Alternative energy sources such as biofuel do more harm than good, according to a Wellington academic.
And carbon offsets envisioned in the Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) simply recycle existing environmental conditions.
These and other comments came in a lecture from an environmental veteran, Mike Joy.
Joy is Senior Research Fellow in the School of Geography, Environment and Earth Sciences, at Victoria University of Wellington, Te Herenga Waka.
The remarks came during a special lecture at his university which was so pessimistic, he actually described himself as Dr Doom in his introductory comments. But he made no apologies for condemning "ecocidal growth" and he called for honesty and intellectual rigour in facing up to climate change.
During his talk, Joy produced a mountain of evidence showing human life on the planet is completely profligate in environmental terms. He included a suggestion that maintaining industrial civilisation so far surpasses the output of the average person, that “energy slaves” are maintaining our lifestyle for us.
“In 2018, the world ran on 17 trillion watts of energy. That’s equivalent to (the energy needs of) 500 billion human workers. Contrast that with four billion actual workers on the planet. That’s 70 energy slaves for every human,” Joy said.
“But it’s not spread equally, of course. In the wealthy world where we live, we have at least 200 energy slaves each. That is more than any slave owner ever had before.”
Joy’s argument is that the amount of energy required to support an affluent lifestyle is multiple times greater than the energy needs of an ordinary person living a simple life. And all that energy emits carbon dioxide (CO2) into the atmosphere, constantly.
And he argues this is rarely reported properly. Instead, the state of countries’ economies get constant scrutiny. Yet this reporting misses the point.
“Compared to the real value of the earth and its organisms, our miniscule annual economy is like the flea on a dog,” he quoted from the American academic Tom Murphy.
“Yet we lavish all our attention on the flea.”
Joy argues there is a need for simpler lifestyles, with less consumption of unnecessary goods. And he concurred with a questioner who suggested people were just as happy in the 1960s as now, without two cars and a second bathroom.
His speech had a provocative title: “What do net-zero, the green energy transition and the tooth fairy have in common?” The answer appeared to be a blend of myopia, day dreaming and childish hope.
For example, the green energy transition was based on false assumptions. Biofuel might have lower emissions when burnt. But those emissions had to be augmented by the emissions of all the machinery needed to get a crop in place and to convert its output into fuel. A similar problem was caused by the intermittence of wind or solar energy, while biodiesel and green hydrogen were even worse.
“I am not saying use the gas (for electricity generation), I am just saying, ‘get real’. We are not making renewable (systems) out of renewables.”
Joy also finds fault with the sort of carbon offsets envisioned by the ETS. He argues it is all very well to plant more trees to soak up CO2, but the gain is limited, because vegetation was already there before the ETS was ever thought of. As a result, total tree numbers, and their CO2 absorbing capacity, would not necessarily increase.
“Some wood gets locked up in buildings for a period of time, but pretty much everything else just gets recycled. The whole thing is just a big game, it’s a big delusion, we are kidding ourselves. Maybe some people do think we can have more trees than in the pre-industrial era, but I just can’t see that happening."
“The process of trying to transition to 'clean' energy will mean more and more mining and fossil fuel use, pushing teetering planetary boundaries over the edge," says Joy.
Joy says the real need is for people to consume less, live simpler lives and face up to hard facts.
“We need to learn humility, or we will be humbled,” he says.
91 Comments
It's nicer to think we can just trade vices.
The added irony is all this consumption, doesn't look to make people any happier. We lust for the new thing, get the new thing, then in short order the thrill is gone and it's onto lusting for the next new thing. The anticipation of the new thing, is often more pleasurable than having the actual thing.
Its not that simple, fact is there are now just too many people on the planet. Cutting down on consumption will only mean we put even more people on the planet because we really are that stupid. We simply cannot have a "Real" discussion about the problem because its simply not palatable and the powers that be would be completely unelectable if they had any form of depopulation plan.
Why does everyone automatically think it has to be inhumane ? Inhumane will be the result if we do nothing. Simple, stop breeding its as easy as that. Places like India are the worst they are all having like 5 or 6 kids. Weird isn't it, people think we will go extinct if we don't keep breeding and the population falls, fact is the world population is going to go extinct if we do nothing.
