Policy Perspectives

Wednesday, August 29, 2007 Water, Climate, Health, Refugees   Volume 3 Issue 8  
Developments in Western Water Policy
Global Energy Consumption:
Women’s Health in Utah
Struggling at the Golden Door: International Refugees in Utah
Gone Hiking
About Policy Perspectives...
Utah Economy, Higher Ed and Poverty
July 25, 2007
Utah Economy, Health Insurance, Organizational Performance
June 27, 2007
Nonprofits, Utah Energy, Utah's Uninsured
May 29, 2007
Tax Reform, Ethics, Water Shortage
April 25, 2007
Utah Economy, Healthcare, Nonprofits, Immunization, Western Primary
March 28, 2007

Search for articles and archives containing:
Global Energy Consumption:
One Wildlife Biologist’s Perspective
by Fred Montague, Ph.D., and Holly Hilton, CPPA Graduate Research Assistant

When the demand for, and the consumption of, a stock limited (exhaustible) resource steadily rises, the price is driven up until the resource is “economically depleted” which means the cost of producing the resource is higher than the value of the product. At that point a substitute (or alternative) resource becomes cost-effective.

The exhaustible energy resources heavily relied upon now are fossil fuels (coal, oil, and natural gas) and, to a lesser extent, nuclear resources. Exhaustible energy powers the economy of the United States and the lifestyles of its people. More than 85% of U.S. commercial energy is derived from fossil fuels, and 8% from nuclear. Only 7% of our commercial energy is provided by renewables, mostly as biomass and hydropower[1], and increasingly wind and solar.

Let’s focus on the most problematic fossil fuel—petroleum. Currant estimates of readily accessible reserves suggest we have about 30 years of oil left as long as every country in the world maintains current consumption patterns, i.e. consumption will not increase. We are at or very near the peak of the global oil consumption graph, a spike-like representation of the historic (actual) and future (projected) consumptions of world oil reserves. We have consumed about half of the estimated 1.8 trillion barrels believed to be available[2]. This means that consumption from here on is on the downhill side of the “petroleum consumption curve.”
That’s supply. What about demand? Today there are 6.7 billion people on earth. Our population is increasing by about 1.2% per year, and this apparently low rate is slowly decreasing. Even with the low and decreasing rate, this is an increase of 78 million in the human population per year. That is an increase of 213,000 people per day, or more than one million people every five days. The United Nations estimates that the mid-century human population will be 9.2 billion people[3]. With the addition of 2.5 billion people, it is very likely that world petroleum consumption patterns will increase.

Text Box: Source: Energy Information Administration/International Energy Outlook 2006
At present, a disproportionately small share of the people of the world uses a disproportionately large share of the world’s energy resources. Eighteen percent of the world’s population lives in the forty or so developed countries. The other 82% of humanity lives in 160 countries that are economically classified as less-developed[4]. More developed countries have population growth rates near, or even below, zero percent annually (zero to negative population growth). People in the developed countries typically use about four times the resources (energy and otherwise) and generate about four times the industrial pollution than people in less developed or developing countries.
Because the largest population growth occurs in developing countries, demographers suggest less-developed countries must become developed countries for the human population to stabilize. If the 5.2 billion people in the developing countries increased their resource use four fold to meet the consumption level of the developed countries, this would further increase the demand of world petroleum resources. Even without the addition of 2.5 billion people, the end of the recoverable oil may be much sooner than 30 years away.
Reliance on stock-limited resources generates other problems aside from their exhaustibility. One is pollution—pollution from fossil fuels (air pollutants) and pollution from nuclear fuels (radioactive wastes). We have, with varying degrees of success, addressed or accepted some aspects of the pollution generated by our energy choices—soot, sulfur dioxide, smoke, etc. We have not dealt very well with the more dangerous effects of radioactive waste from nuclear power generation and the carbon emissions from burning coal, oil, and natural gas. This latter pollution is liberated when carbon fuels are oxidized (burned). Carbon dioxide is one of several “greenhouse gases” (heat-trapping gas) that actually makes the world livable; without them, Earth would be a frozen planet.
However, today’s rapidly rising amounts of carbon dioxide are a problem—they warm the planet too rapidly. The immediate challenge facing humanity on Earth is not the extent of the predicted change, but the very rapid rate of the change. Climatologists estimate that the current human-caused warming is 50 times faster than the relatively rapid warming that occurred 10,000 years ago with the retreat of the latest glaciation of the Pleistocene Epoch[5].
Life is moderately resilient to moderate environmental change, but it is much less resilient to rapid change—higher life forms that have generation times measured in weeks, months, and years, and that depend on relatively stable environmental conditions, are most at risk. [Microbes, with generation times measured in minutes, hours, and days, are much more robust.] Large vertebrates, including humans, will be subject to the greatest disruption as critical ecological entities such as forests, croplands, coral reefs, etc. find themselves stranded in the wrong climate. Polar bears in the wild are one example; increased temperatures have limited their habitat. Little can be done at this point to improve their situation.
Thus, fossil fuels are troublesome for two reasons—decreasing supplies and unacceptable environmental risk. Either issue is serious enough to initiate immediate action. Some call for increased contributions of nuclear, biomass (ethanol and biodiesel), wind, hydro, geothermal, tidal, and solar energy to reduce dependence on fossil fuels.
Is it the better part of wisdom not to choose nuclear power, since it is inherently dangerous (high temperature, high pressure, and high toxicity), and fissionable uranium is another exhaustible resource with pollution problems of its own. Solar energy and solar-derived energy resources (e.g. wind and flowing water) seem to offer better, long-term choices. These resources are flow-limited—the other side of the energy-choice coin. Flow-limited resources are perpetual resources they flow as long as the sun shines) – a definite advantage for anyone who believes in tomorrow. They are, as the term implies, limited in the sense that they can be used faster than they flow. Until recently, the whole Earth-life enterprise operated on perpetual solar energy—and the flow was fast enough to give us grizzly bears, starfish and competent humans.
Whether the reason is pollution impact or resource exhaustion, humans must reduce their consumption of energy for irrational, trivial, and destructive purposes. Reduction is necessary at the community level and the individual level. On the community level, it would take a wise and confident person to propose an energy plan that would reduce the amount of energy use to the capacity of the environment to deal with it and reserve energy use for constructive purposes.
On the individual level, to reduce overall personal (and collective) energy would involve fundamental shifts in the way that Americans view their lives, their work, and their play. It would involve citizens assuming a sense of responsibility with respect to each other (including the other 94 percent of humanity) and to the ecological systems that support life. Changing the way we live can be overwhelming but incremental changes can make a difference.
When we were few and far between and when our tools were rocks and sticks, and when our energy was muscle and campfire, our decisions and their effects rippled a few hundred feet around us. Now that we are very, very many and our tools are very, very powerful, our decisions and their effects rumble across the face of the Earth.

[1] "Renewable Energy Consumption and Electricity Preliminary 2006 Statistics." Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government. AUG 2007. Energy Information Administration. 20 Aug 2007 <http://www.eia.doe.gov/cneaf/solar.renewables/page/prelim_trends/rea_prereport.html>.
[2] Brown, Lester R, Christopher Flavin, Hilary French, Janet Abramovitz, Seth Dunn, Gary Gardner, Ashley Mattoon, Anne Platt McGinn, Molly O’Meara, Micheal Renner, David Roodman, Payal Sampat, Linda Starke, and John Tuxill. State of the World. 1999. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc, 1999. pg 24-25
[3] "Executive World Population Prospects, The 2006 Revision." Department of Economic and Social Affairs. 2007. United Nations. 22 Aug 2007 <http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/wpp2006/English.pdf>.
[4]" Data Sheet." 2007 World Population. 2007. Population Reference Bureau. 21 Aug 2007 <http://www.prb.org/pdf07/07WPDS_Eng.pdf>.
[5] Authors calculations based on IPCC data. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm


There are no letters for this article. To post your own letter, click Post Letter.

Published by Center for Public Policy & Administration
Copyright © 2007 The University of Utah. All rights reserved.
The Center for Public Policy & Administration offers research, education and services to public and nonprofit organizations that will strengthen administration, leadership and public policy making.
RSS Feed
Privacy Policy
Powered by IMN