breaking the population bomb taboo
Michael Tobis
has had the nerve to raise the population bomb issue again. That
someone would be Chris Rapley, who is William's boss, I reckon.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2714840.ece
A tip of the hat to the remarkable
for the link.
mt
Don Libby
From: "Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: <global...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, July 02, 2007 6:10 PM
Subject: [Global Change: 1829] breaking the population bomb taboo
>
> It sort of disappeared from the radar for a generation, but someone
> has had the nerve to raise the population bomb issue again. That
> someone would be Chris Rapley, who is William's boss, I reckon.
>
> http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2714840.ece
>
The population growth rate is slowing, as the article states: "UN figures
foresee numbers leveling out at a point when we have between 8 and 10
billion humans by 2050." If the second derivative remains negative, a
decline will follow. Should this be hurried up (and how)?
I would suggest giving greater attention to demographer's understanding of
the factors driving this slowdown - much greater attention than the author
gives. He describes "two possible explanations", although the first
explanation "an inherent tendency of societies to find an equilibrium
between births and deaths" is bizarre, I've never seen anything like it
advanced in the demography literature (citations please). The second
explanation offered is "improvements in medical practice and technology",
but this is a trivialization.
If we wish to advocate population control policy we need to examine (as
demographers have for decades) the forces impinging on reproductive
decision-making by couples. Women's education and elevated economic status
are widely regarded as the most important conditions for birth rate
reductions. To get a better sense of what can be done to defuse "the
population bomb" please consult http://www.popcouncil.org/ for a
wide-ranging discussion of humane solutions.
Just because some segments of the scientific community are unfamiliar with
current topics in population science does not mean that it has been ignored
for "a generation" by everyone. One should not go further in the
"population v. environment" discussion without first reading the consensus
statement of major social and environmental scientists on the subject:
"Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment" K Arrow, et al.
-dl
William M Connolley
On Mon, 2 Jul 2007, Michael Tobis wrote:
> http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2714840.ece
But this is no new thing:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4585920.stm
Rapley is just about still my boss - he is "stepping down" from BAS on 7th July,
I think. And no-one knows where he is going to...
Certainly, we can't afford to have 6.5B fly to the Antarctic each year.
-W.
William M Connolley | w...@bas.ac.uk | http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/met/wmc/
Climate Modeller, British Antarctic Survey | 07985 935400
--
This message (and any attachments) is for the recipient only. NERC is subject
to the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and the contents of this email and any
reply you make may be disclosed by NERC unless it is exempt from release under
the Act. Any material supplied to NERC may be stored in an electronic
records management system.
Phil Randal
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4584572.stm
He stressed there the "tabooness" of the subject:
'So controversial is the subject that it has become the "Cinderella"
of the great sustainability debate - rarely visible in public, or even
in private.'
Like the great god of "economic growth", population issues must not be
discussed.
What other taboos and "unthinkables" does our society have which
prevent us from both acknowledging the problems and seeking
appropriate solutions? And how do we demolish these barriers to
rational action?
Phil
Zeke Hausfather
time that global population appears set to cap at 9 billion around
2050, and hopefully decline from there. Conveniently, this assumption
on population growth underlies two of the main IPCC SRES scenarios (A1
and B1), where population caps at 9 billion before shrinking to around
7 billion in 2100. While further steps could be taken to hasten this
decline, they mostly involve larger socioeconomic factors (female
literacy and workforce participation in particular - see Amartya Sen's
fascinating work on the subject). Coercive population control programs
are rarely very successful, with China's one child policy standing out
as the major exception (and, frankly, a similar program would be
impossible to implement in a democracy, as "the emergency" in India so
clearly showed.
Talking about the population bomb reeks slightly of hyperbole in this
day and age. While reducing population is certainly a critical factor
in limiting GHGs, it will not be the primary factor driving emissions
in the future (that role will be reserved for technology).
James Annan
> Coercive population control programs
> are rarely very successful, with China's one child policy standing out
> as the major exception (and, frankly, a similar program would be
> impossible to implement in a democracy, as "the emergency" in India so
> clearly showed.
Coercive carbon taxes are rarely very successful, in fact there are no
major exceptions I can think of (and, frankly, a similar program would
be impossible to implement in a democracy, as the "fuel tax protests" in
the UK so clearly showed).
:-)
James
Eric Swanson
> The BBC "Green Room" article Rapley refers to is here:
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4584572.stm
>
> He stressed there the "tabooness" of the subject:
>
> 'So controversial is the subject that it has become the "Cinderella"
> of the great sustainability debate - rarely visible in public, or even
> in private.'
>
> Like the great god of "economic growth", population issues must not be
> discussed.
>
> What other taboos and "unthinkables" does our society have which
> prevent us from both acknowledging the problems and seeking
> appropriate solutions? And how do we demolish these barriers to
> rational action?
