sustainable development ?

[syntax252]

Perhaps "politics" is not where this belongs, but if not someone can move it.

 

My proposition to you is, if the world becomes industrialized over the next 50 to 75 years, will the old planet have enough resources to support all 6 billion of us in the rather opulent fashion that we Americans and most Europeans are used to, or will we have to make adjustments?

 

Actually, it will probably be more like 10 billion by that time.

 

We do consume a lot of energy and other resources with just a few of us living high off the hog, so to speak. What do you think will happen?

[Sayonara]

Moved to the spanky new Ecology, Populations and Habitats forum.

[Phi for All]

I think a great deal of rethinking is in order. Great strides are being made in many areas, but as usual, it's not enough.

 

In architecture and construction, sustainable building designs are slowly becoming the norm, since costs are preventing a lot of building without such concerns. I see light at the end of the tunnel here.

 

Road construction in the US is an abomination. We cater to convenience by letting people drive on uncured asphalt the day it's put down, insuring that we'll have to pave over it next year. I think a lot will have to change in the decades ahead with the whole oil/automobile/roads symbiosis. I hope some of the emerging countries bypass the US craze for individual transportation. Maglev trains are so much greener, and if they had the kind of development attention cars/roads enjoy, the convenience factor would increase as well.

 

I get the feeling that the next big new energy source is just waiting in the wings. I hope it's something cheap and renewable like solar, and I hope the PTB figure out how to exploit it soon so we can stop dimming the light at the end of the tunnel with smoke and soot.

[coquina]

Industries were filthy and unhealthy during the industrial revolution, so people wanted to live as far away from them as possible.

 

As a result, "zoning" was instituted, to prohibit businesses and residences in the same areas. However, now, factories are powered by electricity, so they are not "smoke billowers'. There is no reason that residences, offices, stores, and factories can't be in the same area, as long as the planning is done properly.

 

Forward thinking communities are taking steps to incorporate this into their planning. If things could be more centralized, with people living closer to their work - the need for long commutes by automobile would greatly decrease. Small electric powered rail systems would allow people to move freely through the community.

[TimeTraveler]

Two good documentaries about this topic:

 

The end of Suburbia

and

Advertising and the End of the World

 

The problem is alot worse than most think. According to people who know more than me, at our current growth rate humanity will be unable to sustain itself by about 2070. At which time we will be basically sent back to the stone age, that is if we don't go extinct fighting over resources before then.

[Aardvark]

My proposition to you is' date=' if the world becomes industrialized over the next 50 to 75 years, will the old planet have enough resources to support all 6 billion of us in the rather opulent fashion that we Americans and most Europeans are used to, or will we have to make adjustments?[/quote']

 

As technology has advanced the materials needed for each unit of GDP has declined. In effect, less oil, less metal, less raw materials of all kinds are needed to sustain living standards. Western factories produce much more now than they did in the 1970's, from a lower intake of energy and raw material inputs.

 

Extrapolating from this, in the future more people will be able to live more oppulently for less environmental impact.

 

Economic development tends to be good for the environment, well off people don't overgraze marginal lands or strip vegetation for firewood living soil exposed to erosion. If India and China fully develop and industrialise it would mean cleaner industries, and less environmental harm.

 

Poverty is environmentally destructive, development and industrialisation is the environmentally friendly course in the poorer less developed nations.

 

There is no reason to believe that raw material constraints will limit the degree of prosperity, new resources are constantly developed to replace exhausted resources, new technologies are being developed to replace more wasteful, dirtier technologies. The doom mongers who proclaim that the human race will run out of resources such as oil overlook the fact that new resources and technologies are being developed. If they came off then cold fusion and the hydrogen engine would solve great swathes of problems at a stroke. If those technologies aren't developed then others will be.

 

Prosperity keeps on getting environmentally friendlier and cheaper.

[syntax252]

As technology has advanced the materials needed for each unit of GDP has declined. In effect' date=' less oil, less metal, less raw materials of all kinds are needed to sustain living standards. Western factories produce much more now than they did in the 1970's, from a lower intake of energy and raw material inputs.

