Natural resources: can supply be maintained in a world of increasing demand?

[skepticalbip]

... snip ...

I haven't trusted Americans with tea since 1773.

While I can agree that tea leaves steeped in cold brine likely wouldn't make a tasty brew, for yanks it is an idea that warms the cockles of our hearts.

 

[Bomb#20]

I haven't trusted Americans with tea since 1773, and that they have such things as "electric teapots" only serves to underscore the justice of my stance.

You know, there's a reason the expression is always "Not for all the tea in China", and never "Not for all the tea in England". All the tea in England is non-potable.

 

[barbos]

I am terribly sorry for confusion, I meant electric kettle.

 

[bilby]

I am terribly sorry for confusion, I meant electric kettle.

Thank fuck for that!

We nearly had to burn down the Whitehouse. Again.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Can the planet continue to supply ever growing demand as developing countries raise the living standards of their citizens to a rate comparable to developed nations, assuming that population stabilizes at around 9 billion, but demand continues to grow with increases in standard of living ?

I'd say that its not likely that our ecosystems can supply the needs and wants of this level of consumption at that population figure.

It's not an issue. When we hit a wall we'll just make do with less. The big one is food. But we're nowhere near a crisis when it comes to food. We could feed ten times as many humans. Most of the effort we put into food is luxury food production. That could be cut in an instant and we'd be just as happy. Clean water, also not an issue. It's simply a question of political motivation. We're today really good at filtering and cleaning water.

The biggest problem is global warming. But that's not a problem of scarcity. That's a problem of an over-abundance of fossil fuels. So the opposite issue

The problem with global warming is that the climate may no longer be conducive for our agricultural practices, prolonged droughts in some regions, destructive storms elsewhere.

Our agricultural production today is extremely efficient. We're still producing much more than what we need. By many of orders of magnitude more. Just the fact that most people can eat meat at all today, means we don't have a problem. Come back when the majority of our protein intake is soy or insects.

 

[barbos]

We're still producing much more than what we need. By many of orders of magnitude more.

What definition of "order of magnitude" and "many" do you use?

Just the fact that most people can eat meat at all today, means we don't have a problem. Come back when the majority of our protein intake is soy or insects.

Well, developed countries do consume too much meat, but not by orders of magnitude more than they should.

 

[skepticalbip]

,,, snip ...

Well, developed countries do consume too much meat, but not by orders of magnitude more than they should.

That kinda brings up a real argument among nutritionists. At the extremes there are meat advocates like Atkins who promote a diet heavy with meat with no carbohydrates and then at the other extreme there are those who advocate a vegetarian diet.

Personally, I revel in my omnivore-ism. I eat whatever I have a hankering for and is available at the time. It seems to work for me as I have maintained the same weight +/- five pounds for the last thirty years.

 

[Treedbear]

...
The only limit is energy - and energy is available in VAST quantities. It falls from the sky; and it is concentrated in uranium and thorium deposits all over the world.
...

I assume that by "falls from the sky" you mean solar energy. How does that square with your many posts about solar not being a viable replacement for fossil fuels? Principly because when a solar energy plant is placed on the grid a corresponding auxiliary source of on-demand energy is required for the times when solar is unavailable? In fact that argument is what convinced me that nuclear power was essential for the medium term. While I still have my own worries about its dangers I've become more concerned about global warming in recent years.

 

[skepticalbip]

...
The only limit is energy - and energy is available in VAST quantities. It falls from the sky; and it is concentrated in uranium and thorium deposits all over the world.
...

I assume that by "falls from the sky" you mean solar energy. How does that square with your many posts about solar not being a viable replacement for fossil fuels? Principly because when a solar energy plant is placed on the grid a corresponding auxiliary source of on-demand energy is required for the times when solar is unavailable? In fact that argument is what convinced me that nuclear power was essential for the medium term. While I still have my own worries about its dangers I've become more concerned about global warming in recent years.

Solar power has its place but it doesn't mesh well as a replacement for fossil fuels or as an alternative for nuclear for an electric power net. Solar (with battery storage) works well as a power source for individual residences especially those in remote locations. It is also an excellent power source for those engaged in ocean sailing. It is also good for industrial sites with the electrical power net as a backup.

 

[bilby]

...
The only limit is energy - and energy is available in VAST quantities. It falls from the sky; and it is concentrated in uranium and thorium deposits all over the world.
...

I assume that by "falls from the sky" you mean solar energy. How does that square with your many posts about solar not being a viable replacement for fossil fuels?

Simple - 'is not a viable replacement for fossil fuels' is not the same thing as 'is non existent and/or totally useless for anything at all'.

Principly because when a solar energy plant is placed on the grid a corresponding auxiliary source of on-demand energy is required for the times when solar is unavailable?

That's correct. Solar and wind power are useless as feed-in sources for large electricity grids. But solar energy is great for growing crops; and for photosynthesis in general.

Solar and wind generation of electricity is often convenient (albeit expensive) for isolated and remote facilities with low power demands; or in applications where intermittency is not an issue, and a grid connection is expensive.

These are necessarily niche technologies, but they are nevertheless quite useful - and better for the environment than burning diesel oil, which is today's most common option for making electricity in remote and isolated locations.

In fact that argument is what convinced me that nuclear power was essential for the medium term. While I still have my own worries about its dangers I've become more concerned about global warming in recent years.

I completely agree - although I would suggest that worrying about the dangers of electricity generation sources is an argument FOR nuclear power, which is by far the least dangerous electricity generation technology in history.

 

[Treedbear]

...
The only limit is energy - and energy is available in VAST quantities. It falls from the sky; and it is concentrated in uranium and thorium deposits all over the world.
...

I assume that by "falls from the sky" you mean solar energy. How does that square with your many posts about solar not being a viable replacement for fossil fuels? Principly because when a solar energy plant is placed on the grid a corresponding auxiliary source of on-demand energy is required for the times when solar is unavailable? In fact that argument is what convinced me that nuclear power was essential for the medium term. While I still have my own worries about its dangers I've become more concerned about global warming in recent years.

Simple - 'is not a viable replacement for fossil fuels' is not the same thing as 'is non existent and/or totally useless for anything at all'.

Principly because when a solar energy plant is placed on the grid a corresponding auxiliary source of on-demand energy is required for the times when solar is unavailable?

That's correct. Solar and wind power are useless as feed-in sources for large electricity grids. But solar energy is great for growing crops; and for photosynthesis in general.

Solar and wind generation of electricity is often convenient (albeit expensive) for isolated and remote facilities with low power demands; or in applications where intermittency is not an issue, and a grid connection is expensive.

These are necessarily niche technologies, but they are nevertheless quite useful - and better for the environment than burning diesel oil, which is today's most common option for making electricity in remote and isolated locations.
...

OK, that's a valid point. But I wouldn't have lumped them together like that. Solar can never become a significant part of the world's energy needs until the energy it generates can be stored and available on-demand.

 

[bilby]

Simple - 'is not a viable replacement for fossil fuels' is not the same thing as 'is non existent and/or totally useless for anything at all'.

Principly because when a solar energy plant is placed on the grid a corresponding auxiliary source of on-demand energy is required for the times when solar is unavailable?

That's correct. Solar and wind power are useless as feed-in sources for large electricity grids. But solar energy is great for growing crops; and for photosynthesis in general.

Solar and wind generation of electricity is often convenient (albeit expensive) for isolated and remote facilities with low power demands; or in applications where intermittency is not an issue, and a grid connection is expensive.

These are necessarily niche technologies, but they are nevertheless quite useful - and better for the environment than burning diesel oil, which is today's most common option for making electricity in remote and isolated locations.
...

OK, that's a valid point. But I wouldn't have lumped them together like that. Solar can never become a significant part of the world's energy needs until the energy it generates can be stored and available on-demand.

Well that depends on how broadly you define 'energy' - fossil fuels are solar energy that has been stored and is available on-demand; and so (perhaps less tongue in cheek) is 'biomass'.

 

[steve_bank]

My energy text from the 80s based on current demands and forecasted growth said uranium will last about 700 years.

It may be centuries away, at some point an energy limit will be reached. Yhe question is do we keep going as is or begin the development of a sustainable process.

Or do we do what conservatives say, hell with future burn a lot of coal now.

 

[DBT]

To add: would that be the Africa of 2019 or the one you heard about in school back in the days, from a teacher repeating what he or she had heard 20 years earlier at uni?

You are projecting comments way beyond their intended meaning, which appears to be a means of discrediting your opponents argument without offering an actual rebuttal.

I made no mention of the 'entire continent of Africa' in terms of the same problems for each and every nation or state in Africa.

Making a brief reference to problems in Africa does not mean the entire continent has the same problems.

As we are only making brief references, we do not add pages of qualifications for each and every word or reference we use or make.

You seize on that brevity like a Lawyer with a streak of Bulldog nature and make the most of it, apparently with the impression that you are making some sort of point.

your list had "Africa" at the same level as "palm oil plantations in Asia" or "the Murray Darling". Both of those are specific issues. "Africa" is not a specific issue. It's not even an unspecific issues (like "various problems in Africa" would have been). It's a continent.

I made no mention of levels. That is your assumption. I merely refered to places with environmental problems, that probably result from bad decisions and/or the desire for economic gain, and threw out a few names. You seized upon this and somehow came up with 'the same level'...that being your ploy.

 

[DBT]

The problem with global warming is that the climate may no longer be conducive for our agricultural practices, prolonged droughts in some regions, destructive storms elsewhere.

Our agricultural production today is extremely efficient. We're still producing much more than what we need. By many of orders of magnitude more. Just the fact that most people can eat meat at all today, means we don't have a problem. Come back when the majority of our protein intake is soy or insects.

It's not that simple. Distribution and regional conditions are projected to become an issue. Possible destabilization in one region causing problems when refugees migrate to neighboring countries, taxing the resources of surrounding nation sates (and beyond) with all the associated problems of assimilation, providing the necessities of life, etc.


Abstract

''The prospect of human-induced climate change encourages drastic neomalthusian scenarios. A number of claims about the conflict-inducing effects of climate change have surfaced in the public debate in recent years. Climate change has so many potential consequences for the physical environment that we could expect a large number of possible paths to conflict. However, the causal chains suggested in the literature have so far rarely been substantiated with reliable evidence. Given the combined uncertainties of climate and conflict research, the gaps in our knowledge about the consequences of climate change for conflict and security appear daunting. Social scientists are now beginning to respond to this challenge. We present some of the problems and opportunities in this line of research, summarize the contributions in this special issue, and discuss how the security concerns of climate change can be investigated more systematically.''

Whether the worst case scenarios play out, or we come through relatively intact, nobody knows. We are on a course that cannot be predicted. An experiment driven by our economic activity and growth that has no preconceived outcome.