Humanity's Impact on the Earth

[ryanmckibben]

What the ??? I tried to start a thread on this the other day and was told by other posters that I'm being alarmist and that they didn't have time for people who bring up this sort of thing. Bottom line is this guys, whatever energy source we eventually settle upon, even if it is still oil and just "harvested" from different sources, the price of that energy is going to go up. Hydrogen would be unbelievably expensive due to the way it is produced. As someone else noted, it takes (and these are not real numbers, just an example) 1.5 units of energy from some source (oil, coal, NG) to produce 1 unit of hydrogen. Hydrogen may play a part in our future energy needs, but much work must still be done for it to be even remotely pratical. Biofuel may also play a role in future energy supplies, but it will most definately be more expensive then oil. Our civilization is built around the assumption of cheap energy. If that goes away (and it will, whether its 5 or 50 years away) our way of life becomes markedly more expensive. Some people will be able to absorb the added cost of this new dynamic, but many will not. You have to remember that oil not only powers our cars, but touches our lives in numerous ways. The keyboard I'm typing on is made from petroleum, as is all plastic. The food you eat was grown with fertilizers derived from petroleum. When you take a trip to your local big box retailer, all of those things you buy that were made in China or Taiwan or wherever, were transported to your store by using oil to power the ships and trucks. 25% of the cost of almost any good you buy is directly related to transportation of that good. If energy prices rise , the prices of EVERYTHING will rise right along with it. To combat this the Federal Reserve will be forced to raise interest rates to curb the kind of runaway inflation that you saw in the late 70's. This will have the effect of further slowing the economy. Basically what I'm getting at is that the ramifications of this are enourmous, and I haven't even touched on the fact that most of the remaining proven oil reserves left are located in regions that are less then stable, and most downright hostile to America. I'm sure many of you will disagree with me on this (although I hope I'm wrong), the American suburban way of life is ultimately unsustainable. As someone said earlier, it would take 13 earths to support cunsumption levels of the typical American. This will end, it is just a matter of when. Since the dawn of civilization, humans have lived in cities. It is only in the last 65 or so years that we have established the settlement patterns you see all across America today. Cities are humans natural habitat, they offer levels of efficiances that can not be replicated in any other settlement pattern. We all know it will end, someone earlier was arguing that we could have as much as 218 years left if we don't change, or as little as 45 years. So we're arguing about how long it will take for the earth's ecosystems to break down?

Winston Churchill once said in a speech to Parliment, he was referring to America's reluctance to enter WWII, that "America can be counted on to do whats right, when all other options have been exhausted". Hopefully we will realize this is a looming catatstraphe before it bites us in the a**.

[Viper]

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.  Actually, it's downright delusional.

In order to analyze what it takes to support a civilization, you must start with energy.  Without abundant energy, it is difficult (if not impossible) to undertake large scale conversion of resources into manufactured products.  Of course, in the world today the dominant form of energy is fossil fuel, particularly oil as it runs the world's transportation system required for nearly all economic activity.

Note that the US imports an increasing amount of its resources, including oil.  American oil production peaked in 1971 and no amount of techno-savvy has been able to reverse that.  Thus America today imports a substantial amount of oil (over half of its consumption) from other parts of the world to maintain the "American level" of lifestyle.  Hence the growing trade deficit you might have heard about.  My point here is that even today, the world is subsidizing the American lifestyle with its resources.

Oil production globally is pumping at full capacity yet somewhere we have energy resources to provide a complete consumer lifestyle to the billions of people in the world barely surviving in urban ghettos and subsistence farms?  If we are going to produce at least one automobile for every person on earth, where is the energy required to run the factories and power these vehicles for 98 years?  Oil production in the world today is maxed out and there is little evidence of new discovery to boost current production substantially higher.

Of course, the issues in supporting a wealthy lifestyle for over 6 billion are much more extensive than just energy.  All 6 billion people are supposed to eat beef, right?  Where is all that beef going to be grazed and fed?  All 6 billion people are supposed to eat fish, right?  Where do those fish come from?  They all need clean fresh water, wood to build their American style McMansions, steel for their SUVs, copper for their electronic toys, etc, etc.

Maybe your point is that if we possessed some magic tool to extract every single resource from the planet and leave nothing but a bare, hollowed out rock, then somehow we could support such a lifestyle for everyone.  But that is not realistic and definitely not sustainable.

In summary, it is completely delusion to claim that Earth can support 6 billion people at "American levels" even today, it's even more delusional to claim such resource usage could continue for a minimum of 45 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A few facts for you.

We have used far less of the Earths oil reserves than were believed in the past. Not even 10% has been consumed. There are at last estimate over 1,000 untapped oil depositories that have never once been drilled. Don't forget Russia and Alaska and a few extremely large deposits in between. I also never said we had to continue using oil, did I? One ton of He3 can support the US alone nearly a year. It's also clean, non radioactive and perfectly stable. Why do you think we suddenly have a great interest in Washington to go back to the moon? Why do you think China is also interested in going to the moon suddenly when it should be working on making a better life for 1.3 billion people? They need clean energy for 1/5 of Earths population and it's just waiting for the taking.

We are no where near using even 0.1% of our available trees.

Even more fish exist than trees.

That site gave figures such as it taking over 2,000 gallons of water just to produce one tire are preposterous.

Like I first said, a grand majority of these dooms day reports are funded by oil companies or other companies trying to scare people into using their upcoming alternative fuel source.

Here is a quote from another study that tried to discover the exact same thing, "If all the world's people lived like today's North Americans, it would take two additional planet Earths' to produce enough resources." Only 2 Earths are needed here. See what I'm getting at? Data and statistics can be interpreted in differnt ways by different people so long as they have a preconceived goal of the results.

Here's a nice false fact for you from that "13 Earths" report. "Each American produces about 4.3 pounds of trash every day." We weighed our refuse daily for two weeks and not one day came even remotely to that level unless we tossed out something heavy. We averaged 6 pounds per week. Go ahead, weigh your garbage bag before trash day and take into acount 1/10th for school or work and You will not come up to 30.1 pounds of garbage, I bet you. If they skewed the hell out of that fact, imagine what else they exaggerated.

Before you call a group of professors and I claim as delusional, do your own research

[Urban_Legend]

Gee, I really don't feel like doing research. I was just stating what my prof said. People's position on this matter is entirely up to them, regardless of what is posted.

[Viper]

Gee, I really don't feel like doing research.  I was just stating what my prof said.  People's position on this matter is entirely up to them, regardless of what is posted.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Did your professor do that study or did he report the data in someone elses study? I've read the exact report you mention but it was written by a green peace type group and not a professor. Perhaps they've both done reports and had similar conslusions based on having the same available data.

[zed]

A few facts for you.

We have used far less of the Earths oil reserves than were believed in the past.  Not even 10% has been consumed.  There are at last estimate over 1,000 untapped oil depositories that have never once been drilled.  Don't forget Russia and Alaska and a few extremely large deposits in between.  I also never said we had to continue using oil, did I?  One ton of He3 can support the US alone nearly a year.  It's also clean, non radioactive and perfectly stable.  Why do you think we suddenly have a great interest in Washington to go back to the moon?  Why do you think China is also interested in going to the moon suddenly when it should be working on making a better life for 1.3 billion people? They need clean energy for 1/5 of Earths population and it's just waiting for the taking.

We are no where near using even 0.1% of our available trees.

Even more fish exist than trees.

That site gave figures such as it taking over 2,000 gallons of water just to produce one tire are preposterous.

Like I first said, a grand majority of these dooms day reports are funded by oil companies or other companies trying to scare people into using their upcoming alternative fuel source.

Here is a quote from another study that tried to discover the exact same thing, "If all the world's people lived like today's North Americans, it would take two additional planet Earths' to produce enough resources."  Only 2 Earths are needed here.  See what I'm getting at?  Data and statistics can be interpreted in differnt ways by different people so long as they have a preconceived goal of the results. 

Here's a nice false fact for you from that "13 Earths" report.  "Each American produces about 4.3 pounds of trash every day."  We weighed our refuse daily for two weeks and not one day came even remotely to that level unless we tossed out something heavy.  We averaged 6 pounds per week.  Go ahead, weigh your garbage bag before trash day and take into acount 1/10th for school or work and You will not come up to 30.1 pounds of garbage, I bet you.  If they skewed the hell out of that fact, imagine what else they exaggerated.

Before you call a group of professors and I claim as delusional, do your own research

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have actually studied this topic quite a bit on my own. The true estimate of oil production is in provable reserves, which BP (you can check their reports) puts at 1.1 trillion barrels. Past production is estimated at roughly 1 trillion barrels, meaning we are near the 50% mark in consumption of recoverable oil reserves. Of course there is more oil still in the ground beyond those numbers, but it takes more energy to recover it than the energy produces, so there is no point in extracting it.

I'm sure BP or any other large oil company would like to hear your findings; considering they and their brethren have operations in Alaska, Russia, Nigeria and every other corner of the planet I'm sure they would like to know which spots they have missed.

As for helium - is that supposed to provide energy to people using fusion reactors that do not exist yet? I am also curious how one transports helium back from the Moon. I personally would argue that "going back to Moon" press releases are merely cover for projects intended to increase the militarization of space. War is where the money is at, you know?

I'm sorry, but trees are not enough to provide a lifestyle of complex manufactured products for 6 billion people. When all the trees are gone, then what? Or should we give up the fantasy that consuming 100% of them is a smart idea?

Talking about the number of fish is completely irrelevant to whether there is enough to sustainably feed a planet full of people. A number of famous fisheries have already collapsed, including Newfoundland cod, New England lobster, etc. I'm pretty sure every major fishery has been overfished to some extent. There are still fish left in all these places, but not enough to catch and guarantee future stocks will remain abundant.

As for the trash statistics, I don't know how they collected them but I would guess they are distorted from commercial and industrial sources. I've seen a lot of paper trash produced by a regular office and I can only imagine what kind of trash would come out of a foundry or other heavy industrial operation.

I'm not arguing about how many Earths are needed for sustaining the world's population at a high level. All that really matters is that it is not possible to provide everyone on the planet with "the best of everything" with our current resource base. I believe we are nearing the maximum of fossil fuel extraction and this will mean a diminished living standard for all, particularly those that benefit the most from it - industrialized societies.

It's nice to talk about what-ifs like cheap fusion energy (fission energy didn't turn out to be that cheap after all, despite initial claims) and lunar energy deposits, but is that really realistic to use that to conclude that the Earth can support everyone at a high standard of living for hundreds of years? You might as well mention the fact that the Earth's core provides enough energy for our wildest ambitions, conveniently ignoring the fact there is no known way to harvest this energy.

[monsoon]

Did your professor do that study or did he report the data in someone elses study?  I've read the exact report you mention but it was written by a green peace type group and not a professor.  Perhaps they've both done reports and had similar conslusions based on having the same available data.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I notice that you have not provided any research or sources for your "facts" either. i.e what you said about garbage is an opinion.

[Viper]

Metro, that is because it was not a published project. I'm also no longer in Florida (I'm at langley AFB) and don't have access to our finding or the resources (a truck load of books and other reports).

The garbage figures were just an example, a test that can be done at home.

They say that necessity is the mother of all invention. Whether it be He3 mining that requires a pretty simple fusion technique, a 10 mile pipe in the Marianas Trench for energy harvesting, lighting conduction or anti-matter/matter annihilation, one will happen when it's needed.

The tree and fish situation is a relatively easy one. Massive tree farms that return fully matured trees in 15-20 years in rotation. One only needs to drive down JTB in Jacksonville for the past 15 years to know exactly what I mean.

Massive fish farms can replicate the idea behind the tree farm but with even faster results. But both of those will need to be started well before the need arrises.

By the way, do some research on genetic rice. Very interesting stuff.

Oh yeah, "War is where the money is at, you know?" No doubt. I can agree witht hat but imagine for a moment that you are the sole providing country of He3, the sole provider of fussion reactors of He3 and oil is no longer the money maker it once was. The financial opportunity would make oil look like a lemonade stand. One country, power to the world. Now do you see the interest by the US and China? It isn't just military (obviously that is a big part of it.)

[monsoon]

Like I thought no sources or research to back up your "opinion". People are certainly entitled to their opinion, and all all know what they are worth. Nowever on this forum, don't criticise other people's posts with opinions that you pass off as fact.