Wonderful podcast, Nate. I agree with Mr. Grantham. You are doing a great service to the world. I have learned so much that is helping me create a regenerative soil presentation that covers the many challenges we are facing and how regenerating our soil, as well as our communities will change our future. Thanks so much. I plan on hearing your 300th podcast and beyond.
"We have created a world that is hostile to life", this wise man said. That is the best summation of our current predicament that I have ever heard. It is everywhere all around us yet our global decision-makers either ignore it, deny it, capitalize on it, or obfuscate the reality to their own financial or political advantage. It truly feels like the wealthy and powerful few who have the resources to make a difference are so intoxicated with their own privilege that they have abandoned their own rational faculties. To the detriment of all.
Part and parcel of molochian natural dynamics within the source code of nature. Why should they care, they are hard deterministically in their position and the suffering, pain and misery as a result is well cosmically an illusion as the universe is indifferent to all life so why care?, none of it can ever change as its hard baked into the source code of nature itself that has self-selected that outcome indifferently.
Yes, and we are all guilty, on various levels, and degrees, by virtue of being human. Except for an exceptional minority. I'm not one of them......this in reference to your quote.
@@dermotmeuchner2416 You may be correct. It's a debate thats been going on for centuries. Many scientists now think we have no true free will. I'm inclined to agree.
I've listened to many interviews with Mr. Grantham, and this is by far the most in-depth, compelling, detailed and insightful so far. I'm middle aged, no kids. Since I was a pre-teen, I sensed that humanity was turning this planet inhospitable. This conversation at once confirmed my concerns and informed them with actual data, and provided a certain measure of hope. Thank you both and I look forward to the next 300+ interviews.
As a young woman I assessed if motherhood would be wise. I learned in the 1970s that the world would begin to run out of water by the 2000. I made my decision to pass on child bearing. Yes, TGS is now my favorite channel.
Your Jeremy Grantham interview might be the best ever of him anywhere, and it proves that he is much more than just a grumpy Cassandra for impending meltdowns. If the other "Finance Bros" had a scintilla of his depth and empathy, the world would be in much better shape.
He's talking about robbing Peter (the living planet) as he did, to pay bunches of Pauls (himself included - immensely) to eventually get around to paying Peter back. Does the balance sheet end up with Peter in the clear, even with the best of intentions? I highly doubt it.
the carbon tax is being talked about by these guys as if its eventually going to be politically viable: there is zero chance of that, blocked by the fossil fuel lobby since the 90s in every country including China. Plus the fossil fuel boys get trillions in fossil fuel subsidies and tax credits from governments, including the US, see IMF.
Its interesting to me how all the arguments around resource depletion, and economic bubbles, and complexity bubbles, revolves around an unquestionable assumption. That is: how can we all continue to live our type of high consumption life in the face of a rapidly approaching seneca cliff in many pillars of our industrial society. Its as if we can't see that human beings don't need to live a high consumption life in order to be happy, healthy, and connected to a community. In fact, just about all lifestyles in the past consumed no fossil fuel, yet they were able to live healthy, happy lives. In many ways the native Americans lived healthier, happier, more spiritually satisfying lives than we do, and they had no debt, no metal tools, or even horses. They didn't have hot showes, but they adjusted. Why is it so difficult to concieve of a non-industrial or at leadt limited industrial based society where production of most things is done locally. Our ancestors lived this way, yet its inconceivable to even consider. "Its too hard" many would say, but I guess those people have never been homeless. Living in a house without automatic heating and running water is far superior to living in a tent under a bridge. The bottom line is, the days of our high consumption, just in time, lifestyle are numbered. If we don't pick a new, low cost, low consumption lifestyle, then karma will pick one for us, and it will likely be very unpleasant.
Using the same material and labor we could expand the lifecycle of products ten fold. If we quit following fashion we could add another ten fold savings. we could cut out wasteful packaging. Open lending libraries for tools, and other specialty. Lifestyle need not suffer. Learn to cook from scratch. Grow a garden. Let your lawn go to weeds. Recognize that golf isn't a game but a mental disorder....
Remove all oil related products from your life, see how difficult that is, try it yourself, it's fairly difficult. No oil based paint, no synthetic fibres, no plastics, you aren't going to have a lot left. 50% of people are alive because of fossil fuel produced fertilisers. I don't think there is a problem with providing people shelter, basic food and medical care, free and them not work, it's relatively easy living and emissions would be way down if they didn't have a way too over consume with all that time off, but then you have broken the whole economic system. If new debt doesn't get entered into with home loans etc then nobody gets any pay rises, personally I'm fine with that too. We are born into a monetary system that controls the schooling system so we become good employees, so we can get into debt making others billions, that we pay with our lives. We are taxed another 50% of our lives while we think we have freedom..
@@antonyjh1234 Thanks for the reply. I have reduced my use of oil based products by a lot. I live in an off grid cabin. I heat with my own wood, I rarely buy new industrially made things and buy used as much as possible. My ecological footprint is less than 20% of the avg north American. I buy food in bulk and make my meals from scratch. I also grow more and more of my food each year. Because I built my home on a shoestring and put up with discomfort for a while, (I lived in a tent on my land for 6months), I don't have any debt. The interesting thing is, my expenses are now less than 20% of what they were when I was in the rat race so I now only have to work 10hours a month for money. My life is much better in almost all ways. The bottom line is, life is way better when you move away from the fossil fuel based industrial economy and move towards a life where you can do more with less.
Sure but the fossil based economy is what provided you the access to your off grid cabin. Without it you wouldn't have got what you have and it's not a post fossil fuel option for the majority of people and if they drive more, are they really less of a footprint..? I used on average 4.07kwh of electrical energy during the July to Sept quarter, that's winter in Australia and where I am it's been comfortable and I can walk to three supermarkets easily, one major hardware store and two different shopping centres with banks etc. Now, In a gallon of diesel there is 40.12kw's and in a litre 10.6kw's, so a gallon of diesel roughly has the same amount of energy as ten days of my electrical energy, I can stay home in the comfort of a city, with hot and cold running water, a toilet that flushs away, when I have the air con going 24/7 like I do now summer has started it's still less than a litre of diesel a day, If you don't drive then sure but ten days of somebody living in a city, with a fridge running, a tv running every day, a computer, all of that is equal to one gallon that you might need if you live off grid. I have cut my driving down dramatically but for you to say you have moved away from the fossil fuel based industrial economy I think is incorrect, I would say your life depends on it as much as anybody else. My point is life can be very cheap, in cost and energy wise, while living in a city, I wonder though if you are putting price as your indicator instead of the value of the energy your lifestyle emits, wood is still energy, just because it's cheap doesn't negate the affect. @@braeburn2333
Excellent in depth interview. Very impressive work, Nate. I appreciate the variety of guests and informed points of view as well as the quality of the conversations. A light of sobriety in the dark ocean of frivolity.
A brilliant interview - an epic journey - a delightful man. His words of wisdom at the end regarding purpose were spot on! And, Yes...1 billion + 1900s life-style consumption level.
This was a really cool episode, especially because the PoV was a little different than usually. So many intellectual environments become a little too bubble-like despite no one being at fault as likeminded people obviously come together.
The beginning of Jeremy’s answer to the very first question provides a vital insight. The way that the world is set up rewards narrow, instrumental thinking, and not, generally, the more expansive perspective of which he speaks. Until that changes, we’re in trouble.
American/Western society focuses workers and individuals on being good at one or a very few things. Having more Jack of All Trades (or more freedom of thought) allows for better arrays of perspective and would reduce tunnel vision and nurture innovation, which the global predictament desperately needs.
To paraphrase this conversation a wee bit, I would say that it is obvious that the "well-to-do" have been "circling the wagons" around their own privilege for decades. They have been aided and abetted by a government which extolls the virtues of democracy and claims to be a nation that is "OF, FOR and BY the People", yet does the diametric opposite. The herd-like passivity of the American citizenry must be one of their proudest accomplishments.
I often wonder if democracy was ever a real thing or just a mirage to make us feel like we have a modicum of control. Athens was just as warlike as Sparta after all.
@@DavidMarcotte-xx1nw Mirage. Read The Tragedy of Industrial Civilization by William Ophuls, who Nate interviewed around a month ago. He skewers mass democracy completely.
People are products of their surroundings. You probably don't give a second thought to filling up your car with a fuel that foreign families lives have been destroyed over. It's not an attack, just a realisation that what we call normal, or well to do, is a subjective term.
Every now again I come across a treasure that enlightens and inspires. This is a real example. Thank you Nate & Jeremy a 2 hour gem that I will share widely 💎🌍🙏
This was an awesome episode, it really made a difference to me! Nate you are incredibly talented in bringing core issues to the table in a way that doesn’t shirk the hard stuff. Please keep going, technology and attitudes change, sometimes quickly 🌈🙏
One of the main reasons the birth-rate is falling in many countries, and especially in Asian countries is because it's too expensive for young people to have kids. Education is very expensive and kids are sent to kindy as soon as they can crawl, then they're in education , perhaps well into their 20s. If a young person can barely afford to rent a place, let alone buy one, you don't seriously think they'll be thinking about having kids. Many are stuck at home living with their parents - little to do with a toxic environment.
IMO, this is a solvable problem, if and when society decides to put a priority on it. Undoing chemically induced infertility seems like a harder problem.
So you really don’t think that rising inequality driven by techno neoliberalism and older generations sequestering fossil energy wealth isn’t a problem ? You need to think things through a bit more. BTW I agree with Nate 100% , his guest, not so much.
@@barry28907 "solvable problem" you say. Not if you are one of the young people struggling to make it in intensely competitive asian society which require 996 work week or working three jobs at same time just to get by.
I have been following Mr Grantham for more than 15 years. Huge fan of his work and thinking. I am quite disappointed by some of his comments (and omissions) in this conversation though: -Massive amount of global debt has no impact / is not a problem. No clear explanation of why that’s the case ? No appetite to educate you Nate or the viewers on the subject. -No discussion about the recent issues with offshore wind, for which Jeremy has been an advocate for many years. -No mention on the potential role of Nuclear in greening the economy -Share buybacks are toxic and should be banned while dividends are fine.. Cliff Asness would go mental there.. -Praising the US venture space while criticizing US capitalism. American capitalism is far from perfect but isn't it the main reason for the US attracting so much talent and doing so well in innovation/technology ? -what would you do with a magic wand: “have the global population become 1 billion”... So basically getting rid of 7 billion of the least productive/ingenious/relevant people in the world? Worth a watch anyway ! And thank you very much Nate for the amazing work you are doing with your podcast ! 1000 episodes is within reach :)
Hi Nate. It would be great if you could interview David Wengrow, the co-author of "The dawn of everything" along with the late David Graeber. There is an underlying teleological notion of human history that really holds us back.
What is the "underlying teleological notion"? "Progress" is used to describe the changes in human organization....from cave man to city dweller. But what are we "progressing" toward?.......very large scale transformers of the earth's crust, who are also working on turning over their duties to the silicon-centered (not carbon-centered) AI?
@@johndavis2399 We have 'progressed' towards the evolutionary imperative of occupying all available habitat. Abundant energy has allowed us to reach our current population. For all our vaunted cleverness and reasoning, our collective actions are behavioral.
@@johndavis2399I think we are progressing towards ecological collapse. What I mean with underlying teleological notion is seeing the present as Destiny and everything that happened before as a path toward that Destiny.
Wow!! Incredible podcast. Just amazing information and perspective. And unlike alot of podcasters, Nate adds so much and even pushes back. Love the dissection of american "capitalism" and the degradation of the social contract. Indictment of financial sector (hedge funds, PE firms) and the lack of value they create is so underappreciated and undiscussed. And causes of wealth gap and inequality. It is amazing to hear a rich guy talk about this stuff! And knows about glyphosate and other chemicals and cares. Love this discussion. at about 2 hours, finally says he is optimistic! Best podcast all year.
