Bill McKibben: "Climate, Movements, and Power" | The Great Simplification

Show Summary:
On this episode, environmental activist and author Bill McKibben joins Nate for a reflection on the last few decades of climate education and movements - and the possibilities and challenges that we’ll face ahead. Among a system that is dependent on growth and embedded in a biosphere full of limits (which we continue to surpass), working towards shifting our societies to be ecologically balanced is potentially the most important mission to which an individual can contribute - yet this is much easier said than done. What have been the largest barriers towards actual effective climate action since emissions have continued in a straight line up since the 20th century? What power structures stand as a barrier to proactive initiatives, and which ones could we utilize to propel movements forward? How can we prepare and organize at the individual, community, and national levels, as we look ahead to climate - and other - challenges we’re likely to face in the coming decades?
About Bill McKibben:
Bill McKibben is founder of Third Act, which organizes people over the age of 60 for action on climate and justice. His 1989 book The End of Nature is regarded as the first book for a general audience about climate change, and has appeared in 24 languages. He’s gone on to write 20 books, and his work appears regularly in periodicals from the New Yorker to Rolling Stone. McKibben helped found 350.org, the first global grassroots climate campaign, which has organized protests on every continent, including Antarctica, for climate action. He played a leading role in launching the opposition to big oil pipeline projects like Keystone XL, and the fossil fuel divestment campaign, which has become the biggest anti-corporate campaign in history.
For Show Notes and More:
www.thegreatsimplification.co...

[@CitizenK1969]

Bill McKibben was a major influence on me; *The End of Nature* was one of several books that lead to me becoming an environmental activist during my early 20s. I have to say, however, that I find Nate's perspective more convincing: as much as individuals are able to choose ethical actions (all due deference to Dr.Sapolsky; the illusion of choice at least feels like choice), I think there is a kind of mathematical inevitability when you consider humanity as a whole, as a superorganism. This is why over my time following The Great Simplification I've started to feel there is something inevitable about the meta-crisis/poly-crisis. As a tool-using species armed with science, I feel like we were always going to end up where we are. ... Anyway, excellent interview, as always.

[@klondike444]

Absolutely. Bill seems set in his thinking. I'm quite a lot older than him, but Nate seems to possess a clearer awareness of reality.

[@nathanjparkin]

Massive respect for both these gentlemen. Two behemoths of head and heart. Fascinating to observe the dichotomy between: Nate - the earnest witness and translator, whose north star is clearly framing the poly - crisis. (Much needed thank you!) And Bill - the movement building motivator of change, whose north star is renewable hope?! (Much needed thank you!) On one hand, we must drastically simplify, with or without volition. (Hard to sell that on mass!) On the other hand, we must retain hope (Hopium?!) in order to build a movement for change, (Tough to keep it real wrt: ending exponential growth, energy & material depletion / blindness, other existential risks etc. etc.) Sapience is clearly a blend of the two schools… Easier said than done!

[@paulwhetstone0473]

Truth bombs

[@markbowenagates1987]

I'm an Ojibwa from Northern Michigan. My wife is of Europeon descent. She says to her mother that the reason she gravitates towards my culture more than Christianity is because Christianity doesn't value nature and the animals as much as Native Americans do. That was a profound insight that I hadn't really thought of before.

[@SouthernGospelLady]

I am a Christian and I very much value them both, we shouldn't try to put everyone in a box because everyone doesn't fit. There are those that skew in unfavorable directions in all walks of life. We can all do better.

[@THEROOTMATTERS]

DISCERNMENT, may tell us they are NOT true BELIEVERS. ANYONE can claim to be part of Christiandom. Faith without WORKS is dead, though...

[@THEROOTMATTERS]

BELIEVERS ought to have consciences that disturb their comfort RATHER than console their self-centered lifestyles. The WORD OF GOD (BIBLE/TORAH) commands us NOT to be conformed to this system. We are to RECOGNIZE we are STRANGERS in a strange land. Reading GOD'S WORD is to RENEW our MINDS so we have a GOD TRAINED CONSCIENCE. As opposed to a seared over conscience which cannot warn us if we step over GOD'S MARK of delineation. We all fall short YET none of us are to practice sin. HUMBLE ourselves and PRAY that we consistently READ the HOLY SCRIPTURES, including TORAH, and APPLY what we learn at every second of every day. PRACTICE OBEDIENCE, REPENT, ASK FOR MORE OF GOD'S WISDOM, ASK HIM FOR HIS DIRECTION AND DISCIPLINE. WRESTLE WITH YOURSELF IF YOU CONFRONT A STUBBORN PART OF YOUR PERSON.

[@TheFlyingBrain.]

​​​@@SouthernGospelLadyGeneralized observations about life and human beings aren't necessarily the same thing as speaking in absolutes. Banning generalized observations from discussion on the grounds that there are always exceptions verges on tautology, and is a form of false logic that is commonly used as a convenient way to deny the existence of a problem and to escape from responsibility for the very real challenges a particular group of people may need to identify, own and resolve, before we can all move forward together. You may have personally transcended this particular pitfall common to European Christian church doctrine and philosophy, but that does not mean the pitfall doesn't exist, nor does it mean it doesn't need to be addressed. Attempting to claim that it should not be pointed out only serves to hide the issue and perpetuate the difficulty. We can't correct errors we refuse to identify and own.

[@j.s.c.4355]

I think that is why all white people are attracted to Native Culture. It’s the famous stereotype.

[@hhollick]

I applaud Nate for the restraint he showed in this conversation with Bill McKibben. When McKibben said the world was adding a GW of solar power every day I was expecting Nate to show how even at 10x that rate it would take 27 years to install enough solar power to meet TODAY’s energy demands. By then demand would surely be higher and we would also need to be replacing the earliest installed solar panels. (See Frankly #50, if I’m not mistaken.) This is not the only example of where I know Nate bit his tongue. I am sure that McKibben was genuine when he published The End of Nature in 1989. He is no longer that person. McKibben shrugged off, redirected, gave vague answers, or simply answered a different question to everything Nate asked. He has been coopted and corrupted by the forces that he should have been fighting against. He ended the interview in an absolute low. Nate asked him how he coped with all this bad news. McKibben shrugged off that question as well, finally saying that if he ever found himself in despair he would put his feet up on the porch and drink whiskey. How nice for him. Lucky for him that he was born in the US and not in the Global South where, if he found himself in despair, his seemingly best option would be to pack up everything he could carry into a backpack, round up his family, and trudge a thousand miles north in the hopes that the could make it across the Rio Grande and sneak into the United States. The SuperOrganism uses different techniques to neutralize different people along the emotional and political spectrum. For people left of center with a modicum of emotional intelligence, grand statements to what’s possible, or what we “should” do is enough to keep people from doing much of anything. Bill has fallen into this role. He is no longer being helpful, but actually serving to reduce our chances of bending before we break.

[@dogdude4897]

I'm only at the 27 minute mark and Bill has already lived up to your spot on assessment. Bill is an "over the hill has been", a term I very rarely use. TY for your comment...

[@kokopelli314]

Agreed

[@judithmcdonald9001]

History repeats itself and it's not in the books. I read Silent Spring in 1970, and studied organic gardening with the greats! If we can't live with nature, one of the two will go. This is what happened to the hippies. There was a renaissance of mind opening and it was a threat to the military industrial complex. The summer of '67 was a wake up call to exactly how many kids were sick of war. So they called out the troops. When protestors were shot, we knew we had to quit protesting and start living our commitments. Thank you for continuing this endeavor. I am old. The chasm is so wide at this time that, should any sapiens survive the current threats, we seem to be splitting into two different species -- Those who follow nature and those who follow industry and war. From an anthropological view, I keep trying to figure out how far we need to go back which fallen civilization? where did we go wrong? As a gardener, I wonder how far this plant will need to be pruned in order to regrow. I'm thinking it goes all the way back to agriculture and the accumulation of "extra" which led to the merchant class, and so forth.. Every decline is from wealth and subsequent trade disputes. So long as imperialism exists, people will suffer. Rulers don't know the I Ching or read Nagarjuna's “Precious Garland of Advice for a King” and rely instead on manipulation. The other responses to the 60's was cuts to education. We shouldn't know so much. LOL! But nature hates imbalance and will continue to push back. I continue to plant seeds. Let the wise listen, the others will be wiped out earlier as the house of cards falls. That is how nature works.

[@narciszfejes5751]

Beautifully said: "I wonder how far the plant will need to be pruned in order to regrow."

[@IanGrahamOld99]

wonderful reply, thank you.

[@richardbeal1242]

Nate, your point on materials for solar was great.

[@1patula]

It kind of started to piss me off recently as well, that renewable miracle agenda repeated over and over again by quite often people who should know better. Not so long ago there was Simon Michaux on the show, he is the expert in mining( among many other topics) and he clearly describes how we simply don’t have enough rear earth materials and technology to extract them from the ground is ultra harmful for environment etc, and Simon is not the only one pointing out the biggest lie that’s being presented in the media, the myth of seamless transition… I respect the guest of the show but for Crist sake! Please end this nonsense! No there will be no ev for everyone, no the solar and battery is not enough if we don’t change our standard of living completely! And that will hurt.

[@greenftechn]

Solar is more than marginally better. It cannot replace the energy we're using, at today's rate of use.

[@klondike444]

Bill doesn't seem to have absorbed some aspects of current reality.

[@barrycarter8276]

I’ve been wondering for some time if you’d be able to get Bill McKibben to agree to appear on your podcast, what a pleasant surprise, and it didn’t disappoint. I always look forward to these one to one discussions, Frankly’s and Reality Roundtable’s, and this one to one was a good one. Thanks Nate🤔

[@noahsark2009]

Great show. I like that Bill focuses on the need to do social action. Living in a highly urbanized area such as Queens New York makes me less optimistic about how easy it could be to decentralize and localize all our needs. The vast majority of people live in these vast urban sprawls. Maybe it's time to start banning cars from the streets and start raising our vegetables there instead. Anyhow, the key is to find people you can work with. Because for our lives to change, we have to do it together and stop ordering it all from doordash and Jeff Bezos.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

social action is great. I had someone ask me this morning, "what have you done?" when I was making fun of DeCrapio! But is Bill McKibben being honest about ecology? No mention of the Aerosol Masking Effect even though James E. Hansen says in reality there will be a 4 degree Celsius temperature increase due to Aerosol masking Effect! No mention of the 1200 gigatons of pressurized methane in the world's largest ocean shelf? Very strange. It's published in PNAS as a highly probably "abrupt eruption" (Julia Steinbach) and Natalia Shakhova has even NEW research documented the methane emitting into the atmosphere at accelerating rate out of ESAS...NO mention of the 500 Zettajoules of EXTRA heat in the oceans that will STILL be releasing?!! Very strange. Bill McKibben is obsessed about economics and renewable energy but not enough about actual ecology!

[@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner]

I've quipped to fix the human condition ban shoes.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner Frostbite Falls is a fictional town in Minnesota based on the real town International Falls, Minnesota from the cartoon TV series The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show.

[@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner]

Mooseville. I have a friendly squirrel at camp, last week he charged me and chattered incessantly after the aggression. The noise stopped when I scattered some corn on the ground.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner First thing I did up north was put up a tipi - willow trees - and insulated it - and then the next winter I crawled in from the cold - just enough space for me to spread out diagonally. Only the Squirrel family with a nest in there was NOT happy!!! Finally at 3 a.m. I left them have the tipi and I drove home. hahahaha. Then next time I went up I found scat and tracks - and since I had heard a Lynx and now the squirrels were missing - I looked up both scat and tracks - yep. Those squirrels screaming at me to get out of their new home made too much noise!! hahahaha. I think one squirrel survived - still tries to chase me away - but I haven't seen the squirrel the past couple times. So ...

[@Mtnshell56]

Thank you for this timely and meaningful conversation

[@ssiarxox5077]

Thank you both so much for the work you do and the conversations you share. I hear the impact on you both is great, and yet you persist so that we can benefit from your wisdom, which is the true definition of heroism.

[@michaelreich9714]

Mr. Hagens, an excellent and genuinely touching episode. I've been following you since "The Oil Drum" days. Seems like a millennia ago. Gotta tell ya sir, this is probably one of the most important podcasts I've ever seen. No stone unturned. Keep up the Good Work!!

[@rails723]

Agree 100% Just discovered this channel a few weeks ago, super important stuff here.

[@57stapler]

Bill McKibben has been a big part of my unfortunate hypothesis that many climate activists (not "ism") have been substantial drags on wider public acknowledgement of problems/solutions/discussions. In my opinion, "drag(s)" happen when activists demand that others accept a seemingly un-ending collection of other tenets as part of said problem/solution/discussion. My use of the word "tenet" is intentional, as Bill specifically uses lots of religious "dog whistle" images that not only I find awkward, but I suspect makes it easy for the timorous to keep head-in-sand. Maybe making it harder for a less "dogmatic" vision to gain traction. With that said, I really felt this to be the best (and longest) Bill McKibben interview I've seen. I can only imagine the challenges of "movement building" in trying to build constituency among folks who have a different priority mix. The truth may be, the less "dogmatic" vision that -may- have gained wider acceptance -might- only exist as a reaction to a bunch of wailing hippies for the last 50 years. We can't know if different marketing in the past could have trimmed years off wider adoption. I guess the "nails dragging across chalkboard" sensation I sometimes have is a very small price to pay to have these issues brought/kept with us the way you have for a long time. Thank you, Bill McKibben for occasionally making me grumpy.

[@5353Jumper]

Let's face it, the petroleum industry has achieved a connection with a couple specific religious denominations pairing bigotry, hatred, Dictatorship and my-nich nationalism with pro-oil agenda to brainwash that population into believing that burning fuel is "Godly" and environmental sustainability is "Evil". I think it is a good thing for religious people to hear a message from someone who believes environmental stewardship is our human responsibility. That blind extraction, profiteering and pollution are the "Evil". That peace, unity and environmentalism are "Godly" Believer, atheists or not, I think it is great to hear a "Christian" on the pro-environment side of the conversation. As long as the religious part of the conversation is minimal and accepting of STEM theory beside their "faith".

[@dylanthomas12321]

Thanks Nate for bringing us this deep conversation with one of the notable figures of our time. I hope you will have him back.

[@layoudown]

Maybe it’s because I am currently not in a good place, but I have tremendous admiration and respect for you guys and I am wondering how you are able to conduct and sustain this battle throughout the years while seeing very little response from our global socio-politico-economic systems and watching our planet going up in flames with all the ecosystems with it just because of our collective greed and inability to restrain ourselves… 😢

[@davidschlessinger9945]

I read Bill McKibben's books in the 90s in college, it influenced me and my eventual Environmental Studies degree

[@ohhhmindy4380]

This is so bittersweet to listen to. So many of us are just trying to wake up those deniers around us, but it’s daunting to say the least. I live in Louisiana, and I feel like I’m a lone voice shouting into the void even as we slowly boil alive each summer. I’ll never understand willful ignorance, especially as its utterly devastating consequences are plain to see.

[@robertpaulson6388]

East Texas - field biologist and even in my work circle there is a willful ignorance by some. The overall population and lack of understanding of nature or even an appreciation of it is disheartening. Maybe it's fear and greed on their part.

[@TheFlyingBrain.]

​@@robertpaulson6388 It's fear, all right. A sticky kind of fear that keeps people in a state of waking unconsciousness, due to their identification with cultural conditioning, and an irrational fear of loss of personal identity.

[@dylanthomas12321]

80 percent of Americans live in densely populated urban areas. It's going to be hard to decentralize the renewable energy system. We're gonna need big, complex industrial solutions on a scale nobody imagines right now. Nate often brings up these systemic issues in his podcasts. Shows he's thought seriously on the issues involved.

[@5353Jumper]

Commercial rooftop solar and wind. Community battery storage. We can easily power entire cities with a fraction of the commercial property rooftops and covered parking lots. But even if we can't...we are currently powering cities with massive industrial generation projects already, what is different if we switch these to wind/solar/nuclear and other alternatives?

[@klondike444]

@@5353Jumper Can't be done. Listen to Simon Michaux.

[@FREEAGAIN432]

Great conversation. Thanks Nate and Bill for all the work you do.

[@CitizenK1969]

That Aldo Leopold quotation Bill mentions goes, "A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability, and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends otherwise,. -- from "The Land Ethic," found in *A Sand County Almanac* (1949).

[@alexanderleuchte5132]

@thegreatsimplification Have you ever considerd to have Derrick Jensen on? Just because he is a great guest for the spirit and a harsh critic of the "Bright Green Lies" concerning renewable energy, eventhough his philosophy is pretty radical

[@paulbrammer1596]

He would be great, as would Jem Bendell.

[@goodnatureart]

Solid citizens speaking about the truth. When you're overwhelmed talking about this difficult passage is to cry and then do what Bill says and be part of a group. We are pack animals.

[@Seawithinyou]

A Wonderful insightful podcast Thank you deeply Bill and Nate 🕊🌏💖

[@annmorrow9884]

Bill and I are aligned in terms of recognizing the gravity of climate change and I deeply respect his knowledge on the subject and his heartfelt caring. And yet Bill is, in Nate's language, energy blind. I would have liked less talk about the reality of climate change and more about what to realistically do about it (and renewables and 'keeping it in the ground' are not alone realistic answers). Bill, please listen to more of Nate's podcasts.

[@5353Jumper]

Both are important, we need both. Reduction and simplification messaging is awesome. But also there is massive reduction inherent in adopting "green" alternative solutions. We cannot reduce everything so powering the necessities with more efficient energy production and more efficient energy use is also important. Both messages are important to achieve our goals.

[@2flight]

Excellent discussion. Nate asks the right questions.

[@steveschulz6821]

Bill is an inspiration and I plan to get more engaged and involved in stopping the use of fossil fuels

[@dasbof]

How do 8 billion people eat without fossil fuels? We would starve. You and I eat only because of diesel fuel.

[@klondike444]

@@dasbofSo many people find that hard to grasp. And now we're passed peak oil, so I doubt we'll reach 9 billion before there's a steep decline.

[@ddprepper5227]

Excellent report 👍👍👍👍👍👍👍

[@carolspencer6915]

Good evening Nate and Bill Super sensemaking. Truly grateful for this. Sanity brain gym most required. 💜

[@snowstrobe]

Bill underestimates capitalism. I always find it amazing that people think we have a democracy...

[@AlanDavidDoane]

Everyone does, because they can't imagine the profound mental illness, selfishness and psychopathy that it takes to be a powerful, successful capitalist. That's why it always wins. Until the day coming soon when it doesn't.

[@blairsimpkins3505]

Removing Trump from the ballot in Colorado proves we don't. Let the people decide.

[@antonyjh1234]

You overestimate capitalism and mistake your angst when it should be directed towards an economy based on debt, that could soon get devalued.

[@JP-cl4hh]

Watch the movie “Planet of the Humans.” Our guest is featured prominently.

[@libertysprings2244]

❤❤❤ to both of you. Love that you can disagree without being mean or overarguing

[@JonathanLoganPDX]

Superb conversation!!

[@Anthropoid333]

Great interview! Thank you Nate! I live in Western MA and also love the snow. I have watched ski areas close and see some further north "making snow" to stay afloat for the past few decades due to warmer temps. Every December seems to get warmer and warmer. We had a rain storm with 50 deg temps about a week ago. The trees and wildlife are confused. Keeping my fingers crossed for a white Christmas, but it is not looking to promising.

[@sendler2112]

It seems to me, despite the diligent work by systems thinkers like Nate Hagens over the last 10 years, that most climate activists are still blind to the scale of our 20 TeraWatt civilization and the primacy of this energy in providing for the current 8 billion people. Here is my latest rough math on the scale of a transition to a majority wind, solar, and storage I was previously figuring an 18 TeraWatt continuous average power but the latest number from Our World In Data actually equates to over 20 TW currently. World wind and solar are stated to have actually produced 2894 TWh in 2021 which equates to an average power of 0.330 TW (330 GW). So we can see that the real sledgehammer is scale. Wind and solar proponents are fond of bringing up the inefficiencies of energy generation from thermal sources and state the value as 33%. Which is true for electricity generation on average but including direct heat consumption which is considerably higher, and ICE engines which is lower, a weighted average thermal efficiency would be somewhere around 44%. Which is in agreement with other reports as to the reduced energy requirements that would result from the full electrification of everything and replacement of all fossil Carbon and nuclear. Which would get us down to a required 8.33 TeraWatts average after the perfect electrification of everything. Which is a required 25X increase over the current total wind and solar that would be needed. But wind and solar are intermittent. Storage is another big point of contention in the debate. Optimistic advocates now calculate that seasonal storage requirements could be nearly eliminated and reduced down to the realm of 90 hours with an over building of intermittent generation by 3-4X and intercontinental transmission grids. Which puts the rebuildable energy generation build out requirement back up to 25 TW. 75 times the current level (actual rate of production, not capacity which would be even 3-4 times higher than this number). And then repair and or replace it all over again every 30 years. And most of the energy and liquid fuel for mining, refining, manufacturing, transporting, and installing all of this rebuildable energy hardware, is supplied by fossil Carbon. Which, is a nonrenewable resource that is near peak, we have used the easiest, first, and will soon be in terminal decline. At an average power consumption of 8TW, 90 hours of storage would be 720 TWh. The current total of energy storage for electricity is 8.5 TWh. This would need to increase almost 90X as well. 90% of this is currently pumped hydro. It is estimated that if every suitable geography for pumped hydro were developed (using Carbon intensive liquid fuel and natural gas for heavy machines and concrete and neglecting the cries of environmentalist that are pushing to actually tear down most of the hydro facilities that we do have now) it could increase only another 8X. Scale. There are 440 Nuclear fission plants in the world which produced 2600 TWh last year averaging 0.300 TW. If we wanted Nuclear to produce half of the newly required 8TW average power after the electrification of everything, we would need to build out 13x more multi GigaWatt scale facilities to 5,900 total number of plants. Michaux calculated that we have enough Uranium for 3-400 years of the current fleet. Which becomes 30 years worth if we increase Nuclear 13X. kzbin.info/www/bejne/g3O5nqGBqqeimcUsi=db-w_FJp4kY5whQw Scale Just seeing these numbers, without even calculating the required materials and time to build, And not even considering the double challenge of simultaneously achieving the electrification of all of the built out $1-200 trillion of current machines and infrastructure, it is very easy for me to accept that in replacing even half of the energy that we are now getting from fossil Carbon, we are going to come up way short. Things will necessarily be much smaller and simpler once again after the Carbon Pulse. www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/wind www.iea.org/fuels-and-technologies/solar www.iea.org/reports/grid-scale-storage

[@emanuellandeholm5657]

I wish politicians listened to this kind of information. But they don't (career s** ide) and we're f**ed!

[@noizydan]

I agree. It seems likely that the future will be smaller than the past. I think most climate activists recognise this, but they have been unable to sell degrowth as a strategy. The narrative contortions we have today are simply an artifact of past failures to move the dial with other narratives. Good to see people approaching the problem from different directions are reaching the same conclusions. That makes the direction of travel we need to pursue easier to communicate.

[@tristan7216]

Nuclear fuel can be reprocessed, as current reactors only use a small percentage of the available energy, and I think thorium can be continuously reprocessed in molten salt reactors, so I think the 30 years estimate is low. Not sure how much time we really get if we use fuel efficiently, use thorium, and pull uranium out of seawater, but it's probably enough time to crack fusion or seasonal storage. OTOH without regulatory reform and public support, a massive nuclear build out will cost too much. Jane Fonda is at least as much at fault for our current situation as the oil executives.

[@klondike444]

Yes. Peak oil is thought to have occurred in 2018. I fear it's going to get nasty, and probably fairly soon.

[@paulwhetstone0473]

@@klondike444It already is nasty. The Ukrainian situation is about the US selling LNG to Europe after sabotaging Nordstream. The Gaza situation is about extreme Zionism stealing land for Greater Israel settlements and acquiring fossil fuel resources 20 kilometers off the coast of Gaza.

[@freeheeler09]

Thank you, Bill and Nate for this conversation! My comment is that the problem is human overpopulation. The very significant and dangerous symptoms include mass species extinctions and climate change.

[@trevorlovegrove4314]

I dont understand why almost nobody talks about the Carbon Cycle being broken by the use of Agricultural chemicals destroying the soil micro organism life which was the greatest Volume of life on earth that could absorb Co2. Dr Zach Bush explains this process quite well.

[@briehoblin8478]

"Fossils against fossil fuel" :) Bill, thank you for your sense of humor, even under circumstances such as these.

[@noizydan]

Thanks for the conversation. Great to see the fellowship building. I am struck by the convergence of ideas at this important time. So many groups and podcasts seem to be aligning around similar aims and objectives. To what extent are these ideas getting absorbed into the zeitgeist? What might this mean for the super organism if it happens? How do we turn this convergence of ideas into unity and then effective power?

[@rails723]

Great observation, even better question!

[@johnmitchell8925]

I really liked your guest he seems super down to earth

[@jennysteves7226]

Interesting conversation. I hope that Bill and Nate feel led to continue to talk and educate one another. Bill is single issue focused, but his experience with the nefarious dark side of big oil (and tobacco, chemical, pharma .. any large corporate run profit seeking creation) is worth exploring further. Nate of course is systems focused. Both men have much to teach the other. I want to believe that we can someday soon say we have a growing number of ‘systems journalists’ rather than our narrow-focused ‘climate journalists’, who in my opinion also occasionally exaggerate the facts to gain attention.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

12:50 Wind and solar are infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis. Wind and solar absolutely depend upon fossil-fuels. *_No fossil-fuels = no wind and solar._*

[@DanA-nl5uo]

Guess we shouldn't waste ff burning it then

[@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner]

Think of these devices as a trade up. The amount of fuel needed to make these devices is much lower than they produce over their lifespans plus they could be viewed as an extension of the fossil energy. Burn a little now and have energy for 50 years sort of idea. Of course, most people compare their personal life style choices, like driving to the casino, or such, as more important uses of fossil energy. Hahaha! Jokes on them.

[@5353Jumper]

So? What is your point? The thing is they use a lot less petroleum, and produce a lot less emissions than the fuel alternative. And the more we adopt the "green" alternatives the less fossil fuel is used making the green alternatives. Less is less even if it is not zero. Better is better even if it is not perfect.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@5353Jumper 1. There is no reason to have a goal of reduced fossil-fuel use. 2. Wind and solar independently increase fossil-fuel use, because they require fossil-fuels to be consumed in order to exist. More wind and solar = more fossil-fuel use and dependence.

[@5353Jumper]

1. Then you disagree with a few billion other people, including 98% of STEM professionals. A) because it is causing a global extension event that may also include humans or at least cause massive human tragedy B) because it would be great to give the global fuel oligopoly some market competition with other solutions. C) because general pollution from fuels sucks D) because petroleum is a limited resource which is getting harder to extract having already passed the peak economic viability point and entering the waning portion of the product life cycle. E) because the petroleum industry has sided itself with bigotry, racism, hate and Dictatorship governments of the world basically financing most conflict between citizens and demographics causing tremendous damage to civilization with death and war. 2. Totally false. Quickly in the lifecycle of wind/solar and other alternative generation solutions the fuel not burned making electricity outgrows the fuel used making the product. Every solar panel reduces hundreds or thousands of BOe through its lifetime.

[@briehoblin8478]

I've been waiting for this episode!!! Hi Bill!

[@sparksmacoy]

A beautiful interview

[@mari-annnordlien1950]

Learning so much from this two, and all Nate's show. Following from Norway, embarrassing that 39% more or less don't belive in climate crisis. To much oil

[@j.s.c.4355]

I read that book in 1990 for a college class. I liked it (I was already a believer) but there was a guy in my class who declared that he absolutely hated it and several people agreed. The prof was shocked. The complaint was, Mr. McKibben offered no solution. In my head, I’m thinking, why would he know what the solution is? That’s up to us. Now, 34 years later, I feel like there is no solution. You can not get 8 billion people on the same page, and most people don’t want to think about it.

[@elliottmcintyre9092]

We can pay or invest in anything we want. Steph Kelton you need to have her on your show. The financial system is a con.

[@Cainbantam]

A wonderful one!

[@mikeecker146]

Great interview Nate!

[@Twisted_Cabage]

Off to a good start Nate, by bringin him back to reality by stating the fact that we as a global society are addicted to fossils.

[@noizydan]

Bill doesn't seem naive to this fact.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@noizydan Bill can't name a single factory running off-grid on either of his claimed cheapest fuels.

[@noizydan]

@@aliendroneservices6621 I'm curious as to why you think this would be necessary? With an intermittent energy source, interconnectivity seems important. Off grid capability is useful, but connectivity facilitates sharing of surplus, which is even more useful where there is localised variability in a system. Enforcing a strict off-grid requirement seems counterproductive to the whole. It would require more batteries or other storage, which are the more problematic components presently. Better to overbuild production and link it together in a smart grid to reduce variability and storage requirements. I expect we'll apply a variety of responses in the end, and a fixation on particular solutions might be unhelpful. Different responses will be needed for different sectors. Democratisation of energy through local energy projects is one of many potential responses with built-in resilience. I think the idea has great value, but it may not be appropriate everywhere. For industrial renewable energy applications, I expect tidal energy to have the most potential as it can provide a more stable baseload than wind. We also have a lot of sea.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@noizydan "...why you think this would be necessary?" Because factories run 24/7. The only reason to have solar panels on a factory while connected to the grid is to be able to steal power-service.

[@blairsimpkins3505]

Like addicted to air.

[@dankoepp68]

Great podcast once again! Please take care of yourself, Nate. I shall send you merit.

[@felipearbustopotd]

We wouldn't have got to where we are now without corporation. Sadly as we corporate, some gravitate to greed and manipulation. We need to once again, corporate without greed and manipulation rearing it's ugly head. Good luck in that scenario. Thank you for uploading and sharing.

[@betterstanding5186]

College trained adults globally must abandon a lifestyle only fossil fuels make available. Asking the producers of fossil fuels to do this for us, is like alcoholics asking distilleries to stop producing alcohol.

[@pascalxus]

Our best bet is to hope that the oil begins to run out sooner rather than later. the sooner we start seeing declines in oil production, the sooner we can reduce overall GDP and other sources of CO2.

[@greenftechn]

This is where I disagree with Nate. I think there's a lot more oil to extract, and at reasonable cost. That's not a good thing.

[@5353Jumper]

We just passed peak economic oil, from here on all new oil extraction will be more expensive than past oil extraction. The fact we are fracking, horizontal drilling and using oil sands for the majority of extraction today means we have used up most of the easy to get at "stick a straw in the ground" oilfields. But sadly it took 100 years to get to this point of maturity, the raising cost of extraction increases will be slow. Also we still have more natural gas (methane) than we know what to do with, so we are far from peak on that branch or fuels. Demand side changes will need to come from market competition and regulatory/tax side drivers. Extraction cost drivers will not be fast enough.

[@blairsimpkins3505]

@@greenftechn That is a good thing unless YOU want to live in a cave.

[@antonyjh1234]

Artic will be free of ice in 15 years, has 13% of the worlds supply, Africa not fully tapped. China is now 1.2 billion, 2100 will be 600ish million less people, 23 countries are going to lose 50% of their population due to old age. There could be a very long slow downturn as modern countries lose their numbers and oil last much lomger. New customers becoming less and less or negative, could mean too much oil in the ground still. Running out would be a would be like an easrthquake.. We could do it, 20% of our energy is electricity, all most of us need to do is stop working. Add 20% for emergency and food. Provide all that and shelter for free, tell everybody to stay home or at least not drive. and we have reduced emissions 60%. Of course this changes the whole system based on debt, but it raise's the general wellbeing for all us primates.

[@braeburn2333]

People who are financially secure can't imagine living a low consumption lifestyle, but people who aren't can. Being poor necessitates consuming less because what we spend and what we consume are linked in a big way. If a person has a hard time earning enough money to pay a $2,000 per month rent payment they will be more than happy to move into a small house heated by wood, with a small off grid solar electric system if that move means they only have to come up with $500 per month. However, inexpensive housing is largely illegal in the US. People are forced into high consumption lifestyles because they have to work a lot in order to pay for expensive housing. When a person has to work 60 hours a week to make ends meet, they have no time or energy to make food from scratch, or grow their own vegetables. Making affordable housing legal again, (subsidized housing is NOT affordable) is the most important work any climate activist should be working on in my opinion.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

To decriminalize housing, energy-consumption rates are going to have to rise.

[@braeburn2333]

@@aliendroneservices6621 I think that allowing people to live in a house without automatic central heating would lower a person's costs a good bit, and potentially lower a persons carbon footprint even more. I heat with already dead wood I collect from my land. I'm not using fossil carbon sources for my heating, and my heating bills have gone to zero. But it does take me a day to cut, move, split and stack the cord of wood I use in a year.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@braeburn2333 You're using data centers. Household energy use is irrelevant, and the principal threat to future generations is energy *_conservation,_* not energy *_use._* Housing is criminalized *_because_* of energy-conservation, not *_in spite_* of it.

[@braeburn2333]

@@aliendroneservices6621 Can you explain some of your claims?

[@graemetunbridge1738]

Energy demand is extremely elastic - the vast majority of energy use is waste - driving long commutes ( move the office/bike/fix zoning ) - air-conditioning leaky houses (fix the houses ) etc etc. If energy is expensive (true price) and the goverment gets out of the way, the progress can be pretty fast.

[@lomotil3370]

🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation: 00:00 🌍 *Global Shipping Impact: 40% of ship traffic involves coal, oil, and gas transport, underscoring the need for dematerialization in cleaner energy transition.* 05:31 💪 *Beyond Winning Arguments: Winning climate change debates is insufficient; tackling fossil fuel industry power and interests is crucial for effective change.* 15:09 🌞 *Renewable Energy Costs: Declining renewable energy costs, especially solar, offer hope for transitioning from fossil fuels and meeting increased energy demand.* 17:29 ⛽ *LNG Export Concerns: Curbing U.S. LNG exports is vital to prevent emissions surpassing European levels, posing a threat to climate goals.* 22:25 💰 *Financial Challenges for Climate Investments: Shifting investments to renewable projects, especially in the Global South, demands innovative solutions, possibly involving intermediaries like the World Bank.* 27:21 🌍 *Energy Transition Predictions: McKibben foresees a shift to sun and wind energy in 40 years, emphasizing urgency despite challenges.* 29:21 🌊 *Climate Concerns: McKibben highlights alarming climate developments, breaching the 2-degree Celsius barrier, Greenland and West Antarctica melting, and disruptive feedback loops.* 31:50 ⚙️ *Renewable Challenges: Discussing renewables, McKibben acknowledges challenges in materials like lithium and cobalt, emphasizing the importance of decarbonization.* 33:36 🌐 *Journalism's Role: McKibben discusses journalism's role in climate awareness, noting improvements but highlighting challenges against disinformation.* 39:05 🌱 *Political Reflection: Reflecting on politics, McKibben notes climate's significance in elections but urges faster, widespread structural changes.* 54:49 🌐 *Societal Views Shift: McKibben reflects on societal shifts, comparing past challenges to the current crisis of democracy and emphasizing the gravity of recent events.* Made with HARPA AI

[@harveytheparaglidingchaser7039]

"... whether the big brain was a good adaptation or not.." great summary, great interview

[@aliendroneservices6621]

8:18 "We've stumbled into the worst problem that humans have ever stumbled into..." Yes. The greatest threat humans have ever faced is *_energy conservation."_* 15:52

[@graemetunbridge1738]

It's taking a long time for the 'iceburg sighted' message to reach the bridge of our 'Titanic'. We knew in the 1920s that betting everything on burning carbon was high risk. The biggest impediment seems to be ' ... but I like my car and my aircon ...' from the typical voter.

[@trenomas1]

"We might not choose this willingly" What's the point of predicting doom? I think we can say "It's going to be hideously difficult to do this."

[@graemetunbridge1738]

Thanks - Merry Christmas.

[@Twisted_Cabage]

Please take the time to get James Hanson on. We need to have an alternative to Bill's hopium addiction and foray into politics and selling books.

[@nathanbigler]

I admire Bill McKibben a lot. What he's doing is worthwhile, even if he doesn't succeed.

[@solarhappy]

Nate was quite gentle with Bill on his blinkered green-dream thinking.

[@ryccoh]

This is so confusing to people but we know that coal has to increase until the solar production growth rate stabilizes. So 2030s. Energy payback period is 4 years if you place the panel in northern US or Germany. Since we displace gas with it the emissions payback is 8 years. As the growth rate is so high in manufacturing them coal will have to outrun renewables emissions savings for about another decade. This is massively confusing people and could lead to draconian measures. I think there should be more awareness on this.

[@alexanderleuchte5132]

If you compare it to the whole industry from farming, production, international distribution down to the local sale of another kind of "energy" provider for humans that comes in form of a white powder, how these organizations work over the whole globe against the billion dollar efforts of the "war on drugs" it is very easy to see that the opportunity to reap these profits will create leadrship structures and a neverending army of recruits who get down and dirty. If you look at Mexico it is graphically visible that there is so much potential power that this industry is able to create a parallel society willing to go to literal war and even if players are eliminated the game doesn't end, quite the opposite

[@stephentaylforth4731]

If only wind and solar were the cheapest, then maybe countries like mine (the UK) with a high proportion of renewables on their grid would have some of the cheapest electric in the world rather than some of the most expensive........

[@DanA-nl5uo]

It also has the highest up front cost. 100% of the cost of solar is upfront. In that case higher costs of borrowing money hurts. But just compare wind solar and Hinkley Point C in the UK you will quickly see which one made your rates go up.

[@snowstrobe]

The issue is unfettered capitalism.

[@5353Jumper]

Enter conversation about for profit grid vs government grid vs supporting end user generation and storage vs grid scale projects.

[@stephentaylforth4731]

@@UCCLdIk6R5ECGtaGm7oqO-TQ A paradox, Cheap electricity that is expensive to accommodate on a grid, Its what you need in place to keep it going when the weather is against you. I'll grant it being tied to the cost of gas is a big downer.

[@hcrone]

Yeah, Bill, if 15:00 "within the next couple of years" then "I think we've lost this bet and we are in very very deep trouble "....and yes, getting people to use less energy and live slightly different lives, is in fact a very difficult task.

[@seandalton2580]

I can't believe McKibbon is still trotting out the same old tired nonsense about "fixing this." Sigh.

[@radman1136]

What I think I heard him say was something about surviving in a "broken world". More like he has to believe that enough of us make it through the undeniably immanent bottleneck. And I can't think of a good reason that makes a difference to anyone for cutting hope any closer to the bone. Although for myself, I do.

[@groovygrannysbicycle]

I have discovered the advantages of an e-bike a long time ago, when I found an old 12V electric lawnmower in a scrapyard and fitted it to my bicycle. I've never looked back. Today I've got solar panels on my roof to charge the battery, which works well in summer but not so well in winter.

[@nirvonna]

Eyeroll. As if relatively puny individual efforts could change the world. You may enjoy your e-bike etc and feel better about yourself for using, beyond that I wouldn’t expect any real impact from such lifestyle changes.

[@noizydan]

​@@nirvonna these efforts wont have a systemic effect. However it will build local resilience into the system for the time when oil is less available.

[@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner]

Exactly.@@noizydan

[@everythingmatters6308]

​@@nirvonnaWe are in this mess because of your way of thinking.

[@everythingmatters6308]

Thank you for your efforts. They matter.

[@libertysprings2244]

I think when he said fossil fuel use is decreasing in the u.s., that is likely 2 factors: more work from home, and switch from coal to nat gas for electricity. Nat gas is more efficient converting to electricity (less wasted) and transporting nat gas around the country by pipeline uses less energy than moving coal by train. Exporting nat gas would help other countries use less coal too, so why against it? Especially with Germany probably using more dirty coal since the war. Wind and solar help reduce demand too but they are produced in China using coal, so part of the energy we use was transferred to China that way just like with all the other products we buy from China.

[@jaimesald]

Global Economic Efficiency must be the objective because it optimizes the use of Resources. It implies the absence of subsidies introduced by the Global Government Establishment through different national governments.

[@margaretkneller4670]

Kibben is correct: widely distributed decentralized energy is the key, and it implies local politics function. But most find this decentralization not very compelling-no big equities.

[@shannonwilliams7249]

Nate, considering “Planet of the Humans” was a video argument with which you’re in agreement, and Mkibben was involved in its censor, I hoped you’d bring it up. That was a nightmare and it wasn’t ok. Not sure how you ignored it. Maybe he only agreed to be on if you didn’t ask. Love your show, deeply, and will always support you, but you should have asked.

[@everythingmatters6308]

I respected Bill a lot until I saw that movie.

[@gordonledger9286]

Growing food will get challenging .We need to admit our vunrability we need each other in order to get through this

[@cdub9923]

Respectfully, I think Bill is a bit mislead about the nature of the beast, which is the super organism operating on market forces. I appreciate his optimism, but so much of what we have heard on this very channel is at odds with that optimism. Thanks Nate, for hosting a respectful discussion.

[@princessmargaretuncommonwe7209]

We had -40 C temperatures here in Alberta for days on end. Our electrical grid was put on alert 3 times in 4 days. If it had failed, people would have died. The solar panels were covered in snow and the wind was not blowing. The UNRELIABLES FAILED to provide ANY electricity. So what exactly do you recommend I do to keep my (and the other 5 million people in Alberta) home heated????

[@stephenmorris8557]

Crazy !

[@MagnumInnominandum]

A principle often overlooked in the David vs Goliath analogy is that David kills Goliath. It is not a negotiation.

[@davidbarry6900]

24:12 "That's why we need government to step in and do all this work". That is plausible in a LOCAL context (Libertarian ideas just can't solve bigger social problems), but not in a multi-national, multi-regional context. The only way a government HERE could solve problems THERE would look a lot like re-establishing Empires and Colonial protectorates, as there are usually many underlying problems that have to be addressed FIRST, before energy and other infrastructure can be upgraded. Western countries have done that before, and decided many decades ago that they couldn't handle the cost and effort anymore. Now that developing world countries are even bigger, more complex, and in many cases have WORSE social problems than in the 1800's, I don't think the challenge (starting with maintaining law, order, and good governance, e.g. in Haiti) would have become any easier in the interim, never mind socially acceptable.

[@weltraumaffe4155]

Don't feel bad about being ineffective. We knew back then that we were not going to actually do anything about it. The time to start has always been when it's too late, not a minute sooner.

[@paulzozula1318]

Recognition that fiduciary responsibility includes a livable future for the beneficiaries of numerous very large retirement funds would make a big difference. This would would entitle a shift of significant resources to urgently needed investments. As is now painfully apparent for many, insurance companies in a big way now recognize the necessity of representing mounting casualty impacts of climate change on payable claims in their policy pricing. They are not at liberty to simply externalize these costs, as is within the egregious, but carefully cultivated, business environment tended by fossil fuel purveyors.

[@tedwilliams8263]

This is the coldest start to winter in decades and likely many more to come. We should focus more on environment and less on clients. Actual healthy food is also a more important topic for concern

[@Twisted_Cabage]

His gross ignorance on economics and power dynamics teveals why he is still addicted to hopium.

[@sparkybob1023]

28:14 it’s not ‘upsetting’ to so many status quo’s, it’s quite likely deathly privation and suffering on a massive scale. There is a substitute for nitrogen fertilizer to feed 10 billion people, we need is the truth of where we are, we are here. Love and kindness are needed more than ever.

[@janklaas6885]

28:50

[@janevt1200]

Bill has fought the good fight for a long time... but so much hopium. So unrealistic.

[@5353Jumper]

The problem is, if his suggestions are not realistic then we are just all going to die soon no matter what we do. So hopeium and movement in the right direction at least has a chance of reducing our suffering. Not listening to the hopeful means just resigning to our suffering fate.

[@kokopelli314]

An ice-free Northwest passage means more shipping for that sweet light crude. Sorry to put it so bluntly but I believe that's the way many oil exec's think.

[@Twisted_Cabage]

Chief of the hopium addicts among climate scientists.

[@pvmagnus]

😊 you guys make me smile.. agree disagree.. you folks are basically on the same page but from a different path

[@Kittens_Cats_Karma]

Nate has a realistic approach. Bill McKibben is an idealistic dreamer having good intentions however seems to ignore the basic facts such as biosphere destruction by human overpopulation, the finite natural resources required to build and maintain the structures that are necessary to harvest that energy. The scarcity of these materials, especially the rare earth minerals are increasingly fueling global conflicts. Bill McKibben also ignores the space weather, especially the 12K solar cycles and its geomagnetic influence on our planet.

[@tinoyb9294]

He probably has kids.

[@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885]

@@tinoyb9294 Yes that hard-wires the deNile for sure! "Their only child, Sophie, was born in 1993 in Glens Falls, New York. He is a Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, where he also directs the Middlebury Fellowships in Environmental Journalism."

[@Twisted_Cabage]

I grew up in Glens Falls, NY, born in 82. Small world. ​@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885

[@noizydan]

What if both positions are true? There are lots of materials on the planet. We'll use the best ones up first and then move onto the next and make do, as we always have. As one set of materials becomes unviable, markets open up for others. In this way, I think concerns about materials can be overstated. It can be an issue, but we can work around limitations. There are lots of developments Malthus didn't envisage when he first made his observations on growth. The same applies here. That isn't to say there are no limits and we should be irresponsible with the materials we do use. We don't have to use rare earths, steel, concrete and silica for renewables. These are materials choices we can change. They simply make the most practical and economic sense at the present time. It seems inevitable we will choose different materials in the future. There are many materials we can use, and we are finding more options all the time. McKibben admits here that he expects a 'break', but is working towards making a different outcome viable. Seems reasonable and realistic to me. It also seems in alignment with the 'bend' objective. It is always a positive step to listen to views we disagree with. Everybody holds different parts of the same puzzle. By sharing the pieces we all hold, and by being open to the pieces held by others, I believe we can reach a greater understanding of the whole.

[@tinoyb9294]

@noizydan are you leaving any room for the rest of the plants and animals on the planet? Red-assed-monkey.

[@jameswalker2584]

Is the doubling of CO2 causing temperature increase or is qit following rise in temperature ?

[@timmoore3188]

Is energy use correlated to quality of life? I dont think so, but I think a lot of people are convinced it is because of the advertising industry.

[@fungussa]

Renewables, esp solar and storage are going through the same type of revolutionary change that mobile phones went through. Lithium batteries are increase recyclable, as are solar panel, and electric motors and batteries are increasingly less reliant on rare earth elements. Read up on what a dramatic change perovskite will make to solar panel production.

[@trunoholdaway2114]

This is a debate for our time, if our political system wasn't so corrupt candidates would be divided along these lines and having similar conversations.

[@cdineaglecollapsecenter4672]

I challenge everyone who watches this youtube video to stop using their dryer (most of the time) and not turn their air conditioner below 70 degrees. I don't have a dryer or an air conditioner & am surviving just fine. I hear alot of people go on about how hard it would be to get people to reduce their energy use, but that is the crux of the matter for any of us in the developed world. So just do it.

[@mr.makeit4037]

As a United Methodist, where everyone is welcome, I could relate to your guest. Once again another clarifying episode where it's better to do something rather than nothing regarding our monumental issues ahead.

[@antonyjh1234]

Totally disagree, if you don't know the problem properly you could be making it worse

[@mr.makeit4037]

@@antonyjh1234 at the individual level, what is your version of "properly" knowing the problem?

[@antonyjh1234]

"where it's better to do something rather than nothing regarding our monumental issues ahead." In a world where degrowth is the only option, "something" isn't in my opinion an option that should be offered. @@mr.makeit4037

[@aliendroneservices6621]

28:23 "I think, 40 years from now, we probably run the world mostly on sun and wind." Right now, there are *_zero_* countries doing that. We don't need to speculate as to why. *_Wind and solar are infinitely-expensive, on a sustained basis._*

[@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner]

No. On what do you base this statement? You have units you are monitoring?

[@everythingmatters6308]

I think 40 years from now most of humanity will be dead.

[@raskolnikov1873]

Yup, to replace the 1700kwH or work in a 300lb barrel of oil, you need 20,000lbs of Tesla batteries.

[@aliendroneservices6621]

@@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner Wind and solar infrastructures can't power their own replacements. (They require fossil-fuels in order to exist and operate.) That makes wind and solar power-service infinitely-expensive, on a *_sustained_* basis.

[@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner]

@@aliendroneservices6621 Sure. My comment is not about saving centralized power sources, or rather the investor driven economy. This is about choice. Humans will burn the energy the idea is one can choose how to use it. For instance, buy a more fuel efficient car which still requires the system or load up on personal fraudulently termed renewable energy devices to lesson the dependence on these fossil power sources in the future. A buffer between owning your own house to communal living, lol. Better hurry (be one of the early adopters) and get your personal non-renewable system in place so as to at least have some power before this system collapses from not enough fossil energy, or some mineral which these devices are made of.

[@gregmckenzie4315]

What to do. First we have to realize and acknowledge that we are not the most intelligent life form on Earth. Not by a long shot. The natural world is operating with an "evolved intelligence" that works on a much, much, longer scale than we can even imagine. We should cultivate a deep sense of humility about that and understand that our greatest gifts are the things we DON'T do. We need to cultivate a deep sense of awe about what the natural world has done and is doing. We need to cultivate gratitude for having the great privilege of being alive right now. We need to remember that our real purpose is to serve the will of the natural world, It's NOT the other way around. We need to learn compassion for all life forms. We need to live our lives in a state of Love and kindness.

[@j.s.c.4355]

As long as fossil fuels keep expanding, Nate is right, and Jevons Paradox applies to renewables. However, once peak fossil fuels passes, we’ll be glad we have the renewables installed.

[@braeburn2333]

How do we consume less fossil fuel without changing our lifestyles? With green energy, right? We can still consume industrially made stuff like there is no tomorrow if there are huge solar farms and wind farms, right? Wrong. The pollution and waste of an economy based on high consumption will only increase if we continue to live the high consumption lifestyle, regardless of where the electric grid gets its power from. So, how do we change people's lifestyles? Many say: "People will never change their expensive high consumption lifestyle unless we force them to. What we need is a powerful government to micromanage everyone's lives and make us consume less because people will never do that on their own. " How can this be true? It's patently absurd to think that a big brother will have the right answers and make the right policies. Whoever is in charge, their policies are guaranteed to fail. Why? Because when has big government ever solved a complex problem of this scale? Never. Complex problems are only solved by grass root changes, not top down changes. Getting people to abandon their high cost, high consumption lifestyle has to happen from the individual to the community to the nation, not the other way around. People have to be incentivized to make a lifestyle change they can't be forced into it. They will be fighting and screaming the whole way. Rising prices, and learning that there is a better life available in a low consumption, more self sufficient lifestyle will be the draw. My life has improved in almost every way since I made the leap. Now my consumption of industrial stuff and fossil fuels is less than 20% of what the average American uses, and my costs are much lower too. I live a very comfortable, financially secure life on $5,000 per year. I figured out how to basically retire without savings because I learned to do more with less. Unfortunately these lifestyles are illegal in most places in the developed world. Maybe you folks can work on getting local and state governments to make a self sufficient, low consumption lifestyles legal again. Then those who want to start that kind of life right now, can do that without being a millionaire to comply with the myriad of laws and regulations which force people to stay in the high cost, high debt, high consumption lifestyle.

[@richardbeal1242]

Big Brother is the WEF, and their plan is to reduce everyone else's consumption (and maybe reduce everyone else) while increasing their own. Just listen to what they say and what they do.

[@nirvonna]

Merry Consumerism all! And to all a good night! How about abandoning our ridiculously wasteful “holiday” habits. No frivolous, wasteful decorations, lights and worthless “gifts.” This junk is so un-needed! Our immediate family has not participated in what we call xmas in over three decades. Make December 25th just be another day on the calendar. Try it! You’ll like it.

[@RickLarsonPermacultureDesigner]

Ha! Government would use more resources to force people to use less.

[@braeburn2333]

@@nirvonna I have moved far away from doing the whole Xmas thing, but I do give used things to people who I love and want to know how I feel about them. I often find old tool heads in yard sales and estate sales. I restore them and get or make a new handle. I also give away fossils I've collected or a cool thing I got from a free pile. So far this year I have only spent $35 on gifts. That was for a new ratcheting wrench set for my son. Hopefully it will last a lifetime or two.

[@janklaas6885]

📍46:31