Is the Hormuz Chokehold a Foretaste of Peak Oil?

          The Strait of Hormuz (red arrow) connects the Arabian Sea and Persian Gulf.           

      

Oil and Gas in the Middle East.

The massive deposits of hydrocarbons in the Middle East always spring to mind when significant political events occur in the region. Thus, it is salient that Iran hosts the world’s second and third largest reserves of gas and oil, respectively. Even if deliberate actions are not being undertaken, intended to control the outward flow of oil and gas, almost inevitably there are consequences for this. One is reminded of the finite nature of such natural resources, that even while they remain plentiful in the ground, the day will come when they are no longer technically or economically viable to extract in quantity, and a new age will either have already emerged or be forced upon us – i.e. by design or default.

Hence, the severe restrictions in the flow of oil though the Strait of Hormuz, resulting from the recent US-Iranian attacks, may be seen as a stark rehearsal for the consequences of a severe shock in the global oil supply, as might be experienced from a "peak oil" crisis, with volatile price spikes and supply chain disruptions. Although “peak oil” per se, refers to an irreversible long-term production decline, given that around 20% of the world’s oil and 20% of its liquefied natural gas (LNG) passes through the channel, a simulation of an acute loss in global hydrocarbon availability is provided.

Since shipping has come to a "near standstill" at this chokehold, major energy providers have been compelled to put a brake on oil production as storage facilities begin to fill to capacity.  Saudi Aramco has said the present crisis is “by far the worst the region has seen”, and warned of “catastrophic consequences” to global oil markets, if the war continues to block shipping there. 

It has been reckoned that should this disruption last for more than four weeks, oil prices could be driven to above $100, and perhaps to $150 per barrel, which reflects the kind of economic shock expected when oil becomes materially scarce against demand: indeed, as we saw in 2008, when Brent Crude spiked to $147, thought to have been triggered, in part, by fear over growing demand for oil exceeding available supply.  Similar price escalations followed the invasion of Ukraine, just over 4 years ago, again reinforcing the vulnerability of the global energy landscape. 


A wider issue.

The Hormuz disruption has already raised fears of a 1970s-style energy crisis, with rising fuel costs expected to fuel global inflation, increase business costs, and bring recession. Since up to one-third of the world’s fertilizer trade also passes through the region, our economic and functional dependency on a single, fragile channel, is further highlighted.

While high oil and gas prices may offer some short term gains to producers and traders, it is clear that we place ourselves in grave peril by continuing to rely on volatile, high-risk, imported energy at current scale. Particularly from a European perspective, it has been pointed out that the North Sea holdings of oil and natural gas will be significantly exhausted within a decade or so. 

Thus, some commentators have voiced from this a rallying cry to accelerate the transition toward renewable, domestically produced, energy sources that are less jeopardised by unexpected external shocks. 

Knock-on effects.

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and if we look to the UK’s food system, we see it is massively vulnerable to supply chain failures, since we import more than half of the food actually eaten here, and much of what we do grow relies on imported fertilizers, e.g. 60% of our nitrogen fertilizers are brought in from abroad. Professor Tim Lang, an acknowledged expert on food systems, has averred that the UK must ready itself for climate shocks or war by stockpiling food to avoid people starving. 

There exists, therefore, a whole system of interlinked liabilities, but which depend fundamentally on imported hydrocarbons, and commodities made from them, including nitrogen fertilisers and plastics. 

Some by-products from oil and gas are less immediately obvious, for example sulphur, which is a nuisance to the industry, and takes technology, money and indeed hydrogen (also made from natural gas) to remove it and stop it from deactivating noble metal catalysts, used in further downstream refining, and more significantly, to reduce emissions of sulphur dioxide, when these materials are combusted, which is a major cause of air pollution and acid rain. 

In the wider world, however, sulphur is a material with very many important applications, primarily though its conversion to sulphuric acid. These include the creation of agricultural fertilizers, but also the extraction of metals such as copper (which is the bedrock of a putative largely electrified future “low-carbon” energy system), and cobalt for lithium ion batteries, which will be increasingly necessary to provide storage for intermittent wind plus solar energy, as they increasingly substitute for this same oil and gas. 

Since 80% of the sulphur used in the world is derived as a “hitchhiker element”, riding on the back of oil and natural gas production, eventually, more mined sulphur (and that recovered from smelting mined metallic ores) will be necessary to make sulphuric acid, if we manage to significantly curb our use of fossil fuels.

Extra-heavy oil.

