Changer le monde, tout un programme! (Changing the World, A Tall Order!)

Citation

Richardson, J. (2012), "Changer le monde, tout un programme! (Changing the World, A Tall Order!)", Foresight, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 182-184. https://doi.org/10.1108/14636681211222456

By definition, energy results from the transformation of matter, while economy is the machine that transforms all resources. This numerals‐heavy book is a paean to economical energy: how we use it more and more, how relatively cheap it has become in terms of humanity's benefits (and waste), and especially how to conserve energy more wisely. Engineer/statistician/economist J.‐M. Jancovici reinforces the thesis that urges civilization, furthermore, to “decarbonize” itself now for a more providential, secure and intelligent future.

The following passage sets the tone of the volume:

With a factor of 100‐10,000 between the cost of human labor and that of fossil energy, the search for cheaper labor on the other side of the globe is always more or less a profitable business, regardless of the amount of energy required to transport the goods acquired. Here we have the explanation, the real reason, for the material comfort from which we benefit daily: we own “energy slaves”! If we had to provide through human labor the 60,000 kilowatt/hours that a French person uses directly or indirectly each year for all purposes (heating, transport, and the manufacture of everything he/she consumes), we would find ourselves leading an army of several hundred if not several thousand “slaves” for each of us. Even in the so‐called emerging countries, each citizen already has at his disposal the equivalent of several dozen, or several hundred, slaves – well above whatever any European peasant had two centuries ago.

Author Jancovici stresses that the cost of anything we buy is determined by the amount of time one must work to pay for the product or service. “Since about 1860, the time needed to work to pay for one kilowatt of mechanical energy has been divided by between 50 and 100. If we wish to demonstrate this in terms of money [spent] between 1880 and 1970, the price of a barrel of petroleum has remained fairly stable in constant currency, namely, some $20 in 2010 dollars.” During the same period, and still using constant currency, “the purchasing power of the Western consumer has been multiplied by a factor of between 15 and 20. This means that the real cost of a kilowatt/hour derived from petroleum has been divided by 15 or 20, enabling us to consume many more such hours”.

Energy and its applications have thus changed, in a word, everything. In terms of employment, petroleum has had a direct effect since 1980 even on many individuals. Specifically, “it has become harder to find a job as an office worker or plumber, market gardener or engineer”, independently of the subject of remuneration. Tertiary‐sector employment occurs where the shops and offices are found, which means cities and towns – a direct result of the urbanization of national populations. Yet urbanization is but one form of change brought about by how we use energy to transform our multiple environments. “Gains in productivity and the diffusion of technology are not the cause, but the consequence, of a rise in energy consumption allowed by its exploitation at an ever‐growing yield” (p. 63).

The impact humans have on the earth and on each other can change (The Economist, 22 October 2011).

J.‐M. Jancovici recalls, historically, that fossil energy supplanted the renewable energies – not the other way round. Given this fact and now with the addition of another several billion humans on earth, “the diminution of the real cost of energy that has characterized industrial civilization from its beginnings will probably give way to a structural growth of this cost. This is likely, by default, to affect all the economic reflexes we acquired over the past century and a half”. All economic reflexes extend to the military too, including aircraft carriers, high‐performance fighter aircraft and land vehicles, many of which are replaceable by far less expensive and energy‐hungry drones.

What could be other new economic reflexes?

To ensure a climate‐sensitive energy system and respect the Copenhagen accords, the author champions a fourfold scenario:

1. 1.

   Reduce immediately the amount of petroleum products available, which should affect profoundly our transport means (now 14 percent of global emissions). The devices to bring this about are a carbon tax and a standardization of credit premiums for turning in obsolete vehicles, new licensing fees, and urban policies not conducive to requiring more transport.

2. 2.

   Implement CO₂ capture and sequestration within ten years affecting all thermal power plants (today yielding 18 percent of all emissions) and other concentrated sources of industry (another 10 percent).

3. 3.

   Organize a massive plan of renovation of those buildings that will maintain a certain value under “carbon constraints”, while destroying within 50 years residential sites in suburban area s; these currently consume, besides electricity, more than half the world's resources in natural gas.

4. 4.

   Develop food habits. In the industrialized countries, significantly less dependent on bovine products.

Contrary to too many misinterpretations of the Copenhagen agreements, measures such as these should not curb economic growth. Rather, it is inaction that will cause economic collapse because of the progressive disappearance of resources, and instability of climate. The solutions, however, the author says are far from cut and dried. The “electric car” in its present configurations, for example, is far from an ideal solution. Emission standards, too, as established by the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, need acceptance locally as well as by global agreement. Agriculture, too, cannot be separated from the category “industry”. Similarly, the phenomenon of continuing deforestation must be seen as a contributor of note to the generation of gases contaminating the atmosphere. Deforestation alone is responsible today for 13 percent of the CO₂ entering the atmosphere.

What about nuclear energy?

Curiously, author Jancovici has little to say about the role of the nucleus of the atom in the future energy supplies of the world. The author is French; he cites many examples of energy problems on that national scene. And not to be forgotten in this context is that France is largely satisfied with its huge level of electrical supply produced by nuclear reactors. Depending on the season, nuclear energy supplies nearly 80 percent of the national grid and this grid often furnishes neighboring nations. No other country begins to match this type of energy yield.

Energy futurist Jancovici ends this book (his sixth on climate or energy) with the realization that the current rush to meet deadlines around the year 2020 is unrealistic – especially since many existing industrial sites were built to last 50 years. Given that factor, “A willingness for massive decarbonization will provide a structural backbone for the future. And what do we call future plans encompassing everything that concerns human society? Isn't this what we call, by chance, a political program?”

Jancovici, who teaches at the prestigious Ecole des Mines in Paris, is difficult to read because the present book lacks structure – although its many pie‐charts and tables help the reader considerably with the text. The book's editors should have insisted on publishing an index, too, making the volume an invaluable reference for future‐energy planners in both government and industry.

About the reviewer

Jacques Richardson is a member of foresight's Editorial Board. Jacques Richardson can be contacted at: jaq.richard@noos.fr