Comments 1 to 35:

1. nigelj at 11:24 AM on 28 October, 2022

   "Overemphasized apocalyptic futures can be used to support despotism and rashness. For example, catastrophic and ultimately inaccurate overpopulation scenarios in the 1960s and 1970s contributed to several countries adopting forced sterilization and abortion programs, including China’s one-child policy, which caused up to 100 million coerced abortions (7), disproportionately of girls."

   I dont accept that the apocalyptic population scenario was over emphasised. The potential was there for exponential growth and complete disaster. Large families were common back then everywhere with not much sign of this changing. Family size in the USA only barely started changing slighly in the early 1960s, so there was no firmly established trend towards smaller families you could assume would continue.

   This was particularly the case In China which already had a huge population. Chinas inhumane response was unfortunate but those sorts of policies were mostly limited to China.

   The population problem turned out to be less than anticipated (but still pretty bad imo) because the demographic transition was faster than anticipated, and the contraceptive pill discovered in about 1960, became widely adopted and food production improved more than anticipated especially in asia. Nobody could have predicted that or assumed that those things would happen.

   You dont downplay a problem because it might possibly be solved at some point in the future. You would need to be certain it would be solved. If anything you highlight the problem to motivate people, but stopping short of exaggeration.

   And one of the reasons the population problem was less than anticipated was Chinas one child policy, something that seems lost on the authors of the study.

   And what are we left with anyway? A massive global population using up the earths resources at a prodigious and unsustainable rate according to UN studies. Some of this is very high per capita consumption in developed countries, but even lower consuming people in poor countries have a huge environmental footprint, because of the sheer size of their populations.

   IMO the authors of the study are deluded, and writing with a lot of benefit of hindsight.

   1 0
2. Doug Bostrom at 13:32 PM on 28 October, 2022

   Population might be termed the elephant in the room that is also a third rail, in terms of open, frank discussion in connection with public policy. Punters like us can talk about it here down in the weeds, but there's not much headroom for this topic in the world of government.

   Not least because of China's clumsy, inhumane, failed experiment and now unfolding aftermath (better hurry up with the elder care robots, mechanized adult diaper-changing etc.). Especially as that policy as if not bad enough was freighted as well with all the optical baggage of China's other circumstances. The history so created is like a highly conductive chain to throw across the live wires of political discussion. 

   Erlich's predictions might be said to have failed in the sense that his modeling was too simple, uncoupled to other models which might well have better informed the speed of  his model of population growth. 

   Meanwhile, does anybody sincerely believe we're having a truly easier time supporting 7.8 billion than we were with 3.7 billion? Everybody's fed, clothed, housed, educated? No? How about with our projected peak of 10.4 billion? We're assured of providing all of the basics before getting there? If not and we agree that it would be best to avoid adding more before catching up with present needs, our population is effectively out of control. Perhaps we could it a low-order detonation as opposed to a high-order explosion. 

   What would be helpful would be a reliable, well-constituted global misery factor, to apply to population figures. For instance, by some measures per capita improvements our quality of life are visible. Odds of death by violence is one such. But what's the net absolute total misery, given our expansion of population? That's where a global misery factor would be a helpful indicator of progress, or not. We can after all lower the global misery factor yet because it's multiplied by population end up with more total misery despite per capita improvements. Even as we reduce the per capita amount of misery, total misery can still increase, with a bulging population.

   What's the point of making more misery? Maybe it would be better not to do that? Could we just nicely but consistently suggest and remind that 2 kids per parental pair is a good parking spot for steering our total population, until we get things better sorted?

   Nope.

   In any case, the article cited by the three nannies is unresponsive to the claim it's supposed to support. 

   0 1
3. One Planet Only Forever at 12:16 PM on 30 October, 2022

   nigelj,

   I agree that looking back without considering the alternative futures that could have developed can lead to incorrect conclusions. You could conclude that there was no choice for humanity but to end up in the mess that has been developed by the lack of effective collective governing to discover, stop, and correct for, harmful human pursuits of personal benefit.

   As an engineer I learned to seek improved understanding of the worst things that could happen regarding what I am designing and check to ensure that the design will safely protect the public and the environment if those ‘worst things’ actually happen in the future.

   As a structural engineer I am painfully aware of people who claim that the lack of frequent structure failures ‘proves to them’ that engineers unnecessarily over-design things.

   0 0
4. One Planet Only Forever at 13:10 PM on 30 October, 2022

   Doug Bostrom (and a bit for nigelj),

   Regarding corrections to the use of GDP to measure ‘improvement’:

   The Human Development Report 2020 does a pretty good job of presenting many of the ‘improvements’ to the currently obviously flawed GDP evaluations of improvement. The most glaring flaw is that GDP measurement does not subtract harmful unsustainable economic activity. As an example, when done simplistically, the costs of recovering and rebuilding from harmful climate events is a GDP Plus even though most of that Positive GDP only gets things back to where they were before. There is no improvement. The ability to improve was displaced by the need to recover.

   Regarding the global population problem:

   The following Lancet article “Fertility, mortality, migration, and population scenarios for 195 countries and territories from 2017 to 2100: ...” indicates that the peak population could potentially be less than 10.4 billion, especially if the Sustainable Development Goals are achieved and improved on more rapidly. The other benefit of achieving the SDGs is the reduction of the harm done by humans, especially by the most harmful consumers.
   Harmful consumers are a more serious problem than total population.

   Fewer harmfully over-consuming people (causing harmful lasting impacts including consuming renewable resources faster than they renew) allows the total sustainable population to be larger. Many studies indicate that if meat eating was reduced more food would be available for humans with less negative impact, or misery inflicted, on other life.

   There are now many presentations regarding the merits of reduced consumption. An enlightening one is a study by sufficiency researcher Maren Ingrid Kropfeld mentioned in J. B. MacKinnon's book "The Day the World Stops Shopping". The study compared the amount of harmful impact of 4 different consumers:

   • Environmentally conscientious about their consumption (but not limiting it)
   • Frugal (seek out and buy bargains)
   • Tightwads (dislike spending)
   • Actively choose to consume less - pursuing limited consumption (only buying what is 'needed' and buying and repairing more durable things).

   Consumers who 'Choose to consume less' and Tightwads had the lowest level of harmful impact. The Frugal and Environmentally conscientious had far more harmful impact because they did not limit their consumption.

   A closing point about harmful actions:

   Competition for status, with a lack of effective ‘constantly learning’ governing to limit harm done, can produce some very harmful and hard to correct results, including systemic injustice and inequity which includes the development of harmful laws (Florida officials ban the terms 'climate change' and 'global warming') and harmful enforcement of laws (The Supreme Court curbed EPA’s power to regulate carbon emissions from power plants. What comes next?)

   Ibram X. Kendi, in his book “How to be an Antiracist” presents the understanding that Racism is unjustified excusing of harmful actions by making up and defending beliefs about undeniable harmful actions, inequity and injustice. It's useis recorded to have started centuries ago as European leaders tried to explain and excuse their harmful colonization and exploitation pursuits (the Doctrine of Discovery is a harmful part of it - ASSEMBLY OF FIRST NATIONS Dismantling the Doctrine of Discovery January 2018). And making up beliefs and excuses for benefiting from harmful injustice and inequity applies to far more than visible differences among humans.

   0 0
5. Art Vandelay at 16:54 PM on 2 November, 2022

   "Some of this is very high per capita consumption in developed countries, but even lower consuming people in poor countries have a huge environmental footprint, because of the sheer size of their populations."

   True, and in fact developing countries account for around two thirds of global emissions, and rising, so population is indeed the elephant in the room.  

   0 0
6. MA Rodger at 20:12 PM on 2 November, 2022

   Art Vandelay @5,

   I think if you look properly, the emissions from countries with significant rising population is far lower than 'around two thirds' the total. The territorial emissions from what we can call 'the developed world' does constitute a third of the global total. Add in China and it becomes two thirds.

   And China's population is not rising any more.

   

   The place where there is a significant projected increase in population is Africa.

   

   But Africa is presently the source of just 3.7% of CO2 emission.

   

   0 0
7. Art Vandelay at 20:40 PM on 5 November, 2022

   MA Rodger @6,

   Regardless of population rising or not, the "developing world" still consitutes 2/3 of global CO2 emissions. The importance of that stat is to underscore the significance of population as a metric for emissions. Given that >50% of the developing world is still living in poverty it amounts to a large number of people who will be seeking a more first world existence in coming decades, so we can only expect CO2 emissions to rise for many decades, as a result of increased energy demand, food production, land clearing, transportation, urbanisation etc. Take-up of renewable energy will offset this to some extent but development itself is a highly emissive process. Indeed, the transition towards a low carbon future will itself also involve an enormous 'burp' of CO2 due to the mining, manufacturing, transportation and construction on enormous scales required to upgrade the world's energy and transport sectors. This already explains much of China's CO2 emissions.         

   0 0
8. MA Rodger at 18:42 PM on 6 November, 2022

   Art Vandelay @7,

   You shift you argument onto entirely new ground with this latest post.

   You new position is that emissions will grow as underdeveloped societies become more wealthy. You are generally ignoring the goal of developed societies to reduce their own emissions to net zero, indeed to go beyond into the realm of net negative emissions. All this is in those same "coming decades" you assert will see rising emissions resulting from the underdeveloped societies "seeking a more first world existence in coming decades," a "first world existence" that has itself become non-emitting.

   You also assert that "the transition towards a low carbon future" will involve a period of increased emissions. If a portion of the carbon-emitting economy is put to the task of building the non-emitting infrastructure, it may be thus engaged in more carbon-intense activities but I would be surprised if any impact on CO2 emissions were significant, especially given the delivery of non-emitting power follows close behind. The explanation of China's high CO2 emissions is surely because China took on so much of the existing high CO2-emitting activities previously carried out by the West. Again, the building of non-emitting infrastructure is not a factor that I see at work.

   0 1
9. nigelj at 05:49 AM on 7 November, 2022

   Want to briefly clarify that my statement that poor people and poor countries still have a huge environmental footprint was a general statement about impacts. For example conversion of natural habitat to farming, altering of water courses,etc,etc. Such people clearly have low per capita CO2 emissions. And my intent was to show that we shouldn't ever downplay potential crises, whether population problems or climate change or anything else. However I personally think both fossil fuel emissions and population growth are problems.

   0 0
10. nigelj at 05:58 AM on 7 November, 2022

    MAR @6

    Great graphics. Very useful.

    -------------------------------

    Art Vandelay @7

    "Regardless of population rising or not, the "developing world" still consitutes 2/3 of global CO2 emissions.....Given that >50% of the developing world is still living in poverty it amounts to a large number of people who will be seeking a more first world existence in coming decades, so we can only expect CO2 emissions to rise for many decades, as a result of increased energy demand, food production, land clearing, transportation, urbanisation etc. "

    There is a sliver lining to the cloud. Africa is in the developoing world and aspire to better lifestyles (and their  population is increasing)  but their per capita emissions are low because they dont have much fossil fuel infrastructure. This means they could in theory transition directly to renewables without going through the whole fossil fuels phase. This is happening to some extent with rural areas buying solar panels. Its not a panacea because they will be importing panels, but it helps a bit.

    "Take-up of renewable energy will offset this to some extent but development itself is a highly emissive process. Indeed, the transition towards a low carbon future will itself also involve an enormous 'burp' of CO2 due to the mining, manufacturing, transportation and construction on enormous scales required to upgrade the world's energy and transport sectors.

    If fossil fuel energy isnt used to build solar and wind power it will be used to build coal fired power or something else, so isn't the point somewhat moot? The other alternative of just not using energy is not realistic.

    0 0
11. One Planet Only Forever at 09:30 AM on 7 November, 2022

    nigelj @10,

    A minor nitpick.

    Though "The other alternative of just not using energy is not realistic.", the other 'other alternative' of reduced energy use by the biggest energy users, in parallel with the rapid development of renewable energy systems, would more rapidly end the increasing harm done by continued fossil fuel use.

    Reduced energy demand would also reduce the harm done by the renewable energy systems. There would be less energy demand.

    Limiting the harm done is the objective, or should be. The alternative would appear to be 'no long-term future for humanity'.

    0 0
12. Art Vandelay at 10:24 AM on 7 November, 2022

    MA Rodger @8 ...

    " you assert will see rising emissions resulting from the underdeveloped societies "seeking a more first world existence in coming decades," a "first world existence" that has itself become non-emitting."

    You're overlooking emissions as a consequence of building 'first world' infrastructure and industry, which includes transportation, high rise commercial development in towns and cities and first-world housing etc. That's a lot of concrete, steel etc and those materials must be mined, refined and transported, often from other countries and over vast distances.  

    "You are generally ignoring the goal of developed societies to reduce their own emissions to net zero, indeed to go beyond into the realm of net negative emissions." 

    Not ignoring, just focused on the developing nations who are responsible for the bulk of global emissions, and importantly, the majority of future global emissions this century.    

    "You also assert that "the transition towards a low carbon future" will involve a period of increased emissions. If a portion of the carbon-emitting economy is put to the task of building the non-emitting infrastructure, it may be thus engaged in more carbon-intense activities but I would be surprised if any impact on CO2 emissions were significant, especially given the delivery of non-emitting power follows close behind."

    Leaving aside rebuilding the world's energy sector, replacing one billion motor vehicles alone is surely an enormously carbon intensive transition, necessitating the mining, processing, and transportation of raw and processed materials on an enormous scale. Studies indicate that EV's incur a higher carbon footprint than ICEV's during the manufacturing process, and the payback peried is over many years. Assuming that new demand for motor vehicles will also come from developing nations it raises the prospect of perhaps double the number of motor vehicles globally in coming decades.  It begs the question of whether that's remotely sustainable.  

    NIJELJ @8 .."However I personally think both fossil fuel emissions and population growth are problems." 

    Population is definitely a huge issue if we deem current first world standards of living (and consumption) as a point of reference for the future. And regardless of our living standards humans will emit CO2 because humans are essentially organic combustion engines. Not only do we exhale about 10%  of global CO2, our existance is at the expense of vast amounts of natural forest for both habitation and food production, both of which are highly emissive, with or without renewable energy. 

    At some point in the not-too-distant future we will be forced to have some difficult conversations to do with sustainable lifestyle and population, and come to an acceptance that CO2 emissions from fossil fuels is just one aspect of a much larger problem that no amount of wind and solar energy energy can ever solve.      

    1 0
13. nigelj at 11:54 AM on 7 November, 2022

    Art Vandelay @12

    First read my comments @10.

    Secondly you make youself look like a denier if you promote that humans breathing is the problem. Humans breathing is a carbon neutral process. Look it up on the list of climate myths on the LHS of this page. And obviously we cant stop breathing so the point is moot.

    Thirdly, while I agree that population growth is a problem, what do you suggest we do about it? Because we obviously can't line people up and shoot them and enforced one child policies are a big problem. About all government's can do is make contraception freely available and make sure family planning is taught in school. However even that gets contentious.

    In fact the demographic transition and spread of contraception means population growth is slowing in most places, two child families are becoming the norm, and population growth  will probably stop eventually even in Africa. There's just not a whole lot more we can do to influence Africa and the established downwards trends in developed and most developing countries. And that is why the focus must be on renewable energy, electric transport, and trying to reduce levels of per capita consumption.

    0 1
14. MA Rodger at 20:24 PM on 7 November, 2022

    Art Vandelay @12,
    I fear what is not remotely sustainable is your argument.
    Does not the developed world construct cars, build high rise commercial developments, manufacture steel and concrete? They will be doing this in a net zero economy, indeed a net-negative-emissions economy. This is the future of the developed world. You argue that the developing world will not be a part of this because they will be constructing cars, building high rise commercial developments and manufacturing steel and concrete just like the developed world, but will be using FFs. Why would that be?

    0 0
15. Art Vandelay at 06:31 AM on 8 November, 2022

    nijelj@13..."Secondly you make youself look like a denier if you promote that humans breathing is the problem. Humans breathing is a carbon neutral process. Look it up on the list of climate myths on the LHS of this page. And obviously we cant stop breathing so the point is moot."

    Humans breathing is indeed a carbon neutral process, but the catch is that more humans = more CO2 in circulation, hence more in the atmosphere. Similarly, we could run all cars and trucks from biofuels and claim that it's a carbon neutral process. We would be technically correct but also stupid. Anyway, I'm just making the point that human existence is always going to be carbon intensive, and of course most of our emissions stem from the need to remove forests to plant crops and create space for living, working and recreation etc...     

    "Thirdly, while I agree that population growth is a problem, what do you suggest we do about it? Because we obviously can't line people up and shoot them and enforced one child policies are a big problem. About all government's can do is make contraception freely available and make sure family planning is taught in school. However even that gets contentious." 

    Reducing CO2 emisisons isn't easy either, but we're doing it, and we're doing it beacuse we've collectively put systems in place that we've all agreed to, and we now have a timeline of target commitments. And yes it's contentious. So why should a global population policy be any different? We already know that the real carrying capacity of the world is almost a quarter of the current population, and it's not too difficult to work out the ideal population for each and every country or region of the world. A commitment doesn't need to be hugely ambitious, nor does it need to involve lining people up in front of firing squads as many people often suggest when the issue is raised. As we've seen with climate change, it's all about educating the masses so that we're all aware of the problem, and are all participants in a global solution.  

    MA Rodger @ 14..."Does not the developed world construct cars, build high rise commercial developments, manufacture steel and concrete? They will be doing this in a net zero economy, indeed a net-negative-emissions economy. This is the future of the developed world."

    It may well be the future of the developed world but the question is 'when'. You're obviously banking on a lot of new tech in a very short space of time. Good luck with that. Realistically, the developing world isn't going to be waiting around for zero or net-zero carbon technology to be developed and refined to the point of being cost-effective before it matures to first world status. There's nothing wrong with being glass-half-full, but at the same time we need to be guided by reality and common sense. 

    1 0
16. Bob Loblaw at 06:41 AM on 8 November, 2022

    Art @ 15: "...more humans = more CO2 in circulation..."

    More humans = more carbon stored in a fixed reservoir. As biomass accumulates, increasing the number of humans acts as a carbon sink.

    0 1
17. Art Vandelay at 06:47 AM on 8 November, 2022

    Bob Loblaw @ 16, "More humans = more carbon stored in a fixed reservoir. As biomass accumulates, increasing the number of humans acts as a carbon sink."

    Except that more humans = the exact opposite. Our mass comes from the carbon stored in the plants that we ate and continue to eat, and after we stop growing at around 16 years we operate as pure combustion engines, converting carbon from plants into heat and carbon dioxide. 

    1 0
18. Bob Loblaw at 07:20 AM on 8 November, 2022

    ..and those plants would have decayed into heat and CO2 anyway. Storing them in humans with typical life spans of 60+ years after they "stop growing" delays that decomposition by 60+ years. That slows the carbon cycle down, not speeds it up.

    You don't get to pick and chose which parts of the carbon cycle you want to include in your accounting scheme.

    Now, if you want to discuss the role of agriculture and how that alters soil and biomass carbon storage and cycling vs. natural systems, then go for it. But "humans = more CO2 in circulation" is a gross (and incorrect) simplification.

    0 1
19. Art Vandelay at 07:58 AM on 8 November, 2022

    Bob Loblaw @ 18, "..and those plants would have decayed into heat and CO2 anyway. Storing them in humans with typical life spans of 60+ years after they "stop growing" delays that decomposition by 60+ years. That slows the carbon cycle down, not speeds it up.

    You don't get to pick and chose which parts of the carbon cycle you want to include in your accounting scheme."

