the food system , where a reduction in fossil fuel inputs could actually lead to healthier food and soil . Over the past century or so , fossil fuels provided so much energy , and so cheaply , that humanity developed the habit of solving any problem that came along by simply utilizing more energy as a solution . Want to move people or goods faster ? Just build more kerosene-burning jet planes , runways and airports . Need to defeat diseases ? Just use fossil fuels to make and distribute disinfectants , antibiotics and pharmaceuticals . In a multitude of ways , we used the blunt instrument of cheap energy to bludgeon nature into conforming with our wishes . The side effects were sometimes worrisome — air and water petrochemical pollution , antibiotic-resistant microbes and ruined farm soils . But we confronted these problems with the same mindset and toolbox , using cheap energy to clean up industrial wastes , developing new antibiotics and growing food without soil . As the fossil fuel era comes to an end , the rules of the game will change . We ’ ll need to learn how to solve problems with ecological intelligence , mimicking and partnering with nature rather than suppressing and subverting her . High tech may continue to provide useful ways of manipulating and storing data ; but , when it comes to moving and transforming physical goods and products , intelligently engineered low tech may offer better answers in the long run .
Further along the x-axis would be the daring action of nationalizing the fossil fuel industry . But at the very farthest end of the x-axis is the possibility of deliberately reining in economic growth . Policymakers typically want more growth so we can have more jobs , profits , returns on investment and tax revenues . But growing the economy ( at least , the way we ’ ve been doing it for the past few decades ) also means increasing resource extraction , pollution , land use and carbon emissions . There ’ s a debate among economists and scientists as to whether or not economic growth could proceed in a more sustainable way , but the general public is largely in the dark about that discussion . Only in its most recent report has the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ( IPCC ) begun to probe the potential for “ degrowth ” policies to reduce carbon emissions . So far , the scorecard is easy to read : only in years of economic recession ( such as in 2008 and in 2020 ) have carbon emissions declined . In years of economic expansion , emissions increased . Policymakers have held out the hope that if we build enough solar panels and wind turbines , these technologies will replace fossil fuels and we can have growth without emissions . Yet , in most years , the amount of increased energy usage due to economic growth has been greater than the amount of solar and wind power added to the overall energy mix , so these renewable sources ended up just supplementing , not displacing , fossil fuels . True , we could build turbines , panels and batteries faster ; but , as long as overall energy usage is growing , we ’ re continually making the goal of reducing our reliance on fossil fuels harder to achieve .
Wouldn ’ t giving up growth mean steering perilously close to the Scylla of economic peril in order to avoid the Charybdis of climate doom ? So far , we ’ ve been doing just the reverse , prizing growth while multiplying climate risks . Maybe it ’ s time to rethink those priorities . Post-growth economists have spent the last couple of decades enumerating the ways we could improve our quality of life while reducing our throughput of energy and materials . Policymakers must finally start to take these proposals seriously , or we will end up confronting the twin monsters — economy-crushing fossil fuel scarcity and devastating climate impacts — without prior planning and preparation .
It was always clear that we would eventually have to face the music with regard to our systemic economic dependency on depleting , polluting fossil fuels . We have delayed action , making both the economic challenge and the climate threat harder to manage . Our possible navigation channel between Scylla and Charybdis is now perilously narrow . If we wait much longer , this channel will vanish altogether .
The Trial Lawyer x 75