Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiGag Me with Clean Coal
If coal's impact on climate change weren't so serious, the public relations campaign that asks us to choke down "clean coal" would be farcical. "Clean coal" is a dirty joke that won't wash.
In his GQ article, entitled Black Tide, Sean Flynn says, "The term clean coal entered the lexicon in its current faux-eco-activist incarnation-with the implication that coal can be a source of nonpolluting fuel, that it can be scrubbed of its toxins and its carbon dioxide rendered harmless-with stunning speed, largely in the past two years through the expensive efforts of two groups: the American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity, a lobbying group for coal-burning industries, and the Hawthorn Group, a marketing firm hired by ACCCE."
In an ad for ACCCE President Barack Obama is featured saying, "Clean coal technology is something that can make America energy independent...This is America. We figured out how to put a man on the moon in 10 years. You can't tell me that we can't figure out how to burn coal that we mine right here...and make it work," just as the Hawthorn Group had planned.
Contemptible as it is, the Hawthorn Group was understandably proud that Barack Obama and other candidates for President adopted their very language saying, "Soon our message was repeated back to us from the podium by the candidates themselves." In their newsletter they bragged, that before they began their clean coal campaign for ACCCE, a slim majority of public opinion leaders surveyed, opposed burning coal to generate electricity. But when their PR campaign was complete, they had 72% support.
Hawthorn succeeded in practically turning 2008 Presidential candidate events into clean coal rallies and said in their newsletter, "Building on our existing 200,000-strong grassroots citizen army, we leveraged the presidential candidates' own supporters, finding advocates for clean coal among the crowd to carry our message...We did this by sending ‘clean coal' branded teams to hundreds of presidential candidate events, carrying a positive message (we can be part of the solution to climate change) which was reinforced by giving away free t-shirts and hats emblazoned with our branding: Clean Coal. Attendees at the candidate events wore these items into the events." Hawthorn combined grassroots organizing and integrated online media to create more of a buzz.
Coal is clean -- in the same way that cigarettes are healthy. Only with clean coal, cancer is the least of your worries.
Clean coal comes as highly recommended as an investment in Bernie Madoff's Ponzi scheme. Only with clean coal, you'll lose more than your shirt.
Staking our energy future on clean coal is wise -- in the same way that basing the entire U.S. economy on sub-prime housing loans was. Just stand back and watch it blow-up in your face like the exploding housing bubble did. Only this time humanity itself is at stake.
Outside of the Madison Avenue-type, faux-reality created by the Hawthorn Group for ACCCE, coal is a dirty, polluting, non-renewable energy source, contributing up to 40% of all greenhouse gases endangering more than just polar bears.
Coal is a foul fossil fuel that must go the way of the dinosaurs. An average coal plant in the U.S. produces 3.7 million tons of carbon dioxide per year, polluting our air, water and driving our climate to the breaking point.
Sean Flynn calls the premise of the Hawthorn campaign, that coal is clean, "complete horseshit."
So you see, there is no such thing as clean coal. Scrubbed, sequestered or otherwise, it's still a dirty, deadly fiction.
If the byproducts of burning coal to produce electricity are not convincing, consider the fact that coal mining companies engage in the heinous, destructive practice known as mountain-top removal to mine coal.
They literally blow-up our ancient Appalachian mountains killing flora and fauna, displacing families that have lived there for generations, destroying water systems and life in nearby communities. We stand by calling their dirty deeds clean, encouraging this tragedy with our unfettered use of coal-powered electricity.
The coal ash spill that happened in Kingston Tennessee dwarfed the most dramatic environmental disasters in history. "Just days before Christmas last year, an environmental disaster one hundred times the size of the Exxon Valdez (yes, you read that right) unfolded on a riverbank in eastern Tennessee. A wave of poisonous sludge buried a town...along with the myth of clean coal," according to Sean Flynn.
A billion gallons of gray, wet, gloppy coal ash, almost 40 feet deep cut loose as an oversized, man-made dam broke, smashed houses, displaced fish in the river, crumbled boat houses, ripped out trees and eventually covered more than 300 acres. Toxic metals like lead, mercury, arsenic, thallium, selenium, covered the area. By a fortunate fluke of mid-winter timing, nobody was injured or killed, but some have gotten sick.
There you have it: another example of clean coal.
Then there's the tiny little fact that approximately 1500 similar, mostly unregulated coal ash plants dot the Southeastern U.S. The federal government does not consider coal ash to be hazardous waste and state laws vary.
Destroy life, property, mountains, streams, rivers, families, communities and the planet to obtain a filthy fossil fuel. Burn it for electricity, releasing myriad poisons. Contain the resulting sludge and toxic ash in billion gallon ponds, until they break. Call it clean. Get the President to call it clean. Repeat. Add alliteration and a multi-million dollar PR campaign. Voila, you have clean coal.
