 | Drumbeat: March 21, 2010 | The Oil Drum | Graduate Starting Salaries (in Engineering) and the Underlying Message |  |
| How do we maintain adequate phosphorus and potassium levels for crops? | The Oil Drum: Campfire | The Neighborhood--Can We Get It Back? Is Yardsharing One Way? (and, What Else Will Work?) | |
Politics and Peak Energy
Posted by Gail the Actuary on March 21, 2010 - 10:56am in The Oil Drum: Campfire
Below the fold is a guest post by John Howe, an engineer who invented the solar tractor. In this post, John says, "Our only hope for a drastic course correction is to support grass-roots movements to elect leaders who clearly understand energy and the growing tension between an economic system based on continued growth (especially population) and declining energy."
The questions for tonight's Campfire discussion are
1. Is working through the current political system feasible?
2. What are the most important energy-related issues for politicians to address:
(a) Population growth
(b) New economic system not depending on growth
(c)) Debt jubilee or other approach for handling excessive level of debt worldwide
(d) Greater energy efficiency (for example--CAFE standards, more trains, lower energy appliances, better insulation, etc.)
(e) Increase alternative energy resources
(f) Develop new systems of food production and manufacturing that do not require fossil fuels and use only local resources (perhaps similar to approaches used several hundred years ago)
(g) Increase equity in sharing what energy resources are available
(h) Other
3. What kind of candidate would it take to get elected and pass such an agenda?
4. Does it make sense to support candidates who advocate one (or two) agenda item(s) which might be reasonable if part of a broader program, but don't really understand the issues of declining energy, increasing population, and the connection to the financial system?
Politics and Peak Energy
by John Howe
Economic success, growth, and an affluent (happy) consumer lifestyle directly depend on an abundance of inexpensive energy. Conversely, the quantity and type of energy consumed can have a very adverse effect on the surrounding environment and world ecological balance. It then follows that politics, the subject of governing civilized societies, is also directly dependent on the common denominator of energy, just at a time that we are facing the imminent and terminal decline of our prime energy source, oil, and ultimately all finite fossil fuels.
Yet, the advocates of different positions, for instance, climate change (man made or not), or economic development and stimulus proposals based on continued growth, do not factor in the difficult, if not impossible, transition and immense challenges facing us as we enter the second half and decline of the short, two-hundred year fossil energy age. Without energy to make things happen, nothing grows, moves to a new place, or expands. Bodies wither and die, civilizations contract and collapse.
Yet there are leaders and experts who would lead us to believe otherwise or that “finite” does not mean what it says. Oil supplies about 40% of our total energy and fuels 90% of our transportation. In addition, we’ve come to depend on thousands of petroleum-based products from lubricants to plastics. There may be "plenty left", but it’s getting harder to find and steadily more expensive in terms of input energy and wealth required for extraction from remaining unconventional sources.
At our present rate of world liquid fuel consumption (one billion barrels every twelve days) if we suddenly found another 500 billion barrels of oil (about one-half of world total used so far in the short age of oil) it would only extend our present level of consumption another 17 years before permanent decline. What then? These numbers put any talk of new "giant" 20 billion-barrel fields near Haiti, Cuba, Brazil, and Montana into humble perspective. They would add only another one-third of a year to the world’s total production, not considering the energy, wealth, and time required to get them started.
Regardless of their form of government, the great civilizations of the past like Mesopotamia, Mycenaean Greece, the Roman Empire, and the Chacoan Society in our own desert southwest ultimately rose and fell because of the shifting balance between population, climate, and, most directly, the ability to access sufficient energy in the form of food and fuel. Even slaves, who were the preferred source of work for the privileged before the industrial age, require food-energy input. The need for energy is common for every successful species. Humans are no exception. Yet we have lost sight of the easy life we’ve had since we learned how to enslave millions of years of concentrated ancient sunlight-energy in the form of conveniently-stored, finite, fossil fuels.
In America we are governed by the framework of a democratic republic. We elect our lawmakers and leaders into a system of laws, checks, and balances. We strive for a federalist concept of shared state’s rights and centralized government. This worked admirably well for the last two hundred years as our population was sparse and expanded into a land of seemingly unlimited natural resources. Over the last one hundred years, a second resource bonanza, this time of pre-stored, essentially free energy, gave us no limits to unfettered growth, high-technology lifestyle, surplus food, freedom from drudgery, and magical travel. Capital investment, based on the promise of never-ending growth and return of investment with additional profit, gave us the financial system to “capitalize” on fossil fuels and made (most) everyone happy. A common citizen could live as a king in pre-industrial times.
Just after the dawn of the twenty-first century, the rapidly-expanding fossil energy foundation for this unprecedented prosperity began to level off onto a bumpy plateau. By mid-2005, conventional crude oil, by far the best fuel for modern transportation and easy agriculture, quantitatively peaked in world production at just over 75 million barrels per day. This is an unarguable, historical fact per the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) regardless of political or media obfuscation.
At the same time, the inexorable demand for continued growth, including a growing population, drove the price of oil out-of-reach for an expanding bottom tier of consumers. In the U.S., the increasing cost of energy triggered a monumental recession beginning in the housing and financial systems because both are directly dependent on extrapolated perpetual growth. Americans are presently spending about one billion dollars per day just for gasoline. This does not include fuel oil, diesel, and jet fuel. This constitutes an ever-increasing share of the family budget and leaves less for mortgages or discretionary spending.
Concurrently, an increasing awareness of ecological devastation and climate change began the green movement. It is my opinion that modern industrial civilization will not quickly grind to a halt because of the dirty by-products of the fossil energy age. The far more urgent problem is the imminent decline of the fossil fuels themselves with absolutely no prospect of “green”, clean replacements that are even remotely close, on a quantitative basis, to the energy of fossil fuels. We will soon be forced to drastically curtail our fossil fuel consumption not because of longer-term environmental destruction and global climate change but as a result of depletion and higher costs for extraction.
With that background, we can better understand much of the divisiveness that has totally invaded our two-party political system. Liberty and the pursuit of happiness are fundamental tenets of our original constitution. More recently, when he was president, FDR’s second bill of rights taught four freedoms, from want and fear as well as speech and religion. Now we have a basic conflict which is beginning to come into sharper focus as the age of cheap ubiquitous energy can no longer insure the freedom from want for everyone. How can declining energy supplies provide food and fuel for an ever-increasing population? This dilemma is already apparent in the third world and is steadily creeping into our wealthy industrialized society.
Should individuals have the "liberty" to disproportionally acquire food, fuel, and non-energy assets even if it increases "fear and want" for others? This question will have to be addressed soon. It is becoming physically and mathematically impossible even in the U.S. to feed, keep warm, and transport the present population with total energy supplies at the peak and nearing the point of permanent decline. This concept is difficult to accept, but it is very real for the 80% of the population, who have only 20% of the remaining wealth. Without cheap energy we can no longer all be hyper-consuming Americans. Those who still have the financial means can out-bid those who do not. The wealthy naturally resist policies intended to redistribute this wealth. At the same time the total number of consumers continues to increase, which brings the dilemma into sharper focus.
Presently, the growing, underlying conflict between the freedom of liberty and the freedom from want has covertly infiltrated our politics and underlies the increasing rancor between the right and left. True long-term growth, jobs, prosperity, leisure pursuits, and all things dependent on plentiful energy can no longer continue for everyone. There may be temporary relief because of improved energy-use efficiency, new extraction technology, or the fallacy of borrowing wealth from the future. But true economic growth, other than inflation, can not be sustained without the underlying foundation of plentiful, inexpensive fossil fuels, which in the past got us to our present utopia.
The conservative right espouses growth through decreased taxation on business and investment. The liberal left strives to redistribute waning wealth from a declining few to the steadily-increasing masses who are closer to missing the basic necessities. Both sides advocate increased exploration, efficiency of use, and technical progress. Neither side will admit to the geo-physical limitations of the short fossil energy age. The result is a clash between a system dependent on continued growth conflicting with a growing consumer base, social services, and entitlements. Neither side can provide the "freedom from want" to the majority.
Our democratic system swings back and forth in each voting cycle from the incumbent party, which has not provided miracles, to the opposition which promises better. Two-term presidents like Reagan, Clinton, and George W. Bush were lucky to take charge when oil was plentiful and cheap compared with Carter who was unpopular after one term as he dealt with peaking U.S. oil and world oil price turmoil. Obama seems to be suffering the same growing discontent as Carter since he inherited the time zone in history for maximum world oil production regardless if the oil comes from friendly or unfriendly sources.
This brings us to the question of which party or basic system of government can best handle the realities of a contracting energy age. Is a democracy of the people, for the people, and by the people still viable or will anarchy rule? In a free election will an individual vote for personal gain and even survival, or will he/she opt for the common good of the populace? On a microbasis will a caring human (or any species for that matter) go hungry and starve if necessary to feed as many as possible of his neighbors, if only for just a few more days after which they might all starve together? This is the dilemma we will face. Inadequate awareness and massive action ASAP will diminish our chances of avoiding the same fate of previous crashed civilizations which did not respect the critical role of finite energy resources.
Our only hope for a drastic course correction is to support grass-roots movements to elect leaders who clearly understand energy and the growing tension between an economic system based on continued growth (especially population) and declining energy. There still may be hope for the perpetuation of a modern lifestyle, but only if we admit to the seriousness of our terminal illness and not be lulled by bogus panaceas. We are clearly at a tipping point. In the last eighty years (one lifetime) we have consumed approximately one-half of the world’s original oil, the easy-to-mine high energy coal, the natural gas, as well as high-concentration fissionable uranium.
Together, these finite sources provide over 90% of today’s world energy with the U.S. (with 5% of the world’s population) consuming about 25% of it. The next human lifetime, starting now, will not be nearly as easy. We’re running out of gas!
Note: John Howe says, "I approach this subject as an objective engineer. I am not aligned to any political party or intend to promote a particular political agenda."
Selected References:
Bligh, J. (2004). The Fatal Inheritance. London: Athena Press.
Catton,W. (1982). Overshoot. University of Illinois Press.
Deffeyes, K. (2001). Hubbert’s Peak. Princeton University Press.
Heinberg, R. (2007). Peak Everything. New Society Publishers.
Heinberg, R.(2009). Searching For a Miracle. Post Carbon Institute www.postcarbon.org
Howe, J. (2006, third ed.). The End of Fossil Energy. McIntire Publishing.
Murphy, P. (2008). Plan C. New Society Publishers.
Ponting,C. (1991). A Green History of the World. Penguin Books
Tainter, J. (2009, 19'th printing). The collapse of Complex Societies. Cambridge University Press.
Contact
- campfire at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
Archives
- November 2010 (4)
- October 2010 (4)
- September 2010 (4)
- August 2010 (6)
- July 2010 (6)
- June 2010 (8)
- May 2010 (9)
- April 2010 (9)
- March 2010 (8)
- February 2010 (8)
- January 2010 (9)
- December 2009 (8)
- November 2009 (7)
- October 2009 (7)
- September 2009 (9)
- August 2009 (9)
- July 2009 (9)
- June 2009 (8)
- May 2009 (9)
- April 2009 (9)
- March 2009 (9)
- February 2009 (9)
- January 2009 (9)
- December 2008 (4)
The Oil Drum: Local archives
- November 2008 (1)
- August 2008 (1)
- July 2008 (4)
- June 2008 (4)
- May 2008 (3)
- April 2008 (1)
- March 2008 (1)
- February 2008 (2)
- January 2008 (2)
- December 2007 (4)
- November 2007 (4)
- October 2007 (6)
The Oil Drum: New York City archives
- September 2007 (3)
- August 2007 (2)
- July 2007 (3)
- June 2007 (8)
- May 2007 (1)
- April 2007 (8)
- March 2007 (2)
- February 2007 (3)
- January 2007 (5)
- December 2006 (5)
- November 2006 (12)
- October 2006 (10)
- September 2006 (9)
- August 2006 (14)
- July 2006 (15)
- June 2006 (11)
- May 2006 (18)
- April 2006 (35)
- March 2006 (14)
- February 2006 (13)
- January 2006 (12)
- December 2005 (17)
- November 2005 (13)
- October 2005 (25)
- September 2005 (36)
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
For me the answer is (b), find a new no-growth economic paradigm. Not that I am against economic growth per se. I do want to see our dwindling oil and gas resources used more sparingly; and I want the use of coal reduced by say 2% per year. This would eliminate its use in 35 years. I am not sure if this "works" from a climate change perspective, but it is probably the best we can hope for. Controlling population growth is simply not possible, even in a totalitarian state like China. In our blinkered short termist democracies it is even less possible. All the other options such as renewable fuels, conservation etc etc would just be swallowed up in even more growth on a BAU basis (Jevons paradox).
So it comes down once again to switching taxation from income and labour to carbon; and adding a scarcity tax on to oil and gas. This requires a global agreement and as we saw in Copenhagen this is won't happen. In short we are stuffed. Enjoy today, prepare yourself as best you can; and tomorrow will do what ever it does.
"Controlling population growth is simply not possible, even in a totalitarian state like China."
Fortunately, controlling fertility is very possible and does not appear to need anything like a totalitarian state. Fertility is dropping off a cliff, everywhere except Africa, and its effect on population is relentless (just delayed by a generation or so).
Fertility in China dropped off a steeper cliff than just about anywhere else, ever. If memory serves: it was something like 5 kids per female in the early 50s, then dropped nearly in half in 25 years. Huge! And all that happened before the one-child policy. Since then, fertility in China has continued to decline, though not so precipitously. I think it is just a little over replacement, now, and still dropping. The one-child policy contributed little, if anything, to the process.
Amidst all the bad news and monstrous challenges in front of us, you can at least take solace in the fact that the population problem is (for the most part, excepting Africa) taking care of itself, and doing so as fast as possible.
It really could not have, and cannot, go much faster than
it has been (and is) going.
Now, as for Africa, in which the problem is NOT taking care of itself... (thought-stream truncated in the interest of brevity).
"It really could not have, and cannot, go much faster than it has been (and is) going."
I assume you mean the procreation part of the equation. On the debit side, there's lots of ways the population can be reduced in a hurry: mass starvation, disease, declining health care, increased drug use, suicide, violent death, war, etc. How about hypothermia in the winter when the fuel oil and natural gas run out?
No, I did not mean on the procreation part of the equation. I meant on the fertility-reduction part of the equation. Fertility has dropped off so steeply that no one could seriously suggest it could have dropped off MORE steeply by any humane and reasonable voluntary route (i.e. NOT by way of the "mass starvation" and etc. that you mention). Of course you are right that if everything goes completely to hell then it could be more steep. My comment could be translated to: "assuming we're not going through Armageddon, then it [fertility decline] is proceeding about as fast as it can".
Again I am talking about pretty much everywhere except Africa. The population problem is solving itself everywhere except there. What is not solving itself is the consumption problem -- e.g. the voracious Chinese appetite for automobiles. Large populations see images of Western affluence, and they want it.
Here is a striking depiction of fertility rates by country, which makes it very easy to see where the problem lies:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Countriesbyfertilityrate.svg
Don't we need significant real declines in population? This would seem to mean that birth rates will need to be considerably below replacement rate.
I am wondering if this will be possible in a poorer world. It seems like birth control will be less available. Education for women will likely be less available. Social security will likely be close to non-existent. These factors would seem to push birth rates up, not down.
Hi Gail,
You have made this point before about the potential for birth rates to change their trajectory in a poorer world. I think this scenario should be taken seriously. No one can accurately predict the future and therefore we have little reason to believe that birth/fertility rates will continue to decline as we experience unprecedented changes to life as we now know it. I think it is a dangerous gamble to simply assume that global population is no longer an issue.
Of course we do! I keep feeling like the odd-man-out here as regards this issue. Why is the idea of 9+ billion humans after mid century is so readily accepted as a foregone conclusion and nothing can be done about it? Why is the notion of advocating national policies for family planning such a radical suggestion? What is wrong with supporting organizations like Population Connection?
It is frustrating to see the lack of consensus on TOD in this regard. It seems that we should be able to agree on some basic goals for issues such as population, consumption, ff conservation, technology expectations, etc. How to propagate the message, specific solutions to meet goals, etc seem to be fair game for heated debate. But, without any basic common goals it seems at times that TOD is spinning its wheels and not likely to be useful voice in the larger world.
Who is assuming that, Dave? Not me. I don't think it is no longer an issue; I think that I cannot do anything about population that is already here, and that is "baked in the cake" (i.e. inevitable in near-term decades). I am not about to start advocating genocide to reduce the existing crop of human flesh. Further, it is not reasonable for me to expect fertility to drop to ZERO, overnight -- for everyone to instantaneously stop procreating -- which would be the only route to rapid population stabilization and reduction (barring genocide). Those two things (genocide and sudden total cessation of procreation) are, respectively, unethical/inhumane, and impossible. So where does that leave us? That leaves us with the organic rate of fertility decline that we know comes with general socioeconomic development. That is the only way to reduce population that is both possible and ethical/humane. If you have another suggestion, backed with empirical evidence of efficacy, then make it.
And by the way, the SES-related "organic rate of fertility decline" is hardly slow! As we've seen in China, it can happen inside of a single generation, and quite a bit even inside of a single decade. The only way to substantially beat that is for fertility to drop to ZERO, instantaneously, or darn near. See? The bar is already set quite high, Dave. If you have a suggestion, then MAKE IT. And it had better be damn good.
I think it is a dangerous gamble to simply continue wringing our hands about current "overpopulation" -- about which we can do nothing -- while failing to focus on the causes of population -- about which we can do quite a bit. Raising the socioeconomic status (SES) of people who live on a dollar a day is not (should not be) a big deal. I mean raising SES to levels that are consistent with the demographic transition, which as I pointed out elsewhere are not terribly high.
