Yves here. Readers rightfully often take issue with some of Gail Tverberg’s analysis, since she sometimes has to work overtime to fit her information into her energy scarcity thesis. But she generally has interesting data and her drive to reach conclusions often produces useful reactions from the commentariat. Here she turns to her big topic of the day, the resource implications of the war between Russia and Ukraine.
Tverberg’s core argument is Tainter 2.0: that rising costs of energy development/production lead to scarcity because producers can’t get paid enough to justify the cost of incremental extraction. The West had started early down the path of making it more costly via fossil fuel divestment and ESG policies that increased the cost of capital for fossil fuel companies, as well as putting social/political pressure on them to cut back on development. That’s all gone in reverse with the Russia campaign in Ukraine, but Tverberg would contend it doesn’t change the fundamental dilemma.