I've got land. Do you?

[aloofman]

The planet will recover (it's essentially a closed system) but one outcome might be it may need a few million years time out with no life on it to do so. Welcome back to the primordial soup...

I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. We'll deplete the human race long before we destroy the rest of the planet's life. The planet will recover just fine eventually. It's us that we should be worried about.

 

[aloofman]

actually you should read kunstlers book about declining oil supply. it's not the mad max or the soylent green scenario. instead, life becomes intensly local. there is a sharp divide between rural and urban. if your not growing crops then you will have no business living outside of the city. air travel is only for the super rich (forget going to paris). quality of life (in the usa at least) depends on which part of the country you live in. the northwest does best (close to agriculture, good weather, fishing....), the great lakes states are able to use the water for transit and become closer to canada. the areas that do worst involve places like las vegas and phoenix (no resources to support the existing infrastructure and they become ghost towns. the south becomes feudal. cali is overrun by the collaps of mexico.
it's a good read.

That sounds completely ridiculous. Everyone seems to think it will be some kind of oil crash. It won't. It will gradually get more and more expensive, and at various times it will suddenly become more cost-effective to use solar for more things, natural gas for others, nuclear, etc.

There will have to be some big changes, no doubt, but this Chicken Little talk is what hurts the environmentalist cause. People who can afford (for now) to fill up their SUV just think to themselves, "These people are nuts." It reduces the credibility of the real problems that need solving and desensitizes everyone to environmental damage.

 

[meta-ghost]

That sounds completely ridiculous. Everyone seems to think it will be some kind of oil crash. It won't.

that sounds pretty confident. trust me, we all hope your right. the problem is in the numbers. we do have a good idea of projected usage but again (as i said above) we are relying on the saudis, iranians, kuwaitis to tell us how much oil they have. the amounts are questionable at best.

It will gradually get more and more expensive, and at various times it will suddenly become more cost-effective to use solar for more things, natural gas for others, nuclear, etc.

there are two problems with this. the first is time. we cannot switch over to new sources very quickly. it takes many years. kunstler's view is that we've missed the window of opportunity for an smooth transition. the second problem is that oil is needed for the transition. solar panels need quite a bit of oil for fabrication as do other sources. if we're suddenly in a pinch, things become very expensive.

There will have to be some big changes, no doubt, but this Chicken Little talk is what hurts the environmentalist cause. People who can afford (for now) to fill up their SUV just think to themselves, "These people are nuts." It reduces the credibility of the real problems that need solving and desensitizes everyone to environmental damage.

again, as i said in a previous quote, you've got your politics wrong. environmentalist have been among the most vocal critics of kunstler. this is because he thinks we've past the point where it's useful to attempt alternative sources. in his view, we're screwed and about the only thing we can do is start building nuclear power plants as fast as possible.

the wall street journal, however, is a great supporter.

me, i'm keeping an open mind. i'd like to see some firm numbers on how much oil is actually left.

 

[mpw]

I think this is a bit of an exaggeration. We'll deplete the human race long before we destroy the rest of the planet's life. The planet will recover just fine eventually. It's us that we should be worried about.

Excuse the cynical pessimism but I can see a time in the not to distant future where the charitable;

“Lets ‘cure’ poverty and all get on great”

attitude currently being touted about the place will be swept aside by;

“Those [insert applicable nation] aren’t sharing their oil/have more oil than us/are coveting the oil we don’t intend to share [delete as applicable] lets kill them and take their oil/lets kill them and take their oil/lets kill them just in case they take our oil [delete as applicable]”

 

[CanadaRAM]

Excuse the cynical pessimism but I can see a time in the not to distant future where the charitable;

“Lets ‘cure’ poverty and all get on great”

attitude currently being touted about the place will be swept aside by;

“Those [insert applicable nation] aren’t sharing their oil/have more oil than us/are coveting the oil we don’t intend to share [delete as applicable] lets kill them and take their oil/lets kill them and take their oil/lets kill them just in case they take our oil [delete as applicable]”

As above, substitute water.


See further thread on consumption
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/138406/

 

[Dave00]

Examples:
100% recycled photocopier paper costs twice as much as paper made from virgin fibre.

