<Is the 2000 Watt Society Sustainable in Switzerland? The Oil Drum Drumbeat: April 25, 2009>

135 comments on Limits to Growth Model Worth Another Look

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Gail the Actuary on April 24, 2009 - 11:09am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The pollution issue is one that the model does not seem to be matching as well on.

The pollution issue is not yet clear, but the model may turn out to be more accurate than we expect. Some considerations that come to mind:

1. In recent years, pollution has shifted from the developed countries to the lesser developed countries, where we see the pollution less, but it probably affects more people.

2. As we have less resources in the future, pollution control may be one of the first things to go. There seem to be fairly abundant coal resources, especially if the lowest grade ores are considered. These are very cheap to burn, especially if one does absolutely no pollution control. Burning of wood and of dung as fuel also has pollution issues.

3. Cumulative pollution is probably as important as point in time pollution. If our lakes are filled with mercury and cannot be used to support fishing, it doesn't matter whether that pollution happened last week or fifty years ago.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
wisco on April 24, 2009 - 11:15am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Not to shake the hornet's nest, but CO2 and other GHG are pollution.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
pbogdonoff on April 24, 2009 - 11:53am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

As the capacity of natural systems to absorb industrial excesses declines, pollution will become more visible. E.g., oceanic dead zones, acidification, and coral bleaching. Then add indirect effects like increasing methane release from melting tundra.

-- Philip B. / Washington, DC

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Robert.Smart on April 24, 2009 - 9:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

For ecosystems, as for individual life forms, there are many things that are essential but are toxic in sufficient quantity (e.g. water, oxygen). The issue is the dose. Pollution is set in the public mind as referring to stuff that has no positive value at any dose.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Paul_the_engineer on April 24, 2009 - 12:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Pollution has been dramatically reduced since the environmental movement in the 1960-1970’s.

Some highlights:
*Limits to discharge to both air and water of heavy metals, BOD and other harmful chemicals by industry
*Reduction in acid rain from using lower sulfur coal plus scrubbers
*Banning or restricting persistent pesticides like DDT and chloradane
*Secondary and tertiary treatment of municipal sewage by aeration and chlorination

I worked in industry throughout this period and saw the change first hand. I also recall the days when smog from the steel mills in Birmingham, AL, USA and the industrial Midwest darkened the skies for sometimes over 100 miles away as I witnessed driving on heavy pollution days when I seemed to stay in the haze for hours. The improvement since those days is amazing.

My main criticism is that we throw away nutrients in sewage. If we do not recycle all phosphorous the world will be unable to support anything like the current population in less than 100 years.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FMagyar on April 24, 2009 - 12:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

How about the chemical cocktail of pharmaceuticals that we routinely discard into our water supply?
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/03/science/earth/03water.html?_r=1

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dinh Ton on April 24, 2009 - 1:17pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

PBS's Frontline just did a program on


Poisoned Waters

Agreed that we made a lot of improvements but there are still many things left to be done. The top of the issue is our selfishness. We think we own nature (land, water, resource, etc...) but it shouldn't be so. Everyone should be a steward to the land that they live upon -- which should bring some attitude of responsibility -- not the exploitive ones that we currently have.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
FMagyar on April 24, 2009 - 10:05pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Thanks Dinh Ton,

I watched most of it and what struck me was how little we actually know.

What we do know is that to clean up this mess (if it can be cleaned up at all) will be extremely costly. Being that we are already in a global depression the necessary resources and the will and knowledge to smoothly transition from BAU to a new paradigm is probably be lacking.

I wish I could find reasons to be more optimistic but things are not looking good for humanity's future.

If its 20 years or so before that pod of Orcas in Puget Sound dies off, I figure that's about what we have before TSHTF for us as well.

Pack your shit folks, were going away!
George Carlin, Save the Planet

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
JonFreise on April 24, 2009 - 1:08pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, the US has done a great job cleaning things up. The rest of the world is in some trouble however.

Here are a few links on how the Chinese may be close to economic peak once health and environmental negatives are taken into account. I think, long term, they will regret not having an environmental movement. They created the worlds goods, but received low wages and all the pollution for their trouble.

Pollution may cancel out China's Economic Growth (NPR)

Will China Choke on it's success?

Google for many more : china pollution health negative gdp

Tragedy of the commons. Very hard to solve.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ET on April 24, 2009 - 1:15pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Pollution has been dramatically reduced since the environmental movement in the 1960-1970’s.

...in the developed countries. Clearly pollution in developing countries has increased massively over this period likely wiping out gains made in the 70's.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Dinh Ton on April 24, 2009 - 2:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

.in the developed countries. Clearly pollution in developing countries has increased massively over this period likely wiping out gains made in the 70's.

Since we are using a lot of products made in the developing countries, indirectly we are responsible for a lot of pollution there. The way we have been consuming resources; we definitely are giving ourselves too much credit.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Barrett808 on April 24, 2009 - 1:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Pollution has been dramatically reduced since the environmental movement in the 1960-1970’s.

With some notable exceptions: ‘Toxic soup of pesticides’ killing West Coast salmon

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

135 comments on Limits to Growth Model Worth Another Look

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version