It's time to shout it from the Appalachian mountain tops, before they disappear: The miasma that is coal cannot be cleaned. We must trade the fossil fuel economy for one that is based on clean, renewable, non-nuclear energy, like wind, solar and geothermal -- now. We cannot continue business as usual even for a few more decades.
53 Comments so far
Show All"filled with carbon monoxide, mercury, arsenic and lead - all deadly toxic to humans in high amounts"
Jeeze, you're going to have to do better than that. *Table salt* is deadly toxic to humans in high amounts. Not that you're wrong, but the problem with mercury isn't that it's "deadly in high amounts", it's that its persistent and deadly even in small amounts over long periods of time.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray
http://www.paulmurray.id.au/ageofworms
I wouldn't call table salt "toxic" - salt is necessary for survival. It's a natural part of our bodies. It can kill you, sure - if you consume too much of it, but so can water - too much of anything can kill you. Hell, too much laughter can kill you - haven't you seen "Who Framed Roger Rabbit?"
In all seriousness: these "toxins" in coal plant emissions are not a good thing to have in your body - in any amount. They aren't supposed to be there. There is no positive effect they bring. That's the difference to me.
If coal plants had no waste but pure salt, I'd advocate for burning all the coal we could find (as long as we cleaned up the mining process).
"Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the shadow"
It's possible to capture and separate the great majority of gaseous and solid coal combustion products but it's not cheap or easy. The illusion of cheap/easy can however be created like they did with gasoline, by dumping huge resources into it over decades and neglecting to account for them publicly. Saint O'Bamba could ram through the funding as easily as war on Iran, pretty damned easy when the electorate cares about nothing but the styling of their SUVs. But the amount he spends to "cheapen" the cost of "clean coal" will be something like three to five times the cost to simply replace all of the coal combustion units with solar thermal collectors and heat exchangers. The Pentagon, Wall St., and the extended network of white collar thugs will require O'Bamba to do the most expensive, resource intensive thing, the "clean coal" over solar thermal, because they need to forever grow the economy to maintain the prestigious "superpower" status!!
Karyn Strikler's article's points were many, clear, political and human at once. Then she augments her writing stylistically while painting a portrait of pain and broken promises??? fancy writin...ya sure thats fine...I bet she cheats wi' book lernin.
First of all, anyone who claims overpopulation isn't one of the largest, if not the largest, issues we face is lying to themselves. Make up whatever you want to tell yourself, accuse people who admit it's THE problem of being "elitist" or whatever you want, but the truth remains that there are FAR too many human beings on this planet. It's not the only issue, surely, but ignoring it (like so many of you do) is completely irresponsible. Do Americans use a grossly unproportionate amount of the worlds resources? Absolutely, and that needs to change. But human population needs to be brought in check as well. The only way to achieve this is through an awakening of consciousness throughout the majority of humans on the planet. There is no other (voluntary) way. If we do not act then catastrophic epidemic is almost entirely assured (eventually).
That said, there is (and can never be) such a thing as "clean" coal. No matter what "technologies" you introduce to clean up the process it will always pollute and be destructive. You can't set dirt on fire and expect a clean result.
First of all, none of these "clean coal technologies" do anything to address the mining process. MTR (Mountain Top Removal) mining is a ghastly process which is destroying the second most diverse region on the planet's surface (after the tropical rain forest, and not including the oceans): the Appalachian forests.
Second, keep in mind that any "scrubbing" technologies or similar "filters" only remove the toxins and pollutants from the air emissions. Due to those pesky laws of physics and nature, however, these substances don't just magically disappear. They are put into slurry dams (like the TVA one that failed last December - 100 times worse than the Exxon Valdez) or into ash landfills, becoming a major concern for local water supplies and everything associated with them. Thus, decreasing air emissions actually (and obviously) increases the concentration of toxins in these landfill facilities.
Third, these technologies are extremely expensive, and the CO2 capture and sequestration technologies are unproven and years away from large-scale implementation. When all is said and done this will all make coal more expensive than even solar power (though still, probably, cheaper than nuclear power).
It is irresponsible and foolish to continue to invest billions in a power source that has been killing humans, other animals, and our ecosystem for over a century when viable and cost-effective alternatives exist now. Alternatives that will provide a more stable power supply in the long run and which have none of the negative drawbacks of fossil-fuel generation. Make up whatever excuses you want to deny this, but I hope that soon the truth will be understood by all. We are running out of time.
In 1915, Nikola Tesla said: "If we use fuel to get our power we are living on our capital and exhausting it rapidly. This method is barbarous and wantonly wasteful, and will have to be stopped in the interest of coming generations."
Ditch coal, don't turn back to nukes - the future of energy lies in the wind and the sun (and in the earth, and in the waves, and who knows how many other places?). There is no excuse for failing in this, only ignorance and fear will stop us.
"Between the idea
And the reality
Between the motion
And the act
Falls the shadow"
I have to agree with you, Pandonodrin. Saying that overpopulation is not a huge factor in the world's problems is just crazy. It is not the only problem, but it is a MAJOR factor. I have to agree with Alcyon about the obscene lack of distribution of the worlds resources. The lyrics of Don Henley's song say it all about us in good old capitalist USA:
You live in a house of mirrors
Reflecting your splendid isolation
You have so much of everything
Except for true consideration
The way you dance
The way you walk
The way you drive
The way you talk
The way you eat
The way you drink
The way you act
The way that you don't think there's
Nobody else in the world but you
Nobody else in the world
Nobody else in the world but you
In case you haven't noticed
There's lots of other people here, too
Hey now, did your momma teach you anything?
Some things still got to be respected
Is it a sign of the times, or is it just your callous heart?
How did you get so disconnected?
The way you push
The way you shove
The way you hate
The way you love
The lies you spin
The scenes you make
The grief you give
The space you take
It's like there's
Nobody else in the world but you
Nobody else in the world
Nobody else in the world but you
In case you haven't noticed
There's lots of other people here, too
And now it's time you did a little giving, baby
The world is not your plaything, no, no, no
(Solo)
Nobody else in the world but you
Nobody else in the world
Nobody else in the world but you
In case you haven't noticed
There's lots of other people here
Nobody else in the world but you
Nobody else in the world
It's like there's nobody else in the world but you
In case you haven't noticed there are lots of other people here, too
My case with Alcyon and others like him is that they think this is the only problem, and to fix it would automatically solve everything, including overpopulation. Don't think so. But it wouldn't hurt, either and it has to be fixed before we can do anything. Meanwhile, family planning and condoms and distribution of shovels and well digging in Africa are not a bad thing either. It's a band-aid, but better than nothing.
To get back to the article, burning coal is nasty, extracting it has always been nasty, and those behind 'clean' coal are swindlers of the worst sort, up there with the execs of oil, tobacco, nuclear plants--and our bank CEO's, to name a few. They are the products of unchecked capitalism and should be eradicated, whether by peaceful means or violent I don't care.
I have to agree with you, Pandonodrin. Saying that overpopulation is not a huge factor in the world's problems is just crazy. It is not the only problem, but it is a MAJOR factor. I have to agree with . The lyrics of Don Henley's song say it all about us in good old capitalist USA:
You live in a house of mirrors
Reflecting your splendid isolation
You have so much of everything
Except for true consideration
The way you dance
The way you walk
The way you drive
The way you talk
The way you eat
The way you drink
The way you act
The way that you don't think there's
Nobody else in the world but you
Nobody else in the world
Nobody else in the world but you
In case you haven't noticed
There's lots of other people here, too
Hey now, did your momma teach you anything?
Some things still got to be respected
Is it a sign of the times, or is it just your callous heart?
How did you get so disconnected?
The way you push
The way you shove
The way you hate
The way you love
The lies you spin
The scenes you make
The grief you give
The space you take
It's like there's
Nobody else in the world but you
Nobody else in the world
Nobody else in the world but you
In case you haven't noticed
There's lots of other people here, too
And now it's time you did a little giving, baby
The world is not your plaything, no, no, no
(Solo)
Nobody else in the world but you
Nobody else in the world
Nobody else in the world but you
In case you haven't noticed
There's lots of other people here
Nobody else in the world but you
Nobody else in the world
It's like there's nobody else in the world but you
In case you haven't noticed there are lots of other people here, too
My case with
"It is irresponsible and foolish to continue to invest billions in a power source that has been killing humans, other animals, and our ecosystem for over a century when viable and cost-effective alternatives exist now."
Agreed. But as it stands now, it is just so damned profitable, since the mining companies are not required to clean up their messes, and neither are the utility companies. Damn, man! This is America! All the matters is the bottom line, not the air, not health care, not the water. NOTHING BUT PROFIT, BABY!! PROFIT ABOVE ALL!!
Every dime that we waste chasing the "clean coal" oxymoron is a dime that we don't spend on proven clean energy, solar, that is going to waste every day. Nature has given it to mankind - it is our sin not to use it.
While we bicker about whether coal can be a clean option for power, the states of West Virgina, Kentucky, and Ohio and one or two others have identified 40 sites in the Appalachians that are now slated for demolition in the environmentally devastating mining technique called mountaintop removal.
That is potentially 40 mountaintops in a region that is a national and world treasure.
The range and scale of destruction and environmental poisoning that has taken place over the years since this procedure was initiated is overwhelming in its scope. The poor of the Appalachian regions have been robbed of clean water, clean wells, clean air and a healthy environment by our greed for a cheap energy resource.
Drive through the areas that have been subjected to this process. I dare you to come away with anything but anger and rage towards the deceitful and environmentally criminal coal industry.
Obama's status as a forward thinker is highly compromised by his position of silence about this destruction and by his support for "clean coal" as an option for energy now and going forward. Even if coal serves as a "bridge" between our current dependence upon fossil fuels and future clean energy resources, it's an unacceptable horror for too many Americans to be ignored.
If we can sequester the politicians and lobbyists underground along with the toxins count me in.
Clean coal is an oxymoron--like clean porn.
There is tasteful and non-exploitative erotica out there.
If coal companies are responsible for creating mass destruction, and I'm terrified by the consequences; does that make them domestic terrorists?
Our entire language is being usurped by the powers that be wherein all words lose their meaning much as predicted by George Orwell.
Torture is redefined, peaceful is redefined. Honorable is redefined (CIA agents committing torure were HONORABLE men and women). Hero is redefined. Terrorist is redefined.
On and on it goes. Everday we are bombarded by people speaking with forked tongues.
The idea of clean coal reminds me of all those doctors who used to push 'clean' filtered cigarettes. The heads of coal companies are greedy, evil men, just like the heads of the tobacco companies. It's time those heads started rolling. I'm all for bringing back the guillotine. How long will these monsters live their proliferate life-styles on the backs of coughing men and women? How long will they be given permission to destroy whole mountains?
"Clean coal" is the same sort of contradiction in terms that "compassionate conservative" is...and unfortunately, is gaining the same sort of public traction the latter red herring / oxymoron did circa 1999. When we will progressives ever learn one of the first lessons of argumentation & rhetoric? Those whom dictate the vocabulary of the argument have a distinct advantage from there on in.
smipypr
The myth of clean coal rolls on, along with the myth that nuclear power is safe, clean, and renewable. When people hear about coal, they think of the long coal trains rolling through their towns, or the images of huge smoke plumes coming from power plants. The general population is dangerously unaware of where their basic commodities really come from. As for coal and uranium, while using finished product is deadly enough, mining, processing, transportation and disposal are where the real hazards of coal and uranium lie.
"Clean coal", is indeed, unalloyed bullshit.
There are no propsals on the horizon or even demonstrations of the feasability of building or retrofit of, even a single full-scale power plant that will pump it's CO2 underground.
Even fusion with all it's technical challenges is a literally a better technological prospect as a clean energy source. They are making advances in Europe with the ITER demonstration reactor under construction.
And addressing the other pollutants - even if it can be done, only moves the pollutant from the air to the soil and water.
But one correction is needed - the TVA ash spill, as bad as it was, did not "bury a town". It buried some rural roads, destroyed one house, and did reparable damage to another. And comparing it to the Exxon Valdez is also dishonest. The coal ash certainly contains toxic materials, but it isn't even comparable to the toxicity of crude oil. Exaggeration and wild hyperbole donn't help the cause.
nicely stated.
I agree that "clean coal" is a misnomer but the author never discusses coal scrubbing which could be used to minimize the damage to the environment. There is also nanotechnology which can be used to safely extract coal with virtually no harm done to the environment. Wind and solar technologies, while great, will be given no chance for improvement. And while I may live in a single family home and can happily take advantage of going solar and even experimenting with wind turbines, not everyone is lucky. Since more people will be living in apartments than houses thanks to the ongoing mortgage crisis along with job and pay cuts, unless their agreement allows them to experiment with solar panels and wind turbines which is rare, coal will be forced to stay so we had better focus on coal scrubbing and nanotechnologies to improve the environment and create more jobs.
I work in a coal industry-related occupation, and Ive never heard of "coal scrubbing". Do you mean the SO2 stack-gas scrubbing? It's already done. Do you mean coal washing? it's already done. They help some - but don't remove the CO2 or many other heavy metal pollutants.
I mever heard of "extracting" coal with "nanaotechnology". Please provide a citation. Any kind of coal gassification or liqification, even the in-situ schemes ultimately produces the same amount of CO2 as just burning it.
The internet is full of promoters of hare-brained ideas that no serious enginer considers practical or even physcally impossible. That vortex machine guy should show up here soon. Perpetual motion machine, anyone?
I have only heard of the basics of coal scrubbing. The details you provided are news to me but thank you.
The nanotechnology comment I made earlier was based on a general hypothesis made in an article that nanotechnology could theoretically help in extracting coal but I realize that since it's all theory and nothing to prove that it works, I will have to retract the idea of using nanotechnology for coal.
I'm no supporter of coal-gasification and already know the devastation it will bring in the form of land stripping or whatever it's called. I never thought coal could be "clean" to begin with but was trying to figure out how to minimize the dirtiness as much as possible. As soon as we hit Peak Coal, I'd say mankind is finished unless and until we can improve solar and wind power generating technologies. I've heard of hemp pellets that could be used to generate electricity though I don't know about that.
I thought progressives were supposed to be all-knowing in science but you sure beat them to the punch. Coal scrubbing and nano are worth a try.
