Our Energy Problem Is a Quantity Problem

(This post consists of a short overview article I recently wrote for Transform, a magazine for Environment and Sustainability Professionals, plus six related Questions and Answers.)

Reading many of today’s energy articles, it is easy to get the impression that our energy problem is a quality problem—some energy is polluting; other energy is hoped to be less polluting.

There is a different issue that we are not being told about. It is the fact that having enough energy is terribly important, as well. Total world energy consumption has risen quickly over time.

Figure 1. World Energy Consumption by Source, based on Vaclav Smil estimates from Energy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects and together with BP Statistical Data for years 1965 and subsequent.

In fact, the amount of energy consumed, on average, by each person (also called “per capita”) has continued to rise, except for two flat periods.

Figure 2. World per Capita Energy Consumption with two circles relating to flat consumption. World Energy Consumption by Source, based on Vaclav Smil estimates from Energy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects (Appendix) together with BP Statistical Data for 1965 and subsequent, divided by population estimates by Angus Maddison.

There is a good reason why energy consumed has risen over time on a per capita basis. Every human being needs energy products, as does every business. Energy is what allows food to be cooked and homes to be heated. Energy products allow businesses to manufacture and transport goods. Without energy products of all kinds, workers would be less productive in their jobs. Thus, it would be hard for the world economy to grow.

When energy consumption per capita is rising, it is easy for workers to become more productive because the economy is building more tools (broadly defined) for them to use, making their work easier. Manufacturing cell phones and computers requires energy. Even things like roads, pipelines, and electricity transmission lines are built using energy.

Once energy consumption growth flattens, as it did in the 1920-1940 period, the world economy is negatively affected. The Great Depression of the 1930s occurred during the 1920-1940 period. Problems, in fact, started even earlier. Coal production in the United Kingdom started to drop in 1914, the same year that World War I began. The Great Depression didn’t end until World War II, which was immediately after the 1920-1940 period.

In the 1920-1940 period, many people, especially farmers, were not able to earn an adequate living. This is a situation not too different from the one today, in which many young people are not able to earn an adequate living. Strange as it may seem, this type of wage disparity is a sign of inadequate energy per capita, because jobs that pay well require energy consumption.

The 1980-2000 flat period was in many ways not as bad as the earlier one, because the lack of growth in energy consumption was planned. The United States changed to smaller, more energy-efficient cars in order to reduce the amount of gasoline consumed. Oil-powered electricity generation was taken out of service and replaced with other types of generation, such as nuclear. Heating of homes and businesses was changed to more efficient systems that did not burn oil.

The indirect effect of the planned reduction in oil consumption was a drop in oil prices. Low oil prices adversely affected all oil exporters, but the Soviet Union was especially affected. Its central government collapsed, at least partly because of its reduced revenue stream. Member republics continued to operate, somewhat as in the past. Russia and Ukraine cut back greatly on their industrialization, leading to less use of energy products. Population tended to drop, as citizens found better work prospects elsewhere.

Eventually, in the early 2000s, oil prices rose again. Russia was able to become a major oil exporter again, but Ukraine and other industrialized areas were permanently handicapped by the collapse. Countries affiliated with the Soviet Union (including Eastern European countries, North Korea, and Cuba) found themselves permanently lagging behind the US and Western Europe.

Recently (2013-2017), the world economy seems to have again reached a period of flat energy consumption, on a per capita basis.

Figure 3. Based on data of BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2017, and 2017 UN Population Estimates.

In fact, in many ways the flattening looks like that of the 1920 to 1940 period. Increased wage disparity is again becoming a problem. Oil gluts are again becoming a problem, because those at the bottom of the wage hierarchy cannot afford goods using oil, such as motorcycles. Young people are finding their standards of living falling relative to the living standards of their parents. They cannot afford to buy a home and have a family. Governments are becoming less interested in cooperating with other governments.

