Sustainability

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.

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

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

rough eddges

quote:

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

so, 6 days of total reserves in Iraq then going by your numbers...

Get the data right and your argument might carry more credibility...

U.S. consumption of liquid fuels and other petroleum is expected to decline in 2008 by about 85,000 barrels per day (bbl/d) as a result of the economic slowdown and high petroleum prices. After accounting for increased ethanol use, U.S. petroleum consumption is projected to fall by 210,000 bbl/d in 2008. Source: Energy Information Administration - Short Term Energy Outlook.

Lies, damned lies and misinformation....from everyone.

Cheers

Jim

quote:

Originally posted by Exiled Highlander:

quote:

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

so, 6 days of total reserves in Iraq then going by your numbers...

6 days? More than 5333 days worth by my count. Over fourteen and a half years' worth.

quote:

Get the data right and your argument might carry more credibility...

Lies, damned lies and misinformation....from everyone.

No comment.

All best,
Fred

quote:

How can continued capitalist developement continues without unlimited fossil fuel .

Really? Capitalism began and will end with the supply and demand of/for fossil fuels?

I respect your opinion and have over the years on this forum but you appear a bit shortsighted.

Respectfully,

Jim

Dear Jim,

I have no doubt that capitalism will continue once cheep fossil fuels are no longer available.

But it will be a capitalist system where the level of economic activity in the consumer-consumption sense is governed, not be an ever increasing economic growth, but on a level based on the chance of sustainable recycling, re-use, and so forth ...

Perhaps Naim's approach to longevity will fit well in the new order!

That will be a radical modification, which will challenge the current received wisdom.

George

Fred

It was late and I read billion as milion....what can i say, I need to get my facts straight obviously.

However, this puts global supply in perspective I think.

“We are looking at more than four and a half trillion barrels of potentially recoverable oil. That number translates into 140 years of oil at current rates of consumption, or to put it anther way, the world has only consumed about 18 percent of its conventional oil potential.

"That fact alone should discredit the argument that peak oil is imminent and put our minds at ease concerning future petrol supplies.”

"The Impact of Upstream Technological Advances on Future Oil Supply" - Mr. Abdallah S. Jum'ah, President & Chief Executive Officer, Saudi Aramco, address to OPEC, Vienna, Austria, Sept. 13, 2006.

Cheers

Jim

quote:

Really? Capitalism began and will end with the supply and demand of/for fossil fuels?

Capitalism surely did not begin and will not end within the context of fossil fuels. One did not cause the other and the two can exist in the absence of each other. Capitalism refers simply to the ideology whereby a country's industry and trade are controlled by people (individuals) who seek to profit from it personally as opposed to a command system (communism or socialism) whereby the state owns everything (actually those who place themselves in power) and makes the decisions and profits from it.

You could loosely equate or define capitalism with man's greedy nature. As long as man is walking the earth then greed will exist in what ever form or whatever you have termed as a political ideology.

Regards,
Doug

Jim,

Back in the early 80's, the OPEC members adopted a new method for determining production quotas for each member country. Basically, the production quota for any member was determined by the size of their stated reserves. The more stated reserves you had, the more oil you could sell.

In response to this, each OPEC member increased their stated reserve totals. These new numbers were never audited by any third party because the data was never made available. It is still unavailable. These countries don't want anyone to really know how much oil they have in the ground. The more oil the world thinks they have, the more political and economic clout they have. They like to keep things that way.

Last July, some official documents surfaced that caused quite a commotion in oil circles. Kuwait had been saying for years they had 100 billion barrels of recoverable reserves. The documents that surfaced indicated they had 48 billion barrels. When questioned about the discrepancy, Kuwait admitted that the lower figure was correct.

There have been serious doubts in recent years about OPEC stated reserves. The Kuwait debacle only served to intensify those doubts.

In 2005, oil investment banker Matthew Simmons wrote a book called "Twilight in the Desert". Simmons studied the information he had at his disposal, including production trends, water cut levels, etc. To make a long story short, Simmons concluded that Saudi Arabia's Ghawar oil field had peaked. Ghawar is the largest oil reservoir on the planet, with 83 billion barrels initially in place. Simmons discovered, that to maintain reservoir pressure and flow rates, Saudi Aramco was pumping massive amounts of sea water into the Ghawar formation. To any geologist, this means the beginning of the end. In subsequent years, the water cut has increased relentlessly at Ghawar. By 2004, the water cut was estimated to be as much as 55% of the outflow.

The Saudis have made some outlandish claims in recent months to try and counter suspicions among western analysts and convince the world there is nothing to worry about. They know western analysts are suspicious.

George W Bush has made three trips to Saudi Arabia this year. Each time he has asked the Kingdom to increase production. Each time his request was denied. Bush's response to the media was "You can't expect someone to do something they may not be able to do". Dick Cheney also made a trip to Riyadh this year. Same goal, same result.

The USA has enjoyed a privileged relationship with the Saudi Arabians. Whenever the Americans asked for production increases in the past they were successful. The results of the recent visits, though, cast doubts on Saudi Arabia's claims of spare capacity.

With record world oil prices, and the Americans pleading for increased production, one would think the Saudis would feel obliged to satisfy American requests if they could. Problem is... they can't.

Matthew Simmons is one of the top energy advisors to the Bush administration. He has councilled Bush and Cheney on energy related matters since 1999. They are all oilmen. They are all friends. By asking the Saudis to increase production, Bush was effectively getting them to "show their hand". The Saudi response confirmed the suspicions Simmons relayed in "Twilight in the Desert".

Russia is presently the largest oil producer on the planet. Saudi Arabia is the largest oil exporter because Russia uses a portion of their production domestically. In other words, Russia doesn't export every barrel it produces. Last week the Russian oil minister announced that their production is now in decline due to exhausted reservoirs.

The last large oil discoveries were in the late 1960's. They were the North Slope of Alaska, Siberia, and the North Sea. The Alaska North Slope fields peaked in 1988 at 2.02 million barrels per day, and have been in terminal decline ever since. In 2003, they were producing just under 1 million barrels per day. The North Sea peaked in 2000 at 6.4 million barrels per day. Their decline rate has been about 8% per year. I don't have information at hand regarding Siberia.

As more of the largest producers go into decline, it gets more difficult each year to maintain world oil production levels. It is hard enough to just replace the amount lost to decline, let alone increase overall flow rates.

We face challenging times ahead. All of the "easy" oil has been found. New discoveries are not only much smaller, but the oil is located in regions that make it costlier to produce. Much of the oil is also of a lower grade, and is more costly to refine. Geopolitics also have to be factored into the mix.

Yesterday, billionaire oil investor T Boone Pickens told the American media that world oil production will not increase significantly beyond present levels. He said that the economic hardship in the USA would not put downward presure on oil prices. He said that new production is barely making up for declines in older fields. He also said that demand is growing relentlessly, and that there was only one direction for oil prices to go and that was up. Coincidence. Nope.

One last thing to remember. Don't listen to what the oil companies say, but watch what they do.

I respectfully suggest that you actually research these issues to avoid another reply made in utter ignorance.

Best,
BB

OK, so you believe everything in Simmons book and choose to call that research....that's your choice...
World Oil Reserves - choose what you want to believe out of this - you can no more prove or disprove it than I can - you can simply decide what you want to believe as you have done and we all do.

Best

Jim