DD

Consumerism is a word not to hyperventilate over. People need stuff. That's been the human way for two million years. Everything living consumes. If you don't, you die.

Plenty of people, most I would hazard a guess, consume very little. It has little to nothing to do with ego to my mind.

Forget consumerism, it's actually overpopulation the bogey here.

Dan

yes, consumerism drives civilisation and economic well-being, no doubt.

I am not necessarily criticising this reality. I also enjoy the fruits of a first world standard of living.

I merely suggest the consequences of the extent of recent trends, compounded by a rising global consumer population. More energy, more plastic, more land needed for food, and so on

I was interested to read the gracious, considered and proportionate response by Alan B to my comment about methane fuel cells. He continues to insist that the product of the oxidation of methane in a fuel cell is “mostly pristine water vapour”.

Hydrogen is the only fuel for which water vapour is the only product when it is oxidised in a fuel cell. Any hydrocarbon used as a fuel will have carbon dioxide as a product along with water vapour. For methane the overall stoichiometry is: one molecule of methane consumes two of oxygen to produce one molecule of carbon dioxide and two molecules of water.

Rather than spending time to think of an even more polite response Alan, you might like to look at this article:

https://cen.acs.org/articles/93/i43/Best-Effort-Yet-Make-Direct.html#:~:text=Currently%2C%20methane%2C%20a%20primary%20constituent,efficiently%20than%20combustion%2Dbased%20methods.

which has a simple schematic diagram of a methane fuel cell showing the electrochemistry involved. I draw your attention to the carbon dioxide leaving the anode and to the net reaction shown at the bottom.

One of the main advantages of using a fuel cell for the oxidation of methane is that less fuel is required for a given output of energy than would be if a simple combustion engine was used. You will find this point made here:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2018/10/181029130939.htm

if you read the article carefully.

Bernie Masters perhaps it might be a little early to

1) say that the conclusions in "Empty Planet: The Shock of Global Population Decline" by Darrell Bricker and John Ibbitson are "likely." In around 2010 the anti abortion group Population Research institute produced a video saying that overpopulation was a myth and one of their key points proving that overpopulation was a myth was that the "historically accurate" low variant of the United Nations population projections showed that world population was going to peak at 8 billion in 2040.
https://overpopulationisamyth.com/episode-1-overpopulation-the-making-of-a-myth/
Ten years later the United Nations low variant for the peak world population is 8.92 billion in 2055. This is the number (or less) that the Empty Planet thinks will happen. The current world population is 7.77 billion, and it is increasing by more than 80 million a year. Nobody thinks the world population is going to peak at 8 billion in 2040. Oddly enough the Population Research Institute has left that video up.

2) It might also be a little early to say that with the low variant there is nothing to worry about. There are great gaps in the Empty Planet. The Empty Planet doesn't care anything at all about the environment. Even if the world's population follows the low variant that is still a steady increase to 8.92 billion in 2055. Currently 7.77 billion is doing substantial damage to the world's ecosystems. Seven point 9 billion, then 8.2, then 8.4 etc up to 8.92 billion will do substantially more damage over the next 35 years.
2a) The median Variant for 2050 is 9.74 billion and for 2100 10.88 billion.

The Empty Planet is a public relations book. The first clue is the title. Who thinks 8.9 billion people is empty? The books goal is to get people concerned about the environment to shut up and continue with business as usual. No thanks.