NVR Logo
The end is coming, but not because of climate change
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Save and Share Share
Listening to several politicians on the news makes me wonder what planet they go home to at night.

 When asked what the most important issue is facing America today, they began arguing about Obama’s cap-and-trade energy bill and global warming as if the world’s immediate fate hangs on this issue.
The fact of the matter is this: It does not.

Global warming is a serious issue for the future, but by the time global warming really heats up, other crises will have destroyed our modern industrial civilization. Let’s look at the two foremost insurmountable problems.
First is resource depletion. Eighteen months ago, demand was outstripping supply of many critically important resources. However, as the global economy nose-dived, demand and price plummeted. The crisis didn’t go away but was postponed as new deposits weren’t discovered.

Case in point: Oil is 800 billion barrels from running out and we’ll be dry in 45 years. Directly responsible for the success of agriculture and pharmaceuticals, it allowed the world’s population to increase from 1 billion in 1859 to 7 billion today. Without oil (of which there is no substitute), these revolutions will reverse causing mass starvation, rampant disease, wars, societal breakdown and a biblical die-off. Ninety percent of the world’s population could be gone in less than 200 years.
But don’t lose any sleep over this horrific scenario, as we have an immediate crisis in front of us that will bring the same ramifications, only quicker: The impending worldwide financial, fiscal and economic collapse.

Most economists agree that “as goes America’s economy, so goes the world’s,” and most Americans feel ours is too big and powerful to fail. Economist Nassim Taleb, author of the “Black Swan,” makes the point that anything as large as the economy will completely collapse when it weakens beyond a point. That tipping point was long ago.

Think of our economy as a huge scaffold from which nuts-and-bolts and cross-bars have been removed. Yet the weight it is supporting, in this case the weight of the national debt, is increasing exponentially as we print money like there’s no tomorrow. Instead of focusing on reducing the debt, the government is concentrating on stimulus packages that only inflate assets, stimulate nothing and deflate the dollar’s value. Revenues decrease on all levels so there is no way to address the ever-growing debt. It will only be a matter of time before the scaffolding crashes down.

The recent destruction of

$8 trillion of people’s net worth since 2007 makes a consumer-driven recovery impossible. And we have only seen the beginning of this disaster: Late August will bring what is now being referred to as the “fourth wave of foreclosures.” Predictions are that it will be larger than everything that has preceded it combined, dropping real estate values another 50 percent in the next 18 months.

Since January, more than six million jobs have been lost, most permanently. A recovery is not possible with such a huge, permanent welfare class existing on government handouts — handouts the government can’t afford.

The Chinese know this charade can’t go on. Five months ago they threatened to stop buying our debt until Hillary (of all people!) reassured them about our solvency.

But did she? I believe she told them the truth: America is heading for bankruptcy. Knowing this, the Chinese began binge-buying coal-and-oil fields, mines and multi-national corporations throughout the world before their excess dollars assumed the value of monopoly money. This began at the same time we started “nationalizing” American banking, insurance and auto industries.

On July 3, the Chinese demanded that the G-8 meetings place the dollar’s future on the agenda. The danger is that if the true value of the dollar is exposed and it no longer remains the world’s reserve currency, our economy will implode overnight. American societal collapse will commence.

Resource depletion and economic collapse are nothing new. Every civilization that has collapsed throughout history had done so due to their populations overshooting the carrying capacity of their land, natural resources and economies. (When you have finite resources, just the term “growth economy” is an economic oxymoron.) This is a simple concept: Population overshoot equals civilization collapse.

The combined crises of overpopulation, resource depletion and economic collapse at the current levels are too great for any complex industrial civilization to survive. As the global economy contracts, less wealth is spread around among more people lowering the standard of living. The wealthier the nation, the more it is affected. No country will be as hurt than the United States. Since few realize this awful reality is barreling toward, few will be prepared to do anything about it. At first, I expect there’ll be resource and currency wars to maintain the status quo, but soon we won’t be able to afford them.

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

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 11, 2009 6:23 AM:

" We couldn't afford Iraq, Mr. Lydecker. And Iraq demonstrates that is it 'unprofitable' to try and conquer resources anymore.

It seems to have 'gone down the memory hole' that the rightwing organization Judicial Watch sued Dark Cheney over his secretive 'Energy Task Force' and received a map (drawn before 9-11) which showed the Iraqi oil fields and facilities with an overlay of US military bases required to 'protect them'.

The placement of the 'non-permanent' US bases in Iraq bears an AMAZING similarity to that map.

However, technology brought us the horse-drawn cart, the automobile, the train and the airplane. Technology to use a resource makes that resource valuable.

Now we still have the sun and wind and longer term nuclear fusion to provide energy for our needs, the world is not coming to an end.

As long as we can keep the Luddites from throwing a 'spanner in the works', eh?

~Ruff "

telebender wrote on Jul 11, 2009 8:00 AM:

" In 2005 I sold all my bank stock, quit building houses, and got a recession proof (I hope!) job at 1/3 the pay (but with benefits), after reading financial institutions were leveraging assets at a ratio of 15 to 1 (borrowing 15 dollars for every dollar they had) and betting the borrowed money on derivative instruments (whether other people would rebuy them at a higher price).

Simple math led me to believe that only 1/16th of the money changing hands represented actual value, and the other 15/16ths were basically imaginary.

