Category: population

  • Population is a killer for Global Warming. Good news, Kinda.

    The world’s out of control human population growth is something that few people want to talk about loudly because it sounds so very insensitive. But the increase in world population at nearly exponential levels is non-sustainable and multiplies all issues of sustainability: exhausting natural resources, pollution, etc. Estimates are that world population will grow to between 9m and 11m by mid century and then slowly decline.

     World Population Estimates
    Source: OurWorldInData
    The problem with increased population is a double whammy. Not only are there more people, but the footprint of each person should raise dramatically as more people enter the middle class (or higher). Countries like China and India that have burned only 2 barrels of oil per person annually, can be expected to move up their consumption to 4 or 5 times that, more in line with the USA. People that eat lower on the food chain, rice and corn, can be expect to start eating beef and pork which takes 20 to 30 times the resources to produce. 
    But, a new study, published in the Lancet, has found that fertility rates since 1950 have dropped faster and further than anyone expected. (See the BBC article by James Gallagher on this study.)
    The low fertility rates in developed countries means that their populations should start shrinking (without net immigration). In 1950 women had an average of 4.7 children in their lifetimes, a rate that is now half at 2.4! Fertility rates less than about 2.1 result in a decrease in population (excluding net immigration). Many of the developed countries, like the UK with 1.7, have less than 2. Japan has 1.3. With fewer young people to work, the aging retired population becomes a bigger and bigger burden on the economy. It will take decades for the change in fertility to work through the population levels. 
    Economic development has long looks at the use of population to improve the overall economy; more people could/should result in more things produces and a bigger economy. However, per capita economic development can be significantly improved by reducing the number of children. If the economy increases at 5%, but population also increases at 5%, then the per capita income remains the same. China reduced the rate of population growth, and that contributed dramatically to the improved per capita income and the rise of the middle class. I just saw stats talking about the percent of Chinese in extreme poverty at about 1950; more than 90% of the population lived in extreme poverty (currently a purchase-power-parity of $1.9 per day). By 2018, only about 1% of Chinese are in extreme poverty.  Controlling their population was a big contributor to China moving to surpass the USA in terms of economic power (GDP of more than $23T vs $19.5T for US). (Of course their single-child policies have caused many other problems and has recently been relaxed.) 
    China and India represent about 35.7% of the worlds population with 1.4B and 1.34B, respectively. China has stomped on the brakes for decades; India has only tapped on the brakes. China’s growth rate is only 0.39, while India’s is 1.2. US is 0.71 and Japan is -0.23.
    So, a big sustainability question, is first to stop the increase in population world-wide and regionally. But should sustainability initiative actually champion the reduction of world population. One way or another we need to get back to the carrying capacity of Mother Earth.  When you look at Earth over-shoot day, which has moved to August 1, it becomes graphically clear how much we are depleting the earths resources to live beyond our means. Stated differently, about 212 days into the year, we exhausted the renewable resources provided by the earth (and sun), so the resources consumed in the remaining 153 days of the year are depleting resources. In 1987, overshoot day was December 19th; in 2000, overshoot day was November 1.
    This is the same as your annual salary paying all your bills until August 1 (58% of the year), and then you have to borrow money to pay for the rest of the year. Each and every year, you have to borrow more because the overshoot day keeps moving earlier in the year. Non-sustainable issues like overshoot are cumulative, and compounding. Not only do you owe the cumulative total of all the borrowing, but the interest keeps growing at an expanding rate using the magic of compounding.
    We need to get our overshoots (and deficits) under control, and start to make the magic of compounding work for us, not against. Getting countries (and world) population growth under control is probably the most important factor in sustainability, and ultimately, the health and wellness of our plant. It’s pretty important, as well, for those things that have become accustomed to living on this planet.! 
  • Visuals of the planet changes

    These visuals of the planet changes over the last 30 or 40 years are impressive, to say the least.
    http://nbcnews.to/1uxF6ZM
    Here are some cool time lapse photography using satellite imagery over the last few decades.
    Check out the Amazon!
    Check out the glaciers!
    Ouch!
    Double ouch!

  • The Energy Quiz | ExxonMobil

    The Energy Quiz | ExxonMobil:

    Try the energy Quiz from ExxonMobil:  exxonmobil.com/quiz
    It has 4 categories related to energy: people, sources, uses and savings. There are 5 questions in each section.

    Interesting that the actual quiz lives here: http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/company/advertising-campaigns/energy-lives-here/quiz
    Under the advertising campaign.

    I didn’t do well on the quiz. And you probably won’t either. I do take issue with at least one of the 5 questions in each category. I don’t like how they state projections as fact. (Make sure not to over think it.)

    BUT this is a very cool quiz and provides very nice information for people to think about.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • The next crisis: Sponging boomers | The Economist

    The next crisis: Sponging boomers | The Economist:

    The math is ugly. This is a great article that summarized some really big key issues that arise from the generational move of the Boomers into retirement. BoomAge could be the syndrome.

    Those age 65 or older are expected to consume about $333B more in benefits/services than they paid in taxes. No worries, let’s let our kids and grandkids take care of that bill.

    And the bad thing about doing nothing (gridlock and more) is that it simply delays the solution and compounds the impact.

    Some really cool (ugly really, but interesting) stats are the impact that inflation has had on the US national debt. The young, with debt, benefit from inflation. Older, with savings, get hit. The voting and politically active retirees will increase by almost 10% to 26% of the voters and will have time to push for services, benefits and low inflation.

    Social Irresponsibility: Debt, Population, Inflation, Politics, gridlock, Boomers, Boomage

    ‘via Blog this’

  • Halloween 2011: Global Population Growth and impact on the planet.

    Halloween 2011. Wanna talk about something really, really scary!:-)
    No, it’s not Freddie. Or Fannie for that matter.
    Today, it seems, we have hit 7 billion population on
    the plant. Of the 150+ people born per minute, some 98% are borne in developing countries. This creates challenges for the already poor countries. At least 50 of them are born in
    India per minute.

    Bill Gates talks about energy and moving to zero
    carbon footprint. Not a wishful target, a necessary target. He’s aiming for
    2050 to have the world at a net zero carbon footprint. He describes the “
    describing
    the need for ‘miracles’ to avoid planetary catastrophe
    ”.
    CO2
    = P x S x E x C
    1. P eople (increasing rapidly!)
    2. S ervices per person (increasing rapidly!)
    3. E nergy emitted per
      service
      (stable?)
    4. C arbon intensity per
      unit of energy
      (wildcard)

    Aiming for zero
    requires huge innovation for the next 20 years and then 20 years to deploy.
    Waiting for another couple decades to decide to take the issue seriously is catastrophic.
    Gate’s one primary
    wish, if he had only one, would be this miracle breakthrough for energy.
    He wants to make the
    solution(s) have basic economic viability so that the longer-term and less
    certain impacts of CO2 build up are not relevant or at least much less so.

    DON’T go out tonight on fright night. Stay home and watch the world population clock: http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html