>
> Phil
The "Population Bomb" problem has been around for a long time and is
still being ignored by both the politicians and the media. Paul
Ehrlich coined the phrase when he wrote a book with that title in 1968
and then went on to write a text book "Ecoscience: Population,
Resources, Environment " in 1978 giving a fuller description of the
mess we are in. His description of the demographics of a country like
Mexico versus that in the U.S. give a clear picture of the problem as
the fraction of young people was much greater in the fast growing
Mexican population than it is in the richer, better educated U.S.
where family sizes tend to be smaller. So, 30 years later, we have a
large influx of poor, under educated Mexicans trying to make it into
the U.S. economy. There's no surprise in that, I think. Have there
been ANY discussion in the media or from the politicians about the
population problem in Mexico?
Little as changed in the political arena since the 1970's, except that
there has been a reactionary response by conservatives, especially
from those with strong religious beliefs. The rise of the Christian
Right in American politics is just the tip of the iceberg. A large
fraction of the U.S. population has no understanding of science and
indeed holds to a mystical world view that rejects the scientific
facts that are so clear to those who have taken the time to study
them. About 1/3 the U.S. population sees the Bible as literal truth
and a large additional fraction believes it to be based on the Word of
God. The Islamist view is not much different, in that their Book is
given similar reverence.
History has made any rational discussion of population control very
difficult, after the eugenics movement of the early 1900's and the
associated actions of Nazi Germany. Racial discrimination issues left
over from the U.S. experience with slavery further complicates the
discussion. To control population growth, which some think should be
a negative, major intrusions in personal lives would be necessary. At
the most basic level, the question is: Who is to be allowed to
procreate and who is not? Where there a way to ask such a question
without the previous historical nightmares, an answer would be almost
impossible to find. The discussion has degenerated to questions about
the "right" of a women to have an abortion as we see U.S. candidates
for president lining up on opposite sides. Here's a current example:
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/ABORTIONPOSITIONS.html
Notice that there's no mention of population as a problem. Population
control is off the screen.
How do "we" demolish these barriers to rational action? That's been
the basic question for more than 40 years. I see no hope, given the
political situation. So, famine, pestilence and wars will be the
ultimate limits to growth. The unyielding religious fanatics will be
happy with this outcome, as it fits into their world view in which the
wicked will be punished for their original "sin" of being born. Worse
yet, the Armageddon lovers may make it happen, whether "we" like it or
not. There are lots of End Timers out there in Fly Over Land...
Michael Tobis
Just because some segments of the scientific community are unfamiliar with
current topics in population science does not mean that it has been ignored
for "a generation" by everyone.
Fair enough. I think we are also concerned with what is considered
fair game for public conversation. Demographics is certainly a crucial
issue in managing global change, more so than has been acknowledged of
late. This is not to imply that nobody has been thinking about it at
all. The question is whether it is a primary component of our
circumstance. I believe that it is, and I believe that the debate has
lost sight of this fact (just as the problem of nuclear armaments has
mysteriously vanished from discourse without actually being solved).
One should not go further in the
"population v. environment" discussion without first reading the consensus
statement of major social and environmental scientists on the subject:
"Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment" K Arrow, et al.
-dl
Thank you! I'm on it.
I'm a bit confused by the tone of your response, though. Whatever the
flaws in Rapley's understanding, he above all is arguing for a place
at the table for demographers. I'd think you'd be in agreement.
mt
James Annan
> Notice that there's no mention of population as a problem. Population
> control is off the screen.
>
> How do "we" demolish these barriers to rational action?
Do you really see that rational action mandates population control?
I assume you mean coercive control, since we already have plenty of
policy measures that bear on fertility, such as benefits and
legislation. A fair amount of this is actually intended to support
child-reading, but of course the strength of this support is easily
enough varied in principle. What do you think we should rationally do,
that goes beyond this approach?
Note that the USA is barely at break-even for total fertility, and
pretty much the entire rest of the developed world is well below that.
Education, wealth and healthcare seems to do the job you want pretty
well, without the need for coercive measures (mind you, one could
probably create a pretty good correlation with just about any
environmental variable, so perhaps I shouldn't make any strong claims
for causation).
James
Michael Tobis
Are there wealthy countries with high fertility or poor countries with
low?
I've never really understood why this is supposed to happen, and why
we are expected to rely on it happening.
mt
James Annan
> How strong is the correlation between wealth and reduced fertility?
> Are there wealthy countries with high fertility or poor countries with
> low?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Fertility_rate.jpg
James
James Annan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility#Causes
Doesn't suggest that wealth itself is the directly causative agent, but
one might expect several of the factors cited to be correlated with wealth.
Japan's total fertility rose to 1.31 last year. Yes, _rose_.