It's great that Mr Grantham acknowledge part of our predicament, we need more of that. However, I don't believe on any of his solutions. Geothermals means going on the Mordor path. AI? Enlightened government? HAHAHA! Saving ourselves through our ingeniosity? Adding yet more complexity? We don't need green venture capital or philantropy, we need to SCALE DOWN, small is beautiful! Nice pushback on the subject of Debt Nate!
I know a simple way to make corporations act responsibility. License all upper management in the same way engineers or doctors are licensed. If the company breaks laws, or acts unethically then the managers (CEO, CFO etc) will lose their license and career. This would protect shareholders too. You might call it the shareholder protection act.
@@chookbuffy Yes, very true. Thanks for the reply. I got this idea after listening to plumbers over the years. If you ask a plumber to violate the codes, they will yell at you:"I can't do THAT, I would lose my plumbing license. ". I thought to myself, I wish politicians and corporate executives would stick to the law (especially the constitution) the way plumbers stick to plumbing codes.
Good idea though despite my snark remark Basically we need new corporate governance. Whilst my own shop/farm business is very small we are looking to form a collective with other like minded businesses around us. How we can fight the system (and not each other) will be the test
Or it would kinda be like it is now with licenses where it just becomes a good ol boy club and the people they like get licenses and the people they don't like don't.
I think most people have no choice but to just survive and play along in the only game they're handed financially and so this seems to all rest on the morals and selfishlessness of the rich to want to make change with THEIR money for the sake of others. Jeremy himself said that he only serves HIS family and friends and he is one of only a handful of billionaires willing to contribute anything at all. I just don't see any change for the better on the horizon until the playing field is somehow leveled to the point that money itself plays no role. Can we all agree that we've passed the point of realization that money itself absolutely needs to be scrutinized as literally "the root of all evil" rather than the idol of self "success"? Society worships the very people who through their lifestyle do the most damage across the board to earth and ALL of it's inhabitants.
FIAT CURRENCY is the "root of all evil" 👇Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money www.fgmr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Howard-Buffett-explains-sound-money-4-May-1948.pdf
Eisenhower had a 91% income marginal tax rate on the wealthy. Pretty sure Eisenhower isn't fingered as a commie by the fascist right wingers. But using the tax money of the rich to fund the military is totally different than funding tree-huggers.
I disagree that a carbon tax is necessary. I think rationing is better. Why? Because the rich can pay the tax and continue to consume, while the poor can't pay the tax unless the Gov. gives them some sort of UBI so they have more money. I'm not sure how rationing would impact the production part of the system, though. Rationing makes all the money of the billionaires useless. Dr. Steve Keen got there a year before me.
You think the rich, the ones whom make the rules, are going to enact policies that level them to us repulsive peasants? Absolutely no chance. They’ve mastered propaganda, and the vast majority don’t care enough about science/our global predicament to care enough anyway. Everyone has their own interests/struggles, and with such a plethora of short form media to consume it’s extremely difficult to blame them in being misled) to research what actual scientists are showing us. People sometimes ask if you think we are heading towards ‘1984’ or ‘brave new world’, my answer to that now is we’re living in the brave new world(ish) atm, but are heading towards 1984. Explanation: everyones so easily led by their social media, fascism seems to be the narrative the media owners (and their elite circles) are trying to indoctrinate the masses with currently. We’re in a post truth era already. Rapidly worsening. Double speak and trickery when answering questions, intentionally misleading followers with no recourse when caught. The slippery slope is getting slippier and steeper at an alarming rate. Tech is getting to near indistinguishable levels of realism with cgi, faking any human say what they want. I’ve noticed an uptick in old videos/photos used to push a narrative in supposedly current events. Everything is moving so fast that when these agencies are called out, nobody cares because it’s so rampant and nothing gets done anyway, why bother? Or the agency caught us in line with their personal ideology so they think the people highlighting the trickery is fake news/the enemy. Had a couple beers, probably completely wrong and rambly, just fancied venting.
You are correct that rationing based on need is proven better by history. We didn't tax compliance during the second world war we simply rationed the limited supply based on need. We did this because the government knew rationing based on wealth would cause political backlash to the war they couldn't afford. The same is true with the current crisis. But this guy is a member of the wealthy class that wants to keep it a wealth based system which works for him and his class.
I agree there is no point in taxation because it always goes back to the rich in different subsidies. We should end all subsidies and start letting the free market rule
1:19:49 This is the critical foundation to any form of non-authoritarian community, peolpe who act with awareness, respect and honor do not need countless rules and punishment to enforce decent behaviour. I try to not unncessarily make someone elses time on this planet worse primarily out of self respect because i need to be able to look myself in the eye in the mirror
I like what you said but perhaps an amendment is now becoming necessary. To be a good human has often been defined by how we treat other humans. It is gross hypocrisy to not include all beings and the environment that supports them. By that standard all, absolutely all modern consuming humans have no possibility of not failing that mirror test.
Nate can I suggest that you host a person called Sheldon Solomon? He's an experimental existential psychologist. His thinking has strong intersectionality with human induced climate change. Consumption, having to always be the best at everything, constantly having to achieve and all of this as we become more isolated, more mentally and physically unwell, more unhappy. Mindless meat puppets he calls us :). I think he speaks to the very reason we can't turn this around. He would make an amazing guest in your podcast !!!!!
Grantham presents as a warm hearted humanist grampa figure, but that malthusian side of him was pretty eye opening to me. Really enjoyed the interview Nate, have listened to it several times commuting.
Amazing discussion. So much to unpack from what was said. Please do a 10 part series on that whole "getting the population down to 1-to-2.5 billion" thing... It's looking more and more like a managed nightmare in our world and on the planet. Crisis cults are everywhere and it seems like flames are being fanned from all directions. Please don't stop, Nate!
Wow! Yet another AMAZING talk. Stretched my mind, made me smile, inspired me. And I suspect the same was felt by NH? 1,000 TGS episodes, you can do it! And we are here with you on the journey. Thank you for celebrating purpose and keeping me inspired!
Thanks for this Nate and Jeremy - lots of juice in this one. I am a retired architect , having spen the latter 20 years in green building and teaching part time. I became aware of the emerging field of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and believe it to be a very powerful tool to help us tread more softly on mother earth. I hope you will consider interviewing some of the experts in this field to examine the LCA landscape.
I agree. This is one of the essential tools that is missing from public discourse on the poly crisis. LCA includes environmental, social and economic considerations. People are talking about Photovoltaics as a major part of the solution. One recent report here concluded that Rooftop Solar could produce 245TWh here in Australia. That would require 500,000,000 Solar PVS panels generating at full capacity for 14% of the year and would require massive storage, if it is assumed that each PV is rated at 350W. The problem with this idea is that PVs have a life of 25 tears and that would require the replacing of 20 million PVs each year ad infinitum. A LCA ON Solar PVs would have to work out the full environmental impact of disposing of 20,000,000 Solar PVs per year and that is just for Australia. THIS IS SIMPLY ENVIRONMENTAL VANDALISM THAT WILL NOT SOLVE OUR PROBKEMD. IT WILL MAKE THEM WORSE.
Nate and Jeremy, thank you for an incredible discussion on such a huge variety of topics, especially the observation about the impact of the extraction and usage of resources not built in to the cost. Like the cost of disposing off the waste from fossil fuels, computers, cell phones or cars not being built into the price of the car. Of course, the biggest problem with this is that we would take that money and just blow it up on something else. Maybe approaching it in a psychological way might help. We all seem to love competition. The current competition is on how to increase per capita consumption worldwide. If we can change this to per capita usage of resources efficiently, then we might get somewhere. For example, over 95% of the energy of most car rides in the US is wasted is transporting the weight of the car. Countries that are putting resources into public transportation infrastructure will eventually do better, because they are reducing this 95% waste by the use of busses and trains. The key is to try to measure the amount of waste we produce individually, and to try to keep reducing this on an individual basis. I don't know if we will ever do this. I think there is a rosier chance of the Browns winning 5 consecutive Super Bowls than of us getting there.
Thanks one of the best interview and guest ive seen not to say any are bad ive enjoyed most even if the content wasnt good news . But good information never the less . Thumbs up
@Nate Hagens - please can you do a frankly expanding on the brief debt and 'moving income through time' conversation @38mins. As always, found this hugely insightful and enlightening. Jeremy's angle seemed interesting, so I wonder if you could do an explainer for those of us who don't have a finance background?! Many thanks.
Yeah debt - I'm more on Grantham side of things. European nations through history, have encountered numerous debt problems, mostly thru war, sometimes by extravaganza from kings and popes who thought they could rule everything including themselves not having to pay off. All through time these debt loads have settled, and rare are the occasions that over 50% was actually paid back. It didn't even need to result in the indebted nation falling from power. You'd need to invite an expert on how the debts caused by Napoleon's wars were settled. Both winners and losers went on to rule the 19 century and become colonial empires. Of course, that also was the age of Industrial Revolution with energy use increasing by the year, but the point is, those debts weren't really resolved. I'm pretty sure, those billions of national debt of Western countries are going to be rearranged in some way, even if some (Europe mostly) will not come out on top after, whereas those endowed with resources, like US, Canada, Russia, some in the global South and of course, China, will just go on their business - at least, as long as resources can sustain a decent level of economi. When things go for decline and climate problems build up, better take cover, but at that point, debt will be a minor concern . Resource constraints themselves, power over resources and war, will be central, as they always have. As Helen Thompson eluded about Hitler, he didn't fight Russia für Lebensraum, but to get his hands on oil around the Caspian, and get close to middle east resources and trade routes.
Here’s a difficult but needed perspective. The problem IS the “economy”. The economy is a machine that concentrates energy and resources and efficiently consumes them. It can’t do it’s opposite (restoration ). A parallel “economy” is required that is specialized to restore in equal measure. This is the work of Dr Delton Chen and the resulting recommendation is Carbon Quantitative Easing and the Global Carbon Reward. It’s a new perspective on the future of humanity and our ability to steward the future of the Living Planet.
This has been very inspiring to me as someone who's just turned 70 I like to think that my best years are still ahead and I'm going to roll up my sleeves and get doing stuff, maybe even start a TH-cam channel on how to convert your gas car to electric
I’m finding a helpful pairing of Nate’s podcast (or those of his brilliant colleagues), and a jigsaw puzzle. There is so much to learn and absorb, and having an eye/hand task to perform while the ears and the mind are listening, works very well for me. A mostly irrelevant factoid: Jeremy Grantham loves bubbles! So do I! 🫧🫧🫧🫧
Very interesting podcast. The argument about the relationship between population and debt changes depending on which paradigm you embrace. I suspect JG is still assuming status quo in the structure of the global economy works well into 2100. Young people pay into pensions for the aging population. That’s a big assumption around investment and again, the same, uninspired approach to how the global economy might work in 70 years and beyond. I’m somewhat skeptical. We are more than likely to form economies that fit more into local contexts.
I remember when milk was delivered daily to our homes in glass bottles by a milkman!! It was NOT a difficult time in my life!! The plethora of the results of overshoot have been an unrecognized problem. I read Rachel Carson about fifty years ago and have been doing this retirement project since then when I was about 19.
The answer is eating garbage . The health of the developed world fell sharply with the introduction of seed oils in the early 20th century and subsequent development of the processed food industry (sugar, wheat and artificial dye in everything). Namaste 😎🦋
I literally ate garbage for 10 years in Minneapolis. I also ate tons of organic garlic and cilantro to offset the garbage - also tea tree oil!! And i bicycled 10 miles a day everyday for 10 years.
