How do you plan to feed another 5 billion and who will stop them breeding?
We already produce enough food to feed those 5 billion, it's just not equitably distributed, and agricultural output per unit area under production has continually risen over the least 4 decades; these gains are likely to accelerate with improved crop varieties (e.g. via GM) and higher energy inputs.
Population has already peaked in virtually all OECD countries (excluding migration) and the growth rate is slowing in most others, even in sub-Saharan Africa. Sustainability wise, things are bad and a lot of damage has been wrought on ecological systems, but not irreversibly so in most instances and there is actually limited evidence for us crossing planetary ecological boundaries (I had this debate recently in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, see here: http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-e...347(13)00033-5 [and I'm happy to send you the paper!] and wrote it up on The Conversation, here: https://theconversation.com/worrying...-threats-12529).
Sustainable growth is certainly possible if the growth is not contingent on consumption and direct disposal of finite natural capital.
We already produce enough food to feed those 5 billion, it's just not equitably distributed, and agricultural output per unit area under production has continually risen over the least 4 decades; these gains are likely to accelerate with improved crop varieties (e.g. via GM) and higher energy inputs.
History repeats...
Read some stuff from the 70's. Back then, the soils were in a lot better condition, the climate wasn't rapidly changing and there were a dozen other things that allowed it to happen. We no longer have those luxuries.
If you think GM is the answer, you are wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaranthus
Population has already peaked in virtually all OECD countries (excluding migration) and the growth rate is slowing in most others, even in sub-Saharan Africa.
Nope. Even in Australia they are talking a population of 37 million in 20 - 25 years. The "Big Australia" num nums like abbott and hockey crap on about is a consequence of 3% "sustainable" growth and a doubling time based on that growth rate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaranthus
Sustainability wise, things are bad and a lot of damage has been wrought on ecological systems, but not irreversibly so in most instances and there is actually limited evidence for us crossing planetary ecological boundaries (I had this debate recently in Trends in Ecology & Evolution, see here: http://www.cell.com/trends/ecology-e...347(13)00033-5 [and I'm happy to send you the paper!] and wrote it up on The Conversation, here: https://theconversation.com/worrying...-threats-12529).
I doubt it. Most oceanic eco-systems are in deep doo doo. Our land based agricultural eco-systems are falling apart. Why do you think they want to rip up the tropics? The land in many parts of the world is toxic and you need to dump mega-tons of fossil fuel based fertilisers on the soil to sustain growth at CURRENT levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amaranthus
Sustainable growth is certainly possible if the growth is not contingent on consumption and direct disposal of finite natural capital.
I remain cautiously optimistic.
It isn't and you are deluded if you think it is. Watch the lecture on the link I posted. The math is simple and the conclusions unchallengeable. What is coming is a mathematical certainty..
The problem is population, the solution is a global cull. (to be blunt)
Sustainable growth is certainly possible if the growth is not contingent on consumption
The problem is that pretty much all the current world economies/corporations require ever increasing consumption to exist.
I agree with Rom that population control is the biggest issue we will face in the next few decades, and if we ( or mother nature ) doesn't address it, everything else will just snowball out of our control.
I dont particularly want to live ( sorry exist ) on something like Trantor.
Plant breeders have been practicing GMi for millennia - we are just using molecular methods now to accelerate the process.
Quote:
Even in Australia they are talking a population of 37 million in 20 - 25 years
As I noted, this is due to migration policy, otherwise Australia would not be growing. Look at Western Europe and Japan for prime examples of the long-term trend.
Quote:
Watch the lecture on the link I posted. The math is simple and the conclusions unchallengeable.
As a population ecologist, I found most of what he said to be HIGHLY challengable!
Quote:
The problem is population, the solution is a global cull. (to be blunt)
In your closed minded economics driven dreams Renato. We change or we fry, GET USED TO IT!
You seem to miss the point - by your beliefs, if we use coal fired power stations we fry .
So, you support lots of wind farms - which don't actually stop any coal from being burned - so we fry.
Strange solutions you and others have come up with.
Anyhow, if you believe any real change is going to happen as we approach 18 years of zero warming, and when the IPCC is 95% confident that the temperature will increase somewhere between 1C and 7C by 2100 (that's right they dropped it from around 2C to 1C in AR5), well I think you're an optimist (or pessimist, depending on how you view it).
Cheers,
Renato
Given he's the PM's high profile advisor, who has been on the front page of newspapers and interviewed all over TV, doesn't most everyone already know who Maurice Newman is?
What's your point?
Are you disputing something factual in in the article?
Regards,
Renato
I think we work on the negative assumption behaviour does not change and work upon
methods to survive in the world that we create
Does that mean we move underground and live off mushrooms I don't know but I would be working out how to survive in the worst case senereo
As a population ecologist, I found most of what he said to be HIGHLY challengable!
Like I said, Heads in the sand and it "Just isnt so" mentality rules. OECD population represents a small fraction of the world population. Look at the rest. The math is simple and damning. As a population ecologist you probably know what happens to plague populations and that is what WE are.
You seem to miss the point - by your beliefs, if we use coal fired power stations we fry .
So, you support lots of wind farms - which don't actually stop any coal from being burned - so we fry.
Strange solutions you and others have come up with.
Anyhow, if you believe any real change is going to happen as we approach 18 years of zero warming, and when the IPCC is 95% confident that the temperature will increase somewhere between 1C and 7C by 2100 (that's right they dropped it from around 2C to 1C in AR5), well I think you're an optimist (or pessimist, depending on how you view it).
Cheers,
Renato
Normal gross generalisation and unsupported claims Renato? You STILL haven't made the slightest attempt to answer the question I've asked you a dozen times by the way... When you can, let me know.
My beliefs are not about the use of coal at all. Unlike some, I look at a global perspective, which most conveniently forget to do. Yep, we need to, and will be forced to, dump coal despite your commentary. Yep, we need diversity in power generation and it WILL happen despite your commentary. Yep, that'll include wind, nuclear and a host of other options, despite your closed mind. Yep, we WILL have population control by choice or by default but it WILL happen, despite the fact that you cant face basic realities.
The only "strange solution" here is one that defends the burning fossil fuels and conveniently ignores the damage to our environment when the overwhelmingly vast proportion of scientists and data and simple logic say exactly the opposite. Its like someone saying the Arctic Ice is mass is growing when all the data says its volume, extent and thickness is decreasing at an alarming rate. Go figure???
There is such a thing as Compensatory Density Dependence (CDD), and it's rather common...
Let me see, if we use the simplistic definition, "As population increases, death rate increases and fertility decreases", then apply that to humanity:
In the past, exploding human populations in constrained areas, say India, were controlled by increasing death rates... couple of million cholera one year, couple of million starving the next etc. These things haven't happened for a while because of advances in medicine, sanitation and more food pouring in from places like Australia. All we have achieved is to delay the inevitable and increase severity of the consequences because the underlying issues still remain. You can apply the likely outcome for India to the whole world. China is furiously buying our farm land because it cant feed itself, India is buying from everywhere and both are buying Africa. What happens when the land runs out?
Also, take a little gander at Bangladesh. Huge population, huge density, huge birth rate. One bad monsoon; no food and death rate goes ballistic from all those underlying problems.
Compare Bangladesh to a mouse plague in Victoria. (No offense intended by the way). Lots of food, high birth rate, massive population spike. Food runs out and they start eating each other in a desperate attempt to survive the inevitable population crash.
Its true that in many "advanced" countries, population of locals are falling, migration from the population dense countries is increasing but net global population still grows. I think I saw planetary population growth of 70 million p.a. recently(??) Whose doing the breeding? Three new Australia's every year. Sustainable?? Twaddle. In many of the countries where the population of "locals" is decreasing, fertility is dropping in no small part due to toxic environment, failing health and living standards. A few elites and the untouchable masses is becoming more prevalent. History books talk about what happens in that scenario.
I'm sure CDD applies to us, but Humanity acts like a plague and we are starting to run out of the things we need to survive. Our population isn't going to gently top the curve, history has shown otherwise, and I am, unfortunately, confident that it will be extremely ugly for quite some time .Don't know about you, but the blond sitting across from me does NOT look tasty.
Death rates don't need to increase for compensation to occur. This is typical in natural populations, but not axiomatic. Population growth in a closed system is a function of birth rates and death rates, and if birth rates fall below replacement, even with declining mortality, then population growth can slow, halt, and decline. That is what has happened in Western Europe and Japan. Death rates have declined monotonically, but so have fertility rates, and the balance has resulted in a negative r, hence the population decline.
Even in the developing world, fertility rates are declining relatively quickly - linked predominantly to access to education for women, electricity, etc. (various measures of 'affluence'). The net r is still positive, but the growth rate is declining, even if absolute growth in many nations is not (yet).
Growth won't be an issue much longer as we've started something with the environment that sustains us that we can't reverse so it's all going to accelerate and be quite inhospitable. People will die whether they starve or kill each other for resources. Numbers will reduce naturally.
Normal gross generalisation and unsupported claims Renato? You STILL haven't made the slightest attempt to answer the question I've asked you a dozen times by the way... When you can, let me know.
My beliefs are not about the use of coal at all. Unlike some, I look at a global perspective, which most conveniently forget to do. Yep, we need to, and will be forced to, dump coal despite your commentary. Yep, we need diversity in power generation and it WILL happen despite your commentary. Yep, that'll include wind, nuclear and a host of other options, despite your closed mind. Yep, we WILL have population control by choice or by default but it WILL happen, despite the fact that you cant face basic realities.
The only "strange solution" here is one that defends the burning fossil fuels and conveniently ignores the damage to our environment when the overwhelmingly vast proportion of scientists and data and simple logic say exactly the opposite. Its like someone saying the Arctic Ice is mass is growing when all the data says its volume, extent and thickness is decreasing at an alarming rate. Go figure???
Good to see that you are now a proponent of nuclear energy. However, I still think you are deliberately ignoring what is plain and unambiguous in the articles posted and linked to here.
A stable grid requires baseload power generation. Coal plants can't be turned off, nor can nuclear ones, so that all that money spent on expensive wind and solar to supplement them is a waste of time and money.
That huge amount of money that was spent on wind farms hasn't actually much reduced the use of coal generated power at all - it can't. Gas fired stations could reduce the usage of fossil fuels because they can be turned off when renewables pump in power at peak periods.
But you don't want to address that. You instead like to stew in alarmism. Scientists tell Al Gore the Arctic ice will disappear by 2013, and he spreads the Holy Green Gospel. Then 2014 comes along - still plenty of ice at the supposedly ice free Arctic - and instead of reevaluating what you previously believed because of the dud scientific prediction, you just keep hanging in there with the faith.
Reminds me of the Jehovah Witnesses who have predicted the definite end of the world on three or four occasions in the last 100 years, but it didn't happen - yet they're still out there believing and knocking on doors.
Regards,
Renato
Good to see that you are now a proponent of nuclear energy.
Never said I wasn't. There are major issues with waste that need to be addressed but better fuel cycles hold promise. The over-riding concern now is major climate shift due to the crap we are dumping in the atm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
However, I still think you are deliberately ignoring what is plain and unambiguous in the articles posted and linked to here.
Nothing you say is plain and unambiguous. You cherry pick anomalies like a small seasonal rise in Arctic ice in 2008 and say "We've turned the corner" Take a look at the 3 graphs I posted which show ice data several years after that and look at the trend lines... then tell me who is ignoring what is plain an unambiguous??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
A stable grid requires baseload power generation. Coal plants can't be turned off, nor can nuclear ones, so that all that money spent on expensive wind and solar to supplement them is a waste of time and money.
Coal is such crap technology that you cant even regulate delivery. Archaic at best, stupid at worst. Once coal was the "new technology" I believe its precursor was sticks and flint. Time we did something smarter I suspect. Decentralised grids are a good start but certainly not a quick fix. Dont start, wont progress.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
That huge amount of money that was spent on wind farms hasn't actually much reduced the use of coal generated power at all - it can't. Gas fired stations could reduce the usage of fossil fuels because they can be turned off when renewables pump in power at peak periods.
The uncountable billions that have been used to support coal have left us with a legacy of a screwed environment and the prospect of significant climate change. Last time I checked, gas was a fossil fuel and therefore polluting and also limited in supply. I recently heard we can expect a trippling in price in the near future. Then what?. We STILL prop up polluting technology instead of investing in new technology. Pull the billions out of coal subsidies our moronic leaders give to coal, and renewables are a hell of a lot more competitive. Ultimately they are the only solution because of the fact that they are renewable in time scales less than millions of years. Kinda makes sense
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
But you don't want to address that. You instead like to stew in alarmism. Scientists tell Al Gore the Arctic ice will disappear by 2013, and he spreads the Holy Green Gospel. Then 2014 comes along - still plenty of ice at the supposedly ice free Arctic - and instead of reevaluating what you previously believed because of the dud scientific prediction, you just keep hanging in there with the faith.
Just did. Now you look at the graphs I previously posted and explain why you see a massive trend down in all measurements of Arctic Ice as a positive, upward trend. Love to hear that one. Then explain why every major Scientific body and the overwhelmingly vast proportion of credible, (non-fossil fuel owned), scientists around the world say, "we're in trouble", and they are all wrong? Bet you, you'll ignore this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Renato1
Reminds me of the Jehovah Witnesses who have predicted the definite end of the world on three or four occasions in the last 100 years, but it didn't happen - yet they're still out there believing and knocking on doors.
Regards,
Renato
The simple reality is you cant accept the truth and are prepared to play Russian roulette with the only planet we have that can even come close to supporting us. Sounds awfully like a Jovo to me and, as is the case with the real thing, I beg to differ, and I'll face you down every time. The time of the "Flat earth Society" has come and gone.... and I am still waiting for you to answer the basic questions you so conveniently ignore.
I wish like hell you were right, I really do, but you are DEAD WRONG and, as I have said before, the issue is population, not energy..
I have lived off the grid for 18 years
You have to mix systems a little.
You have to have power tool jobs ready for when you need to use a jenny
You need to have solar hot water
Once a gas fridge was the only option but these days strangely a efficient 240 vlt fridge running off an inverter is the most efficient option and learn not to open it every 15 minutes. Cooling and heating use lots of power.
Anyways fitting solar and wind into the current system will take time because people don't understand how you need to approach it.
I could see a system as follows
A coal power supply to provide a minimum supply
Add wind and solar systems
...and gas to manage unexpected demands
Make solar hot water very beneficial thru tax incentives
Also solar passive heating...may need electrical top up but it will be better than air con
Hot in summer use solar for air conditioning and don't buy the ..but solar becomes inefficient when hot...find out what the loss in efficiency is and take that into account when putting up panels..you may think 8 will do it well make it 12
Hot water uses a lot of power so any improvement here is very productive
Stop using electric jugs and toasters very wasteful.
My point is renewable energy just needs time just like I needed time to figure it out so the industry needs time to sort it out
And with or without a carbon tax people need to understand what uses power wastefully and what is efficient.
I reject nuclear as an option it is simply to expensive and there is definitely a safety down side and those folk who say...I would rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal power plant ..all I can say is...put your money where your mouth is and move your family next to a nuclear power plant and enjoy the health advantages.
Notice how the nuclear power lobby pops up from time offeringnice green power..been a little quiet since Japan but obviously they will persist.
However I don't use a fridge and it is an easy thing to do without really
Cooking with gas is cheap if you don't turn the burner full blast.
I use a 15 doolar stove from K mart and use those canisters
At first I would go thru 1 a day now it 2 a week
And that is a wasteful week
Get 1 battery and 1 panel and learn how they work
Just that will run your lights probably but there is no substitute for doing rather than reading etc practical experience gives you a totally different view point.
Coal fired generators normally operate between about 100% and 60% capacity and generation can be lowered further with use of auxiliary firing to keep the furnace stable. Generation can be varied quite rapidly in order to match load. I see no technical reason why rooftop solar can't be integrated into the existing system other than it's impact on incumbent company profits.
Years ago when Hazelwood was in danger of being shutdown there was even talk of running the units up and down every day, boxing the boilers up overnight, keeping them hot ready to run up in the morning. There's plenty of flexibility in the system if only a responsible government would plan for the introduction of new technology. (including electric cars which will benefit existing companies).
... and those folk who say...I would rather live next to a nuclear power plant than a coal power plant ..all I can say is...put your money where your mouth is and move your family next to a nuclear power plant and enjoy the health advantages.
I did grow up next to many nuclear plants and under high voltage power lines. Apart from a third eye I'm perfectly healthy. Seriously this is a greenie stereotype. Nuclear power properly managed is very clean. For example there are countless water parks and spa therapy centers for the oldies back home that are build right next to power plants because the hot water coming from the cooling circuits is reused and free. In Dieppe one is cooled with sea water to the delight of all fisheries who have mussels because of the warm water coming out.
If we got some built in Oz we'd be good to shut down all those coal plants yesterday. And they're so tiny, if they built one in a residential area next to you, you wouldn't even know it's there. Apart from all the people protesting.
Funny story about those mussels. They grew so quickly that some were starting to block the water intake. So they installed a system that would release a little chlorine to kill the excess based on a timer. It worked for a while. Then the mussels came back in bigger numbers. They adapted and closed their shells at the same time every day. They had to link a computer and inject chlorine at random intervals. Amazing how quickly life adapts.
My point is that Maurice Newman isn't an expert on renewable energy or climate-change. His views on wind-farms are driven by a mixture of his well-known political ideology and NIMBYism - given he's concerned about his own property prices due to a neighbouring wind-farm (and appears to have even been lobbying the NSW government about it).
A quick search of his other statements regarding wind-farms show he also considers them to be a health-risk: so that's not only climate-science but medical-science he now denies
As for the article it contains a mixture of out-of-context anecdotes and sweeping generalisations. There are plenty of worthwhile arguments both for and against all forms of renewable energy but few if any have come from Maurice Newman.
Of course The Australian could bring us the views of any number of real experts but it must think it's on a winner as a 'campaigning newspaper' despite losing an estimated $30m a year and having not made a profit since 2007 - good to see it supports the free-market eh? .
Seriously this is a greenie stereotype. Nuclear power properly managed is very clean. For example there are countless water parks and spa therapy centers for the oldies back home that are build right next to power plants because the hot water coming from the cooling circuits is reused and free. In Dieppe one is cooled with sea water to the delight of all fisheries who have mussels because of the warm water coming out.