Why does everyone automatically think it has to be inhumane ?
I am not sure myself. As you say, stop having kids, nice and simple. But if you don't preface it then most automatically assume genocide is the solution, which makes sense when you look at how we treat every other species.
See Countries with fertility rates above or below replacement level, 2021
Whatabout Taylor Swift types using 1,000,000 as much resources https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1cdoy78/taylor_swifts_airplan…
a hunch..? Prime Minister Christopher Luxon was the biggest expense of the lot, at a cost of just more than $57,500 - but that included VIP transport of more than $39,000 - part of the requirements of being in the top job. The rest was made up of costs of almost $7500 for accommodation, air travel of $9500 and "surface" - ground travel, such as taxis of more than $1300.
There was this 2019 article referencing James Shaw, attending climate change events was the reason given for him having spent more than any other Minister on international travel.
It's not that they are commercially minded, they just have the same inherent greed and wants as everyone else.
Mmm, I'd argue the bulk of political legislation around this has economics at the forefront.
Green jobs!
Green energy!
Is mostly a way to charge a premium to greenwash things.
There's very little legislation which is an outright ban. Plastic bags, whoop-de-doo.
Yes, that's true. They just don't want to spend any resources or do any work to get what they want. They just want your stuff, and they want to take it off you. It's much more friendly on the environment if they just steal your stuff and don't have to any of that icky work doing it. Then they can feel good about themselves when they jet off overseas to achieve...well nothing, like normal. Isn't this also an entire article by someone telling how how to live our lives.....well. no wonder everyone ignores these people.
It looks like, per MP, Te Pāti Māori clocks up the most in air travel expenses, followed fairly closely by Greens and Labour. There's actually quite a large gap between these parties and the current coalition government parties, which, to me at least, is surprising and disappointing. Here's the link: https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/members-e…
Somebody correct me if I've misinterpreted the information.
Parliamentary services only covers travel expenses for MPs that are not ministers, which is why it's zero for many members of the coalition
https://www.parliament.nz/en/mps-and-electorates/mps-expenses/understan…
I'm talking about those that predict the future.
90% of them wouldn't have a clue, it's guesswork. They're selling books and absurd catastrophic predictions. Do you know how many books have been written about running out of oil? Hundreds. Have we?
How many books have been written about by gold salesmen about how the world is running out of gold, there'll be a catastrophic USD meltdown and we'll all be going to the supermarket with gold coins? Written by the likes of Jim Rickards, about Great Depression 2 and the death of money. None of it ever happens, but there's enough gullible people out there to flick the rubbish off to.
How many 'experts' have predicted calamitous stock market crashes and that communists will run the world.
Atomic bomb scientist Niels Bohr said, "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future".
Have a read of the Limits to Growth (which don't say we'd run out of anything by 1980, despite people who have never read it, claiming that). There are 10 year updates, some degree-level peer-reviews (Turner/Melbourne, Herrington/Harvard are the seminal ones) .... The longest tracking-true economic study on the planet.
But pfff - discredit - pfffff - discredit - pffff - referencing data nil.
Isn't that because we realised there was a problem so we reduced the amount of Sulphur Dioxide we were pumping into the atmosphere, which then reduced the amount of acid rain?
Peak oil will definitely happen, how can it not when you have a non-renewable resource? The only question is when it will happen.
Peak oil is nonsense, they just keep finding more, new technology makes it that much easier.
Go back in history and there's the most eccentric predictions by experts'...flying cars, space travel for everyone, copper, gold and silver would be gone by 1990, heavier-than-air flight is impossible, the automobile is a novelty, television won't last, new ice age by 2,000....history's chokka with 100% wrong predictions.
Have you thought deeply enough about what 'non-renewable' means?
Oil will certainly run out, or at least become uneconomical to extract, the only possible debate is whether we come up with something that can replace it sustainably or not.
Plenty of serious investors believe oil has already peaked, we have relied on gas to make up the difference. When that runs low do we go back to coal? What's left after that is spent?
Coal has been mined for thousands of years...have we run out? Suckers thought that oil would run out years ago...in NZ too. Remember carless days?
