Berkshire flooding also "major incident"

[Mean Mr Mustard]

That plot doesn't look right to me just considering McPherson (arch doomer, near term extinction) vs Greer who is a 'transformer / doer' based on his Green Wizardry and advocating sustainable tech. And where's Gail Tverberg...

And putting a misanthropic murderer among the group (Unabomber Kaczyinski) seems rather inappropriate.

[Tarrel]

And where's Gail Tverberg...

Running for the hills?

[Tarrel]

Everything I'm reading is telling me that nothing short of a full global economic crash and/or reforestation on a massive scale is going to bring us back from the tipping points we are approaching. The socio-political mechanisms just don't exist on a global scale to precipitate the behaviour changes we need to make in a controlled way.

Agreed, in my opinion avoiding 2+ degrees warming is not compatible with the continuation of any kind of 7bn+ civilisation. The 'pro-active' mechanisms are hopeless. In fact, mitigating just a little bit of climate change. Pushing the impact timeframes out by a few decades may actually cause more net damage than early impacts/collapse.

If we accept that collapse is inevitable, then in the looong run, an early collapse may less damaging than a delayed collapse. The more damaging, delayed collapse may be what pro-active mitigation gets us.

Did you see this I wrote a few years ago: http://chrisvernon.co.uk/2012/12/recognising-reality/

So, you accept that a global human population of 7+ billion human is unsustainable and that a large and early collapse of human civilisation leading to a significant die off is probably our best chance for making it into the deep future? If so, we are singing from essentially the same page CLV.

There's a certain logic to it:

- 7+ billion is more than can be sustained by the solar energy falling on the earth each day

- 7+ billion has only been achieved by using millions of years' worth of stored solar energy (fossil fuels)

- The planet won't allow us to continue to do this

- Therefore 7+ billion won't continue.

Then we're back to the question of how the reduction occurs:

- Slow collapse leading to a reduction of technological support, leading to reduced life expectancy?
- Pockets of catastrophic die-off caused by famine or disease?
- Global conflict?

When considering how we can live more sustainably, either from a food production, energy use, or shelter viewpoint, it's not long before the the "7 Billion" elephant raises its head and starts trumpeting.

(In other news, I see Poundland are floating on the stock exchange. Better than floating down the high street I suppose.)

[biffvernon]

There's a certain logic to it:

- 7+ billion is more than can be sustained by the solar energy falling on the earth each day

I don't think there's a sound argument there. When you compare the solar energy flux with what we know can theoretically sustain a person, one should see that if 7+ billion is unsustainable it is not because of a shortage of solar energy. Not by a long way.

Solar flux is 174 Petawatts. Divide that amongst 7+ billion and we still get over 20 MW each. That'll do me.

[Tarrel]

Fair enough, but how come we didn't get to these levels of population before the fossil fuels came on the scene?

[Little John]

Fair enough, but how come we didn't get to these levels of population before the fossil fuels came on the scene?

Exactly.

Not just humans, but any mega fauna, ever.

The reason is probably twofold:

1) There was simply not the available resource in any given season to allow for such populations to exist of a single species of mega fauna, living as they do, at or near the top of the food chain.

2) To the unlikely extent that there may have been such an availability of resources in any given season, it would have required the denuding of the eco-system of many other forms of life in order to free up those resources for a single species. This, in turn, would have destabilised the entire eco system on which all life depends such that the single species in question would have eventually undermined its own food supply and its population would have crashed in the end. Nature will have her balance.

Sound familiar?

[emordnilap]

While there are a few notable exceptions, why is it that those of a Right-wing persuasion are often climate sceptic cornucopians? If Labour wasn't working, most Conservatives aren't conserving...

Maybe Matt Bruenig points towards an answer.

Basically, climate change (etc) infringes property rights, so is this the reason property owners have to deny it?

[kenneal - lagger]

Fair enough, but how come we didn't get to these levels of population before the fossil fuels came on the scene?

Fossil fuels enabled a massive increase in food production by removing the need to feed millions of horses that were formerly required to power agriculture. Moreover, they provided far more power than could be provided by horses thus enabling a further increase in food production. More food - more people. Seemples!!

[biffvernon]

Hang on. Is it a lack of food supply that restricted the explosion of human population for millennia, or a load of other factors?

I think the populations in the DODGY TAX AVOIDERS, Papua etc that were isolated from the rest of world civilisation had fairly stable populations for long periods despite not having any significant food shortages.

(What's this got to do with floods in Berkshire?)

[peaceful_life]

Hang on. Is it a lack of food supply that restricted the explosion of human population for millennia, or a load of other factors?

I think the populations in the DODGY TAX AVOIDERS, Papua etc that were isolated from the rest of world civilisation had fairly stable populations for long periods despite not having any significant food shortages.

(What's this got to do with floods in Berkshire?)

Nowt and neither does it include the amount of potential food production using vastly less amounts of hydrocarbons.
Bad practice and scarcity control don't give an accurate picture of the possible.

[clv101]

So, you accept that a global human population of 7+ billion human is unsustainable and that a large and early collapse of human civilisation leading to a significant die off is probably our best chance for making it into the deep future? If so, we are singing from essentially the same page CLV.

I'm pretty confident a population of 7bn+ people can be supported on the planet in terms of basic needs. One just needs to look at how the poorest folk live today, how little non-renewable resource they use to feed, water, shelter themselves... Remember one American is today using something like 2 orders of magnitude more non-renewable resource than the poorest decile.

What I have no hope for is a transition from where we are now to what is clearly technically possible. I agree that a the larger and sooner the collapse happens, the better humans will be doing 500 or 1000 years from now.

[vtsnowedin]

So, you accept that a global human population of 7+ billion human is unsustainable and that a large and early collapse of human civilisation leading to a significant die off is probably our best chance for making it into the deep future? If so, we are singing from essentially the same page CLV.

I'm pretty confident a population of 7bn+ people can be supported on the planet in terms of basic needs. One just needs to look at how the poorest folk live today, how little non-renewable resource they use to feed, water, shelter themselves... Remember one American is today using something like 2 orders of magnitude more non-renewable resource than the poorest decile.

What I have no hope for is a transition from where we are now to what is clearly technically possible. I agree that a the larger and sooner the collapse happens, the better humans will be doing 500 or 1000 years from now.

Hey why pick on America/ both Canada and the UAE use more energy per capita.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... per_capita

[biffvernon]

That list gives total energy. From the environmental impact point of view, fossil fuel use would be more useful. Iceland tops that list since it has a big geothermal powered aluminium industry.
Still, it's interesting to note that the UK is at 136GJ while the USA is at 300GJ. Are Americans more than twice as happy as we are?

[biffvernon]

Good work on the Mail on Sunday - Mat Collins - Julia Slingo affair: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2014/02 ... k-weather/

[vtsnowedin]

That list gives total energy. From the environmental impact point of view, fossil fuel use would be more useful. Iceland tops that list since it has a big geothermal powered aluminium industry.
Still, it's interesting to note that the UK is at 136GJ while the USA is at 300GJ. Are Americans more than twice as happy as we are?

Certainly not. Americans are just three times as rural and suburban then you Brits. Average American drives 15,000 miles a year mostly to and from work.