From Malthus to sustainable energy—Theoretical orientations to reforming the energy sector
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)
The Club of Rome and sustainable development
Futures
(2001)Can we close Earth’s sustainability gap?
Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews
(2011)- et al.
Interactions between urbanization and global environmental change
Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability
(2010) Strengths and weaknesses of common sustainability indices for multidimensional systems
Environmental International
(2008)- et al.
Strategic sustainable development—selection, design and synergies of applied tools
Journal of Cleaner production
(2002) - et al.
Categorising tools for sustainability assessment
Ecological Economics
(2007) - et al.
An energy system transformation: framing research choices for the climate challenge
Research Policy
(2010) - et al.
The potential and economics of bioenergy in Finland
Journal of Cleaner Production
(2011) Population matters in ecological economics
Ecological Economics
(2012)- et al.
Malthus and climate change: betting on a stable population
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management
(2001)