NVR Logo
Home » Opinion » Commentary
Overpopulation and peak oil: The perfect storm
Friday, January 18, 2008
Save and Share Share
Email
Print
Comment
By Jim Lydecker
Americans have recently become aware of converging crises that can end life as we know it, though experts have been warning us for many years.

For example, many economists have been warning for decades of the severe consequences resulting from runaway national debt and an imbalance of trade. And the current mortgage/liquidity crisis was first discussed in the early ‘90s by a number of financial experts.
Global warming, a phenomenon universally accepted as fact within the past five years, was first discussed by the Swedes in the 19th century. Several papers published at Stockholm University warned of global warning with the advent of the industrial age.

For a variety of reasons, humans usually don’t react to problems until they become crises. All these crises are semi-connected, where one will trigger one or more of the others. However, there are two crises marching toward us now, shoulder-to-shoulder, that will trigger every other, both large and small. At best, they will end our industrial civilization. At worst, they may depopulate most of our species. These two comrades-in-arms, overpopulation and peak oil, are of such complex magnitude, no amount of financial or scientific commitment may stop them. They are creating the perfect storm of which there may be no survival.
The ever-quickening rise in oil prices partly attributed to the ever-weakening dollar. However, oil prices would still be increasing as demand outstrips supply. The slide down peak oil is unstoppable.

Most want to believe oil is limitless. The fact of the matter is it’s a finite resource, a geological gift of nature, half of which we’ve run through in less than 150 years. You only have to look as far as the mature, collapsing fields as the North Sea, Mexico’s Cantarell, Alaska’s North Slope, Russia’s Caspian and various Middle Eastern countries to know we are in deep trouble. In December’s OPEC meetings, it was made public that they were supplying 15 percent less than two years ago despite pumping as fast as they can. The massive Saudi field, Ghawar — by far the world’s largest — has only been able to maintain its five-million-barrel-a-day output by injecting nine million barrels of sea water daily. It’s said as goes Ghawar, so goes Saudi Arabia.
No substance is more interwoven into life as oil. Most of us see it as gasoline and believe more fuel-efficient autos will save the day. This is a fallacy as cars take much oil to manufacture, so if we replace all gas guzzlers with fuel-efficient vehicles, it will make matters worse. And using grain-produced ethanol is proving to be a mistake. Agriculture is one of the most oil-intensive industries and the more we grow, the quicker we use oil up.

Oil is necessary for drugs and pharmaceuticals, energy, fertilizers and pesticides, chemical production and everything plastic. With the advent of oil came a revolution in medicine, agriculture (where 2 percent of the population now feeds the rest of us, while it was the opposite in 1850), transportation, information, machinery and industrial production. Never before has life changed so much and oil was directly responsible for this modernization.

If peak oil is the sharpshooter with modern industrial civilization in its crosshairs, overpopulation is the hangman with the noose around our necks.

In 1850, the world population lingered at 1 billion; in America it was 23 million. The world population is now closing in on 7 billion while here it nears 310 million. It was oil, and its cousin natural gas, that allowed the population to grow to unprecedented proportions as quickly as it did. As oil is depleted, it’s correct to assume the population will decrease proportionately.

In 1974, the government released a study (NSSM 200) that concluded the world population needed to be decreased drastically for humans to survive after peak oil without dire consequences. This was followed by the Carter administration’s Global 2000 document that said an immediate goal of less than 2 billion worldwide is necessary. Others suggest a world of no more than 500 million is more realistic.

Knowing so much about a near future of mass migration, epidemics, famines, society collapse and die-offs of biblical proportions, one should ask: Why are we not making population and oil conservation the primary issues? I always wonder why towns are proud welcoming in the first born of the year when, in the overall scope of things, having a baby is the most selfish thing a person can do. Why encourage our species to breed ourselves toward extinction?

Energy and population are the two subjects you never hear politicians discuss. Columnists, on the left and right, have recently written how it is only OK to talk about conserving oil and decreasing population until it’s too late.

(Lydecker lives in Napa.)
55 comment(s)

kevin wrote on Jan 18, 2008 8:54 AM:

" I give you credit Jim, you are regular as clockwork dragging out your well worn editorial. What is this, the four time you have published the same story? Just an editorial comment, how about proposing some specific solutions to go along with it? "

JimClark wrote on Jan 18, 2008 9:08 AM:

" It is true that there is a finite amount of oil on this planet. However, there is plenty of time to develop newer and more efficient sources of energy without denying ourselves what exists.
Primarily there has been an effort to deny any other choices that are cleaner and less expensive. For years now United States corporations have developed and created cleaner and safer nuclear power in Europe, certain middle eastern countries and in the African continent yet, we have been plied and belabored by a pathetic 1960s mentality that forbids even the word nuclear. It is time to rethink our positions on energy resources for humanity. The indisputable fact is that we are not going to live caves again; polluting the air from the smoke of our fires. There must be a period of time where we wean we ourselves from oil and use other, cleaner, less expensive means of energy. First of all, it is necessary to rid ourselves of PG&E who suggest that we citizens abuse their services as an excuse to extort their customer’s personal income; something like government.
As for “global warming”?; just another sham that should be minimized by real science. It saddens many of us that Americans can be so easily miss-lead by cheap opportunists "

reader wrote on Jan 18, 2008 9:57 AM:

" Great article. Question: Why are we still widening and building more roads instead of developing clean rail transportation? I'll answer. Americans are short-sighted and ego-centric. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 18, 2008 10:22 AM:

" Why are we subsidizing fossil fuels when those businesses have NEVER made more money that they do today? It's called campaign cash from lobbyists. -- A solution? Only American citizens who have their primary residence and voter registration in the electoral district of any given Congress member or Senator should be allowed to give a politician any money at all. No legal entities, corporations or unions. -- Then the American government would start doing what "We, the People..." who own this country want. There are lots of ideas and ways we could stimulate our economy and move away from sending about $2,000,000,000 a day out of the country for oil alone. We could divert all subsidies to fossil fuels to replacing them, and encourage the energy companies join the competition to produce clean fuels and electric cars. We ought to offer 'refundable in the showroom' tax credits for 10% down on every car getting 40 mpg highway tomorrow. And we should offer escalating 'Crush your Petro-Pig' checks to crush every car getting less than 20MPG highway. We could re-institute 5-year HOV lane stickers for every NEW car that gets over 45MPG average fuel economy and raise the fuel economy floor for those stickers to keep the relative population of new cars receiving the stickers constant. We should get our heads together about saving our country's economy whether people scoff or not. On your other subject of population, we can look at the population statistics of country where women are educated and the economy is above subsistence-level. Birthrates fall. We can take care of both problems with our heads before Malthus does. ~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 18, 2008 10:27 AM:

" "reader", we should move to maglev for between-city trips of over 100 miles or so. Freight rates would move more freight from trucks to rail and electrifying rail would cut pollution and costs. Electrifying local transportation is easier than trying to force people out of their cars. Also, telecommuting is very possible for lots of non-factory or non-personal service jobs. Trains do have a piece in the mix, but we can substantially raise living standards by eliminating un-needed workday travel period. ~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 18, 2008 10:33 AM:

" Nukes still stink when compared to putting solar on all our roofs and built the solar energy network and energy storage facilities in this month's "Scientific American". We don't need to concentrate our capital in terrorist magnet power stations when distributed solar and wind are cheaper and naturally terrorism resistant. "JimClark", I sure hope you don't have anything against get personally paid for the energy your roof could create and your home and car could store. ~Ruff "

common sense wrote on Jan 18, 2008 12:56 PM:

" So, Lydecker, how do you want to reduce population? Limit the number of kids people can have? Perhaps just assign numbers and send people to the exterminator? Science and technology are our only hope...I suggest we innovate new solutions (and let people have as many kids as they see fit) rather than resort to liberal fascism. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 18, 2008 1:17 PM:

" "common sense", don't be ridiculous! Countries where women are educated and birth control is widely available have much lower birth rates. Since we already have hospital robot demonstrations in Japan (why not here?) we would be able to take care of an aging population as the population goes gray. We actually see Europe trying to use tax and subsidy laws to raise the live births per female statistics. The most highly-developed countries including the US have falling populations that are sometimes made up for by immigration. No 'Soylent Green' is required as long as we whip the problem of fossil fuels as large portion of our energy use in time. What is supposed to mark the difference between humans and other animals is our brain as I understand it. Anybody can scoff, but the smart people are going to make billions off the new challenges. ~Ruff "

JimClark wrote on Jan 18, 2008 1:57 PM:

" Ruff: A measured and properly considered solution to this issue is not forthcoming due to political correctness. The earth will not shift off it axis and go into another ice age (or volcanic period) if we graduate from one means to another. I don’t believe we need to reduce the human population like a Winter conference in Vansee, Germany that pretty much decided the “Jewish” issue in Germany and its conquered landscapes. Should we eradicate the developmentally disabled, elderly, homeless, criminal elements and, well, your “neo-cons”?

I know that we Americans love instant coffee and fast food that ultimately brings us an early demise but all the world’s problems cannot be solved at a drive through window. As I offered earlier, we have time to change if we focus on the issues and eliminate the politics. The future is not a political issue. "

kevin wrote on Jan 18, 2008 2:08 PM:

" Increasing gas milage is not the answer. People just drive more. Besides, look at India, here comes the Tata Nano, the $2500 "car" (ie four door lawnmower). They hope to sell 1 million to the masses of India. America can save all the gas we want and might as well ship it all to India... "

BillJames wrote on Jan 18, 2008 2:23 PM:

" Transportation is 20% efficient and 80% drives climate change.

Morgantown's PRT, built to counter the oil embargoes (DOT Study PB-244854) has delivered 110 million injury-free passenger miles.

Similar systems are being built in Uppsala Sweden, Heathrow Airport. JPods has a demonstration unit in San Jose. These networks can operate at 200 watt-hours to travel a mile (equivalent to 183 miles per gallon). Solar collectors 6-foot wide mounted over their rails gather 2.5 million watt-hours in a typical day. We can implement solar powered mobility networks and minimize the consequences of population overshoot. "

BillJames wrote on Jan 18, 2008 2:34 PM:

" Transportation is 20% efficient and 80% drives climate change.

Morgantown's PRT, built to counter the oil embargoes (DOT Study PB-244854) has delivered 110 million injury-free passenger miles.

Similar systems are being built in Uppsala Sweden, Heathrow Airport. JPods has a demonstration unit in San Jose. These networks can operate at 200 watt-hours to travel a mile (equivalent to 183 miles per gallon). Solar collectors 6-foot wide mounted over their rails gather 2.5 million watt-hours in a typical day.

We can implement solar powered mobility networks and minimize the consequences of population overshoot. "

rogers wrote on Jan 18, 2008 4:55 PM:

" The world population has been doubling about every 50 years since 1900. Never before in human history has it done that. It is expected to double again by 2050 to about 14 billion. This has a huge effect on the consumption of natural resources and the sheer amount of pollution created by that population. All of these new people will want the benefits of electricity, air conditioning and their own cars. The US was actively involved in trying to help the world moderate its population growth until Ronald Reagan, the Bushes and the religious right came along. The author has not endorsed eradication or camps to eliminate the less desired. I'm always amazed how some of you readily jump to those disturbing conclusions. Since the 1970s China was/is the only nation to enforce stringent population control (one child per family). They had little choice and their population still expands. UN data shows that as countries seriously educate their people (male and female), provide health safety nets for the entire population, and build their middle class, population growth reduces. I must agree with Bush on Kyoto, China and India must be active participants; no free ride for them. Jim Clark is right about nuclear, it's a clean source of power production but it is not cheaper because of the current waste issues. It's much more dangerous if an accident occurs - Chernobyl taught us that! It is time that solar take a prominent position in world energy production. We can be at the front of that technology or losers if we allow the current Texas energy monopoly to control our politicians and the science.
"

Bill wrote on Jan 18, 2008 4:58 PM:

" Golly gee and economically I will have to agree with Kevin. For all the gloom the desire for transport wills out. I love to blame the corporate empires for my un-slackened thirst but I must admit that if there were cheap fuel of any kind it would still deplete the planet as I would drive even more than currently and so would everyone else.

So here’s an authentic suggestion for the control of population and energy that may seem unwitting or half-witted. Turn all current freeways into 2 lane highways and build no more. Privatize all highways and bridges.

This will preserve the pristine country side constrict urbanization to populated areas forcing people to actually work where they live assuming that there will actually be work.

Force rural education systems to turn out farm workers from their schools, trained in picking grapes and pruning in our case or line chefs and house keepers.

This solution has a wide range of attractive effects upon society that many will find beneficial. Ahh!! To change the world, as we know it and we don’t even have to go nuclear.
"

vocal-de-local wrote on Jan 18, 2008 5:09 PM:

" Jim, your argument about over population is right on. I've attempted to discuss this issue with people and they are very protective of their reproductive freedom to do whatever they please. They always turn the discussion into "extermination", "Nazism", etc. Sometimes perfectly intelligent people do this simply because they do not want to feel guilt for having three kids. The U.S. population, even without the immigration statistics is way too high. There is absolutely no adaptability room left for unforeseen circumstances such as shortage in food supply due to changing weather patterns or agricultural diseases. And the argument about global warming is not even a necessity here because our earth weather patterns are capable of changing abruptly even without human intervention. Nature keeps populations in check naturally but humans have the brains to override it yet lack the self discipline to control it. Sadly, we're no different than fruit flies. We will reproduce until over crowding makes us susceptible to some weird disease we are unable to outsmart. In the end, microbes will win the battle and we will have no one to blame but ourselves. I hope the upcoming generation has enough common sense to end over population denial. And for those who talk "extermination", don't be foolish. The way to deal with it is to make it very expensive to bring more than one child per person into the world, which would be two children per couple. Call it a preservation tax, preservation of the human species, of course. A steep price for reproduction should discourage over population. Those people who choose to not bring children into the world should find greater rewards in health care etc to insure the availability of care, especially as they age since they won't have children to look after them. "

roblab wrote on Jan 18, 2008 6:20 PM:

" Kevin,
OK, maybe it's the fourth time for this editorial. Is that because in the last 4 years NOTHING has happened? You want some suggested actions you could take, but have YOU looked up any web sites on global warming, Peak Oil, Peak Food, etc. There are tons of suggestions, books, films, positive actions. My experience is that the main people in Napa valley that put in solar panels are the wineries -- because they pay off.
Everyone else wants to keep business as usual, and ignore the storm clouds. One of our Napa Own has a great web site, "Dry Dipstick", and has published a very good book, "Peak Oil Prep", full of good things to do. At least Jim is trying to get people to notice. Thanks, Jim, for using your forum, and reprint that editorial every month. "

citizen wrote on Jan 18, 2008 6:37 PM:

" To Ruff: Good comment, "...when women are educated..." In America, we have the least educated population of the most developed countries. In Calif. we the 48th in 50 of educated states. What a sham and what a shame!! Especially considering that Calif. is the richest state in the union. "

kevin wrote on Jan 18, 2008 10:16 PM:

" Figures. Spending per pupil, we are about 15th and yet we are 48th in results. Way to go CTA... "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 18, 2008 10:28 PM:

