I find it hard to classify Peter Coffin politically. On the one hand, I think their critiques of capitalism are spot on. But they'll be chugging along, making a cogent point, when all of a sudden, they say something that is not only wrong but sounds like corporate propaganda.
At one point, in this very long documentary, they say, that renewables do not provide consistent energy, and therefore, if we were to rely on them as our only source of power, people would die. (It's at about 90 minutes)
But here's the thing...That's wrong.
To the best of my knowledge, that's not true. When I was developing my own political outlook about ten years ago, I read dozens of studies which indicate that a 100% renewable energy infrastructure (across all industries) would not only meet but exceed global energy demand.
Here's a meta-analysis of 180 peer-reviewed papers, most of which insist that it is both technologically and economically feasible to meet global energy demand with 100% renewables.
There are dissenting opinions, yes. I would be remiss if I didn't mention them. But if you look deeper, you'll find that a lot of these dissenters have ties to other energy industries.
And I'm not suggesting that we simply turn off all the nuclear plants tomorrow.
This is not some anti nuclear energy rant. I think there's a lot of potential in #thorium technology. At least as an interim power source. Possibly as a long-term option.
So if 100% #renewables is feasible (and the evidence suggests that it is), we should keep that option on the table and develop synergistic strategies. Now, what does that mean? Well, when most people think of renewables, they think wind and solar. And those would definitely be part of the equation. But people rarely mention the other options: wave, tidal, hydro and geothermal. The latter offers enormous energy potential.
A synergistic strategy means that you use all of these options together and you tailor the energy grid for each geographic region. You don't make solar panels your primary method of energy generation in the Yukon (which gets very little sunlight in the winter months). But in Arizona? That's a great place for solar.
Now, of course, there are obstacles. I'm not trying to make this sound like we can just snap our fingers and make clean energy infrastructure. But the key here is that our best scientific minds agree that these obstacles are surmountable.
Throughout the video, Peter equates "reducing consumption" with "killing poor/disabled people." The argument they make pretty much verbatim goes like this.
Humans need energy to survive. So, if we reduce energy consumption, people are going to die.
Except no one is advocating for that. Maybe Jason Hickel is. I haven't read his book. (He wrote Less is More). And Peter did include some cringy quotes from Hickel.
But when serious people talk about a reduction in consumption, we're not talking about leaving poor people to die.
Overconsumption is caused by the inefficiencies that are baked into #capitalism. Capitalism is an engine for turning natural resources into crap that sits in a landfill. Why? Because of cost efficiency and profit maximization.
Cost efficiency is not true efficiency. Real efficiency is getting the most productive output for the least energy input. Cost efficiency is making the most profit for the least cost. These two things are not the same.
Take phones, for instance. Phones could be modular and durable. In other words, if a single part breaks down - like one chip on the circuit board - the one part is repaired or replaced while the rest of the phone remains untouched. But creating phones like that costs more. And reduces repeat purchases.
Apple, Samsung and Motorola go out of the way to squash the repair market. They want to make it easiest to just replace the entire phone when a single part breaks down. That's why phones no longer have removeable batteries. Because if you have to pay for a new battery (which will be harder to find if your phone is a few years old) and for the maintenance of taking the phone apart and installing the new battery, you'll probably just buy a new phone.
That's what maximizes Apple's profits. Companies have to generate cyclical consumption to stay in business. That's the overconsumption we're talking about. Not basic living essentials like water and power and food.
Speaking of living essentials, let's look at housing. In 2019 - the last time I checked - the US Census Bureau reported 545 000 homeless Americans. Quite a bit, right?
In the same year, the Department of Housing and Urban Development reported 13 million permanently unoccupied houses. Permanently unoccupied means nobody lives in them. They aren't being used as somebody's summer home. They are literally just sitting there untouched, functioning solely as an asset on someone's balance sheet.
That's the overconsumption we're talking about. Not only do we have way more houses than we actually need, the people who do need them can't live in them.
Why are we, as a society, making so many unused houses? Because that's how developers make a profit! Profit is the problem.
Profit = overconsumption.
That's what we're talking about: harvesting natural resources that go into unused products, many of which find their way into landfills. Throwing out perfectly usable products that could repaired. Tossing used parts into landfills even though their components (gold, copper, cobalt, tin) are still perfectly usable and could be extracted.
No serious person is talking about "getting back to nature" or "shutting off the power and going primitive" or "leaving disabled people to die."
Anyone who advocates the latter is someone you should absolutely stop listening to.