I do. I remember arriving at CHC airport and being taken to my hotel in a massively vibrating Holden taxi that was running on CNG. People spent heaps converting their cars to gas because this was 'it'.
Humans are very ingenious, they can solve very difficult problems, and the oil problem will be solved long before it runs out.
and the oil problem will be solved long before it runs out.
Thank you for illustrating that you do not understand peak oil.
Peak oil is not about "oil running out". There will be oil left to pump out of the ground for hundreds of years yet.
Peak oil is about the rate of extraction necessary to support our industrial civilization.
If we require 102 million barrels of oil to be pumped out of the ground every day to continue to enjoy our standard of living, then when oil has depleted such that we can only pump 100 million barrels out of the ground every day, it means there is a 2 million barrel shortfall. This drives prices up, which causes demand destruction - and inflation. Demand destruction and inflation = lower standards of living.
The key thing about peak oil is that it means the rate of extraction will forever after decline and be less than it was at the peak. So it's not a case of extracting 102 million barrels per day this year, then 100 million barrels per day next year, and then 105 million barrels per day the year after. It is a case of extracting 102 million barrels per day this year, then 100 million barrels per day next year, then 98 million barrels per day the year after, then 97 million barrels per day the year after that, then perhaps 98.5 million barrels per day the year after that. But never again does it reach the peak extraction rate of 102 million barrels per day.
The societal consequences depend on:
1. How fast the oil extraction rate declines after the peak
2. The price that oil reaches, which depends on demand, demand destruction, and available alternatives (coal, gas, renewables, nuclear)
3. How the oil that is extracted is distributed between producers and consumers - OPEC+ and USA are the big producers, and most other countries are consumers.
I don't think your interlocutor misunderstands any of this. On the contrary, his point is that it's not a catastrophic event. We will find substitutes, and have the time in which to do it. It won't be especially uncomfortable. Your worked example actually reinforces his point.
Our ingenuity means we are extracting resources more quickly, efficiently and from less accessible places.
Our ingenuity has not yet stretched to creating new fossil fuel resources. Unless we do that, it's all just a question of timing and you ignoring the problem just makes it your children or grandkids problem.
Some of us have been demonstrating such, for a long time.
We ain't perfect - but we're a long way further along the track than the chosen-ignorance crowd,
But there is more to it that that - the Wingman/Flying-High types seem to have genuine inability to conceptualise depletion, exponential numbers, or feed-back loops. In the Wingman case, it isn't helped by wild hyperbole (coal thousands of years? We've only been cultivating for 10,000. And we'd only gotten to 1 billion, 200 years ago. Such inability to register relativity, in the fierce need to justify, is an amazing attribute. But a fatally flawed one).
If you don't see the inherent bias, ableism and discrimination of your position against those poorer, less able and with more medical conditions then you who have limited options to change to even go on living in NZ then you clearly have not been doing your bit. In fact all you have been doing is showing what an arrogant elistist, hypocrite who patronizes everyone looks like.
Try not leaving your house for 10 years, and have that house be without power or heating in minus 2 degree weather, have no access to medical services or antibiotics when you get sepsis, have no access to veges, protein and fruit then get back to us on how easy the lifestyle you impose on others is.
I think you will find that your extreme privilege and ableism is getting in the way of any meaningful contribution you make.
As an example of ignorance in policies green pushes to limit waste & stricter recycling often result in more going to landfill and more fly tipping on streets and in public parks (see bin removals and cuts to rubbish pickups). Because the policy designers were ignorant that not everyone has the same abilities, living needs, household, finances and options that those in much more wealthy positions do.
Removal of plastic straws led to the denial of fluids to those with disabilities while they have limited mobility & airway control. Its all fun and games until you find yourself choking to death, for the harm & potential death to be written off as natural causes because denial of fluids, medical access & transport to those with disabilities is aok.
Likewise the Clean car tax that imposed the highest taxes to disability mobility vehicles leading to severe denial of access to the community and medical services for disabled people and this lack of essential transport & removal of places for mobility parking led to loss of work and medical care.
Slow clap on your obvious ignorance, ableism and hypocrisy. Lets see you actually live the life you impose on others. I would really relish seeing how you survive a 42 degree temp with sepsis with no access to medical care. It would be a learning experience for you I am sure.
