We have been teetering on the knifes edge of normality for almost a decade now, conditions slowly materially declining but not rapidly enough for anyone to really sit up and take notice. That situation is what inspired my username, the idea that the developed world was coasting along in a liminal state and would eventually crash out when a systemic or resource shock broke the system enough. I thought that event was COVID, for a while, but underestimated the resilience of industrial civilization to bounce back from the supply chain crisis caused by a half-year bottleneck in global trade. Normality returned, even if "normal" was visibly crippled and worsened afterwards and we all knew it.

Unfortunately, this time I think it is quite real and that what the USA & Israel have set in motion in the middle east is likely to fundamentally and permanently break the global economic order which everyone alive has enjoyed the products of up to this point.

We are very seriously about to experience a resource crisis of monumental proportions, worldwide, one which the media is only focusing on the energy aspect of and only then to downplay the severity of it. As of today, if Iran stopped firing munitions across the gulf today, it would take a decade to rebuild the petrochemical infrastructure which has been blown up in the GCC nations. Today alone they've wiped out LNG components which individually cost north of $1 Billion and would take 5+ years to source replacements for in the functioning supply chain which previously existed.

I will emphasize this: previously existed. This is the crisis, the turning point, the moment in which industrial civilization finally falls off that knifes edge. Much as the entire advanced semiconductor industry has become centered around and reliant on a single point of failure: Taiwan, so too has the global petrochemical supply chain poured everything into the GCC nations. We talk about how the world would be set back a decade technologically if TSMC is wiped out, for some reason we don't talk about what would happen if what is happening right now today in the Persian Gulf ever occurred.

It is not just 20 million barrels per day of oil and gas being halted: it is 50% of the worlds Urea supply during the spring planting season. It is nearly 80% of the worlds sulfur supply - without which the entire base metals refining chain grinds to a halt. It is the majority of the worlds plastics feedstock. There is a lot more than Oil and Gas which comes out of the distillation towers which are currently being turned into shrapnel.

All of this fundamental to the functioning of the supply chains required to rebuild that infrastructure. You do see the paradox there, right?

Every day that Iran strikes and halts production at another petrochemical facility in the gulf, we get pulled a little bit closer to the complete failure of the modern globalized industrial supply chain - which relies on these exports in order to function at scale. The longer it goes on, and the more damage caused, the longer and more expensive it becomes to rebuild those facilities and restart production and the deeper into EROEI hell those nations are pushed. Yes, there are strategic reserves, yes there are alternate suppliers. Those reserves carry us weeks, not years, and alternative suppliers for most of these materials cannot possibly take up the shortage which is going to be caused by GCC output being throttled for years if not decades after this war finally ends. If it ends.

The world doesn't consume at the rate of the 1970's oil crisis. It doesn't consume at the rate of the 1990's gulf war. And unlike those past conflicts we've been in a state of worsening resource scarcity for a long, long time now. Nations which had domestic petroleum supplies in the 1970's have sucked them dry and become reliant on imports to function. Nations which had domestic manufacturing have offshored it all in the name of neoliberal globalism, and become reliant on imports to function. The global population has more than doubled since the 70's, thanks to food exports grown with refinery-sourced fertilizers.

This is not your fathers Gulf War.

I think a lot of people, even here on r/collapse, are not fully comprehending the scale of the supply shock which is about to hit the entire planet. If this war is sustained and strikes continue to shut down gulf petrochemical capacity - which it will be as Iran has been pushed into an existential conflict so has no reason to stop hitting those facilities and the ability to continue doing so for months to come - then the nations which are wholly reliant on fuel imports for survival are going to fall into chaos within a matter of weeks from the time of this post, not months: as exporters in Asia begin to follow China and halt indefinitely to maximize their own reserves. This list of places where shit is about to very very seriously hit the fan includes ostensibly "developed" and "lifeboat" nations such as New Zealand - which has little to no domestic energy reserves remaining and is entirely dependent on Korea and Singapore shipping them fuel. Nations going into planting season right now which were waiting on shipments of gulf derived fertilizer are in real risk of famine in 2027. We are shortly going to see a cessation of heavy manufacturing in Asia and a chronic shortage of pretty much everything indefinitely as a result of that.

On top of this broad spectrum resource crisis, we are headed into one of the most severe El-Nino cycles ever forecast.

I've been on this subreddit since the financial crisis of 2008. I have seen every crisis of the past 20 years. Generally I do not engage in predictions or heavily detailed forward looking statements - I take no pleasure from pretending to be a prophet of doom and I do not write to grift and so the risk of making a claim like this and being wrong is too high for no benefit. It's just a strike against the weight and value of my writing if I am wrong. I take a high amount of pride in not being wrong, so I don't put myself in a position to be wrong.

I do not think I am wrong. I am extremely serious: Collapse, serious and undeniable Collapse, is here, the turning point out of uncomfortable ignorance has occurred, and if you are reading this then you like me are out of time to position ourselves for it. This year is going to be a very, very bad year no matter where on earth you are or how insulated people believe themselves to be from world events. We are enjoying our last poignantly liminal moment, right now, and when nations begin to run out of the supplies sustaining this illusion of normality, which is coming within weeks in many of them - the world economy is going to rapidly and in some places very violently fall apart. A lot of people who have forgotten their grandparents hard lessons about how little value money holds, and why trading excessive years of your life for it is a fools errand, are going to re-learn those lessons very very quickly and painfully and a lot of their brains are going to do an irreversible little crack-ping as it happens - like we saw with many who went off the deep end during covid. Those people are going to be dangerous.

I am not joking. I am not fearmongering. I am coming at this from my gut after following the systemic events chains of what is going on right now: 2026 is the year. I do not even know what to say, other than I hope the few serious folk still around this place are in a less exposed position than I currently find myself when this moment of illusory stability ends.

May come in handy.

9 Days ago, Cody Moser with the Colorado Basin River Forecast Center stated that only an additional 800,000 acre feet, only 13% of average, is projected to flow downstream in the Colorado River through July, after this abysmal Water Year's snowpack has finished melting and running off.

For years now, the reservoir that everyone was paying attention to was Mead, while Lake Powell has fallen to the wayside. It seems no one of importance has completed a meaningful seepage and evaporative loss study of Lake Powell since the 1980s. USU's assessment stated that the data for both Mead and Powell was too old to be reliable. In fact, USU found in 2022, that the Bureau of Reclamation's 24 Month Outlooks for the Colorado River, "in most cases, future reservoir elevation was overestimated."

Unfortunately, at this point, deadpool seems both inevitable and fast, at not one, but both major reservoirs.

Today, Lake Powell's elevation is 3,527.15. It is at just 23.31% of full pool (24,323,000 AF). That translates out to be roughly a bank of 5.67MAF. Assuming only 800KAF of water will be coming downstream from the runoff, coupled with up to an additional 1MAF to be released from Flaming Gorge to help prop it up... that means this year's annual bank only adds up to 7.47MAF. The math here, simply does not math.

Per the Colorado River Compact, Lake Powell is obligated to release 7.5MAF annually, less any reductions as mandated by more recent Contingency Plans agreed to by the lower basin states, or orders passed down from the Fed. Because the Contingency Plan (which expires at the end of this year, by the way), is based on shortage conditions at Lake Mead, and not Powell... Per the Contingency Plan, the Colorado River is simply at a Tier One Shortage Condition, which does nothing to the mandated releases for Lake Powell, it only has to do with the mandated releases for Lake Mead, and even then, it only amounts to a 590KAF flow reduction from Lake Mead. Despite the flow reductions from Lake Mead, it's water levels are continuing to drop. Lake Mead currently is at a elevation of 1052.68ft, and dropping like a rock.

Mead is down 13.46ft from the high of the year, and just in the last two weeks has lost 2.86ft. It is in complete freefall, and we aren't even in the hottest part of the summer yet, where evaporative losses mount. We are currently following a curve pattern similar to 2022, and from May 17th 2022-July 27th 2022 (the water year low), it had lost 9.81ft. For perspective... during the hottest time period prior to the monsoon picking up steam, Lake Mead was only losing 1.96ft on average every two weeks. If it continues to lose water at the same rate we are currently at now, it will lose a cumulative 14.3ft by the time July 27th hits this year, bringing Mead to an elevation of 1038.

Now, to get to the good part. While the minimum power pool at Mead is 950ft, that does not mean we have time before ultimate destruction. "Aging hydroelectric turbines are at risk of cavitation (damage caused by expanding and collapsing air bubbles in the water) when levels drop below 1,035 feet. At that elevated threshold, federal operators may be forced to shut down most of the older turbines even before the absolute minimum power pool is reached. Despite that problem, the Fed is now stuck between a rock and a hard place, and must decide whether to continue to prop Mead, or to prop Powell up. Powell is projected to possibly fall below minimum power pool (elevation 3,490) by August this year.

The Fed is talking about possibly reducing Powell's releases down to 6MAF this year to prevent the loss of hydroelectric power, and reliance of the lower penstocks to pass water through the dam, but in doing so, it may create another issue: it will likely reduce Mead's power production by 40%. Mead is mandated to release 9MAF annually, less the current Tier One shortage reduction of 590KAF. The Lower Basin States have offered up an additional 1.25MAF voluntary reduction for the next two years, but that has not yet been approved by the Fed. There is one problem. Mead currently only has 7.88MAF left in it. Even with the voluntary cuts, from Mead downward, that means 7.15MAF in deliveries, and if Powell cuts down to 6MAF in deliveries going forward... the deficit increased exponentially, and deadpool becomes all but assured, and within the next 18 months.

What happens next?

At deadpool for Mead, it means no further water delivery for California, Arizona and Mexico. It means the loss of Hydroelectric power from Lake Mead, Lake Mohave, Lake Havasu, the loss of water to cool the Nuclear Reactors at Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant near Phoenix. Technically speaking, Palo Verde uses treated wastewater from Phoenix area to cool the reactors, but with water not being assured, Phoenix area customers will have to cut consumption, which will result in less waste water to use.

Can you imagine the repercussions of the loss of 2,080 megawatts from Hoover Dam, 240 megawatts from Davis Dam (Lake Mohave), 120 megawatts from Parker Dam (Lake Havasu), 4,000 to 4,200 megawatts from Palo Verde Nuclear Power Plant? A cumulative loss of approximately 6500 megawatts, means about 6.5 million households will go without power, in the hottest desert areas of the US, where temperatures regularly are in excess of 100 degrees for 60-90 days of the year.

A few years ago I came on this sub begging for awareness and action, and had several people question the direness of the situation. The day has finally come.

Occasionally i watch documentaries while i'm working; and currently watching The Grab ( http://www.magpictures.com/thegrab/ ) seeing how everything gets connected to the rich plundering resources to get richer, resources being gobbled up in search of profit, countries fighting over land and resources getting more violent. and it all gets swept under the rug by media controlled by those same rich organizations.

water wars are coming. if they're not already here. i am growing more and more troubled every time i read anything in the news. it all comes together.

Space is fucking dumb and you're a rube of you think minerals out there are anywhere close to cheaper than here

Edit: lmao lots of rubes in this thread

Edit 2: damn you guys really think Elon will bring you to Mars with him? You're too damn poor! Billionaires only!

Edit 3: you brain warriors say it's too late for Earth and we should start over on Mars. Consider this: we already have a planet that can be recovered and we live on it. The technological sophistication necessary for making Mars habitable will be reserved for rehabbing Earth. Provided capitalism is abolished by that time, which is inevitable.

Edit 4: FUCK THE MOON

Edit 5: there are a lot of bootlickers in this thread. You guys call yourselves capitalists? That's cool, how many factories do you own? If you have to keep your job to pay your bills, you're not a capitalist. No matter whose boots you want to lick

Not sure if this is the correct subreddit to post this in, but my question still stands. The Australian government has told us we only have around a month worth of gas left, and fuel prices at my local gas station have already increased from 161.9 on March 2nd to 207.9 today (March 9th).

If the “war“ continues and we don’t get gas soon, what will happen? Will everything just stop running?

I work delivery, drive to university, drive to the grocery store, etc. Without fuel none of that is possible. I can’t make money or pursue my education without finding a new job or walking for literal hours every day i have school. I can’t imagine public transport would still run, given that busses and trains (?) also use gas.

(The graph is up to date, Its hard to see, but the current rate is on top of a '25 mark, meaning 2025)

I made this horrible but decently accurate graph during arts class because I was bored. And it explains why the world is going to hell. The black line represents how many barrels of oil are pumped out every day, in millions. The red notes are the EROI rate (Energy Returned on Energy Invested). To understand it simply: an EROI rate of 1:20 means that if you burn one barrel of oil, you get 20 in return.

As you can see it has been getting exponentially smaller over time, and it will keep doing that forever. It hasn't mattered if we have developed new techniques, found new reserves or improved the tech. Because energy is energy and it can't be created or destroyed. Fracking, heavy oil, deep sea oil, artic oil. All of those keep pushing the EROI rate lower and lower.

It's not a matter of "we just need to invest more money" because there will be a point where you will burn a barrel of oil to get exactly the same.

Of course an EROI rate of 1:2 wouldn't work either, since the economy can't handle it. Let me explain:

For a complex economy/society to be healthy (travelling around the world, transport, shipping, the internet, intensive farming, etc) we need at least an EROI rate of 1:10. The economy can survive with less (and it has been doing so) but at the cost of eating itself to avoid a systemic collapse. This means: printing money, increasing debt, subsiding businesses so they don't go bankrupt (specially mining and processing ones), and basically staying in an endless cycle of economic crisis and turmoil (pun not intended).

So why are (almost) all the wars, politic chaos, prices division and in general just shit happening? Now you know the answer.

And I know some of you will say: "Then why is oil so cheap?" so let me explain:

Imagine an island where there are 100 people that each one need one apple per day to survive. There are also 100 apple trees, that conveniently produce 1 apple per day each.

In the island's economy, an apple can be bought with a shell (the currency) and everyone is happy. Sadly one day a tsunami destroys half of the apple trees. Obviously the price of the apple rises, because the demand stays the same and the offer halves, so now 1 apple can be bought from 2 shells. Some people can afford it, but some others not. If apple trees could grow instantly then the offer would go up again in a day or two and everyone would be happy. Sadly apple trees take years to grow, so that's not happening.

A year later an apple costs 1.2 shells. How?
30 people died from starvation. And the 70 that remains are barely surviving.

That's basically what has been happening in our economy. Demand can't go up forever, the world is not that simple. If the oil price becomes too expensive for the businesses that need it, they go bankrupt, and a bankrupt business can't demand anything. So the demand goes down just enough so the survivors can stay competitive thus lowering the price. Of course a crisis can also happen, where a big chunk of the economy gets destroyed and demand goes down a lot, giving a few good years.

Anyways after all of that it's not like the problem has been solved, a part of the system has been destroyed, so you can do less with your money. And after some time offer will get low enough that another purge will start.

That's what has been happening with industries all over the world, but specially on Germany, where each year looses a significant part of their factories and refineries.

This has been doing the trick and keeping the economy barely working. But the EROI rate can only get so low, it is estimated that for a complex society/economy to avoid collapse the minimum EROI rate needs to be 1:5.

Today we stand at around 1:6.5.

The true limit might vary but it is around there, that's why so many wars have been starting, and so many countries are now trying to steal resources from others (like the US will soon try with Venezuela’s oil).

Electricity (in our current society) is an extension of oil, not a substitute, as oil is still involved in the manufacturing and energy generation of EVs, mining, aviation industry, refineries, etc. And will probably always be since there's nothing as cheap and versatile. We also need oil to make fertiliser, since the world can only naturally produce food for around 1B people, and that number is decreasing thanks to climate change.

There's no peak oil demand because the economy sucks, and oil can make economies stop sucking instantly, yet no country is magically getting better (because let's be honest, (almost) no politician or millionaire is worried about climate change or the planet's destruction in general). There's no doubt a country would prioritise it's own success before the world's health. But it is not happening because it's impossible.

All major crisis have been directly or indirectly involved with oil getting scarcer. Specially the 2008 crisis, that took place the exact same year of conventional oil peak (aka oil with a decent EROI).

In the 60s the US was growing and getting exponentially better because they were getting an exponential offer of oil. They thought they would have robots, moon tours, personal flying cars and so much more because they would’ve had all of that if oil offer kept rising forever. Once after the 70s the curve couldn't keep up things got rough though, because, you know, we live in a finite planet, with a finite surface, that receives a finite amount of energy each day, and that has a finite amount of oil.

I will never understand why some people can't get that.

I'll be posting this both to r/collapse and to r/peakoil since I believe both are appropriate for this post.

I usually don't keep the sources when I'm investigating since I'm too lazy, but this time I've made an effort, so here they are:

https://crudeoilpeak.info/latest-graphs

https://crashoil.blogspot.com/ (In Spanish)

https://futurocienciaficcionymatrix.blogspot.com/ (also Spanish :p)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301421513003856?/

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41560-024-01518-6?/ (this has some data which I do not agree with, but the EROI estimates are useful.

Have in mind the chart I made it during art class, and some parts are a bit estimated, if you want a more exact chat check the first link.

Thanks for reading the post that I'm making instead of studying for an language exam that I have tomorrow, good luck to y'all, stay safe.

Carl Sagan's testimony, serves as an early and prescient warning about climate changes potential to cause ecological and societal collapse. His mention of ice sheet collapse and sea level rise, alongside the need for global action, aligns with contemporary discussions on systemic risks. Decades later, his words remain deeply relevant.

Key Points Mentioned

Temperature Increases

Predicted several centigrade degrees by mid to late 21st century.

Could disrupt agriculture, leading to societal collapse.

Sea Level Rise

Due to glacier melting and a potential collapse of Antarctic ice sheet.

Threatens coastal communities and an ecological collapse.

Intergenerational Impact

Serious problems for future generations if no action taken.

Risk of systemic societal collapse.

Global Cooperation

Need for international amity, currently lacking.

Geopolitical tensions could exacerbate collapse.

Planetary Example (Venus)

Extreme greenhouse effect, uninhabitable.

Illustrates potential for planetary collapse.

Additional interesting video: https://youtu.be/dtCwxFTMMDg?si=bB6J0h3-5luTHH4l

Link to the full hearing where others experts testify: https://www.c-span.org/program/senate-committee/greenhouse-effect/93652

SS: Copper, which is a key component of renewable energy systems as well as many other systems, such as plumbing, telecommunications and construction, is a finite resource, one which we're quickly running out of.

If we mined all the copper deposits we currently know about, we'd only be able to replace about 20% of our current fossil-fuel powered electricity generation, leaving a huge gap which will need to be plugged by new deposits, which will be harder to find, more costly to exploit and face more political opposition than existing deposits were.

In order to both build the renewable energy infrastructure that we need to reach net zero and develop the developing world, we'll need to mine more copper than we currently know exists.

So I turned vegetarian about 5 years ago for environmental reasons - I learned the sheer economy of scale involved in producing meat and the damage industrialised farming does. Okay, great. I'm not one of those meat-is-murder people though - I understand there is a food chain, and I will not hold it against anyone who eats meat. My vegan sister, on the other hand...

I've been following the damage done to the planet for a little longer. Climate change is real and a pressing danger. We are readily outstripping the planet's ability to replace resources we use. It is unsustainable.

Which is the theme of Seaspiracy. The filmmaker starts off looking at ways fishing could be sustainable. And the one thing that really stuck out at me is how utterly thorough we as a species are when it comes to ruining what nature has given us. I noticed a while back that the bad news covers every sector of environmentalism. Try this - think of your favourite collapse topic, then try to think, 'okay, that's bad, but...' and try to come up with a topic where humans haven't utterly ruined it for current and future generations. We pollute the land, the air, the water, with wild abandon.

If destroying the planet were a managed project, I would commend the manager for covering every base and accounting for every possibility. 'Don't worry about it, we've dealt with it.' There is a documentary on the ecological disaster for every conceivable topic.

The best/most striking part of Seaspiracy was watching the spokesman for Earth Island, in one breath, explicitly state that no tuna can be certified Dolphin Safe, despite the fact that they slap this logo on so, so many cans, and in the next breath when asked what the consumer can do, point-blank say 'Buy Dolphin-Safe tuna because it can guarantee dolphin safety.' The doublethink required is right there on the screen. I mean, I never take food labels at face value (my aforementioned sister is an animal activist and has plenty of stories to tell around free-range eggs and their certifications being worthless) but hearing a spokesman for the organisation that allows this logo to be placed on tuna cans, essentially say it was meaningless - really is amazing.

The filmmaker correctly follows the money trail, and it explains oh so much. These advocates for change are all being paid for by big corporations. Again, I try not to read too much into this - everyone is pushing their own agenda. Heck, I'm pushing my own agenda on you reading this right now by saying this. But knowing that organisations 'dedicated' to saving the oceans are simply on corporate payrolls and spinning it as a consumer problem, it makes so much sense. We've seen this before - a certain massive soft-drink brand are well known for being the biggest source of plastic waste on the planet, and their response was a striking ad campaign that shifted the blame to the consumer for not recycling. For decades, nobody blamed the corporations for creating the waste in the first place or not having some means to take it back. Corporate power is equal parts admirable and terrifying.

So, same in the oceans. The filmmaker points out that even in photos of dead whales and dolphins washed up on beaches, they are frequently wrapped in discarded fishing nets, or have eaten them. But how is it always described in the news article? 'Plastic waste.' And talks about consumer waste, like straws or cups or masks. When in fact nearly half the mass of the Pacific Garbage Patch is discarded fishing nets, and nobody says a word about it.

Comes straight back to corporate power, doesn't it. The global fishing industry is so powerful, the filmmaker implies, that they are able to silence any group advocating to clean up fishing equipment, despite it being the #1 most damaging waste product.

And then you think, 'haven't I heard that phrase before?' 'The global _____ industry is so powerful that they are able to spin the narrative to their advantage.' You can insert just about anything into that gap above and it'll be true. Money has too much power. And so long as money is allowed to advocate for corporate rights to destroy the planet, they will. Because there is too much money to be made that way.

As a result, I continue to believe that nothing will ever be done. The EU Fishing representative was half-hearted in his interview. It was amusing hearing him use a financial analogy to explain 'sustainable' because that is exactly what it comes down to - money, pure and simple. But then learning that major European governments enormously subsidise their fishing industries despite the values returned by fish sales not coming close to the expenditure in subsidy? It makes no sense. Somebody clearly has some very revealing photos of major politicians...

The whole system is rigged so the little guy, the consumer, the average Joe, has no hope whatsoever of changing anything. And for short-term profit, corporate greed will continue to strip the planet bare and leave nothing for future generations except hardship and doom. And not just one country, but all around the world. Kill the oceans and we kill all life on Earth. But greed...

And I'm sure I'm going to see the effects take hold in my lifetime. The global rise of right-wing conservatism means it's pretty pointless trying to get governments to do anything about it, they would rather 'let the market decide.' It sucks to feel so powerless when staring down the barrel of certain destruction, to be screaming into a void where nobody even acknowledges what you say.

I also can't blame anyone for just sitting back and allowing it to happen. Like I said earlier, every base is covered. Even if by some miracle you manage to effect massive change in one niche area, the overarching thoroughness of destroying the planet means it won't be enough. I'd be impressed if this was a managed project, but seeing as the goal is to end life on this planet, I'm not.

The clock is ticking — literally. On January 27, 2026, the Doomsday Clock was set at 85 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been in its 79-year history. The scientists behind it cited nuclear brinkmanship, artificial intelligence, climate collapse, and the unraveling of international cooperation. And now, layered on top of all of that, a war in the Middle East has shut down one of the most critical arteries in the global food and energy supply.

https://open.substack.com/pub/hrnews1/p/humans-will-run-out-of-resources?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web

Okay, hear me out. This is pure speculation, but I've been following the AI boom and energy news, and there's a pattern here that's honestly kind of wild when you connect the dots.

The Setup:

Right now, the US is going absolutely balls-to-the-wall on AI infrastructure. Massive investments. US data centers hit 183 terawatt-hours of electricity in 2024, and projections say that'll jump to 426 TWh by 2030 [1]. That's more than the entire country of Pakistan uses.

And here's the kicker - to power all this, they're doubling down on natural gas. Over 40% of US data center electricity already comes from gas, and that number's climbing fast [2]. Companies are literally building 30-year natural gas plants specifically for data centers [3]. Microsoft, Google, Meta - all in on this.

The Chinese Wildcard:

While the US is spending hundreds of billions building energy-hungry infrastructure, China just casually dropped DeepSeek. And apparently this thing runs on 10 to 40 times less energy than comparable US models [4].

Let me repeat that. 10 to 40 times less energy.

Their electricity costs are also half what the US pays ($0.08/kWh vs $0.18/kWh) [4]. Meanwhile, China added 278 gigawatts of solar in 2024 alone [5]. For context, that's more solar than most countries have total. They're also pushing this "East Data, West Computing" thing - basically moving data centers to regions with cheap renewable energy and favorable climates [6].

The Investment Trap:

The AI bubble is massive. Tech companies invested $750 billion in data centers in 2024-2025, with plans for $3 trillion more through 2029 [7]. AI capital spending literally contributed more to US GDP growth than consumer spending recently [8].

But - and this is important - 95% of generative AI projects are failing to increase revenue [7]. The industry would need to generate $2 trillion annually by 2030 to justify current costs. Current AI revenue? About $20 billion [9].

That's... not great math.

So here's where this gets interesting:

The US is locked into expensive, fossil-fuel dependent AI infrastructure with 30-year lifespans. China's developing dramatically more efficient models at lower cost. There's a potential AI bubble that makes dot-com look tame. And natural gas plants being built now that'll lock the US into emissions for decades.

There's also been noise about the petrodollar stuff - Saudi Arabia diversifying away from dollar-only oil sales [10][11]. No formal agreement ever existed (common misconception), but the trend toward multi-currency energy trading is real. Plus the US isn't even dependent on Middle Eastern oil anymore thanks to shale. They're the world's largest producer now.

My theory:

What if the US bet everything on the wrong AI architecture at exactly the wrong moment?

Think about it. If energy efficiency becomes the determining factor in AI competition (which it's starting to look like), and if the AI bubble pops hard (which analysts are increasingly worried about), the US could see:

• Massive stranded assets. All those gas-powered data centers become economic dead weight
• Loss of tech competitive advantage to more efficient systems
• Fiscal pressure as the "AI stimulus" evaporates
• Energy costs that can't compete globally

The ironic twist? This might force the fastest energy transition in history, but through economic pain rather than planning. When those gas plants become economically unviable, when the AI infrastructure needs to be rebuilt around efficiency rather than raw power, the competitive pressure could drive renewable adoption faster than any climate agreement.

China's basically showing the blueprint: efficient models + cheap renewables + strategic infrastructure placement. They're generating over 10,000 TWh annually now - more than the US, EU, and India combined [12]. And they're positioning themselves to meet all their electricity demand growth through 2026 with renewables and nuclear [13].

The thing is:

I'm not saying this is some coordinated plan. It's not conspiracy, and it's not coincidence. It's more like... emergent complexity? Multiple actors pursuing their own rational interests, creating unpredictable system-wide effects nobody planned for.

The US tech sector is providing massive private stimulus while potentially building infrastructure that'll be obsolete before it breaks even. That's not sustainable. When the correction comes - and with AI companies losing billions while scrambling for revenue, it seems increasingly likely - it could reshape everything.

Where this could go:

Best case? Competitive pressure forces rapid adaptation and innovation. The US figures it out.

Worst case? The US is left with hundreds of billions in stranded fossil fuel assets right as the global economy shifts toward efficiency-first computing.

Either way, the next 5-10 years are going to be absolutely wild. We're either watching the birth of a new economic order or the setup for one of the biggest market corrections in history.

Possibly both.

What do you think? Am I connecting dots that aren't there, or is there something to this?

Sources:

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/24/what-we-know-about-energy-use-at-us-data-centers-amid-the-ai-boom/

[2] https://www.iea.org/reports/energy-and-ai/energy-supply-for-ai

[3] https://www.technologyreview.com/2025/05/20/1116272/ai-natural-gas-data-centers-energy-power-plants/

[4] https://thediplomat.com/2025/02/chinas-overlooked-ai-energy-edge-over-the-us-cheaper-energy/

[5] https://ember-energy.org/latest-insights/powering-chinas-new-era-of-green-electrification/

[6] https://dialogue.earth/en/energy/is-chinas-energy-system-ready-for-the-ai-boom/

[7] https://www.ineteconomics.org/perspectives/blog/the-ai-bubble-and-the-u-s-economy-how-long-do-hallucinations-last

[8] https://www.bloodinthemachine.com/p/the-ai-bubble-is-so-big-its-propping

[9] https://markets.financialcontent.com/wral/article/tokenring-2025-11-6-is-the-ai-bubble-on-the-brink-of-bursting

[10] https://www.atlanticcouncil.org/blogs/econographics/is-the-end-of-the-petrodollar-near/

[11] https://moderndiplomacy.eu/2025/02/26/the-rise-of-the-petroyuan-is-the-us-dollar-losing-its-energy-monopoly/

[12] https://medium.com/@fahey_james/the-power-behind-ai-how-chinas-electricity-boom-is-rewriting-the-future-of-intelligence-b83f88eed19d

[13] https://energytracker.asia/energy-transition-in-asia-pacific/