|
PERMACULTURE
PATTERNS
local, bioregional,
global solutions
permaculture for nine billion
Permatopia dictionary:
permanent place [topia]
permaculture utopia
documents:
Hirsch report
Pentagon climate change study
environmental patterns
dominant paradigm
limited hang out / greenwash
ideal direction
disinformation
philosophy
- groups - toxics - food
safety - energy - global warming - forest
Permatopia topics
energy
97 quads
conservation for renters
renewable energy
solar power
wind energy
microhydro
biofuels
hydrogen
free energy?
beyond oil?
oil depletion protocol
climate change
Greenwash
carbon
neutral isn't
transportation
car culture
highway expansions
100 mpg cars
car sharing
transit & trains
bicycles
internet not jets
food
organic
urban gardening
vegan diets
buy local
solar drying
solar cooking
sprouting
fermentation
Peak Grain
food irradiation
genetic phood
mad cow disease
toxic fertilizers
nutrition
water
rainwater harvesting
graywater
filters, solar distillation
drip irrigation
boycott bottled water
blue gold
shelter:
weatherization
green building
natural building
urban planning
community
consciousness
spiritual resources
money:
community currency
cooperatives
precious metals?
health:
single payer
permaculture:
principles
courses
references
environmental education
waste:
a terrible thing to mind
reuse, not recycle
humanure
waste prevention
forests:
deforestation
clearcuts & climate change
selective forestry
non-timber products
biomimicry
detoxification:
bioremediation
mycoremediation
the end of growth
communication
primitive technology
homesteading
eco-cities
|
Exponential growth on a finite
planet:
A steady state economy is needed for sustainability
"You will change nothing until you change the
way that money works"
-- M. King Hubbert
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer
cell."
-- Edward Abbey
"The economists all think that if you show up at the cashier's
cage with enough currency, God will put more oil in ground."
-- Kenneth Defeyes, petroleum geologist and associate of M. King
Hubbert
"The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function."
-- Dr. Albert Bartlett
"The first commandment of economics is: Grow. Grow forever. Companies get bigger. National economies need to swell by a certain percent each year. People should want more, make more, earn more, spend more - ever more.
The first commandment of the Earth is: enough. Just so much and no more. Just so much soil. Just so much water. Just so much sunshine. Everything born of the Earth grows to its appropriate size and then stops."
-- Donella Meadows
Co-Author, Limits to Growth
Capitalism can no more be 'persuaded' to limit growth than a human being can be 'persuaded' to stop breathing. Attempts to 'green' capitalism, to make it 'ecological', are doomed by the very nature of the system as a system of endless growth.
--Murray Bookchin
| Growth
based economics vs. Steady State |
Steady State Economics: The Center for the Advancement of the Steady
State Economy (CASSE) promote alternatives to the ecological insanity
of growth based economics. Read their position paper here:
www.steadystate.org/PositiononEG.html
www.dieoff.org
- Peak Oil and population overshoot
www.feasta.org/growth.htm
- The Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability (Ireland)
www.growthbusters.com
Hooked on Growth: Our Misguided Quest for Prosperity
www.agoregon.org
- Alternatives to Growth Oregon
a group focused on "growth" issues, they reached their own limits
to growth in 2004 (lots of good material on their archive site, worth
reading even though the organization no longer exists)
www.preservenet.com/endgrowth/
The End of Economic Growth by Charles Siegel
PreserveNet has a lot of good information about urban planning, transportation
and related issues.
The economist Herman Daly, who used to work for the World Bank,
is one of the leading experts on how all economic systems are ultimately
dependent on the environment for their existence. Official, corporatist
economics (whether "socialist" or "capitalist") ignore
resource issues in their calculations, assuming that increased costs always
bring about more exploration to find more resources.
Most economists act as if a tree can grow all the way to the moon if
you give it enough money.
dieoff.org/page37.htm
VALUING THE EARTH: Economics, Ecology, Ethics
Herman E. Daly and Kenneth N. Townsend (1993)
Sustainable Growth: An Impossibility Theorem
dieoff.org/page88.htm
STEADY-STATE ECONOMICS
By Herman Daly
dieoff.org/page41.htm
TOWARDS A NEW ECONOMICS:
Questioning Growth
by Herman E. Daly
excerpt from Richard Heinberg, "The Party's Over,"
pp. 91-92
Hubbert immediately grasped the vast economic and social implications
of this information [Peak Oil]. He understood the role of fossil fuels
in the creation of the modern industrial world, and thus foresaw the wrenching
transition that would likely occur following the peak in global extraction
rates. ...
