There is a fascinating press release out of California (where else) that is headlined: “Arresting new think tank study concludes: No combination of alternative energy systems can replace fossil fuels”. 

While there are many people in the utility industry who will generally agree with that statement, most of us—even those who, like me, think the environmental movement is running amok in Washington and the Global Warming movement is mostly bunk—aren’t quite ready to go that far.  While I would mostly agree with the statement, I would put a qualifier on it: At least not within the next two or three decades.

With continued research and development on making our electrical usage more efficient and effective (smart grid/intelligent utility), with a revival of nuclear power and a gradual integration of distributed generation, including renewables, it is likely that civilization can be maintained at a reasonable level.  But the authors of this study, who come out of the Post Carbon Institute, Sebastopol, CA, and the International Forum on Globalization, San Francisco, conclude, among other things:

·        “As the world’s higher-quality fossil fuel reserves rapidly deplete, no combination of alternative energy sources is likely to be sufficient to sustain industrial society at its present scale.  Energy supply problems, perhaps severe, are likely during the coming decade, worsening as primary fuels become scarce and costly.

·        Fossil fuels and high-quality uranium ores are depleting rapidly; world oil production may already have peaked.  Present expectations for new technological replacements are probably overly optimistic with regard to ecological sustainability, potential scale of development and levels of “net energy gain”.

·        Limits to future energy supply are more dramatic if environmental impacts are considered—including accelerating climate change, fresh water scarcity, destruction of food-growing lands, shortage of minerals, and threats to wildlife habitat.

·        These factors must all be taken very seriously by policy makers in all countries and by global institutions that have thus far failed to be realistic about what will be required to avoid future social and economic breakdowns and geopolitical crises, as countries and peoples compete for dwindling energy resources, raw materials and agricultural space.  While it is not yet too late to change course, the opportunities to avoid catastrophic economic, environmental, social and political impacts are few and quickly dwindling.”

I could go on quoting, but you probably get the idea—apocalyptic stuff, this study.  And what are the authors’ solutions?  Well, they include:

·        “Given the above, it is necessary to prepare societies for dramatic shifts in consumption and lifestyle expectations.

·        …attention will need to be paid to stabilizing and reducing population levels over the long term.”

In other words, there will have to be fewer human beings—they interfere too much with a “more resilient, equitable, and sustainable world.”  I’m sure these eminent professors of these self-described “California-based environmental/economic think tanks” will be glad to pick and choose which human beings are deserving of continuing to live or breed, at greatly reduced levels, of course.  We mustn’t be so numerous as to disturb the snail darters and other endangered species.

Those of us who prefer not to be eliminated can move into caves when the lights start going out.  The goal of “think tanks” like these seems to move us back those glorious, pleasant pre-industrial ages (remember feudalism) to, as they call it in their study: “economies based on localism, especially for essential needs such as food and energy.”

In other words, grow your own food and light your own cave (but don't burn any trees to do it, that's harming nature!).  Where do these people come from—perhaps one of the "institutes" being located in "Sebastopol" is a hint?  Did someone miss the "v" as well as the collapse of the Soviet Union?