Okay, all–this is a slow developing post. I hope you can stick with me to the end here.
If you’re reading this, the chances are better than even that you are a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement. That’s if respondents to last year’s survey of WUWT visitors told the truth.
If it is true, it may surprise you to learn that there is a body of medical and sociological literature written specifically about you. The theme of the literature is how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.
It isn’t aimed directly at you, but at your wives, doctors and nurses, which is why you may never have heard of it. The literature is big on prevention–getting you to finally put down the cigarettes, lose the weight and lay off the hard liquor so you don’t keel over too soon.
Whatever man-made climate change turns out to be, it is not a permanent state. This is something that is not often discussed, but is very true. This is a ‘life stage’ the human race is going through–probably not late middle age, but late adolescent–but it is certainly a phase, not a permanent condition.
The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today. The textile workers in Vietnam making $84 a month? Their grandchildren will be making more than our national average today.
During the next 65 years the world’s energy consumption will skyrocket, both because of more people and because so many will be adopting western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.
But it won’t be permanent. Here in the US, our energy consumption per capita is already declining, and it is declining or very stable in most of the richer countries of the world. About 20 years after world population peaks, shortly before 2100, the world’s energy consumption will peak as well, and both will start to decline.
At that point (and maybe long before, if technology does what technology normally does), our impact on this planet and its atmosphere will begin to slowly decrease. We will have passed the crisis point, and will be moving into–what? Adulthood? Middle age? I guess they’ll come up with a cute name for it.
The two points I’d like to make is, first, that whatever we do on behalf of the planet can be looked at as our generation’s contribution to a future that is almost in sight already. 90 years? Kids being born today will see it.
Second, those who are trying to push apocalyptic scenarios for political reasons need to keep their story lines straighter than they have so far. There are far more reasons for optimism than pessimism.
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this, it may be because I’m looking at this as just part of our generational duty–a far lighter duty than previous generations had to shoulder.
Yes, I think we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2. Yes, I believe that we should spend more of our money on researching energy efficiency and things like utility level storage of energy.
But like most of you, I am an optimist at heart. I am truly confident that we have the system in place to find the solutions that we need and to put them in place. If we’re wrangling about it now, it’s a combination of anger at those who have blown this out of proportion and sticker shock at what the solution may cost.
But I do believe we’ll get there, and without having the revolutionary upheaval so many think is the only way to get through this.
Okay, all–this is a slow developing post. I hope you can stick with me to the end here.
If you’re reading this, the chances are better than even that you are a well-educated male who is either working full time or transitioning or in retirement. That’s if respondents to last year’s survey of WUWT visitors told the truth.
If it is true, it may surprise you to learn that there is a body of medical and sociological literature written specifically about you. The theme of the literature is how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.
It isn’t aimed directly at you, but at your wives, doctors and nurses, which is why you may never have heard of it. The literature is big on prevention–getting you to finally put down the cigarettes, lose the weight and lay off the hard liquor so you don’t keel over too soon.
Whatever man-made climate change turns out to be, it is not a permanent state. This is something that is not often discussed, but is very true. This is a ‘life stage’ the human race is going through–probably not late middle age, but late adolescent–but it is certainly a phase, not a permanent condition.
The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today. The textile workers in Vietnam making $84 a month? Their grandchildren will be making more than our national average today.
During the next 65 years the world’s energy consumption will skyrocket, both because of more people and because so many will be adopting western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.
But it won’t be permanent. Here in the US, our energy consumption per capita is already declining, and it is declining or very stable in most of the richer countries of the world. About 20 years after world population peaks, shortly before 2100, the world’s energy consumption will peak as well, and both will start to decline.
At that point (and maybe long before, if technology does what technology normally does), our impact on this planet and its atmosphere will begin to slowly decrease. We will have passed the crisis point, and will be moving into–what? Adulthood? Middle age? I guess they’ll come up with a cute name for it.
The two points I’d like to make is, first, that whatever we do on behalf of the planet can be looked at as our generation’s contribution to a future that is almost in sight already. 90 years? Kids being born today will see it.
Second, those who are trying to push apocalyptic scenarios for political reasons need to keep their story lines straighter than they have so far. There are far more reasons for optimism than pessimism.
While I am probably a stronger advocate for renewable energy and energy efficiency than many of you reading this, it may be because I’m looking at this as just part of our generational duty–a far lighter duty than previous generations had to shoulder.
