The effects of warming: Kilodeaths

[DBT]

Let me get this straight: eggs (increase in average annual tonnage produced from the 1990-1999 decade to the 2000-2009 decade: 32.6%, per capita: +16.4%), meat (+31.8%/11.9%), vegetables (+45.7%/+27.9%) and soybeans (+56.3%/+37.3%) is "beginning to run out of momentum", while the global population (+ a measly fucking 14% mid-decade to mid-decade) "continues to soar". (Their data go up to 2011, but year-to-year comparison are uninformative because there's too much noise, so I'm comparing the two last full decades decade to decade here).

Wow. Just wow.

And don't come on about how I'm missing the point and fixating on a typo. This is an intentional direct juxtaposition of food commodity growth vs. population growth designed to leave the impression that the former isn't keeping up with the latter as of the time of writing. No "begginning from mid-century" anywhere to be found".

You still bang on about population growth when it has been clearly stated that population growth alone is not the problem. If the bulk of the worlds population lived frugal lives, there would be no problem in the foreseeable future.

Why do you ignore the specific issue of rising demand with greater affluence for citizens of developing nations?

Abstract

''Growing consumption can cause major environmental damage. This is becoming specially significant through the emergence of over 1 billion new consumers, people in 17 developing and three transition countries with an aggregate spending capacity, in purchasing power parity terms, to match that of the U.S. Two of their consumption activities have sizeable environmental impacts. First is a diet based strongly on meat, which, because it is increasingly raised in part on grain, puts pressure on limited irrigation water and international grain supplies. Second, these new consumers possess over one-fifth of the world's cars, a proportion that is rising rapidly. Global CO2 emissions from motor vehicles, of which cars make up 74%, increased during 1990–1997 by 26% and at a rate four times greater than the growth of CO2 emissions overall. It is in the self-interest of new consumer countries, and of the global community, to restrict the environmental impacts of consumption; this restriction is achievable through a number of policy initiatives.''


''However, while population size is part of the problem, the issue is bigger and more complex than just counting bodies.

There are many factors at play. Essentially, it is what is happening within those populations—their distribution (density, migration patterns and urbanisation), their composition (age, sex and income levels) and, most importantly, their consumption patterns—that are of equal, if not more importance, than just numbers.''

And the article on peak production simply identifies a potential problem. That gains in some areas of food production is beginning to run out of momentum

Peak production is inevitable at some point given that production cannot increase indefinitely, that is just physics, meanwhile demand for goods and services (not just food) is projected to grow with affluence over and above population numbers because people in developing nations have more money to spend and desire to live like Americans, Australians, etc.

What you ignore is the toll this production takes on ecosystems, water supply, arable land and other resources, which will probably come under greater stress with climate change.

The overall picture of unsustainable that this projected situation paints is the issue, not the rate of supply of chickens or eggs for the current market.

So, yeah, Wow, just Wow at how you focus on this point or that narrow band but entirely miss the big picture, which is odd because you actually agree with the big picture, that if we don't sort out our shit before the end of the century we are 'fucked' or words to that effect.

So if the risk is that we may be 'fucked before the end of the century' there must be something that is bringing us to that point. Which is the point of what I and the quotes and articles say. Nor do I expect all evidence to be perfectly accurate. Just sufficient to support the case that we have major problems ahead

 

[bilby]

You would need to be a truly committed pessimist to look at the fact that people who were once too poor to eat, are now not just able to eat every day, but are even able to afford steak, and to conclude from this that things are headed for disaster.

The world has more than adequate land suited to agriculture to support nine billion consumers of quarter pounders with cheese.

And even if it did not, it wouldn't constitute a disaster for people who currently eat meat several times a day to be forced to only eat meat a few times a week - as long as nobody starved as a result.

And this is all assuming that technology suddenly stops its current rapid advance. It's quite possible that by the time we have nine billion humans, they will all be able to eat cheap eye-fillet grown in a factory, that requires very little land and no more agricultural resources than are needed to grow some simple nutrient feedstock.

Make no mistake - it's a VERY GOOD THING^TM that the developing world is getting wealthier.

 

[DBT]

So there is nothing to worry about? The human race has everything under control?

 

[lpetrich]

Avaaz on Twitter: "One of the most powerful statements to the US Congress. Ever?? Days before the Sept 20 #ClimateStrike @GretaThunberg (literally) drops the science. https://t.co/wo50zjIm7t" / Twitter

Greta Thunberg did not have much to say. "My name is Greta Thunberg. I have not come to offer any prepared remarks at this hearing. I am instead attaching my testimony. It is the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5d C. Which was released on October 18, 2018. I am submitting this report as my testimony because I don't want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to the scientists, and I want you to unite behind the science, and then I want you to take real action.

