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.

Here I pose a hypothetical question: would it be ethical to burn fossil fuels if it didn’t cause climate change? Supposing that the scientific consensus turns out to be wrong. That the warming we are currently experiencing is actually part of a natural cycle unconnected with the billions of tonnes of carbon being pumped into the atmosphere by humans. Would that mean that the continued use of oil, coal and gas would be justified?

I believe that there is a strong, moral argument against the continued burning of fossil fuels even if it didn’t cause climate change. What is the basis of this belief?

Firstly, the rate of fossil fuel use is increasing year-on-year as demand from economies such as those of India and China grows. In tandem, many experts predict that we are close to (or have already exceeded) peak production of fossil fuels. Simple economics shows that increased demand and decreased supply equals increased prices. In my view, this situation will inevitably lead to further conflict as countries vie for an increasingly scarce resource. And even if we weren’t already at peak production then the conflict situation will only have been at best postponed.

Secondly, increased demand for fossil fuels is leading to encroachment into, and destruction of, natural habitats such as those in Alaska and Africa. Even offshore oil drilling is now firmly on the agenda in the US (depending on the outcome of the election). The result will be further degradation of forests, wildlife and natural habitats to feed a growing oil addication.

Thirdly, and probably the most obvious yet most overlooked point, fossil fuels are fundamentally a finite resource. It really doesn’t matter whether we are at peak production or not – fossil fuels will ultimately run out and an alternative will be needed. Talk of ‘it won’t be in my lifetime’ or ‘it will be way in the future’ is really just apathy and denial from people who lack vision. Global economies cannot simply be switched from one energy source to another – it takes many years, even generations, to make the transition. The pragmatic approach is to start the shift now from our reliance on fossil fuels to renewable and sustainable energy sources.

Finally, economies which rely on fossil fuels are becoming increasingly vulnerable. Recent events have shown that increases in oil prices can destabilise markets and send inflation soaring. Longer-term stability and economic growth cannot be sustained in economies which are heavily oil-dependent – a point now begrudgingly accepted by politicians.

Of course, if the burning of fossil fuels is a major cause of global warming as most scientists now believe, then the preceding points simply add weight to an already compelling argument!