July 23, 2011

Are we in overshoot?

Kind've.

What the heck do I mean by that? Well, to my mind "overshoot" suggests that humanity has exceeded the earth's carrying capacity for long enough and by a large enough margin that recovery from ecological and economic disaster is impossible.

It's not clear that overshoot as an ecological concept applies directly to modern human civilizations: humans do many things for the short term that are not sustainable, but which will be replaced when needed. For instance, the English were in overshoot in the 17th century when they over-used wood - then they switched to coal; coal has been partially replaced by natural gas, and a transition to wind is now beginning.

So, I think it's certainly possible to recover from our exceeding of earth's carrying capacity.

There's an enormous difference in difficulty between analyzing what can be done, and forecasting what is likely to happen.

It's very useful to know that there exist, with very, very little doubt, workable and affordable solutions1 to our fossil fuel problems. Humanity could, if it chose, eliminate it's carbon emissions and start pulling carbon out of the atmosphere moderately quickly. Removal of carbon from the atmosphere by agricultural and mineral sequestration is doable - just not practical as long as it's overwhelmed by new CO2 inputs.

Whether we will use them properly or, like the Vikings of Greenland, choose not to, will be up to our collective choices. As best I can tell, the primary barrier to better collective choices is resistance to change from the minority that will be hurt (car companies, oil companies, coal companies, etc, etc). This has little to do with the solutions, and is a problem for change of any kind at all.

*Edit: Personally, I'm not optimistic that humanity will choose to prevent Climate Change. As far as I can tell, the consequences of that will be pretty painful. I think it's likely that almost of humanity will survive it. The main consequence will be economic loss and migration for a minority and stagnation of living standards for the majority, while we focus most of our investments and innovation resources on managing and solving the problem.

1electrification such as electric vehicles and heat pumps; low/zero carbon sources of electricity from some combination of wind power, solar, tidal, nuclear, geothermal, etc, etc.

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

We can't be over confident - we should challenge all of our assumptions, evaluate all credible risks, and prepare a diverse set of options.

I think, however, that neither running out of energy due to resource limitations nor lacking the technical means to deal with climate change are credible risks. I come to that conclusion after treating resource limitations as a credible risk over 30 years ago, and looking at the issue quite carefully. I started this blog in great part to share that information with you, anyone who cares to read.

20 comments:

Anonymous said...

I don't understand what you are trying to get at.

Do you disagree we in overshoot like the Global Footprint Network has calculated?

Or Do you think its a simple enough problem to solve?

Or do you think the consequences of overshoot are not that big of a deal?

Your post was very vague.

Nick G said...

Anon,

The Global Footprint Network didn't argue that we were in overshoot, rather they argued that we were exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity. Being "in overshoot" is something different, as I discussed.

Yes, I think it's technically easy to solve. Socially, I think it's very, very hard, and the consequences of that are serious.

Yes, I should clarify that in the Original Post.

Anonymous said...

You are going to have to explain what you think the difference is between "overshoot" and "exceeding the Earth's carrying capacity".

The accepted definitions show that the two terms are identical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overshoot_%28ecology%29

"In ecology, overshoot occurs when a population exceeds the long term carrying capacity of its environment. "

Anonymous said...

"Yes, I think it's technically easy to solve."

I'd like to see you enumerate just what you think the consequences of overshoot are why you believe them so easy to solve.

Nick G said...

It's not clear that overshoot as an ecological concept applies directly to humans: humans do a lot of things for the short term that are not sustainable, but which will be replaced before they run out. Heck, the English were in overshoot in the 17th century when they over-used wood - then they switched to coal.

Good question - I'll add the answer to the post.

As far as consequences go - the GFN Carbon measure doesn't address consequences, it addresses excessive CO2 output. The easy technical solution is eliminating fossil fuels.

Anonymous said...

"It's not clear that overshoot as an ecological concept applies directly to humans: humans do a lot of things for the short term that are not sustainable, but which will be replaced before they run out. "

That's an assertion that will need a lot of data to back up.

Even a cursory glance at the literature will bring up dozens of examples of civilization that overshot their local environment and suffered die off.

Anonymous said...

"As far as consequences go - the GFN Carbon measure doesn't address consequences, it addresses excessive CO2 output. The easy technical solution is eliminating fossil fuels."

That's hardly the only consequence of overshoot. Can you address anything else?

But to retort. Even if you had a magic wand and was able to replace all fossil fuels with renewables today you still cannot remove all the carbon already released into the environment. You cannot undo the damage already done by overshooting the carrying capacity of the Earth.

And you hardly have a magic wand.

Nick G said...

Good thought - yes, the relevance of overshoot depends on the rate of technical change. Of course, you're probably thinking of many civilizations that were as much or more killed by their neighbors as by environmental stress - e.g., the Roman Empire and Easter Island.

on point 2: again, GFN is dealing with current impact on the environment, not past. And, I believe removal of carbon from the atmosphere by agricultural and mineral sequestration is doable - just not practical as long as it's overwhelmed by new CO2 inputs.

Anonymous said...

So you are proposing that humanity can reverse overshoot?

That's an assertion I'd really like to see backed up.

Nick G said...

Well, not if you define overshoot as being irreversible. On the other hand, GFN is simply saying that we're exceeding carrying capacity, and clearly we can reduce our footprint to within the Earth's carrying capacity.

Reversing damage won't be easy, but it can be done. We know how to capture carbon from the atmosphere; we know how to help habitats and species recover.

We have to choose to do so - that's the hard part....

Anonymous said...

You think humanity can restore fossil aquifers, regrow ice caps, de-acify the oceans, regrow rain forests, restore weather patterns, restore top soil, create new phosphorus, un-extinct species ? etc etc etc

All of this in an environment of declining resources, growing population, growing consumption, and increasing competition?

Nick G said...

humanity can restore fossil aquifers, regrow ice caps, de-acify the oceans, regrow rain forests, restore weather patterns, restore top soil...?

Sure. Most aquifers refill, very slowly; ice caps stop melting if you cool things a bit, and maybe put some aerosol in the atmosphere temporarily (a bit risky, but probably worth doing to prevent positive feedback from increased albedo); if we can just halt ocean acidification that would help a lot, and I'm sure there are ways to reverse it slowly; rain forests will regrow, especially with a little help; top soil can certainly be restored - that's an relatively easy one.

Fortunately, those things mostly happen naturally, with a little luck and if you stop making things worse.

We don't really know what positive and negative feedbacks might help or hinder reversing climate change, but there things we can do.

We're ok on phosphorus - we have a couple 100 year supply, and it can be recycled.

Anonymous said...

Everything you just wrote is science fiction at best.

Nick G said...

You say that like it's a bad thing...

Seriously, I have a couple of thoughts:

1st...I don't think you're really looking at the details. If you look into it, you'll find that things really can be done. For instance, improving/restoring top soil is really very feasible.

2nd, I have the sense that you're coming from some kind of indignation, like you feel that my posts have some kind of agenda.

A, that's not true - I just try to look at the facts. B, I don't know what that agenda would be - if you look closely at all of my posts, you'll find that I argue strongly for aggressive change, not the status quo.

C, I think you'll find that a message of despair is not effective in bringing about change. If our situation truly were hopeless, perhaps there would be some kind of value in being truthful about it, but...it's not, and saying it is will only block bringing about changes to the status quo.

Anonymous said...

If you just delete my posts then there is no point in talking to you.

Nick G said...

Well, I got a comment which I deleted, due to the language, but here are some of the ideas:

Topsoil loss is enormous.
See http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3702

Fossil aquifers, such as those in India, and the Ogallala, took million of years to fill and humans are draining them in a few decades.

The Ogallala does refill in parts. Some parts don't, at least in human time. On the other hand, the unsustainable portions of the Ogallala provide water for only a small fraction of US food production. It will hurt regional farmers, but it's very far from a disaster. Really, there's a lot of desert farming in the US that just doesn't make sense.
I have to admit, I haven't researched Indian aquifers yet - can't do everything.

Life as we know it can't continue just because we drive EVs and build wind turbines.

Well, the parts that EVs and wind turbines can fix certainly will.

Won't the ideas you present prevent people form making meaningful changes to their lives now when they still have a chance to do it, on an individual scale?

I certainly hope it will prevent some things - I'd hate to see people moving to small, poor farms, or giving up having any children due to pessimistic predictions. What things would you like to see people do? I think the following makes some sense: http://earlywarn.blogspot.com/2011/04/few-notes-on-personal-strategies-around.html#more

Anonymous said...

Delete my post them misrepresent what I wrote.

Good day to you. I thought you were more honest than that.

Nick G said...

I thought I did a pretty good job of extracting the important ideas. You were mainly interested in the ideas, right? Did you read my suggested links?

Ah, well.

Feel free to clarify and provide specific questions or ideas (politely).

Alan2102 said...

Anonymous:
"Everything you just wrote is science fiction at best."

No. Everything he wrote was quite clear and plausible. Do you want more details? Then we can provide more details. Please be specific as to what you think is "science fiction"; then we can discuss each item in turn.

Nick:
Will you please refrain from censoring posts, regardless of the "language". Whether or not they are polite is a secondary consideration. These are important issues and must be aired-out, FREELY. I appreciate the need to censor in some instances, e.g. with a commenter who REPEATEDLY exhibits troll-like and obstructive behavior. (Or with stupid BS like porno ads, or what have you.) But this should be done very selectively, and reluctantly. Let "anonymous" have his/her say.

Thanks for your efforts, Nick. I've been enjoying them -- on the oildrum, and here.

Nick G said...

Alan,

Thanks! I appreciate the support.

I agree about deleting or editing comments: I do it only very reluctantly, when a commenter has been warned and has repeatedly been disruptive and abusive.

I draw the language at abusive language - whether intentionally or not, such language is intended to intimidate and end free speech, and I won't tolerate it.

Please note that government censorship has the power of government behind it, and therefore has to be approached differently, and held to a very different standard - this is just a private forum.