Listen now | Even if we had the solutions—could we implement them? Richard Heinberg, senior fellow at Post Carbon Institute, on the dangerous lack of social cohesion which threatens our global capacity to collaborate in the face of the climate crisis. We discuss energy rationing, political division, the effect of increasing economic inequality, and the knowledge gap between the public and leaders.
I liked the fact that Richard Heinberg came from outside the scientific community and felt that this gave him more freedom to have an objective view of the interlocking issues. I think in Nate Hagen's interview he said something like "we have islands of expertise, in an ocean of nonsense". Maybe someone like Richard is in a better place to join the dots.
At the moment it's hard to see anyone in the public sphere suggesting rationing, but I wouldn't be surprised if this changed in the near future if the food shocks play out as you suggested. I think the problem of people 'gamifying' the system will be a huge problem though. There's already a justifiable lack of trust after Covid, how government contracts were handed out, who obeyed the rules and who didn't. I can't think of any politician who would have enough credibility with the public at the moment to get people onside, at least in the UK.
Regarding perennials, it's really interesting that people are starting to think about this for agriculture. If you watch any of the popular vegetable growing channels, Huw Richards or Charles Dowding for example, they say that perennials are pretty much free food with minimal effort. We've just become attuned to growing annuals, which require a lot more time and expertise. Looking forward to that interview if it comes off.
Rationing will/does happen, with or without policy or management. The question is how or if we can manage as the ecology continues to collapse. We are in (extreme) overshoot, with a lot of ecological (hence economic and social) collapse already baked in. There will be, and are, pockets of social trust sufficient for human persistence if not thriving. The issue isn't how do we keep 8-9-10 billion people alive, even. It's how do we humanely ride the crash to a tenth of that. And then, not be left to rebuild from scratch -- after all the hard drives are just paperweights!
Rationing will/does happen, with or without policy or management. The question is how or if we can manage as the ecology continues to collapse. We are in (extreme) overshoot, with a lot of ecological (hence economic and social) collapse already baked in. There will be, and are, pockets of social trust sufficient for human persistence if not thriving. The issue isn't how do we keep 8-9-10 billion people alive, even. It's how do we humanely ride the crash to a tenth of that. And then, not be left to rebuild from scratch -- after all the hard drives are just paperweights!
Thanks for this. Am in complete agreement with the ideology. The root problem as I see it, however, is overcoming human greed and ignorance. Greed has a such a strong biological basis. Were this not so, our species would not have survived. And although ignorance can be changed, it's often steeped in fears that people are unwilling to let go of. I think energy rationing is a great idea in theory. But how would it work in practice? Putting the government in charge wouldn't work for many reasons as already mentioned, one of which is that politicians are more concerned with their careers than the issues they were elected to resolve. Israel wisely recognized this when it came to managing water - a precious resource for any country, but especially for a desert country. Instead of having politicians oversee water, they formed an independent board to handle it, primarily composed of scientists. Equitable monitoring and enforcement are other problematic concerns. I think the film "Don't Look Up" really nailed it. As a society we seem to prefer having an arm cut off and bleeding to death as long as we've got enough morphine in the meantime.
I am 72. In the late 60s and early 70s the idea of the back-the-earth hippie lifestyle was incredibly cool. This was a movement to live simply, close to the earth, taking care of things, doing really fun things. The most important thing is that if was voluntary and did not depend on electing wise leaders. Even if we can elect those kinds of leaders, I can't see how these leaders will be able to enact "top down" policies that will force people to live with less. But I do think that we can encourage a massive resurgence of back-to-earth lifestyles so that we can have a "bottom up" revolution. C'mon people lets get back to living a lifestyle where our jobs are doing fun stuff.
excellent interview. for social cohesion is victory a necessity, is a "solution" to abrupt climate change required to do the right thing and isn't an optimistic lie still a lie? once the lies are exposed the morale loss seems to be worse than an initial pragmatism. perhaps there is no human solution and success would mean merely prolonging our reign and mitigating our permenant damage to the planet as we exit. i'm the last to look to religion for inspiration in climate action but ... "god, grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change, courage to change the things i can, and wisdom to know the difference," and all that.
The real problem is the wealthy elite don't own any resources that could be used to build the low impact/resource economy. About all they have is financial. So the message is they should no longer be able to siphon off the resource surpluses to convert to financial.
The only way is for people themselves to build their own resources like free tenant peasants, lets start with building a fertile garden to feed ourselves (not to feed people in cities), pollarding trees for fuel and fencing, among other positive activities.
A recent comment I made that fits his elite investor trap description: One thing these overlords hadn't thought enough about is without people who own and pay taxes they will have to pay all the government workers out of their own pockets. Hahahaha! Idiots.
Anyway I like Heinberg and why I tuned in even though he still has this mistaken notion that hierarchy can exist without overusing resources. Oh yeah, and the fact he brags about traveling the world with his writing profits - which makes him a part of the wealthy elite that needs to be converted to becoming an actual tree planter. Much like others you've interviewed who only offer words.
Anyway, I am reading his new book now and have reread the first chapter numerous times as I am building aerobic compost piles that are creating billions of aerobic bacteria and its fascinating how these store energy for my garden.
Also the work on building a real life is not that hard once nutrient dense food begins to build the physical body as well. Clears up thinking and then what makes more sense is apparent. People habituated on three square meals of carbs a day are the trouble makers, over using resources until they reach oblivion.
i don't believe the actual problem could ever be addressed by an individual ethics even if 60% the population wasn't struggling just to survive day to day already. this is a systemic problem beyond individual behavior and at this late stage natural feedbacks are now firmly in control. humans take centuries to make social and civilizational changes.
During WW2 the English Island was facing a shortage of food and the idea of Victory Gardens was disseminated to the population. In weeks there were gardens everywhere.
