Humanity Unbound: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity ,Cato Policy...

7/30/2019 Humanity Unbound: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity ,Cato Policy Analysis No. 715

1/36

Executive Summary

For most of its existence, mankinds well-being was dictated by disease, the elements andother natural factors, and the occasional con-flict. Virtually everything it neededfood, fuel,clothing, medicine, transport, mechanical pow-erwas the direct or indirect product of livingnature.

Good harvests reduced hunger, improvedhealth, and increased life expectancy and popu-

lationuntil the next inevitable epidemic, cropfailure, natural disaster, or conflict. These Mal-thusian checks ensured little or no sustainedgrowth in population or well-being.

Then mankind began to develop technolo-gies to augment or displace living natures un-certain bounty. Gradually food supplies andnutrition improved and population, living stan-dards, and human well-being advanced halting-ly. The Industrial Revolution accelerated thesetrends. Mankind broke its Malthusian bonds.Growth became the norm. Population explod-ed, along with living standards and well-being.

Technologies dependent on cheap fossil fuelsenabled these improving trends. Nothing canbe made, transported, or used without energy,and fossil fuels provide 80 percent of mankindsenergy and 60 percent of its food and clothing.Thus, absent fossil fuels, global cropland wouldhave to increase by 150 percent to meet cur-rent food demand, but conversion of habitat tocropland is already the greatest threat to biodi-

versity. By lowering humanitys reliance on liv-ing nature, fossil fuels not only saved humanityfrom natures whims, but nature from human-itys demands.

Key to these developments was that thesetechnologies accelerated the generation of ideasthat spawned even better technologies through,among other things, greater accumulation ofhuman capital (via greater populations, time-expanding illumination, and time-saving ma-chinery) and faster exchange of ideas and knowl-edge (via greater and faster trade and communi-cations).

Humanity UnboundHow Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature

and Nature from Humanity

by Indur M. Goklany

No. 715 December 20, 2012

Indur M. Goklany has worked with federal and state governments, think tanks, and the private sector for 40years and written extensively on the interactions between globalization, economic development, environmen-tal quality, technological change, climate change, risk analysis, and human well-being. He has published inNature, the Lancet, Energy & Environment, and other journals. He is the author of several books, includingThe Improving State of the World: Why Were Living Longer, Healthier, More Comfortable Liveson a Cleaner Planet andThe Precautionary Principle: A Critical Appraisal of Environmental RiskAssessment.


2/36

2

Fossil fuelshelped transformthe human world

from one that

was dependent onliving nature for

virtually its entirewell-being, and

thereby trappedin natures

Malthusianvise, to one that

escaped that vise.

Introduction

For most of mankinds existence, humanwell-being was defined by climate, weather,disease, other natural factors, and the oc-

casional conflict. Virtually everything thathumanity depended on was the recent prod-uct of living nature (which the economichistorian Edward Wrigley calls the organiceconomy).1 It supplied humanity with allits food, fuel, clothing and skins, and muchof its medicine and material products. Liv-ing nature also supplied the sustenance forthe animalsoxen, horses, donkeys, camels,even elephantsthat human beings haddrafted to supplement these needs and toserve as beasts of burden to transport them-

selves and their goods, till the soil, and pro-vide mechanical power.Food for human beings and feed for ani-

mals were, then as now, the direct or indirectproduct of recent photosynthesis in plants.Virtually all fuel was obtained via woodyproducts. Houses were built from logs andother vegetation, supplemented by clay,earth, and stones. The few worldly goodshumans possessed were also mostly fromrecent photosynthetic products (e.g., wood,natural fiber, skin, or bone), barring the

occasional trinket or luxury good made ofsome exotic metal or stone. No wonder thegods who controlled the weather and rainZeus, Jupiter, Indra, Thorwere the mighti-est in the pantheons of ancient civilizations.

When climate and weather cooperated,harvests were adequate, hunger was reduced,health improved, more children survived toadulthood, life expectancy increased, andthe population grewuntil the next epidem-ic, the next climatic, weather or other natu-ral disaster, or the next war or breakdown ofcivil order inevitably led to death and dis-ease, disrupted agriculture, or both.

These Malthusian checksso-called be-cause the Reverend Thomas Robert Malthusidentified them in his 1798 essay on popula-tion as natures cruel checks for populationgrowthensured that in pre-industrial societ-ies 30 percent or more of the population died

before reaching age 15.2 Population, there-fore, grew at a glacial pace. If population grewtoo large or living standards outstripped sub-sistence levels for long, these checks broughtthem back to subsistence levels. There was,

thus, little or no progress in the average per-sons well-beingbest indicated by life expec-tancyfrom one generation to the next.

All this started to change when mankindbegan to develop technologies that wouldaugment or displace the goods that it re-ceived from living nature.3 Gradually thesupply and nutritional quality of food wasincreased and population growth rates start-ed to rise, as did living standards and hu-man well-being. The Industrial Revolutionaccelerated those trends. Today, mankind

has transcended the Malthusian checks. Itspopulation has exploded, as has its standardof living, yet human well-being has neverbeen higher and it continues to improve.

This paper describes how fossil fuelshelped accomplish this grand transformationfrom a world that was dependent on livingnature for virtually its entire well-being, andthereby trapped in natures Malthusian vise,to one in which mankind has escaped thisvise. It identifies the technologies that medi-ated this transformation, how they depend

directly or indirectly on fossil fuels to fulfillmankinds hunger for food, energy, and mate-rials, and how they accelerated the generationof ideas that spawned these technologies.

It shows that these technologies, by low-ering humanitys reliance on living nature,inevitably ensured that human well-beingis much less subject to whims of nature (asexpressed through the weather, climate, dis-ease, and other natural disasters) and thatthe amount of land converted to human usewas limited, thereby containing mankindsfootprint on the world.

A Brief History ofHuman Progress

Figure 1 shows trends in four indicatorsthat collectively indicate humanitys progress


3/36

3

Virtuallyevery indicatorof humanwell-beingsuch as levels ofhunger, infantmortality, lifeexpectancy,

education,economicfreedom, andchild laborimproves asincome rises.

(or lack of it) through the ages, beginningin 1 A.D. The indicators are global popula-tion, average life expectancy (the best singleindicator of human health and well-being),and gross economic product per capita, orincome, which is the best indicator for thestandard of living or material well-being.Elsewhere it has been shown that virtuallyevery indicator of human well-being, suchas levels of hunger, infant mortality, lifeexpectancy, education, economic freedom,and child laborimproves as income rises.4These improvements are generally non-lin-ear and typically improve with the logarithmof income. They advance very rapidly at lowlevels of income, after which the improve-ments are more gradual. Even that nebulous

and most subjective of indicatorshappi-nessapparently behaves similarly.5

Figure 1 also shows that global carbondioxide emissions from fossil-fuel combus-tion are correlated with the three indicatorsof human progress over the last quarter of amillennium. Prior to that, these anthropo-genic emissions were, for practical purposes,nil compared with todays levels.

Examination of the figure suggests thatthe trajectory of human progress to date canbe broken into at least three periods.

The Malthusian Trap:The World throughthe Middle Ages. Life expectancy, the sur-rogate for human well-being, fluctuatedaround 2025 years for much of mankindsexistence. Ancient Greece had a life expectan-

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

9,000

0 500 1000 1500 2000

LifeExpectancy

Population,

Income,

CarbonEmissions

GDP/cap (1990 International $) Population (millions)

CO2 (MMT-Carbon) Life expectancy (yrs, RH)

Figure 1Global Progress, 1 A.D.2009 A.D. (as indicated by trends in world population,gross domestic product per capita, life expectancy, and carbon dioxide [CO2]emissions from fossil fuels)

Sources: Updated from Indur Goklany, Have Increases in Population, Affluence and Technology WorsenedHuman and Environmental Well-being? Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development1, no. 3 (2009); based on

Angus Maddison, Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 1-2008 AD, University of Groningen,2010, http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/Historical_Statistics/vertical-file_02-2010.xls; World Bank, WorldDevelopment Indicators 2011, http://databank.worldbank.org/ ; T.A. Boden, G. Marland, and R. J. Andres, Global,

Regional , and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2008.html.Notes: Data are sporadic until 1960. This figure assumes that trends between adjacent data points are linear.


4/36

4

During the firstmillenniumA.D., world

population grew

from 230 millionto 270 million,a compoundedgrowth rate of

less than0.02 percent

per year.

cy around 18 years, and Rome had 22 years.6From 33 A.D. to 258 A.D., life expectancy inEgyptImperial Romes breadbasketaver-aged 24 years, the same level as global life ex-pectancy in 1000 A.D.7

During the first millennium A.D., worldpopulation grew from 230 million to 270million, a compounded growth rate of lessthan 0.02 percent per year.8 Average incomewas largely unchanged. According to theeconomic historian Angus Maddison, itmight even have shrunk marginally, fromthe equivalent of $470 in 1 A.D. to $450 in1000 A.D.9 By todays standards, the worldwas mired in poverty and, except for briefspells, virtually everyone survived at the sub-sistence level. Humanity was trapped in Na-

tures Malthusian vise.Stretching the Malthusian Bonds:From theMiddle Ages through the Enlightenment. Oversubsequent centuries, however, humanity

started to stretch its Malthusian bondstoinsulate itself against the vagaries of weatherand climate and natures other whims, andto manage common diseases.

