Posts Tagged ‘collapse’

Dictatorship or Evacuation?

April 5, 2025

Trump may want a dictatorship with himself at the top gaining deference from everyone. He has for example, not consulted with congress about a number of things he is supposed to consult about. He has said he will be able to seek a third term, possibly through succession. There are innumerable stories about how State level Republicans have been trying to get rid of potential non-Trump voters to fix elections for good eg [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. This is all part of Project 2025.

But if that is his aim, his attempts to implement project 2025 may not be generating the result he wants. Dictatorships are usually said to require a strong, well organised State.

By pulling the State apart, and massively confusing people as to his aims, he is generating a plutocracy, in which those who have enough riches will be able to do what they want, and those who do not have enough riches will get to do what they are told and to suffer. This represents a philosophy generally called “libertarianism” [7], [8]. Peter Thiel one of the billionaire founders of the movement leading to project 2025, stated clearly that “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” Democracy, in which people (including women) are consulted, is apparently incompatible with corporate liberty, or the liberty of the rich and special. Libertarianism, or oligarchy, is more likely to result from Project 2025.

Musk is a libertarian, who may well consider getting some people off earth more important than any aim of general welfare – after all if Earth is rendered unlivable before he gets a self-sufficient Mars base, then humanity may be doomed. If every human on Earth dies as a result of corporate and government actions, and the survivors on Mars found ‘Human space’ then all is well – humanity continues. This is virtue in the long term! As far as I know he has not declared government spending on his Space-X company to be a waste of money, and suitable for cutbacks (although he apparently has terminated expenditure into investigations into potentially illegal acts by his companies) [8]. He seems far keener to sink money into escape than into technology to prevent or lessen the effects of climate change – as after all climate science in the USA has been severely disrupted and repressed [9], [10], [11], [12].

Generally corporations like stability, so they can plan, so they can engage in profitable but low risk investment and so on. So most companies will not like the chaotic result of Project 2025 when they see the results, however much they have supported it until then.

However, they will fight to retain their power and positions, and the destruction of the US State will likely lead to the enshrinement of corporate power, wealth and struggle.

It could result in a feudal system in which ‘the Barons’ of industry fight over property, without the obligation the real Barons had to provide any ‘protection’ for the people. There will be nothing to constrain pollution or ecological destruction, or to counter act against the power of riches – except The Market – and the conveyance of elites to Mars -which will not be a pleasant life either.

However, a likely unexpected consequence of these policies, could be that the capitalist market falls apart, because ordinary people do not have the money to drive production… Can capitalism as we know it survive without a relatively well off working class, with the rich just serving each other? I don’t know. It will be a different type of organisation, perhaps again if it encourages mass die off, then it might survive going to Mars….

What happens after the elites hit Mars, is anyone’s guess.

Trump tariffs and the world economy

April 4, 2025

Economies are complex systems. Predicting what will happen is a fraught occupation. As you will know it seems easy for economists to say that the economy will boom, or is now stable, just before it collapses.

However, it seems pretty safe to say that a major set of disruptions, such as the huge tariffs that Trump has imposed on many countries, including allies, could lead to chaos and collapse.
Militarily, it makes visible what some have been saying for a while, that the US under Trump is not a reliable ally and you should shift your alliances elsewhere. If so, that shifts balances of power away from the USA.

If he has exempted Russia from tariffs but put them on Ukraine, as I have read, then that gives another reason why people will not trust him as a military ally.

In Australia it is quite obvious that the tariffs have been place on weird locations, such as uninhabited islands, or Norfolk Island which at the moment seems to have no trade with US at all [1], [2]. It seems that officially figures were calculated by subtracted US imports from a countries exports and declaring that this had to have something to do with tariffs [3] [4], . This is complete Rubbish. The American people may not be informed by their media, but business people will know the figures are essentially random and there for punishment’s sake.

This fragility of purpose and calculation, may cause people to evaluate the US as a “basket case” and shift trade into non US dollars, or provoke the Chinese to sell part of their dollar reserve. This would have huge effects on American Power, status, and currency stability, as the dollar is potentially sold off everywhere.

The Tariffs will massively boost price increases in the USA in time. Sensible US companies will have bought excess products to help them with the price increases over the last couple of months, but that will only last for a time and some of them will use the tariffs to excuse price rises. This is called ‘replacement costs.’

As a result, people in the US will pretty certainly be paying more for almost everything soon. This probably will not trouble the top 5% income and wealth owners, but it will trouble most other people.
Farmers will also go bust because of the scrapping of USAID which bought billions of products from them [5], [6]. However, this will allow large US landowners to displace even more ordinary farmers.

Exports will probably crash, because people elsewhere on the planet, will resist buying American products (I might even stop using Amazon) and most countries will boost their tariffs against American products or seek out products from elsewhere, because no one knows what else Trump will do in the future. This wrecking of exports will further depress wages, and add to suffering.

The tariffs will possibly be hugely beneficial to China who will likely become the center of a new world trade order – the US has handed China the renewables market already,

My feeling is that seeing trade with the USA collapse, American companies will not find it that attractive to return to the USA. But if they do, they will likely build up to date fully automated factories, that will not increase the employment of ordinary workers. If they hire anyone it will be at the basic wage, and you will likely have full time employment with food and housing insecurity for most people.

Education will have collapsed, except for the rich. It will no longer lead to good jobs, just to people who support right wing ideology which will be all that can be taught, so ignorance will increase. It is debatable if a modern economy can survive mass ignorance – we shall see.

Then of course you have to face increased climate change. With Trump doing everything he can to destroy the environment (even banning paper straws!! [7]), the world condition will get much worse than it could have. However, the USA will probably encounter mass poisonings as it becomes legal to dump almost anything in poor areas where people cannot afford the law. Lack of stability in the climate/ecology, with wild storms overwhelming what can be insured, will also curtail economic stability, so the results of Trump’s presidency will pile up, and be unlikely to be beneficial for most people.

The outlook is not good because of many Trump induced factors, but, as I said, its complex and I could be wrong.

