From Malthus to sustainable energy—Theoretical orientations to reforming the energy sector

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.11.025Get rights and content

Abstract

The main purpose of this article is to consider macro level theories for understanding the urge for reform as well as the process of societal change both in general terms, and more specifically within the energy sector. The aim is also to consider the energy sector in a wider context and analyse its recent development as a potential part of this reform. The scope and logical framework of this article is the following: The state of the global environment is approaching a point where the whole of humankind is in danger. The article reviews and discusses humankind’s limits of existence and dialectics of the human–nature relationship by contrasting Malthusian and Boserupian theoretical views. This creates both practical and scientific needs. The long societal process of change is discussed according to the three-layer (3L) model of societal chance.

The production of energy has traditionally been one of the core issues concerning the effect humankind has on the environment, and with regards to potential change related to it, reforming the energy sector is in a key position. This article reviews and discusses the way the already established renewal of the energy sector corresponds to the 3L model, and the diverse potentials of the anticipated further progress.

Introduction

“Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.” New York Times editorial, the day after the first Earth Day 1970.

Environmentalism became a popular and global discourse already in the 1960s, and the basic ideas and claims of modern environmentalism were presented half a century ago. The ideology of natural parks and nature conservation already had a long history back then, dating back to the latter half of the 1800s. The real wakeup calls were, however, the classical works by Rachel Carson (Silent Spring, 1962) and Barry Commoner (Science and Survival, 1966; The Closing Circle, 1971), accompanied by a number of famous writings by, for instance, the ecologists Garret Hardin (The Tragedy of the Commons, 1968) and Paul Ehrlich (The Population Bomb, 1968), David Pimentel, Howard Odum, John Steinhart, George Woodwell, Kenneth Boulding and Herman Daly to name a few American authors [1]. The main ideas were crystallised in The Limits to Growth [2].

These texts were followed by writings, debates and discourses about industrialisation, pollution and even “doomsday prophecies”. In the course of its over a hundred-year history, environmental protection has developed from an issue promoted by single separate thinkers to general environmental consciousness and from the ideology of national parks towards sustainable development and the ecological modernisation e.g., [3] of society. There has been a shift from the protection of areas towards an active environmental policy and a shift from ideology towards a new practice e.g., [4], [5].

Strong waves of environmentalism swept over societies across the world, and the idea of pollution prevention and nature protection became more generally accepted. The success of the environment theme resulted in new societal demands and reactions, for instance the establishment of the official environmental protection administration, and the ideology of sustainable development.

Environmental damage and overexploitation of natural resources have been observed, modelled and documented intensively, including in official statistics since the early days of environmentalism e.g., [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. In present day discourse, the main problems are crystallised in the problematic of climate change [14], preceded by discussions and concerns that concentrated on pollution problems mainly from the 1960s and acidification from the 1980s [15]. However, all these are details within a more comprehensive whole of a general unsustainable way of living of human beings.

Writings and discussions about the scarcity of resources and sustenance base, and the survival of humankind decreased, even disappeared, sometime in the early 1990s, as new large oil reserves continued to be found. There have been different views and opinions at different times, depending on the specifics of each situation. New oil reserves moved the problems aside. However, lately the issue has become topical again: “The world today faces enormous problems related to population and resources” [1], and “… the world is facing so many challenges that a paradigm shift is needed, and this will inevitably include a development towards a sustainable biobased economy” [16], which is “… a great challenge for sustainability at the planetary scale” [17].

Despite some scepticism e.g., [18] and a number of errors in research details [19] the big picture and conclusions have not changed [20]: Deterioration of the environment will be a threat to survival of the whole of humankind. We live in a risk society e.g., [21], where one accident can deteriorate the living conditions of a whole continent, and where countless small risks make an ungovernable entity. Human beings’ ecological footprint is continuously increasing; it exceeded the natural carrying capacity already in the 1970s and reached an ecological overshoot of 44% in 2006, resulting in an ever-growing sustainability gap [13], [22]. The loss of ecosystems also means a reduction in natural buffers for e.g., self-purification abilities [13], and the cost has been estimated to exceed 14 trillion Euros and a 7% loss in global GDP in 2050 [13], [23]. To a large extent, it has been accepted that (1) the problems are real, and that (2) the main cause is human activity.

This means that the world will undoubtedly face comprehensive changes in the near future, and these changes will be so large that according to a number of authors a new social contract, involving both science and praxis, will be necessary – as stated by the Science already before the Millennium – “ to move toward a more sustainable biosphere” [24]. It will also be a challenge for democracy in general [25] and for instance the European integration process [26].

Many approaches and practical tools have already been introduced. These have been supported by a strong general opinion, which has developed into a social norm, forcing enterprises to join the process. However, there is no complete model for preserving the earth, although the idea of sustainable development with its interpretations provides some guidelines e.g., [27]. Still around the year 2000 the praxis consisted of single separate methods resembling pieces mixed up in confusion without a vision of the whole puzzle. Until today, the approaches and tools for measuring and monitoring [28], selection, design, application [29] and assessment [30] of sustainability have clearly attained strategic and practical relevancy.

Traditionally energy production has been one of the core issues concerning the effect humankind has on the environment. This is also why “climate policy is principally, but not exclusively, energy policy” [31]. In the “big picture” it is part of the dynamic interaction between society and the environment, as illustrated in Fig. 1 [32]:

  • human activities, such as energy production (Society; lower half) have an effect on ecosystems (Environment; upper half), on different scales and in different habitats. The effect can be measured as discharge (arrow from “Society” to “Environment”);

  • the impacts can be seen in the state of the environment, usage and sustainability of resources, well-being and growth of the population. Examples of these impacts include acidification and climate change;

  • the impacts are reflected in society through observations and direct effects (health, state of the environment; arrow from “Environment” to “Society”), with harmful effects calling for change;

  • societal change geared towards removing the problem is a long and complicated process, where the development of social norms precedes practical responses.

When understood as a temporally developing system, this spiral corresponds to the concept of social self-reflection, introduced by modern sociology [33]. Energy production is part of a system representing a significant share of the interface between the environment and society and it is where the rules of the game are dictated as a societal process.

The main purposes of this article are:

  • to consider macro level theories for understanding the urge for reforms and the necessary responses to the processes of societal change;

  • to consider sustainable energy in a wider context and analyse its recent development as a potential part of this reform.

The scope and logical framework of this article is the following:

  • The state of the global environment is approaching a point where the whole of humankind is in danger. In Section 2 this article reviews and discusses humankind’s limits of existence and dialectics of the human–nature relationship. The discussion takes a macro theoretical and multidisciplinary perspective.

  • This creates practical needs – real actions will be necessary – but above all, it creates a need to develop scientific understanding. Section 3 in this article discusses the need for new kinds of philosophy and cross-scientific theories giving rise to new syntheses. Also, in this article the approach is horizontal, multidisciplinary and integrative.

  • Change will be a long societal process, and it will be essential to understand the characteristics and dialectics of the process. In Section 4 this article presents and discusses the three-layer model (3L; presented earlier by the author [5]) of societal chance.

  • The production of energy has traditionally been one of the core issues concerning the effect humankind has on the environment, and in the process of change, the potential reform of the energy sector will, therefore, be in a key position.

    This article reviews and discusses (Section 5) the way the already established renewal of the energy sector corresponds to the 3L model, and the diverse potentials of the anticipated further progress.

Section snippets

From unlimited growth to sustainable development?

“Finite resources imply that population must eventually stabilise. Our only choice is to control it consciously, humanely and democratically or to wait for real limits to do it for us.” —Blake Alcott, 2012 [34].

Towards a multidisciplinary scientific understanding?

“In these days of specialization there are too few people who have such a deep understanding”–Feynman [75]

The urged change will in any case be a multi-task and a multi-branch exercise and an orientation for the future. This means that no single branch of science can understand, outline or solve the whole problem alone. For instance the reforms the energy sector must carry out are commonly seen to be primarily technical, and while technology is necessary for new energy solutions, the whole field

Understanding the change

“Every reform was once a private opinion”—Ralph Waldo Emerson 1841.

All eras in history have had norms, structures and practices of their own. They are collective manifestations of society, while at the same time they consist of activities and values of often countless individuals and organisations. There are no individual people who dictate the rules, and societies have tended to move towards a kind of collective thinking and self-organisation. It seems impossible to change the current system,

Towards sustainable energy

Renewable energy is one of the most efficient ways to achieve sustainable development” [110], and “One of the main tasks in this century (…) will be to manage a transition process towards a sustainable energy system” [111]. Sustainable Energy (SE) has become one of the key concepts in reforming the energy sector in the EU and worldwide. Among key questions are the following:

  • is SE possible, in terms of energy parameters and technology, environmental impacts, social acceptance and economics?

  • Is

Conclusions

No species has ever been able to multiply without limit. There are two biological checks ()—a high mortality and a low fertility. () Man can choose which of these checks shall be applied.