Why is world energy consumption per capita flat, or actually falling slightly, after 2013? The answer seems to be diminishing returns with respect to coal production. Diminishing returns refers to the fact that while at first coal is inexpensive to extract, the cost of extraction rises after the thickest seams and those closest to the surface have been extracted.

A chart of China’s energy production shows how China’s coal production first rose as low cost made its usage advantageous, and then fell due to diminishing returns. China experienced a major ramp-up in coal production after it was added to the World Trade Organization in 2001.

Figure 4. China’s energy production, based on data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2017.

As the extraction of coal progressed, China found itself with many mines with rising production costs. Coal prices did not rise to match the higher cost of production, so a large number of unprofitable mines were closed, starting in about 2012.

A major reason for the flat world per capita energy consumption starting in 2013 is the fall in China’s coal production after 2013. Coal production is falling in quite a number of other countries as well, as the cost of production rises, and as users become aware of coal’s environmental issues. Other sources of energy have not been rising sufficiently to keep total per capita energy consumption rising. A person can see in the China chart that wind and solar production are not rising sufficiently to offset its loss of coal production. (Wind and solar are part of Other Renewables.) This situation occurs elsewhere, as well.

What role do wind and solar play in maintaining world energy supply? The truth is, very little. While a great deal of money has been spent building them, wind and solar together amounted to only about 1% of total world primary energy supply in 2015, according to the International Energy Association.

A major problem is that wind and solar do not scale well. As larger quantities are added to electricity networks, more workarounds for their intermittency (such as batteries and long distance transmission) are needed. Bid prices for wind and solar give a misleadingly low impression of their real cost, unless the projects include many hours’ worth of storage to offset the impact of intermittency.

The key to rising energy consumption seems to be the falling cost of energy services, when efficiency is included. For example, the cost of delivering a package of a given size a given distance must be falling, relative to inflation. Similarly, the cost of heating a home of a given size must be falling. Governments must be able to tax producers of energy products, rather than providing subsidies.

Globalization requires ever-expanding energy supplies to meet the needs of a rising world population. To maintain globalization, we need a growing supply of energy products that are very cheap and scalable. Unfortunately, wind and solar don’t seem to meet our needs. Fossil fuels are no longer cheap to extract, because we extracted the resources that were least expensive to extract first. Our problem today is that we have not been able to find substitutes that are sufficiently cheap, non-polluting, and scalable.

A Few Related Questions and Answers:

(1) What is the biggest impediment to raising total energy consumption?

We cannot get the price of oil and of other fuels to rise high enough, for long enough, to encourage the production of the fossil fuel supplies that seem to be in the ground. What happens, instead, is that energy prices hit an affordability limit and fall back.

Figure 5. NASDAQ three month price chart for Brent Crude oil. Source: NASDAQ

The recent strike in Brazil over high diesel prices shows the kind of issues that occur. Oil prices are still far below what many oil exporters (such as Norway, Venezuela, and Iraq) really need, when needed taxes are included.

Of course, the problem with not being able to get prices high enough also discourages the use of alternatives to fossil fuels, such as wind and solar.

(2) Aren’t wind and solar low-cost approaches?

It is easy to think that wind and solar will be huge improvements over burning fossil fuels directly for fuel, but nearly all of these analyses overlook the problems that are added by introducing intermittency to the electric grid. The assumption was made in early analyses that with enough scale, intermittency in one location would tend to offset intermittency in another location. Also, it was hoped that electricity consumption could be shifted to different times of day.

There have been several recent analyses that look more closely at these assumptions. Jean-Marc Jancovici has shown that if sufficient storage is added for wind and solar to make it “dispatchable,” it takes an order of magnitude more physical resources to produce wind and solar compared to what it takes to produce the dispatchable nuclear electricity used in France. Both have low long-term operating costs. Thus, we would expect the true cost of wind and solar to be far higher than France’s nuclear electricity.

Roger Andrews, writing on Euan Mearns site Energy Matters, shows that some recent solar and wind auction prices appear to be far below actual costs, when reasonable minimum cost assumptions are used.

