Biophysical economics -- from Malthus and Mill to Bartlett and Daly

[GliderGuider]

Ecological Economics - The Best New Idea for 2009

Ignoring nature remains the tragic conceit of conventional economists, who presume we can grow our economies forever without regard to quantities of materials, energy, and pollution. Biophysical economics, on the other hand, acknowledges that there exist no cases in nature of unlimited growth.

Dr. Albert Bartlett, Emeritus Professor of Physics at Colorado University, urges economists to learn the laws of nature. Non-material values - creativity, dreams, love - may expand without limit, but materials and energy in the real world remain subject to the requirements of thermodynamics and biology. "Growth in population or rates of consumption cannot be sustained. Smart growth is better than dumb growth," says Bartlett, "but both destroy the environment.

Malthus revisited

In the 19th century, Thomas Malthus and John Stuart Mill introduced ecological economics, warning that human expansion would eventually meet natural limits. Industrialists have mocked Malthus and ignored Mill for two centuries, but the evidence now suggests that the discovery of petroleum only postponed the effects.

Many economists now recognise that Malthus and Mill were essentially correct. A 2008 Goldman-Sachs report about commodity shortages stated, "we see parallels with Malthusian economics." Popular investment advisor, James Dines, told a New York Investment Conference in May that food and fuel scarcities are a "result of a Malthusian planetary limit."

"We are dying of consumption," says Peter Dauvergne, sustainability advisor at UBC and author of The Shadows of Consumption. "The unequal globalisation of the costs of consumption is putting ecosystems and billions of people at risk."

"Sooner or later," as ecologist David Abram puts it, "technological civilisation must accept the invitation of gravity and settle back … into the rhythms of a more-than-human Earth."

More at the link. Sometimes even Greenpeace publishes good stuff.

[CrispyQ]

1. We are consuming our ecosystem for the profits of a few.

snip...

To honestly achieve a "sustainable" economy, humanity must step through a paradigm shift, as profound as the transition in the sixteenth century when Copernicus showed that the Earth is not the centre of the universe. Likewise, ecology teaches us that humanity is not the centre of life on the planet. Just as the Pope's henchmen refused to look through Galileo's telescope, some economists avoid looking out the window to see what keeps humanity alive: photosynthesis, precious materials, and concentrated energy.

===
Good article. Thanks for the link.

[The2ndWheel]

3. A few within a few

It's not just a few humans out of billions of us. It's a single species(and any species that we can use) that profits out of however many there are, because we use so much energy, and want more.

[bananas]

2. The Peter Principle

Civilizations rise to their level of incompetency.

[excess_3]

4. I wouldn't extrapolate an oil-shortage to an everything-shortage.

I am more concerned about paving over farm land.,
and the destruction of the oceans.
....................
other than food
what commodities could be short?
how much, copper, lead, zinc,, does
one person need?

[NickB79]

5. Except that oil shortages have a direct impact on farm production

Paved over or left idle due to lack of diesel fuel, either way farmland won't be in food production.

[excess_3]

6. food, would come first

does anybody have numbers for...
diesel fuel consumtion for food production.

civilian jet fuel consumption in the US,
1.3 million barrels per day, EEEevery DDDay

[GliderGuider]

7. about 1 gallon per person per day in the USA

From Eating Fossil Fuels:

In the United States, 400 gallons of oil equivalents are expended annually to feed each American (as of data provided in 1994). Agricultural energy consumption is broken down as follows:

· 31% for the manufacture of inorganic fertilizer

· 19% for the operation of field machinery

· 16% for transportation

· 13% for irrigation

· 08% for raising livestock (not including livestock feed)

· 05% for crop drying

· 05% for pesticide production

· 08% miscellaneous

Energy costs for packaging, refrigeration, transportation to retail outlets, and household cooking are not considered in these figures.

That means the USA uses the equivalent of 7 million barrels of per day. Now, that's "energy". and not all that energy is from is oil. Guesstimating from that list, I'd say that about half of it would be oil (fertilizers, pesticides and and crop drying use NG, while irrigation is largely electrical, with some diesel pumps). So 3.5 mbpd, or 17% of American oil consumption, is related to agriculture, with more used for final transportation.

[GliderGuider]

8. The loss of transportation leads to local shortages

Since very little of what we need, from food to building materials to plastic bath toys, is produced locally, disruptions in the transportation system due to oil shortages can cause all kinds of empty shelves, even though the goods may be available elsewhere. An area could be awash in computer parts but short of food, and vice versa.

[excess_3]

9. less developed countries, at much greater risk

countries without a developed railrod system,
would suffer first


I see a lot of stuff in a grocery store,
I could live without