Global over-population is the real issue

"The UN last year revised its forecasts upwards, predicting that there will be 9.2 billion people by 2050, and I simply cannot understand why no one discusses this impending calamity, and why no world statesmen have the guts to treat the issue with the seriousness it deserves."

[Link: Telegraph]

I have actually seen a few articles in the media recently on the subject of population. It is about time. It is probably way too late in fact. As the author of this article recalls, there was a time a few decades ago when the subject was discussed but the moment quietly passed. Today we are not only neglecting to discuss the subject we are purposefully avoiding it.

The world is facing a myriad of problems today but most, if not all, of those problems can trace their roots to over-consumption of resources by humans. Even the global warming problem is derived from excessive burning of hydrocarbons and the subsequent loading of the atmosphere with carbon compounds. Consumption is, in turn, a product of both increased living standard and, most importantly, increased population. A few are suggesting that we should voluntarily reduce our living standards but not as many are suggesting that we should similarly limit our population in order to curtail consumption. In fact, it will probably need to be both.

Let's face it. Most exercises in population control are not only controversial they are actually unpleasant. Simply put, either less people have to be born or more people have to die. One solution toys with the very essence of humanity and the other smacks of murder. That is probably why we can't talk about it but it shouldn't be the reason we can't do any thing about it. That is because the other side of the coin is that we will all die if we don't.

We are how many we are essentially because of the use of hydrocarbon fuels, insecticides and fertilizers in the growing and delivering of our food. Without hydrocarbons we would not be able to achieve nearly the crop yields we have become accustomed to. But hydrocarbons are soon to be less available than they have been in the past. We must find a way to limit our numbers consistent with that reduction and/or we will suffer a proportional reduction in living standard. It is that simple. I cannot say that any woman (or family) should be denied the opportunity to procreate. That is what being human is all about. But I am willing to ask that everyone consider the possibility of limiting one's contribution to the human gene pool. If I were to put it in a simple phrase it would be: Have two if you must but one is best with the understanding that it is admirable to remain childless. More than two children today is unfair to the future. Even with this constraint it will be decades before any serious population reduction will occur but we should think of it as preparation for the real future. We will never again have the energy resources we have today. Clearly, there will be a way to keep our population in line with this new reality. It is up to us to make that way our choice rather than nature's.

Manufacture and Transport of Export Goods Accounts for About 25% of Chinas CO2 Emissions

"The study, carried out for the Tyndall Centre, suggests that counting carbon emissions within national borders, as is currently the case under the Kyoto Protocol, may be inadequate in deciding who is responsible for emissions reduction. Fair, globalized trade might imply that a nation’s entire carbon footprint should also include imported goods and services manufactured elsewhere, the researchers suggest."

[Link: Green Car Congress]

One of these days the jig is going to be up for the United States. It is common knowledge that we have, for quite awhile now, been using an inordinate amount of the worlds oil for our own purposes. Now it looks like we are producing a lot of other people's pollution as well. It won't be possible for us to pull this off for long I'm afraid. If you follow the energy news you know that oil producers are already hedging their future commitments in favor of assuring oil supply for their own citizens. It can only be a matter of time, in this age of global accountability, until exporters of manufactured goods start refusing to accept the responsibility for the pollution associated with the manufacture of goods for other nations. The United States will have a lot of decisions to make when the global accounting books are opened to the public.

Did Katrina Hide the Real Peak in World Oil Production?

"We also look at the question of whether the impact of Hurricane Katrina may have hidden the real peak in world oil production. We find that if an adjustment is made for hurricane impacts, the peak month of production seems to be December 2005 on a crude and condensate basis, and September 2005 on an all liquids basis. The higher adjusted peaks, and greater declines since the adjusted peaks, further suggest that we may be post-peak."

[Link:The Oil Drum]

This is a very enlightening article. It points out very clearly that one can't base one's opinion about Peak Oil on one, or even a few, country's oil production numbers. The production of oil is effected by a multitude of factors, many of which are specific to only one producer, and obviously can't be viewed piecemeal. I think that the most significant insight that this article provides is the clear graphical evidence that the powerful production growth areas are not keeping up with the multitude of declining sources.

Solving Fermi's Paradox

...On another level, though, Fermi’s Paradox can be restated in another and far more threatening way. The logic of the paradox depends on the assumption that unlimited technological progress is possible, and it can be turned without too much difficulty into a logical refutation of the assumption. If unlimited technological progress is possible, then there should be clear evidence of technologically advanced species in the cosmos; there is no such evidence; therefore unlimited technological progress is impossible.

[Link: The Archdruid Report]

I have proposed occasionally on this blog that I think the belief in ongoing technical progress that defines the human world view of the future, is probably wrong. It is my opinion the future of mankind will be much more humble than most of us imagine and that our dreams of space travel and unlimited growth will prove to be an unobtainable destiny. Up until now my doubt was based on a gut-level instinct and I felt that for someone to make the move to this trend of thought would require a major leap of faith because my, and most of humanity's, world view has been severely distorted by living in the midst of the age of hydrocarbons.

To my delight, however, I stumbled on this article by John Michael Greer of the Archdruid Report in which he develops a logical and, for me, cogent argument for the impossibility of unlimited technological progress not only for humanity but for any living species. I really believe that in order for us to begin to repair the damage we have done to the earth and to prepare for our "real" future we will first all have to accept this reality of ultimate limitations. In this article, Mr. Greer has done a good job of helping us to get to that point. Read it and see if you don't agree.

We are all peakists now - Schlesinger

[Link: David Strahan | An interview with Dr. James Schlesinger]

Wow. The big boys are coming out of the Peak Oil Closet now, aren't they. The papers and airwaves have been filled with Alan Greenspan's claim, from his new book, that Iraq was indeed about oil. Of course he is backing down in the heat of day. Now this linked interview with former US Energy Secretary Dr. James Schlesinger in which he admits that behind closed doors the oil company executives have conceded that Peak Oil is eminent. And I expect Dr. Schlesinger is not only privy to the information he is sharing but probably is sharing it with full knowledge of those he claims to be quoting. I have often wondered what form the official disclosure of Peak Oil would take. I always supposed it would be a stream of increasingly more authoritative pronouncements subtly fed to us over time until we could no longer deny their message. I would not be surprised that we are beginning to hear our "official" warning signals.

Putin's ambition

By American estimates, 25 percent of the world's oil and mineral deposits are locked beneath the northern ice cap, but will become available if the world warms enough. It would not be the first time that the Arctic has been free of ice. Analysis of soil samples drilled beneath the mile-thick ice cover have shown that Greenland was in the past rich in forests, vegetation and animal life.

[Link: The Washington Times]

This may be one of those situations where everybody in the world is crazy but me, but I think not. Am I the only one who reads these stories of everyone scrambling for the oil riches in the Arctic and can't believe that the only concern seems to be whether the ice is going to melt fast enough and who is going to get nuked getting at all that oil? Come on guys. The reason the ice is melting is that we are burning too much oil! The best chance for the survival of our way of life, and maybe even us, is if that oil stays locked up by the ice. By the time the Arctic is ice free we will be in the throes of a massive environmental/climate shift that will alter our way of life beyond anything humanity has endured in the past and that will last indefinitely into the future. I have to believe that by that time we will have realized what we have done and removed ourselves from the hydrocarbon age.

Last Light - A Peak Oil Novel

There is a new novel out called Last Light by London author Alex Scarrow. This video is a promo for the book.

The novel deals with a breakdown in society when oil supply is disrupted by terrorist activity all over the world. I haven't read the novel yet but I have corresponded with the author and I have seen reviews (see video) and it sounds like a good thriller built on a Peak Oil premise. He is not sure when the novel will be available in the United States and I don't see it on Amazon yet (one of his earlier novels is there) so if you are in the U.S. you will have to keep an eye out for it. I will update this post if I get any further news.