Your Influence on the World
I just had a funny little experience that I thought I’d share. I was helping my son study for his sociology final, and we came upon the concept of the Malthusian Trap, the prediction that the population will rise to the point at which it can no longer be supported by the Earth’s finite resources. Of course, the situation is even more pronounced now than it was when Malthus (pictured) had this idea about 200 years ago, given the realities of global warming, ocean acidification, and the ever-accelerating rate of species extinction. I explained to my son that, in large measure, it is my life’s work to raise awareness of this issue so that enough people understand it and take action accordingly, before humankind faces a profound level of suffering and death.
After my son left for school, I took a break to do a Spanish lesson on my phone. I’m using the app Duolingo, and I’ve committed to work on this every day until I’m fluent; I’m currently working on abstract nouns, like “intention” and “influence.”
For some reason, the lesson focused on the sentence: “Cual va a ser tu influencia?” or “What will be your influence?” Of course, I don’t know exactly what my influence in all this will be. All I know is that I’m part of a huge number of people, growing every day, who care about this stuff and try to make a difference while there is still time.
Yet it’s a damn good question, one that we should all ask ourselves often: Cual va a ser mi influencia?
I first came across the ideas of Malthus in the mid-60’s. If I remember, it came up in connection with either Churchill’s books on WW2, or else Durant’s “Story of Civilization”. I was reading both sets and having great discussions about them with my father.
A decade later, Malthus became part of early discussions with friends about modern industrial agriculture. (Good old hippy, back-to-the-earth days!)
Our over-exploitation of resources is a pattern we have repeated throughout history – buffalo on the prairies, cod in the Atlantic, topsoil, fossil fuels, clean air and water… We’re smart enough to develop the resources, but not smart enough to look at the consequences.
And the large discussion about population is impossible – the ethical and moral issues run smack against Maslow.
I have hope, but I am not confident. Still, “a man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what’s a heaven for.”
Still, “a man’s reach should exceed his grasp or what’s a heaven for.”~~ Craig; sounds like assumed political expansionism BS to me!
in 1850 there were about 1.2 billion people on the planet. Today the number is closer to 7.3 billion. A couple of the most fascinating graphs I’ve ever seen are here:
http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2009/06/population-growth-vs-emissions-growth/
They overlay CO2 emissions and global population and lead to some very scary conclusions.
Because I have a minor in economics, I am quite familiar with Thomas Malthus. Actually, he was a clergyman. Before contraception was readily available, probably his theory was valid. However, we now know that when people are educated and no longer in poverty, they have fewer children; that was not true in Malthus’ day.
We need not fall into the Malthusian trap. To avoid it, we have to help poor countries lift their people out of poverty and encourage adequate education. To a limited degree, we can increase the carrying capacity of the world, partly by implementing technologies to provide abundant, clean, and economical energy. The combination can help us avoid the Malthusian trap. Whether we will actually succeed in avoiding it is another matter; the commitment required might be too great.
Malthus observations were based upon the idea that food production grew lineally while population grew exponentially. They were somewhat discredited in the 60’s with some saying that modern farming and technology makes the theory obsolete. The “technology” that was implemented was primarily the use of fossil fuels to support mechanization, create fertilizer, pesticides, and pharmaceuticals.
If we go back to the 30’s in the 20th century the world population was about 2 billion people. We could speculate that this is probably the limit of the world’s population without the use of fossil fuels and we are now overextended by about 5 billion people. If we were to blindly eliminate fossil fuel use or abruptly “run out” a dramatic “correction” is then also possible. In a world where cattle have essentially been used as a medium for drug resistant pathogens we have what sounds like the plot for a Hollywood apocalypse film.
Like this it is quite easy to be overcome with every possible future horror. Sometimes we need a bit of a prod to action but once beyond that and looking for proactive steps it is a good time to ask “What can I do” or “What is practical?” or as you so nicely phrased it “What can be my influence?” Thanks.
Interesting subject and I think back to school having the same subject being discussed In The classroom because humans consume resources and food more than animals that eventually we whould run out,our class was discussing about the ozone and different sections of atmosphere and how to get to the moon and other plants and how to raise awareness to other people on the planet to conserve what we use and not to make extra waste,that was back in the 1980’s when the INTERNET wasn’t known to most people. The only option is to switch to a new energy but that might be to late,probably time to get a big ship ready for space travel.
It would seem obvious that “enlightened self-interest” will encourage wealthier populations to raise poorer populations if the result is a reduced reproduction rate. Subsistence agriculture relies on the availability of labour (usually children) to support the family unit. To me, that implies that improving the lives of the poorest will slow population growth.
However, I’m worried about declining natural non-renewable resources. We’ve used a lot of the oil, and without oil I don’t see how we can possibly feed the population we have. What will happen when water and food are in short supply, insufficient for countries to feed their people?
“Efficiency” has to be tied to reduction in population. In the past, being more efficient has meant that we can feed more people more cheaply, but that era is ending. “Rich” people use resources for oversized houses, unnecessary/inefficient transportation, and houses full of cheap plastic “stuff”. (OK, obesity has been another result of “efficiency”, and there are more…)
But reducing population has to be seen as a “good thing” by everyone. It can’t be imposed. So the “rich” need to commit to making the goal of declining reproduction rates a benefit directly to the poor. “Cui bono”.
Which element/ingredient is going to run out first? For PV? For growing/harvesting/storing food? And how are we going to deal with the panic that comes from the shortage of those resources?
And if we rich people don’t want to be seen as the “villains”, the “enemy”, we need to get serious about attacking the problem and paying for the solutions. Enlightened self-interest.
Craig you said “it is my life’s work to raise awareness of this issue so that enough people understand it and take action accordingly, before humankind faces a profound level of suffering and death.” I say that’s fine but why stop there? Why would you think it’s enough to tell us again and again our boat is sinking without offering any solutions? Do you think if you jump up and down high enough and yell loud enough that will suffice? Over the next few years we will see major changes in where our energy comes from, how we store it, and how we use it as we tackle the energy issues of affordability, availability and sustainability. It’s said the choices we make now will affect us all and our environment far into the future. So why not take real action and join with me in a collaborative effort to toss humanity a lifeline people and villages and firms and farms and towns and cities and counties can grab and hang onto?
