PowerSwitch

Moderator: This topic split off from original thread here:
http://www.powerswitch.org.uk/forum/vie ... p?p=271526

vtsnowedin wrote: a major die off of the human population is likely in the near future.

I am not sure that is the majority view even on this forum. I don't expect this although I recognise there are problems which will arise in a resource basis in the long term.

(define major, define short, medium long terms)

johnhemming2 wrote:(define major, define short, medium long terms)

Yes, key to define. Likley one man's major is another's minor, long is another's short.

clv101 wrote:

johnhemming2 wrote:(define major, define short, medium long terms)

Yes, key to define. Likley one man's major is another's minor, long is another's short.

I would define a major die off as one that reduced the world population by twenty percent or more over a "Short" period of a decade or so.
I think it is likely in the near term, say one to three decades do to the realities of peak oil., Carbon pollution, climate change, and the over population of the planet with it's over taxing of the land and water resources. It makes no difference if we run out of coal and oil or just stop using them to save the climate. The result will be the same.

The timing of the die-off is not easy to predict, because it depends on unknowns like the rate of political disintegration. Look at what has happened in Syria during the last 4 years, for example.

What I think is easier to predict is that once it starts - or even once it starts obviously heading that way - then there will be no going back. As soon as people in the better off parts of the world beging to realise, en-masse, that die-off is coming to the poorer parts of the world, then there will be a change of policy that accelerates the situation. People, and their governments, will go into self-protection mode. Helping people in the worst-affected areas will look, quite rightly, like "throwing good money after bad", and it will stop happening. Borders and immigrations will be strictly controlled. Etc....

My guess is that we will hit this point of no return between 10 and 30 years from now.

Clearly there is no consensus on die off. I don't myself think that in the short term (this century) climate change will cause masses of deaths. (masses being say 1% of the global population).

johnhemming2 wrote:Clearly there is no consensus on die off. I don't myself think that in the short term (this century) climate change will cause masses of deaths. (masses being say 1% of the global population).

I don't think you should regard your opinions on this as being indicative of a significant proportion of views on here John Hemming, if the response to much of what you have hitherto posted is anything to go by.

There is an easy way to resolve this. Post up a poll.

johnhemming2 wrote:Clearly there is no consensus on die off. I don't myself think that in the short term (this century) climate change will cause masses of deaths. (masses being say 1% of the global population).

This is a fantastic bit of work which hasn't received the attention dissevered in my opinion. It's basically a literature review of climate impacts, presented in a very accessible way.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-gui ... rojections

It's a poster, an ambitious attempt to visualise a lot of pretty solid science (all published) in an approach both systematic and consistent across variables. The idea was to describe the current situation (population, food production, water stress, global trade etc...) and the end of century climate impacts on key variables (warm day temperature, area of increased/decreased flood hazard, number of days in drought, water run-off, water demand for irrigation, wheat yield, maize yield, rice yield, soybean yield).

I'm not sure how well the poster format works for this much information, but in association with detailed maps in the technical documentation, the project does provide a clear overview of our current understanding of some of physical impacts of the climate problem, with the associated population change projections.

One key take home is that much of Africa sees deterioration across the board, whilst doubling to quadrupling population.

I think it's more likely than not for a 1% dieoff, 100 million people, the vast majority in Africa and Middle East, to occur in the 2nd half of the 20th C. For this to be avoided one has to have a pretty controversial view of climate impacts.

Which aspects of this work do you think are overly pessimistic?

clv101 wrote:

johnhemming2 wrote:Clearly there is no consensus on die off. I don't myself think that in the short term (this century) climate change will cause masses of deaths. (masses being say 1% of the global population).

This is a fantastic bit of work which hasn't received the attention dissevered in my opinion. It's basically a literature review of climate impacts, presented in a very accessible way.
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate-gui ... rojections

It's a poster, an ambitious attempt to visualise a lot of pretty solid science (all published) in an approach both systematic and consistent across variables. The idea was to describe the current situation (population, food production, water stress, global trade etc...) and the end of century climate impacts on key variables (warm day temperature, area of increased/decreased flood hazard, number of days in drought, water run-off, water demand for irrigation, wheat yield, maize yield, rice yield, soybean yield).

I'm not sure how well the poster format works for this much information, but in association with detailed maps in the technical documentation, the project does provide a clear overview of our current understanding of some of physical impacts of the climate problem, with the associated population change projections.

One key take home is that much of Africa sees deterioration across the board, whilst doubling to quadrupling population.

I think it's more likely than not for a 1% dieoff, 100 million people, the vast majority in Africa and Middle East, to occur in the 2nd half of the 20th C. For this to be avoided one has to have a pretty controversial view of climate impacts.

Which aspects of this work do you think are overly pessimistic?

I can't agree with you about the data being "accessible" as I can see the whole poster in miniature but it won't blow up each section so it can be read. Perhaps the limitations of my now somewhat aged computer and soft ware.
But I do agree with the points being made but think they needed to consider the several topics in concert and come to final plausible conclusions.
I think the main driver is population with it's present gain of 75 million people per year mostly in the most undeveloped countries of the world. Add that to the availability of arable land which is for the most part fixed and you soon get to the edges of the petri dish we call earth. Next consider that rain water run off is a fixed if somewhat variable number we have no control over it and make do with whatever falls to earth.
Then throw in drought which can reduce our ability to store irrigation water. If added together those alone will eventually place a limit on population do to crop failures and famine.
They need to think of these all together not one at a time. Perhaps figure a calories per capita available today and then project it forward using reasonable estimates of all the observed trends.
You can then take your model and add on all the other crises we are aware of such as sea level rise, ocean acidfication, and or over fishing. Border closings, oil depletion, resource wars, Jihad vs, Crusades etc. Then predict when that calories per capita becomes insufficient to keep each person alive.
Of course it wont happen uniformly over the planet so someone gets to go first. Right now the Middle East and North Africa look like the most likely candidates and those refugees flooding North into Europe seem to agree with me.

clv101 wrote:whilst doubling to quadrupling population

My own view is that there is a good argument against doubling/quadrupling population. That is notwithstanding debates about climate change and its impacts.

johnhemming2 wrote:

clv101 wrote:whilst doubling to quadrupling population

My own view is that there is a good argument against doubling/quadrupling population. That is notwithstanding debates about climate change and its impacts.

Note that the above remark was about Africa only and not the world.
Then are you saying that that population growth will not happen do to factors already in place or that it should not be allowed to happen and someone needs to apply the brakes by some effective means?

In terms of the UK the rules on supporting families have been changed such that there is a reduction in family support for additional children beyond two.

This will apply for children born following a date nearby in the future (such that the conception occurred after the rule change).

I think there is a merit to an approach that does not financially reward people for having more and more children.

johnhemming2 wrote:In terms of the UK the rules on supporting families have been changed such that there is a reduction in family support for additional children beyond two.

This will apply for children born following a date nearby in the future (such that the conception occurred after the rule change).

I think there is a merit to an approach that does not financially reward people for having more and more children.

It's the third child who is disadvantaged, through no fault of her own, unless her mother proves she was raped. It's about as bad a policy as one can imagine.

Limits to Growth predicted our future in the 70's folks!!!

We are on a business-as-usual model (with a slightly more positive slant) and on my calculations the collapse point can be posted 10 years to around 2040 - based on current trends.

Global population collapse will commence around approximately 2040.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... g-collapse

johnhemming2 wrote:I think there is a merit to an approach that does not financially reward people for having more and more children.

John, it's a terrible policy! The government are specifically taking money out of families who have more than 2 children. In what sane world do we chose to further (as some might also suggest being one of many siblings is a disadvantage) disadvantage children in larger families?

If it's about the money then far, far better to means test pensioner benefits than to firstly means test child benefit and secondly remove it from the 3rd+ child.

clv101 wrote:

johnhemming2 wrote:I think there is a merit to an approach that does not financially reward people for having more and more children.

John, it's a terrible policy! The government are specifically taking money out of families who have more than 2 children. In what sane world do we chose to further (as some might also suggest being one of many siblings is a disadvantage) disadvantage children in larger families?

If it's about the money then far, far better to means test pensioner benefits than to firstly means test child benefit and secondly remove it from the 3rd+ child.

You are out to lunch on this one Clv101. As a working couple the wife and I chose to limit our family to three children as that was all we could afford. Why should a person living on the dole not have to exercise a similar level of responsibility? We shouldn't have a world where intelligent productive people are limited to one or two children while ignorant dead beats bankrupt us paying for their low IQ broods.