Recent events in Venezuela have also proved controversial, but the nation is said to have the world’s largest reserves of oil. Now, all oil is not created equal, and most of that from Venezuela is of far lower quality than that from Iran, say.  There are issues too, over the amount of refining capacity available for dealing with oil that is either much lighter or much heavier than that from Iran. Hence, while over 300 billion barrels is claimed for Venezuelan ("extra-heavy") oil , its Energy Return on Investment (EROI) is very low (3-6), to be compared with an average of around 17 reckoned for global oil. 

Along with a very high viscosity, similar to “tar”, and heavy sulphur content, the material has been said to be practically unusable, “at current prices”.  Thus, the reckoned 200 billion barrels worth of high quality Iranian oil is a much better bet, on all counts.

The term “at current prices” is salient, and in principle, Venezuelan oil is not entirely unusable, but it is extremely challenging and costly to produce. To get this “extra-heavy” oil out of the ground requires specialized infrastructure, massive investment, and blending with lighter, imported liquid hydrocarbons to move it to the marketplace. Since the production infrastructure has been left in very poor shape, due to underinvestment, mismanagement and the effects of sanctions, it may cost over $100 billion to make it fit for purpose again. 

The overall “getting” process is also highly polluting, with high greenhouse gas emissions from extraction, methane leaks, and heavy refining requirements. Sustained high oil prices at say $100 a barrel, or more, make such kinds of “unconventional” production more attractive, so long as the economy can bear them. That noted, a rapid recovery in Venezuelan oil production is considered unlikely. 

Oil prices, production and consequences.

There is a [debatable] “goldilocks” window of between $50-$100, below which production is unprofitable, and above which, costs of oil products become increasingly unaffordable. The breakeven price for Venezuelan extra-heavy is around $80, but it typically trades at $12-20 less than the world benchmark price, in consequence of the greater expenses incurred in its production. While Iranian oil is cheaper to produce, the “fiscal” breakeven price (i.e. to support the national economy) is closer to $160 a barrel, and much higher than that for Saudi Arabia ($95). What it may now rise to in the coming years is anyone’s guess.

Naturally, the prevailing oil price will be a significant factor in determining exactly how much oil is produced, at points along the unfolding timeline, but Charles Hall, Roger Bentley and Jean Laherrere have reckoned future global oil production using Hubbert Linearization techniques. 

Their results indicate that, while the exact timing of the “peak” is shunted forward, albeit incrementally, by the respective addition of NGLs, extra-heavy oil, shale (both kerogen, and light tight) oil, coal/gas-to-liquids, refinery gains and biofuels, to the tally, oil production will begin to decline over the next decade or so; hence why the supply restrictions incurred by the Hormuz situation (and the war in that region, more broadly) may prove to be a rehearsal for the consequences of actual “peak oil”.

Indeed, the present global societal system is becoming increasingly unstable, with cascading events across the Middle East further increasing the risk of massive changes in the wider world order. As has been shown, when complex, adaptive systems begin to collapse, their behaviour becomes increasingly volatile, and I must say, this is how the world is looking to me, as an unfolding “climate, nature... [and also] resource and political crisis”. 

In context to this, I note that Nafeez Ahmed has written recently about the collapse of the US “empire”, signifying the fall of a civilization:  He convincingly argues that we are indeed on our way to a new age, and must adapt to this, rather than trying to restore the old equilibrium:

“The system is about to enter its most turbulent period of catastrophic decline. This is terrifying. The ramifications will be disastrous. But regardless of the fanatical fantasies of those at its helm, there is no going back.”

What about "peak oil demand"?

Undoubtedly, a transformation of our global energy systems is a critical factor in trying to hold any kind of steady course, and this is usually focussed in terms of installing more renewable (low carbon) energy, mainly wind and solar, which offers multiple benefits, in terms of getting away from carbon-polluting and precariously placed, imported fossil fuels, mainly oil and gas. However, the “new” energy system will still rely on fossil fuels to build and maintain itself, until it is of sufficient size to feed back energy for these purposes. 

Given the current massive energy use by global techo-industrial civilization of well in excess of 600 Exa-Joules (EJ), around 80% of which is derived from fossil fuels, this represents a huge challenge. Since wind plus solar, combined, account for 6% of total primary energy (reckoned using the “substitution method”, which divides the actual output in TWh by about 0.4, to allow for the inefficiencies of fossil fuel systems), this would need to be expanded by a factor of 13, to fully replace all, current, gas, oil and coal (513 EJ), which means installing around half the total wind + solar that currently exists on Earth (41EJ), every year out to 2050. 

