Israel is doing both - toilet-to-tap for agriculture, desalination for potable water.
In his India 2047 books (River of Gods, Hyderabad Days), Ian McDonald imagines a near-future India that has fractured into warring states, in large part due to water conflict.
Not knowing anything about India, I can’t say how speculative this is.
And apologies if anyone has linked already, but Wikipedia has a good article that lists some current hot spots:
Your point is to ignore that I point at ways to deal with the issue, while you repeat the problem.
My point was that there are ways where population can increase while the degradation of resources is less than it was before, to that you only counter with the problem stated… again.
Actually, there is no place in that video where Rosling claims that the ecological footprint will be similar to industrialized nations. What he does not mention is what one has to look at. Just for starters: by leapfrogging from wired communications to wireless ones, one can notice a big difference between what current developed nations did when giving communications to all. There are tons of copper, iron and other metals that will not be used as wires to give people similar if not faster coverage and levels of communication and education opportunities in developing nations using fewer materials than what the rich nations used to get developed early on.
Of course, I have to toss a bone to the pessimists, as it is clear it was missed here again, it depends on good governance to get things like leapfrogging in developing nations to happen, as it is the need to have to elect people that do see the problems and solutions and not to just continue to deny the problems and ignore the solutions. There are good levels of pessimism on that front.
I skipped past this, then my wife sent me the same article just now. This map addresses the OP well:
For a nation like Israel, ISTM that desalination is a no-brainer, and they seem to be on top of their water situation. For the regimes in Iraq, Iran, and across South Asia and North Africa, it’s a question of whether they can build enough of an infrastructure fast enough before political and ecological collapse.
India is absolutely nearing a breaking point in terms of ecological danger. So, too, is China. There’s a reason that China is racing to become a global leader in green technology. They want to use their crisis as a platform for innovation to leapfrog over competitors (i.e. the US) and then control the global supply of those technologies. They’re playing chess.
How is that degradation of resources decreased? The type of lifestyle that Rosling envisions requires an ecological footprint of at least 5 global hectares (which is the footprint of industrialized nations), which is almost three times what we have given the current population, and almost twice the current average!
When population goes up to 9 to 11 billion, that biocapacity per capita is decreased even more, and that’s WITHOUT degradation of resources.
The rest of your post does not help you any way. There are tons of copper and even four hundred years’ worth of oil underneath, but they are not economically feasible to extract because of gravity:
Every point you’ve given so far only reinforces my argument. I have no idea how on earth you aren’t even realizing that. To recap,
Rosling argues that population will increase to 9 to 11 billion. That will lower biocapacity which is already less than 1.65 per capita.
Rosling (and you) argue that to keep that population low, more people have to attain ecological footprints equivalent to those of industrialized nations. But that’s a footprint of 5 to 10 global hectares per capita, is which at least more than four times current biocapacity.
Now, you’re talking about good governance. What on earth are you talking about? The world economy is controlled by private corporations:
and what they want is not only continuous economic growth but even accelerating one. How do you think they’ll be able to cover total credit now at more than $1.2 quadrillion, thanks to incredible amounts involving unregulated derivatives? And where do you think the credit will come from to extract resources that face diminishing returns?
And none of those will increase biocapacity.
Yikes. With those numbers, the only solution is a scientific miracle (or more) combined with a minor political miracle.
Fingers crossed…
And that is a straw man, that does not help you at all.
Also, you continue to show to all that you ignore what good governance is (not voting for people that ignore the problem). The solution involves all of us. And once again you do ignore cites, part of it is to develop while reducing the consumption of copper and other materials. (Showing that your last lines in your reply don’t really deal with my argument or cites.)
You are again replying by repeating the problem as if that is a solution… for something.
There is no straw man in my argument. You and Rosling made it very clear: an increase in population to 9 billion and peaking at that thanks to an ecological footprint equivalent to that of industrialized countries.
