504DR

lednaBM , 19 days ago to random

Hello darkness, my old friend....

504DR , 18 days ago

@dnavinci @bhasic @bigheadtales @mintyfresh @lednaBM

Family farms are a world away from the gigantic feedlots and CAFOs we have now.

At least on family farms, the animals were housed and treated much better.
Individuals treated their animals better than Corp. boardrooms and CEOs do.

That said, the planet would be much better off if we all switched to a plant based diet.
Technology now allows us to make faux meat from brewed microbes and plants, as well.

For the sake of the planet, we should be embracing that.

504DR , 18 days ago

@Goldfigure @dnavinci @bhasic @bigheadtales @mintyfresh @lednaBM

Important for humans, not the planet.

The population of domestic livestock is as overpopulated as humans are.

The overpopulation of any species wrecks havoc on a planet meant to support a limited number of each species, so that all flora and fauna can survive and thrive.

Thinking that what only humans want is what got us into this climate crisis mess.

If we want to address climate crisis effectively, we need to consider what is important to the health of the planet, instead of just humans.

This chart shows percentages.
This is unsustainable for a healthy planet that is meant to support all life.

504DR , 18 days ago

@starlily @Goldfigure @dnavinci @bhasic @bigheadtales @mintyfresh @lednaBM

No, it's not.

What leads to overconsumption?
Overpopulation.
What is the result of overconsumption?
Ecological overshoot.

Does anyone believe we would be wrecking as much havoc on the planet as we do with, say 2 billion ppl on the planet?

This article explains ecological overshoot better than I can.

https://medium.com/@elisabethrobson/why-are-we-not-talking-about-ecological-overshoot-f174a53756a5

Linking the overpopulation issue to eugenics is a propaganda tactic used by corps, monied interests and those who want more consumers to buy their products.

Don't fall for it.

504DR , 18 days ago

@BenAveling @lednaBM @nonehitwonder @starlily @Goldfigure @dnavinci @bhasic @bigheadtales @mintyfresh

Numbers do matter.

Looking at one issue of overpopulation can illustrate this, the issue of human sewage. (This would also apply to the overpopulation of any species.)

The planet evolved into systems that recycle the waste from each/all species; recycling it and using it to regenerate the soil, providing a continuation of food sources.

Human waste is not the ideal fertilizer, lacking in the amounts of necessary nutrients, bc of our heavily laden meat diets.
This is one reason meat isn't added to home compost systems.

For every living thing that excretes waste, there are natural systems that evolved to recycle waste back into the environment in a time consuming manner.

Humans invented methods of recycling our waste, which mostly worked for a time.

But now, with 8 billion ppl pooping and peeing huge quantities every minute of every day, even our invented systems are overwhelmed, and raw sewage is regularly being released into the environment by cities and towns across the globe.

This is unsanitary, carrying it's own health threats, as well as leading to an unhealthy environment all around.

These threats would be far lesser, and more easily managed with fewer humans on the planet.

Numbers do make a difference.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/half-of-the-worlds-coastal-sewage-pollution-flows-from-few-dozen-places/

https://www.sej.org/headlines/epa-letting-cities-dump-more-raw-sewage-rivers-years-come

https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/news/2021/november/the-deadly-effects-of-sewage-pollution-on-nature.html

504DR , 17 days ago

@dnavinci @BenAveling @lednaBM @nonehitwonder @starlily @Goldfigure @bhasic @bigheadtales @mintyfresh

1. I didn't say they were scientific papers; I said they were based on scientific assessments and data.
   Is it your opinion that the sources I listed are fly-by-night orgs, who rely on non credible, untested data?

2. I'd have to say you don't understand ecological overshoot when you agree there is ecological overshoot but don't see the direct connection between population numbers and ecological overshoot.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_overshoot

You are looking at this from a human only perspective; ignoring the effects that 8+ billion ppl have on the natural world.

The number of ppl in any area has direct effects on the natural environment of that area.
Loss of habitat that other life forms rely on to survive is the main one.
Increased pollution from humans and their activities is another.

We are now experiencing the 6th mass extinction of flora and fauna on the planet.
Directly caused by humans.
I would argue that this wouldn't be happening if there weren't 8+ billion ppl sucking away all of the regenerative resources meant to support all life on the planet.

There was 2.8 billion ppl when I was born.
There were problems of loss of the natural world even back then, but they could have been managed and mitigated.
With 8+ billion ppl, that is impossible now; cities encompass 40 or more miles, even the small towns of the past have suburbs to them. All of that means more natural lands lost to the food systems to feed us and the businesses that support our lifestyles.
Watching the natural world be destroyed and disappearing in real time has been heartbreaking, knowing what the consequences will be.

Ecological overshoot is true in even poor countries and areas.

"The major threats to Ngorongoro Conservation Area relates to the increase in the resident's population alongside their livestock and the socio-cultural changes. Tourism is growing rapidly, creating intense pressure for supporting infrastructure e.g. accommodation and roads. Some of these threats to the property’s Outstanding Universal Values are partially being addressed and its overall ecological integrity is still maintained. However, the movement corridors in and out of the Crater itself are being disintegrated because of growth in human population, particularly from the Crater itself towards Serengeti, to and past Olbalbal and along the Olduvai Gorge, as well as the Ndutu to the Crater corridor via the highlands. Closer engagement with local communities in exploring alternative livelihood solutions are needed. Threats from fire, disease transmission from domestic stock and human-wildlife conflicts are under control. Spread of highly invasive alien species (IAS) remains a major threat due to its high occurrence outside the NCA boundary. High levels of awareness and readiness for rapid response are vitally important to protect the rangelands of the NCA and Serengeti against the impacts of this high impact IAS."

https://worldheritageoutlook.iucn.org/explore-sites/wdpaid/2010

(When the NCA was created, land was set aside for the 10k Maasai ppl who lived there. Today there are 100k Maasai living in the same area - leading to the problems listed in the article.)

The planet evolved to support a varied and large diversity of life, all intertwined with each other to keep this planet thriving with life.
Eliminating (extinction) of any one part effects the survival of all life.

We are pushing countless species of life forms into extinction on a frighteningly regular basis now.

This wouldn't be happening if 8+ billion ppl weren't taking every resource available and leaving nothing for the rest of life on the planet to survive on.

breadandcircuses , 1 month ago (edited 1 month ago) to random

INTRO —

Yesterday we learned how climate scientists feel about the looming existential threat of global climate change. They’re terrified. It’s obvious to them and it should be to us that the only rational option is to change course, quickly and decisively.

So, are we ready now to face some hard questions about what level of degrowth is actually necessary? To examine what that might look like, and how different it would be to live in a truly ecologically sustainable society?

Today I will devote an extended series of posts to the best description I’ve found yet about how severe our present situation is, and what we can and should do in the face of such daunting challenges. I’m going to excerpt heavily from a recent long article by Ted Trainer, an Australian academic, author, and advocate for degrowth. Trainer is a retired lecturer from the School of Social Work, University of New South Wales. He has written numerous books and articles on sustainability and is developing Pigface Point, an alternative lifestyle educational site near Sydney.

In the linked article, Trainer criticizes and debunks inadequate proposals such as the Green New Deal, along with the whole idea of ‘green growth’. He argues, however, that we must not only reject capitalism but also must recognize the inability of Marxism or even state-centered eco-socialism to make all the necessary changes that could avert societal collapse and global catastrophe.

This is a brief introduction. Eight separate posts will follow soon…

ARTICLE TITLE: A (Friendly) Critique of the Degrowth Movement

SUBTITLE: Sufficient degrowth cannot be achieved without enormous and radical transition to some kind of simpler way.

THEME: The recent spread of degrowth is encouraging — however, the movement is founded on a number of confusions and mistaken initiatives. This is understandable given its early stage, and can be regarded as a healthy exploring of possibilities. The literature welcomes pluralism, but we should try to find unifying directions.

FULL ARTICLE -- https://medium.com/postgrowth/a-friendly-critique-of-the-degrowth-movement-f0bd2297072d

MORE ABOUT TED TRAINER -- https://simplicityinstitute.org/ted-trainer

#Science #Environment #Climate #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #ClimateAction #Degrowth

504DR , 1 month ago

@breadandcircuses

Just want you to know how much I appreciate your continuing work to educate us on the true state of our circumstances, and the possible, effective ways of dealing with it all - in an honest and clear way.

Our views, and that of this author, line up almost perfectly, but my deliveries of the same message are too blunt and harsh for most ppl.
I can't help that, and don't apologize for it.
Communication isn't my strong suit.
Some get it, others get too butt hurt by it to hear the message.

I am grateful for and appreciate beyond words you and the others who carry this very heavy burden so well.
🙏🫂🙏

breadandcircuses , 1 month ago to random

This is from a recent essay titled "Five Reasons for Environmentalists to Stop Blaming 'Doom & Gloom' Narratives"...

---

⓵ There is significant evidence that gloomy visions can lead people to take action. A 2023 study found that anger was linked to activism seven times more powerfully than hope, and abundant research finds that fear-based messages have the potential to create the sense of urgency needed for effective action.

⓶ Optimistic messages can feel good, but they can also create complacency and thus prevent us from making the required sacrifices, political choices, and lifestyle changes. Positive narratives can deprive us of the awareness we need in order to respond appropriately to the severity of our crisis.

⓷ The opposition of “success narratives” to “doom and gloom” is a gross oversimplification. A difficult truth can be presented in a positive light; a hopeful story can be told in an offensive manner. It’s not just the content of one’s message that matters; it’s also the way it’s shared, and by whom, and when, and to whom.

⓸ The claim that “doom and gloom” doesn’t lead to action is pedantic and infantilizing. It treats people like consumers of information rather than engaged and ethical citizens.

⓹ Pushing away gloomy visions is a form of what “doomster philosopher” Jem Bendell calls “moodsplaining” in which we are told how to feel about the world. That sort of rhetoric harms the social and political dialogue we need to overcome crises together, and it violates the number one rule of any relationship: honesty.

---

FULL ESSAY -- https://felixderosen.substack.com/p/5-reasons-to-stop-blaming-doom-and

#Science #Environment #Climate #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis

504DR , 1 month ago

@susankayequinn @breadandcircuses

As a doomer, I certainly don't want to see the present and coming devastation that climate change effects are having now, and by the majority of climate scientists, will continue to get worse and more frequent.

None of the doomers I know want that either.
We are collectively both heartbroken and angry about it.

Heartbroken bc every day the damage continues; deforestation, mining, drilling, and the loss of more and more wild places. Every minute of every day the damages go on.
All of these activities is what caused this climate crisis. Continuing on with them unabated adds to the crisis.

Angry bc of this continuation, but also bc there are effective, workable measures that at the least, wouldn't add to the problem, and at best, be a part of real solutions.
But time, money and resources are instead wasted on unproven tech with pie in the sky promises and/or measures that do not do enough good to be worthwhile.

Believe me, we don't want it to be this way.

We're just not shying away from the truth of the planet's and our situation.
If our situation is going to get harder/rougher, I want to know that. I want to be prepared as best as I can; the same way ppl want to be warned of tornadoes or hurricanes, so they can be prepared.

Did you read the whole article?
You think the studies they did, showing that doom and gloom can be a motivator for many ppl, were all flawed or wrong?
That over optimism can have a complacency effect on ppl?

Some ppl seek as much information as possible, then act on it.
Others let other ppl reassure them that all is well, don't worry, we'll take care of it for you.

Doomers are in the first group.

Knowing as much information as I do on this climate crisis, I certainly have little faith in those that created it coming up with the solutions to address it.

No world leaders have called for slashing our energy use - which should be our first course of action.
Drilling, mining, deforestation, habitat destruction, polluting lands, air and waters; all continue on.

And the damages and devastation continue on, every minute of every day.

504DR , 1 month ago

@susankayequinn @joriki @breadandcircuses

You say anger like it's a bad thing.

504DR , 1 month ago

@susankayequinn @joriki @breadandcircuses

Yup, we do both want the same thing.

The difference is you think it will come to happen and I think odds of it happening are slim to none.

If we had the luxury of time, there might've been a chance.

But realistically - the old system of step 1, step 2, step 3. . .isn't going to cut it timewise . That's partly what got us here.

Climate change effects have shocked climate scientists with how they are happening decades sooner than expected, with the frequency and intensity increasing as well.

Scientists who deal with the natural world are terrified. They have the data.
Estimates range from 2040s to 2070s for total ecological collapse.
Billions of solar panels and turbines won't save us from that (the making of them, with fossil fuels, is adding to the climate crisis, which is about much more than just C02).

