Today’s Contemplation: Collapse Cometh CXXIII
Carbon Tunnel Vision, Externalised Pollution, And Story-Telling Apes
Today’s Contemplation is a response to a comment I received on one of my posts. The accusation that I am spreading ‘misinformation’ has motivated me to respond with a rather lengthy deconstruction of the comment (and, naturally, has become longer with each read-through of it by me over the past few days)…
The comment:
Please learn the difference between “they’re” and “their” and “there”.
Secondly, please learn the difference between building an energy system that, once is built, keeps producing energy for many years vs. one that produces pollution in its entire lifecycle.
I never heard anybody saying that PV panels and Wind turbines are fossil fuel free to build. However it has been calculated and proven that they compensate for all the carbon involved in their production in the first 24 months of operation.
Many case studies are available to be studied all over the internet. Google is your friend, don’t spread misinformation.
My response:
First, the fact that the original post that I was commenting upon had a typo regarding there vs their is indeed unfortunate but does not indicate the poster doesn’t know the difference between them — especially given their use of the correct spelling previously in their post. I’ve written enough to realise that even after proofreading something numerous times, spelling/grammar mistakes can sneak through to the final copy, and it’s the intent/message that’s ultimately more important (I also learned this as an teacher/school administrator reading students’ assignments and teachers’ reports). NOTE: when I duplicate someone else’s comment, I do not change or correct it in any way.
Second, while indeed there is some difference between the pollutants that are produced between energy systems, it’s perhaps not as straightforward or simple as you seem to be suggesting. I agree completely with your assertion that there is a “…difference between building an energy system that, once is built, keeps producing energy for many years vs. one that produces pollution in its entire lifecycle…”.
But the implication that one is necessarily less polluting as a result is where we part ways — mostly because it seems the only pollutant you seem to be concerned with is carbon emissions, but there are many others that are just as or perhaps more consequential for our global biospheres.
There may be differences in certain pollutants that one could point to (say, carbon emissions) and declare that these cease to be relevant once the system is produced but there are far more pollutants involved in all energy systems, and some that may not be ‘polluting’ until the product usefulness has ceased and they are sent for waste disposal or reclamation (which itself is very energy intensive and results in additional pollution creation). And some of these often overlooked pollutants/toxins are extremely problematic, especially given their impact on ecological system biodiversity[1].
There are competing narratives and much disagreement/debate as to the actual impact upon the environment and ecological systems of the extraction, processing, combustion, distribution, maintenance, waste disposal, and reclamation necessary in our various energy systems. Often, there are complexities ignored or ‘estimated’ in arriving at a quantification of these. And then there is the ‘guesswork’ as to the ultimate impacts, short-, medium-, and long-term — with some consequences taking decades to make themselves known, as well as some that we may never realise. In addition, cradle-to-grave assessments are not only rare but the debate regarding what and how to measure continues to rage on[2].
This being said, it should be possible to agree that the industrial processes of all modern energy systems are highly destructive. And whether one is marginally less destructive in one certain aspect or another is probably quite moot given how far into ecological overshoot the human species is and how overloaded our various planetary sinks are. It is well past the point where we need to stop exacerbating this predicament by bargaining through misguided ‘solutions’.
Third, the above suggests that you have fallen into the ‘carbon tunnel vision’ trap[3].
The carbon tunnel vision trap is where one’s focus is purely on the single ‘quantifiable’ carbon emission aspect of human existence (although, as noted above, carbon quantification conclusions are debatable because of the complexity involved) and ignores what are perhaps the more dire impacts that result from the intensive and widespread mining that is involved in the procurement of materials needed for non-renewable, renewable energy-harvesting technologies (NRREHTs) — and, yes, some of this mining is also necessary for the procurement of fossil fuels and its ‘refinement’’.
