Guest essay by Eric Worrall
h/t Nick Shaw – US Author Kim Stanley Robinson wants half the Earth to be depopulated, by somehow inducing rural people to move into cities.
Empty half the Earth of its humans. It’s the only way to save the planet
Kim Stanley Robinson
There are now twice as many people as 50 years ago. But, as EO Wilson has argued, they can all survive – in cities
…
Right now we are not succeeding. The Global Footprint Network estimates that we use up our annual supply of renewable resources by August every year, after which we are cutting into non-renewable supplies – in effect stealing from future generations. Eating the seed corn, they used to call it. At the same time we’re pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate that is changing the climate in dangerous ways and will certainly damage agriculture.
…
The tendency of people to move to cities, either out of desire or perceived necessity, creates a great opportunity. If we managed urbanisation properly, we could nearly remove ourselves from a considerable percentage of the the planet’s surface. That would be good for many of the threatened species we share this planet with, which in turn would be good for us, because we are completely enmeshed in Earth’s web of life.
…
So emptying half the Earth of its humans wouldn’t have to be imposed: it’s happening anyway. It would be more a matter of managing how we made the move, and what kind of arrangement we left behind. One important factor here would be to avoid extremes and absolutes of definition and practice, and any sense of idealistic purity. We are mongrel creatures on a mongrel planet, and we have to be flexible to survive. So these emptied landscapes should not be called wilderness. Wilderness is a good idea in certain contexts, but these emptied lands would be working landscapes, commons perhaps, where pasturage and agriculture might still have a place. All those people in cities still need to eat, and food production requires land. Even if we start growing food in vats, the feedstocks for those vats will come from the land. These mostly depopulated landscapes would be given over to new kinds of agriculture and pasturage, kinds that include habitat corridors where our fellow creatures can get around without being stopped by fences or killed by trains.
…
Meanwhile, cities will always rely on landscapes much vaster than their own footprints. Agriculture will have to be made carbon neutral; indeed, it will be important to create some carbon-negative flows, drawing carbon out of the atmosphere and fixing it into the land, either permanently or temporarily; we can’t afford to be too picky about that now, because we will be safest if we can get the CO2 level in the atmosphere back down to 350 parts per million. All these working landscapes should exist alongside that so-called empty land (though really it’s only almost empty – empty of people – most of the time). Those areas will be working for us in their own way, as part of the health-giving context of any sustainable civilisation. And all the land has to be surrounded by oceans that, similarly, are left partly unfished
…
Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2018/mar/20/save-the-planet-half-earth-kim-stanley-robinson
A few thoughts.
One of the main reasons farming is far from carbon neutral is producing nitrate fertiliser is very energy intensive. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to break nitrogen gas molecules apart, and convert the shattered gas molecules into biologically available forms of nitrogen like ammonia and nitric acid. To give a sense of the scale of energy required, natural nitrate is largely produced inside lightning bolts. But there is nowhere near enough natural nitrate produced this way to feed the world.
Finding a viable artificial method to produce nitrate fertiliser was one of the great innovations which made modern agriculture possible. Reducing the land available for agriculture would require even more intensive nitrate fertilisation and enhancement of whatever land was left.
I appreciate Robinson’s desire for non-violence, but I doubt a purposeful policy of rural depopulation would remain peaceful for long. In Guatemala and Africa, creation of carbon credit forest projects has allegedly resulted in native people being forcefully removed from their homes.
Even if the violence was avoided, I don’t think natural demographic trends will achieve anything like the result Robinson seems to want. In the near future I suspect the social pressures which created the need for cities will diminish. Better transport and communications technology is making it easier to live outside cities. Growing numbers of people no longer have to commute to work; my office is wherever I open my laptop. There will always be people who love the bustle of high density city life, but plenty of city people yearn for a quieter life, with more affordable housing and with neighbours who aren’t always in their face. Modern technology and social change is making this choice increasingly available.
I like some of Kim Stanley Robinson’s work, the Red Mars / Green Mars / Blue Mars trilogy is an excellent read. I want to believe Robinson’s intentions are good. But sometimes the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh yay, another socialist espousing necessary change that will be magically “voluntary”. Evil.
When I read his comments, all I could think of was the Judge Dredd movies (first one was horrible, second one was excellent) with its MegaCities and everyone shoved into dehumanizing, crime ridden apartment towers living on manufactured food.
Kinda like the way most of the large cities are now.
so….greatly (and I mean exponentially) increase the urban heat issue and take away food growth (so increase warming and increase CO2 due to less crops…) to save the planet. yeah….should have been honest and just said we need to kill half the population.
For almost the entire existence of cities they have been filled with horror and pestilence. Only the advent of sanitation changed them sinkholes of life that had to be sustained by forced migration from rural areas. Now the city folk dam our rivers, spread their waste on agricultural land and consume resources from all over the world. Cities are the epitome of non-sustainable but by their numbers urbanites control politics, resources and the media. They are horrible places filled with people who for the most part don’t sow or reap, sing or dance, build or tend. But let’s not be too harsh, they are all writing the next great novel on their three hour commute. By all means let’s all move to the city. I can’t wait to go shopping
Almost all cities need to grow or they begin to die. With the drop in population growth you can see the resultant problems in large cities. Chicago, Detroit, failing cities in California ….
But wait, if we could force growth into these cities they could be saved. The Chicago pyramid structure could last another 20 years. Yes, let us build up and extend the time to the pending collapse, such that the collapse will be that much more impressive.
Strange and probably psychologically significant that he describes humanity as “mongrel”. Now can we think of anybody else in history who used this type of language to describe human beings who he despised. Oh yes we can. And at 55 million dead, at a probably modest estimate, we all know how that kind of thinking turns out.
Selective-child, one-child, or [catastrophic anthropogenic] immigration reform?
Cities are SHTF death traps. I wouldn’t live within 20 miles of one – about how far most of the post-EMP zombies can walk before they die.
We only occupy 3% of the earth surface, why would occupy only 1.5 % of the surface make a difference.
Errrr, what?
But surely 70% is water – next to nobody lives there. Apart from Marina-Girl
Of the remaining 30%….
a) one third of that is ice – nobody there much. Apart from Pingu.
b) one third is desert – nobody there much apart from Lawrence and his camel/motorbike
(Oooooh there’s a goody for GHG explainers – why do Arabs wear black?)
c) one third is where people live.
Surprisingly its where the good dirt is.
And absolutely in the same league of guilt ridden incomprehensible babble,
What Is This:
Run that by me again, How many Hiroshima bombs to save one polar bear?
Or is this an admission that CO2 is real problem?
Not clear there, but we really must get away from the idea that nitrogen in any way enhances soil.
Start here: https://www.agprofessional.com/article/role-nitrogen-fertilizer-soil-ph-levels
Rough figures are that it takes about 1,000 cubes of (quality) Natural Gas to make a tonne of ammonia – call that a tonne of N
UK farmers, looking for 12 tonne per Ha of (high protein bread-making) wheat are advised to apply 340kg of N per Ha. Less for biscuit wheat
Over to you, how much N is used across Great Plains to get your (record breaking) 3 tonnes per Ha yields?
(3 tonnes???? Why buy a Ferrari then use it as supermarket trolley – that is what those wheat plants are, thanks to Norman Ernest Borlaug)
Do all the wheat farmers you know apply at least 3kg of calcium carbonate lime to their fields, for every one kg of N they use?
They better had or the shell fish farmers downstream of the little river across the farmer’s field are gonna be up in arms – blaming CO2 for oshun acidation.
There is a big picture…….
Here’s how we do what Kim Stanley Robinson wants. The following areas shall not be permanently inhabited and may only be used to briefly traveled through or for scientific research: the world’s oceans and Antarctica. That’s a bit over 70% of the Earth’s surface, so we’re done!
Regarding the following statement “One of the main reasons farming is far from carbon neutral is producing nitrate fertiliser is very energy intensive. It takes a tremendous amount of energy to break nitrogen gas molecules apart, and convert the shattered gas molecules into biologically available forms of nitrogen like ammonia and nitric acid. To give a sense of the scale of energy required, natural nitrate is largely produced inside lightning bolts. But there is nowhere near enough natural nitrate produced this way to feed the world.”
