|
Is Consumerism the REAL Problem?
Expanding EROEI to Include the Economics of Consumerism
In our journey through "The Chain" we saw that "Neoclassical Economic Theory" had created a "closed loop" viewpoint of the economy that completely disregarded the environment in all of its calculations. We then looked at "Ecological Economics" and the analysis of EROEI by many different researchers that included the environment (and our role in the environment) as an inseparable part of the Energy Chain.
But, there is yet another dimension to EROEI that needs looking atÖconsumerism and materialism and its effect on energy usage and energy as a philosophy.
We just posted a story, "China Growth Unsustainable on All Counts, Must Change: Economist" (30 May 2006), in which economist Lester Brown said, "The Western economic model -- the fossil fuel based, automobile-centered, throwaway economy -- will not work for ChinaÖIf it doesn't work for China, it will not work for India or the three billion other people in developing countries who are also dreaming the American dream."
It is in that tone that we present a viewpoint on EROEI that takes into account the commercial activities of feeding consumerism.
Thomas L. Wayburn, PhD in chemical engineering, has put together research and a created a computational laboratory "in which the energy analyst can perform experiments on a simplified economy that replicates most of the important features of a real economy."
Again, we stress the importance that if an idea is WORKABLE then it IS WORKABLE, regardless of where the idea originated (or what line of work a person may do). Wayburn's "Energy in a Mark II Economy (Draft 2.2)" is one such idea that merits a long, hard look, regardless of how it may make you squirm. It hits very close to the heart of what we, in the Western culture, define as existenceÖ
Here is an excerpt:
I am trying to convince the reader ñ not necessarily with ER/EI studies; but by showing that, if commercial activities are not included in the EI computations, society will be left with many activities that have no energy to support them. If this is not recognized a priori and the required political changes do not take place, commerce will continue to suck the blood out of the economy to the detriment of feeding the poor, for example. Commerce won't stop simply because no energy has been provided to carry on its activities. It will continue to misappropriate the energy needed for vital activities, since commerce has been and will continue to be a predatory economic parasite.
Traditionally, socially progressive thought has tried to effect change by appealing to our moral natures. Peak Oil presents us with a challenge and an opportunity. Perhaps, for the first time during my lifetime, it is possible to demonstrate mathematically the need for social change. (The single most powerful intellectual tool of which I am aware is a properly closed balance equation.) Perhaps, very few people are accessible through their mathematical propensities, but those who are can be stunningly convinced of a need to change their minds when confronted with mathematical proofs. I wish to take advantage of that. Unfortunately, I shall put a number of people to sleep who do not wish to be bothered by mathematics however elementary. (I know people who are bored by their children's grade school math homework.) I hope that people like you take the trouble to understand the mathematical argument presented here and make it evident to people who are bored by mathematics by making it interesting in some other way.
You can read about and download the Mark II Economy Laboratory Excel spreadsheets from here:
|