Faint Signals From Vega on Twitter: "@Avaaz @GretaThunberg https://t.co/N4MKFyqlhe" / Twitter - "A vegan diet (diet free of meat, dairy, eggs) is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use, and water use."

This will mean lots of vegetarian fake meat, fake milk, fake cheese, and fake eggs.

 

[skepticalbip]

So there is nothing to worry about? The human race has everything under control?

There is plenty to worry about if you really are not happy unless you can embrace some scenario where millions or billions of people die. But you should pick one that more believable than the one you are clinging to. You seem to enjoy those that you can blame on people so here are a couple that may work for you:
.. The outbreak of a global war.
.. Some nut or country can develop a deadly virus (as a weapon of war or just to see if they can) that has a long incubation period then release it on the world. The long incubation period would allow it to spread around the world carried by those contaminated before the first symptoms appear leading to a quick death.

If you would be happy with a natural event that destroys humanity or much of it there is:
... a supervolcano eruption.
... a cometary impact.
... a gamma ray burst.
... a renegade star or black hole passes through the solar system and gravitationally slingshots the Earth away from the sun and out of the solar system to freeze or into the sun to vaporize.

For border line scifi ends to humanity there is always:
... The LHC creates a stable strangelet which ends up converting all atoms on the planet into strange matter.
... Self replicating nanobots are created and the builders loose control of them resulting in the planet being converted into gray goo.

And then, if you are into it, there is the Biblical Armageddon to look forward to. There seems to be a lot of people that like this one as much as you like your starvation scenario.

 

[bilby]

So there is nothing to worry about? The human race has everything under control?

In terms of resource depletion and population and/or economic growth, yes, there's nothing to worry about.

What we should be worrying about, instead of these red herrings and distractions, is the amount of Carbon Dioxide we are adding to our atmosphere.

We know how to solve that problem, but seem highly disinclined to implement the solution - half of us are still pretending there's no problem, and the other half are pretending to be able to solve it with technologies that are demonstrably incapable of the task.

 

[bilby]

Avaaz on Twitter: "One of the most powerful statements to the US Congress. Ever?? Days before the Sept 20 #ClimateStrike @GretaThunberg (literally) drops the science. https://t.co/wo50zjIm7t" / Twitter

Greta Thunberg did not have much to say. "My name is Greta Thunberg. I have not come to offer any prepared remarks at this hearing. I am instead attaching my testimony. It is the IPCC special report on global warming of 1.5d C. Which was released on October 18, 2018. I am submitting this report as my testimony because I don't want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to the scientists, and I want you to unite behind the science, and then I want you to take real action.

Faint Signals From Vega on Twitter: "@Avaaz @GretaThunberg https://t.co/N4MKFyqlhe" / Twitter - "A vegan diet (diet free of meat, dairy, eggs) is probably the single biggest way to reduce your impact on planet Earth, not just greenhouse gases, but global acidification, eutrophication, land use, and water use."

This will mean lots of vegetarian fake meat, fake milk, fake cheese, and fake eggs.

Lobbying for lots of nuclear power plants, and against the stupid and unnecessary closure of existing ones, is more boring, less engendering of a feeling of self-righteousness, but ultimately FAR more effective than eating less meat.

 

[bilby]

... Self replicating nanobots are created and the builders loose control of them resulting in the planet being converted into gray goo.

That already happened, naturally.

Except we don't call natural nanobots "nanobots"; We call them "bacteria".

And the goo isn't grey, it's brown. We call it "soil", and use it to grow stuff in.

 

[Jokodo]

Let me get this straight: eggs (increase in average annual tonnage produced from the 1990-1999 decade to the 2000-2009 decade: 32.6%, per capita: +16.4%), meat (+31.8%/11.9%), vegetables (+45.7%/+27.9%) and soybeans (+56.3%/+37.3%) is "beginning to run out of momentum", while the global population (+ a measly fucking 14% mid-decade to mid-decade) "continues to soar". (Their data go up to 2011, but year-to-year comparison are uninformative because there's too much noise, so I'm comparing the two last full decades decade to decade here).

Wow. Just wow.

And don't come on about how I'm missing the point and fixating on a typo. This is an intentional direct juxtaposition of food commodity growth vs. population growth designed to leave the impression that the former isn't keeping up with the latter as of the time of writing. No "begginning from mid-century" anywhere to be found".

You still bang on about population growth when it has been clearly stated that population growth alone is not the problem. If the bulk of the worlds population lived frugal lives, there would be no problem in the foreseeable future.

Why do you ignore the specific issue of rising demand with greater affluence for citizens of developing nations?

