Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How exactly would you define a McMansion to outlaw them?
Rather than dramatically reducing our living spaces I prefer the idea of just keeping our population static to where it is now. I believe we pretty much have a static birth rate so if we just bring our immigration to near zero we can achieve this with the US at least. But with the loss of future workers everyone's social security payments would be cut in half or worse so nobody has the balls in congress to suggest such a thing.
At the end of this article they talk about immigration from abroad being a safety net to support an ever increasing population for our economy that is dependent on it. It is this kind of thinking that I think is leading us down a bad path.
Our birth rate is the lowest it has been in years yet we still had a natural increase 957,000, basically one million people with out adding any immigrants.
If you look up the data for the calculations, you'll find that it takes more petroleum to produce the food you'll need to power travel by bicycle than the petroleum you're saving by using the bike. ...Sometimes the "obvious" solutions don't provide the desired remedy.
Interesting. I haven't seen the data. But what about those (and it's more than a few) that are 15, 20, 30+ pounds over weight? Aren't they already consuming more than they need to ride a bike a couple miles?
I gained a renewed interest in cycling when the gyms were shut down. I'm lucky enough to live in a town that has a dedicated 20+ mile bike/pedestrian path. It's great and gets a decent amount of use but the problem I see is that people really only ride their bikes foe exercise for the most part. People, and myself included are not out riding to take care of errands or commute to work. Those are things I would like to start doing but I'm not sure how well our city is set up for it despite having the bike and pedestrian path. The average person just doesn't want to deal with bike lanes along 50+ mph city streets.
Where I live, offshore wind is going in now. High tension lines are coming in from Quebec for hydro. Natural gas is really expensive here due to pipeline capacity problems so the economics for renewables works.
Even if we think we need to do something about population and decided to do a Chinese-style "One Baby Program"- it would take 3 generations for the population to quit growing ("population momentum") and it wouldn't actually fall until the 4th generation. We're talking 80 -100 yrs.
All growth phenomena follow the logistic curve. Growth always requires utilization of resources, one of which, the one in smallest supply, will limit further growth when the supply is depleted/saturated.
For humans-- space won't limit us. Fifty per cent of all people now live within 50 mi of a seashore; plenty of empty space out here in Fly-Over Country.
--air won't limit us. The atm is 5 mi thick and we only breath down here in the bottom 6 ft of it.
--water won't limit us. Seventy per cent of the planet's surface is covered by water, and reverse osmosis is an economically viable solution, if only those overly concerned but underly educated about the environment would get out of the way.
--food won't limit us for a long time: we have the capacity to feed 20 Billion. We waste 30% of our production now, and we could increase yield if all farmers just properly irrigated or drained their existing fields.
--It's JOBS that will limit our population growth. We haven't relied on tooth & fang to procure food for a long time. Now it's our ability to buy it that counts.
Population may appear to be too high to those who live in congested areas. Distribution of people is the problem-- But that begs the question: Is it better for the environment to spread our numbers out more evenly across the landscape, or to concentrate our numbers in many larger cities?
Even if we think we need to do something about population and decided to do a Chinese-style "One Baby Program"- it would take 3 generations for the population to quit growing ("population momentum") and it wouldn't actually fall until the 4th generation. We're talking 80 -100 yrs.
All growth phenomena follow the logistic curve. Growth always requires utilization of resources, one of which, the one in smallest supply, will limit further growth when the supply is depleted/saturated.
For humans-- space won't limit us. Fifty per cent of all people now live within 50 mi of a seashore; plenty of empty space out here in Fly-Over Country.
--air won't limit us. The atm is 5 mi thick and we only breath down here in the bottom 6 ft of it.
--water won't limit us. Seventy per cent of the planet's surface is covered by water, and reverse osmosis is an economically viable solution, if only those overly concerned but underly educated about the environment would get out of the way.
--food won't limit us for a long time: we have the capacity to feed 20 Billion. We waste 30% of our production now, and we could increase yield if all farmers just properly irrigated or drained their existing fields.
--It's JOBS that will limit our population growth. We haven't relied on tooth & fang to procure food for a long time. Now it's our ability to buy it that counts.
Population may appear to be too high to those who live in congested areas. Distribution of people is the problem-- But that begs the question: Is it better for the environment to spread our numbers out more evenly across the landscape, or to concentrate our numbers in many larger cities?
Excellent post again! Can't rep you again.
With population and jobs, in 5 years we will have a clearer picture than we have now. The demographic bumps of baby boomers and millennials skewed the labor markets, from the 70s through today. In 5 years once COVIDs done and boomers are more firmly retired, it'll be interesting to see how the labor market is, where there's more retirees relative to a working labor pool. It could be that the labor problems were more a ratio of large working age populations rather than the absolute size of the population.
I fall under the camp that spreading our numbers out more evenly is preferable. The solution to pollution is dilution . On one hand, big cities should in theory be able to use mass transit and walkability to offset transportation energy use, but what ends up happening when they study it is people in big cities fly more, especially international, so they end up using about the same energy as small city people driving around.