Imagine my surprise when after the collapse I read that the leverage ratio actually was in the range of 50 to 1!

This is what the financial community did with the money accumulated by insurance companies, agribusiness, and the closure of America's manufacturing base in favor of exploiting foreign labor.

And everybody went along with it so they could play at the entry level: real estate!

We have met the enemy and they are us. "

glenroy wrote on Jul 11, 2009 8:27 AM:

" A few corrections.

Our country has 1.5 trillion recoverable barrels shale oil in the Green River Basin alone....we have at least 100 billion in crude offshore including Alaska….we have the equivalent 350 billion barrels in coal reserves……that’s close to 2 trillion! Canada’s revised reserves are 400 billion with oil sands….this is all with today’s technology.

Jim’s numbers coincide with Peak Oil Revision’s #1-969...The phony Peak oil theory claimed we’d run out around 2000.…when that was fantasized we had roughly 50 years worth of reserves….50 years later we still have 50 years of reserves.

The simple rule of free markets…when something goes up in cost or demand at some point someone will find a way to either replace it or increase the supply. If we didn’t drill another oil well with developing technology there is at least another 100 years of reserves…it will be at a cost the Democrats are hoping to get to though, $10.00 per gallon.

The China thing is double edged…with both sides cutting our economic security.

Congress has the ability to bring back big chunks of jobs that were off-shored….just by competent restructuring the tax codes, accelerated depreciation and investment tax credits our manufacturing would begin reversing Clinton’s China UNO policies. Remember the libs argument when Clinton granted China Most Favored National status…China is no threat to American Jobs. Ironically they were right to the extent it was liberal taxes codes that ran, and is running most of them off….

The problem isn’t resources or American ingenuity or American labor….it’s liberalism and the incompetents who preach it. "

kevin wrote on Jul 11, 2009 8:52 AM:

" I don't know what it is, but EVERY time Jim does one of his "predictions" about running out of oil, the oil prices immediately GO DOWN...


"Oil skids to US$60"

NEW YORK - OIL prices tumbled again Wednesday, knocked lower by a massive spike in US oil product inventories that stoked fears about weak energy demand in the world's biggest economy.

New York's main contract, light sweet crude for delivery in August, finished at US$60.14 (S$87.90) a barrel, sliding US$2.79 from its Tuesday close.

The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries said that under its revised main forecast, oil demand would be 'less than 106 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2030, down from 113 million bpd.'

Opec - which pumps about 40 percent of the world's oil - is 'comfortable' with the current oil price, but would like it to be higher, the cartel's chief Abdalla Salem El-Badri said on Wednesday "

kevin wrote on Jul 11, 2009 9:00 AM:

" Looks like the "end of the world" may be delayed for a while Jim.

Sorry, but 2 TRILLION barrels of shale oil will do wonders for US energy demands.


http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/reserves/publications/Pubs-NPR/40010-373.pdf "

kevin wrote on Jul 11, 2009 9:05 AM:

" Not to be a nitpicker, Jim but the Oil and Gas Journal estimates 1.3 Trillion barrels of recoverable oil worldwide. Including 209 Billion barrels right here in North America...

http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/international/reserves.html "

glenroy wrote on Jul 11, 2009 9:32 AM:

" Keep up the nitpicking...nothing confuses them like facts... "

PlasticPinkFlamingo wrote on Jul 11, 2009 9:48 AM:

" We can't afford Iraq, ruff, or Afghanistan where we are losing more and more lives and $$$, but that's OK because Obama says so. By extending your argument we can't afford TARP, the porkulus bill, the threatened second porkulus bill, or cap & trade. The Obama administration's shill Warren Buffet is warming up the audience for that battle. We can't afford socialization of our banks and auto companies, nor can we afford government controlled health care.

You talked glowingly of a 20% savings plan that PG&E was perpetrating, yet you don't believe our government should follow the same basic, fundamental truth of economics. You advocate spending even more. Warm up the printing presses and get ready for inflation like we haven't seen since Carter!

Problem is, China isn't so willing to buy our debt, and I suspect that's why only some $40 billion (I can't believe I said 'only' and '$40 billion' together) has been spent - we can't sell it. If China won't buy our stimulus debt, who will? China (that shining beacon of capitalism) has already lectured us on our debt and last week the Germans did too. On other issues we are told we must listen to the world community on policy, now this administration is turning a deaf ear to their lectures. This will not go unnoticed by nations' governments.

By the way, further study of your hero Keynes shows that he advocated managing the economy by either government spending OR tax cuts! Tax cuts ruff! You never told us about that side of Keynes. What else have you been holding out on? Don't worry, I won't wait until you 'fess up, I'll study Keynes and let everyone here know. "

Paddy wrote on Jul 11, 2009 10:02 AM:

" This is an excellent commentary Jim. You've provided an excellent synopsis of where the world and our country is ultimately headed. Unfortunatley people continue to deny the limitations of a finite planet and seem to think continued exploitation of natural resources while populations explode are no big deal.

Just reading the comments here are indicative that intellignet people believe a lot of zeros will save us all.

It's unfortunate that most can't get their minds around the reality of what the future has in store as the globalization of economies, cultures and resources feed the spiraling decline of all species on earth.

Technology is wonderful but it's also been the cause of the destructive juggernaut that has harmed our world far more in the past 100 years as than was done in the previous 100,000.

