I’ve mentioned quite a few times the spurious calculations offered by Ted Trainer of the Simplicity Institute, purporting to prove that renewable energy can’t sustain a modern lifestyle. But I haven’t looked hard at the other side of the coin; the idea that ‘degrowth’ could provide us with a sustainable, low-tech but still comfortable way of living, based on local self-sufficiency.
Samuel Alexander, also of the Simplicity Institute, has a piece in the Conversation, making this claim. Presumably, unlike energy technology, this is an area where the Institute ought to have some special expertise. Sadly, this does not appear to be the case.
Alexander makes two points of particular interest.
First, he suggests that we (that is, urban dwellers) could meet our food needs through a combination of suburban gardening and trade with nearby farmers. This is illustrated by a picture of a community garden in San Francisco.
Second, he observes that this is not a process that should be sought through top-down measures from government, but rather through ‘bottom-up’ initiatives from individuals and groups.
I’ll deal with the second point first. Rather than putting this discussion in the future tense, why not look at attempts to move in this direction, which have been going on for at least forty years (there was a big movement to Nimbin on the NSW North Coast in the early 1970s, for example). As far as I know, none of these have got anywhere near achieving self-sufficiency in food, let alone fibre for clothing, timber for building and so on. And, as far as I can see, there is less going on in this direction now than there was 40 years ago.
That’s not to say of course, that self-sufficiency is impossible. For thousands of years, the majority of the world’s population lived by subsistence agriculture, and a billion or more still do. The only problems were
(i) It’s a life of miserable, back-breaking work from which people have always fled at the earliest opportunity, even when the alternative was near-starvation in a disease-ridden urban slum or shantytown
(ii) The current world population could not possibly be fed (even on a meat-free diet) with the yields typical of traditional subsistence agriculture
Perhaps the Simplicity Institute is counting on using more modern (but sustainable) technology to achieve high food yields. At one level, this might just be feasible. ‘Organic’ farmers have shown that it’s possible to achieve commercial yields without using pesticides or manufactured fertilisers, though other costs are higher, so that it is necessary to charge a premium price. But this only works on a significant scale if, in other respects, standard energy-intenisve industrial technologies (farm machinery, food processing and so on) are used.
Alexander makes it pretty clear that (as with the Institute’s attacks on renewable energy) this kind of modest tinkering is not what he has in mind. So, let’s take a look at the community garden he uses to illustrate the simpler approach. The photo shows about 20 people and a dozen or so garden beds, each about 1-2 sq m in area.
I’m not much of a gardener, but the total area looks pretty comparable to the backyard patch we had when I was a kid, which certainly didn’t feed our family. Rather than rely on such impressionistic stuff, though, it seems better to look at some proper data. Alexander doesn’t offer any and neither does the Simplicity Institute website, but the Internet has plenty of information.
Typical estimates seem to be that you need somewhere from 100-400 sq m to supply enough vegetables for a single person.
That includes a carbohydrate source such as potatoes, and perhaps fruit, but no meat, eggs, milk, grain or plant protein sources like soybeans.
Taking the most optimistic numbers possible, the garden plots illustrated by Alexander would meet less than half the vegetable needs of one person. This isn’t a remotely serious analysis: it’s more like claiming that a household could supply its own electricity by pedalling a stationary bike.
A more immediate objection relates to the transition path. Suppose that the Simplicity Institute managed to convince everyone that it is necessary to adopt the ‘degrowth’ approach they advocate. This would require a comprehensive restructuring of the entire economy: food production and distribution systems are just one example.
How rapidly could such a transformation be achieved? An obvious answer is to run the tape in reverse. The shift from a largely agricultural economy to our current post-industrial economy took about 200 years in the leading economies, and has nowhere been achieved in less than two generations (say 60 years). It seems reasonably to assume that reversing the process would take just as long, even granting the improbable premise that we started tomorrow[^1]
We don’t have 60 years to spare. If the world economy isn’t thoroughly decarbonized by 2050 (a little over 30 years away), the chance of holding global warming to 2 degrees C will have been lost.
The only chance of decarbonization is an approach that is focused much more narrowly on reducing CO2 emissions, through energy efficiency, renewable energy and a shift away from the most energy-intensive forms of consumption. As has been repeatedly demonstrated, this can be done at very low cost, but we need to move much faster than we are doing.
Those, like Trainer and Alexander, who oppose any effective action to reduce CO2 emissions, while demanding a massively larger agenda reflecting their social and ideological preferences, are effective (and sometimes actual [^2]) allies of the rightwing denialists.
fn1. The UN Climate Change Framework Convention process started more than 20 years ago, and is only now producing any significant (though still inadequate) action. ‘Degrowth’ isn’t a process or even the basis of a movement, it’s just an idea.
fn2. One notable meeting place was Barry Brooks’ Brave New Climate site, where denunciations of renewable energy from Trainer and Peter Lang, a denialist who used to comment here, sit side by side
John Quiggin 
Ted Trainer’s economic analysis of renewable energy is indeed spurious, as John Quiggin says. Ted has also misrepresented studies of 100% renewable electricity, such as the global scenario by Jacobson and Delucchi and the UNSW hourly simulations of Australia’s National Electricity Market with 100% renewable energy based on commercially available technologies.
This is also good reason for questioning whether Degrowth has to be tied to Ted’s recipe. A growing literature on Degrowth and the Steady State Economy (SSE) (defined by low throughput of materials and energy and zero population growth) addresses scenarios for an industrialised society. Modern research on SSE commenced with Herman Daly’s work in the 1970s and moved to Peter Victor’s macro-economic modelling of the Canadian economy with SSE and Graham Turner’s biophysical modelling scenarios of Australia with SSE. Presentations at the 2014 Fenner Conference on the Environment, which was on the theme of SSE and held at UNSW on 2-3 October, will be uploaded soon on the Institute of Environmental Studies at UNSW website: http://www.ies.unsw.edu.au/.
