The Four Pillars of Future Progress—Part III: Energy
The Four Pillars of Future
Progress—Part III: Energy
By Tim Krenz
For Hometown Gazette
In this third section of the series,
The Four Pillars of Future Progress, we examine the most fundamental
element of continuing human development on earth, that of energy.
Like all critical issues to the present and future survival of our
species, it seems that few can accept a frank discussion of either
the reality, nor an open debate about the requirements for sound
policy—to guarantee humanity's future when it comes to energy.
Without going into theoretical physics, or into detailed technical
descriptions, the salient, much more practical points speak for
themselves.
Everything gets created out of energy.
Everything destroyed gets turned into some other form of energy. No
person can create more energy that does not already exist. Energy
transfers and takes different forms, but still the fundamental
building blocks, simplified as protons, electrons and neutrons, all
remain parts of everything. Whether we talk about stars, water,
concrete, or the human body, everything just described applies, and
nothing, not logic nor fake logic, can defy this basic premise of
energy. Unless we accept and work within these rules, we have no
future, nor anything to discuss, except about digging billions of
graves. Energy uses, not necessarily only clean energy, but all uses
of energy by humanity, will decide our future in the universe. It
will also determine whether or not humanity's right to natural
liberty and dignity will continue to exist.
We learned the basics of human survival
in elementary school: food, clothing, and shelter. We also use fire
as the fourth basic component, since it gives the motive force of
energy for cooking, heating in colder climates, and for modern
transportation. Fire transforms energy, from organic compounds like
woods or oils, etc. into heat and flame. Food, clothing, and shelter
also come from materials produced by the natural processes of
converting energy. Food means energy too, for the human body. These
examples reiterate the point that everything comes from and returns
to energy—protons, electrons, and neutrons. Since everything we
have, or want to have or need, comes from some type of energy and
process, we had best understand the implications and arrive at some
point of a philosophy, science, or even art and policy for utilizing
it.
Politically, control of energy means
control of civilization. So much political power extends from the
end of a gun barrel, as China's communist dictator, Mao Zedong, once
famously said. But more than just political power, political control
over people comes from the state ownership of sovereign energy
resources and the things created out of and by energy. In libertarian
philosophies, ownership of property by the individual, including over
their own bodies, ensures the personal rights of nature against any
evil or mal-intent by a government.
But the ownership of energy and the
disposal of all energy resources by the discretion and at the service
of the state, guarantees a willing submission of people to a state to
ensure the smooth access to energy, and to those products and
services made by it. Whether we talk of petroleum products for
fertilizers for food, or gas for cars, or the clothing and shelter
people need, or home heating and air conditioning for
homes—everything needs energy inputs for our ever more modernized
civilization to function. This makes the consumer the willing and
submissive participant to the state which oversees the allocation of
all energy resources This phenomenon of political control over the
economy, society and the culture itself builds a self-reinforcing
feedback loop, as civilization develops ever-increasing needs for
energy. As the allocator and regulator of last and final resort, the
state does become ever more absolute in reality, in deed and fact,
the more people depend on it for energy to power it.
The universe can provide more energy
than humans can ever use to infinity. And, yet, the universe has only
a stable and unchanging amount of energy in it. On earth, we use
things created by energy, manufactured by nature since the beginning
of time. At the root of the problem, using energy—electrical,
mechanical, nuclear, and chemical processing—comes by harnessing
one form of energy and transforming it into another. Humans have
become adept at collecting, converting, transforming, and exploiting
energy for its own uses, one of the best signs of the intensive
development of human intelligence. However, no such thing as free
energy exists. After using energy, the total input must equal the
total output. But energy can leave extra parts after its conversion
into something else, even waste, as long as the totals equal on both
ends of the process.
Harnessing energy presents opportunity
costs. In economics, these opportunity costs get fulfilled by way of
capital investments, in order to build processes to use the energy
provided by the universe. And, building those processes require
energy as well, just to get useful energy products. This principle
applies in making concrete or getting nuclear power plants to produce
electricity, or a petroleum refinery producing gasoline. All energy
on earth comes to the earth or from the earth, sooner or later, and
it will leave the earth long after any human extinction. “Ashes to
ashes, dust to dust,” the cycle will go forward, always. And
whether we talk of energy or a luncheon, nothing comes free.
