Given climate change and rising consumption, is there likely to be an environmental and/or economic collapse in the near future?

[JohnG]

Missing option. I don't know, but certainly not because I don't care. The issue is too complex, with too many variables, many of which depend on what we do right now, to be a fruitful venue for armchair speculation.

What I do know is that throwing our collective hands in the air exclaiming it's inevitable isn't going to help. Neither is confusing real problems with imaginary ones, as that is likely to divert focus from the real problems that need fixing.

There's a lot of confusing of real solutions with imaginary ones too.

The majority of the environmental left seems to have a completely faith based approach, wherein both the problems and the solutions are "feel-bad" statements of contrition and "feel-good" statements of hope, respectively, with little or no input from reason or observation.

Something must be done; Building wind farms is something; Therefore building wind farms must be done.

Apparently that's a compelling argument amongst those who haven't studied the actual problem.

Our energy issues are being decided upon by people who conflate energy and electricity; believe that energy (or electricity) are commodities; and have little grasp of non-domestic energy uses, either in terms of scale, importance, or technical requirements.

They don't know the difference between asynchronous and synchronous generation; Don't grasp the scale or importance of liquid fuel (oil) use at all; And are far too busy congratulating themselves on refusing a plastic straw at McDonalds to pull their heads out of their arses and look for ways to make VAST amounts of energy continuously available at a reasonable cost in money, materials, and land.

Intermittent, low power density solutions aren't solutions, and never can be. The laws of thermodynamics cannot be handwaved away in favour of an ideology, no matter how earnest and well-intentioned.

There's only one way to provide sufficient energy density to support eight to ten billion humans in middle-class, high-tech lifestyles, without burning fossil fuels and fucking up the atmosphere.

But half the population think it's unnecessary, because burning coal was good enough for grandad. And the other half think it's evil, because they are the victims of a massive sixty year long propaganda campaign.

Not following you Bilby - are you referring to nuclear power?

 

[bilby]

Missing option. I don't know, but certainly not because I don't care. The issue is too complex, with too many variables, many of which depend on what we do right now, to be a fruitful venue for armchair speculation.

What I do know is that throwing our collective hands in the air exclaiming it's inevitable isn't going to help. Neither is confusing real problems with imaginary ones, as that is likely to divert focus from the real problems that need fixing.

There's a lot of confusing of real solutions with imaginary ones too.

The majority of the environmental left seems to have a completely faith based approach, wherein both the problems and the solutions are "feel-bad" statements of contrition and "feel-good" statements of hope, respectively, with little or no input from reason or observation.

Something must be done; Building wind farms is something; Therefore building wind farms must be done.

Apparently that's a compelling argument amongst those who haven't studied the actual problem.

Our energy issues are being decided upon by people who conflate energy and electricity; believe that energy (or electricity) are commodities; and have little grasp of non-domestic energy uses, either in terms of scale, importance, or technical requirements.

They don't know the difference between asynchronous and synchronous generation; Don't grasp the scale or importance of liquid fuel (oil) use at all; And are far too busy congratulating themselves on refusing a plastic straw at McDonalds to pull their heads out of their arses and look for ways to make VAST amounts of energy continuously available at a reasonable cost in money, materials, and land.

Intermittent, low power density solutions aren't solutions, and never can be. The laws of thermodynamics cannot be handwaved away in favour of an ideology, no matter how earnest and well-intentioned.

There's only one way to provide sufficient energy density to support eight to ten billion humans in middle-class, high-tech lifestyles, without burning fossil fuels and fucking up the atmosphere.

But half the population think it's unnecessary, because burning coal was good enough for grandad. And the other half think it's evil, because they are the victims of a massive sixty year long propaganda campaign.

Not following you Bilby - are you referring to nuclear power?

Yes.

