Sustainability

Jim will accuse me of "banging on" about it again.............

I noticed two minor comments in the news today, which indicated the woeful inadequacy with which mankind is facing up to global non-sustainability.

From today, the uk requires all fuel to contain 2.5% bio-fuel (it might be 5%) and this will increase in a few years to 5% (or possibly 10%). And we wonder why the price of grain is going up and with it the price of basic food such as bread and feed-stuff for farm animals. The livelyhood of pig farmers in the uk is under threat etc, etc, etc

China overtook the USA as the world's No 1 polluter (well, carbon emmitter). But only in absolute terms, not per head of population. The Chineese and Indians, quite rightly IMHO, still consider the West needs to get its consumption and pollution under control and consider themselves as merely emerging from poverty. so they ain't gonna do anything anytime soon. The US, as always, says it has no intention whatsoever of reducing its consumption or emmissions.

Typical, but not sustainable. I believe the West must take the lead.

Does anybody here agree that sustainability is THE No 1 problem mankind faces.

Does anybody here have any ideas of what needs to be done.

Does anybody here have any ideas how to persuade governments/people to do whatever is needed.

Cheers

Don

Don

quote:

Jim will accuse me of "banging on" about it again....................The US, as always, says it has no intention whatsoever of reducing its consumption or emmissions.

I have no problem at all with the discussion but I do take issue with your belief that the US is the only big bad wolf here.

I have lived here for almost 11 years now and historically I agree that the US has lagged far behind the rest of the developed world in terms of support for climate change legislation (a subset of your broader sustainability issue I agree) and every time I had returned to the UK I has seen a tremendous difference in terms of awareness of "green" issues in general.

However, over the last 24 months, and in particular the last 12 months, there seems to have been a significant shift in both attitude an awareness here in the US and I can even use the term "carbon footprint" now without receiving puzzled frowns as I did before.

I'm not going to try to argue the facts with you as I don't know them but when you make claims such as "The US, as always, says it has no intention whatsoever of reducing its consumption or emissions." you are just plain wrong. States such a California have long had emission regulations which are much more stringent than those in the UK for example so I can't accept what is a sweeping generalization. I can accept that the US has to do more and I believe it is doing so (a change of Government would help of course but we have two threads on that already).

Bear in mind that changing generations worth of ingrained behaviour does not happen overnight, neither here nor in other countries.

In the meantime, I suggest you take a look through this US Gov website to get a feel for what the US is doing across a whole range of the environmental space.

I'm with you on the issues Don and I even agree that the US has to do more but I'm buggered if I even know where to start.

Cheers

Jim

Dear Don,

I agree with your points. I do think that it is all fine and good hoping for action from foreigners, and I include the USA and Australia [with the two largest carbon footprints per head if I understand correctly], but somewhat hypocritical, in that at the same time the HM Gov't is trying to stealth tax motorists, it is promoting growth in air travel into and from the UK!

Heathrow Runway Three anyone?

This has to start at home, and strangely if we did really get this going early, we could actually build world-leading industries to provide the sustainable infrastructure of the future.

But I think we would rather stick with our failing Financial Sector to lay the Golden Egg for us economically.

Many more thoughts tomorrow, but my feelings about population have got me labelled a Malthusian before now, so I probably share your dismay at it all.

I am 47 this year, and with luck will be dead before billions, let alone millions starve ...

George

quote:

Does anybody here agree that sustainability is THE No 1 problem mankind faces.

Sustainability of what?
John

Dear John,

Could it be sustainability of food supply and energy supply?

That is what the Opening Post seems to suggest to me. It is the number one question of the century in my opinion. How it will be addressed and solved is startlingly lacking in current political circles in Western Countries ...

I think Don's topic holds the possibility of a useful debate. If the issue is not discussed, and before too long, sensible answers found and implemented, then we shall sleepwalk into catastrophy ...

George

quote:

Sustainability of what?

John, Ferdrik is correct.

The clue (if one was really needed) was in the opening sentence with the reference to Jim and my "banging on" about the sustainability of the earth's resources, given mankind's current and foreseable use of these resources. I thought my two trivial examples given would also provide an indication.

One of my concerns, noted by Fredrik, is that no government or international body with effective power, has grasped the significance of the overall problem. Or, possibly they have, but because they don't have any sort of palatable strategy to tackle the problem, realise that it would be political suicide to raise the issue. Meanwhile, we will simply re-arrange the deckchairs.....aka pay lip-service to global warming, carbon footprints and carbon trading schemes. We will also divert our troubled minds to exaccerbating the problem by forcing bio-fuels into our cars and beautifying the landscape with windturbines............

The planet doesn't have enough resource to enable 6 billion people to enjoy current western life-styles on a sustainable basis. What should we do?

Cheers

Don

Don

AS your contribution to reducing fuel usage and CO2 production are you going to stop teaching people to fly and also stop visiting your property and relations in Canada.

quote:

AS your contribution to reducing fuel usage and CO2 production are you going to stop teaching people to fly and also stop visiting your property and relations in Canada.

Nope

Cheers

Don

quote:

Nope

And now we can all see a significant part of the problem. ie, sustainability isn't affecting too many of us in the West (yet), anything that Europe does will be well and truely offset by the contra-impact of developing nations (eg China & India today - others tomorrow) plus the US, and none of us want our current lifestyle to suffer, in fact we all want it to improve. We aren't fully convinced that any of the "solutions" currently on the table, will be effective.

The use of "we" doesn't include everybody, just a few people that I know. However, my guess is that a few more people that I don;'t know share similar views.

Cheers

Don

Dear Don,

I suspect this thread frightens people! To get involved in a debate where the answers are starring us in the face, but which, for many people, are unutterable because they hardly line up with modern PC liberalism, is indeed a tough one to answer. How can population control be managed without the natural mortality provided by natural processe of disease, infant mortality, and natural death at a much younger age than is currently the average? It is a tough idea indeed. Medicine has provided much blessing and a massive problem.

The population of the world has been allowed to escape the natural controls Nature put on it, by using resources that are not renewable: But when these resources are used up, the population will be unsustainable as no thought is being given about how the population can be humanely be brought back to a level that can be sustained without the wholesale reliance on fossil fuels, and industrial scale agriculture which depends on fossils fuels to operate the plant and provide synthetic fertilisers required to grow the crops. Genetic modification does not alter the fact that to grow crops requires plant nutrients, synthetic [ie petro-chemical or produced with heavy reliance on petro-chemicals], or organic [ie. livestock or human based] to be used in huge quantities. This necessary to prevent productive fertile land being exhausted, and becoming desert ...

Even if access can be found to further supplies of fossil fuels, at greater cost in the future, this does not alter the fact that these are not renewable energy sources [ie. therefore unsustainable] and that food supply sustainability will only be possible if global warming does not actually make large productive areas less productive. All that more fossil fuel finds will do is postpone the inevitable population crunch by some decades. Global warming may or may not be precisely related to mankind’s activities burning fossil fuels, but that is irrelevant, as global warming is already spoiling crop harvests, whether this was the result of burning fossil fuels or not.

I suspect that global warming is the distraction for our political leaders fiddling while the world "burns" and the efforts should really be turned to considering a fuel and agricultural policy that accounts for a half century of massive overpopulation with the remaining oil and gas supplies, while planning for exactly what is done once these supplies dwindle, and the further extraction becomes very much more expensive, and possibly well short of the real demands absolutely to sustain the population at the level reached by then at current growth rates.

George

The necessary answers will be found outside our conventional view of capitalistic "ever increasing" economic growth, though not a return to considering communism as it has been tried and found wanting, and a real consideration of what level of human population really is sustainable without much reliance on petro-chemical methods of food production.

It will take a man Einstein-like genius to work out an acceptable way of radically curbing the population without a Fascistic solution, but one welcomed by peoples of the world, and therefore able to be implemented, without terrible suffering of itself.