Are Trump voters responsible for him being anti-democracy and destroying the country?

February 17, 2025

No.

All 77,302,580 Trump voters do not have to support Trump’s moves for anti-democracy and destroying the country.

As far as I know Trump never campaigned saying he is anti-democracy and aimed at destroying the country. So few people. who voted for him were voting for that.

Trump also did not get 50% of the total electorate voting for him, he even got less than 50% of those who did vote. Other Presidents have had much bigger majorities in the Electoral College, and it did not stop them being opposed. There was no landslide of support.

So Trump can have lied (surprise!), or completely misunderstood what he is doing (Surprise!!!!). And, sadly with high-rating 100% pro-Trump media, many people may never have encountered the truth of what he promised to do.

So, lets ignore the fact that he threatened to terminate the constitution to prevent him from losing elections, and promised to be a dictator. People were told this was exaggerated or even lies, despite being truth. We cannot blame people for believing what trusted sources tell them repeatedly. This is unfortunately how people work, when they cannot have had experience.

My argument is that Trump does not know, or understand, what he is doing is bad. He may even be completely well-intentioned in his actions.

The problem for the USA is that Trump is a corporate boss, with no adult experience of being anything else.

Bosses never have to deal with democracy. They can more or less do what they like to their workers, to their company and to their property. They can betray and deceive other people. If they have influence and personal riches they can get away with almost anything (as Trump has), unless corporations of equal power get in the way.

On top of this, Trump thinks he knows everything. Therefore he does not have to consult or negotiate with anyone. People just have to do what he says, because he is the boss and knows best. People who advise anything else are defining themselves as enemies.

Partly because he is a positive thinker, Trump forbids people to discuss issues he does not like. Events he deliberately ignores did not happen, or will recover by the force of his personality and positive thought. People who do not gush over him and agree to ignore disliked events, are disloyal to America, hence they have to be sacked. Climate change, for example, is not real, or to be mentioned by government departments. Pandemics are likewise not anything people can discuss. This, in his mind, makes America safe again.

You cannot run any non-totalitarian State like that, Especially democratic states. People are supposed to be able to disagree, they are supposed to notice unpleasant events. And even totalitarian States will fail without accurate feedback about the world, because the leader governs in fantasy and nobody who wants to survive can advise the great leader to change their mind or understanding.

Trump is ending democracy not deliberately, but because he does not understand what it needs or how it works. He thinks being a President makes him the unchallenged boss of that country..

Trump also does not understand how social and economic forces work. Again this is partly because he is a boss, and all bosses care about is the bottom line and their profit. This may be fair enough for a company, but Presidents and politicians should consider what is good for most people in the country in the long run. They should not be governing just for personal profit, the profit of shareholders, or for the next quarter. They should be governing for everyone, and for the best possible next 200 years at least.

However, over the last 40 years, for nearly all Republicans, and many Democrats have embraced neoliberalism: “what is good for big business is good for the country.” Which often translates as what is good for bosses is good for the country. If that means lots of homelessness, if that means lots of disease ridden people, if that means low wages and no hope of social mobility no matter how hard you work then, that is the price you pay to support big business and The Market. Trump seems to agree. Anything which might inhibit bosses or profits like Climate Change should be ignored. We should not even prepare for likely future disasters.

So he will continue and intensify the policies that have made America “Second Rate’’ if you will.

In terms of the world. Trump has clearly shown the USA cannot be trusted. He has surrendered to Putin over Ukraine before the negotiations started (breaking his own principle laws of the deal), and without even talking to the Ukrainians, or NATO. The sensible thing for NATO to do is to reject any negotiated solution if it does not include Russian withdrawal and compensation for the damage of the invasion, and to discuss whether to expel the USA from NATO as it clearly considers it is a boss and not a partner. Trump might be happy with the expulsion, but I suspect he will be offended, and that might lead to war, and to American deaths over events that could have been avoided.

His proposal to override Palestinian property rights in Gaza and ethically cleanse Palestinians by force to make money for real estate developers, probably including himself, also demonstrates that he cares nothing for Democracy or poorer people in general. Profit is everything, consequently he is, for neoliberal minds, doing good.

His overseas policies announce that the USA is no longer a force for good, but a force for profit and dictatorship. The free world can no longer be led by the USA. End of story. Maybe Trump wants to be the leader of the autocratic world, and destroy democracy elsewhere as well?

Non of this was known by all Trump voters before the election. In many cases, it could not have been known. As a result, they do not have to support his anti democracy moves or his destruction of the USA. Some of the more badly informed, will continue supporting him, because they do not understand or wish to understand, but it is probable that Trump will continue to lose support as his actions come to affect people, and they lose government support they depended upon, and prices keep rising while wages do not. Most Trump supporters have been deceived, but they it is possible they can start seeing what is happening, and admit to themselves that the deceiver deceived.

That is, unless Democrats drive them away, because its easier to attack supporters than to attack Trump.

Democrats do seem to be that stupid sometimes.

Making America Great Again

November 9, 2024

I have no idea what this slogan means, because President Trump never seems to explain it. It is probably appealing to people because it sounds good and has no content to disagree with.

However, in Agenda 47, his speeches and past behaviour, he does explain, or demonstrate, the means of getting there, which might be more controversial, and suggest what he means by ‘great’.

To him US greatness is brought about by:

1. Increasing prices and inflation by raising tariffs. This may start a ‘tariff war’ in which other nations put tariffs on US imports and harm US export markets. The upside is that US companies may abandon their capital invested in other countries and come back to the USA, or perhaps they may think the tariffs against US exports will cancel the US market out. We don’t know – we just know inflation will increase.

2. Giving corporations and hyper-rich people even bigger tax cuts, because they are the important people in the USA. Everyone else is perhaps useful for voting in corporate power and providing cheap labour, but without any other value.

3. Getting rid of regulations that stop companies from injuring workers, poisoning communities or harming the planetary systems. Making sure no business, especially any associated with Donald Trump, can ever be convicted of fraud.