Regarding “Demand Response” as a solution to intermittency, Roger Andrews shows how little time of day pricing for consumers affects consumption curves. It appears that people don’t stop eating dinner after they get home in the evening, no matter how high the cost of electricity is at that time.

Interruptible supply is another way of reducing demand. This link describes some of the issues encountered when interruptible supply was tried on a large scale in California.

(3) Can’t we simply get along using less energy? That is what everyone tells us is possible.

The historical record in Figure 2 doesn’t give much indication that this is possible. Whenever there is even a small drop in energy consumption per capita, it seems to have an adverse effect. On Figure 3, even the small dip in energy consumption per capita in 2008 and 2009 led to a serious recession in many countries of the world.

The people who talk about getting along with less energy haven’t thought through the likely ramifications of this. There would be fewer jobs that pay well, because jobs such as those for construction workers would disappear. The economy would shrink, because of the fewer jobs, in a much worse recession than the Great Recession of 2008-2009.

We know that in past collapses, one of the big problems was inability of governments to collect enough taxes. We would likely encounter the same problem again, if there are fewer people making high wages. Most of the tax dollars for the US Federal Government are paid by private citizens (as income taxes or as Social Security funding), rather than by corporations.

Figure 7. Sources of US Federal Governments Revenue, based on US Bureau of Economic Analysis data.

The last year shown on Figure 7 is 2017, which is before the recent corporate tax reduction. This change will tend to shift the burden on Federal Taxes even further in the direction of payroll related taxes.

(4) How about efficiency savings? Can’t efficiency savings fix our problem?

There are two issues involved. If we were really efficient at fuel savings, as we were in the early 1980s, oil and other energy prices would drop dramatically. This would push oil, coal, and gas producers worldwide toward bankruptcy. Governments of oil exporting countries, such as Venezuela and Saudi Arabia, would have difficulty collecting enough tax revenue. They would likely collapse from lack of tax revenue, substantially reducing supply.

A second issue is that historically we have been adding efficiency. In fact, efficiency is what has tended to make fuel more affordable. As noted in the article, energy use could grow, as the cost of energy services fell.

Figure 8. Total Cost of Energy and Energy Services, by Roger Fouquet, from Divergences in Long Run Trends in the Prices of Energy and Energy Services. The cost of energy services combines (a) the cost of energy with (b) the impact of efficiency savings.

Some of the changes we have been making recently go in the opposite direction of efficiency. For example, the recent article, Biggest Ever Change in Oil Markets Could Send Prices Higher, discusses a new regulation requiring the use of low-sulfur fuel oil for ships. Doing this would greatly reduce the quantity of sulfur being released to the atmosphere as emissions. This is not a change toward efficiency; it is a change toward higher cost of production, which is the opposite of efficiency. Regulators plan to use part of our energy supply to eliminate the excess sulfur before the oil is sold.

As undesirable as sulfur pollution is, the problem is affordability and higher cost. Wages are not high enough for workers around the world to afford the required higher cost of food (because food production and transport use oil) to support the new regulation. So, the likely result of the regulation is to push the world toward recession. Beyond a certain affordability point, it is hard to push oil prices higher, because wages don’t rise at the same time.

(5) Could you explain further why flat energy consumption per capita is not sufficient for the world economy–this amount really has to grow?

Perhaps looking at charts of recent trends in energy consumption of a few countries can help explain what happens when overall per capita energy consumption is flat.

Joseph Tainter in The Collapse of Complex Societies explains that economies often use “complexity” to work around problems as they approach resource limits. In the particular version of complexity tried in this case, manufacturing was increasingly globalized. Workers suddenly found themselves competing for wages with workers from much lower wage countries. Wage disparity became more of a problem.

When workers are increasingly poor, they can afford to purchase fewer goods and services. This can be seen in energy consumption per capita data. Figure 9 shows energy consumption per capita for three European countries experiencing difficulties. In all three, energy consumption per capita has been falling for several years. When manufacturing was sent to Asia, workers found themselves earning less, so they were able to purchase fewer goods made with energy products. Also, European products were less competitive on the world market, with the new competition from low-cost markets.