" "JimClark", actually the future is the only issue in politics. We are actually discussing (when we listen to one another) about our mutual future. The nation seems a little tired of "WAR is the answer" and is now turning to other questions. Time marches on, Bush is a failure and we are going to have to change our dependence on foreign oil, WE can't afford to buy the oil and fight over it forever. It has already become cheaper to overhaul our economy and give those jobs to people in the USA who will create electric cars instead of fossil fueled ones. When it gets down to it, have you ever seen a 'futuristic utopia' movie with a car belching smoke? And would you really want a car belching noxious fumes as a part of your future? 'Expensive' can be used to drive change but change is coming no matter what. We have had our last retrograde president and we need to adjust to the new realities very badly. We can do it by using our intelligence or we can be overwhelmed. So how about being a Napa City Council person and running one of the old guard bums outa office? ~Ruff "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 18, 2008 10:40 PM:

" Bill, you could drive your plug-in hybrid charged off the roof of your house and solar panels in Arizona all you want and not add one whit to greenhouse gases. You'd be getting paid to give jobs to people in Arizona and California as well as saving yourself buckets of money. All we need to do is get the government (which is the REAL Bank of America) to finance the transition. Sure there will be payments, but it will be money spent ensuring our grandkids will bless our wisdom instead of cursing our stupidity. A rising standard of living does NOT require more poison in the air. Only an idiot thinks that! Come on, do you believe we are doomed or do you have a more optimistic view? I am ever the optimist. There are already jobs being created for the electrification of California transportation. ~Ruff "

klr wrote on Jan 19, 2008 2:03 AM:

" While it is true that we have a finite amount of natural resources, we are not in nearly the dire straits that are predicted by the doom and gloom crowd. We have closed off many of our options for energy use because of propagated fear, turning away from our natural resources, closing off our vast amount of oil reserves in Alaska because of possible harm to the environment, and turning away from that dreaded renewable nuclear energy, which powers much of France. Rather than using the brain, the one thing that makes mankind different than any other species on earth, we are narrowing our options into Neanderthal-like reasoning.

We have the resources, we have the technology, and we have the brainpower to live our lives better than today, working with nature without destroying it, without lowering our standard of living, without regulating the number of children we can have.

Tom Deweese and Michael Shaw have written many articles on Agenda 21 and sustainable development (government policy for 14 years) and have put out a video, “Liberty or Sustainable Development”, which explains how the United States government is adopting a soviet structure of government through the Trojan horse of environmentalism, the regulation of every aspect of our lives through social equity and social justice, at the local, State, and Federal level, where private/public partnerships are meant to control our lives and land use.

“The Fluoride Deception” by Christopher Bryson, (out of 31 reviews, 31 five star ratings on Amazon) shows how government has been putting toxic waste into our water supply for over fifty years—see how the government works with the corporations and media to hide the truth, swaying public opinion, while destroying reputations of revered scientists that try to tell the truth.
"

kevin wrote on Jan 19, 2008 10:15 AM:

" klr, you were doing good till you got to the fluoride thing. Do you deny that fluoride in the water prevents tooth cavities? Unlike man-made global warming, there is substiated proof that fluoride works. (In the interests of full disclosure, I work for a water company. It is a difficult and expensive additive and we wouldn't put it in if we have to.) "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 19, 2008 10:17 AM:

" klr, you need to recheck your facts, especially about the 'vast oil reserves' in Alaska. The reserves in ANWR are a drop in the bucket at current consumption rates. The US government would desolate ANWR for a 50 year oil supply with the blessing of both corporate-indentured Reps and Dems. It has not happened, and that's because there is honestly not enough oil up there to build the huge new expensive pipeline to transport it to the US unless the price of oil goes much higer. So cool your rhetorical jets, get the facts and start helping clean up our country and putting Americans back to work. ~Ruff "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jan 19, 2008 12:08 PM:

" Kir, on some level, people need to regulate the number of kids they have, not government. However, government needs to recognize that over population is the straw that could tip us over. Government should establish economic policies which discourage people from having more and more children. I am strongly in favor of social justice and equity except when it promotes growth of our population. Our welfare system allows children to be brought into the world who, by natural standards, wouldn't otherwise exist. I do not believe young couples should start baby making until they can afford it. Instead, they are rewarded for making babies by our welfare system and such offspring are devalued in the long run because it's not only a freebie but the money can be used for other goodies like drug abuse. I am sickened by stories about 19 year old gang members who have two teens pregnant at the same time. There's something terribly wrong. This is not social justice. So be careful when you imply that regulation of population is a bad thing. For example, we should establish our own economic policies which provide the greatest rewards to those with the fewest children and we should restrict entry into this country by those who violate the standards of having more than one biological child per person. Countries south of the border, partly due to their religion, and for years, their disdain of birth control, have created uncontrolled growth rates with overflow into regions with less population to compete with. This is a natural occurrence observable in a petri dish filled with bacteria and sugar. The only way they will ever fix their own growth problems is to create economic consequences (it's a problem because their economy cannot support such growth without dependency on other countries). "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jan 19, 2008 12:33 PM:

" Also, I should point out, we wouldn't be having an energy crisis if population levels hadn't exploded as a result of oil dependency. Oil created an agricultural boom and all of the extra food created more people; more mouths to feed created an even greater addiction to the oil fed agricultural machine. When do we break the cycle? Does anyone out there want to help solve this problem? I would like to get together with like minded people who want our elected officials to address this situation. Adding more lanes to travel on or houses to live in is not the answer. You would think that they could figure this out for themselves. Go figure. If interested, contact me at doreitsme@sbcglobal.net "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Jan 20, 2008 12:00 AM:

" The most effective means of reducing population growth around the world involves providing women with education and birth control options. Highly educated women in nations where birth control is readily available have lower birth rates than in countries with fewer highly educated women without access to birth control. Most women who have the opportunity to make their own decisions regarding social, economic and political concerns make wise family planning decisions. The United States ought to provide support to those countries offering civil rights and equal opportunities to women. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jan 20, 2008 10:27 AM:

" Madison, I agree with your point but birth control and education alone do not stop people from having too many kids. In our country, these are both available, and yet, if you seek it out, you will find a huge number of women who have too many children even though they have access to birth control and education. As an old biology instructor once told me, "humans are the only species that reproduce beyond their capacity to care for an offspring." We are quite sheltered from it in Napa County but it's presence in the inner cities would shock you. The reason I am aware of this is because I have some rather distant cousins who have been dependent on government assistance to raise their offspring. Soon this practice will carry on into three generations. One of them had six children, none of them actually raised by her. Once the kids turned into demanding toddlers they were turned over to a grandmother and foster care system to raise. The grandma actually used social service funds to feed back support to the daughter who was a drug addict as well. One of the offspring grew up and did exactly the same thing except she had five kids from four different fathers. She can barely cope with raising one of them and some of the kids have been taken out of the home by social services. This women continued to abuse drugs while pregnant with almost all of her children. She's not some loving, nurturing person who wants children around. She's a menace to society. I once asked her son, now a young adult, if he was going to have children and he said, "I'm going to have one when I'm 22", not "when I can afford it." "

steph wrote on Jan 20, 2008 11:04 AM:

" Ooh, Vocal, that society you're forming sounds fun! May I suggest some ground rules: the gathering will be held at the member's home that is the smallest and least selfish; no heat or cooling will be provided, so wear your home-spun woolen sweaters. Young members will take a vow of poverty and childlessness. Nobody with excess body weight will be allowed admission--eating more than one's fair share of resources is selfish (let's make it a vegan society while we're at it). The only permissible mode of transportation to the discussion is walking--barefoot, of course. Shoes are made from petroleum, and that's selfish. No food will be served, as undoubtedly, nobody could possibly make any claim of hunger. No wine, either, as it takes a lot of resources and excess people to make wine. Then, you all can assuage yourselves of guilt and regret by accusing the ignorant and selfish ones of excess that threatens the world and devise ways of making the US more like China, at least the China of the good old days, when they reached their peak of regulation-induced female infanticide combined with widespread starvation. Enjoy that exercise in futility. But at least you won't be wasting resources. It feels so good to be superior, doesn't it? "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jan 20, 2008 4:53 PM:

" Steph, the world you describe was not invented by me. However, it will become an invention of future generations if population continues to deplete our limited resources. I doubt my generation will pay a huge price. It's future generations I'm worried about. The solution is fairly simple. Pay HUGE taxes if you drive a large SUV, have too many children, and buy convenience items which are disposable. The abuse of our resources will end when it hits the pocketbook - one reason I am not terribly upset about increasing fuel prices. If we do not begin planning now, the future you describe will be forced upon us and choice will be an antiquated word. I am perplexed as to why anyone would want to build an obstacle toward population control? What do people really have against it? The control I propose simply makes those situations which deplete our resources cost more for those who abuse it. "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Jan 20, 2008 5:19 PM:

" The quotation attributed to Vocal-de-local's biology instructor is not true. (There are many, many species that do not care for their offspring at all.) Poverty is widespread and growing in the world, the United States and in Napa. Vocal-de-local's anecdotal evidence is a poor substitute for accurate data with which to truly appreciate the difficulties billions now face while trying to acquire food, housing, clothing and other resources vital for survival. Worldwide, the gap between the "haves" and "have nots" is growing dramatically and quickly, just as it is in the United States and Napa. Blaming the "have nots" for being poor or without necessary resources won't help solve macroeconomic problems, but providing education and access to birth control have been proven methods for helping many women improve their socioecnomic status. "

russ wrote on Jan 20, 2008 7:27 PM:

" Oh, Ruff, exaggeration again. Better check your facts, as usual. You said, "The US government would desolate ANWR for a 50 year oil supply". Factually incorrect. Please review the detailed scope of ANWR development when it occurs. There will be no desolation, only a slight footprint. russ "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jan 20, 2008 7:34 PM:

" Madison, the biology instructor's statement pertains to the fact that in the animal world, if the population surpasses the available resources, some of the offspring die (they are not cared for). Humans do the same thing through war, gang fighting etc...just a few examples of reactions to limited resources. I believe a better option is to control population through economic incentives which reward those who have the fewest, or better yet, no children at all. Everything you described in your last post ("food, housing, clothing and other resources vital for survival") are a result of over population. I believe in social equality, government health care etc. and taking care of those who are already here (up to a point). However, I do not believe it's healthy rewarding people through tax incentives or welfare checks which promote bringing even more babies into a world of limited resources. I do not believe building more homes or adding more car lanes is the answer either. Don't you recognize the pattern of growth/reaction/growth/reaction...? Someone has to put their foot down and say enough is enough! Additionally, fuel abusing vehicles should face a higher registration fee which should then fund alternative energy research. Higher taxes for those with the most children will support those who have the fewest children. The reason this is important is because if a couple remains childless, they need to be reassured of future care(something we expect from our offspring even though it's not a reality today). "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jan 20, 2008 7:59 PM:

" Madison, I forgot to say, I agree with you 100% on higher education for women (and men, too, for that matter). Birth control is a necessity and government should fund it. Keep in mind that not everyone is either capable or willing to be educated, though. In fact, quite a few young people resent education because they have no ownership; they feel it's force fed, and they aren't allowed input....another topic altogether. I wish every young person would spend two years in college level general education but I see too many who drop out after a month of it. If you're talking about education in responsible reproduction, I'm all for it. And part of the lesson should be about responsible parenting, too, which means not having children until you are economically and emotionally ready for it, and limiting the number of children due to finite resources. We're on the same page. "

kevin wrote on Jan 21, 2008 9:09 AM:

" MJH, according to the world bank: "Living standards have risen dramatically over the last decades. The proportion of the developing world's population living in extreme economic poverty -- defined as living on less than $1 per day ($1.08 in 1993 dollars, adjusted to account for differences in purchasing power across countries) -- has fallen from 28 percent in 1990 to 21 percent in 2001.

Substantial improvements in social indicators have accompanied growth in average incomes. Infant mortality rates in low- and middle-income countries have fallen from 86 per 1,000 live births in 1980 to 60 in 2002. Life expectancy in these countries has risen from 60 to 65 between 1980 and 2002. For more health, nutrition and population statistics, see the HNPStats database."

"

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 21, 2008 1:22 PM:

" Read all of what I wrote, "russ", the US government would indeed desolate just about anyplace that had enough oil under ground. That is why, according to Alan Greenspan, we are over in Iraq. There is a LOT of oil underground in Iraq and we are laying waste to large areas of Iraq. Lots of our vets are coming home sick from Gulf War I. Now I read that there is a new oil strike in the Dakotas, maybe up to 200 billion barrels. ANWR will not be developed, no matter what size the footprint, because it is not economic to develop it, but the US government has never said 'NO' for long to anything an oil behemoth wanted for long. We don't need ANWR before the north coast of Alaska is ice-free from global warming. ~Ruff "

russ wrote on Jan 21, 2008 5:46 PM:

" Ruff, you are simply wrong. Desolation does not need to occur due to the production of oil. Maybe you haven't noticed, but the desolation in Iraq is because there is terrorism and a war going on there, following a horrible dictator. The biggest problem in the production and transportation of oil in Alaska is the overpopulation of caribou. Seems they love the warm, clean above ground pipelines. I would prefer to produce our oil in the US, Dakotas, Alaska, the Gulf, etc. and stay from MidEast oil. I recently read that Brazil made one of the world's largest discoveries ever found, and will make that country one of the largest exporters. "

kevin wrote on Jan 21, 2008 9:20 PM:

" If the oil companies won't develop ANWAR, then why won't Congress authorize the leases? Approve the leases and then we will see... "

asahigo wrote on Jan 22, 2008 5:51 AM:

" So you think that "global warming" is a sham or a hoax or just the new buzzword eh? Interesting, do you base your opinion on any facts for just bs that your buddies spout as truth? Have you even bothered to research "climate change" ?, as it's now being called due to it not strictly being a global warming issue. If so, did you read more than one article and/or viewpoint? Since we can only link gov sites here's the what the EPA says. http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ Go on and read some facts, then come back and say global climate change is a hoax or a scare tactic. Population control is something I've wanted to be implemented for years. The human race won't live long enough to find another habitable world to plunder if we don't do something about the alarming increase in overall population. Clean energy, I'm all for it. Solar and wind power are almost guaranteed to be available for 100% of the country. Plastics need to be abolished. They don't bio degrade and are causing huge economical and environmental impacts of the negative kind. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 22, 2008 7:22 AM:

" The reason that Congress doesn't approve the ANWR leases is mainly money -- as in lots of political contributions. -- If ANWR held enough oil, say a few trillion barrels (and probably a lot less than that) the govt would approve the leases in extremely short order, even if the place would look like the darkside of the moon when the oil extraction was finished. How many caribou would die is irrelevant to anything but keeping the fight going... However, fighting over ANWR leases that the oil companies don't really care about at this point, serves the politicians of BOTH sides! They have an 'issue' to do fundraising on. I have gotten countless breathless solicitations from politicians talking about either 'saving' ANWR, or opening it up for leases. AND... all they need is just another $100 for victory! Another other thing politicians use ANWR for is to distract us from the current oil lease money the oil companies are stealing from the government. It's the old "Don't look at the man behind the curtain" ploy. On this and other issues the Usual Suspects fall for this guff hook, line, and sinker all the time! What is really sad it that they want us to fight over stuff that we'd be better off leaving in the ground and moving on to electric cars. Why fight over oil AT ALL, when electricity is CHEAPER, much much cheaper! About $0.02 a mile, or 50 miles for a buck! The real question is... how long are "We, the People..." going to allow this bullcorn to go on? It's time we put the squabbling kids down for naptime, and electrify our transportation grid. ~Ruff "

Madison Jay Hamilton wrote on Jan 22, 2008 4:25 PM:

" ANWR is public property; nevertheless, many speak of leasing portions of this public asset to private, multi-national corporations so that the public's oil may be sold for tremendous profits. At this moment, much of the oil flowing through the Trans-Alaska Pipeline is controlled by British Petroleum. (So much for U.S. energy independence!) This, despite the fact that the oil being pumped is found on publicly-owned land. Back in the 1960s, Alaskans ought to have formed a state-owned oil company and hired the professionals that would have harvested that oil so that the benefits would be entirely controlled by the public. Instead, the resource and the wealth generated was vaccuumed out of Alaska. (Alaskans did better when they formed a state-owned railroad, which now runs at a profit!) President Carter mistakenly began the process by which the U.S. energy industry was deregulated back in the 1970s. If Americans were serious about "energy independence," CAFE standards would be higher, petroleum reserves would be nationalized, and alternative energy sources would be researched and developed. One child in the U.S. consumes---on average---twenty times the resources of a child in nations labelled "third world." Isn't about time the U.S. become a contestant in "The Biggest Loser" and break its unhealthy addiction to resource consumption? "

steph wrote on Jan 22, 2008 5:03 PM:

" Childless couples are more able to earn higher incomes and invest a much higher portion of their incomes for their future--this is their responsibility, not mine. This is a *natural consequence* of free decision-making, something many liberals don't grasp. Be glad, when you're old, that other people had children, and someone is there to fight your wars, provide medical care, organize your city, and pay your social security. This is what I have against your brand of "population control" while I agree with (gah!) MJH regarding education and women's rights. I believe in freedom of choice--and consequences. Therefore, I will agree with you that I should not be forced to subsidize child rearing of irresponsible Americans who reproduce before they are able to provide financially. You get more of what you subsidize. One more thing, you forgot to mention heavy taxes on pollution emitted from aircraft. Elitists who travel the world by plane and then complain about global warming or waning resources should have to pay for their privilege, too, no? On the other hand, Popular Science regularly has very exciting articles about scientific advances that could save us all. You might do well to read a bit of the other stuff--you might worry a lot less. "

russ wrote on Jan 22, 2008 7:13 PM:

" asahigo & ruff, you guys are equally off the wall. If asahigo and his pals ban plastics, airplanes and cars (Prius included) will not happen. Ruff, can you power a Boeing 777 on solar, or wind (plug it in at night)? Man-made global warming, leading to the end of humankind, is absurd. I agree with kevin, open up the leases and let free enterprise work. $3.00 petrol will drop to $1.00 and last for centuries. "

russ wrote on Jan 22, 2008 7:22 PM:

" MJHamilton, you say, American children use 20X the resources of the third world? I say, Thank
God! We are a blessed nation. Would you want American children to live like Afghans or Cambodians? Developed cultures are declining in population. Take your population control to third world. Get real. "

Bill wrote on Jan 22, 2008 8:08 PM:

" Evidently KLR is not an old movie fan or a politics Buff. Are your bodily esssencesbieng deystroyed by the plot to put Flouride in to the water supply? Comon Kevin I thought and ole' commie hater like you would know all about that rouse orarethey really pumping flouride inot us because it might be healthful. Forbidthe thought of government acting responsibly especially with the water supply. "

Bill wrote on Jan 22, 2008 8:28 PM:

" Gee, Steph, so bitter about old folks who never did a thing? Guess the last 60 years sacrificing and working and fighting in nowhere wars, seeing an idealistic generation vilified as wanton hedonists, putting my children through school, contributing tax dollars to end the threat of Stalinism and not begrudging my parents or grand parents the little that Social Security could provided was a worthless choice.

Well here is a choice for you I plan to work till I die, draw S.S. and keep as many young people off the job market as possible. Principally because I know that with my knowledge and diminishing physical and mental skills I can still out perform them just by showing up every day on time and not whine about the job I have to do. That’s real "choice" for you, get paid and get even.

Don’t lose heart Steph Ann Rand really loves you and your philosophy but responsibility also includes an authenticity of responsibility for others not just selfish individual desire.
"

Bill wrote on Jan 22, 2008 9:44 PM:

" The idea that technology will save us all is the proverbial snake charmers song. Plug your self in to all the “renewable” energy you want there is still an economic and environmental cost. Ruff would have me believe that there is an actual free lunch but he denies that the desire to move about is the root cause and refuses to analyze the effect of that desire.

Until more people are forced, yes you heard it here forced, to use public transport by constricting the “free” and easy access to roadways then there is no solution. When we actually have to pay the real costs then there might be a reduction or conservation of energy especially oil.

Place more people in one vehicle and stop the single trips in solo vehicles. Pay for transport by taking single users off the road or make them pay tolls to private enterprise for the maintenance and use of the roadways.

Curb the desire for unlimited subsidized travel by making the market place the final arbiter of scarce resources. If that seems silly just plug it into your sun roof and drive away.
"

steph wrote on Jan 23, 2008 8:52 AM:

" Bill, what did I write that made you think I have something against old folks??? I disagree with Vocal that people who bear more than their allotted share of children should have to pay a penalty to support people who did not have children. That's wrong. People who did not have children have far more disposable income potential and they can and should plan to care for themselves. Our old folks have social security, as well, and Medicare. I'm not sure my generation will have social security, as the generations ahead of mine have spent my withholdings. There is no assumption, anyway, that one's offspring will take on the burden of caring for their elderly parents. I won't be planning on it. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jan 23, 2008 2:25 PM:

" Steph, the crux of my argument is that those people who use the most resources (and yes, greater numbers of children must be included because they deplete resources), should pay more. Those who use less should be taxed less. I do not think tax write offs should be permitted beyond one biological child per person. The welfare situation which promotes irresponsible reproduction is complex. I do know that we better do something about it because every woman who foolishly has four or six kids as a result of someone else paying for it will have those same children grow up and probably repeat the pattern. Trust me, if every young person was faced with a $10,000 maternity/prenatal care bill and the debt was not forgiven, you would quickly see a decrease in the number of children born per family. I am in favor of government funded health care but the amount allowed for maternity care beyond one child per biological parent should be limited so that population does not explode as a result. Right now we face exponential growth and our population presently lacks room for adapting to crisis. Think New Orleans on a grand scale. This IS where we're headed if we do not respond to the population crisis. And as much as you may believe that third world countries should be the only ones reacting to over population: Resources are used by everyone worldwide. If you took a bowl, dumped dirt in it, created a few islands, added limited food and some worms, do you honestly believe that worms from one island wouldn't access food on another island? And if all the living things on one island were busy fighting over limited resources, the population would be vulnerable to invasion by others seeking resources. "

steph wrote on Jan 23, 2008 5:07 PM:

" Those who use less ARE taxed less. I'm not in agreement that there is an overpopulation issue. There is a cruel underdevelopment problem in many countries, but birth rates are on the decline in much of the world except Africa. Africa does not have a population problem, it has a poor management problem that if corrected, might further reduce birth rates. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 23, 2008 5:30 PM:

" Vocal, the US is below replacement rates now, so a tax policy to reduce US child-bearing is... well... not very productive. When we think of resources, most are recyclable, replaceable or renewable. This month's Scientific American article on replacing fossil fuels for electrical generation shows us the way forward. If we electrify our transportation and build in the cost of recycling into our cars and anything else that uses toxics like the Europeans do, we can get along pretty good. The idea that fossil fuel pollution is necessary to prosperity is as antiquated as thinking we still need ox carts when trucks are obviously a better solution. ~Ruff "

steph wrote on Jan 23, 2008 7:47 PM:

" Uh, oh, Ruff and I may be agreeing again. Oh, the inhumanity! "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jan 23, 2008 8:00 PM:

" It doesn't matter if the present rate lies below the threshold of replacement. We still have much too large of a population to carry us through catastrophic events affecting our food supply. Our population would need to be reduced *substantially* from it's present level to prevent suffering. "

asahigo wrote on Jan 24, 2008 2:53 AM:

" Hmm yes russ I should have clarified my abolish plastics statement. What I think should be abolished is the unnecessary plastics, the disposable items that people can't seem to live without. We live in a period of time where we have the ability to just throw something away for trivial reasons. I suggest that all of you do some google searches of just how much damage our disposable society is doing, and will continue to do even if we instantly and magically get rid of the current disposable plastics. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jan 24, 2008 11:46 AM:

" asahigo, I was just thinking last night about how many of those small plastic bags used to bag produce are thrown out without reuse. I use mine over and over again to cover food in the fridge etc. I remember when my grandma used these heavy plastic shower cap looking things for covering food before plastic sheeting was invented. If a product was invented to bag produce at the store and it was heavy enough to withstand the dishwasher, I would use it. Perhaps it already exists and I haven't paid attention. This is one reason people need to be educated on conservation. But even that won't do the job I'm afraid. I think every grade school should require their students to visit a dump and see what happens to all those things we throw away. Maybe this would help but mostly humans will seek the path of least resistance; do whatever is easiest as long as it doesn't cost too much. We won't react on a massive scale until there is some incentive to do so. Stores should be required to actually *charge* money for every bag used. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jan 24, 2008 12:20 PM:

" Vocal, I have a nice set of clear plastic bowls with lids on them which can be recycled into new ones when they crack or whatever. They just go in the big blue bin. When I say that the USA birthrate is not at replacement levels that means our population is dropping without immigration. Sure, it might take some time to get there but the problem is manageable. As for catastrophes to our food supply, well, you could throw pandemics in the catastrophe bucket too. But the US is currently struggling with obesity not starvation. But with sensible steps, we humans can manage population, pollution, and Peak Oil without needing to do a reprise of 'Soylent Green'. ~Ruff "

Comment guidelines
All comments will be screened and may take several hours to be posted.
• Keep comments clear, concise and focused on the topic in the story.
• Comments exceeding 300 words will not be posted.
• Refrain from personal attacks, degrading comments or remarks that do not add to a constructive dialogue.
• Comments implying suspects in crime-related stories are guilty before they have been proven so in a court of law will be deleted.
• Do not post e-mail addresses or links except for pages on Napavalleyregister.com or government Web sites.
• Comments will not be edited - they will be approved or declined.
• Comments may be used in the print edition of the newspaper.
• If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact dross@napanews.com or bkennedy@napanews.com
For further information on the comment guidelines, click here.
Search:
Advanced searchWeb Search Powered By Yahoo! Search
Back to top
Contact: News | Advertising | Subscriber Services | Work for us | Buy photos
More local news: American Canyon Eagle | St. Helena Star | Weekly Calistogan
Local tourism: Inside Napa Valley
Copyright © 2008 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy