@breadandcircuses Hmmm... Usual reminder that the climate crisis has its roots in slavery. Good.
Discussion of fiction moved to another post.
On a more serious note, there was a recent paper arguing that the risk of simultaneous food system failures due to climate impacts is much higher than is generally assumed. And for electricity, places like South Africa have regular scheduled blackouts; if we build air conditioning faster than we build solar, this is quite plausible and combined with a heat wave might lead to fatalities. But sure, instant, permanent failure of the electricity grid is highly unlikely.
Fossil fuel depletion won't be a serious problem. Mineral depletion is more worrying, especially regarding slowing down the transition; the other link talked about issues with steel.
Totally agree that we're already seeing evidence of major problems, escalating crises, most of them ultimately mixed up with the climate crisis one way or another. I'd extend that to politics too. And economics.
Once again, I don't see peak oil as a serious concern. But whether we can get through the transition without running into any serious resource issues remains to be seen. Which is one of the reasons for planned degrowth. A slow decline will not be fair, and will be unnecessarily chaotic, and there will be times when it's particularly bad. Also, major wars are IMHO a plausible outcome, certainly made more likely by climate change.
I personally believe inflation can be managed, that the ways it is being managed at the moment are pretty awful, that there are better options, and that more inflation is inevitable. Most of that goes back to Richard Murphy though; some of his assumptions may be wrong. Regardless, more inflation is inevitable. For food and probably material goods too.
He does draw politics in at this point (agricultural crises, land grabs, etc).
Unfortunately, what he paints is arguably the best case scenario. Novel viruses and wars are inevitable. So are occasional mass casualty events. Worst case, global wars remain possible. The worse things get, the more likely they are. One possible trigger is geoengineering.
He more or less agrees with my central point that building networks to stop the climate crisis will help us to adapt to an increasingly difficult future.
I strongly disagree with the implication that renewables are just postponing the inevitable and inevitably use unsustainable amounts of minerals and energy, or that that energy is inevitably fossil fueled. There is already evidence of the embodied energy in solar coming down fast, and we have lifecycle numbers including mining. Although energy efficiency and demand reduction lead to both a faster transition and a much softer landing; lithium should be used in buses and power grids, not cars.
My main objective is to move towards a sustainable future society. That must necessarily still include technology, since abandoning modern medicine would be catastrophic for millions of people who depend on it. However that won't happen unless we fight for it.
The claim that governments and corporations only know how to grow is half true. Building a degrowth economy is vital. However, there have been many times in the past when governments have faced existential threats and taken the necessary action in response.
But he's absolutely right that politicians taking advantage of crises and then failing to manage them is a key strategic risk. That's why politics and particularly the rise of fascism in many (mostly richer) countries is part and parcel of the climate crisis.
Overall an interesting contribution. More hopeful in some ways and more pessimistic in other ways than where I'm at.
Mitigation and adaptation are almost the same thing, in social and political terms. We need to organise, and the networks we create in doing so will help us to survive and adapt. Surviving alone with a pile of ammunition is an unsustainable ableist nightmare. And ultimately I have no time for primitivism. Worst case we may yet need geoengineering, though cutting emissions fast is the priority.