Nice concept but in a world driven by mass consumerism and an insatiable hunger for wealth there will not be meaninful change any time soon. We have been conditioned to consume from the moment we are born, our leaders promote continual consumer/population growth, our sport stars tell our kids what to consume and 'percieved' success is directly linked to consuming.
Things will however change at some point, but it won't be because we 'choose' to.....it will be because we are 'forced' to at which time the benifits of a much simplier life will be somewhat lost.
I don't think you have to worry Wingman, you are too old. It will be the next generation or the one after when the shit hits the fan. 2050 has been my timeline limit on humanity as we know it today for some time, unfortunately that date continues to decline rather than being pushed out due to human stupidity.
Joy says the real need is for people to consume less, live simpler lives and face up to hard facts.
I don't disagree with anything he points out but to me you can't bake a cake without a recipe. And this is where all these lectures on sustainability go wrong. What are the basic ingredients for this simpler life?
I know that pdk is living such a life, but I'm guessing the house he built and the materials used would not meet today's stringent building requirements, and most importantly, if he laid out the exact specs for all to follow, I don't think we'd be able to build it ourselves (unless qualified) in order to get a Code of Compliance.
And then there's work - getting to it - showering each morning before it (and for most women anyway, blow drying your hair) - and dressing to whatever the appropriate 'code' is for the specific environment one works in. I live a much simpler life now that I am retired. So frankly, working itself is likely unsustainable.
I recall going from the corporate world into academia - and in academia, my wardrobe cost thousands less as jeans and a t-shirt (as well as second hand stuff) was completely acceptable; but certainly not in the corporate world. Oddly, at Mike's level in academia he's likely paid over $100K per annum - and he'd be able to live a much simpler life on $50K or less.
We could all live a simpler life if we weren't striving to earn the dollars that allow us to live a more complicated (and more consumerist) life. If you are home all day (i.e., not working) you have the time to raise veggies from seed and tend the garden for food; and turn the compost regularly; and adjust the solar panels with the movement of the sun, etc. etc.
So, I'd recommend Mike's next book is the recipe for the simpler life he thinks we should all follow. Starting when one turns 18. Does the recipe include higher education; does it include owning a home or renting with others; does it include having internet (or should we use public wifi); do we own a smart phone; a smart TV; a car (if so, what type); should we eat meat (if so, what should the maximum consumption per week per individual be); what food products in the grocery store are the most sustainable/least harmful to the planet; what should our per person daily energy consumption be (and equate that to some measure we can all relate to - like baking a cake at 180degC for an hour, or taking a hot shower for 15 minutes), etc.
It's no use telling an audience to live simpler without defining exactly what a simpler life is. At the moment it seems to me that the less money one has - the simpler one's life is. But I recall Mike being very upset when the university was going to make him redundant as a result of their downsizing (perhaps the better word is right-sizing).
I mean, as far as I can see, in many ways, work makes us less sustainable human beings because we haven't got the time not to consume through consumerist means (i.e., we have to buy through normal retail outlets at high margins; high shipping costs; high energy-use inputs to production) as opposed to do/make it ourselves.
Perhaps a UBI is really the answer for Western (high energy consumerist nations) - people can live that simple life and not work, should they choose to. I'm sure there are many answers to how to consume less, but just saying it without practical blueprints doesn't get us anywhere, to my mind.
The irony of PDK living in a house of mixed secondhand materials is him demanding the insulation standards are not rolled back to the 2022 standard, to allow others an affordable home. He refuses to understand others needs and doesnt see he is a walking contradiction
Don't comment on something you haven't investigated - you just sound stupid when you do that. I suspect it originates in where you've placed yourself, and the need to justify, coupled with a need for certain financial relativities?
The outer skin on my house is bought-new SIPS panels; no thermal print-through. Hence the Homestar-8 rating.
You forgot to ask, forgot to clarify. Which somewhat puts the rest of your comments into context.
you just sound stupid when you do that
Am I getting closer to the truth which gets you so triggered... how much did it cost to build your homestar 8 house with "bought-new SIPS panels".
But you cant stand up and preach at us that we should feel guilty for using one drop or litre of fuel and then excuse yourself doing the same. Or can you?