Otherwise Nature will do it at a terrible and brutal level, where the first to die out will those living in the poorest conditions, who will not be saved by the peoples of the old rich world as when the chips are down, charity will start at home.

Not to consider these things is actually not merely irresponsible, but inhumane at the most profound level.

George

Dear Jim,

Of course if you see a flaw in the thinking, you could add to the discussion in a positive way by pointing out what is wrong with it.

George

The nub of it:

"The population of the world has been allowed to escape the natural controls Nature put on it, by using resources that are not renewable: But when these resources are used up, the population will be unsustainable as no thought is being given about how the population can be humanely be brought back to a level that can be sustained without the wholesale reliance on fossil fuels, and industrial scale agriculture which depends on fossils fuels to operate the plant and provide synthetic fertilisers required to grow the crops. Genetic modification does not alter the fact that to grow crops requires plant nutrients, synthetic [ie petro-chemical or produced with heavy reliance on petro-chemicals], or organic [ie. livestock or human based] to be used in huge quantities. This necessary to prevent productive fertile land being exhausted, and becoming desert ... "

Don,
This is a very important topic and thanks for putting these questions out here.

George,
Your replies and logic are spot on. I believe your wisdom and foresight into this topic needs to be heard and taken serious by anyone who cares about this planet and all of our futures.

As to the question of what can be done? I see here in the West how there is a lot of talk (especially from the Left leaning crowd) but looked at more closely that's all it is; it is just grandstanding or political opportunism. All one needs to do is look at the lifestyle that these people and the children they are raising or have raised and you can see the hypocrisy. The sad fact is that the solution to this problem requires governments and its people to face reality and make drastic changes. It takes real leadership to stand up and do the right thing but a smart person who wants to be elected or stay elected knows that smoke and mirrors (perception) will save their skin and keep their job. Right now I don't have enough time to go through many points that could be addressed by governments and individuals but will simply say that a government's policies and regulations can eventually (not overnight) influence and effect positive change. And hitting people in the wallet is normally the most effective way to try and influence behavior. For example, if one chooses to drive a huge SUV and live wastefully, in general, then you should have to pay dearly for this (ie. gas should be $10 or $15 / L or 10 times or more what it is now). A person who doesn't own a car or rides their bike should be rewarded in a substantial way. This would clearly make one think twice about their choices and you would only drive when necessary (it is a privilege not a right to drive). Unfortunately, as Jim alluded to above, this needs to occur with consistency throughout every nation. The reality is that this will never happen.

Secondly, the above policies clearly are only short to mid-term solutions. At risk of stating the obvious I believe that sustainability is directly or positively linked with our population. Setting targets for green gas emissions etc. is just plain silly because an ever increasing population will negate any attempts we try anyway in the long run and we are simply deferring the problem to the future generations. Drastically reducing the population is the only way to decrease the demands we place on this finite planet (and ensure sustainability) we live on. Any other concepts are simply short term viewpoints. We seem to only be concerned about the next 50 years maybe. If we see the effects and problems of 6.xx billion now what about in 200 years or when the number could presumably be 20 billion and then 30 billion ...

As George said, man has been interfering with the natural selection process as was intended and medical science wants nothing more than to extend a humans natural lifespan.

Looking around and thinking about this, I don't have a lot of hope for the future and especially for my children's children.

Yes, too many people wanting too much and the poorer sections of the World wanting to catch up soon. The problem is clear but the solution??

I am working in the EU Sustainability Section in Seville trying to persuade industry to prevent pollution and convert more raw materials and energy into products. We are even educating China and Russia but I don't think that the Human Race is acting quickly enough!! Too little, too late.

The only real solution would be to restrict breeding to the Members of the Forum and their spouses and near family and let the rest die out naturally!! Even that is not a real solution as I have an odd feeling that although the music would be good there are not quite enough of us. Co-option of the Linn Forum is out of the question and that leaves PFM or perhaps Manna (who??).

Let's just get extinct,

FF

Dear Frank,

No doubt you have access to data which puts you in a more informed position than most of us who rely on the media, and who do a little research of our own.

My hope would be that the issue could still be addressed before catastrophe becomes inevitable. It seems to me that if there was a real effort to curb the population, by simply accepting that those in middle age and less, throughout the world, will work till we [I am one such] die and abstain from procreation in the great majority of cases then the population might be reduced to a sustainable level, and serious Wars over water, food and, and finite resources may be avoided, provided that the fossil fuels we can obtain at economic levels that allow for the poorest still to eat, are channelled into continued food production till the peak in population is passed. Then inevitably the stress the over-large population places on the remaining resources will reduce, and must continue to reduce till the balance of possible sustainable supply of energy and fuel are in balance with the demand of the remain human population. This would allow for the remmaining human race to enjoy a respectable standard of living on a sustainable level and also cope with inevitable ravages of climate change, and so forth.

If we fail in this Nature herself will conspire to starve a much greater proportion of the human population which is much more unacceptable, it seems to me, for anyone who cares to think about it.

Inevitably not finding a solution to the population problem will lead to Wars and possibly completely unforeseeable catastrophes, or even ones already understood such as Nuclear Armageddon.

If the human race gets this right, then extinction or anything like it need not be on the cards. But big change is inevitable whether we plan it or Nature imposes it in her immutable power over us in the end.

George

Hi GFFJ,

Unfortunately the World needs a dramatic rethink about what and how we consume. The car is potentially the worst enemy at the moment and using precious land to produce bio-fuel will starve millions. Transport is the biggest source of most pollutants now and without a dramatic change in Worldwide Policies we will only fiddle arround the edges. I am not optimistic about any such changes given the power of the petrochemical and car industries,

FF

The economics of Capitalism are unsustainable. We cannot expect economic growth to continue in perpetuity. We are going to have to accept that there are limits to growth. New economic models will have to be adopted out of necessity as resource depletion progresses. That will be a challenge.

The peaking of world oil production will be the first limit imposed on us. Economic growth is reliant on cheap abundant energy. World oil production has not increased for three years. Any new production brought to market is only serving to offset declining production in older fields. We are currently producing 87 million barrels per day. Demand for oil is growing relentlessly. The growing gap between supply and demand is causing the record high oil prices of today. And it will continue. The era of cheap oil is over.

Neoclassical economists assume that whenever the market signals indicate a shortage, more supply of that commodity will automatically be provided. They do not believe in limits because that invalidates their theories. Government policy in industrialised nations is derived from the same faulty ideology.

Q. How can we expect endless growth on a finite planet?
A. We can't.

As oil increases in scarcity, the major consuming nations will get desperate to secure supply. The first resourse war has already been underway for five years. The USA currently uses 21 million barrels of crude oil per day. Domestic US production is just over 5 million barrels per day. Iraq has 112 billion barrels of easily recoverable light sweet crude. No wonder the US is building 14 permanent military bases in that country!

The Bush administration had already drawn up plans back in 2000 for dividing up Iraq's oil wealth. Just think about that for a moment. Now the same bunch are talking about air strikes on Iran prior to the elections in oil-rich southern Iraq in October. The elections could bring officials to power who are sympathetic to Iran. The USA fears the loss of hegemony in the region.

Each year, the USA spends as much on it's military as the next 20 countries combined. The greatest near-term threat we face, is the likelihood of more resourse wars as the world's oil supply situation worsens.

God help us...

Best,
BB

quote:

The economics of Capitalism are unsustainable. We cannot expect economic growth to continue in perpetuity.

Probably untrue.

Jim

Dear Jim,

I think you are in denial. What part of what I, or others, have written is not correct. For you to put the point would certainly add to the debate. Pointless, unexpplained interventions merely make you look an ostrich with its head in the sand. How can continued capitalist developement continues without unlimited fossil fuel supplies. I am sure the whole human race is wait for the answer to that.

George