The increase in W+S achieved from 2023 to 2024 is impressive indeed at 16%, but in terms of actual energy amounts to an extra 5.7 EJ. Hence, we may deduce that the present rate of installation of W+S would need to increase by a factor of nearly 4. Most likely, such a total substitution would not be sought, and might be difficult to achieve, due to the vast quantities of materials needed to build it out, especially when large-scale battery storage is included. 

To look at the problem from another angle, the IEA has estimated that the future, mainly electrified, energy system will be much more efficient than the present, largely fossil fuel based one, but would still need 2.5 times present electricity generation (20% of end use energy, now, being in the form of electricity). W+S now accounts for about 15% (up from 13.4% in a year) of the present electricity mix, but is expected to be 70% in 2050; however, the model also depends on more nuclear capacity and CCUS being brought on-stream. 

This implies that a 12-fold increase in W+S is required, and the installation rate must increase by about 4-fold, along with the additional nuclear and CCUS requirements. Hence the two sets of sums are in reasonable agreement, but allowing the caveat that such a “steady” displacement of fossil fuels is not rapid enough to hold back emissions sufficiently and avoid breaching the 1.5 degree target. Indeed, we have probably, at most, 3 years left of the “carbon budget” to accomplish this. While moving away from fossil fuels is essential, we must avoid any "holes" in supply occurring, either while the low-carbon Plan B is being rolled out, and fossil fuel stations are closed down, or from any "variability" in the final, installed system. Nonetheless, some predictions of future oil use, e.g. by the IEA, show no decline in demand, and even growth, out to 2050. 

It is hard to see how this will hold up in practice, since falling EROI for oil means that by 2050, half of the energy content of “oil liquids” will be consumed in their production. As EROI falls, the oil industry must consume more of its own output to keep production going, a phenomenon that may make continued high-level investment inefficient and economically unattractive (a kind of “energy cannibalism”). Indeed, it has been proposed that falling EROI for “oil liquids” may become a limit to a rapid and global low-carbon energy transition. 

It seems more likely therefore, that we will experience a decline in the global oil supply, in accord with Hall, Bentley and Laherrere’s predictions. 

Our future – energy and beyond?

Affordable oil is a precious and finite material. While fracking bought us some time, the robustness of this industry is now in question. “Peak Oil Demand” is now forecast to be a long way off, but can sufficient oil supply be maintained to meet that demand? Climate change/emissions considerations, aside, once the oil and gas are gone, they are gone, and it would be sage to save them for specific future uses where substitution will be difficult or impossible.

Given the relative slowness of the necessary timescale for introducing a largely W+S based energy system, and doubts over the availability of sufficient materials for doing this, we must give focus to reducing our demand for energy as a critical strategy in creating a viable energy future. The Centre for Research into Energy Demand Solutions (CREDS), produced a report which concluded that the UK could halve its energy use by 2050. Yet, as has been pointed out, it is “not only energy”,  and while decarbonising our energy sources is vital, this alone will not solve the underpinning problem, which is that the human species is in ecological overshoot. 

Thus, reduction in our demand for all resources is essential, or our climate targets (“carbon tunnel vision”) may prove no more than hopeful and unrealistic attempts to preserve business as usual, while the polycrisis deepens. We face a “great simplification”  in which relocalisation is a key strategy.

Through such grassroots means, mitigation is achieved through reduced consumption, the production of food and energy at the local level, and by creating less waste. Adaptation arises from the creation of resilient, self-sufficient communities that can better cope with supply chain disruptions and the impacts of a changing climate (in all respects), along with a restoration of wild nature, thus providing some buffer to whatever shocks will come. Adopted on the grand scale, as a “village of globes”, both the long-term sustainability of ecosystems and the well-being of local populations may be supported across the world.

“The Empathy Project.”

Seen from about 6 billion kilometers (3.7 billion miles), Earth appears as a tiny dot within deep space: the blueish-white speck almost halfway up the rightmost band of light.

Yesterday evening, I attended a screening of the film “The Empathy Project”, which stirred my emotions deeply, and has left me in a pondersome mood. Then, earlier today, I saw this report, posted on Linkedin. The title alone is scary, “Global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security”, and all the more so, since it is from a UK government intelligence committee, and warns of an increasingly likely collapse of essential natural systems, ushering in mass migration, food shortages, increased prices, and disorder on a global scale.

The report identifies that some vital ecosystems could face collapse within just 5 years, endangering the UK’s national security, which is a chilling change of lens through which to view the matter. I can see parallels with the recent National Emergency Briefing, certainly in identifying the major and possibly imminent threats to life in these islands, and elsewhere, but which similarly has yet to receive its necessary due prominence in media coverage.

Further compounded by a UN report that we are in “an era of water bankruptcy”, I am left with a visceral sense of unease, of a broken global system that hyperconsumes... nature, animals, people - driven by money, and which is unfixable within the present paradigms.

It has been presented that collapse is an inevitable fate for an extractive system on a finite planet, and  indeed, I wonder if this may be the only force powerful enough to drive change, to an ultimate state of “one planet living”. In which case, mitigation alone (“carbon tunnel vision”) is insufficient, and we must also adapt to the shocks that will come. 

We are, of course, animals (like those in the film), and our actions are urged by primitive drives (the 4 Fs): feeding, fighting, fleeing and procreation. Arguably, we are driven to do all of these by fear... of not surviving. Pleasure too, particularly in the first and fourth – I doubt anyone really enjoys the third, perhaps only once one has fled, and is now out of danger.

Beyond its immediate content, the film ricochets out echoes and ripples, negotiating both structures and surfaces: tracing the lines of a whole, out of kilter, system of interconnected, interdependent components that needs realignment, and "empathy" is probably the best way forward. 

However, empathy does not square well with a “growth” mindset, which is one of acquisition and conquest (i.e. the 4 Fs). Is “empathetic growth” even possible, or another oxymoron, such as “green growth”, “sustainable agriculture”, let alone “friendly fire”?

We are well into ecological overshoot for the human species, set to hit using “2 Earths” worth of resources by 2030, and we have just the one.  The most emphatic, visual, identification of this reality is “The Pale Blue Dot”, a photograph taken by the Voyager 1 space probe in 1990. Thus, as seen from a distance of about 6 billion kilometers, Earth appears as a tiny dot, set against the endless darkness of deep space: it is the blueish-white speck [in the image above] almost halfway up the rightmost band of light. 

As Carl Sagan noted:

“There is perhaps no better demonstration of the folly of human conceits than this distant image of our tiny world. It underscores our responsibility to deal more kindly with one another, and to preserve and cherish the pale blue dot. The only home we’ve ever known.”

Still so early into the New Year of 2026, I am also reminded of the lines from Charles Dickens’ novella “A Christmas Carol”: 

“Christmas [is] the only time I know of, in the long calendar of the year, when men and women seem by one consent to open their shut-up hearts freely, and to think of people below them as if they really were fellow-passengers to the grave, and not another race of creatures bound on other journeys.” – Stave One.

To achieve what is necessary, this must extend to all living creatures, as in Charles Eisenstein’s concept of “Interbeing”; an antidote to our treatment of other species, other humans as, indeed, “other”, being different from ourselves and less deserving of our humanity, compassion, and care. Indeed, fragmentation from other peoples, and disconnection from nature, more broadly, categorises all kinds of mistreatment, abuse, and degradation.

It is only though healing this false sense, either a fault of cause or carelessness, that empathy is allowed to be admitted, as a revelation of light into otherwise endless darkness.

Wresting Peace from the Polycrisis.

The analogy of war often features, both in the concept of humankind being in conflict with Nature, or that we need to wage war against the climate and nature crisis by means of a WWII scale, global assault in order to defeat it. In the latter context, one can only wonder who exactly the enemy is, since there is no clear external foe, but a polycrisis driven by ourselves and our actions of hyperconsumption.

Whereupon, perspectives of “war” may not frame the best narrative, but rather of finding means to achieve “peace”, both across and within nations, within ourselves, and in harmony with the flow of the Earth.

 
The series of COP climate change conferences has now clocked up to number “30”, and effectively returned to its roots, in Brazil; in fact in Belém, rather than Rio de Janeiro, which in June 1992, hosted the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED), widely known as the "Earth Summit". That landmark event led to the adoption of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), which established the basic legal framework for international climate change cooperation. The annual climate change conferences, known as the Conference of the Parties (COP), stemmed from this original convention. 

Nonetheless, the global combustion of fossil fuels (and accordingly emissions), has continued to climb relentlessly, despite such a sustained series of COPs, leading some to question their value.  Indeed, 2024 saw record amounts of each, coal, oil, and natural gas, being burned, with accordingly record CO2 emissions, although some reassurance might be drawn from the fact that emissions from land use changes were down from the previous year. 

COP30 marks the passing of ten years since the Paris Agreement of COP21 was accorded, and yet, as was pointed out by Sir David King:

"New global analyses show that average warming over the past three years has already exceeded 1.5°C, the threshold nations agreed in Paris we should avoid 'if at all possible.' But global averages hide the reality people are already experiencing. Parts of the Arctic, Central and Eastern Europe, and North America are now 3–7°C hotter than pre-industrial levels. Whether this overshoot is brief or prolonged will shape the stability of societies for decades.” 


Hope from China?

It is noteworthy that China’s emissions actually fell in 2024 (albeit by just 1%), significantly as a consequence of its installation of immense levels of wind and (particularly) solar energy. Another contributing factor to falling emissions is contraction in the construction sector, which consumes most of China’s cement and steel production (although this is somewhat offset by surging growth in the industrial sector, and demand for oil). 

In addition, the newer Chinese coal fired power stations are more efficient, since they employ supercritical and (ultra-supercritical) water as a heat-transfer medium, with higher temperature inputs to the “heat engine”, up to 565 degrees (and up to 600-610 degrees) Celsius, meaning that the reckoned efficiency is increased from about 33-37% (sub-critical) to 37-40% and 44-46% respectively. 

For reference, advanced combined cycle gas fired stations can now achieve above 50% and potentially as much as 60%. While all such improvements represent a considerable saving in CO2 emissions per unit of electricity generated, they do not obviate the need to phase out fossil fuels as far as possible, and in short order, especially as at current emissions levels, we look almost certain to breach the 1.5 degree limit, with just 3 years remaining of the global carbon budget, or virtually no time at all. 


Adaptation.

Thus, adaptation is being emphasised, not to relinquish mitigation, but in partnership with it, to build durability and flexibility in the face of changes that are now inevitable. These include more obvious actions like defending against sea-level rise, but also rendering buildings both more energy efficient, and more “liveable” in expectedly hotter conditions, and developing “water resilience” – to deal with floods and droughts – by adapting the built environment, and making natural landscapes better at absorbing and storing water. 

Adaptation measures are probably easier for most people to grasp – “your home will flood, so do this to reduce the impact” - but mitigation may appear as a more nebulous concept, hence why infrastructural and legislation changes are needed to make it happen.

One potential wildcard, is the waning of the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC), which adds uncertainties to how we might prepare a country such as the UK to own its “food security” in the future, since it will be necessary to grow more of what is actually consumed here. Currently this amounts to about half of the food eaten in the UK, with 32% of its land area suitable for arable farming; however, this could be reduced to a mere 7%, should the AMOC collapse. 

Thus, we may be caught – proverbially and literally – between the devil and the deep blue sea, since massive and volatile forces of extreme cooling and heating may beset us, as conclusive evidence has been presented that humanity has failed to “limit warming to well below 2°C”. 

This really does call out the question of “what next?” since the adaptation measures we adopt will have to cover all bases, in terms of which particular crops to grow, the introduction of natural climate solutions, which infrastructures – including building designs and transportation networks (think melting road surfaces and buckling rail tracks) - will serve us best, and how to use the available energy, and all other resources, to best effect in an increasingly turbulent world. 


Financial considerations.

COP30 focussed heavily on “climate finance”, since a major consideration is how the richer nations will release funds to the poorer ones, mainly in the Global South, to assist them in meeting their climate change targets, to mange debt, and ensure a just transition away from fossil fuels. The likely sums required are substantial, and it has been noted that: 

The developed world must massively scale up financial flows to Emerging Markets and Developing Economies(EMDEs).

“...at least USD 2.4 trillion per year by 2030 and USD 3.3 trillion per year by 2035 to meet their needs for the clean energy transition, adaptation and resilience, response to loss and damage, natural capital, and just transition.”

Investments in nature-based solutions (NbS) remain far below what is needed:

“The UNEP State of Finance for Nature (2023) estimates that annual financing for NbS must more than double, from about USD 200 billion today to over USD 400 billion by 20305, to align with global climate, biodiversity and land restoration goals.”

Investments in adaptation and resilience also need to be scaled up significantly.

“Well-designed adaptation investments deliver a “triple dividend”: they avoid future losses, generate positive economic returns, and create broader social benefits. Yet the adaptation finance gap remains stark. Global adaptation needs are estimated at USD 215–387 billion annually by 2030, while international public flows reached only USD 28 billion in 2022.”

However, the costs (not just fiscal, but in terms of an unravelling fabric of human civilization) of failing to make a “class act” across the world, are most likely incalculable, or at any rate, unthinkable. Yet, think we must, to avoid catastrophe, as the concerted threads of the polycrisis tighten, and its web  finally begins to break.


Fragmentation, wars and critical resources.

At a time when humans need to cooperate, probably as never before in our history, "fragmentation" seems to be a common denominator in the current condition of the world  The effects of "ecological overshoot" (which are matrix elements of the climate and nature crisis) lever a multiplicity of divisions, as a result of the depletion of natural capital and the resulting competition for scarcer resources, which puts greater strain on ecosystems, economies, international relations and societal solidarity. This can only diminish our capacity for resilience as a society, and indeed, “social cohesion erosion”, “livelihood crises” and “mental health deterioration" were three of the five top global risks previously identified in a report by the World Economics Forum. 

Of actual wars, there seems little shortage, and the flame seems to rise relentlessly under the cauldron of global hostility. Indeed, a study from the Transition Security Project has shown that critical minerals needed for solar panels, wind turbines, electric vehicles and battery storage are being diverted to support the military, rather than contributing to decarbonising the global civil-energy system. There is mention too of "AI-driven warfare", which I read as an indicator that human judgement is being increasingly sidelined in deciding the fate of “humanity”. Alarmingly, Mark Rutte, Nato’s secretary general, has warned that Russia could attack a Nato country within the next five years, venturing that “The dark forces of oppression are on the march again,” and that Europe “...must be prepared for the scale of war our grandparents and great-grandparents endured.” 

Meanwhile, the world’s existing militaries are reckoned to be responsible for around 5.5% of global emissions. Active conflicts and post-conflict reconstruction will add significantly to this figure (along with all other impacts): thus, it has been estimated that Russia's war in Ukraine has generated emissions equivalent to the combined annual output of Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic, and Slovakia. 

Copper is a critical material for the expansion of a largely electrified (“renewable”) energy system, and yet “peak copper” looms, with higher prices and relentless material decline projected from beyond 2035. Not only are copper ores becoming poorer in quality, but copper mines are getting deeper, making the extraction process more resource intensive, and expensive. Substitution is another prospect for circumventing resource limitations, for example using aluminium in place of copper wires in buildings.

Although an increased fire hazard was identified (reckoned by 55 times), it is thought that much of this was caused by problems with connectors, rather than the Al wires themselves, and incorrect installation practices. Al has a larger coefficient of expansion/contraction than Cu, and so this can cause greater tension, and "breaks", sparking etc. Aluminium is still extensively used for electrical transmission in power grids, since not only is it cheaper, but has about 1/3 the density of copper (with 61% of its conductivity), meaning that the same current can be carried using around half the weight of material. 


Demand reduction.

Demand reduction (and waste avoidance) is one of the most powerful tools available for mitigation. Thus, dietary and food system changes [including place based (local) food growing, and more of what we eat being derived from plants], relocalisation, better energy use, and lower consumption of “stuff”, could cut emissions by 40–70%. As part of a Natural Climate Solutions approach, it has been shown that switching the UK to a more plant based diet could free up an area of land the size of Scotland, and which could be used to “trigger a rural renaissance that supports farmers changing to different farming methods, enhances nature restoration and builds flood water protection.” It has also been found that mixing six plant species (two grasses, two legumes and two herbs) increased crop yields by up to 18%, even with much lower nitrogen fertiliser use. Thus, introducing plant diversity is an effective strategy for demand reduction in producing food.

Nonetheless, such strategies tend not to dominate in COP or national agendas. Instead, incremental technological improvements are stressed, while leaving highly consuming and impacting lifestyles, particularly in the wealthier nations, largely unrestrained. Overall, the outcome of COP30 has proved disappointing, among which curbing fossil fuel use was not stated explicitly in the final agreement, despite significant pressure and demands from many nations (like the EU, UK, and small island states) for stronger language. 

Without reducing demand, the emissions gap is unlikely to be closed by supply-side measures alone. There is a considerable gulf between what has been offered by nations, in their nationally determined contribution (NDC) commitments, and what must be done, as is both a failure of too weak national targets and a lack of collective will to confront the real structural drivers of emissions, i.e. resource-intensive lifestyles and growth economic systems that depend upon unchecked consumption: relentless, until ultimately being braked by natural resource limits.


Peace?

So, what might we consider to be a state of “peace”, and how best might this be wrested from the polycrisis? Indeed, what kind of a world do we want, what do we need, and what is possible? Perhaps peace can be regarded as a state of “balance”, albeit impossible to achieve within a techno-industrial framework that relentlessly consumes limited oil as a “master resource”,  but which is also a critical driver in breaching planetary boundaries.

This present course is “techno-fantasy”, according to David Holmgren’s definition, doomed to run-out, and with creative descent to achieve “Earth Stewardship” as the one option (out of four) that prevails into the future, to operate within the Earth’s limits. It has also been argued that a collective human hubris has contributed significantly to anthropogenic climate change and that a “humility-based approach” toward the environment is needed, entailing an “appreciation of humanity’s proper place in the natural order”. 

Such wisdom is a feature of indigenous cultures, and traditional ecological knowledge, which should all be embraced in building a sustainable world.  It is heartening that COP30 saw the Global Youth Call to Action voice the need for meaningful youth/Indigenous participation in National Adaptation Plans (NAPs) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). Quite right too, as it is their future, and a fertile, nascent energy is an intrinsic feature of young minds.

Relocalisation is a key strategy, since it can both mitigate, and adapt to, the unavoidable effects of ecological overshoot. Mitigation is achieved through reduced consumption, production of food and energy at the local level, and creating less waste. Adaptation occurs through the creation of resilient, self-sufficient communities that can better cope with threats from supply chain failures, and the impacts of climate change. Thus, both the long-term sustainability of ecosystems and the well-being of local populations are supported.

This is in accord with thinking from Transition Towns, The Great Simplification, “The Simpler Way”, Ecovillages, Deep Adaptation, the Ecological Footprint Analysis, and “Lean Logic”, all of which converge on this point.

In summary: "The future will be smaller than the present."

How smooth, (“peaceful”) this inevitable transition will be is a moot issue, and the practical, cultural and logistic challenges of shifting downward in terms of material consumption from the status quo are complex. Degrowth has been identified as a prospective turning point in human development "as significant as the domestication of fire or the process of agrarianisation"; however, it is further opined that “[the Transition Movement] embraces ‘limits’ but downplays the implications of scarcity for open, liberal societies, and for inter-personal and inter-group violence.” 

As translated from Omar Khayyam’s writings, centuries past: 

“The Moving Finger writes; and, having writ,
Moves on: nor all thy Piety nor Wit
Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
Nor all thy Tears wash out a Word of it.”

What is done, is done, and we can only move forward. It is not yet “game over”, but to gear down from “ecological overshoot” to within planetary limits, requires historic shifts of intention, and we cannot simply switch back to the past (or a simulated version of it). Thus, adaptation to change is essential. We are in new, unfamiliar territory, and how we negotiate this is the challenge, or the journey’s course will be taken out of our hands.

“Ecosophia.” Film Screening at the Reading Biscuit Factory, Tuesday, October 28th (2025), 7.00 pm.

“Some of the wisest ecological minds come together for an honest appraisal of our civilization, without greenwash.”

                              

As part of Reading International Festival, in collaboration with Transition Town Reading, join us for a screening of Ecosophia, including a post-film Q&A panel discussion. To be held at the independent cinema, "Reading Biscuit Factory," at 7.00 pm on Tuesday, October 28th (2025), 1 Queens Walk, Reading RG1 7QE.

                                              Here is the booking link

The Film:

Ecosophia means ecological wisdom, and this documentary explores the interrelationship between energy, the economy, resources, population, psychology, spirituality, the biosphere, the limits to growth and climate change in an honest appraisal of our civilization and sustainability.

For all concerned about the future of this planet - our only home - the film is a powerful reminder that to heal the nature-climate crisis not only requires technological “solutions”, but a revolution of the heart and mind.

Featuring interviews with Prof Tim Barrett, Stephen Jenkinson, B. Sid Smith, Prof William Rees, Prof Ian Lowe, Morag Gamble, Helena Norberg-Hodge, Prof Stuart Hill, Prof Will Steffen, Prof John Gowdy, Prof William Ophuls, Bobbi Allan, Alnoor Ladha, Whaia Whaea, Mindahi Bastida, Rocky Dawuni, Victor Pires and Randy Hayes.


Reviews:

"I have finally found a film that presents at once the peril and possibilities of our never-before moment. Ecosophia is masterfully composed like a symphony of voices drawn from empirical science, indigenous sages, and emerging visionaries sounding more than mere lamentation for global breakdown.

"Ecosophia sings a new song - one of amazement and determination to honor the genius and still emergent vitality of this living planet, a new anthem already sounding in the souls of a new kind of humankind."

Kathleen Noone Deignan, Professor Emerita, Religious Studies, Founding Director, Deignan Institute for Earth and Spirit, Iona University

"Ecosophia is an excellent conversation starter for community groups everywhere. It primes us to ask deep, existential questions about what drives the climate crisis - questions we usually try to avoid. The hour is late, and if we speak, it must not be about trivialities, but about nature, duty, meaning, and purpose."
Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow, Post Carbon Institute, Author, Power: Limits and Prospects for Human Survival

"Ecosophia is a powerful and urgently needed film presenting the current global ecological crisis in effective and strong visual images. The comments by a great variety of ecological activists, academics and indigenous leaders greatly contribute to effectively communicating the scope and depth of that global crisis and its intensifying characteristics."
Frédérique Apffel-Marglin, Professor Emerita of Anthropology, Smith College, Co-author, Initiated by the Spirits: Healing Ills of Modernity with Psychedelics and through the Power of the Sacred

"The reigning delusion of boundless growth has been underwritten by the burning of fossil fuels, and it is clear that switching to renewable energy, for all its virtues, cannot sustain this madness. Ecosophia is highly recommended for those struggling to find sources and strength for a new beginning."
Jason M. Wirth, Professor of Philosophy, Seattle University, Author, Mountains, Rivers and the Great Earth: Reading Gary Snyder and Dogen in an Age of Ecological Crisis


Post-film Q&A panel:

Professor Chris Rhodes (Chair of Transition Town Reading, and Director of Fresh-lands Environmental Actions),

Dr Rebeca Garcia Pinillos (Director of One Welfare CIC),

Natalie Ganpatsingh (Director of Nature Nurture CIC).


Evening Programme:

7.00 pm, Ecosophia

8.20 pm, short break

8.35 pm, Q&A panel discussion

9:20 pm, approx. finish


Film Director:

Peter Charles Downey

"Ecosophia": Beyond Greenwash — Cultivating Ecological Wisdom for Our Time (Film Review, by Chris Rhodes).

As part of Reading International Festival, in collaboration with Transition Town Reading, join us for a screening of Ecosophia, including a post-film Q&A panel discussion. To be held at the independent cinema, "Reading Biscuit Factory," at 7.00 pm on Tuesday, October 28th (2025), 1 Queens Walk, Reading RG1 7QE.

Here is the booking link

Review of the Film:

As escalating environmental crises cascade upon us - from climate change to biodiversity loss - technological innovation and “green” solutions are ever more emphatically presented as means for our salvation, and taken as bedrock on which to build government climate change policies. Such prevailing rhetoric is called into question in the documentary Ecosophia, which offers a timely reminder that ecological problems are as much connected with our mindsets and values as they are with science and technology.

The film’s title, Ecosophia - derived from the Greek words oikos (home) and sophia (wisdom) - captures its central message: that what our civilization urgently needs is a deeper ecological wisdom rooted in humility, reciprocity, and reverence for the natural world.

While the film pulls no punches in portraying the self-defeating insanity of human hyperconsumption, and in emphasising that this is the primary driver of the prevailing polycrisis, Ecosophia further unfolds as a lyrical meditation on our place within the living world. Through sweeping images of landscapes and intimate moments of connection between humans and nature, the film invites us to pause and consider what it means to belong to the Earth, in the fullest and truest sense.

Indigenous voices are central to the documentary, presented not as passive symbols, but as vital sources of ecological knowledge. Such worldviews emphasise relationality, stewardship, and long-term thinking - values all too often absent from mainstream environmental discourse, instead being dominated by technological optimism and economic growth. Stephen Jenkinson, best known for his work on Orphan Wisdom, proposes that “exercising dominion” is the surrogate we have for “belonging”; that we are orphans from the natural world, cast adrift from our own ancestry of traditional knowledge and continuity of connection.

Philosophically, Ecosophia aligns with deep ecology, a movement that urges us to move beyond human-centred thinking and recognise the intrinsic value of all life. I am reminded of the concept of “interbeing”, which further emphasises that we are all of us part of a complex web of interconnected, living beings. Such a shift in cognition challenges the assumption that humans stand apart from nature and instead calls for an ethic of care and respect for the entire community of life on Earth; members of which we may call “Earthlings”.

Importantly, the film critiques the widespread belief that green technology alone can solve the environmental crisis. It makes clear that while innovations such as renewable energy are necessary, technological fixes cannot, by themselves, address the underlying cultural and spiritual disconnection from the Earth that drives ecological harm. Without a fundamental transformation in our values and perceptions, no amount of innovation can lever the behavioural changes that must be made.

In its reflective and poetic style, the film sets a vital space for contemplation and reorientation. It urges us to ask profound questions: How did we come to see ourselves as separate from nature? What would it mean to live on the Earth as if it were sacred? These questions light the way toward a necessary cultural transformation; one that embraces ecological wisdom, alongside advances in scientific knowledge.

In conclusion, Ecosophia does not pretend to offer quick fixes or technological miracles. Rather, it invites us to a deeper form of healing - one that reconnects us to the Earth, honours indigenous knowledge, and fosters a renewed ethic of care. For all concerned about the future of this planet - our only home - the film is a powerful reminder that to heal the nature-climate crisis not only requires technological “solutions”, but a change of the heart and mind.

To quote Richard Louv:

“We cannot protect something we do not love, we cannot love what we do not know, and we cannot know what we do not see. Or hear. Or sense.”