The world consumed per capita more calories than what is recommended for a healthy diet but we have record amounts of obesity and people still starving. The problem is distribution and an equitable share imo.
@@antonyjh1234 yes and a lot of empty calories that are addictive: sugar, fructose, salt, alcohol, vegetable oils... All those as "quick-carbs" spike glucose levels causing obesity. Caffeine also messes up the glucose levels - not as bad but overall yes.
Wasn't really the point. The point is we have more than enough calories produced before we start eating garbage. This is consumed calories and not produced and there is a lot of waste in production before we start reprocessing garbage@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885
why does everyone want "cheap" energy??? that will just mean more of the same! what we need is Expensive Clean energy to "force" us into a sustainable lifestyle.
Because "cheep" is easier to adopt and has less consequences for the impoverished citizens. "Expensive" solutions will just cause stationary momentum and/or consequences for the most vulnerable citizens first.
Great postcast, thanks Nate. I like to say The Odyssey, by Homer, together with the Iliad, are the basis of Western literature and as such show us men and gods, adventures but fundamentally the human soul of the heroes. In BkXIII:256-310 Athene reveals herself, from The Odyssey (Athena is the one who accompanies and helps Odysseus throughout his journey) Odysseus, king of Ithaca, meets Athena, he shows himself as a young shepherd and asks Odysseus where he comes from, Odysseus tells him a lying adventure. She laughs and reveals herself to be the goddess Athena, the bright-eyed goddess, Athena, smiled at his words and, touching him with her hand, altered her form into that of a tall, beautiful woman, skilled in all the glorious arts. And she addressed him with winged words: “Even if a god found you, he would have to be cunning and cunning to outsmart you. A resolute man, subtle in advice, never tired of intrigue and fraud, even in your own country you will always be full of the cunning and lies that you love so much."
Another TGS episode that is a great public service, and Grantham is impressive in many ways. But I'm disappointed to see someone with so much money, experience, intellect and influence espouse ideas that are utterly incompatible with the latest climate systems science. The revelations by Hansen, Simons et al 6 months ago (peer reviewed and published just last month) render Grantham's plans for 2050/2100/2200 irrelevant. I was in the cleantech investment camp too ten years ago. Now I see it as hopium. If +5C is baked in, "We're running out of time" is a less than honest summary. "We ran out of time" is more like it, and encouraging society to double down on "green" startups and VC investment meets my definition of insanity.
This is the best comment so far. The rest are hopium addicts looking for their next fix. I think Nate is sipping on hopium lately with most of his guests.
Agreed, he's in the GreenTech quadrant of Holmgren's Energy Descent scenarios. Nate tried to lean on him a bit but was too deferential imo. Especially on the debt as claim on future income and resources.
If it's only 5c plus we're getting.. ALL IPCC RCP pathways include large scale Carbon Removal as a prime means of "solving" climate change. David King has explained a lot about that - even if Sir King is a hopeful when it comes to solving the issue. However, there's no way we can remove the waste product CO2 in a cheap way. It will cost billions, while it doesn't do noting about emissions and doesn't do climate change going haywire. Most likely, as Simons' research points out that sulphur is effective as a way to decrease temperatures (as temps went up after shipping stopped emitting the stuff resulting in decrease of reflective clouds), most likely, China will start projects to inject cloud causing substances in the atmosphere. China is the major power that will feel the greatest effects of climate change first, and it's pretty autocrat, able to just do things it wants to do. Its manipulation of rain showers around the 2008 Olympics are well known.
It makes me more of a neo-Malthusian every day! Most people simply do not realizes how they, as individuals, contribute to the problem. In essence, we are fouling our nest...the only nest we have...we are totally dependent on Nature...our air, our water, our soil, and other natural resources!
Unfortunately, modern Capitalism runs wild and free, on the "ideology of the cancer cell". The difference between Mr. Grantham, and many other very smart people on Wall Street, is his value system. Too bad his is so uncommon. When I traded stocks I found it super easy to get carried away with greed, even though I shared his values. Temptation is a powerful thing, and we see where we're all headed because of it. I look back with regret with how intensely it captured me. Update.....I think it was Edward Abbey who I quoted.
He's a techno-solutionist who can't absorb the fact that debt financing represents a claim on future energy, or that civilization is itself a heat engine that's in the process of raising the climate to levels that won't be able to continue to sustain modern industrial society. He might be a little more enlightened than the other capitalists you mention, but not a lot.
I don't question the genuine interest of both these gentlemen in energy realities & the environmental catastrophe - and appreciate Mr Grantham's knowledge & thoughtfulness - but he is one of the sector of people who have contributed the most to the collapse of the biosphere, not only with their childish greed but with careful, consistent & successful efforts to fully subordinate governments all over the world to the power of the super-wealthy, super sociopaths. This process has *guaranteed* that there would never be any effective work to prevent climate change. Grantham professes shock at the lack of concern of the finance set about environment. If that shock is genuine, he must be a very poor judge of character. In any case what shocks me is how people like him assume that there will be a reasonably functional society in 20 years.
Purpose: To confront and speak the truth, while never having my spirit broken. Never become a slave to an unjust and destructive society. To protect Gaia, her biotic communities and Her dedicated people. To reduce the amount of unnecessary suffering in the world. To prevent needless death. To find a way, or make a way to end this Ecocidal slaughter. To apply pressure toward justice for the Earth.
I read that book. Have you read Professor David F. Noble's books? He didn't get MIT tenure since he exposed their machine scams. His book "The Religion of Technology" is a classic.
The problem is how you disperse the income. Dispersion may be a better word than distribution, if for example we set an overall criterion such as 80:20. In theory the 'market' can micromanage dispersion, but in an AI world there appears to be no market. Is it even acceptable (stable, sustainable) to have exactly 20% rich at high income level, and 80% all at equal low income level?
Best quote: "The earth is a spaceship with all the necessary supplies needed for life, and there is no station where we can stop to replenish our dwindling supplies". More over, not twice has the earth traverse the same región of space in this Cosmic dance we are engaged, and yet we will always circle around, and depend on the Sun for sustenance. Maybe the Incas were correct believing INTI was the life giving god! Maybe nature is god!!
I do tithe to my yard-we put in a six acre tall grass prairie, and are changing the rest of our 9.3 acre property into a pesticide,Herbicide, synthetic fertilizer free place into a native plants natural area. Growing insects feed the flora and fauna. I share my projects to the master gardening community and whoever sees and asks about my project. Yvonne in Oklahoma
When government is slow to respond, then the individual effort may impact other individuals to join the effort and grassroots efforts can make a huge change person to person to community….
About the debt thing. I think the correct analysis is, debt is not a claim on future energy. The INTEREST however is (which is of course caused by the debt).
Nate is at University of Minnesota that does huge Monsanto "research" - I single-handedly protested Monsanto at the "State of the University" Presidential address attended by the University Professors. That was in 1999. Genetic engineering protest disrupts address by Josh Linehan Published October 6, 1999 As University President Mark Yudof highlighted a year of progress in his State of the University address last Thursday, an outspoken student took a view contrary to the president’s and publicly voiced his discontent. During the question and answer portion of the address, graduate student Drew Hempel questioned Yudof directly about the University’s involvement in genetic engineering. Hempel said the University is out of line in continuing research into genetic engineering of crops without full knowledge of the problems and benefits it might bring. Hempel also distributed about 40 copies of the “Dis-orientation Report,” a self-published paper alleging University abuse of power and funding. “I disagree with your premise, and I disagree with your conclusion,” Yudof said then. He could not be reached for comment Tuesday. Gary Muehlbauer, a wheat and barley molecular biologist who works as a genetic engineer for the University, said the University is an acknowledged leader in the field. While he thinks care must be exercised in the area of genetic engineering, he does not support postponing research in the field. “I think in certain cases genetic engineering can be very useful. We do have to take some time and decide where it will help and where it will hurt,” Muehlbauer said. The British Medical Association recently called for a moratorium on genetically engineered crops, which Hempel highlighted by carrying a sign advertising the decision. “Over 237 countries have called for a ban on genetic engineering, but, for some reason, the University has taken it upon itself to be a leader in the field,” Hempel said. Research persists at the University - as opposed to most European countries, where the practice has been halted - because of large private donations by corporations, Hempel said. In September, the University received a $10 million gift from Cargill for a microbial and plant genomics facility. “Basically, public universities have become extensions of large corporations. They donate $50 million biotech centers so they can get free research and then wait for the patents. They can’t stop without giving the money back,” Hempel said. “The University is a public, nonprofit organization. It should be democratic and operate toward the public good. This hasn’t happened in this case.” Harvey Sarles, a professor in cultural studies and comparative literature who attended the address, said that while he disagreed with Hempel’s methods to attract attention, he did agree with some of his message. “There is room for criticism of genetically engineered foods. Europeans, in particular, are rejecting the idea and refusing to buy our genetically engineered crops,” Sarles said. Sarles agreed that the University should slow down its research until the positives and negatives of the process and its product can be sorted out. “It involves quite a lot of money,” Sarles said. “I’m not sure we shouldn’t go ahead, but there needs to be more discussion on the subject. If protesting the address leads to that, then I guess a goal was accomplished.” Talk is cheap - if people do protesting they're not gonna be a billionaire or even a professor. hahahaha.
An alliance for responsible citizenship sounds better than a lynching. To quote Audre Lorde on governance "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House".
I posted a frame from the video on FB. My older cousin biologist Dr Keith Brent OBE comments: "Yes the insect drop is a big worry. How does it happen. Is it insecticides, traffic fumes, CO2, disease pathogens ? Are all insects equally vulnerable ? Does it vary between regions ? We urgently need to know much more in order to stop it." Personally I doubt traffic fumes, unless nitric oxide, but can read 'other pollutants'.
There are few things more satisfying than writing down an equation that no-one has seen before, and it is easy to devote one's time to working out its finer technical consequences. But the world is mostly too complex and interactive, as well as dynamic on many time scales, to comprehend in that way. As a topical example, there is still an argument over whether warming is primarily anthropogenic or driven by natural cycles - 70-250 years have been mentioned. Even statistical significance as a criterion has been under attack. The trick, maybe, will be to find a way of containing that complexity robustly without depending on evidence whose generality or narrowness of scope renders it brittle.
Jeremy Grantham's contention that debt (including the debt financing of infrastructure projects) doesn't amount to a claim on future resources was so unexpected and ridiculous. He stated it almost like an article of faith, then refused to explain why he thinks it's true.
I really believe the framing of the "climate" issue is the problem. It's framed in a way that creates division. When Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol to deal with the Ozone depletion issue, it was a specific, pollution created issue that we supported. BUT IF it had been framed differently it would have failed completely. If the scientists had pushed a global warming or global climate emergency agenda back then, the Ozone agreement would have failed, and the planet (and all of us) would have suffered. If you want to have clean air, clean water, clean soil, vibrant and healthy oceans that aren't radioactive, then let's reframe the issue as a "pollution" issue. And let's create incentives that empower decentralized approaches to this. For example, regenerative agriculture could be incentivized.
The Ozone depletion issue and the "climate issue" are quite different, despite the frequent use of the comparison in support of various arguments. Most strikingly, the ozone-depleting chemicals -- CFCs primarily -- had relatively few uses and there existed ready-to-deploy alternatives which were championed by the very producers of CFCs. Greenhouse gazes on the other hand are tied to energy conversion and to food, steel and cement production, essentially activities which are at the origin of 100% of the economy (Nate explains better than I can, how these activities only amount to a few percent of the GDP, but nevertheless support EVERY single aspect the economy). Hence the ozone issue could be and was addressed as a "pollution" issue, merely disrupting (and ultimately, stimulating!) a tiny portion the economy, whereas the climate issue is so systemic that it requires a war-like economy, with all the planning, government "take over" and general acceptance from the public this entails. How can one frame such an issue and foster the necessary public acceptance? I do not know, though I'm afraid that equating it to the ozone-depleting pollution might give people the wrong impression: that of a mild, sectorial, switch with virtually no impact on the public.
@@marcveillet2589 I think you missed the point. It has nothing to do with the Ozone example I provided. It's about what can actually happen politically, what can be achieved. If you choose to continue to splatter science upon those who have built a bunker against it, you lose, they lose, we all lose. You cannot forcefully "educate" people who believe you are a liar. Not you as a commenter, "you" as in the proponents of a large scale government solution. So my idea, is to find a way to isolate the variables, attack specific components of the problem that have broad political support, and get victories where we can. Will it be enough? That is a stupid question, because if we don't agree at all on the problem as it is now, then we will see 0% action. Just look at the treaties. Hilarious. So let's take victories where we can get them. Subsidies for regenerative agriculture would be a great start.
There isn't any "framing" that will get people past the massive reductions in standard of living which "de growth" will entail. There's no comparison with CFCs, the scale of the problem is entirely different. I think the only hope is carbon free energy coming online and the population collapse the guest is discussing.
All of these conversations would instantly become irrelevant as soon as governments are forced to simply STOP KEEPING EVERYTHING SECRET so that everyone can know the truth and facts about everything. Once the people have all of the correct information I believe they would INSTANTLY change their ways and direction to the right path of existence and conservation. It's that simple. People need to be shown the negative effects of overconsumption and waste which is currently necessary for the capitalism machine to continue which keeps the Jeremys of the world extra comfortable.
Government transparency and the stories we tell ourselves are separate issues. The former is used to cover up crimes, the latter is a function of our cognitive biases.
Hi Nate, I hope that you read this. Have you thought about doing a Q&A podcast? Answering viewers’/ listeners’ questions. Whenever I try to talk about people about the link between energy and the economy and the likelihood that the economy is likely to collapse (hopefully before we fry the planet) they say that there is plenty of oil and oil reserves.They say that the problem is that we WILL burn all these fossil fuels and definitely fry the planet. Please help
Thanks for responding, Nate and so quickly! It doesn’t have to be a live Q&A… We could just ask using this forum and you could bundle them up and answer them in one podcast. I’m in Australia so a live session is likely to happen in the early hours of my morning. BTW I thought it quite funny that Jeremy Grantham’s euphemism for human extinction was ‘going out of business’ - like the worst outcome of humans being dead is that they can’t participate in business.
I was going to say we can solve climate change without AI, but lack the willingness to collaborate at the level needed to do that. Also it's possible that AI finds a solution and not enough people are willing to follow through on that plan. But then I realized I don't know what it means to solve that problem. What counts as a "solution"? Not keeping the rise over pre-industrial levels below 1.5 C , that ship has sailed. Not keeping people and species from dying out, because we've had species loss and millions of humans have died prematurely from the heat alone. If humans survive but we still trash the environment, will that be seen as a solution?
'debt' I think JGs view on actual goods, instead of the monetarist view of debt as time shifting, is the more helpful one for understanding the economy.
Another superb addition to TGS. But the idea that debt doesnt matter is easy to disprove. Without debt, we would not be living beyond our means. Imagine, back in the old days, a timber merchant going to a bank to get a loan to cut down a forest to make planks. The bank had to have that money in gold to back up the loan. With the severing of money creation from the physical world in 1871, now when a bank agrees to the loan, they are guaranteeing to give the timber merchant money they don’t have, against a guarantee from the timber merchant that they are in no position to make. Both parties are technically committing fraud. And the result is massive limitless resource extraction and living beyond our means.
Creating money out of thin air obviates the need for debt. Nowadays banks have capital requirements. They don't need gold or deposits to issue loans. Unlike a currency issuer, loans issued by banks carry with them a liability. Loans that don't get paid back are recorded as a loss against the bank's capital.
@@bumblebee9337 when banks make loans, they create the money as credit. Therefore there is now no financial limit to resource extraction, which is why we've maxed out every resource.
@@markkelly4804 There is a limit to how much banks may loan, but there are other ways to raise funds, so the sky is the limit, which is beyond the Earth's capacity to repair the damage being done. And we have to consider the scale of human activity. Half as many humans eating the planet would mean less damage, regardless of how much credit is used to fund projects. Essentially, we're consuming resources as fast as we can, but for the existence of artificial scarcity, which limits the purchasing power of people in lower income brackets.
@@antonyjh1234 A bank is not allowed to use customer deposits under normal circumstances. Bad loans come out of the bank's capital. There is talk of a 'bail in' system in case of a bank run. That is just criminal. Relative to the size of the money supply, of privately held capital, how significant is private debt? Bankruptcy laws allow for some leeway, for some to live beyond their means for a time, but that has a small impact on overall consumption. If there were less inequality, less wealth concentration, consumption would soar among the masses.
@@antonyjh1234 When a commercial bank issues a loan, it doesn't use the money from other people's accounts directly, it extends credit, creating a deposit in the borrowers account. This process creates new money within the economy. So exponential claims on limited resources, allowing us to live beyond our means. See TGS episode with Josh Farley.
I appreciated hearing Mr Grantham's systemic point of view, although when he expressed hope in a (possibly) cost neutral machine that turns corn stubble into biochar I began to feel uncertain about the depth of his logic. Although corn stubble can technically be used in situ as a biochar feedstock it is relatively low grade (but hey! If you are narrowly defining the problem why would you not look at such a so-called 'solution').. However Grantham doesn't question why the cornfield is even there (such that there is even an economy of scale to warrant the manufacture of a corn stubble biochar machine) in a world of energy constriction and lack of present human psychological ability to do the humble and already well-known work of re-generating Earth's carrying capacity.
Another interesting added factor to our Climate Change is volcano eruptions I just watched Wyss Yim : Volcanic eruptions and climate variability podcast by Tom Nelson 🌋🕊🌏
This was a really good episode! Roundtable with Jeremy Grantham, Steve Keen and Gary Stevenson could be something? How do we fix a broken economic system?
The person on the street has to change...knowing where wealth really comes from...not from banks, not from Government, not from employers, but from our environment. It appears that the only way the problem will be resolved is by negative feedback influences...civil strife, war, poverty, and environmental degradation. These are extremely effective means of controlling further demands on the environment. Most people do not realize their individual role in this. Wars are fought by people simply wanting what other people have
The world seems to emphasize LENGTH of life over QUALITY of life as if we somehow can reach some future point of immortality which is absurd. Everone will die at some point why do we strive for a few more years of wasteful consumption instead of simply accepting your demise and strive to improve the lives of OTHERS?
Length and size matter.... At least to those without adequate perspective. Attachment to family, town, country, team, ethnicity etc. preclude the idea of actual death. They all seemingly go on forever. At least I know I don't seem to matter and actually never did. As I get older I am more sure of it. I can imagine some point where it will be understood by a critical mass and a new wisdom of early death will be embraced. Leave early while the leaving is good.
Cellulose sludge and protein sludge roll of the tongue to good effect but offer a limited range (I recall the different coloured biscuits produced by the Soylent Company). What can we learn about materials and growing them from bacteria, and from insects (before they go extinct)? Then, what can we learn that contributes to nutrition and medicine from the thousands of plants in the tropics - and, yes, the rain forest - before it is torn down for beef, soya and palm oil; and from the people who live there and have knowledge passed down from generation to generation (before they are reduced to living in slums, dowsed in alcohol and Christianity, and dressed in a pastiche of western respectability, or simply extinct too)? Problem: how do you invest in nature in its undisturbed state, and people in a 'state of nature'?
I still haven’t changed my view that the best option is to increase all my consumption while I still can and be as wasteful as possible now before they don’t let me.
While there is some short-term self-optimising logic to it, it doesnt seem to fit into a 'good ancestor' narrative. Future me might regret it if I took this approach. All the same, I think I understand where you are coming from.
Rationing is the Big Stick. Probably won’t happen until there’s a desirable option. More likely is the reduction of demand by rewarding carbon mitigation. The Big Carrot. See Carbon Quantitative Easing
Regarding mainland China, since 2021 millions of young Chinese have been "lying flat" (tang ping in Chinese), meaning taking a break from relentless work, and many are also, of necessity, based on the present economic challenges many face, also postponing marriage and having children entirely.
Wonderful podcast, Nate. I agree with Mr. Grantham. You are doing a great service to the world. I have learned so much that is helping me create a regenerative soil presentation that covers the many challenges we are facing and how regenerating our soil, as well as our communities will change our future. Thanks so much. I plan on hearing your 300th podcast and beyond.
Soil health is climate stability.
Would you like to join Jeremy Grantham’s investing community?
Reduce the population
"We have created a world that is hostile to life", this wise man said. That is the best summation of our current predicament that I have ever heard. It is everywhere all around us yet our global decision-makers either ignore it, deny it, capitalize on it, or obfuscate the reality to their own financial or political advantage. It truly feels like the wealthy and powerful few who have the resources to make a difference are so intoxicated with their own privilege that they have abandoned their own rational faculties. To the detriment of all.
Part and parcel of molochian natural dynamics within the source code of nature. Why should they care, they are hard deterministically in their position and the suffering, pain and misery as a result is well cosmically an illusion as the universe is indifferent to all life so why care?, none of it can ever change as its hard baked into the source code of nature itself that has self-selected that outcome indifferently.
Yes, and we are all guilty, on various levels, and degrees, by virtue of being human. Except for an exceptional minority. I'm not one of them......this in reference to your quote.
Can’t blame me no free will.
@@dermotmeuchner2416 You may be correct. It's a debate thats been going on for centuries. Many scientists now think we have no true free will. I'm inclined to agree.
@@dermotmeuchner2416 evolution promotes chemical destruction
Nate. You have a knack for getting the most information out of the people you interview. Thankyou for your efforts.
I've listened to many interviews with Mr. Grantham, and this is by far the most in-depth, compelling, detailed and insightful so far. I'm middle aged, no kids. Since I was a pre-teen, I sensed that humanity was turning this planet inhospitable. This conversation at once confirmed my concerns and informed them with actual data, and provided a certain measure of hope. Thank you both and I look forward to the next 300+ interviews.
As a young woman I assessed if motherhood would be wise. I learned in the 1970s that the world would begin to run out of water by the 2000. I made my decision to pass on child bearing. Yes, TGS is now my favorite channel.
Your Jeremy Grantham interview might be the best ever of him anywhere, and it proves that he is much more than just a grumpy Cassandra for impending meltdowns. If the other "Finance Bros" had a scintilla of his depth and empathy, the world would be in much better shape.
He's talking about robbing Peter (the living planet) as he did, to pay bunches of Pauls (himself included - immensely) to eventually get around to paying Peter back. Does the balance sheet end up with Peter in the clear, even with the best of intentions? I highly doubt it.
the carbon tax is being talked about by these guys as if its eventually going to be politically viable: there is zero chance of that, blocked by the fossil fuel lobby since the 90s in every country including China. Plus the fossil fuel boys get trillions in fossil fuel subsidies and tax credits from governments, including the US, see IMF.
Its interesting to me how all the arguments around resource depletion, and economic bubbles, and complexity bubbles, revolves around an unquestionable assumption. That is: how can we all continue to live our type of high consumption life in the face of a rapidly approaching seneca cliff in many pillars of our industrial society. Its as if we can't see that human beings don't need to live a high consumption life in order to be happy, healthy, and connected to a community. In fact, just about all lifestyles in the past consumed no fossil fuel, yet they were able to live healthy, happy lives. In many ways the native Americans lived healthier, happier, more spiritually satisfying lives than we do, and they had no debt, no metal tools, or even horses. They didn't have hot showes, but they adjusted.
Why is it so difficult to concieve of a non-industrial or at leadt limited industrial based society where production of most things is done locally. Our ancestors lived this way, yet its inconceivable to even consider.
"Its too hard" many would say, but I guess those people have never been homeless. Living in a house without automatic heating and running water is far superior to living in a tent under a bridge.
The bottom line is, the days of our high consumption, just in time, lifestyle are numbered. If we don't pick a new, low cost, low consumption lifestyle, then karma will pick one for us, and it will likely be very unpleasant.
Using the same material and labor we could expand the lifecycle of products ten fold. If we quit following fashion we could add another ten fold savings. we could cut out wasteful packaging. Open lending libraries for tools, and other specialty. Lifestyle need not suffer. Learn to cook from scratch. Grow a garden. Let your lawn go to weeds. Recognize that golf isn't a game but a mental disorder....
Remove all oil related products from your life, see how difficult that is, try it yourself, it's fairly difficult. No oil based paint, no synthetic fibres, no plastics, you aren't going to have a lot left. 50% of people are alive because of fossil fuel produced fertilisers.
I don't think there is a problem with providing people shelter, basic food and medical care, free and them not work, it's relatively easy living and emissions would be way down if they didn't have a way too over consume with all that time off, but then you have broken the whole economic system. If new debt doesn't get entered into with home loans etc then nobody gets any pay rises, personally I'm fine with that too.
We are born into a monetary system that controls the schooling system so we become good employees, so we can get into debt making others billions, that we pay with our lives. We are taxed another 50% of our lives while we think we have freedom..
@@antonyjh1234 Thanks for the reply. I have reduced my use of oil based products by a lot. I live in an off grid cabin. I heat with my own wood, I rarely buy new industrially made things and buy used as much as possible.
My ecological footprint is less than 20% of the avg north American. I buy food in bulk and make my meals from scratch. I also grow more and more of my food each year.
Because I built my home on a shoestring and put up with discomfort for a while, (I lived in a tent on my land for 6months), I don't have any debt.
The interesting thing is, my expenses are now less than 20% of what they were when I was in the rat race so I now only have to work 10hours a month for money. My life is much better in almost all ways.
The bottom line is, life is way better when you move away from the fossil fuel based industrial economy and move towards a life where you can do more with less.
@@timeenoughforart Very true, thanks.
Sure but the fossil based economy is what provided you the access to your off grid cabin. Without it you wouldn't have got what you have and it's not a post fossil fuel option for the majority of people and if they drive more, are they really less of a footprint..?
I used on average 4.07kwh of electrical energy during the July to Sept quarter, that's winter in Australia and where I am it's been comfortable and I can walk to three supermarkets easily, one major hardware store and two different shopping centres with banks etc. Now, In a gallon of diesel there is 40.12kw's and in a litre 10.6kw's, so a gallon of diesel roughly has the same amount of energy as ten days of my electrical energy, I can stay home in the comfort of a city, with hot and cold running water, a toilet that flushs away, when I have the air con going 24/7 like I do now summer has started it's still less than a litre of diesel a day, If you don't drive then sure but ten days of somebody living in a city, with a fridge running, a tv running every day, a computer, all of that is equal to one gallon that you might need if you live off grid.
I have cut my driving down dramatically but for you to say you have moved away from the fossil fuel based industrial economy I think is incorrect, I would say your life depends on it as much as anybody else.
My point is life can be very cheap, in cost and energy wise, while living in a city, I wonder though if you are putting price as your indicator instead of the value of the energy your lifestyle emits, wood is still energy, just because it's cheap doesn't negate the affect.
@@braeburn2333
Excellent in depth interview. Very impressive work, Nate. I appreciate the variety of guests and informed points of view as well as the quality of the conversations. A light of sobriety in the dark ocean of frivolity.
A brilliant interview - an epic journey - a delightful man. His words of wisdom at the end regarding purpose were spot on! And, Yes...1 billion + 1900s life-style consumption level.
This is my favorite show that you have done Thank you so much Nate this is really important to have Jeremy Grantham on
Financial "experts" will NEVER have the compassion to personally want to help people and /or nature. PERIOD
This was a really cool episode, especially because the PoV was a little different than usually. So many intellectual environments become a little too bubble-like despite no one being at fault as likeminded people obviously come together.
The beginning of Jeremy’s answer to the very first question provides a vital insight. The way that the world is set up rewards narrow, instrumental thinking, and not, generally, the more expansive perspective of which he speaks. Until that changes, we’re in trouble.
American/Western society focuses workers and individuals on being good at one or a very few things. Having more Jack of All Trades (or more freedom of thought) allows for better arrays of perspective and would reduce tunnel vision and nurture innovation, which the global predictament desperately needs.
To paraphrase this conversation a wee bit, I would say that it is obvious that the "well-to-do" have been "circling the wagons" around their own privilege for decades. They have been aided and abetted by a government which extolls the virtues of democracy and claims to be a nation that is "OF, FOR and BY the People", yet does the diametric opposite. The herd-like passivity of the American citizenry must be one of their proudest accomplishments.
I often wonder if democracy was ever a real thing or just a mirage to make us feel like we have a modicum of control. Athens was just as warlike as Sparta after all.
@@DavidMarcotte-xx1nw Mirage. Read The Tragedy of Industrial Civilization by William Ophuls, who Nate interviewed around a month ago. He skewers mass democracy completely.
@@robinschaufler444 I like William Ophuls very much. I did not know about this book, thank you Robin.
People are products of their surroundings. You probably don't give a second thought to filling up your car with a fuel that foreign families lives have been destroyed over. It's not an attack, just a realisation that what we call normal, or well to do, is a subjective term.
FYI : I drive maybe 20miles a month and I live on SS of 1500 a month. Spare me the lecture.@@antonyjh1234
I absolutely love hearing "I don't know". That is an extremely rare bit of honesty. Trust me I know.
Every now again I come across a treasure that enlightens and inspires. This is a real example. Thank you Nate & Jeremy a 2 hour gem that I will share widely 💎🌍🙏
This was an awesome episode, it really made a difference to me! Nate you are incredibly talented in bringing core issues to the table in a way that doesn’t shirk the hard stuff. Please keep going, technology and attitudes change, sometimes quickly 🌈🙏
Thanks for this Nate, a report by Mr Grantham a few years back covering soil degradation was instrumental in me shifting into a new career.
What did you shift into? What kind of work are you doing now?
@@cfitzstrumOil 😋
One of the main reasons the birth-rate is falling in many countries, and especially in Asian countries is because it's too expensive for young people to have kids. Education is very expensive and kids are sent to kindy as soon as they can crawl, then they're in education , perhaps well into their 20s. If a young person can barely afford to rent a place, let alone buy one, you don't seriously think they'll be thinking about having kids. Many are stuck at home living with their parents - little to do with a toxic environment.
IMO, this is a solvable problem, if and when society decides to put a priority on it. Undoing chemically induced infertility seems like a harder problem.
I know which they worry about the most in Asia.
I agree with this.
So you really don’t think that rising inequality driven by techno neoliberalism and older generations sequestering fossil energy wealth isn’t a problem ? You need to think things through a bit more. BTW I agree with Nate 100% , his guest, not so much.
@@barry28907 "solvable problem" you say. Not if you are one of the young people struggling to make it in intensely competitive asian society which require 996 work week or working three jobs at same time just to get by.
Marvellous interview. Jeremy Grantham is fascinating and has so much to offer the rest of us.
Can you give me an example of one of the "some much to offer us"?
I have been following Mr Grantham for more than 15 years. Huge fan of his work and thinking. I am quite disappointed by some of his comments (and omissions) in this conversation though:
-Massive amount of global debt has no impact / is not a problem. No clear explanation of why that’s the case ? No appetite to educate you Nate or the viewers on the subject.
-No discussion about the recent issues with offshore wind, for which Jeremy has been an advocate for many years.
-No mention on the potential role of Nuclear in greening the economy
-Share buybacks are toxic and should be banned while dividends are fine.. Cliff Asness would go mental there..
-Praising the US venture space while criticizing US capitalism. American capitalism is far from perfect but isn't it the main reason for the US attracting so much talent and doing so well in innovation/technology ?
-what would you do with a magic wand: “have the global population become 1 billion”... So basically getting rid of 7 billion of the least productive/ingenious/relevant people in the world?
Worth a watch anyway ! And thank you very much Nate for the amazing work you are doing with your podcast !
1000 episodes is within reach :)
Hi Nate. It would be great if you could interview David Wengrow, the co-author of "The dawn of everything" along with the late David Graeber. There is an underlying teleological notion of human history that really holds us back.
What is the "underlying teleological notion"?
"Progress" is used to describe the changes in human organization....from cave man to city dweller. But what are we "progressing" toward?.......very large scale transformers of the earth's crust, who are also working on turning over their duties to the silicon-centered (not carbon-centered) AI?
Judging by "the fruits of the tree" ...ecocide
@@johndavis2399 We have 'progressed' towards the evolutionary imperative of occupying all available habitat. Abundant energy has allowed us to reach our current population. For all our vaunted cleverness and reasoning, our collective actions are behavioral.
@@johndavis2399I think we are progressing towards ecological collapse.
What I mean with underlying teleological notion is seeing the present as Destiny and everything that happened before as a path toward that Destiny.
I read their book after Schmachtenberger mentioned it on this very podcast and this would be an excellent guest, +1
Wow!! Incredible podcast. Just amazing information and perspective. And unlike alot of podcasters, Nate adds so much and even pushes back. Love the dissection of american "capitalism" and the degradation of the social contract. Indictment of financial sector (hedge funds, PE firms) and the lack of value they create is so underappreciated and undiscussed. And causes of wealth gap and inequality. It is amazing to hear a rich guy talk about this stuff! And knows about glyphosate and other chemicals and cares. Love this discussion. at about 2 hours, finally says he is optimistic! Best podcast all year.
It's great that Mr Grantham acknowledge part of our predicament, we need more of that. However, I don't believe on any of his solutions. Geothermals means going on the Mordor path. AI? Enlightened government? HAHAHA! Saving ourselves through our ingeniosity? Adding yet more complexity? We don't need green venture capital or philantropy, we need to SCALE DOWN, small is beautiful!
Nice pushback on the subject of Debt Nate!
Indeed..
Agreed
I would say he is somewhat optimistic about the system evolving vs a complete change due to a crisis that is likely in my opinion
jG was talking about central bank debt....
I know a simple way to make corporations act responsibility. License all upper management in the same way engineers or doctors are licensed. If the company breaks laws, or acts unethically then the managers (CEO, CFO etc) will lose their license and career.
This would protect shareholders too. You might call it the shareholder protection act.
The current lot of execs would likely not qualify the eligibility test for management :D
@@chookbuffy Yes, very true. Thanks for the reply.
I got this idea after listening to plumbers over the years. If you ask a plumber to violate the codes, they will yell at you:"I can't do THAT, I would lose my plumbing license. ". I thought to myself, I wish politicians and corporate executives would stick to the law (especially the constitution) the way plumbers stick to plumbing codes.
Good idea though despite my snark remark
Basically we need new corporate governance. Whilst my own shop/farm business is very small we are looking to form a collective with other like minded businesses around us. How we can fight the system (and not each other) will be the test
Or it would kinda be like it is now with licenses where it just becomes a good ol boy club and the people they like get licenses and the people they don't like don't.
Thank you for noting the chapters. That makes it so much easier to go back and relisten.
I think most people have no choice but to just survive and play along in the only game they're handed financially and so this seems to all rest on the morals and selfishlessness of the rich to want to make change with THEIR money for the sake of others. Jeremy himself said that he only serves HIS family and friends and he is one of only a handful of billionaires willing to contribute anything at all. I just don't see any change for the better on the horizon until the playing field is somehow leveled to the point that money itself plays no role. Can we all agree that we've passed the point of realization that money itself absolutely needs to be scrutinized as literally "the root of all evil" rather than the idol of self "success"? Society worships the very people who through their lifestyle do the most damage across the board to earth and ALL of it's inhabitants.
FIAT CURRENCY is the "root of all evil" 👇Human Freedom Rests on Gold Redeemable Money www.fgmr.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Howard-Buffett-explains-sound-money-4-May-1948.pdf
Eisenhower had a 91% income marginal tax rate on the wealthy. Pretty sure Eisenhower isn't fingered as a commie by the fascist right wingers. But using the tax money of the rich to fund the military is totally different than funding tree-huggers.
I disagree that a carbon tax is necessary. I think rationing is better. Why? Because the rich can pay the tax and continue to consume, while the poor can't pay the tax unless the Gov. gives them some sort of UBI so they have more money. I'm not sure how rationing would impact the production part of the system, though. Rationing makes all the money of the billionaires useless. Dr. Steve Keen got there a year before me.
You think the rich, the ones whom make the rules, are going to enact policies that level them to us repulsive peasants? Absolutely no chance.
They’ve mastered propaganda, and the vast majority don’t care enough about science/our global predicament to care enough anyway. Everyone has their own interests/struggles, and with such a plethora of short form media to consume it’s extremely difficult to blame them in being misled) to research what actual scientists are showing us.
People sometimes ask if you think we are heading towards ‘1984’ or ‘brave new world’, my answer to that now is we’re living in the brave new world(ish) atm, but are heading towards 1984. Explanation: everyones so easily led by their social media, fascism seems to be the narrative the media owners (and their elite circles) are trying to indoctrinate the masses with currently.
We’re in a post truth era already. Rapidly worsening. Double speak and trickery when answering questions, intentionally misleading followers with no recourse when caught.
The slippery slope is getting slippier and steeper at an alarming rate.
Tech is getting to near indistinguishable levels of realism with cgi, faking any human say what they want. I’ve noticed an uptick in old videos/photos used to push a narrative in supposedly current events.
Everything is moving so fast that when these agencies are called out, nobody cares because it’s so rampant and nothing gets done anyway, why bother? Or the agency caught us in line with their personal ideology so they think the people highlighting the trickery is fake news/the enemy.
Had a couple beers, probably completely wrong and rambly, just fancied venting.
You are correct that rationing based on need is proven better by history. We didn't tax compliance during the second world war we simply rationed the limited supply based on need. We did this because the government knew rationing based on wealth would cause political backlash to the war they couldn't afford. The same is true with the current crisis. But this guy is a member of the wealthy class that wants to keep it a wealth based system which works for him and his class.
I agree there is no point in taxation because it always goes back to the rich in different subsidies. We should end all subsidies and start letting the free market rule
@@kk-xj5oz their propaganda is successful then. I guess you’re also a fan of ‘trickle down economics’ lol
@@kk-xj5ozthere is no such thing as a free market. It has always been a regulated controlled market by governments
It also seems like until the worship of "MONEY" ceases NOTHING WILL CHANGE
1:19:49 This is the critical foundation to any form of non-authoritarian community, peolpe who act with awareness, respect and honor do not need countless rules and punishment to enforce decent behaviour. I try to not unncessarily make someone elses time on this planet worse primarily out of self respect because i need to be able to look myself in the eye in the mirror
I like what you said but perhaps an amendment is now becoming necessary. To be a good human has often been defined by how we treat other humans. It is gross hypocrisy to not include all beings and the environment that supports them. By that standard all, absolutely all modern consuming humans have no possibility of not failing that mirror test.
Nate can I suggest that you host a person called Sheldon Solomon? He's an experimental existential psychologist. His thinking has strong intersectionality with human induced climate change. Consumption, having to always be the best at everything, constantly having to achieve and all of this as we become more isolated, more mentally and physically unwell, more unhappy. Mindless meat puppets he calls us :). I think he speaks to the very reason we can't turn this around. He would make an amazing guest in your podcast !!!!!
"you can have an army of old people and the long term effect is negligent" best quote of the talk
He said "negligible," not "negligent"--and he's wrong!
@@dbadagna sure he's wrong! Still a great quote.
@@dbadagna I have a free book on traditional chinese music tuning as alchemy - "ancient advanced acoustic alchemy" as a docdroid pdf. thanks
Grantham presents as a warm hearted humanist grampa figure, but that malthusian side of him was pretty eye opening to me.
Really enjoyed the interview Nate, have listened to it several times commuting.
Except when he ranted about covid, he fell straight into an authoritarian mind set, which is worrying.
Amazing discussion. So much to unpack from what was said. Please do a 10 part series on that whole "getting the population down to 1-to-2.5 billion" thing...
It's looking more and more like a managed nightmare in our world and on the planet. Crisis cults are everywhere and it seems like flames are being fanned from all directions.
Please don't stop, Nate!
Wow! Yet another AMAZING talk. Stretched my mind, made me smile, inspired me. And I suspect the same was felt by NH? 1,000 TGS episodes, you can do it! And we are here with you on the journey. Thank you for celebrating purpose and keeping me inspired!
Good interview keep it up Nate
Thanks, Mr Grantham for distilling some of your accumulated wisdom.
Thanks for this Nate and Jeremy - lots of juice in this one. I am a retired architect , having spen the latter 20 years in green building and teaching part time. I became aware of the emerging field of Life Cycle Analysis (LCA) and believe it to be a very powerful tool to help us tread more softly on mother earth. I hope you will consider interviewing some of the experts in this field to examine the LCA landscape.
I agree. This is one of the essential tools that is missing from public discourse on the poly crisis. LCA includes environmental, social and economic considerations. People are talking about Photovoltaics as a major part of the solution. One recent report here concluded that Rooftop Solar could produce 245TWh here in Australia. That would require 500,000,000 Solar PVS panels generating at full capacity for 14% of the year and would require massive storage, if it is assumed that each PV is rated at 350W. The problem with this idea is that PVs have a life of 25 tears and that would require the replacing of 20 million PVs each year ad infinitum. A LCA ON Solar PVs would have to work out the full environmental impact of disposing of 20,000,000 Solar PVs per year and that is just for Australia. THIS IS SIMPLY ENVIRONMENTAL VANDALISM THAT WILL NOT SOLVE OUR PROBKEMD. IT WILL MAKE THEM WORSE.
Would you like to join Jeremy Grantham’s investing community?
Nate and Jeremy, thank you for an incredible discussion on such a huge variety of topics, especially the observation about the impact of the extraction and usage of resources not built in to the cost. Like the cost of disposing off the waste from fossil fuels, computers, cell phones or cars not being built into the price of the car. Of course, the biggest problem with this is that we would take that money and just blow it up on something else.
Maybe approaching it in a psychological way might help. We all seem to love competition. The current competition is on how to increase per capita consumption worldwide. If we can change this to per capita usage of resources efficiently, then we might get somewhere. For example, over 95% of the energy of most car rides in the US is wasted is transporting the weight of the car. Countries that are putting resources into public transportation infrastructure will eventually do better, because they are reducing this 95% waste by the use of busses and trains.
The key is to try to measure the amount of waste we produce individually, and to try to keep reducing this on an individual basis. I don't know if we will ever do this. I think there is a rosier chance of the Browns winning 5 consecutive Super Bowls than of us getting there.
Captivating. Thank you both.
Nate, please ask Peter Turchin on! He has a lot to offer on the social cohesion questions that you and Jeremy struggled with.
Thanks one of the best interview and guest ive seen not to say any are bad ive enjoyed most even if the content wasnt good news . But good information never the less . Thumbs up
Would you like to join Jeremy Grantham’s investing community?
@Nate Hagens - please can you do a frankly expanding on the brief debt and 'moving income through time' conversation @38mins.
As always, found this hugely insightful and enlightening. Jeremy's angle seemed interesting, so I wonder if you could do an explainer for those of us who don't have a finance background?!
Many thanks.
Yes. It’s on the (long) list
Thank you.
Yeah debt - I'm more on Grantham side of things. European nations through history, have encountered numerous debt problems, mostly thru war, sometimes by extravaganza from kings and popes who thought they could rule everything including themselves not having to pay off.
All through time these debt loads have settled, and rare are the occasions that over 50% was actually paid back.
It didn't even need to result in the indebted nation falling from power. You'd need to invite an expert on how the debts caused by Napoleon's wars were settled. Both winners and losers went on to rule the 19 century and become colonial empires.
Of course, that also was the age of Industrial Revolution with energy use increasing by the year, but the point is, those debts weren't really resolved.
I'm pretty sure, those billions of national debt of Western countries are going to be rearranged in some way, even if some (Europe mostly) will not come out on top after, whereas those endowed with resources, like US, Canada, Russia, some in the global South and of course, China, will just go on their business - at least, as long as resources can sustain a decent level of economi.
When things go for decline and climate problems build up, better take cover, but at that point, debt will be a minor concern . Resource constraints themselves, power over resources and war, will be central, as they always have. As Helen Thompson eluded about Hitler, he didn't fight Russia für Lebensraum, but to get his hands on oil around the Caspian, and get close to middle east resources and trade routes.
Here’s a difficult but needed perspective. The problem IS the “economy”. The economy is a machine that concentrates energy and resources and efficiently consumes them. It can’t do it’s opposite (restoration ). A parallel “economy” is required that is specialized to restore in equal measure. This is the work of Dr Delton Chen and the resulting recommendation is Carbon Quantitative Easing and the Global Carbon Reward. It’s a new perspective on the future of humanity and our ability to steward the future of the Living Planet.
Looking forward to listen this one @Nate!
What a huge insightful episode!
This has been very inspiring to me as someone who's just turned 70 I like to think that my best years are still ahead and I'm going to roll up my sleeves and get doing stuff, maybe even start a TH-cam channel on how to convert your gas car to electric
I’m finding a helpful pairing of Nate’s podcast (or those of his brilliant colleagues), and a jigsaw puzzle. There is so much to learn and absorb, and having an eye/hand task to perform while the ears and the mind are listening, works very well for me.
A mostly irrelevant factoid: Jeremy Grantham loves bubbles! So do I!
🫧🫧🫧🫧
Very interesting, thank you for making and posting.
@1:16:00 our global economic system is the paperclip optimizer solving for dollars.
Awesome, learned a lot.
Excellent conversation. Jeremy was fresh air, compared to the likes of Doomberg. I hope he will return. Thanks, Nate!
Just keep the magic wand away from Jeremy.
Luckily truth is a popularity contest
Very interesting podcast. The argument about the relationship between population and debt changes depending on which paradigm you embrace. I suspect JG is still assuming status quo in the structure of the global economy works well into 2100. Young people pay into pensions for the aging population. That’s a big assumption around investment and again, the same, uninspired approach to how the global economy might work in 70 years and beyond. I’m somewhat skeptical. We are more than likely to form economies that fit more into local contexts.
I remember when milk was delivered daily to our homes in glass bottles by a milkman!! It was NOT a difficult time in my life!! The plethora of the results of overshoot have been an unrecognized problem. I read Rachel Carson about fifty years ago and have been doing this retirement project since then when I was about 19.