Continued medical breakthroughs will ultimately do far more harm, cause more deaths, than the diseases they cure. None of this is intuitive because of how modern humans have evolved.

Is it too late to change the course of we've set to inevitable destruction? Probably not but the extreme and harsh realities of what it will take must be identified and grasped by the global populace. God speed and good luck to our children's children's children. "

napablogger wrote on Jul 11, 2009 10:06 AM:

" People have been predicting the end of the earth since it started. So far, no go, and it is highly unlikely.

Every religion including environmentalism has a belief in an end time apocalypse, for some reason humans are drawn to this scenario.

Unfortunately we are likely to remain here and will have to be responsible for all the problems we have created--no easy escape I am afraid.

We are in for a deep economic crisis, however, but I believe that after it is over we will actually be in a much better position because we are going to resovle a lot of our debt that we couldn't handle. Unfortunately in the meantime there will be suffering on a large scale. "

durangobill wrote on Jul 11, 2009 10:15 AM:

" I have a longer analysis of how we got into thisrce mess plus more on the world-wide debt/borrowing problem that I posted last December under “The Post Peak World”. (Near the top at http://www.durangobill.com/Rollover.html ) Readers who are interested are invited to view it for additional info.

The only difference that I have with Jim Lydecker is his time schedule. Based on computer models that were originally posted in “The Limits to Growth”, the vast majority of the collapse only takes 2 to 3 decades. (Please see the “World Model Standard Run” on page 129 in the book.)

“The Limits to Growth” was published in 1972, and everyone pooh-poohed the book because a collapse didn’t occur in the next 30 seconds. (A “generous estimate” of the average person’s attention span.)

The authors deliberately avoiding putting time estimates on when the economic peak and collapse would occur, but to demonstrate “how and why”, time had to be used for the X-axis of the graphs. The models were run through a computer about 1970. The estimated top (as shown in the above graph) was about year 2010. Are you comfortable with the first half of the model?

Collapse is extremely rapid after the top. Our standard of living (as measured by “Industrial output per capita”) collapses to pre 1850 levels by the year 2040. Are you comfortable with the second half of the model?

We had warnings several decades ago with books such as “The Limits to Growth” and “The Population Bomb”. Do human beings have any more intelligence than microorganisms in a petrie dish that have been fed a finite serving of nutrients? What happens from here? Hint: In a petrie dish experiment, when the nutrients run out, the microorganisms attack and feed on each other. "

freeport56 wrote on Jul 11, 2009 11:20 AM:

" What we really cannot afford is the pipe dream of alternative fuels. Over ten years to develop, very expensive infastructure, and the fact that one of our US Senator is working againest it's implementation.

What many on the left are totally ignoring, while experiencing "that tingle up their leg", is that we are headed to a $10.5 to $23 Trillion debt. The last six months have seen a quadrupling of our national debt. With only 15% of the stimulus money out in the market place, no substanative effect has been felt. The Dems are already looking and print up more worthless money to flood the market with.

Without areal long term vision of what they are doing the Dems are driving us and the world closer and closer to Hyperinflation.

1. destroy and deminish our fossil fuel industry. 80% of the U.S. is powered by coal fired energy producing plants.

2. loss of the energy industry and the introduction to Cap & Trade will mean plant and business closures. These industries will naturally gravitate to India or China as they have not energy controls.

3. millions more out of work at a loss of the energy industry. after 10 years waiting for alternative energy to be developed, we have an $15 trillion debt and no consumer based economy to pay off the debt.

4. Jim is correct in that there will millions in need, due to the wholesale destruction of the economy, the tax base is gone and Gov't revenues are\have declined. Food shortages are next.

5. environmental lobbiest have\are killing the "bread Basket" of California. 25% of the nations agricultural crop is gone. empty shelves in grocery stores are common place. food lines begin.

Germany in the 1930's. "

russ wrote on Jul 11, 2009 11:37 AM:

" Paddy,

Please share some of your science and evidence that the planet is on a course of self-destruction. I think you over estimate the vastness of the earth and universe.

durangobill, huh? non-sensical.

Our greatest problem is politicians and government trying to fix things that don't need to be fixed and elitists and politicians have no clue as to how to fix it anyway. "

napanoir wrote on Jul 11, 2009 1:07 PM:

" The Green River Basin only has what is considered "synthetic oil," derived from oil shale, oil sands or coal. All three need tremendous amounts of heat from natural gas to produce oil. The amount of gas necessary is so much the EROEI (energy returned on energy invested) is a negative number meaning the process takes up more energy than what is derived. Plus, it requires a Great Lakes supply of fresh water and an equal space to deposit the waste.

Oil sands, shale and coal do not make crude oil. You can't include it into figuring how much crude is left. Oil geologists generally agree on 800 billion to one trillion remain, all of which will be more expensive and difficult to extract.

The report of 1969 did not consider the oil shocks of the 70s and 80s which caused great conservation actions. It definitely did not see the current economic collapse which is just beginning. The fact that we are using 1/2 of the crude we were using two years ago is the reason price has collapsed. It is a matter of supply and demand. Though demand has crashed, oil producers still pump as fast as they can.

Two eye opening sites that explain why we will not get out of this mess are: www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/ and www.wolfatthedoor.org.uk/

Life After the Oil Crash shows why no combination of alternative energy will help us. They are not possible economically and will just use what oil we have left quicker.

