Friday Five: March 21, 2014 Limits to Growth?

This week, there is only one story that I think we all need to take the time to read, dissect, analyze, and pick a course of action to address. The link's author took the most balanced and factual approach to the story, and I recommend it as a starting point (note he has one factual discrepancy addressed in the next link). The study notes that throughout history, civilizations have collapsed...even highly ordered ones. Signals in our patterns of consumption can help identify weaknesses.
Society is doomed, scientists claim
"The researchers used the HANDY model to analyze three different social scenarios: an egalitarian society with no elite class; an equitable society with workers and non-workers (students, retirees, disabled persons); and an unequal society with a robust class of elites.
The egalitarian and equitable societies could produce a sustainable civilization and avoid collapse, even with a high ratio of non-workers. Social collapse was more likely after people overreached and depleted natural resources. Importantly, even without any social stratification, collapse could occur if a society exhausted its natural resources.
In the unequal society, however, collapse was almost unavoidable — and these were the HANDY scenarios that mirrored our current globalized society."

Most coverage of the press release for the study mentioned that NASA funded it. Although NASA funded the development of the tool through another study, it did not fund the research that led to the conclusion about societal inequality.
NASA clarifies its role in new civilization collapse study
"NASA officials released this statement on the study today (March 20): 'A soon-to-be published research paper, 'Human and Nature Dynamics (HANDY): Modeling Inequality and Use of Resources in the Collapse or Sustainability of Societies' by University of Maryland researchers Safa Motesharrei and Eugenia Kalnay, and University of Minnesota's Jorge Rivas, was not solicited, directed or reviewed by NASA. It is an independent study by the university researchers utilizing research tools developed for a separate NASA activity. As is the case with all independent research, the views and conclusions in the paper are those of the authors alone. NASA does not endorse the paper or its conclusions.'"

The study ties back to concepts presented in the 1970s by MIT researchers working through the Club of Rome. In their work, Limits to Growth, they identified patterns of consumption and activity that would lead to collapse of civilization. It is worth reading the entire work.
A synopsis: Limits to Growth: The 30-Year Update
"These are symptoms of a world in overshoot, where we are drawing on the world’s resources faster than they can be restored, and we are releasing wastes and pollutants faster than the Earth can absorb them or render them harmless. They are leading us toward global environ- mental and economic collapse—but there may still be time to address these problems and soften their impact."

I think it important to hear multiple sides of an issue from learned people with something to say, no axe to grind, and a relatively clear way of stating their position. I disagree with Mr. Lomborg on many issues, and find some of his analysis incomplete, but having read his books and articles, I find his approach fair and reasoned. In order to put some perspective on the predictions of collapse from resource consumption, I recommend reading this post and other work of his.
The limits to panic
"The Limits of Growth got it so wrong because its authors overlooked the greatest resource of all: our own resourcefulness. Population growth has been slowing since the late 1960’s. Food supply has not collapsed (1.5 billion hectares of arable land are being used, but another 2.7 billion hectares are in reserve). Malnourishment has dropped by more than half, from 35% of the world’s population to under 16%."

For another analysis, this time one that verifies the predictions of Limits to Growth, I present the following. I am less familiar with Mr. Turner's whole body of work, but find the presentation of data clear and reasonable. I recommend that everyone take the time to understand the fundamental factors affecting out ability to sustain high quality of life with continued growth of population and consumption (as less developed countries strive to gain the high quality of life we enjoy). It quite literally is a matter of life and death.
Looking back on the limits of growth
"Turner compared real-world data from 1970 to 2000 with the business-as-usual scenario. He found the predictions nearly matched the facts. 'There is a very clear warning bell being rung here,' he says. 'We are not on a sustainable trajectory.'"

Happy Friday!

Friday Five: July 20, 2012

Do we really need apocalyptic consequences to take action?
Wildfires ignite debate on global warming
"For some, climate change will become a fact only when its effects hit close to home. For this reason, perhaps we should expect an awareness of the need to adapt to climate change to precede a wider commitment to mitigating climate change itself. If that is the case, reporters are, finally, asking the right questions."

Do so few of us really care that we threaten our future with inaction?
Why Do Generation X Americans Not Care About Climate Change?
"Sociologist Jon Miller, the study's author, sees this as a sign of victory for the climate disinformation campaign. "I was optimistic beacuse this group of people is more scientifically literate; they've grown up in an era of of science and quantitative discussion, unlike their grandparents," Miller says. But the complexity of climate science, the long time scale it takes to play out, and seeds of doubt sown on the nightly news have caused many Gen Xers to simply tune it out."