People get very mixed up about proposals in terms of whether they are either for 1) the economic growth economy we have now (i.e. continually expanding) ,2) the transition to an alternative economy, or 3) the vision for the alternative (e.g. the steady state). So for instance you might get a criticism that trying to reach 100% renewable in an economic growth economy is not a good idea because, if there is to be no overall change in the system that help to increase its’ life span its lifespan and the various other forms of damage it is wreaking on the planet. However it obviously a good course to follow if it is coupled with measures that lead to contraction of the economy including reduced population and consumption as part of a planned move to a steady state economy, so that needs to be made clear. The other major example of this failure to understand the context of the suggestions is this idea that self sufficiency could not work because of the large number of people on this planet and the over 50% that live in cites. Once again these ideas of full self sufficiency are part of the vision for an alternative economy many generations into the future where the number of people on earth is greatly reduced and the huge cities of the present no longer exist. But, just like renewable energy, they have an important part in the transition. I am by the way a professional gardener and did my bit in community gardens and on farms during World War Two when British agriculture and food supply went through a major transformation in two short years.
Many of these issues were considered at the CASSE ‘Addicted to Growth’ conference 10 days ago.
A few comments:
1. The conference presentations should be on the net shortly. I’ll throw a link onto one of these posts shortly if someone doesnt beat me to it.
2. All the issues above were raised – and a lot more – and happily it wasnt an acrimonious forum at all despite the differences in opinions. As Mark’s comments indicate it wasnt a case of whether or not to ‘degrow’ but how to do it sustainably equitably and without creating hell on earth. Both local production (reduces transport energy) and global/national scale things were needed.
3. The arguments above are to a fair extent a bit selective if only due to length. The mood of the conference in the end I’d gauge as “We are so ‘f!@#ed but hopefully we are wrong so lets do something about it’. What the presentations largely lacked – though there were important exceptions – was serious numbers with some exceptions – along the lines of Mark Diesendorf’s book. (Part of the problem I have with Ted is he doesn’t seem to like numbers which could provide a test of his proposals. This is also a failing of Barry Book although he tends to be more selective and gloss over the implications of his proposals – which seem all about nuclear and crucially forget all the interesting social and economic transformation stuff – looks a bit like we can have business as usual with a technological fix alone. And he calls himself an ecologist of sorts.
4. Regarding small is beautiful v. what I guess you might say has been called in the past ‘appropriate technology’ – I think the consensus was that neither will make much headway until the neoliberal economic system changes.
5. There were a lot of good speakers including via (as appropriate) internet links. Dick Smith impressed me again – in addition to providing supporting funding he again raised better than anyone the problem that we operate so far in a capitalist paradigm – like mum and dad investments – that extricating ourselves from the growth addiction will be exceedingly difficult. But he is still looking to ideas people to provide the basis and is not subject to delusions of grandeur.
6. Ted Trainer didnt turn up – not sure why as he would have found plenty of friends as well as debating partners. The point was both the large scale and small scale approaches were canvassed. The guy from the Worldwatch Institute seemed to push the small scale almost to the verge of despair – maybe the depressing stats had got to him and his fear for his children was driving his mood.
7. There was a very interesting presentation on ‘not for profit’ capitalism. Maybe its an oxymoron but it did make the point that there are a lot of good historical models which were successful so you cant really use Nimbin’s limitations to prove the rule that small is not viable.
8. It wasnt clear when the crunch will come – that will make this stuff academic flavor of the month in a way it hasnt been since the original LtG. But at a guess its looks like it might be described by a triangular distribution with limits of between 1 and 15 years.
@Mark Diesendorf
Since we have a genuine expert in the field commenting, can we have an opinion on the “fixed capital transformation” problem? This is my ideosyncratic term, but not my concept, and not to be confused with the the “transformation problem” in classical or Marxist economics.
By “fixed capital transformation” I mean the necessary and extensive process of phasing out all fossil fuel generating fixed capital and all equipment that uses or supports the fossil fuel economy, especially the fixed assets of infrastructure, tooling, equipment and fleets. I also include the process of building and phasing in the new fixed assets etc. for a renewable economy.
The changeover is a process where the old fossil fuel infrastructure must energetically drive the building of the new infrastructure until the new infrastructure reaches a critical mass where it can supply both the energy needed for all other industrial, commercial and residential demands and the energy for its own maintenance and growth.
If we could burn all fossil fuels safely, I don’t think there is any doubt that there is enough energy available for the changeover or bootstrap up, if you like, to a renewable economy. However, it is clear that we are going to have to deliberately strangle (or price out) the fossil fuel economy welll before this point if we are to avoid dangerous warming. Does this leave enough energy leeway to bootstrap the renewable economy? That is a key question I think.
I made the comment because I thought that hix had the area required at 357,000 sqklm, but I see now that is the total area of Germany and his 1 to 2 percent figure is more or less correct. Yes, of course there are spacing and facing issues.
Luke you need to look at this slightly differently:
1. Short of some Star Trek fantasy we are being faced with diverse limits to growth to the material status of global society. This has been known a long time to people with a biological sciences bent but the modern version is traceable to the late 60s/early 1970s aka Limits to Growth.
2. At that time economists dismissed this based on such ideas as the Jevon’s Paradox. And for a time that piece of empirical extrapolation seemed to work. But now here we are and original LtG crude models are looking increasingly pretty damn good.
3. But what to do? – What happenned earlier was the environmental movement splintered a bit like the People’s front of Judea v. the Judean People’s Front – so you got Deep Ecologists, Shallow Environmentalists, Technological cornucopians all pursuing different alternatives as best they could. Some successes are well known – Photovoltaics is one magic example but there are others like composting toilets and urine recycling which have moved from Hippy toys to serious technology.
You also has the socially oriented people like Ted Trainer pursuing the idea of alternative living – much harder nut to crack.
Unfortunately this idea development period is cast is a negative light by too much selective quoting without understanding of the context.
4. Since those halcyon days we appear to have moved from the theoretical to the real – i.e. climate change and out of control carbon emissions is reality, not just a projection of ‘what if China started seriously industrializing……what if we dont stop fishing for Arctic Cod’.
