Being "green" is not the best way forward.

[flecc]

.
Proposition: The present policies of tackling environmental problems are madness and doomed to failure.

Opening statement:

In a posting on the e-bike future prospects thread, one posting contained this:

"what happens when energy is treated as a scarce or valuable resource? Then everything changes. Its no good then debating whether e-bikes can compete with cars, because the whole concept of a car no longer makes sense. The whole idea of travelling large distances to work disappears. In fact, even the concept of a road starts coming under scrutiny."

It's a widely held view, and one possible implication of that is a world with a much smaller population, since there could be more dependence on local supplies, only able to sustain smaller concentrations of people, and possibly reduced availability of sophisticated technology.

Present policies of tackling the environmental problem are immensely complex, very difficult to administer or enforce, and accomodate an ever increasing population living an increasingly impoverished life due to many of the current benefits we enjoy being removed or restricted.

This is completely unnecessary, since a reduction in population to what the earth can viably sustain can solve all the environmental problems and many more besides. By moving towards a population of one billion instead of the current rapidly growing 6.5 billion, we will be able to carry on using fossil fuels with our clean burn technologies, gain the space we need in overcrowed areas, fish our seas sustainably without the pollutions of fish farming, be more capable of growing our food needs locally, able to drive whatever we like and jet off on holidays with a clear conscience.

With demand much lower, we will no longer have to disfigure beauty spots and our coastlines with forests of turbines, we will be able to ignore nuclear power for a considerable time, coal can again be the source of electrical energy using clean burn techniques, and we will be able to confine our "green" activities to those which work best, ignoring the measures which come with sting in the tail. The social ills and mental illness problems that result from population density will be greatly reduced or disappear in many cases.

But most importantly, everyone on the planet will be able to fully share in these benefits, and wars for oil, water and space will increasingly disappear with enough of everything to go round for all.

It will take time, and we cannot use the harsher methods that the Chinese used to rapidly reduce their population, but even done slowly, it will achieve more than Kyota will manage on present indications. The concept of one single universal simple to understand policy is crucial to progress in this area, and once achieved, the population size could be used as a single regulator to ensure a permanence of sustainability.

This is a modern future with space and all the benefits of our progress that can be welcomed, infinitely preferable to present policies which include battery farm living densities of 35 homes per acre, proposed to rise to 50 homes per acre. An acre is less than a 70 yards/metres square, a sobering thought at that density.

Discuss, but please don't attempt to reduce the population by fighting.
.

 

[cliff]

I support the proposition wholeheartedly. I wonder though how population could be controlled without a dictatorship other than by the imposition of taxes, and where would we get government brave enough to do that under a democratic system. It would be, in effect, a tax on sex! (what price a job as a tax inspector?)
Nonetheless, the more this is discussed, the better, so thank you Flecc. As with driving a Hummer to Tesco, or smoking over children’s cribs, awareness of this being a selfish and harmful act may only arise by repeated and reasoned debate, until at some point it becomes politically possible to impose a tax without causing riots. There is no other long term solution.

 

[Tiberius]

.

"what happens when energy is treated as a scarce or valuable resource? Then everything changes. Its no good then debating whether e-bikes can compete with cars, because the whole concept of a car no longer makes sense. The whole idea of travelling large distances to work disappears. In fact, even the concept of a road starts coming under scrutiny."

It's a widely held view, and one implication of that is a world with a much smaller population, since there will be more dependence on local supplies, only able to sustain smaller concentrations of people, and possibly reduced availablity of sophisticated technology.

.

Hi flecc,

I feel the need to challenge this step. The point being made by the first writer (for it was I) is that it leads to major change. But that does not necessarily mean a reduced population and going back to the iron age*. Transport is a big consumer of energy, but much of the transport we engage in does nothing that is fundamental to sustaining the population. How, for instance, does commuting to an office relate to efficiency of food production or waste management?