More land was converted to agriculture

(Figure 2).

10

Improved cropping techniquesand livestock management slowly increasedyields (Figure 3).11 Crops were translocatedfrom one area to another, and adapted totheir new homes. Maize, potatoes, yams,manioc, and tomatoes journeyed from theNew World to the Old, while wheat, rice, rye,and oats went in the opposite direction.12

This Columbian Exchange also involved live-stock: chicken, cattle, horses, donkeys, anddomesticated pigs were introduced to theNew World, and turkeys to the Old. More

roads were built, canals were constructednew and more accurate navigation tech-niques were developed, and shipping tech-nologies were advanced. These advances in

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000

Millionhectares

AnnoDominiCropland Pasture

Figure 2Global Crop and Pasture Land, 1 A.D.2009 A.D.

Sources: Kees Klein Goldewijk et al., The HYDE 3.1 Spatially Explicit Database of Human-induced GlobaLand-use Change over the Past 12,000 Years, Global Ecology and Biogeography 20 (2011): 7386; FAO, FAOSTAThttp://faostat.fao.org/.


5/36

5

Improvements

in agriculture,trade, andtechnologycombined toincrease theamount of foodavailable, freeinpeople fromagricultural

tasks. As theycongregatedin towns andspecialized,human capitalwas increased.

transportation facilitated greater trade andcommerce, including trade in staple grains.These changes combined to increase theamount of food and nutrition available for

consumption, which freed a larger portionof the population to engage in tasks otherthan agriculture, to congregate in towns, andto specialize, all of which increased humancapital.

Trade and commerce were advanced fur-ther by the invention of the double-entrybookkeeping system, development of bank-ing, insurance, joint-stock companies andstock exchanges, and greater acceptance ofpaper money.

With the introduction of the printingpress in Europe, books began to multiply.In the following half century, the price ofbooks in Europe fell by two-thirds.13 Thathelped proliferate knowledge and its off-spring, technology, while retarding techno-logical regression.

Such regression is not unusual in theannals of history. It had occurred time and

again over the centuries, such as in Europe inthe Dark Ages, following the fall of the West-ern Roman Empire. Anthropologists havealso noted other instances where, through

isolation or loss of human capital, societieshave regressed technologically. For example,isolated polar Inuits lost the technology formaking kayaks and bows and arrows whenthose with the critical expertise expired dur-ing an episode of the plague. These skills,however, were reestablished by migrantsfrom Baffin Island.14

The trend toward constant accretion ofknowledge was reinforced by an increase inliteracy, aided in many areas by the printingpress, the Reformation, and replacement ofLatin by the vernacular. The replacementof Latin itself signaled a less dogmatic ap-proach toward acquiring and advancingknowledge, which spilled over into the un-derstanding of natural phenomena. Univer-sities were established. People traded notonly goods but also ideas, inventions, andmethods of thought and analysisexchang-

Figure 3Wheat Yield in Britain, Europe, and the Developed World, 13001990

Source: N. B. J. Koning, et al., Long-term global availability of food: continued abundance or new scarcity?NJAS Wageningen Journal of Life Sciences 55 (2008): 229292.*Britain: Until 1800, England; since 1800, the United Kingdom.**Europe, excluding Russia.***The developed world, excluding Japan and South Africa.


6/36

6

Average incomehad increased

to $640 by1750, only a

0.05 percentincrease per year

from 1000 A.D.

es that grew with population density, litera-cy, the increase in the volume of books andtrade. The scientific method was advanced.

New medicines and medical techniqueswere introduced. The notion of property

rights was developed. Technologies to har-ness wind and water power were improved.In the meantime, in response to the scar-

city of fuel wood from the deforestationcaused by the demand for wood for fuel andthe construction of ships and buildings,coala hitherto niche fuelwas beginningto be used more widely. Initially it was usedfor heating and cooking in the home and innon-contact (external) heating for manufac-turing processes (such as lime manufactur-ing, glassmaking, or blacksmithing) in the

general vicinity of surface coal deposits. Bythe 18th century, however, coal was beingused in England in steam engines to convertheat energy to mechanical energya funda-mental breakthrough that would eventuallyallow humanity to reduce, if not dispensewith, human and animal power to trans-port goods and people and to do mechani-cal work. But because these new-fangledengines were very inefficient, their use wasinitially restricted to specialized high-valueapplications, specifically to increase coal

output by pumping accumulated water outof coal mines.15

Cumulatively, these innovations and de-velopments gradually reinforced the trendtoward increased and more nutritious food

supplies and greater economic activity. Mostof the advances in food supplies and nutri-tion, however, went to sustain a larger pop-ulation. Global life expectancy barely rosefrom 24 to 25 years from 1000 to 1750, while

the worlds population had almost tripledto 760 million. This translates into a com-pounded increase of 0.14 percent per yearsince 1000 A.D. Although modest by currentstandards, this increase was eight times therate for the previous 1,000 years, as indicatedin Table 1.

Average income, however, rose much lessrapidly. By 1750 it had increased to $640,only a 0.05 percent per year increase from1000 A.D. Carbon emissions from the use offossil fuel energy, unknown during the first

millennium, were at an estimated 3 millionmetric tons by 1750 (see Figure 4).Progress, however, was uneven around the

world. England had progressed much furtherthan any other nation save the NetherlandsBy 1710, coal accounted for half the energyconsumed in England and Wales.16 Their av-erage income grew at an annual rate of 0.36percent during the 18th century; incomereached $1,710 in 1750.17 The previous halfcentury had seen their population grow at arelatively healthy rate of 0.25 percent per year

and the average life expectancy over the pre-vious quarter century was 35 years, substan-tially higher than for most other countries.18

In 1750, most of the global carbon emissionswere from coal burned in Britain.19

Table 1Average Annual Rate of Increase for Various Time Periods

1 A.D.1000 A.D.

(%)

1000 A.D.1750 A.D.

(%)

1750 A.D.2009 A.D.

(%)

Life Expectancy 0.01 0.00 0.41Income 0.00 0.05 0.98

Population 0.02 0.14 0.88

Carbon Dioxide Emissions 3.23

Sources: Angus Maddison, Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 12008 AD , University oGroningen, 2010, http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/Historical_Statistics/vertical-file_02-2010.xls; World BankWorld Development Indicators 2011, http://databank.worldbank.org/; T. A. Boden, G. Marland, and R. J. AndresGlobal, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2008.html.


7/36

7

From 1750 to2009, globallife expectancy

more thandoubled, globalpopulationincreased 8-foldand incomesincreased 11-fol

Such was the world that Malthus wasborn into, just as it was stretchingandabout to slipits Malthusian bonds.

Escaping the Malthusian Trap: The Indus-trial Revolution and Beyond. The increases inthe rates of growth for population, life ex-pectancy, and material well-being through1750, virtually imperceptible by todaysnorms, were but a harbinger of things tocome. Modern economic growth was gath-ering steam. Its next phase, the IndustrialRevolution, was about to explode, and withit population, human well-being, and in-comesfirst in England, then Western Eu-rope and its various colonies and ex-colo-nies, and then the rest of the world.

From 1750 to 2009, global life expec-tancy more than doubled, from 26 years to69 years; global population increased 8-fold,from 760 million to 6.8 billion; and incomesincreased 11-fold, from $640 to $7,300. Nev-er before had the indicators of the successof the human species advanced as rapidly asin the past quarter millennium, as shown inTable 1. Concurrently, carbon dioxide emis-sions grew by 2,800-fold, increasing from3 million metric tons to 8.4 billion metrictons (Figure 4).

Today, the Industrial Revolution is beingsucceeded by a postindustrial revolution.Figure 5 illustrates human progress in theUnited States from 1900 to 2009. Over this

Figure 4Global Progress, 17602009 (as indicated by trends in world population, GDP percapita, life expectancy, and carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from fossil fuels)

Sources: Updated from Indur Goklany, Have Increases in Population, Affluence and Technology WorsenedHuman and Environmental Well-being? Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development1, no. 3 (2009); based on

Angus Maddison, Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 12008 AD, University of Groningen,2010, http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/Historical_Statistics/vertical-file_02-2010.xls; World Bank, WorldDevelopment Indicators 2011, http://databank.worldbank.org/; and T. A. Boden, G. Marland, and R. J. Andres,Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2008.html.Notes: Data are sporadic until 1960. This figure assumes that trends between adjacent data points are linear. Life

expectancy is a surrogate for human well-being; living standards are depicted by affluence, or GDP per capita;and CO2 is a proxy for fossil-fuel usage.


