«-- Letter Re: Spot Shortages at a COSTCO Store a Portent of Things to Come? | Main | Notes from JWR: --»
The Elephant in the Room, by Norman Church
“I’m right there in the room and no one acknowledges me.”
"We must face the prospect of changing our basic way of living. This change
will either be made on our own initiative in a planned way, or forced on us
with chaos and suffering by the inexorable laws of nature." - President Jimmy
Carter (1976)
Before we discuss this Elephant in the Room we must first briefly consider
the notion of ‘sustainability’. Too often people debate sustainability
issues from an understanding that is vague, incomplete or frankly flawed.
"Just exactly what is meant when the word 'sustainable' or ‘sustainability’ are
used?" They are popularly used to describe a wide variety of activities
which are generally ecologically laudable but which may not be sustainable.
First, we must accept the idea that "sustainable" has to mean “for
an unspecified long period of time.”
Secondly we have a spectrum for the use of the term "sustainable." At
one end of the spectrum, the term is used with precision by people who are
introducing new concepts as a consequence of thinking profoundly about the
long-term future of the human race. In the middle of the spectrum, the term
is simply added as a modifier to the names and titles of very beneficial studies
in efficiency, etc. that have been in progress for years. In some cases the
term may be used mindlessly (or possibly with the intent to deceive) in order
to try to shed a favourable light on continuing activities that may or may
not be capable of continuing for long periods of time.
The Government of the United Kingdom defines a ‘sustainable community’ in
its 2003 Sustainable Communities Plan: ‘Sustainable communities are places
where people want to live and work, now and in the future. They meet the diverse
needs of existing and future residents, are sensitive to their environment,
and contribute to a high quality of life. They are safe and inclusive, well
planned, built and run, and offer equality of opportunity and good services
for all.’
So there briefly we have “sustainable”?
If we follow on from the above we can see that a ‘sustainable population’ would
be one that can survive over the long term, I am talking of thousands to tens
of thousands of years, without running out of resources or damaging the environment
in the process. This means that most of the resources we use have to be both
renewable through natural processes and entirely recycled if they are not renewable.
Our numbers and level of activity must not generate more waste than natural
processes can return to the biosphere. A sustainable population must not grow
past the point where those natural limits are breached.
If the population does exceed the carrying capacity, the death rate will increase
until the population numbers are stable. Using these criteria it is obvious
that the current human population is not sustainable.
In the entire environmental-related discussion taking place, population is
a word we seldom dare to speak and it is conspicuous by its absence: Population
is the elephant in the room.
It is obvious that something has massively increased the world's carrying capacity
in the last 150 years. During the first 1800 years of the Common Era, like
the tens of thousands of years before, the population rose very gradually as
humanity spread across the globe. Around 1800 this began to change, and by
1900 the human population was rising dramatically:
That something is oil.
Peak Oil
As we all know, but are sometimes reluctant to contemplate, oil is a finite,
non-renewable resource. This automatically means that its use is not sustainable.
Oil and Natural Gas are finite! There may be arguments over how much oil/gas
there was/is but, regardless of what that number is they are finite, absolute.
If the use of oil is not sustainable, then of course the added carrying capacity
the oil has provided is likewise unsustainable. Carrying capacity has been
added to the world in direct proportion to the use of oil, and the disturbing
implication is that if our oil supply declines, the carrying capacity of the
world will automatically fall with it.
These two observations (that oil has expanded the world's carrying capacity
and oil use is unsustainable) combine to yield a further implication. While
humanity has apparently not yet reached the carrying capacity of a world with
oil, we are already in drastic overshoot when you consider a world without
oil. In fact our population today is at least five times what it was before
oil came on the scene. If this sustaining resource were to be exhausted, our
population would have no option but to decline to the level supportable by
the worlds lowered carrying capacity.
What are the chances that we will experience a decline in our global oil supply?
Of course given that oil is a finite, non-renewable resource, such an occurrence
is inevitable. The field of study known as Peak Oil has generated a vast amount
of analysis that indicates this decline will happen soon, and may even be upon
us right now. The decline in oil supply will reduce the planet's carrying capacity,
thus forcing humanity into overshoot with the inevitable consequence of a population
decline.
The rapidity of the decline following the peak will determine whether our descent
will be a leisurely stroll down to the canyon floor or a headlong tumble carrying
a little sign reading, "Help!"
Each of the global problems we face today is the result of too many people
using too much of our planet's finite, non-renewable resources and filling
its waste repositories of land, water and air to overflowing. The true danger
posed by our exploding population is not our absolute numbers but the inability
of our environment to cope with so many of us doing what we do.
But are there other factors besides these that may contribute to overshoot
with the inevitable consequence of a population decline.
The United Kingdom
UK population growth is environmentally unsustainable, and if it is environmentally
unsustainable it is also economically unsustainable, for without ecologically
healthy land our economy will not be able to support its own people without
causing damage to the environment.
Today, the UK population is about 62 million and is one of the most crowded
areas in the world. In 1750, when the Industrial Revolution was beginning,
it was about 6 million. It had never exceeded this figure, although during
the Dark Ages and after the Black Death it fell to one or two million.
Most people lived and died in poverty. Pre-industrial farmers were pushed to
the limit to feed so many. The population increased slightly in years with
good harvests, but starvation and malnutrition cut it back to the 6 million
norm when harvests were bad.
We are in fantasy land if we think that we can continue to support the number
of people that we do now without the full input of oil and its related products.
We have become so dependent on those fuels, that there is no way we can sustain
ourselves at this population density and level of technology without them.
Even something as basic as food will become impossible to produce, process
and transport for our present numbers without fuel.
Just as redistributing greenhouse gas emissions is no solution to climate change,
population redistribution provides no long-term solution to environmental sustainability
- total population numbers need to decrease both in the UK and worldwide, alongside
efforts to reduce people's individual environmental impacts.
By adding over two million more people (extra producers of greenhouse gas emissions
through household, transport and business use) to the population of the UK
since 1997, and by allowing the number of climate changers to rise by more
than 300,000 people a year, the government's population policy has undermined
most of its environmental goals.
Climate Change
The climate change scenario for the UK is one of initial warming. Longer drier
summers and stormy wetter winters are predicted, based on a temperature rise
of 2/3.5° Celsius for the UK by the 2080s [UK Climate Impacts Programme,
2002]. [1]
But a 5.8° Celsius rise is possible, with some climate scientists suggesting
even faster warming. In the UK, 2006 was the warmest year since records began
in 1659.
The Benfield Hazard Research Centre at University College, London, has produced
maps of Britain showing the additional impact of sea-level rise under three
scenarios. [2]
There is also increasing evidence of another worrying scenario - the possible
failure of the Gulf Stream that keeps Britain's climate warm. Without it, the
UK would be plunged rapidly into freezing temperatures that would prevail for
many generations, and be unable to support its current population of nearly
60 million.
Extremes of temperature and climate, combined with weather-related disruptions,
would severely reduce the size of the country's population carrying capacity.
Food
The UK does not need to be wholly self-sufficient in food, but with population
continuing to grow, urbanisation eating up farmland, and more of our remaining
agricultural land likely to be used for energy crops, food production will
be further squeezed.
The introduction of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) into the biosphere
poses a danger similar to that of disease. When a plant GMO is created, its
pollen spreads around the world. It is quite conceivable that much of mankind’s
food supply could be eliminated, simply by a terrible error in which the introduction
of one or more GMOs resulted in the global loss of harvests of a staple food,
such as a cereal grain. [3]
The systems that produce the world's food supply are heavily dependent on fossil
fuels. Vast amounts of oil and gas are used as raw materials and energy in
the manufacture of fertilisers and pesticides, and at all stages of food production:
from planting, irrigation, feeding and harvesting, through to processing, distribution
and packaging.
In addition, fossil fuels are essential in the construction and the repair
of equipment and infrastructure needed to facilitate this industry, including
farm machinery, processing facilities, storage, ships, trucks and roads. The
industrial food supply system is one of the biggest consumers of fossil fuels
and one of the greatest producers of greenhouse gases.
Almost every current human endeavour from transportation, to manufacturing,
to electricity to plastics, and especially food production is inextricably
intertwined with oil and natural gas supplies. We are now at a point where
the demand for food/oil continues to rise, while our ability to produce it
in an affordable fashion is about to drop.
Wastes
Changing consumption patterns reflecting higher material living standards are
causes which can be mitigated by changing habits and better recycling, but
the 2000-06 rate of increase in municipal waste exactly matches that of population
growth. As each individual recycles more of his or her own waste, success is
undermined by the constantly increasing numbers of people who create waste.
Power
Among the alternative power proposals is wind power. Wind power is clean and
carbon-free, and if the UK's offshore air currents remain as prevalent as they
are today, it will remain the most promising proven source of renewable energy
until and if technological innovations improve prospects for solar, wave and
tidal power.
