Outrunning The Malthusian Trap? European Energy Challenges in the Decade of Automation

In 1798, Malthus claimed that population would outpace resource production leading to population decline. Malthus identified population size as an economic capacity constraint. (Malthus, 1798) Unfortunately, his theory was swiftly followed by the Industrial Revolution, where unprecedented growth was enabled through improvements in manufacturing efficiency. 

In spite of this, the debate between resource capacity, particularly energy, and emerging technology remains relevant in the decade of automation. In Europe, geopolitical and economic hurdles may have made the case for green energy investment less appealing.

“Neo-Malthusianism focuses on a wide set of scarcities arising from increased resource consumption and depletion.” (Gleditsch, 2021, p. 178) In the case of energy, scarcity is considered a misnomer because some resources aren’t considered finite. The ability to harness renewable energies and increased efficiency in hardware means that only some forms are finite. However, logistical limitations emerge.  For example, the sun is an extensive source of energy, but we’re limited by a cost-effective technology to harness it. (Pertiwi, et al., 2019) This suggests that certain technologies currently lack the economic rent required to outperform other energy sources. Homer-Dixon and Percival differentiate between supply, demand, and structural scarcity. (Percival & Homer-Dixon, 1998) While they explore causes of conflict, it is applicable to energy insecurity because it highlights how resource constraints exist even if the technology exists. Certain states may lack the political desire or infrastructure to make the necessary advances, artificially limiting the resources. Cheaper non-renewables create this limitation. 

However, historical empirical evidence “does not indicate a significant increase in the natural resource commodities.” (Krautkraemer, 2005, p. 39) With numerous untapped non-renewable fuel sources, renewables may not offer a sufficient incentive at their current level. Furthermore, we know that technological progress has historically been useful in increasing efficiencies in various markets over time.  With agricultural production, technologies like fertiliser and machinery increase yields and reduce labour requirements. Breakthroughs in efficiency occur beyond the revolution. However, Schlebecker cites the emergence of the tractor and ammonia in the US to suggest that “innovations in farm technology seem to occur most often … in times of agricultural prosperity.” (Schlebecker, 1977, p. 651) This highlights the significance of a socio-economically driven scarcity that does little to prevent a resource-based trap. In Europe, the mandate for renewable energy has been partially driven by the European Commission and the updated Renewable Energy Directive aims for an energy mix of 42.5% renewable energy in place by 2030. (European Commission, 2025) The EU directive aims to diversify the fuel mix and create energy savings, highlighting that solutions to the energy challenge are finite. Moreover, with the conflict in Ukraine creating energy instability, long-term technological growth might not be feasible, albeit possible. 

A special Eurobarometer survey asks whether science and technological advances mean that the Earth’s natural resources will be inexhaustible. Using the Global Innovation Index 2024 (World Intellectual Property Organisation, 2024), we pick countries in the top 15 from the European Union (and UK) to explore how technologically advanced countries perceive these constraints. Placing high on the GII means that these countries are leaders of technological development. Figure 1. Shows the respondent’s views.

(Eurobarometer, 2025)

Compared to the entirety of the EU27, the most innovative nations of this bloc, according to the GII, have a pessimistic outlook on technology as a solution for resource scarcity. Being highly innovative means that these countries have a better understanding of current technological constraints and their future. However, in Sweden, Finland, Holland, Denmark, and France, over half of those surveyed disagreed with the statement. 70% in Finland had a negative response to the statement. However, the UK and Germany are more positive. This is intriguing because countries like Finland and Sweden are part of the Nordic bloc which are global leaders in sustainability and have invested heavily into sustainability through both economic investment and socio-political movements to promote recycling and other issues. In spite of this, none of these countries are carbon-neutral, suggesting that resources and their consumption remain a limiting factor even in the face of developing renewable energy sources. Another clear aspect that the data highlights is that there are very few in every nation who are willing to strongly agree with the statement, the highest being 7% in Germany who completely agree, which is in line with the European average.

Energy concerns have returned to relevance with the advancement of AI, cryptocurrencies, and Geopolitical risk. The increase in consumption from automation and failure to increase efficiency suggests that there is more of a financial incentive to generate more advanced and complex technologies and tools than to increase their efficiency and reduce consumption. With Russian sanctions, the energy mix is further threatened by instability, which has led to suggestions of reversing course on some climate goals. With media sources labelling Europe as facing an “economic apocalypse” (Bernabeu, 2024), it is clear that economic instability creates pessimism. It is, therefore, unsurprising that technological progress is rejected as a solution to resource scarcity, as the polling data suggests, as investment behaviour has prioritised the perceived profitability of AI firms, which increases consumption further. Goldman Sachs estimates that data centres used for AI will “grow 160% by 2030.” (Goldman Sachs, 2024). Being more energy-intensive means that efficiency gains are reversed by a pursuit of more advanced technology. A European AI initiative pushing for efficiency might solve the issue of economic instability, but it would have to renege on its climate commitments in the short term, threatening the energy mix further. 

Bibliography

Bernabeu, J., 2024. Europe’s economic apocalypse is now. Politico, 19 12. 

Eurobarometer, 2025. Special Eurobarometer SP557: European citizens’ knowledge and attitudes towards science and technology. [Online]
Available at: https://data.europa.eu/data/datasets/s3227_102_1_sp557_eng?locale=en
[Accessed 19 02 2025].

European Commission, 2025. Renewable energy targets. [Online]
Available at: https://energy.ec.europa.eu/topics/renewable-energy/renewable-energy-directive-targets-and-rules/renewable-energy-targets_en
[Accessed 19 02 2025].

Gleditsch, N. P., 2021. This time is different! Or is it? NeoMalthusians and enviornmental optimists in the age of climate change. Journal of Peace Research, 58(1), pp. 177-185.

Goldman Sachs, 2024. AI is poised to drive 160% increase in data center power demand. [Online]
Available at: https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/AI-poised-to-drive-160-increase-in-power-demand
[Accessed 14 5 2025].

Krautkraemer, J. A., 2005. Economics of Natural Resource Scarcity: The State of Debate. Resources for the Future, pp. 1-45.

Malthus, T., 1798. An Essay On The Principle of Population. In: The Works of Thomas Robert Malthus (1986). London: Pickering & Chatto Publishers, pp. 1-139.

Percival, V. & Homer-Dixon, T., 1998. Environmental Security and Violent Conflict: The Case of South Africa. Journal of Peace Research, 35(3), pp. 279-298.

Pertiwi, A., Harjanto, R. & Kartini, E., 2019. Infinite Energy Creates Better Life. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, Volume 553, pp. 1-6.

Schlebecker, J. T., 1977. Farmers and Bureaucrats: Reflections on Technological Innovation in agriculture. Agricultural History, 51(4), pp. 641-655.

World Intellectual Property Organisation, 2024. Global Innovation Index 2024 Unlocking the Promise of Social Entrepeneurship. Geneva: WIPO.