What I’ve Learned Writing About Energy Descent on Medium

After the fall, what comes next?

Things are getting crowded around here. Is anybody listening? Source: Library of Congress, photo archives. No usage restrictions.

In this post, I want to do a look-back to my writings on a topic that continues to loom large for humanity’s future: energy descent. As climate change bears down on us like a runaway train, and as oil and its derivatives become more scarce and eventually unaffordable, what happens next? Among the 75 posts I have written since 2020, six have dealt with these issues of energy descent, and related topics. Here’s what I have learned.

Post-Carbon Energy: Collapse or Descent?

This is pretty much the number one question among amateur and professional futurologists alike. Once our Age of Oil comes to an end, either through depletion or abandonment of the planet’s remaining oil, gas, and coal reserves, what kind of energy future will we be facing, a complete collapse of the human enterprise or something less severe, a radical simplification, localization, and shrinkage of our human footprint on a much hotter and dangerous Planet Earth? I devoted several posts to this question.

Energy Transitions in the Pipeline

There is a school of thought, prominent here on Medium, that sees an energy transition away from fossil fuels as essentially impossible. Promoters of this view, whom I call End-Times Doomists, often refer to the work of Canadian energy analyst Vaclav Smil, who argues in his book, How the World Really Works, that the four material “pillars” of modern civilization — steel, ammonia, plastics, and cement — are all impossible to produce without fossil fuels. Consequently, once fossil fuels are no longer available, these materials will no longer be available, and civilization will quickly collapse.

I have been surprised by the extent to which Smil’s claims are not only accepted by the doomist community, but often are treated as an unquestioned starting point for many doomist narratives. So I decided to take a closer look at two of these “impossible” arguments: first, Smil’s claim that steel cannot be produced without fossil fuels, and second, an equally popular claim that the intermittency of wind and solar power generation (i.e., the fact that the sun doesn’t shine and the wind doesn’t blow 24 hours a day) renders these power sources incapable of supporting longer-term electricity storage and later distribution during hours when energy is not being produced.

The post goes into some detail on each of these arguments. For steel, it begins with the fact that 30% of all global steel production is already produced without fossil fuels. This steel is produced using electric arc furnaces, a technology that creates steel from recycled scrap metal and electric current rather than iron ore and coke. Currently, 70% of steel production in the US is recycled steel produced in electric arc furnaces (source). Beyond recycled steel, several promising technologies are in development that can produce steel at scale in emissions-free furnaces.

The problem of solar and wind power intermittency must be solved at two timescales: short-duration intermittency refers to fluctuations in power availability over the course of a single 24 hour day; long-duration intermittency refers to fluctuations in power availability over weeks, months, seasons, or years. Contrary to the “impossible” argument, short-duration intermittency is already proving manageable in locations willing (and able) to invest in the necessary infrastructure. In California, for example, the state already had enough short-duration renewable energy storage in 2023, mostly provided by large lithium-ion battery parks, to power 6.6 million homes for up to four hours during evenings, heatwaves, or other times when energy demand outstrips supply. The state projects it will be able to meet all of its electricity needs with renewable energy production and storage by 2045 (source). So, challenging, yes, impossible, no.

Long-duration energy storage is a different problem, for which there are several solutions. Lithium-ion batteries are not a good fit for long-term storage because they tightly couple power and energy. For longer-term storage on the order of days, weeks, or months, power and energy must be decoupled (source). The post details two solutions for long-term storage: closed-loop, off-river pumped hydro stations and redox flow batteries.

The post ends with a warning about the uneven and disproportionate way these emerging solutions are likely to be deployed over coming decades:

… when the oil runs out — and it will run out — a few countries (or regions within larger countries) will have at their disposal at least partial solutions for fossil fuel-free industrial heat, steel production, short- and long-term energy storage, and other critical needs such as decarbonization of transport, buildings, and construction materials. But many countries will not be able to replicate these solutions in the short timeframe required to radically lower greenhouse emissions. This is where the world’s extreme levels of inequality will inevitably lead us: to a downsized, climate-traumatized, and perhaps even more deadly version of our current world of haves and have-nots.

A Reply to the Energy Transition “Impossibilists”

This short piece expands a reply I wrote to a reader of my previous post, who argued I must be “in denial” because I was describing elements of an energy transition that were simply impossible. Rather than engage with my evidence — that lots of “impossible” things seemed to be happening already — my critic chose to claim that my lying eyes must be deceiving me.

This gave me an opportunity to share a bit more about my objections to energy transition “impossibilism”, which I find not only empirically unsustainable, but also dangerously self-fulfilling and morally indefensible.

