I agree about the general point about the industrial revolution building itself on fossil fuels, but the point I am making is that the shift from hydro power to fossil fuel did not occur because of a shortage of hydro power. Incidentally the main use of steam pumps at the begining was for Tin mines rather than coal mines. Coal would still have been needed for heating and iron production. so coal production would have risen sharply even in a hydro powered industrialisation. ________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on behalf of [email protected] [[email protected]] Sent: Sunday, March 02, 2014 11:47 PM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Book about post-growth economy by Niko Paech
Paul says: "it is not that simple." Of course things never are simple enough to cover everything in a mailing list posting. Wrigley's book covers the entire economic history literature and looks at many competing explanations. But the essence of his argument is that fossil fuels were an inescapable condition for the sustained boom of the Industrial Revolution. This is a hypothesis which has a lot going for it, and I think it survives all the complications you can throw at it. I think this is the best understanding we have right now of the Industrial Revolution, I like it better than Marx's explanation. Hydropower is limited, like wind power or biomass. Had the Industrial Revolution had to rely on hydropower it would have fizzled too. The first industrial application of steam power is Newcomen's steam pump, allowing to pump water out of coal and iron mines. I.e. coal could be used to produce even more coal more cheaply. This is an autocatalytic process which you will not find in renewable energy. Coal became therefore a very cheap energy source, so cheap that people did not even notice how important it was. Another hypothesis is Niko Paech's thesis that de-materialized growth is not possible. This hypothesis did not originate in a vacuum; it came from the experience in Germany that the Energiewende is thwarted by increased open pit mines for brown coal in Germany. The problem is that CDU and SPD do not want to tell the public that they must reduce consumption in order to have a green economy. They want both, growth and a green economy, and they will get a growing brown economy with green fringes and ultimately the collapse of growth and our traditional way of life. This is the sad trajectory right now, but Energiewende is very popular, and the German student movement and other grass roots activists may make a difference. Paech is one of their theoreticians and speakers. Climate scientists are becoming more and more activists, see Jim Hansen in US and Kevin Anderson in UK. It is high time they are joined by economists, because mainstream economics as dangerous to the climate as the fables of the climate change deniers. Juliet Schor says many things similar to Paech but she does not make it her central message that GDP is a measure of the destruction of the environment and must be reduced. We need more economists coming out openly for a shrinking economy. That is why I like Paech so much. Hans G Ehrbar. _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
