Ideal population (Pueblo: homes, calculation, quality of life)

[DOUBLE H]

A couple things Jazzlover might be referring to, IMHO, is two things; living large and not taking responsibility for our actions. Before the bankruptcy reform act kicked in a few years ago, there were a lot of people, on advice of their attorneys, told to "let 'er rip". Charge those cards all the way up to the limit. Do it while you still have time. Charge, charge, charge.

There are a lot of countries out there who would like to bury us, but I can't seem to convince some very left leaning friends of mine of that. They are still caught up in the "Camelot" atmosphere of the Obama presidency, thinking everything is just hunky-dory. Well, it isn't.

[Josseppie]

Originally Posted by DOUBLE H

A couple things Jazzlover might be referring to, IMHO, is two things; living large and not taking responsibility for our actions. Before the bankruptcy reform act kicked in a few years ago, there were a lot of people, on advice of their attorneys, told to "let 'er rip". Charge those cards all the way up to the limit. Do it while you still have time. Charge, charge, charge.

There are a lot of countries out there who would like to bury us, but I can't seem to convince some very left leaning friends of mine of that. They are still caught up in the "Camelot" atmosphere of the Obama presidency, thinking everything is just hunky-dory. Well, it isn't.

I am not saying the world has not had issues and we do have more issues that we need to solve. However, that is different subject then trying to figure out what population is good for our area. My point is if Pueblo reaches 500,00 people in my lifetime that will not destroy the world in fact the world will not even notice.

[Idunn]

For those of you following this thread, particularly those who may have said nothing, I would encourage you to consider the implications. Despite personal feelings, this a largely honest discussion of the future of Colorado and this world as the participants see it. If reading closely you will also recognize that contradictions exist, that not everyone can be correct about certain facts. So consider ALL that given (or by omission that which is not), one against the other, and come to your own conclusions. Consider as best you can exactly where the truth of the matter lies. For this discussion has everything to do with you and your families future.

In this I'd like to touch upon fire, something which Coloradan's will surely have more experience with soon. You may have followed the news, which although concerning southern California is topical to Colorado.

And I would like to add, for the record, before proceeding that neither this or prior posts meant to unduly alarm or paint an entirely negative picture. Rather to inform, so that individually and collectively we might discern and follow the best path forward. Please note references apply to all preceding to prior reference, unless otherwise noted.

"An unknown number of homes were destroyed in the blowup that began late Thursday, in addition to the estimated 80 houses that burned the night before on the ridges and in the canyons above Santa Barbara . . . The number of people ordered to evacuate rose to 30,500 from 12,000 the night before as the blaze pushed west toward neighboring Goleta and east toward well-to-do Montecito . . . "Literally last night, all hell broke loose," Santa Barbara Fire Chief Andrew DiMizio said..." (Reference #1)

If having followed such things you will be aware that it is natural for this region of California to experience nearly annual fires. The ecosystem has adopted such a method to balance itself. Thus this problem in part due the propensity of some people to build structures prone to burning in an area where fires regularly, naturally occur. What you may not know is that this particular fire is indicative of changing natural trends which have seen such fires increase in frequency and intensity.

We are experiencing a world which is changing exponentially in both human evolution and also within nature. The two are intimately entwined. We are witnessing exactly the same thing when it comes to fire, and the understanding of why is becoming clear:

"Global warming may be largely to blame for the increasingly destructive wildfires in the Western United States in the last two decades, new research suggests . . . Longer and fiercer wildfire seasons since 1986 are closely associated with warmer summer temperatures, earlier arrival of spring, and earlier snowmelts in the West, scientists reported yesterday in the online edition of the journal Science."

"Local policies to manage forests are not going to be a magic bullet, they're not going to be successful in reversing this trend," said Anthony L. Westerling of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography , the study's lead author."

"Many of the changes in frequency and severity of extreme weather events that we're seeing now are exactly what we expect with increased greenhouse gas emissions," said climatologist Noah Diffenbaugh of Purdue University."

