EnviroLink Forum

And this came and went without much hoopla;
http://worldpopulationday.org/
Grain of truth: why everyone cannot be fed
Posted on July 1, 2011 by Norman

“A hungry world is a dangerous world. Without food, people have only three options: they riot, they emigrate or they die.” Josette Sheeran, World Food Programme
1 July 2011
Jo Smit and Norman Pagett write:
We owe our lives to technology that uses 10 calories of energy in the process of growing food to produce a single calorie of energy in the food we eat.
On average, we need to consume about 2500 calories a day, so each of us has to find 10 times that amount of energy in order to stay alive. Our existence rests on that fundamental equation. Looked at in cold print, this might seem irrelevant to our day-to-day lives but it means that global agricultural production and food supply systems are consuming 10 times more energy than they deliver as food. In case you still haven’t got the point, let’s put that more brutally: 9 out of 10 people exist only because fossil fuel energy made it possible.
The numbers speak for themselves. The world kept itself in population balance until we started using fossil fuels, then the population exploded and we became a plague species in global terms.

Few of us ever stop to consider the embodied energy in what we eat. Why would we? Calories have become purely the currency of dietary fads, something to be limited in our constant battle with obesity. We have been well fed for so long that we imagine that supermarket shelves will always be amply stocked to support our affluent comfort. Until now, in the developed world at least, the food production, distribution and supply infrastructure has been able to obtain all the energy it needs, and in ever increasing amounts.
We are far more prosperous than the third world countries that are constantly being brought to the brink of food deprivation or outright starvation. Yet we are only marginally safer. We have a blind faith in our supply systems and expect our foodstores to have everything we might want to buy available fresh every day. Remove our collective expectation of seven-day-a-week food supplies and supermarkets would be stripped bare within hours.
Our food supply is extremely precarious; it takes very little disturbance to disrupt it severely. During an oil delivery tanker drivers’ strike in the UK in 2001, the government was given the stark warning by a consortium of major retailers that the food chain delivery system carried only three days’ supply. This information was not released to the public at the time. The fuel supply emergency lasted only a week, but if it had gone on for longer rapidly emptying supermarket shelves would have provided the impetus for food hoarding and panic. This is what happens when there is a temporary break in just one link in the energy chain that supports our highly complex food supply system.
As fossil fuel energy declines, renewable sources will not be able to maintain our complex, energy-intensive food systems in their present form. As a result, we will not be able to feed our present numbers. Our food production level will return to roughly what it was 500 years ago, when one calorie had to be put in as manual labour or animal manure to produce one calorie to eat. By that reckoning, our food supply system will only support one tenth of us. In stark terms, around six billion people don’t have much of a future."

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

And this still applies, even more:
http://theextinctionprotocol.wordpress. ... d-decline/

this, too;
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 06484.html

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

Finally, some major media sees the elephant in the room!
L.A. Times Runs Provocative Series on Overpopulation
By Maria Fotopoulos, CAPS Senior Writing Fellow

If you haven’t read the five-part series, “Beyond 7 Billion,” that ran recently in the L.A. Times, I’d encourage you to do it now.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld ... .htmlstory
The newspaper’s staff writer, Kenneth R. Weiss, along with photographer Rick Loomis, traveled to Afghanistan, China, India, Kenya, the Philippines, Uganda and other countries in Africa and Asia for a first-hand look at why population is still growing rapidly in some places and what the repercussions are from that growth. Weiss does an excellent job of telling the broad population story through the lives of families and their very real and daily challenges.

The series is provocative, compelling, fascinating and shocking reporting that’s backed up by lots of stats and charts, plus still and video images. The first article, “The Biggest Generation: Fertility rates fall, but global population explosion goes on,” leads off with the story of a couple in India who married at the ages of 10 and 11. (Yes, 10 and 11!) The union soon produces a child, followed by another. But what’s surprising in this young couple’s story is that the husband rebels against strong family and cultural traditions and stops at two children. “We cannot afford it,” he says.

How population growth has been absent in public discourse is discussed, along with the often limited access to contraception in areas where it’s most needed and the bitter battles over family planning in the United States. The articles cover “covert contraception,” camel caravans that deliver medical supplies (since camels are common in Kenya, men are more likely to trust the health counselors that come on them) and the population youth bulge that, combined with lack of economic opportunities, helps fuel civil strife.

As well, it addresses the persistence of hunger and starvation, the limits of the Green Revolution, the impacts of China’s one-child policy, how Earth has been most altered through intense population growth and how public policy can dramatically influence population growth, among many other topics all tied to growth.

There are more than enough cautionary tales in this series to silence even the overpopulation deniers – you’d think – but the deniers persist, as seen in some of the reader comments in response to the articles. That said, the important takeaway for me is that the Times committed the resources to this most important issue facing humanity and, by doing so, is helping to get overpopulation back in mainstream discussion.


Read it and share it!


Click here to read other timely blogs by CAPS writers.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

Thanks for keeping the population issue updated. It's not just global warming deniers who are in denial about how serious the problem of 7 billion humans on Earth is; I've found a frustrating complacency in the past among those who claim to be concerned about the environment, and consider a U.N. Report predicting a peak of 9.5 billion in 2050...followed by a slow decline...as meaning that world population is an issue that will take care of itself. Apologies for the long sentence, but I had to fit that all in there somehow!

From my understanding, ecological footprint is measured by population X the average individual resource use. So, more people means less available energy, natural resources, water and arable land per person. And, I don't see a lot of moderates or liberals, who are casually concerned about the environment, taking serious consideration of that problem either. It seems like we have the worst of both worlds: a human population that is already too large and needs to be reduce + a global economic system that is centered around continuous, exponential growth in energy use and consumption of natural resources.

Ultimately, I would say that if the human race is not going to become extinct within 200 years as predicted by Stephen Hawking, we will have to come to terms with both issues and bring the human species back in line with what the natural environment can produce sustainably.

The crash, that starts circa 2030(probably in Nigeria), with peak population mid to late 2040s, and bottom late 2060-70s, will have the survivors facing progressively worse CAGW and ecosystems collapsing variably around the world. I doubt that humans will go extinct as early as 200 years from now. During methane turnover(tundras first), the oceans will take longer to warm to depth and release their methane. The rise in temperatures will be too fast for most species to adapt and the ELE will complete sometime around thermal maximum, probably as early as 2300AD and as late as 3500AD. Most probably around 3000AD. There will be several groups of human survivors living in stockpiled underground fortresses, nuclear powered, with grow light farms and over remote aquifers(like N. Paraguay). The 200,000 years to re-sequester the carbon and several million years to develop new species and ecosystems will be far too long for those underground colonies to last. With breeder type reactors they could last quite some time. For all practical purposes humans will go extinct around AETM.
The bottleneck is so much longer than the Toba one, and even longer than PETM. The possibility that humans could make it through is very unlikely. However, even with people continuing their evil ways of overpopulation to crash and continuing business as usual with slash and burn and fossil fuel burning, there are other possibilities.
There 'could' be a limited nuclear war that leaves enough aerosols and dead people to stop AGW and overpopulation, and still not cause a radiation extermination nightmare. There 'could' be a disease(man made or natural) that goes around the world much worse than plagues of the past and reduces population and their emissions enough in time to stop thermageddon. Yellowstone super-volcano 'could' erupt causing enough aerosols to stop CAGW and enough winters to drastically reduce human population. Another possibility is if a large natural disaster collapsed the world economy enough to where money was worth a lot less and governments could not pay their workers, precipitating walkouts from coal plants and mass starvation in many areas. Cascadia 'could' be a game changer, and soon. None of these are very nice or palatable, and have only a possibility of avoiding extinction.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

when ever I see a multiple of 10, I get suspicious so here is my estimate:

Using 2008 data (population and world energy creation) I come up with:
77.4 GJ/person-yr
Using the low end of recommended calorie intake and converting the units:
3.36 GJ/person-yr
Two estimates of the portion of energy used directly and indirectly to get food on our table (in USA and in UK) were both in the mid 70s of percent so to be conservative I will use 70%
77.4 x 0.7 = 54.2
so instead of 10 times, the number is really
54.2 / 3.36 = 16.13 (note I kept full numbers in the calculator)
This is also a global number so it includes the low energy use of the poorest parts of the world but assumes they eat the recommended calories.