Figure 9. Energy Consumption per Capita for three European Countries, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy data and UN 2017 population estimates.

The countries that have been able to grow more rapidly in response to globalization (such as those in Figure 10) need to keep up their patterns of growth, or they start encountering financial problems because their prior growth was generally financed with debt. Without sufficiently rapid growth, they have difficulty repaying debt with interest.

Figure 10. Energy Consumption per Capita for five countries that recently have been growing rapidly. Based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy data and UN 2017 population estimates.

Brazil’s energy consumption per capita has recently fallen, and it is encountering severe problems. Argentina is a country with flattening energy consumption growth. China’s growth in energy consumption has slowed as well; we often read statements about its debt problems.

One of the problems that these rapidly growing countries encounter is currency fluctuations. As long as their particular country seems to be growing rapidly, the currency level of their country can remain high, relative to the US dollar or the Euro. But if obstacles are encountered, such as the low price of their major export, or slower economic growth, the currency of the country may fall relative to major currencies.

A falling currency relative to major currencies is a problem for these rapidly growing countries for three reasons. For one, imports become expensive. For another, any debt denominated in a foreign currency (such as the US dollar) becomes more difficult to repay. The reason why this is an issue is because rapidly growing countries often do not find enough credit available locally, so are forced to borrow internationally. A third problem with slowing growth and a falling currency relativity is that it becomes more difficult to attract new investment to the country. Instead, outside investors may decide to leave; they want to seek the next growth opportunity, in different, more rapidly growing country.

Turkey and Argentina both seem to be having problems with their currencies falling relative to the US dollar.

Another issue that makes flat worldwide per capita energy consumption unworkable is “diminishing returns” as resources become depleted. For example, wells for fresh water must be dug deeper, ores of metals include higher percentages of waste materials, and oil wells must be sunk in less convenient locations. These problems can be worked around, but they require increased energy consumption. All of these uses for energy products leave less for the rest of the economy. Thus, if we deduct the extra energy needed to compensate for diminishing returns, what at first looks like flat per capita energy consumption worldwide really equates to declining per capita energy consumption.

(6) Isn’t there anything that we can do to reduce carbon dioxide emissions?

The task of reducing carbon dioxide emissions is much more difficult than it appears to be, because the world economy requires energy consumption in order to operate.

The best thing I can see that an individual can do is reduce his or her consumption of meat and other animal products (fish, cheese, milk, leather). To offset, a major increase should be made in the consumption of vegetables that are filling to eat (such as potatoes, beets, carrots, beans, sweet potatoes, taro root, turnips, and corn). Some of these perhaps can be grown locally. Humans’ use of animal products adds to carbon dioxide levels, partly because of the quantity of food that needs to be grown and transported to feed the animals, and partly because of the direct emissions of some animals (including cattle, pigs, buffalo, chicken, sheep and goats).

In fact, cutting back on highly processed food of all sorts (particularly sugars, high fructose corn syrup, and oils) would seem to be worthwhile, as well. Growing, processing, and transporting the crops used in these highly processed foods all add to CO2 emissions.

Our problem is that we have grown attached to the flavors of these foods, and we have become convinced that they help us grow big and strong. While they may do this, they also set us up for problems in old age. Starchy vegetables have played a major role in the diets of long lived people. We may need to start giving them, and other less processed foods, a more prominent role again.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

About Gail Tverberg

My name is Gail Tverberg. I am an actuary interested in finite world issues - oil depletion, natural gas depletion, water shortages, and climate change. Oil limits look very different from what most expect, with high prices leading to recession, and low prices leading to financial problems for oil producers and for oil exporting countries. We are really dealing with a physics problem that affects many parts of the economy at once, including wages and the financial system. I try to look at the overall problem.
This entry was posted in Financial Implications and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

1,749 Responses to Our Energy Problem Is a Quantity Problem

  1. Lastcall says:

    About that last supper – there appears to have been a peak in human height.