These “impossibility” arguments often seem to assume a strawman adversary. They imply there is only one counter-narrative to theirs: a utopian fantasy that we will replace all these fossil fuels with magical sunlight and keep doing all the things we’re doing today. That’s an easy strawman to knock down, because nobody with a serious understanding of our current level of overshoot believes it. …

This argument implies only one possible future. We continue to binge on fossil fuels until they either run out or we bake the planet to such a degree we extinguish ourselves. Once the oil is gone, we will have no alternative sources of energy available anywhere in the world, so we will all just curl up and die. I don’t think it’s going to play out like that.

Energy Descent Realism: Part 1

This post and next one explore our current predicament — a lethal combination of global warming, resource depletion, and ecological overshoot — from the perspective of the mental models we deploy to understand it and determine how we can and should respond to it. To that end, in this post I describe five mental models that are currently competing to “explain” our global polycrisis:

• Pro-Growth Capitalism + Technology Utopianism: The current dominant mental model of political and economic elites. Humanity can continue to grow indefinitely and technology will be invented to fix any damage already in place.
• Green-Growth Optimism: We can continue to grow economically, but we can do so by replacing CO2-emitting fossil fuels with emissions-free alternative power produced by wind, water, and solar energy.
• End-Times Doomism: The total collapse of our global civilization is inevitable and unstoppable. Human extinction is the most likely outcome, which we should embrace with “radical acceptance”.
• Voluntary Degrowth: Political leaders can be persuaded (or replaced) to enact reasonable and practical degrowth policies that will curb over-consumption and phase out fossil fuels in an orderly and planned manner. Degrowth is inevitable, but nations can manage the transition voluntarily.
• Energy Descent Realism: A mental model for involuntary degrowth. Political and economic leaders will not abandon Pro-Growth Capitalism voluntarily. Humanity will have to undergo a period of crisis and dislocation as the energetic foundations of our civilization fall away, despite frantic efforts to keep them in place as long as possible.

These five models represent the current spectrum of responses to climate change and overshoot. Each offers a different answer to the fundamental question of our time: What will happen when economic growth ends? These answers range from “that’s the wrong question, it will never end” (Pro-Growth Capitalism and Green Growth Optimism) to “it will result in nothing less than human extinction” (End-Times Doomism) to “it will result in an orderly process of government-led degrowth” (Voluntary Degrowth) to “it will lead to a collapse of Pro-Growth Capitalism, which will fail when growth ends, resulting in an era of involuntary energy descent in which humanity will most likely pass through four waves of collapse: environmental, economic, political, and population” (Energy Descent Realism).

Energy Descent Realism: Part 2

In Part 2 of this post, I assess how well each of these mental models can be expected to perform as a guide for navigating the crises and dangers of the 21st Century. For this purpose, I deploy a conceptual model called the Equation of Change, a tool for assessing whether an organization is likely to accept a proposed change in the status quo. The equation connects four variables:

The logic is quite simple. In order to overcome people’s natural resistance to change, three motivators must all be present: adequate Pain inflicted by the status quo, a compelling Vision for a better future, and a series of practical and achievable First Steps to get the change process started. Here is how each mental model stacks up in terms of this Equation of Change:

• Pro-Growth Capitalism + Technology Utopianism: Not really a model of change, but rather a rationale for maintaining the status quo. As long as growth continues, very little pain will be felt by the primary beneficiaries of the current system. On the contrary, the system will continue to offer fantastic opportunities for wealth and power, if only to those at the top. Because this model prefers resistance to change, it also incorporates no viable Vision for change, nor any useful First Steps for embarking on change. Its main function at this point in time is to provide cover for the fossil fuel industry and its political allies to continue their (so far, successful) strategy of delay, distract, and deny.
• Green-Growth Optimism: This model assumes that a transition away from fossil fuels can be achieved relatively painlessly, and in a manner that will allow economic growth to continue. Unfortunately, a vast amount of empirical research (over 800 academic papers) confirms that this assumption is unlikely to be true. We can choose to continue to grow or we can choose to reduce emissions, but we cannot do both. If we choose to continue to grow, we will end up back in Pro-Growth Capitalism. If we choose to sacrifice growth to reduce emissions, we will end up with something like Voluntary Degrowth. On its own, Green-Growth Optimism is unlikely to achieve its objectives. At best, it is a transitional mental model.
• End-Times Doomism: As a model of change, End-Times Doomism presents little guidance for navigating the twin crises of climate change and overshoot. It certainly recognizes the magnitude of Pain our current path is likely to inflict. But for Pain to be a catalyst for change, it must be accompanied by a Vision and practical First Steps for moving toward a more desired future. End-Times Doomism provides neither.
• Voluntary Degrowth: This model recognizes that much of the Pain humans experience today is a function of inequality, the fact that we are living in a world of haves and have-nots that has transferred most of the world’s wealth into the hands of a tiny minority of millionaires and billionaires. Voluntary Degrowth presents a very detailed and compelling Vision of a radically transformed future in which humans can live in greater harmony with the natural world and each other. However, Voluntary Degrowth comes up short in its articulation of First Steps. It assumes governments will voluntarily adopt degrowth policies. But so far, the world’s governments and the economic elites remain too wedded to Pro-Growth Capitalism to ever voluntarily embrace a deliberate program of degrowth. A little dabbling in Green-Growth Optimism is the most they seem able to tolerate at this time.
• Energy Descent Realism: This model starts from the belief that we could change, but we probably won’t, at least not voluntarily, and definitely not as soon as we should. At its core is the assertion that radical change is in our future, but will more likely be forced upon us, not embraced in a planned and orderly manner (as Voluntary Degrowth would prefer). Energy Descent Realism predicts that the Pain experienced by our political and economic elites will only exceed Resistance when the capitalist economic order can no longer produce growth. Only then will the world’s leaders, or at least some of them, be ready to accept both the Vision and the First Steps recommended by Voluntary Degrowth.

