Reduced demand for a sustainable future?

[MonteQuest]

I know that world energy demand is on the rise, but lets have a hypothetical situation where we could reduce demand drastically - how much would it have to be reduced by in order for renewable energy to fulfil our energy needs?

Huh?

As long as we have economic growth and as long as we have population growth, we can never have a sustainable energy regime from any source.

Population growth alone consumes all gains from conservation and efficiency gains are ruled by Jevons' Paradox in a free market.

Sustainable growth is an oxymoron.

Read Dr. Bartlett.

Laws Relating to Sustainability

[MonteQuest]

Is it really a matter of being "there's no way to resolve the problems associated with PO" or is it a matter of political will to curb energy use and bring more renewables online?

There are solutions, but no techno-fix.

We must powerdown, restrict per capita consumption and reduce the existing population in order to move towards sustainability.

All other efforts are short-term selfish solutions.

[MonteQuest]

While the optimists believe we are in for economic depressions but will get though the other side the doomers believe we are in for a break down of society and the mass die-off of 4 billion people.

No, the optimists deny and are ignorant of biology/ecology and overshoot, and the doomers are not.

[MonteQuest]

I guess what I wonder is how much of our current energy demand is completely unnecessary and could be easily cut back just by changing certain practices (i.e. using solid state lighting, not leaving computers/televisions/lights on when not in use, using lighter more fuel-efficient vehicles, better public transit, etc etc etc). If we "tightened our belts" (without radically altering our way of life), how much would energy demand fall ?

Duh?

Energy doesn't care whether it gets used for a good purpose or not. And GDP doesn't care what creates it. How do you cut sales and create massive unemployment and not radically alter our way of life?

Who absorbs this loss?

All that "unnecessary" consumption of energy employs millions of people.

You need to read my Solutions in Isolation thread.

It strikes me that peak oil itself is meaningless without the context of demand. If we somehow cut our energy needs by 90%, suddenly having maxed oil and gas production today means a lot less than it used to, and we can continue as usual for centuries into the future.

What about the 3 billion newcomers? Hmm?

But if renewables provide X amount of energy, and we change our behaviour to only require X amount of energy, then we have a sustainable energy system don't we?

Only on that day.

[MonteQuest]

But let's assume we could develop ways around enough of the problems and develop a half-decent hydrogen vehicle.

According to Honda, hydrogen fuel cell automobiles are at least two decades from reality. Honda's engineer in charge of fuel cells, Yozo Kami, admits it will take at least 10 years to bring sticker prices down to $100,000. General Motors claims they will have a commercial fuel cell vehicle ready by 2010, but that even assuming some level of mass production, a single finished car would probably run over $200,000.

But it sounds like you, pstarr, think that capitalism and conservation can never coexist, and therefore the writing is on the wall.

Capitalism and conservation are like oil and water; they do not mix.

[DavidFolks]

Capitalism and conservation are like oil and water; they do not mix.

Add a little soap, agitate...

Classical capitalism allows the ownership of goods and the means to produce them. It is based on investing capital, providing goods and/or services at a profit, and re-investment of the profits in the venture. Prices and viability are controlled by the market by supply and demand. You don't turn capital investments into cash, your capital investments produce profits. You spend the profits, not the capital. Conservation, diligence and care maintain and nurture a producing asset so it can grow.

Our current paradigm of conspicuous consumption is a little different. In it we use cash to aquire assets at as low a cash price as possible, then we liquidate the asset to provide a cash profit. In this system efficient = fast. Profit is generated by consuming the asset, then using the cash to buy another.... ad infinitum, until it's all gone that is.

[MonteQuest]

Capitalism and conservation are like oil and water; they do not mix.

Add a little soap, agitate....

Show me a business that can prosper by constantly cutting sales and without laying off workers.

[DavidFolks]

Show me a business that can prosper by constantly cutting sales and without laying off workers.

Any national airline!:lol:

I never suggested that a business could survive by constantly cutting sales.

Seriously though, capitalism and sustainability are not mutually exclusive. A business doesn't have to constantly increase its volume of sales to thrive, it has to maintain a level of sales that keeps its workforce employed, and produces a profit.