Incidentally, it also (arguably) costs more environmentally than virgin paper. This is why I absolutely will not recycle paper or buy recycled paper, from an environmental standpoint. Paper is biodegradable and comes from a renewable resource (although whether we are renewing this resource is another issue). Recycling paper generates an incredible amount of toxic waste, not to mention the fossil-fuel energy used in the process. Recycling plastic makes much more sense.

Otherwise, I agree with your post; lower cost != more environmentally sound.

Dave

 

[CanadaRAM]

Incidentally, it also (arguably) costs more environmentally than virgin paper. This is why I absolutely will not recycle paper or buy recycled paper, from an environmental standpoint. Paper is biodegradable and comes from a renewable resource (although whether we are renewing this resource is another issue). Recycling paper generates an incredible amount of toxic waste, not to mention the fossil-fuel energy used in the process. Recycling plastic makes much more sense.

Otherwise, I agree with your post; lower cost != more environmentally sound.

Dave

http://recycling.stanford.edu/5r/recycledpaper.html

"Recycled paper conserves forests, as approximately 42% of trees harvested nationwide end up as pulpwood for pulp and paper.(2)

Recycled paper also saves energy and water and reduces pollution. Producing recycled paper takes 60% less energy and 58% less water than producing virgin paper and produces 74% less air pollution and 35% less water pollution."


http://www.paperspecs.com/resources/tips/20056115925.htm

"The manufacturing process to make recycled paper uses less energy, water, and oil, in addition to saving trees. Why then, does recycled paper sometimes cost more than virgin paper?

The answer has to do with economies of scale and mill design. Most modern paper mills in North America are heirs to billions of dollars of industry investment in using trees and are designed to make high quality, low cost virgin paper.

Given the extremely low profit margins in the paper industry, these mills are finely tuned to minimize cost. They make enormous quantities of very specific paper grades because long production runs result in less down time and lower cost per ton of product.

Any variation from this formula results in higher costs. Ask one of these virgin mills to make recycled paper and you will pay more because most mills are designed to produce virgin pulp for all their fiber needs and are located deep in the woods, far from sources of recycled fiber. "

http://www.iied.org/smg/pubs/rethink.html#preface

" (conclusions)
vi. The mounting waste burden could be the crucial limiting factor...
The developed world will account for much of the expected growth in demand, as it has done in the past. Because such a large proportion of paper consumption is ´virtual waste', this consumption surge could create severe waste management problems, even despite likely increases in the waste paper recovery rate. Landfill is no longer a desirable option for paper waste, because of methane emissions, while the scope for incineration with energy recovery remains limited by public health anxieties. Consequently, initial steps to reduce paper waste at source by changing consumption (such as producer responsibility laws) will need to be reinforced."

 

[aloofman]

that sounds pretty confident. trust me, we all hope your right. the problem is in the numbers. we do have a good idea of projected usage but again (as i said above) we are relying on the saudis, iranians, kuwaitis to tell us how much oil they have. the amounts are questionable at best.

there are two problems with this. the first is time. we cannot switch over to new sources very quickly. it takes many years. kunstler's view is that we've missed the window of opportunity for an smooth transition. the second problem is that oil is needed for the transition. solar panels need quite a bit of oil for fabrication as do other sources. if we're suddenly in a pinch, things become very expensive.

People have been predicting we'd run out of oil for a long time and not only has it not happened, it's still many decades away from happening. In terms of political action this is actually a big problem because there isn't much incentive to start converting to alternative energy until things really start to go wrong, which I believe is part of your point. I didn't mean to imply that oil would get more expensive in an easy way, certainly there will be shocks over time. But this guy (at least by your account, since I haven't read it) makes it sounds like it's going to be all downhill very fast. There's no reason to think that's true. Something as plausible as a recession in China would ease prices considerably. It's hard to predict what will happen, especially when oil prices are only now approaching their inflation-adjusted peak.

the wall street journal, however, is a great supporter.

If it's the Wall Street Journal's editorial page that supports him (I think that's what you're saying), you can bet it's a big pile of lies concoted by the Republican party. The WSJ editors also seem to firmly believe that Clinton is a murderer and that the poor don't pay any taxes.