The toxins that are produced and end up in tailing ponds and seeping into water systems and local ecological systems are absolutely devastating to biospheres — possibly forever, and far more widespread than assumed given the significant sink overloading that takes place and movement of toxic elements that can occur.
Then there are the land system changes that occur not only as a result of mining but via the distribution of NRREHTs that are increasingly being seen to have significant impacts upon the globe’s hydrological cycles and thus world climate[4].
And it is this aspect of denial/bargaining in the face of these knock-on impacts of NRREHT production and widespread use, perhaps more than anything else, that creates significant skepticism within me regarding the mainstream narratives surrounding NRREHTs — especially the idea that they are ‘clean’ and, by implication, non-polluting/green and have little to no consequence for our ecological systems.
Then there are the dangers that we are currently unaware of in this pursuit of a means to power our technologies. For example, it is only now after more than a century of fossil fuel use that we are becoming aware of the dangers of microplastics. What dangers are we unaware of or conveniently denying in our quest to supplant energy from fossil fuels with energy from fossil fuel-derived NRREHTs? I am fairly certain that there are both known unknowns and unknown unknowns lurking in our future with respect to negative consequences of our pursuit to sustain our energetic conveniences.
Add on top of these concerns the marketing propaganda to convince the world that while, yes, there are some upfront negative inputs necessary to construct and distribute NRREHTs, these are minimal and are ‘offset’ after a handful or less of years of use.
We see this clearly in the notion that solar photovoltaic carbon inputs are offset within two years. This is the lowest end of the ‘estimates’ I have seen. There are much higher guesses as well since the inputs/outputs depend very much on the assumptions made in the calculations. What energy mix has been used for production of panels since coal inputs are much more carbon intensive than natural gas inputs? Where are the panels located since the closer to the equator or less annual cloud cover, the greater the output? What is the age of the panels since they lose output capacity with each year that passes? Have cradle-to-grave inputs been considered, especially waste disposal/reclamation (that is highly energy intensive)? Have all the needed accessory components been added to the estimate (almost always these are left out), like cables, charge controllers, inverters, and, especially, batteries (these last three components lasting only a fraction of a panel lifetime but rely on significant carbon-intensive industrial processes for their production and eventual waste disposal/reclamation)?[5]
Widespread marketing of the ‘best’ (and simplest) number goes a long way in convincing the masses that the product is much better than a complex reality would suggest. And, of course, this focus completely ignores the often if not always overhype that marketing propaganda employs to sell products and a narrative around them. Marketers are not going to be upfront with their less-than-honest or out-of-context declarations about the product they are attempting to sell; they are going to ‘stretch’ the truth or leave out contextual information to lead the consumer on.
Third, the idea that fossil fuels are unnecessary for the production of ‘renewables’ is both implicit in most narratives about them and made quite explicit by some of their cheerleaders.
One can garner such implicit arguments in statements such as:
“…speed the world’s transition away from fossil fuels…”, “…Ending the planet’s reliance on fossil fuels…”, “…it is possible to (live) without fossil fuels…”[6].
“…showed how the entire world could get all of its energy — fuel as well as electricity — from wind, water and solar sources by 2030. No coal or oil, no nuclear or natural gas…”, “…because no fossil fuels would have to be purchased or burned…”[7].
And if these comments that imply quite clearly that the production of NRREHTs do not need fossil fuels at all don’t persuade you that this is the message, there are these explicit ones:
“…So, can something other than fossil fuel be used on solar panels? The answer is a resounding yes…”[8].
“…But there’s a catch — making solar panels requires coal, one of the dirtiest forms of energy.
So can you make solar panels without coal?
The answer is yes, but it will take some work…”[9].
“…A new company, BioSolar, aims to kick petroleum to the curb, at least in the realm of building solar photovoltaics…”[10].
The above are just a few of the implicit and explicit messages about creating NRREHTs without fossil fuel inputs.
But what is perhaps the more pernicious messaging that occurs in the majority of narratives around NRREHTs is the simple avoidance of the issue altogether. The vast majority of commentary about our ‘green/clean’ energy future conveniently ignores the negative consequences of such a utopian dream. This error of omission is convenient to marketing the mainstream narrative that has arisen around NRREHTs, but it is disingenuous to say the least.
These are not ‘clean’ technologies and are contributing to further overloading of our planetary sinks. There are huge impediments to their widespread distribution not least of which is the limits of the necessary materials to construct them. They cannot replace fossil fuels as marketed by many. They may be capable of providing some limited and relatively short-term energy for local and small-scale electrical products, but they are in no way, shape, or form a ‘sustainable’ energy source that can ‘power’ large, complex societies — not even small, complex ones.
Fourth, please consider the notion that ‘proof’ is only relevant in mathematics, logic, and jurisprudence. If we are discussing scientific topics, then ‘proof’ is not an appropriate term[11].
Fifth, as for ‘Google being one’s friend’, the internet can be an amazing echo chamber where one can find an array of supporting ‘evidence’ for one’s beliefs. That there are any number of competing narratives for virtually everything perhaps more than anything supports the idea that simius amafabulas (story-loving ape) has flourished with the availability of a platform/stage for all to share their stories and find others that confirm their own beliefs. And, as I argue, we all believe what we want to believe, and the profit seekers of the world are taking full advantage of this.
It would appear that you have missed the overall messaging of my post, so I shall repeat it:
“Rather than confront the self-evident fact that existence upon a finite planet has limits and surpassing those limits leads to overshoot requiring a reversion-to-the-mean as some future point, we create stories to rationalise our habits and proclivities to ignore all these uncomfortable facts. We tell ourselves that our intelligence and technological prowess can solve anything that challenges our wants/desires/wishes/goals.
Rather than meet head on the inevitable decline of our energetic conveniences and dependencies, and attempt to relocalise all of our important survival needs and/or decommission the dangerous complexities we’ve constructed, we are doubling down our efforts to sustain/expand these finite resource-based technologies while marketing them as solutions to a predicament we might at best be capable of mitigating marginally in some regions.
The harsh reality of growth limits and ecological overshoot may never be recognised by most for simius amafabulas is eager to believe the stories that end with some as-yet-to-be-hatched miracle technology saving the day and everyone living happily ever after…”
Finally, I will make clear here that I am not in favour of extending or expanding our fossil fuel use, nor do I deny the horrific impacts of their use — accusations that are lobbed at me frequently when I attempt to highlight the negative aspects of NRREHTs; aspects that are almost always ignored/denied/rationalised away by those who fiercely believe they can help to save us from ourselves.
I am increasingly coming to the conclusion that we are in the predicament of significant ecological overshoot and as such can at best mitigate locally the coming storm; and pursuing NRREHTs only serves to exacerbate this overshoot…well, and makes many believe there is hope for our large, complex societies and its energetic conveniences (thus, reducing significant cognitive dissonance), as well as making a small group of industrial profiteers even more wealth.
We are trapped, but most have yet to accept this so to reduce the resulting anxiety from such an idea we craft stories to avoid or reduce such thoughts. The notion that NRREHTs can replace one of our most important supportive resources without further destroying our ecological systems is a most comforting one, and one that people will cling to regardless of evidence to the contrary. It is rarely in our nature to peer behind the curtain of such narratives for that way lies uncertainty and humans are hardwired to hate such a feeling[12]. We would rather be certain, even if that certainty rests on shaky ground.
If you’ve made it to the end of this contemplation and have got something out of my writing, please consider ordering the trilogy of my ‘fictional’ novel series, Olduvai (PDF files; only $9.99 Canadian), via my website — the ‘profits’ of which help me to keep my internet presence alive and first book available in print (and is available via various online retailers). Encouraging others to read my work is also much appreciated.
[2] See this, this, this, and/or this.
[4] See this, this, this, and/or this.