James
Zeke Hausfather
associated with increased wealth, but this is not always the case. For
example, the state of Punjab in India has the highest per-capita GDP
of any Indian state, but does not have a particularly low fertility
rate compared to other states. Kerala, on the other hand, has a per-
capita income of around a dollar a day and a lower fertility rate than
the United States (and a comparable lifespan/literacy rate). Once
female literacy and workforce participation are factored out, Sen and
Dreze found no statistically significant relationship between income
and fertility rates in Indian states.
In general, once women have the option to choose, they will generally
choose to invest a lot of effort in a small number of children.
Similarly, when women can earn money and support their families, they
will be less likely to spend time having children. There are only
limited cases when additional children are economically beneficial as
a source of unskilled labor, and these opportunities tend to shrink as
countries become wealthier.
Oh, and touché James. But I would argue that any well designed carbon
tax would have to be explicitly revenue neutral, with revenues used to
cut distortionary taxes on labor (e.g. payroll and income taxes) in a
progressive manner that offsets any regressive effects of tax
increases. Ironically, carbon taxes will in most cases be considerably
more progressive than tradable permit systems, if only we could get
over our negative association with the term "tax". Just look at the
windfall profits that utilities have experienced under phase one of
the EU ETS...
Don Libby
From: "Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: <global...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Global Change: 1839] Re: breaking the population bomb taboo
>
> One should not go further in the
> "population v. environment" discussion without first reading the
> consensus
> statement of major social and environmental scientists on the subject:
> "Economic growth, carrying capacity, and the environment" K Arrow, et
> al.
> -dl
>
> Thank you! I'm on it.
>
> I'm a bit confused by the tone of your response, though. Whatever the
> flaws in Rapley's understanding, he above all is arguing for a place
> at the table for demographers. I'd think you'd be in agreement.
>
> mt
We need to be careful to bring fair game into public conversation. Examined
carefully, we find "global overpopulation" is not fair game - it is a
specious concept without scientific measure, so we must resist efforts to
start the conversation by saying "the globe is overpopulated".
Examined carefully, we find many problems of local overcrowding all over the
globe that demand understanding and action, but that is not the same as
"global overpopulation". As evidence of overpopulation, Rapley cites a
World Wildlife Fund figure of "1.25 earths needed to sustain the
population", which is down from 5 earths just a few short years ago. If we
carefully examine what goes into this number, we find that what it means is
there are not enough forests to absorb carbon dioxide at a rate that would
balance the rate of emissions. The overuse of coal relative to uranium is a
very different problem requiring different solutions than the
"overpopulation of the planet", yet careless thinking has led the former to
be twisted around into the latter.
The danger of this carelessness is further confusion and delay in attacking
the serious problems of our day, such as overcrowding, poverty, disease
pandemics, the rate of carbon emissions, and the rate of biodiversity loss.
It is tempting to believe that all these problems would be reduced if only
the global population were reduced, but population reduction as a goal has
historically brought about the most inhumane treatment of humanity. We must
be careful not to confuse problems of population and the environment with
problems of technology and organization if we are to improve sustainability
without sacrificing civility.
The global population is currently stabilizing, carbon emissions are not.
Therefore we must look to other causes of carbon emissions to deal with them
effectively.
-dl
Don Libby
From: "Eric Swanson" <e_sw...@skybest.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: "globalchange" <global...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, July 03, 2007 9:01 AM
Subject: [Global Change: 1838] Re: breaking the population bomb taboo
>I see no hope, given the
>political situation. So, famine, pestilence and wars will be the
>ultimate limits to growth.
Erik, why so hopeless? Haven't you noticed the popualtion is indeed
stabilizing? Ever wonder why? If your curiosity should lead you to
investigate, you would find the reason is not "famine, pestilence and wars".
Fight fear with knowledge.
-dl
Eric Swanson
> >political situation. So, famine, pestilence and wars will be the
> >ultimate limits to growth.
>
> Erik, why so hopeless? Haven't you noticed the popualtion is indeed
> stabilizing? Ever wonder why? If your curiosity should lead you to
> investigate, you would find the reason is not "famine, pestilence and wars".
> Fight fear with knowledge.
>
> -dl
It's been said that population in the developed nations is stabilizing
and that claim is repeated here. I see it a bit differently, as the
history in developing countries has not been the same. While India
and China are not yet what one would consider fully developed, their
populations have continued to increase. Together, just these two
massive nations amount to about 2.3 billion people. As their
development can be expected to continue and their energy per capita
increase accordingly, I suggest that we will see some real limits to
resource availability in the not too distant future. Already, we are
see reports of the competition for oil between these two nations and
the rest of the world.
I've been reading the posts on theoildrum.com of late and one of their
main themes has been what they call "Export Land" vs. "Import Land".
In this, they note that oil production and the impending Peak Oil
situation is not the real problem. Those few nations where the oil is
produced are also consumers and thus their exports can be expected to
decline faster than the rate of decline of their production, since
their internal consumption can be expected to increase. These
producing nations are amongst the developing nations and their
populations are also increasing.
