Happy New Year, and happy new open thread.
As per usual, nuclear energy is off-topic – it’s not that it’s uninteresting, but it ends up dominating conversation to the total exclusion of everything else and just becomes repetitive and dull. Recent excursions on this topic shows what happens when we relax the moderation, so back to being strict about this. If you want to discuss this, please go somewhere else.
Regarding several recent mentions of “overpopulation” on this forum: note that population increase has been falling every year since the late 1980s, with no sign of a letup. Fertility has collapsed, worldwide, except for certain countries in Africa and a few other places. The human race is — admirably — altering its population trajectory toward steady-state, albeit slowly.
Ray Ladbury, #207:
“current human population is doing significant damage to the planet’s biosphere and its supporting systems.”
No, current behavior — conspicuous consumption — on the part of some humans (the rich) is doing great damage to the planet’s biosphere and systems. This has the effect of encouraging similar behavior by many other humans (the middle classes and would-be middle classes), drawing them into a system of massive waste and excess.
http://www.truth-out.org/archive/item/69326:how-the-rich-are-destroying-the-planet — How the Rich Are Destroying the Planet
Historically, the ones doing the most damage are most inclined to blame “overpopulation” (i.e. THEM, not us) for environmental problems. Malthus’ ideas have been used for centuries by self-satisfied elites to justify selfish, predatory, rapacious and (now) planet-ruining behavior.
The planet is not suffering under the burden of a few billion poor people, who use practically nothing. It is suffering under the burden of a couple billion rich people — especially the top 10% — who use far too much. If the planet is “overpopulated”, then it is surely overpopulated with the rich, not the poor.
EG @ 243: “Melting scrap steel is not what I had in mind. What I had in mind was making new iron form ore and making the new steel from iron ingots”
Then you might investigate direct reduction for use in conjunction with electric arc instead of hunkering deeper in your mind. There are/will be/must be new approaches to living a sustainable, yet “comfortable” life in the future or there will not be a future for the grandchildren of those who have lived as if growth by ever increasing consumption of raw resources can continue indefinitely.
You might also attend to the fact that “Today only a small fraction (of iron) is cast into ingots. Approximately 96% of steel is continuously cast, while only 4% is produced as ingots“ – and the fact that the US only accounts for about 5% of world steel production, largely from recycled material.
Kevin McKinney wrote: “We’re not going to have an all-renewable grid any time soon.”
That depends on whether you would call 2050 “soon”.
Tony Weddle wrote: “But, as far as I’m aware, none of the renewable energy infrastructures is carbon free and I haven’t seen any arguments that they can be made so.”
In fact, there exist multiple, detailed and specific proposals for a zero-emission, 100 percent renewable energy infrastructure. Have you even looked at the peer reviewed study that I linked to in comment #157? Here it is again:
I don’t intend to “chastise you for your posts”. What I am trying to say is that if you want up-to-date, in-depth information and serious, well-informed discussion of renewable energy, you are more likely to find it by perusing sites that focus on renewable energy, rather than the comment pages of a climate science site whose moderators have said that the discussion of energy technologies is off-topic and discouraged here.
> EMP, solar flare
EG, you ignored this part. Please, Google your opinions before posting them. It would save much typing here and help us focus on climate science.
What you’d find if you’d looked:
Carrington event. We need power systems capable of handling the _observed_ solar flare known possible — again — at the very least.
And that’s not the worst possibility — bigger ones show up in the ice cores:
http://arstechnica.com/science/2015/10/extreme-solar-storms-could-be-more-common-than-expected/
Handling variation in the grid from known sources and users is gravy, once the grid can handle a large flare.
This is old information long since beaten into horseburger. Rebunking the stuff just diverts us from climate science.
Edward Greisch wrote: “Union of Concerned Scientists is now mostly non-scientists. The nons were allowed in and took over. Therefore, UCS cannot be relied on at all. What UCS says is nonsense.”
In short, since you are incapable of presenting any substantive response to the detailed UCS article on enhancing grid reliability while integrating large amounts of renewable generation — which cites multiple, independent studies from NREL, ERCOT, SPP, Michigan Public Service Commission and others — you give us a textbook example of an ad hominem fallacy.
alan 248: Sorry, no. You are taking it out of context. Read carefully. He’s saying this is what we should do, if “we might probably every one of us marry at the age of puberty and yet few be absolutely starved.” This is NOT what he advocated, which was, as I said, “moral restraint.” It’s called a reductio ad absurdum. Your argument is like saying Jonathan Swift actually wanted to butcher Irish babies to feed Englishmen. No, he was making a point. Read the book. It’s a book written for grown-ups, so you have to be prepared for not every passage being meant literally.
#245, Killian–“CCL is not a way to sustainability… I was initially excited about CCL, but working with the system that must go bye-bye merely extends its life.”
Mm. I don’t think of CCL as a ‘way to sustainability’ per se; rather, I see it as a way to get carbon pricing enacted. If that ‘prolongs the life of the system’, which seems a bit doubtful to me, I’d frankly be willing to pay that price.
Yes, I know, you wouldn’t–but you are much more sanguine about the prospects of simplification than I am. I don’t think anything like what you advocate is going to happen anything like soon enough to avoid really horrible problems. Hence, I think there is a need for more immediate action, which by definition, pretty much, is going to have to work within the constraints of the current reality. Basically, I see an immediate tactical need which CCL appears to fill, while you are looking for a more global strategy (No pun intended.)
There’s another thing, too. I find that CCL is doing a good job where I am, at least, of building a local community of folks who are concerned about the climate issue. The importance of that can’t be underestimated, IMO, and may very well end up transcending their immediate and specific purpose. It wouldn’t surprise me to see carbon pricing enacted at the national level in the US within the next 5 years. If that were to happen, CCL’s goal would have been met, and they would either need to redefine their purpose, or cease to exist. Given the importance of the issue, and the fact that there will be lots of work toward sustainability to do, I’m guessing that the redefinition option will be chosen.
For those at periscope depth, this interview is worth a swivel. Mark Jacobson dicusses his work. https://www.periscope.tv/w/aWlzBjFlVlFZTGFKYVlFTE98MW5BSkVYRXZqamVHTBhjbugcGtsiw98y0EbkhxZVWQUHl1_rh0I3-UvYNEYU
Chuck, #201
Yes, I think so. The new moratorium on coal leases somewhat matches China’s moratorium on new mines. Joe Romm is probably right, we’ve seen peak coal. Even more meaningful may be linking the lease moratorium with rebuilding the transportation infrastructure. That may take all the oxygen away from the war-on-coal rhetoric. Jobs for former miners in a larger industry is a pretty brilliant idea. Electric cars are just about ready for mass market.