Biocapacity per capita with a population of around 7 billion is only 1.65 global hectares. The footprint you want is 5 to 10 global hectares. How on earth does that even make sense?
You’re claiming that “good governance” will solve that. How does that increase resource availability equivalent to four more earths?
Next, why do you keep referring to “cites” and not “sites.”
Finally, how do you develop (goods and services? complete your statements) while reducing material resources? Increased ecological footprint, which you promote, involves using MORE material resources!
Not only that, but you need more energy, too.
The current population, where 70 pct live on less than $10 a day, uses 20 TW of power. In order to make sure that that 70 pct can live on more, we’ll need 50 TW in addition. In order to meet that plus a growing population, an additional 25 TW. And to meet all of that plus being able to move from slippers to air travel, at least 30 more TW, for at least 120 TW, or more than twice what experts argue we can wring out from all energy sources available.
Finally, your last statement makes no sense at all, as I never gave any solutions, so how is repeating a problem that? It also appears that not only are you able to comprehend my arguments, it appears that you can’t even understand yours!
Explaining these basic points to you is obviously a waste of time.
See particularly:
: to quote by way of example, authority, or proof
: to bring forward or call to another’s attention especially as an example, proof, or precedent
And yes, it would be nice to see some.
Now,
So let me try to understand this mess,
Current Use: 20TW
Increase for standard of living: 50TW
If I assume these numbers are correct, we would need, in the absence of growth, 70TW for 7b people. Increase that to 9b and we need 20 more (not 25) for a total of 90TW. But that’s where I lose you, since the 20TW already includes “slippers to air travel” for those who have them, so wouldn’t your 50TW increase ALSO include “slippers and air travel” for the rest of the world? Why the additional 30TW?
Cite?
Yeah, I wondered if he had cites for that but then I realized that he was not even getting the meaning of “cite” right. Although I have to say that the last link did not make the cite I wanted, but this is an important one:
The applications of mobile technologies extend even to the energy sector, providing an impetus for new business models that cater to the needs of remote, low-income communities who are currently off-the-grid. With M-Kopa’s pay-as-you-go (PAYG) scheme, countless families across Africa, who previously lacked access to electricity of any sort, are now leapfrogging directly to energy efficient solar products, bringing about profound environmental and socioeconomic benefits. For the first time, children can continue studying past nightfall, without the need to rely on hazardous kerosene lamps. Moreover, women no longer have to trek miles to fetch firewood or to merely charge their mobile phones.
To date, over 245 million lives have been positively impacted by off-grid solar lighting products. M-Kopa alone has connected 750,000 African homes and businesses to affordable solar power. Payments are broken down into cheap, manageable installments, which can be made via mobile phones, averaging US$0.30 - US$2.00 per day, similar to the amount families would spend on kerosene, batteries and candles, minus the environmental, health and safety hazards.
In a broader sense, this constitutes a major step towards sustainable development. By increasing the viability of renewable energies, developing countries have the opportunity to leapfrog the carbon-heavy and resource-intensive development trajectory previously followed by most industrialised nations. As such, pursuing the twin goals of economic development and climate mitigation conjointly has never been more achievable.
And that denies the fact that the links and cites I made do point to ways to develop with less ecological footprint. Thing is that while one can in theory expect an increase in the use of resources, in practice the costs do send a signal to reduce use. Where good governance enters is in not letting the ones using most resources to think that there is no extra price to pay for waste and contamination of our environment.
I’m trying to follow this math too. It looks like the United States as a whole uses 100 quads (quadrillion BTUs) of energy in a year, which is 105505585262000010000 joules. Dividing that by seconds in a year and then by population, we get 10 kW / person for the US. So, if we extrapolate from that having 9 B humans using 10 kW each, we can get 90 TW. Obviously, Americans travel by air, so I don’t see any need to add anything more on top of that. That’s basically a max for that level of population.
But there’s no reason to believe that the average person is going to consume at the rate of an average American. The UK, for example, consumes the equivalent of 191.2 million tons of oil of energy in a year. I know, annoying it’s a different unit. That’s roughly 8 x 10^18 joules, or 3.7 kW per UK person, or a little over a third of the American average. So all 9 billion people can live at current UK levels of energy consumption on 33 TW, or just over 50% of what we’re consuming now.
Another thing to note is that energy consumption in the developed world is falling, and will continue to do so as we electrify transportation, convert to heat pumps rather than burning oil/gas for heat, etc. It’s possible that we’ll come up with some great new use of tremendous amounts of energy to reverse those trends, but it seems unlikely.
And, lastly, to put that 33 TW in perspective. 173,000 TW of power hits the earth continuously in the form of sunshine. We need to figure out how to make use of roughly .02% of that. That actually surprisingly hard, which is why we’re as dependent on fossil fuels as we are now, but I’m pretty sure we can do it.
Refer to “citations,” not “cites.” “Citation” is the noun and verb is to “cite.” What’s being cited are links which are located in “sites” or websites.
About your next point, the 20 TW involves 70 pct of people living on less than $10 daily and very few availing of middle class conveniences like air travel. To lift the other 70 pct out of poverty, we will need 50 TW more. To lift them out of poverty plus provide for the basic needs of an addition 2 to 4 billion people, then we will need more on top of that. To provide them with middle class conveniences like air travel as well, then even more energy on top of both will be needed.
Economic activity requires a lot of energy and material resources. For basic needs (i.e., what allows for optimal health, which includes recommended nutritional requirements daily, shelters that follow local safety codes, clothing that protects from the elements and the environment, any medicine and equipment for health care, and anything else to support all of them, from road networks to trained personnel to transport systems to manufacturing and mechanized agriculture), we need at least 2 global hectares per capita, and more as needs increase, especially for health care. For conveniences, we will need a lot more, something like 5 to 10.
Look for details on the energy cost of air travel. See also details on how even things like the amount of water needed to manufacture one T-shirt or computer component.
Finally, I can’t find the study, but it referred to 50 TW max. that could be obtained from all energy sources available.
The numbers you gave are actually in the article I cited:
it’s around 9.5 kW per capita for the U.S.
So, following the same source, we’ll need almost 100 TW for for a population of 10 billion. The 120 TW figure refers to a population at the high end of the range, or 13 billion.
I consider the 120 TW figure when I look at diminishing returns, or increasing amounts of energy needed to extract not only the same but even smaller amounts of minerals and oil. For example, in the oil industry, we are seeing increasing amounts in CAPEX needed in exchange for lower increases in oil production. The same thing has been taking place in mining: large amounts of earth moved to extract smaller amounts of minerals and with lower grades.
Add to that the energy needed to clean up pollution and deal with ecological damage due to resource extraction and economic activity.
Why are all of these points important? Because we’re dealing with more than just energy. Here’s what I mean:
We’d like to imagine that there’s no reason for the average person to consume more, but that’s not how our global economy operates. It needs continuous economic growth, especially to cover incredible levels of credit created by those who essentially control the same economy (see the New Scientist article linked earlier).
Energy consumption is falling in the developed world not simply because it is using more from electricity but also because it has been facing population aging and the effects of late capitalism. Meanwhile, the majority of the world is catching up, and the developed world is counting on them to do so and more because that’s the only way their own wealth, which together with the rest of the world consists mostly of credit, can be propped up. In short, the whole global economy rests essentially on not only continuous but even faster economic growth. The biosphere on which that economy rests, meanwhile, does not allow it.
What I mentioned so far is energy, but we keep forgetting that we need material resources as well. We can do that by looking at ecological footprint, which is the first point of my posts (see my post which cites the page on the list of countries by ecological footprint):
The biosphere has around 12.2 billion global hectares of resources available. As of 2016, with an ave. ecological footprint per capita of 2.75, were already exceeding a biocapacity of 1.63. That’s probably why we’ve been seeing ecological damage on a significant scale, not to mention the effects of climate change, which is the point of this thread.
As of 2016, the EF of the U.S. is 8.22 and that of the UK is 7.93. How much more resources would we need for 7 billion to attain that? 9 billion? 11 billion? And even if we lower the target EF to 4?
What effect would ecological damage and even climate change have on biocapacity need to provide for that EF level? How more more energy would we need to try to reverse the first and minimize damaged caused by the second?
And what happens if the same biosphere does not allow for such excesses? What would biocapacity per capita be for 9 billion people? If EF has to adjust to that, then would lifestyles be like? Still what Rosling imagines?
Since Rosling was not the only cited, the fact is that you are not dealing with the cites.
You really are in trouble when the author of the article did call it a “thought experiment”. Important to realize that breakthrough advances in energy are needed. And then the author points out that we will need more. The twist is what I had pointed out before:
This puts the onus to save the climate squarely on decoupling economic growth from emission growth. That means undertaking a massive and very rapid transformation of the energy-production system to scalable emissions-free sources such as solar, wind, and nuclear. It also means smartly designing twenty-first-century cities to minimize vehicle transport and energy used for heating and cooling.
If your reaction to all this is “It can’t be done,” you’ve missed the point. The lesson of the past 200 years is that something like this very likely will be done, absent a nuclear war, a runaway plague, a massive meteor impact, or some other catastrophic societal collapse. As is already happening in China, people will organize, institutions will bend, and investors will deploy capital to generate the energy needed to power economic growth.
Clearly, we must do better to produce, demonstrate, and perfect cheap new technologies for creating, storing, and transmitting emissions-free energy. We also need to push hard to improve energy efficiency everywhere possible so that energy use grows more slowly than income—and so that emissions don’t increase at all but actually start to fall. As Robert Jackson describes on page 44, the two longest levers we have for applying the brakes to emissions and keeping warming in check are how cleanly we make energy and how efficiently we use it to support our standard of living.
That is why we need breakthroughs in energy to help people in modernizing societies enjoy the basics that those in the richer parts of the world have long taken for granted. We keep saying we need to do more with less. No. We need to do more with more: make a lot more energy—a lot more cleanly—and use it a lot more efficiently for the benefit of a lot more people.
But it’s still based on extrapolating today’s US lifestyle to a global population in some unstated, future year. But that’s absurd. Why would you assume that rather than European or Japanese averages? Most developing countries - particularly on a population-weighted basis - are far closer to those countries in terms of density than they are to sprawling, underpopulated North American nations. Many have climates that rarely if ever require heating (and A/C is significantly more efficient than heating, particularly compared to gas or oil heat). They just aren’t going to require 9.5 kW per capita to reach developed-country standards-of-living.
Developing countries will need more energy because they are exactly that: developing. They need to achieve industrialization, and that requires a lot of energy and material resources besides personal consumption.
Second, don’t get stuck with energy: what you want is overall availability of energy and material resources, which is biocapacity. That’s because, as explained earlier, more energy will be needed to extract resources that are becoming increasingly difficult to obtain due to gravity and physical limitations. Hence, diminishing returns, and that’s on top of the need to industrialize (e.g., develop infrastructure needed for manufacturing and mechanized agriculture).
In terms of that, the world only has a biocapacity of 1.65 global hectares per capita given the 2016 population. European or Japanese ecological footprints are at the low end, 5. That’s equivalent to almost two more earths.
As the cites I made before showed, that is not obligatory, just as it is not obligatory that more pollution is coming. Of course, if very little is done about not assigning the real costs of pollution, then we will let the problem get worse.
There is something that is missed from the Malthusian idea that more material resources are an obligation too. (And because thought experiments are considered to be valid, then this is also valid:)
