Download Demographics and Energetics

Adam Cassady
Student # 54964093
February 2, 2011
Soci. 360b
Demographics and Energetics:
Through the lens of environmental sociology.
Adam Cassady
The issues of population growth and energy consumption affect societies differently,
depending on location and their level of development. The more developed countries (MDC’s)
are less affected by population constraints and growth rates, than from constraints of energy
supply and consumption. The less developed countries (LDC’s) have rapidly increasing
populations seeking to raise their overall standard of living to a level which the MDC’s now
benefit from. This global desire to maintain and/or increase present levels of consumption creates
further issues regarding resource scarcity, income inequalities, and increased global energy
consumption.
POPULATION:
The Demographic Transition Model is used to illustrate population change over three distinct
stages; the first stage represents heavy industrialization with regard to both manufacturing and
productive output to support a growing population. The second stage is characterized by
improvements in public services which increase the standard of living. The final stage of the
model involves urbanization leading to smaller family sizes and a reduction in the fertility rate
(Cassen, 1994). Many developed countries transition was alleviated through expansion into the
frontier areas of the America’s; this “New World” provided rich land and resources to fuel the
industrialization of those nations (Pimentel et al., 1999), during this time there were very few
concerns regarding environmental or social degradation (Martin, 2010). Urbanization in these
Page | 1
countries was propelled by a pull of economic opportunities, assisted by the industrial and
manufacturing sector (Harper & Fletcher, 2008).
The transition of the LDC’s has been late and swift, but most importantly; it has come
without the benefits of territorial expansion (Harper & Fletcher, 2008). The birth and mortality
rates in LDC’s are much higher than MDC's, at a similar stage of transition and, although
developing countries have had great advances in economic growth, population growth (prompted
by religious and cultural customs), drastically outstrips economic growth (Harper & Fletcher,
2008). Population redistribution (urbanization & migration) play a large role in LDC's. It is
largely activated by a push from rural poverty without the pull of economic opportunities
brought on by the industrial and manufacturing sectors. LDC’s have developed very rapidly but,
according to the demographic transition model, they have effectively skipped over the first stages
of industrialization which has reduced their economic ability to support their large population
(Harper & Fletcher, 2008).
Figure 1. The Demographic Transition Model. CBR refers to the crude birth rate,
and the CDR refers to the crude death/mortality rate. (Image adapted from:
http://www.marathon.uwc.edu/geography/demotrans/demtran.htm)
Page | 2
ENERGY:
The 1970's brought about significant oil shocks that disrupted the classic supply of energy
resources (mainly oil) from LDC's to MDC countries (Doern & Gattinger, 2008). Prior to these
price shocks the MDC’s relied heavily on LDC resources; but in an effort to reduce dependency
on volatile foreign markets, MDC’s have increased their own production, have enlisted in
conservation initiatives to reduce consumption, and have invested in alternatives to fossil fuels
(Harper & Fletcher, 2008; Doern & Gattinger, 2008). Over time, and because of national policies
and international regulations, MDC and firms have invested in increased efficiency which has
led to technological innovations and alternatives (Doern & Gattinger, 2008). On the other hand,
this trend also promotes increased levels of consumption as conservation measures promote the
continuation of MDC lifestyles. North American energy policy, also promotes increased supply
by subsidizing the cost of energy (Tuohy, 1992; Doern & Gattinger, 2008). This reduces the cost
to consumers and undermines the conservation potential. MDC`s policies do not account for the
externalities created during the production of goods and services. These policies hold prices
below the actual cost of production which fail to include both social and environmental costs
(Harper & Fletcher, 2008).
LDC's rely heavily on biomass (dung & wood) or cheaper/older forms of energy (coal) which
are dirty and less efficient (Jaccard, 2005). They are most disadvantaged because they have
neither the capital to purchase fuel, not the infrastructure to supply it to the global economy
(Harper & Fletcher, 2008). The price shocks of the 1970's increased the price of oil, and shifted
MDC fossil fuel demand from LDC suppliers to MDC suppliers that were more reliable, albeit
more expensive. This increase in global price helped LDC’s that still supplied resources (such as
Venezuela), but dramatically hindered those that either didn't have the resources, or couldn't
afford to produce them. As earth’s affordable reserves are used up it leaves mostly
unconventional and more expensive fuels left for consumption (Jaccard, 2005), which means the
LDC’s transition through industrialization will cost substantially more than it did for MDC's.
One resource that LDC's hold that MDC's didn't is that the technology and innovations that
increased efficiencies and diversified energy supply resources have already been invented and
are widely available, so LDC's can effectively leap-frog over much of the industrialization stage
and reap the rewards of the reduced cost to industrialize. They also have a comparative
Page | 3
advantage when it comes to labour costs because they have large populations that are willing to
work for low wages (Krugman, 1997).