The world's present industrial civilization is handicapped by the
coexistence of two universal, overlapping, and incompatible intellectual
systems: the accumulated knowledge of the last four centuries of the
properties and interrelationships of matter and energy; and the associated
monetary culture which has evolved from folkways of prehistoric origin.
The first of these two systems has been responsible for the spectacular
rise, principally during the last two centuries, of the present industrial
system and is essentially for its continuance. The second, an inheritance
from the prescientific past, operates by rules of its own having little
in common with those of the matter-energy system. Nevertheless, the
monetary system, by means of a loose coupling, exercises a general control
over the matter-energy system upon which it is superimposed.
Despite their inherent incompatibilities, these two systems during the
last two centuries have had one fundamental characteristic in common,
namely exponential growth, which has made a reasonably stable coexistence
possible. But, for various reasons, it is impossible for the matter-energy
system to sustain exponential growh for more than a few tens of doublings,
and this phase is by now almost over. The monetary system has no such
constraints, and, according to one of its most fundamental rules, it
must continue to grow by compound interest.
Hubbert thus believed that society, if it is to avoid chaos
during the energy decline, must give up its antiquated, debt-and-interest-based
monetary system and adopt a system of accounts based on matter-energy
-- an inherently ecological system that would acknowledge the finite nature
of essential resources.
Hubbert was quoted as saying we are in a "crisis in the evolution
of human society. It's unique to both human and geologic history. It has
never happened before and it can't possibly happen again. You can only
use oil once. You can only use metals once. Soon all the oil is going
to be burned and all the metals mined and scattered."
Statements like this one gave Hubbert the popular image of a doomsayer.
Yet he was not a pessimist, indeed, on occasion he could assume
the role of utopian seer. We have, he believed, the necessary know-how,
all we need do is overhaul our culture and find an alternative to money.
If society were to develop solar-energy technologies, reduce its population
and its demands on resources, and develop a steady-state economy to replace
the present one based on unending growth, our species' future could be
rosy indeed. "We are not starting from zero," he emphasized.
"We have an enormous amount of existing technical knowledge. It's
just a matter of putting it all together. We still have great flexibility
but our maneuverability will diminish with time."
[emphases added]
| Smart
Growth: having a nice seat on the Titanic |
http://prorev.com/smartgrow.htm
WHY SMART GROWTH
ISN'T AS SMART
AS IT THINKS IT IS
Sam Smith
| Growth
(smart or dumb) is no longer possible |
from an extraordinary interview with
Matt Simmons, investment banker, friend of George W. Bush, member of Cheney's
energy task force (in other words, he's NOT an environmentalist - but
more aware of oil depletion than many environmental groups). How we as
a civilization will cope with the end of the oil era when "western
industrial civilization" is totally dependent on fossil fuel for
agriculture is a much more important question than the illusion of "smart
growth"
http://www.guerrillanews.com/sci-tech/doc2927.html
SIMMONS: This blackout ought to be an incredible jolt telling us about
a host of energy problems that are ultimately going to prevent any future
economic growth. ....
Simmons: I have for years described two camps: the economists who told
us that technology would always produce new supply and the pessimists
or Cassandras who told us that peak was coming in maybe fifteen or twenty
years. We may be finding out that we went over the peak in 2000. That
makes both camps wrong.
Over the last year. I have obtained and closely examined more than 100
very technical production reports from Saudi Arabia. What I glean from
examining the data is that it is very likely that Saudi Arabia, already
a debtor nation, has very likely gone over its Peak. If that is true,
then it is a certainty that planet earth has passed its peak of production.
What that means, in the starkest possible terms, is that we are no longer
going to be able to grow. It's like with a human being who passes a
certain age in life. Getting older does not mean the same thing as death.
It means progressively diminishing capacity, a rapid decline, followed
by a long tail.
www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,2186525,00.html
In this age of diamond saucepans, only a recession makes sense
Economic growth is a political sedative, snuffing out protest as it drives inequality. It is time we gave it up
George Monbiot
Tuesday October 9, 2007
The Guardian
If you are of a sensitive disposition, I advise you to turn the page now. I am about to break the last of the universal taboos. I hope that the recession now being forecast by some economists materialises. I recognise that recession causes hardship. Like everyone I am aware that it would cause some people to lose their jobs and homes. I do not dismiss these impacts or the harm they inflict, though I would argue that they are the avoidable results of an economy designed to maximise growth rather than welfare. What I would like you to recognise is something much less discussed: that, beyond a certain point, hardship is also caused by economic growth.
On Sunday I visited the only biosphere reserve in Wales: the Dyfi estuary. As is usual at weekends, several hundred people had come to enjoy its beauty and tranquillity and, as is usual, two or three people on jet skis were spoiling it for everyone else. Most economists will tell us that human welfare is best served by multiplying the number of jet skis. If there are two in the estuary today, there should be four there by this time next year and eight the year after. Because the estuary's beauty and tranquillity don't figure in the national accounts (no one pays to watch the sunset) and because the sale and use of jet skis does, this is deemed an improvement in human welfare.
This is a minor illustration of an issue that can no longer be dismissed as trivial. In August the World Health Organisation released the preliminary results of its research into the links between noise and stress. Its work so far suggests that long-term exposure to noise from traffic alone could be responsible, around the world, for hundreds of thousands of deaths through ischaemic heart disease every year, as well as contributing to strokes, high blood pressure, tinnitus, broken sleep and other stress-related illnesses. Noise, researchers found, raises your levels of stress hormones even while you sleep. As a study of children living close to airports in Germany suggests, it also damages long-term memory, reading and speech perception. All over the world, complaints about noise are rising: to an alien observer it would appear that the primary purpose of economic growth is to find ever more intrusive means of burning fossil fuels.
This leads us to the most obvious way in which further growth will hurt us. Climate change does not lead only to a decline in welfare: beyond a certain point it causes its termination. In other words, it threatens the lives of hundreds of millions of people. However hard governments might work to reduce carbon emissions, they are battling the tide of economic growth. While the rate of growth in the use of energy declines as an economy matures, no country has yet managed to reduce energy use while raising gross domestic product. The UK's carbon dioxide emissions are higher than they were in 1997, partly as a result of the 60 successive quarters of growth that Gordon Brown keeps boasting about. A recession in the rich nations might be the only hope we have of buying the time we need to prevent runaway climate change.
The massive improvements in human welfare - better housing, better nutrition, better sanitation and better medicine - over the past 200 years are the result of economic growth and the learning, spending, innovation and political empowerment it has permitted. But at what point should it stop? In other words, at what point do governments decide that the marginal costs of further growth exceed the marginal benefits? Most of them have no answer to this question. Growth must continue, for good or ill. It seems to me that in the rich world we have already reached the logical place to stop.
I now live in one of the poorest places in Britain. The teenagers here have expensive haircuts, fashionable clothes and mobile phones. Most of those who are old enough have cars, which they drive incessantly and write off every few weeks. Their fuel bills must be astronomical. They have been liberated from the horrible poverty that their grandparents suffered, and this is something we should celebrate and must never forget. But with one major exception, can anyone argue that the basic needs of everyone in the rich nations cannot now be met?
The exception is housing, and in this case the growth in value is one of the reasons for exclusion. A new analysis by Goldman Sachs shows that current house prices are not just the result of a shortage of supply: if they were, then the rise in prices should have been matched by the rise in rents. Even taking scarcity into account, the analysts believe that houses are overvalued by some 20%.
Governments love growth because it excuses them from dealing with inequality. As Henry Wallich, a former governor of the US Federal Reserve, once pointed out in defending the current economic model: "Growth is a substitute for equality of income. So long as there is growth there is hope, and that makes large income differentials tolerable." Growth is a political sedative, snuffing out protest, permitting governments to avoid confrontation with the rich, preventing the construction of a just and sustainable economy. Growth has permitted the social stratification that even the Daily Mail now laments.
Is there anything that could sensibly be described as welfare that the rich can now gain? A month ago the Financial Times ran a feature on how department stores are trying to cater for "the consumer who has Arrived". But the unspoken theme of the article was that no one arrives - the destination keeps shifting. The problem, an executive from Chanel explained, is that luxury has been "over-democratised". The rich are having to spend more and more to distinguish themselves from the herd: in the United States the market in goods and services designed for this purpose is worth £720bn a year. To ensure that you cannot be mistaken for a lesser being, you can now buy gold-and-diamond saucepans from Harrods.
