Transforming the Cheap Energy Economy by David Ehrenfeld




“Grave troubles concerning the environment, health, security, food, and water have already begun to arrive. But the mother of them all is the dwindling global supply of cheap energy, upon which modern civilization and global commerce utterly depend . . . . This is industrial civilization as we know it, a fast-driving, heavily consuming, self-indulgent civilization that lacks inherent braking mechanisms . . . . It is true that we will not soon run out of fossil fuels, but the cheap, oil-based energy upon which global industrialization is based is going fast . . . . global energy production per capita reached its peak in 1979 and has been falling at an average rate of 0.33 percent per year ever since. There is now less energy available for each person on Earth than there was in 1979 . . . . we can expect widespread electricity blackouts in a decade or so, followed by the rapid unraveling of our highly complex, highly interlinked, highly unstable, and highly unpredictable globalized system”

“There are elements of industrial civilization that few would want to lose — advances in understanding and treating human diseases, research on conservation and habitat restoration, improved ways of communicating over great distances and of processing information, among others. Can we save these elements by changing the system now before it disintegrates? This is, I think, a possibility, unless it turns out that for social as well as economic reasons the system is so dependent on consumption and waste, on sheer volume of buying and selling, that it cannot survive moderation. One thing is certain: If we are to reduce energy consumption in a way that preserves the best parts of industrial civilization, we have to start now. Now, while we are still sufficiently energy-rich and material-rich to afford the high costs of technological development and to buy time for the changes we need in public attitudes toward energy use. In other words, the Joseph Strategy.”

“At the heart of Joseph’s strategy was a simple lesson: In a world of changing fortunes, long-term survival of an individual or a country can often be achieved by saving during the good years.”

“The first approach is a combination of stockpiling and rationing, a “top-down” tactic that is roughly similar to the one that Joseph used . . . . By no stretch of the imagination, however, could the reserve make a significant contribution to our energy needs for more than a year or two, so stockpiling is not a factor in any long-term energy strategy . . . . Gas rationing worked fairly well; people understood that it was necessary, and an exercise in effective patriotism, though cars were far less important in the daily lives of Americans in the 1940s than they are today . . . . But in the absence of a national energy catastrophe, the only politically acceptable forms of rationing are likely to be indirect (imposing strict gas mileage standards , strict regulation of electricity consumption , the mandating of ecological design criteria to reduce energy consumption in new buildings).”

“The second tactic for the precautionary avoidance of energy shortage is technological innovation ? like rationing, a top-down approach. Energy-saving (and energy-generating) technologies are already commercially available and more are being developed . . . . But it seems doubtful that truly renewable sources can ever provide even close to enough energy to run all the vehicular and other fuel cells in an industrialized world at the current rate of use . . . . Therefore, however much energy we save through our inventiveness, we will sooner or later have to reduce our consumption. But in the meantime, technological innovation that increases the efficiency of energy use and provides more renewable energy is a great improvement over the wastefulness of traditional practices.”

“Mandatory rationing and technological innovation are critically necessary but we have to remember that these are top-down approaches. In times of crisis, people tend to accept strong central authority (as after the bombing of the Reichstag in 1933, or after September 11), and often find themselves sacrificing their liberty. In the face of a severe energy shortage, how much of our freedom will we be willing to lose to preserve our current lifestyle? Or can that lifestyle change?”

“The third proactive tactic for dealing with energy shortage is a largely “bottom-up” approach that does not put us at the mercy of centralized power structures or compromise our freedom. We consume far more than we need to of almost everything: food, space, material goods, and, underlying all other consumption, energy. A popular movement to lower consumption would defuse the energy crisis quickly, at little or no direct cost. Unlike rationing and most technological advances, it would reduce rather than increase centralized control and our indebtedness to energy-giving authority.”

“Consuming less, including much less energy, doesn’t have to mean shutting down. But an energy-sparing life of quality does not come without effort . . . . The spend-and-discard, mall-dwelling lifestyle is easier and more convenient, and requires much less knowledge and commitment. This is why we should not expect a widespread, dramatic conversion until the true costs of our obscene energy (and other) consumption begin to hit home with skyrocketing gasoline prices, scattered blackouts, increasing unemployment, and possibly more terrorist attacks.”

“Then we will discover that the ability to reduce our own consumption will give us enormous power that cannot be taken away by higher authority . . . . The power not to spend, at least on nonessential goods and services, has not yet been exploited to pressure our political leaders to look beyond materialism for the public good . . . . A voluntary lowering of consumption — the end of gross materialism — would bring about many beneficial changes in our society. It would improve our health by breaking the stressful spiral of working more to buy more — and to pay the ever-ballooning interest on credit card debt. It would increase our need and concern for each other as we rediscover that neighbors can share goods and exchange services at great savings and with much joy.”

“Yet ending our consumption habit, both voluntarily and as a result of a growing energy crisis, may also cause widespread and profound commercial failures and economic disruption — possibly economic chaos. This is especially likely if the change is abrupt. A few examples will suffice. The demise of the energy-sponging, automobile-dependent suburbs without adequate provision for the people who live there, and the disappearance of giant malls without replacement of the useful services they provide and the retail jobs they generate, will bring about much suffering. We should also anticipate the loss of the sales-generated surpluses that now pay for the arts, much environmental protection, special education, and many other necessary amenities. Moreover, if local communities revive at the expense of centralized authority, we should be ready to deal with a resurgence of parochialism, prejudice, and intolerance — implementing the transition from excess to moderation will challenge both our ingenuity and our humanity, if the best of modernity is to survive the end of materialism.”

“The time to start the dealing with the energy crisis is now, while we still have the resources and wealth that allow us to act. This is the Joseph Strategy. A modern approach will have the three components, each with advantages and drawbacks. A judicious mix of all three — rationing, investment in technological change, and the voluntary reduction of consumption — will serve us best and do the least harm. These components can work well together — for example, in a less materialistic society, wise rationing of energy would not be onerous. And our willingness to jettison gross materialism may well evoke the kind of adroit and farseeing leadership that Joseph provided, but leadership now more by example than by command.”

Read the full article at Orion Magazine

 

Keywords : energy crisis, cheap oil, cheap energy, fossil fuel dependence, industry, civilization, rationing, renewable energy, consume less, less is more
(use search box to list entries with one of these keywords)

About this entry

You’re currently reading “Transforming the Cheap Energy Economy by David Ehrenfeld,” an entry on Nooventures

Published::
3.25.07 / 4am
Category:
Appropriate Science and Technology, Ecosocionomics, Means, Paths, Ends
Tags: