James Ward, convenor of the Australian Association for Peak Oil and Gas Young-Professionals Working Group, recently attended a Forum in Adelaide on ‘Transport Fuels: Future Prices & Supply Security Risks’. Here is his very much abridged summary of proceedings:
“1. The most optimistic projection (from ExxonMobil) is for world oil production to start declining around 2030, with high prices expected up until then.2. Statistically, based on the published uncertainty parameters within the US Geological Survey estimates, there is about a 60% chance that global oil production will start declining before 2015.***
3. There is great uncertainty about OPEC reserves and production capacity, yet the whole world is relying on OPEC increasing production to make up for the fact that most non-OPEC countries have gone into declining oil production.
4. Huge growth in China is making it a very major competitor in the global oil stakes.
5. Alternatives to crude oil are expensive and take a very long time to set up; some have dubious energy returns.
6. Australia is incredibly vulnerable due to poor vehicle efficiency, a high level of car dependence in general, and many households are particularly vulnerable due to high levels of debt and increasing interest rates.”
James has also commented that:
“Coal and gas will probably be used as substitutes for oil. Now, Australia’s reserves of coal are only good for a couple of hundred years at current consumption rates, and much less if we continue to increase consumption rates.
… We cannot predict the lifestyle or desires of future generations but I think it is fair to say that if we leave them with no energy resources then they will not be grateful. Or to put it another way, if we leave them with energy resources and they choose not to use them, they will not hate us for it.
I am more concerned about the “paradigm” we will leave to future generations than the physical resources. My children are currently set to inherit a socioeconomic paradigm in which economic growth is believed to continue forever, which is obviously not true (basic mathematics can prove this).”
James also brought to my attention a newly released federal Senate committee report on peak oil: http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/committee/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/.
James has asked my opinion on the various issues raised above, including my thoughts on the paper by Eriks Velins entitled ‘Responding to the Challenge’. A summary of the Velins paper follows.**
I will admit to often finding ‘peak oil’ arguments tedious. The idea that oil supply will plateau some time and that there may be a scramble to find alternative energy sources seems unremarkable. It is interesting to ponder how much oil is actually left and what alternatives already exist, but I find it difficult distinguishing the hyperbole from the fact while assuming that concern about global warming is atleast hastening development of alternatives
As regards future generations, I tend to think our children will be more upset that we let species like the Yangtze River dolphin and Sumatran rhinoceros disapear than that we used up all the oil.
Furthermore, I think concern about economic growth “forever” and resource depletion will become somewhat redundant once global population starts to decline which many predict will happen before the end of this century.
As regards the paper by Erik Velins, I can not agree that biofuels are of limited potential. I am not sure that biodiesel has a big future, but I am hopeful that production of ethanol will become much more efficient in the not too distant future.
————————
** You can read James Ward’s detailed notes on the Forum here: http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Bruce/AIE-NOTES.doc . According to the ASPO-Australia website homepage, presentations from the various speakers will be uploaded soon.
Here’s a summary by James of a paper ‘Responding to the Challenge’, by Eriks Velins: Velins started off talking about the nature of the current crisis. It differs from past crises, in that right now the oil crisis is a result of systematic under-investment by industry and lack of government action (presumably he means the government needs to regulate the industry to make sure it invests for the future). A long term agenda needs to be set that includes the development of new engine and fuel technologies.
The responses to the current crisis from the oil industry are basically to keep supply and demand tight – OPEC producers don’t need any more money so it makes more sense to constrain supply rather than invest huge amounts of money and reduce the price. Another theory is that oil producers are anticipating a reduction in demand as cars become more efficient (eg hybrids).
Velins mentioned that OPEC quoted oil reserves have remained constant for some years despite continuing consumption (OPEC has a reserve-based quota system so a country has an incentive to overstate their reserve figures, the true values of which are generally kept a national secret). Also, different countries quote different figures for their oil reserves – some use the 10% confidence figure, others use the 90% one. Australia adds condensate to its oil reserves. So we don’t know how much oil we’re dealing with.
In the U.S., ethanol production diverts corn away from cattle feed, while in Australia ethanol would mostly come from wheat. In both cases, there is a complex problem with various interests. All in all, he said biofuels are of limited potential. He questioned the usefulness of alternatives like tar sands because of the energy required to extract the oil.
Velins mentioned that the timing of peak oil is now irrelevant as all predictions fall within the planning horizon of the majors. China could be in for real trouble as economic growth depends on energy growth. He then raised an interesting question: Why has the IPCC not factored peak oil into greenhouse gas forecasts?
Because of the limited potential for alternatives, oil and gas will remain the dominant transport fuels for some time, but the price will continue to increase. Governments must act now to prepare for a future of high transport fuel costs. We need “a good decade” to prepare, in terms of establishing the necessary skills and labour, and ensuring mobility. A great quote was that “the greatest skills shortage is leadership!”
Velins have a chilling view of the Middle East. Afghanistan was invaded by the U.S. under the motive of fighting terrorism but a “secondary” motive was stabilising a key piece in the Middle East energy puzzle. Ditto for Iraq. Iran is an interesting case because it is a traditional enemy of the Arabs, and is also an enemy of Israel. Iran has a proven missile delivery mechanism for nuclear weapons. If Iran acquires the oil-fields of Iraq, it could become bigger than Saudi Arabia and would be “the new superpower” of the Middle East. What would this mean for consumers?
His final comments related to market failure, which he said CAN happen. Taxation is an effective tool, eg in Europe where diesel was favoured due to fuel taxes and this encouraged more people to buy diesel cars (which are more efficient than petrol ones). Demand management like this is necessary. We need substantial investment in skills, supply security and most of all, education of the public as to the nature of energy supply & cost.
Points of interest: Because of an upsurge in resource nationalism (eg Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez nationalised the previously private oil industry), oil companies are actually lacking investment opportunities to the point where they are returning capital to shareholders!
The government response of subsidising LPG and ethanol is not useful because it doesn’t help alleviate demand, forces increased reliance on imports and is therefore bad for fuel security.
In response to the recent price hike, in Australia there have been declining sales in 4WDs and large vehicles in general – Velins pointed out that the biggest sufferers of the oil crisis could be the vehicle manufacturers.
There have been large ($billions) cost overruns on high-tech ventures (presumably he means enhanced oil recovery and similar) that have caused a reversion to older, proven technology.
Australia has a “voluntary” fuel efficiency target of 6.8L/100km for cars, and according to Velins it is currently more like 14L/100km, meaning efficiency needs to more than double in 4 years. In contrast, Japan’s target is 4.9L/100km.