Actually, I'll have to retract my earlier comment on nano since it was based off a very flakey theoretical assumption. I have also been alerted by yanzer that most of the scrubbing is already done so I think we've already peaked in trying to minimize the dirtiness of coal.
And guess what, it's still dirty. Coal is not a viable answer to any energy problem. If we tried as hard to develop clean sources of energy as coal companies do to whitewash their product, we would be half way there.
"The term clean coal entered the lexicon in its current faux-eco-activist incarnation-with" How about the term overpopulation and because of overpopulation we have to think and try to solve numerous problems including cheap sources of energy. Get with it and start talking about the real problem of the world.
Overpopulation is nothing but a Malthusian bs distraction. Go visit Kerela, India and see for yourself. The population is much more dense and yet people make better use of their resources as Ranjit Kumar posted the other day. To hell with the Malthusians and their population scare mongering ! If you don't want to produce, then don't but don't tell others not to.
Yes, and it must be just SUCH a pleasure to live in Kerela, India, such a pleasure that surely you must be seriously considering moving there. Oh, no, overpopulation is no problem at all, not even when every single square foot of the planet is covered with Kerelas, not even when a billion haven't eaten for a week. No problem. Malthus was wrong.
Google "Livestock's Long Shadow". Billions eat little because YOU eat more - it's that simple.
How do you know how much, or what exactly I eat, or even where I live, you pompous ass?
Couldn't tell the difference between a reference to the rich countries (and rich people in other countries as well), and a personal attack, huh? Sorry, my bad. To make it clearer, my point was, when some people consume more, others have to consume less - for the simple reason that the resources are finite. There is a concept called "ecological footprint". Those who eat beef regularly are taking up an enormous amount of land and resources - forcing others to eat less and also resulting in more forests being cut down. Same with any other form of excessive consumption. While I may criticize a lifestyle, I don't believe in attacking individuals. Sorry if I offended you with my choice of words.
That was exactly going to be my response even mentioning Kerala State.
Of course people in Kerala live simply, eat cheap but healthy and tasty vegetarian food, engage in incredibly rich cultural traditions like Kothari drama/dance.
But few of them own cars, (at most, just a motor scooter), live in simple small homes (the warm climate helps things), do just fine without air conditioning in the pre-monsoon heat, and have little of the other junk that fills US homes. A typical suburban USAn would find them to be quite poor.
Which for me suggests that these Malthusians cling to population as the root of all evil because they think that depopulation it is a solution that will allow them to continue their proflagrate lifestyles - along with a complete misunderstanding as to how capitalist economies work. It is the wealthiest countries with stable or declining populations the produce almost all the world's CO2 emissions. This should not be surpising - it the explosive economic growth of capitalism - not population, that is polluting the planet. And even if the world population shrunk to just a few million, the capitalists would still find a way to perpetually expand the economy and therefore resource depletion and pollution production.
What's with this obsession with Kerala? Makes me wonder if you guys are from there :)
Kidding aside, I know about India too - so let me tell you, Kerala is one of the southern Indian states that's somewhat popular with western tourists because of its hilly terrain and a bit of marketing of the local culture, which includes traditional medicine that is not limited to Kerala.
But to say that people in Kerala live simply and eat vegetarian food is REALLY stretching things and it's an unnecessary distortion of reality. In fact, per capita, beef consumption in Kerala could be the HIGHEST in India - a country where the majority of people do not eat beef for religious reasons. The reason is that there is a comparatively high proportion of Christians and Muslims in Kerala - perhaps more than in any other state in India, and they do not have any religious reasons against eating beef. So, you'll see truckloads of cattle transported to Kerala (after they stop producing milk and when they are not young enough to work in the farms) for slaughter. These cattle are often transported hundreds of miles under very inhumane conditions. I also point this out as part of the hypocrisy of some Indian people who claim that they do not eat beef - but consume plenty of dairy products - in the form of milk, yogurt and butter. While many claim to be opposed to slaughtering cows, they do not bother to know what happens to the cows when they stop producing milk - they certainly don't go to a retirement home.
It's also not true to say that people in Kerala live a simple life. Due to a very significant portion of their population working abroad (mostly in the Middle East), you'll often find lots of luxuries that are not found in many other parts of India.
This is the first time I am attempting to put the record straight here, even though I often find myself amused to see references to Kerala as if it's some kind of Shangri la. Nope. It's true that there is close to 100% literacy in that state - but the literacy level does not automatically translate into any higher level of industrial development - partly because Kerala has been a traditional stronghold of communist parties (and labor unions) - one of the few places in the world where communists can get elected to power in a regular election. I've nothing against labor unions per se - but it is cited as a reason that not many industries were established there - therefore hundreds of thousands of men go abroad to work.
