Global Resource Depletion

André Diederen's recent book on resource depletion

I have been thinking, sometimes, that I could reserve a shelf of my library for those books which have that elusive quality that I could call "modern wisdom". Books that go beyond the buzz of the media news, the shallowness of politicians' speech, the hyper-specialization of technical texts. That shelf would contain, first of all, "The Limits to Growth" by Meadows and others; then the books by Jared Diamond, James Lovelock, Konrad Lorenz, Richard Dawkins, Peter Ward and several others that have affected the way I see the world.

I think I'll never set up such a shelf, I have too many books and too few shelves; many are packed full with three rows of books. But, if I ever were to put these books together, I think that the recent book by André Diederen "Global Resource Depletion" would make a nice addition to the lot.

The subject of resource depletion, of course, is well known to readers of "The Oil Drum". So well known that it is difficult to think of a book that says something new. Diederen, indeed, succeeds in the task not so much in reason of the details on the availability of mineral commodities that he provides, but for the innovative way he describes our relation to the subject. In other words, Diederen's book is not a boring list of data; it is a lively discussion on how to deal with the implications of these data. It is a book on the future and how we can prepare for it.

To give you some idea of the flavor of the book, just a quote:

(p. 43) "... it isn't enough to have large absolute quantities ("the Earth's crust is so big") and to have all the technology in place. (p. 33) ... we have plenty of water in the Mediterranean or Atlantic Ocean and we have ample proven technologies to desalinate and pipe the water to the desert, so, why isn't the Sahara desert green yet?"
This is, of course, the crucial point of resource depletion: what counts is cost, not amounts (I plan to use this example in my next talk!). Diederen is an unconventional thinker and he goes deeply into matters that, in some circles would be thought to be unspeakable; for instance (p. 41)
"I consider it quite likely that we will see the following management style trend taking shape within the next years: a military inspired no-nonsense approach, adapted to the pressing needs of our civil society. There are various factors which may lead to such a development: the need for triage-like decision making and subsequent actions as events unfold, the increasing public desire for strong leadership (amplified by tje current general lack thereof) and the unambiguous nature of the military command structure. .. As the saying goes, if you have to steer through turbulence, you should sail faster than the current. Governance based on a more autocratic leadership style has a definite advantage in this respect"
That is a point that I myself have been examining when thinking about methods of "steering the elephant." If you have a large and complex system to control, multiple nested feedback loops will make it impossible to govern it unless you establish a hierarchy that dampens the negative feedbacks. It is something that will necessarily look like a military command structure. This is the structure that we use to deal with local emergencies: from fires to floods. If we are to deal with a global emergency, in either climate change or resource depletion (or both), it is very likely that we'll adopt this kind of structure - or at least we'll try to.

The basic message of Diederen's book, in any case, is that in the future we'll have to face deep changes in the way we exploit and use minerals. We'll have to be much more careful, use less and recycle more. Diederen classifies metals in three categories. One is the "elements of hope," those which are abundant in the earth's crust: aluminum, iron, silicon and others. Then, there are "frugal elements," which are not very rare (e.g. titanium, copper and others) and, finally, "critical elements" (e.g. noble metals) which are extremely rare. The challenge is to build an industrial society which is based mainly on the elements of hope; only sparingly on the "frugal elements" and - if possible - does not use the critical elements at all. This is a very difficult problem that that can't be solved by recycling alone, and not even by concepts such as "Cradle to Cradle," which are fascinating but which may lure us into believing that there are simple solutions to a very difficult problem. To solve it, we will need to make important changes in the ways we manufacture things; and that can only be along the line that Diederen calls "managed austerity". Recycling and substituting is not enough, we'll have to use less.

The only defect of Diederen's book is that it is too short. There is so much to say on the subject of resource exploitation and depletion that it could fill whole encyclopedias. This book is just a start but, on the other hand, is short enough that it may serve as a dense and useful introduction.


André Diederen "Global Resource Depletion - Managed Austerity and the Elements of Hope" ISBN 9789059724259 - available from Eburon Academic Publishers

Andre Diederen gave a presentation in Vienna (Austria) last week. Here is the video (Part 1 of 3): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqURsUMHTOI

thanks, but the sound quality is so poor as to make this video almost unwatchable. A real shame that people go to all the trouble to make recordings but aren't able to get the sound to record correct. Just like at the ASPO conference.

I think he is speaking German with a smattering of English phrases mixed in. I have seen only a couple of videos from the ASPO conference but I thought the audio was okay. At least they spoke English.

Ron P.

I listened to it and he is speaking in English albeit with a heavy German accent I was able to understand it quite easily but I'm used to the German accent.

I've taken the trouble of translating what he says into a graphic that even the average mono lingual American should be able to understand.

Wiley's Olduvai

He speaks English with a Dutch accent, not a German accent.

Thanks, my bad! LOL! The point was, whatever his accent, he was speaking in the Anglo Saxon vernacular, which should under most circumstances, be intelligible to native speakers of English. Well, on second thought, that would probably exclude most Americans >;^)

Thanks Ugo and of course Andre.
I am not a cornucopian (though I guess I was). I realised, many years ago, following Meadows et al , that 'we', meaning the growing billions, could not all become Americans and that the USA has proven the wrong (deeply flawed) model for achieving modest sufficiencies.

There is extensive preview of the book available at the publishers
http://www.eburon.nl/global_resource_depletion?language_code=en

I note that Andre uses a reference in explaining the logic of 'abundance thinking': John Michael Greer The logic of abundance, March 24 2010. http://thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com/
From Diederen:

"The biggest fallacy of abundance thinking is the often unquestioned belief in perpetual growth ... On a planetary scale it is easy to imagine and see that this cannot be true ... Primary [resources] and secondary goods [and services] have physical limits. Enter the human abstraction of money and financial products. ..."

That lovely quote " We have plenty ... so why isn't the Sahara desert green yet?" perhaps could be applied to the vast outnumbering of the planetary poor?

I am buying the book for myself and I guess as a gift for one or two friends / relatives later in the year.

phil

It is always possible that there are more practical and economic uses to which those resources could be put than to green the Sahara. In fact, environmentalists would come scurrying out of the woodwork screeching if anyone tried the alter the "natural setting" of the Sahara. Just as solar projects in the US southwest are held up by environmentalists for the same reason.

The biggest fallacy in any analysis of abundance thinking is to pack everyone that he imagines indulges in "abundance thinking" into one box, then to project what he believes is the "often unquestioned belief" behind this type of thinking.

In fact, it is far easier to pigeon-hole the thinking of those who predicted that hundreds of millions would die of starvation in the 1980s and 1990s, and predicted that the UK would no longer exist in the 2000s. This uber-scarcity doom thinking is closer to delusional thinking than the type of thinking which assumes that humans will devise solutions to problems.

Which reminds me of the quote: "Don't believe everything you think."

"If you have a large and complex system to control, multiple nested feedback loops will make it impossible to govern it unless you establish a hierarchy that dampens the negative feedbacks."

Yes, it is much easier to crash a car into a wall at high speed if you remove any impediments such as brakes, etc. Collapse demands such a well meaning process be adopted to speed it on its way.

