The Energy Scene in India
Posted by Robert Rapier on April 9, 2008 - 10:00am
Topic: Environment/Sustainability
Tags: Brazilian ethanol, ethanol, india, jatropha, peak oil, sugarcane ethanol, sustainability [list all tags]
As I traveled through India on a recent business trip, the topic of energy was constantly on my mind (as it is every time I travel). I found out some interesting things about jatropha, toured a sugarcane ethanol plant, found a wind farm in the middle of nowhere, and encountered a native ethanol skeptic. Here are my impressions.
Ethanol in India: Another Brazil
The highlight of my trip was definitely the tour of the Sanjivani sugar cane plant near Shirdi. This could be a model to the rest of the world (with some exceptions) regarding how sustainable ethanol should be produced, as they have the entire life cycle covered.

They take in the sugarcane from local farmers, and they produce sugar. Molasses is a by-product of sugar production, and they ferment that to make ethanol. Bagasse is also a by-product, and this is used to fire the boilers to provide power for the plant. The sludge waste that they produce is composted and mixed with the bagasse ash and given back to the farmers to put on their fields. As far as I can determine, this is an entirely sustainable process. But the bagasse is the key to the entire operation.
I quizzed them quite a lot about the bagasse boilers, and what I was told is that because the sugar extraction process produces very finely ground bagasse (I walked out of the plant covered with bagasse dust), and because the ash content in bagasse is very low - it is an ideal feed for the boilers. Very few sources of biomass fall into the category that 1). It is necessarily removed from the field as a by-product of the cultivation; 2). The resulting process pulverizes the biomass (not only does this make it easy to burn, but it dries easily as it passes through flue gas on the way into the boiler); and 3). The ash content is very low, minimizing maintenance of the boilers. This makes sugarcane ethanol a truly unique production method, and not something that is easily transferred to corn or cellulosic ethanol.
Not only were they making ethanol (95%; not fuel grade) but they had an entire chain of ethanol derivatives that originated from the sugarcane ethanol. These derivatives included important industrial chemicals such as acetic acid, acetic anhydride (very important in my current job), acetaldehyde, and ethyl acetate.
As mentioned above, the grade of ethanol that they primarily produce is industrial grade. This differs from fuel grade for blending in that the ethanol-water azeotrope isn't broken; the final product is 95% ethanol and 5% water. This greatly reduces the energy usage, as it takes a lot of effort to get out that last 5% water. This is in fact the concentration that Brazil primarily uses for fuel, and makes the energy balance much more favorable than using anhydrous ethanol. For blending with gasoline, it is not a good option as the water will phase out. But for dedicated ethanol vehicles, the 95% grade seems to be a reasonable option for partially supplying the energy demands of many tropical countries.
In Search of the Elusive Jatropha Plant
If you are like me, when someone mentions jatropha, India immediately comes to mind. Most jatropha stories that I have seen mention India as leading the way on jatropha development. For a while, I had no reason to question these reports, but recently I started developing some doubts.
The doubts started when I was contacted by a biodiesel company in Turkey. They had shut down operations because feedstock costs had gotten too high, and they asked if I could help them find an alternative source. I asked them if they have looked into jatropha. They said they had, but weren't able to locate anyone in India who could supply them. I thought this was odd given what I had heard about jatropha in India, so I agreed to look into it for them. I initially contacted a number of people with various Indian and biofuels connections, but nobody could point me to a concrete lead.
So one of the things I intended to do on my trip was track down that elusive jackalope, er jatropha. During my trip I asked practically everyone I met, which included a number of people involved in biofuels, and while almost everyone knew what it was, nobody could point to anyone who was actually producing it. I thought this increasingly odd, given the hype I had heard regarding jatropha and India.
Those who did know a little about jatropha in general, said that the problem is that the fertile land is being utilized to grow food (a billion people need a lot of land for food) and the marginal land typically has no roads or other infrastructure that could support a jatropha industry. While I did see a lot of seemingly marginal land as I drove around, it was pretty remote. Furthermore, I was told that jatropha requires about 3 years to produce, and not many farmers are likely to be willing to tie up their land for an extended period on an unproven crop.
So, while this doesn't mean that there is no potential for jatropha, I left the country feeling that the jatropha situation in India has been highly overstated.
Transport: Mostly by Foot
Based on my observations, the vast majority of transport in India is by foot. I traveled pretty deeply into rural India, and almost everywhere I went there were always vast numbers of people walking along the roads. Motorcycles are abundant, and almost always had multiple passengers. At one point, I saw seven people (five of them young children) all piled onto a single motorcycle.

In cities like Bombay, auto-rickshaws were everywhere. I rode in one, and would describe it as essentially like a motorcycle with a light-weight body built around it. Interestingly, the one I rode in (maybe all of them are like this) ran off of compressed natural gas. Speaking of which, there were a lot of alternative fuel vehicles in Bombay. I saw many CNG vehicles, and a taxi I rode in once was fueled by a propane tank in the trunk.

A Wind Farm and an Ethanol Skeptic
At one point we were driving through a very remote area, and suddenly a wind farm appeared. I took some photos. The farm appeared to be very distant from any cities, so I am not sure about how cost effective it was in that location.

One thing I didn't expect to encounter was an ethanol skeptic, but at one of the meetings we had, (following my questions about jatropha), our host told me that "ethanol for biofuel is India's greatest threat." I asked why, and he said he feared that 1). The demand in the West for biofuel will result in a food versus fuel competition that would devastate India's poor; and 2). That increased ethanol demand would exacerbate India's already serious water problem.
Food
During the week in India, I had meat twice. The total I had was about 3 ounces of chicken on a pizza. I would have guessed that I would be constantly starving, but the food is very filling, and very good. I haven't had vegetarian like that in the West. At a typical meal, I would have a carbohydrate (usually a flat bread), a vegetable, and a protein. Rice was always part of the meal. But the meals were very nutritious and healthy, so I plan to incorporate some of these meals into my normal diet.
My host (and Bombay native) Kapil Girotra informed me that India is self-sufficient in food. He also told me that 70% or so of the population is vegetarian, which means it requires less land to feed them. On the other hand, I saw a very large portion of the population that certainly is not getting enough to eat. So you might say that they are barely self-sufficient. They do produce enough food to feed their population, but I saw a lot of undernourished people.
The Poverty
The poverty in India is just stunning. We don't have anything to compare it to in the West. The people that would be considered very poor in the West have it far better than the poor in India. They are literally starving to death. I once asked what happens if someone has a medical emergency in the slums. "If they have money, they live. If not, they die." I just imagined a child getting hit with something incredibly painful like renal colic (and believe me, it is excruciating) and not being able to get help. I can't imagine the strain on a parent going through that. I would rather have a finger chopped off than stand by helplessly while my child screamed in pain for hours. Seriously.
I think in the West we just tune it out when we see it on TV. But you can't tune it out when you drive by mile after mile after mile of people living essentially in garbage dumps. I think we treat our unwanted pets in the West with more concern than we have for a starving 2-year-old half way around the world. I was frequently asked what I was thinking about, and once I replied "What it would be like to have everyone in India experience a little of America, and everyone in America come see this."
The Traffic
It really isn't accurate to call it traffic. It is chaos. It's just a free-for-all out there. I would highly caution a Westerner against renting a car and attempting to drive. You will spend all of your time in a state of confusion, and you will hold up traffic while you try to figure out what to do. The constant honking (in lieu of signaling) was unnerving, and I felt at all times as if I should be flipping someone off. For me, Hell would be having to be a cab driver in Bombay for all eternity.
The roads are shared by people, bikes, motorbikes, auto-rickshaws, and cars. I frequently observed traffic going the wrong direction, and it was quite normal to have someone turn directly across your path. We had drivers who took us from place to place, and they would pass people on blind curves and hills, and sometimes they even passed someone in the act of passing someone else. I don't think we have a proper frame of reference in the West for the "traffic" in India; especially in the big cities. And of course this means a constant haze hung over Bombay while I was there, which presumably gets scrubbed during the monsoon season.

The People
The population density is something else. I once wondered aloud just how many people I had seen on this trip. Kapil, the guy I was traveling with, said "Probably a good fraction of all the people you have ever seen in your life." That is not an exaggeration. We traveled around the country, and with very few exceptions there were people lining the streets everywhere. Several times I would observe a crowd and wonder what was going on, but there was nothing going on. It was just a crowd. But it looked like a constant stream coming out of a major sporting event.
Despite the crowded conditions, I only saw violence once – when a man tried to drag another out of a car after a wreck. The people seem to cope quite well. Crime doesn't seem to be nearly the problem you might expect in a city of that size and population density.
But with that many people comes a great deal of garbage. There was trash everywhere, and most of the time you could smell rotting garbage. One night we stayed well north of the city, but every once in a while my room would fill up with a garbage smell. I presumed the wind had shifted from Bombay.
Travel
It took forever to get anywhere. You look at a place, and think "It's only 100 miles." 3 hours later, you still aren't there. We spent 20 hours on the road over the course of 4 days. They don't have many rest stops and such with facilities that I could see. But the people I was traveling with never needed them. We would spend 7 hours in the car and never stop for a bathroom break. Needless to say, I limited my water intake on the trip, as I found that bathrooms were treated as a precious commodity. On a couple of occasions when I was in a meeting, I asked for the restroom and found someone standing outside of it, and a sign that said "VIPs and guests only."
I traveled by train as well, after Kapil asked if I was up for an adventure. I thought "What could be so adventurous about riding the train?" It isn't for everyone. If you like hot, sweaty bodies packed in like sardines (and that's in 1st Class), then go for it. It took us an hour to get to our destination, and during that ride there were constantly people hanging out of the open doors, and it was standing room only. I wondered whether the people in 2nd Class were stacked like cord wood.
Conclusions
India was an eye-opening experience for me. I managed not to get sick while I was there, and I credit my host Kapil for his constant advice on what I should and shouldn't eat and drink. (I don't recommend the buffalo milk, by the way). The contrasts were amazing. Outside a cluster of $400/night hotels was the worst poverty I have ever seen. I once saw a guy pulling a hand cart and talking on a cell phone. Houses in the slums had satellite dishes on top of them. A number of times we walked down hallways of buildings that looked to be 100 years old and decrepit, and then stepped into one of the most modern offices you have ever seen.
One of the things this trip has done for me is to highlight the importance of efforts to transition to a more sustainable lifestyle and avoid the kind of collapse that is often discussed in relation to Peak Oil. I think if more people understood just how far society could fall - and I saw that in the slums of India - we could get serious about our energy situation in a big hurry.
Note:
This essay is a summary of some key points. However, for most of my trips I keep a detailed journal for future reference. But I publish them, and the full boring blow-by-blow can be found in two entries:



During the week in India, I had meat twice. The total I had was about 3 ounces of chicken on a pizza. I would have guessed that I would be constantly starving, but the food is very filling, and very good. I haven't had vegetarian like that in the West. At a typical meal, I would have a carbohydrate (usually a flat bread), a vegetable, and a protein. Rice was always part of the meal. But the meals were very nutritious and healthy, so I plan to incorporate some of these meals into my normal diet.
Look at the energy needed to cook the food. Lentils, rice, spices and a pressure cooker.
To ride the long curve down - looking at what and how the 'poor' eat then cherry pick from that list now strikes me as good long term planning. Ideas like this:
http://www.geocities.com/%7Edmdelaney/scheffler-precis/scheffler-precis....
Or slogging here
http://solarcooking.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
(and if anyone can provide the link to a design contest winner that was planned/deployed for South America, used oil in a trough for heating, and touted how it would work with pressure cookers, I'd greatly appreciate the link.)
Hi
Solar powered village:
http://www.sunvention.com/html/solar_power_village_english.html
What's missing from the descriptions is how the cooker works. The hot oil flows through to a hollow steel construction, providing heat for cooking. Temperature is regulated by adjusting the rate of flow. Originally think they used inbuilt double-walled pots, with the oil flowing between the walls. This cooked the food from below and the sides.
Also see these nifty solar ovens, which don't need to be moved as the sun moves:
http://www.sungravity.com/molded.html
Yes, I have one, and it works :-)
Cheers, Ian
Ian - I would really like to have one (or more). Do you know where I can order
a couple???
Thanks, Robert, both for the ethanol lifecycle investigation with sugar cane, as well as the insights into life in a developing country. We are incorporating many more lentil and rice vegetarian dishes into our culinary fare, and you are right; they are delicious and filling.
I was likewise surprised that jatropa was not more widespread, though the craze has just recently started, and it can take 2 1/2 years for the trees to start bearing, unlike sugar cane, corn, soybeans, switchgrass, etc. It is heavily hyped, and careful examination of agricultural trials have helped to quantify some of the claims. I had looked into the merits of planting them last spring, but they require a tropic or sub-tropic climate.
And yes, the developed nations take a lot for granted with their transportation system; motorcycles aren't the only overloaded transport in India...
Has anyone else looking at these pictures thought OVER POPULATION...
If this was any other species there would have been a cull years ago.
We had 2 choses birth control or death control, guess we aren't smarter than yeast.
It aint just India we are also in over shoot.
Has anyone else looking at these pictures thought OVER POPULATION...
It doesn't appear that the author has. He left it out of his conclusion. Or maybe, like many people, he is uncomfortable with the subject.
Of course you can't help but note the crowded conditions, and think about over-population. And I think I made the implication clear. But it's one thing to think that there are too many people. It's another to think that each one of those people is a parent to someone who cares about them, and has brothers, sisters, parents, friends who care about them. These things make it hard for me to think about things like reducing the population. That doesn't mean that I don't think there are too many people. But which lemming is ready to lead the charge over the cliff? Not me.
May I be the first one to call "Bullshit" here?
Is mass murder or Soylent Green really our only two choices as a species? How about instituting a China-style one-child per family policy? Or, if that's too "coercive" for you, how about the Indian government paying people *not* to have more children?
"But it's one thing to think that there are too many people. It's another to think that each one of those people is a parent to someone who cares about them, and has brothers, sisters, parents, friends who care about them."
Non sequitur and false dichotomy. Why can't a person empathize with other individuals *and* care about overpopulation at the same time? Are empathy and reason mutually exclusive?
I think there is good evidence to show that women's empowerment and literacy can yield good results in population control - check Kerala and Tamil Nadu in India.
I personally am not for a one child policy the China way. It's impact on society is probably not well understood yet. The current children are called "little emperors/empresses" - more the former. Go to any big hotel in Guangzhou and see the number of little girls (those lucky enough to be born), being given away for adoption. Having a society with a sex ratio of 850 may not be a bright idea. Social engineering by the government is a frightening idea.
How about having a vegetarian diet as a government policy? I doubt you would appreciate that being thrust down your throat.
Srivathsa
How about having a vegetarian diet as a government policy? I doubt you would appreciate that being thrust down your throat.
An ever increasing population will ultimately lead to a lot more being "thrust down the throats" of citizens than just a vegetarian diet. Population growth is unsustainable. Period. Wishful thinking cannot change that. Up until now passing the burden of stopping it could be passed on to future generations with not much consequence. Now, with oil peaking, and natural gas and coal soon to follow - paired with global warming, fresh water shortages and various other environmental problems and resource limits, population growth is causing real problems in the here and now. And it will continue to do so. It's astonishing that even on a board dedicated to worrying about a coming shortage of oil that the world is mostly blind to, the equation - (oil barrels produced)/(oil users) - only the numerator gets talked about.
I personally am not for a one child policy the China way.
India's population is huge and poor - and yet still growing! They can benefit immensely from a two-child policy. Same for the United States and many, many other countries around the world whose populations continue to climb. "One-child policy" admits you have too many people. We are a long way from that. "Two-child policy" merely states that it would be bad to have more people. We aren't there yet but that is what to shoot for at this point.