My point is that it should be possible to cut right back on (personal) transport and still maintain the systems necessary to support the population.

Nick


*PS. An interesting aside here: Who can tell me when the Iron Age ended and what came after it?

 

[flecc]

Hi Nick

I recognised that wasn't essential to what you posted, and that's why I said "one implication", and mentioned "possibility" and not "certainty" in the availability of technology, indicating that there could be others implications and possibilities, though it was perhaps not clear enough that you didn't say exactly that, so I'm amending to "one possible implication" and "could be dependence".

The iron age in Britain is generally expressed as c 700-0BC, the Roman occupation period regarded as it's end here. I can't say for the rest of the world. The dark ages took it's place later, but what replaced the dark ages is debatable, certainly not the age of enlightenment!

That's the archeological view, but historians vary from that, some giving 800 AD as the end in Britain.
.

 

[sabretache]

I have some sympathy with the proposition but not much with the practicality of the proposed alternative.

Assuming 'environmental problems' refers principally to anthropogenic global warming with the predominant alleged cause being atmospheric carbon emissions then, for a whole complex of reasons, I agree that the prospects of achieving the alleged required reductions are vanishing to zero. I also agree that the optimum (sustainable) carrying capacity of planet Earth is maybe 1-2 billion humans and that, if humanity survives the next couple of hundred years, its population will probably stabilize at about that level.

Where I disagree is the route that will take us there. IMHO it will not be by way of planned, globally agreed action, but rather by perennial, business-as-usual, warmongering stupidity over access to the energy and other resources necessary to sustain the unsustainable ("The American way of life is NOT negotiable" and all that). In other words, The world will continue to be required to see things the 'Washington Consensus' way - OR ELSE.

That together with the fact that right now, global food production systems require that we burn about 10 calories of hydrocarbon energy to produce every calorie we eat; let alone diverting a substantial proportion of the corn crop to ethanol production so that the madness can continue with less dependence upon wicked OPEC. There is in fact a looming, epoch-changing confluence of 3 inter-related global problems at issue here: Population growth, climate change and peak resource production - Go on, google 'Peak Oil' and do some fairly basic EROEI research. If that does not set a few alarm bells ringing, well then, maybe denial really IS just a river in Egypt.

Never thought I'd find myself discussing TEOTWAWKI on an e-bike forum either - but there you go

 

[flecc]

Well this is the forum for subjects other than e-bikes sabretache, so the subject is in order.

I agree about the chances of global agreement, but I think with this single approach that applies roughly equally to all countries that there is an increased chance, especially since many would welcome a decrease in their population.

The present concentration almost exclusively on carbon reduction is so intrinsically unfair to developing countries that it has no chance, so at least this alternative with a very slight chance is preferable as an approach.
.

 

[musicbooks]

Can I draw your attention to a certain Senor Da Vinci

The Gia Principle:


"So that we might say that the earth has a spirit of growth; that its flesh is the soil, its bones the arrangement and connection of the rocks of which the mountains are composed, its cartilage the tufa, and its blood the springs of water. The pool of blood which lies round the heart is the ocean, and its breathing, and the increase and decrease of the blood in the pulses, is represented in the earth by the flow and ebb of the sea; and the heat of the spirit of the world is the fire which pervades the earth, and the seat of the vegetative soul is in the fires, which in many parts of the earth find vent in baths and mines of sulphur, and in volcanoes, as at Mount Aetna in Sicily, and in many other places. "
-- The Notebooks of Leonardo Da Vinci

Worth considering his theory as he seems to have been right about quite a few things. So, perhaps we are parasites, a life threatening bacterial virus that doesn't really belong here and so will ultimately be eliminated by the Earth' all powerful anti bodies....

Then again, he was a cross dresser and the Mona Lisa could be a forgery.. so who knows

BW
musicbooks

 

[Tiberius]

Hi Musicbooks,

The more well known, and worshipped in some quarters here in the South West, Gaia principle is much more recent than Leonardo and comes from Jame Lovelock. The premise is not so much that the Earth is analogous to a living body, but that in some ways it behaves like a living organism; principally in the way it operates negative feedback mechanisms to regulate certain parameters.

