 | Energy For a Changing World: A Credible European Energy Strategy for the 21st Century | The Oil Drum: Europe | Olduvai 2008 movie |  |
Olduvai revisited 2008
Posted by Luis de Sousa on February 28, 2008 - 11:15am in The Oil Drum: Europe
Topic: Supply/Production
Tags: alternative energy, energy per capita, olduvai, peak coal, peak natural gas, peak oil, population [list all tags]
Foreword My first post at TOD was published by Heading Out about 2 years ago on this same subject. Some rather naïve forecasts were made back then, without exactly addressing the main subject: can Mankind avoid the Road to the Olduvai Gorge? This is a first try in answering that question.
The work on this article started in the Spring of 2007, when Euan Mearns tried to show that Peak Oil does not necessarily imply an Energy crunch. Partly due to my critique, Euan's work would never see the light of day. Sometime later, Euan and I started working together on the work reported here, focusing on Conventional Fossil Fuels (FF). The fact that several studies on future Coal reserves and extraction rates were published in the interim, facilitated our work.
This work would end up being a collective post by TOD:E, Rembrandt kindly provided historical FF data and Chris Vernon would solve some issues with the conversion of primary energy to heat. An important leap towards the conclusion of this work was made during the weekend of the 1st of December, when the TOD:E staff gathered in Paris, kindly hosted by Jérôme.
Introduction The Olduvai Gorge Theory was first laid out by Richard Duncan in 1989, when he observed that world energy per capita had been declining for a decade. He developed the concept of Electrical Civilization, the way of life made possible by widespread and abundant electricity and set it to the period in which world energy per capita is above 30% of its all-time peak. The Theory was postulated it in the following way:
- Industrial Civilization can be described by a single pulse waveform of duration X, as measured by average energy-use per person per year.
- The life-expectancy of Industrial Civilization is less than one-hundred (100) years: i.e., X < 100 years.
Figure 1 - The three phases of the Olduvai Decline. Source: WolfAtTheDoor.
The post-peak period develops in three phases:
- The Olduvai Slope – a period of slow decline;
- The Olduvai Slide – a period triggered by Peak Oil when decline would accelerate;
- The Olduvai Cliff – the collapse of Electrical Civilization with overwhelming decline of energy per capita.
As the years went by it became clear that world energy per capita was in a plateau, not a decline, and in 2005 the 1979 peak was surpassed. Still, almost ninety percent of the total energy used world wide comes from fossil fuels. If such dependence on finite resources remains, the Olduvai Theory may eventually unfold.
Figure 2 - World Primary Energy Per Capita. Population from UN, Energy from BP BOE - barrels oil equivalent.
This work tries to assess how the decline of Conventional Fossil Fuels may unfold and how can Mankind avoid the Road that may take us back to the Olduvai Gorge.
The Future of Conventional Fossil Fuels
In the context of this work, Conventional Fossil Fuels represents the kinds of these resources in production today. These may include fuels usually called Unconventional like the Tar Sands or Coal Bed Methane. It is assumed that none of the Unconventional Fuels Fossil will have a visible impact on the overall world energy production for two main reasons: the volumes produced are unlikely to be significant (e.g. Tar Sands) and the net energy balance of some is doubtfully positive (e.g. Ultra-deep Offshore). The one exception is Coal where in-situ gasification might turn important Resources into Reserves (this issue will be dealt with later).Our approach has been to use what we regard as the best researched and most reliable estimates for future global oil natural gas and coal production. Each fuel is re-based in "oil equivalent". And we use the UN population forecasts to derive a per capita FF forecast. However, the main objective of this work is to develop scenarios for alternative energies (nuclear and renewables) that may partially fill the energy gap left by declining FF. These scenarios are not forecasts but have been produced to illustrate the scale of the energy problem that now confronts Mankind.
Oil For Oil, the forecast made by Khebab using a Loglets Transform, was chosen. This scenario is in line with those of several other researchers: Jean Lahèrrere, Colin Campbell, Chris Skebrowski and Kenneth Deffeyes. Laid down this way, Oil Production peaks by 2012.
Figure 3 - Conventional Oil Forecast (including NGL) according to the Loglets Transform.
Natural Gas
The scenario chosen for Natural Gas is that produced by Jean Laherrère portraying a peak by 2030. This scenario can be considered optimistic to some extent, but takes into account the high degree of uncertainty on Natural Gas forecasting, among other reasons, due to poor data on past discovery and production. This forecast also includes Coal Bed Methane and other Unconventional gas sources.
Figure 4 - Natural Gas Forecast (including Unconventional). Source: Jean Laherrère [pdf!].
Coal
Coal has been regarded as an infinite resource on a generation time scale, but recent assessments imply otherwise. The following graph shows three independent forecasts, by Jean Laherrère, the Energy Watch Group and David Rutledge, all peaking before mid-century. Of these the one made by the Energy Watch Group was chosen, for being at the midst of the three and for the thoroughness involved in its production. This scenario presents a plateau roughly from 2020 to 2040.
Figure 5 - Conventional Coal Forecasts. Sources: Jean Laherrère [pdf!], Energy Watch Group and David Rutledge. Click for large version.
Fossil Fuel Olduvai
When added together these three forecasts present an overall Conventional Fossil Fuels peak by 2018, forming a single cycle which by itself is a notable result. If for instance a higher Coal estimate is used, the peak hardly moves and the only visible effect is a slowdown of the decline.
Figure 6 - Together the Conventional Fossil Fuels are set to peak before 2020 describing a single cycle.
Sources: Jean Laherrère [pdf!] for Natural Gas, Energy Watch Group for Coal and The Oil Drum for Oil. Click for large version.
A population model was developed using United Nations data, to which a single logistic cycle was adjusted. World Population tops 7 billion just after 2010, reaches 8 billion before 2030, 9 billion by 2050 and stabilizes after that to end up in 9.8 billion by the end of the century.
Figure 7 - Population growth model using a single logistic cycle.
Base data source: UN. Click for large version.
The outcome of these models is a Fossil Fuel per capita peak by 2012 in tandem with Peak Oil, although it is maintained above 10 barrels of oil equivalent from now up to 2020. By 2050 that number is below 6 barrels of oil equivalent per capita declining to just above 1 by the end of the century. Led by the Conventional Fossil Fuels, the Olduvai Pulse is interpreted to be much longer than anticipated by Duncan, extending its life for 160 years, from 1910 to 2070.
Figure 8 - Forecast for Conventional Fossil Fuels per Capita.
Sources: UN for Population model, Jean Laherrère [pdf!] for Natural Gas, Energy Watch Group for Coal and The Oil Drum for Oil. Click for large version.
The total useful energy drawn from Conventional Fossil Fuels equates today to more than 300 Twh every day, or the equivalent to 4250 Nuclear power plants working non-stop.
The Scenarios
Henceforth this article tries to assess what actions are required for the current standards of living to be sustained throughout the XXI century. Using again the United Nations population forecast the build up of alternative energy infrastructure is determined in order to compensate for the decline of Conventional Fossil Fuels.Four different scenarios are presented: two in which several alternative energy sources are used to cover the gap left by the Fossil Fuels. And two others where world energy use undergoes a significant efficiency improvement enabling living standards to be maintained on a much lower per capita energy consumption. A fifth scenario, where world population declines significantly is not presented here.
The alternative energy sources considered are the following:
The basic infrastructure unit used corresponds to a 1 Gw plant operating at full capacity.
The basic infrastructure unit used corresponds to a 600 Mw plant operating at full capacity.
The infrastructure units correspond to 3 Mw turbines operating at 30% load for Onshore Wind and to 5 Mw turbines at 40% load for Offshore.
The basic infrastructure unit reflects the average insulation at 40º latitude per Km2 captured with an efficiency of 15%.