A decade from now will not bring civilization collapse, but things will be getting a little dicey.

By 2030 we'll all be running for the hills. "

russ wrote on Jul 11, 2009 1:45 PM:

" napanoir,

I took the time to visit your "Wolf at the
Door" website reference. Lunatic fringe wacko stuff. Zero credibility. I urge others to visit to see where the loons get their science. I was particularly taken by the "The Olduvai Theory".

Your link to "life after the oil crash" website is another fringe site which starts with,

"Civilization as we know it is coming to an end soon. " 22 years from now it will be all over? Only if the one-worlders get their way.

Come on folks! Get serious. "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 11, 2009 4:20 PM:

" russ- Hadrian's Wall was built just over 50 years before the last Roman left Britain. A high water mark happens closer to the descent than to the ascent

I'm not ready to jeer and scoff at the 'doomers' while so many 'American Patriots(TM)' are doing their darndest to prevent the creation of a technological solution to the weaknesses of our last technological solution.

freeport56- Do you know how many years it took to develop our 'dinosaur juice' infrastructure that partially replaced the coal energy infrastructure that took several hundred years to create?

Ten years is an eyeblink, fp56. And I'd rather be working on and investing in the solution(s) and employing Americans to do it than begging Saudis to, please- pretty please, take our dollars for another fix.

~Ruff "

kevin wrote on Jul 11, 2009 6:43 PM:

" What's scary freeport is that with B.O. in the White House, anything is possible.

B.O.'s America of "hope and change" could very well be the end of civilization... "

Paddy wrote on Jul 11, 2009 8:01 PM:

" russ - you're one of those people who always see the glass as half full. Unfortunately, the glass has no bottom.

All the discussion on historical perspectives is baseless. The earth's human population has never reached the critical mass it has now. We are looking at the death of millions to starvation and water deprivation. Time will tell if we're doing irrevocable damage. "

John Richards wrote on Jul 11, 2009 8:53 PM:

" Ruff wrote: " We couldn't afford Iraq"

Oh, but we can afford to escalate the war in Afghanistan? "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 11, 2009 9:51 PM:

" Jim,
I think the problems you mention are problems of capitalism: an unplanned irrational profit-driven economy.

Debt goes when capitalism goes. Poof.

And there's plenty of resources to go around. But not if profitability is what determines how they get distributed, or what technologies we invest in.

We need to think outside the capitalist box. "

russ wrote on Jul 12, 2009 9:26 AM:

" Paddy, I see the glass more than half full. It could be full, not empty, if the environmental extremists would stop drilling holes in the bottom of the glass.

We in this country and around the world have been developing new technologies for energy savings and new energy sources for decades.

Resources always go to the most productive and profitable technologies. Capitalism makes it work.

Wind power has been in use for hundreds of years. Why has it not replaced carbon combustion? Because it can't. Same for solar energy. "

kevin wrote on Jul 12, 2009 9:34 AM:

" And could you give us an example, ampsthelen, of where Socialism/Communism have excelled at the creation and distribution of weath?

Cuba?

Soviet Union?

China?

North Korea?

Rhodesia?

Look at what is happening in Venezulea. Chavez is destroying their oil industry and their economy by implementing his socialist policies of nationalization. It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. Does anyone doubt that in 10 years the US will have to be sending food and supplies to them to keep them from starving?

As flawed as the free market may be, it is the best system we have found and it has made America the greatest and most powerful country in the world... "

Paddy wrote on Jul 12, 2009 11:12 AM:

" russ - unfortunately the 'new technologies' you write of are exactly what's destroying this planet. These technologies worked well for a time but their shelf-life should have been reviewed yearly to determine if, say, something like the combustible engine was still a good thing if more than 1,000,000 were going to use them. This was not done and the negative impact to the environment snowballed over time.

For the billions of people on this planet to continue at the pace we're on drastic measures must be taken to change how we 'do business'. I'm not against capitalism, I'm an ardent praticioner, but we can't continue down the sorry path we've taken the past 50 years.

The worst possible thing we could have done is to globalize economies without first taking steps that strict environmental practices first be in place before these countries could participate. Not only would have leveled the playing field for our own workers but it would have provided some protection from those who believe profit is priority one. "

russ wrote on Jul 12, 2009 1:13 PM:

" Paddy,

New technologies are developed and happen every day, mostly for the good of mankind. Energy conservation, emission controls, productivity increases, e.g., microchips, super conductivity, etc.

The internal combustion is one of the most revolutionary technologies for the good of man in the history of mankind.

It would be impossible to fly across, state, country and world today without a carbon fueled engine or using energy derived from carbon fuels. It would be impossible to leave the earth without fuels ultimately derived from carbon combustion.

Yes, there is nuclear and a piddling amount of solar, hydrothermal, hydroelectric and wind...for a long time to come.

None of these technologies would have reached the value they are without the profit motive of Capitalism...I guarantee it. "

kevin wrote on Jul 12, 2009 2:07 PM:

" 40 years ago when people like Jim were predicting the imminent collapse of civilization they were correct, except that new technology in agriculture, transportation and, yes, globalized economics, were developed that changed the rules of the "playing field".