Les – is there a link you can post to whatever technology you’re promoting? The only reference found on-line seemed to imply a sort of solid waste incinerator….
Roger here is a notice I’ve posted on Facebook and elsewhere that includes links. Please try to understand that what I’m promoting is much more than an ordinary incinerator, its really a new concept in fuels conversion.
COLLABORATORS, STRATEGIC ALLIANCES AND/OR INVESTMENT NEEDED FOR NOVEL NEW CONCEPT GLOBAL REPOWERING TECHNOLOGY. AAEC WILL PROVIDE MORE DETAILS ON REQUEST.
AAEC invented, patented, tested and further developed a novel new concept low-carbon energy technology we’ve designed for serving as the core technology for far cleaner renewable energy production systems and energy efficiency improvements across the American landscape and around the world. AAEC’s novel new concept technology consists of a biomass, fossil fuel, and municipal waste combustion, gasification and pyrolysis conversion technology that can provide scalable heat and power requirements as well as both biofuel and biochar production. AAEC’s technology is for stand-alone use or as backup for alternative energy systems that depend on solar, wind or other intermittent sources of energy, and in this way it will help enable a doubling of the deployment of alternative energy projects around the world in coming decades.
AAEC developed this new concept breakthrough technology to enable homeowners, businesses, towns, cities and counties to convert completely to cleaner energy. AAEC is for all those who understand that distributed alternative / renewable energy derived from solar, wind, biomass and waste is a viable pathway to stall global warming and produce a much better future for our descendants, and ultimately for all humanity. AAEC offers a viable way to move to a future where we are better at controlling global warming. Fossil fuel firms and utilities may at first oppose what AAEC offers and prefer to continue passing on the costs in cleaning up their operations to their clients and customers even if better options are available that would benefit them as well.
AAEC management believes we will all do better and be safer in the long run if we can deploy a practical way to power all human activities on extraction of greenhouse gases that have already been emitted into earth’s atmosphere while also cutting back on ongoing greenhouse emissions and begin protecting communities and electric power grids. I’m claiming to be an inventor of one of the “tools” needed to enable humanity to overhaul the power delivery system, in the USA and elsewhere, and help get us out of the box fossil fuels and governmental inaction have humanity bound up in. I propose to do this through deployment of advanced alternative energy projects at residential, community, city and county scale as good paying, infrastructure producing, jobs are needed. Therefore AAEC is seeking support from any and all that may care to support this trickle up – distributed energy – project. With such support AAEC will enable bringing energy production to the people much as the PC brought computing to the people.
Les Blevins
President at Advanced Alternative Energy Corp.
1207 N 1800 Rd., Lawrence, KS 66049
Phone 785-842-1943 – Email LBlevins@aaecorp.com
For more info see http://aaecorp.com/ceo.html
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Advanced-Alternative-Energy/277213435730720
http://buildings.ideascale.com/a/dtd/SCALABLE-MIXED-WASTE-TO-ENERGY-CONVERSION-TECHNOLOGY/84117-33602
“We’re the first generation to feel the impact of climate change, and we’re the last generation that can do something about it. We only get one planet. There’s no Plan B.” ~ President Barack Obama
“Don’t know what you’ve lost ’till its gone..” From one of my favorite songs. One corollary might be “you don’t know what you’re missing if you never had it”. As much as I wish the world would be a bit more alarmist about our predicament, it is at best even odds until things get really ugly. Why? If a certain quality of life is unknown to you, it is difficult to make sacrifices to get back what you never had. Climate change is probably the ultimate slow motion train wreck – similar to boiling the frog as it were. Once you notice… well, poof. We have already lost so much of the world, and yet how many of us feel it in a visceral fashion? I certainly can’t make that claim, and yet I clearly remember the trips and the places and experiences that can never happen again because that part of the world is now gone.
So, with all that, here is the thought I have considered many times. Given that humans are the most adaptable of creatures, save for certain insects, we always find a way to get by. Until we make this planet uninhabitable for most mammals, are we really going to get our heads wrapped around what we are doing, or are we simply going to devote our efforts to adaptation and survival? I doubt that Soylent Green will ever be people – more likely bugs, but our desire to virally create more people pretty much condemns any possibility for quality of life once remembered.
@ Arlene
Don’t be so hard on mankind. Species extinction occurred long before the rise of humans, and has actually slowed as a result of human activity. We may be more aware of extinctions, but that not the same thing as causing extinctions.
Now getting practical, which of your fellow humans do you feel you have the right to deny the joy of parenthood? Because that is the ultimate question to your dissertation that you seem to avoid. Whom do you feel unworthy to continue the human race ? Which child shouldn’t be born ? Whom should we cull ?
Maybe we should start with the weakest, and poorest ? After all they are doing the most obvious environmental harm (and it’s more practical to cull them because they can’t fight back ). I know you probably feel the rich, privileged and powerful should punished, but that’s not really practical as they have the means to get rid of you !
So which people to your wish to impose your first world ideology upon ? Whom do you feel would benefit from your cultural imperialism ?
I know you mean well and certainly wouldn’t advocate any of the above, but that’s what reducing population growth involves.
A better method might be to increase the per capita income of overpopulated nations so that women can seek higher education. Higher education, material wealth, and security lead to lower birth rates.
There’s something about an exciting “apocalypse ” that fascinates. Puritans, moralists, leftists, survivalists, etc are especially invigorated.
Why, well one explanation a “doomsday” apocalyptic vision, not only relieves these folk of the burden of understanding the highly complex dynamics of the modern world, but plays to an old fashioned sense of righteousness. These folk can be highly delighted at the thought of impeding doom.(while pretending concern). It relieves that feeling of powerlessness in such a vastly complex world.
And why not ? After all an apocalypse is just an easily understood morality play, in which the unrighteous, presumptuous, creative, adventurous, ambitious human race get it’s “comeuppance”, for it’s undeserved success. The villains are always those achievers who represent increases in material wealth, etc. Humans are always the villains, (unless portrayed as “wise” primitives and sympathizers). “Mother nature” is the hero etc etc.
For those who enjoy a good bit of old fashioned, hand-wringing, hypocritical stern disapproval, self loathing, self righteous sanctimony, increasing global population, with the possibility of an apocalypse, can’t be beat !
These can range from moral-religious teaching to earnest “scientific dissertations, the best are just well constructed fantasies to entertain.
The best part about it all, is it’s a safe thing to get all indignant about. Secretly, even the most ardent know that there no real chance of an apocalypse occurring! The planet can easily accommodate a much larger population (and will).
Marcopolo:
You blithely claim that the earth can accommodate a much larger population. In your opinion, what will be the limiting factor? water? energy? food? war?
Homo Sapiens do not do well in overcrowded warrens. We’re too individualistic, and too able to fight for what we “need”.
“The villains are always those achievers who represent increases in material wealth, etc.” but there are “limits to growth”. If “population control” means limiting families to 2 children, I don’t see that as a terrific hardship – except where children are co-opted to be part of the workforce (as they are now in some areas.)
Even the Utopian dreams of massive solar collectors in space need oil (unless one hypothesizes some new, as yet undiscovered method of travel. The planet is finite – and some of the resources non-renewable. Certainly, I hope we manage to get past the “end of oil” without killing huge numbers in stupid wars, and I’d love to hope for some new, non-polluting, non-consuming source of energy, but I’m not very confident.
If you know of some, this would be a good place/time to discuss it…
@ Roger Priddle
Hi Roger, Happy New Year, and thank you for your reply.
I don’t believe there is any “Limiting Factor” . As technology and social wealth increases, including things like general health and longer life expectancy, populations naturally self-limit due to a number of factors such as a fall in birth rate. Females forsake having children in their teens and limit the number of children to concentrate on education and careers.
The evidence is clear from demographics of nations like Japan etc, where low birth rates have dropped below the level of replacement population causing massive social and economic problems.
It may not seem like it, but humans are hard wired as social animals. Our genetic make-up requires a large diverse gene pool, and a lot of social interaction. We are also naturally aggressive, curious and enterprising. Our “individualism” is always within a social contest (hermits etc are exceptions that that prove the rule :).
The planet has an abundance of resources. When I went to university in the late Sixties, a “consensus” of intelligentsia and scientists was all the vogue. This “consensus” was convinced 1977 would be the ” Year the Stork passed the Plow ” and the world would become subject to permanent and increasing famine. Anyone doubting this doomsday prediction, or disagreeing with the call for the implementation of immediate and draconian socialism, was a moronic ” denier ” !
(all sound familiar ?) In 1968 the then prestigious think tank the “Club of Rome ” praised the “humanitarian ” policies of Mao’s cultural revolution, and held him (and his little red book ) as an example to greedy corrupt ” Western Capitalists “.
Alas, 1977 rolled around, and although it turned out to be the decade that good taste in fashion forgot,the decade witnessed unprecedented over production of food that has continued ever since ! ( It also transpired that ol’ Mao really was a crazy, murderous old bastard, bringing untold misery to his people, and others, just as those corrupt Western capitalist “deniers” claimed”).
In truth, however exciting an “apocalypse” may be to the imagination, the chance of such an event occurring is infinitesimal ! .Just as the chances of an equally appealing Utopian nirvana with all pervasive peace, love and harmony reigning, is equally infinitesimal.
I am delighted to be forsaking the miserable weather of Christmas the UK, and entertaining my younger brother and his family, who have flown from the UK to spend their first Christmas in the Australian sunshine with my family. Today we are sailing in the magnificence of the Whitsunday Islands/Great Barrier Reef.
The black top highway from Melbourne to Townsville Australia (via the coast) is about 4800 km. Those advocating an oil free future seem to forget that this road is a product of the oil industry, as are the tires on my Tesla.
Human ingenuity, ambition, self-interest and enterprise, can’t be ” limited “. Today we listen to earnest preaching against the “evils” of motor cars, while forgetting that in 1900 London , as in every major city at that time, more than 30,000 children died from horse encephalitis each year ! The advent of the motor car, ended that epidemic.
Limiting human rights in any society on ideological grounds is a concept that never leads to a better society.
I think you mis-understood me.
Oil is finite. We will run out. The earliest petro-geologists understood this a century ago – and were clear that increasing demand with decreasing supply will cause massive price increases and civic disruption.
When we do, there will be hell to pay. solar and wind and nuclear won’t make up the sudden loss of synthetic fertilizers. Nor will there be fuel as cheap and portable.
To stop the burning of fossil fuels is not an ideological stance – it’s a pragmatic recognition that we’re going to have to eventually and, according to some fairly reliable estimates, within the lifetime of our grandchildren.
It’s sort of like approaching a traffic jam on a highway – you can either look at the approaching lights and start to slow down early, or you can insist on your “right” to continue at the posted limit until… until it’s a moot question whether you will stop before or after you run into the stopped vehicles.
Nor do I accept that burning fossil fuels is a “human right”, or any kind of “right”. My rights end where the air you breathe, the water you drink, the climate you rely on for food begins.
Ah ha, ..hmmm… why is it when someone calls for the enforcement of their particular ideology, it always comes clothed in sanctimony and the in the name of “public good ” ?
Less than a decade ago, Hubbert’s ” Peak Oil ‘ was an imminent threat and latest doomsday alarm. (although, come to think of it ol’ Marion King Hubbert , just kept extending the deadline each time one expired ! ) Today we’re in the middle of an oil glut, not caused by a lessening dependence on oil, but over supply.
Of course all the planets resources are finite, after all, the Earth itself is finite ! However, the planets resources and resilience is far greater than doomsday alarmists can imagine.
People have a right to a stable, responsibly managed, expanding economy. All people have a right to have children, without the fear of condemnation or restrictions from bigoted ideologues.
Human technology and science achievement are the product of surplus economic conditions. This has been true since the beginning of civilization, and continues to be true today.
The oil industry remains a major and essential component of the Global economy. For Americans it’s an all pervasive component involving every aspect of the US economy. The problem of disengagement will be a long, slow and difficult disengagement taking many decades. The idea that the US can disengage from oil by following the dictates of some simple minded ideologues is ridiculous. It will not be achieved in an exciting, disruptive revolution, but hopefully by carefully managed evolution.
In my opinion, this evolutionary process will not be helped by grandiose alarmist advocacy, and impractical political demands. Isn’t it far more practical to concentrate on smaller, more modest targets that can be achieved, with little disruption and maximum benefit?
Each year US citizens spill nearly twice as much toxic pollution while starting up garden maintenance machines as the total pollution from the Exxon Vazquez disaster ! Yet where are all the protesters? Where are the passionate activists, where is the government actively promoting incentives to make the switch to available, more efficient Electric garden maintenance machinery ?
The evolution will occur by many smaller achievements building eventually to a better future. It will not occur by crying “alarm” and ” riding madly off in all directions at once.
I don’t think I disagree with your last paragraph. However, I think you underestimate the impact of shortening oil supplies, continuing damage caused by increased CO2 levels, and the consequences of growing competition for a falling supply.
Certainly, those of us in rich countries will do better than the poor, and the wealthy among us will be able to emulate the “status quo ante” longer than the poor in even the rich countries, but the question is who is going to take responsibility for the impacts of our consumption.
We are going to have to choose between Darwin and ethics. If we are content to take the attitude that “rich makes might makes right”, then we should be fine for a few years – although rising prices will cause significant unrest in even the richest countries – but eventually the system self-destructs.
Note: I am ignoring for now the environmental consequences of continuing to burn carbon. We all know what they are – the science is clear.
But how do we deal – personally and as a society – with a steadily increasing “cost of living”? How will we react when the poor find food and heat priced out of reach? The “Dirty Harry” school says, “Kill them all and let God sort it out.” Well, I don’t want my heirs to be killed for their lettuce because they’re not fast enough with a gun. Surely, as a species and a civilization, we’re capable of better than that…
Oil is finite. My Grandfather was one of the earliest petro-geologists. He knew King Hubbard. He was the first to say, “I don’t know what we’re going to do when the oil runs out.” Not “when the easy oil runs out”, not “IF the oil runs out” – but when all the oil runs out.
There are cornucopians who seem to feel that as the price goes up we’ll continue to find more and more – unfortunately, reality doesn’t work that way. “Finite” means that there will be an end.
We’re drilling (and spilling) in the North Sea – oh wait, those fields are declining – and in the Alaska North Slope. Some are even contemplating setting off nukes in Alberta to warm the tar sands. (No-one seems to have solved the problem that it takes 3 barrels of water to clean 1 barrel of oil…)
Meanwhile, more and more people burn fossil fuels more and more inefficiently – big cars, big houses, stupid trucks, tonnes of plastic “stuff”, etc. Airplane trips to trendy southern vacations.
Biofuels are not the answer – they take more energy to produce than they deliver.
You speak of a “carefully managed evolution”, and that’s a great concept, but who’s going to lead? Shouldn’t it be us, those who have gained most from consumption, who show leadership by reducing our impact first? Smaller cars, smaller better-insulated houses, less “stuff”?
After all, we’ve got all the money, we’ve benefited most – we’ve got the nice houses on big yards (much of which was agricultural land before the subdivision was built…) Or do we use the “Smith and Wesson” school of argument to keep ahead of everyone else?
I’m not saying we HAVE to face an apocalypse, merely that we need to start working now if we hope our grandkids will avoid one.
(Sorry this is so long…)
Firstly let me assure you I don’t believe your answer is ” too long “, it’s a complex subject and your answer does you credit as it reflects the thought you have obliviously put into these issues.
I don’t share your sense of an imminent “apocalyptic ” vision within two or three generations. That just won’t happen. In fact, to the contrary, the rate of global poverty is decreasing, not increasing, through the adoption of free enterprise, industrialized, competitive economic policies.
The argument between those who wish to control consumption and production on moral or ideological grounds, and those who believe that economies must continually expand to fulfill the aspirations of society, revolves around the issue of security.
Those demand rigidly controlled, planned economies with restricted consumption, do so from a fear of the future, are petrified by the perils of erratic human progress. As my ancestors found, the castle you build to keep the world out, quickly becomes your prison ! Rigidly controlled economies must inevitably stagnate and collapse creating a great deal of human misery.
In contrast those who trust an economic system that allowing a maximum of imaginative, creative, consumption, with increasing demand and a minimum of regulation, are rewarded by the security of self reliance and resilience. No system is perfect, all human activity will have advantages and disadvantages, imperfections etc, that’s what make the adventure of human progress such a grand adventure.
While the planet is finite, our resourcefulness is not ! The planet still has centuries of resources left to sustain even greater expansion, and universal prosperity.
But that doesn’t mean we should be environmental vandals or allow excessive pollution and bad environmental practices. The same technologies that can allow the growth of our economies , can also be utilized to mitigate harmful environmental damage.
My fear is that those believing in an inevitable doomsday, and demanding impossible grandiose measures which will not receive support, distract from countless modest measures which can be achieved to benefit the environment..and the economy !
Buy an Electric mower ! Did you know that by using all electric garden maintenance you can save the equivalent pollution of five motor vehicles per year ?
Thanks for continuing the discussion..
As you can imagine, I don’t disagree with much of what you say. However, as usual, many of the conclusions we draw are a function of the assumptions we begin with.
There are a variety of reasons why I believe we MUST stop relying on petroleum as the foundation of our “prosperity” going forward. It appears we disagree on the amount of the resource remaining, both (I suspect) in absolute terms and in terms of “consumption years.”
the second issue, then, becomes whether we can “afford” to develop and burn the remaining stocks of petroleum and coal.
There is no debate (as far as I know) about what happens when you burn a fossil fuel. Oxygen combines with Carbon – the result is CO2, plus associated contaminants in the real world.
Both the chemistry and the physics of CO2 are also known and (as far as I know) generally accepted. Ok, my background is the Arts, not Science, but still…
(Where I live, cheap coal has a high sulphur content. When burned (oxidized), the exhaust gas combines with water vapour, and the result is what we used to call “acid rain”. 45 years ago, i took a train trip that passed through the rain shadow of a city that burned a lot of coal to make steel. I’ve never forgotten those images…)
I think the thermal impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 are generally known and accepted – the “Greenhouse Effect”.
Realistically, the only thing that fossil fuels have going for them is that they are cheap – and they’re only cheap if we continue to ignore all the externalized costs.
Take health care – I’m not suggesting that all the costs associated with car accidents should be attached to the consumer price for fuel, although I think a good case can be made for it… – but there are lots of direct and indirect costs that can be related back, and the costs of which can/should be attached.
Obvious case – remediation of land around oil wells, coal mines, processing centres, disposal sites, etc.
Another — the full remediation of all water used in the production, processing, distribution and final disposal of all oil-related processes. It’s not good enough to say, “oh well – the boat sank.” or “gee, I didn’t know that pipe was leaking…”
And dumping it on the prairie as a “tailings pond” is not a solution – its an insult.
Let’s face it – cleaning up our act won’t cost Exxon a penny. They will simply add it on to the price of the product and we will pay it. Which is as it should be – Exxon wouldn’t exist were it not for “us”.
So I’m all for adding a 100% tax on the retail of all fossil fuels, and using that money to fix the messes we’ve made. Penalizing the sons for the sins of the father? Absolutely – both father and son have benefited, and the cost HAS to be paid. (Political Conservatives are really going to hate this idea. Tough.)
It’s interesting that you use Exxon as an example of the evils of the oil industry. Exxon is targeted because it’s the most obvious of the oil corporations, and of course American. But Exxon is by no means the most pollutant, or most politically reactionary, in comparison to the Russian, PRC oil corporations (or even Total ), Exxon is positively enlightened.
The principle of cleaning and rehabilitating land affected resource exploitation, has long been widely accepted by ” political conservatives” in Western nations. For more than forty years these principles have been a condition of resource planning permits.
In modern times the US ethanol industry has been vastly more environmentally destructive than fossil fuels, and without any economic merit !
The difficulty of applying tax increases for historic rectification, is more difficult. Taxes paid by Oil companies and Oil consumers are the most important source of flexible government tax revenue. A 100% “environmental tax” on fossil fuels would just further cripple the US economy, while rendering the US less competitive.
Revenue from the Oil industry is all that keeps the colossal US National Debt vaguely manageable. Profits from Oil companies provide for most US retirees incomes and facilities. (about one in seven US citizens ). US gas and diesel users already bear the cost of the highway system and those costs are built into every aspect of US industry. Increase transport costs, and the chances of everything you buy being imported also increases.
Shipping uses marine grade No 6 fuel Oil (bunker oil). This fuel is the most toxic of all man made pollutants. One container ship emits the equivalent pollution of 50 million cars annually into the bio-sphere. It’s actually far more pollutant, over 200.000 deaths in the Northern Hemisphere can be directly linked to this toxic pollution and maybe as many as 3 to 4 million will suffer from the carcinogenic effects each year.
The toxic effects from this poll on the food chain and the ocean’s ability to act as a carbon sink, are only now being understood. Most of the leading research into the threat this fuel poses is funded by Chevron and to a lesser extent Shell. (In fact without Chevron, no significant research would have occurred).
Economies are very interwoven. ” economic conservatives” realize the perils of disregarding the detrimental effect on the overall dynamics from simplistic policies. Administrations often attempt to impose simplistic “solutions” for ideological or populist political reasons. (It never ends well !)
Seldom is the long term result beneficial, and short term gains are followed by long term problems needing vast sums of public money to mitigate. ( you can only milk a cow so many times before the cow runs dry).
Your analogy of the “externalities” of car costs, should also include the benefits to the economy, not just the negatives. (That’s the problem with attempting to assess “externalities”, it slips into trying to cost’s and benefit by political/ideological measures.).
The science relating “Global Warming ” and it’s more recent term ” Climate Change ” must be the most misunderstood information in the history of mankind. The original scientific rational, analysis and debate, has been overwhelmed by totally unqualified alarmist advocates, opportunists, political ideologues and fanatics who have constructed a new religion around a complete distortion of the original scientific postulations.
In such an atmosphere rational debate, or even objective analysis, becomes impossible. A huge new publicly funded industry has arisen, largely promoted by hysterical alarmists, with cries of “heretic” or ” denier” at even the most moderate questioning of outlandish claims. So much self-interest is now vested in the new religion and the vast new industries it has spawned, that it’s become impossible ascertain genuine scientific research from politically tainted advocacy.
Even honest, well-intentioned , sincere folk like Craig, prove unwilling to question whether the hero’s may have feet of clay, or are being misled. When confronted with substantial evidence of alleged large scale corruption and malfeasance by government funded “climate Change ” luminaries, Craig’s response was to dismiss the possibility without examination of the charges or circumstances.
That’s not to say Craig would endorse or be party to any form of wrong-doing, rather that like most well meaning people he doesn’t want to believe ill of his hero’s. This is a very human trait.
Like you, I don’t have a scientific background. My academic qualifications are as a lawyer and economic analyst. ( I specialize in venture capital analysis).
Like you, I like to think I am a committed environmentalist. The difference I suspect between our approaches is I only support practical, “measurable ” environmental policies without ideological objectives. I believe that by targeting priorities that can be achieved with a minimum of economic disruption, we can slowly evolve to a less pollutant future.
I believe that demanding a Revolution and embarking on ill-conceived, grandiose, wasteful schemes not only serves no useful purpose, but is counter-productive.
“Exxon” is (mostly) just shorthand – IOW, it’s no better and no worse. (My grandfather was the VP geology for Exxon’s Canadian subsidiary, responsible for the initial discovery in Alberta – Leduc #1. I grew up with this whole subject feeling “personal”.)
We agree about ethanol/biofuels. And I suspect you’re right about rehabilitating land – although I have no direct information about current agreements. I do know that I’ve seen spills around well-heads… maybe they got cleaned up later, but I can’t vouch for that.
The fact that taxes on resources are currently applied to general revenue is (must be) irrelevant. We can’t say, “oh well, that was done before now. We won’t bother to fix it.” We’re not paying for the damage we do – that’s not acceptable. it’s not enough to pay for roads, and ignore damage to water courses by pipelines. It’s not sufficient to build nice new refineries and ignore the damage done by acidification and smog.
Quoting Tom Lehrer (old Harvard mathematician and satirist), “Once the rockets go up, who cares where they come down, that’s not my department…” Ethically, it doesn’t work that way.
We were dealt a huge patrimony by the planet – fossil fuels. But we must protect that same planet. For the last hundred years, we’ve been burning our inheritance – how does this make sense?
And yet, we feel we have some absolute right to use this resource without regard for the damage it does. “I’m rich – I can have a huge carbon footprint.” Great, as long as we have no concern for future generations. This is a really bad example of the attitude pejoratively attached to the ” ‘Me’ generation” – that the only thing that matters is us – our comfort, our ease.
I discussed the issue of “climate change” with my niece – a Ph.D. and University researcher in atmospheric physics. To her, there is no question that a) burning fossil fuels will increase atmospheric CO2 levels, and b) that increasing CO2 will have impacts on our weather and climate. The mechanics of how increased levels of CO2 affect temperatures are demonstrated in small scale experiments – waiting to find out if it scales up to planetary levels is silly, and very short-term thinking.
There may be corrupt people in politics, people with vested interest in climate change (either pro or con), and there may be some trying to capitalize on concern for the effects of increased carbon levels, but most of the people I know are just worried about the world their children will inherit.
I disagree that we can have “practical, “measurable ” environmental policies without ideological objectives” – I consider that trying to protect the land, water and air for my grandkids IS an ideological objective. Pragmatic behaviour would have me simply consuming everything I can before it runs out. And I have a problem with that.
As far as the externalities go, we’ve been benefiting from burning gas for decades – we just haven’t paid the associated costs yet. I think it’s fair to say that we didn’t understand all the implications of increasing CO2 levels, so we didn’t worry about it – but as they taught me in Drivers Ed, “Ignorance is no excuse”.
It’s a huge issue – and it has massive implications re: our “standard of living”. I invested quite a lot in insulation, solar panels (PV and hot water), I limit my trips in my old small car, and I buy as much food as I can from local farmers (and grow a tiny bit of my own…) I chose to do it on my own because I can. I’m all in favour of using government revenue to support others to do the same, and one motivator to encourage and fund the changes is to tax the product that is causing the problem.
And thank you for continuing this discussion – I wish it were “trending high” on Google .
Thank you for your reply. i envy your grandfather, he obviously lived in a more heroic era when discovering and developing hard wrought natural resources was an exciting and romantic occupation. The hard work, dedication and pioneering spirit of men like him lifted millions out of poverty, disease and despair.
I admire your commitment to the environment. I certainly wasn’t meaning to underestimate the duty of civilization to conserve and treasure the environment. My observation was meant to reflect my own lifetime experience of witnessing over the decades, countless earnest doomsday advocates, passionately espousing unfulfilled prosphesies, now long forgotten !
Like you, I’m not really qualified to judge the efficacy of climate change scientific modelling. . Very eminent scientists seem to disagree about the exact nature and efficacy of the models. This is understandable, since even the most creative study can’t exactly mirror all the known and unknown dynamics of our bio-sphere. But that’s the point, there should be continuing debate and speculation, not a rigid fanatical conformity of opinion, with ferocious condemnation for any deviation from accepted dogma.
I believe it’s important for environmentalists of different political persuasions to explore issues of common agreement, and initiate projects that can achieve a degree of success.
I provided a couple of examples. I don’t believe it’s possible to convince people to cease using gasoline or diesel for transport in the next few decades without a major technical breakthrough in ESD, However, I believe i’s quite possible to persuade large numbers of people to switch to using existing electric garden and horticultural technology.
The impact on the environment (never mind the Sunday morning eardrums) would be very significant. Such an evolution would prove not just environmentally, but economically beneficial and only mildly disruptive.
The discontinuance of Marine grade No 6 fuel oil (bunker oil) for shipping, would have a profound impact on both global climate change emission levels and deaths from toxic carcinogens.
The technology already exists to replace this fuel, it just takes the political will. The change needn’t be disruptive, or economically unaffordable. Replacement of a mere 20 ships from a world fleet of 100,000 would equal all the emissions from the planets entire car fleet !
What do you think is easier, waiting around for a technology to be developed that can propel a 20 ton fire tender, or 3 ton ambulance, at high speeds for relatively long distances, or persuade just 11 democratic maritime nations, to refuse entry to ships rigged for bunker oil use to their ports ? Because that’s all it would take to render the use of this toxic fuel uneconomic.
Wouldn’t it be easier to persuade yourself and your neighbour, maybe your local community authority, or country club/golf course to switch to an electric mower (preferable using solar power) ? Isn’t that easier and a better use of taxpayer subsidies than trying to reorganize everyone’s lifestyles to suit a minimalist ideology?
Which is more likely to achieve immediate, measurable emission reductions?
But that’s just my reasoning . Maybe I’m missing something. Maybe its better to rant ineffectively about corrupt corporations and sinister conspiracy theories, while demanding grandiose ill-conceived schemes, than implementing more modest, but achievable objectives ? But I doubt it !
Nearly 20 years ago, I financed an ailing Specialist Electric Vehicles business in Australia.The business was fascinating and employed some dedicated and excellent staff, unfortunately the management lacked the necessary business skills to prosper in such a competitive environment, and defaulted on the loan. Instead of liquidating the business my late wife ( a dedicated environmentalist) persuaded me take over the equity and restructure the business. Over the last 18 years the business has grown and prospered and today continues successfully with enthusiastic staff and needs less and less guidance from me.
I am a very early EV enthusiast, building and owning several EV’s myself, along the way I have collected many early EV examples, including some weird and wonderful. I hope as part of my requirement to restore and exhibit these vehicles for posterity.
