We are overloading the planet: Now What?

[Elixir]

My original 10 that went up to 11 were at https://iidb.org/threads/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what.27921/page-35#post-1159149 .
You responded to them, so I guess you had time to read them.

So it's my memory rather than my short attention span at play here? Okay, I won't argue that.

#12 is "Empower and educate women".#12 is "Empower and educate women".

Kinda rings a bell, but you're not the only one here who has leaned into that, in the remote possibility that my memory serves. I think it has been a recurrent theme in this thread. Anyhow, I'll go with that one, sight unseen.
Now what?

If we had to reduce our consumption quite significantly a century from now, would it be better to cut our consumption per capita, or to have an "organic decline in reproduction rates as an outgrowth of rising global consciousness and women's availability of birth control options" such that we had a significantly reduced population?

Why do you present these as mutually exclusive options?

 

[Merle]

Why do you present these as mutually exclusive options?

Of course I don't see per capita consumption reduction and population reduction as mutually exclusive options. I have rephrased this question many ways in the last week. Many times I include the phrase "or both". If you read my writeup that I keep linking to, you would see that I emphasize technological solutions, as well as finding ways to reduce affluence, and ways to reduce population.

The issue is what options we should be considering if we need to reduce our negative impact on the planet. I write:

The population of this planet should be a concern to all of us (Crist, 2017; Flynn, 2021; Younquist, 2014). It is difficult to see any solution to our overshoot predicament that does not include population reduction (Lowe, 2019).

Let’s get back to the formula we talked about earlier, I=PAT, which means Impact = (Population) * (Affluence) * (a factor based on the Technology in use).

If you tell me we have 100 years to cut our impact in half, then we either need to reduce the population in half, reduce the affluence level per person in half, or use technology to reduce our impact per unit of affluence in half, or some combination of the three. I cannot imagine we would voluntarily reduce affluence in half. I expect it to increase unless physical limits dictate otherwise. And I cannot see that future technology improvements are doing anything better than, at best, limiting our impact per unit of affluence to the extent that affluence increases. So, I think we will do no better than breaking even when we look at the combined affluence and technology factors. That leaves us only with population. An aggressive program to encourage and empower women to voluntarily have fewer births at least has the chance to bring the population down to half the current size in 100 years. That requires widespread agreement to the need to reduce future population. That is how I would deal with the problem if we had 100 years. --https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/#Population

People try to demonize me for saying this, but what would those people do if they thought we needed to cut our consumption in half in the next century? Would population reduction be part of their plan? They refuse to answer that question. They demonize me for giving my answer, but they refuse to tell me if they agree with my answer. How can a person who stubbornly refuses to answer that question condemn me for my answer?

 

[Elixir]

People try to demonize me for saying this, but what would those people do if they thought we needed to cut our consumption in half in the next century?

If you live long enough you'll find out. I suspect that the first thing they'd do is say "or WHAT? We'll take the 'or what!'"

That is how I would deal with the problem if we had 100 years.

You must have very high regard for your powers of persuasion. IMO f you had a thousand years, you might not attain "widespread agreement to the need to reduce future population" because of the boiled frog effect, and because the forces in play will have already done their own "corrections".

 

[Merle]

People try to demonize me for saying this, but what would those people do if they thought we needed to cut our consumption in half in the next century?

If you live long enough you'll find out. I suspect that the first thing they'd do is say "or WHAT? We'll take the 'or what!'"

I write:

The Earth is huge and able to withstand our punches. But, if we stress Earth beyond certain limits, it will have permanent scars. Scientists have established 9 boundaries that they say we cannot cross if we expect to maintain that stable Holocene environment. Katherine Richardson and others have made the case that we have already crossed six of those critical boundaries, beyond which “Earth system stability and life-support systems conducive to the human welfare and societal development experienced during the Holocene” are at risk (Richardson, 2023). These boundaries we have already crossed include loss of animal species and their biological function, climate change, freshwater resource change, synthetic chemical pollution, fertilizer runoff, and loss of natural lands. This is cause for concern (Wiedmann, 2020).

How serious is this? William Rees argues that “the global economy will inevitably contract and humanity will suffer a major population correction in this century,” (Rees, 2023). “The climate crisis may wipe out six billion people” (Rees, 2019). Milton Saier wrote, “It seems that only with a very substantial reduction in the size of the human population can we hope for a stable order for Earth’s biosphere and its human inhabitants” (Saier, 2023). Martin Desvaux agrees: “It is the sheer weight of human numbers that is causing the overdraft on natural resources. If this continues uncorrected, a population crash will be inevitable” (Desvaux, 2007). As William Ripple put it, our actions could be critical to “the very future of humanity” (Ripple, 2022).

When would this crash happen? Multiple scientists have warned that climate change could possibly be leading to global societal collapse this century (Weyhenmeyer, 2020). Megan Seibert and William Rees argue that, “to achieve sustainability and salvage civilization, society must embark on a planned, cooperative descent from an extreme state of overshoot in just a decade or two” (Seibert, 2021). Other people say we have much longer. We don’t know. Perhaps we should at least pay attention. https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/

That is how I would deal with the problem if we had 100 years.

You must have very high regard for your powers of persuasion. IMO f you had a thousand years, you might not attain "widespread agreement to the need to reduce future population" because of the boiled frog effect, and because the forces in play will have already done their own "corrections".

I don't write in order to lead a movement or to gain widespread agreement. I state my purpose in my writeup:

To some people, everything I said here was obvious: We are in overshoot. Science alone is unlikely to ever stop the overshoot. We are unlikely to reduce our affluence enough to relieve the stress on the planet. That leaves us with voluntary population reduction, which would certainly help, provided we aren’t too late.

On the other extreme, some people condemn all who are concerned about population. They simply cannot understand how a person could have that concern with good motives.

You might be one that is willing to listen in order to understand this view. If so, then, if this has helped you understand why people are so concerned, this effort will have been worth it. -- https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what

 

[Elixir]

You might be one that is willing to listen in order to understand this view

Merle, I don't mean to sound too condescending, but I'm afraid I held that view before you were born. I don't want to discourage you though, I just think someone with your energy and conviction needs to meter their efforts to align their expectations with what is likely to ensue.

 

[Merle]

You might be one that is willing to listen in order to understand this view

Merle, I don't mean to sound too condescending, but I'm afraid I held that view before you were born. I don't want to discourage you though, I just think someone with your energy and conviction needs to meter their efforts to align their expectations with what is likely to ensue.

I'm 67. You must have been alive a long time.

As I have said, I am between the position of saying we really should do something, or just giving up and accepting that it is what it is. I write:

When faced with the loss of a loved one, one often goes through five stages: denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance (Burns, 2020). Many have gone through those stages of grief when looking at our old friend, Earth (Edwards, 2023). We deny the facts, get angry at what has happened, hang unto any hope of a fix, fall into despair, and eventually accept where we are at. In the end, that is all anyone can do. Whatever happens, we must accept it.

Prof Jem Bendell popularly leads a movement to quietly accept that we are headed for collapse (Bendell, 2020, Bendell, 2023, Bendell, 2023a, Bendell, 2023b). He promotes neither denial nor total despair. Instead, he encourages people to recognize the situation is bad (Bendell, 2022) and, accepting that, to work together to reach the best results.

All this depends on what we are called to accept. If we are going back to the Wild West, perhaps with the benefit of continued telecommunications, maybe we could accept it. Being a cowboy with a cellphone can’t be all that bad. But what are 300 million cowboys in America going to eat if they do not have a ready source of fertilizer to grow their food? If we need to go back to an 1800’s era agriculture with 8 times the population, we might face starvation. Can we accept that?

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com
We can seek the serenity to accept the things we cannot change. But those who ask for that serenity also often ask for the wisdom to know what they can change, and the courage to change what they can. Perhaps this post can help you have more wisdom into what you can change.

What do you want to tell future generations? Do you want to tell them that, when everything was collapsing, you had the serenity to accept the things you could not change? That’s good. But wouldn’t they also be interested to know if you sought the wisdom to know what you could change, and sought the courage to then change the things you could? If, for instance, promoting a reduction in family size, especially in rich countries, is a significant step forward, shouldn’t we have the courage to promote it? -- https://mindsetfree.blog/we-are-overloading-the-planet-now-what/#Forward

And yes, most of the questions I get here can be answered simply by cutting and pasting from my website. Its not that I haven't wrestled with all the objections I see here. I have. I spent a lot of time studying this. I reached a conclusion. I put it all together on a webpage. If anybody want to understand me, they are welcome to read what I wrote. If it helps them understand me, it was worth it.

 

[Elixir]

I'm 67. You must have been alive a long time.

Gotcha by seven years. By that age, “overshoot” was no question in my mind. My question then was “why aren’t the adults more concerned?” And that remains mostly a mystery to me today.
I feel no obligation to the offspring of those who never considered “overshoot”, as you seem to. But good luck nonetheless; I can only offer to validate your observation that something’s gotta give.

 

[bilby]

OK, so you declare that it is impossible that we will find that nuclear power is insufficient to meet most of our energy needs in the coming centuries. Many people have presented strong arguments that nuclear power will not be sufficient. How is it that you know that you are right and they are wrong?

Seeing as you like visuals rather than text:

 

[bilby]

In context, there are people here that imply that it is so certain that nuclear power will save us, that the question of what we would do if it doesn't save us is a nonsensical question.

I don't know of any such people. It's a very important question; The answer is "we shall die".

Probably not all of us; But most.

I don't view this as a desirable alternative.

 

[bilby]

Do you agree with me that it is legitimate to ask what we would do if any power source combination is insufficient to maintain a level of consumption anywhere close to our current consumption 100 years from now?

It's as legitimate as asking what we would do if gravity stopped holding us to the Earth - it is a question about a counterfactual world, and as such is interesting only as a seed for fantasy and fiction.

It's not a legitimate question to ask in the context of devising sensible policies in the real world, because it relies upon a known falsehood as a premise.

 

[bilby]

A power text I read in the 80s stated that at the current level back then of energy usage we have enough uranium for about 700 years.

You can find all kinds of variations on the theme of "we have enough X for Y years", but finding any that don't commit the error of conflating reserves with resources is very hard indeed.

It's been a theme since the 1960s, and one beloved by "environmentalists" to the degree that the passing of the various dates set by their early prophets has had no impact whatsoever on their belief. The Jehovahs Witnesses have a similar track record with predicting the date of Armageddon.

https://www.theregister.com/AMP/2015/05/31/rare_metals_mineral_reserves_talk_preamble/

 

[steve_bank]

A power text I read in the 80s stated that at the current level back then of energy usage we have enough uranium for about 700 years.

Consumption increases. sales and marketing professionals are paid to develop new markets for new and existing products.

I doubt there are many places in the world where the Nike brand symbol is not known. Coke and Pepsi. McDonald's. Ford and Toyota.

Would it be economical to use that dispersed uranium to make electricity for the masses?

The richest people might be able to afford such energy. Could you and I afford it?

Three Mile Island and Chernoybl put the kibosh on nuclear power in theU SA. Environmentalists over reacted. Waste is an issue, nobody wants it in their state.

The images of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did not help.

One problem is that not many have been built. Coal and gas fired plants are straightforward.

Each reactor was in a general sense a custom design. We would need a standard design that can be reproduced.

There are intrinsically safe designs that ca never reach a runaway condition. There is a company that makes small reactors encased n concrete that can run a small town.

It is certainly feasible and IMO describable to go to a combination of nuclear and renewables.

It will never happen in the USA, there is no political consensus and will to enact a coherent national energy plan. Part f it is 'let the market place' decide conservative mantra. In their thinking all things should b determined by market forces and private business. The result is a hodge podge of interconnected plants and distribution systems that are aging.

Texas is a good example, they decided to detach from the national system and had serious weather related problems.

 

[bilby]

Would it be economical to use that dispersed uranium to make electricity for the masses?

Yes.

Uranium can be economically extracted from the oceans at around the peak spot price seen in 2007; And it is replenished by natural processes faster than we could ever expect to use it (see the graph above).

The cost of fuel is a tiny fraction of the cost of nuclear power. Doubling the cost of yellowcake (something that the link in the first paragraph indicates would not happen without political intervention to deliberately increase costs) adds only about ten percent to the cost of electricity from a nuclear plant.

"The masses" are already paying more than ten percent more for electricity than they were a few years ago.

 

[bilby]

Waste is an issue

No, it isn't.

Fear is an issue; Waste is completely and effectively managed (something no industry other than nuclear power can achieve). Nobody has been hurt by waste from nuclear power, ever. And nor is there any plausible mechanism by which they might be.

The current solution, dry cask storage on-site at generating facilities, is a complete and effective solution. If any other industry were to manage waste as effectively as the nuclear power industry does, they would be hailed from the rooftops as paragons of environmental virtue.

 

[Elixir]

We already did them.

We already ALLOWED them - in some cases. We have whole swaths of our population who would/will illegalize them if they can, and lots more who don’t see the need.
It’s frustratingly similar to how so many other afflictions could be remedied with just an oh-so-small societal attitude adjustment.

 

[bilby]

what would those people do if they thought we needed to cut our consumption in half in the next century?

What would you do if you thought you were going to die in five minutes?

It's a pointless question to consider (and growing up in the Cold War in the UK, it was a real possiblity that could at any time have been thrust upon us all).

Put the kettle on, and enjoy a last cuppa.

Cutting per-capita consumption in half in a century would result in the largest mass fatality event since the 1340s. We (mostly) don't consume for the shits and giggles. We consume to survive. And the virtual elimination of famine in the last forty years suggests that we are doing a pretty effective job of it.

Those international supply chains that let you buy a cheap video game console or smartphone from China, made with materials shipped to China from all over the planet? The cheap Chinese electronics are a mere side effect of that web of inexpensive transportation and inventory management. It's purpose is to ensure that a local crop failure doesn't lead to mass fatalities. And it works. But it requires consumption in order to work.

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that consumption - for lack of a better word - is good. Consumption is right. Consumption works.

What we need isn't reduced consumption; It's sustainable consumption. And for that we need energy. Vast quantities, of reliable, 24x7, always there, robust, cheap, and non-polluting energy.

We don't even need to invent such a thing; We have had the technology to produce it for seventy years. We just need to stop fucking around burning fossil fuels and building windmills, and just do it.

But we can't, because it is a very long term investment. Building a nuclear power plant and running it for sixty years is a highly profitable exercise. Unless the government decides to bow to popular pressure and shut you down after twenty years of blameless operation, because a bunch of mad Russians ran an unauthorised experiment, and the Soviet government tried to cover up the resulting disaster. Or because the world's largest earthquake and its associated tsunami caused the destruction (without loss of life) of a power plant in Japan, and the public were worried that a similar tsunami could strike Kansas.

Growing apple trees is a similarly long-term investment. Would anyone want to start an orchard, when their local authority has a track-record of requiring all apple trees to be chopped down, whenever a Typhoon in Japan causes an apple tree to fall onto an empty storage shed?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

OK, so you declare that it is impossible that we will find that nuclear power is insufficient to meet most of our energy needs in the coming centuries. Many people have presented strong arguments that nuclear power will not be sufficient. How is it that you know that you are right and they are wrong?

Seeing as you like visuals rather than text:

View attachment 45415

Where is he getting that 76,000,000 figure from? It's in the ballpark but I'm not finding that exact value.

However, that chart doesn't go far enough. 269,000,000 MJ/kg for lithium deutride.

 

[bilby]

OK, so you declare that it is impossible that we will find that nuclear power is insufficient to meet most of our energy needs in the coming centuries. Many people have presented strong arguments that nuclear power will not be sufficient. How is it that you know that you are right and they are wrong?

Seeing as you like visuals rather than text:

View attachment 45415

Where is he getting that 76,000,000 figure from? It's in the ballpark but I'm not finding that exact value.

However, that chart doesn't go far enough. 269,000,000 MJ/kg for lithium deutride.

The stated value of 76'000'000 MJ (76 Terajoules) per kg Uranium corresponds roughly to the energy released by the fission of U-235 nuclei of 202.5 MeV or 3.24·10-17 MJ per nucleus [[1]]. One kilogram of pure U-235 would release about 83 Terajoules. In a real nuclear power plant more energy is generated due to breeder reactions, so that per kg U-235 about 128 TJ are produced. One kilogram of natural uranium has about 0.71% U-235 and therefore the potential to produce about 910'000 MJ in a usual nuclear power plant. A fuel rod as used in a nuclear power plant (enriched to 3.5% U-235) has the potential to produce about 4.5 TJ

https://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1162:_Log_Scale

 

[DBT]

Given cheap, clean abundant energy, what would we do with it? What would the world we build look like?

 

[steve_bank]

We will do the same with cheap clean energy that we do with cheap dirty energy like coal and natural gas. It was cheap coal that fueled the industrial revolution.

Increase population and consumption. Continue the slide into hyper decadence.