The fact is: we can develop an energy system with no harmful emissions that is 100% renewably based within 20 years, and reach a 50% level in 10....while growing our economy.
Why do ‘experts’ always lowball clean-energy projections?
"Every time there’s a new air or water regulation proposed, industry predicts a level-10 economic apocalypse. EPA counters by saying it will only be a level-5 economic apocalypse. Invariably, it’s a level-0 economic apocalypse — low costs, lots of lives saved. Yet the political class approaches each new regulation with a peculiar Zen-like no-mind, as though it is the first such argument and all perspectives are equally supported by past experience. Same with projections of energy efficiency and renewables."

It will take some policy level decisions....
Illinois Net Metering Law Helps Grow Residential and Small Business Solar Energy Systems
“The net metering law Governor Quinn signed leads the way to more solar energy development in Illinois,” said Howard Learner, Executive Director of the Environmental Law & Policy Center (ELPC). “It provides a common-sense, economic incentive for businesses and homeowners to invest in solar and small-scale wind power systems.”

And some simple choices at home.
Cooking On The Sunny Side: How Solar Chefs Put Food On The Table
"McArdle lost power at her home in Arlington, Va., for four days during the infamous 'Snowpocalypse' that hit the Northeast in 2010. Fortunately, the retired Foreign Service officer had multiple solar cookers in her house from training sessions she had done in Afghanistan and the U.S."

Happy Friday!

The trouble with resources: Water (Part 1)

Image courtesy of US Geological Survey

Water is life.

An old rule of thumb says you could last three months without food, three days without water, and three minutes without air. I deal with water first even though we need air more urgently because of air's ubiquitous nature. Obtaining water requires conscious choice, and lacks the sense of urgency of air, so we may tend to put it off if we do not have a strong and immediate sense of thirst. This leads to varying levels of dehydration that create anything from mild memory loss and fever to death, and this just covers the water needed within our bodies to maintain function. We also use water to grow crops and maintain human health through waste conveyance. To understand whether or not we have enough water to support our life, we need to know how much we have available to us, how fast we use it, and how quickly nature makes it available to us again.

Water is a finite resource. Most of us learn about the water cycle (or hydrologic cycle) in school, but do not pay attention to the most interesting consequence of the use of the word "cycle". It reminds us that we do not create water or destroy it through our existence; water merely changes form, and sometimes location, then becomes available to us again, and again. The table below lists data that the image below does a great job of making visual:





The visual only tells part of the story. As we can see in the table, of that 27,000 cubic miles of surface-available freshwater, almost 25% is either in the atmosphere, in swamps or in us, making it immediately unavailable for use. That leaves about 22,000 cubic miles of surface water. According to the American Water Works Association, the average daily direct water use for Americans is 69.3 gallons inside and an additional 280 gallons per day outside. That use covers daily water intake and personal health. Add to that between 2,500 gallons per day of virtual water that goes into the energy, food, and resources we require each day including construction and production of goods. (Remember, that although equivalent daily, per capita water draws for the US are around 1,350 gallons per day, many of the crops and products we consume come from overseas, so we are not limited to our borders when considering the water needed to support our lifestyle.) If 9 billion people used water at that rate, that would total 25 cubic miles of water a day or about 0.1% of our available surface water. Allowing for water in transit (both to us for our use and to wastewater treatment) and for water in the treatment process for return to the surface water stores, we would have 0.3% of our world surface water supply withdrawn each day for our use.

Assuming we can keep up with the treatment of the water - a task that would require construction of thousands of water treatment facilities across the world - we can make choices that allow us to recharge our sources of freshwater at the same rate we use them. With this, and taking into account the fact that several areas of the world have the ability to tap into the 2.5 million cubic miles of ground water, it would appear that our planet has more than enough water to supply 9 billion people living the American lifestyle. So why does water present such a huge challenge, with 2.7 billion people currently short of water and some calling water the "oil of the 21st century".

The answer to that question is availability and quality...location, location, location.

Next week - water availability and quality.

Friday Five: June 22, 2012

Do we have the right to make the choice to be unhealthy?
If Every Country Were As Heavy As Ours the World Would Have 1 Billion Extra Mouths to Feed
"Until now, we've generally thought of overpopulation in terms of numbers of people on earth, with milestones for 5 billion, 6 billion, and so on. But one of the paper's authors suggests that measure may soon be superseded -- or at least rivalled -- by the sustainability of our growing waistlines."

Do the manufacturers bear any responsibility?
Pop Goes the Weasel: Can Good Deeds Help Keep the Soda Industry Super Sized

"These companies are not afraid to push the boundaries. In fact, if there’s a particularly disconcerting element to soda company CSR campaigns, it’s that many seem designed to get around restrictions on selling soda in schools. As the report observes: 'While soda companies agreed to remove full-calorie drinks from U.S. schools, CSR programs like the Refresh Project keep the brand in front of young people with promises of grants for children’s schools, parks, or other programs.'”

