Bringing leading “realeconomik” insights regarding investing, finance, wealth management, markets, economics and related global concerns to international, regional, and local partners with communities in London, New York, Hong Kong, Zurich, Toronto, Tokyo,Moscow and Beverly Hills, California.
The work of the systems-ecologist Howard Odum presages the vicious circle principle (VCP) presented in Too Smart for Our Own Good(2009).[*] As presented in Too Smart, the VCP is as follows:
Humankind’s development consists in an accelerating movement from situations of scarcity/need, to technological innovation, to increased resource availability, to increased consumption, to population growth, to resource depletion, to scarcity once again, and so on. (p. 110)
Applying Odum’s thinking to the VCP’s interpretation of changes in the actual development/evolution of humankind suggests that with each technological revolution there has resulted an increase in the usable energy available to our species, which has in turn resulted in population growth and a subsequent demand for increasing quantities of energy. On the VCP this demand has to date generally been met (particularly since the industrial revolution and the near-exponential increase in our burning of fossil fuels), with the result that the vicious circle of humankind’s development has grown in both size and environmental impact.
A second point of contact between Odum and the VCP – related to the first – is Odum’s emphasis on system-development’s involving pulses. He applies this notion to both living and non-living systems. Among the living are ecosystems, individual human civilizations, and human civilization as a whole. In Too Smart pulsing is emphasized with regard to the human species as a whole, each turn of the circle constituting a pulse.
The pulses of the populations of non-human species tend to fluctuate about a mean (cf. Too Smart, pp. 21–22), in the case of K-selected species their growth or shrinking depending on both internal and external population checks. But, according to the VCP, in the case of the total human population these pulses have taken the form of the constantly increasing growth of the human enterprize. In each instance of humankind’s developing technology, which has taken us through the javelin, bow-and-arrow, hoe, plow, coal, and oil and natural gas phases, the problems (scarcities) have as a matter of fact in each case led to a of technological development capable of harnessing ever-greateramounts of energy from the environment, and a consequent weakening of human population checks and a growth in the human population. Here we might also note, in keeping with Tainter, that part of the vicious circle consists in the diminishing returns that eventually hit any new technology, leading to the need for its replacement.
Today we are republishing a commentary that was posted back in January 2013. The post is even more relevant today, as the critical issues we face as a species are escalating almost it seems beyond control. Reports are also being made by various LEGITIMATE groups includingNASA,UN bodies and the White House and Pentagon. These reports are posted through-out our affiliated blogs and may be searched by keyword . Moreover, let's not forget too, that Stephen Hawkings sits on a committee that is actually planning "end of world events", whileThe Bank of England is calling for a wholesale change in the dogmas of classical economics - as the stresses of infinite growth are self-evident in so many countries around the world. As a further result, the possibility that the EU, Japan,China and other third world nations could financially collapse is a very real danger that could be sparked by an abrupt climb in global interest rates. Many events at any moment could spark this rapid rise, that would cause the greatest and most unprecedented collapse in asset values around the world where credit and banking bubbles in real estate and market investments, exist almost everywhere - another dark age looms large on the horizon. Economics is not the only cancer that has terminal implications. Overpopulation and unbridled industrial destruction of the biosphere are crossing over to the exponential phase. Should the average global temperature rise just a mere 2 degrees C., some experts say we risk triggering a methane bomb that yields the same consequences of the Permian Extinction's climate conditions - over 95% of life on the planet was wiped out in short order.
Today we are republishing a commentary that was posted back in January 2013. The post is even more relevant today, as the critical issues we face as a species are escalating almost it seems beyond control. Reports are also being made by various LEGITIMATE groups includingNASA,UN bodies and the White House and Pentagon. These reports are posted through-out our affiliated blogs and may be searched by keyword . Moreover, let's not forget too, that Stephen Hawkings sits on a committee that is actually planning "end of world events", whileThe Bank of England is calling for a wholesale change in the dogmas of classical economics - as the stresses of infinite growth are self-evident in so many countries around the world. As a further result, the possibility that the EU, Japan,China and other third world nations could financially collapse is a very real danger that could be sparked by an abrupt climb in global interest rates. Many events at any moment could spark this rapid rise, that would cause the greatest and most unprecedented collapse in asset values around the world where credit and banking bubbles in real estate and market investments, exist almost everywhere - another dark age looms large on the horizon. Economics is not the only cancer that has terminal implications. Overpopulation and unbridled industrial destruction of the biosphere are crossing over to the exponential phase. Should the average global temperature rise just a mere 2 degrees C., some experts say we risk triggering a methane bomb that yields the same consequences of the Permian Extinction's climate conditions - over 95% of life on the planet was wiped out in short order.
5 years after Exxon Valdez, we still haven’t learned to limit oil drilling
By Frances Beinecke
Frances Beinecke is president of the Natural Resources Defense Council. She was a member of the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling.
(Washington Post) – Twenty-five years ago this month, the Exxon Valdez struck a reef in Alaska’s Prince William Sound and dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil into the water. The public was shocked by photos of oil-soaked otters and reports that coastal residents had lost their livelihoods. The cleanup effort was so vast it required 11,000 people, some of whom scooped up oil with buckets. People were outraged. Two decades later, the Macondo well beneath the Deepwater Horizon blew out, killing 11 and sending 170 million gallons of oil into the Gulf of Mexico. I served on the National Commission on the BP Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill and Offshore Drilling, and I saw firsthand the oil-drenched beaches and the anxiety of coastal residents. It was hauntingly familiar. Many lessons from the Exxon Valdez spill had not been applied, and the country was once again struggling with an industry ill-prepared to respond. Flash forward four years, and oil spills continue to endanger our waters. A week ago , a barge and ship collided and spilled about 168,000 gallons of thick, viscous oil into Galveston Bay near a vibrant bird sanctuary. An even greater potential disaster looms. Shell Oil plans to drill in Alaska’s next frontier — the Arctic Ocean, a region even more pristine and remote than Prince William Sound. The company’s initial attempts were plagued by failed emergency equipment, a 32-mile-long ice floe and a grounded drill rig. If this last unspoiled ocean isn’t put off-limits in a hurry, we could witness a spill of far greater proportions. Our country can learn from experience. Preserving marine riches for generations to come makes more sense than trying to bring...
Read More Do you think we face a massive complex conundrum? Let's see no oil means no energy, means no economy, means no food, means starvation, means no social order, means...? What a picture! On the other hand, more oil means more energy, more economic activity, more food, more people, more CO2, more climate chaos, more...? Wait a second! More climate chaos, means no energy, means no economy, means no food, means starvation, means... Cripes! OK so how the frack can we win?
Why EIA, IEA and Randers' 2052 Energy Forecasts are Wrong
By Gail Tverberg
What is the correct way to model the future course of energy and the economy? There are clearly huge amounts of oil, coal, and natural gas in the ground. With different approaches, researchers can obtain vastly different indications. I will show that the real issue is most researchers are modeling the wrong limit.
Most researchers assume that the limit that they should be concerned with is the amount of oil, coal, and natural gas in the ground. This is the wrong limit. While in theory we will eventually hit this limit, because of the way fossil fuels are integrated into the rest of the economy, we hit financial limits much earlier. These financial limits include lack of investment capital, inability of governments to collect enough taxes to fund their programs, and widespread debt defaults.
One of the things I show in this post is that Economic Growth is a positive feedback loop that is enabled by cheap energy sources. (Economists have postulated that Economic Growth is permanent, and has no connection to energy sources.) Economic Growth turns to economic contraction as the cost of energy extraction (broadly defined) rises. It is the change in this feedback loop that leads to the financial problems mentioned above. These effects tend to lead to collapse over a period of years (perhaps 10 or 20, we really don’t know), rather than a slow decline which is easily mitigated.
If, indeed, most analysts are concerned about the wrong limit, this has huge implications for energy policy: Read More