And new technologies will save us again, not because of the current administration's policies but IN SPITE of them... "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 12, 2009 9:41 PM:

" Kevin,
Venezuela and Rhodesia I don't know enough about to comment. But certainly China, the USSR, and North Korea have nothing to do with socialism. Cuba has certain socialist elements, except the most essential: robust democracy. And don't you think various invasions and a trade embargo by its neighbor, the US, the world's most powerful nation in the world, might not have something to do with Cuba's economic difficulties (even if it WERE "socialist", which it isn't)?

Oh yes, capitalism HAS helped to make the US the most powerful nation in the world, along with capitalism's more advanced form: imperialism. The US brutally obliterated the native people of the land and stole it from them; and then it went on to impose its will on and extract wealth from Latin America, and then the rest of the world. Kevin, America's road to power and wealth has been BRUTAL. Get real. "

kevin wrote on Jul 12, 2009 10:09 PM:

" "Cuba has certain socialist elements, except the most essential: robust democracy"

LMAO.

And exactly HOW MANY candidates ran against Castro in the last "election"? "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 12, 2009 10:57 PM:

" Kevin,
"How many candidates ran against Castro"....?

Uh, Cuba is not democratic. Just like I said.

Socialism, to me, involves a degree of participatory democracy far exceeding anything we have ever had in the US. Cuba is therefore not even remotely "socialist".

A "socialist" element of Cuban society as a whole, however, would be univeral health care.


Fidel was a guerilla leader, anti-imperialist, but not necessarily anti-capitalist. I think he declared himself "socialist" only once he turned to the "socialist" (read: Stalinist) USSR for aid.

And his revolution was won through guerilla warfare, not through working-class struggle, which, again, to me, is essential to "socialism". Without widespread, popular, democratic working class struggle to overturn the system, you end up with a tiny minority of self-styled revolutionaries (like Che, though he wasn't a bad guy), who then "bring" so-called socialism to the masses (like Mao)..whether "the masses" want it, or even more importantly, whether the masses are READY for it.

In Russia, it really was the vast majority of working class people who brought about the revolution. That didn't last either, but for different historical reasons. But Fidel--he was probably a dictator from the very start; and his revolution was not a workingclass revolution; it was a guerilla revolution.

You can be both a dictator and capitalist. Indeed, every capitalist IS a dictator, within the sphere of his business at least. But you CAN NOT be both a dictator and a socialist. You can be a dictator and CLAIM to be socialist. But it would be a lie. And Fidel is a liar. Just as Stalin was a liar. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 12, 2009 11:36 PM:

" Kevin,
Actually, you're doubly mistaken about the USSR.

First, as I said, it wasn't even "socialist".

Second, it DID succeed and created IMMENSE wealth--military wealth--just not wealth socialists would call "useful" (like food, health care, etc.).

In just 30 to 40 years, the USSR went from being one of the most backwards countries in the world to being a true military superpower (even after two world wars!).

How? The same way England did it first, over a period of centuries: on the backs of a brutally exploited working class. To get the steel necessary to build the kind of army that Stalin wanted, the kind of brute accumulation of capital that England achieved over a long period of time, the USSR did quickly, in a few decades. It wasn't necessarily any MORE brutal than what England did--but it WAS more "concentrated".

In other words, the USSR used CAPITALIST methods to achieve superpower status; and they worked. Capitalist methods work very well if what you want is militaristic domination. The USSR ruling class ruled the USSR like one big capitalist company, in competition with the Western capitalist powers. USSR, Inc., if you will.

Then, under Gorbachev, USSR, Inc, "re-structured". It wasn't out-competed by Reagan (well, that's partly true too); mostly, it just "re-structured". You know--downsized, started putting people out on the street, reducing benefits, getting the mafia involved, deregulating, re-distributing the wealth upwards into the hands of millionaires, outsourcing... Sound familiar?

That's what "perestroika" means in Russian. And that's what it was. The USSR didn't "become" capitalist Russia. Russia just went from one mode of capitalism ("state capitalism") to whatever it is now. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jul 13, 2009 12:38 AM:

" I don't know why some of you guys have such a problem admitting that our resources are finite. The only resources that falls from the sky are water and sunlight. Together, they "help" plants grow. We have adapted to a world with a greater appetite than just the food growing on the ground though. Our population is highly dependent on the type of resources that do not just fall from the sky. The fuel energy we are so dependent on takes millions of years to convert to a usable product. How can anyone in their right mind not see that our resources are finite and that our population levels are outpacing it?

Even if we were self disciplined enough to slow population growth down tomorrow, I doubt it would be enough to completely stop the suffering we undoubtedly are going to face. But it would help reduce it. Why are politicians avoiding this subject? Why are people SO uncomfortable admitting it's a problem? "

Ruff Limblog wrote on Jul 13, 2009 9:23 AM:

" vocal-de-local- I really liked this sentence:

"The only resources that falls from the sky are water and sunlight."

So very true! The energy sources like petroleum and coal are called fossil fuels because they are 'fossilized sunlight' in the sense that millions of years of sunlight and water created the plants that became the main ingredient of oil and coal.

I agree that humanity has imposed a burden on Mother Earth, but I see technological solutions that can mitigate the damage as long as we are smart enough to implement them in time.

Also, the more wealthy a society becomes, the more women limit their fertility. It's the poor and ignorant countries that suffer worst from rapid population growth. It's no coincidence that the poor are cutting down the rainforests.

