|
| |
Energy Use and Sustainable Development
From: Cambridge University Press
| By:
Edward S. CassedyPeter Z. Grossman |
EDITOR'S INTRODUCTION |
The enormous quantities of non-renewable energy resources which Western society utilizes each day is a matter of concern to scientists and environmentalists alike. But if the main energy sources cannot be replaced, what's going to happen in the future as they become scarcer? In this extract from their book Introduction to Energy, Edward S. Cassedy and Peter Z. Grossman assess some of the conflicting views concerning resource depletion. |
 ossil fuel resources are in the process of depletion; renewable resources at present provide only a small percentage of our energy needs and it is uncertain when they will become widely available. But if we are still dependent on fossil resources as they become depleted, are we not risking serious consequences to our wealth and well-being? Should we do something now to forestall these consequences? And if so, what? |
The answers to these questions are by no means clear cut. There is widespread disagreement on what to do and on whether there really is a problem in the first place. In part these attitudes and proposed solutions may reflect the influence of special interests. For instance, a consumerist might argue that resources should be exploited rapidly to keep the prices down; an energy company might want to adopt a plan of extracting fossil fuels slowly in order to keep prices and profits high. But the question of resource depletion has led to the advocacy of very different approaches for philosophical reasons as well as self-interest. Most of these positions are variants of what we have called the limitationist and expansionist perspectives. |
Grounds for pessimism?
The limitationist view stresses that natural resources are finite and that we must deal now with the reality that they will run out. Furthermore, rapid exploitation would be bad even if there were no danger of depletion. It causes pollution and despoils the land; it risks climate change and threatens all life by destroying the ecosystem itself. Limitationists are basically pessimistic about the ability of technology to solve these problems quickly and, in fact, are pessimistic generally about what lies ahead for the world because of resource-related problems. Some see truly ominous possibilities for the future if we do not take drastic steps now to limit resource exploitation. They project the likelihood of global catastrophes that could at the very least destroy industrial societies and lead to hardship for millions of people. The limitationist position is exemplified by the work of Donnella and Dennis Meadows whose books on the "limits to growth" demonstrated through computer simulations why industrial society might be headed for collapse (D.H. and D.L. Meadows, J. Randers and W.W. Behrens, Limits to Growth, 1974; D.H. and D.L. Meadows, Beyond the Limits, 1992). Not surprisingly, most limitationists advocate policies that limit (forcibly if necessary) resource exploitation, pollution, population, and even economic growth. |
If these arguments are correct, it is hard from a moral perspective to argue against limitationist policy prescriptions. How could we continue to commit acts that contribute to the collapse of civilization or the destruction of the ecosystem? Such destruction clearly must be considered a great evil and action to forestall or prevent it good. Yet it also must be noted that to take such actions would have immediate consequences that are not necessarily beneficial. For example, limiting growth might deprive poor people of material goods; government restrictions on consumption would limit individual freedom. However, these deprivations and restrictions would not be based on an evil that exists, but rather on one that is only hypothesized. |
Indeed, there have been many criticisms of limitationist arguments. Critics have noted that the Meadows's simulations used questionable assumptions; when these assumptions were changed, the forecasts for the future became far less perilous. But critics also pointed out that catastrophe theories were nothing new, and that previous theories were not borne out by experience. |
Perhaps the most famous historical example was the catastrophe theory of Thomas Malthus, a British philosopher and economist (1766-1834). In the early nineteenth century, he predicted that population would outstrip agricultural production and mass starvation would follow. His argument was in part mathematical; population would expand at a geometric rate, he maintained, while agricultural production would expand arithmetically. Malthus had good reasons for his arguments, but they were wrong because he had overestimated population growth and had underestimated the productive potential of agriculture. In other words he had underestimated technology. |
Assuming optimism
Optimism about the potential of technology underlies the expansionist approach (see, among others, H. Kahn, W. Brown and L. Martel, The Next 200 Years, 1976; J.L. Simon, The Ultimate Resource, 1981). This view holds that resources should be exploited as rapidly as needed for economic growth or, even more strongly, that resources should be exploited at whatever rates are required for economic growth. Expansionists are not necessarily blind to the possibility of resource depletion, but they are not worried about the outcome. As one expansionist put it, "In effect, technology keeps creating new resources" (quoted in Simon, 1981). |
Limitationist and expansionist positions embody the ambivalence that industrial society has shown for the technology that created it. The expansionist belief in a technical fix for problems that beset us (i.e. that society will develop appropriate technological solutions) is deeply rooted in the experience of the twentieth century. We have seen technological progress at work and believe in its potential. But at the same time, many see technology as a villain. Although a machine may seem morally neutral, its existence is inseparable from its uses. The limitationist view reminds us that employment of technology creates moral and social problems: pollution, population pressures, resource depletion, and so on. The limitationist contends that we need to gain control of technology before we are destroyed by its effects. |
To the expansionists, technology will provide the answers to today's problems, as it has to those of the past. An expansionist may grant that oil and gas are finite, but he or she is confident that technology will provide solutions or alternatives before exhaustion occurs. Economist Julian Simon (1981) argues that as we begin to run out, we will soon find other ways of meeting our needs. Pollution, too, will be fixed by technological solutions. As for population growth, the expansionist does not even see it as a problem. Rather it expands the world's pool of labor and means more people to apply their ingenuity toward the problems of the future (Simon, 1981). |
This line of argument sees strong economic growth as a spur to solutions, since a robust economic system will sustain itself. There will be, the growth advocates say, a great demand for new energy technology, and consequently innovative entrepreneurs will have incentive (high profits) to create and develop the means to solve resource depletion. In the meantime, we can enjoy economic growth and all nations can raise their standard of living. |
The expansionist view is optimistic on both the future of technology and the capacity of the free market economic system to adjust itself to cope with problems unrelated to near-term profits arid losses (Simon, 1981). Technology in the context of the free market becomes not just a more efficient approach, but a way to better the lot of all humanity. Like the limitationist argument, the expansionist approach is clearly a moral position, but the focus is changed. It seeks to maximize both economic growth and liberty simultaneously, now and in the future, although it is based on an assumption -- not a certainty -- that the future will find a way to take care of itself. |
Sustainable development
The limitationist view emphasizes that the solution to current problems comes from "limits" to exploitation and development; the expansionist sees the solution in "growth." These positions seem to preclude one another. We can either have growth or limits but not both. |
Yet an important concept was introduced in the 1980s and early 1990s that held some promise of reconciling limits and growth. This concept was called sustainable development and although the idea had appeared in the early 1980s, it was given international prominence through the 1987 meeting of the World Commission on Environment and Development (see R. Repetto, The Global Possible, 1985; G.H. Brundtland, Our Common Future: The World Commission on Environment and Development, 1987). While the idea was initially meant to apply to Third World development, the application broadened. |
The underlying idea was, according to the 1987 document, that "development [should] meet the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs." Economic growth was possible, but an economy should exist "in equilibrium with the earth's resources and its natural ecosystem." |
But just what does this "equilibrium" mean in practical terms? The notion of sustainable development has been adopted by many, but while the phrase is widely used, its meaning varies greatly. It has proven difficult to define precisely, and as a result, interpretations are as far apart as ever, especially with regard to achieving sustainability through policy. |
Limitationists have eagerly embraced the concept of sustainable development but have focused on the first word. Sustainability has been interpreted to mean that economies need to be "fundamentally" restructured, population growth must be stopped, and rich nations must transfer wealth and technology to poor ones (E.T. Smith, "Growth Vs Environment," Business Week, May 11, 1992, pp. 66-75). In developed countries, lifestyles would have to change. We would need to adopt what has been called "sophisticated modesty," a simpler, less energy dependent way of life. "Development," above all, would be distinguished from economic growth. Production would probably shrink although we could replace many goods with better goods, thus developing without growing. |
While limitationists have focused on the notion of sustainability rather than development, expansionist-oriented thinkers have emphasized the reverse. In this view, economic growth would still be the goal of all societies. But investment in new and better plant and equipment would take precedence over pure consumption. In that way, a society builds its productive capacity--enhancing the prospects of generations in the future (R.M. Solow, Sustainability, 1991). To achieve this, government would create market incentives perhaps through its tax code. Expansionists generally believe also that development should embrace "environmental protection" (T.J. DiLorenzo, The Mirage of Sustainable Development, 1993). Presumably incentives would also be directed toward lowering pollution, perhaps by incorporating the cost of environmental impacts into the prices of industrial outputs. Incentives might also focus on the development of more efficient, less energy-intensive technologies. Expansionists would stress private property rights as well, since it is presumed that individuals have incentives to preserve the "natural capital" that they own in order for that capital to be profitable into the future. |
These interpretations seemingly are as irreconcilable as earlier limitationist--expansionist debates. Yet the concept of sustainable development would appear to offer a middle ground that links growth with sustainability, and government policies that are somewhat more active than the expansionists advocate. |
Sustainability with respect to resources could begin with the following guiding principles. "Renewable resources [should be used] at rates less than or equal to the natural rate at which they can be regenerated," while non-renewables could be depleted but with "optimal efficiency" (D.W. Pearce and R.K. Turner, Economics of Natural Resources and the Environment, 1990). These principles suggest policies that would emphasize more efficient technologies, careful management of renewable resources (particularly biomass), and the development of renewables -- in all likelihood with significant government support for research and development. |
While this kind of program seems a natural outgrowth of the sustainability concept, it must be kept in mind that the greater the emphasis on renewable resources the greater the uncertainty inherent in the program. Renewables are not yet available to replace fossil fuels on a mass scale. Nor is it known when or if these technologies will become available. Therefore, policies that force society to become dependent on renewable resources in the future might be a costly mistake. |
Conclusion
The World Bank (World Development Report, 1992) has suggested more general guidelines for both national and international policy makers. In general, the Bank's report advocates policies for economic growth utilizing "efficient use of resources, technology transfer and better working markets" as well as policies that limit population growth. But governments also need to "capture the true value of the environment," creating incentives for environmentally sound practices. Moreover, according to the report, there should be research, better dissemination of information, and development of the skills of people to use resources more efficiently. There would also have to be an emphasis on prevention because "prevention is cheaper than cure." |
Of course, sustainability to a large extent is a global problem. Third world deforestation potentially affects the climate of everyone; rapid consumption of fossil fuels in the developed world depletes those resources for the developing world in the future. Thus sustainability policies require coordination of many different national political entities--with their sometimes conflicting ideologies and national goals. Some international coordination has been possible in recent years: for example, the treaty on nuclear non-proliferation or the agreement on ozone protection. World Bank prescriptions lie mainly with foreign aid, open markets, and coordinated research. But the coordination of national policies is a difficult matter. In the meantime, there are only piecemeal efforts around the world to implement sustainable resource policies. In many cases, governments have in effect accepted the older expansionist program, and are doing little. Thus, no policy change is an important policy decision -- one that may have important consequences for future generations. |
|
| |
