Cafe Hayek: The Real Life of Low Carbon-Footprint Locovores

« What is Free Trade? | Main | Musical Theater» Russell Roberts

June 14, 2008

The Real Life of Low Carbon-Footprint Locovores

Don Boudreaux

The late William Manchester's 1992 book A World Lit Only By Fire provides a well-paced and vivid look at life in late-medieval and renaissance Europe. For example, consider his description of the homes and some common experiences of peasants (pp. 52-54):

Lying at the end of a narrow, muddy lane, his rambling edifice of thatch, wattles, mud, and dirty brown wood was almost obscured by a towering dung heap in what, without it, would have been the front yard. The building was large, for it was more than a dwelling. Beneath its sagging roof were a pigpen, a henhouse, cattle sheds, corncribs, straw and hay, and, last and least, the family's apartment, actually a single room whose walls and timbers were coated with soot. According to Erasmus, who examined such huts, "almost all the floors are of clay and rushes from the marshes, so carelessly renewed that the foundation sometimes remains for twenty years, harboring, there below, spittle and vomit and wine of dogs and men, beer...remnants of fishes, and other filth unnameable. Hence, with the change of weather, a vapor exhales which in my judgment is far from wholesome."

The centerpiece of the room was a gigantic bedstead, piled high with straw pallets, all seething with vermin. Everyone slept there, regardless of age or gender -- grandparents, parents, children, grandchildren, and hens and pigs -- and if a couple chose to enjoy intimacy, the others were aware of every movement. In summer they could even watch.....

If this familial situation seems primitive, it should be borne in mind that these were prosperous peasants. Not all of their neighbors were so lucky. Some lived in tiny cabins of crossed laths, stuffed with grass or straw, inadequately shielded from rain, snow, and wind. They lacked even a chimney; smoke from the cabin's fire left through a small hole in the thatched roof -- where, unsurprisingly, fires frequently broke out. These homes were without glass windows or shutters; in a storm, or in frigid weather, openings in the walls could only be stuffed with straw, rags -- whatever was handy....

Typically, three years of harvests could be expected for one year of famine. The years of hunger were terrible. The peasants might be forced to sell all they owned, including their pitifully inadequate clothing, and be reduced to nudity in all seasons. In the hardest times they devoured bark, roots, grass; even white clay. Cannibalism was not unknown. Strangers and travelers were waylaid and killed to be eaten, and there are tales of gallows being torn down -- as many as twenty bodies would hang from a single scaffold -- by men frantic to eat the warm flesh raw [original emphasis].

Posted by Don Boudreaux in Books, History, Myths and Fallacies, Standard of Living | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834518ccc69e200e5536ecf6d8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The Real Life of Low Carbon-Footprint Locovores:

Comments

But how did the rich capitalists live who were oppressing them?

(yes, that's sarcasm.)

Posted by: Russ Nelson | Jun 14, 2008 5:20:45 PM

I had a look at some of the reviews of that book on Amazon. Several of them are quite scathing, accusing him of committing numerous basic historical errors (dates, names, places, etc.). I'm sure medieval Europe was a much worse place to live than my living room, but those reviews make me wonder if this particular work is the best source.

Posted by: Adam | Jun 14, 2008 5:46:27 PM

I'm no professional historian, but I read much of it in my spare time. One of my favorite history texts is The Structures of Everyday Life (1981), by Fernand Braudel. It makes much the same points -- in many ways even more emphatically -- that Manchester makes. And I know from several conversations with my friends who ARE professional historians that Braudel's work is widely respected.

Posted by: Don Boudreaux | Jun 14, 2008 6:34:51 PM

I'll have to check that one out.

There's a new book by Emily Cockayne from Harvard University Press (therefore presumably a serious work) called Hubbub: Filth, Noise, and Stench in England, 1600-1770. I haven't read it yet but the Amazon description says it describes "a world in which residents were scarred by smallpox, refuse rotted in the streets, pigs and dogs roamed free, and food hygiene consisted of little more than spit and polish." Continuing, it says, "Each chapter addresses an unpleasant aspect of city life (noise, violence, moldy food, smelly streets, poor air quality)."

You'd have a hard time arguing that medieval Europe wasn't a miserable place to live.

Posted by: Adam | Jun 14, 2008 7:22:04 PM

I don't know what medieval Europe has to do with anyone's carbon footprint. Energy scarcity, as signaled by the rising price, won't drive anyone in the U.S. to medieval living standards, but the adjustment is already occurring. A more realistic analysis of the transition is more informative. Innovation enables us to continue increasing living standards regardless.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 14, 2008 8:16:18 PM

Yeah I'm sure many a wag has suggested that are people and societies who live 'simply and gently with nature' - these places are generally referred to as the 'Third World'. But seriously do the Amish really live like this? At what point would people in the West forget why basic hygiene is a good thing? Would we go back to a farming lifestyles only to adopt superstitious religious and blame everything that could go wrong as the fault of 'the Devil'.

Posted by: Gil | Jun 14, 2008 10:51:27 PM

I don't know what anyone's carbon footprint has to do with (the U.S. Congress-made) energy scarcity, other than one's carbon footprint is used by enviro-Leftists to justify their opposition to U.S. energy development.

Posted by: brotio | Jun 14, 2008 11:42:05 PM

Brotio: but who are these enviro-Rightists of whom you don't speak?

Posted by: Russell Nelson | Jun 15, 2008 2:06:21 AM

Russ,

They usually have the moniker, "maverick" attached to their party affiliation when they espouse the leftist line that, "we must do something about our 'carbon footprint' before the oceans rise twenty feet and we all live in a horrible Kevin Costner movie!" :p

Posted by: brotio | Jun 15, 2008 2:51:14 AM

I have not read this book but I have read the Braudel book that was mentioned and it is truly amazing how we have moved forward. But, for someone like me who spent his first 12 years without access to telephone or television and who has like you lived through progress that allows us lowly strangers to converse on a blog hosted by an American professor, the rhythm of change seems to be growing at an exponential rate.

Now, that said, what on earth has all the above to do with “Low Carbon-Footprint Locovores”?, in the context it sounds as silly as reminding that the same progress also brought us Hiroshima.

Is the seriousness and capabilities of our academic institutions developing at the same rate than the world at large? Just asking...I mean we cannot really afford them to be lagging.

Posted by: Per Kurowski | Jun 15, 2008 8:42:38 AM

I don't know what anyone's carbon footprint has to do with (the U.S. Congress-made) energy scarcity, other than one's carbon footprint is used by enviro-Leftists to justify their opposition to U.S. energy development.

The military-industrial-Congressional-Executive complex is certainly responsible for some of the scarcity and even more of the recent price rise, but the Hubbert peak is not a matter of state policy. If we eliminated every environmental regulation tomorrow, we wouldn't find nearly enough oil in the U.S. to supply current domestic consumption. Drilling in Anwar won't devastate the environment, but it won't solve the energy problem either.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 15, 2008 11:23:37 AM

It is also important to remember that the whole world outlook of medieval man was completely different than ours. His was a life still founded on Tradition, on the transcendental, and without this perception it becomes difficult for us to understand how he could bear what to us is unfathomable suffering. An author that has helped me understand this is Christopher Dawson, and here is a quote from his "The Making of Europe: An Introduction to the History of European Unity":

"The modern European is accustomed to look on society as essentially concerned with the present life, and with material needs, and on religion as an influence on the moral life of the individual. But to the Byzantine, and indeed to mediaeval man in general, the primary society was the religious one, and economic and secular affairs were a secondary consideration. The greater part of a man's life, especially a poor man's, was lived in a world of religious hopes and fears, and the supernatural figures of this religious world were just as real to him as the authorities of the Empire."

Posted by: Fabio Franco | Jun 15, 2008 1:13:56 PM

I'm in the process of changing horses (employers). After two years of working from home or at customer sites, I'm returning to an office. I'll still travel a lot, but I'll go into an office when I'm not traveling, so I've decided to move close enough to the office to walk to work, not only to avoid the rising price of gasoline but also to improve my fitness. I'm not interested in returning to a medieval lifestyle, but every cultural change is not automatically an improvement. Sometimes, progress requires retreating a bit and choosing a different path. Less driving and more walking seems change of this sort, and the telecommunications revolution also presents many opportunities to travel less.

