A bit over a year ago, I put up a post with the same title as this one, except that it ended with a question mark. At that point, most of the authorities I cited took the view that the decline in the world price of steaming coal was just a blip. In fact, prices have kept on falling and are now, in real terms, not much higher than they were in 2004. More importantly, there is now no expectation of a recovery any time soon. The clearest evidence of that is the abandonment or deferral of a string of proposals to create or expand coal export terminals, most recently by BHP at Abbot Point. Investors are desperately trying to get out of the most recently completed project, at Wiggins Island.
A few observations on this
* It’s common for participants in the Australian debate to claim that the rest of the world is going ahead with coal-fired power stations and fossil fuel projects at an unprecedented rate. That was the view that motivated these port expansion projects, and it’s been falsified as clearly as it can be by their abandonment.
* Much of the discussion about climate mitigation is based on the assumption that Australia can decide how much or how little of the burden we should bear. Leaving aside the risks of a free rider strategy, our status as a coal-exporter means that the biggest impacts will arise from decisions made overseas
* Finally, for some light relief here’s former Queensland Treasurer Andrew Fraser (paywalled) citing the now-abandoned Abbott Point project as evidence of the benefits of the Bligh government’s asset sales program, of which he was the biggest booster. It will be interesting to see if he now changes tack and claims that the state was lucky to get of these assets when it could (a more plausible line, but both dubious and contradictory of his previous position).
John Quiggin 
I understated my case. According to this link, the Thames is the cleanest it’s been in 200 years
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/teeming-with-fish-thames-is-cleanest-for-two-centuries-6702371.html
“The stocks are attracting predators including porpoise, seals and dolphins which have been spotted as far upstream as London Bridge.”
@John Quiggin
Looking back on the history of some western cities through the last century it’s plain to see today how wrong were the voices of their times who made then the arguments, against the costs of preferring clean air and water and so on, that their descendants make today as they agitate about the unaffordability of insuring against global climate chaos. Problem today even bigger than then, anti-activists no cleverer – but solutions (carbon taxes etc) even clearer and better understood than they were back then. Makes you wonder about the sapience of the species.
Indeed, stupidity is a constant
maybe we could get them over here in the west to sort out the dying Swan River?
Human urine is full of phospohorus. If we were to ever get within a bull’s roar of Peak Phosphorus we would start using this readily available resource. Note that this is already done on a tiny industrial scale and as a cottage industry by permaculture types etc…
Also note how oil etc known reserves were frighteningly low according to so many just 60 years ago. The rising cost of oil meant more reserves were discovered and extraction technologies improved to make previously unrecoverable reserves viable. The same will happen with phosphorus.
I think I’ll stay relaxed about this particular scare.
@John Quiggin
Thanks for the link to the FAO.
Just to be clear on the chronology of this discussion, Ikon (perhaps loosely) made a comment about our situation including the phrase “100% certain”. JQ took issue with that degree of certainty/pessimism.
I mentioned, quite specifically as one single factor among many factors which might be of concern, inorganic fertiliser (I-NPK). About 50% of agricultural production is dependent on it.
As far as I understand things, JQ isn’t saying “everything’s just fine, there is nothing to worry about” (he has explicitly stated the opposite in the comments here, in fact).
My view is that there are quite a few things to be worried about. I was simply noting that as we operate things at the moment fertiliser is a vital component among many others.
The FAO piece was very guarded and, rightly, noted the qualifications and caveats around its assessment.
As I understand it, about 150 million tons of Phosphate Rock is mined annually. The “DAPR” is the stuff that can be ground up and applied directly. The rest is processed chemically/industrially to come up with stuff like “SuperPhosphate”.
Maybe we should be thinking about these things. We know there is a lot of oil in deep waters, we suspect there’s lots in the Arctic and there’s plenty of oil-like stuff in the ‘tar sands’. Doesn’t mean it is feasable (economically or environmentally) to carry on with “Business As Usual”.
@John Quiggin
My position is consistent. I accept Climate science. I accept Limits to Growth science. I accept ecological footprint science. Climate science and LTG science have been rigorously developed and are, for all practical purposes, indisputable empirical disciplines, albeit still working on reducing uncertainty for predictive purposes. Ecological footprint science is more developmental and makes a number of simplifying accounting assumptions. However, it is still more nearly scientific than orthodox economics (IMO).
Thus, I make the decision to listen to scientists and researchers in these fields and not to economists. When I support the validity of climate science (as a general statement) you do not ask me to produce the numbers. You know where the relevant numbers are in the relevant reports. When I support LTG, thermoeconomics and ecological footprint science you ask me for the numbers. Once again, the numbers and models are in the relevant scientific literatures. You can check them.
My contention that growth (in population and infrastructure) must cease at some point is indisputable. My contention that we are in overshoot now is supported by ecological footprint analysis (and climate science for that matter as we have overshot a safe or at least optimum CO2 concentration). The general principle that overshooting carrying capacity results in a reduction of carrying capacity (temporary or permanent as each case may be) is well known in ecology. The die-off phenomenon which follows from this is also well known.
The idea that the human animal is resistant to these basic outcomes of the laws of physics, biology and ecology based on our intelligent analysis, complex goal-seeking behaviours and technology use is true to a point (that unknown point where limits can be stretched to). But ultimately limits will still apply.
We tend to think of our complexity and extensiveness (of civilization) as a strength. And it is… right up to the final point. But at the point where it fails it is our ultimate Achilles’ heel.
To summarise, credible and supportable ecological footprint analysis puts us in overshoot now. The standard result of an overshoot is a die-off.
On a somewhat lighter note, was anyone else as foolish as I was to watch the new show “Revolution” on TV the other night?
For those who didn’t watch, the premise of the show is that electricty stops working and modern civilization collapses… of course. This time it is not aliens (as in “The Day the Earth Stood Still”) but humans who “stop” electricity working. It is hinted that humans did it but how or why is not yet made clear.
Let’s be a little literal here. To stop electricity, or electrical devices, working over a whole nation or over the whole globe would take some sort of massive field. This would take enormous energy and would probably fry all life in the process. But let us suspend disbelief and accept that the “MacGuffin Field” exists and can do this. Hang on a minute, how come it doesn’t stop electricity in the human body? Think of the total shut down of the brain, nervous system, heart etc. Hmmm, but again, let us suspend disbelief and accept somehow that it stops inanimate electrical systems but not biological electrical systems.
Now it is 18 years after the electricity is stopped and we meet the late teenage or young adult heroine. After 18 years of total civilizational collapse we see perfectly well nourished people living a kind of Little House on the Prairie meets the Andy Griffith Show meets the Amish At Home in a bucolic American idyll. The heroine is model beautiful, perfectly coiffured, perfectly fed and dressed in really cool, really clean clothes and stunning boots. This is 18 years after total civilizational collapse and (logically) hundreds of millions of human deaths on the North American continent alone. I kind of thought survivors of that sort of catclysm would look haunted, ill-fed, dirty, desperate and dressed in tatters. Silly me. Of course it would be a trendy idyll… until the villains turn up.
The villains are evil people who keep the remaining guns (guns seem to still work as they are chemical not electrical) and use swords a lot as guns seem to be scarce. These villains are a militia who can have guns themselves but they have most evilly disarmed the citizenry! The right to own guns is a national obsession in the USA of course. The NRA would give this show’s message the full seal of approval.
As guns and bullets are in short supply, fights soon degenerate or should I say escalate into elaborate, improbable sword duels so staged that surely they were directed by Tarantino (of Kill Bill fame) doing a guest spot. After, the Kill Bill homage is over there is… more silliness, much more. And all the young lead characters are so plastically and shiningly beautiful you will need sunglasses or maybe a barf bucket.
What interests me most is that fear of collapse is so close to the surface in our cultural psych. A (more gradual) power down collapse is indeed possible given the looming critical energy shortage. But why is a MacGuffin Field invoked rather than the many very real possibilities? Clearly, the real possibilities are too frightening so collapse has to be precipitated by an impossible event. That keeps it all safely impossible and entertaining.
“Your argument has no numbers in it, and is formally identical to the same argument put by Malthus 200 years ago. So, assuming the argument is valid, the collapse could be due tomorrow, or in 200 years time or in 2000 years.”
I don’t know if Ikonoclast is a scientist, or has access to academic databases.
There are various lengthy papers with figures, none of which I really understand, I can only read the words.
This is the first example I have found, but I am happy to provide more:
Exergy based ecological footprint accounting for China
Ling Shao, Zi Wu, G.Q. Chen,
State Key Laboratory of Turbulence and Complex Systems, College of Engineering, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China
Volume 252, 10 March 2013, Pages 83–96
Ecological Modelling for Global Change and Coupled Human and Natural Systems
“The EF and EEF always exceed the biocapacity in the study period. The varying trends of the ecological overshoot based on conventional EF and EEF are similar, although some calculations and principles of conventional EF and EEF are different. To illus- trate and demonstrate the possibility and actual occurrence of the ecological overshoot, which is the forgotten core concept of sustain- ability (Wackernagel and Silverstein, 2000), EEF, as a modification and complementary concept of the conventional EF, can help deter- mine the overall depletion status of the natural capital based on the second law of thermodynamics. The consistent results of the eco- logical overshoot founded on conventional EF and EEF show that the basic assumption of the conventional EF is reasonable and the extent to which human use of nature capital is not overestimated, but underestimated.”
Any comments as to the veracity of this would be appreciated.
@John Quiggin
I thought stupidity was a variable. 🙂
ZM, maybe it would help you to consider specifics. Can you think of any resource crunch that could cause civilization to collapse, or anything remoting approaching that, in Australia?
@John Quiggin
There are small (in global terms) successes in fighting pollution. At the same time, unacceptable levels of pollution occur all the way from Gladstone harbour’s seawater to Beijing’s air. One of the most global of all pollutants, CO2, is still on the rise of course. Coal plays a big role in all of this.
An interesting question is this. Why were we able to more or less win the fight against CFCs but we cannot, at least so far, win the fight against CO2 emissions? Is there something fundamentally different about these two fights? Was substitutability an easier option relatively for CFCs but not for fossil fuels? I simply pose the questions. Why does this problem appear more fundamentally intractable?
Ronald Brak,
it is quite easy to think up various resource crunches which would have negative impacts on Australia – water and food being the greatest, but in terms of how these are taken from producer to consumer today then minerals and fossil fuels (if we don’t hastily transition to renewables) come in to it, shortages of rare earth minerals would alter the availability of computer devices perhaps etc etc
However, you look at the science papers to see what people who do physical analysis of these issues and have devoted substantial amounts of time to it have to say. Science reports frequently contain a lot of data and a lot of interpretation of data – some of which goes over my head – and which would be difficult for me to sum up in a quick comment
I am not a scientist, and I can only read the narrative parts of science reports (whereas I think scientifically/technically minding people do not so much understand science reports strictly as narrative).
The idea is that human consumption of renewable resources (ie i guess this means plants and what not) is exceeding the capability of these resources to regenerate and also has negative, perhaps disastrous, effects on biodiversity and the ecological systems. Also, another related idea is that present consumption (and discarding rather than recycling – although I’m not sure things can be infinitely recycled ???) of non-renewable resources (minerals) or in human scale non-renewable resources (fossil fuels) is currently proceeding at a rate that will not leave so much for future generations – that is to say the son of you son’s son or daughter of your daughter’s daughter etc.
Exacerbating this trend of likely over consumption is vast global inequity – as more people in non-wealthy countries endeavour to similar material living standards as you see people in wealthy countries having – the rate of resource consumption will most likely increase.
In terms of collapse, I think this is impossible to predict with any great deal of accuracy, because so much depends on people’s actions – but then I view futurology and models as not necessarily likely anyhow – you’re meant to take them with a grain of salt IMO
Graham Turner of the CSIRO dd a study a few years back comparing the modelling scenarios of The Limits to Growth with actual historical consumption and whatnot, finding one scenario closely matched the historical data.
I believe in free will however, so you never know exactly what people will do next, although you ave your ideas.
The Turner work is available here:
http://www.csiro.au/resources/SEEDPaper19
The other part of your comment was – in Australia – and on this I think we have to look at how the numbers of refugees in the world are very high – these numbers are likely to increase with food shortages climate change etc. large numbers of people fleeing from countries experiencing turbulence due to the effects of shortages and climate change might come to Australia. While it would be awful to say this is negative – it would put stress on the Australian society in trying to either accommodate these refugees or using material and human resources in trying to exclude them (as we are doing at present)
@ZM
“Also, another related idea is that present consumption (and discarding rather than recycling – although I’m not sure things can be infinitely recycled ???) of non-renewable resources (minerals) or in human scale non-renewable resources (fossil fuels) is currently proceeding at a rate that will not leave so much for future generations – that is to say the son of you son’s son or daughter of your daughter’s daughter etc.”
While that statement by itself is likely to be correct. The thing about the difficulty in predicting the future is what sort of resources are useful or are considered essential in the future. For example fossil fuel is not considered important in pre-fossil fuel era, and the same applies to Phosphate before it has its useful purpose in the society.
