Long-Term Energy Solutions: The Truth Behind the Silent Lie

Abstract

The articles dealing with population growth and energy make claims that are sadly pessimistic, but fortunately wrong. Albert Bartlett takes issue with economist Julian Simon while fawning over Malthus. Readers should recall Paul Ehrlich’s book The Population Bomb (Ballantine, 1968; Buccaneer Books, 1995). Thirty years ago, Ehrlich made many of the same arguments as Paul Weisz and Bartlett. Julian Simon made a now-famous wager with Ehrlich regarding the prices of five commodities in the future. According to basic economic theory, the price of goods will increase as the available supply decreases. Ehrlich predicted severe shortages and cost increases. Simon claimed that technology and efficiency would more than make up for increased population and that prices would fall. Ehrlich was wrong; Simon was right. Today, the cost of energy in constant dollars is less, not more, than it was 20 years ago. Throughout the past three decades, it has been Malthusian theory that is in error. Calling Simon “egregious” in his correct prediction does not erase the facts about energy efficiency. What amazes me is the small scope in which Weisz and Bartlett limit analysis. As physicists, we should be touting the long-term potential for nuclear energy. However, Bartlett restricts his analysis to fossil fuels and Weisz writes only two sentences about US uranium—less than 3% of total world production. Bartlett complains about “nonscientists with academic credentials,” but it appears that he is a noneconomist with physics credentials. By looking at people and energy as some sort of equation to be balanced, the authors ignore the social and economic incentives that cause humanity to become more innovative and efficient as needs and supplies dictate. We should embrace future growth with optimism.© 2004 American Institute of Physics.