    Gail states; ‘Our problem is that we have grown attached to the flavors of these foods, and we have become convinced that they help us grow big and strong. While they may do this, they also set us up for problems in old age. Starchy vegetables have played a major role in the diets of long lived people. We may need to start giving them, and other less processed foods, a more prominent role again.

    And we can read;

    ‘On the other hand, in recent years it has been observed that despite simultaneous ongoing economic development, in many countries human height is declining again. Most worrisome perhaps is the rapid pace at which human height is declining in these nations. In some countries, decades of progress has been eradicated in a few years.’

    ‘Finally, the main and most important factor to be considered would have to be be a drastic reduction in the quality of people’s diet. If people’s diet has become less diverse, they would be expected to suffer a variety of nutrient deficiencies that impact their growth. Fresh fruit and vegetables are difficult to store and thus rather expensive. Urbanization may lead people to grow dependent on a much worse diet.’

    https://thesenecaeffect.wordpress.com/2016/08/05/an-unusual-seneca-cliff-in-africa/

    • Fast Eddy says:

      So NBA centres will be 6 foot instead of 7 foot…. just lower the hoop and nobody will notice

    • xabier says:

      That’s exactly what happened throughout Europe in the 19th century: even if those arrived from rural districts wanted, and knew how to, cook better food, the towns offered them an inferior diet, cooking facilities were often not available to the poorest, and the town tradesmen frequently adulterated what they offered. Inferior nutrition, poisoned ingredients!

    • Thanks! And Netherlands seems to have people with amazing height. Human bodies seem to be able to accommodate a range of diets, at least to some extent.

      Humans seem to have a desire for concentrated calories of some type. That sets us up for problems, if the food industry provides us with the possibility of concentrated calories with little nutrition attached. If wage disparity becomes a problem, the poor people especially look for a source of cheap calories.

      I don’t know that there are perfect answers for everyone everywhere. For example, we keep reading that the rice we buy in the US has arsenic. Brown rice is quite a bit worse than white. We should wash it well before eating it, but even that does not solve the problem.

      It really takes a lot of research, plus a diverse diet.

  2. Lastcall says:

    I’ve been doing it all wrong!!!

    ‘The Preppi line starts with a three-day, two person emergency bag for just $445 (you can monogram it for an additional $75). It has all the critical basics, including Malin+Goetz grapefruit face cleanser, Vitamin E Face Moisturizer, Bergamot Body Cleanser, Vitamin b5 Body Moisturizer, Peppermint Shampoo and Cilantro Conditioner…..’

    ‘But really, that is roughing it. Fortunately, Preppi also purveys a $4,995 Ultra Deluxe Emergency Bag which includes the basics plus Satellite phone, night vision glasses, solar panels, a full size tent, sleeping bags, and most importantly, the Preppi Caviar Cooler Case and serving set……’

    https://www.treehugger.com/sustainable-product-design/bug-out-style-preppi-ultra-luxe-emergency-bag.html

  3. Harry Gibbs says:

    “The British economy is showing the greatest signs of stress since the eurozone crisis and fears of a double-dip recession six years ago, as worrying reports show the steepest fall in manufacturing output and the greatest degrees of pessimism among employers since 2012.”

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/jun/12/uk-economy-shows-greatest-signs-of-stress-since-2012

  4. Harry Gibbs says:

    “Escalating trade tensions are posing an increasing threat to the global economy, the head of the International Monetary Fund has warned.

    “”The clouds on the horizon … are getting darker by the day,” IMF Managing Director Christine Lagarde said at a news conference in Berlin on Monday.

    “”The biggest and darkest cloud that we see is the deterioration in confidence that is prompted by [the] attempt to challenge the way in which trade has been conducted, in which relationships have been handled and the way in which multilateral organizations have been operating” she said.

    “Her comments follow the acrimonious end to the G7 summit in Quebec this weekend in which President Donald Trump attacked Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau over trade…”

    http://money.cnn.com/2018/06/12/news/economy/christine-lagarde-imf-global-economy/index.html

    • Harry Gibbs says:

      “President Donald Trump’s shortened stint at the G7 summit threw the international trading order into chaos and most likely put the US on the path to a trade war.”

      http://uk.businessinsider.com/trump-g7-summit-trudeau-macron-tariffs-trade-war-2018-6?r=US&IR=T

      • Or maybe world energy supply that is not growing fast enough caused this effect

      • Lastcall says:

        The banks are only there to allocate/command the resources of the only real bank that matters; Mother nature. As this blog points out, this ‘resource bank’ is finite and struggling to deliver easy ‘cash’, so we have gone from withdrawing real wealth to issuing IOU’s. Its a life being lived more and more on tick.
        If the technology boys fail to deliver the miracle soon then we see globalisation continue to slide and trade return to essentials only, and be bartering at best. Tick Tock….!

    • Hm, this supports the sub scenario in which is Donaldo with his band/faction of america-firsters on purpose brought forward to be pinned for GFCII, hence easing in the spectacularly harsh policies which would follow in response..

      Not the highest on my preliminary list, but it’s still one of the major scenarios out there.

  5. Harry Gibbs says:

    Some rarely heard common sense:

    “They [Peter Dittus, former Secretary General of the Bank of International Settlements (BIS), and Herve Hamoun, the former Deputy General Manager of BIS, warn that the unprecedented asset price bubble engineered by G7 central banks is a ticking time bomb that is ready to burst, after seven years of near zero interest rates and speculative excesses in bonds, stocks and real estate…

    “Here is the dilemma: G7 central bank’ policy normalisation is the only option consistent with their mandate and with a return to the rules of a market economy. But when G7 Central Banks eventually exit from their unconventional policies, they will contribute to the bursting of the asset price bubbles engendered by their monetary experiment.

    “This could well be the worst financial crisis ever experienced, as the level of debt and the artificial level of asset prices have no precedent.”

    http://www.ipsnews.net/2018/06/warnings-new-global-financial-crisis/

    • In their book they partly validate Gail’s thesis on the growing gap between GDP growth vs real income stalling since 1970s, also mention arms expenditures as eating into the available pile of resources, plus they talk a lot of global werming..

      The Ticking Time Bombs of the G7 Model
      by Peter Dittus and Hervé Hannoun
      2017

      That’s just based on the reviews, don’t have the book at hand, but it seems as just another plausible deniability/propaganda job of the upper nomenclature/insiders. Always revealing only few bits of the mosaic not attempting the deliver full picture.. Could be wrong, but that’s my sense of it so far.

  6. Third World person says:

    The Child Soldiers Of Mexico’s Drug Gangs
    Generation Z: How a generation of Mexican children are becoming embroiled in a dangerous drug-fuelled paramilitary conflict.

    Along the US-Mexico border, the notorious cartel gang ‘The Zetas’ are increasingly recruiting child soldiers. This report investigates this terrifying aspect of the drug wars that have raged the border.

    “When you drive around you see lots of houses with black ribbons”, explains a guide in the border town of Nuevo Laredo. “This means someone who lived there has died. Most of the deaths are young people killed in this cruel war.” For decades, hundreds of teenagers have been drawn into the violent world of drug smuggling and murder, sent to the frontline in battles against rival cartels and the Mexican army. “It’s easy to pull the trigger. But the moment you do that, your life changes fast. Why? Because you’ve got blood on your hands”, explains a man who joined The Zetas at thirteen years old. Reta, who was trained at a military training camp in Mexico as a teenager, is now serving an eighty year sentence for murder. The fierce reputation of leader Miguel Travino, along with a strong media presence, solidified the image of The Zetas as ultra-violent criminals, idolised by teenage wannabes and feared by many. Now diversion programs have reduced felony crimes in the area by 48%, but for those who were recruited by the gang, life will never be the same. As Reta’s ex-wife reflects, “They programmed him to just be heartless, a heartless killer

    Americans you will have a Mexican Taliban on yours doorstep
    in near future when mexico will be collapse

    • Third World person says:

      btw Mexican cartels was created by cia to destroyed mexico

      now Americans you reap what sow

    • Sungr says:

      Why don’t you tell us what is going on in your home country? How are peakoil,/climate change/ economic collapse playing out in your area?