Zebra,
Apologies if you thought I was vague. Also sorry for not answering your second question (except by omission). Let’s see if I can answer to your satisfaction:
1) The goal is not that no CO2 is produced but that there is no net CO2 produced. That is, humans must stop adding CO2 to the system. I expanded on that in my previous comment but maybe you thought that made it vague.
2) “that everyone in the world will live a USA consumption lifestyle” is not a goal that I’m aware of. Can I expand on that without your thinking it’s vague? The implicit goal for (most of) the world’s leaders is that economic growth should continue indefinitely. I don’t think there is an explicit end-point in that goal.
Does that help you continue the discussion?
#208 JCH: That’s great stuff. I mean it’s a truly informative and helpful picture.
Thanks for putting it together and citing it here. More needs to be said about sea level change, because it’s particularly hard for disinformers to explain away. I didn’t know the latest trends were so steep, comprising regionalized extremes so pronounced.
Anyone interested can put those charts and maps together with Eric Rignot’s talk on sea level change and ice sheet systems, linked by Chris Machens on the AGU thread:
http://climatestate.com/2016/01/09/agu-2015-ice-sheet-systems-and-sea-level-change/
SecularAnimist,
Thanks for the link (though I had to go back to your original comment to find a working link). I had actually looked at that paper soon after it came out and discovered it said nothing explicitly about the building, maintenance and decommissioning of the renewable energy infrastructure though did mention that the energy infrastructure was “(for electricity, transportation, heating/cooling, and industry”), which I guess covers most of an economy (I can’t think of what it doesn’t cover, as “industry” is a kind of catch-all, but why then list the segments?) It really doesn’t explain in much detail how it will be done (e.g. how will the extraction industries be powered, the building and demolition industries, the cement industry, the airline industry) – as an aside, it also doesn’t mention whether the resources are there for this roadmap, nor does it cover any more than the US. So this isn’t a definitive study for renewable energies and I’m still inclined to wonder how the renewable energy infrastructure can be made zero carbon, which is what is ultimately required to halt rising CO2.
Tony @247.
I for one don’t worry much that current renewables are created/maintained with some processes that result in crbon emissions. This is largely a result that they are produced via existing industrial processes, and must use a wide variety of industrial inputs. As the general economy decarbonizes so will the renewables sector. Worry too much about the sustainability in the very long term, and we are likely to be too hesitant in the near term. In any case I expect a future net zero carbon economy, would still be able to utilize some fuels/feedstocks which contain carbon. We will be able to use biomass, and/or carbon capture technology to general these fuels/chemicals, although probably in fairly modest volumes.
And thanks to Secular Animist @256, for pointing you at detailed study. My bottom line on the subject is that achieving true sustainability is a project for future generations. Our main job is getting much of the way their quickly enough that too much damage isn’t incurred in the coming few decades.
I’ve noticed that we’re losing a lot of trees here in Arkansas. Some are hardwood trees that have stood for over 100 years. I had read somewhere that ozone levels were killing trees. There are other theories but what I’ve noticed is that at the base of the tree the bark falls off or buckles and the tree dies. Or they suddenly turn brown. Of course in Colorado the trees are dying at alarming rates. Winter Park, CO. in particular has dead trees as far as the eye can see in any direction; but those are pine trees. We’re losing hardwoods. They don’t grow back quickly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_dieback#Global_climate_change
My understanding is that BECCS involves maybe planting massive amounts of trees to absorb CO2. How is this going to work if trees are dying everywhere? I’m thinking something like Kudzu might be a better choice since nothing can kill it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kudzu
Anyway, has anyone else noticed the tree population declining in your area? Is this just a temporary phenomenon or is it permanent? My guess is that we’ve created an environment where it will be difficult for forests to thrive. I hope this is not the case.
Been digesting Malcolm Light’s recent articles and Peter Wadhams and John Nissan work on arctic methane release at AMEG. Also getting to know the methane climate forcing potential over a 100 year to 20 year timeframe. My conclusion is that we must state methane’s climate forcing potential over 20 years not 100 years due to the now high rate of CH4 release over the arctic and other global hotspots. A 100 year time frame gives 20-25x higher GW impact over CO2 but a more contempory frame reflecting the current and near future rate of arctic methane release should be around 20-30 years giving a impact of 100x +. What is also very concerning is that the understanding of the sub-sea CH4 beds is poorly understood and that sudden catastrophic venting (50GT+) could occur at any moment. According the AMEG the arctic albedo tipping point has passed a long time ago which I believe everyone here understands and accepts. AMEG also agrees that the equatorial-polar Jetstream has significantly slowed down causing blocking patterns of weather systems that can be readily seen and predictions made using null-school. So the current state of the GW process is escalating and it’s looks like aggressive geo-engineering will be the only way to have any chance of a reversal.
flxible@252
>Then you might investigate direct reduction for use in conjunction with electric arc instead of hunkering deeper in your mind.
Direct reduction of iron still needs coal or natural gas as a reducing agent.
alan2102: what do you think China’s abandonment of it’s one child policy will have on pop. growth?
“Melting scrap steel is not what I had in mind. What I had in mind was making new iron form ore and making the new steel from iron ingots.”
As well over 80% of all steel in the US is recycled, why exactly do you base all your criticisms/arguments on the about 15% of the industry which may indeed require coke? Perhaps you should “have in mind” the industry as it is, not the industry as you remake it in order to make your arguments look better.
SecularAnimist@256
>In short, since you are incapable of presenting any substantive response to the detailed UCS article on enhancing grid reliability while integrating large amounts of renewable generation — which cites multiple, independent studies from NREL, ERCOT, SPP, Michigan Public Service Commission and others.
This is an advertising puff. All the information is in terms of installed capacity rather that electricity generated. While the former looks good if the intension is to sell wind plant, or even the idea of wind energy, but the later is needed if projections are to be made of future energy mixes. FYI the load factor (i.e. the actual electrical output divided by the rated capacity) of UK onshore wind farms is around 27%.
@Kevin Mckinney 258,
Yes, and my policy proposal– government ensuring free markets (as defined above) operate in the relevant sectors would be just the ticket for that further endeavor.
Raising the cost of creating CO2 only works if buyers are free to choose among alternative ways to meet their needs.
Think about it: If you tax coal, but the utility retains a monopoly on generating electricity, that cost is passed along to the captive consumer, and the CO2 keeps coming.
And electric cars? As long as anti-competitive practices are allowed, the Auto-Industrial Complex is going to keep the ICE’s coming as well.
[For the various trolls who learned their economics from Fox News: Yes, “free market” means buyers and sellers are free to make rational economic choices because they have roughly equivalent market power. That condition can only exist with strong government intervention against anti-competitive practices.]
#252–Don’t forget this bit, from the same source:
“Steel is one of the world’s most-recycled materials, with a recycling rate of over 60% globally; in the United States alone, over 82,000,000 metric tons (81,000,000 long tons) was recycled in the year 2008, for an overall recycling rate of 83%.”
Recycling steel is significant because traditional steel-making as Ed was thinking of is inherently carbon-intensive; cf., ‘coking.’
#253, 254–Thanks for linking Jacobsen et al.; it’s worth reminding or informing everybody about it.
But that shows what *could* be done. Do you really think that that is also *likely* to be done? For just one instance, I live in Georgia, where two new reactors at Fort Vogtle will be coming online in 2019, provided there are no further delays, so they could easily operate to 2059 or 2079–unless they are retired early.
Some I’ve discussed this with predict that cheap renewable power will force such retirement on economic grounds. But is that really realistic, given the existing commitment, the sunk costs and the political realities? (Not to mention the uncertainty that the cost projection will be accurate, particularly as we hit much higher levels of penetration by wind and solar.)
For me, full implementation of Jacobson et al. by 2050 looks like a long shot, just based on the fact that it would imply massive early retirement of a whole lot of existing infrastructure. Some of it will be retired early, I hope–if not, our mitigation goals are in deep kimchee. But 100%? It would be a pleasant surprise, should I live to see it.
“My bottom line on the subject is that achieving true sustainability is a project for future generations. Our main job is getting much of the way their quickly enough that too much damage isn’t incurred in the coming few decades.”
FWIW, I agree. The required changes are very far reaching, and not well understood.
Though we need to do much more work on figuring out just what a sustainable society would look like and how it would work. (Pace Killian, who feels he and his associates have that one licked already.) Seems to me there’s an awful lot to figure out in detail, and it won’t be even close to being entirely ‘pre-plannable’–if we eventually do get it done, I bet it will involve a large proportional of quasi-evolutionary developmental effort (ie., failure).
#270, Bil Bedford–
*”This is an advertising puff.”
No, it’s an advocacy piece concluding in a funding appeal, and UCS is a respected non-profit NGO. I hope the mis-statement was careless and not cynical.
The article also cites several studies which are quite substantial, and which were mentioned in SA’s post. You can’t dismiss them as ‘advertising.’
*”All the information is in terms of installed capacity rather that electricity generated.”
Apparently you didn’t read all the way down to point #3, which I quote:
FYI, most us here understand ‘load factor’ (AKA ‘capacity factor’) perfectly well, and are well aware what typical numbers for it are. Few of us, though, find it quite so telling a number as you apparently do.
Alan, do read the source as BPL suggests. Irony is wasted on the Internet, but still there to be found for those willing to read the original old paper documents.
BPL is correct: “Your argument is like saying Jonathan Swift actually wanted to butcher Irish babies to feed Englishmen.” I’ve met people who believe that about Jonathan Swift, too.
Context matters. On paper, it can be found by turning pages. Alas, reading online, you have to keep the context in your head to refer to it. Or not.
See this from a more thorough guide to potholes to avoid on the information highway.
That’s an exhausting list to consider each time you write something, but it improves the result.
@Bill Bedford 270,
Another perfect example of what I have been talking about.
We Don’t Need No Stinkin’ Projections! There is no King Of The World who is going to dictate “future energy mixes”!
If you disincentivize CO2, and mandate a free market (as defined above) where delivery is independent of generation, investors will figure it out. They will pay people to do the math, and if the math is wrong, they will lose money, and someone else will generate electricity, and if the price is too high, some other investor will develop more efficient ways to achieve the end use. And, if all that fails, people in the developed would may have to make the horrific sacrifice of buying fewer “minutes” for their mobiles to pay for the slightly higher electricity rates. Oh the humanity!
alan2102 says:
15 Jan 2016 at 9:52 AM
Regarding several recent mentions of “overpopulation” on this forum: note that population increase has been falling every year since the late 1980s, with no sign of a letup. Fertility has collapsed, worldwide, except for certain countries in Africa and a few other places. The human race is — admirably — altering its population trajectory toward steady-state, albeit slowly.
Yet we’re poised to hit 9-10 billion by 2050? Someone’s makin’ whoopee. According to Al Bartlett, at some point we’ll reach negative population growth. I think it will be long before we reach 9 billion myself.
As for the United States, we may be altering our population but I don’t see the numbers declining when we have a steady stream of immigrants. We’re just moving the numbers around. IMO
I liken it to CO2 emissions. We may be cutting back dramatically in the U.S. but globally it’s still increasing.
Bill Bedford wrote: “This is an advertising puff.”
So, you make it clear right at the start of your comment that, like Edward Greisch, you are incapable of a substantive response, and have nothing to offer but name-calling.
Bill Bedford wrote: “All the information is in terms of installed capacity rather that electricity generated.”
The UCS article is about maintaining and enhancing grid reliability while integrating large amounts of renewable (wind and solar) generation capacity. Installed capacity is relevant to that. Total electricity generated is not.
You sound like you didn’t even read the article, but just copied and pasted some irrelevant anti-renewable talking points.
Back in 2008, Gavin wrote a post on geoengineering (specifically SRM, i.e. solar radiation management), titled Climate Change Methadone? on the analogy SRM:climate change::methadone:heroin. To roughly summarize: SRM is worthy of study and may ultimately make sense as part of our response to an emergency situation, but even if everything goes as expected/hoped for technically (and politically) there would still be serious problems: the obvious ocean acidification, but also decreased precipitation (as I understand it, infrared causes less evaporation per W than visible light) among other issues.
I’m curious, Gavin or anyone else, how do you seen the situation today?
Re- Comment by Lawrence Coleman — 16 Jan 2016 @ 6:01 AM, ~#266
For a balanced scientific view of arctic methane, search this site by entering “methane” in the site search window (upper right on main page). Also, here is an article about the USGS Gas Hydrates Project- http://climatestate.com/2014/01/03/usgs-climate-hydrate-interactions/
Steve
Re- Comment by Bill Bedford — 16 Jan 2016 @ 7:33 AM, ~#270
Bill, your comment, “All the information is in terms of installed capacity rather that electricity generated,” indicates that you didn’t read the suggested references.
Steve
Why is the atmosphere not visible in the DSCOVR earth images?
( https://twitter.com/dscovr_epic )
[Response: Not sure what you are expecting. The width of the image is ~12,400km, and the atmosphere is ~50km thick, so at the edge the atmosphere is just 0.4% of the width of the planet. If you look closely you do see increasing ‘haze’ towards the edge which is because you are seeing through more air. – gavin]
Thank you Gavin.
(This (atmosphere) was what I was hoping for (link). When I enlarge the hell out of the DSCOVR image I think I can (barely) see it, but it would be cool if DSCOVR could show it more clearly too.)
A suggestion for this site:
The merits of various energy transition plans are interesting and are highly relevant to the issue of how we will avoid or deal with climate change, but they are NOT climate science. Moreover, since they involve economic and social values and expectations, they are highly prone to debate.
Would it make sense to have a two threads each month: one for issues directly related to climate science and another for issues related to our societal reactions? (Alternatively, science in one and engineering/economics in another.) Just a thought…
> DSCOVR
A while back I emailed the folks there asking if they could manage to time a picture to capture a sun glint off the ISS solar panels — which would appear as a tiny bright spot just _barely_ at the outside edge of the atmosphere.
Just to make the point about how close to Earth low Earth orbit really is.
No answer, but I hope they’re thinking about doing it sometime. The calculations for observing satellite flashes from the ground are routinely done so it ought to be possible.
For Why: you might look at the First Light images
http://planetary.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/images/3-earth/2015/20150720_187_1003705_americas_dxm.png
These are among the very few full resolution images available (most DSCOVR imagery is compressed (four pixels averaged to one) before transmission to save bandwidth, and then the usual web page display is JPG which averages the resolution even further down. You can find the PNG format on the site.
PPS for Why: remember the photo you linked to is taken from quite close to the Earth, that’s why the atmosphere looks so thick — you’re down inside it.
Even the ISS is only at the thin edge (they fly through the Aurora, for example, not above it)
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EdLu/
OmegaCentauri,
I’m not sure I agree that it doesn’t matter, now, whether a renewables build out can be made carbon free. I do agree that if the vast majority of our energy came from renewable sources, that would be far better than continuing with fossil fuel based energy. However, I think it would be foolish to ignore the question of whether carbon emissions can be entirely eliminated with a renewables build out. One reason is that we have (relatively) abundant resources now but, after a renewables build out, not so much. So, should we (or future generations) need to do something entirely different later, it might prove much more difficult than if we figured out just what is possible now. If we’ve blown the 2C budget and are still emitting carbon and raising the CO2 and other GHG levels in the atmosphere, then we’d need a plan B.
Regarding sustainable societies, that’s a very tricky question and I’m not convinced that humans can ever live sustainably at the levels of population we have now. But I guess we’d get into more trouble for raising that subject here.
James McDonald #285
I agree — a climate-science thread and a climate-action thread. All the moderators would have to do at the latter is limit the verbal fisticuffs.
#278, Chuck–Alan is mostly right. Much of the world has gone through the ‘demographic transition’ to lower fertility rates. The main exception is Africa, where large chunks of the continent’s population are still having lots of kids. That continent’s population is projected to more than double to over 2 billion over the next few decades.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-34188248
To look at the demographic transition, check out this site:
http://ourworldindata.org/data/population-growth-vital-statistics/world-population-growth/
Figure 13 is fun.
I did a Google search and came up with this from:
http://www.fao.org/forestry/en/
An introduction to emerging global patterns of climate-induced forest mortality.
Craig D. Allen is with the United States Geological Survey, Fort Collins Science Center, Jemez Mountains Field Station, Los Alamos, New Mexico, United States.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/011/i0670e/i0670e10.htm
Forests, which today cover 30 percent of the world’s land surface (FAO, 2006), are being rapidly and directly transformed in many areas by the impacts of expanding human populations and economies. Less evident are the pervasive effects of ongoing climatic changes on the condition and status of forests around the world. Recent examples of drought and heat-related forest stress and dieback (defined here as tree mortality noticeably above usual mortality levels) are being documented from all forested continents, making it possible to begin to see global patterns. This article introduces these patterns and considers the possibility that many forests and woodlands today are at increasing risk of climate-induced dieback. A more comprehensive article (Allen et al., 2009) addresses this topic in considerably greater detail.
240 Kevin McKinney: Er, no yourself. Look at figures 3 and 6. Euan Mearns’ Concluding thoughts: “So my perceptions of flat calm are not misjudged”
“The raw wind data, at hourly resolution for September and October are plotted in Figure 2. The chart is dominated by the gigantic German wind fleet. The German data show clearly how the wind has come and gone between extremes of 331 MW @ 18:00 hrs on 29th October to 24127 MW @ 13:00 hrs on 6th September. That is a dynamic range factor of 73.”
The lowest energy available in wind is so small that it counts as ZERO. There is nothing the grid can do with it. At that stage, the voltage and the frequency are dropping and phase is varying. The wind turbine must be switched off to protect both it and the grid.
Yes, you are a trained scholar in the fine arts [music], not the humanities, not math, not engineering and not science. And that is a problem for you. You haven’t had the experience of a generator slowing to a stop, or almost, so you don’t realize that the drooping is giving you power you can’t use. In music school, they don’t teach calculus and physics. And I don’t play a musical instrument.
What happens when your car battery is dying? You turn the key and you only hear clicks. There is still electricity in the battery, but it does you no good. Your engine doesn’t start on 3 cylinders. It just doesn’t start. You have to get another power source, and you can’t buy 1/3 of a car battery. So when your car doesn’t start, you are going to call a violinist, right?
As for the German grid, another entire power plant has to take over the load because 331 MW is only 1/3 of a power plant. You don’t turn on 2/3 of a power plant. Yes it is possible to build any size power plant, but the dispatcher is responsible for providing 100% of the electricity required. He isn’t going to fiddle with a probable blackout or brownout that would cost him his job. He is going to play it safe and have that extra power plant already running.
247 Tony Weddle: “somewhere between 2050 or 2070” List of papers predicting worldwide famine due to Global Warming between 2022 and 2040. We humans will probably be extinct by 2040.
Study Predicts Impending Collapse Of Industrial Civilization
http://upriser.com/posts/study-predicts-impending-collapse-of-industrial-civilization
Scientific Model Indicates Climate Change-Induced Collapse of Civilization by 2040
http://planetsave.com/2015/06/25/climate-change-induced-collapse-of-civilization-by-2040-reports-uk-foreign-office/
Extreme weather could trigger frequent global food shocks
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28046-extreme-weather-could-trigger-frequent-global-food-shocks/
“Accuracy Check on Predictions of Near-Term Collapse” by Barton Paul Levenson
http://www.ajournal.co.uk/pdfs/BSvolume13(1)/BSVol.13%20(1)%20Article%202.pdf
233 Barton Paul Levenson says:
https://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/03/unforced-variations-march-2015/comment-page-5/#comment-627687
“Food System Shock” Food prices go up 500% by 2030. Lloyd’s of London insurance
http://www.lloyds.com/~/media/files/news%20and%20insight/risk%20insight/2015/food%20system%20shock/food%20system%20shock_june%202015.pdf
“Drought Under Global Warming: a Review” by Aiguo Dai
http://www.atmos.albany.edu/facstaff/adai/
“Preliminary Analysis of a Global Drought Time Series” by Barton Paul Levenson, not yet published, but amended to say 2028.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZF1zNpzf8RM
Book: ”Storms of my Grandchildren” by James Hansen
http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-09-27/global-warming-contributing-current-refugee-crisis
249: alan2102: So next time you get a toothache, call a plumber. Next time you feel sick, call a carpenter. Etcetera. Look who is making the pro-renewable energy statements. They are not engineers, nor are they scientists. The difference is that I have retired from a career in engineering and I have a degree in physics and a lot of grad school credits in engineering. The point is, I know how to do the math. That makes all the difference. In science and engineering, there are right answers and wrong answers. NATURE does not take a vote of humans and NATURE does not compromise. NATURE kills.
251 alan2102: See my response to 278 Chuck Hughes below.
252 flxible From your wikipedia reference:”Direct-reduced iron (DRI), also called sponge iron,[1] is produced from direct reduction of iron ore (in the form of lumps, pellets or fines) by a reducing gas produced from natural gas or coal. ”
253 SecularAnimist: Since 2050 is AFTER the population collapse, it is definitely not any time soon.
255 Hank Roberts: 1. Carrington events/solar flares have nothing to do with EMP. Make up your mind.
2. We can deal with large solar flares. See http://spaceweather.com. NASA has a number of spacecraft dedicated to watching the sun full time. We have up to 3 day’s warning of solar flares, enough time to shut down anything that could be damaged. “Solar flare alerts: text [http://spaceweathertext.com] or voice [http://spaceweatherphone.com].”
Essential web links
NOAA Space Weather Prediction Center
http://www.swpc.noaa.gov
The official U.S. government space weather bureau
Solar Dynamics Observatory
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov
Researchers call it a “Hubble for the sun.” SDO is the most advanced solar observatory ever.
STEREO [spacecraft]
http://stereo.gsfc.nasa.gov
3D views of the sun from NASA’s Solar and Terrestrial Relations Observatory
Solar and Heliospheric Observatory
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov
Realtime and archival images of the Sun from SOHO [spacecraft].
Daily Sunspot Summaries
http://legacy-www.swpc.noaa.gov/ftpmenu/forecasts/SRS.html
from the NOAA Space Environment Center
Heliophysics
http://www.vsp.ucar.edu/Heliophysics/
the underlying science of space weather
267 Bill Bedford: “Direct reduction of iron still needs coal or natural gas as a reducing agent.” True. Thank you. And we still need to make some new steel to make up for losses.
278 Chuck Hughes: The problem is that the permanent carrying capacity of the planet is 3 billion. We are now 7.5 billion. We are living on “mined” water. When the aquifers run dry, so does the food supply. Reference “Overshoot” by William Catton, 1980 and “Bottleneck: Humanity’s Impending Impasse” by William Catton, 2009. That is why the population will “crash” to 70,000 or zero.
279 SecularAnimist: Say that to yourself. And show us your diploma. SecularAnimist is playing word games. Also: Politics doesn’t work as engineering.
Re: #258 Kevin McKinney said “I was initially excited about CCL, but working with the system that must go bye-bye merely extends its life.”
Mm. I don’t think of CCL as a ‘way to sustainability’ per se; rather, I see it as a way to get carbon pricing enacted. If that ‘prolongs the life of the system’, which seems a bit doubtful to me
Carbon pricing relies on markets to keep C in the economy. The key bit there is keep C in the economy. If you need a different *system*, and we do, what sense is there is doing *anything* that keeps the current system running? Sure, you can talk about what happens if this or that disappears, but the corollary is, what happens if it *doesn’t?* That is what *you* are sanguine about. I have lived with the issue of the *risk* of climate change and resource limits every day for a decade now. I have encouraged people to use this lens. Only recently has “risk” started popping up in the conversation at all regularly, but it is still extremely rare.
What is the risk of rapid creation of a new system? Some chaos. That would likely mean lives. But what is the risk of a conservative – at this point snail-paced – approach to transition? Collapse and/or extinction.
So, brother, which of us is being sanguine? In fact, I have never been sanguine about the effects of simplification, but the risk of slow transition is so vast not transitioning swiftly is so close to suicidal it should not be a consideration. Period. Yet…
“I’d frankly be willing to pay that price.”
You almost certainly will if you succeed. You see, most people see pricing carbon as a solution, not a stopgap. They truly do not get it. What happens when you have a problem, get a “good enough” solution that meets preconceptions? A halt to change. Everyone relaxes and goes about their business thinking they slved the problem because their preconceptions and false conceptions of the problem are bounded by their desires and ideologies. Give them enough to hang themselves, they will.
The key, then, is to get people to understand the long tail risk. Heck, it’s not even long tail anymore. The risk of not reducing atmospheric carbon fast enough massively disrupting the ecology and leading to some degree of collapse is 100%. The risk is 100% for varying degrees of devastation. It is far from trivial (in my opinion 100%) for near or total extinction if we do not get back below at least 350 within a sub-centennial time frame.
That’s the risk. CCL’s work does not reflect this. I have reached out to CCL repeatedly. They will not have this conversation. If they WILL NOT have it, they are part of the problem.
Yes, I know, you wouldn’t–but you are much more sanguine about the prospects of simplification than I am. I don’t think anything like what you advocate is going to happen anything like soon enough to avoid really horrible problems. Hence, I think there is a need for more immediate action
Nothing CCL is doing does anything whatsoever to avoid that. A price on carbon is paralleled by the false assumption renewables = sustainability. This is so far from reality I cannot quantify it. It’s a massive misunderstanding of the problems we face. Those paying attention here know “renewables” is a misnomer. It creates a mirage of a simple fix to AGW and resources limits. There are exactly two ways to avoid massive disruption: Reduced consumption and draw down. That’s it. CCL does not in any way “get” this to my knowledge.
We are back to the issue of how does one change a system? Two quotes I have used before suffice (I quote loosely):
To change a system, don’t fight it head on, create a new one and let the old fade away. – R. B. Fuller
You can’t solve your stupid-arsed mistakes by thinking the same way you created your stupid-arsed mistakes. – A. Einstein.
I think two thoughts frame how we need to look at things very well. By working within the system, you perpetuate it. If you succeed, it’s even worse than if you fail because you create the conditions for it to continue by creating the false impression it *works.* But when that system is inherently unsustainable and will continue to be, any extension of its existence increases the long-term risk.
which by definition, pretty much, is going to have to work within the constraints of the current reality. Basically, I see an immediate tactical need which CCL appears to fill, while you are looking for a more global strategy (No pun intended.)
See above.
There’s another thing, too. I find that CCL is doing a good job where I am, at least, of building a local community of folks who are concerned about the climate issue.
Yes. People who want their cake, the plate, the fork, a nice cloth napkin, a picnic table, a large shade tree and a nice cool lemonade, too. That is, if one is thinking working within the system solves the problem, one is rather clueless as to the risk, and even more so the solutions. This is rather clearly inferred.
Let’s look at pricing carbon. What does it do? Makes carbon more expensive. Thus more electricity via unsustainable renewables… eating up resources… slowing down transition out of high consumption by allowing continuation of the current lifestyle gone electric… thus keeping atmospheric carbon from falling since very little is being done to eliminate the cause of it. Reducing emissions, even to net zero, solves nothing. Only reduction of atmospheric carbon makes any difference worth discussing. So, working within the current paradigm gets you exactly nothing of any real import.
It wouldn’t surprise me to see carbon pricing enacted at the national level in the US within the next 5 years. If that were to happen, CCL’s goal would have been met, and they would either need to redefine their purpose, or cease to exist. Given the importance of the issue, and the fact that there will be lots of work toward sustainability to do, I’m guessing that the redefinition option will be chosen.
Who cares? Show me even the slightest evidence they have any idea what to do.
BPL 257:
Yes, he spoke of “moral restraint.” But then, said “moral restraint” does not happen, except in rare individuals (monks), and Malthus knew it. He himself was not capable of it. His “advocacy” of sexual abstinence was hollow. He was advocating something he knew would never happen, and using that as a cover for his (horrific) alternative as necessary and inevitable. He was saying: “failing this (the sexual abstinence route), the only alternative is this (fostering plague in the poor, etc.)”, which is the effective equivalent of saying that fostering plague in the poor (etc.) is the only alternative, period.
It would be like me saying that “failing a divine intervention that miraculously removes all CO2 from the atmosphere, the only alternative is a death-spiral into environmental calamity”. That is the equivalent of saying that “a death-spiral into environmental calamity is inevitable”. There is no *reductio ad absurdum* there. Rather, it is simply an honestly-edited restatement.
If it helps, here are the sentences immediately preceding the passage I posted:
“It is an evident truth that, whatever may be the rate of increase in the means of subsistence, the increase of population must be limited by it, at least after the food has once been divided into the smallest shares that will support life. All the children born, beyond what would be required to keep up the population to this level, must necessarily perish, unless room be made for them by the deaths of grown persons. It has appeared indeed clearly in the course of this work, that in all old states the marriages and births depend principally upon the deaths, and that there is no encouragement to early unions so powerful as a great mortality. To act consistently therefore, we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality; and if we dread the too frequent visitation of the horrid form of famine, we should sedulously encourage the other forms of destruction, which we compel nature to use. Instead of recommending cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits. In our towns we should make the streets narrower…” etc.
Repeat: “To act consistently therefore [consistent with the unspoken impossibility of expecting universal sexual abstinence, and consistent with Malthus’ inhumane prejudice against birth control, and consistent with Malthus’ mean and pessimistic assumptions about the productive capabilities of humans — alan], we should facilitate, instead of foolishly and vainly endeavouring to impede, the operations of nature in producing this mortality.”
That is, we should foster conditions of disease and plague, so as to encourage mass die-off of the poor, and we should discourage all attempts at mitigating disease — just as he specifies in the sentences that follow.
Regardless of Malthus’ character and true intents, his obscene ideas have had a terrible effect down through the centuries. Social Darwinism, imperialism, jingoism, atrocious eugenicism, racism, crude nativism, classism, and on and on, were all energized to a greater or lesser extent by Malthus. Malthus’ was “the crudest, most barbarous theory that ever existed”, in the words of Engels — a man of considerable intellect, probably exceeding that of anyone on this forum.
Here is an example of the spawn of Malthus, one of many. This is by Garrett Hardin, an energetic defender of Malthus:
http://www.garretthardinsociety.org/articles/art_lifeboat_ethics_case_against_helping_poor.html
Lifeboat Ethics: the Case Against Helping the Poor
snip
“our survival demands that we govern our actions by the ethics of a lifeboat, harsh though they may be.”
Right. Too many in the lifeboat? Throw the “extras” overboard! (The “extras” being THEM, of course, not US!) There is no room for useless eaters, and no place for bleeding-heart sentiment. We must do our duty, however unpleasant. Excess humans are a pestilence, anyway. [/sarc]
At least Hardin did not embarrass himself with absurd suggestions regarding “moral restraint” as the route to population control.
……………………………..
Hank Roberts, #276:
Thanks for the reading lesson, Hank, but there is no mystery about what Malthus was saying. I’ve read plenty of the original Essay, and a large volume of commentary about Malthus and the influence of his ideas. I know what I am talking about. You might wish to read Malthus, and especially critical commentary on Malthus, to become grounded in this area, yourself.
A suggestion for this site:
The merits of various energy transition plans are interesting and are highly relevant to the issue of how we will avoid or deal with climate change, but they are NOT climate science. Moreover, since they involve economic and social values and expectations, they are highly prone to debate.
Comment by James McDonald — 16 Jan 2016 @
I too have noticed that the conversation has turned more towards engineering strategies and mitigation ideas. I think it’s because we’re running out of options. The science of Climate Change is more or less settled but how to survive is up for grabs.
Kevin Anderson is talking about BECCS/CCS. That seemed to be one of the most important topics at COP21 other than everyone agreeing we need to do something and signing a pledge. Once everyone agrees that there’s a problem then the question becomes what to do about it. I personally think that’s where we are now.
What’s gotten my attention are all the “die-offs/die-backs” and their possible connection to Climate Change. Animals and plants don’t have a mitigation strategy. I see these processes starting to accelerate at an alarming speed; or it could just be my imagination. Somebody help me on this.
Chuck Hughes #278:
“Yet we’re poised to hit 9-10 billion by 2050?”
Yes. What do you expect? Think about this. Fertility fell off a cliff, virtually worldwide, over the last 4-5 decades. Because of demographic momentum, fertility changes are not fully expressed in population numbers for a long time — multiple decades. IOW, you can reduce fertility drastically — say, from 6 down to 2, which is about what we’ve done — and population will keep on growing for several decades, before reaching a plateau, and then declining. It is impossible to immediately reduce population; at least, impossible to do so humanely. It can only be done over decades, by way of fertility change. And that is what has been happening for decades, and is happening right now. The drastic fall in fertility would be having a more-rapid effect on population growth if mortality had not been falling at the same time, due to advances in public health, access to medicine, etc. And — though the Rev Malthus might disagree — I for one consider the advances in health and medicine to be a good thing. Paradoxically, it is in part the advances in health and medicine (which Malthus would oppose) that underlie the demographic transition in question, involving drastic fertility reduction. The fertility decline is in part caused by the causes of mortality decline. The real world works oppositely to Malthusian theory.
Yes, we’re poised to hit 9-10 billion by 2050, and that is the best we can possibly do after the population explosion of the early- and mid-20th century. Would it be reasonable to expect everyone to suddenly refrain from having any children at all? In a very short time, humans have reduced their fertility from 5-6 down to a replacement-level ~2.2, and to sub-replacement levels. That’s a very impressive feat, and all that can be expected. If you disagree with this, ask yourself: did you seriously expect fertility to go to ZERO, overnight? Let’s be reasonable.
Humanity is making the transition from traditional and rural lifestyles, characterized by large families, to modern and urban lifestyles, characterized by much smaller families. This is, unsurprisingly, taking several generations. Vast, epochal transformations of this sort do not happen instantaneously. Give it a century.
………………….
Al Bartlett (who you mention) seems never to have come to grips with the great demographic changes of the last half-century. His views were based on a snapshot taken circa 1970, after which — it would seem — he observed and learned nothing. He died a foolish character, like a cold-warrior still nattering about communist infiltration of the U.S. State Department. There is no “exponential growth” of population, as he feared. The opposite is happening: stepwise reduction in growth rate, heading for a plateau by mid-century. He never grasped that pre-modern levels of fertility (4-6+) are corrected by modernity.
“The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function.” — Al Bartlett
“The greatest shortcoming of Al Bartlett is his denial of and/or inability to comprehend modern demographic trends.” — Me
Re #214 Kevin McKinney said Here’s a brief but interesting piece on the integration of renewable energy into existing grids:
Someone show me a complex, fragile, sustainable system. They don’t exist. Never will. The nature of a sustainable system is, as Taleb might say, antifragile.
When people think I am being simplistic, I am merely applying antifragile thinking. Why go regenerative, damn the torpedoes? Because anything else risks suicide. Sustainable systems are massively distributed. That is reason enough to never give a second thought to THE power grid and storage of massive amounts of electricity: Both are fragile, unsustainable, and the opposite of what we need to be doing.
It will be at least a decade before meaningful amounts of grid storage will be needed to implement renewables. I think we need to shift the conversation from what energy will look like in 35 years, to what it takes to integrate renewables right now.
We’re not going to have an all-renewable grid any time soon.
If we ever do, we will be heading straight toward collapse and extinction because it will mean we failed to simplify. The only grids we should have are local, neighborhood-scale systems… if that. Realize there is no conflict with schedules or production because simplicity will require the elimination of virtually all non-productive “work.” There will be few office jobs. Your work will be meaningful to survival or likely will not exist at all.
4) in North America, the growth of natgas generation capacity. We need to keep doing all of the above, perhaps with the partial exception of #4.
We have enough studies in the can to know this is false, or at best a trivial improvement. This shouldn’t even be discussed any longer if one is thinking within a risk perspective. Do we have time to get certain it helps 20.5% or some silliness? No. Get over it. End it. The risk assessment demands it.
Recognizing that zebra is quite right in pointing out a total lack of evidence of any policy impact by RC Philosopher Kings to date, I’d say that we should #1: implement carbon pricing
And move the needle on future sustainable systems not even a little.
#2: keep building up renewable capacity
Sustainable systems are simple. More than one *scientist* has put the need for reduced consumption at 80-90%, the same range I had back-of-the-enveloped a couple years back. We already have over 10% (in the U.S.) of current demand in Wind, Solar and Hydro, so what, exactly, are we needing to build more for, as opposed to reducing consumption to meet the already-met need of reduced consumption?
It’s a lot less expensive to stop using a thing than to build 10x what you need and later decommission it, thus letting it rot and wasting invaluable resources that may be vitally needed by some future generation.
#3: maintain the nuclear industry, and R & D toward the sorts of reactors that Ed thinks are already here
There is no way, ever, period, to make nuclear sustainable. Sure, continue R&D, but not for earthly use, but for space exploration and future extraterrestrial resource extraction. And keep it penned up, for god’s sake!
And, sure. keep the nuclear plants going that exist for two simple reasons: 1. They exist and can provide some back-up power when needed until they’re decommissioned, which may soften the landing of consumption reduction, and 2. we have no idea what to do with the waste anyway. Let’s hope someone figures something out in the next 5 decades or so.
#4: support other mitigation and adaptation efforts, as called for in the Paris Agreement
Yes, let’s take a bunch of economics-based claptrap and move toward sustainable systems with it. Uh, no. There are people who know what to do, but few, if any, of them work in any government.
#5: for the long term, keep developing the theory and practice of an economy that at the very least is zero energy growth.
What theory and practice? This is done and done. We have at least two decision-making/design models already that already work. Well, one does. The second has some serious flaws.
I’ve clashed with Killian and Ed, and they with each other
I don’t clash with people, they clash with me. I speak what I know to be true, they get offended or whatever, then I slaps them.
;-)
but all three of us (and I suspect many others here) would agree that, no, infinite growth in a finite system really is not a physical (or practical or ecological) possibility. We have yet to really even think about that as a society (though I know there are a few brave & far-sighted souls out there who’ve put some time into developing some bases for the idea.)
As I said, done and done. What you really imply is getting to sustainable with a significant simulacrum of what currently is in OECD nations.
Get over it.
We need to know how such a society might work.
We do. It’s not rocket science. This is why it is called simplicity aka regenerative systems. They actually exist. Not modern ones, and there’s the add on to previous comments: There is some serious work to be done making modern communities sustainable. We know the patterns. We know the basic structures. We know the type of governance. The devil truly is in the details, but nobody can give you a detailed template of what *you and yours* must do. We can tell how to figure it out. We can tell you how to govern it. We can tell you the basic elements you need. We can’t design it for you without being with you in your space for an extended period of time.
We also need to have a more solid idea of what the actual constraints are; there’s a lot of uncertainty there, given the huge knowledge gaps that exist even about biological basics like how many species exist, let alone more sophisticated questions about ecosystem function, extent, interdependence, and resilience in the face of various challenges.
Here’s the beauty of regenerative systems: It’s bio-mimicry at its core. Simply let the systems around you flourish. The other half of the equation is to set up your systems to integrate with the natural. This does not mean your home will be a burrow in the ground or that you should mimic a wasp’s building techniques, but that you use only renewable resources or embedded energy (the already-built environment) to create/modify your community.
There are experts in the various ecosystems. We call them “natives” in most cases. Getting their knowledge and the knowledge of those who have learned from them and added to that knowledge and already applied it to our modern systems disseminated is the challenge. We need no more, or very little, “R&D” on this.
I know there are folks doing good work in all areas of this, but my sense is that levels of support are probably not nearly adequate to learn what we need to know to assess those limits as well as we’d like.
“If there is something in nature you don’t understand, odds are it makes sense in a deeper way that is beyond your understanding. So there is a logic to natural things that is much superior to our own. Just as there is a dichotomy in law: ‘innocent until proven guilty’ as opposed to ‘guilty until proven innocent’, let me express my rule as follows: what Mother Nature does is rigorous until proven otherwise; what humans and science do is flawed until proven otherwise.”
― Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Antifragile: Things That Gain from Disorder
Why assume we don’t know when we are telling you we do, and we have the farms and homesteads to prove it? Why not assume the opposite, and get yourself acquainted, then cite any deficiencies you find?
You doubt because you make the mistake stated above. We have already looked to nature and aboriginal peoples. (Well, not me personally, but you know… I can claim a Bacon Number (in terms of my teachers) of 3 from Bill Mollison and through Goeff Lawton, and of 2 from Bill via Larry Santoyo, FWIW.)
We cannot treat sustainability like a science study. We do not have time to “prove” regenerative systems work to a scientific certainty. There is already the Rodale 30-year study. There is already “The Farm,” now some 40+ years young. And more. More importantly, there are people who have lived for millennia where they are sustainably, simply. It can be done. Can we do it in such a way you still get a latte or have the internet? Probably not.
Still, this is pretty cool:
Beltain Cottage
…and that is the work of one woman. There is the Loess Plateau. There is the Lawton project in Jordan. And so much more. What is slowing down the spread of regenerative knowledge and systems is the current paradigm itself. People are constrained by needing to exist within this paradigm, but needing and wanting to create a new one. It will require a rapid throwing off of those shackles. People will simply need to follow the advice given in the quotes I quoted earlier from Einstein and Fuller.
Nike it: Just do it.
During La Niña events (with cold ocean surface) the ocean absorbs additional heat that it releases during El Niño events (when the ocean surface is warm). – Stefan
Stefan or Gavin – could you clarify this?
IMO, in the presence of a persistently positive energy imbalance at the TOA, ocean heat content will, on net, go up during both La Nina and El Nino. Am I wrong about this?
I believe what is being referred to in the above RC statement is that a percentage of the heat uptake during during a La Nina is instead essentially sent right back to the atmosphere at the ocean skin layer by incremental increases in one or more of sensible, latent and OLR, and that the notion of the oceans disgorging themselves of large volumes of sequestered energy can really only happen at times when there is a persistently negative energy imbalance. This lass would be net slower during an El Nino versus La Nina, but still a likely a loss in both.
In terms of what happens at the skin layer during an El Nino, the skin layer is on top of a column of water that is warmer in part as the result of sequestered energy, but it would not be correct to conclude all of that energy was accumulated only during La Nina events.
Am I completely off here in my understanding?
So, ya think we need more info on sustainable systems, do ya?
Lawrence Coleman #268:
“alan2102: what do you think China’s abandonment of it’s one child policy will have on pop. growth?”
Some effect, but less than commonly supposed. The one-child policy had an effect on population, but it was modest and incremental, not revolutionary.
China’s one-child policy was a late comer, being introduced AFTER China’s big fertility decline from ~6 to under 3. That decline came as a result of greatly improved general conditions after the revolution, between 1947 and the mid-70s (about the time that one-child was introduced). Life expectancy nearly doubled, from ~35 to ~65, in a short time, and indeed the improvements that resulted in that change were also responsible for the huge fertility decline.
When people are lifted out of desperate poverty, given food and medicine and other good things, and when they start living long and healthy lives, they respond by having FEWER children. This is well-documented. The reverse — fertility explosion — happens as poverty, malnutrition, etc., worsen. Again: the real world works oppositely to Malthusian theory.
As of 2012, China’s fertility rate was an amazingly-low 1.6 — far below replacement of 2.2. “Amazing” because we are all conditioned to think of China as this gigantic demographic juggernaut, growing out of control. In reality, China is facing a population bust of sorts, in relation to its needs as the population ages. That is why they’ve abandoned one-child. It will have a modest effect, moving them back up toward replacement, though probably still falling well shy of replacement.
Speaking of perceived “gigantic demographic juggernauts”, even India is making great progress, with fertility at 2.5 and falling. That’s still over replacement, but only slightly. As they develop, they will reach replacement and sub-replacement.
The big problem is still selected areas of sub-Saharan Africa.