But how much land would be needed to provide all our electricity? It depends
how much wind power can be constructed offshore. If half the 25,200 MW target
for 2020 (estimated to provide a fifth of UK electricity) were built onshore,
3,100 square kilometres of land would be needed - an area larger than the whole
county of Dorset (2,653 sq km). For wind power to supply all-electric homes
at today's rates of consumption, for today's 60 million people, several counties
would need to be covered with wind turbines.
Turbines are being built to rated capacities above 1MW, but whatever the capacity
of a turbine, and whatever the improvement in energy yield per hectare, these
calculations apply only to household electricity demand - if wind power were
to be used to produce hydrogen fuel cells as a substitute for petrol for motor
transport, land requirements for turbines would rise further.
Water
The total amount of water used in UK (on a per person basis, but including
domestic, industrial and agricultural withdrawals) is modest – about
550 litres per day - compared to the majority of countries in the world, because
agriculture can be carried on mostly without irrigation.
The UK Government attaches importance to the goal of lowering water use per
household because of increasing water constraints: rivers reduced to a trickle
for several months, reservoir levels dropping, water tables (for groundwater
supplies) continuing to drop. The large increases in the UK population experienced
during the last five years makes it even more important to try to push per
person consumption downwards.
Against this background, it is astonishing that the UK government has given
the go-ahead – indeed has promoted – a massive expansion of housing.
Half a million new homes are planned in the South East alone.
The CFRE (Campaign For Rural England) has said: ‘The Environment Agency’s
own figures show that for this number of houses to be sustainable would require
all the new houses to be 25% more
water-efficient and all existing houses to be 8% more water-efficient. Yet
200,000 new houses have already been built in the region without any water
conservation measures. Unless we can make the politicians and planners listen
and re-think, we are heading for disaster here in Eastern England.’
In a letter to The Guardian, on August 9 2006, Campaign to Protect Rural England
chief executive said:
‘Any attempt to define an optimum level for immigration… needs
to look beyond issues of the economy and social stability, important as these
are, to take into account the environment…. The UK is one of the most
densely populated and built up countries in the EU and some English regions
are already close to reaching the limits of their capacity to take further
development without serious damage to the environment or quality of life.’
Our total usage of water just puts us inside the WWF category of mild stress,
and we should regard this as a wake-up call. Along with every measure for reducing
per person use of water, through metering, efficient appliances, rainwater
harvesting, and reduction of pipe leakages, we should address the problem of
population.
UK Summary
The UK has until recently been one of the most resilient economies in the world.
Over the last 100 years, it has survived two world wars, staged spectacular
economic recoveries, been blessed with energy resources, and evolved from manufacturer
to the world into a service economy. But the position in which it now finds
itself looks bleaker.
The UK is no longer a net exporter of oil and gas, and though rising prices
will in the short term mitigate the impact of this reversal, its trade deficit
in goods and services continues to widen. Domestic energy substitutes are unlikely
to be able to support current levels of economic activity, and the insecurity
of energy imports and import prices is already evident.
Of all the problems that we have to face right now the convergence of Peak
Oil, Climate Change and economic instability are probably the most crucial
issues we face.
All these problems are merely symptoms of a single, deeper underlying problem.
They are symptoms of a species and a way of life that have grown beyond the
ability of this planet to supply enough resources or to cope with our inevitable
waste products. This growth is seen in the human population, currently surging
through 6.6 billion people worldwide. It is also seen in our economic and industrial
growth, with its emphasis on perpetually rising living standards and increasing
wealth.
The consequences are already clear - our planet is under mounting stress from
human activities, with its climate changing and its ecosystems failing. But
recognition that we must act urgently to preserve our natural habitat has been
undermined by persistent failure to admit the multiplier effect of human numbers.
Without policies to reduce world population, efforts to save our environment
cannot succeed.
The only thing that has enabled our numbers to shoot so far over the long-term
carrying capacity is the planet's one-time gift of fossil fuels. This has also
enabled our underlying destruction of the biosphere.
The global human population before the discovery of oil was about 1-billion.
Today it is about 6.6 billion and rising. Without oil, the earth will only
support about 2-3 billion, and only if we stop desecrating our environment
right now. We cannot continue to feed an expanding global population indefinitely.
The uncomfortable truth is that the impact on Earth's biosphere of a projected
9 billion people living at a desired higher standard of living in 2050 would
be fatal for the planet in terms of greenhouse gas emissions alone.
Conclusions
Given the fact that our world's carrying capacity is supported by oil, and
that the oil is about to start going away, it seems that a population decline
is inevitable. The form it will take, the factors that will precipitate it
and the widely differing regional effects are all imponderables.
Populations in serious overshoot always decline, though actually, it's a bit
worse than that. The population may actually fall to a lower level than was
sustainable before the overshoot.
