Geo-4

[biffvernon]

Has anyone got round to reading the GEO-4 report from the UN yet?
You can download the 572 page, 22.5MB pdf from http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/media/

It's not eactly cosy bedtime reading but does contain some significant ideas, such as

And, this may threaten humanity?s very survival as well.

I particularly like the cartoon on page 409 and it's accompanying text, which I think are pertinant to our discussions about UK population recently. Those who advocate the deployment of barbed wire take note.

[MacG]

OMG! Quite a long thing to read, and you reached p 409. I'm duly impressed.

This thing about "survival of humanity" seems a bit exaggerated though. I'm sure SOME people will survive the next million years. Excluding a serious meteorite hit or such. Even a total nuclear war will leave SOME people behind, although they wont have the same standard of living as we currently enjoy.

[Smithy]

I leapt into the middle, and it's actually a very interesting document. So while I was there broken out some key points:
http://www.unep.org/geo/geo4/report/09_ ... _Today.pdf

Less encouragingly, some see an unsettling pattern of conflict and entrenched interests playing out both in and between nations in today?s world, characterized by increasing inequality and social isolation. Heightened security measures that restrict human movement and increase military expenditure lend weight to this view of the world. Instability and conflict have a critical effect on quality of life for millions. Certain international trade policies protect the existing balance of power though increased tariffs and protectionism, while local enclaves can be seen in the form of highly-secure housing developments in cities.

Which of these trends will be the most dominant over the next decades? This is open to debate. In the end, the answer will likely differ across regions and over time. This section presents snapshots of the four futures considered in this chapter.

Markets First (Yeh, right! Where better to put your faith? but note the reference to the Triple Bottom Line: economic, social and environmental.)

The dominant characteristic of this scenario is the tremendous faith placed in the market to deliver not only economic advances, but also social and environmental improvements.

Policy First (No hope! Waste of time that we don't have)

The dominant characteristic of this scenario is the highly centralized approach to balancing strong economic growth with a lessening of the potential environmental and social impacts. A key question is whether the slow and incremental nature of this approach will be adequate.

Security First (page 408-410, including the fun cartoon. Seeing this play out already as we should expect)

In the absence of concerted efforts, climate change, general population growth, urbanization, and the growth in demand for food and traditional biofuels have significant impacts on terrestrial biodiversity.

Sustainability First (No chance! Far too slippery)

The dominant characteristic of this scenario is the assumption that actors at all levels ? local, national, regional and international, and from all sectors, including government, private and civil ? actually follow through on the pledges made to date to address environmental and social concerns. This implies behaviour that honours not only the letter, but also the spirit of these promises.

It's good to see this being considered, but I can't help thinking of 'Rats in a Box': http://mikingery.blogster.com/rats_box.html

As population density increased to a certain threshold point, the behavior of the population became more socially abnormal. All sorts of inter-rat social problems manifested, with ultimate violent behavior

Fig 9.9 is hopeful!...

Page 434/437 discusses Europe...

Fig 9.39g shows a variety of European energy peaks out at 2030-...

Fig 9.41g: where is that oil coming from for the US?

[biffvernon]

It's difficult to summarize such a big document and one that contains so much interesting stuff. I reckon that the Sustainability First scenario (the only one in which peak oil get's a mention) is humanity's only hope, the other three lead inevitably to disaster, but general stupidity make it a very slim hope. Reality dictates, as the authors point out, that we will muddle through a mixture of all four scenarios, making the outlook not good.

One disappointing feature is the lack of study of energy - but this report is long enough as it is so I guess that's for another tome. A more significant failure is the policy of sticking to the IPCC report AR4 when discussing climate change. We all know that the way the IPCC works means that its reports are conservative and out of date. There is an acknowledgement, for instance, that sea level rise might be greater than predicted but the assumption is that the rise will be measured in centimetres rather than metres. The focus of the report is till 2050 rather than further into the future but more consideration could have been made of the much greater risks of major sea level rise that are now apparent and that have big policy implications.

There is a useful discussion of population trends, in which figure between 8 and almost 10 bn by 2050 are considered.

[Vortex]

The cartoon ...

[jonny2mad]

hmmm whats actually wrong with the barbed wire?

if you have say europe with a culture where you have a decline in population, and you have other cultures with runaway population wouldnt it be better to seperate them so the culture with runaway population gets die off and either changes or dies off .

now its possible that if you import these starving people that they will change and have smaller familys , or they may just do the same thing to your country thus spreading the misery .

I can see in the cartoon the west has the nice house and car and there is a over use of resources , but there doesnt seem to be the overpopulation thats effecting where all the people are

[biffvernon]

There's an evil troll inside the cute teddybear outfit.