Population is probably the most important contributing factor to all our woes: food shortages, climate change, energy use, drought and so on.
When we numbered in the millions, we had ample resources around us, space to spread out, and the impact of our actions was limited by our comparatively small numbers.
Since 1950, global population has increased from about 2.5 billion to about 6.5 billion, and almost all of that in less developed countries.
Not surprisingly, energy consumption has increased rapidly over this time as well. Has the increase in population caused energy use to rise or has the increase in access to abundant energy caused population to rise?
Both. It's no shock that the population started to grow significantly around the time of the industrial revolution. Energy improved medical care, gave us better shelters and the technology to improve our environments.
As our population now grows, freed from "nature" by our domination of energy, we use more and more of it, with none of the natural controls in place to prevent a population getting out of control.
Let's focus on here and now, though. Over the next few decades, population is expected to increase significantly as it has done until now, and per capita consumption of rapidly developing economies such as India, China and Brazil will rise.
So not only are we trying to find energy to power our current levels of consumption (about 16 TW of average continuous usage), but we'll have to keep up with a growing world, hungry for ever larger amounts of energy on demand (expected to rise to between 20 and 30 TW by 2050)
What can we do about this?
Let's leave any mention of population control alone for this discussion, as it's easy to move from energy and statistics to somewhat less pleasant topics at this point.
I would suggest energy efficiency will play an increased role in the future. As populations grow, the energy we demand is used better, so that the same amount can go further. Hopefully the rate of energy consumption increase won't be directly proportional to population increase.
We can expect energy consumption to increase significantly though, so the only solution is to look ahead and plan for this growth now, by laying the groundwork not only for energy generation to supply us now, but enough to sustain us in the future.
We can't have a whole generation of, say, nuclear power plants, ready to be decommissioned again in 2050 and put the next generation through exactly the same probems as we're trying to solve today.
9 comments:
Are you seriously suggesting Mike, that the population explosion you show in LEDC countries is responsible for the massive rise in energy consumption since 1950? Isn't that rise far (far far) more likely to have come from those in the MEDC countries, who are the ones with cars, central heating, electric lights, airconditioning, computers etc? Sorry if you didn't, it just came across like that when I read it.
Obviously the continuing development of populous countires like India, China, Brazil etc is going to be potentially lethal, with the many wanting the rights to the same amount of resources as the few (as they should) and a way needs to be found to minimise the impact of this on resource consumption. Current MEDC's requirements are going to continue to grow, and more and more countries are going to make the jump in development, along with the sharp rise in energy consumption that brings.
As for population control being an "unpleasant subject" - I don't think it needs to be. There is a difference between forcible / coercive population control, and education and sound politics enabling people to understand that it would be beneficial them and everyone on the planet if the had no (or fewer) children. There's no law that says you have to brush your teeth, right? But you still do it, because you understand that it is better for you (and those in front of your breath :-P) to do so.
No no, I was merely using the same split as the graph I used. Not trying to suggest at all that Africa, say, is cause of all our energy woes!
I merely meant the ones which have large populations currently consuming small amounts per capita which are on the verge of becoming those "developed" countries which consume vast amounts per capita.
Apologies for not making that clear.
While I agree in principle that discussion of population "moderation", say, should not be a taboo subject, there are people who immediately take that view and turn it into "Nazism". This is the internet; I do have to be a little careful!
And anyway, you assume that just people people know what's good for them, that they will immediately follow that path. You understand that brushing your teeth is good for you so you do it, but that doesn't really extend to people who eat fast food every day, don't exercise, smoke, do drugs......
Population is far less obvious, and like most other issues surrounding this topic, mean that the actions of a individual have negligible impact on the whole, so it is harder to be motivated to care.
I really wish it were possible to edit comments, especially when I see that I missed out words like "the" in the first paragraph....
"just because" in the penultimate paragraph. I should pay more attention to proof reading >.<
You know what, I should just delete that whole comment and replace it with those infinite monkeys; they'd do a better job of the English.
Don't worry about upsetting people. This is an issue that MUST be addressed, and those who try to tip-toe around the issue by suggesting that we can solve our problems by reducing per capita consumption while ignoring the population issue are in denial.
It's interesting that you mention "...space to spread out.." Because economists are adamant in their refusal to give any consideration to problems associated with population growth (the whole Malthus thing), they have completely missed the most important relationship in economics today - the relationship between population density and per capita consumption. As population density rises beyond some optimum level, over-crowding begins to drive down per capita consumption. Since per capita consumption and per capita employment are inextricably linked, this means that rising unemployment and poverty are the inescapable result.
This relationship has ramifications for global trade as well. It is the huge disparities in population density across the globe that is driving global trade imbalances, the biggest factor in the global economic collapse. And global population growth is the driving force behind rising global unemployment.
Many point to lower per capita consumption of energy in places like Japan, Korea and Germany as proof that there are big efficiencies to be had in places like the U.S., Australia and Canada. They don't realize that per capita consumption in such very densely populated countries is lower not because they are more efficient, but because over-crowding has reduced their per capita consumption of everything. For example, per capita consumption of energy in Japan is so low largely because their average home size is less than one third the average American's, not because they like living in tiny homes but because there's no room for anything else. It's the same with their per capita consumption of vehicles.
This dramatically reduced domestic consumption would drive their unemployment through the roof but for their dependency on exports. So, if America, Australia and Canada reduced their per capita consumption, we too would become dependent on exports to avoid massive unemployment, but there would be no one to absorb those exports.
The simple truth is this: for all people of the world to enjoy a high standard of living with full employment, population reductions - dramatic reductions in these overpopulated nations - are inescapable.
Pete Murphy
Author, "Five Short Blasts"
Well you know, being British, I hate to make a fuss.
I do agree that this topic is one which demands open and intelligent discussion, however it is also one which so easily lends itself to right wing 'reductio ad absurdum' arguments.
Thank you for pointing out those relationships between energy usage and population density. I must admit I've not come across those ideas before, though it does make perfect sense.
What would you propose as a solution? Do you think it would be more efficient for us to live in compact cities as our populations increase or try to reduce the population? And if the latter, how would that be achieved?
Or we could try to find a way to increase our energy supplies to match our ever increasing demand and not worry about it at all.
Many thanks for your comment! Your book looks intriguing, I'll have to add it to my wish list!
The population of the world in 1750 was approx. 700 million, population clocks show that we are now close to 7 billion. China has implemented a population plan some decades ago, with some success but the overall world population is increasing at over 2% p.a.
Any solution has to take a two pronged approach: first limit the birth rate, encourage smaller families, which also means a reduction in poverty levels, second: concentrate on solar, wind, wave and nuclear power (which works for France).
I might also suggest that Air Conditioning units, rather than tungsten lightbulbs should be banned.
Many thanks for your contribution, Anonymous :)
Post a Comment