***Interestingly, just this morning Rog sent me a media release from the Cambridge Energy Research Associates claiming: “In contrast to a widely discussed theory that world oil production will soon reach a peak and go into sharp decline, a new analysis of the subject by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA) finds that the remaining global oil resource base is actually 3.74 trillion barrels — three times as large as the 1.2 trillion barrels estimated by the theory’s proponents — and that the “peak oil” argument is based on faulty analysis which could, if accepted, distort critical policy and investment decisions and cloud the debate over the energy future.”
Of course, it is possible to get around without oil. I travelled for two day in this cart with my friend Sheila O’Connor (pictured) back in about 1986. My landrover had not run out of oil, but it did have a mechanical problem leaving us stranded along the Onilahy River near Sept Lacs in south west Madagascar. From memory we travelled just 80 kms in two days.
Shiela in the cart probably somewhere near Tanandava. We were on our way to Tulear.
Ian Mott is a great fan of the bicycle: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001478.html.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Also, forgot to mention in the above that ‘Grist’ currently has a feature running on ‘peak oil’, including stuff on ethanol. You might be able to find various links from here: http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/12/04/biofuels/index.html?source=daily .
We don’t need to debate this peak oil forecast over and over. Bush & Co don’t run the Middle East. We don’t have engineers, technicians and plumbers etc delivering alternatives for our crude oil shortfall. Manufacturers are still stuffing our market with sixes.
Most of your blog contributors here couldn’t make a pair of cart wheels. If you showed them a horse, they would jib……..How much horse shoe wear could you stand on Indooropilly?
Everyone’s most likely to be walking round their plot under the same hot sun in their retirement
On “socioeconomic paradigm in which economic growth is believed to continue forever, which is obviously not true”
Jen says: “I think concern about economic growth “forever” and resource depletion will become somewhat redundant once global population starts to decline”
How would this remove concerns about ec growth Jen? You’d could have longterm negative growth but industrialised societies are organised with economic growth at core and now expect continual improvements in living standards (and we get scared of potential threats to our way of life, such as GW, govt, peak oil, China, pinkos, ragheads and cheap immigrant labour etc). The paradigm will still persist unless we have a paradigm shift & what would bring that on?
We haven’t managed to decouple ec growth or maintenance of living standards from resource and energy throughputs yet. Until we do it will remain a concern.
Re: Jen saying that resource depletion will become redundant once global population stabilises – that relies on the status quo ie keeping the poor poor. All those other demanding people in the other countries though want better living standards & cars, houses, coca cola & Maccas just like ours; meanwhile we still want to get one up on the Joneses, and marketers flog more must have items at us. And all that requires resource throughputs.
2. Statistically, based on the published uncertainty parameters within the US Geological Survey estimates, there is about a 60% chance that global oil production will start declining before 2015.
* “. . . although an estimated two-thirds of our reserve is still in the ground, . . . the peak of [U.S.] production will soon be passed–possibly within three years.” — David White, Chief Geologist, USGS, 1919
Any questions? No. Not questions about peak oil. That’s not fair. The peak oil proponent cited the USGS and I cited the USGS. Are there any questions about using the USGS for peak oil theories? Good. Maybe next time we can talk about NOAA and their estimated temperatures. I went to a NOAA station open house in Oxnard, California Oct, 23, 2003. During the tour I asked if they are continually annoyed by having to move their sensor packages in response to encroaching urbanism. The reply absolutely floored me. They do not move the sensors, they – adjust- the data to reflect their best guess impacts. The specific case of the LA downtown “civic center” location was mentioned as being many degrees (F) to as much as a dozen degrees (F) more extreme (up and down) in absolute recorded temperatures (mostly hotter) than when this particular scientist telling the story recorded when he first joined the NOAA. There you have it, any evidence of global warming from US surface temperature data is worthless.
We are learning all the time. Peak OIl and Global Warming are but unsupportable rants in the middle of collecting data nevermind formulating cogent theories. The 1990s were some of the warmest in the last hundred but some of the coldest of the last 10,000. a flashbulb startles far more than a solar flare but ultimate means far less.
Oh ground hog day again
If you look closely at his sentence arrangement it’s obvious that Robert is an early model replicant
We are in Nero’s main room by the back door Pinxi
Pinxi,
It is clear from your ad hominem above that you jsut don’t like people who question your cherished beliefs do you.
Robert Cole is right to bring up the issue of the failed predictions in the past. Indeed, who should we believe? The optimism (that there is plenty of oil left) that comes from ExxonMobil and CERA is derived from the mean USGS estimates, in other words, the equivalent odds of tossing a coin.
I think “peak oil” is best conceptualised as an issue not of reserve size but of current and immediately realisable production capability. That is to say, even if they discovered another Saudi Arabia tomorrow it would not be able to produce any substantial oil for about another 10 years, so for the next decade we’re at the mercy of the oil we currently know about. Vague predictions and 50/50 odds are irrelevant because we can only pull out the oil we currently have infrastructure in place to get at. And the world’s current oil-producing regions are mostly past their respective peaks in production. It won’t be long before the last big fields get tired and then global production goes into decline.
My only cherished belief Louis is that you’re a priceless nutter. Bet you can’t disprove that one.
She dons her dark sunnies & long black leather jacket styled by the cult euro-romance designer ‘ad Hom’ to join Gavin & Luke for an industrial evening. She hopes Russell will join them. He may be the one the prophet mentioned. Ring rrring…
Hey btw you lot, that movie Manderley seems to have made to our great shores now, you might like to go & see it.
James: People in this country who knew anything about maintaining pumps, welding pipes and building refineries have retired. Believe me we are left with new age crass
Pinxi/Gavin,
The prediction that global population is going to start declining some time in the next 50-60 years is based on the idea that everyone will get rich enough in the interim to not want anymore than a couple of kids. …it is based on mass migration from rural areas to cities, emancipation of women, access to clean drinking water and energy.
And once global population is in decline there will be a paradigm shift. It will happen.
Lots of resources will be consumed in the interim. Indeed as I see it the next 50-60 years are crunch time and over this period we will need maximum innovation.
I often read that hybrid cars are the go.
How much would a new battery pack be for a Prius?
What is their expected battery life or do we throw them out after a couple of years like we do our mobile phones.
Do they run without the battery pack?
The hybrids certainly have different input costs from your standard cars.
Maybe we can go back to Stanley Steamers!
I saw an interesting docu this weekend, called the ” Planet”. You guys would really call it a doomsday prophesy.
Well, lots of famous scientists from wellknown Uni’s were interviewed.
They all stated that our children and our grandchildren would be much poorer than us/them due to destruction of our natural resources/planet.
Jen the decline in birth rates in the 3rd world has links with education, health, food and women’s rights (self-determination, property, jobs etc) and although in some areas of the Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) we’re making percentile progress we have huge improvements to make if we want real declines in the number of people living in poverty and dire inequality.
Yes lower birth rates are also correlated with wealth as seen in 1st world countries but can be sure this is a long term trend, and what of this baby boom in Aust these days? Ok ignore that, we’re talking global population: Why trust the population models and predictions if you don’t trust those of AGW?
Basic human rights and forms of ‘insurance’ reduce population pressures but that doesn’t by itself bring people up to speed with our standard of living. ie it means meeting absolute minimum living standards for most, it doesn’t make them rich – far from it. And all those Chinese, already on top of their birth rates, want our standard of living too. So even when/if population growth steadies they’ll still be massive differences in quality of life and material standards, and bigger markets for marketing more unnecessary stuff that we all simply must have. That attempt to catch up and never ending consumptive drive will demand more resources.
To look at your point another way Jennifer, if steady population growth would make the need for economic growth redundant then why are all the developed countries with long-term neutral or negative population growth still chasing ec growth? They even let in immigrants who’ll provide cheap labour to keep feeding the beast. People want more more more better bigger more and businesses and investors want more more fatter more profits but there’s more more more cut-throat competition so you must market more more aggressively and find new new new markets!
“They all stated that our children and our grandchildren would be much poorer than us/them due to destruction of our natural resources/planet.”
Ann
Almost without fail the preceding generation left their children a higher standard of living over the last 1000 years.
Why has it suddenly stopped, particularly given our standard of living increases are still improving?
“As regards future generations, I tend to think our children will be more upset that we let species like the Yangtze River dolphin and Sumatran rhinoceros disapear than that we used up all the oil. ”
Is this statement made as a joke???
The Yangtze River dolphin is now practically extinct, read about it last week . They didn’t detect any dolphin in the recent survey. All hope is gone according to Chinese scientists.
Personlly, I have zero hope for the rhino as well..
No, most people don’t care for the flora and fauna going extinct… they just care to buy more cheap plastic junk made in China…
According to a poll in Sweden, most young people don’t care about endangered animals and are not willing to donate a very small sum to make the survival of these species possible…
“People want more more more better bigger more and businesses and investors want more more fatter more profits but there’s more more more cut-throat competition so you must market more more aggressively and find new new new markets!”
Sounds great pinxi.
After all its been the model for success for centuries.
When I was at school, 35 years ago, we were told that oil would soon run out. It didn’t. ‘Peak Oil’is still some way off.
Hybrid cars – life cycle energy use/carbon emissions are higher than a Hummer H3:
http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/
Methanol may be the answer:
George Olah
Nobel Laureate in Chemistry,1994
Thursday, March 02, 2006
The Methanol Economy
Forget about the hydrogen economy. Methanol is the key to weaning the world off oil. George Olah tells us how to do it.
http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=16466&ch=energy
Paul:” Almost without fail the preceding generation left their children a higher standard of living over the last 1000 years.
Why has it suddenly stopped, particularly given our standard of living increases are still improving?”
Well, this has been repeated endlessly, but our natural resorces are on their way to be depleted etc. We are turning our environment basically to a junkyard as well…
BTW, do you guys know that it was published in my paper yesterday that China emitted as much greenhouse gases as the US .
Guess, the Kyoto protocol has been quite useless in this case… if the US emits so much greenhouse gases , of course China will ask why not them…
Ann,
I wouldn’t joke about freshwater dophins or porpoises. The situation with the baiji (Yangtze River dolphin)is so sad.
That some species survival will depend on the speed with which Asian nations can empower their women and that will depend on the speed with which they can modernise. Let them use energy … let them burn coal. Too many people is much more a threat to the world’s surviving mammals than carbon dioxide.
Pinxi,
You don’t seem able to accept information that doesn’t fit within your world view… you are too tribal, you box everything and everyone.
Again I write, I don’t accept the IPCC models, I do accept the Montreal protocol, I do accept the UN population projections.
Jennifer: I see no falloff in demand anywhere. When Allan recalls the Stanley steamer I think of Stanley hand tools in particular those I have recycled for amateurs willing to look into old crafts.
Given I meet hundreds of people every week; very few can sharpen a twist drill or cut and shape anything else so our Stanley steamers will have to be made again in China along with our Brio toy train sets now bubble wrapped in our specialist child learning outlets. Even Europe has succumbed to the world wide manufacturing shift
Herself with the day job has just made an interesting comment given she likewise meets hundreds of would be specialists who can’t get their business details right on a daily basis. “I don’t trust them” she said “and they could be the ones building our nuclear reactors”.
That really turned my head tonight because it’s true and I know some of them too. This particular small business covers several regions and a great deal including mining etc. Think about it a bit more Jennifer and please note that as a group we were the technical experts. I’ve been saying for months there are huge gaps in our capacity to even train our next generation or cope with offshore competition in the next stage of world manufacturing development.
Allan: I have also been very busy off this blog trying to pick winners for various drivers I know who need to update quickly.
After knocking the LPG conversion offer at every level possible including one for myself and spending weeks competing in fleet auctions I got us into two used Corollas and they are both a dream after a two door Mirage and my clumsy Kingswood. Surprised, both can out sprint the hoons at the lights in their big Fords etc but I reckon its more about my practice every day back in Melbourne.
The real issue in my choice was our potential resale value. A used Falcon on gas or an XR6 can’t hope to compete now or then. GM stock also has to compete with Toyotas and that’s going to be about driver’s door clicks and emissions.
The Pirus is too expensive up front and later on, for knockabout users like me however one local fleet has a target of twenty percent hybrid vehicles next year the rest must be four cylinders with Euro emission standards. Hey I’m asking Toyota for a commission on every one after my diligent work behind the scene.
Expect to pay at least thirty grand for a used Govt. Tarago. All our departments just loved them too.
Jen – this is all hardly evidence based is it: on what basis can you assert that you have made any formal calculation on limits of resource use, limits of petroleum remaining, and consequences of China and India attaining our standard of living in an unplanned unrestrained fashion. You’d rather not believe a formal IPCC calculation but accept someone’s hunch on peak oil. Why – simply it’s a more comfortable paradigm. Not on the basis of any formal analysis.
As for peak oil – It did peak in the USA. It happened.