Mexico and Indonesia are prime examples, with Mexico having been a
major source of U.S. imports. Even Iran now finds it necessary to cut
the cheap gasoline subsidy to it's growing population.
I've been intensely interested in the energy situation since the OPEC
Oil Embargo threw the U.S. into a mess back in 1973. As an engineer,
energy is my thing, so to speak. My bias, if you want to call it
that, is solar energy and I've known how to use it for more than 30
years. Yet, I've found almost no opportunity to do so, which I find
very depressing. Your choice in the energy world is nuclear, as
you've demonstrated many times. Back in 1974, nuclear generation was
projected to expand rapidly to something like 1,000 plants by 2000.
But, the nukes took a big hit after Three Mile Island and Chernobil,
with only 104 plants now in operation. If those 1,000 plants had been
built, how long would the uranium have lasted without reprocessing?
You want to be optimistic, so how many nukes would it take to power a
fully developed India and China, not to mention the other nations that
you apparently want to see brought up to Western levels of
development. Where's the fuel to come from for all those nuclear
power plants, without a recycling of fuel to recover the plutonium?
The next question is, what sort of world would we find ourselves in if
all that fuel were to be recycled and reprocessed? With all the bad
actors around, what level of security would be necessary to prevent
disruptions? I submit that a total government control of everybody's
life would be necessary to catch even the least important threat.
Such a system would make today's concerns about "terrorist's" seem
like a mild spring breeze. Personally, on this day of celebration of
American Freedom and Independence, I must say that I would oppose the
creation of any such system, which would of necessity destroy all
manner of freedoms that most Americans now take for granted. I do not
want to live in a such police state.
ES
Don Libby
From: "James Annan" <james...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: <global...@googlegroups.com>
Clever turn-about, James. Policies to reduce carbon emissions are deemed
acceptable while policies to reduce baby emissions are taboo. I believe the
taboo to be rooted in a value judgment as regards death by toxic shock
following forced insertion of intrauterine devices, versus nicking drivers a
few pence at the petrol pump.
Putting the issues on a more equal footing, some population control interest
groups in the US tried to introduce a tax policy regarding family size a few
years back. They wanted to repeal the incremental income tax exemptions for
additional children after the second. This prompted one demographer to
comment "The image of the paterfamilias in, say, Rwanda, filling out his tax
form and worrying about his deductions is too bizarre to contemplate." (Paul
Demeny "An Economist's Use for Sand" - a review of Garret Hardins' _The
Ostrich Factor: Our Population Myopia_ in _Nature_, 7 October 1999, p 528).
-dl
Don Libby
From: "Eric Swanson" <e_sw...@skybest.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: "globalchange" <global...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Global Change: 1848] Re: breaking the population bomb taboo
>
>> >I see no hope, given the
>> >political situation. So, famine, pestilence and wars will be the
>> >ultimate limits to growth.
>>
>> Erik, why so hopeless? Haven't you noticed the population is indeed
>> stabilizing? Ever wonder why? If your curiosity should lead you to
>> investigate, you would find the reason is not "famine, pestilence and
>> wars".
>> Fight fear with knowledge.
>>
>> -dl
>
> It's been said that population in the developed nations is stabilizing
> and that claim is repeated here.
Look again - that's *global population* stabilizing - as noted by Chris
Rapley citing UN sources in the article that kicked off the thread.
> energy is my thing, so to speak. My bias, if you want to call it
> that, is solar energy and I've known how to use it for more than 30
> years. Yet, I've found almost no opportunity to do so, which I find
> very depressing. Your choice in the energy world is nuclear, as
> you've demonstrated many times.
The opportunity to use solar energy is all around you: biomass - like pizza
and beer, among other things. Perhaps availing yourself of the opportunity
to use pizza and beer would cheer you up? And I suppose if we push the
chain of cause and effect back far enough we would find wind and hydro to be
solar powered as well. Photovoltaic is getting cheaper all the time, and
of course solar thermal mustn't be overlooked. I am a huge fan of all of
these options, and also conservation. But I can also do arithmetic and I
appreciate the value of a dollar - when it comes to building a new
coal-fired power plant (and more are being built every day), what are the
alternatives, really?
> You want to be optimistic, so how many nukes would it take to power a
> fully developed India and China, not to mention the other nations that
> you apparently want to see brought up to Western levels of
> development. Where's the fuel to come from for all those nuclear
> power plants, without a recycling of fuel to recover the plutonium?
Again, I refer you to the IPCC stabilization scenarios for estimates of
*global* nuclear power development, which range from six to ten times higher
than today (approximately 2,500 to 4,500 1Gw plants world-wide, including
India and China). Expanding the use of fuel breeding and recycling beyond
current practice may be necessary, and why not? Proliferation concerns may
be addressed in various ways, such as "denatured plutonium" or integral fast
reactor facilities, and continued commitment to the non-proliferation
treaty.
Fight fear with knowledge: know nukes.
-dl
Eric Swanson
> > You want to be optimistic, so how many nukes would it take to power a
> > fully developed India and China, not to mention the other nations that
> > you apparently want to see brought up to Western levels of
> > development. Where's the fuel to come from for all those nuclear
> > power plants, without a recycling of fuel to recover the plutonium?
>
> Again, I refer you to the IPCC stabilization scenarios for estimates of
> *global* nuclear power development, which range from six to ten times higher
> than today (approximately 2,500 to 4,500 1Gw plants world-wide, including
> India and China). Expanding the use of fuel breeding and recycling beyond
> current practice may be necessary, and why not? Proliferation concerns may
> be addressed in various ways, such as "denatured plutonium" or integral fast
> reactor facilities, and continued commitment to the non-proliferation
> treaty.
I presume from the above that you think that nuclear power in Iran and
North Korea is a good idea. If you disagree, then, why is it OK for
nuclear power in ANY other nation, given that national governments
have been known to undergo major changes over time. The "terrorists"
aren't the only "bad actors", as we've seen many times in history.
There are many people, such as the Fundamentalist Islamists or
Christians, that see the world from a very different perspective than
that of the educated Westerner. What if the Saudi's have
intentionally overstated their oil reserves to lead the Western world
into a major crisis from which they might profit or their religion
prevail? How do you talk to the 1/4 (or 1/3?) of the U.S. population
that thinks the Earth is less than 10,000 years old and that the End
Times are upon us?
> Fight fear with knowledge: know nukes.
I'll build a wind energy system in my backyard if you will build a
nuke in yours.
Jim Torson
>You want to be optimistic, so how many nukes would it take to power a
>fully developed India and China, not to mention the other nations that
>you apparently want to see brought up to Western levels of
>development. Where's the fuel to come from for all those nuclear
>power plants, without a recycling of fuel to recover the plutonium?
>The next question is, what sort of world would we find ourselves in if
>all that fuel were to be recycled and reprocessed? With all the bad
>actors around, what level of security would be necessary to prevent
>disruptions? I submit that a total government control of everybody's
>life would be necessary to catch even the least important threat.
>Such a system would make today's concerns about "terrorist's" seem
>like a mild spring breeze. Personally, on this day of celebration of
>American Freedom and Independence, I must say that I would oppose the
>creation of any such system, which would of necessity destroy all
>manner of freedoms that most Americans now take for granted. I do not
>want to live in a such police state.
>
>ES
Eric,
I agree with what you are saying here.
A year ago I posted references to a couple articles on this issue
by Amory Lovins:
Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-14_NukePwrEcon.pdf
Nuclear Power: Economic Fundamentals and Potential Role
in Climate Change Mitigation
The PowerPoint slides from Amory Lovins's 16 August 2005
invited testimony to the California Energy Commission (in .PDF
format) outline why nuclear power's inherently high cost and
slow deployment make it a counterproductive answer to
climate change. The world market is instead buying end-use
efficiency, decentralized renewables, and low-carbon fossil-fueled
cogeneration faster and on a larger scale, and those superior
investments will save more carbon sooner per dollar.
http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-09_NukePwrMitig.pdf
The nuclear proponents on this list have not explained any reasons
why Lovins' analysis is in error. As far as I can tell, they simply
ignore it because they don't like the conclusions.
For those who are arriving late to the party here, I would encourage
you to take a look at these.
Jim
Don Libby
From: "Eric Swanson" <e_sw...@skybest.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: "globalchange" <global...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Global Change: 1851] Re: breaking the population bomb taboo
>>
>> Again, I refer you to the IPCC stabilization scenarios for estimates of
>> *global* nuclear power development, which range from six to ten times
>> higher
>> than today (approximately 2,500 to 4,500 1Gw plants world-wide, including
>> India and China). Expanding the use of fuel breeding and recycling
>> beyond
>> current practice may be necessary, and why not? Proliferation concerns
>> may
>> be addressed in various ways, such as "denatured plutonium" or integral
>> fast
>> reactor facilities, and continued commitment to the non-proliferation
>> treaty.
>
> I presume from the above that you think that nuclear power in Iran and
> North Korea is a good idea. If you disagree, then, why is it OK for
> nuclear power in ANY other nation, given that national governments
> have been known to undergo major changes over time. The "terrorists"
> aren't the only "bad actors", as we've seen many times in history.
Isn't it interesting to see how quickly a discussion of the population bomb
taboo has turned into a discussion of the nuclear bomb taboo?
You too easily equate "nuclear power" with "nuclear weapons". In principle
I don't think it is a bad idea for the people of Iran or North Korea to
enjoy the benefits of electric power, whether that be produced by combustion
or by fission.
With respect to nuclear weapons, I would prefer to see both nations sign and
abide by the NPT and allow regular IAEA inspections, and to choose not to
build nuclear weapons production facilities, just as most of the 30 or so
nations with nuclear power plants have done.
