Stuck in a 1970s Time Warp

A Review of 'Factor Four. Doubling Wealth - Halving Resource Use' Ernst von Weizacker; Amory B Lovins & Hunter L Lovins, Earthscan Publications Ltd, London 1997 pp.322. This work was completed in august 1997. It has been polished up for this publication.

In the 1970s amory lovins did some brilliant work exposing the grandiose pretensions of the civil nuclear power industry. From the perspective of my haphazard knowledge of what was happening in environmental politics at the time it seemed as if he almost single handedly undermined the rationale for the expansion of the nuclear industry (apologies for overlooking the others involved in the campaign). He then applied the concepts with which he'd condemned the nuclear industry to a wide range of other resource issues and built up a comprehensive catalogue of neologisms - soft energy paths, end-use efficiency, negawatts, etc. Over the years this analysis has yielded some striking conclusions e.g. whilst one academic, energy industry lackie worked out, using the latest economic models, that combatting global burning would cost the american economy about $200 billion per year thereby making it too expensive to take remedial action, lovins argued it could be done for a similar sized profit.

Lovins's latest book, in conjunction with ernst von weizacker and hunter lovins, starts off with 50 case studies of successful resource efficiencies. These expose the ecocidal antics of the troglodytes running the world's major industries/economies. The second half of the book analyzes the political implications of these examples and compares the resource efficiency strategy with other strategies for protecting the environment.

Lovins is still one of the most original thinkers in the alternative movement. He estimates the u.s. has wasted nearly one trillion dollars in inefficient air conditioning (p.178). He outlines a new environmental scare, "By moving things around we do a lot of damage. We overstress the Earth's capacity safely to absorb the thousands of millions of tonnes that we return as waste or overburden. The avalanches of matter may turn out to be the greatest threat to the global environment." (p.237). And in this work he adds a few more floors to his multi-storey car park of original concepts - eco-capitalism, nega-bureaucrats, low energy beef, eco-options; eco-arbitrage; eco-secondary markets, etc.

For many years lovins seems to have been stuck in the past focussing almost exclusively on resource efficiency. This is no longer the major issue it was in the 1970s because it does not provide a solution to the most important issues of our time - the destruction of biodiversity, global burning, climate politics, and the creation of a sustainable Planet. Over the decades lovins's preoccupation with technology seems to have led him away from green politics towards the obscene fantasies of capitalist cornucopians such as julian simons. In many ways this work can be seen as lovins's attempt, under weizacker's influence, to confront the critical issues of our time. But he's clearly struggling.

Resource Efficiency.

The authors believe there is considerable evidence to back up their claim that resources could be used at least 4 times more efficiently than they are at present. The 'factor four' revolution would be brought about not merely through technological innovations but through ecological tax reforms and the market. The authors argue that markets are crucial to maximizing resource savings. For them it isn't enough to invent and manufacture new energy saving devices: it is imperative to establish resource efficiency savings as 'commodities' or 'shares' to be bought, sold, or exchanged on the world's various types of stock markets. There would be markets in eco-options ("a contract allowing you to buy something at a stated price for a stated period"); eco arbitrage; and eco-secondary markets etc, in order to get the greatest energy savings. For example, the consequence of marketing negawatts (energy savings) is .. "maximizing competition in who saves and how so that we can continuously improve the cost and quantity of the savings. To do that requires not just marketing negawatts but making markets in negawatts: making saved electricity (or other saved resources) into fungible commodities subject to competitive bidding, arbitrage, derivative instruments, secondary markets, and all the other mechanisms that apply to copper, wheat, sowbellies and other traded commodities." (p.169).

Many greens have difficulty in keeping up with the ecological crises happening in every habitat around the Earth not to mention opposing the econazis intent on destroying the Earth for whatever apple pie concept they believe will win public approval whether this might be jobs, economic growth, homes for the unemployed, hospitals for infants, etc. Now these authors want them to learn the esoteric and corrupting art of international market trading. Jeremy leggett and greenpeace are trying to woo the insurance industry; now lovins et al are trying to win over stock market traders. Whatever next?

- woo fishermen because they should have a vested interest in protecting Fish stocks;

- woo whalers because they should have a vested interest in protecting Whales;

- woo big game hunters because they should have a vested interest in protecting Wildlife;

- woo pharmers because they should have a vested interest in protecting the land;

- woo livestock pharmers because they should have a vested interest in looking after livestock?

Why is it then that Fish are being decimated in all the Earth's oceans? Why are Whales still on the verge of extinction? Why are all the world's charismatic Wildlife on the edge of oblivion? Why is it that desertification follows in pharmers' footsteps? In reality, the people who have responsibility for exploiting resources are doing next to nothing to protect and preserve these resources.

Boosting Economic Growth.

The authors contrast their approach to protecting the environment with the conventional method of statutory pollution regulations. They argue regulations will never be successful because they impose costs on industry which industrialists bitterly resist. In the 1990s it has become increasing difficult for governments to pass environmental regulations because in many countries, especially turtle island, industry has shifted public opinion against such forms of state interference. They point out that, in contrast, resource efficiencies should be highly popular because reducing pollution allows industries to make bigger profits. They should even be popular with consumers because they could reduce prices, "Environmental protection was an uphill struggle from the beginning and will remain so for many years to come. The simple reason is that environmental protection, like nature conservation, was seen as an economic sacrifice. Adding filters or more sophisticated devices to the existing production process invariably meant additional costs to manufacturers. But they could always argue that there were narrow limits to their ability to pay." (p.247).

For decades environmentalists have been greeted with trepidation, not so much because of their doomy outlook on the future (with which many people agree) but because everything they say ends in demands for increased costs, material sacrifices, or bans. The authors hope that, in the future, environmentalists will become far more popular by showing how resource efficiencies could make everyone richer and boost economic growth, "The economic value involved in implementing those 50 examples of the expected efficiency revolution on a world wide scale could be immense." (p.139). If this is the case surely it can't be too long before oomans step into livestock paradise.

Limitations.

The authors are impartial enough to highlight the limitations of a resource efficiency "revolution".^[1] Firstly, in order to protect the environment the rate of resource efficiency must be greater than economic growth, "If global economic growth averages 3% annually, resource productivity would have to increase at an annual rate above 3% if we are to win the race." (p.142). Despite its huge potential, resource efficiency may not be able to overtake economic growth, "They are right in saying that efficiency won't be enough. If economic growth goes on at a rate of 5% per annum, the entire factor four efficiency revolution would be eaten up within less than 30 years!" (p.258).

Secondly, resource efficiency may not be able to outrun population growth, "Assuming per capita consumption increases of a mere 1.5% per year .. (there would be) .. a quadrupling of total consumption from 1995 to 2050. In other words, the total factor four revolution - if it took place during the same period - would already be eaten up by this double dynamic of population increase and a very modest increase in per capita consumption." (p.264).

Thirdly, resource efficiency alone cannot combat global burning, "Even the factor four transition in energy productivity will not be sufficient to halt global warming." (p.229).

Criticisms of Resource Efficiency.

There are also a number of criticisms of resource efficiency which the authors have not pointed out. The authors hope that a fourfold increase in resource productivity will reduce the overall consumption of resources. They admit it is unlikely there will be a fourfold reduction in resource consumption because the cheaper that resources become the greater the demand for these resources. For example, as regards efficiency in electricity production, "Each time, that doubled efficiency would theoretically cost two-thirds less." (p.xxiv). According to the subtitle of their book, 'Doubling Wealth - Halving Resource Use' the authors expect a fourfold increase in resource efficiency would lead to a halving of resource use. But this hope does not by any means rule out the possibility that there could be an overall increase in resource consumption and, thus, an increase in pollution and ecological devastation.

It has been pointed out that resource efficiencies need to overtake economic growth before they could help to protect the environment. Perhaps the most devastating criticism of resource efficiencies is that since resource efficiencies might stimulate economic growth then theoretically they may never overtake economic growth.

Politically, the authors realize it is not possible to prevent a collapse of the Planet's life support system without abolishing global poverty. Quite incredibly, however, they believe the abolition of poverty could be achieved without the need for the rich world to make sacrifices, "The 21st century need not be depressing at all. If our 'neo-cornucopian' visions come true, even the gravest worldwide distribution problems can be solved without any part of the world having to accept significant sacrifices in well-being." (p.268). Unfortunately, whilst they seem enthusiastic about abolishing global poverty they don't seem quite so keen on abolishing global inequalities. They agree with the proposition that it is impossible for everyone in the world to enjoy americans' lifestyles, "If countries required an oecd level of affluence to afford pollution control, then the whole game would be lost. Imagine what would happen to the world if all 5.8 thousand million people were rich enough to "afford" pollution control. It would be the ecological ruin of the world. And even today's global consumption rates are clearly unsustainable." (p.247-8). They do not believe that america's standards of living should be pushed down to achieve global equality. On the contrary, america would remain rich, and probably get richer, whilst the world's poor would have to be content with being four times less wealthy than americans, "If we now learn that american style prosperity, for ecological reasons, is definitely not conceivable for six or more thousand million people, then the hopes for stabilizing population the 'natural' way are very dim. If, however, the efficiency revolution allows prosperity to occur at resource consumption levels roughly a factor of four below america's, we may become hopeful again." (p.265). This is one of the prime principles of environmentalism - the environment can be saved only by improving the lot of the poor not by stopping the rich from wrecking the Earth by redistributing their grossly excessive resources. The authors believe that once people become rich nothing should be done to interfere in their privileges as Earth rapists. This is why, despite all they say to the contrary, environmentalists can only boost geophysiological destruction. No wonder green politics has been such a pathetic failure over the last three decades.

Finally, in the situation where, around the world, economic and population growths are going through the stratosphere, and the Earth's Photosynthetic capacity i.e. its life support system, is being decimated, resource efficiency is a far less important priority not merely than the redistribution of resources but recognizing the geophysiological limits to resource consumption.

Cornucopianism.

Having started off in the 1970s by worrying about a scarcity of resources, lovins has now become a cornucopian. He believes so many resource efficiencies can be made that, in effect, resources become almost infinite, "Progress in efficiency is likely to speed up and ultimately to exceed all potential market expansion for commodities." (p.208). Cornucopianism tends to induce a sense of unreality and there are times in this book when it is difficult to avoid the feeling that the authors are in mid-supersonic-flight to fantasy land. They believe it is possible to make people rich by reducing pollution; that there is a pain free (no regrets) solution to abolishing global poverty; and that resource efficiencies could make resources almost infinite. They pin their faith in markets to prevent a geophysiological crisis - even though markets have never shown the slightest bit of interest in doing anything other than devastating the Planet.^[2]

Conclusions.

Lovins is not an ecologist, let alone a geophysiologist. He has no geophysiological analysis of oomans' impact on the Earth's life support system. In many ways he's a technologist whose technologies indirectly benefit the environment by combatting global burning, ooman overpopulation and species extinction. In other words, it seems as if lovins has not set out to solve these problems: he's aimed at boosting resource efficiencies and then discovered the benefits for the environment.

Like so many other environmentalists before them, these authors discuss global burning almost entirely in terms of the release of greenhouse gases and virtually ignore the role played by Photosynthesis. This is not surprising. Environmentalists who are preoccupied by technology solutions invariably focus on reducing greenhouse emissions rather than boosting Photosynthesis. Right on cue lovins states, "We chose not to include a chapter on land productivity because it is in no way as simple as resource productivity."^[3] Now that's a surprise. The only mention of an ecological solution to global burning is so cursory as to devalue its merits, "Carbon dioxide from the air is absorbed by green Plants. A policy of massive afforestation on suitable sites makes a lot of sense. However, not all sites are suitable. 'Greening the deserts' programmes may be ill-fated from the outset. Think only of the unavoidable salination of the soil if a steady flow of fresh water (containing certain quantities of salt) enters the system, but the only outflow is via (salt-free) evaporation." (p.250-51). Having admitted that technology is not enough to combat global burning it is surprising the authors make no effort to highlight the geophysiological solutions needed to stabilize the climate.

Finally, at the end of the book the authors look at economic, not geophysiological, limits, "In this book we are not emphasizing points of no physical return from various aspects of ecological damage. Rather the sense of urgency arises from fast-approaching points of economic no return, after which it will be very costly to achieve the benefits of resource efficiency." (p.256). Whilst the authors admit there is a need for ecological limits they do not discuss what these limits are, "Efficiency can safely be called a no-regrets strategy. If it is made a high priority in many countries and by businesses worldwide, it will buy a lot of time. But it does not ultimately solve problems. We cannot ultimately escape the need for establishing civilizational limits to growth. These must include an end to population growth and an end to the growth of material resource use." (p.269).

Dangers.

One of the dangers of this book is that it gives Earth rapists more opportunities to play around with yet more technological toys in the huge atrium playpens of the world's stock markets whilst ignoring critical geophysiological issues. There is little likelihood, unfortunately, that lovins's ideas will be adopted en masse but they will be picked up by a few Earth rapists who need the publicity to show they are doing something to 'save the Earth'. The urgent decisions which need to be made about the creation of geophysiological and political structures for a sustainable Planet will be put off for the sake of applying a few high profile, resource saving, widgets.

A bigger danger is that at a time of exponential growths in the numbers of cars, kids, Cattle, capital and carnage, promising to make people richer; 'doubling wealth'; proposing to quadruple land productivity; [4] suggesting that resources are infinite, etc, is simply going to exacerbate rising expectations. This will make it even more difficult to curb oomano-imperialism. It is imperative to establish geophysiological limits first and then allow oomans to expand up to these limits. Anyone who believes the Earth's geophysiological problems are going to be solved by the introduction of hypercars (and of course, not far behind, hyper-trucks, hyper jumbo-jets and supersonic hyper-aircraft) is off their recycled, energy efficient, biodegradable, green-fuelled, catalytic converted, green consumers supermarket trolley.