Ummm, maybe because it IS a foregone conclusion? There's no way around it unless we go with the options I rejected up above: 1. Genocide, or 2. Instantaneous reduction of fertility to ZERO.
Dave, consider that human beings want to have kids. They can be persuaded (are often persuaded, and are now being persuaded) to have FEWER kids. But they still want kids. It runs very deep in the human psyche, perhaps you have noticed; especially the female psyche. Do you have a suggestion for changing this? Do you have a way to cause humans to not want to procreate AT ALL anymore, starting now? If so, please state what it is. On your suggestion hangs the possibility of rapid population
stabilization and reduction, without hitting 9 billion. I mean, leaving aside the genocide option. (Do we want to discuss genocide as an option?)
Is there any evidence that "national policies for family planning" are effective? If there is, show it. I'd like to see it. Maybe you are on to something, and if you are, I'll support it.
Alan,
I don't think your repeated comments about hand wringing, genocide, and zero fertility warrant a reply - I just don't see how they are useful to this discussion.
Let me make my position very clear: I'm trying the best I can to understand the predicament that faces humanity. I read lots of books on the subjects, study the data, and engage in conversations like this. At this point, I'm convinced that the issues of PO, GW, and biosphere degradation are serious threats caused mostly my humans. I'm uncertain how this will all play out and what the time-frame will be. But, I think (hope) there are policies and behaviours that can mitigate the worst consequences of what could potentially transpire in the coming years. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but think a few things are pretty clear. If you want details of my thinking then I recommend the books Plan B and Plan C - for the most part, I think they make good arguments.
I believe that we will need a comprehensive plan that addresses many issues - a key one being family planning to make a best effort at reducing global population. Although I don't think 9+ billion is totally unavoidable, it stills seems very prudent to have policies that make a best effort to insure that 9B is a peak and a decline really is "baked in".
As a retired person who has benefited from life in my generation, and is now out of the rat race, I feel a sense of obligation to use some of my time to advocate (letters to editor, letters to politicians, petitions, etc) for those things (like family planning and a national population policy) that I think will be useful in the coming years.
As far as actual implementation of effective family planning and population policies, I'm hardly qualified to articulate a detailed plan. Fortunately, organizations like Population Connection (1) have smart, hard working folks who are competent in this regard - I just send them a little money on occasion and spread the word about their mission. My personal goal is for the US government to someday formulate a sane policy regarding the size of its population and set a target that that is sustainable. Simply using the bully-pulpit to recognize the issue would be a great start.
Attempting to control population growth is very complicated and difficult - for a general discussion see the wiki entry for this (2). Actually, Alan, you seem conflicted about this issue:
I guess I'm missing your point - you want to "focus on the causes of population" - very good, and I assume it is because you have recognized that we do have an "overpopulation" issue. OK, I agree, we have a problem so let's focus on the causes and then do something.
As to the effectiveness of having a national policy for population size, your reference about China is clear: in 1970 China recognized the problem and took action that was effective in slowing population growth which is now .66% (3). India has a national recognition of the problem (4) which has been weaker and less successful (currently 1.55%)(3) but they can demonstrate some progress in the face of some really difficult challenges. I think that we should be thankful that China and India are trying to deal with this most important issue. Yes, "national policies for family planning" are effective - not perfect, but my reading of China and India is that there would be greater population size without these policies. (BTW, I've worked in India and have some feel for the situation there)
On the other hand, the US, in 1970, enacted Title X of the Public Health Service Act that provides access to contraceptive services, supplies and information to those in need - a program which has seen a steady decrease in funding. For all practical purposes, we have no national policy regarding the size of our population. Instead we allow corporations, organized religions, and major political parties to encourage "growth" of all sorts - including population size. Do you recall all the cheering in the MSM when we bumped over 300M?
It is ironic that you oppose an explicit advocacy of a national population policy and yet do advocate "Raising the socioeconomic status (SES) of people who live on a dollar a day is not (should not be) a big deal". The very organization that I urge people to support has this to say:
Had to imagine that you would not send money to these folks.
On the other side of the coin we have lots of forces that want to continue population growth. Note that the Bush Administration would only support "Abstinence-only sex education" when there is little evidence of this program's effectiveness. Clearly, corporations, organized religion and major political parties have no vested interest in curtailing any kind of growth. In fact:
And then we have the fundamentalist like Quiver Full (12 children):
Alan, you seem pretty fixated on:
That's good - how about advocating the kind of sensible measures that I suggest - again, see Population Connection (1)
(1)http://www.populationconnection.org/site/PageServer
(2)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_population_control
(3)http://chartsbin.com/view/xr6
(4)http://www.country-studies.com/india/population-and-family-planning-policy.html
(5)http://www.quiverfull.com/
There isn't anything you can really do other than halt immigration. It makes zero sense to even bother with family planning in the U.S. if you import more people who tend to have far more children than if they'd stayed home.
Hi Floridian,
I totally agree that immigration is factor that is often overlooked when talking about fertility/birth rates. Immigration is a component of "growth rate" - the only number that really counts. As I've said before, we have lots of yuppies around here that have small families, but their yards and buildings are always being maintained by people who mostly appear to be immigrants.
I have no problem with controlled immigration - I think it can be very positive for a country. But, immigration should fit within a national population policy. Currently, the US is over 300 million and headed for 500M by 2050. If we had a national goal of keeping our total population under 250M (say at some point sensible point after mid-century)then the immigration discussion would be entirely different.
I just don't see how we can manage numerous problems without a rational discussion of population and the formulation of policies and guidelines to achieve some degree of sustainability.
Projections I've seen from the census I believe are around 440M for 2050. The 2100 census figures are laughable though, nearly 1.2 billion in a world that is supposed to be declining in population.
There's no reason for any immigration in this context ever because there's no reason for me to share my stuff, my natural resources with any new people. If you want to do immigration, it should be done like in South Korea.
Try explaining to these enthusiasts that there are physical limits. They'll go on to tell you about how electric vehicles are on the way and spout nonsense about an "aging population" and a "imminent worker shortage as the boomers retire." The only shortage I see is one of real jobs.
These articles are always fun to read. http://www.alternet.org/environment/145992/restrictionist_front_group_st...
BD: thanks for writing again.
Yes, we have an overpopulation issue. I have no conflict about that. My point is that population itself is not actionable. It is HISTORY, as they say. There's nothing we can do about population, directly, because population (head count) is already here. What we can do something about is the causes of population, with the key indicator being fertility. For some reason, peak oil doomers and overpopulation activists have a very hard time understanding this. You can see what I mean just from some of the responses on this thread. They don't get it. They question whether fertility is real, or has a real effect, etc. All they can see are the rising population numbers, and they are blinded by that. Like the guy who wrote (below) "I do not agree that the fertility rate can be controlled" -- when obviously, and undeniably, it HAS BEEN controlled in a most dramatic way! (See my full response to him below for context.)
What they don't see is that the rate of population growth maxed-out in the late 1980s and has been in decline since, and ALL indications are that it will continue that way for a very long time, probably until it reaches zero and we finally go into absolute population decline (though it is hard to project with certainty past several decades). But all they see are the population growth numbers. To them, all that "fertility" stuff just seems like a blur, like some egghead's speculation. Problem is, they've never seriously thought about or studied demographics; if they had, they would understand that this is LONG-VIEW stuff and that you cannot be overly swayed by what happened this year or this decade. The trends are as though glacial in pace -- but just as powerful, for all their slowness!
To some extent I am responding not just to you, but to many other peak oil doomers and others with whom I have had these kinds of conversations. And I apologize for that. I ought to respond to your explicit words only, when I am writing to you. I have yielded to the temptation to broaden my target, responding to what you might call the "generic" peak oil doomer (and overpopulation hand-wringer), obsessed with the hopelessness of our predicament and convinced that dieoff.com represents the full and last word on its related topics. (It does not, I am sure you understand.) At worst, this crowd can be ghoulish, misanthropic and very very ugly -- and infecious to others, in their misanthopy and ugliness.
In any case I hereby apologize to you, personally, for that.
Yes, we have an overpopulation issue, but it would be well to talk very little about population as such, for the reason I mention above: we cannot do anything about it, directly. Focussing on "population" tends to paralyze people, and tends to direct their minds toward the fatalism that I described in another post. This is not good. It also tends to fuel some extremely toxic ideas and tendencies loosely connected to, or drawing strength from, this (peak oil, peak everything) milieu, including racism, virulently reactionary neo-Malthusianism, and even genocidalism of either active or passive nature. The "passive" route takes the form of: "Hey, what the hell, there aren't enough resources to go around, so just let 'em die! It may be a shame that millions are starving, but it is nature's way of clearing out the excess. They're just a bunch of jungle-bunnies and sand-monkeys, anyway. No great loss." However abhorrent that sounds, believe me: such ideas WILL be going through many millions of minds as we hit the population/resources bottleneck(s) in coming decades. To me it is a high priority not to contribute any energy to such evil.
Note that I am NOT accusing you or any other individual at theoildrum of this; just pointing out the kind of thing that goes through some minds, and noting that such ideas can be energized in a big way by an overemphasis on population. After all, the only real way to solve the population problem (the standing human flesh problem) is a mass dieoff, right? Or even a mass kill-off. Whatever. Here again, I am NOT accusing you of thinking like that. I am saying that continual emphasis on population, rather than fertility, can lead many inferior and character-disturbed minds in that direction. It is happening already, believe me, and we are not even far into the bottlenecks yet.
The flipside is that it is not necessary to talk about population all that much, since we have such good knowledge now of the influences on fertility (again, the CAUSE of population), and since what we know is quite favorable. Favorable in terms of fair ease of implementation. As I pointed out several times, it really is not that big a deal to get impoverished populations up into the demographic transition zone of socioeconomic status. We have here a very positive, actionable, hopeful focus -- as opposed to the negative, non-actionable, depressing deadweight of (the concept) "overpopulation". I stress again that speaking of things that are "positive and hopeful" does not mean that I think everything is going to be easy, ginger-peachy and A-OK. I'm not a Pollyanna. I know that we have huge challenges and that they are NOT going to be met without a lot of effort, conflict, and often enough pain and excess deaths. No question about that. But since that is the case, all the more reason to focus our minds and efforts on things that actually can be done that are ameliorative and that will help everyone traverse these very difficult waters.
I have never indicated that I oppose such a policy. I have only questioned how efficacious they are.
I agree that contraceptive distribution, family planning and whatnot should (of course!) be liberally funded.
Hi Alan,
I think we have pretty much exhausted this mini-debate and I believe I understand your position. Actually, it seems that we agree more than disagree when we get down to the core issue of how to make a positive impact on the overall problem: contraceptive distribution, family planning, etc. This is what counts in the final analysis - getting people to support these actions.
I can live with our differing attitudes regarding a national policy - yes, I would like one but I understand your POV also.
Thanks for your thoughts.
Immigration is not a "component of growth rate" of the global population, and it has practically nothing to do with fertility/birth rates. Immigration is simply the movement of populations; it has little if anything to do with their growth. It is a zero-sum game: less people in one place equals more people in some other place. That is MOVEMENT, not re-sizing.
Contraceptive distribution and family planning are NOT at the core of how to make a positive impact on the problem. They are at the periphery. At the core is the DEMAND for contraceptives, family planning services, and so forth. You're putting the cart before the horse. If you're serious, you will look to causes rather than merely effects.
Geez, just when it was getting good! My last post was the first one that actually got to the BIG picture, including the profound moral implications of our discussion. But you feel the conversation is now "exhausted", and you have nothing to say about what I wrote. Hmmm.
I've now made very clear, in a long post, how my comments about hand-wringing and genocide are at the center of any morally-conscious approach to this problem. And you had nothing to say. Interesting.
Alan
........................
PS:
Right. "Your" natural resources.
Hi Alan,
This will have to be my last comment on this thread as real life is calling and I also want to read some of the newer essays on TOD.
I was not clear on this point - obviously you are right that it is a zero-sum thing on a global level. I was referring to growth as measured by country and according to the wiki definition immigration IS a component of "growth" - "growth rate = crude birth rate - crude death rate + net immigration rate". I think this is important because birth rate in a country might appear high or low but immigration (in/out) can have a significant impact on actual "growth" for a particular country.
Again, I agree - I think that if you look carefully at Population Connection you will see that they are very much interested in the causes. Also, one of my favorite books "Plan B" is very good on the analysis of the problems. I suspect this one of those problems of trying to discuss complex issues with short comments.
I thought I was clear that I'm not into hand-wringing - I take a pro-active position of supporting organizations that I believe are making a positive impact on the problem. Also, I think the term "hand-wringing" is a kind of put-down that I don't deserve. I've also never even considered any type of genocide and think that is an inflammatory kind of rhetoric. Kind of like asking if "I still beat my wife". But, perhaps you were talking about other commentors :-)
Floridian has some "interesting" viewpoints that I don't share. I've worked and traveled in other countries and don't subscribe to the idea of American Exceptional-ism. I have many friends around the globe that I think would make great contributions to the US if they moved here. But, I do think that a national population policy would change the nature of the immigration debate.
My email is my profile if you care to contact me. Thanks for your thoughtfulness.
Education - it COULD become the cheapest in human history to educate (and perhaps do it well). General purpose computers with storage for the book-learn'n along with (magical) software to act as the teacher would be far less energy than providing a room, controlling the environment of the room, moving 30 students + staff to and from the location on a regular basis, and then providing tools + maintence for the location. The old eMate was under 100mA at 5 volts. The newer kindal - even less.
The software would have to exist (and I'm not sure the software is still much better than flash cards) and there would have to be enough excess food production to not need the kids out in the field....but the path from here to there would be opposed by the education unions as the professional educator class would be at job risk.
Thanks for the reality check. Can you share any thoughts on root causes of why Africa is going in the wrong direction?
Just guessing, but it's probably "first world" aid to Africa. A similar problem to feeding the pigeons in the park. Once the food and other aid stops, which is likely when those "first world" countries begin to suffer fuel shortages and become less well organized and wealthy, the African human population should begin to decrease, rapidly.
No, it is the opposite of that. First-world exploitation does, and has done, far more damage than any constructive accomplishment of first-world "aid". A great deal of so-called "aid" is in fact, and in effect, exploitation. The population problem is a reflection of this.
Here are some introductory materials. Pay special attention please to the third item -- an online book (full text is free):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2005/aug/20/past.hearafrica05
The wealth of the west was built on Africa's exploitation
by Richard Drayton
http://www.liberationafrique.org/IMG/pdf/TJN4Africa.pdf
Looting Africa: Some Facts and Figures
http://www.civicus.org/new/media/PatrickBond-LootingAfrica.doc
Looting Africa: The economics of exploitation
By Patrick Bond
Thanks. I get the looting part but am less clear on why looting leads to high birth rates. Is it simply looting -> poverty -> babies?
Yes. Poverty results in higher fertility.
Here are a couple snippets from a paper on the subject, which could serve as a backgrounder (though probably overkill):
http://paa2005.princeton.edu/download.aspx?submissionId=51151
Poverty, Risk, Aspirations and Childbearing
Sajeda Amin * and John B. Casterline **
March 25, 2005
SNIP
Cain (1979) describes high fertility as [a] self-
insurance mechanism against income shocks in the high risk setting of rural Bangladesh, with
the risks being first and foremost environmental in nature. In this setting, all socioeconomic
classes recognize childbearing as an important strategy for dealing with economic
vulnerability....
Ray (1998) suggests that in addition to being credit constrained and unable to save, the
poor are also more risk averse. As a result they may engage in behaviours that lead them to
insure more than the rich. This may be one reason why poverty leads to higher fertility and to
less efficient investments in general. Morduch (1999) and others find evidence of this in
differentials across economic strata in the propensity to adopt agricultural innovation. In the
same vein, Bannerjee (2001) argues that the poor are relatively risk averse, for the simple
reason that any particular economic setback is more consequential for the poor. In effect, the
poor have more to lose from most income threats (environmental condition or market
breakdown).
alan, thanks for those links above and explanation of Africa's plight. I knew it was bad there, I just didn't realize how bad. Should have guessed about the exploitation part.
I believe that this is a fundamental misstatement of facts. Given a reference population, economic downturns tend to lead to lower birthrates while economic upturns lead to higher birthrates. Comparison between poor nations and rich nations is problematical because of cultural values and a host of other complications.
Note the qualification "tend to" because there are obviously a lot of factors involved here. While I disagree with a lot of what she says (she is IMO a blatant racist), Virginia Abernethy has some interesting ideas on the subject of "Economic Opportunity Hypothesis"
http://www.virginiaabernethy.com/publishdetail.php?publishid=12
It is not a fundamental misstatement of facts, but it IS, I admit, a simplification of them. "Poverty" can mean a lot of different things, in different places. More precisely, we could say that existential insecurity results in higher fertility. Women who are highly uncertain about their survival tend to have a lot of kids. For much detail, see the Amin and Casterline paper that I linked immediately above.
I am familiar with Abernethy's thesis. I've read her papers and book (Population Politics). I had a brief "affair" with her thesis, but I now see that it was misguided. She might be correct in some contexts, particularly in the developed world. But in the less-developed or third world, she is without doubt wrong. Her thesis does not account for massive facts on the ground pertaining to socioeconomic status and fertility. She has this weird idea that if the demographic transition thesis states that a certain modestly higher socioeconomic status results in downregulation of fertility, then ever-MORE-higher SES must result (if the theory is correct) in still further downregulation. But it does not work like that. It is a threshold effect. Once SES is sufficiently high to ensure existential security, then the demographic transition kicks in AND is largely exhausted: an on-off effect rather than a dial with gradations. Simply making people ever-richer does not cause further enhancement of the demographic transition. I actually think that she might be correct when it comes to the first world (where existential security is not an issue or not much of one). Making people ever-richer might actually stimulate fertility to some extent, while economic downturns might reduce fertility somewhat -- consistent with her "economic opportunity" thesis. But this situation is vastly different than in desperately impoverished parts of the world.
You might also note that she has not done any serious work in demographics for many years. Most of her stuff is circa 15 years old or older. That does not mean it is wrong; but it does mean that she has made little attempt to keep up with current literature and knowledge, and there has been a lot to keep up with! If she is serious, she needs to defend and develop her thesis on an ongoing basis.
You are correct that she is an unreconstructed racist, white nationalist, xenophobe, etc. I've read hundreds of her posts on the energyresources yahoo list over the years, so I speak from long exposure to her.
Alan
First I'm just going to say I haven't read Abernethy's thesis but from your summary I think I might understand what the missing component of her thesis is. You call it a threshold effect which jars my memories of recent events here in the US. What your describing may be more of social effect rather than intra-personal. Again, I haven't studied any of the background information concerning africa and undeveloped countries with relation to population, but I had one of those eureka moments when pieces seem to fit.
For a long time I have been casually analyzing why most people have to be part of a group consensus and just a small portion don't. I still have yet to find a good model to identify the actual quantity that is (now I'm going off topic) but it is important in understanding why some people are willing to accept things like peak oil without everyone else agreeing. So obviously memetics play into the whole equation. My apologies for a less than half formed argument but I'm trying to figure how to describe as I go.
I do agree with the statement that existential insecurity may result in higher fertility but that does not imply causation. Perhaps its the social environment of those who are existential insecure that increases fertility. Think of this way - the memes at different SES levels continue to persist regardless of the quantities of people in those SES levels. As one rises up the SES ladder the memes change gradually. However memes do not die overnight and continue to persist in individuals who rise up the ladder. Of course this is all abstract and complicated. What I see on the big scale is similar to the bubble effect. Ideas start small and gain popularity. Once a certain "threshold" is reached then the idea grows exponentially (ie dot-com, housing, SUV's, GW, greenies).
I imagine that this would also play a big role in population. Ever noticed how in a group of friends suddenly everyone can be pregnant? It can't always be chalked to coincidence. Social pressure in a group affects its members regardless whether its drugs, sports, sitcoms or babies. People in the USA are biologically nearly identical with people in Africa, etc and therefor must share similar social traits. I'm betting that societal influences (memes) are stronger than intra-personal insecurities in affecting fertility. However the memes involved are strongly dependent on physical realities.
Criticism or expansion appreciated. Oh, and sorry for digging up an old post :-) I was just looking for something interesting.
Another good source (though not on line, sorry) of info on the historic plunder of Africa by European powers is "Ecological Debt" by Andrew Simms.
On the one hand, isn't AIDS starting to put a dent in the growth rates in some of these countries?
On the other hand, even apparently modest rates of growth add up to huge numbers of births in places like China and India.
But, yes, consumption has to be tackled, and lowering consumption goes against the most basic tenets of neo-classical economics.
As to politics, we have to get the money out of it by reclaiming the (inherently public) airwaves for the public. We also have to weaken other centers of power, particularly corporations, which have to revert to being temporary bodies used for limited purposes and then quickly dissolved. But it is almost impossible to see how this could happen.
Nader, who called for such measures in his run for pres in 2000, has now concluded that we must merely by supplicants to power, praying for them to do the right thing to save the earth and the country. Unfortunately, the rich are, by definition, largely insane--specifically, they are money mad (how else would they have become rich), and money is a proxy for energy and resource extraction and exploitation.
To paraphrase James Lovelock, "Leaving the future viability of the earth up to the super-rich is like leaving a goat to tend the garden."
There is very real little power in Washington. The power is all with the large corporations.
supplicants to power, praying for them to do the right thing to save the earth and the country.
I believe the gospel according to Jay at dieoff.org is to go before the power, bow and say 'you have won - now take care of us.'
to contrast:
Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus.
(Let justice be done, though the world perish.)
— Motto of Ferdinand I.
I think it's been demonstrated that the most effective means to reduce the birth rate in a country is to educate the women. Women who are educated tend to limit themselves to one or two children per family. Since the replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman, than means in countries which educate all their women, the birth rate is almost invariably below the replacement rate.
The problem is countries, e.g. in Africa, which don't educate their women. These countries are on the road to destruction.
Thanks. Is it education or the income/consumption that results from education?
See my post immediately above -- paper by Amin and Casterline -- for a review of a lot of relevant literature on this subject.
Education, income, and fertility rate are all interrelated and it can be difficult to distinguish cause from effect. In fact, there may be a circular relationship between all three. However here is a paper which analyses it: Women's Education and Fertility Rates in Developing Countries, With Special Reference to Bangladesh
...and the bottom line is...
Once people understand what the problem is, they can take steps to solve it.
According to Earthtrends the TFR in Sub-Saharan Africa has been dropping since around 1980
http://earthtrends.wri.org/index.php
....... but are still far too high. Typical fertility in Eastern, Western and middle Africa: about 6.0.
The collapse of the Soviet Union may hold hints on the future of population growth. When their world view and their economic system collapsed, the birth rate declined and death rate increased.
When the endless growth world view collapses something similar may happen in the West.
Hi Alan,
I'm pretty sure the Chinese would disagree. I recall them saying in one of the climate change discussions that their policy avoided the birth of 300M - about the size of the US.
I do NOT take solace in studies that use birth/fertility rate to argue that population growth is no longer a concern. The real number is growth rate and the global population is growing. All the credible estimates I've seen put the global population at 9+ billion between mid and end of century. Assuming we get to 9B without the 4 horsemen upsetting that projection, a decline at that point is highly likely to occur regardless of fertility rate - and it is not likely to be a humane decline.
See this for growth rates: http://chartsbin.com/view/xr6
Population growth rate (PGR) is the fractional rate at which the number of individuals in a population increases. Specifically, PGR ordinarily refers to the change in population over a unit time period, often expressed as a percentage of the number of individuals in the population at the beginning of that period. Growth rate = crude birth rate - crude death rate + net immigration rate. Current world population growth rate is 1.17%. The US is approx one percent. China is .66% and India 1.55%. This number needs to fall below zero for an actual population decline. Russia and some former Soviet Union countries actually have negative growth rates - many also lose population due to migration out of their countries.
What difference does it make if native born people have fewer children but then tolerate/encourage immigration into their county to do the work they don't want to perform.
Speculation about fertility rates may prove true - but it is still that: speculation. I would like to see every country - starting with the US - adopt a formal policy regarding population growth. Hopefully, it would not be a policy that advocates having more people!
9+ billion humans later this century does not sound like a comforting scenario. Why would anyone "take solace" in that?
1. "I'm pretty sure the Chinese would disagree."
It does not matter who "disagrees". It is a matter of clear numbers. The big fertility decline in China happened before the one-child policy. That policy may have helped with the further (modest, incremental) fertility decline that came after, but not with the BIG decline before. See:
http://www.globalgeografia.it/temi/Population%2520Growth%2520in%2520China.p
Population Growth in China : The Basic Characteristics of
China's Demographic Transition
2. "I do NOT take solace in studies that use birth/fertility rate to argue that population growth is no longer a concern."
OK, then don't. I did not say that resource limitations on a planet with billions of consumers are not a problem. I just said that the population problem itself, outside Africa, is in the process of self-resolution. And it IS. Demonstrably. The biggest unsolved problem is the consumption problem, and Africa.
If you want to wring your hands about population, then do so. I don't think it will do much good.
3. "The real number is growth rate and the global population is growing."
Yes, and it will for some decades yet, as the fertility changes slowly work their way into the population growth (or eventual non-growth) numbers. You realize I trust that looking at fertility rate is like taking a little time machine into the future of population growth (or non-growth). And, correspondingly, that looking at population growth numbers today is like taking the same time machine BACK to fertility numbers a couple or three generations ago. It is this long delay factor that causes a lot of misunderstanding.
4. "Speculation about fertility rates may prove true - but it is still that: speculation."
What "speculation" are you talking about?
The great decline of global fertility, over decades, is a fact, based on hard numbers. Hard numbers that can be tough to face -- cognitive dissonance -- when you've been steeped for years (like me) in overpopulation propaganda.
The propaganda might have served some useful purpose; hard to say. But most of the fertility decline (the demographic transition) seems to have been unrelated to any conscious conviction/communication regarding overpopulation. Rather, it was a matter of general economic development, education, etc. In other words: overpopulation activists writing articles about the overpopulation crisis, and about the eminent mass die-off, had nothing to do with it.
Except for Africa, the population problem is largely solving itself. Which is not at all the same as saying that we are out of the woods. It only says what it says.
On the action front -- actionable things that need our attention -- are two big domains:
1. AFRICA
2. CONSUMPTION/LIFESTYLE
......................
edited to add: one encouraging thing that we've learned, mostly from China's experience, is that the demographic transition does not have to depend on economic development to the (excessive) levels of the West/North. It is definitely NOT necessary for everyone to make $50K per year, or some other extravagant sum, with consumption patterns to match. Something more like $5K will do the job.
OK, maybe 10K. Whatever. The figure is low relative to conventional Western/Northern standards.
It is urgently necessary to lift the bottom billion or so (mostly though not exclusively in Africa) out of dirt-poverty; i.e. the people living on one or two dollars per day. The full global demographic transition (including most notably Africa) will not happen without this.
It is most important, in my view,to stop viewing things as population problems, and start viewing them in terms of general socioeconomic development, both deficient and excess. It is a matter of hitting the "sweet spot" between overdevelopment and overconsumption (like the West/North) and gross UNDERdevelopment (like in subsaharan Africa) It seems paradoxical, but we need to REDUCE development and consumption (where they are excessive) while at the same time INCREASING them (where they are insufficient).
It is important to stop viewing things as population problems in large part because there is no useful, constructive purpose in doing so. The population that we have today, and that we will have over the next century, is largely baked in the cake. It cannot (again, leaving aside the possibility of Armageddon/dieoff) be substantially changed, and by that I mean multiple billions. It is a reality that has to be lived with. The time to be a population activist was in the year 1900, or maybe 1950. But it is too late now. What was done was done, and we have to live with it. Consumption/lifestyle is now the big action area, along with reduction of global inequalities in wealth.
Hi Alan,
Please understand that I'm not trying to be argumentative/confrontational for its own sake - I still believe that global population is a major issue that needs to be actively addressed. And, I think that government policy can be effective in many cases. I welcome debate about this issue.
Your China link did not work for me, but I Googled and found the PDF. I think this article supports my contention that good government policy can really help reduce population growth.
So, China's government policy seems to deserve some credit - the one-child policy was just a later refinement of their original policy.
When you say that it is demonstrable that population is in a state of self-resolution outside of Africa - did you bother to look at the link I provided. US population is growing, most of SA is growing - the world is growing. I contend that it will be "demonstrable" when the growth rates are actually below zero.
Any discussion involving time machines has an inherent speculation factor. As I said, you may be correct that somewhere after 2050 and 9B+ humans that fertility rates will drive global population down. On the other hand, there is the potential that growing levels of poverty, rise of religious fundamentalism and dysfunctional governments could lead to previous practices of having larger families. I have no time machine and no way of knowing how things will play out - hence "speculation".
I completely agree with your views about consumption in the North & West. I wish wealth inequalities could be resolved, but I think this is tougher than the population issue. Although I admire your reasoning.
This is where we strongly disagree. I think we should give the Chinese government credit for their recognition of the population issue and advocate for other governments (especially USA) to do the same. I don't think it is too late to be a population activists (but you are right - 1950 was the best time - except no one paid attention). I don't believe in hand wringing - I believe in supporting organizations like Population Connection that work hard to address this issue.
If we are on an irreversible path to over 9B without most governments having stated policies to reduce population, then I find it very hard to understand how measures dealing with consumption are actually going to be effective in preventing some very nasty consequences of PO, GW, etc.
I would find all of your arguments very convincing IF you included the need to continue with population activism - I suspect we will just have to disagree.
That link probably did not work for you because the last two characters ("df") got lopped off. "df" as in .PDF. Sorry about that.
here's the link again, hopefully correct:
http://www.globalgeografia.it/temi/Population%2520Growth%2520in%2520Chin...
and here's an html version:
http://globalgeografia.blogspot.com/2009/01/population-growth-in-china.html
I agree that government policy can sometimes be effective (for lots of things). But there is no clear evidence that that particular policy (the one-child policy) resulted in anything.
Study figure one of the article: "Figure 1: Crude Birth Rate and Crude Death Rate in China from 1952 to 2000." You can see that, after the institution of the one-child policy in 1979, fertility actually INCREASED for a few years, then went back down (but not below the level that existed in 1979), then increased again for several years, then declined again (but, again, NOT below the level that existed in 1979), and kept declining VERY SLOWLY until finally, at long last, shortly before the year 2000, declined to a level slightly below the level of 1979.
Now, if that is not an amazingly anemic performance for a governmental (or any) policy, then I don't know what is. The clear statistical record constitutes a good argument for the idea that the one-child policy had NO EFFECT WHATSOEVER.
(I admit that it is difficult to believe that the policy had NO effect; but then there are the numbers, right in front of our faces. I hereby confess that I am irrationally biassed in favor of the view that the one-child policy had some slight effect, in spite of the facts.)
The other fact is that the the big fertility decline came before one-child, and a large portion of that before even the "later-longer-fewer" policy of 1970.
"Later-longer-fewer" was a toothless version of one-child. If one-child was a much stronger policy, as it was, and if it was ineffective, as it was, then is it reasonable to think that "later-longer-fewer" was highly effective?
Yes, I know the population is growing. And keeping fertility rates on the decline is the only humane way to deal with it, i.e. reduce population, ultimately. There is no other way. NO OTHER WAY. I mean, short of advocating genocide.
Why fixate on population -- about which you can do nothing -- while questioning the importance of fertility, which is the CAUSE of population?
All you've said is that "things could change in a bad way", or, "the current good trajectory [dropping fertility] could turn bad". Well, yes, of course that is true. What of it? What actionable message is there in that?
I repeat: Why fixate on population -- about which you can do nothing -- while questioning the importance of fertility, which is the CAUSE of population, and about which we now know quite a bit (and can change quite a bit, though not with coercive PRC-style policies)? What profit is there in approaching it as you do? If you can show me some benefit, maybe I'll join with you. But as far as I can see, there is "no THERE there" in your argument. You are arguing for... what, specifically? I don't see anything. It looks like pointless hand-wringing to me.
Even if their main and much-ballyhooed population-control policy was a demonstrated failure?
Actually, I agree that the Chinese government should be given some credit; particularly the Maoist state that enacted the fundamental socioeconomic changes -- relief of desperate poverty, education, rudimentary healthcare, etc. -- that actually led to the huge fertility drop (from 6 per woman down to 2.5 or so).
Friend, we are on an irreversible path to over 9B no matter what anyone does (and, as always, I mean short of Armageddon). All we can do is make the best of it.
I, too, find it very hard to understand how measures dealing with consumption are actually going to be effective in preventing some very nasty consequences of PO, GW, etc. But then I have to consider that nothing else can possibly do so. It is the only shot we have. The population of 9B or so is a fait accompli. Too late to do anything about that, with the exception of Africa. In Africa, there is some real population-control work to be done. And yet, even there the needed "population-control work" is not actually direct, explicit population-control work. It is general socioeconomic development work -- the only thing known to reduce fertility and thus population.
In case of Africa, education and welfare must be put affront.
Salute, Bali Indo Property
I am not sure I agree. While I accept change is a continuum, my point about China is that even with the one child policy population is still growing. Anecdotally I here there are possibly 300m unregistered individuals in China - second children who are not in the official statistics because the parents did not register their births. On the other hand I accept the fertility is very low in some countries - Roman Catholic Italy comes to mind. However population is increasing by around 70m per year globally and is still forecast to reach 9bn.
So I do not agree that the fertility rate can be controlled. I think we are in overshoot and a die back will commence this century. I have no idea when, how or what some of the details might be. I suspect it won't be pleasant. The process may have already commenced with the GFC.
I'm sorry, but with all due respect, the reality is that the fertility rate HAS BEEN controlled, in most of the world, for the past half-century. It does not matter whether or not you agree. The numbers are the numbers.
Now, you could argue that the fertility rate cannot be controlled ENOUGH to prevent some terrible outcome. Maybe you would be right about that. But if you are, then your standards for "enough" are stringent indeed. If going from five or six kids per female down to 2.5 or under 2 (dramatic reductions by any standard) -- as India and China have done -- is not "enough", then indeed we have an intractable problem, and we might as well throw up our hands and resign ourselves to mass dieoff, catastrophe. That's the HansoNihilist/dieoff.com position, and if it suits you, then go for it. The problem with that position is that, if sufficient numbers of people come to believe it, then it undermines or even torpedoes any effort to do the things we CAN do (and there is a LOT we can do). Doing the things we can do requires a measure of consensus and mass will. They cannot be done against a tide of nihilism and fatalism -- which guarantee that we WON'T do what we can do. So, it is your choice, but I know where I come out on it.
And BTW I am not suggesting that everyone believe in idiocies, or the tooth fairy, or miracle new technologies, or what have you. I am only suggesting that everyone believe that we can do very simple and even fairly easy things that we CAN -- undeniably -- do. For example, raising the lot of the average impoverished African is really not that difficult, if we got serious about it. That means no more looting, no more ongoing "Economic Hit-Man" operations (google for that phrase plus "Perkins"), no more economic/corporate colonization (e.g. promoting agricultural focus on luxury goods for export and for the profit of corporations and plutocrats, rather than agriculture for food for indigenous people), and etcetera. That combined with some real AID, focussed on meeting fundamental human needs (rather than corporate/capital needs), on building communities that meet those needs, on basic health infrastructure, etc., is also necessary. It would not be hard to get Africa into the demographic transition zone. It requires mass will, and some effort, but it can certainly be done.
