July 26, 2018
Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow with the Post Carbon Institute, has written a rebuttal to a recent article by Ted Nordhaus, co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute. Nordhaus's theory of planetary carrying capacity can be summarized as follows: we can engineer our way out of the problem. And he's willing to bet your life and mine that he's right! Nordhaus admits no constraints on human population of the earth, basing his theory on another specious assumption, called decoupling. Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, Nordhaus, and other economists, maintain that "each increment of economic growth in developed economies has brought lower resource and energy use than the last."
Heinberg is quick to point out that an analysis of decoupling thus far is merely the result of an accounting error. In other words, the numbers Nordhaus relies upon are fractions, barely supporting his claims. In order for the developing world to enjoy a standard of living commensurate with the so-called developed world, Heinberg says, global energy consumption would have to quadruple. In fact, Johan Rockstrom and Will Steffen, of the Stockholm Resilience Center and the Australian National University, respectively, have identified nine planetary boundaries that we dare not exceed. They are climate change, ocean acidification, biosphere integrity, biochemical flows, land-system change, freshwater use, stratospheric ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol loading, and the introduction of novel entities into the environment. I'll write about these more in my next article.
It appears that our consciences went out the window when we discovered we could augment personal wealth by stripping the earth of her finite riches. Because the earth's bounty appeared unlimited to the much smaller world population (under a billion) at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, the idea that we would run out of anything truly seemed preposterous. Sustainability was not a twinkle in anybody's eye. When we crossed over the line and began borrowing from future generations, Americans had long since accepted the idea of Manifest Destiny lock, stock, and barrel. Winning a couple of World Wars made us think pretty highly of ourselves, too. The mood was euphoric, and nothing was going to stop us. The U.S. would lead the world into an endlessly bright future. That post-war scientists were even then muttering about our warming planet, that extinction rates as a result of habitat degradation were prompting publication of books like Silent Spring, and that the oceans were being overfished, were facts treated with intolerance and disregard.
I find it interesting that Nordhaus does not allude to the mass die-off of human beings that will occur as a result of climate change. This will, of course, extend the earth's carrying capacity, since fewer of us will be competing for catastrophically diminished resources. Heinberg makes an excellent point, however, in mentioning one of the foundational laws of ecology, called Liebig's Law. It asserts that "growth limits are set not by total resources available, but by the single scarcest necessary resource." Kind of like juggling - you need to keep your eye on ALL the balls..
With thanks to the Undark.org.
Richard Heinberg, Senior Fellow with the Post Carbon Institute, has written a rebuttal to a recent article by Ted Nordhaus, co-founder of the Breakthrough Institute. Nordhaus's theory of planetary carrying capacity can be summarized as follows: we can engineer our way out of the problem. And he's willing to bet your life and mine that he's right! Nordhaus admits no constraints on human population of the earth, basing his theory on another specious assumption, called decoupling. Since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, Nordhaus, and other economists, maintain that "each increment of economic growth in developed economies has brought lower resource and energy use than the last."
Heinberg is quick to point out that an analysis of decoupling thus far is merely the result of an accounting error. In other words, the numbers Nordhaus relies upon are fractions, barely supporting his claims. In order for the developing world to enjoy a standard of living commensurate with the so-called developed world, Heinberg says, global energy consumption would have to quadruple. In fact, Johan Rockstrom and Will Steffen, of the Stockholm Resilience Center and the Australian National University, respectively, have identified nine planetary boundaries that we dare not exceed. They are climate change, ocean acidification, biosphere integrity, biochemical flows, land-system change, freshwater use, stratospheric ozone depletion, atmospheric aerosol loading, and the introduction of novel entities into the environment. I'll write about these more in my next article.
It appears that our consciences went out the window when we discovered we could augment personal wealth by stripping the earth of her finite riches. Because the earth's bounty appeared unlimited to the much smaller world population (under a billion) at the dawn of the Industrial Revolution, the idea that we would run out of anything truly seemed preposterous. Sustainability was not a twinkle in anybody's eye. When we crossed over the line and began borrowing from future generations, Americans had long since accepted the idea of Manifest Destiny lock, stock, and barrel. Winning a couple of World Wars made us think pretty highly of ourselves, too. The mood was euphoric, and nothing was going to stop us. The U.S. would lead the world into an endlessly bright future. That post-war scientists were even then muttering about our warming planet, that extinction rates as a result of habitat degradation were prompting publication of books like Silent Spring, and that the oceans were being overfished, were facts treated with intolerance and disregard.
I find it interesting that Nordhaus does not allude to the mass die-off of human beings that will occur as a result of climate change. This will, of course, extend the earth's carrying capacity, since fewer of us will be competing for catastrophically diminished resources. Heinberg makes an excellent point, however, in mentioning one of the foundational laws of ecology, called Liebig's Law. It asserts that "growth limits are set not by total resources available, but by the single scarcest necessary resource." Kind of like juggling - you need to keep your eye on ALL the balls..
With thanks to the Undark.org.
Comments
Post a Comment