Is catastrophe inevitable?
A friend of mine shared an article with me, which discusses new research from the University of Utah that says:
- Making civilization more energy efficient simply allows it to grow faster and consume more energy.
- Throughout history, global economic activity has been directly proportional to global energy use – so conserving energy causes economic recession.
I think Professor Garrett’s research is essentially saying that we have four options: we can do nothing, we can switch to clean energy, we can conserve energy, or we can be more efficient with our energy. By his calculations, doing nothing will cause catastrophic climate change; switching to clean energy cannot be done fast enough; trying to conserve energy will cause economic collapse; and improving efficiency will cause economic growth and increased energy use (which is worse than doing nothing!).
I’m willing to trust that Professor Garrett got his facts and his numbers right, but his conclusions rely on the assumption that improving energy efficiency increases energy use, called Jevon’s paradox. However, Jevon’s paradox only applies when people want to consume more but cannot afford to; not when they are trying to conserve. So, if our society is simultaneously focused on shifting to clean energy, improving our energy efficiency, and shifting our culture toward conservation, then I think we can continue to thrive.
Filed under: miscellaneous | 5 Comments
Subscribe
Well said! You are my “optimist for the week.” I’m still stuck wading through all of the muck holding us back on climate change; but in order to move forward we’ve got to have both a positive attitude and a positive goal. I really enjoyed this post.
I think people want (to consume) more – and I don’t see that changing.
Is it too unreasonable to assume that people are not about to want less? Especially since most of the world does not have much of anything. Convincing us to want/use less is reasonable but convincing others to want less of more will be difficult – is it even fair? It will require political (and religious) leadership, attitude shift from corporations and strong media campaign (what is cool? what’s a taboo?).
As I see it, it is very reasonable to assume that people will continue to want more. But I’m incurably hopeful, so I prefer to think from the opposite perspective: is it unreasonable that people will internalize the global call to action, and begin to want less?
Ultimately, it will involve a major shift in culture in both the West and the East; but it is possible, so there’s hope.
Bravo!! Another optimistic post! I need these. I’ll add one small observation: a la Japan – Its also no guarantee that, culturally speaking, population growth has to continue unabated forever. In Japan, a highly successful and industrialized nation, the population is shrinking! Maybe its wishful thinking to project that cultural trend onto the world; but its not impossible. Cultural trends do tend to spread much more rapidly now. Just look at how the US has infected Japan! Regards, “SevenCell”
Wow…talk about getting to the party late :P.
Just wanted to point out that one of the underlying assumption in Garrett’s model is that “any new energy efficiency advancements will be implemented in the same/similar manner as it was in the past…”.
As Pete pointed out (including the reference to Jevon’s paradox), the problem is may not be the advancement itself, only the framework that this advancement is delivered/implemented.