Energy Policy
Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 6
Revision A
For the love of the human
race.
Thursday, March 27, 2014
Our Thesis
We agree with Dr. Bartlett that any solution requires the
education and participation of every single one of the earth’s seven billion
plus residents. The problem is of such
complexity and magnitude that no one person can possibly see lasting
solutions. Moreover, the problem
impinges on human freedom, so it is unreasonable to expect that lasting
solutions can be achieved by humans coercing other humans.
These obstacles can defeat us: 1. Unwillingness to change in the face of the
facts. 2. Inadvertently or deliberately
ignoring the facts. 3. Failure to
collect accurate, up-to-date data. 4. Inability
to find sufficient meaningful solutions in time to avert catastrophe.
This is not a game of blind chance. This is not a game of fear mongering. This is a zero-sum game of war: if
rationality does not prevail in this war; we, our children, grandchildren, and
great- grandchildren will lose. Deciding
not to play is a decision to lose. If
rationality does not prevail, the forces we call nature will make the necessary
decisions for us: we will lose and be stranded without the necessary survival
map and plan. Nobody will like the
solution.
Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 6
http://www.albartlett.org/presentations/arithmetic_population_energy_video1.html Better results were achieved by playing the
video clip directly from this site, rather than by linking through
YouTube. Click on the arrow in the
middle of the picture, rather than on the black bar at the top. This is Part 6.
Dr. Bartlett discusses new discoveries further. He shows decisively, that these discoveries
deserve critical evaluation. At the very
least, the size of the discovery must be divided by the rate of consumption to
arrive at the time it will last. Most of
these evaluations result in times of a few days. Truly enormous volumes of oil, when compared
to current consumption, turn out to be amazingly minuscule. The problem is not that the discovery was not
significantly gigantic. The problem is
that our consumption is horrendous and growing.
Dr. Bartlett claims that the necessary, but not sufficient cause is
overpopulation. We maintain that the
necessary, but not sufficient cause is overconsumption. We also believe that the conditions which are
both necessary and sufficient causes, are the product of population and
consumption.
Dr. Bartlett discusses ethanol fuels. At the present time 10% ethanol and gasoline
mixes have been a commercially available product for several years: but, not
everybody uses them. Many engines burn
straight gasoline, avgas, jet-fuel, bunker C, and other oil based fuels which
contain no ethanol. Oil is also used in
the production of asphalt pavement and some plastics, possibly even
rubber. When these other uses are
factored in, we conclude that Dr. Bartlett’s 1% figure is about right. We also concur with Dr. Bartlett’s
observation that ethanol production is most likely endothermic, or so slightly
exothermic as to not be worth the trouble of producing it. I’m tired of paying $1,000 to replace my
engine gaskets that were destroyed by ethanol.
One gallon of ethanol will not move a car as many miles as one gallon of
gasoline: so the pump price is deceptive; it looks like a savings, when it is
actually an increased cost. Presently,
the government is considering the license of E15, a 15% ethanol and gasoline
mix: this can only make matters worse.
Dr. Bartlett emphasizes, “We
cannot let other people do our thinking for us.” We need to take this exhortation
seriously. Resolution of this problem
requires the commitment of all of the earth’s seven billion plus population. We remember in the joke about ham and egg
breakfast that the pig is committed, while the chicken is only involved.
Dr. Bartlett’s examination of worldwide per-capita
consumption of oil is around half a gallon per day and decreasing as it follows
the Peak Oil curve. In contrast to the
worldwide average, American consumption is around two gallons per day. Much of the world perceives this as unfair:
we could tell them that they are better off walking, better off not becoming
dependent on fossil fuels, but they probably wouldn’t hear us. The false-glitter of American toys is often
very attractive: it shouldn’t be, but it is.
There is some justification for our disproportionately high consumption
of oil: we have built an economy where our lives depend on oil. When oil is gone, vast numbers of our
population will probably die. The
problem is not the oil, its use, or its depletion; it is our refusal to manage
a life-sustaining resource.
Dr. Bartlett shows from one of Dr. Hubbert’s charts that in
the 10,000 years or more of human existence, both historical and future, that
the age of fossil fuels is little more than a pimple in the millennia of
man. In one hundred years or so, this
discussion will no longer be important.
However, in adapting to the depletion of fossil fuels, human beings will
suffer incredible tragedy. This may not
be Armageddon, but for a while it will certainly seem like it.