We should be planning, building and preparing for what's ahead as best we can, rather than continue on as usual; logging, mining, drilling and polluting, bc politicians make 🤑 off the corps who make more 🤑.

Remember when emissions went down drastically?
During the covid lockdown.
That's the life we should be planning for; modified with lessons learned from the first one.

The best solutions will have an immediate effect.
Getting to the least energy usage possible. Cutting out the waste alone could be easily done. Our planet doesn't need to be lit up in space like a giant times square.
I remember a time when it wasn't.

Ppl don't want to give up their modern luxuries.
Future generations won't have that opportunity.
The least we could do is cut back on ours now so they may have some of something.

In the meantime, by all means, work towards whatever solutions/causes/beliefs you choose, with whatever attitude you choose.
Ofc we are all different.

But whatever solutions your working for, they shouldn't do more harm than good.

You want to talk solutions?
Here's some actions that would have immediate and impactful effects
:
Eliminate meat production and adopt a meat alternative and plant based diet.
Cease air travel except the most needed.
Ration gas and energy use.
End global trade of non essential goods.
Cut consumerism to essential items only.
Ban tourism.
Ban mining, drilling and deforestation.
Eliminate non essential jobs.

All of these, plus others, would cut emissions drastically, as well as be good for the health of the planet, which is the ultimate goal. No healthy planet, no healthy life on that planet.

Future generations deserve that sacrifice from us, imo.

Back to chances; the odds of our money hungry, spoiled society, led by idiots, doing any of those things, in a thousand years, much less the short window we have now, don't look good.

So, wish for something better, but be prepared for the worst is where I'm at.

TheVulgarTongue Bot , 1 month ago to histodons group

TUP RUNNING. A rural sport practised at wakes and fairs in Derbyshire; a ram, whose tail is well soaped and greased, is turned out to the multitude; any one that can take him by the tail, and hold him fast, is to have him for his own.

A selection from Francis Grose’s “Dictionary Of The Vulgar Tongue” (1785)

--
#books #literature #dictionaries #history #society #crime #language #slang @histodons

504DR , 1 month ago

@TheVulgarTongue @histodons

It isn't human entertainment if animals aren't terrorized, tortured and killed.
🙄

breadandcircuses , 2 months ago to random

I grieve for all that we’ve lost due to capitalist industry and commerce, and for so much more that we still have to lose… 😢

---

There have been five mass extinctions of life in Earth’s history, caused by cataclysms such as volcanic eruptions or meteorite impact. Scientists warn that human activity is now causing species to go extinct at a thousand times the normal background rate. Leading experts in the field predict that half of the world’s estimated eight million species will be extinct or at the brink of extinction by the end of this century unless humanity changes its ways.

Why don’t we react in unbridled outrage to the devastation of the natural world taking place before our eyes? A major reason is that we don’t realize what we’ve lost. Whatever conditions people grow up with are the ones they generally consider normal. This is a tribute to the amazing plasticity of the human mind, but it means that we tend to take for granted things that should never be accepted.

The somber truth is that the vast bulk of nature’s staggering abundance has already disappeared. We live in a world characterized primarily by the relative silence and emptiness of its natural spaces. It’s only when we read accounts of wildlife from centuries ago that we realize how much is gone.

The next time you go for a hike in nature, and marvel at its beauty, take a moment to realize that you are looking at a pale, shrunken wraith of what it once was. An accumulation of studies around the world measuring the declines of species and ecosystems indicates that overall we’ve lost around 90% of nature’s profusion.

We live in a ten percent world.

---

Grief - Rage - Resignation - Defiance ... how do you respond to all this?

FULL ESSAY -- https://www.resilience.org/stories/2021-07-06/the-ideology-of-human-supremacy/

#Science #Environment #Climate #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis

504DR , 2 months ago

@breadandcircuses

From the article:

"The somber truth is that the vast bulk of nature’s staggering abundance has already disappeared. We live in a world characterized primarily by the relative silence and emptiness of its natural spaces. It’s only when we read accounts of wildlife from centuries ago that we realize how much is gone. One eighteenth-century writer, standing on the shores of Wales, described schools of herrings five or six miles long, so dense that “the whole water seems alive; and it is seen so black with them to a great distance, that the number seems inexhaustible.” In the seventeenth-century Caribbean, sailors could navigate at night by the noise of massive shoals of sea turtles heading to nesting beaches on the Cayman Islands. In the Chesapeake Bay, plagued today by polluted dead zones, hunters harvested a hundred thousand terrapins a year for turtle soup. In the nineteenth century, passenger pigeons would blot out the sun when they appeared in massive flocks throughout the eastern United States. The last one died in a zoo in 1914.

