Growing populations and growing economies
Population is always a troubling issue for green thinkers. Just as any ecology can become plagued by unsustainable growth of one species, too many humans appearing too fast could threaten the sustainability of our planet. So it was thought provoking to read George Monbiot’s latest article on the environmental impact of population growth:
If we accept the UN’s projection, the global population will grow by roughly 50% and then stop. This means it will become 50% harder to stop runaway climate change, 50% harder to feed the world, 50% harder to prevent the overuse of resources. But compare this rate of increase to the rate of economic growth. Many economists predict that, occasional recessions notwithstanding, the global economy will grow by about 3% a year this century. Governments will do all they can to prove them right. A steady growth rate of 3% means a doubling of economic activity every 23 years. By 2100, in other words, global consumption will increase by roughly 1600%.
The best solutions to population growth are generally thought to be access to education, food and housing and contraception for women and girls. If women have control over their lives then the wellbeing of their communities as a whole improves.
But, as Monbiot notes, population is not the issue that we in countries like New Zealand face. Our unsustainable growth which is threatening the planet is economic growth - wanting to consume more each year than we did the year before.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:43 am
The limit to population growth is the limit of resources to supply that population.
See food prices.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
No it isn’t. Our biggest threat is overseas population growth which is the biggest threat to the world - at least 10x more urgent than climate change, and of course is the cause of climate change.
In New Zealand we need to industrialise and go the smart high tech route to solve our own environmental problems and have spare cash to help the overpopulated countries control their growth.
January 31st, 2008 at 12:47 pm
I meant no it isn’t to the greens statement that economic growth is the problem, not to dbuckley. We need economic growth so we can afford smart alternatives to traditional enrgy sources, etc.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:11 pm
Kevin
Economic growth as it is currently managed through bankers capitalism and no-cost access to the commons, is OUR contribution to the problem and it IS the issue WE face in terms of unsustainable growth. We don’t face the unsustainable growth of someone else’s population. We have our own particular demon and it is the drug of unadulterated capitalist growth in the control of and for the benefit of the bankers and without any costing of the use of the commons factored into it.
People who advocate economic growth are in the thrall of the bankers, and they are slaves to the inflation that is necessary to support the debt based capitalism that makes bankers the wealthy and powerful figures they are in our society.
That isn’t the only sort of capitalism that is possible, it is the one that is popular. … mostly with bankers.
respectfully
BJ
January 31st, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Kevin - Read the article that I linked to! It explains why the economic growth of the few in the OECD is far more injurious to the environment than the population growth of the world’s poor.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:54 pm
Do the Ehrlichs still hold that particular opinion?
January 31st, 2008 at 2:59 pm
The problem is not made better by peak-oil which is already upon us and which is not amenable to solution by reduction any more. The cheap oil is already burned and the remaining supply is already much more expensive than it once was.
http://www.countercurrents.org/goodchild290108.htm
I particularly like the reference to Dickens.
respectfully
BJ
January 31st, 2008 at 6:14 pm
Bollox bjchip and frog. I hope you are around to explain why we can’t help because of your luddite academic views when the “population adjustment” comes. Me, I have no power but at least my views will be down on disks to show I warned you that NZ neads to industrialise in a smart way to protest ourselves and have a hope in hell of helping others. And I don’t mean the type of help you anti-capitalists have given to places like Kenya aver the last 50 years etiher.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:24 pm
Kevin Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 12:45 pm
> No it isn’t. Our biggest threat is overseas population growth which is the biggest threat to the world - at least 10x more urgent than climate change, and of course is the cause of climate change.
No it’s not. Climate Change is caused by greenhouse gas emissions. Currently the greatest level of greenhouse gas emissions come from countries with relatively stable populations, and the greatest growth in greenhouse gas emissions is coming from China, which has the lowest birth rate in the world.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:18 pm
What if the current world population is unsustainable? I have heard some ecologists say that a sustainable world population (in order to maintain the current level of biodiversity) is about one billion. This is a controversial figure … but it is a number we can work with.
Even if we can curb the growth in consumption, how do we reduce six billion people down to one billion in a short period of time?
January 31st, 2008 at 11:24 pm
nonsenssssssse
the best solutions to population growth are generally thought to be urbanization & increasing wealth and technology
February 1st, 2008 at 12:57 am
andrew, I suspect that if you dig into the stats you will find a significant amount of simultaneity occuring amongst all of those best solutions. Increasing wealth provides access to better food and housing. Access to housing and increased wealth are partly acheived through urbanization and partly through educartion. Of course increased individual wealth and national wealth leads to increased funding for education. Simultaneity is when cause and effect happens in both directions between two factors or in many directions between many factors. With simultaneous relationships it is often the case that the very “best” solution is simply to recognise the synergy that comes from using all of the best solutions, even the ones that are only second best.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:40 am
There is no way that climate change is going to cause major problems for the human race before overpopulation does - in either war disease or famine or a combination of both. The earth can probably support the current world population if we all pull together but it will be a poor quality of life for many. We need to be wealthy enough to help other nations with real solutions to the population problem which is to increase their standards of living, promote literacy and demand that they encourage contraception and non-corruption in return. Otherwise the world is knackered due to population a long time before global warming ever kicks in. The long term solution is for the world to agree on a phased population reduction and hope ther is some biodiversity left.
If we pull together now to promote a smart Hi tech solution and stop using the environment as a big stick to hit naughty capatilists with then we may have a chance. If we back away and take the luddite option then we have no chance because we are not far enough away from the rest of the world.
As I keep on saying we can do it the hard way now, or leave it for our children to do it the really hard way. We are a democracy so the choice is ours.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:51 am
Read James Martins “The meaning ot the 21st century” Its a bit light on data and I certainly don’t agree with everything he says (he swallows a bit too many media hooks for me like the bird flu stuff) but he makes some very good points.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:18 am
Hopefully frog’s intention in quoting this part of Monbiot’s essay was that we would read the rest of it and see that he proceeds to demolish his “This means it will become” statement.
In essence what he ends up saying is that “Global population will grow by roughly 50% and then stop. If the US and EU populations also did this it means it will become 50% harder to stop runaway climate change and 50% harder to prevent the overuse of resources. But if it’s only the developing world’s population then 50% becomes 5%. Providing they don’t actually develop. But if the developing nations do develop then they probably won’t experience 50% population growth anyway.
Monbiot doesn’t provide any detail on the claim that 3% economic growth equals 3% growth in resource consumption. OECD stats don’t support this conclusion. In fact, when the OECD stats are looked at per capita, per adult and per worker they tell a far more interesting and hopeful story. The linake between increasing wealth and increasing consumption is strongest when the population includes a high proportion of children. It is weakest when almost every adult is either employed or retired. Some OECD countries have already exhibited a reversal of the relationship, which seems to occur when roughly 20% of adults are retirees.
A 10% reduction in resource consumption in the OECD would easily allow a 100% increase in resource consumption in the developing world. The OECD countries could reduce their energy sufficiently to allow the developing countries to achieve the same standard of living, provided the developing countries do so with the same energy efficiency that the OECD countries will have achieved.
It is possible the same could be achieved with water resources, although it would require a considerable amount of ingenuity and having new pipes that don’t leak like the old pipes in most OECD countries.
I can’t see how it can be done with food, at least not using conventional soil based agriculture.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:08 pm
on the contrary, what monbiot notes is:
“population growth in the rich world, largely driven by immigration, is more environmentally damaging than population growth in the poor world.”
February 1st, 2008 at 8:12 pm
# andrew Says:
January 31st, 2008 at 11:24 pm
> the best solutions to population growth are generally thought to be urbanization & increasing wealth and technology
The effect of wealth is an illusion caused by the fact that wealthier societies tend to be better educated:
Much of Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union have birth rates as low as those in Western Europe. They are not as wealthy, but they are generally as highly educated.
Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are quite wealthy but very poorly educated. And their birth rates are as high as you find in poorer countries with a similar level of education.
Pakistan is wealthier than Bangladesh (about 3 times the GDP per capita), but Bangladesh is better educated. And Bangladesh is the one with the lower birth rates.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:38 pm
I suspect religious beliefs also play a part in birth rates, making direct comparisons between countries difficult to interpret.
Also level of education can be considered a form of wealth, as can quality of medical care, quality of housing, etc. GDP per capita is not necessarily a good indicator of actual wealth.
Trevor.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:04 pm
The link BJ supplied:
http://www.countercurrents.org/goodchild290108.htm
is IMHO rather pessimistic, although probably quite realistic in the part actually dealing with oil. Geothermal is quite localised (we don’t know how lucky we are) but wind is proverbially widespread. Admittedly New Zealand’s wind resource is better than most countries. Wave energy is also quite localised - at least when it comes to using it near land. (Again, New Zealand’s resource is better than most countries.) Tidal flow is very localised. (New Zealand has one of the few good resources.) I can understand the author not bothering to mention them, or Ocean Thermal Power Systems (Google “OTEC”) either.
What I do disagree with is his (Peter Goodchild’s) dismissal of solar power. “The production and maintenance of this array would require vast quantities of hydrocarbons, metals, and other materials — a self-defeating process.” How does he possibly arrive at this conclusion? Photovoltaic panels are thin, so there isn’t much material required, and require little maintenance. In addition, there are solar power generators that are not based on photovoltaic arrays, although they probably do require more materials.
There are other forms of renewable energy capture that are being considered and which may become cost-effective when the price of energy rises, and at least one of these is viable over much of the globe.
If you have energy, you can make fresh water from sea water using Reverse Osmosis. You can electrolyse some of this water to make hydrogen, which can then be used to make ammonia and from that nitric acid, ammonium nitrate and urea, i.e. fertilisers. With energy, fertilisers and water, and the right land comes food and hope.
Trevor.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:09 pm
It is wrong to think that NZ does not have a population problem.
Population budgeting does not involve having a set number of inhabitants per country, it involves setting a country’s population at or below the level the entire economy and environment can sustain.
In fact NZ has already passed the population it can currently sustain comfortably. A close look at many of our farming regions (eg the king country) will reveal the environmental depletion and loss of natural variety that is the hallmark of our currnt lifestyle and population level.
It is also a myth to believe that providing comfort and plentiful resources for women will lead to sustainability. We can already see in NZ (with the steady improvements to the DPB etc) that not every birth is a valuable birth. We have plenty of new citizens who drain our economy and environment rather than contribute to it positively.
It has been a very hard message to get across…. but any country that is serious about caring for the environment has to be serious about getting rid of people with bad standards, and boosting the viability of citizens who have good standards.
Unfortunately it sounds a little too much like eugenics to be popular.
However if we truly care about the environment we have to stop valuing human lives as all being equal, and all being valuable.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 am
With all due respect Andrew, What Monbiot notes in the next four paragraphs is a series of qualifications (but not an actual refutation) to the general point stands: that you quoted.
February 2nd, 2008 at 2:04 am
Greengeek, Not eugenics so much as Hitler . The problem is you are actually putting forward a valid argument to be debated and history is putting forward an equally valid emotional kneejerk reaction.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Kevin - “Growth is good” - Me - “Needs more energy” - Kevin - “You’re a luddite”
Something in that sequence doesn’t compute worth sh!t for this former NASA engineer and someplace in the exchange my raking of debt-based capitalism over the coals was construed as something other than an economics argument.
Kevin, I have no qualms about technical fixes where they are possible, but I have an instinctive appreciation of the meaning of TANSTAAFL. The growth that is possible takes more energy or more efficient processes and there are limits to both. You can’t just say we need it and therefore we will have it. Engineers and Scientists have to figure out ways to obtain the efficiencies or the energy to provide for that growth and the fact is we’ve been in deficit for nigh on 200 years now. That makes it damned hard to justify the word “grow” with respect to the number of humans or the consumption of humans on this planet.
The site is pessimistic. I am… pessimistic. People don’t respond well to being told to quit having so many kids. They don’t respond well to any issue that affects anyone in the future. They don’t respond well to problems that have never appeared in the past. We enter a new phase of human “development” and the problem of how to manage declines in available energy, living standards (in some places) and food supplies must be faced.
Where there are technical solutions I beg for their adoption, but that isn’t what we were arguing about. We were arguing about growth… for my part it is a matter of whether we will even be able to do as well as break-even because the energy available to our kids, on current form, sucks big time… because we burned all the cheap stuff.
Don’t call people names. Particularly when you don’t know their full spectrum of response.
Greengeek - It is not IMHO wrong to say “stupid people shouldn’t breed”, but it is very wrong to say they have no right to live,, or have no right to equal protection under the law, or that they are less respectable than smart people. The fact that those latter judgments have always gone hand in hand with the first is where all attempts to control our own breeding have failed. We have to value all human lives equally to quash the tendency to add those erroneous values to the limited value of trying to promote a smarter version of ourselves.
The society needs people to do all manner of things and not all of us need to be rocket scientists. A person with 3 University Degrees gets off the bus and says “Thank you sir” to the driver . Does this make society better or worse? It the son of a President attends the same schools as the son of a plumber (asserting for the moment that they have equal abilities), does this make the society better or worse?
We need to value people based on their honesty and their hard work as well as their natural talents. I may well expect to be paid more than someone of lesser education and experience, but I should not expect any more respect from them than I offer them in return.
If every child born has an equal opportunity to go to school and has an equal opportunity in terms of being fed and clothed and not having to work a part-time job to support his/her family, there will still be inequality. Families are unequal in their support and people are blessed and cursed with different natural talents. Limiting ourselves to the inequality of abilities is a goal I embrace. Attempting to eliminate that inequality is not a goal for me at all.
respectfully
BJ
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
BJ CHip said “People who advocate economic growth are in the thrall of the bankers….,”
I think you’ve ultimately got that bit completely backwards, the Bilderburg group for example are totally down with the agenda of zero growth, in fact they have probably helped nuture it to begin with:
http://trickytrickywhiteboy.blogspot.com/2007/10/bilderberg-for-beginn ers.html
http://www.michaeljournal.org/bilder.htm
But you are exactly right about debt-free capitalism being very logical for the majority of us.
DSC.
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:02 pm
BJ,
Excellent argument on the natural limits of sriving for equality.
However the Peter Goodchild essay you linked to earlier is a good example of how easy it is to frame aproblem in a way that seems to rule out any solution. Peter’s argument rest on two questionable assumptions.
Firstly that oil’s popularity is primarily due to it’s energy density when this could equally likely be of secondary importance to it’s cheapness and seeming abundance. The appalling inefficiency of the ICE suggests that the latter consideration has been at least as important if not more so.
Secondly Peter’s subsequent argument assumes that replacement energy sources will utilise the same inefficient indirect conversion methods that oils energy density has encouraged.
Converting sunlight to electicity is incredicly inefficient. But converting sunlight falling on buildings directly into heat is far more efficient. Storing that energy in the buidings is far more efficient than storing PV electricity in batteries. Using the natural thermosyphon effect created by this combined conversion and storage potential of the fabric of indutrial buildings makes solar heating of factories and warehouses viable from the low density energy of sunlight at no greater cost than using natural gas to do the same job. Using walls to collect this energy is especially productive in snowy climates because of the amount of sunlight reflected onto the walls by the snow. The crucial thing is that the energy only has to be converted once and then transported a miniscule distance. According to the US DOE transporting oil or natural gas by pipeline uses almost as much energy per ton mile as transport by combination trucks.
The crucial aspect for successfully moving to an ecnomy based on less dense fuels is for the energy systems to become more dense by reducing the distance that energy has to be transported and for energy conversion to become more dense by becoming more efficient. The latter is far more doable than most people imagine because they don’t appreciate how much energy is currently wasted by poor control of motors and heat.
Peter comes to the wrong conclusion because he starts with the wrong assumption. There is no actual economic or financial penalty involved in shifting to a low carbon economy, in fact quite the opposite. There is just the hurdle created by human psychologies fear of the unknown and subsequent resistance to change. The “ignorance is bliss” approach to life.
In short, the only barriers to achieving a low carbon world are psychological not technical.
Yet another reason why engineers and systems analysts need to work together more often. I guess there might even be a place for behavioural psychologists, every now and then, in moderation.
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:15 pm
Apologies bjchip. I am 100% in agreement that we need to pahse in zero or negative growth including zero economic growth. Buisness, government, and scientidts and engineers need to work together to devlop strategies for this but it requires a long term vision. It also requires co-operation so that the “In crowd” buisensses dont use it as a way to exclude the “out crowd” from becoming the “in crowd” as the NZBCSD seems to want to do, and that government does not use the environment as a big stick to hit buisness with, as our government ans expecially the greens want to do.
If we work together we can solve these problems including the problem of what level of carrot and stick we offor to other countreis to control their populations.
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:09 pm
bjchip… I wasn’t implying that stupidity or intelligence should be used as the yardsticks used in population control.
There are some very intelligent farmers out there, busily destroying the environment with highly intensive (and very clever) farming practices. That does not mean we (necessarily) benefit by having, or encouraging such people if what they do damages the environment.
As a nation, we should not increase the need for such farming practices by aiming to continually increase our population for reasons of ‘economic growth’.
Equally, there are some very stupid solo mothers out there, increasing the population (aided and abetted by continual welfare system ‘improvements’) with little hope (IMHO) of fostering those children to be PRODUCTIVE members of society.
Yes, those children have the POTENTIAL to be productive, but statistics and past experience clearly indicate that children from nuclear and/or extended families have much better outcomes than those of solo parents, in terms of their positive contributions to society and the environment.
Governments should spend each $ carefully…getting value for money rather than on the basis that every new citizen is worth having. I believe our current social welfare system encourages solo parent dependency, and that definitely is a hugely damaging cost to our country.
In my opinion, the measure of value of each human life is simply that each individual should be valued by the actual contribution they make to the society and environment around them. Not by their wealth, intellect, or strength.
I guess my comments were mostly fuelled by the continual insistence from governments, that NZ is underpopulated, and should keep it’s economy afloat by importing hoards of outsiders who bring many problems with them, and by encouraging the birth rate of cultures who can not really afford extra kids.
I don’t see this as xenophobia…simply an acceptance that we should reach an economic and environmental balance within our country as it is now, rather pinning our hopes on an ever-increasing population.
It is all about budgeting…monetary budgeting, energy budgeting, and population budgeting.
As an example, imagine what sort of poulation NZ could realistically support if we limited the population to the number that could be supported by green energy (hydro, wind etc) and zero use of ‘fossil’ fuels.
Surely that population would be less than we have now?? We should not value every new birth, or every new migrant as much as we value the future of those already living here.
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:18 pm
third time lucky. i mean “debt free capitalism not being very logical for the majority of us” and BJ Chip writes a truth to me in that regard. I was rushing to work and have skived off just to correct my previous posts. Hope no confusion was caused.
DSC 08.
February 2nd, 2008 at 4:19 pm
arghh….this is not my day! “debt based captilalism not being very logical for the majority of us” is finally what should have been in my first post.
I’m off to hide.
February 2nd, 2008 at 6:25 pm
Even
What is this… contagious? I just lost a post by tapping the wrong key.! I don’t know where you’re hiding but you could use one.
Never mind. Bilderburgers don’t trouble me much really. The problem is that while it is a real group it isn’t at all clear that it is an effective conspiracy. Human stupidity quite adequately explains all the mess we are in today. I have heard of them before… I don’t believe everything I read.
OK… Trying this again.
Kevyn. No argument that Goodchild is ignoring stuff… his conclusion however, is that the future looks a bit Dickensian and that matches my read of our psychology, our resources and our collective efforts. For a better evaluation of energy over the next 50 years I prefer Chefurka.
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/WEAP2/WEAP2.html
Greengeek is correct as well I think, that the population is already enough and more here in NZ. We don’t need more people, we need people better able to make use of what we have. I would work at improving schools and opportunities, and provide more structure and discipline for those who don’t get much if any, but I also agree that the family has a large influence and bad family situations are a real problem. I just feel a bit uneasy… actually a LOT uneasy, at the level of state intervention needed to fix the problem at that level. I think we have to cure it through generations growing out of it rather than any other method. Not easy.