The reason is that unsustainable consumption while in overshoot allowed the
species to use more non-renewable resources and to further poison their environment
with excessive wastes.
However it is important to recognize that humanity is not, overall, in a position
of overshoot at the moment. Our numbers are still growing (though the rate
of growth is declining).
However, we are getting obvious signals from our environment that all is not
well. If the carrying capacity were to be reduced as our numbers continued
to grow we could find ourselves in overshoot rather suddenly. The consequences
of that would be quite grave.
So here we have a huge, complex, brittle system built on the foundation of
a depleting, non-renewable resource and depending on a damaged environment
with diminished carrying capacity. If this system receives a series of shocks
(such as repeated local interruptions of its energy supply) the resulting failure
cascades can disrupt the organization of the system to such an extent that
the cohesion provided by its interconnections fails. Ironically those connections
themselves become the pathways that spread the failure to other parts of the
system.
What has all this theorizing to do with population?
Because we are now a global species with a global civilization, continuing
growth of our numbers depends on the continuing growth of our civilization.
Humanity does not grow through demographics alone; there must be a sufficient
level of food, shelter, energy and medical care available. All these factors
will be put at risk globally within the next two decades due to the loss of
oil and our ability to keep people alive will decline.Food production and distribution
will be hampered or in some cases made impossible, and due to the damage of
soil and water local agriculture will prove very difficult in some places.
If medical care erodes, so will infant mortality and longevity. The erosion
of urban sanitation systems will have an identical but greater effect. Across
the world the effects will be highly variable, with some places like the United
States and the United Kingdom suffering from the catastrophic decline in net
global oil exports that is now underway. Other countries like those at the
bottom of the list of developing nations will simply be too poor to compete
against the developed world for the resources needed for survival. Populations
will fall as a result.
This leads inevitably to the objection that such a position caps the aspirations
of less developed countries and is thus morally unacceptable. Be that as it
may, the facts remain: there aren't enough resources to bring the whole world
up to the industrial level of the developed world and the developed world is
unlikely to consent to their own voluntary impoverishment in favour of industrializing
the less developed world, and attempting such an approach would increase rather
than reduce global ecological devastation. There appears to be no possibility
of reducing global fertility through industrialization.
What is amazing is that today’s human society views the present planetary
catastrophe (to the limited extent that it considers it at all) only in terms
of its impact on itself – on the current generation of human beings.
From the viewpoint of future generations, Nero is fiddling as Rome burns.
According to the 2003 State of the World report by the Washington-based Worldwatch
Institute, the human race has only one or perhaps two generations to rescue
itself. "The longer that no remedial action is taken, the greater the
degree of misery and biological impoverishment that humankind must be prepared
to accept," the Institute says in its 20th annual report. Various other
reports, like that of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change foresee
world-catastrophic conditions already for the second decade of this greatly
celebrated millennium.
The authors of The Limits to Growth suggested that it may be possible to avoid
the collapse, and transit peacefully to a long-term-sustainable equilibrium,
that was over thirty years ago.
I fear this ‘predicament’, not ‘crisis’, because these
conditions are not of recent origin and will not soon abate, may no longer
be solvable by ourselves and that the change will now be forced upon us with
chaos and suffering by the inexorable laws of nature.
Faith in technology as the ultimate solution to all problems can divert our
attention from the most fundamental problem--the problem of growth in a finite
system--and prevent us from taking effective action to solve it.
We must learn to live within carrying capacity without trying to enlarge it.
We must rely on renewable resources consumed no faster than at sustained yield
rates.
"If the present growth trends in world population, industrialization,
pollution, food production, and resource depletion continue unchanged, the
limits to growth on this planet will be reached sometime within the next one
hundred years. The most probable result will be a rather sudden and uncontrollable
decline in both population and industrial capacity." [4]
"As for man, there is little reason to think that he can, in the long run,
escape the fate of other creatures…….. During ten thousand years
his numbers have been on the upgrade in spite of wars, pestilence, and famines.
This increase
in population has become more and more rapid. Biologically, man has for too
long a time been rolling an uninterrupted run of sevens." - George R Stewart,
Earth Abides (1949)
References
[1] UK
Climate Impacts Programme, 2002.
[2] The Benfield Hazard Research Centre
[3] Human Genome Project Information
[4] The Limits to Growth (1972)
2003 State
of the World report by the Washington-based Worldwatch Institute
My special thanks to Paul Chefurka for his Peak Oil, Climate Chaos;
the
World Problematique;
to OPT; and
to Rosamund McDougall for their assistance.
Compiled by Norman.
J. Church
