HONR238W Spring 2013 BLOG

MESSAGE #49. Mon May 6 14:14:24 2013. Michael Tontchev wrote:

For this week I decided to focus on the Renewable Portfolio Standards that the book discusses and touts. The article I read was titled "A Federal Renewable Electricity Requirement" (found at http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/federal-renewable-electricity-requirement). Some of the arguments presented are similar to the ones I had mentioned in my response for this week. Namely, that carbon taxes and carbon caps are more efficient than specific plans like RPS because they allow market participants to better adjust. Other arguments presented addressed some of the alleged benefits of the RPS system that are used to support it. For example, we often hear that green energy programs will create jobs in the economy. Unfortunately, this is not quite true, as to implement these policies resources will have to be taken out of other places in the economy to fund the green growth. Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that environmental action is a bad idea - it just means that the reasons for which people guy it (politically) is not correct in economic terms.

MESSAGE #48. Mon May 6 7:15:03 2013. Matthew Fox wrote:

One part of the reading I found to be particularly interesting was the short case study on the Energy Smackdown competition in Boston. I went to the official website to see if I could find out more. On the website were several videos of the show's highlights and a link to a case study on the entire experiment. The gist of the competition was to have three Boston households recruit their community and try to be the largest reducer in carbon emissions both individually and in the community. Prizes for various achievements included anything from free dinners and sports tickets to sizable monetary prizes. The program was apparently very popular and successful; so much so that they are starting new types of related competitions in Boston, and communities all around the country have asked the producers of the program to start similar competitions in their cities and towns. I encourage you to read the case study found here: http://donaldpkelley.com/attachments/ISCVT.pdf

MESSAGE #47. Thu May 2 19:56:38 2013. Jiaqi Wu wrote:

HW#3, question 2, part b. Will you buy a new fridge? The following is what I think, but my intuition tells me I should buy a new one. Any comments? b). the costs of another three years for my old refrigerator would be 180*3=$540 (the original $1000 are not included since they are sunk costs that have already incurred) This cost is enough to buy the $400 refrigerator and pays its energy costs for more than 1 year. If I buy the energy efficient one, the total costs in three years would be: 700+60*3=$880. The energy cost would only be $180. If I buy the cheap one, the total costs in three years would be: 400+120*3=$760. The energy cost would be $360. Since they are new fridges, I have to include the price of fridges. I would not choose to buy a new fridge.

MESSAGE #46. Mon Apr 29 14:46:47 2013. Michael Tontchev wrote:

There was not much that was controversial in the reading for this week (besides the small question I had about the mercury in light bulbs), so I decided to consider how much impact all of the policies presented in the book taken together would have.

I decided to read this article which performs some back-of-the envelope calculations on this topic:

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2009/04/30/what-you-cant-do-about-global-warming/

The author notes that while the full models are not public and would take weeks to run, there are some models which give a good ballpark figure.

He continues to estimate the amount of carbon that would be saved if emissions were cut 83% below 2005 levels, and concludes that the temperature increases that could be avoided are 0.3C by 2100. That is, a number that is fairly insignificant for the amount of trouble it would cause the US.

If correct, this sheds light on the scope of the problem. (But also, considering the article I read on dampening effects, the warming itself might not be as big of a problem as it's generally believed to be).

MESSAGE #45. Mon Apr 29 14:07:05 2013. Andre Deane wrote:

Sorry, here are the links:

http://www.eoearth.org/article/Carbon_footprint

http://www.motleygreen.com/beta/article-details-nothing-against-apple-carbon-footprint-of-iphone5-shipment-from-china-158

MESSAGE #44. Mon Apr 29 14:06:12 2013. Andre Deane wrote:

One article discusses the carbon footprint of the iPhone 5 from production to consumer reach. In Apple's first shipments of the phone, it was calculated that they emitted 12,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. The global average is 4 tons per year. I am not sure if 12,000 is significant or not because once it happens, shipments slow down drastically. Therefore, over the span of a year, that figure might not be as bad as it sounds. If anyone knows whether it is or not, please let me know! I could not find any concrete evidence to support either side.

