[EnergySpin]

For those of you who want to read an introduction on energy/thermodynamics/environment/sustainability (only high school math, do not worry) you can try your teeth on the following
The limits of technological solutions to sustainable development

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '[')b]Abstract Sustainable development has been defined by
political and corporate leaders as the combination of environmental
protection and economic growth. As a result,
the concept of eco-efficiency has been promoted as the
primary tool for achieving industrial sustainability.
However, there are at least four reasons why technological
improvements in eco-efficiency alone will be insufficient to
bring about a transition to sustainability. First, considering
that the very foundations of western industrial societies
are based on the exploitation of non-renewable
minerals and fuels, it will be extremely difficult to switch to
an industrial and economic system based solely on
renewable resources. Clearly, the continuing use of nonrenewables
is inherently unsustainable because of finite
material supplies and the fact that 100% recycling is
impossible. Second, given the limited supply of nonrenewable
fuels, long-term sustainability can only be
guaranteed if all energy is derived directly or indirectly
from the sun. However, if the current U.S. energy demand
would have to be supplied solely from solar sources, a wide
range of serious and unavoidable negative environmental
impacts are likely to result. Third, even the best of human
ingenuity and the greatest technological optimism are
bounded by the second law of thermodynamics, which
dictates that all industrial and economic activities have
unavoidable negative environmental consequences. Finally,
improvements in eco-efficiency alone will not guarantee
a reduction in the total environmental impact if economic
growth is allowed to continue. Unless growth in both
population and consumption is restrained, these technological
improvements only delay the onset of negative
consequences that, as a result, will have increased in severity,

[Tanada]

Bump...Still worth a good reading and arguing about.

[Homesteader]

Yeah, like those folks who think that since the Green Revolution didn't do it that GMO's are the key to enabling third wold countries to grow enough food to feed their populations.

Increased food production simply means a larger underfed population.

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'H')owever, if the current U.S. energy demand
would have to be supplied solely from solar sources, a wide
range of serious and unavoidable negative environmental
impacts are likely to result.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('yesplease', ' ')U.S. energy demand is artificially inflated in order to maximize profit. Wouldn't it be sensible to assume that policy changes would attempt to put an end to this, and provide a relatively efficient level of energy usage?

[yesplease]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', 'W')hat jobs do you propose we cut to achieve this?

All that "artificially inflated" energy use currently employs millions and drives much of GDP growth.

[Graeme]

EnergySpin, I do think that, theoretically, there is a way forward, but in practice this will be difficult to achieve because it will require major changes in government policy for all nations, unless individual companies adopt their own green policies first to their advantage.

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')he green economists share broader ecological and social concerns, including a distrust of capitalism itself, that go beyond the narrower concerns of environmental economics, resource economics, and sustainable development, which are subsets of green economics.

All green economists regard "economic growth" as a delusion, since it contradicts the first Axiom (above). Growthism is an ideology which disrupts and destroys growth in the life support capacity of the natural ecosystem: air and water filtering, food production, fiber growth. Green economists often characterize their work as "social ecology" and some may employ the Marxist analysis of means of production.

The central problem of economic growth is that it implies ever-increasing "throughput" of materials, through the linear process of mine-manufacture-use-dispose. There is a need for growth in the green sector of the economy, for instance, a growth in the recycling industry, as the world economy moves towards a sustainable mode.

[Tyler_JC]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Homesteader', 'Y')eah, like those folks who think that since the Green Revolution didn't do it that GMO's are the key to enabling third wold countries to grow enough food to feed their populations.

Increased food production simply means a larger underfed population.

[SevenTen]

I doubt we'll hit 7.5 billion. Being so severely in overshoot, and living in a system so entirely dependent on cheap energy to feed ourselves, and clean ourselves (to fend off our natural predators, viruses and bacteria), and clear our wastes, and provide our lifestyles ... as cheap energy declines, the rest will decline. It will be a fast catabolic collapse.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SevenTen', 'I') doubt we'll hit 7.5 billion. Being so severely in overshoot, and living in a system so entirely dependent on cheap energy to feed ourselves, and clean ourselves (to fend off our natural predators, viruses and bacteria), and clear our wastes, and provide our lifestyles ... as cheap energy declines, the rest will decline. It will be a fast catabolic collapse.

[EnergySpin]

WTF?
A blast from my posting past?

Interesting essay, re-reading it after almost 2 years is refreshing. There are some points that are "eco-religious" so to speak. For example: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hird, even the best of human
ingenuity and the greatest technological optimism are
bounded by the second law of thermodynamics, which
dictates that all industrial and economic activities have
unavoidable negative environmental consequences.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Tyler_JC', 'T')he expected peak level of global population has been dropping for several decades. We will never hit 14 billion people as some predicted in the 70s. We might not even break 10 billion. I think the current UN estimate is around 9 billion.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SevenTen', 'I') doubt we'll hit 7.5 billion. Being so severely in overshoot, and living in a system so entirely dependent on cheap energy to feed ourselves, and clean ourselves (to fend off our natural predators, viruses and bacteria), and clear our wastes, and provide our lifestyles ... as cheap energy declines, the rest will decline. It will be a fast catabolic collapse.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'W')TF?
A blast from my posting past?

Interesting essay, re-reading it after almost 2 years is refreshing. There are some points that are "eco-religious" so to speak. For example: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hird, even the best of human
ingenuity and the greatest technological optimism are
bounded by the second law of thermodynamics, which
dictates that all industrial and economic activities have
unavoidable negative environmental consequences.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '[')i]Only if the standard of living rise experienced over the last 45 years continues so the transitions can continue.

9.1 billion is the UN mean estimate. 11 billion the high.

At the current rate 13 billion in 58 years.

With peak oil on the horizon, do you think the world's SOL is going to continue to rise?

I don't.

We may see a return to large families to work and grow food.

[bshirt]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SevenTen', 'I') doubt we'll hit 7.5 billion. Being so severely in overshoot, and living in a system so entirely dependent on cheap energy to feed ourselves, and clean ourselves (to fend off our natural predators, viruses and bacteria), and clear our wastes, and provide our lifestyles ... as cheap energy declines, the rest will decline. It will be a fast catabolic collapse.

[MonteQuest]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergyUnlimited', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '[')i]Only if the standard of living rise experienced over the last 45 years continues so the transitions can continue.

9.1 billion is the UN mean estimate. 11 billion the high.

At the current rate 13 billion in 58 years.

With peak oil on the horizon, do you think the world's SOL is going to continue to rise?

I don't.

We may see a return to large families to work and grow food.

[EnergySpin]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('EnergySpin', 'W')TF?
A blast from my posting past?

Interesting essay, re-reading it after almost 2 years is refreshing. There are some points that are "eco-religious" so to speak. For example: $this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'T')hird, even the best of human
ingenuity and the greatest technological optimism are
bounded by the second law of thermodynamics, which
dictates that all industrial and economic activities have
unavoidable negative environmental consequences.

[SevenTen]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '')$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('SevenTen', 'I') doubt we'll hit 7.5 billion. Being so severely in overshoot, and living in a system so entirely dependent on cheap energy to feed ourselves, and clean ourselves (to fend off our natural predators, viruses and bacteria), and clear our wastes, and provide our lifestyles ... as cheap energy declines, the rest will decline. It will be a fast catabolic collapse.

[EnergyUnlimited]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('MonteQuest', '
')The factors at play there are depression, STD's, alcoholism, infertility. Do a google search on the causes of Russian population decline. I have written extensively on it here at peakoil.com.

Missed it? Or ignore it?

And I was talking about post-peak when severe energy decline sets in.