Post New

Meanwhile, in China:

----Widespread concerns about getting a job and earning an income ' whether for a manual laborer looking for short-term construction work in a city far from home, or a recent university graduate looking for work at an internet company ' are troubling for the Chinese Communist Party and its powerful leader, Xi Jinping.

-----The unemployment rate for 16- to 24-year-olds hit a record 21 percent last month, although one economist thinks the real number may nearer to half."

I predict increasing migration, horrifically inhumane treatment and indifference to the undulating masses (hello Gov. Abbotts Rio Grande death traps)

"Technology" isn't going to get mankind out of this mess. Only reproductive self-control will do that.

Banning US promotion of modern family planning science to the beleaguered populations south of the USA; BIG MISTAKE.

"Technology" isn't going to get mankind out of this mess. Only reproductive self-control will do that.

Banning US promotion of modern family planning science to the beleaguered populations south of the USA; BIG MISTAKE.

The right doesn't like the idea of family planning.

Seems economists tend to ignore limits to growth, as if we live on a planet with endless resources. So little thought given to sustainability.

And, hey, you righties who hate immigrants, get ready for many, many more as climate change disruptions and overpopulation cause millions to try to migrate. It's happening now and it is going to get worse.

The flip side is not having enough young people to help support the old people. We're getting that a bit with the Boomers here. A surge in population (the Boomers) followed by a distinct decline in their children's and grandchildren's generations. Japan is getting that, too. Plus some other countries (I forget which ones...saw a news program a year or two ago). When SS was created, there were ~8 workers for every recipient of SS. Last I knew (about 20 years ago) that number as 4:1. I don't know what it is today, but that sort of system is problematic.

And, yes, the conservative side of the spectrum tends to want more "tradition". Mom stays at home raising a litter of kids, while dad goes out and supports them. In some places, lots of kids are necessary to support a family (and account for attrition, since not all of them survive). Eventually, that growth will overwhelm the planet. It already is. Some believe a god ordered it ("be fruitful and multiply"). Others, I firmly believe (but can't state as fact), want to see women subjugated**. There is some circumstantial support for that vis-a-vis the anti-choice movement is almost exclusively conservative, and to exercise control over someone's autonomy is a form of subjugation.

I won't belabor the history of women in the workplace. Suffice to say that since WWII, their presence and their roles in the workplace have been increasing and expanding (in the US). Today many women are opting not to have children at all, and many don't even want to get married (or partner-up for anything more than convenience). In the US today, only about 56% of women under 49 have had children. From my dusty memory, I'm recalling that number was about 90% when I was in my 20s (1980-ish). Japan is having similar issues that women want careers, not babies. Which causes real problems in terms of filling future jobs, and future economic support of care for the elderly population. The more extreme conservative position is that they belong home raising kids (or, to put it crudely, "barefoot and pregnant").

My personal opinion is that this will eventually even-out as AI and robots take-on more tasks. So the jobs will get done, but people won't be doing them. That won't solve the funding issues for government(s) (i.e. fewer workers means less revenue, which means taxes will have to be levied elsewhere).

Just to be clear, I fully support women's rights (and have since I was old enough to think about such things). Bodily autonomy, equality in the workplace, equality in society. But a declining birthrate is an economic problem that needs to be addressed (without subjugating half of the population), while simultaneously being better for the planet.



**Some, again, are "traditional". Some are threatened by women. There is a theory that because women generally know whom the father of any offspring is, that some men try to assert control to assure any offspring are theirs.

The flip side is not having enough young people to help support the old people.

Yes. Looking at things mostly from an economic viewpoint. But that's why we are digging deeper into the hole we are in. Short term thinking. Little thought to long term sustainability and quality of life.

The year I was born (1950) world population was about 2.5 billion. US population was a little over 151 million.

Today... world: almost 8 billion, US: 332 million.

Such growth is NOT sustainable. And, yes, I understand the trends are expected to slow, but even these current levels may not be long term sustainable. They will almost certainly contribute to a degradation in quality of life for most people. Malthus was not wrong. Ehrlich was not wrong. They just didn't appreciate how amazingly good humanity would be at coming up with short term fixes and responding to crises. But we're not good at long term planning. Regardless of what economists seem to think, the earth's resources are finite.

I agree with you. This is not sustainable, and climate change is making it even more difficult. I was just pointing out that the flip-side comes with its own challenges, and its own pain.

Seems economists tend to ignore limits to growth, as if we live on a planet with endless resources. So little thought given to sustainability.

I don't think there are any actual, practicing economists who would contend that we live on a planet with endless resources. Quite the contrary - the idea of scarcity is fundamental to the core of economics. A huge part of economics is indeed the study of how scarce resources are allocated within a society.**

What many economists will say is that the amount of economic output that can be obtained from those finite resources can continue to increase, even as the resources do not. The rate of growth in economic goods is not limited by rate of growth of inputs, but can be increased by technology and/or efficiency in converting inputs to outputs.

That's why Malthus was wrong. That's why Ehrlich was wrong - or is wrong, since he's still alive and I assume his views haven't changed all that much.

Albaby


** For convenience, in certain contexts, economists may assume as a simplifying heuristic that the availability of certain specific resources (like sunshine or information in the public domain) are not scarce - but not resources writ large.

I predict increasing migration, horrifically inhumane treatment and indifference to the undulating masses (hello Gov. Abbotts Rio Grande death traps) - sano

No danger at all if you enter at an authorized port of entry.

I was just pointing out that the flip-side comes with its own challenges, and its own pain.

