Both biological and social processes are physical processes that run on energy flows. The world may not run out of energy, but energy use dissipates heat. Technology can increase efficiency and also recycle some of the heat as energy for more work, but there are no perpetual motion machines. The question is the tolerances in which the system is operating.
The limitation is not so much that there is not enough stuff, including energy, but rather fouling the nest. There used to be a maxim in engineering that the solution to pollution is dilution. But that only works until the sinks begin to fill up. The heat sinks, like oceans, are the big ones.
Particulate matter in the atmosphere is also a health issue, especially nanoparticles that the human senses do not detect and do not suspect. This is especially an issue with increasing urbanization.
The question is whether technology is capable of sufficiently increasing efficiency to overcome population growth. Buchanan argues that there is no evidence for this assumption that Paul Krugman and other economists make.
Physics Perspective
13 comments:
It is much worse than that, because mineral wood (coal) and oil, especially the latter, are amazingly light (high energy density) and easy to store compared with the alternatives, and they can also provide very high power densities much more easily. Apparently some engineers think that for example hydroelectric power stations could not be built without coal or oil, although it is best to be skeptical of such claims.
A common misconception that the primary cause of productivity growth is "Great Inventions", when instead it has been the adoption of fuels, coal first and oil later, which are much cheaper and much more energy dense than ordinary agricultural "food".
The driver of a combine harvester is more productive than 50 men with sickles not because the dozer is a "Great Invention" that is far more efficient than 50 sickles, but because the diesel powering it is far cheaper and more energy dense than the bread (and maybe cheese) used to feed the 50 men powering the sickles.
A car is far more productive than a horse drawn cart not because the petrol engine is a "Great Invention" that is far more efficient than a horse, but because its "food" (petrol) is much cheaper and lighter than the "food" (oats) powering the horse.
The great waves of productivity growth have been (nearly) entirely driven by the adoption of better (much cheaper, rather energy denser) fuels, and then, yes, optimizing the machinery using them, machinery that is however not very useful scrap without those fuels.
Seen from a pre-JB Clark point of view coal-fields and oil-fields have been the most fertile land ever discovered, capable of a "food" yield many many times larger and many many times cheaper than the most fertile land of Kansas or Ukraine, a fantastic windfall that has driven down dramatically the price of "food" for the past hundred years. It is this immense windfall that has "proven" both Malthus and Marx wrong.
The problem is that a third great fuel, cheaper and energy denser than oil, has not been found yet, and we have already optimized coal and fuel consumption as far as it is feasible, and the marginal fertility of coal-field and oil-field land is falling constantly.
This is indeed in part made clearer by looking at the energy cost of new energy, but it goes further than that.
(continued)
http://www.nber.org/papers/w7833
"Does the "New Economy" Measure up to the Great Inventions of the Past?"
"The paper combines the Great Inventions of 1860-1900 into five clusters' and shows how their development and diffusion in the first half of the 20th century created a fundamental transformation in the American standard of living from the bad old days of the late 19th century."
http://www.nber.org/digest/dec00/w7833.html
"Gordon also finds that the computer, telecom, and Internet technologies pale next to the five "great inventions" of 1860 to 1900. Electricity, the internal combustion engine, the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, the entertainment, information, and communication industries, and the rise of an urban sanitation infrastructure defined the Second Industrial Revolution of 1860 to 1900. These innovations not only led to a dramatic upsurge in productivity from 1913 to 1972, but they also changed everyday life."
"Again, the explanation for the productivity gains prior to 1970 lies mostly with the cluster of inventions developed from 1860 to 1900."
BTW the summarizer (C Farell) also adds a very interesting point:
"A complementary explanation is that the closing of American labor markets to immigration, and of goods markets to trade, between the 1920s and 1960s gave a boost to real wages which, in turn, made labor expensive and promoted productivity growth. The post-1972 slowdown in productivity growth coincided with a reopening of labor markets to immigration and of goods markets to foreign trade."
From my point of view that means that industries chose to use more cheap oil substituting for expensive labour, and then reversed the choice.
Also the amount of energy that can be made available per hour of work.
If shovels are powered by people whose fuel is corn or maize or rice, it takes a lot of work hours to produce the amount of corn or maize or rice needed to dig a canal.
If a digger is powered by a steam engine for which the fuel is coal, it takes a lot less work hours to mine and move the coal needed to dig a canal.
If a dozer is powered by a diesel engine for which the fuel is (derived from) oil, it takes much fewer work hours to pump and transport the "oil distillate" needed to dig a canal.
That is, producing "coalfood" or "oilfood" from coal-fields and oil-fields takes a lot less work hours than the equivalent fresh food from farm-fields, which is equivalent to saying that coal-fields and oil-fields are (still) immensely more fertile for the production of "food" than farm-fields. It is hard to think of the Arabian desert as an amazingly fertile producer of "food", but it is a *proper way of looking at it*.
"Great Inventions" like cars, trains, airplanes, fridges, washing machines, plastics, telephones, computers, only make sense if their "food" is very very cheap and very energy dense; powering them with oxen or workers does not work that well.
I am belaboring this point because even in conversation with *really* knowledgeable and bright people the "Great Inventions" illusion is so ingrained that it takes time to show that they are just ways to make use of really really cheap mined "food".
Been saying this forever... economists always say: "but, but, we are more efficient, nominal increase does not mean more resource consumption!". And I yell at them: "look at the fucking data! it does tell a different story". Growth in developed nations is directly related to increasing consumption of energy and raw material fools, this decoupling economists have been theorizing about for decades has not happened. Prove me wrong please, I would love to be wrong, but is not happening.
EVERY SINGLE ECONOMIST (including MMTers) ignore this reality! Is all based around the dream of perpetual motion machine with unlimited carrying capacity and ever growing numbers. They are like kids always talking about "growing". Mono-dimensional with no solutions to real problems whatsoever.
Random is just impossible, humanity is like a giant grand child obsessed with growing and large numbers. Is all a giant enormous global exercise of group-think involving billions of persons, if you think explaining MMT is hard, try this thing lol!
People too scared about the consequences of applying logic and real data to analysis... then we would have to sit back a bit and think wtf we are doing as species. Good luck!
"this decoupling economists have been theorizing about for decades has not happened. "
It won't without an active state to force it. It requires regulation and big sticks. Probably a 'wartime' economy to sort out the problem.
The rivers didn't clean themselves up by 'market forces' either.
It is possible to have a zero impact resource system. The water and short term carbon cycles, and the nitrogen and long term carbon cycles show that you can have complete recycling using up only the energy that comes in from the sun (and emitting back into space the heat that comes from that).
Our job is to emulate those cycles with our own technology.
But it won't happen with laissez faire, "nudge theory" or "carbon markets". It will only happen when somebody says "stop".
Maybe Neil, but as you say, is not going to happen by market forces. And considering we are dominated by laissez faire economists and politicians, we are screwed if you add two + two.
The problem is that this is yet an other positive feedback loop, as the situation worsens, is harder and harder to fix it. But hey, imagine all the possibilities for the private sector free riders, will be able to provide trillions in service to either 'isolate' or 'clean up the mess' from the problems caused by the current extraction based civilization.
And the rich will live in their private ghettos anyway, our future looks more like Flint or poor central America nations...
The first limit to be reached will involve gross energy flows. At that point we will be faced with the task of both optimizing and prioritizing the use of those flows. That is when the 'decoupling' will take place.
We use more stuff because we associate consumption with higher standards of living. Necessary consumption is driven by our physiological requirements (water, food, shelter). Unnecessary consumption is driven by the requirements of commodity production for profit.
"We use more stuff because we associate consumption with higher standards of living."
It's just a fashion. And fashions change over time. We've got to push the other line, and show how we can get there - using modern money techniques.
For example we need another slum clearance. The difference this time is that the slums are carbon slums - properties that use too much power. But before we can get to that we have to create energy efficient dwellings in an energy efficient manner.
The machinery to do that is like building a nuclear power stations or putting people in space. It requires national focussed efforts, where the private sector can pick up the benefits of the technologies developed once the foundations have been worked out.
This isn't a battle with the private sector. It's a partnership.
That approach is out of fashion. Except maybe for the "war on x" appeals.
As a species, we do not plan, we only react.
"we associate consumption with higher standards of living."
Right and that is SCARY!
Its the whole obsession with "growth!" and the NIA gdp framework...
Good comments here guys
I must say that Im of two minds about some of this stuff. At times I think a lot of the expressed concerns about consumption growth and resources diminishing are somewhat overblown. For instance, I don't think we are anywhere near the carrying capacity for our planet. Today the entire planets population could fit comfortably within the southwestern US with each person having about 3500-4000 sqft. so its not a space problem but as many have pointed out how we use it and take care of it, which are both planning issues. Most of our vital resources like food, fresh water are or could be in abundance even at double our population with robust systems to manage them (desalination of ocean water being a huge source for drinking water)
Our "measurement" system of econ activity as Matt pointed out is a problem but I think its mostly because it is being interpreted by finance types who see all negative numbers as running out of something. Plus the emphasis on cheap inputs (of which we are all inputs to something aren't we?) leads to a whole race to the bottom. Too often in our world its cheaper to throw something away or tear it down and build a new one rather than find a way to preserve what you can and readapt the rest and for most of that I blame our finance sector and obsession with "munnie" (thanks Matt, thats a good one)
So, better central planning and a deemphasis of our current munnie system. Id get about 6 votes running on that platform, so I better find a different way to frame it!
Post a Comment