Have we reached a tipping point?

[AlbergSteve]

Don't forget about the "Blob" right here on our doorstep - if you've got a few minutes to see its effects on common murres here.

 

[semipro]

More than just the canary, the whole avian population is in serious decline. Silent spring is becoming a reality.

Ornithologists, Birdwatchers Uncover Staggering Magnitude of Bird Population Decline - The Cornell Daily Sun

Correction appended. Cornell Lab of Ornithology conservation scientist Dr. Ken Rosenberg led an international team of 12 scientists in an analysis of decades of data on bird population — and the conclusion is disturbing. In the last 50 years, one in four birds in North America has disappeared...

cornellsun.com

Sad... An asteroid couldn't completely take out the dinosaurs but we might.
Maybe related to the decline in insect biomass. I used to hate what bugs did to my windshield on a warm summer night.

 

[begreen]

Sad... An asteroid couldn't completely take out the dinosaurs but we might.
Maybe related to the decline in insect biomass. I used to hate what bugs did to my windshield on a warm summer night.

Yes, it is all related.

 

[Ashful]

Too many people. Coincidentally, I’ve been listening to a lot of old NASA interviews and raw footage. It’s simultaneously amusing and depressing that most of the astronauts and leadership team thought we’d have colonized their moon and Mars, by now.

Maybe those New World Order folks were onto something, when they proclaimed we need to keep world population at 500M.

 

[semipro]

I've always thought that controlling the human population would be the least painful way of becoming a sustainable society.
Nature will ultimately restore balance but I don't think that humans are going to like how its done.
And, our place now as a dominant species on the earth will result in us dragging a lot of other species down with us.

 

[SpaceBus]

Population isn't the issue, it's how we are spread out and conduct business. Giant ships loafing across the oceans belching smog is not sustainable. Clearing the rainforest for farmland is not sustainable. Everyone on the planet needs to learn there is no free lunch and all this energy is coming from somewhere. As smart as humans are there is definitely a way to live in a sustainable way without eugenics, population control measures, etc. Moving to the moon or Mars is definitely not the answer either. What kind of sense does it make to deplete the earth further to make bases that are only going to drain more energy and resources? Every human on this planet could comfortably live in an area the size of Texas, maybe even smaller.

 

[Ashful]

Population isn't the issue, it's how we are spread out and conduct business. ... Every human on this planet could comfortably live in an area the size of Texas, maybe even smaller.

... says the guy who just bought a large piece of remote property in rural Maine!

 

[SpaceBus]

... says the guy who just bought a large piece of remote property in rural Maine!

Hey, I do appreciate my privacy, but I also work very hard to minimize my carbon, environmental impact and live in a way that is not damaging to the planet. Now this is not to say I'm some ascetic monk or whatever, my life isn't totally carbon neutral, but I am trying. If everyone tried just a little, and then kept trying a little more every day, then this wouldn't be such an issue. Millennials are the first generation to grow up with almost unlimited access to information and most support environmental causes. Education is the key to overcoming the shortcomings of our fathers and mothers, not damning their lineages to the dust.

Who do you think would suffer the most under population controls?

Edit: I also don't literally think that everyone needs to live in an area the size of Texas. My point being that there is plenty of space but our energy supply train is the issue.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Population isn't the issue, it's how we are spread out and conduct business. Every human on this planet could comfortably live in an area the size of Texas, maybe even smaller.

Wow ,who would want to live on top of 7 Billion people packed into a state the size of Texas .No one here on Hearth, thats for sure. Face it SpaceBus, you cant and you wont change human nature. Nature will handle the population again , just like in the not too distant past when it was reduced to less than 50,000 individuals. Just 12000 yr ago population was a mere 1 million. Next big Pandemic probably will do that. If not an asteroid or volcano blowing its top. Possibly yellowstone.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

What could intervene?

1. Starvation - Can we feed 8 billion people?
--- Many say no. Drought-induced famine

2. Disease Epidemic -
--- SARS, a new bird flu, Ebola?

3. Nuclear winter -
--- Super volcano, nuclear war, comet, asteroid?

4. Birth rate change
--- Happening now

5. The Earth's poles flip
--- Calamity, happened many times before

6. The Apocalypse (religion induced)
--- People lose their minds on massive scale
Could probably throw in climate change down the road for No 7. That would be related to No 1. and No 2.

 

[ABMax24]

Population isn't the issue, it's how we are spread out and conduct business. Giant ships loafing across the oceans belching smog is not sustainable. Clearing the rainforest for farmland is not sustainable. Everyone on the planet needs to learn there is no free lunch and all this energy is coming from somewhere. As smart as humans are there is definitely a way to live in a sustainable way without eugenics, population control measures, etc. Moving to the moon or Mars is definitely not the answer either. What kind of sense does it make to deplete the earth further to make bases that are only going to drain more energy and resources? Every human on this planet could comfortably live in an area the size of Texas, maybe even smaller.

I think what you're not taking into account is the location of resources that we use as a human race. That's the big reason we are spread out all over the planet, why people thousands of years ago moved to new places, to find better resources. We live where can find and extract primary resources. I live in an area where the climate and remoteness makes just sustaining life incredibly energy intensive, yet we have a city of almost 75,000 because there are trees to be logged, oil and gas to extract, and huge tracts of prairie for growing grain.

Overpopulation is unfortunately the problem, the fact is it takes a given amount of land to produce enough resources for every person on this planet. For every urban area we need a developed rural area to supply the resources and a transportation system to move people and materials back and forth.

For example of the materials we produce locally only a small amount is consumed here: Some of the oil is refined here and shipped around Western Canada, the rest is shipped to the US or some to Asia. The grain is also shipped to Asia. The timber is made into lumber and pulp and is shipped all over Canada, the US, and to Asia. The large population centers elsewhere lack these resources and make this a necessity to sustain modern life.

I don't know how we fix the problem, particularly when there is no incentive to give up modern conveniences that are so dependent on the constant supply of resources.

 

[SpaceBus]

I think what you're not taking into account is the location of resources that we use as a human race. That's the big reason we are spread out all over the planet, why people thousands of years ago moved to new places, to find better resources. We live where can find and extract primary resources. I live in an area where the climate and remoteness makes just sustaining life incredibly energy intensive, yet we have a city of almost 75,000 because there are trees to be logged, oil and gas to extract, and huge tracts of prairie for growing grain.

Overpopulation is unfortunately the problem, the fact is it takes a given amount of land to produce enough resources for every person on this planet. For every urban area we need a developed rural area to supply the resources and a transportation system to move people and materials back and forth.

For example of the materials we produce locally only a small amount is consumed here: Some of the oil is refined here and shipped around Western Canada, the rest is shipped to the US or some to Asia. The grain is also shipped to Asia. The timber is made into lumber and pulp and is shipped all over Canada, the US, and to Asia. The large population centers elsewhere lack these resources and make this a necessity to sustain modern life.

I don't know how we fix the problem, particularly when there is no incentive to give up modern conveniences that are so dependent on the constant supply of resources.

Like I said, I don't want a literal centralist lifestyle. My point being the way we use the energy is the issue. We as a people need to invest into a clean energy future. Currently things are run in a linear fashion where the current person driving the ship doesn't have to deal with the aftermath. The people who will deal with the aftermath of uncapped production are Millennials and their children. The planet can support human population numbers, but only if humans change the way we manage the planet's resources. Shipping goods isn't the problem, shipping goods with fossil fuels that pollute the environment and deplete resources is just one problem among many.

 

[Ashful]

I think what you're not taking into account is the location of resources that we use as a human race. That's the big reason we are spread out all over the planet, why people thousands of years ago moved to new places, to find better resources. We live where can find and extract primary resources. I live in an area where the climate and remoteness makes just sustaining life incredibly energy intensive, yet we have a city of almost 75,000 because there are trees to be logged, oil and gas to extract, and huge tracts of prairie for growing grain.

Overpopulation is unfortunately the problem, the fact is it takes a given amount of land to produce enough resources for every person on this planet. For every urban area we need a developed rural area to supply the resources and a transportation system to move people and materials back and forth.

For example of the materials we produce locally only a small amount is consumed here: Some of the oil is refined here and shipped around Western Canada, the rest is shipped to the US or some to Asia. The grain is also shipped to Asia. The timber is made into lumber and pulp and is shipped all over Canada, the US, and to Asia. The large population centers elsewhere lack these resources and make this a necessity to sustain modern life.

I don't know how we fix the problem, particularly when there is no incentive to give up modern conveniences that are so dependent on the constant supply of resources.

Easily the best post on this thread. Thank you for that.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

The combination of ever increasing population and much of the major fish stocks down to just 10% left . Happening right now.
"Compared to 1950, only 10% of large fish such as tuna, cod, and halibut remain in the oceans. More than 200 million people around the world earn their living in the fishing industry. " And many more millions are sustained daily on a diet of fish.

 

[ABMax24]

Like I said, I don't want a literal centralist lifestyle. My point being the way we use the energy is the issue. We as a people need to invest into a clean energy future. Currently things are run in a linear fashion where the current person driving the ship doesn't have to deal with the aftermath. The people who will deal with the aftermath of uncapped production are Millennials and their children. The planet can support human population numbers, but only if humans change the way we manage the planet's resources. Shipping goods isn't the problem, shipping goods with fossil fuels that pollute the environment and deplete resources is just one problem among many.

These are the exact issues we are wrestling with here in Canada right now, particularly Western Canada. We have groups of individuals that believe an immediate moratorium on any new fossil fuel development should be imposed. The city of Vancouver has even went as far as to say the streets with be fossil fuel free by 2030, and effectively made it impossible to install natural gas in new construction requiring all heating to come from other sources, being mostly electric. These same people are also protesting the building of a new hydro-electric dam in the northern corner of the province that will help to provide the energy needed for electric cars and electric heat to make these goals a reality. All the while the city is expanding the airport and building a pipeline from the local refinery to supply the ever growing need for jet-fuel.

While many of us here in Alberta earn our living developing and exporting fossil fuels. How do we make an instant transition to green energy that many are calling for? The money for this infrastructure must come from somewhere, and quite frankly the technology doesn't even exist yet to make this a reality, and won't until long term grid scale energy storage is possible. So do we shoot ourselves in the foot, shut down all industry and hope some miracle comes along to employ us or do we continue to develop our resources responsibly and use the revenue from this to advance our society.

As it stands all coal power plants will be shut down in Canada by 2030, a few of our plants in Alberta have already been converted to natural gas, with a few more high efficiency combined cycle natural gas plants scheduled to be built, on top of the other coal plants yet to be converted. We are even building LNG plants on the west coast that will allow us to ship natural gas to other countries to replace oil and coal as fuels. Yet we still face fierce opposition to these acts saying they don't go far enough.

The conclusion I have come to is change is needed, that burning fossil based fuels must come to an end. Unfortunately there is very little consensus and even less real thought on the best ways for us to achieve this. We have a huge list of environmental groups here in Canada, all pushing their own agenda, that essentially make any project impossible to build. One doesn't like wind turbines because they kill birds, the other doesn't like hydro-electric because it disrupts watershed ecosystems, another biomass because it requires logging of forests, the other fossil fuels because of climate change. So what do we do? There are so many calling for change and so few that actually contribute any logic thought into solving the problem, and even fewer that pose solutions that don't require the tax payer to fork over billions of dollars.

I am a part of the industry that is demonized as being the cause of climate change, particularly in the eyes of US based environmental groups. If there was no demand for oil and gas there would be no oil and gas companies and no development. Alberta's oil and gas industry sets the gold standard for oil and gas development for the world in technological advancement, worker rights and safety, and environmental protection.

The thought I would like to leave on this topic is how do we balance the needs of today with those of the future? How do we cost effectively transition energy sources without creating a mountain of debt for future generations and without causing huge disruptions to the employment of people today and their standard of living? To what end do we need to protect the environment, and who should have the authority to determine what energy projects are for the greater good and which are not?

 

[begreen]

Alberta's oil and gas industry sets the gold standard for oil and gas development for the world in technological advancement, worker rights and safety, and environmental protection.

How is this the gold standard in environmental protection?

Alberta, Canada's oil sands is the world's most destructive oil operation—and it's growing

Can Canada develop its climate leadership and its lucrative oil sands too?

www.nationalgeographic.com

Environmental impact of Alberta tar sands 'horrible,' expert says (PHOTOS) - The World from PRX

Part Two: With government oversight in question and toxins piling up, residents say they are being poisoned and disempowered.

www.pri.org

 

[Easy Livin’ 3000]

I worked in the investment business before I retired last year. Part of my job was to present the firm's view on the economy to boards, committees, executives. One of the constant messages was the importance of GDP growth (even though there is ironically zero correlation with stock market returns in the short term).

Over time, as I presented the GDP growth number, which is currently driven by consumption, at about 70%, and the law of compounding (another important concept in investing), I eventually realized that we are quickly on a collision course with planetary destruction, mass extinction and, even if we survive it, it's not gonna be someplace anyone wants to live.

Couple the simple arithmetic of compounding in the context of consumption with the rate of technological change, which is also compounding. Add in a big dash of human nature, which has a huge greed component, is overwhelmingly short sighted, and is loaded with ignorance and denial. Finally, make the issue a social one instead of a math and science one, and the really bad people can now manipulate enough of the population to make it impossible politically to do anything about it.

Sorry folks, if you look at this as a simple math problem (and you should), the human race is toast, at our own hands. It's just a matter of time. If you have young children, you should be very sad for what we have done.

 

[SpaceBus]

These are the exact issues we are wrestling with here in Canada right now, particularly Western Canada. We have groups of individuals that believe an immediate moratorium on any new fossil fuel development should be imposed. The city of Vancouver has even went as far as to say the streets with be fossil fuel free by 2030, and effectively made it impossible to install natural gas in new construction requiring all heating to come from other sources, being mostly electric. These same people are also protesting the building of a new hydro-electric dam in the northern corner of the province that will help to provide the energy needed for electric cars and electric heat to make these goals a reality. All the while the city is expanding the airport and building a pipeline from the local refinery to supply the ever growing need for jet-fuel.

While many of us here in Alberta earn our living developing and exporting fossil fuels. How do we make an instant transition to green energy that many are calling for? The money for this infrastructure must come from somewhere, and quite frankly the technology doesn't even exist yet to make this a reality, and won't until long term grid scale energy storage is possible. So do we shoot ourselves in the foot, shut down all industry and hope some miracle comes along to employ us or do we continue to develop our resources responsibly and use the revenue from this to advance our society.

As it stands all coal power plants will be shut down in Canada by 2030, a few of our plants in Alberta have already been converted to natural gas, with a few more high efficiency combined cycle natural gas plants scheduled to be built, on top of the other coal plants yet to be converted. We are even building LNG plants on the west coast that will allow us to ship natural gas to other countries to replace oil and coal as fuels. Yet we still face fierce opposition to these acts saying they don't go far enough.

The conclusion I have come to is change is needed, that burning fossil based fuels must come to an end. Unfortunately there is very little consensus and even less real thought on the best ways for us to achieve this. We have a huge list of environmental groups here in Canada, all pushing their own agenda, that essentially make any project impossible to build. One doesn't like wind turbines because they kill birds, the other doesn't like hydro-electric because it disrupts watershed ecosystems, another biomass because it requires logging of forests, the other fossil fuels because of climate change. So what do we do? There are so many calling for change and so few that actually contribute any logic thought into solving the problem, and even fewer that pose solutions that don't require the tax payer to fork over billions of dollars.

I am a part of the industry that is demonized as being the cause of climate change, particularly in the eyes of US based environmental groups. If there was no demand for oil and gas there would be no oil and gas companies and no development. Alberta's oil and gas industry sets the gold standard for oil and gas development for the world in technological advancement, worker rights and safety, and environmental protection.

The thought I would like to leave on this topic is how do we balance the needs of today with those of the future? How do we cost effectively transition energy sources without creating a mountain of debt for future generations and without causing huge disruptions to the employment of people today and their standard of living? To what end do we need to protect the environment, and who should have the authority to determine what energy projects are for the greater good and which are not?

I do understand that things can't change overnight. There's a huge wealth disparity that is also included in this mess. Many people have made incredible profits at the expense of the environment and everyone else. Obviously you and I don't have the wealth to end climate change and deforesf

I worked in the investment business before I retired last year. Part of my job was to present the firm's view on the economy to boards, committees, executives. One of the constant messages was the importance of GDP growth (even though there is ironically zero correlation with stock market returns in the short term).

Over time, as I presented the GDP growth number, which is currently driven by consumption, at about 70%, and the law of compounding (another important concept in investing), I eventually realized that we are quickly on a collision course with planetary destruction, mass extinction and, even if we survive it, it's not gonna be someplace anyone wants to live.

Couple the simple arithmetic of compounding in the context of consumption with the rate of technological change, which is also compounding. Add in a big dash of human nature, which has a huge greed component, is overwhelmingly short sighted, and is loaded with ignorance and denial. Finally, make the issue a social one instead of a math and science one, and the really bad people can now manipulate enough of the population to make it impossible politically to do anything about it.

Sorry folks, if you look at this as a simple math problem (and you should), the human race is toast, at our own hands. It's just a matter of time. If you have young children, you should be very sad for what we have done.

Your last paragraph illustrates why I'm OK with not having children.

 

[Seasoned Oak]

Your last paragraph illustrates why I'm OK with not having children.

We're not only leaving them pollution but 22 Trillion of DEBT.
I for one would gladly pay more to clean up the mess we have made and craft a better way. Start at the source and work from there. It can provide a lot of jobs .

 

[Easy Livin’ 3000]

I do understand that things can't change overnight. There's a huge wealth disparity that is also included in this mess. Many people have made incredible profits at the expense of the environment and everyone else. Obviously you and I don't have the wealth to end climate change and deforesf


Your last paragraph illustrates why I'm OK with not having children.

One more nugget of data- The two wealthiest human beings today, and of all time, are making their massive wealth through two companies that encourage incredibly wasteful and largly unnecessary consumption: Amazon and LVMH. It's sickening.

 

[Easy Livin’ 3000]

Were not only leaving them pollution but 22 Trillion of DEBT.
I for one would gladly pay more to clean up the mess we have made and craft a better way. Start at the source and work from there. It can provide a lot of jobs .

Yes, you are so right. This country is so mixed up right now, that this purposeful running up of the debt is being largely ignored. There will be massive ugly consequences to this and will be a major contributor to the sad end of this experiment in democracy that started out so beautifully in the late 1700's.

Now let's go gut some more environmental regulations that helped put out the rivers that were literally burning, and clean the air that was literally burning our lungs.

 

[begreen]

I worked in the investment business before I retired last year. Part of my job was to present the firm's view on the economy to boards, committees, executives. One of the constant messages was the importance of GDP growth (even though there is ironically zero correlation with stock market returns in the short term).

Over time, as I presented the GDP growth number, which is currently driven by consumption, at about 70%, and the law of compounding (another important concept in investing), I eventually realized that we are quickly on a collision course with planetary destruction, mass extinction and, even if we survive it, it's not gonna be someplace anyone wants to live.

Couple the simple arithmetic of compounding in the context of consumption with the rate of technological change, which is also compounding. Add in a big dash of human nature, which has a huge greed component, is overwhelmingly short sighted, and is loaded with ignorance and denial. Finally, make the issue a social one instead of a math and science one, and the really bad people can now manipulate enough of the population to make it impossible politically to do anything about it.

Sorry folks, if you look at this as a simple math problem (and you should), the human race is toast, at our own hands. It's just a matter of time. If you have young children, you should be very sad for what we have done.

That's exactly right. I posted this in the Ash Can years ago using professor Bartlett's lecture as an example.

 

[Easy Livin’ 3000]

That's exactly right. I posted this in the Ash Can years ago using professor Bartlett's lecture as an example.

I'm not familiar with Professor Bartlett nor the ash can. Or maybe I just don't remember them. Either way, your a sharp one, BG.

What doesn't make any sense to me, is, with this information, why are we still worrying about the inevitable. We should be partying like it's 2020. Maybe I'll try to turn over a new leaf this year and join the party. Actually, it's why I retired from the rat race last year.

 

[woodnomore]

Yes, you are so right. This country is so mixed up right now, that this purposeful running up of the debt is being largely ignored. There will be massive ugly consequences to this and will be a major contributor to the sad end of this experiment in democracy that started out so beautifully in the late 1700's.

Now let's go gut some more environmental regulations that helped put out the rivers that were literally burning, and clean the air that was literally burning our lungs.

I have worked in the environmental industry since 1987. In the US the environment has never been cleaner than it is now, from groundwater to air. The current president is not making it worse.

 

[Easy Livin’ 3000]

I have worked in the environmental industry since 1987. In the US the environment has never been cleaner than it is now, from groundwater to air. The current president is not making it worse.

Yep, it's like a switch.

And you are lying.