I’m suggesting here that … we are going to find ourselves adopting and being guided by the fifth mental model described here, Energy Descent Realism. How deep our energy descent will go, and how many of us will be around to see its outcome, is a function of the choices we are making right now. Energy Descent Realism combines elements of inevitability (fossil fuels will end, but not voluntarily; capitalism will collapse because economic growth cannot survive climate change; resource depletion will end over-consumption in the Global North involuntarily, not voluntarily) with elements of hope (out of collapse we can build a more sustainable civilization, but it will be significantly smaller, less complex, more geographically dispersed and locally organized, less energy intensive, much less wasteful, much more respectful of the natural world, and no longer in overshoot).

My conclusion: It’s not a pretty picture, but it may be a survivable picture, and that’s probably the best we can hope for at this juncture.

Cartoonist L.J. Kopf Brilliantly Captures Our Current Moment

This post was inspired by this cartoon:

Cartoon by L.J. Kopf. Source: “World Match — Humans versus the Environment” on Medium. Reprinted with permission.

This is, indeed, the fundamental dilemma we face as a civilization. As I and many others have observed, it’s a “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” situation. The unforgiving nature of this dilemma, I believe, is why we remain stuck in a kind of limbo: we are unwilling (currently) to face the costs of either choice, which means we’re on a path to face both of them.

The left-hand pane captures the basic dilemma of capitalism. The engine of capitalism is economic growth, its fuel is capital investment, and its positive outputs are two: an ever-increasing supply of goods and services for consumers and great wealth for the owners of capital. To keep this system humming along, consumers must be convinced to keep spending. If that spending falters, so does growth, and so does the system. If growth ends (i.e., flips from positive to negative), the system will soon end as well.

The right-hand pane reminds us that while this remarkable engine is producing its cornucopia of goods and services (for some), it is also producing unacceptable levels of pollution, global warming, and environmental damage, due to its production of three negative externalities: fossil fuel emissions, depleted natural resources, and collapsed ecosystems. To the extent consumption is at the center of this system, it is also at the center of our rapidly accelerating climate crisis. Over-consumption is indeed destroying our environment.

I also discuss what I believe is a meta-message hidden in this clever cartoon. It is the implication that the dilemma it describes is the fault of the consumers facing it, because the choice rests with them: consume more and destroy the environment or consume less and destroy the economy. But are consumers really in the driver’s seat here? I think not. If consumption is a deliberate choice driven by insatiable demand, then why do advertisers have to spend a trillion dollars a year on “demand creation”? No, consumers are not the drivers of economic growth. Corporations in pursuit of next quarter’s earnings gains are the drivers here, and their pursuit of growth is driven by knowledge that their access to capital is determined exclusively by their potential to grow and reward their investors with higher returns. Consumers have very little leverage in this system. We cannot expect them to voluntarily change it.

That’s the hidden message. We will not voluntarily solve climate change, overshoot, and energy descent by curbing consumption. Rather, we will involuntarily curb consumption as we absorb the negative economic impacts of climate change, overshoot, and energy descent. The arrow of causality doesn’t start with consumption, it ends there.

What Are We Talking About When We Talk About Collapse?

This post surprised me. It it one of the longest I have written, but also one of the most popular, with over 3,600 views since mid-June. I wrote this because there is a lot of talk about collapse these days, and not just here on Medium. I’ve found much of this discussion to be fuzzy in terms of particulars, especially regarding things like timing, sequencing, and causal triggers. I came to the conclusion that a good way to think about collapse is to envision it as a series of waves, each wave causing its own kind of damage, and then setting the conditions for the next wave.