Abstract

''Growing consumption can cause major environmental damage. This is becoming specially significant through the emergence of over 1 billion new consumers, people in 17 developing and three transition countries with an aggregate spending capacity, in purchasing power parity terms, to match that of the U.S. Two of their consumption activities have sizeable environmental impacts. First is a diet based strongly on meat, which, because it is increasingly raised in part on grain, puts pressure on limited irrigation water and international grain supplies. Second, these new consumers possess over one-fifth of the world's cars, a proportion that is rising rapidly. Global CO2 emissions from motor vehicles, of which cars make up 74%, increased during 1990–1997 by 26% and at a rate four times greater than the growth of CO2 emissions overall. It is in the self-interest of new consumer countries, and of the global community, to restrict the environmental impacts of consumption; this restriction is achievable through a number of policy initiatives.''


''However, while population size is part of the problem, the issue is bigger and more complex than just counting bodies.

There are many factors at play. Essentially, it is what is happening within those populations—their distribution (density, migration patterns and urbanisation), their composition (age, sex and income levels) and, most importantly, their consumption patterns—that are of equal, if not more importance, than just numbers.''

And the article on peak production simply identifies a potential problem. That gains in some areas of food production is beginning to run out of momentum

Peak production is inevitable at some point given that production cannot increase indefinitely, that is just physics, meanwhile demand for goods and services (not just food) is projected to grow with affluence over and above population numbers because people in developing nations have more money to spend and desire to live like Americans, Australians, etc.

What you ignore is the toll this production takes on ecosystems, water supply, arable land and other resources, which will probably come under greater stress with climate change.

The overall picture of unsustainable that this projected situation paints is the issue, not the rate of supply of chickens or eggs for the current market.

So, yeah, Wow, just Wow at how you focus on this point or that narrow band but entirely miss the big picture, which is odd because you actually agree with the big picture, that if we don't sort out our shit before the end of the century we are 'fucked' or words to that effect.

So if the risk is that we may be 'fucked before the end of the century' there must be something that is bringing us to that point. Which is the point of what I and the quotes and articles say. Nor do I expect all evidence to be perfectly accurate. Just sufficient to support the case that we have major problems ahead

I specifically reacted to your article taking about how population "continues to soar". If toy wasn't to see someone "banging on about population", you need to get a mirror.

And you didn't answer my question: do you know of anyone else using "peak food" to mean a peak in the first derivative of food production, rather than in food production itself? It seems to be a highly informative, and also misleading, usage.

 

[DBT]

Let me get this straight: eggs (increase in average annual tonnage produced from the 1990-1999 decade to the 2000-2009 decade: 32.6%, per capita: +16.4%), meat (+31.8%/11.9%), vegetables (+45.7%/+27.9%) and soybeans (+56.3%/+37.3%) is "beginning to run out of momentum", while the global population (+ a measly fucking 14% mid-decade to mid-decade) "continues to soar". (Their data go up to 2011, but year-to-year comparison are uninformative because there's too much noise, so I'm comparing the two last full decades decade to decade here).

Wow. Just wow.

And don't come on about how I'm missing the point and fixating on a typo. This is an intentional direct juxtaposition of food commodity growth vs. population growth designed to leave the impression that the former isn't keeping up with the latter as of the time of writing. No "begginning from mid-century" anywhere to be found".

You still bang on about population growth when it has been clearly stated that population growth alone is not the problem. If the bulk of the worlds population lived frugal lives, there would be no problem in the foreseeable future.

Why do you ignore the specific issue of rising demand with greater affluence for citizens of developing nations?

Abstract

''Growing consumption can cause major environmental damage. This is becoming specially significant through the emergence of over 1 billion new consumers, people in 17 developing and three transition countries with an aggregate spending capacity, in purchasing power parity terms, to match that of the U.S. Two of their consumption activities have sizeable environmental impacts. First is a diet based strongly on meat, which, because it is increasingly raised in part on grain, puts pressure on limited irrigation water and international grain supplies. Second, these new consumers possess over one-fifth of the world's cars, a proportion that is rising rapidly. Global CO2 emissions from motor vehicles, of which cars make up 74%, increased during 1990–1997 by 26% and at a rate four times greater than the growth of CO2 emissions overall. It is in the self-interest of new consumer countries, and of the global community, to restrict the environmental impacts of consumption; this restriction is achievable through a number of policy initiatives.''


''However, while population size is part of the problem, the issue is bigger and more complex than just counting bodies.

There are many factors at play. Essentially, it is what is happening within those populations—their distribution (density, migration patterns and urbanisation), their composition (age, sex and income levels) and, most importantly, their consumption patterns—that are of equal, if not more importance, than just numbers.''