Yes, I agree. So much pain I don't if there is really any kind of fix, outside of the impact natural disasters or entropic collapse might have.

That's why Malthus was wrong. That's why Ehrlich was wrong - or is wrong, since he's still alive and I assume his views haven't changed all that much.

But it cannot go on forever. Endless growth is not possible.

But it cannot go on forever. Endless growth is not possible.

That doesn't mean that we're anywhere close to the limits to growth (to coin a phrase). Inputs are limited and finite by what's on the planet (for now) - but outputs are limited only by the creativity, skill, knowledge, and technology of humanity. Which can - and have - grown much much faster than Malthus or Ehrlich envisioned.

And no one need "endless growth." At some point, you would reach a 'post-scarcity' society - where any physical object can be provided to any person near-instantly at near-zero cost. For an analog, consider the world of Star Trek: TNG, or Iain Banks' Culture series. If you grow enough, you reach the point where you've grown enough - where additional growth is possible, but just unnecessary.

Regardless of whether you think such a society is possible (within the laws of physics or culturally), there's no reason to believe that the central thesis of Malthus or Ehrlich - that we can't have growth without "using up" the world - is correct.

Albaby

That doesn't mean that we're anywhere close to the limits to growth (to coin a phrase).

I understand what you're saying and I like your optimism but I still think we are beyond a reasonable carrying capacity. Not saying we can't continue this way, but I do not think it is going to be good for the planet or humanity.

Look at our consumption and waste and its impact on the environment. I'm sure we can do many creative things to ameliorate the impacts and that is what we must do. The people are here.

Look at our consumption and waste and its impact on the environment. I'm sure we can do many creative things to ameliorate the impacts and that is what we must do. The people are here.

Sure - but that's a question of policy. It's not a inevitable consequence of increasing population.

I mean, look at the U.S. Since 1970, we've added 130 million people - more than an 50% increase in our population. Yet in most aspects, the environment is better than it was back then, thanks to the Clean Air Act and Clean Water Act and many other environmental regulations. Which is the paradox of economic development - wealthy economically developed countries generally tend to have more protective environmental regulations than poorer developing ones. They also tend to have vastly lower population growth rates as well.

My personal opinion is that this will eventually even-out as AI and robots take-on more tasks. So the jobs will get done, but people won't be doing them.

I'm talking about the birds and the bees and the disappearing fish in the seas..... the changing weather patterns in in Honduras. This is the first year our little town has no salmon fishing season (population crash).

Alaska is cancelling salmon fishing as they fight over who gets to take the last remaining fish.

Whales, once on the rebound from over hunting, are starving. Canaries in the coal mine don't shiv a git about economics or AI

AI is swell. What's it going to do about overfishing, exhausted water sources, food chains collapsing.

No danger at all if you enter at an authorized port of entry.

Yup. Like I said... horrifically inhumane treatment and indifference.

That doesn't mean that we're anywhere close to the limits to growth (to coin a phrase).

My inclination is to turn off the laptop and walk to the beach muttering about what people aren't seeing.

For an analog, consider the world of Star Trek: TNG, or Iain Banks' Culture series.

Meanwhile, back on earth...

Have you ever watched a starving grey whale calf try to suckle the keel of a boat because it's mother died in it's final act of giving birth? Emaciated, the cow lacked the strength to complete it's annual migration the final 500 miles to the warm lagoons where they have birthed since time began. So she pupped in the cold waters off Los Angeles, and sank in the shallows; rocks in her belly in a last attempt to scoop up some nourishment from a seafloor devoid of life thanks to industrial chem dumping; a superfund site AI and economists cannot resolve.

where any physical object can be provided to any person near-instantly at near-zero cost

We'll all get 500' BezosBoats at near zero cost? Let them eat NFTs"

But what about the other creatures in the chain of life on this planet?

My inclination is to turn off the laptop and walk to the beach muttering about what people aren't seeing.

Why?

I thought it was fairly non-controversial that the world could decarbonize (more or less) within the space of a few decades (say, 2060) with a global per capita GDP at that time that is massively higher than the global GDP of, say, 2010. We're probably not going to, of course. But that's a matter of policy choices (and a whole lot of collective action problems) - not an inevitable consequence of population levels or resource limits.

Because we've made such amazing advances in technology compared to, say, a few decades ago we certainly can have a global economy that can support 8 or 9 billion people at a higher standard of living than today (on average) within the resources available on earth and without suffering the consequences you describe in your post. We're going to not choose to do that.

Because we've made such amazing advances in technology compared to, say, a few decades ago we certainly can have a global economy that can support 8 or 9 billion people at a higher standard of living than today (on average) within the resources available on earth and without suffering the consequences you describe in your post. We're going to not choose to do that.

It's all about energy production. Energy is the ball game. With it, you grow your economy. Without it, you don't.

There are 5 ways of actual reliable power generation with either a low or a near-zero carbon footprint.

1. Nuclear
2. Hydroelectric
3. Geothermal
4. Tidal
5. Natual gas

Nuclear we just won't do because of the stigma attached to it.
Hydro is actually *disfavored* by green types.
Geothermal is another option; not sure why this is rarely pursued at scale.
Tidal power requires potentially disturbing in-shore habitats
Natural gas is hated by greens but actually is fairly clean to extract and burn.

Notice what *aren't* on this list: solar and wind.