I liked the fact that Richard Heinberg came from outside the scientific community and felt that this gave him more freedom to have an objective view of the interlocking issues. I think in Nate Hagen's interview he said something like "we have islands of expertise, in an ocean of nonsense". Maybe someone like Richard is in a better place to join the dots.
At the moment it's hard to see anyone in the public sphere suggesting rationing, but I wouldn't be surprised if this changed in the near future if the food shocks play out as you suggested. I think the problem of people 'gamifying' the system will be a huge problem though. There's already a justifiable lack of trust after Covid, how government contracts were handed out, who obeyed the rules and who didn't. I can't think of any politician who would have enough credibility with the public at the moment to get people onside, at least in the UK.
Regarding perennials, it's really interesting that people are starting to think about this for agriculture. If you watch any of the popular vegetable growing channels, Huw Richards or Charles Dowding for example, they say that perennials are pretty much free food with minimal effort. We've just become attuned to growing annuals, which require a lot more time and expertise. Looking forward to that interview if it comes off.
Interesting as always!!
Thank you, as ever, for your considered insight, Tim!
Rationing will/does happen, with or without policy or management. The question is how or if we can manage as the ecology continues to collapse. We are in (extreme) overshoot, with a lot of ecological (hence economic and social) collapse already baked in. There will be, and are, pockets of social trust sufficient for human persistence if not thriving. The issue isn't how do we keep 8-9-10 billion people alive, even. It's how do we humanely ride the crash to a tenth of that. And then, not be left to rebuild from scratch -- after all the hard drives are just paperweights!
Rationing will/does happen, with or without policy or management. The question is how or if we can manage as the ecology continues to collapse. We are in (extreme) overshoot, with a lot of ecological (hence economic and social) collapse already baked in. There will be, and are, pockets of social trust sufficient for human persistence if not thriving. The issue isn't how do we keep 8-9-10 billion people alive, even. It's how do we humanely ride the crash to a tenth of that. And then, not be left to rebuild from scratch -- after all the hard drives are just paperweights!
Thanks for this. Am in complete agreement with the ideology. The root problem as I see it, however, is overcoming human greed and ignorance. Greed has a such a strong biological basis. Were this not so, our species would not have survived. And although ignorance can be changed, it's often steeped in fears that people are unwilling to let go of. I think energy rationing is a great idea in theory. But how would it work in practice? Putting the government in charge wouldn't work for many reasons as already mentioned, one of which is that politicians are more concerned with their careers than the issues they were elected to resolve. Israel wisely recognized this when it came to managing water - a precious resource for any country, but especially for a desert country. Instead of having politicians oversee water, they formed an independent board to handle it, primarily composed of scientists. Equitable monitoring and enforcement are other problematic concerns. I think the film "Don't Look Up" really nailed it. As a society we seem to prefer having an arm cut off and bleeding to death as long as we've got enough morphine in the meantime.
I am 72. In the late 60s and early 70s the idea of the back-the-earth hippie lifestyle was incredibly cool. This was a movement to live simply, close to the earth, taking care of things, doing really fun things. The most important thing is that if was voluntary and did not depend on electing wise leaders. Even if we can elect those kinds of leaders, I can't see how these leaders will be able to enact "top down" policies that will force people to live with less. But I do think that we can encourage a massive resurgence of back-to-earth lifestyles so that we can have a "bottom up" revolution. C'mon people lets get back to living a lifestyle where our jobs are doing fun stuff.
Completely agree with Tim.
Your IVs Always thought provoking and enlightening.
excellent interview. for social cohesion is victory a necessity, is a "solution" to abrupt climate change required to do the right thing and isn't an optimistic lie still a lie? once the lies are exposed the morale loss seems to be worse than an initial pragmatism. perhaps there is no human solution and success would mean merely prolonging our reign and mitigating our permenant damage to the planet as we exit. i'm the last to look to religion for inspiration in climate action but ... "god, grant me the serenity to accept the things i cannot change, courage to change the things i can, and wisdom to know the difference," and all that.
The real problem is the wealthy elite don't own any resources that could be used to build the low impact/resource economy. About all they have is financial. So the message is they should no longer be able to siphon off the resource surpluses to convert to financial.
The only way is for people themselves to build their own resources like free tenant peasants, lets start with building a fertile garden to feed ourselves (not to feed people in cities), pollarding trees for fuel and fencing, among other positive activities.
A recent comment I made that fits his elite investor trap description: One thing these overlords hadn't thought enough about is without people who own and pay taxes they will have to pay all the government workers out of their own pockets. Hahahaha! Idiots.
Anyway I like Heinberg and why I tuned in even though he still has this mistaken notion that hierarchy can exist without overusing resources. Oh yeah, and the fact he brags about traveling the world with his writing profits - which makes him a part of the wealthy elite that needs to be converted to becoming an actual tree planter. Much like others you've interviewed who only offer words.
Anyway, I am reading his new book now and have reread the first chapter numerous times as I am building aerobic compost piles that are creating billions of aerobic bacteria and its fascinating how these store energy for my garden.
Also the work on building a real life is not that hard once nutrient dense food begins to build the physical body as well. Clears up thinking and then what makes more sense is apparent. People habituated on three square meals of carbs a day are the trouble makers, over using resources until they reach oblivion.
i don't believe the actual problem could ever be addressed by an individual ethics even if 60% the population wasn't struggling just to survive day to day already. this is a systemic problem beyond individual behavior and at this late stage natural feedbacks are now firmly in control. humans take centuries to make social and civilizational changes.
Interesting belief and I will think about this.
During WW2 the English Island was facing a shortage of food and the idea of Victory Gardens was disseminated to the population. In weeks there were gardens everywhere.