Since we’re talking about the 1960s, let’s dive a bit deeper and attach some numbers: In the 1960s, things really started to get out of hand. Energy graphs began to shoot up steeply from that point onward. Which made that prime minister Lubbers at the time called for “the living temperature needs to go down” . It was already a concern back then! (I wrote before a blog about this memorandum [1])
In essence, we took two wrong turns in recent history: In the 19th century, with cars, coal, and steel, accelerating from the 1860s on, and soon followed by the rise of oil use. That’s somewhat understandable because there was much less knowledge, and a bit more wealth could hardly be called a luxury at the time.
And then came the early 1960s. The 1960s can easily be called a revolutionary decade as well, just like a century earlier. [2] We felt things would go wrong. There was a social-cultural revolution, a sexual revolution, student protests, flower power, Provo, and more. The resistance against consumer and capitalist society grew. And to think that we were just at the beginning of that—the worst was yet to come.
We lost that battle, though; consumer society then really went into overdrive, leading to a derailment. Soon after, one warning after another followed: Silent Spring (1962), The Club of Rome (1972), oil boycotts (1973), Lubbers’ energy memorandum (1974), the foundation of the WNF (World Wildlife Fund), ozone layer depletion in the early 1970s, and so on. But even today, we still don’t fully grasp or acknowledge the consequences—certainly not everyone. We couldn’t turn our ideals into actions; we were seduced by politicians giving free way for capitalism and were pushed buying all the new stuff and began wallowing in luxury. Consider that back then, almost no one had heard of computers; we were still writing postal letters to each other! (But mostly with typewriters).
But now, more than ever, I realize we should have continued down that revolutionary path. The 1960s were and should have been the peak of consumption, it should have stayed our maximum standard of living. It was ok, with the flower power spirit, the festivals, the very social organization, the travel by train and hitchhiking, and so on. (And with bikes…)
We didn’t know what the future would yield, so we couldn’t really be dissatisfied with what we had back then, 60 years ago.
Look at the graphs: The first one shows how domestic energy use per capita exploded in the 1960s, mostly due to gas heating in our homes. That means going from heating a single room to heating an entire house, and not just in the evenings, but all day long. Meanwhile, I repeat, nothing wrong with my childhood, and I thought the situation back then was completely normal…
No, I’m not getting sentimental… If we look at the other graph that shows total energy consumption over the last 200 years, it becomes crystal clear: since the 1950s, oil exploded because of, among other things, all the cars, and since the 1960s, gas joined in, for housing but also industry. [3]
And this is only just looking at energy, which was used to deplete our raw materials and pollute the environment—through extraction and the development and use of among others artificial substances without knowing their effects. Now we find these substances in our eggs, vegetables, and beer. The list is long, but think of DDT, pesticides, PFAS, and so on. (And think of Silent Spring from 1962!)
And what did we do with that explosive use of gas and oil ? Aside from population growth, which explains some of it, we mostly had ‘more of everything,’ of what we already had, and bigger, and faster. We could already do most of it back then, just slower. [4] (Think, for instance, of traveling, writing, producing… (more about labor soon)).
It was too much, too fast. And we saw it coming back then, but we couldn’t stop it, we couldn’t sustain our ideals, and now it’s clear that we actually have to go back to the 1960s, before the real oil and gas explosion, at least to the point before the second wrong turn. If we want any chance of not letting things spiral out of control.
Once again, I’m not saying that everything was better individually back then. But it was certainly better for humanity as a whole: on the one hand, regarding nature restoration, biodiversity, and climate; on the other side, the collectivity in societies organization, sharing together, and society’s ability to survive regardless what’s coming our way. But look now at collective provisions—they’ve been ‘broken down’ in favor of short-term profits. Take energy supply, for example: it was collectively owned (public utilities), but now it’s in the hands of mostly foreign investors. Even the wind farms, which we think are our shift to renewable energy, are in foreign hands. If they sell the electricity abroad, we get nothing. It’s all short-term thinking, and about growth and becoming (financially) rich by some. Its even impossible this way to control anything, its out of our hands, its owned by others.
But it’s never too late; everything helps and can be restored. We just have to accept living at a lower level of consumption… Which we can still choose for (and arrange for) our-self…! Like in the 1960s: living more soberly (only heating that one room when it’s cold), and shifting from a materialistic view of needs to an immaterial one—doing more, experiencing more instead of buying. And we could reach that standard of living from back then with far fewer working hours per week!*
And mind that in terms of energy, we’re already on the right side: the prosperity level of the 1960s can now be fully supplied with renewable energy and without fossil fuels: I calculated a few blogs ago that we’re already generating enough renewable energy to provide all households with ample equivalent in electricity, even more than in the 1960s!** [5] (Except that it’s not ours…) And start living from that budget we would also be automatically well-prepared in case of a CO2 lockdown…
It’s the way it is: Back to the 1960s… We already knew it back then…
.
.
*And since everything actually needs to last at least 50 years [6], industry can also largely be downsized: the released workforce will be urgently needed in agriculture, which, in order to function sustainably and without fossils, needs tens of thousands of additional people. [7]
** A study shows 11 hours per week, but that wasn’t for the Netherlands, and not with current housing prices. But of course, it could be done with much fewer working hours.
.
1] Uit blog 2019: https://www.ronaldrovers.com/the-living-temperature-should-be-lowered-energy-policy-from-1974/
[2] de jaren (18) 60 https://www.ronaldrovers.com/the-1860s-when-the-fossil-revolution-takes-of/
[4] https://www.ronaldrovers.com/change-back-then-and-now/
[5] hernieuwbaar: https://www.ronaldrovers.com/living-off-sun-and-wind-now-today/
[6] langer dan 50 jaar : https://www.ronaldrovers.com/everything-that-doesnt-last-at-least-50-years-is-system-degradation/
[7] De duurzaamheid van de Nederlandse landbouw : 1950 – 2015 – 2040, Meino Smit, 2018 WUR, isbn 9789463432894; 9463432892 , http://library.wur.nl/WebQuery/wda/2244882