We have enough sun and wind to move in the direction of renewable energy and, as a first step, stop building new coal and oil based energy projects in the USA. This will leverage the remaining resources and help stretch out the time before we run low and then out.

The folks blathering about shale oil, etc, are noticeably leaving out that many of these 'resources' require more energy input than they return and are not economically viable now if ever.

~Ruff "

Alter ego wrote on Jul 13, 2009 9:41 AM:

" The population growth of a country drops dramatically when they progress from a Third World country to a First World (or actually Second World.) The key is to bring technology and capitalism to these countries so they can develop. Denying them technology (or burdening them with carbon taxes or tariffs) is only going to increase the problems of overpopulation. "

russ wrote on Jul 13, 2009 11:14 AM:

" Ruff and VD-local,

Man cannot survive from only what falls from the sky. That which is already here counts too.

For example, food, minerals, water and metals to sustain life and productivity.

Saying that resources are not finite means that they will run out sometimes between now and time=infinity, which may be almost forever.

Do not forget that we and the earth recycle resources, for example, carbon, as in food production, metals such as aluminum, etc., etc., etc. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jul 13, 2009 2:58 PM:

" Russ, I agree. We should continue making an effort to recycle our resources. But those resources (such as aluminum cans) took valuable resources to create. Although I do support recycling, it DOES take resources to collect, redistribute, and convert into something usable. It's not as though we are leaning over and taking metals out of the ground without expending some form of energy. Unfortunately, it's not just human energy which is expended.

Making an aluminum can, for example, requires fossil fuels to distribute the metal to a facility. At the facility, fossil fuels are used for the machinery which turns the metal into a can. Then, the can must be distributed by vehicle (which used fossils fuels when it was made and uses them to move) to a distribution center. From there it is transported to a retail facility (which uses fossil fuels for operation).

This scenario is happening on a grand scale, every second of every day. Introducing other countries to our consumerism way of life is only going to compound the problem.

And I'm not convinced that "consumerism" decreases population. Most of us associate consumerism with a higher standard of living. We are the most consumerism addicted country in the world, yet our country has increased from 236 MILLION in 1980 to our present population of 306 MILLION people. Consumerism doesn't decrease population. It drives it.

And thanks to passing our addiction onto other countries, everyone now wants a can of soda, a fast food burger with a throwaway package, and plastic toys destined for the dump in a year. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jul 13, 2009 3:20 PM:

" Actually Alter ego, the population growth of third world countries is sustained by first world countries. Our food aid interventions keeps the population growing. At one point, we actually distributed food with reproduction limiting literature. But we lost our focus and eliminated birth control education as part of the package.

And the biggest problem is that our contribution toward increasing their population level is eventually going to lead to greater levels of suffering when a drought, or some other natural catastrophe hits. Sure, we will do food drops but only if we are willing to redistribute our own resources (it's resource intensive to drop food). How long do you think that will last once our own resources are running low or exceedingly costly? Think about it. We're in an economic slump which could worsen. A drought hits Africa or India. How much aid are we going to send?

So, in an indirect way, third world countries continue to expand as a result of our own profit/consumerism driven ways. Does anyone REALLY believe that sharing the consumerism way of life (which we perceive as higher quality living) is going to lower third world populations?

More resources = higher population levels (directly or indirectly). We're still all inside of a petri dish using up available resources. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 13, 2009 10:10 PM:

" Alter ego,
What is "capitalism" to you? (i.e. How do you define it? How does it "work"? What drives it, what are its dynamics, etc.?)

And how would it help third world countries develop in such a way as to help the world as a whole avoid ecological and economic disaster?
(Real questions--not rhetorical) "

XMAN wrote on Jul 14, 2009 1:57 AM:

" Remember when in the year 2,000 everyone began celebrating the new millennium? Fine, but they were a year early. The new millennium did not start until Jan.1, 2001. 2000 years after the year 1. In the year 1,000 a great many Europeans became convinced the world would come to an end on January 1, 1000. They did some really weird stuff because of it. It did not happen and they were also a year off the millennium. Now this.

The core of the earth is a molten ball of red hot lava and iron. If we bore into the earth there is an endless supply of clean geothermal energy. Just ask the geysers at Calistoga. Conversion of sunlight - another perpetual source of energy.

We have an inexhaustable supply of protein on the planet. Insects. They are very nice barbecued and for dessert - chocolate flavored.

The planet earth is a very enduring and adaptable lady. She will go on with or without us. And hopefully the next upright specie to occupy her will be smarter and more considerate. "

XMAN wrote on Jul 14, 2009 2:12 AM:

" There is, at ths very moment, a horde of Nationalist Chinese loose in the U.S. - hundreds of them. Maybe thousands. They are here on a visitor's visa for just one purpose. To buy real estate and get it at a bargain price. Their target - $300K to $700K properties. The ones I have spoken to tell me they plan to lease them out. And if they don't - no matter, they are all paying cash. No mortgages. Their property will be free and clear. No encumbrances. No sweat. Just hang onto it and wait for the values to go back up. These Chinese. They are not so dumb. "

russ wrote on Jul 14, 2009 7:05 AM:

" XMAN, good observations.

I agree that the earth is very enduring and mankind has only scratched the surface, literally.

There are too many "oh, woe is me" folks who think the end of humankind is near and humans are like locusts. I disagree.