    Thanks Bob.... Probably best not let discussion get bogged down on this specific point. I did consult with an old professor of geology some time ago, so I always defer to his analysis... The assumption that humans exhaling is carbon neutral is correct but there's an inconvenient caveat, and there's no shortage of misinformation. Essentially, humans are combustine engines, so unlike plants and trees, over our lifetimes we emit an enormous amount of CO2 relative to our mass. In fact, we eat roughly our body mass every few weeks. You could argue that our existence is at the expense of other respiring animals - which offsets our impact on the carbon cycle, but all such arguements whether correct or not are ultimately spurious, because as we're all aware most of our impact on the carbon cycle, aside from fossil fuel combustion, comes from the clearing and burning of large proportions of the world's natural forests for food production, living space and lifestyle. Some of our activities and agri practices also increase the natural levels of methane and other greenhouse gasses which further adds to the greenhouse problem.

    So, our collective respiration of CO2, although around 10% of global total CO2 emissions, which seems like a big number, is a problem we can easily exist with, and indeed there's probably some benefit to CO2 levels in the atmosphere higher than pre-industrial. On the other hand, our existence, at the expense of huge amounts of the biosphere is a HUGE problem.      

    1 0
20. nigelj at 09:07 AM on 8 November, 2022

    Art Vandealy @15

    "Humans breathing is indeed a carbon neutral process, but the catch is that more humans = more CO2 in circulation, hence more in the atmosphere."

    Read what BL said. Its not increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2 over time.Thats what matters. Y

    "Similarly, we could run all cars and trucks from biofuels and claim that it's a carbon neutral process. We would be technically correct but also stupid"

    It is correct, but it isn't stupid. If its carbon neutral its not increasing atmospheric concentrations of CO2, which is the thing we are concerned about. Although personally I believe biofuels have rather a limited future for practical reasons of land availability.

    "Anyway, I'm just making the point that human existence is always going to be carbon intensive,"

    It is, but so what? The only thing that matters is how much we increase atmospheric concentrations of CO2. Not whether we eat plants or exhale CO2.

    We could even continue to be very carbon intensive and capture and store all the fossil fuel emissions we produce, although its not the most economic option, and is completely senseless because we cant maintain a fossil fuel based civilisation for much longer anyway. The resource is finite, and we have already used up all the easy to extract fossil fuels. We are now on the downward slope and will run out, or find the resource is prohibitively costly to extract forcing is to use alternatives.

    "and of course most of our emissions stem from the need to remove forests to plant crops and create space for living, working and recreation etc... "

    Trying to make it sound like relatively harmless things are causing the problem when the real main underlying culprit is burning fossil fuels.
    "And yes it's contentious. So why should a global population policy be any different?...it's all about educating the masses so that we're all aware of the problem, and are all participants in a global solution. "

    Politicians wont go near something like a global population policy with specific goals on population size etc,etc. Most people dont want politicians in their bedrooms let alone a global coalition of politicians in their bedrooms. And we dont need something like a global population policy, because the problem is largely fixing itself anyway: Population growth is generally already slowing for well known reasons to do with the demographic transition and easier availability of contraceptives.

    Our education systems already indirectly raise awareness of the population issues, - without needing to lecture people about it too directly or promote a partcular family size. I dont oppose more explicit education but I cant see schools and governmnts going near such an issue because of the huge potential public backlash.
    I don't think theres much more we can do to speed up the de-growth process already underway. And population decline cannot possibly happen quickly enough to be a factor in keeping warming under 2 degrees. It might have some small effect on keeping warming under 8 degrees but by then it would be too late to be useful to us anyway.
    "You're (MAR) obviously banking on a lot of new tech in a very short space of time. Good luck with that. "

    Your underlying point seems to be that the transition to renewables will require burning of fossil fuels to manufacture a new energy grid. The quantity of energy needed to make a new energy grid is vastly less than total quantity of just continuing to burn fossil fuels with all the warming that will cause. This is literally intuitively very obvious and experts have done the maths. 

    0 1
21. Bob Loblaw at 12:23 PM on 8 November, 2022

    Art @ 19 [emphasis added]:

    Essentially, humans are combustine engines, so unlike plants and trees, over our lifetimes we emit an enormous amount of CO2 relative to our mass.

    Art: meet tree respiration. Tree respiration: meet Art. The two of you obviously don't know each other.

    All living organisms consume sugars to produce energy. They do that by burning the sugars. That produces heat, energy, water, and CO2.

    Trees and plants are not some magical one-way path that fixes carbon. As they grow, they store carbon - in additional to using large quantities of it as food when they cannot photosynthesize. When they are "eating", they take in O2 and release CO2 - and it really is called "respiration". Once they die and decay, the carbon is released again. Just like humans.

    You can actually find resources on the Internet that will explain this to you, if you bother to try.

    As for the rest of your post, now you're just playing "Look! Squirrel!". Face it: you do not understand the carbon cycle.

    0 1
22. Art Vandelay at 16:01 PM on 8 November, 2022

    Bob Loblaw @ 21..Trees and plants are not some magical one-way path that fixes carbon. As they grow, they store carbon - in additional to using large quantities of it as food when they cannot photosynthesize. When they are "eating", they take in O2 and release CO2 - and it really is called "respiration". Once they die and decay, the carbon is released again. Just like humans.

    Bob, now you're playing semantics.. 

    I can equally argue that fossil fuels are carbon neutral.

    I can't understand why it's so contraversial to state the fact that humans are essentiually combustion engines that convert carbon and oxygen into CO2.  

    As for the rest of your post, now you're just playing "Look! Squirrel!". Face it: you do not understand the carbon cycle.

    Well, perhaps you should consult a geologist as I did. Unlike trees humans and other members of the animal kingdom combust huge amounts of carbon and store very little. Humans, for example exhale roughly 1kg of CO2 daily, so roughly 30,000kg over a lifetime. In less than 3 months we exhale our entire body weight in CO2. 

    As stated previously, a static human population does not increase CO2 in the atmosphere, but human population is responsible for a higher level of CO2 in the atmosphere than would be the case if humans didn't exist, simply because we convert C and O into CO2. The same applies to all respiring members of the animal kingdom. 

    Of course, our contribution to atmospheric CO2 purely from respiration is trivial in the grand scheme but that doesn't mean we should pretend that it doesn't exist.  That would be anti-science.   

    1 0
23. MA Rodger at 19:03 PM on 8 November, 2022

    Arguing by proxy with some anonymous "old professor of geology" isn't my idea of a useful way to establish a proper understanding of any situation.

    An adult human being will exhale something approaching 1kg CO2 per day (depending how active they were) so for 7 billion souls per year that would be perhaps something like a flux into the atmosphere of 2.5Gt(CO2) or 0.7Gt(C). The carbon cycle is estimated to include an annual 120Gt(C) flux from the biosphere to the atmosphere suggesting human beings provide directly 0.6% of that flux. This is far smaller than the proportion being bandied about by commenter Art Vandelay.

    Above and beyond the use of fossil fuels, the impact of humanity indirectly on the size of that 120Gt(C) flux (by replacing natural ecosystems with agriculture & pasture) and any resulting impact that change in size would have on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is seperate consideration which is yet to be properly set out by commenter Art Vandelay.

    So I for one would appreciate less talk of "anti-science" from commenter Art Vandelay.

    0 1
24. Bob Loblaw at 23:15 PM on 8 November, 2022

    Art @ 22: "I can equally argue that fossil fuels are carbon neutral."

    Only if you have no idea how time constants influence carbon storage.

    "Well, perhaps you should consult a geologist as I did."

    If you go to the menus at the top of the SkS page, choose "About" and "Team", you will find that I have quite a bit of my own experience and knowledge about forest carbon cycles.

    I see you have not yet bothered to learn anything about tree respiration. If you follow the link I gave you in comment #21, you will see the following:

    In general, the sugar produced by a tree is allocated and used in the following order of importance:

    1. Respiration
    2. Structure
    3. Storage
    4. Defense
    5. Reproduction

    Feel free to continue to flaunt your ignorance.

    0 1
25. One Planet Only Forever at 01:24 AM on 9 November, 2022

    Art Vandelay's expressed understanding, including the claim that they learned from a helpful knowledgeable Professor of Geology, are very questionable.

    The source of fossil fuels is ancient buried hydrocarbons that are not part of the current recycling carbon cycle active on the surface of the planet. They were locked away long ago. Digging them up and oxidizing them, primarily producing CO2 and H2O, adds new excess CO2 to the current active carbon cycle. Some of the excess carbon is taken in by plants (or other living things) or absorbed in the ocean. But the rate of fossil fuel use, along with other human activity impacts (not the exhaling of CO2 which is simply a small part of the already established carbon cycle) is undeniably causing a significant increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and related global warming and related climate changes.

    That understanding about fossil fuels is the reason that Carbon Capture and Storage applied to fossil fuel emissions is recognised as a way to reduce the harmful impacts of continuing to burn fossil fuels. It is also the reason that Carbon Capture direct from the atmosphere and storage is pursued as a solution. Capturing some of the excess carbon and locking it away is simply an attempt to undo some of the harmful impacts of digging up and burning of ancient buried hydrocarbons by putting some of that recently freed excess carbon back into a locked away condition.

    It is almost certain that a knowledgable Professor of Geology would understand that story of fossil fuels. But, admittedly, some very highly educated individuals have produced some very questionable claims regarding the impacts of fossil fuel use, including attempts to get people to believe non-sense about fossil fuels.

    Hopefully this helps Art understand they had been fooled by someone they thought they could trust.

    0 0
26. Bob Loblaw at 02:56 AM on 9 November, 2022

    I would hesitate to say that a "Professor of Geology" has misled anyone, but geologists in general do tend to look at some rather long-term processes - at least, the ones that focus on rocks, tectonics, etc. In the category of surficial geology - where the interest focuses on a lot more recent events, such as glacial, river, and wind deposits - the time scales are much shorter.

    Not knowing what area of geology Art Vandelay's "Professor of Geology" specializes in, I'd avoid any broad, sweeping generalizations. It is clear, however, that Art has failed to understand the significance of the times involved in any of the carbon cycle storage terms.

    As MA Rodger points out, there are discussions worth having regarding how human choices of agricultural system, etc. will change fluxes, storage, rates of transfer, etc. compared to the natural systems they replace. Mr. Vandelay has not shown any useful knowledge/discussion in these matters, though.

    0 1
27. One Planet Only Forever at 05:42 AM on 9 November, 2022

    Bob Loblaw @26,

    The better way to make the point may be that what Art claims to have learned from a Professor of Geology is potentially Art fooling themself about the matter, though some highly educated individuals have been quite miseleading ... most likely motivated by the benefits of promoting or excusing fossil fuel use.

    However, I would be curious about the time scale a Professor of Geology would say the carbon that is/was locked away as buried ancient hydrocarbon would be likely to return to being part of the active surface carbon cycle system.

    0 0
28. Art Vandelay at 16:55 PM on 9 November, 2022

    MA Rodger @ 23.. "The carbon cycle is estimated to include an annual 120Gt(C) flux from the biosphere to the atmosphere suggesting human beings provide directly 0.6% of that flux. This is far smaller than the proportion being bandied about by commenter Art Vandelay."

    That's a misundersting on your part. I expressed CO2 from human respiration as a percentage of human emissions, not total flux.   

    Above and beyond the use of fossil fuels, the impact of humanity indirectly on the size of that 120Gt(C) flux (by replacing natural ecosystems with agriculture & pasture) and any resulting impact that change in size would have on the CO2 levels in the atmosphere is seperate consideration which is yet to be properly set out by commenter Art Vandelay."

    There's no shortage of published studies, and some have shown that as much as a third of atmospheric CO2 the result of human activity other than fossil fuel combustion. I would hope that the significance of this would be embraced as we move away from fossil fuel consumption, and with certainty of population growth and a further 6 billion added to a 'developed world'. 

    "Feel free to continue to flaunt your ignorance."   

    And lets all feel free to discuss with civility and respect. 

    One planet Only @ 25..

    "But the rate of fossil fuel use, along with other human activity impacts (not the exhaling of CO2 which is simply a small part of the already established carbon cycle) is undeniably causing a significant increase of CO2 levels in the atmosphere and related global warming and related climate changes."

    Of course it is, and that's why there's a global focus and commitment to remedy that situation. 

    The better way to make the point may be that what Art claims to have learned from a Professor of Geology is potentially Art fooling themself about the matter. 

    For what it's worth, the same geologist is also of the view that cows are a contributing factor to climate change, even though they too, like us, are part of the natural carbon cycle. Assuming the number of cattle is static their contribution to rising greenhouse gas is zero. 

    So are cows a problem or not?  

     

    1 0
29. Art Vandelay at 23:18 PM on 9 November, 2022

    So it turns out that published studies exist. This from 2021.  

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/346307914_Human_breath-

    CO2_matters

    Extract from the study.. 

    In short, contrary to published claims [Alexander, 2010; Palmer, 2009; Withers, 2009], the assumption that breath emission is always ideally balanced by cycling of CO2 is not tenable. Given B > P, airborne flux b equals B – P. Cycling implies that breath emission B gives rise to an airborne flux b in excess of the cycling flux P, adding CO2 to the atmosphere. There is a whole range of positive values of b,
    excepting only a single point where B coincides with P. Greenhouse effect and global warming will follow an increase in atmospheric CO2, making the escape of breath-CO2 relevant for the climate.
    The mainstream argument maintains that 1) emission of CO2 by the breath of humans is fully compensated, largely by photosynthesis, and 2) only non-cyclic processes like the consumption of fossil fuels give rise to an airborne fraction of CO2 which alters the atmosphere. In contrast, I maintain that full compensation of breath emission by photosynthesis is not tenable. Rather, all emissions of CO2, including anthropogenic emission by the breath of humans, have an airborne fraction > 0, by means of which they affect the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse
    effect.
    While in the past an increase of the atmospheric greenhouse effect by human breath was denied, this increase, contrary to the burning of fossil fuel, turns out to be an unavoidable consequence of human physiology. It is linearly dependent on population size, thus birth control may be expected to cope with it.

     

     

    0 0
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Link activated.
    
    The web software here does not automatically create links. You can do this when posting a comment by selecting the "insert" tab, selecting the text you want to use for the link, and clicking on the icon that looks like a chain link. Add the URL in the dialog box.
    
    

30. Bob Loblaw at 23:29 PM on 9 November, 2022

    Art @ 28: "And lets all feel free to discuss with civility and respect."

    To me, showing civility and respect would include not throwing out one-liners such as "the catch is that more humans = more CO2 in circulation, hence more in the atmosphere.", and not dodging and weaving with distractions when people point out the obvious errors in that statement, and continuing to ignore things such as tree respiration even after people have provided links to you so that you can learn. And not doubling down with "well but" what-aboutism when challenged.

    0 1
31. Bob Loblaw at 23:45 PM on 9 November, 2022

    Art @ 29:

    ResearchGate is a place where anyone can post any "paper" they want. There is no indication that the "paper" you link to has actually been published anywhere or has gone through any sort of review.

    The "model" in that "paper" starts by describing "a system of only 2 fluxes". Trying to estimate the effects of global carbon cycling using "a system of only 2 fluxes" falls into the "not even wrong" category.

    0 1
32. MA Rodger at 01:05 AM on 10 November, 2022

    Bob Loblaw @31,

    The work linked by Art Vandelay @29 is not published and is saying no more than 'CO2 is increasing in the atmosphere because there is more going in than coming out' and thus it is argued that 'because there is more than 550Mt(C)/y of CO2 in human breath going in, this is climatalogically significant'. The total flux of CO2 into the atmosphere is roughly 220,000Mt(C)/y. Thus, if human breath was not replacing decaying plants as an emitter and were entirely an addition to the full cycle, it would add a whole 0.25% to that cycle and thus according to the method of the linked work be responsible for an annual increase in atmospheric CO2 of 0.005ppm/yr. The linked work is entirely wrong to suggest such a tiny rise is in any way "reaching climatic significance."

    0 0
33. Bob Loblaw at 01:48 AM on 10 November, 2022

    MA Rodger:

    I was going to see if Art Vandelay was going to try to defend the "paper", but why wait. The "paper" is short, and the failures of its analysis are obvious in two places.

    The abstract states:

    The CO2 which humans emit by breathing is commonly thought to fully recycle by photosynthesis. Therefore it is unable to enter the atmosphere and affect the climate. This notion, though popular, is flawed. Suppose a sink-flux of magnitude P limits the amount of CO2 recycled. Then the CO2 emitted in excess of P must be removed into the atmosphere as an airborne fraction and a rise of atmospheric CO2 will accompany the only partial cycling of breath-CO2.

    Art Vandelay quoted and highlighted this snippet from the paper:

    Rather, all emissions of CO2, including anthropogenic emission by the breath of humans, have an airborne fraction > 0, by means of which they affect the atmosphere, increasing the greenhouse effect.

    The paper questions what happens to the CO2 emitted by human breath, once it is released into the atmosphere.

    What the paper ignores is the question of where that carbon came from. Scotty did not beam it into the human bodies. It did not appear in human bodies by magic. It came from plants that recently photosynthesized it - some time in the past few years. It may have passed through cattle or some other animal in the food chain on its way to human digestion, but the simple fact is that 100% of the human emission of CO2 by breath was recently extracted from the atmosphere. Thus, it causes no net change in atmospheric concentration (over the time scale of a few years).

    The "paper" does not understand what a "cycle" is (as in "carbon cycle"). It is not a one-way path that starts with humans and ends with atmospheric removal by photosynthesis or other factors. Human breathing contributes CO2 to the atmosphere, and that carbon only comes from one of many sources of carbon in the carbon cycle - recent photosynthesis by plants.

    The author of that "paper" is ignorant. From all appearances, Art Vandelay selects that "paper" to support  his position - not because it is a good analysis, but rather because he likes the "conclusion". Art is no better informed than the author, or he'd see the obvious flaws.

    0 1
34. One Planet Only Forever at 03:33 AM on 10 November, 2022

    In response to:

    "The better way to make the point may be that what Art claims to have learned from a Professor of Geology is potentially Art fooling themself about the matter."

    Art Vandelay @28 offered:

    "For what it's worth, the same geologist is also of the view that cows are a contributing factor to climate change, even though they too, like us, are part of the natural carbon cycle. Assuming the number of cattle is static their contribution to rising greenhouse gas is zero.

    So are cows a problem or not"

    There are many easily learned about problems regarding human activities related to production of cows to be eaten by humans. But I will limit my response to the climate change impact aspects of the diversity of 'cattle raising' problems.

    The current number of cattle is fairly static. So, setting aside the problem of humans having over-developed cattle raising to the current levels, I will limit my response to the static number of cattle.

    There are many climate change impacts due to cattle production, including the reduction of forests to increase the area available for cattle raising. But I will also limit my response to the significant climate change impact factor of methane emissions from cattle. Methane is a more powerful ghg than the CO2 it eventually breaks down to after decades of being excess methane in the atmosphere.

    Reducing the number of cattle would reduce the developed ghg impacts of human activity, off-setting some of the already excessive, and continuing to be made worse, global warming impacts caused by human activity.

    So the 'static' climate impact of current developed levels of cattle production could be reduced by reducing the amount of cattle production. So, from that limited evaluation of the 'potential problems caused by the human raising of cattle' 'cows are a problem'.

    All of that easily available understanding, understanding that has been well established for decades, would appear to confirm that:

    "The better way to make the point may be that what Art claims to have learned from a Professor of Geology is potentially Art fooling themself about the matter."

    Though, admittedly, it also could indicate that:

    "Art Vandelay deliberately tries to fool others ... most likely motivated by the benefits of promoting or excusing fossil fuel use. They may even be the Professor they refer to."

     

    0 1
    Moderator Response:

    [BL] Portions snipped. It's one thing to say that someone is fooling themselves, but from the comments policy:

    No accusations of deception.  Any accusations of deception, fraud, dishonesty or corruption will be deleted. This applies to both sides. You may critique a person's methods but not their motives.

35. Bob Loblaw at 03:53 AM on 10 November, 2022

    OPOF's comment about cows is to point: it's the conversion of CO2 to methane that is the issue at hand when it comes to cows.

    CO2 in (via plant photosynthesis), methane out is not the same as CO2 in , CO2 out.

    0 0

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.