And the article on peak production simply identifies a potential problem. That gains in some areas of food production is beginning to run out of momentum

Peak production is inevitable at some point given that production cannot increase indefinitely, that is just physics, meanwhile demand for goods and services (not just food) is projected to grow with affluence over and above population numbers because people in developing nations have more money to spend and desire to live like Americans, Australians, etc.

What you ignore is the toll this production takes on ecosystems, water supply, arable land and other resources, which will probably come under greater stress with climate change.

The overall picture of unsustainable that this projected situation paints is the issue, not the rate of supply of chickens or eggs for the current market.

So, yeah, Wow, just Wow at how you focus on this point or that narrow band but entirely miss the big picture, which is odd because you actually agree with the big picture, that if we don't sort out our shit before the end of the century we are 'fucked' or words to that effect.

So if the risk is that we may be 'fucked before the end of the century' there must be something that is bringing us to that point. Which is the point of what I and the quotes and articles say. Nor do I expect all evidence to be perfectly accurate. Just sufficient to support the case that we have major problems ahead

I specifically reacted to your article taking about how population "continues to soar". If toy wasn't to see someone "banging on about population", you need to get a mirror.

I didn't say that 'population continues to soar' - if that was said in an article I posted, I don't support the phrase. World population continues to grow to a projected nine billion or so. And although another two billion is still a significant increase, it's not just about numbers....as I've pointed out too many times.

What is likely to soar is demand as affluence grows and more and more people adopt developed nation consumerism as a lifestyle of choice. That being far more significant than numbers alone.

And you didn't answer my question: do you know of anyone else using "peak food" to mean a peak in the first derivative of food production, rather than in food production itself? It seems to be a highly informative, and also misleading, usage.

Well, it's not meant to be deceiving. The only thing meant is the fundamental limits to growth. Being a finite planet, the principle applies to any sector.



“Anyone who believes in indefinite growth of anything physical on a physically finite planet is either a madman or an economist.”

– Kenneth Boulding, economist


Abstract

''Growing consumption can cause major environmental damage. This is becoming specially significant through the emergence of over 1 billion new consumers, people in 17 developing and three transition countries with an aggregate spending capacity, in purchasing power parity terms, to match that of the U.S. Two of their consumption activities have sizeable environmental impacts. First is a diet based strongly on meat, which, because it is increasingly raised in part on grain, puts pressure on limited irrigation water and international grain supplies. Second, these new consumers possess over one-fifth of the world's cars, a proportion that is rising rapidly. Global CO2 emissions from motor vehicles, of which cars make up 74%, increased during 1990–1997 by 26% and at a rate four times greater than the growth of CO2 emissions overall. It is in the self-interest of new consumer countries, and of the global community, to restrict the environmental impacts of consumption; this restriction is achievable through a number of policy initiatives.

Increasing consumption and especially its environmental impacts (1–5) are becoming all the more important now that the 850 million long-established consumers in rich countries have recently been joined by almost 1.1 billion new consumers in 17 developing and three transition countries. Most of these new consumers are far from possessing the spending capacity of the long-established consumers, but they have enough aggregate spending capacity, in terms of purchasing power parity (PPP), to match that of the U.S. Their numbers, consumption activities, and environmental impact are rising fast''.


And yes, I know that this article is dated 2003, but as there has been very little in terms of significant steps taken to address the issue, nothing has changed fundamentally since 2003 or 1990 for that matter...

 

[DBT]

More;

''William Rees, an urban planner at the University of British Columbia, estimated that it requires four to six hectares of land to maintain the consumption level of the average person from a high-consumption country. The problem is that in 1990, worldwide there were only 1.7 hectares of ecologically productive land for each person. He concluded that the deficit is made up in core countries by drawing down the natural resources of their own countries and expropriating the resources, through trade, of peripheral countries. In other words, someone has to pay for our consumption levels. [Emphasis Added]

… Our consumption of goods obviously is a function of our culture. Only by producing and selling things and services does capitalism in its present form work, and the more that is produced and the more that is purchased the more we have progress and prosperity. The single most important measure of economic growth is, after all, the gross national product (GNP), the sum total of goods and services produced by a given society in a given year. It is a measure of the success of a consumer society, obviously, to consume.

However, the production, processing, and consumption, of commodities requires the extraction and use of natural resources (wood, ore, fossil fuels, and water); it requires the creation of factories and factory complexes whose operation creates toxic byproducts, while the use of commodities themselves (e.g. automobiles) creates pollutants and waste. Yet of the three factors environmentalists often point to as responsible for environmental pollution — population, technology, and consumption — consumption seems to get the least attention. One reason, no doubt, is that it may be the most difficult to change; our consumption patterns are so much a part of our lives that to change them would require a massive cultural overhaul, not to mention severe economic dislocation. A drop in demand for products, as economists note, brings on economic recession or even depression, along with massive unemployment.''

