Competing Mental Models in the Climate Debate

At present, a singular mental model predominates among those in political and economic positions of influence. This model comprises two key elements: Pro-Growth Capitalism + Technology Utopianism. Pro-Growth Capitalism is the foundation of our global society, while Technology Utopianism posits that any challenges encountered will be resolved through technological advancements.

Recently, a slightly different approach has emerged as a plausible alternative, largely due to the American Democratic Party and the Biden Administration. This model can be termed Green-Growth Optimism, emphasizing the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions to combat climate change. It is based on the belief that we can sustain the economic growth essential to Pro-Growth Capitalism by replacing CO2-emitting fossil fuels with renewable energy sources like wind, water, and solar. The promise of perpetual growth is seen as a compelling argument, with proponents asserting that green growth can foster both economic prosperity and social equity.

In contrast, two other models have emerged that challenge the overly optimistic outlook of both Technology Utopianism and Green-Growth Optimism. Both acknowledge that infinite growth is unfeasible on a limited planet but diverge significantly in their conclusions about the potential responses to climate change and resource scarcity. The first is often labeled End-Times Doomism, while the second is referred to as Voluntary Degrowth.

Both mental models start with the premise that economic growth, measured by GDP, will inevitably cease when fossil fuels are depleted, if not sooner. They also concur that the primary issue confronting humanity is not directly CO2 emissions and global warming, but rather over-consumption (predominantly in the Global North), which both models identify as the root cause of overshoot, resource depletion, and climate change. However, they diverge drastically on what follows next:

What actions can be taken, if any, to halt humanity's unsustainable pursuit of endless growth before it leads to inevitable and catastrophic failure?

End-Times Doomism maintains that any resistance is pointless. It concludes that humanity lacks the capacity to alter its trajectory. The elites benefiting from Pro-Growth Capitalism are deemed too powerful, governments too ineffective, and the over-consuming populations of the Global North too entrenched in their unsustainable lifestyles to initiate any voluntary change.

Given these significant challenges, End-Times Doomism predicts that the total collapse of global civilization is both inevitable and irreversible. Fossil fuel production will not cease voluntarily; the oil industry will continue its operations until they are no longer profitable. Analysts forecast this will occur around mid-century when the costs of extracting and processing fossil fuels outstrip what buyers can afford. By then, the carbon budget will be exhausted, leading to atmospheric CO2 levels that result in unlivable temperatures. In summary, according to End-Times Doomism, humanity is destined for extinction, perhaps not immediately, but certainly within a century or two.

Voluntary Degrowth also rejects the pro-growth perspectives of Technology Utopianism and Green-Growth Optimism. However, in contrast to End-Times Doomism, it posits that humans can change and that mobilized populations, led by committed leaders, can successfully reduce over-consumption and terminate our reliance on fossil fuels. Advocates of Voluntary Degrowth (with the "voluntary" aspect typically assumed rather than explicitly stated) believe that persuasive arguments grounded in sound evidence and logic can motivate political leaders to implement degrowth policies that curtail over-consumption and phase out fossil fuels in a planned and orderly fashion. These policies aim to intentionally decrease the global economy's dependence on continuous growth and capitalist accumulation, redirecting focus towards providing equitable and universal services that enhance citizens' well-being, health, and safety.

Voluntary Degrowth demands significant change from political and economic leaders, urging them to dismantle the very system that has conferred them power and wealth. It challenges them to enact policies that contradict the interests of affluent donors who sustain their positions. But what if the central assumption of Voluntary Degrowth—that governments can be persuaded to adopt policies based on reason and evidence—is flawed? What happens if the elites refuse to abandon their commitment to Pro-Growth Capitalism?

The Consequences of Growth's End

If infinite growth is unsustainable, it will inevitably cease. If this cessation does not occur voluntarily through intentional policy choices, it will happen involuntarily. In this scenario, none of the mental models we have discussed thus far provide substantial guidance. Pro-Growth Capitalism and Green Growth Optimism are unhelpful because they both assume that growth can persist indefinitely, either through technological fixes or green initiatives. In contrast, both Voluntary Degrowth and End-Times Doomism recognize that growth must end, but they envision its conclusion in starkly different ways.

Doomism predicts a swift descent off a Seneca Cliff, contending that none of civilization's foundational elements—famously encapsulated by Vaclav Smil as cement, steel, plastics, and ammonia—can be produced without fossil fuels. Additionally, essential fuels for transportation, such as diesel and jet fuel, will also vanish. End-Times Doomism offers little insight into what follows, aside from global collapse and significant (eventually total) human depopulation, likely accelerated by escalating climate disasters. Doomists advocate for what they term "radical acceptance" in light of these challenges. Much like the narratives of disaster films, their stories tend to fade to black before the real crises unfold. According to End-Times Doomism, if one survives the end of fossil fuels, they will be largely on their own.

Voluntary Degrowth similarly fails to outline what might happen if its fundamental belief—that nations will adopt degrowth policies to mitigate over-consumption—fails to materialize. Some proponents mention the potential for involuntary degrowth, but primarily as a cautionary tale to be avoided.

Introducing Energy Descent Realism

To comprehend how involuntary degrowth could manifest in the coming decades, we require a different mental model—one that takes the concept of involuntary degrowth seriously. I propose the term Energy Descent Realism. This model recognizes the inevitability of both growth and fossil fuel depletion. However, it also posits that political and economic leaders will not voluntarily abandon Pro-Growth Capitalism. Consequently, humanity will face a period of crisis and upheaval as the energy foundations of our civilization erode, despite urgent attempts to sustain them for as long as possible. Energy Descent Realism embodies what I have previously referred to as "the storm before the calm."

Unlike End-Times Doomism, Energy Descent Realism does not assume that the end of oil will render humanity powerless and lead directly to extinction. It acknowledges that a substantial renewable energy infrastructure is already in place and that additional projects will emerge before fossil fuels are exhausted. Moreover, it recognizes that many obstacles deemed "impossible" by Doomists are being addressed through various solutions, some currently in production and others in development, all benefiting from significant public and private investments, mainly in the affluent Global North.

This is not to suggest that Energy Descent Realism is simply Green Growth Optimism stripped of its optimistic outlook. As the term implies, Energy Descent Realism acknowledges that the energy we can harness after fossil fuels will be considerably less than the current surplus. The extent of this reduction will depend on how far along we are in transitioning to renewable energy by the time oil becomes scarce.

While a total collapse of energy is unlikely, as posited by End-Times Doomism, an energy descent is expected. One implication of this descent is that many of the policy recommendations associated with Voluntary Degrowth will seem far more appealing in a post-oil reality than they do today. In essence, Energy Descent Realism anticipates that progress on degrowth initiatives will occur, but only after the cessation of growth, not before.

Contrary to the "impossibility" arguments put forth by End-Times Doomism, Energy Descent Realism also recognizes that when fossil fuels are no longer available, some regions will still benefit from access to solar farms, wind energy, energy storage, electric vehicles, a livable climate (as global averages mean some locales will experience below-average conditions), and local food and water supplies. Others, however, will not.

This distinction is crucial because it implies that the availability of energy, food, and water in a post-oil and post-growth world will be both highly variable and unevenly distributed across the globe. In the initial decades following the end of oil, humanity will be divided into a fortunate minority with access to essential resources and an unfortunate majority without. According to Energy Descent Realism, this marks the beginning of humanity's transition away from our current dependence on environmentally harmful fossil fuels. It represents "the end from which we commence."

On to Part 2 …