In response to the comments seen in a Slashdot
post,
concerning an
article
published in the Daily Telegraph, the following article
was crafted.
Often in debates such as these people migrate to one of two
opposite poles of the argument, each adopting stereotypic
viewpoints and regurgitating the
memorized pseudofactual information
expected of their position.
The two opposing views, whether they, who adopted them, were
aware of their origins or not, are the positions of the
environmentalist and economist.
The environmentalist espouses the protection of the
environment by limiting that which is extracted from it
and that which is dumped into it.
The idea is to consume only what can be replenished
and to protect that which cannot.
The economist holds paramount the sustained growth of
the economy and considers the consumption of resources as income.
The belief is that capitalism will respond to future
scarcity by finding new sources of energy and introducing
new technologies to reduce the impact on the environment.
A cycle of scientific (and sometimes pseudoscientific)
predictions of impending ecological disaster,
countered with refutations and promises of future solutions ensues.
An alternate perspective, provided by the conservation of energy,
thermodynamics, and reductionism, is offered.
It provides insight by restating the problem in simple terms,
as directed by the laws of physics.
The global economic system exists almost exclusively
on the ever-diminishing stored potential energy of the earth
Prior to the 20
th Century, the total demand placed
on the ecosystem by
human economic activites had been small comapred to the
reserves and regenerative capacity of those systems.
Thus, it was not perceived as necessary to limit resource usage,
as in the 19
th Century in the United States,
when fuel reserves were large with respect to consumption.
Similarly, disposal of waste was not perceived as an issue by
the general populace, as the ratio
of developed to undeveloped land was small.
As time progressed, industrialized countries have exceeded their
resources, consuming raw materials faster than they are replaced.
To meet demand, additional resources are obtained externally,
through colonization of or trade with other countries.
An example can be found in the modern United States,
where our domestic oil reserves have been essentially depleted,
and energy needs are met externally.
One can reduce the current ecology to a nearly closed system,
whose energy falls into two categories, incoming solar flux and
stored potential energy.
The modern global economic system exists almost exclusively
on the stored potential energy of the earth.
Population, Technology, and Lifestyle: The Transition to Sustainability
Authors: Robert Goodland, Herman E. Daly, Salah El Serafy, Salah E. Serafy
Release Date: September, 1992
Further expanding the concept,
the global ecosystem can be represented as the sum of resources
in the form of sources and sinks together with the economic subsystem.
Sources provide energy and material, sinks breakdown or store waste,
and the economic subsystem is the ecological footprint of the economy.
Shown in the adjacent figure, the finite global ecosystem exchanges
matter and energy in the direction of the arrows.
The system is essentially closed with the exception of
the incident solar flux and energy lost to the
vacuum of space.
Thus, by the conservation of energy, if the rate of
consumption exceeds the incoming solar flux,
resources will deplete.
The depletion of sources and filling of sinks manifests itself in
the figure, as an ever shrinking circle.
Imagine, that, while the circle, which represents the finite global ecosystem,
shrinks, the square, which represents the economic subsystem, grows.
This is the situation currently faced.
The acceleration of consumption
is economic growth.
While considered taboo to speak of a zero-growth economy, it
can be seen clearly in this reductionist view, that a closed
system with accelerating consumption is unsustainable.
Furthermore, not only is a zero-growth economy unsustainable
but it must shrink until its power matches the incoming solar flux.
This is not a political position rather an inevitable physical consequence.
No economic theory or future technology can overcome the
conservation of energy or the
second law of thermodynamics.
The economic subsystem is not only limited in size
by the ecosystem but by the rate at which energy can
be extracted from that ecosystem
An additional point worth mentioning is, that the energy return on
investment of future energy stores is substantially lower than that for oil.
It follows, that a decrease on the energy returned from the energy expended
in extracting a resource will fundamentally limit not only growth but
the sustainable size of the economic subsystem.
Thus, the economic subsystem is not only limited
in size by the ecosystem but by the rate at which energy can
be extracted from that ecosystem.
(More on this concept to follow.)
To conclude, while the study of climatic change is important,
it is not a required argument for the reduction of consumption.
Looking at the problem from the alternative perspective
of the conservation of energy is sufficient.
Environmentalists would be better served by grounding themselves
in an irrefutable argument rather than one that is as controversial
as climatic change.
Likewise, one operating from the economists's point of view should
realize that a zero-growth or sustainable economy is inevitable.
The lifestyle and financial gains that have been afforded by living
on this temporary store of potential energy will inevitably cease.