There are always something you can do without all kinds of anti democratic measures.
Stop child support after the 2nd child, might persuade some people to stop earlier with reproduction. Also inform people why we need less people why we need less people.
Actually, the fertility rate in China is now well below the replacement rate. The replacement rate is 2.1 children per woman, while in China the rate is down to 1.7 children per woman. This means that, although the Chinese population is still growing at about 0.5% per year, it will peak around 2030 at 1.4 billion people, and then start to decline.
About 70 countries on Earth now have fertility rates below the replacement rate. The average for the EU is 1.5 and Japan is 1.2 (well below replacement). The US fertility rate is equal to the replacement rate at 2.1 children per woman.
Fertility rates have fallen dramatically world-wide since the mid-20th century. At this point it is the children of the 20th century population explosion which are contributing to current population growth. Once they are past their reproductive years, the lower fertility rates will cause population growth to slow, and probably come to a complete stop.
The world as a whole has a fertility rate of 2.5, somewhat above replacement. The prime culprit is India which has a fertility rate of 2.8. India will surpass China in population and will have 1.5 billion people by 2040 (at which point the Chinese population will be declining). India has less farmland than China or the US, so they need to get this under control or the surplus people will probably starve to death.
However, fertility rates are continuing to decline world-wide, and if the current trends continue, the world population will peak at about 9 billion around 2050, after which time the world population will start to decline.
Thanks for the corrected figure on China. I forgot that they HAD dropped below replacement level in recent years.
I disagree however that "the prime culprit is India". They are progressing similar to China, just slower; i.e. average kids per female 40 years ago was over FIVE. So they've nearly halved their fertility in a scant two generations. That's good. What matters is that fertility continue to drop.
The "prime culprit" is Africa. If you want to think of it in terms of "culprits", which I don't. Really, the prime global VICTIM is Africa, and has been for centuries. The chaos and lack of development in Africa, as a result of centuries of looting and exploitation, is the most-general reason for the high fertility rate. They have not undergone their demographic transition yet, and it is easy to see why.
I referred to India as "the prime culprit" because they will soon be the most populous country on Earth. However, African nations are much more problematic in terms of their individual fertility rates and refusal to do anything about it.
The "colonial powers are responsible for all our problems" is a convenient excuse which is wearing very thin since we are several generations past the time when colonialism collapsed and the colonial powers withdrew. Elsewhere in the world, many former colonies have done spectacularly well, going from third-world to first-world status in one generation.
At this point in time, I think we have to blame the problems of African nations on African leaders. Many African nations are in much worse shape than they were when the colonial powers were in charge. They are being looted by their own incompetent and greedy leadership.
Speaking of Africa's "refusal to do anything" about fertility is far too harsh, and unfair, given what we know about the conditions predisposing to the demographic transition. It is mostly victim-blaming, though I am not arguing that Africans themselves have NO culpability. Of course they have some; that's the nature of a complex situation like this.
It is true that "elsewhere in the world, many former colonies have done spectacularly well, going from third-world to first-world status in one generation." Those are places that have not been subject to ongoing looting and massive capital export to the rich zones. See the links I provided.
"We are several generations past the time when colonialism collapsed and the colonial powers withdrew". True. But what did NOT withdraw was capital and its rapacious requirement for ever-more profit (and damn the suckers who have to pay). And along with that, the rapacious desire of Western consumers for cheap everything -- including e.g. (for one small example) cheap throwaway cell phones, which require coltan, which comes from the Congo. The current chaos and war in the Congo has intimately to do with Western "requirements" for cheap resources. (I can provide links, or else you can easily look it up for yourself on google.)
Colonialism as such was not the problem; centuries of systematic looting -- ongoing still today -- are the problem. Classical colonialism itself was something of a wash: it did harm, but also good, and it is hard to say whether the net result was good or bad. In some places, like the Congo, it did overwhelmingly more bad than good, (in that case, outright KILLING half the population!), but in other places it was different. A lot of this depends on how "colonialism" is defined.
It is fashionable these days to reject the idea that colonialism was the source of all of Africa's ills. Fashionable, but foolish, since it is largely a straw man. Colonialism was only one modest element in a complex of events and relationships stretching out over centuries.
I was in Keyna for a year or so. So, I can talk about Kenya. I beleive it is one of the better off countries in Africa ...
Every economic center in Kenya is still colonial. Every CEO of every company is white. Every small business is owned an Indian. The system just perpetuates. Ofcource, you can't just wipe out the system and start afresh - as neighbouring Uganda found out. To say colonial powers withdrew from Africa is a bit premature.
Which ones ?
Singapore. Hong Kong.
Rgds
WeekendPeak
Peak oil and depletion in general are symptoms of growth.
Overpopulation is the disease.
If we ignore population, then long term, nothing gets solved.
On the national level technically dealing with PO may be possible, but politically, it’s a non starter.
ELP
Okay, John, as an engineer you certainly appreciate the benefits of prioritizing effort...and you are probably familiar with the Pareto principle, that 80% of success comes from 20% of your efforts (Pareto by the way is one of the few economists who began his career as an engineer).
Given the above, you have already clearly stated the issue we must address first..." Oil supplies about 40% of our total energy and fuels 90% of our transportation."
Now, what can we do FAST. The highway fleet is already established for sometime into the future, but we need a method to swiftly introduce more efficient vehicles. The fast way to do this would be
(a) rising gasoline taxes, and
(b) rationalize regulation so that cars from Europe and Japan could be imported without question.
It is idiotic to assume that the European Community or Japan are building cars that are any less safe or environmentally dirtier than our cars in the U.S. In this modern world, all modern developed nations are building cars with full safety features, and relative environmental cleanliness, but due to the heavy taxation of fuel in Europe and Japan they have more models available that are fuel efficient, including smaller cars, cars with Diesel engines, and even more CNG and LP gas models. Let them in.
Of course the labor unions would come undone at this proposal due to fear of job loss, but guess what? They are going to lose their job anyway. Sorry, we might as well open up our market to more efficient vehicles.
After that, we would have to let the buyer beware, but of course if we wanted to get draconian we would just keep jacking gasoline taxes until the public could no longer bear it and would have to either go electric, stop driving (or greatly reduce driving) or go to the most efficient vehicles technology would allow (i.e. electric or plug hybrid models, probably running propane or CNG as the onboard fuel)
So the biggest reduction in oil consumption would come from above, the rest would be simply to continue improvements in residentual/business consumption mainly to free up natural gas if it is needed for transportation, something along the Pickens thinking on using wind to free up natural gas. But his idea does not go far enough.
If we chose all the locations that solar PV would be most in demand in the daytime, it is astounding the sites that can be prioritized...post offices, schools, office parks, shopping malls...how many of them are open at night anyway? Starting in the sunbelt (remember, 80% of your gain will come from the best 20% of your sites) and work to the north...and then work on the less appropriate sites last...solar thermal, first in the desert where it has always been proven to work (we could easily remove California, New Mexico, Arizona from consumption of natural gas for electric production...and probably a couple of more states to boot...)
Okay,that's enough to do for the next decade...will any politician from any major party endorse the above, not on your life...so we will just have to let the technicians do their thing, let the public adjust to price by changing vehicles on their own and moving around to reduce the need to drive (and if the price goes up, they will, whether they like it or not) and hope for the best...
Oh, we can worry least about things like food production, aircraft, ships, and asphalt to resurface roads...check the numbers, messing with that stuff is spending 80% of your effort in the 20% that matters little...if we had to have a slogan it would be "it's the cars stupid". And I say that being a lover of the automobile.
Sorry, one more thing...everyone does know that all of the above is purely to defend the national economy, and will NOT have any effect on peak oil in the big worldwide picture...the U.S., Europe and Japan are already dropping as a percent of the world total of oil consumed and will continue to drop faster as a percent as the developing and third world consumption picks up...and the same is true of carbon release...we are rapidly becoming too small a player to even matter in the big worldwide picture...If we were to stop every vehicle in the U.S. tomorrow and burn it to the ground, it would have no real effect on the timing of world peak oil if you accept the numbers given by King Hubbert, Colin Campbell, Ken Deffeyes, or the Export Land Models often discussed on TOD by Westexas and others...all you would have done would be to destroy the U.S. economy and had no effect whatsoever on peak oil. Given that, my plan above actually sounds kind of moderate doesn't it?
Hppy motoring! :-)
RC
The recent Belfer report shows that fuel price is far more effective
than cafe standards at cutting oil imports, but that's a no-go in
Washington - they won't even raise the Fed tax 10c/gal ($14B).
As it stands, Americans currently pay less than 4% of income for
gasoline, very close to the 3.4-3.6% they paid in the 1960's, when
the US was far more self-sufficient in oil.
By comparison, European and Chinese drivers are paying around 10% of
income despite burning half and one-quarter the gasoline.
Even a Gulf minister recently showed some embarrassment that UAE drivers pay less at the pump than those in Bangladesh. How about
Americans paying 25% less than Indians - despite 40x the annual income?
Which just makes my often stated point that it is hard to rattle the public faith in the oil providers when the public is getting fuel at essentially giveaway prices...we can only wish college tuition, medical expenses, housing costs (even after the so called "crash") had stayed as cheap over the last 50 years as energy has when inflation adjusted.
RC
"keep jacking gasoline taxes"
This is the main thing we should do, perhaps with all of the tax going back in reductions in payroll tax/increase in welfare, so that there is no net tax gain. That might make it politically palpable. The main thing, anyway, to give a consistent price signal, not to beggar the public.
"Starting in the sunbelt...and work to the north"
This is a widespread misconception. In the summer, when, as you suggest, most electricity is use, Minnesota gets as much insolation as northern Florida--the earth is, after all, tipping us directly toward the sun during peak summer months.
Note also that the Pareto effect is not universally accepted as legitimate by all economists. It looks to me to be a rationalization for the wealthy in non-egalitarian societies. In any case, the US is now far past the Pareto ratio in terms of resource distribution.
dohboi said,
"In any case, the US is now far past the Pareto ratio in terms of resource distribution."
Is that really true? I am not disputing it, I just have not seen the statistics or numbers...would it be true that the top 20 percent of resource consumers do not consume 80 percent of the resources?
On your point about solar insolation, thanks for the reminder...and I had seen that somewhere years ago when I had a shelf full of solar insolation charts...it's one of those things that slip a persons mind if they take the term "sunbelt" too literally :-)
RC
Sorry not to provide a link. This is from the wiki page on pareto:
"Nobel Prize winner in Economics Paul Krugman in the New York Times dismissed this "80-20 fallacy" as being cited "not because it's true, but because it's comforting." He asserts that the benefits of economic growth over the last 30 years have largely been concentrated in the top 1%, rather than the top 20%"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
And here's the link to the original article:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/opinion/27krugman.html?_r=2
Taxes have a good chance of cutting the poor out of the system. Far better is a rationing although the chances of either being implimented in the US is pretty slim without some sort of crisis situation happening first.
No matter who you vote for, a politiician gets elected and anything with a timescale that extends beyond the next election is in never-never land. They will not respond to any threat in the future that requires them to deliver bad news today. Bad things should only happen when the other mob are in power
Here in Oz,about 2 years ago just after the election of a new federal labour government, we had a national conference called 'Australia 2020 - Growing our Future' or some such title, it was held in parliament house. About 1000 people from all over the country attended by invitation after applying and being vetted. They discussed everything except energy. It was a feel good execise, I called it 'The national synod of the one true church of infinite growth on a finite planet' and based entirely on that church's theology, non believers like me were not invited. Like all theologies this one is internally consistent, reassuring and suspended in midair by the golden thread of belief in the implausible. The resultant communiques were what you would expect. And the politicians all loved it, they satisfied the need of the populace to be consulted and gave the appearance of doing something whilst accomplishing nothing. It seemed so hopeful but was really just cynical manipulation.
I subscribe to Dmitry Orlov's view of the irrelevance of politics. John, I hope you are well and the tractor is still working for you.
Joining that little club myself...I think the most realistic expectation is that the great majority of governments in the world are incapable of effective action on population, energy, and climate change; in the US government is certainly a sideshow, a distraction from useful action.
A de-coupling away from any expectation of "governmental solution" is the best thing, allowing one to best pursue personal and local strategies.
Ditto. I believe the significant factor that will prevent any central authority to be able to tackle the upcoming crises is the fact that we're adding more "volume" of problems per unit time (aka exponential growth). There would be too many cars to replace, too many broken soils to fix and too many fishes dead by the time we even realize that we're just half way through.
Politicians. I can’t comment because I’m trying not to curse. Population growth. Why not allow people over the age of fourteen to be sterilized voluntarily. We allow abortions without the consent of the parents. Why not sterilization? A stagnant economic system will not allow wealth. It will never happen. Forgive peoples debt. Be realistic. I like trains. When I was stationed in Germany I enjoyed riding on their trains. I like the idea of using local growers for food production. My wife stocks the freezers with local vegetables but I like bananas and oranges and other things that won’t grow here in NC. Equity in sharing energy, the wealthy will never comply. Get real.
I think something that could be completed with a simple act of legislation is put an additional $5.00 a gallon federal tax on gasoline. Use that money to revitalize the rail system if you can keep the damn politicians’ hands out of the money. The tax would also reduce the usage of energy, reduce CO levels, and reduce the energy dependence.
hotrod
Forgetting for the moment that a steady state, in anything, is not possible, some of the measures government could take in the interests of transitioning the economy to a zero growth sustainable model would be:
1) create tax incentives for couples to have only 1 or 2 children
2) Subsidize condoms, birth control, and elective abortion
3) ration medical interventions for the elderly
4) immediate moratorium on immigration
5) establish a maximum wage
6) issue a new currency backed by precious metals
As Wall Street controls our government, there is absolutely zero chance of any of the above happening. And even if Wall Street did not control our government, I would put the chances of even 1 of the above ever happening at around 0.0001%.
Correct..there is absolutely zero chance of any of the above happening.
I realized a long time ago that gov in all countries do not want to restrict the supply of workers or else they could do annoying things, such as dictating their own employment conditions. 'Leaders' saw what happened after the Black death, and the rich were not happy..
Oilman. Right on
It is possible to transition but the chances are looking remote.
Could I add
7) Tax incentives to promote local manufacturing and food production (and thus providing employment)
8) Tax incentives to wean the economy off oil and onto renewables
As you pointed out, Population decline is a key to sustainability.
But I get the sinking feeling that you and Pondlife are probably correct and that the chances of government directed transition are almost zero.
The alternative will be significantly worse.
_Government_ is the only impediment to population control schemes? I'd say there is no support for this at all in the general public at large! Doomers should never assume they are part of some sort of moral majority. We're considered Malthusian extremists by everyone.
"gov in all countries do not want to restrict the supply of workers"
Well put, but I would add "the industrial (and now almost entirely capitalist corporate) powers behind gov in all countries..."
It always surprises me that people who are intelligent enough to ask the question "Qui bono?" (Who benefits?) in other situations, don't pause to ask this question on the issue of population.
Of course, other powerful institutions, such as the Catholic Church, also see benefit from growth among its flock, and there are many other dynamics.
But the usefulness to capitalists of having an endless supply of cheap labor is rather obvious to anyone willing to take their ideological blinders off.
Hi, John. I posted a picture of one of your tractors a couple of months ago in a thread regarding the future of agriculture. I still think electrically driven machines may have a future in small scale ag.
I'm having trouble with your questions because it's not the politicians and what they do so much as the system in which they operate, and the the people that elect them. We get the government that we deserve. Bullshit expectations lead to bullshit politicians and bullshit results. Sorry! Crude, I know, but dead-on accurate. As long as too many people are intent on supporting their dogma rather than solving problems, few of these issues (all good) will be addressed effectively.
I spent the afternoon harrowing about 2 acres of good bottom land that has been in pasture for 40 years and forest before that. Such good soil! We cut hay from it the last few years, cattle grazed it for 35, and fallow for 5. So you can see where we're at. Lost faith in the system and expecting more mouths to feed. We've done mostly raised beds and I've been holding this section in reserve to do some heavy hitting: corn, beans, potatoes, peas, more berries.
I just don't see much movement, politically, on the issues that I think matter, so becoming more self-reliant going forward seems like a win/win strategy.
The questions are mine, rather than John's, but John's essay brought them to mind.
It seems like it is difficult to get much of anything done through the political system, especially when it is far from what people are thinking on a day-to-day basis.
Important questions that few are asking.
It's the "information" age. Mass distraction. Informational entropy.
Gail, yes, I was referring to "John" in the somewhat editorial sense because in all honesty I have always been able to communicate with the engineer type mindset...even when I differ with them, I know they start from the viewpoint that to prioritize from the most pressing problem and work down the list is the sensible way to do things...and to not delude themselves into believing that doing the "noble" thing will always have any effect...for example, no engineer would believe that even the noblest American can change the timing of peak oil or global warming by what he/she chooses to drive...despite the noble self-sacrifice of the "green" American, it will have no effect. It could have an effect on national security and the stability of the economy of said nation...but that is a different issue.
RC
"noble self-sacrifice of the "green" American"
Well, that's your characterization. And maybe its so for some. But everyone I know that is trying to minimize their impact is just trying to be a bit less of an absolute environmental A-hole with no hopes of being remotely 'noble.'
We also want to emulate the life we see everyone needs to adopt rather than hypocritically demanding that everyone else make changes that we are not willing to make.
But most have no illusions that any individual actions have much chance at all by themselves at doing much of anything.
Please refrain from making assumptions about the motivations of others, especially when those assumptions are back handed insults based on prejudice.
dohboi,
My apology if what I said came across as a "back handed insult". It was not intended that way, and without the "early adaptors" of environmental technology such as hybrids or solar there would be no possibility of forward development. My concern is that some people have a greatly magnified perception of how much it can change the larger outcome...if they are aware of the real numbers they must realize the limited potential for immediate change of the actions they are taking. That does not make the actions not valuable if we understand the more limited range of the consequences of actions (i.e., effects on stabilizing the national economy, acting as a patron (and positive example) for new more efficient technology, etc. And I have nothing against noble causes...I wish I were more noble! :-)
RC
"noble self-sacrifice of the "green" American"
The funny thing about that statement is that, in my case, the "noble" part is a side effect of what is a series of selfish choices. Few folks realize how complex and energy intensive their BAU lifestyles are. They can't know until they reduce their complexity and consumption levels because they are working so hard to maintain their way of life and their "stuff". Reducing complexity and consumption, going off-grid and finding "better things to do" has payed off in ways I couldn't imagine 15 years ago. Truly a win/win change. While I admit to some "noble" goals in the beginning, if I had to do it again it would be for purely selfish reasons. Fewer bills, fewer apointments, fewer unwanted phonecalls, less junk mail, less trash, etc., all add up to more time and resources for things that matter (like doing nothing at all). That said, I'm going to go take a nap with the dogs on this cool, rainy day in the mountains.
The System of Economics, Politics and Energy has been "broken" for over 40 years because we have been told massive lies. And it is possible that the original liers did not know they were lying to us but it sounded good anyhow.
Economically the system started to break in the 1970's when we were told that it was good economics to export all our manufacturing jobs and our own economy would grow on expanding population, expanding suburbia, expanding coffee franchises and financial management (debt). What a disaster this has been.
The political system has been in free fall since the day JFK was murdered. You can find your own reasons. There are many.
The Energy Lie turns out to be the biggest of all. i) There is endless inexpensive oil in the world and it won't run out like almost forever, ii) when it does run out alternatives will be just as cheap and just as energy efficient and our high tech fantasy world which is a blessing to everyone will go on forever too.
Oh but wait! There's been one solid immutable truth though. And that is the average highly intelligent citizen and voter in democracies will understand immediately that Population Overshoot, The Limits to Growth, Global Warming, and Peak Oil are scare tactics manipulated by scientists to purposefully deindustrialise the West. This has been the real cause of the job losses, the foreclosures and the banking collapses. Yeah. Right.
We can talk about political solutions to the "Long Descent" that has been slowly gathering speed since we started exporting jobs and expanding oil and debt sucking suburbia back in the 70"s. But as long as Joe Average is in collective denial and politicians have the choice of telling Joe to prepare for imminent social decline or lying that everything will be OK, then which way do you really believe the political future will pan out?
Decline is inevitable. Political solutions to manage the decline and transition are possible. But right now NOT ONE DEMOCRACY is talking seriously about sustainable futures wrt to population, food production, economies and an oil depleted energy base.
I just cannot see political motivation coming for managing decline, from either a broken political system or a non believing voter base.
Unless there is dramatic change in the BAU model, prepare for more problems rather than solutions.
"The System of Economics, Politics and Energy has been "broken" for over 40 years because we have been told massive lies. "
My opinion is that before politics can be effective there has to be a lot of telling of the truth. A political system of democratically elected representatives depends on information feedback so that the electorate can understand what the effect of their votes has been. Our media which provides the feedback are corporate owned and so the information provided reflects the interests of the owners and not the general public interest. We need a lot of politicians willing to commit political suicide by telling the truth. I am not optimistic.
Now the newspapers have so many financial problems that the newspapers are thin shadows of their former selves. There is no budget for investigative reporting. Many of the staff are being laid off. Potential readers are not really concerned about the issues--many are off playing video games, or if they are older, watching movies or regular television shows.
Everything has gone along fairly well for a while. WHy not assume this will happen forever?
"Everything has gone along fairly well for a while. "
True for certain classes of people such as those who frequent TOD. For another view, look to the writings of Robert Reich, his analysis of the problems, not his solutions. From what I can tell, he's right on and that's why there's no economic recovery in the cards. Sure, let the banks grant more credit to small businesses so they can hire more of the unemployed and sell their goods and services to .... whom?
Gail This is so true. With few exceptions independant news reporting is dead. Newspapers and News stations have basically become mouthpieces for big business and big government. Advertising royalties virtually guarantee the traditional news publishes the BAU paradigms of the current politico-economic masters. Everything is fine. Keep paying taxes. Keep consuming. Full recovery is just around the corner. The FF economy and the American Dream will roll on forever.
Any denier (GW PO) philosophy (usually economically driven)is given substance over scientific data.
How will it be possible to ever have an enlightened electorate to guide political decisions until the problem is too obvious to ignore.
The chances of keeping the inevitable decline of a FF based economy to a manageable transition are becoming slimmer and slimmer.
Seems to me there are two factors
(1) What information is available
(2) What information is "pushed" by mainstream media
Gail (and to a lesser extent watfigo) seem to be worried about what is available. More immediate to me is "what is pushed". It seems to me that I can find the information on the Web, say by reading Tod for conventional energy questions, TAE for short term economic developments, RealClimate for climate (except for methane), etc.
Also I scan Google news to see what's being pushed to the public. 95% distraction. Misinterpretation of the other 5% for the most part.
Hi Dad I agree 100% on traditional news "pushing" certain information
And today thanks to the blogosphere unfiltered (by the mainstream media) news "availability" is high. But unfortunately "penetration rate" is low. Almost like preaching to the believers which is what every religion does anyhow.
The question still comes back to informed voter knowledge and action with a hope for elected political will to tackle the problems.
My opinion is that BAU interests are still too potent and therefore it won't happen.
Therefore the chances of controlled decline lessen every year. And a more rapid chaotic decline to a post oil economy becomes more likely.
So there's a lot of agreement on this. My "Doom and Gloom" bit is due to the lack of response. The problems were, in broad outline, fairly obvious back in the 70s and 80s. I'm not nearly as well acquainted with the details now as I was back then. For a while there was what seemed to me a lot of good thinking back then which I became aware of as part of the the Green Movement which later became the Green Party (what a mistake!). One last involvement for me in the Green/Nader campaign. Sigh.
"Doom & Gloom is due to the lack of response" Absolutely!
The Lack of Response from government and Joe Average Citizen I assume you mean. I agree. The "Lack of Response" is what will make this a lot worse than if humanity could act on the data instead of the dreams and lies.
I don't believe the anti-doomers are providing any hard facts to counter decreasing net oil export data, decreasing net energy with any and all alternative energy sources and the lack of viable oil substitutes that will arrest social and economic decline as the oil age fades away.
The Social and Economic Decline into a FF depleted world would be manageable if the world political and economic system would act. But because of business and religous ideologies, this is now highly unlikely.
I couldn't agree more. It's not the situation so much, as bad as it is, it's the Lack of Response. This is what gives you that sinking feeling in your gut.
Just asking:
Are "acquaintances" of TODers generally like-minded to themselves, or generally not? I mean, do TODers speak much with Average Joes about compounding growth, resource depletion and such?
Two years ago, I'd have agreed my fellow Joes and Janes hadn't a clue. Lately, I've had the impression that more folk have a "bit" of an understanding; the odd phone-in to a radio station, some general chat around the BBQ...
Perhaps "gaining relevant knowledge" is a compounding phenomenon as well? (Here's hoping!). Of course, I suspect this particular rate-of-growth may remain fairly small.
Regards, your friendly Joe :)
None of the people in my non-virtual life (a.k.a. off-internet, real life) are PO aware and generally I keep my mouth shut about it lest I provoke their denial modes and ostracism.
Remember, in the Land of the Blind, the one-eyed man is a kook.
My immediate family knows I'm a Peak Freak. But even they don't want to hear anything about it. As far as they are concerned, this is some nut cake obsession of mine and hopefully with passage of time I'll stop drinking the KoolAid, leave the cult, and rejoin their idea of what real reality is.
_______________________
(Left click on image for enlarged version)
No one wants to talk about the end of the world.
Nobody.
My family is in denial, even on the issue of arranging my father's will so as not to absolutely require the liquidation of his estate after he dies. I can see many unlikely but possible situations in which holding the property may be beneficial to us, and I would even go as far as requiring a unanimous decision of all interested parties (none of us can afford to purchase the house).
Amongst my friends, one's mantra is, after a quick breakdown on peak oil, "you can't know the future." This by way of explaining why he doesn't want to talk about it. (It should be noted that he lost the price of a house when he didn't sell freshly-vested Cisco stock options he had planned to sell, days before the Company meltdown, based on company reports all was well. Spent some time in therapy because of it. Still doesn't want to think about the future, despite having experienced it's downside.)
Another friend, essentially retired at 50, knows the issues and understands the consequences and extreme possibilities. Could afford to change, but doesn't wish to. He took pure Maths in University, and despite this, is very practical. I suspect he has considered the odds of society changing and of his surviving non-change, and decided there is no profitable stream for him in either camp- society won't change and he's going to die when TSHF anyway.
Yet another friend: "I suspect this is going to be a depressing conversation."
My relatives from the states who came up for a funeral last week: (the only political exchange of the evening) "How could you guys possibly raise your taxes?"
I think that last one says it all- Americans don't even want to pay for the services they are receiving now.. I did not see them as a likely group of peak oil adoptees.
I've been reading "The Black Swan". Taleb's summary on page 296, that you should be aggressive to gain exposure to unusual opportunities (buying a little Apple stock in 1996), where a failure would not be important, and cautious when errors can hurt (the chance of your mortgage eventually going underwater, say, when you bought in 2006.) He points out that this is the opposite of what most people do.
Peak Oil conciousness asks us to imagine how bad it might be if things don't change. Of course, we can't put a time line to it, a price tag on it, or a guarantee that even if we start now, it will be OK. Plus, everything other people think they know has to be thrown out, with a cold, hard rationalism replacing it. A cold, hard rationalism based on group survival rather than personal benefit, or survivalist-style doomsteading.
Basically, I come here to talk about this stuff.
I, too, come here to buttress my thinking.
My daughter has read the books and links I've sent her, and she appreciates cropmob.com and the WOOFers because they are youth-based, but she says "Mom, we agree to disagree." She assumes the transition to what comes next will be gradual and orderly, and that we'll either grow or organize ouselves out of this mess. But she can cook from scratch and once grew a tomato plant, and she explains that her city (San Francisco) is one of a few in USA that has city-wide kitchen and yard waste curbside pick-up and composting.
Husband will listen to Kunstler's Monday and Thursday rants and is a self-described "slow-crash realist", but this means yeah, yeah, but not in my lifetime. It's a form of denial. If not for me he wouldn't think about these things.
Other relatives assume recovery is inevitable. My friends here explain patiently that Hawaii is always five years behind the mainland in housing and economics. I'm being tolerated.
"Husband will listen to Kunstler's Monday and Thursday rants and is a self-described "slow-crash realist", but this means yeah, yeah, but not in my lifetime. It's a form of denial. If not for me he wouldn't think about these things."
so far the only thing that has crashed are two things.
1. the oil bubble
2. the credibility of all those doomsters like kunstler and matt simmons who said crazy things during the summer of 2008 before oil subsequently crashed.
Peak Oil Media: Matt Simmons gets more pessimistic on CNBC, Heinberg, and others...
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4287
Matt Simmons on Fast Money
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3709
here is what I think will happen. the oil price will slowly climb higher as they have been minus the wild volatility. ok the volatility thing is a joke. oil is still higher than it was years ago even with the oil price crash. as the oil price rises we will continually adapt. we won't wake up some time and suddenly all freak out because peak oil will suddenly appear out our door. rising prices will signal that we need to use oil differently and we need other and alternative forms of energy.
the oil price will rise but just like in the 70s it will peak. prices will crash as we use oil more efficiently and adapt. it's already happening. the green movement has been great for this.
I'm not sure if these replies have given me any hope or not, but I'd just like to restate that I get the feeling, at least in middle-class, that there's a little more awareness than some here might think. We're not all closed-off to such realities as limits to growth.
At least in my conversations with folk anyway.
Regards,
Matt Blain from Down Under
Why is "slow-crash realism" a form of denial? It is one rational position to hold indeed, and since it isn't based on "recovery and growth will return - these things go in cycles", it isn't what is normally termed denial.
I too think it will be a slow-crash future, and that we have had (or nearly had) Peak Most Things - the Dow will never be 16,000 again, and all the rosy projections for the future that pervade almost every report and piece of research you read in the business and quality media (international air travel will double by 2020 - quick we need more runways and bigger planes, etc) - are based on quicksand - the producers and consumers of such words - they are the real deniers, it seems to me.
"they are the real deniers, it seems to me."
please, nobody knows the future for sure. you can't possibly know all the advancements in aviation that will happen in the next 20 years. you have no clue. you don't know how efficient travel of all kinds will get. since I've been here you guys have been wrong on so many things. remember the permanent blackouts? the natural gas cliff? I could go on and on.
I forgot, you guys didn't see the oil crash, that is for sure. so much for the collective wisdom of TOD, so don't cast stones when you guys live in a glass house.
Doom and Gloom Dad asked,
"Sure, let the banks grant more credit to small businesses so they can hire more of the unemployed and sell their goods and services to .... whom?"
Well, the old theory seemed to be that you would sell the goods and services to the people you employed...that was Henry Ford's logic when he said it was important to pay a decent wage so that his employees could buy the cars he built...but of course if you ship the job out of the country and pay overseas workers a few dollars a day, it makes it hard for them to buy a home or a new Buick...and that's going to be true whether you have no oil or oil up to your ears.
RC
Alisa Miller covers the news succinctly in this TED talk
Our populations are being force fed cheap junk news.
Both an entertaining and sobering talk.
Thanks.
(All the news that is cheapest to propagate.)
p.s. Anna Nicole Smith is back in the news. Yippee.
"...there has to be a lot of telling of the truth."
And hence, privately created sites like The Oil Drum emerge.. at which point however, you get to the 'Leading the Horse to water' analogies. Such Communications are now prodigious, global, available to many private citizens, and in many cases also instantaneous.. and yet there are as many 'truths' out there as there are websites.. which flavor of truth will you choose?
How is one to know that THIS is the place to go for the real deal? (The Royal 'This', that is.. while I think TOD is aiming the right way, I'm not blustrous enough to declare it the end-all for truthtelling)
I suspect the communications solution is as much a matter of 'BB's' as the Energy Sources themselves will have to be. One must try to engage in the public sphere, through one or many levels of the political realm, but not put all the energy (effort) there. Personal Efforts, Family and the 'Commons' are arenas that have an immediacy and a power that the symbolic world of government can't touch (while City Hall and Congress constantly looks to these for a sense of what is real out there.. as on the internet, this view can often be overwhelming and badly distorted.)
I think it's a Plato quote, "To catch a fish, you have to put your hook in many ponds.."
jokuhl, you are correct, and there is yet another problem: The appeal to authority. It is very difficult to speak about potential problems when there are such authorities as The American Petroleum Institute and Exxon out there saying in effect "don't worry, be happy" and running ads against any rational taxing structure for energy or carbon...AND telling the public "we have the resources if they would only let us develop them." The average citizen is going to give a lot of credibility to the oil companies, the petroleum institutes, OPEC and EIA and the Department of Energy (who recently was still predicting in their long term outlook an energy price as low as it is today out to 2030!
I ask in all sincerity how any alternative voice is going to be taken seriously when going up against such a wall of authority?
RC
The EIA seems even more prescient now than this time last year. In the preview of this year's Annual Energy Outlook 2010 they tell us that they can now predict even further into the future. In 2035 their "reference case" price of a barrel of imported crude oil is $121.37. The price will not rise above $100 until well after 2020. These prices are even lower than their central projection in last year's report.
US Lower 48 crude production rises on average by 1.2% a year every year from now until 2035 when the EIA's crystal ball runs out of batteries.
"I suspect the communications solution is as much a matter of 'BB's' as the Energy Sources themselves will have to be."
And I suspect you may be right. I've been casting around for some sort of grand solution to the "information feedback problem" but haven't had any luck.
Lots of scapegoating going on in this thread. The politicians, the MSM. Not a lot of accountability being leveled at the overall culture. If the little guy were really blameless, then something like the airing of Earth 2100 on ABC would have been a watershed moment that caused an upswell. And that's after other high profile stuff like 11th Hour, Inconvenient Truth, etc... Instead, people are becoming LESS worried about climate change and we are still very much in the "trance" stage of "shock to trance" with regards to oil prices. So I'm sorry, I will not go along with the usual TPTB slugfest. The public has had ample exposure to the data and is choosing to ignore it.
What "data"? You really don't want to get into a discussion of clean data, laundered "data" pre-screened "data", adjusted "data"....do you?
RC
I understand your point and oscillate between being most upset with the lairs and most upset with those believing the lies. But what is "ample exposure to the data"? Most of the people I run into are simply not aware of the data. On the other hand, I sometimes suspect that it takes a good bit of effort of some sort to maintain this amount of ignorance. I remember hearing it said that some civilians living near the Nazi death camps had no idea of what was being done there. I can believe that but also believe that such ignorance was active rather than passive.
We're all eye-ball deep in sh*t. Most people spend quite a bit of energy denying this obvious fact. Anyone asking them to acknowledge this reality will not be welcome. Anyone offering comforting alternatives to this obvious reality, no matter how absurd, will be readily believed and welcomed.
