Articles by Gar Lipow

Population is not the short-term problem

Now and again some commentator will claim that we lack to resources to support our population sustainably -- either today or in the near future. But the fact is, even with current technology we have plenty of sustainable resources for our ~7 billion population and for the ~10 billion we expect in the future. What prevents this is not scarcity but folly and cruelty.

What are the constraints usually cited? There is soil and sustainable food production. But as I recently documented, we can feed ten billion sustainably if we choose to. There is freshwater, but as I documented, we have sustainable ways to deal with that as well.

What about energy? Right now we use about 14 terrawatts total primary energy world wide. The most conservative estimates of potential efficiency increases say we can double efficiency. And the most conservative estimates overlook stuff we are doing in some places at this very moment, including the potential for changes in material intensity and savings in thermal losses by producing electricity from mostly non-combustion sources.

But of course we are also going to have increased population and a lot of poor people who want to get richer. So it is not unreasonable to assume that a ten-billion-population world that consumes energy thriftily but lives a decent lifestyle with indoor plumbing, hot water, refrigerators, basic electronics, enough to eat, enough work, enough leisure, and plenty to do with that leisure will consume around 25 average terawatts worldwide.

Material intensity in water use

(Part of the No Sweat Solutions series.)

Before discussing water savings, we need to define what we mean by "use." The EPA refers to withdrawal and consumption. Withdrawal is the amount taken from surface water and the water table. Consumption refers to the amount chemically combined with something (so that it is no longer fresh water) or evaporated. Water discarded instead of consumed is referred to as "returns," because it is supposedly reusable. This does not even approximate the impact of water use.

One example the EPA gives is power plant cooling. The water is withdrawn and used to cool the plant. A little evaporates, and the rest returned (still more or less clean) to the source. This overlooks a certain amount of impact (fish killed during withdrawals, aquatic plant, fungal, and microbial growth encouraged by the change in water temperature), but is basically correct. However, they apply the same logic to water used for irrigation. With very few exceptions, irrigation water "returns" are loaded with fertilizer salts, growth hormones, microbes, and often pesticides and herbicides as well. Even runoff from organic farms usually contains salts from the manure and composts used.

So the proper way to count water is consumption plus polluted returns -- in most cases, all withdrawals.

And why wouldn’t they?

RealClimate, a blog run by leading climate scientists, thinks Planktos's scheme to dump iron particles in the ocean to make plankton bloom and sequester carbon is "thin soup."

I have some extended quotes from David Archer on the subject below the fold. But if you are interested, read the whole thing.

In spite of public relations claims by Planktos representatives in comments, it appears that most of the scientific community does not think highly of the Planktos claims.

Shot down

Alex Cockburn, who has long been a low-key denier of the human contribution to climate chaos, has decided to take his contrarianism on this issue loud and proud. Because Alex is a bit too prominent to simply ignore, George Monbiot takes a few minutes from his busy schedule to tear the piece into little tiny shreds.

It takes Monbiot only a few sentences to point out that all the arguments Cockburn makes are well known and widely discredited, and that Alex uses zero references. Cockburn's sole source seems to be a guy he met on a Nation cruise. Alex is not only taking a highly destructive position, he is doing so without bothering to do his homework. Monbiot goes on to quote Cockburn himself on the nature of crank arguments. I recommend reading Monbiot's refutation, even if you are familiar enough with the debate to spot all Cockburn's scientific mistakes unaided. Because Monbiot illustrates here how, if circumstances force you, to deal with an opponent who makes an argument totally unworthy of any respect.