We are not allowed to use it because:

1) It's too dangerous (by every reasonable measure, it's the safest way of generating electricity BY FAR. Only on-shore wind comes close - and that's if we ignore the dangers inherent in building and operating whatever backup and/or storage that intermittent wind power depends upon.)
2) We don't know what to do with the waste (we have known for sixty years. Nuclear is the only electricity generating technology that DOES deal with its waste, rather than just dumping it in the environment un-managed. Only one death can be attributed even vaguely to civilian nuclear waste - a protestor who chained himself to a railway track in Germany was run over by the nuclear waste train he was protesting about, which was bringing mixed oxide fuel back to Germany after it had been reprocessed in France.)
3) It's too expensive (it's incredibly cheap. Until the people who tell us how dangerous it is force ridiculous costs on it. Over a third of the total operating costs of a US nuclear power plant are spent on paying compliance staff to make sure everyone else is doing things exactly by the book; A big chunk of the rest is money paid to the Federal Government to provide a secure repository for waste - which they have yet to do, so waste management gets paid for twice - despite being incredibly safe where it is. And construction costs are usually calculated with crazy discount rates that declare power generated in years 20-60 almost valueless, which is fine for other electricity generating facilities, as they typically only last that long - but a fifty-five year old nuclear plant is just as good and as cheap to run as a fifteen year old plant)
4) It could lead to weapons proliferation (except that multi-purpose reactors to make both electricity and weapons grade fissile material do neither job well, and have been abandoned in favour of either/or reactors. No NPT non-weapons state has developed a weapon AFTER developing commercial power reactors - those that have developed weapons have all done so BEFORE developing power reactors - or have never developed a power reactor at all).
5) But what about Chernobyl? (Chernobyl wasn't even the most deadly or expensive ENERGY accident in 1986 - The Piper Alpha gas rig explosion and fire killed more people and was more expensive. And it's the ONLY deadly nuclear plant accident in history. And it was one of those multi-purpose reactors, that are not good designs - even the Russians don't build those anymore. And today the area around Chernobyl is off-limits due to dumb regulations - if every zone that was equally radioactive to the Chernobyl and Fukushima evacuation zones had to be cleared of people to protect them from radiation exposure, it would be necessary to immediately evacuate the city of Denver, Colorado, and many other cities and towns worldwide.)
6) FUKUSHIMA!! (A very old design, but one that has showcased the extreme safety of nuclear power plants, even the ancient Gen II designs. Despite a record breaking earthquake and tsunami, which caused all four reactors to be completely destroyed, the radiation casualties were 0 dead, 2 minor injuries. The current 'scandal' at Fukushima is that TEPCO want to dump millions of gallons of treated water into the Pacific Ocean. This water is completely harmless, but measurably radioactive, so they are banned from doing so. It's literally drinkable - a TEPCO official did so eight years ago, with zero ill effects; And it will be a drop in the ocean. But instead, they have to clear forests to build storage tanks at great expense - despite the construction of those tanks representing a MASSIVELY greater safety and environmental risk than just dumping this water into the Pacific.)
7) It takes too long to build (Again, mostly because of absurd NIMBYism and needless regulatory burdens associated with the above 'concerns'. The best time to start building large numbers of nuclear plants was, indeed, thirty years ago. The second best time is TODAY).

I think that's the seven most common objections I hear; But I am sure there are others (and equally sure that they are just as stupid, unreasonable and erroneous).

 

[JohnG]

Not following you Bilby - are you referring to nuclear power?

Yes.

We are not allowed to use it because:

1) It's too dangerous (by every reasonable measure, it's the safest way of generating electricity BY FAR. Only on-shore wind comes close - and that's if we ignore the dangers inherent in building and operating whatever backup and/or storage that intermittent wind power depends upon.)
2) We don't know what to do with the waste (we have known for sixty years. Nuclear is the only electricity generating technology that DOES deal with its waste, rather than just dumping it in the environment un-managed. Only one death can be attributed even vaguely to civilian nuclear waste - a protestor who chained himself to a railway track in Germany was run over by the nuclear waste train he was protesting about, which was bringing mixed oxide fuel back to Germany after it had been reprocessed in France.)
3) It's too expensive (it's incredibly cheap. Until the people who tell us how dangerous it is force ridiculous costs on it. Over a third of the total operating costs of a US nuclear power plant are spent on paying compliance staff to make sure everyone else is doing things exactly by the book; A big chunk of the rest is money paid to the Federal Government to provide a secure repository for waste - which they have yet to do, so waste management gets paid for twice - despite being incredibly safe where it is. And construction costs are usually calculated with crazy discount rates that declare power generated in years 20-60 almost valueless, which is fine for other electricity generating facilities, as they typically only last that long - but a fifty-five year old nuclear plant is just as good and as cheap to run as a fifteen year old plant)
4) It could lead to weapons proliferation (except that multi-purpose reactors to make both electricity and weapons grade fissile material do neither job well, and have been abandoned in favour of either/or reactors. No NPT non-weapons state has developed a weapon AFTER developing commercial power reactors - those that have developed weapons have all done so BEFORE developing power reactors - or have never developed a power reactor at all).
5) But what about Chernobyl? (Chernobyl wasn't even the most deadly or expensive ENERGY accident in 1986 - The Piper Alpha gas rig explosion and fire killed more people and was more expensive. And it's the ONLY deadly nuclear plant accident in history. And it was one of those multi-purpose reactors, that are not good designs - even the Russians don't build those anymore. And today the area around Chernobyl is off-limits due to dumb regulations - if every zone that was equally radioactive to the Chernobyl and Fukushima evacuation zones had to be cleared of people to protect them from radiation exposure, it would be necessary to immediately evacuate the city of Denver, Colorado, and many other cities and towns worldwide.)
6) FUKUSHIMA!! (A very old design, but one that has showcased the extreme safety of nuclear power plants, even the ancient Gen II designs. Despite a record breaking earthquake and tsunami, which caused all four reactors to be completely destroyed, the radiation casualties were 0 dead, 2 minor injuries. The current 'scandal' at Fukushima is that TEPCO want to dump millions of gallons of treated water into the Pacific Ocean. This water is completely harmless, but measurably radioactive, so they are banned from doing so. It's literally drinkable - a TEPCO official did so eight years ago, with zero ill effects; And it will be a drop in the ocean. But instead, they have to clear forests to build storage tanks at great expense - despite the construction of those tanks representing a MASSIVELY greater safety and environmental risk than just dumping this water into the Pacific.)
7) It takes too long to build (Again, mostly because of absurd NIMBYism and needless regulatory burdens associated with the above 'concerns'. The best time to start building large numbers of nuclear plants was, indeed, thirty years ago. The second best time is TODAY).

I think that's the seven most common objections I hear; But I am sure there are others (and equally sure that they are just as stupid, unreasonable and erroneous).

I wrote a novel of a post that, after reading, added little to the discussion....the gist was I agree.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

... the real forces at work in our history are mostly invisible to us, and can't really be harnessed.

What do you mean here?

It's hard to answer and be concise, but my point is that many of us suffer from the illusion that our history is intentional, and directional, and that there are smart people crunching numbers in a room somewhere, keeping us safe. IOW that man is the master of nature and not the reverse - that human history is a subset of ecological history.

I could write an essay, but suffice to say up until literally the past few decades we have been both so collectively unaware that sustainability was even a question, and powerless to create any other type of global economy, that what we have now is what we've got. It's not the product of intentional choices, but instead one of an animal that's attempted to create stable enough conditions to stimulate population growth in the short-term. The outcome chose itself, at best we connected the dots, at worst we connected the dots poorly.

Not much disagreement. We've certainly done that, and continue to do it to the point that we do not see ourselves as part of the environment but as separate from. I always liked Sagan's take on that. He would say that we like to think that we live on planet Earth when in fact we are the planet Earth as much as is a river or a rock. But we've invented these myths that we came from elsewhere and are not mere physical reality, but something glorified and special.

When I was very young I was very interested in trees. I still am. I'd catalog sightings, the species, where I saw the specimen, how large, etc. I had quite the card file. I always wanted to see one of these giant sycamore trees that my field guide described as having trunks with diameters that ranged from three to ten feet. I could find plenty of sycamore trees but nothing nearly so massive. I soon realized that they were all gone, we had taken them all and cut them all down. These giants were extinct and it made me sad. It made me sad because no one was going to experience such a thing anymore. Must have been the John Muir in me.