Without conscious irony, the FT article was illustrated with a photograph of a coffin. It turned out to be a replica of Lord Nelson's coffin, carved from wood taken from the ship on which he died, and yours for a fortune in a new, hyper-luxury department of Selfridges. Sacrificing your health and your happiness to earn the money to buy this junk looks like a sign of advanced mental illness.
Is it not time to recognise that we have reached the promised land, and should seek to stay there? Why would we want to leave this place in order to explore the blackened wastes of consumer frenzy followed by ecological collapse? Surely the rational policy for the governments of the rich world is now to keep growth rates as close to zero as possible?
But because political discourse is controlled by people who put the accumulation of money above all other ends, this policy appears to be impossible. Unpleasant as it will be, it is hard to see what except an accidental recession could prevent economic growth from blowing us through Canaan and into the desert on the other side.
www.kunstler.com/mags_diary22.html
November 12, 2007
Peak "Money"
James Howard Kunstler
The multi-dimensional meltdown underway in the finance sector illustrates perfectly how the complex systems we depend on start to wobble and fail as soon as peak oil establishes itself as a fact in the public imagination. Mainly what it shows is that we don't have to run out of oil -- or even come close to that -- before the trouble starts. Just going over the peak and heading down the slippery slope of depletion is enough. Peak oil, it turns out, is also peak money. Or should we say, peak "money?"
First of all, what is finance exactly? I'd bet that a lot of people these days don't know, including many working in the financial "industry," as it has taken to calling itself. Finance, until very recently, was the means by which investment was raised for useful economic activities and productive ventures -- in other words, the deployment of capital, which is to say accumulated wealth. Historically, this accumulated wealth was pretty meager. There wasn't a whole lot to deploy and the deployment was controlled by a tiny handful of people statistically greater only than the number of Martians in the general population. They operated as families or clans, and everybody knew who they were: the Medici, the Rothschilds. Even the Roman Empire was a kind of financial Flintstones operation compared to what we see on CNBC these days. Not having the printing press, the Romans had to inflate their currency the old-fashioned way, by adding base metals to their silver coins. Finance in the 200-odd-year-long industrial era evolved step-by-step with the steady incremental rise of available cheap energy. More to the point, the instruments associated with finance evolved in complexity with that rise in energy. It was only about two-hundred years ago, in fact, that circulating banknotes or paper currencies evolved out of much cruder certificates that were little more than IOUs. Once printed paper banknotes became established, and institutions created to regulate them, the invention of more abstract certificates became possible and we began to get things like stocks and bonds, traded publicly in bourses or exchanges, which represented amounts of money invested or loaned, but were not themselves "money."
Much of this innovation occurred during the rise of the coal-powered economy of the 19th century. It accelerated with the oil-and-gas economy of the 20th century, up into the present time. So, for about 150 years -- or roughly since the end of the American Civil War -- we've had a certain kind of regularized finance that enjoyed continual refinement. Even in the face of cyclical traumas, like the Great Depression, currencies, stocks, and bonds retained their legitimacy if not always their face value.
Russia was a bizarre exception. Crawling out of the mud of medievalism relatively late in the game, Russia pretended to abjure capital while still faced with the need to deploy it in industry. They solved this paradox conditionally by disqualifying the Russian public from participation in any part of the industrial economy except the hard work, and pretended to pay them in promises for "a brighter future," which never arrived as long as the Soviets remained in charge. (The Russian people repaid the system by only pretending to work.)
In any case, finance for the purpose of deploying capital has prevailed as reality among people who use the implements of the dinner table, but something weird has happened to it in recent years. It has entered a stage of grotesque, hypertrophic metastasis that now threatens the life of the industrial organism it evolved to serve. Its current state can be understood in direct relation to the run-up to peak oil (peak fossil fuel energy, really, since coal and gas figure into it, too). The oil age, we will soon discover, was an anomaly. Many of the things that seemed "normal" under its regime will turn out to have been rather special. And as the beginning of the end of the oil age becomes manifest, these special things are starting to self-destruct pretty spectacularly.
