Isn't this what economist and physicist Robert Ayres said, "The essential truth missing from economic education today is that energy is the stuff of the universe, that all matter is also a form of energy, and that the economic system is essentially a system for extracting, processing and transforming energy as resources into energy embodied in products and services. "
What this misses is that current increases in energy demand still result in increasing fossil fuel consumption AND the path to decarbonization is MUCH faster if the total energy required is kept in check. After decarbonization is mostly complete (2050 or later) then you can safely add as much energy demand as you want. But that process will be automatic because electricity prices should continue to fall as we create better grids.
I know this isn’t the main thrust of the article, but the description of the present as “similar to the past, but with pocket computers” seems a little, er, reductive?
Using Krugman’s own metric, I’d say Amazon and DoorDash/Deliveroo et al have changed the kitchen routine pretty radically for a lot of people.
In other aspects of life the difference is even greater. Watch the 1987 movie ‘The Secret of My Success’ and compare that to a modern office. Seems like at least as much difference as 1917-1957, probably more. And that’s before we just got rid of offices entirely!
Globally, it seems to me like we’re most likely to go down a divergent path, the rich have reliable, cheap power, while the poor have dirty and/or unreliable power. The technology to get cheap power to rich people is getting better faster than the technology to get electricity to everyone.
Excellent piece. I might just argue here that energy use/consumption is a result of economic growth (which in turn results from other complex conditions) and not the other way around, as the article seems to imply.
Isn't this what economist and physicist Robert Ayres said, "The essential truth missing from economic education today is that energy is the stuff of the universe, that all matter is also a form of energy, and that the economic system is essentially a system for extracting, processing and transforming energy as resources into energy embodied in products and services. "
What this misses is that current increases in energy demand still result in increasing fossil fuel consumption AND the path to decarbonization is MUCH faster if the total energy required is kept in check. After decarbonization is mostly complete (2050 or later) then you can safely add as much energy demand as you want. But that process will be automatic because electricity prices should continue to fall as we create better grids.
I know this isn’t the main thrust of the article, but the description of the present as “similar to the past, but with pocket computers” seems a little, er, reductive?
Using Krugman’s own metric, I’d say Amazon and DoorDash/Deliveroo et al have changed the kitchen routine pretty radically for a lot of people.
In other aspects of life the difference is even greater. Watch the 1987 movie ‘The Secret of My Success’ and compare that to a modern office. Seems like at least as much difference as 1917-1957, probably more. And that’s before we just got rid of offices entirely!
Globally, it seems to me like we’re most likely to go down a divergent path, the rich have reliable, cheap power, while the poor have dirty and/or unreliable power. The technology to get cheap power to rich people is getting better faster than the technology to get electricity to everyone.
Excellent piece. I might just argue here that energy use/consumption is a result of economic growth (which in turn results from other complex conditions) and not the other way around, as the article seems to imply.