4. Preventing shareholders and businesses doing anything about climate change, while handing climate policy over to oil companies.

5. Getting rid of the minimum wage so labour is as cheap in the US as in China or Bangladesh and can compete.

6. Getting rid of Affordable Healthcare and replacing it with something more profitable for companies. Making sure that you can only get vaccinated if you leave the US.

7. Scrap 2 trillion dollars from social services and regulatory enforcement, to make sure people have to work even if they are 90, and to stop the State interfering with corporate activities unless those activities impact the President harmfully. These cutbacks help provide the funds for corporate tax cuts. Musk admits this will hurt ordinary Americans, but the imagined future greatness justifies the acts.

8. Making sure that Donald Trump does not get prosecuted or convicted of any crime at all, no matter what that crime is. Ordering those he appoints to head the FBI and the DoJ to drop all and any charges against him, while proclaiming the charges to be political only.

9. Making sure that the FBI and DoJ go after anyone who has disagreed with, or will disagree with, Donald Trump, to bring harmony and agreement to the US.

10. Deregistering or continually suing media that does not 100% support Donald Trump all the time, as they are clearly unpatriotic. This gets rid of those scum who accuse the President of misrepresenting reality, and stops people worrying about what is being done, what mistakes are being made, and what climate events are happening and the lack of government response.

11. Stopping climate and weather research, as they just make things worse and cause people to worry, or think that maybe we should not be mining more fossil fuels.

12. Getting rid of all people working for the government who might not be completely obedient to President Trump. Loyalty to the Constitution and the USA should obviously be secondary to loyalty to President Trump and to Republican ideology.

13. Arguing the President can terminate, or ignore, the Constitution. It is an old document that does not recognize the need for absolute Presidential power.

14. Making sure to give pro-Trump Christians control of State apparatus, as the USA is a Christian nation, built on Christian principles, and subservient to Christian power (apart from the President of course). Christians who don’t support Trump are atheists, heretics or demon possessed.

15. Hitting sexual deviants as hard as possible to get rid of lesbians, gays, trans people and so on. They probably should be burnt alive to please the Christians, and make America Straight Again.

16. Making sure more women die of complications in pregnancy, by valuing the fetus more than the mother.

17. Deporting tens of millions of “illegals”, many of whom probably do not have anywhere to go back to. This will require rounding people up with armed force (it will be bloody, said Trump), setting up camps to store them, hundreds of millions in transport unless cattle trucks and ships are used. Non-white people will need to make sure they always have identity or citizenship papers, or they may be picked up (and their papers lost). Americans will get used to armed bands rounding people up, so it won’t be noticeable when the Democrats and RINOs go.

18. Building trust and respect overseas by abandoning allies, as was done with those Afghans friendly to the US, Kurds and so on.

19. Handing Ukraine over to Putin and supporting Putin’s expansion of Russia.

20. Helping Netanyahu slaughter Palestinians and start a war with Iran as this will bring about Armageddon and the final days and please the right-Christian electorate.

21. Cuddle up to dictators to preserve world peace and discuss how to bring order to the USA and get rid of undesirables. Become part of the Axis of Evil as that is really cool.

22. Find new ways for Donald Trump to profiteer from Taxpayers. The boarding secret service people at Trump properties at maximum price is wearing a bit thin.

Trump and the ‘bloodbath’: What did he say?

April 5, 2024

As usual, reports of Trump’s apparent calls for a bloodbath have been dismissed as anti-Trump hysteria. He is supposedly threatening Chinese car manufacturers not his opponents

However as usual, the actual state of things is more ambiguous.

Here is the actual transcript, nothing deleted, giving the context:

Transcript

China now is building a couple of massive plants where they’re going to build the cars in Mexico and think, they think that they’re going to sell those cars into the United States with no tax at the border. Let me tell you something to China, if you’re listening, President Xi, and you and I are friends, but he understands the way I deal, those big monster car manufacturing plants that you’re building in Mexico right now, and you think you’re going to get that, you’re going to not hire Americans and you’re going to sell the cars to us. Now, we’re going to put a 100% tariff on every single car that comes across the line, and you’re not going to be able to sell those cars, if I get elected.

Donald Trump Dayton Ohio Buckeye Values PAC Rally

Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole… That’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.

But they’re not going to sell those cars. They’re building massive factories. A friend of mine, all he does is build car manufacturing plants. He’s the biggest in the world. I mean, honestly, I joke about it. He can’t walk across the street, in that way he’s like Biden. But for building a plant, he can do the greatest plants in the world, right? That’s all he cares about. I said, “I’d like to see one of your plants.” Recently, I said, “I’d like to see. Where can we go?” “Well, we have to travel to Mexico.” I said, “Why Mexico?” He said, “Because that’s where the big plants are building. China’s building really big plants in Mexico and Mexico’s building…” “What about here?” “Well, we’re building much smaller plants here.” Can you believe it? Can you believe it?

Comments

For Trump this is an amazingly coherent passage. As readers will probably know his normal speeches are fairly incoherent and repetitive rambles. So my guess is that most of this speech is prompted and prewritten. It is supposed to be about car manufacturing in Mexico, and everything he says could be true, Capitalists are not going to operate where its more expensive. They race to the location of the cheapest cost of production of the quality they need. Low wages costs, low materials cost, low pollution costs. Automation gives them the quality, so they don’t care that much about ‘quality’ workers, and the workers in Mexico may be the same kind of people they would employ in the USA.

In the middle of this speech apparently prompted by the “if I get elected” he appears to change subject. This section has little to do with the rest of this part of the speech at all, and there is an incoherence break, and repetition, possibly indicating it is not part of the script, its a digression and improvisation.

“Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole… That’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That’ll be the least of it.