Should a person speaking a common sense truth have to defend themselves?
In defense of walking
"And you emailed and commented and tweeted that I had it all wrong and I wasn’t thinking about the disabled, or that I was discounting every transportation advancement since we learned to ride horses. But I was considerate of genuine use cases (read: disabilities) and I maintained that my main point was valid: we should walk!"

Can we make other decisions that help us to engage in more healthy behavior?
Urban Renaissance Driven By Thinking Small
"In a way, thinking small is the next logical step in America’s urban renaissance. When cities really started changing 10 or 15 years ago, the economy was booming and the Internet was a newfangled gizmo. Today, cities have less money but more ways to communicate, two conditions perfectly suited to more focused, low-cost planning."

Or will changing our relationship with food be the answer?
What Farms Can Do For Cities
"Gardens are becoming a more integrated piece of what it is to responsibly build a single-family residence, or an apartment building, or even a mall. More people are seeing gardening as a public health solution because you get both healthy food and physical activity out of it."

Happy Friday!

The trouble with resources

Humans require resources in order to maintain our existence, namely water, air, and a consumable energy source. Without these, we die. In addition, because of our size and fragility relative to other creatures in nature, and in some cases, nature itself, we need resources to maintain shelter from threats. These shelters includes the physical (housing) and the virtual (healthcare). Lastly, we need resources to transport other resources to us, or us to them, and to maintain the quality of the resources we have.

Everything in our economy supports (or should support) the allocation of resources in a manner consistent with the values of the population. We need this allocation because almost all of our resources have limits. By definition, an economy manages resources of a community with a view towards maintaining members of the community so they can add value back to that community, i.e. maintain a quality of life. The toughest questions within that management center around how much of an obligation any community owes toward other groups of people, and how much of an obligation any community owes towards the future generations of its own members. A community that manages resources only for itself and only for the present will have a very different approach to its economy than a community that seeks to live in cooperation with others and wishes future generations to have access to a similar level of resources to support a similar quality of life.

As I just mentioned, almost all resources have limits. Sunlight and ingenuity stand as the only two limitless resources. Although the sun does not shine all day for everyone, it remains an infinitely continuing resource from our frame of reference; the minute it goes, we go. We cannot measure human ingenuity in a quantifiable manner, so to say it has no limit has somewhat of a ring of semantics, but in the resource discussion, this refers to our ability to make choices, adapt, and replace failing or disappearing resources with others that can maintain our quality of life with the same level of efficacy. For example, an area flush with apple trees that experiences a fire that decimates the tree population can shift to the growing of a lower-level crop to survive.

Within this framework of limited resources, I want to examine the effectiveness of our ability to manage resources, and the impact of our present course of management. Over the coming weeks, I will look at several of the necessary resources to our lives, our current management, and the impact of maintaining that method over the coming years. The analysis will have three main assumptions:

1. The American way of life should stand as a goal for the quality of life that any population on the planet should hope to attain.

2. We want future generations to have, at minimum, the same quality of life that we currently enjoy.

3. People will act in a rational manner that promotes equity of opportunity, as long as that action does not threaten their immediate survival.

Assumptions 2. and 3. address the questions of obligation raised in the discussion of economy, and assume that as long as our immediate existence remains in tact, we will hold ourselves to make sure that other communities and our future generations have access to the resources they need. Assumption 1. will cause consternation for some, and I do not throw it out there as a stumbling block to the discussion, but just as the starting point for the frame of reference. Advocates on all sides of the environmental debate spend energy fighting over what to do or not do, but I think they agree that we currently have, in general, a high quality of life in this country. Going into this analysis, I accept that one of three possibilities may result:

* We can support a high quality of life for all people in this country and the rest of the world on the resources currently available to us and in the way we currently manage them,

* We can support a high quality of life for all people on the resources currently available but we need to adapt the way we currently manage them, or

* We cannot support a high quality of life for all people on the resources currently available to us and we have to adapt our expectations or our behaviors to ensure continued survival.

In the weeks ahead, we will start the discussion with the basic resources of water, food, and air as (excluding a major scientific breakthrough) these currently stand as irreplaceable resources to our existence. After this, I will look at stored chemical energy and other physical resources. Although possible, an exhaustive discussion of every resource would overstate the point, so I will focus on a total of eight reasonably ubiquitous resources: water, food, air, fossil fuels (stored chemical energy), structural metals (copper, aluminum, iron, steel), technology metals (eg. platinum, gallium, cadmium), silicon, and wood.

First up...next week - Water.