Click on the headline (link) for the full text.
Many more articles are available through the Energy Bulletin homepage
Unsustainable development ‘puts humanity at risk’
Catherine Brahic, New Scientist
Humans are completely living beyond their ecological means, says a major report published by the UN Environment Programme on Thursday.
The 550-page document finds the human ecological footprint is on average 21.9 hectares per person. Given the global population, however, the Earth’s biological capacity is just 15.7 hectares per person.
The report is UNEP’s latest on the state of the planet’s health, taking five years in the making. It was put together by about 390 experts and peer-reviewed by an additional 1000.
It reviews the state of Earth’s natural resources, from the atmosphere and water, to land surfaces and biodiversity. It concludes that instead of being used and maintained as a tool for the sustainable development of human populations, the environment is being sucked dry by unsustainable development.
Examples of how humans are over-exploiting natural resources to their own detriment include:
• Water – by 2025, 1.6 billion people will live in countries with absolute water scarcity; 440 million school days are already missed every year because of diarrhoeal diseases. …
(25 October 2007)
Related from UK TImes: Earth is reaching the point of no return, says major UN environment report (also at Common Dreams.)
UPDATE (Oct 26) More coverage:
Guardian
Independent
New York Times
-BA
Should Scientists Embrace Economic Growth?
Kurt Cobb, Scitizen
The assumption of continuous economic growth lurks behind most scientific endeavors. Should scientists embrace this growth which is often presented as a panacea for the relief of poverty, the stability of society and even the improvement of the environment? Or is unbridled growth increasingly undermining these important aims?
Many scientists find their work financed by corporations, governments, and even nonprofits whose orientation by default favors continued economic growth. For corporations growing markets mean more profit. For governments growing economies mean more prosperity for those who elect them and the ability to sidestep the tricky issue of redistributing wealth, an issue that would almost surely be front and center in a no-growth economy. For nonprofits world economic growth is seen as a way to lift the poor from their misery through increasing economic opportunity.
Does any of this pose a problem? “No” might be the answer were it not for several inconvenient trends in the global environment that are the direct result of unbridled economic growth. Global warming is perhaps the most visible, but other trends include energy depletion, soil erosion, water depletion, fisheries collapse, deforestation and rapid species loss. And, of course, all of these are correlated to population growth.
(16 October 2007)
Our World Is Finite: The Implications of Resource Limitations
Gail Tverberg, Global Public Media
We all know the world is finite. The number of atoms is finite, and these atoms combine to form a finite number of molecules. The mix of molecules may change over time, but in total, the number of molecules is also finite.
We also know that growth is central to our way of life. Businesses are expected to grow. Every day new businesses are formed and new products are developed. The world population is also growing, so all this adds up to a huge utilization of resources.
At some point, growth in resource utilization must collide with the fact that the world is finite. We have grown up thinking that the world is so large that limits will never be an issue. But now, we are starting to bump up against limits.
What are earth’s limits? Are we reaching them?
ED Note by PG: Note that this is an updated version of an article that was run about six months ago.
(24 October 2007)
Can Earth’s Plants Keep up with Us?
Stephanie Renfrow, NASA Earth System Science Data and Services
Our lives depend on plants. Plants turn the energy of the sun into our most basic needs: lumber for houses, fuel for cooking, fiber for clothing, feed for livestock, and food for our own growing bodies. But as global population and incomes rise, will plants be able to keep up with the human appetite? And if they cannot, which regions will be short on food and other plant-based resources, and what will that mean for nations as they try to assure food security for their citizens?
Marc Imhoff, a biophysical scientist with NASA, has been exploring these questions with colleagues from the University of Maryland’s Earth System Science Interdisciplinary Center, the World Wildlife Fund, and the International Food Policy Research Institute for six years. He said, “Our primary motivation has been to find out where we stand relative to our survival on the planet, and what our needs are compared to the capability of the biosphere to sustain them. In fact, it goes beyond just need; it includes our different lifestyles-our appetites.” To build some answers, Imhoff set about measuring global plant productivity, calculating human consumption levels on a cultural level, and then comparing what he learned. His findings remind us that we all rely on the same finite Earth.
