Advertisement

Since the 1950s, at least, it has been clear that factors other than capital and labor must be responsible for most economic growth. Historical and anecdotal evidence suggests that the substitution of machines powered by fossil energy for human and animal labor must have played a significant or even dominant role in driving growth. The situation is complicated by the coming peak in global petroleum output and the technological transition that must follow. Economists have inconsistent views on these relationships. The most dangerous is the assumption that growth is both optimal and exogenous. This implies that growth is automatic and costless. It also implies that any government intervention is likely to impose costs. Another implication of the standard theory is that economic growth is independent of energy use, so energy consumption is a consequence but not a cause of growth. Some argue also that economic growth is actually a prerequisite for environmental protection, both because the latter is a ‘superior’ good – i.e. a luxury – desired mainly by the rich, and because advanced technology and wealth are needed for purposes of both prevention and abatement of environmental damage. On the other hand, there is much evidence that growth along the historical trajectory itself is a primary cause of pollution and environmental degradation. More realistic techno-economic models are badly needed.

Keywords

Energy economic growth neoclassical economic paradigm exergy useful work energy return 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anonymous. 2007. Energy tax. http://home.clara.net/heurika/gaia/energy2.htm. Accessed July 3 2007.
  2. Arthur, B. W. 1994. Increasing returns and path dependence in the economy. In Economics, Cognition and Society, T. Kuran (ed.). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  3. Ayres, R. U. and A. V. Kneese. 1969. Production, consumption and externalities. American Economic Review LIX(3): 282-296.Google Scholar
  4. Ayres, R. U. and B. Warr. 2005. Accounting for growth: The role of physical work. Structural Change & Economic Dynamics 16(2): 181-209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ayres, R. U., L. W. Ayres, and B. Warr. 2003. Exergy, power and work in the US economy, 1900-1998. Energy 28(3): 219-273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bovenberg, A. L. and R. de Mooi. 1994. Environmental levies and distortionary taxation. American Economic Review 94: 1085-1089.Google Scholar
  7. Bovenberg, A. L. and L. H. Goulder. 2001. Neutralizing the adverse industry impacts of CO2 abatement policies: What does it cost? In Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy, C. Cararro and G. Metcalf (eds.). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  8. Campbell, C. J. 1997. The Coming Oil Crisis. Brentwood, UK: Multi-Science Publishing and Petroconsultants.Google Scholar
  9. Campbell, C. J. 2003. The Essence of Oil and Gas Depletion: Collected Papers and Excerpts. Bretwood, UK: Multi-Science Publishing.Google Scholar
  10. Campbell, C. J. and J. H. Laherrčre. 1998. The end of cheap oil. Scientific American 278(3): 60-65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Casten, T. R. and R. U. Ayres. 2007. Energy myth #8: The US energy system is environmentally and economically optimal. In Energy and Society: Twelve Myths, B. Sovacool and M. Brown(eds.). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  12. Cleveland, C. J., R. Costanza, C. A. S. Hall, and R. K. Kaufmann. 1984. Energy and the US economy: A biophysical perspective. Science 255: 890-897.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dasgupta, P. and G. Heal. 1974. The optimal depletion of exhaustible resources. Paper presented at Symposium on the Economics of Exhaustible Resources.Google Scholar
  14. David, P. A. 1985. CLIO and the economics of QWERTY. American Economic Review (Papers and Proceedings) 75: 332-337. Google Scholar
  15. Deffeyes, K. S. 2001. Hubbert’s Peak. Hardcover ed. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Energy Information Administration (EIA). 2004. World Energy Outlook 2003. Washington DC: United States Department of Energy, Energy Information Administration.Google Scholar
  16. Forrester, J. W. 1971. World Dynamics. Cambridge, MA: Wright-Allen.Google Scholar
  17. Forrester, J. W. 1975. New perspectives for growth over the next thirty years. Paper presented at Conference on Limits to Growth ’75, October 20, Houston, TX.Google Scholar
  18. Fullerton, D. and G. Metcalf. 1998. Environmental taxes and the double-dividend hypothesis: Did you really expect someething for nothing? Chicago-Kent Law Review 73(1): 221-256.Google Scholar
  19. Fullerton, D. and G. Metcalf. 2001. Environmental controls, scarcity rents and pre-existing distortions. Journal of Public Economics 80(2): 249-267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Georgescu-Roegen, N. 1971. The Entropy Law and the Economic Process. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Hammerschlag, R. 2006. Ethanol’s return on investment: A survey of the literature 1900-present. Environmental Science and Technology 40(6): 1744-1750.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Heinberg, R. 2004. Powerdown: Options and Actions for a Post-carbon World. Gabriola Island, B.C., Canada: New Society.Google Scholar
  23. International Energy Agency. 2004. World Energy Outlook 2004. Paris: OECD/IEA.Google Scholar
  24. Kuemmel, R., W. Strassl, A. Gossner, and W. Eichhorn. 1985. Technical progress and energy dependent production functions. Journal of Economics 45(3): 285-311.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Meadows, D. L., D. H. Meadows, J. Randers, and W. I. Behrens. 1972. The Limits to Growth, Club of Rome Reports. New York: Universe Books.Google Scholar
  26. Moore, S. 1993. Federal Budget Issue: Do We Need an Energy Tax? 127. Dallas TX: National Center for Policy Analysis.Google Scholar
  27. Nordhaus, W. D. 1973a. The allocation of energy resources. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3: 529-570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nordhaus, W. D. 1973b. World dynamics: Measurement without data. Economic Journal 83: 1156-1183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Odell, P. R. 1983. Oil and World Power. 7th ed. New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
  30. Pigou, A. C. 1920. The Economics of Welfare. 1st ed. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  31. Ramsey, F. P. 1928. A mathematical theory of saving. Economic Journal 38(152): 543-559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Schumpeter, J. A. 1912. Theorie der Wirtschaftlichen Entwicklungen. Leipzig, Germany: Duncker and Humboldt.Google Scholar
  33. Schumpeter, J. A. 1934. Theory of Economic Development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Solow, R. M. 1974a. Intergenerational equity and exhaustible resources. Review of Economic Studies 41: 29-45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Solow, R. M. 1974b. The economics of resources or the resources of economics. American Economic Review 64(2): 1-14.Google Scholar
  36. Stiglitz, J. 1974. Growth with exhaustible natural resources: Efficient and optimal growth paths. Review of Economic Studies 41: 123-137. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Strahan, D. 2007. The Last Oil Shock. London: John Murray.Google Scholar
  38. Von Weizsaecker, E. U. and J. Jesinghaus. 1992. Ecological Tax Reform: A Policy Proposal for Sustained Development. London: Zed Books.Google Scholar
  39. Warr, B. and R. U. Ayres. 2006. The MEET-REXS model. Structural Change & Economic Dynamics 17: 329-378.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media B.V 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert U. Ayres
    • 1
  1. 1.International Institute for Applied Systems AnalysisAustria

Personalised recommendations