Avoiding over-consumption

[distractedSofty]

I'm sorry, let me clarify something. As I said at the beginning, I'm not interested in going backwards. I like flush toilets and all that implies. But you can't(at least I don't believe you can) bring all 7 Billion people up to the industrialized nations standard of living. Much less the 10 Billion expected in 2050. I don't think you can build what you need that quick if at all.

On this, it seems that we have a fundamental difference of opinion, so I don't think there is much to be gained in continuing that discussion.

One thing I will say, is that I agree that it is not likely that everyone will have access to the same level of technology in the near future. On the other hand, it looks to me that a larger proportion of people have access to food and clean water now than did 100 years ago, while at the same time being around 4 times as numerous. I can only hope that we can continue that trend. (And, I am sure that similar tends must exist for other things- mobile telephone adoption is exploding right now)

I also think it is rather pessimistic to believe that humanity has some kind of end game in which everyone is equally happy, because that implies humanity has a limited potential.

In my opinion you can say we are different than the animals, but all to often we act like them.

We clearly have much in common with other animals. The crux of my point was that you cannot point to an animal trait and say that this must apply to humans: A desert animal taken to arctic conditions dies of hypothermia; A person takes clothes.

About the Bluefin Tuna and Cod. That was not a joke, bad or otherwise. The people now alive may well be the last to taste either of those fish.

I am sorry if I misunderstood you. I felt that the statement was in such clear opposition to your position on this thread(that we must be responsible, and very conservative with our consumption); I interpreted this as a warning to eat those fish now, because they may not last(thus turning it into a self fulfilling prophecy); that it must have been a joke.

[morriswalters]

Given the way I see things going I hope your right, which would be preferable to me being right.

[stevey_frac]

But you can't(at least I don't believe you can) bring all 7 Billion people up to the industrialized nations standard of living.

Why not? It's not a shortage of iron or concrete that stops Africa from living a first world lifestyle. It's because they live in abject poverty. That can be solved be stabilizing the horrible political situation, getting rid of the corruption, and educating the locals. Now, that's no easy task, I admit, but it's not a lack of resources that is the problem.

As for the Cod situation, I'm not hugely aware. But, the eco-hippys were warning the same thing about the salmon. Until this year. And then there was the largest salmon run in a century. From what I understand, the runs were in decline, and then this run was about 40% larger then last years.

All that's needed is a bit of a break on tuna fishing for a bit. There is also some evidence that we should be throwing back the big ones instead of the little ones. The larger ones being most able stabilize a population. Either way, there are a lot of smart people thinking about this stuff. Someone will figure it out.

[Zamfir]

Why not? It's not a shortage of iron or concrete that stops Africa from living a first world lifestyle. It's because they live in abject poverty. That can be solved be stabilizing the horrible political situation, getting rid of the corruption, and educating the locals. Now, that's no easy task, I admit, but it's not a lack of resources that is the problem.

The economic growth of China in particular has driven up steel and concrete prices a lot over the last decade. Steel prices are currently triple the level of the 1990s. As a result, many people world wide have had to cut down on construction. For example, large-scale programs in India to replace shacks by concrete single-room houses have had to be cut back a lot.We in rich countries don't really notice this much, since steel and concrete are for most of our products not the main cost. Which means that we will buy most of the steel we want, even at tripled prices. (even now, industries that rely heavily on steel and concrete feel the impact, even in industrialized countries).

So yes, high steel and concrete prices are most definitely stopping people worldwide from improving their lives. It's not a shortage of course, because if those people buy less steel, there is enough for us. But if everyone was improving their economy at Chinese rates, steel and concrete prices would rise to a level that even wealthy countries would start noticing.

[morriswalters]

As I said this is a people problem and Africa is a perfect example. I don't know as I consider myself an Eco-Hippy, but both Cod and Bluefin Tuna are heavily protected under international treaties. I don't say they will collapse but I would not bet against it. Your response is fairly typical, that is, there isn't any problem, we could fix it if there were, I've heard this before for some other species and it didn't happen. The only way to be sure is to see what happens or conversely to accept that it is possible and and get serious about stopping it. We probably won't.

[stevey_frac]

I'm not saying there is not a problem. There clearly IS a problem. I'm just taking an anti-alarmist stance, and that problems are often over-hyped.

Much like the salmon, or global warming, the exa-flood, and, I believe this overconsumption issue are over-hyped.

They said B.C. Salmon were in permanent decline. Right up until 10 million of them made for the river. They keep saying Global Warming is going to cost 100's of trillions of dollars, kill millions, etc... And it won't. At least, not according to the IPCC reports that are the most well rounded source of information on the topic. They're always saying that the exa-flood is coming, and that netflix or youtube, or what have you will generate enough traffic to destroy teh interwebs. But if you actually ASK someone who is running a major datacenter, you discover that transit providers carefully monitor their lines, and put in appropriate network upgrades as necessary and there is no mad scramble for bandwidth. Similarly, the idea that there is not enough food for the world, that there is not enough steel or concrete, is a completely overhyped fallacy. Concrete and steel prices are going up as a response to higher energy prices (as it should, renewables will require higher prices to gain traction). They are not going up because of a shortage of iron, or rock, or lime. And if there was a bit of a shortage on iron, it would drive up the price and 2 things would happen. Exploration, and recycling.

In short:

[Zamfir]

They are not going up because of a shortage of iron, or rock, or lime. And if there was a bit of a shortage on iron, it would drive up the price and 2 things would happen. Exploration, and recycling.

But you really are missing an important third: if prices go up, some people will stop consuming the good.

Edit: apologies for the overly short reply. To answer more of your post: I think you are edging towards strawman territory. There are always people predicting doom, but that doesn't mean everyone who raises an issue is a doom monger. I personally have very much an engineering mindset: I try find problems, because turning something into a problem means you can look for a solution.

Looking at the world with an everything-will-work-out-fine view is sometimes more realistic, but it makes it harder to identify areas for improvement. And of course, sometimes things do not turn out fine, and then you are happy someone else expected problems earlier.

And yes, I think we need a lot of improvement. There are certain aspects of advanced economies that I would like to see spread as far as possible. At the same time, those advanced economies consume currently a lot of finite resources, in a way that won't scale unchanged to 7 billion people.

Perhaps all improvements can be supply-side solutions like you seem to imply. Literally under thud hood in case of ICEs, similarly half hidden from the consumer in things like electricity production or steel manufacturing. But such solutions still need to made, and that won't happen unless people expect problems and try to solve them.

I am less confident than you that the demand side can be left alone, that all changes can be made under the hood. I suspect that parts, perhaps important parts, of our current lifestyle cannot be scaled to the entire world. So that people will have to make choices: how much flying do we need? How much meat? How much wood? We can turn woodland into fields of animal food, or into fields of biofuel. But those fields can't make wood, fuel and meat at the same time.

[morriswalters]

There are 7 Billion people on the planet today. Maybe 10.5 Billion by mid century. There are not enough fish in the ocean and there never were. There is a fixed number of fish the Oceans can support. Aquaculture has it's own problems. Fish waste becomes a problem and big fish eat little fish ad infinitum.

The unfortunate thing about this type of thing is that by the time your sure it is way late to do something. Take sea level rise, some estimates place it at between 0 to six feet by 2100. Start to build for the worst case today and you can do it. But if the scientists are wrong you've wasted the money. On the other hand if you wait to be sure and it turns out they were right then you won't be able to make concrete fast enough because you'll have other problems that will hit you at the same time.

Consumption is a function of time. Take the Highway system in the US. We consume that resource faster than we can repair what we already have. So we fall behind. We fix things, but not fast enough because of competition for resources. There is no lack of concrete and steel, just money to purchase it. Money is over consumed. We can't stop making roads because our economy depends on them, be we can't repair them fast enough either. Why do you think Biltmore became a tourist destination? It consumed money faster than the Vanderbilts could make it.

Recycling, ain't it grand. We recycle metals quite a bit as is. And we always have. It's a good thing to because high grade ores are very rare, copper being one example of that. Ask people who lose their copper roofs or their outside condensing units to copper thieves. However let any great need hit us and we could very well end up in the same situation that our grandfathers did during WW2, very tight rationing. Resource consumption is a tightly choreographed dance. Everything has to work and in the right order.

All this is solvable if people didn't breed like they do. The question is, is how many people the planet can support and at what level. Consume more that the ecosphere can support and your over consuming. What level is that? I have no Idea and neither does anyone else. Guess wrong and we join the dinosaurs. The problem for me is that I can't see if the cup is half empty or half full and it makes me nervous. And when I'm nervous I become conservative.

[stevey_frac]

My examples admittedly were supply side things. But I don't think that supply side solutions are the complete answer, and I don't think I stated otherwise anywhere.

But, the anti-alarmist viewpoint carries over into the demand side as well. Vehicles are being made more and more efficient. Virtually every major automaker has a decent hybrid these days. Even the mid size cars and small SUV's are increasingly fuel efficient. Both the Torrent and the Malibu match my 2007 cobalt for fuel consumption on the highway. And the new Eco-Cruze is 19% more efficient on the highway then my car.

Housing building codes are also increasingly strict on energy use, and consumers are demanding that as well. Per capita energy expenditure is falling in the developed world. Perhaps not as fast as new countries are bringing citizens on the grid, but still. It's not like the situation is out of control with no one at the helm, and no one saying "maby we should hit the breaks". Instead, the opposite is happening, at least in my view. The population as a whole is very aware of energy expenditure, very aware of resource consumption. If I don't put out a recycling box on garbage pickup day, my neighbors frown at me. The general population thinks that we should do something, that eventually, that will give way politically for people to do something serious about it.

In Ontario, we just fired up a solar panel assembly plant. That's right, solar power in Canada... One of the worst places to deploy it. And yet, up it goes, and it's hiring 200 people right now.

So, things are probably going to be alright. We know there is a problem, and we've already taken baby steps to solving it. It's up to the consumer at large now. As you said, this is largely a people problem. And the people know about the problem.

As an aside, an energy tax might not be a bad idea. Might push the people towards more efficient purchases. Even if only for their dislike of taxes.

[Zamfir]

But, the anti-alarmist viewpoint carries over into the demand side as well. Vehicles are being made more and more efficient. Virtually every major automaker has a decent hybrid these days. Even the mid size cars and small SUV's are increasingly fuel efficient. Both the Torrent and the Malibu match my 2007 cobalt for fuel consumption on the highway. And the new Eco-Cruze is 19% more efficient on the highway then my car.

Just for another POV:This study researched US average fleet fuel consumption in the last century. Average MPG in the 1920s was 14 MPG, then a drop to 11 MPG in the early 70s. Then a massive spurt of 2% a year to 16.9 MPG in 1991. Then another 2% up to 2006, to 17.2 MPG. Or about 20% more efficient than the 1920s...

[stevey_frac]

Well, According to this report, the model year 2008 vehicles sold have a FE of 21 MPG. The study also conveniently leaves out the fuel shortages of the 80's, and the accompanying spike in fuel economy cars produced for those days had. It got worse in the 1990's when fuel prices dropped again, and the SUV craze was on (and continued right up until the more recent fuel price spike in 2007-2008. We're probably still retiring a lot of those SUV's and trucks I'd imagine. Either way, we're moving in the right direction, yes?

[morriswalters]

Seven MPG in 100 years. That's technology for you. Makes me all warm and fuzzy.