I'm interested in the future, not only because I'm going to be living in it, but also because I need to plan for it. So anything which is going to shape our future needs to be studied with a view to its effects. And indeed we have governments and the whole global system which isn't going to just stand around doing nothing while everything collapses, they're going to react.

My view, of which I have many, but the one coming to the fore is that our future is going to be fashioned by those given the responsibility for the day to day running of our global system of civilisation. The millions of people (politicians, financiers, engineers, scientists, industrialists, farmers, technicians, spin doctors, et al.) who spend their days making sure their little piece of the global system runs as effectively and as efficiently as possible. These are the guys who built, serviced, fueled and are currently driving the car at full speed into the brick wall. Lets just call them the "technicians".

So what are the technicians going to do as collapse unfolds? Well, we already know that, they're going to ask for greater dominion over the running of their respective parts of the system. Governments are doing this at the moment with their demands for austerity (ie. control over demand), central bankers are asking for greater control to deal with the financial crisis (ie. given carte blanche on money creation), Generals are asking for more military resources to control the theatre of war, Etc. In fact the greater the control the technicians gain in their respected fields the more out of control things actually seem to become as complexity increases and unintended consequences proliferate rapidly through the entire global system. Take the US strategists (ie. the neocons) wish to control global oil supplies via the occupation of Iraq for instance.

So what are the technicians going to do with their greater degree of control? For example, what are the Agronomists going to do when they're given "carte blanche" to feed the World (ie. give the citizens enough food to stop them rioting at any cost)? What are the technicians given the task of powering the global system going to do? We've already seen them turn food into fuel and express an interest in turning biomass (eg. all living matter) into a source of energy. And keep in mind the modern technician sees the means as not a means to and end, but an end in itself. This allows them to do really stupid things in a thoroughly logical and rational manner.

Anyone want to have a stab at envisioning our future?

And keep in mind the modern technician sees the means as not a means to and end, but an end in itself. This allows them to do really stupid things in a thoroughly logical and rational manner.

I think that that was perhaps true 20 or so years ago, but I wonder if things haven't changed. Now the technician does not see the means as an end in itself, but a means to making more money.

So, it doesn't even matter if the means don't achieve the ends. As long as they can be spun as doing so, and someone makes a lot of money, "I'm all right, Jack."

Whether this makes this better (along the Orlovian boondoggle theory) or worse, I don't know, but I suspect that we won't even get 10% of the way to the proclaimed "end",

Peter.

Now the technician does not see the means as an end in itself, but a means to making more money.

Exactly! What's happening is all out raging greed by those in a position to take advantage of situations, like mortgage deregulation, to hoard as much money to buy their survival once shtf. It's an overactive tide of shifting directions that Wall Street is taking in different ways to maximize profit without any concern whatsoever for the consequences it may have on others. Think how outrageous it is, that not one person or institution has apologized for the mortgage meltdown. This is because people are quite nice to one another when the future looks rosey, but once it looks like things are headed in the wrong direction, or could even collapse at some point, then survival instincts take over and people lose their moral compass.

As we move forward into more uncertain times, with oil supply crunches coupled with huge price spikes of all goods, that unfortunate scenario will increase in intensity until people are ripping food out of one another's hands in a full-on chaotic collapse. Remember how people acted during Katrina? That's a preview of coming events. There will be three groups of people: 1) Those in a panic amongst the chaos grabbing for their survival, 2) those that pre-hoarded their survival watching the chaos on TV (provided there's electrical power and a reception signal), and 3) those with underground dwellings and sufficient supplies. The 2's will be subject to the 1's, and the only people remaining relaxed will be the 3's.

My view, of which I have many, but the one coming to the fore is that our future is going to be fashioned by those given the responsibility for the day to day running of our global system of civilisation.

The problem, Burgundy, is that our politicians are decrying those who should be give the responsibility as 'elitists,' and promoting ignorance as a virtue. We are throughly screwed!

Craig

I think it inevitable that as systems become more complex and harder to understand that the political response will become more simplistic. Politicians(except for Bill Clinton) can't describe the problem in terms people should understand, people don't have time to understand the problem so simplistic solutions (preferably those that go on a bumper sticker rule).

In fairness if there are 30 different variables but people can only comprehend 7 (probably everybody will understand 7 different ones) is the solutions based on understanding 7 variable s any better than one?

Yair...I say again...I've asked the question on this board several times. How has the occupation of Iraq made any difference to the availability of oil to the West when Chinese and Russian oilcos are taking up the contracts...are we going in there to do it all again?

Oil exported from Iraq frees up oil to the market from other sources. (Thats the standard neo-classical economists answer anyway).

Scrub,

I would have thought that was a pretty obvious one.

I am sure the Iraqis are today using far less oil than they used to before the invasions and very much less that what they would have been the case had their consumption continued growing along Saudi/Iranian lines. That is to say the Oil Export Model has been working in reverse and increasing the amount of oil being traded internationally.

This is called Demand Destruction - in a very literal sense of the word.

I think you have hit it on the head. Unfortunately the debate seems to be contained within two distinct camps- BAU and the Doomers. Living in the United States its easy to see how the absence of BAU is considered to be doom but there are plenty of countries that seem to survive 6 hours of power cuts or rationing of one kind or the other without civilized society collapsing. It may come as a surprise to all the gold bugs that they still use currency and not gold or that markets still survive where people can purchase their daily necessities.

"We have only two modes - complacency and panic." — James R. Schlesinger, the first U.S. Dept. of Energy secretary

For just the review, itself. What an excellent and well written post. The beginning is so gracious and i will read this book.

Thanks Ugo.

Me too! 10+

Craig

Andre was kind enough to send me a copy of the book as well. I enjoyed it too. Nicely done!

Some other things by Andre that may be of interest:

Minerals scarcity: A call for managed austerity and the elements of hope (guest post)

Metals scarcity: A sobering perspective, Part I: Our predicament (PDF presentation).

Global Resource Depletion: A Map Toward Sustainability? (PDF Presentation) 

Ugo has touched upon a question that has bothered me for quite some time: can a free and open society exist in an environment of severe chronic resource shortages?

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that it can not. Oh, we may still have the trappings of democracy, such as the spectacle of national elections, but regardless of the outcome of those elections the real coercive machinery will be firmly in place to control and restrict day-to-day life and to brutally suppress those who object to such controls and restrictions. The trend toward militarizing domestic law enforcement will continue until the military and the police will be virtually indistinguishable.

And as the shortages and breakdown of infrastructure get worse, so will the oppression. 'Managing' a perpetual emergency condition is all about forcing people to do what they don't want to do and preventing them from doing what they want to do. That can only be done effectively in a police-state environment. However, this erodes public morale, so there will be even greater temptation for the government to enter into unnecessary open-ended wars partly for the purpose of diverting anger away from a worsening domestic situation.

It's all a matter of degrees, and won't happen all at once or in a uniform manner. But I think it is the logical endpoint for a permanently resource-constrained world. Not a pretty picture.