–Harold F. Dorn, in [9].

even with extremely large limits on human population size, the amount of time remaining () is not extremely long. Within the next 150 years or so, and possibly much sooner than that, a drastic () decline in the global population growth rate will be inevitable () only by some

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Emilia Aaltonen for editing the language.

References (171)

  • G Hugo

    Future demographic change and its interactions with migration and climate change

    Global Environmental Change

    (2011)
  • I Seidl et al.

    Carrying capacity reconsidered: from Malthus' population theory to cultural carrying capacity

    Ecological Economics

    (1999)
  • S Ghirlanda et al.

    Sustainability of culture-driven population dynamics

    Theoretical Population Biology

    (2010)
  • P Berck et al.

    An analysis of the world's environment and population dynamics with varying carrying capacity, concerns and scepticism

    Ecological Economics

    (2012)
  • BM Dolgonosov et al.

    An informational framework for human population dynamics

    Ecologicval Modelling

    (2006)
  • PV Kirch et al.

    Building and testing models of long-term agricultural intensification and population dynamics: a case study from the Leeward Kohala Field System, Hawai’I

    Ecological Modelling

    (2012)
  • CT Lee et al.

    Population and prehistory I: Food-dependent population growth in constant environments

    Theoretical Population Biology

    (2008)
  • A Shi

    The impact of population pressure on global carbon dioxide emissions, 1975–1996: evidence from pooled cross-country data

    Ecological Economics

    (2003)
  • L An et al.

    Understanding human decisions in coupled natural and human systems

    Ecological Modelling

    (2012)
  • R Fouquet et al.

    Past and prospective energy transitions: Insights from history

    Energy policy

    (2012)
  • CAS Hall et al.

    Revisiting the limits to growth after peak oil

    American Scientist

    (2009)
  • DH Meadows et al.

    The limits to growth

    (1972)
  • APJ Mol et al.

    Ecological modernisation around the world

    (2000)
  • J McCormick

    Reclaiming paradise. The global environmental movement

    (1991)
  • P Peura

    From ideology to company practice—the origin of operational patterns through social selection

  • Brown, LR, Kane, H, Ayres, E, Starke, L, Signs, Vital, Worldwatch Institute, Washington...
  • DH Meadows et al.

    Beyond the limits: global collapse or a sustainable future

    (1992)
  • JW Cohen

    How many people can the Earth support?

    (1996)
  • D Stanner et al.

    Europe’s environment, the Dobrís assessment

    (1995)
  • S Cole S et al.

    Introduction. Limits beyond the millennium: a retrospective on The limits to growth

    Futures

    (2001)
  • P Kitcher P

    The climate change debates

    Science

    (2010)
  • P Kauppi et al.

    Acidification in Finland

    (1990)
  • H Östergård et al.

    Challenges for sustainable development

  • B Lomborg

    The skeptical environmentalist: measuring the real state of the world

    (2001)
  • IPCC 2011, IPCC protocol for addressing possible errors in IPCC assessment reports, synthesis reports, special reports...
  • Anon. 2010. Open Letter from U.S. Scientists on the IPCC, Retrieved 21 March...
  • Beck, U, Riskiyhteiskunnan vastamyrkyt, [Gegengifte. Die organisierte Unverantwortlichkeit; 1988]. Vastapaino, Tampere,...
  • GFN 2010, Global footprint network, calculation methodology for the national footprint accounts,...
  • EC (European Commission) 2008, EC report. The cost of policy inaction (POCI): the case of not meeting the 2010...
  • J Lubchenko

    Entering the century of the environment: a new social xontract for science

    Science

    (1998)
  • WM Lafferty et al.

    Democracy and the environment. Problems and Prospects

    (1996)
  • JD Liefferink et al.

    European integration and environmental policy

    (1993)
  • P Johnston et al.

    Reclaiming the definition of sustainability

    Environmental Science and Pollution Research International

    (2007)
  • U Beck et al.

    Reflexive modernization. Politics, tradition and aesthetics in the modern social order

    (1994)
  • Obaid, TA, The state of the world population 2001. Footprints and Milestones: population and environmental Change,...
  • United Nations 2011a, World population prospects: the 2010 revision. United Nations, New York. Available at:...
  • UNFPA 1999, State of the world population in 1999,...
  • United Nations 2011b, State of world population 2011, UNFPA, Available at:...
  • P. Neurath

    From Malthus to the Club of Rome and back

    (1994)
  • Cited by (0)

    View full text