Commentary: How food and energy led to polarization in America


In opinion polls, election results, television viewing habits and social media chatter, we can see the increasing polarization among us. Practically all explanations for this increased polarization revolve around social and political factors. These factors are important, but they don’t tell the entire story.

Civilizations rise and fall, and it is important to have context for how they evolve over time. Part of this context relates to understanding what we can choose to avoid versus what we can’t avoid no matter what we choose.

The classic example of the rise and fall of a civilization is the Roman Empire. As the empire expanded, it brought prosperity to Romans at the expense of those in the newly conquered provinces. This expansion continued until control of new territories became too burdensome. The size of the empire was self-limiting largely because of diminishing returns on the acquisition of more natural resources.

Some scholars say there are the U.S. today parallels the Roman Empire, and I agree. There are parallels from resource constraints, and we must heed the implications.

VIEWPOINTS: The Statesman’s editorial writers and columnists tackle local and national issues.

There were three phases of progression of the U.S. economy between 1947 and 2012. The three phases are distinguished by the changing rates of U.S. power consumption; the cost of food, energy and water; and distinct changes in structural indicators.

Before the 1970s, when power consumption was increasing rapidly and energy and food were becoming cheaper, the U.S. economy distributed money more evenly across all economic sectors as it grew rapidly. After 2002, when power consumption was stagnant and energy and food became more expensive, the U.S. economy distributed money less evenly as it acquired high quantities of debt and grew much more slowly. In between the 1960s and 2002 was an intermediate transition affected by both energy constraints (e.g., Arab oil embargo and Iran Revolution) and social changes (e.g., reduction of union and other labor power).

The more energy you have and the cheaper it is, the easier it is to expand and distribute. Both higher power consumption and cheaper energy, along with food, are associated with increasingly uniform distribution of money among economic sectors. The corollary is that if the U.S. is not consuming energy at a higher rate, and if we’re not making energy and food substantially cheaper, then we might expect it to be harder to distribute proceeds.

Energy and food costs have declined tremendously since World War II, but since 2002, that hasn’t been the case. This change in trend is new, unprecedented and unappreciated. Food and energy will never compose zero percent of our spending, so they cannot decrease in cost forever. Physical resource constraints eventually get translated into economic constraints. It is irresponsible for us to assume the social changes are not influenced and governed by these constraints.

These physical constraints help explain the increase in polarization. As many citizens were excluded from global prosperity, it was easier to take an “us” (excluded Americans) versus “them” (bankers, China, the elite, etc.) mentality. During the last election, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders each had a base of “us” with many common members, but with a more dissimilar group of “them” to attack. Before the fall of Rome, warring factions of politicians emerged, no longer working together. Since 2008, Congress has passed very little legislation, much less bipartisan.

BE THE FIRST TO KNOW: When big news breaks, we send Breaking News emails. Click to sign up.

We can’t legislate changes to the energy supply and assume they can always overcome physical challenges, just like the Roman Senate couldn’t just tell the army to take over new territory like the “good ol’ days.” Consider the Renewable Fuels Standard. Policymakers, economists and Silicon Valley venture capitalists thought the production of more than 30 billion gallons per year of liquid biofuels was simply a matter of human effort and ingenuity. It wasn’t, and it isn’t. On the fossil side, while Trump’s aim to bring back coal helped get him elected, it cannot “make America great again.”

We must recognize and accept that physical constraints do govern our lives, and that we can choose to change how to distribute our wealth as a separate goal to increasing overall wealth. One way to do this is to reward business and political leaders who accept and plan for, rather than deny, such constraints.

King is a research scientist and assistant director in the Energy Institute at the University of Texas.

King is a research scientist and assistant director in the Energy Institute at the University of Texas.



Reader Comments ...


Next Up in Opinion

Commentary: Unmasking the failure of empire in Puerto Rico
Commentary: Unmasking the failure of empire in Puerto Rico

Even before Hurricane Maria came to the shores of Puerto Rico, it was an island in economic, political and cultural crises. The Commonwealth government was bankrupt, hundreds of schools were closed, all public services were drastically cut, and Uncle Sam imposed a non-elected Fiscal Control Board, not to protect and ensure domestic wellbeing, but to...
Herman: New rules would restrict grave decorations at city cemeteries
Herman: New rules would restrict grave decorations at city cemeteries

The Austin Parks and Recreation Department on Thursday released long-awaited proposed new rules for the five city-owned cemeteries. Four years is long, right? Even in the cemetery biz. And Tonja Walls-Davis, the city cemetery manager, expects the proposed rules, including tight restrictions on grave decorations, will draw the same kind of objections...
Herman: Caution, free speech might offend you
Herman: Caution, free speech might offend you

It seems that some of our elected officials du jour (see Trump, Donald J., and Abbott, Gregory W.) sometimes have a problem with the whole free speech thing. So it’s comforting that one of our local appointed officials doesn’t. U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks, himself sometimes accused of courtroom free speechifying in ways that challenge...
Letters to the editor: Oct. 20, 2017

Re: Oct. 17 commentary, “Let’s view science as a powerful tool, not as a threat.” Professors Michael Starbird and Jay Banner encourage universities to engage the public in the appreciation of science. It is dangerous, they rightfully state, to develop energy or public health policies not based on the best scientific information, and...
Commentary: Why I changed my mind on bringing guns to Texas colleges
Commentary: Why I changed my mind on bringing guns to Texas colleges

The recent implementation of Texas’ campus carry law allows people with a concealed handgun license to carry their handguns on college campuses. I once supported this law, but now that I am spending every day on a college campus in Texas, I can no longer say the same thing. My change of heart regarding campus carry was accelerated by the gruesome...
More Stories