Collapse of our current civilization is likely to occur in four waves. The first wave is environmental collapse. Although we are in the midst of it now, our political and economic elites appear unlikely to respond positively to this wave until a key milestone is reached. That milestone is the end of economic growth. Only when the underlying conditions for growth become untenable will environmental collapse trigger the next wave, economic collapse. This will consist of a series of economic and financial maneuvers and catastrophes that will send national governments into a tailspin. Here is one possible scenario:

1. Escalating extreme weather events will disrupt economic flows and destroy resource stocks.
2. Some industries (insurance, agriculture) will to suffer direct damage due to climate change.
3. Prices will spike due to supply-driven inflation.
4. Growth will slow, central banks will get more interventionist.
5. Growth will eventually go negative.
6. Economies will slip into recession, then depression.
7. Rationing will become necessary to deal with shortages of all kinds.
8. Distributional inequality will lead to social conflict, civil unrest, and political instability.

This economic descent will be accompanied by an inevitable decline in the availability of fossil fuels as a profitable source of world energy. As discussed in my last post, this will not occur because we literally run out of oil, but rather because the energy cost of extracting oil (EROI, or Energy Return on Investment) will eventually exceed any price point at which it could be profitably sold. As renewably-powered energy systems continue to become cheaper and more reliable compared to oil, natural gas, and coal-powered solutions, our economic descent and associated energy descent will provide the impetus for the next wave, political collapse.

Because we will have failed to end fossil fuels voluntarily, we will soon be experiencing average global temperatures of around 2.5–3.0°C above preindustrial levels. Because land masses heat up faster and to higher temperatures than oceans, this will translate into increases of 5–6°C over lands where billions of humans live and work. As the planet continues to heat up, governments in many countries, especially those in the Global South, may find it necessary to permanently depopulate large land areas and climate-vulnerable cities due to wet-bulb temperatures, droughts, floods, and other natural disasters. Even in the richest nations, governments will be battling waves of climate catastrophes with no end in sight.

In “normal” times, governments are able to rule over populations and territories because they hold a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within their borders. That force, at bottom, is ultimately based on access to energy. When a government’s access to energy shrinks, its ability to project force shrinks, and its capacity to maintain order within its territory shrinks. Over time, this inability to maintain order triggers the crisis of legitimacy that eventually leads to political collapse.

Nation-states are complex social systems (as is the global economy). When complex systems can no longer be supported by available energy sources, they descend to lower levels of complexity. This is how a world of large, complex nation-states can rather suddenly turn into a world of small, localized communities and regional power centers, each essentially responsible for its own survival. As regions of the world become uninhabitable, and as political institutions fail to meet the needs of their citizenry, we will find ourselves facing the fourth and most deadly wave, population collapse.

The question of population collapse essentially comes down to this: given the environmental damage we continue to inflict on the planet’s atmosphere, arable lands, oceans, and fresh water resources, given the likely breakdown of the economic systems by which we produce and distribute food and goods around the world, and given the coming energy descent that will leave governments unable to maintain order among their increasingly fractious citizens, how many mouths can this new, damaged world feed, and where are those lucky survivors likely to be located?

As I’ve described elsewhere, this is the “coffin in the room” that humanity seems unable to recognize and unwilling to examine scientifically. Because our climate watchdogs at the IPCC have failed to treat human population as an outcome variable in their climate models, we are flying somewhat blind on this question, but we cannot avoid an obvious inference: a lot of people are going to die.

On a personal note, I find it bizarre and destabilizing to try to write about these topics in a cold and factual way, as if these impending catastrophes were happening to someone else, or maybe even on a different planet. But this is us and this is our planet. The descent we are now facing is nothing like humanity has ever experienced before. The idea that our massively complex global civilization is on a path to devolve into something much smaller, simpler, locally isolated, and disconnected is nearly impossible to to grasp. Can we imagine Florida under water? Can we imagine every beach we enjoy today gone due to sea level rise? Can we imagine Europe in an ice age thanks to the breakdown of the North Atlantic current? Can we imagine Paris gone, Rome gone? Can we imagine monsoons, typhoons, hurricanes, and tornadoes scouring the land, destroying whole cities and regions, rendering large swathes of the planet uninhabitable? Can we imagine whole countries, home to millions of people, decimated due to wet-bulb temperatures, droughts, floods, and famine? Can we imagine the end of capitalism and the financial ruin of our current crop of activist billionaires?

The fact that we cannot imagine these things may be the primary reason why we will be unable to avoid them.