Best episode ever. Thank you Jeremy and Nate.
Bold statement.
The answer is eating garbage . The health of the developed world fell sharply with the introduction of seed oils in the early 20th century and subsequent development of the processed food industry (sugar, wheat and artificial dye in everything). Namaste 😎🦋
The answer is…
Ur Mom Gay.
I literally ate garbage for 10 years in Minneapolis. I also ate tons of organic garlic and cilantro to offset the garbage - also tea tree oil!! And i bicycled 10 miles a day everyday for 10 years.
The world consumed per capita more calories than what is recommended for a healthy diet but we have record amounts of obesity and people still starving.
The problem is distribution and an equitable share imo.
@@antonyjh1234 yes and a lot of empty calories that are addictive: sugar, fructose, salt, alcohol, vegetable oils... All those as "quick-carbs" spike glucose levels causing obesity. Caffeine also messes up the glucose levels - not as bad but overall yes.
Wasn't really the point. The point is we have more than enough calories produced before we start eating garbage. This is consumed calories and not produced and there is a lot of waste in production before we start reprocessing garbage@@voidisyinyangvoidisyinyang885
why does everyone want "cheap" energy??? that will just mean more of the same! what we need is Expensive Clean energy to "force" us into a sustainable lifestyle.
Because "cheep" is easier to adopt and has less consequences for the impoverished citizens.
"Expensive" solutions will just cause stationary momentum and/or consequences for the most vulnerable citizens first.
The Aerosol Masking Effect makes a mockery of "cheap energy" - we're Already above 2 degrees Celsius as Andrew Glikson points out.
When abundant energy runs out, survivors will adapt. It won't be voluntary.
Great postcast, thanks Nate. I like to say
The Odyssey, by Homer, together with the Iliad, are the basis of Western literature and as such show us men and gods, adventures but fundamentally the human soul of the heroes.
In BkXIII:256-310 Athene reveals herself, from The Odyssey (Athena is the one who accompanies and helps Odysseus throughout his journey)
Odysseus, king of Ithaca, meets Athena, he shows himself as a young shepherd and asks Odysseus where he comes from, Odysseus tells him a lying adventure. She laughs and reveals herself to be the goddess Athena, the bright-eyed goddess, Athena, smiled at his words and, touching him with her hand, altered her form into that of a tall, beautiful woman, skilled in all the glorious arts. And she addressed him with winged words:
“Even if a god found you, he would have to be cunning and cunning to outsmart you. A resolute man, subtle in advice, never tired of intrigue and fraud, even in your own country you will always be full of the cunning and lies that you love so much."
Nate the Great.
Another TGS episode that is a great public service, and Grantham is impressive in many ways. But I'm disappointed to see someone with so much money, experience, intellect and influence espouse ideas that are utterly incompatible with the latest climate systems science. The revelations by Hansen, Simons et al 6 months ago (peer reviewed and published just last month) render Grantham's plans for 2050/2100/2200 irrelevant. I was in the cleantech investment camp too ten years ago. Now I see it as hopium. If +5C is baked in, "We're running out of time" is a less than honest summary. "We ran out of time" is more like it, and encouraging society to double down on "green" startups and VC investment meets my definition of insanity.
This is the best comment so far. The rest are hopium addicts looking for their next fix. I think Nate is sipping on hopium lately with most of his guests.
@@Twisted_Cabage What is needed is more guests who get by on less than US$50,000 per year. How many of those has he had on so far?
Agreed, he's in the GreenTech quadrant of Holmgren's Energy Descent scenarios. Nate tried to lean on him a bit but was too deferential imo. Especially on the debt as claim on future income and resources.
Love "hopium" as a concept. Hope is fine, hopium addictive and destructive.
If it's only 5c plus we're getting.. ALL IPCC RCP pathways include large scale Carbon Removal as a prime means of "solving" climate change. David King has explained a lot about that - even if Sir King is a hopeful when it comes to solving the issue.
However, there's no way we can remove the waste product CO2 in a cheap way. It will cost billions, while it doesn't do noting about emissions and doesn't do climate change going haywire.
Most likely, as Simons' research points out that sulphur is effective as a way to decrease temperatures (as temps went up after shipping stopped emitting the stuff resulting in decrease of reflective clouds), most likely, China will start projects to inject cloud causing substances in the atmosphere. China is the major power that will feel the greatest effects of climate change first, and it's pretty autocrat, able to just do things it wants to do. Its manipulation of rain showers around the 2008 Olympics are well known.
Fabulous. Let get to work!
It makes me more of a neo-Malthusian every day! Most people simply do not realizes how they, as individuals, contribute to the problem. In essence, we are fouling our nest...the only nest we have...we are totally dependent on Nature...our air, our water, our soil, and other natural resources!
Anyone know the books Jeremy had in the mid shelf of his bookcase?
Unfortunately, modern Capitalism runs wild and free, on the "ideology of the cancer cell". The difference between Mr. Grantham, and many other very smart people on Wall Street, is his value system. Too bad his is so uncommon.
When I traded stocks I found it super easy to get carried away with greed, even though I shared his values. Temptation is a powerful thing, and we see where we're all headed because of it. I look back with regret with how intensely it captured me.
Update.....I think it was Edward Abbey who I quoted.
He's a techno-solutionist who can't absorb the fact that debt financing represents a claim on future energy, or that civilization is itself a heat engine that's in the process of raising the climate to levels that won't be able to continue to sustain modern industrial society. He might be a little more enlightened than the other capitalists you mention, but not a lot.
@@dbadagna I don't know, but thanks for your opinion.
Timestamps in description when posting… to get best reach
Thanks for fixing, really important!
Great to have you back Nate.
Good to hear a different perspective with today's guest.
I don't question the genuine interest of both these gentlemen in energy realities & the environmental catastrophe - and appreciate Mr Grantham's knowledge & thoughtfulness - but he is one of the sector of people who have contributed the most to the collapse of the biosphere, not only with their childish greed but with careful, consistent & successful efforts to fully subordinate governments all over the world to the power of the super-wealthy, super sociopaths. This process has *guaranteed* that there would never be any effective work to prevent climate change. Grantham professes shock at the lack of concern of the finance set about environment. If that shock is genuine, he must be a very poor judge of character. In any case what shocks me is how people like him assume that there will be a reasonably functional society in 20 years.
Purpose: To confront and speak the truth, while never having my spirit broken. Never become a slave to an unjust and destructive society. To protect Gaia, her biotic communities and Her dedicated people. To reduce the amount of unnecessary suffering in the world. To prevent needless death. To find a way, or make a way to end this Ecocidal slaughter. To apply pressure toward justice for the Earth.
You use zero oil?
Kurt Vonnegut wrote 'Player Piano' about capital owners and machines versus the people sixty years ago.
I read that book. Have you read Professor David F. Noble's books? He didn't get MIT tenure since he exposed their machine scams. His book "The Religion of Technology" is a classic.
The problem is how you disperse the income. Dispersion may be a better word than distribution, if for example we set an overall criterion such as 80:20. In theory the 'market' can micromanage dispersion, but in an AI world there appears to be no market. Is it even acceptable (stable, sustainable) to have exactly 20% rich at high income level, and 80% all at equal low income level?
Best quote: "The earth is a spaceship with all the necessary supplies needed for life, and there is no station where we can stop to replenish our dwindling supplies".
More over, not twice has the earth traverse the same región of space in this Cosmic dance we are engaged, and yet we will always circle around, and depend on the Sun for sustenance. Maybe the Incas were correct believing INTI was the life giving god!
Maybe nature is god!!
Please define 'enlightened government!' 58:40
I do tithe to my yard-we put in a six acre tall grass prairie, and are changing the rest of our 9.3 acre property into a pesticide,Herbicide, synthetic fertilizer free place into a native plants natural area. Growing insects feed the flora and fauna. I share my projects to the master gardening community and whoever sees and asks about my project. Yvonne in Oklahoma
When government is slow to respond, then the individual effort may impact other individuals to join the effort and grassroots efforts can make a huge change person to person to community….
About the debt thing. I think the correct analysis is, debt is not a claim on future energy. The INTEREST however is (which is of course caused by the debt).
I have always contended - Monsanto is the world’s most evil corporation - this podcast supports this theory
Actually they are the bastard child of german fascist corporations.
Well let's acknowledge that they are now called Bayer.
The can change their name but we should not let them escape the reputation.
I think so. I also think Germany/Europe is the birthplace of modern chemical ag.
Nate is at University of Minnesota that does huge Monsanto "research" - I single-handedly protested Monsanto at the "State of the University" Presidential address attended by the University Professors. That was in 1999. Genetic engineering protest disrupts address
by Josh Linehan
Published October 6, 1999
As University President Mark Yudof highlighted a year of progress in his State of the University address last Thursday, an outspoken student took a view contrary to the president’s and publicly voiced his discontent.
During the question and answer portion of the address, graduate student Drew Hempel questioned Yudof directly about the University’s involvement in genetic engineering.
Hempel said the University is out of line in continuing research into genetic engineering of crops without full knowledge of the problems and benefits it might bring. Hempel also distributed about 40 copies of the “Dis-orientation Report,” a self-published paper alleging University abuse of power and funding.
“I disagree with your premise, and I disagree with your conclusion,” Yudof said then. He could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Gary Muehlbauer, a wheat and barley molecular biologist who works as a genetic engineer for the University, said the University is an acknowledged leader in the field.
While he thinks care must be exercised in the area of genetic engineering, he does not support postponing research in the field.
“I think in certain cases genetic engineering can be very useful. We do have to take some time and decide where it will help and where it will hurt,” Muehlbauer said.
The British Medical Association recently called for a moratorium on genetically engineered crops, which Hempel highlighted by carrying a sign advertising the decision.
“Over 237 countries have called for a ban on genetic engineering, but, for some reason, the University has taken it upon itself to be a leader in the field,” Hempel said.
Research persists at the University - as opposed to most European countries, where the practice has been halted - because of large private donations by corporations, Hempel said.
In September, the University received a $10 million gift from Cargill for a microbial and plant genomics facility.
“Basically, public universities have become extensions of large corporations. They donate $50 million biotech centers so they can get free research and then wait for the patents. They can’t stop without giving the money back,” Hempel said. “The University is a public, nonprofit organization. It should be democratic and operate toward the public good. This hasn’t happened in this case.”
Harvey Sarles, a professor in cultural studies and comparative literature who attended the address, said that while he disagreed with Hempel’s methods to attract attention, he did agree with some of his message.
“There is room for criticism of genetically engineered foods. Europeans, in particular, are rejecting the idea and refusing to buy our genetically engineered crops,” Sarles said.
Sarles agreed that the University should slow down its research until the positives and negatives of the process and its product can be sorted out.
“It involves quite a lot of money,” Sarles said. “I’m not sure we shouldn’t go ahead, but there needs to be more discussion on the subject. If protesting the address leads to that, then I guess a goal was accomplished.”
Talk is cheap - if people do protesting they're not gonna be a billionaire or even a professor. hahahaha.
They are also responsible for 50% of people alive,
What is yall opinion about the alliance for responsible citezenship?
An alliance for responsible citizenship sounds better than a lynching. To quote Audre Lorde on governance "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House".
Dude-the magic wand comment hit the jackpot for me
Dropped my jaw. 7/8s of us would be instantly gone. Probably not a very pleasant experience for those left - who decides?
I posted a frame from the video on FB. My older cousin biologist Dr Keith Brent OBE comments: "Yes the insect drop is a big worry. How does it happen. Is it insecticides, traffic fumes, CO2, disease pathogens ? Are all insects equally vulnerable ? Does it vary between regions ? We urgently need to know much more in order to stop it." Personally I doubt traffic fumes, unless nitric oxide, but can read 'other pollutants'.
The bread baking analogy made me laugh out loud 😁
Are you aware of Zeitgeist Movement / Venus Project? thanks for sharing
Jeremy's magic wand is the best, if not only viable way to come to terms with the planet. I am all for it.
There are few things more satisfying than writing down an equation that no-one has seen before, and it is easy to devote one's time to working out its finer technical consequences. But the world is mostly too complex and interactive, as well as dynamic on many time scales, to comprehend in that way. As a topical example, there is still an argument over whether warming is primarily anthropogenic or driven by natural cycles - 70-250 years have been mentioned. Even statistical significance as a criterion has been under attack. The trick, maybe, will be to find a way of containing that complexity robustly without depending on evidence whose generality or narrowness of scope renders it brittle.
Brilliant!
Jeremy Grantham's contention that debt (including the debt financing of infrastructure projects) doesn't amount to a claim on future resources was so unexpected and ridiculous. He stated it almost like an article of faith, then refused to explain why he thinks it's true.
Yeah that came out of nowhere and caught me off guard. Still curious about that.
I really believe the framing of the "climate" issue is the problem. It's framed in a way that creates division. When Republican President Ronald Reagan signed the Montreal Protocol to deal with the Ozone depletion issue, it was a specific, pollution created issue that we supported. BUT IF it had been framed differently it would have failed completely. If the scientists had pushed a global warming or global climate emergency agenda back then, the Ozone agreement would have failed, and the planet (and all of us) would have suffered. If you want to have clean air, clean water, clean soil, vibrant and healthy oceans that aren't radioactive, then let's reframe the issue as a "pollution" issue. And let's create incentives that empower decentralized approaches to this. For example, regenerative agriculture could be incentivized.
Couldn't agree more.
The Ozone depletion issue and the "climate issue" are quite different, despite the frequent use of the comparison in support of various arguments. Most strikingly, the ozone-depleting chemicals -- CFCs primarily -- had relatively few uses and there existed ready-to-deploy alternatives which were championed by the very producers of CFCs. Greenhouse gazes on the other hand are tied to energy conversion and to food, steel and cement production, essentially activities which are at the origin of 100% of the economy (Nate explains better than I can, how these activities only amount to a few percent of the GDP, but nevertheless support EVERY single aspect the economy). Hence the ozone issue could be and was addressed as a "pollution" issue, merely disrupting (and ultimately, stimulating!) a tiny portion the economy, whereas the climate issue is so systemic that it requires a war-like economy, with all the planning, government "take over" and general acceptance from the public this entails.
How can one frame such an issue and foster the necessary public acceptance? I do not know, though I'm afraid that equating it to the ozone-depleting pollution might give people the wrong impression: that of a mild, sectorial, switch with virtually no impact on the public.
@@marcveillet2589 I think you missed the point. It has nothing to do with the Ozone example I provided. It's about what can actually happen politically, what can be achieved. If you choose to continue to splatter science upon those who have built a bunker against it, you lose, they lose, we all lose. You cannot forcefully "educate" people who believe you are a liar. Not you as a commenter, "you" as in the proponents of a large scale government solution. So my idea, is to find a way to isolate the variables, attack specific components of the problem that have broad political support, and get victories where we can. Will it be enough? That is a stupid question, because if we don't agree at all on the problem as it is now, then we will see 0% action. Just look at the treaties. Hilarious. So let's take victories where we can get them. Subsidies for regenerative agriculture would be a great start.
@@marcveillet2589 The focus on greenhouse gases while ignoring other symptoms of overshoot, is misguided. The IPCC is designed to fail.
There isn't any "framing" that will get people past the massive reductions in standard of living which "de growth" will entail. There's no comparison with CFCs, the scale of the problem is entirely different. I think the only hope is carbon free energy coming online and the population collapse the guest is discussing.
All of these conversations would instantly become irrelevant as soon as governments are forced to simply STOP KEEPING EVERYTHING SECRET so that everyone can know the truth and facts about everything. Once the people have all of the correct information I believe they would INSTANTLY change their ways and direction to the right path of existence and conservation. It's that simple. People need to be shown the negative effects of overconsumption and waste which is currently necessary for the capitalism machine to continue which keeps the Jeremys of the world extra comfortable.
Government transparency and the stories we tell ourselves are separate issues. The former is used to cover up crimes, the latter is a function of our cognitive biases.
Hi Nate, I hope that you read this. Have you thought about doing a Q&A podcast? Answering viewers’/ listeners’ questions. Whenever I try to talk about people about the link between energy and the economy and the likelihood that the economy is likely to collapse (hopefully before we fry the planet) they say that there is plenty of oil and oil reserves.They say that the problem is that we WILL burn all these fossil fuels and definitely fry the planet. Please help
Yes I should do it. Maybe live. I’m not tech expert and we have small staff- but I’ll look into it. Thanks
Thanks for responding, Nate and so quickly! It doesn’t have to be a live Q&A… We could just ask using this forum and you could bundle them up and answer them in one podcast. I’m in Australia so a live session is likely to happen in the early hours of my morning. BTW I thought it quite funny that Jeremy Grantham’s euphemism for human extinction was ‘going out of business’ - like the worst outcome of humans being dead is that they can’t participate in business.
But how will the oligarchy keep their multiple homes, fleets of airplanes and yachts if the pleabs aren't properly fleeced?
By fleecing them with more vigor, increasing the physical authority of the state, forcing them to have babies so the fleecing is sustainable.
Baaaah..
I was going to say we can solve climate change without AI, but lack the willingness to collaborate at the level needed to do that. Also it's possible that AI finds a solution and not enough people are willing to follow through on that plan. But then I realized I don't know what it means to solve that problem. What counts as a "solution"? Not keeping the rise over pre-industrial levels below 1.5 C , that ship has sailed. Not keeping people and species from dying out, because we've had species loss and millions of humans have died prematurely from the heat alone. If humans survive but we still trash the environment, will that be seen as a solution?
'debt' I think JGs view on actual goods, instead of the monetarist view of debt as time shifting, is the more helpful one for understanding the economy.
Another superb addition to TGS. But the idea that debt doesnt matter is easy to disprove. Without debt, we would not be living beyond our means. Imagine, back in the old days, a timber merchant going to a bank to get a loan to cut down a forest to make planks. The bank had to have that money in gold to back up the loan. With the severing of money creation from the physical world in 1871, now when a bank agrees to the loan, they are guaranteeing to give the timber merchant money they don’t have, against a guarantee from the timber merchant that they are in no position to make. Both parties are technically committing fraud. And the result is massive limitless resource extraction and living beyond our means.
Creating money out of thin air obviates the need for debt. Nowadays banks have capital requirements. They don't need gold or deposits to issue loans. Unlike a currency issuer, loans issued by banks carry with them a liability. Loans that don't get paid back are recorded as a loss against the bank's capital.
@@bumblebee9337 when banks make loans, they create the money as credit. Therefore there is now no financial limit to resource extraction, which is why we've maxed out every resource.
@@markkelly4804 There is a limit to how much banks may loan, but there are other ways to raise funds, so the sky is the limit, which is beyond the Earth's capacity to repair the damage being done. And we have to consider the scale of human activity. Half as many humans eating the planet would mean less damage, regardless of how much credit is used to fund projects. Essentially, we're consuming resources as fast as we can, but for the existence of artificial scarcity, which limits the purchasing power of people in lower income brackets.
@@antonyjh1234 A bank is not allowed to use customer deposits under normal circumstances. Bad loans come out of the bank's capital. There is talk of a 'bail in' system in case of a bank run. That is just criminal.
Relative to the size of the money supply, of privately held capital, how significant is private debt? Bankruptcy laws allow for some leeway, for some to live beyond their means for a time, but that has a small impact on overall consumption. If there were less inequality, less wealth concentration, consumption would soar among the masses.
@@antonyjh1234 When a commercial bank issues a loan, it doesn't use the money from other people's accounts directly, it extends credit, creating a deposit in the borrowers account. This process creates new money within the economy. So exponential claims on limited resources, allowing us to live beyond our means. See TGS episode with Josh Farley.
I appreciated hearing Mr Grantham's systemic point of view, although when he expressed hope in a (possibly) cost neutral machine that turns corn stubble into biochar I began to feel uncertain about the depth of his logic. Although corn stubble can technically be used in situ as a biochar feedstock it is relatively low grade (but hey! If you are narrowly defining the problem why would you not look at such a so-called 'solution').. However Grantham doesn't question why the cornfield is even there (such that there is even an economy of scale to warrant the manufacture of a corn stubble biochar machine) in a world of energy constriction and lack of present human psychological ability to do the humble and already well-known work of re-generating Earth's carrying capacity.
Another interesting added factor to our Climate Change is volcano eruptions
I just watched Wyss Yim : Volcanic eruptions and climate variability podcast by Tom Nelson 🌋🕊🌏
The most influential and inspiring podcast I have ever viewed. Thank you Nate.
Thank you for putting me on the email notification.
This was a really good episode!
Roundtable with Jeremy Grantham, Steve Keen and Gary Stevenson could be something? How do we fix a broken economic system?
The person on the street has to change...knowing where wealth really comes from...not from banks, not from Government, not from employers, but from our environment.
It appears that the only way the problem will be resolved is by negative feedback influences...civil strife, war, poverty, and environmental degradation. These are extremely effective means of controlling further demands on the environment. Most people do not realize their individual role in this.
Wars are fought by people simply wanting what other people have
The world seems to emphasize LENGTH of life over QUALITY of life as if we somehow can reach some future point of immortality which is absurd. Everone will die at some point why do we strive for a few more years of wasteful consumption instead of simply accepting your demise and strive to improve the lives of OTHERS?
Length and size matter.... At least to those without adequate perspective. Attachment to family, town, country, team, ethnicity etc. preclude the idea of actual death. They all seemingly go on forever. At least I know I don't seem to matter and actually never did. As I get older I am more sure of it. I can imagine some point where it will be understood by a critical mass and a new wisdom of early death will be embraced. Leave early while the leaving is good.
It's curious that people are terrified of death while believing in an afterlife.
Cellulose sludge and protein sludge roll of the tongue to good effect but offer a limited range (I recall the different coloured biscuits produced by the Soylent Company). What can we learn about materials and growing them from bacteria, and from insects (before they go extinct)? Then, what can we learn that contributes to nutrition and medicine from the thousands of plants in the tropics - and, yes, the rain forest - before it is torn down for beef, soya and palm oil; and from the people who live there and have knowledge passed down from generation to generation (before they are reduced to living in slums, dowsed in alcohol and Christianity, and dressed in a pastiche of western respectability, or simply extinct too)? Problem: how do you invest in nature in its undisturbed state, and people in a 'state of nature'?
I still haven’t changed my view that the best option is to increase all my consumption while I still can and be as wasteful as possible now before they don’t let me.
While there is some short-term self-optimising logic to it, it doesnt seem to fit into a 'good ancestor' narrative. Future me might regret it if I took this approach. All the same, I think I understand where you are coming from.
spoken like a true 'if it feels good, do it' narcissist from the 60s (is your tongue in your cheek or are you being cheeky?)
Rationing is the Big Stick. Probably won’t happen until there’s a desirable option. More likely is the reduction of demand by rewarding carbon mitigation. The Big Carrot. See Carbon Quantitative Easing
Regarding mainland China, since 2021 millions of young Chinese have been "lying flat" (tang ping in Chinese), meaning taking a break from relentless work, and many are also, of necessity, based on the present economic challenges many face, also postponing marriage and having children entirely.