THE GREENIES WOULD CALL IT CONSERVATION. THE REALITY IS IT'S DEPRIVATION.

A doomsday environmentalist called C. J. Polychroniou tells us not to worry, and to be happy.  "We have the technical know-how as well as the available economic resources to make the transition to a clean energy future. Now it must be done."

Sorry, no.

In order to save the planet from catastrophic climate change, Americans will have to cut their energy use by more than 90 percent and families of four should live in housing no larger than 640 square feet. That's at least according to a team of European researchers led by University of Leeds sustainability researcher Jefim Vogel. In their new study, "Socio-economic conditions for satisfying human needs at low energy use," in Global Environmental Change, they calculate that public transportation should account for most travel. Travel should, in any case, be limited to between 3,000 to 10,000 miles per person annually.

I suppose I could sell indulgences for the commuting I'm no longer doing, but read on, dear reader, and discover that a return to medieval living standards might be our salvation.

Vogel and his colleagues are undaunted by the fact that there are absolutely no examples of low-energy societies providing decent living standards—as defined by the researchers themselves—for their citizens. So they proceed to jigger the various provisioning factors until they find that what is really needed is a "more fundamental transformation of the political-economic regime." That fundamental transformation includes free government-provided high-quality public services in areas such as health, education, and public transport.

"We also found that a fairer income distribution is crucial for achieving decent living standards at low energy use," said co-author Daniel O'Neill, from Leeds' School of Earth and Environment. "To reduce existing income disparities, governments could raise minimum wages, provide a Universal Basic Income, and introduce a maximum income level. We also need much higher taxes on high incomes, and lower taxes on low incomes."

Rush Limbaugh always argued that environmentalism was a stalking horse for communism, didn't he? More seriously, where, though, will the production come from for the governments to tax and allocate?  The study isn't about those Polychronioutic green jobs, it's more about stopping the burning of fossil fuels.

Two things that humanity for sure doesn't need according to the study are economic growth or the continued extraction of natural resources such as oil, coal, gas, or minerals. Vogel concluded: "In short, we need to abandon economic growth in affluent countries, scale back resource extraction, and prioritize public services, basic infrastructures and fair income distributions everywhere." He added, "In my view, the most promising and integral vision for the required transformation is the idea of degrowth—it is an idea whose time has come."

The researchers' assertion that "large reductions in energy use are required" is actually a non sequitur because it is not energy use per se that is contributing to man-made global warming, but the emissions of carbon dioxide associated with the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, when they set their 27-gigajoule per capita threshold, they specifically ruled out "speculative" technological progress. However, transitioning to no-carbon energy sources such as nuclear, wind, and solar power would solve the problem without forcing humanity to go on the ridiculously strict energy diet they call for.

Perhaps it's churlish of me to point out that open markets provide ways to value and compensate people for converting "speculative" technologies into the state of the art.

Founder of the ecomodernist Breakthrough Institute Ted Nordhaus was correct when he argued, "The utopian dreams of those who wish to radically reorganize the world to stop climate change are not a plausible global future." The far better course for addressing the problem of climate change (and many others) is for humanity to aim for a high-energy planet. Instead of energy abstinence and degrowth, ecomodernists call for a "massive expansion of energy systems, primarily carried out in the rapidly urbanizing global South, in combination with the rapid acceleration of clean energy innovation."

Developing a high-energy planet will spur economic growth and innovation, helping to provide for all of the human needs that concern Vogel and his colleagues. Instead of trying to force Americans to live on the amount of energy currently available to Bolivians, the goal should be to enable people in energy-starved poor countries to gain access to energy supplies currently enjoyed by average Americans.

Perhaps it's all moot anyway, as the financial markets will get you before the environmentalist doomsayers do.

Sometime this summer, that pretty big problem will be acknowledged, and the nation will see that we are not in a recovery at all, but rather a permanent contraction that will be labeled “a depression.”

Actually, it will not be a “depression,” either, exactly, which implies a cyclical dip, even a big one, because the cycle itself is broken — and to understand that, you must delve into the nature of the long emergency: the energy resource and capital scarcity quandary facing techno-industrial societies. The direct implication of this broken cycle will be even more social distress, which is being aggravated by the racial provocations ginned up by the Woke “Joe Biden” regime, and which will blow up in its face if there is another summer of riots, burning, and looting.

That's the perpetually dyspeptic James "Long Emergency" Kunstler, and the part of the argument that might bear more careful study is that the price of crude oil at which extraction by fracking is a paying proposition is pretty close to the price of crude oil at which businesses start retrenching and those long air trips become pricey.  We'll see.

Decide for yourself, dear reader, would you rather the deprivation be managed or emergent?