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

[Maxo-Texas]

Having procreative sex is one of the most carbon expensive things we can do.

Another conclusion you can draw from this article is that everyone could live very well if we would pare down the population to 2 billion.

It would only take 60 years to do this

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

Tragic.

Still, I also think they are ignoring fusion and solar. But... adding heat energy to the planet at the rate it's been growing since the 1600's will also result in a planet with a temperature equal to boiling water in 500 years. I'm not talking about global warming- just the amount of energy used and released that has to be radiated off into space.

Re:Lots of cheap carbon stuff

[davidwr]

Hiking, working out, Lhaving sex.[emphasis added]

This is Slashdot. You must be new here.

Re:Lots of cheap carbon stuff

[jythie]

Actually you only need to pear the population down by about 20 million. The top 2% of the world's population consume something like 90-95% of the resources, they are extremely expensive to have around. Remove them and everyone's standard of living jumps significantly.

The problem with the general idea of reducing the population is that the people who consume the most would be the least likely to actually be impacted by such programs, it would probably eat from the middle out.

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.

Conservation and smart practices

[Anonymous Coward]

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

In the 7 years I have lived in my house, I have reduced my electricity consumption by 50%. There is nothing magical about what I've done. Insulation, replacing AC units with energy efficient ones as they wore out, LED light bulbs, energy star appliances. I used a "TED" (The Energy Detective) to figure out what my big users of electricity were. These upgrades have already paid for themselves in lower energy bills. Last year the addition of solar PV and a solar water heater have further reduced my electric demand by 2/3. These upgrades will pay themselves back in about 12 years.

My overall demand is 1/6th of what it was 7 years ago and I have sacrificed no enjoyment of life to get it. If anything, my house is more comfortable and better lit and my appliances work better. And there are still planned improvements that will further reduce my demand, probably by 1/2 over the next few years. I live in a 75 year old 3000+ sq ft house and my energy usage is lower than the median energy usage in Florida, while being 50% larger than the median house size.

I agree it's foolish to try to increase global electricity production by a factor of 5. What we should do is relentlessly pursue efficiency until we reach the threshold of diminishing returns.

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.

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!

Re:Communism Inspired Tyranny

[nine-times]

I'm always confused by this objection to "central planning". For example, I've argued that the US should build up the train system, and have been told that it's a terrible idea because it's an example of "central planning". The government building up the train system requires that it assumes to know what's good for us, where we will want to travel, and it can't possibly know with perfect forethought.

Meanwhile, some of these same people will support the building an maintenance of the highway system, government support of the American auto industry, and gasoline subsidies. Somehow all of those things represent "freedom" because it means I get to feel good about myself when I buy a cool car.

Or the government can't build Internet infrastructure, because "central planning". Meanwhile, it's fine for Verizon to run most of the vital infrastructure. I guess that's fine because Verizon is too incompetent to plan anything?

Essentially what I'm getting at is, whenever I hear this objection to "central planning", the real issue always seems to boil down to "rich people might not make enough money."

The end somehow is always 30 years away

[jcrb]

Close enough that we have to DO SOMETHING NOW!, but far enough that no one will ever be called to account for being wrong, but not so far away that it's not in our life time and can be ignored. Having lost track of the number of such deadlines for the point of no return that have already passed in my life time let me just say I am a little skeptical.

And you know the Indians, the Chinese, and many others could care less and are going right on growing their populations and carbon production and there is no chance they will do anything but grow for the next 30 years. So if the author is right and we have only that long before we have irrevocably ruined our environment, then the choice for those of us in the industrial world is clear.

Enjoy all the vacations and recreational activities you can now. No seriously, if they are right then we are doomed, so you might as well enjoy it while you can, and they are wrong then you will have the last laugh while they sit around entertaining themselves doing the crossword puzzles, while they suffer without air conditioning.

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.

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.