As hinted above, within the current economic system of "perpetual growth", we risk being locked into a mode of development that is:

destructive, in the long run, to the environment
a contributing factor to poverty around the world
a contributing factor to hunger amongst such immense wealth
and numerous other social and ecological problems

Furthermore, as also hinted above, as consumption increases (in a wasteful way, which we shall see a bit later), the resource base has to expand to meet growth and related demands. If the resource base expands to other people’s lands, then those people don’t necessarily get to use those resources either.

 

[Jokodo]

I specifically reacted to your article taking about how population "continues to soar". If toy wasn't to see someone "banging on about population", you need to get a mirror.

I didn't say that 'population continues to soar' - if that was said in an article I posted, I don't support the phrase.

For fuck's sake, do you ever read your own posts?

in this post, characters 1171-1199, it says quite literally "population continues to soar". You even quoted the same article before, including copy-pasting the same line which you now pretend to never have seen, at index 1726-1754 here.

World population continues to grow to a projected nine billion or so. And although another two billion is still a significant increase, it's not just about numbers....as I've pointed out too many times.

Another thing you've done too many times is post links to alarmist articles and less than sincere articles, and when challenged to support individual claims in those articles (even ones you've pasted verbatim into your post), pretended that it never happened. You don't get to post a mix of trivially true, true but misleading without context, and blatantly false claims and when challenged insist that you obviously only ever meant to make the true claims.

What is likely to soar is demand as affluence grows and more and more people adopt developed nation consumerism as a lifestyle of choice. That being far more significant than numbers alone.

And you didn't answer my question: do you know of anyone else using "peak food" to mean a peak in the first derivative of food production, rather than in food production itself? It seems to be a highly informative, and also misleading, usage.

Well, it's not meant to be deceiving.

You didn't answer my question - again. Does anyone else use "peak <commodity>" to refer to a peak in the first derivative of the volume extracted, rather than to a peak in the volume extracted? Yes or no, if yes, examples please!

The only thing meant is the fundamental limits to growth. Being a finite planet, the principle applies to any sector.

Trivially true, but irrelevant. As I've pointed out more than once before. Incidentally, talking about growth rates rather than absolute numbers, there's a fundamental limit to growth even on an infinite planet or an infinite universe: Given a finite speed of expansion v (capped at the speed of light c) and only three spatial dimensions, the new volume that could hypothetically be colonised and put under cultivation per year grows only with the square of time t even in an infinite environment (it's proportional to the surface of the sphere encompassing all points that can be reached at v by t), while the volume grows with the cube of time t. You have yet to make an argument that either mathematical truth is relevant to this discussion.

“Anyone who believes in indefinite growth of anything physical on a physically finite planet is either a madman or an economist.”

– Kenneth Boulding, economist

And anyone who believes in indefinite constant rate growth even in an infinite universe lacks basic understanding of the mathematics behind exponential vs. polynomial growth. If you want to show either is relevant to our discussion, you have to a do a bit more work.

 

[DBT]

For fuck's sake, do you ever read your own posts?

Gosh, for fucks sake? That sounds sooo tough. At no point did I say that 'population continues to soar' - I am not responsible for the wording of every sentence of every article cited, nor do I agree with everything that every article says. I made my own position on this clear and explained precisely what I do or do not mean or endorse.

You love your little game of 'Play the Prosecutor' even while missing the essential issue being raised. Sure, some articles use a bit of hyperbole, but that doesn't mean the essential issue being raised is wrong. You even agree that if we 'don't get our shit together by the end of the century we are fucked' - which is the whole point. A mistake in calculation here or the wrong wording there changes nothing.

Another thing you've done too many times is post links to alarmist articles and less than sincere articles, and when challenged to support individual claims in those articles (even ones you've pasted verbatim into your post), pretended that it never happened. You don't get to post a mix of trivially true, true but misleading without context, and blatantly false claims and when challenged insist that you obviously only ever meant to make the true claims.

The so called alarmist articles cite the studies that they draw from.

And just maybe there is cause for a degree of alarm. I would say that we should be alarmed at the inaction of policy makers and big business.

Perhaps a bit of alarm may spur greater action for what is likely to become a major crisis if greater action is not taken.

You didn't answer my question - again. Does anyone else use "peak <commodity>" to refer to a peak in the first derivative of the volume extracted, rather than to a peak in the volume extracted? Yes or no, if yes, examples please!

Peak oil.

Peak wheat

Peak water

Peak Minerals

Peak food production

Peak soil

And anyone who believes in indefinite constant rate growth even in an infinite universe lacks basic understanding of the mathematics behind exponential vs. polynomial growth. If you want to show either is relevant to our discussion, you have to a do a bit more work.

You miss the mark....try talking to a neoclassical economist about economic growth.

 

[Jokodo]

Gosh, for fucks sake? That sounds sooo tough. At no point did I say that 'population continues to soar' - I am not responsible for the wording of every sentence of every article cited, nor do I agree with everything that every article says.

Out if literally billions of texts the internet offers, you picked this one, and not only linked it but pasted this specific line into your post. Not once but twice. How am I to conclude you use articles that don't reflect your position to illustrate your position?

Sorry mate, this one's squarely on you.

I made my own position on this clear and explained precisely what I do or do not mean or endorse.

You love your little game of 'Play the Prosecutor' even while missing the essential issue being raised. Sure, some articles use a bit of hyperbole,

A direct juxtaposition of population growth and food production in the same sentence insinuating that the latter isn't keeping up with the former, when in fact per capita production continues to display double digit decadal growth isn't hyperbole. It's an attempted lie.

but that doesn't mean the essential issue being raised is wrong. You even agree that if we 'don't get our shit together by the end of the century we are fucked' - which is the whole point. A mistake in calculation here or the wrong wording there changes nothing.

People are less likely to believe someone who was caught lying before. Basic human psychology.

The so called alarmist articles cite the studies that they draw from.

And just maybe there is cause for a degree of alarm. I would say that we should be alarmed at the inaction of policy makers and big business.

Perhaps a bit of alarm may spur greater action for what is likely to become a major crisis if greater action is not taken.

You didn't answer my question - again. Does anyone else use "peak <commodity>" to refer to a peak in the first derivative of the volume extracted, rather than to a peak in the volume extracted? Yes or no, if yes, examples please!

Peak oil.

"Peak oil is the theorized point in time when the maximum rate of extraction of petroleum is reached, after which it is expected to enter terminal decline."

Peak wheat

"The central tenet is that a point is reached, the "peak", beyond which agricultural production plateaus and does not grow any further.
"

Peak Minerals

"Peak minerals marks the point in time when the largest production of a mineral will occur in an area, with production declining in subsequent years."

Peak food production

A discussion of the exact same paper you've presented before, so not an independent source.

So thanks for making my point I guess: all of the other references are to when extraction reaches reaches its peak, not when its first derivative does. The ones I skipped too, they just don't include such catchy quotable phrases.
Your source and derived work are alone in misusing the phrase to mean something else.

And anyone who believes in indefinite constant rate growth even in an infinite universe lacks basic understanding of the mathematics behind exponential vs. polynomial growth. If you want to show either is relevant to our discussion, you have to a do a bit more work.

You miss the mark....try talking to a neoclassical economist about economic growth.

Go ahead and do that when you meet one. Here y you're talking to a socialist.

You're also missing the mark quite a bit: the finiteness of the planet is perpendicular to whether it will continue to supply for all or needs. If you assume indefinite exponential growth, an infinite planet wouldn't save us. If you don't, I finite one might very week be big enough.

 

[lpetrich]

Jacob Soboroff on Twitter: "EXCLUSIVE: Trump admin ignoring its own evidence of climate change impact on migration to US.
"Everyone knows [Stephen] Miller isn't interested in hearing about climate change," DHS official told us.
@JuliaEAinsley and I got the data.
More on @MSNBC. https://t.co/cplSSdmvAd" / Twitter

Trump admin ignored its own evidence of climate change's impact on migration from Central America - "EXCLUSIVE: An internal report obtained by NBC News showed migration surged from those areas where climate change is hurting crops and farmers."

Research compiled one year ago by Customs and Border Protection pointed to an overwhelming factor driving record-setting migration to the U.S. from Guatemala: Crop shortages were leaving rural Guatemalans, especially in the country's western highlands, in extreme poverty and starving.

...
But inside the Trump White House, that message was largely ignored in both policy decisions and messaging around what should be done to stem the flow of migrants. Last October, a month after the CBP report was finalized, President Donald Trump announced he was considering suspending foreign aid to Guatemala, which included money used to mitigate the affects of climate change on small farms.

Will there be more as the climate gets more and more screwed up?

