Ideal population (Denver, Colorado Springs, Fort Collins: sale, purchase, camps)

[Idunn]

I believe the ideal, sustainable population of Colorado approximately 800,000.

This is an admittedly rough estimate, derived by simplistic calculations which do not include many of the complex considerations to be scientifically accurate. But it is not a wild guess, either. Several considerations inform this suggested number.

One is that, "The population of the U.S. is about five percent of the world's population, consuming up to 25 percent of portions of world's natural resources (Population Reference Bureau)." (Reference #1) Not only 25% of the world's resources, but 50% of the world's oil. This would suggest the US decrease either its standard of living or population by a factor of five.

While this might be viewed as unnecessary, there are also domestic considerations. Consider that, "In 1950 Boulder had a population of 20,000 and had 9 members on the City Council. In 1999 the population is approaching 100,000 and there are still 9 members on the City Council. For the average citizen, democracy in Boulder has been diluted by a factor of five in just 49 years!" (Reference #2) Boulder, CO is more the example than anomaly in the recent experience of Coloradans. Moreover it is not just a question of democracy but in congestion, traffic, pollution, access to open space, etc. that such impacts are felt.

As a rough guide I'll go by this last which, if studied, considers a number of factors. Said in part, that, "If, however, the Americans wish to continue their current high level of energy use and standard of living and prosperity, then its ideal population should be targeted at about 50 million people. This is, of course, unlikely to occur." (Reference #3) This suggests a factor of 6, or from a US population of approximately 300,000,000 to 50,000,000, and a Colorado population of approximately 5,000,000 to 833,000.

For a variety of reasons I do not believe this will happen, this to be addressed later in this piece. Suffice it to say now that this a ballpark figure, with serious implications and reasons why it should be so. It is suggested in part because the economy and populace of Colorado do exist within a vacuum and are dependent on the broader world. It is also provided as a maximum, with the understanding that the only way it could remain higher is by using a disproportionate share of the earth's resources. Also that it might be lower and only this high through a continuation of existing technology and infrastructure to large degree.

Before any conclusion however, some considerations of why this should be so:

I've touched upon this before, but to begin with one should have no doubt that the population of Colorado, the US, and the world as a whole is increasing exponentially.

"The current population of the U.S. of nearly 300 million is projected to double to about 600 million in less than 70 years, based on the current growth rate of 1.1% per year. At present there is no indication that the growth in the U.S. population will be slowed, and unless this growth rate changes within 140 years the U.S. population will equal the present day population of China. In fact, the U.S. population is now increasing at a rate twice as fast as that of China."

"Based on past experience, it will not be until the pressure of the U.S. human population on the environment and natural resources becomes intolerable that some corrective action will be taken by individuals and the government. Then it may be too late to avert further poverty and disease in the U.S. These devastating situations already exist in many parts of the world. According to the World Health Organization more than 3 billion are malnourished or more than half of the world population (WHO, 2003)." (Reference #3)

That despite this the carrying capacity of this world exceeded some time ago, presently by a factor of roughly 3 times. When considering this one must not only mankind and his needs but the entire ecosystem in which he lives, not only in fairness but, due the interconnectedness and dependency of life, ultimately survival, not to mention quality of life.

One particular species, elk, that many people favor serves as a good example:

"Elk numbers have risen consistently over the past several years and now exceed 300,000 statewide. Colorado Division of Wildlife biologists estimate the ideal population levels should be closer to 200,000, with a bull-to-cow ratio floating around 20 bulls per 100 cows. In many parts of the state the bull/cow ratios are relatively close to that objective; it's the population levels that are out of balance." (Reference #4)

The elk population of Rocky Mountain National Park serves as example in microcosm:

"The elk population in Rocky Mountain National Park is out of control. The National Park Service is considering several options for controlling the elk’s future growth, including hunting them down and re-introducing wolves."

"The elk population in the park has been growing to its current size of 2200-3000 since the 1930’s, far exceeding the recommended 1200-2100 based on ecosystem modeling." (Reference #5)

The simplistic answer to date, outside of protected areas, has been hunting. To wit: "Although hunters killed a record number of elk in 2004, the statewide total is estimated at close to that 300,000 mark again this year, allowing Colorado to retain its title as the elk capital of the world." (Reference #4) This is ill-informed and short sighted. Most obviously it allows a lower number of elk through hunting, which generates revenue through such avenues as tourism, hunting licenses, etc. But there are broader implications to such an imbalance. Although largely hunted to extinction and held in disfavor by ranchers, predators such as wolves do a better job of limiting elk and preserving their environment:

"Wolves force the elk to migrate. Otherwise, the elk remain in riparian areas, wiping out the willow and aspen trees they eat."

"Edward said Sinapu considers the re-introduction of wolves a necessary step towards bringing elk back into a natural behavior pattern. “Predators are a primary driving force behind the diversity of life,” Edward said.

"Wolves were completely wiped out of the Western United States in the 1930’s and 40’s because of the danger they posed to livestock and farming communities, and this dynamic continues to make wolves a controversial species. However, as keystone predators they are important to the ecological balance of biological systems as whole."

“It took less than a decade for aspen to regenerate tremendously after the re-introduction of wolves in Yellowstone,” Edward said.

"Other species of plants and animals, such a songbirds, also began making comebacks after wolves re-entered Yellowstone. He believes that, as in Yellowstone, gray wolves can reverse the negative conditions found in RMNP and the surrounding areas."

