Offer Reiterated

I know that "net energy" is not on very many radar screens.  But if one can
understand the concept, then one can get a pretty good idea of why present
forms of government will not survive the next 50 years.  Cities that require
huge energy subsidies simply to be habitable for humans (e.g., Los Vegas,
Phoenix) will be largely abandoned.  Likewise, cities requiring long supply
lines of water and food (e.g., Los Angeles) and/or in very cold areas must
also be largely abandoned.

Social "collapse" is defined as the rapid transformation to a lower degree
of complexity, typically involving significantly less energy consumption.
 see  COMPLEXITY, PROBLEM SOLVING, AND SUSTAINABLE SOCIETIES, by Joseph A.
Tainter, 1996; http://dieoff.com/page134.htm ]

Societies "collapse" when they become too complex for their energy base.
Thus, the collapse of capitalism is inevitable because capitalism must grow
to survive -- must become more-and-more complex and consume more-and-more
energy.

The only political writer I have read who understands the situation is
William Ophuls.  I believe his best work is ECOLOGY AND THE POLITICS OF
SCARCITY REVISITED; Ophuls, 1992.  Unfortunately, this book is now out of
print.

I think I have done a pretty good job of explaining our "net energy" crisis
in simple English -- using nontechincal terms (no math) -- in the latest
ENERGY Magazine.  I provide a summary of the most-frequently proposed
alternatives and explain why we can not solve the "net energy" problem. (I
will FAX a copy of this article to anyone who asks.)

It boils-down to two issues:

#1. Even if one assumes that fossil fuels could be replaced by renewables
(which I don't), then we would still have to divert present "net energy"
from other areas of the economy into future energy production.  A "market
economy" (government by competing moneyed interests) has no way of
accomplishing this.

Gever et al., has calculated that if we wait for market signals before
embarking on a crash renewables program, then the "net energy" available for
non-power production sectors of the economy will fall to 30 per cent of
present values before starting to rise again.  See a graph at
http://dieoff.com/page143.htm

#2. But I have looked at all alternatives, and even if one assumes the ideal
political context (central economic planning) -- and no more babies --
nothing renewable can produce enough "net energy" to power today's
capitalism -- let alone, ongoing economic growth of, say, 2 per cent per
year.

I am pressed for time.  If anyone would like to ask questions on-list,
please ask them now as I am going to unsubscribe soon.  Of course, you can
always contact me privately and I will help you if I can.

Jay -- www.dieoff.org