 

[lpetrich]

Climate change: 12 excuses for inaction and how to refute them - Vox

1) Isn’t it alarmist to talk about the potential extinction of the human species?
2) Isn’t it already too late to prevent catastrophe?
3) How do I deal with the fact that this is so depressing?
4) Won’t it be impossible to get off fossil fuels? Emissions keep going up, and oil companies are too powerful.
5) But I’m just one person. Do my choices even matter in a world of 7 billion people?
6) Why should I deprive myself of meat and air travel? It’s human nature to pursue short-term pleasure.
7) Isn’t it mainly a rich and powerful people’s problem? I’m not rich.
8) What is the one easy thing I can do?
9) It’s obvious the US needs to pass serious federal climate legislation, but isn’t our political system broken? Leaders have short-term attention spans. And many are beholden to fossil fuel interests.
10) But won’t decarbonization cost too much? Won’t it hurt the global economy?
11) Aren’t you making what economists call “zero sum” mistakes (my consumption doesn’t limit yours, we can both gain in “win-win” trade)?
12) Surely the techies will invent something that saves us?

The climate change policy with the most potential is the most neglected - Vox - "Using public clean energy R&D to spur innovation is overlooked and underfunded."

The case for public clean energy R&D spending
1) Emission reduction in emerging economies matters most.
2) Thus, “the best climate policies are those that stimulate clean energy innovation.”
3) Public R&D creates the most spillover.
4) Public R&D is woefully neglected but politically tractable.
Everyone loves clean energy R&D; no one does it

 

[lpetrich]

Greta Thunberg to lead youth climate strike in 150 countries on Friday - Vox

Youth climate strike crowd estimate: More than 4 million people took part, activists say - Vox

Youth climate strike: September 20 US events in photos - Vox

Global youth climate strike: What the protests look like around the world - Vox
Afghanistan, Australia, Bangladesh, Belgium, Chile, China, El Savador, France, Germany, Greece, India, Indonesia, Japan, Netherlands, Nigeria, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, South Africa, South Korea, Thailand, Ukraine, United Kingdom

All of the protesters looked like local people from each of those nations with one exception: China. That one was described as "Protesters hold signs and chant slogans during the Hong Kong Climate Strike rally in Hong Kong, China on September 20, 2019. Chris McGrath/Getty" - all of them in the picture were gweilos, roundeyes, white people, and compared to most of the other pictures, there were not many of them.

This suggests a problem with mass mobilization: it may be difficult in some countries, and the biggest one with that difficulty is China. But such mobilizations are possible in most of the rest of the world, including the next most populous country: India.

Greta Thunberg claims that a common argument against emission reduction in Sweden is why should that nation do it when the US doesn't? In the US, a parallel argument is why should the US do it if China and India don't? But it looks like pressure by mass mobilization is possible in much of the world, so if China doesn't, then at least India may do so.

 

[bilby]

Climate change: 12 excuses for inaction and how to refute them - Vox

1) Isn’t it alarmist to talk about the potential extinction of the human species?
2) Isn’t it already too late to prevent catastrophe?
3) How do I deal with the fact that this is so depressing?
4) Won’t it be impossible to get off fossil fuels? Emissions keep going up, and oil companies are too powerful.
5) But I’m just one person. Do my choices even matter in a world of 7 billion people?
6) Why should I deprive myself of meat and air travel? It’s human nature to pursue short-term pleasure.
7) Isn’t it mainly a rich and powerful people’s problem? I’m not rich.
8) What is the one easy thing I can do?
9) It’s obvious the US needs to pass serious federal climate legislation, but isn’t our political system broken? Leaders have short-term attention spans. And many are beholden to fossil fuel interests.
10) But won’t decarbonization cost too much? Won’t it hurt the global economy?
11) Aren’t you making what economists call “zero sum” mistakes (my consumption doesn’t limit yours, we can both gain in “win-win” trade)?
12) Surely the techies will invent something that saves us?

The climate change policy with the most potential is the most neglected - Vox - "Using public clean energy R&D to spur innovation is overlooked and underfunded."

The case for public clean energy R&D spending
1) Emission reduction in emerging economies matters most.
2) Thus, “the best climate policies are those that stimulate clean energy innovation.”
3) Public R&D creates the most spillover.
4) Public R&D is woefully neglected but politically tractable.
Everyone loves clean energy R&D; no one does it

We did the bulk of the necessary R&D in the 1950s and '60s.

We HAVE an established, tried and tested clean energy technology. It has the best reliability, the best safety record, and by far the best environmental record of any electricity generation technology in history.

What more do people fucking want?

