However, we are not doing the right (best) thing.
We are trying to do something by focusing upon the
noun in the phrase – fuel. Sadly, most of the actors in the
conversations around climate chaos are doing this. Those in the business of
providing fuel (whether it be electricity, vehicle fuel, fuel for cooking, or
fuel for manufacturing purposes) are continually seeking ways to make fuel
production cheaper (to increase profits.) Those who are consuming fuel are also
searching out ways to bring their fuel costs down. There are many too who,
concerned about the emission of CO2 from fossil fuels, are keen to
promote alternative fuel sources.
However, doing something about the fuel (whether
making it more efficient, substituting with alternatives, or offsetting the
emissions) will change nothing. Indeed, it will keep sending us down the same
rabbit hole.
Making fuel more efficient to use is a blind alleyway.
Mostly, what happens when something is made more efficient, is that people use
it more and/or a greater number of people use it. This concept even has a name
– the Jevons Paradox (a.k.a. the Rebound Effect.)1
When Henry Ford introduced his Model T Ford in 1908 a
driver was able to travel 100 km on about 11 litres of petrol. Today’s driver
will travel 100 km using about 8 - 12 litres, hardly a significant gain it
would seem – on first sight. Part of the reason for this is that the efficiency
gain has been taken up by increased vehicle weight. The heaviest Model T Ford
was about 750 kg, today the average private vehicle is about 1,800 kg – 2.4
times heavier. Thus, in the case of private vehicles, greater efficiency has
meant bigger and heavier cars, not a reduction in use of fuel. If Jevons were
alive today, I’m sure he would be smugly thinking to himself – “I knew it!”
What about alternative fuels? There is a lot of hope
placed in the possibilities of; “renewables” (especially wind and solar) for
electricity production, lithium-ion batteries for cars and light trucks,
hydrogen-fuel cells for air transport, and possibly some other
breakthrough-to-come (e.g. sodium-ion batteries.)
Yet, each of these are fraught with difficulties of;
scalability, time-lag (from research and development to production,) depleting
access to minerals,2 limits on efficiency,3 and poor EROEI
(Energy Return On Energy Invested.)4
Furthermore, Simon Michaux (one of the world’s
foremost energy and minerals analysts) has estimated the amount of extra
electrical power required to phase out use of fossil fuels is almost 38,000 TWh
(Terawatt hours.) This figure is approximately 2 ¼ times as much
electricity as coal, oil, and gas presently provide, and an increase of 318%
greater capacity in all “renewable” electricity generation (including
hydroelectricity and nuclear power) than is available today.5
Significantly too, with the rapid growth of the twin
favourites of “renewables” (wind and solar) this century, all of that growth
has simply added to the supply of electricity – none of it has substituted for
fossil fuels at all. William Jevons has been proved correct again.
Remember too, that electrical power generation from
wind and solar make up only ¼ of the global “renewable” mix – the rest is
primarily nuclear and hydropower. The numbers just are not stacking up when it
comes to focussing on fuel as the problem.
The most serious concern however, is that each of
these alternatives (like fossil fuels themselves) damage local eco-systems and
are frequently disruptive of local (often indigenous) communities.
Just two weeks ago, Bala Chambers, an Anglo-Brazilian
freelance reporter and researcher reported on the opposition of a number of
Argentinian environmental groups to the mining of copper, gold, molybdenum, and
lithium in the country.6
One of these groups is the Assembly of Ancasti for
Life based within the Lithium Triangle. One of its members, Luciana Fernández
(an anthropologist, teacher, and mother of four children) branded lithium
exploration as ‘another green capitalist discourse to continue generating
new products that get placed in the marketplace – all in the developed world.’
(my emphasis.)
Fernández and others, such as Freddy Carbonel, from
the northern, mountainous area of Argentina (who has been an environmental
advocate since the 1980s) are opposed to the destruction of eco-systems,
including waterways, animal habitats, and local communities - all to fuel rich consumer-industrial
societies.
Such opposition and protest is not restricted to
Argentina and the Lithium Triangle (including Chile and Bolivia.) Similar
groups and opposition exists in Tibet, the USA (Thacker Pass,) and Portugal.7
Solving the problem of fuel consumption by focussing
exclusively on the noun (fuel) is not the answer.
The Verb ‘to Consume’
Why is it that very few people and groups are
unwilling to seriously question the verb in the sentence: “Humans consume
fuel”?
Yet, our consumption levels are where the problem
really stems from. Surely, that should be where we look for solutions.
Humans have, in parallel
with all living creatures, had to consume. We have had to consume resources to
feed, clothe, and shelter ourselves. For thousands of generations we did so
within the limits of the natural world. However, over the past couple of
centuries, and increasingly so since the end of WW2 we have consumed the
planet’s resources at an alarming rate. William Catton (populariser of the term
Overshoot)8 calls this period of human history the Age of
Exuberance. We have exuberantly raided our planet’s storehouses and left waste
and rubbish in our wake.
The eco-theologian and
cultural historian Thomas Berry, suggests that this exuberance is an
understandable outgrowth of our disconnection from our natural, and sacred,
association with Nature – our home. Consumerism, he states, ‘…has found its
ultimate expression in our own times, when the ideal is to take the natural
resources from the earth and transform them by industrial processes for
consumption by a society that lives on ever-heightened rates of consumption.’9
Catton, Berry, and
others, clearly understood that the problem lies in the verb – to consume.
How many others do?
Do we see any sign of a
global movement questioning consumerism and seeking to find the solutions to
overshoot?
Yes! Signs exist in the
De-Growth movement, the Deep Ecology movement, and with eco-psychologists. But
these movements are small in comparison to the movements advocating for, and
promoting, alternative fuels.
Very few seem willing to
examine what it would mean to consume less, or how we might make the transition
towards less consumption. Why?
Perhaps because the
implications would disrupt our ‘ego-logical desires for the 6 “Cs” of comfort,
convenience, consumption, certainty, control, and coherence.’10
We might need to question who we are, and what our place in this world is, or
should be? Is that too hard?
In the meantime, the majority
of our thinking, planning, finances, and creativity is weighted towards seeking
new, exciting (even sexy), alternative sources of fuel.
We must shift our focus
from the noun (fuel) to the verb (to consume.) The sooner
we do so the better.
Notes:
1. Named after the English economist William Jevons, who first noticed the effect in the use of coal in 1865.
2. See for example Simon P Michaux, The Mining of
Minerals and the Limits to Growth, Geological Survey of Finland, Report
Number 16/2021, March 2021.
3. See for example: Mark P Mills, The New Energy
Economy: An Exercise in Magical Thinking, Massachusetts Institute, March
2019.
4. See for example: Megan Seibert and William Rees, Through
the Eye of a Needle: An Eco-Heterodox Perspective on the Renewable Energy
Transition, Energies journal, 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/en14154508
5. Michaux, Simon P., Assessment of the Extra Capacity
Required of Alternative Energy Electrical Power Systems to Completely Replace
Fossil Fuels, Geological Survey of Finland, Report 42/2021, 20 August 2021.
6. Bala Chambers, Environmental defenders join forces
across Argentina to stop mining boom, Waging Nonviolence newsletter, 11
January 2023.
7. Oliver Balch, The curse of ‘white oil,’ Electric
Vehicles dirty secret, The Guardian, 8 December 2020.
8. Catton Jr., William R., Overshoot: The Ecological
Basis of Revolutionary Change, University of Illinois Press, Urbana and
Chicago, 1982.
9. Berry, Thomas, The Dream Of The Earth, Counterpoint,
Berkeley, California, 1988.
No comments:
Post a Comment
This blogsite is dedicated to positive dialoque and a respectful learning environment. Therefore, I retain the right to remove comments that are: profane, personal attacks, hateful, spam, offensive, irrelevant (off-topic) or detract in other ways from these principles.