That's the point I was trying to make in a previous post about expectations. It's a sad catastrophe that no one will ever experience a massive sycamore tree, that our lives will be less rich and less wondrous, and that most of us will never even know what we squandered, making it even sadder.

So humanity will survive. We'll have plenty of sidewalks and air conditioners and shopping centers but never again any massive sycamore trees. Many of us will never feel the touch of grass on our bare feet because we're just not very smart.

 

[Jokodo]

Based on what I've read I don't think anyone is certain at this point. That major environmental changes are occurring? Yes. That this is going to cause major upheaval in some regions of the world? Yes.

Collapse?

Maybe in some regions, but I think it's too early to tell exactly how the world economic system is going to be affected.

If I had my guess I'd say some regions will be hit the hardest and have major problems, and other regions that are less affected will experience a slow burn of changes in the near-term.

In the long-run.. 100 - 200, 1000 years? I think that's anyone's guess at this point.

Quite the contrary. If we make it through this century, we're through the woods.

Now of course a random pandemic or dinosaur-killer can hit us anytime - and I doubt we'll be able to fully protect us against either in 2856 anymore than in 2019. That's not what the question is about, though. A self-inflicted collapse of civilization due to resource depletion and/or a consequent mass die-off of humans is either going to happen this century, or not at all: By the end of the century either the technologies to thrive in an altered environment are well underway, or we'll already be suffering the consequences. Also population is likely to be past peak by then.

You're taking some leaps and over-estimating what we know at this point.

We do know that it will hit hard, if unmitigated, within the century. If we don't get up our collective asses and do something big to slow climate change in the next few years and/or find efficient workaround to deal with the consequences in the next few decades, we're pretty fucked by 2100. If we do, we'll be equipped to deal with what's coming after that one way or another.

The only thing that's really certain is that man-made climate change is happening and it's going to cause us serious problems. 'A self-inflicted collapse of civilization' tends toward the side of hyperbole, though, and is highly unlikely to happen, at least in the next few centuries. It's also a false dichotomy because climate change won't impact the world's regions equally.

National borders aren't magic. Unless you're willing to literally bomb treks and ships of 3rd world peasants trying to make a living in what used to be the Taiga, you'll be affected too.

Is it going to be pretty? Certainly not. Is it possible that things will be worse than we predicted? Yes, but this is still an unknown.

This report is pretty good.

I don't think anyone in this thread is disputing that. They'll show up eventually, but not yet.

 

[fromderinside]

Is going green actually a revolution? Or, as I believe, is it capitulation.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

National borders aren't magic. Unless you're willing to literally bomb treks and ships of 3rd world peasants trying to make a living in what used to be the Taiga, you'll be affected too.

This is what most people do not get, I suppose because they cannot comprehend the planet being a single locality like a city or state or the Amazon, only larger but still finite.

 

[rousseau]

National borders aren't magic. Unless you're willing to literally bomb treks and ships of 3rd world peasants trying to make a living in what used to be the Taiga, you'll be affected too.

This is what most people do not get, I suppose because they cannot comprehend the planet being a single locality like a city or state or the Amazon, only larger but still finite.

I get his point well enough, but my point still stands in the face of it. 'Civilization collapsing' is a false dichotomy. The most we can say is that the geopolitical map will change.

Sure I could throw out talking points to promote action, but I'm interested in a discussion about reality here. And the reality is that the situation is much more complex than 'civilization collapsing'.

 

[steve_bank]

Is going green actually a revolution? Or, as I believe, is it capitulation.

I think it is a moot point, Given unrestrained population and economic growth the system is headed for failure.

 

[bilby]

Is going green actually a revolution? Or, as I believe, is it capitulation.

Depends what you mean by "going green".

A lot of people seem to imagine it entails using far less energy per capita, in a kind of return to the Middle Ages, but with penicillin.

That, I agree, would be a capitulation. Nature is great - but you wouldn't want to live there, and history is basically the tale of how humans grew up and moved out of nature, and into the far more comfortable digs provided by technology.