Yet one can easily make an argument that centralized control requires too much energy to last. So maybe we'll pass through a phase of that, but it will be short-lived, followed by a more localized thugocracy/warlordism.

So, the existential horizons of our TBTFs must be shrinking rapidly. Splitting them up will become an ongoing process.

Can a free and open society exist in an environment of severe chronic resource shortages?

It can if the population is small enough to maintain an industrialized civilization on renewable energy alone. It's easy to imagine a sustainable future in which the right to procreate is severely limited but otherwise a high level of personal liberty persists (we can all live with things like mandatory recycling and composting).

The problem of course is getting the human population to that point as quickly as possible so that damage caused by overshoot doesn't more or less permanently and significantly reduce the planet's carrying capacity, if that hasn't happened already. Absent something more awful than anyone can easily imagine, we're going to be stuck trying to manage the distribution of critically scarce vital resources among 9 billion people.

kenny -

But if a government has acquired the power to restrict your right to procreate, then they also have to power to restrict practically anything else in your life. And you can be sure that if they can, sooner or later they will. That is the basic problem I was alluding to.

Do you really think people are going to willingly vote themselves childless? If people in France are rioting because the government wants to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62, what do you think the reaction would be if the government announced that you and your wife can henceforth have only one child? It is very hard for me to see how restrictive population control can be accomplished in a democratic rather than a dictatorial environment.

You use economics to accomplish population control by making it too expensive to have children, remove any social safety net so abortion becomes the de-facto method for dealing with unwanted pregnancies. Keep people fully engaged in the economy so they have no time for children even if they can afford them. Finally, have military academies for children which have been born but are unaffordable or unwanted.

France is a totalitarian state and because of this the bozo Sarko thought he could decree the removal of peoples' privileges. The modern technique is to remove peoples' privileges without them realising you're doing so via renegable trade-offs, stealth or deception. Confrontation is not an efficient way of doing it.

France is a totalitarian state

Pardonez Moi? Qui as vous donnait la foundation complet de votre constitution?

Democracy in France is VERY far advanced beyond where it is in most other countries, expecially those based on the british parliament. In France, the individual citizens actually have some power, exercised by the mass demonstration. Just look how meekly the British today accepted a 25% reduction in government spending across the board PLUS a $60 billion tax hike. That would have caused an overthrow of the president in France.

The president is not the State, he's is just a functionary within the State and is expendable.

There is a very careful balance between the French state and its volatile citizenry. Neither will go too far, although it comes close sometimes, and when necessary the State will reform itself to accommodate the citizens. What we're seeing at the moment is not a threat to the State, if it were the reaction would be very different. The citizenry are being allowed to blow off steam and perhaps the State will decide not to upset the balance if it deems it necessary, it may even get a new president to keep the people happy.

The French state is much more worried by its Muslim population and its inability to assimilate them. Like the Catholic church before them the State will be looking at ways to neutralise any threat to itself, it will not tolerate competition.

Exactly how does any of that make France "more totalitarian" than the US?

Not so much totalitarian, as patriarchal. Father Sarko knows best, until he doesn't. Then he may loose his head.

French citizenry are smart enough to keep their politicians, including the union leaders, scared of them. They regularly go out in the streets and break some crockery to that end, unlike fat passive N. Americans who have somehow been convinced that unions are the enemy of the working person. Idiots. Sure, organized criminals are the enemy of working people, so boot the $#% out.

Hey! I'm an American and I MUST protest! Baaaaaaaaaaaaa!... Baa Baa Baaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Do you really think people are going to willingly vote themselves childless?

Does it matter what we vote? If we do not lower procreation, nature will increase deaths. Food, sanitation (disease), and civil unrest will take care of that. At some level, we still will need to reclaim the waste products, to extend energy production, and provide some level of order. Communications, health, potable water, sewers, etc., will be needed (unless you envision a drop to population < 750 Million, and a strictly feudal society).

Craig

The Chinese have a population policy. It is rather draconian and not considered free choice. Google Garrett Hardin, and Ophuls "Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity". "THX 1138" and "Soylent Green" also apply to this discussion.

Absent something more awful than anyone can easily imagine, we're going to be stuck trying to manage the distribution of critically scarce vital resources among 9 billion people.

A very small percentage of the US population controls a very large part of its wealth.
The US in terms of absolute numbers is an insignificant portion of the total global population yet manages to consume a quarter of the world's mostly finite resources. On what basis are *WE* assuming that *WE* are going to be managing anything in the not too distant future. If the shoe were on the other foot how much longer would we put up with another country that was hogging resources as we are doing now?

Limits to growth

It would be interesting to see this type of graph with the EU instead of the US, and then with the OECD instead of EU or US, all arranged together for comparison.

This paper has some interesting data albeit somewhat dated.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/enveco/waste/pdf/wackernagel.pdf

The global North-South divide becomes powerfully evident from looking at footprint results.
While the one billion people living in OECD countries have an average footprint of 7.2
hectares per person, the other 5 billion people live on only 1.8. OECD countries’ footprints
exceed their biocapacities by an average of 3.8 hectares per person. That’s what we call an
“ecological deficit”. All the non-OECD countries put together run much less of an ecological
deficit, since their collective footprint barely exceeds their bioproductive capacity.

So basically we have met the enemy and it's us, the the one billion plus inhabitants of the OECD countries!

The disparity doesn't surprise me. I've often wondered what the state of affairs would be if planned obsolescence wasn't implemented. Certainly, the current BAU paradigm wouldn't exist.

This doesn't provide supporting detail, but it's clear that AGW is a large component. I think I looked at this or a very similar study previously: the calculations were heavily weighted towards energy: PO and climate change in particular. Again, fix our energy problems, which is eminently doable, and we fix most of the resource consumption, and reduce our footprint dramatically.

I think you're correct joule, but I don't think the control/repression will necessarily be direct or via government. The global system is too sophisticated and complex for it to use outdated and brutish techniques when there are superior ways of achieving the same result.

My own thoughts are along the lines of populations being concentrated into dense and easily controlled zones. As we're talking of millions of people these areas will naturally be formed in existing urban conurbations. There will be no razor wire or guards as people will be immobilised via energy and economic restrictions. Travel will naturally become restricted in the name of efficiency, conservation and cost cutting, people will simply have no incentive or wish to travel. Effective techniques can then come into play for feeding, providing necessary utilities and accommodating them to their de-facto incarceration via technology and illusion. These ghetto states will probably interact with the outside world through corporations that will be mandated to supply necessary resources and supplies.

Obviously a new economic model will be required and applied within the ghetto/city states for the purpose of engaging and occupying the citizens in the running of the system willingly. Outside the city walls, so to speak, Realpolitik will apply for the acquisition and control of the city's resources.

X Kwh/capita= enlightened liberal pluralistic secular etc etc society.

therefore reduce population

Joule, you asked, "can a free and open society exist in an environment of severe chronic resource shortages?" I think it can, and that unless the evolving society remains free and open it will fail.

We can and must preserve much of our knowledge, including technologies. With fewer resources they will be more needed than today, and their uses will be far more important. Instead of using science and knowledge for greed and gain, it will have to be used for survival and sustainability.