5. The overall issue is whether our ecological footprint is now so big we need to shrink extractive economic activity and replace it with less quantifiable but more pleasant ways of living? – The estimates (which are slightly rubbery, though not at an exponential scale) say – Yes – and so you get to this whole emerging debate/discussion of degrowth – which means degrowth of destructive resource gobbling economic activities – because it will certainly happen in the lifetime of children just born or more likely in the next 1-20 years (the numbers arent good enough to be sure) one way of another.
6. So change is inevitable – if nothing is done it will likely be through some kind of collapse where the energy and materials we can put in just to stand maintain the status quo are no longer sufficient and negative feedbacks kick in leading to a dystopia possible similar to various well known soaps like the hunger games.
Or we can try and do better via the middle road of change based on alternative sustainable technology. And/or we can try for societal change – which will happen in some form. Geoff says it nicely above I think.
In conclusion degrowth is coming one way or another – and its not just spin or millenial greenies. What the debate is about is how to do it equitably and without gross impoverishment while keeping some semblance of democracy and freedom at the same time. Its a big ask and is not guaranteed but its the only alternative on offer between delusional growth economics and the hard logic of the medium terms resource numbers.
@Ikonoclast
If you havent you might want to get a copy of Mark’s recent book.
Separately if you are interested in changeover problems this recent offering on the dreaded car may be of interest.
“Author: M. A. Delucchi, C. Yang, A. F. Burke, J. M. Ogden, K. Kurani, J. Kessler and D. Sperling
Year: 2014
Title: An assessment of electric vehicles: technology, infrastructure requirements, greenhouse-gas emissions, petroleum use, material use, lifetime cost, consumer acceptance and policy initiatives
Journal: Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences
Volume: 372
Issue: 2006
Date: January 13, 2014
Short Title: An assessment of electric vehicles: technology, infrastructure requirements, greenhouse-gas emissions, petroleum use, material use, lifetime cost, consumer acceptance and policy initiatives
DOI: 10.1098/rsta.2012.0325
Abstract: Concerns about climate change, urban air pollution and dependence on unstable and expensive supplies of foreign oil have led policy-makers and researchers to investigate alternatives to conventional petroleum-fuelled internal-combustion-engine vehicles in transportation. Because vehicles that get some or all of their power from an electric drivetrain can have low or even zero emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) and urban air pollutants, and can consume little or no petroleum, there is considerable interest in developing and evaluating advanced electric vehicles (EVs), including pure battery-electric vehicles, plug-in hybrid electric vehicles and hydrogen fuel-cell electric vehicles. To help researchers and policy-makers assess the potential of EVs to mitigate climate change and reduce petroleum use, this paper discusses the technology of EVs, the infrastructure needed for their development, impacts on emissions of GHGs, petroleum use, materials use, lifetime costs, consumer acceptance and policy considerations.”
The point here is people are thinking about it and tools are emerging to do the sums though how you would incorporate this into the market without jettisons ‘free markets’ beats me.
A particular problem in a world that is not globally coherent is the way carbon trading can be used to inhibit real change. In recent years the footprint of the US and UK has in fact gone down – by virtue of exporting emissions indirectly to China. But to do something about this would need to involve killing the evil TAP and TPP now in the offing.
@Newtownian
Newtonian in relation to your Point 7 ‘not for profit capitalism’ Guy Rundle has a very interesting book ‘A Revolution in the Making – 3D printing, robots and the future’. I’m wondering if any similarities. Any takers?
“Education Minister Christopher Pyne describes ANU decision to ditch mining company investments as ‘bizarre'” – ABC News.
What is really bizarre is Pyne’s and the government’s total lack of understanding of these issues. They are supposedly intelligent people but their wilfull ignorance on these issues knows no bounds. We can rank Pyne’s asinine comment right up there with Hockey’s comment about being offended by wind generators. I note that Hockey never said he was offended by the brown coal pit blaze and pollution at Morwell, Victoria.
This kind of highly simplistic, selective and distorted representation of a complex and crucial reality (AGW and fossil fuels) by these rank idiots in the LNP (no other term for them) makes my blood boil. I can’t let myself be knowingly within 5 kilometers of any of these pollies or I might do an “Andy Flowers” on them. I am not built like Andy Flowers but it could still get pretty ugly.
Correction: I meant Ben Flower, the rugby league player. I might be tempted do a “Ben Flower”. I would resist but it would take all my self control.
@Newtownian
I disagree with the idea that adjusting to environmental constraints–most importantly avoiding climate change–means degrowth of the form that Alexander trumpets (which is certainly not to say it doesn’t require very significant changes).
But the spin I’m criticising is the idea that Alexander’s degrowth would be the joyous experience he sells it as. For example, if Alexander really believes that to adjust to environmental constraints people will need to start living in sheds, tents and shipping containers, fine, but don’t try to sell it as ‘frugal abundance’. If we shouldn’t be optimistic about the prospects of technology or global political action to facilitate economic growth in the face of environmental constraints, as degrowthers assert, why should we be optimistic about the prospects for a near-subsistence economic future that is in any way less hellish than those of the past and present?
What Ikonoclast calls ‘the fixed capital transformation’ is currently the subject of research by several groups around the world, including some of us at UNSW. At this stage the following brief preliminary general comments are offered:
(1) If we phase out fossil fuel power stations and other fossil infrastructure and replace them with renewable energy and energy efficiency, the new infrastructure will require somewhat more materials than replacing the old fossil power stations etc with more of the same.
(2) Offsetting this is the fact that most of the energy efficient and renewable energy technologies of interest (e.g. solar PV, concentrated solar thermal and wind) have short energy payback periods (defined in terms of energy, not dollars) and so increasingly during the transition to a sustainable energy future the new technologies/infrastructure will be built with inputs from renewable energy.
(3) Since most of the renewable energy technologies can be mass-manufactured and hence installed very rapidly compared with coal or nuclear, the transition to renewable energy breeders could occur rapidly, given the political will and mobilisation of capital.
(4) Since there are no GHG emissions from most sustainable energy technologies during their operation, over their life-cycles they will emit much less GHG emissions, possibly one hundredth, compared with fossil fuels. (Large dams flooding dense vegetation are exceptions.)
