Fossilized Thinking: Back to communal horse and water powered farms to save the climate

Guest essay by Robert Bryce
Horse-drawn-plow
In a simplistic and tedious new book, Andreas Malm argues that full Communism is the only cure for global warming.

Andreas Malm longs for the good old days. In his new book, Fossil Capital: The Rise of Steam Power and the Roots of Global Warming, Malm, who teaches human ecology at Lund University in Sweden, pines for a time when manufacturing depended on waterwheels instead of steam engines. Indeed, Malm spends more than 300 pages—about 75 percent of the text—discussing why English manufacturers abandoned waterwheels and replaced them with coal-fired steam engines. It’s worthwhile history. But in the hands of an avowed Marxist like Malm, it’s tedious sledding. In Malm’s view, the rise of the steam engine was little more than a ploy by evil capitalists to subjugate workers, and because of that, we are now all going to die from global warming.

Yes, that’s a simplistic analysis, but Malm has written a simplistic book. He quotes an economist, Richard Jones, who, in the 1830s, wrote that water power is “cheap but uncertain. The steam engine is costly but powerful and its action is certain and continuous.” Jones goes on to explain why waterwheels had to go. For some reason, Malm prefers the days of yore, when production had to be shut down because of drought, or flood, or frozen rivers. He attempts to explain the complex world of energetics by marrying Marxism with climate-change catastrophism. By doing so, he puts himself squarely in the camp of the climate doomsayers—a group that includes Canadian author/activist Naomi Klein and U.S. environmental activist Bill McKibben, who have claimed that the solution to climate change is to abandon modern society and organize a socialist, organic-agriculture economy, where we can all, no doubt, have free yoga classes. In a 2011 essay published in The Nation, Klein—who provided a blurb for Malm’s book, calling it “the definitive deep history on how our economic system created the climate crisis”—called for nothing less than “a new civilizational paradigm, one grounded not in dominance over nature but in respect for natural cycles of renewal.”

It’s not Malm’s fellow travelers who are the problem, it’s his blinkered approach to basic physics, and in particular, to the essentiality of power density—that is, the ability to concentrate the flow of energy from a given area, volume, or mass. Ever since humans began walking upright, we have been trying to corral more energy so that we can turn it into more effective power, whether for farming, heating, or computing. Farmers moved from doing all the planting and hauling themselves to using draft animals, which helped increase production. Over centuries, they perfected their harnesses, going from throat-and-girth harnesses to breastbands and finally to collar harnesses, which allowed animals to pull loads as much as ten times heavier than they could pull with the earlier models.

Berry_Schools'_Old_Mill,_Floyd_County,_Georgia

Over the last seven decades or so, we have moved from electricity-hungry computers based on vacuum tubes to ones based on nano circuits millions of times lighter and more efficient. Malm insists that every joule and BTU we use is infected with class struggle. In the first chapter, he writes that “fossil fuels necessitate waged or forced labor—the power to direct the labor of others—as conditions of their very existence.” Yet, he doesn’t provide a single example of any place on the planet where modern workers are being forced to produce oil, coal, or natural gas. Malm decries the steam engine at every turn, but ignores how steam power led to a revolution in transportation that allowed even low-skilled workers to travel and search out better opportunities on railroads and steamships. Malm condemns all hydrocarbons, yet he ignores the creation and perfection of the internal combustion and jet engines. In doing so, he leaves aside discussion of the parallel creation of the global oil and gas sector, which is among the world’s biggest industries. Malm also ignores electrification, though electricity production (the biggest share of which is provided by coal combustion) now accounts for about 40 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions.

Malm spends 13 of his 16 chapters decrying coal and steam. He notes with approval that in medieval England, coal fields were often controlled by the king or local bishops, and that they often imposed “restrictions on output, guaranteeing that the enterprises would be puny.” He continues: “Thriving on sword and cross, they could afford to stay aloof from subterranean riches.” In his fourteenth chapter, “China as Chimney of the World: Fossil Capital Today,” Malm details the rising concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide and denounces “the bourgeois ideology of eco-modernism” because of its belief that technology can help bring more people out of poverty.

In chapter 15, we finally get to Malm’s solution, which is, wait for it . . . central planning. A few paragraphs after quoting Leon Trotsky, Malm notes that the majority of global greenhouse gases are emitted from four places: the U.S., the E.U., China, and India. The way to cut those emissions is simple, says Malm. We merely need to “set up one special ministry in each and we would be on our way.” Ah yes, a special ministry. Welcome, comrades, to Professor Malm’s Climate Gulag. It’s for your own good, after all.