I have seen PDK talk about living in a HomeStar 10 (or something in this range home), but then apparently this home is built out of re-cycled and other scavenged materials. I would suggest that either the HomeStar 10 rating can be achieved by erecting a tent with the entry flap closed, or PDK is stretching the truth by quite some margin. In fact, looking through the posts it is very difficult to believe anything that he posts.
Edit.
There is a difference between Homestar10 (which I have NEVER claimed, nor mentioned) and Homestar 8. Why the conflation?
The only person claiming that my house is completely built of recycled materials - and I wrote asking him to withdraw and apologize, which he couldn't bring himself to do - was your mate Flying High.
Dogs, fleas....
But deep down I feel sorry for you, bombast-truth-twisting and all. I'm guessing you are both vulnerable; that insecurity led you both to be leveraged (on behalf of ego?) and that the near future might not be something you are looking forward to?
Kate - you start from first principles, which takes you to evaluating energy, rather than money. Food is energy - get it from your own free sun. House-heating can be mostly solar too. As can water. All of which is a societal contribution, as you unload the grid.
We will go through the coming bottleneck, with the existing housing-fleet, give or take. Meaning not building new - but retro-fitting in a low-hanging-friut-first manner. Meaning the 1/4 acre (sunlit) per house is a better format, than shadowed or building up.
SIPS panels are a standard building product, well known but not used enough. Most people don't think - they just do what they did yesterday, tomorrow. Takes time to shift.
Ahh ... Your moniker will get you into trouble which you won't be able to extract yourself from. Be aware of how Icarus dismissed the pleas of Daedelaeus not to fly too close to the sun. The result was more than a fall from grace. And in case you think this is just nonsense remember it is not only a tale but has a greater meaning metaphorically.
The problem is we have an economic system that has become based on growth. And depends on it. We talk of the cost of bureaucracy, but we don't call out the cost of interest and paper profit taking. Simply clipping the ticket is seen as productive but adds nothing. But it needs growth to enable it.
Look at mortgages, Noone was too bothered about them when their house price was rising. But now it's a huge issue. Same house though.
I've lived in a hut in the bush, cycled half way around the world with a tent, but I had a fair bit of savings to do it. Simple life is really a luxury many can't afford, so stuck in debt or expenses. I was also single.nowadays there a huge costs that are difficult to avoid, insurance , legal costs , etc. And of course , as we age medical expenses.
I've been comfortable and I've been broke, and a simple life is always possible.
You are right though, to function as a 'normal' element of the economy, requires an awful amount of peripheral costs.
So perhaps 'normal' requires some re-defining. I largely disposed of contracts in my commercial dealings, for instance. For a contract is really just insurance against problems communicating, or people not following their word.
Perhaps having enough is what is required. Each individual will have to define for themselves what is enough. In my mid 70s I have enough and encourage others to do what they need to do with enough. Teach to the moment and walk alongside those who want to repair, reuse, refurbish, recycle ( in that order). You always teach best what you need to learn most and not everyone wants to begin the journey.
If I look around the subdivision I live in for guidance, it isn't the older generation that are the consumers, it's the younger generation who park their cars outside because their garages are full of consumer junk.
Most boomers came from a generation that certainly wasn't flush, later generations have more access to money and consumer debt.
How many extra flights to Aussie were scheduled for the Taylor Swift concerts?
it wasn't the boomers on those flights, it was a lot younger generation that care sooooooo much about the environment.
Given now kiwis in most towns would need to travel for essential medical specialist care (with much of that involving flights in serious medical cases) saying cut air travel will lead to far more preventable deaths that many commenters are aok with, so long as it is not them or their family. Yet when a conference or holiday comes up for their family, oh travel is ok suddenly. When a music festival, sporting or family event happens, travel is aok. They need to travel for work oh that travel is aok but not for those poorer in mixed living environments. Likewise the extreme ableism applied to transport and transport policies that actually do cross the line into the genocide definitions we have currently (not that I agree with the watering down of the genocide definitions but they exist like that now).
Take your hypocritical views on "simpler lifestyles" and shove them all the way up the a hole with something long and barbed. Then see how you would survive without any transport to medical care to fix the internal bleeding.
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.