You also need to know how much human labor has to be put in, and how much physical stuff has to be put in.
Ok, I can agree with that.
Itâs just that today, human muscles are such a small part of the labor produced (one barrel of oil = 4.5 years of manual labor, after conversion losses) that I didnât though of including it.
For the metals, I understand that itâs extraction is already in the theoretical 2:1 figure. I just mentioned them to point out that we donât really know how energy costly it is to get specialty metals of electronics in a âsustainableâ way (from either extremely abundant ores or from common ground). My personal impression on the topic is that, except for iron and aluminium and maybe a few others (rare earths, ironically?), getting stuff like indium, tellurium or molybdenum from common ground (for electronics) would be so ridiculously expensive that weâd give up before that.
For example, you might get a correlation that is nearly as strong between gdp growth and fast food purchases, or clothes purchases, or home improvement purchases, or almost anything except for medical and government spending.
I agree here that just using the energy/âGDP correlation is not enough. This is why I tried to make a section listing the scientific papers that study this correlation, and conclude that it is more serious than, say, the relationship between GDP and tomatoes.
Here is one account that you might find of interest:
âWhile the classical economists Adam Smith and David Ricardo generally thought that it was human labor that was the principal generator of wealth, natural resources, in particular land, still played a major role as a source of value and as a constraint to unlimited economic growth. Later Karl Marx, while still seeing human labor as the source of value, removed this constraint by referring to the evolution of the âmeans of productionâ (that is, technology) that only depended on (principally unlimited) human ingenuity.â
âIn the twentieth century, the explanation of wealth left natural resources behind and focused on capital and labor only (see production functions by Cobb and Douglas, 1928 and Solow, 1956). As in mathematical calculations there remained a large âresidualâ, this was attributed to technological innovation [the Solow residual] (that could not, however, be properly measured). Authors like Cleveland et al. (1984a), Cleveland (1991), Ayres and Warr (2005) and Hall and Klitgaard (2012), in contrast, attributed this residual to energy (or exergy) input into the economy and were able to provide convincing empirical evidence. Unexplained residuals disappeared.â
So we are not dealing with a random commodity here. We are dealing with a factor of production.
If we look at a biophysical standpoint, the economy is the production of goods and services. Energy is what allows to produce these goods and services (and the food/âtransport/âhousing of the workers). It seems unlikely that we can produce ever more and more goods and services using less and less energy. Maybe for a short period as we use the lowest-hanging appels, but not in a sustained way.
The historical record seems to indicate that less energy and more GDP at a global level is a very strong departing of the current trend, and unlikely to happen. Maybe not impossible (for how long?), but we shouldnât assume this as he default scenario.
Of course, itâs possible to decouple GDP from producing goods and services. This may be what the finance sector is doing, generating money (8% of US GDP) while not contributing much to the well-being of society. Iâd be tempted to see something similar with healthcare in the USâit has quite a reputation for being extremely expensive compared to what you get for the same price in Europe. Iâm tempted to ask, is growing GDP any use if it doesnât contribute to society ?
Ok, I can agree with that.
Itâs just that today, human muscles are such a small part of the labor produced (one barrel of oil = 4.5 years of manual labor, after conversion losses) that I didnât though of including it.
For the metals, I understand that itâs extraction is already in the theoretical 2:1 figure. I just mentioned them to point out that we donât really know how energy costly it is to get specialty metals of electronics in a âsustainableâ way (from either extremely abundant ores or from common ground). My personal impression on the topic is that, except for iron and aluminium and maybe a few others (rare earths, ironically?), getting stuff like indium, tellurium or molybdenum from common ground (for electronics) would be so ridiculously expensive that weâd give up before that.
I agree here that just using the energy/âGDP correlation is not enough. This is why I tried to make a section listing the scientific papers that study this correlation, and conclude that it is more serious than, say, the relationship between GDP and tomatoes.
Here is one account that you might find of interest:
So we are not dealing with a random commodity here. We are dealing with a factor of production.
If we look at a biophysical standpoint, the economy is the production of goods and services. Energy is what allows to produce these goods and services (and the food/âtransport/âhousing of the workers). It seems unlikely that we can produce ever more and more goods and services using less and less energy. Maybe for a short period as we use the lowest-hanging appels, but not in a sustained way.
The historical record seems to indicate that less energy and more GDP at a global level is a very strong departing of the current trend, and unlikely to happen. Maybe not impossible (for how long?), but we shouldnât assume this as he default scenario.
Of course, itâs possible to decouple GDP from producing goods and services. This may be what the finance sector is doing, generating money (8% of US GDP) while not contributing much to the well-being of society. Iâd be tempted to see something similar with healthcare in the USâit has quite a reputation for being extremely expensive compared to what you get for the same price in Europe. Iâm tempted to ask, is growing GDP any use if it doesnât contribute to society ?