I agree with you. Much blame to go around but in the end the actions of the majority are what really matter. We could choose to stop eating endangered fish. We could car pool more. We could vote for Ron Paul. We could pull our money out of corrupt bailed out institutions. We could take fewer hot showers.
But we don't.
It's pretty easy to lay it on the masses.. but look at those 3page Pharma ads, where the fineprint on side three has all the 'Genital Mutilations' and other exotic, adverse effects. Yes, the data is out there, and it's so expertly massaged and disguised, while people who are barely able to keep nostrils out of water on 2 or more incomes are being gleefully bled.
There are choices, and often precious few chances to take the luxury of making them.
'so Oil Supplies are complicated, quite a concern.. and in other news, have you ever seen a skateboarding cat? Stick with us, and watch THIS fur fly!'
There is a reason this site has a lot of petroleum experts and old polymaths (and those of you under 40 have my congratulations.)
The material is not obvious, you need to pull a lot of different fields together, and you have to think about ethical choices. Nothing prepares you for this but life (though petroleum experts have a head start). And I suspect that even an average life doesn't bring you here. To expect reporters or citizens to put it together is too much. I find deniers in my experience, to be some combination of: a)not smart, b)ill-informed, c)uneducated, d)afraid, e)opportunistic, f)willfully ignoring facts that would make them change, cost them money, or face ethical challenges. I see only (f) as evil; the rest are the result of their environment, not of conscious choice.
Guys like Rockman have been thinking about it for 30 years. I read Limits to Growth and have driven small cars since about '85, have had only one child (on purpose), have heard about AGW for about 5 years, and Peak Oil as a subset of that for less than 2 years.
I am about as far from Joe 6-pack as one can get (literally- no beer in the house...though I am concerned about the sustainability of Barbeque.) And yet I had read Limits To Growth and thought a smaller car would be enough...or that since no one else was doing even that much, to do more or to advocate greater change would be too costly.
It's not enough for data to be available. The time and wisdom to evaluate and understand it are in short supply, and the economic incentive to make life choices for the good of the planet is not there during the home-buying, family raising and success-building years.
How do we build true selflessness and curiousity into a culture which sees them as weaknesses, if not things to be abolished?
i swore off politics when pres. obama took over & kept the same wall street/treasury crew in. this was not easy as a long term liberal democrat. i was extremely upset by the approving of TARP; & believe this was a national turning point. i rarely even listen anymore, & chose to focus on shoring up for what's to come with/for myself, family & neighbors.
i might come 'off the wagon' for a more local issue/person if one comes along.
I rejected politics in my radical (anti-Vietnam War) youth, as being a two-party sham constructed by the bourgeoisie to trick the people that their society was democratic and representative. And also that the media set the agendas, and the people can fixate on very narrow and often ludicrous issues, rather than see any big-picture issues. While still holding these views, I did in fact join the Labor Party and actively engaged in the political process for quite a while ... including voting.
Now (in my 50s) I only ever vote for the Greens, at all levels (local, state, and federal) - they're the only ones with any brains (but they do bundle in some pretty goofy policies with their core green platform, and they would be advised to keep it simple, but they can't seem to help themselves). Sometimes they are conflicted ... they're strong supporters of many humanitarian issues (such as refugees) for example, but also advocate keeping Australia's population low. But these hard issues are there to test them.
But all politicians are totally conflicted ... even if they know all too well that there is a genuine issue, they will always advocate solutions that exacerbate those problems, so long as the policy or solution offends the fewest number of interests (media, opinion drivers, campaign funding types, business, unions, and also the voters). So my view is very pessimistic, if not to say doomerist - the solutions to our on-rushing problems will only be solved by reactions to crises, and with almost no conservation or preservation measures taken beforehand - if there is any pain involved.
Nothing can be done on a country basis. Nothing can be done on a state basis. The politics are too tainted with money from special interests. The only thing that one can do politically is on a local basis. But first you need to get the citizens of that locality to understand the problem. Therefore the smaller local arena you work in the better. Once they are on board in a majority they can elect politicians from their ranks. The main issue is to get to as much local self sufficieny as possible. Localize food, energy sources (wood and candles). I doubt that many local communities are ripe for such actions and of course they still live under the political regime of counties, states and federal government. But to think that any politician in state or federal gov't is going to recognize the coming problems and even if the recognize it to take positive action is not to have watched politicians much. How many in the US house of reps have listened to Roscoe Bartlett speak on peak oil, and how many have listened and then spread the message?
Defeatist outlook? No I think realistic. Too many people spent way to long hoping for Obama's change when it was pretty obvious even before he was elected and certainly when he picked his Cabinet that no change was coming. My Obama doom and gloom wasn't quite gloomy enough for the reality. We are on our own here either as communities (if we have the luck to be in one that is open to hearing about Peak Oil and understanding what it means), or as individuals.
This is a self-defeating, and therefore self-fulfilling belief system.
If Denmark's public had believed this, Denmark would not have 25% wind power.
If Spain's public had believed this, Spain would not have built high-speed rail criss-crossing the country in a decade.
If Germany's public had believed this, Germany would not have building energy-efficiency standards that make normal German new construction better than US green show homes...
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124018395386633143.html
"Spain opened its first high-speed line, between Madrid and Seville, in 1992. At the time, the decision to run the line to sleepy Seville, host to the World Expo that year, was deeply controversial. Critics said it would be a costly failure for then-Prime Minister Felipe González, and that he built the line just to take him to Seville, his hometown, on the weekends.
But the AVE-which means "bird" in Spanish- proved to be a popular and political success. Politicians now fight to secure stations in their districts. Political parties compete to offer ever-more ambitious expansion plans. Under the latest blueprint, nine out of ten Spaniards will live within 31 miles of a high speed rail station by 2020."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wind_power_in_Denmark
Wind power provided 19.7 percent of electricity production and 24.1% of capacity in Denmark in 2007[1], a significantly higher proportion than in any other country.[2]
http://www.med-enec.com/en/WORKSHOP/RW234/Damascus,%20Palmyra%20Syr/Dilm...
German heating energy requirements kwh per meter2 have been reduced from 200 in 1977 to 40 currently (an 80% reduction).
Plenty of "real-world" examples of successful government action exist, but somehow the dogma in the US is that successful government action is impossible. I suppose the power of right-wing thought in politics and the media contributes, but I am always suprised that dogma triumphs over evidence...
Good points, but note that both of these countries are far smaller than than the US and even smaller than many states in the US.
I think different people will put different amounts of their energy into different levels, but it does make some sense to start local.
What I would like to know is how people are going about bringing even local populations to understand some outlines of the nature of our predicament. Many hear confess that they can't even talk to their loved ones about it much.
I am on a city-level environmental advisory committee (of a smallish city), and it strikes me that the main thing we need to do is educate our selves and the city populace of the scale fo the problem before us.
I'm not sure what the relevance is, but it is interesting to note that Denmark, one of the small countries noted, has not had a majority government for over a century. The current governing coalition of Prime Minister Anders Rassmussen has 69 seats in the 179 member unicameral parliament (Folketing). There are twelve political parties represented in the Folketing.
In some way Denmark has managed to achieve its high usage of wind power when the country cannot even come close to internal agreement on politics. Though Denmark is small, there is a lot of internal disagreement on many subjects. Perhaps a long history of having to make decisions on policy when there is no consensus has helped.
I realize that countries in Europe have done better - but what they have done is NOT enough. Are the citizens of those countries likely to do more, especially with Greece and Latvia collapsing economically, Spain in trouble, and countries in Eastern Europe on the edge which if they collapse economically may affect European countries.
As far as the US well just recently with climategate the American Public has said "whew glad we don't have to worry about global warming anymore"
The citizens in the US are easily manipulated by those who offer goodies, not by those who suggest cutting back and therefore politicians give them what they want or think they want which happens to align with their corporate sponsors.
You call it defeatism, I call it realism. If I am right, spending time trying to change the US powers that be is time wasted at a local level or personal level. I believe I am in the company of Richard Heinberg and Dmitry Orlov among others. I think Dmitry's take on things is more valid than using Europe as an example. He predicted and watched the collapse of the first superpower to fall. The fact that the US is the alpha superpower of the day I believe is relevant to what they will and will not do. In fact when Russia collapsed what saved the day for many Russians were the grandmothers and their kitchen gardens. If you haven't read "Reinventing Collapse" by Orlov perhaps you should.
Meanwhile, recently Atlanta, who has one really fine public transit system, has talking about cutting it back due to costs. "Bus riders frustrated with MARTA cutback plan" - http://championnewspaper.com/news/articles/346bus-riders-frustrated-with... - it exists, it is safe and effective but they want to cutback! So it goes in the land of the free and the brave....
With all levels of government insolvent and drowning in liabilities and debt, it's hard to see how this gets any better as long as we insist on municipal bus and train rides being provided practically for free (and this would remain the case even without any oil issues to consider.) There's an inconvenient truth here that no one wishes to face, which is that most forms of motorized transportation, including all of the "safe" forms involving heavy enclosed vehicles, are quite expensive to provide.
The MARTA 20-trip book seems to be $1.70 a ride. The real joke is that it's for any distance, so for reasonably likely distances it will be dirt cheap (in Tokyo $1.70 would get you two stops on a local train, maybe a kilometer, or with luck, two.) Users who rely on the system for most or all of their transportation would buy monthly passes for $60, and thus pay $1 or less a ride. Most of the complainers are getting many times what they pay for, and it's hard to say how much longer that can be sustained (maybe for as long as China keeps lapping up Treasuries, and not much longer?) Such is life. Things are tough all over.
Its all about scale. You are not going to address a problem like air polution and climate change on a local or national level because the atmosphere does not recognise geopolitical boundaries. Your going to need an international body, for example the UN, to get its shit together to deal with a global problem.
Its also pointless to expect large international or national organisations to try to impliment policy for source and sink problems on a local level. If your worried that your village doesnt have the renewable capacity to weather the upcomming energy transition your going to have to get involved in municipal politics to get something done.
At this time - NO, because the problems of PO, GW, and biosphere degradation are either not understood or deliberately denied by the majority of people (due mostly to religious and corporate disinformation). I guess the broader question is whether or not some future variant of our political process will be effective in time. I heard a comment the other day about the tea party wing-nuts: perhaps a new generation will adopt a different mindset than simply expressing self-centered anger and become more constructive in their thinking. Maybe religion as we know it know will be replaced with the "dark green religion" thinking. Maybe global corporations like Wal-mart will be viewed as criminal enterprises. Perhaps then the political system will value the "common good" over today's value system. What do historians say about the potential for this kind of transformation actually occurring in a useful time-frame?
Without a useful population policies being enacted by the majority of the planet's countries, there is no hope - this is an absolute bedrock requirement for any kind of humane powerdown. Perhaps this is not as impossible as most here on TOD think. Slavery was once widely accepted on the planet and today it is not - big changes are possible. The slavery change took centuries - but they did not have the Internet.
Like voluntary population reduction - this would be a monumental change in thinking.
I suppose this will happen as countries default - but I doubt it will ever be a well planned affair.
Sure - all good solutions once the problem is understood and the world agrees on some goals.
I see no realistic mechanism for this happening.
A secular humanist with solid environmental credentials and a degree in political science :-)
I suppose if we actually have the luxury of time to nibble away at the predicament we are in - otherwise, why bother?
IMHO, the most important issue is the state of delusion in which most people operate: the god delusion, the free enterprise delusion, the "liberty" delusion of "rugged" individualism, the "mobility" delusion, the exceptional race delusion, etc. MSM is the protector of these delusions as paid for by religious and corporate sponsors. We need critical thinking skills.
"We need critical thinking skills."
Do you suppose they teach that in High Schools ?
http://www.criticalthinking.org/
http://www.criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm
http://www.criticalthinking.net/
Hi jmygann,
Thanks for the links - had not seem them before.
If you have been following the Texas fiasco on teaching curriculum, one might suspect that none of your links would be high on their list of priorities.
GW, and biosphere degradation are either not understood or deliberately denied by the majority of people (due mostly to religious and corporate disinformation).
I don't deny GW - but the "solution" where 30% of the funds are used for actual carbon work and 30% goes to bankers like Goldman Sachs I'm willing to go with Ferdinand #1 - Fiat justitia, et pereat mundus. (Let justice be done, though the world perish.) Let the world perish because the bastards can only figure out how to be 70% wasteful.
(the %ages via http://www.environmentalleader.com/2009/12/08/uk-report-just-30-of-carbo... )
Anyone reading this blog can see that the political leanings of the Oil Drum's audience are all over the map. So whose interests would be represented by this elected official? Someone's interests ARE being represented, just not the minority of those in this country who understand our energy challenges. Can you imagine the howling of the majority if someone suggested growth was over?
The bigger question is whether the Oil Drum readers are being the best leaders they can be in their own communities. We don't need an election to make a difference.
Hi Debbie,
Not to be mean, but when you lost 16 months ago. Do you feel you lost because you represented the educated minority and that's who you wanted to represent?
I don't consider that a mean question but my response would take too much time for this space. Here are a few random thoughts. I wanted to represent what I perceived as the truth about our energy situation--which is not something that would have gotten me re-elected had I been successful. I have no regrets in having taken on the challenge. I knew it would be difficult but I also knew that in the trying, it would provide an even larger audience to hear about the kinds of things discussed here on TOD.
Districts are drawn to protect the incumbent--how else can you explain the shape of the 46th District. Elections are only superficially about issues. That's why you cannot win based on a "peak oil" platform. During the 2008 Congressional race the mania du jour went from health care, to oil prices, to crashing economy. People vote on emotions, not facts, they don't generally know anything about the candidates and so rely on the R or D behind the name. I don't particularly care about political parties--I find them both to be stifling. But that is the system we have.
You went up against a caveman, and the rest of the cave people voted for him.
I'm a former resident of OC, and understand the problem.
Well I'm sorry you didn't win. You got my vote and thanks for your support on adding 6 plus acres to Wardlow park.
The point about OIl Drum readers needed to be the best leaders they can in their own communities is a good one.
It seems like we need leaders outside of the political system--it is just too difficult to change.
"...it is just too difficult to change."
I'd add "And always has been"
It seems to me this is the best reason to put MORE of our efforts towards the public sector. The fact that we've lost a lot of power and voice in the system is the reason to get in there.
Private and Independent action/outreach is ALSO vital.. but working to readjust government has to be done.
When the doctor tells you 'You'll never walk again..' , what are you going to do?
True, but do we know how many TOD readers and contributors are already taking on leadership roles in their communities?
I suspect that many ARE doing significant work within their spheres of influence. Has there been a poll of any such thing?
Topic for a campfire??
just a quick sleepy-morning comment here...
I personally ignore the political process as a relatively inefficient time sink, and consider political "power", as it's normally considered to exist, to range from evanescent to illusory. Still, some incremental progress can be made there by individuals and Debbie has lucidly spoken to this before. The main impediment to affecting the political system in modest ways the USA is the personal discipline to stay at it and learn its dynamics. It's a lot like choosing to climb into and bail a leaky boat, but it's available to any healthy person. I've certainly done it, and in the process rolled over highly-monied corporate lobbyists with weaker narratives. It simply isn't fun or easy, it's difficult and demanding work. And there really isn't much net power there, it's like trying to convince a tribe of capuchin monkeys that they shouldn't all immediately split the cookies and eat them. Even if you do, your victory will not long survive your departure from the melee.
Corporations excercise power in the "representative political" venue more due to their focus than their money. It's difficult for two activists to agree on anything specific for a month, much less maintain a shared focus for a decade or so; while corporate interests are straightforward, implacable, and pretty unambiguous. So even a total doofus hired by a corp as a lobbyist may seem to wield awesome power over the years if he's essentially unopposed. And most corporate lobbyists are essentially unopposed; they're filling a vacuum. Elected officials don't have the expertise to formulate comprehensive decision-making strategies on stuff they aren't expert in, so they go with the information they have. That information is provided by those who show up. Citizens could provide most of this information; they by and large simply don't bother to do it in a way that works.
I respect those who decide to be local leaders, do positive things like starting transition towns, and act outside the political process, it's very sane. However, there is no particular reason to confine private initiative to inward focus and geographic localism. "think globally, act globally" is quite do-able. The main impediments to it are the the little artificial boxes we create in our own minds to circumscribe the scope of our goals and identities. Such 'power' as exists in human societies is mostly still lying on the ground where nobody has picked it up. The weak sorts of power such as the political representation process (either getting someone elected or influencing someone already elected) seem strong because they're the only sort of power most allow themselves to perceive. But these are by and large not the tools which move societies, they are the tools to prevent movement.
sorry, I probably won't be back to answer any replies, if any. The world of phenomena beckons and I must go join it for awhile.
cheers
Exactly. There are so many ways to affect change. The benefit to having been in elective office is in gaining a better understanding of all the varied ways. I bet there are quite a few TOD readers who are leading a change in their community.
Government is adapted to provide technical solutions to problems. Applying a technical solution to our energy challenges will lead to failure. This is an adaptive challenge and the people with the problem (us) have to learn new ways.
Here is an instructive quote from the book, "Leadership on the Line."
Elected officials have neither the time nor the trust to do the work. That is the leadership void that each one of us can fill.
" New economic system not depending on growth"
i love the sheer cluelessness and arrogance of the doomsters.
"new economic system not depending on growth"
What's arrogant and clueless about that?
Europe existed on that system quite well for hundreds of years during the Medieval Period with an EROEI of less than 2, about the same as the Alternative Renewable Energy future we are heading into.
You better get used to it or you might be looking "arrogant and clueless"
Cheers
yes because the medieval period was so rocking!
I know, let's just outlaw GDP growth. meddling in the economy this way is just so stupid. people have tried to meddle in the economy that way in the past and it always ends up bad.
just let the market and individuals sort things out. it's inevitable anyway.
how would we even start a new economic system that isn't dependent on growth? anyone want to volunteer to not buy anything? anyone what to volunteer for no more wage growth? anyone want to volunteer to freeze their standard of living?
who would possibly decide when we had to switch to a no growth economy? what if you're wrong?
how would we even start a new economic system that isn't dependent on growth?
That's easy. Take out the Fossil Fuels. Oops. Gee whiz, we don't have to do that. It's gonna be done for us anyhow.
Besides, Wages in real terms of purchasing power have been declining since the late 70's. So has standard of living. And have you checked out the GDP lately, let alone the unemployment figures.
Looks like a no growth economy to me.
But I do agree with you about the Medieval Period. No Trans Am's to rip up I 80, No Jumbo Jet rides to Cancun and no flat screen TV's or X Box and no orthopedic surgeons to put you back together after getting destroyed on the black diamond run at Alpine. It's a no contest
And therin lies the problem. Let's face it the last century has been a blast to live in and we've all destroyed as many gallons of the Black Goo as we could. It was inevitable.
But unless something changes real fast to a peaceful no growth oil depleted economy then baby, the dream is over and I'll wish I had that old Trans Am back to sleep in.
john15 is both right and wrong. Right that we can't have an economic system without growth. Wrong that doomers believe one to be possible.
It is precisely my understanding that our economy is dependent on growth that animates my doomer position.
There have been other 'economic systems' that did not have 'growth' as the model.
The model "we" are used to - can't exist with out growth.
"And have you checked out the GDP lately, let alone the unemployment figures."
actually I have. gdp is growing and unemployment is about to turn postiive. the job losses have ended.
everyone around acts like suddenly we will wake up tomorrow any everyone will realize we have no oil. guess what, the world will be more advanced now even AFTER peak oil hits. growth will go on.
Growth, of any kind, is 100% dependent on inputs. You can't take something, add nothing, and get growth.
What we are headed for, and IMO where we are now, is we are feeding on ourselves for growth. The feedstock is us.
For every example of growth I can show you several examples of decline. But hey if you are one of the lucky few who are still living on the growth side of the equation, theres no problem. Party on!
Medieval Europe also had little population growth because it was kept in check by low fertility and high death rates. There was no need for a growing economy.
john15,
You and I often take a similiar cynical view of some of the "cult of doom" stuff present here, but I think your being a harsh on this issue...it is a complex issue: How are we defining "growth", is there a difference between "growth", advance, and technological development, and the issue of some parity between the wealthy and poor worldwide comes up.
I have differences with saying "no more growth" if that term is used too broadly...it strikes me as unjust to and even immoral to say to the poorest fifth of the world population, "sorry, growth is over" essentially consigning them and their children to misery.
On the other hand, we must admit that growth as it has been historically defined (effectively being how fast you can turn the world inside out by getting the resources out of the ground, wearing the finished product out as fast as possible and returning said resources to the landfill) is not a sustainable way to measure real "growth".
Just as a thought exercise, if X nation can remove waste that is doing no one any good (air conditioning leaking out of gaps in the walls, heat wasting out around the doors and windows, cars that bleed off half the fuel they consume in waste heat in the drivetrain and cooling system not even improving performance, etc.) and have more than enough saved energy to create more equatible distribution, would that be considered "no growth", "growth", "development" or "advance"? Can elegant engineering, renewable energy and efficiency design save enough energy to make it possible for everyone to live on less...essentially living better on a smaller dollar/smaller raw materials consumption economy?
The devil is in the details, but I am leery to be too militant about "growth" pro or con until I am given clear definitions.
RC
I see only one pro to growth, which you mentioned, that it reduces poverty. The best example of this being China which since the 70s has lifted half a billion people out of poverty. To do this required a massive expansion of industrialization and social reforms including the mass migration of people from the land to the cities in the form of cheap labour and the one child policy which helped boost the per capita GDP.
This is by far outweighed by the negatives in my opinion. Energy and raw materials needed to fuel this growth are used up exponentialy to feed growth. Where national constraints are reached imports must make up the difference. The same goes for waste sinks, except pollution, where possible will be exported (e waste for example) or passed on as an externality (the atmospheric pollution China generates is blown over the pacific to America in about a week).
Growth in a finite environment cant go on for ever. At some point Liebig's law kicks in and a systems collapse takes place only now you have exponentialy more poor people than you did in the first place.
At some point we need to reign in growth possibly by limiting the energy and material inflows. If the British could innitiate rationing fairly quickly and successfully during both world wars using the then current administrative infrastructure I'm sure we could now as well. A process of limited distribution of resources would naturaly help take care of limiting waste as well.
"If the British could innitiate rationing fairly quickly and successfully during both world wars using the then current administrative infrastructure I'm sure we could now as well."
Very different circumstances. WWII Brits had Hitler. They could put a face on the threat, and that threat was just across the channel. It's not hard to get folks to respond when the refugees arrive and the bombs start falling. Also, the threat was seen as temporary. This time it's permanent (for their lifetimes anyway).
Today, most folks are just frogs in pots.
Yes.. some growth is akin to cancers, while others are more like crops, or healing bone tissue. It's really going to be important to distinguish them in this topic.
Life IS growth.. but it's also death. (And Corporations/Economies should be made to do both, in a realistic balance.)
I am afraid not. To ignite a politician, there is a need for public recognition of the problem. That is efficiently being prevented by active stonewalling, as discussed by Robert Hirsh here: http://tinyurl.com/nus53e
I am not optimistic about working through the current political system.
An epic Steven Spielberg film could do the trick, however. But there are so many cathastrophy films out there already, so it is hard to penetrate peoples minds even that way.
One of the most efficient large corporation tricks is to set out a rumour that "big boss likes poeople who has an opinion on Peak Oil", etc.
In other words: Guerilla marketing of the concept. Other ideas?
Igniting politicians ain't all that hard, you tie one of them to a stake atop a pile of logs pour a little gasoline and toss in a match... voilà, ignition accomplished in all the the other politicians ;)
This reminded me of a vital issue that badly needs attention but will not be tackled by politicians: central heating.
In short, central heating has got to go. Like "retirement," it's something that the masses will enjoy for only a short moment in human history. No matter how well people insulate their homes, this extravagance cannot be maintained. About two years ago I made a short proposal on the subject here.
http://ricefarmer.blogspot.com/2008/04/space-heating-proposal.html
Of course there are problems to deal with, such as burst pipes (yes, I once had a burst pipe; it was no picnic). American homes in particular are built under the assumption that they will be kept within the comfort range all year by central heating and air conditioning. If the climate control stops working, the building can suffer damage such as mold. This is going to be a very serious problem in coming years when central heating becomes too expensive, so best to confront the issue now, but politicians will not touch it. Can you imagine how many votes a candidate will get after telling voters that they have to give up central heating?
Unfortunately, I have seen no one else discuss this extremely serious matter. Even energy-savvy people seem to be assuming that if we insulate homes well, central heating is a given.
"Can you imagine how many votes a candidate will get after telling voters that they have to give up central heating?:
because banning central heating is a dumb idea. in most of recorded history humans would have died for central heating and now some dumb politician is going to tell me to give it up because of peak oil? NO WAY! I say that as someone who believes in peak oil. as the price of energy rises people will make their own choice as to what temp their home will be set on.
better the market forcing us to turn our heat down than some politician. what if you're wrong? what if you're early? what about the young or elderly? this would be counterproductive. the backlash against peak oil would be worse than any gain not having central heating would give the peak oil movement. people wouldn't listen to the peak oil people for a decade or so.
"for a decade or so"
How many decades or so left?
"How many decades or so left?"
I don't know and don't pretend to like many here. nobody here foresaw the oil price collapse so so much for the collective wisdom of TOD.
Yes it's lucky the world's financial system almost completely collapsed wiping out jobs and oil demand. Nice to know you are so happy about that that you gloat about it.
And some did say the financial system was about to "give" with a resultant big fall in oil price. Notably Illargi and Stoneleigh.
What's your solution for the next time demand so exceeds suppply that something has to give?
"What's your solution for the next time demand so exceeds suppply that something has to give?"
my solution is the market solution. what will probably happen is that higher oil prices will kill demand and so business conditions and the oil price will fall to a sustainable level. that's just what happened.
I recommend a small greenhouse. This morning it was 34F outside and 86F inside the greenhouse. The key is sunshine, because on cloudy days i only gain about 10F over outside temps. Other then that get yourself a shovel and dig a hole because ground temps at 5ft are roughly 40F during winter here in WI.
The political system is of a piece with the energy consumption system - in fact, the political system is merely an epiphenomena of the energy system and as the energy system decays so will the political system that rests upon it. There are no answers within the current system to our energy and environment problems and there is no alternative to the present system without its collapse. Global capitalism is primarily a form of social organization bent maximizing energy extraction and directing that flow of energy into an ever-expanding global hierarchy of consumers with Americans the top. In America, political freedom is experienced by the masses as the ability to drive and buy. Electing leaders who understand the energy problem won't help because whatever remediation they attempt will be experienced by their constituents as a restriction the "freedom" they are entitled to. As all the driving and buying winds down, real political power will decentralize and percolate back to local institutions and individuals. This will be messy!
Answers:
1. LOL - NO
2. The current inability of our political institutions to make necessary structural changes to the existing system (ie. healthcare, banking) leaves little hope that they will be able to tackle any of these more important "kill the growth imperative" changes.
3. Stalin or Hitler - a new, cornpone enviro-nazism dedicated to "purging" the capitalist ( the image of Dick Fuld's head on pitchfork comes to mind).
4. Political participation now is only a distraction from lifeboat building.
"3. Stalin or Hitler - a new, cornpone enviro-nazism dedicated to "purging" the capitalist"
I heard that during the night the greenshirts came and took away Mr. Jones and his entire family because he once clean Ben Bernanke's shoes when he was a boy!
There are so many intelligent and enlightened comments analyzing the complex societal interactions as political and media institutions react to the impending crisis before us, that it is reassuring that there are many thoughtful people thinking about the problems that we face.
What is disturbing is that so is there is apparently so much apathy and hand wringing going on between the lines. "Only my closest friends know I'm a peak freak", "we should be taking shorter hot showers but we don't" to quote just a few examples. What are we waiting for! There is so much work to be done and only a few years to get it done before we descend into chaos. Are you going to tell your neighbors when you are all starving, rooting around in the woods for food, " I saw this coming but I really didn't do anything about it". what the heck!
If you are not a member of a local transition town movement or some equivalent, and all your friends and acquaintances don't know everything there is to know about peak oil, get out there a raise a little hell, rattle some cages. We need all the help we can get from from the brilliant minds here. I'll be damned if in going to live in a post peak fascist third world America with the Neocons, right wingers and their billionaire backers running the show. Get your hands in the dirt or in the air, whatever suits your temperament, but do something! This is real and it is coming. My apologies to those who already active!
Someone on TOD gave me some advice a few weeks ago and that was to not get bent out of shape about politics....that it was now a waste of time to to use personal energy to be involved in something that doesn't work.
I think they are right. I will still vote, but I don't believe any Govt. does anything more than look after 'their base'. It is a dirty business and I don't think we know half of it.
I will stop now not wanting to look like a conspiracy theorist.
"Someone on TOD gave me some advice a few weeks ago and that was to not get bent out of shape about politics....that it was now a waste of time to to use personal energy to be involved in something that doesn't work."
I don't know about you but I voted for Obama and the fact that health insurance reform is about to pass leaves me feeling pretty happy about politics. hopefully the polluter tax(cap and trade) is next.
perhaps you voted for the losers?
I live in a country that has had Govt provided medical care for 63 years.
Who told Obama to work for the banks?
"Who told Obama to work for the banks?"
the economic crisis did. the bankruptcy of wall street would have crippled the economy.
they paid the government back.
I think I'll wait for a while before declaring that to be so. Seems like the taxpayer is still saddled with all sorts of garbage "assets", especially mortgages. I don't suppose the responsible parties will ever pay for that, since the relevant social policy was No Moron Left Behind From House "Ownership".
the bankruptcy of wall street would have crippled the economy.
And how do you know this?
"And how do you know this?"
because I was awake for the financial crisis. look at what lehman did.
I also know it because I read the big short. if some of the large banks went under they would go into bankruptcy. just the threat of trillions of dollars of assets being dumped on the market would have tanked the market.
also because I just read the big short by michael lewis.
john15-
troll?
Curious that he's been offline since mid 2008. What brings you back right now John?
I am back because oil was boring when it was falling. now it's no so boring. who wants to read about peak oil when the financial system and stock market is falling apart?
"troll?"
no, just a doomer-lite which pretty much makes me a troll anyways.
Problem: a "system" of health "care" provision so totally out of control that only millionaires can even begin to afford it.
"Solution": don't reform it or set any limits, just pass a law compelling those who can't afford it to spend themselves into starvation anyway.
Gee, I wonder how this style of problem "solving" is going to work for the other issues? Stay tuned.
""Solution": don't reform it or set any limits, just pass a law compelling those who can't afford it to spend themselves into starvation anyway."
you don't know the bill. there are major subsidies for those who can't afford insurance.
Nobody knows or can know that bill, it's been thousands of pages of ever-mutating booby traps such that even God can't predict what hash the courts will someday make of it. But we've got Medicare/Medicaid as a fine example of how our hopelessly crooked politicians "solve" problems, easy as 1-2-3:
1. make grand speeches about how people shouldn't have to go bankrupt if they get sick. Stir in a touch of populist rhetoric about how everyone is "entitled" to what a $174,000/yr Congresscritter gets, never mind there's not enough gold in the entire Solar System to pay for it, never mind what happens when the China ATM is finally tapped out.
2. in reality, provide just enough "coverage" so you can claim on the campaign trail that you've "solved" the problem - but not nearly enough coverage actually to keep people from going bankrupt. (In an honest setup there would be no donut holes and no co-pays big enough to create any great need for Medigap policies.)
3. provide just enough "subsidies" to buy off the 216th House critter, but make sure they don't really kick in more than trivially until a person has spent down to the verge of bankruptcy (in order that if they do go bankrupt you can blame someone else.) Frame it as "subsidy" so it's easy to erode it away, bait and switch, once you've passed the bill. Make no honest effort to control costs from, say, rampant unfettered price-gouging, massive overtreatment, and outright fraud (such as the now bog-standard practice of splitting up what ought to have been done in one doctor visit across several.) After all, the archetypal idea from the Left is to make things "fair" by hammering down any nail that sticks up, and make very sure it stays down; in this case you do that by making yet another poverty trap (a bracket of enormously high marginal quasi-tax rate) so steep that few will ever climb out of it.
To be precise, it is 2409 pages with a Fog Index around 30. You can be absolutely sure that not one of the representatives or senators who votes for or against it, not one of the pundits who commented on it, and not one of the many persons who demonstrated either for or against it has read the whole document. I'd be surprised if any one person has ever read and understood the whole document.
The final version was supposed to be available for 72 hours before the final vote so people could read it. That's 48 hours allowing eight hours per day for sleeping, eating, etc. Hands up all those who can read nearly a page a minute of such dense material for every waking minute for three days.
Anyway, according to news reports most of its provisions won't come into effect until 2014. I expect by then we'll be in such serious economic condition there's no way the money will be available.
At least maybe we can burn it for heat.
"If voting could really change things, it would be illegal"
Or something to that effect, and I can't remember if it was Adorno or Goldman who said it.
Sorry, but I think that ship has long sailed. Corporations have become far too powerful to do anything short of a revolution, and possibly a very bloody one, to change things now. Plus, the history of revolutions usually result in tragic consequences before they come full circle. Napoleon Bonaparte anyone? With nukes? Yikes. As far as conservatism our lack of an adequate educational system guaranteed it's growth. As John Stuart Mills said being conservative doesn't mean you are stupid, but stupid people tend to be conservative. Of the tea party members I know personally they are either racist, and, or severely lacking in a liberal education (by liberal I mean a well rounded one, arts AND sciences, with an emphasis on critical thinking). Sarah Palin for president - whoopee! Murdoch has a seamstress measuring her for her inauguration dress as we speak.
A question, do you think your transition town movement will escape notice of people who will choose to confiscate it after a crisis? Dream on.
End of rant. I'm going outside to plant some grapevines I made from cuttings a year ago.
Welcome back!
Strange you should say that because the first activity I plan on starting with my local TT group is a 6 month foraging course "rooting around in the woods for food".
How far out in the boonies do you have to be for this to be of any use as a social measure - how well does it scale? Seems like sheer fantasy: how long would it take even 20% of the modern population in most places to strip their surrounding woods bare of forageable food if they went about it in even a halfway serious way? A day? A week?
PaulS-
In a all out zombie scenario, i burn the fruit trees and spray weed killer on the gardens and join the roving bands. If you can't beat them, join them.
Probably not long to strip the surroundings of edibles they know about. For example during the Chinese GLF famine they described whole mountains as 'stripped of every edible leaf'. But the Chinese had a good knowledge of wild edibles. Here in Europe we are so divorced from nature I doubt many people could identify more than 5 wild edibles. Even one of my neighbours who also has an interest in wild plants did not know acorns were edible and concidered rowanberries only bird food.
One good example of scale is that during WWII when there was little fruit available, kids were encouraged to go picking rosehips which was then turned into syrup and fed back to them a spoonful a day to give them a dose of vitamine C.
I'm active in the Transition Town movement also, but I'm realizing it has its limitations with most still imbedded in the capitalist paradigm.
Ecosocialism or Barbarism, there is no third choice.
OT: I knew a Treebeard whose name was also Mark.
I've been figuring that the TT movement is probably doing about 1/10th of what they would really need to do to make a real difference once things really start changing.
'Course, I guess that's better than nothing.
Probably not as it exists, but possibly with some changes. And the greatest change required to pursue a responsible (from an energy standpoint) future, would not be directly energy-related. It would be system-related.
Currently, the system is entirely bought and paid for by special interests. Unfortunately, I don't see any way of getting the money out of politics other than constitutional change.
The constitution needs to be amended to take the influence of money out of the process. There are a number of options here, but I think you start with explicitly removing the "personhood" from organizations, and explicitly removing their first amendment rights, limiting them to only those right explicitly granted to them in the chartering process. Alone, this allows the government to curtail a wide variety of anti-democratic (and, frankly, anti-societal) messaging and spending.
Next, I think you explicitly change (and limit) the way all elections are financed by explicitly removing free speech protection from the spending of money. Money is not speech, rather it is the ability to disproportionately distribute that speech, and it should not receive blanket first amendment protection. This would then allow the legislature (eventually) to enact meaningful reform in this issue, without the fear of Supreme Court reversal. Place some reasonable limit on campaign contributions by individuals (say, $1000 or less, total to candidates and/or parties) and ban any campaign contributions, spending or messaging by any organizations other than registered campaigns and parties (individuals, including those in organizations, can always express their opinions, but could also be limited in terms of media spending, e.g., required to prove that money spent was personal and not organizational). Force the news organizations and blogs to disseminate the platform and candidate information (that is, do their jobs), and require any media outlets that are federally regulated (or allotted, etc.) to make a minimum amount of free messaging bandwidth available, equally, to ALL properly registered candidates.
There are any number of other, related, modifications that could also be made. If the above constitutional changes were made, the legislative branch might be (eventually) freed from the clutches of the money system that drives the agenda bus and returned to the people. If that happens, and only if that happens, will there be any chance for any form of meaningful political change with respect to any of the huge problems facing us today or in our not-so-distant future.
Just one man's opinion.
Brian
(b) is the answer, hands down. Of course, it takes a revolution to get (b), given the vested interests standing in the way.
Overpopulation is caused by poverty, John. Economic redistribution and massive North-to-South aid, hopefully largely in the form of on-site muscle power and basic materials, is the only answer there.
do people on here realize that no growth=low oil prices except in the most extreme cases like argentina?
what happened to the oil bubble during the recession? it collapsed worse than the housing bubble or the stock market.
a raising oil price generally happens during periods of GROWTH.
There's the issue of many oil plays not being economically viable while the price is too low. Off-shore drilling is not cheap. It sure seems like we're still in a recession despite funny government numbers, job losses continue to mount and oil is back to $80/bbl.
when the numbers were going your way they were good but not they aren't the numbers are suddenly bad. the economy is recovering, that's way oil is "back to" $80. that's still almost half of it's previous high. the job losses have stabilized and gdp is growing.
Oil is less expensive, so? It was $20/bbl around 2001. U6 unemployment is around 20%, things are just great... This is after the government spending too, take a look at debt levels in the U.S. and Europe. At some point surpluses must be run to pay that debt down or default on it.
Hey, john15.
Do you have a reason you've been not using caps other than the word GROWTH? Are you e.e cummings?
I have a question. does this no growth/slow growth new economic system apply to The Oil Drum?
will it not consume more energy in 2011 than it did in 2010? will it not add new member? is is powered by only renewables? does everyone who comments use only renewables for their power sources?
The Oil Drum's footprint is pretty small. It is an organization of volunteers, so we don't get paid. This would be the big cost for most similar organizations.
It would be interesting to poll readers about their level of response to PO (and related issues) to areas of their lives: conservation, renewables use, recyling, transportation and energy choices, etc. See how TOD readers/contributors compare to the general population, and see how many are talking the talk vs. walking the walk, so to say.
"It is an organization of volunteers, so we don't get paid. This would be the big cost for most similar organizations."
I never said anything about pay. I said is it pursuing a no growth policy? why not lead the way?
Gail wrote "The Oil Drum's footprint is pretty small. It is an organization of volunteers, so we don't get paid. This would be the big cost for most similar organizations."
I don't see the logic in this. The servers on which The Oil Drum is produced consume just as much energy whether the people using them are paid or not. And probably the biggest part of The Oil Drum's footprint is the distribution - the laptop that I am viewing it on, the servers and the routers that bring it to me. That certainly does not depend on the volunteer status of the personnel.
And, incidentally, my gratitude to Gail and Company for their untiring excellence does not depend on their volunteer status, either ;-)
Norman
I have been thinking a lot about peak oil and agriculture lately, and have begun to question my own assumptions around both the feasibility and even the need to eliminate fossil fuels from farm production.
I have learned that all farm machinery together comprises less than 1% of US oil consumption. This is because diesel tractors and combines are very efficient machines (unlike cars and trucks, they never have to be driven very fast). As an example, one 40-acre farm I know of tells me they use only about 60 gallons of diesel a year. Combine this with the energy it would take to use horses instead and it's cleat that tractors are by far the more energy efficient. Most small farmers I have spoken to know this intuitively, but I also did some research and found stats to confirm it. Basically, to replace all US tractors with horses would require us to build up the horse stock to 250 million animals, or ten times their record number ever, which occurred in the 1920s. To feed this many horses would require 750 million acres of land, or twice the amount of total arable land in the US. (That's 3 acres per hours, an statistic I confirmed a number of places.)
Transporting the food seems to me to be the real issue, not farm equipment.
I realized one of the assumptions I have been operating on was the belief that as oil prices rise, all industries that rely on oil would be effected equally. But the 2008 peak has shown this is not the case. Rising oil prices effect non-essential industries first (airlines, car manufacturers, developers, etc). These industries then collapse (to a greater or lesser degree), producing a recession, after which oil demand (and price) drops. Hence food prices stabilized after the run-up. This is likely how things will continue to occur on the bumpy down-slope. Also, there's good reason to believe that the rise in food prices in 2008 was the result of biofuels rather than oil prices directly. In other words, the rise in oil prices made growing biofuels competitive, and the loss of crop-land is what resulted in rising food prices, not so much the extra costs in tractor fuel, which is minimal to begin with.
Emanuel
emanuel, that is one of the most thought-out posts I've read here. you sir are on the right path.
"Transporting the food seems to me to be the real issue, not farm equipment."
if food is shipped by rail transportation there isn't much of a problem! rail is very efficient.
during peak oil farmers will make out like bandits. as oil prices rise food prices were rise to compensate and farmers will make a lot of money. maybe too much money. oil prices and food prices are highly correlated. if you think about that for awhile it will make a lot of sense.
I agree with Emanuel and have posted similar comments several times over the last year or so.
Some people have taken me to task for being overoptimistic, but we are in no danger of starving in the richer parts of the world due to an oil shortage.
Farm machinery and heavy trucks are incredbly durable pieces of equipment.
If the economy does suffer a hard and irreversible crash, the current inventory of trucks and ag equipment can be kept running for several decades at least, given the fact that there will be plenty of mechanics and shops willing to work cheap-not to mention the fact that a lot of production will be curtailed as a result of a lack of markets-eating grain directly instead of meat obviates the need for a lot of acres.
In the case of sever oil shortages I would expect a rationing system to be set up where the transport sector secured a good deal of what is available.
One problem with food production is that most of it is not about feeding people, instead its about corporate profits. This has 'potential disaster' written all over it.
OFM states "but we are in no danger of starving in the richer parts of the world due to an oil shortage."
No, but you (and I) will be in danger of starving due to lack of money, due to an oil shortage.
Whenever I say this, someone says "people won't just sit around and starve while others have plenty of food", but its happening lots of places right now.
I agree with Emanuel and have posted similar comments several times over the last year or so.
Some people have taken me to task for being overoptimistic, but we are in no danger of starving in the richer parts of the world due to an oil shortage.
Farm machinery and heavy trucks are incredibly durable pieces of equipment.
If the economy does suffer a hard and irreversible crash, the current inventory of trucks and ag equipment can be kept running for several decades at least, given the fact that there will be plenty of mechanics and shops willing to work cheap-not to mention the fact that a lot of production will be curtailed as a result of a lack of markets-eating grain directly instead of meat reduces the acreage and inputs needed by up to as much as seventy or eighty percent, sometimes even more..
The thing that really scares me in relation to oil and agriculture is that biofuels might actually scale up to such a point that they are able to shoulder a substantial portion of the liquid fuel load before high fuel prices and shortages kill off the car culture.
I'm afraid that of it becomes technically feasible to grow fuel croips in quantities sufficient that people believe bau can soldier on, it will be politically impossible to stop from actually doing so.
Between a population that is still growing and the pressure for more and more land to be put into fuel production,I can foresee nothing less than an ecological disaster on the grand scale.
Of course there is a substantial body of evidence indicating our disaster is already in the mail anyway.
Emanuel This is so true. Thank you. As oil supplies tighten there is no doubt that society will prioritize the use and distribution of oil.
The US Military consumes 1 mbpd and their needs will be untouchable
Farm needs for tractors as you pointed out at 1% is 200,000 bpd, and are vital.
Trucking of food to cities and processing plants is vital.
Essential services police and fire
etc etc
The US still pumps 7 mbpd not counting Canadian Tar Sands. This is still a lot of oil.
The first to feel the tightening lack of import oil will be private car drivers. Vital needs will be appropriated first.
The change to an oil depleted economy will affect various segments of society at different rates. The entire car culture and personal transport systems will change dramatically very soon
Hi Emanuel,
I have felt for a long time that liquid fuel (FF now, bio/?? later) should be reserved for certain critical functions. I do much of my cycling in farm land - mostly small to medium sized farms - diesel tractors are the backbone of the farming I see.
Bicycle transportation can be greatly facilitated by machines that clear snow. Ambulances and fire trucks are more examples.
With a 40mph national speed limit for personal transportation vehicles and significantly bigger taxes for liquid fuel (except for the above examples), we could force a transition in the way we move about and consequently consume fuel. I would speculate that drastic measures to reduce fuel consumption in non-critical areas could keep farm tractors, fire engines and such, working for a very long time. Time we "might" put to good use in making bigger changes.
Answers to Gail's questions:
1. Is working through the current political system feasible?
It's sad, but no. We need to spend our energy working from the soil up...literally and metaphorically. Whether in D.C. or any of the state capitals, well, who knows where the pols' heads and hearts are. Not with most of us. Just as massive centralization is failing us in the realms of food and energy, so it also failing us in politics.
2. What are the most important energy-related issues for politicians to address:
Start with money itself. When a system is just based on thin air, we get what we pay for (the air, too, is polluted!). Maybe one way to act on three of these fronts (new economic systems, sunlight capture/storage, and foods free of fossil fuels) would be to combine a new currency, local currency, with products locally produced. So, we could then decrease our reliance on dollars while also reinventing sectors (energy and food) at the same time. Of course, if I were a producer in this system -- and I would make it a goal to have everyone serve as a producer in some capacity -- I'd have to have abundant trust in my fellow participants and faith that it would work, long-term, otherwise, I would be tempted to take dollars, even credit. The point would be to link inflows and outflows, to maintain circulation, not let anything stagnate...to rely on current sunlight as much as possible.
Although population is an issue, fertility should be the "gold standard" of good health...meaning, women need to get in touch with their cycles and know where they stand, when they're ovulating, etc., and then abstain during those times or use a barrier method. (We need more education, in other words, both genders of both genders' cycles.) Women need to do this without taking hormones, which just end up in the water and affect various species, including humans.
I'd be all for a jubilee. Most of the debt's never going to be repaid anyhow, and some of it's a joke, such as loans made to developing countries that they can never hope to pay back. They may as well have bought pigs-in-pokes; at least that way, they'd have something to eat.
3. Candidates? Someone who's willing to risk life and limb? Someone who's willing to step off the reelection treadmill. Someone who's willing to risk serving only one term. Someone who's willing to take on those who are entrenched and do it with humor and panache, not rancor and screaming.
4. No. The ideal candidate would be well-versed in the connections between and among many apparently disparate, yet connected, issues. In fact, we should probably institute a test that would include literacy, emotional intelligence, the toughest history questions ever written, along with questions concerning systems thinking, energy, and ecology and their tie-in with economies. That said, I'm not sure how realistic it is. If someone in my area were running on a local food platform, I would hope he or she would already know about these connections, but even if he/she did not, I'd be more inclined to vote for that person over someone who follows the bigger's-better paradigm and who would, say, want a law banning me from making kimchi in my own kitchen with my own daikon and cabbage.
There are a number of thoughtful, intelligent posts above mine. In a way, my post undercuts them and that is not my intent.
The reality from my perspective is that there are a number of mega-black swans on the horizon that are could demolish what I will call "forward action."
For example:
1. Complete global financial collapse.
2. Debt repudiation by consumers and/or countries
3. Withholding of tax revenues by states when equivalent monies are not returned to the states.
4. Repudiation of Federal mandates by states
5. An attack on Iran or other countries
6. A black-ops in the US to reinvigorate "patriotism"
7. Secessionist movements by states or regions
8. A real pandemic
9. Greater mercantilism by counties to gain resources at the "expense" of other countries
10. Resource wars with other states
The list goes on. My point is that given these percolating issues, it becomes impossible to foresee how things might play out regardless of individual or group efforts.
To me, as a doomer, it makes more sense to prepare for the worse and plan for the best - ya, it's trite but I don't have any better slogan while at the same time understanding that it all might be for naught.
I see no way for serious action for change to be fruitful.
Todd
Hi Todd,
I suspect your black swan list is valid - and, I could easily add to it.
Is this really how we want to end our struggle for reversing the damage to our biosphere (and the humans who live in it)?
Maybe it is a characteristic of my generation (older than dirt) to not give up even if the odds are horrible. I support Population Connection, I advocate for bicycle causes, I follow politics closely and write letters on occasion, I never miss a change to attack our car culture or point out the folly of our delusions (like religion). In my personal life, I try to move in the right direction for lower consumption - not a martyr for the cause, but a good soldier.
Maybe this is tilting at windmills - but, it helps me sleep better after visiting my great granddaughter.
Todd. Your list highlights the impossibility of knowing how to prepare for an oil depleted future.
Decline in living standards, the economy, the environment and access to technological civilisation is inevitable as FF's especially oil deplete. And then there is the inevitable decline in population. There must be a decline back to sustainability, either controlled or uncontrolled.
The question is: will the decline be slow and manageable or fast and chaotic?
We won't know until our great great grandchildren look back in time. There is no way to predict. Any of the items on your list (and many more such as religous fundamentalism, terrorism, massive electrical malfunction in a major city) could blow up at any moment and start a cataclysmic move to chaotic decline. The more unstable the system the more likely that a wild card event could cause it to unravel.
I have become more and more convinced that there are only these two non zero probability futures ie slow manageable decline or fast chaotic decline.
I guess it will be up to each individual to decide which has the higher probability.
> 1. Is working through the current political system feasible?
Yes, its working well on both the municipiality and state level.
> 2. What are the most important energy-related issues for politicians to address:
> (a) Population growth
Locally slightly below replacement level, it could become higher and we should be become better at integrating migrants and for instance learn form Canada how to attract migrants that likes to work hard.
> (b) New economic system not depending on growth
No, but we need the right statistics and goals for navigating periods of global economical shrinkage.
> (c)) Debt jubilee or other approach for handling excessive level of debt worldwide
The world probably needs more bankruptsies that clears out the lies and liers.
Creative destruction is one of the realy great insights form the economics community.
> (d) Greater energy efficiency (for example--CAFE standards, more trains, lower energy appliances, better insulation, etc.)
Already being done and we should do a little more every year.
> (e) Increase alternative energy resources
Sure, as long as they are reasonably economical. It would also be good with more nuclear power, we only got one more reactor then we got millions of population and half of them are old and fairly small. This also require a continued strenghtening of the electricity grid and also that is a BAU we share with our neighbours, we are all reinvesting and increasing capacity.
> (f) Develop new systems of food production and manufacturing that do not require fossil fuels and use only local resources (perhaps similar to approaches used several hundred years ago)
Low priority but ok for technology development and we should develop the whole biogas potential and close the phosphorous loop. The realy good news is that the farmers union is gearing up for a "pee and poop is food for plants" campaign and it will be marvelus if it works out. The implementation phase of it is an about 20 year effort for getting all the new sewage tanks and pipes built.
> (g) Increase equity in sharing what energy resources are available
We should become a net energy exporter in electricity and finished goods too a large part made out of local minerals, biomass and lots and lots of electricity. We only need to grow what we already are doing with a few percent each year to achive it and its a workload for the free market and not the political system.
> (h) Other
We need to get people to notch down the general consumption and notch up on investments.
> 3. What kind of candidate would it take to get elected and pass such an agenda?
The current right wing and center governmnet is doing a good job and should be reelected.
The left wing and greens have some good ideas in the green party but the former communists
in the left party dont grook economics and the socialists can give up anything to their two
supporting parties to get back into power.
Both sides agree about fiscal resposibility and the same overall goals for the environment
and resource policies but the former communists might topple that since they are the only
ones that advocate governing with runaway spending and dont care much about the real world.
> 4. Does it make sense to support candidates who advocate one (or two) agenda item(s) which might be reasonable if part of a broader program, but don't really understand the issues of declining energy, increasing population, and the connection to the financial system?
People should not support politicians that lack fiscal responsibility, especially if they dont listen to scientifical expertese in practical matters.
If you know an expat Swede, plese, plese, plese, get him or her to vote in our election this fall.
I would of course prefer a right wing vote but anything is better then the former communists
"vänsterpartiet" that disregards fiscal responsibility and could make mincemeat out of our common mechnisms for gettig things done.