Let us be clear. He could be referring metaphorically to Chinese and other car manufacturers. But it does not fit in with the rest of the speech at all. It seems to be a mind-flash, a real statement of what he feels…

We can either be charitable to man who has threatened violence to his opponents elsewhere and say this is about a fight to the death against manufacturing in Mexico, or we can treat it as a real threat to non-Trumpist American citizens. I think the second option is a better interpretation. He does not specify the country where the bloodbath is to take place, although it makes better sense in the context, to think he is referring to America.

So a few interpretative quotes to give my impression of what he is saying:

  • “If I win, then the Chinese car manufacturers will suffer because I will do 100% tariffs…”
  • “But if I don’t win that its going to be a bloodbath for the whole country.”
  • “That will be the least of it.”
  • “Getting back to the cars in Mexico, even Americans are going to move there if we don’t act….”

If you are a free market person you should be angry in either case.

Earlier in this speech he also engages in dehumanisation of people he does not like, ‘illegal immigrants,’ which is often a precursor to bloodbaths and death squads:

But I got to know all these people…. Young people, they’re in jail for years, if you call them people, I don’t know if you call them people. In some cases they’re not people in my opinion, but I’m not allowed to say that because the radical left says that’s a terrible thing to say. They say you have to vote against him because did you hear what he said about humanity? I’ve seen the humanity and these humanity, these are bad. These are animals and we have to stop it. We can’t have another Laken {a woman who was killed by an illegal person}. We have so many people. We have so many people being hurt so badly and being killed. They’re sending their prisoners to see us. And they’re bringing them right to the border and they’re dropping them off and we’re allowing them to come in.”

same source

We can also remember this recent mindflash in what seems an otherwise unscripted speech….

On Veterans Day, we pledge to you that we will root out the communists, Marxist fascists and the radical left thugs that live like vermin within the confines of our country that lie and steal and cheat on elections and will do anything possible. They’ll do anything whether legally or illegally to destroy America and to destroy the American dream. The real threat is not from the radical, right? The real threat is from the radical left and it’s growing every day, every single day, the threat from outside forces is far less sinister, dangerous and grave than the threat from within our threat is from within. Because if you have a capable competent, smart, tough leader, Russia, China, North Korea, they’re not gonna want to play with us and they didn’t, despite the hatred and anger of the radical left lunatics who want to destroy our country, we will make America great again. Thank you, New Hampshire. God bless you. God bless you all. Thank you. God bless you all. Thank you.

President Trump Campaigns in Claremont, New Hampshire2024

I don’t quite know what he is saying about Russia, China etc. That the radical left stop us playing with them?

But the threat of him, when he wins, purging the USA of people who disagree with him seems clear, and it should threaten everyone as the number of Marxists and communists in the USA is trivial and they are not very powerful or influential, unlike the radical right. He appears to confuse fascists with the left, but that is common for the right, who ignore the people waving swastikas at their rallies, or even encourage them. I guess because of their mutual sympathy.

So, on the whole, to me, it sounds most likely that Trump is threatening a bloodbath in the USA, whether he wins or not. This is compatible with his often expressed desire for revenge. Some people may think that this bloodbath will lead to a peaceful and functional country, rather than to accelerated collapse.

Water loss

March 29, 2024

It is frequently reported that human society, capitalism, developmentalism, the polluter elite, etc are destroying the planets capacity to regenerate the resources we are taking from it. At the moment, it is estimated we have used up everything by August 2. The rest of the year involves plunder and destruction and lowers the date for the consumption of regenerable resources, next year and so on.

This is a problem when we come to basic survival supplies, like water….

Ground water loss

the amounts of fresh water and their rate of adequacy, is hard to estimate, rains etc vary, but the UN has just reported the following. And I quote directly.

(Groundwater depletion).

Groundwater is an essential freshwater resource stored in underground reservoirs called “aquifers”. These aquifers supply drinking water to over 2 billion people, and around 70 per cent of withdrawals are used for agriculture. However, more than half of the world’s major aquifers are being depleted faster than they can be naturally replenished. As groundwater accumulates over thousands of years, it is essentially a non-renewable resource. The tipping point in this case is reached when the water table falls below a level that existing wells can access. Once crossed, farmers will no longer have access to groundwater to irrigate their crops. This not only puts farmers at risk of losing their livelihoods, but can also lead to food insecurity and put entire food production systems at risk of failure.

emphasis added

This is likely to generate a ‘risk tipping point’ which increases the likelihood of cascading failure involving other dangers, see below.

Losses of ground water have already affected some countries

In the mid-1990s, Saudi Arabia was the world’s sixth- largest wheat exporter, based on the large-scale extraction of groundwater for irrigation. But once the wells ran dry, Saudi Arabian wheat production dropped and they had to rely on wheat imported from elsewhere. Other countries, like India, are not far from approaching this risk tipping point, too.

Another source of problems for ground water includes mining operations, especially fracking which cracks rocks and mixes substances from different layers. While this can be protected against for some years, if all the cracks are sealed off, there will come a time when the sealants break, and pollutants start permeating aquifers. So that water that remains in the aquifers may no longer be drinkable. Carbon Capture and Storage also risks contaminating water supplies.

Other Water Loss

Loss of fresh water supply is also threatened by the decline in Mountain glaciers through increased heat. These glaciers source most of the world’s great rivers, and water shortages are expected to trigger wars. This diminishment of water supply, so it will never be as great as it was, can be called ‘peak water’.

Peak water has already passed or is expected to occur within the next 10 years for many of the small glaciers in Central Europe, western Canada or South America. In the Andes, where peak water has already passed for many glaciers, communities are now grappling with the impacts of unreliable water sources for drinking water and irrigation.

There are also issues of water storage in dams because of increased evaporation levels due to the increased heat.

In Australia we have been watching our rivers die for years, as irrigation appears to strip so much water from them, they can no longer function. This could lead to the collapse of inland agriculture and, of course, country towns.

Tipping points

The idea of a risk tipping point is fairly simple.

There are different kinds of tipping points. For example, “climate tipping points” are tipping points after after which unstoppable changes occur which influence global climate and stop it reverting back to what has been historically normal. Examples of such tipping points include the melting of the Greenland Ice Sheet, the release of methane from unfreezing tundra, the shifting of ocean currents, the rise in water vapour in the air. Some of these tipping points may have even occured even without rising temperatures, such as the human clearing of the Amazon and other large rainforests which will likely change rainfall patterns, as well as producing species extinction. Overfishing the oceans which could leave them dying.

A risk tipping point occurs when a “given socioecological system is no longer able to buffer risks and provide its expected functions” or when we have killed resilience, slack and redundancy in the social system and harmed its ability to bounce back to normal equilibria. If this happens “the risk of catastrophic impacts to these systems increases substantially”.

In an interconnected world the impacts of risk tipping points such as this are felt globally, as they cause ripple effects through food systems, the economy and the environment. They affect the very structure of our society and the well-being of future generations, and they also affect our ability to manage future risks. Groundwater, for instance, is relied upon to mitigate half of the agricultural losses caused by drought, a scenario we can expect to occur more often at many places in the future, due to climate change. If the groundwater has been depleted, this is an option we will no longer have.

So starvation, death, rampant inflation of food prices, food riots and so on can be expected to result from loss of water.

Given the world’s largely neoliberal regimes and their belief in markets, we can expect that the rich, and corporations, will try to purchase the water they need and take it away from others.

Privatization can be a problem

People will have heard of the UKs water problems. Given the country’s fame for rain, this is almost unbelievable, but water cleanliness is being destroyed by privatisation and the urge for profit.

UK rivers are full of sewage. the number of people admitted to hospital with waterborne diseases has risen by 60% since 2010. Data suggests that raw sewage was discharged into rivers and hence into the Seas, for 3.6m hours in 2023, doubling over the previous year.

The government has given water companies until 2035 to reduce the amount of sewage flowing into bathing water and ecologically important areas, but other discharges could continue until until 2050.

Perhaps not surprisingly Water companies increased profits from this bad performance. In 2022-23, they made £1.7bn in pre-tax profits, up 82% since 2018-19, when they made £955m. They also plan to increase water bills by up to 40%, to pay for cleaning up and debt payments. Over the last 30 or so years Thames Water has paid £7.2bn in dividends, and taken out £14.7bn in debt – some of which is likely to have gone on dividends. Between 1990 and 2023, English water companies have paid out a total of £53bn in dividends, meaning that they have given almost the same amount to shareholders as they currently have in debt.

Guardian 28 Feb 2024

In the US testing by the Environmental Protection agency has found that about 70 million people are exposed to toxic “forever chemicals” in their drinking water. However, the testing only covers one-third of the USA’s public water systems, so the total figures could be much higher. Independent estimates put the total at around 200 million people having tainted water. Likewise, parts of the water supply in the USA are heavily contaminated with cattle waste from huge feedlots. According to the Minnesota pollution control agency, nearly 70% of the state’s water pollution comes from crop and livestock production, and the pollution also affects groundwater wells.

Both shortage of fresh water and unpolluted fresh water will increase the problems of population increase. To feed the extra 2 billion or so people being, we may need to double the water supplies for irrigation.

Conclusion

As many as 4 billion people are already exposed to water stress conditions for at least one month a year. The natural ecosystems that provide clean water and alleviate floods and other risks — such as forests, mangroves and wetlands — are degrading and disappearing at alarming rates. Demand for water is projected to increase by up to 30% by 2050, while water-related conflicts and political instability are on the rise. And climate change is worsening the problem, intensifying floods and droughts, shifting precipitation patterns and fueling sea level rise.

World Resources Institute Securing Freshwater for All

This essentially human-based weakening of survival systems, is the real mark of the Anthropocene.

The more parts of the global system become precarious the more likely a system cascade will eventuate, in which a failure of one system generates failures in other systems which then reinforce the original failure and so on.

Increased rain, in some places, may be captured rather than simply flood and destroy towns, but that would require vast engineering works. A large building program for filtration and desalination plants may be necessary, although it seems improbable nowadays.

We have to stop destroying natural systems, and possibly risk building new kludge systems to deal with the destruction we have generated.

Systems of Failure

January 21, 2024

This is just a list of some reasons for failure to face challenges, especially the challenge of climate change (although the list is not intended to be complete or deep).

Pride and fear of loss. We know what we are doing. We are committed to a set of actions and policies. If we admitted we had been wrong, and indeed suicidal, for 20 years then, we would undermine the legitimacy of our power, heirachies, and modes of organisation which are undoubtely for the best. Another similar way of seeing this kind of blockage, is as a commitment to existing social and technical competencies and a refusal to explore new possibilities, as that possibly disturbs systems and status.

Trying to impose the established order and its normal solutions more rigorously. Follows on from Pride. In general, the established and standard solutions to challenges are the only ones which can be used. They are imposed upon systems that reject these techniques, or make the situation worse. Currently, many promoted climate solutions involve letting ‘The Market’ take care of the challenges, by imposing more ‘free market’ discipline on workers (as a cost cutting exercise), persecuting people on social welfare, handing more power to the corporate sector, making sure the wealthy become even more wealthy, removing protective regulation, and so on. It is quite common for pro-right people to reduce the environmental protection, perhaps to encourage businesses to pollute heavily as they used to. Liberty for corporations (just a particular section of society), is thought to produce good results in everything. Such limited action lowers diversity of possible response and hence lowers resilience. It simply increases the pressure on the ecological system and will lead to greater tumult.

Pretending that the signs of disorder are illusionary, irrelevant or passing. “There really is no crisis. So nothing should be done.” For example, arguing that ecological destruction and climate change generated by society’s economic processes and success is not a problem, will return to normal, is beyond human remediation, or is a purely natural process. When this position is taken as true then the logical conclusion is that people pointing to the challenge are engaged in some kind of hallucinatory conspiracy, so they can be ignored, or perhaps locked away. Anyway, trying to fixing the challenge will cause even worse problems, disrupt our cosy lives, or be expensive, and so it can’t be real.

Pretending to be solving the problem, but carry on as previously. This is a common response at COPs. For example, you praise yourself for boosts to renewables, but you are encouraging a) new coal and gas mines, b) building more coal fired power stations, c) keeping fossil fuel based energy economic through subsidy and ignoring costs and potential costs, d) promoting ‘clean’ fossil fuels though Carbon Capture and Storage or other fantasy technologies, or e) claiming increasing biofuels does not increase emissions at all. Imagined solutions become defense mechanisms.

Support incremental and slow response to problems, while protecting the established system. This could be fine if we had lots of time left, but people have been delaying action for so long it is now just more suicidal delay. It removes preceptions of the urgency of the problem, and awareness of cascading and accumulating challenges.

Attacking those who might be trying to solve the challenges – People concerned about the challenge, are a potential challenge to the power and wealth of elite modes of organisation – for the reasons above. As people point to the challenge and imply that the elites have to change (as they have not remotely solved the problem), it is logical to assume that scientists came up with climate change to support something the elites don’t like, like socialism and tyranny. Yes acting against climate change could be beneficial for ordinary people, not the elites. It can be said that rivals like China promote the idea to weaken the West, or that people who recognise climate change as a problem, are elites who want to spread even greater costs of living onto ordinary people and, although it is never said, ordinary people are already suffering the results of elite neoliberalism and do not want more ‘austerity’.

Emphasising the challenges in transition and playing down the problems of staying largely inert. Counting the expected economic and social costs of transition while ignoring the costs of ignoring climate change, (because those climate costs are declared unreal, or are not the elite’s problem as they think they can survive).

Blaming attempts to fix the problem for the problems. The Australian coalition frequently blames power failures on renewables, even when the coal energy generators collapsed in the heat, gas backup did not come online, or exceptional storms ripped down power cables. Another technique is to Invent new problems associated with solutions (such as health issues for wind turbines while ignoring massive, and well documented, health issues for coal mines or from fossil fuel air pollution), and so on.

Oversimplifying the challenges to make them seem manageable. This affects both sides. While renewable energies are useful and may solve a large number of problems, they are not a complete solution. They do not solve the problems of over-fishing, deforestation, peak-phosphorous, over-grazing, greenhouse emissions from industrial agriculture and other parts of the general social approach to destroying ecologies. The challenge is large, not narrow. Likewise people often say that the results of climate change are unpredictable, and then firmly predict that everything will be fine. Anti-renewable people also can blame population growth for the total problem.

Stirring up distractions to get people’s attention focused elsewhere, especially if the chosen challenge, seems unsolvable by the current order. One way of doing that is through scapegoating, or blaming people overseas, so we can keep on with pollution.

Locating a scapegoat to blame for the problems and arguing everything will be well when that scapegoat is purged. Dominant groups can actively blame the relatively powerless (refugees from wars and climate change, illegal or legal immigrants, Muslims, professors, gay people, non-existant marxists, and ‘liberals/greenies’) for almost all problems. In Australia, after the ‘Black Summer fires’ the Coalition and the Murdoch media blamed Greens for not preventing the bush fires, when the Greens did not have the policies claimed, did not have the power to implement them, and when the clearances to prevent fires had exceeded the targets set by Coalition governments. Again the point, is “Its not [our country] causing the problem, its someone else. We can keep on”.

Punishing people for objecting to the established order and the problems it generates. Australian and other governments have intensified penalties for protests: increasing jail sentences and fines, trying to prohibit those charged with protest from associating with other protestors, and making it difficult for people to encourage boycotting those companies who help generate climate change and so on. This also has the ‘advantage’ of disrupting the information system, so news of challenges is less circulated or broadcast.

Odum’s model of growth, descent and collapse

November 7, 2023

Odum seems to argue that complex living systems (ecosystems) tend to have a surge model, they boom and then they collapse or withdraw once the resources required are consumed. Or in more detail they have a cycle:

  • Growth – different groups of organisms (or societies) compete and some outgrow the others and become more plentiful or dominant and hamper the others.
  • Climax – the system grows until nearly all important available resources are consumed and it reaches maximum development. It may also produce pollution at a level that kills off biologies or resources it needs. Some plants for example kill surrounding plants which support the biodiversity they need, if they are too succesful.
  • [Maturity – the system shifts from growth to maintenance and symbiosis, competition lowers, less resources are consumed for the outputs. There can be a degree of stability or conservation. Perhaps the societies do not consume more resources than they can replace. Maturity is not always reached]
  • Descent – assets, raw materials, energy decrease because growth has used up available stores of resources, or there is a surge of destruction at the climax of growth as more resources are used up faster than ever to try and maintain stability, or cyclical ecological conditions change (eg. autumn begins). The ‘higher’ co-ordinating functions of the society/ecology can fall apart as they don’t have the available energy to support them. “By one means or another, the developed system has to adapt to coming down… An unresolved question is when is it good policy to downsize gradually [and in an organised manner] and when should [downsizing] be catastrophic?” [for example some forests may require major burns to renew and regrow]
  • Low energy restoration – before another period of growth, resources have to be rebuilt up, usually naturally, as humans have few resources or little spare energy. Soil may need to be left fallow to rebuild itself etc. “Processes of environmental production must exceed consumption” for some while to rebuild. Some resources may have extremely slow periods of rebuild, such as fossil fuels and effectively not be largely available again, and some dispersed resouces may never accumulate together in a form useable in large quantities. For example phospherous or helium is not lost but dispersed, and it may be very hard to retrieve without much more energy than is available.

There is no reason to exempt human systems from these cycles, but it does mean that in human systems what is an appropriate policy in one part of the cycle “may be poor policy in another.”

The most likely result of our current growth is a collapse, “with dispersed smaller-population communities” living primarily on speedily renewable resources and energies, such as firewood or small cropping or, if we get it going, some surviving renewable energy technology.

Any relatively quick continuance. rebuilding or maturity will have to rely on renewable energy as fossil fuels are not only finite and are requiring more energy to extract, but they damage other needed systems for reaching some level of maturity.

Even worse, unless the energy generators and resources we currently use can be replaced or recycled, then the system will not have the pathways to start the regrowth phase, and we will stay at a low level after the collapse for a long time. This does not just mean limits to economic and population growth, but limits to social ‘development,’ social complexity and social comfort.

Such a cycle is probably inevitable. Regeneration systems almost certainly have limits. What is new, is that the cycle is likely to affect the whole planet, not just one ‘civlisation’ and its resource use. There will be few areas which will be immune and have the materials and energy to generate prosperity and start growing outward. People who are hunters and gatherers and slash and burn agrictulturists will probably do best.

It seems to be logically better to develop the way down now while we still have some, if lessening, slack than to wait until the crash.

Example

Simply because I was asked, this is a simple and unscholarly look at the collapse of Rome.

Rome develops an extremely effective citizen army and military technology – the best in the world. They were almost wiped out once or twice. But they survived. One basis that keeps this military going is the gifting of land to retiring or surviving soldiers and loot to victors. This is pretty standard. Pay can be small because of the promises of land and loot. However, that also forces the military to expand into new areas to provide loot and land for soldiers. It is locked into expansion.

The military technology is great enough that the expansion proceeds relatively smoothly for a few hundred years. However, changes in the political system mean that the Roman people become less involved in politics, or less identified with politics – they are excluded and it becomes dangerous to get involved. Rome also uses up its militarisable population and has to recruit military from conquered areas. These new recruits also have less involvement with the empire other than in terms of reward, and may require more consistent payment. Eventually the empire expands too much for the loot and land it occupies to be able to support the armies and centralised, or dispersed, control. The ruling classes tend to take what land they can to make large estates to cement their power and riches, which deprives soldiers and soldiers’ families of land or potential land. Supply lines became too long, people get bored. The looted became restless and look for opportunities to rebel. It takes more effort to maintain stability. Land becomes overused and became less fertile.

To keep functional, any empire has to either generate large amounts of energy and resources (which will eventually be used up), or plunder from its conquests more than it costs to rule those conquests, and keep expanding to get more plunder when they have stripped the conquered areas. That requires potentially infinte expansion, or calling off the empire and trying to become steady state, which is hard because so much power and wealth depend on expansion. Infinite explansion is always going to run against human and planetary limits. I have heard there is some evidence the Romans reached China! but they could not keep the outpost going. Once the expansion runs into limits you eventually can’t reward or pay the people who keep it up to those limits, and have to rely on having crushed the opposition, which is not going to stay stable for ever. Maintaining Empire requires more energy than unconquered peoples can provide if conquered, and it requires energy to keep it going. When that energy depends on agriculture and forestry, then you have the problems of using up the land’s fertility and using up the forests. You also need to keep up skills training and tech of conquest, administration and building, which takes energy and often peace to store the information accurately.

After the fall of Rome, it seems fertility of the land was problematic at best, and knowledge was destroyed, dispersed, or unretrievable. While the material and intellectual poverty of the European Dark Ages, can be exaggerated, it took a long time to get anything resembling even the city of Rome going again. Similarly, without oil, the remanants of the Islamic Empires and their collapse would probably still be in relative poverty from the same kind of causes.

Conclusion

Societies tend to consume the resources they rely upon faster than those resources can be replenished, or their mode of destruction exceeds the modes of production. If this is not realised, and massive reorganisation is not undertaken then the societies will collapse. We cannot rely on magical technolgy to save us. But more importantly, the modes of consumption and destruction tend to get entangled with modes of power, and people fight to keep them going, rather than risk uncertainty or loss of power and riches. People get distracted supporting the growth mechanisms instead of maturity mechanisms.

A general formula is that: “the processes that make a society successful eventually kill them when circumstances change, or resources start becoming limited”.

Roman military effectiveness and expansion destroyed the empire they made

Is ‘Peak Oil’ here?

July 13, 2023

This is an important question. Basically peak oil arrives, not because oil has run out, but because the amounts of energy expended to obtain the oil, transport and refine the oil, is close to, or over, the amount of energy released by the oil.

When this happens, the “Energy Return on Energy Input” is small.

It would seem obvious that if you spend more energy to get the material which gives energy, than you get from the material itself, this is going to weaken your social and business processes.

Goehring & Rozencwajg, who are an investment firm, point out that:

  • Never before has oil supply growth been so geographically concentrated. Six counties in West Texas are now 100% responsible for all global production growth.
  • Conventional non-OPEC oil production peaked in 2007 at 46.2 mm b/d and now stands at 44.2 mm b/d – 4% below its peak.
  • Including OPEC, conventional global output peaked in 2016 at 84.5 mm b/d and now stands at 81.3 m b/d – 5% below its peak.

The argue that any growth in oil production has arisen from non-convetional oil. This is oil which requires much more energy to extract, and which can often result in ecological destruction. This includes the oil of fracking, shale oils, tar sands, or requires crop convesion.

  • [Between 2006 and 2015] US shales grew by 6.8 mm b/d (65% of all growth), bio-fuels grew by 1.9 mm b/d (19% of the growth), and Canadian oil sands increased 1.4 mm b/d (14% of the growth). Please note that out of this 10 mm b/d growth figure, the Permian represents only 1.4 mm b/d or 14%.

Between 2016 and 23

  • US shales accounted for 85% of the increase. However, whereas all the major shale basins grew from 2006 to 2015, only the Permian grew afterward. 

However, the decline in availability has not lowered the demand. More importantly, not lowering the demand shows that the world’s societies and businesses are not dealing with climate change prevention, adaptation or mitigation. More oil burning increases emissions, which increase climate change, which increases the danger of social collapse. Paradoxically, decline in energy availability, also means an increase in the possibility of social collapse.

Because of the demand:

  • Global demand in 1Q23 surpassed 102 mm barrels per day — three million barrels above the 1Q19 (pre-COVID) level and almost 2 mm b/d above the International Energy Agency’s (IEA) 1Q23 estimate. 
  • From here on out, just six counties in West Texas must meet all global demand growth [from the Permian shale].
  • [Their models suggest] The Permian is likely less than a year from peaking and starting its decline

The usual pattern for shale oil, is that once the decline starts, it declines very quickly.

Once oil decline, and resulting price increases, really start to bite, then air transport is likely over for the masses without major technological break throughs, which currently seem unlikely.

Because they are an investment company and not that bothered with the causes of climate change, they are ‘bullish’ about natural gas…. and

  • North American natural gas remains our highest conviction investment theme, and we have used the recent weakness to add to our holdings.

So the collapse continues….

************************

Addenda:

We know that when oil wells are abandoned they are rarely made safe and leak proof because that costs money. So there will be continuing pollution.

When a well is left unplugged, it can leak oil and other toxic chemicals, endanger water wells and other sources, contribute to air pollution and emit methane – a powerful greenhouse gas

Hundreds of thousands of wells across the country were not plugged by their operators and remain open to groundwater and nature, some for a century or more. These “orphan” wells have no solvent owner of record, so the cleanup liability falls on the states, federal agencies or Tribe. Unfortunately, only pennies on the dollar have been available to properly clean up these wells.

Texas could receive over $341M to plug the 6,489 currently documented orphan wells in the state.

EDF Mapping Orphan Wells in Texas

*******************

I was asked why with peak oil coming do renewables need subsidy?

Renewables appear to get less subsidy from taxpayers than fossil fuels, throughout the world and in Australia.

  • I’ve argued before that its often hard to agree on what counts as a subsidy, and some people suggest tax concessions are not subsidies, and figures of subsidies differ. But see:
  • New research shows fossil fuel subsidies over the forward estimates have increased to a record breaking $57.1b, up from the $55.3b forecast in 2022.”
  • This report provides our first estimates for 2022, which show that global fossil fuel consumption subsidies doubled from the previous year to an all-time high of USD 1 trillion.”
  • Trillions of dollars of subsidies for fossil fuels, farming and fishing are causing ‘environmental havoc’, according to the World Bank, severely harming people and the planet…. At $577bn, the explicit subsidies for coal, oil and gas in 2021 were twice as large as those for renewable energy, and almost six times higher than the climate finance promised by rich countries to developing nations.”

I suspect these weird levels of subsidy is partly about power and habit. We still expect oil to keep flowing freely, as it has done, to be the basis of our society as it has been, and it probably will be for another 10 to 20 years getting more expensive and more damaging all the time. Gas will replace some of that oil, which will keep the polluting system going longer as the investment company above celebrates.

But, even in the best cirumstances we probably need to replace the oil consumption within that 20 years or we may collapse. The Market will not do that replacement without help, because Markets are short sighted and inefficient for some things, this being one of them. The power of oil companies also warps the market and makes transition harder. They have been spewing anti-climate change crap for about 30 years and slowing the transition along with Murdoch.

So Renewables might need some subsidy to get going and build up enough energy to compensate for the energy loss that is likely to be coming.

Fossil fuels do not need subsidising, they are an established and wealthy industry which needs to go, and in the case of oil, is probably going anyway, but not without a struggle to continue its parth of destruction for as long as possible..

Toynbee cycle again

June 7, 2023

I’ve already argued that Arnold Toynbee’s work is useful for looking at whether societies will collapse or not. Here is a slightly differen version.

One reason for societies failing, is that people, in particular the intellectual, power or riches elites, cannot face up to new problems that arise during periods of change. Given that change is always happening in complex systems (such as social relations, ecological relations etc.), this is a problem itself. Societies may be especially resistant to solving problems generated by the established elites of that society, who have made the society a success.

This seems more likely to occur in societies with a ‘conservative culture’, because

  • They believe all problems are old problems or similar to old problems and can be solved in the old ways, which have always worked previously.
  • New solutions would imply uncertainty, and conservatives do not like uncertainty, as it disrupts established patterns of behaviour, everything could change including their power and status.
  • The elites of that society will be those who are good are the old ways, and using the old solutions.
  • The Elites will discourage any investigation of their role in creating the problem through their mastery of the old ways.
  • If they control the media then they will denounce or hide information dangerous to their rule and thus most people will be unaware, or not applying their abilities to solve the problem.
  • They will probably enforce their elite position and the ‘class system’, and stop society from challenging their actions or powers, and thus entrench the problems, which will keep getting worse.
  • The government will side with the elites as they have the riches and status. The elites can buy government members, or bless them, if its a religious elite.

The policies used to get a society through a period of growth, or maximal power, are generally not the same policies that will get a society through problems it is not faced before, or it has generated through those previously succesful policies. The tendency is that new problems will be ignored until its too late and the society cannot flex enough to get around them. Conservative society will fail if there are new problems. Otherwise it might do ok.

On the other hand a less ‘conservative’ society should be able to:

  • Admit the existence of new problems, and embrace the uncertainty around finding new solutions, and experimenting with new solutions.
  • Accept the likelihood that problem solving often leads to social change.
  • Have a circulation of elites, which allows the elites to change depending upon ability, and the flexibility to deal with new situations, as new situations are always arising. The elite is not completely hereditary.
  • The presence of new members in the elites can help old elites to see the probable need for change, that old solutions have not worked, and the need for new approaches.
  • People will be prepared to accept this probability of change, and get on with problem solving, not enforcing a set of non-working solutions.
  • The government will think about the solutions independently of the other elites.

Unfortunately, as we can see through climate change, most societies on the planet are conservative and are busy not responding to the problems, and certainly not thinking about how to use the change for everyone’s advantage.….

The Polluter and Market elites, especially fossil fuel elites, have way too much power, and too much control over governments. Circulation of elites seems to have declined. Nowadays people have to start rich to get anywhere. The Polluter elites just repeat endlessly that more free markets, and more suppression of ‘workers’ and protestors is all that is needed, Any interference in the economy, which is not support of them, is to be condemned. The attitude is that nothing need change for success, or there is no problem.