8/36

8

Escaping theMalthusian trap

and associatedadvances

in humanprogress were

accompanied byan increase in

carbon dioxideemissions of

three orders ofmagnitude. These

improvementsoccurred because

ofand notdespitefossil

fuels.

period, population quadrupled, U.S. life ex-pectancy increased from 47 years to 78 years,and incomes (denoted affluence) grew 7.5-fold while carbon dioxide emissions increased8.5-fold. Yet, far from experiencing a Mal-

thusian collapse, Americans now have morecreature comforts, they work fewer hours intheir lifetimes, their work is physically less de-manding, they devote more time to acquiringa better education, they have more options toselect a livelihood and live a more fulfillinglife, they have greater economic and socialfreedom, and they have more leisure time andgreater ability to enjoy it. And these trends areevident not just in the United States but, forthe most part, elsewhere as well.20

Living standards started to surge world-

wide later than in the United States. Sincethe 1950s, global living standards have beenadvancing more rapidly than population (see

Figure 4). The population growth rate peakedin the 1960s and, according to most projec-tions, it could start leveling off this century.21

More importantly, consistent with thetrends in life expectancy and incomes, other

major indicators of human well-beinginfant, child, and maternal mortality; preva-lence of hunger and malnutrition; child labor;job opportunities for women; educational attainmentshow that humanity is far betteroff today that it was before the start of indus-trialization.22 Mankind has escaped naturesMalthusian trap, at least for the time being.

Notably, this escape and the associatedadvances in human progress were accom-panied by an increase in carbon dioxideemissions of three orders of magnitude. I

will show below that these improvementsoccurred, in large part, because ofand notdespitefossil fuels.

Figure 5U.S. Carbon Dioxide Emissions, Population, GDP per Capita, and Life Expectancy atBirth, 19002009

Sources: Updated from Indur Goklany. Have Increases in Population, Affluence and Technology WorsenedHuman and Environmental Well-being? Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development1, no. 3 (2009), using theStatistical Abstract of the United States 2011 and National Vital Statistics Report59 (4): 1; T. A. Boden, G. Marland, and R

J. Andres, Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2008html; The Conference Board, Total Economy Database (2010), http://www.conference-board.org/data/economydatabase/.Notes: Life expectancy is a surrogate for human well-being; living standards are depicted by affluence, or GDPper capita; and CO2 is a proxy for fossil-fuel usage.


9/36

9

In 2008, fertilizemade fromfrom syntheticnitrogen wasresponsiblefor feeding48 percent ofthe worldspopulation.

Fossil Fuels andthe Reduced Dependence

on Living Nature

Before humanity extricated itself fromthe restraints that kept its growth and well-being in check, it had to develop technolo-gies to reduce its dependence on the director indirect products of recent photosynthe-sis. This was enabled by technologies that ei-ther amplified natures bounty or bypassedit altogether for a wide variety of products(and services),23 supplemented by devices orpractices that would store todays productsfor future use when nature, sooner or later,would fail to deliver.

Food. Every activity requires energy. Evenhuman inactivity requires a minimum levelof energy to keep basic bodily functions go-ing.24 The amount of energy needed to sus-tain this inactivity is called the basal meta-bolic rate (BMR). It takes food to replacethis energy.

Insufficient food, which is defined interms of the BMR, makes populations moresusceptible to infections and other diseases,which, ironically, raises the bodys demandsfor more energy (that is, food). Societies

where food supplies are inadequate havehigh rates of infant and maternal mortality,poor health, and low life expectancies. Thus,consuming sufficient food is the first stepto human survival and, beyond that, goodhealth.25

Increasing food supplies, therefore, wascritical to raising humanitys numbers andwell-being. This was initiated with the de-velopment of agriculture. Over subsequentmillennia, humanity increased the amountof land used for crops and pasture (Figure 2)while also improving agricultural practicesto increase yields from both crops and live-stock (Figure 3).

As shown in Figure 4, the increase inpopulation and improvements in humanwell-being and living standards commencedbefore the world started to use fossil fuels insignificant amounts. By 1900, an estimated

850 million hectares of cropland were be-ing cultivated to feed a global populationof about 1.7 billion people. Since then, al-though population has quadrupled and theworld is much better fed, cropland only in-

creased 80 percent.This was possible because of the techno-logical augmentation of natures bounty re-sulting from tremendous improvements inthe productivity of virtually every segmentof the food and agricultural sector, from thefarmers field to the consumers fork. Manyof these productivity increases were drivendirectly or indirectly by fossil fuels.26

Agricultural yields on the farm are driv-en by fertilizers, pesticides, water, and farmmachinery. Each of these inputs depends

to some extent on fossil fuels. Fossil fuelsprovide both the raw materials and the en-ergy for the manufacture of fertilizers andpesticides; farm machinery is generally runon diesel or another fossil fuel; and irriga-tion, where it is employed, often requireslarge amounts of energy to operate pumpsto move water.

To gauge the contribution of fossil fuelsto agricultural production, consider that acomprehensive review of fertilizer perfor-mance in the Agronomy Journal concluded

that the average percentage of yield attrib-utable to fertilizer generally ranged fromabout 40 to 60% in the USA and Englandand tended to be much higher in the trop-ics.27 Another study in Nature Geosciencesestimated that, in 2008, fertilizer made fromsynthetic nitrogen was responsible for feed-ing 48 percent of the worlds population.28

As one can see in Figure 3, the accelera-tion in yields increased around the 1920s,which followed the commercialization ofnitrogen fertilizers manufactured via theHaber-Bosch process. This energy-intensiveprocess fixes nitrogen from the air by react-ing it under extremely high pressure withhydrogen (obtained from natural gas), gen-erally over an iron catalyst. In recognitionof its potential contribution to feeding hu-manity, the co-inventor of this process, FritzHaber, received the 1918 Nobel Prize for


10/36

10

In 2007, theglobal food and

agriculturalsystem delivered,

on average, twoand a half times

as much food peracre of cropland

as in 1961.

Chemistry,29 despite the fact that the sameprocess prolonged World War I by allowingGermany to manufacture explosives andammunitions even after the British Navyhad blockaded its access to Chilean saltpe-

ter, which until then had been critical for itsmanufacture. (Fritz Haber also pioneeredGermanys wartime poison-gas effort.)30

The distinguished plant scientist, E. C.Oerke, using data for 200103, estimatesthat 50 to 77 percent of the worlds wheat,rice, corn, potatoes, and soybean cropswould be lost to pests in the absence of pesti-cides. Pesticides have reduced these losses to2640 percent.31

Irrigated lands, with average crop yields3.6 times higher than rain-fed areas, are re-

sponsible for a disproportionately high shareof production relative to their acreage.32Where irrigation is not accomplished entirelythrough gravity, it can be a very energy-inten-sive operation.33 Similarly, the manufactureand operation of farm machinery requiresenergy. And in todays world, energy for themost part means fossil fuels (see below).

Beyond increasing yields on the farm,fossil fuels have increased food availabilityin other ways. The food and agricultural sys-tem depends on trade within and between

countries to move agricultural inputs tofarms and farm outputs to markets. In par-ticular, trade allows food surpluses to bemoved to areas experiencing food deficits.But transporting these inputs and outputsin the quantities needed and with the speednecessary for such trade to be an integralpart of the global food system depends onrelatively cheap fossil fuels.34

About one-third of the food that is pro-duced is lost or wasted in the food supplychain between the farm and eventual con-sumption.35 These losses would have beenmuch higher but for spoilage-reducing tech-nologies such as refrigeration, rapid trans-port, containers, and plastic packaging.36But refrigeration and rapid transport areenergy-intensive: plastic, which is ubiqui-tous in food packaging and storage, is madefrom petroleum or natural gas, and virtually

every container, whether it is made of clay,glass, metal, cardboard, or wood, requiresenergy to make and shape. These technolo-gies are often overlooked partly because lossand waste are not included in familiar agri-

cultural statistics such as crop yields or pro-duction figures. Nevertheless, lower lossesand waste increase available food suppliesand the overall efficiency of the food and ag-ricultural system.

Additional CO2 in the atmosphere shouldalso contribute to higher food production.37

Although there are uncertainties related tothe quantitative relationship between higheryields and higher CO2 concentrations, thereis no doubt that the latter increases yield.38

This is unsurprising since CO2 is plant food

a fact established over two centuries ago byNicolas Thodore de Saussure in his pioneer-ing book, Recherches Chimiques sur la Vgtation.39

Moreover, because the health of the pop-ulation has improved, the amount of foodneeded to maintain a healthy weight foreach individual has declined. This is becauseadditional food is needed to replace the nu-trients lost because of sickness, with someillnesses (e.g., water-borne diseases) reduc-ing them more than others.40 Mechanical

and electrical appliances have also reducedthe demand for human effort, which trans-lates into reduced demand for food.

One may get a sense of the cumulativecontribution of these technologies to theworld food supply if one considers that be-tween 1961 and 2007, global populationmore than doubled from 3.1 billion to 6.7 bil-lion and food supplies per person increasedby 27 percent, yet the total amount of crop-land increased by only 11 percent.41 In effectin 2007, the global food and agriculturalsystem delivered, on average, two and a halftimes as much food per acre of cropland asin 1961. New and improved technologiescoupled with greater penetration of existingtechnologies since 1961, account for 60 per-cent of total global food supplies.

Had the productivity of this sector notimproved since 1961, the world would have


11/36

11

The share ofenergy from winand water wasnever very high

for most places.From 1560 to1860, in Englandand Wales, theircombined sharenever exceeded3 percent oftotal energyconsumption.

needed to cultivate another 2.2 billion hect-ares of cropland in 2007 to produce thesame amount of food. This is equivalent tothe combined land area of South Americaand the European Union.

Much of this can be attributed directlyor indirectly to fossil fuels. However, the fulleffects of fossil fuels may be even greaterbecause the above calculation does not ac-count for the pre-1961 yield increases fromvarious fossil fueldependent technologiesidentified above. As indicated in Figure 3,the developed world had already capturedsome of these increases by 1960.

Clothing and Textiles. Until the late 19thcentury, all the clothing, garments and tex-tiles used by mankind were made from the

products of living nature, such as plant fiber(e.g., cotton, flax, jute), wool (from goats,sheep, and other livestock), skins, or silk.Synthetic fibers started to become commer-cial in the first few decades of the 20th centu-ry. Today, synthetic fibers such as polyester,nylon, vinyl, and acrylic account for about 60percent of global fiber production.42

Polyester alone accounts for 80 percentof the global market share of synthetic fi-bers. Nylon, acrylic, and polyolefin (includ-ing polyethylene) account for another 18

percent of global synthetic fiber productionby volume.43 Each of these is produced fromraw materials derived from petroleum prod-ucts.

Because of the widespread use of synthet-ic fibers, skins and furs are widely regardedas outmoded, unfashionable, and unneces-sary. This may be partly responsible for therebound of beavers and other wildlife.

Cotton accounts for 78 percent of naturalfibers.44 However, the production of cotton,like that of other crops, depends heavily onfossil fuels. In addition to being an impor-tant consumer of fertilizers, cotton farminghas traditionally been a major user of pesti-cides. For instance, the 6 percent of Indiascropland that was devoted to cotton was re-sponsible for 37 percent of its pesticide use.45

Based on 200103 data, Oerke estimatesthat because of pesticides, a potential global

cotton crop loss of 82 percent was reducedto 29 percent.46 The recent widespread adop-tion of genetically modified cotton that pro-tects itself from plant pests is, however, likelyto have reduced the use of pesticides on cot-

ton.To summarize, just as for food produc-tion, it would be impossible to sustain cur-rent quantities of production of clothingand other textiles without major additionalconversion of habitat to cropland. No lessimportant, for many uses such as water-resistance, insulation, and weight minimi-zation, natural fibers are, for the same cost,inferior to synthetic fibers. For example,synthetic fibers have brought to the masseswinter outerwear with properties that even

the wealthiest could not afford a centuryago.Fuel and Energy. Humanitys fuel and en-

ergy services were traditionally obtained fromhuman power, animal power, and wood, sup-plemented in some places by water, wind, andgeothermal power (e.g., Iceland).

Figure 6 shows the trend in energy con-sumption by source for England and Walesfrom the 1560s through the 1850s. In the1560s, human power provided 23 percent ofenergy consumption; animal power, 32 per-

cent; firewood, 33 percent; wind and water,1 percent; and coal provided 11 percent ofthe total energy consumed. By the 1750s,the combined contribution of human andanimal power had been halved to 28 per-cent, while coals contribution had morethan quintupled: by the 1860s, coal was re-sponsible for over 90 percent of energy con-sumption. The share from wind and waterwas never very high for most places, if datafor England and Wales are any guides. In thethree centuries examined in the figure, theircombined share never exceeded 3 percent oftotal energy consumption.47

England and Wales turn to coal startedin earnest in the late 16th century, long be-fore the Industrial Revolution.48 This turncommenced because the region was alreadysuffering from a shortage of wood due to thedemands of a growing population for wood


12/36

12

Since the late16th century,

the mix of fuelshas shifted

from wood and

human- andanimal-based

energy towardfossil fuels and,

to a lesser extent,nuclear power.

for heating and cooking, timber, and woodcharcoal, among other things.49 Since then,the mix of fuels has shifted from wood andhuman- and animal-based energy towardfossil fuels and, to a lesser extent, nuclearpower.

Other countries benefited from Eng-lands advances in coal-combustion technol-ogy and, over the centuries, followed suit, asillustrated for the United States in Figure 7.50

Figure 8 shows the contributions ofmodern energy sources to U.S. primaryconsumption from 1775 to 2009, which ex-cludes the contributions of human and ani-mal power. The split in 1850 was 7 percentfor fossil fuels and 93 percent for non-fossilfuels.51 Today, despite the governmentsheavy-handed intervention in the market-place through subsidies and mandates de-signed to increase the share of renewable en-

ergy sources, the split is 81 to 19 in favor offossil fuels. Since 11 of the 19 percent fromnon-fossil fuels are from nuclear energy, thecurrent nonrenewables to renewables split is92 to 8, almost exactly the reverse of the situ-ation in 1850.52

These splits are similar to that for theworld. According to the International EnergyAgency, 81 percent of worlds energy comesfrom fossil fuels, living nature provides 10percent, 6 percent comes from nuclear, andthe remainder comes from other renew-ables.53 Thus, for both the United States andthe world, energy use, for practical purposes,is synonymous with fossil fuels.

In the absence of fossil fuels, the worldwould have had to rely on renewables and/or nuclear. Renewables, however, are muchmore land-intensive, and any effort to in-crease their use would necessarily have in-

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1560 1610 1660 1710 1760 1810 1860

ShareofEnergyConumption

Human Animals Firewood

Wind + water Coal

Figure 6Contribution of Various Forms of Energy to Total Energy Consumption, Englandand Wales, 156170 to 185059

Source: E. A. Wrigley, Energ y and the English Industrial Revolut ion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)p. 94.Note: Based on averages for various decades.


13/36

13

In the absenceof fossil fuels,the world wouldhave had to rely

on renewablesand/or nuclear.Renewablesare much moreland-intensive,and any effortto increasetheir use wouldnecessarily haveinvolved massivconversion ofland to energygeneration.

volved massive conversion of land to energygeneration.54 The fact that currently theworld relies primarily on fossil fuels ratherthan renewables, despite relatively generoussubsidies and stringent mandates that favor

the latter, indicates that renewables are noteconomically viable on larger scales.Based on the U.S. Energy Information Ad-

ministrations 2011 study on subsidies forelectrical generation,55 the Institute for En-ergy Research calculates that in 2010, fossilfuels received a subsidy equivalent to $0.64per megawatt-hour (MWh) of electricityproduced, solar and wind received $776 and$56.3 per MWh, respectively, and nuclear re-ceived $3.14.56

Transportation and Other Work. A critical

component of the energy sector is the energyused to transport people and goods, and todo other work in the home, on the farm, in

industry, and elsewhere. Initially, human be-ings provided most of the energy for theseactivities. But once they figured out how todomesticate animals and harness their ener-gy for such tasks, animals were conscripted

to perform these tasks. One of the legaciesof this period is the continued use of horse-power to rate the power output of variousengines and machines, at least in the Eng-lish-speaking world.

Although the use of animal energy fortransportation and other work has, for themost part, been phased out in the industrial-ized world, it is still common in many devel-oping countries. But it is being abandonedthere as well, because it cannot competeagainst fossil-fuel driven internal combus-

tion engines and electric powered devices.On farms and in cities, machines are displac-ing oxen, mules, and horses. Today, trucks

Figure 7The Transition in the Composition of U.S. Energy Use Derived from Living Natureto Mainly Fossil Fuels, 18502008

Source: David I. Stern, The Role of Energy in Economic Growth, CCEP Working Paper 3.10, Center for ClimateEconomics and Policy, Crawford School of Economics and Government, Australian National University, Canberra,October 2010, p. 12.

Percent


14/36

14

From 1900onward, the

increasing useof materials by

the United Statesindicates that it

is correlated with

carbon dioxideemissions andhas increased

along with theother indicators

of progress.

and trains carry far more goods on the SilkRoad, for instance, than camel caravans everdid. This has freed up land that would oth-

erwise have had to be used to sustain andmaintain the animals.57

More importantly, machinery and devic-es powered directly or indirectly by fossil fu-els have advanced the well-being of children,women, the weak, and the disabled. Specifi-cally, fossil fuelpowered machinery has re-duced the value of child labor, helping makeit obsolete in all but poor societies. And eventhese societies are reducing their levels ofchild labor. In low-income countries, it de-clined from 30 to 18 percent between 1960and 2003. This has allowed children to bechildren and, equally significantly, they nowhave greater opportunity to attend schooland be educated in preparation for a morefulfilling and productive life in a technologi-cally more advanced society.58

Fossil fuels have also advanced equalopportunity for women and the disabled.

