Michaux's work is so profoundly mind blowing. I hope I can play even a small role in making people more aware of it.
As for your last paragraph - this will be very much a cliffs notes kind of answer for the time being, but here are some initial high level thoughts:
1 -- I agree that there is a lot of irrationality going on. Doomberg lays this out so clearly that it is basically beyond argument. But if you look at everything through the lens of the credit bubble instead of what works from an energy standpoint, I think it starts to make a bit more sense. Because if there is no attempt to grow the economy in the face of peaking oil, the financial system basically doesn't work.
Not saying this makes sense practically, but I think the "system" has a sort of mind of its own in which it will seek out growth in any way possible. Growth is the lifeblood of the financial system. And when you have governments throwing huge sums of money at alternative energy and a genuine need to deal with the energy conundrum we are going to face, investors and entrepreneurs will dive in. Again - not saying this means it will work per say, but I think a lot of this rush serves as a means to find growth by any means necessary.
There is also an element that, more likely than not, we will have no choice but to deal with societies running on a lower EROI than we did in the past (when oil was free flowing). So there is some element of making that shift and trying to do so in a way that keeps some semblance of society together. To be clear - I am not endorsing anything that is happening at all, but I try to look at the underlying realities to make sense of some of the decisions (even when I do not agree with them and think some of the decision makers may not be the best people, to put it lightly). For better or worse, I try and keep my writing apolitical.
2 -- I also tend to think that this understanding of the nature of oil drives virtually all geopolitical actions. Access to resources is the key to everything. I think that over time these realities will wipe away some of the false veneers we see from western governments. As "ugly" as it might look, I think it will be a welcome change from the increasingly spurious rationale we're given for everything. I can't imagine that UN Development goals (which read like a small child's wish list) will survive reality in the long term. Though perhaps I'm a fool on this.
3 -- as Doomberg has shown in their articles on Canadian nuclear power, I think nuclear is going to have something of a renaissance. Particularly as folks grow to understand the viability of nuclear for creating industrial steam. I think this could be particularly interesting in the US as it tries to onshore more advanced manufacturing. Though I think this also rests on the true viability of new technology like Small Modular Reactors.
4 -- I can sound like a pessimist when I write about this stuff, but I'm actually optimistic. Not in some utopian techno-optimist sense of things (lol), but in the sense that I think a lot of the real challenges we face will inevitably lead to a forced return to reality (and thus to a return of leaders who act accordingly). Though, admittedly, it may take a while.
The above is relatively off the cuff and certainly not fully formed. But it's all stuff I hope to explore in future posts.
Wow, Justin, you need to do an op-ed in the Financial Times or the Wall Street Journal with this article.
Thanks, Cyndi!
Michaux's work is so profoundly mind blowing. I hope I can play even a small role in making people more aware of it.
As for your last paragraph - this will be very much a cliffs notes kind of answer for the time being, but here are some initial high level thoughts:
1 -- I agree that there is a lot of irrationality going on. Doomberg lays this out so clearly that it is basically beyond argument. But if you look at everything through the lens of the credit bubble instead of what works from an energy standpoint, I think it starts to make a bit more sense. Because if there is no attempt to grow the economy in the face of peaking oil, the financial system basically doesn't work.
Not saying this makes sense practically, but I think the "system" has a sort of mind of its own in which it will seek out growth in any way possible. Growth is the lifeblood of the financial system. And when you have governments throwing huge sums of money at alternative energy and a genuine need to deal with the energy conundrum we are going to face, investors and entrepreneurs will dive in. Again - not saying this means it will work per say, but I think a lot of this rush serves as a means to find growth by any means necessary.
There is also an element that, more likely than not, we will have no choice but to deal with societies running on a lower EROI than we did in the past (when oil was free flowing). So there is some element of making that shift and trying to do so in a way that keeps some semblance of society together. To be clear - I am not endorsing anything that is happening at all, but I try to look at the underlying realities to make sense of some of the decisions (even when I do not agree with them and think some of the decision makers may not be the best people, to put it lightly). For better or worse, I try and keep my writing apolitical.
2 -- I also tend to think that this understanding of the nature of oil drives virtually all geopolitical actions. Access to resources is the key to everything. I think that over time these realities will wipe away some of the false veneers we see from western governments. As "ugly" as it might look, I think it will be a welcome change from the increasingly spurious rationale we're given for everything. I can't imagine that UN Development goals (which read like a small child's wish list) will survive reality in the long term. Though perhaps I'm a fool on this.
3 -- as Doomberg has shown in their articles on Canadian nuclear power, I think nuclear is going to have something of a renaissance. Particularly as folks grow to understand the viability of nuclear for creating industrial steam. I think this could be particularly interesting in the US as it tries to onshore more advanced manufacturing. Though I think this also rests on the true viability of new technology like Small Modular Reactors.
4 -- I can sound like a pessimist when I write about this stuff, but I'm actually optimistic. Not in some utopian techno-optimist sense of things (lol), but in the sense that I think a lot of the real challenges we face will inevitably lead to a forced return to reality (and thus to a return of leaders who act accordingly). Though, admittedly, it may take a while.
The above is relatively off the cuff and certainly not fully formed. But it's all stuff I hope to explore in future posts.