It's hard to know how to react to this; on the one hand the planet is saved and on the other the affluent middle class may be doomed to poverty. It also seems to put an entirely different perspective on reducing carbon consumption, as much now for conservation as preventing climate change. I presume we are still locked into mid term water shortages and a population exodus from places like Bangladesh.

If some IPCC scenarios can now be discarded this could sharpen plans for the future. For example should much of the remaining fossil fuel be used to smelt silicon for vast arrays of solar panels in desert areas? We need to think how many people there will be, say in 2050, and how much energy they will need for electricity, transport and food production. There is also the mixed blessing that Australia's reserves of coal, gas and uranium may last well past the world average. This could be a material advantage but as Iraq shows also a cause for aggression. Interesting times.

"The world’s greatest future problem is that too many people must share too little energy." That is the nub of the problem, except that the word "energy" should be replaced by the word "resources".

According to my rough calculation, Kjel's prediction of the rate of increase of use of energy worldwide is about a factor of ten, while my prediction of the rate of increase of population is around four times from now to the end of the century. This does give us some scope for a modest saving of energy if the poor countries remain poor and the affluent countries are frugal. The former is probable, the latter doubtful.

In general, the availability of food is more likely to be the determinant, rather than the shortage of energy, although I am not holding my breathe about the effects of climate change.

i have seen discussion of the danger of methane in the ocean and tundra being released by very modest modest temperature rises. if true, fossil fuel use will be the trigger of sudden, possibly catastrophic, swings of temperature.

An excellent program on the ABC "Crude" said that we had enough coal to cause catastrophic climate change 6 times over.

Somebodies figures are wrong.

>>Somebodies figures are wrong<<

How true.

But it is far too late to inject any reality into the discussion, the entire debate is now a political issue.

On my way to the airport this morning (so I don't know which programme) I listened to a guy spruiking "a green investment" that bought you an acre of Amazonian rainforest. For the money, you would pay the natives to look after it for you - and therefore the world - by preventing it from being logged or burned, so that it could continue its ineffable greenness...

The fee for this service was only a piddling 5% or so for the middleman, and with the destruction of rainforest causing as much damage to the ecosphere as the entire US CO2 output (so the spruiker spruiked) it just had to be the best deal ever...

As I said somewhere here before, if my son was at the age to decide on a career, I'd point him towards carbon trading. My son, I'd say, thar's gold in them thar rainforests, just make sure you are the middleman. Forget hedge funds... no, better still, set up a carbon-trading based hedge fund... after all, there's one born every minute.

We are being conned, people.

Unfortunately, it is becoming impossible to tell, amidst all the noise, smoke and mirrors, by whom.

Hooray for Aleklett, injecting a bit of common sense into the vexing climate change argument. He may be right, but does it really matter?

Like it or not, I have a very simplistic theory that involves “Arithmetic, Population and Energy” – Thanks Professor Bartlett http://edison.ncssm.edu/programs/colloquia/bartlett.ram ).

Before the “Selfish Big Brained Mammal” (SBBM) – Thanks Reg Morrison, author of “Plague Species” for this term – discovered fossil energy about 150 years ago, there were only about .5 to 1.5 billion of this species (ours) on the planet. Since then, entirely riding on the back of cheap and easily available finite fossil energy (FFE) its numbers have grown to around 6.6 billion. When the SBBM loses its once only FFE bonus its population will slide or maybe crash back to pre FFE levels... Simple...

(continued)

All of the alternative energy sources and or the so called “renewable” energy sources and devices are very reliant on FFE in order to be researched, designed, produced or constructed then utilized, maintained and eventually decommissioned (decommissioning, often overlooked, is a very important aspect in the overall sustainability of the planet in a form the SBBM needs for its survival). These other energy sources will never fill the gap left by FFE. None have improved on photosynthesis, without the assistance of FFE.

Photosynthesis is “nature’s” method of extracting energy from the sun (the only continuing earth energy source). Photosynthesis takes ages to do its work and the SBBM will eventually need to rely on this and this alone, once again, in order to survive, to supply its energy requirements.

Of course, the growing regional sabre rattling leading to conflicts over these declining finite energy resources, will almost certainly accelerate the slide or crash of the SBBM populations. Or the SBBM, that has learned nothing from the numerous previous adverse events that have occurred when it has been confronted by essential resource restrictions (food, water), or in its competitive quest for wealth and power may this time wipe its self from this planet completely.

I reiterate; the SBBM has learned nothing from its relatively short history.

Oo roo,

Bucko

I simply don't believe this. Queensland, for example, is meant to have three hundred years' of coal at present consumption rates - and given the infrastructure constraints these consumption rates can't go up much. (Mind you, getting rid of the unions from Queensland Rail would go a long way.)

While the author is possibly correct in terms of Peak Oil I think his coal analysis is seriously flawed. Possibly he has confused Proven Reserves or Measured Resources with what is actually in the ground and able to be exploited in the future. Proven Reserves and Measured Resources are deposits which have been demonstrated to exist at the nominated tonnage and grade to a very high degree of geologic (and economic) certainty - and are well less that what is actually there in the ground, perhaps as little as 5% of the total. Mining companies rarely maintain a long term Proven Reserve ahead of mining, even though they may believe there is minable material available.

I am unconvinced by Peak Oil theory as well. As the price of oil increases - and we have seen spectacular rises recently - more oil becomes economic to extract and more money will be spent on exploration and development. Prediction is very difficult - especially about the future! Towards the end of the 19th century the end of civilization as it was then know was confidently predicted based on an extrapolation of the growth in horse-drawn traffic in London, and the concomittant growth in manure deposition. It was confidently predicted - based on sound data - that by the early 20th century Londeners would be up to their knees in it!

Hi Reynard,

You need to understand that the exploitation of an energy resource (in contrast to a mineral resource) is not, ultimately, dependent upon price but upon the energy return that the resource can give on enery invested to exploit it. If it takes more energy to get oil or coal out than you subsequently can produce from burning it then not only does it make no sense economically - it simply cannot be done - a physical impossibility (unless you subsidise the activity with energy from somewhere else)!

On average, we can only get 30-40% of the oil out of an oil field. The rest is not economic to extract in terms of energy (or money) and so will remain forever underground. The same applies to coal. The world possesses vast amounts of coal but only a fraction can be exploited with an energy profit. Look at what Aleklett is saying about US coal production. Their volume produced is increasing but the energy produced from it (which is approximately equivalent to carbon content and CO2 production) is actually decreasing. At some point, the energy produced will be less than the energy required to harvest and, at that point, exploitation ends.

nowhere in this debate has anyone mentioned nuclear, or fusion. I know that fusion is always 30 years away into the future - but it will come or we shall greatly diminish our populations.

On the big scale of things what is a world population of 10 billions for a decade or two, or a population of 1 billion for a few centuries. Who cares, except for the many billions who never get a life.

Count your blessings that you have life, whatever that means in the total scheme of things. One thing is certain. There will be great change. Humanity should be giving high priority to systems of government that can cope with rapid change.

Of course we should conserve Earth's resources, of course we should develop our sciences against the evil day of coal, oil and gas depletion. But, in the ultimate scheme of things, blah!

These are valid criticisms of the IPCC methodology but the study makes an equally significant error. They have failed to factor in improvements in productivity and the ultimate recoverability of reserves.

Productivity generally improves by 1-2% per annum and, at the very least, one should factor in a rate of improvement in recoverable reserves of a similar percentage. But when motivated by strong market signals there is evidence that much greater improvements are possible.

Given the changes in technology we have seen over the past century, there really is no excuse, as both the study and the IPCC has done, for assuming that the same amount of CO2 will be emitted from a tonne of coal in 2050 as is emitted today. Even a modest, 1% compound annual improvement in emission "cleaning" capacity will see total emissions/tonne of coal or oil reduced by half within 70 years. At 2% annual improvement this halving of emissions will be achieved in only 34 years.

This order of improvement is already being achieved through fuel use efficiencies so there is absolutely no basis for assuming the same cannot be achieved through emission "cleaning".

It is also a very good point about the IPCC's scarenarios assuming that emissions will continue into the next century. For even at a very modest 0.5 of 1% annual compound improvement in emissions cleaning, the emissions in 2100 will only be 60.57% of todays rate.

But all it will take for this entire "problem" to go away is for someone to discover a profitable use for CO2. Almost overnight it will turn into a valuable resource in it's own right which will justify the cost of capture. And at that point we will need to pay serious attention to ensure that our biosphere is getting enough CO2 to meet it's needs and keep us warm.

Basically we have just too many people on the planet.The environmentals talk about restraint in terms of energy and resources but few mention the need for contraception in developing countries that are consuming energy/resources with impunity.

When I was born just 55yrs ago the world pop was just 2 billion.Now it is 7 billion and still growing expodentially.The problem is more about too many people than not enough energy.

It’s been a while since the terms "energy crisis" and "resource crisis" have been used. They have been eclipsed by the global warming crisis and resource boom politics but the crises haven't gone away. It’s not just energy resources either. The intelligence resource of our leader is a rapidly diminishing resource. Have you noticed he is looking a little blue around the lips – oxygen resource problem?

Pity Aleklett didn't mention that uranium is rapidly running out - some estimates put it well within in the next 20 years! Howard's plunge on our behalf into nuclear energy could be short-circuited!

Arjay,

Poor silly man,

"developing countries that are consuming energy/resources with impunity"

which ones are those, what is their per capita consumption?

Silly Deu(fu)s,
The problem is: total consumption -total pollution- total population.

On this issue, the per capita measures chief function is to shaft blame to the west,
& justify payment of further tribute to the rest.

Very impressive graphs and fluff.
There is no human on our planet who knows what the future holds for us, for anyone one human to claim they have any clue at all is fanciful and absurd.
The humans who have got us to this situation did not know the folly of their ways, and the same can be said for the current soothesayers, prophets and egotists.

I can’t see that all our efforts to address climate change are really going to amount to much. We will still be using fossil fuels at a rapid rate for as long as we can viably extract them. So whether we slow the rate now and stretch it out or go whole hog at it until they are exhausted doesn’t matter greatly, does it?

It doesn’t really matter as far a climate change is concerned that is. But it probably does matter greatly in terms of sustainability. Presumably the longer we draw out fossil fuel consumption, the more time we have to adapt and gently transition ourselves into alternative energy sources and lifestyles. But then, maybe we will essentially remain fossil fuel energy dependent and relatively blasé about change for as long as we have it economically available. Perhaps the best thing that can happen is for it to quickly become uneconomic and thus force us into rapid change.

At any rate, I have always maintained that all our efforts on climate change are a distraction from what really matters – sustainability. Sure, in addressing climate change we are dealing with large aspects of sustainability. We are not addressing the whole deal.

The most fundamental aspect that we are overlooking is the continuous-expansion-of-all-things-human paradigm. We’ve got to realise that a society (in Australia and around the world) that is based on an economic model of continuous growth is a society that is running against sustainability and hence against its own future wellbeing, all else being equal.

We can strive to grow per-capita economic gain and hence quality of life, but not total economic gain in conjunction with continuous population growth, which is what is happening in Australia and many countries and which is leadings to an ever-greater impact on environment and resources without improving the average per-capita benefit.

I dearly hope that all this concern about climate change is just a step on the ladder to addressing genuine and holistic sustainability. We really need to step up to the next rung or two pretty damn quickly.

Deus_Abscondis, it isn't just the per capita consumption you need to worry about, it is the product of the number of people and the per capita consumption which counts, as Horus has just pointed out.

Sarah101, I am afraid that you are wrong. It is people like you who put their heads in the sand have got us into the catastrophe that will inevitably befall us if we do not act decisively now.

I have no intention to present distractive information nor question the validity of the extensive data presented, however, the 'tipping point' (where we pass a point of either no return or an indeterminate time frame of return) cannot be quantified by the most astute exponent of guessetimating ... simply, when the more fragile lifeforms cannot cope with a heat or acidic variation, then the more robust life forms are still only as strong as the weakest link.

There is not one life form on this planet that can regenerate its species - as a whole - when key components are missing in the food chain; and so in closing, to suggest severe climate change has been forestaled is but another - perhaps unintended - distraction from the very real situation where - for many species around the world - it is the end of the world as they know it ... pretending to think we will not be affected by the ripple effect is .. well, typically human ...

There is no magic alternative energy source on the horizian that will ever be accessible to the vast majority of human species ... and as previous/current history shows, we are too immature and therefore unable correctly manage it.

I've just read through the various posts and the finger pointing and would like to remind postees that we - all of us - contribute to bringing about our demise; it's our ignorance, not what we know that will be our undoing. Our need / preocupation to extract 'stuff' from this loop to create a new more equitable loop further down the track is the problem; it's because that is how we are hard-wired ....

Daniel Boon, thank you. Now we are talking.
But one of our capacities as "hard-wired" biological entities is our ability to recognise that we are indeed hard wired, and thus potential creators of soft ware that can help us adapt to the future.
Our hard wiring includes greed, fear, selfishness, preference for instant gratification and our capacities to blame the other fellow. Our new soft ware will have to enable rapid response, altruism, and far view.
Maybe the dire extremities that are predicted will intensify the reliance on our hard wiring, but perhaps the awful things about to befall the planet's biology will help us rethink, re-philosophise, and realise that the bell tolls for us as it tolls for many other species whose destruction will be incidental to our human folly.
Maybe, the half billion of us who may survive in 2150 will reach a new height of morality and sustainability. I have to admit I am not too optimistic of this, but I would love to be around to see it.

Kjell's article raises the very important question of how resource depletion ties in with climate change. Really and truly these are two aspects of one and the same problem, and I feel the next big consciousness shift in this area will be this realisation taking hold. Far too many of the suggested solutions at present help with one aspect and make the other worse (see for example the current contradictory "Energy Independence" and "Climate Change" bills being debated in the US).

However, there is one big oversight in Kjell's article, with regard to the coal situation. He has based his conclusions here at least in part on the Energy Watch Group report on coal resources and future production (see my summary of this report on The Oil Drum at http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/2396 ) , but has apparently correlated peak energy from coal with peak coal production. The sad truth is that a key reason why 'peak coal energy' may be fast approaching is because high quality coal is being exhausted, and so coal with a lower energy content is being utilised instead. In other words, even after 'peak coal energy' is reached there will still be more than enough lower quality coal to throw our global climate into thermal runaway. Resource constraints mean that the emissions per unit of energy from coal will get worse and so while the energy peak may be reached relatively soon, this certainly does not imply that the emissions peak will be.

Coal thus becomes the key battleground in the battle to save the planet (at least on the supply side).

Dear Shaunnus,

Are you sure about this argument? I would have thought that the value of using energy as a measure in Aleklett's article is that energy content should directly correlate with the carbon content of the coal and its potential to produce CO2. You say that, as we move to lower and lower grades of coal then the CO2 produced per unit of energy (you mean net energy) increases. But if Aleklett is drawing Hubbert curves based on energy content (not net energy) then this argument will not hold. With oil and gas set to rapidly diminish, coal is the "final" fossil fuel. Coal-fired electricity can subsidise oil production from sources with an Energy Profit Ratio of less than one but there is no alternate energy source to subsidise coal production when its EPR falls to one. In conclusion - looking at the energy content of coal, and estimating times for peak coal in various regions, is a valid way to assess future CO2 production from this fossil fuel.

Regards,

Michael

This opinion article in a newspaper is fine, but I wonder if the opinion has been submitted for review in a scientific publication. Aleklett should debate this with climate scientist before informing the general public.
I look forward to the arguments then exchanged.

Michael wrote: "Are you sure about this argument? I would have thought that the value of using energy as a measure in Aleklett's article is that energy content should directly correlate with the carbon content of the coal and its potential to produce CO2. You say that, as we move to lower and lower grades of coal then the CO2 produced per unit of energy (you mean net energy) increases. But if Aleklett is drawing Hubbert curves based on energy content (not net energy) then this argument will not hold. "

Dear Michael, thanks for your comments but I did not mean net energy. While the energy content of oil directly correlates with its carbon content, this does not hold true for coal. Anthracite is far more energy-dense than lignite, and so for a given energy output (or indeed net energy output) the carbon output will be lower from anthracite. The carbon output per tonne of coal is also highly variable.

The significant argument that might be made here is that as the EROEI (or EPR) of the coal decreases there will be less of an incentive for humanity to extract and burn it, but this is a quite different argument from claiming incorrectly that there is not enough coal to cause disastrous climate change. Whether or not declining EROEI will be enough to prevent disastrous levels of emissions from coal is an open question, but personally I'm not betting on it.

If you are interested in this area you may like to read the forthcoming briefing I am preparing on Coal-To-Liquids (CTL) technology and sequestration, which will be published on our website at http://www.theleaneconomyconnection.net

Dear Shaunus4,

I am still a little confused about this. Somewhere, someone’s figures are not adding up. The value of using energy as a correlate for carbon dioxide production is that it is the number of C-C and C-H bonds in a hydrocarbon that determine its possible energy output and this is directly related to the mass of CO2 that can be produced. Aleklett states that, judging by the volume of energy reserves stated in the BP Statistical Review, there is insufficient carbon to produce dangerous levels of CO2. So, if there is sufficient carbon for climate change then were will it come from? As I see it, the three possibilities are:

1) The BP Statistical Review massively understates potential energy reserves
2) Aleklett has made a mistake in his calculations using the BP Stats
3) Your argument of exploitation of low grade coal reserves does not hold on EROEI grounds.

I guess the crux of the matter comes down to this comment:

“While the energy content of oil directly correlates with its carbon content, this does not hold true for coal. Anthracite is far more energy-dense than lignite, and so for a given energy output (or indeed net energy output) the carbon output will be lower from anthracite. The carbon output per tonne of coal is also highly variable.”

How can the energy content (not the net energy content) of coal not correlate with its carbon content? What other element for oxidization exists in the coal? The net energy output can vary per tonne of coal depending on grade but the total energy content must depend on the carbon content. This means that the energy content (and CO2 production potential) per tonne of coal must be lower for lower grades of coal.

Can you provide some guidance here?

Regards,

Michael

The key point to be taken from this article is that the high end "scarenarios" presented by the IPCC represent improbable extremes, not realistic projections. They were always severely compromised on other grounds, like the assumption that India and China and all of Africa would achieve OECD level economic standard, and do so on the US "urban sprawl" model rather than the much more energy efficient Japanese/Taiwanese/Singaporean model.

When these factors are combined with the real decline in hydrocarbon stocks, especially in the latter half of the century when the exponential factors were really claimed to kick in, then the scarenarios have even less credibility.

And when technology improvements, particularly in fuel efficiency and emission cleaning, are also factored in then it becomes quite clear that every one of the IPCC scarenarios are pure fantasy.

At this early stage of the journey the carbon ship may appear slow to turn, especially to those on it, but once it has turned there will be no mistaking its true course.

But lets face it, this issue is not about carbon at all. It is nothing more than the continuation of that ancient battle between optimist and pessimist, between the generous and the tightarses. And luckily, the optimists have ignored the pessimists and developed new solutions. Looking back on history, there is not much that has been bequeathed to us from the pessimists.

I'm a professional speaker who studies how people think and make decisions. I help organizations uncover unrecognized obstacles to their future success. Peak Oil is one of those unrecognized obstacles.

I've studied Peak Oil and I know it will happen some time. I expect it will happen within the next decade (and peak natural gas as well.) Yet because the primary way humans make decisions is based on past experiences, most people don't accept that Peak Oil will occur. Note that I said _will_ occur, not _could_ occur; many people I have spoken with acknowledge that oil is finite, they see data that producing regions are in decline, that prices are going up - but are incapable of taking that information to the next conclusion - that Western society will not be able to keep expanding as it has for the past 50 years.

I help my clients plan for the future, and I'm here to tell you that no one can predict the future, as Reynard pointed out. If you think about it for 10 secs you recognize it is impossible - there are just too many variables.

But that doesn't mean throwing up our hands and drifting with the wind. I do advocate investing your time examining alternative scenarios as to how the future might unfold and preparing yourselves no matter what happens. It's about examining scenarios that you might initially think are unlikely or that you may have never considered but that could have huge impacts if they come to pass. The problem with predictions is that they try to determine the single most likely future and thus can be blindsided by something that is _perceived_ to have a lower probability but has a high impact and sometimes does occur.

I expect that most of you do this already - you have insurance of one form or another. I don't imagine you bought it with the hope that you will collect on it. But you are willing to make the financial investment for an event that both you and the insurance company hope will never happen. (continued)

It seems to me that the average person now views climate change as an "I should do something about it" issue to the extent that most people view recycling - if there is a bin nearby, I'll put my can in it, but if not - it goes in the garbage. I.e. if it is convenient and easy to do and doesn't cost me anything, okay. I think I have seen some public opinion polls which have probed deeper about climate change and found that people who say "yes it's a problem" will act as long as they don't have to do too much. As Al Gore says climate change is a "moral issue."

Peak Oil is not. Peak Oil is firstly (as Reynard points out) an economic issue, but then (as michael_in_adelaide points out) ulimately a geological/energy issue.

The principle difference in getting people to recognize the issue is the time frame of effects. We humans could continue to pump CO2 into the atmosphere until way too late because it takes a while for the planet to react and the effects are gradual. That is most people don't see the connection between their actions, CO2, and climate change.

On the other hand, when you pull up to a petrol station and the price has doubled, or it is empty, there is an immediate connection between oil production decline and your life. Though even then, it may take people too long to realize what is happening for the really useful steps to be taken in time. My hope and my goal in presentations is to get people to start reducing energy use so that the peak can be delayed until reasonable solutions can be developed.

Randy
www.EnergyPredicament.com

The global warming is not something that "could" happen in the future it's something that is happening now: the ice in Polar areas is melting and temperatures are higher than normal like in 2006 in Europe were lots of people died. We should do something now before is too late. I don't believe what some scientists paid by Shell or Exxon say, it's happening now we just have to look around.

http://saveourbushland.blogspot.com/

Elena R;
I gather you are unaware who Kjell Aleklett is.
I suggest that before you accuse him of being in the oil compnies pocket
that you look him up anywhere.

He would be the very last person that oil companies would employ.

Elena, for some reason the link from your blog does not work.

Here's the direct link to the vid, until you mend it:
http://video.google.com.au/videoplay?docid=-1282796533661048967&q=earthlings

Cheers mate -

Sorry I didn't say that Kjell Aleklett works for petrol companies but he is repeating the same things that their scientifics say: either that the global warming is not happening or fosil fuels don't have anything to do with it. In Spain some birds like storks don't migrate to Africa anymore because the weather is warm enough to stay, tropical insects are invading non-tropical areas like the tiger mosquitoe in Spain too, even politicians like Bush and Puting admit that it's happening.
As I say the global warming is not something that might happen in the future is happening now (I wish I were wrong). Please have a look to this page:
http://staffwww.fullcoll.edu/tmorris/elements_of_ecology/chapter_29.htm
My blog is: http://saveourbushland.blogspot.com/ I hope it works this time :)
Thank you.

OK Elana,
What is important is why he is saying that fossil fuels
will deplete before global warming's worse effects arrive.
If you read the article more closely you will see how the different
IPCC scenarios are analysed and the reality of the available fuel is applied.
This is what the IPCC should have done itself.

There have been other critisms of the IPCC report but I have no opinion
of those critisms.

This critism however is simple enough, its just simple arithmetic.

Most posters seem to be motivated by the question:How can we protect the planet for our children?

But NEITHER climate change, nor global warming, nor solid fossil fuels are climaxing threats mankind faces. Human overpopulation coupled with diminishing oil supplies, future-energy-research mishandling and wars over fresh-water will climax by 2025(penatgon reports)

Is it such a shock that the real question is:

How can we protect the planet FROM our children?

The ugly Reality, for many, worse than looking into the gorgon's eyes is that it is far more important to human survival that we reduce the number of bums-on-toilet seats (heavy-duty thermodynamic wastestreams) across the planet rather than atmospheric gases. The ratio of solid wastes to gaseous wastes in individuals is roughly the same in any industrial or agricultrural investment. To tell people to breathe less and forget about building sewers would unarguably lead to a sudden demise of mankind. The same is true for large industries, transport and agriculture. Now that oceans have reached palpable limits to their ability to handle human sewage we are faced with that very scenario.

Only one-child policies for ALL nations will prevent devastation of our species by about 2025. That only countries like China should have a one-child policy is at best racist and at worst a recipe for world war within two decades.

In summary, we only have about two decades to come up with scientific solutions to the overpopulation problem.Climate change is just one side effect of overpopulation. IMHO we are going to need at least 100 years to solve the overpopulation problem scientifically rather than futilely attempt to solve it militarily. In the meantime we MUST take the pressure off existing energy supplies, wastewater sink capacity and civil infrastructures with an our-child and NOT a selfish 'our-children' motivation.

The current 20 year window of grace is already closing in on us at the global net rate of 100 million 'our-children' a year, while the concern for our-children increasingly
becomes more a liability than an asset.

ITS ALL THERMODYNAMICS ---- and the muti-headed hydra (our-children) will have no mercy.

Well Kaep you are right of course.
The rise in world population tracks the rise in cheap energy exactly.
One child policies would be a good answer. China has implemented it but
with great difficulty. I suspect only a totalatarian government could
get away with it.
The raising of living standards certainly helps as can be seen here in
Australia and Europe. However it is impossible for the rest of the
world to reach our living standard. It just won't happen.

So with that in mind how else could the population be decreased without
the massive starvation that will occur as reduced oil supplies reduces
food production ?

This of course is the well known "Die off" prediction that no one
wants to see. Can the population be allowed to sag down with aging
fast enough to keep it in track with the available energy ?

That really is the big question for this century.

Sorry,

Don't agree about the 20 year grace period. The world is already in a state of overshoot in terms of population. We might have been able to do something about it if we started in the 1970s but we missed that chance. Saudi women have an average of 6 children. US population just topped 300 million and they are now a net food IMPORTER (in $ terms I think). World grain production is now failing to meet demand due to population growth and that is BEFORE we factor in the move of the US and others to biofuels and the coming effects of oil production decline and climate change.

The only thing we can be reasonably certain of is that, by 2100 (and probably much sooner) there will most likely be less than a billion of us left. Mother Nature will take care of that.

I am a member of the Greens but, when I first took up the issue of population, I was labelled an "Ecofascist" and worse by other Greens. It is also not widely known that the Greens almost dropped their (pissweak) population policy at last year's policy review. (Someone in Nettle's office simply decided it was too contentious to put up in the draft new policy package. It was only rear-guard action that led to retention of the policy.) So if the Green's can't even face up to the central need to control population, what hope is there for the rest of the world?

“I am a member of the Greens but, when I first took up the issue of population, I was labelled an "Ecofascist" and worse by other Greens.”

Likewise Michael. I had the same experience with the North Queensland Conservation Council and the Australian Conservation Foundation in the early nineties.

.
KAEP you are absolutely right. Population and the changing economics and food-provision wrought by peak oil are the major factors. Water and other resource stresses will complicate the situation. Climate change is somewhere on the lists of horrors below these things.

I’ve said it many times on this forum: our preoccupation with climate change is a distraction from what really matters – sustainability. And sustainability necessitates addressing the population issue and adapting quick-smart to a world with much more expensive, if not harder to obtain, oil.

.
Bazz asks;

“So with that in mind how else could the population be decreased without the massive starvation that will occur as reduced oil supplies reduces food production ?”

It can’t be. It is too late.

“Can the population be allowed to sag down with aging fast enough to keep it in track with the available energy ?”

No chance.

And the more Howard immigrates the sooner we run out of affordable oil.

This Propaganda article is why media monopolies and the Coonanesque rules which govern them are a COUP for Howard and a detriment to our nation.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/06/12/1181414298095.html

This opinion article in the SMH today purports to decry high immigration levels. It then points out every ECONOMIC value of immigration except for its influence on rising house prices. And even that APPEALS to Australian's greed and suupport for immigration.

But the CRUCIAL water, power and infrastructure usage, the carbon and ecological footprints and the destabilising cultural shock of some 300,000 immigrants arriving every year are blithely omitted. Hitler would have blushed!

John Howard in his lust for Menzies stature has set out to destroy the fabric both ecological and cultural of this nation. I wouldnn't be in the least bit surprised if he wrote this double talk PROPAGANDA himself!

And the best part for Howard? In 20 years when there is not enough fuel for an army to move and civil insurrection erupts in overcrowded coastal cities like Sydney an SEQ, Howard doesn't have to worry about the multicultural ethnic wars that will rip Australia to shreds. He'll be dead and buried. I can assure everyone reading this it will be every ethnic grouping for itself.
That we have criticised Fiji for digging in its heels at foreign takeovers and deculturalisation will haunt Australia within a decade as competition for energy climaxes in overcrowded Australian cities..

Overpopulation is THE global problem. With modern technology and a guaranteed mineral wealth in a world that will totally reengineer itself over the next decade we do not need a larger population and lower living standards. As erudite world citizens we can and must be selfish and demand high quality lifestyles similar to those in Scandanavian countries. Its all about Quality and not quantity. About excellence and not ghettos of lost souls in Dicken$ian squallor.

Wake up Australia! Howard doesn't have his heart in the right place nor his brain in gear.

Not happy John!

KAEP

Re the SMH article: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/06/12/1181414298095.html

Oh Dear, silly old Ross Gittins!

Right at the end he writes;

“There are drawbacks of course.”

….and spends 55 words out of 1043, very briefly mentioning a couple.

Not a thought is spared for the huge impacts that rapid population growth is having on the true economics of this country, by way of continuously increasing pressure on highly stressed water resources, over-reliance on the minerals boom, the looming oil crisis and the overall antisustainable momentum inherent in rapid expansionism.

Some the advantages for our economy that high immigration is purported to be creating might be real in the short term. But look a little further into the future and you will see just how misguided this approach is.

I reckon Howard’s legacy will be a very strongly negative perception of having taken this country diametrically away from sustainability at a time in our history when it was critical that we be steered directly towards it. After the forthcoming peak oil economic upheaval, the Australian people will see Howard as the country’s worst leader by far for having led us into the crisis, when it should have been foreseen and averted with great gusto throughout the 12 years of his reign.

Overpopulation is having the same effect than the meteorite that destroyed the dinosaurs long time ago. We are so "successful" that we are going to extinguish other species and even ourselves. Having more than two children nowadays is suicidal and saying this is politically incorrect. I won't have children for philosophical reasons too long to explain here but one of the reasons is that I don't see much future ahead for humans.
I'm too pessimistic I know.
http://saveourbushland.blogspot.com/

It is a bit politically silly to be blaming John Howard for all the present and future ills of the planet.
Some of you do tend to rave on a bit.

What on earth makes you think it will be different if labour wins the
coming election ?

Labour has has been confirmed in the new Global Warming religion
with the bald ArchBishop in place.

They cannot do anything that is different to the catecisms and it will
take as long as the euchamenical movement to reunite the churches will
take to get the Global Warming movement to realise that fossil fuel
depletion will have no effect on global warming because there will
not be enough to to push it up to the IPCC's forvast level.

michael_in_adelaide wrote:
"The value of using energy as a correlate for carbon dioxide production is that it is the number of C-C and C-H bonds in a hydrocarbon that determine its possible energy output and this is directly related to the mass of CO2 that can be produced."

Thanks Michael - although I am waiting clarification on one point from a colleague, I believe you are right. I was wrong to say that the total energy content of coal does not essentially correlate with its carbon content.

What is true, however, is that on a lifecycle analysis the less energy-dense coal will be more carbon intensive, due to the greater mass of coal that has to be processed to produce a given amount of energy, and the use of fossil fuels to provide the energy for this processing. This is the basis for the EROEI argument I outlined.

This argument still stands, but as you suggest, it does not undermine Aleklett's question regarding the total fossil fuel energy (and thus carbon) accessible to us. However, since alternatives like methane hydrates are already being tested it seems clear that we have more than sufficient ingenuity to destroy our global climate. Wisdom is still required, a lack of intelligence will not save us.

michael_in_adelaide wrote:
"The value of using energy as a correlate for carbon dioxide production is that it is the number of C-C and C-H bonds in a hydrocarbon that determine its possible energy output and this is directly related to the mass of CO2 that can be produced."

Thanks Michael - although I am waiting clarification on one point from a colleague, I believe you are right. I was wrong to say that the total energy content of coal does not essentially correlate with its carbon content.

What is true, however, is that on a lifecycle analysis the less energy-dense coal will be more carbon intensive, due to the greater mass of coal that has to be processed to produce a given amount of energy, and the use of fossil fuels to provide the energy for this processing. This is the basis for the EROEI argument I outlined.

This argument still stands, but as you suggest, it does not undermine Aleklett's question regarding the total fossil fuel energy (and thus carbon) accessible to us. However, since alternatives like methane hydrates are already being tested it seems clear that we have more than sufficient ingenuity to destroy our global climate. Wisdom is still required, a lack of intelligence (or resources) will not save us.

Thanks for those comments Shaunus4,

I imagine you have already seen David Rutledge’s presentation on coal reserves:

http://rutledge.caltech.edu/

This is a very enlightening presentation that states essentially the same thing as the Aleklett article. If I remember correctly, he showed that, by his analysis, exploitable coal reserves probably amount to half of what is shown in the BP Statistical Review and only 1/10th that assumed in the IPCC scenarios!

I don’t agree with you about the existence of additional fossil fuel reserves that are exploitable in order to drive coal production even when the net energy value drops below zero. Methane Hydrates are probably very difficult to exploit at an energy profit – so I believe that my earlier comment about coal being the “final” fossil fuel will be correct.

This is not to deny that climate change is already occurring and it may already prove to be fatal to the city of Adelaide where I live (if we don’t see sufficient rain to replenish our water supply). However, if we cook the world I doubt it will be due to CO2 release according to the IPCC scenarios. Other non-CO2 factors may be involved.