 

[aloofman]

Excuse the cynical pessimism but I can see a time in the not to distant future where the charitable;

“Lets ‘cure’ poverty and all get on great”

attitude currently being touted about the place will be swept aside by;

“Those [insert applicable nation] aren’t sharing their oil/have more oil than us/are coveting the oil we don’t intend to share [delete as applicable] lets kill them and take their oil/lets kill them and take their oil/lets kill them just in case they take our oil [delete as applicable]”

I don't dispute that at all. It seems likely that we'd destroy each other competing for scarce resources before those resources completely run out.

By the way, that post was kind of hard to read!

 

[Les Kern]

"Recycled paper conserves forests, as approximately 42% of trees harvested nationwide end up as pulpwood for pulp and paper.

That statistic is probably true, but what you don't know is this: Many newspapers and paper-products companies have their OWN forests that they continue to re-plant. The New York Times, for instance, uses up to 10,000 trees a week. But they own the forest, and they manage it brilliantly. Also, newspapers use up to 40% recycled, and some use 100%. They use genetically chosen trees that are fast-growth, allowing more harvests. The net loss in total is zero. It's not like their cutting old-growth forests. That being said, it sickens me to see the packaging in this country. Unbelievable waste.

 

[CanadaRAM]

That statistic is probably true, but what you don't know is this: Many newspapers and paper-products companies have their OWN forests that they continue to re-plant. The New York Times, for instance, uses up to 10,000 trees a week. But they own the forest, and they manage it brilliantly. Also, newspapers use up to 40% recycled, and some use 100%. They use genetically chosen trees that are fast-growth, allowing more harvests. The net loss in total is zero. It's not like their cutting old-growth forests. That being said, it sickens me to see the packaging in this country. Unbelievable waste.

Once again, the net is zero only if you are selective about what inputs you choose and what you ignore. The fast-growing white pine monoculture tree farms are preferable to cutting old (or even secondary) growth. But they are ecologically far more barren as habitat for other species (for example, saprophytes that take 50 years or more to become established in a mature forest), and soil depletion will bring declining yields (as dramatically evidenced in the Amazon basin).

 

[hulugu]

People have been predicting we'd run out of oil for a long time and not only has it not happened, it's still many decades away from happening. In terms of political action this is actually a big problem because there isn't much incentive to start converting to alternative energy until things really start to go wrong, which I believe is part of your point. I didn't mean to imply that oil would get more expensive in an easy way, certainly there will be shocks over time. But this guy (at least by your account, since I haven't read it) makes it sounds like it's going to be all downhill very fast. There's no reason to think that's true. Something as plausible as a recession in China would ease prices considerably. It's hard to predict what will happen, especially when oil prices are only now approaching their inflation-adjusted peak...

I guess I consider oil problematic, not because we may run out, but because it causes problems now. We are seeing a rise in asthma, heart disease, etc. from our current use of oil. Even if oil were to last forever at current prices even as China becomes a major consuming country, we still have the negative health effects. Those don't go away whether oil costs 20.00 per gallon or .20.
Furthermore, oil appears in countries whose governments are corrupt and dangerous and we not only have to deal with them, but be friendly. We have to support the Wahabi-regime in Saudi Arabia, the dictators of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, the faultering regime of Argentina, etc. just to continue using a resource that is possibly dwindling and is certainly killing our people.
If the oil becomes scarce, we could find ourselves involved in another World War with China, Russia, even the EU for this valuable resource. Historically, this is at least one of the reasons Japan began to invade China and consequently attack the US Navy at Pearl Harbor. Do we really want to fight for this again? Especially if there are better options?
Lastly, what if the US became the prime source for environmental technologies? Think of it, China and the EU needing the US manufacturing base to make high-efficiency solar panels. We could reverse our trade deficits, we could remain an economic power-house, and we could be healthier with a military that remains in the defense of the country and our allies rather than warring among the oil wells.
I know there are pieces missing, but I can't see how we can still be using the same resource that drove the early-20th century and call it progress.

 

[hulugu]

I'm not assuming that. I fully acknowledge it's possible to act now on the basis of future value.

My point is: why should my present day value be lessened to increase value for some stranger in the future? You want to lessen the value of my SUV today, by saying I can't drive it as much - in order to increase land value to some coastal landowner in the future who won't have to build a dike.

Why should I reduce value for him? Why not the other way around? He doesn't even exist.

So, if we can indeed act on future value even in our own interests, we then allow that our current actions can make the future better or worse. We then allow that because we're selfish and we act in our own interest than we want the future to be better than our present or past. Therefore, it is only natural and logical that we do things for the future to increase it's value—if we can agree that clean water, skies and bunny rabbits are something we want in the future than we would act in ways to increase the possibility that the water will remain clean, the skies clear, and there's enough land for bunny rabbits to prosper. So, out of our own self-interest we sell the SUV and buy a Hybrid because all the information we have tells us the the SUV dirties the sky and water and makes the lowly bunny rabbit's habitat disapear. So, in our own naked self-interest we actually protect the future and the environment and the bunny rabbits.
Or, we can also consider our children, godchildren, nieces, whatever. We can hope that they have clear skies and clean water, and so we act for them, even as they don't exist, yet. We don't do it for the children we don't know, we do it for ours. But, in either case, we assume the future has value and that by acceding some things we increase the value of the future. It would nihilistic to pretend that the present is all.
Think of it another way, why should your parents have fed you and clothed you? Why didn't they tell you to fend for yourself? Because you couldn't and neither can future generations.
We act out of self-interest, we act of out love. The future has value, and that value is always greater than the present.

 

[crap freakboy]

Too many of us. Full stop.

 

[Dave00]

[...]
Recycled paper also saves energy and water and reduces pollution. Producing recycled paper takes 60% less energy and 58% less water than producing virgin paper and produces 74% less air pollution and 35% less water pollution."

All the references you cite fail to state where they get their statistics, unfortunately. (They cite secondary sources, rather than research.) Relative pollution of various chemicals is something of a subjective matter, which is why I did say "arguably" in my post. However, the chemicals used to clean paper for recycling are, from what I've seen, more toxic than those used to manufacture paper from wood. It's the de-inking process. Nasty sh*t. Disposing of this stuff is one of the things that raises the cost of production of recycled paper.

 

[aloofman]

I guess I consider oil problematic, not because we may run out, but because it causes problems now. We are seeing a rise in asthma, heart disease, etc. from our current use of oil. Even if oil were to last forever at current prices even as China becomes a major consuming country, we still have the negative health effects. Those don't go away whether oil costs 20.00 per gallon or .20.

That's true, but consumption will stay higher as long as oil is cheap. If the price goes up, people will conserve more and alternative energy sources will become more competitive on cost. Increasing fuel taxes is the way to go here, but there's zero political support for that.

Furthermore, oil appears in countries whose governments are corrupt and dangerous and we not only have to deal with them, but be friendly. We have to support the Wahabi-regime in Saudi Arabia, the dictators of Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan, the faultering regime of Argentina, etc. just to continue using a resource that is possibly dwindling and is certainly killing our people.

You're right, although I think maybe you mean Venezuela and not Argentina.

If the oil becomes scarce, we could find ourselves involved in another World War with China, Russia, even the EU for this valuable resource. Historically, this is at least one of the reasons Japan began to invade China and consequently attack the US Navy at Pearl Harbor. Do we really want to fight for this again? Especially if there are better options?

All of these things are possible. My point was that I'm skeptical about this Kunstler guy's claims that oil scarcity will drastically damage all of western civilization. That sounds a bit too gloom-and-doom to me.

Lastly, what if the US became the prime source for environmental technologies? Think of it, China and the EU needing the US manufacturing base to make high-efficiency solar panels. We could reverse our trade deficits, we could remain an economic power-house, and we could be healthier with a military that remains in the defense of the country and our allies rather than warring among the oil wells.
I know there are pieces missing, but I can't see how we can still be using the same resource that drove the early-20th century and call it progress.

The United States is the top developer of environmental technologies. We're just not the top implementer of them. In fairness, the US economy is so large and spread out that there are extra challenges when it comes to energy efficiency. But the biggest problem is lack of politics and policy.

 

[Mr. Anderson]

Resurrecting the thread - its interesting to see that in the second article, the guy mentions some of the difficulties facing the deep south. Something we're now seeing in the aftermath of Katrina.

I'm not optimistic about the Southeast, either, for different reasons. I think it will be subject to substantial levels of violence as the grievances of the formerly middle class boil over and collide with the delusions of Pentecostal Christian extremism. The latent encoded behavior of Southern culture includes an outsized notion of individualism and the belief that firearms ought to be used in the defense of it. This is a poor recipe for civic cohesion.

 

[meta-ghost]

Resurrecting the thread - its interesting to see that in the second article, the guy mentions some of the difficulties facing the deep south. Something we're now seeing in the aftermath of Katrina.

i never lived in the south and have only briefly visited. kunstler notes in his book of the possibilty of armed african american revolt (this is in the context of a future scenario of very low oil supply). i must admit that when i read this book i felt this was one of the weak points. i mean come on, when times are difficult, when natural distasters befall us, we stick together. we would never leave the poorest to fend for themselves. we would never leave large segments of our society with no means to preserve life and limb.

or would we...

 

[aloofman]

Resurrecting the thread - its interesting to see that in the second article, the guy mentions some of the difficulties facing the deep south. Something we're now seeing in the aftermath of Katrina.

I don't see much of a connection there. Looting and violence are often seen in the aftermath of major natural disasters. The same thing would be happening in the impoverished urban areas of most other large American cities. It sounds like Kunstler reads too much Hobbes.

 

[Lord Blackadder]

I don't agree that firearms ownership is part of southern culture.

I also think that the south is much more socially cohesive now than it has ever been in the past as far as pertains to its real demography. In other words, The pre-bellum south had a pretty well-defined society that was not totally cohesive, though its constituent groups (slaves, free blacks, wealthy whites, poor whites) were generally tight-knit (though mutually exclusive). Today the different groups of people in the south work and live together better than at any time in the past - I see this guy's article as FUD.

What we are seeing with Katrina is a partial breakdown of authority and infrastructure due to a natural disaster - you'll notice that the cause is external and, while there is an increase in crime it is wanton and not some sort of general insurrection or even restricted to one ethnic/social/religious group.

 

[meta-ghost]

name a single case

I don't see much of a connection there. Looting and violence are often seen in the aftermath of major natural disasters. The same thing would be happening in the impoverished urban areas of most other large American cities. It sounds like Kunstler reads too much Hobbes.

name one natural disaster where those with financial means were able to leave and only the poor and sick were left behind to suffer and die.

 

[aloofman]

name one natural disaster where those with financial means were able to leave and only the poor and sick were left behind to suffer and die.

How about the Chicago heat wave of 1995?

http://slate.msn.com/id/2125572/

The poor and disadvantaged suffer disproportionally more from disasters on a regular basis. There are many ways that the New Orleans disaster is unique, but this facet is not one of them.

 

[0098386]

land? pah my parents have land in 3 countries and my great great great granddad's was the Duke of Bedfordshire or something like that with 6000 acres of land to his name. my parents are trying to find a good strong link to prove this so i might get an acre or 2 and build myself a nice little shed.

but seriously. this is crap. world leaders dont bother. hell, they're making a tidy income. its cliched but its going to be a our kids picking up this mess. you know in 100-200 years time people are going to hate our 'time'. between the 1900s to the 2100's (wild guess?) we destroyed earth.

y'know. as if Day after Tomorrow didn't teach us anything

 

[GFLPraxis]

I've known *most* of this for a while, but one point really stood out which I had no knowledge of.


When I hit this, I literally said, 'Oh, crap' out loud.

Because of the oil crises of the 1970s, the nuclear-plant disasters at Three Mile Island and Chernobyl and the acid-rain problem, the U.S. chose to make gas its first choice for electric-power generation. The result was that just about every power plant built after 1980 has to run on gas. Half the homes in America are heated with gas.

 

[GFLPraxis]

If we wish to keep the lights on in America after 2020, we may indeed have to resort to nuclear power, with all its practical problems and eco-conundrums. Under optimal conditions, it could take ten years to get a new generation of nuclear power plants into operation, and the price may be beyond our means. Uranium is also a resource in finite supply. We are no closer to the more difficult project of atomic fusion, by the way, than we were in the 1970s.

I don't mind nuclear power, I learned a lot about that in my physics class.

Running out of Uranium is a problem but a long term one.

The biggest problem I see is; what about the smaller nations that cannot afford nuclear power, don't have the technology, OR won't be allowed to develop the technology because the U.S. will squash them to prevent them from making bombs?