For one thing, finance in the past twenty years has evolved from being an organ serving a larger organism to taking over the organism, becoming a kind of blind, raging dominating parasite on its former host. Or to put it less hyperbolically, it has become an end in itself. That is what they mean when they say that the financial sector has been "driving" the economy. A feature of this ghastly process has been the evolution of financial instruments into ever more abstract entities removed from reality-based productive activities. Stocks and bonds were understood to represent direct investment in enterprise. Sometimes the enterprise was a failure, and sometimes the people running it were swindlers, but no one doubted that common stock represented the hope for profit in a particular venture like making steel or selling laxative chemicals. The new "creatively-innovated" financial "derivatives" of recent years are now so divorced from any real activities or product that often the people trafficking in them don't understand what they're supposed to represent. I'd bet that more than half the people in the New York Stock exchange any given day could not explain the meaning of a credit default swap if a Taliban were holding their oldest child over a window ledge across Wall Street.
The innovation of mutant financial "products" is a symptom of the "crack-up boom" that characterizes society's response to peak oil. The main implication of peak oil for an industrial economy is that the 200-odd-year-long expectation for continued regular growth in combined energy-activity-and-productivity at roughly 3 to 7 percent a year under "normal" conditions -- that expectation is now toast. Under the new regime of peak oil and its aftermath, regular energy depletion, society can expect no further industrial growth but only contraction, and all the certificates, instruments, and operations associated with the expectation for further industrial growth lose their legitimacy. Seen in this light, one can then understand the temporary value of these mutant financial derivatives. They allowed participants to conceal the fact that these "investments" were not directed at productive enterprise. They also provided a cohort of sharpies with "vehicles" for converting the leftovers of the industrial economy into assets for themselves -- a form of looting, really. Hence, the employees of Bear Stearns, Goldman Sachs, and Merrill Lynch gave themselves $50-million Christmas bonuses for trafficking in these inscrutable non-productive financial gimmicks, and were able to acquire fifty-room East hampton houses, Gulfstream jets, and impressionist paintings.
Of course, the aftermath might not be so pretty for these guys, since the next thing they may acquire could be long prison sentences. If they flee prosecution in their Gulfstream jets, they will not be able to take their Hamptons estates aboard with them. Those who remain may live to see mobs with flaming torches outside their windows, as in the "Frankenstein" movies of their suburban childhoods. But this has yet to play out.
For the moment it appears that we have entered the climax of the crack-up. The slick and inscrutable derivative vehicles infesting the ledgers of the investment banks, are now being systematically revealed as frauds of one kind or another, and, self-evidently lacking in worth. The process now underway is gruesome. The sheer dollar losses involved are almost as incomprehensible as the phony operations and instruments that they are derived from -- twelve billion here, nine billion there. As the late Senator Everett Dirkson once quipped, "sooner or later you're talking about real money...." Or are we? Is it money or "money." And if it's "money," what will become of it? And of us? How will it allow us to live?
www.theoildrum.com/node/2789#comment-214877
GreyZone on July 18, 2007 - 4:54pm | Permalink | Subthread
Global warming does not raise the specter of the end of growth. GW, to most of the population, seems like a problem that can be solved with some technical changes but no fundamental change to the infinite growth paradigm.
But you cannot go near peak oil without running smack into that question. Thus, peak oil is far more dangerous than global warming in the attitudes and expectations that it seems to foster.
mr f on July 19, 2007 - 1:10am | Permalink | Subthread
Global warming does not raise the specter of the end of growth.
Alas, NPC report is in accord with you. Interestingly, note how CC is used in this report not as a major problem to be dealt with, but something which will "lessen demand", and will diversify "alternative energy sources". They know the latter is bs, from a fiscal perspective--which is certainly Mr. Raymond's overriding concern, albeit the only meaningful perspective to take. They in essence say so much, under their breath, by not investing all that much in "alternatives" if you compare to hydrocarbon investments. "Lessen demand" is code for, if things do get hairy--we warned you may be driving too much! (Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black...) Mommy tells you "eat all the cookies you want" and then she leaves the room for a minute and comes back to find you sick and bloated from too many cookies she slaps you over the head and says "now if you want a cookie, it's gonna cost you--you know you want some more right? There are no shortages of cookies it's just now all your friends down the street want cookies, and there are evil-doers trying to blow up your cookies" etc etc... You get my drift.
