PARADIGM SHIFTS

This book traced the evolution of the energy mix throughout human history. From ancient times up to the early 19^th century, the energy mix was dominated by renewable resources, fuelwood and fodder for working animals, which in 1820 accounted for over 90 percent of the global energy consumption. Because of the low level of industrialization in this long period, energy was needed primarily for heating, cooking, and agriculture. As a result, as late as 1820, energy consumption per person was only less than one-third of a ton of oil equivalent. The rest of the 19^th century was a period of transition from renewable energy to fossil fuels, starting with coal. By 1900 fossil fuels accounted for 56 percent of global energy consumption and coal represented 95 percent of fossil fuels. Still, by 1900 at the end of the transition period global energy consumption per person was less than two-thirds of a ton of oil equivalent. Because of the low level of population and industrialization and the dominance of renewable energy sources, the first energy era left no environmental footprints on our planet.   The air pollution created by burning fuelwood was easily dispersed in the atmosphere and the polluting effects were largely localized. Any climatic changes that may have occurred during this period were caused by factors other than energy production and consumption. Also, the low-tech nature of the renewable resources facilitated a decentralized system of energy production and distribution.     

The Great Energy Transformation that was characterized by the dominance of fossil fuels started at the beginning of the 20^th century and lasted only one and  one-quarter centuries. From the perspective of a distant future, the Great Energy Transformation will be viewed as a blip in the history of humankind, sandwiched between two renewable energy eras. Yet, this short period was one of the most influential in the economic and environmental history of our planet. It transformed the industrial structure, created entirely new transportation systems, led to an explosion of demographic and economic growth, and raised material standards of living. At the same time, it began to saturate the atmosphere with greenhouse gases that have severely altered climatic conditions and have intensified catastrophic weather events. These environmental changes will affect the lives of future generations even if we implement strong decarbonization measures now. The CO2 concentrated in the atmosphere will not be quickly dissipated and it will take another ice age to replenish the ice that will continue to melt for decades regardless of behavioral and policy changes.

When we look at all these changes we often focus on the failures of public policy, forgetting that in democratic societies government policies are the collective expression of our individual values. The accelerated growth during the Great Energy Transformation was supported by a change in the value system that gave priority to the accumulation of material things. The “American dream” was viewed strictly in material terms and it became the measure of personal success all over the world. Consumers became the engine of growth and they came to consider their patriotic duty to spend money they did not have to purchase goods and services they did not need. Governments supported the role of consumers by reducing taxes in order to “put more money in people’s pockets,” and spending beyond their means. To facilitate deficit financing, the monetary standard was changed by eliminating any constraints on the capacity of the central monetary authorities to print money. Thus, the ecological deficit created by supply-based energy policies have been paired with expanding national and personal debt.

This value system has also created an interior imbalance at the personal level. Sustaining economic growth, especially when it is associated with rapid technological advancements that accelerate the obsolescence of products, requires consumers who are permanently dissatisfied regardless of the amount of material things they possess. A large share of consumer goods -household equipment and furnishings, motor vehicles, clothing, shoes, and even cosmetics and personal hygiene items �" have a fairly long useful lifespan. If consumers were satisfied with the items they own, their demand would not support the development and sale of more and newer versions. To maintain a rising flow of production it is necessary to shorten the useful lifespan of consumer goods, either technically through planned obsolescence or through methods that affect the human psyche and cause permanent dissatisfaction and the unsatiable desire for newer and more. This race for the unreachable creates a growing interior personal imbalance. Human beings have spiritual, intellectual, emotional, and physical needs. For a contented life, these needs must be satisfied in a balanced manner. The obsessive pursuit of material wealth creates an interior imbalance which lacks a self-corrective mechanism. This permanent state of dissatisfaction and the craving for a material fix press for faster economic growth and demand public policies in support of that aim. The scientific evidence on the environmental and climatic effects of fossil fuel consumption is ignored and sometimes ridiculed and the focus of energy policy is directed at supply-based programs. This is a vicious circle that cannot be reversed in the absence of a paradigm shift in the moral framework at the individual level.

In the previous chapter I suggested a shift from supply-based to demand-based energy policies which are directed at reducing the overall demand for energy in order to speed-up the process of decarbonization, reduce the environmental footprint of human activity, and shorten the length of the transition from fossil fuel to renewable energy. To achieve that goal, we need a shift in the values that guide human behavior. First, we must acknowledge that human activity affects nature. Second, we must become more receptive to scientific research. We unquestionably accept the power of technological change to shape our lives, forgetting that science comes before innovation, but we reject the scientific advice on environmental issues. Third we must recognize our obligations to nature and to others. The negative effects of human activity are recognized by public policies that through taxation force us to internalize the cost of these negative externalities (paying through taxes for the harm we inflict nature or others). The need for government intervention would be eliminated it we took it as or moral obligation to minimize the harmful effects of our behavior. Finally, as consumers we need to rely on the principle of functionality, which not only will help us focus on what we need for a comfortable life but will help restore the interior balance essential for a life of contentment. We must ask ourselves: if 10 pairs of shoes are sufficient to take care of our needs, what’s the purpose of stuffing the closet with 50 pairs? Does a single person living and working in a level-ground city that receives snow need to drive an FWD SUV? Does a couple without children need a 2,000 square feet of living space, two bathrooms, and a two-car garage?

The call for a renewal of the ethical foundations of human activity conjures images of painful sacrifices. Yet, the attitude and behavioral changes that would support demand-based energy policies do not require major sacrifices. It simply proposes the elimination of excessive and non-functional consumption. While at first blush even giving-up excessive consumption may seem painful, this imagined pain will be offset by the savings it will generate and the therapeutic effect of rebalancing one’s life. As we re-order our interior priorities by paying more attention to our spiritual, emotional, and intellectual needs, our obsession with material possessions will subside, our stress will be relieved, and our connections with our neighbors and the natural environment will be strengthened. This virtuous circle will bring greater balance to humans and the ecosystem.     

We are at the cusp of a transitional period from fossil fuel dominance to a new renewable energy era. In this new era, renewable energy will be characterized by a high technical content, will be supplied by a mix of decentralized and centralized production determined by public policy and individual choices, and will inherit a planet and an ecosystem ravaged by more than a century of fossil fuel dominance and the pursuit of unconstrained growth. I have identified two alternative policy directions for this transitional period: supply-based and demand-based. I have discussed how a supply-based energy policies lead to imbalances in the natural environment, create international conflicts as resources become geopolitical instruments, disrupt social cohesion by widening income and wealth inequality, and promote unbalanced personal lives as the unsatiable hunger for material possessions overwhelms intellectual, emotional, and spiritual human needs. I have also argued that a better alternative is a course of action consisting of policies aimed at curtailing energy consumption combined with a change in people’s value system and behavior towards a way of life that recognizes the importance of balance in the satisfaction of our needs, our obligations to nature and to future generations, the recognition that we are all related in time and space, and the duty to strive for peace and harmonious personal and social relationships. The choice is ours. The price to be paid for the wrong choice by current and future generations is very high and we would bequeath this burden to our descendants even if they led virtuous lives.