I am always taken a bit aback when I post to pen-l only to be attacked
for things and positions I did not advocate and to be ignored for the
important issues I tried to raise. Thus, it was with the population
issue. I raised the case of Malthus, not to advance his views or models,
but to relate the historical fact that *periodically* the issue of
overpopulation has become a political-economy issue which economists can
not ignore.
I am not about to go into a long historical defense of my concern with
population as a major factor in the historical crises and empire
breakdown. I would suggest Jim and Eugene might benefit by reading a new
book by Brian Fagan, “The Great Warming: Climate Change and the Rise and
Fall of Civilisations” in which he documents: “ But during the great
warming, Europeans chopped down their ancient forests to grow more meat,
honey and flour. When the Little Ice age came, along with the Black
Death, Rinderpest and other climate-driven surprises, Europe lost a
third of its population. There simply was not mantle for misfortune.”
The point that I have been trying to make, and everyone seems to ignore,
is that the recent/current rise in world population has been fostered by
“eating oil”, which everybody, except perhaps those on pen-l, have come
to recognize. Even if we could continue to eat oil, the rising use of
fossil fuels will produce such global warming that will decimate world
food production and hence bring famine and population collapse.
The issue I raised is what population the world can sustain. Here I
turned to the scientists studying “carrying capacity’, the ability of
the earth to produce sufficient food to sustain what population. The
evidence I gave, in response to Mike’s post, was something like 2 to 3
billion in the case where the world must rely on sustainable (i.e.
solar) energy. This is independent of technology, class relations, the
mode of production, etc. So Jim and Eugene’s comments are irrelevant to
the issue raised.
Those in denial of the peak oil/global warming situation may also feel
free to bury the heads in the sand with regard to the coming population
problem. But they do so at the peril of their relevance.
Paul Phillips
Eugene Coyle wrote:
The discussion triggered by Paul Phillips March 25th post has been
very interesting but kind of veered off into discusssing Malthus and
population. Paul correctly stressed the physical constraints on future
growth but I believe his aim at population as the major problem is
over done. There are better explanations for the jumps in commodity
prices.
It is Consumption rather than population that must be the focus.
Consumption in the USA, that is, and in the global north -- and within
those, the consumption of the more affluent. (And in the global south,
the consumption of the more affluent must also be addressed.)
There is a much used formulation in environmental circles: I = PAT
where I is the impact on the environment of P (population), A
(affluence) and T (technology). Affluence is a proxy for the
economist's Consumption.
Of the three elements Impacting the physical world it is *A* that is
the threat. Technoloy could be a small ameliorating force -- or a menace.
Why do the Indians and Chinese buy cars? Because consumers in the USA
do. And why is that? We learn to consume from others more affluent.
Duesenberry knew that 50 years ago but, unfortunately buried his
insight. Nobody else in academia will touch it either.
On March 14th the EPA published an analysis of the Leiberman-Warner
bill on Cap & Trade. This is the major climate legislation in
Congress. Though it will perhaps see action in the Senate, it is
unlikely to become law this year. The EPA recently released an
analysis of the anticipated impact of the Bill on the economy.
Despite any costs imposed on the economy by this potential
legislation, the EPA sees, nevertheless, staggeringly large growth in
GDP in the US. The WSJ noted:
According to the [EPA] analysis, if the U.S. were to implement the
Lieberman-Warner bill,
gross domestic product -- the total value of goods and services
produced in the
nation -- would grow 80% from 2010 to 2030, one percentage point less
than its
growth in the absence of the bill.
So, 80% growth in GDP in the USA? Will that all be massages, consuming
little material? Or will it be daily steak or wild salmon dinners? Is
it going to be frequent flights to exotic destinations? Two garages in
every McMansion and four cars in every garage?
And if GDP were to grow 80% plus in the USA by 2030, that surely
implies a similar number for Europe, much of Asia and elsewhere in the
world. If Paul Phillips' list of physical constraints have merit, that
won't happen.
The stock market has been stuck with no gain for nine years (Wall St.
Journal, March 26, 2008, Page 1). Perhaps Henwood is on to something
with his belief in Wall Street. Is Wall Street -- the smart money --
telling us that the EPA is wrong and GDP isn't going up much in the
future? More likely it is speculators looking for the next big thing,
commodities. Another bubble, the bursting of which is to be welcomed
by almost all.
Gene Coyle
------------------------------------------------------------------------
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.1/1349 - Release Date: 3/29/2008 5:02 PM
--
Paul Phillips Professor Emertus, Economics University of Manitoba Home
and Office: 3806 - 36A st., Vernon BC, Canada. ViT 6E9 tel: 1 (250)
558-0830 email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