 

Robert Bryce is a senior fellow at the Manhattan Institute. His most recent book is Smaller Faster Lighter Denser Cheaper: How Innovation Keeps Proving the Catastrophists Wrong.

h/t to Paul Driessen and John Droz

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
5 1 vote
Article Rating
293 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
richard
February 15, 2016 1:57 pm

so here we are in 2016 and the world average food index is at a 7 year low with bumper crops seen world wide.
weather that leads to poor crops-
too much heat
not enough heat
too much rain
not enough rain
droughts.
hmm, the weather seems quite benign,

Reply to  richard
February 15, 2016 4:19 pm

Weather that leads to even worse poor crops or even no crops:
– Late frosts in Spring
– Late freezes in Spring
– Early frosts in Autumn
– Early freezes in Autumn
– Hard freezes in mid-Summer

JustAnOldGuy
February 15, 2016 1:58 pm

I’m sure his soul was anguished by the fact that printing presses were required to publish his work. Think of all the employment he could have given to thousands of scribes cutting their quills and dipping them into pots of ink not to mention the horde of tanners requires to produce all those sheets of velum. And of course the concept of royalties and copyrights for authors is a relatively modern, read capitalistic, idea so he surely declined any sort of compensation for his work preferring instead to seek the patronage of a sympathetic noble.

Gard R. Rise
February 15, 2016 1:59 pm

Sweden was once (before it turned itself into a service economy) a prime example of a modern, industrial economy. Sweden produced and exported machine tools, cars, agricultural machinery, textiles, nuclear power plant components; you name it. The economy was, for good and worse, controlled by the centralized, socialist/social democrat government in an “unholy” alliance with the patrician, capitalist families and foundations of Sweden. In a sense a quiet understanding between quite far-left leaning socialists and quite far-right leaning “old” capital. It was certainly not a republican system and not really a very democratic one despite there being free elections; but it somehow tended to lean towards economic and industrial development of the land.
This guy Malm here might be a modern “leftie”, but the “old left” in Sweden was in contrast usually for industrial development. The great majority of socialists were, after all, not Maoists wanting to send students out trenchdigging with a shovel. Industrial development was supposed to drive forward the liberation of mankind from class difference and the poverty of the workers and whatnot. If you are going to talk about “watermelons” and such, the label might fit this fellow Malm, but it doesn’t really fit in with most of the history of what is generally referred to as “the left”. The socialists and social democrats of old would likely have thrown Andreas Malm out of their meetings (they would not tolerate any opinions that were not in accordance with the party line!) for advocating the abolition of modern machinery. Maybe Luddite is a more fitting moniker for people such as him.
In my opinion, one should certainly blame “the left” for not respecting (or not even believing in!) the individuality of man, but not really for advocating green mass murder. You would find as many people (or maybe even more) with a horribly twisted green agenda on the ultra-right. Prince Philip and his son quite quickly come to mind, for starters.

Grey Lensman
Reply to  Gard R. Rise
February 15, 2016 10:29 pm

Quote
It was certainly not a republican system
Unquote
No such thing, all Republic means is “not a monarchy” and defines a type of State.

Gard R. Rise
Reply to  Grey Lensman
February 16, 2016 1:34 am

What is the point in defining a word simply by its negative? I will rather let Abraham Lincoln define it: “government of the people, by the people, for the people”.
But, there have been many different states throughout history who called themselves “republics” due to the simple fact that they were not, technically, monarchies. As James Fenimore Cooper wrote in the preface to the Bravo (the book being specifically about the insidious Venetian “republic”):
“It is to be regretted the world does not discriminate more justly in its use of political terms. Governments are usually called either monarchies or republics. […] In the latter we find aristocracies and democracies blended in the same generic appellation. The consequence of a generalization so wide is an utter confusion on the subject of the polity of states.”

Robert B
February 15, 2016 2:02 pm

I would like to take the opportunity to mention my new book The Delusion of Being Well Off. It explores the paradigm shift from the erroneous belief that our foreparents had a difficult life to one where we realise that coal power is as misogynistic as the power of the Monarch/Church duopoly.
I expect to make enough from library and academic sales to pay for construction of a pool room. If enough people who use book shelves as decoration buy it, I might be able to afford insulation.

February 15, 2016 2:04 pm

CAGW was never a scientific theory or discovery, it was a circuitous political route to re-establishing Communism as a viable social system after its slow decline and final spectacular implosion and collapse.

emsnews
February 15, 2016 2:20 pm

I own a farm and used to farm with an ox team who were named Mr. Chips and Dale and with my Haflinger horse from Austria, Sparky and his Love of His Life, Molly, a British horse.
They all died of old age and I miss them all a great deal but I am too old to farm with them all anymore. No more ‘gee’ and ‘haw’ to get the Boys to turn left or right, nor more ‘giyyuup’ to get Sparky moving. And no more sheep, thanks to ‘free trade’ the value of my sheep per head fell from $250 each to less than $50 each.

Reply to  emsnews
February 15, 2016 8:15 pm

Free trade’s been around for a long time, and sheep per head are a lot more than $50 each now. Sounds like you bought high and sold low, not sound investment strategies.

Gloateus Maximus
Reply to  Aphan
February 16, 2016 9:26 am

Way more than $50 now, despite even more years of free trade:
https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lswlamb.pdf
But off from last year.

MarkW
Reply to  emsnews
February 16, 2016 11:28 am

The fact that the price of sheep fell just means that the consumers of sheep are better off than they were before, as are the producers of the lower cost sheep.
High cost producers go out of business. That’s the way it is, except in govt managed economies.

MB Misanthrope
February 15, 2016 2:22 pm

What would anyone expect from a guy who has a sinecure at a university. Let him renounce that job and take up a life in agriculture using 1850s technology, and we’ll see if he can maintain his current comfortable lifestyle and if he has the time to crank out this theoretical claptrap that earns him and his compatriots like Naomi Klein the horselaugh from 99% of the population.

Reply to  MB Misanthrope
February 15, 2016 7:22 pm

“Let him renounce that job and take up a life in agriculture using 1850s technology”
Hmm, that’s a very good idea. That way he’ll have first hand information on subsistence farming, the effects of long term UV skin damage that will make him look ten years older than he actually is and said academic will be so damned tired at the end of the day he won’t have the energy to write such tendentious totalitarian claptrap.

Ed Bo
February 15, 2016 2:24 pm

Two “coincidences” Malm needs to explain:
First, the rise of fossil fuel power in the 19th Century and the substantial abolition of the millennia-old institution of slave labor around the world.
Second, the fact that the only areas that have met CO2 reduction targets are those that used to be Communist and are now Capitalist. (Nothing like “capitalist greed” for profits to conserve on expenses…)
I’m sure I’m missing on easy alternative explanations for these coincidences. I hope Malm can enlighten me…

Robert
Reply to  Ed Bo
February 16, 2016 8:01 pm

While the end of slavery is significant, much more important, and I believe intractably connected to the rise of vast exploitation of fossil energy, is the recent and rapid worldwide reduction in child mortality (death before age five). For more than 10,000 years with agriculture (and 200,000 years before that), child mortality stubbornly hovered around 500 per 1000 (see gapminder.org). Humans could not protect their children from famine, disease, warfare, violence, and exposure to the elements. Today the rate is 40 per 1000 (and 3 per 1000 in the top countries) and falling.
Today, the worst country for child mortality is Angola at 157 per 1000, just half the rate of the best country in 1800, Belgium at 322 per 1000. Some may say that’s due to modern medicine. Hogwash. Without the bounty provided by cheap energy, we would have not modern medicine. Exploitation of vast amounts of energy makes modernity possible.
Energy allows us to protect our children. Those who would limit or ration this resource are ignorantly and indifferently calling for the continued death of children in sub-Saharan Africa.

indefatigablefrog
February 15, 2016 3:12 pm
Peter Morris
February 15, 2016 3:58 pm

Hey I’d recognize that water wheel anywhere. That’s at Berry College in Rome, GA. Now there’s a lady modern progressives probably hate. Instead of demanding other people go out and teach the mountain kids book learnin’, she used her considerable fortune and did it herself.

otsar
February 15, 2016 4:29 pm

Uncle Enver (Hoxa), as He was called, would have sent this fellow on his merry way (prison), for being: retro, pro serfdom, against progress, and generally a Luddite. He could also have been set to a re-education farm to become a useful person and help pull a plow.

compactcrank123
February 15, 2016 11:01 pm

Having only recently taken up Yoga and finding it quite enjoyable I ask if we can keep that part and ignore the rest?

Robert
Reply to  compactcrank123
February 16, 2016 7:46 pm

😉

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
February 16, 2016 1:32 am

The subsistence economy is the least of our problems. Just wait for the purges and the show trials.

