and this just out on CBS Sunday Morning show:


quite appropo (and quite excellent)

Expand full comment

My understanding, if you can call it that, of our current predicament.

1) We have to reduce our use of fossil fuels dramatically, 40% by 2030 and close to zero by 2050 if we are to have a 50% chance of staying below 2˚C above pre-industrial..which is itself a disastrous outcome. This means leaving a large amount of the reserves we know about in the ground, and stopping further exploration.

2) We can't reduce our use of fossil fuels because of the growth imperative, or even without the growth imperative, as renewables haven't got the required energy density to replace all of our current activity.

3) The reality that the age of cheap hydrocarbons is over is about to hit the fan.

4) Our political/economical/social structures are so reliant on the the energy we now use, that it's political suicide to admit any of the above.

5) Meanwhile, climate and biodiversity tipping points loom large.

Expand full comment

This echoes what I just read this morning on Dr. Tim Morgan's blog, Surplus Energy Economics. Haved you been following him?


I'm really happy to see that you're going to have Prof. Steve Keen on your next podcast. Tim Morgan might also be a worthwhile guest to invite.

Expand full comment