PowerSwitch

http://crash-watcher.blogspot.com/2011/ ... lobal.html

My analysis in Parts 5 and 6 suggests that global petroleum exports and production are in decline now, with exports likely to hit zero in the next 20-25 years. Can food production continue to expand, or even remain constant if there isn’t enough petroleum to expand or even sustain the Green revolution? If food production growth stalls out, how can the global population continue to grow?

The author goes on to talk about the relationship between global food production and population levels.

Summary

For my continued population growth scenario represented by Figures 25, we are looking at a world population of 9.3 billion by 2050—an about 2 billion person increase over the present population of 7 billion. But can the estimate per capita petroleum consumption of 0.5 barrels per person per year by 2050 really be expected to sustain that level of population? I find this very hard to imagine.


For my population decline now scenario, the decline really would have to be quite severe just to keep per capita consumption at 3.4 b/py by 2050. Only 1.5 billion people by 2050 means shedding 5.5 billion people over the next 40 years, or about 137 million people per year. One hundred and thirty seven thousand people per year is many, many, untimely deaths. That’s way more than the total number of military and civilian deaths in WWI and WWII combined every year for 40 years in a row. I also find this very hard to imagine.


Is there anything from past relationships between population and petroleum consumption that gives some insight into which of these two scenarios is more likely? I think there is, particularly in the regional data.


Join me next time when I will present my arguments as to which of these two scenarios I think is the more likely one to occur.

Very interesting debate... will be interesting to see his conclusions.

I heard something on the radio the other day saying that the United Nations stated that the population will reach 7 billion in November of this year.

It is a very sobering thought to think how we might attempt to feed this quantity of people. It then scares me half to death thinking how we might try to do it as oil actually starts to decline.

Overshoot really is a scary concept when it is you and him and her and I we are talking about........

snow hope wrote:It is a very sobering thought to think how we might attempt to feed this quantity of people. It then scares me half to death thinking how we might try to do it as oil actually starts to decline.

We use an awful lot of oil, most of it I expect, in non-food activities. We could maintain, even grow global agriculture as oil declined - if we just chose to allocate it differently.

The problem before us is not an absolute physical one, it's a behavioural, political, cultural one. As such nothing about the future is certain.

clv101 wrote: The problem before us is not an absolute physical one, it's a behavioural, political, cultural one. As such nothing about the future is certain.

Very well put. The future we have is what we make it.

I completely agree. I suppose my concern really revolves around the choices we are likely to make..... growing food to make biofuel to fill cars rather than mouths is a good example of one of the questionable choices we have made so far.

stumuzz wrote:

clv101 wrote: The problem before us is not an absolute physical one, it's a behavioural, political, cultural one. As such nothing about the future is certain.

Very well put. The future we have is what we make it.

That has always been true. Unfortunately, the track record of humans when it comes to doing the right thing isn't very encouraging.

The good news is that assuming our governments make some sensible decisions, we should have a good 20 years to avoid starvation and collapse.

After that, all bets are off I'm afraid.

How do you come up with 20 years Beria? Collapse could happen this year or next year if the right (wrong) sequence of ovents occur. If we are lucky we may have 3 or 4 years - it is hard to stretch it to longer than that in my eyes.

If we can secure sufficient supplies from overseas, ration all non-essential oil consumption and use any alternatives, including coal, as a alternative than yes we might be able to ensure enough food is grown to keep us from starving.

The twenty years comes from the analysis that global oil production/exports will cease in 20/25 years time.

snow hope wrote:I completely agree. I suppose my concern really revolves around the choices we are likely to make..... growing food to make biofuel to fill cars rather than mouths is a good example of one of the questionable choices we have made so far.

Its important to remember that the grain is fed to cattle after the brewing process.

Putting good booze into cars is a waste of resources.

Feeding (what is left of) the grain to cattle after it has been fermented for ethanol is the only reason that (US) corn bioethanol is energy positive at all.

It uses more fossil fuel energy to make the bioethanol than it provides in the end product. However, the remnant cattle feed displaces some petrochemical corn fed directly to the animals.

Of course, when the world population hits 10,000,000,000 we won't have enough spare food for cattle, so we will have to eat the fermented grain ourselves...

Only 1.5 billion people by 2050 means shedding 5.5 billion people over the next 40 years, or about 137 million people per year. One hundred and thirty seven thousand people per year is many, many, untimely deaths. That’s way more than the total number of military and civilian deaths in WWI and WWII combined every year for 40 years in a row. I also find this very hard to imagine.

Over the next 40 years, even if BAU carried on, some 3bn people would die anyway. Just of natural causes.
A hit to life expectancy, a hit to birth rates and a hit to child mortality would take care of it.

Fred Pearce's new book 'Peoplequake' is worth a read.

Basically it explains that the Earth could adequately meet the needs of a bigger population, as long as natural resources are shared more equally, and that the problems caused by overpopulation can be solved if we tackle over-consumption by the rich instead of fretting about the poor having children.

snow hope wrote:How do you come up with 20 years Beria? Collapse could happen this year or next year if the right (wrong) sequence of ovents occur. If we are lucky we may have 3 or 4 years - it is hard to stretch it to longer than that in my eyes.

That's my feeling too.

I think many people are assuming that the price of oil will go up more or less linearly and that the process of having less and less to spend on luxuries will be a gradual one.

For a couple of reasons I think this may be over-optimistic. Firstly, being made unemployed, which will happen to a lot of people, is not a gradual thing. One day you have a couple of hundred pounds a month to do what you want with, the next day you're selling your car and worried about affording bus fares.

But more importantly, I think the pound (among other currencies, possibly the dollar) is almost certain to tank before too long. We will then see imports increasing in price by several times. And if, Heaven forbid, we get hyperinflation, then it's goodbye to imports completely. Including, of course, oil.

As I've said before, I think it quite possible that we will find ourselves almost completely without oil virtually overnight. It can happen: look at North Korea.

The graphs for Peak Oil show a smoothish downward slope, but this is not a representation of social circumstances. The more we indulge the myth of BAU, the more we ratchet up the pressure for severe shocks rather than a smooth transition. That's not to say I really think a smooth transition is likely to be possible, because we simply don't have an economic model that can deal stably and safely with permanent contraction.