(5) Sustainable energy also has less life-cycle emissions than nuclear, although not by such a huge factor as for fossil fuels. Taking account of the increasing inputs of fossil energy (diesel) needed to mine lower and lower grade uranium, and assuming that fast breeder reactors continue to fail to become commercial technologies, sustainable energy could soon have roughly a factor of 5-10 advantage over existing nuclear energy technologies in terms of life-cycle GHG emissions.
@peter
The person who presented was Jennifer Hinton. See http://postgrowth.org/learn/how-on-earth/
She seemed convincing but it would be good if John or another economist here could critique their models and ideas directly – constructively of course.
With our eyes wide open we have opted for reduced per capita energy use due to the combination of oil and gas depletion, population growth and lack of long term investment. Specifically
2015-2016 eastern Australia is expected to have shortages of reasonably priced gas
2016-2018 decline of US fracking will make Peak Oil blindingly obvious.
I also predict that Germany will still have nuclear power (currently 15% of their electricity) by the phaseout date of 2022.
Financial hardship aside I think as a bonus world emissions may follow the low RCP 2.6 scenario whereby land warming maxes out at 2.3C. We’ll drive less but as IEA predicts coal will still be our largest single source of electricity til 2050. This is somewhat more grimy than the nirvana some hope for.
A very interesting read. Degrowth in a specifically capitalist economy will happen as a function of ecological disruption to systems of production and distribution: heat waves, floods, mega-storms, water shortages and subsequent flow on effects for the human population will account for rapid degrowth. This will likely happen well before 2050. Alternative mixed economies based on co-operation will develop. Necessity will be the mother of invention as it was in Cuba after their loss of Soviet fuel and fertilizer subsidies. The organopónicos of Havana are making a fair fist of things.
In the meantime, state planned degrowth is an excellent idea but it needs to be coupled to social policies designed to sustain people during this period. A reasonable cost of living allowance would be sensible for those whe either choose to opt from from a capitalist economy or those who are simply unable to participate due to the absence of jobs and infrastructure.
In the meantime my own quarter acre block garden is seasonally highly productive. It doesn’t provide near enough for two people but it certainly takes the strain off the wallet and the wallet away from paying for the available cornucopia of goods air freighted into the country, an absurdity, that most people take for granted.
As to roof top solar: installation costs should be heavily subsidized as a matter of urgency. This could be better managed than the insulation scheme.
Work patterns will need to be reassessed. Summer heat will soon make it impossible to do outdoor work during extended and severe heat. The Spanish approach, midday shelter and nighttime work, may provide a solution.
The gist of what I’m getting at is the need for emergency measures and appropriate thinking. Klein’s austerity is the reality for many of the world’s poor. Most people in Australia on social security are already living in austerity, including me. I don’t have a problem with an austere economic life, far from it, it is a puzzle to solve and involves creative thinking and living. But austerity, one way or the other, which is to say voluntary or imposed by conditions, will be necessary.
@Hermit
The IEA has a bad track record with its long term predictions. Or am I confusing it with the US Energy Information Administration (EIA)? I know at least one of them (probably the EIA) had a woeful track record in denying peak conventional oil as a possibility right up until it happened.
I really do not think coal will be our largest source for generation of electricty in 2050. This completely defies current trends. There is no reason why thermal coal use cannot be zero by 2050. Solar power, wind power and a few others will cover this. The more difficult issue will be getting oil out of the economy, especially but not only in the transport sector.
Ikonoclast: “What is really bizarre is Pyne’s and the government’s total lack of understanding of these issues. They are supposedly intelligent people but their wilfull ignorance on these issues knows no bounds. We can rank Pyne’s asinine comment right up there with Hockey’s comment about being offended by wind generators. I note that Hockey never said he was offended by the brown coal pit blaze and pollution at Morwell, Victoria…..This kind of highly simplistic, selective and distorted representation of a complex and crucial reality (AGW and fossil fuels) by these rank idiots in the LNP (no other term for them) makes my blood boil.”
The point was made by Richard Denniss and several other speakers at the Addiction to Growth conference that these ‘idiots’ are actually highly intelligent and competent people with different principles from some of us. They would not have reached their positions of power if they were stupid. We should not underestimate them. When Hockey says he dislikes the distant view of wind turbines across Lake George, he is unlikely to be expressing a personal opinion. He is much more likely to be making a political statement, implicitly reassuring the fossil fuel industries and the big electricity generators that they can count on the Coalition to slow the growth of renewable energy.
It’s interesting reading the conclusions made by a cherry picking theoretician (honest enough to admit he knows nothing about gardening) whilst demolishing the argument for sustainable living made by another theoretician.
By all means play humourous games while the world we used to know has already ceased to exist, but if – at any stage – you feel you would like to see, touch, taste or grow something real, like sustainable food, come and visit.
Here in rural Wynnum (QLD 4178) three people have been living sustainably on 300 square metres of good soil.
Since 2003, I’ve been teaching a nation of gardeners, hiding in full view on television almost weekly, and weekly on talkback radio in Qld and NSW. I’ve shown German TV, Channel 7, Channel 9, the BBC’s Radio 4 how to use Australian technology to do it.
At Bellis, Brisbane’s award-winning, thrifty sustainable house and garden, one ten year old fruit tree pays my mortgage for a month, I’ve won a national Save Water Award and an award for the best technical television gardening segment.
If you want to get on the winning side, come and see my yams and I’ll make scones while I set you straight 🙂
Jerry Coleby-Williams Dip. Hort. (Kew), RHS, NEBSM, HMA
Mark Diesendorf,
“When Hockey says he dislikes the distant view of wind turbines across Lake George, he is unlikely to be expressing a personal opinion. He is much more likely to be making a political statement, implicitly reassuring the fossil fuel industries and the big electricity generators ”
The pressure being put on ANU after its announcement of some divestment in another example of this. Implicitly the politicians are not only responding to ANU but putting pressure on all the other universities and organisations such as churches that are considering divestment.
““I would suggest they’re removed from the reality of what is helping to drive the Australian economy and create more employment,” Hockey told the Australian Financial Review.
“Sometimes the view looks different from the lofty rooms of a university.”
