Population is a killer for Global Warming. Good news, Kinda.

The world's out of control human population growth is something that few people want to talk about loudly because it sounds so very insensitive. But the increase in world population at nearly exponential levels is non-sustainable and multiplies all issues of sustainability: exhausting natural resources, pollution, etc. Estimates are that world population will grow to between 9m and 11m by mid century and then slowly decline.

Source: OurWorldInData

The problem with increased population is a double whammy. Not only are there more people, but the footprint of each person should raise dramatically as more people enter the middle class (or higher). Countries like China and India that have burned only 2 barrels of oil per person annually, can be expected to move up their consumption to 4 or 5 times that, more in line with the USA. People that eat lower on the food chain, rice and corn, can be expect to start eating beef and pork which takes 20 to 30 times the resources to produce. 

But, a new study, published in the Lancet, has found that fertility rates since 1950 have dropped faster and further than anyone expected. (See the BBC article by James Gallagher on this study.)

The low fertility rates in developed countries means that their populations should start shrinking (without net immigration). In 1950 women had an average of 4.7 children in their lifetimes, a rate that is now half at 2.4! Fertility rates less than about 2.1 result in a decrease in population (excluding net immigration). Many of the developed countries, like the UK with 1.7, have less than 2. Japan has 1.3. With fewer young people to work, the aging retired population becomes a bigger and bigger burden on the economy. It will take decades for the change in fertility to work through the population levels. 

Economic development has long looks at the use of population to improve the overall economy; more people could/should result in more things produces and a bigger economy. However, per capita economic development can be significantly improved by reducing the number of children. If the economy increases at 5%, but population also increases at 5%, then the per capita income remains the same. China reduced the rate of population growth, and that contributed dramatically to the improved per capita income and the rise of the middle class. I just saw stats talking about the percent of Chinese in extreme poverty at about 1950; more than 90% of the population lived in extreme poverty (currently a purchase-power-parity of $1.9 per day). By 2018, only about 1% of Chinese are in extreme poverty.  Controlling their population was a big contributor to China moving to surpass the USA in terms of economic power (GDP of more than $23T vs $19.5T for US). (Of course their single-child policies have caused many other problems and has recently been relaxed.) 

China and India represent about 35.7% of the worlds population with 1.4B and 1.34B, respectively. China has stomped on the brakes for decades; India has only tapped on the brakes. China's growth rate is only 0.39, while India's is 1.2. US is 0.71 and Japan is -0.23.

So, a big sustainability question, is first to stop the increase in population world-wide and regionally. But should sustainability initiative actually champion the reduction of world population. One way or another we need to get back to the carrying capacity of Mother Earth.  When you look at Earth over-shoot day, which has moved to August 1, it becomes graphically clear how much we are depleting the earths resources to live beyond our means. Stated differently, about 212 days into the year, we exhausted the renewable resources provided by the earth (and sun), so the resources consumed in the remaining 153 days of the year are depleting resources. In 1987, overshoot day was December 19th; in 2000, overshoot day was November 1.

This is the same as your annual salary paying all your bills until August 1 (58% of the year), and then you have to borrow money to pay for the rest of the year. Each and every year, you have to borrow more because the overshoot day keeps moving earlier in the year. Non-sustainable issues like overshoot are cumulative, and compounding. Not only do you owe the cumulative total of all the borrowing, but the interest keeps growing at an expanding rate using the magic of compounding.

We need to get our overshoots (and deficits) under control, and start to make the magic of compounding work for us, not against. Getting countries (and world) population growth under control is probably the most important factor in sustainability, and ultimately, the health and wellness of our plant. It's pretty important, as well, for those things that have become accustomed to living on this planet.! 

Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink

Here it is the United Nations water report for 2015:
http://www.sustainablebrands.com/digital_learning/research_report/leadership/united_nations_world_water_development_report_2015?utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=schtweets&utm_campaign=social

As California suffer through water shortage, imagine what the rest of the world looks like. Now, imagine what the rest of the world will look like in the year 2050?
By that time we should have moved to a population of 9 to 11 billion!
The first chapter is on non-sustainable uses of water. The trends, including use of water, that are not sustainable, have a way of ending on gracefully!
Case in point, California.

Phosphate World: New golf resort is out of the ordinary for Florida

New golf resort is out of the ordinary for Florida:

This is a great case of making lemon-aid from your excess lemons. This is a very interesting way to reclaim the past mine areas and fully benefit from the hills and water hazards.

The open mining for phosphate in Florida has been an open eye sore to the tortured land in mid Florida. Huge dykes have been built up to block the view of the open pit mines. The water quality in the man-made lakes has generally been pretty poor.

Florida is one of the largest Phosphate producers of the world. And the need for food to serve a hungry 7B+ population requires fertilizer, and lots of it.

Phosphate (from mines) is a depletable resource, i.e., non-renewable. For decades the story was circulated that there were only about 25 years left of phosphate mining in Florida. See the Phosphate Primer for Florida. The actual number may be more like 300 years. But unrestrained development (sub-suburbs) are probably far more of a restriction than any environmental concerns.

Peak Phosphorus production in the work may actually arrive by 2030, maybe sooner. It seems like about 160M metric tons might be about the limit. However, phosphorus from phosphate mines, does not disappear from existence, like the burning of oil, gas and coal. It goes into the farm land, into the plants, and run-off goes everywhere (streams, rivers, oceans). The run-off causes its own set of ecological problems (disasters).

In 2013, the Army Corp of Engineers came up with a rather rosy study related to 4 new mines proposed. An article discussing the study in the Bradenton Herald is here. On of the quotes on an economic value were: "And there would be 6,340 more jobs because of the mines, and $29.1 billion in value added to the area's economy."

Read more here: http://www.bradenton.com/2013/05/12/4522121/phosphate-mining-damages-environment.html#storylink=cpy"

The general summary of the study was that the economic benefits far exceed the ecological impacts, which were many. The funding for the report actually came from the phosphate miners. A HeraldTribune article discusses the critics view, including this:

"Although the Army Corps put its name on the report, it was developed by CH2M Hill, under a third-party contract funded by Mosaic and CF Industries — the same mining companies seeking permits from the Corps."

Here's what the Sierra Club has to say about Phosphate Mining in Florida... Summary of lots of sources of info.

Check out the role of Patents in the Phosphate world over at ipzine.blogspot.com.

So, here's food for though, as we contemplate food for a hungry world...

Kinda makes you wonder, will we have a new theme park springing up in Florida: Phosphate World?

'via Blog this'

Little history on Recessions... Lessons in Recessions.

The question recently came up as to "I still have never gotten a great description how we got into the Great Depression?"

The truth is, it wasn't easy.

But one of the best 4 minute explanations ever is on this YouTube video: Causes of the Great Depression.

John Maynard Keynes, the king of Keynesian economics, would call these expansions and contractions, not recessions. You get them free with a capitalist economic system. With the exception of China, it seems that you may only get the contractions in communist systems (like USSR, Cuba, S. Korea and Venezuela).

Read more on the Great Depression at Wikipedia. As it pertains specifically to the USA, it is pretty heavy reading, though.

You can look at the similarities of the recessions of 2000 (the DotCom bomb) and the Great Recession of 2007-200x. In all cases there were financial bubbles at work. But the Great Recession was bubble-bulging in housing and financial markets throughout the USA and beyond. It effected all US industries and and all US States. No place to run from it, and no place to hide from it.

Apply called The Great Recession, it is a generational recession. That is, economists argue that you should only see such a recession about once in your lifetime.  Note the massive overhang of shadow banking and the increase in uncertainty (including the use of derivatives).

Of course, you should only experience a hurricane about once in your lifetime or see a massive flood about every 500 years. Sometimes historical precedent does not accurately foretell the future?

You should expect markets to overshoot, maybe wildly, in the future. The overshoot will be to down side and to the up, as well.

Keep going up, but carry a parachute.

BTW. Check out this article about doing the same-old, same old, after a recession obviously suggests that a new approach is needed. Creating the same college degrees as if there would be jobs for them is, well, not smart!

Hall, E. (2010). Lessons of recessions: Sustainability education and jobs may be the answer. Journal of Sustainability and Green Management. Jacksonville, FL: Academic and Business Research Institute. Retrieved from: http://www.aabri.com/OC2010Manuscripts/OC10079.pdf  

Keywords: recession, Recovery, Great Depression, Great Recession, Keynes, Sustainable Education

Sustainable Taxes... No laughing matter.

Sir Tax-a-LOT...

Lots of people are debating the argument that the US has taxes that are too high and that the current deficit will have to be cured by raising huge taxes.

Mankiw is the author of the leading text book on economics: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/


Check out his current post on our tax levels (permanent link): http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2010/03/taxes-per-person.html

What do you think. Are we overtaxed as a nation? And what's with the pundits that say we have the highest tax rates in ?world?... I haven't been able to find evidence on that assertion. If you count double taxation: Business max tax + Personal max tax (on dividends?) and you have a pretty good case for really high taxes, but eventually, really high taxes cause a shift in investment decisions into muni's etc. US people in the highest income levels have surprisingly low overall tax rates...

BUT as Laffer would tell ya, you put enough taxes on the golden goose and eventually it stops producing golden eggs. And the federal deficits are massive storm clouds hanging over the US and the World economies. That'z really no Laughing matter. EH.