 | The Bullroarer - Friday 23rd May 2008 | The Oil Drum: Australia/New Zealand | A Twelve-Step Plan to End Oil Addiction |  |
36 comments on Ken Deffeyes On Radio 4BC
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
36 comments on Ken Deffeyes On Radio 4BC
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Contact
- anz at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
GAIA Host Collective
re: Population growth
Having given 500 public talks, one simply cannot talk about everything and fight every battle at once.
in 2005's "Beyond Oil - The View from Hubbert's Peak", Deffeyes has a small, crisp section on population control... including
"I would not be surprised if our present-day population has to shrink during the next few hundred years.
Of course, the methods for human population control are enormously controversial. One contraceptive measure seems to be humane and acceptable: If you teach calculus to teenage girls, they go on to have far fewer babies. Calculus is the contraceptive of the future. It doesn't work for boys."
This seems an appropriate level for a petroleum guy to take. I'd much rather he spend his time explaining petroleum+energy issues to people than trying to also be a population expert.
Anytime any Peak Oiler says conservation (and Simmons is fond of it) throw in something about population control. The United States had 200 million people in 1970, it has 303 million now and is projected to have 400 million in 30 to 50 years. And yet we have a simple means of population control that countries like India and Mexico do not have. We can stop immigration.
Why can't Mexico and India stop immigration ?
In any case, the solution to the pressure population growth puts on the environment and our resource requirements is straightforward in concept:
1. Switch to renewable energy sources
2. Educate girls, give them economic opportunities and access to contraception
3. Change the manufacturing paradigm to one which recycles everything - what is called "design for disassembly" and "cradle to cradle" manufacturing
Most models show population levelling out under 9.5 billion people - the most important factor to make sure this happens is item 2 above.
Why can't Mexico and India stop immigration?
My assumption is that they don't have any significant legal immigration (and for both the term net migration would come into play as well). I can't get a google query to give me any figures though. I am basing that assumption on the belief that it would be even more ludicrous for poor countries with millions of people desperate to leave, to allow immigration than it is for rich countries like the US to do so. Regarding illegal immigration to those countries, I know that Mexico is not happy with the illegal immigration they get from Central America and they do not treat it with anything close to the wink and a nod and a smile that they expect Americans to give to their fleeing masses. I know that I just read that the people of India do not like illegal Bangladeshis, but it very well could be that the government and business people like it, as the rich and powerful in America covet our illegal immigration.
1. Switch to renewable energy sources
2. Educate girls, give them economic opportunities and access to contraception
3. Change the manufacturing paradigm to one which recycles everything - what is called "design for disassembly" and "cradle to cradle" manufacturing
I don't know why education always gets thrown in regarding lower birth rates. I think the only factor is that both parents, particularly the women, have to get wealthy enough to where they see some other things they would like to do with their time besides raise children. Although I saw a blog posting the other day where someone was looking at birth rates of American immigrants and found that for most countries they were exceeding the birth rates in the source country.
I am with you 100% on recycling. We have to somehow get to sustainable. It will take much effort though. I heard a radio piece where they visited a dump in Connecticut. Apparently Connecticut sends a large amount of trash (400,000 tons a year I think) to Massachusetts, New York, and even Ohio! The trash manager said that they would have to double the percentage of waste they recycle just to keep from increasing the amount they send to other states - because both population and consumption were increasing.
I am also all for renewable energy. We need a World War II sized effort to produce wind and solar and possibly wave and ocean current. Also to develop ways to store that energy. Get rid of NASA, gut the defense department for the money. But even on this site, you don't see any calls for anything close to that. There's actually almost as much wishful thinking from the Peak Oilers regarding the future as there is from CERA and the US Government.
Most models show population levelling out under 9.5 billion people - the most important factor to make sure this happens is item 2 above.
Oh well no problem then. Even though we are peaking in oil, soon to peak in natural gas and coal, and seeing severe climate damage from global warming, another 3 billion people shouldn't make much difference at all.
The recycling issue is good, but it is starting at the wrong end.
Governments [ie people who govern - in contrast to the ex lawyers who are our UK politicians because they make more money that way] need to enforce WORLDWIDE GENERIC TECHNICAL STANDARDS to most manufactured items.
After 200 years of precision engineering, we cannot agree on the head of a screw, or the thread of a bolt. We have space exploration that failed because we cannot agree on metric or imperial or US units.
When this stupidity stops, we will not need to recycle a lot of items because we will RE-USE parts and REPAIR them. Junk then becomes a useful resource.
Which do you prefer MPG -Miles Per (US) Gallon or LPK -Litres Per Kilometer?
Nick.
But we don't. Or at least reduce it.
In 2002, the Australian Department of Immigration commissioned a study into sustainable population levels:
http://www.cse.csiro.au/research/futuredilemmas/
highlighting resource constraints in Australia's physical economy. Contrary to the contents of the report the Sydney Morning Herald, always giving things a commercial spin, reported about it with a first page headline: "We'll be all right with 50 million". Now, just 6 years into the report period, we don't even have enough water for Sydney's 4.5 million.
The previous government ignored the study and the new Rudd government wants to increase immigration even further. This will not work. Not only will this sharpen the housing crisis but once petrol lines arrive at the filling stations motorists will quickly understand that newcomers are just competitors for scarce fuels. What's worse, the capacity of Sydney's desalination plant will be eaten up in just 8 years of immigration. We'll be back to square 1 by then.
Mr Mashey, I hadn't seen you over here at TOD but it seems you've been a member for 16 weeks. What brings you to Aussie blogs so often? Quiggin and now here. Is the quality of discussion superior? :)