tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post4099381073607932131..comments2023-09-28T08:13:11.489-07:00Comments on Only In It For The Gold: The Cruel Hoax: Growth and Equity Cannot be SustainedMichael Tobishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-75442782726686224372009-05-27T08:37:47.987-07:002009-05-27T08:37:47.987-07:00FYI, Michael.<A HREF="http://www.sd-commission.org.uk/publications.php?id=914" REL="nofollow">FYI</A>, Michael.Steve Bloomhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12943109973917998380noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-89143200324890211622009-05-22T07:34:02.017-07:002009-05-22T07:34:02.017-07:00the population question really loses its saliency ...<I>the population question really loses its saliency quickly. The reason population doesn't dominate the conversation in Europe or Canada isn't that they are foolish liberals; it's that the saliency of the population question is exaggerated by the local intermingling of absurdly rich/wasteful and dramatically poor/primitive populations. </I>I see I was unclear in making the connection. <br /><br />8B people is already bad. Many of them trying to be more like us is a disaster. <br /><br />Consumption Dwarfs Population As Main <A HREF="http://e360.yale.edu/content/feature.msp?id=2140" REL="nofollow">Environmental Threat</A>It's overconsumption, not population growth, that is the fundamental problem: By almost any measure, a small portion of the world's people — those in the affluent, developed world — use up most of the Earth's resources and produce most of its greenhouse gas emissions.<br />by fred pearce<br /><br />It’s the great taboo, I hear many environmentalists say. Population growth is the driving force behind our wrecking of the planet, but we are afraid to discuss it.<br /><br />It sounds like a no-brainer. More people must inevitably be bad for the environment, taking more resources and causing more pollution, driving the planet ever farther beyond its carrying capacity. But hold on. This is a terribly convenient argument — “over-consumers” in rich countries can blame “over-breeders” in distant lands for the state of the planet. But what are the facts?<br /><br />The world’s population quadrupled to six billion people during the 20th century. It is still rising and may reach 9 billion by 2050. Yet for at least the past century, rising per-capita incomes have outstripped the rising head count several times over. And while incomes don’t translate precisely into increased resource use and pollution, the correlation is distressingly strong.<br /><br />Moreover, most of the extra consumption has been in rich countries that have long since given up adding substantial numbers to their population.<br /><br />[...]<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />D<br /><br />Hmmm...Word Verification says 'ovasil' What is a 'sil'?Danohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-52861655275493250222009-05-20T13:30:57.737-07:002009-05-20T13:30:57.737-07:00Not specifically on topic to this thread, but it's...Not specifically on topic to this thread, but it's the most recent close one. You've probably seen it already, but...<br /><br />http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1146skankyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14584908320777937193noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-23971894591493690672009-05-19T22:16:42.045-07:002009-05-19T22:16:42.045-07:00How close or far we are from the crunch is really ...How close or far we are from the crunch is really the issue. <br /><br />Waxman Markey seemed like pretty weak beer (even before it got watered down), but at least it starts to change the direction.<br /><br />The intuition of economists and politicians is that hey - look at us - you wanted big, this is huge! Of course, it is inadequate as well as, hmm, dubious in construction.<br /><br />Regarding population, though...<br /><br />It looks very different on the ground in the southwest, vs from anywhere else. The US-Mexico border is unique in the world. There is no place else where so much wealth abuts so much poverty. <br /><br />It's very easy for us to get pissed off about Mexican population rates. <br /><br />Once you put some actual physical distance between yourself and the border, the population question really loses its saliency quickly. The reason population doesn't dominate the conversation in Europe or Canada isn't that they are foolish liberals; it's that the saliency of the population question is exaggerated by the local intermingling of absurdly rich/wasteful and dramatically poor/primitive populations.<br /><br />(Also worth noting that how little wealth it takes to trigger the transition; Mexican birth rates are already in decline.)<br /><br />The demographers tell us that there is a fertility transition that invariably occurs above a certain modest wealth threshhold. The population is expected to stop growing somewhere around the memorably easy to remember number of 10^10.<br /><br />In any case, due to the resource usage, adding an American is sort of like adding twenty Mexicans. The footprint question dominates the population question.<br /><br /><A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fertility_rate.jpg" REL="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Fertility_rate.jpg</A><A HREF="http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demtra16.gif" REL="nofollow">http://www.uwmc.uwc.edu/geography/Demotrans/demtra16.gif</A>So while the population question makes matters worse, it isn't the top issue. The top issue is whether we have made a false promise to the world, and if so, what we can do about it.<br /><br />Energy is the key to the short run, but one point of this essay is that even assuming energy solved we still don't get endless growth. <br /><br />Ultimately (I posted about this a few months back) you get global warming without greenhouse gases, just from waste heat. Eric Chaisson shows this. At conventional growth rates this gives us three centuries of growth. <br /><br /><A HREF="http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/07/limits-to-clean-energy.html" REL="nofollow">http://initforthegold.blogspot.com/2008/07/limits-to-clean-energy.html</A>Eventually the growth idea breaks. The only question is when.<br /><br />It looks to be just about now, which of course is what the Club of Rome said forty years ago. So things continue to unfold more or less as per expectations.<br /><br />But it appears the best we can hope for is 300 years from now. This may not matter much in practice but at least it matters as an ethical matter. The end to growth on the finite earth is inevitable. What should the societies finding themselves in overshoot do? It would be good to discuss this in the abstract.<br /><br />300 years from now, even in a growth scenario, the likelihood that the USA will dominate the world's economic activity is small. Suppose the fusion trick works and we start getting to direct global warming problems. <br /><br />Suppose by then, say, the Chinese or the Brazilians are using a much bigger share of this new energy than we are. What would we say? How would they respond? <br /><br />What should we say? What should they respond?<br /><br />I wonder.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-51911830384727858482009-05-19T21:41:16.741-07:002009-05-19T21:41:16.741-07:00I would regard more ecological overshoot as "somet...I would regard more ecological overshoot as "something big" though, so I'm not completely sure what the crux of your comment is. I'm not sniping, I really don't know.King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-64472793658524867722009-05-19T21:11:06.998-07:002009-05-19T21:11:06.998-07:00Look: we aren't going to reverse population increa...Look: we aren't going to reverse population increase absent something big. So that's out. We aren't going to take away dreams of people wanting to live like Murricans. So that's out. <br /><br />That means more ecological overshoot (we are already beyond capacity).<br /><br />Hard landing or soft landing? We aren't even close to discussing this. Micheal. Ahem.<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-54657425891662017972009-05-19T18:18:10.675-07:002009-05-19T18:18:10.675-07:00Michael,
First let's stop the growth of populatio...Michael,<br /><br />First let's stop the growth of population and then let's find the means of converting energy in the staggering amounts required. THEN let's concern ourselves with how to mandate the processes, having already verified that they're effective.<br /><br />In a sense, any discussion about any of the matters related to the subject matter of your blog is moot if extreme changes are ruled out. Even if we only consider the peak everything phenomenon or the total US debt equals 4 times GDP problem, etc., etc., and ignore climate change this statement holds.King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-1750492385720933712009-05-19T11:58:00.000-07:002009-05-19T11:58:00.000-07:00Charles Barton rather misses the point, here. For ...Charles Barton rather misses the point, here. For what it is worth I am in favor of development of nuclear power, but I think indefinite growth as most of its proponents imagine it is completely implausible. <br /><br />(Also, there are arguments that most uranium counted as reserves is not recoverable at a net energy gain. The fact that the stuff is very potent acts to the benefit of waste management, but its scarcity makes the refinement process costly. But that's another topic.)<br /><br />KOTR's point that some activities have negative impact is interesting, but I think those activities are scarce unless carefully mandated into existence, so it doesn't change the picture much.Michael Tobishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08229460438349093944noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-40516771703180604962009-05-19T05:07:00.000-07:002009-05-19T05:07:00.000-07:00Considering the fact that advanced nuclear technol...Considering the fact that advanced nuclear technology - the LFTR, the LCFR, or the IFR - is capable of producing up to 300 times as much energy from a given amount of nuclear fuel, while producing 1% of the waste, it should be obvious that the route to increasing human wealth is through advanced nuclear technology. Should be obvious, but not to the Club of Rome or RMI.Charles Bartonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01125297013064527425noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-41694575791779325222009-05-18T22:23:00.000-07:002009-05-18T22:23:00.000-07:00> Reducing the impact per unit of
> wealth e...> Reducing the impact per unit of<br />> wealth elevenfold<br /><br />Well, hell, the rich don't need to do the damage they do just by being rich.<br /><br />This reminds me of the last lines of Brunner's book "The Sheep Look Up" (1972) -- prescient work).<br /><br />The computer coughs up the answer that, just maybe, the ecological collapse can be salvaged -- by losing the wealthiest ten percent of the planet's population who are doing most of the damage.<br /><br />The speakers are talking, standing somewhere on a beach cliff, maybe Scotland, and someone remarks on the smell of smoke in the air and looks around for a fire.<br /><br />And another remarks how, well, it appears people have already done what the computer's finally figured out is needful to save the ecology.<br /><br />That smell? <br /><br />"That's America burning."<br /><br />http://www.ansible.co.uk/writing/brunner.html<br /><br />Nearly forty years ago, he knew where we were going to go and the damage we were just getting started doing. And we did it.<br /><br />And -- well, he was about right, eh?<br /><br />Let's see if we can do better than the resolution he suggested.<br /><br />Don't burn them -- but for sure, impoverish them by an order of magnitude or more, that'll cut the damage done casually by wealth.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-88606939507019761542009-05-17T14:13:00.000-07:002009-05-17T14:13:00.000-07:00Something vastly worse.Something vastly worse.David B. Bensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02917182411282836875noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-68235109290553537462009-05-17T13:00:00.000-07:002009-05-17T13:00:00.000-07:00If a handle on energy conversion at the required r...If a handle on energy conversion at the required rates can be had (pie in the sky things like fusion, massive harvesting of insolation, etc.) then utilizing energy to undo the damage we've done will show up as economic growth. After all, "growth" is measured in GDP, and standard of living is measured in per capita GDP. Quality of life is, obviously, a different matter.<br /><br />For example, there is research underway at Sandia in this regard, i.e., using energy to change CO2 and H2O into hydrocarbons. Similar research is going into other "rebuilding programs." It's in a nascent phase at best, but with sufficient energy, there's little doubt that these things can be done. Thermodynamics being what it is, much waste heat will be generated even in such otherwise positive processes of course. Maybe we can put hotness in boxes and rail gun it to the sun.<br /><br />As Dano pointed out though, without population control, any attempts at damage mitigation are quixotic at best and hypocritical at worst. I've estimated that my family, all up (that is, including consumption of stuff, food, etc.) uses energy at the rate of about 40 kilowatts for the four of us and is responsible for the production of something like 96 tons of CO2 per year. We have what would be considered a good standard of living, but having nine billion people with that standard is out of the question.King of the Roadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06841601144107400103noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8524070301101240472.post-63107307962737075492009-05-17T12:12:00.000-07:002009-05-17T12:12:00.000-07:00BTW. finally getting around to reading Schellenber...BTW. finally getting around to reading Schellenberger and Nordhaus' <I>Break Through</I>. Their thesis is that environmental action only comes when a number of other needs have been met, and only in rich countries. Etc. And the solutioning is based on continued growth. Not to say I agree with everything in the book, but until we get human population growth under control, forget it. Because everyone wants our standard of living. That means more consumption of resources. <br /><br />So yes, growth and equity cannot be sustained because we already are in overshoot. But how are you going to say no? How are you going to take things away from people? You aren't. <br /><br />Best,<br /><br />DDanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03709762632849004871noreply@blogger.com