Hockey is one of several politicians to publicly rebuke ANU over its fossil fuel divestment. The assistant infrastructure minister, Jamie Briggs, said he would write to the ANU vice-chancellor, Ian Young, to ask him to reconsider the blacklisting of coal seam gas company Santos.
“To publicly denigrate the reputation of one of South Australia’s finest companies is a disgrace,” Briggs said. “This seems to be taking green activism to a new level where it is damaging Australian companies and potentially job creation in the country.”
The South Australian premier, Jay Weatherill, said the divestment from Iluka Resources and Santos was “very strange”, while Queensland’s resources minister, Andrew Cripps, said the divestment was “narrow-minded and irresponsible”.”
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/oct/13/coalition-accused-of-bullying-anu-after-criticism-of-fossil-fuel-divestment
@Mark Diesendorf
I agree they are not “idiots” in the literal sense. They are, pretty much as you say, “highly intelligent and competent people with different principles from some of us.” Though, I would in quite a few cases dispute the “highly” part. At times also, too much intelligence like too much empathy is probably counter-productive in seeking power over others. You need to be just smart enough to fool the opponents and the public but not smart enough to ask yourself any certainty-distrubing questions or to become “unsound” in the eyes of your “tribe”.
What we are dealing with is the phenomenon which J.Q. sometimes calls “tribal loyalty” where intelligent people adhere to stupid principles, denialism and anti-science propaganda. It’s to do with our vulnerability to groupthink and social pressure. The problem is that our system is idiotic even if the people running it are not. My definition of “idiotic” in this context is a system trying to grow indefinitely in a finite space with finite resources (the biosphere); a system which is so maladaptive it threatens to destroy the sustaining benignness of the environment. I am sure you agree on these last points.
Our key problem is to ditch the intelligent people who buttress an idiotic system and find the intelligent people who will support an intelligent approach to these real issues. I will admit I really don’t know how we are going to do this. Our current two-party / one-ideology system of Tweedlelib and Tweedlelab is not going to deliver a solution.
I am waiting and on relying on a demonstration from nature. I believe we will need (unfortunately) a few of what I call “salutary disasters” which are unmistakably attributable to AGW and/or ecological overshoot. These disasters will, again unfortunately, have to affect millions (not necessarily fatally) in the developed world. That will be a paradigm changing moment or series of moments. Sadly, that is what I think it is going to take.
I can say these kind of uncomfortable and almost misanthropic things because I don’t have a professional reputation to be concerned about. I understand that others might be need to be more circumspect or they might be more genuinely hopeful about human nature than I am.
It’s all very well knowing theory. Someone in my household knows plenty of physics (7’s mostly as an undergrad, yet took a large weight off one end of a racked but unpinned (and unpinnable) barbell so that the light end flew up just missing his chin and the heavy end weights crashed to the mat just missing someone else’s toes. In the end, nature (via the inflexible laws of physics, biology and ecology) is going to have to slap us about the chops severely. Then we will take notice and do something.
From a public health perspective, can I just remind anyone who thinks we are currently living in the best of all possible worlds that we are going to have to “lose” – we’re not. We are too sedentary, too inactive, generally overweight, we eat too much junk and processed food, we’re often socially isolated and we are extremely unequal (bad for health, in case anyone has forgotten).
All the evidence suggests it would actually do us good to be more physically active, to walk more, to drive less, to watch less TV, to eat more fresh locally grown food, to reduce the amount of processed food and meat we eat, to get to know people in our local neighbourhoods, to share our resources and wealth more fairly.
A lot of this is a recipe for ‘de-growth’ as well, but it’s not a recipe for a worse life. There are a lot of reasons to ‘de-grow’, the issue is facing the need and working out how we do it with minimum pain.
@Jerry Coleby-Williams
Very interesting, I might have to visit Bellis on your next open day. I will remain incognito and one of the crowd. I have over 1 acre beyond my house footprint producing nothing at the moment but self-sown eucalypts, wattles and a few dry rainforest species. Okay, I get a lot of bunya nuts about once every 3 years from a tree I planted nearly 20 years ago now.
My block slopes over so that about 1/3 is north facing and 2/3 south facing. It is very rocky, barren and eroded. Such soil as there is hard-packed dirt, clay deeper down and lots of rocks on the surface and in the matrix. Don’t really know what I am going to do with it. I am 60 anyway, 2/3 over the hill like my block.
As a side note, would there be any benefit in trying to grow plantains instead of or as well as bananas? I see that plantains are the tenth most grown staple crop in the world. The Cubans grow a lot of them and they are eaten cooked for the starch content and not eaten raw as a sweet fruit like banana (as I am sure you know).
When I say “we” of course, I mean people in Australia in general – not necessarily everyone reading this!
@Ikonoclast
There’s a lot of edible indigenous plants you could grow (as well as Bunya nuts) in Queensland – maybe you should look into those.
Wattle seeds are something I’m extremely interested in as a potential staple food, but it’s hard to get much good information about them (The CSIRO used to do some of this, I wonder if they still do!). Although many experts seem to say that many species are ‘probably’ edible, they usually only say that a very limited number definitely are, and I don’t want to be a guinea pig!
@Val
I agree. When one starts to feel that food is an enemy there is clearly something dysfunctional going on. It’s not all down to personal volition. Endless temptation and endless opportunity in an over-producing, over-consuming culture has a long-term effect on people. The end of over-production and over-consumption will be a good thing.
@Jerry Coleby-Williams
Interesting claim which would seem to fly in the face of biomass production figured. It suggests we can feed 100 people per Ha, and hence the planet, on 70 000 km2 – i.e. Tasmania or more realistically the North Island of New Zealand. Is this so? Can a 10 X 10 m plot of land feed a person for year?
Ideally and assuming high yield kumera (sweet potato) you might presumably producing 300 to 800 kg/year/person which seems on the edge of plausability food energy wise.
But while food is critical there is more to sustainability which needs to address issues like the following:
– safe clean drinking water? – rainwater tanks are a partial solution but as Queensland and Australia knows drought can cripple supply beyond storage arrangements.