.[/quote']

 

I tend to agree with this post, (and about all of the others) but when one considers the sheer numbers of people who would be hauled up the ladder 3 or 4 rungs, it in mindboggling to think of the amount of material--even if it is different materal--that would be consumed.

 

Then there is the question of the disposal of waste. Even here in the rural areas of Michigan, this is already a problem.

 

It seems to me that wealth would probably bring about a stabalization in the growth of the worlds population, but at what point? 10 bn? 20BN?

 

One thing is clear, with the population increasing to say, 10 bn and the average wealth allowing for it, I would doubt that everyone would find personal transportation to be feasible.

 

Hell, the whole countryside would be covered by roads!

[Phi for All]

One thing is clear' date=' with the population increasing to say, 10 bn and the average wealth allowing for it, I would doubt that [i']everyone[/i] would find personal transportation to be feasible.

 

Hell, the whole countryside would be covered by roads!

My wife's cousin in Germany works for a company that designs maglev trains. They need only 15 feet of throughway, they are raised above existing roadbeds so there can never be a train/auto accident, only the sections of track the train is on and the ones just ahead are energized, there is no wear and tear, no pollution and the only noise they make is the 250 mph woooosh as they fly by.

 

I'd be the first to admit that it would be hard at first to give up my personal transportation, but if mass transit became prevalent and convenient, you could count me in. We're getting too insular as a society and the best way to relate to your fellow man is to actually be with him more often.

[TimeTraveler]

There is no reason to believe that raw material constraints will limit the degree of prosperity, new resources are constantly developed to replace exhausted resources, new technologies are being developed to replace more wasteful, dirtier technologies. The doom mongers who proclaim that the human race will run out of resources such as oil overlook the fact that new resources and technologies are being developed. If they came off then cold fusion and the hydrogen engine would solve great swathes of problems at a stroke. If those technologies aren't developed then others will be.

 

I disagree with this statement. Here is why.

 

Resources don't need to run out to impact us. It is when they peak that will cause catastrophy to begin. Peak oil has either already begun, is about to begin or will begin sometime in the next 10 years. When oil peaks demands will not be able to be met with supply. Prices will increase and people will not be able to afford to get from place to place in their cars, in essence the economy will begin to wither. Things can and will be done to help it but there is absolutly nothing that can be done to stop it in time, unless we completely re-evaluate our way of life and make some very serious changes. Not tomorrow but now.

 

New technologies will not help, for one most new technologies being developed use more oil than what we use now, for example Hydrogen technology. From my understanding, hydrogen is not really an energy source, but rather a container for energy. It takes alot of energy to use hydrogen as energy.

 

Natural gas is problematic too. Just last year the north eastern region of the US barely missed catastrophy during the winter months as natural gas was basically running on empty, if the winter had been a little colder or a little longer the supply for the area and that year would have ran out and the northeaster region would not have been able to support the natural gas needs of the people in that region.

 

I am no expert, and I do not know much but I suggest checking out a documentary called The End of Suburbia, its full of experts including the US governments former energy analysis expert Mathew Simmons. I did not understand everything they were saying, as I said I am no expert, but I did understand one thing clearly, there is a major crisis on the horizon and we are not doing anything about it and it will drastically change the lives of human beings especially major energy consumers like the US.

 

Sorry for not being more thurough in this post it is very hurried, I will check back and add some more thoughts later. Take care.

[Aardvark]

I disagree with this statement. Here is why.

 

Resources don't need to run out to impact us. It is when they peak that will cause catastrophy to begin. Peak oil has either already begun' date=' is about to begin or will begin sometime in the next 10 years. When oil peaks demands will not be able to be met with supply. Prices will increase and people will not be able to afford to get from place to place in their cars, in essence the economy will begin to wither. [/quote']

 

Yes, as resources such as oil decline in availability (and don't forget there is more untouched oil in shale beds in Canada than oil in the Middle East) then economies react. There may be temporary problems but as prices rise alternative sources will automatically be developed and consumer behaviour will change. No disaster, simply a transition.

 

 

New technologies will not help, for one most new technologies being developed use more oil than what we use now, for example Hydrogen technology. From my understanding, hydrogen is not really an energy source, but rather a container for energy. It takes alot of energy to use hydrogen as energy.

 

New technologies will be the answer, as you point out hydrogen fuel is not an energy source, it's a container for energy. That is why i posisted hydrogen technology with cold fusion, there are plenty of technologies which can already produce electricty without using hydrocarbons and those technologies could be improved. Even using the old fashioned technology of nuclear power could provide hydrogen fuel for cars so ending dependency on oil and being environmentally cleaner.

 

At the end of the day, we don't need oil. It is convienent and cheap. when it becomes inconvienent and expensive we shall simply move on to other forms of energy. The problems you point out of higher oil prices will simply be the market signals needed to cause this change.

[TimeTraveler]

Yes, as resources such as oil decline in availability (and don't forget there is more untouched oil in shale beds in Canada than oil in the Middle East) then economies react.

 

My understanding is that these oil reserves in Canada have not been touched mainly because of the cost of energy to extract from them. Also the difficulty of extracting from these fields makes them highly unappealing. Although over time there will be no choice but to extract these fields at that time the cost to do so, plus the cost increases of oil will make the oil returned from these extractions of enourmous value. Meaning even higher prices for the consumer. This applies to these fields plus some in Alaska and some under the Caspian sea.

 

New technologies will be the answer, as you point out hydrogen fuel is not an energy source, it's a container for energy. That is why i posisted hydrogen technology with cold fusion, there are plenty of technologies which can already produce electricty without using hydrocarbons and those technologies could be improved. Even using the old fashioned technology of nuclear power could provide hydrogen fuel for cars so ending dependency on oil and being environmentally cleaner.

 

At the end of the day, we don't need oil. It is convienent and cheap. when it becomes inconvienent and expensive we shall simply move on to other forms of energy. The problems you point out of higher oil prices will simply be the market signals needed to cause this change.

 

I do not see that as realistic, if you think about how much we depend on oil and gas it is not that easy to just change everything out. Over a long time I see new technology as saving us but not until after alot of damage has been done. I don't mean to sound pessamistic but think of it this way. All of our cars depend on oil and gas, all of our manufacturing facilities are designed to build cars dependant on oil and gas, all of our refueling stations are designed to deliver oil and gas, all of our shipping, exporting, importing our dependant upon oil and gas. Our agriculture is dependant on oil and gas, all of our agriculture pesticides are oil based. All of our plastics are dependant on oil, and so many more of our important resources are dependant on oil and gas. All of these things depend on oil and gas being cheap, if they are not cheap these things would not work.

 

Now imagine what it would take to try and switch out everything we are built upon to replace it with a new technology, that would take a huge amount of resources, time and effort. Its not something that would be able to be completely switched over in a short time, 10 years at the earliest I would think to refit all of these necessities (to our way of life as it is) and that is everything went good, we had the resources to do it and the economy maintained itself for us to do it.

 

Peak oil is going to happen way to soon for a major shift like that, it may even already be happening the thing is we won't really know until after we have peaked.

 

I don't disagree that alot of new innovations will come from this, or that we will be able to adapt with new technologies. This doesn't mean the end of civilization by any means but I think it does mean a big recession and depression in the global economy and especially in the US economy.

 

In the end we will look back and relish on all the adaptations and inginuity of man that got us out of it, but I do not think there will be anyway to stop it from happening, its more of a question of when will we start preparring for it, and how long will it last before we get ourselves out of the hole we have dug.

 

As for the peak, its not a matter of how or why, its a matter of when. And no one knows forsure there is alot of debate. Some think its already happened (including Mathew Simmons, Cheney's former energy advisor, who has had some "in-the-need-to-know" dealings with the intel that is classified to the rest of us) and others think it may start (the latest I have heard anyways) at around 2012ish. I think we should begin to start adapting for what the inevitable is, no more cheap oil, and not enough awareness or time to make the changes in time to stop a depression from happening.

[Aardvark]

My understanding is that these oil reserves in Canada have not been touched mainly because of the cost of energy to extract from them. Also the difficulty of extracting from these fields makes them highly unappealing.

 

Extracting shale oil is more costly than simply putting down an oil well, but the cost is steadily falling as the technology has been developed. With an oil price consistently above $25(US) it is generally considered worth putting in the substantial investment needed for large scale extraction. The technical challenges are not insummountable, it's simply a matter of confidence in a sufficently high prce.

 

 

 

 

 

I do not see that as realistic, if you think about how much we depend on oil and gas it is not that easy to just change everything out. Over a long time I see new technology as saving us but not until after alot of damage has been done. I don't mean to sound pessamistic but think of it this way. All of our cars depend on oil and gas, all of our manufacturing facilities are designed to build cars dependant on oil and gas, all of our refueling stations are designed to deliver oil and gas, all of our shipping, exporting, importing our dependant upon oil and gas. Our agriculture is dependant on oil and gas, all of our agriculture pesticides are oil based. All of our plastics are dependant on oil, and so many more of our important resources are dependant on oil and gas. All of these things depend on oil and gas being cheap, if they are not cheap these things would not work.

 

What you say is true, but if the price of oil and gas rises then alternatives will be found. A lot of the use of oil and gas is non essential and wasteful. If higher prices stop supermarkets giving out millions of non biodegradable plastic bags and stop idiots burning vast quantities of petrol by driving everywhere then i will be the first to celebrate.

 

 

Now imagine what it would take to try and switch out everything we are built upon to replace it with a new technology, that would take a huge amount of resources, time and effort. Its not something that would be able to be completely switched over in a short time, 10 years at the earliest I would think to refit all of these necessities (to our way of life as it is) and that is everything went good, we had the resources to do it and the economy maintained itself for us to do it.

 

I'm in rough agreement with your 10 year timespan for changing over the economy. And that seems reasonable considering that oil is not going to simply run out. It will become more expensive as the world depends more on sources that are harder to extract and companies and industries will naturally look for alternatives and ways to reduce their costs. Considering the wastage in our societies there seems plenty of slack to enable us to make greatly improved efficencies and move into alternatives. We don't need to be melodramatic about it, we aren't going to wake up one morning and find that the chemical industry is closed because oil is too expensive. Rather, some old plants will close and newer ones will adapt or be built . It will take place over a long enough time frame for it to occur in a natural investment cycle without too much disruption.

 

 

Peak oil is going to happen way to soon for a major shift like that, it may even already be happening the thing is we won't really know until after we have peaked.

 

As far as i am concerned, the sooner the better. The worlds dependence on cheap oil is like a herion addiction. Breaking that addiction may cause some withdrawal symptoms but it will be worth it. Society will survive, life will continue. Maybe some fat lazy gits will have to start using bikes rather than UTEs to drive around town.

 

 

I think we should begin to start adapting for what the inevitable is, no more cheap oil, and not enough awareness or time to make the changes in time to stop a depression from happening.

 

Fundamentally we are in agreement about what is going to happen, cheap oil is ending and people are going to have to adapt. However i think there is so much slack and waste in our economies that the transition will not be as hard as you seem to think. When lard arses in gas guzzling UTEs realise that it isn't a constitional right to waste vast quantities of oil the savings in over consumption will be high.

 

Some people will have to make adjustments they don't like. I imagine the squealing will be very loud from the fat, lazy selfish hypocrites.

 

To me, those squealings will sound like music.

[TimeTraveler]

Great post!

 

We seem to agree alot, I am a little more pessimistic however. I think being pessimistic in a threatening sense will wake people up to actually start doing something about it.

 

I like your comparison to heroin addiction, it fits very well. I am concerned that the habit will be a little harder to break than you think though. But I hope I am wrong.