When converting energy by nature or via
man-made processes, the results come with costs and benefits. Energy
conversion brings great power, like electricity, but with
side-effects, like pollution, if not done efficiently. The energy
equation remains equal on both sides, but one side has electricity
plus pollution to equal one factor of resource on the other side.
Energy inefficiency creates wastes of both energy and capital, in
dollar terms. And we here we face the inescapable dilemma.
Civilization needs energy, but that creates problems.
In as much as the Earth only contains
so much energy in resources, we must find better ways of not wasting
the energy itself, or wasting where society invests its capital
dollars. This arrives at a crucial crux, in that the earth can only
hold so much waste product from humans before the delicate balances
between energy, waste, humanity, and the earth will start to
disintegrate. It may do so sooner, or much later, but it will happen
either way. And for the earth, it will protect itself. Humanity can
do so, too. The earth has no choices in which direction it will
restore the balance to itself. Humanity has choices. So far, in all
matters of energy and climate, humans have thought and acted
stupidly, on both sides of this argument. Better policies might
work.
Before looking at policies, we must
first admit some reality. Humans will never free itself from energy
dependence. How we think of energy, in a more complete form, may
change how we use it. Some serious issues face humanity. In the
essentials, the more we build a civilization arithmetically more
dependent on energy—whether in the basics or the comfort factors of
life—the more exponential the problem of costs and benefits in
turning energy into products and services. By becoming that much
more dependent on energy, individual political freedom and natural
rights suffer and shrink to the benefit of a more absolutist state
and its core elites. With freedom and rights shrinking, the power of
the state and its passive capacity to control people and their
conscience grows, and allows the state to allocate more energy to
allies who may support a corrupt or harmful agenda. The political
power of the state would then grow so monolithically so as to
suppress any and all dissent from their control.
To the extent that human experience and
imagination do so, we can still now make choices. We must eventually.
Some of these involve political choices, economic choices, social
choices, and cultural choices, and all involve technology-based
issues.
Politically-technologically, any
attempt by the state to impose a top-to-bottom change on how we use
energy, whether or not aimed at preventing climate catastrophes, will
fail on two counts. It would fail first because not everyone will
agree to a change, let alone a solution. And, second, it will end in
the absolute power of the monolithic state which ends free choice.
Why does that fail? Because absolutist states have no reason to
change or solve anything to anyone's benefit, other than that which
benefits a small ruling class. On the opposite, more correct side
philosophically, individual and community initiatives and ownership
of solutions bring more diverse innovation, from the free debate and
mixing of collaborative innovations and contributions. When
discussing energy, this applies to all use of energy resources, for
electrical and mechanical power, and conversion of resources into
products and services. Supplying new innovations to new demands by
consumers benefits energy conservation and efficiency and works as
well as it does any other freely made individual and community choice
in a common interest and goal.
It would work better than an absolutist
state in solving energy supply and demand for one simple reason.
Politicians support their friends. Free individuals must in most
normal cases support themselves. By working in communities for
solutions, more individual initiative has greater and quicker impact.
We have only these two ways, politically, of going forward to
address the macro-need for energy efficiency with limited resources.
States with dictatorial powers have always failed. They failed on
energy long ago to work in the public interests. They have already
tried. Now, free individuals and communities must think of and work
on their own solutions. Everyone owns this problem. Most normal
people want someone else to fix it, but not at great cost to them.
The state will serve its own narrow interests. Therefore, everyone
must participate, globally, to solve increasing energy demand and
supply laws.
Economically-technologically, freer
markets, without manipulative government favoritism, distributing
capital and spreading risk always love profitable innovations. They
also raise investment capital and spread the risk better, too, than
the state. States serve as the insurer of last resort. It does that
best, and does not belong, nor does it need to act, on the front end
of energy markets. Freer markets allocate resources and capital for
opportunity costs according to efficiency standards of a return on
investment made by profitable sales to consumers. In creating supply
for the demand of more energy, governments can best apply and
supervise rules of fairness, equability, and transparency to the
business of capital markets. If governments of the state get too
involved in mixing government monies with private financing, it
always leads to disastrous results.