The ethical dilemmas of our time have us now confronting whether the human
toll and environmental consequences of a "limited" nuclear war with 1 or 10
or 100 weapons detonated would outweigh the human toll and environmental
consequences of failing to replace 2,500-4,500 coal-fired power plants with
nuclear power plants over the next 50-100 years.
I entertain the benefit of a doubt that the risk of nuclear war would be
substantially elevated by further development of nuclear power, and a case
could be made that greater prosperity and diversity of fuel supply would
actually reduce the risk of international conflict, but I wouldn't know how
to measure the risks in any case.
>
> I'll build a wind energy system in my backyard if you will build a
> nuke in yours.
>
I would have no problem living as close as possible to a nuclear plant, or
even *gasp* working in one. In fact, if property values near plants are
indeed depressed by the fear factor, then it is more likely that I would
find a house in my price range. ;-)
But as it turns out, the greater issue in my back yard is whether to build a
powerline to the west to bring more wind energy to market from Iowa,
Minnesota and western Wisconsin, or to build a powerline to the south to
bring more nuclear energy to market from Illinois, where it is quite likely
a new reactor will be built within a few years, or to build a powerline to
the east to bring more coal energy from the giant new coal plant already
under construction near Milwaukee. A vocal crowd doubts that any new
powerline is necessary at all, but we could expect to hear loud noises
either against new powerline construction to prevent black-outs, or in favor
of new powerline construction as a result of black-outs. Ain't democracy
grand?
-dl
Don Libby
From: "Jim Torson" <jto...@commspeed.net>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: <global...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2007 10:44 AM
Subject: [Global Change: 1852] Re: breaking the population bomb taboo
> A year ago I posted references to a couple articles on this issue
> by Amory Lovins:
>
> Nuclear power: economics and climate-protection potential
> http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-14_NukePwrEcon.pdf
>
> Nuclear Power: Economic Fundamentals and Potential Role
> in Climate Change Mitigation
> The PowerPoint slides from Amory Lovins's 16 August 2005
> invited testimony to the California Energy Commission (in .PDF
> format) outline why nuclear power's inherently high cost and
> slow deployment make it a counterproductive answer to
> climate change. The world market is instead buying end-use
> efficiency, decentralized renewables, and low-carbon fossil-fueled
> cogeneration faster and on a larger scale, and those superior
> investments will save more carbon sooner per dollar.
> http://www.rmi.org/images/other/Energy/E05-09_NukePwrMitig.pdf
>
> The nuclear proponents on this list have not explained any reasons
> why Lovins' analysis is in error. As far as I can tell, they simply
> ignore it because they don't like the conclusions.
Thanks for the repost, Jim. Mr. Lovins is correct that the world market has
recently been "buying end-use efficiency, decentralized renewables, and
low-carbon fossil-fueled cogeneration", at least, I can confirm that has
been the case in Wisconsin for the past decade, which has built wind farms,
photo-electric plants, and gas-fired co-gen plants like crazy (even as they
have decommissioned run of river hydro plants), as well as adding
significant new nuclear production by uprating existing plants. In fact a
new gas-fired co-gen plant was built in my back yard two years ago (or
actually about 1 km from my back yard).
And I would assume that trend to continue, but for the fact that a very
large new coal plant started construction last year near Milwaukee. As
stated in the environmental impact statement for that plant, the economic
model used to determine the least costly new power supply options would
choose to continue adding more gas and wind to the grid for the foreseeable
future (out to 2014), unless carbon emissions are monetized by a carbon tax,
in which case the model would choose to add a new nuclear plant in 2013.
Does anybody in the GlobalChange group think monetizing carbon emissions
with a carbon tax is a good idea? Doing so will change the economics of
electric power production in a way that Mr. Lovins' presentation has not
anticipated. To learn more about what a carbon-monetized future might hold,
we might turn instead to MIT professor John Deutch and his group's report
http://web.mit.edu/nuclearpower/ or prof Paul Joskow's power-point summary
at http://econ-www.mit.edu/faculty/download_pdf.php?id=1358 .
Amory and Hunter are not the only ones with educated opinions about electric
power economics, although they probably do have the most interesting house
among that crowd. If we fail to monetize carbon emissions, we can expect
many more big new coal plants to be built, despite the market's appetite for
"end-use efficiency, decentralized renewables, and low-carbon fossil-fueled
cogeneration" and Lovins-inspired protestations to the contrary. Carbon
monetization and nuclear power plant construction will fill the gap left
over by the failure of "end-use efficiency, decentralized renewables, and
low-carbon fossil-fueled cogeneration" to satisfy base-load electricity
demand in a GHG stabilization scenario.
-dl
Michael Tobis
and carbon balance, but I feel compelled to make it. I also address
some of the larger issues below.