– sewage disposal? – are you connected to the mains? wastewater needs a lot of land to work locally and sustainably and spray/leach fields would use 100 m2 easily. And too often they dont work because of inappropriate soil. I remember the old 1/4 acre (1000 m2) blocks. They couldnt absorb the phosphorus so the streams became terrible polluted.
– education, health and many activities arising from the art of living in cities and labour specialization – how are such people to be catered for?
– tools for cultivation? – do you use a human pulled plough? Do you use metal implements? Do you use any petrol or electric powered tools needing major manufacturing infrastructure
– construction materials for house building replacement ? Do you have glass windows which periodically break (hail, cricket balls).
– weather satellites ? to warn up of bad weather/cyclones coming you need a space industry or an extensive monitoring network.
– clothing? – do you have a hemp farm and dye you own clothes using materials sourced in the 100 m2?
My point here is this – the food area needs are an encouraging and interesting tale for would be sustainability farmers – but this battle is not just about sustainable food its about a total ecological footprint and that is much greater and not so easily addressed – a fact sadly Ted doesnt seem to address well from what I’ve seen.
@Jerry Coleby-Williams
Oh you’re Jerry from Gardening Australia! Fabulous.
Can you tell us much of your own food you produce and what are your staples (if you have them)?
I had a quick browse of your website but it would be great if you shared more of your wisdom with the doubters here!
@ZM
This ANU stuff is fascinating and indeed confirms the indication that the coalition are not fools but fully recognise this is a greater challenge to their belief system that Marx.
But at the same time they are caught in a bind of their own making – capitalisms contradictions I guess.
They probably recognize the hidden power/danger in the 2+Trillion dollar superannuation funds propping up our rotten fossil fuel industries which could be exercised if people actually were to follow the exhortations to use their ‘free choice’ and leave the funds who are market hacks – or perhaps take control of these organizations and directly force change.
They also are in a bind here too as since 2008 people dont trust the finance industry as far as they can throw them. So the likelihood is people will increasingly opt out and invest overseas.
And if there is a crunch or a major ‘correction’ the trend will accelerate.
Interesting times indeed.
It just gets worse and worse – the Prime Minister seems to be like Elizabeth Bishops’s The Gentleman of Shallot who has a mirror down his middle and can’t decide which side of himself is real and which only a reflection
“The prime minister, who describes himself as a conservationist, said coal was vital to the world and that fossil fuel should not be demonised. “Coal is vital for the future energy needs of the world,” he said. “So let’s have no demonisation of coal. Coal is good for humanity.”
Abbott said the opening of the $4.2bn Caval Ridge coalmine in Moranbah, operated by BHP Mitsubishi Alliance (BMA), was “a great day for the world”. “The trajectory should be up and up and up in the years and decades to come,” Abbott said.
“The future for coal is bright and it is the responsibility for government to try to ensure that we are there making it easier for everyone wanting to have a go. “It is a great day for the world because this mine will keep so many people employed … it will make so many lives better. “This mine epitomises the have-a-go spirit,” he said.
In May, Abbott told a minerals industry parliamentary dinner he could think of “few things more damaging to our future” than leaving coal in the ground.
A month later, after a meeting with Barack Obama in June this year, Abbott said he took climate change very seriously. “I regard myself as a conservationist,” he said. “Frankly, we should rest lightly on the planet and I’m determined to ensure that we do our duty by the future here.”
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/tony-abbott-says-coal-is-good-for-humanity-while-opening-mine
@Val
The question is how to get a steady, balanced and sufficient diet from a 1/4 acre, 1/2 acre or 1 acre area (say). I guess Jerry Coleby-Williams can provide ideas on that. In my case I would have to do extensive work building up my soil somehow. If I used machinery (get in a ripper then tip trucks of mulch, sand, loam, dolomite etc) then consider all the fossil fuel energy (and money) I would use. Would I ever save that energy and money in not buying store vegies even in the long run?
If I do the work myself it will be almost back-breaking at 60. Consider also that I cook, clean, shop, wash and chaeuffer for a family of four adults (yes, I chaeuffer adults) and mow, trim, prune (1 and 1/2 acres) plus do much of my indoor and outdoor painting and handyman work on a wooden house with extensive decks and verandahs. But overall, I still don’t work as hard as a person going to full-time paid work, I admit that.
Another issue seldom canvassed in the bucolic self-sustaining scenario is pests and all the other problems. I have tried growing some food from time to time in beds I created by turning over rock hard soil with a garden fork, breaking it up, removing rocks by hand, adding mulch, chicken poo, dolomite and so on.
Tomatoes suffer wilt. Some of brassicaceae family (cabbages, broccoli, cauliflower get grubs. I admit turnips and radish are east to grow but does one want to live on them? I need lighter, loamier soil if I want to grow carrots… maybe in planter boxes. Lettuce are a pain in the **** to attempt to grow in our hot climate. You have to water daily or everything, not just lettuce wilts. Try that on water rationing when S.E. Qlds dams were nearly dry. Check out the cost of water tanks (which don’t acutally hold that much water compared to veggie garden watering needs.
Your corn looks good until those crows that are just high up specks in the sky notice that it will be ripe for humans in about another week and swoop down to tear it all to pieces. The possums and fruit bats notice your mangoes or bananas will be ripe in about 2 weeks and scamper or swoop in at night and destroy them.
On the other hand, you have a few weird victories. I put zucchinies into some of those unforgiving beds I mentioned but without all the mulch and fertilizers and leaving the rocks (being semi-fed up with veggie gardening by that stage) and lo and behold the most enormous and perfect zucchini plants and zucchinis. But the pumpkin vines failed to produce anything of note very possibly because of a pollination failure. I didn’t pollinate by hand and guess there were no bees around.
If you try to keep chickens you will likely very get wild bird problems and rat problems (from gain sacttered around) and also as is quite common carpet snake problems. If you don’t have a dog and a cat (we don’t really like domestic animals) then these pests all approach and set up shop with impunity.
I really do wonder how those advocates of the bucolic ease and wonder of food gardening in a sub-tropical climate deal with all this. Of yes, dont forget the storms that flatten your banana trees and the hail that mashes everything.
Oh yes, I have had every one of these events and pests where I live. I mean is it really easy and only easy if you have a horticultural degree, enormous knowledge and dedication and you atually love the whole process to bits? Just askin’.
@Ikonoclast
This is why some people are looking at NZ Northland despite the supervolcanoes and earthquakes.
No foxes and you can terminate possums with impunity. The worst pest is the pukeko (swamp hen). The rain is reliable. No snakes. The climate is temperate maritime. The soil is deep and fertile and clay – so mud bricks. There are few bugs.
@John Quiggin
I just went and re-read that Alexander article again (I had read it before but had forgotten). I read some of the comments (not all, there were nearly 500 of them, which shows how interested people are in the topic).
I am even more convinced, Prof Q, that your post is quite unfair, in spite of your claim. You took the discussion of the community garden as a main point of attack, but Alexander actually says in the comments that he didn’t choose the picture or write the caption, and that he thinks suburban community gardens are more about education and community building than food production.
(I actually get quite a lot of my food from my local community garden plus my own small plot at home, though I haven’t tried to quantify how much. A lot of it is leafy greens, but they are highly nutritious)
I also didn’t see anything in the article that said we have to choose between technology and local self-sufficiency. You apparently read it that way, but I’d be interested to know why, as it didn’t appear that way to me.
Many of us enjoy growing and making things. Ok, some people don’t, but those who don’t shouldn’t generalise their feelings to everyone. Also, it’s not necessarily a quick process to increase soil fertility, it may take a few years, but it’s not impossible. “Transition” to me means a process of change, not overnight change.
I used to have a quote from a Roman writer (maybe the Elder Cato, Varro, Vergil, Columella, Pliny the Elder or Palladius). He wrote in effect;
“A vegetable garden will never pay for itself unless it abuts the wall of an orchard. Then it will gain shelter from the wall and may be worked by the servants who work the orchard.” or words to that effect. It’s a bit interesting ancient wisdom about vegetable gardens.
You might track the quote down in;
The Private Life of the Romans by Harold Whetstone Johnston, Revised by Mary Johnston
Scott, Foresman and Company (1903, 1932)
Here are some interesting excerpts;
“Agriculture was the industry of early Italy. The great number of rural festivals in the calendar testifies to its dominating influence. The interests of the Romans of all times were agricultural rather than commercial. Agriculture was the proper business of the senatorial class. Writers of all periods looked back to the days when a Roman citizen-farmer tilled his own land with the help of a slave or two and when a dictator might be called from the plow.”
“An Ideal Farm. Cato discusses carefully the purchase of an estate (fundus). He thought that an ideal farm would lie at the foot of a hill facing south. (Northern hemisphere of course.) It was important to choose a healthful locality and make sure of the water supply. The soil should be good, rich, not too heavy. The land should not be too nearly level, for that made drainage difficult. The farm should be in a prosperous neighborhood near a good market town, and on a good road if not near a river or the sea. Cato advised buying a farm in good condition and with good buildings. There should be a local supply of labor to be hired for the harvest or other times of extra work. He recommends a farm of 240 i?gera, about 160 acres, suitable for diversified farming. Pliny the Younger, when discussing land which joined his, says “The farms are productive, the soil rich, the water supply good; they include pastures, vineyards, and timberland that gives a small but regular return.” He speaks of the saving in equipment, supervision, and skilled service gained by the concentration of holdings—a good concrete instance of the rise of the great estates (l?tifundia) as small-scale farming became less profitable. On the other hand, he says, to own much land in one neighborhood is to be exposed too much to the same climatic risks.”
@Ikonoclast
I’m sure Jerry Coleby-Williams would be much better placed to answer your question than me, but I know enough about permaculture (I think!) to say that you don’t have to rip up the soil. Hopefully someone who knows more can advise you.
Footnote: Actually, the second sentence of my first pithy quote (from memory) probably should read;
“Then it will gain shelter from the wall and may be worked by the slaves who work the orchard.”
Let us not forget that bucolic estate possession was predicated on slaves, serfs and peons before the advent of modern machinery and the “energy slaves” embodied in trucks of coal and barrels of oil.
@Ikonoclast
This is interesting as JQ’s post is turning into a gardening woes chat. My soil is basically shale with a thin overlay of accreted dust so I’v built garden beds with mushroom compost and straw bales using ‘no dig’ techniques. So far, only eighteen months in, all well. In the end there will be bigger and better raised beds once the soil has come back to life. Water is an issue, especially when the hot westerlies howl across the cleared cow paddocks at the back of the joint. It doesn’t matter how much water you apply, and there is a financial limit to that, the dry wind wilts everything. So, of late, while waiting for the shade trees to develop, at least five years away, the yard has sprouted a forest of recycled doors, as wind breaks, and scavenged shade cloth to minimise water demand in the hot months. I stay away from cabbages and their ilk, too many pests, but have had success with garlic, onions, spuds, pumpkin, asparagus, tomatoes, kale, silver beet, strawberries, corn, beans, snap peas and of course, the absolutely mighty zucchini! Don’t be afraid of weeds or chooks 🙂
For mine, gardeners and foodies are deep radicals.
@Val
I am sure Jerry has many answers. I don’t want to seem too negative. I let my sacrastic streak run away sometimes. I bet there are a 101 ways he could show me how I was working hard but not smart in my abortive attempts.
At the same time, I believe the domestic food garden will be a useful supplement not a full sustainer. In my case, “1 acre plus of stoney ground, with weeds and prickles girdled round,” (apologies to Coleridge) would need quite a bit of work to turn it into a permaculture type set-up. There is no reason then I could not get virtually all my veggies, fruit and much of my starch from it (after about 10 years work which would make me 70). Fruit trees and corn will need full nets for crow, fuitbat and possum protection. Quite a bit of hassle and expense there. However, what about protein? I really don’t want to become a small-scale chicken rancher and I doubt my zoning would permit more than 6 chooks.
Where would a self-sustaining vegetarian get their protein from I wonder?
@Jerry Coleby-Williams
Thanks for practical info, and for confirming that 100sq m is a good estimate of the minimum area needed to feed one person. That’s the number I used to do the calculation in the post.
I’m intrigued by your fruit tree, though of course I don’t know how big your mortgage is. Back in the day, you could pay annual rates or a small mortage with a backyard mango tree in Townsville, but those days are sadly gone.
@Ikonoclast
Well it is on topic as part of the discussion relates to local self-sufficiency and how easy or difficult that would be.
oops that was meant as a reply to jungney.
And to be clear, “degrowth” can mean all sorts of things, some of which I support and some not. This post is only about the version being pushed by Ted Trainer and the Simplicity Institute.
@John Quiggin
100 sq m (10m by 10m) is a scarily small area to feed a person over the year even at industrial monoculture production rates. Is it really right? Does it factor in crop failure years, pest losses and so on?
We could say in round numbers that cereal crop yield per hectare is 5,200 kg for the OECD average. Actually, it’s a touch higher but that will do. A hectare = 10,000 sq. m. so 100 sq. m. would produce 52 kg of hard cereal, dry grain. Can a person live on 1 kg of hard grain (cooked) for a week? Be interesting to try it. Maybe I should try living on 2kg of brown rice (cooked) alone for a fortnight. Maybe some wish I would. 😉
I just had a look at the JCW set up. http://jerry-coleby-williams.net/bellis/vision-to-reality/
I doubt whether this is what Ted has in mind. In fact it looks much closer to the typical sustainable house idea that has been around for a long time.
Some important features of note:
– its worth having a look at the wastewater system – its pretty high tech in fact. There is lots of plastic and piping needing high energy and technology inputs. This is a long way from subsistence technology. It doesnt even use urine diversion system as far as I can tell.
– the solar system, which probably wouldnt work in Melbourne because of geographical differences, uses the grid as its effective source and storage which means for the moment they are tied into big energy. This was a good idea but its becoming more unviable as the coalition interferes with the REC and various other subsidies. Batteries may be on the way but they are not here yet economically though there appears lots of room under the house for something like you would see in Nimbin.
– such a house is out of most young people’s price range I’d guess given its proximity to Brisbane (its in the burbs). Beats me how we get over that one.
– I could not find any figures on productivity of various crops especially staples so I really do wonder about the reported productivity of the land.
– Its evident from the other descriptions of materials used in the setup like high efficiency devices that this is even more high (appropriate) tech of the kind requiring if not a profligate income – then a high one relative to other parts of the world.
In a word – Jerry’s place looks like a very good demonstration and experimental site and educational resource for appropriate technology and gardening. There is definitely a place for such facilities now to spread sustainability concepts. I say this happily as I’m trying to do similar things at my own place.
But this is still far from a massive societal transformation model if you do an ecological footprint or an LCA. And I think the latter lies at the heart of JQ’s concerns about Ted Trainer and the simplicity movement. Its unclear whether full sustainability can really add up yet on a global scale beyond the well resourced burbs of Oz.
@Ronald Brak
Who is proposing that solar generation be restricted to existing roofs ???????
Renewables cannot be restricted like this, particularly if the population increases. It does not even come close to addressing my concerns I raised near the top of the thread.
While we can expect that future developments will improve solar panel efficiency to over 50%, (see for example:
http://phys.org/news/2014-10-hybrid-materials-solar-efficiency-ceiling.html#jCp),
this may not be relevant in the long run due to population doubling.
Also, you gave 4 figures – 33, 40, 200+, 6 – with no source.
You were asked for the data. It is possible to skew data if no source is provided.
If these numbers exist (other than with you) then where?
How does proposing solar at 40 watts per square metre fit in with my issue at the earlier point 2)?
How do you run a supermarket, or office tower or factory or a truck or car, based on your solar on existing roofs?
@John Quiggin
JQ: I took the time to read your links to Teds stuff; he’s still banging the same old drum although I must say that his property is fairly well run. The point is that unless the state supports Ted’s vision of how life can be, utopian for some but dystopian for many, then it won’t grow legs. It does have legs at the moment, but Corgi style, no distance in them. I didn’t know what a negative role he has been playing in relation to renewables. Still, that’s your old fashioned Stalinite, right there, committed to a vision no matter what the cost of reshaping the world to fit that vision.
Let me express my gratitude for your blog. Don’t stop. It’s is obviously very important as a conversation among people who are still capable of shaping the future.
@Ikonoclast
Ikonoclast, one is more likely to average around 1,700 kg of cereal grains per hectare in Australia. However this is very dependant on water availability, weather, and other conditions. Technically soil quality can affect cereal production, but apart from a few limited areas we don’t really have any. About half a kilo of grain a day is sufficient to keep a person alive until they die. Which may not be long on account of various nutritional deficiencies that are likely to occur if that’s all they eat.
In reply to the last 2 entries. Jerry Coleby was probably not claiming total self-sustainability outside of food. His setup (which I have not looked at closely yet) is part way to self-sustainability without necessarily proclaiming it will or needing to get all the way there. If every household made half the energy it used and saved / recycled half the water it used this would make an enormous difference to what needed to provided by centralised infrastructure.
If ALL roofs were solar panelled to the gills or rather to the gutters we would easily make enough electrical power for all the nation’s fixed residential and fixed commercial needs. Industrial electrical power and transport power might well be another issue. Suburban shopping centre and car parks have a very large footprint. Cover the building(s) with solar roofs and the car parks with solar-panelled covered parking (to help power the shops and the sometimes re-charge the cars) and it would cover needs easily. It would even cover refrigeration and air-con. Sure, energy storage for nights is an issue but this is eminently solvable with molten salt storage heat tanks. They can be under-ground bunkered in a park or reserve. It’s really not that hard in an engineering or financial sense. If we faced war conditions we would have undergound bunkers everywhere. This is a war or soon will be: “The War Against Dangerous Climate Change”. Once the elites coem round to realising this issue will take them out too you will be amazed by what suddenly becomes possible.
@Ivor
Ivor, did you look at a rooftop solar system like I suggested? Do you agree with me that it doesn’t take land out of use and so requires less land than coal power? Possibly even infinity times less land?
@ZM
This has to be one of the most frustrating articles. as discussed further up-thread, our PM is not an idiot, but damn it to heck, he sure is good at playing one.