eclipse wrote:
But IPAT shows us the way? T - including all our energy resources - can either be a multiplier of environmental impact or divider. If we use the right T, like farming 9% of the world's oceans for kelp, we could have:-
My understanding is that limits to growth refers to biocapacity, or resources in general and not just resources. In connection to that, we have ecological footprint:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... _footprintThat is, the world has around 12.2 billion global hectares, and that in turn is based on ecosystems that are very sensitive to things like climate change. As population increases and environmental damage takes its toll, then the footprint per capita decreases further.
* half a kilogram of seafood per person per day, to feed a world of 10 billion people!
From what I know, sea harvests have been on a downward trend the last four decades.
* all the biofuels and biogas we could need to replace fossil fuels and provide the ultimate backup to wind and solar power, or work harmoniously with fast ramping gas to run a smoother nuclear grid,
Very likely, not will not be able to make up for what's needed to avoid doom, i.e., a global economic collapse.
* remove ocean acidity
* restore our atmosphere to 350ppm by 2085
Will require extensive cooperation in a world which operates in the opposite direction because most think that there will be no "doom" because technofixes will allow for "business as usual."
In other words, seaweed is a silver bullet to feed the world, save the oceans, and save us from climate change, all in this free PDF. "Negative carbon via Ocean Afforestation". Just register, and download it for free.
http://www.psep.ichemejournals.com/arti ... 57-5820(12)00120-6/abstract
Absorbing CO2 while using methane is also inevitable, but will not allow for "business as usual," which is what most want (and which explains why they are in denial when it comes to "doom"). For them, a "silver bullet" is what will allow for the equivalent of one more earth.
That's just ONE technology: seaweed farming, which would not only give us all the methane we want (slowly biodigested in big submersible bladders at 100m depth, only collected after 135 days composting), but as mentioned, soak up all the CO2 and put it in big bladders on the ocean floor.
Good to know how "big bladders" work and what bright ideas people will do with them in exchange for profit.
Which is exactly what I am arguing can happen as we move forward in so many areas. Carbon neutral energy from nukes or a combination of renewables + kelp biogas backup can give us everything we need.
(YES, TO SCALE, YES, I've seen "End of suburbia" and read Heinberg's The Party's Over and Powerdown and seen those guys saying "But there isn't enough land!" They forgot about the ocean, didn't they?)
Ironically, even doomers point out that we "can" do this or that, but the question is, Have they taken place?
I recall one documentary stating that policies dealing with global warming and peak oil should have been implemented at least two decades ago. Another study argues that a global transition to using other sources of energy may take up to a century:
http://www.businessinsider.com/131-year ... il-2010-11I think the problem is that you see the world as some computer simulation, where if one pushes a few buttons then whole societies will quickly act in tandem and ensure that policies or technologies are implemented easily. In order to remedy that, you need to see these crises raised in light of the following realities:
- the global economy as well as various resources are funded and controlled by a financial elite; their goal is to get a better return on their investments each time, and that means continuous economic growth and increasing consumption not just of energy but of material resources;
- the "silver bullets" you presented become viable only if it leads to more sales of cell phones, tablets, electric cars, etc. In short, a global middle class:
http://magazine.pewtrusts.org/en/archiv ... ds-economywhich in turn requires exceeding planetary limitations
- not just the financial elite but the military, the middle class, and most of the population expect not just basic needs but middle class conveniences, more and better armaments, etc; in short, not just continuous but accelerating growth, and in a short span of time.
It sounds like you're quoting various economic memes around 'ecological economics' without further reflection. Try the EcoModernists at The Breakthrough Institute: the breakdown what went wrong with this model, and how to move on from here.
Completely the opposite. Those are not "economic memes" but realities, and not based on "ecological economics" but on the simple fact that all of those numbers in hard drives are backed by a combination of energy and material resources, and that both are in turn limited by the biosphere. These points are based on reflection rather than on naivete, that is, assuming that the world population operates as some unified organism, and because of that some "great Anthropocene" will emerge. Give me a break.
Ecological economics set out 30 years ago to be a redemptive science -- to "right size" the human economy for its natural infrastructure.4 But today, ecological economics finds itself at a political and academic dead end. Trapped in the amber of its mathematical models and conceptual constructs, ecological economics presents an object lesson for those who would appeal to scientific theories, rather than to popular concerns, to provide an intellectual and political basis for an effective green politics.
http://thebreakthrough.org/index.php/jo ... -economicsIt has many great points, including this next whopper!
Ironically, this supports my argument. The reason why ecological economics was perceived as a failure is because the magic of free market capitalism gave the impetus for all sorts of technofixes to be implemented in return for more production, sales, and profits. Progress, in turn, was later measured in terms of credit.
Now, it turns out that some are beginning to realize that the fact that human ingenuity cannot ultimately outwit limitations of the biosphere. Which is what we are now seeing.
If any, there's your "whopper."
Neo-Malthusians argued that the world would not be able to grow enough food to keep up with population, but this assertion was simply wrong. In fact, world food production more than doubled between 1960 and 2000, and per capita food production during that period also increased.10 In 1981, economist Amartya Sen, who later won the Nobel Prize for his research, published a book that flatly and effectively contradicted the idea that famines occur because not enough food is produced. Sen showed that oppression, injustice, and destitution -- breakdowns in distribution, not shortages in production -- cause famines. With such "misleading variables as food output per unit of population, the Malthusian approach profoundly misspecifies the problems facing the poor in the world," Sen wrote, noting that as per capita food production increased, the world was lulled into a false optimism that famines would decrease. "It is often overlooked that what may be called 'Malthusian optimism' has actually killed millions of people."11
Meanwhile, population boomed, leading to incredible strains on ecosystems. At the same time, corporations controlled more of food systems worldwide, together with shipping, etc. The financial corporations that financed them also funded mechanized armies and increased arms production to "protect" not just food sources but also those for oil and minerals. Meanwhile, the same large population that experienced unprecedented health thanks to availability of food and medicine now want even more:
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-22956470The same corporations which control the global economy
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg ... the-world/are counting on increasing sales of all sorts of goods and services to expanding markets in most of the world in return for profits and returns on investment, which they imagine they will re-invest in more businesses to make more sales, in return for more profits and ROIs.
Those are the same corporations who will be funding your "silver bullets." Guess what they want in return?