I cannot guess how this evolution will happen; just that it is necessary. Only in a free and open society will our knowledge base be preserved and even extended.

Craig

zaphod42 -

Societies, both democratic and dictatorial fail for many different reasons, and the nature of the political framework is but one of those reasons. Many tyrannical regimes and dynasties have lasted for centuries.

My initial point was that if one wants to impose intrusive restrictions on how many children a person can have, then those type of measures are far more easily accomplished in dictatorial political system than a democratic one.

I also take some issue with the notion that knowledge and technological development necessarily flourish better and are better preserved in a free and open society. Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, and Red China were all extremely oppressive totalitarian regimes, yet all achieved a high level of technological and scientific development. Now, knowledge and technological development can be used for good or for ill, but again that is not necessarily inherent in the type of political system (the US, the world's self-proclaimed bastion of democracy, has a 'defense' budget almost the size of the rest of the world's combined).

I agree with you about what will HAVE to happen if we are to survive, but that doesn't mean I believe it WILL happen.

The named dictatorships did have some technological success; the fact is though that they hampered free dissemination and limited technology.

One problem, especially in those societies, is that their science is markedly cramped by ideological considerations. In the US, during the Dub Bush era, science had to pass a purity test, and was purged = at least at the governmental levels. Even now serious science is challenged by idiots with an agenda.

And that is in a 'free' society.

Like you, I don't have a really sanguine view of the future. I still believe that it will evolve in some way different that it has been, because the conditions will change so. Just as the rest of Earth's species will have to adapt to changed climate conditions, we will have to adapt to changed energy availability. Those who look for 9 Billions on the planet are nuts. We won't ever make that number!

Craig

My initial point was that if one wants to impose intrusive restrictions on how many children a person can have, then those type of measures are far more easily accomplished in dictatorial political system than a democratic one.

Witness the military dictatorship of 'General Ethanol' in the principality of 'Fermenting Grape Juice', after the average yeast cell has been deprived of both its voting and reproductive rights...

Well, except for the French yeast cells, they are world renown for their protests and strikes. They do produce some pretty decent and (wild) Sauvignon blanc >;^)

À votre santé!

Based upon the way "resource" is defined in the book and post, consider it to be in reality a product, creation, or result of the fundamental cycles in the global environment of the Earth. (At least for the sake of argument for a moment.)

It follows, then, that if those cycles are disrupted so will the "resource" depletion rates be disrupted.

That disruption can be significant, and therefore should be taken into consideration when calculations about available future resources are used.

Another way of putting it is that cycle disruption can become a primary reason for "depletion" of resources.

For example, consider that fundamental cycles are being damaged, and some of those fundamental cycles may have been damaged beyond repair.

I constantly gripe about analysis that is blind to the reality that we are no longer talking about stable systems when we refer to future available resources.

If the fundamentals are not stable, then projections using math, logic, and economics based upon stability are not sufficiently realistic.

"the crucial point of resource depletion: what counts is cost, not amounts" ... "a military inspired no-nonsense approach, adapted to the pressing needs of our civil society"

Absolutely hilarious! Equating the military with cost efficiency!

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Somehow it reminds me of Rumsfeld's "known knowns", "unknown knowns", and "known unknowns" reasoning that he used the day he reported 25% of Pentagon money is unaccounted for.

Rumsfeld got a lot of flack for that model ("known unknowns") but it's a very valid framework for understanding how humans gather knowledge. It doesn't translate well into a sound bite, however.

aangel,

Yes, there is a time to say something and a time not to. I think maybe an example of "known unknowns" might be:

"After all, most people spend their lives making decisions under uncertainty, and that's what dealing effectively with climate change demands - the same kind of decisions you make when you decide to buckle your seatbelt, or buy insurance for your house or invest in the financial markets."

(Chris Field, co-chair of the IPCC).

"Known unknowns"--Risk Management.

I too would make such a shelf and it would have many of the same authors you mention, Diamond, Richard Dawkins, etc. To that list I would add John Raulston Saul who's commentary on the social side of modern civilization might give you something else to think about - that our safety might lie in the complexity of society and not the opposite. Try if you have not read, "The Collapse of Globalism" or "On Equilibrium" which has a more philosophical bent. Granted a lot of his books are on Canadian Politics but his ideas are internationally relevant.

I am not sure that;

It is something that will necessarily look like a military command structure. This is the structure that we use to deal with local emergencies: from fires to floods. If we are to deal with a global emergency, in either climate change or resource depletion (or both), it is very likely that we'll adopt this kind of structure - or at least we'll try to.

is such a good thing - although I agree that it may become necessary and it is our lack of foresight or government ineptitude that is leading us there.

Using only the "elements of hope" seems quite plausible to me. The key is bio-inspired engineering. Biology builds tremendously complex and highly capable systems of elaborate and intelligent nanotechnology out of mostly: carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus, iron, copper, and a few other things. Other metals and trace elements are used sparingly if at all.

I expect our future technology to be made of similar stuff, but also including a lot of silicon and aluminum.

Though biology is extremely efficient at accomplishing tasks with very little energy (consider the battery pack a mechanical robot would need to accomplish the same tasks in the same time frame as one honeybee), it is also very inefficient at capturing available sunlight energy for its use, typically much less than 1% of insolation. Oversimplified statements are problems not solutions.

'efficiency' goes beyond photon-to-electron energy conversion. I doubt that the technosphere will ever beat biosphere's overall insolation capture capability (considering long term stability of the system - and long term is >100 million years)

"I consider it quite likely that we will see the following management style trend taking shape within the next years: a military inspired no-nonsense approach, adapted to the pressing needs of our civil society. There are various factors which may lead to such a development: the need for triage-like decision making and subsequent actions as events unfold, the increasing public desire for strong leadership (amplified by tje current general lack thereof) and the unambiguous nature of the military command structure. .. As the saying goes, if you have to steer through turbulence, you should sail faster than the current. Governance based on a more autocratic leadership style has a definite advantage in this respect"

Sounds like decision making in today's China.

Please examine carefully all extant research on the relationship between the human population and its food supply. It appears to me that the experts have the relationship backward and have effectively reversed what is actually happening. This matter really places us at the crux of something that is vital in this discussion, I believe. The population/food supply relationship appears to be a most basic and significant matter. Please note that the unchallenged scientific evidence to which I draw attention indicates that human population numbers appear as a function of food supply; that human population dynamics is essentially common to the population dynamics of other species. If these hypotheses are correct, then the determination by experts to continuously increase the food supply to meet the needs of a growing human population will soon lead humanity to precipitate a colossal ecological wreckage of some unimaginable sort....... the likes of which only Ozymandias has witnessed.

The many thoughtful and incisive comments presented here have set me to thinking about something I want to discuss now.

Human history is replete with examples of the human population increasing as the supply of food for human consumption increases. The case of China has shown us that political legislation and economic sanctions can help limit the otherwise unbridled growth of human numbers. Analysis of China's population growth while the "one child policy" has been in effect appears to have resulted in an estimated 500 million fewer births. But please note that the Chinese population has continued to grow during that period.... only not as fast as it would without the imposition of limits on human reproduction.