Yes, I think we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2. Yes, I believe that we should spend more of our money on researching energy efficiency and things like utility level storage of energy.
But like most of you, I am an optimist at heart. I am truly confident that we have the system in place to find the solutions that we need and to put them in place. If we’re wrangling about it now, it’s a combination of anger at those who have blown this out of proportion and sticker shock at what the solution may cost.
But I do believe we’ll get there, and without having the revolutionary upheaval so many think is the only way to get through this.
“how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.”
pre-paid burial?
Onion
September 5, 2010 12:26 pm
Those long range predictions are useless. And your insulting presumption that you care more for future generations than WUWT readers is baseless.
Alexander K
September 5, 2010 12:30 pm
Mr Fuller, you still give no clues as to why us humans should find it desirable to ‘limit CO2’ – can you give a reason for this stricture, backed by empirical evidence?
Hi Onion. I don’t believe I care more about future generations. I believe what I do is different from what you do, and that the way I express my concern is different than the way some of you do.
Takes all kinds.
kdk33, I think 70 is the new 40, so I think there are a couple of life stages after 60… But I told you I was an optimist…
Mike
September 5, 2010 12:40 pm
Extinction is forever. Those species that we wipe out – by whatever means – are unlikely to return. Ocean acidification will likely last tens of thousands of years.
mike
September 5, 2010 12:42 pm
this guy’s had enough column inches now.
NZ Willy
September 5, 2010 12:43 pm
Agree with Onion. Societal upheavals could make long-term trendlines useless.
H.R.
September 5, 2010 12:49 pm
“Whatever man-made climate change turns out to be, it is not a permanent state.
Are you still on about that? MMCC = UHI and land use effects. Now you can relax.
The energy issue you raise is important. Unfortunately, I fear you may be looking for government solutions and I ‘fear’ government solutions. (Name one successful government solution: social security? medicare? medicaid? food stamps? welfare? Anyone of those programs would be outperformed by a scheme unencumbered by the economic drag of the accompanying administrative waste.)
I am a female scientist and find the assumption, by Fuller, of a reader being ‘ a well educated male’ condescending if not worse.
It is also completely beside the point as far as the general aim of this rather feeble post.
I do not wish to pick on the self righteousness expressed as I assume the post is well meaning if ill put together.
bruria
Thomas,
very well reasoned post, and FWIW, I think you’re right on the mark.
stephen richards
September 5, 2010 12:56 pm
I see nothing wrong with your philosophical approach. It is all based on predictions which we know from past experience will be totally wrong, but that’s OK. As I say, we all know they will be wrong.
Like you, Tom, I am optimistic, generally, although I believe that the convulsions following the falsification of the AGW theory will be dangerous and painful. The expectations pumped up by the likes of Gore, Soros, Hansen and Mann will have already reached such great heights that the crash will be frightening.
I also believe that the UN, like the EU, will continue it’s push to be an unelected world government and that will only be stopped by a courageous American president and not the current incumbent (and I nearly swore there). My disrespect for Obama verges on hatred for someone who can be so deceitful and hateful for ‘his own’ people.
Otherwise, well, I am totally convinced that the planet will have cooled somewhat from today’s high (whatever that might be for we cannot know what it is thanks to the mann-ipulation of global temps by all interested parties) by the time I die and much of the hype will have dissappeared along with the idiots that created it and once again all will be calm until the next idiot discovers that the world is warming again, and so on.
JRR Canada
September 5, 2010 1:00 pm
Too much time on your hands? Useless Nutjobs and similar experts can project all they want onto the future. Reality will bite, as usual. As profound as we are all gonna die. Or life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease. Maybe the real point ,is that made on another topic (the zombie environmental kid) what kind of children are we leaving on the planet? What accuracy over examining the entrails of fowl do you claim for your soothsayers?
Brad
September 5, 2010 1:01 pm
I agree, so get the hell out of the way and let the markets work to bring down our consumption of fossil fuels. We need the gov to stop incentivizing fossil fuel production, and the gov to allow green tech to work. We do not need cap and trade and the rest of it, markets work, let them.
TinyCO2
September 5, 2010 1:02 pm
I might have missed a previous explanation but can you show why you think that energy consumption in richer countries is declining?
UK CO2 reductions are largely based on 3 things.
1) Change from coal to gas, leaving us criminally vulnerable to our suppliers.
2) Export of CO2 heavy industries to other countries as outlined by this article. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11172239
“At face value UK emissions look like they have decreased 15% or 16% since 1990. But if you take in carbon embedded in our imports, our emissions have gone UP about 12%.”
3) Recession.
Many of the improvements in efficiency have been swallowed up by more consumer stuff using electricity. I do think that individual consumption will level off but without a declining economy, the UK CO2 footprint will continue to grow for some time. Theoretically our needs will decline as people have most things they desire and those things become more efficient but you wouldn’t be able to prove that by recent consumer history.
Population is also not guaranteed to level off. There is a connection with educated women and reduced offspring but it’s also connected to being busy with a job that provides the luxuries in life. If the luxuries are cut off or women are less busy, birth rates could go up again. This was demonstrated by the mini UK baby boom created by the cold spell in January where people had nothing to do but engage in err… traditional entertainments.
upcountrywater
September 5, 2010 1:04 pm
“During the next 65 years the world’s energy consumption will skyrocket, both because of more people and because so many will be adopting western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.”
Yes that growth would be in China and India, Where coal, and things like Nuclear energy, are not buried forever in permitting.
Yes energy use in the US is going down, because it’s getting too expensive.
No one ever ran a steel plant on solar power.
rbateman
September 5, 2010 1:05 pm
The big challenge is to avoid the ultimate cut-throat competition: Big War.
Populations get nervous, unscrupulous politicians play both ends against the middle, and words are spoken that cannot be retracted as honor is sullied and face must be preserved. WWI was exactly this scene, with alliances kicking in as if on auto-pilot.
The Big Distraction is to keep the public’s attention focused elsewhere.
This is done by driving wedges of antagonism between peoples and nations.
Anthropogenic Global Warming Warfare, where the few play the many like pawns.
Avoid that Noid, and we’ll get to the 22nd Century in good shape.
Tony Armstrong
September 5, 2010 1:07 pm
Pace dear Onion, Pace. It’s as valid a point of view as any other I’ve read this year. Good on you Mr. Fuller and thank you for sharing it with us.
coniston
September 5, 2010 1:08 pm
Mr Fuller, I would take issue with your premise because if we follow most of the plans regarding renewables being put forth/put into action now, we will be poorer and will not have enough cheap energy within 20 years let alone 100. The 3% GDP increase could be achieved, but not in a states burdened with debt, and with huge sums of money wasted in supporting renewables like wind and solar which make energy costs zoom.
Despite the limitations and inherent biases, consider the preceding “century of progress”. In 1910, how well would we have predicted the world of 2010? Flying cars notwithstanding, the main “unpredictable” has been the exponential growth in information production, processing and use. The parochial has become the mundane. We know our fellow men better and share our most private moments with the world.
Aside from the rabbit-warren effect of increased population, our greater access to all manner of technology has eased the experience. Where is this leading? More of the same or something new and inviting? If information density is matched by energy availability, we will undoubtedly benefit and progress in ways unimaginable. Energy is the key and that is where we must invest our time and money. In the past, lack of resources was a greater instigator of instability than any other force. Depriving developing nations of the energy availability that has allowed us to enjoy the last century will certainly spur unrest and revolt. How we deal, share and enjoin our newly “discovered” brethren around the world is of greater importance than any single aspect of our internal societal concerns.
The world has been shrinking for some time now. Sharing is caring and the conversion of wanton consumption to willful conservation will certainly help make the available space a calmer and better place to be.
Dave Andrews
September 5, 2010 1:15 pm
“Second, those who are trying to push apocalyptic scenarios for political reasons need to keep their story lines straighter than they have so far. “
An, admittedly cursory, attempt to find out the annual worldwide income of groups like WWF and Greenpeace reveals, strangely, little attempt at transparency. However, in 2009 WWF UK had a total income of £46.4 m whilst the President of WWF US was paid (in total) almost $250,000 in 2001.
Meanwhile, Greenpeace International’s income in 2005 was 119m euros, roughly the same amount in pounds. This, of course, understates considerably the total income received by Greenpeace that year because national organisations only pay a percentage of their income to Greenpeace International,
In other words these organisations are, oh the irony, equivalent in many ways to the multinationals they so often denigrate. No wonder the ‘great and good’ are lining up to join their boards.
But it all begs the question – are these organisations now more interested in preserving themselves than in the original aims with which they were set up?
Mark S
September 5, 2010 1:20 pm
“The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today.”
This is not what I see happening today. Mr. Fuller, I wish I shared your optimism.
RichieP
September 5, 2010 1:24 pm
“I think we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2.”
Rather lost you at this point son. Why the subordinate clause? The logic escapes me. Or just call me suspicious and a grumpy old man.
John Baltutis
September 5, 2010 1:39 pm
Sounds like you just finished reading Matt Ridley’s The Rational Optimist.
“how to shepherd you through your fifties and early sixties and get you to your next ‘life-stage’ in good shape.”
pre-paid burial?
Those long range predictions are useless. And your insulting presumption that you care more for future generations than WUWT readers is baseless.
Mr Fuller, you still give no clues as to why us humans should find it desirable to ‘limit CO2’ – can you give a reason for this stricture, backed by empirical evidence?
Hi Onion. I don’t believe I care more about future generations. I believe what I do is different from what you do, and that the way I express my concern is different than the way some of you do.
Takes all kinds.
kdk33, I think 70 is the new 40, so I think there are a couple of life stages after 60… But I told you I was an optimist…
Extinction is forever. Those species that we wipe out – by whatever means – are unlikely to return. Ocean acidification will likely last tens of thousands of years.
this guy’s had enough column inches now.
Agree with Onion. Societal upheavals could make long-term trendlines useless.
“Whatever man-made climate change turns out to be, it is not a permanent state.
Are you still on about that? MMCC = UHI and land use effects. Now you can relax.
The energy issue you raise is important. Unfortunately, I fear you may be looking for government solutions and I ‘fear’ government solutions. (Name one successful government solution: social security? medicare? medicaid? food stamps? welfare? Anyone of those programs would be outperformed by a scheme unencumbered by the economic drag of the accompanying administrative waste.)
I am a female scientist and find the assumption, by Fuller, of a reader being ‘ a well educated male’ condescending if not worse.
It is also completely beside the point as far as the general aim of this rather feeble post.
I do not wish to pick on the self righteousness expressed as I assume the post is well meaning if ill put together.
bruria
Brilliant, Tom, couldn’t agree more.
Thomas,
very well reasoned post, and FWIW, I think you’re right on the mark.
I see nothing wrong with your philosophical approach. It is all based on predictions which we know from past experience will be totally wrong, but that’s OK. As I say, we all know they will be wrong.
Like you, Tom, I am optimistic, generally, although I believe that the convulsions following the falsification of the AGW theory will be dangerous and painful. The expectations pumped up by the likes of Gore, Soros, Hansen and Mann will have already reached such great heights that the crash will be frightening.
I also believe that the UN, like the EU, will continue it’s push to be an unelected world government and that will only be stopped by a courageous American president and not the current incumbent (and I nearly swore there). My disrespect for Obama verges on hatred for someone who can be so deceitful and hateful for ‘his own’ people.
Otherwise, well, I am totally convinced that the planet will have cooled somewhat from today’s high (whatever that might be for we cannot know what it is thanks to the mann-ipulation of global temps by all interested parties) by the time I die and much of the hype will have dissappeared along with the idiots that created it and once again all will be calm until the next idiot discovers that the world is warming again, and so on.
Too much time on your hands? Useless Nutjobs and similar experts can project all they want onto the future. Reality will bite, as usual. As profound as we are all gonna die. Or life is a sexually transmitted terminal disease. Maybe the real point ,is that made on another topic (the zombie environmental kid) what kind of children are we leaving on the planet? What accuracy over examining the entrails of fowl do you claim for your soothsayers?
I agree, so get the hell out of the way and let the markets work to bring down our consumption of fossil fuels. We need the gov to stop incentivizing fossil fuel production, and the gov to allow green tech to work. We do not need cap and trade and the rest of it, markets work, let them.
I might have missed a previous explanation but can you show why you think that energy consumption in richer countries is declining?
UK CO2 reductions are largely based on 3 things.
1) Change from coal to gas, leaving us criminally vulnerable to our suppliers.
2) Export of CO2 heavy industries to other countries as outlined by this article.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-11172239
“At face value UK emissions look like they have decreased 15% or 16% since 1990. But if you take in carbon embedded in our imports, our emissions have gone UP about 12%.”
3) Recession.
Many of the improvements in efficiency have been swallowed up by more consumer stuff using electricity. I do think that individual consumption will level off but without a declining economy, the UK CO2 footprint will continue to grow for some time. Theoretically our needs will decline as people have most things they desire and those things become more efficient but you wouldn’t be able to prove that by recent consumer history.