I'm not concerned about a transition to costlier energy. The transition was always inevitable, and it won't be more difficult for the U.S. because we consume so much energy now. It will be easier.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 15, 2008 2:43:43 PM

"If we eliminated every environmental regulation tomorrow, we wouldn't find nearly enough oil in the U.S. to supply current domestic consumption. Drilling in Anwar won't devastate the environment, but it won't solve the energy problem either."

It's not just oil, and it's not just ANWAR. It's the entire agenda of the Gorestapo to oppose EVERY economically viable energy source from being implemented. We might not be able to fully supply current US consumption with domestic oil supplies, but we can get a lot closer than the Gorestapo want us to get.

"The military-industrial-Congressional-Executive complex is certainly responsible for some of the scarcity and even more of the recent price rise, but the Hubbert peak is not a matter of state policy."

The Hubbert peak is also not a matter of fact, and Congress gets to shoulder most of the responsibility for government-created scarcity and subsequent rising price.

Shale reserves in the Mountain West, tar sands in Canada, oil reserves in the Northern Plains, deposits off of the Florida coast that Cuba and China are gearing up to tap, and recent finds in Brazil indicate that there is still plenty of oil. For all of their bleating about enriching our enemies by using oil, the Gorestapo would much rather see that money go to Venezuela, Iran, and Saudi Arabia than see the US develop any viable domestic energy sources.

Posted by: brotio | Jun 15, 2008 6:19:12 PM

I have studied history somewhat, and anthropology as well. I have to say that the above was the first time I ever heard of cannibalism being practiced openly in Europe at any stage in development, much less that crowds competed for the warm flesh of executed felons. Seems a tad over the top to me and I'd love to see some evidence. Guess I'll just have to get the book and see if he footnotes or documents sources for that.

However, reading the criticisms just made me laugh. The above, for instance, description of housing was clearly a written description of a particular place or area and could not be considered as a blanket description for all of Europe during the dark ages. Does that make it an improbable or impossible description of a particular place or area? Of course not.

Then the criticism that Manchester didn't mention, or ignored, the brilliant works of, Augustine, Abelard, Acquinas, and Chaucer, in his description of the dark ages. But, if Manchester's effort was to talk about the life of the common man then those works of brilliance were irrelevant because the common man would never of heard of them. Pre-printing press, just how many of the common people across Europe would have had access to the works of those authors even in anecdotal fashion? One could even make the claim that those brilliant men were virtually unknown to the general public until well into the 17th century or maybe even the 19th century.

Oh well, my moeny is on the above description of medevial life as being accurate for the time and place being descibed, and no place I would like to live.

Posted by: vidyohs | Jun 15, 2008 8:41:58 PM

Martin Brock: "so I've decided to move close enough to the office to walk to work, not only to avoid the rising price of gasoline but also to improve my fitness."

Not sure if you are an environmental zealot, but many environmentalists believe that sprawl is the enemy. But the truth is that geographical dispersemnt of housing and workplaces enables shorter commutes. The concentration of workplaces - whether in central business districts or in edge cities - makes it impossible for most workers to live close to workplaces in the type housing they prefer.

An example illustrates this very well. When Dr. Pepper's dallas headquarters was located adjacent expensive University City, only a few workers could afford to live nearby, and most were forced to commute 30 to 50 minutes. When Dr. Pepper moved to the far north suburbs near Frisco in the 80's, workers could enjoy 5 and 10 minute commutes from very affordable, but new neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, commercial developers have continued relocating office buildings to the Frisco-North Plano area, and a concentrated edge city has emerged around what was originally only only J.C. Penney, Dr. Pepper, and Frito-Lay. New urbanists are applauding the development of dense housing devlopments in that vicinity. However, the increased density has once again resulted in long, slow commutes for most workers.

Had the new far North Dallas corporations sprawled even further, rather than concentrating in a small area, commute times would have remained short. Urban planners, and new urbanist zealots, never seem to get it. Sprawl reduces commute times, motor vehicle pollution, and energy consumption.

Posted by: John Dewey | Jun 16, 2008 10:22:12 AM

It's not just oil, and it's not just ANWAR. It's the entire agenda of the Gorestapo to oppose EVERY economically viable energy source from being implemented. We might not be able to fully supply current US consumption with domestic oil supplies, but we can get a lot closer than the Gorestapo want us to get.

Gore has no authority over anything, and the assertion that he opposes EVERY economically viable energy source is a nonsensical straw man that he'll certainly deny. Energy independence isn't an important priority for me, but if we want greater energy independence, expanded exploitation of our most difficult to extract domestic oil reserves won't get it for us. I certainly don't want anymore subsidies in this direction.

The Hubbert peak is also not a matter of fact ...

Yes, it is. Precisely where the peak lies is debatable, but the existence of a peak is practically tautological, and peaks have already been observed in countless territories including the continental U.S. Oil is not renewable, and it doesn't exist under every acre, and finding the acres covering it is costly. These facts imply a peak.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 16, 2008 6:37:14 PM

"we must do something about our 'carbon footprint' before the oceans rise twenty feet and we all live in a horrible Kevin Costner movie!" - Brotio

I am no carbon footprint fanatic, but there is no price I'm unwilling to pay to avoid a Kevin Costner movie!

Posted by: Methinks | Jun 16, 2008 9:39:12 PM

Manchester was one of my favorite Marines.

And he made a few enemies by writing so favorably and voluminously about the hated enemy of the Left, Winston Churchill.

That probably explains the shallow and baseless reviews that attempted to pan his work.

Posted by: Ray G | Jun 16, 2008 11:13:50 PM

... geographical dispersemnt of housing and workplaces enables shorter commutes.

Not in my case. I don't expect One Big Solution to $4/gal gasoline in the U.S. I expect 300 million solutions. The only Big Solutions I expect to be very effective are the unilateral withdrawals of Big Government from its countless impediments to the 300 million solutions, particularly its endless warmaking in the world's most oil-rich regions and the incredible tax/inflation burdens financing it. The factors involved would be more useful to U.S. energy security running on treadmills to generate electricity.

Government could also allow some drilling for oil on nature preserves and offshore, but domestically produced oil will never fuel all or even most of U.S. consumption, because we passed our Hubbert peak decades ago and have been increasing our consumption ever since. That's not a forecast of doom and gloom. It's just a fact. No serious geologist anywhere disputes it. If the rest of the world even approaches U.S. per capita consumption, we'll pass a global peak in my lifetime, probably in the next couple of decades. We'll find substitutes, but that's beside the point.

I'm not your zealot or anyone elses, but I do support nature preserves. No sound law of economics or principle of libertarian justice says that humanity must modernize every square inch of the Earth. Forcibly keeping you off of Nature's little remaining real estate is no more tyrannical than keeping you off of mine. We don't need every last drop of oil we can possibly pump out of the ground anywhere. I have no fundamental problem with drilling in ANWAR, but I want a realistic assessment of the cost of restoring the park to a pristine natural state free of resulting scars and pollutants, and I want every dime of this cost coming from the oil revenue, not a dime from taxpayers. If no private interest considers that a paying proposition, then the production is unwarranted.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 16, 2008 11:29:40 PM

"Gore has no authority over anything, and the assertion that he opposes EVERY economically viable energy source is a nonsensical straw man that he'll certainly deny."

Did I say Gore, or Gorestapo? Maybe I'm missing one, and if I am, I'm sure you'll point it out, but these are the energy sources that I can think of that are currently capable of supplying more than a tiny fraction of US consumption:
1. Oil (eeeeevil and opposed because it's carbon-based).
2. Coal (ditto, and add that it's even more eeevil because we have plenty of it).
3. Gas (see 'coal').
4. Hydro (eeevil because it fills in pristine canyons and makes it harder for fish to migrate upstream).
5. Nuclear (China syndrome).

Right now the only energy development I know of that is on the Gorestapo's approved list is solar, and I still maintain that the day it becomes viable it will join the others on the enviro-nazi hit list.

"I certainly don't want anymore subsidies in this direction."

I don't want any subsidies in any direction. If shale is viable it will be exploited. If ethanol is viable it will be distilled. If solar is viable it will be exploited.

"The Hubbert peak is also not a matter of fact ... Yes, it is. Precisely where the peak lies is debatable, but the existence of a peak is practically tautological..."

There is dissension about whether hydrocarbons are organic or not. Dr Thomas Gold was one leading dissenter of the Hubbert Peak. So, no it's not a matter of fact.

"...finding the acres covering it is costly..." is the only thing in your post that isn't debatable.

Posted by: brotio | Jun 17, 2008 12:34:40 AM

"I am no carbon footprint fanatic, but there is no price I'm unwilling to pay to avoid a Kevin Costner movie!" - Methinks

LMAO!

Posted by: brotio | Jun 17, 2008 1:43:37 AM

Marion Hubbert, a geologist at Shell, predicted in 1956 that production of oil from the continental U.S. would peak in the late 1960s, a fact observed decades ago. Since then, "Hubbert peak" has come to describe various speculations about a simliar peak in global production based on various assumptions; however, the success of Hubbert's theory in the U.S. is not the least bit controversial. This peak has no credible dissenters, because it has been an empirical observation for decades now.

Oil (eeeeevil and opposed because it's carbon-based).

Boring ...

Right now the only energy development I know of that is on the Gorestapo's approved list is solar, and I still maintain that the day it becomes viable it will join the others on the enviro-nazi hit list.

The Gorestapo is something you've invented, so of course, it's list contains precisely what you say it contains. Meanwhile, James Lovelock leads environmentalists pushing renewed interest in nuclear power.

There is dissension about whether hydrocarbons are organic or not. Dr Thomas Gold was one leading dissenter of the Hubbert Peak. So, no it's not a matter of fact.

Even if petroleum is abiogenic, the peak in continental U.S. production is no longer theoretical. It's an observation, so I doubt that Thomas Gold disputes it. Some theory of abiogenic hydrocarbons may predict that once dry wells could produce again, but few geologists believe it, and this theory is far more speculative than extrapolations of the Hubbert peak in the continental U.S. to global production.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 17, 2008 2:01:32 AM

How much success has Mr Lovelock had convincing the Sierra Club and other so-called "reasonable" environmental groups that nuclear power should be considered a viable option?

Posted by: brotio | Jun 17, 2008 2:46:31 AM

"The Gorestapo is something you've invented, so of course, it's list contains precisely what you say it contains."

Come on, Martin! When Vidyohs invents a person or group, you're more than willing to tell him how said person or group should behave, even though he never invites you to play! Now, I invite you into my game and you don't wanna play. You hurt my feewings!

Posted by: brotio | Jun 17, 2008 3:13:10 AM

Quote from Martin Brock: "I have no fundamental problem with drilling in ANWAR, but I want a realistic assessment of the cost of restoring the park to a pristine natural state free of resulting scars and pollutants, and I want every dime of this cost coming from the oil revenue, not a dime from taxpayers."

Who gets to decide what a "realistic assessment of the cost" is? Costs (values) and assessments of them are subjective.

I love this strange idea that for some reason humans should go around the planet as if we don't exist, and we expect at the same time that the planet not change.

I think the present floods in Iowa are illustrative. We hear that it's a 100 year flood or a 500 year flood, but the rivers today are not the rivers of 100 or 500 or even 5 years ago.

Rivers are not the copper plumbing in your house. They're part of a giant system of erosion that is slowly wearing away the continent. The process doesn't stop because you build a city around it. Expecting rivers in Iowa (or ANWAR) to somehow remain the same and unchanged forever is just silly and naive. It wouldn't happen without any humans, why should we expect it with humans.

Posted by: Keith | Jun 17, 2008 7:07:35 AM

Who gets to decide what a "realistic assessment of the cost" is? Costs (values) and assessments of them are subjective.

If I dig up your property, who decides what compensation I owe you? Me? Courts make these decisions every day. If no one has authority to assess these costs, the whole idea of "property" is meaningless.

I love this strange idea that for some reason humans should go around the planet as if we don't exist, and we expect at the same time that the planet not change.

You love your own incredible nonsense. Humanity dominates the planet. We're discussing a tiny portion of the planet left in a more natural state.

Expecting rivers in Iowa (or ANWAR) to somehow remain the same and unchanged forever is just silly and naive.

Since you're the only one expecting rivers to remain the same, you're the only one proposing the silly, naive idea. "Natural" doesn't mean "not changing". It means "not artificial".

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 17, 2008 12:06:35 PM

How much success has Mr Lovelock had convincing the Sierra Club and other so-called "reasonable" environmental groups that nuclear power should be considered a viable option?

You can name environmental groups opposing nuclear power. This fact was never controversial.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, Natural Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense and the Pew Center on Global Climate Change have all recently expressed interest in nuclear power. Are these groups not part of the Gorestapo?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-03-22-nuclear-power_N.htm

And Gore himself doesn't oppose nuclear power either. Who does belong to the Gorestapo anyway?

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 17, 2008 12:20:04 PM

Quotes from Martin Brock: "... the cost of restoring the park to a pristine natural state free of resulting scars ..."

And;

"Since you're the only one expecting rivers to remain the same, you're the only one proposing the silly, naive idea. "Natural" doesn't mean "not changing". It means "not artificial"."

So which is it? Do you want ANWAR returned to its "pristine natural state" (whatever that means), or are we silly and naive to expect things to remain unchanged? Is the pristine state what exists today, sometime in the past, or sometime in the future?

I'm not sure how I'm the one expecting things to remain the same. That was my point, that they don't. You're the one that seems to want that, and even demad that it be returned to its "natural" state if for some reason it does change.

You say the "courts" get to decide costs. That's just another person arbitrarily deciding a subjective value based on their own bias.

Posted by: Keith | Jun 17, 2008 1:11:56 PM

So which is it? Do you want ANWAR returned to its "pristine natural state" (whatever that means), or are we silly and naive to expect things to remain unchanged?

Particular changes wrought by men drilling oil are not equivalent to all changes of any kind for all time. We're silly and naive to confuse the two.

I'm not sure how I'm the one expecting things to remain the same. That was my point, that they don't. You're the one that seems to want that, and even demad that it be returned to its "natural" state if for some reason it does change.

Simple nonsense. I nowhere ever suggest that anything remain the same. Again (and again), "natural" does not mean "unchanged". It means "unaffected by man". I expect the drillers reasonably to ameliorate their effects on the refuge, to clean up after themselves. You're the only one leaping to absurd conclusions about what this means.

Is the pristine state what exists today, sometime in the past, or sometime in the future?

In the natural state that the drillers find before drilling, i.e. without the drilling equipment, without any spilled oil, without the paved roads, with felled trees replanted and so on.

You say the "courts" get to decide costs. That's just another person arbitrarily deciding a subjective value based on their own bias.

Fine. I'll just take a dump on your front porch whenever I feel like it, and you can avoid any interference with my liberty by your subjective value judgments.

Posted by: Martin Brock | Jun 17, 2008 3:01:27 PM

"Fine. I'll just take a dump on your front porch whenever I feel like it, and you can avoid any interference with my liberty by your subjective value judgments."

My subjective value judgment would be to put a bullet in your ass.

Posted by: brotio | Jun 17, 2008 5:35:20 PM

Quote from Martin Brock: "In the natural state that the drillers find before drilling, i.e. without the drilling equipment, without any spilled oil, without the paved roads, with felled trees replanted and so on."

Again, you demand that it remain unchanged (sorry, "natural"), while saying that you don't expect things not to change.

Quote from Martin Brock: "Fine. I'll just take a dump on your front porch whenever I feel like it, and you can avoid any interference with my liberty by your subjective value judgments."

The subjective judgment of the value of my property is my own. If you choose to violate my property, then I will pursue remedies as I decide.

You apparently want some arbitrary "court" to decide the value of property that isn't owned by anybody, and continue to demand remain "natural".

Posted by: Keith | Jun 18, 2008 6:50:00 AM