"Westerling and his colleagues analyzed a comprehensive government database of forest fires larger than about 1,000 acres in the West since 1970. They found a dramatic increase in wildfires after 1986, with large fires four times more frequent than during the preceding years, and burning through 6 1/2 times more area. Also, the average wildfire season increased by 2 1/2 months." (Reference #2)

Scientists are increasingly recognizing the interdependent nature of this world, of how one thing affects another. Per fire,

"Preliminary findings from computer modeling studies of the 2002 Colorado forest fires indicate wildland fires are taking tons of carbon out of "storage" in evergreen forests and feeding it into the atmosphere as carbon dioxide, a primary greenhouse gas . . . The conclusions were the result of research conducted by a team of researchers from Colorado State University, the U.S. Geological Survey and the National Center for Atmospheric Research, and were presented at the annual meeting of the American Geophysical Union in San Francisco in December 2002."

'"We're using the western U.S. as a case study area where climate and land use are interacting in several interesting ways," said NCAR senior scientist David Schimel, who collaborated with Dennis Ojima of CSU and Jason Neff of the USGS."

'"Western lands — especially evergreen forests — represent roughly half of carbon storage in the U.S., according to NCAR. Changes in land use, fire suppression strategies and climate all have the potential to increase wildland fires." (Reference #3)

Anyone living within Colorado is by now probably somewhat aware of how the forests are being effected by the pine beetle and other associated beetles which feed on unrelated tree species, such as spruce. Some may not appreciate the magnitude, to wit:

"A pine beetle (highlight mine)infestation is spreading from the mountains into southern Wyoming and the Front Range, and all of Colorado's mature lodgepole pine forests will be killed within three to five years(highlight mine), state and federal officials said Monday. The bark beetle infestation ravaged 500,000 new acres of forests in Colorado in 2007, bringing the total infestation to 1.5 million acres — almost all of state's lodgepole forests — according to the latest aerial survey. The infestation has now worked its way north and east, including an increase of more than 1,500 percent in the acreage affected in Boulder and Larimer counties . . . "That's a pretty staggering thought," Susan Gray, group leader of Forest Health Management for the U.S. Forest."

Without hyperbole this has been termed a,

"catastrophic event." "That is going to have an effect on wildlife habitat, watersheds and everything that is dependent on lodgepole pine forests."

"Bill Crapser, state forester for Wyoming, said that 85 percent to 90 percent of the mature lodgepole pine — about 750,000 acres — will be dead in the Medicine Bow Mountains of southern Wyoming in the next three to five years."

One might note that allow popular wisdom has it that only larger, older trees affected, that foresters are witnessing young immature trees and other species of trees attacked when the beetles that have grown exponentially begin to run out of food. These beetles will at last largely die off, either by natural conditions in cold and wet which increasingly less common, or because there is literally nothing left to eat.

"Cain said that normally in the middle of winter, temperatures need to fall to minus 40 degrees to kill the bark-residing beetles. "Those are the temperatures that used to shut these outbreaks down," he said. "We used to routinely get into the minus 40s in the mountains. And we just haven't been."

Remedial steps are being taken:

"He said the Forest Service is thinning trees and removing vegetation so it can prevent future fires and create a forest where the remaining trees are healthier because they are not competing for as much water and sunlight." (Reference #4)

It should be recognized that these are imperfect solutions at best. That, just as with Santa Barbara, CA, that conditions have become such that fires can become a law unto themselves. Further that these conditions so widespread that it is impossible to sufficiently treat all forests, only a few select areas. Some treatable causes are known, even as they proceed, such as,

"increasing road density in the West has been correlated with increasing wildfires. Both the presence of more people to ignite fires and the impact of roads on surface and groundwater are implicated. Forest clear-cutting and road-building channel away water formerly held in place by the living forest floor, causing a drop in the water table."

Aside from questionable growth and practices, even dealing with the consequences poses certain problems. For instance, "We don't know which method takes more carbon out of storage, mechanical thinning or prescribed burning, but that's one of the questions we're looking at," Schimel said." (Reference #3) In other words, some of the very practices conducted by forestry experts may be exacerbating the problem (ie: Healthy Forest Initiative, 2002). I do know first hand that the 'thinning' conducted by the the US Forest Service does not result in a true forest ecosystem. Their primary interest is in marketable timber and the prevention of fires which might burn it. To that end they eradicate in 'thinning' virtually anything other than a large, mature tree. Anyone of experience with wilderness and life within will easily grasp the difference. We humans are not the only one's with a vested interest in a truly healthy and functioning forest.

While the US Forest Service remains fairly orthodox, its views have evolved to an extent. It has begun to recognize the new realty we face. While supporting its efforts to an extent, my primary complaint is that its view is not comprehensive, seeing forests as a functioning ecosystem of life, but from a largely market standpoint and thus piecemeal in its outlook and preventive approach. As previously mentioned, its interest (as I see it) is largely in timber and not true forest.

That said, it does fully recognize some of the problems. One is the growing prevalence of 'Mega-fires.' While yet but a fraction of one percent of all wild fires, such instances are not only increasing, but have devastating effects.

"...successful management of “mega-fires” has become a serious problem and may be getting worse. In the last few years, despite significant investment in wildland fire protection budgets, five states have suffered record-setting wildfires where the costs, losses, and damages involved have become staggering . . . The rise in wildfire suppression costs, private property loss, and natural resource damage is unacceptable. And, while operational capabilities and capacity might be increased, they already boast a very high success rate. Among a growing number of fire professionals, there is an acknowledged limit to suppression effectiveness, irrespective of available funding(highlight mine)."

It is recognized that,

"Although federal wildland fire suppression doctrine has always attempted to match increasing wildfire threat with greater suppression force, it has become clear that there are limits to firefighting capabilities, regardless of funding level." And that, "Over the past two decades, numerous after-action reviews, conducted internally and externally, have pointed to the rapid rise in suppression costs, property losses, and resource damages resulting from wildfires."

Basically what we are speaking of here are natural conditions which have no historical precedent. Thus wild fires which are increasing in both frequency and intensity, with some as 'Mega-fires' which cannot be controlled and whose cost is enormous. The US has conceded as much, in this particular reference saying that,

"Although federal wildland fire suppression doctrine has always attempted to match increasing wildfire threat with greater suppression force, it has become clear that there are limits to firefighting capabilities, regardless of funding level."

We are in agreement on that much. As this particular reference makes clear the growing problem is recognized. We differ on approach, as I not only favor true forests but believe that merely removing 'excess' fuel from a forest that is damaged in the process fails to perceive the underlying issue, which is climate change. Thus 'forestry' practices an imperfect band-aid that at best can modify effects which will only intensify until the underlying reason is addressed. The GAO came closest to what I have in mind,

"The (GAO) report noted that future solutions lay outside fire suppression itself. “The need to better connect our publics to the dynamics of the land and, simultaneously, connect agency policies and practices with the values of our publics is clear. Although forestry’s history is anchored to the physical sciences, its future needs to better integrate the social sciences.” (highlight mine) Although the report was not formally published, it was posted on the Subcommittee Chairman’s website." (Reference #5)

There are steps we can take now. One might begin by making a personal commitment to improve themselves and this world for the better. While one might have a vested interest in home and property and thus seeing wild fires contained, in fact all our interests extend far beyond this. Being willing to recognize as much is a good first step. This can allow one to view this world as the complex matrix it is and themselves from a largely disinterested observer to the integral, important part they are.

When viewing forests, consider this,

"In addition to sheltering more than half of the planet's species and providing benefits such as clean drinking water, forests play a critical role in climate change: they store carbon, the base of CO2. When forests are burned, cleared, or otherwise degraded, their stored carbon is released into the atmosphere(highlight mine)."

"Clearing mature forests and replacing them with fast-growing younger trees is not a solution. To be sure, younger trees draw carbon out of the atmosphere more quickly. But cutting down mature forests releases large quantities of CO2. And replacing natural forests with tree plantations destroys biodiversity—the web of life that supports and nourishes all plants and animals(highlight mine)." (Reference #6)

We might see that,

"Saving the trees could slow climate change, new research shows. Each year, nearly 33 million acres of forestland around the world is cut down, according to the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. Tropical felling alone contributes 1.5 billion metric tons of carbon—some 20 percent of all man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions—to the atmosphere annually." (Reference #7)

Nothing can be considered out of context to anything else, each affects another. As we face such issues as energy, disease, or war, to remember that none of these exist in a vacuum. In enjoying the beauty of a forest, interested in such a resource, or concerned by effects such as fire to know that our actions in one sphere may prove beneficial or harmful to all. In just energy and our changing climate,

"Changes in forest management and agricultural practices could significantly reduce the threat of global warming much more quickly than can technological solutions such as carbon capture and storage (CCS) from coal-fired power plants, according to experts. "We don't know how to do CCS. These are things we could do today," says Bruce McCarl, an agricultural economist at Texas A&M University in College Station. "They are a bridge to the future."'(highlight mine) (Reference #7)

We live in a dynamic and troubling age. We experience escalating problems and opportunities our forebears could not have imagined, even as they unknowingly set the stage for that which we deal with in one way or another. We might learn from history and from this know that it is possible to repeat it in whole, if not detail, if traditional views and actions are not adjusted. What has changed is our time frame. We no longer have the luxury of business as usual because willful practices not formerly understood well have led us to the precipice of fairly sudden, irrevocable change. Even with the inclination, nature will see to it that we do not continue as before.

There is the option now to change our ways before events force us to, and then without nearly as many options, or good ones. Have we evolved thus far only to squander the promise so many before us have wished for their sons and daughters? Or are we now willing to take a long, honest look at our present prospects and vow that this generation in time will be remembered through the ages as that at last wise and courageous enough to transform itself and mankind's destiny, in embracing all that life might be?



REFERENCES

1) Nation & World | "All hell broke loose": 30,000 flee California wildfire | Seattle Times Newspaper
2) Increasing number of wildfires is caused by global warming, study finds - The Boston Globe
3) Researchers link Colorado forest fires, atmospheric carbon increases
4) Beetle scourge goes from bad to worse - The Denver Post
5) http://www.wildfirelessons.net/docum...20,%202005.doc
6) Common Sense on Climate Change Solution #4: Protect Threatened Forests | Union of Concerned Scientists
7) Combating Climate Change: Farming Out Global Warming Solutions: Scientific American

[Bob from down south]

Originally Posted by jkanderson521

Bob, it has been fun to be sure but once again, you only prove the point. Today's "Star Trek" fantasy is tomorrow ordinary technology. Yesterday's "magic" and "wizardry" is tomorrows average reality. What would seem like fantasy and magic and is impossible today, will be routine tomorrow. The mathematical boundaries that you have drawn only reflect the level of your current understanding, the limits of your mind (we all have limits to our knowledge and understanding since we don't know everything). So I do appreciate why the future is so bleak and scary. However some people recognize they don't know everything and are open to possibilities not yet conceived of, yet some try to fit the world (universe) into a box of their creation. Like Malthus before you, the world was a zero sum game of an ever shrinking pie. The world was the confines of the limited box of knowledge contained without consideration that there is a whole world of knowledge with possibilities and wonders that you have never imagined. The world is defined by the box you have created and that box has limits so your ability to conceptualize, create, and innovate is already limited by the size of your box.

Copernicus and Galileo said the impossible too, they were rebuffed by other "scientists" of their time who had mathematics and physics to prove their case. These bold rebels saw what others could not see, they dreamed impossible ideas. They paid the price for not agreeing with those that only wished to hold power, and the instruments of regression were used to hold back impossible ideas. I have no doubt that the acolytes of radical conservationism will use the same tactics as the inquisitors before them to do what it takes to hold onto and grab power, it is human nature. Humanity survived the dark ages, though we may enter another one, I have hopes that we will emerge and see the light of possibility.

Those that that have truly bettered the world, made quantum leaps, understood that they did not know everything, they didn't bound the world by only what they knew at the time, their mind was open to limitless possibilities and opportunities. They turned magic and fantasy, the impossible, into reality. They ignored those who said it was "impossible" and "could never be done" and made bold leaps forward. I hope for the sake of humanity we do not lose that or for certain, we will regress into a dark age of reason where we are bound by those who will force others into their because they are incapable of thinking outside of that box. The ultimate end to that is political repression, subjugation, tyranny, and death.

I'm not trying to convince you, you've made up your mind. Those that imagine great things are never stopped by those who say, "its impossible", it only strengthens their resolve.

Have a great Mother's Day to all the wonderful mothers who do the "impossible" everyday After two kids I am still awed and humbled by the miracle of life!

There's a huge difference between what your limited reading comprehension skills have wrongly led you to believe is a point of view that progress is impossible, that dreaming should stop--and my realistic observations that none of those dreamy Star Trek things have happened yet and cannot be assumed into existence.

One doesn't walk off a cliff assuming that someone will quickly build a bridge beneath him...sure, some day there may indeed be a bridge there, and THEN we can walk across the gorge. But the cavalier assumption that someday technology will enable unlimited wanton consumption, so we may as well eat our seed corn now--is a recipe for disaster. I don't profess to know what advances (or regressions) man will make, but I know that until the technology is discovered, exploited, and fielded, it's not going to prevent us from having to deal with the consequences of our ignorance of basic mathematical truths about the world as we live in it today.

Millions of people have contracted and died of AIDS...and in the last decade nearly all could have prevented that through simple behavioral changes. And millions more take the same risks daily, many with the same cavalier assumptions that man will find a cure before they wither and die of the consequences of their own stupidity. And every day thousands more breathe their last breath and in their last seconds of life have to acknowledge they got it wrong.

Here on the front range, we have known limitations in the water supply, and developers seeking a quick buck and the politicians that pander to them continue to allow development that far outstrips the capacity of the land to support them. I know people that already have had wells go dry here in El Paso county...the Denver aquifer is considered non-renewable and levels continue to drop as tens of thousands of wells dotting the plains draw it down.

You talk a big talk, but your philosophy fails right where the rubber meets the road. Philosophers don't build bridges and spacecraft--engineers and scientists do, and they have to survive the present to arrive at the advances of the future. We can't assume away the challenges of the present while we dream. Those that do are likely to end up as roadkill.

[DOUBLE H]

Josseppie, the comments I made were more geared to Jazzlover's post yesterday (#58). Taking responsibility for your actions. People who are REALLY up against it had to file as they had no choice, but I have flat seen too many abuses of this, that's all.

Idunn, that is one excellent post! I'd rep if I could!

[Josseppie]

IDunn, good post. My take from it though it we should watch where we grow not that we should not grow. I am not saying cites in the mountains should grow to be hundrededs of thousands of people but as a society we will grow so we should see what areas are more able to handle growth. In Coloado Denver and Pueblo happen to be 2 areas that were devloped to be large areas, as both cities are on rivers and flat with a good highway and rail system second to none in the state.

[Josseppie]

Now there are two votes for 100,000 people! That has to be a joke but for fun here is a possible way it could work:

Pueblo Metro 40,000 people
Denver Metro 30,000 people
Coloado Springs 5,000 people
Grand Junction 2,000 people
Fort Collins 5,000 people
Loveland 1,000 people
Greeley 1,000 people
Trinadad 1,000 people

10,000 people scarted around the rest of Colorado

Total - 100,000 people




On the same note 51 million people is to big for me but for fun here is how that could work:

Pueblo metro 15 million people
Denver metro 10 million people
Colorado Springs metro 7 million people
Fort Collins/ Loveland/ Greeley metro 6 million people
Grand Junction metro 3 million people
Durango metro 2 million people
Lower Arkansaw Valley (La junta, Lamar) 2 million people
Trinadad 1 million people

4 million people scatored around the state.

Total 51 million people.

[jkanderson521]

Fascinating discussion, I find myself in agreement with some of the points Jazz made in his latest post, especially about dependency to importation of resources. Thank you excellent discussion.

Unfortunately Bob confuses those who say limits won't suffice as encouraging unlimited consumption. I am aware that as we understand it today we have many resource areas that are approaching depletion. My point is rather than stomp your feet and wail about the well going dry, think about how you would bring more water, create more water, change the way you use water. Again, dream the impossible, but to just use less doesn't stop the well eventually running dry, as you said, many resources are non-renewable, so discover new resources, conserve if you must in the mean time, but by no means does that solve the problem.

Take a man made "resource" for example, the internet. Years ago, when networking technology was "discovered" we had a very limited amount of bandwidth available. You could only send limited amounts of data slowly and had to "conserve" bandwidth to the greatest extent possible. However, most knew that the more bandwidth you had, the more you could accomplish, so while the short term limitation of bandwidth held back progress, many labored to find ways to create more bandwidth, new technologies, innovations and approaches. Along the way, there were many who made predictions, like we'll never cross X threshold, you don't need X, etc. Yet many ignored the spirit of radical conservationism and understood that conservation is fine for the immediate moment, but is never a long term solution.

I view our present situation much like that. A brilliant Russian astronomer crafted a theoretical scale to track the advancement of a civilization based on its capacity to generate and use energy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale Using various theoretical concepts beyond the knowledge and understanding of his time, he put forth some incredible concepts that demonstate that any limit we find, is mearly a limit of our own understanding. Read about him, Freeman Dyson, Kurzweil, and others who dwell in worlds that most will never comprehend. That isn't a boast, as much of what they discuss is beyond my technical knowledge, but they and others in many fields, medicine, music, art, etc are needed to break us free of the boxes that we create, that hold back the light of discovery.

I conserve energy and resources (have solar, use all CFL and LED lighting, xeriscape my yard, drive fuel efficient vehicles) I do much more than the average to limit my consumption. Yet to me, that is still not a solution, not for the long term as ultimately we will be in exactly the same situation, we just put off the inevitable. I try to think about human nature, people like to live better lives, they try to improve the lives of the next generation. If we can find ways to increase standards of living without destroying the world, that should be the goal. Unfortunately, the arguments are always couched in less, less, less, more suffering, more sacrifice, lower standards of living etc. That to me is ultimately a futile exercise (especially since the sacrifice is mostly on the part of the average person, the elites preach hypocritically, yet give up nothing.).

I think of solutions along the line of how can we make the standards of living much better, not lower them. I think that if the environmental movement embraced the fact that people want to live lives that are moving towards something better, with less pain, suffering, and death, they would find that the resources of the world could be focused on truly grand innovations that would make life so much better. Instead, it is more about political power, deceptions, and tyranny, rather than truly elevating the standard of living. But then again, hasn't that always been the narrative of human history.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Josseppie

IDunn, good post. My take from it though it we should watch where we grow not that we should not grow. I am not saying cites in the mountains should grow to be hundrededs of thousands of people but as a society we will grow so we should see what areas are more able to handle growth. In Coloado Denver and Pueblo happen to be 2 areas that were devloped to be large areas, as both cities are on rivers and flat with a good highway and rail system second to none in the state.

God, you STILL don't get it. Let me give you real concrete example. You constantly crow about Pueblo's excellent water situation. Where does that water come from? Nearly 100% from the Arkansas River watershed, and that part of the Frying Pan riverflows from the Western Slope that are diverted to the Arkansas River drainage. Now, if you get in that SUV of yours that you constantly talk about and drive up the Arkansas River drainage to its headwaters, you will discover something real interesting. Probably 50% of the Arkansas and Frying Pan riverflows originate as snowpack in--guess what?--LODGEPOLE PINE FORESTS. Those forests are going to die and they are going to burn--there is no debate anymore about that. Those fires will likely be of sizes and acreages beyond any that any living human has ever seen in Colorado. A second fact is that burned and denuded mountain slopes do not retain snowpack as well as forested land does. Those slopes also are prone to severe erosion until new vegetative growth can stabilize them, which, at the altitude at which lodgepole is common in Colorado, can take years. In the meantime, all of the silt, dissolved solids, even heavy metals leached from burnt soils has to go somewhere. It's going to go into the Arksansas River. That can (and will) cause a myriad of problems. One of the worst is siltation of reservoirs, where a reservoir bottom simply begins filling with silt. There is little that can be done to stop it, and it can seriously diminish the storage capacity of even the largest reservoir. Also, all of the dissolved solids and other chemicals (many naturally occurring) that leach into the water may, at best, significantly raise the costs of filtering water for human consumption and, at worst, compromise water filtering processes entirely.

So, in your typical "stovepipe" thinking (and far too many people think that way) it may seem that the pine beetle problem is something of no concern to the folks of dear, sweet Pueblo and that Pueblo's water supply is inviolate, but it simply ain't so. In fact, most of the problems discussed in this thread are interrelated issues--and, at their root, is the problem of too many people trying to utilize too many resources, much of them in a reckless and irresponsible manner. Nature has some real violent ways of ending those excesses, and--whether you think so or not--you and your town may be at the brunt of some them.

[Josseppie]

That goes with my post earlier where I said we have issues we need to work on but how does Pueblo being 100,000 people or 500,000 people make a difference? In fact at 500,000 Pueblo will have more resources to help solve the beatle problem....