I agree that we don’t have enough natural fixed nitrogen to fertilize the world’s crops. I disagree that it takes a huge amount of energy to make nitrogen-based fertilizers. Logically, if it costs too much to make fertilizer, we wouldn’t use it. On a more quantitative level, consider the following scenario: The most popular fertilizer in the world is urea, with a chemical formula of CH4N2O. It is made from ammonia and CO2. Both the ammonia and CO2 are produced when making ammonia from natural gas. Current price for urea is approximately 345 USD per short ton. The application rate on corn is about 300 pounds of nitrogen per acre, or 600 pounds of urea per acre. This will produce yields of 250-300 bushels of corn per acre. The fertilizer will cost about $100 – $110 per acre. Assuming that half the cost of producing and distributing urea is energy, this gives an energy cost of about $50 – $55 per acre. If we used a coal-fired power plant (worst-case scenario – most ammonia plants used a natural gas combined cycle generator) we produce approximately 0.17 tons of carbon as CO2 to make the fertilizer. The amount of biomass we fix growing corn is about 11.2 tons per acre of which 3.8 tons is dry mass, and 1.7 tons is carbon. Unfertilized fields have less yield by up to 50% but long term will be much lower due to the lack of nitrogen in the soil. So fertilizing the field results in about 10 times as much carbon reacted to plant matter as the CO2 used to produce the growth. This is beneficial for the farmer because he or she gets more corn and more silage to feed the cows, and the poor people get to eat more. If you worry about too much CO2 in the atmosphere (I don’t – we aren’t even up to the long term average for the planet), this is a net drain on the flow of CO2 into the atmosphere, so a win-win-win as far as I can see.
[Without making any judgement about the accuracy or veracity of the content in the above comment, the moderators would like to point out this is the type of comment that is especially valued here at WUWT due to it (hopefully) advancing and adding to the conversation. Thanks thermoguy. -mod]
Loren,
I urge you to expand your comment into a full WUWT article/post, with data sources cited.
Very interesting analyses!
I had to look up that per acre rate. Loren is correct:
For corn, if the fertility level is good, a small amount of fertilizer (about 100 pounds of starter per acre) will provide an adequate starter response. Do not apply more than 70 pounds of N + K2O per acre if the fertilizer is placed approximately 2 inches away from the seed. ( source: https://extension.psu.edu/starter-fertilizer)
For Illinois, the cost of fertilizer per acre has fallen somewhat for 2018. The object is to get higher production per acre at a lower cost. It helps to reduce costs if corn is rotated with nitrogen fixing plants like soybeans and/or alfalfa.
I’ve been reading these hysterical articles about the horrors of CO2, which is necessary for production of food crops like fruits and vegetables and grains. I still can’t figure out what in the world is so difficult for these frenzied Greenbeans to understand that without CO2, there won’t be any plants to provide O2 for them to breathe.
It’s something we learned in 7th grade – basic biology. Animals inhale O2 and exhale CO2. Plants absorb CO2 and release O2. (Simplified version) Without CO2, there will be no plants. Without plants, NO O2. What happened to that?
Check out these other big name population control warriors. http://thetruthwins.com/archives/30-population-control-quotes-that-show-that-the-elite-truly-believe-that-humans-are-a-plague-upon-the-earth
This was probably covered before, but…
“At the same time we’re pumping carbon dioxide into the atmosphere at a rate that is changing the climate in dangerous ways and will certainly damage agriculture.”
…is profoundly and patently wrong, making the article completely incorrect. Increasing atmospheric CO2 is a great boon to agriculture and all plant life. If we agree, for the sake of argument, that increasing CO2 will warm the planet, this will also be a boon to agriculture, opening up vast areas that are currently to cold to grow much food, lengthening growing seasons in existing agricultural areas and reducing the threat of killing frosts. Too bad its not going to happen as much as they expect.
I suggest he go inform the Iranians and the Pakistanis—in person of course.
Great idea! – Get rid of these ‘born again farmers’ buying up small blocks and complaining about our traditional farming practice. I have a greenie right next door. He complained that crushed limestone being sown by air was toxic. The local school is now tainted by cosmopolitan elite ideology and roads clogged by stupid little city cars doing 80 k/hr. They bring their city driving habits too. Send them back I say 🙂
I once had a green jelly-baby while standing under a high-voltage corridor/to protest electric fields, tell me how damaging to humans and environment ‘electric fields’ are.
I pointed out that he was wearing an electron lowered digital watch, that produced an electric field.
He looked at his arm, looked at his arm, looked shocked and stunned.
I then immediately pointed out that every cable in every wall and ceiling, plus the fan he sleeps under, and all appliances in his home, emits strong electromagnetc fields, especially, lights, fridges and washing machines.
He looked agitated, so I asked him what he would like to do about it?
He actually gawped, but had no words coming out. It’s funny to see someone gawp, you read about it, you see it in cartoons, but seeing it for real is just priceless.
I said it would all stop if he turned the power offz and ditched his watch.
He actually stopped drivelling at that point and left.
This is the face of the next Holocaust. I would call Kin Stanley Robinson one of the most reprehensible pieces of human shit on the planet.
Sounds like UN agenda 21
Maybe we could build a whole bunch of Berlin Walls (unless we’ve already forgotten about it) to keep people inside their allotted ghettos.
Kim Stanley Robinson is quite simply a stark raving lunatic, probably no worse than many others who believe in socialism. Because socialism is impossible to achieve in practice, the lunatics keep coming up with madhouse suggestions one at a time to implement. The CO2 scare just happened to be the costliest madhouse plan. This article is just another one; but it would be impossible to carry out without a 1 world government which is the true goal of lunatics. Of course a 1 world government quickly leads to a dictatorship.
Erm… Sounds radical
I went to the store on Tuesday after I got done voting in the primary, and picked up a pint box of strawberries from Florida. Not a bit expensive, either, and a real treat at this time of year. And I’m grateful to every strawberry farmer and carrot/radish/potato farmer on the planet that puts food on my table, because I know where my food comes from.
I grew up with back yard gardening as a given. Chickens love it when you let them out of the yard to go forage for bugs in the rows of peas and tomatoes. They got fat, and we had dozens of well-fed birds in the freezer by fall.
I find it extremely disturbing that people like Robinson believe that they are more important than the produce farmers and chicken/poultry farmers and grain farmers who produce the stuff that they buy at the grocery store. (Probably do not even do their own shopping, either.) They are NOT more important. They are in fact, far less important because they produce nothing that has any intrinsic value to the rest of us. We can get along just fine without them.
Therefore, since Mr. Robinson wants to empty the planet of the humans he despises so much, since he’s allegedly human, I suggest that he sign up first for disposal. He simply has nothing important to say.to anyone.
Then the rest of us can go on about our business and… Man, he pisses me off!!
Sorry, mods, just venting.
Robinson is another example of an intellectual with untempered emotions, which they think as an idea. Then there is the ambition to impose that idea upon other people. Most of these and their socialist supporters live in cities, parasitic upon those who live and work outside the big cities.
Bring the latter into the cities and everyone would be parasitic.
What a dangerous dreamer!
“Empty half the Earth of its humans. It’s the only way to save the planet”
This is what happens when you spend too much time admiring Thanos while reading Marvel comic books.
Here are a few quotes this guy would probably agree with (as long as they didn’t include him).
I particularly like this one: Everything we have developed over the last 100 years should be destroyed. — Pentti Linkola
Fine by me. We bar all people of that mindset from use of any kind of advanced technology, from phones and toasters to autos and internet services. No snail mail, either. And they can make like peasants that they are used to do: walk everywhere, no bathing unless it’s birthday or end of life, no modern medicines at all – NOTHING of the modern world.
That entire list just reeks of some kind of psychotic hatred of themselves. I know there’s a name for it, but truly, they need to be required to volunteer first for elimination.
” … NOTHING of the modern world.” — Sara
—
Bit harsh, you could at least give them some free bullets, to help.
@ur momisugly WXcycles
Obviously pre-WWI weapons do not qualify as “developed over the last 100 years”, so we may keep it.
And anyway, you don’t need sophisticated weaponry to wreck havoc. You just need more manpower to deal damage
Free enterprise means the rich get richer, along with everyone else.
Socialism just means every one gets poorer, except for those who run socialism.
@Rob – “Treading water” with a flat screen TV / Computer monitor, a smart phone, a home with running water, heating / AC, and a full two car garage. Access to travel any where I choose, video calling to relatives around the world, and access to vast stores of information, any time any where.
The only real gripes the “non-rich, non-poor” have are the costs of things that the government “fixed” for us: the cost of home ownership, the cost of health insurance, and the cost of education.
I doubt adding energy to the list of stuff they “fixed” will improve our situation.
Well you first, muppet.
” … US Author Kim Stanley Robinson wants half the Earth to be depopulated, by somehow inducing rural people to move into cities. … ”
—-
National Parks rangers on drugs.
They wanted to ban humans from those, first.
The next step in eliminating the commons and putting humans into UN approved chicken cages, and feeding them crickets.
No soup for you.