Not true; we’ve been using huge amounts of “fossil water” left over from the last ice age. Obviously that’s not coming back anytime soon. When it’s gone we’ll have to find alternative, more expensive sources ( if we can ). And more and more fresh water is becoming polluted or outright unpotable due to pollution as well.
Topsoil is also being destroyed due to overintensive farming. And the likely rise of sea level due to global warming will shrink the amount of available farmland and drinkable water as well.
The issue of fossil water is irrelevant. There is plenty of water. Sure it’s in the wrong place and thus expensive to transport, or expensive to extract. But there’s plenty of it. Yes, America may have to invest in nuclear-powered desalination plants and pumping stations. Or have huge canals from Canada. Or whatever. But it’s manageable.
You assume that we will be able to afford all of that. You assume that we’d be willing to build nuclear power plants. You also assume that we won’t do the American thing and remain in utter denial until we have no choice, which would mean dry years before any solutions at all could be put in place.
If we’re having to give our crops phosphorus to make them grow better, then they are dispersing phosphorus (via getting eaten) rather than concentrating it. Mining geologically concentrated deposits of phosphate has allowed modern agriculture to bypass what would otherwise be a mineral nutrient steady-state: the crops can only grow as quickly as scavenged nutrients are slowly and thinly returned to the soil. Taking advantage of high-concentration sources of anything- minerals, energy, etc.- is a lot cheaper and easier than having to sort through tonnes of dross for milligrams of value. But if there’s no better way, my bet would be on filter feeders like shellfish genetically engineered to concentrate minerals from seawater into their shells.
Right. As I’ve said before, population per se is not the problem. The problem is 4 billion odd people trying to live a western lifestyle. There just aren’t enough resources for that to happen.
While I’m generally in agreement with the rest of your post, on this particular issue I have to take some exception. While it is true that water doesn’t go anywhere and is eventually recycled back from whence it came, the problem is that for much of the water used for forced irrigation it is not renewable on human timescales. Many of the largest aquifers that currently provide irrigable and potable water for human sustenance are “fossil water” left over from the last ice age or even earlier, and are replenished on time scales of tens of thousands of years. Nor can we just pump water back up and into where it came from; with depletion underground aquifers subside structurally, substantially limiting their capacity.
Nor is it anything like a trivial matter to push water uphill and across hundreds of miles; in fact, a cursory calculation of the amount of energy that would be required to draw water from the oceans and located it to serve the needs of agriculture and industry are on the same order as current energy production capability, meaning that we’d have to double, triple, or more our current energy generation capability just to move the water upstream, never mind losses and desalinization. The “Green Revolution” in agriculture exacerbated this by both making many-fold increase in demand upon non-renewable water resources and increasing the size of the dependent population dramatically. Gadaffi’s “Great Man-Made River Project” and the continued difficulty of the Atchafalaya River Project demonstrates the hubris of thinking that we can effectively control and direct the course of large groundwater rivers The only real solution to this particular problem is to reduce the amount of water needed by using more water-efficient cultivars and irrigation methods, moving agriculture to more water-accessible locations, and reducing overall demand.
Regarding the rest of the o.p., this is a combination of forward thinking and scare-mongering. The “food riots” caused by increased food prices were a political issue, not a logistical or agricultural one. We can’t sustain an indefinitely growing population, but the trend among industrial nations has been toward having less children (sometimes precipitously so), owing in large measure to the cost of rearing children in such an environment where education and support continues into the early twenties. One can presume that other nations will naturally follow suit as their level of industrialization and education increases. As for non-renewable resources, there is more energy and more minerals barely out of the Earth’s orbit than the current population could use in a hundred centuries. The trick is in making the enormous investment and commitment to build the infrastructure to acquire and deliver those resources.
I know once a country obtains a basic level of wealth an infrastructure, the total fertility rate drops to 1-3, which is replacement level. Because of that world population is set to stabilize at around 9-10 billion over the next 50 years.
Energy on the grid is not a problem per se. There is enough potential energy in wind, solar and nuclear to power dozens of human civilizations.
The food riots were due to agricultural staples doubling and tripling in price, not about politics. They happened all over the world. Back in 2004 I used to be able to buy a 3 pound bag of rice for $0.99. Now the cheapest I can find rice is about $0.80 a pound.
Naturally, as food prices go up it becomes more profitable to produce more food. So land that isn’t being used in areas like Africa or eastern Europe is being farmed now, hydroponics is being investigated for large scale use, biotech is being studied to increase crop yields, etc.
However it can sometimes take years and years for those new technologies to become mass produced. Wind power is now cheaper than coal at about $0.04 a KWH, it was $0.50 a KWH back around 1980. So it can take decades of research for a new technology to become cost effective, then decades more for it to become widespread and mass produced. Wind might make up 10-20% of world electricity in 15 years, but it took 2-3 decades of research to make the technology affordable, then another 1-2 decades to make it mainstream and mass produced.
The Hirsch report on peak oil said it would take 2 decades of heavy investment to wean ourselves off of oil to avoid the negative effects of peak oil.
Again, I haven’t seen anyone offer good evidence as to why we will not face massive resource crunches over the next few decades which will increase poverty, increase human suffering, decrease standard of living and possibly limit innovation, and we may not have the technology available en masse to avoid the problems that is going to cause, it may take decades for the new technologies to come online.
You fail to understand that we already have a shortage of resources. No one can use all the resources they would like to, because at some point the marginal utility of the resource is less than it’s cost. As the price of a commodity rises it becomes more viable to produce more of it. If it becomes too expensive relative to an alternate resource then people switch to use that instead. In Oregon there used to be sawdust burners in people’s basements for heat. It became more viable to use oil, natural gas, and electricity and they switched. If beef becomes too expensive then people will eat something else and more corn will be available for human consumption.
We could reuse household water by treating it and raise the cost of water so that it no longer makes sense to water the lawn with potable supplies. If there is some area of the world where there is less water than is needed to produce food, then maybe people shouldn’t live there.
The bigger problem is that we have areas of high population that do not have the means to support themselves. It’s self-correcting of course, but I’m not sure we want to have millions of people starving. I think the solution is to provide economic development to those areas rather than just send them food
How do I fail to understand that? In a utopia rice would be a penny a pound, oil would be free and renewable, and there would never be a shortage of metals.
However the lifestyle we have now is based on a certain level and price of natural resources. Oil below $100 a barrel, agricultural staples under $1 a pound, various metals which are plentiful. As global demand starts to outstrip supply, prices will go up. Alternatives, recycling, better extraction, etc. are all valid ways to avoid this problem, but they could take years or decades to become mainstream. The Time article I posted earlier said it would take a decade to implement the changes needed to lower food prices.
Concrete prices have doubled recently due to Chinese growth. Same with coal. Soon we will reach a point where we have to devote a bigger % of our GDP to natural resources, which will lower standard of living all over the world.
So we are back at square one. What effect will the natural resource crunch have on the world, and can science and technology avoid it? I think we are going to be looking at lower standards of living and possibly less innovation in some areas (but more in others, notably sustainable living) for a few decades while we work around the resource crunch.
Staples under $1 a pound is a completely arbitrary figure. Saying that metals are “plentiful” is meaningless. Metal is too expensive to be used in some applications (like my scooter which has plastic panels) and cheap enough to be used for others. What WILL happen is that industrialized countries will be competing with the rest of the world for commodities and their relative price will rise for us. On the other hand, as the rest of the world becomes developed they will produce more goods and increase average per-capita wealth. Indians reading X-rays for US patients decreases the cost of healthcare. As the rest of the world develops they will also consume more of our goods and help our exports. You can make a good argument that food is too cheap right now. Sure people in parts of Africa can’t afford it, but then again they can’t afford decent healthcare or housing either.
There will be countries that increase wealth relative to other countries, but that has always been the case and always will be. Britain used to be richer than the US, the area where Saudi Arabia and Kuwait are now used to be home to bedouins living in tents.
This idea that there is a “cliff” we are driving off is just not a good model for how economies work.
I’m not implying there is a cliff, or that civilization will end. What I am implying is that due to increased demand we may not be able to maintain or increase our lifestyles indefinately until we find ways to recycle, extract or replace limiting natural resources.
Staples under $1 a pound is not meaningless when contemporary civilization and standard of living is based on that. If staples go up to $4 a pound, then people have to prioritize different, and change their lifestyles to accommodate that. So lifestyles will change. In the US our standard of living is dependent on fuel around $3/gallon. If fuel shoots up to $10/gallon, then we will have to adjust accordingly.
Oil follows a peak. On the descent, demand goes up but supply goes down. As a result prices go up and not all of our demand for oil can be met. Naturally if we work at it, we can avoid the negative effects of peak oil but it will take 2 decades of a crash program to do that.
Nobody is addressing my point. I am saying that supply of natural resources may not grow fast enough (agricultural products), may plateau or may actually start to decrease (oil) as demand skyrockets. As a result, economic growth and standards of livings will be limited. And even though we could work around some or many of these limitations via better extraction, recycling or alternatives, it may take a decade or more for those innovations to become large scale enough to help.
So again, nobody has said or done anything to make me think the world will not face a natural resource crunch over the next 20-30 years that will increase poverty, lower standards of living, possibly limit innovation (due to not enough natural resources to build new technologies) or limit economic growth.
Due to higher productivity and competition, will certain consumer products go down in price? Yes. But raw materials will go up in price.
Your argument just doesn’t make much sense. In order for demand to increase there needs to be a rise in the standard of living. Some of our commodities will increase in relative price, but it will be mitigated by increases in productivity and increased demand for our products. We will have to shift from some resources to others, but as I have pointed out we have always done that. Most people do not heat their houses with wood anymore. Most people don’t hunt for their meat. We don’t use lobster as bait any longer.
It may be that the relatively less dense suburbs may not make sense in the future, but we have already had a huge migration from rural to urban living in our nation’s history as economic conditions have changed. But technology may help there as well. More people could telecommute. Business trips could be replaced with high quality video conferencing. Kids may stay home and use the internet for education rather than be driven to school, or we may return to the days when schools were smaller, closer to home, and kids walked to school.
But the big problem in your reasoning, is that you seem to think we have exactly the amount of natural resources as we need right now. But the supply of natural resources is not a point, it is determined by how much we want to pay to extract them. If the price of energy goes up then more oil will be produced and alternatives to petroleum will become cost effective. If farmland becomes more expensive then we will stop building McMansions on it and use it to grow food. If one type of food grows too expensive then we will switch to another. We could get by on a tenth of the amount of meat we eat. All these sorts of things have happened already. Our diet is much different than it was 50 and 100 years ago because the underlying economics have changed.
ETA: And what difference does it make if the price of raw materials goes up if the price of the finished products remains the same or goes down?
I predict that there will be a second wave of African colonialism, except with China and India in the place of Britain, Belgium, France and the Netherlands.
I agree. A hundred minor changes can add up and totally change everything. As price goes up people find alternatives.
If there aren’t enough raw materials to supply everyone with an increasing standard of living and quality of life, then that could be a problem to nations working their way out of poverty.
This is not the same thing as switching from wood to something more efficient. We are facing a shortage of a wide variety of natural resources. Various metals, various agricultural products, oil, water and probably other things. Its not the same as replacing wood with something else because a new heating method was more efficient. You are talking about finding newer, cheaper natural resources in your examples. I am talking about price increases and running short on natural resources we are dependent on to maintain our standard of living.
That isn’t my reasoning. My reasoning is that based on current supply and demand, natural resources can provide for the standard of living we’ve gotten accustomed to. As demand increases and supply decreases, then our standard of living and lifestyle will change for the worse.
You seem to be assuming there is a near infinite supply of natural resources, and we just won’t extract them because it isn’t cost effective. That isn’t true. Some resources we do not have an infinite supply of, no matter how much we are willing to pay to get them.
Over years and years we will switch to alternatives. Like I said earlier, the Hirsch report showed a 2 decade long struggle period where there would be a shortage of liquid fuels while we switch to alternatives. Cornicopian economics will play a big role, but like I was saying with wind energy it could take decades for the technology to be cost effective, reliable and effective, then decades on top of that for it to become widespread, which will leave a long period of lower standard of living.
The time article showed it would take a decade to make adjustments to supply enough food to a growing population.
There are a lot of promising technologies being developed that will, in a few years, allow greater access to cheap energy.
Cheap energy solves all the other problems. Need fresh clean water? Desalinate. Need scarce materials? Cheap energy lets you access them. Combine the two? Food shortages solved.
A lot of technology ALREADY EXISTS that would solve a lot of our energy problems. The obstacles to them are purely political. Greens (and apparently Obama) are irrationally opposed to nuclear power, for example. Nuclear waste is simply a non-problem. One simple solution would be to glassify it and just drop it into the ocean over a subduction zone. Problem solved at low cost and ZERO risk. This is an issue where we have allowed the technically illiterate to impose their purely emotional fears on society, to it’s great detriment.
The internet itself is causing an explosion of new interconnected knowledge. Scientists and researchers can take advantage of interdisciplinary synergy like never before, with the click of a mouse.
Even if Obama seems bent on gutting the space program, out of his “Honkies on the Moon” mindset, other countries, notably China and Japan, are stepping up. Many people are stuck in the thinking that the earth is a finite resource, but capturing and refining even a small asteroid would provide untold mineral wealth.
Global warming and the impact it may or may not have, is, at best, debatable, at worst, a red herring. The fact that it is the neo-luddites’s wet dream and ideal policy excuse makes it a dangerous notion, but that is primarily a conceit of the west. You won’t see India or China worrying two craps about it, nor any so called “developing” country. The west will see the error of it’s ways eventually as our eastern rivals begin to outstrip us to an ever increasing extent. Future generations will look back on the whole craze as a “silly season”.
A far more critical problem is that we are spending ourselves into unresolvable debt. Predictions are that interest on the debt will become the largest item in the federal budget if we continue on the present course. Worse, we won’t get anything out of it. Much of the stimulus money will go down a rathole, as much government money inevitably does. I took a look at where it breaks down for an agency I am familiar with, Amtrak. Almost half of the Amtrak money won’t be going to buying locomotives or rolling stock, or improving signaling systems, or laying track, it will be going to retrofit podunk stations to comply with the ADA. These stations already possess solutions for handling the wheelchair bound, in the form of mechanical lifts at platformside. Most of the major stations already have ramps and such, but they want to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars to pour concrete in places like Minot North Dakota, which might see five wheelchair bound passengers a year. Multiply that kind of waste among all the other agencies getting stimulus, and you can see what you will be getting for your money. Or, more accurately, China’s money.
The idea that it is stimulus is pure fallacy. We are already showing signs of economic recovery, and the overwhelming majority of the money has yet to be spent. You may be sure it will be, though, even when the recovery is in full swing. This is because so called “stimulus” is an excuse for the left to do what it always wants to do, spend spend spend, in their idiotic quest to make the world into some kind of Disneyland, where all are made equal in not just opportunity but outcome.
So, to sum up, the problem isn’t lack of resources that is doing us in, it is misallocation at the hands of government that is the far bigger problem.
Those factors have far more potential to harm the west than any imaginary resource crunch.
The crops can make their own organic material, by using sunlight to synthesize water, carbon dioxide and nitrogen into plant matter. But phosphorous is a elemental mineral. At best, if you mulch crop waste into fertilizer, some of the mineral content gets returned the soil. The rest is lost due to runoff and other incremental losses. Composting is not magically restoring the life-force of Mother Gaia to the soil. It is exactly what I described in my post: “a mineral nutrient steady-state: the crops can only grow as quickly as scavenged nutrients are slowly and thinly returned to the soil”.
The point I was making is that there’s a good reason why we don’t 100% recycle everything and have no need for concentrated primary resources. The dirty secret of recycling is that it is stupendously work-intensive. It’s the equivalent of scattering a sack of grain over a football field and then relying on an army of ants to gather up all the loose grains and put them into a pile again. Simply recycling glass bottles and plastic relies on everyone sorting their garbage- a hidden service that in aggregate is a tremendous amount of work, which people only do either out of a voluntary sense of contribution or because they get a break on their garbage collection fees for doing so (and that is usually only because recycling is subsidized.)