Energy Policy
Arithmetic, Population and Energy, Part 7
Revision A
For the love of the human
race.
Friday, March 28, 2014
Our Thesis
This is not a game of blind chance. This is not a game of fear mongering. This is a zero-sum game of war[1]: 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 7
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 7.
Dr. Bartlett begins by addressing the problem of
technological optimism. In spite of the
fact that it is obviously untrue, many people, including engineers,
mathematicians, and scientists continue to embrace the delusion that man can
solve any problem: if we only had enough time and money.
“We must educate people
to see the need to examine carefully the allegations of the technological
optimists who assure us that science and technology will always solve all of
our problems of population growth, food, energy and resources.”[2]
Dr. Julian Simon (1932-1998) of University of Illinois,
University of Maryland, Heritage Foundation, etc.[3] “Copper can be made from other metals.”[4] … “Clearly there is no
meaningful limit to this source except the sun’s energy…. But even if our sun were not as vast as it
is, there may well be other suns elsewhere.”[5]
These and other statements that result from cornucopian
theories need little refutation.
“In 2010, worldwide
biofuel production reached 105 G-liters (28 G-gallons US), up 17% from 2009,
and biofuels provided 2.7% of the world's fuels for road transport, a
contribution largely made up of ethanol and biodiesel.”[6]
NB: gallons, not barrels,
this amount is minuscule. At this rate,
when fossil fuels run out, the world will face a 97% reduction in energy resources:
this must be viewed as a catastrophic drop.
Biomass may be a scientific
possibility; but. it is far from being a practical reality. It’s development threatens the food supply,
and it has yet to be shown that it is truly exothermic in the overall scale. Presently, the only biomass fuels really on
the table are biodiesel and ethanol. Even
Dr. Simon cannot possibly be suggesting that we burn hay, straw, and wood in
internal combustion engines. The return
to external combustion steam engines as the principal mode of transportation
would be a major problem.
Even so, Simon “was a trusted policy advisor at the very
highest levels in Washington D. C.”2
Simon’s supporters include Kemp and Forbes.
“People are not a drain on the
resources of the planet.”[7]
“CNN recently ran a silly
series purporting to show the world is in mortal danger because there are too
many of us. In poorer countries those
many mouths mean poverty. In richer
countries we are wrecking the earth’s atmosphere with pollution. It’s all nonsense.”[8]
We conclude that Mr. Kemp and Mr. Forbes are all
nonsense. Don’t waste your money on Forbes
Magazine.
“Moyers: What happens to the idea of the dignity of the human
species if this population growth continues at its present rate?
“Asimov: It will be completely destroyed. I like to use what I call my bathroom
metaphor; if two people live in an apartment, and there are two bathrooms, then
both have freedom of the bathroom….”
“Asimov: In the same way, democracy cannot survive
overpopulation. Human dignity cannot
survive overpopulation. Convenience and
decency cannot survive overpopulation.
As you put more and more people into the world, the value of life not
only declines, it disappears. It doesn’t
matter if someone dies, the more people there are, the less one individual
matters.
Dr. Asimov’s delightful and humorous parable, nevertheless
falls short of the reality, even though we have heard reports, from serious
social students, about thirty or more people being crammed into single bedrooms
in Cleveland, with no bathroom, only a place at the end of the hall. Sharing bathrooms, is, for the most part an
inconvenience, not a hardship. A better
illustration would be thirty people sharing two plates, and those without
food. Indeed, if two bathrooms represent
the whole world, thirty people may be a problem. However, thirty people with two plates and no
food is an even bigger problem. Dr.
Asimov’s parable fails to address the grim reality that the problem is more
than an inconvenience, it is an issue of life and death. Even if the population was reduced to two,
and plates need not be shared, there is no food left to put on them, and both
will die of starvation. It is access to
food, clothing, and shelter; perhaps, even the air we breathe, that must be
conserved. The termination of fossil
fuels many spell the end of food, clothing, and shelter for many people.
Quality of life, Asimov’s hodgepodge of terms is
ambiguous. “Dignity, decency, and value
of life” need definition. My lifestyle
may require an unobstructed view of Pikes Peak from my living room window: this
is hardly a life and death necessity. We
might even think of the person who insists on such a thing as a spoiled
brat. We are not interested in this sort
of philosophical discussion. We are only
interested in those concrete realities, which threaten human life. We must draw a distinction between the
inconvenience of the shared bathroom and existence itself.
Because we subscribe to the conviction that less government
is better government we have trouble taking Dr. Bartlett’s political
illustrations about Boulder and the United States very seriously. The inevitable and ultimate collapse of all
democracies is thoroughly examined elsewhere.[11] Democracy cannot be made into a successful
form of government on any large scale: like a whale on the beach, it is doomed
to perish under its own weight.
“The simple arithmetic
makes it absolutely clear that long-term preservation of the environment in the
U. S. is impossible in the face of continued U. S. population growth!”2
Nevertheless, we are compelled to agree that:
“Smart growth destroys
the environment. Dumb growth destroys
the environment. Now, smart growth just
destroys the environment with good taste.
So, it’s a little like buying a ticket on the Titanic; if you’re smart,
you go first class; if you’re dumb you go [steerage], any way you go: the
result’s the same.”2
The problem with the Titanic is not that there were too many
people on board. The problem with the
Titanic is that a complexity of problems existed for which there were
inadequate and insufficient solutions.
It was the lack of solutions that resulted in so many tragic and
unnecessary deaths. In the ensuing
panic, good men turned cruel, locking victims below deck, and guaranteeing
slaughter. It is the consumption and destruction
of the environment with which we are primarily concerned.
We do not agree with the idea that global warming is a major
problem. With the demise of fossil fuels
clearly in sight, once they are gone, the earth will probably begin to cool
again. If, in a hundred years or so,
global warming continues to be a problem; it will not be because of fossil fuel
combustion; it will be because of factors that are most likely beyond our
control.
What we fear is that we will fail to manage the resources we
do have in time to prevent disaster.
When we are faced with a complexity of problems for which there are only
inadequate and insufficient solutions, panic will be the inevitable
result. Formerly, good men will turn
cruel, and the guaranteed slaughter will commence.
Dr. Bartlett concludes this part:
“Now, except for those petroleum graphs, the things I’ve told
you are not predictions of the future, I’m only reporting facts, and the
results of some very simple arithmetic. But I do so with confidence that these
facts, this arithmetic and more importantly, our level of understanding of
them, will play a major role in shaping our future. Now, don’t take what I’ve
said blindly or uncritically, because of the rhetoric, or for any other reason.
Please, you check the facts. Please check my arithmetic. If you find errors,
please let me know. If you don't find errors, then I hope you’ll take this
very, very seriously.2
“You are important
people. You can think. If there’s
anything that is in short supply in the world today, it’s people who are
willing to think.” 2
Our Conclusion
Dr. Bartlett has challenged us to examine his facts, his
arithmetic and look for errors. He has
challenged us to think. There is nothing
wrong with his arithmetic. His data, by
his own admission, need constant and incessant updating, as will ours. Nevertheless, we believe, by failing to push
for a solution including all of the necessary conditions, not just one of these
necessary conditions, that Dr. Bartlett has left the door open for a
significant false bias. A solution
including all of the necessary conditions is also sufficient. A solution including only some of the
necessary conditions is insufficient. We
will continue to press for the solution which is both necessary and sufficient. We believe that such a solution is expressed
by The Law of Carrying Capacity.
[1] In
terms of game theory, this is probably closer to a game of Chicken.
[2]
Dr. Bartlett
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Simon
[4] Science,
June 27, 1980, Volume 208, page 1431
[5]
Simon, Julian Lincoln, The Ultimate Resource (Princeton
University Press, 1981: page 49)
[6] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofuel
[7]
Kemp, Jack (HUD Secretary), High Country News, January 27, 1992,
page 4 See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Kemp
[8]
Forbes, Malcolm S., Jr., “Fact and Comment,” Forbes Magazine,
June 8, 1992, page 25 See http://www.mrc.org/mediawatch/mediawatch-june-1992?,
page=9http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Population_Bomb, and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malthusian_catastrophe
[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Asimov
[10]
Moyers, Bill, A World of Ideas (Doubleday, New York City, 1969: page 276)
[11]
Crozier, Huntington, Watanuki, The Crisis of Democracy
(Trilateral Commission: 227 pages)
No comments:
Post a Comment