Living Car Free - Humans Living Far Beyond Planet's Means

Humans Living Far Beyond Planet's Means (http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20061024/ts_nm/environment_wwf_planet_dc)



By Ben BlanchardTue Oct 24, 6:29 AM ET

Humans are stripping nature at an unprecedented rate and will need two planets' worth of natural resources every year by 2050 on current trends, the WWF conservation group said on Tuesday.

Populations of many species, from fish to mammals, had fallen by about a third from 1970 to 2003 largely because of human threats such as pollution, clearing of forests and overfishing, the group also said in a two-yearly report.

"For more than 20 years we have exceeded the earth's ability to support a consumptive lifestyle that is unsustainable and we cannot afford to continue down this path," WWF Director-General James Leape said, launching the WWF's 2006 Living Planet Report.

"If everyone around the world lived as those in America, we would need five planets to support us," Leape, an American, said in Beijing.

People in the United Arab Emirates were placing most stress per capita on the planet ahead of those in the United States, Finland and Canada, the report said.

Australia was also living well beyond its means.

The average Australian used 6.6 "global" hectares to support their developed lifestyle, ranking behind the United States and Canada, but ahead of the United Kingdom, Russia, China and Japan.

"If the rest of the world led the kind of lifestyles we do here in Australia, we would require three-and-a-half planets to provide the resources we use and to absorb the waste," said Greg Bourne, WWF-Australia chief executive officer.

Everyone would have to change lifestyles -- cutting use of fossil fuels and improving management of everything from farming to fisheries.

"As countries work to improve the well-being of their people, they risk bypassing the goal of sustainability," said Leape, speaking in an energy-efficient building at Beijing's prestigous Tsinghua University.

"It is inevitable that this disconnect will eventually limit the abilities of poor countries to develop and rich countries to maintain their prosperity," he added.

The report said humans' "ecological footprint" -- the demand people place on the natural world -- was 25 percent greater than the planet's annual ability to provide everything from food to energy and recycle all human waste in 2003.

In the previous report, the 2001 overshoot was 21 percent.

"On current projections humanity, will be using two planets' worth of natural resources by 2050 -- if those resources have not run out by then," the latest report said.

"People are turning resources into waste faster than nature can turn waste back into resources."

RISING POPULATION

"Humanity's footprint has more than tripled between 1961 and 2003," it said. Consumption has outpaced a surge in the world's population, to 6.5 billion from 3 billion in 1960. U.N. projections show a surge to 9 billion people around 2050.

It said that the footprint from use of fossil fuels, whose heat-trapping emissions are widely blamed for pushing up world temperatures, was the fastest-growing cause of strain.

Leape said China, home to a fifth of the world's population and whose economy is booming, was making the right move in pledging to reduce its energy consumption by 20 percent over the next five years.

"Much will depend on the decisions made by China, India and other rapidly developing countries," he added.

The WWF report also said that an index tracking 1,300 vetebrate species -- birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals -- showed that populations had fallen for most by about 30 percent because of factors including a loss of habitats to farms.

Among species most under pressure included the swordfish and the South African Cape vulture. Those bucking the trend included rising populations of the Javan rhinoceros and the northern hairy-nosed wombat in Australia.

I am curious is there any other web sites that are dedicated to minmizing our Biolgoical footprint ?

Being car free or car light helps but I also seen somewhere that it takes like 200 gallons of water and 1000lbs of corn to get 1 lb of steak meat. Some site had that Beef consumption take a huge toll on other resources. ANy body else got an idea on that ?


Thanks

jay

Yeah, meat production takes a huge amount of resources.

I pass gas for free . . .

I am curious is there any other web sites that are dedicated to minmizing our Biolgoical footprint ?

Being car free or car light helps but I also seen somewhere that it takes like 200 gallons of water and 1000lbs of corn to get 1 lb of steak meat. Some site had that Beef consumption take a huge toll on other resources. ANy body else got an idea on that ?


Thanks

jay

The concept is "sustainability". Just google or otherwise search on that word. The problem, of course, is that if we as individuals live sustainably, we accomplish next to nothing. We have to get the rest of the population to buy into it too, and there's a huge resistance due to denial, misinformation, laziness, greed and other factors to combat.

I'm actually rather scared about this... I'll be alive in 2050 (if I don't get killed by a car first), and the thought of what the world will be like then is disturbing. I really wish that all the people running the world's governments would take some time to meditate on this, maybe catch a few films on the subject (inconvenient truth, heck even soylent green or blade runner would do). But I suppose people like us have been wishing for that to happen for a long time, haven't we?

Yes indeed, the sky is falling. And almost all of the earth scientists agree with chicken little this time. 2050 is widely seen as the "tipping point" for planet earth. Greenhouse gases are the most pressing concern, and the one current "leaders" are least willing to deal with. We the people must be the leaders in this battle, because the politicians won't look past the quarterly profit sheets and the politically convenient war on terrorism.

I happen to believe we over produce certain staples like milk and pay farmers not to grow crops so there is some savings there. The real problem is energy and what the world will have to use for fuel in the not too distant future. It doesn't take much food to keep a human alive but telling Americans to give up their motorcars is a different story!

...It doesn't take much food to keep a human alive but telling Americans to give up their motorcars is a different story!
At 30 miles per gallon, driving a car 3 miles uses as much chemical energy as a person needs to eat in one day.

Not really an ethical problem I guess, until you start talking about running cars on biodiesel and ethanol made from food crops. If you do that, you are in some sense depriving someone, somewhere, of a day's worth of food for every three miles you drive.

At 30 miles per gallon, driving a car 3 miles uses as much chemical energy as a person needs to eat in one day.

Not really an ethical problem I guess, until you start talking about running cars on biodiesel and ethanol made from food crops. If you do that, you are in some sense depriving someone, somewhere, of a day's worth of food for every three miles you drive.Maybe. With all the food we produce, it's more likely that we're taking wildlife habitat when we run our vehicles on food, than that someone would be eating EXCEPT for the fact that we're producing fuel with that food. I once saw an American official say that there is plenty of food to go around in the world, but the problem is we need paying customers.

As for biodiesel, much of it is currently made out of recycled vegetable oil, and that isn't taking food from anybody. If we shift a larger percentage of our fuel production to biodiesel, that could change, i suppose.

So I guess the sky really is falling.
Well unless we all live in mud huts and in communal mud hut villages, grow our own crops in order to eat raw vegan (theres plenty of dirt to eat for our daily dose of Vitamin B12 right?). Don't know what were going to do to heat those mud huts though...can we still cut down trees and burn the wood? I wouldn't want to go and hurt a tree to sustain my life now would I? Yeah...the sky is falling. Anything we do ends up expending the earths resources. What to do...what to do. I don't know...as long as we still have beer...somehow...someway...things will all work out. :D

The concept is "sustainability". Just google or otherwise search on that word. The problem, of course, is that if we as individuals live sustainably, we accomplish next to nothing. We have to get the rest of the population to buy into it too, and there's a huge resistance due to denial, misinformation, laziness, greed and other factors to combat.


The main problem is not greed, etc., but the government's refusal to treat this as the emergency it is & act accordingly, educating the public about the need for sacrifices as during WW2 & putting the necessary regulations in place. (Ironically, Bush's Texas retreat is powered by alternative energy but he lets the rest of the nation stick the oil needle in its arm.)

Re ethanol, that does not have to be made from food crops, it can be made from the waste of food crops such as sugar cane leaves & stalks.

With all the food we produce, it's more likely that we're taking wildlife habitat when we run our vehicles on food, than that someone would be eating EXCEPT for the fact that we're producing fuel with that food. I once saw an American official say that there is plenty of food to go around in the world, but the problem is we need paying customers.

It's actually more complicated, and much scarier than you think. Right now we can easily feed the world, but "all the food we produce" is actually produced using massive input from the oilfields. In the 1950s and 60s the world population of around 3 billion was reaching the point where food production couldn't keep up, and widespread famine was imminently expected. Fortunately, agricultural scientists were able to make astonishing breakthroughs in yields, the so-called "green revolution", solving the problem (for a time) and allowing the population to continue to grow.

Unfortunately, while we bought some time, we may have greatly worsened the long term prospects. High yield crops rapidly deplete the soil of natural nutrients, and are heavily reliant on fertilizer derived from natural gas, and pesticides derived in part from oil. A lot of crops are now grown in areas of unreliable rainfall using irrigation water drawn from both surface and underground sources, some of which requires energy input, and which eventually salinates (salts) the soil. The work of planting, tending, harvesting, and distributing food on a global scale, and the refridgeration needed to get the more perishable foods to market, are also heavily dependent on oil. Crops are increasingly grown in marginal farmland, like cleared rainforest, that rapidly erodes once the tree cover is gone.

