Karl S North wrote:
>Has a critique of the Lovins scenario appeared on this list?
Hanson's pessimism seems to me to be the mirror-inverse of Lovins' optimism. Neither
of them work from any kind of critical analysis or understanding of capitalism as a
historically-specific mode of production. Both sides to that argument are quick to
*reject* the idea that capitalism is *historically* determinate: they both eternise
and naturalise commodity production and market relations. For Jay, this is a source
of ultimate gloom; nothing can change our fate, because "society" is merely an
out-of-control extension of our genes, and we cannot change those, because they are
ultimately in charge. This is Darwinist pessimism with a vengeance.
The Lovins also think that capitalism is inevitable, unavoidable, natural and
eternal. But they think it is a good thing. What they think needs to happen, is MORE
capitalism, more entrepreneurial initiative, more efficiency, more magic of the
markets.
Their idea of benign capitalism is fetchingly enthusiastic, and it is hard not to
get carried away by their gushing narratives, parades of gung-ho technology etc.
Unfortunately for them, once you embed these narratives in the wider facts the
picture ain't so pretty. If you look on the CrashList website, check out Cutler,
Cleveland et al. They show that although energy efficiency may increase through time
(i.e., energy per unit of GDP falls), overall energy consumption INCREASES and the
secular growth of energy consumption is always far more than any nominal savings
through increased efficiency. What's more, it HAS to be like this, because in order
to win those efficiency increases, you have to have more widescale, complex, diverse
and heavily capitalised scientific and technological infrastructures, in other
words, you have to have a more complex, and overall more energy intensive, social
system and productive process. There's lots of the math on the CrashList site and
plenty more around to buttress this argument. Joseph Tainter argues similarly, so do
many others, and there's lots of this on Jay's site too. The history of industrial
capitalism clearly shows the trend towards drastically improved energy efficiencies
but always in the context of absolute increases of energy consumption.
The other lifeboat the Lovins rely on is the paradox that because the USA is so
incredibly wasteful of energy, there's plenty of scope for easy savings. We know
this is true. You could reduce US per capita energy consumption by half or more
without seriously impacting living standards or lifestyles. That's an awful lot of
oil + gas saved. A good depression will save even more. It would be a wrenching
business, politically dangerous, socially destabilising, but it wouldn't be the end
of the world, and it does mean that actually the oil crunch would be postponed for a
few more decades. However, none of that is going to happen, for well known reasons.
It didn't happen after the 1973-79 oilshocks when energy prices rose 4x. The problem
(as the FT said today) with the 'soft landing' scenario is that the Fed and AG have
just got too good at making sure the economy doesn't land at all, so serious and
radical disbalances and disequilibria continue to pile up, and the economy continues
to grow in both financial and material-throughput terms. This is because the USA is
a *capitalist* economy. People ignore these somewhat elementary facts of the case.
As they say, when the finger points at the moon, the idiot looks at the finger. So
all the Lovins' dreams will remain that: idle dreams and speculations. As a matter
of fact, beneath all their hype about 'natural capitalism' is a thinly-disguised
reproach against the capitalists themselves: they could be more efficient, why
aren't they? They could use our RMI ideas, the hypercar etc, why on earth don't
they, whey do they miss these golden opportunities we Lovins' folks put before them?
Of course, the simple answer is that capitalists actually do look for efficiencies
all the time, but just not the kind which the Lovins's are peddling.
This brings me back (a) to Jay and (b) to the End of Oil etc.
On (a), I think that, for reasons I spell out in various articles also lodged on the
CrashList site, and which many others much better qualified than I have argued,
Jay's Darwinian pessimism is based on serious misunderstandings about evolutionary
theory. We are *not* simply the servants of our genes, and evolution is *not* only
about competition, it is also about co-operation.
So therefore there is still hope!
Finally, on the End of Oil, I remain firmly amongst the pessimists and this is based
on my personal experience of working in the oil industry.
Mark
_______________________________________________
Crashlist website: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