Like most profound insights, it gets misinterpreted to support some religion or other, when it was in fact an observation on the way complex systems behave.

And to drift off topic further... If we take the view that an Age (Stone, Bronze, Iron) is named for the technology and material used for weapons and construction, then there is another view that says we are still in the Iron Age. OK, there may be pedants who would argue for the Steel Age, with the handover somewhere in the Industrial Revolution, but you get my point.

Of course, there is another view that the difference in Britain between the Iron Age and the Roman occupation was not about materials or technology but about organisation and communication. So on that view, the Information Age started about 300 BC.

Sorry, flecc, didn't mean to hijack the thread. Or maybe I haven't, since we are still talking about dramatic changes and upsets to the established workd order.

Nick

 

[flecc]

No problem Nick, very much on topic really.

Responding to musicbooks, I've long firmly believed that life on earth is probably a disease, and the human most definitely is.

My reasoning is that like any disease it progresses without regard to it's own continuation and ultimately destroys it's host.

This is fundamentally a geological universe, not a biological one.
.

 

[Footie]

I don't see where you are going with this flecc?

Are you making a statement?
Or are you saying the world is going to hell in a teacup?

The world is over populated - yes it is. But the world is very unlikely to reduce its population unless some sort of disaster befalls the population or the planet.

Humans are the one creature on this planet that have been able to either destroy or overcome their natural enemy's. I don't just mean the breathing/stalking enemies because cold, rain, disease, etc, are all capable of killing humans. All other animals on the planet are kept in check by their natural enemy's - this does not happen with humans. Humans run riot over the entire planet. You say you don't condone the harsh methods the Chinese use to control their population. But without some form of control human numbers are set to spiral out of control- if they have not already.

What happens when energy is treated as a scarce or valuable resource?
In simple terms?
People kill for it or die defending it.

You say not to bring war into this - but I think to exclude war undermines the question and any argument.

Let me add these points if I may to the equation:

The first and second world wars (virtually wiped out whole generations), not to mention the other wars have killed millions.
Had these atrocious wars not happened, what would be the world’s population today?
Would it not be to far from the truth to say those wars were in fact, control measures - be they extreme?

Wars take a terrible toll on populations. In many cases wars cause damage to a country inferstructure greatly reducing it’s ability to feed and care for its population. Therefore, many wars bring death to the population due to famine and starvation. Death tolls of the population in war torn countries usually exceed those of the fighting solders – solders will often steal what they want from the starving people.
The world is a horribly divided place; it's divided in colour, divided in religion and divided in wealth.
In this modern day world where all other enemies have been vanquished there remains only one. The sole remaining control measure for humans is other humans and this inevitably leads to greed, envy and war.

A perfect utopia world will never exist as long as humans envy their neighbour.

The human race has been looking for an answer to its indifferences since the first human stood up and walked up to the McDonalds counter – just got to keep trying I guess
.

 

[flecc]

I think it's clear Footie that I'm making a statement of what I believe to be the only possible way to ensure a future for the human race and other life forms which retains qualities of life for us and them as we understand them.

Of course wars also work, having lived within one with direct effects upon me I understand that very well, but it's not a solution retaining a desirable quality of life of course.

By the same token, we could just spread disease to keep the population down, but that's equally unacceptable.

We do have the ability to control and reduce the population and only need the will to exercise that ability, and as said, any solution should be for all mankind to enjoy all the benefits, not just western benefits for an elite as at present.
.

 

[jontee]

This is a very interesting deep and worrying thread!
My (humble) thought on this subject is :
World population levels - this will be determined by economic and effort required to actually exist and external/internal threat - civilisations/cultures rise and fall. I think that 'green ' practise's are a natural reaction/evolution to a percived threat that is in the back everyones mind. This itself will postpone long enough hopefully to find alternatives or until the population finds a more sustainable level.
When all else fails its sad to say that wars will occur in an effort to continue whether its for a international/national or tribal. Germany and Japan both went to war for territorial and resources.
On the subject of survival - we really are not that far removed from any other animal on this planet - but we should be a lot smarter.

 

[jontee]

Just a further thought after my previous reply - food riots are already starting,there has been recent conflict to ensure continued controled oil supply - how long will it be before water and other resources become an issue?

 

[flecc]

Just a further thought after my previous reply - food riots are already starting,there has been recent conflict to ensure continued controled oil supply - how long will it be before water and other resources become an issue?

That's partly what motivated my post Jontee, the failure already of the biofuel policies, the imminence of water wars as well as oil ones, and the certainty of more territorial ones as populations expand.

At my age these won't concern me personally to any extent, but the interest is there just the same.
.

 

[jontee]

Flecc - your closing comment is very sad but true for so many (and dangerous). When all the (Living) memories have gone in relation to why global or any other major or minor war starts - will it make a repeat inevitable? Will anyone actually care from the present generations? I hope that we are smart enough to prevent any catastrophy that may be looming.

 

[HarryB]

Teotwawki

The "end of the world is nigh" brigade used to be confined to walking up and down Oxford Street with their placards, but with the internet that has all changed - there are all sorts of forums devoted to this topic. I am by nature optimistic but there is a mass of conflicting information, especially that coming from the internet and it can get quite depressing.

For example, last year I was pretty sure I accepted that AGW theory was true and I was happy to accept that something drastic should be done about it, carbon taxes, carbon trading, etc. However I didn't know or understand the science of what caused global warming and I set about investigating, trying to read up as much about the science involved. So far this is what I think (IMHO):

That AGW theory is correct, it is happening and can be proved scientifically.
However runaway GW has not been scientifically proven and seems highly unlikely to happen.
It is highly likely that temperature rises associated with AGW will be modest (0.75 - 1 degree C).
Even if we could drastically reduce our CO2 emissions (say 80%) the reduction in world temperature would be in the order of a fraction of a degree C.
These reductions would financially cripple the world economies and money would be better spent mitigating for the effects of climate change.
Natural climate change has produced far bigger swings than AGW. Has done in the past, will do in the future.
If we want to feed the growing population then an elevated temperature is better than a cold one and the same can be said for the CO2 levels.
Biofuels are a crime against humanity - the policy is a result of the hysteria about climate change.


I know I will be considered a heretic for my views but I am pretty fed up with the lack of discussion about this issue, be it in the media or between politicians. We expect politician to behave badly but I also think that scientist come out of this pretty badly as well. Some of the distortions are pretty obvious. "The scientific consensus is unanimous, AGW is happening, the discussion is over", this is my favourite. Yes the science says that it is happening but that is very different to saying that it will be a disaster.

Anyway we will find out soon enough. First step will be the stabilisation of temperatures (there has been no temperature increase in the last decade '98-08). When the temperature declines, the CO2 levels will follow and then there will be a few shattered reputations.

Peak oil. This is very interesting, last time I put this phrase into google I got loads forums (usually American) dedicated to what to do in the event of "this crisis". I got the impression that there are a great number of people holed up with stocks of baked beans and armed to the teeth, waiting for peak oil to happen. Again it is very difficult to establish any sort of truth. Certainly the OPEC countries have been distorting their reserves since the 70's oil crises. I have heard loads of oil analyst saying there is plenty of oil even after the peak and the price of oil now is certainly concentrating minds. It is not all doom and gloom as Brazil has discovered an offshore oil field - one report suggests it is a size to rival those in Saudi.

Finally, don't discount technology. Sunshine to petrol technologies have some potential and if some of the research funds could be diverted into this area there will be great dividends. Think of the developing countries in hot climates being given the chance to benefit from the world's wealth.

Sorry long (probably controversial) post and I don't mean that nothing should be done - I certainly don't represent the status quo, but it is not all doom and gloom.

 

[flecc]

I agree with virtually all you've posted Hal, and my "war" is on the disadvantages of any approach which leaves population expanding relentlessly and the ills that result from that.

Like you I don't believe we suffer from anything other than natural climate change swings exacerbated by our own actions, but I do think we need to act on the ill effects we are having in all areas, not just climate. The current damaging policies aren't the way, as highlighted by the debacle of biofuels and todays food riots. After all, it's not as if enough of us haven't been warning that was exactly what would happen, and in this many scientists have also been wise enough to warn, though I accept their failures that you mention.

I'm not as assured that technology can come to the rescue though, since any technology depends on resources which are finite, so we cannot sustain an infinitely growing population. For a real quality of life shared by the whole of the world's population and leaving room and conditions for all other species, a drastic population reduction is the only known answer, and risking the chance that technology might come up trumps is risking a future so impoverished as to be not worth living on present judgement.

A large proportion of the world's population were already suffering that, now made even worse by the biofuels theft of food producing land.
.

 

[Tiberius]

Here's an analogy for you, and even appropriate for an ebike forum:

Fossil fuels are a store of energy by chemical means. Burning them releases that energy and makes it available for use - for heating, transport, etc. It took millions of years of natural processes (driven by energy capture from the sun) to build up the stocks but it has taken only a few hundred years to deplete them.

So, humanity has found a giant battery already charged up and has been running it down. The rate of delivery of energy from this battery is enormous, which is one reason why it is so useful. But charging it up is a very slow process and no-one has really thought about how to do that.

Nick

PS. I wouldn't reckon on getting a large number of cycles out of it. Theoretically it is a rechargeable battery, but it might be better to treat it as a primary one.

 

[musicbooks]

Hi Musicbooks,

The more well known, and worshipped in some quarters here in the South West, Gaia principle is much more recent than Leonardo and comes from Jame Lovelock. The premise is not so much that the Earth is analogous to a living body, but that in some ways it behaves like a living organism; principally in the way it operates negative feedback mechanisms to regulate certain parameters.

Like most profound insights, it gets misinterpreted to support some religion or other, when it was in fact an observation on the way complex systems behave.

And to drift off topic further... If we take the view that an Age (Stone, Bronze, Iron) is named for the technology and material used for weapons and construction, then there is another view that says we are still in the Iron Age. OK, there may be pedants who would argue for the Steel Age, with the handover somewhere in the Industrial Revolution, but you get my point.

Of course, there is another view that the difference in Britain between the Iron Age and the Roman occupation was not about materials or technology but about organisation and communication. So on that view, the Information Age started about 300 BC.

Sorry, flecc, didn't mean to hijack the thread. Or maybe I haven't, since we are still talking about dramatic changes and upsets to the established workd order.

Nick

Hi Nick,
I was alluding to James Lovelock's theory which in the last five years has gianed a lot more respect in scientific circles. And I also agree with Flecc that the Universe is principally a geological entity. In fact, there was a report only yesterday that the possibility of biolocal life on other planets is extremely rare, and there is a growing belief that the biological make up of the Earth is a one off combination of random circumstances.

BW
musicbooks

 

[flecc]

In fact, there was a report only yesterday that the possibility of biolocal life on other planets is extremely rare, and there is a growing belief that the biological make up of the Earth is a one off combination of random circumstances.

BW
musicbooks

This has been my belief for most of my life. Any other instances will be very rare indeed.

It always annoys me when references are made to dead worlds, since it displays the incredible arrogance of the human race which always regards itself as the pinnacle of everything.

There's abundant life everywhere since the universe itself is a living organism, giving birth to bodies, which grow and die continuously, humans too metaphorically blinkered to see that life can have such a radically different form.
.