Robert
Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
February 16, 2016 7:43 pm

Not just purges. And why bother with show trials. Uncle Joe personally signed and issued monthly orders by city and region with quotas for random arrests and executions (say 1,000) and random deportations to the gulags (say 10,000). Check the history. A single death is a tragedy, but one million, that’s a statistic.

JP
February 16, 2016 4:20 am

This is the endgame, of course. People like Malm never envision themselves actually plowing a field with an old draft horse and rusty plow; they never envision themselves spending 16 hours a day during harvest toiling under a 90 degree sun bringing the hay or wheat harvest to market. No, that job would be reserved for us, the Little Guy.
The writer Jonah Goldberg last year wondered why the BBC Series, Downtown Abbey was so popular with the Progressive Jetset. It wasn’t their solidarity with the servants who ran the estate. No, the attraction of Downtown Abbey with American Liberals is envy. For they see themselves being waited on hand and foot by the unwashed masses. This is what Cultural Marxism has evolved into. Don’t think for a moment these people do not see themselves as the inheritors of the old aristocracy.

Reply to  JP
February 16, 2016 11:42 am

JP,
Exactamundo. Look what happened when the Soviets won the Russian revolution: did they make everyone equal? No. As in, HELL No!
The first thing they did was to divvy up all the palaces, the dachas, the richest ‘kulak’ farms, and all the other property of the previous aristocrisy, and ensconce themselves in it. (Khrushchev was an ignorant farm boy, who brutally rose through the ranks to become Premier. He once bragged that to end an argument in a Politburo meeting, he pulled a pistol and murdered his opponent).
The revolutionaries recreated everything except the royal family. Instead, they handed out Party cards to about .5% of the population, and replaced the old aristocrats with Communist Party members (and there was a hierarchy within the Party, too).
Only the players changed. The system was no better than what it replaced.
That’s what they’re gunning for now. The only difference is that the old Russia was pretty corrupt and kept the masses down. But if today’s leftists win, they will replace a very good system that allows everyone the opportunity to get ahead. It will be replaced with the same Soviet-style communist aristocrisy. This time around the corrupt UN will probably get the confiscated loot. And if anyone thinks taxes are high now…
It’s a remapping of Plato’s golden city: a very small group of aristocrats, in command of a large military, and both controlling the overwhelming majority of proles. And the fellow travelers helping them really believe they will be the ones in charge. heh
They should read more history. Most of the Russian revolution’s fellow travelers were ‘liquidated’ when they were no longer needed. They were just in the way; there’s only so much loot to go around for the inner clique and their pals. Today’s fellow travelers in the gov’t .edu factories will find themselves being part of the 85% proletariat who are not in the military, or in the tiny aristocrisy… if they’re lucky.
‘Fools’ doesn’t begin to describe them.

Reply to  dbstealey
February 16, 2016 11:59 am

Savage has a short writeup (yesterday) about how most major American corporations are fine with this arrangement. It’s written savagestyle.

Reply to  dbstealey
February 16, 2016 1:25 pm

knutsea,
Got some linky goodness?☺

Ollie
February 16, 2016 6:12 am

I confess I didn’t read the whole article because all I could picture were mounds of animal dung with noxious fumes of methane coursing from each heap. Honestly if our culture could ever return to the horse and buggy era there would be communists (socialists) who would then insist we must go back even further to the caves.

Ed
February 16, 2016 8:47 am

Malm has stumbled across the solution to our unemployment problem. By outlawing tractors (and backhoes for good measure) we could force all plowing and ditch-digging to be done by hand. We could keep all the unemployed humanities majors busy, tired from physical labor, and thus out of mischief. Of course half the world would starve to death, but to him a small price to pay for reducing global warming by 0.04° for the next few thousand years until the next glaciation begins to kick in.
Astoundingly moronic.

Ed
February 16, 2016 8:59 am

BTW, Malm,’s book sells (or should I say is priced, as nobody but rich eletes or university libraries can afford it) on Amazon for $90 (!) (hardcover) or $24 in paperback. This review on WUWT will obviously be its widest audience.

c1ue
February 16, 2016 9:16 am

It is a pity that a perfectly legitimate technical argument is obscured by many more words ranting on politics.
The sad reality is that the United States has central planning also. The government – via research grants, corporate subsidies, defense contracts, and so forth does plenty to push development in specific directions. Shale oil is one prime example.
Why is it that government contracts are not considering central planning?

MarkW
Reply to  c1ue
February 16, 2016 11:32 am

I agree that the fact that the US govt has central planning is sad.
We were much better off when people were permitted to decide for themselves how they were going to live their lives.

richardscourtney
Reply to  MarkW
February 19, 2016 12:54 am

MarkW:
You say

I agree that the fact that the US govt has central planning is sad.
We were much better off when people were permitted to decide for themselves how they were going to live their lives.

Please be more specific. In which horrific minute of which horrific day were all US citizens “permitted to decide for themselves how they were going to live their lives” and did that permission apply to Al Capone or to those whom he extorted?
Richard

February 16, 2016 10:51 am

When Malm is out in the fields with traces over his shoulders a fixing his plough after hitting a rock. There is a reason farms used to only be a quarter section – ranches were larger but had to be. But you still needed farm land to grow hay and grain for winter feed. Life was hard – 16 hours days in the summer, daylight to nightfall and then some.
I remember when we got our first dug well with a hand pump. Such a luxury. Didn’t have to hook up a team to go get water from the spring.
I still have the “night bucket” so you didn’t have to make the run to the outhouse at 30 below and wipe with an old Eaton’s Catalogue. Those weren’t the days my friend. My grand parents and parents lived that life, I saw the end of it, and in retrospect gladly. (Although I still have a horse and buggy – just in case 😉 )
Anyone who pines for that life should be sent to the wilderness, miles from pavement and gravel with an axe, a saw, a bag of grain and a team of horses. Those of us who lived that life know better.comment image?dl=0comment image?dl=0

Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2016 11:18 am
Resourceguy
Reply to  Gloateus Maximus
February 16, 2016 1:59 pm

So this is why the Gore marriage broke up.

Robert
February 16, 2016 7:39 pm

Encountered Naomi Klein on a youtube video. She looked normal enough but after less than a minute, the word ‘kook’ came to mind.

StarkNakedTruth
Reply to  Robert
February 17, 2016 3:10 pm

Brain damaged immediately came to my mind.

H. Skip Robinson
February 17, 2016 3:48 am

This guy must be brilliant. I’ve met kids in high school who can explain why communism fails. Even democracies last longer than communistic societies. Just study the ex-Soviet Union, but don’t let the lame stream media distort the evidence. As an example the phone system was from the 1960s when the USSR began collapsing in 1989. Quit simply, no one benefits from improving anything. Government projects and building were left unfinished because there were no incentives to finish them. People get paid even though they may be doing a crappy job, so doing the least one can do while still getting paid becomes the norm. The bureaucracy in “our” country is even known for having to stretch 3 hours of real work into an 8 hour day and not to work to hard because it makes the rest of their fellow employees look bad.
Venezuela is the most recent highly socialist/ partly communist country to crash and burn, mired in poor productivity and failing central policies. One of the reasons so may are fighting against the various socialistic polices in this country is that socialism eventually drains the society of it’s wealth. It’s not that any one social policy is that bad, it that the collective costs of them eventually bankrupts the society. Once you start down that path though it is hard to stop the snow ball effect. People are under the delusion that government can solve capitalist problems. Another social policy is then created to try to correct the previous failed social policy. The example is Affordable Health Care Act. We have so many social policies effecting our healthcare system, what economists government interventions, that rather than repeal them and go back to works best, an unfettered system, we keep adding more and more social policies even though we all should know socialism/communism doesn’t work in the long run. I you want to fix the health care system you need to abolish many of the social policies negatively effecting it. Things like prolonging patents, providing monopolies the drug companies, licensure laws, government mandated college accreditation, the FDA raiding alternative healthcare labs and clinics and prohibiting advertising of cures. the prohibition to practice medicine without a license, etc. etc. etc.
Many will say these type prohibitions of various protectionist policies for the common good will harm society but not as much harm that has come to our society because of them. That why capitalism all though not perfect, is better than socialism. It is clear that despite all the government policies enacted in the twentieth century, our sick care system is horrible. Thinking that government will solve the problems is ridiculous and history clearly bears this out.

Eugene WR Gallun
February 18, 2016 11:38 pm

Socialism and Communism depend on one thing for their continued existence — separating the common people from power. So the common man will be behind a horse drawn plow while the black helicopters circle overhead. I jest but only slightly.
The first duty of socialists and communists is, by any means, to get power. The second is, by any means, to keep it. The third is — well, they never really get beyond the second.
Eugene WR Gallun

richardscourtney
Reply to  Eugene WR Gallun
February 19, 2016 12:59 am

Eugene WR Gallun:
Please explain where you obtained your delusional ideas concerning socialism. Was it part of indoctrination session in a meeting of the H1tler Youth?
Richard