Here I expand on a previous discussion ‘Would it be ethical to burn fossil fuels if it didn’t cause climate change?’ My view is that the debate surrounding the extent to which the burning of fossil fuels leads to climate change misses a more fundamental point. That is, fossil fuels are an inherently finite resource. This resource is dwindling at an accelerating rate as economies such as those of China and India expand rapidly. Fossil fuels will run out. Maybe not in the next 10, 20 or 30 years but they will run out. As the scarcity of fossil fuels grows there will be increasing conflict between nations to secure their supplies in an effort to maintain their carbon-dependent economies. At the same time, there is an inexorably growing human population, destruction of rainforests, depletion of natural resources and plummeting biodiversity. Clearly, this situation cannot be sustained in the longer-term.
Yet our capitalist system is based on the principle of economic growth – growth that is heavily dependent on fossil fuels and unsustainable practices. Just look at recent events; governments are terrified by anything that threatens economic growth – pouring billions of public money into failing financial systems. In addition, many economists see growth not only as desirable but as essential. They claim it lifts the poor out of poverty, feeding the world’s growing population, supporting the costs of rising public spending and stimulating investment and technological development.
The dilemma is how can we square Earth’s finite resources with the fact that as the economy grows, the amount of natural resources needed to sustain that activity must grow too. I am clear in my conviction that economic growth in its current form is unsustainable. We need a new paradigm that limits (or reduces) the global population, a meaningful shift away from fossil fuels to renewable energy, increasing energy efficiency and the adoption of more sustainable lifestyles. This will require courageous, co-ordinated and global government policies that ensure we don’t use up resources faster than the world can replace them.
Many will dismiss this as a utopian ideology. But isn’t it a utopian ideology to carry on blithely down a path that will ultimately lead to catastrophe? Yes, it will require a new world-view and radical changes but I think we have several grounds for optimism. Firstly, sustainable economies are more stable – whilst growth may be lower than in traditional economies it will be more durable in the longer-term and less volatile. Secondly, the shift towards a sustainable economy would create new opportunities, jobs and greater stability. Thirdly, the potential for conflict between nations is reduced as our dependency on fossil fuels reduces over time. Finally, there is a growing recognition (albeit begrudgingly) amongst governments that the current situation is unsustainable and the mood seems to be shifting from one of cynicism and self-interest to one of genuine commitment to tackling the problem.
The prospect of a truly sustainable global economy, fuelled by renewable energy sources coupled with a stabilised human population and harmonised with biodiversity is an ambitious yet achievable goal. But it’s a goal that requires a re-appraisal of the current meaning of economic growth.
November 6th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
This is a fantastic article Gary. I agree with your conclusions.
Alongside policy actions the new economy must be driven by a new demand from the the consumer. Tonight I answered the door to an nPower salesman trying to sell me cheaper energy. I know times are hard, but for me I don’t care about the price I pay for my ‘green’ energy, because the company I’m giving my money to, only installs renewable power generation facilities. For me no cost compares to the problems my future children will have, and if I don’t have any children, then I’ll owe to those that have gone before us and given us the freedoms we have today.
Can we achieve this change? YES WE CAN! (sorry I couldn’t resist saying that)
November 18th, 2008 at 1:52 am
I too agree wholeheartedly – how I wish more people would take some time to examine our current way of being and note the need for change – particularly at the governing level. I sincerely hope that people catch on quick smart and get on board with finding a new, sustainable, way of being which is in harmony with our home and its other inhabitants – before reality forces a wake up call upon us all. My particular frustration is with the seeming ability of many to recognise what will happend if we keep pushing for, growing economies that largely rest on growing demand which seems to rest on increasing populations, growing consumerism…all in on a planet with limited supplies.
May 27th, 2009 at 10:30 pm
I think your article could use some basic economic understanding.
First, all resources are finite. In fact, that’s the most fundamental concept in economics. The only “renewable” resources are those that are either recycled, or regenerated by the sun. There’s nothing special about oil.
Second, the beauty of humans, and a core strength of capitalism (which seems unfairly maligned in this article), is adaptability, in this context specifically learning to squeeze more from less, or find another way entirely. Oil will eventually run out, but capitalism will see to it that the running out is in a relatively orderly fashion, and as the price slowly (at least on a long-term time scale) rises and supplies run out, the higher prices will, without government intervention, capitalistically stimulate replacements, conservation, etc. The world will not suddenly run out of oil and grind to a halt.
Third, a scintillating demonstration of this was the economic/business response to the oil shocks of the 1970s. Higher prices drove businesses to improve energy efficiency, to the extent that within 15-20 years the U.S. produced the same output with half the energy (and we use less oil today than we did just before the oil shocks). Of course, computers and the Internet have accelerated energy efficiency. Humans aren’t stupid, and capitalism, like water, finds the easiest (read: cheapest) path.
Fourth, an economy is not the same as a small group of people stranded on a desert island. Fossil fuels will eventually (and, with oil shale, oil sands, deep water exploration, coal, and nuclear thrown in, it likely won’t happen for another two hundred years) run out, but until then, what’s the point of “conserving” the dwindling supplies in favor of more expensive alternatives (solar and fusion, for example, may someday be our clean, sustainable salvation, but for now they are not cost-effective) now? Capitalism will find a way, in a much smoother and seamless transition than any government could ever pull off – if in no way else, than simply by raising oil prices enough that solar IS cheaper, and then quickly, almost everyone will switch from fossil fuels to solar. That’s the entire point of the price system, the bedrock of capitalism, to channel resources in the most efficient, cost effective way (that imperfect human beings are capable of).
Fifth, I could argue that capitalism is not focused on economic growth, but that misses the point – economic growth doesn’t mean we have to consume more resources (re-read “third” above). For a nontrivial example, paper and construction once upon a time consumed trees, but now they plant as much (or more) than they consume. Of course, we can’t regenerate oil, but human ingenuity, driven by the profit motive of capitalism, will find a way to keep the fires burning – Japan and France get most of their power from nuclear, Iceland and the Philippines from geothermal, I think the Netherlands from hydro (to say nothing of recent advances in solar and wind). Or maybe someday, sooner or later, a company will become rich finding a way to “grow” oil (incidentally, biotech companies have already achieved this, though it’s far too expensive).
Of course, this all assumes that the burning of fossil fuels does NOT contribute to global warming – but that was the point of this article. As long as we ignore the external cost of pollution (or include it through a cap-and-trade system), why not use fossil fuels until they’re more expensive than greener alternatives?
Overall, my point is that pontificating and hand-wringing, as well as promotion of ENORMOUS government intervention and life-or-death policy decisions, is unnecessary, and at least a little ignorant. (For example, who should decide which populations to limit, and at what level? The U.S.? The U.N.? What if India or the Philippines – both with rapidly growing populations – doesn’t agree? Do we impose government sanctions? Go to war?)
Capitalism will find a way.
May 30th, 2009 at 7:41 pm
Sadly, this viewpoint is a reflection of the apathy and denial that still persists amongst climate sceptics and those who believe that capitalism and economic growth will somehow solve the situation we face.
Perhaps the most worrying statement is “Why not use fossil fuels until they’re more expensive than greener alternatives?” At the risk of stating the obvious, there is now a growing consensus amongst the scientific community (e.g. The Royal Society) that climate change is accelerating and that we will soon reach a tipping point beyond which vital eco-systems wll not recover. That makes it all the more imperative that we reduce the use of fossil fuels sooner rather than later.
On the point about going to war. I know countries go to war over oil. I don’t know of any that go to war over wind and solar energy.
July 2nd, 2009 at 1:04 am
Good Job Gary!
you are legit, and really too legit to quit.
I salute your arguments and hopefully we will all believe in sustainability and achieve it in the near future.
PS: loving the blog icon, its fabulous!