It's astonishing that even on a board dedicated to worrying about a coming shortage of oil that the world is mostly blind to, the equation - (oil barrels produced)/(oil users) - only the numerator gets talked about.
Amen to that.
Only the numerator is talked about because oil consumption does not match population very much.
Germany has 82 million people, and uses 2.6Mbbl/day.
India has 1,100 million people, and uses 2.5Mbbl/day.
So it has 13 times the population, but uses slightly less oil.
Greenhouse gas emissions are much the same.
Germany produces 838Mt of CO2e. India, 1,0080Mt CO2e. 13 times the people, but only 20% more emissions.
Imagine that there are two houses along a street. One has one European middle-classed guy in it, he puts out 8 rubbish bins every week. The next house has 13 people in it, all south Asian and working class, except for one middle-classed person, the boy they could afford to send to university, they put out 10 rubbish bins.
The rubbish collector tells the street, "there are too many for us to collect, you need to reduce to just 1 rubbish bin each on average. There are 203 houses on this street, I don't care if it's one house with 203 bins or 100 with 2 bins each and 3 between the other 103, or what. Just get the average down."
The European says, "Tell those darkies next door should stop having so many babies. That'll sort it out."
No disputing your numbers but you are confusing quantity with quality.
The goal of humans should not be to determine the maximum population the earth can sustain. The goal should be to maximize the quality of life of each individual. Yes, that will require more energy consumption per person, just as historically the human species invests more energy per offspring than other species via one child at a time, not a litter of 10.
The human species needs to come to grips that we can't sustain an ever expanding population and still retain the essence of what makes us human. The key is to think multi generational into the future, not fixate only on the current generation.
Much better to have fully activated humans at low population for centuries than an enormous population barely surviving that dies off in a few generations. The first case actually allows for more total humans to inhabit the Earth, they just do it over many, many generations rather than all at once just before the resources run out.
I agree.
And it turns out that if you reduce the quantity of people, you don't increase the quality of life; life was not better in the rubble of Europe, even if 30 million people had died. Whereas if you increase the quality of life - give relative prosperity and education to women - then they decrease the quantity of people themselves without any compulsion or genocide.
And it turns out that if you reduce the quantity of people, you don't increase the quality of life; life was not better in the rubble of Europe, even if 30 million people had died. Whereas if you increase the quality of life - give relative prosperity and education to women - then they decrease the quantity of people themselves without any compulsion or genocide.
You are using the aftermath of World War II to "prove" that less people is not better? Why don't you throw in the plagues of the Middle Ages while you are at it? If you really want to help your hypothesis, compare conditions before and after Noah's flood. Also, throw in Nagasaki and Hiroshima before and after a nuclear bomb was dropped on them - everyone would have to agree conditions were worse after the population declined...
If we only had 200 million people in this country - as we did in 1970 - think about how affordable housing would still be. Think about how much less oil, water, natural gas, coal, aluminum, phosphorus, etc. we would need. Think about how much better traffic would be. Think about how less congested our airports would be. Think about how much worse all of that will be when we make it to 450 million.
Why don't you throw in the plagues of the Middle Ages while you are at it?
Intersting aside: The Black Plague actually *did* drastically improve the quality of life for the serfs who survived it. They found themselves with an abundance of land and material resources and their (now scarce) labor highly in demand. As a result, the following decades were very prosperous for the serf class. It took a couple generations for the landed gentry to steal it all back.
Only the numerator is talked about because oil consumption does not match population very much.
Germany has 82 million people, and uses 2.6Mbbl/day.
India has 1,100 million people, and uses 2.5Mbbl/day.
So your hypothesis is that if the populations of those areas were doubled - no significant increase in oil consumption - if the population of those areas were halved - no significant decrease in oil consumption? You feel oil consumption does not change with changes in population?
So it has 13 times the population, but uses slightly less oil.
The rate at which various populations use oil is separate from whether or not they use more or less if their population grows or declines.
Greenhouse gas emissions are much the same.
Germany produces 838Mt of CO2e. India, 1,0080Mt CO2e. 13 times the people, but only 20% more emissions.
It's good to know that India has volunteered to maintain a much smaller amount of C02 emission from now until eternity.
Imagine that there are two houses along a street. One has one European middle-classed guy in it, he puts out 8 rubbish bins every week. The next house has 13 people in it, all south Asian and working class, except for one middle-classed person, the boy they could afford to send to university, they put out 10 rubbish bins.
The rubbish collector tells the street, "there are too many for us to collect, you need to reduce to just 1 rubbish bin each on average. There are 203 houses on this street, I don't care if it's one house with 203 bins or 100 with 2 bins each and 3 between the other 103, or what. Just get the average down."
The European says, "Tell those darkies next door should stop having so many babies. That'll sort it out."
Imagine there are two houses along a street. One has 35 Indians living in it and they are adding 1 more every 6 months. The other has 4 English living in it and they are at a stable household level. The English tell the Indians they should stop adding to their household size. Some American steps in and declares that the English have no right making suggestions to the Indians since they throw out so much more trash. Then he sanctimoniously adds that his household has been increasing in size for decades as well, and save for the lack of space, long lines, and limited resources, it hasn't been a problem.
Not at all. What I'm saying is that plainly lifestyle differ between countries, and these lifestyle differences are a more important factor than total population.
We with the prosperous and wasteful lifestyles prefer to focus on population, for obvious reasons.
The important thing is that, unless you commit genocide, population changes much more slowly than lifestyle. China's economic growth and growth in resource consumption and emissions is 9 or 10% annually; you're never going to get population rising that fast. The average Westerner could halve their energy consumption and impact tomorrow without pain, discomfort, or any expense, in fact saving money; but they find it inconvenient But absent nuclear war, the population is not going to halve tomorrow.
So if you want to deplete resources quickly, or reduce our impact on the Earth, the part to focus on is the part which can change quickly - and that's lifestyle.
Of course, we'd rather they changed their population than we changed our lifestyle.
I am most definitely not against empowering women and promoting literacy --never said I was. And, yes, much research by the U.N. and other groups have shown a strong correlation between women's literacy, political and reproductive rights, and smaller families.
However, China's one-child policy, despite all it's faults, is probably the main reason why China does not have a population of *two* billion today. Some types of social engineering by the government may seem "frightening", but governments do this sort of thing all the time: regulation, punitive "sin" taxes, targeted tax credits, subsidies, exclusive contracts, grants and many other incentives.
What is the cost of doing nothing and maintaining the status quo? What is India's current population vector, and where is it likely to lead in a generation? Two?
Population control is a sticky subject in India too. Back in the 1970s they tried to encourage a program of male vasectomies, with financial or material rewards. It resulted in a lot of coerced and unwanted vasectomies, and a lot of anger.
More recently, they tried an economic approach. They put up posters with two families. One with two kids and lots of consumer goods in rich clothes. The other with six kids in poor clothes. The message was 'if you have lots of kids you will always be poor'. When people saw the posters they said 'I feel sorry for that family, they were only blessed with two children, how sad. '
When people saw the posters they said I feel sorry for that family, they were only blessed with two children, how sad.
That is sad in itself. Both families are the problem.
What would be better would be small communities of couples and their elderly parents caring for and really cherishing a maximum of one child (or set of twins/triplets) per couple, and sharing the responsibility of raising them. Each child would have dozens of "siblings" in the community and be part of a large family, and population reduction would be relatively swift. It would probably reduce the amount of abuse to partners and children too (I suggest Shantaram, if you haven't read it, to see how communal families support each other in the slums of India).
Is mass murder or Soylent Green really our only two choices as a species?
My comments are aimed at the casual talk of a die-off. There is a disconnect between "there's too many people" and "my circle isn't a part of that." Too many people means too many "other" people. That's my point.
I am all for efforts to curb population growth. That's what you are talking about. I am commenting on "there's too many people, nature will cull the herd."
"there's too many people, nature will cull the herd."
Ok, so if that's what you meant, how is this fundamentally different than the "Soylent Green" scenario? My point was: I believe that we *do have* other options besides a human initiated mass die-off, or a nature-initiated mass die-off. If... IF the political will and public support can be summoned. Far from certain, yes, but not unthinkable either.
Reducing the population is easier to think of when you realise that the most effective method is increasing the wealth and education of the poorest and least educated women.
Of course, when we in the West speak of "population control", we're usually not thinking of interest-free loans to village women, and whatever the Hindi for "ABC" is. That might cost us money and effort, and pretty soon we'd have to start thinking of people in the Third World as human beings, and then where would we be?
Reducing the population is easier to think of when you realise that the most effective method is increasing the wealth and education of the poorest and least educated women.
Statistically, how does that compare to widespread birth control and birth control education?
Of course, when we in the West speak of "population control", we're usually not thinking of interest-free loans to village women, and whatever the Hindi for "ABC" is. That might cost us money and effort, and pretty soon we'd have to start thinking of people in the Third World as human beings, and then where would we be?
It's nice to see that the romantic form of population control - standard of living increase - can coexist on the same board where the prevailing sentiment is that the world's standard of living is getting ready to decrease.
Giving birth control to the village women and teaching them how to use it would treat them like human beings and help their plight. But that type of charity would run against the teachings of the major religions of the world (not to mention the current US administration). Right now, the religious leaders are all Cornucopians, even if their God isn't.
They're connected. If women are poor and illiterate, it doesn't matter how many condoms or contraceptive pills there are in local clinics, they just don't get used. If women are relatively prosperous and at least have basic literacy, then they seek out the contraception for themselves, a black market appears for it.
It's not romantic, it's realistic.
That the entire world cannot possibly live in McMansions, eat burgers and drive SUVs every day is not in doubt. But between that wasteful industrial lifestyle and the crushing poverty described in this article there's a wide spread of possible lifestyles. If you scroll down in this article, you can see a graph of per capita electricity availability and HDI (human development index - equal parts per capita GDP, longevity, and education).
What you find is that with no electricity at all, HDI is about 0.3. Bringing it to 1,000kWh moves HDI to 0.7, to 2,000kWh makes it 0.8, and 4,000kWh on up life doesn't improve much, it's over 0.9. Now, there's a big difference in people's quality of life between 0.3 and 0.7, between zero and 1,000kWh. Not really any from 4,000 to 16,000kWh. So if we can provide the world with 1,000kWh to 4,000kWh each, we're doing alright.
The world currently has 2,630kWh per person, but it's very unevenly distributed as you can see from that graph. Evenly distributed and you're looking at 0.8+ for HDI for everyone, which according to the UN is a "highly developed" country. So today the real problem with electricity, with energy in general, is just like food - really there's plenty for everyone, it's just that some have too much while others have too little.
So okay, we face an energy descent. But a descent how far? A 50% drop? 90%? 10%? Or what?
A 25% drop to 2,000+kWh gives us HDI0.8+, so we're like Belarus, Cuba, Malaysia and so on. Not awesome, but better than India is today (HDI 0.62), and better than a lot of people are telling us would happen.
A 40% drop to 1,500kWh gives us HDI0.75 or so, places like Turkey, Syria, Guyana, Belize.
A 60% drop to 1,000kWh gives us HDI0.70 or so, places like Egypt, Nicaragua, Mongolia.
An 80% drop to 500kWh is harder to judge, as you can see from the graph you get a lot of variation around here, with HDI of 0.50-0.75. At a guess I'd say the variation comes in because in some of those countries 500kWh per capita actually means 2,000kWh for a couple of million people in the capital, and zilch for several million people outside it - they're the low HDI ones. The higher HDI ones are those with the electricity spread a bit more.
Really what sort of quality of life we can expect depends on how far you think the energy descent will go. I think to drop below 1,000kWh each will take a real effort on our part to bugger things up. Something worse than business as usual, something like having a heap of resource wars, lots of coal-to-liquids and biofuels, that sort of thing. I think a stuff-up on that scale would take even more effort than ensuring a more fair worldwide spread of electricity availability.
Really, a decent standard of living doesn't take as much energy and money as you think. Once you hit about $20,000 per capita GDP and 4,000kWh as an average in your country, most of the quality of life indicators pretty much top out, adding more money and energy doesn't improve their lives much.
About $10,000 and 2,000kWh is pretty good, and various UN organisations will probably be asking you for help rather than offering you help.
$5,000 and 1,000kWh is more or less the minimum for a decent life. But it's remarkable how much difference there is between $0-$5,000 and 0-1,000kWh, compared to the next step up of the same size.
Again, the world's never going to be able to live with everyone eating burgers everyday at the drivethru in their SUV and then heading home to their McMansions. But I think the world can live with a range of countries having $5,000-$20,000 per capita GDP, and 1,000-4,000kWh available electricity, giving us HDI of 0.70-0.90, rather than having a few countries down around 0.3, lots in the 0.40s and 0.50s, etc.
I think you're focusing overly much on the US perspective. And as I noted earlier, you can get in the back door on this. Outside a few nutters like the Taliban, everyone in charge supports education for women, though lots of places at the village level oppose it. So, help build their wealth, educate them - and they'll find their own birth control, whatever the local leadership say.
They're connected. If women are poor and illiterate, it doesn't matter how many condoms or contraceptive pills there are in local clinics, they just don't get used. If women are relatively prosperous and at least have basic literacy, then they seek out the contraception for themselves, a black market appears for it.
You don't help your case by making extreme denials.
It's not romantic, it's realistic.
It's realistic to expect that as the standard of living of the developed nations declines from Peak Everything, that they are going to willfully give up even more of their standard of living so that the Third World can try your hypothesis that they will only lower the birth rate via an increase in the standard of living???? Have you queried anyone to see if they are willing to reduced their standard of living in the name of Third World birth control?
I think you're focusing overly much on the US perspective. And as I noted earlier, you can get in the back door on this. Outside a few nutters like the Taliban, everyone in charge supports education for women, though lots of places at the village level oppose it. So, help build their wealth, educate them - and they'll find their own birth control, whatever the local leadership say.
The Catholic Church is not a US institution and is still staunchly against birth control. I believe the Muslim religion is against it as well.
It's not an extreme denial, it's just an example to show the general trends. See: literacy vs total fertility rate, and gdp per capita vs total fertility rate. There's a reasonable spread to them, but basically as literacy and wealth go up, the number of children per woman goes down.
It's not clear that as resources deplete, our "standard of living" need decline. In the first place there's a tremendous amount of waste in the system. A lot of what we call "standard of living" is just about waste; you are not in any real sense better off with ten burgers a week instead of one, or a 3,000 sq ft house with a family of three instead of a 1,500 sq ft house with a family of five, or with an SUV rather than taking the train. It's just waste, and conspicuous waste is preferred by our culture. But it wasn't always so, this was something deliberately created in the 1950s.
"Our enormously productive economy…demands that we make consumption our way of life, that we convert the buying and use of goods into rituals, that we seek our spiritual satisfaction, our ego satisfaction, in consumption... we need things consumed, burned up, replaced and discarded at an ever-accelerating rate." – Victor LeBeau, retail analyst in the 1950s
It wasn't always so, and it need not be always so in the future.
The Catholic Church has not the influence it once had; Spain, for example, a most Catholic nation, recently legalised gay marriage, and has had legalised abortion for some years. "The Muslim religion" is not exactly monolithic in its views.
Certainly religion and local cultures have an effect on these things. But looking at things globally, as we are here, they're not as strong an effect as literacy and wealth.
"These things make it hard for me to think about things like reducing the population."
The appalling conditions, extreme overcrowding, pollution and grinding poverty in which most Indians live make it impossible for me to think of anything *but* "things like reducing the population".
Perhaps we should start "treating" obesity in the U.S. by promoting empathy and pursuading people that being overweight and eating huge amounts of crap is socially acceptable. Oh, wait... we're already doing that.
There's a moral conundrum here. We have the right of people to reproduce, and the right of people to not live in poverty. At this point, with our current world population, they are mutually exclusive. Personally, I have more of a problem with billions of people living in squalor than I do with China's one child policy. Just a personal thing.