[Wildwell]

http://www.sustainable-development.gov. ... uple/a.htm

Comments please?

[marek]

It's a result of a change in energy quality. The UK has substituted a higher-quality resource (natural gas) for a lower-quality resource (coal). Most of this uncoupling can be explained by this. Technological change did not allow us to become much more efficient, only to be able to use a resource which gives higher economic output per BTU. Plus, Western economies have become more of "service" economies, so industrial energy use is counted in the countries from which manufactured goods are imported.

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('marek', 'I')t's a result of a change in energy quality. The UK has substituted a higher-quality resource (natural gas) for a lower-quality resource (coal). Most of this uncoupling can be explained by this. Technological change did not allow us to become much more efficient, only to be able to use a resource which gives higher economic output per BTU. Plus, Western economies have become more of "service" economies, so industrial energy use is counted in the countries from which manufactured goods are imported.

[lowem]

That chart may be flawed. I don't know, perhaps it may be due to discovery and production of the North Sea fields, leading to UK being able to bring in more dollars (and pounds and euros, whatever), which, when spent into the local economy, produced GDP "growth". They might have been just trading away their energy resources in return for GDP "growth".

I'm not much of an economist so perhaps that may be totally off.

[Wildwell]

You can do a lot with statistics that’s for sure!

Here’s another one to ponder.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=151

And this is interesting: *Direct* use of energy by sector:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/statbase/s ... ?vlnk=5542

All energy 2002 (millions barrels of oil eq):

Agriculture 2.0
Wholesale and retail trade 8.7
Transport and communications 31.3
Financial 6.8
Public admin 4.6
Education and social work 5.8
Manufacturing 48.1
Mining and quarrying 4.8
Electricty, gas and water supply 52.2
Construction 1.4

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', ' ')
But I still think people like Matt Simmon’s claims that 'Your economy cannot grow without more energy' is a flawed argument, at least judging by that graph.

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', ' ')
But I still think people like Matt Simmon’s claims that 'Your economy cannot grow without more energy' is a flawed argument, at least judging by that graph.

[smiley]

I'll aim for the middle road here.

If I take a gallon of oil and burn it in my garden I have not produced economic growth.

If, instead, I convert the oil into a useful item I have produced economic growth.

So energy consumption is indeed linked to economic growth, but it is linked via an efficiency factor. It is this factor which determines how much of your energy is going to be converted into economic growth.

After the oil crisis in Europe the efficiency of our energy consumption increased. Cars got smaller, houses got smaller, appliances got more efficient, public transport became more available etc. I use less energy than my parents when they were my age to achieve a similar standard of living. This explains how the economy could grow even though the energy consumption remained level .

So it is possible to achieve economic growth by increasing the efficiency of your energy consumption. However this is not a process which can go on forever. Once you reach the maximum possible efficiency further economic growth is not possible without a further increase of the energy supply.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', '
')Simmons states the economy cannot grow unless you grow more energy quite clearly on a number of occasions - clearly this is not true, at least for the UK.

[nero]

GDP is simply a crude indicator of economic activity. Some long term trends that do not actually increase the output will have a very large impact on the longterm growth of the GDP number. The increase in transportation distances is an example already given. I think the largest factor is the counting as economic activity items that previously were done in non-monetary transactions (eg. pedicures, childcare, lawncare, etc.). I've harped on this before but since this thread is specifically about the energy consumption versus GDP graph I thought I'd repeat myself.

As others have said, improvements in efficiency can cover up the direct relationship between energy use and economic growth. I also agree that efficiency is subject to diminishing returns. That being said, there are alot of efficiency improvements still to be had.

[Starvid]

So we may conclude that there are two ways in which we can increase GDP without increasing energy production:

1) Increased efficiency

2) Less energy intensive production (Industry economy -> service economy)


What hasn't been concluded is if all the low hanging fruit has been picked yet. To pick any fruit at all incentives are needed. Experience shows that the greatest increases in energy efficency has been reached during times of high energy prices. When prices have fallen (after 1984) energy efficency has been less prioritized.

As far as I know, higher energy prices (and governement meddling) will result in higher efficiency.


And by the way, it is possible to avoid Jevons paradox. Since the 70's Swedish GDP has grown 50 %. Energy consumption has grown... 0 %.

Some interesting links:

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_d ... Country=SE

http://globalis.gvu.unu.edu/indicator_d ... Country=SE

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', '
')Simmons states the economy cannot grow unless you grow more energy quite clearly on a number of occasions - clearly this is not true, at least for the UK.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', ' ')
It depends what work you're doing. If you burn it away by taking joy rides in cars are leave lights on for the hell of it, it doesn't benefit anyone.... You CAN get something for nothing - if I'm walking instead of driving then the only energy input is to me, which is food, which can be renewable and will be renewable as far as planet earth is concerned until the sun falls out the sky.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Starvid', '
')And by the way, it is possible to avoid Jevons paradox. Since the 70's Swedish GDP has grown 50 %. Energy consumption has grown... 0 %.

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', ' ')
It depends what work you're doing. If you burn it away by taking joy rides in cars are leave lights on for the hell of it, it doesn't benefit anyone.... You CAN get something for nothing - if I'm walking instead of driving then the only energy input is to me, which is food, which can be renewable and will be renewable as far as planet earth is concerned until the sun falls out the sky.

[smiley]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Montequest', 'I')t makes no difference whether it is wasted or not, if it gets used it benefits those who sold it, i.e., the gas companies and electricity companies. Millions of people have their entire livelyhood based upon this wanton consumption. You are not looking at the Big Picture.

[Wildwell]

And the point is the money system is based on confidence, nothing to do with energy. If it was based on energy we might well have problems. This is how you can sell a pair of John Lennon's old shoes for $100,000 on the hope that, because of their historic value, there will be a demand for them in the future. A similar pair of shoes might be worth only $100, but only because they aren't John Lennon’s, yet they took the same energy to create.

[DamianB]

If we assume that economic growth does require energy input then surely our long-term growth rate is going to revert to the rate at which we can capture the planet's flow of energy from renewable sources. This will obviously be much lower than the past but it will still be growth.

Also our current economic system places high value on things that require a lot of energy like cars and green beans flown in from Kenya. In a post-peak world the value placed on items we exchange will be different and people who grow things by capturing the sun's energy will be able to buy things from people who use a PV powered lathe or row a boat out into the ocean and catch fish. This may not be a very appealing life for the poor saps who like playing video games and watching TV buts that's tough!

[Wildwell]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('DamianB', 'I')f we assume that economic growth does require energy input then surely our long-term growth rate is going to revert to the rate at which we can capture the planet's flow of energy from renewable sources. This will obviously be much lower than the past but it will still be growth.

Also our current economic system places high value on things that require a lot of energy like cars and green beans flown in from Kenya. In a post-peak world the value placed on items we exchange will be different and people who grow things by capturing the sun's energy will be able to buy things from people who use a PV powered lathe or row a boat out into the ocean and catch fish. This may not be a very appealing life for the poor saps who like playing video games and watching TV buts that's tough!

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Wildwell', ' ') You call it a temporary fix as far as the UK and Sweden (and others) are concerned, but you have no evidence for that other than by the ideas of a slightly mad economist who lived a very long time ago. I don’t wish to be rude, but you know, he might just have been wrong.