This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page . (Learn how and when to remove these messages)
|
The Olduvai Theory states that the current industrial civilization would have a maximum duration of one hundred years, counted from 1930. From 2030 onwards, humankind would gradually return to levels of civilization comparable to those previously experienced, culminating in about a thousand years (3000 AD) in a hunting-based culture, [1] such as existed on Earth three million years ago, when the Oldowan industry developed; hence the name of this theory, [2] [note 1] put forward by Richard C. Duncan based on his experience in handling energy sources and his love of archaeology.
Originally, the theory was proposed in 1989 under the name "pulse-transient theory". [3] Subsequently, in 1996, its current name was adopted, inspired by the famous archaeological site, but the theory does not rely in any way on data collected at that site. [1] Richard C. Duncan has published several versions since the appearance of his first paper with different parameters and predictions, which has been a source of criticism and controversy.
In 2007, Duncan defined five postulates based on the observation of data on:
In 2009, he again published an update restating the postulate concerning world energy consumption per capita concerning OECD countries, where previously he only compared with the United States, downplaying the role of emerging economies. [4]
Different people, such as Pedro A. Prieto, based on this and other theories of catastrophic collapse or die-off, have formulated probable scenarios with various dates and social events. [5] [6] On the other hand, there is a group of people, such as Richard Heinberg or Jared Diamond, who also believe in social collapse, but still visualize the possibility of more benevolent scenarios where degrowth can occur with continued welfare. [7] [8] [6]
This theory has been criticized for the way in which the problem of migratory movements is posed and for the ideological orientation of the publishing house that published its articles, the Social Contract Press, which is an advocate of anti-immigration measures and birth control. [9] [10] There are major criticisms on each of the argumentative bases and different ideologies contrary to such approaches such as the Cornucopians, [11] the advocates of the natural resource-based economy, [12] environmentalist positions and the positions of various nations also fail to establish a consistent basis for such claims.
Richard C. Duncan is an author who first proposed Olduvai's theory in 1989 under the title "The pulse-transient theory of industrial civilization." [3] Later this theory was supplemented in 1993 with the article "The life-expectancy of industrial civilization: The decline to global equilibrium." [13]
In June 1996, Duncan presented a paper titled "The Olduvai Theory: Falling Towards a post-industrial stone-age Era", adopting the term "Olduvai theory" in place of "pulse-transient theory" used in earlier work. [1] Duncan published a more updated version of his theory under the title "The Peak of World Oil Production and the Road to the Olduvai Gorge" at the 2000 Symposium Summit of the Geological Society of America on November 13, 2000. [14] In 2005, Duncan extended the data set within his theory to 2003 in the article "The Olduvai Theory: Energy, Population, and Industrial Civilization." [15]
The Olduvai theory is a model that is mainly based on the peak oil theory and the per capita energy yield of oil. In the face of a foreseeable depletion, it establishes that the rate of energy consumption and world population growth cannot be the same as that of the 20th century. [2]
Put differently, Olduvai's theory is defined by the rise and fall of the material quality of life (MQOL) which consists of the rate resulting from the increase or decrease of the production, use and consumption of energy sources (E) between the growth of the world population (P), (MQOL = E/P). [4] From 1954 to 1979 that rate grew annually by about 2.8%, from that date to 2000 it increased erratically by 0.2% per year. [16] From 2000 to 2007 it grew again at an exponential rate due to the development of emerging economies. [4]
In works before 2000, Richard C. Duncan considered the peak of per capita energy consumption in 1979 as the peak of civilization. Currently, due to the growth since 2000 of the emerging economies, he considers 2010 as the likely date of peak energy per capita. [4] But despite that adjustment, he continues to claim that in 2030 that rate of energy production per capita would be similar to that of 1930, considering that date as the end of the current civilization. [4]
The theory argues that the first reliable signs of collapse are likely to consist of a series of widespread blackouts in the developed world. With the lack of electrical power and fossil fuels, there will be a transition from today's civilization to a situation close to that of the pre-industrial era. He goes on to argue that in events following that collapse the technological level is expected to eventually move from Dark Ages-like levels to those observed in the Stone Age within approximately three thousand years. [2]
Duncan takes as a basis for the formulation of his theory data consisting of the following facts: [17]
According to Duncan, the theory has five postulates: [24]
He stipulates that the real capacity of the Earth without oil in the long run is between 500 and 2000 million people, which has been exceeded by a factor of three thanks to an artificial welfare bubble due to cheap oil. [25] [18] He argues that since the homeostatic balance of the Earth is around at most 2 billion people, as oil runs out at least 4 billion people will not be able to be regulated by the system, resulting in a large mortality rate. [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]
Prior to 1800 the world population was doubling at a rate of between 500 and 1000 years, and by that date the world living human population was just under 1 billion. [26] With the first industrial revolution and colonialism, the population in the Western world began to double at a rate just over 100 years, with the rest of the world following soon after, with 1550 million inhabitants by 1900. [26] With the second industrial revolution the world began to double at a rate of less than 100 years, and with maximum oil extraction and the digital revolution it doubled at a rate of about 50 years, from 2.4 billion people in 1950 to 6070 million people in 2000. [26]
The theory not only predicts that the Earth's net load does not allow for the rate of such growth but that its population already exceeded its capacity after 1925. Thus one can see an apocalyptic scenario where the population would slow down in 2012 due to sudden global economic decline and peak in 2015 at around 6900 million (see critiques section), and would never in history grow to these levels again, there being as many deaths as births at any given time (1:1), roughly around the year 2017 or so. Thereafter the number of deaths would exceed the number of births (>1:1) and the world population would begin to contract dramatically with approximately 6.8 billion people remaining by the end of 2020, 6500 million by 2025, 5260 million by 2027, 4600 million by 2030 (reduction between 1800 and 2000 million people in 5 years), until the number of humans stabilizes at a figure between 2000 and 500 million inhabitants at a point between the years 2050 and 2100. [15]
Duncan compares the forecast of his theory with that of Dennis Meadows in his book The Limits to Growth (1972). [15] While Duncan expects the peak population in 2015 to be around 6.9 billion, Meadows expects the peak in 2027 to be around 7.47 billion. In addition, Duncan forecasts only 2000 million inhabitants by 2050, while Meadows estimates 6450 million inhabitants by 2050. [15]
Other estimates similar to Olduvai's theory predict that the population will reach a zenith around the year 2025-2030 reaching a number between 7100 and 8000 million inhabitants and thereafter the population will decrease at the same rate it grew before the zenith describing a symmetric Gaussian bell. [27]
Scholars, such as Paul Chefurka, point out that the Earth's carrying capacity will be defined both by factors such as the level of damage caused to ecosystems during the industrial period [18] (pollution, alterations and even depletion of ecosystems, highly polluting and long-lasting waste and destruction of resources due to possible competition for them), [5] the development of alternative technologies or oil substitutes [18] and the existence of knowledge that would allow the survival of the remaining population in a sustainable manner [18] (such as the rescue of traditional ways of life prior to the industrial revolution). [5]
The formulation of this basis, supported on the work on the dynamics of complex social systems by Jay Forrester, [28] proposes that the variables of per capita natural resource and material standard of living are subordinated to the per capita energy yield of oil. This principle holds that attractiveness is the difference in material standard of living between nations. Thus the US material standard of living in 2005 was 57.7 barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) per capita while the material standard of living of the rest of the world was 9.8 BOE per capita, there being a difference in consumption of 47.9 BOE equivalent per capita. [29] [note 2] Put another way, the huge difference in lifestyle and consumption becomes attractive to immigrants.
The new immigrant, upon arriving in that society, adopts the same consumerist lifestyle, further overloading that system. [28] Duncan argues that the greater the immigration the greater the number of population where the differences in the material standard of living of the attracting country will diminish in an equalizing process until that country reaches the world's material standard of living.
This proposition has already been criticized in several parts of the world, because although Duncan insinuates that borders should be closed, he does not stop to consider that the main cause of resource depletion is the consumerist and predatory lifestyle of these attractive countries (see critiques section). [9]
The theory proposes that due to the predominance of one nation the rest of the world will follow the same sequence in the implementation of a resource as a primary source. It thus comparatively analyzes a chronology of resource utilization as a primary source between United States and the rest of the world: [33]
According to Duncan, from 2000 to 2005 while world coal production increased by 4.8% per year, oil increased by just 1.6%. [33]
The return to coal as a primary source, another taboo fact due to its high level of pollution, has been muted in the media as has the carrying capacity of the Earth for obvious political reasons, Duncan says. [2]
Just as the shift from oil to coal as a primary source in the U.S. is marking global changes in advance, the indicator of the level of per capita energy consumption and production over time in the U.S. is also marking that of the rest of the world. [34] Thus, Duncan distinguishes three stages in U.S. consumption that were subsequently reflected in world consumption: [35]
After criticism received for the discrepancy shown by the United States per capita energy consumption curve, which tends to decrease, concerning the world curve, which has tended to increase extraordinarily after 2000, Duncan published an update in 2009 of his theory where he compares a curve of the OECD members (30 countries) relative to the curve of the rest of the non-OECD world (165 countries) in which Brazil, India, and China are included. [4]
In this new paper on the various peaks of per capita energy consumption in the world, Duncan concludes the following: [4]
In this new scenario, it forecasts that the United States average standard of living or energy per capita would fall by 90% between 2008 and 2030, OECD levels would fall by 86% and the level of non-OECD countries would fall by 60%. The average standard of living in the OECD would catch up with the average level of the rest of the world by 2030 standing at 3.53 barrels of oil equivalent per capita. [4]
Pedro A. Prieto, one of the Spanish-language specialists on the subject, has gone so far as to outline a probable scenario of societal collapse based on aspects of this theory. [5]
Wealthy nations would suffer increased insecurity, and what had been democratic societies would become totalitarian and ultraconservative societies where the population itself would demand outside resources and increased security. [5] It is possible that before the great final die-off, large developed nations would dispute scarce resources in a sort of World War III, without ruling out scenarios similar to the final solution or nuclear war. [5] Others argue that such a war, if it were to happen, would be an intercapitalist war involving three blocks of civilizations. [41] The first would be constituted by the Western civilization, the second by the Orthodox civilization as well as Sinic, and a third block formed by the Islamic civilization. Japan and India would play a major role in such a war as they define their position. [42]
If some nations survived, lack of resources could trigger famines in large urban centers forcing widespread looting, and governments would issue decrees and martial laws restricting social freedoms and eliminating property rights to keep the starving population at bay. [5] In the face of permanent shortages, governments would impose rationing that would fall short of the required minimums which would cause the very ones imposing force to plunder for their profit, this would be the first symptom of the fading of the states. [5]
In a major economic crisis, the value of fiat money could plummet, and people might start using precious metals like gold and silver instead. But eventually, even those metals could become hard to come by. Some experts think that humankind could end up in a situation where a necessity like a loaf of bread might be worth as much as something more extravagant, like a rugged off-road vehicle. [5] The dominant minorities and military forces would plunder for themselves, and form small dictatorships and kingdoms within what were once great nations. On the other hand, the "great masses of the disinherited" would form disorganized groups of very unstable characters that would act violently and chaotically to take scarce resources. Between one and the other, the conflict would be served and in the end, both would succumb like the rest of the population. [5]
It is estimated that cities with more than twenty thousand inhabitants would be very unstable, having better life expectancy in the first place those societies of hunters and gatherers in the Amazon, the Central African jungles, those of Southeast Asia, the Bushmen, and the aborigines in Australia. In second place of survival would be the fairly homogeneous nuclei of three hundred to two thousand inhabitants with an agricultural lifestyle close to places with uncontaminated water resources, inaccessible and hundreds of kilometers away from the large cities and from the hordes of starving people that would exude these cities or from the decaying military forces that would engage in looting. [5]
In the end there could also be a huge number of small agricultural villages vying for the few privileged places, with only those villages surviving that the land carrying capacity would allow.
Pedro A. Prieto himself speculates that war scenarios similar to World War III or other types of destructive war conflicts would be less likely to occur if the social collapse is rapid, [5] such as the one predicted by Olduvai's theory. The difference between scenarios is that the majority of the population, contained in the cities, dies of famine in the rapid collapse, while in the slow collapse the war would spread to the safest areas, ranging from large cities to small, isolated rural communities. [5]
The conjectures of those who opine on the possibility of a post-industrial era are spread across a spectrum ranging from scenarios of rapid and catastrophic social collapse to scenarios of slow and benevolent collapse, and even scenarios where they still envision degrowths with continued welfare. [6]
The first group, the pessimists, is framed by the same Olduvai theory of Duncan and other works such as the die-off [43] or catastrophic collapse proposed by David Price, [44] Reg Morrison [45] and Jay Hanson. [46] [47] [48] They usually invoke several determinisms such as strong, genetic, [45] and energetic determinism (Leslie A. White's Basic Law of Evolution) [49] to announce the inevitable collapse that will lead to the decomposition of civilized life ruling out the possibility of a peaceful decline. [6]
Among those who predict slow and benevolent collapse scenarios where the degrowth option with continuity of the welfare state we can mention the "prosperous way downhill" of Elizabeth and Howard T. Odum, [50] the end of suburbanization and the return to ruralization proposed by James Kunstler, [51] societies that can still choose to save themselves or fail proposed by Jared Diamond [7] and Richard Heinberg's "gradual shutdown" option. [8] [52]
Heinberg, in his book "Shutdown: Options and Actions in a Post-Coal World", [8] proposes the four possible paths that nations could take in the face of coal and oil depletion:
These are visions where collapse is both an outcome and an objective. [6] As in the 19th century, and at the beginning of the industrial era, romanticism and the utopian movements arose, again and in the face of the prediction of a collapse of the industrial era, new hatching of utopian visions is registered. [6] This renaissance advances in the opposite direction to the decline of sociological theories which can no longer provide adequate solutions due to the translimitation situation. [6]
For Joseph Tainter, a collapsing complex society is suddenly smaller, simpler, less stratified, and with fewer social differences. [53] This situation, according to Theodore Roszak, evokes the utopian dogma of the old environmentalist program of reducing, slowing down, democratizing, and decentralizing. [54]
According to Ernest Garcia, many of these proponents are scientists engaged in areas ranging from the ecologist discipline to geology, computer science, biochemistry, and evolutionary genetics, far removed from the study of the social sciences. [6] Among the most palpable recent utopian movements are anarchoprimitivism, [55] deep ecology, and techno-utopias such as transhumanism.
This forecast also differs from that of a 2004 United Nations report where estimates of world population development from 1800 to 2300 were calculated, with the worst-case scenario being that where world population reaches a peak of 7500 million between 2035-2040, subsequently reducing to 7000 million by 2065, 6000 million by 2090 and 5500 million approximately by the year 2100. [56]
A report issued in 2011 by the United Nations Population Division states that on October 31, 2011 officially the world's population would reach 7 billion [57] and in the year 2019 it was estimated a total population of 7.8 billion people. [58] All contradicting Duncan's estimate that by 2015 there would be around 6.9 billion living humans in the world population. [59] However, recent times have seen a decline in population growth, albeit due to the increasingly common decision to have fewer children or discard parenthood due to cultural and social factors rather than the deaths caused by famine and disease mentioned in the theory. [60] [61] Because of these factors China abolished its one-child policy [62] and in several places around the world their governments offer incentives to have children. [63]
Of the critics who object to some point of the theory, those who criticize the xenophobic and racist cultural biases that are reflected to a greater extent on the principle of attractiveness stand out. Pedro A. Prieto criticizes the proposal of closing borders to immigrants, but not the closure to the entry of depredated resources that end up serving the high US consumption. [9] Nevertheless, he concludes that the more general tenets of the theory such as peak oil, land carrying capacity, and a return to coal as a primary source are feasible to some degree. [9]
Many of Richard C. Duncan's works have been published by the Social Contract Press, an American publishing house founded by John Tanton and directed by Wayne Lutton. This publishing house is an advocate of birth control and the reduction of immigration, as well as emphasizing issues such as culture and the environment covering everything from the point of view of the political right. Among its most controversial publications is the book The Camp of the Saints by French author Jean Raspail, causing such publisher to be described by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a "hate group" that "publishes a series of racist works." [10]
Some positions speak from the peak oil theory may be a hoax, as argued by Lindsey Williams (2006), [65] [note 3] to that of different governments, social organizations or private companies that predict the peak at dates ranging from two years before to forty years after the date proposed by Duncan and with very different behaviors in the production curve. [64]
The abiogenic petroleum origin theory argument, proposed since the 19th century, holds that natural petroleum formed in deep coal deposits, perhaps dating back to the formation of the Earth. This would therefore prove that fossil fuel reserves are more numerous, according to geophysicist Alexander Goncharov of the Carnegie Institution in Washington, who simulated in 2009 the conditions of the mantle with a diamond probe and a laser creating from methane other molecules such as ethane, propane, butane, molecular hydrogen and graphite. [66] [67] Goncharov says all estimates of peak to date have been wrong, so believing in peak oil is unreliable and asserts that oil companies could look for new abiotic deposits. [66] [67]
Another data that can be observed and that does not correspond with the prediction that coal replaced oil in 2005 differs from other reports such as the EDRO website, where for the year 2006 oil still represented 35.27% as a source of consumption, while coal still represented 28.02%, although the same page admits the increasing use of coal over oil. [68] Similarly on the BP Global page, in its energy graphs tool mode, it can be seen that within the year 2007, oil consumption had a slight decrease from 3939.4 Mtoe to 3927.9 Mtoe. Yet coal consumption during the same period rose from 3194.5 Mtoe to 3303.7 Mtoe. [69]
Duncan's articles assume that peak per capita energy was 11.15 bep/c/yr in 1979, but other data from the U.S. Department of Energy (EIA) show that since that date there has been an increase in that figure to 12.12 bep/c/yr after 2004. [71] [72] This is in contradiction with the postulate of the theory that energy per capita does not grow exponentially from 1979 to 2008.
TheOilDrum.com page argues that a true peak in per capita energy consumption of around 12.50 bep/year was observed between 2004 and 2005 based on data from the United Nations, British Petroleum and the International Energy Agency. These proponents mention that Duncan relied primarily on the per capita energy consumption of oil, but with notable omissions of the growth in per capita energy consumption of coal since 2000, attributed to the Asian emergency, and of the uninterrupted growth of natural gas since 1965. [70]
They point out that the civilizational peak was not in 1979 but at a date after 2004 and with a duration of industrial civilization between 1950 and 2044. [73] They also add that if other resources are not so dependent on the behavior of oil consumption probably the civilizational duration will be much longer than a hundred years. [74]
After the reliability of the postulate that the rest of the world was following in the footsteps of the United States in the behavior of per capita energy consumption dynamics was challenged, in 2009 he published a new article called "Olduvai's Theory: Towards the Re-Equalization of the World Standard of Living", in which he compared the behavior of world per capita consumption with that of the most developed countries (OECD). [4] In that article, based on a March 2009 OECD report of the composite leading indicator for China, India, and Brazil, [38] he claims that world per capita energy consumption would start to decline, however, a new OECD composite leading indicator report in February 2010 sees a huge recovery, [39] which contradicts Duncan's assertion.
Social ecologists and international associations such as Greenpeace are more optimistic, pinning their hopes on the alternative energies that neo- Malthusians despise such as geothermal energy, solar energy, wind energy and others with low or no pollution, [77] but reject fusion energy, as they consider it potentially polluting. [78] They say that data such as population growth are counted without taking into account the scenarios opened up by a large number of social and technological changes to solve problems, such as alternative energies and radical lifestyle changes that can reduce the effects that such a theory predicts. In contrast, market ecologists claim that such changes will occur by forcing them on consumers through the use of the laws of supply and demand. [79]
Meanwhile, anarcho-primitivists and deep ecologists see this catastrophist scenario as a painful path to which civilization is leading us. [55] Thus, they tend to see civilizational collapse as an inevitable outcome as much as a goal to be reached. [6] [55]
Some libertarians, anarchists, and socialists think that these types of theories are lies or exaggerations that benefit economic speculation and that they have the purpose of selling more expensive and easily controllable resources that are depleted or scarce, to perpetuate the free market game and the ruling classes. [80]
Jacque Fresco mentions that energy resources are not only inappropriate, but also that there are other very abundant energy sources that the social elites could not easily control because they are not speculable, since their reserves would be virtually inexhaustible in no less than 4000 years at the current rate of consumption, and this is only counting the case of geothermal energy. [81]
He has also created The Venus Project in supposed opposition to the current capitalist economic model based on monetary gain. [82] [80]
Already some time ago there was a wide movement on the web to check the movement and, above all, the figure of Jacques Fresco. From the results, we can infer a possible fraud on Jacques Fresco's shares. [83]
In the meantime, authors such as Peter Lindemann or Jeane Manning, [84] [85] [86] add that there are a number of alternatives for obtaining and distributing energy freely, which if employed, would end the capitalist model of hoarding procurement and distribution. [85] This has led them to formulate a conspiracy theory for the suppression of free energy. [84] Prominent among such forms of free and free energy distribution is the wireless power transfer devised by Nikola Tesla. [84] [85]
In turn, all authors of such arguments about alleged conspiracies, see as an agenda of the elitists the formulations of peak oil, warmongering ideas, catastrophism, and neo-Malthusianism. [80] [note 4]
Cornucopians are libertarians who argue that population growth, resource scarcity, and its polluting potential are exaggerations or lies, such as peak oil or the devastating environmental effect of coal. They argue that the same laws of the market would solve such problems if they were real. [11] [88] [89]
The main theses defended by cornucopians are usually optimistic and pragmatic. Meanwhile, others consider them conservative, moralistic, and exclusionary. [11] These theses consist of the following points:
Conservatives, traditionalists and nationalists focus their positions only on temporal benefit from the ethnocentric or anthropocentric point of view without accounting for adverse effects to the environment, [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] and do not usually outright deny peak oil or Olduvai's theory, but usually omit some points or all of the theory as a form of institutional denial. [98] It is easy, and in fact according to theory, it predicts that most countries in the world will take this line and move from oil to coal or nuclear power like United States or China without caring about the social or ecological consequences. [98] [99] [100]
An argument in favor of the positions of the various countries, especially China and the United States, is that while there is a shift from oil to coal, coal is beginning to be used in a non-polluting way through integrated gasification combined cycle, [101] although their rate of energy return may be lower than doing it in a polluting way.
Another argument in favor is the cooperation of China, India, Japan, United States and Europe in the ITER project to demonstrate the scientific and technological feasibility of nuclear fusion, [102] [103] although participation from some countries has been intermittent.
If fusion energy were possible, the energy potential of the deuterium contained in all the planet's seas, rivers and lakes would be equivalent to approximately 1,068 x 109 times the world's oil reserves in 2009, [104] [105] [106] [107] [108] i.e., each cubic meter of water on land would be equivalent to 150 tonnes of oil in energy content. [108]
At the world "consumption rate" of 2007 this would equate to an approximate duration of 17.5 billion years of modern industrial civilization before this resource could be exhausted assuming a constant population of 6.5 billion people not growing and no economic growth. [note 5] In reality the current system is based on economic, productive, demographic, material, or energy growth, and this growth rate is usually measured on an annualized basis. [109] For example, at a growth rate of 2% per year the energy consumption of oil would be doubling every 34.65 years and, at the end of 1220 years, as much energy would be consumed as is available in all the seas in the form of deuterium to perform nuclear fusion. [note 6] At a growth rate of 5% per year all the deuterium would be used up in 488 years, [note 7] and at a growth rate of 11.4% per year in only 214 years. [note 8]
Some positions and several developed countries have opted for the non-anthropogenic global warming or solar-origin version, seeing the environmentalist warnings as an exaggeration. [110] [111] Other countries, the Third World countries, see the depletion theories and the international environmental agreements as measures imposed by the First World countries to curb their development. [110] [90]
The gross domestic product (GDP) of Niger was $16.617 billion US dollars in 2023, according to official data from the World Bank. This data is based largely on internal markets, subsistence agriculture, and the export of raw commodities: foodstuffs to neighbors and raw minerals to world markets. Niger, a landlocked West African nation that straddles the Sahel, has consistently been ranked on the bottom of the Human Development Index, at 0.394 as of 2019. It has a very low per capita income, and ranks among the least developed and most heavily indebted countries in the world, despite having large raw commodities and a relatively stable government and society not currently affected by civil war or terrorism. Economic activity centers on subsistence agriculture, animal husbandry, re-export trade, and export of uranium.
The Economy of Switzerland is one of the world's most advanced and a highly-developed free market economy. The economy of Switzerland has ranked first in the world since 2015 on the Global Innovation Index and third in the 2020 Global Competitiveness Report. According to United Nations data for 2016, Switzerland is the third richest landlocked country in the world after Liechtenstein and Luxembourg. Together with the latter and Norway, they are the only three countries in the world with a GDP per capita (nominal) above US$90,000 that are neither island nations nor ministates. Among OECD nations, Switzerland holds the 3rd-largest GDP per capita. Switzerland has a highly efficient and strong social security system; social expenditure stood at roughly 24.1% of GDP.
The Hubbert peak theory says that for any given geographical area, from an individual oil-producing region to the planet as a whole, the rate of petroleum production tends to follow a bell-shaped curve. It is one of the primary theories on peak oil.
Peak oil is the theorized point in time when the maximum rate of global oil production will occur, after which oil production will begin an irreversible decline. The primary concern of peak oil is that global transportation heavily relies upon the use of gasoline and diesel fuel. Switching transportation to electric vehicles, biofuels, or more fuel-efficient forms of travel may help reduce oil demand.
The Coal Question; An Inquiry Concerning the Progress of the Nation, and the Probable Exhaustion of Our Coal Mines is a book that economist William Stanley Jevons wrote in 1865 to explore the implications of Britain's reliance on coal. Given that coal was a finite, non-renewable energy resource, Jevons raised the question of sustainability. "Are we wise," he asked rhetorically, "in allowing the commerce of this country to rise beyond the point at which we can long maintain it?" His central thesis was that the supremacy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland over global affairs was transitory, given the finite nature of its primary energy resource. In propounding this thesis, Jevons covered a range of issues central to sustainability, including limits to growth, overpopulation, overshoot, energy return on energy input (EROEI), taxation of energy resources, renewable energy alternatives, and resource peaking—a subject widely discussed today under the rubric of peak oil.
Electric energy consumption is energy consumption in the form of electrical energy. About a fifth of global energy is consumed as electricity: for residential, industrial, commercial, transportation and other purposes. Quickly increasing this share by further electrification is extremely important to limit climate change, because most other energy is consumed by burning fossil fuels thus emitting greenhouse gases which trap heat.
Energy in the United States is obtained from a diverse portfolio of sources, although the majority came from fossil fuels in 2021, as 36% of the nation's energy originated from petroleum, 32% from natural gas, and 11% from coal. Electricity from nuclear power supplied 8% and renewable energy supplied 12%, which includes biomass, wind, hydro, solar and geothermal.
World energy resources are the estimated maximum capacity for energy production given all available resources on Earth. They can be divided by type into fossil fuel, nuclear fuel and renewable resources.
Iran possesses significant energy reserves, holding the position of the world's third-largest in proved oil reserves and the second-largest in natural gas reserves as of 2021. At the conclusion of the same year, Iran's share comprised 24% of the oil reserves in the Middle East and 12% of the worldwide total.
Norway is a large energy producer, and one of the world's largest exporters of oil. Most of the electricity in the country is produced by hydroelectricity. Norway is one of the leading countries in the electrification of its transport sector, with the largest fleet of electric vehicles per capita in the world.
Peak coal is the peak consumption or production of coal by a human community. Peak coal can be driven by peak demand or peak supply. Historically, it was widely believed that the supply-side would eventually drive peak coal due to the depletion of coal reserves. However, since the increasing global efforts to limit climate change, peak coal has been driven by demand. This is due in large part to the rapid expansion of natural gas and renewable energy. As of 2024 over 40% of all energy sector CO2 emissions are from coal, and many countries have pledged to phase-out coal.
Despite abundant natural resources and a relatively small population, New Zealand is a net importer of energy, in the form of petroleum products. The ratio of non-renewable and renewable energy sources was fairly consistent from 1975 to 2008, with about 70 per cent of primary energy supply coming from hydrocarbon fuels. This ratio decreased to about 60 per cent in 2018. The proportion of non-renewable energy varies annually, depending on water flows into hydro-electricity lakes and demand for energy. In 2018, approximately 60% of primary energy was from non-renewable hydrocarbon fuels and 40% was from renewable sources. In 2007 energy consumption per capita was 120 gigajoules. Per capita energy consumption had increased 8 per cent since 1998. New Zealand uses more energy per capita than 17 of 30 OECD countries. New Zealand is one of 13 OECD countries that does not operate nuclear power stations.
Predicting the timing of peak oil involves estimation of future production from existing oil fields as well as future discoveries. The initial production model was Hubbert peak theory, first proposed in the 1950s. Since then, many experts have tried to forecast peak oil.
Peak wheat is the concept that agricultural production, due to its high use of water and energy inputs, is subject to the same profile as oil and other fossil fuel production. The central tenet is that a point is reached, the "peak", beyond which agricultural production plateaus and does not grow any further, and may even go into permanent decline.
Energy in Australia is the production in Australia of energy and electricity, for consumption or export. Energy policy of Australia describes the politics of Australia as it relates to energy.
The 1970s energy crisis occurred when the Western world, particularly the United States, Canada, Western Europe, Australia, and New Zealand, faced substantial petroleum shortages as well as elevated prices. The two worst crises of this period were the 1973 oil crisis and the 1979 energy crisis, when, respectively, the Yom Kippur War and the Iranian Revolution triggered interruptions in Middle Eastern oil exports.
In economic and environmental fields, decoupling refers to an economy that would be able to grow without corresponding increases in environmental pressure. In many economies, increasing production (GDP) raises pressure on the environment. An economy that would be able to sustain economic growth while reducing the amount of resources such as water or fossil fuels used and delink environmental deterioration at the same time would be said to be decoupled. Environmental pressure is often measured using emissions of pollutants, and decoupling is often measured by the emission intensity of economic output.
Fossil fuel subsidies are energy subsidies on fossil fuels. They may be tax breaks on consumption, such as a lower sales tax on natural gas for residential heating; or subsidies on production, such as tax breaks on exploration for oil. Or they may be free or cheap negative externalities; such as air pollution or climate change due to burning gasoline, diesel and jet fuel. Some fossil fuel subsidies are via electricity generation, such as subsidies for coal-fired power stations.
China's total greenhouse gas emissions are the world's highest in absolute terms, accounting for 35% of the world's total according to the International Energy Agency. China's per capita greenhouse gas emissions are lower than some major developed countries.
World energy supply and consumption refers to the global supply of energy resources and its consumption. The system of global energy supply consists of the energy development, refinement, and trade of energy. Energy supplies may exist in various forms such as raw resources or more processed and refined forms of energy. The raw energy resources include for example coal, unprocessed oil & gas, uranium. In comparison, the refined forms of energy include for example refined oil that becomes fuel and electricity. Energy resources may be used in various different ways, depending on the specific resource, and intended end use. Energy production and consumption play a significant role in the global economy. It is needed in industry and global transportation. The total energy supply chain, from production to final consumption, involves many activities that cause a loss of useful energy.
According to the Cornucopians, in order to stop an activity potentially harmful to the physical environment or human health, irrefutable scientific evidence is necessary, which costs a lot of time and money and, for this reason, mere prevention may not justify the very high social cost perpetrated.
At present, we don't have to burn fossil fuels. We don't have to use anything that would contaminate the environment. There are many sources of energy available.
Industrial agriculture as practiced in the 20th and 21st centuries is supported by three legs: mechanization, pesticides/fertilizers and genetic engineering. Of those three legs, the first two are directly dependent on petroleum to run the machines and natural gas to act as the chemical feedstock...
The Earth's [living human] population has far exceeded the number that solar sources could sustain. Likewise, the agricultural technology that existed just a century ago could not possibly feed a population of billions. For those who long for the glorious old days of a population below one billion, it is useful to point out that the only way to this end is the death of many billions of those now alive, even if no children were born in the next thirty years.
My warning for today: we are systematically ignoring the life support system of planet Earth. We have exceeded the carrying capacity of the planet by a factor of 3. For everyone to live as Americans do, it would take three Earths.
The population of the less developed world has grown by two-thirds since 1950 and was poor in 1950. The need for a fundamental change in the ratio of resources to people in poor countries can, by itself, justify an optimal world population figure of one billion. Barring a catastrophe, it could take centuries to reach such figures, even with a determined global effort.
Some studies suggest that without fossil fuel-based agriculture, the U.S. would only be able to support about two-thirds of its current population. For the planet as a whole, the sustainable figure is thought to be around two billion.
Sooner or later, all remnants of our society will have vanished, turned into ruins to rival those of the Aztecs and Mayans. By then, all those who have been unable to convert to a sustainable, self-sufficient way of life may have perished, leaving only those living in independent communities to carry on the human story. The human population could fall to as few as one billion, scattered in farmland oases among deserts of buildings, rusting vehicles, and jungles.
The attractiveness principle states that, for any given class of population, all geographic areas tend to be equally attractive. Or perhaps more realistically put, all areas tend to become equally unattractive. Why do all areas tend toward equal attractiveness? I use the word "attractiveness" to qualify any aspect of a city that contributes to its desirability or undesirability. Population movement is an equalizing process. As people move to a more attractive area, they drive up prices and overburden employment opportunities, environmental capacity, available housing and public services. In other words, the growing population reduces all the characteristics of an area that was initially attractive.
Leslie A. White formulates the "Basic Law of Evolution" in which he emphasizes the levels of energy use as determinants of cultural evolution. [...] As long as other factors are held constant, culture evolves as the amount of energy available per head per year grows, or as the efficiency of the means of making that energy work grows.
Coal production was on a carrousel [un]til the nineties when it started a sharp decline, then all of a sudden it sharply rebounded after 2000. This has most likely been due to the emerging economies of Asia.
So we can assume that 2005 is very likely to be a peak year in Energy/Capita. 30% of 12,522 is approximately 3,756, a value first reached in 1950. In the scenario of an oil-driven world, this value is crossed again in 2044.
If it turns out that Oil drives the production of energy from other sources, the life expectancy of the Electric Civilization is less than one hundred years: i.e., X < 100. In case Oil does not drive the production of other energy sources, the life expectancy of the Electric Civilization is greater than or equal to one hundred years: i.e., X >= 100. In such a case, X will be limited by an upper bound not yet evaluated, set by the decline of finite energy sources other than Oil: i.e., X < U.
It would be technically feasible to supply 100% of the total energy demand with renewable sources. The most appropriate combination of technologies and their geographical location will depend on the energy distribution system, the need for generation regulation (linked to demand management), and the cost evolution of each technology.
{{cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)Most of the detractors of fusion energy, environmental groups such as Greenpeace or Ecologistas en Acción, focus their criticism on the fact that it is not a 100% clean form of energy, i.e. it generates highly polluting radioactive waste such as tritium. Tritium is a radioactive isotope that emits beta i radiation and can cause congenital diseases, cancer, or genetic damage if ingested. A hypothetical leak of these materials could, for example, contaminate water, turning it into tritiated water, also radioactive.
The fact is, efficiency, sustainability and abundance are enemies of profit. To put it into a word, it is the mechanism of SCARCITY that increases profits..... What is scarcity? Based on keeping products valuable. Slowing up production on OIL raises the price. Maintaining scarcity of diamonds, keeps the price high. They burn diamonds at the Kimberly diamond mines- they are made of carbon-it keeps the price up.
That said, it turns out that there is another form of clean, renewable energy that beats them all: geothermal energy. Geothermal energy uses what is called heat extraction, which, while a simple process using water, is capable of generating massive amounts of clean energy. In 2006, an MIT report on geothermal energy found that there are currently 13,000 zettajoules of energy available in the earth, with the possibility of 2000 zj being easily harnessed with improved technology. The total energy consumption of all countries on the planet is about half of one zettajoule per year. This means that about 4000 years of planetary energy could be harnessed in this medium alone. And if we understand that the Earth's heat generation is constantly renewing itself, this energy is truly unlimited and could be used forever.
Today, we don't have to burn fossil fuels. We don't have to use anything that pollutes the environment. There are many sources of energy available.
Currently, Fresco calls himself things like "social engineer" (it is not a degree, it is a qualification that he gives himself), "futuristic designer", "architectural designer" (avoiding calling you "architect", eh, Jacque?), "conceptual artist", "educator" and he also calls himself the closest thing to a degree that he has been able to find without being denounced by any professional association: "industrial designer". And I say "without being denounced" because Fresco has had, as the swindler that he is, numerous problems with various professional associations of all kinds, since he has tried to pass himself off on many occasions as what he is not, and has been forced to use increasingly "neutral" and "aseptic" terms when referring to his "training" or "profession".
It reminds me of those years when nobody wanted to listen to scientists talking about global warming. At that time we predicted events with a lot of attachment to the way they happened. Then as now, we wondered what it would take to get people to listen. It's not a conspiracy: it's institutional denial.
It has been assumed that environmentalists are opposed to nuclear power, and nuclear power is the largest source of carbon-free fuel," the president says.
The goal is to close the carbon cycle, to prevent CO2 emissions into the atmosphere, without radically changing the way it works. Hopes are pinned on perfecting and making CO2 capture processes cheaper
So 1 barrel weighs: 158.9872972 * 0.88 = 139.908821536 kilograms