Yes, overfishing is a problem. I heard about the Alaska salmon thing. That is another consequence of overpopulation. Even if we get carbon under control (unlikely), demands for food will continue to strain the ecosystem. It will take time, but as I pointed out, women in developed nations are opting to have fewer (if any) children. If that trend continues, the population will probably start to decline. Loren on TMF thought it would peak around 8-9B, and then reverse. I forget now what his projected final steady-state population figure was. Maybe 6B? It will take decades, and we may not have that much time. I fully expect a more sudden population reduction in the form of a huge war, largely caused by climate changes that make food and water scarce (e.g. fish stocks collapsing, droughts, etc). Loren was more optimistic about that, but I wasn't.

In addition to food and water, there is energy (as Dope1 said). That is vital to have a developed society, and a developed society -that emancipates women- is much more likely to have limited population growth. But energy at the expense of the environment -and all the environment provides us- is a pyrrhic victory, at best.

I mean, look at the U.S. Since 1970, we've added 130 million people - more than an 50% increase in our population. Yet in most aspects, the environment is better than it was back then...

I like your optimism; wish I shared it. But, with what I've been witnessing on the ocean day in/day out for decades, I can't.

Articles I read on pollution in the GoM aren't quite so optimistic. And then there's the whole enchilada:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2023/jul/2...

Even if we get carbon under control (unlikely), demands for food will continue to strain the ecosystem. It will take time, but as I pointed out, women in developed nations are opting to have fewer (if any) children. If that trend continues, the population will probably start to decline. Loren on TMF thought it would peak around 8-9B, and then reverse.

Maybe? I mean, not necessarily?

Right now, we're at just under 8 billion. Global population projections vary, but generally speaking we're pretty likely to peak at around 10 billion (give or take). Total Fertility Rates have been dropping since the 1960's, so there's not all that much growth left in the ol' Population Bomb.

Meanwhile, though, total global food production is about a third higher than global food requirements. I mean, it's more complicated than just looking at total caloric generation vs. needs - food distribution is heavily uneven geographically and across income levels (both between and within countries), and there are some nutrients that are more adequately produced than others.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnut....

But by and large, at the highest level of generalization, we are today producing more food than we will need in order to feed everyone even at the peak of global population. Malthus was wrong, and will never ever be right.

Now then - does that mean we're out of the woods? Of course not - human choices have an enormous impact on the environment, and people were perfectly capable of destroying fisheries and herds even without any demographic need to do so. But it means that such environmental damages are not the inevitable consequence of having "overpopulation." They're the result of our societal and economic choices, not the destiny of limited resources or biology.

I like your optimism; wish I shared it. But, with what I've been witnessing on the ocean day in/day out for decades, I can't.

Why not? The Clean Water Act works. I'm not sure what part of the ocean you're looking at, specifically - but almost every measure of water pollution has improved over the last 50 years:

https://www.nrdc.org/bio/jon-devine/fifty-years-af...

...even while population, economic growth, and development has galloped along. Population growth and economic growth are not ineluctably tied to environmental damage growing. You can have both (we've had both) economic and population growth for decades while pollution has fallen.

Whatever you're witnessing on the ocean is almost certainly the result of political and societal choices - not the inescapable consequences of economic growth.

".....women in developed nations are opting to have fewer (if any) children. If that trend continues, the population will probably start to decline. Loren on TMF thought it would peak around 8-9B, and then reverse.

Yes/but. The migration of the masses from south to north is akin to everybody running to the high end of the boat, while those remaining behind rearrange deck chairs.

I was hopeful. Now I just watch in amazement as anti-immigrant sentiment swells in developed countries.

Why not? The Clean Water Act works. I'm not sure what part of the ocean you're looking at, specifically - but almost every measure of water pollution has improved over the last 50 years:

And one needs only to visit Pittsburg or Cleveland for proof of that.

I'm not sure what part of the ocean you're looking at, specifically

Me personally at this moment? No longer working between Los Angeles and San Diego, I'm staring at the CA Central Coast, overlooking the potential site of the world's largest BESS (courtesy of Vistra) and the new 300sq mile offshore lease where wind turbines will be moored macerating flights of brant, and a crisscross network of electrical cables bisecting migration routes of grey and humpback whales. But the masses need air-conditioning, so it will be done.

For your side of the yard, look at GoM. I don't foresee supermarkets imposing meat reductions in an effort to help the GoM recover. Also, the SCOTUS recently reversed the Clean Water provision that would prevent pollution of land connected to navigable waters. Whether you call it pandering to greed or meeting the needs of the population, it's Bad Juju!

https://www.stltoday.com/dead-zone-in-crosshairs/a...

They're the result of our societal and economic choices, not the destiny of limited resources or biology.

Whatever you're witnessing on the ocean is almost certainly the result of political and societal choices - not the inescapable consequences of economic growth.

Extinct and decimated species don't differentiate between choices and sheer dumb numbers.

Either way, decimated is decimated.

Yes/but. The migration of the masses from south to north is akin to everybody running to the high end of the boat, while those remaining behind rearrange deck chairs.

But it's not. The boat isn't sinking. The improvements are happening in both in developed and undeveloped countries. TFR is collapsing in Africa and South America also - in the latter, it's already dropped below replacement rate:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/f...
https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/LCR/latin-am...

....all while global poverty has collapsed. Seriously. In 2000, about 70% of the world lived in absolute poverty - virtually unchanged from the 1980 level. Since then, that number has dropped to about 47%:

https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/po...

The world is so much better than it was forty or fifty years ago! Why would you lose hope at a time when there's more reason to be hopeful than ever?

70% of the world lived in absolute poverty - virtually unchanged from the 1980 level. Since then, that number has dropped to about 47%:

Percentages are one thing. Real numbers another.
70% of 4 billion is 2.8 billion in poverty.
47% of 8 billion is 3.76 billion in poverty.
I doubt the additional billion in poverty are much comforted by the percentages.


The world is so much better than it was forty or fifty years ago! Why would you lose hope at a time when there's more reason to be hopeful than ever?

The rise in energy and industrial production, the increasing real numbers of people in poverty, is coming at the expense of the environment.

As others have mentioned, it's just not sustainable.

edited for format.

Albaby: 70% of the world lived in absolute poverty - virtually unchanged from the 1980 level. Since then, that number has dropped to about 47%

Percentages are one thing. Real numbers another.
70% of 1980's 4 billion is 2.8 billion in poverty.
47% of 8 billion is 3.76 billion in poverty.

I doubt the additional billion people in poverty are much comforted by the percentages.


The world is so much better than it was forty or fifty years ago! Why would you lose hope at a time when there's more reason to be hopeful than ever?

The rise in energy and industrial production, the increasing real numbers of people in poverty, is coming at the expense of the environment.

As others have mentioned, it's just not sustainable.

Rounded off figures 4 billion/8/billion from
https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/wor...

I won't speak for him, but my concern is whether all the positives are in time to counteract ecosystem collapse. Doesn't matter if everyone is out of poverty if the ecosystem can no longer support us.

if the ecosystem can no longer support us. - 1pg

---------------

Stated that way it is like it is binary. Now it supports us, in the future it won't support us.

"Us". All of us?

I think a better way to state it would be, as the ecosystem deteriorates, it will steadily support fewer of us.

Frankly, what's the problem with that? If the issue is over population, nature is simply imposing a solution by reducing our population. But there will always be a few billion of us around to wage wars and argue politics with one another, so "civilization" such as it is continues.

<<The rise in energy and industrial production, the increasing real numbers of people in poverty, is coming at the expense of the environment.
As others have mentioned, it's just not sustainable.>>

And the GOP fiddles while America burns...
The world is literally on fire this summer, the ocean around Florida is as warm as a hot tub
and Kevin McCarthy and his merry band of imbeciles in the GOP are holding hearings on ... UFO's.

How much $$ did we waste on that nonsense?

Bonhoeffer's Theory of Stupidity in action!

I doubt the additional billion people in poverty are much comforted by the percentages.

Probably not. But I would think that the additional three billion people who get to live lives that are not impovershed very much are.

The rise in energy and industrial production, the increasing real numbers of people in poverty, is coming at the expense of the environment.

As others have mentioned, it's just not sustainable.

They've mentioned it, but haven't supported it. As I noted upthread, the U.S. has increased its population by more than 50% (and increased income by far more than that) over the last fifty years....and the environment is generally in better shape than it was in the 1970's. Certainly not in each and every specific spot, of course - after all, we have taken some parts of the environment and completely developed them, and other areas are newly polluted. But we have also witnessed the dramatic cleanup of many other places - you can swim safely in the Hudson or the Chesapeake Bay again, and the Cuyahoga isn't on fire nearly as often.

Population growth and economic development doesn't have to be an environmental catastrophe. In fact, economic development may be more sustainable than poverty - rich western developed economies tend to be (overall) more protective in terms of environmental regulations than poor, developing, or largely subsistence agricultural countries. Indeed, economic development appears to carry with it the seeds of its own sustainability, not destruction - as people become wealthier and less ag-dependent, they end up caring more about environmental protections and having fewer children.

Seems pretty sustainable to me. Doomsayers like Malthus and Ehrlich have been claiming we're on the verge of imminent collapse for....well, pretty much always you can find someone saying that the end is nigh. Yet overall, the natural environment of the U.S. is in better shape than it was fifty years ago. Seems like we're headed in the right direction - with fits and starts, but still generally improving over time while still growing quickly.

Albaby

And the GOP fiddles while America burns...
The world is literally on fire this summer, the ocean around Florida is as warm as a hot tub
and Kevin McCarthy and his merry band of imbeciles in the GOP are holding hearings on ... UFO's.

Oh ya, it's the GOP fault for 'The world is literally on fire this summer'

I blame Mother Nature.
It's what happens on Earth for the last few billion years or so. Too bad we don't have records going back that far in time.

https://www.history.com/news/the-hottest-day-on-ea...

The world is so much better than it was forty or fifty years ago! Why would you lose hope at a time when there's more reason to be hopeful than ever?

Really?

I know my views are somewhat colored by the life I've lived and the work I've done. I was fortunate to grow up spending a lot of time in the outdoors and then to have a career with the National Park Service.

What we are good at is bandaid type fixes that do not address long term sustainability. More population means more stress on world resources even if we are clever at finding ways around the problems in the short term.

Quality of life issues are a mixed bag, but for me personally, many of the changes that have come with increased population are negative.

I'm old and won't be around long, but I have offspring and I truly worry about their future.

But as I said before...I sincerely appreciate your optimism and hope your view is the correct one!

More population means more stress on world resources even if we are clever at finding ways around the problems in the short term.

Again, I question whether this assertion is correct. We can be clever at finding ways around the problems in the long run as well.

Plus, as I mentioned upthread, we're actually pretty close to the endpoint here in terms of population growth. Global fertility rates have been plummeting for decades, as economic development spreads across the world. World population doubled from 1970 to now - it won't rise more than another 25% from current levels, and is expected to start declining from there to below where it is now. We know now what defuses the population bomb - economic development. Both China and India have fallen below replacement rate (China drastically so); Indonesia will probably be there within the next decade. So even just finding a way around the problems in the short run might be enough.

If the issue is over population, nature is simply imposing a solution by reducing our population.

Nature has nothing to do with it. Nuclear power plants, dumping billions of gallons of industrial waste into our seas and waterways isn't "natural."

Nature is the victim. Overpopulation is the perp.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18072023/alaska...

Probably not. But I would think that the additional three billion people who get to live lives that are not impovershed very much are

I care less about the impoverished masses than the accelerating extinction of species.

"....you can swim safely in the Hudson ..."

That's not even a successful cherrypicked example. The 'safe to swim' caliber of self-congratulatory schtick government are fond of spreading are lipstick on a pig, sir.

How were you hoodwinked?

<<"The Hudson River remains the largest Superfund site in the country, largely due to General Electric dumping an estimated 1.3 million pounds of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) into the Hudson River between 1947 and 1977.

Though the devastating impacts on the river remain and have possibly increased based on recent studies, public awareness about the severity of the damage has waned. Scientific studies are showing that cleanup efforts are not successful to the degree projected, and the likely spread of PCBs down the Hudson River has only increased over time.

GE's PCBs are still found at dangerous levels in sediment, water and wildlife throughout the Hudson River ecosystem as far south as the New York Harbor. These PCBs are also found in people."

The landmark 2009-2015 dredging project removed PCBs from 'hotspots' in a 40-mile stretch of the Upper River above Troy, but nothing further has been done to address contamination in the Lower River. Fish throughout the Superfund site remain hazardous to eat, and the dredging has had little to no effect on PCB levels in fish below the Troy dam.>>

https://www.riverkeeper.org/campaigns/stop-pollute...

rich western developed economies tend to be (overall) more protective in terms of environmental regulations than poor

When Obama said he'd level the playing field, I'd hoped he'd ban importing products that were not manufactured according to US environmental standards. No such luck. The US shifted pollution to less restrictive nations just as those nations are exporting their droughts to the USA. Pollution sent into the air and water on behalf of our consumerist population IS our pollution.

That's not even a successful cherrypicked example. The 'safe to swim' caliber of self-congratulatory schtick government are fond of spreading are lipstick on a pig, sir.

It was just illustrative.

As I cited upthread, levels of industrial pollution across the United States have materially declined since the adoption of the CWA. Not just the rates of pollution - overall, the levels of ambient pollution present in the waters of the U.S. are significantly lower than prior to the adoption of the Clean Water Act. From the abstract of the study mentioned in that article:

"Since the 1972 U.S. Clean Water Act, government and industry have invested over $1 trillion to abate water pollution, or $100 per person-year. Over half of U.S. stream and river miles, however, still violate pollution standards. We use the most comprehensive set of files ever compiled on water pollution and its determinants, including 50 million pollution readings from 240,000 monitoring sites and a network model of all U.S. rivers, to study water pollution's trends, causes, and welfare consequences. We have three main findings. First, water pollution concentrations have fallen substantially. Between 1972 and 2001, for example, the share of waters safe for fishing grew by 12 percentage points."

https://www.nrdc.org/bio/jon-devine/fifty-years-af...
https://academic.oup.com/qje/article/134/1/349/509...

Again, although the U.S. population is half again larger than it was, and the GDP is significantly larger than it was, prior to the adoption of the CWA our waters are cleaner and continuing to get cleaner.

Overpopulation is not the culprit. Pollution does not have to increase with rising population. Investment in pollution control measures (specifically wastewater treatment plants and controls on industrial discharges) and regulatory requirements can and do allow us to increase economic growth without increasing pollution.

Whether we choose to do that is another story - though generally speaking, the richer the country the more they're going to choose to "spend" some of that wealth on environmental quality. Regardless, it is entirely possible to grow one's economy and population without increasing pollution.

Albaby

I think a better way to state it would be, as the ecosystem deteriorates, it will steadily support fewer of us.

Yes, until it reaches a tipping point at which time it may not support any of us. But I can accept your quibble. :-)

In the end, nature will impose limits on us. If we're smart, we won't push it that far. The resulting suffering will be horrendous. If we take as a moral basis the maximizing of human flourishing, and minimizing of human suffering, it could be considered "immoral" what we are doing to the planet.

Your link addresses ongoing pollution; not superfund sites that polluters cannot and/or will not deal with.

Also from your link:

As successful as the law has been, the country still has a long way to go if we are going to achieve the Act's goals of ensuring fishable and swimmable waters and eliminating pollutant discharges (both of which were supposed to be accomplished by the mid-1980s).


The Bad News: The Clean Water Act Hasn't Achieved its Goals

As successful as the law has been, the country still has a long way to go if we are going to achieve the Act's goals of ensuring fishable and swimmable waters and eliminating pollutant discharges (both of which were supposed to be accomplished by the mid-1980s).

Look at the state of water bodies today: 53 percent of assessed rivers and streams; 71 percent of assessed lakes, reservoirs and ponds; and 80 percent of assessed bays and estuaries don't meet one or more state standards meant to ensure that waterways are safe for things like fishing and swimming.

In addition, a massive toxic algae outbreak has closed all of Mississippi's Gulf Coast beaches, with the state warning that people are at risk of 'rashes, stomach cramps, nausea, diarrhea and vomiting.' These outbreaks are fueled by water pollution and are popping up all around the country, with scary reports coming in from New Jersey to the New York Finger Lakes to California. And the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration recently warned that the Gulf of Mexico 'dead zone,' an area where algae decomposition sucks oxygen from the water and can kill aquatic life, will be very large this summer, due to major rainstorms washing pollution down the Mississippi River.
The Ugly News: EPA's Assault on the Clean Water Act

Against this backdrop of significant, but also significantly incomplete, progress, the federal agency responsible for implementing and enforcing the Clean Water Act'the Environmental Protection Agency'has launched a broad and relentless attack on numerous protections in the law. If EPA succeeds in making these radical changes, the agency will make water pollution substantially worse.

First, EPA proposed to repeal the 2015 Clean Water Rule, which clarified what water bodies EPA would protect from harm and which was based on a robust scientific record. In its place EPA proposed the Dirty Water Rule, which would exclude at least 18 percent of streams (the actual figure is likely much higher) and more than half of wetlands from protection. Remarkably, however, EPA utterly failed to assess what its Dirty Water Rule will mean for drinking water safety, its potential to render waterways too polluted for fishing or swimming, the likely increases in flooding-related damages to property when protective wetlands are destroyed, or the viability of water-reliant businesses. The Dirty Water Rule is so poorly conceived and reckless that states, tribal nations, fishermen, landscape architects, river guides, brewers, and lots of scientists (to name a few) told EPA to drop it.

Second, EPA also plans to make it easier for wastewater plants to release partially-treated sewage during rainstorms. As 69 conservation groups told EPA, pursuing this rollback makes no sense given how little evidence the agency has that authorizing increased sewage blending will not cause harm

We cannot keep up with the population. Maybe 'we could' but we aren't, and that's what matters. (If wishes were fishes...)

Your argument ignores the fact that offshoring production to regions without environmental protections is just peeing in another part of the pool.

We cannot keep up with the population.

Again, the evidence points to the contrary. We've increased the population, and pollution levels are declining. We're not only keeping up with the population, but we're reducing pollution emissions faster than the population is increasing.

Your argument ignores the fact that offshoring production to regions without environmental protections is just peeing in another part of the pool.

Because the amounts are trivial. On the whole, the amount we consume in the U.S. (manufactured and imported) is roughly equal to the amount we produce in the U.S. (manufactured and exported). The U.S. does import a decent amount of goods, and some of them are environmentally dirty - but it also exports a lot as well. We import a lot of cars....but we also export a lot of cars. Net imports are "only" about $900 billion, or roughly 3.5% of the economy. In some areas, we have a lot of imports (consumer electronics is of course the most obvious). But we also are a massive net exporter in certain products that have a big environmental, like refined petroleum products (gasoline and diesel), or ag products like soybeans.

And even in areas where we import more than we export, we're not entirely (or even mainly) importing from regions "without environmental protections." For example, behind consumer electronics, our next largest import category is cars. But almost all of our cars are imported from developed countries - Japan, the EU (mostly Germany), Canada, and South Korea. Sure, Mexico is a leading supplier (about 20%) - but it's not as though Mexico is entirely without environmental regulations. Half of all U.S. imports come from OECD nations.

At most, you might have a percentage point or two of net U.S. production being offshored to countries that are outside the OECD. Which is minor, on the whole, compared to the degree in reduction in pollution levels.

Nature has nothing to do with it. Nuclear power plants, dumping billions of gallons of industrial waste into our seas and waterways isn't "natural."

Nature is the victim. Overpopulation is the perp.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/18072023/alaska...

The article talks about warming seas and fish trawlers catching salmon they treat as waste. Nothing to do with nuclear power plants, or dumping industrial waste. I view nuclear as one of the answers to our energy pollution discarded by emotional fear mongering by the eco left. Loren Cobb and I agreed in this area.

We also seemed to be totally ineffective at getting the Chinese to stop polluting.

I view nuclear as one of the answers to our energy pollution discarded by emotional fear mongering by the eco left. Loren Cobb and I agreed in this area.

I agree also. And, last I knew, the "eco-left" included Greenpeace, who came out in favor of nuclear power some years ago. They viewed it as the lesser evil.

The anti-nuclear folks do have valid points. The waste is hazardous, and has to be handled properly. Also, power plants need to be standardized to reduce costs, and increase safety. France figured that out a long time ago, which is why their program has worked for decades.

We also seemed to be totally ineffective at getting the Chinese to stop polluting.

We should remove them from the MFN trading list. We should also impose tariffs/penalties for any product that is not manufactured to the same health/safety standards we would demand here. My former-company offshored semiconductor assembly (i.e. the plastic rectangles with the metal leads) because it is an extremely dirty process, and the amount of scrubbing necessary in the US was regarded as too costly. So, as sano said, we peed in their end of the pool instead of ours simply because it was cheaper.

Again, the evidence points to the contrary

I've provided you with documentation that, in real numbers, poverty is increasing, the rate of increase of pollution may be slowing, but it's cumulative to existing pollution that is not being resolved (if it can ever be resolved).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Superfund_si...

There's no way to mitigate thousands of square miles of sea floor carpeted in toxic chems.

You seem to consider economic progress as the benchmark of environmental success; not the ongoing, cumulative damage to the environment that's incurred in the attempt to meet the needs of the human mass.

Without planetary health, what's the point of wealth? And I'm not talking about healthcare statistics or the number of Audis and Mercedes that cross the Atlantic. I'm talking about the health of the planet; it's flora and fauna.... the thousands of miles of lead lined telecom cables that are -surprise- leaching lead into the environment, and other newly discovered woopsies that accompany the rapid rollouts of modern technology.

We should also impose tariffs/penalties for any product that is not manufactured to the same health/safety standards we would demand here. - 1pg

==============

Agree in terms of a longer term goal. But we have learned (I hope) we are far too dependent on China for pharmaceuticals, certain raw materials such as Cobalt & Lithium, Semi conductors especially after China seizes Taiwan, and cheap plastic crap sold at Walmart.

OK, we probably could do without that last one, but we need to tread lightly with trade sanctions until we re-shore certain key manufacturing and establish reliable supply chains for raw materials, including god forbid start mining those minerals from proven extensive US deposits.

We also seemed to be totally ineffective at getting the Chinese to stop polluting.

They're not going to. Their national economic strategy (with all the incentives derived from that) is to drive economic expansion such that the rest of the world is dependent on China for both finished goods and key ingredients. Pollution and Global Warming aren't things they give a rip about.

And, last I knew, the "eco-left" included Greenpeace, who came out in favor of nuclear power some years ago. They viewed it as the lesser evil.

Maybe it was another eco-left group? From their site:

"Greenpeace has always fought ' and will continue to fight ' vigorously against nuclear power because it is an unacceptable risk to the environment and to humanity. The only solution is to halt the expansion of all nuclear power, and for the shutdown of existing plants."

https://www.greenpeace.org/international/tag/nucle...

But I also noted that Eco left groups I've never heard of were endorsing nuclear.

I agree on China.

Their national economic strategy (with all the incentives derived from that) is to drive economic expansion such that the rest of the world is dependent on China for both finished goods and key ingredients. Pollution and Global Warming aren't things they give a rip about.

I recall the conservative populist argumentation on TMF as big box stores drove mom n' pop stores out of business.

They defended the cheap imports as beneficial to the workin' man who otherwise couldn't afford the low price crap the big box stores imported. Good for the workin' man, good for America. Not so good for the planet. Whoops.

<<Pollution and Global Warming aren't things they (China) give a rip about.>>

The same could be said for many Republicans...

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive." ~Trump

"There is a very scientific word for this: It's called summer." ~Tommy Tuberville R-Ala

"Every summer, heat waves inevitably hit the U.S., causing climate alarmists and left-leaning media outlets to demand dramatic, disastrous changes to the global energy system.
Unfortunately, this summer is no different." ~Fox News

"It's hot for sure, but we also know that weather cycles. What we do know about them is they've been going on for a long time. How much we can impact them that's the question. I doubt we can." ~Kevin Cramer R-N.D.

"NBC News just called it the great freeze, coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?" ~Trump

"I don't know about you guys, but I think climate change is ' as Lord Monckton said ' bullsh*t." ~Ron Johnson, Wisconsin Republican

"Obama's talking about all of this with the global warming and...a lot of it's a hoax. It's a hoax. I mean, it's a money-making industry, OK? It's a hoax, a lot of it." ~Trump

Meanwhile, the Republican Party is attacking the Biden administration's effort to make home appliances more efficient.
Fox News and other right-wing media have dutifully dubbed the federal effort as Biden's "war on appliances."

big box stores drove mom n' pop stores out of business. - sano

---------------

Uh, No.

It was the government and only the government that ran the mom and pop stores out of business by ordering them closed. Since the big box stores could remain open, they made a rational decision to do so but that did not make them the cause of the mom and pop closures.

Fox News and other right-wing media have dutifully dubbed the federal effort as Biden's "war on appliances."

'Fear sells and the sheep are hungry.'

Fox knows it well and so creates wars.

War on Christmas.

War on Christians

War on men

War on families

War on halloween

War on styrofoam

War on straws

War on cows

War on American tradition.

Trump loves the poorly educated. Fox knows the poorly educated are easily goaded in believing there are many wars that need to be fought.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGhEVFyD9Q8

It was the government and only the government that ran the mom and pop stores out of business by ordering them closed.

I think you're referring to the pandemic years?

I'm talking about a period of time way before that when, as just one example, Staples grew and mom n' pop stationary stores could not compete.

Another... Home Depots and Lowes eliminated the family hardware stores (except those who became ACE hardware stores)

All kinds of businesses that did not or could not scale up, mass marketing cheap imported products, went under to the huge corporate stores that did.

Of course, online shopping would eventually do something similar, but that's another story (or is it?).

I think you're referring to the pandemic years?

I'm talking about a period of time way before that when, as just one example, Staples grew and mom n' pop stationary stores could not compete. - sano

-------------------------------

Sorry, I missed that, and agree with you about the pre-pandemic decline of mom and pops. Walmart was especially hard on small towns, my small hometown in Indiana included.

Government still has a hand though with an ever increasing burden of regulatory compliance and paperwork. I work for a small company, 18 employees, and even someone as small as us has quite a burden where some form or another, or sometimes several, are due almost every month under threat of fines. We were late filing some 401k paperwork one year right after out chief account suddenly quit, and got fined $2,000.

We have a few back office people who keep up with this stuff as best as we can but a really small mom and pop where mom or pop does everything, I don't see how they do it. A giant big box chain can afford whole departments of accounting, legal, and HR people to keep up.

The same could be said for many Republicans...

They do great harm in so many different ways.

We have a few back office people who keep up with this stuff as best as we can but a really small mom and pop where mom or pop does everything, I don't see how they do it.

My CPA hooked me up with a good bookkeeping office and a company that admin'd our retirement affairs. No big deal. The cost wasn't all that much and allowed us to focus on our jobs. After a couple years we just sent over whatever docs they asked for and they got things filed on time, told me what checks to write and when.
The CPA with connections was key. We never got fined or audited.

If people were smart, honest and treated their employees fairly, all these rules and regs wouldn't be necessary. But there's too many amoral assholes like Trump out there that use and abuse their people, and the system in general. So here we are.

There's some flat out emaciated bears at Brooks Falls, wondering where the fish went. Costco is well-stocked with sockeye. It's just wrong.

Sunset in Alaska is about 10:30 pm.
Live Brooks Falls Bear Cam:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsLvnFQW_yM


'Things like rising ocean temperatures, overfishing, all of these things that are going to affect our marine life, are going to affect bears like Otis and all of the bears at Katmai National Park pretty directly,' Rusch said.

What makes the situation more critical is that Alaska's Bristol Bay is the world's last sockeye salmon run for bears like Otis, Rusch said, which she said makes it crucial to take action to conserve it. As ocean waters warm, less and less salmon are returning to open sea, which means there are fewer available to feed animals and humans. Those that do return to high sea are dying as marine heat waves driven by climate change continue to alter their ecosystem.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/travel/2023/07/29/o...

But there's too many amoral assholes like Trump out there that use and abuse their people, and the system in general. So here we are.

=============

As long as it's Trumps fault, then it's a OK burden on small business. So shut up and file that paperwork.

But there's too many amoral assholes like Trump out there that use and abuse their people, and the system in general. So here we are.

=============

As long as it's Trumps fault

If you insist on intentionally misrepresenting what I wrote, there's no point in further discussion with you.

They're not going to.(Chinese stop polluting) Their national economic strategy (with all the incentives derived from that) is to drive economic expansion such that the rest of the world is dependent on China for both finished goods and key ingredients. Pollution and Global Warming aren't things they give a rip about.

No.

Countries like France, Japan, and others were forced to re-examine their national nuclear policy due to energy security concerns following the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In contrast, for over a decade, China has been steadily expanding its nuclear power fleet to provide stable, reliable, clean baseload electricity for its growing economy. China's latest Five Year Plan sets the 2025 targets of 70GW of nuclear capacity as well as 3,000GW total power generating capacity from all fuels. In addition, Beijing's nuclear expansion is part of the nation's official efforts to achieve its energy transition targets, such as emissions peak by 2030 and reaching carbon neutrality by 2060...

In 2022, China added 2 GW of nuclear capacity and reached 75% of its 2025 target. Since then, 6GW capacity has been added to the operable fleet, totaling 57GW today as the world's third-largest nuclear energy producer after the U.S. and France, fulfilling 81% of the 2025 target. As reported in the latest Baker Institute China Energy Map, as of Feb 2023, 55 units are operating, with 22 currently under construction (24GW) and 70 plus (88+ GW) planned.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/thebakersinstitute/20...

Me:
It just came a little late in the game and 2060 is late and also looks unachievable. But it's better than nothing, and it isn't clear what caused the change in policy. But China has always had an unspoken deal with it's population - that as long as the economy progressed, and people were moved out of poverty and progress was continual, that the CCP could stay in power. Deng Xiaoping looked at Lee Kuan Yew's success in Singapore and reformed the CCP. Remember the lie that got told here? That capitalism would democratize China? There was no real basis to think that that I could see. The CCP voluntarily give up control? Wishful thinking.

We have a few back office people who keep up with this stuff as best as we can but a really small mom and pop where mom or pop does everything, I don't see how they do it. A giant big box chain can afford whole departments of accounting, legal, and HR people to keep up.

There are companies that handle this for you now and successfully. They will handle your payroll, all filings, and do your HR if you want. There are locals who will do your hiring and HR for you if you don't like that part. Even if you don't do it, you want to keep up with it though. A small hardware store can have 6-10 employees.

My bad. I slightly misremembered it. It wasn't Greenpeace the organization, it was a former head of Greenpeace.

https://www.ans.org/news/article-4126/former-green...

Albaby wrote:
"Because we've made such amazing advances in technology compared to, say, a few decades ago we certainly can have a global economy that can support 8 or 9 billion people at a higher standard of living than today (on average) within the resources available on earth and without suffering the consequences you describe in your post.

This article in todays NYT explains why that if/then fails with respect to water. It also applies to energy and a host of natural resources.

Another culprit is common to large regions of the world: a growing population whose water demands continue to rise, both because of sheer numbers and, in many places, higher living standards, increasing individual consumption.

We're going to not choose to do that.

Nah. There's too many competing interests among the human groups to effectively manage an equitable distribution of energy and stuff.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/29/world/middleeas...

Edited for formatting

Albaby wrote:
<<"Because we've made such amazing advances in technology compared to, say, a few decades ago we certainly can have a global economy that can support 8 or 9 billion people at a higher standard of living than today (on average) within the resources available on earth and without suffering the consequences you describe in your post.">>

This article in todays NYT explains why that if/then fails with respect to water. It also applies to energy and a host of natural resources.

"Another culprit is common to large regions of the world: a growing population whose water demands continue to rise, both because of sheer numbers and, in many places, higher living standards, increasing individual consumption."

<<"We're going to not choose to do that.">>

Nah. There's too many competing interests among the human groups to effectively manage an equitable distribution of energy and stuff.

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/29/world/middleeas...

Post New

US Policy FAQ

---

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.