MESSAGE #43. Sun Apr 28 18:11:09 2013. Matthew Fox wrote:

One part of this week's reading that I found particularly interesting was the discussion about so-called phantom power - the power that electrical appliances use while turned off but still in stand-by mode. I found a webpage that gives average Americans tips on how to avoid losing money to this phantom power. Obviously, the most straight-forward method is to simply unplug any electrical appliances that are not currently in use. Understandably, this can get quite tedious, so the webpage suggests plugging closely-related devices (i.e. television, sound system, DVD player, etc.), into a easy to access power strip. Another method is to identify which devices use of the most power while sleeping and simply go out and replace them with more efficient models. More tips and information can be found at http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/everyday-tech/vampire-power2.htm

MESSAGE #42. Sun Apr 28 1:19:41 2013. Michael Daisey wrote:

One point from the reading that interested me was their recommendation to buy LED-LCD televisions due to their efficiency. Interestingly, the FTC requires a sticker to be placed on new TV’s showing the estimated energy costs for a year of operation. For an LED-LCD TV, this cost can be as low as $6, while the least efficient Plasma costs about $80 a year to run. The other major factor besides backlight type affecting energy use is screen size, with large TV’s costing more than small ones to run. One thing that might make change hard to achieve is that even the largest, least efficient TV’s have energy costs that would be affordable to the average customer. http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33199_7-57579932-221/what-you-need-to-know-about-tv-power-consumption/

MESSAGE #41. Sat Apr 27 10:44:11 2013. Asha Dahiya wrote:

I was intrigued by Chapter 7's mention of "carbon footprint labeling" on food products in Europe. I found an article, a bit dated but still relevant, about the content of these labels and their accuracy. It really drives home how difficult it is to calculate the exact amount of CO2 emissions released when a product is made, and how much energy from so many sources must be used. "Not on the label Why adding “carbon footprint” labels to foods and other products is tricky": http://www.economist.com/node/9184296

MESSAGE #40. Thu Apr 25 22:26:59 2013. Joshua Park wrote:

An article on the EPA gives an overview of methane emissions in the US. The EPA cites methane as the second most prevalent greenhouse gas emitted by America. In 2011, it accounted for 9% of all greenhouse gases. They also show that since 1990, methane emissions have remained constant, if not decreased. Methane emissions from agriculture have increased while emissions have decreased from accessing natural gases and petroleum. This agrees with what the book was saying about the increase in methane emissions from food sources, which we should actively work to limit. http://epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/gases/ch4.html

MESSAGE #39. Thu Apr 25 15:54:19 2013. Travis Aion wrote:

In the last chapter, the authors spoke about how energy intensive the process of supplying clean water to homes is, as well as processing sewage. I had never really pictures the amazing feats water companies have to overcome to brings gallons upon gallons of water to houses all over the country each day. The book mentioned how it was extremely difficult in arid hot areas of the southwest, specifically Arizona and Southern California. They mentioned the Central Arizona Project which I found interesting and chose to look up more about. The Central Arizona Project is responsible for bringing 1.5 million acre-feet of the Colorado River water per year to Phoenix and Tuscan. It is a 336-mile long system of aqueducts, tunnels, pumping plants and pipelines and is the largest single resource of renewable water supplies in the state of Arizona!

http://www.cap-az.com/

MESSAGE #38. Mon Apr 22 23:53:39 2013. Raquel Millet wrote:

The United States Government's website which talks about alternative fuel sources that they are currently looking in to. Very information and kinda cool! http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/hydrogen.shtml

MESSAGE #37. Mon Apr 22 14:40:24 2013. Andre Deane wrote:

This man decided to maximize the energy efficiency of his house, spending upwards of $300,000 in the process. In my paper, shared my thoughts on the current cost of energy efficiency and what needs to happen before energy efficient homes become a staple in the American community.

http://phys.org/news/2013-01-energy-efficient-home.html

MESSAGE #36. Mon Apr 22 13:50:06 2013. Michael Tontchev wrote:

I read an article titled "Former GM vice chairman Bob Lutz lambastes government's fuel economy standards" for this week's reading (http://www.mlive.com/auto/index.ssf/2013/04/former_gm_vice_chairman_bob_lu.html). The article discusses comments by former General Motors vice chairman Bob Lutz, who criticizes fuel efficiency standards as "fighting the nation’s obesity epidemic by forcing clothing manufacturers to only sell in small sizes." He argues that increasing gas taxes would be more effective and would increase consumer demand for more efficient cars. I'm assuming for the sake of argument that better fuel efficiency is necessary and that the market won't provide it by itself soon enough to stop climate change. Economists have long recognized that if a certain non-market result is deemed necessary, the best way to proceed is to impose a tax. The reason for this is that it works partially through the price system, which means higher efficiency. More specifically, people are allowed a wide array of options to adjust to the tax. They can either drive less, buy more efficient cars, carpool, etc. When fuel standards are imposed, that's a single government solution which runs the high risk of not being the most efficient method of adjustment for everyone. Still, forcing the car makers to improve fuel efficiency pushes the higher costs further forward in time, because the consumers will face higher prices only when they buy new cars, and not at the moment.

MESSAGE #35. Mon Apr 22 1:57:37 2013. Michael Daisey wrote:

One of the topics from the reading that got my attention was how fuel economy standards have changed over the years. Until the 1970’s, there were actually no standards, and the average gas mileage for a car was around 14 mpg. In 1975 a law was passed a law mandating that they be increased to 27.5 mpg by 1985. The benchmark was met for the most part, but in the 1980’s congress and the Reagan administration relaxed the standard to 26 miles per gallon and didn’t set a new goal for more efficiency. This was largely due to lobbying by the oil companies. In the 1990’s, despite efforts by the Clinton administration and members of both parties, the fuel economy standards remained at the same level. In 2007, congress and the Bush administration raised the goal to 35 mpg for cars by 2020. Later, in 2009, the Obama administration further increased the goal, to about 39 mpg by 2016. Currently the EPA is considering a new target of between 47 and 62 mpg by 2025. An interesting trend in the article is that the oil and companies and the car companies are often the major force opposing new regulations, citing increased regulations as hurting the economy. However, they always seem to be able to comply with the standards while remaining profitable. http://www.pewenvironment.org/uploadedFiles/PEG/Publications/Fact_Sheet/History%20of%20Fuel%20Economy%20Clean%20Energy%20Factsheet.pdf

MESSAGE #34. Sun Apr 21 20:38:35 2013. Asha Dahiya wrote:

I found an interesting article concerning a study by a group of economists on the problems with biofuel, environmentally and in terms of petroleum usage. Somewhat discouraging, essentially just elaborates on the statements in Chapter 4. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111129123255.htm

MESSAGE #33. Sun Apr 21 20:21:49 2013. Nina Randazzo wrote:

The paper "Determining air quality and greenhouse gas impacts of hydrogen infrastructure and fuel cell vehicles" by Stephens-Romero et al from the journal Environmental Science and Technology projects the environmental impacts of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles compared to those of internal combustion vehicles, taking into account different methods of hydrogen sourcing and transport.

MESSAGE #32. Sun Apr 21 17:54:43 2013. Matthew Fox wrote:

One part of the reading I found to particularly interesting was the mention of Colin Beavan, who attempted in 2009 to live carbon neutral for an entire year. I was curious to see the efforts he had to make and how his personal experiment actually went. According to the bio on his website, along with some videos of interviews he has done, he has a PhD in electrical engineering but has spent most of his life as a writer and activists. Not only did he go an entire year trying to remain carbon neutral, but his wife and two year-old daughter did as well! Understandably, it was very difficult at first, but he soon found many parts of living without things like electricity, cars, or processed food to be surprisingly rewarding and fulfilling. For example, he was forced to spend more time outside, allowing him to socialize more with his neighbors and community.

Here is his website: http://www.colinbeavan.com/index.php There is a link to a trailer for the documentary made about his experiment on the website as well.

MESSAGE #31. Fri Apr 19 0:13:34 2013. Joshua Park wrote:

An article online revealed that Hyundai plans to release 1,000 fuel cell vehicles by 2015. Today, they would cost over $100,000, but Hyundai hopes to reduce the price to a much more manageable $50,000 by the time they are released. It would only use hydrogen and oxygen from the environment, with the only byproduct being either water or hydrogen peroxide, which is completely harmless for the environment. There have been concerns about the safety of using hydrogen, as examples such as the Hindenburg have come up as an argument against fuel cell vehicles; however the tanks would be well armored and potentially safer than a traditional combustion engine.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/150202-first-production-hydrogen-fuel-cell-cars-hit-the-market-from-hyundai

MESSAGE #30. Wed Apr 17 16:14:35 2013. Travis Aion wrote:

For outside research this week, I chose to find out a little bit more about the Nissan Leaf, a new electric car put on the market by Nissan. What is so interesting about the Nissan Leaf is that is has no tailpipe since it is 100% electric, and has no emissions. With the assumption that 33.7 kW/hour equal one gallon of gasolene, the Leaf gets 130 mpg in the city, and 102 mpg on the highway. I find it so interesting that, in contrast to gasolene driven cars, the Leaf gets worse mileage on the highway. Another interesting feature of the Leaf is that is makes no noise since it does not have an internal combustion engine, nor does it have a transmission with gears and ratios, it just starts and goes!

http://www.nissanusa.com/electric-cars/leaf/

MESSAGE #29. Tue Apr 16 20:02:37 2013. Raquel Millet wrote:

This week I wrote about Indiana University and how they have reduced their emissions by 48% by switching from using mostly coal to mostly natural gas.The authors of this weeks book made it seem as if 20% reduction per household was feasible and I think that Indiana University proves that this number per house hold is not only feasible, but perhaps even a bit conservative.

http://newsinfo.iu.edu/news/page/normal/24097.html

MESSAGE #28. Mon Apr 15 14:38:47 2013. Michael Tontchev wrote:

Since the most substantive part of the reading we did was on the science behind climate change, I decided to look up an article on that. Specifically, I am interested in looking at some of the data behind the model. I found an article titled "The Skeptic's Case" (https://mises.org/daily/5892/The-Skeptics-Case) that looked at the models and predictions. The article did not claim that climate change is not happening or that CO2 doesn't have a warming effect. Instead, it claimed that the multipliers assumed in the leading models were incorrect and predicted warming that is far off the mark of the observed temperature increases. As evidence, it compares Hansen's and the IPCC's predictions to what the temperatures actually were from 1990 to 2015 and found a large discrepancy (even with the "best-case reduction" scenarios). The ocean heat content predictions are off as well. Moreover, the equatorial hotspot that was predicted by the models was never created. The article suggests that the reason for these results are that the dampening effects of the Earth's atmosphere are stronger than predicted. I find this evidence quite interesting, though I am afraid that I am not qualified to comment on the science of climate change. I can only question results without being able to validate either side (unless there is something glaringly wrong like praying to some moon god or something).

MESSAGE #27. Mon Apr 15 13:17:19 2013. Nina Randazzo wrote:

I found the discussion of how global climate change may be affecting species range to be interesting, especially because this field of study is similar to the research I would like to do as a career. I found some information about species range modeling taking into account climate and climate change in the paper “Modeling species’ range shifts in a changing climate: The impacts of biotic interactions, dispersal distance and the rate of climate change" by Brooker et al in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, available online from the UMD library system.

MESSAGE #26. Mon Apr 15 0:39:10 2013. Michael Daisey wrote:

A topic that seemed relevant to the author’s goals was the “Energy-Star” program, that certifies products that use less energy (usually 20-30% less) than what is required by governments. Such products could be a great asset in our attempt to reduce emissions by 80%. The program rates everything from household appliances, to servers, to manufacturing facilities, allowing consumers a wide range of options when trying to increase efficiency. However, there are some claims that these ratings are not accurate due to poor testing practices. Even so, it seems this program would be a very effective way to help consumers make better choices in terms of energy usage, and is certainly an improvement over having no idea of the efficiency of the products you are buying. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Star

MESSAGE #25. Sun Apr 14 19:06:50 2013. Joshua Park wrote:

In an article online, writers claim that the global warming claim is a complete hoax and that this is another example of the government trying to control everybody’s lives. The writer does a good job in giving a lot of sources to support his claim; however there are no scholarly sources, just other writers that want to make baseless claims. The evidence against such arguments is overwhelming and writers like these are foolish to argue against the evidence. People love to come up with conspiracy theories, but they just make useless claims.

http://www.wnho.net/global_warming.htm

MESSAGE #24. Sun Apr 14 18:08:16 2013. Matthew Fox wrote:

As all of you probably know, members of The Union of Concerned Scientists wrote the book Cooler Smarter. I wanted to find out a little more about this group and their motives. According to their website, they are a non-profit group of both private citizens and professional scientists founded at MIT in 1969. They are primarily an environmental activists group that promotes scientifically proven technology to help alleviate climate issues. They receive most of their funding through membership fees and dues.

Here is their website: http://www.ucsusa.org/

MESSAGE #23. Sun Apr 14 11:21:38 2013. Jiaqi Wu wrote:

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Arctic Sea Ice News and Analysis

MESSAGE #22. Mon Apr 8 14:44:34 2013. Michael Tontchev wrote:

Oil Innovations Pump New Life Into Old Wells

Throughout the book, we are asked to take Heinberg's word on Peak Oil at face value and not question the oil estimates he gives. While I do not doubt that he is using real figures, I think it's useful to look at other numbers, especially since I've repeatedly heard that Peak Oil is not really a large problem. I decided to look up Peak Oil online and I found this article in the New York times. It argues that technology is indeed able to extract more oil than the naysayers claim. It puts forth the novel (to me) argument that much of the additional output doesn't come from newly discovered oil reserves, but instead from known reserves that are able to be squeezed of their oil better. I am not really sure which side to trust on the issue on Peak Oil. Regardless of the answer, though, if climate change is really occurring then that's the larger problem to be solved that doesn't really depend on the answer to Peak Oil.

MESSAGE #21. Mon Apr 8 14:39:28 2013. Michael Tontchev wrote:

MESSAGE #20. Mon Apr 8 9:01:44 2013. Raquel Millet wrote:

Exxon oil companies take on whether or not we are running out of oil (we are, but not THAT fast). Seems honest, though I know every opinion has a motive. http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2010/12/03/is-the-world-running-out-of-oil/

MESSAGE #19. Mon Apr 8 3:45:41 2013. Michael Daisey wrote:

Heinberg seems very critical of nuclear energy in his book, saying that it will run out nearly as soon as fossil fuels. This doesn’t appear to be the case, as there seems to be enough Uranium alone to last 80 years. Additionally, the world’s supply of Uranium is rapidly increasing due to speculation (+15% from 2005 to 2007). Also, seawater contains vast amounts of Uranium that could be accessed with proper extraction techniques. Another point that Heinberg neglects to mention is that old fuel can be re-enriched, essentially allowing the fuel to be used multiple times an increasing efficiency. Finally, reactors are being developed that use thorium, which is even more abundant. One note of caution is that this website seems to be created by people working on various nuclear projects, but they do seem to have more facts and figures to back up their arguments than Heinberg presents in his book.

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Nuclear-Fuel-Cycle/Uranium-Resources/Supply-of-Uranium/

MESSAGE #18. Sun Apr 7 23:04:21 2013. Joshua Park wrote:

In an online blog, a writer goes through all the predictions regarding peak oil. There are predictions varying from “the garden of Eden”, which would be an agrarian paradise to an Armageddon scenario in which the world comes to an end due to lack of energy. His prediction is that the economy will take a hit because of the energy crisis, but mankind will eventually make it through, unlike Heinberg’s extreme predictions of doom to all mankind.

http://peakgeneration.blogspot.com/p/post-peak-scenarios.html

MESSAGE #17. Sun Apr 7 18:18:30 2013. Prof. Doug Hamilton wrote:

Very few of you have filled out my totally-painless online Mid-Semester Evaluation Form - please take a few minutes if you can ...

MESSAGE #16. Sun Apr 7 18:11:38 2013. Matthew Fox wrote:

In Chapter 10 of the reading, the author presents a "letter form the future" that has been sent back in time by using the most advanced bit of Physics available today. I did a little bit of looking around and found out (not surprisingly), that no such technology exists. Not only that, but most Physicists consider time travel (in the sense that it was used in the book) to be impossible. To do so would cause all sorts of havoc by opening up numerous paradoxes. How sad.

http://www.livescience.com/23539-time-travel-possible-looper.html

MESSAGE #15. Sun Apr 7 16:24:39 2013. Nina Randazzo wrote:

These are theories of oil formation and their relevance to peak oil. I got this source from the UMD library online. Here's the citation info: Hook, Mikael et al. “Development of Oil Formation Theories and Their Importance for Peak Oil.” Marine and Petroleum Geology 27 no 9 (2010): 1995-2004.

MESSAGE #14. Sat Apr 6 21:24:44 2013. Jiaqi Wu wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QG3HNQiEaTM A really interesting Youtube video about the importance of energy efficiency!

MESSAGE #13. Tue Apr 2 22:17:37 2013. Raquel Millet wrote:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2013/03/05/humanity-is-not-a-plague-on-earth-column/1965485/

Interesting story from USA today that I included in my reading response this week. Talks about the social reasons for the decline in the human population growth.

MESSAGE #12. Tue Apr 2 19:08:56 2013. Prof. Doug Hamilton wrote:

These are interesting posts! My idea is that we post interesting external links here with a short description rather than in the regular Reading Responses. That way all of you can be in on the conversation. Keep your reaction to the reading chapters in the usual writeups rather than here. I'll post more often here as well, but do take a look at the links that I will continue to add to the main webpage.

MESSAGE #11. Mon Apr 1 14:36:57 2013. Michael Daisey wrote:

A topic that interested me was the current trends in population growth. Recently the growth rate has begun to decline, although the population is still growing. However, the growth rate has fallen much faster in the developed countries, and in some cases is negative. Also, most models predict that population will level off or even decline within a century. In sum, the situation may not be quite as dire as Heinberg suggests. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population

MESSAGE #10. Mon Apr 1 4:59:54 2013. Matthew Fox wrote:

Mark Bittner's website is www.markbittner.net

MESSAGE #9. Mon Apr 1 4:57:22 2013. Matthew Fox wrote:

One part of the reading I found to be rather peculiar was the chapter about the man who observed the parrots in San Francisco, Mark Bittner. He seemed like a unique person, (or at least someone with a unique experience), so I checked out his website to see what else I could find out about him. Apparently, he is well know enough for people on the street to recognize him as the "Parrot Man." As for the flock of parrots he tended to, there are now over 200 in the San Francisco area. Interestingly enough, the woman producing the movie based on his book, Judy Irving, happens to be his wife. Other than that, there is not a whole lot of information about him, besides the fact that he is currently writing another book about his days living in the streets of San Francisco.

MESSAGE #8. Mon Apr 1 0:56:55 2013. Joshua Park wrote:

In an article in the Business Insider, the author states that the overpopulation issue is the most critical issue for humanity to deal with. The author’s suggestion agrees with Heinberg’s in saying that fertility rates should be controlled rather than let the population grow unchecked, which would cause an inevitable collapse in society. The author points out that a growing population will cause problems that humanity simply cannot deal with in a sustainable manner, again agreeing with Heinberg’s statements.

http://articles.businessinsider.com/2010-07-04/news/30057541_1_population-growth-poor-nations-malthus/2

MESSAGE #7. Sun Mar 31 21:22:49 2013. Jiaqi Wu wrote:

overpopulation http://saferenvironment.wordpress.com/2008/08/19/explosive-population-growth-affects-world-food-supplies-and-environment/

MESSAGE #6. Sun Mar 31 11:09:52 2013. Nina Randazzo wrote:

In chapters four through seven of Peak Everything, author Richard Heinberg discusses (respectively) the characteristics of resource use that make a society sustainable or unsustainable, the social implications of a progression from hunter-gatherer society to modern society, the environmental and social ramifications of overpopulation, and the psychology behind responses to the ideas of climate change and peak oil. I disagree with several points that he makes throughout these four chapters, but one argument in particular that I would like to discuss is his view on overpopulation. Heinberg states that overpopulation is such a widespread problem that all countries must soon limit their growth both by reducing fertility (through abstention, contraception, and abortion) and through limiting immigration. He fails to recognize the differential population growth between countries of differing socioeconomic situations. I learned in my population geography class (GEOG 435) that as a country develops, it undergoes what is known as demographic transition, in which death rates and then fertility rates decline. When death rates decline while fertility remains high, as has been the case in every country to make this transition, a rapid, unsustainable increase in population does occur. However, as the country continues to develop, fertility also drops through the voluntary decisions of women and couples as the population becomes more educated and active in the economy and as the need for high fertility is diminished because of reduced infant mortality, and as resources such as contraception and abortion are more readily, effectively, and safely provided. In many developed countries, fertility has already fallen well below replacement level, causing population decline. Thus, Heinberg’s fear of mandatory abstinence, contraception, or abortion is unfounded. Another unfounded fear is further discrimination against immigrants. As fertility rates fall below replacement level, developed countries (presumably including the United Kingdom, as in the example from the book) rely on immigration to maintain their workforce. I could not find information specifically on the UK regarding these phenomena, but I did find an article on the demography of the United States and Canada, two developed countries with service-sector economies, much like the UK. As of 2007, the US total fertility rate was at replacement level, and the Canadian total fertility rate was below replacement level. Growth in these countries, especially in Canada, depends largely on immigration (Barbieri and Ouelette 2012). Thus, while Heinberg paints a picture of developed countries fervently blocking immigration because of overpopulation, it is more likely that developed countries will welcome immigrants to maintain their work force as their domestic populations decline.

Sources Cited

Heinberg, Richard. Peak Everything: Waking Up to a Century of Declines. Canada: New Society Publishers, 2010.

Barbieri, Magali and Nadine Ouelette. “The Demography of Canada and the United States from the 1980s to the 2000s: A Summary of Changes and a Statistical Assessment.” Population, English Edition 67 no 2. University of Maryland Libraries.

MESSAGE #5. Mon Mar 25 17:22:35 2013. Matthew Fox wrote:

For a little follow up I decided to research a little about Peak Oil. Most of what I found was well written and scientifically rigorous. Then I came across this. . .

http://3k88.com/

MESSAGE #4. Mon Mar 25 17:20:32 2013. Matthew Fox wrote:

MESSAGE #3. Sun Mar 10 14:43:28 2013. Matthew Fox wrote:

While studying for the upcoming midterm, I stumbled across this website. . .

http://rachelwaswrong.org/

MESSAGE #2. Wed Feb 27 17:44:35 2013. Prof. Doug Hamilton wrote:

Here are US Energy Flow diagrams from class! The total energy used in the U.S. dropped from its max of 101.5 quads in 2007 to a low of 94.6 quads in 2009. Then it went back up to 98.0 quads in 2010 and 97.3 quads in 2011. Notice the large increase in wind and solar power over the past 4 years!

MESSAGE #1. Sat Jan 26 18:14:04 2013. Prof. Doug Hamilton wrote:

This is the class blog - please post interesting ideas, relevant news items, links and images here!
This is an image from a 1950s-era advertisement advocating DDT spraying.

Return to the HONR238W main page