Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Gibberish. If you want to show that lower energy consumption leads to bad outcomes you need to show the causality. Showing that civil wars, embargos, and austerity tend to educe energy consumption is an utter trivial result that tells us nothing. The idea that Venezuela's problem have anything at all to do with renewables is riseable. And look at the plot he has for Syria: according to him energy consumption per capita remained high, though stagnating until the country collapsed into war. None of his first 5 examples are connected to his central thesis in any way. I stopped reading after that.
If you want to look at societies that had to adapt to lower energy consumption I suggest Cuba and North Korea after the USSR's collapse.

But I want to comment on your first quote, because it is nonesense in an interesting way. Doing things takes more energy than not doing things. Which tells you very little about whethter they will be done or not.
The radio warnerd podcast is currently doing a mini series about the 100 year war, which is very much relevant here:
It happens around the beginning of the Little Ice Age, following a period of several hundred years of population expansion and no major famine in western Europe. So this is one example of societies having to adapt to a general decline in available resources. They did so poorly, and then the plague arrived. Now, England had a parliament and France didn't. Yet, as it turned out, the parliamentary system helped them to act much more uniformly than the much richer and highly populated France.

by generic on Sun Apr 14th, 2019 at 07:29:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Others have rated this comment as follows:


Occasional Series