Dr. Bartlett is right.
We have embraced an idol. Growth
has replaced God in our vocabulary. We
worship growth, and we will certainly pay the price for doing that.
“We have evolved into what amounts to an exponential-growth culture. I would say, it’s more than a culture: it’s
our national religion, because we worship growth. Pick up any newspaper; you’ll see headlines
such as this: ‘State forecasts robust growth.’”[i]
On a recent TV segment of less than an hour the word,
growth, was repeated at least four times in similar contexts.
“So, what do we do? In the words of Winston Churchill, ‘Sometimes
we have to do what is required.’”1
This applies whether we like it or not.
Medicine may taste bitter; but, it is still medicine and we must take
it. Today’s pop mantra is, “Don’t listen
to negative people.” When the truth is
negative, we ignore it at our own peril.
The goddess of growth must be cast down and trampled underfoot.
Dr. Bartlett outlines some of the essential points for
successful national and worldwide programs.
1.
“we ought to have a big increase in the funding for research in the
development and dispersion of renewable energy.”
2.
“We must educate all of our
people to an understanding of the arithmetic and consequences of growth,
especially in terms of the earth’s finite resources.”
3.
“We must educate people to
recognize the fact that growth of populations and growth of rates of
consumption of resources cannot be sustained.”
Dr. Bartlett quotes his own, “The First Law of
Sustainability: Population growth and/or growth in the rates of consumption of
resources cannot be sustained.” He will
develop twenty more laws of sustainability, with many corollaries.[ii] We shall have to visit these later.
Dr. Bartlett writes “It is intellectually dishonest to talk
about sustainability without stressing the obvious fact that stopping
population growth is a necessary condition for sustainability!” “Population restraint is a necessary
condition but it is not the sufficient condition.”
The other necessary, but not sufficient condition is
restraint of consumption. The two
constraints are interrelated. The
necessary and sufficient condition is the product of the two interrelated
conditions on a per capita basis.
The Law of Carrying Capacity
We introduce here our own law,
The Law of Carrying Capacity (CC):
0
≤ CC ≡ P * Cpc ≤ 1
Where: P is the population
at any time and place, and Cpc is the per capita
consumption due to that same population.
One (1) is 100% of Carrying Capacity which
cannot be exceeded. Once conditions of 100%
sustainability equilibrium are reached for any fixed location, further growth
in CC cannot take place.
If P
increases by a factor of u, Cpc must
decrease by a factor of 1/u.
If Cpc increases by a factor of v,
P
must decrease by a factor of 1/v.
If individuals attempt
to violate these equilibrium conditions, nature will restore them by force:
people will die or they will experience uncontrollable shortages of resources.
If greedy individuals decide that it is
necessary to consume more than their fair share, they are in effect committing
murder. Fair share is not a worldwide
constant. People living in the tropics
have different needs than people in the polar regions. Arid climates create different needs than
humid climates.
Therefore, CC must be
maintained in balance both globally and regionally: but CC must
be tuned, region by region. Moreover,
sharing mechanisms must be in place to maintain CC under changing
conditions. For this reason it would be
wise to incorporate a safety factor to accommodate unusual conditions.
We hope to develop this idea more
completely in the future and compare it with Dr. Bartlett’s Twenty-one Laws of
Sustainability.
Our Conclusion
A few objections to Dr. Bartlett’s and
Dr. Hubbert’s studies were soundly refuted.
The principal corrective factor rests in not letting others do our
thinking for us.1 All new evidence and reports need to be
carefully examined. There are many
gainsayers in high places.
The idolatrous religion
of growth must and will be destroyed: but when and at what cost?
Will we be able to overcome the idol of
growth in time to avoid the terrible costs that now overtake us? Most of the resolution begins with honest
education: if we know the truth, perhaps we will have time to combat the
problem. To accomplish this, we need to
develop a culture of sustainability.
Most of the present sustainability discussion is just talk, hot air;
some of the more important discussions are buried and clouded with irrelevant
emotional issues, opinions, and human desires.
We need a science of sustainability based on nonnegotiable fact. To develop such a science we need to discover
sustainability laws. The core of such
laws already exists in the science of thermodynamics, and related fields, but
it needs application. We have begun by
proposing The Law of Carrying Capacity.
0
≤ CC ≡ P * Cpc ≤ 1
No comments:
Post a Comment