For people, small cities offer better air quality, less congestion, and easier access to nature, all of which have pretty significant health benefits. For the environment, I think it's better for diversity to have some of each ecosystem developed and some left wild rather than having some ecosystems all developed and others left as a wilderness. Some argue that you need large tracts of land to get a truly healthy ecosystem, but really only tropical rainforests have intricate enough dependency webs where millions of connected undisturbed acres are needed. In the ecosystems in the US, breaking them up provides as many benefits as keeping them together as that helps prevent disease spread, helps break up large crown fires, prevents widespread invasive species movement, and provides protection to non apex species.
Very large-scale energy-storage fields that come at a reasonable price.....this will be the
game-changer that makes renewables viable.
Even on-par with fossil-fuels, do not expect a change along the lines of what the Greenies are laying-out.
Yes, to allow the power generated to match the power consumed. But when this development takes place, who knows? That's the danger of subsidies, is that we could be forcing a less efficient development before the storage is ready.
Renewable energy has been able to demonstrate that it can be cost effective, reduce fossil fuel usage in our energy consumption, and be resilient on the grid. However, increasingly plans to address climate change call for a 100% renewable electric grid by 2050. Assuming that it will be a linear progression from where we are now to a completely renewable grid is pure folly though and is nothing more than wishful thinking that would be incredibly environmentally destructive if actualized.
Here's the reasoning:
1. The renewables used to date were placed in the easiest and most productive places. Future renewable placements would not yield the same amount of energy per dollar invested.
2. Wind and solar are erratic in generation where each incremental percent of power generated yields less power available to be used, as it has to travel further on transmission lines or be stored in batteries, both of which yield only a fraction of the power as actually usable.
3. To date renewables have been able to offset coal power generation; as coal is almost dead future renewables would replace natural gas, which would yield much less reductions in CO2 emissions.
4. There is no good way to recycle wind turbines and solar panels completely, so a large portion of them ends up as landfill, toxic landfill material.
5. Renewables and the associated batteries needed to make renewable power functional are made from rare earth minerals or minerals not mined in the US. Mining can be incredibly environmentally destructive if not done properly and many of the countries where these minerals come from have child labor and other labor abuse problems https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/...ls-components/
Essentially, the push to 100% renewable energy and an electric transportation grid just shifts us from a fossil fuel economy to a 'rare earth' economy.
Lets see. The most stable platform for Lithium Ion chemistry is Lithium Iron and Phosphate battery. Where do you see rare earth elements? I think you are misinformed, LiFePho batteries will be abundant and take care of all home, commercial and industrial needs. Because of low cost, low toxicity, well-defined performance, long-term stability, etc. LiFePO4 is finding a number of roles in vehicle use, utility scale stationary applications, and backup power.
Lithium is element #3, Iron and phospate are earth abundant. No rare earth metals there.
Crystalline Solar panels
76% glass
10% plastic
8% aluminum
5% silicon and 1% other metals.
The silicon has waste in it's process, but compare that to what it is replacing...... centralized power.
The 1% metal includes copper, silver, lead and tin. Lead and tin being the concern, and are both highly recyclable.
Lets see. The most stable platform for Lithium Ion chemistry is Lithium Iron and Phosphate battery. Where do you see rare earth elements? I think you are misinformed, LiFePho batteries will be abundant and take care of all home, commercial and industrial needs. Because of low cost, low toxicity, well-defined performance, long-term stability, etc. LiFePO4 is finding a number of roles in vehicle use, utility scale stationary applications, and backup power.
Lithium is element #3, Iron and phospate are earth abundant. No rare earth metals there.
Crystalline Solar panels
76% glass
10% plastic
8% aluminum
5% silicon and 1% other metals.
The silicon has waste in it's process, but compare that to what it is replacing...... centralized power.
The 1% metal includes copper, silver, lead and tin. Lead and tin being the concern, and are both highly recyclable.
Well, that's good that solar can be made from common elements! Lithium isn't rare earth, but I think it mostly comes from outside of the US. The wind turbines need rare earth elements to make strong enough magnets though right?
Author James Kunstler, in his book, Too Much Magic, reveals the conundrum of alt energy as a theoretical fallacy based on the erroneous notion that technology can solve all our problems. Every form of alt energy is based on the fact of-cheap and abundant oil. Cheap oil remains as the base element utilized in most technologies. Steel, plastics, Aluminum, agriculture, medicines, and most chemical products, all rely on oil, cheap oil--and lots of it.
Modern societies have managed to privatize the positives of technology while socializing the negatives, alt electrical generation won't be any different. It has already been adequately pointed out that there are huge environmental side effects to any attempt to manufacture the stuff needed in--the pursuit of "greener" technologies. Erroneous assumptions, couple with a profound tendency toward techno worship, could very well be our undoing.
I'm going to guess that our future well being lies in the potential to realize how wasteful we've become, we use oil as though it was an infinite resource, filling our lives with useless gadgetry, and most of it ending up in landfills or America's multitude of rental storage spaces. Every garage filled to the brim with stuff, every closet, every drawer, overflowing with all manner of stuff made with the help of oil based manufacturing methods, and still, we act as though we can just magically have this consumer insanity go on and on without end. Conservation isn't an electric car, nor is it the "green" washing machine, but, it most certainly revolves around the idea that we can live a better life when we are able to discern the difference between wants and needs.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. On one hand, big cities should in theory be able to use mass transit and walkability to offset transportation energy use, but what ends up happening when they study it is people in big cities fly more, especially international, so they end up using about the same energy as small city people driving around. 