Population is also not guaranteed to level off. There is a connection with educated women and reduced offspring but it’s also connected to being busy with a job that provides the luxuries in life. If the luxuries are cut off or women are less busy, birth rates could go up again. This was demonstrated by the mini UK baby boom created by the cold spell in January where people had nothing to do but engage in err… traditional entertainments.
“During the next 65 years the world’s energy consumption will skyrocket, both because of more people and because so many will be adopting western energy consumption patterns. It is going to be impressive, and scary, especially if coal turns out to be the fuel powering this growth.”
Yes that growth would be in China and India, Where coal, and things like Nuclear energy, are not buried forever in permitting.
Yes energy use in the US is going down, because it’s getting too expensive.
No one ever ran a steel plant on solar power.
The big challenge is to avoid the ultimate cut-throat competition: Big War.
Populations get nervous, unscrupulous politicians play both ends against the middle, and words are spoken that cannot be retracted as honor is sullied and face must be preserved. WWI was exactly this scene, with alliances kicking in as if on auto-pilot.
The Big Distraction is to keep the public’s attention focused elsewhere.
This is done by driving wedges of antagonism between peoples and nations.
Anthropogenic Global
WarmingWarfare, where the few play the many like pawns.Avoid that Noid, and we’ll get to the 22nd Century in good shape.
Pace dear Onion, Pace. It’s as valid a point of view as any other I’ve read this year. Good on you Mr. Fuller and thank you for sharing it with us.
Mr Fuller, I would take issue with your premise because if we follow most of the plans regarding renewables being put forth/put into action now, we will be poorer and will not have enough cheap energy within 20 years let alone 100. The 3% GDP increase could be achieved, but not in a states burdened with debt, and with huge sums of money wasted in supporting renewables like wind and solar which make energy costs zoom.
Despite the limitations and inherent biases, consider the preceding “century of progress”. In 1910, how well would we have predicted the world of 2010? Flying cars notwithstanding, the main “unpredictable” has been the exponential growth in information production, processing and use. The parochial has become the mundane. We know our fellow men better and share our most private moments with the world.
Aside from the rabbit-warren effect of increased population, our greater access to all manner of technology has eased the experience. Where is this leading? More of the same or something new and inviting? If information density is matched by energy availability, we will undoubtedly benefit and progress in ways unimaginable. Energy is the key and that is where we must invest our time and money. In the past, lack of resources was a greater instigator of instability than any other force. Depriving developing nations of the energy availability that has allowed us to enjoy the last century will certainly spur unrest and revolt. How we deal, share and enjoin our newly “discovered” brethren around the world is of greater importance than any single aspect of our internal societal concerns.
The world has been shrinking for some time now. Sharing is caring and the conversion of wanton consumption to willful conservation will certainly help make the available space a calmer and better place to be.
“Second, those who are trying to push apocalyptic scenarios for political reasons need to keep their story lines straighter than they have so far. “
An, admittedly cursory, attempt to find out the annual worldwide income of groups like WWF and Greenpeace reveals, strangely, little attempt at transparency. However, in 2009 WWF UK had a total income of £46.4 m whilst the President of WWF US was paid (in total) almost $250,000 in 2001.
Meanwhile, Greenpeace International’s income in 2005 was 119m euros, roughly the same amount in pounds. This, of course, understates considerably the total income received by Greenpeace that year because national organisations only pay a percentage of their income to Greenpeace International,
In other words these organisations are, oh the irony, equivalent in many ways to the multinationals they so often denigrate. No wonder the ‘great and good’ are lining up to join their boards.
But it all begs the question – are these organisations now more interested in preserving themselves than in the original aims with which they were set up?
“The UN estimates that our population will peak at about 9.1 billion souls around 2075. They, and almost everyone else, estimates that our GDP will grow at roughly 3% per year during that time. This means that all except the very poorest of this 9 billion will be richer than we are today.”
This is not what I see happening today. Mr. Fuller, I wish I shared your optimism.
“I think we should commit more of our treasure and toil towards reducing pollution, including emissions of the non-polluting CO2.”
Rather lost you at this point son. Why the subordinate clause? The logic escapes me. Or just call me suspicious and a grumpy old man.
Sounds like you just finished reading Matt Ridley’s The Rational Optimist.