World, Writing, Wealth discussion
Wealth & Economics
>
If there were just enough food for the entire humanity..
Scout wrote: "Thanks for your reply, Graeme :-) You say, regarding destroying the Amazon, that "The primary cause is poverty. If Brazil was a developed economy (like the US or Australia), the Amazon would be pr..."Hi Scout, you wrote...
You say, regarding destroying the Amazon, that "The primary cause is poverty. If Brazil was a developed economy (like the US or Australia), the Amazon would be protected." You agree that the Amazon should be protected. What do you see as a solution to this problem?
Based on what I've said earlier, the economic development of the countries bordering the Amazon region is a pre-requisite to its protection.
There are no first world economies that practice slash and burn agriculture. The sooner Brazil and other countries bordering the Amazon develop economically, the sooner 'poverty,' induced practices like slash and burn agriculture will be obsoleted by more effective agricultural technologies.
You very effectively address the energy problem. But there are other problems not addressed.
OK?
Agree or disagree? A growing population requires a growing need for natural resources. Water. Wood products. Crop production. Clean air. Finite resources necessary for survival.
Given abundant electricity and liquid fuels created via recycled CO2, you can the do the following in mass amounts.
[1] Recycle water, and Filter water, and Desalinate water. Abundant energy is the key to water availability. Hence given my comments above - water is a solved problem.
[2] Wood products - grow plantations.
[3] With effective water availability, crop production is fine.
[4] Clean Air - already exists. P.s. 4th gen nuclear has no impact on air quality. Liquid fuels generated from Air/Electricity would be definition be clean, and fully recyclable.
Countries that suffer smog such as China do so because they are unwilling to deploy technologies that have been in use by the developed world for decades.
[5.a.] Energy abundance provides the means for recycling.
[5.b] A generally limited material (For example Silver) used in industrial processes will grow in price as it declines in availability prompting substitution and technology change. These sorts of problems self-solve.
Agree or disagree? The extinction of species is due to human encroachment on their habitat.
Agreed. The major risk for a species is habitat loss.
Finally, I'd like to hear your thoughts on waste caused by human consumption. Does waste increase proportionately to population?
Waste is completely dependent on the technologies and recycling systems used. There is no 'necessary,' increase in waste with population growth.
Hi Graeme, Recycling CO2 for fuel (other than through plants) is a terribly energy inefficient business. I know you say, "Given abundant electricity" but that is something of a given to ask for. It is of interest that Germany, through the desire to be "environmentally helpful" is apparently having frequent power cuts in certain places, as a consequence of closing down nukes and converting to wind. Sometimes the wind does not blow adequately. Oops! It is also arguable with the dead birds and the general annoyance of animal life that it is not exactly good for the environment either. There are other problems - it appears that these wind machines need a lot of insulation to stop fires so they use SF6. Unfortunately, it leaks, and its greenhouse effect is huge.
In my working life (and once I worked in the NZ national chemistry laboratory and was given the task, amongst others, of trying to work out a way of using waste) I have noticed that the total output of waste has changed in nature, mainly in ways that make it more difficult to recycle, and the total output per person has, on average, increased slightly.
Population is growing. You agree that the major risk for a species is habitat loss. More people equals more destruction of the habitat. You talk about recycling. Is that really happening effectively on a local level? I think not. How many small communities are recycling? In my community a few days ago, someone posted a photo of the recycling trucks heading directly to the dump. No recycling going on here. It's not realistic to say that recycling is currently a viable solution to the waste problem. You're assuming that abundant energy is the key to water availability and that the water problem is solved. None of what you say is happening today. Today we have problems with water availability. Today we have waste problems that aren't being addressed. Maybe in some future utopia, things will be okay, but we have to deal with today. And today, many of these problems would be alleviated if there were fewer demands on our resources. I think back to what someone early in this discussion said about an aquarium. Maybe you could figure out a great filtration system that would support more fish, but at some point, even given enough food, there's a limit to the population the aquarium would support.
Yeah, the recycling of plastics is a tough one because there is a very limited market. I spent a bit of time devising methods to recycle them some time ago, but eventually the company pulled the plug because there were very limited amounts that could be sold, and it was very difficult to make money. My view is that the polyethylene, at least, should be simply pyrolysed and turned into fuel. You could make an excellent diesel from it.
All our recyclables were going to China. China was just dumping them in a landfill, and they got tired of it, so now they're not taking our recyclables anymore. The local governments have no alternative, so that's why they're sending everything to the landfill.
Scout wrote: "You talk about recycling. Is that really happening effectively on a local level? I think not...."Incentivize recycling, nature preservation techs and behavior. What can you do about multiplication?
Ecology aware million ppl can be more nature friendly than 100K - ecology ignorant.
More good news from NASA (via Forbes)>"NASA has some good news, the world is a greener place today than it was 20 years ago. What prompted the change? Well, it appears China and India can take the majority of the credit.
In contrast to the perception of China and India's willingness to overexploit land, water and resources for economic gain, the countries are responsible for the largest greening of the planet in the past two decades. The two most populous countries have implemented ambitious tree planting programs and scaled up their implementation and technology around agriculture. ... Both China and India went through phases of large scale deforestation in the 1970s and 80s, clearing old growth forests for urban development, farming and agriculture. However, it is clear that when presented with a problem, humans are incredibly adept at finding a solution. When the focus shifted in the 90s to reducing air and soil pollution and combating climate change the two countries made tremendous shifts in their overall land use."
REF: Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/trevorna...
REF: The original NASA Report: https://www.nasa.gov/feature/ames/hum...
The key take away here is human adaptability and resilience in the face of new problems.
The question then is can other parts of the world respond well to problems of their making? Can they do it fast enough?
Graeme wrote: "More good news from NASA (via Forbes)>"NASA has some good news, the world is a greener place today than it was 20 years ago. What prompted the change? Well, it appears China and India can take th..."
That is good news, Graeme. Good to hear, but not enough to solve the problem.
Nik, as to what we can do about "multiplication," giving tax incentives to people who have one child would be a start.
I know there's a mindset that growth is good economically, but at some point we have to resolve that thinking with its impact on natural resources. It won't be easy, but it's necessary. I heard this sentiment from Greta Thunberg, the teenage activist. She said, "We are about to sacrifice our civilization for the opportunity of a very small number of people to continue to make enormous amounts of money. [...] But it is the sufferings of the many which pay for the luxuries of the few."
Hi Scout have you ever considered that our monetary system (and it's just a system, subject to invention, innovation and change) is literally architected to eat the future?Worldwide, we are all on the same system. The features of this system are as follows.
[1] A full fiat debt instrument that is loaned into existence.
[2] Due to the presence of interest, more money must be created to pay back the original debt + the interest.
[3] Because of points [1] and [2], it is mathematically required that the money supply must always grow, and with it total worldwide debt.
[4] The operation of debt is to create a lien against future production, bringing consumption forward in time while creating a necessary 'austerity,' in the future, - unless productivity growth outstrips the rate of debt growth.
All of the above results in chronic over-consumption and pushing the cost of past and present consumption to the future.
The monetary system (as is) was designed and sponsored by global elites over the last 120 years or so. It is a top down system designed to primarily benefit those who sponsored it, and their descendants.
The way the monetary system operates is at the foundation of the operation of the world economy.
It perplexes me that so many people who are interested in sustainability never prioritize monetary system reform as part of a policy approach to deal with 'growth addiction.'
P.S. This system was never designed to handle negative interest rates. The growing presence of debt with negative rates is a sign that we are in for interesting times.
As for negative interest rates, what's the betting nobody will pay me to take away money? Only the very rich benefit from thatThe reason nobody argues about the monetary system when discussing sustainability is they haven't thought it through. That's the trouble with buzzwords - you get masses using them, but unthinkingly
I understand that the monetary system encourages growth addiction. It requires constant consumption by consumers, and the more consumers the better. But at some point, the planet will be unabIe to sustain growth. Who says that unlimited growth is good? I propose that we produce fewer consumers - of all natural resources and of debt. And that we learn to be content with consuming less. Of course, this would result in an economic slowdown. But I see that as a requirement for saving our environment.
Of course unlimited growth on a finite surface is bad, in fact mathematically there must be limits. It is just we don't know what the limits are. Also, the boundaries are not sharp. As we approach the limits, at a significant distance from then things start to go wrong. I suspect we are seeing "things starting to go wrong, what with pollution, environment destruction, climate change, species extinction, etc. The problem in part is as yet they are not directly hurting us - other things like wildlife are paying the price.
Hi, Ian. We don't know what the limits are, but I'd say we don't want to find out what the limits are. By the time we do, it will be too late. Population has a direct effect on the environment, on consumption of natural resources, on waste products. I'd say we're already seeing direct results: people acknowledge that rising sea waters are becoming a problem; icebergs are calving at a rapid rate; everyone sees that the climate in their region has changed - floods, heatwaves, droughts, and snowstorms. People know there's a problem just by seeing the local changes that affect them. Temperatures in my area have been higher than ever; we've had a drought. I put out the sprinkler the other day, and all kinds of birds were drawn to it. It was cool to see, but also sad that they needed an artificial source for water. Sure, there's lots of land for more people to live on, but at what price for the environment and our quality of life?
Actually, Scout, the biggest single problem with food supply in the future may come from water shortages. Many places are very heavily irrigation dependent, and the rainfall may not be sufficient to replace what s being taken.
I agree about water. The planet has a finite supply that will support a finite number of people. Back to population as a problem.
For what it is worth, I just posted a blog on the water problem today.
An article on research at Cambridge uni to develop liquid fuels using an 'artificial leaf.'REF: https://techxplore.com/news/2019-10-a...
Thanks for the article, Graeme. Cool new way to produce fuel!
Also saw two articles recently on improving ship emissions. The first has air bubbles streamed under the hull thus reducing drag and improving fuel. The second was using rotary sails as turbines to add to the drive of propellers.Both only made 5-10% efficiency improvement and were hugely expensive to fit
Philip wrote: "....Both only made 5-10% efficiency improvement and were hugely expensive to fit"I read that winglets, commonly introduced relatively recently, save about 5 % of fuel and emissions. Shouldn't be very expensive to install
The US navy has shown nuclear power can drive ships. That gets rid of carbon emissions, but presumably gives the greenies nightmares.
Developing countries already have fertility rates below replacement level and their populations will eventually stabilize and decrease. Even in poorer countries like Sri Lanka and Brazil, women are having an average of only 2 children each. (source: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/...)There are a still few countries with high birth rates, chiefly in Sub-Saharan Africa. Economic development, health care, women's rights, and access to contraception could certainly put a break on population growth. These are also good things in themselves!
But if we're looking at environmental impact, increased consumption has a much bigger footprint than population growth. "The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians or 250 Ethiopians. " (source: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ma...)
Scout wrote: "I agree about water. The planet has a finite supply that will support a finite number of people. Back to population as a problem."With abundant electrical power via 4th gen nuclear power - we can desalinate and pump water where ever it is needed.
We actually have access to infinite water resources because we can manufacture potable water.
Fiona wrote: "There are a still few countries with high birth rates, chiefly in Sub-Saharan Africa. Economic development, health care, women's rights, and access to contraception could certainly put a break on population growth. These are also good things in themselves!..."Which is my key point - Economic development solves over-population. The tipping point is around $10K USD GDP where the focus shifts to 'fewer children is better,' for multiple reasons.
This then throws up the 'fertility crunch,' that is already an issue in a number of advanced economies, such as Japan, Italy, China, etc where fertility rates are well below replacement.
Ian wrote: "The US navy has shown nuclear power can drive ships. That gets rid of carbon emissions, but presumably gives the greenies nightmares."4th gen Nuclear power solves the nuclear waste problem. If those people who call themselves environmentalists were real about saving the planet - 4th gen would be a priority for them.
(and monetary system reform).
Graeme wrote: "Which is my key point - Economic development solves over-population. The tipping point is around $10K USD GDP where the focus shifts to 'fewer children is better,' for multiple reasons."Yep, I was agreeing with you :)
I'd recommend anyone interested in this subject should look up the wikipedia page on the "Demographic transition" and also Hans Rosling's TED talks about population.
Graeme wrote: "4th gen Nuclear power solves the nuclear waste problem. If those people who call themselves environmentalists were real about saving the planet - 4th gen would be a priority for them."I'd call myself a pragmatic environmentalist, and I agree that nuclear power needs to be on the table. It's not perfect, but nothing is. All power sources have advantages and disadvantages; it's a matter of weighing them up against each other, and I believe that currently nuclear power is less polluting than coal.
Fiona wrote: "I'd call myself a pragmatic environmentalist, .."A great term. I'm adopting this label for myself.
Fiona says: "But if we're looking at environmental impact, increased consumption has a much bigger footprint than population growth. The carbon emissions of one American today are equivalent to those of around four Chinese, 20 Indians, 30 Pakistanis, 40 Nigerians or 250 Ethiopians." I'd ask if growth in these populations would result in more emissions overall?
Graeme, doesn't desalination impact the ocean environment? The water isn't free. The salt is returned to the ocean. Not good.
The water returns to the ocean too, so no problem :-)
Scout wrote: "Graeme, doesn't desalination impact the ocean environment? The water isn't free. The salt is returned to the ocean. Not good...."I agree with you - water is not free - I said, we have access to an (effectively) infinite supply of water in the presence of abundant electricity.
Dealing with salt is something else that will need to be worked through, but what do you expect people to do? Sit on our thumbs and do nothing?
My whole strategy is based around proactive problem solving, and a lot of other people in the world take the same approach. Assuming we can't solve problems as we go forward is unduly negative and refuted by the past 400 years of scientific and technical advance.
To summarize, salt is no problem. However, there are biocides required to keep the membranes free of fungi, bacteria, etc, and there is also general cleaning agents that are needed to get rid of diatoms, and general mud, and these usually all go back into the sea right near the mouth of the desalination plant, and this is not good for the immediate environment.As for solving problems, we have to be careful in solving one we don't create new ones.
Ian wrote: "As for solving problems, we have to be careful in solving one we don't create new ones...."Indeed.
Refrigeration greatly reduces food waste and therefore enhances the ability to feed the population with the same level of agricultural production.4th generation Nuclear power provides abundant electricity to enable emission free deployment of 'cold chains,' across the world - especially in hot countries such as much of Africa and Asia.
REF: http://www.iifiir.org/userfiles/file/...
Scout wrote: "I'd ask if growth in these populations would result in more emissions overall?If we're talking about the poorer countries (the only ones that still have high birth rates), then increased populations would lead to very few extra emissions, at least in the short term. 50 extra Ethiopians would produce fewer emissions than one American or Chinese person.
This could change in the long term if Ethiopia becomes more developed. Although then the birth rate in Ethiopia would probably drop, as it has done elsewhere.
But population growth in Ethiopia can be a problem -- to Ethiopians themselves. Especially to mothers who are continually pregnant or fathers who struggle to support large families. It would certainly be worthwhile to help Ethiopians limit their family size -- not only by providing contraception but also educating children (especially girls) and reducing child mortality (ironically this brings down population size because people have fewer children when they can be assured all their children will survive).
So I think it's good to support family planning efforts in the developing world, but not necessarily for environmental reasons.
New ways to extract hydrogen from tar sands while leaving the carbon in the ground with much improved economics. I.e. big improvement in cost-effective extraction of hydrogen.Hydrogen is a very viable liquid fuel that converts to water when burned.
"Grant Strem, CEO of Proton Technologies which is commercializing the process says "This technique can draw up huge quantities of hydrogen while leaving the carbon in the ground. When working at production level, we anticipate we will be able to use the existing infrastructure and distribution chains to produce H2 for between 10 and 50 cents per kilo. This means it potentially costs a fraction of gasoline for equivalent output". This compares with current H2 production costs of around $2/kilo. Around 5% of the H2 produced then powers the oxygen production plant, so the system more than pays for itself."
REF: Physorg: https://phys.org/news/2019-08-scienti...
We shall see. It would be quite remarkable if this actually worked as stated and selectively made hydrogen and left the carbon in the ground. Normal thermodynamics would suggest that what comes out is a mix of hydrogen, carbon monoxide and water, the water from partially burnt hydrogen. The oxygen should be burning the tar sands, and while it is a neat way of exploiting them, without all the messy digging, etc., the oxygen is there to burn the tar and gasify it. If the oxygen does anything, why doesn't it react with the carbon as well?
Graeme, you said: "We actually have access to infinite water resources because we can manufacture potable water." How can we have access to infinite water resources when the amount of water on Earth is constant (with the exception of vapor from volcanic eruptions and from meteorites)? Population growth means that more humans store water; more water is needed to grow crops to sustain that population; more water is needed to manufacture goods for a growing population; more water is polluted due to population growth. Sure, you can desalinate ocean water which seems infinite, but all that water won't be returned to the ocean in a timely manner, and that will change the oceanic environment in ways that won't be good for its population or the biosphere.
Hi Scout, (trivially), if I burn hydrogen - I make water. Total water supply is not static.In an environment where oceans are rising at approx 2mm per year there is actually more water available on a yearly basis.
The issue is - where the water is, is it fresh, etc.
The key point of water availability is technology dependent. We have the capacity today to make perfectly drinkable water from human waste water leaving cities. We just don't have a 'culture,' of actually recycling to that level and drinking it.
However, imagine a city with 10 million people in it where the vast majority (above 90%) of water passing through that city ends up, filtered, cleaned and reused. Imagine the solid wastes passed through 'insect protein farms,' which literally convert shit into protein.