On 7/4/07, Don Libby <dli...@tds.net> wrote:
...
> As evidence of overpopulation, Rapley cites a
> World Wildlife Fund figure of "1.25 earths needed to sustain the
> population", which is down from 5 earths just a few short years ago. If we
> carefully examine what goes into this number, we find that what it means is
> there are not enough forests to absorb carbon dioxide at a rate that would
> balance the rate of emissions.
While I don't know what goes into the calculation (and would like to
know), your analysis about forests is incorrect.
A mature natural forest at equilibrium is neither a net source nor a
net sink of carbon, almost directly by definition of "mature".
A growing forest is a sink.
A forest being cleared or shrinking back under assault from invasive
vermin is a source, of course.
A harvested forest used for paper products could conceivably be a sink
provided we eschew recycling and sequester the paper, a point which
rarely garners esteem from self-identified "environmentalists", but as
far as I know nobody is considering this, as it is probably
impractical from other points of view.
Forests may have other sustainability advantages, but my main point is
they don't sustainably constitute a net carbon flux.
> The overuse of coal relative to uranium is a
> very different problem requiring different solutions than the
> "overpopulation of the planet", yet careless thinking has led the former to
> be twisted around into the latter.
Indeed.
> The danger of this carelessness is further confusion and delay in attacking
> the serious problems of our day, such as overcrowding, poverty, disease
> pandemics, the rate of carbon emissions, and the rate of biodiversity loss.
> It is tempting to believe that all these problems would be reduced if only
> the global population were reduced, but population reduction as a goal has
> historically brought about the most inhumane treatment of humanity.
Nevertheless, the question of what the maximum population that can be
sustained indefinitely actually is remains a real one. We may not know
how to do something and still need to do it.
> The global population is currently stabilizing, carbon emissions are not.
I still think it is worth considering what the goal should be.
Regardless of the actual number, in the very long run the only
sustainable global fertility is the one that exactly balances
mortality (and in the unlikely event that space travel ever becomes
important in this matter, net emigration)
> Therefore we must look to other causes of carbon emissions to deal with them
> effectively.
I agree that this is far the more urgent problem. However, I would
like to see the sustainability issue addressed quantitatively. The
fact that in the long term any population growth rate other than
exactly zero is necessary in the very long run may not need to be
embedded in the culture anytime soon, but it's still true and
interesting.
I am very puzzled about the tight correlation between income and
fertility. We may be relying on it too heavily if we don't understand
it. At my current level of understanding it strikes me as possible
that cause and effect have been reversed. If so, it reminds me of my
plan to plant palm trees in Wisconsin to make the winters less harsh.
Don, or somebody, please reassure me that the causality is understood
if you can.
mt
Don Libby
From: "Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: <global...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Global Change: 1857] Re: breaking the population bomb taboo
>
> I have a relatively minor point, in the present context, about forests
> and carbon balance, but I feel compelled to make it. I also address
> some of the larger issues below.
>
> On 7/4/07, Don Libby <dli...@tds.net> wrote:
>
> ...
>> As evidence of overpopulation, Rapley cites a
>> World Wildlife Fund figure of "1.25 earths needed to sustain the
>> population", which is down from 5 earths just a few short years ago.
>
> While I don't know what goes into the calculation (and would like to
> know), your analysis about forests is incorrect.
Not my analysis. My reading of University of British Columbia urban
planners Reese and Wackernagel who first published the "ecological
footprint" concept (a rehash of ancient carrying capacity thought for modern
mass consumption.) I'm sure you can google your way to the source but five
or ten years ago I went through their article fairly carefully and traced
the adoption and diffusion by others such as the World Economic Forum and
WWF. Acreage for trees to absorb carbon is the biggest part of the
footprint, and as you point out, among the more dubious. But the larger
point is that the whole enterprise of carrying capacity measurement is
dubious.
>
> Nevertheless, the question of what the maximum population that can be
> sustained indefinitely actually is remains a real one. We may not know
> how to do something and still need to do it.
Like studying perpetual motion? Grant funding is pretty thin in that field,
for good reason.
Michael, that question is not a real one, it is a hypothetical conjecture at
best. The authoritative encyclopedia of carrying capacity estimation is
geographer Joel Cohen's 1995 _How Many People can Earth Support?_ It will
satisfy your curiosity about quantification efforts, but the estimates range
to a high of 10^12 - maximum indefinitely sustainable population (with
people stuffed into huge nuclear powered anthills spaced evenly over earth's
land and ocean surface).
As you will find in the "consensus statement" cited previously, the *real*
questions are what kind of life we want to live, what kind of environmental
quality we want to preserve, and so on - these are questions of human
values, not of scientific laws that constrain human activity. Human
activities are constrained by scientific laws, but "global population
carrying capacity" is not one of them. The possibility is not excluded by
the laws of physics or biology.
>
>> The global population is currently stabilizing, carbon emissions are not.
