Modern society has become increasingly liberated from nature. It’s sad that wildlife populations have declined 73% since 1970, but we really don’t need them to flourish. We could pave the Amazon and it wouldn’t affect human prosperity very much.
Those were positions ecomodernist Alex Trembath(opens in new tab) stated during a recent PBS Energy Switch(opens in new tab) debate we had on ecological overshoot.
They reflect the central premise of ecomodernism: that technology can progressively decouple human prosperity from energy, materials, and the natural systems that support civilization. Evidence does not support that view.
Figure 1 shows that there is no decoupling of economic growth and material throughput. GDP and material use remain extraordinarily tightly coupled, with a correlation coefficient of 0.98 over the period 1970 to 2024.
Figure 1. There is no absolute decoupling of material throughput. Global GDP remains tightly coupled to material use. Source: Global Material Flows Database and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc. Click on the image to enlarge.
|
Figure 2 shows that there is no decoupling of economic activity and energy use. They have a correlation coefficient of about 0.98 over the same period as in Figure 1.
Figure 2. There is no absolute decoupling of energy throughput. Global GDP remains tightly coupled to energy use. Source: Global Material Flows Database and Our World in Data.
Click on the image to enlarge.
|
What About The Future?
The historical record gives us little reason to assume civilization-scale absolute decoupling but let’s assume the ecomodernists are right. Suppose the future is different.
Shell provides a rare window(opens in new tab) by extending its scenarios to 2100, decades beyond most mainstream energy outlooks. What light does it shed?
Nuclear energy is central to Ecomodernism’s case but Shell projects nuclear averaging only about 13% of world primary energy in the second half of the century (Figure 3).
Figure 3. Shell Projects Nuclear Averaging Just 13% of Primary Energy, 2050–2100. Source: Shell. Click on the image to enlarge.
|
Looking beyond nuclear, however, Shell’s “Archipelagos” scenario is quite extraordinary. Like ecomodernism, it implies a civilizational shift to electric power as the dominant form of energy, increasing from about 20% in 2020 to 37% by mid-century and 60% by 2100 (Figure 4). Global GDP increases fivefold from today’s level even as fossil fuels give way increasingly to electricity from mostly renewable energy sources.
I have serious questions about Shell’s assumptions but for now, I will stipulate that they are acceptable because they match the optimistic expectations of ecomodernism.
Figure 4. Shell Projects Massive Electrification and 5× GDP Growth as Fossil Energy Falls. Source: Shell, 2026 Energy Security Scenarios data. Click on the image to enlarge.
|
Not surprisingly—with flattening energy use and rising GDP—Shell projects a century of deep energy-GDP decoupling (Figure 5).
Figure 5. Shell Projects a Century of Deep Energy–GDP Decoupling. Source: Shell 2026 Energy Security Scenarios.
Click on the image to enlarge.
|
All of this lines up well with ecomodernism’s technological future with the exception of nuclear. Electricity explodes, fossil energy falls, GDP rises fivefold, and energy intensity collapses.
But the environmental and societal risk of climate change does not go away. Shell projects peak carbon emissions in just a few years but atmospheric carbon keeps rising (Figure 6).
Mitigating carbon emissions is critical but it doesn’t signal “mission accomplished.” Falling emissions are still positive emissions, so atmospheric carbon continues to accumulate.
Figure 6. Shell Projects Falling Fossil Emissions—But Atmospheric Carbon Keeps Rising. Source: The Global Carbon Budget 2024 and Shell 2026 Energy Security Scenario.
Click on the image to enlarge.
|
As a consequence, Shell projects warming above 2°C after 2050 rising to 2.5°C by the end of the century (Figure 7).
Figure 7. Even With Falling Fossil-Fuel Emissions, Shell Shows Warming Above 2°C. Source: Shell, 2026 Energy Security Scenarios data. Click on the image to enlarge.
|
That is hardly the ecological end state implied by ecomodernist abundance.
Overshoot
My debate with Alex Trembath was broader than climate change.
Climate is only the most visible manifestation of overshoot. Human activity also exceeds natural rates of nitrogen cycling, groundwater recharge, fisheries regeneration and habitat replacement. Technology can shift pressure among these systems, but it does not make the underlying stocks, flows and sinks disappear.
For example, the overuse of synthetic fertilizer has far exceeded Earth’s nitrogen absorption capacity(opens in new tab). The excess causes marine dead zones and accelerates atmospheric emissions of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas nearly 300 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
Over 35% of global marine fish stocks are overfished(opens in new tab), while over half of the world’s 37 largest regional aquifer systems are being depleted far beyond their natural recharge rates(opens in new tab).
Alex Trembath says he doesn’t find ecological overshoot “useful,” but the scientists whose job is studying Earth’s complex systems disagree. These natural systems evolved over hundreds of millions of years. Ecomodernism treats them as increasingly separable from human prosperity. I see the evidence pointing in the opposite direction: civilization remains embedded within them and dependent upon their continued function.
In my recent debate with Trembath, he was careful to present The Breakthrough Institute’s core agenda as “abundance.” But abundance of what? If it means more material consumption, overshoot remains. If it means greater prosperity with much less material and energy throughput, then the argument relies on precisely the deep decoupling that has never been demonstrated at global scale. And if it means abundant clean energy, energy is not a substitute for fertile soil, freshwater, habitat or functioning ecosystems.
Many thoughtful people today believe that civilization is at a critical threshold. Ecomodernism offers a hopeful vision, but lacks the charts, tables, scenarios, and timelines needed to give it substance. Historical data and Shell’s optimistic scenario fail to support its case.
Technology is indispensable. It can change our relationship with nature. It cannot end our dependence on it. We must understand the present—and how we arrived here—before we can build a viable future. Pretending we are separate from the natural systems we depend upon is a fatal error.
By the same author:
The Geology of Climate Change
The Iran War Phase Shift: Energy Shock,
Rising Complexity, and the End of the Old Growth Regime
The Long Way Home:
Carbon, Climate, and the Limits of Control
The Entropy Fee: The Hidden Physical Cost of Technology
Getting To Know The Oil System
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Art Berman is Director of Labyrinth Consulting Services, Sugar Land, Texas, and a world-renowned energy consultant with expertise based on over 40 years of experience working as a petroleum geologist. Visit his website, Shattering Energy Myths: One Fact at a Time, and learn more about Art here.
|