Advanced civilizations have learned to deal with population and resources. Japan long ago moderated growth as has the US and all countries in Europe.

Third world countries suffer population control with early mortality, as we did 150 years ago. Technology and education lowered US birth rate, until recent illegal migration. European countries face the opposite problem of not replacing themselves.

The Earth has UNLIMITED ENERGY sources, if the politicians and global governance forces do not get in the way. Therein lies the danger.

The current US government and UN globalists are our greatest threat at this point in history. "

napanoir wrote on Jul 14, 2009 7:51 AM:

" Say what you want about Lydecker's stuff, but once it appears in the Reg it begins being republished by different news sources in the country and many websites around the world. I get a kick out of how his pieces are introduced. For example, this from an editor back east:

"Ultra-doom from Jim Lydecker in the Napa Valley Register yesterday. I was alerted to this column when Tom Whipple reprinted it in today's edition of ASPO's Peak Oil News.

It paints an interesting picture, as you'll see. Nothing exactly new here, but Lydecker does an excellent job of putting all of the pieces together neatly and concisely." "

skeptic wrote on Jul 14, 2009 8:11 AM:

" other than agreeing with some who point out that the doomers who predicted we'd all starve by the 80's failed to account for human ingenuity coming up with technology to beat malthusian predictions , i really liked this editorial.
i heard about the 40% drop for new york city predicted before the bottom , but where did that 50% figure come from ? i thought it was just go down another 10-20%.
we know that napa real estate has dropped over 50% but that is good news for people wanting to buy a house , especially if it goes down another 50% it shows how artificial this bubble was and how blowing it up again with artificially low interest rates will only make things worse.
by printing trillions backed by nothing we loose credibility. the students laughed when geitner told a chinese university that the dollar was sound. "

napanoir wrote on Jul 14, 2009 10:15 AM:

" Hydrocarbons are limited, Russ. True, there are other energy sources but the real crux is replacing oil and natural gas with something else than can drive the chemical, agriculture and pharmaceutical industries for 7 billion people. "

XMAN wrote on Jul 14, 2009 11:35 AM:

" Jim Lydecker's article does really make one think. He is saying the problems of human survival on the planet are beyond government control. It doesn't matter whether it be Democrat or Republican government, the solutions they offer seldom work. It is therefore up to man' own ingenuity to chart that path for survival. Nothing else. It occurs to me that when such workable remedies are found it will not be done under a handicap of stifling government ecological regulations or penalizing taxes. The "Cap and Trade" concept would have the same effect as what Ruff Limblog described as "Luddites throwing a spanner in the works." It will do nothing positive to enhance energy development, just cause the current methods to become more costly.
If government wants to do something useful during our dark economic times they would promote projects like TVA or the Hoover Dam. What did those produce? Jobs and energy. They not only contributed to our economy but provided renewable energy sources for years to come. With all of the money set aside for "stimulus" and welfare, why isn't money being used to build nuclear energy plants like they are in North Korea and Iran? Are these people actually smarter than us? What bgives with our politics? Are we living in some kind of dark ages? It would seem so. "

napanoir wrote on Jul 14, 2009 4:51 PM:

" When the lights go out, XMAN, we'll literally be back in the dark ages. "

5th generation napan wrote on Jul 15, 2009 2:49 PM:

" As long as we do it the American way there has never been anyone that could beat us in anything.

But now were are thinking "globally" instread of "independently". When we though independently the world benifited from us, because we "have free and creative thinking here". Unmatched by anyone in the world.

The only thing that is going to destroy us is the "cancerous mentality" non creation and lack of independent thinking. We will be responsible for our own demise unless we start thinking like AMERICANS again. And cast out the "Walmart foreign disposable society mentality".

We no longer build the better mouse trap because our own corporations have sold us out. We better get that independent thinking back and start thinking again about whats best for this country or we are doomed.

Oil, forget it, we have the knowledge for green technology and independence. You think the oil and gas infastructure was here when the automobile and gas related transportation took off? Roads? Not even. Its expensive to build infastructure but now with green technology we do already have a big chunk of infastructure here already. Power transmission lines, roads, and some manufacturing is left to build the rest.

We need to quit whining, set the goal and acheive it, and toss out the walmarts, halaburton and foreign oil that tell us we can't do it.

Our security and world peace can only be secured through a position of strenght. Strenght can only be acheive through independence where others do not have leverage over us.

Then hopefully the wiser sane people of the world can speak in a free environment and extend peace.

Thats the AMERICA I believe in. "

vocal-de-local wrote on Jul 15, 2009 3:48 PM:

" I like where these conversations are headed. This problem is not simply Democrat versus Republican. We must work together for change, for our children's futures.

We have too many people. What can we do about it? Should we stop migration or penalize those who have too many offspring in this country?

Should we tax the h*ll out of imports? Should we have higher taxes on items which are destined for a landfill and will sit there for a million years before breaking down?

Should we reward those who create what I like to think of as "independent" energy?

But these solutions involve government intervention. Alot of you do not want government intervention. Where do we go from here? "

5th generation napan wrote on Jul 16, 2009 8:14 AM:

" We need to change our mind sets.

#1) The true meaning of capitalism. We seem to have taught a generation that capitalism means aquiring wealth. So they took govenment money bought companies and sold them in pieces realizing a valid company has assets worth more than its sale or take over price. So Manufacturing was destroyed.
Capitalism is CREATING wealth! Making the better mouse trap. Not redistributing existing wealth.

