Peter Zeihan’s latest is titled The End of the World is Just the Beginning. The subtitle is “mapping the collapse of globalization.” I find the overall thesis highly speculative. But my review focuses on what Zeihan sees as the impact of de-globalization
"But we lack the means to get adequate wind and solar power to cities."
There is inadequate power in wind and solar and always will be. It is probably a good thing the power transmission issue is paramount or else we would be wasting more resources chasing the impossible.
Go nuclear. Go gas. Accept coal. Or go broke believing in unicorns and fairies.
Zeihan should probably be read more as attempting to be a self-negating prophet - describing the bad results that current trends indicate, as a way to change those trends to instead have better results.
Lots of value in describing the bad trends and feedback loops. Especially for those of us who don't think it's going to be so bad - so why we're optimistic, or at least less pessimistic. Explicit reasons are good to have.
Rather than climate change alarmism, why not more pre-emptive mitigation systems?
Until the oceans have risen a few feet, and so far it's less than one foot*, the big climate fears are:
Yes, earthquakes, too are blamed by some alarmists on CO2 - since they're exaggerating so much, so often.
Society should be planning for and mitigating:
Flood control; reservoirs & irrigation plans & water cost policies; controlled burning (that actually remains under control), more a/c for heat waves (including solar powered a/c & shade), better protection from uncommon freezing (like in Texas), planting deeper rooted trees that are more wind resistant, more stringent (& thus costly) hurricane & tornado resistant construction including higher rates AND less gov't emergency cash for when storms come.
We need a more prepared and resilient set of civilization buildings to withstand climate storms -- and we should have most of these even if there's a lot less damage in the next decades than the alarmists expect.
All rational folk should be looking more positively at the advantages of more nuclear power, and cautiously supporting it, and more new nukes being constructed.
.
*"Sea level has risen 8-9 inches (21-24 centimeters) since 1880. In 2020, global sea level set a new record high—91.3 mm (3.6 inches) above 1993 levels."
We had similar energy distribution issues with Hydro power. We can not float solar on the lakes behind the hydro dams and utilize the transmission capacity.
If we put some small dams for flow regulation over 24 hrs downstream of the major hydro facilities for managing daily river flow rates we could then use the hydro generators when the solar is low.
I’m reading the book now, and I’m on the chapters about financial systems. A point that he makes repeatedly is that a successful monetary system was historically limited by the quantity of money. He seems to miss the idea of prices. A lot. I’m not sure why. He talks about long sweeps of history, so I would have thought that he’d be aware of periods when economies encountered price deflation along side fast growth (e.g. much of the last 30 years of the 19th century in the US). Perhaps he’s focused on illustrating what happens in the short run, and assumes downward price stickiness. I dunno. I don’t think it undercuts his main points -- just the historical context he invokes.
Zeihan makes great points. He does take his argument too far. I've heard him say that Russia will push far past Ukraine into Poland, etc. This seems ridiculous. Not sure they could do much to Poland at this point. He also says China is finished this year! Come on. Still overall he has good points about incentives in the system. Whether US elites figure those out before we have another Trump is another matter.
"The cost of [dealing with climate change], including the carbon dioxide that will be released in that atmosphere in the process, is daunting."
Maybe that depends on a) whether the means chosen are lest cost (tax on net CO2 emissions while allowing rapid technological progress with nuclear and geothermal generation) AND b) how easily one is daunted.
And, granted that this is my speculation, the costs may be overestimated if CO2 capture and sequestration is cheap enough to allow continued use of fossil fuels in those activities where the alternatives are most costly -- ocean and road transport, fight.
"But we lack the means to get adequate wind and solar power to cities."
There is inadequate power in wind and solar and always will be. It is probably a good thing the power transmission issue is paramount or else we would be wasting more resources chasing the impossible.
Go nuclear. Go gas. Accept coal. Or go broke believing in unicorns and fairies.
Is there a link to the full review that's missing?
Zeihan should probably be read more as attempting to be a self-negating prophet - describing the bad results that current trends indicate, as a way to change those trends to instead have better results.
Lots of value in describing the bad trends and feedback loops. Especially for those of us who don't think it's going to be so bad - so why we're optimistic, or at least less pessimistic. Explicit reasons are good to have.
Rather than climate change alarmism, why not more pre-emptive mitigation systems?
Until the oceans have risen a few feet, and so far it's less than one foot*, the big climate fears are:
Floods, droughts, fires, heat waves, cold waves, wind storms, hurricanes, tornadoes.
Yes, earthquakes, too are blamed by some alarmists on CO2 - since they're exaggerating so much, so often.
Society should be planning for and mitigating:
Flood control; reservoirs & irrigation plans & water cost policies; controlled burning (that actually remains under control), more a/c for heat waves (including solar powered a/c & shade), better protection from uncommon freezing (like in Texas), planting deeper rooted trees that are more wind resistant, more stringent (& thus costly) hurricane & tornado resistant construction including higher rates AND less gov't emergency cash for when storms come.
We need a more prepared and resilient set of civilization buildings to withstand climate storms -- and we should have most of these even if there's a lot less damage in the next decades than the alarmists expect.
All rational folk should be looking more positively at the advantages of more nuclear power, and cautiously supporting it, and more new nukes being constructed.
.
*"Sea level has risen 8-9 inches (21-24 centimeters) since 1880. In 2020, global sea level set a new record high—91.3 mm (3.6 inches) above 1993 levels."
We had similar energy distribution issues with Hydro power. We can not float solar on the lakes behind the hydro dams and utilize the transmission capacity.
If we put some small dams for flow regulation over 24 hrs downstream of the major hydro facilities for managing daily river flow rates we could then use the hydro generators when the solar is low.
I’m reading the book now, and I’m on the chapters about financial systems. A point that he makes repeatedly is that a successful monetary system was historically limited by the quantity of money. He seems to miss the idea of prices. A lot. I’m not sure why. He talks about long sweeps of history, so I would have thought that he’d be aware of periods when economies encountered price deflation along side fast growth (e.g. much of the last 30 years of the 19th century in the US). Perhaps he’s focused on illustrating what happens in the short run, and assumes downward price stickiness. I dunno. I don’t think it undercuts his main points -- just the historical context he invokes.
Zeihan makes great points. He does take his argument too far. I've heard him say that Russia will push far past Ukraine into Poland, etc. This seems ridiculous. Not sure they could do much to Poland at this point. He also says China is finished this year! Come on. Still overall he has good points about incentives in the system. Whether US elites figure those out before we have another Trump is another matter.
"The cost of [dealing with climate change], including the carbon dioxide that will be released in that atmosphere in the process, is daunting."
Maybe that depends on a) whether the means chosen are lest cost (tax on net CO2 emissions while allowing rapid technological progress with nuclear and geothermal generation) AND b) how easily one is daunted.
And, granted that this is my speculation, the costs may be overestimated if CO2 capture and sequestration is cheap enough to allow continued use of fossil fuels in those activities where the alternatives are most costly -- ocean and road transport, fight.