A long article in Our Finite World deals with the whole question of how energy matters might underpin the whole function of our global economy and where we are going. It is not optimistic by reason of the hard economics of energy demand and supply.
It ends:
Most authors of academic articles assume that the
challenge we are facing is one that can be solved over the next, say, fifty
years. They also seem to believe that the fixes required are simply small
adjustments to our current economy. This assumption seems optimistic, if we are
really approaching financial collapse.
If we are in fact near the crisis stage described
by Turchin and Nefedov, we will need to do something much closer to “start
over”. We need to build a new economy that will work, rather
than just “tweak” the current one.
New (or radically changed) government and financial
systems will likely be needed–ones that are much less expensive for taxpayers
to fund. We are also likely to need to cut back on basic services, including
maintaining paved roads and repairing long-distance electricity transmission
lines.
Because of these changes, whole new ways of doing
things will be needed. EROI (energy return on investment) analyses that have
been to date represent analyses of how our current system operates. If major
changes are needed, their indications may no longer be relevant.
We cannot simply go backward, because methods that
worked in the past, such as using draft horses and buggy whips, will no longer
be available without a long development period. We are truly facing an unprecedented situation–one that is very hard
to prepare for.
Unquote.
In the meantime in the UK
we are rapidly increasing demand as well as population, promising energy price
freezes, putting up windmills, covering fertile land with solar panels and not
only buying wood burning stoves for our homes but thinking of converting some
of our largest power stations, such as Eggborough above, to wood burning as
well.
In the wider world many
"developing" countries will not do to but will contract unless they
have direct energy of their own. Others in the middling categories will have
very mixed fortunes, mostly adverse.
In the
"developed" world, now almost all dependent on strong economic growth
to cover debt and potential liabilities there will be varied results.
One more common one will
be a great majority of once rich nations whose middling and lower orders become impoverished
but with an elite minority remaining wealthy.
Maybe we should go back to coal and engineering for a few decades and forget about awarding degrees in media studies.
ReplyDeleteA good quality world war will reduce the population and redistribute wealth.
ReplyDeleteEffete Euope will probably go leaving materials for China and other survivors.
The problem of jihad will go. As , very likely , multiculturism.