Slashdot Mirror
Modeling the Economy As a Physics Problem
University of Utah physicist Tim Garrett has published a study that approaches the economy and its relation to global warming as a physics problem — and comes to some controversial conclusions: that rising carbon dioxide emissions cannot be stabilized unless the world's economy collapses or society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each day. The study was panned by economists and was rejected by several journals before its acceptance in the journal Climatic Change. "[Garrett discovered that] Throughout history, a simple physical constant... links global energy use to the world's accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation. So it isn't necessary to consider population growth and standard of living in predicting society's future energy consumption and resulting carbon dioxide emissions. ... 'I'm not an economist, and I am approaching the economy as a physics problem,' Garrett says. 'I end up with a global economic growth model different than they have.' Garrett treats civilization like a 'heat engine' that 'consumes energy and does "work" in the form of economic production, which then spurs it to consume more energy,' he says. That constant is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar. So if you look at economic and energy production at any specific time in history, 'each inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar would be supported by 9.7 milliwatts of primary energy consumption,' Garrett says. ... Perhaps the most provocative implication of Garrett's theory is that conserving energy doesn't reduce energy use, but spurs economic growth and more energy use."
This sounds like Jevons Paradox.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
The fail was on your comprehension.
What humans are and are not is irrelevant, it has nothing to do with choices, nothing to do with rational behavior.
It's simply saying that each unit of economic production results in the consumption of X units of energy. And that reducing energy consumption on something results not in less energy use but in more production.
Which leads to, if you want to reduce carbon dioxide levels, two choices:
1. Economic collapse.
2. Build obscene amounts of "clean" (in terms of carbon dioxide production) energy generators.
Starvation is a geopolitical problem, not a resource problem. Grain production has consistently outpaced population growth for the past 30 years. Even during last year's food crisis, resource shortfalls were not an issue.
more here: http://www.worldhunger.org/articles/Learn/world%20hunger%20facts%202002.htm
I wouldn't worry about that, as the end result of *not* cutting back on energy use is also the eventual destruction of the world economy. We live unsustainably. Oil isn't forever. Nukes aren't forever. Enjoy it while it lasts.
The determined Real Programmer can write Fortran programs in any language.
Dude, do the maths, if you cant be bothered reading EIA reports, 85 million barrels of oil are used DAILY.
Yearly thats a lot of tonnes of oil. all of it gets used.
Alternatives are less than 2%.
Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
Isn't that exactly the _opposite_ of what this theory states?
The author specifies that efficiency in fact spurs _more_ economic growth. Unsurprising, since our entire society from the dawn of crop cultivation has been based on our ability to get things done more efficiently, thus freeing up time and energy for other work and discoveries. So if you want to grow the economy, work on... economy.
What is somewhat surprising is that the efficiencies gained seem to be immediately taken up by new forms of consumption, so there is never any decrease in resource usage, just a growth in what we accomplish with our endless accelerating depletion of those resources.
An interesting and somewhat troubling thought. In the end we are likely not above nature and a painful equilibrium will be found.