On my family estate in the UK we built a bio-mass reactor that not only provides our electricity needs but most of our neighbouring village. Like you, I try to live an environmental lifestyle, but without compromising on comfort or even luxury ! : ) In the UK I drive a Liberty Electric Range Rover. This vehicle with a range of 200 + miles provides the same facilities as gasoline/diesel model. ( It will easily tow a 2 horse float across rough country roads and fields, but also take me into centralf London without paying the congestion charge ).
I recently replaced one of our UK BMW 7 series fleet courtesy cars with a Tesla P85. Not quite as luxurious, the difference is minimal, but our business image as tech savvy banker’s is greatly enhanced 😉
Wasting resources isn’t being conservative, it’s just being stupid !
Nice to talk to you, I wish you and your family a safe and fulfilling New Year.
It’s interesting how one’s specific situation affects one’s approach to the issues. It is a matter of trying a number of solutions to find the one most appropriate to the specific case. My sister has a gas/electric Prius hybrid, but she lives in town and can plug into the grid. I live 10 miles out of town, commute infrequently and rather than scrap a still functioning vehicle, put the money into solar for powering the house. i also get some heat from solar (hot water in-floor radiant). However, given that it’s -14c at 1100hrs local, that’s not enough. Hence a Masonry Wood Heater (thermal mass premise) and somewhat extreme insulation.
As far as the discussion about the details of climate change is concerned, I agree – there is some uncertainty, much left to be learned at the micro level. However, given that the fundamental physics is pretty clear, my own approach has been to adapt the “First, do no harm” principle. Which I amend to include, “especially to my bank account.”
While there was a minor increase in the capital cost to build, this house was not much more expensive on a sq.ft. basis than my neighbour’s. The difference is that I have had no cost for electricity (which at minimum woujld be $100/month, probably closer to $200/month. (In truth, I don’t know – I’ve never had a bill .) In the last 8 years, then, I’ve saved between $10k and $20k, far more than the systems cost, and most of it will run on nicely for another 10 years with only minor investment (new batteries eventually.)
Like you, I don’t believe is a “one size fits all” solution, but neither do I believe in the “survival of the (fiscally) fittest” philosophy. To some extext, we are our brother’s (and children’s and nieces’) keepers.
Much of the housing built prior to the 1990s assumed large quantities of cheap energy to heat and light. As a result they are over-sized and horribly inefficient. Fundamental design flaws ensure that they will continue to be both wasteful and expensive. Those of us wealthy enough to “retrofit” can reduce the waste, hence the cost to operate. Unfortunately, those with fewer resources are stuck in a pretty vicious cycle.
I’m in Canada, so I’ll use our situation as an example. Suppose we imposed a 1% fuel tax on gasoline for vehicles, with all the proceeds going towards retrofitting the existing housing inventory. There would be a huge increase in demand for the necessary materials – wood, insulation, drywall, etc – and labour – carpenters, painters, plumbers, etc. I would anticipate a commensurate increase in demand for solar and wind energy products. Older gas powered vehicles would be less desirable, and sales in new, more efficient one would rise. And so on through the economy.
Employment goes up, overall economic activity goes up. There;s some dislocation as workers in the oil producing areas are not as necessary, but there is ample new activity to absorb them.
Yes, we would have to put systems in place to ensure that the money does not get funneled off into civil servant/politicians pockets, but we can do that.
Why do it through taxation? I guess my view is “a rising tide raises all boats”. If we all do better, then those on top stay on top, but those on the bottom are less likely to founder. And if one accepts the premise of CO2 influenced climate (change? disruption?) then the goal of burning less fossil fuel is more achievable.
I’m not proposing that we mandate these changes (except the fuel surcharge), but if we show people the financial benefits, and provide a pool of funds (grants? zero interest loans?) then they should sell themselves and we all get what we want.
This is too long, I know, and I’m only half way throught . I wish you and your family all the best for 2016, and a green and prosperous year! (couldn’t resist.)
roger
A 1% tax on fuel for a dedicated purpose doesn’t sound unreasonable, although while Canadian nation debt levels are manageable any increase would be undesirable.
The Australian experience of massive ill-conceived government incentives in the solar and insulation industries was disastrous. But that was more due to bad planning and poor administration than principle.
I congratulate you on the thought you have put into your home. Are you really not connected to the grid for electricity ? Is your solar so efficient that it can operate washing machines, hairdryers, TVs, computers lights etc, without any other form of generation during the long Canadian winter ?
I agree that the development of new energy saving building materials and innovative home design can not only increase employment and investment the building industry, but lead to more diverse and attractive housing as long as authorities don’t adopt a puritanical attitude of stifling conformity.
The easiest method of replacing bunker oil (No 6) is simply operating on a higher grade of marine diesel. This is not a perfect solution, but can reduce toxicity and pollution by up to 70%. Modern ship design has reduced the economic disadvantage in using a more expensive fuel as the ship doesn’t require a separate fuel system, and all the complicated equipment and high maintenance associated with burning bunker oil. These ships can also travel faster.
Other mitigating technologies include retrofitting existing vessels with heat recovery and particle emission recovery systems.
Development work on LNG technologies, hydrogen generation (extracted from sea water) and even mini-thorium powered nuclear units, are all being researched but with little or government pressure.
I find it interesting that you choose to use a “masonry” stove. It is not a typical choice for a western home, even where the owner is energy conscious. I have heard in some European homes they were removed to recover more space. But I have also read they are a better choice for an even heat (radiant) where most of the heat of a home is in the thermal mass rather than the air. In use one discussion suggested that they are fired up once per day for a short duration with significantly higher temperatures than a cast iron equivalent. All in all it sounds as if you have a remarkable home.
BTW, I meant to ask how you anticipate powering the cargo fleet if not with bunker oil? I have seen some stories of wind or wind/electric ships but the cost and reliability are problematic…
The house is pretty good – I’ve got 1500 watts PV and batteries. It doesn’t sound like much, and it isn’t. I spent a lot of time figuring out how to eliminate “parasitic loads” – all the TV, satellite, stereo, etc are on a power bar. I see no need to heat my house with my toys, especially during the 18 hours a day that no-one is using them. Lights are surface mounted and either LED or CFLs. I got a very efficient refrigerator with a large bottom freezer so I didn’t need one of each. And so on.