“Wolves are a critical component in keeping the entire system healthy and diverse,” Edward said, “but it’s a hard process to undo ecological damage.” (Reference #5)

Thus an ecosystem must be viewed in whole, recognizing that a change in one facet changes all others. With humans no less an integral part, their numbers and habits will have an impact, either large or small. No less than elk their numbers can be out of balance and have a detrimental effect. In a purely natural world, as predators, our numbers should actually be less than game animals.

I'll next touch upon the concept of growth. This is a sacred cow among Americans, and common wisdom, widely disseminated as naturally good. That is a grave misconception. Where once it made sense to have large families and increase in communities due a high incidence of childhood deaths, the need for many hands to help in fields, then also seemingly inexhaustible natural resources, none of this the case today in developed nations. The rational for it no longer exists, just the opposite. Yet the benefit of growth is still assumed and promulgated as a given.

Consider that,

"Growth is occurring in the entire state of Colorado, as well as in Aspen and the Roaring Fork Valley, because of above average growth in the Western United States. Since the 1990 Census, the fastest growing states in the country have been Nevada, Idaho, Arizona, Utah and Colorado with Arizona and Colorado adding the most population –760,000 and 530,000 respectively. It is expected that Colorado’s population will continue to increase but at a slower rate over the next four years -- an average annual rate of 1.5%"

"The fastest growing part of the state is on the Western Slope in the resort areas of Summit, Eagle (Vail), Pitkin (Aspen), San Miguel (Telluride) and Routt (Steamboat Springs) counties. Here the new construction boom of second homes and resort facilities has created construction and service jobs for new permanent populations, many of whom reside in neighboring counties. The attractiveness of cities of the Western Slope to small businesses and telecommuters wanting to get away from large metropolitan areas has spawned considerable growth in the areas. The attractiveness of all of these areas to retirees is also adding population to the region. All of the factors which lie behind these types of growth, the growing number of tourist dollars as the baby-boomers reach middle-age, the desire of many small businesses to move to smaller areas, and the overall number of retirees are expected to continue or increase throughout the projected periods shown below." (Reference #6)

Or that:

"• Between 2000 and 2010, the Colorado population 55 - 64 will grow at 5.9% per year vs. 3.9% for this U.S. age group, and 1.7% for Colorado total.
• Between 2010 and 2020, the Colorado population 65 - 74 will grow at 5.6% per year vs. 4% for the U.S., and 1.8% for Colorado total.
• In the two decades, between 2000 and 2020, Colorado's population 55 - 64 will more than double increasing from 342,000 in 2000 to 745,000 in 2020."
• The Scenic and Urban areas of the Western Slope and Central Mountains will grow even more strongly (than front range, note mine), rates > 2% per year.
• These counties will be challenged to retain a high-quality living environment . . .
• but the old and new residents and second home owners will demand it!!!" (Reference #7)

Such projections make a number of presumptions. That nothing will hinder further growth in Colorado, and that this is largely to be welcomed. It also implies there will be the need of and creation of further infrastructure, in housing, roads, utilities, etc. If read closely it also suggests the demand for more hospitals and associated infrastructure and services. Also an increase in second homes and subsequent pockets of relative wealth that inflate real estate prices, decrease open space, and raise overall housing costs. It also does not address how this will be paid for, although such costs historically born by the greater public, whether they benefit or not, or in fact harmed in the process.

While some Coloradans may, and in fact have objected to an influx of population from other states, more common to ignore domestic increases or the overall number. But if the influx of Californians and others at times viewed with a rueful eye, far less likely the increase in employment or revenues detrimental. In this context the oil and gas industry of Colorado makes a perfect example. Consider that:

"Colorado's oil-and-gas industry pumped $22.9 billion into the state's economy in 2005, accounting for more than 6 percent of the state's gross domestic product..."

"The study also demonstrated the vast number of jobs the oil- and-gas industry provides the state: 70,779. Those jobs pay an average annual wage of $60,811. The employment numbers include some indirect listings, such as the amount of government-job salaries supported by the industry's taxes." (Reference #8)

How can that be bad, billions of dollars and thousands of good paying jobs? Well, consider some of the associated costs:

"I've seen estimates that oil shale, if it is developed, would consume 100 percent of the remaining water in the Colorado River system," said U.S. Sen. Ken Salazar.

"On paper, Colorado gets 3.8 million acre-feet a year under the 1922 compact and subsequent agreements. But few water experts believe Colorado will get anything close to that much, because of climate change and natural dry cycles. Birch's boss at the river district, Eric Kuhn, thinks Colorado already might be using all the water to which it is legally entitled." (Reference #9)

Aside from very serious considerations of water usage, entirely beyond legal questions of ownership, others such as quality of life for citizens of long residence:

"Across the country, rights to any surface property and to the minerals underneath it can be split. When Mackley leased his mineral rights in the late 1960s, he gave up the power to determine where gas wells could be drilled on his ranch and how many of them there could be. Almost 40 years ago, gas companies were allowed to drill one well every 640 acres. On Mackley's property, that meant just one well."

"In the last four decades, Colorado repeatedly liberalized that rule to allow one well every 320 acres, 160 acres, and then 40 acres. Now, one gas company, Barrett Resources, says 20-acre spacing should be permitted."

"If we have gas wells every 20 acres, we're not going to have any quality growth," says Mackley. "Who's going to want to live among gas wells? Our property values are going to decline."

"The core of the issue, says Micale, is disregard for the law. He cites the Rule of Accommodation, a precedent established over 100 years in Colorado court cases. It says that the right to extract gas is limited by a duty to minimize adverse impacts to the landowner. Although it has been upheld in the Colorado Supreme Court as recently as 1997, mining companies ignore this case law because no state agency actively enforces it." (Reference #10)

Other associated costs include the need for more electricity, not to mention many of these operations are in fact subsidized by Colorado taxpayers:

"Meanwhile, already- parched Western states bracing for more growth are completing water supply inventories. A Colorado study projected that by 2050, with the state's oil shale operations at full capacity, the industry will require 14 times more power than currently generated by the state's largest power plant."

"Despite the objections, oil shale development has been pushed forward by a series of recent actions. In an effort to encourage the fledgling industry, officials said, new regulations allow oil shale operators to pay unusually low royalty rates. The system calls for producers to pay 5% for the first five years, increasing 1% each year until reaching 12.5%, the standard federal oil and gas royalty rate. "

"In recent weeks, the industry was included in the $700-billion government bailout package with investment and tax incentives to help oil shale producers build refineries and other expensive infrastructure." (Reference #11)

Some have suggested not only a balance in scale but also that costs should be born by these companies and not the state, thus, "Bonding should reflect the true cost of clean-up or reclamation so that surface owners and residents don’t end up subsidizing those operators who abandon their well sites." (Reference #12)

In fact rather the opposite occurs. When even minor steps are taken to mitigate potential problems the industry takes grave exception, and has indeed sued the state of Colorado, "Calling Colorado’s sweeping new rules governing oil and gas operations “the most costly and burdensome” in the nation, the Colorado Oil & Gas Association has sued state regulators, asking a judge to invalidate the rules that Gov. Bill Ritter signed into law April 22." (Reference #13)

The issue at hand a minor allowance, a brief period during the year when consideration must be given to the procreation and life of natural Colorado species such as elk and mule deer. But this apparently too much, the industry complaining it will be severely impacted, threatening to take its money and go elsewhere:

"McNulty countered, “The rules as we have them now pose a significant risk to the men and women in the oil and gas industry who are out trying to make a living.”

"He warned energy companies would probably get fed up with the increased regulations and begin investing in neighboring states “where they can drill 365 days a year.”

"...he, along with his other colleagues, warned more restrictions would mean less fuel and less income to Coloradans. Alistair Bickers, a spokesman for British Petroleum America, estimated the new rules could cost landowners $200 million in royalties over the next several years." (Reference #14)

The argument here is basically one of money. That of the oil and gas industry, and those who profit from it, such as individual landowners. How the profit for them can be maximized. This largely the only consideration, even as the benefits accrue to relatively few, the widespread costs born by all. Even with some restriction, they still make out quite well:

"Randy Udall, a Carbondale-based freelance writer and activist (and brother of U.S. Senate candidate Mark Udall), said according to some estimates, Colorado energy producers will continue to enjoy a 40 percent rate of return, even if the tighter new rules are promulgated."

"Josh Joswick, a former La Plata County Commissioner and spokesman for the San Juan Citizens Alliance, applauded the commission’s approach to the rulemaking process and said that for too long the balance of power has been “so far out of balance (in favor of the energy industry) that you have to go a good ways with what you pass.” (Reference #14)

This not to unduly single out the oil and gas industry, as there surely is a place for it within Colorado. But in proportion and balance, in consideration of all other important facets of life, and since it so well does none of this but instead represents so well exploitation, money and greed, a good example. But the same focus on economic growth to the seclusion of all else is representative of the better part of Colorado's economy. More is better is the mantra, whether in energy, mineral extraction, housing starts, agriculture, retail services, construction, or population. All of it, you have it. There is little concept beyond more is better, or that better might mean less, of that better could mean the best of what is.

But let's delve into something related, something seemingly innocuous, but within the same mindset, and that fishing. Colorado enjoys some natural advantages, and can boast, "This is a year round flyfishing state where the fishing season never seems to end." (Reference #15)

Some are not going to like this one bit, but I will spare no sacred cow and willing to suggest that as practiced most fishing in Colorado is unsound and environmentally harmful. Consider that,

"The stocking of trout in wilderness lakes of the western United States began in the 1800s. This practice was followed for nearly a century with the singular goal of creating and enhancing sport fishing and without any consideration of its ecological ramifications. Following the advent of a new environmental awareness in the 1960s, and thanks to new research that revealed negative impacts on the biota attributable to introduced fishes, traditional fish-stocking practices came under question first at federal land management agencies and later at their counterparts within the states. The highly utilitarian ethic that drove resource management until well into the 1960s was gradually replaced by one that acknowledges the value of all life forms and their ecological complexity, a view currently supported even by many anglers. The necessity for wilderness fish stocking is now the subject of widespread debate, especially in view of changing social values and priorities. Options for future generations cannot be preserved if introductions continue to erode the biodiversity of mountain lake ecosystems." (Reference #16)

In fact such practices are so commonly accepted and widespread that they even extend into such national Parks as Rocky Mountain, where they should know better. On entering this park there are clear signs and warnings to leave all wild animals alone, yet it is entirely possible to obtain a fishing license and entirely disrupt that portion of the ecosystem.

"In Colorado, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service manages two National Fish Hatcheries that raise over 2.5 million trout per year for stocking in lakes and reservoirs in Colorado, and two reservoirs in northern New Mexico. The propagation and stocking of these fish provide 262,000 angler days, generating over $13 million in recreational dollars, every year." (Reference #17)

This to suggest that, as with elk, if a relative balance achieved that a certain number of native trout and other fish might be taken from Colorado's waters without harm. But to satisfy human pleasure and 'sportsmanship' a gross imbalance perpetuated that results in roughly somewhere in excess of 2 million more trout taken than should be.

While this might seem like a very minor, nonsensical point to some, it rather goes to the heart of this matter. Such disregard for natural systems, and the presumption that mankind naturally superior, and that his preferences should automatically predominate, is exactly why (he) is in the mess (he) is in today. Exactly that.

Certain aspects of this dilemma are becoming increasingly recognized and harder to ignore. As one person noted,

"I've rafted the Grand Canyon from Lee's Ferry to Diamond Creek take-out. Today, it takes 10 to 12 years to gain a permit to raft the Colorado River. With an added 100 million people, it'll take 20 to a lifetime to gain a permit."

"Back in Denver, 10 years ago, it took me 1.5 hours to go skiing and camping in the High Country. Plentiful campgrounds; safe ski slopes! Today, after Colorado added 1.3 million in a decade, campgrounds and rivers suffer overload. Ski slopes feature humans as pin balls from too many people. It takes me three to four hours to return home through gridlocked traffic. Interstate 70 is already a gridlocked parking lot 90 miles long!" (Reference #18)

Other aspects seemingly more esoteric, but the implications and results will be no less real:

“If Bangladesh had 10 million inhabitants, instead of 144 million (in a land mass the size of Iowa), its impoverished people could live on prosperous farms away from the dangerous flood plains in the midst of a natural and stable upland environment,” Wilson said. “It is also sophistic to point to the Netherlands and Japan, as many commentators do, as models of densely populated, but prosperous societies. Both are highly specialized industrial nations dependent upon massive imports of natural resources from the rest of the world."

“If all nations held the same number of people per square kilometer, they would converge in quality of life to Bangladesh rather than to the Netherlands and Japan, and their irreplaceable natural resources would soon join the Seven Wonders of the World as scattered vestiges of an ancient history.” (Reference #19)

A nation such as Bangladesh might be half a world away and seem even further, but all intents and purposes it might as well be next door to you. Increasingly what transpires there, and other similar locals, will have a decided impact on day to day life in Colorado. It also serves as explicit warning to the US and other industrialized nations, such as Japan, what they can expect if not at last, and soon, matching their population and standard of living to available resources.

It should be added at this juncture that much of this will not be easy; it will require a decided departure from traditional ways of thinking and living. The inclination will be to dismiss and ignore such a reality, all the more because in the short term it largely can be, present comforts enjoyed while the inheritance of future generations mortgaged. To put this in stark terms, such a realignment will require a serious effort to adjust an economy, expectation and lifestyle built around the assumption and need of continual growth. Just like a Ponzi scheme.

"The effects of a declining population can be adverse for an economy which has borrowed extensively for repayment by younger generations; however, a smaller human population has a smaller impact on the environment and on biodiversity. Economically declining populations are thought to lead to deflation, which has a number of effects. However, Russia, whose economy has been rapidly growing (8.1% in 2007) even as its population is shrinking, currently has high inflation (12% as of late 2007)[10]. For an agricultural or mining economy the average standard of living in a declining population, at least in terms of material possessions, will tend to rise as the amount of land and resources per person will be higher. But for many industrial economies, the opposite can be true as those economies often thrive on mortgaging the future by way of social welfare and retirement transfer payments. However, standard of living does not necessarily correlate with quality of life, which may very well increase as the population declines (especially if the area in question is somewhat overpopulated to begin with)." (Reference #20)

So this not to dismiss in the least the very real costs and effort required to make such a fundamental change. Only that it is necessary. Then also that while the greater consequence of non-action will be borne by future generations, increasingly also by we present today. One brief example that of illegal, unregulated immigration, and how the welcome advent of low cost labor has been anything but free:

"Colorado spends $50 million per year educating immigrant children from Mexico alone. This will require 5,000 new teachers to be hired annually and building 20 new schools annually. The Rocky Mountain News reported construction and renovation would cost $165-175 million." (Reference #21)

This just the tip of the iceberg, real costs far greater. Also in consideration the growing inequality of a society and resultant ills, but also in adding to the exponential growth of the overall populace. This alone, if not stopped, will make all other efforts academic and futile.




So, any possible solutions one might ask? Well, to put it mildly, it will be difficult. Even with the proper will, we are facing a daunting challenge. Colorado presently has a population of approximately 5,000,000. Even if all growth in this population stopped today, through no more than natural deaths it would require well over 100 years to reach a population below 1,000,000. Consider these statistics for the US:

Birth rate: 13.82 births/1,000 population (2009 est.)
Death rate: 8.27 deaths/1,000 population (2008 est.)
Net migration rate: 4.31 migrant(s)/1,000 population (2009 est.) (Reference #22)

The figure I provided based upon roughly 8 deaths per 1,000 population, and the quite unlikely scenario of no immigration of any sort into Colorado, and not a single birth. As said, unlikely. Moreover, with decrease in population the yearly amount of decrease would commensurately decrease. In other words, a hypothetical 40,000 decrease from a population of 5,000,000 but half that at 20,000 from a population of 2,500,000. Or put another way, it will be anything but easy to rely only on natural decrease to make Colorado's population sustainable soon enough.

Certain steps might be taken, however. If not halted, the number of births might be decreased. Depending on circumstance the ideal figure would be 1.5 to 2.1%, or this fraction of children per couple. China's seemingly draconian system of one child per couple actually applies to only 35.9% of the populace, but said to have resulted in 250,000,000 fewer births up to the year 2000. (Reference #23) However with a populace of 1,338,612,968, China remains grossly over populated. (Reference #24) It is a growing nation increasingly contesting the US and other developed nations for oil and other natural resources.

Colorado can also not easily palm off excess population on others. With open borders this to an extent impractical, not to mention if in any way an example to the rest of the world, no example at all. Each society and nation will largely have to deal with its population as best it can. Nevertheless there are steps Colorado can take to discourage any further immigration, and to a certain extent exodus of some present residents. It will not be easy or popular. At basis it will involve having each citizen of Colorado, particularly business, bare the full cost of living here. For instance, rather than having the taxpayer subsidize the cost of health care to retirees considering Colorado as a new home, they may be encouraged to look elsewhere where such costs still subsidized and lower. Many other costs, including necessary transportation, exactly the same. All those accustomed to relatively low costs of living and services won't like it one bit. On the other hand, other associated costs, possibly real estate, may even decline in cost.

While I'm at it, real estate alone bares specific mention. For any of this to work Colorado's economy must become more socialistic and less free market. It can, and could, remain a mixture of the two. However something such as real estate could be fundamentally shifted from an investment, retirement and speculation to no more than home. Thus tightly regulated to insure every resident of Colorado has a proper home, but that any further growth largely in improving that extant, not in creating more. One result of this a marked decline in realtors, their livelihood, and portion of revenues this contributed to the economy. Not necessarily easy, or welcome.

At the height of its affluence the Anasazi settlement of Mesa Verde, in far southwestern Colorado, perhaps had a population of several thousand.

"The years from 1100 to l300 were Mesa Verde' s classic period. The population may have reached several thousand." (Reference #25)

This mentioned as it serves as a benchmark of sorts for demographic figures for native Americans within Colorado which remain rather vague. By one estimate there were 4,000,000 native Americans extent when Columbus arrived. (Reference #26) Another estimate would place the native American population as high as 18,000,000 north of the Rio Grande, or as low as 900,000:

"Scholarly estimates of the pre-Columbian population of Northern America have differed by millions of individuals: the lowest credible approximations propose that some 900,000 people lived north of the Rio Grande in 1492, and the highest posit some 18,000,000." (Reference #27)

Or perhaps a bit closer, "Mooney concluded that approximately 1,115,000 individuals lived in Northern America at the time of Columbian landfall. " (Reference #27)

The point being a relatively low population before the advent of Europeans and their technology. The most relevant figures I've located indicate a Colorado population of 34,277 in 1860. (Reference #28) However one should bare in mind this refers only to the newly arrived white inhabitants, only they presumably counting. One can only guess at the possibly larger native American population, but probably not twice the amount, or 70,000, if that, given centuries of removal and decimation by the increasingly predominate Anglo-Saxon culture. But as said, this a guess. It could be noted that the relatively more fecund region of Puget Sound had, "...area populations once as high as 37,000 were reduced to only 9,000 survivors by the time settlers arrived en masse in the mid-19th century." (Reference #29)

The point of this being that if one removes most technology and other advances, the human capacity of North America far lower than that presently inhabited. It serves as a baseline of sorts, although one should bare in mind that even ideally one could not automatically return to such a state as our modern society has consumed and destroyed many of the resources, in timber, in prairie, in bison, in fish, etc. that allowed for the existence of those former inhabitants.

Anyway, there you have it: 34,277. 1860 is a good baseline year as gold was only discovered in 1858, with the subsequent Pike's Peak gold rush and development coming the year after in 1959. Before that time Colorado was sparsely inhabited by mostly native Americans and a few fur trappers, and largely owned by Spain, then Mexico. By 1910 Colorado's population had reached but 799,024, sans the better part of its native American populace.

So when it is suggested that Colorado might ideally sustain a population of 800,000, this should be understood in the context of modern technology and its wise deployment and use. The actual, natural carrying capacity of the land is surely far less. One has but to consider historical precedent to observe this. When we speak of a population of 5,000,000 which is increasing exponentially, it is in light of a fundamental baseline which has been extended by modern technology, and then grossly over extended beyond any measure of sustainability. That extent is only possible due rapid depletion of resources which allow it. That we have, and are doing, but a bubble and moment in time, which must and will end relatively soon. The only question is how.

Einstein said, “The problems in the world today are so enormous they cannot be solved with the level of thinking that created them.” (Reference #30)

If a single phrase, or two words, remain with you, it possibly these: Exponential growth. It should cause more than a little consternation and sober reflection. You might consider the implications and then assess how well your fellows understand or care about this, let alone the broader world of which we an integral part. What you witness in context may appear as a three ring circus and zoo in full flight.

Given human predisposition perhaps the most rational course to abandon any hope of sober adjustment, and prepare for the inevitable. With US military expenditures about half the world total, perhaps it is time to significantly increase the percent of our GDP to the military, implement a draft, and rapidly increase its size and power. Not only that, forsake any hypocritical notions of justice or benevolence, and like the Romans of old set out to take every last thing we can. The Devil can take the hindmost. Seriously, in such a scenario countries such as China will have to be severely dealt with, rendered back to a near pre-industrial age and living standard. As must the better part of the world, save perhaps some Europeans as allies, as we will need most of the world's resources. This is entirely possible, if brutal, and at a certain level even sustainable. If done, the population of the US could even increase, albeit with commensurate environmental harm, but aside from this with even a higher standard of living. It is simply a matter of taking more than our fair share, which is nothing we are not even now doing.

Or? Well then the unpleasant prospect of evolving, of having to face, do, and become what we would rather not. At the end of the day quite possibly even better off for it, but the work required daunting. Should you count on this? Probably not. Consider your fellows closely. Some are enlightened. Some advocate exactly this or even better approaches. But how about the rest of them? How much time do you and they have?

A large part of this discussion perhaps academic in what we have already done. No matter changes made today, the climate will continue changing rapidly for some time to come before reaching equilibrium. Yet we only add to its effects and this severe problem in an exponential fashion.

"The findings suggest that worldwide and synchronistic war–peace, population, and price cycles in recent centuries have been driven mainly by long-term climate change. The findings also imply that social mechanisms that might mitigate the impact of climate change were not significantly effective during the study period. Climate change may thus have played a more important role and imposed a wider ranging effect on human civilization than has so far been suggested. Findings of this research may lend an additional dimension to the classic concepts of Malthusianism and Darwinism." (Reference #31)

Now that we come to this rather the question of what will get us first, our egregious population or the effects it has spawned. But these are all forces that we increasingly understand well and know how to correct, if not the will to do so. Efforts to the contrary, or political indifference, can be considered in this context. Statements that CO2 levels lowered somewhat when economically feasible can be seen for exactly what they are. All else in measure.

Having begun this piece with a figure and less than hopeful prospect, I would prefer to end it somewhere rather different. Hopefully you've come this far, read and considered the details and implications. Enough said, then. From such a juncture we can only speculate as to the future, even knowing that it tends to follow certain trends. Mankind may not develop the collective wisdom in time to make this transition as smooth as it might be. You can probably count on that. Just witness the world as is. But one must start somewhere, and from such a vantage some will know the necessary actions and take them. How many will yet to be determined. And in their number, and proportion, the world will change. Perhaps small islands of it may emerge on the far side more or less unscathed and in the end better for it. With luck a greater portion than not. But a hard realism the best touchstone in these times. That and a clear willingness and determination to do what is right as one best knows it.

We might hope as much. All best luck.
















REFERENCES

1) Pitkin County, Colorado Population Stabilization - Mass Immigration Resolution - EcoFuture (TM) Population and Sustainability
2) Bartlett: Colorado and the Population Problem
3) Land, Water and Energy Versus The Ideal U.S. Population
4) Colorado's 2005 Elk Forecast
5) College Avenue - Colorado State University
6) (Aspen) ToniWhaley.com : Aspen - Roaring Fork Valley -Denver : Real Estate Investments, Sales & Consulting
7) Colorado Long Term Economic and Population Forecast Presented to
8) Colorado Senate News - Oil and gas lead GDP
9) Colliding forces: Has Colorado's oil and gas industry met its match? — High Country News
9) Oil industry looking at additional Colorado reservoirs to store water
10) Colliding forces: Has Colorado's oil and gas industry met its match? — High Country News
11) Science & Environmental Health Network - Ethical Economics - True Cost Clearinghouse
12) San Juan Citizens Alliance - Energy Development - Southwest Colorado Oil and Gas
13) Energy industry sues Colorado over new oil and gas rules - Denver Business Journal:
14) Usual suspects praise, slam new oil and gas rules | Colorado Statesman
15) Fly fishing In Colorado
16) SpringerLink - Journal Article
17) Mountain-Prairie Region Fisheries Office: Fish and Wildlife Service
18) Letters to the Editor Blog: Frosty Wooldridge: Colorado Population Crisis : News : Boulder Daily Camera
19) The Raging Monster Upon the Land: Hyper-population Growth - Transition Colorado
20) Population decline - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
21) Data and quick facts on overpopulation and mass immigration - CAIR - Colorado Alliance for Immigration Reform
22) https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat.../print/us.html
23) One-child policy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
24) https://www.cia.gov/library/publicat...k/geos/ch.html
25) GORP - Mesa Verde National Park - Colorado - The Anasazi
26) WikiAnswers - Native americans population in north america at the time of Columbus arrival
27) Native American (indigenous peoples of Canada and United States) :: North America and Europe circa 1492 -- Britannica Online Encyclopedia
28) Negative Population Growth
29) Native Americans in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
30) Utter Futility of Colorado Governor Ritter’s Air Pollution Plan to Stop Climate Change : NOVAKEO.COM
31) Global climate change, war, and population decline in recent human history — PNAS

[treedonkey]

Looks like you finally got that book published, Idunn... congrats!

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by Idunn

Intriguing. In looking into this briefly, I happened upon three references which provide an idea of how this operates.

This provides a concise idea of how molten salt storage operates. One will note that some issue may exist with potassium nitrate, as it may also be used as an explosive:
Molten Salt As Solar Heat Battery : TreeHugger

This source an explanation of how such technology is beginning to be implemented and used:
Storing Solar Power in Salt - Green Inc. Blog - NYTimes.com

This reference from Wikipedia notes some of the principles involved, including the high heat levels involved, with salt kept liquid at 550 °F (290 °C):
Solar thermal energy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Something like this seems quite possible. Although implementations mentioned all seem industrial, I see no reason in principle that the same type of 'battery' could not be scaled for residential use. Use of mirrors (as depicted) perhaps the most efficient, but perhaps more pedestrian forms of collection used by individuals, but with this type of storage?

A good article on Concentrated Solar Power (CSP) can be found in Solar Today, April 2009, Page 10. Utility-scale projects are easily doable and now exist in many places. The now-gone Israeli firm, Luz, built 254 MegaWatts of CSP in the Mojave Desert back in the 1980's, but Luz was driven out of the business when the U.S. govt deregulated the energy biz in the early 1990's. I find it disturbing that under the cover of de-regulation, clean new technology got clobbered by the gas, oil and coal industries. Such plants are still being built. Hopefully, Colorado Springs will opt for this solution vice going forward with their Commanche-3 coal fired plant. We have all the sunlight we need in this state to power ourselves, not need to "import" coal and natural gas from WY. Phoenix is now building a 250MW plant in AZ. It works, and there's no CO2 emission.

Getting back to the original question of what is the ideal population for Colorado, versus what is the sustainable level of population, that's a hard nut for me to crack. None of our states are really self-sufficient and able to stand alone as fully self-contained "mini-nations" that need no outside inputs.

To me, it's more important that the USA be as self-sufficient as possible. In a way, I'm hoping for a return to high oil prices, to make foreign goods and food very expensive, so we can get back to making or growing our own goods and foods. If we made or grew all of our stuff again, we'd largely end unemployment as we know it - for a long time. Not sure it's even possible with the decline in birth rates in the USA and western world.

Maybe we've taken this topic as far as we can. Maybe we can get some more inputs and keep the discussion going.

[Josseppie]

I dunn said this:

I believe the ideal, sustainable population of Colorado approximately 800,000.

I just have one question. If you think 800,000 people is the sustainable population for Colorado then how would you suggest the brake down when the Pikes Peak Region alone has 600,000 people with all the military bases? Not to mention the rest of the Front Range.

[Bob from down south]

Of course part of the problem with coming up with a number to answer questions like this is that no number based on static analysis using best-case assumptions works in a dynamic environment. We see that in all manner of dangerously faulty decisionmaking these days. We have millions of households run by brain donors that sink themselves into debt assuming that no job loss or other economic stress will occur...they stretched themselves so tight that replacement of a water heater rises to the level of crisis, much more a severe recession/depression. We have corporate "leadership" that has changed the culture of running companies using robust revenue and accounts receivables to a culture that summarily assumes that no business can survive without exposing itself to debt, and few business schools teach the perils involved when the downside math becomes relevant. And we have a national government that couldn't collectively pass an open-book third-grade multiplication table quiz, carelessly throwing around budget numbers so big we'll soon need to start expressing them in scientific notation.

The real question is what level is ideal for us to survive a major shock without massive suffering and loss of life, with the most likely scenarios being energy disruption/shortages and a severe and prolonged drought. The goofy "Star Trek" approach says "party on, let's feast on our seed corn now, because Captain Kirk will be there to save us." But the onset of either of these potential disasters could be rather sudden, and they could happen tomorrow. A massive volcanic eruption in the Yellowstone area, or a global war enveloping the mideast could serve as the fuse, and decades of man's refusal to structure society and plan for other than rosy best-case assumptions would deliver a self-administered coups de grace.


This game will end
in sudden debt overtime

[Idunn]

The following statistics suggest the total US military personnel in Colorado at 64,764. Breakdown as follows:

• Active Duty Military: 29,433
• Civilian: 11,501
• Reserve & National Guard: 28,830

This for the year 1997. Fort Carson is expected to have an increase in personnel, but the increase would not appreciably raise this given total.

Source: Colorado - US Military Facilities

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by Idunn

The following statistics suggest the total US military personnel in Colorado at 64,764. Breakdown as follows:

• Active Duty Military: 29,433
• Civilian: 11,501
• Reserve & National Guard: 28,830

This for the year 1997. Fort Carson is expected to have an increase in personnel, but the increase would not appreciably raise this given total.

Source: Colorado - US Military Facilities

Well you have to add families and related business as well.

But my question was more broad. If you think the sustainable population is 800,000 people in Colorado what do you think the population of the major cities should be from Pueblo to Fort Collins? The Pikes Peak region alone is over 600,000 people? I am just curious. And do you know how far back you would have to go to where Colorado had a population of 800,000 people and is that what you think the state should look like today? We would lose things like the Broncos, Rockies, major theater productions etc.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

In addition to one semi literate gang banger who admitted it, four other people voted 51,200,000.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

I think we are entering a very dark and dangerous period in world history--probably the most dangerous period ever--and Colorado and the surrounding region, sadly, may play a significant part in it. We are at a point that the very survival of the US, at any resemblance of what we know today, is very uncertain. Our enemies, and they are many, are quietly--and often not-so-quietly--aligning against us. Our potential demise could take any of several forms--or a combination of them:

1. The US could simply relegated to irrelevancy by its near-complete dependence on imported resources and manufactured goods. We would be forced to surrender our national sovereignty just to have access to the bare necessities for survival.

2. Out-of-control immigration, legal or otherwise, could simply allow those with nationalistic or theocratic loyalties that are not to the United States to gain a majority in this country. By an initially democratic means, the US would become once again a group of colonies controlled by nations or despots with no concern for the welfare of this country's citizens.

3. Our enemies could increasingly develop or buy access (maybe with money we gave to them for resources and/or manufactured goods to support our spoiled lifestyle) to the weapons of mass destruction (nuclear, chemical, biological, etc.) in sufficient strength and quantity to successfully intimidate us into capitulation at best, or to outright defeat us at worst.

Take a look around the world right this minute--and anyone with eyes will be able to see that all three of these strategies all already in play. This is not wild-eyed paranoia. The "game"--a game of "last-man-standing" survival--has already begun.

Now, here is the ugly part. The US faces some very unpleasant options--all of which it will likely have to exercise, and probably very soon.

1. This country must begin at once to rebuild its domestic industrial base and produce at least the bare subsistence items needed for its survival. At the same time, it must rigorously pursue strict conservation of its remaining natural resources--energy, minerals, soil, water. Both of these actions will require Americans to accept a significantly diminished material standard of living that may likely be more or less permanent--say a century or more.

2. We must severely limit or stop altogether immigration--especially illegal immigration. US borders must be secured--period.

3. We must vigorously work to assure that our enemies are denied access to weapons of sufficient strength and number to wage a successful attack against the United States.

The danger is that all of the above measures will certainly be unpopular with the spoiled American public, but to delay their implementation will only ensure that one the two following outcomes will occur:

-That the US as we know it will cease to exist as a country and as a society.

-Or that the US will be forced to use its then only-remaining viable military capability to prevent complete defeat: both tactical and strategic nuclear weapons; possibly even having to use them in a "first-strike" scenario. This, then, is the Colorado connection--as Colorado and Wyoming are one of the major epicenters of control of these weapons. Quietly sitting under the quiet plains of Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, and the Dakotas, a bristling arsenal of nuclear missiles remain--with clean-cut young men and women with their "fingers on the button." Some years back, I lived just a couple of miles from one of those silos, and I have known some of those fine missileers--people like you and me. And I know that if the call comes, they WILL push the button. One can only imagine the havoc that would unleash, but I do not for one second discount the idea that it could happen. I'm quite that there are people in the Pentagon who have been running scenarios--probably for entire careers--of just such a first-strike strategy. Nor do I believe first-strike nuclear warfare is "unthinkable"--especially if the survival of the country is at stake.

So, if we are to avoid one or the other of the last two outcomes, we MUST embrace those unpleasant changes that have to be made in our lifestyle, living arrangement, and view of the world--otherwise the choices we will have to make will be horrific. The days of the luxury of pleasant choice and easy outcomes are long past. Regardless of what scenario eventually comes to pass, of this I am convinced: One way or another there are going to a lot less people inhabiting the world in just a relatively few years. The ONLY questions are how the population will be reduced (reduced birth rates or higher death rates), and which people or societies will be the survivors. I'm very unconvinced, that without changing our ways significantly, that we Americans will necessarily be in the "survivor" group.

Also, jkanderson talks a good story, but he forgets that virtually every major advancement in human technology has been first deployed and used as a method to kill other human beings. There are great things about technology, but there are many things it can not do--and never will be able to do; and it always has a darker, more sinister side that frequently manifests itself first.

From Einstein:

You missed a scenario. Surprise strategic attack against a weakened and partially (unilaterally) disarmed US. Sort of like Pearl Harbor writ large. But unlike late 1941, our chances of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat are significantly less. I suppose it's a variation of your first scenario but worse.

[Idunn]

The very point is a lot of people don't want to play 'last man standing,' but in effect will unless the nations of the world sort out an equable, fair and sustainable manner of living.

Colorado had a population of 799,024 in 1910, so a return to that level, preferably with a good measure of the comforts and technology we have adopted since then.

Such things as professional sports teams are an extension and outgrowth of population. There is no way around it, if the population significantly reduced that remaining could not support such teams as they are today. But also consider that the total population of the US should decrease by a factor of 6, so not only Colorado affected. Sports teams such as the Broncos might still continue, but more as they were formerly, without the lavish pay and perks. Such a realty would apply to anyone and anything else that enjoys a position near the top of such a pyramid, when that below lessoned to that degree they are.

With an estimated population of 598,707 in 2008, Denver, CO had a population of 213,381 in 1910. The more accurate present day data for Denver would be that of the greater metro area that has since built up, being 2,464,866 in 2006. If such towns as Boulder, CO included, the figure 2,927,911.
Denver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pueblo, CO had a population of 103,495 in 2007. It had a population of 41,747 in 1910.
Pueblo, Colorado - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Even if having grown disproportionately compared to other towns in Colorado, there also a certain rational for Denver being larger, if not as large. One might assume that all towns in Colorado would generally lose a significant proportion of their population for the state as a whole to reach 800,000. That while the largest overall share necessarily from large urban areas, that such decreases felt perhaps most keenly in relatively unpopulated rural counties. The reason for this being that with rising costs in transport, etc., the trend towards dispersed development in residences would reverse and total county populations reach those more common in the early 20th century.

I didn't say it would be easy, or altogether pleasant, only necessary.