And why worry about the Baiji – it’s just a piece of boutique DNA. If you attribute sadness to its imminent extinction then why would you not also attribute sadness to dispatching larger cetaceans?
And interesting why they are facing extinction – pollution and river traffic – the actual product of modernisation that you advocate at all costs.
Again one is reminded of Joni Mitchell
“They paved paradise and put up a parking lot,
With a pink hotel, a boutique,
And a swinging hot spot.
Don’t it always seem to go
That you don’t know what you’ve got till it’s gone?
They paved paradise and put up a parking lot. ”
I must admit I am unable to reach a conclusion about when we will reach peak oil.
However, the price of oil has been high now for some time, and if we can take James Wards reporting of Exxons view…it seems likely to remain so for the next 20-30 years.
Against that background the rise in the price of oil and its projected price stability (high) in the near term must (should) be driving at least some interest both in alternative technologies and the development of more comprehensive public transport systems – presumably based on electricity generated from coal?, gas? and even uranium?
My recent visit to Australia reconfirmed for me how Australians have a love affair with the motor vehicle and how poorly serviced they are with public transport – I agree it’s a bit of a chicken/egg situation with respect to which is the cause and which is the response. But I was reminded time and time again in the cities of Adelaide, Melbourne and Perth that the transport system favours motor vehicles, that cyclists are fair game, and pedestrians are considered to be those people who are either too poor to afford a car, winos or barking mad.
Australia is riding the crest of an economic wave, and the budget surplus is embarrassingly bountiful.
So are Australians now planning to redress the imbalance in transport systems with a massive investment in public transport infrastructure? It does not all have to be government funded -though it appears the govt has the money -as surely the high cost of oil will encourage more people onto a wider transport network and so it could be quite profitable and therefore attractive to private operators.
And, are Australia’s cohort of far-sighted financial services leaders financing innovative young Australian companies and people to develop new technologies? Technologies that would not only provide Australians with viable alternatives to the oil dependent car in a country with such vast distances outside the cities, but also form the basis of an export industry for a technology smart nation?
Is the Federal government pumping more of the tax revenue into the relevant CRC’s or setting up some new ones to create the necessary synergies between academia and business to realise the potential for development of new technologies?
Published on 6 Dec 2006 by Energy Bulletin.
The origins of peak oil doomerism
by Toby Hemenway
http://www.energybulletin.net/23386.html
Russel asks “Is the Federal government pumping more of the tax revenue into the relevant CRC’s or setting up some new ones to create the necessary synergies between academia and business to realise the potential for development of new technologies?
We just wish at the moment but I am working on it in my spare time starting with notes on our continued skills recognition and development process for a few basics like trade services and product knowledge at the supermarket
I have noticed that Shell Oilo, Volkswagon and others are developing alternate fuels such as synthetic diesel produced from biomass such as wood. Diesel from woodchips is an exciting prospect and can contribute to our fuel requirements.
The concept of recycling carbon in such an application has appeal, especially when current fuel delivery infrastructure can be maintained as opposed to hydrogen technology which will require a completely new delivery system. Not to mention the impact that the worlds vehicle fleet running on hydrogen will have on greenhouse (that’s an awful lot of additional water vapour in the atmosphere).
Interesting link Paul.
I personally think the doomsday approach goes back a lot longer than the Judeo-Christian era and may have had quite a bit of survival value in our evolutionary past -assuming of course a belief in an evolutionary past.
Once humans could conceive of the future tense, the obvious question is what would will happen to me there? There has probably always been a high strategic value in identifying the worst possible outcome imaginable (likely) and developing strategies to avoid it. During the development of early society among hominids it could have been advantageous to have three groups of people, those that are so terrfied about the impending “what if” that they are transfixed by it, those that can shrug it off with a “so what”, and those who occupy the middle ground and try to assess the level of risk and then develop strategies based on that assessment. The two extremes are often needed in disputes in order to set the boundaries of the middle ground where compromises are born.
It seems to me it is still be advantageous to have all three groups of people in today’s world.
The baiji highlights the costs of China’s untrammeled economic growth, which has polluted its skies and fouled its waters. The baiji, known for its chopsticks-like snout and uncanny sonar ability to navigate the muddy Yangtze, appears to have fallen victim to Chinese government inaction and insufficient international attention.
“Nobody cares about that damn animal — maybe we are crazy,” said the 42-year-old Mr. Pfluger as he unfurled a banner bearing the name of his foundation, Swiss-based baiji.org, across the rust-streaked boat.
The latest news on the Baiji from the Wall Street Journal:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06340/744064-113.stm
When I hear the word “Paradigm” I reach for my revolver but it still does not stop my skin from crawling.
But when it is combined with emotive bollocks about our children regarding us with contempt for enjoying all the good oil my throttling thumbs begin to twitch.
I do not loathe my grandparents for reading by night and consuming their way beyond “peak candle wax”. I have no regrets about my fathers generation taking us beyond “peak radio valve”.
But I do have a mental picture of an uncle I never knew, in his uniform, who’s name can still bring the christmas banter to a hush, cut down in his prime, not by “peak battle” but, rather, by “peak polio”.
This “children will condemn us” crap is a sleazy marketing play on the guilt of parents who are never there, who desire only that their children should be distracted, while they work and consume their way beyond “peak love”.
Projections which can only boast odds ten percent better than 50-50 strike me as a fancy way of saying “we don’t know.”
Meanwhile, it’s entirely possible that someone will discover a technology that renders obsolete the practice of burning petroleum for power.
The “children will condemn us” argument is dubious at best, and likely disingenuous. Will future children thank us for impoverishing ourselves?
The welfare and prosperity of the future is built on the welfare and prosperity of the past–so what we owe to future generations is to produce as much welfare and prosperity as we can.
Sometimes I find myself wondering whether any (how many) of the Romans saw the decline and fall of empire coming?
Luke:
“Again one is reminded of Joni Mitchell ”
Oh thats the song that bagged DDT isnt it.
And the banning of DDT has created such misery and death in the world perhaps pop singers are not such a good guide for political direction.
the banning of DDT has created such misery and death in the world is mere opinion paul
The continental US has extracted more oil since 1975 than was known to exist in 1975 and yet there is more oil left in the ground today than was identified in 1975. There’s a word for a “theory” that’s been wrong every year for the last 151 years; wrong.
* “Hurry, before this wonderful product is depleted from Nature’s laboratory!”
