The case for scarcity and a critique of the Transition Towns movement


Interesting challenge by Ted Trainer (via Nicholas Roberts):

(excerpts only, the source article is much longer, both on the alternative ‘Simpler Way” and in its detailed critique)

Ted Trainer:




Where we are, and the way out





So, what needs to be done?




Therefore, Ted Trainer concludes:


1 Comment The case for scarcity and a critique of the Transition Towns movement

  1. AvatarMichel Bauwens

    This contribution from Jeff Vail, sent by email, is not directly related to the above, but is related to the debate about scarcity vs. abundance, in particular the prediction of inevitable abundance as proposed by Paul Fernhout on the Open Manufacturing list:

    I agree with the EInstein quote that few people undrstand exponential growth, but I think Paul’s respones is only proof that he’s not appreciating the full implications of exponential growth! For example, if, as he suggests, exponential growth in wind power continues, it won’t be long before the weight of wind turbines exceeds the mass of the Earth! More fundamentally, his critique does nothing to address the issue that exponential growth in wind-turbines is inextricably linked to exponential growth in general (economic, population, resource consumption, etc.)–he does not address how wind can continue to grow exponentially without the associated externalities of growth in general. Additionally, I fundamentally disagree with his artificial separation of “growth” and the “externalities” that result from growth–I think these are structurally linked, and you cannot manage the externalities (symptom) over the long-term without addressing the root cause (growth itself). He proposes that we solve this issue by moving toward a “100% recyclability” paradigm. That’s nice science fiction, but it is fundamentally contradicted by the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is precisely why organizations are only “moving toward” this ideal, but none have actually gotten there. As we will always fall short of 100% recyclability in the industrial economy, all growth will continue to generate additional externalities (these can be reduced, but not eliminated). In reality, we haven’t even succeeded in minimizing these externalities, but only in offshoring them in the form of population growth, poverty, geopolitical unrest, and oppression in the developing world (that’s “how countries like Denmark are doing it”).

    Finally, on the EROEI issue, all Paul offers is that “it’s one guy’s opinion against what are now well-established numbers in the field.” I can just reverse the wording and come up with an equally unconvincing “appeal to authority”! Paul provides only appeal to authority and no actual sources or studies to rebut my critique (or that of the published studies I cite to)–if he does so, I will be happy to point out how each of these studies (if they even reveal their methodology) fail to account for anything even approaching all energy inputs. Finally, he fundamentally fails to understand the problem when he says that we can still transition even if the EROEI is only 2:1. With an EROEI of 2, the “Renewables Gap” cannot be bridged without a true collapse of the global economy (which will probably destroy the manufacturing and economic base required to produce those renewables with an EROEI of 2:1).

    I don’t mean to attack Paul personally, and I certainly don’t question his intent to do the right thing for humanity, but I think his argument that we can “just transition to renewables”–a widespread belief–is very dangerous because it will prevent the marshalling of the political will to do anything meaningful until we realize after-the-fact the flaws in that approach…


    As he concedes, “Of course, what we usually see in nature is exponential growth to a point, and then a plateau. And then, depending on how things go, sometimes another phase of exponential growth. And of course, things do collapse sometimes.” That’s exactly what I’m arguing will happen, as the net-energy prospects of wind (and the need for wind to compete on an equal playing field once it becomes more than a boutique industry) decline.

Leave A Comment