So when oil starts to get less available there will be a huge drop in food production capacity, making it even more unrealistic to think there will be any cropland available for personal biodiesel. Any biodiesel that is produced will have to be dedicated to farm equipment and food delivery. The farmland will be much in worse shape than it was before the green revolution - nutrient depleted, or paved over, or eroded away, and a lot of the irrigated areas will no longer be useable due to salination.

And the world population will be 9 billion.

I guess that was a thread killer post....

I guess that was a thread killer post....
Maybe so, but it's a pretty good picture of what the future may hold if current trends continue. Sort of like what the Ghost of Christmas Yet to Come showed to Ebeneezer Scrooge.

Fortunately, like Scrooge we can wake up and find ourselves in the present, where we still have choices to make and actions to take. Maybe it can be avoided somehow.

To expand on cooker's comments, may I suggest this article:
http://www.harpers.org/TheOilWeEat.html

I think it's an important read, because most people just think of transportation when they think about oil availability. It goes far beyond that. We depend on fossil fuels for just about everything that sustains our lives. As we pass peak oil and natural gas, I'm afraid that we will be totally unprepared for the implications. I'd love to see us making choices and taking actions to avoid a catastrophic collapse, but I don't see that happening.

I remember one of the usual Coyote and Road-runner routines where the Coyote would run off a cliff above a deep canyon. His legs would still be in motion for awhile even though there was nothing beneath him but air. Then, it would suddenly dawn on him that all was not right, and he would pause in mid-air as he glanced down at the river flowing far below. Then he would drop like a rock and there would be a small puff of dust as he missed even the river. I think that as a society, we are just discovering that all is not right.

W.P.

So what can we do?
Insist that our political "leaders" address global warming and peak oil.
Keep ourselves informed on the issues.
Lead by example--live our own lives in the cleanest and most sustainable ways possible.
Network and organize with others who are concerned about these issues--like the people on this forum.
Keep on riding our bikes!
?????????

...I'd love to see us making choices and taking actions to avoid a catastrophic collapse, but I don't see that happening.
There may be some helpful ideas that work out. Carfree living is an example that all of us here are familiar with. No-till or conservation farming is another example.

Also terra preta soils - there are some highly fertile self-sustaining patches of unique soil in South America that seem to have been artificially constructed by the indigeneous people 500-2000 years ago. If we can figure out what is going on there, we may be able to hit a bases loaded ecological home run producing biomass energy, increasing the fertility of soils, and sequestering carbon all at the same time.

Harder to say what could be done about increasing human population, water shortages and soil salinization, though.

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I don't mean to say that nobody is doing things like going carfree, or attempting more sustainable ways of raising food. I just don't see anything like this happening at anywhere near the scale that it needs to. At the rate we're going, I'm afraid that a reduction of human population will be forced upon us, and not in the way we'd like it to happen.

I remember one of the usual Coyote and Road-runner routines where the Coyote would run off a cliff above a deep canyon. His legs would still be in motion for awhile even though there was nothing beneath him but air. Then, it would suddenly dawn on him that all was not right, and he would pause in mid-air as he glanced down at the river flowing far below. Then he would drop like a rock and there would be a small puff of dust as he missed even the river. I think that as a society, we are just discovering that all is not right.

W.P.

You should read Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit by Daniel Quinn if you haven't already.
There's a similiar analogy in the book...

Perhaps I should have been more clear. I don't mean to say that nobody is doing things like going carfree, or attempting more sustainable ways of raising food. I just don't see anything like this happening at anywhere near the scale that it needs to. At the rate we're going, I'm afraid that a reduction of human population will be forced upon us, and not in the way we'd like it to happen.
Nobody knows what will happen in the future. It's important not to get too discouraged. Do as much as you can to be part of the solution. Then, no matter what happens, you will not be blamed.

Harder to say what could be done about increasing human population, water shortages and soil salinization, though.
Many parts of the developed world (Italy, Scandinavia) are already experiencing negative population growth. Most upper-middle class families in the US have only one or two children, resulting in negative growth. The key to acheiving negative population growth, IMO, is the education of girls and women. When women can make good money in satisfying careers, they will put off having children, and will have fewer children.

The long-term danger of fundamentalist religions (especially Muslim and Christian) is that they devalue women and relegate them to being baby factories. If you want to help the environment long-term, struggle for schools for girls all over the world.

The long-term danger of fundamentalist religions (especially Muslim and Christian) is that they devalue women and relegate them to being baby factories.

Hey, let's not let fundamentalists of other religions off the hook.

Nobody knows what will happen in the future. It's important not to get too discouraged. Do as much as you can to be part of the solution. Then, no matter what happens, you will not be blamed.
Certainly, nobody knows the future, but that does not make prediction a completely futile exercise. It is important to be honest and realistic, as well. I would never discourage anyone from doing what they can to make a difference. At the same time, I still hold that the most effective efforts of a tiny minority is likely to be insufficient. If there were a way to increase the number of people doing these things, then I would be much more optimistic. But if optimism within the current situation means that nearly everyone can continue with business-as-usual, then I think that optimism becomes destructive. Acknowledging the problem is the first step, and we're not even doing that.

I realize that I sound pessimistic to some. At one point not long ago, I would have agreed. After looking further into things, I've become quite concerned. This idea of 9 Billion people is a horrific thought, which will lead to immense suffering. In fact, it's pretty clear to me that without fossil fuels, this planet cannot support anywhere near the 6.5 Billion that are already alive.

As far as blame, I hardly think that's even worth considering, in the context of what we're facing.

From all the reports of North Korea and with Iran stepping up their enrichment efforts, their may be a world war soon to reduce the population that is destroying the Earth.

You should read Ishmael: An Adventure of the Mind and Spirit by Daniel Quinn if you haven't already.
There's a similiar analogy in the book...

Thanks, I'll have a look.

W.P.

Certainly, nobody knows the future, but that does not make prediction a completely futile exercise. It is important to be honest and realistic, as well. I would never discourage anyone from doing what they can to make a difference. At the same time, I still hold that the most effective efforts of a tiny minority is likely to be insufficient. If there were a way to increase the number of people doing these things, then I would be much more optimistic. But if optimism within the current situation means that nearly everyone can continue with business-as-usual, then I think that optimism becomes destructive. Acknowledging the problem is the first step, and we're not even doing that.

I realize that I sound pessimistic to some. At one point not long ago, I would have agreed. After looking further into things, I've become quite concerned. This idea of 9 Billion people is a horrific thought, which will lead to immense suffering. In fact, it's pretty clear to me that without fossil fuels, this planet cannot support anywhere near the 6.5 Billion that are already alive.

As far as blame, I hardly think that's even worth considering, in the context of what we're facing.
Every movement was small in its early stages. In 1770, there were almost no revolutionaries in America, and the idea of separation from England was almost unthinkable. Six years later....

Again, you can't know what will happen in even the near future. Big changes in human society are usually rapid and unexpected. The idea for now is to build to a critical mass or tipping point, when the conditions will be right for this kind of revolutionary change.

So called "realism" is short-term thinking and it's unsupported by human history. "Idealism" has always won out in the long run.

So called "realism" is short-term thinking and it's unsupported by human history. "Idealism" has always won out in the long run.
Human history has enjoyed increasing sources of energy. The harvested energy of fossil fuels that humans have extracted and used over the last couple centuries took millions of years to accumulate. Look at a chart of global population, and you'll see that it took off at the same time that humans began widespread use of fossil fuels. It is only a matter of time before these resources decline in their availability. We've already extracted most of the high-quality, easily obtainable fuels.

Failure to acknowledge that we're approaching a decline in available energy is the epitome of short-term thinking. Human history has never experienced a resource decline of the type that we're on the verge of. When we think of our ingenuity, it almost always comes down to clever ways to utilize these cheap and abundant energy sources. Responding to looming energy shortages with abstract ideas like "Idealism" sounds like wishful thinking to me.

I wish you would all die, seriously, the world would be a better place.

I wish you would all die, seriously, the world would be a better place.


You first dick.

When women can make good money in satisfying careers, they will put off having children, and will have fewer children.

The long-term danger of fundamentalist religions (especially Muslim and Christian) is that they devalue women and relegate them to being baby factories.

There can be other reasons for having many children (besides religious zealoting). If there's no pension scheme to speak of, a big family can provide that and give you food and shelter when you cannot pull your own weight anymore. And if child mortality rate is high, people will have to try and compensate by having more babies. So you need working health care and some form of social security to make small families a rational choice.

--J

You first dick.

Can we all die together?

Sounds like a plan! Finally, someone with a head on their shoulders.

So what can we do?
Insist that our political "leaders" address global warming and peak oil.
Keep ourselves informed on the issues.
Lead by example--live our own lives in the cleanest and most sustainable ways possible.
Network and organize with others who are concerned about these issues--like the people on this forum.
Keep on riding our bikes!
?????????


Ever see Logan's Run?

How old are you?

[j/k]

I am curious is there any other web sites that are dedicated to minmizing our Biolgoical footprint ?

Being car free or car light helps but I also seen somewhere that it takes like 200 gallons of water and 1000lbs of corn to get 1 lb of steak meat. Some site had that Beef consumption take a huge toll on other resources. ANy body else got an idea on that ?


Thanks

jay


Corn itself is also a huge agricultural waste, at least the way it's done here in the States. Read Diet for a Dead Planet, by Christopher D Cook...it's pretty sobering.

Living car free is not the answer, or more to the point, it's not where we should start. We have the British governemnt who will shortly introduce new taxes (Green Tax) to 'assist' us in cutting pollution. Pretty much everyone I know see this as yet another tax for the beaurocratic 'elite'. You think all that money will go into 'Green Research'? We'll be blinded by statistics.

The way forward is to change our entire lifestyle, and I dont mean us as individuals, I'm talking about everyone including businesses. Lets start with the big oil companies who sponsor Bush (for example). Bush is an 'oil man' right? You think he *wants* to cut pollution? Give me a break.

I read a few days ago how lorries full of potatos are travelling 200 miles (in the UK) to get them washed, then travelling back (with the washed potatoes). It's stupid. You think you going car free will stop the governments looking after their own? Companies doing stupid things like what I've described? You think putting tax on airplane fuel will stop people from flying? Do you realized how much revenue is generated from the airline industry for our governments? Putting tax on airplane flights will only pass the increase in ticket prices to the consumer. The airline companies will still make money, the consumer will continue to pay. Do you really think the government wants to stop polluting the environment considering how much revenue is being generated?

If YOU want to stop polluting the environment by not using your car, then good luck to you. Like 'make poverty history' campaigns, you have a very long wait for any results to appear (asusming they do). And there's no use responding to this with "Well we have to try something", it just doesn't wash. If you try something, you have to make at least a little bit certain that it will work. I know many of you mean well by leaving your cars, but really, what difference will that make?

You need to lobby the oil companies and the governments of this world, and quite frankly, I dont think that will make a blind bit of difference either. America has not signed up to the kyoto protocol. the UK is behind it's targets with the Kyoto protocol. The people I see making some impact with legislation, useful legislation, is California. Oh, and Toyota/Honda (with their electric powered cars). America lead the war on Iraq. You think that was really about WMD? The whole world knows it's about oil (or lack of oil). America is now looking to buy fresh water from Canada. Canada does not want to sell (the last I heard of it) so America will be using the 'Free Trade' act (ps: not sure if 'Free Trade Act is the correct name used to define the free movement of goods between the two countries, but I hope you see what I mean) to force Canada to sell fresh water.

Have any of you seen the movie, "Who killed the electric car?" I'm pretty sure, without even watching it, you can imagine who did kill the electric car (clue: black gold companies). What you are proposing with "Lets not use ours cars much" is akin to saving a penny a day for your reitrement. Sure, you'll get some money at retirement, but it's not even worth the bother. If you on the other hand can get oil companies (say) and governments to pump $1k per month into your retirement, of course you'll be happy with the result. But the oil companies and governments get nothing in return, it's a business right? They need to make profits for their shareholders.

It's good of you all to think about the environment, I do too. But I wish I could do something more useful. We are just not collective enough. The governments, oil companies, and various other companies (transport, logistics, travel industry, you name it) are, on the grand scheme of things, looking after their own. We are mere individuals.

+2 (I'm schizophrenic)

You're right, the governments not only look at quarterly balance sheets but cant really see past their own noses (ie. past the 4 year terms they are in government).

Are there any politicians out there worthy of leading us? In any country?

Human history has enjoyed increasing sources of energy. The harvested energy of fossil fuels that humans have extracted and used over the last couple centuries took millions of years to accumulate. Look at a chart of global population, and you'll see that it took off at the same time that humans began widespread use of fossil fuels. It is only a matter of time before these resources decline in their availability. We've already extracted most of the high-quality, easily obtainable fuels.

Failure to acknowledge that we're approaching a decline in available energy is the epitome of short-term thinking. Human history has never experienced a resource decline of the type that we're on the verge of. When we think of our ingenuity, it almost always comes down to clever ways to utilize these cheap and abundant energy sources. Responding to looming energy shortages with abstract ideas like "Idealism" sounds like wishful thinking to me.
Sorry INTP. I obviously did a very bad job of explaining myself. :o Of course I am well aware of the peak oil theories and the role of petroleum in recent history. And I'm really not a blind optimist. I just think that giving up is not a viable option. If you disagree, fine. If you can point out any usefulness to burying our heads in the sand and waiting passively for the end to come, I'd like to know about it. Personally, I think it's better to confront the problems and do whatever we can to solve them.