Home appliances, powered for the most partby electricity, have reduced the time, tediumand toil of the work that women tradition-

ally didand still doin the home. In ad-dition, power tools and machinery allowwomen, the disabled, and the weak to workat tasks that once would have been reserved,for practical purposes, for able-bodied menwhich has expanded the former groups eco-nomic opportunities.

Materials for Constructing and Fabricating Buildings and Worldly Goods. Materialslike food and fuel, are critical to humanityswell-being. Figure 9, which shows U.S. mate-rial use from 1900 onward, indicates that itis correlated with carbon dioxide emissionsand has increased along with the other indi-cators of progress. In this figure, materialsincludes metals and minerals; synthetic andnonrenewable organic chemicals; cotton andother non-food agricultural materials; andpaper, wood, and other forestry productsIn 1900, a total of 144 million metric tons

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1775 1825 1875 1925 1975 2025

Biomass Other renewable Coal

Gas Petroleum Nuclear

Total

Source: U.S. Energy Information Administration,Annual Energ y Review 2010, Tables 1.3, 10.1, and E.1.Note: This figure does not include estimates of energy provided by humans and animals.

Figure 8U.S. Primary Energy Consumption, 17752010

QuadrillionBTUs


15/36

15

By 2006,material use hadincreased 26-folto 3.8 billion

metric tons(BMT).Fortunatelyfor livingnature, mostof this increasewas fromnonrenewablesources.

(MMT) of material was used to make prod-ucts in the United States.59 By 2006, materialuse had increased 26-fold to 3.8 billion met-ric tons (BMT). Fortunately for living nature,most of this increase was from nonrenew-

able sources, that is, materials derived frominorganic sources and fossil fuels.Figure 10 indicates that materials from

renewable sources (that is, agriculture andforestry) tripled over this period from 66MMT to 188 MMT. By contrast, materialsfrom nonrenewables registered a 46-foldincrease from 78 MMT to 3.6 BMT. Conse-quently, the contribution of renewables tototal materials decreased from 46 percent in1900 to 5 percent in 2006 (from agriculture

and forestry). Nonrenewable organic chemi-cals provided 4 percent of total materials,while 91 percent came from nonrenewablemetals, industrial minerals, and construc-tion materials.

The increase in the share of nonrenew-ables relative to renewables is due, first, toconstruction materials, such as cement, sand,gravel, and stone. Second, the use of metalsand industrial minerals increased. Third,new materials, derived from petroleum feed-stock, including vinyl, plastics, fiberglassinsulation, and synthetic fibers, were devel-oped. In addition, cement, iron, steel, andother inorganic mineral substances are oftenused today where previously wood might

Figure 9Progress in Human Well-being, Living Standards, Material Use and Carbon DioxideEmissions, U.S., 19002009

Sources: Updated from Indur Goklany Have Increases in Population, Affluence and Technology Worsened

Human and Environmental Well-being? Electronic Journal of Sustainable Development 1, no. 3 (2009), usingthe Statistical Abstract of the United States 2011, and National Vital Statistics Report 59 (4): 1; based on AngusMaddison, Statistics on World Population, GDP and Per Capita GDP, 12008 AD, University of Groningen,2010, http://www.ggdc.net/MADDISON/Historical_Statistics/vertical-file_02-2010.xls; Grecia R. Matos, Use ofMinerals and Materials in the United States From 1900 Through 2006, U.S. Geological Survey Fact Sheet 2009-3008,http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3008; World Bank, World Development Indicators 2011, http://databank.worldbank.org/; T. A. Boden, G. Marland, and R. J. Andres, Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions, http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2008.html.Note: Life expectancy is a surrogate for human well-being; living standards are depicted by affluence, or GDP percapita; and CO2 is a proxy for fossil-fuel usage.


16/36

16

Regardless ofwhether materials

are derived from

renewable ornonrenewable

sources, theycannot be usedwithout energy

inputs.

have been employed, for example, in housesand other structures. These developmentshave allowed humanity to limit its demandfor timber and agricultural materials.60

More important, regardless of whethermaterials are derived from renewable ornonrenewable sources, they cannot be usedwithout energy inputs. This is because nomaterial can be extracted, refined, shaped,fabricated, manufactured, or processed inany fashion without the application of heatenergy, mechanical energy, or both. Nor, forthat matter, can any material be transportedfrom where it is obtained, to where it is pro-cessed, to where it is used without energy.

Paper and paperboard, for example, ac-count for almost half of all the renewablematerials used in the United States.61 Butwhether these products are made from virginpulp or recycled material, they require large

amounts of energy. On average it takes over15,000 British Thermal Units (BTUs) to pro-duce just one pound of paper, which makesthe pulp and paperboard industry one of themost energy-intensive industries.62 Not sur-prisingly, the five most energy-intensive in-dustries are those that manufacture materi-als of one kind or another (see Table 2). Butin todays world, as already noted, energymeans fossil fuels.

Service and Government Sectors. Perhapsbecause people do not see tall chimneystacks billowing steam and smoke from thepremises associated with the service and gov-ernment sectors, it is a common misconcep-tion that they do not depend much on en-ergy. But both sectors would grind to a haltwithout fossil fuels.

First, most workers, even in developingcountries, go back and forth to work on

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

1900 1920 1940 1960 1980 2000

MillionMetricTons

Renewables Non-renewables Total materials

Figure 10Renewable, Nonrenewable and Total Material Usage in the U.S., 19002006

Source: Grecia R. Matos, Use of Minerals and Materials in the United States from 1900 through 2006 , U.S. GeologicaSurvey Fact Sheet 2009-3008, http://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2009/3008.


17/36

17

Had fossil fuelsnot been usedfor agriculturalproduction, theworld wouldhave neededto increase theglobal amount ocropland by an

additional 150percent.

some form of mechanized transportation.

That requires fuel. Second, trade, transpor-tation, and tourismparts of the servicesectoralso need fuel to move goods andpeople. Third, the other segments of thesesectors, including the information, finance,education, and government segments,would barely function without reliable elec-tricity for lighting, computers, and telecom-munications. The service and governmentsectors, like other sectors, also usually needheating in winter and air conditioning insummer. But all these depend on energy.

And again, worldwide, energy, for practicalpurposes, means fossil fuels.

The EnvironmentalBenefits of Using FossilFuels Rather than Living

Nature

The collective demand for land to meethumanitys demands for food, fuel, and oth-er products of living nature isand alwayshas beenthe single most important threatto ecosystems and biodiversity.63 Fossil fueldependent technologies have kept that de-mand for land in check. This positive aspectof the impact of fossil fuels on the environ-ment has been ignored in most popular nar-ratives, which instead emphasize fossil fuels

potential detrimental effects, including air,

water, and solid-waste pollution, as well asany climate change associated with the useand production of these fuels. Because ofthis oversight, and thus lacking balance,these studies generally conclude that fossilfuels have been an environmental disaster.

To obtain a notion of the magnitude ofthe environmental benefits of fossil fuels,consider just the effect of fertilizers and pes-ticides on the amount of habitat saved fromconversion to cropland because fossil fuelswere used to meet current food demands.

The Haber-Bosch process, by itself, is re-sponsible for feeding 48 percent of globalpopulation and pesticides have reducedlosses from pests for a range of food-relat-ed crops by 2640 percent. Together, thesetwo sets of technologies might therefore beresponsible for feeding approximately 60percent of the worlds population, assumingthat pesticides that are not manufacturedwith significant fossil fuel inputs would behalf as effective as those that require fossilfuels. Therefore, had fossil fuels not beenused, the world would have needed to in-crease the global amount of cropland by anadditional 150 percent.64

This means that to maintain the currentlevel of food production, at least another 2.3billion hectares of habitat would have had tobe converted to cropland. This is equivalentto the total land area of the United States,

Table 2The Most Energy-Intensive Industries in the United States

BTU per pound

Ethylene 8,107

Iron and Steel 8,700Ammonia 12,150

Paper and Paper Board 15,590

Aluminum (primary ingot) 44,711

Source: BCS, U.S. Energy Requirements for Aluminum Production Historical Perspective, Theoretical Limits and CurrentPractices, prepared for Industrial Technologies Program, Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, U.S. Depart-ment of Energy, http://www1.eere.energy.gov/industry/aluminum/pdfs/al_theoretical.pdf, p. 99.


18/36

18

Historian EdwardAnthony Wrigley

estimates thatreplacing coal

in England and

Wales in 1850with wood would

have requiredharvesting

150 percent ofall their land.

Canada, and India combined. Consideringthe threats posed to ecosystems and biodi-versity from the existing conversion of 1.5billion hectares of habitat to cropland, theeffect of increasing that to 3.8 billion hect-

ares is inestimable.

65

The above calculation underestimatesthe additional habitat that would have tobe converted to cropland because it assumesthat the additional 2 billion hectares of crop-land would be as productive as the current1.5 billion hectaresan unlikely propositionsince the most productive areas are probablyalready under cultivation.

Moreover, even if the same level of produc-tion could have been maintained, eschewingthe use of todays first-best technologies to

produce fertilizers or pesticides would nec-essarily have meant higher food prices. Thatwould have added to the 925 million peoplethat the Food and Agriculture Organiza-tion (FAO) estimates are already chronicallyhungry worldwide.66 Thus, fossil fuels haveaverted a disaster for both humanity and therest of nature.

The movement away from wood, humanand animal power, and other renewable en-ergy sources to fossil fuels has also resultedin substantial environmental benefits. An

estimated 27 percent of the land harvestedin the United States for crops in 1910, for ex-ample, was devoted to feeding the 27.5 mil-lion horses and mules used on and off thefarm. Had the horse and mule populationin the United States expanded in proportionto the human population and crop yieldsstayed constant, an additional 319 millionadditional acres would have been needed in1988 just to feed the additional livestock.This would have exceeded the amount ofcropland that was harvested in 1988 (about297 million acres).67 In fact, phasing outanimal power has been among the majorreasons why the extent of cropland plantedin the United States has not expanded since1910, despite government subsidies to over-cultivate crops.68 Clearly, fossil fuelbasedsubstitutes for animal power have substan-tially reduced pressures on habitat and eco-

systems in the United States over what theywould otherwise have been.69 This shouldalso be true for much of the rest of the rest ofthe world today.

The above estimates understate the re-

duction in habitat conversion that is theresult of fossil fuels virtual phase-out ofanimal power in much of the world becausethe assumption that it would grow in pro-portion to the human population ignoresthe fact that energy use has, in fact, grownmuch more rapidly (see, for instance, Fig-ure 7). Thus, they do not include estimatesof the additional land that would have tobe commandeered if fossil fuels were to bereplaced by renewable sources of energy andmaterials using current technologies had

energy use stayed constant.Historian Edward Anthony Wrigley es-timates that replacing coal in England andWales in 1850 with wood would have re-quired harvesting 150 percent of all theirland.70 Because fossil fuel energy use is muchhigher today, the situation would be evenworse now, if that is conceivable.

Because habitat is critical for maintain-ing and conserving species and ecosystems,these environmental benefits of fossil fueldependent technologies most likely have

outweighed their environmental costs re-sulting from their emissions of air, waterand solid waste.71

In addition, the environmental damagesfrom converting habitat to cropland is like-ly to be more lasting and less easily reversedthan the damages from air, water, and solid-waste pollution. As the experience of the in-dustrialized world indicates, these damagesfrom fossil fuel combustion can be reversedat relatively reasonable cost. Moreover, ifthe environmental transition hypothesis isvalid, because of the wealth generated fromthe economic surpluses from the use of fossilfuels, the probability of such reversals is in-creased.72

This hypothesis postulates that initiallysocieties opt for economic and technologicaldevelopment over environmental quality be-cause it enables them to escape from poverty


19/36

19

There is noempiricalevidence thathigher carbon

emissions havereduced globalwell-being orliving standardsin aggregate. Infact, data suggesprecisely theopposite.

and improve their quality of life by makingboth needs and wants (e.g., food, education,health, homes, comfort, leisure, and materialgoods) more affordable. But once basic needsare met, over time members of society per-

ceive that environmental deterioration com-promises their quality of life and they start toaddress their environmental problems. Beingwealthier and having access to greater humancapital, they are now better able to afford andemploy cleaner technologies. Consequently,environmental deterioration can be haltedand then reversed. Under this hypothesis,technological change and economic develop-ment may initially be the causes of negativeenvironmental effects, but eventually theywork together to effect an environmental

transition, after which technological changeand economic development become the solu-tions to reducing these effects.73

Finally, note that despite claims that car-bon-induced climate change would be det-rimental to human well-being, there is noempirical evidence that higher carbon emis-sions have reduced global well-being or liv-ing standards in aggregate. In fact, Figures4 and 5 suggest precisely the opposite. Hu-man well-being and living standards havegone up remarkably even as these emissions

have increased by orders of magnitude.Claims that global warming may already beresponsible for killing over 150,000 peopleper year are based on a study whose very au-thors acknowledge that their methodologydid not accord with the canons of empiri-cal science [because] it would not providethe timely information needed to informcurrent policy decisions on [greenhouse gas]emission abatement, so as to offset possiblehealth consequences in the future.74 Thatis, the authors sacrificed scientific quality toa policy agenda.

Empirical data also falsify other claimsregarding the alleged grisly consequencesof global warming, that is, that deaths andeconomic damages from extreme weatherevents will escalate, malaria will expand, orcrop yields will decline and increase hunger.Specifically, empirical data show:

Global death rates from extremeweather events declined by 98 percentsince the 1920s, while economic dam-ages corrected for population growthand wealth have not increased;75

Malaria death rates were reduced by 26percent from 2000 to 201076; and Global crop yields increased by 160

percent since 1961.77

Notwithstanding their flaws, the fossilfueldependent technologies that stretchedliving natures natural productivity and dis-placed some of its products not only per-mitted humanity to escape the Malthusianvise, but saved nature itself from being over-whelmed by humanitys demands.

Reduction in theVulnerability of Society to

Climate and Weather

Another inevitable consequence of re-ducing humanitys dependence on natureand relying instead on fossil fuels and inor-ganic materials is that climate and weatherare no longer critical to humanitys well-

being.No human activities are more sensitive

to climate and weather than agriculture andforestry. Agriculture, by itself, was mankindsmajor economic activity until the IndustrialRevolution. But because of economic andtechnological development and the growthof the service sectordriven in large part bygreater energy use underwritten mainly byfossil fuelsthis is no longer the case.

In 1800, about 8090 percent of the U.S.working population was engaged in agri-culture. This had dropped to 41 percent by1900, 16 percent by 1945, and today it is 1.5percent.78 This shrinkage occurred despitethe increase in agricultural production be-cause other sectors grew more rapidly. In1900, agriculture accounted for 23 percentof U.S. gross domestic product; today it ac-counts for 0.7 percent.79


20/36


21/36

21

Current levels ofeconomic activit(the proximatesource of wealthfood supplies,trade, andpublic healthindividualparts of thecyclecould notbe sustainedwithout fossilfuels.

cations, which depends mainly on electric-ity, is another critical element of disasterresponse. This has been aided by improvedmeteorological forecasts, which rely on elec-tricity-powered communication systems for

dissemination.

86

Another critical factor forreducing casualties is the availability of en-ergy-intensive technologies such as air con-ditioning and heating that allow people tocope with excessive heat and cold.

Economic development, itself dependenton fossil fuels, also allowed the United Statesand other developed countries to accumu-late assets such as helicopters, planes, andtrucks with which to mount disaster-reliefefforts and offer humanitarian aid to devel-oping countries in times of famine, drought,

floods, cyclones, and other natural disasters,weather-related or not. Such aid would havebeen virtually impossible to deliver in largequantities or in a timely fashion absent fos-sil fuelfired transportation.87

In fact, it is inconceivable that a success-ful and timely disaster-management effortcan be mounted today without diesel genera-tors; petroleum-powered helicopters, trucks,earth-moving equipment and other vehicles;heavy-duty tents made of lightweight petro-leum-derived synthetic fibers for temporary

shelters and hospitals; and myriad otheritems needed for disaster relief that dependdirectly or indirectly on fossil fuels.

How Did the World Escapethe Malthusian Vise?

Figure 4 shows that the increased use offossil fueldependent technologies paral-leled humanitys progress and its escapefrom natures Malthusian trap, while Figure5 illustrates a similar story for the UnitedStates.

The improvements in human well-beingin industrialized countries over the last quar-ter millennium and in developing countriessince World War II can be ascribed to the mu-tually reinforcing, co-evolving forces of eco-nomic growth, technological change, human

capital, and freer trade, which push and pulleach other in a cycle of progress.88

Figure 11 is a simplified depiction of thiscycle. It shows some of the ways these forcesinteract with and reinforce each other and

how they advance food supplies and publichealth. Within this cycle are other cycles, likewheels within wheels. For example, healthbegets wealth, and vice versa. Other coupledcycles consist of health and human capi-tal, wealth and technology, and wealth andtrade.

Since this is a cycle, it has no real begin-ning or end, but perhaps the first portionof this cycle that coalesced was the slow ac-cumulation of human knowledge (capital),which led to technologies that increased

both land conversion and crop yields. These,coupled with trade, increased food sup-plies, which in turn improved health. Sincea healthier (and less hungry) population isgenerally more productive in whatever activ-ity it undertakes, it became wealthier, whichthen helped further boost human capital. Ahealthier population also is generally bettereducated and better trained, which too in-creases human capital. The cycle, thus, camefull circle.

As indicated by Figures 1 and 4, fossil fu-

els did not start this cycle rolling, but theyaccelerated its progress. Today, continuedprogress depends on fossil fuels. Specifical-ly, as shown above, current levels of econom-ic activity (the proximate source of wealth),food supplies, trade, and public healthindividual parts of the cyclecould not besustained without fossil fuels.

The cycle of progress has many featuresidentified by economists and social observ-ers, including Charles Jones, Paul Romer,and Matt Ridley, who ascribe economicgrowth in generaland humanitys escapefrom Malthusian constraints in particularto the growth of ideas that then spawnedthe necessary technologies.89

Jones and Romer contend that, over time,with the accretion of knowledge, humancapital advanced, ideas were born, and tech-nology advanced. This led to larger popula-


22/36

22

Not only arebiofuels unable

to pay forthemselves (hencethe subsidies and

mandates), butthese subsidiesand mandates

have helpedincrease food

prices, which hasadded to hunger

and povertyworldwide.

tions, but more people also resulted in more

ideas, which led to further technologicalchange. At a certain point, it became pos-sible for technologies to increase living stan-dards despite resource constraints. Thesearguments had been around at least sinceSimon Kuznets in 1960 and Julian Simon inthe 1970s.90 But economic models capableof capturing these features adequately are ofmore recent vintage.91

Note that although the cycle depicted inFigure 11 does not explicitly have boxes forideas or population, they are implicit inthe technology and human capital boxes.

The development of human capitalwas aided by the demographic transition,in which households traded off quantityof children in favor of quality; that is, theypreferred to build their progenys humancapital.92 In addition, the extent and speedof communication accelerated the quantity

and rate at which knowledge and ideas can

be exchanged, which then leads to more andfaster generation of ideas and technologies.93

But ideas are not enough. They need to betranslated into practical technologies thatare adopted and used, and can be sustainedin the marketplace. Equally important, forevery good idea there is at least one ormore bad ideas. For example, a spectacu-larly bad idea is that the state should controlthe means of production. Yet, despite accessto significant levels of human capital, somesocieties have tried to implement this badidea.

Yet another bad idea is providing subsi-dies for, and directly or indirectly mandat-ing, the use of biofuels to replace fossil fu-els. Not only are biofuels unable to pay forthemselves (hence the subsidies and man-dates), but these subsidies and mandateshave helped increase food prices, which has

Source: Adapted from Indur Goklany, The Improving State of the World(Washington: Cato Institute, 2007), pp. 9192Note: This schematic illustrates how the forces of economic growth, human capital and technology interactwith trade to advance food supplies and public health, and reinforce each other. Some linkages, e.g., the linkagebetween technology and health, are not shown. Some linkages are one-way; others are two-way. Two-way link-ages indicate a subcycle.

Figure 11The Cycle of Progress


23/36

23

Technologiesare born fromideas, and fossilfuels have helpe

increase thequantity andquality of ideas.

added to hunger and poverty worldwide andincreased the population at risk of death anddisease.94 Moreover it is debatable whetherbiofuels can deliver net environmental ben-efits.95 A recent study by the U.S. National

Research Council reaffirmed this, whilenoting that biofuels are also unlikely to beeconomically viable alternatives to gasoline,absent high oil prices, technological break-throughs, and high carbon prices.96

Then there are ideas that do not pan out.Thomas A. Edison, for instance, is reputedto have tried 1,600 materials for the filamentof the incandescent light bulb before alight-ing on carbonized bamboo.97 That is, thevast majority of his ideas misfired. It wouldbe another quarter of a century before the

tungsten filament would be commercialized(and not by Edison).Another great idea, championed by both

Henry Ford and Edison (apparently, untilthey saw the light), that has not panned outso far is the electric automobile.98 In the late1800s and early 1900s, it seemed that theelectric vehicle might be the favored replace-ment for the horse-drawn carriage and its as-sociated excreta that fouled the urban land-scape, but it lost out in the marketplace tothe petrol-powered internal combustion en-

gine.99 Today, despite substantial subsidies,the electric automobile is unable to grab sig-nificant market share.

In the United States, notwithstanding di-rect federal subsidies of $7,500 per car (andindirect subsidies in the range of $250,000per car), electric cars eked out a market shareof 0.014 percent in 2011.100 Similarly, in theUnited Kingdom, fewer than 800 electricvehicles were sold in the first nine monthsof 2011, despite a government subsidy of5,000 each (equivalent to $8,000), whichbrought total electric vehicle registrationsin that country to 1,107 out of 28.5 millioncars on the road.101

Just as wishes cannot conjure real horses,ideas by themselves do not physically trans-port people. Remarkably, another failedcompetitor for fueling the replacement tothe horse-drawn carriage was grain alcohol

(ethanol). Today, despite subsidies, it re-mains uncompetitive on its own merits inmost areas.102

Among the reasons why England was theamong the first countries to surmount Mal-

thusian barriers was that it had developed,perhaps through luck, a set of institutionsthat gave individuals a stake (or propertyright) in developing their ideas into usefuland practical inventions. Equally important,to a greater extent than other countries, itrelied on the institution of the marketplaceto sort through which ideas were viable, paidfor themselves, and were, therefore, self-sus-taining.

By contrast, the marketplace was missingin the communist Soviet Union. Hence, de-

spite its emphasis on developing science andtechnology and having abundant humancapital, including some of the worlds bestmathematicians and theoretical scientists,its innovation and rate of economic growthlagged that of societies with freer and moreopen markets. The competitive marketplacealso helped bring down the price of viabletechnologies, which led to their greater dis-semination.

Complementing the economic market-place was the development and application

of the scientific method, founded on empiri-cal verification, for analyzing and solvingproblems. Such prior empirical verificationof ideas/technologies should have reducedthe failure rate of newly introduced ideasand products in the marketplace.

How Fossil FuelsAccelerated the Production

of Knowledge and Ideas

Fossil fuels have been critical for thetechnologies that allowed humanitys num-bers to increase and its well-being and liv-ing standards to advance. But technologiesare born from ideas, and fossil fuels havehelped increase the quantity and quality ofideas.


24/36

24

The role of cheapilluminationin enhancing

human capitalcannot be

overestimated.Illumination has

given humanbeings something

that even thegods didnt

provide: itwithapologies to

Albert Einsteinexpanded time.

Population. Without fossil fuels, therewould be insufficient food. As a result, thepopulation would be in poorer health, small-er, or both. If lower food production trans-lates into fewer people, then the world would

necessarily have fewer ideas. This means less,or inferior, technology.The connection between population and

ideas seems intuitive. It is captured in thatold adage, two heads are better than one,but empirical evidence supporting this ideais difficult to come by. University of Califor-niaLos Angeles anthropologists MichelleKline and Robert Boyd have found evidenceof this connection in a novel examination ofa natural experiment in Oceania. They ana-lyzed marine foraging toolkits for 10 island

groups and found that groups with largerpopulations had more complex and diversetool kits. Malekula, the smallest island (pop-ulation 1,100), had 13 total tools, while Ha-waii, the largest (population 275,000) had71.103

Better Health and Greater Life Expectancy.If, instead of reducing the population level,less food were to result in poorer health, thatwould compromise the ability to acquireand retain knowledge and training. Humancapital per capita would be lowered, which,

in turn, would also reduce the quality of itsideas.

Better health also translates generallyinto higher life expectancy, which in andof itself promotes the formation of humancapital. Considering that many current can-didates for advanced degrees and post-doc-toral positions are in their 20s and, in somecases, their 30s and even 50s,104 had life ex-pectancy not increasedglobally it was 25years in 1750 and 31 years in 1900therewould have been many fewer highly educat-ed and trained people to add to the globalstock of knowledge and to train subsequentgenerations. Moreover, when lifespans areshort, it makes less sense for either the indi-vidual or society to invest in educating theyoung and postponing their contribution tosociety, rather than putting them to work assoon as practicable. After all, the dead can-

not produce, no matter how well educatedthey might become. Thus, higher life expec-tancy, a consequence of better health, ad-vances human capital and enhances humanknowledge, which then generates new ideas

and technologies.

105

Lighting. After peak woodthat is, thepoint of resource depletion where woodbecame increasingly unavailable and cost-lybut long before the notion of peak oilbecame fashionable, and even before petro-leum was discovered, the world was con-fronting peak blubber. Whale blubber wasthe fuel of choice for illumination, but whalehunting had taken its toll on their numbersand the world was running out of this pre-cious commodity.106 The poor had to make

do with tallow candles.Kerosene from petroleum saved the day,for both rich and poor. Today, illumina-tion worldwide depends more on relativelycheap fossil fuelgenerated electricity thanany other source. In fact, the price of illumi-nation has never been lower. In 1800 in theUnited Kingdom, it took the average workersix hours of labor to buy an hour of lightingfrom the use of a tallow candle.107 That isafter 12 hours of labor, the average workerwould have been able to afford all of two

hours of lighting, with nothing left over foranything else! Today it takes half a secondof work to get the same amount of illumi-nation using a compact fluorescent bulb.108

Lighting went from luxury to ubiquity, atleast in the industrialized countries. But itremains an extravagance in impoverished ar-eas around the world.

The role of cheap illumination in en-hancing human capital cannot be overesti-mated. Illumination has given human be-ings something that even the gods didntprovide: itwith apologies to Albert Ein-steinexpanded time; that is, it has givenus more time to read, learn, and be creativeand productive, if we choose.

In recognition of its effects on productiv-ity, most commercial and industrial estab-lishments, as well as libraries, classroomsand many laboratories, light up their prem-


25/36

25

Withoutrelatively cheap

fossil fuels, thevolume andspeed with whicgoods are tradedwould be muchlower.

ises regardless of the time of day. Not sur-prisingly, lighting accounts for a significantshare of the U.S. electricity bill: 14 percentfor the residential sector and 22 percent forthe commercial sector.109

Mechanical Power. Its insufficient to havetime to acquire human capital, if a personlacks the physical energy to do so efficientlyand effectively.

Before the Industrial Revolution, muchof the work done on the farm and in manu-factories at home, in shops, and in indus-trial settings, required physical labor. (Theorigin of the term, manufacture, itself re-veals that it originally required human laborby hand.110) Even where animal power wasused, a person usually had to manage and

direct the animals energy. Consequently,people generally lacked the time and energyfor tasks much beyond making ends meet.

This changed with the advent of machin-ery and, later, home appliances powered di-rectly or indirectly by fossil fuels. If not forsuch home appliances, powered for the mostpart by electricity, more women would betoiling for longer hours in the home. Mostof these technologies would have been still-born or available only to the wealthy, hadrelatively cheap fossil fuels been unavailable.

These appliances include air conditioning,hot and cold running water, vacuum clean-ers, dishwashers, and washing machines.

These devices have opened up options forwomen that seemed absent as recently as afew decades ago, in even the wealthiest coun-tries, particularly for the less well-to-do. Ineffect, womens liberation was midwifed byfossil fuels. As a result, womenand theirfamilieshave even greater incentive to de-velop their human capital. Today, morewomen go on to college and graduate thanmen in the United States. Currently, womenearn 57 percent of bachelors, 62 percentof masters, and 52 percent of doctoral de-grees.111 Therefore, much of this humancapital would be lost to mankind were rela-tively cheap fossil fuels not available.

As noted, power tools and machinery haveleveled the playing field for women, the dis-

abled, and the weak, enabling them to workon many tasks that were once the domain ofable-bodied men. They have also reduced thevalue of child labor, which is helping makethat practice obsolete, except in poor coun-

tries where much of the population lackseconomic access to such devices. While childlabor has declined, the number of childrenattending school has increased, adding fur-ther to the stock of human capital.112

Trade. Without relatively cheap fossil fu-els, the volume and speed with which goodsare traded would be much lower. But trade isone of the fastest methods of disseminatingtechnologies. Introducing new technologiesto new places also helps generates new ideas.Or, as Matt Ridley has noted, ideas have

sex, which then propagates new ideas.113

Absent trade, such devices as personalcomputers, notebooks, and cell phones maynot have been available outside of a handfulof industrialized countries, and their priceswould have been higher everywhere. Thiswould translate into lower human capitalper capita. These products also contain sub-stantial amounts of polycarbonate and oth-er petroleum-based plastics.114

The simplification of Tasmanias toolkitafter its isolation from Australia as the result

of sea-level rise 10,000 years ago hints at theimportance of trade.115 Kline and Boyds nat-ural experiment in Oceania also found thatisland groups that had more contactthatis, more tradealso had more tools.116 Trade,in effect, increases the size of the populationand human capital from which a society mayaccess ideas and technologies. For instance,because of trade, Indias population can, anddoes, draw upon ideas and technologies gen-erated in the United States, and vice versa.

Trade also encourages specialization,which advances human capital. However, ifthere is too much specialization and trade(for whatever reason) is then discontinued,that could lead to technological regression.Perhaps that, too, contributed to Tasma-nias technological regression.

Communications. The speed and extentof communications are among the stron-


26/36

26

The speedand extent of

communicationsare among

the strongestdeterminantsof the rate of

generation ofideas. The major

methods ofcommunication

over the pastfew decades all

currently dependon fossilfuel

energy.

gest determinants of the rate of generationof ideas. The major methods of communi-cation over the past few decades, and whichare still in broad use (e.g., travel, newspapers,telephones, cell phones, television, the Inter-

net) all currently depend to one degree oranother on fossilfuel energy.Newspapers, for example, are still printed

on paper for dissemination. The pulp and pa-per industry is the second-most energy inten-sive (Table 2), and despite having ready accessto wood, it supplements its energy needs withfossil fuels and electricity (most of which isalso from fossil fuels).117 Television and theInternet all rely on cheap electricity, mainlyderived from fossil fuels. Moreover, televi-sions and the tangible objects at the interface

of the Internet and the user (e.g., personalcomputers, laptops, even cell phones) con-tain substantial amounts of plastic, whichare petroleum-derived products.

Detailed analysis of the total energy andfossil fuels used to produce a vintage-2000desktop computer with a 17-inch cathode-ray-tube monitor indicates that computermanufacturing is much more energy inten-sive than generally recognized. The amountof fossil fuel required to manufacture thisdesktop system is estimated at 11 times its

weight. By comparison, this ratio is 1:2 forautomobiles, 2 for refrigerators, and 4:5 foraluminum cans.118

According to a 2007 estimate, the globalinformation and communications technol-ogy industry accounts for approximately 2percent of global carbon dioxide emissions,which is equivalent to aviation.119 In 2010,data centers (for servers) alone accountedfor 1.3 percent of all electricity use for theworld and 2 percent of all electricity use forthe United States.120

Comfort. Personal comfort is another fac-tor that helps develop human capital. With-out adequate heating in the winter and cool-ing in the summer (and appropriate clothing,most likely containing synthetic fibers toone extent or another), productivity wouldbe compromised. Not surprisingly, wheresocieties can afford it and weather makes it

necessary, educational establishments andhomes consume substantial energy to main-tain premises at comfortable levels.

ConclusionUntil the last quarter of a millennium,

mankind depended on living nature for allits food and clothing, most of its energy, andmuch of its material and medicines. She dic-tated mankinds numbers, well-being, andliving standards. But she has never been con-stant. She would smile on some, but not onothers. Her smiles, always temporary, wouldinevitably be replaced by frowns. Her Mal-thusian checkshunger, famine, disease, or

conflictensured that there was little or noprogress in the human condition. Many peo-ple did not even survive into their 20s, popu-lations grew very slowly, and living standardswere generally constrained to subsistencelevels.

Gradually, with the accumulation of hu-man capital, exchange of ideas, and hardwork, mankind started to commandeermore land to meet its needs and developtechnologies that, in some cases, amplifiedNatures bounty but, in other cases, bypassed

her altogether. These led to higher food pro-duction, better health, longer lifespans, andlarger populations with better living stan-dards, which then reinforced human capitaland the exchange of ideas, which begat yetmore and better technologies. Thus was thecycle of progress born and set in motion.

The cycle had been moving forward infits and starts before fossil fuelsancient na-tures bequest to humanitybecame ubiqui-tous.121 But fossil fuels assured progress. Thecycle accelerated. Mankinds dependence onnature declined. It became less vulnerable toweather, climate, disease, and other sourcesof natural disasters. The Malthusian bondsthat held mankind and its well-being incheck started to stretch, until they were burstasunder.

Today, fossil fuels are responsible for atleast 60 percent of mankinds food. They


27/36

27

Progress todaydepends ontechnologicalchange; econom

development;trade in goods,services andideas; andhuman capital.But technologyis the product ofideas, and fossilfuels have been

vital for the thegeneration ofideas.

also provide 81 percent of mankinds energysupply, while nature supplies only 10 per-cent. Sixty percent of the fiber used globallyfor clothing and other textiles are synthet-ic, coming mainly from fossil fuels. Much

(thirty percent) of the remainingso-callednatural fiber, relies heavily on fossil fuelbased fertilizers and pesticides. With respectto materials, although global estimates areunavailable, nature provides only 5 percentof U.S. materials (by weight). But even this 5percent, just like the remaining 95 percent,cannot be processed, transported and usedwithout energy inputs.

Without fossil fuels, humanity would beunable to feed itself, and what food therewas would be costlier. There would be more

hunger. There would be insufficient energyand materials available to sustain the econ-omy at more than a fraction of its currentlevel. Public health would suffer, living stan-dards would plummet, human well-beingwould be drastically diminished, and thepopulation would crash.

In the absence of the technologies thatdepend directly or indirectly on fossil fuels,humanity would have had to expand crop-land by another 150 percent to meet the cur-rent demand for food. Even more land would

have had to be annexed to satisfy existing re-quirements for energy, materials, clothing,and other

Humanity Unbound: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity ,Cato Policy...

Documents

Transcript of Humanity Unbound: How Fossil Fuels Saved Humanity from Nature and Nature from Humanity ,Cato Policy...