Illustration by Maria Contreras
Prior to the rise of oil, the standard of living for the great majority of people on planet earth was marginal at best. As per Thomas Hobbes ... In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short’
With advent of oil comes abundance ...
John Maynard Keynes once observed that dating from “say, to two thousand years before Christ—down to the beginning of the 18th century, there was no very great change in the standard of life of the average man living in the civilised centres of the earth. Ups and downs certainly. Visitations of plague, famine, and war. Golden intervals. But no progressive, violent change.” At best, he calculated, the average standard of living had no more than doubled in the previous four millennia, essentially because, when that epoch began, we already knew about fire, banking, the sail, the plow, mathematics; we learned little new that would have accelerated economic growth; and throughout that stretch the planet mostly ran on the muscles of people and animals, supplemented by the power of wind and water. Then, in the eighteenth and nineteenth century, we started to harness the combustion of coal, gas, and oil, and everything changed. That’s because a barrel of oil contains 5.8 million British thermal units’ worth of energy. Nate Hagens, the director of the Institute for the Study of Energy & Our Future, ran the numbers: “One barrel of oil has the same amount of energy of up to 25,000 hours of hard human labor, which is 12.5 years of work. At $20 per hour, this is $500,000 of labor per barrel.” A barrel of oil costs about seventy dollars at this week’s market price.
To call that energy revolution liberating hardly suffices. Suddenly, people could easily venture beyond their villages, or build dwellings large enough to afford some privacy, or stay up all night if they wanted to read. After four thousand years of economic stasis, we were suddenly in a world where the average standard of living doubled in a matter of decades, and then doubled again and again and again and again. And we liked it so much that it became the raison d’être of our political life. In the United States, the per-capita G.N.P. grew twenty-four per cent between 1947 and 1960, when Jack Kennedy, campaigning for President, pointed out that Russia’s growth rate was “three times as fast,” a gap he tried to narrow while in office. Between 1961 and 1965, the G.N.P. grew at a rate greater than five per cent a year, and the percentage of Americans living in poverty dropped by nearly half by the end of the decade. If there was anything Americans agreed on, it was that they wanted more, please. In the 1996 campaign, for instance, the Republican Vice-Presidential nominee, Jack Kemp, demanded that we double the rate of growth, while Bill Clinton’s Secretary of the Treasury, Larry Summers, said that we “cannot and will not accept any ‘speed limit’ on American economic growth. It is the task of economic policy to grow the economy.”
and cost ...
But a critique of growth was emerging in the postwar years as well, most concisely in a 1972 report commissioned by the Club of Rome titled “The Limits to Growth.” A team of M.I.T. economists used computer models (then something of a novelty) to show that, if we kept growing at the then-current rate, the planet could expect ecological collapse sometime toward the middle of the twenty-first century. That prediction turns out to have been spot-on: a report published in Nature on the last day of May concluded that we have already exceeded seven of eight “safe and just Earth system boundaries” that it studied—from groundwater supplies and fertilizer overuse to temperature. “We are moving in the wrong direction on basically all of these,” Johan Rockström, the paper’s lead author and the director of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, told reporters.
Click here to get Limits to Growth in PDF.
No comments:
Post a Comment