As for corporations, I realize that their only feduciary responsibility is to provide a profit to the shareholders. Most people seem to think this means constantly increasing the percentage of profit and dividends paid, but that simply is not so.

Capitalism, strictly speaking, is not the problem.

Profit taking through liquidating producing assets is.

[mkwin]

While the optimists believe we are in for economic depressions but will get though the other side the doomers believe we are in for a break down of society and the mass die-off of 4 billion people.

No, the optimists deny and are ignorant of biology/ecology and overshoot, and the doomers are not.

We've had this conversation before. You take an extremely reductionist view of the human race and compare our current condition to other species. However, we are fundamentally different from other species and predicting trends or absolute natural laws like overshoot from these comparisons is unreliable.

Yes we need to stabilise and reduce populations in the third world, but we have the opposite problem in the industrialised world!! Just look at Japan, much of Europe and Russia - here the problem is the birth-rate that is too little to sustain the population at current levels.

Die-off in the third world…sadly yes. In the developed world…no.

[MonteQuest]

A business doesn't have to constantly increase its volume of sales to thrive, it has to maintain a level of sales that keeps its workforce employed, and produces a profit.

And how does it do that when it is constantly cutting sales through conservation?

Capitalism, strictly speaking, is not the problem.

No, a constant growth based system is the problem.

[MonteQuest]

While the optimists believe we are in for economic depressions but will get though the other side the doomers believe we are in for a break down of society and the mass die-off of 4 billion people.

No, the optimists deny and are ignorant of biology/ecology and overshoot, and the doomers are not.

We've had this conversation before. You take an extremely reductionist view of the human race and compare our current condition to other species. However, we are fundamentally different from other species and predicting trends or absolute natural laws like overshoot from these comparisons is unreliable.

Yes we need to stabilise and reduce populations in the third world, but we have the opposite problem in the industrialised world!! Just look at Japan, much of Europe and Russia - here the problem is the birth-rate that is too little to sustain the population at current levels.

Die-off in the third world…sadly yes. In the developed world…no.

And here we have a classic example of that denial and ignorance of biology/ecology.

First, "we are different" than other species. A hubris that says we are above nature and not subject to her laws in the same way that all other species are.

In Daniel Quinn's book series Ishmael, he points out the difference between man and all other species is that they practice "limited competition" while humans wage all out war.

The "law of limited competition" means you may compete for food, but you may not hunt down your competitors or destroy their food or deny them access to food...but you cannot wage war on them.

Our practice of agriculture is totaliatarian. We subordinate all life-froms to the relentless, single-minded production of human food. It is one of the chief causes of the loss of biodiversity. Either we destroy the species' habitat or we destroy them outright through pesticides, herbicides, or hunting. Our use of DDT caused Rachel Carson to write Silent Spring.

Malthus' warning was about the failure of agriculture to meet the human demands for food. However, it's continued success to do so, poses an even greater threat to mankind.

Second: That the population problem is in the third world and not the first.

Carrying capacity is not about a certain number of any given species, it is about per capita consumption and waste realtive to that capacity.

In terms of environmental overshoot, (which is the only true measure) the most overpopulated country in the world is the USA. Even if that wasn't the case, the US is still the third most populous country in the world in sheer numbers.

With the world population billions beyond carrying capacity, it is pure folly to think in terms of regions. Global climate change, loss of biodiversity, environmental sink toxicity, etc are not, nor ever will be, local problems.

Not only do population levels world-wide need to come down, so does the per capita consumption and waste produced by those, like the USA, who have taken more than their share and set it up as a standard of living.

[Ludi]

Yes we need to stabilise and reduce populations in the third world, but we have the opposite problem in the industrialised world!! Just look at Japan, much of Europe and Russia - here the problem is the birth-rate that is too little to sustain the population at current levels.

But the industrialised world uses 30 times the resources as the third world! That is the problem. The problem is not "overpopulation" in the third world, it is consumption in the industrialized world. Why blame the thrid world for global human population overshoot when it is the industrialised world which is causing and promoting the biggest share of environmental damage and resource consumption?


This cheeses me off no end, this constant blame of the third world and putting the responsibility for population reducation on the people who are not causing the bulk of the problem.

[MonteQuest]

This cheeses me off no end, this constant blame of the third world and putting the responsibility for population reducation on the people who are not causing the bulk of the problem.

To them, it seems much more plausible to reduce their numbers rather than give up our standards of living. And they also seem to forget the US is the third most populous country.

[DavidFolks]

A business doesn't have to constantly increase its volume of sales to thrive, it has to maintain a level of sales that keeps its workforce employed, and produces a profit.

And how does it do that when it is constantly cutting sales through conservation?

I don't agree that conservation is synonymous with cutting sales.

Capitalism, strictly speaking, is not the problem.

No, a constant growth based system is the problem.

This I'll agree with.

[MonteQuest]

I don't agree that conservation is synonymous with cutting sales.

Time to learn that it is.

Conservation is reduced economic activity, is it not?

You are buying less of something.

Somebody's sales are cut.

[Ludi]

To them, it seems much more plausible to reduce their numbers rather than give up our standards of living. And they also seem to forget the US is the third most populous country.

Yes, I can see how it would seem easier to blame someone else for problems we ourselves are causing, but, as far as plausibility - how plausible is it our overconsumption of the Earth's resources would be solved by someone else reducing their population? It's not some poor people in India or the Sudan who are causing global warming, etc.

[DavidFolks]

I don't agree that conservation is synonymous with cutting sales.

Time to learn that it is.

Conservation is reduced economic activity, is it not?

You are buying less of something.

Somebody's sales are cut.

So what are we talking about? Supply side economics, consumer side economics, increased consumption paradigm or sustainable production paradigm?

Conservation of a resource on the supply side, and liquidating the growth of that resource at a rate less than or equal to the growth in a sustainable production model doesn't cut sales or jobs. Look to sustainable forestry as an example.

Clearcutting a forest in a consumption paradigm gives a boost of jobs and economic activity, and then a collapse when the trees are gone.

Each paradigm can exist in a capitalist society, and each can produce a profit and economic activity. The difference is that long term a sustainable production paradigm with conservation and stewardship of the resource will produce a greater and continuing profit.

To that end, you might view conservation as not maximizing sales and depleting a resource to reap as large a profit as possible in as short a time as possible. It doesn't mean cutting sales.

[MonteQuest]

I don't agree that conservation is synonymous with cutting sales.

Time to learn that it is.

Conservation is reduced economic activity, is it not?

You are buying less of something.

Somebody's sales are cut.

So what are we talking about?

Probably the most cited solution for solving our energy crisis is instilling a conservation ethic into society and the economic engine. Conservation, by its very nature, is a self-induced recession on the economy. Increasing conservation always results in reduced economic activity. Each of the previous three oil shocks in the United States was followed by recession. In every oil shock, the US economy was at or near its “stall speed” when the oil shock occurred. From the cringes of the financial analysts as of late, nothing has changed.

Conservation means economic restraint, and that means fewer jobs which translates into less money in the hands of consumers. This results in poor sales that dominoes into business failures, more job losses and increased poverty that leads to conflict and human desperation.

Solving Oil Depletion; Solutions in Isolation

[EnergyUnlimited]

Conservation means economic restraint, and that means fewer jobs which translates into less money in the hands of consumers. This results in poor sales that dominoes into business failures, more job losses and increased poverty that leads to conflict and human desperation.

I really cannot imagine, how fitting of energy saving bulbs, abandoning a practice of driving to nearby park to walk your dog, or selling fuel efficient ICE could cause meaningful job loses and poverty.

[MonteQuest]

Conservation means economic restraint, and that means fewer jobs which translates into less money in the hands of consumers. This results in poor sales that dominoes into business failures, more job losses and increased poverty that leads to conflict and human desperation.

I really cannot imagine, how fitting of energy saving bulbs, abandoning a practice of driving to nearby park to walk your dog, or selling fuel efficient ICE could cause meaningful job loses and poverty.

And therein lies the one of the biggest obstacles to sustainability; the inability to think systematically.

The examples you mention are meaningless to offset peak oil.

What if everybody conserved on the scale we need to?

I don't think you have any idea of the scale of conservation required.