>
> I still think it is worth considering what the goal should be.
> Regardless of the actual number, in the very long run the only
> sustainable global fertility is the one that exactly balances
> mortality (and in the unlikely event that space travel ever becomes
> important in this matter, net emigration)
Michael, in the very long run we are all extinct - species only last an
average of 4 million years. Fertility and mortality rates can fluctuate
over time, and in the limit as t goes to infinity, the average is zero.
Natural preadator-prey cycles may oscillate sinusoidally with birth and
death rates locked in phase but rarely equal - such cycles may be
sustainable without "exact balance". Biologist Stewart Pimm has shifted
thinking about population equilibrium away from the rigid notion of carrying
capacity and toward a much more dynamic concept of "resilience" with
populations and resources swinging about through more-or-less broad ranges
of tolerance.
As I've said before, in my opinion the goal should be "stabilization".
Under current conditions, we're well on the way to achieving population
stabilization by mid-century. We're doing less well on the carbon
stabilization front. Perhaps an accelerated decline in fertility would
increase the chances of carbon stabilization - I would agree that continuing
to promote the conditions associated with fertility decline is a laudable
goal for many reasons.
>
>> Therefore we must look to other causes of carbon emissions to deal with
>> them
>> effectively.
>
> I agree that this is far the more urgent problem. However, I would
> like to see the sustainability issue addressed quantitatively.
Yes the topic has fascinated many over the centuries (nod to Malthus - see
Cohen to more than satisfy your curiosity.) Today it is regarded as a
sterile concept, as one reviewer of Cohen put it "to be consigned to the
intellectual dead letter box" (F. Landis MacKellar review of Cohen in
_Population and Development Review_ March 1996 p 145).
>
> I am very puzzled about the tight correlation between income and
> fertility. We may be relying on it too heavily if we don't understand
> it. At my current level of understanding it strikes me as possible
> that cause and effect have been reversed. If so, it reminds me of my
> plan to plant palm trees in Wisconsin to make the winters less harsh.
>
> Don, or somebody, please reassure me that the causality is understood
> if you can.
>
> mt
>
Michael, the "cause and effect" is manifold and not strictly material, but
socio-cultural, summed up in the term "women's emancipation".
Here's my reassurance: relax good fellow. Relax with a good book reviewing
the research literature in an readable discourse: R.A. Easterlin _Growth
Triumphant: the 21st Century in Historical Perspective_ U Mich Press, 1997.
Also on your summer reading list: Brian O Neill, F. Landis MacKellar and
Wolfgang Lutz, _Population and Climate Change_. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 2001.
Thanks for your thoughts,
-dl
Michael Tobis
I highly recommend it.
It is there that I understood the amazing narrowness of the constraint
on population growth rate on very long time scales.
Perhaps I took a different lesson from the book than was intended.
As for the four million years, that is based on very little. We are no
ordinary species. We could be gone in two hundred years or still be
hanging around in two billion. I suppose it will make little
difference to me but I much prefer the latter.
Thanks for the other readings.
mt
Michael Tobis
white boomer types) is pretty worked up about population issues. Local
anecdotes abound about population pressures in Mexico spilling into
Texas, and many felt a need to close the border to close the feedback
loop and keep the pressure where it belongs.
Regardless of how you feel about that, the feeling was widespread that
fertility impacts prosperity; I mentioned that the conventional
demographic wisdom had it the other way around but nobody found that
very compelling.
If that is wrong, at least the demographers ought to be speaking up
with some correctives. Admittedly the southwestern states are in a
more or less unique position globally, in that a very rich country
borders directly on a very poor one.
Another spooky anecdote I hear from a long-time Texan: apparently (and
anecdotally) some religious groups in the US are being encouraged to
maximize their fertility to prepare for a great crusade against
godlessness and/or Islam. I don't know how widespread this is but it
terrifies me and not because I am Muslim or even godless.
mt
Don Libby
From: "Michael Tobis" <mto...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: gmane.science.general.global-change
To: <global...@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [Global Change: 1885] Re: breaking the population bomb taboo
Yes, demographers also study migration: at a fixed location over a fixed
time period, population change = births - deaths + inmigration -
outmigration. Globally, net migration is zero.
"Demographer Dowell Myers's 2007 book, "Immigrants and Boomers: Forging a
New Social Contract for the Future of America," argues that aging white US
residents should increase investment in immigrant youth to raise their
earnings and make tax funds available to pay for their own pensions and
health care in retirement." (Source: "H-1B, Education, Trade" _Migration
News_ Vol. 14 No. 2, April 2007. http://migration.ucdavis.edu/mn/index.php)
Martin, Philip, Manolo Abella and Christiane Kuptsch. 2006. _Managing Labor
Migration in the Twenty-First Century_. Yale University Press.
http://yalepress.yale.edu/yupbooks/book.asp?isbn=0300109040
-dl