by dorlomin » Thu 14 Aug 2008, 04:41:24
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')Yes I'm sure the transition of the old East Germany from Marxism to something more efficient has had some sort of effect.
You think?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('OilFinder2', '
')But if you think Germany might not be a good example, there's always Japan. No post-Marxist transition here.
Between 1998 and 2005, electricity consumption in Japan was basically flat.
Japan electricity consumption
SourceAnd yet, between the end of 1997 and the end of 2005, the economy of Japan grew from 131,477.50 billion yen to 139,417.40 billion yen in real terms, a rise of
6% (
Source). So, once again, not only is increased fossil fuel consumption not necessary for economic growth, increased overall energy use is not even necessary for economic growth.
Finaly we have this graph, which to be fair, when combined with oil does show a more limited growth in total energy consumed.
Finaly I of the opinion there is a positive corrolation between energy and economic activity but due to inherent inefficiencies in the system this corrolation is not a 1 to 1 relationship and Id say it is possible of reasonable shifts in consumption to be amoralated provided they are planned for and ther is time to adjust. Perhaps even 10% drops in available net energy. But it still remains a positive corrolation over time.