Paul,
I thought your original post was very important. In my response I
wrote that the DISCUSSION veered off into Malthus and population, not
that you did. I did and do disagree with your emphasis on population
at the expense of discussing the consumption of the affluent, north
and south. What population can the world sustain? I don't know. But
it can sustain a lot more if people are eating grains instead of
feeding grain to beasts and then eating those. My point is that what
and how much people consume is important and, I think, needs to be
addressed head on and immediately. Yes, we are eating oil, but we are
also air conditioning large and larger houses with it, propelling
large and larger cars with it, flying more and more miles with it
etc. Or, more carefully, the affluent are.
Gene Coyle
On Mar 31, 2008, at 8:46 PM, Paul Phillips wrote:
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
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