I haven't seen it that bad in Kerala although I did not visit the place thoroughly enough so I'll have to take your word on that. Nonetheless, this does not validate the Malthusian doom-and-gloom theory. The population is not the problem. The religious fundies and bad economic policies promoting uneven population growth are the problem. Even in the old days when the population was less, there were just as bad if not worse economic and ecological issues. If the population of this planet were say 50 billion then we'd have an issue but all this overpopulation panicking is getting it all wrong. If, after first taking care of our economic policies and cracking down on religious fundamentalists responsible for pushing for increased population, it can be proven that the population is the culprit, then I'll take back my stand.
So, 50 billion is the figure. We'll be just fine with 30 or 40 billion. Good to know.
maxpayne, I completely agree. Those who put the population as the biggest problem (even bigger than western overconsumption - actually, it's not so 'western' anymore - the elite in many countries consume a disproportionately large share of resources) are either ignorant or arrogant or a combination of both. Ignorant, because, as you rightly point out, there were economic misery even in the past. Factors such as the enclosure movement where aristocrats rounded up large tracts of land forced others to move to cities, and eventually escape to the 'New World' or were transported off in ships for petty crimes, and later on for 'gender balance' in these new colonies. These were essentially white people who colonized three entire continents (the Americas and Australia) and controlled large tracts of land in Africa. Conveniently forgetting this part of the history, some people keep talking about population as if only people in certain parts of the world reproduced in large numbers. Large families were the norm in Europe and wherever Europeans settled. Keeping that in mind, I want to ask those who keep spouting off the population factor (AND disregarding overconsumption), where would you like to start cutting down on the population? What ethnic groups would like to see go down in population? Also, do this thought exercise - try packing all white people back into Europe, assuming that the Americas and Australia were never 'discovered' - then we'll get an idea of what happened historically.
My point is that population reduction - however necessary and desirable it may be - will take time to happen - on the order of several generations - if it were to happen by natural means. Population growth rate can stabilize first, then decrease, with a gradual stabilization of the population itself, and an eventual decrease. Education and improved living standards have been shown to be important factors - assuming religious dogma is kept out of the way. But cutting down on consumption through intelligent choice of products, technologies, systems and lifestyle can have an immediate impact. Not acknowledging this fact always makes me wonder about the motives of those who would rather talk only about population.
"Also, do this thought exercise - try packing all white people back into Europe, assuming that the Americas and Australia were never 'discovered' - then we'll get an idea of what happened historically."
I am missing your meaning here. Are you saying that Europe could easily handle another 600 million people? Or are you saying it would be a disaster? The first I do not find credible. The second refutes your basic argument. I must be wrong. Europe could surely, easily, absorb a half billion people.
No, I'm not saying Europe could handle another 600 million people. I'm just saying that Europeans found new places to spread in the last 500 years, and if they hadn't, Europe would be overcrowded as well. I say this when the population argument is thrown around all too often, with the implication that people in poor countries (mostly Asia and Africa) are somehow solely to blame for overpopulation. (I'm not saying you implied that way). My point is that everybody, everywhere is responsible. While reducing population is desirable, realistically, it's going to take a few generations to achieve that, even in China. What could be achieved in the meantime is a drastic change in how we use the available resources.
My entire argument is based on a humanitarian approach - it's very simple: these people, including you and me, are already here - so they will have to eat, and most will reproduce as well (sure, the rate of reproduction can be cut down - but that still won't achieve a population reduction anytime soon). Since killing people is not an option, what is possible is only to cut down excessive consumption. There is enough technology and enough scientific knowledge (including on meat consumption, vegan diet, etc.) that would allow EVERYONE on this planet to have their basic needs met AND live a decent life. That's assuming that we keep our greed and vanity in check. Yes - the choice is between curtailing one's greed versus meeting one's needs. If some people can cut down their greed, many others can meet their needs. And the threat of climate change demands that we change course.
"If you want to blame the population for all the trouble, then take a gun and kill yourself but don't go telling others not to produce." What a dimwitted response. People that want continual growth and unfettered population growth always pull out the Malthusian reference which was a different time and place. The point is that 50 years ago when there was half or less of the population no one was worrying about energy shortages and how to replace the current oil consumption or coal consumption. And so many mouths to feed. H.L. Mencken believed it is in the nature of the human species to reject what is true but unpleasant and to embrace what is obviously false but comforting. Which is a good statement to think about when reading responses like yours. I recommend a youtube video called "The most important video you'll ever see." This is also for those that have convinced themselves that the population in this country is shrinking.
laffingbear, I don't know why you responded below my comment with that quote - that was not from me. However, I might have said something similar - where would you want to start reducing the population? And while we go about doing that (by whatever means you propose), what should we do about the consumption levels?
Since you cited a YouTube video, here's one for you - search for "How it all ends".
I agree that population must be reduced - but do you realize that reducing population will take several decades at the minimum, if it were to happen naturally? Whereas wasteful technologies, products and lifestyle can be replaced with better ones in a short order of time.
