Well its a nice looking graph but it doesn't show us anything about how effective the usage of energy is/ Consider for a moment if Nuclear turned out to be 5x as efficient in a role providing energy for transport for example -the nuclear bubble could easily cover for a drop in imported oil if this where the case...
Ones thing is for certain, we will look back on our present time as being one of vast inneficiency and since productivity is related to the amount of something you get out for a given input won't our future be one of much higher productivity? Come to think of it isn't increasing productivty one of the core definitions of economic progress?
The core definition of progress, according the current economic orthodoxy, is an increase in total productivity. If increases in efficiency lag behind increases in the cost of energy, then the correct label for the situation will be economic contraction. Of course the current economic orthodoxy is functionally insane. The core principle of intelligent economic activity should be ecological modesty. If improved efficiency helps us to live an ecologically modest lifestyle then let's go for it. But if we actually have to give up wealth in order to live within the ecological budget of the earth, then only a zombie moron would say, "Give me my 3000 square foot home, my plasma screen televsion, and my personal automobile or give me death."
Well its a nice looking graph but it doesn't show us anything about how effective the usage of energy is/ Consider for a moment if Nuclear turned out to be 5x as efficient in a role providing energy for transport for example -the nuclear bubble could easily cover for a drop in imported oil if this where the case...
Ones thing is for certain, we will look back on our present time as being one of vast inneficiency and since productivity is related to the amount of something you get out for a given input won't our future be one of much higher productivity? Come to think of it isn't increasing productivty one of the core definitions of economic progress?
Nick.
The core definition of progress, according the current economic orthodoxy, is an increase in total productivity. If increases in efficiency lag behind increases in the cost of energy, then the correct label for the situation will be economic contraction. Of course the current economic orthodoxy is functionally insane. The core principle of intelligent economic activity should be ecological modesty. If improved efficiency helps us to live an ecologically modest lifestyle then let's go for it. But if we actually have to give up wealth in order to live within the ecological budget of the earth, then only a zombie moron would say, "Give me my 3000 square foot home, my plasma screen televsion, and my personal automobile or give me death."