The human race cannot continue BAU

[Super Dude]

For those who aren't familiar with the abbreviation, it stands for business-as-usual.

I saw an interesting letter to the ed. on the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/opinion/l16japan.html?_r=1

Re “Japan’s Multiple Calamities” (editorial, March 15):

What kind of a shock would it take to jolt Americans into facing the fact that we are living beyond our environmental means? How about multiple meltdowns of plutonium-fueled reactors spewing death far and wide? Not even that, apparently.

Our politicians are telling us not to make any rash decisions about the viability of a nuclear future. After all, renewable sources, though safe, have only a comparatively puny output of power.

Could we ourselves actually be the problem?

Houses that used to get along just fine on 60 amps of power have become obese and now need 400 amps to feed our “essential” luxuries. And we appear to be completely impotent to rein in a world population growth that is now about seven billion souls, each of whom will “need” more power.

None of the small stuff will matter if we do not address these larger questions. Carl Mezoff
Stamford, Conn., March 15, 2011

The writer is absolutely right; yesterday in my environmental studies class, I was thrown the interesting factoid that the average American in the 1960s used about 30% the amount of electric power the average American uses today.  You kinda have to ask, where the hell is all that power going???

I'm not about to blame this on digital electronics; after all, computers are more electronically efficient than typewriters ever were.  But so where is it going?  Indoor heating and cooling?  Our imprudent use of petroleum-based cars?  Furthermore, what the hell can we do to turn back the tide, or can't we?

Personally I believe we have no choice; the Earth cannot sustain this many human beings at the rate at which we burn up its resources.

[ack44]

Don't worry, human innovation and the free market will save us!

[rumborak]

Don't worry, human innovation and the free market will save us!

Phew, I was concerned for a second. The invisible hand is doing the job! Sort of, an invisible hand-job.

rumborak

[lordxizor]

Obviously things need to change and they have greatly over the years and will continue to as necessary. It's unfortunate that we are more reactive than proactive on a lot of things, but renewable energy and all of the stuff that will make modern life possible in the future will come. It just won't come as soon as many would like it to. We just have to hope we don't mess things up too badly in the meantime.

I'm also not convinced when people say things like "the Earth can't support 7 billion people! The Earth is overpopulated!" Because guess what... the Earth is currently supporting 7 billion people and the vast majority of them are doing just fine. Sure, we're probably a major drought or disease away from losing a big chunk of the population, but when in history wasn't that the case?

[rumborak]

I'm also not convinced when people say things like "the Earth can't support 7 billion people! The Earth is overpopulated!" Because guess what... the Earth is currently supporting 7 billion people and the vast majority of them are doing just fine.

Ever heard of rising food prices? Depletion of fisheries? Nitrogen runoff into rivers, lakes and seas?

Right now 7 billion can be maintained, but not for long.

rumborak

[Super Dude]

Most of the 7 billion are actually not doing fine; something like 40% of the world lives on a measly $2 a day. Around 30% of the world consumes 70% of the world's resources.

[bosk1]

I've been following this thread since you first posted a few hours ago, and while I want to comment more substantively, I'm really struggling to come up with anything to add that is productive.  This kind of argument always seems to just devolve into:
-Position 1:  The sky is falling!  We're all gonna die!
-Position 2:  No, it's not.  Everything is just fine as is.
-Position 1:  You just don't care about all the people who are suffering and the environment.
-Position 2:  You're just a moron.

Neither side appears well-informed or rational to me, and neither is very persuasive.  It would be such a refreshing change of pace just to see a rational, well-informed, well-thought out position rather than hysterical, ignorant, emotionally-driven, self-justifying drivel.  And, again, I'm not giving either side a monopoly on poor reasoning.  There appears to be more than enough to go around for everybody.

[jsem]

Then those who are poorer will die off...  I don't wanna sound harsh here - but maybe it's just natural selection.

Ugh I feel terrible just thinking about that.

[lordxizor]

I'm also not convinced when people say things like "the Earth can't support 7 billion people! The Earth is overpopulated!" Because guess what... the Earth is currently supporting 7 billion people and the vast majority of them are doing just fine.

Ever heard of rising food prices? Depletion of fisheries? Nitrogen runoff into rivers, lakes and seas?