Public-private cooperatives actually
define conditions of fascism, or socialism, or communism—whatever,
and none of these pose good conditions for individual freedom and
dignity. The profits of fascism or socialism, etc. only aggrandize
the state, at the expense of freedoms and beneficial results. Also, a
public-private consortium opens the doors for corruption and
inefficiency, or even suppression of innovation to the profit of the
inefficient industries. We have that now under the current system of
state-business collaboration. It does not work well. Try the freer
market approach, with individual and community initiatives, and the
result would look different than what failure so far has managed to
achieve.
In addition, as long as individual
consumer demands increase for more efficient energy usage, for the
so-called “greener” options, then the market will supply it. The
laws of nature and phsyics determine that. If the demand grows more,
the supply of “greener” solutions will also increase, as long as
the state does not have the opportunity to favor the corrupt and
inefficient suppliers to everyone's disadvantage. The principle works
for all products—electricity and gas, especially. If individual
choice remains intact, people can freely choose to buy or invest in
the kind and type of changes they want.
In the socially-technological aspect,
to preserve the balancing of all factors, like investment,
opportunity costs, costs and benefits of energy conversion, toward
better, and toward more efficient, and healthier energy and power
sources and results, a new mentality must enter the public awareness.
Primarily, humanity must ask the questions, “Do we really need to
have this product or service? Do we really want to spend energy
making it and operating it?” For example, does it make sense for
the world to suffer the cost of higher energy consumption just to get
a thinking kitchen appliance? A smarter, flashier phone? More
automobiles, even if electric? Answers can come as yes or no, or not
yes but not now. It absolutely must come down to whether something
saves energy and increases efficiency, to the why or why not do we
need to develop something just because we can, and because we look
brilliant doing it. If we apply this litmus test to all
modernization—everything we can build, make or do—it might
surprise us that we really do not need many of the things pointed by
trends now and into the future. While things may fascinate us, and
look shiny on top, almost every thing in society has a dirty
underside when it comes to energy and looking at the costs and the
benefits scales. Imagination offers us many opportunities for
increasing energy efficiency, but we must understand that no free
energy or free lunch exists. Until humans get out of their own
selfishness and the perceived birthright to consume unlimited amounts
of energy and energy resources, we might not overcome the challenges
ahead. If we still build frivolous material things and do frivolous
acts, we need only start planning graves in the future. How many?
Unsure. Why? From every danger of war and peaceful times that concern
energy in the future.
This discussion leads directly to the
cultural-technological issue that will define the future of humanity,
and not only about energy. The biggest obstacle to future progress
about all energy conversion, clean power and climate change, economic
growth and prosperity, and even the evolution of civilization, stems
from humans blaming other people for problems without presenting
better alternatives. Nor do humans have great willingness to make
similar sacrifices for what they demand of others. Even your author
can convict himself of these general human tendencies.
The general solutions come along these
guidelines. First, NO ONE stands immune from this psycho-cultural
syndrome of blaming others. Self-responsibility and self-disciplined
ethics arrest this syndrome. Second, any solutions for energy
problems must come from the consent of everyone concerned,
peacefully, without coercion, in a unity of all to sacrifice
something for better results. Third, demanding that only one segment
of the population pay for changing how we use energy and produce
power, for any reason, must stop. (And stop on every other issue
before us). Whether rich or poor, we ALL must own the solution, and
everyone must pay a price, even in dollars. That price must come with
fairness, equability, and transparency.
We all create the demand, we must all
supply the answers, even in dollar amounts. Fourth, and finally, we
must stop indulging in the waste of energy of all kinds, even human
energy misdirected into frivolous thinking and actions. The problems
of energy face us. They will not leave us. We must pay attention to
solving it, consciously, conscientiously, deliberately, and
energetically. Where we can eek out efficiency in energy conversion
and consumption, we must do so, while still maintaining individual
dignity and natural rights. If for no other reasons, it reduces the
power of the state to rule without restraints, and only for the
benefit of the privileged. To conclude this discussion, the clock
ticks. More ideas exist. We can think of more, too. Let's hear
others. But most of all, as people, we can think and act. For if we
unleash the imagination of humanity, the solutions will present
themselves. If we take ownership for our ideas and actions, we can
prove to history that we deserve the right to call ourselves
intelligent beings. We can save our future, and then exceed our
expectations.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home