There are three global imbalances that have started to challenge us and will be very consequential for our future as a global community. These imbalances refer to the global distribution of consumption of fossil fuels, prosperity, and population growth. These imbalances are interconnected and because of that I believe we cannot solve one by ignoring the other. Although not everybody keeps track of these imbalances, their effects have started to account for the general discontent we see in Western societies, which are being and will be tested the most.
It is now generally accepted that the climate crisis requires a dramatic reduction in the use of fossil fuels. Politically, this cannot be achieved unless Western nations and especially the U.S. are willing to reduce their per capita consumption of fossil fuels. This is so because large polluters like China and India are unlikely to accept reduction of their aggregate energy consumption without accounting for their lower per capita consumption. They will continue to argue that it is unfair to sacrifice the wellbeing of their people so that Americans enjoy the fruits of high energy consumption. Country statistics in Our World In Data show that in 2022 the per capita consumption of fossil fuels was 63,836 kwh in the U.S., 28,721 kwh in Europe, 25,344 kwh in China, 6,319 kwh in India and 3,545 kwh in Africa. This means that for any meaningful reduction of the global consumption of fossil fuels the burden falls mostly on the U.S. We need to both raise the efficiency of fossil fuels and more importantly switch quickly to renewable energy sources.
Data from The World Bank show that global prosperity (I use GDP as a proxy) is very unevenly distributed across the globe. In 2022, the average per capital income was $49,557 in High Income countries, $5,896 in Low-Middle Income countries and $750 in Low Income countries. About 700 million people live on $2 a day. Around 1 billion people live without electricity and basic services in health and education. The bulk of the global population living in absolute or relative poverty reside in the Global South, that is, Africa, South Asia, and South America. This uneven prosperity (often coupled with political unrest and high crime rates) is what drives the great migration waves toward the U.S. and Europe. It seems to me that if the U.S., Europe, and soon China (whose population is projected to shrink to below 800 million by 2100) wish to maintain their economic growth, they must adopt a more welcoming posture. At the same time, they must lead a coordinating effort to raise the living standards in the Global South. As long as people are deprived of material subsistence and/or the aspiration for a better life, they will keep coming to the West no matter how high the border walls are raised or how many intercepting ships are sent to block sea routs.
The third imbalance is in the projected growth of the global population which now stands at 8 billion. It is projected to grow to 10 billion by year 2100. Three quarters of this growth will come from Africa, whose total population will more than double from 1.41 billion now to 3.96 billion by 2100 (source: Statista). What these population projections mean for energy consumption and migration are quite self-evident. Unless Africa enters a long phase of sustained economic growth, it will generate ever increasing migration waves toward Europe and even the U.S. as recent data indicate. Uneven population growth will also complicate the decoupling from fossil fuel consumption. If people move from low to high consumption countries, they will turn into high energy consumers, thus making it more difficult for the host countries to reduce overall consumption of fossil fuels and more urgent to develop alternative sources. If prosperity rises in Africa and other depressed regions, that will come with much higher energy consumption. In either case, the pressure will be on the advanced North (that is, the West) to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels for the simple reason that it is global energy consumption that matters in the fight to save the climate.
The interconnectedness of the three imbalances can be summarized in the following propositions. To alleviate (it’s too ambitious to say eliminate) the imbalance in prosperity requires additional aggregate consumption of energy. To avert climate crisis and even disaster requires we quickly shift from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources. And, to check migration requires we succeed in narrowing the prosperity gap. So, we cannot solve one imbalance without affecting at least one of the other two.
Western countries are those that will feel the most impact from these imbalances and their consequences. The West is the part of the world with the strongest business sectors and high-consumption populations. Businesses dislike limits to their growth and so do people regarding their material needs. Western businesses could expand to the Global South to seek profits but we are currently witnessing a retrenchment of the globalization model in the policies of Western governments, and especially the U.S. Western populations are also reluctant to sacrifice material prosperity in the interest of global priorities. This is, especially so for working class people who have seen their wellbeing suffer because of globalization. Whereas upper-middle class and upper-class Westerners are asked to risk only further betterment of their comfortable lives, working class people are asked to risk their aspirations to better living standards. This predicament is in fact a matter of concern for all underprivileged people of the world. Why should they accept limits before they had the chance to taste prosperity? The negative effects of placing limits on energy consumption on the short-term wellbeing of working people is part of the reason they reject climate science and the energy policies behind it.
The need to consider limits to growth is not new. In 1968, The Club of Rome commissioned a study to estimate the environmental costs of rapid industrialization. In 1972, Dennis Meadows of MIT and his team produced the book The Limits To Growth, which painted a rather bleak future. At the time, both the book and its authors were dismissed. The New York Times called the results “garbage in garbage out.” In 2002, Meadows reran the study on more powerful computers and with updated data. The results were the same.* Right now, we know the climate and environmental crises are real. With hindsight, we could say we have already lost fifty years since 1972. And the three imbalances I identified here make our effort a lot more difficult.
It is possible that rapid advancements in energy-related technologies will buy us time and allows us to make steady progress in arriving at a more balanced world in terms of prosperity and environmental sustainability. Until then though politicians and citizens of the West must prepare the ground for some difficult adjustments.
* This information comes from Work: A History of How We Spend Our Time of James Suzman.
Let's Reason 