These alternative energy sources were compared to the Fossil Fuels on the grounds of the electricity they produce. To generate useful energy, Fossil Fuels generally undergo a process in which they are transformed into heat that is then captured as motion, electricity, etc. With some of the alternative energy sources a similar process takes place (e.g. a Nuclear reactor that heats water into steam that turns a turbine generating electricity).
Figure 9 - Simple schematics of a Carnot heat engine.
Primary Energy refers to Qin, Useful Energy to work done (W). The engine's efficiency is given by W/Qin.
Click to know more.
Given that for most of the alternatives the nameplate generation capacity refers to electricity output, the numbers shown henceforth refer to this stage of energy generation. For the primary energy to heat transformation an efficiency of one third was used. This is a postulated round number that seems representative enough; a combined cycle Natural Gas power plant probably achieves a higher efficiency, while for a Daimler internal combustion engine it will likely be lower. As an example, using this efficiency number, a 1 Gw Nuclear power plant operating during an hour replaces 3 Gwh of primary energy from the Fossil Fuels (approximately 1800 boe).
Before moving on two important implicit assumptions of these scenarios should be made explicit:
- Net Energy – it is assumed that the overall Energy Return on Investment of these alternatives is exactly the same of the overall Conventional Fossil Fuels. That is hardly the case, but the difficulty in assessing Net Energy accurately impedes a sound analysis on this ground. Especially in the case of Coal, that likely has a return on investment much higher that the other sources, this issue could be determinant. Future work will have to address this problem.
- Energy Vectors – it is assumed that all energy vectors are substituted by electricity (the only exception being passive solar use: cooking, water heating, etc). The reasons why will be explained in future work, but it implies the build up of additional infrastructure that is not present in the numbers shown below.
The following curves will show the number of new plants or equipments needed each year to cover the lag left by the fossil fuel decline.
Scenario I – A single energy source.
In this first scenario it is shown how each of these energy sources can tackle the energy gap left by declining FF on its own. In this case, new infrastructure must be deployed starting in 2018 rising fast to a peak deployment rate before 2040 and then slowly easing down. At peak, more than 4 500 Thw must be generated from new infrastructure. By the end of the century this sums up to a 140 000 Twh of energy generated per year from alternative energy sources.
| Scenario I | New infrastructure per year at peak | Total infrastructure in 2100 |
| Nuclear | 90 | 5 400 |
| Coal | 155 | 9 000 |
| Offshore Wind | 46 000 | 2 700 000 |
| Onshore Wind | 100 000 | 6 000 000 |
| Solar (Km2) | 3 000 | 190 000 |
Scenario II – Three simultaneous energy sources.
The second scenario considers the case where three of these alternative energy sources are deployed simultaneously to fill the energy gap. This results in the previous numbers being divided by three, with the following curves assuming that two other alternative energy sources are being stepped up simultaneously. Peak is now at 1 500 Twh generated per year from each additional source, reaching more than 45 000 Twh generated per source per year by the end of the century.
| Scenario II | New infrastructure per year at peak | Total infrastructure in 2100 |
| Nuclear | 30 | 1 800 |
| Coal | 50 | 3 000 |
| Offshore Wind | 15 000 | 900 000 |
| Onshore Wind | 35 000 | 2 000 000 |
| Solar (Km2) | 1 000 | 60 000 |
The Efficiency Wedge
For the remaining scenarios a world wide improvement in energy efficiency is factored in. Presently the world's consumption of fossil fuels is close to 70 Gboe (just over 10 boe/cap/a), while the global GDP is just under 70 T$. This results in less than 1 000 dollars generated for each barrel of oil equivalent consumed. The following graph shows the relation between fossil fuel use and GDP per capita in several countries, both developed and developing nations, excluding the Middle East oil producers.
Figure 12 - GDP generated per barrel of oil equivalent consumed of Fossil Fuels. GDP from Wikipedia, Energy from BP.
World average GDP per capita was calculated with data from more than 180 countries resulting in 10 000 dollars per year. Using the trend in Figure 12 it becomes apparent that such average wealth standards should be sustained with just 5 barrels of oil equivalent per capita per year. This results in an efficiency of 2 000 dollars produced per barrel of oil equivalent, a number that is used as the target for global energy use efficiency.
The trend also shows that higher income countries are those that tend to have lower energy efficiency. So being, a global increase in energy efficiency use would be achieved mostly at the expense of developed nations. Some highly populated developing nations with lower energy use efficiency would likely also need some improvements.
No assumptions are made concerning wealth distribution, it is just set that, on average, each barrel of oil equivalent generates 2 000 dollars of GDP worldwide. Such is already the case in several countries, both developed and developing nations, as seen in the following table:
| Country | GDP(US$)/boe(FF) |
| Colombia | 3 348 |
| Peru | 2 897 |
| India | 2 698 |
| Switzerland | 2 673 |
| Sweden | 2 599 |
| Argentina | 2 451 |
| France | 2 326 |
| Norway | 2 312 |
| Republic of Ireland | 2 210 |
| United Kingdom | 2 207 |
| Austria | 2 204 |
| Hungary | 2 097 |
| Italy | 2 089 |
| Pakistan | 2 051 |
| Denmark | 2 028 |
| Brasil | 2 018 |
| Germany | 1 887 |
| China | 1 730 |
| USA | 1 274 |
| Canada | 1 052 |
| Saudi Arabia | 462 |
Reflecting this relation a model was thus developed in which the fraction of today's annual energy (derived from the fossil fuels) use per capita slowly declines throughout the XXI century to 5 barrels of oil equivalent (approximately 2.8 Mwh of useful energy).
Figure 13 - The Efficiency Wedge model: primary energy needs per capita fall to 5 boe/a (8.5 Mwh/a) through the XXI century.
In light of this model the previous scenarios are revisited. The build up curves are markedly different, showing two distinct phases of growth. At first the alternative energy sources must grow rapidly to fill the gap, but as the efficiency wedge factors in, the build up almost stalls by mid century. Then, as the conventional fossil fuels reach their final days the build up has to slowly increase again.
Figure 14 - With the Efficiency Wedge the build up curves start latter and exhibit two distinct phases of growth.
Scenario III – A single energy source with efficiency wedge.
Scenario III illustrates the amount of new infrastructure required for each of the alternatives assuming that the energy efficiency wedge reduces our consumption by half towards the end of the XXI century . Infrastructure build up now peaks just under 1 500 Twh additionally generated per year, summing 60 000 Twh of energy generated per year by 2100.
| Scenario III | New infrastructure per year at peak | Total infrastructure in 2100 |
| Nuclear | 55 | 2 200 |
| Coal | 90 | 3 700 |
| Offshore Wind | 28 000 | 1 100 000 |
| Onshore Wind | 62 000 | 2 500 000 |
| Solar (Km2) | 2 000 | 75 000 |
Scenario IV – Three simultaneous energy sources with efficiency wedge.
The last scenario looks at three alternatives simultaneously tackling the energy gap with the efficiency wedge reducing consumption. Infrastructure build up now peaks with 500 Twh additionally generated per year, summing 20 000 Twh generated per year by century's end.
| Scenario IV | New infrastructure per year at peak | Total infrastructure in 2100 |
| Nuclear | 19 | 740 |
| Coal | 30 | 1 200 |
| Offshore Wind | 9 300 | 370 000 |
| Onshore Wind | 21 000 | 820 000 |
| Solar (Km2) | 640 | 25 000 |
Conclusion
According to our analysis, conventional fossil fuels are set to peak in a decade or so and following that, decline will open an ever widening gap from today's per capita energy use. Based on finite FF resources, energy per capita is indeed headed towards a cliff, and this may lead Mankind back to the Olduvai Gorge if action is not taken to address this problem. Many of those who have studied this problem in the past have concluded that the journey back to Olduvai is unavoidable.The analysis presented here suggests that it is within the capacity of human endeavor to build new energy gathering infrastructure to substitute for the decline in conventional fossil fuels. By combining energy efficiency measures with the simultaneous expansion of solar, wind and nuclear energy Mankind may secure a civilised existence for the XXI century. A tremendous opportunity exists to build a more sustainable energy future and building this future will provide vast opportunity for economic growth and prosperity.
Figure 17 - Useful Energy from the Fossil Fuels.
The solid areas reflect the useful energy got from the Fossil Fuels according to the data and models used. The dashed lines reflect the total energy needed to maintain current standards of energy use per capita, with the orange line also factoring in the efficiency wedge model.
Click for large version.
The next two to three decades are crucial, where the fastest build of alternative infrastructure is needed, and when the efficiency wedge will have the slowest effect. But the numbers contemplated here are not insurmountable, and should be tackled with the right commitment and timely action.
To all the humans facing the Road to the Olduvai Gorge, Good Luck!
Luís de Sousa
Euan Mearns
TheOilDrum:Europe
Annex
Following is a spreadsheet with the data and calculations involved in the making of this article:Open Document version:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Olduvai2008.ods [240Kb]
Microsoft version:
http://www.theoildrum.com/files/Olduvai2008.xls [660Kb]
Luis - thank you for including me as co-author on this piece of work. I think I need to clarify for all that you have done 99% of this work that has taken many months to produce.
Many, many months ago now I did some data analysis and noticed that the per capita energy consumption from FF was rising. I also observed that gas and coal production may continue to rise for a number of years yet and on this basis concluded that Duncan's Olduvai theory failed the empirical test. Nate sent this to Duncan who was furious. I submitted the post for publication on TOD - but failing to sleep rose at about 3 am and withdrew the work. A year or so later we have this much more refined product from Luis. Richard Duncan's seminal work on this topic still stands - all we have done here is refine the time scale in light of new data and the benefit of time passing. Without VERY urgent action on building alternative energy sources (that exist - they just need to be built) and on energy efficiency Mankind will stroll back down the path towards Olduvai.
This work is an attempt to quantify what needs to be done to avoid this path. Whether or not it is within our capacity to achieve this both physically and behaviorally is open to debate. If we do not rise to the challenge the future is very bleak 2012 peak oil, 2018 peak FF energy.
Getting politicians, policy makers, leading academics and decision makers to grasp these issues has to be a major priority. The fact that this work is being conducted in the twilight world of The Oil Drum is really astounding. Although I am really encouraged by the number of senior academics who contribute to the work presented here. This twilight world will one day very soon be the mainstream.
I would like everyone to note the absolute importance that energy efficiency plays in the path away from Olduvai. Without that we are screwed - TOTALLY. Every action and policy we implement from now on must be based on the premise of energy efficiency - both consumption and production.
Hear hear! Nice work fellas. And Euan, when you say energy efficiency on the consumption side, I assume that means changing the conspicuous consumption paradigm, at least gradually, for if we get really efficient at producing profligate energy wasting toys, what have we done but buy a few extra years? We need it all - more oil and gas exploration, full investment into the highest energy gain/lowest environmental externality renewable sources (meaning there will be sources that should and shouldn't be accepted), smart building and efficiency improvements, and a gradual change away from consipicuous consumption as our cultural carrot. It can be done - but we can't sit on our arses until Olduvai, or something like it, wakes us up.
I know the 'twilight zone' of theoildrum is making a difference, yet am discouraged by how vociferously we debunked corn ethanol for the last 18 months as a waste of time and resources given what we are facing, and still the government went pretty much full speed ahead with ethanol mandates as the major thrust of becoming energy independent. Perhaps in this situation, the US will have to take the lead from Europe, who, though in similar straights, seems to be taking energy descent more seriously.
keep up the good work lads.
Yes, of course and no of course not. I think the efficiency of consumption maybe needs to be broken down into parts. Better insulation in homes, eating more vegetables, more efficient cars are all good things - consumption goes on whilst saving a lot of energy.
The next step would be persuading more people to share a home = less home building; to eat less food and to bicycle instead of drive. All good things as well involving less consumption.
Delivering the former efficiency gains I believe will be much easier than the latter consume less paradigm shift in attitudes. The problem is that hardly any of this is happening right now.
Luis' data on GDP per BOE I think is fascinating and quantifies what we already know. The USA along with Canada and surprisingly Germany and China need to get their acts together. There are likely two main messages in these data:
1. Manufacturing is an energy intensive way of generating GDP - so less manufacturing is good
2. The USA, Canada and Saudi Arabia simply piss away vast amounts of energy - and this will have to stop
I'd strongly disagree with the blanket "less manufacturing is good".
Pehaps we should manufacture better quality more durable goods, what would stand for less manufacture, but not less wealth. Or pehaps we should manufacture more solar/wind/nuclear capcity to fill the gap, what would stand for more manufacturing. Or probably both.
Manufacturing may be more energy intensive than other wealth creating means, but we've developed no other way of generating the amount of wealth we have today.
"we've developed no other way of generating the amount of wealth we have today."
As a programmer I find fault with this statement.
As a programmer I find fault with the idea that you find fault with that statement. A simple logical path will lead you to manufacturing no matter what industry you "program" for. Let's start with the manufactured machinery you work upon shall we? Then try and find any service industry that isn't intimately linked to some form of manufacturing. Real-estate would be close to the only one, and even it requires the wealth generated through manufacturing to raise prices (and dare I say it population), as well as the results of manufacturing to produce houses and farm machinery etc etc to make the land worth buying in the first place.
Without the mass-production, specialisation-facilitating society we live in there would be no need for computers, much less programmers.
""we've developed no other way of generating the amount of wealth we have today. As a programmer I find fault with this statement." As a programmer I find fault with the idea that you find fault with that statement. A simple logical path will lead you to manufacturing no matter what industry you "program" for. "
He said manufacturing isn't the only source of wealth, you said that manufacturing is an essential base. Both are true.
He's saying that programming, for instance, isn't manufacturing, yet it is a valuable, productive thing to do. You'd agree, right?
I call the idea that manufacturing (or farming, etc) is the most important thing, and the only source of value, the "garbageman fallacy". In NYC, sanitation workers used to say that they were the most important workers of all, because the city couldn't run without them. We can see the flaw in that, I hope...
Programming cannot be done (for any useful purpose) by just thinking about it. It needs computers and power. Power needs power plants and transmission lines. Ultimately, increasing wealth (economic growth) requires more resources for making stuff or doing stuff.
Hey us programmers need to eat or at least drink beer :)
Last I looked although I work at home don't drive much etc I still use a lot of resources.
Its just that programmers and support could be made pretty green with some work.
Also if programming itself would start advancing again then the number of programmers needed at any one given time could be fairly static or decline quite a bit overtime.
"Last I looked although I work at home don't drive much etc I still use a lot of resources."
That's an interesting question - how does one factor in people's consumption into their work?
My point is that the work itself doesn't require significant energy or materials - 10 cents of electricity per day, and $2/day for computer capital costs (a $1,500 laptop every 3 years).
Of course it depends on the life style but providing fore employees is a fairly static cost regardless of what they do. A large amount of middle class Americans are engaged in paper pushing because others are engaged in paper pushing.
I can see it in programming you have the huge convoluted mess that at its center is caused by a simple problem say one piece of information was not recorded or shared. Or the company has some stupid rule that wastes incredible amounts of time.
From what I've seen most productivity games are a myth. Things are outsourced and look better just because you have a simpler accounting schema. Real productivity is in the toilet. And trust me the overseas worker working for slave wages is not the most motivated person on the planet. All this is hidden in bad business loans in china and pumping debt in the US.
As with anything the shorter the chain of responsibility and the more a person is correctly rewarded for success or failure the better the business. Incorrect accounting practices have managed to hide this basic truth of business.
This rolls right back into energy/resource accounting to determine real profitability and gdp. True growth is increased ownership and no debt.
This give people the freedom to explore innovative business ventures.
Speculation on borrowed money/energy/resources is the root of collapse from the personal level all the way up.
"Programming cannot be done (for any useful purpose) by just thinking about it. It needs computers and power. "
Yes, but it needs very, very little compared to manufacturing. Think smelting, metal stamping, transportation of parts, assembly lines, transportation of finished products, etc. vs.....a laptop, using as little as 50 watts.
Without all that "smelting, metal stamping, transportation of parts, assembly lines, transportation of finished products, etc." there is no reason to have a computer. Computers are not an end in themeselves. They make it easier for people to do the "real" work of making things. Manufactured things are what drives any economy. Services, such as programming, make it easier to make those things and get them to where people can use them, but they aren't really required in the process.
Programming is an example of "services". Services aren't just support for manufacturing, they're a good thing in themselves.
Medical care, art & literature, entertainment, communication.
Arguably, manufacturing is a means to the end of enjoying services. They're certainly not a meaningless support function for manufacturing.
I have been having this discussion with sofistek for months. He is trying to prove that growth per se is bad. I have argued that it depends on the growth. That intellectual capital is different. He seems to deny that services are a real part of the economy even though they are becoming more and more dominant. This whole growth is bad topic is important but not very condusive to rational discussion. It is such an article of faith with that faction.
This isn't logical. It's important, but not useful? Logical impossibility, no? Growth is the very core of the problem you are discussing. If there were no growth, there would essentially be no problem. You'd have a great deal more time to find solutions. Hell, to go back further, neither you nor I would exist. No, we must discuss growth in order to find solutions that are sustainable. By definition, a solution that is sustainable within limits is not sustainable.
If you are going to redesign civilization as we know it, you'd darned sure better pay attention to the future.
Cheers
Sterling, I do not deny that services are a real part of the economy. I don't think you were saying that, anyway, so please don't misrepresent my position or the discussion we had. You were trying to say that parts of the economy that were represented by intellectual capital can grow without requiring more resources. I was pointing out that there is no real value in intellectual capital unless it is applied in some way. That application uses resources and so even that part of the economy would require more resources, if it was to grow in any meaningful way. I was also saying that parts of the economy don't represent the whole economy so, even if you could find part of the economy that can grow without using more resources, it would not the the same as sustainable economic growth overall.
You now try to portray services as the saviour that can allow the economy to grow indefinitely. What services are you talking about? Which ones use no energy or resources in their set up or delivery?
Why is it so hard to let go of economic growth? Growth in the use of resources cannot be sustained. It is not really hard to understand but it sure is hard to accept.
Because your formulation is too simplistic to be useful. Because you lump all kinds of economic growth together, kinds that are physical resource intensive and kinds that are not, you are targeting the wrong issue.
One can easily imagine a situation where you have strong economic growth but declining resource utilization, which is probably what would be best for the world. Let say I write some software that allows people to work at home two days a week and let's say people love it and are willing to pay more for it than they save in gas, etc. You rule that out it because it increases the economic. It is economic growth.
As long as we have people in the world, they have to do something. If the value of what they do increases in value, you have economic growth. Do you just want people to do nothing? They cannot think, write music and imagine?
Sustainablity is another too simplistic concept but I have to go out now. I hope to get back to that later.
Too simplistic? What matters to today's societies is economic growth as a whole. What does it matter that some parts of the economy are less resource intensive than others, if the other parts of the economy are needed for our survival and well-being, or at least perceived as being so? If we eliminate all parts of the economy except those where thought alone is necessary, do you think people would be happy with that?
I don't rule out efficiency gains but you seem to think that if we can be realise economic growth for some short period without more resource use, that means that economic growth can continue indefinitely without using more resources. If we can improve efficiency, that's great, but what is the long term sustainability plan? Without that, we would just be delaying an inevitable collapse.
However, even if you can imagine a fabulous future where no-one uses any more resources than they do now, and population is stable, do you think that would be a society that is remotely like what we have now?
Sustainability is certainly a simple concept but few people seem to realise what it means. Try reading Richard Heinberg's Five Axioms of Sustainability. But there is nothing simplistic about it; if a society is not sustainable, then it will end. Why is that so hard to understand?
Yes, but it matters if it would end before or after the earth is consumed by the sun.
The only level of consumption of a limited resource that is completely sustainable is 0. At current rates of consumption, it is not clear if fission fuel would run out before the Earth becomes unlivable for reasons that have nothing to do with people. So is that sustainable by any reasonable definition of the word? And if we increase the use of nuclear power and I am wrong and Uranium runs out in 5,000 to 10,000 years is that a problem if before that happens we harness fusion?
There is nothing magic about the level of how we currently value everything that people do (the world GDP). There is no reason to think that the current level of consumption of limited resource is OK and that a little more is impossible. It might be that the only way the world can survive is that we reduce our consumption of limited physical resources and that the only way we can do this is to increase the production of intellectual capital in figuring out how to do it. In other words, it might be that we count the value of everything that people do as rising (ie economic growth) but we reduce the things that impact the world in ways that threaten our survival.
Your idea that economic growth of any kind is bad puts you in the position of insisting that someone write a really shitty song instead of a really good one because the really good one would have too much economic value and therefore increase the economic value of everything too much (ie economic growth). Your fixation that the market value of everything that people do has to stay the same undermines the legitimate case that you are trying to make. We should limit the consumption of limited resources, including environmental quality, wild lands and other such intangibles. But economic growth is not a useful measure of how well or poorly we are treating the earth because it mixes high impact activities with low impact ones and people have to do something.
Of course it's not clear, but the reverse is also not clear. Unless one has certain beliefs.
That's a couple of "if"s in there. Which is part of my point.
Of course there are reasons. A good reason would be if the current level can be sustained for, let's say, several centuries without it causing problems, whilst a little more might not be sustained for a century. If we just assume that all of the resources we now consider vital are abundant enough and accessible enough to not worry about it for now, then that could turn out to be a fatal assumption.
That sounds good. I can't see how that could happen without our society becoming very different from what we know today. Do you know if anyone has done any work on how this might play out?
You're caught in the economic growth paradigm, with that analogy. Economic growth is bad because it uses increasing resources and, thus, is unsustainable. If we level out our use, as you suggest earlier, that would be a good starting point and it wouldn't be economic growth.
Again, you are using the paradigm that we currently have. Why must everything have a "market value"? What has to, at least, stay the same is our level of resource consumption. Do you have any comments on the axioms of sustainability that I linked to earlier?
Like I said, there is nothing magic about the current rate of economic growth where the outlook would suddenly change, like in your example, if we increased it by say .1% per year.
So I am in favor of our society becoming different than it is today. Less resouce consumptive. More intellectual capital.
You are the one who is obsessed with market value. The way you measure economic growth is to total up the market value of everything that people do in a year and compare it to the market value of the prior year. If it is greater, then you have “economic growth”. The reason that market value comes into play is that your measure is “economic” instead of “physical” or maybe “destructive”. That is my point.
OK then make that argument. Do not say economic growth has to stay the same. Say resource consumption has to say the same. Or limited resource consumption has to stay the same. I will debate that one with you too but at least there you are starting from a more defensible position.
I have never said that. Nor am I obsessed with market value. What I'd like is to achieve indefinite sustainability.
You appear to be claiming that economic growth (which people appear to need in order to hav