I don’t know about all the greens wanting to hit business with a big stick. What we understand though, is that the debt-based capitalism that underpins the current business and capitalism of the society, is not good for any society in the long run. It self-destructs eventually.
respectfully
BJ
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:03 pm
So the greens would rather have a socialist society that have been proven to self destruct in the short term that a camipalist society that if it is goling to self destruct it will be in the very very long term, giving us a chance to develop solutions to the problem os self destructing?
February 2nd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
“imagine what sort of poulation NZ could realistically support if we limited the population to the number that could be supported by green energy (hydro, wind etc) and zero use of ‘fossil’ fuels.”
Assuming we’re allowed to exclude fossil fuel consumption in farming, fishing, forestry and tourism then a population of ten million would be a reasonable target to aim to have any chance of eliminating fossil fuels and making investment in green energy viable.
It would, of course, be vital that the additional population is housed within existing urban boundaries. This is the only way to ensure that the energy suicidal single use zoning practices of the mid-20th century are swept away and replaced with medium density mixed-use walkable communitiies. Only with this approach will trolley buses become viable transport in the Timaru sized towns that are unusually common in this country. Only with this approach will light rail become viable transport in our cities. Only this appraoch will create the widespread severe traffic congestion needed to force people out of their cars. Only with this approach will the proportion of New Zealander’s living in energy efficient houses ever match that of the USA. Only with this approach will the proportion of people living close to existing hydro generation be increased thus reducing the average distance electricity has to be transported. The only possible drawback is for Aucklander’s. They will have to start make their orn green energy instead of taking other people’s. There is probably enough energy in the magma under Auckland to meet the needs of three or four million people.
February 2nd, 2008 at 8:55 pm
BJ,
Good link, thanks. Paul’s statement “The energy we use can be broadly categorized into two classes, fuel and electricity.” sums up the most common error when assessing future energy impacts - failing to distinguish between use and produce. In fact the energy we use should be broadly categorized into three classes: fuel, electricity, and seasonal free energy. The latter being the heat and light energy we get for free in summer, spring and autumn but not in winter. A ball park estimate puts it close to half the energy we get from all commercial sources combined. Making better use of that energy is one of the least resource intensive ways of substituting for dwindling oil and gas supplies. To the extent that most of the developing nations are closer to the equator than most of the developed nations, seasonal free energy’s share of energy consumption per capita should grow very fast over the next decade or two.
Probably fast enough to provide a soft landing for the developing countries but possibly not fast enough to do the same for the devopled countries.
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:00 pm
Definitely contagious. Maybe it’s the first species hopping computer virus.
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 am
Kevin
I specified debt based capitalism as a problem. It is a problem. I didn’t say I wanted communism to replace it. Nor has socialism imploded in places like Sweden or anywhere else that MODERATION in all things was actually used. Capitalism the way Adam Smith might have seen it and expected it to work, does seem to work, but it takes a heap of work on the part of the people of any nation to keep either Capitalists or Commissars honest. Usually that work doesn’t get done.
As far as Capitalism taking a long time to “self-destruct” I might point out that it has done so several times already. Economic history in the US is riddled with holes that capitalists dug for themselves and threw themselves into. What do you think is happening in the USA this year? How many trillions of dollars is gone already? How many people has it killed.
This is a failed system. Communism is a failed system. Eliminating the debt part of the capitalism would limit the growth somewhat, but there are limits to that growth even without economic debacles like the collapse of the bond insurance companies credit ratings. There are physical limits as well. There are energy constraints that have been exceeded for decades and there are pollution constraints that will affect us for centuries… and all you can think of is to offer up an accusation that we are advocating something that we don’t even care about a great deal.
All I personally care about is that people pay full freight for their transit through life. All of them. In cash. Not in borrowed loot from somewhere and someone else. Not in the hidden theft that damaging the ecosystem always is. Not in deferred debt that our children have to pay. Not in inherited wealth. Cash, based on their abilities and honest efforts, .
That doesn’t obviate capitalism, but it does limit it. It doesn’t produce socialism but it surely puts a premium on cooperative efforts.
I do wish this canard about the Green Party and Socialism would die a natural and timely death. It is quite boring to hear the same untruth over and over again.
respectfully
BJ
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:09 am
Paul Chefurka has produced a clear overall picture:
http://www.paulchefurka.ca/WEAP2/WEAP2.html
but I do question a few of his assumptions. Does “Solar energy” include other forms or just PhotoVoltaic? The other main form of electricity generation from solar energy is via solar thermal power stations such as the power tower approach. If the heat is captured in melting salt, then this provides short-term energy storage. The links he provides include details of existing plants.
However one of the growing forms of solar power is direct use, such as solar water heating panels. This will make a significant contribution.
I also question the projection for “other renewables”. While Biomass and Geothermal are mature technologies, they should be graphed separately, since what is currently dominant may not stay dominant. Geothermal is undergoing a revival here in New Zealand, so a linear projection is certainly not valid here. However wave, tidal, osmotic power generation, ocean thermal power generation and other options are all immature technologies and we can expect non-linear growth in wave generation and probably others as well.
These areas give some room for hope, but the overall picture still looks grim unless serious action is taken.
Good link BJ.
Trevor.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:27 am
While I have not read the entire thread would it be safe to assume that the Greens want to cram the population of NZ into urban ghettos?
Are we all going to be forced to live in cramped and disgusting circumstances in the name of climate change?
If this should happen how long do you really think it would take the public to work out that climate change is merely an excuse used by the far left to usher in another attempt at communism, and how long before that communist experiment goes the way of the others?
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:30 am
Can you post my comments please
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
bjchip:
You’re quite right that the talk about the Green Party and socialism should die a natural death. Only someone who was ignorant of what socialism is would claim the Green Party is a socialist or communist party.
ps. Sweden is not a socialist state (at least by many people’s definition of socialism). Capitalism is alive and well in that country. It would be more correct to decribe it as a country with a social welfare system that is more extensive than most countries.
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Trevor
Direct use systems don’t produce power, they displace power use and they require in most places, significant planning to make them work for a particular facility.
In other words, if the housing stock is replaced with more sensible housing, the prospect of displacing significant energy use with more passive systems is increased. Only we’ve still got insanity in housing here . I think that this is not going to go quickly or well.
The other aspects you mention like geothermal, have limited global impact, though they are significant for NZ. This place is blessed in a lot of ways, with energy resources unrelated to dead dinosaurs.
All that said I don’t really disagree. The projections made are reasonable given what was and is known. The non-linear aspect can also be examined in terms of Fusion power or Thorium cycle fission. The problem with considering the non-linearity is that it cannot be planned. It cannot be relied on. Any one of them may not happen… but some of those things mentioned almost certainly will over time. Which and to what effect? Fusion plants would be a useful miracle cure for much of what ails us.
We still have a chance to avoid catastrophic changes… just not a really good one.
One of my favorite lines from any TV show came from “The Fall Guy” which may not have ever even screened here. “It’s always darkest just before it goes completely black”. - Which is about as apt a description of my level of optimism as any..
respectfully
BJ
February 3rd, 2008 at 2:51 pm
Samiuela, I wish our economic system were a little more like Sweden’s and a little less like America’s. I reckon though that the distinctions you are reminding me of, are lost on most of our right-leaning guests.
respectfully
BJ
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:53 pm
“Direct use systems … require in most places, significant planning to make them work for a particular facility.” That is definitely true when adding solar water heating to an existing building. But because solar space heating generally functions as a pre-heater for an existing HVAC system the planning consists of little more than working out which is the sunny side of the building and where the HVAC fresh air inlets are located. A simple set of tables can be used to get the air volumes and fan sizes properly matched with the existing HVAC system.
On this occassion I think you have inadvertently demonstrated one of the barriers moving to a low carbon society. Seeing complexities where there are only simplicities. That helps explain why countries with a continuous improvement business philosophy are further down the track to sustainability than countries with restructure mentality.
February 3rd, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Kevyn
My house don’t have no highfalutin HVAC. It gots a woodburner I gets to cut woods fer, an… (no, I can’t keep that up long
… its just like the vast majority of buildings in the neighbourhood.
I understand your point in terms of using it as a booster for the HVAC but I was thinking about our existing housing stock and the HVAC just isn’t there in the first instance, nor is the insulation, the double glazing or the thermal mass to make such a system work well. Where a building is large enough to have a system it is going to need more collection area… this is inconvenient in the city where the footprint and the shadow of a building may both be restricted.
Maybe I am seeing more problems than are really serious. I don’t think we’re anywhere near ready to do direct use well.
respectfully
BJ
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:22 pm
I keep on telling you Scandinavian lovers that theirs is a different system. They have high taxes plus univesitlity - lake we used to. The US generally has lowish taxes plus user pays with tax rebates to encourage savings for the big bills such as children’s education, health insurance etc.
We, on the other hand have high taxes + user pays without either universality or savings incentives or compulsory saving for the difficult billls. The socialist solution is to give “targeted assistance” so that the middle income people get a double whammy - they pay for themselves plus other people as well. Consequently we have A+ student with massive student loans sitting in the same lectures as solo parents or long term unemployued people who are being paid to go to tertiary education. Along with subsidesed housing that doesnt show up on the IR12 there is now a large number of low to low middle income New Zealanders getting more of the country’s resources than their middle income mates.
Now thats not a good recipe for a modern lean green sustainable economy because the hard workers and their children, once qualified say screw you and go and contribute to other people’s economies.
Hence I would argue we are far more socialist or communist than your beloved scandinavians, and the cracks seen in unjust cronyistic countries on the left wing government -> poverty cycle are now plain for all to see.
February 3rd, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Well said. That is another very good reason why NZ should not aim to increase it’s population without first reshaping it’s social policies. There is now a large group of middle income earners who are increasingly trapped paying for the needy at the bottom, and also paying for the infrastructure of the deviously wealthy at the top.
A social welfare system is a great idea (and not necessarily socialist) but should never be allowed to get so big that it skews society away from the need for effort and success as desirable driving forces. (a la capitalism)
Too many lazy humans, or defective humans, creates a self-destructive society, and creates justification in the minds of would-be fascists for building an extreme right wing society.
I believe we should aim to seriously strengthen the working class/middle class in this country…those who get out of bed in the morning and do a decent days work. There seems to be so little reward other than self-satisfaction, for standing by good old time-tested family values.
February 3rd, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Exactly and very well put greengeek. I have said on numerous occasions the social instability that presnt policies are causing are sowing the seeds of fascism. Thanks for reminding me of that outcome.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 pm
BJ wrote:
“Direct use systems don’t produce power, they displace power use and they require in most places, significant planning to make them work for a particular facility.”
Direct use systems harness the sun’s power to lead to a better standard of living. In my view that counts as part of humanity’s total energy use. I was specifically thinking of solar water heaters, which can be retrofitted to most facilities.
Over the next 40+ years, much of our existing buildings will be replaced and other new buildings built, so there are opportunities for using more solar energy. There are also opportunities for improving insulation, and other efficiency gains so we can achieve the same standard of living as at present but with less energy required. Examples that come to mind are the replacement of incandescent lighting with compact fluorescent tubes or LED lighting, and LCD TVs and monitors replacing CRT-based TVs and monitors. Another example is the reduction in power use of the typical cell-phone of today compared to 10 years ago.
As an engineer, I believe there is still room for some optimism, but not if governments remain in a state of denial.
Trevor.
February 3rd, 2008 at 11:49 pm
greengeek:
You wrote:
“However if we truly care about the environment we have to stop valuing human lives as all being equal, and all being valuable.”
1) Who determines how valuable each person is?
2) What would you advocate doing if you have a child who turns out to be, in your words, a “defective human”?
February 4th, 2008 at 2:36 am
BJ, Sorry, I was thinking globally rather than locally. Commercial buildings was what I mainly had in mind - condos, hotels, factories and warehouses with plenty of concrete floors and walls, either internal or external.
Of course, if we just insulated and double glazed our houses the winter peak load would be reduced significantly simply because they wouldn’t get cold as quickly once the sun goes down. Sunny winters days followed by frosty nights are the norm in Canterbury and Central Otago, don’t about Wellington or anywhere alse.
I wonder what the building code says about lifting a few floorboards and filling the space underneath with concrete? That’ll give you ample thermal mass to store the waste heat from your PV roof so you can have solar heating after dark.
February 4th, 2008 at 2:45 am
“My house don’t have no highfalutin HVAC.” Ah, but I bet its got lowfalutin HVAC, of the doors and windows type. Open for ventilation and cooling, close to keep the heat in. Marvellous these modern inventions. Man have we come a long way since we moved out of caves.
February 4th, 2008 at 6:31 am
Kevyn - yeah… but what about flyscreens!
BJ
February 4th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Trevor
It is not just governments in a state of denial. Most people who accept the premise of AGW do not actually act as though it will happen. It is too distant still and too big.
They are just beginning to understand peak oil because we are looking down one double aught barrels of oil.
I am not able to find room for optimism about the evolution of intelligent life on this planet as a whole with both peak oil, and AGW coming at us before the turn of the next century. We had our chance and we tripped over our d!cks and landed in the bushes.
NZ has a chance yet… but it is slender enough.
respectfully
BJ
February 4th, 2008 at 6:52 am
Trevor - I LOVE direct use power systems… Carnot rules them to be massively more efficient than anything else we do. I am only pointing out that there is a lot of ill-considered infrastructure still being built with the assumption that they can just plug in a bigger HVAC plant to overcome the inefficiency of every other part of the layout.
Our statements were not so very different but what I was pointing out was in response to a response about Chefurka, who was considering power generation. I don’t think he allowed for direct use displacing much. Maybe he is wrong and I would not mind if he were, but for reasons of human nature that I allude to above, I think he is not.
respectfully
BJ
February 4th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Samiuela
In defense of Greengeek I don’t THINK he has at any time actually discussed what happens after a child is born. I have perceived this as a discussion about who we are encouraging, through a variety of direct and indirect subsidies, to have children.
For your first question:
The value of any child is determined by their ability and their likelihood of exercising it, to contribute to the survival of human civilization here on earth )and intelligent life in the universe).
The unasked and more important difficulty is “who is to judge”. For while I can go part of the way here, I am loathe indeed to set up any “human” based system to make such determinations. I stated those universal values easily enough. Finding humans who can reliably and honestly apply them is however, humanly impossible.
respectfully
BJ
February 4th, 2008 at 8:31 am
BJ wrote:
“Our statements were not so very different but what I was pointing out was in response to a response about Chefurka, who was considering power generation. I don’t think he allowed for direct use displacing much.”
I read Chefurka as being concerned about global energy use. Nothing he wrote suggested to me that he was concerned only with power generation. He was looking more from the fuel/energy source side. However we are not very far apart in our views since he was concerned with what is measurable, and direct space heating (e.g. sunlight pouring through windows) is not measurable on a global scale.
My impression is that most people aren’t so much in a state of denial about peak oil - they are just unaware of it to deny. The media don’t help much - compare the coverage of peak oil to the coverage of Paris Hilton or Tom Cruise. Unfortunately they give the people what they believe the people want. Now that is depressing!
Trevor.
February 4th, 2008 at 11:21 am
http://www.roadtransport.com/Articles/2008/01/31/129670/worried-about- oil-shortage.html
February 4th, 2008 at 11:31 am
http://satelliteoerthedesert.blogspot.com/
February 5th, 2008 at 1:40 am
BJ Browsing the roadtransport site led to this interesting link
http://www.transportrevolutions.info/
Interesting both for it’s comments on the factors that triggered previous transport revolutions and for the solution they propose a post peak oil world. It actually seems to be a viable idea for freight movement where railways or waterways aren’t practical.
February 5th, 2008 at 7:30 am
Samiuela. Good questions. I liked BJs response, and I think he said it better than I expressed it. A valuable person is one who makes a positive contribution to humanity. Actually I would go further than that…making a positive contribution to the animal kingdom, or the planet as a whole would meet my criterion.
Just being alive, and just being human, doesn’t in my view make one person as valuable as another. We should be judged by our actions, and by the quality of our offspring. (Farmers manage their stock by a similar principle…put down a dog that attacks sheep or humans, and breed from good quality animals such as a sheep that produces healthy lambs that survive tough winters and produce good quality fleece/meat).
As to who should judge which of us is a valuable person. Difficult. Doctors have to make such decisions every day when they prioritise how to spend the hospitals money on one patient in preference to another.
I am advocating that all government departments need to have the same attitude as doctors in allocating resources. eg: a solo mum who produces 3 delinquent children is not as deserving of assistance as another solo mum who has children achieving well at school, and going to girl guides etc.
For the last 20-odd years we seem to have lost an understanding that good families need to be encouraged. We should not value good families the same as bad ones.
I guess I was particularly referring to government efforts to encourage population increase in NZ, by offering birth incentives (eg increased DPB payments to solo parents who have even more kids while on the DPB) and such things as ‘working for families’ packages benefitting families that breed like rabbits.
Governments really do have a huge responsibility to evaluate the longterm effects of such policies that might seem benign and healthy at first glance.
In answer to your second question, I am in exactly that position, with a child (now an adult) who cannot get by without state medical assistance.
As BJ suggested…I am NOT in favour of doing away with the sick and needy (a la Hitler), as I believe it is a mark of a healthy society that we accept the vagaries of nature and genetics, and try to look after our sick, needy and old as well as we can.
I just believe it is morally wrong to increase the population without having a clear view on what individuals/families/attitudes/behaviours we are going to prohibit or discourage.
At present we are not being discriminating enough, partly because we have, as a society, become hung up on the concept of ‘rights’.
There is no such thing as ‘equal human rights’. It is an iniquitous concept that harms us all, and harms nature too.
February 5th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Yes Kevyn…
I fully expect a fair lot of electrically powered vehicles of all sorts with electrical infrastructure extended to allow them to operate long distances. The rail links can be electrified to far greater extents than they are already and that would be relatively easy. Organizing electrical power for individual vehicles is a bit more complex and I haven’t given much though to how it will be done because I frankly, do not have a way to predict that part of the future in any detail. It’s possible… and it does not rely on breakthroughs in technology for it to happen, though breakthroughs are possible even here.
I think it will be an odd mix of horses, electrically powered vehicles, trains and the odd emergency or specialty vehicle with a biodiesel engine. There are sectors where the fuel density and ability to go anywhere anytime become of paramount importance. There are some ramifications. The end of boy-racers for instance. Accident prevention in general.
For me it is a distraction. I know it will happen. The details I leave to the future in full confidence that the people then will know better than I do, what might work for them then.
respectfully
BJ
February 6th, 2008 at 8:55 am
Greengeek,
I see what you are saying. However, can’t you see how your position (people not having equal rights) is open to distortion and abuse? It is my personal view that human rights is an all or nothing thing: everyone has to have them. Otherwise governments will start picking on minority groups one by one: “you don’t deserve these rights because ….”, then “you over there don’t deserve these rights because of something else”, and so on.
As a small example, in parts of Australia, aborigines have welfare payments “quarantined”, so they can only spend it in the supermarket and a few other shops. This is supposed to stop welfare payments being spent on alcohol etc. However, this quarantining does not apply to white people. So a white person is free to spend all their welfare money on grog, but if you are an aborigine you are forced to spend 50% or 100% of it at the supermarket, irrespective of whether you had any intention to spend it on something “undesirable” in the first place. This type of racist policy is what you end up with when you believe that people do not have equal rights. In the case of welfare payments, to be fair, you have to quarantine everyone’s payments, not just those from a specific group.
February 6th, 2008 at 9:58 am
Yes, I agree, it is open to abuse, and needs to have strong checks and balances. However, all government policies are open to abuse, so I don’t have a problem with changing the policies, in order to address inequities.
It is ironic that the concept of “everyone is equal” guarantees unequal treatment.
Let me give you a hypothetical example: Imagine two families living next door to each other. One has a sick child that costs $2000 a year to treat. The other has a sick child that costs $4000 a year to treat.
If there is a government policy that contributes medical expenses of $2000 equally to each family, are both families getting equal treatment??
Even within a family it is wrong to treat siblings equally. If one of my children has a skill that enables them to attain international ranking and honours and attend the olympic games, but another of my children is less gifted and is happy aiming to work for McDonalds, should I, as a parent, give the second child $2600 as an ‘equality gift’ simply because I am paying the $2600 airfare for the first child to achieve at an international competition?
In my view parents (and governments) have the responsibility to do what is right and healthy for each of their dependents. This does not involve equal treatment.