Living On a Carbon Budget: The End of Recreation As We Know It?

Lasrick writes Dawn Stover looks at unrealistic expectations and the distribution of limited energy resources: 'This is a question that should move from the fringes of the energy debate to its very heart. Economists and energy experts shy away from issues of equity and morality, but climate change and environmental justice are inseparable: It's impossible to talk intelligently about climate without discussing how to distribute limited energy resources. It's highly unlikely that the world can safely produce almost five times as much electricity by 2035 as it does now—which is what it would take to provide everyone with a circa-2010 American standard of living, according to a calculation by University of Colorado environmental studies professor Roger Pielke Jr. The sooner policy makers accept this reality, the sooner they can get to work on a global solution that meets everyone's needs. First, though, they need to understand the difference between needs and wants.' Not something most people even think about.

Comments

Lots of cheap carbon stuff

[gurps_npc]

Hiking, working out, having sex.

Also, I bet computer gaming uses a lot less carbon than most pre-computer leisure activities.

Re:Lots of cheap carbon stuff

[swillden]

Instead, we'll probably breed right up to the edge of capacity and then die in billions when something unexpected happens.

No, we won't. The developed world is already zero or negative in population growth. Even better, it appears that this fact is primarily caused not by a cultural decision to have fewer kids, but by economics. It appears that the primary determining factors in the growth rate of a society are health and wealth: If children are likely to survive, people don't feel the need to breed lots of replacements, so they have fewer kids and invest more in them. Also, if people are wealthy and have a high standard of living, then maintaining that standard of living for a small family is much easier than for a large family.

So, the developed world is already not growing in population -- much of Europe is negative, and the US is at zero growth when you remove immigration -- and the developing world is rapidly getting healthier and wealthier. In fact, the numbers show that we've already passed "peak child", meaning the year in which the most new babies are born, and the birth rate is already beginning to decline, globally. The population is still growing because right now the world's population is heavily weighted toward the young, with almost half of the population under 25. But with about two billion people being born in each new generation, and a lifespan of approximately five generations, it appears that we're on track to peak at about 10B people, before we start declining.

That's if we don't change anything, of course. What we know for sure is that things will change, but we don't know what.

Re:Lots of cheap carbon stuff

[NoImNotNineVolt]

It actually takes two to create children.

That hasn't been true for a few decades.

The fact that 9 Months is taken residence in the womb (and subject to termination right up and sometimes passed delivery), is simply a liberal convenience. Two Males cannot create a child, neither can two females.

You haven't been keeping up with science and technology.

Both are inconvenient biological facts liberals don't actually like (its unfair, you homophobic bastard).

Ah yes, liberals. Of course, a discussion about population and procreation is best framed in the context of political leanings.

And children tend to do much better with two parents actively involved in raising them to adulthood, everything else equal. While a single woman COULD raise a child, typically most women do not have the luxury of means to provide for a child by themselves.

Really children tend to do much better with a village actively involved in raising them to adulthood, everything else equal. While a mere couple COULD raise a child, typically most couples do not have the luxury of culture to provide for a child by themselves.

You choose to draw the line somewhere between "single mother" and "both biological parents". However, this is arbitrary and ignores things like the efficacy of adoptive parenthood as well as what we know about traditional childrearing (as was practiced by humans prior to the green revolution). That's fine, but don't pretend that your arbitrary distinction is the only "correct" distinction. Different ways of raising children work differently, and simply because you deem one method to be sufficient or ideal does not mean that this is true for all parents or all children.

So, unless you're talking about just the 9 months of pregnancy, I would suggest that children should be a choice made by a man, and a woman together in mutual agreement whenever possible.

You're entitled to your own opinions, but you're not making a convincing argument by setting them forth without identifying a reasonable basis for having them.

Yeah, I am a hater for wanting the best for children.

And of course, you know what's best for children. Everyone else, they're just idiots. Or worse still, liberals.

Navel gazing

[Wonko the Sane]

While environmental studies professors continue to pump out ready excuses for imposing increasing economic feudalism in Europe and North America, China and India are going to build out nuclear power and produce energy. I doubt they'll be dissuaded from trying because of anything this professor says.

When people like this say, "the world can't" remember that they actually mean, "we aren't going to let you."

Re:Haves and Have-Nots

[itzly]

Another thing to keep in mind is that living on 2010 American standard doesn't necessarily require 2010 American levels of energy consumption.

Communism Inspired Tyranny

[xdor]

First, though, they need to understand the difference between needs and wants.

i.e.

We the central planners will determine what you need, because anything you think you need, is just a want -- at least that's what we think -- and since we're in charge, we decide. This is just not something you little citizens think about enough!

Nuclear power--the no carbon solution

[NotDrWho]

It's highly unlikely that the world can safely produce almost five times as much electricity by 2035 as it does now

We could if environmentalists and NIMBY's would stop blocking new nuclear power plant construction.

Re:Conservation and smart practices

[Ambassador Kosh]

The number one investment you can make is in insulation. Most homes throw away over half of all the heat they generate or have to cool FAR too much because of heat let in during the summer. You should not even think of doing PV work until you have done the insulation work. Insulation pays back faster and does not have the same kinds of damage issues as PV does.

The second investment would be in more efficient devices. Most furnaces are fairly bad and most electric devices in the house are pretty bad. Why run your AC more in the summer because your refrigerator is doing more to create heat than it should?

PV is the last step I would take not the first. First insulate the hell out of the house, then make devices more efficient. Depending on climate an attic fan is a great investment to clear out the extremely hot air in the summer. PV mostly just looks flashy but that is about all it is.

Bullshit and other animal feces

[mi]

It's highly unlikely that the world can safely produce almost five times as much electricity by 2035 as it does now—which is what it would take to provide everyone with a circa-2010 American standard of living

In 1890 a similar egg-head "predicted", Manhattan will be feet-deep in horse manure by 1930. A similar prediction was made for London of 1950 — the number of horses required to bring in supplies necessary for the growing population and its growing demands was calculated, along with the amount of excrement the beasts produced. The volume was then divided by the area of the city's streets to produce the depth of "coverage". An easy mathematical problem, a high-schooler solve it, so it had to be correct — and any attempts to argue against the conclusions were, of course, "anti-science".

Of course, as we know now, the automobile arrived to save the environment. But the fear-mongering did not cease...

Why exactly is humanity "highly unlikely" to be producing as much electricity as it wants to by 2035? Even today's technologies allow for that, and in 20 years we are bound to see improvements in both electricity production (higher) and consumption (lower).

I for one refuse to feel guilty about my recreation.