December and January are my worst months for solar – darkest, shortest, coldest – and I am occasionally in deficit, so I use an auxiliary source to charge the batteries about once every 2 weeks for those months. However, the rest of the year I’m good.
My first suggestion to people is that they turn everything off some evening – then walk around and make a note of how many LEDs they see burning in appliances/toys etc. I don’t think the microwave clock burns much, but neither do I need to leave it on all day.
In my kitchen, there’s a clock on the microwave, the range, the toaster oven, the coffee maker, etc. There’s also an nice (battery) clock on the wall. If they were all on, they would probably all show different times – not terribly useful – so I make sure they’re all off at the wall.
As for your list, I don’t have a hairdryer – it went with my hair! – but everything else seems pretty normal. I used to have a couple of really nice big desktop computers with lovely monitors – when it was time to upgrade, I got good laptops instead. The energy savings are significant.
Your local library may have a “Kill-a-Watt” meter available to borrow. Try that – see what’s burning power to no purpose, then figure out how to get rid of it.
I’m a kind of “local” guy, and a “limit the amount of “stuff”” guy. We all have lots of things – we could share them with our neighbours. That would limit the number of freighters traveling the ocean, therefore the amount of fuel burned. I’ve got neighbours who make things – I can buy from them instead of buying something made 5000 miles away and shipped. Same with food. My neighbour/farmers grow lots of good food – in the fall, I do about 200 litre jars of food for the winter, mostly tomatoes that can be used in all sorts of things.
I enjoy eating local – even in January. My neighbour/farmers like it too – helps them send their kids to university. And so on.
Worth thinking about.
It certainly sounds like you have a great lifestyle. I like your ideas on buying local, large hyper shopping mall are so soul destroying and limit creative neighborhoods.
I have Solar panels on both my home in Melbourne, and my farming property in the north Victoria. Unfortunately, neither home is particularly well constructed for energy saving.
However my Melbourne Melbourne is in the process of being sold as I intend to move to a central city apartment renovated from the top of a rejuvenated Edwardian office building. Although the apartment has some historical restrictions, high ceilings,massive widows and french doors leading to a large deck area, I can still install use solar panels. The roof area is very large and hopefully the extra city heat will provide adequate for my unique climate control system.
On our farm, we supply both ourselves and our tenants with a combination of Solar and Geothermal. When we bought the property from a bankruptcy sale, we found it came with one of Victoria’s grand old gold era mansions. The 30 room mansion and outbuilding was badly neglected and appeared ruinous. Thankfully, although derelict for many years, the house still retained most of its ornate original features. ( including a large fountain imported from Italy, complete with nude marble figures :). Once the debris of neglect had been cleared away, we were able to effect not only repairs and restoration, but insulate and install central heating and evaporative air-conditioning tho the upper floor.
The entire project as well as the restoring the old formal garden, orchard and green house is a testament to my late wife’s love of conservation and environment. The property also has an extensive vegetable garden, and other natural organic land care measures, including aquifers, based on ancient Roman design but with modern technology.
Unfortunately, my work and travel schedule restrict my ability to live a more settled life, but now my youngest child will be attending university this year, I’m looking forward to retirement in a few years, and a slower pace of life.
Sounds like you’ve got some great stuff going on.
I don’t know enough about Melbourne’s climate to understand the specific challenges, but it sounds like the major issue is heat, not cold. Here, if you’re cold, put on more clothes. But if it’s too hot, there’s a limit to how much you can take off!
Replacing windows with double/triple glazed should still meet the restrictions – solar controlled shades too.
Evaporative A/C – the only thing that concerns me there is wondering where the water is coming from. Using potable surface water or deep fossil water both have concerns.
There’s a term for the type of landscaping that addresses these issues but I can’t remember it. Things like tall deciduous trees on (in your case) the North and West sides, use of greenery (ivy?) to absorb sun before it hits the walls, etc.
Judicious use of the “siesta” seems to appeal to me too… I wonder is some of our problems arise from the “9 to 5” mentality – we’re trying to work in offices during the hottest part of the day… and it doesn’t always have to be. There’s no reason that I know that agricultural work can’t happen for 3 hours after sunrise (which would be 0500 to 0800 here during mid summer), then more in the evening. Ok, that’s just a “what if”, but the idea that we get away from the Victorian industrial model could have some benefit.
I have an ex-father-in-law who grew up on a farm (about 2 1/2 sections, or 1500 acres) on the Canadian Prairies during the Depression (1930’s) Many families could not afford to own individual tractors and other equipment – so they shared. Sometimes, families took shifts through the night during planting and harvest times. (ok, I’m a city boy – haying 500 acres sounds like a lot of work.. but if you’re grazing 500 and fallowing 500… that’s a lot of land – something doesn’t make sense…)
Original land grants here were 160 acres per family. 50/50/50 plus 10 for buildings seems more reasonable. Wasnt’ the original definition of “acre” the amount of land 1 man and 1 horse could plow in one day?
Your farm sounds idyllic – wish I could travel to Australia to visit, but time, tide, the affairs of men, retirement income and carbon footprint all mitigate against me.
Hmmm – I just realized that I conflated two distinct geographic and farming areas. I’m in Ontario – Central Canada. Much of the land is pre-Cambrian shield but with lots of water. It was also the earliest settled. My ex-inlaws were in Saskatchewan (about 2000 miles west) in the middle of the Great Plains. When European settlers came there, they found fertile land that had never seen a plow – topsoil was up to a meter thick. Much of it was in the rain-shadow of the Rocky Mountains, so rivers, but not much rain. The 160 acre grants were in the Eastern, more settled lands. The larger “farms” were on the prairies where “Crown Land” could be used for free in an effort to encourage population.
It’s an extremely varied and confusing geography and history to try to explain in short-hand.