You say, "Human history has enjoyed increasing sources of energy," and "Human history has never experienced a resource decline of the type that we're on the verge of." The first statement is true only of the last 100 years of history, and only in a small percentage of the world--mainly, Europe, eastern Asia and North America. The second statement isn't true at all. Human history has faced resource shortages many times. Deforestation is the prime example. In the 18th century Europe finally ran out of wood, the primary resource for fuel an building. The search for new wood was one thing that led to worldwide exploration and colonization by European powers. The exploitation of coal was the ultimate solution that made the Industrial Revolution possible.

"Idealism" is not an abstract idea. Human history has proved time after time that societies can make drastic changes to adapt to crisis situations. Not every socity has been able to do this--Easter Island and the Roman Empire are two widely cited examples of a failure to adapt to changing demands. But many societies have adapted. Any time a society is faced with a problem, the first step toward solving it is to make a realistic appraisal of the available options. To prematurely decide that there are no options is unwarranted and counterproductive.

There can be other reasons for having many children (besides religious zealoting). If there's no pension scheme to speak of, a big family can provide that and give you food and shelter when you cannot pull your own weight anymore. And if child mortality rate is high, people will have to try and compensate by having more babies. So you need working health care and some form of social security to make small families a rational choice.

--J
I agree. The trick is in providing more resources (health care, pensions, education for girls, etc.)to the poor countries--while decreasing the use of coal and oil. Such a paradox!

Living car free is not the answer, or more to the point, it's not where we should start. We have the British governemnt who will shortly introduce new taxes (Green Tax) to 'assist' us in cutting pollution. Pretty much everyone I know see this as yet another tax for the beaurocratic 'elite'. You think all that money will go into 'Green Research'? We'll be blinded by statistics.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the Green Tax shift (assuming its a shift and not extra taxes). In Sweden when they started adding a tiny tax to plastic bags it had an immediate large impact. If people have to pay the true cost of suburbanization, or driving, or packaging waste, or any other resource-squandering activity, they curtail it. What's the problem with that?


The way forward is to change our entire lifestyle, and I dont mean us as individuals, I'm talking about everyone including businesses. Lets start with the big oil companies who sponsor Bush (for example). Bush is an 'oil man' right? You think he *wants* to cut pollution? Give me a break.

I read a few days ago how lorries full of potatos are travelling 200 miles (in the UK) to get them washed, then travelling back (with the washed potatoes). It's stupid.

If the potato company had to pay extra taxes because of this practise, they'd figure out a cheaper and less wasteful way to do it. Your statement that "the way forward is to change our entire lifestyle" sounds good, but it needs more than common sense to make it happen...it needs incentive, and a green tax is one way of capitalizing on people's self-interest, to make them change their lifestyle.

Sorry INTP. I obviously did a very bad job of explaining myself. :o Of course I am well aware of the peak oil theories and the role of petroleum in recent history. And I'm really not a blind optimist. I just think that giving up is not a viable option. If you disagree, fine. If you can point out any usefulness to burying our heads in the sand and waiting passively for the end to come, I'd like to know about it. Personally, I think it's better to confront the problems and do whatever we can to solve them.

You say, "Human history has enjoyed increasing sources of energy," and "Human history has never experienced a resource decline of the type that we're on the verge of." The first statement is true only of the last 100 years of history, and only in a small percentage of the world--mainly, Europe, eastern Asia and North America. The second statement isn't true at all. Human history has faced resource shortages many times. Deforestation is the prime example. In the 18th century Europe finally ran out of wood, the primary resource for fuel an building. The search for new wood was one thing that led to worldwide exploration and colonization by European powers. The exploitation of coal was the ultimate solution that made the Industrial Revolution possible.

"Idealism" is not an abstract idea. Human history has proved time after time that societies can make drastic changes to adapt to crisis situations. Not every socity has been able to do this--Easter Island and the Roman Empire are two widely cited examples of a failure to adapt to changing demands. But many societies have adapted. Any time a society is faced with a problem, the first step toward solving it is to make a realistic appraisal of the available options. To prematurely decide that there are no options is unwarranted and counterproductive. Thanks for the reply, Roody. It seems I could have been more clear as well. ;)

Regarding the first point, I don't know how I managed to make the impression that I'm advocating giving up. That's really not my point at all. What I was trying to get at is that
1) it's a huge problem that requires significant changes, and
2) there's far too little being done about it.
I'm thinking along the lines of the Hirsch report that says that if we worked really hard for 20 years before peak, we might be able to mitigate a crash. That clearly isn't happening.

Regarding the historical points, I'll try to avoid a nitpicking, which I don't think you're trying to get at either. There has been a general trend of increasing energy under human control. Hunter-gatherers used modest amounts of energy. Agriculture increased the amount of energy (sunlight) consumed by humans, as did herding of animals. When we began to ramp up fossil fuel usage, this obviously increased dramatically. Maybe this point is diluted by being too general, but I was thinking in terms of global population as correlating to global energy usage. The correlation on the way up points to a problem on the way down.

I'll change one word of the second sentence that you commented on, which I think is closer to what I meant. "Human history has never experienced a resource decline of the scale and impact that we're on the verge of." Deforestation was indeed a problem, but I don't think that the use of wood was nearly so pervasive as is our current use of fossil fuels. I don't want our past successes to blind us into being unprepared for what I think is a much bigger problem. If you still disagree with the statement, then we must have a radically different view of how big a deal peak oil/NG are.

Regarding "Idealism", I don't know what we're talking about any more. I don't really understand why you made the statement, "To prematurely decide that there are no options is unwarranted and counterproductive." I definitely think there are options. I did state that I think that "business-as-usual" was unlikely, and that the best efforts of a small minority would likely be insufficient. The current course of action is probably not an option, but that is not the same thing as saying there are no options.

This statement, "Any time a society is faced with a problem, the first step toward solving it is to make a realistic appraisal of the available options," makes me think we're really not that far apart. But what I've been trying to say all along is closer to: "Any time a society is faced with a problem, the first step toward solving it is to honestly acknowledge the problem, then to make a realistic appraisal of the available options." If these two steps were occurring, I'd be much more optimistic.


Let's acknowledge the problem.
Let's appraise the options.
Let's get to work doing something about it.

INTP-- I think there might be another unspoken source for our disagreement. I believe global warming is the critical problem facing humanity. I think (please correct me) that you see peak oil as the critical problem. The two problems are somewhat interrelated but there are fundamental differences. Market forces may fund--and human ingenuity may find--solutions to peak oil. But a more drastic change in thinking and lifestyle may be required to solve the global warming problem, since market forces will always work against finding a solution. Maybe that's why I favor radical individual changes, while you favor institutional and political changes. (Of course I think we agree that both types of change are necessary, even if we prioritize differently.)

I believe global warming is the critical problem facing humanity. I think (please correct me) that you [INTP] see peak oil as the critical problem. The two problems are somewhat interrelated but there are fundamental differences. Market forces may fund--and human ingenuity may find--solutions to peak oil. But a more drastic change in thinking and lifestyle may be required to solve the global warming problem,

Roody, I wish you were correct about peak oil, but unfortunately the specific market force most likely to solve the peak oil problem is that the market won't have enough food, and the human race will experience die back.

INTP-- I think there might be another unspoken source for our disagreement. I believe global warming is the critical problem facing humanity. I think (please correct me) that you see peak oil as the critical problem. The two problems are somewhat interrelated but there are fundamental differences. Market forces may fund--and human ingenuity may find--solutions to peak oil. But a more drastic change in thinking and lifestyle may be required to solve the global warming problem, since market forces will always work against finding a solution. Maybe that's why I favor radical individual changes, while you favor institutional and political changes. (Of course I think we agree that both types of change are necessary, even if we prioritize differently.)
I almost brought this up in my last post, but had already started wondering whether you were really addressing me, or whether you were addressing some concept that you had in your mind about what I was posting. I'm glad you posted this, because I think I have a better idea of why I was getting this impression from you. I don't mean to be harsh, but this post repeats a pattern of you reading things into my posts and asking me to justify or refute them. I know we all have our filters (me included), but it is getting kind of tiresome to have to keep responding to things I haven't stated.

In my posts so far in this thread, I was thinking of the larger points of the article in the OP, which I saw as primarily addressing population and carrying capacity. The article did not address fully the fossil fuels that are supporting the current population, and understated what I believe to be the case, which is that we have already exceeded the (sustainable) carrying capacity of the planet. I didn't bring up my ideas about climate change, not because I don't think it's important or I don't think it will affect carrying capacity, but because I thought energy availability is an important starting point regarding our assumptions of carrying capacity.

So, the presumption that I think Peak Oil is 'the' critical problem is not the case. Both PO and Climate Change are huge and growing problems. Neither of them means we can ignore the other.

Also, just because I advocate an open discussion of the issue, does not mean I've conclude a collective solution is necessary. I still assert that the noblest of changes by a tiny minority will probably be insufficient (do you agree?), but that is not the same thing as stating that solutions must be institutional or political. (If anything, I would probably say that we should dissolve some the institutional and political situations that exacerbate the problems.)

I believe global warming is the critical problem facing humanity. I think (please correct me) that you see peak oil as the critical problem. The two problems are somewhat interrelated but there are fundamental differences. Market forces may fund--and human ingenuity may find--solutions to peak oil. But a more drastic change in thinking and lifestyle may be required to solve the global warming problem, since market forces will always work against finding a solution. Maybe that's why I favor radical individual changes, while you favor institutional and political changes. (Of course I think we agree that both types of change are necessary, even if we prioritize differently.)

Simply put, if we don't solve peak oil (whether institutionally or individually multiplied across the entire population) the world will starve and civilization as we know it will die. without a reasonably high density energy source in large supply: you can kiss semiconductors, composite materials and even cheap steel goodbye.

If we don't solve global warming, the planet will continue to warm, but there's a lot of if's unsolved as to how much its going to warm and just what that'll mean. we don't know too much about how well life on the planet will adapt and to what temperature it will have to adapt. we might lose half the available land mass, we might all drown, we might turn the planet into Venus (although I doubt that. unless we spark some unbelievably catalytic effect, we just can't put enough matter into the atmosphere to cause that...particularly violent volcanoes can do that in far greater excess than civilization, and every time we get one of those the effects look more like nuclear winter than Venus.) unfortunately, what will happen in global warming is a highly speculative matter.

Its evident that global warming carries the potentially greater risk, but it also carries a much greater uncertainty. Its fairly certain however that only so much can be done with a low availablility of energy.
If we fail to keep up enough momentum with our energy sources, we won't have to worry about global warming because there won't be any energy around to fuel the industries and activities that cause the warming. I'm therefore prone to giving priority to solving the energy problem.

Behavioral changes by a tiny minority will not have noticeable direct effects on problems as large as global climate change or fossil fuel depletion.

However, they may still be significant if the minority behavioral changes are:

(1) experimental in nature,

(2) bellwether indications of future trends, or

(3) catalytic.

Although car-free transportation is important, I think another major change needs to occur - more sustainable housing. I recently visited a "zero-energy" home. The building techniques are amazing, but very few builders are using them, and many don't even know about them.

In my view, change is driven by threee main factors: individual, economic and political forces. This is my take on how peak oil and global warming will be affected by these forces, given increasing population.

Peak oil: As oil gets scarcer, it will get more expensive. Individuals and corporations will use less. Alternatives will become commercially viable and will be used more. Economic forces will be the strongest force to mitigate the peak oil crisis. Individual and political change will be secondary, although conservation now would help soften the blow of oil depletion. Rising populations will hasten, but not fundamentally change these processes. There will be a period of economic chaos, but eventual recovery and readjustment.

Global warming: Market (economic) forces will always feed into this problem, or make it worse, because it will always be cheaper to dump carbon into the air than not to. The only solutions are individual (bicycles and sustainable housing, for example) and political (effective carbon taxes, for example). Increasing population can only make these processes worse, as well as hasten them. The climate will deteriorate for many years, there will be no readjustment or recovery for centuries to come.

Peak oil:[/I] As oil gets scarcer, it will get more expensive. Individuals and corporations will use less. Alternatives will become commercially viable and will be used more. Economic forces will be the strongest force to mitigate the peak oil crisis. Individual and political change will be secondary, although conservation now would help soften the blow of oil depletion. Rising populations will hasten, but not fundamentally change these processes. There will be a period of economic chaos, but eventual recovery and readjustment.

I think you're underestimating the impact of peak and post-peak oil. Agriculture is far more oil intensive than it was before the "green revolution", back in the 1950s and 1960s, when we feared we couldn't feed more than 3 billion. We can now feed 6 billion because of much higher-yield crops, but these are heavily dependant on petrochemical fertilizers, and on mechanized cultivation, harvesting and distribution. By the time the oil crunch gets intense, there may be 9 billion to feed, but as oil gets "more expensive" (ie. scarcer) agricultural production will start to decline. If the earth could feed 3 billion in the pre-oil age, it will feed fewer than that in the post-oil age because of soil depletion and degradation. High yield crops won't help if the soil can't nourish them. The "recovery and adjustment" you speak so casually of could be as rocky as much of the farmland will be.