The challenge of climate change is the transition from fossil fuel to alternate/renewable energy sources is not fast enough to avoid warming of temperature which has significant adverse effects on the ecosystem, agricultural and water supply etc. If human do overcome this challenge, what will the possible shortages of various resources we use today have impact on the future is unknown, and they may not even be meaningful to the future human race if those resources are simply not required in the future.
The IEA publication Southeast Asia Energy Outlook 2013 is an interesting read. Coal is projected to be easily the fastest growing energy source to 2035 with annual growth of 6.2% and electricity production from coal increasing from 217 TWh in 2011 to 914 TWh in 2035. Fossil fuels go from 86% of electricity production in 2011 to 78% in 2035 while total electricity production goes from 686 TWh to 1879 TWh.
Coal is projected to likely remain the cheapest technology, but this could be affected by the development of the international LNG market and gas prices.
Hydro is projected to remain the most important renewable with the most potential for growth. Solar and wind are not significant.
Also, significantly, investment in the transmission and distribution network is projected to exceed that in generation capacity for the period to 2035, which is a bit of a reminder that LCOE is not everything when it comes to the cost of electricity.
SE Asia is not the whole world but not insignificant either.
ZM, I find it hard to think of how Australia could run out of food or water barring a sudden calamity such as a major asteroid impact. What are some scenarios in which you think Australia could run out of food or water in say the next 100 years?
Well, water (not including desal water) is in short supply (are you up north where its more plentiful?) already in many places, depending on the weather. i think climate change, extensive fires, and long term drought are probably the chief natural/physical threats to food supplies.
But I’d say the larger threat is cultural/human – in terms of global economic shifts – as poorer countries have a larger middle class their will be more competition for food supplies in general, and prestige food (like beef etc) in particular. This is seen in what people refer to as the global and grab – state and privately owned companies buying up land in foreign jurisdictions. Depending on how our economy goes, food in general, and specific sorts of food, may become more expensive. This is more likely to affect the poor in Australia than others – but depending on the numbers affected this can lead to significant social disruption as you see happening in history and current affairs.
For example, reading about parts of Africa suffering famine you will also read about agricultural land that is owned by foreign corporations growing flowers to export to Europe. This is a very unfair kind of practice.
Global land grab, sorry
ZM, increased drought would certainly be a problem but is more likely to be something that would reduce economic growth rather than pose a serious threat to the safety of Australians. After all, serious drought is something Australia has had a lot of experience with and we’ve always demonstrated the ability to feed our own population and still produce surplus for export. Real food prices do seem likely to rise due to increasing world population and climate instability, which could cause real problems for many people, but as a large net food kilojoule exporter Australia should benefit from increased food prices. So from my point of view Australia is very resistant to resource shocks. And by resistant I mean Australians are very unlikely to die from them. Problems such as several years of drought resulting in Tom not being able to buy a new model mercedes or Ahkima having to put off buying the latest xbox seem relatively trivial to me. The United States and Europe also appear pretty resistant to resource shocks to me. And if these places are resistant they can lend a hand to areas that may be have problems. Or at least trade with them. For example, even on emergency war footing Japan is going to have trouble feeding it’s own population without imports, but since Australian civilization is unlikely to collapse we can continue to sell food to them. So I just don’t see rescource constraints ending or crippling civilization, but I do see real problems in our wastes idiotically reducing our wealth, continued destruction of the natural environment, and the negligent murder of millions in poor type places resulting from continuing damage to atmosphere and environment. But civilisation is not about to go away due to a lack of resources.
Oh dear….
Not only are we cooking the planet but we’re doing it on the Qld taxpayer’s dime.
@ Megan
I read that too and thought of this thread. While it might start with the Galilee basin, how long before other marginal projects also need “key incentives” and “lower costs” to begin, or continue projects?
The non-mining of the Galilee Basin could be regarded as a turning point if it happens. It means we have finally resisted temptation to use the dirtiest cheapest energy source and flog it without a second thought for the consequences. The GBR says thanks…less acidification, less dredging and fewer Shen Neng type incidents. Perhaps we could think of the basin as a pre-sequestered carbon reserve that should stay that way. It seems silly to plant a few trees here and there while digging up then burning millions of tonnes of locked up carbon. It’s a pity that view is not shared by either the state or federal governments.
@Ronald Brak
Re “civilisation is not about to go away due to a lack of resources”.
Well, we all foresee different things. You and Prof. J.Q. don’t foresee a resource problem and a possible civilizational crisis. I do. I have explained, over and over, the iron-clad logic of the dilemma and process but people seem to believe what they want to believe and disregard plain logic based on real physics, biophysics and ecology.
1. Endless growth, in extent and complexity, cannot continue indefinitely in a finite system (the biosphere).
2. Therefore growth must cease at some point.
3. There are two likely ways for growth to cease. The first is by levelling out to a sustainable plateau. The second is by hitting a peak in overshoot mode thus damaging the carrying capacity of the biosphere and causing a population slump (a die-off).
4. The first method requires foresight, planning and management by humans and/or certain serendipitous factors. One serendipitous factor currently is a continued decline in the rate of increase of the global human population. On the other hand, increased consumption per capita is working against this.
5. The second “method” is the natural manner in which biophysical factors limit and reverse population plagues of any species. Such species in plague or bloom mode rapidly increase in number beyond a sustainable population. In doing so they eat out food or prey sources and often do other damage to the local or regional ecology. The sustainable carrying capacity of the environment for that species is degraded. So whilst population is going one way (rapidly up), the sustainable carrying capacity is going the other way (rapidly down). These conditions clearly cause the population to peak and then plummet rapidly (die-off).
6. The jury is out concerning the issue of whether humans are foresightful enough and disciplined enough to chart a course to a sustainable plateau rather than over-shoot it, damage the envirionment and suffer subsequent die-off.
7. Technological fixes extend our ability to exploit the environment (food, energy and other resource sources) and thus extend our ability to increase our population. However, this extension is not open-ended and infinite. This extension has its limits also.
8. Technological fixes also extend our ability to overshoot. It’s like climbing higher and higher on a long ladder. Yes, you can reach more but if the ladder (system) becomes unstable or breaks you have further to fall and that fall is more damaging.
9. Prof. J.Q. begrudgingly admits there ultimately must be limits but argues the limits are not near. The argument that the limits are not near stands up very poorly to the extant evidence. Need I mention climate change, species extensions, loss of rainforest, ocean warming, ocean rising, ocean acidification, wild fisheries collapse, peak oil and so on?
10. All of these are signals and evidence that the limits are near. Even arguing for more growth by claiming the limits are not near is a very weak argument IMO. If the limits are not near, the early warning signs are. We have seen how slow we are to change with CO2 emissions still rising. So we need to take the earliest, premptive, precautionary action possible right NOW and plan and move to a steady state economy NOW.
Getting to a safe place early leaves leeway for unforeseen events. It’s insurance. Getting to a safe place late or not getting there at all spells disaster. It’s a no-brainer really if you apply straight logic. Note, applying logic means stopping thinking like an economist and starting to think like a scientist and (empirical) philosopher.
Sorry, “species extinctions”.
Ikonoclast, do you have any scenarios in which a lack of resources causes civilisation to collapse or at least widespread human death in Australia in the next 100 years?
Ronald Brak,
Grrrr – did you look at either of the two actual *scientific* papers I cited. The Graham Turner one is free if you don’t have access to university databases – this is why publishing in journals controlled by those companies is bad – people can’t access the information without having a library membership somewhere that purchases access rights 😦
“increased drought would certainly be a problem but is more likely to be something that would reduce economic growth rather than pose a serious threat to the safety of Australians. After all, serious drought is something Australia has had a lot of experience with and we’ve always demonstrated the ability to feed our own population and still produce surplus for export.”
We have never had such a large and growing population, nor have we ad so many foreign owned agricultural properties AFAICT nor have we had such ridiculous free trade laws that mean farmers dig up their trees etc and sell up, nor have we had cities with exurban perimeter towns consuming prime agricultural land, nor have we had such lax planning laws that people who don’t genuinely need dams fr good reasons dig them and divert water from natural watercourse and potable water reservoirs etc etc i could go on I’m sure
“Real food prices do seem likely to rise due to increasing world population and climate instability, which could cause real problems for many people, but as a large net food kilojoule exporter Australia should benefit from increased food prices.”
What proportion of food exports are Australian owned for Australians to benefit other than from insufficient taxes and duties?
“So from my point of view Australia is very resistant to resource shocks. And by resistant I mean Australians are very unlikely to die from them. Problems such as several years of drought resulting in Tom not being able to buy a new model mercedes or Ahkima having to put off buying the latest xbox seem relatively trivial to me.”
Not *everyone* in Australia has the money to be most concerned about buying a Mercedes. Ahkima could have an irregular income and little savings, so an Xbox might be doable now but not later if circumstances change.
“The United States and Europe also appear pretty resistant to resource shocks to me.”
Sure, well it depends. England doesn’t have sufficient agricultural land to feed its population. I think the US does, but their are environmental problems with the grain growing area in the midde that I’m sure you can google to find out about. I would like you to find a paper with scientific evidence to support this claim. Both Europe and the US I imagine import more material goods than they export, judging by their economic problems.
“And if these places are resistant they can lend a hand to areas that may be have problems.”
Yes they could, OTOH they could exploit problems to force deregulation and free trade agreements on countries – which – if you follow the news – is what they do
“Or at least trade with them.”
They mostly seem to trade to further their own interests, not out of benevolence it generally seems to me. Can you show me a counter example?
“For example, even on emergency war footing Japan is going to have trouble feeding it’s own population without imports, but since Australian civilization is unlikely to collapse we can continue to sell food to them.”
generally war interrupts trade, no?
“So I just don’t see rescource constraints ending or crippling civilization, but I do see real problems in our wastes idiotically reducing our wealth, continued destruction of the natural environment, and the negligent murder of millions in poor type places resulting from continuing damage to atmosphere and environment.”
Resource constraints are not only food and water – plus I forgot to mention in my reply the problem of complex trade pattern in moving food from producer to consumer, chemical use, machinery etc all of which depend on resources and global social stability
“But civilisation is not about to go away due to a lack of resources.”
I don’t know what you mean by this. Civilisation is generally dependent on certain resources. Civilisations can change (I can’t think of an example but I guess there might be one or two), or they might at a final point collapse (Easter Island etc etc)
The complexity and interrelations of our current global civilisation coupled with a high global population and terrible military technologies means a collapse at that final point, if not staved off – is likely to be all sorts of grim
This is why actual science papers by actual environmental scientists matter, who have the resources, training, intelligence, and time to come up with a reasonably synthesised account of all of these factors *matter*, rather than me just speculating off the top of my head
For another scientific paper I am happy to provide the name of, although people may not have access to databases – it’s by Turner too,
“The Limits to Growth Model Is More than a Mathematical Exercise. Reaction to R Castro. 2012. Arguments on the imminence of global collapse are premature when based on simulation models.”
By: Turner, Graham M. GAIA: Ecological Perspectives for Science & Society. 2013, Vol. 22 Issue 1, p18-19. 2p. , Database: Environment Complete
Turner’s qualifications:
B.Sc., PhD Applied Physics, University of Sydney
Principal Research Fellow
University of Melbourne · Melbourne Sustainable Society Institute
I searched, and its freely available at http://www.researchgate.net/publication/257527288_The_Limits_to_Growth_Model_is_More_Than_a_Mathematical_Exercise_Reaction_to_R._Castro._2012._Arguments_on_the_Imminence_of_Global_Collapse_Are_Premature_when_Based_on_Simulation_Models._GAIA_214_271_273
That’s a reasonable question. Some of the standard assumption models of LTG had world population peaking at about 2030. Other updated models have the world population peaking in about 2050. It’s notable that the later the peak, the more precipitous the population decline thereafter. This is consistent with ecological overshoot behaviour. By 2100 it appears the population would be about 60% of peak if the later models are roughly correct. If we hit 10 billion by 2050 (slightly higher than most predictions now) then that would mean a decline or collapse (take your semantic choice) to 6 billion people by 2100.
Australia might behave differently. On the face of it there is no internal reason why we could not grow population until 2100. But I hope we don’t because that would put us in overshoot by then and we would decline some time after.
A safer trajectory for Australia would be to seek to stabilise on a plateau at no more than 25 to 30 million. However, in the period of 2050 to 2100, with 4 billion or more people are dying off, and most of the rest very, very hungary I doubt that the world will be anything like a stable place. Anything could happen and probably will in terms of large regional conflicts (civil wars and regional wars). Studies (Stanford U. I think) have shown a high correlation between high food prices / food shortages and major unrest. This is not surprising.
@Ikonoclast
What a coincidence! In the “New Yorker” (21/10/13) I just saw a review of two books.
The review is quite wishy-washy he says/ he says stuff, so it’s hard to get much from it.
But the nub of it is that one author suggests we have too many people (says about 2 billion would be sustainable, apparently). The other says we don’t have enough people and desperately need more!
Alan Weisman: “Countdown: Our Last, Best, Hope for a Future on Earth?”
Steven Philip Kramer: “The Other Population Crisis: What Governments Can Do About Falling Birth Rates.”
Apparently we get most of our Nitrogenous fertiliser through the ‘Haber-Bosch’ industrial/chemical process, fabricating it at high temperature and pressure using the N which is abundant in the air and H which comes from fossil fuel gas. So you need to mine the gas and then power the plant to get the fertiliser. Again, about half our agriculture depends on this stuff.
One thing I found interesting is that the population was about 2 billion when the process was invented in about 1907. When Ehrlich wrote about population in 1968 it was 3 billion and now we’re at about 7.2 billion. Apparently the UN projections from this June are 8 billion by 2025, 9 billion by 2050 and 11 billion by 2100! Crikey, that’s going to require a lot of gas.
ZM, I’m afraid I didn’t read the papers. This is because I’m not very bright. Things have to be quite simple for me to grasp them. This is why I’m so interested in concrete specifics of exactly which resource we might run out of and what effect that might have. It’s the only way I can really get a handle on things.
I think an early sign that resources are not infinite will come with regrets over the Gladstone LNG hub. Ian Macfarlane says this will create an east coast gas shortage as early as 2016. If thousands of trucks and buses convert to compressed natural gas because diesel has gotten too expensive that will also greatly increase local gas demand.
Possibly Hunt can explain how gas vs coal will pan out under Direct Action. Small coal stations are closing with gas peaking and intermediate plants filling the gaps. That must mean electricity prices will increase as gas gets more expensive. I suspect that will quickly erase any savings from repeal of carbon tax. Resource depletion is not years away; it’s here now.
Ikonoclast, I was wondering just which resources you think we may run out of here in Australia.
Megan, hydrogen gas doesn’t have to come from natural gas. And with a decent carbon price it would not. Electricity from any source can be used to produce hydrogen from water.
@ZM is this what you are looking for? Plenty of links but people must search.
http://www.csiro.au/Organisation-Structure/Divisions/Ecosystem-Sciences/The-Limits-To-Growth.aspx
Ikon:
That is a cheap and rather fatuous dig at our host, PrQ.
The truth of the matter is that Disaster Pron appeals to something in the human psyche, hence the public’s insatiable appetite for disaster books and films. Allied with that, egotistical flakes with nothing better to do have warned that the End of Nigh since the beginning of recorded history. Some of the more intelligent doomsayers have something useful to say and on balance they provide a corrective for complacency. Most, however, are boorish oafs who do no good at all.
@Ikonoclast
I take this to be an admission that when you used the words “certain catastrophe” earlier you were indulging in hyperbole and that you acknowledge that catastrophe is not certain.
Ronald Brak,
” I was wondering just which resources you think we may run out of here in Australia.”
I think it’s important to remember that the economy etc is largely global now. If there are resource constraints elsewhere or food shortages or natural disasters or social unrest or war, it will affect us here. We are not a powerful country alone – we are currently in a position where we have a number of close relationships (commonwealth, us, china, Asian-pacific neighbours etc) – but if things become fraught, we may be put into a position where we have to take sides – this is already happening to some degree with the rise of China and the US pivot to Asia – I think it was the Philipiines (?) that became a kind of battleground – the US the other year made arrangements with them and the China Daily editorialized about how China should punish the Philipines. We are bigger and more important perhaps, so the China daily was more diplomatic about the US base up north here.
@Ronald Brak
Fresh Water, or rather lack of it, is a big limiting factor in Australia. Add to that poor soils, a huge arid area and a very unreliable climate (droughts and floods). We also lack oil but have enough coal and gas. These fossils though should not be burnt.
Vast areas suitable for solar, wind, wave and tidal power are a big plus for us. I see no reason why solar and wind power de-salinators would not be good for us long term along much of coasts, at least for drinking water. I doubt irrigation water could be produced economically. Maybe some metals will get is short supply globally so that could limit infrastructure and the electric and electronic componentry.
You know there is an historical-geographical reason that India and China have a billion people or more each and we have 22 million. They are vastly more fertile and productive land masses. High mountain ranges and tectonic plate boundary zones on land are the key. High mountain ranges mean much rain and snow and thus great rivers for water and fertile silt or loess. Plate boundaries with uplift zones are geologically where many (though not all) good mineral deposits are found.
You might say civilization started first in the great river basins so they had a big head start. The great river basins are the reasons that agriculture and civilization could start. Startup or “boot up” was possible there. Australia was always a continent (in time span terms of the arising and arrival of humans) where civilization could be transplanted but would have very great trouble starting locally. Lack of animal and plant species suitable for domestication was also a factor.
@Megan
It doesn’t require gas at all. Gas is simply a (currently) cheap and convenient feedstock for nitrogen fertiliser. But nitrogen fertiliser can also be produced easily using renewable energy. Before the Haber process was commercialised, Norsk Hydro produced nitrogen fertiliser with hydroelectricity using an electric arc process. It’s more expensive than using gas (at present), but ho hum.
Ikono
I’d say ‘logic’ works in all these paradigms, and certainly, good public policy entails considering how each of these disciplines can inform an optimal response.
@Tim Macknay
And Ronald, too.
What sort of volumes are commercially/practically available by either extracting it from water by electronic separation or by arcing?
What amounts of electricity are required?
Are there no restraints?
What are the numbers for producing 100 million tonnes annually?
I have no doubt it can be done, it’s the scale at which it can be done I am asking about.
@Fran Barlow
A genuine chain of empirically based logic deductions cannot be applied from illogical, unempirical a priori assumptions such as those which inform orthodox economics.
Ikon:
One often hears this claim but of course it isn’t true. There is no good reason why weeping grass (Microlaena stipoides) couldn’t have been developed as an edible grain, something that is now happening. Ditto for hundreds of corm producing herbaceous plants, grain producing wattles and then of course we have the domesticated Macadamia nut and water chestnuts up North. Water ribbons also show considerable promise according to Nick Romanowski.
Incidentally, weeping grass is low P tolerant and the relevant genes may one day be isolated and put into rice etc.. and this is yet another reason not to take the End is Nigh lobby too seriously.
No point really in worrying about climate change either. There’s bound to be a carbon capture or geo-engineering solution around the corner.
Lots of unproven concepts are quite promising as long as you take the “Yippee, Everything Is Great As Is” lobby seriously enough.
This one is going straight to the pool room:
The K-Tel “ARGUMENT-ENDER”!
@John Quiggin
Forecasts for global PV panel production in 2014 are from 40 to 55 GW. The thing is, the trend growth rate since 2000 is 44% per year. The industry is back to health. The default on-trend forecast has to be that annual installations will be 100GW in 2016 and 200GW in 2018.
To think it’s going to be less, you need to identify – not handwave – some bottleneck in supply or demand, or a fundamental technical limitation. A policy reversal in China would do the trick, but in favour of what? The election of a few reactionary governments like Abbott’s is no longer enough, since solar is below socket parity more or less everywhere. Jinko’s cost of production is at 50c$ a watt now, and that’s without adding new capacity. Think of the multi-gigawatt fabs the major producers are planning now.
Ikonoclast, if you are suggesting that Australia could run out of water, our experience with droughts shows that if average rainfall was say havled it would be quite disastrous for the environment and agriculture, but Australia could still manage to feed its own population and produce some food for export. You can check out Isreal for an example of how a developed country can cope with very limited water supplies per capita and maintain agricultural production. (And Israel has also demonstrated how people can get buy on less than ten liters of water a day, although oddly enough it’s not actual Israelis that they demonstrate this on.) Currently Australia already uses desalinised water for agriculture in the sense that it is used to stop cities bidding water away from irrigation rather than used directly. There is nothing to stop Australia using more desalination or greatly reducing the amount of water cities use.
You mention that we lack oil but we have more than enough liquid petroleum to allow us to run down our current oil burning infrastructure and electrify transport. We also unfortunately have large amounts of oil shale that could be exploited and was exploited on a small scale until 1952 when its subsidy was stopped. So we’re not about to run out of oil.
You mentioned Australia’s poor soils, but we’ve demonstrated the ability to both not make them worse and to improve them. One method of improvement is to add charcoal (biochar in trendy speak) to the soil to amend it which has the advantages of improving both water and nutrient availability for plants. It also sequesters carbon from the atmosphere in the ground, although unfortunately we lack the ability to create kilometer thick artifical coal seams as the Coalition seems to believe. So we’re not going to run out of soil either.
To sum up, we don’t seem to be facing any resource shortages that put civilisation in Australia, or even the lives of significant numbers of Australians, at risk.
Megan, there are a variety of methods of producing hydrogen without using natural gas. Electrolysis of water is one method. It is more expensive than using natural gas, but this isn’t really a problem for people in developed countries as it might increase people’s daily food bill by a cent or two. A cent or two a is a problem for the world’s poorest people, but it’s probably better than actively killing them by dumping CO2 into the air. Producing hydrogen from water is not particularly complex. Depending on what the price of natural gas does it may be cheaper to use natural gas to produce hydrogen and then sequester the CO2 released, but as the spot price of electricity may regularly be quite low in the future this may not be the case. Or it may be cheaper to use hydrogen solar cells that produce hydrogen from water and sunlight. It remains to be seen.