      Inquring minds want to know…..

      • Third World person says:

        peak oil has happened in 2010 in my country [india]
        https://tradingeconomics.com/india/crude-oil-production

        economic collapse has starting since demonetization of notes in 2016

        climate change is gonna Screw my country
        https://www.reuters.com/article/us-climatechange-hsbc/india-most-vulnerable-country-to-climate-change-hsbc-report-idUSKBN1GV20Z

        • When I visited Mumbai in in 2012 and spoke at an energy conference there, the speakers from India were all interested in increasing their fossil fuel use. They were fed up with burning animal dung and wood for cooking. Using coal for cooking wasn’t good, either. They all created too much smoke. They wanted “modern” gas for cooking their food.

          I visited a home outside Mumbai. They had a television and a light bulb or two, but no refrigerator. With intermittent electricity, refrigerators didn’t do much good. They also had no bathroom. They had to get what water the used from a central place once a day, when it was available, and carry it back in large jugs.

          India is importing an increasing amount of energy. It has to borrow money to afford the coal and other fuels it imports. This is part of its problem.

          • xabier says:

            This is why city life sounds great to a real peasant, an end to back-breaking labour.

            And above all for women – fetching water, fuel, and lengthy food preparation.

            Hobby Permaculture it ain’t……

            • xabier says:

              The Indian lady in the photo is as beautiful and noble as a caryatid on a Greek temple.

              But soon she’ll be a wreck, aged long before her time by the basic tasks of life. This is why the ancient nomads (Turks, Iranians, Mongols) looked down on farmers and called them sheep to be sheared and herded.

              C H Smith, with the split-brain, should think about that when he day-dreams about a ‘human-scale’ world.

            • Fast Eddy says:

              And yet we have 65 year old doomie preppers… who really do not have the slightest clue about what life without electricity and petrol will be like … because they refuse to take the FE Challenge.

              They’ll break down physically… and mentally … within a week.

              100% Guaranteed.

            • Karl says:

              My wife is of Indian descent, so I hang around a lot of Indian-americans. You can tell immediately who grew up in America and who grew up in India. The India born Indians all look much older than their age. Especially once past 25 or so. I dunno if it’s the sun, the diet, or just the harder life. It’s really clear. Also, most of the guys from my father-in-laws generation (That moved here for college) are dropping dead in their 60s. I think its just the wear and tear from a harder life over there.

            • Karl says:

              Come to think of it, were I grew up was full of Croatian immigrants, and most of them looked aged beyond their years too. Most lived through the Balkan wars. I think that the stress must be the culprit……

            • doomphd says:

              wow, i hope it’s not from eating spicy Indian food, which i love. i can’t get enough here, so maybe it’ll prolong my life??

    • Artleads says:

      Thanks for the post. Truthful news is hard to come by in my region. BTW, what’s meant by “diversion programs?”

    • Fast Eddy says:

      Doomie preppers have magical bubbles around their farms… people like this cannot get in … nor can disease or radiation

  7. Third World person says:

    btw didn’t white nationalists in usa some times ago said Jews will not replaced us

    instead that they should have said this Mexican cartels will not defeated us

  8. i1 says:

    rut roh

    • Artleads says:

      Oh man! This is probably NOT it.

    • Tim Groves says:

      Guy McPherson is on the edge of extinction? That should present the WWF with quite a dilemma. Should they confine this exotic individual in a secure facility and start a captive breeding program or should they leave him to roam outside in the wilderness and let nature take its course?

Comments are closed.