PERSPECTIVES:
The prevailing economic perspective held by MDC's is of neo-Malthusian theory, which
maintains that the population issue in LDC countries should be addressed first as it is the
underlying cause of environmental degradation and human misery (Harper & Fletcher, 2008).
This view asserts that global population growth must be curtailed, especially that in LDC
countries, in order to reduce social and environmental crises. Energy issues are at the forefront of
domestic MDC priorities, but on a global scale, MDC’s view population growth as the largest
threat to environmental and social degradation. The MDC's prioritize population growth over
energy issues and believe that birth control is the best solution to reduce resource depletion and
scarcity issues (Harper & Fletcher, 2008).
The LDC’s, on the other hand, regard population growth as a source of progress. Generally,
they hold the neoclassical economic perspective which maintains that “population growth is not
an important threat because markets will allocate scarce resources and stimulate efficient
innovations” (Harper & Fletcher, 2008, p. 189). LDC’s are pressing for proper market allocation
within all nations, to remove policies that create market failures, and to promote investment in
innovation to curtail environmental degradation and human misery. Such market failures include
government subsidies that hold prices below the world market price. LDC's oppose the neoMalthusian position and argue that population growth (based on supply-side demography) may
actually benefit scarcity issues as has been witnessed throughout history (Harper & Fletcher,
2008). What this position fails to account for is the finite nature of earth, because in the past
there have always been new frontiers to accompany population growth.
While the neo-Malthusian position argues that population growth is the underlying cause of
social and environmental degradation, it is countered by the neoclassical economic theorists who
argue that the cause of most problems could be solved by proper market allocations. There is
however, a third position that views human misery, environmental degradation, and population
growth as a product of political and economic structures that endorse further inequalities. The
inequality position argues that “instead of rapid population growth stalling economic
Page | 4
development, economic stagnation in the LDC’s is caused by poverty, inequitable trade policies,
and ongoing dependencies” (Harper & Fletcher, 2008, p. 192).
The inequality perspective would argue that global population and energy issues are both
products of inefficient “social structural arrangements” (Harper & Fletcher, 2008, p. 192) as well
as policies that further inequalities between the MDC`s and the LDC`s. Robert Cassen argues
that the LDC’s have entered the third stage of industrialization, but their development has been
delayed due to their stalled internal economic development (Cassen, 1994). In summary, LDC’s
have more or less raced through the first and second stages of transition, relying on the
globalization of resource trade to support a very weak industrial sector based mostly on the
export of raw goods and the import of finished goods. Because their manufacturing sector has
lagged, the economic gains that are associated with further industrialization have been small; the
improvements in public services have been equally small which has lead to a lower standard of
living (Cassen, 1994). LDC’s have now entered the third stage without the benefits of the first
two, their countries have witnessed rapid urbanization pushed by rural poverty, and as a result,
the average family sized has remained comparatively large.
SYSTEM FAILURE:
Considering this third perspective, the issues of population growth and energy consumption
are clearly more complex and inextricably linked to a wider overriding problem which may
require a deeper look into global poverty and income disparities as consequences of the transition
through industrialization, and a product of a global economy based on capitalism. These duel
issues of population growth and resource (energy) consumption have created a dilemma wherein
we are caught between a desire to maintain economic stability and growth, and the need to
remain within social and ecological limits (Jackson, 2009). In other words, economic stability
requires a growing economy, but social and environmental constraints follow a parallel path with
economic growth – a path in which economic output and social and environmental degradation
are positively correlated.
James O’Connor states that “while there are many variations of economic growth theory, all
presuppose that capitalism cannot stand still; that the system must expand or contract”
(O’Connor, 1998, p. 240). This assertion brings up the first and second contradictions to
Page | 5
capitalism; the first states that when capital tries to increase profits by reducing costs at the
expense of the labour force, (i.e. mechanization/automation, or wage reductions); it reduces the
spending money of consumers and inadvertently causes a reduction in consumer demand, a
demand-side crisis. The second contradiction of capitalism states that “capital limits itself by
impairing its own social and environmental conditions, hence increasing the costs and expenses
of capital...” (O’Connor, 1998, p. 159).
In light of these observations, many economists have concluded that the solutions we seek
for global problems may be unattainable, given the constraints of capitalism itself (Daly, 2009;
Jackson, 2009a; Jackson, 2009b). One way to mitigate this quandary is to reframe the economic
system so that economic growth is no longer required for continued social stability; a concept
known as a steady-state economy (Jackson, 2009; Daly, 2009). Tim Jackson defines a steadystate economy as a system in which “stability no longer relies on ever-increasing consumption
growth. One in which our capabilities to flourish – within ecological limits – become the guiding
principle for design and the key criterion for success” (Jackson, 2009b, p. 43). The concept of a
steady-state economy rests on the assumption that consumerism/ consumption can be curtailed
and conservation instilled within both individuals as well as all nations globally (Daly, 2009;
Jackson, 2009a).
POLICY INTERVENTION:
A transition to an absolute steady-state economy is a radical and not realistically attainable
solution given the attractive nature of the capitalist modality of wealth accrual. It does however;
provide an interesting alternative, and many of its policy proposals could be “borrowed” and
implemented in nations based on capitalism. Herman Daly proposes several policy solutions to
mitigate further social and environmental degradation:
1. Cap-auction-trade systems for basic resources:
This policy can be implemented for many industries, and is an effective strategy for
pricing the un-priced costs of production (externalities). A limit would be set on factors
like carbon, by imposing a cap on total emissions and creating a system of trade to
auction remaining shares. This will encourage investment in alternatives and increase the
Page | 6
price of basic resources which “will induce their more economical use at each upstream
stage of production” (Daly, 2009, p. 4).
2. Ecological tax reform:
This policy can be implemented by “shift[ing the] tax base from value added (labour and
capital) on to that which value is added” (Daly, 2009, p. 5). This method allows
capitalism to commoditize its own barriers and places a price on pollution and depletion.
3. Limit the range of inequality in income distribution:
This method would require policies that set limits on both minimum and maximum
wages. As Daly notes, many industrialized countries have an income inequality factor of
25 which means that the richest person makes 25 times that of the poorest. He also points
out that corporate America has an income inequality of 500. If we limited the range to
100 then inequalities would be drastically reduced and LDC’s could stand a chance at
catching up to MDC’s.
4. Reform national accounts:
This policy would require GDP to be separated into cost and benefit accounts which
would reduce economic growth when marginal costs equal marginal benefits. Daly
argues that “beyond a level already reached in many developed countries, GDP growth
delivers no more happiness, but continues to generate depletion and pollution” (Daly,
2009, p. 7).
CONCLUSION:
Although there are many ways to evaluate the relationships between environment and
society, the overriding presupposition is that population growth and rising energy consumption
are to the detriment of a sustainable future. These four policy measures, although fragmented and
radical, can help mitigate further environmental degradation and social inequality, and would
help introduce steady-state theories into modern politics. By switching cultural aspirations from
consumption to conservation, our impact will be lessened and we may be able to make the global
transition through industrialization and beyond.
Page | 7
Literature Cited:
Cassen, R. (1994). Population and development: Old debates, new conclusions. New Brunswick,
ME, and Oxford, UK: Transaction Publishers.
Daly, H. (2009). From a failed growth economy to a steady-state economy. Washington, D.C.
Environmental Information Coalition, National Council for Science and the
Environment. Published in the Encyclopedia of Earth. Accessed on Feb 2, 2011.
www.eoearth.org/article/From_a_Failed_Growth_Economy_to_ a_Steady
State_Economy
Doern, G., Gattinger, M. (2008). Powerswitch: Energy regulatory governance in the 21st
century. Toronto, University of Toronto Press, pp. 21-39.
Harper, C., & Fletcher, T. (2008). Environment and society: Human perspectives on
environmental issues (Canadian ed.). Toronto, Ontario: Pearson Canada Inc.
Jaccard, M. (2005). Sustainable fossil fuels. New York, Cambridge University Press, pp. 13-18.
Jackson, T. (2009a). Prosperity without growth? The transition to a sustainable economy. (pp. 6
13). Earthscan Publishing.
Jackson, T. (2009b). Recovery without growth? Renewal, 17, 43-56.
Krugman, P. (1997). In praise of cheap labour: Bad jobs at bad wages are better than no jobs at
all. Slate. Accessed on Feb 2, 2011. http://www.slate.com/id/1918
Martin, L. (2010). Metaphor and the idea of a dominant conservation ethic. Conservation
Biology, 24, 1172-1173.
O’Connor, J. (1998). Natural Causes. Guilford Press: London, UK.
Pimentel, D., Bailey, O., Kim, P., Mullaney, E., Calabrese, J., Walman, L., ... Yao, X. (1999).
Will limits of the earth’s resources control human numbers? Environment, Development
and Sustainability, 1, 19-39.
Tuohy, C. (1992). Politics and policy in Canada: Institutionalized ambivalence. Philadelphia,
Temple University Press, pp. 256-285.
Page | 8