The Great Dying
In normal times, extinction is a natural part of evolution: new species evolve from prior existing species, meaning that, rather than dying out, “extinct” species are really the progenitors of new ones. When extinctions occur, however, as part of a mass extinction, they represent a grave and permanent loss to the richness of life. Species exterminated by human development are wiped out from nature’s palette, terminating any possibility of further evolutionary branching. The average lifespan of a species is roughly a million years—the unfolding story of each one is, in E. O. Wilson’s words, a unique epic. We’ve seen how life’s prodigious diversity on Earth can be understood as nature’s own evolved intelligence, earned over billions of years. Through extinction, we are dumbing down nature, eliminating the plenitude it has so painstakingly accumulated."

DeliaChristina , 2 months ago to random

Unlikely.
The young women of South Korea are in revolt. The 4B movement shows no sign of stopping.

https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/south-korea-hopes-new-speed-train-links-will-help-boost-birthrate-2024-03-29/

504DR , 2 months ago

@CelloMomOnCars @DeliaChristina

I came across this vid of one woman's journey leading her to 4B.
I think it's a good explanation of the reasoning behind the movement and why it will grow.

Note to men watching this - if the behavior exampled doesn't describe you, it isn't directed at you.

#patriarchy
#PersonalGrowth
#4Bmovement

Video of one woman's journey to the 4B movement.

breadandcircuses , 2 months ago (edited 2 months ago) to random

REMINDER — I’ll be traveling for the next couple of weeks, not returning home until around April 18 or 19. Along the way I’m likely to be offline most days, with little to no Internet access, so I’m not planning to post regularly to my B&C account during that time, if at all.

See you when I get back! 😎

504DR , 2 months ago

@breadandcircuses

Enjoy!
Safe travels.

breadandcircuses , 2 months ago to random

Let's assume that at some point in the near future our society makes the smart choice of turning toward degrowth. Yay!

That still would mean, however, that a certain level of heavy industry will be required. We can't feed and house and clothe and provide health care for eight billion people without producing at least some steel and some plastics. That's just reality.

So, what are the best alternatives for rapidly reducing carbon emissions while also managing to keep everyone alive?

This article offers some intriguing ideas --

"How To Escape From The Iron Age"
➡️ https://solar.lowtechmagazine.com/2024/03/how-to-escape-from-the-iron-age/

I know very little about the steel industry, so I’d be interested if there are experts here who can comment on what's suggested.

#Science #Environment #Climate #ClimateChange #ClimateCrisis #Degrowth

504DR , 2 months ago

@breadandcircuses

From the article:

Unfortunately, the planned switch to low-carbon energy sources and the electrification of heating and transport technologies will not decrease our dependency on the steel industry – on the contrary. A low-carbon power grid requires much more steel (and other materials) than an infrastructure based on fossil fuels. Wind and solar power are very diffuse power sources compared to fossil fuels. Therefore, it takes much more materials (and land) to produce the same energy. In jargon, wind and solar have low “power density” or high “material intensity.”2829303132

A low-carbon power grid requires much more steel than an infrastructure based on fossil fuels.

The “steel intensity” of thermal gas and coal power plants is between 50 and 60 tonnes of steel per megawatt of installed power.33 Hydroelectric power plants have a lower steel intensity, with 20-30 tonnes of steel per MW.733 Atomic power’s steel intensity is also lower at between 20 and 40 tonnes of steel per installed MW.3334 On the other hand, solar PV requires between 40 and 170 tonnes of steel per installed MW.3335 Although there is little or no steel in the solar panels themselves, it’s the material of choice for the structures that support them.

Steel and wind power
The most steel-intensive power source – by far – is the modern wind turbine. The steel intensity of a wind turbine depends on its size. A single, large wind turbine requires significantly more steel per megawatt of installed power than two smaller wind turbines.36 For example, a 3.6 MW wind turbine with a 100-meter tall tower requires 335 tons of steel (83 tons/MW), while a 5 MW wind turbine with a 150-meter tall tower needs 875 tons of steel (175 tons/MW).37 The trend is towards taller wind turbines and a higher steel intensity.

Steel consumption further increases for offshore wind turbines. Onshore wind power plants rely on reinforced concrete for their foundations, but offshore wind turbines need massive steel structures such as monopiles and jackets.38 The steel intensity for offshore wind turbines is calculated to be around 450 tonnes per MW for a 5 MW turbine – eight times higher than the steel intensity of a thermal power plant.36. As these wind turbines get taller and move into deeper waters, their steel use further increases.

The most popular offshore wind turbine nowadays has a capacity of 7 MW, while the largest ones have a capacity of 14 MW.36 If we make a conservative estimate based on the data above (the steel intensity doubles for every doubling of the power capacity), a 14 MW offshore wind turbine would require 1,300 tons of steel per MW or 18,200 tonnes in total. Such a wind turbine thus consumes 24 times more steel than a coal or gas power plant of the same power capacity.

Power transmission infrastructure
The data above only include the steel used in the power plants themselves. For fossil fuel power plants, they do not include the steel used in the pipelines, oil rigs, coal excavators, and the like. However, the same goes for the low-carbon power sources. Because they need much more resources than thermal power plants (steel but also other metals and materials), they depend on a global mining and transport infrastructure that is just as steel-intensive as the supply chain for fossil fuels.

Furthermore, because they are more diffuse power sources with intermittent and unpredictable power production, often located far away from energy consumption centers, renewable power plants drive the expansion of transmission infrastructure. That infrastructure is also based on steel – from switchyard equipment over towers to conduction cables.282930313242

Finally, low-carbon power sources also have a high need for special grades of steel, which are more energy-intensive to produce. Steel for off-shore wind turbines should resist corrosion, and stainless steel is increasingly used for solar panel support structures.43 Electrical lamination steel (iron-silicon) is indispensable for transformers in the power network.7 Nuclear power plants may have a relatively low steel intensity but are completely built up of energy-intensive specialty steels. For example, cladding the fuel elements containing fissionable uranium requires zirconium steel, while all structural elements contain austenitic stainless steel.

504DR , 2 months ago

@breadandcircuses

The article's conclusion - sounds like degrowth to me.

"The low-tech solutions

The picture painted above seems to offer little hope for carbon-neutral steelmaking and power production. However, there is a low-tech solution that could achieve it. We could adjust steel production to the available scrap supply both in quantity and quality. That would allow us to produce all steel from scrap in electric arc furnaces, dramatically reducing energy consumption and eliminating almost all carbon emissions. Of course, the intent should not be to replace steel with plastic composites and aluminum because they are even more energy-intensive to produce. The only solution is to reduce material use overall.

We could adjust steel production to the available scrap supply both in quantity and quality.

Reducing the steel output and using more common steel grades would not bring us back to the Bronze Age. As noted, global end-of-life ferrous scrap availability was approximately 450 Mt in 2021, which would allow us to produce roughly one-quarter of the current steel output. Furthermore, the scrap supply will continue to rise for the next 40 years, enabling us to produce more and more low-emission steel each year. By 2050, scrap availability is expected to rise to about 900 Mt, almost half of today’s global steel production.48 All that extra steel could be invested in expanding the low-carbon power grid without raising emissions first.

There is a lot of room to reduce the steel intensity of modern society. All our basic needs – and more – could be supplied with much less steel involved. For example, we could make cars lighter by making them smaller. That would bring energy savings without the need for energy-intensive high-grade steel. We could replace cars with bicycles and public transportation so that more people share less steel. Such changes would also reduce the need for steel in the road network, the energy infrastructure, and the manufacturing industry. We would need fewer machine tools, shipping containers, and reinforced concrete buildings. Whenever steel intensity is reduced, the advantages cascade throughout the whole system. Preventing corrosion and producing steel more locally from local resources would also reduce energy use and emissions.1014

The continuous growth of the steel output – the increasing steel intensity of human society – makes sustainable steel production impossible. No technology can change that because it’s not a technological problem. Like forestry can only be sustainable if the wood demand does not exceed the wood supply, steel is sustainable or not depending on the balance between (scrap) supply and (steel) demand. We may not be able to escape the Iron Age, but we have an option to escape the catch-22 that inextricably links steel production with fossil fuels."