Dear Tom,
I think you may be right. My apologies to wikafantasy.
Figure 6 shows sensitivity to small changes in fertility rates.
Somewhere between 5.5 billion(disaster has struck) and 14 billion
(disaster again) at 2100. Let's hope a happy medium is struck.
Cheers
Robert
On Jan 12, 1:35 pm, Robbo <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am sure it is effluent and not affluent - unless you're recycling
> rich people?
>
> I put highly treated municipal effluent on golf courses and such like
> - what else would you do with a golf course but put shit on it?
>
> You could try turning it into oil. It can be done with both organics
> and plastics. See the links below. If they can make it for $10 a
> barrel and sell it for $80 - there must be a profit in there
> somewhere.
>
> Good luck
> Robert
>
> http://www.matr.net/article-6837.htmlhttp://edition.cnn.com/2009/US/10/16/plastic.trash.into.oil/
>
> On Jan 12, 12:35 pm, Richard Fletcher <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > I'd be interested in knowing from Robbo what affluent recycling he has
> > worked with. I am trying to find a municipal solid waste(MSW) solution
> > for the San Diego landfill which would generate electricity from burning
> > the MSW as well as handle affluent/sludge to avoid the need to go back
> > to the California Coastal Commission for a waiver of tertiary treatment
> > on our city Liquid sewage/waste.
>
> > Richard Fletcher
> > [email protected]
> > 858-693-6099
>
> > On 1/11/2010 5:41 PM, Robbo wrote:
>
> > > Dear Alastair,
>
> > > It is essentially happening that way already. China has shown that
> > > growth rates of 10 to 15 percent are possible. Such growth rates are
> > > impossible for the developed world which typically has growth rates of
> > > 1 to 4 percent at most � with a stable target of about 1 to 3
> > > percent. There are very basic economic and development dynamics in
> > > play. China shows what is needed to achieve high growth rates in the
> > > developing world � stable and minimally economically rational
> > > governance. There is no problem with this. There would be a problem
> > > with long term negative growth in the developed world but that is not
> > > something that the west would agree to.
>
> > > The population dynamics are interesting. At the end of the century
> > > Europe will shrink from 12 to 6 percent of global population. Africa
> > > will swell to 25 percent. If this is the century of India and China
> > > then I believe that next century will be Africa�s. But this implies
> > > that economics is a zero sum game when it is not. The current GFC
> > > shows the economic resilience (to human foolishness) that having
> > > multiple global foci of wealth and development brings.
>
> > > I certainly believe in sustainable systems � I have been working for
> > > more than 20 years on sewage effluent recycling (it�s a shit job but
> > > someone has to do it), water quality, urban stormwater, etc. I also
> > > know that there is much ecological restoration that is required. We
> > > are very bad at it in even in developed Australia because all of the
> > > legislation focuses entirely on managing development � which could
> > > largely manage itself - while other and much more damaging processes
> > > proceed unchecked. Even land clearing legislation has ecological
> > > costs because Australia is a land adapted to the fire farming
> > > practices of the indigenous population. Land clearing controls are
> > > the only way we can meet the Kyoto commitment � so we are swapping one
> > > set of problems for another. If I may be permitted to quote
> > > myself.
>
> > > The Australian Terrestrial Biodiversity Assessment found that riparian
> > > zones are declining over 73% of Australia. There has been a massive
> > > decline in the ranges of indigenous mammals over more than 100 years.
> > > In the past 200 years, 22 Australian mammals have become extinct � a
> > > third of the world�s recent extinctions. Further decline in ranges is
> > > still occurring and is likely to result in more extinctions. Mammals
> > > are declining in 174 of 384 subregions in Australia and rapidly
> > > declining in 20. The threats to vascular plants are increasing over
> > > much of the Australia. Threatened birds are declining across 45% of
> > > the country with extinctions in arid parts of Western Australia.
> > > Reptiles are declining across 30% of the country. Threatened
> > > amphibians are in decline in southeastern Australia and are rapidly
> > > declining in the South East Queensland, Brigalow Belt South and Wet
> > > Tropics bioregions.
>
> > > Our rivers are still carrying huge excesses of sand and mud. The mud
> > > washes out onto coastlines destroying seagrass and corals. The sand
> > > chokes up pools and riffles and fills billabongs putting intense
> > > pressure on inland, aquatic ecologies. In 1992, the Mary River in
> > > south east Queensland flooded carrying millions of tonnes of mud into
> > > Hervey Bay. A thousand square kilometres of seagrass died off
> > > decimating dugongs, turtles and fisheries.
>
> > > The seagrass has grown back but the problems of the Mary River have
> > > not been fixed. The banks have not been stabilised and the seagrass
> > > could be lost again at any time. A huge excess of sand working its way
> > > down the river is driving to extinction the Mary River cod and the
> > > Mary River turtle. The situation in the Mary River is mirrored in
> > > catchments right across the country. Nationally, 50% of our seagrasses
> > > have been lost and it has been this way for at least twenty years.
>
> > > It is well known what the problems are. The causes of the declines in
> > > biodiversity are land clearing, land salinisation, land degradation,
> > > habitat fragmentation, overgrazing, exotic weeds, feral animals,
> > > rivers that have been pushed past their points of equilibrium and
> > > changed fire regimes. The individual solutions are often fairly simple
> > > and only in aggregate do they become daunting. One of the problems is
> > > that the issues are reviewed at a distance. Looking at issues from a
> > > National or State perspective is too complex. Even if problems are
> > > identified broadly, it is difficult to establish local priorities.
> > > Looking at issues from a distance means that a focus on the immediate
> > > and fundamental causes of problems is lost. There are rafts of
> > > administration, reports, computer models, guidelines and plans but the
> > > only on ground restoration and conservation is done by volunteers and
> > > farmers. Volunteers are valiantly struggling but it is too little too
> > > late. Farmers tend to look at their own properties, understandably,
> > > and not at integrated landscape function.
>
> > > There are ways forward. The UN has estimated that it would cost $40
> > > billion a year to supply the very poorest with safe water and
> > > sewerage, food security and basic health care and education. A
> > > trivial amount in the scheme of things. There are ways to do these
> > > things and sequester carbon for not much more.
>
> > > Cheers
> > > Robert
>
> > > On Jan 12, 7:16 am, Alastair<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> On Jan 11, 1:14 am, Robbo<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >>> These projections are of course sensitive to actual replacement rates
> > >>> but it is true that lower fertility rates result from the sort of
> > >>> social factors mentioned by Al Gore. Economic development is
> > >>> essential to a continuing decline in fertility - which makes attempts
> > >>> to lower global economic growth not only potentially genocidal but
> > >>> self defeating.
>
> > >> Obviously it is those areas of the world where population is rising
> > >> faster where the growth should occur. Regions where populations have
> > >> stabilized have no need of growth, and should use a smaller share of
> > >> global resouces in order to enable the poorer countries to have that
> > >> growth.
>
> > >> Don't you agree?
>
> > >> Cheers, Alastair.
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
Global Change ("globalchange") newsgroup. Global Change is a public, moderated
venue for discussion of science, technology, economics and policy dimensions of
global environmental change.
Posts will be admitted to the list if and only if any moderator finds the
submission to be constructive and/or interesting, on topic, and not
gratuitously rude.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/globalchange
