies. ... Models that predict raw materials scarcity based on a one-for-one substitution of petrol vehicles with EVs are wrong.”
It could be interesting to untangle these issues either through a debate or just invite them separately...
Overall this was a good and useful conversation, and the reality of how currently popular alternative energy sources (mainly wind and solarPV) cannot be scaled to the extent assumed is important. (A fair amount of "reality-checking" in general, in fact, is evident here, which the masses need.) There are other sources that are less discussed and harder to come across that may not suffer the same problems, so there is reason to believe that this may not be the end of that story even without going into the types of "new paradigm" tech Simon mentioned. But I found his comment at 51:20 that "the human species won't die" as global warming crashes down on us to be quite ignorant. Simon needs his own reality checked on this point. That kind of attitude is common among those who are less well informed, but I had assumed Simon was not among those people. Apparently he is. His comments suggest that collectively we will fail to react before the climate delivers some major blows to us (much more severe than those we already experience) that will force us to finally do what is needed to carry humanity onward. He seems not to grasp that at a not-too-distant point in the future, time to "finally" react will be over. And then there will be no future for us, period. Global warming will not just give us "a lesson in manners." Our habitat will be destroyed. No food, no human life, no life at all beyond microscopic life. And by the way, at the time of the talk there were in fact recyclable wind turbine blades in production but only a small scale, which will change. That doesn't deny that wind cannot be the answer, but just a bit of fact checking.
Hi Mark, thanks for joining in the debate. I'm glad you enjoyed the episode. I disagree that only microscopic life will continue after the climate crisis: There are so many different habitats on earth that it is more likely even a small section of humanity would survive the impacts of the climate crisis, no matter how it would look. Reaction may be bare minimum survival, but because the climate crisis is not a singular event, but rather a series of gradual changes which exponentially increasing impacts, we are more likely looking at collapse rather than extinction, no?
Well, in fact, no. If you follow the chirpy comments by people with vested interests in doing nothing but making billionaires and maintaining the status quo, then you'll no doubt have the feeling that GW is not such a big deal. There is a massive amount of misinformation put out by policymakers and even climate scientists who are restricted from speaking freely in order not to bite the hand that feeds them. COP events and the IPCC take the work of good scientists and morph it into a message that suits the 196 political appointees who have to sign off on them. But speak to scientists (best are independent ones, if you can find them) and they'll tell you. Life on Earth is a chain, quite literally. The chain is breaking, affecting everything. But even if we are left only with a Mad Max universe as your comment here suggests, that is HARDLY a humanity that deserves a glib comment like "the human species won't die" from your guest.
I agree with much you're saying and understand your perspective, but I don't think it was a glib comment—he was stating a fact, not proposing a value judgement on what that future would look like.
Our biggest problem now, humanity's biggest problem and the biggest problem of all life on Earth, is that people don't think there's a problem. They just don't get it. Your guest's "fact" that "the human species won't die" at this point today does not look like a fact. We are on a trajectory that will wipe us out, period. He goes on to say that what will happen is a mere lesson in manners. Something of an understatement. Add the laughter he evoked from himself and his host at what he imagines to be what the consequences of our inaction are, and you have the ingredients to our problem. It can't be that bad if we're all laughing about it, can it? So let's just drive our SUV down to the shopping mall and buy some more stuff. This is why people just don't get it.
Thank you for this podcast, which was interesting and shocking. While cruising the net to try find the reports Simon refers to, I cam across this statement from the gtk.fi website as a quote from Simon's report A Bottom-Up Insight Reveals.......etc: “We are observing a large increase of investments that would be sufficient to transform our industrial ecosystem fossil free in 2-3 decades. Moreover, this transition should also cope with the future energy and material needs emerging from overall population growth”, says Simon Michaux.". This seems to be the opposite of the info in the podcast.
Dear Prof Simon & Rachel, thank you for this insightful podcast that seem to make tireless sisyphus look like childplay. What solution is there in sight do you see from your vantage point.
Hi Jay, thank you for listening and for leaving such wonderful feedback! I can't answer from Simon's perspective, but I would argue that listening to experts such as Simon who are deliberately confronting the complexities of the intersection between the economy and climate change is essential. Greenwashing and simplistic notions of progress at this stage will only hamper society down the line. I often wonder if bipartisan politics are too simple in their rhetoric and systems to handle the upcoming crisis; their citizens are capable of confronting complexities, but politicians don't seem to keen to communicate them, perhaps for fear of losing votes.
Hi Rachel,
you have invited Simon Michaux to Planet Critical where he argued that a transformation towards renewables needs way too much energy and materials than its (socially/ecologically) feasible.
Just came out Nafeez Ahmed’s paper* which challenges Michaux’s arguments, for example:
„the idea that renewables have a lower EROI than fossil fuels is a persistent misconception that has plagued numerous other studies that fail to make a full account of these technologies. These mistakes can be found in many places, not least in the famous feature documentary by Michael Moore, Planet of the Humans. More recently, the Geological Survey of Finland published [by Michaux] a paper repeating such errors, as did the journal Energies. ... Models that predict raw materials scarcity based on a one-for-one substitution of petrol vehicles with EVs are wrong.”
It could be interesting to untangle these issues either through a debate or just invite them separately...
Best,
Tamas
* https://clubofrome.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Earth4All_Deep_Dive_Ahmed.pdf
Overall this was a good and useful conversation, and the reality of how currently popular alternative energy sources (mainly wind and solarPV) cannot be scaled to the extent assumed is important. (A fair amount of "reality-checking" in general, in fact, is evident here, which the masses need.) There are other sources that are less discussed and harder to come across that may not suffer the same problems, so there is reason to believe that this may not be the end of that story even without going into the types of "new paradigm" tech Simon mentioned. But I found his comment at 51:20 that "the human species won't die" as global warming crashes down on us to be quite ignorant. Simon needs his own reality checked on this point. That kind of attitude is common among those who are less well informed, but I had assumed Simon was not among those people. Apparently he is. His comments suggest that collectively we will fail to react before the climate delivers some major blows to us (much more severe than those we already experience) that will force us to finally do what is needed to carry humanity onward. He seems not to grasp that at a not-too-distant point in the future, time to "finally" react will be over. And then there will be no future for us, period. Global warming will not just give us "a lesson in manners." Our habitat will be destroyed. No food, no human life, no life at all beyond microscopic life. And by the way, at the time of the talk there were in fact recyclable wind turbine blades in production but only a small scale, which will change. That doesn't deny that wind cannot be the answer, but just a bit of fact checking.
Hi Mark, thanks for joining in the debate. I'm glad you enjoyed the episode. I disagree that only microscopic life will continue after the climate crisis: There are so many different habitats on earth that it is more likely even a small section of humanity would survive the impacts of the climate crisis, no matter how it would look. Reaction may be bare minimum survival, but because the climate crisis is not a singular event, but rather a series of gradual changes which exponentially increasing impacts, we are more likely looking at collapse rather than extinction, no?
Well, in fact, no. If you follow the chirpy comments by people with vested interests in doing nothing but making billionaires and maintaining the status quo, then you'll no doubt have the feeling that GW is not such a big deal. There is a massive amount of misinformation put out by policymakers and even climate scientists who are restricted from speaking freely in order not to bite the hand that feeds them. COP events and the IPCC take the work of good scientists and morph it into a message that suits the 196 political appointees who have to sign off on them. But speak to scientists (best are independent ones, if you can find them) and they'll tell you. Life on Earth is a chain, quite literally. The chain is breaking, affecting everything. But even if we are left only with a Mad Max universe as your comment here suggests, that is HARDLY a humanity that deserves a glib comment like "the human species won't die" from your guest.
I agree with much you're saying and understand your perspective, but I don't think it was a glib comment—he was stating a fact, not proposing a value judgement on what that future would look like.
Our biggest problem now, humanity's biggest problem and the biggest problem of all life on Earth, is that people don't think there's a problem. They just don't get it. Your guest's "fact" that "the human species won't die" at this point today does not look like a fact. We are on a trajectory that will wipe us out, period. He goes on to say that what will happen is a mere lesson in manners. Something of an understatement. Add the laughter he evoked from himself and his host at what he imagines to be what the consequences of our inaction are, and you have the ingredients to our problem. It can't be that bad if we're all laughing about it, can it? So let's just drive our SUV down to the shopping mall and buy some more stuff. This is why people just don't get it.
Podcast suggestion re. the Great Reset: Alison McDowell at https://wrenchinthegears.com/
Brilliant, thank you!
Thank you for this podcast, which was interesting and shocking. While cruising the net to try find the reports Simon refers to, I cam across this statement from the gtk.fi website as a quote from Simon's report A Bottom-Up Insight Reveals.......etc: “We are observing a large increase of investments that would be sufficient to transform our industrial ecosystem fossil free in 2-3 decades. Moreover, this transition should also cope with the future energy and material needs emerging from overall population growth”, says Simon Michaux.". This seems to be the opposite of the info in the podcast.
Anyone who's listened to the full podcast can try to read this and figure out the holes... https://www.mckinsey.com/business-functions/sustainability/our-insights/solving-the-net-zero-equation-nine-requirements-for-a-more-orderly-transition
"Sustainability... It's kind of an aesthetic..." This is an extremely insightful way of putting it.
Dear Prof Simon & Rachel, thank you for this insightful podcast that seem to make tireless sisyphus look like childplay. What solution is there in sight do you see from your vantage point.
Hi Jay, thank you for listening and for leaving such wonderful feedback! I can't answer from Simon's perspective, but I would argue that listening to experts such as Simon who are deliberately confronting the complexities of the intersection between the economy and climate change is essential. Greenwashing and simplistic notions of progress at this stage will only hamper society down the line. I often wonder if bipartisan politics are too simple in their rhetoric and systems to handle the upcoming crisis; their citizens are capable of confronting complexities, but politicians don't seem to keen to communicate them, perhaps for fear of losing votes.