DrumBeat: September 10, 2007
Posted by Leanan on September 10, 2007 - 9:03am
Oil Rises to Near Record on Signs OPEC Will Keep Output Quota
Crude oil rose to within 50 cents of a record on speculation rising demand and restricted OPEC production may tighten fourth-quarter supplies...."If there was possibly going to be an increase they would have hinted at it earlier," said Tom Hartmann, commodity broker at Altavest Worldwide Trading Inc. in Mission Viejo, California. Investors are bullish and "it could be this is going to be one of those times they're not going to sell until they get to $80."
Mexican rebel groups takes credit for attacks that cut oil and gas supplies, rattle markets
A shadowy leftist guerrilla group took credit for a string of explosions that ripped apart at least six Mexican oil and gas pipelines Monday, rattling financial markets and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in lost production.The six explosions could be seen miles away, and set off fires that sent flames and black smoke shooting high above the Gulf coast state of Veracruz.
At least a dozen pipelines, most carrying natural gas, were affected, said Jesus Reyes Heroles, the head of Mexico's oil monopoly Petroleos Mexicanos, without providing specifics.
He said there would be hundreds of millions of dollars in lost production and about nine states and the capital, Mexico City, would be affected.
“It is a big blow,” he said. “You can't store natural gas or transport it by truck.”
Battery-like device could power electric cars
Millions of inventions pass quietly through the U.S. patent office each year. Patent No. 7,033,406 did, too, until energy insiders spotted six words in the filing that sounded like a death knell for the internal combustion engine.An Austin-based startup called EEStor promised "technologies for replacement of electrochemical batteries," meaning a motorist could plug in a car for five minutes and drive 500 miles roundtrip between Dallas and Houston without gasoline.
China planning major expansion of oil refineries: report
China is planning a major expansion of its oil refineries to help reduce reliance on imports and keep up with demand, a Chinese newspaper reported over the weekend.Plans call for the country to have 31 refineries by 2015, each with a capacity to process nine million tonnes of crude oil a year (220,000 barrels a day), the Economic Observer reported. At the end of last year, China had only nine facilities with similar capacity.
The National Development and Reform Commission, China's main planning agency, also expects by 2015 to have 30 ethylene factories, each with an annual output of about one million tonnes a year, the report said, citing unnamed officials.
China Petrochemical Corp., or Sinopec Group, is planning about 20 refineries able to process nine million tonnes of crude oil a year, it said. Some would be new but most would involve less costly expansions of existing refineries.
PetroChina, China's biggest oil conglomerate, is expected to build at least 10 refineries of the same size, the report said.
Sinclair refinery plans expansion
The Sinclair refinery here has announced a $1 billion expansion that will ensure Tulsa's role as a major player in the oil industry in the 21st century.
Gazprom talks LNG swaps with locals
RUSSIAN gas giant Gazprom is in talks with leading Australian energy companies about a possible swaps arrangement for international sales of liquefied natural gas.
Trans-Arabia Oil Pipeline project to begin in November
The pipeline infrastructure is being designed to bypass the Straits of Hormuz, through which roughly one-third of the world's oil currently flows. Work on the pipeline is expected to begin in November, and large sections of it will be buried underground. Once complete, the system will include five separate pipelines. In July, the U.S. announced an arms deal with the Gulf Cooperation Council to boost security in the region.
CIBC World Markets Examines Future Of Canadian Oil Sands
For most multinational oil firms, the world is rapidly shrinking, according to Rubin and Buchanan. Increasingly, they are shut out of the backyards of all the state-owned oil patches and then have to bid against those state firms in places still open for investment. Canada remains one of those few places, they said, where governments have been content to take their share of economic rents through royalties and not be concerned about the ownership per se.
Public perception of oil industry colors legislation, tax policy
Public perception of the oil and gas industry has colored and will continue to impact public policy that affects the industry, whether it's regulations, tax policy or access to potential oil and gas sources such as the Roan Plateau in Colorado.
Greens need to grasp the nettle: aren't there just too many people? - Reducing consumption is imperative, but it's pointless to cut out meat and cars while having lots of children
It's not surprising that environmental organisations fight shy of getting into this subject. It embroils them in a host of deeply emotive and difficult debates. Immigration for one. Most of the UK population growth in the next few decades will be attributable to immigration. Should we have a balanced migration policy with a net zero increase? Given how many British-born are emigrating to Australia, the US, Spain and France, it would still allow us to maintain our international responsibilities to provide asylum. But it wouldn't allow us to absorb the same quantities of cheap east European labour that have subsidised our economic growth.
A slew of entrepreneurs are looking well beyond sunlight and wind. Think: tornadoes, algae, giant kites, and lightning.
Corn Ethanol & its Unintended Consequences for California
Growth of the corn ethanol industry in California is fraught with unintended consequences, none of which are beneficial to the economy or the environment of the state. They include impacts on our overcommitted water resources, on our air quality, on the price of food, and on the financial burden to citizens while private investors profit.
9,000% Profit and Other Truths
Let's take back most of that $2.3 trillion thrown away to pals by the Pork Barreling War Criminals in Washington and the trillions robbed from America's workers by the oil companies, and the $5.9 trillion left by the Clinton Administration, blown by the Bushites. Let us form a letter writing, phone calling, personal visiting, push among our citizens and congress to follow FDR's lead to renegotiate all No-Bid Contracts and recapture 80% of all charges made by "Uniquely Qualified Contractor's" No-Bid contractors, Oil Companies, and other contractors, ASAP?
Indonesia: Poor to suffer most in LPG conversion program
When it comes to family matters, Ponirah, Francissca Rohini and Larmi have one thing in common -- they would do anything for the wellbeing of their loved ones.With a kerosene shortage continuing to affect their neighborhoods, the three housewives are forced to walk to the nearest kerosene outlet in Kreo Selatan subdistrict in Tangerang on a daily basis. To beat the crowds, the women wake up extremely early to make sure their children are fed before embarking on the journey.
Los Angeles' accelerating quest to create centers of higher population density - especially downtown, in Hollywood and in Mid-Wilshire - may be on a collision course with California's crusade to slow global warming by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. And the potential trouble comes from an unlikely source - buildings.
Global Warming and the Coastside
In a recent edition of Scientific American (August 2007), some of the IPCC scientists acknowledged that their sea level estimates may have been too low, because they emphasized the expansion of the existing ocean waters (warmer water occupies more space than cooler water), not the additional water supplied by the rapid melting of major glaciers and polar caps. In any event, the rise in sea levels will sooner or later exceed even the highest IPCC estimates, because of what climatologists call “climate inertia,” meaning in our situation that the globe will warm (and seas rise) for approximately 1000 years regardless of whatever countermeasures we take. That is, the tipping point for long-term global warming has been passed.
The chief of the private oil company Russneft is on the run in the wake of an international arrest warrant issued by Russia.
China, Japan agree to talks on disputed gas field
Japan and China have agreed to hold further talks on proposed joint exploration of a disputed natural gas field in the East China Sea, a Japanese official said.
Energy Proposals Go From Tame to Exotic
The challenge of keeping [Long Island]’s lights on and its air-conditioners humming in the years to come has energy experts scrambling to satisfy this power-thirsty land of homes filled with big-screen televisions, computers and video games.Huge energy projects — some strikingly innovative — are competing for approval and billions of dollars, even as a couple of high-profile projects have been scuttled.
Time is running out for blind opposition to nuclear power
We live in a different world now. The nuclear threat to the planet pales into insignificance beside the threat posed by climate change.
Global clean-energy fund launches
A new global fund that invests in the world's top clean-energy companies is to be launched in Canada today by Criterion Investments Ltd., which sees huge opportunity in efforts to "de-carbonize" the environment.
As a UC Davis undergraduate, Starr built his first electric car in 1974 during the era of the OPEC Oil Embargo and gas lines. Frustrated by the fuel shortage, he asked one of the professors about electric cars and was told that electric cars could not go fast enough, far enough and were too expensive. A few months later, Starr built his first electric car with mostly junk and surplus parts. The converted dune buggy went 50 MPH, had a range per charge of 50 miles and cost about $2,500 to make."That car taught me that, just because an expert says it can't be done, doesn't mean it's true."
Renewable Energy Cannot Sustain a Consumer Society
The title says a lot I think. With the focus of most mainstream debate on peak oil and energy being on the supply side- the oil is running low so what are we going to use instead?- Trainer brings a refreshing approach in which he provides a detailed and technically comprehensive analyses of existing renewable energy options- including wind, solar thermal, solar electric, biomass and energy crops, and hydrogen, as well as a look at nuclear and the issue of storing energy- and concludes:“…we could easily have an extremely low per capita rate of energy consumption, and footprint, based on local resources - but only if we undertake vast and radical change in economic, political, geographical and cultural systems.”
Nuclear power or global warming?
What a dilemma: the very technology that is so despised by much of the environmental lobby is increasingly being touted as the planet's great green hope.
Saudi Arabia to Keep October Crude Supplies Flat
Top oil exporter Saudi Arabia has told customers in Asia and Europe it will keep its crude supplies steady for October from September levels, backing expectations that an OPEC meeting on Tuesday will maintain supply curbs.State oil firm Saudi Aramco informed buyers in monthly notices it would continue to supply Asian lifters with around 10% below their full contractual volume, as it has since April, industry sources in Japan and South Korea said on Monday.
OPEC oil ministers say crude plentiful
Iran's acting oil minister said Monday he's convinced there are ample supplies of crude on world markets, joining Kuwait and Libya in signaling that OPEC will maintain its current output targets at this week's meeting.
Gasoline prices rise for first time since July
The average retail price of a gallon of gasoline in the United States cost about 6.5 cents more last week, rising for the first time since early July on the back of higher crude oil prices, an industry analyst said on Sunday.
Oil and Corruption in Iraq Part I: Tribes Sabotage Kirkuk Pipelines
Masked men infiltrate the village of al-Milih, 75 kilometers west of Kirkuk, and approach an oil pipeline that passes nearby. Under cover of darkness, they steal oil from an opening they drilled into the pipeline weeks earlier.Over a period of weeks, this scene is repeated nightly.
Kuwait oil facilities secure and safe: official
Kuwait Petroleum Corporation CEO Saad Al-Shuaib said here Monday that Kuwaiti oil facilities were secure and safe.The remarks were made following recent reports that Kuwaiti oil installations could come under potential attacks.
Natural gas supply from Iran halts due to pipeline damage
The supply of Iranian natural gas to Turkey has suspended as the gas pipeline between the two countries was partially damaged in a blast, an official statement said on Monday.
A 'Total' Shift in the Oil Industry
With the Dow down 250 points and oil pressing its all-time highs, commodity investors may have missed the most important news bit hitting the airwaves Friday. Speaking to the Financial Times, Christophe de Margerie, CEO of the French oil giant TOTAL, said that the price of oil is high and is likely to stay high for the foreseeable future.That may not seem like such a revolutionary statement ... more like a statement of the obvious ... but it's actually critically important.
China’s top oil refineries will cut operation rates by more than three per cent this month from August, amid heavy late-summer plant maintenance that may help refiners to trim losses but that threatens to squeeze fuel supplies. The reduction was the third monthly drop in a row, with run rates now down seven per cent from their record in June, and may force refiners to deepen cuts in fuel exports while raising imports of gasoline after surprise purchases in recent weeks.
Auto show highlights new models and ways to cut consumption
In general, automakers have sought to get more performance out of smaller engines, and are also expected to show a range of hybrid and biofuel vehicles as European firms try to catch up with Toyota, the clear leader in hybrid cars.
Low grain harvest, rising food prices and China’s ethanol plan
I want to stitch together some pieces of information, a set of events unfolding, that that I describe as a double Achilles Heel in ethanol production here in China. It’s a case study in progress of rising food prices and natural disasters influencing bio-fuel production, especially ethanol, and new regulations for gasoline exports.
New climate plan drawn up for G8 meet
A grouping of former heads of state will present a plan to G8 environment ministers meeting here Tuesday aimed at breaking the impasse between rich and poor countries over global warming.
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
A different kind of Power to the People: From Fast Company, a business magazine:
I guess the question would have to be, Who are the people? Robb's article in Fast Company gives us a little glimpse into the dystopic world of Naomi Klein's disaster capitalism complex (subscription required).
I've been reading:
Derrick Jenson's book of conversations "Listening to the Land" (2002)
Also:
"The Weather Makers" by Tim Flannery (2005).
The conversations between DJ and people like william Catton, Jr. are inspiring but sobering at the same time.
The Weathermakers is especially sobering, even though Tim Flannery has worked to make the book very readable and has aimed his work at educating and motivating people to take specific action atmany levels.
Flannery mentions the possibility of a humourously-but accurately-named totalitarian "Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control" and "carbon dictatorship."
He suggests that the upheavals to come may very well break down civilization so that an Orwellian nightmare government takes control -- at least for a time.
It to me like that is very much the direction things are taking. More than one ambitious elite is vying for control.
The possibility that we will all become educated and motivated to make positive change is small, but still there. We do not have much time -- if any -- to make needed changes in the way we relate to our planet and to one another. The task of educating and engaging folks in the dialogue is huge.
I'm working on not being overwhelmed by the odds.
beggar,
regarding.."The possibility that we will all become educated and motivated to make positive change is small, but still there."
The possibility that a critical mass, much less all of us will make the changes necessary,,presupposing it is not already too late is Zero.
Prepare yourself and your family. Reduce your dependence on the US$, fossil fuels and the endless growth paradigm.
Regards,
Gunga
I suspect that most of us feel the same way. We try not to be emotionally overwhelmed, and feeling powerless, we take the attitude of being cynically amused at humankind, sitting back and watching the show.
We never talk about the one thing that is needed - dramatic population reduction. It is too unsettling and uncomfortable to confront. And until we do, all other efforts at making "small changes" is just that - inconsequential in the long run.
Francois.
It is interesting that Tim Flannery imagines this scenario when imagining a future "Earth Commission for Thermostatic Control."
"Inevitably, one day some commissioner will suggest that their work would be more effectively done were they to concentrate on the root cause of the issue -- the total number of people on the planet....."
This issue is the one that would, in Flannery's scenario,transform the commission into a global totalitarian government.
My guess is that we are already nearer to this than most people are aware. The policy of allowing maximum die-off from catatrophes is a start at reducing population. The policy of concentrating wealth and power into the hands of ever fewer people is also an attempt to squeeze out the "useless eaters" than drain resources. Finally, the policy of endless Resource War (however disguised) is the current form of the policy of "Kill Off" or genocide.
Remember the Indian Wars? The Europeans found over 12 million Native Americans here and eventually herded the remaining couple of hundred thousand onto reservations to wither away there.
Now the "Indian Wars" have gone global. Soldiers often refer to Iraq as "Injun Country." Over one million Iraqis have died as a result of the Invasion/Occupation, and millions more have fled to overburden neighboring countries with refugees. Recent Indian Wars have been carried on in Central and South America more covertly -- for the most part. Now the battle is being taken more overttly to the continent of Africa as well. This involves a process of destroying infrastructure in such a way as to thin population quickly as well as to sieze resources.
We continue the work of "Manifest Destiny" and continue to interpret "The White Man's Burden" in a violent way. We have to destroy the planet in order to save it.
Maybe we need a new name for global warfare: GIW, or "Global Indian War."
I propose dieoff from the top down, by extreme prejudice. More buck for the bang.
Bad Super. No casino for you. :-)
Many may believe more kids means more chances to win the lottery- they cannot recognize that more kids means losing more in the lottery
1 million iphones sold, rah, rah!
It is absolutely true that without population reduction all else is in vain. But this must be accompanied by other changes which will not be inconsequential in the long run so long as the population problem IS addressed along with these changes. Both issues, population and all else need wide international cooperation in order to protect and foster the needed changes at local levels.
Ironically, Cheney/Bush may be key players in bringing this about. This may be the last empire. The unity achieved in defeating it might be turned to creating a framework in which reality can be addressed on an global scale. The
coming 20-50 years promise to be perhaps the most interesting in the history of the species. Survival of the species in anything approaching a civilized condition depends on our acting as a species with a collective will and brain (meaning all the little brains and wills that make it up are able to argue and think freely).
To laugh at the folly of the species -- which is us --is fine, otherwise we go nuts. But as one gets older and there's less and less of one's own future to care about, what's left is to care about if not the future of the species? There's no hope for my grandchildren if there's no hope for the species.
The key isn't the population per se, but what humans that DO exist are creating that is more useful than what they consume. We know that the current answer is a negative relationship: we just consume stuff and don't think about what our species should be contributing overall.
If we took all the 'overpopulated' humans and put them on a grass diet and let them roam the plains like bison used to, they could contribute to the fertility of the soil. In the pragmatic sense, that is how we have to apply our technology: through a Net Creative paradigm, rather than a Net Consumptive one.
Most of the 'overpopulation' of the world doesn't consume all that much in resources. It is the 'civilized' world that is raping the planet while complaining about lack of purpose and the 'meanness' of their competitive way of living.
Cooperation, Creativity, Community. That is what the future will be, whether we choose it as a large group or as a smaller, surviving one.
I agree with almost all of what you say -- BUT population itself does matter. The earth has a finite carrying capacity, even though we might not yet know exactly what it is There are strong indications that it has exceeded what it will be once one no longer has hydrocarbons for energy, chemicals, fertilizer and all else. There is some maximum sustainable population and sooner or later we'll have to find out what it is. Population control and reduction can be done by US via education, restraining reproduction, taking care of the elderly OR it can be done by NATURE via war and famine and pestilence.
The agricultural revolution, starting 10,000 years ago, occurred on a planet with thick forests and rich soils, although the stock of big mammals had already been considerably depleted by the hunter-gathering revolution of the preceding 50,000-100,000 (maybe more) years. At the end of the industrial age we will not be able to simply revert to one of the prior eras: the condition of the earth is no longer the same. Our involvement with the earth is going to have to be far more intimate and is going to involve carefully controlling our numbers and imprint as well, since we too are part of nature, not some alien force that can simply exploit it with abandon.
Your comments are reminiscent of Neil Stephensen's "Snowcrash" set in a post-apocalyptic world following a vast hyper-inflationary melt-down in which virtually all state functions become privatized--a good read.
Awesome read. Especially if you get the audio book version and listen to it.
Americans should be required at birth to have "Poor Impulse Control" tattooed on their foreheads, forward and reversed, so they can read it in the mirror every morning.
"Movies, Microcode, and Pizza Delivery"- America's future Economy. The only thing wrong with Stephenson's prediction is that the first two are already moving to India.
Stephensen's best book, by far----
The others seemed to stay in the shallow end of the pool, but were somewhat entertaining.
Snowcrash is in a class by itself (although not up to the standards of Gibson's Neuromancer)
The cyberpunk and near future genera has been a interesting phase, but it is drawing to a close, as the visions turn into reality.
Where's the love for Bruce Sterling? Go read Distraction - a political thriller set in dystopian, post collapse Louisiana. Its as tight as Brazil in terms of predictive power, at least from my perspective.
Export Land Model (ELM) Versus the Indonesia Case History
Yesterday, I posted the year over year changes in Indonesian net exports. I have added the ELM year over year changes.
Indonesia was very smilier to my ELM, since Indonesian consumption was about 50% of production, at peak production.
From peak production to the final year of net exports, the ELM shows a decline rate of 28% per year, although the year over year decline rate accelerates with time.
The decline rate in Indonesian net exports from 1996 to 2003 was about 30% per year, but as the ELM suggested, the decline rate in net exports accelerated with time, although they did show a one year increase from 1997 to 1998, because of a slight increase in production and a decline in consumption.
The ELM assumes a 5% decline rate in production and a 2.5% rate of increase in consumption.
From 1996 to 2003, Indonesia showed a 4% decline rate in production and a 4.1% rate of increase in consumption. From 1999 to 2005, Indonesia showed increasing consumption. I believe that their consumption declined in 2006.
The year over year changes in net exports were as follows ELM/Indonesia:
1996: Peak Production
1997: -13%/-16%
1998: -14%/+7%
1999: -17%/-16%
2000: -19%/-20%
2001: -23%/-32%
2002: -30%/-50%
2003: -39%/-73%
2004: -65%/Net Importer
2005: Net Importer/Net Importer
This is what my simplistic ELM suggested, to-wit, that the decline rate in net exports will accelerate with time.
IMO, the problem that exporters will have, in trying to curtail domestic consumption, is that cash flows from export sales will, at least initially, be increasing even as exports decline--because of rising oil prices.
Export Land Model:
http://static.flickr.com/97/240076673_494160e1a0_o.png
Hi WT,
Did you ever run this for the USA?
We have been a net importer since about 1949. If the US were the sole source of crude oil for the world, net exports would have ceased about 21 years before world crude oil production peaked.
I did some rough calculations on when we would have become a net importer, if our reserves and production were 100% higher than what we actually have. I think that we would have become a net importer around 1996.
Ahh...figured it looked different...but that is the worst case Net export scenario.
From the point of view of importing countries, the decline rate for world oil production is almost irrelevant.
As my hypothetical example showed (the US as sole source of crude oil), world net oil exports have been at zero--versus 21 years of rising world oil production.
Arkansawyer
Manic Calm. That's where we are.
"Rumsfeld said the Department of Defense and the U.S. military are not responsible for any failures there (Iraq) or in Afghanistan."
Mexican pipelines bombed. Never to be seen on MSM, BTW.
WTF? And "Terrorism" will NEVER be the word used if the
bombing is reported by MSM.
Washington, Sep 9 (Prensa Latina) The US government is somehow involved in the attacks on the September 11, 2001, El Diario-La Prensa daily reads in an editorial, based on suspicions by thousands of US nationals.
According to Zogby polling firm, 51 percent of US nationals believe Bush and his Vice President Richard Cheney orchestrated a self-aggression to justify militarism in the last years.
Again. You will NEVER see this on your TV.
Finally. Regarding China's grain. I read that China
had a good crop. That Argentina and Spain had good crops of wheat.
An article above disputes that. And Argentina will have a diesel shortage (see Shell Refinery) to get it out.
Australia could be in a permanent Dry. Maybe 18 million tons will be produced. Avg at 24-26.
Like oil. no one in authority has any reason to downplay
grain production.
Wheat at $8.61.
Hello WT,
How do you feel about the effects of taxes/rationing as it applies to the consumption side of your ELM?
I think that it will be extremely difficult for exporting countries to curtail domestic consumption, e.g., the ongoing problems in Nigeria and past and probably future problems in Iran--especially if the cash flow from export sales is increasing, even as the volume of net exports declines.
WT: Can one really assume, though, that the last few exporters will behave in the same way that exporters did when there are lots of other exporters out there?
It is one thing to become a net importer when you know that there are plenty of imports still out there. It is quite another thing to become a net importer when there is nothing to import.
As the number of net exporters decline to the final half dozen or so (and we are not far from that now), the financial rewards for oil exports should increase exponentially. This will certainly provide incentives for the remaining exporters to cut back and conserve their reserves for as long as possible. But this means they will also have incentives to try and limit domestic consumption, too.
We may already be seeing something along these lines with Iran.
But we have also seen riots in Iran, because of rationing, and I think that there may be some problems with consumers using up all of their quota, long before they get another quota.
I've put it this way. How would Americans respond if ExxonMobil asked them to cutback on their gasoline consumption, and recommended rationing, so that ExxonMobil could export more gasoline from US refineries to consumers overseas? I have visions of angry SUV owners rioting at gas stations--sort of like the Iranian pictures we have seen.
In any case, I expect that the cash flow from export sales in a lot of countries to increase faster than net export volumes are declining, presenting quite a dilemma for exporting countries.
From the EB:
A few pieces on MEMRI.
Selective Memri
The ‘wiped off the map’ miss-translation came from the same place.
MEMRI Loss
But this is not a very accurate comparison. Supplying subsidized oil to the Iranian people is a cost to the Iranian government. This reduces their ability to provide those resources to people in a way that is more valuable to them and better targeted to those that need them.
If Iran said to its people that next year, they will lose $200 worth of oil subsidies, but gain $300 in cash, how would Iranians respond? Or what if the funds went to health care? Or other basic needs more important than the marginal liter of oil?
As total oil exports decline, the value of exports to each country increases as does the cost of subsidizing domestic use. It seems obvious that at some point the pressure to shift to product export becomes overwhelming.
I don't argue with the basic premise of the Export Land Model or its utility, however, extrapolating
it into eternity is just not realistic.
I didn't even notice that the article you pasted in provides the perfect evidence of my point. People are trading in their rationing cards because they don't want the cheap oil, the want the market value of that oil to spend on what they do want.
Sure there would be some brief disruption if oil subsizies were removed and the resources transferred to the people in ways they value more highly. But there would be a net improvement for the people of Iran.
The reason taxis always seem to be the ones protesting is because cheap oil subsidizes a taxi industry that is much larger than the market would support. This is an inefficiency that hurts the Iranian economy. So, a small portion of the population that is hurt by losing their benefits protests, but the rest gain.
Another great post - the ELM should be the biggest story in the USA and one of the biggest in the world.
However my comment is a tangent - I've heard that here in Hawaii we get our oil from Indonesia; if they're now a net importer, I wonder for how long they will be exporting here? Just curious if anyone on the list knows.
And don't get me started on the boneheadedness of importing oil to a state with huge untapped geothermal resources which is also ideal for wind, solar, ocean-thermal, waves, and about every other alternate energy source, in addition to not actually needing to heat or cool buildings....
I actually expect them to ultimately switch to coal here, since the trade winds blow all smoke offshore and it will be cheaper. When all a person really needs here is a bit of shade, a hammock, a ukelele and some breadfruit trees....