–advertisement for “Kier’s Rock Oil,” 1855
* “. . . the United States [has] enough petroleum to keep its kerosene lamps burning for only four years . . . ”
–Pennsylvania State Geologist Wrigley, 1874
* “. . . although an estimated two-thirds of our reserve is still in the ground, . . . the peak of [U.S.] production will soon be passed–possibly within three years.”
–David White, Chief Geologist, USGS, 1919
* ” . . . it is unsafe to rest in the assurance that plenty of petroleum will be found in the future merely because it has been in the past.”
–L. Snider and B. Brooks, AAPG Bulletin, 1936
Paul – you’re not getting any better – we’ve discussed DDT more than at length – see archives Joni didn’t say to ban it or get malaria. Oh look guys a rabbit – let’s spend 20 comments on it.
‘the banning of DDT has created such misery and death in the world is mere opinion paul’
Gavin
oh
Then misquito borne illnesses which could have been reduced using DDT didnt exist Gavin?
‘Paul – you’re not getting any better’
So tell me how to improve Luke. Should I post pop songs or be a sycophant to pinxi?
What’s all this emotionalism about “our children will condemn us”. As for Robert’s quotes – jee how authoritative.
So you guys are the quantitative evidence based capitalists and free marketeers eh?
And so you’re running a multi-trillion dollar global economy on “belief”. Belief being that oil supplies are infinite, there are no limits to consumption, we have alternative technologies, these technologies add up e.g. enough arable land or a multi-billion dollar distribution network will be built, we can easily accommodate China and India at our level of consumption.
Are we prepared to consider a formal assessment of the situation. Nope. (coz close eyes – it won’t happen). Could be listed here but it would be wasted on you lot.
I know – time to say something clever like “the stone age didn’t end for a lack of stones”. Yea – that’s it.
Meanwhile Jen’s “sad” about dolphin DNA all of a sudden.
Paul; I did not come down in the last shower. We had mozies, people and illnes long before DDT.
No rabbits Luke, just red herrings here
“Paul; I did not come down in the last shower. We had mozies, people and illnes long before DDT. ”
Gavin
And when we have the means to remove such threats to our health we removed them.
Ecept much of the 3rd world was denied access to such technology (DDT) due to fear mongering and dubious science.
“As for Robert’s quotes – jee how authoritative.”
As for the refutation – gee how missing.
These people were every bit as credible in their time as the peakinese are today. Campbell keeps getting pushed out. Cantrell finds more, Mexico finds more. The peakinese shift from resource based models to extraction based models to infrastructure constrained models ands still can’t come close to reality. Are we nearing peak oil? No one knows and anyone who says otherwise is doing so because they have a dog in the fight. Peak Oil is a theory that has always been wrong and cannot even pass a back test. Phrenology on a gloabal scale.
Paul; when was the last time you used DDT to protect your own health?
Robert; when did you ever extract a drop of oil from any source?
We are essentially discussing whether the oil glass is half full or half empty. This is not a matter of “belief”, rather it is a matter of perception.
Pessimists are concerned about peak oil because their brains simply do not process good news in the same way they process bad news. Clinical tests have consistently found that pessimists do not retain good news or positive inputs.
The opposite is also the case with optimists who have trouble retaining bad news but there is another difference.
Pessimists address their negatively defined problems by avoidance and caution while optimists address their positively defined problems with action. They register the negatives if those negatives persist but they view them as opportunities.
And if there is one single conclusion that can be drawn from the last 10 millenia of human history is that the optimists have always prevailed. They have consistently come up with solutions, if only to shut the pessimists up.
The simple fact of the “peak oil” problem is that the more severe the problem becomes, the greater the opportunity to profit from the solution.
“Paul; when was the last time you used DDT to protect your own health?”
Gavin
Never.
I have never had chemotherapy either.
So Robert – “theory that’s always been wrong” – well until it happens – probably explains why US capacity peaked some time ago.
Anyway – I guess your vote is at least 50 years supply left at least. Many would not agree. A number of analysts would suggest we’re almost on it now. (of course you won’t really know till some years after that point). My comment is that all of this doesn’t seem to be a very organised informed way of running a growing global economy?
Paul; We should tell philosopher Motty above, chemo is the last stage of optimism. Lost a few along the way now.
Paul reminded me; been into a flax oil program and its not bad after a brickie mate recommended it for lethargy and worn out joints. Best thing it’s a woollies line; no quacks please.
Vividly recall giving up DDT after a tin can fly spray I had loaded with the stuff disinter rated while I was trying to knock down a fat blow fly and the open pump tube nearly took my right thumb off. Neither the tinplate apparatus nor the bottle of spray from the local store & hardware supplies had appropriate warnings for enthusiastic youngsters like me.
Luke,
Interesting that you should talk about US capacity having peaked.
The US developed oil reserves in Alaska–and most of the oil is sold to Japan. Under Clinton, there was a spike in gas prices, and the US opened its “strategic oil reserve.” Most of that was sold to Germany.
US capacity has peaked–that is, its capacity to refine crude into things like gasoline and diesel. Greenie regulations have made it so punitive to refine oil that the US has not built a new refinery in 20 years. The result: scarcity at the pump–which derives from the refinery bottleneck–is driving record oil profits.
So once again, Greenie politics distorts markets and drives profits into unintended pockets.
Schiller: I’ts cheaper to refine crude in third world countries and just bring in light fuel by the tanker load while the local reserves are kept in the ground for a rainy day.
“Robert; when did you ever extract a drop of oil from any source?” I live in Ventura, California. Look it up. Oil recovery is a local hobby. When surfing tar balls ooze up out of the sea floor and get everywhere. And the mountains out my window seep oil in the warm weather, it is everywhere. Because our commercial fields are so old it is easy to tell the spot price of oil. $40 litle activity, $55 and normal producing wells are running, $70 and everything is running. Interesting that you imply direct personal hands on experience is necessary for one to be qualified to speak on a subject. Since I’ve run experiments in combustion chambers on various fuels and designed powerplants for experimental aircraft you’ll have to by your own standards match that right? Or do you have so much experince that you use it to try and squelch debate? Either way it’s a cheap sophomoric debate trick.
The peakinese have several fatal flaws in their theory. The largest being price substitution inelasticity. We ran out of $20 oil decades ago and could be running short of $40 oil sometime in the foreseeable future. $100 oil? Infinite supply because at $100 not only are new supplies feasible but substitution becomes economical as well.
Making fuel from woodchips appears to be a novel idea from an earlier post, yet it does reflect international and now Australian initiatives.
In a submission to the Senate: Australia’s Future Oil Supply and Alternative Transport Fuels, Bioenergy Australia promoted biomass as a source of sustainable energy and for value-adding bio-products such as biofuels.
