162 comments on Olduvai Theory: Toward Re-Equalizing the World Standard of Living - Richard Duncan
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
162 comments on Olduvai Theory: Toward Re-Equalizing the World Standard of Living - Richard Duncan
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Unique Times -- and the Future
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- The Bullroarer - Friday 27th November 2009
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“I'd put my money on solar energy… I hope we don't have to wait til oil and coal run out before we tackle that.”
—Thomas Edison, in conversation with Henry Ford and Harvey Firestone, March 1931
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
A few personal comments:
I actually met Rich Duncan during an Ecological Economics conference in 2005 in Seattle - I perceived him to be highly energetic, passionate about the oil modeling process and deeply concerned about the future.
I expect many will question his equating energy consumption with standard of living, as it sweeps aside the issue of energy quality and ignores technological improvements (which battle depletion). But it is an interesting perspective as energy, of the quality a civilization comes to depend on, and at a flow rate that continues social momentum (growth), ultimately underpins everything. The conclusion he didn't explicitly draw is that a fiat (belief based) system can temporarily replace real energy growth - the implication being that intact fiat systems borrow from future energy based standards of living creating phantom SL increases that retreat under eventual steep decline curves.
Anecdotally, the 1973 peak in US energy consumption per capita (which can partially be explained by reduction in energy intensity of GDP due to offsourcing heavy industry overseas), is tightly,a nd perhaps not randomly, timed with a)1970 US oil peak, b)1971 cessation of resource backed world currencies (Bretton Woods), c)1973 all time peak in US real wages d)1974 all time peak in US personal savings rateand e)beginning of long term acceleration of debt/credit, both publicly and privately.
I never understood the prima facie reason that industrial civilization would have a lifetime of 100 years (why not 90 or 110?), but Rich Duncans historical efforts in writing and analyzing this topic (much like Jay Hanson, Colin Campbell and others before) predate my own awareness of the topic. I now perceive Duncan's Olduvai view is one of many possible future trajectories for the next 30+ years, perhaps not the most likely, but one probably with double digit odds ...
Nate -
I was about to say more or less the same thing re equating global per capita energy consumption with standard of living. This ratio consisting of total energy consumption divided by total population is useful in many regards, but I hardly think it deserves to be called 'Standard of Living', as that term by now means different things to different people and has all sort of other connotations, many of which have little or nothing to do with energy consumption.
Let's see if I get this right: by the author's definition of standard of living, if I trade in my gas-guzzler for a Prius and super-insulate my house such that my total annual energy consumption is cut in half, then by definition I would be cutting my standard of living in half. Right?
I think perhaps the author may have gotten cause and effect backwards. In many instances, energy consumption increases with standard of living and not the other way around. For example, if I am fortunate enough to get a multi-million dollar bonus while working at Goldman Sachs and use it buy a 120-ft yacht with twin 2,000-hp turbo diesels and three hot tubs, my personal energy consumption will have increased several fold, but that in itself did not cause my standard of living to increase several-fold. No, in this case it was the extra money that caused the extra energy to be expended and not vice versa.
I think I see what the authors are driving at, and I would agree that there will probably be some convergence in per capita energy consumption, with the aggregate steadily dropping in the coming years. But I also think this assumption that energy consumption equals standard of living is a fundamental flaw that casts some doubt on the entire analysis.
Addendum: Another thing that is very likely causing per capita energy consumption to show signs of converging toward some downward trend, is that energy consumption in the industrial sector has increasingly been dispersed due to globalization, particularly regarding the US vis-a-vis China. An energy-intensive product manufactured in China and imported to the US causes the US per capita energy consumption to appear to decrease while causing China's to appear to increase. This is merely a displacement effect, or an accounting artifact if you will, and has virtually no effect on what we normally think of as standard of living.
Even if we don't want to equate per capita energy with standard of living, I think there is some validity to what Duncan is looking at. It clearly doesn't equate with happiness, but it does measure something of importance--how much of the earth's resources we are using each year.
Reducing the use of earth's resources is tricky. Clearly, there are many, even in the "developed" countries, who are barely getting along now. Think of all of those who are unemployed, or have minimum wage jobs now. A reduction in energy usage needs somehow to leave even the poor with enough--otherwise there is starvation and homelessness.
Once energy inefficiencies are wrung out by rising prices,the energy consumption/living standard model looks as if it will hold up just fine to me.Prices are already much higher in Europe and no one should be suprised that they are therefore much more energy efficient than we are here in the states.
Furthermore historical development patterns well established in Europe before the arrival of the automobile probably play a significant part in this debate-any world travelers on the Drum tonight can elaborate.
And of course there is no reason to think that we can't raise energy efficieny levels substantially by reorganizing-shipping by rail instead of truck,etc-and by improving- getting Prius mileage out of all our cars,tec.
But the CORRELATION WILL STILL BE VERY VERY STRONG and I am frankly amazed that so many regulars here don't seem to realize this obvious fact.Maybe every body is more interested tonite in playing gotcha.Lots of good metrics need "calibrating" from time to time.
My apple production is very well correlated ,on average, with my diesel consumption,but my diesel consumption per bushel is gradually falling.
Take away my diesel and my apple production will plummet.So will all the living standards every body seems to think are not correlated with energy consumption.
After most of the ineficiences go away, energy use per capta may become a good heuristic. Yep, it is good enough for analising the EU, or the South America, or Asia. Yet, it isn't good enough to apply into the entire world today.
Maybe after energy becomes more expensive, it will be good enough for comparing very different countries. Today it isn't.
On average over the entire population, and with a time lag, yes. Because the author is not talking about a one-time event. Real energy prices will double every so many years, so the Prius and insulation are only the first step. As an ever-increasing portion of your income goes into "basic" goods and services -- shelter, transportation, food, water -- less goes into other things and the standard of living decreases. There is at least a plausible case for a downward spiral: can we invest in efficiency and new energy sources fast enough to offset the rising cost of available energy? I am personally inclined to believe, and am working on a more formal model, that capital will be the limiting factor, and that results may vary widely from region to region.
mcain6925 -
Well, I would agree that if energy prices go up faster than your personal energy consumption goes down, then you are financially worse off than when you started, all other things being equal. I never said we were not on a downward spiral, as I think we definitely are, the only thing in contention being how steep that spiral is.
However, that does not appear to be what the authors of the article are talking about, as the only thing they seem to think matters is this global per capita energy consumption as some sort of a surrogate for standard of living, and that's where I (and apparently a lot of other TODers) think the authors' premise is flawed. I say call this per capita energy consumption something else, but don't call it 'standard of living'.
I also tend to agree that availability of capital (real capital, not the stuff willed into being by the Fed) could very well constitute the limiting factor as to whether or not we will be able to keep things from coming apart at the seams.
Fundamentally, they're referring to something like this:
http://home.comcast.net/~mcain6925/etc/energy.gdp.gif
that relates per-capita GDP and per-capita energy consumption. GDP is not the only thing that goes into standard of living, of course, but there's a relationship. Certainly no one will assert that the average standard of living in the US (the largish circle at the upper right end of the regression line) and the average standard of living in India and China (the two very large circles down and to the left) are comparable. That there are no national economies occupying the upper left portion of this particular space suggests no one knows how to operate a high-GDP economy without high energy consumption (including Japan, which has been fairly fanatical about this for 70 years). Similarly, that there are none occupying the lower right portion suggests no nation has managed to have high energy consumption without correspondingly high GDP.
For the record, I believe that I used 2004 data when I put this together. Data from The Economist's annual world statistics booklet.
I agree, just like the results are different now for different countries.I can visualize the overall trend over time based on the graphs.One country might have an increase while two countries will have a decrease to produce an overall trend downwards.The NEED for basic services will always be there, so I dont see a change downward very much in the developed countries. It will be the NEED for basic services in the developing world as it is now.
Some basic goods and services can be adjusted based on an increasing allotment of income. Housing and transportation can be adjusted with the increasing allotment. Just look at last year, the truck market went into the crapper because of fuel prices. People wanted smaller more fuel efficient vehicles. People could move to smaller houses in an attempt to lower heating bills, property taxes, and the amount of crap that we can accumulate in a larger house(which might not be the most comfortable but can have an impact). Food and Water-that is the tough part. We obviously NEED those two just for basic survival. As those prices become a larger portion of income there are two choices: 1)Eat less, 2)Consume the same amount which will be offset by the lower housing and vehicle costs. But each scenario in and of itself does not solve the end problem--Sustainability.
Joule, you can find anecdotal exceptions for ever case. But yes, on average, around the world, the standard of living can be measured by the per capita consumption of external energy. That is, the more energy available to the individual, the higher their standard of living. Again this is on average! Because I am sure you can name a few exceptions to this general rule.
Ron P.
I disagree with this perspective but probably a good % of the disagreement in this discussion is that Standard of Living in Duncans essay was defined in energy terms and not in the 'psychic satisfaction' terms we are commonly used to. I'd argue that in the end, having a higher or equal standard of living (satisfaction) with lower energy consumption will be the ultimate question/problem. We don't NEED all this energy/stuff to be happy, etc.
No, we don't need it. That's like saying growth can be defined by an improving "quality of life". Sadly, most people don't define it that way or understand it that way. You're into a definitional problem here, Nate. I suggest that any common way one might measure quality of life will correlate with energy usage.
State how "quality of life" is measured. And then tell me if it gets you more mates.
cfm in Gray, ME
As Dryki pointed out and I stated above, these things you are taking issue with are implicit in the model. How can they not be? The spareness of the model itself - and I found my self asking for more support and exposition as I read it - must be construed to include these considerations many of you are claiming aren't there. This is extremely flawed logic on your parts, imo.
Cheers
RE: "Standard of Living"
Any time you try to re-define a term, especially one in common usage and well-understood in its original context, you are asking for trouble.
Perhaps it would have been better if an alternative term were coined. I see no problem with a simple reference to "Per capita energy consumption", which is, after all, what the metric really is.
While we can quibble that per capita energy consumption does not necessarilly correlate with the level of wealth or income of an individual, on an aggregate level there is undeniably some correlation; r does not equal 1.00, but neither does it equal zero.
You appear to be misunderstanding the paper.
1. The paper is discussing society, not individuals. Any system will have huge divergences between any given single data point within an aggregate mean or average.
2. He wrote more accurate long term measure. Your scale days (Prius/no Prius) vs. years and decades is in error.
Again, individual scale, but still incorrect. Without the energy, your SL will not go up significantly long term.
Not at all. You are missing the implicit assumption of the world/SL as it is vs. what it might be. People's perception now is that having a farmstead in a tightly knit community where your energy demands are lowered, but met, is a lower standard of living than living in a mini-McMansion with access to the mall and supermarket. Perhaps the author should have made this explicit, but it seems completely obvious within the context.
Perhaps my perceptions of the author's thoughts are wrong...
Again, this is short-term thinking. In the long-term outsourcing manufacturing has led to a weaker economy, lowered purchasing power and, now, lowered SL as the economy crashes through the floor and the means of stabilization - producing real goods to sell - simply doesn't exist.
Cheers
Certainly the low energy homestead is a lower "standard of living" by current standards. Current standards tell us the more we waste/consume the better.
Another factor in the per capita decline in US energy consumption may have been changes in the automobile industry. During the 70's engines were not designed to run on lead free gasoline. They had to be re-engineered over a period of time. The Ford station wagon that I drove in the early 70's got about 10 mpg. Vehicles were large, the Cadillac engine being around 8 liters as I recall. As a result of the energy problems of the 70's automobiles were downsized and engines were improved. Should a move from a 5000 lb car to a 4000 lb car be considered a reduction of ones standard of living? Later of course there were minivans and then the SUV craze. But with engine improvements mileage in these large vehicles was still better than many of the sedans of the early 70's.
Nate,
First, thank you.
I think that the three quotes at the start of this as the crux of the it. The Standards of Living thing is a side issue, Timetables are in essence a side issue. You can't argue with the progression of Resource extraction and Population growth.
Our children will have a different world than the last 50 years. Period. The Easy Motoring, All you can Eat reality that many of us in the west have enjoyed and thought of as "Normal" was but a temporary and fleeting timeperiod.
First up, TOD should not publish articles by white supremacists with genocidal ideas. I don't care if he says, "two and two make four", no publicity should be given to racists.
More than that, it ignores that much of our energy consumption is wasteful; with rising energy use compared to standard of living, we get diminishing returns, as I've discussed before.
so that "less energy" is not automatically equivalent to "lower standard of living" let alone the mass death and destruction Duncan so often fantasises about.
I perceive it as extremely unlikely, if only in the light of his failed predictions - like worldwide permanent blackouts in 2007. His track record in doomer predictions is even worse than Kunstler's.
He's consistently failed in predicting events in the past, and has always erred on the side of "DOOOOM!" So when he makes doomerish predictions for the future, I am extremely sceptical. In fact, the more he cries "DOOOOM!" the more hopeful I am about the future. He's sort of an anti-prophet, whatever he predicts you know won't happen.
And he is a racist with genocidal impulses. It's bad enough we've got climate change denialists writing articles here, do we have to have Nazis, too? Shall we invite some flat Earthers, creationists and Stalinists for good measure?
Doom is part of Malthus's message.
Population will outstrip resources in the end.
You are in total denial of the problem of overpopulation.
The problem is that the increases are so large(75 more million people
every year) that the world is adding a billion people every 14 years. Numbers do matter.
Overpopulation was seen as a problem two centuries ago('solved' by forced immigration to Oz and the Americas).
Your HDI is a joke. Long life(30 years of diminished capacity) and a college education(4 years of misery in school or education of children) do not make a happy life. Neither does noble poverty.
You've badly misjudged human motivation, as demonstrated by Chindia's embrace of noveaux riche philosophy over the alternate theories of Gandhism(preparation for self-sacrifice to the point of mass suicide) and Maoist totalitarianism.
Again and again you offer the hair shirt of Satyagraha as a solution but humans aren't buying it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satyagraha
The irresistable force of human desire is going to meet the immovable object of resource depletion very soon(within our lifetime).