Hello Greenish,
Good points on the Hawaii situation. In my earlier posting series on the sequential building of biosolar habitats: I outlined why I thought the big island would be precisely the best place to start this essential paradigm shift. But unfortunately, I bet more golf courses and other nonsensical development is in the offing for Kona. It must be driving you and Jay Hanson nuts.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Hey Bob, thanks for the comment.
The big isle is a Very Interesting place to think about, PPO. Some quite smart people see it as one of the best places in the world to be, and some other smart people think it wouldn't be much good at all.
I tend to the former opinion; currently I'm on Oahu for family reasons but own a few cheap lots on the big isle... which are getting cheaper, I actually wish I'd bought gold instead. Still, I may try to arrange to get a little bit of farm acreage over there.
However, I'd say that Puna is better than Kona side; more water, land is cheaper. I reckon the Kona golf courses will turn back into desert.
The potential for expanded geothermal near
Puna is impressive... but if you can believe it, the local "environmentalists" oppose it for "spiritual and aesthetic" reasons.... literally not wishing to insult the volcano goddess Pele, as well as some Nimbys who dislike the thought of the possible release of minor amounts of volcanic gases... from the world's largest active volcano. So a majority of the electricity is generated with oil from Indonesia.
Say goodnight, Gracie.
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007%5C09%5C11%5Cstory_11-...
Saudi Arabia keeps Oct crude supply steady
>>>The International Energy Agency, which represents industrialised consumer nations, forecasts their crude oil stocks will fall to the bottom of the five-year average range by January, unless OPEC pumps more crude oil, and fast.<<<
What may be odd about this is that stocks are falling instead of prices rising to compensate for lower supply.
The economy cannot handle high oil prices. So we see the so called free market twisting and squirming to keep them small. This is not such a challenge since there are only an handful of big players that drive the herd. But fixing the price shows up as a shortage of supply for the same level of demand as they should well know. Oil stocks are not going to save the day.
Greens need to grasp the nettle: aren't there just too many people?
It depends on who you ask. It looks like the various Teams are more worried about roster shortages than population overshoot.
Pope Satan the First says Europe needs higher birth rates...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2007/03/24/pope-chides-europe-over-l_n_441...
Iran's Freak/Creep President needs more Terrorist 4-Allah
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/10/23/AR200610...
Vlad The HomoErotic Impaler Says Russia's low birthrate is "number 1 problem" and that Russia needs to PAY their people to produce babies.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/19/world/main1635851.shtml
The World's "Leaderz" are circling their wagons and looking for cannon fodder to plant around the the periphery of their little patches of turf.
The Chinese OTOH have reduced birth rates and are concerned about the demographic effects of a shrinking population and just how fast they want it to shrink.
Some thought is being given to raising the average age of the parents to balance an increase in the births/woman to higher, but still below replacement rate, fertility. Given the gender imbalance of todays children & teenagers, a rise in the children/woman to 1.65 or so coupled with an 8% increase in the average age of the parents seems quite reasonable to me.
Add that pollution (all types but mainly air) and high rates of smoking will likely (IMHO) reduce average life expectancy and increase the death rate.
Can the Chinese pull off a slow decline in population w/o widespread famine ?
Perhaps,
Alan
There are more Chinese than Europeans, Russians and Iranians put together.
Have to weigh in with my opinion on the population issue. Don’t be offended, it is just an opinion. The fact that population growth is considered a primary issue by many people is an example of the human mind grasping at concepts the mind can understand no matter how irrelevant. World population is already leveling off and population decline is a much larger issue in the developed world. More importantly, for example, China is not growing by population but is increasing consumption of all types of 10% a year. Economic growth is the problem not population and in my experience children are close to a universal humanizer. Even having children doesn’t drive most to think in the long term – imagine how short-term and selfish people would become with no responsibility to the future. My opinion – keep having those kids.
Daniel
But why is it an issue? Because the pyramid scheme requires infinite growth.
Incorrect. China's one-child policy has slowed their population growth rate, but not eliminated growth.
Exactly. Having kids doesn't make people consider the future.
IME, those who don't have kids are the ones who ARE thinking about the future.
If not for peak oil, I would not be too concerned about overpopulation. As you say, trends such as urbanization and industrialization tend to reduce birth rates naturally.
However, I think these trends will unwind in the post-carbon age. The things that encouraged people to have lots of kids in the past - high death rates, a farming lifestyle, lack of affordable birth control, lack of a government "safety net" - will be on the upswing, and so will birth rates.
You say "not...too concerned", so I assume that you would have some level of concern, but not a high level of concern.
You also say "if not for peak oil".
So, if there were no peak oil, you would not be concerned about overpopulation, even when considering climate change or impacts to the environment?
Would urbanization and industrialization automatically reduce birth rates to a sustainable level? To an "appropriate" level? I don't think they would. I'm interested to know what you think.
In my opinion, peak oil, climate change, and environmental degradation were all preceded by overpopulation (i.e. if the population were smaller, peak oil would not have happened right now, CO2 would be lower, and the environment would be less impacted).
I would be less concerned. The news on population has actually pretty good recently.
Let me put it this way. If it weren't for peak oil, I would think that there are more important things to worry about - to put resources and energy into - than population.
With peak oil, population is really the only problem.
How about, oil and human population are two sides of the same coin?
Every graph shows the production of both expanding
at exactly the same time.
I think this is the point on which we disagree.
A 1.3% annual growth rate means adding the population of the U.S every 4-5 years, with 95% of that population in the developing world. The developing world will be drowned by the sheer numbers involved. The misery will be dimly stupefying, and, so, distantly ignored.
But the trend is good. Even in developing countries, population growth is slowing. I think allowing that trend to play out would be the least objectionable way to deal with the problem of overpopulation.
My worry is that peak oil will reverse that trend.
I agree that it would be least objectionable. It certainly helps that it would absolve one of the difficulty of making a choice.
For myself, I have no desire to enforce population control, since, firstly, I do not believe it would be possible to enforce such things globally; secondly, I do not believe that the human race is capable of making a choice in the matter; and, thirdly, I do not believe that the human race is aware enough to sense oncoming change - the human race only sees change in the rear-view mirror.
>>My worry is that peak oil will reverse that trend.<<
If Peak Oil (& Gas) leads to peak fertilizer, & also Malthusian limits are reached, it could lead to an arrest in population growth.
Meat eaters are doing their share to see that Malthusian limits are reached at a lower Peak Population :-) - (assuming of course that populations grow to their Malthusian limits - an assumption that is not borne out by numbers in Japan, Russia and Western Europe)
"In my opinion, peak oil, climate change, and environmental degradation were all preceded by overpopulation (i.e. if the population were smaller, peak oil would not have happened right now, CO2 would be lower, and the environment would be less impacted)."
In my opinion, peak oil, climate change, and environmental degradation were all preceded by industrialization.
Take out 2 billion people from the bottom of the heap and see what happens to oil consumption and climate change.
Actually, taking out the bottom 2 billion won't have much impact - and by this, I mean almost no impact. But take out the 5% of the world population living in the good old USA, and you manage to reduce a number of pressing problems very measurably.
But as we have all heard and been conditioned to believe, the problems of population are due to the teeming masses of poor. The problems of population are actually caused by the well off, not the poor. A point both the Chinese and Indians are not shy about pointing out when justifying their own growth - if the tiny minority living in the West was able to enjoy several centuries of the Industrial Revolution, why should China and India have any obligation to act differently?
Population is a very tricky issue - carrying capacity is certainly a valid concept, that industrial lifestyles (especially that typical in America) need to change dramatically seems pretty hard to dispute, and so on.
On the other hand, do keep in mind the company you will be keeping when discussing how we 'need' to reduce population for the broader good.
I think taking out the bottom third might make a big difference...because the top of the pyramid is supported by the bottom.
It would be like Europe after the Black Death, where the ill-prepared lords and ladies found themselves trying to work the fields themselves after the peasants died off.
Well, the Black Death is an interesting point in terms of social effects, but in terms of oil consumption or climate change impact, the bottom 1/3 are close to meaningless in my opinion.
And honestly, if half of Africa's population died off, I don't think it would have much impact economically to the rest of the world. And the same would be true if half of the population in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh would somehow disappear. China would be a more interesting case, no question.
And yes, I am already skating on the edge of what makes these discussions so dangerous - see how easy it is to consider hundreds of millions human beings as superfluous? And we have all been conditioned to accept such concepts with minimal qualms.
Strange as it may sound, some of the religious opposition to a deep misunderstanding of Darwin's insights are well supported - 'social Darwinism' is at least as evil in practice as any consumer lifestyle.
Two billion people is two or three times the population of Africa. And I do think we'd notice if even half the population of Africa died off. We'd miss their production. Iron, copper, coffee, gold, chocolate, platinum, cotton, machinery, timber...and of course, petroleum.
The examples were just examples, not an attempt to reach a concrete number. As for African production of many goods - leaving aside the completely valid point about social disruption causing unforeseen results over generations - I seriously doubt that even a fifth of Africa's population is directly or indirectly involved in economic activity which benefits the industrial West.
Admittedly, just a guess, but there is no way I can imagine a number over 50% - look at Nigeria, in terms of population and oil production - I can't imagine even 100,00 people in Lagos make any contribution to the oil industry, out of a population of 8 or so million. And if even 5% of Nigeria's (much less Angola's) population is even remotely involved in oil production (as compared to living from that oil wealth), I would be very surprised.
There is no doubt that the industrial West continues to drain Africa of resources, it is just that I don't think that Africans play a critical role in much of it, apart from the not trivial aspect of agriculture.
I disagree. A lot of the work there is dirty, dangerous, and/or tedious, and is done by locals. Mining, factory work, etc. Moreover, they can spend their days putting together parts or digging in a mine because they are supported by the food grown by others.
To my understanding, and excepting South Africa (a very big exception, admittedly), Africa is a source of raw materials - that is, though the miners doing the actual labor are from the area/region/nation, everything else is external - from machinery in the mine to the entire transportation network, to how the power is generated (often hydroelectric - minimal local involvement), to the weapons that seem often as important as picks or shovels in the hands of miners in open pits. Africans may have excellent breweries, but they don't to seem to possess anything resembling an electronics industry, even at a rudimentary level as in Vietnam.
I don't think this is merely accidental, by the way - a less than trivial part of the French budget goes to ensuring 'security' in Africa. The French oil industry is certainly as amoral as any other country's, for example.
I think you are underestimating both the sheer quantity of poor people over there as well as the depth of their poverty. There are riots in Nigeria precisely because the locals don't have enough stakes in the oil projects down there. There are only so many unskilled workers the petroleum industry can accommodate. As for the rest, they either live on subsistence farming, subsistence fishing or they join one of the rebel groups and try to get their share by force. But the fraction of them working as unskilled labor either directly or indirectly supporting the petroleum industry is very small, and can be replaced fairly quickly. I think expat is right, even a reduction of the population by 50% would not matter very much for us in the West, as cynical as it may sound.
That nontrivial aspect is what I mentioned earlier. Global food supplies are falling right now, and kicking prices up. As prices rise, I see corporate ag entering Africa and South America in a big way. The savanahs, what's left in south America, is too tempting. The capitol for development will not be lacking as in present local production. We will probably see increased acreage allotments in North America as set aside programs in US and Canada expire. Whether that will support expanding population to the beloved figure of 9 billion is problematic on climate change.
The aspect neglected with food and peak oil and population is spoilage. Those roving blackouts are going to decimate consumable food production, and alter our own consumption habits. How much of your purchases come from the frozen food section, or require refrigerated storage at harvest or warehouse. Remember the Sierra Nevada snow trains to NYC carrying lettuce? How much of the grocery store's produce section ends up in the dumpster already? Large home or market gardeners I'm sure know no matter how hard they try, a big part ends up fed to livestock or in the compost pile. It's just about impossible, even with the ease of fossil fuel transport, preparation and electric refrigeration to properly store all food to consumption. It isn't just edta in food or rat poison for vermin that keeps our food fresh.
Grains will be affected just as produce and perishable foods and meat. Decline in infrastructure results in vermin infested warehouses and elevators. Early Soviet Russia is said to have lost half of their crop to vermin. Proper humidity levels keep grain from sprouting, but the new emphasis may be just keeping the roof from leaking. Elevator explosions will become much more common. Just last August, a local, poorly maintained elevator, burst into flames and burned to ground.
I was involved in a project to build out Freezer capacity for export - the poultry industry loses 10-15% per week according to our customer figures, due to lack of refrigerator space. Of course it's a month-to-month industry and the customers won't commit to long term contracts so it becomes impossible to finance out the $100m+ spend... long story.
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
New Orleans has large poultry freezers already. there are some unique gov't programs to assist business here. And the Port Authority is generally willing to invest.
Could I be of help ?
eMail on my link.
Alan
Actually it was both in competition to NO for major exporters wishing to move business away from NO, and as additional capacity as there just isn't enough capacity on the gulf coast. And you just cannot bond out the freezer part of it. We had no problem raising funds - just not for freezer space.