Net primary production is a measure of plant productivity, the amount of plant material left over after respiration. Imhoff put it this way: “Net primary production is the plant material that we see above ground, as well as what is below ground, like root systems. All of our food, much of our fiber, and for many people in developing countries fuel for cooking, is derived from plant material.”
…When he compared the global supply of net primary production to the human appetite, Imhoff confirmed some ideas that did not surprise him. “Some things were a no-brainer,” he said. “For example, urban populations with a high density consume way more primary production than local ecosystems can produce.” One sharp example of this was New York City, which consumed 30,000 percent more primary production than it created. “That says a lot about the dependence of urban areas on our transportation networks and agricultural infrastructure,” he said. The ratio of consumption to regional net primary productivity might prove to be a useful indicator of potential trouble spots should natural disasters, economic insecurity, or other problems undermine networks or infrastructure.
Having enough food may seem like a concern only for developing countries, but industrialized countries also have concerns about food security, which is defined simply as always having enough food for an active, healthy life. Developed countries may have dense urban populations, import more food, and be accustomed to high levels of consumption-all of which make these countries susceptible to transitory food supply disruptions. In addition, developed countries may have poor populations that are vulnerable to rising food prices in spite of typical governmental support services. Imhoff said, “Worldwide, we have some very vulnerable populations that could never survive just on the productivity of the land on which they live-with some important implications for national and regional food security.”
Closely tied to the question of having enough food for survival is the idea of having enough fuel, clothing, and building materials for survival. The availability of everything from firewood to winter coats begins with plants. Consumption of material goods is an important factor in economic stability and security, as well as in maintaining or improving lifestyle levels. The more a population consumes, the more effort it takes to maintain that standard of consumption. Imhoff found that there were two big factors that lead to high consumption levels. The first is high per-capita consumption rates, as seen in much of the developed world; the second is large populations. Even a low per-capita consumption rate can result in a huge overall level of total consumption if multiplied over a large number of people.
To Imhoff, a more surprising finding was the importance of technology in helping balance the equation between supply and consumption. “We found that using improved technology-especially in harvesting and storage techniques-can actually halve the amount of waste in agricultural production,” he said. “Take logging. Without the benefits of improved harvesting technology, you might literally lose a tree for every one that you use.”
The interplay between population, consumption rates, affluence, and technology leads to some thought-provoking realizations. “For example, Asia’s per-capita consumption is on the rise,” he said. “If consumption begins to match Western levels, there will be a significant increase in demand for food and fiber products. If technology improvements do not come with that growth, then you’ll see populations that are outstripping their regional food production capacity. They’ll be more dependent on resources elsewhere, and will have to compete for them.”
(1 August 2007)
Another version of the article is posted at Earth Observatory (NASA).
Financial Monsters
Alice Friedemann, Culture Change
We are entering the Money/Energy Transition. (The term was coined by Tom Robertson, moderator of the energyresources listserve.) This is when people will realize they can’t fuel their cars with dollar bills — that money is meaningless and all that really matters is energy. M. King Hubbert, the original peak-oil visionary, proposed an energy currency half a century ago so that people would understand how critical a role it plays in our survival. But it isn’t practical to carry tanks of gas around or bits of uranium in your pocket.
So we spent our energy foolishly, plundering and poisoning the planet for a blip-in-time of pleasure, and now the “Limits to Growth” boas of peak oil, climate change, and natural resource shortages are tightening around us.
But most people don’t see the world ecologically. Nearly everyone is brainwashed to see the world through economic and political filters. As we sink into depression — both individual and economic — brought on by increasing population, pollution, and decreasing energy and natural resources, most people will blame politicians, the Federal Reserve, and “evil” foreign governments for our woes. So we should start recognizing our personal, national and global financial monsters.
It appears the United States is succumbing to what all governments have been tempted to do over time: run the money printing presses overtime to pay for wars, debts, and corporate welfare. In anticipation of completely worthless money, we ought to at least design it in colors and shapes to make origami and something to do, since most of us will be out of work (you can start practicing at members.cox.net/crandall11/money).
The subprime market is just the first tremblor bursting out of the ground to suck the life-blood out of your bank account and “disappear” your job.
(October 2007)