Right now 7 billion can be maintained, but not for long.

rumborak

Sure... I'm not saying there aren't issues that need to be addressed. My basic point is that humans seem to find ways to fix their issues when they need to and the doom and gloom people tend to be wrong most of the time. I'd love to start working more seriously right now on issues that pose potential hazards in the future, but unfortunately that just doesn't seem to be the way most people think.

Most of the 7 billion are actually not doing fine; something like 40% of the world lives on a measly $2 a day. Around 30% of the world consumes 70% of the world's resources.

"Fine" was probably a poor choice of words. I basically meant that the vast majority of people aren't starving to death and have the things they need to survive, though obviosuly not up to the western standard.

[Super Dude]

I wouldn't say the *vast* majority are, but yes.

[William Wallace]

For those who aren't familiar with the abbreviation, it stands for business-as-usual.

I saw an interesting letter to the ed. on the NYT:

https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/16/opinion/l16japan.html?_r=1

Re “Japan’s Multiple Calamities” (editorial, March 15):

What kind of a shock would it take to jolt Americans into facing the fact that we are living beyond our environmental means? How about multiple meltdowns of plutonium-fueled reactors spewing death far and wide? Not even that, apparently.

Our politicians are telling us not to make any rash decisions about the viability of a nuclear future. After all, renewable sources, though safe, have only a comparatively puny output of power.

Could we ourselves actually be the problem?

Houses that used to get along just fine on 60 amps of power have become obese and now need 400 amps to feed our “essential” luxuries. And we appear to be completely impotent to rein in a world population growth that is now about seven billion souls, each of whom will “need” more power.

None of the small stuff will matter if we do not address these larger questions. Carl Mezoff
Stamford, Conn., March 15, 2011

The writer is absolutely right; yesterday in my environmental studies class, I was thrown the interesting factoid that the average American in the 1960s used about 30% the amount of electric power the average American uses today.  You kinda have to ask, where the hell is all that power going???

I'm not about to blame this on digital electronics; after all, computers are more electronically efficient than typewriters ever were.  But so where is it going?  Indoor heating and cooling?  Our imprudent use of petroleum-based cars?  Furthermore, what the hell can we do to turn back the tide, or can't we?

Personally I believe we have no choice; the Earth cannot sustain this many human beings at the rate at which we burn up its resources.

There's a whole lot of hype and very little substance in that letter. There are no examples of "multiple meltdowns of plutonium-fueled reactors spewing death far and wide." Would some catastrophe on that level change our behavior? Probably. But we haven't experienced one and probably won't.  

We're using more electricity because we can afford to - we're wealthier than we were 50 years ago. But that's not a bad thing because wealthier people can afford to trade economic costs for regulations that prevent pollution. They can also afford more efficient appliances, cars, and cleaner sources of energy. Essentially, richer people like cleaner stuff.

Instead of developing some population reduction scheme, we should do things that accelerate economic growth. Without it we simply won't have the means to be environmentalists.

EDIT: I can cite the NYT, too! - The Richer-is-Greener Curve

[Super Dude]

wealthier people can afford to trade economic costs for regulations that prevent pollution

They can but they don't.  Case in point, the American oil lobby.  And it's not a very smart business model either (just to be clear, I do completely agree with that article you linked on a basic level; it's just the further application of that is missing).

Second, the point I was trying to make was rather about the quantity of electric power we use, not the quality.

Third, I never said anything about population reduction.  Perhaps some more energy efficiency would be great.  Unfortunately I think the Earth will be undergoing some of that population reduction stuff on its own, without asking us.

[William Wallace]

wealthier people can afford to trade economic costs for regulations that prevent pollution

They can but they don't.  Case in point, the American oil lobby.  And it's not a very smart business model either (just to be clear, I do completely agree with that article you linked on a basic level; it's just the further application of that is missing).

That's not true. The oil industry, and many others, have done an about face on climate policy. Primarily because they felt they couldn't prevent cap and trade. But that's not the point. I was talking in terms of society as a whole. Businesses operate knowing that they have to comply with EPA regulations. And consumers, because they have a relatively comfortable lifestyle, are willing to put up with vehicle smogs, subsidies for "green" energy, and other forms of government regulation. If we were poor none of this would be.   

Second, the point I was trying to make was rather about the quantity of electric power we use, not the quality.

I know. I don't think it's a problem that we use more than we once did.

Third, I never said anything about population reduction.  Perhaps some more energy efficiency would be great.  Unfortunately I think the Earth will be undergoing some of that population reduction stuff on its own, without asking us.

The letter to the editor mentioned it, and you said the "writer is absolutely right."

[Super Dude]

wealthier people can afford to trade economic costs for regulations that prevent pollution

They can but they don't.  Case in point, the American oil lobby.  And it's not a very smart business model either (just to be clear, I do completely agree with that article you linked on a basic level; it's just the further application of that is missing).

That's not true. The oil industry, and many others, have done an about face on climate policy. Primarily because they felt they couldn't prevent cap and trade. But that's not the point. I was talking in terms of society as a whole. Businesses operate knowing that they have to comply with EPA regulations. And consumers, because they have a relatively comfortable lifestyle, are willing to put up with vehicle smogs, subsidies for "green" energy, and other forms of government regulation. If we were poor none of this would be.   

Second, the point I was trying to make was rather about the quantity of electric power we use, not the quality.

I know. I don't think it's a problem that we use more than we once did.

Third, I never said anything about population reduction.  Perhaps some more energy efficiency would be great.  Unfortunately I think the Earth will be undergoing some of that population reduction stuff on its own, without asking us.

The letter to the editor mentioned it, and you said the "writer is absolutely right."

1a. I have to disagree, and the evidence is clear in the Senate and House, where cap and trade was killed, where just yesterday the EPA's climate change program was effectively terminated, and industry lobbies are pushing for further relaxing of environmental regulations.  It's on the US news front page, see for yourself.  And yes, businesses comply with those regulations, but that's why they have lobbies to have those regulations minimized or done away with, and you can't pretend that doesn't happen.

1b. I don't think that's true either; if it were, the Tea Party wouldn't exist.  Constituents wouldn't complain on a regular basis of politicians trying to take their money or their jobs, of the political nature of the climate change debate (which I acknowledge it is, but I really shouldn't have to be), so on and so forth.  I've even had a friend of mine (a staunch Tea Partier) complain that alternative energy cars would mean the end of muscle cars, and that's why he won't support it.

2. I wasn't really talking in absolute terms as much as proportionally.  The question is, why do we require so much more energy per person than we did 50 years ago?

3. That was more hyperbole than anything; is it better if I say I think in most of what he said he was absolutely right?

[El Barto]

Invariably, this always devolves into climate change.  This is one of the few areas where fuck-stick Bill O'reilly is absolutely right.  Whether or not we're causing it, or can stop it on our own, isn't really important.  Doing what we can to limit the things that might be causing it is just a common sense thing to do anyway.  In this instance, limiting the amount of electricity we have to create from fossil fuels is just a good move regardless of any fear-mongering.

To that end, I maintain what I've thought all along.  The best approach would be semi-autonomous buildings.  Work on the technology that would specifically expedite the ability for your home to be removed from the grid.  It's really not that hard, and it's becoming more practical.  If a Wal-Mart can be self sufficient, I see no reason why my apartment can't be.  Lighting's already becoming cheap.  Passive approaches to heating and cooling are certainly conceivable.  What's needed is research to bring the costs down, so that people will be able to do it, and incentives for people to want to.  Sadly, down in this neck of the woods, being wasteful is trendy.  The temptation now is to build a McMansion to demonstrate to your neighbors how bad ass you are.  That needs to change. 

[Super Dude]

It goes even beyond that; what ever happened to technological progress being a good thing?  I hope I'm not alone in saying that inventing vehicles or constructing buildings that are mostly if not completely non-dependent on fossil fuels is a vastly more important invention than a smaller mp3 player or a phone that also happens to be a computer.

[William Wallace]

wealthier people can afford to trade economic costs for regulations that prevent pollution

They can but they don't.  Case in point, the American oil lobby.  And it's not a very smart business model either (just to be clear, I do completely agree with that article you linked on a basic level; it's just the further application of that is missing).

That's not true. The oil industry, and many others, have done an about face on climate policy. Primarily because they felt they couldn't prevent cap and trade. But that's not the point. I was talking in terms of society as a whole. Businesses operate knowing that they have to comply with EPA regulations. And consumers, because they have a relatively comfortable lifestyle, are willing to put up with vehicle smogs, subsidies for "green" energy, and other forms of government regulation. If we were poor none of this would be.   

Second, the point I was trying to make was rather about the quantity of electric power we use, not the quality.

I know. I don't think it's a problem that we use more than we once did.

Third, I never said anything about population reduction.  Perhaps some more energy efficiency would be great.  Unfortunately I think the Earth will be undergoing some of that population reduction stuff on its own, without asking us.

The letter to the editor mentioned it, and you said the "writer is absolutely right."

1a. I have to disagree, and the evidence is clear in the Senate and House, where cap and trade was killed, where just yesterday the EPA's climate change program was effectively terminated, and industry lobbies are pushing for further relaxing of environmental regulations.  It's on the US news front page, see for yourself.  And yes, businesses comply with those regulations, but that's why they have lobbies to have those regulations minimized or done away with, and you can't pretend that doesn't happen.

You're still not getting it. Yes, industries tend to fight regulation and people don't want to be taxed. But the whole regulatory apparatus wouldn't exist without a wealthy society. There has to be money to be taxed so you can fund agencies like the EPA and enforce pollution restrictions. If people can't meet their basic needs, nobody cares enough about the environment to do anything. That's all there is to it.

2. I wasn't really talking in absolute terms as much as proportionally.  The question is, why do we require so much more energy per person than we did 50 years ago?

We have a plentiful supply of cheap energy. As a result, new technologies - mp3 players, PCs, e-readers, air conditioners, flat screens, ect. -  have been developed and made accessible to almost everybody.

[Super Dude]

wealthier people can afford to trade economic costs for regulations that prevent pollution

They can but they don't.  Case in point, the American oil lobby.  And it's not a very smart business model either (just to be clear, I do completely agree with that article you linked on a basic level; it's just the further application of that is missing).

That's not true. The oil industry, and many others, have done an about face on climate policy. Primarily because they felt they couldn't prevent cap and trade. But that's not the point. I was talking in terms of society as a whole. Businesses operate knowing that they have to comply with EPA regulations. And consumers, because they have a relatively comfortable lifestyle, are willing to put up with vehicle smogs, subsidies for "green" energy, and other forms of government regulation. If we were poor none of this would be.   

Second, the point I was trying to make was rather about the quantity of electric power we use, not the quality.

I know. I don't think it's a problem that we use more than we once did.

Third, I never said anything about population reduction.  Perhaps some more energy efficiency would be great.  Unfortunately I think the Earth will be undergoing some of that population reduction stuff on its own, without asking us.

The letter to the editor mentioned it, and you said the "writer is absolutely right."

1a. I have to disagree, and the evidence is clear in the Senate and House, where cap and trade was killed, where just yesterday the EPA's climate change program was effectively terminated, and industry lobbies are pushing for further relaxing of environmental regulations.  It's on the US news front page, see for yourself.  And yes, businesses comply with those regulations, but that's why they have lobbies to have those regulations minimized or done away with, and you can't pretend that doesn't happen.

You're still not getting it. Yes, industries tend to fight regulation and people don't want to be taxed. But the whole regulatory apparatus wouldn't exist without a wealthy society. There has to be money to be taxed so you can fund agencies like the EPA and enforce pollution restrictions. If people can't meet their basic needs, nobody cares enough about the environment to do anything. That's all there is to it.

2. I wasn't really talking in absolute terms as much as proportionally.  The question is, why do we require so much more energy per person than we did 50 years ago?

We have a plentiful supply of cheap energy. As a result, new technologies - mp3 players, PCs, e-readers, air conditioners, flat screens, ect. -  have been developed and made accessible to almost everybody.

I don't disagree with you on that first part, you're right; we wouldn't be able to do this without a wealthy society.  That said, our spoiled, affluent society is also very stubbornly opposed to giving up those comforts that we've so quickly become accustomed to.  As much as that wealth makes us capable of fighting environmental threats such as global warming, it also seems to make our society rather unwilling save a few sectors that are perceived as fanatic at best and suspect at worst.

As to that second part, I also don't disagree, but as the numbers go, world energy demands have nearly tripled since the 60s, and by 2050 it'll take the installation of 800 new nuclear reactors to meet energy demands at the rate we're going.