We switched plans to build out a container terminal - and then the deal went south due to internal squabbling - which is kinda stupid when you have $300million in investment lined up and customers ready to pay if you just build the damn thing! It was when I learned a bit about how business is done in Texas and why the economy of the state is so dysfunctional. It was amateur hour all around. But I may be looking at other projects up and down the gulf - need to talk to the bankers I was working with who now have access to a bunch of cash for shipping projects with no project! So perhaps we can catch up at the upcoming Peak Oil event here in Houston if you are going.
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
*IF* you want to expand capacity in New Orleans, either privately owned freezer space or Port owned, or additional container capacity, I might be able to shake a few trees.
The Port of New Orleans is a fairly decently run organization.
A bit hard nosed at times, but not amateurs !
And hungry ATM.
New Orleans will benefit from the expanded Panama Canal (2014/15) and a switch to railroads (we have 6 Class I RRs here).
Best Hopes for the Port of New Orleans,
Alan
And, of course, coltan. Got to read TOD somehow ...
re Darwin: Huxley's 1888 "survival of the fittest" was/is used to justify domination of others. This was a macabre twist and misinterpretation of anything Darwin claimed about his observations on evolution.
From Peter Kropotkin ca, 1899"
"It is known to what conclusions Darwin s formula, the "struggle for existence," had been developed by his followers generally, even the most intelligent of them, such as Huxley. There is no infamy in civilized society, or in the relations of the whites towards the so-called lower races, or of the strong towards the weak, which would not have found its excuse in this formula.
[Also]...Huxley published in 1888 his atrocious article, "The Struggle for Existence; a Program," I decided to put in a readable form my objections to his way of understanding the struggle for life, among animals as well as among men, the materials for which I had been accumulating for two years. I spoke of it to my friends. However, I found that the interpretration of "struggle for life", in the sense of a war-cry of "Woe to the Weak", raised to the height of a commandment of nature revealed by science, was so deeply rooted in this country [England]that it had become almost a matter of religion.
The other supporter was the regretted H. W. Bates, whom Darwin, in his "Autobiography," described as one of the most intelligent men he ever met. He was secretary of the Geographical Society, and I knew him; so I spoke to him of my intention. He was delighted with it. "Yes, most assuredly write it," he said. "That is true Darwinism. It is a shame to think of what they have made of Darwin's ideas. Write it, and when you have published it, I will write you a letter of commendation which you may publish."
But let's be real here - those that push the religious opposition to Darwin are people that push social Darwinism in all its forms from a political point of view - it's the heart of the coalition built to prop up the GOP after all.
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
I'm reading Browne's biography of Darwin. I'm learning that there were many different ideas about origin of species being bandied about in 1850s and '60s. Most of the contemporary commentary on them made a perfect hash of them all, and applied Darwin's name to the hash. The biography is a good read.
Social Darwinism is mostly ideas that expand on the work of Malthus, but there was also a lot of thought about Malthus that was really strongly socialist.
In the present time, we have a problem that many people incline toward the belief that there are too many people for there to be a well-ordered society, and do not, in the least, have any idea how thoroughly this idea has been discussed, and how little consensus has been achieved - even on the most trivial points.
Of course whatever happens w.r.t. human population, the ants will endure, as will the E. coli, and mosquitos. (No, I won't give any citation for these facts.)
I must admit, it would be worth dying if I could watch that spectacle first. It would be George H. W. Bush and the grocery scanner on a cosmic scale.
"I think taking out the bottom third might make a big difference...because the top of the pyramid is supported by the bottom."
Disagree. It is not those living in extreme poverty ( <$1/day ) who's life or death will alter the trajectory of peak oil or climate change. Further lose of life by these people will be the consequence of the panic and death-grip response to reduced resources by the OECD nations. Hell it's going on now.
A little population control at the top of the heap would go along way as has been suggested. And probably do much good for those at the bottom.
But that was not my argument.
People in extreme poverty are not those sweating to get us our copper and coffee. That's who I'm talking about. Two billion people, people in extreme poverty.
I think you're wrong on that. Many agricultural workers are little more than slaves.
And even if you are right...who is supporting those who are sweating, so they don't have to grow their own food?
Mostly us of course, the OECD nations. And the US of Walmart. Yep, we'd be a lot worse off without the valuable crap made by people forced in "slave" labor. I still claim these are not the billion human being bottom, however poor and wretched their lives.
My thoughts (and point) exactly. Thanks for expressing it.
The monkey on our back in all of this is climate change. With the huge unknowns there, it's difficult to make projections.
Without GW but a slow post peak downturn, I see the calls for 9 billion absurd. We might do it, but at the expense of Africa and its savanahs, and whatever is left of South America. I doubt world ag yields will remain quite so high.
Having excess children is of itself a selfish act.
I'm perennially disagreeing with this notion. The things that encouraged high birthrates in the past were things like open frontiers, vast resource availability and, in more recent times, throwing off the yoke of colonial masters leading to perceived brighter futures.
The earths future for humanity is likely to be bleak, leading to still lower birthrates. Look at examples like Russia and for that matter any crowded country where birthrates are falling. I don't know of any example where a country has gone from relative well-being and dropping birthrate to impoverishment and rising birthrate. Examples???
Also, as for China, their fertility rate was dropping like a rock when 'one child' was implemented and likely would have been below 2.0 by now with or without that draconian law.
"Also, as for China, their fertility rate was dropping like a rock when 'one child' was implemented and likely would have been below 2.0 by now with or without that draconian law."
Dropping like a rock? Where do you get that? It seems that the 'one child' law was responsible for a drop in fertility, though there is some confusion as to just how much.
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/data/pop/pop_21_m.htm
China's One Child law was enacted in 1979. It looks to me like the Total Fertility Rate was dropping 'like a rock' at that point and began easing off in the 1980s probably largely because it didn't have much farther it could go. Since TFR is a leading indicator of population growth, there is still a while to go before their population actually starts dropping.
Birth rates were high in Europe before the frontiers opened up. The difference was that they were at their Malthusian limit, and so population growth rate wasn't high, even though the birth rate was.
Russia is not an example of the post-peak world. At least, not most of it. It is quite industrialized, and its people have reasonable access to health care and other government services.
How many countries are there that have gone from well-being and dropping birthrates to impoverishment? The party's still going on. Even for countries that have suffered a big drop in standard of living due to war or whatever, it was temporary. Has there ever been a country that took urbanization backwards - went from an industrial economy to an agrarian one?
This doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that people were dying off faster than they were being born? Have you a reference on this?
I generally don't accept the basic premise of the so-called Benign Demographic Transition theory. The notion that people will start having more babies as they become impoverished makes absolutely no sense and I think counter examples are abundant.
"Hi honey, I'm home. I got laid off on my job today, the car got repossessed and the bank is foreclosing on our mortgage. Gee, what'ya say let's have another baby to celebrate our impoverishment." Not!
Why is that so shocking? The infant mortality rate was high, and abandoning or killing unwanted babies was a common method of population control back then. There were also high death rates from famine, war, and disease. Many women died in childbirth. The Great Famine and the Black Death were basically Malthusian crises.
That's not how it works. Rather, it's the reverse of the factors that have led to a slowing of the population growth rate. Impoverishment means no medical care, and no birth control. Are people therefore going to give up sex? Not bloody likely. And if there are no jobs in the city and the only way to get food is to go back to the farm, well, on the farm, you need kids to help out. In a small apartment in the city, children are a burden, especially if there are laws saying they have to attend school rather than work. And gee, no pension, no social security. Who's going to take care of you in your old age? Your kids, of course. But with the high death rates, you need to have lots of kids to make sure some survive to your old age. Etc.
My reading of history, actually supported by your example, is that people will use whatever means of population control they have, including abortion and infanticide. I don't buy the 'back to the farm' argument at all since, especially in developed countries, there will be few farms to go back to. Farms that were industrial mega-farms will practically be deserts because of erosion, drought and plain neglect. Even those who manage to find a square of land to garden are going to be working at a level high on the misery index and I don't think they (we) will be procreating at a higher level. I also suspect that historical examples are going to be for naught in a vastly overcrowded future, making these types of debates ultimately moot.
I think we probably agree that there will be a huge rise in the human misery index. I just don't see a positive correlation developing between the misery index and the birth rate. It is an irony right now that it is difficult to find correlative data showing dropping birthrates and rising misery index (or visa-versa) simply because birthrates are dropping everywhere regardless of other religious, political, economic or social factors. To postulate that a rise in the misery index across the board and not just on currently selected miserable nations, is going to cause a rise in birthrates IMO needs a lot more supporting data than you have given it.
I'm sure they will. But I don't think it will be enough. It wasn't in the past, as the Great Famine and numerous dieoffs in China and other places attest.
Now, if you are arguing that population won't increase because of dieoff, that's a different argument.
I think that will change. We need food, and we'll need farm labor, because petroleum-powered machinery and petroleum derived chemicals will be fading away. And there will be a lot of people out of work, and not much money for welfare or food aid. "Poor farms" are the obvious answer.
I am not connecting it to the misery index. I'm connecting it to the things like the sheer unavailability of birth control.
China has a lower fertility rate than before, yet the population was growing 6/10% per year. That was adding more people to their population than the U.S. was with a higher fertility rate. Millions of people more each year in China. What will they eat, where will they sleep, how many cars will they need?
"This doesn't make sense to me. Are you saying that people were dying off faster than they were being born?"
It may not make sense to you, but it is easy to prove. People weren't dying faster than they were being born - that would lead to population reduction. But they were dying faster (younger) than today, and they were having more babies.
http://www.answers.com/topic/historical-demography?cat=health
The average European family in the 18th century had around 8 live births. That is a hell of a lot higher than today.
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
Don't high mortality rates accompany the higher birth rates in most developing countries?
This is a good point and one that is often missed in these debates. In a country like Somalia, for example (leaving aside for the moment the question of how one gets reliable statistics from such a country), the TFR is somewhere around 6 but the infant mortality and child mortality rates are likely to be extremely high. The upshot of this is that a woman might have to have 4 children to achieve the 'break even' point of replacement. The 2.1 replacement TFR is a rule of thumb for developed countries and isn't going to apply in a lot of third-world countries with extreme demographic conditions.
You seem to be making a point (which I agrre with) that is contrary to what you are saying your post above:
"The things that encouraged high birthrates in the past were things like open frontiers, vast resource availability and, in more recent times, throwing off the yoke of colonial masters leading to perceived brighter futures."
Are the people of Somalia experiencing these things?
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
Fertility rates are relative, as are birthrates. Somalia's TFR and birthrate are falling, not rising. If Somalia had open frontiers and vast resource availability one would expect their birthrates and fertility rates to be rising. My point was not contradictory at all.
The point being discussed above was about whether or not poverty tended to encourage higher birth rates.
You said: "The notion that people will start having more babies as they become impoverished makes absolutely no sense and I think counter examples are abundant."
Unless you cherry pick one or two examples, you'll find that people who live in poverty tend to have more children than those who are wealthy. Your post about Somalians is a case in point. It doesn't matter that their current birth rates are falling - so are many developed nations birth rates, plus Somalia has just been through a period of upheavel. It is a relative matter.
"You can never solve a problem on the level on which it was created."
Albert Einstein
The important thing is not to look at the static state of a bunch of nations for comparative purposes.
If you look at a given reference group the fertility rates tend to track the economics and other less tangible indicators of well-being such as the removal of oppressive dictators or colonial masters. If people are optimistic about the future, they tend to have larger families and vica-versa.
Looking at the state of various nations in a static way without reference to a time line is, in my opinion, rather meaningless for the purpose of trying to pin down the sometimes elusive factors that go into how families decide how many offspring to have, and yes, families do make these decisions. Humans do not breed in a totally mindless way.
A couple of cases in point: The Cuban birthrate took an uptick upon the deposing of dictator Batista. The Egyptian birthrate took an uptick when Nassar threw out the British. Points not necessarily related to physical resource availability for the people involved, but nevertheless important events for the perceptions of a more optimistic future.
The USA in the 19th century has a high birthrate relative to todays. There was a vast frontier that was perceived (correctly in my opinion) as vast wealth for the taking. Regardless of the fact that many families were poor, they had great expectations for the future. In recent decades, economic opportunity has dried up, income growth is static or negative for most Americans and the birthrate is low. I could go on and on with examples, but I'm going to bed soon.
"Unless you cherry pick one or two examples, you'll find that people who live in poverty tend to have more children than those who are wealthy."
No need to cherry pick. Out of the more than 200 nations listed in the CIA world factbook, a small handful of 6 or 7 of insignificant populations are the only ones which are not either dropping in total fertility and birthrate or already at a TFR of 2 or lower. Now you explain to me why the trend worldwide across all religious, ethnic, political, economic and social boundaries is to have fewer and fewer babies.
The cherry picking is yours in that you are looking only at static data and not at trends.
Please check China's population growth here
China's population is currently around 1,300 million.
Just after the communists got control, in 1950, it was only 552 million (only 30% greater than 100 years earlier). It is true that it has not increased as fast as India's but it still is very considerable.
China's population growth under communism came from two major factors.
Longer lives (less famine & warfare, more food, public health and basic medical care) and they promoted children for a while (Great Leap Forward especially). One Child Policy started in 1979 (1980 births).
Alan
The new population control policies were actually introduced in 1971, and had already been successful by 1979. It was the fastest decline in fertility in history.
I don't think he tried very hard. There's organizations such as Zero Population Growth that have been active on this part of the problem for decades. Here's Negative Population Growth's site:
http://www.npg.org/
It's been obvious that the environmental problems can not be solved as long as population continues to increase. There's the hope that increased wealth in general will lead to fewer children per family and this appears to be happening in the developed nations. However, looking closer, I think the data shows that many couples have opted for only one child or can't have children, while others still try to procreate with abandon. If 2 couples have only 1 child, and 1 couple has 4 children, the net effect is a growing population.
I think Jay Hanson is right about an impending die back.
A nation such as Mexico, where the society frowns on birth control, might become an example, as the illegal immigrants from the U.S. are herded back across the border and civil unrest spreads. Needless to say, a die back won't be pretty. It's a truly tragic situation, as we have the scientific means to limit population with minimal pain and suffering.
http://dieoff.org/page119.htm
E. Swanson
I think they're right, though, in that mainstream environmental groups won't touch population with a 10-ft. pole. There's not much we can do about world population, but controlling the population of countries like the US and UK would be fairly easy. Growth in developed nations is largely driven by immigration, so controlling immigration would control population. At least in the US, there's even a lot of mainstream support for the idea. But only the rightwingers like the BNP are willing to discuss it.
The population/immigration issue tore the Sierra Club in two in the late nineties. Check the evolution of their stance at: http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/conservation/population.asp. Bring up the issue of immigration and you are labeled racist; the issue of family planning (especially here behind the Zion Curtain) and you are intolerant. Mother Nature bats last and her methods are not pretty. The longer people ignore the population problem, the uglier it will be. As you point out, Leanan, Peak Oil means the die off comes sooner.
Mexico's total fertility rate is only slightly higher than that of the US and only slightly higher than replacement. The big difference lies in the proportion of child-bearing age women.
This leads to interesting questions. If a typical Mexican family has 2 children are they any less politically correct than the typical American family with 2 kids, only because the Mexican family has more neighbors than the American family who are also all having 2 kids?
Demographics is not nearly as simple as many make it out to be.
Mexico's total fertility rate is only slightly higher than that of the US and only slightly higher than replacement
Not quite:
Mexico Fertility rate: 2.39 children born/woman (2007 est.)
Mexico Population growth rate: 1.153% (2007 est.)
US Fertility rate: 2.09 children born/woman (2007 est.)
US Population growth rate: 0.894% (2007 est.)
Source: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html (& mx.html)
.30 may not seem like much difference on a YoY basis, but as we all know thanks to Mr. Malthus, population increases geometrically. .30 makes a big difference in doubling time. Also important to note that US net population growth rate would be flat-to-negative today, and Mexico's much higher if not for... immigration (mostly from Mexico).
The point I'm making is that if you throw a dart at a population bell curve of Mexican families and a dart at one of US families the chances are extremely high that both darts will hit families of 2 children. I'm not denying the population growth rate issues, it just bothers me when people take the attitude of 'those Mexicans, breeding like crazy...' when the typical family size in Mexico is not that much different from the typical family size in the US.
If you herd 20+ million illegals back there will be a significant number of upper and upper middle class people that need to spend time taking care of everyday jobs that absolutely need to be taken care of so there will be much less time for driving around in circles and idle consumption. Repatriating illegals is a force multiplier for environmentalism.
Never mind that it is time to stop the rich getting subsidized with taxpayer money spent on services for the illegals.
Recent events in Mexico show that the wheels may come off at any time, the situation needs to be promptly preempted in order to stay in front of the 8 ball.
It's not only population the Greens have failed to address, but the standard Business As Usual growth. A radical green agenda is the only agenda that makes sense; not going to happen - at least not until Shiva visits.
cfm in Gray, ME
Not responding to anyone in particular, it's just that I keep seeing this population and die-off meme continually reappearing. So my apologies for this little rant.
Too many of the wrong kind of population possibly, rather than too much population. When this "population is to blame" thing rises its ugly Eugenics head then at least it should be done with a little rationality. It is the population which is using the most resources per capita that are the wrong kind of population. So whom exactly should be "reduced" in the "we'd better have a die-off then" solution to the problem?
Well there is 300 million useless consumers who consume 25% of the world's oil for example and the resource guzzling elites/middle classes world wide. Are they the ones who need to die-off to save the planet? Common sense would posit that this is the case. Or is it the other x billion population living in third world countries who in aggregate use the same amount of resources that should die-off? The latter being the one everyone seems to think of whenever the meme resurfaces with its lack of logic that reveals its Eugenic core.
In my opinion it would be preferable to kill-off the resource intensive industries rather than the human populations, but perhaps that's just too simple.
People first, business last.
No one is talking about killing off human populations, and to attribute a "Eugenic core" to discussion of population issues is an absurd strawman, and indeed, offensive.
Good point. These discussions about overpopulation are never rational. People make absurd claims like China's population is no longer growing without looking up the facts. And these eugenics accusations always come up too.
The human brain is designed by millions of years of evolution to put as many copies of itself into the next generation as possible. We can't change that. Obviously without fossil fuel the world's population will decline to pre-industrial levels, and probably a lot lower due to the effects of overshoot.
And yet, some societies have succeeded in doing just that. Jared Diamond writes about them in Collapse. Some societies have been sustainable for thousands of years, and a big part of that is population control. They value zero population growth the way we value freedom, democracy, and the American Way.
It would be quite a stretch for us to adopt that attitude, though. It involves everything from late marriage and the acceptance of abortion and infanticide to the glorification of suicide. One society he describes even expels extra people every year, if they go over the limit.
No, I don't think our chances are good of emulating that model. But it's clearly not impossible, selfish genes or no.
One can't help but think of Totoneila's sig at times like this...
"Are we smarter than yeast?"
Study finds left-wing brain, right-wing brain
Analyzing the data, Sulloway said liberals were 4.9 times as likely as conservatives to show activity in the brain circuits that deal with conflicts, and 2.2 times as likely to score in the top half of the distribution for accuracy.
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/la-sci-politics10sep10,0,5982337.sto...
While liberals I know tend to manipulate abstract concepts better, conservatives I know tend to have a more intuitive grasp of resource scarcity, though they have a hard time articulating this.
That is to say, a liberal would work from the assumption "everyone deserves food" and say so, but a conservative would assume "there isn't enough for everyone" and not say so.
For what it's worth, I don't think either is "better" than the other.
I think you might be confusing "everyone deserves food" with a degree of empathy, and "there isn't enough for everyone" with 'f**k 'em, I've got mine'.
No, that's exactly my point. Liberals I know have lots of empathy, and conservatives I know seem to intuitively grasp that they can't afford empathy for outsiders.
But this sounds ugly, so they don't say so. They use code phrases like "the market efficiently allocates food."
Aha. Point taken.
Lot's of stuff to talk about, re: supporting enormous populations.
"Afford"?
"Outsiders"?
Yes, it gets ugly, very ugly indeed. I'm just trying to defend myself against charges of advocating eugenics... The solution to the "market efficiently allocates food" is not "let's not talk about the uncomfortable topics like population". Because then the market WILL have its way, mercilessly.
No - I think sgage is right and making a different point.
Conservatives by and large think f*ck em i've got mine... most conservatives i know are just as unlikely to believe in Peak Oil - in fact they are more aggressive in fighting with me over the issue.
Trying to squeeze views of Peak Oil into tired cliched and invalid conservative liberal frames won't work. It's beyond that.
Fact is yes - some people empathize with others, some people don't; just like the study that showed conservatives have more nightmares and are more prone to paranoia a year or two back.
Most people don't pick their political label based on well thought out internally consistent political philosophies. They pick a label that seems to fit some set of gut feelings and prejudices they have, then tend to irrationally stick to the label because of the identity politics of the pidgeonhole we've descended into.
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
Conservatives I know do not talk about peak oil, but when I've pressed them hard they admit understanding. They seem to think of it like a bowel movement - an ugly thing, not a topic for conversation.
It's like when you talk about the genocide committed by white Americans against Native Americans, most liberals I know would never identify with the whites, though they enjoy a lifestyle today that was made possible by the genocide. Every social group has its taboos.
When faced with peak oil, conservatives I know tend to slip into code phrases like "radical Islam." The real facts of the matter are of interest to them, but only privately.
I don't particularly like either the liberal or conservative stance. But it's naive to think that conservatives "don't get it." They have an intuitive understanding of unfairness and resource scarcity. It's unfair to taunt them for refusing to talk about poopy.
yeah - i cannot really disagree with you much there
we tend to be forced into talking Conservatives and Liberals when those labels have little meaning nowadays, and certainly in the context of peak oil
and i make the genocide comparison to various things myself - the lack of acceptance of a history built on genocide informs much of the modern multiple-personality-disorder of the US as a nation
--
All these memories will be lost in time
like tears in rain
Agreed. And appropriate sign-off. Will try to remember :)
But in a world where white people have all the money, any discussion of the poor taking the dieoff bullet to save the rest of us sounds an awful lot like eugenics. Maybe some people here discuss that with a little too much relish:
From "All In The Family":
Gloria: It's a clipping from "Ripley's Believe it Or Not!" If the population of China were to line up five abreast and start marching into the ocean, the march would never end... Why would Daddy save something like that?
Mike: Maybe he liked the idea.
"But in a world where white people have all the money, any discussion of the poor taking the dieoff bullet to save the rest of us sounds an awful lot like eugenics."
Except no one is talking about "the poor" taking the "dieoff bullet". There's talk of a long term population decline to hopefully achieve some sort of match with the carrying capacity of the planet. Of course, most everyone just gives up and says "impossible".
"Maybe some people here discuss that with a little too much relish"
I've never heard anyone here do so, and you're being just as ridiculous and offensive as Burgundy up the thread with his "eugenics" comments.
sgage, stop acting naive, you can see exactly where this overpopulation meme is going.
The resource guzzling West is already seeing falling birth rates so that's good. The UN are saying that the world population growth rate is declining, so that's good too. Much of the population growth up to the forecast peak is already baked into the pie, so little can be done about that. So where exactly is the recurring meme of overpopulation and die-off going exactly. Population is the problem I keep seeing, which seems to be calling for a solution and given the above what exactly would that solution be?
Resource usage is the real problem and resource usage is being driven more by capitalism than population. Reducing economies to sustainable levels will solve the problem, but of course that means the wholesale dismantling of the Western ethos and the sacred temple of economics. So given the option of economic evisceration or depopulation, what will the ruling economic system choose?
Of course no one is talking about killing, that's not the way it is done. All the economic system has to do is maintain its own resource usage as resource availability diminishes. But of course those benefiting from resource hoarding while others perish must be acclimatised and shoe-horned into the right mental attitude. Enter the meme; "it's those individuals classified as overpopulation who are to blame and they made their own bed so let them lie in it". The official lie will be that whereas it is a terrible tragedy, overpopulation was to blame and nothing could be done and nothing would be further from the truth.
When people talk about population as the problem, they are getting very close to the line where population reduction becomes the accepted solution. By natural means of course (ie by death).
I'm really not sure what your point is. You are naive if you think this issue can simply be ignored. The Earth has a carrying capacity for humans, given any decent standard of living (well below current Western levels, though). This carrying capacity is nothing like the current 6 billion, much less the projected 9 billion before leveling. So, how do we get down to a sustainable level?
Do we just let nature take its course, or do we try to figure out a way to ramp down in some reasonable way? We don't have unlimited time, and the issue will resolve itself with or without our actions. It's just a question of how it resolves itself.
So, do we talk about it? Do we try to figure out a least-painful way for the inevitable to happen? Or do we just ignore the issue and run into the wall.
I repeat, I really find your attribution of "eugenics" to anyone discussing population to be offensive in the extreme, as well as unhelpful and absurd.
Then you really cannot see where discussions about population and population reduction are going and are therefore blind to its outcome.
There is very little that can be done about limiting population from growing to 9 billion. Hopefully the rate of increase will decline further by itself and with the help of contraception and education. But even so, a certain amount of growth is already in the pipeline and cannot be stopped without portions of the population dying. So what's to be discussed? What's the blindingly obvious solution? What maniacs will make that solution their goal? How will they choose and carry out their proposed solution and why will they believe they have the right to do so?
Resource usage is the problem we can solve humanely if we so choose, population we cannot solve before resource depletion kicks in. So the real solution to discuss is resource usage and as most resources go into propping up a ridiculous nonsensical economic system, that has to be the target.
"Then you really cannot see where discussions about population and population reduction are going and are therefore blind to its outcome."
Were you born this offensive, or did you have to work at it? Seriously, I am not blind to anything. I've been thinking about this stuff for decades. It doesn't "go" anywhere in particular. You seem to have a real bug up your ass about this topic. Can't you envision any other way of approaching the issue besides genocide?
It seems to me you're saying that because some people might take advantage of what is clearly the problem (Earth's carrying capacity) to put forward this or that nefarious plot, therefore we can't talk about THE most important issue facing humanity.
With the best resource usage imaginable, 9 billions are too many. 6 billions are too many. Can we just take it from there, and talk about how we might address this issue? Instead of ignoring it and/or laying down a blanket accusation of eugenics/genocide or some other heinous crime against humanity?
OK! The population is 6+ billion now, it is going to grow beyond this in the next several decades even with universally available contraception and education. Yes, the planet is well over its natural carrying capacity and we are currently on the edge of the mother of all resource availability deficiencies.
So, what is the solution regards population that can be actioned now and avert catastrophe within several decades given the population growth already in the pipeline?
Given that the present mass of humanity is supplied with food as a result of the application of technology and fossil fuels, as the fossil fuels run out, it's almost a given that the present population level would become very difficult to maintain. Eugenics has been associated with forced reductions in populations by genocide and wars. But, would Eugenics be a reasonable approach if non-violent means were employed, on the assumption that the population must be reduced at a rate which is faster than would otherwise occur under present conditions?
Humanity has become the intelligent being that we appear to be as the result of millions of years of evolution. That process is more than "the survival of the fittest", i.e., the strong win over the weak. We've gained brain power because brain power was important for fitting into harsher environments, such as the colder regions of the NH, where one either learned how to stay warm or die. The Neanderthals learned how to do that quite well, yet, the next wave of humans replaced them.
A few years ago, the book "The Bell Curve" made the case that, on average, there is a racial component of intelligence. Others have claimed that humans are very malleable and mental powers can be increased by education. The old Eugenics debate of "Nature vs. Nurture" has raged for decades. One problem is that the way we measure brain power thru testing may be skewed with cultural biases. Children raised by single mothers (many of whom are still teenagers) may not do as well on tests as do those reared in a more supportive environment. Still, just today, we see another study that claims that one segment of the population does less well on standard tests than that achieved by others:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/09/AR200709...
Whether the racial differences described in the article are due to heredity or to culture, the fact remains that there is a measurable difference to be seen. Eugenics would conclude that the difference is entirely racial. That point of view ignores the fact that there are many exceptions to the notion that everyone in one race is superior to all those in another.
I would simply close by pointing out that we need to get past the racial interpretation and go back to the idea of equal opportunity for all, while admitting that there is a genetic component to intelligence and that discrimination based on intelligence may be a necessary goal for humanity. It's important to also stress that equal opportunity does not guarantee equal results. Discrimination is a fact of life and is one reason people who graduate from college are paid more than high school grads.
OK, rant off. Let the flames begin.
E. Swanson
"discrimination based on intelligence may be a necessary goal for humanity"
I'm picturing a group of very intelligent people starving to death because they are unwilling or unable to do the physical labor needed to produce or hunt their food, cut the wood for their heat, etc. Just be sure you really know the characteristics needed for survival before you start selecting - and please start somewhere else.
Or, as Douglas Adams put it:
Ben Elton's "Stark" also had a similar theme - the mega-millionaires escape to their sanctuary (in space), only to find that they thing they hated more than a dying planet was - each other.
AKH
Green organizations are organisms which need to feed and which face their own survival problems. Most rely on public donations, and the public gives to make themselves feel good (or less bad). Thus, groups with downbeat, complex, intangible or difficult messages find themselves starving and disbanding or marginalized to internet ranting, while groups with upbeat, simplistic messages and tangible focus rake in the donations. Thus, for the most part, the average profile of such groups will reflect the delusions of the societies which nourish them, even if those within the groups "privately" feel that the messages are sugar-coated. Thus, only the wealthiest organizations would be free to promote "bummer" messages, but for the most part such organizations pay a high enough wage that their employees are fat, happy, and have McMansions and retirement plans & cornucopian wordview.
Them's the facts.
The few organizations which buck these trends and do the tough stuff should be appreciated all the more; but it will be a small percentage and the attrition rate will be high.
Greenish,
I think you deserve a key-post to expand on this point!
That has been exactly my experience in dealing with the greens. There is no environmental movement; there is only an "environmental infotainment industry".
Ultimately green organizations are subject to the same market pressures as any other services provider.
Oh, no! It's peak helium...
LI balloon vendors short of helium
We even have a Strategic Helium Reserve:
The department store where I work has been out of helium for three weeks. We've been telling disappointed birthday partyers we're having problems with a new supplier.
So let me get this straight.
Our strategic helium reserve is kept in a place called "The Bush Dome" and has been completely privatized?
Is this just accidental irony, or did the good folks over at the Carlyle Group buy the reserve?
Bizzarre combination: helium, defense, strategic reserves, Bush dome, privatized....
Helium is separated out from natural gas. If natural gas supply remains flat or not rising that fast then it is no wonder that helium can't keep up with rising demand either. Just one possible explanation...
And if helium comes out with natural gas, there must have been some process by which two hydrogens fused; but there's nothing to see here.
The helium that we find on Earth is the result of radioactive decay in rocks associated with the natural gas reservoirs over hundreds of millions of years, mostly from uranium and thorium. Those hydrogens fused (all the way up to uranium) in the core of large stars that went supernova over 4.5 billion years ago, which seeded our solar system with our comparatively rich endowment of metals.
You have the nuclear aspect correct, but it actually is a result of radioactive decay -- fission as opposed to fusion. When elements such as Uranium decay they emit alpha particles which are 2 neutrons and 2 protons, the nucleus of a Helium atom.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_decay
Helium does not "come out" of natural gas, it is just present in natural gas. Much like CO2 does not "come out" of the air.
Helium present on Earth is the result of natural decay of radioactive elements (uranium, thorium) over time. Most of it finds its way through the earth crust, goes into the atmosphere and escapes into space (because it is much lighter than air). But some of it ends up in the huge underground cavities that are capturing NG - and these are our sole significant resources of He. Each time we pop a He filled balloon the result of billions years of decay of thousands tons of rocks escapes the Earth. Forever.
He did not say "come out of"; he said "come out with." It's incredibly annoying to see someone nitpicking another person's post after not even reading it carefully. On many forums, twisting people's words is cause for actionable moderation.
wide: you are accusing other people of your own ills. This is extremely annoying.
What Petrosaurs said was:
And if helium comes out with natural gas, there must have been some process by which two hydrogens fused; but there's nothing to see here.
He indeed said "helium comes out with", but then he asserted that there must have been some process to produce Helium from the hydrogen which is in natural gas. For which the correct phrase he had to use was "come out of". His post was self-inconsistent but I did not nitpick on that. You just built a strawman out of me and brought me to the ground. Congratulations.
I don't think Levin is a native speaker of English.
This is a comment on the idea that helium "goes into the atmosphere and escapes into space (because it is much lighter than air)."
This is widely accepted and may in fact be true, but I've never been comfortable with this explanation. Helium is lighter than the other components of earth's atmosphere, so it is natural that it will rise to the top. However, for any matter, including helium, to escape earth's gravity, it must accelerate to 11.186 km/second (about seven miles per second). If helium molecules really move that fast at that altitude, they could indeed escape earth's gravity, but do they?
Consider this: helium makes up 5 parts per million in earth's atmosphere. Helium makes up 12 parts per million in the atmosphere of Venus. The atmosphere of Venus is 93 times more massive than that of earth, so the volume of helium in the atmosphere of Venus is very much greater than its volume in the atmosphere of earth. Yet the gravity of Venus is less than that of earth - about 90% of earth's gravity. If helium is escaping from earth, it should be getting away from Venus even faster, but apparently it is not.
I'm sure there are other factors I'm not considering, but the rate at which helium enters the atmosphere due to radioactive decay is not going to be much greater on Venus than earth, I think.
I'm not sure what happens with He as it migrates up the atmosphere, but it hardly has any practical purpose for us - we can't capture it down here. But predictably it is present in the upper layers of the atmosphere. According to wikipedia:
I suppose parts of He then migrate to the ionosphere and get blown away by the solar wind - the solar radiation is enough to give escape velocities especially at these heights.
Venus atmosphere seems to be an anomaly I don't have a ready explanation for. Maybe its closeness to the sun and weak magnetic field gets it contaminated with alpha-particles from the solar wind? No idea.
No.
Any gas at the top of the atmosphere exhibits random motion at a wide variety of speeds (as it does anywhere). The lighter something is the more frequently its particles exceed escape velocity due to ordinary random motion. This is one of many reasons why hydrogen and helium leak away so quickly...
As to Venus - there are so many complicated factors that could be at variance here it is not a useful analogy: isotope types, radioactivity on the surface, proximity to the Sun...
Out of interest: Is the name NASA guy based on hobby interest or employment? (not being snarky - i always assumed the nick meant you worked at NASA - but that stuff is pretty basic physics... probably not even undergrad level - so just wondering)
Of course being a Physics grad I could just put it down to you being an engineer perhaps ;-P
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
I work for a NASA contractor at JSC in Houston. And yes, I am an engineer who gets in trouble by dabbling in more conventional science.
Perhaps you could address one more question about helium's escape - if it escapes so easily, why is there so much of it in the atmosphere? The rate at which helium is produced by radioactive decay is low enough so that we have thousands of year's worth (I don't know an exact figure but I'm sure someone could calculate it) of helium in the atmosphere. This implies that a typical helium molecule has to hang around, on average, for thousands of years before conditions are just right to allow it to escape. That still doesn't seem right to me. Am I characterizing the situation correctly?
I like engineers - you like to live in the real world which we Physicists like to maintain a healthy distance from. I'll answer your q in a mo - but you'll probably appreciate the old joke that my wife doesn't understand why I cannot get through it without laughing, and which i think well outlines the difference between your bunch and mine:
A gangster assembled an engineer, a chemist, and a physicist. He explained that he was entering a horse in a race the following week and the three assembled guys had the job of assuring that the gangster's horse would win. They were to reconvene the day before the race to tell the gangster how they each propose to ensure a win. When they reconvened the gangster started with the engineer:
Gangster: OK, Mr. engineer, what have you got?
Engineer: Well, I've invented a way to weave metallic threads into the saddle blanket so that they will act as the plates of a battery and provide electrical shock to the horse.
G: That's very good! But let's hear from the chemist.
Chemist: I've synthesized a powerful stimulant that disolves into simple blood sugars after ten minutes and therefore cannot be detected in post-race tests.
G: Excellent, excellent! But I want to hear from the physicist before I decide what to do. Physicist?
Physicist: Well, first, let's consider a spherical horse in simple harmonic motion...
[Okay - so off topic but cannot help myself]
I heard the same joke, but it was a spherical, frictionless horse with negligible mass.
It really is as simple as you suggest - i.e. primarily alpha decay produced Helium. As to escape - there are a few mechanisms - but a slow leak due to a portion reaching escape velocity is a leading cause. And remember a lot of decay happens within rock, so the release of the gas is a slow process...
A good source on Helium, like on most things is wikipedia.
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
Thanks for the response - and the good joke.
Perhaps you could address one more question about helium's escape - if it escapes so easily, why is there so much of it in the atmosphere?
Gasses tend towards homogeneity regardless of density. If you trap Helium in a balloon, it will shoot up into the sky. If, however, you pop that balloon at ground level...all the little atoms of Helium will not shoot up into the sky like the balloon, but disperse moreso than go up. Think about the components of the atmosphere...mostly N2(~79%), O2(~20%), and CO2(<1%), plus a few others(<1%). They're all mixed together despite their differences. So whether you're on the top of Everest or the bottom of the Grand Canyon, you'll be breathing the same percentage mixture of gasses.
Radon in your basement. Some people have problems with Radon gas in their basement. Radon is extremely heavy compared to any of the other gasses in the atmosphere. Given the nice calm atmospheric conditions in your basement, it will want to settle and stay there. However, with a little stirring (open a window) it too will escape and mix. The other gasses are energetic enough that they mix freely.
I don't think it really leaves the Earth. It just stays in the atmosphere.
Actually, since it is so light, it quite randomly enters escape velocity and leaves. From decades old memory of a paper in Science, the half life is in thousands of years before escaping. He3 (byproduct of tritium decay) leaves much quicker.
Alan
This might be the paper of your memories:
Helium on Venus: Implications for Uranium and Thorium
Michael J. Prather, Michael B. McElroy
Science, Vol. 220, No. 4595 (Apr. 22, 1983), pp. 410-411
In any event, escape of He from Earth and Venus is primarily due to ionization above the plasmapause and then being swept away by the solar wind, and not due to thermal processes. The higher concentration in the atmosphere of Venus is due to the lower concentration of He above its plasmapause.
Oh, no! It's peak helium...
You mean we won't be able to talk in squeaky voices anymore...
bummer!
Flaring is to natural gas as laboratory assistants and doctoral students with too much time on their hands are to helium.
;-)
An example of human shortsightedness - one of myriads to be sure - is flaring off nearly all accumulated helium with natural gas. On the off chance that the future COULD hold fusion or other high-tech "energy miracles", it'd probably need helium. There is no way to make it, no realistic way to strain it out of the atmosphere, and despite its being the second-most-common element in the universe, no real option of diving mining ships into the upper atmospheres of gas giants to collect it. Once it's gone, It's pretty well gone.
Peak helium is a non-issue to almost everyone, but it depresses me. Just because we don't need it now, we're fine with destroying the earth's only accumulations of it. I find that abysmally stupid, if only in an obscure way.
The vision of an escaped child's balloon climbing into an empty sky is a powerful image to me, as a child and an observer of "peak humans".
Don't worry. We'll mine the moon.
Humor noted. At least it would be funny if so many people didn't believe it was a workable plan.
As well as being a treehugger, I've been active in the past in pressing space-exploration and off-earth projects. It has been just one more facet of the tragedy for me that humans arguably had a window of opportunity to spread life off earth and blew it.
No freakin' way that stuff will happen now, if it ever could. The receding horizons have long since receded, the horse is out of the barn, the ship has sailed... or not sailed depending on whether it's a homily or metaphor.
As long as I'm ranting, I'll relate this to the 'green groups' thread as well by noting that even though it won't happen, there is HUGE money to be made in taking money from those who don't understand how the world works. A potential donor to a group I worked with decided to invest in a program of huge space-mirrors instead of conservation work.
How will the giant space-mirrors get 'up' there? Gee, they're not too clear on just how that will work. But a shiny fantasy will out-draw real-world stuff every time.
Peak Helium ain't no non-issue to us stirling engine nuts. Stirlings run a lot better on He than on air, because it's a light gas with good transport properties. A 50kW stirling holds several liters of He at maybe 100 atmospheres of pressure. If and when stirlings really take their rightful place in the world (that is, at the focal point of solar concentrators), they could demand a lot of He.
But you might ask, why not H2, which is even lighter and a whole lot cheaper, and we will never run out of it? Answer, the only kind of stirlings that really work are freepiston types (ask NASA), and they are most often coupled to linear alternators. Linear alternators use high power rare earth magnets, and hydrogen just loves to eat them alive. So, Helium.
Besides, H2 goes thru hot steel like a no-see-um thru a screen door.
And so, no huge fields of He-filled stirlings humming away in the deserts to light those billboards advertizing hair blowers. Gee. what to do?
Well, now folks, I just happen to have this little widget here that solves all those problems, but don't look just yet, I ain't got it patented and am 'fraid you gonna steal it.
Peak Helium, I imagine, would also not be a non-issue to computer chip manufacturers, fiber optics, diving rebreathers, Heliarc welders, and pebble bed nuclear reactors.
liquid helium is what cools the titanium niobium wires inside 1 tesla scale electromagnets and superconducting lines.
No liquid helium means no magnetic resonance imaging. It also means no more fusion research. So much for that silver bullet. All squandered for birthday balloons.
Without liquid helium, you can kiss magnetic resonance imaging goodbye. That's just one small thing that disappears.
The Secret Revolution. Mexican Civil War Flares Amid Media Silence.
The latest destruction of oil pipelines in Mexico is merely the latest battle in a class war that has erupted since the stolen national elections last year. Major clashes and widespread oppresion against Mexico's working class and unions has been totally ignored by western media who appear to be engaged in a conspiracy of silence. Even the report on additional pipelines being attacked atributed it to a small(inconsequential) leftist(terrorist) rebels(bad guys). The truth is far different.
http://www.class-struggle.com/
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060918/ross
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2006/apr2006/mexi-a25.shtml
http://cid-yama.livejournal.com/18931.html
Another truth respecting the vigilance with which a free people should guard their liberty, that deserves to be carefully observed, is this--that a real tyranny may prevail in a state, while the forms of a free constitution remain.
Arkansawyer
Thank you, Cyd.
This is THE news story of the day.
Unless Treasuries fall to say 4.18 as the DJIA
drops over 300 pts.
And I can tell you that more and more Wall Streeters are reading here and at Clusterfuck. The way they did with
Venik's IraqWar in April 03.
Here, from Kunstler (I do believe in Conspiracies, BTW, James. ;} In case you read this):
"What the mainstream media is missing now is the prospect of a really swift worsening of the problem as exports from the major oil producing nations fall off at a sharper rate than their production declines. This idea has been articulated best by Dallas geologist Jeffrey Brown over at The Oil Drum.com (and for one particular discussion of it go to this blog at Jeff Vail's Energy Intelligence site)."
Cid: As the persons that own the USA are actively supporting an effective union between Mexico and the USA, Mexican problems will eventually be American problems.
Arkansawyer
This won't happen.
Amalgamation takes energy. The bureaucracy will start
taking more and more from the available energy pool.
Fracture is the word.
I'm curious:
what is Arkansawer?
Marco.
I heard a joke many, many years ago that went:
How did the state of Arkansas come by its name?
After floating around for 40 days and nights Noah looked out from the "Ark and saw" land.
Hahahaha!
Until the circumstances of the American people become difficult and they recognize they have been disenfranchised (ripped off), they will do nothing. Action will not take place until their children go hungry and their self-image is threatened. At that point a fracture will occur between those who still benefit from the system and those who are increasingly abused by the system. By then, the Haliburton Camps will be up and running. The flaw in the thinking of TPTB, is that they do not realize that a class war is driven by individual misery, and thus, organization is not required and probably will not exist to any great extant. It will be millions of independent acts of frustrated individuals driven by anger that will bring the system down. That is how all revolutions come about. It is only after, that organized groups come forward to take credit and grasp the reigns of power.(Kill THEM as they come forward and you might get back to what the Founding Fathers intended.)
Another truth respecting the vigilance with which a free people should guard their liberty, that deserves to be carefully observed, is this--that a real tyranny may prevail in a state, while the forms of a free constitution remain.
This most definitely is the story of the day as far as possible implications.
The question would be whether it was a repeat of the previous event where a high decree of technical knowledge of system key points was suspected by guys like Robb.
Hard to believe some natives have this expertise, perhaps supply disruptions not unlike in Iran are in the cards?
This most definitely is the story of the day as far as possible implications.
The question would be whether it was a repeat of the previous event where a high decree of technical knowledge of system key points was suspected by guys like Robb.
Hard to believe some natives have this expertise, perhaps supply disruptions not unlike in Iran are in the cards?
Buddha statue apparently stolen for scrap metal
There was a column in the local paper a few days ago about a couple trying remodel a commercial space, in order to start a catering business in South Dallas. They have been broken into eight times (all involving thefts of metal), and the they have not even opened yet. The husband has started sleeping with a gun at the kitchen.
One of the thefts was of a 12" piece of copper pipe that resulted in thousands of dollars in water damage.
The negative karmic implications of any theft are, obviously, that one will be a victim of similar behavior in this lifetime, and future reincarnations will be in a lower realm, perhaps as a food animal of some sort. Intent matters, as stealing to feed children that would otherwise go hungry is very different from stealing to feed a drug habit.
or you could intepret karma and rebirth slightly differently - taking time as an illusory concept, that we all live all lives, and that any harmful action we perpretrate on others, eventually we will be literally on the receiving end of the suffering caused... if we create a world with more suffering, then more of our existence through all of our lives will be suffering, if we create a world of less suffering then conversely we will reduce the overall amount of suffering in our lives...
--
When no-one around you understands
start your own revolution
and cut out the middle man
No pictures of the perps, eh?
Kunstler has an unusually good blog this morning. Well worth the read.
Yes, you're right. Related:
Sept. 7 (Bloomberg) -- Regulators are unable to quantify losses from collateralized debt obligations, the fastest growing part of the credit markets, according to France's financial markets watchdog.
``Structured finance products have become considerably more complex and difficult to understand,'' Michel Prada, president of Autorite des Marches Financiers, told delegates at an investor conference in London today. ``Regulators do not have a global view on all the instruments and positions in the market.''
And here:
LA Business Journal suggests sales fell off a cliff: August Home Sales Take a Major Plunge
The expanding mortgage crisis and credit crunch slammed the Los Angeles housing market in August, with home sales plunging 50 percent from the same month last year and 25 percent from July.
Sales of new and existing homes in Los Angeles County slid to 4,107 units in August, just under half the 8,246 units that sold in August 2006 and well below July’s 5,458 units, according to figures compiled for the Business Journal by Melville, N.Y.-based HomeData Corp.
Usually existing home sales increase from July to August, so this is even worse than it sounds.
Posted by CalculatedRisk @ CRBlogspot.
And here at http://www.safehaven.com/article-8360.htm
Even without the incentives of a government bailout luring more people into default, policy makers simply have no idea as to the scope of the problem. Before this home mortgage correction runs its course, nearly every homeowner in the country who had availed themselves of an adjustable rate mortgage or a home equity loan will be in need of a bailout. Even a sizable percentage of those with traditional fixed rate mortgages will find themselves in danger. With millions, or perhaps tens of millions, of home owners on the rocks, there is simply no way the government can structure a bailout without bankrupting the country or destroying the currency.
Bailout or not, the economy will still be in a prolonged and severe recession. Even if Federal aid prevents millions of foreclosures from happening, all of the home equity accumulated during the bubble years will be gone.
Remember when they reformed welfare because wealth redistribution was supposed to be anti-American socialism?
I set out to read the Kunstler piece on this recommendation. I only got thru about one and a half (skimmed the rest).
I believe that Kunstler is a misanthrope -- a detester of humanity. His writing puts me in a bad mood, so I'll take some potshots:
1) "when [people] just make things up, there's no consciousness of right or wrong at work"
People make assumptions rather than looking at data. Kunstler needs to look at some data. And if he has, he would be more convincing if he referenced actual data. Hacks avoid data references.
2) "US manufacturing decamped to low-labor-cost nations"
He implies that US manufacturing output has been decreasing. I guess he means manufacturing employment, which implies that he doesn't like productivity gains. I suppose he will become apoplectic once robots take over all the manufacturing. Hint: google "Chinese manufacturing job losses" or "US manufacturing output".
3) "full supply of Disney action figures"
Toys are bad? If kids are happy with action figures what is wrong with that?
4) "abstruse investment schemes "
If an investor buys something that he doesn't understand then whose fault is that?
5) "Walmart"
WalMart is an extremely efficient vendor. I'm putting words in his mouth, but I'd bet that he favors small stores over big ones -- regardless of the inefficiency that that requires. "Rebuild small towns and small cities" is an apparent recommendation.
6) "failure to make infinite suburbanization the permanent basis for an economy"
There is a great book, "Sprawl", that talks about suburbanization and how people have be decrying it for hundreds (thousands?) of years.
7) General
I cannot seem to get past two or three sentences of Kunstler without thinking that he is desperately trying to identify something that will bring down mankind -- or at least modern finance. Since the stock market rose (from beginning to end) of 6 of the last 11 recessions, I hope that at least the market will continue to frustrate Kunstler dreams of doom.
"Most of the UK population growth in the next few decades will be attributable to immigration. Should we have a balanced migration policy with a net zero increase?"
What matters is world population, not local population. Immigration is always balanced by emigration from some other place.
Immigration into developed countries probably even reduces the worldwide population growth rate somewhat, as by the second generation, immigrants mostly assume the birth rate of their current country and not that of where they came. Since the developed world has lower birthrates overall, there is a net reduction in worldwide births as a result.
I would half agree that those who arrive in the UK may breed less than if they stayed at home, but since those who are still in their country of origin are still breeding hard, there is no world benefit. There have always been countries whose population policy was to export their surplus people to somewhere else and it should not be acceptable to take them in.
The UK is already in for very hard times, and needs to accept some simple economic reality fast:
The emmigration of people from the UK is in no way balanced with immigration
1] Immigration numbers are much higher
2] Unemployed immigrants arrive, they will take a UK job, they will save or send money earned back outside the UK [draining UK money], or if they don't have a job we pay to keep them. As you say they tend to breed more and have higher welfare costs [eg housing, schools etc]
3] UK emmigrants are either young skilled workers moving to desirable countries that have strict immigration limits [losing the UK skills, people who would breed less, require less welfare etc etc] OR retired taking their pensions abroad to spend in other countries, [losing money which would be circulated in the UK if they stayed]
IMO, the right to an index linked UK pension abroad was a disastrous decision. Both 2 and 3 will drain our already bad UK balance sheet and have led to over 10 million extra people in the UK since the 1960s.
Really? By emigrating the population pressure in their home country dimishes, thereby giving the wrong feedback about the birth rate. Meanwhile, they are bringing their high birth rate habits into their new country, adding many new high consumers to the mix. The birth rate of immigrants will dwindle, of course, but that is a matter of generations rather than a single one - all the while adding to the population.
Just walked in and saw the PEMEX bombing article - not going to stick around and comment - headed out to add a few more jerrycans to the collection.
When I get back I'll post a link to my peak oil photo collection - I found two stations with pumps covered by plastic bags on the way from Las Vegas to Iowa this weekend. Can't tell yet if its mechanical or supply issues, but with stuff like this PEMEX event I don't imagine its going to take all that much longer.
I think that the pipelines that were apparently blown up were natural gas lines; however, it would seem that our energy infrastructure represents an inviting target for at least two groups of people:
(1) Those who can no longer afford to buy energy--if they can't have it, why should anyone else have it?
(2) Islamic terrorists--especially with US gasoline supplies measured in terms of Hours of Supply in excess of MOL.
All vulnerabilities of trying to run a system at or near maximum capacity for an extended period. If there were spare capacity, such events would not be as common, simply because they would not be as effective. These are exactly the kind of "above ground factors" that will prevent us from achieving the theoretical production levels people like to talk about.
If PEMEX is getting bombed in Mexico, and Mexican gangs can move marijuana and heroin with impunity, and the wingers want to make these problems we face about illegal immigrants, well ... the seeds of an infrastructure wasting civil war along racial lines would seem to be about to sprout.
Sadness ... more of what we're running out of will be burned in a "cats in a sack" maneuver.
I disagree with the Islamic terror angle - there are specific forms they follow. The attack must be directed at people. There is a rush to claim responsibility. There is some positioning/politics that happens when one bravely faces a much larger opponent.
Those twenty guys who died taking out four airliners could have roamed this country lighting fires in the west and popping natural gas pipelines elsewhere for years before we'd have rounded them all up, but they chose a direct, visible route.
When the structure hits (praise to Bruce Sterling who coined this phrase - go read his books) start we'll find Hispanics lighting the fuse first in response to repression, and then a little while later our own "militia" will find some rationale to join in the fun ...
If you ever read any Tom Clancy books, the opening portion of "Red Storm Rising" comes to mind--A suicide attack by Islamic terrorists on a large Soviet production and refining facility.
Some of the other things that Clancy wrote about in the Nineties--a commercial airliner deliberately flown into the US Capitol Building; a bioweapons attack on the US; a nuclear attack on the US and a merger between Iran and Iraq (following Hussein's assassination).
If memory serves, former CIA agent Robert Baer thinks that an attack on Saudi infrastructure is quite likely.
lol I just happen to be reading Red Storm Rising right now. So what do the Soviets decide to do when they realize over a third of their production will be offline for about 3 years? Break up NATO and invade the Middle East! =O
Good book. Suggest y'all give it a read!
Coming to grips with this is like peeling an onion.
Peak oil? OK ... let me ride my bike to the store and internalize that.
A reset to 1940 living standards? My parents did it and mom is still alive ... I'll ask her about it.
Mortgage disaster? A don't care entry for me - divorce has pretty much done that job already. OK, maybe everyone else instead of only half of those who made the mistake of getting married being in the same boat is different, but I'm just not feeling it.
Dieoff. Die. Off. *gulp*
I've not ready Clancy in a long time but he is hitting the nail on the head. I think Bruce Sterling is another one who gets it right, and some of Octavia Butler's work (Parable of Talents) seems very predictive to me.
http://www.chronogram.com/issue/2006/02/news/index.php
Fascinating 2006 interview with Robert Baer (RB):
Regarding Iraq:
LT: But that's based on a dictatorship. Are you saying that it's impossible for these people to live peacefully?
RB: Yeah. Because you just have to read the Koran. Apostates are not tolerated and the Shia are apostates. They can't join the military in Saudi Arabia, they can't own property in a lot of cases, they're not trusted, they've been removed from the oil industry, they're not considered as humans. These people can't live with each other. . .
. . . LT: Do we just pull out tomorrow? What now?
RB: I think people ought to start telling the truth, I think the president should get up and say, "All right, we're going to be in this for the next 50 years. The people who were supposed to retire at 60 now get to retire at 75." And then watch. And let the American people decide. I just don't think anyone in Washington can tell the truth.
LT: Regarding the Iraqi people, do you think the troops should leave tomorrow?
RB: Probably, and let it happen. Let the divisions occur.
LT: Then what do you think would happen?
RB: There'd be a civil war.
LT: With how many different factions? I have heard that there are 20 different militias or brigades.
RB: It would make Somalia look civilized. . .
Regarding the US:
, , , RB: Well, what they're seeing is that it's hopeless—"We might as well move off to a gated community. I'm going to have a separate truce here. I'm going to get enough money that I can drive around my community with my electric golf cart."
LT: Gated communities. We have private businessmen now who want to have their own space shuttles. It's like they're already thinking about what they can do to protect themselves against the masses that might hurtle themselves at them. Is that part of your thinking?
RB: They don't want to sit in traffic, either. Grab what you can, and send your kids to private schools. They say, "It's very logical, this is the best I can do." They don't want to get involved in politics.
LT: What about solar energy, what about other alternative sources of running the world?
RB: I don't know. The Roman Empire fell. They couldn't deal with problems that were quite apparent to them.
LT: They had a 500-year run, too, huh?
RB: Yeah. We're not going to have 500 years, though.
"The worst damage from Monday's blasts was to two 48-inch (122-cm) diameter natural gas pipelines, but one major 30-inch (76-cm) oil pipeline was also hit."
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSN1030229220070910?pageNumber=1
This action was not done by a bunch of malcontents or islamic terrorists. This was part of the widening civil war taking place in Mexico. See above.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2962#comment-236529
Another truth respecting the vigilance with which a free people should guard their liberty, that deserves to be carefully observed, is this--that a real tyranny may prevail in a state, while the forms of a free constitution remain.
Cool thing about it is that the event made the Fox news web site this morning and even was the second story!
Brittany Bombed at MTV show
Pipelines Bombed in Mexico.
Thank goodness we have our priorities in order.
Opel Series Diesel-Electric Concept
55km range on pure rechargeable battery power.
3 hour recharge
715km range on diesel recharging the battery on the road.
40g CO2
Why don't they stop mucking about and actually produce these to buy? I'd get one.
eBOX is available in California now:
http://www.acpropulsion.com/ebox/specifications.htm
Performance
Range 120 – 150 miles
Acceleration 0-60 mph in 7 secs
Top Speed 95 mph
Charge Rate 30 minutes for 20 to 50 miles
Full Charge 2 hrs (fast), 5 hrs (normal)
Power System
Electric Drive AC induction motor
Power 120 kW peak, 50 kW continuous
Torque 220 newton-meter
Redline 13,000 rpm
Battery Li Ion
Voltage 355V nominal
Capacity 35 kWh
Weight 600 lbs
Charger Onboard, plug in anywhere
Rating 1 to 20 kW
Input 100 to 250 VAC, 50 to 60 hz, 1 to 80A
Interface Standard plugs, vehicle-to-grid (V2G) capable
Love the concept - but $80,000 with batteries that haven't yet shown their durability in such an application?
I guess I'll wait.
P.S. I really do hope it works but I'll need to see it proven.
No problem. That's reasonable. They're going into fleets and that's probably the best way to get the data needed.
If you're in the NJ area, stop by Stockton College in Pomona this Saturday. One of these will be riding around.
I'm in No. California and will probably get a chance to see one at a local event this year, along with other EVs and alternatives. Last year I went to an event with all the UC Davis hybrids and many others. Davis is pioneering much of the tech. They expressed reservations about the lithium batteries they have used so far, although they are continuing to test them, including the most recent "safe" versions, and have hope. Their comments are the main reason for my reservations.
I'm with you. Of course, these won't be Fords. :)
Considering that world lithium reserves are under 10 MT and annual production is under 100 kT/yr, isn't using a hundred kg or so of this very rare stuff being more than a bit wasteful?
If each car needs 100 kg (.1 T) of lithium, then a 10 MT ultimate recovery of lithium will only be enough to build 100 million car batteries, with none left over for other uses such as computers. That's not even two years worth of new car production.
This has been discussed several times in the past. The resource is larger, and the kg/car lower than the numbers you cite. Also the vehicle production number per year you cite is too high. But if you come back with a reference for any of that, I for one would be happy to be shown otherwise.
Vehicle production is total world vehicle production, which is around 60 million per year right now.
As for the mass of lithium, I took the 600 lbs of the battery back and assumed that about 1/3rd of that was lithium. Upon doing some actual research, it's more like 1/6th lithium by mass.
As for the resources, I was talking proved reserves, not resources. The ocean contains a near infinite supply of lithium, but at a very high cost. The crust also has plenty of lithium, but it is extremely rare to find concentrated deposits of it.
Why is EEstor back in the news? That article could have been (and but for the date pretty much was) written a year ago. I'd love to see them succeed, but let's wait until they deliver something remotely verifiable.
[the $5.9 trillion left by the Clinton Administration, blown by the Bushites]
Does anyone know where this ridiculous number comes from? I saw it in Gore's new book talking about how we must have honest politicians and the current administration has trashed honesty in government, then he puts forward this incredibly false number and lost all credibility (or at least the little he had gained from 'An Inconvenient Truth'). But why would anyone repeat it? The claimed number is over $11 trillion off from reality. The national debt was $4.2 trillion when Clinton took office and $5.7 trillion when he left. Bush is a sufficiently terrible president on his own that anti-bushites don't need to resort to falsehoods to dump on him.
Hello TODers,
As usual, Zimbabwe provides another key example of civilizational decline as they continue their Olduvai cliffdive into the Abyss of Overshoot:
http://allafrica.com/stories/200709101244.html
-----------------------------------
Zimbabwe: Dairy Industry Faces Collapse
-----------------------------------
Let's now review my long Zimbabwe posting series to briefly sum-up the situation for these unfortunate souls: we got hyper-inflation, water & sewage spiderweb breakdowns, empty gas-stations, Govt thuggery & corruption, non-functional hospitals & schools, poaching of irreplaceable wildlife, infanticide & malnutrition, brain-drain & other out-migration, burning of massive amounts of firewood without replanting, droughts & crop failures, shutdown of fertilizer mines and other industrial infrastructure, nearly constant blackouts & copper-wiring thefts, empty grocery stores & trampled dead in food stampedes, rampant disease and getting worse, assassination of journalists and political opposition, and so on.
My guess is the Zimbabwe Consulate long ago deleted my helpful email instead of using Peakoil Outreach to positively leverage a paradigm shift by optimal decline. I certainly never got a reply. Such is life.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
I wasn't sure where to insert this into the population thread, so I'll start a new one...
I don't know if this has been mentioned on TOD before, but there is a group called The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement that advocates, well, I'm sure you can figure it out. Note the word voluntary. No force. No eugenics. Just people deciding not to breed anymore and, hopefully, encouraging others to do the same.
Only partly in jest, I call for free vasectomies and tubal ligations for anyone who wants one!
I like 'em, but they're fairly useless near as I can tell. They aren't really an advocacy group per se, it's just a group of folks who either hasn't had kids or has stopped having them, and is now smug. Mind you, I think that it's one of the better reasons to be smug, and I like their art by Nina Paley (hope I'm not remembering the name wrong)... I've ordered a "Thank You For Not Breeding" bumper sticker just to piss people off as a general statement.
I joined their yahoo list but quit it after a week. Once they haven't bred, they seem to have done all that they do. Like salmon milling around upstream talking about not spawning.
Now the TACIT "voluntary human extinction" movement is the one to watch: western industrialized civilization.
Hello TODers,
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9786265
------------------------
Zimbabwe: Fantasy Land
------------------------
Of course, Jim Kunstler, Matthew Simmons, Jay Hanson, James Hansen, and noted others would argue that the 'True Fantasyland' is here in America: pointlessly wishing for the now-extinct Texaco Star.
Recall the commercials with Mr. Berle and the now ironically named Mr Hope: "YOU CAN TRUST YOUR CAR TO THE MAN WHO WEARS THE STAR". Tragically, SHELL's Answer Man is long gone, too.
Quoted from today's ClusterF**k:
------------------------------------
As my friend Peter Golden (blogger at Boardside) puts it so well: "When people lie, they know they are doing something wrong. But when they just make things up, there's no consciousness of right or wrong at work. It seems morally okay to live in a fantasy world -- and this is much more pernicious to the public discourse than lying.
--------------------------------------
When the Average Murkin life expectancy reaches 32 years [like Zimbabwe]: just mentioning Disneyland will be seen as a sick joke that could lead to fistfights or worse; a forbidden and taboo topic to remind people of what once was the premier 'Shining City on the Hill' for another typically glorious 'Morning in America'.
Bob Shaw in Phx,Az Are Humans Smarter than Yeast?
Deleted.
[link to "Oil Rises to Near Record on Signs OPEC Will Keep Output Quota". I didn't realize that Leanan had already posted the link.]
Rocket hits sleeping Israeli soldiers
JERUSALEM - A rocket fired from the Gaza Strip struck a tent filled with sleeping soldiers in a southern Israeli army base, wounding more than 25 of them early Tuesday, Israeli medics and the army said. ...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070911/ap_on_re_mi_ea/israel_rocket_attack;...
I'd wish they finally started stealing some of the modernist scultures around Boston and melted those down, but they would not stop there once they started.