 

[skepticalbip]

Climate change: 12 excuses for inaction and how to refute them - Vox

1) Isn’t it alarmist to talk about the potential extinction of the human species?
2) Isn’t it already too late to prevent catastrophe?
3) How do I deal with the fact that this is so depressing?
4) Won’t it be impossible to get off fossil fuels? Emissions keep going up, and oil companies are too powerful.
5) But I’m just one person. Do my choices even matter in a world of 7 billion people?
6) Why should I deprive myself of meat and air travel? It’s human nature to pursue short-term pleasure.
7) Isn’t it mainly a rich and powerful people’s problem? I’m not rich.
8) What is the one easy thing I can do?
9) It’s obvious the US needs to pass serious federal climate legislation, but isn’t our political system broken? Leaders have short-term attention spans. And many are beholden to fossil fuel interests.
10) But won’t decarbonization cost too much? Won’t it hurt the global economy?
11) Aren’t you making what economists call “zero sum” mistakes (my consumption doesn’t limit yours, we can both gain in “win-win” trade)?
12) Surely the techies will invent something that saves us?

The climate change policy with the most potential is the most neglected - Vox - "Using public clean energy R&D to spur innovation is overlooked and underfunded."

The case for public clean energy R&D spending
1) Emission reduction in emerging economies matters most.
2) Thus, “the best climate policies are those that stimulate clean energy innovation.”
3) Public R&D creates the most spillover.
4) Public R&D is woefully neglected but politically tractable.
Everyone loves clean energy R&D; no one does it

We did the bulk of the necessary R&D in the 1950s and '60s.

We HAVE an established, tried and tested clean energy technology. It has the best reliability, the best safety record, and by far the best environmental record of any electricity generation technology in history.

What more do people fucking want?

Religious zealots believe that suffering is necessary to atone for the sin of being human, so suffering, hair shirts, and self flagellation are blessings.

We now have the green movement that seems to be mimicking theistic religion excesses with essentially the same 'reasoning'. Humanity adapting wide use of nuclear energy to drastically cut CO2 emissions involves no suffering or personal human sacrifice so is unacceptable as a solution as it wouldn't absolve us of our sin of 'killing Mother Earth'. Only suffering absolves sin.

 

[DBT]

Out if literally billions of texts the internet offers, you picked this one, and not only linked it but pasted this specific line into your post. Not once but twice. How am I to conclude you use articles that don't reflect your position to illustrate your position?

Sorry mate, this one's squarely on you.

I've already said that I don't support the phrase 'the population continues to soar.' Your insistence that I am responsible for the wording regardless is just desperation. It's typical of your habit of seizing onto minor errors and making a case of it where no case exists. Your own errors are just fine though, only human, eh?

So thanks for making my point I guess: all of the other references are to when extraction reaches reaches its peak, not when its first derivative does. The ones I skipped too, they just don't include such catchy quotable phrases.
Your source and derived work are alone in misusing the phrase to mean something else.

Peak production just refers to the limitations that prevent further gains in production, be it available water for crops, arable land, etc. The term can apply to conditions within a nation state, insufficient water supply to grow more rice, or to the World at large, peak oil.

Your objections are unfounded.

Go ahead and do that when you meet one. Here y you're talking to a socialist.

Socialist now? Your desperation is showing. This issue has nothing to do with ideology. It's basic physics. A finite planet physically cannot support perpetual growth in the form of ever increasing resource use

''Since the middle of the twentieth century,the scale of the human enterprise has rapidly escalated, and with it the exploitation of the natural world as a source of raw materials and a sink for the disposal of waste. Though the roots of this explosion lie in the history of the last five hundred years at least (in the rise of capitalism, European colonialism, Enlightenment science, and the Industrial Revolution), the associated disruption of the global biosphere has become evident only over the last half century.''

Economic Growth: Perceptions

Ecological economists see economic growth very differently from mainstream economists and most policymakers. First, and most fundamental, is the question of which is primary: the economy or the planet’s ecological systems? The answer chosen is crucial, since all questions of the limits, boundaries, and scale of the human economic enterprise hinge on whether or not the economic system can be theorized independently of its physical and natural context.

Many standard economics textbooks introduce students to a diagram of “the economy” that includes only the relationship between businesses and households (producers and consumers)

The Free Market Assault on Environmental Science

In chapters 10 and 11, I traced the step-by-step creation of channels of propaganda and direct influence by corporate America, and their spread to other countries. I have also indicated the process whereby pro-corporate ideology was internalized in popular belief and became the commonsense way to see the world. Economic growth is intrinsic to the corporate system so that, even when growth itself is not the overt topic of the propaganda, it remains an underlying objective. This is particularly true of the battle to continue burning the fossil fuels on which the entire productive apparatus currently depends.''
.

You're also missing the mark quite a bit: the finiteness of the planet is perpendicular to whether it will continue to supply for all or needs. If you assume indefinite exponential growth, an infinite planet wouldn't save us. If you don't, I finite one might very week be big enough.

Looks like nonsense. You need to give an actual argument for your terms and references, not just make proclamations.