Imagine that insect protein passed through chicken, duck, turkey, fish, pig, etc farms to produce palatable protein sources.
Imagine all the water used in those farms recycled through the same processes.
Imagine extensive use of refrigeration to ensure minimal food wastage.
Imagine the pumps used to push the water, waste, etc, and to refrigerate the food powered by 4th generation nuclear power running on the spent fuel rods of early generation nuclear power and in the process reducing those spent fuel rods from highly radioactive waste to medium level waste that can be safely stored on site after use.
We have the technology to supply an abundance of food and water - we just lack the will to deploy it.
Wow. Your disregard for the environment is astounding. Why are the oceans rising? Do you think more people emitting more carbon will be a good thing? More trees cut down to provide additional dwellings and cropland? The Amazon disappearing? Species extinguished? More humans producing trash upon trash that accumulates and can't be recycled? Solutions aren't imminent. No doubt that there's room for more people, but more people equals more consumption, more emissions, more waste, and the earth is already stressed. Maybe humans will survive, but who wants to live in the world you imagine? It ain't me, babe.
Just to clarify, the total amount of water on the planet is constant, more or less. There is probably a small amount of hydrogen lost to space, which means there is a tiny drop in the total, but it certainly is not infinite. The sea level rise does not mean there is more water; it means the ice on land is melting, and to some extent the water is getting warmer. However, what we use on the land evaporates, and is returned to the ocean as rain, rivers, whatever, so we shall not run out, ever.On the other hand, we can't use salt water for many uses, and desalination is not quite as simple as some think. Quite an amount of biocide ends up going into the sea, and that is not good.
To add to the waste issuehttps://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia...
The dumps the developed world has been sending its waste too are rapidly filling up if not already full in the case in the article
More people = more consumption = more waste
Scout wrote: "more people equals more consumption, more emissions, more waste..."Who's responsible for polluting?
For example, there are those who attribute 35% of all carbon emissions since 1965 to just 20 companies instead of their consumers: https://www.theguardian.com/environme... .
We probably could've been long rid of internal combustion engines, were there no serious players impeding the process.
Can a family with 3 cars be more polluting than 100 families keeping 0 cars?
On an interpersonal level it might be easier to deal with pollution. Education, stick and carrot should do the trick. Singapore can be a good case study. Impose a fine of 500 bucks for a bubble gum thrown on a sidewalk and you might see a remarkable improvement :)
Or take especially damaging stuff out of circulation, like EU is banning now single-use plastics: https://edition.cnn.com/2019/03/28/eu... .
Much harder with the industry and corporations. Instead of complying they can just move pollution to other destinations.
Mass production learnt how to produce stuff cheap, now they should learn how to make it green too. And recycling is an absolute must, which should be cheaper in most cases than extraction anew.
Awareness and technology should help alleviating our impact on the environment
Philip wrote: "More people = more consumption = more waste"In much of the developed world, the rate of population growth has slowed down. In some places (e,g, Japan, Russia), populations are actually starting to shrink. And yet consumption and waste continues to grow exponentially.
Sorry, Graeme, for my vehemence there. This topic pushes my buttons, in part because I am worried about what we're doing to the earth, and wildlife in particular. There are increasing stories in the news now about animals clashing with humans because they're losing their habitats, and it rarely turns out well for them. A lot of this is due to population growth, in my opinion, but as Nik pointed out, many problems can be reduced if we change our actions and attitudes. That just isn't happening fast enough to protect our environment and wildlife, and that scares me. And it seems to me that feeding humanity would be easier if there weren't so much of it :-)
World, Writing, Wealth
Books mentioned in this topic
An Essay on the Principle of Population: The Future Improvement of Society (other topics)The Children of Men (other topics)
Make Room! Make Room! (other topics)
The Population Bomb (other topics)
An Essay on the Principle of Population (other topics)
More...
If I understand Graeme's main point, he expects that the growth will turn flat or even decline at some point, inter alia because of the decline in fertility.
A lot of other things are to be factored in to derive an overall result.
A bigger nation with environmental awareness will likely be much more "nature friendly" than a smaller one without it. Japan as far as I know started to recycle in 70-ies or 80-ies and cover most sorts of waste while there are probably countries that don't do it at all.
At least in some countries pension and social system is based on working generations subsidizing non-working and a growing layer of elderly without sufficient influx of younger working generation may result in its total collapse..
Kinda fun to see the instant growth at this site: https://www.worldometers.info/world-p...
However, it's worth mentioning that the growth rate is in decline for a few decades already (if to believe this and other sources)