Connect

The primary goal of a national energy policy should be to reduce demand for energy to a level that would be sustainable indefinitely. The policy should recognize explicitly that the present level of demand is not sustainable.

It should also recognize that, while technological fixes have an important role to play in reducing our demand for energy to a sustainable level, they cannot be an adequate substitute for the essential requirement: reducing our U.S. population to a level that would be sustainable indefinitely, which we judge to be in the range of 125 to 150 million. We believe that level could be reached in several generations if we halt illegal immigration and reduce legal immigration substantially.

The energy bill the Senate approved on June 21st does none of the above, and thus ignores completely the central issue. Furthermore, it is unlikely to greatly reduce, or even reduce at all, our reliance on foreign oil, and our greenhouse gas emissions. That is because the bill relies heavily on technological fixes (such as new energy efficiency standards for cars, homes, offices, buildings and appliances) to reduce demand for energy, (or rather reduce the rate of growth in demand) and neglects entirely to deal with, or even recognize, the central issue - our U.S. population size and growth that are driving relentlessly our insatiable and constantly growing demand for energy.

A measure that would have assigned $32 billion in tax increases to finance new incentives for renewable energy was a step in the right direction, but it was unfortunately defeated.

Currently we use the enormous quantity of 21 million barrels of oil per day. As Harry Reid, the Senate majority leader, recently noted, that is enough oil to fill a 10 foot deep trench 11 miles long!

We need, of course, to continue learning to use energy more efficiently, but any improvements resulting from greater efficiency would be quickly overwhelmed if we continue to allow our population to grow. Our already greatly overpopulated country, now over 300 million, is growing by over 30 million a decade. If present trends were allowed to continue our population could easily reach 450 million by mid-century, and a billion by the end of the century.

It would be a grave error to rely too much on rapid improvements in energy efficiency. In the editorial in the February 9th issue of Science magazine, Prof. John F. Holden, President of the AAAS (American Association for the Advancement of Science) speaking of the world economy, wrote: "Even if the energy efficiency of the world economy - gross world product per unit of energy - were to continue to increase at the long-term historical rate of about 1% per year, the realization of middle-of-the-road population and economic projections would entail quadrupling energy use in this century (emphasis added)."

Prof. Holdren goes on to write, "In a world where today one-third of primary energy comes from oil (two-thirds of the remaining high-quality supplies of which probably lie under the volatile Middle East) and 80% comes from oil, coal, and natural gas combined (virtually all of the carbon dioxide from the combustion of which continues to go straight into the atmosphere), that middle-of-the-road energy trajectory cannot be managed simply by expanding what we are already doing.Such a path is not merely unsustainable; it is a prescription for disaster (emphasis added)."

One has to wonder how many of our Senators made the obvious connection between the massive population growth that would have resulted if the recently debated Senate immigration bill had become law, and our need for foreign oil.

Our Senators need to ask themselves a specific question: which size U.S. population would use more oil, and thus need more foreign oil (since domestic production has been declining for over 30 years), 1) a nation of not over 150 million, our size in the 1950's, or 2) a nation of 450 million or more, a size we might well reach by mid-century unless illegal immigration is halted and legal immigration drastically reduced.

With per capita consumption the same under both scenarios, it is readily apparent that a nation of 450 million would need three times the amount of oil that a nation of 150 million would require. It is highly unlikely that our present consumption can be maintained much longer if world oil production peaks and begins to decline in the near future, as many experts predict.

A sound national energy policy would recognize that what we urgently need to do, above all, is to reduce our demand for energy to a level that would be sustainable indefinitely. To achieve that goal we need to gradually reduce the size of our population to a level far lower than today's.

We conclude our comments with some observations by Lindsey Grant, who has written extensively about the energy transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy. The following quotations are from an NPG Forum paper titled, How Long the Twilight (see end notes):

"The age of reliance on fossil fuels has been extraordinary, both for its swift rise and its prospective brevity. It has supported a remarkable growth in prosperity in the industrial world. The return to reliance on the sun's annual radiation of energy to the Earth will be a painful comedown."

"Few political leaders seem to recognize that the decline of petroleum is a new and fundamental issue. The U.S. Government seems to be mesmerized or in denial, and state and local governments continue to plan for growth and more traffic as though there were no energy crisis
ahead. We may stay in that state of mind and stumble dumbly into disaster. More likely we will search for every possible source of energy - but without addressing the population growth that drives the problem (emphasis added)."

"Above all, seek the solution on the demand side (emphasis added). The United States must stop and reverse its population growth so as to match the decline of conventional energy with declining demand, and to free more resources for the investments that lie ahead in converting to renewable energy. We must come to a consensus and start the move now if we learn that the post-fossil energy resources will not support the population we have, at a level above penury - or if we learn that we cannot limit the damage from burning coal."

The following quotation is from an NPG Forum paper titled, Twilight or Dawn? (see end notes):

"Many studies have undertaken to describe how benign renewables might replace fossil fuels. A few of them have noted that population growth makes the task more difficult. Almost none of them turn the issue around and make the point that only a smaller population will make it possible (emphasis added). That is the central point I hope to make."


End notes:

Forgotten Fundametals of the Energy Crisis, by Prof. Bartlett
A Proposed National Population Policy
How Long the Twilight
Twilight or Dawn?