I did a calculation based on several sources so might be wrong but one GJ of natural gas produces 55.1 tons of CO2 (coal and other fuels would be more) so:
55.1 x 54.2 = 2987
Growing your own food could save 3000 tons of CO2 per year per person

I've seen similar estimates before, but I've noticed over the last ten years that the timelines for melting Arctic sea ice, CO2 levels, global average temperatures etc. keep getting moved up; so ice free Arctic summers for example, which used to be pegged at the end of this century are now as early as 15 years from now. With so many variables in play....especially the human one...I wonder just how far off an inevitable extinction is! One possibility is that if Earth changes occur more rapidly, it might shake people up enough to realize they have to do what's necessary for survival...not just trying to reduce their carbon footprint while maintaining present lifestyles. I'm noticing lately that even the jackass rightwingers who have been denying a human contribution to climate change are more quiet now than they used to be. With all of the storms and severe droughts affecting food production, it's a little harder to make the case that there's nothing unusual going on.

I've heard some of the older scientists like E.O. Wilson and James Lovelock mention that the present carbon absorption of the world's oceans could start slowing down without giving us a warning. A number of recent ocean studies are lining up with a theory advanced by paleontologist Peter Ward a few years ago - that the Permian/Triassic Extinction was primarily caused by the oceans turning anoxic and killing off virtually all sea life. A couple of recent studies which have received no notice in U.S. media were posted by Decline Of The Empire blogger Dave Cohen a few days ago, and this is serious stuff that needs to be focused on: The Coming Mass Extinction In The Oceanshttp://www.declineoftheempire.com/2012/08/the-coming-mass-extinction-in-the-oceans.html If the oceans are dying....however long that takes, I guess it would be pretty much game over!

There are a few denialists here, like snow, tim, and sponge. Plus there is a green nationalist conservationist conservative here, too---me. Not to be confused by idiots as national socialism/fascism/Naziism.
"The present average world TFR is 2.75 and decreasing, albeit far too slowly. Blame it on male machismo, or female feminista, religion, stupidity, culture, habit, or just that a third of births are accidental. It is understanding the math and a wide variety of depletion/pollution data to come to future probabilities. From a previous post:
The population must go down fast enough to prevent a mass die-off event. The maximum food and water for humans that the planet can produce in 2050 will be at least a third less than today and possibly even less than half. >>The cumulative effects of AGW, soil losses, water losses, and oil loss/huge expense, will take a heavy toll on yields.<< If people start to compost more and grow and buy locally more, it will be on the low end. Business as usual until then will be the high end of crop and water loss. The population will be close to 9 billion living on enough food for only 3.5-4.7 billion(at barely above semi-active starvation level). If there was some great leader who could say, and people obey, that we need a moratorium an having kids for 20 years, then the natural death rate would reduce the population by at least 50 million per year. Let's say 60 million per year reduction with almost no births. In 10 years it would reduce .6 billion, in 20 it would reduce 1.2 billion. Then one child families would keep the reduction rate at 20 million per year, so by 2050 there would be roughly 5.4 billion in a world that can only support 4.7 billion in the best case. So 700 million would starve or die of thirst, rather than 8 billion over a period of 20 years or so.
That is if there was such an edict and new morality and it started immediately. That is about the best mitigation we can hope for. Let us say it was an instant going to one child families with education and free forms of birth control and changes to social systems to provide for the disabled and elderly. Then 38 years of 20 million per year net drop would be 6.3 billion in a world that can support a max of 4.7 billion. There would be more deaths from starvation, 1.6 billion in a short period, and a greater chance of warfare over resources. Still, it would be better than the crash of 8 billion or more in around 20 years."
Many of you who are under 40 will see it first hand. My condolences.

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

Still, if we Hiroshima a few Chinese and American cities, redo a couple of Japanese ones that should wind the problem down at bit.

And if Pakistan and India get their things together, there could be some serious population reduction there too.

No Johnny you are a fascist, you spout your opinion on someone without even knowing anything about them, through choice, due to overpopulation we have decided not to have children, we have solar panels, ground source heating, we have been in the process of re-modelling our house and garden for the past couple of years and have triple glazing, LED lighting throughout, we are building a lake that will have reed beds for our sewage. So please stop with your drivel about denialists when you DO NOT KNOW SOMEONE.

Spongehead; Most of what you have posted is "its a natural variation" type of denialist rhetoric. Show me where I spout national socialism when you name call me a fascist. Whereas, even if you do live a carbon zero lifestyle, why do you persist in denialism of AGW??? If you really are living a solar life, show some pictures as I have done. Plus, explain why you went solar/no children, geothermal, if you don't believe human activities are causing terminal pollution effects. I didn't see any intro.
From 'right to left'; "I've heard some of the older scientists like E.O. Wilson and James Lovelock mention that the present carbon absorption of the world's oceans could start slowing down without giving us a warning."
Yes, I have read where the oceans are near saturation point with CO2 absorption, which will raise atmospheric levels higher and faster. That was taken into account with the need for humans to reduce fossil fuel burning and slash and burn farming 90% within this decade. Once the tundra methane, representing the equivalent of 150% of the carbon in fossil fuels, goes into self-release heating, its breakdown into CO2 will not be absorbed either. Then as the oceans geometrically warm in a delayed manner, another amount of methane will explode to the surface, eventually even more than the tundras. The total will be even higher than PETM, and much faster.
Bored Wombat, I recognize the name from TES. It used to be that it would take 1000 warheads to cause nuclear winter. Later others said 200. I suppose it depends on the size, but getting rid of say the 500 highest population cities and maybe not causing a nuclear winter, or global radiation poisoning, would only reduce population about 2 billion when it needs to get to whatever the new long term sustainable level is. It is unlikely anything will stop the crash. It is also probably unlikely that people will reduce HGHGs 90% this decade, so extinction of human and most other species at AETM in 500 to 1500 years is most likely.
Cockroaches will survive, and ants, too. Plus all the deep ocean thermal vent lifeforms, deep underground bacteria, etc.
Here you go, spongy!;
http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen ... 06484.html

_________________
"With every decision, think seven generations ahead of the consequences of your actions" Ute rule of life.
“We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children”
― Chief Seattle

I agree with what you wrote previously about the population problem. But, it needs to be stressed that population isn't the only problem. And just reducing global population to a more sustainable level over time will not make up for the other side of that ecological footprint - the modern capitalist economy that rewards novelty and fuels year-over-year increases in production and natural resource consumption. I could look it up if I have to, but according to Michael Husseman's critique of the modern widespread religion of techno-optimism, resource consumption is more than 800 times as large as it was at the start of the Industrial Revolution. Even a stable human population would cause the same environmental destruction that would threaten future survival of the human race, if nothing is done to address the issue of trying to run an economic system set up for continuous growth in a finite world where natural limits to growth are already being applied. http://www.amazon.com/Techno-Fix-Techno ... 0865717044

What have I spouted about it being natural variation Johnny, go back and re-read some of my posts to double check very carefully.

Am glad you have gone solar, you have your reasons and I and my sig other have ours and it is not to be "carbon neutral" because that is the biggest crock of all. For us it is because we disagree with the system in place and want to be as self sustaining as we can, 1 payment +servicing (which we won't have to pay for after the initial guarantee but parts could get tricky) for certain things instead of being under the thumb of multi national corporations.

Have you any references about the tundra methane?? Would seem we would have to warm quite a bit more for it to be released if it is still trapped in massive quantities as you suggest and at the last interglacial temperatures were 2-3C warmer than in the 90's and seeing as since then it has re-froze over the tundra and it is still there, same with the methane in the ocean floor in places, it was warmer then, but it is still there after all this time.

YES Right to Left, exactly. The devils fork is two-pronged and it is not much help to lament the world's increasing population, which is a fact, without also (and "maybe" more importantly), the resources used by western societies. Here's what Jared Diamond of "Germs, Guns and Steel" has to say about that other prong ..... western consumption:

One can see this issue in light of ecological footprint vs biocapacity:

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/en/inde ... shoot_day/