I would argue that most conservationists and environmentalists understand that we live in a world with limited resources (so unlimited growth is impossible); otherwise, they probably wouldn’t be conservationists or environmentalists in the first place. Since we live in a world with limited resources, small changes in behavior—in the aggregate—in addition to policies that bring about big changes are important in alleviating our propensity to increase entropy—or the unavailability of energy to produce work, thus goods and services. Consequently, extracting energy from renewable resources, consuming or using less goods and energy, thus generating less waste, are important in conserving energy within a closed system (e.g., Earth). However, this concept isn’t commonly or aggressively distributed by the media, politicians, or in our school systems.

For example, I find the complacency of relying on fossil fuels and the subsequent impacts of relying on fossil fuels extremely worrying. During the 2008 presidential elections a hot topic was offshore drilling. An alarming number of Americans believed (and many still do) that offshore drilling was an appropriate remedy to our energy woes. However, what happens when we exhaust offshore energy supplies? Therefore, shortsighted policies do nothing but exacerbate the problem. Consequently, save the offshore supplies for when we really need them, because to me, a smarter policy is modernizing the grid, utilizing as much renewable energy as possible, and getting gas-guzzlers off the road. Investing in appropriate technologies is important too. Furthermore, although the markets can foster change, the markets often bring change too late. Therefore, the federal government has a responsibility to drive policy. That policy should reflect the maximum sustainability that’s possible to achieve with current technology and resources. Considering the various competing interests, such a policy would be difficult to hammer out but certainly not impossible.

I believe utilizing more nuclear power has its problems as well—the biggest being nuclear waste. Drought is also the Achilles’ heel of nuclear power, so like coal-fired power plants, nuclear power relies heavily on water resources. Furthermore, I believe nuclear power is a lazy remedy to our energy woes. Nuclear power should be a tool to solve our energy crisis, but it shouldn’t be pursued aggressively.

Our current paradigm of development is undeniably unsustainable, and it’s unsustainable because we use energy unsustainably.  This behavior results in less energy for future generations and high energy prices.  Certainly, the economy of the United States can absorb high-energy prices but only to a particular amount and for a certain amount of time. Driving your family around in an inefficient vehicle such as an SUV might make you feel safe, but what type of world are you leaving your children?

For instance, when we burn coal it turns to ash, so the same amount of energy contained before the coal was burned can’t be extracted from the ash. The same applies when we extract crude oil and produce diesel, gasoline, kerosene, petroleum gas, or the many other products we create from crude oil. After these products are burned, the energy they contained before being used can’t be recaptured. Furthermore, burning these products produces pollution. Likewise, consuming food and drink provides fuel for our bodies, but the end product—or the waste—is essentially useless. Rusting iron and steel illustrates the entropic process as well.

The concept that unlimited growth is impossible, and we are limited by how much energy is available reflects the Second Law of Thermodynamics, especially the concept of entropy. More from Tushara Kodikara at Scoop.co.nz (emphasis added):

However, a litany of environmental problems, including destruction of the ozone layer, climate change, acid rain, deforestation, overpopulation, loss of biodiversity, soil erosion, desertification, floods, famine, overfishing, hazardous wastes, expanding landfills, fresh water depletion and the depletion of nonrenewable resources, to name a few, are symptoms of the shortcomings of the current economic system.

The planet is approximately in a steady state. Neither the mass nor the surface is growing or shrinking and the flows of energy inwards and outwards are roughly equal. Energy and matter enter the economy as inputs, are turned into goods and services, and leave as wastes. This flow is known as throughput.

Steady state economics draws from the work of Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen’s The Entropy Law and the Economic Process (1971). This explains how the second law of thermodynamics can be applied to the economy. In a closed system such as the planet, where the energy balance is around zero, the availability of useful energy decreases. Production of economic goods transforms matter-energy from a state of low entropy to a state of high entropy. Entropy is a measure of the disorder within a closed system.

The second law implies that matter can only be recycled a number of times and that energy can be recycled. However it takes more energy to do the recycling than the amount of energy being produced. The law also implies that creating order by means of producing goods will create greater disorder elsewhere in the environment. Therefore the entropy law puts a limit on how much we can produce. Therefore unlimited growth is impossible.

The planet’s interdependence has its limits too, and in turn limits growth. The environment provides vital services such as non-renewable resources which excessive economic growth exhausts. Forests, for example, can be considered as floating lakes. They hold topsoil in place, preventing erosion; help absorb rainwater, thereby preventing flooding; and they also remove carbon dioxide, produce oxygen and many other important ecological services. Deforestation removes all of these services.

However, in neoclassical economics, this forest can be turned into books on the topic of the ecological services of trees and people can go to the library and learn about the ecological services trees provide. This economic theory treats factors of production as substitutes; natural capital can be replaced by human capital or physical capital. If there is less of one (such as labour) it can be replaced by another (machinery) and you can still get the same output.

Before the industrial age, when the economy was small compared to the ecosystem, physical capital was the limiting factor. Fish in the sea were abundant. The number and capacity of fishing boats determined the catch size. Today however, Daly argues, the factors’ roles have changed—the economy has become very large relative to the ecosystem—making natural capital the limiting factor. The depleted fish stock in the sea will determine the number of fish that can be taken as opposed to the technologically advanced fishing fleet.

.       .       .

Until recently, the world economy had been growing, and yet we still have extreme poverty. It should be obvious that what actually grows is the reinvested surplus, such as profits and the benefits of growth go to the owners of the surplus, who are not the poor.

Another argument of those who oppose the steady-state economy and think that the current system is the answer is that of technology being able to solve our problems. We shouldn’t worry about peak oil, as electric cars will become cheap and viable for everybody. However, there are a couple of issues here. There is a limited amount of platinum available in the world. This is an important component for the vehicle’s battery. There is not enough platinum to produce enough cars to replace the current petroleum-based vehicle fleet on the planet.

This blind faith that technology will solve all our problems is just that, blind faith. These solutions will be far more expensive than the preventive measures available. These solutions may in fact cause more problems rather than solving the current environment problems.

The most important point is that petroleum isn’t just used for fossil fuels. It is also an important chemical feedstock used in just about every produced good. It is literally the lubricant for the world’s economy. Under the current economic system, a substitute should be able to replace this vital feedstock. However, this substitute is not forthcoming.

Photo source for attribution here and here. The authors or licensors of these images do not endorse my work or me and their images are protected under an attribution license.

Exergy image found here.

:: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::