An energetic perspective

Critics of America often point out the disparity between the size of our population (roughly 3-5% of the world) and the amount of resources we consume (from 20-25% of global supply). It's a fair criticism to a point, but like many arguments can be overgeneralized. For instance, is there evidence our energy usage directly deprives other societies of energy? If we were to power down, would Haiti, for instance, suddenly become more prosperous?

One main reason we consume so much energy is that we have a stable society structured to create, invent, and produce as well as consume. Not every region of the world can say that.

Before the founding and development of the United States, “energy” meant the human back, beasts of burden, windmills, waterwheels, burning wood, coke, and coal, and the like. The United States is certainly not using 25% of the energy generated by those means today.

But if we mean by “energy” only the modern sources of energy – electricity, the Franklin stove, the steam engine, the piston engine propelled by gasoline (and now by electric and/or hydrogen batteries), the processing of crude oil into gasoline, nuclear energy, the jet engine, the development of ethanol and other fuels derived from plants, and other devices – all of these except one were invented by the people of the United States, as their gift to the world. (The exception was the steam engine, invented by our cousins in Britain, and further developed here as well as there.)

In other words, the United States has invented nearly 100% of what the modern world means by “energy.” And it has helped the rest of the world to use 75%.

No doubt, America could become more frugal and efficient. We use a lot of resources from all over the world. But do our critics ever stop to think what we've returned in 200+ years?