Gaël Giraud, du CNRS : « Le vrai rôle de l’énergie va obliger les économistes à changer de dogme »

Croissance mondiale de l'économie, de la consommation d'énergie et de pétrole.

19 avril 2014, par Matthieu Auzanneau

Contrairement à ce qui est écrit dans tous les manuels d'économie, l'énergie (et non le capital, sans elle inerte) se révèle être LE facteur essentiel de la croissance, selon Gaël Giraud, 44 ans, directeur de recherche au CNRS et jésuite. Economistes, perpétuez-vous depuis deux siècles la même bourde fatidique ?

Quels sont d'après vous les indices d'un lien intime entre consommation d'énergie et croissance de l'économie ?

Depuis deux siècles, depuis les travaux d'Adam Smith et de David Ricardo par exemple, la plupart des économistes expliquent que l'accumulation du capital est le secret de la croissance économique inédite que connaissent les sociétés occidentales, puis une partie du reste du monde. Marx était, lui aussi, convaincu de cette apparente évidence. Or, historiquement, l'accumulation du capital (au sens moderne) n'a pas commencé au 18ème siècle avec le début de la révolution industrielle, mais au moins deux cents ans plus tôt. Inversement, la première “révolution marchande” des 12ème et 13ème siècles, qui permit à l'Europe de sortir de la féodalité rurale, coïncide avec la généralisation des moulins à eau et à vent. Une nouvelle source énergétique, en plus de la photosynthèse (agriculture) et de la force animale, devenait disponible. De même, qui peut nier que la découverte des applications industrielles du charbon, puis du gaz et du pétrole (et, plus récemment, de l'atome) a joué un rôle décisif dans la révolution industrielle, et partant, comme moteur de la croissance ? De 1945 à 1975, les “trente glorieuses” ont été une période de croissance accélérée et aussi de consommation inédite d'hydrocarbures. Depuis lors, la planète n'a jamais retrouvé la vitesse de consommation d'énergies fossiles qui fut la sienne après guerre. C'est une bonne nouvelle pour le climat. Mais cela n'est pas étranger au fait que nous n'avons jamais retrouvé non plus les taux de croissance du PIB des trente glorieuses.

+
http://petrole.blog.lemonde.fr/2014/04/19/gael-giraud-du-cnrs-le-vrai-role-de-lenergie-va-obliger-les-economistes-a-changer-de-dogme/

Nine Reasons Why Low Oil Prices May “Morph” Into Something Much Worse

Figure 6. Figure by Steve Kopits of Westwood Douglas showing trends in world oil exploration and production costs per barrel. CAGR is “Compound Annual Growth Rate.”

by Gail Tverberg
Posted on July 22, 2015   

Why are commodity prices, including oil prices, lagging? Ultimately, the question comes back to, “Why isn’t the world economy making very many of the end products that use these commodities?” If workers were getting rich enough to buy new homes and cars, demand for these products would be raising the prices of commodities used to build and operate cars, including the price of oil. If governments were rich enough to build an increasing number of roads and more public housing, there would be demand for the commodities used to build roads and public housing.

It looks to me as though we are heading into a deflationary depression, because the prices of commodities are falling below the cost of extraction. We need rapidly rising wages and debt if commodity prices are to rise back to 2011 levels or higher. This isn’t happening. Instead, Janet Yellen is talking about raising interest rates later this year, and  we are seeing commodity prices fall further and further. Let me explain some pieces of what is happening.

Read more @ Our Finite World.

A new theory of energy and the economy

By Gail Tverberg
Posted on January 21, 2015


– Part 1 – Generating economic growth

[...]

What if oil prices are artificially low, on a temporary basis? The catch is that not all costs of oil producing companies can be paid at such low prices. Perhaps the cost of operating oil fields still in existence will be fine, and the day-to-day expenses of extracting Middle Eastern oil can be covered. The parts of the chain that get squeezed first seem to be least essential on a day to day basis–taxes to governments, funds for new exploration, funds for debt repayments, and funds for dividends to policyholders.

Unfortunately, we cannot run the oil business on such a partial system. Businesses need to cover both their direct and indirect costs. Low oil prices create a system ready to crash, as oil production drops and the ability to leverage human labor with cheaper sources of energy decreases. Raising oil prices back to the full required level is likely to be a problem in the future, because oil companies require debt to finance new oil production. (This new production is required to offset declines in existing fields.) With low oil prices–or even with highly variable oil prices–the amount that can be borrowed drops and interest costs rise. This combination makes new investment impossible.

If the rising cost of energy products, due to diminishing returns, tends to eliminate economic growth, how do we work around the problem? In order to produce economic growth, it is necessary to produce goods in such a way that goods become cheaper and cheaper over time, relative to wages. Clearly this has not been happening recently.

The temptation businesses face in trying to produce this effect is to eliminate workers completely–just automate the process. This doesn’t work, because it is workers who need to be able to buy the products. Governments need to become huge, to manage transfer payments to all of the unemployed workers. And who will pay all of these taxes?

The popular answer to our diminishing returns problem is more efficiency, but efficiency rarely adds more than 1% to 2% to economic growth. We have been working hard on efficiency in recent years, but overall economic growth results have not been very good in the US, Europe, and Japan.


Read more at Our Finite World.
Part 2
Part 3