But if "going green" merely means not fucking up our atmosphere, oceans, and wildernesses, then it's an excellent idea - and it's readily achievable. We really don't need all that much space. Humans are very happy in high-density cities, as long as the air and water are clean, and there's plenty of cheap energy to let them do all the stuff they enjoy doing without having to work themselves to death in order to afford it.

We know how to make electricity very cheaply and cleanly, and how to build loads of stuff and grow loads of food, while still leaving big areas of wilderness for other species (and for those of us who like that stuff to vacation in).

We don't need to pollute the air, or cover the landscape in electricity generating devices. We don't have to stop using incandescent lights, or plastic straws, or eating steak. We can have our cake, and eat it too.

But what about Chernobyl!!!

 

[bilby]

Is going green actually a revolution? Or, as I believe, is it capitulation.

I think it is a moot point, Given unrestrained population and economic growth the system is headed for failure.

Population growth isn't unrestrained. It's stopped. We're just waiting out the demographic lag now.

And economic growth is limited only by the availability of numbers. Which are literally infinite.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

National borders aren't magic. Unless you're willing to literally bomb treks and ships of 3rd world peasants trying to make a living in what used to be the Taiga, you'll be affected too.

This is what most people do not get, I suppose because they cannot comprehend the planet being a single locality like a city or state or the Amazon, only larger but still finite.

I get his point well enough, but my point still stands in the face of it. 'Civilization collapsing' is a false dichotomy. The most we can say is that the geopolitical map will change.

Sure I could throw out talking points to promote action, but I'm interested in a discussion about reality here. And the reality is that the situation is much more complex than 'civilization collapsing'.

Absolutely correct. Humans will adapt. Rising sea levels and higher global temperatures will cause millions to move or die. What will be the costs? Most likely the same historical pattern will repeat itself but on a faster, broader scale.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

There's a lot of confusing of real solutions with imaginary ones too.

The majority of the environmental left seems to have a completely faith based approach, wherein both the problems and the solutions are "feel-bad" statements of contrition and "feel-good" statements of hope, respectively, with little or no input from reason or observation.

Something must be done; Building wind farms is something; Therefore building wind farms must be done.

Apparently that's a compelling argument amongst those who haven't studied the actual problem.

The right is just as guilty of this, just about different things.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Good point. The conservatives are fighting tooth and nail to oppose any direction imposed by the collective society on economics or climate.

They belie the economy mist always run by supply and demand. If it leads over a cliff so be it. The economy goes where it will to maximize profits.

No. They have total faith in the market finding solutions. After all, it always has. (Conveniently ignoring the fact that when it hasn't the people aren't around to tell the tale. We are descended from winners, that doesn't mean we will always win in the future.)

 

[bilby]

There's a lot of confusing of real solutions with imaginary ones too.

The majority of the environmental left seems to have a completely faith based approach, wherein both the problems and the solutions are "feel-bad" statements of contrition and "feel-good" statements of hope, respectively, with little or no input from reason or observation.

Something must be done; Building wind farms is something; Therefore building wind farms must be done.

Apparently that's a compelling argument amongst those who haven't studied the actual problem.

The right is just as guilty of this, just about different things.

Oh, absolutely. The biggest problem facing the world is that the vast majority of people support one of two positions, both of which cannot solve the problem. The right generally says that there's no problem in the first place; The left says that there's a huge problem, but that it can be solved using totally impractical (but feel-good) options.

Meanwhile, the problem gets bigger and harder to fix.

 

[DBT]

I get his point well enough, but my point still stands in the face of it. 'Civilization collapsing' is a false dichotomy. The most we can say is that the geopolitical map will change.

Sure I could throw out talking points to promote action, but I'm interested in a discussion about reality here. And the reality is that the situation is much more complex than 'civilization collapsing'.

Absolutely correct. Humans will adapt. Rising sea levels and higher global temperatures will cause millions to move or die. What will be the costs? Most likely the same historical pattern will repeat itself but on a faster, broader scale.

The difference to past migrations being the current and projected scale of numbers, perhaps with millions on the move with practically all arable land already in use, who is to move where without placing a huge burden on the local population and causing more instability?

 

[bilby]

According to the UNs Food and Agriculture Organization, writing in 2003:

At present some 11 percent (1.5 billion ha) of the globe's land surface (13.4 billion ha) is used in crop production (arable land and land under permanent crops). This area represents slightly over a third (36 percent) of the land estimated to be to some degree suitable for crop production. The fact that there remain some 2.7 billion ha with crop production potential suggests that there is still scope for further expansion of agricultural land.

We had more than sufficient food for the 6.3 billion people alive at that time; So in principle we could feed 19 billion or so people without running out of land suited to cultivation, even if the trend of increasing yields per hectare that have been seen almost continuously since the 1960s were to stall.

That's almost twice the maximum projected world population.

There would appear not to be any problem here.

More people suffer from the impact of too much food than suffer from having too little.

The 1960s called; They want their utterly failed doomsday predictions back.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I get his point well enough, but my point still stands in the face of it. 'Civilization collapsing' is a false dichotomy. The most we can say is that the geopolitical map will change.

Sure I could throw out talking points to promote action, but I'm interested in a discussion about reality here. And the reality is that the situation is much more complex than 'civilization collapsing'.

Absolutely correct. Humans will adapt. Rising sea levels and higher global temperatures will cause millions to move or die. What will be the costs? Most likely the same historical pattern will repeat itself but on a faster, broader scale.

The difference to past migrations being the current and projected scale of numbers, perhaps with millions on the move with practically all arable land already in use, who is to move where without placing a huge burden on the local population and causing more instability?

Agreed again. The "local" model still stands.

Think about any place you've lived, any neighborhood or town or city or state. Now consider that a significant part of that place becomes unlivable so that the habitable areas now have to be rearranged and lots of new people accommodated.

 

[fromderinside]

According to the UNs Food and Agriculture Organization, writing in 2003:

At present some 11 percent (1.5 billion ha) of the globe's land surface (13.4 billion ha) is used in crop production (arable land and land under permanent crops). This area represents slightly over a third (36 percent) of the land estimated to be to some degree suitable for crop production. The fact that there remain some 2.7 billion ha with crop production potential suggests that there is still scope for further expansion of agricultural land.

We had more than sufficient food for the 6.3 billion people alive at that time; So in principle we could feed 19 billion or so people without running out of land suited to cultivation, even if the trend of increasing yields per hectare that have been seen almost continuously since the 1960s were to stall.

That's almost twice the maximum projected world population.

There would appear not to be any problem here.

More people suffer from the impact of too much food than suffer from having too little.

The 1960s called; They want their utterly failed doomsday predictions back.

How about we throw another match on the dry straw: Water trends http://gemi.org/water/watertrends.htm

Awareness of global, regional, and local water trends can ensure that organizations have time to plan and act before crises arise. This section presents several important water trends.

• Although most of the world is not running out of freshwater, a number of regions face chronic freshwater shortages
• In the future, water shortages are likely to spread due to increasing demands, unsustainable withdrawal rates, difficulty in finding new supplies, pollution and source water contamination, and changing climatic and precipitation patterns
• Water shortages impact regional security by causing human health problems and population displacement, increasing conflicts between competing users, and damaging ecosystem health
• While regulatory responses are becoming more stringent, watershed-based management approaches are expanding

For instance ME migration is actually mostly due to loss of water supply due to climate changes. China has enough water to support about 20% of their population and that is decreasing because the productive land is moving from 30% contaminated to 60 to 70% by 2040. India and Bangladesh are really beginning to feel adverse effects of climate change which will only become worse.

The breadbasket of US in CA now requires wells drilled to greater depths than 1000 feet to supplemental irrigation and normal sources such as snowmelt and rainfall. measurements indicate a drop of up to 20 feet in elevation in some parts of the San Joaquin valley https://databasin.org/maps/e316a5c7294b477fbabeb34d6faa44fc

I believe that strong rubbing of hands together and gnashing of teeth helps keep circulation going.