I agree with Leanan* that they would sooner bring out the relatively minor boogeyman of global warming, than the stink bomb of peak oil (and these are all Big Oil guys!) Clearly, because CC is an ancillary issue. We "don't know what causes it" or "even if it is happening at all." Either way, it would cost too much money to fix, right? So fuck it all, BAU.
CC cannot be directly tied to "war" and "terrorism" (PO can). This maintains the facade, the disconnect, between war terrorism and oil. This is a critical distinction, the elephant in the room which our culture has somehow built up immunity too. "National Security", I believe the secret handshake goes...
Why would that be? The reason is pretty clear... CC and other "above ground security and political issues" will be the bellwether front for peak oil. It is far more comforting for businessmen and average Joe to think "well, these here economic problems are at root caused by 'terrorists' and the other ancillary affects of 'combating CC'" (a futile effort if I've ever seen one, one reason among a myriad that conservatives are so uber-cynical... anyone for throwing beach sand at waves? I'll take profits, thank you very much.) This is probably due to the fact that the markets need to be comforted, and even coming close to endorsing worst case scenarios for oil depletion would be tantamount to burning money (surely not something Mr. Raymond would want--can you sense my seething jealousy? ;] )
But you cannot go near peak oil without running smack into that question. Thus, peak oil is far more dangerous than global warming in the attitudes and expectations that it seems to foster.
This is why it is so easy to see how things are going to turn nasty quick, because when you can't even acknowledge a problem, then there is little chance of "fixing" it (particularly problems that seriously border on the insurmountable.) By definition, even if this so-called "progress" continues, actually addressing the root issue is an anathema to everything our society is and wants to be. Predictions are worth the price of storing them on a hard drive (hint: close to nothing) but I believe one can say fairly confidently that you will not hear these birds tweet 'uncle', ever. Why would you when you own everything and you can harp on about above ground issues?
mr f on July 18, 2007 - 9:27pm | Permalink | Subthread
One can't negotiate with a malignant psychology by trying to make it a friend... Just doesn't work. I'm young and have figured that out, and I believe you're older than me so you should know this doubly. You negotiate with malignant psychology by trying to remove it or reform it, unfortunately neither are really an option as these "things" are deeply entrenched and not going away short of a revolution (which would essentially mean the end of the civilization anyway, since we would be in fact toppling the very psychology that gave us all the wonders of "modern American life"). Perhaps you'll say I'm entering Doomer psychology, tweeting chicken little in my sleep... Although, I respect your attempt at some type of hopeful outcome, it is very unlikely that simply by "saying nice things" about these people that they'll somehow all of a sudden say "Gosh, you know what, you're right, we're just so wasteful, and this profit motive thing--what's that all about anyway?"
I do agree with you though that one must forge on and keep tootin' the horn, no matter what happens. It's just, honestly, trying to wrangle the "higher-ups" is really a lost cause, like pissin' in the wind (or up a rope, take your pick).
From the bottom-up people will do what they find neccessary to prepare for whatever our future holds.
The top-down leadership of our country will do whatever they deem in the "interest" of the "country"--it matters little what you and I say--it's a large world out there (for now) and the people that "run it" are tasked with keeping themselves and their cronies happy. Lets see how long they can keep the jig up.
auntiegrav on July 18, 2007 - 10:15pm | Permalink | Subthread
One can't negotiate with a malignant psychology by trying to make it a friend... Just doesn't work.
Ain't dat da troot, eh?
If there are a hundred people in a room, and only one person knows the right solution to a problem, any compromise will yield something less than solving the problem.
That's what we have now. The one solution is Demand Destruction, yet almost everyone in the room is trying to figure out how to compromise on that.
I read an interview with a Conservative once who said, "If you want to change a conservative's mind, you only have to show them how to make more money doing it your way. The only way to change an intellectuals mind is to take it out and put in a different one."
This scenario doesn't work for either now, because 99% of the solutions require Conservatives to stop thinking in Perpetual Growth terms, and they require intellectuals to stop expecting to get grant money from the perpetual growth System.
The Peak Oil scenario will hopefully be mitigated by demand destruction due to economic impact, but if global warming hits hard and fast "With Speed and Violence" (nod to Fred Pearce), then the resource demand may simply increase even more.
|
