This
article is about Tim Garrett's paper that Guy McPherson often refers
to
Is
Global Warming Unstoppable?
THEORY
ALSO SAYS ENERGY CONSERVATION DOESN'T HELP
Tim
Garrett
22
November, 2009
In
a provocative new study, a University of Utah scientist argues that
rising carbon dioxide emissions – the major cause of global warming
– cannot be stabilized unless the world’s economy collapses or
society builds the equivalent of one new nuclear power plant each
day.
“It
looks unlikely that there will be any substantial near-term departure
from recently observed acceleration in carbon dioxide emission
rates,” says the new paper by Tim Garrett, an associate professor
of atmospheric sciences.
Garrett’s
study was panned by some economists and rejected by several journals
before acceptance by Climatic Change, a journal edited by renowned
Stanford University climate scientist Stephen Schneider. The study
will be published online this week.
The
study – which is based on the concept that physics can be used to
characterize the evolution of civilization – indicates:
Energy
conservation or efficiency doesn’t really save energy, but instead
spurs economic growth and accelerated energy consumption.
Throughout
history, a simple physical “constant” – an unchanging
mathematical value – links global energy use to the world’s
accumulated economic productivity, adjusted for inflation. So it
isn’t necessary to consider population growth and standard of
living in predicting society’s future energy consumption and
resulting carbon dioxide emissions.
“Stabilization
of carbon dioxide emissions at current rates will require
approximately 300 gigawatts of new non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power
production capacity annually – approximately one new nuclear power
plant (or equivalent) per day,” Garrett says. “Physically, there
are no other options without killing the economy.”
Getting
Heat for Viewing Civilization as a “Heat Engine”
Garrett
says colleagues generally support his theory, while some economists
are critical. One economist, who reviewed the study, wrote: “I am
afraid the author will need to study harder before he can
contribute.”
“I’m
not an economist, and I am approaching the economy as a physics
problem,” Garrett says. “I end up with a global economic growth
model different than they have.”
Garrett
treats civilization like a “heat engine” that “consumes energy
and does ‘work’ in the form of economic production, which then
spurs it to consume more energy,” he says.
“If
society consumed no energy, civilization would be worthless,” he
adds. “It is only by consuming energy that civilization is able to
maintain the activities that give it economic value. This means that
if we ever start to run out of energy, then the value of civilization
is going to fall and even collapse absent discovery of new energy
sources.”
Garrett
says his study’s key finding “is that accumulated economic
production over the course of history has been tied to the rate of
energy consumption at a global level through a constant factor.”
That
“constant” is 9.7 (plus or minus 0.3) milliwatts per
inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar. So if you look at economic and energy
production at any specific time in history, “each
inflation-adjusted 1990 dollar would be supported by 9.7 milliwatts
of primary energy consumption,” Garrett says.
Garrett
tested his theory and found this constant relationship between energy
use and economic production at any given time by using United Nations
statistics for global GDP (gross domestic product), U.S. Department
of Energy data on global energy consumption during1970-2005, and
previous studies that estimated global economic production as long as
2,000 years ago. Then he investigated the implications for carbon
dioxide emissions.
“Economists
think you need population and standard of living to estimate
productivity,” he says. “In my model, all you need to know is how
fast energy consumption is rising. The reason why is because there is
this link between the economy and rates of energy consumption, and
it’s just a constant factor.”
Garrett
adds: “By finding this constant factor, the problem of
[forecasting] global economic growth is dramatically simpler. There
is no need to consider population growth and changes in standard of
living because they are marching to the tune of the availability of
energy supplies.”
To
Garrett, that means the acceleration of carbon dioxide emissions is
unlikely to change soon because our energy use today is tied to
society’s past economic productivity.
“Viewed
from this perspective, civilization evolves in a spontaneous feedback
loop maintained only by energy consumption and incorporation of
environmental matter,” Garrett says. It is like a child that “grows
by consuming food, and when the child grows, it is able to consume
more food, which enables it to grow more.”
Is
Meaningful Energy Conservation Impossible?
Perhaps
the most provocative implication of Garrett’s theory is that
conserving energy doesn’t reduce energy use, but spurs economic
growth and more energy use.
“Making
civilization more energy efficient simply allows it to grow faster
and consume more energy,” says Garrett.
He
says the idea that resource conservation accelerates resource
consumption – known as Jevons paradox – was proposed in the 1865
book “The Coal Question” by William Stanley Jevons, who noted
that coal prices fell and coal consumption soared after improvements
in steam engine efficiency.
So
is Garrett arguing that conserving energy doesn’t matter?
“I’m
just saying it’s not really possible to conserve energy in a
meaningful way because the current rate of energy consumption is
determined by the unchangeable past of economic production. If it
feels good to conserve energy, that is fine, but there shouldn’t be
any pretense that it will make a difference.”
Yet,
Garrett says his findings contradict his own previously held beliefs
about conservation, and he continues to ride a bike or bus to work,
line dry family clothing and use a push lawnmower.
An
Inevitable Future for Carbon Dioxide Emissions?
Garrett
says often-discussed strategies for slowing carbon dioxide emissions
and global warming include mention increased energy efficiency,
reduced population growth and a switch to power sources that don’t
emit carbon dioxide, including nuclear, wind and solar energy and
underground storage of carbon dioxide from fossil fuel burning.
Another strategy is rarely mentioned: a decreased standard of living,
which would occur if energy supplies ran short and the economy
collapsed, he adds.
“Fundamentally,
I believe the system is deterministic,” says Garrett. “Changes in
population and standard of living are only a function of the current
energy efficiency. That leaves only switching to a
non-carbon-dioxide-emitting power source as an available option.”
“The
problem is that, in order to stabilize emissions, not even reduce
them, we have to switch to non-carbonized energy sources at a rate
about 2.1 percent per year. That comes out to almost one new nuclear
power plant per day.”
“If
society invests sufficient resources into alternative and new,
non-carbon energy supplies, then perhaps it can continue growing
without increasing global warming,” Garrett says.
Does
Garrett fear global warming deniers will use his work to justify
inaction?
“No,”
he says. “Ultimately, it’s not clear that policy decisions have
the capacity to change the future course of civilization.”
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.