They told the Senate Committee that the European Union has had a target of 2 percent of total transport fuel being provided from renewable sources by 2005, rising to 8 percent by 2020. Sweden reached 3 percent for 2005. Sweden has in place many supported measures for biofuels, with many of their buses running on biogas and ethanol.
Producing alcohol fuels from wood has been the subject of a Joint Venture Agroforestry study (Wood for Alcohol Fuels – using farm forestry for bioenergy), available from the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation as Project No. EPL-2A, Publication No. 03/018.
The submission can be downloaded http://www.aph.gov.au/SENATE/COMMITTEE/rrat_ctte/oil_supply/submissions/sub85.pdf
Robert asks for a match (smile folks). I offer this place not far from Melbourne where I worked on and off around the old Stanvac refinery (PRA, Altona petro chem. complex).
http://www.pictureaustralia.org/apps/pictureaustralia?action=PASearch&mode=search&complete1=true&attribute1=subject&term1=Stanvac+Oil+Refinery+%28Altona%2C+Vic.%29+–+Photographs.
It’s a small World Robert. Yes I did combustion in production down the line, did you? Also plant construction on the far side of town for Australia’s first mass storage ESSO/CIG LNG under Cryovac UK supervision, brown coal on the grate, emission control, spontaneous combustion of organics and the practice of extreme physics and one or two other things but the only point I wanted to get from you was the truth on lead times for our development of any energy sources.
“Robert asks for a match (smile folks).”
Learn to read. I specifically said that it was sophomoric and I would not participate in what we sometimes refer to as a dick measuring contest. I took your comments at face value and deemed them worth consideration. Too bad you think otherwise. I saw nothing about questioning lead times. Lead time in California approaches infinity as your BHP is quickly discoving as they attempt to secure an offshore LNG offloading and conversion facility. China is building a coal plant every 6 days if memory serves. There you go, anywhere from 6 days to infinity. This is just one of the latest peakinese attempts to model reality. Since supply isn’t behaving as they wish the latest straw to grasp is that of infrastructure inadequate to keep up with demand. Yet another unsurmountable obstacle until you trow more money at the problem.
Cinders: We have discussed this before, but since I’m perhaps the only person around (youngest in the team) who can recall the early trials at APPM of bioliquid energy conversion in high pressure reaction, I want to recount something on the scale up difficulties again.
Given our operations only ran above 2000 PSI lets say I found Barney Foran’s thoughts on wood base most interesting.
Readers may appreciate I had some dozen years in pulp and paper production mostly elsewhere by the time the APPM pilot project was finally commissioned as a operational plant.
A mate at Skilled Eng. flew me back just to undo all the small bore instrument plumbing newly installed around the giant Italian air compressor. I had to take fresh high grade SS tubes down the isle on my flight for starters. Cinders could do some local research and give me an update on the fate of our reactor.
MEANWHILE I reckon some super bug is needed to get fermentation under way in our next wood based energy project. Don’t hold your breath waiting for a compete alternative to petrol or LNG (not LPG).
BTW Robert, I did a fair amount of work around yeast based liquids in production. Again its all about lead times and gaps when people like Barney and myself leave the seen to others.
Cinders:”Sweden has in place many supported measures for biofuels, with many of their buses running on biogas and ethanol”
Yes, all public buses in Stockholm run on ethanol.
There is going to be a HUGE demand for biofuel in Sweden in the near future. So forests are not only a big demand for the pulp industry but now there is competition with the biofuel industry. This has made the pulp prices going higher.
Wood chips are a big business as well here.
According to all analysis the biofuel industry in Sweden is facing a bright future.
Personally I’m not so keen on that they cut down much trees, I’m a treehugger. But our forests are quite vast.
Robert: “I would not participate in what we sometimes refer to as a dick measuring contest” Sad hey; there are winners and losers in this less than perfect world.
Mate; when I put it hard down on the line as I reckon we need to do in this critical futures debate, there is only one prize and its technology for all. We need the next gen taking over with their eyes on the ball. Skill only comes easily in a master apprenticeship relationship.
Our government reckoned engineering and some science was non core biz a while back. Most technical staff became an embarrassment in a policy driven empire. Barney in his science got the chop and I got the chop in communication restructure when we had a bit of influence in the world at large.
Robert; you can be on our side or you can be on their side but change is brewing everywhere. As I said to Jennifer; it’s all about winners and losers. Winner takes all here
Ann; with good will we can grow a lot of trees over and over.
Hi Gavin,yes, I,m not against forestry if it is managed in a proper way…
Your reply to me doesn’t do you any favours Jennifer. You talk often of an evidence-based approach but where is it? I wonder on what basis you believe a stable global population would simultaneously make resource reliance redundant and you have no answer so you lash out with personal criticisms instead.
Pinxi,
I have not writtn that there would be a stable global population and this would make resource reliance redundant!
I repeat that it has been my observation that you have a tendency to misrepresent other contributors to this blog, myself included.
This has the effect over time to ‘chase people away’. Is this your intention?
IMHO this constant misreprentation is due to a well developed attribution bias, Pinxii should get out more and be an Actor not an Observer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attributional_bias
While you lot carry on about your ideologies, expect to miss out on a few practical points that could lead to solutions. Take it or leave it, I will confess to having a go here and there at closing up debate on extremism with what could be described as shock tactics.
However go back and have a look at Werner’s stuff under Pilliga Burns then have a look at this item in the Canberra Times. It was also on our Lateline last night with the other interesting item about the Australian crack minding team of to Antarctica.
http://canberra.yourguide.com.au/detail.asp?class=news&subclass=general&story_id=538583&category=General&m=12&y=2006
Rog is ACTUALLY writing about attributional bias ! Far out !
Take very close note of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_oversimplification
and get back to us when you’ve thought it over.
Pathetic Luke, you would do better to stick to bat wee alarmism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Ann
“Well, this has been repeated endlessly, but our natural resorces are on their way to be depleted etc. We are turning our environment basically to a junkyard as well…”
It is my understanding that forestry is growing and so is arable land cover.
“BTW, do you guys know that it was published in my paper yesterday that China emitted as much greenhouse gases as the US .”
This is a reality we must get used to Ann.
The 3rd world will eventually have access to cheap energy the same as the rest of us.
“Guess, the Kyoto protocol has been quite useless in this case… if the US emits so much greenhouse gases , of course China will ask why not them…”
Indeed.
Are you suggesting the Chinese etc shouldnt be permitted cheap energy?
So Rog – you actually thought I was serious in that thread. Might do that NIDA summer workshop after all. And I thought right wingers had more fun.
(good link by the way – incidentally have a scroll back – I had been saying that a lot on the mining thread).
Paul:” It is my understanding that forestry is growing and so is arable land cover.”
This must be a theory a la Lomborg.
Well, Jen had a thread on this recently and I posted a graph that showed that major forestry countries such as Brazil, Indonesia, Kongo etc cut more forest than was the reforestration.
Arable land cover is growing?? Sorry, have only heard the contrary Paul, but please provide some evidence….
Paul:”Are you suggesting the Chinese etc shouldnt be permitted cheap energy?”
Of course they should have the same opportunity as developed countries to cheap energy and economic growth.
However, with all our technology there must be a solution that economic growth is not equal to increase in greenhouse gases. Maybe wishful thinking???
We are also in debt to countries such as China and India and must give them financial aid , some hundred billion US dollars annually to help them develop environmental friendly technology.
I have just read through the paper by Dr Taylor on the APSO website
http://www.aspo-australia.org.au/References/Bruce/Peak-Oil-Myth-or-Risk-slides-AIE.doc
and found it to be a extremely good, cogent examination of the issue of Peak Oil. I find his rationale for the conclusions he draws to be compelling and recommend it to you all.
Jennifer who wrote “I think concern about economic growth “forever” and resource depletion will become somewhat redundant once global population starts to decline”? You responded without correcting me earlier when I attributed that comment to you. If that is your comment that I misinterpreted then it would help if you’d clarify the meaning.
Ann, you said…
“Hi Gavin,yes, I,m not against forestry if it is managed in a proper way…”
Please! if a forest is being harvested beyond its capacity to regenerate, IT IS NOT FORESTRY! it is LANDCLEARING or DEFORESTATION.
Forestry is about GROWING TREES! You’ve got to know how they grow, germinate and regenerate before you can harvest them ( as well as know their growth rates, standing stock, site capacity and a myriad of other variables that together are used to calculate sustainable yield).
At the turn of the last century (1900) forestry silviculture as practiced in Australia was modelled on the European and US models, Single tree selection, normal forest, etc. About 1955 Jacobs published his work on the growth habits of the eucalypt and for the first time silvicultural practices that were based on the ecology of eucalyts began to be practiced in Austrlia. This included clear felling, and most importantly Australian Group Selection.
These silvicultural techniques promoted regeneration and growth and that many areas harvested using such silvicultural practices are now deemed to have high conservation value and are in conservation management is a testiment to the research capacity of Jacobs and other silviculture foresters.
I gather then it was Jen’s words that ‘economic growth “forever” and resource depletion will become somewhat redundant once global population starts to decline’. Accordingly I’ll consider the charges against me of misrepresentation etc have been dropped. I won’t press counter-charges.
http://www.opec.org/opecna/Speeches/2006/COP12Nairobi.htm
“… for developing countries, poverty alleviation, economic development and social progress are the overriding priorities. Climate change is adding more challenges and creating additional vulnerabilities for these countries, although they are not responsible for the current state of our planet.
….Energy is fundamental for economic development and social progress. While the use of all forms of energy is welcome, it is clear that fossil fuels will continue to satisfy the lion’s share of the world’s growing energy needs for decades to come…”
Pinxi,
You misrepresented me! I made reference to population decline, you suggested I believed in population stabilization. I made reference to a possible change in the dominant economic paradigm, if global population starts to decline. You suggested I believed people would stop using resources?
Jen you’re splitting hairs to avoid thinking through your position. Let’s continue your game of semantics then:
You said “once global population starts to decline”: at that point, ‘once’, it’s hardly misrepresentation to say population is stabilising. If my words jar then kindly reread and substitute “once global population starts to decline” wherever I refer to population.
You didn’t just loosely refer to “a possible change in the dominant economic paradigm”. You said then “resource depletion will become somewhat redundant”
I did not claim that you believe “people would stop using resources”. Please read carefully.
I simply questioned why you think economic growth and resource depletion would become redundant. I asked this considering:
1) the large gaps in living standards between the minority ‘haves’ & the majority ‘have nots’
2) the pressures for continually rising living standards (among the ‘haves’)
3) that we haven’t decoupled living standards from resource throughput
4) that looking at the rich countries with declining (& stable!) populations there is no evidence that economic growth or resource depletion has become redundant
I also questioned why you believe population models (with their controversial inputs and assumptions) yet reject climate models that support AGW.
I invite you to have an intelligent exchange on this matter. If you can’t and you need to play petty semantics to avoid considering the issue then it confirms my suspicion that you regurgitate 2nd hand opinions that you don’t try to understand or think through yourself. Please prove me wrong. Evidence-based, recall?
Pinxi,
Give us a break!
You started off suggesting that because I was a climate change skeptic, I shouldn’t accept the UN population models! Then went on, and still are, misrepresening my position because you don’t understand it.
Now I could spend all my time here at this blog trying to explain it to you. … what I think the situation might be in 100 years time and why. But, having watched Ian Castles try and have a sensible discussion with you some time ago I am reluctant.
However, if you did a guest post on this issue of future population, resource depeletion and economic growth, I would be more than happy to contribute to the thread.
This would give you an opportunity to elaborate and explain your position… which I probably don’t fully understand.
PS, But I suspect you will decline the offer, because it is easier to pick away at other people’s blog posts, than provide a coherent idea/argument yourself … and then defend it.
Jennifer I don’t believe I have misrepresented your position at all, I have just questioned the basis for it. I’ve explained this position in the last post. Use that if you’re genuinely interested in exploring the issue or tell me what you don’t understand and what you think I don’t understand.
Pinxi,
We might have to agree to disagree on the issue of “misrepresentation”.
Now, on the issue of progressing discussion on this most interesting of topics … most days I post something at this blog which provides some insight into what I think about an issue.
What about you, providing a blog post that tells me and other readers what you think about population, resource use and economic growth. It is obviously an issue you have thought a lot about. Could you please write a few paragraphs on it, I would be genuinely interested in reading you views as a short essay/blog post.
Email to jennifermarohasy@jennifermarohasy.com .
>> Economic growth paradigm <<
HERE’S YOUR GUEST POST:
On “socioeconomic paradigm in which economic growth is believed to continue forever…”
Jennifer said “… our children will be more upset that we let species like the Yangtze River dolphin and Sumatran rhinoceros disapear than that we used up all the oil.
“Furthermore, I think concern about economic growth “forever” and resource depletion will become somewhat redundant once global population starts to decline which many predict will happen before the end of this century.”
Why would a declining (or stable) global population would cause economic growth and resource depletion to become redundant?
I ask this considering:
1) the large gaps in living standards (within & between countries) between the minority ‘haves’ & the majority ‘have nots’
2) the pressures and desires for continually rising living standards
3) that we haven’t decoupled living standards from resource throughput; we haven’t decoupled quality of life from materials
4) that looking at the rich countries with declining (& stable!) populations there is no evidence that economic growth or resource depletion has become redundant
5) MNCs see the huge populations in 3rd and 2nd world economies as massive untapped market opportunities – more sales needs more products & distribution needs more resources
6) more consumption means more resource use, and methods to reduce the linear nature of resource throughput require more energy for reuse, recycling, repurposing etc so there’s more entropy, less exergy
I also questioned why a person would believe population models (with their uncertain and in some areas, controversial, inputs and assumptions) yet reject climate models that support AGW.
Where is the evidence for this position?
If global population is declining, you could have longterm negative economic growth but that doesn’t make economic growth redundant. Without a paradigm shift, economic growth is still relevant to our socioeconomic mechanics. Industrialised societies are organised with economic growth at core and now expect continual improvements in living standards (and we get scared of potential threats to our way of life, such as GW, govt, peak oil, China, pinkos, ragheads and cheap immigrant labour etc). The paradigm will still persist unless we have a paradigm shift & what would bring that on? How would the paradigm shift manifest?
We haven’t managed to decouple ec growth or maintenance of living standards from resource and energy throughputs yet. Until we do it will remain a concern.
All those other demanding people in the other countries though want better living standards & cars, houses, coca cola & Maccas just like ours; meanwhile we still want to get one up on the Joneses, and marketers flog more must have items at us. And all that requires resource throughputs.
A decline in birth rates in the 3rd world is linked with education, health, food and women’s rights (self-determination, property, jobs etc) and although in some areas of the Millenium Development Goals we’re making percentile progress we have huge improvements to make if we want real declines in the number of people living in poverty and dire inequality.
Basic human rights and reduced risk and uncertainty in livelihoods and survivial reduce population pressures but that doesn’t by itself bring people up to speed with our 1st world standard of living. ie it means meeting bare minimum conditions for life for most. And all those Chinese, already on top of their birth rates, want our standard of living too. So even when/if population growth steadies there’ll still be massive differences in quality of life and material standards, and bigger markets for marketing more unnecessary stuff that we all simply must have. That attempt to catch up and never ending consumptive drive will demand more resources.
If declining population growth would make the need for economic growth redundant then why are all the developed countries with long-term neutral or negative population growth still chasing ec growth (and cheap immigrant labour)? What evidence do we have to suggest that this paradigm would shift or how it would shift?
Jennifer our posts overlapped – I was working on the above for you while being interrupted, I hope that will suffice for now
Hi Pinxi,
Thanks for putting in the effort. But what you have written is an attempted rebuttle of a couple of points I made in the context of a post about peak oil.
I had suggested a guest post which outlined YOUR VIEWS on population, resource depletion and economic growth.
Again, you appear to have not understood what I have written.
Ladies, HEEL!
While you squabble over which one first thought we may be going backwards I see no sign of us or anyone else giving up growth as their way of life.
I picked up a toy catalogue last week from the local Early Learning Centre, 80 odd pages of stuff for our grand kids hey and don’t kid me we aren’t all part of it.
http://www.earlylearningcentre.com.au/Store/Home/
Tell me what’s wrong with it in a nut shell
My view is straightforward Jennifer. If we achieve stable or declining global population, we will continue to draw on resources. You’re trying to shift the goal posts to get me to do the heavy lifting on a modified subject so you can avoid having to consider the opinion you voiced.
I will at your request, frame my view on the issue at hand so HERE’S YOUR GUEST POST:
>> Economic growth paradigm <<
In my Pinxi worldview, economic growth and resource depletion will remain relevant issues for the foreseeable future. These issues are not about to become redundant, regardless of whether we will achieve a declining (or stable) global population or decreased resource intensity as was put forward on the recent mining thread.
I formed this opinion considering:
1) the large gaps in living standards (within & between countries) between the minority ‘haves’ & the majority ‘have nots’
2) the pressures and desires for continually rising living standards
3) that we haven’t decoupled living standards from resource throughput; we haven’t decoupled quality of life from materials
4) that looking at the rich countries with declining (& stable!) populations there is no evidence that economic growth or resource depletion has become redundant
5) MNCs see the huge populations in 3rd and 2nd world economies as massive untapped market opportunities – more sales needs more products & distribution needs more resources
6) more consumption means more resource use, and methods to reduce the linear nature of resource throughput require more energy for reuse, recycling, repurposing etc so there’s more entropy, less exergy
If global population is declining, you could have longterm negative economic growth but that doesn’t make economic growth redundant. Without a paradigm shift, economic growth is still relevant to our socioeconomic mechanics. Industrialised societies are organised with economic growth at core and now expect continual improvements in living standards (and we get scared of potential threats to our way of life, such as GW, govt, peak oil, China, pinkos, ragheads and cheap immigrant labour etc). The paradigm will still persist unless we have a paradigm shift & what would bring that on (far-reaching disasters aside)? How would such a paradigm shift manifest? I can’t see it but I welcome others’ opinions.
We haven’t managed to decouple economic growth or maintenance of living standards from resource and energy throughputs yet. Until we do so, economic growth & associated resource throughput will remain an ongoing concern.
All those other demanding people in the other countries though want better living standards & cars, houses, coca cola & Maccas just like ours; meanwhile we still want to get one up on the Joneses, and marketers flog more must have items at us. And all that requires resource throughputs.
A decline in birth rates in the 3rd world is linked with education, health, food and women’s rights (self-determination, property, jobs etc) and although in some areas of the Millenium Development Goals we’re making percentile progress we have huge improvements to make if we want real declines in the number of people living in poverty and dire inequality.
Basic human rights and reduced risk and uncertainty in livelihoods and survivial reduce population pressures but that doesn’t by itself bring people up to speed with our 1st world standard of living. ie it means meeting bare minimum conditions for life for most. And all those Chinese, already on top of their birth rates, want our standard of living too. So even when/if population growth steadies there’ll still be massive differences in quality of life and material standards, and bigger markets for marketing more unnecessary stuff that we all simply must have. That attempt to catch up and the never ending consumptive drive will demand more resources. Thankfully I still have my resource shares!
Thanks, a slightly edited version has been posted as a new thread here: http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/001787.html .