Demographic Transition Theory(DTT) appears to offer us a limited, descriptive presentation of the growth of the human population through time. Please note that DTT is not a predictive theoretical framework. The theory of the demographic transition also denies ecological forces of human population dynamics, as those dynamics apply to evolving living beings.

In Stage One of the DTT, birth rates and population size are both high. Supposedly environmental, sanitation and medical problems emerge to increase the death rate. My question is this: how can the birth rates be high and the size of the human population be large without an increasing food supply to fuel such growth? If not an increasing food supply, what is the mechanism by which the human population is so fully grown in Stage One? There must be a stage or multiple stages before Stage One of the DTT.

As health care and sanitation improve, the human population begins Stage Two. Birth rates remain elevated and death rates decline. The population grows.

With a better quality of life average resource consumption of each individual improves and the population enters Stage Three. As the population approaches the carrying capacity limitations of a finite, biophysical world, birth rates decline and, as Hopfenberg has noted elsewhere, there is a fertility/resource consumption trade-off.

In Stage Four of the DTT birth rates and death rates are low rather than high as in Stage One.

Now what? What happens next? It seems to me that we need to revise and expand the demographic transition theory by adding a stage(s) before Stage One and also include a stage(s) after Stage Four.

What I am proposing is an expanded, more comprehensive model for the Demographic Transition Theory that more realistically begins at the beginning and ends at the end. The beginning cannot have occurred with the size of the human population and its birth rate already high, as Stage One indicates. Nor can Stage Four be the end. We need a new theory that takes account of 1) the actual relationship between the human population and its food supply as well as 2) the cultural bias pervading science which is making it so difficult for human beings to perceive this vital relationship in a more realistic way.

Please consider what could happen if the fully expected growth of absolute global human population numbers were to lead the human community into Stage Four of the demographic transition in the middle of Century XXI, as DTT prescribes. It would take several planets with the size, make-up and ecology of Earth to support that population with a quality of life measured by the lifestyles of people in the USA now. Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that a finite planet like Earth cannot indefinitely support a population of 9+/- billion people consuming its abundant harvests and plundering its limited resources as the most foolhardy andgreedy among us are doing in our time? In such circumstances, how is the human community to protect itself and other creatures great and small from itself?

It is impossible for me to believe that a species so gifted as Homo sapiens will not find a way to go forward rather than put at risk life as we know it and the children's future, as we appear to be doing now. Somehow the miracle of life, with all its mystery, beauty and biodiversity, has to be preserved. At least we have to try, I suppose, whatever the odds.

Many too many leaders of my not-so-great generation of elders appear to be irresponsibly directing the children down a "primrose path" to confront a world that is resource depleted, environmentally degraded and denuded of much of what is alive and well on the surface of the Earth in 2010. Rather than acknowledge and begin to address looming global threats to human wellbeing and environmental health, these leaders are willfully choosing lifestyles of effortless ease and greed. It is easy to see that these so-called leaders have abdicated their duties to overcome problems of their own making and, furthermore, decided to avoid any hardships at all cost..... come what may for the children. This situation is deplorable, but I expect we will behave better by doing what is somehow right for the children; by assuring that our planetary home remains a wondrous place which is fit for human habitation.

That classic 2004 Harper's article "The Oil We Eat" was a tremendous eye-opener for me when it first came out and made me understand that the human population expanded to eat the increased food supply made possible by fossil fuels.

The important thing to remember here is that all aspects of the economy, not just agricultural production, grew rapidly along with the expansion of oil production and consumption.

Depopulation does not have to occur symmetrically with the decline in oil production. More likely, all other aspects of modern economic life will be rapidly abandoned in order to shift ever increasing slices of the decreasing oil production pie into agriculture in order to maintain the food supply for as long as possible. This will work through simple price mechanisms. As the price of food rises and gradually overwhelms all other household spending, the rest of the consumer economy will contract. In the U.S. the final eradication of the middle class will allow for a sustainable future comprising a much more rigid caste system of the very few stateless ultra rich who can continue to jet set around the world with full access to a high energy lifestyle, a minimal amount of skilled labor to serve them, and peasant farmers to feed us all. For a while at least, the death of the middle class across the industrialized world and the death of their consumption patterns will free up enough fossil fuel resources to keep everyone fed.

Regional famine will become commonplace and the world population will likely stabilize, maybe well below 9 billion if events unfold quickly enough.

kenny,

"More likely, all other aspects of modern economic life will be rapidly abandoned in order to shift ever increasing slices of the decreasing oil production pie into agriculture in order to maintain the food supply for as long as possible."

That presupposes a kinder, gentler nation in some degree doesn't it?

I think that the aftermath of Katrina, when Bush II mentioned those people facing death, starvation, unsanitary conditions, thirst, and fear as "people in that part of the world", illustrates more than meets the eye.

The discussion up thread, in the book, and in this TOD post mention a future militaristic approach, not "a kinder, gentler nation" approach.

I expect the response to be triage a la the way governments built arks for themselves (in the movie 2012) but left "the people in that part of the world" to fend for themselves.

In other words the quality of the triage will not be very good, because the economic ability of the state to cope will have diminished significantly.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czvxyDgqxmM

Perhaps the time is approaching when someone will say so others can hear it,

Don’t just do something, stand there and speak out.

Then, perhaps in the offing, necessary change toward sustainability…

Steven Earl Salmony
AWAREness Campaign on The Human Population,
established 2001
Chapel Hill, NC
http://sustainabilityscience.org/content.html?contentid=1176
http://sustainabilitysoutheast.org/
http://www.panearth.org/

Demographic Transition Theory(DTT)

As the population approaches the carrying capacity limitations of a finite, biophysical world, birth rates decline and, as Hopfenberg has noted elsewhere, there is a fertility/resource consumption trade-off.

The theory is flat wrong. eg. "resource constraint" provides no explanation for why Canada's fertility rate is < 75% that of the USA. The sequence is far better explained by peoples desires changing as their conditions improve, child mortality drops, and as the investments made into "successful" children increase.

Add: and as religious zealots control drops away. (eg. the constant temptation of a religious leader to increase their relative importance by having their followers increase their birth rates. See "family values")

Fewer very poor people. Better sex education. Fewer religious people. Not much to do with resources constraints, nope.

Please read, then address my specific question (If available resources control birth rate, why is Canada'a birth rate only 75% that of the US?) in a coherent form.

Hi Steve,

Is there any doubt in anyone's mind that a finite planet like Earth cannot indefinitely support a population of 9+/- billion people consuming its abundant harvests and plundering its limited resources as the most foolhardy andgreedy among us are doing in our time?

IMHO the problem is exactly the opposite, more along the lines of complete confidence and an absolute lack of doubt due to either ignorance or the incapability to think critically about the long term implications of 9+ billion humans aspiring to a western first world style of living.

I'm afraid very few of the 7 billion people alive today on our little blue and green ball, are aware of these issues or if they are, their thinking is clouded by greed, dogma and ideologies which cause them to ignore reality. They continue to have blind faith in the ingenuity and superiority of humans vis-à-vis the rest of nature.

It falls upon the shoulders of a very few people like yourself to plant those seeds of doubt... a most thankless task if ever there was one.

Be well my friend!

Fred

It seems to me that a declining birth rate is caused by a declining death rate (provided birth control is available). Inversely, an increasing death rate will result in an increasing birth rate. I have no data to back this up, just common sense.

Naturally, this means that we are all Doomed. Boom-bust cycles are common in nature, we just happen to be caught up in the biggest one on this planet so far...

DD

The intensive use of resources will decline because there is no longer a need for it as a base for military power.

The intensive use of resources arose in Europe following the adoption of gunpowder, cannon, and bombs as the basis for warfare. These obsoleted the fortifications that had resulted in a more or less sucessful adoption of defensive warfare since the fall of the Roman Empire. Storming or seiges of castles was an expensive and risky business, while the outcome of battles in the field depended on the prowess and equipment of a limited number of knights.

Gunpowder, cannon, and bombs changed all that and required large armies, which had to be well equipped with guns, cannons and munitions, and which had to be able to march on offense to the battles and maneuver in the field. To support this require an industrial base of mining and metallurgy, an agriculture that supported a large number of horses for cavalry and transport, and a large, fit, and educated population from which armies of 100s of thousands to millions could be conscripted.

Besides this, a critical factor for success in war was the amount of money the sovereign could raise through taxation and/or borrowing from the bankers.

It is no longer true that a large industrial base, a large mass economy, and a large population equate to military and national power. Any large war is likely to go nuclear and be over before industrial might can be brought to bear. Small wars are long drawn out affairs that are fought by unconventional means and realatively small forces. In the next couple of decades many countries will become strategically impregnable because they will have either nuclear, cyberwarfare or biological warfare capabilities to inflict extreme damage on their attackers.

The probable result is the resumption of a defensive deadlock. Offensive warfare by blowing things up and shooting people will be too expensive to wage continuously on a small scale and too risky to escalate. Instead defensive "homeland security" will absorb more and more manpower, but it will not require the same scale of material and energy resources. Furthermore, defensive point security is simpler in a smaller, lower density population that is relatively stationary. In particular, for biological defense, the population should be partitioned into small groups with limited interaction so that the infection return on infection input is less than 1 for most communicable diseases. Cyber defense and biological defense are both characterized by limiting contacts to only trusted individuals and systems.

In short, since intensive exploitation of resources is no longer needed as a basis of national power, the intesity of exploitation of resources will decline.

Interesting. I also think that as we grow weaker, in the sense that we can achieve less physically than before, resource use will decline. For example in the late 1800's in the UK a huge rail network was put in place by Victorian engineers, now in the UK it is a near impossible task to put in a single rail line.

Just as the UK can no longer afford a viable navy, air force or army, it sees its enemies as being terrorists and cyber attackers. Our lack of ability and weakness in the real world means we're seeking solutions in an artificial digital world or one still within our scope of ability. Businesses did the same retreating into the synthetic worlds of finance, media and other areas in the digital realm and away from physical production. I believe our abilities will further degrade in the physical world and we'll further fool ourselves that the illusions we create are in fact the real world.

Perhaps our resource use will increasingly veer towards using digital resources too, in a virtual world.

The Register has a story Cameron cocks up UK's defences - and betrays Afghan troops castigating cuts in aircraft carriers, amphibious forces and helicopters for the Afghan troops. It also views the surviving progams as more relics from the cold war era.

I wonder whether that is true, or whether the areas cut reflect an evaluation that following the US around the world fighting low intensity conflicts is too expensive and ultimately self-defeating.

"Fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here" is extremely expensive given the number, geographic distribution and irrational dedication of the "thems".

oops ... moved upthread

Merrill,

"In the next couple of decades many countries will become strategically impregnable because they will have either nuclear, cyberwarfare or biological warfare capabilities to inflict extreme damage on their attackers."

This seems to forecast memetic evolution in the sense that the "suicide bomber" type of cognition will become extinct.

Kamikaze & other suicide missions historically are a common military strategy, especially as desperation mounts to flow over and drown out sound thought processes.

Even animal behavior, from whence we derive these observations you mention, become "crazed" to the point that their usual behavior morphs at times (e.g. through hunger, thirst, disease and/or fear).

There may come a time when predictions based upon the expectation of constant and continual sound thinking and behavior will fail.

Sound thought processes are strongest in times of resource plenty, which we are going to lose.

Even in that time of plenty sound thought processes did not prevail in the sense that we used denial and propaganda to deal with what we saw coming.

The suicide bomber or kamikaze pilot as an individual may be irrational and not engaged in sound thinking, but the people who train and equip them are doing so rationally to achieve a specific effect and outcome.

The basis of mutual assured destruction is that if country A posesses the ability to destroy country B, then country B will not press country A into a situation where country A acts irrationally and attacks country B without regard for its own safety.

Nuclear warfare is pretty well understood.

Cyberwarfare is interesting in that the uncertainties are very high, both in terms of a country knowing the capabilities of its adversaries and in knowing the vulnerabilities of its own defenses.

Biological warfare is interesting in that it should be possible for countries of modest means to be able to make a doomsday bug.

Ugo,

A thousand thanks for your marvellous recommendation. The first 23 pages of the book are accessible on line here:

http://books.google.nl/books?printsec=frontcover&id=NGYDSBp805kC#v=onepa...

Seems like great stuff, I've already ordered a copy.

Please excuse me; I have not yet mentioned the other major application of the Molten Salt Oxidation Process (MSOP)(the inorganic brach). It applies directly to the topic at hand. To avoid confusion, I think it best to consider these two processes separately. The other branch(the organic branch)of my post must have been deleted by the moderator as irrelevant.

The same MSOP equipment and technology can function to reclaim metal in elemental form while reducing its hydrocarbon waste component to liquid fuels. The carbon based components of the non-biologic waste stream can also be transformed into liquid fuel. Such wastes as tires, municipal trash, plastics, both building material waste from natural disasters and old cars can be reclaimed without material separation, and land file mining.

For example, landfill mining and reclamation (LFMR) is a process whereby solid wastes which have previously been landfilled are excavated and reprocessed. The function of landfill mining is to reduce or eliminate the amount of landfill mass encapsulated within the closed landfill and/or to detoxify hazardous materials and/or to recycle the waste.

In the process, mining recovers valuable recyclable materials, a combustible fraction with can be converted to liquid fuel, soil, and landfill space reclamation.

The combustible fraction is useful for the production of liquid fuels. The overall appearance of the landfill mining procedure is a sequence of processing machines laid out in a functional conveyor system. The operating principle is to excavate and process the old trash without separation to remove nonorganic metals as residuals.

The concept of landfill mining was introduced as early as 1953 at the Hiriya landfill operated by the Dan Region Authority next to the city of Tel Aviv, Israel. Waste contains many resources with high value, the most notable of which are non-ferrous metals such as aluminum cans and scrap metal. The concentration of aluminum in many landfills is higher than the concentration of aluminum in bauxite from which the metal is derived.

Would anyone have any idea when this might be available on amazon.ca? Right now, all they're saying is: "Sign up to be notified when this item becomes available"

Deleted as duplicate.

I've just read chapter 3 The many Fallacies of customary convictions and while I agree with most I have a technical point on "hunt the millions" probability which I assume is the same as "Deal no Deal" in the UK. Andre states that if you were offered a switch in this situation you should take it as the probability of you having the box with the jackpot in it is 1/26, at the start and thus the probability that it's in the other box is 25/26.

As I see it there are two ways in which you can get to that position.
1) If you have the box with the Jackpot you have a 100% chance of reaching the position with 2 boxes
2) If you don't have the Jackpot box your probability of getting to... the two box position is 24/25*23/24*22/23...*1/2=4%
So you have a 1 in 26 chance of scenario 1 and a 25 in 26 chance of scenario 2
Which is 3.846% against 3.846% so it's a 50-50 shot.

This is differs from the standard “Monty Hall” version of the problem in that in this game the jackpot can be eliminated in each round.

I'm quietly confident I'm correct but the chapter does ask us to "beware of your (or others') confident convictions.”

I read the chapter and it takes the pessimistic attitude that people can do the modeling wrong. I take an optimistic attitude that you can do the modeling right and apply it to some good.

I assume that there is some positive ideas on analysis and modeling elsewhere in the bbok?

His point is to be aware of the limitations of your models. The points made in that chapter I think were made better in Nassim Nicholas Taleb book Black Swan and apply especially to economic modelling. Possibly Donald Rumsfled best summarised the problem most succently: There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know.

It is probably a better approach to limit ourselves to what we know, which has proven sufficient to see we have a resource-use problem.

Likewise, the solutions will be better formulated if we stay the course and stick to using knowledge.

Therefore Rumsfeld's cute use of "unknown" is dictum as well as being unwise.

I do agree resource modelling can be accurate than economic modeling, there are some unkown unknowm resources out there, but they are probably harder to get at than our other resources.

If we were having this conservation in say 1990 ish would you consider shale gas an unknown unknown resource?

This is under the category of "reasoning under uncertainty" and there are all sorts of ways to deal with this problem. Bayesian probability, entropy-based methods, and some other techniques can be used. The problem is that no one has even tried doing this to any extent except for a few intrepid souls outside of the mainstream.

Edit:
Elsewhere in this thread Dredd brought up the exact same idea, so I am reinforcing what he said there.
http://europe.theoildrum.com/node/6978#comment-734402

"After all, most people spend their lives making decisions under uncertainty, and that's what dealing effectively with climate change demands - the same kind of decisions you make when you decide to buckle your seatbelt, or buy insurance for your house or invest in the financial markets."

Yes, "insurance" is one known way to deal with an uncertainty or unknown in the sense that we don't know what accidents will befall us for certain.

But we can all pull together with the concept of each one paying a small amount (insurance premium) that ends up taking care of larger costs when the eventual "known unknown" damages one of us.

That is known to work.

Not having insurance is known not to work in the long run.

Sticking to what we know will prove out in the long haul.

Agriculture allowed our cultural accent and Agriculture will now prevent our descent.

Wise Land management; Organic farming and afforestation can build back our soil carbon,

Biochar allows the soil food web to build much more recalcitrant organic carbon, ( living biomass & Glomalins) in addition to the carbon in the biochar.

Every 1 ton of Biomass yields 1/3 ton Charcoal for soil Sequestration (= to 1 Ton CO2e) + Bio-Gas & Bio-oil fuels = to 1MWh exported electricity, so is a totally virtuous, carbon negative energy cycle.

Biochar viewed as soil Infrastructure; The old saw;
"Feed the Soil Not the Plants" becomes;
"Feed, Cloth and House the Soil, utilities included !".
Free Carbon Condominiums with carboxyl group fats in the pantry and hydroxyl alcohol in the mini bar.
Build it and the Wee-Beasties will come.
Microbes like to sit down when they eat.
By setting this table we expand husbandry to whole new orders & Kingdoms of life.
( These oxidised surface charges; carbonyl. hydroxyl, carboxylic acids, and lactones or quinones, have as well a role as signaling substances towards bacteria, fungi and plants.)

This is what I try to get across to Farmers, as to how I feel about the act of returning carbon to the soil. An act of penitence and thankfulness for the civilization we have created. Farmers are the Soil Sink Bankers, once carbon has a price, they will be laughing all the way to it.
Unlike CCS which only reduces emissions, biochar systems draw down CO2 every energy cycle, closing a circle back to support the soil food web. The photosynthetic "capture" collectors are up and running, the "storage" sink is in operation just under our feet. Pyrolysis conversion plants are the only infrastructure we need to build out.

To me, in the long run, the final arbiter / accountancy / measure of sustainability will be
soil carbon content. Once this royal road is constructed, traffic cops ( Carbon Board ) in place, the truth of land-management and Biochar systems will be self-evident.

A dream I've had for years is to base the coming carbon economy firmly on the foundation of top soils. My read of the agronomic history of civilization shows that the Kayopo Amazon Indians and the Egyptians were the only ones to maintain fertility for the long haul, millennium scales. Egypt has now forsaken their geologic advantage by building the Aswan dam, and are stuck, with the rest of us, in the soil C mining, NPK rat race to the bottom. The meta-analysis of Syn-N and soil Carbon content show our dilemma;
https://www.agronomy.org/publications/jeq/articles/38/6/2295

The Ag Soil Carbon standard is in final review by the AMS branch at USDA. Both Congressional Ag Committees have asked for expansion of Soil Carbon Standard to ISO status.
Read over the work so far;
http://www.novecta.com/documents/Carbon-Standard.pdf

N & P CYCLES TOO;
Whole systems solutions based on building soil carbon take a while to filter through one's mind to see the manifold benefits. The "Eyes Glaze Over" microbial complexity, labile vs. recalcitrant carbon, Cation Exchange Capacity (CEC) etc, all conspire to slow peoples comprehension .

Once thought through however, the elemental carbon nature of biochar understood, soil's reduced GHG emissions, the local economic stimulus perceived, then can be added that beyond rectifying the Carbon Cycle, biochar systems serve the same healing function for the Nitrogen & Phosphorous Cycles, Toxicity in Soils & Sediments and cut the carbon foot print of livestock by 1/2 with a 5%Char feed ration.

The production of fossil fuel free ammonia & char (SynGest, http://www.syngest.com/ ) and the 52% conservation of NH3 in composting with chars, are just the newest pathways for the highest value use of biomass.

The Soil Carbon Standard committee's work with USDA, EPA and Congressional Ag committees offers real hope, with expansion to ISO status, the world can all be on the same soil carbon page.

Recent NATURE STUDY;
Sustainable bio char to mitigate global climate change
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n5/full/ncomms1053.html

Not talked about in this otherwise comprehensive study are the climate and whole ecological implications of new , higher value, applications of chars.

First,
the in situ remediation of a vast variety of toxic agents in soils and sediments.
Biochar Sorption of Contaminants;
http://www.biorenew.iastate.edu/events/biochar2010/conference-agenda/age...

Dr. Lima's work; Specialized Characterization Methods for Biochar http://www.biorenew.iastate.edu/events/biochar2010/conference-agenda/age...
And at USDA;
The Ultimate Trash To Treasure: *ARS Research Turns Poultry Waste into Toxin-grabbing Char
http://www.ars.usda.gov/IS/AR/archive/jul05/char0705.htm

Second,
the uses as a feed ration for livestock to reduce GHG emissions and increase disease resistance.

Third,
Recent work by C. Steiner showing a 52% reduction of NH3 loss when char is used as a composting accelerator. This will have profound value added consequences for the commercial composting industry by reduction of their GHG emissions and the sale of compost as a nitrogen fertilizer.

Since we have filled the air , filling the seas to full, Soil is the Only Beneficial place left.
Carbon to the Soil, the only ubiquitous and economic place to put it.

Thanks for your efforts.
Erich

Erich J. Knight
Chairman; Markets and Business Review Committee
US BiocharConference, at Iowa State University, June 27-30
http://www.biorenew.iastate.edu/events/biochar2010/conference-agenda/age...

Great post, Erich. I wonder whether there is a limit on biowaste as a feedstock, though. How much is available? What constitutes 'waste?' I recall that a pilot plant was opened near a turkey processing plant, and that though there was a lot of turkey guts and all, it was not enough to sustain production.

Craig

I wonder whether there is a limit on biowaste as a feedstock, though.

I'd bet your limiting factors are going to be:

1) Energy to place char back into the soil. Moving soil is hard work.
2) Cost of the machines to make char.
3) Labor to move biomass to the char machine then the char to the field.
4) rate of biomass to char conversion.

If you are running a farm operation - how much is that char machine gonna cost? What's the answer to "Why should I take the time to gather my biomass, feed it to the char machine, then invest time/energy/machinery to place that char back into the soil?"

What's the pay off for the farmer?

Certainly Manure & waste are the low hanging fruit that will lead the way to show the highest value added uses for thermally fractionated biomass.

Here are the ballpark numbers for a neighbor's Dairy& Poultry farm;

Integrity Ag Systems has the best integrated nutrient management systems I've seen.
16 tons per day Gasifier with Sterling gen-sets, of dairy & poultry manure processed to yield
annually;
$125K electric power
$200K Nutrient Credits
$150K Compost & Char sales
$60K USDA BCAP & REAP grants
http://www.rurdev.usda.gov/rbs/busp/9006grant.htm

http://www.integrityagsystems2.com/developer/

With N & P nutrient credits from ;
http://www.redbarnag.com/Home.htm

The farmer now rents land just to rid himself of the manure, his land having to much Phosphorous. Now densified into the char it can be sold to P deficient farms further afield.

Another pathway is The production of fossil fuel free ammonia & char (SynGest, http://www.syngest.com/ ) and the 52% conservation of NH3 in composting with chars, are just the newest pathways for the highest value use of biomass.

"The challenge is to build an industrial society which is based mainly on the elements of hope"

Hold on. Is Diederen saying that we can have a sustainable industrial society that is based on only abundant elements? OK, he said "mainly", which begs the question of whether non-abundant elements can be important in a sustainable industrial society.

Given that a society that is based on finite resources can't be sustainable, perhaps he's saying that if the society is based on elements that are abundant (both in resources and reserves) then it can go on for a long time. How long? Does it have growth?

You asked "Does it have growth?"

Growth is not all it is cracked up to be:

HILLMAN: You think people undertake therapy to grow? VENTURA: Isn't growth a huge part of the project of therapy? Everybody uses the word, therapists and clients alike. HILLMAN: But the very word grow is a word appropriate to children. After a certain age you do not grow: You don't grow teeth, you don't grow muscles. If you start growing after that age, its cancer.

(100 Years of Psychotherapy - Take Cover!). Growth of civilization, economy, or anything else without reason is the essence of cancer. In this sense or context, sound balance is the absence of growth.

I'm suprised nobody has commented on the current situation wrt the REE (Rare Earth Elements). These are the critical or noble metals of the above article valuable in many of the "Green"/renewable or higher-efficiency applications, i.e. they will make FF decline more bearable and give a glimmer of hope to society b4 we fall off the cliff...

To summarise my understanding of the situation;

1. China has for decades pumped out masses of this stuff at less-than-Western-cost, the upshot of this is that the World has very little supply outside China. "Rare Earths" are not really that rare only (now) rare in cheap form...
2. A good chunk of Chinese supply is illegal from effectively strip mining Southern clay-deposits, killing the landscape and local population with acids, etc, etc. The other major source: Bayan Obo, looks like a hellish place where a good fraction of the population die young of "Black Lung".
3. Within the last year they have decided to clean up their pollution act (things must be really bad!) and also realised that certain of the heavy REEs are going to 'run low' within 15-20 years. This does not fit with their 100 year plans at all.
4. Additionally it does not fit with global (and Chinese) needs to build out alternative green energy infrastructure and oil-replacements like wind turbines, hybrids +7% of oil refining output depends on 'Lanthanum'...

Their current strategy appears to be to spur non-Chinese supply by 'normalising' global REE prices -inevitably at massive hikes to the previously 'subsidized' prices- graphs of most REE prices now look like a step function with anything from 3 to 10x increases in just a few months...:
http://www.kaiserbottomfish.com/s/Education.asp?ReportID=362761&_Type=Ed...

However, it will take years to ramp up non-Chinese supply during which REE prices are likely to remain very high. The first to market will benefit greatly from this high price regime in a market that is likely to soar from Billions to tens of Billions in the coming decade; this sequence is roughly: GreatWesternM(2011), Lynas(2011), Molycorp(2012), followed 2014+ by {Avalon, QuestRE, Greenland Min? + a host of other come latelies IF they get the financing...}

The good news is that there is no medium long term shortage if we manage these resources with Billions of tons globally available (of course we need to spend Billions to create mines but that's the goal -provide the incentive and the JP Morgans of the World will be all over it like a rash)...

-I first read about REEs on the Oil-Drum, read Jack Liftons article years ago. The Chinese tried to buy Lynas before the recent run up. That should have been a flashing red light to any investors out their!

Regards, Nick.
___________________

The warning sign has been flashing for some time -I made 4 specific recommendations including Lynas and Avalon based on my research on the oil drum in Jan: http://netenergy.theoildrum.com/node/6121#comment-581178

Why is Afghanistan of strategic importance? Rare Earth Elements would be the correct answer.

I've been preparing my family for Peak Oil for 4 years now and made some helpful videos for people who wish to prepare.... I attached one of them here.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHmXhgBhtWk

MrEnergyCzar

Thanks everyone for these interesting comments. Diederen's book goes straight at the heart of the problem we have: how will society adapt to scarcity? Diederen is correct in proposing that democracy is probably not the best way to manage scarcity. Perhaps structures more similar to military ones will emerge. I am not sure that this is really what the future has in store for us - but it is a question that we need to face. As usual, the future cannot be predicted, but we can be prepared for it.