Alcyon I know you aren't the bozo that made the comment about killing myself I just put it at the end of the thread. Please excuse me. I'll be more careful in the future. Myself I do not even think anything can be done with overpopulation or over consumption. We have many people pushing for more global trade so everyone that isn't consuming will get an opportunity to do so.And so they can put a few more shekels in their pockets. I just like pointing out the main reason for most of the problems we are facing today. We are on a runaway train that will go over the cliff one of these days and nothing can or will be done about it to matter much. I did see "How it all ends." Its obvious that if we were going to do something about energy and resources we would have done it a some time ago. There have been alot of voices in the wilderness. We theoretically could cut the population in half in a generation but with people that are in denial of the huge problems we are facing and are in the grasp of the biological imperative ain't going to allow that to happen. They will keep pumping out little bozos and blaming everything and everybody but themselves, meanwhile keeping the rat race going until nature takes over. And it will. One of the reasons I sited "the most important video you'll ever see" because the people that are all up in a tizzy about coal will see that we do not have that much coal left either. At least not what has be estimated. But when the lights go out they will be screaming for any kind of energy and be wishing thee weren't so many others competing for the same energy. One thing is a fact. The days of cheap energy are over. Its only a matter of a very short time before many people are spending much on what the can earn on energy just to keep them selves warm and getting someplace past walking distance. I do like the optimism that some have thinking that technology will come to the rescue. I don't know and neither does anyone else. It is very doubtful, the numbers just don't add up. We are now in the hoping stage because we have nothing else left. Not to good of odds on hope.
Eight billion members of a top predator is a disaster. Pointing to a tiny area on the earth where people manage to eke out a subsistence living by doing 'everything right' is just obscene. And what does their 'incredibly rich cultural traditions' have to do with it? There are bloated starving people in Africa with rich cultural traditions. With an explosive growth of population eventually you are going to have the problems we are currently facing, no matter how 'green' you live. Stuffing the earth with yet more billions is not a solution. And calling those with legitimate concerns 'Malthusians' and accusing them of having motives of profligate lifestyles is not helping. Learn to think before you start ranting against your betters. Oh, and learn to spell too--profligate, not proflagrate.
By the way, I'm all for getting rid of capitalism, at least the way it's practiced here in the United States. And I'm all for adopting a 'green' lifestyle. I also recognize that the United States and Europe are using up most of the world's resources and causing most of the pollution. But that has nothing to do with rampant overpopulation on a world wide scale. That's why Bush's attitude towards pushing contraceptives and birth control in third world countries was so criminal. You guys aren't helping either.
To call humans a "top pedator" [sic] is absurd. I've never seen any lions, orca's or sharks developing technology, engaging in self-examination, farming or eating a vegitarian diet. Your arguments go downhill from there.
Population has notihng to do with human hunger and famine. Economics and politics do.
The idea of ths earths population growing without limit is also a absurd argument. The "population-bomb" scares of the 1960's have been largely discredited.
Populaton is already stable-to-declining in most of the world. Family size will naturally go down in the rest of the world if we adopt economics that provide equitable access to an adequate living standard and healthcare. Until then, white men condescendingly and paternalistically telling people how they should have sex and how many children they shoud have is not helpful.
And you never addressed my comment that it is ever-increasing-markets requirement of capitalst economics that drives the environmentally damaging forms of resource consumption - not population. Under capitalism, the world would consume as much oil with a population of 1 million as it does with a population of 6 billion. The capitalists would simply create a world where a middle-class individual would live in a 100,000 sq ft homes and use something resembling a 500 ton Caterpillar 777 for personal transportation.
How can you say that population has nothing to do with human hunger and famine? It's not the only reason, but it is an important one. And your statement about population growth is outrageous. Look at the figures. You are living in a fantasy world if you think that economics by itself will solve the problem. How is distributing condoms and offering advice on family planning wrong, simply because those doing it are white (which is itself a distortion of the truth)?
I suspect you are a doctrinaire socialist, with a very rigid mind set. I'm all for socialism too. Nothing can be done in this world, including population reduction, without changing the economic system of the First World, not to mention China, India, Brazil, and a few other rapidly growing countries. But I still maintain that the word billion should not be used in conjunction with human population. We are the top predator, and our use of technology is what makes us the top predator. It is what makes it possible for us to have billions of our species on the planet, at least until we destroy it.
You can't ignore the role of population in the following simple equation:
Environmental Impact = population x per capita consumption
The only way to mitigate environmental impact with an increasing population is to drastically reduce per capita resource consumption. It seems to me that the more effective approach would be to seek reductions in both population and per capita consumption. We could then also avoid these empty arguments about how it is only about one or the other.
Hey, very nicely put. I often wonder if it's simply thrown as a red herring to avoid the topic of overconsumption. Reducing one's consumption levels can be achieved almost overnight - at least in a short order of time, with a bit of planning and commitment. Reducing population in a short time? Unless we want to put the nukes to some use? I cannot imagine any government in the world that is not attempting in some way to get their population growth under control. Perhaps their first priority is in tackling poverty - which many experts say would lead to an automatic reduction in rate of population growth and an eventual stabilization. Of course, this is assuming that the religious mischief-makers do not try to influence public policy.
(You're 'cyon'? I'm 'Alcyon' :)
You can't keep blaming population for everything. Even Walter Malthus was forced to actually retract his accusations of population growth as the sole cause of the problem. Nobody's calling for stuffing the earth's population with billions more. Read the responses carefully. The Malthusian freakos have no basis for their illogical arguments and often end up getting caught defending elitist policies. If you want to blame the population for all the trouble, then take a gun and kill yourself but don't go telling others not to produce. Overpopulation is just a red herring when one looks at the growing number of depopulating rural areas all over the globe.
If we were all living better, we wouldn't give a shit about population numbers. Instead, we're just going to cry about population numbers because we have no intention of addressing the real culprits but instead are once again happy to blame a bunch of poor people on the other side of the globe.
At least I'm honest enough to admit that I own an SUV for business even if it's a gas guzzler but instead of saying let's get rid of it, I say change the fuel from corn ethanol to switchgrass based and watch the guzzling drop like a rock. Likewise, change your own guzzling habits and stop blaming the poor and the malnoorished billions who are suffering all because of us Americans living and typing and eating and farting and partying and yada-yada-yada.
Who's blaming population for everything? Of course we have to put a check on capitalism and correct the unfair distribution of goods. As usual, you are not listening. I still maintain that billions and billions of humans, being animals that consume meat, vegetables, and other resources such as oil, coal, and wood, are not good for the planet. And this situation is not good for humans either. It is unnatural, it is obscene, it is criminal. What it is not is a red herring. And who's blaming a bunch of poor people on the other side of the globe? One can be concerned about starving people and want to help them without casting blame. What good is it to keep popping out children when they are going to starve to death? Family planning would be a very good thing for these people as would giving them the tools for taking care of themselves.
The statement that human population growth has stabilized is simply not true. The reason for empty rural areas is because there has been a mass movement of population to urban areas. Cities are growing at an alarming rate. In a few years there will be hundreds of mega-cities with populations exceeding 30 million.
I have to have a car, but it is used as a town car and I fill up the tank about once a month. It is over 15 years old. I'm waiting for an electric or other fuel efficient car before I get a new one. I am retired and do not commute. When I did work, it was in the Bay Area and I didn't have a car, but used public transportation. I'm about as green as you can get in the United States without living in a cave. I support all green causes, and put my money where my mouth is. There are many like me. The United States is geared for consumption and that has to change, but your wild statements about living and typing and eating and farting and partying and yada-yada-yada say more about you than anyone else. I say, stop breeding, and I'll stop farting and yada yada yada.
You're in the Bay Area where public transportation is like everywhere. Most places in the country have none of it. Even most of the big cities don't offer much in the way of public transportation. Either inner cities need to lower their obscene housing and rental fees or public transportation needs to be extended into the suburbs and rural areas. People didn't move to urban areas the way you claim. They did so thanks to bad policies resulting in depopulating rural America. In states such as CA and NY, packing people into urban areas is resulting in more red ink and those two states are in bankruptcy. You can keep blaming the population all you want to but you're not addressing the real causes.
Actually I'm now living in Tucson, where there is only a rudimentary bus system. That's why I have a car. How I miss the Bay Area, but I'm taking care of Mom and she owns this house in Tucson. I know the difference between good and poor public transportation. You bet I do! Good public transportation, in cities and across the country, should be at the top of Obama's priority list. It was a huge crime when the gas and rubber companies bought up our transit systems and destroyed them so that we would have to ride busses and drive cars. These same blood suckers are still around, are immensely rich, and should be severely dealt with. They are running and ruining our political system, by the way.
What I said about urban growth was actually meant for cities like Mexico DF, Tokyo, several in Brazil, and countless cities in China. But it is going to be happening everywhere in a few years. There's an excellent article about it in National Geographic (April 17, 2001 issue. Also there is a great map-look up Megacities Map @ National Geographic Magazine on Google). I didn't claim any reason for this shift in population. I just stated the fact of it. It's happening. A ride through Mexico is an eye-opener, for example. When our rain forests are plowed under, when our deserts have grown huge, when our cities are blights on the earth with enormous slums, then you will know a little more about runaway growth. It's got to stop. If it takes a change in economic systems (which I believe it does) then I hope it happens sooner than later. I don't think we have much time.
I'll confess that even VA Beach, once a not too highly populated suburb is getting into a jam of a mess and it's not just traffic jams that are the problem. Still, I'm willing to hold back on blaming the population numbers until it can be proven that despite all the improvements and reforms, there are too many people to get anything improved. This might be true in places like San Francisco and NYC but I can't speak for all places. Thanks for the clarification btw.
Thank you for saying exactly what I was thinking!