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 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).
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 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 neo-Malthusian 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 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 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 steady-state 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:
- 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 price of basic resources which “will induce their more economical use at each upstream stage of production” (Daly, 2009, p. 4).
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
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. 613). 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.
