Environment

Introduction

Almost all my Internet pages relate in one way or another to the environment. Why have I written this page? I'm not at all sure; it is certainly not a summary of all else.

Fossil fuels

The world's petroleum supply is declining: it has been reported (David Francis, South African Christian Science Monitor) that:

• In 2002, the world used four times as much oil as was newly found;
• The rate of discovery of worldwide oil reserves, after declining for 40 years, has slowed to a trickle. In 2000, there were 16 large discoveries of oil, eight in 2001, three in 2002, and none last year (2003), according to the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre in London;
• All the giant fields, such as those in the Middle East, have already been discovered. These giants are relatively easy to find. The last major oil field, Cantarell, off the shore of Mexico, was discovered in 1976.

CFCs

The graph on the right, from the Australian Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), shows the rise in atmospheric CFCs, then the beginning of the fall.

As a civilization we are destroying our forests, causing the greatest rate of extinctions for many millions of years, causing salinisation and desertification of farmland at very high rates, mining all the easily accessible minerals with no consideration for those who will come after us, and polluting our air, water and soils.

Mining

It is true that it would be very expensive to change to a way of life that is completely sustainable. It is also true that we could go a long way toward that goal without much effort at all. But our leaders are too busy sacrificing all that is valuable on Earth to Mammon to adopt a precautionary approach.

To a large extent it is not so much people who are running the world, it is the capitalist system, which seems to react amorally to any opportunity that can turn a profit. It is up to us to reign it in and turn our use of the biosphere to one that is sustainable. Moneyed interests dominate our governments; they will not change unless they are forced to. The great majority of people can see the damage that is being done, but they are either too apathetic or too shortsighted to try to stop it. Three quotes are appropriate here:

• "Every nation has the government it deserves." (Joseph de Maistre)
• "If you think you are too small to make a difference, you've never been in a room with a mosquito." (Annita Roddick)
• "I am a citizen, not of Athens or of Greece, but of the world." (Socrates)

"Average oceanic pH has decreased from a pre-industrial level of 8.16 to 8.04 today (Science 2004, 305, 362-366; 367-371). If the CO2 concentration doubles from present levels by 2100, as some models predict, then the pH could drop to a level between 7.6 and 7.8."

From Geotimes:

"ocean pH has dropped by 0.1 units (thereby increasing acidity)"

Ocean acidification will have an effect on marine organisms. In particular it has a strong effect on the solubility of the calcium carbonate that many animals use to build shells. Corals, whose skeletons are calcium carbonate, may be adversely effected by acidification as well as by the global warming that leads to coral bleaching.

Ocean acidification is linked to greenhouse and global dimming.

Commuting by bicycle

Recently a friend told me that she rides her bike to work most days; by bicycle she takes 30 minutes against 45 by car. Then I read a suggestion by the Government's ideas man (Herbert Girardet) suggesting that Adelaide could be greatly improved if there was more pedestrianisation (sic) and a lot more cycling.

It struck me how much Adelaide would change for the better if most of the commuters either rode bikes or walked to work.

• The rush hour traffic congestion and the smogs would go;
• The people would be fitter, leaner and healthier (heart disease statistics in particular would fall markedly);
• The air would be nicer to breathe;
• The pan-Adelaide traffic roar would be reduced;
• Those who made the change would save a heap of money;
• Money that is currently spent on roads could instead go into hospitals or education;
• Greenhouse gas production rates, consumption of fossil fuels, and the number of road injuries would be greatly reduced;
• And the place would just generally be more pleasant and enjoyable.

Perhaps I'm dreaming, or perhaps it could happen?

Overpopulation

I should first discuss a question to which the answer will seem obvious to many readers:

Is the world overpopulated?

A hundred people defecating in a large river would be insufficient to cause that river to become polluted; the other life forms, bacteria, fish, invertebrates, etc., would keep the human-introduced toxins and harmful micro-organisms to levels that are harmless. If the sewage of a million people is dumped into a large river it will overload the ability of the river to clean itself.

Many of the Earth's rivers are polluted with sewage. Production of pollutants is, everything else being equal, proportional to population. If there were 600 million people on the Earth rather than six billion, and living standards were the same as today's, greenhouse gas production would not be a problem.

If there were insufficient people in the world then people would be valuable. In 1850 an agricultural slave cost $30 000 (today's dollars) in Alabama, but today an equivalent slave laborer can be had for around $100. (Scientific American, April 2002.) World-wide there are millions of refugees who have to live in camps because no nations want them.

If there were one tenth as many people on the Earth then farmers would be able to farm only the best land; the marginal land could be left for nature. If there were only one tenth as many people we would not be facing the loss of most of the world's forests within a few decades, and we would not be nearing the end of petroleum reserves.

Home Top Index

It seems that there are only very short-term economic arguments in favour of more people; for example, more houses would be needed and this would provide a boost for the construction industry. More cars would have to be built, more refrigerators, washing machines, etc. I don't think I need point out the flaws in this type of argument.

How to limit population?

In most nations people are permitted to have as many children as they choose. (Not all, Singapore provides strong disincentives for large families.) It seems generally accepted that there is an unwritten right to produce any number of children. This was acceptable when there was a perceived need for more people, but it should have been abolished long before now.

It seems to me that, ideally, the whole world should follow the Chinese example of one child per family until world population falls to, perhaps, one billion. This would be a very difficult law to get people to accept, so perhaps a limit of two should be aimed at first.

Several religions encourage the production of large families. This would be a major impediment and it is difficult to imagine how it might be changed in the time we have available to us before overpopulation brings about a disaster. (I have discussed religion under Ramblings on false beliefs.)

What population level for Australia?

I would hold that no more than 10 million is the maximum desirable population level. Why?

Nuclear fission could be a partial medium-term (100 years) solution, but it comes with risks, is not likely to be politically acceptable in Australia in the foreseeable future, and is of no use for powering transport at the present state of technology.

Nuclear fusion may become feasible in the future and if so could become a medium-long-term solution, however, it is not yet available.

Wind/hydro/biomass Wind does not blow all the time; while hydro and biomass can be used to generate electricity sustainably they would not be sufficient for Australia's current population, but may be sufficient for a considerably reduced population.

Large energy inputs required Not so much for tilling the land but for production of, in particular, the high level of nitrogenous fertilizer required; also for production of agricultural chemicals.

Phosphate cycle At present in Western agriculture phosphate is mined, processed, and applied to the land. It is then, in a fairly short time either removed from the land with the agricultural produce, or is leached from the soil; either way it is not returned to the soil. The end of this system comes when the readily accessible phosphate rocks are mined out, and this time might not be far off.

Pollution from excess nutrients Modern agricultural practices result in some of the nitrates and phosphates applied to the land being washed into waterways and causing problems such as toxic algal blooms and changing ecological balances.

A similar argument applies for several other forms of pollution.

Recycle or reuse

But how much energy would be saved if the bottle was cleaned out and reused rather than melted and re-cast, 95%?

In the developed countries we are encouraged to recycle, and I don't doubt that recycling is better than dumping in a land fill, but how much better again would it be if we reused rather than recycled?

In a World in serious trouble with greenhouse/climate change it is unacceptable to smash a bottle, remelt the glass, and recast a new bottle rather than cleaning out and reusing the old bottle.

Index

On this page...
CFCs
Commuting by bicycle
Fossil fuels
Global dimming
Introduction
Mining
Ocean acidification
Overpopulation
Overpopulation: Australia
Population: How to limit it?
Recycle or reuse
Top
Water heater: solar
Water heating: solar ponds