#2) We need to get hard core manufacturing back into this country. We would have never survived WW1, 2 or come out of the "great depression" by waiting for just in time delivery from foreign vendors. Thats insanity. When you make your own stuff you have control over it and have an export product.

#3) We need to get rid of the Walmart mentality of a disposable society. It waste materials, creates people that can't fix anything, doesn't care if it breaks and gets use to "oh I don't need quality I'll just throw it away and get a new one, there cheap".

#4) Finally, we need "independence" in energy and waste handling. We learned enough to do it right if we dont let special interest steer us wrong.
Nukes will work if they are built exactly the same like a submarine. Then any crew can work anywhere in the country and operate it immediatly.
I saw an oil refinery fight pollution controls for 5 years. Finally they had to do it and for the first time they made a profit because they had to update the electrical and their "overhead cost" went way down because of new efficient equipment.

Once again let competition create the better mouse trap.

We've made a lot of mistakes but we need to learn from them. "

ampsthelena wrote on Jul 16, 2009 4:54 PM:

" 5th generation napan,
I think you are missing the essential problem with capitalism: it is profit driven competition. If Walmart can outsource jobs to Mexico, and thereby reduce prices, then it outcompetes another company that might be trying to give benefits to its workers and to save their jobs. The very nature of capitalism--the way it really works--is that capitalists are OBLIGED to exploit the workforce in order to compete (whether the want to or not). If they don't, they lose the competitive edge to their more ruthless enemies, and they go out of business.

Yes, capitalism is dynamic, and has created great wealth. But it has only created the kind of wealth that can be produced for a profit; and it has failed to distribute that wealth in any way that even appraoches "just". At the same time, it fails to meet human need (too much food while some starve; too many houses while some go homeless; too many hospitals while some go without health care). It creates crises of OVERproduction--which leaves people starving and homeless in the midst of too much food and too many houses. It is irrational. We must move to a rational economy. What form should that rational economy take?

I would argue for revolutionary socialism. But what is important is that the discussion really BEGIN and CONTINUE. I agree with vocal-de-local on that.

So, 5th generation napa, keep arguing for your side. We need good, robust debate. "

skeptic wrote on Jul 17, 2009 10:56 AM:

" the comments are terrific even though there is disagreement. it can't be stressed enough about the dollar loosing it's reserve currency status. it has already started and china and russia every week make new demands to transfer to a mix of currencies which would dilute dollar value. as many have pointed out in congress, when you triple the dollars you print, the value will eventually go to a third. picture stagnant or decreasing wages like in the great depression and another half million fired every month for years. then add a 300% price increase on everything.
some of the folks in the bilderburg group and others who own banks and holding companies have been planning to de-industrialize us for years. they prefer the feudal system with us as their slaves and no democracy.
the financial times openly flouts their plans whereas in times past, this was denied as being the fantasy of conspiracy theorists. "

pepperpot wrote on Jul 18, 2009 5:07 AM:

" I enjoyed the debate on resources, population, and world finance. It appears that you folks have missed a major point: You cannot break the laws of nature. When population exceeds the resources available, the species, especially humans, begin to thin themselves. War, famine, and disease will reduce the population to a "manageable" level, and there is nothing governments, banks, or economists can do about it. Go lemmings, Go! "

Paddy wrote on Jul 18, 2009 8:44 AM:

" The only thing in this universe that is unlimited is our own ignorance.

Let's all step into the 21st century with our eyes wide open and begin to heal what we have, so far, been destroying. "

napanoir wrote on Jul 22, 2009 10:18 AM:

" Ruff- Lydecker says here that we are going broke so, of course, Iraq is not affordable. Plus, in a column years ago he stated that our going to Iraq was NOT because of terrorism or WMD, but because of oil and the fact Iraq was no longer accepting the dollar. Iraq was a resource war as well as currency war both of which extend our hegemony in those areas. "

Comment Guidelines
The goal of the story comments section at NapaValleyRegister.com is to have an open, thought-provoking, civil community forum for all issues.
What gets your comment posted?
• Staying on topic
• Keeping your comment to 300 words or less
• Avoiding name-calling
• Addressing your comments to the message rather than the messenger
What gets your comment deleted?
• Personal attacks
• Derogatory remarks
• Name-calling of any sort
• Going off-topic
• Hate speech
• Racially-insensitive comments
• Implying guilt of a subject in a crime story before there is a court verdict
• Posting e-mail addresses
• Posting comments of a commercial nature
• POSTING WITH ALL CAPITAL LETTERS
• Linking multiple comments together with "to be continued..." to get around the 300 word limit.
The fine print
- Comments are either approved or denied. We do not edit comments.
- You are welcome to modify and resubmit a denied comment.
- Comments may take several hours to be posted.
- Comments posted are those of the writer, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion of NapaValleyRegister.com, its employees or its parent company.
- Do you have information on a story? Please go to our virtual newsroom to send us a news tip.
- If you feel a posted comment has violated our guidelines, please contact online@napanews.com or add a comment indicating you have an issue and our moderators will review the comment in question.
Search:
Web Search Powered
By Yahoo! Search
Napa Valley Register on Facebook
Copyright © 2009 Napa Valley Publishing, a member of Lee Enterprises, Inc.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy