Peak Oil
Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

General discussions of the systemic, societal and civilisational effects of depletion.
Post a reply

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 20:53:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Shannymara', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'P')oisoning the planet is not equivalent to being in overshoot.

That's true, it's a symptom of it.
How so? The only thing I can see it being a symptom of is negligence.

Edit- Or malice.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 21:11:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'T')he carrying capacity includes the ability of an ecosystem is accept and dispose of waste materials. We are witnessing the toxic buildup of CO2, mercury, ozone, and other wastes beyond the capacity of the planet to lock them up and render them stable and harmless--to us humans. We are crapping in our nests and rendering it too filthy to live in.
Not quite. The carrying capacity includes the ecosystem's ability to accept certain, we can call them waste if you like, materials, as well as the population's ability to scale those wastes w/o changing it's own carrying capacity.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 21:14:58

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'M')Q, sorry to interrupt the dung throwing, but what is the solution to the dilemma of needing to modernize third world societies in order to get the birth rate under control while modernization tends to increase energy consumption exponentially?

It seems like you're screwed either way.

Are there any examples of low birth rate and low energy consumption societies today that might be a model?


Judging from past comments, I think Monte's ideal is a high death rate/low energy consumption society.
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby davep » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 21:19:38

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', 'S')ay, for example, you have biomass and carbohydrates from your sustainable farm. You use a certain amount of the biomass to produce say 2/3 of the biomass energy as ethanol. You can then use that ethanol in situations that are more useful to you. Other energy sources could be process biogas (see Blume thread) or solar energy. You end up with a versatile liquid fuel. This isn't for running the world's cars, it's for running my farm. It's repeatable in local appropriate agricultural systems and has other benefits in a holistic system. I quite like the idea, but I'm clinically imbalanced :roll:
If each of these energy production systems are net zero or net negative then at best you have described a energy ponzi scheme.

Why do you think that the world's highest paid, best educated, and and most tax-subsidized farmers in the world don't grow their own fuel? Is it because they don't understand the miracle of permaculture? Is it because they haven't read Blume's bible? Is it because petroleum isn't expensive enough?

No. It is because they understand that the fruit of industrial agriculture is not going to grow the tree it hangs from. That would be thermodynamic nonsense.


Why do you have to spout such vacuous nonsense? The base energy provider is the sun (for biomass, solar and indirectly biogas). Being a net energy loss is not important in that regard. It's not thermodynamic nonsense at all. The ethanol production is one product amongst many in the farm. The ethanol production byproducts increase yields of other products, and the ethanol allows me to run farm implements. In the context of a whole system, it's very useful and increases overall yields. But you're just spouting crap again. Why do I bother replying?
What we think, we become.
User avatar
davep
Senior Moderator
Senior Moderator
 
Posts: 4579
Joined: Wed 21 Jun 2006, 03:00:00
Location: Europe
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 21:28:37

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'I')s it because petroleum isn't expensive enough?
In economic terms, it's because petroleum isn't expensive enough compared to what they are growing and selling.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '[')color=red]It is because they understand that the fruit of industrial agriculture is not going to grow the tree it hangs from.[/color] That would be thermodynamic nonsense.
How is it thermodynamic nonsense?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 21:53:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'Y')es. How many people here think there is excess solar energy not being used that strikes the earth?

The thermodynamic equalibrium we have with space gives us our temperate earth climate. Of the solar energy that strikes the earth, some is re-radiated back into space....but the rest is entirely absorbed by living things or thermal systems that affect ocean temps, weather, albedo, etc.

There is no excess solar energy not being used. It is all used.

With already appropriate 40% of NPP. How much more solar energy can we rob from other lifeforms and thermal systems?


Apparently you guys don't realize that saying things like this makes you look like a complete fruitcake. Get up on stage at the public forum, Monte. On one side we have qualified mainstream scientists like the authors of the Solar Grand Plan, proposing that the U.S. get 69% of its electricity in 2050 from solar, for about the cost of the Iraq war. Great idea. On the other side, we have environmental crazies worried about the horrifying effects of utilizing too much sunlight. :roll: Got tinfoil?
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby JohnDenver » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 21:59:28

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'M')Q, sorry to interrupt the dung throwing, but what is the solution to the dilemma of needing to modernize third world societies in order to get the birth rate under control while modernization tends to increase energy consumption exponentially?

It seems like you're screwed either way.

Are there any examples of low birth rate and low energy consumption societies today that might be a model?


Judging from past comments, I think Monte's ideal is a high death rate/low energy consumption society.
Look who's back in town and gracing us with his wisdom. Mr. "I never said peak oil is not going to happen, it's just that I backtracked and now think my vegetarian commune is going to be just fine thanks."

returned for a quicky ad hominem JD?


Not at all. I'm sure Monte himself will confirm that he is in favor of boosting the death rate as a solution to peak oil. Last I heard, he was toying around with the idea of re-releasing the small pox virus, as a way to re-establish natural predators for the human race.
Peak Oil Debunked
JohnDenver
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2145
Joined: Sun 29 Aug 2004, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 22:14:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'J')D you understand the immense amount of lead and other nasty substances that go into making solar panels etc.
Source? Keep in mind this would likely be solar thermal, not photovoltaic.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')r that covering the ground with solar panels of a medium-sized state could have local, regional, or even national ecologic consequences.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n our plan, by 2050 photovoltaic technology would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts (GW), or billions of watts, of power. Some 30,000 square miles of photovoltaic arrays would have to be erected. Although this area may sound enormous, installations already in place indicate that the land required for each gigawatt-hour of solar energy produced in the Southwest is less than that needed for a coal-powered plant when factoring in land for coal mining.
So, instead of razing the land,
Image
we put stuff on top of less of it...
Image
How horrible!
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 22:23:53

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('JohnDenver', 'A')pparently you guys don't realize that saying things like this makes you look like a complete fruitcake. Get up on stage at the public forum, Monte. On one side we have qualified mainstream scientists like the authors of the Solar Grand Plan, proposing that the U.S. get 69% of its electricity in 2050 from solar, for about the cost of the Iraq war. Great idea. On the other side, we have environmental crazies worried about the horrifying effects of utilizing too much sunlight. :roll: Got tinfoil?
This is the kind of response I was referring to earlier. The notion is laughed out of court because, well, it's just stupid. What the consequences might be, of the grand solar plan, are simply not considered because, well, there just can't be any adverse consequences. It's this kind of thinking that got us into this mess, and it won't get us out of it.

The people that do think that there might be consequences are attacked as fruit cakes, without even looking at their argument.
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 22:35:44

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')his is the kind of response I was referring to earlier. The notion is laughed out of court because, well, it's just stupid. What the consequences might be, of the grand solar plan, are simply not considered because, well, there just can't be any adverse consequences.
Did you read the article? They address some of these consequences, and I'm sure if you brought more valid concerns up we cold attempt to research and determine how much of a problem they may be.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he people that do think that there might be consequences are attacked as fruit cakes, without even looking at their argument.
The problem is that the consequences they illustrate tend to be already addressed, or without sources, eg pstarr's post.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby TonyPrep » Sat 23 Feb 2008, 23:37:56

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'D')id you read the article?
Yes.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'T')hey address some of these consequences
Where? I couldn't find any discussion along the lines that Monte raised. In fact, I found no concern of consequences but did read this one paragraph dismissal of resource concerns:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ritics have raised other concerns, such as whether material constraints could stifle large-scale installation. With rapid deployment, temporary shortages are possible. But several types of cells exist that use different material combinations. Better processing and recycling are also reducing the amount of materials that cells require. And in the long term, old solar cells can largely be recycled into new solar cells, changing our energy supply picture from depletable fuels to recyclable materials.
Which looks like fingers crossed, to me.


$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'a')nd I'm sure if you brought more valid concerns up we cold attempt to research and determine how much of a problem they may be.
Why aren't the concerns already raised not valid?

As I said, there is no research of the possible environmental consequences and it is simply assumed that there are enough earthly resources to deploy the grand plan, the actual figures are not given, for the resources needed to harness and distribute the energy. The article also glosses over the maintenance, repair and renewal of the solar facilities.

The article assumes that energy consumption growth continues (which is right) but it never even questions that economic growth cannot possibly continue indefinitely (implicitly assuming that there are no vital resource shortages for society). It also dangles the carrot of lots of extra jobs. It is purely focused on the sunlight and the mechanics of the storage and distribution system. There is no thought for the possible consequences of the activity and the consequences of trying to maintain economic growth.

There aren't even any figures on how much natural gas is needed over the time-frame (though 40% of the natural gas that would be needed for similar turbines is given, but dismissed as "small amounts") and whether biofuels (apparently, the US will still need them for 10% of it's energy in 2100) are even energy positive or if their production will have consequences.

By the way, do you think it remotely likely that this grand plan will be adopted, or is it just 6 pages of wishful thinking from a group of technologists?
User avatar
TonyPrep
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2842
Joined: Sun 25 Sep 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Waiuku, New Zealand
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 02:06:00

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')here? I couldn't find any discussion along the lines that Monte raised.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', 'O')r that covering the ground with solar panels of a medium-sized state could have local, regional, or even national ecologic consequences.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'I')n our plan, by 2050 photovoltaic technology would provide almost 3,000 gigawatts (GW), or billions of watts, of power. Some 30,000 square miles of photovoltaic arrays would have to be erected. Although this area may sound enormous, installations already in place indicate that the land required for each gigawatt-hour of solar energy produced in the Southwest is less than that needed for a coal-powered plant when factoring in land for coal mining.
So... As per your statement$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'W')hat the consequences might be, of the grand solar plan, are simply not considered because
Some of these consequences are addressed.

In terms of MQ's specific statement$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'Y')es. How many people here think there is excess solar energy not being used that strikes the earth?

The thermodynamic equalibrium we have with space gives us our temperate earth climate. Of the solar energy that strikes the earth, some is re-radiated back into space....but the rest is entirely absorbed by living things or thermal systems that affect ocean temps, weather, albedo, etc.

There is no excess solar energy not being used. It is all used.

With already appropriate 40% of NPP. How much more solar energy can we rob from other lifeforms and thermal systems?It's either blatantly wrong, or laughable. The Earth has about 500x10^6 km^2 of surface area[1]. Carbon emissions result in an increase in energy trapped on the earth by about 1.5W/m^2[2]. So, lets say that these solar thermal installations will supply about 4 trillion kWh/year[3], about all of what we use right now in terms of electricity. This is about 460x10^9W, and is what comes out of the available solar budget, so to speak. Otoh, at 1.5W/m^2[4], and about 5x10^14 m^2 of surface area, Carbon dioxide results in 7.5x10^14W extra. The difference between trapping an extra 7.5x10^14W via Carbon emissions, and taking 4.6x10^11W via solar thermal, is why worries about reducing the amount of energy available are laughed at.

In terms of the NPP and robbing statements, they're just wrong[5].$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hus, humans now appropriate nearly 40% (58.1/ 149.6 Pg = 38.8%) of potential terrestrial productivity, or 25% 160.1/(149.8 + 92.4) Pg = 24.8%1 of the potential global terrestrial and aquatic NPP.So we appropriate about 25% of the Earth's NPP, not 40%. And... To make matters worse, rob has got to be the worst description of it. The authors use "appropriate" and by that they mean what we destroy during business as usual. $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')his computation includes both the NPP humans have co-opted and potential NPP lost as a consequence of human activities.

We only rob, as in use directly, a few percent of the Earth's NPP.$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e estimate that humans use approximately 7.2 Pg of organic material directly each year-about three percent of the biosphere's total annual NPP.If we continue to foul our nest, we will continue to run into trouble. This trouble is because of the 30+% we destroy, not the 3+% we use. If we had intelligent and non-destructive cultivation and land use practices we wouldn't have nearly as much trouble as we do now and will in the future.

That being said, we can continue to use coal and other fossil fuels, screwing with the climate and razing the tops off of hills, instead of placing solar thermal plants, that would use less land, in a less destructive manner, and not significantly exacerbate climate problems from Carbon emissions, because of ill defined and inappropriate worries about running into the same problems down the road.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')n fact, I found no concern of consequences but did read this one paragraph dismissal of resource concerns:$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'C')ritics have raised other concerns, such as whether material constraints could stifle large-scale installation. With rapid deployment, temporary shortages are possible. But several types of cells exist that use different material combinations. Better processing and recycling are also reducing the amount of materials that cells require. And in the long term, old solar cells can largely be recycled into new solar cells, changing our energy supply picture from depletable fuels to recyclable materials.Which looks like fingers crossed, to me.How does that look like fingers crossed? That looks like a statement of uncertainty WRT precise figures as per cost on the short term due to material constraints, so the deployment would like need different types of infrastructure, the combination of which depends on economic conditions at the time of deployment, which no one is sure of.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', 'a')nd I'm sure if you brought more valid concerns up we cold attempt to research and determine how much of a problem they may be.Why aren't the concerns already raised not valid?pstarr was the only one thus far to raise reasonably valid concerns, and of those one was w/o supporting information while the other was already addressed in the article, which is why I asked you if you had read it in response to your statement that none of the consequences had been considered.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'A')s I said, there is no research of the possible environmental consequences and it is simply assumed that there are enough earthly resources to deploy the grand plan, the actual figures are not given, for the resources needed to harness and distribute the energy. The article also glosses over the maintenance, repair and renewal of the solar facilities.It glosses over these because it's an article, not a paper or in depth look at the proposed system. If you want more information start researching what they're proposing and bring that additional information to the table.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')he article assumes that energy consumption growth continues (which is right) but it never even questions that economic growth cannot possibly continue indefinitely (implicitly assuming that there are no vital resource shortages for society).Why would it question that economic growth cannot continue indefinitely? That's one of those basic assumptions the comes from living on a finite planet. They also assume other things such as people will eventually die, but they don't include them in every article involving people, because it's obvious.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'I')t also dangles the carrot of lots of extra jobs. It is purely focused on the sunlight and the mechanics of the storage and distribution system. There is no thought for the possible consequences of the activity and the consequences of trying to maintain economic growth.Since indefinite economic growth not happening is something of a common sense assumption, what are the other consequences you're concerned about that haven't been addressed?
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'T')here aren't even any figures on how much natural gas is needed over the time-frame (though 40% of the natural gas that would be needed for similar turbines is given, but dismissed as "small amounts") and whether biofuels (apparently, the US will still need them for 10% of it's energy in 2100) are even energy positive or if their production will have consequences.I think a decent assumption would be 35% of total electricity output of stored energy for supplementing peak demand. In other words instead of using just natural gas for peak demand, we could use 30-40% of what was used in conjunction with energy stored via compressed air. Since this is just for peak loads, I imagine it isn't a whole lot, but actual figures could probably be tracked down. I believe the 48 billion gallons of biofuels is for heavy transport, ala semis, and a significant portion would probably be imported.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('TonyPrep', 'B')y the way, do you think it remotely likely that this grand plan will be adopted, or is it just 6 pages of wishful thinking from a group of technologists?I don't think it will be adopted because it would likely reduce the costs of energy, and externalities, for everyone. It's quite hard to make money on something where the available supply isn't expected to diminish for a great deal of time and there aren't negative effects that can be taken advantage of in a financially profitable manner. ;)

[1]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth
[2]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
[3]https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/us.html
[4]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_energy
[5]http://dieoff.org/page83.htm
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 03:19:12

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')i.e. not a consensus


You refer to that study to refute me, but I am not citing that study for my 2 to 3 billion consensus number.

"The consensus of 17 leading experts is 2 to 3 billion, I cite here:

http://eco.gn.apc.org/pubs/smail.html"

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'O')K, I'll check that out later, I've got to go and cut some wood before it gets too dark.


So, you spend all this time trying to debunk my reference and you haven't even read it? I have posted that link a dozen times to you. Talk about being caught up in your own dogma....

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'B')ack to your old standby, that it's proven we're in overshoot. You know I disagree with this, yet you insist on trotting it out as a truth. Yawn.


Just because you are poorly informed does not negate the reality of overshoot. Catton saw us in overshoot in 1980. Few ecologists would even try to refute it.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'F')rankly, the whole Chindia thing is irrelevant.


The #1 driving force of human consumption and growth is irrelevant?

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'A')nd stop saying we're in overshoot. I don't agree and nor do a lot of people.

Sounds like the crowd who denies global warming and that we ever landed on the moon. :roll:
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 03:24:13

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('BigTex', 'M')Q, sorry to interrupt the dung throwing, but what is the solution to the dilemma of needing to modernize third world societies in order to get the birth rate under control while modernization tends to increase energy consumption exponentially?

It seems like you're screwed either way.

Are there any examples of low birth rate and low energy consumption societies today that might be a model?


Yes, Ludi has cited some examples.

But like you say, as the fertility rate drops, per capita cosumption rises.

Solution?

Reduce the existing population and powerdown...or wait until nature does it for us when we are even farther into overshoot and degradation of the environment and carrying capacity.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 03:28:03

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('pstarr', ' ')When this country and the world enter into a relentless petroleum decline with no end, all the conservation measures and demand destruction available will not make a bit of difference. We do not have the systems in place, the natural resources, the time, or the talent to remake this society in time.

The scale of the problem will overwhelm us.


Well put. It's all about scale.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby MonteQuest » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 03:32:27

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')Poisoning the planet is not equivalent to being in overshoot.


It's not? The ability of the ecological sinks to absorb our wastes is one of the limiting factors that determines carrying capacity.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')e could have a population of 1 billion and still make this mess.


And we would be in overshoot then as well.
A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
User avatar
MonteQuest
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 16593
Joined: Mon 06 Sep 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Westboro, MO
Top

Re: JD Attacks the Issue of Scale II

Unread postby yesplease » Sun 24 Feb 2008, 03:39:16

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('davep', ' ')Poisoning the planet is not equivalent to being in overshoot.


It's not? The ability of the ecological sinks to absorb our wastes is one of the limiting factors that determines carrying capacity.
The ability of ecological sinks to absorb our wastes and our ability to mediate these wastes while maintaining our population is what determines carrying capacity. If you, or others, want, y'all can assume that nothing will change and our population is in overshoot, but that seems more than simplistic, more like disingenuous.
$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Professor Membrane', ' ')Not now son, I'm making ... TOAST!
User avatar
yesplease
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 3765
Joined: Tue 03 Oct 2006, 03:00:00
Top
PreviousNext
Post a reply

Return to Peak Oil Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests



cron