Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

William Catton, Per Capita Energy Supplies & Confronting The Possibility Of Four Billion Deaths

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 12:51 PM
Original message
William Catton, Per Capita Energy Supplies & Confronting The Possibility Of Four Billion Deaths
At some point in the early years of the 21st century, there will be a clash of two giant forces: overpopulation and oil depletion. That much has been known for a long time. It is also well known that population must eventually decline in order to match the decline in oil production. A further problem, however, is that it will be impossible to get those two giant forces into equilibrium in any gentle fashion, because of a matter that is rarely considered: that in every year that has gone by — and every year that will arrive — the population of the earth is automatically adjusted so that it is almost exactly equal to its carrying capacity. We are always barely surviving. Population growth is soaring, whereas oil production is plunging. If, at the start of any year, the world’s population is greater than its carrying capacity, only simple arithmetic is needed to see that the difference between the two numbers means that mortality will be above the normal by the end of that year. In fact, over the course of the 21st century there will be about 4 billion deaths (probably about 3.6, to be more precise) above normal.

Let us refer to those 4 billion above-normal deaths as "famine deaths," for lack of a better term, since "peak oil" in terms of daily life is really "peak food." There will, of course, also be famines for other reasons. It is also true that warfare and plague will take their toll to a large extent before famine claims those same humans as its victims. The increase in the world’s population has been rather simple: from about 1.6 billion in 1900 to about 6.1 billion in 2000 <9>. A quick glance at a chart of world population growth shows a line that runs almost horizontally for thousands of years, and then makes an almost vertical ascent as it approaches the year 2000. As Gordon and Suzuki said in 1990, "more people have been added to the Earth during the past 40 or 50 years than have been added since the dawn of man" <8>. That is not just an amusing curiosity. It is a shocking fact that should have awakened humanity to the realization that something is dreadfully wrong.

Mankind is always prey to its own "exuberance," to use William R. Catton’s term <3>. That has certainly been true of population growth. "Do you have any children?" or, "How many children do you have?" is a form of greeting or civility almost equivalent to "How do you do?" or, "Nice to meet you." But that vertical ascent of world population growth has always been hazardous. The destruction of the environment reaches back into the invisible past, and the ruination of land, sea, and sky has been well described if not well heeded. But what is not so frequently noted is that with every increase in human numbers we are only barely able to keep up with the demand: providing all those people with food, water, and living space has not been easy. We are, in other words, pushing ourselves to the limits of Earth’s carrying capacity. The same has been true for most of human history.

Even that is an understatement. In the late 20th century we actually went beyond the carrying capacity. No matter how much environmental degradation we created, there was always the sense that we could somehow get by. But in the late 20th century we stopped getting by. It is important to differentiate between production in an "absolute" sense and production "per person." Although oil production, in "absolute" numbers, kept climbing — only to decline around 2000 or 2010 — what was ignored was that although that "absolute"production was climbing, the production "per person" was not. In the year 1990 there were 4.5 barrels of oil per person per year. By the year 2000 there were only about 4.3. The same sort of problem was occurring with world grain supplies: although government sources cheerfully tell us that grain production in absolute terms is still increasing every year, what they are not telling us is that because of overpopulation the amount of grain per person is actually declining <5>. There is more grain, but there are more mouths to feed. The same problem of resources "per person" can be seen in the world’s fish catches. We are no longer getting by. We have been scraping the edges of the earth’s carrying capacity, and we are now entering a dangerous era.

EDIT

http://www.countercurrents.org/goodchild291007.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
nannah Donating Member (690 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Oct-29-07 04:04 PM
Response to Original message
1. I made a comment in Babylonsisters post re: CDC ommissions from climate report
that fits here to. here is the link to her post.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x2158974

and here is my comment:

sadly, a deeply cynical part of me suspects that this information was removed because the die off from global warming and oil peak needs to be controlled so it affects the most vulnerable. we have predatory leadership in the world spawned by corporate governance; predators prey on the vulnerable.

Ignorance of global warning by leaders is not driving the pretense of denial; this is a strategy to manage the die off and keep it focused on the most vulnerable. It wasn't the wealthy who died and lost everything in Katrina. It won't be the wealthy whose home won't be replaced in California; and it was the wealthy who knew enough to have their own fire departments on site, you will find that the bushes and cheneys are well situated to ride out water, oil, food shortages. They own land on huge aquifirs; they have well stocked undergrround bunkers; they will always have the cash to buy what they need. They know the truth and are making their own plans.

george bush isn't stupid; he is sly like a fox; he has always been able to manipulate people with success; the key to his success is that he has no limits to what he will do to acheive his ends; blackmail has always struck me as his style, with some dramatic lessons of punishment thrown in to get everyone's attention. He is narcissitic, cruel, petulant, sociopathic, but not stupid. there are many ways to be smart; interest in intellectual pursuits isn't everyone's schtick. george is a showman, a player, a front man; it's what he does.

Blocking info re: global warming and at the same time reducing the resources to meet expectable need is damage management.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tom_paine Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. sadly, this appears to be true, and it may have to do with Democratic complicity
in many Bushie actions. They are ALL top 1% elites who fear and loathe the other 99% and especially the bottom 80%. They are just trying to hold everything together long enough to get their prison-state constructed when the hammer falls and the delusion can no longer be maintained.

And I am beginning to see that, when crunch time comes, the construction of camps and all these draconian Bushie laws benefit ALL the Ruling Class.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Delphinus Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 06:33 AM
Response to Original message
3. The conspiracy theorist part of me wonders if
Edited on Tue Oct-30-07 06:35 AM by Delphinus
tptb are thinking that war on Iran, Syria, and whoever else will solve a part of the overpopulation problem.

Edit to add: I hadn't read the first two comments before I posted - guess I'm not the only one who thinks these "crazy" kinds of thoughts!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
GliderGuider Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 07:29 AM
Response to Original message
4. I'm less sanguine about this article
I feel Goodchild makes too many unsupported assertions, doesn't define what he means by "carrying capacity" and fails to propose a causal mechanism for the famine. As a result, the article amounts to yet another "We're all gonna die" Jeremiad that really doesn't advance the yardsticks of knowledge about how or why. Don't get me wrong, I agree with him. At this point, though, we need a bit less less Kunstlerian melodrama and a little more rigour.

I suspect the famines will be triggered by the population explosion in the energy-poor developing world, coupled to a further decline in their own energy circumstances and a global decline in the natural gas supply leading to sharply rising fertilizer prices. Poor nations that are dependent on the Green Revolution model of high-yield strains that require lots of fertilizer and irrigation will find themselves caught in a trap of declining soil fertility and unaffordable fertilizer. Food aid from the developed world will dry up as our wealth erodes as well, leaving five to seven billion people caught in a Malthusian trap by mid-century.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. You could also posit an "Export Land Model" for food
Edited on Tue Oct-30-07 08:28 AM by hatrack
Given the strains we've seen on food surpluses given the biofuels trend, which has really just barely gotten started if Vinod Khosla is to be believed, I'd argue that available surplus food for emergencies will at the least be more expensive, even setting aside potential shortfalls.

Also, what about deliveries? It's not just more expensive to ship corn or wheat or soy, it also becomes monumentally more difficult to deliver it to where it's needed, above and beyond the stresses of patchy developing-world infrastructure and the roadblocks presented by floods, fires, droughts and the like.

Judging by what we've seen just this year in places like Nigeria, Zimbabwe (an extreme case, admittedly), Zambia, Congo, Pakistan, etc., shortages of fuel on the ground in target countries could also make it necessary for relief agencies to self-contain - to carry their own fuel with them, which means trucks, which means expense, which means risks for these agencies when fuel arrives in areas desperately short of energy as well as food.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
XemaSab Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 11:25 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. You're assuming that the extant model
of the first world donating food to famine-stricken areas of the third world will continue.

I think we're more likely to sell wheat to Australia and Britain (for example) than to donate it to Africa.

Assuming we have any surplus ourselves, that is.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Javaman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 10:37 AM
Response to Original message
6. Hmmm, 4 billion huh? I think I will invest into that soylet green processing plant. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 09:03 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Environment/Energy Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC